DELIVERABLE D2.1 - Ifremer

DEEPFISHMANManagement And Monitoring Of Deep-sea Fisheries And StocksProject number: 227390Small or medium scale focused research actionTopic: FP7-KBBE-2008-1-4-02 (Deepsea fisheries management)DELIVERABLE D2.1Title: Report of the management and monitoring of deep-water fisheries/stocks indifferent parts of the world, in a range of RFMO Regulatory Areas. Includes reviews ofrelevant EC and EP, FAO actions, and the views of stakeholders in NE Atlantic deepwaterfisheriesDue date of deliverable: M18 (September 2010)Actual submission date: 29 Novembre 2010Start date of the project: April 1 st , 2009Duration : 36 monthsOrganization Name of lead coordinator: IfremerDissemination Level: PU (Public)Version 2Date: 29 November 2010Page 1 of 237

WP2 Deliverable D2.1 : (Second draft). Report of the management and monitoringof deep-water stocks, fisheries and ecosystem in different parts of the world in arange of RFMO Regulatory Areas. Includes relevant EC and EP, and FAO actionsand the views of stakeholders in NE Atlantic deep-water fisheries.Prepared by Phil Large (Cefas) based on the following WP2 reviews and papers:• Salient characteristics of the deep-water environment in the NE Atlantic byStephen Dye and Phil Large (Cefas);• Ecology of deep-water ecosystems by Andy Kenny and Chris Barrio-Frojan(Cefas);• Main policy drivers impacting on deep-water fisheries and ecosystems in the NEAtlantic by Phil Large (Cefas);• Parasites, pathogens and contaminants of deep-water fish with a focus on theirrole in population health and structure by Matt Longhurst and Stephen Feist(Cefas);• Management and monitoring of deep-water stocks, fisheries and ecosystems indifferent parts of the world:-o Deep-water fisheries in Australia, New Zealand and the Indian Ocean byPaul Marchal (Ifremer);o Deep-water fisheries off Brazil by Phil Large (Cefas);o Antarctic deep-water fisheries (CCAMLR) by David Agnew and CharlesEdwards (Imperial College);o Deep-water fisheries in the SE Atlantic (SEAFO) by Phil large (Cefas);o Deep-water fisheries in the Mediterranaean (GFCM) by DimitriosDamalas and Chryssi Mitilineou (HCMR);o Deep-water fisheries in the NE Atlantic (NAFO, NEAFC and insidenational EEZs) by Phil Large (Cefas);• Submitted Journal paper : Using qualitative and quantitative stakeholder knowledge:examples from European deep-water fisheries by Pascal Lorance (Ifremer), SveinnAgnarsson (UoI) Dimitrios Damalas (HCMR), Sophie des Clers (UCL), IvoneFigueiredo (IPIMAR), Juan Gil (IEO) and Verena M. Trenkel (Ifremer)The strengths and weakness of the above mentioned monitoring and managementregimes are addressed in WP2 Deliverable D2.3 – a journal paper on the “effectivenessof existing management frameworks of deep-sea stocks and fisheries” by Phil Large, DavidAgnew, Chris Barrio-Frojan, Dimitrios Damalas, Stephen Dye, Charles Edwards,Stephen Feist, Andy Kenny, Matt Longshaw, Paul Marchal and Chryssi Mitilineouand other contributors.2

1. Salient characteristics of the deep-water environment in the NE Atlantic1.1. Introduction1.1.1. Definition of deep-waterTo review aspects of the deep-water environment salient to deep fisheries firstconsideration has to be made of the depth of the environment. In practice, twodepths are used regularly as the limit for deep water by the bodies that considerdeep-water fisheries, >200 m by the FAO and >400 m by ICES.Justification for a depth limit may be sought through understanding the bathymetry.The major difference between deep and shallow environments is found at theoffshore edge of the shallow continental shelf, where the seafloor transitions to thecontinental slope at the Continental Shelf Break and is characterized by a markedlyincreased slope toward the deep ocean bottom. The shelf break may be at a depth asshallow as 20 m and as deep as 550 m; the worldwide average depth is 133 m.Light and productivity zones in the ocean provide a classification of the watercolumn. In the euphotic zone light is available for photosynthesis to the depth of thecompensation level below which there is no net primary production as the reductionin light means that oxygen production and consumption by photosynthesis andrespiration balance. The light at this depth is about 1% of that of the surface. For theclearest oceanic waters this depth can be 110 m. Some of the light towards the greenand blue end of the spectrum can penetrate deeper but does not support net growth.This can reach as deep as 1000m but is generally considered to extend to around 200-500 m and called the dysphotic zone. The aphotic zone below 200-500 m is dark.Consumption and decomposition of organic matter require oxygen for therespiration of animals and bacteria. The excess of removal of oxygen overreplenishment reaches a maximum at about 1 km depth shown by an oxygenminimum layer but varies between regions of the NE Atlantic. For example in panel3 of Figure 1 there is a pronounced oxygen minimum layer between 1000 and 500min the basins east of the Reykjanes Ridge, but deep ventilation and cooler water in theIrminger Basin leads to high oxygen levels throughout the water column.In oceanographic terms it is the informal common practice to consider the differencebetween shallow and deep oceans to be at the shelf break and to think of this as at200 m. However this is not the difference between the shallow, intermediate anddeep components of the water column. The separation that should be considered isbetween the surface processes and those of the ocean interior. The surface oceanreaches the depth of direct influence by atmospheric forcing, whether direct winddriven circulation or by heat and fresh-water fluxes. The surface mixed layer givesway to the interior ocean at the thermocline. In the NE Atlantic winter mixed layerscan be deeper than 600 m, and in the zones of deep convection in the Nordic Seasand southern Irminger Sea deeper still. Figure 1 illustrates the variation seen in thehydrographic properties of the water column which is weakly stratified in the3

Irminger Basin, with strong ventilation below 1000 m (shown in the oxygenmaximum at depth) and strongly stratified over the Porcupine Abyssal Plain in theeast.None of the environmental arguments provides a strong rationale for either 200 m or400m as a set depth as the upper boundary. Good arguments could be made forsetting it at as shallow as 100 m or as deep as 1000 m. The logical choice in this case isto opt for the shallower of the two limits which has the benefit of fitting best the shorthand oceanographic use of the 200 m contour as the limit between shelf seas andoceanic waters and the FAO use of the limit between shallow and deep water.1.1.2. The deep-water environment and the definition of deep-water fish andcrustacean species.This is complex issue and is not driven solely by the salient characteristics ordefinition of the the deep-water environment. Many deep-water marine livingresources have biological features that are driven by the characteristics of the deepwaterenvironment. These include: (i) maturation at relatively old ages; (ii) slowgrowth; (iii) long life expectancies; (iv) low natural mortality rates; (v) intermittentrecruitment of successful year classes; and (vi) spawning that may not occur everyyear. As a result, many deep-water marine living resources have low productivity.However, not all deep-water resources exhibit these features. For example, blackscabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) and alfonsino (Beryx splendens), both considered to bedeep-water species in that they are found mainly at depths 400 to 600 m and 200 m to1700m respectively, are relatively fast growing and are not lived (maximum age 12-14 and 15-20 years). So deep-water resources cannot be defined solely on the basis oftheir life history characteristics.The use of depth distribution data to define deep-water marine living resources isalso problematic because many fish species found on the continental shelf are alsofound in deep water (whether defined as depths below 200 or 400 m). In the NEAtlantic these include ling (Molva molva), tusk (Brosme brosme), anglerfish (Lophiusspp.), deep-water redfish (Sebastes spp.) and Greenland halibut (Rheinhardtiushipploglossoides) (Gordon et al., 2003). To add to the confusion, the species addressedby the ICES Working Group on the biology and Assessment of Deep-sea FisheriesResources (ICES WGDEEP) are somewhat eclectic and include long-lived, slowgrowing species found at depths greater than 600 m, orange roughy (Hoplostethusatlanticus) for example, but also ling and tusk.1.1.3. The deep-water environment and the definition of deep-water fisheries.Given the problems defining deep-water marine resources it is not surprising thatscientists and fisheries managers have encountered problems developing criteria todifferentiate deep-water fisheries from other types of fisheries. The definition ofdeep-sea fisheries is crucial both to DEEPFISHMAN and to proposed revisions of EUDeep-Sea Access Regime. One approach that may help address this issue is to carryout a principal components analysis on haul by haul catch composition data for a4

DEEPFISHMAN case study fleet that partipates in a range of fisheries. From theseoutputs it may possible to develop simple metrics that could enable us todifferentiate between different types of fisheries. A suitable case study would be theFrench mixed demersal trawl fleet fishing to the west of the British Isles, as this fleetprosecutes a directed deep-water fishery for blue ling, a mixed demersal fishery fordeep-water species and a directed fishery on the continental slope for saithe(Pollachius virens).1.2. Scope of Review of the NE Atlantic AreaFor this review of the NE Atlantic we consider the ICES and OSPAR regions northfrom the Straits of Gibraltar Strait, east of Cape Farewell and west of Novaya Zemlya(Figure 2). This region includes the deep areas of the North Sea, Skagerrak andBarents Sea, but not the Mediterranean or Baltic Sea. In section 1.3 we briefly discusssome of the seabed and bathymetric features in the NE Atlantic that interact with thecirculation and hydrography of the deep ocean. Section 1.4 reviews the ways that thedeep ocean can be monitored and the programmes that make monitoring datasetsusable and available in the NE Atlantic. Section 1.5 gives a broad overview of deepNE Atlantic oceanography and the important and topical oceanographic process.5

Figure 1. In the 1990s the World Ocean Circulation Experiment conducted a series of sections across theWolds Oceans (apart from the Nordic Seas and Arctic) giving a snapshot of the oceanographicconditions. Here we show section A1E between Ireland and East Greenland. This section skirts south ofthe Rockall Trough, Rockall Bank and the Iceland Basin, across the Irminger Basin and onto the EastGreenland Slope and Shelf. [Figure modified from eWOCE Atlas (Schlitzer, 2000)]. This section clearlyshows the two dominant oceanographic characteristics of the NE Atlantic and highlights theconnectivity across the Greenland Scotland Ridge. To the west in the Irminger Basin is the clearventilating character of the subpolar Atlantic and the influence of the overflows from the Nordic Seasand the export of polar water. In the eastern basins the transport of warm saline waters in the NorthAtlantic Current either towards the Nordic Seas or around the Subpolar Gyre. The warm saline currentthat stays within the Atlantic then follows a north and westward path along the bathymetry and can beseen at each of the slopes and across the Ridge in progressively cooler and fresher forms. It can be mosteasily identified in the influence of high salinity cores between 200 and 1000m.6

Figure 2. NE Atlantic – Deep (> 2000m), Slope (2000m>>500m) and Shallow (

Continental Margins (Shelf, Slope and Rise)The continental shelves are the gently sloping, flooded edges of the continentsbetween the land and the open ocean, and can be between a few and 1000 km wide.Their depths are generally less than 150 m. They are shallower than the area of directinterest for deep fisheries but can influence the environment of waters beyond theshelf break through primary production and the export of nutrients, material andgasses into the deep water.At the shelf break the bathymetry begins to steepen markedly, delineating thetransition to the continental slope. Slopes by definition are areas of change andconnectivity. The slope lies between the geologically light continental shelf that isaround 200 m deep and the deep continental rise and abyss below 2000-3000 m deep.By comparison with the majority of the ocean it is a steep habitat, inclined around 4degrees, which passes through the depths of the main thermocline and can see largevariations in bottom temperature and salinity over relatively short distances. Thecontinental slopes play a key role in the connectivity of the ocean basins as large scalecurrents generally follow bathymetry. The combination of changing bathymetry andgradients in water column properties from the deep ocean to the shelf means that notonly major currents but key physical processes such as upwelling and tides areimportant here for setting the physical environment. The continental rise forms atransition area where the bathymetry becomes less steep joining the slope into theabyss.Abyssal plain and basinsThe basins and abyssal plain are removed from the areas of strong gradients in bothdepth and properties. In terms of the oceanographic properties in the NE Atlantic,the key processes that take place in the basins is the formation of water masses.Ridges and Fracture ZonesThe ridges and fracture zones of the NE Atlantic constrain and guide oceancirculation.The Greenland Scotland Ridge is predominantly shallower than 500 m with twomain deeper channels, between Faroe and Scotland (about 850 m deep) and betweenIceland and Greenland (about 600 m deep). The shallowness of this ridge constrainsthe cold deepwater north of the ridge and below about 500 m the waters north andsouth of the ridge are of entirely different characteristics. The two main deepchannels provide a pathway for the deep cold dense water of the Nordic Seas toenter the North Atlantic where they sink to depth providing one of the sources forNorth Atlantic deep water.The mid-basin ridge in the NE Atlantic can be traced northward from the south ofthe Azores to Spitzbergen. The ridge has submarine rises, fracture zones, seamountsand banks, and volcanic islands. From the MAR, it crosses the Charlie Gibbs FractureZone and onto the Reykjanes Ridge which rises to the south Icelandic shelf. North ofIceland the shelf meets the Kolbeinsey Ridge to Jan Mayen and the Jan Mayen8

Fracture zone, between the Greenland and Norwegian Seas as Mohns Ridge and theKnipovich Ridge towards Spitzbergen.The Charlie Gibbs Fracture Zone at the southern section of the Reykjanes Ridgeprovides a deep pathway allowing NE Atlantic Deep Water produced by overflowbetween Iceland and Scotland to pass into the western basins of the North Atlantic.Other fracture zones north of the Azores are the Faraday and Maxwell FractureZones.SeamountsSeamounts, knolls and hills extend vertically from the seafloor but are limited inhorizontal extent and have been identified throughout the NE Atlantic (Figure 3).Seamounts are at least 1000 m high, knolls are 500-1000 m, and hills less than 500 m.The depth of the summit may be important for the environment above them (Whiteand Mohn, 2004).Figure 3. Distribution of seamounts in the NE Atlantic as available in the OSPAR habitat databaseavailable at data.nbn.org.uk. downloaded 25/03/2010Typically there are a highly complex set of interactions with the environmentdepending on many processes or seamount characteristics and include TaylorColumns or Cones, doming of density surfaces, enclosed circulation cells andenhanced vertical mixing (White et al, 2007). These were comprehensively reviewedby White et al (2007) and by White and Mohn (2004) for the OASIS project (OceanicSeamounts: An Integrated Study, European Commission Contract No. EVK3-CT-2002-00073-OASIS). The wide range of different controls on how a seamount systemwill behave (e.g. height and size; water column stratification; variability of flows;biological processes) led them to conclude that most seamounts require individualclassification to understand the important processes. However they suggest that twobasic dynamical processes can be considered most important, firstly the rectificationand amplification of tidal motions and secondly Taylor Column processes for steady9

flows impinging on the topographic feature (as a water body moves over a change inbathymetry there is a change in its vorticity, its rate of rotation, which will inducecurrents). Additionally jets and eddies can be produced at seamount chains andoceanic eddies themselves may interact with a seamount (White and Mohn, 2004).CanyonsSubmarine canyons, which can have very steep sides, are cut into the deepsedimentary layers of the slope up to the shelf providing pathways for shelf materialto the deep basins and plains. Canyons are associated, and have often been formedover geological timescales by, episodic dense shelf water cascading (DSWC).Seasonal cooling or evaporation and sometimes reduced riverine input can producedense shelf waters (Canals et al., 2006). The canyons can then provide a pathway forthe rapid cascading of these waters and the shelf materials to depth.Seeps and ventsThese habitats cover very small areas of the seabed and are located along mid-oceanridges or back-arc basins (hydrothermal vents) or along continental margins (seeps).Primary production at hydrothermal vents is generated by bacteria throughchemosynthesis. The bacteria are chemoautotrophic and tend to be members of themost ancient group, the Archaea. At hydrocarbon seeps, the source of energy ismethane-rich fluids of thermogenic and/or biogenic origin.Carbonate mounds and cold water coralsCarbonate mounds are found at several locations along the margin of the NE Atlanticbetween the depths of 500–1,000 m (Figure 4). The mounds vary in height from 50 to200 m and are between 0.5 and 2 km in diameter (White, 2007). These mounds are asediment filled framework principally dead cold-water coral. Living corals on top ofcarbonate mounds have been linked to the presence of internal waves and tidalcurrents in the water column, and thought likely that carbonate mound structuresare shaped by the local hydrodynamic regime. Mound clusters have an elongatedshape perpendicular to the regional contours and corresponding to the direction ofthe highest current speeds (Mienis et al 2007).10

Figure 4 Location of carbonate mounds in the OSPAR habitats database.data.nbn.org.uk downloaded 25/03/2010Norwegian Trench and SkagerrakThe Norwegian Trench is not an oceanic trench associated with plate tectonics butwas formed through erosion by ice streams during glacial periods over the lastmillion years. It cuts into the continental slope northeast of the Shetland Islands to adepth of 270 m and runs south and east parallel to the coast of Norway reaching theSkagerrak, a 700 m depression, at its eastern extent between Sweden and Denmark.A proportion of the current flowing north along the continental slope from theAtlantic into the Nordic Seas is steered into the trench by bathymetry resulting in asouthward flow towards the Skagerrak along the slope that borders the North Sea. Inthe Skagerrak it recirculates northward along the Norwegian coastward side of thetrench mixing with the outflow from the Baltic and runoff from Norway and Swedenexiting the trench and flowing northward in the Norwegian Coastal Current. Waterdeeper than about 500 m is thought to remain isolated for several years with episodicrenewal when surface cooling of neighbouring shallower waters has producedwaters dense enough to sink into the deepest area (Rodhe 1996). Due to its isolationand high productivity in the surface waters oxygen levels in the deep water and thestorage of contaminants in the sediments are issues of concern in the Skagerrak(OSPAR 2000a).1.4. Monitoring the hydrography of the deep North East Atlantic1.4.1. Methods of monitoringStandard Hydrographic Sections are the ‘traditional’ method for monitoring the deepocean. Measurements are taken from a research vessel of temperature, salinity andother parameters (including stable isotopes, freons – e.g. CFCs, radionuclides,oxygen, and nutrients) depending on research interest. The research vessels carry out11

sections (Figure 5) of multiple hydrographic stations where a profiling package islowered through the water column.Figure 5. Icelandic Standard Sections. Since 1970 hydrographic measurements have been made on thesestations four times a year to depths exceeding 2000m, in winter (February/March), spring (May/June),summer (August/September) and autumn (October/November).[www.hafro.is/Sjora/ downloaded19/04/10].These types of measurements have been possible since the last decades of the 19 thCentury and over the last century a number of repeat sections became standard. Forthe long trans-basin sections the repetition of the standard section maybe as rare asonce per decade, while a few have become as frequent as once every 2 years and areperformed by international research programmes. Shorter sections relatively close tothe continental shelf can have a monitoring programme that requires repetition twicea year or seasonally (e.g. the Icelandic Standard Sections – Figure 5). The strengths ofthe standard section approach are (1) high quality repeated data, (2) high verticalresolution, and (3) wide spatial extent. Weaknesses are the regional coverage,temporal resolution and effort/costs. It also remains difficult to make measurementsnear the seabed and to resolve water column features at steep slopes. Standardsections sample the properties of the deep ocean very well but observing itsmovement is more difficult, not least because the platform itself is moving.Measurements of the deep velocity field are now possible using loweredinstrumentation but the most used methodology indirectly determines volumetransports based upon variations in the ocean density as determined by temperatureand salinity. Extensions to the traditional ship-based survey are those made bypowered autonomous vehicles carrying a package of sensors.Moored monitoring systemsMonitoring programmes of this type are diverse, and the types of measurementstend to be targeted at the particular process that is being monitored. Types includebottom landers, weather ships (continuously anchored ships) and in-line moorings.Strengths to this approach are the ability to focus on a particular process of interest12

and the frequency of observation which is limited only by instrument capability andbattery life. Some moored systems allow continuous data retrieval via satellite ifthere is a surface component to the moored system, however data from most mooredmonitoring of the deep ocean can only be accessed when the instruments arephysically recovered. The major disadvantages of these systems tend to be theinfrequent supply of data, their spatial limitation and damage or loss ofinstrumentation.Subsurface Floats take the Lagrangian approach which means making observations ofthe ocean by moving with it. A float is designed to be neutrally buoyant at the depthof interest and parameters can be monitored as it moves. Tracking of its location canbe done either at depth by acoustics or by making floats that can vary their buoyancyand return to the surface to be tracked by satellite. Initially floats were designed tomeasure the ocean flow field but modern floats provide a platform for otherhydrographic measurements (e.g. temperature, salinity, oxygen) and data is sentback via satellite. The advantages of float based monitoring are the potential forglobal coverage, continual direct data supply, ease of deployment, power of analysisfor large groups of floats, horizontal resolution at target depth and vertical resolutionduring surfacing and sinking and cost. Disadvantages are that they can be lost and asthey only measure where they are taken by the ocean. Observations near boundariescan be more difficult as can targetting the observations to spatially limited processesor systems. Strong quality control and calibration protocols are needed forinstruments that are not recovered regularly and the movement of floats that sampleat depth and regularly return to the surface include the movement that it is subject towhile surfacing and descending. Full water column sampling by this method islimited by the depth of buoyancy control by the float.Gliders – are a relatively recently developed instrument platform for measuring theinternal ocean. By shifting their internal mass and adjusting their buoyancy, glidersare able to navigate rather than drift with the current. They operate independently ofships but communicate via satellite to enable data upload and mission planning andupdating. The design of gliders enables them to have very low power consumptionallowing them to be deployed for months at a time. Glider programmes are in theirearly stages in the NE Atlantic making measurements of the upper 1000 m of thewater column.Acoustic Tomography - variations in the temperature of the ocean causes changes inthe speed of sound, tomography uses this effect to estimate the average temperatureof areas of the ocean by measuring the time that acoustic signals take to travel from asound source to a receiver.Satellite Remote Sensing – direct observation of the deep ocean hydrography is notpossible from satellites, however by measuring variations in the sea-surface height,satellites can help to determine the deep circulation. Their measurements of surfaceproperties are also used as one of the data inputs operational forecast models that dohelp to estimate the state of the internal ocean.13

Operational oceanography – combines observational data, often in near real-time, withforecasting models and optimal analysis techniques to estimate the state of the sea atpresent, in the near future and in the past. In general operational oceanographyincludes a rapid and open dissemination of products that are of direct use to marineusers.1.4.2. ProgrammesDeep ocean hydrography is not generally monitored for any statutory or regulatorymechanism such as that for contaminants or fisheries statistics in an ICES or OSPARcontext. Monitoring here is generally of the form of long-term sustainedobservations, as input to national meteorological programmes, research programmesor under the auspices of ad hoc national and international programmes. A number ofinitiatives, some formal, others informal, coordinate different components of theobservational programmes at an international level.ICES Working Group for Oceanic Hydrography (WGOH) standard sections (Figure 6)from the various national programmes are reported annually and encompass thesubpolar domain focused in the NE Atlantic and Nordic Seas. Most, though not all,of the sections are surveyed annually and some are sampled on a quasi seasonalbasis (e.g. the Icelandic Standard section programme, Figure 5). The longest periodthat the sections have been sampled over is about 100 years but in general the longerseries began in the 1960s and 1970s and some have only been sampled regularly forthe last decade.Figure 6. Standard Sections reported to the ICES Oceanic Hydrography Working GroupWOCE The World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) was a part of the WorldClimate Research Programme (WCRP) which used resources from nearly 3014

countries to make in-situ and satellite observations of the global ocean between 1990and 1998 and to observe poorly-understood but important physical processes. TheWOCE datasets in themselves provide a consistently quality controlled snapshot ofthe deep ocean from that decade but also a continuation of many of the previouslysampled sections and a baseline for future studies. Of particular interest for ourunderstanding the environment for deep water fish are the datasets they collectedfrom hydrographic sections (Figure 7), moored current meters and subsurface floats.These data are described and made available through the WOCE Data InformationUnit (http://woce.nodc.noaa.gov/wdiu/index.htm ).Figure 7. WOCE Hydrographic Sections in the Atlantic from the EWOCE Gallery(Schlitzer, 2000).JCOMM - The Observations Programme Area (OPA) of the UN Joint WMO-IOC TechnicalCommission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM) has responsibility for thedevelopment, coordination and maintenance of moored buoy, drifting buoy, ship-based andspace-based observational networks and related telecommunications facilities. It alsomonitors the efficiency of the overall observing system and, as necessary, recommends andcoordinates changes designed to improve it. It has inherited lead responsibility for a numberof important and well-established observational programs, which are managed by bodies thatnow report through JCOMM. Of particular interest for DEEPFISHMAN are Argo,OceanSITES and GO-SHIP. (www.jcomm.info).15

GO-SHIP Since the completion of WOCE there has been little formal internationalorganisation of global repeat hydrographic sections. A strategy has been developedrecently under the Global Ocean Ship-based Hydrographic Investigations Program(GO-SHIP, Hood et al, 2009) that will develop formal international agreements for asustained international repeat ship-based hydrography program.Argo is a global array of about 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats (Figure 8) thatmeasure the temperature and salinity of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. Every 10days each Argo float completes a measurement cycle transmitting data back to theARGO programme which is then made public within hours as a ‘real-time’ qualitycontrolled data product and later as a delayed mode data stream following furtherquality control. During the 10 day cycle the float drifts for 9 days at about 1000 mfollowing the pathway of the currents at that depth, it then sinks to about 2000 m tobegin a profile of measurements over a 10 hour ascent to the surface where it cantransmit data and 10 hours later sinks back to its drifting depth (www.argo.net)Figure 8. The ARGO float network in April-May 2010 showing the positions of the 3255 floats that havedelivered data within the 30 days prior to 9 th May 2010. From www.argo.net.OceanSITES is a coordinating programme for the UN Joint WMO-IOC TechnicalCommission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM). OceanSITESbrings together multiple international deep-sea mooring programmes (Figure 9)making a system of long-term, reference stations measuring dozens of variables andmonitoring the full depth of the ocean from air-sea interactions down to 5,000 m,complementing satellite imagery and ARGO float data by adding the dimensions oftime and depth.16

Figure 9. One of the mooring arrays that contributes to the OceanSITES network is across the FramStrait, maintained by Germany and Norway at the Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- undMeeresforschung (AWI), the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center (NERSC), and at theNorwegian Polar Institute (NPI). Here Spitsbergen is on the right, the east Greenland shelf is on the left,a nominal temperature section shows the warm inflow of Atlantic water into the Arctic in th eWestSpitsbergen currnet and the southward flowing polar waters on the Greenland shelf. The mooringarray includes current meters and temperature- salinity loggers as well as a more experimentaltomographic array that can ’remotely’ by acoustics measure the integrated heat content in the section.(From www.oceansites.org/network/index.html Atlantic Ocean Sites Descriptions 2009)GODAE/MyOcean- Observations of the world ocean have to be combined with oceanmodel estimates to provide a view of the ocean’s state at any particular time. Themodels allow assimilation and integration of complex information in a way that isconsistent with current knowledge of ocean physics and dynamics. The Global OceanData Assimilation Experiment (GODAE) completed its work in 2009 and had a visionto establish operational oceanography as “A global system of observations,communications, modelling and assimilation, that will deliver regular,comprehensive information on the state of the oceans, in a way that will promote andengender wide utility and availability of this resource for maximum benefit to thecommunity". (http://www.godae.org/). In the EU the FP7 Programme MyOcean isprogressing the operational oceanography experiments into an integrated pan-European capacity for Ocean Monitoring and Forecasting. Currently they provide agateway to multiple other sources of information (see examples Mercator-France andTOPAZ-Norway in Figure 10 a and b). At the end of 2010, MyOcean aims to have asingle and reliable entry point to users and a direct access to all products, that willcover the whole globe, at any depth, at anytime (short term forecast, and hindcasts ofthe last 25 years) that is open and free to access.17

Figure 10a. Temperature and Salinity at 1000m in the North Atlantic from the 27 th January 2010 Analysisin the Mercator operational oceanography system 1/12° Atlantic and Mediterranean Model (lowerresolution models 1/4° and 2° are also available covering a global domain, including the Nordic Seasand Arctic) www.mercator-ocean.fr.Figure 10b. Temperature at 700m in theNordic Seas and NE Atlantic from the 1stMarch analysis of the TOPAZ systemhttp://topaz.nersc.no/Barents Portal – a recent initiative has developed a joint Norwegian-Russianenvironmental data portal for the Barents Sea called BarentsPortal(www.barentsportal.com) as a support to environmental status reporting. This portaltakes an integrated approach including abiotic (hydrography, chemistry etc) andbiotic (seabird, fisheries etc) monitoring that allows a full ecosystem assessment to bemade. In particular for hydrography they include 7 standard sections that have beensampled for many decades (Figure 11).18

Figure 11. Barents Sea Standard Sections all of which collect T and S data, some of which also monitornutrients and plankton. A is fixed station Ingøy(1936-1944, 1968-present), B is Fugløya-Bear Island (since1977, 6 times per year), C is North Cape-Bear Island (since 1929, varying frequency), D is Vardø-North(since 1977, 4 times per year), E is Kola (since 1900, varying frequency), F is Sem Island-North(since1977, intermittently), G is Kanin section (since 1936, varying frequency) and H is Bear Island-East (since1936, varying frequency). www.barentsportal.com.Global datasets- There are a number of initiatives by the international sciencecommunity that aim to bring together as much of the hydrographic data collected aspossible, quality control them and make them available as a coherent dataset. Theprincipal of these are the World Ocean Database and its associated World OceanAtlas produced by the US National Oceanographic Data Center(www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/indprod.htm). The latest updates of these were made in2009 and are referred to as WOD09 and WOA09 (Boyer at al 2009) where the WOAshows the average and statistics of data within the database for chosen parametersand locations.A further step on are attempts to analyze these sparse data to form gridded fields. In2007, Ingleby and Huddleston described the methodology used to produce qualitycontrolled subsurface temperature and salinity data that is used to produce the EN3dataset (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/en3/). This dataset includes the monthlyobserved ocean temperature and salinity profiles taken by standard hydrographyand by floats since 1950 with an assessment of data quality and also the objectiveanalyses of all these data.19

1.5. General hydrography of the deep NE Atlantic1.5.1. Water column hydrography (Temperature and Salinity)Our interest in waters deeper than about 200m in the NE Atlantic straddles upperand deep circulations, and due to variability in the structure of the water column agiven depth maybe associated with the deep, intermediate or shallow circulationdepending on where it is in the region.Deep waters are separated from the surface by the permanent thermocline which isthe part of the water column where temperature changes strongly with depth. Abovethe main thermocline the water column changes seasonally. In the winter time strongheat loss due to wind and cold air temperature forms a thick mixed layer (Figure 12).In the Labrador Sea and Nordic Seas the main thermocline is weak and the wintermixed layer here can produce deep convection forming new deep water. In the mainNorth Atlantic the winter mixed layer can be deeper than 600 m in the RockallTrough, Iceland and Irminger Basins, and mixing deeper than 200 m extends into theBay of Biscay. The thick layers of water formed above the main thermocline bywinter-mixing contribute the volumetrically dominant water masses of the upperand intermediate North Atlantic circulation.Figure 12. Areas where the depth of winter mixing in the NE Atlantic (not including the Nordic Seas)was found to be greater than 200m by McCartney and Talley (1982).Most of what we know about the interior circulation of the ocean has been deducedby understanding water masses. The concept of water masses relies on the idea thatonce a water type is formed by interaction with the atmosphere in a given location itwill conserve some of its properties once it is no longer in contact with theatmosphere. The two properties that generally define water masses are its20

temperature and salinity, which are set at the surface by heating, cooling,evaporation, precipitation and mixing but are conserved once the link to the surfaceis broken. Each water mass is modified by mixing with other types of water as itcirculates the ocean but the properties of the mixed water can allow an analysis todeduce the component water masses as a fingerprint of the waters origination.Each region of interest has particularly important local water masses. Thenomenclature even for a particular watermass can change depending on the region,pathway or process of interest but generally only if it has undergone a transformingprocess. So for example upper Norwegian Sea Deep Water is called Faroe ShetlandChannel Bottom water in the Faroe Shetland Channel, it becomes Iceland ScotlandOverflow water as it passes over the sill of the Faroe Bank Channel and then becomesNorth East Atlantic Deep Water on its path to the Labrador Sea, and as it passessouth along the western boundary under the Gulf Stream it can be referred to aslower North Atlantic Deep Water.Figures 13 – 16 below present sections of the water column properties from the southto the north of the NE Atlantic that illustrate the properties of the deep ocean (notethat in Figures 13 - 15 the colour scales are different, scaling the variation seen acrossthe section but for temperature the contour interval is 1 °C in each of the upperpanels).In the 1990s the World Ocean Circulation Experiment conducted a series of sectionsacross the World’s Oceans (apart from the Nordic Seas and Arctic) giving a snapshotof the oceanographic conditions. In Figure 13 we show section A03 taken in October1993 along 36 °N between southern Portugal and the USA (Schlitzer, 2000). Thissection shows the properties of the water column close to our southern boundary ofthe NE Atlantic. From east to west (right to left on the page) the section crosses theIberian Abyssal Plain, then the MAR south of the Azores entering the western basinof the North Atlantic. The most prominent feature of the section below 200 m is theout flow from the Mediterranean as thick homogeneous warm, saline, low oxygenwater that penetrates at 1000 m depth across to the MAR. The western basin belowabout 1500 m is filled with North Atlantic deep water originating in the NE Atlanticand Labrador Sea and most easily identifiable as the spreading deep oxygenmaximum. The MAR limits the extent of this water in the eastern basin but itsinfluence can be seen penetrating into the eastern basin at about 2500 m but thedeepest water here is older water originating in the south.Figure 14 shows WOCE section A24S (the southern legs of A24) taken in June 1997between Ireland, the Azores and East Greenland (Schlitzer, 2000). This sectioncrosses the Porcupine Abyssal Plain southwest towards the Azores and theMAR thenheads north across the southern parts of the Reykjanes Ridge and Irminger Basintowards Cape Farewell. The section captures an influence of Mediterranean outflowat about 1000 m and the surface high salinity core of the North Atlantic Current at 25-30°W. West of 30°W in the leg towards Cape Farewell stratification weakensconsiderably and Labrador Sea Water (LSW) dominates the water column between1000 m and 2000 m. The MAR constraints depth of the influence of the LSW in the21

eastern leg of the section where it forms a thick lens across to Porcupine centred at2000 m. The overflow water from the Denmark Strait is clear in the cool, fresh, highoxygen water with contours laying against the deep East Greenland Slope at about3000 m. The deepest water in the eastern basin is of southern origin.Figure 13. WOCE Section A03 taken in October 1993 along 36 °N between southern Portugal and theUSA. Parameters shown are: Potential Temperature (° C, upper panel – potential temperature, is theadjusted temperature that the water would be at atmospheric pressure), Salinity (middle panel - withoutunit), dissolved oxygen (lower panel - µmol/kg). Figure modified from eWOCE Atlas (Schlitzer, 2000)].22

Figure 14. WOCE section A24S (the southern legs of A24) taken in June 1997 between Ireland, theAzores and East Greenland. Shown parameters are Potential Temperature (° C, upper panel – potentialtemperature, is the adjusted temperature that the water would be at atmospheric pressure), Salinity(middle panel - without unit), dissolved oxygen (lower panel - µmol/kg) [Figure modified from eWOCEAtlas (Schlitzer, 2000)]Figure 15 shows WOCE section A24N (the northern leg of Cruise A24) taken in June1997 between Scotland and East Greenland (Schlitzer, 2000). This section crosses thethree basins immediately south and west of the Greenland Scotland Ridge; northernRockall Trough, the Iceland Basin; and the Irminger Basin. The influence of theMediterranean outflow that was evident further south is not present in this section.The overflow water from the Denmark Strait is clear in the cool, fresh, high oxygen23

water with contours laying against the Greenland slope. The pathway andmodification around the Reykjanes Ridge of overflow from the Faroe Bank Channelcan be seen in the waters between 2000 m and 3000m on the flanks of the ridge.Labrador Sea Water can be seen in a thick lens between 1000 m and 2000 m in theIrminger Basin, between 1500 and 2000 m on the eastern side of the Iceland Basin andin the waters at the bottom of the Rockall Trough. The waters in the trough betweenRockall and Hatton Bank appear to be particularly warm, saline and low in oxygen.The waters of the subpolar gyre are progressively cooler and fresher in each of thebasins northward, but the influence of its northern limb, the Irminger Current, can beseen deeper than 500 m in temperature, salinity and oxygen as it flows southwardabove the upper East Greenland continental slope.Figure 16 shows a section from the Nordic Seas which was not covered by the mainWOCE programme. The section runs along 74.5°N, between the Barents Shelf nearBear Island at 18.5°E, and the East Greenland Shelf, 14.6°W, observed in June 1999(Blindheim and Østerhus, 2005). From the east it descends from the Barents Sea intothe shallow, narrow, northern limit of the Norwegian Sea, crosses the KnipovichRidge into the deepest part of the Greenland Basin of the Greenland Sea and up ontothe East Greenland slope. Water that originated in the North Atlantic flows northalong the eastern boundary in the upper 400 m. The recirculation of this water asReturn Atlantic water is also visible in the relatively salty core above the GreenlandSlope. Arctic Intermediate waters spread across the whole section beneath theAtlantic waters to around 1100m (Blindheim and Østerhus, 2005). Between 2000 mand 3000 m at either end of the section and over the ridge are high salinity watersdeep waters that have entered the Nordic Seas from the Arctic, while the deep partsof the basin are filled with the local product of deep convection, the Greenland Seadeep water.24

Figure 15. WOCE section A24N (the northern leg of Cruise A24) taken in June 1997 between Scotlandand East Greenland. Shown parameters are Potential Temperature (° C, upper panel – potentialtemperature, is the adjusted temperature that the water would be at atmospheric pressure), Salinity(middle panel - without unit), dissolved oxygen (lower panel - µmol/kg) [Figure modified from eWOCEAtlas (Schlitzer, 2000)]25

Figure 16. Potential temperature (°C), salinity, dissolved oxygen (µmol kg-1), and silicate concentration(µmol kg-1) along 74.5°N, between the Barents Shelf near Bear Island, 18.5°E, and the East GreenlandShelf, 14.6°W, observed in June 1999. (Figure 5 from Blindheim and Østerhus, 2005).1.5.2. Currents and circulationThe circulation of the NE Atlantic is dominated by the North Atlantic Current (NAC)and the modification of its waters as they travel around the basins, following a pathlargely influenced by the bathymetry and forced by interaction with the atmosphere.The Sections shown in Figures 1, 13-16 also demonstrate the depth of influence of theNorth Atlantic Current waters to extend deeper than the 200 m level that we haverecommended be taken as the upper limit of deep water. Gulf Stream waters supplythe North Atlantic Current off of Newfoundland. Moving eastward the path of theNAC crosses the MAR over the fracture zones and then splits turning north andsouthward (Figure 17). The southern path makes the northern limb of the subtropicalgyre supplying waters to the south of the Bay of Biscay.26

Figure 17. Modified from Stramma et al 2001, schematic circulation scheme for the upper circulation ofthe North East Atlantic. FC- Florida Current; GS- Gulf Stream, NAC- North Atlantic Current; AzC-Azores Current; CaC- Canaries Current; IC-Irminger Current; EGC- East Greenland Current; WGC-West Greenland Current; LC- Labrador Current.The northern path joins surface waters from the Labrador Sea and can be thought ofas the source for the entire subpolar gyre and Nordic Seas, and as the ‘warm’ watersupply to the Atlantic Overturning circulation. This path splits southwest of RockallBank and re-circulates either within the Atlantic in the Irminger Current itself or viaa long pathway through the Nordic Seas. Both the long and short routes region in theEast Greenland Current south of the Denmark Strait before entering the LabradorSea. These warm waters are transformed by cooling and freshening along theirpathway north. Where they become dense enough in this transformation they sink todepth and flow southward forming the overturning circulation. The major sinkingregions are in the Nordic Seas and in the Labrador Sea.The pathway south for the deep water from the Nordic Seas is constrained by thedepth of the Greenland Scotland Ridge. This water overflows mainly through thetwo deepest breaches in the Ridge through the Denmark Strait into the IrmingerBasin or via the Faroe Shetland Channel, through the Faroe Bank Channel and intothe Iceland Basin. Some, but much less, of this water does pass over the Wyville-Thomson Ridge into the Rockall Trough and over the Iceland Faroe Ridgesupplementing the Faroe Bank overflow in the Iceland Basin. From the Iceland Basinthe deep waters follow a path south along the Reykjanes Ridge, through the deepfracture zones at its western extent and then around the Irminger Basin, joining theDenmark Strait overflow along the East Greenland Slope and entering the LabradorSea. Here further deep overturning takes place and a third, the lightest andshallowest, deep water joins the water that originated in overflow at the DenmarkStrait (deepest and densest), and those that passed through the Faroe Shetland27

Channels. As these deep waters leave the Labrador Sea at depth following the NorthAmerican Continental Slope they become the North Atlantic Deep Water, whichpasses through the entire world’s oceans gradually transforming through mixinguntil it reaches the surface North Atlantic once again. Deep water in the NorthAtlantic is also present that originates in the Mediterranean Sea and in the Antarctic.The Mediterranean water spreads westward below the North Atlantic Currentforming a warm, salty tongue out towards the Azores that is easily recognisable inprofiles of temperature and salinity (see Figure 13). It also spreads north into the Bayof Biscay and Rockall Trough but stays south of the Wyville-Thomson Ridge as it istoo deep to cross it. Water from the Antarctic spreads into the eastern and westernbasins of the North Atlantic as deep bottom water from the south. Its extent north ofabout 50° N is limited by the shoaling bathymetry and it is transformed by mixing toform a small component of the deep North Atlantic Water (Figure 18).Figure 18. Modified from Stramma et al 2001, cartoon circulation scheme for the deep circulation of theNorth East Atlantic ocean dashed lines show the pathway for waters of Antarctic origin.1.5.3. pH and CO2The uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere by the ocean and the resulting affect this canhave on the pH of sea water have become an important area of investigation.Recently OSPAR (2006) identified the mesopelagic zone (~200-1000 m) as a priorityarea for study of the effect of changing pH.If the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2 – partial pressure is the contribution of aparticular gas to the total gas pressure) in the atmosphere is higher than in thesurface of the sea then CO2 will be taken in by the sea. The wind and sea state affectthe rate at which this happens. The pCO2 of the surface mixed layer generally follows28

that of the atmosphere on time scales longer than a year. Ocean currents, verticalexchange processes and biological processes that transform carbon between theorganic and inorganic, affect the exchange of CO2 between ocean and atmosphereand where it is stored (OSPAR, 2006).Weak stratification and the overturning circulation pattern result in the watercolumn of the NE Atlantic holding the greatest total anthropogenic carbon globally(Sabine et al., 2004). Surface currents from the south transport CO2 into the regionand deep mixing and overturning takes this surface signature to depth. (OSPAR,2006; Lundberg and Haugan, 1996).Acidification – Ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 has buffered climate change byreducing the atmospheric concentration of this important greenhouse gas. Howeverwhen the CO2 is absorbed by surface sea water the concentration of the bicarbonateion (HCO3 - ) increases, while the amount of carbonate ions (CO3 2- ) and pH of thesurface ocean waters decrease. This has already had a significant impact on oceanchemistry, with estimates of mean surface ocean pH decrease of ~0.1 (equivalent to a~30% increase in hydrogen ion (H + ) concentration), from a value of ~8.18 around thetime of the industrial revolution (Caldeira & Wickett, 2003; Figure 19). The majorimmediate effect is at the surface in terms of direct pH change but this spreads todepth with time, and at depth the major impact on ecosystems will be throughchanging saturation horizons (Turley et al, 2009).Figure 19. Projected changes inocean pH from a model scenario ofcontinued use of all known fossilfuel reserves. (Reproduced fromCaldeira & Wickett 2003).1.5.4 Saturation HorizonsThe depth at which aragonite and calcite, the two forms of calcium carbonateminerals, stop being formed and start to dissolve is known as the saturation horizon.Aragonite is the more soluble form and the aragonite saturation horizon (ASH) isshallower than the calcite saturation horizon (CSH). The depths of these horizonsnaturally vary within the oceans, the ASH is generally shallower in the North Pacific(< 600m) than in the North Atlantic (>2000 m - Figure 20; Orr et al 2005; Guinotte etal., 2006). Continued uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean is making the ASH29

shallow, although this varies with location and season. Under two scenarios for thefuture: greenhouse gas emissions (IS92- a continually increasing emissions scenarioand S650- stabilization at 650ppm CO2 scenario), Orr et al (2005) estimate that theASH will have shoaled by more than 700 m by 2100. Upwelling regions may bevulnerable to the shallowing saturation horizons with the potential for undersaturatedwater to be brought upward (Turley et al 2009).Figure 20. The Atlantic average aragonite saturation state anomaly (Δ[CO32-]A) by 2100. The anomalycalculates the difference between in situ CO32- and that for aragonite equilibrated sea water at the samesalinity, temperature and pressure. The average is zonal of the median concentrations from a suite ofclimate models (OCMIP-2) under emissions scenario IS92a. Thick lines indicate the ASH in 1765(Preind.), 1994, and 2100 (2100S-S650 stabilization scenario; 2100 I –the IS92a continually increasingemissions scenario) (from Orr et al 2005).Of particular interest in the deep NE Atlantic, it is thought that the prevalence of coldwater corals in the region and on seamounts is partly possible due to the depth of theASH (Guinotte et al. 2006; Clark et al. 2006).The growth in interest in acidification pH of oceanic water has been recent and rapidand in the deep waters of the NE Atlantic there are very few long-term observationsof pH. A recent study of observations in the Iceland Sea was able to evaluate pH overthe period 1994–2008 for deep-water (Figure 21). They found that pH has decreasedin the water deeper than 1500 m, but at a quarter of the rate of acidification of thesurface waters. The aragonite saturation horizon is currently at 1710 m but shoalingat 4 myr −1 and the authors estimate that this will expose a further 800 km 2 /year ofIceland Sea seabed to under-saturated conditions (Olafsson et al 2009).30

Figure 21. Time-series from the Iceland Sea pH (upper panel) and Aragonite Saturation Omega (lowerpanel), where Omega

etween the inflowing Atlantic water and the Arctic water lies along the path of theNorwegian Atlantic Current once it has passed through the Faroe Shetland Channel.The strong gradients across fronts also make them unstable that can produce eddies.Mesoscale eddies are circulating rings, 20-200 km across, of water that removeenergy from the mean flow and mix waters of contrasting properties. As regions ofconvergence and mixing between waters of different properties both fronts andeddies can act as areas of high production. OSPAR (2000b) noted the influence ofeddies can extend as deep as 1500 m and at the seafloor they can contribute to theoccasional periods of intense bottom currents (30 – 40 cm/s; Klein, 1988).A meddy is a particular type of eddy in the southern part of the NE Atlantic thatforms and moves at about 1000m depth. They are made up of the MediterraneanWater that crosses the Gibraltar Strait and sinks to 1000m due to its salinity making itdenser than the ambient Atlantic Ocean Water. In the Iberian Basin the majority driftsouth-westwards but a few have been identified moving northwards and have beenencountered as far north as 44° N (OSPAR 2000b).1.5.6 Tides and local dynamic processesThe rotation of the Earth and the gravitational interaction between the Sun, Moonand Earth generate the tides in the form of long waves that manifest themselves byrising and falling water levels of 1-10 m near the coast daily (diurnal) or twice daily(semi-diurnal). In the open ocean the height of the tide is up to about 1m (Figure 22)and the direct tidal currents associated with this ‘sea-level’ tide are relatively small.In the deep water the ‘internal’ tide tends to be more important than the ‘sea-level’tide. The internal tide is generated by tidal forcing and propagates as waves alongthe density interfaces (e.g. the thermocline) at tidal frequencies. These oscillations ofthe internal boundaries of the ocean can be hundreds of metres in amplitude, caninteract with the bathymetry leading to strong deep circulations and can provide asource of mixing when they become unstable and break. OSPAR (2000b) notedinternal tides to the west of Porcupine Bank can generate currents, which can exceed40 cm/sec and erode the sediments. Dorschel et al (2007) suggests the interactionbetween strong tidal flows (up to about 40cm/s) at depth and sediments at ~800 m inthe eastern Porcupine seabight can be important for the development of cold-watercoral mounds.32

Figure 22. Height in cm of the principle semi-diurnal lunar tide M2 from the FES1999 model –from theLaboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales- This model combines hydrodynamicswith data from tide gauges and satellite altimeters.(http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/idm/2000/oct-2000-sun-and-moon-shape-tides-onearth/index.html)The dynamical properties of flows across isolated topography can also lead toparticular local circulations and changes in the water column structure. Steady flowscan lead to Taylor column type circulations while more complex theory is needed forunsteady flows and tides (the theory and properties of freely propagating trappedwaves at isolated topography). Both are reviewed in White and Mohn (2004), whilehere we briefly describe the simpler of the two.A Taylor column is set up, in theory, when a current dynamically unable to crossisobaths meets a topographic obstacle like a seamount. A theoretical column of waterflowing across the mount initially compresses and stretches, changing its vorticityand inducing additional rotation to the circulation [for a good simple explanation seeWhite et al 2007, including pictorial description of this concept in their Box 4.1]. Theresulting circulation follows the isobaths and retains water. The ocean in realitycannot meet the dynamical constraints for theoretical Taylor column flow, but acomplex picture evolves mainly depending on the strength of the flow, the geometryof the obstacle and how stratified the background ocean is. For strong Taylor columntype circulations, strong flows and weak tidal variability are needed and found infew locations and the geometry of the seamount itself is another critical factor (Whiteand Mohn, 2004).33

1.5.7 North Atlantic OscillationThe North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) is the dominant mode of atmosphericvariability in the North Atlantic, accounting for 44% of the variance in winter(December-March, DJFM, is defined as the winter season and the year given byJanuary; Figure 23) sea-level pressure (SLP) in the last century (Hurrell, 1995).Figure 23. Average Sea Level Pressure in winter (December-March) over the North east Atlantic andNordic Seas for 1971 to 2000, clearly showing the Iceland Low and Azores High. Anomalies to thispattern are associated closely with the NAO where a deeper Iceland Low or higher Azores High lead topositive NAO index, with negative NAO associated with the opposite pattern. (NCEP/NCARReanalysis data from NOAA-CIRES Climate Diagnostics Center: www.cdc.noaa.gov/Composites).Strong positive or negative wintertime NAO has a clear effect on ocean andecosystem response NAO due to its control of the fluxes between ocean andatmosphere of the factors that alter the ocean’s properties and its circulation. Firstlythe momentum flux through windspeed and direction, secondly the freshwater fluxthrough evaporation minus precipitation and thirdly the heat flux (Visbeck et al,2003).In 2003 Visbeck and co-authors comprehensively reviewed the oceans response toNAO variability, and found evidence reporting both slow and fast responses. Theyreported the findings of strengthened the circulation of the upper 2000m in the NorthAtlantic (Curry & McCartney, 2001). In particular they summarized the literaturethat examined the NAO influence on changes in the Nordic Seas and Labrador Sea.34

Dickson et al (1996) found evidence for changing phase of the NAO from negative topositive had increased convection in the Labrador Seas. For the Nordic Seasincreasingly positive trend of the NAO over the 40 years can in some part beattributable for increased Atlantic inflow and spreading of warmth to the Barents Seaand Arctic; reduced convection in the Greenland Sea; freshening of the upper 1.5kmof the Nordic Seas, and a the subsequent freshening the deep North Atlantic as thisfreshening is transferred by the overflows (Visbeck et al 2003).1.5.8 Global WarmingGreenhouse gasses (GHG) in the atmosphere regulate the re-radiation of heat outinto space balancing the incoming heating from the sun maintaining the Earth’sclimate through the natural greenhouse effect. Over millions of years conditionschange and major epochs of the world are associated with shifts in the climate. Sincethe ice sheets last retreated (10-15 000 years ago) the world has been in a warmperiod during which modern society and ecosystems have developed. The use offossils fuels since the start of the industrial revolution effectively shortcuts thegeologically slow cycling of carbon.The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC, 2007) states that “most of the observed increase in globally averagedtemperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [over 90% likelihood] due to theobserved increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.The depth of mixing in the NE Atlantic and the presence of overflows that canrapidly take the signal of changed surface processes to depth suggest that the areamay be particularly sensitive to global climate change. However, datasets in the deepocean are too short, often incomplete and include interannual to decadal variabilitywhich makes identification of anthropogenic climate change trends very difficult.The total heat content of the upper 3000m of the worlds ocean increased between1961 and 2003 and two thirds of this energy was absorbed by the top 700m (IPCC,2007). Regionally this pattern is not uniform and the IPCC (2007) show a diagram(their Figure 5.2) that highlights regionally variability in this pattern and that theSubpolar Gyre lost heat between 1955 and 2003 associated with the NAO trend overthe period.1.5.9 UpwellingAt its simplest upwelling is the upward movement of water, while sinking water isdownwelling. Downwelling takes oxygen rich surface water to depth whileupwelling brings water rich in nutrients from depth to the well lit areas of the watercolumn where the nutrients can be used for primary productivity. Upwelling isdriven by interaction between winds, the Earths rotation and the ocean. A windblowing across the surface leads to a net transport at 90 degrees to the wind in theupper ocean in what is called the Ekman layer due to the Earths rotation and in thenorthern hemisphere this net transport is 90 degrees to the right of the wind. Thislayer is only about 100m deep and in the open ocean away from the Equator does notlead to upwelling. At the coast however a theoretical wind parallel to the landproduces an Ekman transport in the surface away from or towards the coast. Where35

the transport is away from the coast the light surface water is carried seaward andreplaced by upwelled deep, cold and nutrient rich water (Gill, 1982). The presence ofupwelling can be seen in sections across the shelf break as isotherms bow upward. Inthe NE Atlantic this setup is particularly important across the Iberian continentalshelf break and slope. Upwelling and the converse downwelling is also thought to beimportant at seamounts caused by the interation between the seamount topographyand the oceans movement (e.g. Taylor column type processes; White et al 2007).1.6. ConclusionsDeep-water fish live in a set of very diverse environments and are subject toenvironmental processes on a wide space and time scale. The zones that they live inare subject to the long-term forcing of Atlantic circulation and ventilation that willchange the acidity and temperature of the deep sea over the next century. Equallydeep fish are subject to the variations in season through deep mixing and availabilityof food supply from the productive layers, and also to the forcings of tides thatinfluence the mixing and lead to dynamical processes that can drive the habitatsupon which they depend. The timescales range then from tides to decades and thespace scales from that of a carbonate mound to the subpolar gyre.2. The ecology of deep-sea ecosystems2.1. IntroductionThe marine environment is a diverse and complex habitat for the growth oforganisms, including animals, plants, algae, fungi, protozoa, archaea, bacteria andviruses. Organisms have evolved to survive in all marine habitats, ranging from thepoles to the equator, and from shallow regions, where sunlight is the principal sourceof energy, to the dark deep abyss, where chemosynthesis can supplement what littlesolar-derived energy arrives from the surface far above. About 90% of all marine lifelives in the sunlit region.The rate of solar energy capture in near-surface habitats is critically dependent uponthe presence of phototrophic organisms. Their population size, and henceproductivity, is in turn determined by the supply rate of growth-limiting nutrients,which are present mostly in the deep sea, well below the depth of penetration ofsunlight. Physical processes bring nutrients to the surface to fuel photosynthesis andto sustain life in the ocean. Unlike photosynthetic environments, chemosyntheticenvironments depend on organisms capable of deriving energy not from sunlight,but from the oxidation of inorganic chemicals, such as sulphates or ammonia. Thesechemicals are most plentiful around the geologically active boundaries of tectonicplates and whale carcass falls, therefore, such environments tend to be very localizedand ephemeral.Many marine macro-habitats can be identified, studied and compared; however, dueto their relatively small size (Rex & Etter, 1998) most marine organisms live inmicrohabitats where the physical, chemical and biological properties may bedifferent from those in the surrounding area. The enormous habitat diversity of the36

global ocean leads to niche and resource partitioning, contributing to high microbialbiodiversity in the sea.2.2. ‘Key’ abiotic characteristics of the deep sea environmentThe ‘deep-sea floor’ is defined as that portion of the ocean bottom beyond thecontinental shelf. The continental shelf differs in depth in different parts of theworld; it can be fairly shallow, between 100 and 200m water depth in the NE Atlantic(Gage and Tyler, 1991) or deeper (400-800m) off Antarctica (the global mean is 133m– Pinet, 1998). The ecosystems of the deep-sea are broadly divided into those whichrelate either to the pelagic or to the benthic zones, which can be further subdividedaccording to depth and other physical characteristics as shown in Figure 24. In thisreview the focus is on the biology and habitats of the deep benthic and benthopelagiczones. These zones are broadly defined by the bathyal, abyssal and hadaldepths (see Figure 24). The bathyal zone generally corresponds to the limits of thecontinental slope, which represents the sloping sea bottom of the continental marginthat begins at the shelf edge and ends at the top of the continental rise or in a deepseatrench (Pinet, 1998). The transition zone between the lower part of the continentalslope and the relatively flat abyssal plain is known as the continental rise and tendsto be located anywhere between 3,000 and 4,000m in depth, which marks the start ofthe abyssal zone and the abyssal plain. The abyssal plain ranges in depth between3,000 and 6,000m, but tends to be found on average at a depth of 4,000m. It is arelatively flat and featureless landscape covering a vast area of the Earth’s surface,perhaps as much as 50% of the total surface area. Beyond the abyssal plain lies thehaldal zone, characterised by deep sea trenches which are the deepest places onEarth. These trenches are created by geological plate tectonic subduction processesand are therefore generally associated with increased geological activity, giving riseto submarine volcanoes and earthquakes. Increased geological activity is alsoobserved around mid oceanic ridges such at the Mid Atlantic Ridge. In both cases,such geological activities are responsible for creating large seamounts, which areabrupt ‘eruptions’ of the seabed (often extinct volcanoes) rising several hundredmetres from the seafloor. The deep sea trenches are most commonly found aroundthe margins of the Pacific and Indian oceans occurring between 6,000 and 11,000m.37

Figure 24. The principal pelagic and benthic ‘provinces’ of deep sea ecosystems. Showing also thegradients in the ‘key’ environmental variables of light and temperature and gradients in overall levels ofbiomass.The nature of the seabed and its associated habitats are set within this geological andenvironmental context. Recent studies have revealed that the deep sea is not thetranquil, homogeneous environment it was once considered to be and that withineach of the zones described above, there are distinct and dynamic habitats andbiological communities (Gage and Tyler, 1991). Through the use of modern acousticdeep-sea mapping technologies it is now possible to identify and describe thecomplexity of seabed features and habitats (e.g., Figure 25).Figure 25. Sediment waves and Anton Dohrn Seamount (Image: NOCS).38

The combination of physical characteristics – or abiotic factors – of the deep-waterenvironment is what deep-sea life-forms must contend with to survive. These arelight, pressure, temperature, oxygen and food. The geological setting that defines thelandscape of the deep-sea environment, the substrate type and prevailing deep seacurrents all have an important role in determining the status of such factors, andtheir different combinations have led to the fascinating adaptations of deep-sea lifeformsthat have become adapted to see, feel, feed, reproduce, move, and avoid beingeaten by predators in those settings.Variations in the dominant gradients associated with these principal environmentalcharacteristics which determine the habitats for important deep sea communities arefurther described below:2.2.1. LightThe layer of water that is exposed to sufficient sunlight for photosynthesis to occur isknown as the photic zone. The depth of the photic zone (or euphotic depth) can begreatly affected by seasonal turbidity. Typical euphotic depths vary from only a fewcentimetres in highly turbid eutrophic estuaries, to around 200m in the clear openocean. This lower depth limit coincides approximately with the point of thecontinental shelf break and is called ‘daytime depth of the deep scattering layer’. Thescattering layer is thought to have a strong influence on the depth distributionpatterns of biodiversity and biomass observed in the oceans. Below the photic zone isthe dis-photic zone, where levels of light are insufficient for photosynthesis, or atleast insufficient for photosynthesis at a rate greater than respiration. The bottommost zone, below the photic and dis-photic zones, is called the aphotic zone. Mostdeep sea ocean waters belong to this zone.Cleary, light attenuation is a function of water depth, water clarity, surface lightintensity and quality (wavelength). The light attenuation relationship between thesevariables has been well studied and is shown in Figure 26.Figure 26. The attenuation of daylight in the ocean (transmittance) as a function of wavelength, where I:extremely clear ocean water, II: turbid tropical-subtropical water, III: mid-latitude water and 1-9: coastalwaters of increasing turbidity. The diagram on the right represents the percentage of 465nm lightreaching the indicated depths from the same types of water (Jerlov, 1976).39

2.2.2. PressureConsidering the volume of water above the deepest parts of the ocean, it is notsurprising that vertical pressure is one of the most important environmental factorsaffecting deep-sea life. Vertical pressure increases by 1 atmosphere for each 10m indepth. On average, the pressure in the deep sea ranges between 200 and 600atm.Horizontal pressure gradients are also important, although much less in absoluteterms than the vertical pressure gradients, they nevertheless drive the horizontalflows in the ocean. The horizontal variation in pressure in the ocean is entirely dueto variations in the water mass caused by differences in temperature salinity andturbidity. Such variations in water mass drive the deep ocean currents which have aprofound influence on the deep-sea biology. Advances in deep-sea technology haveenabled scientists to collect species samples under pressure so that they reach thesurface for study in good condition. Without this technology, the animals would dieshortly after being collected as the absence of pressure would cause their organs toexpand and possibly explode. With good samples, it has been observed that the fleshand bones of deep sea marine creatures are relatively soft and flaccid, which is anadaptation to withstand the pressure.2.2.3. TemperatureThe difference in temperature between the photic, or sunlit, zones near the surfaceand the deep-sea are dramatic. Temperatures vary more in the waters above theeuphotic depth where thermoclines, or the separation of water layers of differingtemperatures, are more common. Below the photic zone the temperature of theocean drops gradually with depth. With the exception of hydrothermal vents wherehot water is emitted into the cold surrounding waters, the deep sea temperatureremains between 0 and 4°C (see Figure 24).2.2.4. OxygenThe dark, cold waters of the deep are also oxygen-poor environments.Consequently, deep-sea life requires little oxygen. Dissolved oxygen is transportedto the deep sea from the surface when the temperature of surface waters decreases,becoming denser and causing the water to sink. Most of this oxygen-rich watercomes from Arctic regions. Surprisingly, the deep sea is not the most oxygen-poorzone in the ocean. The oxygen minimum zone lies between 500 and 1,000m, wherethere are more organisms that consume oxygen, thus depleting the oxygen duringrespiration. In addition, the bacteria that feed on decaying food particles descendingthrough the water column also require oxygen.2.2.5. Energy (food)There are two principal sources of energy which fuel biological communities in deepsea ecosystems, namely; (i) fixed carbon from photosynthesis, all of which isimported from the much shallower photic zone (indirect sources of energy), and (ii)primary production directly derived from chemosynthetic processes not involvingphotosynthesis (direct deep sea primary production). Estimates which account forthe overall balance between these two sources of energy in the deep sea environmentare not clear, but recent studies suggest that chemosynthetic sources could be the40

most dominant source of primary production overall in the deep sea environment(Vanreusel et al 2009), particularly in the abyssal areas which are most distant fromthe original photosynthetic sources of primary production.The only photosynthetic source of carbon in the deep sea is from the production ofphytoplankton in the photic zone, which in turn is largely consumed by theherbivores, which are then preyed on by the carnivores. A certain amount of theenergy from this food chain reaches the deep sea as a continuous rain of deadorganisms or their products. The quantities of these materials reaching the seabeddeclines with increasing depth and the resulting production of benthic invertebrates,which are very largely dependent on such energy input, could never support theobserved demersal fish populations. The rapid sinking of large, dead organisms tothe sea bed can provide a valuable food source for some scavenging fish species.However, there is little doubt that the success of the benthopelagic fishes of theslopes results from the transfer of the energy of surface production downwards, viathe mesopelagic fauna of both fishes and invertebrates. One pathway is via theoverlapping food chains of organisms that occupy specific depth ranges. Manymesopelagic organisms also carry out daily vertical migrations feeding near thesurface at night and returning to depths of about 1,000m during the day where theyform a deep-scattering layer. Where this downward vertical migration impinges ontothe slope or the sides of seamounts it provides a source of food for demersal fish.The horizontal impingement of the scattering layer onto the slope or the horizontalmovements of the demersal fish into the scattering layer will also increase feedingopportunities. It is proposed that the abundance, diversity and peak biomass at midslopedepths is a consequence of the efficient transfer of surface production into deepwater via overlapping mesopelagic food chains and the daily or seasonal transfer byvertical migration (Gordon, JDM in JNCC web report 1 ).The lack of any photosynthetic primary production in the deep sea is the main reasonthe deep sea has relatively low levels of organic carbon and animal biomasscompared to the relatively shallow photic waters of the continental shelf. In the deepsea, low temperatures and a limited supply of food typically result in relatively lowrates of growth, respiration, reproduction, recruitment and bioturbation incomparison to shallow-water ecosystems (Gage and Tyler, 1991; Smith andDemopoulos, 2003). The biomass of deep-sea benthic assemblages is less than that ofshallow-water or terrestrial assemblages because of the low flux of photosyntheticsources of energy (Smith and Demopoulos, 2003).Although they lack photosynthetic primary production, deep-sea ecosystems can behighly dynamic. In the Northeast Atlantic (at the Porcupine Abyssal Plain) largefluxes of highly labile organic matter arrive at the seafloor following the springphytoplankton bloom (Billett et al., 1983). Deep-sea ecosystems react rapidly andvigorously to this freshly deposited phytodetritus, and it has been linked to theseasonal variability in reproduction and recruitment in certain species, relatively1 Website address: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-252541

apid growth rates, and seasonal growth-banding in skeletal parts of deep-seadeposit-feeding invertebrates (Gage and Tyler, 1991; Tyler et al., 1992).Deep-sea creatures have also developed specialised feeding mechanisms because ofthe lack of light and because food is scarce in these zones. Some food comes from thedetritus of decaying plants and animals from the upper zones of the ocean. Thecorpses of large animals that sink to the bottom provide infrequent feasts for deepseaorganisms and are consumed rapidly by a variety of scavenging species. Thedeep sea is home to jawless fish such as the lamprey and hagfish, which can burrowinto carcasses, quickly consuming them from the inside out. Some deep-water fishhave large and expandable jaws and stomachs to hold large quantities of scarce food.These fish don't expend energy swimming in search of food, instead they remain inone place and ambush their prey.There are many types of chemosynthetic source of carbon in the deepsea.Chemosynthetic ecosystems form where chemical energy from subsurfacegeological or microbiological processes becomes available at the seafloor.“Chemosynthesis” means that organisms can utilize chemical energy — in theform of hydrogen, methane, hydrogen sulphide and iron — to fix CO2 just asplants do, but without sunlight. The discovery of hydrothermal vents, cold seepsand gas hydrates in subsurface sediments and rocks showed that significantecosystems are fuelled by reduced chemical substances (H2S, H2, Fe) andhydrocarbons (e.g. CH4). These ecosystems show the highest biomasses andproductivity of all those found in the deep sea. Observation of the Europeancontinental margins using in situ video and photography with deep submersibles(Vanreusel et al 2009) provides evidence of a wide range of active cold-seepecosystems associated with fluid, gas, and mud escape structures. Such structuresoften emit methane and other hydrocarbons and are colonized by specificanaerobic subsurface microbiota which use hydrocarbons as an energy source andseawater sulfate to respire, thus producing high fluxes of hydrogen sulfide. Mostcold seeps also appear to support highly productive communities consisting ofspecialized animals that can cope with elevated concentrations of chemicalcompounds and low oxygen levels at and below the sediment-water interface.Among the most remarkable of the fauna exploiting the abundant chemicalenergy of seeps are large worms and mussels storing bacterial symbionts in theirtissues, which provide energy to their hosts. These special chemosynthetic habitatsare further discussed below.2.3. Deep-sea habitat classification schemesAs the pressure on deep-water ecosystem continues to increase through increasedhuman activity, so does the need to identify effective management strategies andtools to sustain its resources. Classification systems are one such tool which has animportant role in management of the marine environment. They were first developedand applied to manage shallow shelf sea ecosystems (Allee et al., 2000 and Connor etal., 2004 – see also EUNIS). They divide the marine environment into understandabledistinct units that can be quantified and mapped for planning purposes and provide42

a framework for describing function and sensitivity of habitats. Without suchclassifications it is very difficult to know which areas and parts of a marineecosystem require protection. The uses of the habitat classification system are broadand can include spatial planning, predictive modelling of habitats, habitatmanagement, use in monitoring and conservation strategies, reserve network design,scientific study and education. These varying uses all have different needs from aclassification system, but specifically in the context of the deep sea, attempts havebeen made to extend the classification criteria (see below) into a system for the deepsea (Greene et al., 1999 Valentine et al., 2005 Auster et al., 2005). Common features orrequirements of any classification system must:• be scientifically sound, adopting a logical structure in which the types areclearly defined on ecological grounds, avoiding overlap in their definition andduplication of types in different parts of the system, and ensuring thatecologically-similar types are placed near to each other and at an appropriatelevel (within a hierarchical classification);• provide a common and easily understood language for the description ofmarine habitats;• be comprehensive, accounting for all the marine habitats within its geographicscope;• be practical in format and clear in its presentation;• focus on the natural community and its physical environment;• include sufficient detail to be of practical use for conservation managers andfield surveyors allowing mapping of ecological units, but be sufficiently broad(through hierarchical structuring) to enable summary habitat information tobe presented at national and international levels or its use by non-specialists;• be sufficiently flexible to enable modification resulting from the addition ofnew information, but stable enough to support ongoing uses. Changes shouldbe clearly documented to enable reference back to previous versions (wherepossible, newly defined types need to be related back to types in earlierversions of the classification);• accommodate limited data and available technology• provide the basis for developing functional links between underlyingmechanisms structuring the ecosystem and the described biologicalcommunity.However, given the unique environmental conditions and vast spatial scalesoccupied by deep-sea ecosystems, it is not surprising that the emphasis to date hasbeen on defining largely physical classification schemes. In a study of the benthicenvironment of the deep sea off south eastern Australia, Williams et al. (in review)applied the hierarchical scheme of Greene et al., 1999 to define 7 levels of habitattype, each described in relation to mapping by scientific survey, use by its fauna andcommercial fishing, and for the implications of these attributes for marine resource43

managers (see Table 1 below). This classification has many similarities with thatproposed by Global Opens Oceans and Deep Sea habitats bioregional classificationgroup (GOODS) which recently prepared a report for the Convention on BiologicalDiversity Conference of the Parties in Bonn (May, 2008).2.4. Major bio-morphological features (large mega-habitats)2.4.1. Continental slopeAlthough the continental slope occupies only about 15% of the ocean floor it isnevertheless biologically the most productive habitat below the shelf and is a majorrepository of organic carbon. Research carried out under the Hotspot EcosystemResearch on the Margins of European Seas (HERMES) project has revealed that openslopes are hotspots of biodiversity in which species richness is higher than thatreported for bathyal and abyssal plain ecosystems. However, a unique, generaldriver capable of explaining the small or local-scale spatial patterns of biodiversitywas not identified. This result is not surprising, considering the multiplicity ofinteractions among local ecological characteristics, environmental factors, andsedimentological conditions (i.e., mud, sand, gravel, rock, or a combination of either)in each specific slope environment. This complexity probably has considerableinfluence on the conditions, allowing settlement of a high number of species. Thepatterns of deep-sea biodiversity along the slope are different from thosehypothesized so far, drawing a mosaic of life more complex and varied thanpreviously imagined (Danovaro et al., 2009).2.4.2. SeamountsThere are up to 100,000 seamounts in the world’s oceans with an elevation greaterthan 1,000m (Wessel, 2001). However, smaller features are significant in terms oftheir influence on species distribution and abundance. As a result, a new definitionof seamounts has been accepted recently by biologists: “protruding irregularities orbottom features that rise greater than 100m from the sea floor” (Rowden et al., 2005).Studies have suggested that the biodiversity of seamounts can be high and that thereis a high level of endemism associated with them (De Forges et al., 2000). In thesouthwestern Pacific ocean, for example, up to a third of species sampled fromseamounts have been new to science and even adjacent seamounts appear to havequite different communities of species. In some cases, the high diversity of species isassociated with fragile cold-water corals reefs.44

Table 1. Classification scheme modified after Green et al 1999, and Williams et al (in review) based upon deep-sea habitats off south east Australia.Classification level Habitat description Spatial scale Relevance to ecology, mapping, use and management1. Province Eastern province of south-easternAustralia large marine domain.Biogeographic Region2a. Biome Continental slope (200-1,500m depthrange)2b. Sub-biome Upper continental slope (200-700m depthrange)3. Major biogeomorphologicalfeatures4. Primary habitat(biotope) facies5. Secondary habitat(biotope) facies6. Primary biologicalfacies7. Secondarybiological faciesCanyons, Terraces, Seamounts, etc.Elongate rocky banks interspersed withsediment patches (sloping flank ofcanyon). Patchy mosaic of mixedsubstrata: ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ seabed types(terrace). Sediment in large clear patches(terrace)Outcropping sedimentary claystones.Subcropping sedimentary claystones.Debris/rubble of cobble/boulder clasts.Debris/rubble of gravel/pebble clasts.Highly irregular calcareous muddy sands.Unrippled calcareous muddy sands.Based on video observationsBased on video observationsProvincialProvincialProvincialLarge megahabitat(10-100km)mega-habitat.(1-10km)meso-habitat(10m-1km)macro-habitat(1m-10m)micro-habitat(

To date, the most diverse group of organisms found on seamounts are coralsbelonging to the Scleractinia (stony corals), Octocorallia (gorgonians), Antipatharia(black corals), Stylasterida (hydrocorals) and Zoantharia (zoanthids) (Rogers, A.Deep-sea biodiversity: a quick guide). Analysis of the distribution of corals onseamounts has shown that the distribution of the main groups is significantlyaffected by depth. It has also revealed that several areas in the world have a highdiversity of corals on seamounts, including the southwestern Pacific, thenortheastern Pacific and the North Atlantic. However, sampling strongly influencesthis dataset and high diversity in the North Atlantic is probably a result ofcomparatively large study effort in this area. It is notable that the distribution ofcorals on seamounts does not reflect the overall global distribution of many coralspecies. Corals frequently are not sampled on seamounts in parts of the world wherethey occur in other habitats. This reflects the low overall sampling effort, especiallyin some localities, but also suggests that the distribution of organisms on seamountsis strongly influenced by the physical characteristics at a particular locality and thatseamounts may operate like submarine islands.The high diversity and abundance of organisms on and around seamounts is thoughtto result from increased primary productivity resulting from localised upwelling ofnutrients into the photic zone, combined with processes such as trapping of planktonby the seamount itself (i.e., trophic focusing) (Rogers, 1994; Genin, 2004). Somespecies of fish spawn over seamounts, including orange roughy and the Japanese eel.As a result of increased food abundance, seamounts are a focus of activity for largeocean predators like sharks and tuna fish. Due to the larger populations of fish inthese areas relative to their surroundings, overexploitation by the fishing industryhas caused some seamount populations o fish and of other coral-associated species todecrease considerably.The Global Census of Marine Life on Seamounts website 2 has information and linksto resources on seamount biology. Seamounts Online 3 , a web-based informationsystem for seamount biology, holds data on species that have been recorded fromseamounts.2.4.3. Hydrothermal vents, hydrocarbon seeps & other reducing habitatsHydrothermal vents and hydrocarbon seeps have very specialised faunas,characterised by low biodiversity but very high endemism. The animal communitiesin these habitats are driven by chemosynthesis, the bacterial oxidation of hydrogensulphide or methane. These habitats cover very small areas of the seabed and arelocated along mid-ocean ridges or back-arc basins (hydrothermal vents) or alongcontinental margins (seeps). Specialised animal communities occur in the deep seaaround these habitats and are not typical of shallow-water vents and seeps. Thesehabitats have now been found all over the world and it is likely that many more willbe discovered. Some similarities exist between the fauna of seeps and that associatedwith the breakdown of whale carcasses.2 Website: http://censeam.niwa.co.nz3Website: http://seamounts.sdsc.edu46

The primary production at hydrothermal vents is generated by bacteria throughchemosynthesis. The bacteria are chemoautotrophic and tend to be members of themost ancient group, the Archaea. At hydrocarbon seeps, the source of energy ismethane-rich fluids of thermogenic and/or biogenic origin. Production of sulfide bysulfate reduction also plays an important role.Since the first discovery of hydrothermal vents, more than 500 species have beenidentified around hydrothermal vents and seeps (Perry, 2009). Of these, about 95%have been new to science, among them the red tube-worm Riftia sp. (Vestimentifera)and the Archaea. Hydrothermal vent faunal assemblages tend to be dominated bymolluscs, annelids, and crustaceans. Most other hard bottom habitats are mostlycomprised of cnidarians, sponges, and echinoderms. A recent study by Zeppilli andDanovaro (2009) revealed that metazoan species found in proximity to a shallowwaterhydrothermal vent were a subset of those inhabiting the surroundingsediments, but were characterised by lower abundances. The authors go on tohypothesise that the assemblages close to a vent are the result of colonization fromadjacent areas.Invertebrate diversity is significantly higher at seeps than at vents (Turnipseed et al.,2003). Lower diversity at vents may be a consequence of a greater physiologicalbarrier to invasion at vents than at seeps. Diversity is lowest where spacing betweenvents is greatest, suggesting that risks of extinction as a result of dispersal-relatedprocesses may contribute to the pattern of diversity observed at vents.Other reducing habitats such as cold seeps, whale falls or oxygen minimum zonesalso develop chemically-driven communities with similar species and physiology tothe vent animals. Seafloor oxygen minimum zones typically occur between 200 and1,000m depth and are found in the eastern Pacific, NW Pacific margin, Philippinesarea, Bay of Bengal, Arabian Sea and SW Africa beneath the Benguela current(Rogers 2000; Levin 2003). Despite very low oxygen concentrations, protozoan andmetazoan life thrive in these ecosystems. The high concentrations of organic mattersustain dense populations of sulphide-oxidising bacteria (i.e., Begiattoa, Thioploca,Thiomargarita) and a low biodiversity but high density of protozoan and metazoanlife. The main groups are foraminiferans, nematodes, ciliates, flagellates, polychaetes,gastropods and bivalves with specific adaptations, such us high concentrations ofhaemoglobins, large respiratory surfaces, small thin bodies, high concentrations ofpyruvate oxydoreductases and presence of sulphide-oxidising symbionts (Levin,2003).Global species richness on whale carcass falls (407 species) is high compared withcold seeps and rivals that of hydrothermal vents, even though whale-fall habitats arevery poorly sampled. Population-level calculations suggest that whale falls arerelatively common on the deep-sea floor, potentially allowing macrofaunal species tospecialise on these habitat islands; to date, 21 macrofaunal species are known onlyfrom whale falls and may be whale-fall specialists. Nonetheless, whale falls alsoshare 11 species with hydrothermal vents and 20 species with cold seeps, and thusmay provide dispersal stepping stones for a subset of the vent and seep faunas(Smith & Baco, 2003).47

2.4.4. CanyonsCanyons are hotspot ecosystems on continental margins, characterised by a highbiodiversity (Ramirez Llodra & Billet, 2006). These geological features are subject tovigorous currents and act as major pathways for organic carbon transportation, andfast down flux of organic matter from the land to the deep sea. Canyons contain avariety of substrata, such as hard rock walls and mobile sediments on the canyonfloor that sustain complex ecosystems with a high degree of endemic species.Canyons are often the site of increased biological activity and are important hotspotsfor commercial species. This manifests as very abundant populations of a limitednumber of species and the occurrence of large marine predators such as whales.The seabed within canyons is very heterogenous and different groups of animals liveeither on the exposed rock at the rim or in the sediment on the slopes and base.Typical rock-dwelling species are gorgonians, sponges and other filter-feedingorganisms. On the sediment are found echinoderms, crabs and other mobileorganisms. There are even giant single-celled organisms called xenophyophoresliving on the sediment at great depths. In certain parts of the canyons the rockexposure forms overhangs, underneath which are found communities of filterfeedingbivalves, such as oysters and an ancient invertebrate group called thebrachiopods. Such spots are exceptionally biodiverse and contrast with other parts ofthe canyon where biodiversity can be very low (HERMES, 2007).2.4.5. Ocean trenchesHadal trenches remain one of the least understood habitats on Earth. They accountfor the deepest 45% of the oceanic depth range and host active and diverse biologicalcommunities. Species tend to be endemic to a single trench or group of trenches(Vinogradova, 1997). Species composition, density, biomass and diversity of hadalzones often contrast to that of the surrounding abyssal area. There is a generaldecrease in the abundance and biomass of organisms with increasing depth.Nonetheless, sampling campaigns in hadal trenches have revealed a diverse array ofmetazoan organisms consisting primarily of benthic fauna, such as fish, holothurians,polychaetes, bivalves, isopods, actinians, amphipods and gastropods. The richness oftrench communities, thought to originate from the abyssal plains, also declines withdepth, although the relative role of increased pressure versus other environmentalcorrelates remains unresolved (Jamieson et al., in press).The assemblages of benthic nematodes, harpacticoid copepods, kinorhynchs,polychaetes and gastrotrichs in the Atacama Trench are approximately one thirdsmaller than their bathyal relatives, although the selective pressure(s) driving thisresponse remain unclear. Meiofaunal dwarfism contrasts starkly with the gigantismnoted for some trench-dwelling crustaceans, including amphipods, tanaids, mysidsand almost all isopods. These species are larger than any other representative of thegenus, and their unusually large size might be a response to ephemeral foodresources, competition or predation.The ‘carbonate compensation depth’ (CCD), the depth at which calcium carbonate(calcite and aragonite) supply equals the rate of solvation and below which nocalcium carbonate is preserved, has been proposed as a physiological barrier to deep48

ocean colonisation. Calcium carbonate is widely used as a structural component byforaminiferans, corals, crustaceans and molluscs. The CCD range is 4,000-5,000m inthe Pacific Ocean, but tends to occur at shallower depths towards higher latitudes.As carbonate solubility increases with increasing hydrostatic pressure, ossificationbecomes more difficult, explaining why ossified groups (e.g. ophiuroids andechinoids) tend to be replaced by softbodied organisms (e.g. holothurians, and softand organic walled foraminifera) with increasing depth (Jamieson et al., in press).2.5. Primary habitat (biotope) facies2.5.1. MudBy far the most common seabed sediment in the deep sea is mud, perhapsrepresenting as much as 80% of the total sediment in the marine environment.Despite its apparently featureless nature, recent research has shown that deep-seamud supports a previously unexpected wealth of biological diversity. It is quitepossible that the majority of animal species on this planet live in deep-sea mud. Ofthe tens of millions of animal species that probably live on Earth today, it is likelythat over 75% of them will be found on the deep-sea floor – although to date onlyaware of a tiny fraction of this diversity has been described.Deep-sea sediments are primarily composed of clays or materials produced by livingorganisms, depending upon the numbers of animals in the overlying waters.Abyssal clay covers most of the deep-ocean floor. It accumulates very slowly (1mmper 1,000 years), and it is mostly made up of clay-sized particles from the continents,carried to the sea by wind and rivers and spread by currents. Materials derived fromthe remains of living organisms accumulate in different thicknesses anddistributions. In very deep waters the sediment blanket may be thousands of metresthick.The study of these thick layers of deep-sea mud is often used to answerquestions about climate change, as these sedimentary layers preserve a uniquerecord of past change.2.5.2. SandThe sandier sediments are home to more abundant populations of megabenthos,such as the white stalked sponges. Other seabed habitats are also indicative ofsignificant bottom water flows that result in the transport of fine sediments givingrise to sandy contourite deposits and barchan sand-dune fields (see Figure 5 above).2.5.3. RockIn areas subjected to significant bottom currents such as the foot of the Faroe Plateau,coarse sediments such as gravels, boulders and bedrock tend to dominate the seabed,which allows the attachment and development of larger sessile megabenthoscommunities predominantly made up of sponges and corals. The often-complexthree-dimensional structure of these attached communities offers additional habitatfor epibenthic and demersal organisms seeking shelter, food or aggregationlandmarks.49

2.5.4. Iceburg ploughmarksIn certain mid-latitutude locations of the NE and NW Atlantic there are areas on theupper part of the continental slope (at about 300-500m) that form bands known as the“iceberg ploughmark zone”. During glacial periods, grounding icebergs gougedfurrows in the seabed turning coarser sediments (cobbles and boulders) aside in anaction similar to that of a plough harrow. The action of bottom currents hassubsequently, at least partially, infilled the furrows with finer sediments. Theseprocesses have acted to produce a complex, spatially heterogeneous, mosaic habitatthat can repeatedly alternate from “piles of boulders” to open fine sediment areas.The coarse sediment (cobble and boulder) area can support diverse biologicalcommunities that exhibit significant local variation in their composition andabundance.2.6. Biological Facies2.6.1. Cold-water coral reefsCold-water coral reefs develop in areas where there is a combination of specificphysical and biological characteristics, including the presence of hard substrates, theoccurrence of specific water masses, and strong currents, bringing a rich food supply(Rogers, 1999; Freiwald et al., 2004). With such requirements, cold-water coral reefstend to occur on the shelf break and continental slope around the world but are alsofound in fjords and on seamounts and banks (Rogers, 1999). Their distribution in theNE Atlantic, which appears to be a global hotspot for cold water corals, is shown inFigures 27 and 28. As with tropical, shallow water reefs, a rich fauna of animals isassociated with coldwater corals reefs. These animals are found on the living coral,on and in the dead coral framework and in the sediments associated with the coralreef. Over 1,300 species have been found associated with reefs formed by the coralLophelia pertusa off the coasts of Europe (Roberts & Gage, 2003). On the seamountssouth of Tasmania, reefs formed by the coral Solenosmilia variabilis are also associatedwith a rich fauna up to one third of which are new species (De Forges et al., 2000).50

Figure 27. The distribution of cold water coral reefs (Lophelia pertusa) in the NE Atlantic.Figure 28. Occurrences of the reef forming scleractinian coral Lophelia pertusa.51

Some groups of animals have a much lower diversity on Lophelia reefs than intropical shallow water reefs including the reef-building corals themselves, molluscsand fishes. The majority of associated organisms are found in deep-sea habitatsoutside of the reef and only a few species appear to only live amongst Lopheliaframeworks and not anywhere else. Deep-water coral reefs show other similaritieswith shallow-water tropical reefs. Many of the processes of reef growth (accretion)and destruction (erosion) are very similar between shallow and deep reefs. Many ofthe same groups of organisms, such as sponges and worms are involved inbioerosion of both shallow and deep-water reefs (Rogers, 2004).Evidence for commensal relationships is sparse for deep-water reefs but thesehabitats are difficult to observe and have only been studied for a short time. Oneexample of such an interspecies relationship has been identified between the reefbuildingcoral Lophelia pertusa and a large, predatory, tube-dwelling polychaeteworm called Eunice norvegicus. These worms build paper-like tubes amongst thebranches of the reef and the corals secrete calcium carbonate that solidifies aroundthe tubes providing protection for the worms (Kaszemeik & Freiwald, 2002; Roberts,2005). The worms in turn are extremely aggressive and will attack predators such assea urchins that approach the living parts of the corals. The worms may also stealfood from the coral polyps (kleptoparasitism). There is even evidence that the wormtubes may act as a substrate for the settlement of coral larvae. These worms arefound associated with Lophelia pertusa wherever it forms reefs in the NE Atlantic.Lophelia pertusa also acts as a nursery area for many juvenile animals. This includesthe juvenile stages of commercially valuable fish species such as redfish (Sebastesspp). Damage to deep-water corals reefs can effectively destroy these nurserygrounds potentially having marked knock-on effects on the surrounding ecosystem.Lophelia has also been reported growing on active oil platforms and on thedecommissioned Brent Spar platform (Bell and Smith, 1999). An inshore reef complexhas recently been mapped in the entrance to the Sea of Hebrides and there are manyrecords of Lophelia on the Rockall Bank. Recently, the North East Atlantic FisheriesCommission prohibited bottom trawling and fishing with static gear from a numberof large areas in the Rockall and Hatton banks (www.neafc.org), with the aim toprotect deep-water corals.The other deep-water area to receive protection (trawling ban) is the Darwin Moundsregion, inhabited by deep-water corals as well as very delicate giant protists(xenophyophores), which can grow to sizes of 20cm or more (Hughes et al., 2003;Masson et al., 2003).2.6.2. ‘Coral garden’The main characteristic of a coral garden is a relatively dense aggregation of coloniesor individuals of one or more coral species. Coral gardens can occur on a wide rangeof soft and hard seabed substrata. For example, soft-bottom coral gardens may bedominated by solitary scleractinians, sea pens or certain types of bamboo corals,whereas hard-bottom coral gardens are often found to be dominated by gorgonians,stylasterids, and/or black corals (ICES 2007).52

The biological diversity of coral garden communities is typically high and oftencontains several species of coral belonging to different taxonomic groups, such asleather corals (Alcyonacea), gorgonians (Gorgonacea), sea pens (Pennatulacea), blackcorals (Antipatharia), hard corals (Scleractinia) and, in some places, stony hydroids(lace or hydrocorals: Stylasteridae). However, reef-forming hard corals (e.g., Lophelia,Madrepora and Solenosmilia), if present, occur only as small or scattered colonies andnot as a dominating habitat component. The habitat can also include relatively largenumbers of sponge species, although they are not a dominant component of thecommunity. Other commonly associated fauna include basket stars(Gorgonocephalus), brittle stars, crinoids, molluscs, crustaceans and deep-water fish(Krieger and Wing 2002). Krieger and Wing (2002) conclude that the gorgonian coralPrimnoa is both habitat and prey for fish and invertebrates and that its removal ordamage may affect the populations of associated species.Densities of coral species in the habitat vary depending on taxa and abioticconditions (e.g., depth, current exposure, substrate). The few scientific investigationsavailable indicate that smaller species (e.g., the gorgonians Acanthogorgia andPrimnoa, and stylasterids) can occur in higher densities, e.g. 50-200 colonies per100m 2 , compared with larger species, such as Paragorgia, which may not reachdensities of 1 or 2 per 100 m 2 . Depending on biogeographic area and depth, coralgardens containing several coral species may in some places reach densities between100 and 700 colonies per 100m 2 . These densities merely indicate the biodiversityrichness potential of coral gardens. In areas where the habitat has been disturbed, byfor example, fishing activities, densities may be significantly reduced.It is not currently possible to determine threshold values for the presence of a coralgarden as knowledge of the in situ growth forms and densities of coral gardens (orabundance of coral by-catch in fishing gear) is very limited, due to technical oroperational restrictions. Visual survey techniques will hopefully add to ourknowledge in the coming years.Non-reef-forming cold-water corals occur in most regions of the North Atlantic, mostcommonly in water with temperatures between 3 and 8°C in the north, but also inmuch warmer water in the south (e.g., around the Azores). Their bathymetricdistribution varies between regions according to different hydrographic conditions,but also locally as an effect of topographic features and substrate composition. Theycan be found as shallow as 30m depth in Norwegian fjords and down to severalthousand meters on open ocean seamounts. The habitat is often subject to strong ormoderate currents, which prevents silt deposition on the hard substrate that mostcoral species need for attachment. The hard substrate may be composed of bedrockor gravel/boulders, the latter often derived from glacial moraine deposition, whilstsoft sandy/clay sediments can also support cold-water corals (mostly seapens andsome gorgonians within the Isididae).2.6.3. Gorgonian fieldsCoral gardens are a heterogeneous type of deep seabed habitat that could be dividedinto two or more habitats. Bamboo coral fields are one candidate, with stands ofKeratoisis ornata or other Isidae corals on soft/sandy deep bottoms. Off Canada53

Acanella arbuscula seems to be a key habitat structuring species (Mortensen et al.,2006). In the Norwegian fjords Andfjorden and Hardangerfjorden, Isidella lofotensishave been observed in restricted areas in relatively high densities and with severalassociated species between the braches. Coral gardens also partly overlap withanother threatened habitat, sea pens and burrowing megafauna, which should bekept separate from this habitat to avoid confusing comparisons.2.6.4. Sponge aggregationsDemosponge aggregations, or ‘osterbund’ as they are more commonly known, havebeen observed at mid-slope depths (c. 500m) north and west of Shetland, coincidingwith iceberg ploughmark terrain (Bett, 2001) in regions where the currents areelevated and resuspension and transport of particles are enhanced (Klitgaard et al.,1995). The morphology of the sponges influences the occurrence and composition ofthe associated fauna, the majority of which use them as a substrate (Klitgaard, 1995;Figure 29). Unlike Demosponges, hexactinellid sponges form aggregations in areas ofopen sediment. The HMS ‘Lightning’ and ‘Porcupine’ research cruises in the late 1800sfirst observed hexactinellid sponge aggregations in the northern Rockall Trough(Thompson, 1873). More recent surveys have found hexactinellids to be a principalcomponent of the megafaunal community at 1,000-1,400m in the SEA7 survey areaNW Scotland (Hughes and Gage, 2004; Davies et al., 2006). They also occur in thePorcupine Seabight (southwest of Ireland) (Rice et al., 1990). Hexactinellid spongeaggregations create a very distinct habitat. Analysis of the abundance and taxonomiccomposition of the macrobenthos suggests the presence of sponge spicule mats at thesediment surface substantially modifies the fauna by increasing the numericalabundance of macrobenthos with increasing spicule abundance (Bett and Rice, 1992).Figure 29. Geodia sp. dominating sponge grounds off the coast of Sørøysund, Finnmark, NorthernNorway (photo courtesy of MAREANO/Institute of Marine Research). The yellow sponge in theforeground (Aplysella sulphurea) is growing over another species, Stryphnus sp.54

The fauna associated with the sponge grounds is rich and has a higher diversitycompared with surrounding sediments. The associated fauna are dominated byepifaunal groups such as encrusting sponges, hydroids, zoanthrians, bryozoans, andascidians (Klitgaard, 1995; Klitgaard and Ten-dal, 2004). Rockfish, especially Sebastesspecies, live in openings and in between sponges. Young redfish (Sebastes spp.) areregularly observed on sponge grounds sometimes seeking shelter inside the cavitiesof large sponges. In samples taken using fishing gear there are often several speciesof groundfish represented, such as cod and ling, along with the sponges in the catch(Figure 30). The general co-occurrence of structure-forming invertebrates withgroundfish has been described by Hixon et al. (1991) for three deep rocky banks offthe coast of Oregon. In their study, species distribution and abundance varied bylocation based on differences in habitat availability between locations; for ex-ample,juvenile rockfish (Sebastes spp.) were most abundant in rock ridge and boulderhabitat where sponges and the basket stars (Gorgonocephalus eucnemis) were the mostcommon megafaunal invertebrates.Figure 30. A large catch of Geodia sponges “ostur” from the continental slope off Norway at about 350m depth. Photo courtesy of H.T. Rapp.2.6.5. Xenophyophora fieldsXenophyophores are marine protozoans, giant single-celled organisms foundthroughout the world’s oceans, but in their greatest numbers on the abyssal plains ofthe deep ocean. Xenophyophores are delicate organisms with a variable appearance.Most xenophyophora are epifaunal and bury themselves up to 6cm deep into thesediment. Xenophyophores may be an important part of the benthic ecosystem bytheir bioturbation of the sediments and by providing a habitat for other organisms.55

2.6.6. Actiniaria fieldsLate juvenile redfish Sebastes fasciatus (11–20 cm total length), have been reportedbeing associated with dense patches of cerianthid anemones Cerianthus borealis in theGulf of Maine (Fuller et al., 2008). The small fish may use the cerianthid habitats onan encounter basis or they may serve as a protective corridor for moving betweenboulder sites (Auster et al., 2003). Similar associations have been observed at greaterdepths during the MAREANO habitat mapping programme in 2008.2.7. BiodiversityFor a detailed review of diversity metrics and the definition of biodiversity see ICES(2009), but the Convention on Biological Diversity 4 defines biodiversity as thevariability among living organisms (e.g. number of different species). In simpleterms, biodiversity is the number of species measured in a given area. The number ofspecies is also referred to as species richness. Biodiversity can be much morecomprehensive than just the number of species however; it can include geneticvariation within species, the variety of species in an area, and the number of habitatswithin an area. Species evenness, or how well distributed abundance or biomassproportion are among species within a community, is also an important factor inassessing biodiversity. For example, when evenness is close to zero, it indicates thatmost of the individuals belong to one or a few species/categories which is lessdiverse than when the evenness is close to one, indicating that eachspecies/categories consists of the same number of individuals.However, it is evident based upon the limited review above, that species richnessand productivity in the deep-sea exhibit very different spatial and temporalcharacteristics compared with the relatively shallow shelf sea systems. What isnoteworthy is that within the deep sea, hotspots of higher biodiversity occur whichalso support higher rates of ecosystem processes such as productivity (Danovaro etal., 2008). For example, higher benthic diversity may increase bioturbation, (with aconsequent increase of benthic fluxes and redistribution of food) and promote higherrates of detritus processing, digestion and reworking (therefore increasing organicmatter remineralisation). This diversity may be related in part to the need for somedeep-sea organisms to maximize what little organic carbon resources are available tothem. Therefore, over time a functionally efficient and diverse benthic communityevolves which actually enhances productivity. This is generally not the case inshallow shelf systems which by comparison are not energy limited and tend to behighly productive, usually dominated by relatively few species in terms of bothbiomass and numerical abundance. There is therefore an interesting relationship inthe deep sea between productivity and diversity which should be further explored.Given this, it is clear that any anthropogenic effects which may negatively impactbiodiversity in the deep sea are likely to have a negative impact on ecosystemfunction, possibly much more so than for shelf sea ecosystems. With this in mind,some further consideration of deep-sea ecosystem function and structure is providedbelow.4 Website address: www.cbd.int56

The most species-rich environments of the deep sea are associated with the surfaceand upper layers of the sediments that cover most of the deep-sea bed of the abyssalplain. The sediments are inhabited by species of animals belonging to a range ofphyla, varying in size from single-celled protists to large sea cucumbers and urchins.The most diverse groups are the small animals including the tiny nematode worms,the segmented polychaete worms, molluscs, including bivalves and gastropods andperacarid crustaceans (Gage & Tyler, 1991). However, this does not take into accountthe density, frequency and spatial distribution of individual species found in a givenarea. When such factors are taken into account (see ICES, 2009) a widely observedgradient in deep sea diversity is revealed. This is best highlighted by using data fromten years of standardized fish community surveys carried out by Fisheries ResearchServices (FRS) using the FRV Scotia. Diversity of the bentho-pelagic and demersalfish assemblage recovered using the Shannon Diversity Index (H’), as well as adescriptor of community relatedness, taxonomic diversity (Δ*) are shown in Figures31 and 32, below.It has been suggested that the peak in the depth-related trend in taxonomic diversityaround 500m relates to the overlap between shelf and slope ichthyofaunacommunities. Taxonomic diversity then decreases with depth until the abyssalspecies begins to appear in catches around 1,800m. Shannon diversity index valuesvary without any real trend with depth.Figure 31. Fish community Shannon diversity with depth off NW Scotland (NE Atlantic, fromICES, 2009).57

Figure 32. Fish community average taxonomic diversity with depth off NW Scotland (NE Atlantic,from ICES, 2009).It has been suggested that the peak in the depth-related trend in taxonomic diversityaround 500m relates to the overlap between shelf and slope ichthyofaunacommunities. Taxonomic diversity then decreases with depth until the abyssalspecies begins to appear in catches around 1,800m. Shannon diversity index valuesvary without any real trend with depth.2.8. Ecosystem functioningAs already mentioned, ecosystem function involves the study and quantification ofbiological processes, which can be summarised as production, consumption andtransfer of organic matter to higher trophic levels, decomposition of organic matterand nutrient regeneration (Naeem et al., 1994; Danovaro et al., 2008). Terrestrial andshallow-water ecologists have recognised that altering the composition of biologicalcommunities has a strong potential to alter ecosystem functioning; biodiversity lossmay impair the functioning and sustainability of ecosystems (Solan et al., 2004;Hooper et al., 2005). A recent study of the relationship between ecosystemfunctioning and biodiversity in the deep sea has shown that a higher biodiversitysupports increased efficiency and higher rates of ecosystem processes (Danovaro etal., 2008). It is argued that because the deep sea plays a key role in ecological andbiogeochemical processes at a global scale, conservation of deep-water biodiversity isnecessary for the sustainable functioning of the World’s oceans.58

2.8.1. Ecosystem structureEcosystem structure largely relates to the physical and spatial aspects of anecosystem, for example, species population density, species diversity, physicalstructure and biomass, and by abiotic factors, for example, sediment structure andprocesses such as currents and the thickness of the benthic boundary layer. If ahuman activity has an impact on the structure of an ecosystem (for example,demersal trawling impacting deep-water coral reef habitats), this in turn may affectthe functioning of that ecosystem, especially if there are no other species present inthe community or ecosystem that are able to provide the same function.2.9. Relationship between biodiversity, environmental conditions and fishDeep-water organisms experience far more stability in terms of water temperature,salinity and currents than do their shallow-water counterparts and may not tolerateeven small changes in these environmental parameters. Individuals, populations andcommunities will be affected by local and regional changes in upper ocean primaryproductivity, organic-carbon flux and thermohaline circulation driven by climatechange (Glover and Smith, 2003).It has been shown that accumulations of large suspension feeders show a tendency toaggregate near the shelf break in regions with a critical slope where the bottom slopematches the slope of propagation of internal tidal waves (Klitgaard et al. 1997).Klitgaard et al. (1997) extended the theories of Frederiksen et al. (1992) for thedistribution of Lophelia pertusa to explain the distribution of ostur. The causal link isthought to be an increase in the supply of food related to the incidence of internalwaves which results in re-suspension and transport of organic material. However,Rice et al. (1990) noted that P. carpenteri is not found within the areas of enhancedcurrent produced by the critical slope angle but is associated with them, the spongebeing particularly abundant along their lower boundaries and downstream of theseenhanced current regions. Again the increased food supply was cited as a possiblereason, but clearly the mechanisms operating in this case are possibly different.Furthermore, hydrographic conditions with elevated current speeds and high foodsupply, together with availability of hard bottom substrates are favourable for sessilesuspension feeders, including cold-water corals. Corals (Antipatharia, Gorgonacea,Pennatulacea, Scleractinia, Stylasteriidae and Zooantharia) may occur in greatabundance, especially along the edges and summits of topographic seabed structuressuch as banks or seamounts. It is therefore not surprising that deep-sea fisheriesconcentrate on such productive areas, such as seamounts and canyon walls, wherelevels of biodiversity and endemism in the benthic fauna can be high (De Forges etal., 2000) although the degree of endemism can be low on north Atlantic seamounts(Hall-Spencer et al., 2007).In a study in the Bay of Biscay by Mendes (2003), significant associations weredescribed between different deep sea fish species and the environmental conditions.Specifically, four different dive transects were analysed with respect toenvironmental characteristics from which a total of 19 fish groups were ordered bymeans of canonical correspondence analysis (see Figure 33 below). Their results59

evealed that macrofauna were dominated by a diversity of suspension feeders,indicating different gradients of bottom hydrology, particularly vertical andhorizontal current flow conditions.Physical, geological and biological factorsrevealed different strategies of habitat selection in fish. The most represented species,the orange roughy showed a clear association with complex substrates, includingcoral reefs. Others, such as roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) and thecut-throat eel (Synaphobranchus kaupi), showed higher flexibility of adjustment tochanging environments.Figure 33. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination diagram of all the dives withfish species (blue circles) and environment variables (arrows); first axis is horizontal, second axisvertical. The fish species are: Cor=Coryphaenoides rupestris, Ang=Anguilliformes, Lep=Lepidioneques, Syn=Synaphobranchus kaupi, Chi=Chimaerids, Mac=Macrouridae, Sha=Sharks,Hoa=Hoplostethus atlanticus, Mor=Moridae, M=Mesopelagic fishes, Mm=Mora moro,Gal=Galeus melastomus, Mol=Molva molva, Hel=Helicolenus dactylopterus. The environmentalvariables are: ACT=Actinians, Temp=Temperature, PEN=Pennatularians, Depth=Depth,AST=Asteroidea, SPO=Sponges, Cur=Current, Rip=Ripple marks, Slo=Slope, Pac=Packing,HYD=Hydrozoans, CRI=Crinoids, Bot=Bottom texture, Sub=Substrate, DES=Desert,ANT=Antipatharians, GOR=Gorgonians, Cur=Current, ECH= Echinoids, BRY=Bryozoans,SEA=Sea cucumber, SCL= Scleractinians.2.10. Indicators for ecosystem managementThe abundance of ecosystem indicators under consideration has increasedsubstantially over the last decade (see contributions in Cury and Christensen 2005)and, along with habitat classification schemes, the development of indicators ofenvironmental status are an integral part in delivering an ecosystem approach tomanagement (Rogers and Greenaway, 2005).60

In general, an indicator can be defined as a parameter or value derived from ameasure which provides information about the state of an environment (OECD,1993), in this case, specifically identified habitat and biological facies. Indicators havetwo major functions: (i) they reduce the number of measurements and parametersnormally required to give a precise characterisation of the environment – becausesomething is already known about the properties of the habitat being monitored andassessed. However, too few or even a single indicator may be insufficient to provideall the necessary relevant information; and (ii) they simplify the communicationprocess by which survey results are provided by the user.Therefore, the selection of indicators has to be undertaken with a great deal of careand attention, particularly in understanding the functional/structural dependencies,since there is a risk that a vital piece of information may be missing from theindicator. To overcome this risk, in part, a more integrated habitat-based approach isbeing now favoured, that is a shift away from the specific conservation of a particularspecies to one of protecting the habitat which the species depends. Accordingly, theOSPAR Commission in 2005 has followed this approach through the recognition of“sponge aggregations” as habitats on their list of threatened and declining species(Table 2).Table 2. Possible indicators of deep sea habitat status based upon determination of overall habitat andbiological facies extent and density – such as would apply to “sponge aggregations” as recognised byOSPAR.Pressure (Impact)Fishing - demersal trawling(habitat structure changes -abrasion; removal of targetspecies)Possible Indicators– Biological facies extent and density (e.g., sponge aggregations,cold water coral reefs, coral gardens, etc.)– Mega (primary) habitat extent and biology (e.g., seamounts, reefs,slopes, etc.)– Evidence of trawl scars and impacts (extent and density)Whilst these indicators provide an estimate of the status and trends in important &vulnerable benthic habitats, there is also a need to consider the status and trends ofmany other components of the ecosystem, including the human activities themselves.From a fisheries perspective, a group was set up in 2005 called ‘IndiSeas’ under theauspices of the EUR-OCEANS European Network of Excellence (www.euroceans.eu).It aims were to evaluate the effects of fisheries on marine ecosystems byusing a panel of ecological indicators of states and trends, and to facilitate effectivecommunication of these effects, largely by using work already achieved by theSCOR/IOC Working Group 119 on “Quantitative Ecosystem Indicators”, andspecifically on the results of Rice and Rochet (2005) who outline some specificpractical criteria for the selection of ecosystem indicators which were adopted by theSCOR-IOC Working Group, namely:• ecological significance (i.e. are the underlying processes essential to theunderstanding of the functioning and the structure of marine and aquaticecosystems);61

• measurability: availability of the data required for calculating the indicators;• sensitivity to fishing pressure; and• awareness of the general publicThe last of these criteria was of particular importance to the aims of the ‘IndiSeas’WG, that is the awareness of the general public concerning the meaning (whatinformation is communicated) of each indicator. For example, among potential sizebasedindicators, preference was given mean length rather than the slope of the sizespectrum since this would be more difficult to communicate to the general public. Inaddition to these practical selection criteria, the indicators were selected to addressfour specific management objectives: Conservation of Biodiversity (CB), ecosystemStability and Resistance to perturbations (SR), Ecosystem structure and Functioning(EF) and Resource Potential (RP).Several categories of ecological indicators were distinguished (Cury and Christensen2005): namely; (i) size-based, (ii) species-based, and (ii). trophodynamic indicators.The eight indicators outlined in Table 3 (described below) were selected based on theabove criteria, and are proposed as a minimum set of indicators for diagnosing thestatus of an ecosystem in relation to fisheries pressure. Six of the indicators wereused to measure the state (S) of the ecosystem and six were used to measure trends(T) over time. Data for the indicators are derived primarily from fisheriesindependent surveys and commercial fisheries data, with auxiliary informationwhere indicated. In addition to the full indicator name, a shorter “headline label”was attributed to each of the indicators (Table 3) to make them more readilycomprehensible. Furthermore, the indicators are all formulated positively so that alow value of an indicator means a high impact of fishing and a high value a lowimpact of fishing.62

Table 3. List of indicators from the ‘IndiSeas’ WG for assessing the status of marine ecosystems in relation to fisheries pressure.IndicatorsHeadline labelCalculation, Notations,Units(S)tate,(T)rendExpectedTrendManagementObjectivesManagement DirectionTotal biomass ofsurveyed speciesBiomass B (tons) T D RP Reduction of overall fishing effort and quotas1/(landings /biomass)inverse fishingpressureB/Y retained species T D RP Reduction of overall fishing effort and quotasMean length of fish inthe communityfish size S,T D EFReduction of overall fishing effort and fishing effort on largefish speciesTL landings trophic level S,T D EF Decrease fishing effort on predator fish speciesProportion of underand moderatelyexploited stocks% sustainablestocksnumber (under+moderately exploitedspecies)/total no. of stocks consideredS D CBDecrease fishing effort on overexploited species. Diversifyresource compositionProportion ofpredatory fish% predatorsprop predatory fish= B predatoryfish/B surveyedS,T D CB Decrease fishing effort on predator fish speciesMean life span life span S,T D SR Decrease fishing effort on long-living species1/Coefficient ofvariation of totalbiomassbiomass stabilitymean(total B for the last 10 years)/sd(total B for the last 10 years)S D SR63

Total biomass of surveyed species is a conservative property of an ecosystem; asspecies are fished and their biomass reduced, other species increase in abundanceand “replace” these species in the foodweb. With the removal of top predators lowertrophic levels can be expected to increase. Thus changes in total biomass can reflectchanges in ecosystem productivity.1/(landings /biomass) measures the inverse level of exploitation or total fishingpressure on the ecosystem. This indicator varies in the same direction as the otherindicators in the selected suite, as it decreases when fishing pressure increases. Adecrease is considered negative and is a measure of “resource potential”.Mean length of fish in the community is an indicator of the impact of fishing on anecosystem, that is, the reduction of mean length of fish in the community (Shin et al.2005). From a single species perspective, the removal of larger fish, which are morefecund and produce more viable eggs than smaller fish (Longhurst 1999),compromises productivity. From an ecosystem perspective, the removal of largerspecies changes the size structure of the community and potentially ecosystemfunctioning. “Fish size” is thus a measure of ecosystem structure and functioningand is used to measure state and trend.Trophic level of landings measures the average trophic level of species exploited bythe fishery, and is expected to decrease in response to fishing, since fisheries tend totarget higher trophic level species (Pauly et al. 1998). A decrease in trophic level oflandings and total catch indicates “fishing down the food web” (Pauly et al. 1998),and a change in the structure of the community and potentially ecosystemfunctioning. “Trophic level” is a measure of ecosystem structure and functioning andis used to measure state and trend. Trophic level of individual species is eitherestimated through modelling, or taken from global database such as Fishbase.Proportion of predatory fish is a measure of the diversity of fish in the community.Predatory fish are all surveyed fish species that are piscivorous, or feeds oninvertebrates that are larger than 2 cm. “% predators” is a measure of conservation ofbiodiversity and is used to measure state and trend.Proportion of under and moderately exploited stocks represents the success (or not)of fisheries management. Ideally, in a precautionary world, all stocks should bemoderately exploited to ensure sustained biodiversity and sustainable ecosystems.“% of sustainable stocks” is a measure of conservation of biodiversity. The FAOclassification of stocks as underexploited, moderately exploited, fully exploited etc(http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y5852e/Y5852E10.htm#tbl) was used to define thesecategories for the stocks in each ecosystem under consideration in the current timeperiod. Thus this indicator is used to compare the state of ecosystems.Mean life span is a proxy for mean turnover rate of species and communities, and ismeant to reflect the buffering capacity of a system. The life span or longevity is afixed parameter per species, and therefore the mean life span of a community willreflect the relative abundances of species with differential turnover rates. Fishing64

affects the longevity of a given species (direct effect of fishing and genotypeselection), but the purpose here is to track changes in species composition (sameprinciple as for mean TL of catch). “Life span” is thus a measure of ecosystemstability and resistance to perturbations and is used to measure state and trend.1/Coefficient of variation of total biomass measures the stability of the ecosystem,and is measured as the coefficient of variation (CV) over the last 10 years. As with“fishing pressure”, it is expressed as an inverse to make it conform with thedirectionality of the other indicators. Thus a low 1/CV indicates low “biomassstability”, low ecosystem Stability and Resistance to perturbations. Since thisindicator is measured over a 10 year time period, it is only used to measure state.2.11. Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries ManagementIn 2000, the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM) expressedthe view that most deep-water species in the ICES area are, at present, harvestedoutside safe biological limits as embodied in the precautionary approach (Anon.,2000). They indicate that the level of exploitable biomass in 1998 of orange roughy,black scabbardfish, roundnose grenadier, deep-water sharks (principally the leafscalegulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) and the Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnuscoelolepis) and blue ling (Molva dypterygia) were below the precautionary referencelevel and, for some species, they were close to or possibly below the precautionarylimit point, an observation also supported by Basson et al (2001). This advice came atthe same time as increasing global political commitments to adopt ecosystem-basedfisheries management (EBFM), to ensure that the planning, development, andmanagement of fisheries will meet social and economic needs, without jeopardizingthe options for future generations to benefit from the full range of goods and servicesprovided by marine ecosystems (FAO, 2003).Specifically, the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity defined Ecosystem-BasedManagement (EBM) as: “…an approach based upon the application of appropriatemethodologies focused on levels of biological organization which encompass the essentialprocesses and interactions among organisms including humans and their environment”.Similarly, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy noted that “U.S. ocean and coastalresources should be managed to reflect the relationships among all ecosystem components,including human and nonhuman species and the environments in which they live. Applyingthis principle will require defining relevant geographic management areas based onecosystem, rather than political, boundaries”. Other definitions of EBM embody therecurring themes of the need to understand and account for interactions among theparts of the system, the recognition that humans are an integral part of theecosystem, and that EBM is fundamentally a place-based management framework.In 2008, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) established an expertscientific working group with the explicit aim of identifying the methods andpractices to best implement the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management(EAFM). It was recognised by WGEAFM that the implementation of the ecosystem65

approach to fisheries management requires ecosystem assessments that areessentially the counterparts of stock assessments currently used in support ofconventional single-species stock assessments, but with the ‘key’ difference that theyconsider all relevant components including multiple fish stocks. The EAFM is alsoincluded as a concept in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as set out in Article 2(1)of the CFP reform in 2002. 5 . In this case it is clear that the CFP is not, itself, based onthe EAFM, but rather that it is aiming at its progressive implementation. A clearproblem for the CFP in this regard is that its decisions (e.g. on maximum sustainableyield (MSY) etc.) tend to be based on individual stocks rather than multiple speciesharvesting which would be necessary if the ecosystem as a whole were to beconsidered.For this purpose, Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEA) have been defined as: ‘asynthesis and quantitative analysis of information on relevant physical, chemical, ecological,and human processes in relation to specified ecosystem management objectives’ (Levin et. al.2009). IEAs are designed to meet multiple objectives and they can be considered as atool, a product, and a process. They are a tool that uses integrated analysis andecosystem modeling for synthesis. IEAs are product for managers and stakeholderswho rely on scientific support for policy and decision making. Finally, IEAs are aprocess including the identification of management objectives by managers andstakeholders, the development of quantitative assessments, and the evaluation ofalternative management strategies.The steps involved in the development of an IEA are depicted in Figure 34, whichbegins by scoping and identifying the goals and objectives, but EBFM requiresmanagers to take account of how fisheries impact a wide range of marine ecosystemcomponents when setting their ecosystem objectives (Heslenfeld and Enserink, 2008).To achieve such objectives, the mechanistic relationships between the state of thesecomponents or attributes and one or more manageable anthropogenic activitiesneeds to be understood (Jennings, 2005). Therefore, for scientists charged with theprovision of advice in support of EAFM, determining the theoretical, mechanisticlinks between state and so-called pressure indicators often poses the greatestchallenge (Greenstreet, 2008). To implement an EAFM successfully, therefore, it isnot only necessary to have a suite of indicators that accurately portray the “state” ofvarious ecosystem components, but it is also critical to have indicators that describechanges in the level of different manageable human activities. Only by adequatelycovering both aspects will the mechanistic links between “cause” and “effect” be wellenough understood to provide the advice required (Daan, 2005).In order to provide some transparency in quantifying the many potential and actualinteractions between ecosystem components interaction tables which define therelationships between human activities (pressures) and ecosystem state (statechanges) have been developed (see indicators special edition of ICES Journal ofMarine Science 2008). The distinction between using such tables to identify5 Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation offisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.66

significant interactions between human activities (pressures) and ecosystemcomponents is important and valuable particularly in relation to identifyingappropriate levels of monitoring, but this is not widely appreciated. Although theapproach is useful and significant, it is only one piece of the framework. Indeed, theapproach has some limitations in that not all relevant and significant interactionsbetween components are described. A more realistic, and arguably ecosystemrelevant, approach would be to consider and examine all the interactions betweenrelevant components in the form of a triangular matrix (Figure 35). Such a matrixallows the components which contribute to both thematic and sectoral assessments tovisualised at the same time.Figure 34. (from Levin et al. 2009). A Five-Step Process of Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. An IEAbegins with a scoping process to identify key management objectives and constraints, identifiesappropriate indicators and management thresholds, determines the risk that indicators will fall belowmanagement targets, and combines risk assessments of individual indicators into a determination ofoverall ecosystem status. The potential of different management strategies to alter ecosystem status isevaluated, and then management actions are implemented and their effectiveness monitored. The cycleis repeated in an adaptive manner.67

Figure 35. Example of a matrix approach used to describe the relationship or degree of interconnectionbetween human pressures (sectoral activities such as fishing) and ecosystem components (such asbenthos). The specific interactions between all sectors and ecosystem components can be readilyobserved. For example, the specific interactions (as impacts) between dredging and all othercomponents of the system can be documented (highlighted in red), this would be an example of asectoral or sector specific assessment. In addition the interactions between plankton and all otherecosystem components, including sectoral pressures, can be evaluated and this would be described as athematic assessment.In considering the development of an EAFM in the NAFO region WGEAFMhighlighted the following pragmatic approach being developed in the NortheastUnited States as showing some promise , namely: (1) the identification and definitionof ecological subunits on the shelf, based on an analysis of physiographic,oceanographic and ecological variables, (2) the implementation of a spectrum ofdifferent multispecies and full ecosystem models which can be used to assessecosystem temporal state and function, particularly of higher order variables such asprimary productivity and total biomass, and (3) an evaluation of the managementoptions using existing management tools for specifying ecosystem exploitation rates.Furthermore, there is an explicit and pragmatic relationship between the applicationof an IEA and the steps for implementing EAFM for any given spatially definedmarine ecosystems subject to fisheries management (Figure 36).68

Define Appropriate SpatialManagement Units(based upon, ecological, social, economicand political dimensions)Define Principal EcosystemState and FunctionalProcesses(to predict temporal dynamics of suchparameters as total productivity and biomass,trophic structure etc.)Management Tools toExamine Exploitation Tradeoffs(to utilise existing management tools such asfishery quotas, harvest control rules, etc.)Figure 36. The relationship between the 3 practical steps in moving towards the implementation of anecosystem approach to fisheries management (blue boxes) and the steps required to deliver effectiveholistic integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA) shown in the red box.2.11.1. Defining Appropriate Spatial Management UnitsThe specification of spatial management units is a critical pre-requisite to thedevelopment of effective ecosystem approaches to management in both the shelf anddeep sea ecosystems. In general defining spatial management units requiresmapping areas of the seabed in order to define the most biologically productive,diverse and human exploitable (resourceful) habitats. The spatial mapping andassessment of seabed is well established for the relatively shallow and well mixedshelf marine ecosystems, but the approaches and assessment methods deployed inthe relatively shallow (

The type, area, and number of areas which should be protected in the deep sea is acomplicated task influenced by many factors, but in general the degree of protectiona reserve can offer to a species can be assessed by its dispersal capability and howrestricted the species is to a particular site (Kenchington, 1990). Species with lowdispersal that are restricted to small areas are likely to be well protected by smallreserves. However, highly mobile species may require extremely large reserves toprovide adequate protection. Some estimates suggest that 50–90% of the total utilisedhabitat is needed (Clark, 1996; Lauck et al., 1998). The initial theory behind designingmarine protected areas was developed for terrestrial systems and adapted for thecoastal realm (Soule´ and Terborgh, 1999; Carr et al., 2003).In addition, it has been suggested that the impacts of fishing on the lower parts ofmany shelf ecosystems could be having an indirect, but significant, impact on deepwaterecosystems by virtue of many deep-water fish species having large vertical(depth) distributions (Bailey et al., 2009). As many of the fishes whose abundanceshave declined in deep-water shelf areas also include the apex predators in deepwaterhabitats, ecosystem-level changes are possible, but the relative importance ofpredator pressure in structuring deep-water communities remains unclear (Bailey etal. 2006). The possible vulnerability of deep-water communities to impacts, which areoccurring in shallower waters, implies that proposals for future deep-water marineprotected areas are likely to be of limited effectiveness unless fleet fishing effort iscontrolled in the surrounding (including shallower) areas.2.11.2. Defining Ecosystem State and Functional ProcessesA wide range of analytical methods should be employed (including a range of modeltypes) to define and understand the principal dynamic properties of the spatiallydefined ecosystem. In terms of the models available these can be classified inincreasing order of complexity as:• Fishery Production Potential Models• Aggregate-Species Surplus Production Models• Multispecies Production Models (e.g. Lotka-Volterra models)• Size Spectrum Models• Ecosystem Network Models (e.g. EcoPath)• Age/Size Structured Multispecies Models (e.g. Multispecies Virtual PopulationAnalysis)• Dynamic Ecosystem Models (e.g ATLANTIS)The models differ not only in complexity but along a continuum from holism toreductionism (with the models classified as embodying higher levels of complexityalso incorporating higher levels of structural detail. The choice of appropriate modelsdepends on the specific objectives of the analysis and factors such as the interplaybetween model complexity and parameter uncertainty. In the NAFO region attentionis being focused in the use of the first two of these approaches to estimate theproductive capacity (or carrying capacity) of the system for a given set ofenvironmental/climate conditions. The fishery production potential models trace the70

flow of energy from primary producers through to the harvested components of thesystem.The aggregate-species surplus production approach was actually first used inNAFO’s predecessor institution, ICNAF, to generate estimates of system-widemaximum sustainable yield for the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf. This earlyanalysis showed that the estimate of system-wide MSY was approximately 30%lower than the result obtained if estimates from individual species stock assessmentswere simply summed. It was inferred that interactions among species meant that allspecies could not simultaneously be at biomass levels resulting in MSY (Bmsy). Thesemodels also provide estimates of the level of fishing mortality that results in MSY(Fmsy) and these estimates are also lower for the aggregate species model than formost of the individual species Fmsy levels.The basic conclusion emerging from initial results suggests that there are importantconstraints on available energy must be considered in setting harvest policies at anecosystem level and in the deep seas estimating this accurately over space and timewill be a challenge. Further consideration of food requirements for threatened speciesand apex predators under rebuilding strategies highlights the potential constraintson available energy to meet overall ecosystem management objectives. Thisperspective necessarily involves direct consideration of possible trade-offs amongharvested species if all cannot simultaneously be at Bmsy levels. Furthermore, thetransfer and recycling of energy and nutrients between the relatively shallow shelfsea areas and the deep sea is likely to play an important role in determining theoverall levels of deep sea productivity in any given region. It is likely that the mixingof predominantly shelf living fish species with deep sea species will be at its greatestwhere the flux of energy from the shelf to the deep sea is also high. In addition,mixing may be high in areas where the production of deep sea chemosyntheticsources of energy is also high. These assertions require further investigation, butdetermination of such processes is likely to be of fundamental importance inestablishing meaningful definitions of what constitutes a deep sea fishery from amanagement perspective.3. Parasites, pathogens and contaminants of deep-water fish with a focuson their role in population health and structure3.1. IntroductionThis review provides a summary of the parasites, pathogens and contaminant relatedimpacts on deep-water fish normally found at depths greater than about 200m. Thereis a clear focus on worldwide commercial species but has an emphasis on recordsand reports from the NE Atlantic. In particular, the focus of species followingdiscussion were as follows: deep-water squalid sharks (e.g. Centrophorus squamosusand Centroscymnus coelolepis), black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo), roundnosegrenadier, orange roughy, blue ling, tusk, greater silver smelt (Argentina silus),Greenland halibut, oceanic redfish, alfonsino and red blackspot seabream (Pagellus71

ogaraveo). However, it should be noted that in some cases no disease or contaminantdata exists for these species. Where appropriate, bathymetric data was based ondefinitions provided by (Bray et al., 1999; Bray, 2004).Studies of diseases and parasites of deep-water fish are in their infancy and recordsare scarce compared with economically and ecologically important species fromshallower waters. Furthermore, most studies have been carried out in the northernhemisphere. Reports of parasites, pathogens and diseases of deep-water fishgenerally consist of faunistic studies; in some cases these can be limited due to a lackof taxonomic expertise in selected parasite groups. Klimpel et al. (2001) suggestedthat studies on deep-water fish parasites (and pathogens) were limited because oflogistic constraints, limited numbers of fish being caught and the conflictingrequirements of different disciplines.It has been estimated that deep-water fish have an average of 1.5 metazoan parasitesper fish species. In this context, metazoans comprise Myxozoa, Monogenea, Digenea,Cestoda, Acanthocephala, Nematoda, Hirudinea and Copepoda. Inclusion ofprotistans, bacteria and viruses will clearly increase this number greatly. Witharound 13,500 fish species occurring at depths greater than 200m, it can be surmisedthat somewhere between 20,000 to 43,000 different parasite species may occur ondeep water fish; to date only around 600 deep-water parasites have been identified orrecorded (Klimpel et al., 2001). Almost half of the parasites reported from deep-waterfish are Digenea, with copepods, cestodes and Monogenea making up the other half;the remaining small number of species are represented by the other major parasiticgroups.As a general rule, parasite diversity decreases with depth partly due to decreases inbiomass in the pelagic zone, leading to reduced prey availability and thus limitingtransmission for those parasite requiring intermediate hosts. Marcogliese (2002)suggested that parasite species richness and intensity of infection are highest inepipelagic and benthic zones, decrease in vertically migrating mesopelagics and arelowest in deep non-migratory mesopelagic and bathypelagic fish. Furthermore,mesopelagic and bathypelagic fish have impoverished parasite communitiescompared with benthic fish, which possess a more diverse helminth parasite fauna3.2. Taxonomic reviewThis includes, where possible, an overview of the major types, lifecycle patterns,general distribution and any pathology recorded directly with those in deep-waterhosts.3.2.1. VirusesThere is substantial literature on the viral fauna of deep-water sediments but thereare no reports of viral pathogens in deep-water fish species. These will certainlyoccur and are likely to be involved in disease occurrence. It is highly likely thatlymphocystis disease, caused by an iridovirus will affect deep-water species but the72

disease is usually superficial and has not been associated with mortalities. This is anarea of scientific interest but without significant sampling effort viral infections areunlikely to be detected bearing in mind the requirement for fresh material, ideallynot frozen.3.2.2. BacteriaAs for viruses, bacterial pathogens have not been reported from deep-water fish.3.2.3. Fungi (including Microsporidia)Microsporean parasites are extremely common in fish and are agents of significantdisease conditions in freshwater and marine environments. Most fish species aresusceptible to these pathogens (which are now classified amongst the fungalkingdom). There are however, only few records of microsporean parasites in deepwaterfish.Lom et al. (1980) recorded the presence of Pleistophora duodecimae in the musculatureof the rat-tail Coryphaenoides nasutus and Glugea capverdensis in the intestine,mesentery and ovary of the lantern fish (Myctophum punctatum) from the AtlanticOcean. The former induced enlarged muscle fibres within which the parasitedevelopmental stages and spores had replaced the muscle. Only one fish out of 15examined harboured the infection. This suggests that this parasite may be overdispersed in the population with a few individuals expressing significant disease.The infection with G. punctatum in lantern fish was detected in a single specimen.Typical of infections with this genus the infection presented as numerous round oroval xenomas (parasite cysts) up to 2mm in diameter in the intestinal wall.Presumptive secondary xenomas were found in the ovary. Given the large number ofmicrosporean parasites known and the wide range of fish species affected it issurprising that additional microsporean species have not been recorded from deepwaterfish species.True fungal pathogens possessing hyphae have not been recorded from deep-waterfishes. However, the well known fungal-like pathogen Ichthyophonus(Mesomycetozoea) has been recorded in the liver of Scopelogadus beanii (Gunther)from the Atlantic Ocean (Gartner & Zwerner, 1988). Diseased fish revealed cysts upto 20mm in diameter in 4 out of 400 fish examined. Histologically, the infectionresulted in significant necrosis of the liver. It was noted that fish from the westernAtlantic and the slope waters of the mid-Atlantic Bight showed a higher prevalenceof infection than in fish from other areas. Based on the observed pathogenicity of theinfection the authors suggested that the infection could result in loss ofreproductively competent individuals. Ichthyophonus can occur at very highprevalence in other fish species and the infection in herring stocks from the NorthSea was associated with population declines (Mellergaard & Spanggaard, 1997). It ishighly likely that Ichthyophonus is a pathogen of other deep-water fish and effortsshould be taken to investigate for this.73

3.2.4. ProtistaProtistan parasites appear to be under represented in deep-water fish species takinginto account their abundance and diversity in marine species from coastal shelfwaters and in freshwater environments. This is almost certainly not to be the caseand is a reflection of the logistic difficulties in obtaining material and funding tosupport the research. There are a few reports of protistan taxa that occur in deepwaterspecies. Coccidiosis caused by Eimeria jadvigae has been reported inCoryphaenoides holotrachys from waters off the Falkland Islands in the southernAtlantic Ocean (Grabda, 1983). Infections in the swim bladder were detected in 80-100% of the populations examined. Pathological changes were noted in the swimbladders and comprised of extensive thickening and loss of structure to the organ.Parasite stages were present throughout the tissues with spores being present at alllevels. The organ was effectively rendered non-functional by the infection. Thisexample demonstrates the capacity for these organisms to induce significantpathological changes in their hosts, sufficient to compromise normal biologicalfunctioning. Surprisingly, literature searches did not reveal any reports on otherprotistan taxa affecting bathymetric fish species. Further investigations are needed toascertain the diversity and prevalence of these infections in deep-water fish species.3.2.5. MyxozoaParasites of the phylum Myxozoa are common in fish and are the causative agents ofseveral economically important diseases in aquaculture systems and wild stocks.They are highly specialised metazoans with complex life cycles, characterised by theformation of multicellular spores with polar capsules and extrudible polar filaments.Increasingly, there is evidence that these and other myxozoan pathogens can have asignificant effect on wild fish populations. In marine fish, myxosporeans (and otherparasites) have been proposed as useful tags for stock discrimination on the basisthat these provide useful indications on ecologically discrete populations rather thanpurely genetic stocks.In contrast to the protistan and prokaryotic organisms considered in the precedingsection, there are a number of studies which have examined deep-water fish for thepresence of myxosporeans, although few in the North Atlantic. However, incombination they account for only 17% of parasite records (Bray, 19**). Severalfamilies of myxozoan parasites have been described in deep-water fish, amongstthese are Myxobolidae, Parvicapsula, Sphaeromyxa, Auerbachidae, Alatosporidae,Ceratomyxidae and Myxidiidae. Most of these are coelozic i.e. living in body cavitiessuch as the gall bladder, renal tubules and urinary bladder. Others, including themyxobolids are histozoic, residing within tissues. However, both groups haveextrasporogonic developmental stages that may elicit a host response resulting insignificant pathology and compromise the ability of affected fish to functionnormally. Reports from the rock grenadier in the North Atlantic include Myxidiumcoryphaenoidium (Yoshino & Noble, 1972; Moser et al., 1976), Myxidium species,Zschokkella hildae and Auerbachia pulchra (Zubchenko, 1975, 1981; Zubchenko &Krasin, 1980). Additional reports of Myxosporea infections were provided byAlioshkina et al. (19**) who examined Beryx sp. from the Whale Ridge (Northern74

Atlantic). In none of these cases were assessments on parasite pathogenicityundertaken.A series of reports by Moser, (1976 a & b); Moser & Noble (1975, 1976 a & b, 1977 a, b& c and Moser et al., (1976) detected a variety of myxosporean parasites inmacrourids, sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), Sebastes sp. and rattails (C. pectoralis) indeep-water off the Californian coast, again no information on pathogenicity wasprovided. Despite the lack of information on these parasites as agents of disease,numerous examples are present in the literature and many species are a majorproblem in aquaculture of marine fish species as well as causing significantdetrimental effects on the flesh quality of several valuable species whereby musclenecrosis and liquefaction results from infections with Kudoa and Unicapsula spp. It isnot known whether members of either of these genera exist in deep-water fishspecies but it is likely.3.2.6. MonogeneaMonogenea typically occur on external surfaces of a fish host, in particular on thefins, skin and gills, and in some cases with a very restricted niche on their respectivehosts. A small number have successfully adapted to living inside their hosts andhave been found within the urinary bladder, within the visceral cavity and withinthe gut (Alvarez et al., 2006; Bilong Bilong et al., 1994; Bilong-Bilong et al., 1996; duPreez et al., 2007). Monogenea are classified into two major groups; theMonopisthocotylea which possess small hooks and typically feed on skin and mucusand the Polyopisthocotylea which are larger, possess clamps and feed on blood.Monogeneans are viviparous or ovoviviparous, and have direct lifecycles. It has beenestimated that around 70 species of Monogenea occur on deep-water fish (Klimpel etal., 2001). However, given that estimates of the number of Monogenea currentlydescribed is somewhere around 25,000 (Whittington, 1998), it is likely that reportsand descriptions of Monogenea associated with deep-water fish are likely to increase.Furthermore, deep-water monogeneans are distantly related to shallower waterforms and are considered to be archaic (Rohde, 1988). No pathological changesassociated with monogenean infections in deep-water fish have been reported,although it is known that monogeneans can cause pathology as a result of feedingand movement activities on the host.The majority of monogeneans reported from deep-water fish are relatively hostspecificand are from the monogenean families Monocotylidae (5 spp.),Acanthocotylidae (1 sp.), Capsalidae (9 spp.), Gyrodactylidae (2 spp.),Tetraonchoididae (3 spp.), Dactylogyridae (3 spp.), Hexabothriidae (5 spp.),Plectanocotylidae (2 spp.), Mazocraeidae (2 spp.), Anthocotylidae (1 sp.),Discocotylidae (4 spp.), Heteraxinidae (1 sp.), Microcotylidae (5 spp.),Diclidophoridae (39 spp.) and Microbothriidae (1 sp.). In most cases where deepwaterfish have been examined, monogeneans have been found, although in somecases these have not been identified to species. For example (Karlsbakk et al., 2002)examined Hydrolagus affinis from depths of between 1300 and 2100m off Greenlandand found two monogeneans.75

Macrourids are hosts to monogeneans, Macrouridophora macruri being reported on thegills of 20% of Macrourus berglax caught in water depths of around 300m in theGreenland sea (Klimpel et al., 2006); Coryphaenoides brevibarbis, caught at depths ofaround 2500m and Albatrossia pectoralis are hosts for Cyclocotyloides spp. (Kritsky andKlimpel, 2007). Whilst only two species have been described within the genusCyclocotyloides, (Kritsky and Klimpel, 2007) consider that several undescribed speciesmay exist in deep- water hosts. Fish within the family Chimaeridae are hosts forpolyopisthocotyleans of the Callorhynchocotyle and Chimaericola spp. (Kitamura et al.,2006; Pascoe, 1987). In addition, Centropomus nigrescens from the Pacific coast ofMexico is host to the diplectanid Cornutohaptor nigrescensi (Mendoza-Franco et al.,2006). A large scale survey of fish from the Rockall Trough at depths of around1000m was conducted by (Pascoe, 1987) who showed that prevalences ranged fromaround 5% to 100% for different monogenean species in a range of hosts, includingCoryphaenoides spp and Aphanopus carbo. Only 8 species of host out of 36 speciesexamined were found to be infected. However, for hosts deemed negative, only lownumbers of fish were examined, ranging from 1 to 12 (mean of 3 fish per speciesexamined). In addition, in-depth studies were only conducted on those hosts deemedpositive following an initial cursory screen of skin and gills. Thus it is possible thatPascoe (1987) provides underestimates of the diversity of monogeneans in theRockall Trough. No information was provided on pathology of these parasites,although overall low numbers of parasites were found on individual hosts and thusare unlikely to have been considered detrimental to host survival.Munroe et al. (1981) described Diclidophora nezumiae from the macrourid fish Nezumiabairdii and showed that whilst the parasite occurred throughout the depth range ofcapture (300-1900m), intensity and prevalence of infection was greater at depths of700-1000m. They considered that this was due to the high density of hosts occurringin this depth range, which corresponds to the mid-range of depths at which N. bairdiioccurs. Host size had limited impact on parasite densities which occurredpreferentially on the filaments of first gill arch.A review of monogeneans from deep-water fish off south-eastern Australia (Rohde,1988; Rohde and Williams, 1987) showed that the fauna of Monogenea wasdepauperate compared with shallow water counterparts, a feature matched withdeep-water hosts in the north Atlantic. Of the 67 species of fish examined, only 16species of Monogenea were found, and of these only 7 monogeneans could beaccurately identified to species (Rohde and Williams, 1987), empathising the lack oftaxonomic rigour in studies of this nature and the need for continued and in-depthstudies of the taxonomy of this important group of parasites.3.2.7. DigeneaDigenea, or trematodes, have been extensively studied in deep-water fish, in partdue to the efforts of a small group of researchers with an interest in this field withready access to intestinal contents of fish (the predominant organ infected withdigeneans). In general the lifecycle of digeneans involves one or two invertebratehosts, a vertebrate host (in the aquatic environment this tends to be fish) and a finalvertebrate host in which sexual reproduction takes place. However, to date no76

complete lifecycles of deep-water digeneans have been elucidated, due to thetechnically demanding needs of experimental approaches needed to completelifecycles in the laboratory, although theoretical lifecycles have been inferred formsurvey data.Digeneans have been recorded in most species of fish examined and recent studieshave led to the discovery of new species and genera (Blend et al., 2000; Blend et al.,2004; Bray, 1990; Bray and Campbell, 1995; Bray and Gibson, 1991; Bray and Gibson,1998; Campbell, 1975; Lumb et al., 1993; Palm et al., 1998; Pardo-Gandarillas et al.,2008). It has been estimated that approximately 300 species of Digenea have beenreported from deep-water fish to date, but given the high diversity and relativefrequency at which new species are reported, this figure is likely to increase(Klimpel et al., 2001). (Bray et al., 1999) in reviewing the phylogeny of deep-waterdigeneans suggested that deep-water digeneans were derived from continental shelfforms and that some host-switching may have occurred. Furthermore, they were ableto show that there was a lack of zoned depth-related digenean community structure.Bray et al. (1999) suggested that only 18 families of digeneans (out of the 60 known infish) occurred in deep water and that whilst little is known about digeneans in deepwater, nothing at all is known about the diversity of digeneans in trenches and midoceanridges systems.In common with other parasite groups, most studies of digeneans tend to be of afaunistic nature and thus few papers exist on pathology associated with deep-waterdigeneans. It is likely that those occurring in coelozoic positions in the host will havelimited impact on host survival; those occupying a histozoic position are more likelyto elicit a pathological response although this remains to be tested.3.2.8. CestodaTapeworms exist in both freshwater and marine fish species but are generally foundat low prevalence and low intensity in most hosts. Few pathogenic species occuralthough it is known that heavy burdens of cestodes can lead to occlusion of the gut,poor food assimilation, and in some cases, death. As with several other parasitegroups, little attention has been paid to the taxonomy of deep-water cestodesreflecting a lack of taxonomic expertise in this important group of fish parasites.Lifecycles of cestodes are generally relatively simple, usually involving an arthropodand a one or two vertebrates as intermediate and final host. In marine systems,elasmobranches tend to act as a final host. However, no complete lifecycles ofcestodes associated with deep-water fish have been elucidated to date.It is likely that as more fish are examined specifically for the presence of cestodes (orother parasites), new genera and species will be uncovered. For example, inexamining Squalus melanurus and an unidentified Centrophorus sp. from deep wateroff New Caledonia, (Beveridge and Justine, 2006) described two new genera oftrypanorhynch cestodes, four new species of cestodes, plus provided a new hostrecord for another previously described cestode. Examination of shortfin spine eelNotacanthus bonaparte from the northeast Atlantic resulted in the description of a new77

genus and species of pseudophyllidean cestode, Bathycestus brayi (Kuchta and Scholz,2004). A new genus and species of pseudophyllidean (Australicola pectinatus) wasdescribed from Beryx splendens from the Pacific coast of Tasmania, to add to the othertwo species of cestodes previously reported from this species (Kuchta and Scholz,2006). Other new species reported in deep-water fish include an unidentifiedbothriocephalid from Bathylagus euryops caught at the Mid- Atlantic Ridge at depthsof between 2500 and 3000m (Busch et al., 2008) and Probothriocephalus alaini from theintestine of Xenodermichthys copei (Alepocephalidae) from the North Atlantic (Scholzand Bray, 2001). Typically, Grillotia spp., tetraphyllidean and pseudophyllideanplerocercoids are reported in deep-water hosts (Brickle et al., 2006; Kellermanns etal., 2009; Klimpel et al., 2007; Klimpel et al., 2008; Lester et al., 1988; Palm andKlimpel, 2008; Palm and Schröder, 2001; Walter et al., 2002).Members of a primitive cestode order (Gyrocotylidae), have been reported inChimaera spp. and Hydrolagus spp. Gyrocotyle spp. appear to be host and site specific,normally occurring in the anterior tier of the spiral valve (Halvorsen and Williams,1967). Whilst intense infections with larval stages occur, the parasite populations areregulated by intrinsic factors within the parasite until only two adult stages remain.Although not explicitly described by (Halvorsen and Williams, 1967), attachment ofthe parasite to the spiral valve wall elicits a minor host response.3.2.9. AcanthocephalaThe Acanthocephala are a minor group of parasites that are closely allied to therotifers. Typically, they possess a spiny proboscis which gives rise to their commonname of spiny-headed worms. The sexes are separate and lifecycles are complex,usually involving at least three hosts, including an invertebrate (normally anarthropod), a teleost host and a mammalian or bird host in which sexually matureadults mate and release eggs into the environment. In addition, numerous hosts canact as paratenic (transport) hosts in which no development takes place. Within thefish host, Acanthocephala are normally found attached via the proboscis to theintestinal lining or encysted within the viscera. Pathology associated withacanthocephalans can be variable, ranging from minimal or no impact through topenetration of the intestinal wall by the proboscis or encapsulation of parasites by ahost response. It is recognised that some acanthocephalans can alter host behaviourto maximise transmission to the next host (Baldauf et al., 2007; Cornet et al., 2009;Médoc et al., 2006; Tain et al., 2007).Records of acanthocephalans in deep-water fish worldwide are sparse, with themajority of records from Antarctic and sub-Antarctic fishes. This in part reflects theefforts of a small number of researchers to categorise parasites in these areas ratherthan a true representation of their distribution (Campbell et al., 1980). UnusuallyZdzitowiecki (1996) provided depth data following a survey of fish for theiracanthocephalan burdens. Acanthocephalans were recorded in fishes at depths inexcess of 1540m. Brickle et al. (2006) in considering parasites as tags for thePatagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) around the Falkland Islands, reportedon the presence of larval Corynosoma bullosum, which has been reported in a number78

of other hosts, including Notothenia coriiceps and Macrourus whitsoni (Edmonds, 1954;Klimpel et al., 2006; Palm et al., 1998; Walter et al., 2002). Zdzitowiecki (1986)considered that this parasite predominately occurred in fish collected below 100m inthe Antarctic. Whilst no comment has been made on any pathology associated withthis parasite by any authors, it is likely that this parasite has minimal impact on thehost. Similarly, the presence of Hypoechinorhynchus thermaceri from the abyssalzoarcid Thermaceres andersoni from the eastern Pacific at 2650m was described withthe absence of any pathological data (de Buron, 1988).At least ten species of Echinorhynchus have been recorded from deep-water fish,including E. brayi from Pachycara crassiceps (Zoarcidae) from the Porcupine Seabight(Wayland et al., 1999) and E. longiproboscis from the intestines of D. eleginoides andMacrourus holotracys from the Falkland Islands (Rodjuk, 1986). Some of these recordswill need to be reassessed in the light of new understandings of the geneticrelationships of this group and new taxonomic criteria used to discriminate species.For example, both E. gadi and E. truttae have been recorded in the Antarctic and indeep-water fish from the north Atlantic respectively (Melendy et al., 2005).However, both are normally parasites of shallow water fish from the north Atlantic.3.2.10. NematodaNematoda have complex lifecycles involving at least three hosts. Many nematodesare also able to utilise paratenic hosts to maximise transmission to the final hosts,usually a bird or mammal. Few parasitic nematodes have successfully invaded thedeep sea, although a number of genera normally occurring in shallower water, suchas Pseudoterranova, Contracaecum and Anisakis are found deep-water fish (Alioshkinaet al., 1985; Blaylock et al., 2003).Particularly important in view of its potential zoonotic impact is the presence ofAnisakis spp. in many deep-water fish species (Gartner and Zwerner, 1989; Klimpel etal., 2003; Klimpel et al., 2004; Klimpel et al., 2007). Molecular confirmation of thepresence of further zoonotic nematodes Pseudoterranova decipiens (and A. simplex) hasbeen conducted in macrourids collected at depths of approximately 400m aroundGreenland (Kellermanns et al., 2007). Coryphaenoides mediterraneus collected at depthsof between 1700 and 3500m from the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge were found to be infected with A.simplex s. l., Ascarophis longiovata,Capillaria sp., H. aduncum, Neoascarophis longispicula and Spinitectus oviflagellis.Aniskais sp. and Hysterothylacium sp. have also been recorded in the stomachs ofHalosauropsis macrochir along with a new species of Comphoronema from the samegeographical zone at depths of between 2500 and 3000m (Klimpel et al., 2008;Moravec and Klimpel, 2007a). Moravecnema segonzaci was described from theintestine of Pachycara thermophilum (Zoarcidae) caught at a hydrothermal vent at theMid-Atlantic Ridge, at depths of 3000 to 3500m (Justine et al., 2002). To date this isthe only species of parasitic nematode reported from hydrothermal vent fish.Descriptions and redescriptions of nematodes from deep-water fish continue to bemade, particularly in light of new expeditions but often as a result of specifictaxonomic expertise of individuals (Moravec et al., 2010; Moravec and Klimpel,79

2007b; Moravec and Klimpel, 2009). However, limited studies exist on the pathologyof these parasites in deep-water fish.3.2.11. Copepoda and IsopodaFew species of parasitic copepods have successfully exploited deep-water fish. It hasbeen estimated that only about 50 species of parasitic copepods occur (Boxshall,1998). Deep-water parasitic copepods occur mainly in the order Siphonostomatoidaand to a lesser extent, within the order Cyclopoida. The genera of parasitic copepodsfound associated with fish are shown in Table 4 below. In common with otherparasitic copepods, all deep-water copepods have simple lifecycles, not requiring theuse of intermediate hosts. Some parasitic copepods, including members of theLernaeopodidae, Sphyriidae and Chondracanthidae, show sexual dimorphism,relying on dwarf males that become parasitic on the larger females to ensure sexualreproduction takes place, limiting the problems associated with finding suitablepartners (Østergaard and Boxshall, 2004). Members of the family Pennellidaenormally utilise two successive hosts in their lifecycle (Goater and Jepps, 2002; Tirardet al., 1996; Van Damme et al., 1993). However, the pennellid Sarcotretes scopelireported from at least 6 families of deep-water fish appears to only use a single hostin order to complete its lifecycle (Boxshall, 1998). It has been promulgated that thistruncated lifecycle and wide host specificity in pelagic deep-water fish may occur asa direct result of the difficulty of finding suitable hosts in deep water. Host specificityof deep-water parasitic copepods on demersal hosts is apparently far more restricted.Unlike copepods, few records for parasitic isopods exist. This is not surprising as itreflects in part a lack of taxonomic expertise in this group which have received onlymodest attention by parasitologists (Bunkley-Williams and Williams, 1998). Theisopod Syscenus infelix (Aegidae) has been reported from macrourid hosts,particularly Nezumia spp. from the western north Atlantic and in the Mediterraneanat depths of between 400 and 2000m (Kensley and Cartes, 2003; Ross et al., 2001).This blind isopod attaches to the dorsal midline immediately behind the first dorsalfin, with apparently only a single isopod per fish. At the attachment site, acharacteristic depression is formed as a result of feeding on scales and tissues of thehost (Kensley and Cartes, 2003). Three further isopods from the family Aegidae, Aegaangustata, A. cf. deshaysiana and A. webbii have been reported from the deep-watersharks Hexanchus nakamurai, Squalus megalops and S. melanurus around NewCaledonia at depths of between 300 and 900m (Trilles and Justine, 2004). Acymothoid isopod, Elthusa parabothi was described from Parabothus kiensis caught ataround 400m off New Caledonia; no pathology associated with the parasite wasnoted (Trilles and Justine, 2004).Limited specific studies have been conducted on the pathology associated with deepwaterparasitic copepods, with most reports being faunistic descriptions. Members ofthe families Sphyriidae, and to a lesser extent Pennellidae, attach to their fish host byburrowing deep into the musculature. The pathology associated with penetrationand attachment into the musculature of Sebastes spp. by Sphyrion lumpi is welldocumented. Ulceration at the point of attachment is common (Gaevskaya andKovaleva, 1984), with a connective tissue capsule surrounding the head of the80

parasite within the tissues. It is assumed that all members of the Sphyriidae andPennellidae elicit a similar host response with the possibility of secondary infectionsaffecting the host through the open attachment point. The pennellidsPseudolernaeopodina synaphobranchi and Lernaeopodina longibrachia attach to the eyes ofSynaphobranchus kaupi and Hydrolagus affinis respectively (Hogans, 1988a; Karlsbakket al., 2002). Whilst no pathology was reported in either of these reports, it is knownthat copepod infections of the eye can be detrimental to host survival (Benz et al.,2002a; Borucinska et al., 1998). However, in examining eyes of Greenland sharksinfected with Ommatokoita elongata, (Borucinska et al., 1998) concluded that whilstthere was strong evidence of destruction of the eye leading to blindness, they wereunable to unequivocally demonstrate a detrimental impact of the parasite on hostsurvival possible due to the habit of the host to rely on olfactory cues to find its prey.It is therefore possible that a similar process is occurring with other deep-water fishaffected by eye copepods. Sarcotaces spp. encyst in the musculature within a small saclike structure filled with an inky like substance that is derived from thehaematophagous nature of the parasite (Bullock et al., 1986). The presence of thisinky black liquid gives rise to the common name for this parasite of “iodine worms”.Whilst not particularly pathogenic to the host, the parasite can reduce marketabilityof the host if the sac is cut during processing as the fluid can taint the flesh.The pennellid Cardiodectes medusaeus, whilst seen attached to the outside of lanternfish, actually penetrate through to the bulbus arteriosus of the heart (Perkins, 1983;Perkins, 1985). The parasite has a two host lifecycle, with juvenile, postembyromincstages occurring in the mantle cavity of pelagic gastropods (Perkins, 1983). Whilst theparasite castrates the host and is able to promote somatic growth of both male andfemale fish, there appears to be no relationship between host length and parasitenumbers (Moser and Taylor, 1978). In addition, (Moser and Taylor, 1978) suggestedthat mortalities are directly attributable to presence of the parasite, which feeds onhost erythrocytes (Perkins, 1985). On the other hand the pennellid Sarcotretes scopeli,retards growth and gonadal maturation of its host Benthosema glaciale (Gjøsaeter,1971), whilst the cirriped Anelasma squalicola retards gonadal maturation ofEtmopterus spinax and, in older sharks can “exhaust the resources of the host”(Hickling, 1963). An unidentified isopod on the external surfaces of this small sharkhave been noted which apparently feeds on the blood of the host.81

Table 4. List of genera of parasitic copepods reported from deep-water fish.Order Family Genus Number deepwaterspeciesTypical hostsSiphonostomatoida Sphyriidae Lophoura 15+ Macrouridae,Apogonidae,SynaphobranchidaePaeonocanthus 2 Bathylagus spp. Antarctic, NorthGeographical ReferenceareaAtlantic, Pacific (Boxshall, 1989;Boxshall, 2000; Gómezet al., 2009; Hogansand Dadswell, 1985)(Ho et al., 2003;AtlanticHogans, 1986)Depths600-2500m800-2700mPeriplexis 1 Alepocephalidae Indo-Pacific (Boxshall, 2000) 900mSphyrion 2 Macrouridae, Sebastes, Pacific, Atlantic (Gaevskaya and 100-500mOphidiidsKovaleva, 1984)Lernaeopodidae Brachiella 1 Macrouridae Pacific (Ho, 1975) 1710-3330mClavella 10+ Macrourids North Atlantic, (Castro and Gonzalez, -Antarctic, Japan 2009; Ho, 1993)Eubrachiella 1 Nototheniidae Antarctic (Ho and Takeuchi,1996)100-820mLernaeopodina 2 Holocephalans,Centrophorus,Atlantic (Kabata, 2004;Karlsbakk et al., 2002)1300 -2100mParabrachiella 1 Sebastes Pacific, Atlantic (Leaman and Kabata, 200-350m1987)Pseudolernaeopodina 1 Synaphobranchus New Jersey, USA (Hogans, 1988a) 1975mPennellidae Cardiodectes 1 Myctophidae Pacific (Boxshall, 2000; Moser 1000mand Taylor, 1978;Perkins, 1983)Exopenna 1 Antimora France (Boxshall, 1986) 2540mPeniculus 1 Sebastes North east Pacific (Kabata and Wilkes, -1977)Sarcotretes 2 MacrouridsMyctophidsHatchet fish,Melanocetidae,BathylagidaeNew Caledonia,Atlantic, Pacific(Boxshall, 1989; Chereland Boxshall, 2004;Hogans, 1988b)770m82

Order Family Genus Number deepwaterTypical hosts Geographical ReferenceDepthsspeciesareaSiphonostomatoida Hyponeoidae Greeniedeets 1 Centrophorus Madagascar (Benz, 2006) -Hyponeo 1 Paralepid North Pacific (Ho, 1987) 830mTautochondria 1 Anoplogaster Grand Banks, (Ho, 1987) 970-1300mNova ScotiaHatschekiidae Laminohatschekia 1 Eels New Caledonia (Boxshall, 1989) 970mArchdactylinidae Archidactylina 1 Hagfishes Japan (Izawa, 1996) 300-600mCaligidae Avitocaligus 1 Trichiuridae New Caledonia (Boxshall and Justine, 150-400m2005)Cyclopoida Chondracanthidae Chondracanthodes 3 Macrourids Atlantic and (Ho, 1975; Ho, 1994; 1000-5440mPacific Ocean Østergaard, 2003;Østergaard andBoxshall, 2004)Lateracanthus 2 Macrourids Aleutian Deep,Chile(Castro Romero, 2001) 1115-1150mJusheyhoea 3 Macrourids Japan, Hawaii,Chile(Ho, 1994; Kabata,1991; Salinas et al.,2008)540-700mChelonichondria 1 Macrourids Japan (Ho, 1994) 1185mChondracanthus 1 Macrourids Japan, Atlantic, (Ho, 1994) 450m+AustraliaPhilichthyidae Sarcotaces 2 MacrouridsMoridsNorth Atlantic (Bullock et al., 1986) 400-2000mLernaeosoleidae Bobkabata 1 Sculpins NorthwestAtlantic,Western NorthPacific(Benz et al., 2002b;Benz and Braswell,1998; Hogans andBenz, 1990)1400m83

3.3. Parasites as tagsThe use of parasites as biological tags has a long and varied history. However, in part due tothe somewhat simplistic statistical approaches used by previous researchers, they have beendismissed by workers in other fields as lacking suitable rigour. However, recent advances instatistical approaches and a greater understanding of the underlying reasons for variabilityon parasite faunas between stocks has led to an increased revival in their application(Ayvazian et al., 2004; Brickle and MacKenzie, 2007; Lester and MacKenzie, 2009;MacKenzie and Abaunza, 1998; Marcogliese et al., 2003; Pawson and Jennings, 1996;Perdiguero-Alonso et al., 2008; Power et al., 2005; Santos et al., 2009).Parasites have been used as biological indicators of population biology, migration, diet,phylogeny, recruitment, origin of fish products and pollution (including as bioaccumulatorsof heavy metals) (Abaunza et al., 2008; Bakay and Melnikov, 2002; Baker et al., 2007; Brickleand MacKenzie, 2007; Durieux et al., 2007; Durieux et al., 2010; Ferrer-Castelló et al., 2007;Grutter, 1998; Lester and MacKenzie, 2009; MacKenzie, 2002; MacKenzie and Abaunza, 1998;MacKenzie and Longshaw, 1995; Marcogliese et al., 2003; Moles et al., 1998; Oliva, 2001;Oliva et al., 2008; Power et al., 2005; Sures et al., 1997a; Sures et al., 1997b; Sures et al., 1999;Sures, 2001; Sures and Reimann, 2003; Walker and Myers, 1992; Yanulov, 1974). The basicpremise of the use of parasites as tags is that fish can only become infected with a parasitewhen they come within the area which is suitable for transmission of the parasite. Thus if afish is found infected with a particular parasite species outside of this endemic area, itfollows that the host must have been inside this endemic region at some point in its lifehistory.Coupled with information on the parasite longevity and to a lesser extent, lifecycledata, it is possible to infer the maximum length of time since the host came in contact withthe parasite in question. Clearly the more parasites from different endemic areas examinedthe greater the resolution of information. The different lifecycle strategies employed byparasites impact on the utility of tags, with those having direct or simple lifecycles beingaffected more by environmental conditions whilst those parasites requiring two or more hostlifecycles have a requirement for all hosts to be present in order for the lifecycle to becompleted.MacKenzie and Abaunza (1998) consider that parasite tags should be seen a complimentaryto other approaches for ascertaining biological data such as genetics, mechanical tags andother biological characteristics. Clearly this integrated approach will provide a morepowerful dataset to understand the whole biology and ecology of the host compared withsingular approaches. Biological tags have a number of advantages over mechanical tagsincluding being more appropriate for deep-water fish and delicate species that may bedamaged or killed by the action of tagging or for species where it is impossible to attach tagsfor whatever reason. The approach is considered less expensive as samples can be obtainedfrom routine sampling programmes without the need to rely on cruises specifically designedfor tagging although provenance of the samples collected needs to be ensured. In addition,the use of biological tags eliminates any doubts surrounding the possible abnormalbehaviour of artificially tagged hosts and limits the low return experienced by mechanicallytagged fish. Collection of other biological data (including gut contents) at the same timeprovides a robust data set for analysis. Recent novel approaches for discriminating stocksthrough the use of parasites include random forests; a statistical modelling that is essentiallyan ensemble of learning techniques where individual decisions of a large set of random84

classifiers are combined by majority voting in order to obtain predictions that are moreaccurate than any individual classifier such as linear discriminant analysis or artificial neuralnetworks (Perdiguero-Alonso et al., 2008).3.3.1. Applications in deep-water fishSeveral studies have been conducted explicitly on the use of parasites as biological tags fordeep sea fish. In addition, studies have been conducted on parasite faunas of deep sea fishfrom different areas but no implications have been made by those authors regarding theutility of the parasite faunas as tags. One of the more widely studied group of deep waterfish with regards tags are grenadiers (Coryphaenoides and Macrourus spp.). Clear differencesin the parasite faunas and in prevalences were noted by (Szuks, 1980; Walter et al., 2002;Zubchenko, 1985) for these hosts strongly supporting the value in using parasites asbiological tags for stock structure. Several studies of the parasite fauna of the Patagoniantooth fish have consistently shown that they possess different parasite faunas depending ondepth of capture and geographical locality with strong evidence that the differencesobserved are stable and thus parasite faunas can be useful tags for stock structure (Brickle etal., 2006; Oliva et al., 2008).Other studies involving the use of parasites as biological tags includes the redfish (Sebastesspp.). For many years the copepod parasite Sphyrion sp. has successfully been used as a stockdiscrimination tag. Differences in parasite faunas of S. mentella were used to suggest thatdifferent, reproductively isolated stocks of this host exist across its range (Bakaj, 1993; Bakay,1988; Bakay, 2001; Bakay and Mel'Nikov, 2008; Bakay and Melnikov, 2002; Melnikov andBakay, 2009). Similar results were obtained by (Moran et al., 1996) for redfish collected offCanada.There are very clear examples in the literature where the application of parasites as biologicaltags for stock structure in deep-water fish has been successful. An initial assessment ofparasites that may prove useful include protistans, monogeneans and copepods. Thus,studies should be directed towards these major groups in the first instance.3.4. ContaminantsConcern on the effect of anthropogenic contaminants on the deep-water fauna has onlyrecently resulted in studies to examine contaminant burdens in deep sea fish species.Investigations in the Atlantic Ocean are few and have been restricted to organic compounds(Barber & Warlen, 1979; Kramer et al., 1984; Froescheis et al., 2000; Webster et al., 2009).Increasingly it appears that deep water environments can act as a sink for contaminants andthat bioaccumulation in the resident fauna, particularly fish, is a significant issue for thosespecies in particular that may be suitable for human consumption. Organic pollutants inbenthic fish species may be between 10 and 17 times higher than that measured in surfacespecies (Looser et al., 2000).Studies on polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides have been undertaken in blackscabbardfish, orange roughy, roundnose grenadier and Bathysaurus ferox from a number oflocations in the NE Atlantic (Mormede & Davies, 2003). For several of the speciesinvestigated by these authors, contaminant levels were elevated in males compared to85

females. This was thought to be due to elimination in females through egg production.Highest levels of contaminants were found in the deepest dwelling species, B. ferox withconcentrations up to 10 times higher than that recorded in other species. A more recent studyby Webster et al. (2009) examining chlorobiphenyls (CBs) in fish collected from the RockallTrough off the west of Scotland (North east Atlantic Ocean) showed that for some fishspecies levels in the liver were above OSPAR Background Assessment Concentrations(BAC). However, analysis of the data using published models showed that consumption offish muscle is unlikely to pose a risk to human health.Contamination with PCBs and organochlorine pesticides in deep-water fish from theMediterranean Sea and has also been identified (Storelli et al., 2007, 2009). The authors drawattention to the potential adverse health effects on the fish and for the need to undertakefurther assessments to allow effective management and long-term conservation of theecosystem in the region. Few investigations into heavy metal contamination have beenundertaken (Fowler, 1990). A number of studies have been undertaken in the EasternAtlantic in Portugese waters. Afonso et al. (2007) and Costa et al. (2009) showed that levels ofmercury, cadmium and lead concentrations in black scabbardfish were highest in the liverfor mercury and cadmium and in the gonad for lead. Fish captured from around Madeirawere found to contain significantly higher levels of metals than in fish from areas off themainland and the Azores. It was suggested by Afonso et al. (2007) that moderateconsumption of black scabbardfish muscle from these areas does not pose a risk to humanhealth. Analysis of other deep-water species in Portugese waters confirms the view that theflesh should only be consumed sparingly (Afonso et al., 2008).4. Policy drivers impacting on deep-water fisheries and ecosystems in the NEAtlantic4.1. IntroductionThis review refers to policy drivers applying to or impacting upon deep-water fisheries andecosystems in the NE Atlantic. However, some of these drivers, UNGA Resolutions forexample, are not specific to this area and impact on deep-water fisheries and ecosystems inall parts of the world, including those areas addressed in later sections below.Many marine living resources exploited by deep-water fisheries (DWFs) have biologicalcharacteristics that create specific challenges for their sustainable utilization andexploitation. These include: (i) maturation at relatively old ages; (ii) slow growth; (iii) longlife expectancies; (iv) low natural mortality rates; (v) intermittent recruitment of successfulyear classes; and (vi) spawning that may not occur every year. As a result, many deep-watermarine living resources have low productivity and are only able to sustain very lowexploitation rates. Also, when these resources are depleted, recovery is expected to be longand is not assured. The great depths at which marine living resources are caught by DWFson the high seas pose additional scientific and technical challenges in providing scientificsupport for management. Together these factors mean that assessment and managementhave higher costs and are subject to greater uncertainty (FAO, 2009). In most cases, reliable86

information on stock status and fisheries production potential has lagged considerablybehind exploitation.In the NE Atlantic this has been exacerbated by the fact that until 2003 most fisheries werecompletely unregulated, in spite of concerns regarding declining deep-water stocksexpressed by ICES from the mid-1990s onwards (ICES, 1994; 1996). This concern, coupledwith pressure from Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), resulted in 2002 in theintroduction of specific European Union (EU) deep-water fisheries management measures.Prior to 2003 there was largely a policy vacuum but since then, policy, both internally withinthe EU and externally in bodies such as the UNGA, has developed considerably as concernsregarding the sustainability of deep-water fisheries and the impact of fisheries on the deepwaterecosystem have intensified.The deep-water fisheries in the NE Atlantic fall under the management policy remits of theNortheast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) for international waters and sovereignstates within their EEZs. In the NE Atlantic the latter include:-• the EU Common Fisheries Policy for EU waters;• Faroese national fisheries policy and regulation within Faroese waters;• Greenlandic national fisheries policy and regulation for the waters around eastGreenland;• Icelandic national fisheries policy and regulation within Icelandic waters;• Norwegian national fisheries policy and regulation within Norwegian Waters;The OSPAR Convention is the current legal instrument guiding international cooperation onthe protection of the marine environment of the NE Atlantic.It is not possible here to review all policy drivers relevant to the deep sea in the NE Atlantic,as much of the national state policy is not readily available in English. So here I focus on,firstly, presenting the salient features relevant to DEEPFISHMAN of recent World Summits,UNGA resolutions, FAO guidelines and Plans of Action (POA), EU (includingcommunications from the Commission on future policy) and OSPAR policy drivers. This,should be useful to DEEFISHMAN participants who may not be fully conversant with thedetails of policy. However, there are inherent dangers in summarising complex policydocuments, so they are presented in abbreviated form leaving the subtle checks and balancesintact (bearing in mind that much of policy is drafted by lawyers). Policy regardingsovereignty (Law of the Sea etc), deep-water mining and oil exploration, some of which isrelatively new, is not addressed as it is considered to be outside the remit ofDEEPFISHMAN.4.2. World Summit ResolutionsThese apply universally to all fisheries including deep-water fisheries and are as follows:-Extract of the Implementation Plan adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD), Johannesburg (2002) states that to achieve sustainable fisheries, the following actionsare required at all levels:87

(a) Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY)with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and wherepossible not later than 2015;(b) Ratify or accede to and effectively implement the relevant UN and associated regionalfisheries agreements, noting United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) (1982) relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling FishStocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and the Agreement to Promote Compliancewith International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on theHigh Seas (1993);(c) Implement the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), taking note of therelevant international POA and FAO technical guidelines;(d) Urgently develop and implement national and appropriate regional POAs, to put intoeffect the international FAO POAs, in particular the International POA for theManagement of Fishing Capacity by 2005 and the International POA to Prevent, Deterand Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing by 2004. Establisheffective monitoring, reporting and enforcement, and control of fishing vessels,including by flag States;(e) Eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and toover-capacity, while completing the efforts undertaken at the World Trade Organization(WTO) to clarify and improve its disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into accountthe importance of this sector to developing countries.4.3. UNGA ResolutionsThe UNGA resolutions relating to deep-water fisheries in the main apply to internationalwaters, which in the NE Atlantic are managed by NEAFC. However, these resolutions doinfluence policy in national EEZs.UNGA Resolution 61/222, Oceans and the Law of the Sea (March 2007) calls upon States thathave not done so to become parties to the Agreement for the Implementation of theProvisions of UNCLOS relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling FishStocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (“the Fish Stocks Agreement”). It reaffirms theneed for States and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) to urgentlyconsider ways to integrate and improve the management of risks to the marine biodiversityof seamounts, cold water corals, hydrothermal vents and certain other underwater features.This resolution also reaffirms the need for States to continue their efforts to develop andfacilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools for conserving and managing vulnerablemarine ecosystems (VMEs), including the possible establishment of marine protected areas(MPAs), and the development of representative networks of any such MPAs by 2012. Notingthe Convention on Biological Diversity, States and RFMOs are encouraged to assessscientific information on, and compile ecological criteria for the identification of marineareas that require protection, in light of the objective of the World Summit on Sustainable88

Development. This resolution also calls upon States and RFMOs to urgently take action toaddress destructive practices that have adverse impacts on marine biodiversity andecosystems, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water corals. States,individually or in collaboration with each other or with relevant international organizationsand bodies, are encouraged to improve their understanding and knowledge of the oceansand the deep sea, including, in particular, the extent and vulnerability of deep seabiodiversity and ecosystems, by increasing their marine scientific research activities.UNGA Resolution 61/105, deep-water high seas fisheries (March 2007) 6 , requires States to makeavailable through the FAO a list of those vessels flying their flag authorized to conductbottom fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction 7 . In addition, RFMOs are required toimplement measures to regulate bottom fisheries in accordance with the PrecautionaryApproach (PA), the Ecosystem Approach (EA) and international law, not later than 31December 2008, involving:(a) To assess whether individual bottom fishing activities would have serious adverseimpacts (SAIs) on VMEs, and to ensure that if it is assessed that these activities wouldhave SAIs, they are managed to prevent such impacts, or not authorized to proceed;(b) To identify VMEs and determine whether bottom fishing activities would cause SAIs tosuch ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks, by improvingscientific research and data collection and through new and exploratory fisheries;(c) Where VMEs, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water corals, areknown to occur or are likely to occur, to close such areas to bottom fishing and ensurethat such activities do not proceed unless conservation and management measures havebeen established to prevent SAIs on VMEs;(d) Requires members of RFMOs to require vessels flying their flag to cease bottom fishingactivities in areas where, in the course of fishing operations, VMEs are encountered, andto report the encounter so that appropriate measures can be adopted in respect of therelevant site.4.4. FAO GuidelinesThe FAO, in response to requests for guidance on the application of above UNGAresolutions, published in 2009 the FAO International Guidelines for the Management of DeepwaterFisheries (DWFs) in the High Seas. These provide guidance on management factorsranging from an appropriate regulatory framework to the components of a good datacollection programme. They identify key management considerations and measuresnecessary to ensure the conservation of target and non-target species, as well as affectedhabitats. The guidelines are voluntary and have been developed for fisheries that occur in6There is some overlap between Resolutions 61/222 and 61/105 particularly in relation to VMEs, however the former encouragesthe use of MPAs as measure to protect VMEs and specifically calls for increased marine scientific research into, and actions toaddress, destructive practises on deep-water biodiversity and ecosystems7The primary outcome arising from this was an FAO “Worldwide review of bottom fisheries on the high seas” (Bensch et al,2008).89

areas beyond national jurisdiction where the total catch includes species that can onlysustain low exploitation rates and the fishing gear is likely to contact the seafloor during thenormal course of fishing operations. States and RFMOs should consider, as appropriate, theapplication of elements of the Guidelines to fisheries targeting medium productivity species.Coastal States (CSs) may apply these Guidelines within their national jurisdiction, asappropriate. The main objectives of the management of DWFs are to promote responsiblefisheries that provide economic opportunities while ensuring the conservation of marineliving resources and the protection of marine biodiversity, by ensuring the long-termconservation and sustainable use of marine living resources in the deep seas and preventingSAIs on VMEs. In order to achieve these objectives, States and RFMOs should adopt andimplement measures in accordance with (i) the PA, (ii) an EA to Fisheries (EAF) and (iii) inconformity with the relevant rules of international law. States and RFMOs should alsorecognise the need, in managing DWFs, to:(a) adopt measures necessary to ensure the conservation of target and non-target species,including relevant reference points, as well as measures for the prevention of SAIs onVMEs and the protection of the marine biodiversity that these ecosystems contain;(b) identify areas or features where VMEs are known or likely to occur, and the location offisheries in relation to these areas and features;(c) develop data collection and research programmes to assess the impact of fishing ontarget and non-target species and their environment;(d) base the management of DWFs on the best scientific and technical information availabletaking into account fishers knowledge, where appropriate;(e) develop and use selective and cost-effective fishing methods and promote efforts tofurther improve such selectivity, recognizing the difficulties of managing fisheries withmixed species or high bycatch;(f) implement and enforce conservation and management measures through effectivemonitoring, control and surveillance (MCS);(g) take appropriate measures to address the problems of overcapacity, overfishing and IUUfishing, and(h) ensure transparency and public dissemination of information, in accordance withappropriate standards for confidentiality, as well as enable participation of relevantstakeholders.The risks to a marine ecosystem are determined by its vulnerability, the probability of athreat occurring and the mitigation means applied to the threat. The vulnerability of marineecosystems is related to the likelihood that a population, community, or habitat willexperience substantial alteration from short-term or chronic disturbance, and the likelihoodthat it would recover and in what time frame. The most vulnerable ecosystems are those thatare both easily disturbed and very slow to recover, or may never recover. The vulnerability90

of populations, communities and habitats must be assessed relative to specific threats. Somefeatures, particularly those that are physically fragile or inherently rare, may be vulnerableto most forms of disturbance, but the vulnerability of some populations, communities andhabitats may vary greatly depending on the type of fishing gear used or the kind ofdisturbance experienced.SAIs are those that compromise ecosystem integrity (i.e. ecosystem structure or function) ina manner that: (i) impairs the ability of affected populations to replace themselves; (ii)degrades the long-term natural productivity of habitats; or (iii) causes, on more than atemporary basis, significant loss of species richness, habitat or community types. Impactsshould be evaluated individually, in combination and cumulatively. Temporary impacts arethose that are limited in duration and that allow the particular ecosystem to recover over anacceptable time frame. Such time frames should be decided on a case-by-case basis andshould be in the order of 5-20 years, taking into account the specific features of thepopulations and ecosystems. In determining whether an impact is temporary, both theduration and the frequency at which an impact is repeated should be considered. If theinterval between the expected disturbances of a habitat is shorter than the recovery time, theimpact should be considered more than temporary. In circumstances of limited information,States and RFMOs should apply the PA in their determinations regarding the nature andduration of impacts.Regarding stock assessment, appropriate monitoring and assessment techniques are neededto reliably determine the status of stocks of low-productivity species. In light of datalimitations regarding many deep-water species, lower cost or innovative methods based onsimpler forms of monitoring and assessment need to be developed. Such techniques shouldquantify uncertainty in stock assessments, including that resulting from such datalimitations and simplified approaches.National or international cooperative observer programmes should be implemented for allDWFs. Observer coverage for established fisheries, at levels adequate to ensure effectivemonitoring and assessment and in combination with other MCS tools, should be determinedby RFMOs with competence over those fisheries. Higher levels of coverage are required, inparticular for experimental and exploratory stages of a fishery’s development under aRFMO. In the latter case, levels of coverage should remain high until measures in place tomanage these fisheries and prevent significant adverse impacts are evaluated anddetermined to be effective.Precautionary conservation and management measures, including catch and effort controls,are essential during the exploratory phase of a DWF, and should be a major component ofthe management of an established DWF. They should include measures to manage theimpact of the fishery on low-productivity species, non-target species and sensitive habitatfeatures. Implementation of a PA to sustainable exploitation of DWFs should include thefollowing measures:(a) precautionary effort limits, particularly where reliable assessments of sustainableexploitation rates of target and main bycatch species are not available;91

(b) precautionary measures, including precautionary spatial catch limits where appropriate,to prevent serial depletion of low productivity stocks;(c) regular review of appropriate indices of stock status and revision downwards of thelimits listed above when significant declines are detected;(d) measures to prevent SAIs on VMEs; and(e) comprehensive monitoring of all fishing effort, capture of all species and interactionswith VMEs.States and RFMOs should develop and adopt fishery management plans for specific DWFs,including a set of measures with defined long-term/multi-annual management objectives.Such plans should be tailored to the characteristics of each fishery and should includebiological reference points (BRPs) set at levels that ensure, at a minimum, that fish stocks areharvested at levels that are sustainable in the long term. Appropriate BRPs for stockassessment and management need to be set in a precautionary manner and determined on acase-by-case basis, taking into account the different target stocks, fishery characteristics, andthe state of knowledge about the species and fishery. In general, for low-productivityspecies, fishing mortality (F) should not exceed the estimated or inferred natural mortality(M). Sustainable management strategies that would be robust to uncertainties are likely torequire low exploitation rates. Appropriate procedures should be put in place to verify thatfishery management plans achieve sustainable fisheries and protect VMEs and the marinebiodiversity that these ecosystems contain.4.5. FAO International Plans of ActionThe FAO International Plan of Action (IPOA) for reducing incidental catch of Seabirds in longlinefisheries (IPOA-SEABIRDS, 1998), states that seabirds can be caught incidentally in variouscommercial longline fisheries in the world, including those for Greenland halibut, tusk andling in the northern Atlantic, where the main seabird bycatch is northern fulmar. The IPOA-SEABIRDS is voluntary and applies to the waters of RFMOs and States where longlinefisheries are being conducted. States/RFMOs should determine if a problem exists withrespect to incidental catch of seabirds and adopt a POA for reducing the incidental catch ofseabirds in longline fisheries. States/RFMOs which determine that a POA is not necessaryshould review that decision on a regular basis, particularly taking into account changes intheir fisheries, such as the expansion of existing fisheries and/or the development of newlongline fisheries. If, based on a subsequent assessment, States determine that a problemexists, they should follow the recommended procedures outlined in IPOA-SEABIRDS withintwo years. States/RFMOs should start the implementation of the IPOA-SEABIRDS no laterthan 2001.The FAO International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks (IPOA-SHARKS) (1998) states that for centuries artisanal fishermen have conducted sustainablefishing for sharks in coastal waters, and some still do. However, during recent decadesmodern technology in combination with access to distant markets have caused an increase ineffort and yield of shark catches, as well as an expansion of the areas fished. There is concern92

over the increase of shark catches and the consequences which this has for the populationsof some shark species in several areas of the world’s oceans. This is because sharks oftenhave a strong stock and recruitment relationship, long recovery times in response to overfishing(low biological productivity because of late sexual maturity; few off-spring, albeitwith low M) and complex spatial structures (size/sex segregation and seasonal migration).The current state of knowledge of sharks and the practices employed in shark fisheries causeproblems in the conservation and management of sharks due to lack of available catch,effort, landings and trade data, as well as limited information on the biological parameters ofmany species and their identification. It is necessary to better manage directed shark catchesand certain multispecies fisheries in which sharks constitute a significant bycatch. In somecases the need for management may be urgent. A few countries have specific managementplans for their shark catches and their plans include control of access, technical measuresincluding strategies for reduction of shark bycatches and support for full use of sharks.However, given the wide-ranging distribution of sharks, including on the high seas, and thelong migration of many species, it is increasingly important to have internationalcooperation and coordination of shark management plans. At the present time (1998) thereare few international management mechanisms effectively addressing the capture of sharks.The FAO IPOA-SHARKS is voluntary and has been developed within the framework of theCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. All concerned RFMOs/States are encouraged toimplement it. The term “shark” is taken to include all species of sharks, skates, rays andchimaeras (Class Chondrichthyes), and the term “shark catch” is taken to include directed,bycatch, commercial, recreational and other forms of taking sharks. The IPOA-SHARKSencompasses both target and non-target catches.Management and conservation strategies should aim to keep total F for each stock withinsustainable levels by applying the PA. Management and conservation objectives andstrategies should recognize that in some low-income food-deficit regions and/or countries,shark catches are a traditional and important source of food, employment and/or income.Such catches should be managed on a sustainable basis to provide a continued source offood, employment and income to local communities. The objective of the IPOA-SHARKS isto ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use.RFMOs/States should adopt a plan of action for conservation and management of sharkstocks (Shark-plan) by 2001 if their vessels conduct directed fisheries for sharks or if theirvessels regularly catch sharks in non-directed fisheries. RFMOs/States should carry out aregular assessment of the status of shark stocks subject to fishing so as to determine if thereis a need for development of a shark plan. The assessment would necessitate consistentcollection of data, including commercial data and data leading to improved speciesidentification and, ultimately, the establishment of abundance indices.A Shark-plan should aim to:• Ensure that shark catches from directed and non-directed fisheries are sustainable;93

• Assess threats to shark populations, determine and protect critical habitats and implementharvesting strategies consistent with the principles of biological sustainability and rationallong-term economic use;• Identify and provide special attention, in particular to vulnerable or threatened sharkstocks;• Improve and develop frameworks for establishing and coordinating effective consultationinvolving all stakeholders in research, management and educational initiatives;• Minimize unutilized incidental catches of sharks;• Contribute to the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem structure and function;• Minimize waste and discards from shark catches (for example, requiring the retention ofsharks from which fins are removed);• Encourage full use of dead sharks;• Facilitate improved species-specific catch/landings data and monitoring of shark catches;• Facilitate the identification and reporting of species-specific biological and trade data.RFMOs/States which implement a Shark-plan should regularly, at least every four years,assess its implementation for the purpose of identifying cost-effective strategies forincreasing its effectiveness. The Shark-plan should contain a description of the prevailingstate of shark stocks, populations, associated fisheries and the monitoring and managementframework and its enforcement.4.6. EU PolicyEU policy relating to fisheries, ecosystems and the environment is evolving on an ongoingbasis, and I think it is useful to summarise policy drivers in chronological order so that thereader can follow how policy has evolved.The Habitats Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(92/43/EEC 1992) states that in the European territory of Member States (MSs) naturalhabitats are continuing to deteriorate and an increasing number of wild species are seriouslythreatened. In order to ensure the restoration or maintenance of natural habitats and speciesof Community interest at a favourable conservation status, it is necessary to create acoherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation (SACs) under the titleNatura 2000. This network, composed of sites hosting specified natural habitat types andhabitats of specified species, shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitatsconcerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservationstatus in their natural range.94

On the basis of specified criteria and relevant scientific information, each MS shall propose alist of sites indicating which natural habitat types and which species in that are native to itsterritory the sites host. For aquatic species which range over wide areas, such sites will beproposed only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical andbiological factors essential to their life and reproduction.For SACs, MSs shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if required,appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into otherdevelopment plans. MSs shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the SACs, the deteriorationof natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for whichthe areas have been designated 8 .Implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield – Communicationfrom the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (EP) COM (2006): TheCommunity and its MSs have subscribed to a commitment at the WSSD at Johannesburg(2002) to maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the MSY, with the aim ofachieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis, and where possible not laterthan 2015. MSY is characterized by a level of F that will, on average, result in a stock sizethat produces the MSY.This accelerates a move towards a longer-term management system that focuses onobtaining the best from the productive potential of Europe's living marine resources,without compromising its use by future generations. This is fully consistent with the broaderobjective of the CFP. This movement should be also seen in the context of the gradualimplementation of the EAFM, which is also an objective of the CFP.Financial assistance, such as that foreseen under the proposal for a European Fisheries Fund(EFF), would help mitigate the social and economic repercussions of such restraint and willneed to be delivered during the transitional phase before the full economic benefits areachieved.Catches of many bottom-living European fish stocks have declined dramatically in recentdecades. There has simply been too much fishing in relation to the productive potential ofthe stocks. The Commission considers that implementing fish stocks management systemsbased on the MSY will contribute to reverse this situation. In addition to ensuring that stockswould not collapse, it would allow the development of larger fish stocks, leading to morefishing possibilities at lower cost and with a higher unit value, providing a greater guaranteeof wealth. Fishing at MSY levels would reduce costs and increase profits for the fishingindustry, as the amount of effort (and associated costs, such as fuel) required per tonne offish caught decreases. Larger fish stocks will also provide a buffer against changes in thenumber of young fish that join the stock each year that occur due to environmental factors.Fish from stocks managed at near MSY levels benefit from competitive advantages of stable8 There are currently no deep-water species listed. Of the natural habitat types of community interest which may requiredesignation of SACs, in deep-water these comprise reefs and submarine structures made by leaking gases.95

supply and high quality (because investment in product handling is worthwhile since longtermprospects are more stable).Reducing F is the best single solution to the discard problem. Fish are discarded becausethey have been brought on board a fishing vessel when they are too small, of too low valueor else are not caught within the available quota. When fishing at MSY levels, the proportionof large and high value fish in the catch is greater. For each tonne of marketable fish landedthere will be less fish that must be discarded.Fishing for commercial species can often also disturb habitats and harm non-commercialspecies, including dolphins and porpoises. Reducing F from current levels towards MSYlevels will reduce the by-catch of such non-target species.In order to allow fish to grow more, and achieve a higher value and yield when they arecaught, there is a need to reduce the proportion of fish that are captured from the sea.Initially this would mean reducing catches, but as stocks become healthier, catches willincrease to higher levels in a sustainable manner.In order to enable fishermen to take the MSY from a stock it is necessary to define whichtarget rate of fishing is appropriate for each stock on the basis of the best available scientificadvice. There is also need to decide on the rate at which annual adjustments will be made toreach this target. These decisions should be implemented through long term plans asforeseen under the framework regulation of the CFP.It is highly uncertain how marine ecosystems will develop in relation to changes in climateand weather. Exploiting fish stocks at a lower rate of fishing will make stocks more robust toecological changes. As Fs are reduced and stocks rebuilt, more knowledge will be gainedand the targets for long-term management must be adjusted to take account of newknowledge that is gained about ecosystems and their productive potential.It is important to keep marine ecosystems in balance. Fishing down one species in order tofavour the yield of another would be a high-risk approach where economic activity woulddepend on fewer resources and be more vulnerable to stock depletions.Fishing on all species in an ecosystem should normally take place at a rate that is less thanthe rate of fishing that corresponds to obtaining a MSY in the long run.Long-term plans should be the prime instrument to implement this new approach. TheCommission considers that plans should be prepared in the following way:-• in consultation with concerned sectors, fishermen, consumers and other stakeholders.• economic, social and environmental impacts of proposed measures be taken into account• they should define a target rate of fishing, and a means to reach that target gradually andnot seek to manage biomass levels;96

• the plans should also aim at diminishing any harmful impact of fishing on the ecosystem;• where different stocks are normally caught together, the plans should include technicalmeasures to ensure fishing of all the stocks in compatibility with their respective targets;• the plans may also cover the possibility of exploiting some stocks more lightly than at MSYlevels in order to achieve some gain in productivity of other species;• the plans should establish targets irrespective of the biological condition of the stock whenthe plans enter into force, though the plans may require stronger conservation measures inthe event that a resource is more depleted;• where, due to lack of data or other circumstances, scientific advice cannot quantify theactions needed to reach MSY conditions, the plans should specify appropriate guidelines;• the plans, and their targets, must be subject to periodic review.Once long term plans establishing adequate stock targets are adopted, MSs will have todecide on the pace of change to reach these objectives, and how to manage the transition.There are two broad approaches for managing this change:-(1) by reducing fishing capacity, investment and employment to no more than what isneeded to fish at the MSY rate. Catches would be larger, fishing fleets would be smaller,fewer fishermen would be employed (although onshore processing employment mightincrease), fishing would be more profitable and fisheries regulation simpler and lessburdensome.(2) by maintaining the size of the fleet but reducing the efficiency of fishing, by limiting thevessels' capacity to catch fish (e.g. by limiting its size, power or fishing gear) or imposinglimitations on days-at-sea. Compared with present conditions, overall catches would belarger, fishing fleets would be subject to more restrictive regulations, employment andvessel activity would be more part-time, but fishing would be more profitable becausecatches would be maintained but variable costs (e.g. fuel costs) would be reduced.Changing to smaller-scale fisheries with lower levels of fishing efficiency could alsobring increased yields while having less direct effect on employment at sea. Maintainingemployment can be compatible with reducing rates of fishing by moving to less capitalintensive forms of fishing.The former implies reducing the capacity of national fleets, which the Commission considersis the most easily controllable fisheries management measure. Under either approach,change can be managed more easily if it occurs gradually. The choice of economic strategyfor the fisheries sector is a national decision. The main role of the Community in this contextis to provide the management framework for phasing out overfishing. The Communitycould also support structural change in the fisheries sector through the current FinancialInstrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) and the proposed EFF.97

Analyses of the economic and social effects of significant changes in fisheries managementare obviously necessary before such changes are made. However, the specifics of each fleetcan vary greatly between the MSs and between different fisheries. Because of this diversity,a general social and economic impact evaluation is not feasible. Instead the Commissionproposes to follow a regional and fishery-specific approach. The Council will have anopportunity to consider the strategy for each fishery in the light of the Commission's impactanalysis and the opinion of the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs).Over the coming years the Commission will propose long-term plans with the aim ofbringing all major fish stocks in Community waters to rates of fishing at which MSYs can beachieved. For stocks jointly managed with third countries, the Community will seek todevelop joint management arrangements with the same objective. The plans will be fisherybased,addressing groups of fish stocks that are caught together. The main guidingprinciples for their development will be the following:(a) the long-term plans will include programmed reductions in fishing rates, effectedprincipally through adjustments to Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and effortmanagement, but also incorporating technical measures where appropriate;(b) the plans could include elements such as limits on the extent to which fishingopportunities can change from one year to the next;(c) long-term plans should be updated at intervals of around 5 years;(d) long-term plans will where appropriate include milestones to be used to measure theprogress of the plan towards the achievement of MSY.As a first step in this process, the Community should, with effect from 2007, adoptmanagement decisions that ensure that there is no increase in the fishing rate for any stockthat is already overfished. This process will be without prejudice to other measures, such asrecovery plans, taken in accordance with the PA to reduce risks of stock depletions in theshort term.A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries COM(March 2007): Discarding is a serious problem in European fisheries and one which, in theview of the Commission, must be addressed as a high priority. The objective of thisCommunication is to initiate a policy which will reduce unwanted by-catches andprogressively eliminate discards in European fisheries.A new discard policy will reduce unwanted by-catches by encouraging behaviour andtechnologies which avoid unwanted by-catches. The instruments are a progressiveintroduction of a discard ban – where all finfish and crustaceans caught will have to belanded – and supplementary measures such as encouragement to improve the selectivity offishing gear, requirements to change fishing ground and real time closures.The basic implementation principle is to regulate what is caught in the first place rather thanto regulate landings. Such results-based management will, wherever possible, will be left to98

the industry to identify technical solutions which are economically and practically feasibleand produce the required results.The FAO defines discards as “that proportion of the total organic material of animal originin the catch, which is thrown away, or dumped at sea for whatever reason. It does notinclude plant material and post harvest waste such as offal. The discards may be dead oralive”. Discards may consist of species which are commercially exploited but which, due tomarket considerations, quota restrictions or minimum landing sizes, are not taken ashore.Discards may, according to this definition, also be any other organism which is caughtincidentally such as non-target finfish, crustaceans, molluscs, sea mammals and seabirds.The capture of unwanted by-catches and their subsequent discarding has several negativeconsequences. The capture of juvenile individuals of target species results in lower catchopportunities for those species in the future and a reduction in the spawning biomass for thefuture. Discarding of mature individuals of target species represents a waste andimmediately reduces the spawning biomass of that stock.The capture and discard of fish, crustacean, seabird or sea mammal species which are nottargeted by fisheries, is an unnecessary negative impact on the marine ecosystem as it affectsthe functioning of the ecosystem and its biodiversity negatively without providing anybenefits to society. Certain marine organisms including some species of sharks and rays arevery sensitive to fishing and may as a result be reduced to very low levels even when theyare only caught as unwanted by-catch. In such cases the incidental killing of even a fewindividuals may be critical from a biodiversity perspective. Returning unwanted by-catchesback into the sea does not reduce the problem because most species of fish and crustaceanswill be dead or have low survival in the sea after having been caught and then discarded.There are strong economic incentives in many fisheries to discard fish to maximise the valueof the landing, so called 'high-grading', in particular when different sizes or qualities of fishcommand different market prices or when species with very different market value arecaught together. Furthermore, the value of some organisms may be low or non-existentbecause they do not have a market.Some regulatory instruments which are currently used lead inevitably to discards. Thereliance on TACs as the main management instrument in mixed fisheries leads to discardswhen above-quota quantities of some species are taken while there is still quota left over forothers. The use of minimum landing sizes also leads to discards, especially in mixedfisheries where species of different adult size are caught together.A policy to reduce unwanted by-catches through a discard ban on commercial species hasbeen introduced in some fisheries in Norway, Iceland, Canada and New Zealand. Theexperiences from these cases largely relate to fisheries which are able to target one species ata time and the complications arising in fisheries which catch a mixture of species are notencountered.In the Community there are many demersal fisheries that catch several speciessimultaneously. The reduction of unwanted by-catches and progressive elimination of99

discards in European fisheries will therefore require a combination of several instruments. Anew discard policy aims to remove the practice of discarding. This will be achieved in EUwaters on a fishery by fishery basis through tailored plans that could include discard bansand other supplementary measures to reduce by-catch. At the same time, the Communitywill promote initiatives for elimination of discards in RFMOs.Discard bans would apply to all finfish and crustaceans. Exceptions may be made wherehigh long-term survival of specific species discarded from specific fisheries has been clearlydemonstrated.Existing management measures which presently encourage discarding in mixed fisheriesmust be reviewed and their use revised in order to reduce or remove such encouragement.The use of TACs in mixed fisheries without measures to control effort will encouragecontinued catch of species, for which a vessel has exhausted its quota, as long as there arespecies left for which it has a quota. TACs must therefore be combined with measures tokeep effort within limits which will stop the fisheries when there are only quotas on a fewspecies left for which to fish. In addition, in mixed fisheries there may be a need to developmechanisms for some flexibility and transfer of quotas.Minimum landing sizes presently require vessels to discard undersized fish. If a requirementto land all fish is introduced, juvenile fish should be protected against targeted fisheries bymaking the marketing rather than the landing of such fish illegal by introducing minimummarketing sizes for human consumption instead.Other existing CFP instruments and supplementary measures may be used to reduceunwanted by-catches and eliminate discards. Such instruments include encouragement todevelop and use selective gears, real-time area closures, an obligation to switch fishinggrounds (move-on rules), quota flexibility, fees on unwanted by-catches and expropriationof unwanted by-catches.Instead of introducing an extended set of technical regulations, an approach based onmaximum acceptable impacts of fisheries operations will be used. The negative impact offisheries to be reduced as a result of this policy is the unnecessary killing of marineorganisms by fishing. Standards for maximum acceptable by-catch of non-marketable,juvenile or above-quota organisms will thus be defined on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Thesestandards will initially be based on a reduction relative to the present situation and will beprogressively reduced further in order to encourage technological developments andadaptations of fishing practices which will avoid such by-catches.In this approach extensive micromanagement specifications of fishing gear and fishingpractices are replaced by requirements for specific results (maximum acceptable by-catch)and the industry is then left free to choose those solutions which are most compatible withthe practical and economic realities of the fisheries. The approach will thus rely extensivelyon initiative from the industry to identify technical solutions and resolve otherimplementation issues.100

A requirement to land all fish will mean that occasionally fish above the quota or belowminimum market size will be landed. It is necessary to consider whether these landed bycatchesshould be counted against quotas and whether the quota system should be modifiedto include by-catches. The disposal of these by-catches needs to be considered – whetherthey will be sold through normal market systems, for human consumption (if aboveminimum market size), for reduction to fish meal and oil or otherwise. It has to be decided ifand how a part of the proceeds of such sales could be dedicated to cover the new expensesbrought in by the implementation of no discards measures, either those incurred by publicauthorities or by fishermen themselves.Given the strong economic incentives for discarding it must be expected that when a bycatchreduction policy including a discard ban is imposed, discarding may still take placeunder circumstances where enforcement is weak or the legal consequences do not match theimmediate economic benefits from discarding. For the Commission enforcement is thus aprimary concern for implementation. Observer schemes will play a major role inenforcement. They can not by themselves however be a universal solution as such schemesare costly, especially when a large number of small or medium size vessels are involved. Asconfirmed by the experience gained in countries which have implemented discard bans,observer schemes must be part of an overall enforcement regime which must include atleast:• a careful monitoring of the landings of individual vessels combined with a systematicanalysis of detailed catch and landings figures which are compared with data fromobservers on board;• electronic log book schemes with almost real time reporting of the catch composition,especially when real time closure of some areas are considered;• monitoring and control of the fishing gears and• stakeholders' involvement and cooperation.The monitoring and analysis of by-catches in order to implement real time closures willrequire that data from all fleets are compiled and analysed on an ongoing basis and that amechanism is established whereby a Community body can communicate with the relevantMS about the need to implement closures.The economic and social impacts of the new policy will be highly variable dependent on thespecific structure and economic situation of each fishery and the dependent coastalcommunities. Economic and social impact assessments will therefore be made on the level ofregulations for specific fisheries.On a very general level, the progressive implementation of a policy to eliminate discardscould result in net short-term cost increases and losses in income. Handling and storing bycatchof lower value has a cost and the income from the overall landing will be lower. Theuse of closed areas and requirements to move to other fishing grounds may imply longerdistances to the fishing grounds and thus increased cruise time and fuel costs. The101

compulsory use of selective gears could similarly reduce short term profitability. Furtherimpacts are to be expected further down the marketing and distribution chain, resultingfrom the landing and handling of fish that was so far discarded.In the longer term there will be economic benefits as a reduction of by-catches of juvenilefish and fish above quota will result in larger and healthier stocks and thus increased fishingopportunities. Furthermore, additional markets could be created for products derived fromcatches which have been discarded in the past.A possible encouragement is to introduce a preferential status such as preferential access tofisheries on the basis of track records of low by-catches.It could be considered whether the development of changes in technology and practiceswhich are required may be supported by the EFF. Assistance may also be given to developalternatives for the use of previously discarded fish, in particular unavoidable by-catches ofspecies of low or no commercial value. Assistance could be considered for the developmentof advanced fishing tactics on the basis of information systems to inform fleets about areaswith high risk of unacceptable bycatch.The Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) for the European Union (COM, Oct. 2007) states thatFisheries management must take more into account the welfare of coastal communities, themarine environment and the interaction of fishing with other activities. The recovery of fishstocks will be energetically pursued, requiring sound scientific information andreinforcement of the shift to multi-annual planning. The Commission will take action toensure that the CFP reflects the EA of the Strategy for the Marine Environment, and willwork to eliminate IUU fishing in its waters and on the high seas.Managing fish stocks at MSY will provide a better future for the European fishingcommunity and ensure its contribution to Europe's food security; this should be achieved by2015 in line with international commitments.The Commission will take firm action (i) towards the elimination of discards and ofdestructive fishing practices such as high seas bottom trawling in sensitive habitats and (ii)to eliminate IUU fisheries.The role of the CFP in implementing an ecosystem approach to marine management COM (April2008): One of the operational objectives of the CFP is the progressive implementation of anEcosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). The IMP constitutes the overallframework for integrated action in the maritime field, and the Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective (MSFD), forms the basis for implementing an EA to the marine environment.Specifically for fisheries, the FAO states that the purpose is “to plan, develop and managefisheries in a manner that addresses the multiple needs and desires of societies, withoutjeopardizing the options of future generations to benefit from the full range of goods andservices provided by marine ecosystems”. The EA is defined by the Commission as one that“strives to balance diverse social objectives, by taking into account knowledge anduncertainty about biotic, abiotic, and human components of ecosystems and their102

interactions and applying an integrated approach to fisheries within ecologically meaningfulboundaries”.Based on more general definitions of the CBD and of ICES, these definitions make it clearthat an EA is an instrument to pursue sustainable development in its three dimensions,which also form part of the objectives of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, namelyenvironmental protection, social equity and cohesion and economic prosperity, and whichare enshrined in the CFP.The Commission’s understanding is that an EAFM is about ensuring goods and servicesfrom living aquatic resources for present and future generations within meaningfulecological boundaries. Such fisheries management will strive to ensure that benefits fromliving marine resources are high while the direct and indirect impacts of fishing operationson marine ecosystems are low and not detrimental to the future functioning, diversity andintegrity of these ecosystems.An EA therefore continues from the earlier “paradigm of limits” of traditional fisheriesmanagement focusing on the target resource. However, the concept of “limits” no longerconsiders only the impacts on a target population, but rather the fact that all ecosystemshave limits which, when exceeded, can result in major ecosystem change. Boundaries forimpacts from fishing are ecologically meaningful if harvested populations are kept withinecologically viable levels, if biological diversity is maintained and if impacts on thestructure, processes and functions of the ecosystem are kept at acceptable level. In addition,since fishing interacts with other human activities and their consequences relating to theseas, these interactions must also be considered.The task of fisheries management within an EA in an EU context is to:(1) keep direct and indirect impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems within bounds inrelation to healthy marine ecosystems and ecologically viable fish populations byincluding all the knowledge available about the interactions between fisheries andmarine ecosystems in decisions under the CFP, and(2) ensure that actions taken in fisheries are consistent with and supportive ofactions taken under the cross-sectoral Marine Strategy and Habitats DirectiveWithin the overall objective of the EA, specific objectives need to be defined regardingecosystem services (i.e. the social and economic benefits from fisheries) and meaningfulecological boundaries for fisheries impacts (i.e. keeping populations within viable levels,maintaining biological diversity and keeping impacts on the structure, processes andfunctions of the ecosystem at acceptable levels).A starting point for action is the description of ecosystems and their structure, processes andfunctions using all available knowledge. An important part will also be continuing andexpanding the current assessment of the status and trends of fish stocks and of the impact offishing on ecosystems. These assessments need to be updated all the time as moreinformation becomes available. The scientific bodies consulted for advice in the preparation103

of fisheries management measures build on long time series of relevant knowledge aboutstock development and effects of management measures and they are already consideringecosystem-relevant information in their assessments.Most European fishing fleets have a fishing activity which exceeds the activity required forfisheries to be sustainable even if sustainability is only considered from the limitedperspective of the single stocks of fish which are targeted by the fleets. The main instrumentsto act on the overall fishing pressure are long-term management plans building on theWSSD requirement to rebuild fish stocks to MSY levels.Beyond such a general reduction of fisheries impacts on the ecosystem the following specificissues need to be addressed:There is a need to protect sensitive marine habitats. All habitats which are in physicalcontact with fishing gear are affected. While some bottom types and the organismsdependent on them may be robust to such impacts, there are also habitats where the impactsof contact with fishing gear may be very significant and long-lasting. The Natura 2000network of marine protected areas will provide protection for representative habitats. Thecoordinated use of CFP instruments such as closures for specific fisheries or no-take zoneswill be implemented as required to achieve the objectives of the specific Natura 2000 sites.Beyond that, specific measures are taken to reduce the mechanical impacts of fishing gearalso outside such protected areas, and further measures will be taken to protect sensitivehabitats when awareness of such habitats and threats to them emerge.There is also a need to protect sensitive species killed incidentally in fishing operations andspecies targeted by fisheries that have been reduced to below safe biological limits.The recovery plans are the main instrument for rebuilding stocks that are below safe limitsand the new discards policy will contribute to protecting sensitive species from incidentalby-catch.Other instruments for the protection of sensitive species are regulations on the shape anduse of fishing gear which diminishes incidental by-catches of such species and closures ofareas where such by-catches are likely.Lower fishing pressure and specific protection of sensitive species and habitats will diminishthe impact of fisheries on ecosystem structure, diversity and functioning. There are,however, cases where specific measures may needed to be taken to prevent distortions in thefood web and ensure that natural ecosystem processes are not disrupted.Environmental drivers impact marine ecosystems and the fish stocks. Fishing may in somecases exacerbate the negative impacts of such drivers. The Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change states that this may be the case regarding some impacts of climate on fishstocks. It is an integral aspect of a PA that fisheries should be conducted in a way which isrobust to environmental change and thus that fish stocks should never be exploited to apoint where they are not resilient to environmental change. The Commission has specifically104

equested Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and ICES toincorporate any existing knowledge about environmental drivers in the assessments of theecosystems and fisheries and in the advice.An EA to marine management implies that multiple and often conflicting interests need tobe reconciled in the process. While there may be short-term contradictions between socialobjectives and the requirement to conduct fisheries within meaningful ecologicalboundaries, such contradictions largely disappear in the long term because healthyecosystems are a prerequisite for the continued existence of a fishing industry.EU DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC June 2008 - establishing a framework for community action in the fieldof marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)) applies to MSnational waters including deep-water areas within national EEZs, and comprises a thematicstrategy for the protection and conservation of the marine environment with the overall aimof promoting sustainable use of the seas and conserving marine ecosystems. The Directiveaddresses all human activities that have an impact on the marine environment. Theestablishment of MPAs, including areas already designated or to be designated under theHabitats Directive and the Birds Directive, and under international or regional agreementsto which the EC or MSs are Parties, is an important contribution to the achievement of goodenvironmental status under the Directive. Establishing such protected areas under thisDirective is an important step towards fulfilling the commitments undertaken at the WSSDand in the CBD, and will contribute to the creation of coherent and representative networksof such areas. By applying an ecosystem-based approach to the management of humanactivities while enabling a sustainable use of marine goods and services, priority should begiven to achieving or maintaining good environmental status in the Community’s marineenvironment.This Directive should contribute to the fulfilment of the obligations and importantcommitments of the Community and MSs under several relevant international agreementsrelating to the protection of the marine environment from pollution, including theConventions for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NE Atlantic (CouncilDecision 98/249/EC) and the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and BiologicalDiversity of the Maritime Area (Council Decision 2000/340/EC). Importantly, theachievement of the objectives of this Directive should ensure the integration of conservationobjectives, management measures and monitoring and assessment activities set up forspatial protection measures such as special areas of conservation (SACs), special protectionareas (SPAs) or MPAs. Account should also be taken of biodiversity and the potential formarine research associated with deep-water environments.The Directive establishes a framework within which MSs shall take the necessary measuresto achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year2020 at the latest. Marine strategies shall be developed and implemented in order to:(a) protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, wherepracticable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected;105

(b) prevent and reduce inputs in the marine environment, with a view to phasing outpollution, so as to ensure that there are no significant impacts on or risks to marinebiodiversity, marine ecosystems, human health or legitimate uses of the sea.Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of humanactivities, ensuring that the collective pressure of such activities is kept within levelscompatible with the achievement of good environmental status and that the capacity ofmarine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes is not compromised, whileenabling the sustainable use of marine goods and services by present and future generations.For the NE Atlantic (along with other designated areas), MSs shall make an initialassessment of their marine waters by 15 July 2012, taking account of existing data whereavailable and comprising the following:(a) an analysis of the essential features and characteristics, and current environmental statusof those waters and covering the physical and chemical features, the habitat types, thebiological features and the hydro-morphology;(b) an analysis of the predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity, on theenvironmental status of those waters which:(i) is based on an indicative lists of elements and covers the qualitative and quantitativemix of the various pressures, as well as discernible trends;(ii) covers the main cumulative and synergetic effects and(iii) takes account of the relevant assessments which have been made pursuant toexisting Community legislation;(c) an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradationof the marine environment.The qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status are that:-(1) biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and thedistribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic,geographic and climatic conditions.(2) non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adverselyalter the ecosystems.(3) populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biologicallimits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthystock.106

(4) all elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normalabundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of thespecies and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.(5) human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such aslosses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygendeficiency in bottom waters.(6) sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of theecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adverselyaffected.(7) permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marineecosystems.(8) concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.(9) contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levelsestablished by Community legislation or other relevant standards.(10) Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marineenvironment.(11) Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that does not adverselyaffect the marine environment.The time frame of MSFD is a follows:To be completed by 15 July 2012:-• completion of an initial assessment of the waters concerned• a determination of good environmental status (GES)• establishment of environmental targets and associated indicatorsTo establish and implement by 15 July 2014 a monitoring programme for ongoingassessments and regular updating of the targetsTo develop by 2015 at latest a programme of measures designed to achieve of maintain GESand to put in operation the programme of measures by 2016 at latestEC GREEN PAPER Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy April 2009 states that European fishstocks have been over-fished for decades and the fishing fleets remain too large for theavailable resources. The outcome has been a continuous decrease in the amounts of seafoodfished from Europe’s waters: more than half of the fish consumed on the European market isnow imported. The high volatility of oil prices and the financial crisis have exacerbated thelow economic resilience of fishing.107

The fisheries sector can no longer be seen in isolation from its broader maritime environmentand from other policies dealing with marine activities. Fisheries are heavily dependent onaccess to maritime space and to healthy marine ecosystems. Climate change is already havingan impact on Europe’s seas and is triggering changes to the abundance and distribution of fishstocks. Competition for maritime space is also on the rise as ever larger parts of our seas andcoasts are dedicated to other uses. Fishing economies are heavily influenced by broader trendsof employment and development in coastal communities, including the emergence of newsectors offering opportunities for conversion or income diversification.It is argued, therefore, that the proposed reform of the CFP must not be yet another piecemeal,incremental reform but a sea change addressing the core reasons behind the vicious circle inwhich Europe’s fisheries have been trapped in recent decades. Rethinking the CFP thereforerequires a fresh look at the broader maritime picture as advocated by the IMP, the MSFD andthe WSSD requirement to restore fish stocks to MSY. Important steps have also been taken inthe UN to limit the impact of fisheries in the high seas. Consumers, processing and retailsectors increasingly share these concerns and require guarantees that the fish they consumeand sell originates from well-managed and sustainable fisheries.European fishing activities must be clearly based on economically rational principles. Fleetsmust improve their economic resilience and adapt to changes in the environment and markets.Some steps are being taken to adapt including voluntary laying-off of vessels and a movetowards less fuel-intensive fishing practices. Some initiatives have been undertaken toimprove quality, consumer information and the match between supply and demand in orderto increase economic viability. These steps, however, fall far short of what is necessary toadapt to change and restore the economic viability of the sector.While a few EU fleets are profitable with no public support, most of Europe’s fishing fleets areeither running losses or returning low profits. Overall poor performance is due to chronicovercapacity. Capacity reductions in recent years have not been sufficient to prevent this.Another important consequence of overfishing, overcapacity and low economic resilience ishigh political pressure to increase short-term fishing opportunities at the expense of the futuresustainability of the industry. Sustained political and economic pressure has led industry andMSs to request numerous derogations, exceptions and specific measures. In many cases, theindustry has found ways to counteract the short-term negative economic effects of thesemeasures, leading to the need for even more detailed measures. Documenting, deciding,implementing and controlling the vast and diverse European fisheries through suchmicromanagement is increasingly complex, difficult to understand and very costly to manageand control.This situation has arisen in a context of heavy public financial support given to the fishingindustry, one of the results being to artificially maintaining excess fishing capacity. On top ofdirect aid from the EFF and similar national aid schemes, the industry benefits from a numberof indirect subsidies, the most important of which is the overall exemption from fuel taxes.Unlike other industries, fishing also benefits from free access to the natural resource it exploitsand does not have to contribute to the public management costs associated with its activities108

e.g. control and safety at sea. In several MSs, it has been estimated that the cost of fishing tothe public budgets exceeds the total value of the catches.Regarding overcapacity, the EU has repeatedly tried to implement structural measures aimedat reducing its fishing fleet, including funding for vessel scrapping schemes. However,experience shows that permanent support for scrapping does not effectively reduce capacity,as operators simply factor the scrapping premium into future investment decisions. One-offscrapping schemes are more likely to be efficient.Use of market instruments such as transferable rights to fishing may be a more efficient andless expensive way to reduce overcapacity, and one for which the industry has to take moreresponsibility. Several MSs have taken steps in recent years towards using such instruments.This has generally led to more rational investment decisions and to reductions in capacity, asthe operators adapt their fleet to their fishing rights in order to achieve economic efficiency.Such systems can be complemented with proper safeguard clauses to avoid excessiveconcentration of ownership or negative effects on smaller-scale fisheries and coastalcommunities.Regarding policy objectives, the current CFP regulation states that "it shall ensure exploitationof living aquatic resources that provides sustainable economic, environmental and socialconditions". No priority is set for these objectives and, while direct references are made toadopting a PA and an EA, it is not clear how this relates to economic and social conditions.There are no clear indicators and yardsticks that could provide more concrete guidance or tohelp measure policy achievements. Economic and social sustainability require productive fishstocks and healthy marine ecosystems. The economic and social viability of fisheries can onlyresult from restoring the productivity of fish stocks.There is, therefore, no conflict between ecological, economic and social objectives in the longterm. However, these objectives clash in the short term, especially when fishing opportunitieshave to be temporarily reduced in order to rebuild overexploited fish stocks. Social objectivessuch as employment have often been invoked to advocate more generous short-term fishingopportunities: the result has always been to further jeopardise the state of the stocks and thefuture of the fishermen who make a living out of them. It is therefore crucial that anycompromises made to cushion the immediate economic and social effects of reductions infishing opportunities remain compatible with long-term ecological sustainability, including amove to fishing within MSY, eliminating discards and ensuring a low ecological impact offisheries. Ecological sustainability is therefore a basic premise for the economic and socialfuture of European fisheries.Regarding encouraging the industry to take more responsibility in implementing the CFP,there are two closely linked aspects to involving the industry more closely: responsibilitiesand rights.The industry can be given more responsibility through self-management. Results- basedmanagement could be a move in this direction: instead of establishing rules about how to fish,the rules focus on the outcome and the more detailed implementation decisions would be leftto the industry. Public authorities would set the limits within which the industry must109

operate, such as a maximum catch or maximum by-catch of young fish, and then give industrythe authority to develop the best solutions economically and technically, subject to centralauditing of outcomes.Results-based management would relieve both the industry and policy-makers of part of theburden of detailed management of technical issues. It would have to be linked to a reversal ofthe burden of proof: it would be up to the industry to demonstrate that it operates responsiblyin return for access to fishing. This would contribute to better management by making thepolicy considerably simpler and removing the current incentives for providing false orincomplete information.There are already many examples of such self-management through bottom-up initiatives inthe European catching sector. Some Producer Organisations (POs) manage the quota uptake oftheir members and provide for private penalties against those who overshoot their individualquota at the expense of others. There are examples of groups of vessels that have taken on theburden of proof by providing full documentation of their catches, often as a response toprocessors’ and retailers’ pressure to improve traceability. These initiatives could begeneralised by turning the POs into bodies through which the industry takes responsibility fordocumentation and quota/effort management.Giving the industry more responsibility requires that safeguard mechanisms are in place andimplemented by the Community. In the context of a CFP which gives more rights to thecatching sector and relieves the industry the burden of the micro-management, it will berelevant to raise the issue of sharing the costs of fisheries management. So far the fishingindustry has been given free access to a public resource and management costs have beenlargely incurred by taxpayers.Fisheries with their large share of small- and medium-sized companies play an important rolein the social fabric and the cultural identity of many of Europe’s coastal regions. Many coastalcommunities remain dependent on fisheries for their income, some of them with limitedpotential for economic diversification. It istherefore essential to secure a future for coastal, small-scale, and recreational fishermen takingfully into account the particular situation of the small- and medium-sized enterprises.Bringing and keeping the capacity of the fishing fleets in line with fishing opportunities willinevitably lead to less overall employment in the catching sector. There is a legitimate socialobjective in trying to protect the most fragile coastal communities from this trend. These socialconcerns must be addressed in a way which does not prevent larger fleets from undergoingthe necessary adaptations.Regarding input/output management controls, most EC fisheries outside the Mediterraneanare managed by setting TACs of which each MS gets a national quota. This system ofmanagement by landing quotas seems relatively simple but it has also proven suboptimal inseveral ways. In mixed fisheries targeting several species of fish, it creates unwanted bycatcheswhen the quota of one species is exhausted while quotas for other species remain,which leaves fishermen with no choice but to discard the fish which they are no longerallowed to land. In addition to being a waste of precious resource, discarding has prevented110

several stocks from recovering in spite of low quotas. The future CFP should ensure thatdiscarding no longer takes place. Management based on fishing effort such as limiting thedays a fishing vessel can go to sea would remove this problem but it may not be sufficient toachieve the objectives of the CFP.Regarding integrating the CFP in the broader maritime policy context, the IMP addressesinteractions between all EU policies and maritime affairs. The future CFP must take this a stepfurther with an EA to marine management, covering all sectors, as implemented through theMSFD, which sets the obligation for MSs to achieve Good Environmental Status in 2020.Climate change will impact severely on the marine environment. Marine ecosystems andbiodiversity, already under pressure from pollution and overfishing, will be further affectedby warmer temperatures and acidification, with changes in species reproduction andabundance, changes in distributions of marine organisms and shifts in plankton communities.The new CFP has to play a role in facilitating climate change adaptation efforts concerningimpacts in the marine environment. Climate change is an added stress on marine ecosystemswhich makes a reduction of fishing pressure to sustainable level even more urgent.Sustainable fishing therefore has to replace overfishing which has rendered marine ecosystemsmore vulnerable to climate change and thus less capable of adapting.Birds Directive on the conservation of wild birds (Directive 2009/147/EC): A large number ofspecies of wild birds naturally occurring in the European territory and waters of MSs aredeclining in number, very rapidly in some cases. This decline represents a serious threat tothe conservation of the natural environment, particularly because of the biological balancesthreatened thereby. The species of wild birds naturally occurring in MSs are mainlymigratory species. Such species constitute a common heritage and effective bird protection istypically a trans-frontier environment problem entailing common responsibilities.The measures to be taken must apply to the various factors impacting on the abundance ofbirds, such as the repercussions of man’s activities and in particular the destruction andpollution of their habitats, capture and killing by man and the trade resulting from suchpractices.The species listed in this Directive shall be the subject of special conservation measuresconcerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area ofdistribution. In this connection, account shall be taken of:(a) species in danger of extinction;(b) species vulnerable to specific changes in their habitat;(c) species considered rare because of small populations or restricted local distribution;(d) other species requiring particular attention for reasons of the specific nature of theirhabitat.111

MSs shall take the requisite measures to establish a general system of protection for allspecies of birds listed in this Directive.The OSPAR Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the NE Atlantic states thatquestions relating to the management of fisheries should be regulated under internationaland regional agreements dealing specifically with such questions. Where OSPAR considersthat action for the protection and conservation of the NE Atlantic, is desirable in relation to aquestion relating to the management of fisheries, it acts to draw that question to theattention of the authority or international body competent for that question. Where actionwithin the competence of the OSPAR Commission is desirable to complement or supportaction by those authorities or bodies, the OSPAR shall endeavour to cooperate with them.OSPAR Commission's Biological Diversity and Ecosystems Strategy has a very broad focus, sinceit is concerned with all human activities (excluding those which may cause pollution), whichcan have an adverse effect on the protection and conservation of the ecosystems and thebiological diversity of the NE Atlantic (human activities with the potential to cause pollutionare addressed by the other strategies). In addition to protecting and conserving ecosystems,the OSPAR Convention makes provision to restore, where practicable, marine areas thathave been adversely affected. The Strategy has four elements:• Ecological quality objectives in support of the EA 9 ;• Species and habitats: assessments are made of species and habitats that are threatened orin decline and programmes and measures are developed for their protection;• MPAs: an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs is being created,including MPAs in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction;• Human activities: the human activities in the OSPAR maritime area which mayadversely affect it are being assessed and programmes and measures to safeguardagainst such harm are being developed.Fishing is an important economic activity in the OSPAR area, often being highly significantas a source of employment in areas where there are few alternatives. The impacts of fisherieson the marine environment can be profound. OSPAR’s Quality Status Report 2000 identifiedfisheries as one of the human activities with the highest impact on the marine environment.The impacts can include:• exploitation of stocks beyond safe biological limits;• alteration of community and trophic structure;9 A pilot study on ecological quality objectives for the North Sea has been undertaken. Consideration is now being givento extending ecological quality objectives to other OSPAR sub-regions;112

• disturbance to sea bed communities and habitats by fishing gears;• by-catch and discard of undersized fish;• by-catch of non-target species including benthic animals, marine mammals orcommercially unwanted species.OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats: the OSPAR BiologicalDiversity and Ecosystems Strategy sets out that the OSPAR Commission will assess whichspecies and habitats need to be protected. The OSPAR List of Threatened and/or DecliningSpecies and Habitats has been developed to fulfil this commitment. The inclusion of aspecies or of a type of habitat on this list has no other significance. It is based uponnominations by CPs and observers (mostly NGOs) to the Commission, of species andhabitats that they consider to be priorities for protection. The evidence in support of thosenominations is collectively examined by the OSPAR Commission and its subordinate bodieson the basis of the relevant Texel/Faial criteria for the identification of species in need ofprotection. The data used has been reviewed by ICES, in order to give assurance that itsquality is suitable for the purpose for which it has been used.Fish species affected by fishing in this list are subject to management by an international ornational fisheries authority or body. Where the OSPAR Commission considers that action isdesirable, it draws the issue to the attention of the relevant authority or international body.The OSPAR strategy makes clear that it may be necessary to consider separate populationsof species for the purposes of the strategy. The list therefore specifies certain populations ofspecies where separate treatment is justified, because the different populations are subject todiffering pressures. Where this is done, there is no implication that other populations of thesame species may be threatened and/or declining. The list is subject to ongoing developmentand species and habitats are added or removed, in the light of changes to their conservationstatus and to the threats they face and in the light of the latest scientific assessments.5. Management and monitoring of deep-water stocks, fisheries and ecosystems indifferent parts of the world5.1. Review of deep-water fisheries in Australia, New Zealand and the Indian Ocean5.1.1. Deep-water stocks and fisheries, fisheries description, history and development5.1.1.1. AustraliaThe Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has segmented the Australian fisheries innine entities (Table 5). The main deep-water ventures are operated within the Southern and EasternScalefish and Shark fishery (SESSF), targeting orange roughy, alfonsinos, oreos (Allocyttus niger,Neocyttus rhomboidalis and Pseudocyttus maculatus), ribaldo (Mora moro) and deep-water sharks; andalso within Antarctic fisheries targeting Patagonian toothfish. Other Australian deep-water fisheries113

comprise the Northern Trawl Fishery (landing deep-water prawns and orange roughy) and the SouthTasman Rise fishery (targeting orange roughy aggregations).Table 5. Australian fisheries in relation to deep-sea species targeting.FisheryTargeted deep-sea speciesAntarcticPatagonian toothfishCoral Sea and external territories +Northern TrawlDeepwater prawnsOrange roughySouthern & Eastern Scalefish and Shark AlfonsinoDeepwater sharksOrange roughyOreosRibaldo (Mora moro)Scallop and squid +Small Pelagic +South Tasman RiseOrange roughyTorres Strait +Tuna and billfish +Here we focus on the SESSF fishery, which provides the bulk of deep-water species landingsin Australia, and is subject to an explicit management plan. The Antarctic fishery targetingPatagonian toothfish is also of considerable importance in relation to the exploitation ofdeep-water stocks. However, the management of this fishery falls under the remit of theCCAMLR (see Section 5.3 below).The SESSF is structured in four sectors: Commonwealth Trawl (CT) sector, Great AustralianBight Trawl sector (GABTS), East Coast Deep-water Trawl sector (ECDTS), Gillnet, hook andtrap sectors (GHTS) (Figure 37). Only the CTS, GABTS and ECDTS have had a substantiallydedicated deep-water fishing activity, and are described below.The Commonwealth Trawl (CT) sector is a mixed fishery that catches over 80 species ofcommercial value (Smith et al. 2005, Wilson et al. 2009). Precursors of this fishery have beenoperating since the early 1900s. Catches are taken from both inshore and offshore waters, aswell as offshore seamounts and the fishery extends southward from Barrenjoey Point inNSW around Victoria and Tasmania and west to Cape Jervis in South Australia (Figure 37).The main harvesting method is otter trawling.Early fishing activities were confined until the mid-1980s to the continental shelf in depths ofless than 200 m. Then, the discovery of commercial quantities of orange roughy in watersaround Tasmania initiated a marked shift of fishing effort to deeper fishing areas and achange in catch composition towards larger proportions of deep-water species. By 1990, theorange roughy “boom” peaked, with about 45,000t representing 74% of the total recordedcatches. Following the decline of the orange roughy fishery, the proportion of this species inthe total quota species catch dropped to 12% in 2003. In 2008, the total CT orange roughyTAC amounted to only 800t, with 700t captured from the Cascade Plateau stock. TheCascade Plateau stock was the only orange roughy stock not considered to be overfished in2008, and it is also the only orange roughy stock for which targeted fishing is currentlyauthorised in Australia. Restrictive TACs have also been set for the other deep-water speciescaught within the CT area. The 2008 TACs amounted to 50t for deep-water sharks, 120t for114

smooth oreo, 150t for other oreos, 165t for ribaldo. In 2008, these stocks were not consideredto be either overfished or subject to overfishing.Figure 37. Map of the different sectors of activity of the SESS fishery, © Commonwealth of Australia 2005.Source: http://www.afma.gov.au/information/maps/sess_cts.htmThe East Coast Deep-water Trawl Sector fishery was only amalgamated into the SESSF in 2003,when it became the ECDWTS. The fishery itself started in 1990, when orange roughy wasinitially targeted around the Lord Howe Rise. In 2006, the state of orange roughy wasdeclared a conservation concern and its TAC reduced to bycatch levels. Alfonsino becamethe main target species. However, despite a TAC of 500t, there was no fishing foe alfonsinothe ECDWTS in 2008. The status of this species was considered uncertain in 2008.The Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (GABT) has had a long and dynamic history (Daleyet al. 2007). Demersal trawling first occurred prior to the First World War in 1912. Over thenext 70 years, there were a number of sporadic fishing ventures focused on Bight redfish(Centroberyx gerrardi) and jackass morwong (Nemadactylus macropterus) on the continentalshelf. These ventures were generally short-lived and hindered by inadequate vessels, poorcold-storage facilities and the distance of the fishing grounds from eastern markets. Therewas renewed interest in the GABTF during the mid-1980s when commercial quantities oforange roughy were discovered. In 1989, orange roughy landings peaked at 3,800 t. Then theresource declined swiftly with landings falling to 423 t by 1991. Subsequently, this speciesceased to be a major economic driver for the GABT sector. In recent years, the catch of orangeroughy on the mid-slope was taken almost entirely from two seamounts off Western115

Australia. In 2005 it fell to 117 t. In 2006, a restrictive TAC was introduced for orange roughy.Currently, orange roughy cannot be commercially targeted and are only fished under anapproved research plan and scientific permit. The status of the GAB orange roughy stockswas considered uncertain in 2008 (Wilson et al. 2009).Outside the SESSF fisheries, other deep-water fisheries comprise the western deep-waterfishery, Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery and the South Tasman RiseFishery.The Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery (WDWTF) is a subset of the Northern Trawl Fishery. It islocated in deep water off Western Australia, from the 200m isobath to the edge of theAustralian Fishing Zone. Exploratory fishing started in the 1980s as operators expandedfishing for scampi and deep-water prawns. Following poor crustacean catches, the fisheryevolved into a mixed finfish trawl fishery, including deep-water species e.g. orange roughy,deepwater bugs (Ibacus spp., Decapoda, Scyllaridae), oreos. Landings of orange roughypeaked at 300t in 1995. In recent years, commercial species are taken on the upper (200-700m)and mid-continental slope, but generally not in large quantities. The main species caught areorange roughy, oreos and bugs. In 2008, deep-water bugs contributed the bulk of landings(60t), while orange roughy and smooth oreo landings were only 6t and

emit of the CCAMLR. Here, we focus on deep-water species living deeper than 600 m, andparticular consideration is given to orange roughy as it is the main deep-water speciesharvested in New Zealand.Commercial fishing for orange roughy began on the Chatham Rise in the late 1970s to early1980s with fisheries in other parts of the New Zealand EEZ typically starting in the mid-1980’s (Figure 38). Catches peaked in the late 1980’s and have decreased since, largely inresponse to reductions in catch limits as the biomass of the various stocks has been fisheddown to target levels. Over 13,000 t of orange roughy were landed from the New ZealandEEZ in the 2007-08 fishing year. Approximately 60% of the catch came from the East andSouth Chatham Rise fishery - the oldest and largest orange roughy fishery in the world.There are three species of oreo fished within the New Zealand EEZ; smooth oreo, black oreoand spiky oreo. Target fisheries exist for black and smooth oreo in fisheries managementareas 1, 3, 4 and 6 (Figure 38). Spiky oreo is taken as a bycatch in these fisheries and all threespecies are taken as bycatch in the targeted orange roughy fishery.160°E165°E170°E175°E180°175°W170°W0 125250 500 750 1,000kmMap Projection: Mercator30°S 30°S10935°S 35°S178 240°S 40°S5345°S 45°SEEZ4EEZ50°S 50°SEEZ655°S 55°S160°E165°E170°E175°E180°175°W170°WFigure 38. Map of the New Zealand EEZ including Fisheries Management Areas (FMA): (1) Auckland (East); (2)Central (East); (3) South-East Coast; (4) South-East (Chatham Rise); (5) Southland; (6) Sub-Antarctic; (7)Challenger/Central (Plateau); (8) Central (Egmont); (9) Auckland (West); (10) Kermadec.The 2009 probabilistic stock summary of the New Zealand deep-water stocks is given inTable 6. Unlike in Australia, the New Zealand orange roughy fishery is still active, althoughclosures have been enforced in relation to three stocks (Puysegur Bank, Challenger Plateau,West Coast South Island). However, the probability that orange roughy stocks are harvestedat MSY level is lower than 40%, most of them are depleted (and three of them collapsed) with117

a probability larger than 60%. Overfishing is also believed to occur except for the three closedfisheries. The different terms “near/above target”, “depleted”, “collapsed”, “overfishing”have been defined in the new Harvest Strategy Standard, which was introduced in October2008 (see later). Black cardinalfish in the South-East and Chatham Rise is also believed to beoverfished and subject to overfishing. By contrast, alfonsino in the Auckland FMA seems tobe harvested sustainably with a high probability. The situation is more variable for the oreostocks, some are overfished and others not.SpeciesTable 6. 2009 probabilistic stock summary of the New Zealand deep-water stocks (NZMFISH 2009). The headingsof the different columns (near/above target, depleted, collapsed, overfishing. Uncertain (?)) are defined in thenewly introduced New Zealand Harvest Strategy Standard.TAC(t)FMA Stock LastassessmentNeartarget?Depleted? Collapsed? OverfishingAlfonsino 3,000 1 BYX1 2008 >90%

on the high seas with the discovery of orange roughy stocks by vessels from New Zealand.The combined catch of all deep-water species in 2000 was estimated at approximately 40,000t, involving up to 50 vessels from over a dozen countries (accurate catch data are notavailable given the unreported and unregulated nature of the fishery). In 2001, only eightvessels reportedly participated in the fishery and, in 2002, fishing activity declined evenfurther. Detailed information on the former USSR deep-water trawl fisheries between 1970sand 1990s indicated that well over 100 species were taken as by-catch, which suggests thatthe impact on associated and dependent deep-water species could have been significant.At present, the dominant bottom fishery in the high seas of the South West Indian Oceanover the past several years has been the mid-water and bottom trawl fishery on and aroundseamounts for alfonsino and orange roughy. In addition to the trawl fishery, a deep-waterlongline fishery on the high seas has developed over the past several years targetingprimarily deep-water longtail red snapper (Etelis coruscans). Anecdotal information alsosuggests that several vessels may be fishing with deep-water gillnets on the high seas of thesouth Indian Ocean, primarily for deep-water sharks.SIODFA (Southern Indian Ocean Deep-sea Fishers Association) indicated that four deepwatertrawl vessels have regularly fished the high seas of the southern Indian Ocean fororange roughy and alfonsino since 2003, and not all of the vessels fish all year round.5.1.2 Management institutions and processes5.1.2.1 AustraliaThe AFMA manages Commonwealth commercial fisheries. In general, these extend from 3nautical miles out to the extent of the AFZ. The States and Northern Territory are responsiblefor the majority of recreational and commercial coastal and inland fishing, and inland andcoastal aquaculture operations. AFMA shares responsibility for managing some fisherieswith the States and Northern Territory. However, a general rule of thumb is that States andthe Northern Territory manage inshore species, such as rock lobster and abalone, whereasAFMA generally manages deeper water finfish and tuna species. AFMA develops andimplements a range of policies to support its application of the legislative and regulatoryframework that exists for Commonwealth fisheries.Overall guidance and direction is provided by the 1991 Fisheries Management Act (Anon.2009) and Fisheries Administration Act (Anon. 2008). In managing Commonwealth fisheries,AFMA has an obligation to develop plans and implement policy in the performance of itsfunctions and the pursuit of its objectives. Management plans are required for all fisheriesunless AFMA has determined that a management plan for a particular fishery is notwarranted. Each management plan sets out the objectives of the plan, measures by which theobjectives are to be attained and performance criteria against which the measures taken maybe assessed. Each plan is prepared in consultation with participants in the fishery, with adraft plan to be made available for public comment. AFMA is also preparing Statements ofManagement Arrangements for all fisheries that do not have statutory management plans. AStatement of Management Arrangements provides a means of communicating the119

management regime for a fishery to all stakeholders, including industry, government andthe wider community.Management objectives, strategies and tools relevant to the deep-water fisheries from the CT,ECDWT and GABT Sectors fall in the SESSF fishery plan (SESSF 2007). Although the otherdeep-water fisheries are not subject to a dedicated management plan, managementarrangements have been formalised for the WDWT Fishery (AFMA 2004).A key feature of Australian fisheries management is the formalised stakeholder liaison andconsultation that occurs continuously through Management Advisory Committees (MACs).MACs are a major source of advice to the AFMA, reflecting the experience and expertise ofthe range of stakeholders with interest in the fisheries covered by the MAC. The AFMA iscurrently in the process of reducing the number of MACs. In 2009, the Australian deep-waterfisheries were under the remit of both the South East MAC (CT and ECDWT Sectors) and theGAB MAC (GABT Sector). The WDWT Fishery used to be covered by the West MAC, butthat was dissolved in 2009 and replaced by a small consultative panel.MACs draw upon and consider advice provided by Resource Assessment Groups (RAGs)which have been established for each major fishery group or individual species. RAGscomprise fishery scientists, industry members, fishery economists, management and otherinterest groups. The wide membership ensures that, in addition to scientific information oneach fish stock, industry knowledge and developments in management strategies, marketprices and the costs of harvesting are also taken into account. RAG meetings are partiallyfunded by the AFMA from the AFMA Research Fund (which is drawn from Governmentsources on the basis that the wider community has an interest in having robust assessmentsof stocks and sound resource usage strategies) and by the industry funded through a costrecovery regime (levies). RAGs are not a body of the MACs and operate independently fromthem, although the two groups work closely together. The main role of RAGs is to provideadvice on the status of fish stocks, and on the impact of fishing on the marine environment.This includes providing advice to MAC research sub-committees on the type of informationrequired for stock assessments. RAGs also evaluate alternative harvest options proposed byMACs, including impact over time of different harvest strategies; stock depletion or recoveryrates; confidence levels for fishery assessments, and risks to the attainment of approvedfishery objectives. The RAGs also evaluate and report on economic and compliance factorsaffecting the fishery. RAGs coordinate, evaluate and regularly undertake fishery assessmentactivity in each fishery. They report their recommendations through the individual fisheryMACs to the AFMA Board on issues such as the setting of total allowable catches (TACs),stock rebuilding targets, biological reference points etc. In effect, the RAGs provide advicetaking account of uncertainty and seek to identify the risks associated with the alternatives(risk assessment). RAGs are not mandated to update stock assessments on an annual (or biannual)basis, as does ICES.The SESSF Resource Assessment Group (SESSFRAG) is the RAG dedicated to SESSF stockassessments. Importantly, because the SESSF is managed under a 4-Tier harvest strategy (seebelow), SESSFRAG advises on the tier the different SESSF stocks should be allocated to.SESSFRAG consists of five assessment groups. One of these groups, the Deep-waterResource Assessment Group (DEEPRAG), is responsible for assessing SESSF deep-water120

stocks deeper than 600 m. There is currently no formal RAG dedicated to the assessment ofthe other non-SESSF deep-water fisheries resources.5.1.2.2 New ZealandIn New Zealand, decisions on TACs 10 , allocation, Deemed Values (see below) and themajority of fisheries regulations made by the Minister of Fisheries, who receives adviceformally from the Ministry of Fisheries. After setting a TAC, an allocation decision has to bemade, specifying allowances for, (1) the customary (Maori), (2) recreational fishers and, (3) avirtual compartment including other sources of fishing mortality (e.g. illegal fishing). TheTAC allocation is not based on any clear scientific or policy basis. After these allowances aremade, the remaining share is allocated to the commercial fishing sector, and is referred to asthe TACC (Total Allowable Commercial Catch). It corresponds conceptually to theAustralian (and EU) TAC.The Ministry of Fisheries has separate groups dealing with operational policy. TheOperations group deals with a range of issues, including provision of advice on regulatorycontrols and TAC-setting. Stock assessment outputs are a major input to the Operationsgroup. Other inputs come in the form of internal and external discussions, contracted orother relevant papers on environmental, economic and other matters, managers’deliberations with stakeholders. The Operations group then develops an Initial PositionPaper (IPP). The IPP has to provide initial options for TAC changes, advice on how TACshould be allocated to customary, recreational and commercial sectors, and also guidance onDeemed Value setting. Traditionally, IPPs were developed by the Ministry in isolation.Increasingly, discussion with stakeholders occurs even at this early stage in the process andthere is considerable benefit recognized from early engagement. The IPP is also madepublicly available and submissions are sought on all aspects. The Ministry is required toanalyse these submissions and to develop a Final Advice Paper (FAP) for the Minister. TheFAP is not released publicly until after the Minister has made decisions. At that time, theFAP is released, usually alongside the Minister’s Decision Letter that explains decisionsmade.Science processes are well established with good access by and inclusion of interestedparties. The many Fish stock Assessment Working Groups (FAWGs) meet over a period oftime, with daily meetings spread out over weeks or months to allow contracted work to beundertaken and for work in response to FAWG feedback. The FAWGs culminate in anAssessment Plenary meeting which serves a limited review function and provides final inputto report preparation. The Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for producing annual PlenaryReports, which include sections on all stocks, whether or not they have been considered thatyear. Most of the commercially important stocks are considered every 2-3 years. Researchproviders such as NIWA (The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Science),Ministry of Fisheries scientists and managers, industry representatives and occasionallyNGOs participate in FAWG and Plenary processes. In the case of deep-water FAWG, themain industry contributors are the Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC) and the Deepwater10 However, with regard to international stocks and fisheries, TAC decisions are taken under the auspices ofinternational management agencies such as CCAMLR (toothfish) or CCSBT (southern bluefin tuna).121

Group Ltd. There is no “closed shop” approach to any science groups and there is norestricted final science advisory committee. To the extent possible, all reports are consensual.This is not to say that the processes are free of contention. Although the majority of FAWGare straightforward, some, and particularly the Deep-water FAWG, have provided achallenge in the past (notably with regards to orange roughy assessments). Challenges ariseparticularly when stock assessments and data create an uncertain technical basis for objectiveanalysis and commentary and when scientific reports feeding in to decision-makingprocesses may have an effect on sustainability or utilisation outcomes.5.1.2.3 Indian OceanThe deep-water fisheries on the high seas of the Southwest Indian Ocean have beenunregulated. Several countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, have putin place some unilateral measures for their fleets operating in the region. However, therehave been no catch restrictions, and there is no regional management agreement andstructure in place to manage the fisheries.The Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) – a management frameworkapplicable to non-highly migratory species and to most high seas areas in the Indian Ocean,was concluded and opened for signature in July 2006. Signatories to the agreement areAustralia, the Comoros, France, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius, New Zealand,Seychelles and the European Community. However, the agreement has not yet entered intoforce.The only large-scale conservation initiative for seamounts in the southern Indian Ocean camefrom the industry. Thus, in 2006, the Southern Indian Ocean Deep-Water Fishers Association(SIODFA) voluntarily set aside 11 Benthic Protected Areas (BPAs).As there are no multilaterally agreed conservation measures in place, high-seas bottomfisheries in the Indian Ocean are not illegal fisheries. The lack of management of high-seasfishing activities in the Indian Ocean poses major threats to deep-water species and theirhabitats.5.1.3 Management objectives and principles5.1.3.1 AustraliaGeneral management objectives and principles for Australian fisheries may be found in Part1 (Sections 3 and 3A) of the founding Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Anon. 2009). As formany OECD fisheries management agencies worldwide, the Australian Act highlights theprinciples of ecological and environmental sustainability, the precautionary approach, andalso the objective of optimising resource utilisation.What is, however, a unique feature of the Australian Act is the statement that the balancebetween conservation and utilisation should be achieved by “Maximising the net economicreturns to the Australian community from the management of Australian fisheries.” For manyAustralian fish stocks, this management objective has been translated into a management122

target, the MEY (Maximum Economic Yield) and its related reference points. MEY is thelargest economic return that can be achieved over a prolonged period of time whilemaintaining the stocks’ productive capacity.For all SESS deep-water stocks, BMEY, the average stock biomass level corresponding to MEY,is the legal management target, and that is estimated to 48-50% of the virgin biomass. Nomanagement targets have been established for other Australian deep-water stocks.5.1.3.2 New ZealandManagement objectives and principles have been established under the legal framework ofthe Fisheries Act 1996 (Anonymous 2005). Similar to the Australian Fisheries ManagementAct 1991, the overarching objectives of the New Zealand Fisheries Act 1996 include, todifferent extents and details, biological sustainability, socio-economic, environmental andecosystemic requirements (Marchal et al. 2009). One outstanding feature of the Fisheries Act1996 (Sect. 13) is the explicit reference to BMSY, the level of biomass required to achieve MSYin the long term, as a management target. If a stock is below the target, the Minister is legallyobliged to take corrective action to rebuild biomass to or above BMSY (or a related targetlevel). In New Zealand, the MSY concept in the context of management objectives is overallwell accepted by managers and stakeholders. However, there are many stocks for which BMSYcannot be estimated reliably. Such difficulties have, on some occasions, limited theapplicability of the Act in the context of fisheries management, and amendments to theFisheries Act 1996 have recently been recorded.In the most recent assessments, BMSY has been considered to be about 30% of the virginbiomass for all New Zealand orange roughy stocks, and 27% of virgin biomass for black oreoin OEO3A (NZMFISH 2009). No targets have to date been defined for the other oreos or forblack cardinalfish. BMSY is a less conservative target than the BMEY target (48-50% of virginbiomass) implemented in the management of the Australian SESSF deepwater stocks.It should also be noted that, based on a review of the fisheries science and managementliterature, the recent operational guidelines from the Ministry of Fisheries suggest that theBMSY of very low productivity stocks such as orange roughy or oreos should be at least 45% ofthe virgin biomass (NZMFISH 2008b). However, these more conservative targets have todate not been implemented for management purposes.5.1.3.3 Indian OceanThere are no objectives or principles applicable to the management of deep-water fisheries inthe Indian Ocean.5.1.4 Management strategies5.1.4.1 AustraliaIn Australia, management strategies have since 2007 been made explicit within themanagement plans that have been established for several Commonwealth fisheries, and123

these are referred to as HSP (Harvest Strategy Policies) (DAFF 2007). Here we summarise themain features of the Commonwealth HSP, and highlight those aspects that are moreparticularly relevant to the management of Australian deep-water fisheries.The HSP represents an operational framework that explicitly enables the implementation ofthe requirements of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 but also of the holistic EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Therefore, the HSP is not a single-species,but rather an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) policy (Smith et al. 2007).Therefore, while the harvest strategies summarised below are relevant to commercial fishstocks (and more particularly deep-water fish stocks), it should be reminded that they areonly one component of the more holistic EBFM framework.A harvest strategy defines the operational management actions required to achieve biologicand economic objectives in a given fishery. Key elements of a harvest strategy are amonitoring and assessment process and control rules to regulate fishing activity..Figure 39 shows an example of a harvest control rule (HCR) that is consistent with the HSP.BTARG is the target biomass; BLIM is the limit biomass reference point; FLIM is the limit fishingmortality rate; FTARG is the target fishing mortality rate. The recommended biological catch(RBC) is calculated by applying the FTARG to the current biomass (assumed to be availablefrom a stock assessment). The control rule specifies that as the biomass reduces below BMSY,FTARG is decreased and is to zero at BLIM and below. The dark green area is at or above thetarget, and the light green area is where management action is required to rebuild the stockto BTARG.Figure 39. Example of harvest control rule consistent with the HSP (DAFF 2007, Wilson et al. 2009).Minimum standards have been established for the HSP reference points. Thus, BTARG and BLIMshould respectively be above BMEY (or 1.2 BMSY if BMEY is unknown) and ½BMSY, FLIM should belower than FMSY, while FTARG should be the F level required to maintain the stock biomass atabout BTARG.124

Rebuilding strategies are developed for those stocks harvested below BLIM, and these involvesetting targeted catches to zero. If stocks biomass drops substantially below BLIM, the stockmay also be included in the list of threatened species established by the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999. Such stocks would then be subject toa formal recovery plan via a legislation issued by the Australian Minister for theEnvironment and Water Resources. In December 2006, orange roughy was listed asconservation dependent under the EPBC Act 1999. The conservation program preventstargeting of orange roughy in all fishing zones except the Cascade Plateau.An important development of the HSP has been the inclusion, for some fisheries, of an evenmore comprehensive decision-making support framework to account for various levels ofinformation and assessments (Smith et al. 2007). The framework, referred to as the “tieredapproach”, has been implemented for all SESSF stocks, including deep-water stocks, and isdescribed below.The tiered approach provides an extra-layer of precaution to the HSP, which reflects thelevels of uncertainty in stock status (tier levels). Typically, target exploitation rates woulddecrease as the uncertainty increases. Thus, a 4-Tier approach has been implemented to allSESSF stocks:• Tier 1 stocks are subject to a robust and quantitative stock assessment;• Tier 2 stocks are subject to a quantitative but preliminary stock assessment;• Tier 3 stocks are not assessed quantitatively but F estimates are available from catchcurve analyses; and• Tier 4 stocks for which only CPUE trends are available.Each Tier has its own HCR that is applied to calculate RBCs (Recommended BiologicalCatches), which is then used to advise on TACs at the end of the political process. Fiveresource assessment groups (RAGs) cover the SESSF groups of species, and advise on whichspecies and stocks belong at each tier and determine the RBCs.In the last stock assessments, the RBC was calculated as follows (Wilson et al. 2009). For Tiers1 and 2 the RBC is generated by applying the targeted F to current biomass. For Tier 3, RBCis calculated as a proportion of average recent catch, which depends on the relationshipbetween the estimates of current and reference (target and limit) fishing mortalities. For Tier4, RBC is set as a proportion of the average catch in a reference period (or half this value forrelatively unfished stocks), when the stock was considered fully fished, catch rates werestable, and the fishery was considered sustainable. This proportion depends on therelationship between current CPUE and the reference points (i.e., the target and limit CPUEscorresponding respectively to BMEY and BLIM). The different SESSF deep-water stocks havebeen grouped in Table 7 based on their Tier level, related reference points and RBCcalculation procedures.125

Table 7. Classification of the SESSF deep-water stocks according to their Tier level. BSQ is the current (status quo)biomass; CatchSQ is the recent average catch; CatchREF is the catch in the reference period; is a coefficientreflecting the relationship between the estimate of current and reference fishing mortalities; is a coefficientreflecting the relationship between current and reference CPUEs.Tier BTARG (BMEY) BMSY BLIM RBC SESSF stocks1 48% B0 40% B0 20% B0 Catch[FTARG → BSQ] CST orange roughy, eastern zoneGABT deepwater flatheadGABT orange roughy2 50% B0 40% B0 20% B0 Catch[FTARG → BSQ] CTS orange roughy, Cascade PlateauCTS orange roughy southern zoneCTS orange roughy western zone3 48% B0 20% B0 * CatchSQ ECDWT alfonsino4 48% B0 20% B0 * CatchREF CTS deep-water sharks, EasternCTS deep-water sharks, WesternCTS smooth oreo dory, Cascade PlateauCTS smooth oreo dory, otherCTS other oreo dories (4 species)RibaldoA simplified harvest strategy (HS) applies to the data-limited Western Deep-water TrawlFishery (AFMA, 2007). There is no specification of target reference points, but there are threecatch trigger levels that initiate management actions that progressively increase data andanalysis (including assessment) requirements on the fisheries. Level 1 is half the highhistorical catch, Level 2 is the highest historical catch and Level 3 is double the highesthistorical catch. Linked with the closure of the orange roughy fishery, the 2008 catches of allWDTF deep-water stocks are well below the lowest Level 1 catch trigger. As a result, noanalytical stock assessments have recently been conducted for these stocks.5.1.4.2 New ZealandUnlike the Australia SESS fishery, no fishery plans have to-date been developed to managecomprehensively New Zealand deep-water fisheries. However, Harvest Strategy Standards(HSS), along with operational guidelines have since October 2008 been made explicit for allstocks under the Quota Management System, including deep-water stocks (NZMFISH 2008a,NZMFISH 2008b). Below we summarise the main features of the New Zealand HSS.The purpose of HSSs is to provide a consistent and transparent framework for setting fisheryand stock targets and limits and associated timely management actions. The objective is toachieve a high probability of achieving targets, a very low probability of breaching limits,and acceptable probabilities of rebuilding depleted stocks. A HSS consists of three corecomponents:• A specified target about which a fishery or stock should fluctuate. The target should bebased on MSY reference points that should be achieved with at least a 50% probability.Note that even if its biomass is near or above BMSY, a stock may be considered subject tooverfishing if the MSY-compatible fishing mortality FMSY is exceeded. This is becausestocks fished at rates exceeding FMSY will ultimately be depleted below BMSY.• A ‘soft’ limit that triggers a requirement for a formal, time-constrained rebuilding plan.The default soft limit is ½BMSY or 20%B0, whichever is higher. The soft limit will beconsidered to have been breached and the stock depleted when the probability that126

stock biomass is below that limit is greater than 50%. Depleted stocks should be rebuiltback to at least the target level in a time frame between Tmin 11 and 2*Tmin with anacceptable probability. Stocks will be considered to have been fully rebuilt when it canbe demonstrated that there is at least a 70% probability that the target has beenachieved and there is at least a 50% probability that the stock is above the soft limit.• A ‘hard’ limit below which fisheries should be considered for closure. The default hardlimit is ¼BMSY or 10% B0, whichever is higher. The hard limit will be considered to havebeen breached and the stock collapsed when the probability that stock biomass isbelow the hard limit is greater than 50%. Fisheries that have been closed as a result ofbreaching the hard limit will not be re-opened until it can be demonstrated that there isat least a 70% probability that the stock has rebuilt to or above the level of the soft limit.For orange roughy stocks, BMSY is estimated to 30% BMSY, and a target F has also been fixed tonatural mortality rates for some stocks (e.g., East and Chatham Rise orange roughy). The softand hard limits are respectively 20% and 10% of virgin biomass.5.1.4.3 Indian OceanThere are no management strategies in place for deep-water fisheries in the Indian Ocean.5.1.5 Management tools5.1.5.1 AustraliaThe SESS Fishery is managed using a mixture of input and output (TAC) controls. TACs arethe main management instrument.There is also a limit on the number of boats that operate in each sector as well as limits onmesh size and the amount of fishing gear that can be used. However, it is important to notethat the Australian Minister has issued a direction to AFMA that each Commonwealthfishery be managed using output controls by 2010 unless a case can be made for why theyare not appropriate for a particular fishery.Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) were first introduced into the SESSF in 1992 for 16 fishspecies. However, it is only in 2005 that ITQs were broadly introduced into the SESSF fordeep-water species (oreos, deepwater sharks and ribaldo). In 2006, ITQs were introduced foralfonsino and GABT deep-water flathead and orange roughy. ECDWT orange roughy ismanaged under competitive (unallocated) TAC limits.Despite the flexibility brought about by quota transferability, catch quota balancing hasproved to be an issue in the SESSF. Discarding, which is tolerated in Australia, has been usedas an (undesirable) instrument to achieve catch-quota balancing (Sanchirico et al. 2006).11 Tmin is the theoretical number of years required to rebuild a stock to the target in the absence of fi shing. It is a function ofthree primary factors: the biology of the species, the extent of stock depletion below the target, and prevailing environmentalconditions.127

There is currently no formal Management Plan for the WDWT Fishery. The fishery isinformally managed via limited entry (11 permits). These permits are no longer linked tofishing performance.5.1.5.2 New ZealandTACs have traditionally been the main regulatory tools for all the New Zealand fisheries.Whereas input-based measures (limited entry, gear and mesh size restrictions) areimplemented in Australia by the AFMA, such measures have only rarely been enforced inNew Zealand, where the Ministry of Fisheries has almost exclusively opted for results-basedmanagement.The first single-species TACs were set in 1983 for 7 deepwater stocks, within the frame of the1983 Fisheries Act. These TACs were allotted to the nine companies harvesting these stocksat that time. In 2010, there were 96 species (out of 130 commercial species) included in theQuota Management System (QMS), the objective being to include eventually most livingmarine organisms, including those with a commercial value and those whose sustainabilityis compromised by fishing activities, but excluding marine mammals.As detailed above, only a proportion of the TAC (TACC) is allocated to the commercialfishing sector. In New Zealand, except for a set of 11 species, all fish caught must be landed.Therefore, unlike in Australia, discarding cannot be considered as an option to achieve catchquotabalancing. It is legal to land above quota, but a tax has to be paid for any kg of fishsold over-quota, and that is referred to as the deemed value.A major feature of the New Zealand management system is that the TACCs of all QMSstocks are distributed to quota holders as ITQ shares. On the first day of the fishing year,each ITQ (expressed as a percentage of the TACC) generates for each quota holder, and eachstock, a catching right (in kg) referred to as the annual catch entitlement (ACE), so thatACE(kg) = TACC(kg) × ITQ(%)An ACE, like an ITQ, is freely tradable on the open market and accessible to any NewZealand citizen. Despite that flexibility, and even where fishers are allowed to acquire catchrights after landing fish, aggregate commercial catches may not always match up withTACCs. Fishers and/or quota-holders have two options. If the mis-match between catch andquota is limited, quota-holders are allowed to carry forward up to 10% of their quota. If thatmis-match is greater, fishers are allowed to land species in excess of their ACE, even whenthe overall TACC for these species has already been exceeded. In this case, fishers arecharged at the end of the fishing year a landing tax, or deemed value, for each unit of catchthey land above their ACE holdings at the time. The deemed value is set annually by theMinister of Fisheries at the same time as the TAC and the TACC. There has not been to-dateany clear policy or rationale as to how the deemed value should be calculated. However, thelevel at which the deemed value is set may have dramatic consequences for the fisheriessustainability (Marchal et al. 2009). While a high deemed value (i.e. well above the ACEprice) may encourage fishers to shift target species once their ACE is exceeded, a deemedvalue set at a low level (i.e. close to, and a fortiori below, the ACE price) may incentivise128

fishers to pay the charge requested and continue targeting the same stock, even when theyhave no ACE. The Ministry of Fisheries recognised the need to strengthen the backgroundaround deemed value setting, and it is currently in the process of approving andimplementing a Deemed Value Standard.5.1.5.3 Indian OceanThere are no management mechanisms in place for deep-water fisheries in the Indian Ocean.5.1.6 Monitoring methods5.1.6.1 AustraliaAFMA has a responsibility to monitor the impact of fishing under its arrangements and mustcollect and verify data for this purpose. The data must be appropriate for monitoring fishingpractices and contributing to management objectives. AFMA uses data from a range ofsources, including data supplied by the fishing industry as well as data from independentsources. These data are mainly used as inputs to the stock assessments carried out by theRAGs but also for compliance purposes. The primary data comprise catch and effortlogbooks, independent observer data, catch disposal records, vessel monitoring systems(VMS) data and prior reporting. The fishing industry is the main funding body of the datacollection program (100% of logbook costs, 80% of observer costs). The economic status of themain Australian fisheries is monitored through collection of economic data and thederivation of appropriate performance indicators (Hohnen et al. 2008).Assessments of orange roughy stocks are heavily dependent on information from fisheriesindependentsurveys. These comprise acoustic and egg production surveys, which provideabsolute biomass estimates, conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organisation (CSIRO) and the fishing industry.Koopman et al (2008a and 2008b) summarised the SESSF orange roughy length frequencysampling (including discard sampling) applied during the 2006 monitoring programme. Onboardsampling was carried out by observers for both the CTS and the GABT sectors, butport-based sampling could only be conducted for the CTS sector. Discard rates were low(

Unlike in Australia, the costs and earnings of the New Zealand fishing fleets are notroutinely collected, which hampers the monitoring of their economic status. The only sourceof economic data regularly recorded is on individual quotas and fish prices. ACE holdingsand trading prices are recorded in ACE and Quota Share registers for each stock.Information on fish prices is derived from a survey conducted annually by the Ministry ofFisheries, which collects prices paid by licensed fish receivers to fishers. However, theoutcomes of this survey are also used to calculate the levy charged to quota holders for thecosts of fisheries management and stock assessment, which may have incentivised fishers toreport low prices.We provide below some detailed information on the design of the New Zealand biologicalsampling and survey programmes.Size and reproductive data for orange roughy are collected by observers of the Ministry ofFisheries Observer Programme (OP), a fishing industry Offshore Trawl Samplingprogramme (OTS), and from MFish/NIWA and industry research surveys. Anderson (2008)summarised available data by fishery. The level of coverage was generally appropriate forthe most important orange roughy fisheries (e.g., Spawning Box, east Chatham Rise andPukaki fisheries), but sampling was poor for some of the more marginal fisheries (e.g. SWChatham Rise fishery).For oreos, Hart and McMillan (2009) summarised black oreo and smooth oreo biological datafor the fishing year 2006–07. Data were collected mainly by observers from the Ministry ofFisheries Observer Programme (OP) but some samples from fishing industry funded groupsincluding the Deep-water Group (DWG) were also taken. Sampling was carried out for eachindividual oreo fishery as well as for some areas outside the main fisheries. A good level ofsampling was achieved in New Zealand’s largest oreo fishery for smooth oreo in OEO4 (15%of catch, 6,915 fish sampled). By contrast, sampling in OEO3A in 2006–07 was reduced tovery low levels compared to previous years, i.e., 1% of black oreo catch and 2% of smoothoreo catch.Observers mandated by the Ministry of Fisheries monitor discard rates on-board NewZealand fishing vessels. Between fishing years 2000-01 and 2005-06, the percentage of theorange roughy fishery covered (in terms of the estimated annual target fishery catch) rangedfrom 11.6% to 29.4%, above the 10% target level usually required by the Ministry of Fisheries(Anderson 2009). Anderson (2004 and Anderson (2009) indicated that the discard rates oforange roughy, black oreo and smooth oreo are low (< 2%). However, the reliability of theseestimates is questionable. Discarding QMS species (including orange roughy and oreos) isprohibited in New Zealand, however there is a derogation to allow quota species to belegally discarded in certain circumstances when observers from the Ministry of Fisheries arepresent on-board. This derogation has led to a debate about whether discards are greaterwhen observers are present (and could allow legal discarding practices) or when they are notpresent (and illegal discarding could take place unseen).Information for stock assessments of orange roughy and oreo is available from acoustic, eggproduction and trawl surveys conducted by both NIWA and the fishing industry. The most130

ecent surveys have combined acoustics and trawling operations on both research andresearch-dedicated fishing vessels.5.1.6.3 Indian OceanIn 2003, deepwater fishing companies that are members of SIODFA started to report theircatches to the Association. However, this information is not publicly available. While theinitiative by SIODFA represents an important step forward, it highlights the need foraccurate and independent data to monitor deep-water fisheries in the Indian Ocean. TheResolution on Data Collection concerning the High Seas in the Southern Indian Ocean wasadopted by the Fourth Intergovernmental Consultation on the Southern Indian OceanFisheries Agreement in 2004. While the resolution was only voluntary at that stage, theConference on the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement in July 2006 called on allstates concerned to implement the resolution as a matter of urgency (FAO 2007a). No datahave yet been reported despite the resolution’s request.5.1.7. Stock assessment methods5.1.7.1 AustraliaOnly the SESSF deep-water stocks are subject to stocks assessments and are presented below.The type of assessment depends on the stocks under consideration.All SESSF orange roughy stocks have been subject to a quantitative (although not necessarilyrecent) assessment, and as such are considered Tier 1 or 2 stocks (Wayte 2004 and Tuck2007). The Cascade Plateau stock is the only Australian orange roughy stock for whichtargeted fishing is still authorised. The Stock Synthesis model of Methot (2005) was used forthe 2006 assessment of both the Cascade Plateau and the Eastern Zone orange roughy stocks.In this assessment package, all relevant processes are incorporated in the model, andgoodness-of-fit is calculated in relation to original data. The population dynamics modelused is an age- and sex-structured model, with gradual recruitment according to age, and itis calibrated using acoustic abundance indices. The recommended biological catch wascalculated in accordance to the Tier 1 (Eastern Zone orange roughy) and Tier 2 (CascadePlateau stock) HCRs. A review of orange roughy assessments was planned for 2009, but theoutcomes are not available at the present time.The assessment of alfonsino (Tier 3), based on an age-structured catch curve analysis, isconsidered to be unreliable. A CPUE-based Tier 4 assessment has not recently been carriedout because of the low levels of fishing activity.Deepwater sharks, oreo dories and ribaldo are considered Tier 4 species, and theirassessment is based on expert analysis of CPUE trends. It is unclear whether the CPUE seriesused in the assessments are reliable indices of abundance. This is particularly true forribaldo, the exploitation regime of which has been subject to marked shifts over time (Wilsonet al. 2009).131

5.1.7.2 New ZealandThe assessments of all New Zealand deep-water stocks are carried out using Bayesianmethods. In recent years, most of the stocks in Table 6 have been assessed analytically withthe CASAL programme (Bull et al. 2002), using an age-structured, sometimes sex-partitionedand even spatialised (black oreo in FMAs 2, 3, 7) model, to estimate virgin and currentbiomass. The COLERAINE model (Hilborn et al. 2003) has also been considered toincorporate industry co-expertise in relation to the Mid-East Coast orange roughy stock.Biomass indices incorporated in the assessments included standardised CPUEs, acoustic,trawl and, in the case of some orange roughy stocks, egg surveys. The less recent analyticalassessments (e.g., Mercury-Colville orange roughy assessed in 2001, Challenger Plateauorange roughy assessed in 2000) were not age-structured and built on stock reductiontechniques. Finally, the assessments of East and South Chatham Rise orange roughy, WestCoast South Island orange roughy, Chatham Rise black oreo and alfonsino have been basedon an analysis of the trends in surveys and/or standardised commercial CPUEs.5.1.7.3 Indian OceanDeep-water stocks in the Indian Ocean have not yet been subject to formal stock assessments.5.1.8 SummaryThe main features of the management and monitoring of Australian, New Zealand andIndian Ocean deep-water fisheries systems are summarized in Table 8.132

Table 8. Main features of the management and monitoring of the Australian, New Zealand and Indian Ocean deep-water fisheries.Australia New Zealand Indian OceanFisheries • most orange roughy fisheries closed • most orange roughy fisheries still active • several vessels fishingManagement Processes • AFMA makes decisions• broad involvement of stakeholders (MAC)• cost recovery regime• no provision for annual assessmentsObjectives • BMEY is the target for all SESSF stocks• BMEY = 48-50% B0 for orange roughyStrategies • HSP. Tier approach for SESSF stocks• Trigger: BMSY (40% B0 for orange roughy)• Fishery closure: 20% B0Measures • TAC and some input-based measures• TAC overshooting prohibited• discarding tolerated• ITQ systemMonitoring • Logbooks, observers, VMS, surveys• Industry involvement• Routine monitoring of economicperformanceAssessment • Bayesian framework• Analytical assessments with tiers 1 and 2• NZ Fisheries Minister makes decisions• broad involvement of stakeholders• cost recovery regime• no provision for annual assessments• BMSY is the target for all QMS stocks• BMEY = 30% B0 for orange roughy• HSS. Probabilistic framework.• Trigger (soft limit): 20% B0• Fishery closure: 10% B0• TAC and no input-based measures• TAC overshooting taxed (deemed value)• discarding banned• ITQ system• Logbooks, observers, VMS, surveys• Industry involvement• No routine monitoring of economicperformance• Bayesian framework• Generally age-structured assessments• unregulated fishery• some industry data• no recent assessments133

5.2. Deep-water fisheries off Brazil5.2.1. Introduction and backgroundThe most recent review of Brazilian deep-water fisheries is by Perez et al (2009b). Until theearly 1990s deep-water fishing was essentially scientific or restricted to hand-lineoperations over slope grounds and seamounts targeting various rockfish species (Paiva etal., 1996; Peres & Haimovici, 1998). In addition, Soviet trawlers explored the Martin Vaz(20-21°S, 36-39°W) and Rio Grande Rise (28°-35°S, 20°-38°W) seamounts in the 1980s(Clark et al., 2007). Despite a few government efforts to map the ocean floor and assesspotential resources, commercial fishing beyond the continental shelf break (100-250 m)until the 1990s was generally considered unproductive and uneconomical (Haimovici etal., 1994; Haimovici, 2007). The development of deep-water fisheries was mainly in thesoutheastern and southern sectors of the Brazilian coast (19°-34°S) (see Figure 1) and wasmotivated by the overfishing of the main coastal resources and a government led vesselcharteringprogram. Around 2000-2001, foreign-chartered longliners, gillnetters, potters,and trawlers started to operate in Brazilian waters, leading the occupation of the upperslope (250-500 m), mostly targeting monkfish (Lophyus gastrophysus), Argentine hake(Merluccius hubbsi), Brazilian codling (Urophycis mystacea), wreckfish (Polyprionamericanus), Argentine short-fin squid (Illex argentinus), red crab (Chaceon notialis), androyal crab (Chaceon ramosae). Between 2004 and 2007, chartered trawlers established avaluable fishery on deep-water shrimps (family Aristeidae), heavily exploiting the lowerslope (500-1000 m). However, despite intensive data collection, the availability of timelystock assessments, and a formal participatory process for the discussion of managementplans, deep-water stocks are already considered to be overexploited due to limitations ofgovernance (Perez et al, 2009b).5.2.2. Description of the deep-water fishing grounds off BrazilThe continental margin off the Brazilian coast can be subdivided into five sectors:northern, northeastern, central, southeastern, and southern (Figure 40).134

Figure 40. Continental margin off Brazil, SW Atlantic. a) northern and northeastern sectors, b) central,southeastern, and southern sectors (from Rossi-Wongtschowski et al., 2006). Dots represent fishinghauls conducted by the chartered trawlers. (see description of deep-water fisheries below). Charteredgillnetters, potters, and longliners operate in the same slope areas as those occupied by trawlers (see thelower map) but are not represented for clarity.135

Deep-water fishing activities have concentrated on the slope grounds of the south-easternand southern sectors. This area is highly undulated and morphologically characterized bythe occurrence of several seaward protrusions and submarine canyons between 100 and1000 m depth (Figueiredo Jr. & Madureira, 2004). The slope floor is generally covered bymud, but there are areas where nodules of calcareous algae and beach rocks concentrate,predominantly north of 26°S. In addition, deep-water coral reefs have been mapped alongthe lower slope of southeastern sector (20°-24°S), some of them hundreds of meters long,tens of meters wide, and up to 15 to 20 m high (Pires, 2007).Seamounts have been of secondary importance for deep-water fishing activity off theBrazilian coast. These structures ascend from the slope and ocean basin floor throughoutthe Brazilian EEZ (Rossi-Wongtschowski et al., 2006). Particularly dense and accessibleseamount concentrations are found in the central and northeastern sectors, most notablyas part of the Ceará Plateau, Fernando de Noronha Chain, and Vitória-Trindade Chain.Hand-line fishing and trawling have been reported on seamounts of these chains(Fonteles-Filho & Ferreira, 1987; Martins et al., 2005; Clark et al., 2007). In 1982-1984 and2000-2002, Soviet/Russian vessels also reported trawling on seamounts of the Rio GrandeRise area, outside the Brazilian EEZ (Clark et al., 2007).5.2.3. Description of the deep-water fisheries off BrazilAt the end of the 1990s, a new government led scientific program was established to assessfishing potential in the Brazilian EEZ (REVIZEE Program; Anon, 2006). Commercialfishing by Brazilian vessels had already expanding to the outer continental shelf andslope, largely as a result of the over-exploitation and subsequent decline in catch-rates infisheries on the inner shelf (Perez et al., 2001). To enhance this development, the Brazilianfishing authorities in 1998 introduced a foreign vessel-chartering program. This programallowed national companies to operate in Brazilian waters using technologically efficientforeign vessels specialized in oceanic and deep-water fisheries, featuring on board fishhandling, processing, packing, and freezing (Wahrlich et al, 2004).This program identified the existence of exploitable resources and international marketingopportunities mainly in the EU and Asia (Soares & Scheidt, 2005), and from 2000 onwardsan unprecedented commercial exploration began of fishing grounds 200 to 1000 m deep(Perez et al., 2003). Deep-water fisheries off Brazil comprise hook-and-line (operated ashandlines, longlines, bottom gillnets, pots, and bottom trawls (Perez et al., 2003). Thenational fleet participated in the occupation of deep areas with longliners and trawlers.Chartered vessels operated with these gears but also introduced the use of deep-watergillnets and traps in the Brazilian EEZ (Perez et al., 2003; Wahrlich et al., 2004). Charteredfishing operations intensified from 2000 onwards, gradually diminishing between 2004and 2007 as many foreign vessels moved away from the Brazilian EEZ.Handline fishing off Brazil was first a coastal activity in the central sector, specifically offthe southern coast of Bahia State and the Abrolhos Archipelago (17°25'-18°10'S, 38°33'-39°37'W). In the 1970s, the fleet expanded activity towards the slope grounds of the136

southeastern and southern coasts (200-600 m depth) and changed its technology to verticallonglines and finally to bottom set horizontal long-line (Peres & Haimovici, 1998). By theend of the 1990s, handline and long-line fleets were operating on slope grounds to thenorth and south of 29°S, respectively. Handliners targeted the tilefish (Lopholatilus villarii),snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), sandperch (Pseudopercis numida), and catfish(Genidens barbus); whereas the longliners targeted mainly the wreckfish, but also producedimportant catches of Brazilian codling, red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), and pink cusk-eel(Genypterus brasiliensis) (Ávila-da-Silva & Arantes, 2007; Haimovici et al., 2007). Fourchartered longline vessels operated off the southern sector of the Brazilian EEZ, three in2000 and one in 2001, all targeting wreckfish concentrations south of 30°S and between 159and 800 m. These trips also landed important catches of pink cusk-eel, the school shark(Galeorhinus galeus), and tilefish (Perez et al., 2003).The deep-water gillnet fishery started in 2001 with two vessels and increased to amaximum of ten in 2002, most of them originating from Spain (Wahrlich et al., 2004).Fishing took place on the upper slope grounds, between 200 and 500 m depth along theentire southeastern and southern sectors of the Brazilian coast (Perez et al., 2002a).Monkfish was the targeted species, accounting for around 40% of the catch by number.Catches of royal crabs, spider crabs (family Majidae), beardfish (Polimixia lowei), silveryJohn dory (Zenopsis conchifera), Brazilian codling, Argentine hake, wreck-fish, angel shark(Squatina argentina), and various skates (Rajidae) were also important. In mid-2002,government regulations prohibited foreign gillnetters to operate south of 21°S and thisresulted in a cessation of chartered gillnet operations off Brazil. A small national fleet (upto 5 vessels) continued the fishery using the fishing technology and the internationalmarkets introduced by the chartered vessels (Wahrlich et al., 2004).The first recorded pot/trap fishing for deep-water crabs was recorded in 1984-1985, whentwo chartered Japanese vessels operated off the southernmost extreme of the BrazilianEEZ (Lima & Branco, 1991). This activity began again in 1998 when another Japanesevessel initiated operations in the same area as part of the government led charteringprogram (Perez et al., 2003). On both occasions, the species targeted was the red crab, astock whose distribution extends southwards to Uruguayan waters, where a similar potfishery has existed since the 1990s (Defeo & Masello, 2000). The same single vesselcontinued to exploit the red crab off Brazil until 2007, operating on the upper and lowerslope (200 to 900 m depths) south of 33°S (Pezzuto et al., 2006a). Between 2001 and 2002,four chartered pot vessels from Russia, Spain, and the UK started fishing off southernBrazil for another species of deep-water crab, the royal crab. Fishing was concentrated onthe lower slope (500-900 m) within the area bounded by the parallels 27°S and 30°S. In2003, this area was expanded northward with the establishment of a new fishing groundoff southeastern Brazil between 19°S and 25°S, and this coincided with the entry ofanother two vessels from Spain and one from the USA. By 2007, all of these vessels hadgradually abandoned fishing in Brazilian waters. There are only two reported incidencesof pot fishing for deep-water crabs by national vessels; briefly in 2004-2005 off southernBrazil and in 2006 off the coast of Ceará in the northeast sector of the Brazilian coast.There, one vessel exploited a third species of the genus Chaceon, the golden crab C. fenneri,at depths of 600 to 800 m (Carvalho et al., 2009).137

Trawling on the slope areas off Brazil intensified from 1999 onwards as a consequence ofboth the expansion of traditional fishing areas of the national fleet and the operation offoreign trawlers chartered to explore deep grounds within the Brazilian EEZ (Perez et al.,2001, 2003). In southeastern and southern Brazil, a preliminary “exploratory phase” ofchartered trawling was carried out in 2000 and 2001 by two large Portuguese and SouthKorean vessels fishing between 100 and 400 m depth (Perez et al., 2003; Perez et al., 2009a).This resulted in an “upper slope directed phase” characterized by intense exploitation byseven trawlers mostly from Spain of Argentine hake in two strata, 23°S-25°S and 26°S-29°S, at a depth 250-400 m. Catches of the Argentine squid were also important, alongwith the monkfish, silvery John dory, and Brazilian codling, the latter usually discardeddue to the lack of an international market. After sharing the upper slope and most of itsdemersal resources with the national fleet for nearly one year, most of chartered trawlersinvolved in this fishery left Brazilian waters by the end of 2002 (Perez et al., 2009a).Chartered trawling off Brazil continued, however, through the operation of another groupof foreign vessels developing and prosecuting a fishery on the lower slope targetingconcentrations of aristeid shrimps: Aristaeopsis edwardsiana (scarlet shrimp), Aristeomorphafoliacea (giant red shrimp), and Aristaeus antillensis (alistado shrimp) (Pezzuto et al., 2006b;Perez et al., 2009a). Two Spanish trawlers started this fishery in late 2002-2003, in a limitedarea bounded by the 24-26°S parallels and 700-750 m isobaths. In mid-2004, another fivetrawlers from Spain, Mauritania, and Senegal started operations within the same area, andthen moved gradually to new grounds to the north (19°30’-20°S) and, in 2005, to the southof 26°S (Pezzuto et al., 2006b; Dallagnolo et al., 2009). This phase directed at the lower slopewas the longest to be sustained by chartered trawlers off Brazil, but it also declined in 2007when most vessels abandoned Brazilian waters due to poor catch rates.Chartered deep-sea trawling was also attempted in the northern and northeastern sectorsof the Brazilian coast at depths between 428 and 1,158 m deep off the coast of Amapá State(47-50°W) in late 2002, where productive concentrations of A. edwardsiana and A. antillensiswere found (Pezzuto et al., 2006b). Additionally, a few trips by one trawler were directedtowards the seamounts making up the Ceará Plateau and Fernando de Noronha Chain.These seamounts rise from nearly 1,000 m at the base to 200 m at the top, where the gentletopography was found suitable for trawling. Catches in these areas were mostlycomposed of the Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus), but catch rates decreased rapidlyto unprofitable levels. These areas have been abandoned ever since (Perez et al., 2009a).A summary of the deep-water fishing activity carried out by the foreign chartered fleet offBrazil between 2002 and 2007 is given in Table 9.138

Table 9. Spatial distribution of deep-water fishing hauls conducted by the foreign chartered fleet offBrazil between 2000 and 2007. Hauls are grouped by fishing gears, depth strata (and seamounts), andsectors of the Brazilian coast (data by sector includes a small amount of fishing on the shelf-break (100-250 m). Numbers in parentheses represent the proportion (%) of hauls conducted by gear in each depthstrata and sector. In the last line, the number in parentheses represents the proportion of haulsconducted by fishing gear (modified from Perez et al, 2009b).Fishing gear/depth strata/sector Longline Gillnet Pot/traps Trawl TotalUpper slope(250-500) mLower slope(> 500) m9(19.6)28(60.9)Seamounts 0(0.0)Coastal sectorNorth 0(0.0)Northeast 0(0.0)Central 0(0.0)Southeast 4(8.7)South 42(91.3)Total 46(0.1)3186(92.3)230(6.7)0(0.0)0(0.0)6(0.2)10(0.3)2294(66.4)1143(33.1)3453(10.5)628(9.5)5925(90.0)0(0.0)19(0.3)57(0.9)292(4.4)4498(68.3)1715(26.1)6581(20.1)5634(24.8)15360(67.7)965(4.3)55(0.2)1221(5.4)3850(17.0)17438(76.9)123(0.5)22687(69.2)9457(28.9)21543(65.7)965(2.9)74(0.2)1284(3.9)4152(12.7)24134(74.0)3023(9.2)32767(100.0)Trawls and pots/traps accounted for almost 70% and 20% of the total fishing activityrespectively, most of which was on the lower slope in the southeast sector. Gillnetactivity (10% of total) was also focussed in this sector but mostly on the upper slope.Activity by longliners was negligible over the period 2002-2007. Treating the year2000 as a reference for the start of a deep-sea fishingin Brazil, total landed catches ofthe main demersal “deep-water” resources reported for the southeastern andsouthern sectors of Brazil, where this activity has concentrated, varied annually fromaround 5,800 t in 2000 to a maximum of 20,000 t ton in 2002, decreasing to nearly11,000 ton in 2006 (Table 10). These annual figures reported in Perez et al, (2009)include landings for some species which may or may not be considered to be deepwaterspecies depending on the definition of deep-water used. These species includethe Brazilian codling, Argentine hake, monkfish and the Argentine squid. If thesespecies are excluded, deep-water crab species and, in later years, deep-water shrimpspecies accounted for the majority of annual landings.139

Table 10. Annual landings (t) of deep-water resources in southeastern and southern Brazil between2000 and 2006 (from Perez et al, 2009b).5.2.4. Fisheries monitoringThe deep-water fishery developed off the coast of Brazil was one of the mostintensely monitored fisheries in Brazilian waters. In addition to the use of officialdata collection logbooks, observers and VMS programs were implemented for thefirst time in order to enforce the legal obligations of the chartered fleet when theREVIZEE scientific exploration program was commissioned. Observer and VMScoverage applied to all vessels (i.e.100% coverage). These programs were conductedas part of a scientific cooperation agreement between the Brazilian government andthe University of “Vale do Itajaí” (Santa Catarina, southern Brazil). In 2005, after aperiod of development and adjustments, these programs became national policieswere incorporated into the agenda of the Special Secretariat of Aquaculture andFishery, the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources, and the BrazilianNavy.Between 2000 and 2007, 311 fishing trips by the chartered fleet were observed andmonitored by satellite VMS. Data on fishing position, depth, and catch/bycatch fromover 35,800 fishing sets were recorded. Observers also collected biological samples ofthese catches and recorded biological data (length, sex, and maturity, depending onthe species) for around 713,810 individuals of the main target species.Complementary data was obtained during the same period for landings by thenational fleet.140

5.2.5. Fisheries-independent surveysFisheries and biological data were also obtained from surveys mostly conducted byresearch vessels in 2001 and 2002 as part of the REVIZEE program (e.g., Cergole et al.,2005; Costa et al., 2005; Rossi-Wongtschowski et al., 2006). The survey area includedsouthern Brazil's outer shelf and slope between Cabo Frió (23°S) and Chui (34°35'S)and comprised 152,354 km 2 within a depth range 100 to 600 m. However, much ofthe data collected and results arising (exploitable biomass estimates using swept arearaising methods), were only available for the main largely upper slope demersalspecies, monkfish and hake species, for example.5.2.6. Species-specific fisheries, biological information, stock assessments andstock status5.2.6.1. Wreckfish (Polyprion americanus)The species is long-lived (up to 76 years), the age of maturity is around 10 years andspawning occurs in localized areas off southern Brazil (Peres & Haimovici, 2003). Inthese areas, most of the local stock is highly vulnerable to the Brazilian long-linedirected fishery as well as unintentional mortality from slope trawling and monkfishgillnetting (Peres & Klippel, 2003; Perez & Wahrlich, 2005). Sparse catch records ofthis species date back to 1973, but a series of nominal catches has been available from1986 onwards (Valentini & Pezzuto, 2006). Until 2004, annual reported landingsoscillated around 700 to 800 t. These data may be not be accurate as they likelyinclude landings for two other serranids (Epinephelus niveatus and E. flavolim-beatus)and because there has been a historical trend of unreported catches, particularlyduring the first half of this period (Haimovici & Peres, 2005). These authorsestimated that landings declined nearly 79% since 1989 (dropping from 2,200 t inthat year to less than 460 t in 2002), in association with abundance reductionsranging from 57 to 94%, according to CPUE time-series analysis. Part of thisreduction has been attributed to a significant increment in fishing mortality as theresult of rising demands of international markets and increased fishing power in thelongline fleet.5.2.6.2. Red crab (Chaceon notialis)Exploitation of the red crab started in Brazil in 1998, when a Japanese factory vesselwas chartered by a national company. The vessel was closely monitored byobservers and VMS and fishing and biological data were made available. Between2000 and 2003, annual landings were mostly around 1100 t range, attained amaximum of around 1400 t in 2003, and declined thereafter. Females accounted foraround 70% of the biomass exploited and most of the catches are composed ofimmature individuals. Spawning seems to be localized both in space and time; inBrazil, ovigerous females were found concentrated at depths shallower than 600 m,mostly from July to December (Pezzuto et al., 2006b).141

Assessments based on the Effective Fishing Area Method (Defeo et al., 1991; Arena etal., 1994) and Gulland’s Formula (Pezzuto et al., 2002) for the “Brazilian” part of thestock (33°00’S and 34°40’S) (there is also a fishery in adjacent Uruguayan waters)estimated virgin biomass and MSY at 17,118 t (16,454-17,779 CI95%) and 1,027 t,respectively (Table 2.).By the end of 2005, the stock biomass, as indicated bycommercial catch-rates, was reduced to nearly 60% of its original levels (Pezzuto etal., 2006a).5.2.6.3. Royal crab (Chaceon ramosae)The fishery for this species started in 2001 and soon expanded to a fleet of up to eightforeign processor vessels chartered by national companies. The species was also themost abundant and valuable bycatch item of several chartered gillnetters andtrawlers that targeted other deep-sea resources such as monkfish and aristeidshrimps (Perez & Wahrlich, 2005; Pezzuto et al. 2006c). Males predominated incatches and ovigerous females were concentrated in areas shallower than 700 mfrom January to June (Pezzuto et al., 2006b). More than 50% of the males and femalescaught were sexually immature (Pezzuto & Sant’Ana, 2009).In the first year of exploitation, catches amounted to around 600 t and this increasedto around 1200 t in 2002. Using the same methodology as for red crab, stock biomassand MSY were estimated in 2002 to be 11,636 ton (11,272-12,008 t CI 95%) and 594 t,respectively (Pezzuto et al., 2002, 2006a). Catches declined in 2005 and 2006 as adirect response to lower catch rates and successive reductions in the number ofvessels in the fishery (Pezzuto et al., 2006b).5.2.6.4. Scarlet shrimp (Aristaeopsis edwardsiana)The scarlet shrimp (carabinero shrimp) is an aristeid shrimp distributed in slope areasworldwide. This is a high-valued species that has been commercially exploited bytrawl fisheries at low latitudes of both the East and West Atlantic (Dallagnolo et al.,2009). Off Brazil, it has been the main target of the lower slope trawl fishery phaseconducted by chartered vessels since 2003 (Pezzuto et al, 2006c; Perez et al., 2009a).The main concentrations have been exploited in the southeastern sector, between 22and 26°S at depths of between 700 to 750 m. After 2004, fishing continued withinthese depths but expanded latitudinally to areas in the central and southern sectorsof the Brazilian coast. Concentrations were also identified in northern Brazil, off thecoast of Amapá State, where fishing was mostly exploratory (Pezzuto et al, 2006c;Perez et al., 2009a).The catch size-structure is dominated by females and includes around 20% ofimmature individuals (Anon, 2007). Males are smaller than females (maximumcarapace length 72 mm and 106 mm, respectively). Sexual maturity is reached at 58mm and 48 mm carapace length in males and females. The reproductive cycle isannual, with most spawning activity in the second half of the year.142

Annual catches increased from 13 t in 2002 to a maximum of 183 t in 2005, decliningto 20 t in 2007. Using of commercial catch rate data and swept area procedures, atotal exploitable biomass of 865 t was estimated within the fishing areas south of19°S in 2002. This biomass, regarded as virgin, was reduced by around 45% by 2007due to an intense trawling effort concentrated on spatially discrete fishing grounds(Dallagnolo, 2008). Considerations of the species’ life-history (Kirkwood et al., 1994)allowed the definition of an MSY of around 6% of the virginal biomass orapproximately 2.5 ton. Taking the total biomass at MSY as a limit reference point, itwas concluded that the recent state of the scarlet shrimp stock was biologically‘unsafe’.5.2.6.5. Giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea)The giant red shrimp (moruno shrimp) was the second most abundant aristeid shrimpcaught by chartered trawlers on the lower slope off Brazil (Pezzuto et al., 2006c).Catches were generally associated with the chartered trawling activity directed atthe larger, more abundant scarlet shrimp. Nevertheless, the species was found todominate catches in particular fishing grounds of the southeastern and centralsectors, principally in later years as densities of scarlet shrimp decreased (Dallagnoloet al., 2009). Total giant red shrimp catches increased continuously until 2005 and2006, peaking at 43 and 52 t, respectively, and then declining to 8 t in 2007.Maximum carapace length of males and females in catches was 62 and 91 mm,respectively, with maturity attained at lengths of 46 and 29 mm. Reproduction wasfound to be continuous throughout the year. Immature individuals have been rare inthe catches (Anon, 2007).Densities increased continuously on the slope off southeastern Brazil from 2002 to2007, as estimated by commercial catch rate analysis. In this sector, the meanexploitable biomass peaked in 2007 at around 200 t (Dallagnolo, 2008). Off thecentral sector of the Brazilian coast, a maximum of around 90 t of exploitablebiomass was estimated in 2006, declining by around 45% in 2007, possibly inresponse to harvest rates as high as 22 and 54% in 2005 and 2006. MSY for the giantred shrimp was estimated to be 15-19% and 17-20% of the exploitable biomass offemales and males, respectively (Dallagnolo, 2008).The abundance estimators, methods for stock assessment, reference points, and thestatus of the major deep-water stocks exploited in southeastern and southern Brazilare summarised in Table 11.143

Table 11. Abundance estimators, methods for stock assessment, reference points, and the status of themajor deep-water stocks exploited in southeastern and southern Brazil. t: year, B0: virgin or initialbiomass, C: catch, Cref: catch in the year of reference, E: exploitation rate (modified from Perez et al,2009b)StocksAbundanceestimators/indicatorsStockassessmentmethodsReference points(limits)StockstatusTeleostsPolyprionamericanusCrustaceansAristaeopsisEdwardsiana- Ct/Cref;CPUEt/CPUEref(1)Swept area,GLM (2)Kirkwood et al.,2004 (2)- Collapsed (1)Bt/B0;Bt/BMSY;CPUEt/CPUE0;CPUEt/CPUEMSY;GLMt/GLM0;GLMt/GLMMSY (2)Overexploited (2)AristaeomorphafoliaceaChaceonnotialisChaceonramosaeSwept area,GLM (2)EFA, GLM,CPUE(3, 4)EFA, GLM,CPUE(3)Kirkwood et al.,2004 (2)Gulland’sequation(3)Gulland’sequation(3)Bt/B0;Bt/BMSY;CPUEt/CPUE0;CPUEt/CPUEMSY;GLMt/GLM0;GLMt/GLMMSY (2)Bt/B0; Bt/BMSY;CPU-Et/CPUE0;CPU-Et/CPUEMSY;GLMt/GLM0;GLMt/GLMMSY (4)Bt/B0; Bt/BRMS;CPU-Et/CPUE0;CPU-Et/CPUERMS;GLMt/GLM0;GLMt/GLMRMS (4)UnknownFully exploited (13)Fully exploited/Overexploited (13)1) Haimovici & Peres (2005), (2) Dalagnollo (2008), (3) Pezzuto et al. (2006a), (4) Pezzuto et al. (2006b).5.2.6.6. Bycatch speciesThe detailed recording of catch compositions by observers on board charteredvessels has provided opportunities to assess the impact of deep-water fishing on theslope ecosystems of Brazil. The most comprehensive study to date has focused on aqualitative and quantitative bycatch analysis of the chartered gillnet fishery formonkfish during 2001 (Perez & Wahrlich, 2005). Absolute catches in numbers ofnon-targeted species were estimated for the entire chartered gillnet fleet in 2001through their observed mean catch rates (individuals per sampled net). Thesebycatches included the royal crab and spider crabs, elasmobranchs, principally theangel shark and various skates; teleosts, the beardfish, silvery John dory, Braziliancodling, Argentine hake, wreckfish; and turtle, cetacean, and bird species. Indirectmortality impacts tended to be higher in mobile bottom dwellers but bycatchabundances decreased and their basic composition changed southwards, wherelarge teleosts, elasmobranchs, cetaceans, and birds were dominant over the smallteleosts, crustaceans, and other invertebrates that characterized the bycatchcomposition in the northern area. Non-intentional mortality inflicted by bottom144

gillnets on large K-strategists (wreckfish, sharks, rays, turtles, cetaceans, birds) wasregarded as critical, although highly correlated with operations in the southernmostareas of the Brazilian EEZ, where these groups tend to concentrate.Assessments of the gillnet fishery and other fisheries (including cephalopods andother invertebrates) have been mostly qualitative (Perez et al., 2004, Bastos, 2004). Atotal of 185 macro and mega invertebrates as well as sponges, cnidarians, annelids,crustaceans, molluscs, and echinoderms were recorded. Considering the length ofthe pot (9 km) and gillnet (20 km) lines used during each fishing set, it has beenargued that their impact on benthic fauna may not be as unimportant as previouslythought. Previously, closer attention has been paid the impact of the trawling fisherydirected at aristeid shrimps on the lower slope because his fishery produces diversebycatch of truly deep-water benthopelagic fishes and removes deep-sea corals,particularly where they form slope and seamount reef formations (Pires, 2007).5.2.7. Fisheries managementUntil 1998, fishing management and control were responsibilities of the Ministry ofthe Environment (MMA), which was based on an almost 40-year-old coastal fishingorientedmanagement model. In 1999, due to political pressure from the fishingindustry interested in a more “development than environmentally-orientedphilosophy”, a second management authority was created under the Ministry ofAgriculture and Livestock (DPA/MAPA) with a mandate to develop and manageaquaculture and the economic exploitation of those stocks defined as “sub-exploited,unexploited, and highly migratory”.The REVIZEE program was led by the MMA and the focus was mostly to estimatefishing potential as required by UNCLOS. Brazil had requested a 200 miles EEZ butneeded to demonstrate knowledge about the resources of that area. The deep-waterfishery in Brazil was developed by means of an independent short-term charteringprogram launched by DPA. This allowed national and overseas fishing companies toassociate and operate foreign deep-water vessels under temporary fishingauthorizations. The explicit objectives of the chartering program were:(i) to enhance the fish supply in the domestic market and to generate foreigncurrency;(ii) to improve competence and promote employment in the national fishingindustry;(iii) to occupy rationally and sustainably the Brazilian EEZ;(iv) to stimulate the formation of a national fleet capable of operating in deepwatersand utilizing equipment that incorporates modern technology;(v) to expand and consolidate fishing enterprises;(vi) to generate knowledge on living resources of the continental shelf and EEZ;and(vii) to sustainably exploit fishing resources on the high-seas.145

This strategy led to the rapid development of foreign fleets targeting new, valuable,fragile deep-water resources (Perez et al., 2002a, 2003, 2009a; Pezzuto et al. 2006a,2006c), in some cases, paralleled by an expansion of coastal domestic fleets to thesame areas and resources (e.g. Perez & Pezzuto, 2006). Not only did fishing effortdramatically increase on virgin stocks for which the fishing potential was virtuallyunknown, but this process also stimulated conflicts between fleets and resulted in,within most of the national fishing industry, a disregard for fishing authorities andfisheries management plans.Concerns about the sustainability of the target species as well as environmental,social, economic, and political impacts of such an uncontrolled scenario led to thecreation in 2002 of the Consultant Committee for the Management of Deep-waterResources (CPG). This Committee comprises delegates of the fishing sector (shipowners,fisherman, and fishing industry workers), representatives of governmentalagencies, an Executive Secretariat and members of Scientific and ComplianceSubcommittees (SCC and SC, respectively). The SCC produces the bulk of data andrecommendations to be discussed and approved at the regular CPG meetings.Management plans and other recommendations from the CPG have consultantpower only, as the final decision to implement is under the jurisdiction of theSecretariat. Perez et al (2009b) report that despite representing significant progresstowards a more rational management process, the CPG experience has not yet beentotally successful. Fishing development and its negative impacts have occurred morerapidly than the Government Secretariat (challenged by political and institutionalpressures) has been able to deal with. They cite the upper slope monkfish fishery asan example of the monitoring and management problems encountered.Following the rapid start of the monkfish fishery in the late 1990s, biological,technical and operational data were collected intensively during 2001. A completestock assessment and management recommendations were first made available togovernment and industry in April 2002 (Perez et al., 2002b). Scientific results andrecommendations were subsequently analyzed and improved during SCC meetingsin 2002. Meetings of a special working group formed by the SCC, government, andindustry members produced the first version of the monkfish management plan.A new government body (the Special Secretariat for Aquaculture and Fishing)decided to reopen the debate on the monkfish fishery in 2003, considering not onlythe new institutional and political circumstances (a change in elected government),but also the strong opposition by the part of the industry interested in a more freeaccessregime to the fishery. A new version of the management plan was discussedand approved but was not implemented. After more than four years of uncontrolledexploitation, in May 2004, the stock was declared to be overexploited. In 2005, SCCdecided to adopt a strong political stance demanding legal intervention in theprocess in order to ensure the sustainability of the stock. As a consequence, themonkfish management plan was introduced (Table 12). Since then enforcement ofmanagement rules has been poor and subsequent biomass assessments have notshown any signs of recovery.146

Table 12. Management elements of the deep-water fisheries in southeastern and southern Brazil.Logbooks and VMS: 100% coverage. Observers: 100% cover-age. Exceptions are indicated in specificcases (from Perez et al, 2009b)The management of other deep-water resources such as geryonid crabs, aristeidshrimps, and demersal fishes has faced the same difficulties, with negativeconsequences for the sustainability of the respective stocks.5.3. Antarctic Deepwater fisheries5.3.1. Deep-water stocks and fisheries, fisheries description, history anddevelopmentAntarctic fisheries are limited to four species, two of which live in deep water;Patagonian toothfish and Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides and D. mawsonirespectively). The others, namely krill (Euphausia superba) and icefish(Champsocephalus gunnari), are primarily pelagic fisheries. Icefish are restricted toshelves and depths shallower than 400m, and krill are found in their highestdensities over shelf breaks with significant proportions of their populations living inupper surface waters (

Toothfish is long-lived and slow growing, reaching 2m in length. Both speciesmature late (about age 10 in Patagonian toothfish, age 14 in Antarctic toothfish;CCAMLR, 2009). Toothfish are mostly piscivorous, although squid and deep-watershrimp may also be eaten (Permitin and Tarverdiyeva 1972). They shows strongdepth stratification, with larger animals occurring at deeper depths (Agnew 1999),and are typically found between 200 and 2000m on continental shelf slopes aroundSouth America and the sub-Antarctic Islands (although toothfish do occur and havebeen caught at depths of up to 3000m (SC-CAMLR 1995)). Young animals may befound as shallow as 50m on the continental shelf itself. Dissostichus mawsoni(Antarctic toothfish) occurs further south than D. eleginoides, being generallyrestricted to Antarctic waters south of 65°S.Toothfish are found throughout the CCAMLR Convention Area (Figure 41) oncontinental shelves, sub-Antarctic Islands or seamounts. The number of selfcontainedstocks/populations is not known, although genetic studies suggest somedistinct major stocks (Smith and McVeagh 2000; Smith and Gaffney 2000; Appleyard,Ward, and Williams 2002; Shaw, Arkhipkin, and Al-Khairulla 2004):• On the Patagonian shelf;• Around South Georgia (Subarea 48.3) and the northern South Sandwich islands(Subarea 48.4);• At Prince Edward and Marion Islands (Subarea 58.6/7);• On the Kerguelen/Heard island plateau (Subarea 58.5);• In the Ross Sea (Subarea 88.1/2).The status or existence of other stocks is not clear, but there are small populations ofPatagonian toothfish on Ob and Lena banks (Subarea 58.4.4), Crozet island (Subarea58.6), south of Heard Island, north of the Ross Sea and in the SEAFO area; and smallpopulations of Antarctic toothfish in the south of the South Sandwich Islands andalong the coastline of East Antarctica (Subarea 58.4.1/2), which are probably distinctstocks (Agnew et al. 2009; Roberts and Agnew 2009).The two principal methods of catching Patagonian toothfish are trawling andlonglining. The methods differ in the size and quantity of fish caught. Trawlers areconfined to fishing at relatively shallow depths and on fairly smooth grounds, andcurrently only operate around Heard Island catching primarily juvenile fish.Longliners operate in deeper water, 550m – 2000m (there is a general prohibition onfishing shallower than 550m in most areas of the Antarctic) targeting adults.Different gear configurations are used – Spanish system longlines, autolines and trotlines (Agnew 2004). Longliners tend to catch the larger fish in deeper waters - 1000 to1500m. Bait is either squid or horse mackerel. Traps (pots) are also used occasionally,though with limited success.148

Figure 41. Map of CCAMLR convention area, with Subareas delineated in red (CCAMLR).Patagonian toothfish have been caught in the CCAMLR area, sometimes as bycatch,since the beginning of finfish harvesting in the 1970s. However large quantities wereonly taken with the development of longlining in the late 1980s. Exploitationdeveloped serially around the Antarctic, being initiated in the late 1980s aroundSouth Georgia (Subarea 48.3) and shortly afterwards around Kerguelen Island(58.5.1). Toothfish stocks around these islands were plagued for much of the 1990s byillegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing was a major problemat South Georgia until 1996, when within a period of about 3 months the IUU fisherytransferred to the Southern Indian Ocean – most strongly around the sparselypatrolled Prince Edward and Crozet islands (Agnew and Kirkwood 2005; Green andAgnew 2002).Fishing on Antarctic toothfish in the Ross Sea (Subareas 88.1 and 88.2) did not startuntil the late 1990s, and remains an exploratory fishery in CCAMLR nomenclature. Adesignation as “exploratory” comes with requirement for prior notification and the149

undertaking of research/observer activities (although for most other fisheries vesselsare also required to undertake research and have observers).To the end of the 2008/09 fishing season a cumulative total of 400,000 t had beentaken from CCAMLR waters since 1985, 33% by IUU fishing. The annual licensedcatch from assessed fisheries (i.e. all non-exploratory fisheries plus the Ross Sea) isabout 14,000 t.5.3.2. Monitoring and assessment methodsA fairly standard suite of monitoring methods – demersal trawl surveys, commercialCPUE, scientific observer data – are augmented with mark-recapture data fromtagging. Only recently have tagging data become available, and prior to this theassessment of toothfish, as for any deep water species, was difficult.Early attempts at assessments of toothfish used local depletions of CPUE (i.e. localdeLury methods) to arrive at estimates of local density. They also used literaturebasedestimates of attraction distance to estimate densities based on the catch rate ofthe baited commercial longlines. The first comprehensive attempt to estimatetoothfish stock size and sustainable exploitable biomass was made in 1992 (SC-CAMLR 1992) for the South Georgia stock. The estimates of growth rate at this timewere similar to current estimates of growth rate, except for L inf , which was estimatedto be much higher (210cm) than it is today (135cm). Natural mortality was estimatedat 0.13, the same as it is today. However the estimates of biomass were veryuncertain, and a depletion experiment conducted in 1994 demonstrated that thismethod was not reliable (Parkes et al. 1996). For this year, and all subsequent years,international scientific observers were required on all vessels, an aspect of thisfishery which has considerably improved data quality and availability.A special workshop on toothfish assessment methods was held in 1995, andrecommended two major developments: (i) standardisation of CPUE series usinggeneralised linear models to account for depth and month, as well as other lessimportant factors such as bait type and soak time; and (ii) demersal trawl surveys ofshelf areas to estimate the abundance of pre-recruits. The latter takes advantage ofthe life history of toothfish, which includes pelagic egg and larval stages (that arerarely observed (Evseenko, Kock, and Nevinsky 1995)). After hatching, the larvaeappear to move inshore over the shelf, grow rapidly, moving closer inshore until asjuveniles they leave the surface waters and become demersal (North 2002).From 1995 to 2003 assessments of toothfish at South Georgia and Heard Islandincorporated their respective shelf surveys of juvenile toothfish and calculatedconstant future yields that satisfied the CCAMLR decision rules (see below) using astochastic projection methodology incorporating uncertainty in natural mortality(Constable et al. 2000). Developments during this period were focussed on refiningthe estimates of recruitment; because reliable methods of determining age oftoothfish from otoliths had not yet been developed, recruitment estimates weredependent upon use of a mixture analysis of length density data (De la Mare, 1994).150

The essential problem with using survey data for juvenile abundance estimation isthe very high variability of the estimates, caused by the highly patchy distribution ofjuvenile toothfish. Moreover even adult toothfish appear to have a bentho-pelagiclifestyle (Yukhov 1982; Williams et al. 2002), so that bottom trawl surveys are veryinefficient at sampling them. Furthermore, these methods required the ability toundertake bottom trawl surveys on shelf distributions of juvenile toothfish, whichwas possible in only a very few areas where toothfish populations were being fished(South Georgia, Kerguelen and Heard islands). In other areas, including the Ross Sea,the pre-recruits are inaccessible to trawl surveys. Although the method of assessingtoothfish based on survey estimates of recruitment abundance continued to be usedfor several years, for instance at Heard Island, in the mid-2000s there was a moveaway from this method, because of its high levels of uncertainty and inapplicabilityfor some stocks of toothfish, towards the use of tagging data.Experiments on tagging toothfish had started in 2000, and with some surprise it wasdiscovered that toothfish are relatively robust to tagging. Even though they are oftenrecovered for tagging from 1500m depth, their lack of a swim bladder and theirapparently regular vertical migrations means that they do not suffer seriousbathymetric shock, and though they may be effectively blind for a few weeks theirsurvival is estimated at greater than 90% (Agnew et al. 2006). Since this discoverymark-recapture programmes have become the mainstay of the observations used inassessments, although because toothfish appear to move very little (Marlow et al.2003) mixing must be undertaken physically by vessels. Tagging is eased inCCAMLR because of the presence on board each vessel of one scientific observer,and in exploratory high latitude fisheries of two observers.Current assessment methods for the well-studied stocks – South Georgia, HeardIsland and the Ross Sea - use an integrated age-structured model (CASAL (Bull et al.2005)) that are based on data on catches at length and age, survey catches at lengthand age, standardised CPUE trends and mark-recapture data to estimate stock sizewith Bayesian estimation of parameter uncertainty (Hillary, Kirkwood, and Agnew2006). These methods produce consistent, relatively robust estimates of stock size,although the complexity of the estimation model may be large (Candy and Constable2008). Difficulties with these assessments remain in a number of areas, for instancethe correct estimation of natural mortality, and the difficulty of integrating tagrecapturedata from widely different fleets in an international mixed fishery, but theessential method appears to be quite reliable given a good understanding of therequired model structure.There remain a number of fishing areas, however, where “mature” assessments ofthe type described above are not yet possible. In these, a range of differentapproaches are used. For instance, in Kerguelen the assessment is based on simplemonitoring of biomass trends from a deep-water survey, made possible by therelatively fishable grounds around that island (SC-CAMLR 2007). On the coast ofEast Antarctica the mark-recapture experiment appears to be failing, for reasons thatare not known, and CCAMLR has resorted to estimates based on local depletions151

and the comparison of CPUE from vessels fishing in this area and the well-assessedRoss Sea (Agnew et al. 2009). On Banzare bank (the Southern Indian Ocean sector)local depletion methods have been used (McKinlay et al. 2008). Although thesemethods are acknowledged to be inaccurate, and to have failed in some areas in thepast, these important fishing areas lack either juvenile trawl surveys, or reliablemark-recapture data from which to make alternative stock estimates. Furthermore,CCAMLR generally applies a very high level of precaution to interpreting the resultsof these alternative assessment methods and determining sustainable yields.5.3.3. Management methods (including HCRs and BRPs)Management of CCAMLR fisheries involves the mitigation of detrimental ecosysteminteractions. Restrictions on fishing that limit the interaction with seabirds provides agood example of how this has been achieved (Kock 2001). Setting of fast-sinking linesat night, seabird scaring devices, restrictions on offal discharge and avoidance ofareas where seabird interactions are high, have essentially eliminated seabirdbycatch in the regulated fishery.The CCAMLR convention has also ensured measures exist to limit damage to thebenthic ecosystem (CCAMLR 2009). Bottom trawling is prohibited in the high seas ofthe CCAMLR convention area (and currently only takes place around Heard Island),as is all bottom fishing in waters shallower than 550 m around the entire Antarcticcontinent. Protected areas also exist. For example, fishing for all finfish is prohibitedaround the Antarctic Peninsula and the South Orkney Islands to protect finfishstocks that were depleted prior to the establishment of CCAMLR.In addition to these restrictions, a trigger mechanism is imposed on bottom fishingvessels: if the catch rate of benthic organisms exceeds the threshold, the vessel isrequired to complete its fishing operation and move to another area. The location ofregions where the trigger has been activated can then be used to inform futurespatial management measures designed to protect the most vulnerable benthicregions.The basis of the HCRs used by CCAMLR is as follows. Any harvesting andassociated activities in the CA are conducted with the following principles ofconservation:(a) prevention of decrease in the size of any harvested population to levels belowthose which ensure its stable recruitment. For this purpose its size should not beallowed to fall below a level close to that which ensures the greatest net annualincrement;(b) maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent andrelated populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the restoration ofdepleted populations to the levels defined in (a) above; and152

(c) prevention of changes or minimisation of the risk of changes in the marineecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades, taking intoaccount the state of available knowledge of the direct and indirect impact ofharvesting, the effect of the introduction of alien species, the effects of associatedactivities on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes, withthe aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine livingresources.Discussions on how to embrace these objectives arose during early meetings of theScientific Committee (about 1985; (Constable et al. 2000)) but it was not until 1991that a framework expressed explicitly in terms of precaution and uncertainty wasaccepted, initially for managing the krill fishery. The HCR was expressed, for krill, asa three part rule based on a constant harvest rate γ, determined as a proportion of anestimate of the pre-exploitation biomass (B 0 ):(i) choose γ1 so that the probability of the spawning biomass dropping below 20% ofits pre-exploitation median level over a 20-year harvesting period is 10%;(ii) choose γ2 so that the median krill escapement in the spawning biomass over a 20-year period is 75% of the pre-exploitation median level; and(iii) select the lower of γ1 and γ2 as the level for calculation of krill yield.The first part is thought of in CCAMLR as a “recruitment criterion” corresponding tothe requirements of conservation principle (a) above, and the 20% B 0 level as aneffective limit reference point. The second part is thought of in CCAMLR as a“predator criterion”, corresponding to the requirements of conservation principle (b),and the 75% B 0 level as an effective target reference point. CCAMLR chose 75% as acompromise point, between what would be considered appropriate in a singlespeciescontext (taken, with precaution, by CCAMLR to be 50% B 0 ) and what wouldbe the case in the absence of fishing (i.e. 100% B 0 ).In the early 1990s, when standard stock assessment approaches were being appliedto toothfish, standard calculations of yield were also made, using F0.1 as the targetreference point. In 1995, when for the first time an assessment was conducted usingthe general yield model, a HCR based on the CCAMLR decision rules (above) wasapplied, although at that time only part (i) was used. In 1996 and subsequent yearsparts (ii) and (iii) were also applied, but with a modification to ensure thatescapement was 50% of the pre-exploitation median level, appropriate to a singlespeciescontext with precaution. This was considered to be relevant for toothfishbecause the species has relatively few predators (Agnew, 2004). Adherence to theCCAMLR criteria was ensured through a process of simulation, whereby the stock isprojected forward under constant values of γ1 and γ2.Application of the same HCR for the main assessed stocks (South Georgia; HeardIsland; Ross Sea) has been continuous from 1996, even though the underlyingassessment methodology has changed. From 1996 to 2007 assessments were153

conducted annually, thereafter only every two years. A different harvest control ruleis applied to the Prince Edward Islands (South Africa), which has nevertheless beenevaluated by extensive simulation in light of its performance against the CCAMLRcriteria (Brandao and Butterworth 2009). Management of Kerguelen and CrozetIslands (France) remains unclear.For each stock where the HCR is applied, the TAC is allocated to vessels eitherlicensed with the sovereign state or registered directly with CCAMLR (when fishingin international waters). It is only when the stock lies with the exclusive economiczone of a particular state that enforcement is possible, making illegal activity acontinual threat. Indeed, this unregulated fishing has likely contributed to failure oftagging experiments in exploratory fisheries on the eastern shelf of Antarctica(Agnew et al. 2009), where the IUU catch is equivalent to that taken by the legalfishery.Most assessed stocks are above their target reference points (50% B 0 ) (Table 13), withthe exception of Prince Edward Islands, which have been subjected to heavy illegalfishing. The applied management framework can thus far be considered successful.However there is still potential for improvement. Recent developments of theassessment to include survey data as indices of recruitment at age, and theincorporation of catch at age rather than catch at length data in the CASAL model(Agnew and Belchier 2009; Agnew and Peatman 2009), allow for relatively accurateestimation of cohort strength. This suggests the possibility of deviation from theconstant-catch methodology to account for variations in the size of cohorts as theyenter the fishery.Table 13. Summary of the status of stocks in CCAMLR waters (SC-CAMLR 2009). ICAA: Integratedcatch at age model; ICAL: Integrated catch at length model. In all cases these were implemented usingCASAL (Bull et al. 2005). SPM: surplus production model.Stock Location Species Assessment Depletion(B/ B 0 )48.3 South Georgia D. eleginoides ICAA/L 0.6148.4 South Sandwich Dissostichus spp. ICAL 1.09Islands58.5.1 Kerguelen D. eleginoides None -58.5.2 Heard Island D. eleginoides ICAA/L 0.6358.6 Crozet Islands D. eleginoides None -58.6/7 Prince Edward D. eleginoides ICAL 0.37IslandsExploratory fisheries48.6 - Dissostichus spp. None -58.4.1/2 - Dissostichus spp. Preliminary None58.4.3a Elan Bank Dissostichus spp. SPM 0.9558.4.3b Banzare Bank Dissostichus spp. None -88.1/88.2 Ross Sea Dissostichus spp. ICAL 0.80The success of CCAMLR’s approach can perhaps be measured by the number offisheries that have been assessed and certified as sustainable by the MarineStewardship Council. Certified deepwater fisheries include South Georgia Toothfish154

(certified 2004, recertified with no conditions 2009) and Ross Sea Toothfish (underrecommendation for certification, as of February 2010).5.4. Deep-water fisheries in the SE Atlantic - South East Atlantic FisheriesOrganisation (SEAFO)5.4.1. IntroductionThe South-east Atlantic is a topographically diverse area broadly comprising thecontinental shelves and slopes off Angola, Nambia and South Africa, and the Angolaand Cape abyssal basins on either side of the Walvis Ridge which runs southwesterlyfrom the African coast to the southern part of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR). Of theislands found in the south-east Atlantic, the most well known are Ascension Island,St Helena, Tristan da Cunha and Gough. Most are volcanic in origin, and, as with theWalvis Ridge, are often associated with assemblages of seamounts. Although theexact number of seamounts in the south-east Atlantic is not known, the Seas Aroundus Project (SAUP, 2006) has estimated that potentially there may be around 640 largeseamounts (>1 km in height) of which around 130 are within national exclusiveeconomic zones (EEZs) (Kitchingman et al., 2007). Much of the area outside EEZs isdeep water, and deep-water fisheries in this area exploit a range of species indifferent types of deep-water habitats (e.g. seamounts, slopes, banks etc).The main topographical features in the SEAFO Convention Area (CA) include theWalvis Ridge, Agulhas Ridge and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR) (Figure 42).Figure 42. Bottom topography of the SEAFO Convention Area also showing SEAFO Divisions andSub-divisions (depth scale is in metres) (from SEAFO, 2006)155

The Walvis Ridge extends from around 18º south, off the Namibian coast, in asouthwesterly direction towards the MAR. This Ridge sub-divides the CA into theCape Basin in the south and the Angola Basin in the north. Several importantseamounts, banks and plateaus are associated with the Walvis Ridge e.g. ValdiviaBank. The Agulhas Ridge extends from around 35º south, south of Cape Town, in asouthwesterly direction and separates the Agulhas Basin from the Cape Basin to thenorth. Again, several important seamounts, banks and plateaus are also associatedwith this feature. The MAR, at around 15ºW, runs through the entire SEAFO regionfrom north to south (SEAFO, 2006).5.4.2. Overview of fisheriesHistorically, it is suspected that landings data are incomplete and that the quality ofmuch of the available data is poor. Historically, there have been quite large shorttermtrawl fisheries since the 1970s for alfonsino (Beryx splendens and Beryxdecadactylus) (up to around 3000t in some years) and on a much small scale (annualcatches

VMS data are only available from 2007 onwards. The data for 2010 (to date) arepresented in Figure 43. Data have been anonymized so that Contracting Parties andindividual vessels cannot be identified.0°BRAZIL10°20°30°40°50°EEZVessel_1 (LL) 2010Vessel_2 (LL) 2010Vessel_3 (MT) 2010AscensionABCDSt. HelenaTristan da CunhaGoughD3LuandaNAMIBIAWalvis BayR S ACape Town40° 30° 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° 30°2D2111A1B11247356C11310D1ANGOLA980°BRAZIL10°20°30°40°50°EEZVessel_1 (pot) 2010AscensionABCDSt. HelenaTristan da CunhaGoughD3LuandaNAMIBIAWalvis BayR S ACape Town40° 30° 20° 10° 0° 10° 20° 30°2D2111A1B11247356C11310D1ANGOLAFigure 43: VMS data of the longline (LL), mid-water trawl (MT) and red crab (pot) vessels that operatedin the SEAFO CA in 2010 (note hatched areas indicate EEZs of coastal states).98157

5.4.4. Stock assessmentsThere is paucity of abundance data from commercial vessels and a total absence ofregular structured surveys aimed at collecting biological and abundance data for usein assessments. Abundance indices based com commercial catch-rate data are onlyavailable orange roughy and Patagonian toothfish.The orange fishery in sub-division B1 started in 1995 andcontinued until 2005.During these 9 years, 7 Namibian vessels were fishing for orange roughy and in total1270 trawls were made and about 1000 tonnes of deep-sea species were landed. Atotal of 290 tonnes of orange roughy and 303 tonnes of alfonsino were landed overthis time period. The LPUE was the highest in 1995 and thereafter decreased rapidlyto reach the lowest LPUE in 1999. Since then the LPUE seems to have stabilized at alow level.Nominal and standardized LPUE indices (2004-2009) for longliners fishing forPatagonian toothfish show an increasing trend. A concern, however, is thatstandardization procedure (generalised linear model model with factors for depth,area, season and year) only explains 10-12% of the observed variation in LPUE. Thissuggests that other unknown factors may be impacting on LPUE.5.4.5. Management of fisheries and stocksAlthough historical landings data are incomplete, and there is evidence historicallyof sporadic fishing activity, compared with most other RFMOs in the Atlantic Oceanfishing pressures in the SEAFO CA have been and remain relatively low.Notwithstanding, there are considerable challenges in developing managementmeasures for fisheries. Although in recent years there has been some improvementthe quantity and quality of fisheries monitoring data and data available for stockassessments, all the fisheries and stocks in the SEAFO CA can be defined as ‘datapoor’.SEAFO has therefore adopted the Precautionary Approach (PA) in introducedmeasures to restrict fisheries at low levels until data are collected and assessmentscarried out that can confirm that higher catch levels are sustainable.Current landings restrictions include TACs on deep-water red crab (based on theaverage of recent landings levels) at 200 t in SEAFO Sub-Division B1 and 200 t in theremainder of the CA, and a TAC of 230 t for the Patagonian toothfish (broadly in linewith the precautionary TAC applied by CCAMLR north of 60°S in CCAMLR Sub-Area 48.6 which is to the south and adjacent to the SEAFO CA) (SEAFO, 2010).SEAFO has also introduced precautionary management measures to protect two ofthe most vulnerable and commercially valuable species found in the CA, orangeroughy and alfonsino. There is a zero TAC for orange roughy in Sub-division B1 (Seeabove) and a TAC of 50 t for the remainder of the SEAFO CA, the latter to prevent astrong increase in activity but to permit exploratory fishing. Although alfonsino isnot long-lived (maximum recorded age is 17 years) or slow-growing, fisheries often158

target aggregations associated with seamounts and other topographical features.These fisheries may be short-lived and episodic i.e. occurring every 15-20 years asand when seriously depleted populations show signs of recovery. Given that there isno information currently available on the size alfonsino stocks in the SEAFO Area,and again because of the speed at which fisheries for this species can develop, aprecautionary TAC of 200 t is in place for the entire SEAFO CA (SEAFO, 2010).As part of International Plan of Action to protect sharks (FAO, 1999), SEAFO hasbanned fisheries directed at deep-water sharks until information becomes availableto identify sustainable harvesting levels (SEAFO, 2008b).Management measures have also been introduced to reduce the incidental by-catchof seabirds in the SEAFO CA. All longline vessels fishing south of the parallel oflatitude 30 o south must carry and use bird-scaring lines (tori poles). Longlines mustbe set at night only and the dumping of offal is prohibited while gear is being shot orset. Similar regulations (except allowing fishing during day-time) are also in place fortrawlers.Regarding the impact of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear(ALDFG) on habitat and biodiversity (ghost fishing), the use of gillnets is banned inthe SEAFO CA. The only other fisheries that currently pose potential ALDFGproblems are longline fisheries for Patagonian toothfish and trap fisheries for deepwaterred crab. Fishery observers record instances of ALDFG, including geardimensions and geographical position.5.4.6. Management of VMEs in the SEAFO CA.At present, closed areas, bottom fishing regulations and encounter protocols are themain management tools used to afford protection to VMEs in the SEAFO CA.5.4.6.1. Closed areasAny isolated topographic feature that rises to within 1000m of the ocean/sea surfaceshould be regarded as having the potential to host vulnerable marine ecosystems(VMEs). Isolated topographic features at these depths may experience both enhancedprimary production and interaction with vertically migrating zooplankton,providing increased food resources to seafloor populations. Combined with likelyincreased water movements over/across the topography and the possible occurrenceof hard substratum (rocky terrain) these factors are likely to produce “biologicalhotspots” with increased standing stocks (abundance and biomass of the seabedfauna) and species richness (biodiversity).It is also important to consider the likely regional variations in the VMEs present.For example, the SEAFO CA encompasses five major oceanic biogeochemical(Longhurst) provinces; each of these may be home to significantly different seamountbiological communities.159

The designation of closed areas should, therefore, attempt to provide someprotection in each province, rather than for example a large singe closed area withina single province.In addition, seamounts with summits at any depth do have the potential to hostbiological communities associated with hydrothermal systems. Such communitiesare generally thought to have high conservation value.To account to some extent for the possible existence of chemosynthetic communitiesat depths >1000m and that the maximum potential depth of deep-water fishing isaround 2000m, in 2010 SEAFO introduced revised and new closed areas (Figure 44)to protect geographically discete aggregations of seamounts penetrating into theupper 2000m of the water column which, on the basis of historical fishing patterns,are considered to be unexpoited or only slightly exploited.Figure 44. Seamount closed areas introduced by SEAFO in 2010160

All fishing activities for fisheries resources covered by the SEAFO Convention areprohibited in these areas.5.4.6.2. Regulation of bottom fishingIn order to address the 2006 UN General Assembly Resolution (UNGA) onSustainable Fisheries (A/RES/61/105), SEAFO has implemented an interim measureapplying to all existing and new bottom fishing areas outside SEAFO closed areas.CPs with vessels involved in bottom fishing activities (defined where the fishing gearis likely to have contacted the seafloor during the normal course of fishingoperations) are required to map existing (defined as fishing in at least two years inthe period of 1987-2007) bottom fishing areas within the SEAFO CA. Mapping ofbottom trawling activity is to be given priority. SEAFO is currently developing acomprehensive overall map of existing bottom fishing areas (so-called ‘fishingfootprint’ (Figure 45). All other areas (except existing closed areas) will be regardedas new bottom fishing areas and fisheries conducted these areas are treated asexploratory fisheries.Figure 45. – Provisional fishing footprint developed using available data fitting the SEAFO Commissioncriteria and a cell size of 1° x 1°.161

Before exploratory bottom fishing can take place, a detailed proposal must besubmitted by the CP to the SEAFO SC for scrutiny. The proposal must include thefollowing:-• a harvesting plan which outlines target species, dates and areas, area and effortrestrictions to ensure fisheries occur on a gradual basis in a limited geographicalarea;• a mitigation plan including measures to prevent significant adverse impacts(SAIs) to VMEs that may be encountered during the fishery;• a catch monitoring plan that includes recording/reporting of all species caught(sufficiently detailed to conduct an assessment of activity, if required);• a data collection plan to facilitate the identification of VME species in the areafished.The SEAFO SC then provides a recommendation to the SEAFO Commission whowill allow, prohibit or restricting bottom fishing activities, require specific mitigationmeasures for bottom fishing activities, allow, prohibit or restrict bottom fishing withcertain gear-types or request changes in gear design and/or deployment, and/or anyother relevant requirements or restrictions to prevent SAIs to VMEs (SEAFO, 2008b).5.4.6.3. VME Encounter protocolsFor both existing and new fishing areas, an encounter is defined in the interim as acatch per set (e.g. trawl tow, longline set, or gillnet set) of more than 80 kg of livecoral and/or 800 kg of live sponge. These thresholds are provisional and may beadjusted as experience is gained (SEAFO, 20009). In existing bottom fishing areas,vessels must quantify catches of live coral and sponge. If the quantity of VMEelements or indicator species caught in a fishing operation is beyond the thresholdsdefined above the vessel master reports the incident to the CP, which without delayforwards the information to the SEAFO Secretariat. SEAFO then archives theinformation and reports it to all CPs who immediately alert all fishing vessels flyingtheir flag. The vessel master must cease fishing, haul the gear, and move away atleast 2 nm from the endpoint of the tow/set in the direction least likely to result infurther encounters. Any further tows or sets must be parallel to the tow/set when theencounter was made. The SEAFO Secretariat then compiles an annual report onencounters and submits this to the SEAFO SC to evaluate and give advice on theneed for action, using as a basis the FAO guidelines for management of deep-seafisheries on the high seas.The above protocol also applies to fishing activities in new bottom fishing areas, withone important addition. On receiving information from a CP of an encounter with aVME SEAFO requests all CPs implement an interim closure of two miles radiusaround the reporting position. The SEAFO SC examines the interim closure and162

advises the Commission as to whether the area should be treated as a VME andremain closed (SEAFO, 2008b).5.5. Deep-water fisheries in the Mediterranaean (GFCM)5.5.1. The Mediterranean deep-water environmentDanovaro et al. (2010) described that the Mediterranean Sea is divided into westernand central-eastern basins, which are separated by the Strait of Sicily. The westernbasin (mean depth, about 1,600 m) consists of two deep basins: the Algero Provencalbasin and the Tyrrhenian Sea. The central-eastern Mediterranean consists of threemain deep basins: the Ionian, Aegean, and Levantine (Sardà et al., 2004). The deepestpoint in the Mediterranean, 5,121 m is found at the North Matapan-Vavilov Trench,Ionian Sea (Vanney & Gennesseaux, 1985). The deep-sea floor includes regionscharacterized by complex sedimentological and structural features: (a) continentalslopes, (b) submarine canyons, (c) base-of-slope deposits, and (d) bathyal or basinplains with abundant deposits of hemi-pelagic and turbidity muds.Water circulation is highly complex. The surface waters come from the Atlantic andturn into intermediate waters in the Eastern Mediterranean. Low-salinity Atlanticwaters enter the Mediterranean, while denser deep-Mediterranean waters flowbeneath the Atlantic waters in the opposite direction into the Atlantic Ocean.Mesoscale variability is extremely evident in the Mediterranean and is responsiblefor the creation of small gyres (eddies) that have implications for the primaryproductivity and the flux of organic matter settling to the seafloor. Deep and bottomcurrents are largely unexplored (Stanley & Wezel, 1985).The main hydrological features of the deep Mediterranean Sea are (a) highhomeothermy from roughly 300–500 m to the bottom, and bottom temperatures ofabout 12.8 o C to 13.5 o C in the western basin and 13.5 o C to 15.5 o C in the eastern basin(i.e., there are no thermal boundaries, whereas in the Atlantic Ocean the temperaturedecreases with depth - Emig & Geistdoerfer, 2004), (b) high salinity, from about 38 to39.5 psu by the stratification of the water column, (c) limited freshwater inputs,compensated by the Atlantic inflow of surface water, (d) a micro-tidal regime, (e)high oxygen concentrations, and (f) oligotrophic conditions, with strong energeticgradients and low nutrient concentrations in the eastern basin (Danovaro et al.,1999). The eastern basin is considered to be one of the most oligotrophic areas of theworld. Inputs of organic carbon are 15–80 times lower than in the western basin andthere are extremely low concentrations of chlorophyll-a in surface offshore waters. Inaddition, there are low concentrations of the potentially limiting organic nutrients(e.g., proteins and lipids) that sharply decline with increasing distance from the coastand depth within the sediment. The average depth of the Mediterranean basin isabout 1,450 m, much shallower than the average depth of the world oceans (about3,850 m). This has several implications for the deep-water turnover (roughly 50years) and the vulnerability to climate change and deep-water warming. The163

Mediterranean Sea has been considered a ‘‘miniature ocean’’ that can be used as amodel to anticipate the response of the global oceans to various kinds of pressures.The Mediterranean basin contains, over relatively limited spatial scales, a number ofhabitats that can represent potential ‘‘hot spots’’ of biodiversity (Figure 46). Atentative, possibly not exhaustive list of these systems includes (a) open slopesystems, (b) submarine canyons, (c) deep basins, (d) seamounts, (e) deep-water coralsystems, (f) cold seeps and carbonate mounds, (g) hydrothermal vents, and (h)permanent anoxic systems.Figure 46..Deep-water areas of interest in the Mediterranean sea (Danovaro et al., 2010)Canyons are important habitats for fished species, such as hake and for the roseshrimp Aristeus antennatus. Faunal abundance and biomass are usually higher insidethe canyons than at similar depths in the surrounding habitat. Certain canyons arecharacterized as areas of high diversity and production, and as such they may playan important role in processes related to the transfer of matter and energy in theMediterranean Sea. Numerous canyons have been identified in the deep domains ofthe Mediterranean (Gili et al., 1999).The abyssal basins of the Mediterranean are extremely unusual deep-sea systems.With water temperatures at 4,000 m in excess of 14 o C (rather than 4 o C or colder forthe deep oceanic basins) the entire benthic environment is as hot as the water arounda hydrothermal vent system, but lacks the vents’ rich chemical energy supply(Danovaro et al., 2010).Seamounts are islands separated by great depths. Consequently, they may serve asisolated refuges for relict populations of species that have disappeared from otherareas. In the Western Mediterranean, the Tyrrhenian bathyal plain is characterizedby the presence of numerous seamounts, while the Eastern Mediterranean basin dueto its higher topographic heterogeneity hosts an even much larger number.Unfortunately, a complete and detailed map of all Mediterranean seamounts is notavailable yet and their biodiversity remains largely unexplored (Pusceddu et al.,2009).164

Deep-water coral reefs are local seafloor mounds consisting of accumulations of coraldebris, fine- and coarse-grained sediments, and live coral colonies that provideadditional hard substrates extending into mid-water. At present, a total of 14 coralbank areas have been censused, but only a few of them have been examined by ROVdives (Danovaro et al., 2010). The deep-water coral habitats can act as spawningareas for some species and nursery areas for others, as suggested by the highercatches of demersal species (such as the shrimp Aristeus antennatus andAristaeomorpha foliacea), as well as sharks, hakes, rockfish, greater fork beard,gurnards, and black-spot seabream by long-line in these areas.5.5.2. The Mediterranean Deep-water fisheries5.5.2.1. Description, history and developmentThe Mediterranean Sea is a semi-enclosed sea characterized by a continental shelf,where most commercial fishing activity is conducted, most frequently reduced to anarrow coastal fringe and covering less than 30% of the total area. TheMediterranean bathyal grounds extend for about 60% of the whole basin, whereasthe abyssal plane covers about 13% of the bottoms (Sardà et al., 2004; Cartes et al.,2004a).Some of the most long-standing conclusions on the existence of life in deep marinedomains have been derived based on observations in the Mediterranean (AegeanSea); with respect to bathymetrical distribution, Forbes (1843) stated his azoichypothesis, claiming that the realms beyond 600 m are entirely devoid of life.However, these beliefs have been modified to a considerable extent by the morerecent explorations of the deep seas (Corliss et al., 1979) and in fact, currently variousMediterranean deep water regions sustain commercial fisheries (Merrett andHaedrich, 1997; WWF/IUCN, 2004).In spite of the long history of biological resources harvesting in the Mediterraneancoastal areas, the exploitation of deep-sea organisms, especially of demersal ones,started only in the first few decades of the last century due to the development of thetechnology for searching and fishing in deep waters (Sardà et al., 2004 and referencestherein) and the growing number of collapsed fish stocks on the continental shelves(Cartes et al., 2004a). As mentioned in Sardà et al. (2004), according to Relini andRelini-Orsi (1987), the red shrimps Aristaeomorpha foliacea and Aristeus antennatusbegan to constitute the target of deep-water bottom trawl fishing in the 1930’s in theLigurian Sea, where the first trawlers that sought the epibathyal depths managed tocatch between 100 and 200 kg/day, and in some periods, after the second world war,the captures went up to 1000 kg/day per boat. Sardà et al. (2004, according to Arte,1952; Bas et al., 1966; Massuti and Daroca, 1978) stated that it was not until themiddle 1940’s when the importance of the exploitation of this resource wasevidenced in the Catalan and Balearic seas, and it was pointed out as one of the latestfisheries developed in the Mediterranean.165

Currently, as mentioned by Cartes et al., (2004a), the Mediterranean trawl fisheriesbelow 200 m depth target mainly decapod resources and hake; in the upper slope(down to 500 m), the decapods Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) and rose shrimp(Parapenaeus longirostris) represent important fisheries in certain areas; deeperfisheries (down to 800 m) target almost exclusively aristeid shrimps. Other deepfisheries also exist in the Mediterranean, but on a smaller scale (Cartes et al., 2004a);longliners targeting hake, red black-spot seabream, wreckfish and the deep-sea sixgilledshark (Hexanchus griseus), and gillneters targeting hake and red blackspottedseabream; some of these fisheries are locally collapsed (Mytilineou and Machias,2007).Sardà et al. (2004) pointed out that although fisheries down to a depth of 700 m havebeen usual since the middle of the last century in the Mediterranean Sea, the deepseabottoms down to 1000 m can be considered to be pristine. At these depths thereare no specialized fisheries as in other parts of the world. However, some trawlbottom fishery currently goes down to almost 1000 m. This deep trawl bottomfishery is carried out due to two fundamental factors: (i) the narrowness of the shelf,crossed by numerous submarine canyons that brings the deep depths within a fewmiles of the coast; (ii) the human density of Mediterranean regions and the highdemand for marine products, which are traditional in the Mediterranean diet. Thesefactors generate high competition between fishermen. The trawl boats that work ondeep-sea grounds have powers of between 300 and1800 HP. Boats of wood or ironhave now been replaced by boats of glass-fibre and of a catamaran type with hightechnologies. Moreover, mixed enterprises to exploit the deep-sea ground off theNorth African coast are now common, especially in Spain (Sardà et al., 2004). Thissituation makes us more cautious concerning the deep-water resources and themanagement of their fisheries.The potential interest of the currently unexploited bottoms below 1000 m depth isvery limited. This is so because the overall abundance of crustacean species isconsiderably lower and many species are of non-economic interest or of a small size.If these species ever become of economic interest, the ecosystem effects of fishingcould be very important. Given the importance of depths below 1000 m for thejuveniles of red shrimp and for the reproduction of many fish species, theexploitation of these bottoms would probably entail negative impacts on shallowerecosystems, beyond the rapid depletion of particularly vulnerable deep-seamegafauna communities (Cartes et al., 2004a).5.5.2.2. Western Mediterranean fisheriesIn the review of Sardà et al. (2004) for deep Mediterranean waters, it is stated that thedeep-sea rose shrimp, Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816) (Crustacea, Decapoda,Dendrobranchiata, Aristeidae) is the most important fishery in the westernMediterranean Sea (Sardà and Martin, 1986; Demestre and Lleonart, 1993; Bianchiniand Ragonese, 1994 Carbonell et al., 1999). This species is a characteristic componentof the demersal muddy bottom community on the middle slope at depths between166

400 and 800 m (Cartes and Sardà, 1993). However, the distribution of this species isnonetheless considerably broader, reaching depths of at least 3300 m (Sardà et al.,2004b), indicating that the species is eurybathic with a distribution that isconsiderably broader than that of other decapod crustacean species. The spatiotemporalbehavioral pattern of A. antennatus is well-known, with the species formingseasonal aggregations on the middle slope at depths between 400 and 900 m in latewinter and early summer (Tobar and Sardà, 1987; Demestre and Martin, 1993; Sardàet al., 1994). Towards the end of summer the shrimp shoals tend to break up andmove inside submarine canyons (Sardà et al., 1994). Studies carried out on thecatchability of shoals of this species (Sardà and Maynou, 1998) have suggested thatthe shrimp stock bears the brunt of the fishing effort between early spring andsummer (Tudela et al., 2003; Sardà et al., 2003a), because shoal formation is at itspeak on the part of the slope most readily accessible to trawlers, and females attainmaximum size, that is, the biomass concentration is also at its peak. In addition, themarketability of this species is also highest at this time (Sardà et al., 2003b). Despitefluctuations in landings over season, inter-annual fluctuations of around 8 years havebeen detected (Tobar and Sardà 1987; Carbonell and Acevedo, 2003).Considering the multi-species nature of the Mediterranean fisheries, deep-watershrimps are caught together with many other species considered by-catch, some ofwhich, such as Norway lobster, hake, angerfish (Lophius spp.) or conger eel (Congerconger) have a high commercial value, while others, such as the greater forkbeard(Phycis blennoides), rockfish (Helicolenus dactylopterus) and the golden shrimp(Plesionika spp.), are less valuable and many others are completely discarded. In thedeeper range the main catch families are composed of Moridae (mainly Mora moro)and Alepocephalidae (mainly Alepocephallus rostratus) of large size or Macruridae(Coelorhynchus coelorhynchus, Trachyrhynchus scabrus, Hymenocephalus italicus,Chalinura mediterranea, Nezumia aequalis) of medium size. High biomasses of thesespecies are detected between 900 and 1300 m (Stefanescu et al., 1992; Morales-Nin etal., 2003; Cartes et al., 2004b; Moranta, et al., 2004), but no fishery is carried out atthese depths.In the framework of the EC, DGXIV/97/0018 project (Sarda, 2000), an analysis of thewestern Mediterranean deep-sea shrimp fishery in the 29 ports sampled, includedthe North Africa, the south Portugal and Italian deep-water fishery, showed thefollowing results. The effective fleet comprised 548 vessels with 36 478 MT total GRTand 133 000 kW engine power. The average size of these vessels was large incomparison with the average characteristics of the Mediterranean fleet overall. Theaverage vessel in the effective rose shrimp fishery fleet had an engine power of 243kW and a GRT of 66 tons and is 21 m long. The average engine power of a NorthAfrican shrimper is 231 kW as opposed to the average of 245 kW of a vessel from theEuropean Mediterranean; the average GRT of a North African vessel (62 tons) is 5tons less than the average of a European vessel (67 tons). Catch per unit effort dataon A. antennatus are most abundant for the Western Mediterranean, off mainlandSpain and North Africa. High catches of this species in these areas coincide with lowcatches of A. foliacea.167

In the Ligurian Sea, Eastern Italy, and the islands of Sardinia and Sicily, catch perunit effort (CPUE) data on A. antennatus are not as readily available, while CPUEdata on A. foliacea become increasingly available. Taking these two species together,mean yields are around 4.2 kg/h, with peak values of 9 kg/h, which translates intoapproximate mean daily yields of about 50 kg/day. On the whole, the data indicatethat there is a tendency to catch the species A. antennatus alone in the westernmostpart of the Mediterranean, whereas the two species are mixed in the easternmostportion of the study area (Figure 47). Revenues per unit of effort (RPUE) highestvalue was recorded in the port of Almeria (Spain) with round 2.02 thousand € ofvalue of landings per day. Also with respect to this efficiency parameter a highvariability related to the average size of the vessels is observed.Figure 47. Mean CPUE (kg/h) of two Aristeid shrimps in various western and central Mediterraneanregions (Sarda, 2000) (AGV=Algarve, NALB=N. Alboran, SLEV=S. Levante, CAT=Catalonia, BAL=Balearic,LIG=Ligurian, NTYR=N. Tyrrhenian, CTYR=C. Tyrrhenian, STYR=S. Tyrrhenian, NSIC=N. Sicily,SAR=Sardinia, G.TAR=G. Taranto, S.SIC=S. Sicily, TUN=Tunisia, ALG=Algeria, MOR=Morocco)Spanish Mediterranean deep fisheries can practically be considered as single-speciesfishery and trawl could be considered as the only fishing gear. The main deep-waterresource is red shrimp (A. antennatus), fished from about 400 m and deeper in theopen slope. Carbonell et al. (2003) comments that the red shrimp has being exploitedfor more than 50 years in the Spanish Mediterranean. Out of a total of hundredharbours, about 40% have developed a deep-water red shrimp fishery. The redshrimp contributes 900-1500 tons per year to the Spanish deep-water trawl fishery.The quantities of discards of all species in the fishery represent around 30% of thetotal catch. Nevertheless, discards of red shrimp are practically zero. The fishery,therefore exploits only adult shrimps, which represent nearly 75% of the total catchbiomass. Sampling has shown that females contribute about 70% of the red shrimpcatch by weight. Sardà (2000) reported that CPUE of A. antennatus in the Catalanwaters was near 7 kg/h; lower values were found in the Balearic and Alboran waters.168

Red shrimp resources have shown some resilience to overexploitation, although thefleet fishing capacity has increased steadily. The fact that A. antennatus appears to beunderexploited or near the optimum levels on the Spanish coast, in contrast withmajority of demersal resources is due to at least two characteristics of this species: a)the whole stock is not available for fishing since only a certain proportion of the stockis not available for fishing since only a certain proportion of the stock is accessible tocommercial fishing, and the species has an extremely wide distribution in bathyalwaters, b) the turnover rate is high in contrast to the low turnover rate of mostdemersal resources, that makes them “easy victims” to overfishing (Sardà et al., 2004and references therein). Other species caught in the deep-water trawl fishery are N.norvegicus, large M. merluccius, P. blennoides and H. dactylopterus; but these species aresecondary in terms of catches and revenues. The landings of the MediterraneanSpanish deep-water species, included in FAO fisheries statistics, are presented inTable 14, at the end of this section.In French Mediterranean waters, fisheries targeting deep-water species are minor.There is some fishing on the upper-slope (200-600 m), which main target hake and afew other species (monkfish: Lophius spp., C. conger). Usually, the landings of deepwaterspecies are quite small and comprise red black-spot seabream, deep-water roseshrimp, spurdogs (Squalus acanthias), conger eel, greater forkbeard, wreckfish, and H.dactylopterus. These fisheries are mainly longline fisheries targeting large adult fish.The Nephrops deep-water fishery in Corsica accounts for the 60% of revenues in thelocal fishing community (GFCM, 2010). The official landings of the MediterraneanFrench deep-water species included in FAO fisheries statistics are shown in Table 14.The Gulf of Lions has been exploited by the Spanish bottom longline fleet since1980s. This fishery operates mainly on the slope along the canyons iat adepth ofbetween 160 and 600 m. Maximum depth and fishing grounds are progressivelyexpanding at deeper waters and eastwards, respectively. The impact of foreignSpanish vessels operating on the slope targeting shrimps and possibly some otherfish is difficult to be estimate (SGFEN/STECF, 2001).Information on deep-water fisheries by non-EU Member States is sparse. However,some info can be derived from official statistics.In Moroccan waters, bottom longlining for red black-spot seabream is practiced(FAO/COPEMED, 2010). A Nephrops fisheries are documented as is a shrimp fisherylocated in the northern part of the country is targeting P. longirostris (Sardà, 2000).The official landings of the Moroccan deep-water species included in FAO fisheriesstatistics are shown in Table 14.In Algerian waters, deep-water fishing is practiced, however the extent is notdocumented in detail. Frequently landed deep-water species include A. anntennatus,N. norvegicus and H. dactylopterus (GFCM, 2010). Most shrimpers are located in thecentral part of the country, and A. antennatus is the dominant species in their catcheswith CPUE values higher than 10 Kg/h (Sardà, 2000 – Figure 46).169

In Tunisian waters, an important deep-water red shrimp fishery is carried out off thenorthern part of the country (Cap Bon), fishing A. foliacea; A high CPUE value(~20Kg/h) characterizes this fishery (information available from the EC,DGXIV/97/0018 project (Sardà, 2000 - Figure 46).5.5.2.3. Central Mediterranean fisheriesDeep-water species in the central Mediterranean are mostly exploited by the Italianfleet, which is composed of typical Mediterranean-style boats and is almostexclusively artisanal in structure, except for some areas (e.g. the Sicilian Channel)where larger trawlers operate on a more industrial scale. Most of the vessels arerecorded as multiple-gear vessels and are generally of small gross tonnage andsmaller than 12 m in length (COM, 2002). Most of the trawlers are located in theSicily Channel and in the South Adriatic Sea. However, in this latter basin, deepwaterfishing is less important than in coastal areas. The deep-water fishery is mainlycarried out by trawlers.A deep water fishery is developed to a lesser extent inMaltese waters, whereas in the Greek Ionian Sea a deep-water trawl fishery is notcommonly exercised and gillnetting and longlining is practiced to a greater extent(Mytilineou and Machias, 2007).A deep-water trawl red shrimp fishery forms the main part of the deep fishery in theCentral Mediterranean, and started in the 1930’s in the Ligurian Sea. Red shrimpfisheries are often distinct even if a degree of overlapping exists: the main A. foliaceafisheries are located in the Strait of Sicily and in Southern Sardinia, whereas A.antennatus is mostly caught in the Ionian Sea and Ligurian Sea; Tyrrhenian Sea, in amore central position, shows an intermediate condition with catches of both species,indicating a west-east as well as a north-south gradient (Bianchini and Ragonese,1994; Sardà, 2000; Cau et al., 2002). The deep-water shrimps (A. foliacea and A.antennatus) show a similar depth distribution pattern in the Italian and Greek watersof the Ionian Sea. However, their relative abundance changes; A. foliacea presentshigher densities off Greek waters, while A. antennatus shows a higher density inItalian waters (D’Onghia et al., 2003; 2005), indicating a north-south gradient.In the Italian waters, a deep-water fishery is mainly exercised by trawlers, andtargets red shrimps. Although the Spanish deep-water fishery could be consideredmore mono-specific, the Italian deep-water fishery is of a multi-species nature. Italianbottom trawlers can change fishing activity throughout the year (in many casesduring the same day) both on red shrimps and on shallower species, such as deepwaterrose shrimp (P. longirostris), Norway lobster and hake, according to thevarying availability of these resources. The main fisheries targeting red shrimpsoccur from coastal waters to 700-750 m. For this reason, it is difficult to quantify theeffective fishing effort targeting specific deep-water species. From official nationalstatistics (ISTAT), during the past decade the total Italian landings of "red shrimps"show an oscillating trend between 3000 and 6000 t. However, apart from the lowreliability of these data, several species are grouped within the same commercialcategory of "red shrimps" (A. antennatus, A.foliacea, P. martia, other Pandalids, etc.).170

The official landings of the Italian deep-water species included in FAO fisheriesstatistics are shown in Table 14.The red shrimps A. foliacea and A. antennatus began to constitute the target of deepwaterbottom trawl fishing in the 1930’s in the Ligurian Sea. The exploitation of bothspecies progressively decreased until the collapse of the stocks in the late 1970’s(Relini and Relini-Orsi, 1987). Overfishing together with environmental degradation,hydrology, failure of recruitment and parasitic attack of stressed stock wereconsidered as the possible causes of the stock collapse (Relini and Orsi Relini, 1987).While a recovery of A. antennatus stock was shown in 1985, which led to a restart offishing activity (Orsi Relini and Relini, 1988), the presence of A. foliacea in the area iscurrently extremely scarce and insignificant in commercial terms (Fiorentino et al.,1998). Sardà (2000) mentioned a lower than 3 Kg/h CPUE for A. antennatus in the area(Figure 46).In Tyrrhenian waters, both aristeid species are fished. In the red shrimp fishery,CPUE values were near 5 kg/h (Sardà, 2000 – Figure 46). According to Sartor et al.(2001), the CPUE values for the total commercial catch in the red shrimp fishery werearound 20 kg/h; discards consisted 20% of the total catch.In Sardinian waters, both aristeid species are targeted. The CPUE value for thepooled aristeid catch was close to 7 kg/h (Sardà, 2000 – Figure 46).In the Sicilian waters, A. foliacea is the main target deep-water species. Ragonese et al.(2001) observed that in the red shrimp fishery this species represents the 48% of thetotal catch with CPUE values oscillating between 5-15 kg/h depending on the depthand the season.In the Italian Ionian waters, the main target deep-water species is A. antennatus.CPUE values oscillate around 5 kg/h (Tursi et al., 1994; Sardà, 2000 – Figure 46)reaching up to 8 Kg/h (D’ Onghia et al., 1998). In an EU study project conducted inthe Gallipoli fishery, it was shown that fishing on red shrimps was carried out byaround 50% of the trawlers. On average, the contribution of red shrimps made uparound 60% in weight and 65% in economic value of the total catch in the region(Carlucci et al., 2006). In the Italian Ionian Sea there are also some local small-scalefisheries using longline and targeting hake and other deep-sea species such asrockfish, greater forkbeard and six gilled shark.In Adriatic waters, a part of the Nephrops fishery could be considered a deep-waterfishery. Nephrops ranks first of all crustacean species exploited in the area in termsof value, and second in terms of weight, with a decreasing trend in catches since1993. It is found on muddy grounds between 50 m and 400 m (Morello, 2009).Longliners are also distributed in the southern Adriatic fishing hake as a targetspecies between 200 and 400 m (De Zio et al., 1998).In Maltese waters, a deep-water bottom trawl red shrimp fishery (A. foliacea) iscarried out (GFCM, 2010). Landings of wreckfish indicate that a bottom longline171

target fishery is also taking place. The official landings of the Maltese deep-waterspecies included in FAO fisheries statistics are shown in Table 14.In the Croatian waters, deep-water fishing is occurring for Norway lobsters mainlyby bottom trawlers (Table 14).In the Slovenian waters, no deep-sea fishing is occurring (GFCM, 2010).Montenegro is adjacent to the south Adriatic basin with a maximum depth of 1228 m.A Nephrops fishery exists in these waters (Table 14).In Albanian waters, official documents cite no exploitation deeper than 300 m (Vaso,1994). However, landings of A. antennatus, N. norvegicus, and P. americanus in the areasuggest that some deep-water fishing is conducted (Table 14).In the Greek Ionian Sea, artisanal deep-water fisheries using longlines and gillnetstarget hake, red black-spot seabream and wreckfish. Bottom trawling is generallyexercised down to 400 m and rarely practiced in deep waters, however in recentyears Italian trawlers have exploited the Greek Ionian deep-water shrimp stocks(Papaconstantinou and Stergiou, 1995; Stergiou et al., 1997; Mytilineou et al., 2007and references therein).In 1996, an EU research project (Anon., 1999) carried out in the central Greek Ionianrevealed that significant quantities of commercial fish and crustaceans exist in watersdeeper than 300 m. The most important crustacean species was A. foliacea (Petrakisand Papaconstantinou, 1997). More recent research (Politou et al., 2003;Papaconstantinou and Kapiris, 2003; Mytilineou et al., 2003; 2006) revealed that theproportion of the two red shrimp species in the total catch during experimentalsampling was 6% at depths of 300-500 m, 30% at depths of 500-700 m and near 25% atdepths 700-900 m. A common conclusion was that A. foliacea is more abundant thanA. antennatus. The southern part of the Greek Ionian Sea showed higher CPUE valuesin terms of commercial catch as well as aristeid catch (Mytilineou et al., 2006) thanthe northern one (Politou et al., 2003). The aristeid stocks in the Greek Ionian Seawere considered pristine, since deep-water trawling is not developed in the area.This was the reason that CPUE of the commercial and aristeid catch reached highvalues near 50 kg/h and 14 kg/h, respectively (Mytilineou et al., 2006); lower values(

The trawl fishery in the Greek Ionian deep waters is limited because: (1) of theinexperience of the fishers with working at these depths, (2) the fishers do not knowthat there are important commercial stocks at these depths, and (3) the price of thedeep-water resources in the market has been until recently very low. Thus deepwatertrawl fishing is mainly occasional, and often more frequent in the last months(April & May) of the trawl permitted operating period (Mytilineou & Machias, 2007).Greek trawlers operating in deep-waters are also operating in shallow waters, thuscatches and effort from deep-waters is difficult to estimate.Some Italian bottom trawlers are working in the international waters close to theGreek coasts of the Ionian Sea (Mytilineou et al., 2007). The impact of foreign Italianvessels operating on the slope targeting shrimps and possibly some other fish isdifficult to estimate, although it should be reported in the framework of DCR. Trawltarget species at depths of 400 to 800 m are mainly A. antennatus, A. foliacea and to alesser extend M. merluccius, N. norvegicus, Lophius spp, Lepidorhombus boscii, L.wiffiagonis, T. lyra, H. dactylopterus, Squalus acanthias, S. blainvillei and Scorpaena spp(Mytilineou et al., 2003; Mytilineou and Machias, 2007).The deep-water artisanal fishery in the Greek Ionian Sea comprises the followingfisheries.(i) The hake deep-fishery: longline fishery targeting hake occurs mainly on muddybottoms from 400 down to 700 m. Other commercial by catch species are P.americanus, S. blainvillei, H. dactylopterus and Raja sp. Gill nets are also used for hakefishery in deep waters. Fishing is carried out on muddy bottoms at depth down to600 m (SGFEN/STECF, 2001; Mytilineou et al., 2007).(ii) The red blackspot seabream deep-fishery: this fishery started in the early 80s’ withbottom longlines in rocky banks at depths 200-600 m. In mid 1990s, static bottom gillnets replaced longlines, and these are mainly now used (Petrakis et al., 2001;Mytilineou and Machias, 2007). The catches of red seabream were extremely high atthe beginning, but very soon they declined drastically. The main reasons of thedecline seem to be overfishing, the introduction of gill nets, recreational fishing andghost fishing (PETRAKIS et al., 2001). In the gillnet fishery, P. bogaraveo consisted a75% in number and a 50% in weight (Petrakis et al., 2001). In 2001, Petrakis et al.pointed out that this fishery collapsed (SGMED/STECF 2004). The red black-spotseabream landings data from the national statistics showed a slightly declining trenduntil 2004 (Mytilineou and Machias 2007), however, the abundance index of thespecies in the area has increased the last five years (Damalas et al., 2010). Based onestimations from the fisheries data national collection program, in the Greek IonianSea, approximately 280 boats are involved occasionally in the target fishery landingbetween 150-200 tons annually (Damalas et al., 2010).(iii) The wreckfish deep-fishery: this deep-water fishery is exercised mainly with longlines similar to hake deep-fishery lines. The species is localized at specific fishing173

sites, characterized by seamounts, steep continental slopes and hard bottoms. Thefishing depth ranges between 300-1000 m; mainly between 500-850 m (Mytilineouand Machias, 2007). Wreckfish may also be found over flat hard bottoms, but fishersseem to prefer fishing on areas of steep slope, because these are easy to locate andcatches are higher (Machias et al., 2001). A slightly declining trend was found for theperiod 1994-2004 (Mytilineou and Machias, 2007). A recent review on these thisfishery has classified it as collapsed (SGMED/STECF 2004). The official landings of allthe Greek seas deep-water species included in FAO fisheries statistics are shown inTable 14.No deep-sea fishing is occurring in Libyan waters.5.5.2.4. Eastern Mediterranean fisheriesDeep-water fisheries are not very developed in the eastern Mediterranean. Artisanaldeep-water fisheries using longlines and gillnets and bottom deep-water trawling arepracticed, but to a lesser extent compared to the western and central Mediterranean.In Greek waters (Aegean and Cretan Seas), artisanal deep-water fisheries usinglonglines and nets target hake, P. bogaraveo, P. americanus and H. griseus. Bottomtrawling is occasionally practiced, mainly in the southern Aegean Sea (DodecaneseIsles); however, Italian trawlers have recently exploited the Cretan deep-watershrimp stocks.The deep-water artisanal fishery, as in the Ionian, consists of fisheries for hake, redblack-spot seabream, wreckfish and the deep shark Hexanchus griseus. A review ofthese fisheries is reported in Mytilineou and Machias (2007). In the Aegean Sea, thered black-spot seabream landings are supposed to be double than those in the Ionian.Wreckfish longline fishery was once practiced throughout Aegean waters, however itis now limited to certain areas (e.g.: off the Cretan coast, south Aegean islands(Anon., 2001a, b; Machias et al., 2003). The Hexanchus griseus deep-fishery is carriedout with longlines in the central and southern Aegean Sea at depths of 600 to 1500 m.The species has a low commercial value, but the catch is quite high and the fishery isprofitable. Bycatch species are mainly C. conger and Squalus spp. (Stergiou et al., 1996,1997; Anon. 1999; Mytilineou and Machias, 2007) (Table 14).In Cypriot waters, deep-water fishing is not well developed. However, landings of P.bogaraveo suggest that an artisanal deep-water fishery is taking place, probably on asmall scale (Table 14).In Israeli waters, some deep fishing may be practiced in waters deeper than 300 m bytrawlers, with P. longirostris and A. foliacea of commercial interest (Thessalou-Legaki,1994). No official landings exist in the FAO fisheries statistics.In Lebanese waters, limited longlining is occurring in depths greater than 50 m(GFCM, 2010). No official landings exist in the FAO fisheries statistics.174

In Turkish waters, although GFCM (2010) reports no deep-sea fishing practices, somedeep-water species appear in the FAO fisheries statistics (Table 14). Furthermore,recently published works confirm the existence of deep water fishing mainly ininternational waters for M. merluccius, N. norvegicus, P. longirostris, P. blennoides, H.dactylopterus, Lepidorhombus boscii and A. foliacea. (Tokac et al., 2009, 2010)In Egyptian, Syrian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Ukrainian and Russian waters, no deepseafishing has been reported.Table 14. FAO deep-water species captures for Mediterranean countrieshttp://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/global-capture-production/enCountry Species 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007AlbaniaA. antennatus 0 0 34 22 15 12 18 0N. norvegicus 0 10 5 2 2 2 4 0P. americanus 0 0 10 1 1 1 4 0A. antennatus 1,116 740 893 1,027 1,310 1,542 1,423 1,137Algeria G. melastomus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64N. norvegicus 92 45 56 119 69 60 25 14Croatia N. norvegicus 250 274 140 128 158 141 223 198Cyprus P. bogaraveo 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 4Egypt - - - - - - - - -N. norvegicus 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1FranceP. americanus 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0P. blennoides 4 3 5 3 7 4 4 0P. bogaraveo 38 38 51 51 44 12 7 2GreeceN. norvegicus 266 242 215 304 390 369 464 555P. americanus 0 0 0 0 171 67 66 67Israel - - - - - - - - -ItalyAristeid shrimps 4,463 1,833 1,768 2,409 1,546 3,174 3,623 3,207N. norvegicus 2,485 2,287 2,051 2,550 2,355 4,493 4,564 4,325Lebanon - - - - - - - - -Libya - - - - - - - - -C. granulosus 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 1Malta P. americanus 8 8 16 11 11 7 4 5P. blennoides 5 0 0 0 0 2 3 0Montenegro N. norvegicus 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7MoroccoN. norvegicus 3 1 1 1 21 18 1 0P. blennoides 65 26 40 63 59 67 182 117Slovenia - - - - - - - - -A. antennatus 772 1,418 1,033 990 1,025 696 1,004 1,056C. granulosus 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1G. melastomus 0 0 58 49 90 52 55 77Spain H. dactylopterus 0 0 0 0 175 147 154 165N. norvegicus 407 630 636 539 511 480 502 579P. americanus 5 4 37 5 6 12 6 3P. blennoides 0 6 314 331 318 333 398 405Syria - - - - - - - - -TunisiaA. antennatus 16 51 51 24 43 163 9 17N. norvegicus 4 4 4 0 0 1 1 4TurkeyN. norvegicus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7P. blennoides 50 35 8 4 8 27 17 23Bulgaria - - - - - - - - -Romania - - - - - - - - -Russia - - - - - - - - -Ukraine - - - - - - - - -All Med Total 10,073 7,658 7,429 8,634 8,338 11,891 12,776 12,041175

5.5.3. Monitoring methodsSince 2002, all Mediterranean EU MSs are mandated under the DCF-Data CollectionFramework (EC 1543/2000; EC 199/2008) to collect and report data on a list of species,including certain deep-water species such as: A. foliacea, A. antennatus, N. norvegicus,P. bogaraveo. These data are extracted either from vessel logbooks or collected byplacing on-board observers. After the introduction of the DCF scheme, it has beenclear that DCF estimates do not generally coincide with the existing figures fromofficial statistics provided so far by each country.Besides commercial fishing, a series of experimental surveys are deployed to monitorthe status of marine resources. MEDITS (MEDIterranean Trawl Survey) 12 is a multiannualbottom trawl survey initiated in 1994, involving all Mediterranean EUmembers.Sampling is done following a certain stratification scheme: 0-50m, 50-100m, 100-200m, 200-500m, 500-800m (Bertrand et al., 2002). From 2000, MEDITS hasbeen included in the DCF.Furthermore, a series of numerous short-term surveys, dedicated to the investigationof marine life in the marine domains have been and continue to be carried out. Table15 provides a summary of how monitoring is organized in various Mediterraneancountries. Most pf this information was obtained from the GFCM Report (2010)..Table 15. Fisheries monitoring in various Mediterranean countries.CountryMonitoringCommercial fisheriesRecent experimental researchAlgeria National statistical scheme covering landing sitesProject MESRS/USTHB: biology andexploitation of demersal speciesBulgariaNational Agency of Fisheries and Aquaculture(NAFA)Dedicated Trawl surveys since 2005National fisheries statistics system based on DEMMON, MEDITS, AdriaMed, DEEPCroatialogbook data; Harmonization of statistical dataSEA trawl surveys;gathering with the EU Fisheries Data UWTV: Nephrops underwater cameraCollection Regulation (EC 1543/2000)surveysCyprus National Fisheries Data Collection Program MEDITS trawl surveyFranceRegular sampling in landing ports; Sampling ofcommercial fleet landings (measurement ofBiological parameters) within the framework ofthe Data Collection Regulation of the EUMEDITS trawl surveyGreeceFishery statistical data are collected byAdministration under various Ministries; Fisheriesdata are also collected in the framework of theGreek National Fisheries Data CollectionProgramme since 2002 (with gaps for some years)MEDITS trawl survey;CORALFish: interactions among deepsea corals and fisheries;NECESSITY: Nephrops by-catchreduction;INTERREG, RESHIO, Red’S: trawlsurveys to investigate deep sea resourcesIsraelEgyptThe Department of Fisheries, under the Ministry ofAgriculture, is directly responsible for fisheryresearch and development. The Fish TechnologyUnit (Kinneret Fisheries Laboratory) carries outstock monitoring, fishery surveys and geardevelopmentGAFRD collects fisheries data by two methods(Whole survey and Sampling): This system is not???Seasonal survey for demersal fishesalong the Mediterranean coast of Egypt12 http://www.sibm.it/SITO%20MEDITS/principaleprogramme.htm176

Italycomputerized yet and depends on registering everyfishing unit in a special LogbookThe production of Italian fisheries statistics iscarried out by IREPA on behalf of the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry policiesis included in the ISTAT National StatisticProgramme; National DataCollection Program (Regulation 1543/00, 1639/01and 1581/04)Libya None (GFCM, 2010)LebanonMaltaMontenegroMoroccoSloveniaSpainTunisiaTurkeyUniversity of Balamand (IOEUOB) has beenCollecting commercial fisheries data in theMohafaza (district) of North Lebanon andAkkar on a regular basis since August 2005; Datais then entered into a software applicationFLOUCA – Fish Landing Operational Utility forCatch AssessmentNational Data Collection Program;,Catch figures are based on exhaustive datareported in logbooks (for vessels over 10 mLOA), by sampling the small scale fishery in ports(for vessels under 10 m LOA) andon sales notes from the official fish marketNew fisheries information system developed: Fleetregister and catch logbookThree Institutions (INRH, ONP and MPM) areinvolved in the national statistical system whichcomprises biological, statistical andfishing effort data collectionInfoRib information system maintained by theMinistry of AgricultureIEO collects data of main commercialspecies (Reg.(EC) 1543/2000 and Reg (EC)1639/2001); Data is stored and managed by theSIRENO database developed by the IEO;Secretariat of Maritime Fisheries is developing aglobal tool to compile the different sources ofinformation in a common databaseThe national Data collection system is managed bythe “Direction générale de lapêche et de l’aquaculture”; Data collection isthrough logbooks and port inspectionsAn integrated web-based FisheriesInformation System (FIS) has been developedand is able to collect, process, transmit anddisseminate datawas conducted during 2008GRUND, MEDITS and AdriaMed trawlsurveys;CORALFish: interactions among deepsea corals and fisheries;INTERREG, RESHIO: trawl surveys toinvestigate deep sea resourcesRed’SA bottom trawl survey was conductedduring the summer of 2003 to assess thestatus of demersal stocks-MEDITS trawl surveyRed’SAdriaMed trawl survey???MEDITS trawl surveyIEO research project on the RedSeabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) fisheryin waters off the Strait of Gibraltar;MEDITS trawl survey,numerous studies for red shrimps,NephropsESREB : Evaluation of Stocks andResources of Benthic EcosystemsBIHARE : Biology and fisheries ofbenthic exploitable resourcesNECESSITY: Nephrops by-catchreduction5.5.4. Review of assessment methodsUnlike the adjacent NE Atlantic ocean deep-water species, very few deep-waterspecies are assessed within the Mediterranean region. These assessments areconducted inside scientific advice groups (GFCM/FAO; SGMED/STECF) and notactual management bodies. A brief summary on the status of some demersal/deepwater stocks is given in Table 16.177

Table 16. Status of deep water species in various Mediterranean countriesCountryStatus of stocksMagement suggestions forConsideration by SAC 13ReferenceAlgeriaCroatiaFranceAll demersal species atcritical level of exploitationDemersal resourcessituation is relatively stableand positive for some stocksin comparison withthe previous yearsDemersal resourcesanalyses show an increasein the number ofpopulations with smallsizedindividuals in the Gulfof Lions and in general inthe northwesternMediterraneanControl the developmentof artisanal fisheriesValidation and interpretationof the results obtainedthrough different scientificmethods of stockassessment; Developmentof indicators and referencepoints; Identification of criteriafor shared stocksNoneGFCM, 2010GFCM, 2010GFCM, 2010Merluccius merluccius:OverexploitedImprove trawl exploitationpattern. It is a necessity toreduce fishing effortGreeceMoroccoP. bogaraveo and P.americanus stocks areconsidered depleted and thefisheries collapsed;Aristeid shrimps consistedpristine stocks, althoughrecently are exploited byItalian fishers withunknown impactBased on a joint exercise(VPA) between Spain &Morocco, the P. bogaraveostock in the strait ofGibraltar can be consideredto be fully exploitedIncrease gillnet mesh size inthe P. bogaraveo fishery andthe MLS of this speciesA. antennatus –D’ OnghiaNeed for a jointmanagement/recovery plan;Identification of critical areasSGMED/STECF, 2004;SGFEN/STECF, 2001;Petrakis, 2001;Mytilineou & Machias, 2007and references thereinGFCM/SAC, 2010MaltaAristaeomorpa foliacea:OverexploitedReduce the fishing mortality by30% (when F0.1 referencepoint)GFCM/SAC, 2009GFCM/SAC, 2010SpainAristeus antennatusis fully exploited.Assessment carried out bylength cohort analysis(LCA, tuned VPA, XSAand Y/R)The Norway lobster(Nephrops norvegicus)seems to be overexploited",Assessment carried out byVPA and yield per-recruit(Y/R), on a mean pseudocohort.A.antennatus: Under thispremise, fishing effort shouldnot increase beyond thecurrent levels and biologicalmanagement measures wouldbe appropriate seen the recentresults.N. norvegicus: there is not ahigh risk of stockdepletion/collapseGFCM/SAC, 201013 SAC: Scientific and Advisory Committee (SAC) of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean(GFCM).178

Pagellus bogaraveo:Moderately exploitedMaintain the fishingmortality at thecurrent levelAristeus antennatus: Anapplication of Yield perrecruit model to theexploited stock, accordingto different scenarios,indicated conditions closeto optimal harvestingIncrease of the age of firstcapture by increasing the meshsizeRagonese & Bianchini,1996 ; D’Onghia et al., 2005Aristaeomorpa foliacea inGSA 15-16: OverexploitedGFCM/SAC, 2009GFCM/SAC, 2010ItalyBased on a Productivity andSusceptibility Analysis(PSA) conducted in theNephrops bottom trawlfishery, Galeus melastomus,Merluccius merlucciusPhycis blennoides,Lepidorhombus bosci andHelicolenus dactylopterus,are the stocks consideredleast likely to besustainable.Reduce the fishing mortality by30% (when F0.1 referencepoint)Reduce the by-catch, currentlycomprising an 85% in thisfishery.GFCM/SAC, 2010Aladym model for A.foliaceaRed’S (2008)Nephropsnorvegicus:OverexploitedAdriatic: using the towedunderwater televisionUWTV methodology forNephrops assessmentFishing mortality shoulddecreaseReduce the fishing mortality onfemales by 64-68 % and onmales by 77-79 % (dependingon M values). A long termmanagement plan is requiredGFCM, 20095.5.5. Review of management methodsUnlike many other regions of the world, the Mediterranean coastal states havegenerally renounced their right to extend national jurisdiction to 200-mile EEZs asprovided for by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The semienclosednature of the Mediterranean and the large number of coastal states explainthis cautious approach, aimed at avoiding territorial frictions. However, in recentyears, some countries have tried to adopt tailor-made, sui generis solutions to enlarge179

their fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 6-12 mile territorial waters, whilst avoiding aformal EEZ declaration. Examples include the so-called fishing zone (“zone de pêcheréservée”) in Algeria (1994), the fisheries protection zones unilaterally declared bySpain (1997) and Croatia (“ecological and fishing protection zone”; 2003). Malta, inturn, has had its 25-mile “management zone” recognized after its recent accession tothe European Union. The final declaration of the Ministerial Conference on theSustainable Development of Fisheries in the Mediterranean, held in 2003,acknowledged the beneficial role to be played by extending fisheries protectionzones for fisheries management in the region, and calls for the need to follow aconcerted approach to their declaration.As for unilateral extensions of jurisdiction for purposes other than fishing, France hasenacted a law in April 2004 creating an ecological protection zone in theMediterranean beyond its territorial waters, mainly aimed at implementing controlsto fight pollution. Also, Italian legislation provides for the establishment of zones ofbiological protection beyond the Italian territorial sea on the high seas. Use of thisprovision was made to create a zone of biological protection covering a stretch ofwater in the vicinity of the island of Lampedusa. Nevertheless, in spite of theoccasional attempts by some countries to partly apply UNCLOS provisions referredto above, about 80% of the Mediterranean still lies in the High Seas, which posesspecific problems for the governance of fisheries management and biodiversityconservation in the region.This doesn’t mean, however, that there are no legal instruments in place allowing forthe protection of the Mediterranean deep-sea biodiversity beyond nationaljurisdiction. In this regard, it must be pointed out that the particular situationdiscussed above relates to the lack of EEZs, which mostly deal with the use ofbiological resources found within the water column. Indeed, the use of those foundon the seabed beyond national jurisdiction is specifically covered by the InternationalSeabed Authority (ISA), which establishes that coastal states have exclusive rightsover seabed resources on the continental shelf, a juridical concept that encompassesall the seafloor in the Mediterranean basin. Sedentary species, legally defined inArticle 77 of UNCLOS, are fully subject to this legislation. Also, the BarcelonaConvention Protocol relative to Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity inthe Mediterranean (SPA Protocol) provides for the creation of marine protected areasbeyond territorial waters, as exemplified by the Ligurian Sea Cetacean Sanctuary.This protected area was originally established in Mediterranean High Seas by thegovernments of France, Monaco and Italy, being then listed as a Specially ProtectedArea of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) under the Barcelona Convention.With respect to the Mediterranean basin, the issue of the protection of the local deepseabiodiversity from impacting fishing practices was dealt within the 2004 meetingof the Sub-Committee on Marine Environment and Ecosystems (SCMEE) of theScientific and Advisory Committee (SAC) of the General Fisheries Commission forthe Mediterranean (GFCM), the RFMO with the mandate for the Mediterraneanregion. The SCMEE concluded in its report that: “Current scientific advice does notsupport any expansion in the range of depths at which fishing takes place. There is a strong180

opinion from some scientists from the NW Mediterranean that fishing at depths greater than1000 m should not take place, based on the precautionary approach. The Subcommitteerecommended that SAC should analyze the conservation benefits to be gained from settinglimits to the depths at which fishing takes place and balance these against the cost tofishermen.”Since 2005, the GFCM banned bottom trawling below a depth of 1000 m in theMediterranean (EC 1967/2006). The measure is legally binding since it was adoptedunder Article V of the GFCM Agreement, and entered into force in July 2005. Themeasure was adopted by consensus by all members of the GFCM Furthermore,since January 2006, three ecologically-important deep-sea areas have been protectedoff the waters of Italy, Cyprus and Egypt by GFCM. The decision requires allMediterranean states to prevent bottom trawling fishing fleets from operating in thedesignated areas. These include the deep-water coral reef off Capo Santa Maria diLeuca, Italy, in the Ionian Sea, which is home to the rare white coral, Lophelia, as wellas a chemosynthetic-based ecosystem offshore from the Nile Delta, and thespectacular Eratosthenes seamount, south of Cyprus, which hosts rare coral species.Assessment of the effects of the deep-sea red shrimp trawl fishery on theenvironment of the Strait of Sicily at the population and community level bysampling in trawled and non-trawled treatment sites, showed that the populations ofA. foliacea and Etmopterus spinax did not show any differences in biomass between thetrawled and non-trawled sites, while the biomass of Plesionika martia, N. norvegicus,H. dactylopterus, and Galeus melastomus was four, sixteen, six and twice higher,respectively, in the non-trawled sites. Changes in the length structure were alsodetected for all the species except E. spinax. At the community level, higher biomass,density and diversity indices were recorded in the non-trawled sites. Multivariateanalysis gave two main groups which corresponded to the trawled and non-trawledsites. This study provided evidence for the alteration of the ecosystem due to fishing,with the shrimps A. foliacea and P. martia showing a high resilience to trawlingactivities (Dimech et al., 2009). Moreover, comparison of the deep fish assemblages ofthe Greek (unexploited) and Italian (highly exploited) Ionian Sea concerning thebiodiversity and the size composition of various stocks, dramatic effects ofexploitation were obvious for some species or groups of species (Mytilineou et al.,2001; D’ Onghia et al., 2003)A summarized review of the management methods applied by Mediterraneancountries to deep-water fisheries is presented in Table 17.181

Table 17. Fisheries management in various Mediterranean countriesGeneral forSpecific for deep waterCountrydemersal/benthic resourcesfisheries/speciesAlgeria Minimum marketing size for some exploited species No trawling > 1000mEU legal framework according to CFP;No trawling > 1000mThe Fisheries and Aquaculture Act (FAA) was adopted in 2001P. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLBulgaria (amended in 2006 and 2008) and determines the management,P. americanus MLS 45 cm TLexploitation, and conservation ofN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLthe fish resourcesCroatiaCyprusFranceGreeceMinimum landing sizes, mesh sizes, closed seasons fornumerous species, temporal and spatialrestrictions for gearsEU legal framework according to CFPEU legal framework according to CFPEU legal framework according to CFP;In addition to EU legal framework, several national measuresfor managing fishing effort, minimum landing sizes, fishinggear restrictions, seasonal and local closures, distance fromcoast and depth restrictionsNo trawling > 1000mNo trawling > 1000mClosed deep waters areaEratosthenes seamountP. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLP. americanus MLS 45 cm TLN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLNo trawling > 1000mP. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLP. americanus MLS 45 cm TLN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLNo trawling > 1000mP. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLP. americanus MLS 45 cm TLN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLIsrael Trawl mesh size 48mm, no fishing at depths < 15m No trawling > 1000mClosed season for all fishing methods from 1May to 30 June; No trawling > 1000mEgypt Freeze on the issue of additional fishing vessel licences Closed deep waters areaItalyLibyaLebanonMaltaMontenegroMoroccoSloveniaSpainTunisiaTurkeyEU legal framework according to CFP;In addition to EU legal framework, several technical measuresto ensure exploitation and conservation ofliving aquatic resources or the protection of marine ecosystems;Fishing activities (i.e. trawlers) have been temporarily bannedTrawl fishing for demersal fish species was prohibited duringthe period June through July 2008Minister Decision 20/1 on January 1, 2009, defining the typesof legitimate marine fishing gearsEU legal framework according to CFP;25 miles management zoneA total allowable catch (TAC) has been established only fordemersal trawlingMeasures based on effort controland protection of juvenilesEU legal framework according to CFP; Temporary stop issuingnew fishing permits for trawlersEU legal framework according to CFP;The Spanish ministerial order ORDEN APA/254/2008, ofJanuary 31th, establishes an integral management plan forfisheries resource conservation in the Mediterranean, regulatingfisheries, and establishing a series of closed seasons/areasTrawling ban in GSA 14 between 1 July 2009 and 30September 2009Minimum mesh size; Minimum fish size; Closed seasons andareas; Gear or fishing method restrictionsoffshore the Nile deltaNo trawling > 1000m;Closed deep waters area offCapo Santa Maria di Leuca;P. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLP. americanus MLS 45 cm TLN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLNo trawling > 1000mNo trawling > 1000mNo trawling > 1000mP. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLP. americanus MLS 45 cm TLN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLNo trawling > 1000mNo trawling > 1000mNo trawling > 1000mP. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLP. americanus MLS 45 cm TLN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLNo trawling > 1000mP. bogaraveo MLS 33cm TLP. americanus MLS 45 cm TLN. norvegicus MLS 20 cm CLNo trawling > 1000mNo trawling > 1000m182

5.6. North Atlantic (NAFO, NEAFC and inside national EEZs)5.6.1. IntroductionHere we address the monitoring and management of deep-water stocks, fisheries andecosystems in the N. Atlantic. As discussed in Section 1, the definition of “deep-water”species varies between organisations and countries. Here, deep-water species are definedbroadly in line with those fish and crustacean species listed in annexes I and II of the ECDeep-water Licensing Regulation No 2347/2002.The deep-water fisheries in the N Atlantic fall under the monitoring and managementremits of the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the NorthwestAtlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) for international waters, and sovereign stateswithin their national exclusive economic zones (EEZs). In the N Atlantic the latter include:-• the EU Common Fisheries Policy for EU waters and EU vessels fishing ininternational waters;• Faroese national fisheries policy and regulation within Faroese waters;• Greenlandic national fisheries policy and regulation for waters around Greenland;• American national fisheries policy and regulation within USA waters;• Canadian national fisheries policy and regulation within waters around Canada;• Icelandic national fisheries policy and regulation within Icelandic waters;• Norwegian national fisheries policy and regulation within Norwegian Waters.The OSPAR Convention is the current legal instrument guiding international cooperationon the protection of the marine environment of the NE Atlantic.It is not possible here to review all the monitoring and management regimes relevant tothe deep sea in the N Atlantic, as much of the national state policy is not readily availablein English. Some aspects of monitoring are addressed in other DEEPFISHMAN WP2reviews; examples are reviews of the EC Data Collection Framework, of policy and of thework relating to the development of fisheries-independent surveys carried out by the ICESWorking Group on NE Atlantic Continental Slope Surveys (WGNEACS). So here I focuson monitoring and management of:• EU vessels fishing inside EU waters and in international waters in theNEAFC Regulatory Area (RA);• EU vessels fishing inside EU waters;• Vessels of all Contracting Parties (CPs) fishing in the NEAFC RA;• Vessels of all CPs fishing in the NAFO RA (international waters in the NW Atlantic);• Deep-water ecosystems (including vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs)) in the N.Atlantic.183

5.6.2. EU vessels fishing inside EU waters and in international waters in the NEAFC RA.The Regulations applying to EU vessels fishing for deep-water species were most recentlyreviewed in a communication from the Commission in 2007 (EC COM, 2007) and aconsultation review of the deep-sea access regime (DG Mare/C2, 2010). These reviewsdeliberately focus more on the management of fisheries and stocks rather than the broaderaspects of ecosystem management.Explicit management measures for EU vessels fishing deep-water stocks did not come intoforce until January 2003, when TACs were introduced for selected deep-water species(Council Regulation (EC) No 2340/2002). These TACs were based on a Commissionproposal that took account of a ten-year track record in fishing (1990-1999). Since thescientific advice on deep-water stocks is available every two years, Regulation 2340/2002fixed the deep-water TACs for 2003 and 2004. After the enlargement of the Community in2004, quotas had to be fixed for the new Member States (MSs) according to Article 57 ofthe Act of Accession. Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 fixed the quotas for accessionstates on the basis of their historical track record of catches for 1993-2002 instead of 1990-1999. In Regulation 2269/2004 the quotas for the new MSs were added to those inRegulation 2340/2002 for the existing MSs, resulting in increased Community TACs.The TAC and Quota Regulation was complemented by Council Regulation (EC) No2347/2002 establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable tofishing for deep-water stocks. This Regulation aimed to cap the expansion of fishing efforton deep-water species by obliging all vessels that capture more than 10 t deep-sea speciesin year to have a deep-water fishing permit, otherwise their landings of deep-water specieswould be limited to 100 kg per fishing trip. Moreover, the total capacity of vessels holdingdeep-sea fishing permits was restricted to the aggregate capacity of the vessels that fishedmore than 10 t of deep-sea species in any of the years 1998 – 2000 inclusive (2000 – 2003 forthe new MSs). Regulation 2347/2002 also introduced special reporting and controlrequirements, including the development of sampling schemes and observer coverage andthe requirement to land only to designated ports. To improve the sampling of deep-waterspecies under the EU Data Collection Regulation (DCR) further sampling requirementswere specified in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1581/2004.ICES advice for deep-water stocks is issued every two years and consequently since 2002EU TAC regulations have been updated biennially and at times expanded to manageadditional species and other pertinent deep-water issues.Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004, which fixed the TACs for deep-water stocks for2005 and 2006, introduced TACs on a number of stocks for which catches were notpreviously restricted (deep-water sharks and forkbeards (Phycis blennoides)) and deletedsome species (greater silver smelt (Argentina silus) and ling (Molva molva) which weretransferred to the EC Annual TAC and Quota Regulations. In addition, in the light ofscientific advice that the stock of orange roughy in Sub-area VI was heavily depleted, thisRegulation introduced closed areas for this species to the west of the United Kingdom andIreland (Figure 48 below). Vessels fishing within the closed area cannot land any orangeroughy. Vessels fishing for orange roughy that transit the closed area must maintain their184

speed above 8 knots to ensure that no fishing operations are carried out in the area. Thismeasure remains in force today.Council Regulations 27/2005 and 51/2006 required 10% and 20% reductions respectively inthe number of kW-days deployed by vessels holding deep-water licences with respect tothe levels deployed in 2003 (the year in which Regulation 2347/2002 came into force).Council Regulation (EC) No 2015/2006, which fixed the TACs for deep-water stocks for2007 and 2008, did not include TACs for tusk (Brosme brosme) stocks; these weretransferred to the EC Annual TAC and Quota Regulations. Regulation 51/2006 alsoexcluded greater argentines from the list of deep-water species for the purpose of effortcalculations.Figure 48. Orange roughy protection areas to the west of the British Isles, blue ling protection areas onRosemary Bank and the continental slope to the NW of Scotland and to the SW of Iceland (enlarged),coral protection areas on the Rockall and Hatton Banks, and VME protection areas on the Mid-AtlanticRidge (MAR). The area treated as the NE Atlantic is shown in pale blue.185

Regulation 2015/2006 also introduced measures regarding the use gill, entangling andtrammel nets in ICES areas VIa, b, VIIb, c, j, k and XII. Community vessels are prohibitedfrom using these nets at any position in these areas east of 27 0 where the charted depth isgreater than 200 metres, in ICES Zones VIa, b, VII b, c, j, k and XII east of 27 o W. Thefollowing derogations are permitted:-(i) Gillnets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 120 mm and < 150 mm, provided thatthey are deployed in waters of < 600 metres charted depth, are no more than 100 meshesdeep, have a hanging ratio of not less than 0.5, and are rigged with floats or equivalentfloatation. The nets must each be of a maximum of 2.5 km in length, and the total length ofall nets deployed at any one time shall not exceed 25 km per vessel. The maximum soaktime is 24 hoursOr(ii) Entangling nets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 250 mm, provided that theyare deployed in waters of < 600 metres charted depth, are no more than 15 meshes deep,have a hanging ratio of not less than 0.33, and are not rigged with floats or other means offloatation. The nets must each be of a maximum of 10 km in length. The total length of allnets deployed at any one time must not exceed 100 km per vessel. The maximum soaktime is 72 hours.To allow for the replacement of lost or damaged gear, vessels may carry on board netswith a total length 20% greater than the maximum length of the fleets that may bedeployed at any one time. All gear shall be marked in accordance with EC Regulation No356/2005. All vessels deploying gillnets or entangling nets at any position where thecharted depth is greater than 200 metres in the area described above must have a fishingpermit issued by the flag state. The master of a vessel with a permit shall record in thelogbook the amount and lengths of gear carried by a vessel before it leaves port and whenit returns to port, and must account for any discrepancy between the two quantities. Thenaval services or other competent authorities shall have the right to remove unattendedgear at sea in these ICES areas east of 27 0 W if:• the gear is not properly marked;• the buoy markings or VMS data indicate that the owner has been located at adistance less than 100 nautical miles from the gear for more than 120 hours;• the gear is deployed in waters with a charted depth greater than that permitted;• the gear is of an illegal mesh size.In addition to a requirement to record various effort parameters in logbooks, the skippermust ensure that the quantity of sharks retained on board by any vessel using the geartype described in point (ii) is no more than 5 % by live-weight of the total quantity ofmarine organisms retained on board.There were no changes to species addressed by Council Regulation No 1359/2008, whichfixed TACs for deep-water stocks in 2009 and 2010; however, blue ling (Molva dypterygia) inVI and VII was transferred to the EC Annual TAC and Quota Regulations where it remainsat present. The reason for this change was to accommodate new regulations to protectspawning aggregations of blue ling in Sub-Division VIa, which for timing reasons could not186

e introduced in Regulation 1359/2008. EC Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009, which fixesannual TACs and quotas in 2009 for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, introducedprotection areas for spawning aggregations on the edge of the Scottish continental shelf andthe edge of Rosemary Bank for the period 1 st March to 31 st May (see Figure 1 above). Thesemeasures included entry and exit protocols, prohibition of retaining in excess of 6 t of blueling in either area per trip, and, once the vessel retains this quantity, prohibition of returningto these areas until the vessel has landed. In addition, vessels cannot discard blue ling inthese areas and observers (deployed under EC Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002) should recordthe length and sexual maturity composition of catches of blue ling. MSs shall establishdetailed sampling protocols and collate results after consultation with STECF.There are also NEAFC Regulations applying to NEAFC Contracting Parties (CPs)(including the EU) fishing in the NEAFC RA and these are addressed further below.5.6.3. Vessels of all CPs fishing in the NEAFC RANEAFC did not regulate deep-water fisheries in the RA (Figure 49) until 2003 when atemporary freeze on deep-water effort was introduced. Taking into account ICES advice 14on deep-water stocks in subsequent years this regulation has been strengthened andcurrently, each CP undertakes to limit the effort for 2010-2012 put into the directed fishingfor deep-water species as set out in Annex 1B of the NEAFC ‘Scheme’ in the RA. The effortshall not exceed 65 per cent of the highest level put into deep-sea fishing in previous yearsfor the relevant species. The effort should be calculated as aggregate power, aggregatetonnage, fishing days at sea or number of vessels, which participated (NEAFCRecommendation VI/2010).Figure 49. NEAFC Regulatory Area14NEAFC does not have a dedicated Scientific Committee to carry out assessments and consequently relies onscientific advice from ICES.187

NEAFC has also introduced regulations to control fisheries for orange roughy(Recommendation IX : 2010, applying in 2010 and 2011) and blue ling. All availableinformation indicates that the stocks orange roughy in ICES Sub-areas V, VI and VII areseverely depleted and targeted fisheries are currently prohibited. In other areas of the RA,directed fisheies for orange roughy may only be undertaken under the followingprecautionary conditions:(i) Fishing activities shall be restricted to vessels of CPs having participated in fishery fororange roughy in the NEAFC RA in areas other than V, VI and VII prior to 2005;(ii) Annual total catches of any CP shall not exceed 150 t;(iii) All information for orange roughy fisheries shall be provided in accordance withNEAFC Recommendations concerning submission of scientific information on deepsea fisheries; and(iv) CPs shall develop research and sampling plans for orange roughy fisheries with theview to providing information relevant to the development of procedures formonitoring the effects on the ecosystem.Following repeated ICES advice to introduce closed areas to protect spawningaggregations of blue ling, NEAFC has banned all fishing with bottom contacting gear(bottom trawl, longlines and gillnets) in an area ICES Division XIV (Figure 1 above) duringthe period 15 February to 15 April (Recommendation X, 2010, applying in 2010, 2011 and2012).Consistent with initial EU Regulations on deep-water gill, entangling and trammelfisheries (see above), until measures are adopted by NEAFC to regulate length of fleetsand soak-times in these fisheries, vessels operating in RA shall not deploy these nets at anyposition where the charted depth is greater than 200 metres (Recommendation III, 2006).Although not applying to deep-water species, it should be noted that from 2010 onwardsCPs will ensure that its fishing vessels (using any type of fishing gear) operating in the RAare prohibited from discarding or releasing catches of any of the species listed in Annex IAof the Scheme of Control and Enforcement (Recommendation XVI, 2010). These speciescomprise redfish (Sebastes mentella), Norwegian spring spawning herring (Atlanto-Scandian) (Clupea harengus), blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), mackerel (Scomberscombrus) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus).In response to UNGA Resolution 61/105 on deep-water high seas fisheries (2007) and theFAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-water Fisheries in the HighSeas (2009), NEAFC has introduced measures to regulate and monitor bottom fisheries inthe RA. As the protection of VMEs is the main driver of these recommendations, these areaddressed in the section below on the monitoring and management of deep-waterecosystems.NEAFC and the OSPAR Commission have agreed a new MOU as a first step towardsmultisectoral management of the high seas in the NEAFC RA.188

From a monitoring standpoint, the NEAFC Scheme of Control and Enforcement(NEAFC/2010) describes all CPs obligations relating to fishing vessels, catch and effortreporting, VMS (hourly reporting) and enforcement regulations (inspection at sea, portstate controls etc). CPs are requested to ensure that vessels report catch, effort andtranshipment data and information. In additions CPs are requested to report aggregatecatch and effort data by calendar quarter5.6.4. Vessels of all CPs fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area (international waters inthe NW Atlantic)NAFO monitors and manages a wide range of species some of which are currently definedin EC Regulations as deep-water-species. As above in the section for NEAFC, we addressthese species and exclude species which occur in deep-water but are currently notincluded in EC deep-water regulations, redfish and Greenland halibut for example. Thedeep-water species managed by NAFO in the NAFO RA (Figure 50) comprise roundnosegrenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in Sub-areas 0 and 1 and roughhead grenadier(Macrourus berglax) in Sub-areas 2 and 3.Figure 50. NAFO Convention Area (CA) (note that the NAFO RA is the part of the CA outside national EEZs).189

In contrast to NEAFC (which relies on scientific advice from ICES), NAFO has its ownScientific Council which carries out all stock assessments and provides scientific adviceand recommendations to the NAFO Fisheries Commission (FC). Management of fisheriesin the NAFO area is almost exclusively by TACs and quotas.Roundnose grenadier in Sub-areas 0 and 1 (Davis Strait) is probably connected to otherstocks in the North Atlantic. Canadian and Russian surveys covering both Subareas 0 and1 have shown that most of the biomass is found in Subarea 1.An unknown proportion of the reported commercial catches from these sub-areas isroughhead grenadier. Analytical assessments are not carried out and consequently thecurrent level of exploitationis not known. In 2007, the biomass of roundnose grenadier wasestimated to be close to the lowest ever observed. Roundnose grenadier in Sub-areas 0 and1 is considered to be still at the very low level observed since 1993 and is composed ofsmall individuals. Scientific advice since 1996 has been that there should be no directedfishing and that catches should be restricted to bycatches in fisheries targeting otherspecies. The NAFO SC will next attempt an assessment in 2011. There are no referencepoints available for this stock.The stock structure of roughhead grenadier in the North Atlantic remains unclear. Thisspecies is distributed throughout NAFO Sub-areas 0-3 in depths between 300 and 2000 m.However, for assessment purposes, NAFO SC considers the population of Subareas 2 + 3as a single stock. Roughhead grenadier is taken as by catch in the Greenland halibut trawlfishery, mainly in NRA Divisions 3LMN.Biomass indices are available from:• Canadian stratified bottom trawl autumn surveys in Div. 2J and 3K since 1995;• Canadian stratified random bottom trawl spring surveys in Div. 3LNO since 1996 to2006;• EU (Spain and Portugal) Flemish Cap survey in Div. 3M since 1991; and• Spanish Div. 3NO survey since 1997.Catch-at-age data from the total commercial catches in Div. 3LMNO are available since1992. Length frequencies from the EU-Spain, Russian and EU-Portugal trawl catches inDiv 3LMNO are available from 1992, 1992, and 1996 respectively.In 2010, three different assessments were presented: Extended Survivors Analysis (XSA), aStock-Production Model Incorporating Covariates (ASPIC) and a qualitative assessmentbased on survey and fishery information. However, only the qualitative assessment basedon abundance indices from the Canadian autumn survey (Div. 2J+3K) and the Spanishsurvey in Div. 3NO was used to assess stock status. Although these surveys do not coverthe entire distribution of the stock they are considered as the best survey information tomonitor trends in resource status because their depth coverage is down to 1500 m. Thesesurveys indicate that the total biomass of roughhead grenadier exhibits a continuingincreasing trend and remains at the high level observed in recent years. Catch/biomass190

(C/B) indices indicate show a decreasing trend in F from 1995 to 2009, due to an increasingtrend in the survey biomass and a decrease in catches.Biological reference points are not currently available at this time. It should be noted thatthe majority of the catches comprise immature fish. The only management regulationapplying to this species in the NAFO RA is a general groundfish regulation requiring theuse of a minimum 130 mm mesh size.Regarding fisheries monitoring, to maintain compliance with NAFO Conservation andEnforcement Measures (CEM) for their vessels, all fishing vessels carry at least oneobserver at all times while fishing in the RA. The salary and costs of an observer arecovered by the relevant CP.Observers carry out the following duties:• monitor a vessel's compliance with the relevant CEMs, in particular they:o record and report upon the fishing activities of the vessel and verify the position ofthe vessel when engaged in fishing;o observe and estimate catches with a view to identifying catch composition andmonitoring discards, by-catches and the taking of undersized fish;o record the gear type, mesh size and attachments employed by the master; ando verify entries made to the logbooks (species composition and quantities, live andprocessed weight, hail and VMS reports).• collect catch and effort data for each haul. This data includes location(latitude/longitude), depth, time of net on the bottom, catch composition and discards; inparticular the observer collects the data on discards and retained undersized fish asoutlined in the protocol developed by the SC;• carry out such scientific work (for example, collecting samples) as requested by the FCbased on the advice of the SC; and• monitor the functioning of and report upon any interference with the satellite trackingsystem (VMS). In order to better distinguish fishing operations from steaming and tocontribute to an a posteriori calibration of the signals registered by the receiving station,the observer maintains detailed reports on the daily activity of the vessel.When an infringement of the CEMs is identified by an observer, the observer, within 24hours, reports it to an inspection vessel using an established code, which reports it to theNAFO Secretariat. The observer, within 30 days following completion of a trip, provides areport to the CP of the vessel and to the NAFO Secretariat, who make the report availableto any CP on request. Copies of reports made available to other CPs do not includelocation of catch in latitude and longitude, but do include daily totals of catch by speciesand division.Regarding bycatch regulations, at the trip level vessels of a CP must limit their retainedby-catch to a maximum of 2500 kg or 10%, whichever is the greater, for each species listedfor which no quota has been allocated in that NAFO Division to that CP. In cases where a191

an on fishing is in force or an “others” quota has been fully utilized, the by-catch of thespecies concerned must not exceed 1250 kg or 5%, whichever is the greater. If thepercentages of bycatches in any one haul exceed the percentages described above thevessel must immediately move a minimum of 10 nm from any position of the previoustow and throughout the next tow keep a minimum distance of 10 nm from any position ofthe previous tow. If after moving, the next haul exceeds these bycatch limits the vesselmust leave the Division and not return for at least 60 hours. Following an absence from aDivision of at least 60 hours, skippers shall undertake a trial tow the duration of whichshall not exceed 3 hours.Regarding regulations applying to directed fisheries, skippers must not conduct directedfisheries for species for which by-catch limits apply. A directed fishery is defined as whenthat species comprises the largest percentage by weight of the total catch in any one haul.Regarding VMS monitoring, all vessels catching fish/shellfish species under NAFO’sjurisdiction must have and use VMS. Other fisheries, e.g. crabs and tuna, are not requiredto be monitored under the NAFO scheme. Position reports are transmitted every hour, andvarious other data on catch. VMS data are available for scientific analysis but only insummary form. The NAFO Secretariat carries out post processing/GIS work of VMS datato plot vessel fishing activity and fishing effort. Owing to the difficulty in identifying gearand catch composition from VMS reports, this information is of limited scientific use.Efforts are being made to collect more comprehensive information that will make the datamore useful for stock monitoring.Measures are place to regulate the finning of sharks. CPs report data for all catches ofsharks (all species including deep-water sharks), including available historical data.Fishing vessels must fully utilize their entire catches of sharks. Full utilization is defined asretention by the fishing vessel of all parts of the shark except head, guts and skins, to thepoint of first landing. Vessels must not have onboard shark fins that total more than 5% ofthe weight of sharks onboard, up to the first point of landing. In fisheries that are notdirected at sharks, CPs shall encourage the release of live sharks, especially juveniles, tothe extent possible, that are caught as by-catches and are not used for food and/orsubsistence.5.6.5. Deep-water ecosystems (including VMEs) in the N. Atlantic.5.6.5.1. EU watersThe main EU Regulation applying to EU waters is the Marine Strategy Directive (MFSD)EU (DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC June 2008). This comprises a thematic strategy for theprotection and conservation of the marine environment with the overall aim of promotingsustainable use of the seas and conserving marine ecosystems. The Directive addresses allhuman activities that have an impact on the marine environment. The establishment ofMarine Protected areas (MPAs), including areas already designated or to be designatedunder the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, and under international or regionalagreements to which the EC or Member States (MSs) are Parties, is an importantcontribution to the achievement of good environmental status under the Directive. Theachievement of the objectives of this Directive should ensure the integration ofconservation objectives, management measures and monitoring and assessment activities192

set up for spatial protection measures such as special areas of conservation (SACs), specialprotection areas (SPAs) or MPAs. Account should also be taken of biodiversity and thepotential for marine research associated with deep-water environments.The Directive establishes a framework within which MSs shall take the necessarymeasures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment bythe year 2020 at the latest. Marine strategies shall be developed and implemented in orderto:(a) protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, wherepracticable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adverselyaffected;(b) prevent and reduce inputs in the marine environment, with a view to phasing outpollution, so as to ensure that there are no significant impacts on or risks to marinebiodiversity, marine ecosystems, human health or legitimate uses of the sea.Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of humanactivities, ensuring that the collective pressure of such activities is kept within levelscompatible with the achievement of good environmental status and that the capacity ofmarine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes is not compromised, whileenabling the sustainable use of marine goods and services by present and futuregenerations.For the NE Atlantic (along with other designated areas), MSs shall make an initialassessment of their marine waters by 15 July 2012, taking account of existing data whereavailable and comprising the following:(a) an analysis of the essential features and characteristics, and current environmentalstatus of those waters and covering the physical and chemical features, the habitattypes, the biological features and the hydro-morphology;(b) an analysis of the predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity, onthe environmental status of those waters which:(i) is based on an indicative list of elements and covers the qualitative and quantitativemix of the various pressures, as well as discernible trends;(ii) covers the main cumulative and synergetic effects; and(iii) takes account of the relevant assessments which have been made pursuant toexisting Community legislation;(c) an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost ofdegradation of the marine environment.The qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status are that:-193

(1) Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and thedistribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic,geographic and climatic conditions;(2) Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do notadversely alter the ecosystems;(3) Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biologicallimits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthystock;(4) All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur atnormal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-termabundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity;(5) Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, suchas losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygendeficiency in bottom waters;(6) Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of theecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adverselyaffected;(7) Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marineecosystems;(8) Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects;(9) Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levelsestablished by Community legislation or other relevant standards;(10) Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marineenvironment;(11) Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that does notadversely affect the marine environment;Under the MSFD the following are to be completed by MSs 15 July 2012:-• completion of an initial assessment of the waters concerned• a determination of good environmental status (GES)• establishment of environmental targets and associated indicatorsMSs must establish and implement by 15 July 2014 a monitoring programme for ongoingassessments and regular updating of the targets and develop by 2015 a programme of194

measures designed to achieve of maintain GES and to put in operation the programme ofmeasures by 2016 at the latest.Independently of the MSFD, MSs have already made considerable progress in introducingclosed areas to protect cold-water corals (Lophelia pertusa). For example, the UK hasintroduced a closed are to the protect the Darwin Mounds to the NW of and Scotland andIreland is proposing introducing Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) to protect localizedconcentrations of cold-water corals to the SW of Ireland (on the margins of the PorcupineBand and Porcupine Bight. Similar measures have been or are in the process of beingintroduced by other MSs.5.6.5.2. NEAFC RAIn response to UNGA Resolution 61/105 on deep-water high seas fisheries (2007) and theFAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-water Fisheries in the HighSeas (2009), NEAFC has introduced measures to regulate and monitor bottom fisheries inits RA. The protection of VMEs is the main driver of these recommendations.On the basis of advice from ICES, NEAFC has introduced closed areas to protect VMEs(mainly cold-water corals) from serious adverse impacts (SAIs) on Hatton Bank, RockallBank, on the Logachev Mounds and the West Rockall Mounds (Figure 1, above). Bottomtrawling and fishing with static gear, including bottom set gillnets and loglines isprohibited within these areas.Regarding general regulations on bottom fishing, using available VMS and other availablegeo-reference data (logbook data, for example), NEAFC has mapped ‘existing bottomfishing areas’ within the Regulatory Area for bottom fishing activities 15 . This fishing area(see NEAFC website at http://www.neafc.org/page/3255) comprises all 5 * 10 minutesquares fished in at least two years within the period 1987-2007. All areas in the RAoutside the existing fishing area are referred to as "new bottom fishing areas".All bottom fishing activities in new bottom fishing areas or with bottom gear notpreviously used in the area concerned, are treated as exploratory fisheries and must beconducted in accordance with an Exploratory Bottom Fisheries Protocol to be adopted tobe developed by the NEAFC FC. Until such a protocol is adopted an interim protocolapplies. Under this protocol exploratory bottom fisheries may commence only when thefollowing information has been provided to the NEAFC Secretariat by the relevant CP:(a) A harvesting plan outlining target species, dates and areas. Area and effort restrictionsshall be considered to ensure fisheries occur on a gradual basis in a limitedgeographical area;(b) A mitigation plan including measures to prevent significant adverse impacts (SAIs) toVMEs that may be encountered during the fishery;15 The term ‘bottom fishing activities’ means bottom fishing activities where the fishing gear is likely tocontact the seafloor during the normal course of fishing operations.195

(c) A catch monitoring plan that includes recording/reporting of all species caught. Therecording/reporting of catch shall be sufficiently detailed to conduct an assessment ofactivity, if required;(d) A data collection plan to facilitate the identification of VMEs/species in the area fished;The Secretariat then forwards this information to all CPs and PECMAS 16 .The exploratory bottom fishing activities are subject to an impact assessment procedure,with the understanding that particular care shall be taken in the evaluation of risks of theSAIs on VMEs, in line with the Precautionary Approach. Each CP proposing to participatein bottom fishing shall submit to the Secretariat information on and, where possible, aninitial assessment of the known and anticipated impacts of its bottom fishing activities onVMEs, in advance of the next meeting of PECMAS. These submissions must include themitigation measures proposed by the CP to prevent such impacts. On the basis of anassessment made by ICES, PECMAS provides advice to the FC as to whether the proposedbottom fishing activity would have SAIs on VMEs and, if so, whether mitigation measureswould prevent such impacts. The FC will then adopt conservation and managementmeasures to prevent SAIs on VMEs. Such measures may include:(i) Allowing, prohibiting or restricting bottom fishing activities;(ii) Requiring specific mitigation measures for bottom fishing activities;(iii) Allowing, prohibiting or restricting bottom fishing with certain gear types, or changesin gear design and/or deployment; and/or(iv) Any other relevant requirements or restrictions to prevent SAIs to VMEs.In addition to the above, NEAFC also has introduced regulations applying to encounterswith primary VME indicator species 17 in both the existing and new fishing areas i.e. theentire NEAFC RA. CPs require that vessels without delay cease bottom fishing activities inany site in the RA where, in the course of fishing operations, evidence of VMEs isencountered, and report the encounter, including the location, and the type of ecosystem,to the Secretariat so that appropriate measures can be adopted in respect of the relevantsite. An encounter is currently defined as a catch per set (e.g. trawl tow, longline set, orgillnet set) of >60 kg of live coral and/or >800 kg of live sponge.In existing bottom fishing areas, if the quantity of VME elements or indicator speciescaught in a fishing operation is beyond the threshold the skipper must report theencounter to the CP, which without delay must forward the information to the NEAFCSecretariat. The Secretariat then archives the information and reports it to all CP who inturn must alert all fishing vessels flying their flag. The skipper of the vessel making theencounter must cease fishing and move away at least 2 nautical miles from the positionthat the evidence suggests is closest to the exact encounter location. The Secretariat16Permanent committee on management and science of NEAFC17 Comprising the following corals: antipatharians, gorgonians, cerianthid anemone fields, lophelia, andsea-pen fields and other VME elements, sponges for, example.196

compiles an annual report on single and multiple encounters and forwards this toPECMAS and ICES. On the basis of an assessment by ICES, PECMAS evaluates on a caseby-casebasis the information and provides advice to the FC on whether a VME exists.In new fishing areas, observers identify corals and sponges and other VME organisms tothe lowest possible taxonomical level. If the quantity of VME element or indicator speciescaught in a fishing operation is greater than the thresholds described above the samereporting protocols as for existing fishing areas apply with the addition that the NEAFCSecretariat immediately requests CPs to implement a temporary closure of two milesradius around the reporting position. PECMAS at its next meeting will then examine thetemporary closure and if, on the basis of assessment by ICES, PECMAS advises that thearea is a VME, the Secretariat will request CPs to maintain the temporary closure untilsuch time that the FC has acted upon the advice from PECMAS. If the PECMAS evaluationdoes not conclude that the proposed area is a VME, the Secretary informs CPs which mayre-open the area to their vessels.Observers on fishing vessels carrying out exploratory fishing must:-1. Monitor any set for evidence of VMEs and the presence of vulnerable marine species;2. Record the following information for identification of VMEs: vessel name, gear type,date, position (latitude/longitude), depth, species code, trip-number, set-number, andname of the observer on datasheets, if possible;3. Collect representative samples from the entire catch;4. Provide samples for the scientific authority of a CP at the end of the fishing trip.5.6.5.3. NAFO RANAFO like NEAFC has introduced measures to regulate and monitor bottom fisheries inits RA in response to UNGA Resolution 61/105 on deep-water high seas fisheries (2007)and the FAO International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-water Fisheries in theHigh Seas (2009).A bottom fishing “footprint” has been developed for the NAFO RA (Figure 51) using verysimilar protocols to those applied by NEAFC.Regarding general regulations on bottom fishing, these are almost identical to thoseintroduced by NEAFC. The main differences are that NAFO has its own scientific body(NAFO Scientific Council and its subsidiary body the NAFO Working Group on theEcosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (WGEAFM)) which provide advice andcarry out the role played by ICES for NEAFC. The PECMAS equivalent in NAFO is the AdHoc Working Group of Fishery Managers and Scientists on VMEs, and this body examinesthe advice of SC and makes recommendations to the NAFO FC on VME related matters.Another important difference is that there is 100% observer coverage on all vessels fishingthe NAFO RA i.e. in both existing and new fishing areas.197

Figure 51. Bottom fishing activity based on data submitted for 1987-2007 filtered by criteria of occurrence(at least in least two different years) and speed (1.0-4.0 knots) (NAFO Secretariat. 2009).In addition, a range of areas restricting or closing areas to bottom fishing have beenintroduced in recent years (Figure 52).Figure 52. NAFO VME closure areas around the Flemish cap (in yellow), a coral protection zone inDivision 3O (in orange) and six seamount closures areas (in green). The red line describes the national EEZof Coastal States.The six closures applying to seamounts have been introduced in accordance with thePrecautionary Approach in order to protect likely locations of VMEs and associated (butmostly unknown) fish species. Twelve areas mostly around the Flemish Cap have beenclosed to bottom fishing on an interim basis to protect corals and sponges, the locations ofwhich are based on available scientific information. These will be reviewed in 2011 in lightof the results from dedicated coral and sponge monitoring programs carried out in 2009and 2010 by CPs.198

6. Views of stakeholders in NE Atlantic deep-water fisheries.6.1 IntroductionDeep-water fisheries in European waters are diverse, exploiting a range of stocks withdifferent life history strategies and being prosecuted by different types of fleets in differentgeographic regions (Large et al., 2003). Deep-water fisheries are generally data poor withonly landings information but rarely scientific survey data being available. Many deepwaterspecies are also difficult to age or age estimates are not validated. As a consequenceassessments of deep-water stocks in European waters have been mostly exploratory (Largeet al., 2003; ICES, 2008). However, fishers possess knowledge and often data suitable forassessing stock level changes (Neis et al., 1999). Large et al. (2010) used fishers andbiologists knowledge obtained with a questionnaire survey in addition to otherinformation to map spawning areas for blue ling. Fishers also have quantitativeinformation on stock changes as many keepm tallybooks with haul-by-haul landingsinformation. If good collaboration between fishers and scientists can be established, thesedata can be very useful (Dobby et al., 2008; Lorance et al., 2010).Cognitive maps have provided means for collecting and comparing stakeholder views onecosystems, driving factors and linkages (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2003; Prigent et al., 2008).Cognitive maps are bubble diagrams of a situation or problem, with arrows indicating themain determining factors including their direction and influence strength and eventuallytime frame. They are a powerful method for collating stakeholder views on systemlinkages whose knowledge is essential. Here we present the outcomes from usingcognitive maps and questionnaires to obtain stakeholder views on regional managementand socio-economic issues and solutions for several deep-water fisheries (Lorance et al,2010).6.2. Stakeholder communityThe first step was to identify the deep-water stakeholder community. A two-dayworkshop was held in Brussels in June 2009 with a group of a priori identified stakeholdersof deep-water fisheries. Despite advertising the Workshop to all sectors, only Frenchfishers were present and none of the major NGOs were represented. The latter was due toproblems of staff availability. Two major outcomes of a number of participatory sessionsled during the workshop were the identification of the stakeholder community and aSWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of the currentmanagement regimes and fisheries assessment methodologies. The results of the SWOTanalysis are presented below.The 15 workshop participants identified a total of 43 types of stakeholders with an interestin three deep-water fisheries, although not all were examined in detail because of lack oftime. The 15 participants belonged to eight stakeholder groups (marked by * in Figure 53).199

Figure 53: European deep-water fisheries stakeholders at international, national and regionallevels. RFMO : Regional Fisheries Management Organisation. PO : Producer Organisation.Each stakeholder can be considered according to their institutional characteristics andgeographical scale of intervention (Figure 53). Only three stakeholder types wereidentified as important in their capacity as individuals: crewmen, consumers and citizens.All others were considered to act as part of a publicly funded institution, a business, anassociation or a NGO. The geographical scale of intervention varies between groups.Scientists and experts and scientists may be active at both national and international levels.Private enterprise stakeholders including the fishing industry catching sector, ProducerOrganisations (POs), fish buyers, fish transporters and fish processors are active at alllevels, sometimes through multi-national vertically integrated companies. Associationsand NGOs may be involved mostly at regional level (crewmen, consumers), but the fishingindustry professional Associations and POs are organised and important at all levels, fromlocal to national to European.6.3. Stakeholder opinions and management preferencesThe SWOT analysis carried out during the workshop described above considered fivecategories of management measures potentially applicable to deep-water fisheries: (1)TAC; (2) effort limitation; (3) control measures; (4) technical measures and (5) spatiotemporalclosures. Three types of control measure were also considered: (a) licensing, (b)port state control, designated ports and VMS, (c) enforcement observers. All thesemeasures are in force to some extent in some deep-water fisheries in the NE Atlantic. Theopinions expressed are summarised in Table 18.200

Table 18. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) of current management measures applied to EU deep-water fisheries.Management measures Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsTACEffort limitation (days atsea, days fishing)Control Measures(a) Licensing(b) Port State Control,designated ports, VMS(c) Enforcementobservers4. Technical measures(gear, MLS (1) , mesh size,escapement devices5.Area closures(a) Spatial aspect(b) Temporal aspectSimple and easy to allocate; simple tomonitor and control; allow toestablish track record; effective forsmall fleet of large fishing vesselsImplementation stock by stock;relationship between F and catches;efficiency linked to effortmanagement; account of discards andbycatch; discarding; monitoring andcontrol costAdapted for mono-specific fisheries Allocation by fishery and métier;and on a single-gear basis; easy to effort is a vector several inputs;monitor and control; potentially good monitoring for passive gears; effortas the relationship between fishing track records; control; differencemortality (F) and effort is believe to be between logbook effort units andmostly linearregulation; technical creepEasy monitoring and control;(a) caps the fishery(b) transparent(c) collection of fisheries andbiological data; validates catch dataaccuracyEasy to monitor and controlProtection of habitat, spawningaggregation, nurseries; Easymonitoring and control; moreadaptive for fishers than technicalmeasures(a) Relies on a reference level;dependent on initial allocations(b) Cost(c) Cost; Conflicts between scientificand enforcement dutiesNot adapted to shape and size of deepspecies; high escapees mortalityImpact on other fisheries;redistribution of effort; lostknowledge of dynamics in area;definition of area and gear allowed(1) Minimum landing size(2) Through e.g. a change in mesh size may be counter-balance by a change in trawl riggingCan be improved by takingdiscards into account; can beimproved with better fishery dataManaged at international (fishery) Technical creeprather than national level couldlead to simplification (unification);Could be controlled; Controls fleetcapacity and therefore profitability.(b) Improvement of fishery data;industry-led improves governance;RAC-based management; EU-ledenforcementRegionalisation, not central control;Shark excluding deviceTotal allowable landings, not TAC;unrealistic if based on unrealisticassessment; does not allow forchanges in fish size distribution(b) Non-compliance; IUULack of implementation; Easy tomitigate effects (2)Effective in real-time (adaptive); (a) Appropriateness may change overopportunities for sentinel fisheries. time; Non-compliance; (a)(b) closure time can be well defined definition of closure and reopeningconditions201

To complement the stakeholder views from the workshop, a questionnaire was used toobtain the opinions and management preferences of stakeholders. The questionnaireincluded 9 multiple choices questions. Three questions were about the evolution of fisheriesin terms of catch rates and profit compared to the past and future perspective. Threequestions on management tools: those that should be changed, those that are the mostappropriate to protect deep-water ecosystems and those that are appropriate for multispeciesfisheries. Two questions were on the scope of the ecosystem impact by deep-water fisheriesand the ecosystem components impacted. The ninth question asked who should beresponsible for management. The questionnaires where distributed on a website, by email,during a Regional Advisory Council (RAC) meeting, and also completed during face-to-faceinterviews for two artisanal fisheries. Overall, forty-four questionnaires were returned withone corresponding to the common view of several individuals from a fish owning company.Returned questionnaires originated from two large trawl fisheries (for Greenland halibut inthe NAFO RA and the mixed demersal trawl fishery to the west of the British Isles) and threeartisanal fisheries (longline fishery for black scabbardfish off Portugal, red seabream fisheriesin Greek Ionian waters and in the Strait of Gibraltar). The results are presented for the twotrawl fisheries combined and the three artisanal fisheries separately (Figures 54 and 55)Q1 : How are current catch rates compared to 10 years ago ?Similarn = 42WorseBetter0 5 10 15 20 25No. responsesQ2 : How are current profits compared to 10 years ago ?Similarn = 42WorseBetter0 5 10 15 20 25No. responsesQ3 : Do deep-water fisheries hold a better, worse or similar future as they are now ?Similarn = 43WorseBetter0 5 10 15 20 25No. responses2 6 10Trawling RSB Greece RSB Spain BSF Portugal2 4 6 8 10Figure 54. Questionnaire results : perception of current catch rates compared to past catch rate ; current profitscompared to paste profits; future fishery situation compared to current by fishery (RSB: read seabream; BSF: blackscabbardfish).202

(a)(b)Nothing should changen = 42Othern = 44Fuel taxingControl of rec. fishingControl of rec. fishingSubsidiesGear bansGear bansSpatial closuresSpatial closuresSeasonal closuresSeasonal closuresInd. quotasInd. quotasEffort restrictionsEffort restrictionsLicensingLicensingTACsTACs0 5 10 150 5 10 15 20 25No. responsesNo. responses(c)(d)Bycatch reduction devicesn = 41Othern = 43Bycatch restrictionsScientistsSeasonal closuresSpatial closuresFishermen/POFishing depth limitsGear/practice bansClosure of the fisheryNational adms./govt.European CommissionBSF_PortugalRSB_SpainRSB_GreeceTrawling0 5 10 15 200 5 10 15 20No. responsesNo. responsesFigure 55. Questionnaire results : opinions from stakeholders for (a): management tools that should be changed,(b): best suited management tools to protect deep-water ecosystem, (c) best suited management tool for demersalor deep-water fisheries with bycatch/discards of protected deep-water species and (d): favoured responsible forthe management of deep-water fisheries, by fishery (see text); n: number of responses to the question, all fourquestions allowed for more than one response.Respondents engaged in the trawl fisheries considered that current catch rates were better orsimilar to past catch rates (similar: 2/8, better: 6/8, worse 0/8; Q1 in Figure 54) but they mainlyconsidered that profits were similar or worse (better: 1/8, worse 4/8, similar: 3/8; Q2 in Figure54). They mostly considered that the future of the fisheries will be similar or better to currentsituation reflecting a viable future (better: 5/8, worse 1/8, similar: 2/8; Q3 in Figure 54).Respondents engaged in the red seabream fisheries mainly considered that current catchrates and profit are lower than in the past and that the future of the fisheries is not viable.The situation was different in the black scabbardfish fishery where the present and past weremainly considered similar and the future was predicted to be the same as the currentsituation.Respondents seemed overall dissatisfied with the current management, none respondingthat no management tool should be changed (Figure 55a). Roughly one half of responsessuggested that TACs, licenses, closures and gears bans should be changed to varying dagreesranging from radical changes and minor adjustments. For example, some stakeholderssuggested slight TACs increases or more flexibility in the licensing scheme and seasonalclosures in the comments section. Expectedly, changes in TACs were little suggested in the203

Greek fishery where they are not a management tool (Table 19). Changes in licensing,spatial/seasonal closures, gear ban and control of recreational fishing were favoured in thetwo red seabream fisheries together with changes in TAC in the strait of Gibraltar fisherywhere they apply.Table 19. Fleet characteristics and management measures (year 2009) for deep-water fisheries covered by the questionnaireand cognitive maps.BSF: black scabbardfish, GH: Greenland halibut, RSB: red seabream, BI: British Isles.FisherycharacteristicNumber ofvesselsMean vesselslength (m)Total numberof crewFishing gearFisheryBSFMadeira (1)BSFPortugalGHNorthwestAtlanticFrenchmultispeciestrawl westof BIRSBAzoresRSBGreece30 17 60 (2) 15 (3) 820 (5) 280 (6) 10013 17.5 60 33 12 10 10180 (4) 121 1440 (2) 180 2759 (5) 500 400BottomlonglineBottomlonglineBottomtrawlBottomtrawlHandlinesandlonglineLonglineandgillnetRSBGibraltarHandlinesExisting type of management measuresTAC * * * * * *Effort * * * * *limitationLicences * * * * *Individualquota systemSeasonal*closureSpatial* *closureBanned * * * * *fishingpractice/gearMinimum* * *landing sizeRestriction ofrecreationalfishing* (7)(1) (Bordalo-Machado et al., 2009)(2) Vessels engaged in this fishery may also prosecute other fisheries(3) 50 vessels (served by 450 crews) are licensed to this fishery. In recent years, 15 vessels (served by an estimated 180 crews)landed 95% of the French landings for deep-water species(4) Assumed 6 per vessel based upon the number of crew for mainland Portugal vessel of the same size (Gordo et al., 2009).(5) Total number of vessels and crew in the Azores, Portuguese national statistics, 2009.(6) Vessels practising RSB target fishery on a seasonal basis, an additional 1100 vessels catch the species as by-catch(7) The use of nets is restricted. Longline and handline are allowed, with a maximum catch of 5 kg per dayOverall, a majority of respondents considered licensing, effort restrictions, spatial/seasonalclosures and gear bans suitable to protect the ecosystem. Control of recreational fishery alsoobtained a high score in the fisheries for red seabream, whose juveniles are seasonally coastal(Figure 53b). Expectedly, catch control (TACs and individual quotas) obtained low scoresreflecting that they were understood as fishery resources management tools and are notecosystem based.204

The technical measures thought to be most suitable by respondents from trawling fisheries inthe case of mixed demersal and deep-water fisheries with bycatch/discards of protected deepwater species were reduction of bycatch/discards to an agreed and bycatch reduction deviceslevel (respectively 6 and 5 out of 9 responses; Figure 53c). Respondents from artisanalfisheries suggested mostly banning of certain fishing practices (22/35 responses), spatialand/or temporal closures (19/35), by-catch restriction measures and/or bycatch reductionsdevices (19/35).The impact of deep-water fishing activities was mainly considered large (insignificant: 7/43,medium 12/43, large: 20/43, irreversible/permanent: 3/43;). An large impact was mainlyexpressed by respondents from the Greek (6/10) and Gibraltar (12/18) red seabream fisheries.It is unclear whether these replies were given in the perspective of deep-water fishing ingeneral or with reference to stakeholders' own regional experience. Respondents from thetrawling fisheries mainly considered the impact medium (insignificant 2/9, medium 5/9,large 2/9).A question on impacted ecosystem components returned expectedly cold-water corals as themain impacted ecosystem component (marine invertebrates 16/43, non-commercial fishspecies 20/43, corals 23/43, seabed 19/43 other 4/43). Nevertheless, as for the precedingquestion, responses may have been given in a general rather than a fishery-based perspectiveas it was specified in the comment section by some questionnaires that the impactedcomponents depended upon the fishing gear. Stakeholders from trawl fisheries mentionedthe seabed as the most impacted ecosystem component. The comments reported a "verysmall quantity" [of coral] in one questionnaire and that the fishery was now restricted to alow number of vessels owing to the introduction of the EU regulation and that no newfishing grounds had been explored in recent years, therefore no new habitat disturbance hadoccurred.Self management by fishermen was the overall favoured management scheme (20/43).Scientists, national government/administration and the European Commission receivedscores of 10 to 12 out of 43, Figure 53d). The comments attributed to the "other" reply (n=13)called for some combination of the proposed management authorities (6/16), management ata regional level (6/16), more involvement of RACs (2/16) and the creation of a separateMinistry of Fisheries (1 reply from the Greek fishery).6.4. Stakeholder system perceptionsA second one-day stakeholder workshop was held in Lisbon in December 2009. It wasattended by 21 stakeholders including Spanish and Portuguese fishers and catching sectorrepresentatives (n=7), Portuguese national and regional administration and governmentrepresentatives (n=7), NGO representatives acting at international and regional levels (n=3),scientists (n=3, excluding scientists organising the workshop) and others (n=1). Cognitivemaps were used for soliciting stakeholder' views on driving factors and regionalmanagement issues for four deep-water fisheries they were involved in: (i) the blackscabbardfish fisheries around Madeira and (ii) off mainland Portugal, (ii) Greenland halibutin the Northwest Atlantic and (iii) red seabream around the Azores. These fisheries arediverse in terms of number of vessels, vessel size, gears etc. (Table 19). Each map was drawnby one or several individuals belonging to the same stakeholder group as identified above.205

Thus, two maps were produced for the black scabbardfish fishery around Portugal, one bythree NGO representatives and one by four stakeholders from the catching sector. Eachgroup had a scientific facilitator who did not intervene in the drawing process, neither fordefining variables (bubbles) nor connections. The drawing session took 1 1/2 hours. Twoadditional groups formed by scientists and a fisheries consultant drew generic fisheriesmaps, which are not considered here. In addition to the sign of connections (arrows),stakeholders were asked to mark their strength as low (1), medium (2) or high (3) and thetime frame (1: within a year, 2: 1-10 years, 3: >10 years).The five cognitive maps were analysed in terms of number of variables (N), number ofconnections (C), density (D=C/[N(N-1)]) and number of conceptual categories present. Thevariables were grouped into nine conceptual categories: ecosystem, fisheries, managementsystem, management measures, other factors, other fisheries, socio-economy, stakeholdersand stock. The average strength of connections per category and their time frame wascalculated. The variables influencing negatively each fishery or stock are considered asproblems while those influencing positively are considered to indicate solutions. Both aremanagement levers if they can be manipulated by management actions.Figure 56 shows the cognitive maps for the NW Atlantic Greenland halibut fishery (Figure56a) and the black scabbardfish fishery around Madeira (Figure 56b) as examples. The mapswere redrawn to group variables by conceptual categories. The fishery was already in acentral place in both maps. For clarity the strength of connections and the time frame wereremoved. In both maps a number of variables influence the fishery. Note that the sign ofimpact depends on the wording of the variable. For example in Figure 56b "Low price" has anegative impact on the fishery while "Price" would have a positive impact. The complexity ofthe management system and management measures in the map for the Greenland halibutfishery is rather striking.206

(a)StakeholdersNGOsCompetition otherproductsImportCrew availabilityand trainingVMEs andMPAsMarket pricesOther economicfactorsInternationalbodiesScientificNAFOcouncilEnvironmentalpolicyNAFO fisheriescommissionEnergy costSocio-economyNational managersControlSustainable fisheryFisheryEU regulationGood fishing dataOn-boardobservation andfishery dataStock statusOther maritimeactivitiesScientific surveysStocksEnvironmentManagement andmeasuresEcosystem andother factors(b)Management and measuresFisherypolicy ECSocio-economyConsuminghabitsMany people involved inthe fisheryAncient fishery(Cultural heritage)Same managementmeasures for all fisheriesLow priceTouristrestaurantsFish qualityContaminantsDeep-sea fisheryOther factorsDistance of fishinggroundsSelectivity(longline)Catch duringspawning seasonTrawling forjuvenilesFisheryOnly adultfish caughtOtherfisheriesMainland deep-seafisheryLack of knowledge oflife cycleStockFigure 56. Cognitive map for (a) deep-water trawl fishery for Greenland halibut in the NW Atlantic and (b)longline fishery for black scabbardfish around MadeiraThe number of variables in the cognitive maps ranged from 9 to 22 and the density ofconnections from 0.08 to 0.25 (Table 20). The number of conceptual categories varied207

etween maps with seven or eight variables being represented by conceptual categories infour of the maps and only four conceptual categories in that drawn for the red seabreamfishery of the Azores. This later map had the strongest connections (average 2.9). Theaverage time frame of connections was two or more (i.e. more than one year), meaning thateffects were assumed by the stakeholders to be medium or longer term. Consideringconnection strength by conceptual category across maps it appeared that on average thestock and management measures were seen to have the largest impact on each fishery(average 2.5 and 2.4 respectively) while the ecosystem (2.0), stakeholders (2.05) and thefishery itself (2.09) had the lowest.Table 20. Indices for cognitive maps drawn by stakeholders for a selection of deep-water fisheries. BSF: blackscabbardfish; GH: Greenland halibut; RSB: red seabream.Stock Fishery Stakeholder1ParticipantsNoCategoriesNoVariablesNo ConnectionsNo Connectionswithoutsign (2)DensityMeanstrengthBSF Madeira longlines Admin 1 7 17 22 6 0.08 2 2BSF Portugal longlines NGO 3 8 14 39 8 0.21 2.2 2.2BSF Portugal longlines Catch 4 7 20 33 6 0.09 2.3 2.3GH NW Atlantic trawl Catch 2 7 22 41 3 0.09 2.3 2.3RSB Azores longlinesand netsCatch 1 4 9 18 0 0.25 2.9 2.9(1)Admin: national government and administrative services; NGO: non governmental organisation; Catch: Fishing industrycatching sector(2)Number of connections for which the sign of the impact was not determined, thought to depend on the time frameconsidered or other factors.MeantimeframeConsidering the direct or indirect impact of each variable on the fishery or the exploitedstock, a number of measures that might positively influence the fishery were collated (Table21). The management measures differ somewhat between stocks, though spatial closures andgear selectivity are recurrent themes.Table 21. Potential management levers derived from cognitive maps drawn for stocks by stakeholder groups.BSF: black scabbardfish; GH: Greenland halibut; RSB: red seabream.StockBSF MadeiraBSF PortugalGH NafoRSB AzoresPossible management levers for improving fishery conditionsknowledge of life cycle (increase), temporal closure (during spawning season), sequential fishing(modify juveniles fished elsewhere), prefer nearby fishing grounds, contaminants (reduce), allowfor regional management measuresbycatch in all fisheries (reduce), subsidies (reduce), spatial closure, fleet sizecrew availability (increase), imports (reduce)spatial closure (juveniles), gear selectivity (hook size)6.5. DiscussionThe paper demonstrates how qualitative and quantitative stakeholder knowledge and viewscan be collected and used to complement other data sources, which is essential in data-poorsituations such as those for deep-water stocks. Another important benefit is the involvementand dialogue with stakeholders, which this offers. Building trustful relationships withstakeholders and in particular the fishing industry can be laborious, time consuming,conflictual and fragile as shown by the example of the Irish orange roughy fishery recountedin Shephard et al. (2007). Despite the recent progress in formalising stakeholder involvementon the European and national level (Pita et al., 2010), there is still a need for the development208

of methods allowing structured and large scale involvement of stakeholders beyondrepresentatives participating in various consultative bodies, e.g. RACs.SWOT analysis, cognitive maps, questionnaires or face-to-face interviews are suitablemethods for soliciting opinions and structuring the consultation process. The resultspresented here using these methods involved only a small number of the identifiedstakeholder groups of deep-water fisheries, so the views are not necessarily representative ofall groups nor of all individuals within groups but rather indicative. However, they can formthe basis for wider scale consultation.The SWOT analysis was based upon discussions of a small set of stakeholders having a wideview of fishery issues, an extensive experience of management at national and internationallevel and scientific expertise. Questionnaires were filled in mostly by fishers involved inregional fisheries. A few individuals, from the French fishing industry contributed to theSWOT analysis and also replied to the questionnaires.The management tools most favoured by fishers responding to questionnaires (licensing,effort, closures and gears bans) are consistent with the SWOT analysis. Weaknessesidentified for licensing was the reliance on a reference level and initial allocation. Withrespect to licensing, the initial licence allocation was made some years ago in the trawlingfisheries and Portuguese black scabbardfish fishery. For red seabream fisheries, currentlywithout licensing scheme, involved fishermen may expect that they would be granted alicence while the scheme would restrict bycatch in other fisheries. Clearly, stakeholdersalready or potentially excluded by the licensing scheme were not part of our consultations.This also explains that only a small proportion of stakeholders from trawling and thePortuguese black scabbardfish fisheries suggested that licensing should be changed. Thesame stakeholders were more favourable to changes in TACs and effort restrictions for bothof which the issue is the level. It is worth noting that although implementation of closure is aclear conflicting issue between managers and the fishing industry in general, spatial andseasonal closures were identified as suitable management measures to protect the ecosystem.The overall consistency of the SWOT analysis and questionnaire replies suggests that issueswith management of deep-water fisheries are rather at the implementation than at theconceptual level. Lastly, the SWOT analysis examined management measures one at a timeand the stakeholders involved in the analysis considered that the weaknesses identified maybe remedied to some extent as measures are used together.An important outcome of the stakeholder consultation was the diversity of deep-waterfisheries reflected in the diversity of opinions on suitable management measures as well as inwhich factors were considered important. An approach of "one size fits all" was not seen assatisfactory by the consulted stakeholders. The SWOT analysis suggests that no singlemanagement tool can be sufficient. Questionnaires and cognitive maps support this viewand further suggest that a different combination of management measures is suitable atfishery/regional level. Altogether, the three approaches also reflect that deep-water fisheriesinteracted with other fisheries at a number of levels: technical (allocation of effort), spatial(area closure implemented for deep-water fisheries management may impact other fisheries)and biological. For example, red seabream fisheries interact with coastal and evenrecreational fisheries because juveniles of this species are coastal. Although not shared by alldeep-water species, the occurrence of the juvenile life stage in shallow or shelf waters is not209

are and is also known for blue ling and greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides). As a result,stakeholders suggested management measures for recreational fisheries, a type of measurethat was not mentioned in the SWOT analysis.Cognitive maps allow determining elements and interactions to be identified. By nature, theymight include some subjectivity. Their analysis may also include some misunderstanding ofthe intended message and should therefore include a feedback with the same stakeholders,which was not carried out here. As identified by stakeholders in this study, the sign of someinteraction may change with the time frame, e.g. a TAC reduction would negatively impact afishery in the short term by reducing incomes but have a positive impact in the long term if itbrings sustainability.In the EU context, the use of stakeholder knowledge and data can be regarded as stepstowards some proposals included in the Green Paper on the Reform of the CommonFisheries Policy (Brussels, Com 2009, 163 final).210

7. References (provisional)Blindheim, J,, S Østerhus, (2005). The Nordic Seas, Main Oceanographic Features. In Drange et al(eds.) The Nordic Seas: An Integrated Perspective. AGU Monograph 158 AGU, Washington,DC, pp 11-37 doi:10.1029/158GM03T. P. Boyer, J. I. Antonov , O. K. Baranova, H. E. Garcia, D. R. Johnson, R. A. Locarnini, A. V. Mishonov,T. D. O’Brien, D. Seidov, I. V. Smolyar, M. M. Zweng (2009) World Ocean Database 2009. S.Levitus, Ed., NOAA Atlas NESDIS 66, U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Wash., D.C., 216 pp., DVDs.Caldeira K and ME Wickett (2003). Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425, 365.Canals et al 2009 Cascades in Mediterranean Submarine Grand Canyons, Oceanography Vol. 30 22,No.1Clark MR, D Tittensor, AD Rogers, P Brewin, T Schlacher, A Rowden, K Stocks (2006). Seamounts,Deep-Sea Corals and Fisheries: Vulnerability of Deep-Sea Corals to Fishing on SeamountsBeyond Areas of National Jurisdiction, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK 87pp.Curry, RG, MS McCartney, (2001) Ocean Gyre Circulation changes associated with the North AtlanticOscillation, J. Phys. Oceanog., 31, 3374-3400Dickson, RR, J Lazier, J Meincke, P Rhines, J Swift (1996). Long-term co-ordinated changes in theconvective activity of the North Atlantic, Prog. Oceanogr., 38, 241-295.Dorschel, B. Hebbeln, D., Foubert, A, White, M., & Wheeler, A.J. (2007). Hydrodynamics and coldwatercoral facies distribution related to recent sedimentary processes at Galway Mound westof Ireland, Marine Geology, 244, 184–195Gill, AE (1982) Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics. Academic Press, International Geophysics Series Vol 30,662ppGuinotte, J.M., Orr, J., Cairns, S., Freiwald, A., Morgan, L., & R. George (2006). Will human-inducedchanges in seawater chemistry alter the distribution of deep-sea scleractinian corals? Front.Ecol. Environ., 4, 141–146.Hood., E.M. & Co-Authors (2009). Ship-based Repeat Hydrography: A Strategy for a Sustained GlobalSurvey. In Proceedings of OceanObs'09: Sustained Ocean Observations and Information for Society(Vol. 2), Venice, Italy, 21-25 September 2009, Hall, J., Harrison, D.E., & Stammer, D., Eds., ESAPublication WPP-306.Hurrell, J. W., 1995. Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation: regional temperatures andprecipitation. Science, 269, 676-679.Ingleby, B., and M. Huddleston, 2007: Quality control of ocean temperature and salinity profiles -historical and real-time data. Journal of Marine Systems, 65, 158-17510.1016/j.jmarsys.2005.11.019IPCC, (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I tothe Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon,S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.Klein, H (1988) A note on momentum transfer in the bottom mixed layer of the West European Basin,Ocean Dynamics, 41, 45-56, doi: 10.1007/BF02226273Lundberg, L. and P.M. Haugan (1996). A Nordic Seas - Arctic Ocean Carbon Budget From VolumeFlows and Inorganic Carbon Data. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10(3), 493-510.McCartney, MS & LD Talley (1982) The subpolar mode water of the North Atlantic Ocean, J. Phys.Oceanogr., 12, 1169-1188Mienis F, HC de Stigter, M White, G Duineveld, H de Haas and TCE van Weering(2007)Hydrodynamic controls on cold-water coral growth and carbonate-mound development atthe SW and SE Rockall Trough Margin, NE Atlantic. Ocean Deep-Sea Research I, 54, 1655–1674Olafsson, J., S. R. Olafsdottir, A. Benoit-Cattin, M. Danielsen, T. S. Arnarson, and T. Takahashi(2009)Rate of Iceland Sea acidification from time series measurements Biogeosciences, 6, 2661–2668.211

Orr, J. C., V. J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S. C. Doney, R. A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. Gruber, A.Ishida, F. Joos, R. M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. Monfray, A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K. B. Rodgers, C. L. Sabine, J. L. Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R. D. Slater,I. J. Totterdell, M.-F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. Yool (2005). Anthropogenic oceanacidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms, Nature, 437,681-686.OSPAR 2000a Region II- Greater North Sea Chapter 2 – Geography, Hydrography & Climate, inOSPAR QSR 2000, 22pp.OSPAR 2000b Region V- Wider Atlantic Chapter 2 – Physical Environment in OSPAR QSR 2000, 20ppOSPAR, 2006. Effects on the marine environment of ocean acidification resulting from elevated levelsof CO2 in the atmosphere 33ppRodhe, J. (1996) On the Dynamics of the Large-Scale Circulation of the Skagerrak. Journal of SeaResearch 35, 9-21Sabine C L, Feely R A, Gruber N, Key R M, Lee K, Bullister J L, Wanninkhof R, Wong C S, Wallace DW R, Tilbrook B, Millero F J, Peng T H, Kozyr A, Ono T & Rios A F (2004). The oceanic sink foranthropogenic CO2. Science 305, 367–371.Stramma, (2001) Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, 1, 589-598Schlitzer, R., (2000). Electronic Atlas of WOCE Hydrographic and Tracer Data Now Available, EosTrans. AGU, 81(5), 45Turley, C, Findlay, HS, Mangi, S, Ridgwell A and Schimdt, DN. (2009) Ocean Acidification review inMarine Climate Change Ecosystem Linkages Report Card 2009. (Eds. Baxter JM, Buckley PJand Frost MT), Online science reviews, 25pp. www.mccip.org.uk/elr/acidificationVisbeck, M., Chassingnet, E.P., Curry, R. G., Delworth, T. L., Dickson, R. R., Krahmann, G., (2003). TheOcean’s Response to the North Atlantic Oscillation Variability. In The North AtlanticOscillation: Climatic Significance and Environmental Impact. (eds Hurrell et al.) GeophysicalMonograph 134 (AGU, Washington, DC)White, M. (2007) Benthic dynamics at the carbonate mound regions of the Porcupine Sea Bightcontinental margin Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) (2007) 96:1–9 doi:10.1007/s00531-006-0099-1White, M. and C. Mohn (2004) Seamounts: a review of physical processes and their influence on the seamountecosystem. OASIS/National University of Ireland, Galway, 38 pp.White ,M, I Bashmachnikov, J Aristegui, A Martins (2007) Physical processes and seamountproductivity. Chapter 4 in Seamounts: Ecology, Fisheries & Conservation (eds Pitcher et al),Fish and Aquatic Resources Series Vol 12, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Bailey, D. M., Ruhl, H. A. & Smith Jr, K. L. (2006) Long-term change in benthopelagic fish abundancein the abyssal N.E. Pacific Ocean. Ecology 87, 549–555. (doi:10.1890/ 04-1832)Bailey, D. M., Collins, M. A., Gordon, J. D. M., Zuur, A. F., Priede, I. G. (2009). Long-term changes indeep-water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic: a deeper reaching effect of fisheries?.Proc. R. Soc. B. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0098).Basson, M., Gordon, J. D. M., Large, P., Lorance, P., Pope, J., Rackham, B., (2001). The Effects ofFishing on Deep-water Fish Species to the West of Britain. Final Report for Joint NatureConservation Committee (F90-01-216), pp 150.Carr, M.H., Neigel, J.E., Estes, J.A., Andelman, S., Warner, R.R., Largier, J.L., 2003. Comparing marineand terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. EcologicalApplications 13, S90–S107.Clark, C.W., 1996. Marine reserves and the precautionary management of fisheries. EcologicalApplications 6 (2), 369–370.Cury, P. and V. Christensen 2005 Quantitative ecosystem indicators for fisheries management. ICES J.mar. Sci: 62(3):307-310; doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.02.003Danovaro, R, M Canals , C Gambi , S Heussner , N Lampadariou, and A Vanreusel (2009). ExploringBenthic Biodiversity Patterns and Hotspots on European Margin Slopes Oceanography,Volume 22, Number 1, 10ppDe Forges BR, Koslow JA, Poore GCB (2000) Diversity and endemism of the benthic seamount faunain the southwest Pacific. Nature 405: 944-947212

De Forges BR, Koslow JA, Poore GCB (2000) Diversity and endemism of the benthic seamount faunain the southwest Pacific. Nature 405: 944-947Freiwald A, Fosså JH, Grehan A, Koslow T, Roberts JM (2004) Cold-Water Corals: Out of Sight – NoLonger Out of Mind. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK, 84ppGage, J.D.; Tyler, P.A. (1991). Deep-sea biology: a natural history of organisms at the deep-sea floor.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. 504 ppGenin A (2004) Bio-physical coupling in the formation of zooplankton and fish aggregations overabrupt topographies. Journal of Marine Systems 50: 3-20.HERMES 2007. http://www.eu-hermes.net/canyons_atlas/index.htmlICES 2007. Report of the Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC). 26-28 February 2007,Chapter 7 Soft corals in the North Atlantic. ICES Advisory Committee on Ecosystems. ICESCM 2007/ACE:01, 35-49Jamieson, A. J., T. Fujii, et al. (in press). "Hadal trenches: the ecology of the deepest places on Earth."Trends in Ecology & Evolution.Jentoft, S., R. Chuenpagdee, A. Bundy, and R. Mahon. 2008. Pyramids and Roses Alternative Imagesfor the Governance of Fisheries and Coastal Systems. Paper presented at the AmericanFisheries Society meeting, Ottawa, August 2008.Kaszemeik & Freiwald 2002. Lophelia pertusa (Scleractinia) – from skeletal structures to growthpatterns and morphotypes.. Manuscript in submission.Kenchington, R.A., 1990. Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas. IUCN, Gland. 79 pp.Krieger, KJ, Wing, BL 2002. Megafauna associations with deep-water corals (Primnoa spp.) in the Gulfof Alaska. Hydrobiologia 471, 83-90Lauck, T., Clark, C.W., Mangel, M., Munro, G.R., 1998. Implementing the precautionary principle infisheries management through marine reserves. Ecological Applications 8 (1), S72–S78.Levin, L. A. 2003 Oxygen minimum zone benthos: adaptation and community response to hypoxia.Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 41: 1-45.Longhurst, A.R., 1999. Does the benthic paradox tell us something about surplus production models?Fish. Res. 41, 111–117.Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., and Torres, F., Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine foodwebs. Science (Wsh., D.C.), 279(5352): 860–863.Perry, D 2009 Chemosynthitic Ecosystem Science websitehttp://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/chess/science/sci_project.php Last modified: 05 November 2009Pinet P.R. 1998.Invitation to Oceanography. Jones and Barlett Publishers. p. 508Ramirez Llodra, E and Billett, DSM 2006. Deep-sea ecosystems: pristine biodiversity reservoir andtechnological challenges. In, Duarte, CM (ed.) The Exploration of marine biodiversity:scientific and technological challenges. Bilbao, Spain, Fundacion BBVA, 63-92Rex, M.A.and R.J. Etter. 1998. Bathymetric patterns of body size: implications for deep-seabiodiversity. Deep-sea Research II 45 103-127Rice, J. and M-J. Rochet. 2005. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheriesmanagement. ICES J. mar. Sci: 62(3):516-527; doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.003Roberts JM, Gage JD (2003) Scottish Association of Marine Science. Workpackage 3 of ACES Project:‘To describe the deep-water coral ecosystem, its dynamics and functioning; investigate coralbiology and behaviour and assess coral sensitivity to natural and anthropogenic stressors’.Final Report to the Atlantic Coral Ecosystem Study. Internal Report, SAMS, Oban, Scotland.95ppRoberts, J. M. (2005). Reef-aggregating behaviour by symbiotic eunicid polychaetes from cold-watercorals: do worms assemble reefs? Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK85(04): 813-819Rogers A. Deep-Sea Biodiversity: A Quick Guide. http://www.ffa.int/gef/files/gef/Deep-seabiodiversity-Rogers.pdfRogers AD (1994) The biology of seamounts. Advances in Marine Biology. 30: 305-350213

Rogers AD (1999) The biology of Lophelia pertusa (Linnaeus 1758) and other deepwater reef-formingcorals and impacts from human activities. International Review of Hydrobiology. 84 (4): 315-406Rogers AD (2000) The role of the oceanic oxygen minima in generating biodiversity in the deep sea.Deep-Sea Research II. 47 (1-2): 119-148Rogers, A. 2004. The Biology, Ecology and Vulnerability of Deep-Water Coral Reefs. Report for theWorld Conservation Union for the 7th Convention of Parties, Convention for Biodiversity,Kuala Lumpur, February 8th – 19th. 8pp. Available athttp://www.iucn.org/themes/marine/pubs/pubs.htmRowden AA, Clark MR, Wright IC (2005) Physical characterisation and a biologically focusedclassification of “seamounts” in the New Zealand region. New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwater Research 39: 1039-1059Shin, Y-J., M-J. Rochet, S. Jennings, J.G. Field and H. Gislason. 2005. Using size-based indicators toevaluate the ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES J. mar. Sci. 2005 62: 384-396;doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.01.004Smith, C.R. and A. R. Baco. 2003. The ecology of whale falls at the deep-sea floor. Oceanography andMarine Biology Annual Review, 41: 311-354.Soule´ , M.E., Terborgh, J., 1999. Conserving nature at regional and continental scales – a scientificprogram for North America. Bioscience 49, 809–817.Turnipseed, M., K. E. Knick, et al. (2003). "Diversity in mussel beds at deep-sea hydrothermal ventsand cold seeps." Ecology Letters 6(6): 518-523.Vanreusel, A; Andersen, AC; Boetius, A; Connelly, D; Cunha, MR; Decker, C; Hilario, A; Kormas, KA;Maignien, L; Olu, K; Pachiadaki, M; Ritt, B; Rodrigues, C; Sarrazin, J; Tyler, P; Van Gaever, S;Vanneste, H (2009) Biodiversity of Cold Seep Ecosystems Along the European Margins,OCEANOGRAPHY 22 (1): 110-127 Sp. Iss. SI MARVinogradova NG (1997) Zoogeography of the abyssal and hadal zones. Advances in Marine Biology32: 325-387.Wessel P (2001) Global distribution of seamounts inferred from gridded Geosat/ERS1 altimetry.Journal of Geophysical Research 106 (B9): 19431-19441Zeppilli, D & Danovaro, R 2009. Meiofaunal diversity and assemblage structure in a shallow-waterhydrothermal vent in the Pacific Ocean. Aquatic Biology, Vol. 5: 75–84Abaunza,P., Murta,A.G., Campbell,N., Cimmaruta,R., Comesaña,A.S., Dahle,G., Santamaría,M.T.G.,Gordo,L.S., Iversen,S.A., MacKenzie,K., Magoulas,A., Mattiucci,S., Molloy,J., Nascetti,G.,Pinto,A.L., Quinta,R., Rarnos,P., Sanjuan,A., Santos,A.T., Stransky,C., Zimmermann,C., 2008.Stock identity of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in the Northeast Atlantic andMediterranean Sea: Integrating the results from different stock identification approaches.Fisheries Research. 89, 196-209.Afonso, C., Lourenco, H. M., Abreu Dias, Nunes, M. L., Castro, M. (2007) Contaminant metals in blackscabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) caught off Madeira and Azores. Food Chemistry 101, 120-125.Afonso, C., Lourenco, H. M., Pereira, C., Martins, M. L., Caravalho, M. L., Castro, M., Nunes, M. L.(2008) otal organic mercury, selenium and a-tocopherol in some deep-water species. Journal ofthe Science of Food and Agriculture 88, 2543-2550.Alioshkina,l.D., Gaevskaya,A.V., Kovaliava,A.A., 1985. Parasitofauna of fishes of the Whale Ridge.NOAA Technical Reports. 25, 29-29.Alvarez,M.F., Aragort,W., Leiro,J.M., Sanmart¡n,M.L., 2006. Macroparasites of five species of ray(genus Raja) on the northwest coast of Spain. Dis. Aquat. Org. 70, 93-100.Ayvazian,S.G., Bastow,T.P., Edmonds,J.S., How,J., Nowara,G.B., 2004. Stock structure of Australianherring (Arripis georgiana) in southwestern Australia. Fisheries Research. 67, 39-53.Bakaj,Y., 1993. On the infestation of deepwater redfish from the Norwegian-Barents Sea population bythe copepod Sphyrion lumpi (Kroeyer, 1845)O zarazhennosti okunya-klyuvacha Norvezhsko-Barentsevomorskogo stada kopepodoj Sphyrionlumpi (Kroeyer, 1845). xxx. xxx,214

Bakay,Y.I., 1988. Application of results from parasitological investigations in redfish (Sebastesmentella Travin) populational structure studies.Bakay,Y.I., 2001. Results from the analysis of geographical variability in parasite fauna of redfish,Sebastes mentella, from the North Atlantic.Bakay,Y.I., Mel'Nikov,S.P., 2008. Biological and ecological characteristics of deepwater redfish Sebastesmentella (Scorpaenidae) at different depths in the pelagial of the Irminger Sea. J Ichthyol. 48,68-80.Bakay,Y.I., Melnikov,S.P., 2002. Vertical structure of Sebastes mentella concentrations in the pelagicopen part of the Irminger Sea.Baker,T.G., Morand,S., Wenner,C.A., Roumillat,W.A., deBuron,I., 2007. Stock identification of thesciaenid fish Micropogonias undulatus in the western North Atlantic Ocean using parasites asbiological tags. J. HELMINTHOL. 81, 155-167.Baldauf,S.A., Thünken,T., Frommen,J.G., Bakker,T.C.M., Heupel,O., Kullmann,H., 2007. Infection withan acanthocephalan manipulates an amphipod's reaction to a fish predator's odours. Int JParasitol. 37, 61-65.Barber, R. T. & Warlen, S. M. (1979) Organochlorine insecticide residues in deep-sea fish from 2500min the Atlantic Ocean. Environmental Science and Technology 13, 1146-1148.Benz,G.W., 2006. A new genus and species of hyponeoid (Copepoda) from the olfactory sac of agulper shark Centrophorus sp. (Squaliformes: Centrophoridae) captured off Madagascar. J.Parasitol. 92, 1207-1210.Benz,G.W., Borucinska,J.D., Lowry,L.F., Whiteley,H.E., 2002a. Ocular lesions associated withattachment of the copepod Ommatokoita elongata (Lernaeopodidae: Siphonostomatoida) tocorneas of Pacific sleeper sharks Somniosus pacificus captured off Alaska in Prince WilliamSound. J. Parasitol. 88, 474-481.Benz,G.W., Braswell,J.S., 1998. Morphology of the deep-sea copepod Bobkabata kabatabobbus(Lernaeosoleidae: Poecilostomatoida) and amended diagnosis of Lernaeosoleidae. J. Parasitol.84, 109-113.Benz,G.W., Nagasawa,K., Wetmore,J., 2002b. New Host and Ocean Records for the Parasitic CopepodBobkabata kabatabobbus (Lernaeosoleidae: Poecilostomatoida. Pac Sci. 56, 259-262.Beveridge,I., Justine,J.L., 2006. Gilquiniid cestodes (Trypanorhyncha) from elasmobranch fishes offNew Caledonia with descriptions of two new genera and a new species. Syst Parasitol. 65,235-249.Bilong Bilong,C.F., Birgi,E., Euzet,L., 1994. Urogyrus cichlidarum gen.nov., sp.nov., Urogyridaefam.nov., a monogenean parasite of the urinary vessels of cichlid fish from Cameroon.Canadian Journal of Zoology. 72, 561-566.Bilong-Bilong,C.F., Euzet,L., Birgi,E., 1996. Monogenean stomach parasite of cichild fishes fromCameroon: Two new species of the genus Enterogyrus Paperna, 1963 (Ancyrocephalidae). SystParasitol. 34, 37-42.Blaylock,R.B., Margolis,L., Holmes,J.C., 2003. The use of parasites in discriminating stocks of Pacifichalibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) in the northeast Pacific . Fishery Bulletin. 101, 1-9.Blend,C.K., Dronen,N.O., Armstrong,H.W., 2000. Six new species of Lepidapedon Stafford, 1904(Digenea: Lepocreadiidae) from deep-sea macrourid fishes from the Gulf of Mexico andCaribbean Sea, with revised keys to the species of the genus. Syst Parasitol. 45, 29-51.Blend,C.K., Dronen,N.O., Armstrong,H.W., 2004. Macrourimegatrema brayi n. gen., n. sp (Digenea:Opecoelidae) from four species of deep-sea macrourid fishes from the Gulf of Mexico andCaribbean Sea, with a list of endohelminths reported from species of Bathygadus and Gadomus(Macrouridae). Zootaxa. 1-18.Borucinska,J.D., Benz,G.W., Whiteley,H.E., 1998. Ocular lesions associated with attachment of theparasitic copepod Ommatokoita elongata (Grant) to corneas of Greenland sharks, Somniosusmicrocephalus (Bloch & Schneider). J Fish Dis. 21, 415-422.Boxshall,G.A., 1986. A new genus and two new species of Pennellidae (Copepoda:Siphonostamatoida) and an analysis of evolution within the family. Syst Parasitol. 8, 215-225.215

Boxshall,G.A., 1989. Parasitic copepods of fishes: a new genus of the Hatschekiidae from NewCaledonia, and new records of the Pennellidae, Sphyriidae and Lernanthropidae from theSouth Atlantic and South Pacific. Syst Parasitol. 13, 201-222.Boxshall,G.A., 1998. Host specificity in copepod parasites of deep-sea fishes. J Mar Syst. 15, 215-223.Boxshall,G.A., 2000. Parasitic copepods (Copepoda: Siphonostomatoida) from deep-sea and midwaterfishes. Syst Parasitol. 47, 173-181.Boxshall,G.A., Justine,J.L., 2005. A new genus of parasitic copepod (Siphonostomatoida: Caligidae)from the razorback scabbardfish, Assurger anzac (Trichiuridae) off New Caledonia. FoliaParasitol. 52, 349-358.Bray,R.A., 1990. A new species of Pseudopecoelus von Wicklen, 1946 (Digenea: Opecoelidae) from theorange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus Collett, 1889, (Trachichthyidae) from off southeasternAustralia. Syst Parasitol. 16, 195-200.Bray,R.A., 2004. The bathymetric distribution of the digenean parasites of deep-sea fishes. FoliaParasitol. 51, 268-274.Bray,R.A., Campbell,R.A., 1995. Fellodistomidae and Zoogonidae (Digenea) of deep-sea fishes of theNW Atlantic Ocean. Syst Parasitol. 31, 201-213.Bray,R.A., Gibson,D.I., 1991. The Lepocreadiidae (Digenea) of fishes from the north-east Atlantic:Profundivermis intercalarius n. g., n. sp. from the marine fish Coryphaenoides (Nematonurus)armatus (Hector) (Macrouridae) from the Porcupine Abyssal Plain. Syst Parasitol. 18, 121-125.Bray,R.A., Gibson,D.I., 1998. Further observations on the Digenea (Platyhelminthes) of deep-sea fishesin the northeastern Atlantic: Fellodistomidae and Zoogonidae. Acta Parasitol. 43, 194-199.Bray,R.A., Littlewood,D.T.J., Herniou,E.A., Williams,B., Henderson,R.E., 1999. Digenean parasites ofdeep-sea teleosts: A review and case studies of intrageneric phylogenies. Parasitology. 119,125-144.Brickle,P., MacKenzie,K., 2007. Parasites as biological tags for Eleginops maclovinus (Teleostei:Eleginopidae) around the Falkland Islands. J. HELMINTHOL. 81, 147-153.Brickle,P., MacKenzie,K., Pike,A., 2006. Variations in the parasite fauna of the patagonian toothfish(Dissostichus eleginoides Smitt, 1898), with length, season, and depth of habitat around theFalkland Islands. J. Parasitol. 92, 282-291.Bullock,A.M., Phillips,S.E., Gordon,J.D.M., Roberts,R.J., 1986. Sarcotaces sp., a parasitic copepodinfection in two deep-sea fishes, Lepidion eques and Coelorhynchus occa. Journal of the MarineBiological Association of the UK. 66, 835-843.Bunkley-Williams,L., Williams,E.H.Jr., 1998. Isopods associated with fishes: A synopsis andcorrections. J. Parasitol. 84, 893-896.Busch,M.W., Klimpel,S., Sutton,T., Piatkowski,U., 2008. Parasites of the deep-sea smelt Bathylaguseuryops (Argentiniformes: Microstomatidae) from the Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone (CGFZ).Mar Biol Res. 4, 313-317.Campbell,R.A., 1975. Abyssotrema pritchardae gen. et sp. n. (Digenea: Fellodistomidae) from the deepseafish, Alepocephalus agassizi Goode and Bean 1883. J. Parasitol. 61, 661-664.Campbell,R.A., Haedrich,R.L., Munroe,T.A., 1980. Parasitism and ecological relationships amongdeep-sea benthic fishes. Marine Biology. 57, 301-313.Castro Romero,R., 2001. Paeon triakis sp. n. and a new form for Lateracanthus quadripedis Kabata etGusev, 1966 (Copepoda, Siphonostomatoida), parasitic on Chilean fishes in the South Pacific.Acta Parasitol. 46, 24-29.Castro,R.R., Gonzalez,M.T., 2009. Two new species of Clavella (Copepoda, Siphonostomatoida,Lernaeopodidae) and a new species of Lophoura (Copepoda, Siphonostomatoida, Sphyriidae):Parasites on the deep-water fish, Nezumia pulchella from the northern Chilean coast.Crustaceana. 82, 411-423.Cherel,Y., Boxshall,G.A., 2004. Sarcotretes (Copepoda: Pennellidae) parasitizing myctophid fishes inthe Southern Ocean: New information from seabird diet. J. Parasitol. 90, 1288-1292.Cornet,S., Franceschi,N., Bauer,A., Rigaud,T., Moret,Y., 2009. Immune depression induced byacanthocephalan parasites in their intermediate crustacean host: Consequences for the risk ofsuper-infection and links with host behavioural manipulation. Int J Parasitol. 39, 221-229.216

Costa, V., Lourenco, H. M., Figueiredo, I., Carvalho, L., Lopes, H., Farias, I., Pires, L., Afonso, C.,Viera, A. R., Nunes, M. L. & Gordo, l. S. (2009) Mercury, cadmium and lead in blackscabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo Lowe, 1839), from mainland Portugal and the Azores andMadiera archipelagos. Scienta Marina 73S2, 77-88.de Buron,I., 1988. Hypoechinorhynchus thermaceri n. sp. (Acanthocephala: Hypoechinorhynchidae) fromthe deep-sea zoarcid fish Thermaceres andersoni Rosenblatt and Cohen, 1986. J. Parasitol. 74,339-342.du Preez,L.H., Verneau,O., Gross,T.S., 2007. Polystoma floridana n. sp (Monogenea: Polystomatidae) aparasite in the green tree frog, Hyla cinerea (Schneider), of North America. Zootaxa. 33-45.Durieux,E.D.H., B+®gout,M.L., Pinet,P., Sasal,P., 2010. Digenean metacercariae parasites as naturaltags of habitat use by 0-group common sole Solea solea in nearshore coastal areas: A case studyin the embayed system of the Pertuis Charentais (Bay of Biscay, France). J Sea Res.Durieux,E.D.H., Marques,J.F., Sasal,P., Bégout,M.L., Cabral,H.N., 2007. Comparison of Solea soleamacroparasites between two nursery-continental shelf systems in the Bay of Biscay and thePortuguese coast. null. 70, 1921-1930.Edmonds,S.J., 1954. Acanthocephala collected by the Australian national antarctic research expeditionon Heard Island and MacQuarie Island during 1948-50. Trans R Soc S Aust. 78, 141-144.Ferrer-Castelló,E., Raga,J.A., Aznar,F.J., 2007. Parasites as fish population tags and pseudoreplicationproblems: the case of striped red mullet Mullus surmuletus in the Spanish Mediterranean. J.HELMINTHOL. 81, 169-178.Fowler, S. W. (1990) Critical review of selected heavy metal and chlorinated hydrocarbonconcentrations in the marine environment. Marine Environmental Research 35, 209-222.Froeschecis, O., Looser, R., Caillet, G. M., Jarman, W. M. & Ballschmiter, K. (2000) The deep-sea as afinal sink of semivolatile persistent organic pollutants? Part 1: PCBs in surface and deep-seadwelling fish of the North and South Atlantic and the Monteray Bay Canyon (California).Chemosphere 40, 651-660.Gaevskaya,A.V., Kovaleva,A.A., 1984. Crustacea of genus Sphyrion (Copepoda, Sphyriidae) in Atlanticfishes. Hydrobiol J. 20, 41-46.Gartner,J.V.J., Zwerner,D.E., 1989. The parasite faunas of meso- and bathypelagic fishes of NorfolkSubmarine Canyon, western North Atlantic. null. 34, 79-95.Gjøsaeter,J., 1971. Sarcotretes scopeli, a lernaeid copepod new to Norway. Sarsia. 46, 97-100.Goater,T.M., Jepps,S.F., 2002. Prevalence and intensity of Haemobaphes diceraus (Copepoda:Pennellidae) from shiner perch, Cymatogaster aggregata (Embiotocidae). J. Parasitol. 88, 194-197.Gómez,S., Deets,G.B., Kalman,J.E., Morales-Serna,F.N., 2009. Lophoura brevicollum n. sp. (Copepoda:Siphonostomatoida: Sphyriidae), a parasite of the smooth grenadier Nezumia liolepis (Gilbert,1890) (Pisces: Macrouridae) from the Eastern Pacific, and a new record and new host ofLophoura unilobulata Castro R. and Gonzalez. J. Crust. Biol. 30, 129-140.Grutter,A.S., 1998. Habitat-related differences in the abundance of parasites from a coral reef fish: Anindication of the movement patterns of Hemigymnus melapterus. null. 533, 49-57.Halvorsen,O., Williams,H.H., 1967. Studies of the helminth fauna of Norway. IX. Gyrocotyle(Plathyhelminthes) in Chimaera monstrosa from Oslo Fjord, with emphasis on its mode ofattachment and a regualtion in the degree of infection. Nytt Magasin for Zoologi. 15, 130-142.Hickling,C.F., 1963. On a small deep-sea shark Etmopterus spinax L., and its cirripede parasite Anelasmasqualicola (Lovén). Zool J Linn Soc. 45, 17-24.Ho,J.S., 1975. Copepod parasites of deep sea fish off the Galapagos Islands. Parasitology. 70, 359-375.Ho,J.S., 1987. Tautochondria dolichoura n. g., n. sp., a copepod parasitic on the bathypelagic fishAnoplogaster cornuta (Valenciennes) in the western North Atlantic. Syst Parasitol. 9, 179-184.Ho,J.S., 1993. New species of Clavella (Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae) parasitic on Japanese rattails(Pisces: Macrouridae). Publ Seto Mar Biol Lab. 36, 107-118.Ho,J.S., 1994. Chondracanthid copepods (Poecilostomatoida) parasitic on Japanese deep-sea fishes,with a key to the genera of the Chondracanthidae. J Nat Hist. 28, 505-517.217

Ho,J.S., Kim,I.H., Nagasawa,K., Toshiro,S., 2003. Paeonocanthus antarcticensis (Hewitt, 1965): A rarecopepod parasite of bathypelagic fish, Bathylagus antarcticus Günther, from the AntarcticOcean. Zool. Sci. 20, 1315-1321.Ho,J.-S., Takeuchi,I., 1996. Systematic status of Eubrachiella, a genus of Copepoda parasitic on antarcticteleosts. Proc. NIPR Symp. Polar Biol. 9, 169-177.Hogans,W.E., 1986. Paeonocanthus antarcticensis (Copepoda: Sphyriidae) parasitic on the bathypelagicfish Bathylagus euryops in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. Sarsia. 71, 305-307.Hogans,W.E., 1988a. Pseudolernaeopodina synaphobranchi n.gen., n.sp. (Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae)from the eye of Synaphobranchus kaupi Johnston, 1862, in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. J.Parasitol. 74, 861-863.Hogans,W.E., 1988b. Review of Sarcotretes Jungersen, 1911 (Copepoda: Pennellidae) from midwaterand demersal fishes in the North Atlantic Ocean. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 66, 1371-1375.Hogans,W.E., Benz,G.W., 1990. A new family of parasitic copepods, the Lernaeosoleidae(Poecilostomatoida), from demersal fishes in the Northwest Atlantic, with a description ofBobkabata kabatabobbus n.gen., n.sp. and a redescription of Lernaeosolea lycodis Wilson, 1944.Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68, 2483-2488.Hogans,W.E., Dadswell,M.J., 1985. Redescription of Lophoura gracilis (Wilson, 1919) (Copepoda:Sphyriidae) from Synaphobranchus kaupi in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Canadian Journal ofZoology. 63, 2940-2943.Izawa,K., 1996. Archidactylina myxinicola, new genus, new species (Siphonostomatoida), in a newfamily of copepoda parasitic on hagfishes (Agnatha: Myxiniformes) from Japan. J. Crust. Biol.16, 406-417.Justine,J.-L., Cassone,J., Petter,A., 2002. Moravecnema segonzaci gen. et sp. n. (Nematoda:Cystidicolidae) from Pachycara thermophilum (Zoarcidae), a deep-sea hydrothermal vent fishfrom the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Folia Parasitol. 49, 299-303.Kabata,Z., 1991. Jusheyhoea moseri n. sp. (Copepoda: Chondracanthidae), a parasite of macrourid fishesin Hawaiian waters. Syst Parasitol. 20, 155-159.Kabata,Z., 2004. Some comments on the genus Lernaeopodina Wilson, 1915 (Copepoda:Siphonostomatoida: Lernaeopodidae). Syst Parasitol. 57, 15-17.Kabata,Z., Wilkes,S.N., 1977. Peniculus asinus (Copepoda; Pennellidae), a new species of copepodparasitic on fishes of the genus Sebastes along the west coast of North America. CanadianJournal of Zoology. 55, 1988-1991.Karlsbakk,E., Aspholm,P.E., Berg,V., Hareide,N.R., Berland,B., 2002. Some parasites of the small-eyedrabbitfish, Hydrolagus affinis (Capello, 1867) (Holocephali), caught in deep waters off SWGreenland. Sarsia. 87, 179-184.Kellermanns,E., Klimpel,S., Palm,H.W., 2007. Molecular identification of ascaridoid nematodes fromthe deep-sea onion-eye grenadier (Macrourus berglax) from the East Greenland Sea. DEEP.SEA. RES. PT. I. OCEANOG. RES. 54, 2194-2202.Kellermanns,E., Klimpel,S., Palm,H.W., 2009. Parasite fauna of the mediterranean grenadierCoryphaenoides mediterraneus (Giglioli, 1893) from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR). ActaParasitol. 54, 158-164.Kensley,B., Cartes,J.E., 2003. Records and distribution of Syscenus infelix in the deep Mediterranean(Crustacea: Isopoda: Aegidae). J Mar Biol Assoc U K. 83, 775-777.Kitamura,A., Ogawa,K., Taniuchi,T., Hirose,H., 2006. Two new species of hexabothriid monogeneansfrom the ginzame Chimaera phantasma and shortspine spurdog Squalus mitsukurii. SystParasitol. 65, 151-159.Klimpel,S., Kellermanns,E., Palm,H.W., Moravec,F., 2007. Zoogeography of fish parasites of thepearlside (Maurolicus muelleri), with genetic evidence of Anisakis simplex (s.s.) from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Marine Biology. 152, 725-732.Klimpel,S., Palm,H.W., Busch,M.W., Kellermanns,E., 2008. Fish parasites in the bathyal zone: Thehalosaur Halosauropsis macrochir (Günther, 1878) from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Deep-SeaResearch Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 55, 229-235.218

Klimpel,S., Palm,H.W., Busch,M.W., Kellermanns,E., Rückert,S., 2006. Fish parasites in the Arcticdeep-sea: Poor diversity in pelagic fish species vs. heavy parasite load in a demersal fish.Deep-Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers. 53, 1167-1181.Klimpel,S., Palm,H.W., Rückert,S., Piatkowski,U., 2004. The life cycle of Anisakis simplex in theNorwegian Deep (northern North Sea). Parasitol Res. 94, 1-9.Klimpel,S., Palm,H.W., Seehagen,A., 2003. Metazoan parasites and food composition of juvenileEtmopterus spinax (L., 1758) (Dalatiidae, Squaliformes) from the Norwegian Deep. ParasitolRes. 89, 245-251.Klimpel,S., Seehagen,A., Palm,H.W., Rosenthal,H., 2001. Deep-water metazoan fish parasites of theworld. Logos Verlag. 1-316.Kramer, W., Buchert, H., Reuter, U., Biscoito, M., Maul, D. G. & Ballschmiter, K. (1984) Global baselinepollution studies IX: C6-C14 organochlorine compounds in surface water and deep-sea fishfrom the eastern North Atlantic. Chemosphere 13, 1255-1267.Kritsky,D.C., Klimpel,S., 2007. Cyclocotyloides bergstadi n. sp (Monogenoidea: Diclidophoridae:Diclidophoropsinae) from the gills of grenadier, Coryphaenoides brevibarbis (Teleostei:Macrouridae), in the northeast Atlantic Ocean. Comp. Parasitol. 74, 23-30.Kuchta,R., Scholz,T., 2004. Bathycestus brayi n. gen. and n. sp. (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) from thedeep-sea fish Notacanthus bonaparte in the northeastern Atlantic. J. Parasitol. 90, 316-321.Kuchta,R., Scholz,T., 2006. Australicola pectinatus n. gen. and n. sp. (Cestoda: Pseudophyllidea) fromthe deep-sea fish Beryx from Tasmania. J. Parasitol. 92, 126-129.Leaman,B.M., Kabata,Z., 1987. Neobrachiella robusta (Wilson, 1912) (Copepoda: Lernaeopodidae) as atag for identification of stocks of its host, Sebastes alutus (Gilbert, 1890) (Pisces: Teleostei).Canadian Journal of Zoology. 65, 2579-2582.Lester,R.J.G., MacKenzie,K., 2009. The use and abuse of parasites as stock markers for fish. FisheriesResearch. 97, 1-2.Lester,R.J.G., Sewell,K.B., Barnes,A., Evans,K., 1988. Stock discrimination of orange roughy,Hoplostethus atlanticus, by parasite analysis. Marine Biology. 99, 137-143.Looser, R., Froescheis, O., Cailliet, G. M., Jarman, W. M., Ballschmiter, K. (2000) The deep-sea as a finalglobal sink of semivolatile persistant organic pollutants? Part II: organochlorine pesticides insurface and deep-sea dwelling fish of the North and South Atlantic and the Monterey BayCanyon (California). Chemosphere 40, 661-670.Lumb,S.M., Bray,R.A., Rollinson,D., 1993. Partial small subunit (18S) rRNA gene sequences from fishparasites of the families Lepocreadiidae and Fellodistomidae (Digenea) and their use inphylogenetic analyses. Syst Parasitol. 26, 141-149.MacKenzie,K., 2002. Parasites as biological tags in population studies of marine organisms: an update.Parasitology. 124, S153-S163.MacKenzie,K., Abaunza,P., 1998. Parasites as biological tags for stock discrimination of marine fish: aguide to procedures and methods. Fisheries Research. 38, 45-56.MacKenzie,K., Longshaw,M., 1995. Parasites of the hakes Merluccius australis and M. hubbsi in thewaters around the Falkland Islands, southern Chile and Argentina, with an assessment oftheir potential as biological tags. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 52, 213-224.Marcogliese,D.J., 2002. Food webs and the transmission of parasites to marine fish. Parasitology. 124,83-99.Marcogliese,D.J., Albert,E., Gagnon,P., Sévigny,J.-M., 2003. Use of parasites in stock identification ofthe deepwater redfish (Sebastes mentella) in the Northwest Atlantic . Fishery Bulletin. 101, 183-188.Médoc,V., Bollache,L., Beisel,J.N., 2006. Host manipulation of a freshwater crustacean (Gammarusroeseli) by an acanthocephalan parasite (Polymorphus minutus) in a biological invasioncontext. Int J Parasitol. 36, 1351-1358.Melendy,J., McClelland,G., Hurlbut,T., 2005. Use of parasite tags in delineating stocks of white hake(Urophycis tenuis) from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and Cape Breton Shelf. FisheriesResearch. 76, 392-400.219

Melnikov,S.P., Bakay,Y., 2009. Structure of aggregations and principal populational characteristics ofredfish Sebastes mentella (Scorpaeniformes: Scorpaenidae) in the pelagic zone of the IrmingerSea and adjacent waters. J Ichthyol. 49, 170-182.Mendoza-Franco,E.F., Violante-Gonzalez,J., Vidal-Martinez,V.M., 2006. A new diplectanid(Monogenea) genus and species from the gills of the black snook, Centropomus nigrescens(Perciformes: Centropomidae) of the Pacific coast of Mexico. J. Parasitol. 92, 481-485.Moles,A., Heifetz,J., Love,D.C., 1998. Metazoan parasites as potential markers for selected Gulf ofAlaska rockfishes. Fishery Bulletin. 96, 916-Moran,J.D.W., Arthur,J.R., Burt,M.D.B., 1996. Parasites of sharp-beaked redfishes (Sebastes fasciatusand Sebastes mentella) collected from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci.53, 1821-1826.Moravec,F., Klimpel,S., 2007a. A new species of Comephoronema (Nematoda: Cystidicolidae) from thestomach of the abyssal halosaur Halosauropsis macrochir (Teleostei) from the mid-Atlanticridge. J. Parasitol. 93, 901-906.Moravec,F., Klimpel,S., 2007b. New data on the morphology of Spinitectus oviflagellis Fourment, 1884(Nematoda: Cystidicolidae) from the pyloric caeca of Macrourus berglax (Macrouridae) in theeastern Greenland Sea. Syst Parasitol. 67, 43-50.Moravec,F., Klimpel,S., 2009. Two new species of cystidicolid nematodes from the digestive tract ofthe deep-sea fish Coryphaenoides mediterraneus (Giglioli) (Macrouridae) from the Mid-AtlanticRidge. Syst Parasitol. 73, 37-47.Moravec,F., Klimpel,S., Kara,E., 2010. Neoascarophis macrouri n. sp. (Nematoda: Cystidicolidae) fromthe stomach of Macrourus berglax (Macrouridae) in the eastern Greenland Sea. Syst Parasitol.63, 231-237.Mormede, S. & Davies, I. M. (2003) Horizontal and vertical distribution of organic contaminants indeep-sea fish species. Chemosphere 50, 563-574.Moser,M., Taylor,S., 1978. Effects of the copepod Cardiodectes medusaeus on the laternfish Stenobrachiusleucopsarus with notes on hypercastration by the hydroid Hydrichthys sp. Canadian Journal ofZoology. 56, 2372-2376.Munroe,T.A., Campbell,R.A., Zwerner,D.E., 1981. Diclidophora nezumiae sp. n. (Monogenea:Diclidophoridae) and its ecological relationships with the macrourid fish Nezumia bairdii(Goode and Bean, 1877). Biological Bulletin. 161, 281-290.Oliva,M.E., 2001. Metazoan parasites of Macruronus magellanicus from southern Chile as biologicaltags. null. 588, 1617-1622.Oliva,M.E., Fernández,I., Oyarzún,C., Murillo,C., 2008. Metazoan parasites of the stomach ofDissostichus eleginoides Smitt 1898 (Pisces: Notothenidae) from southern Chile: A tool for stockdiscrimination? Fisheries Research. 91, 119-122.Østergaard,P., 2003. Catalogue of genera and species of the family Chondracanthidae Milne Edwards,1840 (Copepoda: Poecilostomatoida) with notes on morphology. Syst Parasitol. 55, 135-150.Østergaard,P., Boxshall,G.A., 2004. Giant females and dwarf males: A comparative study of nuptialorgans in female Chondracanthidae (Crustacea: Copepoda). Zool Anz. 243, 65-74.Palm,H.W., Klimpel,S., 2008. Metazoan fish parasites of Macrourus berglax Lacepede, 1801 and othermacrourids of the North Atlantic: Invasion of the deep sea from the continental shelf. Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography. 55, 236-242.Palm,H.W., Reimann,N., Spindler,M., Plötz,J., 1998. The role of the rock cod Notothenia coriiceps in thelife cycle of Antarctic parasites. Polar Biol. 19, 406-Palm,H.W., Schröder,P., 2001. Cestode parasites from the elasmobranchs Heptranchias perlo(Bonnaterre, 1788) and Deania spp. Jordan et Snyder, 1902 from the Great Meteorbank, centralEast-Atlantic. Aquat Living Resour. 14, 137-144.Pardo-Gandarillas,M.C., González,K., Ibáñez,C.M., George-Nascimento,M., 2008. Parasites of twodeep-sea fish Coelorynchus chilensis (Pisces: Macrouridae) and Notacanthus sexspinis (Pisces:Notacanthidae) from Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile. Marine Biodiversity Records. 1, e76-e76.220

Pascoe,P.L., 1987. Monogenean parasites of deep-sea fishes from the Rockall Trough (N.E. Atlantic)including a new species. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom,Plymouth. 67, 603-622.Pawson,M.G., Jennings,S., 1996. A critique of methods for stock identification in marine capturefisheries. Fisheries Research. 25, 203-217.Perdiguero-Alonso,D., Montero,F.E., Kostadinova,A., Raga,J.A., Barrett,J., 2008. Random forests, anovel approach for discrimination of fish populations using parasites as biological tags. INT. J.PARASITOL. 38, 1425-1434.Perkins,P.S., 1983. The life history of Cardiodectes medusaeus (Wilson), a copepod parasite oflanternfishes (Myctophidae). J. Crust. Biol. 3, 70-87.Perkins,P.S., 1985. Iron crystals in the attachment organ of the erythrophagous copepod Cardiodectesmedusaeus (Pennellidae). J. Crust. Biol. 5, 591-605.Power,A.M., Balbuena,J.A., Raga,J.A., 2005. Parasite infracommunities as predictors of harvestlocation of bogue (Boops boops L.): a pilot study using statistical classifiers. Fisheries Research.72, 229-239.Rodjuk,G.N., 1986. New species of Acanthocephala of the genus Echinorhynchus (Echinorhynchidae)from the southwestern Atlantic. Parasitologiya. 20, 224-227.Rohde,K., 1988. Gill Monogenea of deepwater and surface fish in southeastern Australia.Hydrobiologia. 160, 271-283.Rohde,K., Williams,A., 1987. Taxonomy of monogeneans of deep sea fishes in southeastern Australia.Syst Parasitol. 10, 45-71.Ross,S.W., Sulak,K.J., Munroe,T.A., 2001. Association of Syscenus infelix (Crustacea: Isopoda: Aegidae)with benthopelagic rattail fishes, Nezumia spp. (Macrouridae), along the western NorthAtlantic continental slope. Marine Biology. 138, 595-601.Salinas,X., González,M.T., Acuña,E., 2008. Metazoan parasites of the thumb grenadier Nezumiapulchella, from the south-eastern Pacific, off Chile, and their use for discrimination of hostpopulations. null. 73, 683-691.Santos,M.J., Saraiva,A., Cruz,C., Eiras,J.C., Hermida,M., Ventura,C., Soares,J.P., 2009. Use of parasitesas biological tags in stock identification of the black scabbardfish, Aphanopus carbo Lowe,1839 (Osteichthyes: Trichiuridae) from Portuguese waters. Sci Mar. 73, 55-62.Scholz,T., Bray,R.A., 2001. Probothriocephalus alaini n. sp. (Cestoda: Triaenophoridae) from the deep-seafish Xenodermichthys copei in the North Atlantic Ocean. Syst Parasitol. 50, 231-235.Storelli, M. M., Perrone, V. G., Marcotrigiano, G. O. (2007) Organochlorine contamination (PCBs andDDTs) in deep-sea fish from the Mediterranean sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 1968-1971.Storelli, M. M., Losada, S., Marcotrigiano, G. O., Roosens, L., Barone, G., Neels, H. & Covaci, A. (2009)Polychlorinated biphenyl and organochlorine pesticide contamination signatures in deep-seafish from the Mediterranean. Environmental Research 109, 851-856.Sures,B., 2001. The use of fish parasites as bioindicators of heavy metals in aquatic ecosystems: Areview. Aquat Ecol. 35, 245-255.Sures,B., Reimann,N., 2003. Analysis of trace metals in the Antarctic host-parasite system Nototheniacoriiceps and Aspersentis megarhynchus (Acanthocephala) caught at King George Island,South Shetland Islands. Polar Biol. 26, 680-686.Sures,B., Siddall,R., Taraschewski,H., 1999. Parasites as accumulation indicators of heavy metalpollution. Parasitol Today. 15, 16-21.Sures,B., Taraschewski,H., Rydlo,M., 1997a. Intestinal fish parasites as heavy metal bioindicators: Acomparison between Acanthocephalus lucii (Palaeacanthocephala) and the Zebra Mussel,Dreissena polymorpha. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 59, 14-21.Sures,B., Taraschewski,H., Siddall,R., 1997b. Heavy metal concentrations in adult acanthocephalansand cestodes compared to their fish hosts and to established free-living bioindicators.Parassitologia. 39, 213-218.Szuks,H., 1980. Applicability of parasites in separating groups of grenadier fish Macrourus rupestris.Angew Parasitol. 21, 211-214.221

Tain,L., Perrot-Minnot,M.J., Cézilly,F., 2007. Differential influence of Pomphorhynchus laevis(Acanthocephala) on brain serotonergic activity in two congeneric host species. Biol. Lett. 3,68-71.Tirard,C., Thomas,F., Raibaut,A., Renaud,F., 1996. The distribution and abundance of Lernaeocera lusci(Copepoda) on hake (Merluccius merluccius) and bib (Trisopterus luscus) (Teleostei). Int JParasitol. 26, 1387-1392.Trilles,J.P., Justine,J.L., 2004. A new cymothoid species, and three aegids (Crustacea, Isopoda),collected from deep-sea fish off New Caledonia. Zoosystema. 26, 211-233.Van Damme,P.A., Maertens,D., Arrumm,A., Hamerlynck,O., Ollevier,F., 1993. The role of Callionymuslyra and C. reticulatus in the life cycle of Lernaeocera lusci in Belgian coastal waters (SouthernBight of the North Sea). null. 42, 395-401.Walker,R.V., Myers,K.W., 1992. Stock identification techniques for salmon on the high seas. 65. Annu.Meet.Walter,T., Palm,H.W., Piepiorka,S., Rückert,S., 2002. Parasites of the Antarctic rattail Macrouruswhitsoni (Regan, 1913) (Macrouridae, Gadiformes). Polar Biol. 25, 633-640.Wayland,M.T., Sommerville,C., Gibson,D.I., 1999. Echinorhynchus brayi n. sp. (Acanthocephala:Echinorhynchidae) from Pachycara crassiceps (Roule) (Zoarcidae), a deep-sea fish. SystParasitol. 43, 93-101.Webster, L., Walsham, P., Russell, M., Neat, F., Phillips, L., Dalgarno, E., Packer, G., Scurfield, J. A. &Moffat, C. F. (2009) Halogenated persistent organic pollutants in Scottish deep water fish.Journal of Environmental Monitoring 11(2), 406-417.Whittington,I.D., 1998. Diversity "down under": monogeneans in the Antipodes (Australia) with aprediction of monogenean biodiversity worldwide. Int J Parasitol. 28, 1481-1493.Yanulov,K.P., 1974. Parasites as indicators of local redfish stocks.Zdzitowiecki,K., 1986. Acanthocephala of the Antarctic. Pol Polar Res. 7, 79-117.Zdzitowiecki,K., 1996. Acanthocephala in fish in the Weddell Sea (Antarctic). Acta Parasitol. 41, 199-203.Zubchenko,A.V., 1985. Use of parasitological data in studies of the local groupings of rock grenadier,Coryphaenoides rupestris Gunner. NOAA Technical Reports. 25, 19-23.Gordon, J.D.M., O.A. Bergstad, I. Figueiredo, G. Menezes, 2003. The deep-water fisheries of theNortheast Atlantic: I Description and current trends. Journal of Northwest Atlantic FisheryScience. 31: 137-150.Bensch, A.; Gianni, M.; Gréboval, D.; Sanders, J.S.; Hjort, A. 2008. Worldwide review of bottomfisheries in the high seas FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 522. Rome, FAO.2008. 145p.FAO 2009. International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-water Fisheries in the High Seas.Rome, FAO. 2009. 73p.ICES, 2004. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management and AdvisoryCommittee on Ecosystems 2004. ICES Advice, vol. 1, no 2. 1544 pp.ICES, 2006. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management,Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee onEcosystems. ICES AVIS DU CIEM, Book 9, pp 149-165.Basson, M., Gordon, J.D.M., Large, P., Lorance, P., Pope, J and Rackham, B. 2002. The effects offishing on deep-water fish species to the west of Britain. JNCC Report No 324 150 pp.D. M. Bailey, M. A. Collins, J. D. M. Gordon, A. F. Zuur and I. G. Priede. 2009. Long-term changes indeep-water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic: a deeper reaching effect of fisheries?Proc. R. Soc. B published online 11 March 2009.AFMA 2004. Western Trawl Fisheries Statement of Management Arrangements. AustralianGovernment, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, 21 pp.AFMA 2007, Western Trawl Fisheries Harvest Strategy—North West Slope Trawl Fishery (NWSTF) andWestern Deepwater Trawl Fishery (WDTF), December 2007, AFMA, Canberra.Anderson, O.F. 2004. Fish discards and non-target fish catch in the fisheries for southern blue whitingand oreos. New Zealand Fisheries assessment Report 2004/9, 40 pp.222

Anderson, O.F. 2008. A summary of biological information on the New Zealand fisheries for orangeroughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) for the 2006–07 fishing year. New Zealand Fisheries AssessmentReport 2008/56, 34 pp.Anderson, O.F. 2009. Fish discards and non-target fish catch in the New Zealand orange roughy trawlfishery, 1999–2000 to 2004–05. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 39,40 pp.Anonymous, 2005, New Zealand Fisheries Legislation. Fisheries Act 1996, 7th edn, Vol. A. ChapmannTripp, Barristers & Solicitors, New Zealand.Anonymous 2008. Australian Fisheries Administration Act 1991. Act No. 161 of 1991 as amended,taking into account amendments up to Act No. 36 of 2008, Office of Legislative Drafting andPublishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, 69 pp.Anonymous 2009. Australian Fisheries Management Act 1991. Act No. 162 of 1991 as amended, takinginto account amendments up to Act No. 33 of 2009, Office of Legislative Drafting andPublishing, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, 407 pp.Branch, T.A., Rutherford, K., and Hilborn, R. 2006. Replacing trip limits with individual transferablequotas: implications for discarding. Marine Policy, 30, 281-292.Bull B., Francis R.I.C.C., Dunn A., Gilbert D.J. 2002. CASAL (C++ algorithmic stock assessmentlaboratory): CASAL user manual v1.02.2002/10/21. NIWA Technical Report 117. 199 p.DAFF (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2007,Commonwealth fisheries harvest strategy: policy and guidelines, DAFF, Canberra.Daley, R, Knuckey, I., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Bulma, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Smith, T. (2007).Draft Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing. Report for the Great AustralianBight trawl sub-fishery of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. Report forthe Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Canberra, Australia.Doonan, I.J., Hart, A.C., McMillan, P.J., and Coombs, R.F. 2000. Oreo abundance estimates from theOctober 1998 survey of the south Chatham Rise (OEO 4). New Zealand Fisheries AssessmentReport 2000/52, 26 p.Doonan, I.J.; McMiIlan, P.J., Hart, A.C., Coombs, R.F. 2003. Smooth owo abundance estimates from theOctober-November 2001 acoustic survey of the south Chatham Rise (OEO 4). New ZealandFisheries Assessment Report 2003/26. 21 p.Doonan, I.J., Coombs, R.F.; Hart, A.C. 2004. Acoustic estimates of the abundance of orange roughy forthe Mid-East Coast fishery, June 2003.Doonan, I.J., Dunn, M., Dunford, A., Hart, A.C., Tracey, D. 2006. Acoustic estimated of orange roughyabundance on the Northeastern and Eastern Chatham Rise, July 2004: wide-area and hillsurvey.Doonan, I.J; Smith, M.H., McMillan, P.J, Hart, A.C., Dunford, A. 2008a. Black oreo abundanceestimates from the October 2006 acoustic survey of the south Chatham Rise (OEO 3A). NewZealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2008/41, 21 pp.Doonan, I.J., McMillan, P.J., Macaulay, G., Hart, A.C. 2008b. Smooth oreo abundance estimates fromthe November 2005 acoustic survey of the south Chatham Rise (OEO 4). New Zealand FisheriesAssessment Report 2008/39. 29 p.Doonan, I.J., Dunn, M., Hart, A.C. 2009. Abundance estimates of orange roughy on the Northeasternand Eastern Chatham Rise, July 2007: wide-area trawl survey and hill acoustic survey(TAN0709). New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2009/20. 41 p.FAO 2007a. Legal Office, treaties. Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement: text. (Available at:http://www.fao.org/Legal/treaties/list2-e.htm).FAO, 2007b, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2006. Rome FAO, 2007.FAO 2008. Worldwide review of bottom fisheries in the high seas. FAO Fisheries and AquacultureTechnical Paper No. 522, 145 pp.Hart, A.C., and McMillan, P.J. 2009. A summary of observer biological information on the NewZealand black oreo and smooth oreo fisheries from 1979–80 to 2006–07. New Zealand FisheriesAssessment Report 2009/51. 41 p.223

Hilborn R., Maunder M., Parma A., Ernst B., Payne J., Starr P. 2003. Coleraine: A generalized agestructuredstock assessment model. (Unpublished report from the School of Aquatic andFisheries Sciences, University of Washington, available at:http://www.fish.washington.edu/research/coleraine/).Hilborn, R., and Walters, C.J. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics, anduncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York, 570 pp.Hohnen, L, Wood, R, Newton, P, Jahan, N and Vieira, S 2008, Fishery economic status report 2007,ABARE Report 08.10 prepared for the Fisheries Resources Research Fund, Canberra,November.Kloser, R.J., Ryan, T.E., Macaulay, G.J., and Lewis, M.E. 2007. Acoustic measurements of CascadePlateau orange roughy. Final report to AFMA (R04/1086), CSIRO, January 2007, 56 pp.Koopman, M.T., Brown L.P., Gason, A.S.H. 2008a. Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program – GreatAustralian Bight Trawl Fishery Annual Report 2006. Report to Australian FisheriesManagement Authority Project No. R03/1552. Marine and Freshwater Fisheries ResearchInstitute, Queenscliff.Koopman M.T., Gason A.S.H., and Berrie, S.E. 2008b. Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program -South East Trawl Fishery Annual Report 2006. Report to Australian Fisheries ManagementAuthority Project No. R03/1551. Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Research Institute,Queenscliff.Marchal, P., Lallemand, P., Stokes, K., and Thébaud, O. 2009. A comparative review of the fisheriesresource management systems in New Zealand and in the European Union. Aquatic LivingResources, 22, 463-481.Methot, R.D. 2005. Technical description of the Stock Synthesis II Assessment Program. Version 1.17.NZMFISH 2008a. Harvest Strategy Standard for New Zealand Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, October2008, 25 pp.NZMFISH 2008b. Operational guidelines for New Zealand’s Harvest Strategy Standard (draft),Ministry of Fisheries, October 2008, 66 pp.NZMFISH 2009. Plenary report of the Fisheries Assessments Working Groups, New Zealand Ministryof Fisheries, 1036 pp.Sanchirico J.N., Holland D., Quigley K., Fina M. 2006, Catch-quota balancing in multispeciesindividual fishing quotas. Mar. Policy, 30, 767–785.SESSF 2007. Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003, as amended,made under section 17 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991. Federal Register of LegislativeInstruments F2007C00069, 63 pp.Smith, A.D.M. and S.E. Wayte (eds) 2005. The Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2004,Fishery Assessment Report compiled by the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark FisheryAssessment Group. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.Smith, M.H., Doonan, I.J., McMillan, P.J., and Hart, A.C. 2006. Black oreo abundance estimates fromthe September-October 2002 acoustic survey of the south Chatham Rise (OEO3A). NewZealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2006:33, 20 pp.Smith, A.D.M., Fulton, E.J., Hobday, A.J., Smith, D.C., and Shoulder, P. 2007. Scientific tools to supportthe practical implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. ICES Journal ofMarine Science, 64, 633-639.Smith, D.C., Punt, A., Dowling, N., Smith, A.D.C., Tuck, G., and Knuckley, I. 2009. Reconcilingapproaches to the assessment and management of data-poor species and fisheries withAustralia’s Harvest Strategy Policy. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management,and Ecosystem Science, 1, 244-254.Smith, M.H., Hart, A.C., McMillan, P.J., and Macaulay, G. 2008. Acoustic estimates of orange roughyabundance from the northwest Chatham Rise, June-July 2005: results from the wide-area andhill surveys. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2008/13, 42 pp.Tuck, G.N. (ed.) 2007. Stock Assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery2006-2007. Volume 1: 2006. Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Marineand Atmospheric Research, Hobart. 570 p.224

Wayte S. 2004. Stock assessment of the Cascade Plateau orange roughy. Deepwater AssessmentGroup, August 2004, DAG2004/2, 25 p.Wilson D, Curtotti R, Begg G & Phillips K (eds) 2009. Fishery status reports 2008: status of fish stocks andfisheries managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences & Australian Bureau ofAgricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra.Anon. 2006. Programa REVIZEE. Avaliação do poten-cial sustentável de recursos vivos na ZonaEconômica Deep- water fisheries in Brazil 537 Exclusiva. Relatório Executivo. Ministério do MeioAmbiente. Secretaria de Qualidade Ambiental nos Assentamentos Humanos, Brasília, 303 pp.Anon. 2007. Presidência da República. Secretaria Espe-cial de Aqüicultura e Pesca. Comitê ConsultivoPer-manente de Gestão dos Recursos Demersais de Pro-fundidade. Sub-Comitê Científico.Relatório da 5a Reunião Ordinária. Itajaí, SC, 11-13 de junho de 2007. SEAP/PR, Brasília, 75 pp.Ávila-da-Silva, A.O. & L.H. Arantes. 2007. Análise da pesca de peixes demersais com linha-de-fundopelas frotas doRio de Janeiro e São Paulo de 1996 a 1999. In: C.L.D.B.Rossi-Wongtshchowski, A.O.Ávila-da-Silva, M.C. Cergole. (eds.). Análise das principais pescarias comerciais da regiãosudeste-sul do Brasil: dinâmica populacional das espécies em explotação. II. Série DocumentosREVIZEE, Score Sul. Instituto Oceanográfico, USP, São Paulo, pp. 277-294.Bastos, M.S. 2004. Invertebrados bentônicos capturados pela frota pesqueira arrendada no sudeste esul do Brasil. Bachelor Thesis, Curso de Oceanografia, Uni-versidade do Vale do Itajaí, SantaCatarina, Brasil, 93 pp.Carvalho, T.B., R.R. Oliveira Filho & T.M.C. Lotufo. 2009. Note on the fisheries and biology of thegolden crab (Chaceon fenneri) off the northern coast of Bra-zil. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 37(3): 571-576.Cergole, M.C., A.O. Ávila-da-Silva & C.L.D.B. Rossi-Wongtshchowski (eds.). 2005. Análise dasprincipais pescarias comerciais da região sudeste-sul do Brasil: dinâmica populacional dasespécies em explotação. Série Documentos REVIZEE, Score Sul. Instituto Oceanográfio, USP, SãoPaulo, 176 pp.Clark, M.R., V.I. Vinnichenko, J.D.M. Gordon, G.Z. Beck-Bulat, N.N. Kukharev & A.F. Nakora. 2007.Large scale distant water trawl fisheries on sea-mounts. In: T.J. Pitcher, T.J. Morato, P.J.B. Hart,M.R. Clark, N. Haggan & R.S. Santos (eds.). Sea-mounts: ecology, fisheries and conservation.Black-well Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Series 12. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, pp. 361-369.Costa, P.A.S., A.S. Martins & G. Olavo. 2005. Pesca e potenciais de exploração de recursos vivos naregião central da Zona Econômica Exclusiva Brasileira. Sé-rie Livros 13, DocumentosREVIZEE/SCORE Cen-tral. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 247 pp.Dallagnolo, R. 2008. A pesca de camarões-de-profundidade (Aristeidae) na região sudeste-sul doBrasil: avaliação da dinâmica de biomassa como fer-ramenta para gestão. MSc. Dissertation.Mestrado em Ciência e Tecnologia Ambiental, Centro de Ciências Tecnológicas da Terra e doMar, Universidade do Va-le do Itajaí, Itajaí, 215 pp.Dallagnolo, R., J.A.A. Perez, P.R. Pezzuto & R. Wahrli-ch. 2009. The deep-sea shrimp fishery off Brazil(De-capoda: Aristeidae): development and present status. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 37(3): 327-345.Defeo, O. & A. Masello. 2000. La pesquería de cangrejo rojo Chaceon notialis en el Uruguay: unenfoque de manejo precautorio (1995 y 1996). In: M. Rey (ed.). Recursos pesqueros notradicionales: moluscos, crus-táceos y peces bentónicos marinos. Proyecto URU/92/003. INAPE,Montevideo, pp. 7-22.Figueiredo Jr., A.G. & L.S.P. Madureira. 2004. Topogra-fia, composição e refletividade do substratomarinho e identificação de províncias sedimentares na região sudeste-sul do Brasil. SérieDocumentos REVIZEE, Score Sul. Instituto Oceanográfio, USP, São Paulo, 64 pp.Fontelles-Filho, A.A. & F.T.P. Ferreira. 1987. Distribui-ção geográfica da captura do pargo, Lutjanuspurpu-reus Poey, e sua relação com os fatores oceanográfi-cos nas regiões norte e nordeste doBrasil. Bolm. Ciên. Mar., Fortaleza, 45: 1-23.Haimovici, M.. 2007. A prospecção pesqueira e abun-dância de estoques marinhos no Brasil nasdécadas de 1960 a 1990: levantamento de dados e avaliação críti-ca. Programa REVIZEE.Avaliação do Potencial Sus-tentável de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica Ex-clusiva. MMA/SMCQ, Brasília, 325 pp.225

Haimovici, M. & M.B. Peres. 2005. Polyprion america-nus Bloch & Schneider, 1801. In: M.C. Cergole,A.O. Ávila-da-Silva & C.L.D.B. Rossi-Wongtshchowski (eds.). Análise das principais pescariascomerciais da região sudeste-sul do Brasil: dinâmica populacional das espécies em explotação.Série Documentos REVIZEE – Score Sul. Instituto Oceanográfico, USP, São Paulo, pp. 124-131.Haimovici, M., A.S. Martins, J.L. Figueiredo, & P.C. Vieira. 1994. Demersal bony fish of outer shelfandslope off southern Brazil subtropical convergence ecosystem. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 108: 59-77.Haimovici, M., A.O.Á vila-da-Silva, S.H.B. Lucato, G. Velasco &L.H. Arantes. 2007. A pesca de linhade-fundona plataforma externa e talude superior da re-gião sudeste-sul do Brasil em 1997 e 1998.In: C.L.D.B. Rossi-Wongtshchowski, A.O. Ávila-da-Silva & M.C. Cergole. (eds.). Análise dasprincipais pescarias comerciais da região sudeste-sul do Brasil: dinâmica populacional dasespécies em explotação. II. Série Documentos REVIZEE, Score Sul. Instituto Oceanográfico, USP,São Paulo, pp. 309-325.Haimovici. M., M.C. Cergole, R.P. Lessa, L.S. Madureira, S. Jablonski & C.L.D.B. Rossi-Wongstchowski. 2006. Capítulo 2. Panorama Na-cional. In. MMA/ SQA. Programa REVIZEE:Avali-ação do Potencial Sustentável de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica Exclusiva. RelatórioExecutivo, pp. 79-126.Kirkwood, G.P., J.R. Beddington & J.R. Russouw. 1994. Harvesting species of different lifespans. In:P.J. Ed-wards, R. May & N.R. Webb (eds.). Large-scale ecology and conservation biology. OxfordBlackwell Scientific, pp. 199-227.Lima, J.H.M. & R.L. Branco. 1991. Análise das opera-ções de pesca do caranguejo de profundidade(Ger-yon quinquedens Smith 1879) por barcos japoneses arrendados na região sul do Brasil –1984/85. Atlân-tica, Rio Grande, 1(13): 179-187.Martins, A.S., G. Olavo & P.A.S. Costa. 2005. A pesca de linha de alto mar realizada pelas frotassediadas no Espírito Santo, Brasil. In: P.A.S. Costa, A.S. Martins & G. Olavo (eds.). Pesca epotenciais de exploração de recursos vivos na região central da Zona Econômi-ca ExclusivaBrasileira. Série Livros, no. 13. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, pp. 35–55.Paiva, M.P., C.A.S. Rocha, A.M.G. Gomes & M.F. An-drade. 1996. Fishing grounds of bottom linerson the continental shelf of south-east Brazil. Fish. Man. E-col., 3: 25-33.Peres, M.B. & M. Haimovici. 1998. A pesca dirigida ao cherne-poveiro, Polyprion americanus(Polyprionida-e, Teleostei) no sul do Brasil. Atlântica, Rio Grande, 20: 141-161.Peres, M.B. & M. Haimovici. 2003. Alimentação do cherne-poveiro Polyprion americanus(Polyprionidae, Teleostei) no sul do Brasil. Atlântica, Rio Grande, 25(2): 201-208.Peres, M.B. & S. Klippel. 2003. Reproductive biology of southwestern Atlantic wreckfish, Polyprionamerica-nus (Teleostei: Polyprionidae). Environ. Biol. Fishes, 68(2): 163-173.Perez, J.A.A. & R. Wahrlich. 2005. A bycatch assess-ment of the gillnet monkfish Lophius gastrophysusfishery off southern Brazil. Fish. Res., 72: 81-95.Perez, J.A.A. & P.R. Pezzuto. 2006. A pesca de arrasto de talude do Sudeste e Sul do Brasil: tendênciasda frota nacional entre 2001 e 2003. Bolm. Inst. Pesca, São Paulo, 32: 127-150.Perez, J.A.A., R. Wahrlich & P.R. Pezzuto. 2009a. Chartered trawling on the slope off Brazilian coast.Mar. Fish. Rev., 71(2): 24-36.Perez, J.A.A., P.R. Pezzuto, R. Wahrlich & A.L. Souza Soares. 2009b. Deep-awter fisheries in Brazil:history, status and perspectives. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res., 37(3):513:541,Perez, J.A.A., R. Wahrlich, R., P.R. Pezzuto, & F.R.A. Lopes. 2002a. Estrutura e dinâmica da pescariado peixe-sapo Lophius gastrophysus no Sudeste s Sul do Brasil. Bolm. Inst. Pesca, 28(2): 205-231.Perez, J.A.A., P.R. Pezzuto, L.F. Rodríguez, H. Valentini & C.M. Vooren. 2001. Relatório da reuniãotécnica de ordenamento da pesca demersal nas regiões Sudes-te e Sul do Brasil. In: P.R. Pezzuto,J.A.A. Perez, L.F. Rodriguez & H. Valentíni (eds.). Reuniões de Orde-nanento da Pesca Demersalno Sudeste e Sul do Bra-sil: 2000-2001. Notas Téc. FACIMAR, 5: 1-34.Perez, J.A.A., P.R. Pezzuto, H.A. Andrade, P.R. Schwin-gel, M. Rodrigues-Ribeiro & R. Wahrlich.2002b. O ordenamento de uma nova pescaria direcionada ao peixe-sapo (Lophius gastrophysus) nosudeste e sul do Brasil. Notas Téc. FACIMAR, 6: 65-83.226

Perez, J.A.A., R. Wahrlich, P.R. Pezzuto, P.R. Schwin-gel, F.R.A. Lopes & M. Rodrigues-Ribeiro. 2003.Deep-sea fishery off southern Brazil: recent trends of the Brazilian fishing industry. J. Northw.Atl. Fish. Sci., 31: 1-18.Pezzuto, P.R. & R. Sant’Ana. 2009. Sexual maturity of the deep-sea royal crab Chaceon ramosaeManning, Tavares & Albuquerque, 1989 (Brachyura: Geryoni-dae) in southern Brazil. Lat. Am. J.Aquat. Res., 37(3): 297-311.Pezzuto, P.R., J.A.A. Perez & R. Wahrlich. 2006a. O ordenamento das pescarias de caranguejos-deprofundidade(Chaceon spp.) (Decapoda: Geryonida-e) no sul do Brasil. Bolm. Inst. Pesca, 32(2):229-247.Pezzuto, P.R., J.A.A. Perez & R. Wahrlich. 2006c. Deep-sea shrimps (Decapoda: Aristeidae): newtargets of the deep water trawling fishery in Brazil. Braz. J. Oceanogr., 54(2-3): 123-134.Pezzuto, P.R., J.A.A. Perez, R. Wahrlich, W.G. Vale & F.R.A. Lopes. 2002. Avaliação da pescaria docaran-guejo-de-profundidade no sul do Brasil. Convênio Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária eAbastecimento, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (MAPA/SARC/DPA 03-2001;MAPA/SARC/DENA COOP/176/2002). Relatório Final, Itajaí-SC, 121 pp.Pezzuto, P.R., J.A.A. Perez, R. Wahrlich, R. Sant’Ana, W.G. Vale & R.C. Santos. 2006b. Avaliação deesto-que e biologia populacional dos caranguejos-de-profundidade (Chaceon notialis e Chaceonramosae) nas regiões sudeste e sul do Brasil. Relatório Técnico apresentado à 4a Sessão Ordináriado Subcomitê Ci-entífico do Comitê Consultivo Permanente de Gestão dos Recursos Demersaisde Profundidade (CPG/Demersais)/ SEAP/PR, Itajaí, SC, 03-05/05/2006. DOC 11 SCC CPG 042006.SEAP/PR, Brasília, 42 pp.Pires, D.O. 2007. The azoxanthellate coral fauna of Bra-zil. In: R.Y. George, & S.D. Cairns (eds.).Conserva-tion and adaptive management of seamount and deep-sea coral ecosystems. RosenstielSchool of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami, Mi-ami, pp. 265-272.Rossi-Wongtshchowski, C.L.D.B., J.L. Valentin, S. Jablonski, A.C. Amaral, F.H. Hazin & M. El-Robrini. 2006. Capítulo 1. Ambiente marinho. In: Programa REVIZEE. Avaliação do PotencialSustentável de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica Exclusiva. Rela-tório Executivo. Ministério doMeio Ambiente, Brasí-lia, pp. 21-78.Soares, A.L.S. & G.S.S. Scheidt. 2005. Exportações brasileiras de caranguejos de profundidade(Chaceonramosae e Chaceon notialis) 1999- março 2004. Braz. J. Aquat. Sci. Technol., 9(1): 13-17.Valentini, H. & P.R. Pezzuto. 2006. Análise das princi-pais pescarias comerciais da Região Sudeste-Suldo Brasil com base na produção controlada do período 1986-2004. In: C.L.D.B. Rossi-Wongstchowski (ed.) Série Documentos REVIZEE, Score-Sul. Instituto Oceanográfico da USP,São Paulo, 56 pp.Wahrlich, R., J.A.A. Perez & F.R.A. Lopes. 2004. As-pectos tecnológicos da pesca do peixe-sapo(Lophius gastrophysus) com rede de emalhar no sudeste e sul do Brasil. Bolm. Inst. Pesca, 30(1): 87-98.Agnew, D. J. 1999. Depth distribution and spawning pattern of Dissostichus eleginoides at SouthGeorgia. CCAMLR Science 6:19-36.———. 2004. Fishing South: the history and management of South Georgia fisheries. St. Albans, UK: PennaPress.Agnew, D. J., and Mark Belchier. 2009. Adding catch at age and survey data to the 48.3 toothfishCASAL assessment. CCAMLR.Agnew, D. J., C. T. T. Edwards, R. M. Hillary, R. Mitchell, and L. J. Lopez Abellan. 2009. Status of thecoastal stocks of Dissostichus spp. in East Antarctica (Divisions 58.4.1 and 58.4.2). CCAMLRScience 16:71-100.Agnew, D. J., and G. P. Kirkwood. 2005. A statistical method for estimating the level of IUU fishing:application to CCAMLR subarea 48.3. CCAMLR Science 12:119-141.Agnew, D. J., J. Moir Clark, P. A. McCarthy, M. Unwin, M. Ward, L. Jones, G. Breedt, S. Du Plessis,J. Van Heerdon, and G. Moreno. 2006. A study of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichuseleginoides) post-tagging survivorship in Subarea 48.3. CCAMLR Science 13:279-289.Agnew, D. J., and T. Peatman. 2009. Preliminary assessment of toothfish in subarea 48.3. CCAMLR.227

Appleyard, S. A., R. D. Ward, and R. Williams. 2002. Population structure of the Patagonian toothfisharound Heard, McDonald and Macquarie Islands. Antarctic Science 14:364-373.Brandao, A., and D. S. Butterworth. 2009. A proposed management procedure for the toothfish(Dissostichus eleginoides) resource in the Prince Edwards Islands vicinity. CCAMLR Science16:33-69.Bull, B., R.I.C.C. Francis, A. Dunn, A. McKenzie, D.J. Gilbert, and M.H. Smith. 2005. CASAL UserManual v2.07-2005/07/06. In NIWA Technical Report.Candy, S. G., and A. J. Constable. 2008. An integrated stock assessment for the Patagonian toothfish(Dissostichus eleginoides) for the Heard and McDonald Islands using CASAL. CCAMLRScience 15:1-34.CCAMLR. Convention Area Map. Available from http://www.ccamlr.org/Pu/e/conv/maplge.htm.———. 2009. Conserving Antarctica from the bottom up: Implementation of UN General Assemblyresolution 61/105 by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine LivingResources (CCAMLR) Hobart, Australia: Commission for the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources.Constable, Andrew J., William K. de la Mare, David J. Agnew, Inigo Everson, and Denzil Miller. 2000.Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation ofthe Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES J.Mar. Sci. 57 (3):778-791.De la Mare, W. K. 1994. Estimating krill recruitment and its variability. CCAMLR Science 1:55-69.Evseenko, S. A., K. H. Kock, and M. M. Nevinsky. 1995. Early life history of the Patagonian toothfish,Dissostichus eleginoides, 1898 in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science 7(3):221-226.Green, J., and D. J. Agnew. 2002. Catch document schemes to combat Illegal Unregulated andUnreported fishing: CCAMLR’s experience with southern ocean toothfish. Ocean Yearbook16:171-194.Hillary, R. M., G. P. Kirkwood, and D. J. Agnew. 2006. An assessment of toothfish in subarea 48.3using CASAL. CCAMLR Science 13:65-95.Kock, Karl-Hermann. 2001. The direct influence of fishing and fishery-related activities on non-targetspecies in the Southern Ocean with particular emphasis on longline fishing and its impact onalbatrosses and petrels – a review. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11 (1):31-56.Marlow, T. R., D. J. Agnew, M. G. Purves, and I. Everson. 2003. Movement and growth of taggedDissostichus eleginoides around South Georgia and Shag Rocks (Subarea 48.3). CCAMLRScience 10:101-111.McKinlay, J.P., D.C. Welsford, A.J. Constable, and G.B. Nowara. 2008. An assessment of theexploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. on BANZARE Bank (CCAMLR Division 58.4.3b)based on fine-scale catch and effort data. CCAMLR Science 15:55-78.Nicol, S, and Y Endo. 1997. Krill fisheries of the world. In Fisheries Technical Paper: FAO.North, AW. 2002. Larval and juvenile distribution and growth of patagonian toothfish around SouthGeorgia.Parkes, G., C. A. Moreno, G. Pilling, and Z. Young. 1996. Use of the Leslie stock depletion model forthe assessment of local abundance of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides).CCAMLR Science 3:55-77.Permitin, Y. Y., and M. I. Tarverdiyeva. 1972. The food of some Antarctic fish in the South Georgiaarea. Voprosy Ikhtiologii 12 (1):120-132.Roberts, J., and D. J. Agnew. 2009. Proposal for an extension to the mark-recapture experiment toestimate toothfish population size in the South of Subarea 48.4. CCAMLR.SC-CAMLR. 1992. Report of the working group on fish stock assessment. Hobart, Australia:Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.———. 1995. Report of the fourteenth meeting of the Scientific Committee. Hobart, Australia:Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.———. 2007. Report of the working group on fish stock assessment. Hobart, Australia: Commissionfor the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.228

———. 2009. Report of the working group on fish stock assessment. Hobart, Australia: Commissionfor the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.Shaw, P. W., A. I. Arkhipkin, and H. Al-Khairulla. 2004. Genetic structuring of Patagonian toothfishpopulations in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean: the effect of the Antarctic Polar Front and deepwater troughs as barriers to genetic exchange. Molecular Ecology 13:3293-3303.Smith, P., and P. Gaffney. 2000. Toothfish stock structure revealed with DNA methods. Water andAtmosphere 8 (4):17-18.Smith, P., and M. McVeagh. 2000. Allozyme and microsatellite DNA markers of toothfish populationstructure in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Fish Biology 57 (Supplement A):72-83.Williams, R., G. N. Tuck, A. J. Constable, and T. Lamb. 2002. Movement, growth and availableabundance to the fishery of Dissostichus eleginoides (Smit, 1898) at Heard Island, derivedfrom tagging experiments. CCAMLR Science 9:33-48.Yukhov, V. L. . 1982. Antarkticheskij Klyklach. Moscow: Nauka.Auster, P.J., and R.W. Langton. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. p. 150-187. In: L. Benaka(ed.). Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society,Bethesda, Maryland.Bergstad, O. A. and Godø, O. R. 2003. The pilot project Patterns and processes of the ecosystems of thenorthern Mid-Atlantic : aims, strategy and status. Oceanologica Acta, 25: 219 225.Durán Muñoz, P., M. Sacau, M. Sayago,Gil, T. Patrocinio, L. M. Fernández,Salas, F. J. Murillo, V. Díazdel Río, A. Serrano and S, Parra. 2007. ECOVUL/ARPA (Estudio de los eCOsistemas VULnerables ylos ARtes de PescA): A Spanish InterdisciplinaryResearch Project Focused on the Studyof the Hatton Bank. ICES CM 2007/A:01.FAO, 1999. International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks(IPOA SHARKS). FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-sharks/legal-text/en.FAO, 2009. International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas.http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0816t/i0816t00.htmGammelsrod, T., Alvheim, O.,Kemp, A. and Risser, A. 1997. Nansen Surveys of Fish Resources ofNamibia. Ministry of Fishery and Marine Resources, Cruise Report no. 3/97 unpublished.ICES, 2007. Report of the Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-seaFisheries Resources (WGDEEP). ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. ICESCM 2007/ACFM:20.Japp (1999). Review of catch statistics in SEAFO Area. Unpublished Report by a consultant. SEAFOSecretariat, Walvis Bay.Jennings, S. and Kaiser, MJ 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in MarineBiology 34:201-352.Kitchingman, A.; S. Lai; T. Morato and D. Pauly. 2007. Seamount abundance and locations (Chapter#2). Pp: 26-40 in Pitcher, T.J., Morato, T., Hart, P.J.B., Clark, M., Haggan, N. and Santos , R.(eds) Seamounts: Ecology, Fisheries and Conservation. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series,Blackwell, Oxford , UKKoslow, J. A., Boehlert, G., Gordon, J. D. M., Haedrich, R. L., Lorance, P., and Parin, N. 2000.Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries: implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal ofMarine Science, 57: 548-557.Koslow, J.A; Gowlett- Holmes, K; Lowry, J.K; O’Hara, T; Poore, G.C.B. and A, Williams. 2001.Seamount benthic macrofauna off Southern Tasmania: Community structure and impacts oftrawling. Marine Ecology Progressive Series 213: 111–125.Large, P.A., 2002. The use of stock reduction analysis to assess deep-water species in the ICES area- aninitial investigation. Working Document submitted to the ICES Working Group on theBiology and Assessment of Deep-sea Fisheries, 2002.López Abellán, L.J. and J.F. González Jiménez, J.F. 1999. Results of a longline survey o seamounts inthe southeast Atlantic and in Subarea 48.6 and Division 58.4.4. CCAMLR Science, 6: 99–116.Merrett, N. R., and Haedrich, R. L. 1997. Deep-Sea Demersal Fish and Fisheries. Chapman and Hall,London. 282 pp.229

Morgan, L., and Chuenpagdee, R. 2003. Shifting Gears: Addressing the Collateral Impacts of FishingMethods in US Waters. Pew Science Series. Island Press, Washington DC. 42 p.NAFO, 2008. Report of the NAFO Scientific Council (Part A), 5-19 th June 2008. NAFO, Dartmouth,Nova Scotia, Canada. 222 pphttp://www.nafo.int/publications/meetproc/2008/sc/pdf/parta.pdfNAS, 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat. National Academy of Sciences, 500 thStreet N.W. Washington. DC. 20001.NEAFC, 2007. Recommendation IX– 2007 Recommendation by the North East Atlantic FisheriesCommission at its annual meeting in November 2006 to adopt conservation and managementmeasures by closing certain areas in the regulatory area in order to protect deep-water corals.London: NEAFC. Available from: http://www.neafc.org/measures/measures-2007/docs/rec-9-2007_hatton-rockall-closures.pdf.OSPAR. 2000. Quality Status Report 2000, Region V – Wider Atlantic. OSPAR Commission, London.110 pp.SAUP, 2006. Seas Around Us Project (SAUP) http://www.seaaroundus.org/.SEAFO, 2006. Report of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. SEAFO, Walvis Bay, Namibia. 69 pp.http://www.seafo.org/Scientific Committee/reports/SC Report 2006 Eng.pdfSEAFO, 2008a. Report of the SEAFO Scientific Committee. SEAFO, Walvis Bay, Namibia. 69 pp.http://www.seafo.org/Scientific Committee/reports/Annual Report of SEAFO SC_2008.pdfSEAFO, 2008b. Report of the 5 th Annual Meeting of the Commission. SEAFO, Walvis Bay, Namibia. 59pp.http://www.seafo.org/The Commission/reports/Commission Report Eng 2008.pdfPaxton, J.R. 1999 Berycidae. Alfonsinos p. 2218-2220. In K.E. Carpenter and V.H. Niem (eds.) FAOspecies identification guide for fishery purposes. The living marine resources of the WCP. Vol.4. Bony fishes part 2 (Mugilidae to Carangidae). FAO, Rome.Anonymous, 1999. Developing deep water fisheries: data for their assessment and for understandingtheir interaction with and impact on a fragile environment. EC FAIR project CT 95-0655. Finalreport of partener No 6 (NCMR).Anonymous, 2001a. Patterns and propensities in Greek fishing effort and catches. EU Project 00/018Commission of the European Communities, DG for Fisheries XIV.Anonymous, 2001b. State of the stocks of European wreckfish (Polyprion americanus) EU Project 98/041,Commission of the European Communities, DG for Fisheries XIV, pp 79.Arté, P., 1952. Datos biológicos sobre Aristeus antennatus Risso del “Sot de la Gamba” de blanes(Crustácea, Macrura, Natantia). Publ. Inst. Biol. Apl, X:145-149.Bas, C., 1966. , La gamba rosada (Aristeus antennatus). Publ, Téc. de la J. Est. Pesca 5, pp. 143–155.Bertrand, J., L. G. De Sola, C. Papaconstantinou, G. Relini and A. Souplet, 2002. The generalspecifications of the MEDITS surveys. Sci. Mar., 66 (Suppl. 2): 9-17.Bianchini, M.L., Ragonese, S. (Eds.), 1994. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Life Cyclesand Fisheries of the Deepwater Red Shrimps Aristaeomorpha foliacea and Aristeusantennatus. NTR–ITPP Special Publication No. 3, 87 pp.Carbonell, A., M., Demestre, M., Grau, A., Monserrat, S., 1999. The red shrimp Aristeus antennatus(Risso, 1816) fishery and biology in the Balearic Islands, Western Mediterranean, FisheriesResearch 44(1): 1-13.Carbonell, A., Acevedo, M., 2003. Application of non-equilibrium production models to the redshrimp (Aristeus antennatus Risso, 1816) fishery in the western Mediterranean. Fish. Research65: 323-334.Carbonell, A., G. Pomar, M. Gaza, A. Torres, M. García, P. Pereda, A. Esteban, and J. L., Pérez Gil,2003. The Deep-water Red Shrimp Fishery in the Spanish Mediterranean Sea. Journal ofNorthwest Atlantic Fishery Science, Volume 31: 353.Carlucci, R., D’Onghia, G., Sion, L., Maiorano, P., Tursi, A., 2006. Selectivity parameters and size atfirst maturity in deep-water shrimps, Aristaeomorpha foliacea (Risso, 1827) and Aristeusantennatus (Risso, 1816), from the North-Western Ionian Sea (Mediterranean Sea).Hydrobiologia 557(1): 145-154230

Cartes, J.E. and Sardà, F., 1993. Zonation of deep-sea Decapod fauna in the Catalan Sea (WesternMediterranean). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 94, pp. 27–34.Cartes, J. E., F. Maynou, F. Sardà, J.B. Company, D. Lloris and S. Tudela, 2004a. The Mediterraneandeep-sea ecosystems: an overview of their diversity, structure, functioning and anthropogenicimpacts. In: The Mediterranean deep-sea ecosystems: an overview of their diversity, structure,functioning and anthropogenic impacts, with a proposal for conservation. IUCN, Málaga andWWF, Rome. pp.9-38.Cartes, J. E., F. Maynou, J. Moranta, E. Massutí, D. Lloris, B. Morales-Nin, 2004b. Changes in thepatterns of bathymetric distribution among deep-sea fauna at local spatial scale: comparisonof mainland vs. insular areas. Prog. Oceanogr., 60: 29-45.Cau A., A. Carbonell, M.C. Follesa, A. Mannini, G. Norrito, L. Orsi-Relini, C.-Y. Politou, S. Ragonese &P. Rinelli (2002). MEDITS-based information on the deepwater red shrimps Aristaeomorphafoliacea and Aristeus antennatus (Crustacea : Decapoda : Aristeidae). Sci. Mar., 66 (Suppl.2): 103-124.COM, 2002. Community action plan for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheriesresources in the Mediterranean under the Common Fisheries Policy, 535: 1-37.Corliss, J. B., J. Dymond, L. I. Gordon, J. M. Edmond, R. P. Von Herzen, R. D. Ballard, K. Geen, D.Williams, A. Bainbridge, K. Crane And T. H. Van Andel, 1979. Submarine thermal springs onthe Galápagos Rift. Science, 203: 1073-1083.Damalas, D., Mytilineou, C., Politou, C.-Y., Kapantagakis, A., 2010. Preliminary information on the redblackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo Brünnich, 1768) fishery and population status in theeastern Ionian Sea. 14th Panhellenic Congress of Ichthyologists, Peiraeus 2010.Danovaro R, Dinet A, Duineveld G, Tselepides A., 1999. Benthic response to particulate fluxes indifferent trophic environments: A comparison between the Gulf of Lions-Catalan Sea(Western Mediterranean) and the Cretan Sea (Eastern Mediterranean). Progr Oceanogr 44(1–3): 287–312.Danovaro R, Company JB, Corinaldesi C, D’Onghia G, Galil B., 2010. Deep-Sea Biodiversity in theMediterranean Sea: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable. PLoS ONE 5(8): e11832.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011832Demestre, M., Lleonart, J., 1993. Population dynamics of Aristeus antennatus (Decapoda:Dendrobranchiata) in the northwestern Mediterranean. Scientia Marina 57(2-3): 183-189.Demestre, M., Martıń, P., 1993. Optimum exploitation of a demersal resource in the westernMediterranean: the fishery of the deep-water shrimp Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816), Sci.Mar. 57: 175–182.De Zio V., Ungaro N., vLora A., Strippoli G.-1998- lo stock di nasello del basso adriatico: strutturademografica e rendimenti di pesca della frazione catturata con palangaro di fondo. Biol. Mar.Medit., 5 (2): 128-135.Dimech, M., Kaiser,M.,J., Ragonese, S., Schembri, P.J., 2009. The effect of Fisheries Restricted Areas onthe deep water red shrimp resources of the Mediterranean. In: General Fisheries CommissionFor The Mediterranean, Meeting of the Sub-Committees (SCSA, SCESS, SCMEE, SCSI)Malaga, Spain, 30 November – 3 December 2009.D’ Onghia, G., Tursi, A., Maiorano, P., Matarrese, A. & Panza, M., 1998. Demersal fish assemblagesfrom the bathyal grounds of the north-western Ionian Sea. Ital. J. Zool., 65, Suppl.: 287-292.D’ Onghia, G., Politou, C.-Y., F., Mastrototaro, Ch., Mytilineou And A. Matarrese, 2003. Biodiversityfrom the upper slope demersal community of the central Mediterranean: preliminarycomparison between two areas with and without fishing impact. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., vol.31: 263-273.D’Onghia G, Capezzuto F, Mytilineou Ch, Maiorano P, Kapiris K., 2005. Comparison of thepopulation structure and dynamics of Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816) between exploited andunexploited areas in the Mediterranean Sea. Fisheries Research 76: 22–38.EC 1543/2000. Council Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 of 29 June 2000 establishing a Communityframework for the collection and management of the data needed to conduct the commonfisheries policy OJ L 176, 15.7.2000, p. 1–16231

EC 199/2008. Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishmentof a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheriessector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, OJ L 60,5.3.2008, p. 1–12EC 1967/2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning managementmeasures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea,amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94. OfficialJournal of the European Union, L 409 (30/12/2006), pp. 11–85.Emig CC, Geistdoerfer P., 2004. The Mediterranean deep-sea fauna: Historical evolution, bathymetricvariations and geographical changes, Carnets de Ge´ologie/Notebooks on Geology,Maintenon, Article 2004/01 (CG2004_A01_CCE-PG).FAO/COPEMED, 2010. SRWG on shared demersal resources. Ad hoc scientific working groupbetween Morocco and Spain on Pagellus bogaraveo in the Gibraltar strait area. Malaga, Spain 22July 2010.Fiorentino F., L. Orsi Relini, A. Zamboni, G. Relini, 1998. Remarks about the optimal harvest strategyfor red shrimps (Aristeus antennatus, Risso 1816) on the basis of the Ligurian experience.Cahiers Options méditerranéennes, 35: 323-333.Fiorentino, F., Knittweis, L., Gancitano, V., Dimech, M., 2009. Stock assessment of Giant Red Shrimp(Aristaeomorpha foliacea) in GSA 15 and 16 (Strait of Sicily). GFCM meeting, Malaga, 2009.Forbes, E., 1844. "Report on the Mollusca and Radiata of the Aegean Sea, and on their distribution,considered as bearing on geology". Report of the British Association for the Advancement ofScience for 1843. pp. 129–193.García-Rodríguez, M. and A. Esteban, 1999. On the biology and fishery of Aristeus antennatus (Risso,1816), (Decapoda, Dendrobranchiata) in the Ibiza Channel (Balearic Islands, Spain). Sci. Mar.63(1): 27-37.García-Rodriguez, M., 2003. Characterisation and standardisation of a red shrimp, Aristeus antennatus(Risso, 1816), fishery off the Alicante gulf (SE Spain). Scientia Marina 67, 63-74GFCM, 2009. General Fisheries Commission For The Mediterranean, Meeting of the Sub-Committees(SCSA, SCESS, SCMEE, SCSI) Malaga, Spain, 30 November – 3 December 2009.GFCM, 2010. General Fisheries Commission For The Mediterranean, Report Of The 12th Session OfThe Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), Budva, Montenegro, 25-29 January 2010. GFCM:XXXIV/2010/Inf.9, 212 pp.GFCM/SAC, 2010. General Fisheries Commission For The Mediterranean, Scientific AdvisoryCommittee (Sac), Working Group on stock assessment of demersal species. (Istanbul, Turkey18th – 23rd October 2010).Gili J.M., Bouillon J., Pages F, Palanques A, Puig P., 1999. Submarine canyons as habitats of prolificplankton populations: Three new deep-sea Hydrodomedusae in the Western Mediterranean.Zool J Linn Soc 125: 313–329.Machias, A., Somarakis, S., Papadroulakis, N., Spedicato, M.T., Suquet, M., Lembo, G., Divanach, P.,2003. Settlement of the wreckfish (Polyprion americanus). Marine Biology 142: 45–52Martínez-Baños, P., 1997. Dinámica de poblaciones de la gamba Aristeus antennatus (Crustacea,Decapoda) en las zonas de Múrcia, Almería e Ibiza. Análisis global en el MediterráneoEspañol. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Múrcia. 245 pp.Massutí, M., Daroca, E., 1978. Introducción al estudio de la biología de la gamba Aristeus antennatusde las pesquerías del sur de Mallorca. Trab. Comp. Dep. Pesca. (IEO)., Madrid, pp. 264–277.Merrett, N. R., Haedrich,R.L., 1997. Deep-Sea demersal fish and fisheries. Chapman and Hall, London.282 pp.Morales-Nin, B., F. Maynou, F. Sardà, J. E. Cartes, J. Moranta, E. Massutí, J. Company, G. Rotllant, A.Bozzano, C. Stefanescu, 2003. Size influence in zonation patterns in fishes and crustaceansfrom deep-water communities of the Western Mediterranean. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 31:413-430.Moranta, J., Massutí, E. & Morales-Nin, B., 2000. Fish catch composition of the deep-sea decapodcrustacean fisheries in the Balearic Islands (western Mediterranean). Fish. Res.: 253-264.232

Moranta J., Palmer M., Massuti E., Stefanescu C., Morales-Nin B., 2004. Body fish size tendencieswithin and among species in the deep-sea of the western Mediterranean. Scientia Marina68:141-152.Morello, E.B., 2009. Assessment of Norway lobster, Nephrops norvegicus, in the central Adriatic Sea.GFCM meeting, Malaga, 2009.Mytilineou, Ch. and A. Machias, 2007. Deep-water fisheries resources in the Hellenic seas. In: State ofHellenic Fisheries. C. Papaconstantinou, A. Zenetos, V. Vassilopoulou &G. Tserpes (eds)HCMR Publ., pp. 213-222.Mytilineou, Ch., Maiorano, P., Kavadas, S., D’onghia, G., Kapiris, K. & Capezzuto, F., 2001. Sizestructure comparison in some demersal species between two areas of different fishing impactin the deep waters of eastern-central Mediterranean (Ionian Sea). NAFO SCR, Deep-seaFisheries Symposium. Doc. 01/125: 17.Mytilineou, Ch., Tursi, A., Kavadas, S., D’onghia, G., Kapiris, K., Politou, C.-Y., Maiorano, P.,Lefkaditou, E., Sion, L., Dogrammatzi, K., Dokos, J., Fourtouni, A., Papaconstantinou,C., Bekas,P., Christidis, G., Karkani, A., Chilari, A., Carlucci, R., Capezzuto, F. & Panza, M., 2003.Exploration of pristine red shrimp resources and comparison with exploited ones in the IonianSea (RESHIO). Final report, 209 p.Mytilineou, Ch., S. Kavadas, C.-Y. Politou, K. Kapiris, A. Tursi And P. Maiorano, 2006. Catchcomposition in red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea and Aristeus antennatus) grounds in theeastern Ionian Sea. Hydrobiologia. 557: 255-160.Orsi Relini, L. and G. Relini, 1988. An uncommon recruitment of Aristeus antennatus (Risso) (CrustaceaDecapoda Aristeidae) in the Gulf of Genova. Rapp. Comm. int. Mer Médit., 31(2): 10.Papaconstantinou, C. and K.I. Stergiou, 1995. Biology and fisheries of eastern Mediterranean hake(Merluccius merluccius). p. 149-180. In J. Alheit and T. J. Pitcher (eds.) Hake: Biology, fisheriesand markets. Chapman & Hall, London, 478 p.Papaconstantinou C., K. Kapiris, 2003. The biology of the giant red shrimp (Aristaeomorpha foliacea(Risso, 1827) at an unexploited fishing ground in the Greek Ionian Sea. Fisheries Research, 62:37-51.Petrakis, G. & Papaconstantinou, C., 1997. Preliminary results of the trawl sampling in deep waters ofthe Ionian Sea. Book of Abstracts 8 th Panhel. Congr. Ichth., Thessaloniki, September 1997.Petrakis, G., Holst, R., Kavadas, S., Chilari, A. and Tsamis, E., 2001. Pagellus bogaraveo gill net metier inIonian Sea: Gill net selectivity, assessment and biology. Final Report, EU Contract Number:00/046. National Centre for Marine Research-Institute of Marine Biological Resources & ConStat.October 2001. 55 pp.Politou, Ch.-Y., S. Kavadas, Ch. Mytilineou, A. Tursi, R. Carlucci And G. Lembo, 2003. FisheriesResources in the Deep Waters of the Eastern Mediterranean (Greek Ionian Sea). J. Northw. Atl.Fish. Sci., Vol. 31: 35-46.Pusceddu A, Gambi C, Zeppilli D, Bianchelli S, Danovaro R., 2009. Organic matter composition,meiofauna and nematode biodiversity in deep-sea sediments surrounding two seamounts. DeepSea Res II 56: 755–762.Ragonese, S., Zagra, M., Di Stefano, L. & Bianchini, M. L., 2001. Effect of codend mesh size on theperformance of the deep-water bottom trawl used in the red shrimp fishery in the Strait of Sicily(Mediterranean Sea). Hydrobiologia, 449: 279-291.Red’S, 2008. Status of deep-sea red shrimps in the central and eastern Mediterranean Sea. EU ProjectFISH/2004/03-32 Final Report, 392 pp.Relini, G., Relini Orsi, L., 1987. The decline of red shrimps stocks in the Gulf of Genova. Inv. Pesq.51(1): 254-260.Sardà, F, 2000. Analysis of the Mediterranean (including North Africa) deep-sea shrimps fishery :catches, effort and economics. Final report, EC, DG XIX, 97/0018.Sardà, F., Martin, P., 1986. Les pesqueries a Catalunya: evolució en els últims decennis. Dins: Lleonart,J. (Coord). L'oceanografia: recursos pesquers de la mar catalana. Quaderns d'Ecologia Aplicada.núm. 9: 91-112.233

Sardà, F, Cartes JE, Norbis W., 1994. Spatio-temporal structure of the deepwater shrimp Aristeusantennatus Risso, 1816 (Decapoda: Aristeidae) population in the Western Mediterranean. Fish BNOAA 92: 599–607.Sardà, F., Maynou, F., 1998. Assessing perceptions: do Catalan fishermen catch more shrimp onFridays?, Fish. Res. 36: 149–157.Sardà, F. & J. E. Cartes, 1993. Relationship between size and depth in decapod crustacean populationson the deep slope in the western Mediterranean. Deep-Sea Res., 40: 2389-2400.Sardà, F., J. B. Company And A. Castellón, 2003a. Intraspecific aggregation structure of a shoal of awestern Mediterranean (Catalan coast) deep-sea shrimp, Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816),during the reproductive period. J. Shellfish Res., 22: 569-579.Sardà, F., J. B. Company And F. Maynou, 2003b. Deep-sea shrimp (Aristeus antennatus Risso 1816) inthe Catalan sea, a review and perspectives. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 31: 127-136Sardà, F., D'Onghia, G., Politou, C.-Y., Tselepides, A., 2004a. Mediterranean deep-sea biology. ScientiaMarina 68(3), 195 pp.Sardà F, D’Onghia G, Politou CY, Company JB, Maiorano P., 2004b. Maximum deep-sea distributionand ecological aspects of Aristeus antennatus (Risso 1816) in the Balearic and IonianMediterranean Sea. Sci Mar 68 (3): 117–127.Sardà F, Calafat A, Flexas MM, Tselepides A, Canals M, et al., 2004. An introduction to Mediterraneandeep-sea biology. Sci Mar 68 (3): 7–38.Sartor, P., De Ranieri, S., Mori, M. & Sbrana, M., 2001. Impact on the demersal communities by thedeep-sea fishery of the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea (Western Mediterranean). NAFO SCR, DeepseaFisheries Symposium. Doc. 01/106: 42.SGMED/STECF 2004. Report of the Subgroup on the Mediterranean Sea (SGMED) of the Scientific,Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF). European Union MediterraneanFisheries and exploited resources. Brussels, 16-20 February 2004, 478 pp.SGFEN/STECF, 2001. Report of the Meeting on Deep-Sea Fisheries. Subgroup Fishery andEnvironment (SGFEN), Brussels, 22-26 Oct. 2001, 75 pp.Stanley DJ, Wezel FC, 1985. Geological evolution of the Mediterranean basin. New York: Springer. 589p.Stefanescu, C., Rucabado, J., Lloris,D., 1992. Depth-size trends in western Mediterranean demersaldeep-sea fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 81: 205-213.Stergiou K.I. & E.D. Christou. 1996. Modelling and forecasting annual fisheries catches: comparison ofregression, univariate and multivariate time series methods. Fisheries Research 25: 105-138.Stergiou, K.I., Christou, E.D., Georgopoulos, D., Zenetos, A., Souvermezoglou, C., 1997. The HellenicSeas: physics, chemistry, biology and fisheries. UCL Press, London. Volume 35, pp. 415-538.Thessalou-Legaki, M., 1994. Distribution of Aristeus antennatus and Aristeomorphea foliacea in theEastern Mediterranean Sea, pp 61. In: Life cycles and fisheries of the deep-water red shrimpsAristeomorphea foliacea and Aristeus antennatus. Proceedings of the International Workshop heldin the Istituto di Tecnologia della Pesca e del Pescato. NTR-ITPP, Special Publication, No 3, 1994.Tobar, R., Sardà, F., 1987. Analisis de las capturas de gamba rosada, Ansteus antennatus (Risso, 1816)en 10s ultimos decenios en Catalulia. Inf. Tec. Inst. Cien. Mar. Barcelona 142: 1-20.Tokaç, A. Özbilgin, H., Kaykaç, H., 2009. Alternative codend designs to improve size selectivity forNorway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) and rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) in the Aegeansea. Crustaceana 82 (6): 689-702.Tokac¸ A., Ozbilgin, H., Kaykac, H., 2010. Selectivity of conventional and alternative codend designfor five fish species in the Aegean Sea. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 26: 403–409.Tudela S., Sardà F., Maynou F., Demestre M., 2003 Influence of submarine canyons on the distributionof the deep-water shrimp, Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816) in the NW Mediterranean.Crustaceana 76, 217–225.Tursi, A., D' Onghia, G., Matarrese, A., Panetta, P. & Panza, M., 1992. Composizione delle catture dellapesa a strascico sui fondi batiali del Mar Ionio. Oebalia, suppl. XVII: 163-164.234

Tursi, A., Matarrese, A., D' Onghia, G., Panza, M., Sion, L. & Maiorano, P., 1994. Considerazioni sullostato di sfruttamento delle risorse demersali (Capo d'Otranto - Capo Spartivento). Biol. Mar.Medit. 1 (2): 95-104.Tursi, A., A. Matarrese, G. D’Onghia, M. Panza, M. Maiorano, P. Basanisi, M. Perri, F. Marano and F.Cassamassima, 1996. Density, abundance and structure of population of red shrimp, Aristeusantennatus and Aristeomorpha foliacea, in the Ionian Sea (Sothern Italy). Final Report Contract nºMED92/015.Uiblein, F., Bordes, F. and Castillo, R., 1996. Diversity, abundance anddepth distribution of demersal deep-water fishes off Lanzarote andFuerteventura, Canary Islands. Journal of Fish Biology, 49(Supp. A):75-90.Vanney JR, Gennesseaux M., 1985. Mediterranean seafloor features: Overview and assessment. In:Stanley DJ, Wezel F-C, eds. Geological evolution of the Mediterranean Basin. New York:Springer. pp 3–32.Vaso, A., 1994. On the present knowledge of A. foliacea and A. antennatus from Albanian waters. pp 60.In: Life cycles and fisheries of the deep-water red shrimps Aristeomorphea foliacea and Aristeusantennatus. Proceedings of the International Workshop held in the Istituto di Tecnologia dellaPesca e del Pescato. NTR-ITPP, Special Publication, No 3, 1994Bordalo-Machado, P., Fernandes, A. C., Figueiredo, I., Moura, O., Reis, S., Pestana, G., and Gordo, L. S.2009. The black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo Lowe, 1839) fisheries from the Portuguesemainland and Madeira Island. Scientia Marina, 73: 63-76.Burkardt, N. and Ponds, P.D., 2006. Using Role Analysis to Plan for Stakeholder Involvement: AWyoming Case Study. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34, 1306-1313.Horn, L., Niemann, F., Kaut, C. and Kemmler, A., 1994. SWOT Analysis And Strategic Planning - amanual. GFA Consulting Group, Hamburg, pp. 58.Degnbol, P., and McCay, B. J. 2007. Unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages infisheries systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 793-797.Dobby, H., Allan, L., Harding, M., Laurenson, C. H., and McLay, H. A. 2008. Improving the quality ofinformation on Scottish anglerfish fisheries: making use of fishers' data ICES Journal of MarineScience, 65: 1134-1345.Garcia, S. M., and Charles, A. T. 2007. Fishery systems and linkages. ICES Journal of Marine Science,64: 580-587.Gordo, L. S., Baptista, I., Carvalho, L., Costa, V., Cruz, C., Eiras, J. C., Farias, I., Figueiredo, I.,Lourenco, H., Bordalo-Machado, P., Neves, A., Nunes, M. L., Reis, S., Santos, M. J., Saraiva, A.,and Vieira, A. R. 2009. Stock structure of black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo Lowe, 1839) inthe southern northeast Atlantic. Scientia Marina, 73: 89-101.ICES, 2008. Report of the Working Group on Biology and Assessment of Deep-Sea Fisheries Resources(WGDEEP).ICES Document CM 2008/ACOM: 14, 478 pp.Koslow, J. A., Boehler, G., Gordon, J. D. M., Haedrich, R. L., Lorance, P., and Parin, N. 2000.Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries: implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal ofMarine Science, 57: 548-557.Large, P. A., Hammer, C., O.A., B., Gordon, J. D. M., and Lorance, P. 2003. Deep-water fisheries of theNortheast Atlantic: II Assessment and Management Approaches. Journal of the NorthwestAtlantic Fisheries Society, 31: 151-163.Large, P. A., Diez, G., Drewery, J., Laurans, M., Pilling, G. M., Reid, D. G., Reinert, J., South, A. B., andVinnichenko, V. I. 2010. Spatial and temporal distribution of spawning aggregations of blue ling(Molva dyptergia) west and northwest of the British Isles. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76: 494-501.Lorance, P., Large, P. A., Bergstad, O. A., and Gordon, J. D. M., 2008. Grenadiers of the NE Atlantic -distribution, biology, fisheries and their impacts, and developments in stock assessment andmanagement. American Fisheries Society Symposium 63, Bethesda, MS, USA.235

Lorance, P., Pawlowski, L., and Trenkel, V. M. 2010. Standardizing blue ling landings per unit effortfrom industry haul-by-haul data using generalized additive models. ICES Journal of MarineScience, 67: 1650-1658. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsq1048.Mardle, S., Pascoe, S., Boncoeur, J., Le Gallic, B., García-Hoyo, J. J., Herrero, I., Jimenez-Toribio, R.,Cortes, C., Padilla, N., Raakjaer Nielsen, J., and Mathiesen, C. 2002. Objectives of fisheriesmanagement: case studies from the UK, France, Spain and Denmark. Marine Policy, 26: 415-428.Neis, B., Schneider, D. C., Felt, L., Haedrich, R. L., Fischer, J., and Hutchings, J. A. 1999. Fisheriesassessment: what can be learned from interviewing resource users? Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56: 1949-1963.Özesmi, U., and Özesmi, S. 2003. A participatory approach to ecosystem conservation: fuzzy cognitivemaps and stakeholder group analysis in Uluabat lake, Turkey. Environmental Management, 31:518-531.Pita, C., Pierce, G. J., and Theodossiou, I. 2010. Stakeholders' participation in the fisheries managementdecision-making process: Fishers' perceptions of participation. Marine Policy, 34: 1093-1102.Prigent, M., Fontenelle, G., Rochet, M.-J., and Trenkel, V. M. 2008. Using cognitive maps to investigatefishers’ ecosystem objectives and knowledge. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51: 450–462.Raakjær Nielsen, J., and Mathiesen, C. 2006. Stakeholder preferences for Danish fisheries managementof sand eel and Norway pout. Fisheries Research, 77: 92-101.Ragnarsson, S. Á., and Steingrímsson, A. R. 2003. Spatial distribution of otter trawl effort in Icelandicwaters: comparison of measures of effort and implications for benthic community effects oftrawling activities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 1200-1215.Rochet, M.-J., Prigent, M., Bertrand, J. A., Carpentier, A., Coppin, F., Delpech, J.-P., Fontenelle, G.,Foucher, E., Mahé, K., Rostiaux, E., and Trenkel, V. M. 2008. Ecosystem trends: evidence foragreement between fishers’ perceptions and scientific information. ICES Journal of MarineScience, 65: 1057-1068.Shephard, S., Connolly, P., Hareide, N.-R., and Rogan, E. 2007. Establishing stakeholder connectionsfor management of the Irish orange roughy fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 841-845.236

237

DELIVERABLE D2.1 - Ifremer

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?