Status of international monitoring and management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear and ghost fishing

Gilman, Eric

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.016

Cited by 162 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Components of total fishing mortality that are not readily detectable directly by onboard observers, but can be estimated using observer data, such as ghost fishing mortality (e.g. using observer records of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear, Gilman, 2015;Gilman et al, 2016c), and causes of pre-catch mortality (e.g. comparing observer estimates of bird captures during setting vs. the number hauled aboard to determine a pre-catch loss rate, Gilman et al, 2013; see section 'Collateral sources of fishing mortality').…”

Section: Inferring Effects Of Bycatch Mitigation Management Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…USFWS, 2004;Gilman et al, 2013). As a final example, in some fisheries, observers record abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear, which can be used to estimate ghost fishing mortality rates and quantities (Gilman, 2015;Gilman et al, 2016c). Therefore, some observer programmes currently collect data needed to estimate collateral components of fishing mortality, supporting implementation of EBFM elements.…”

Section: Collateral Sources Of Fishing Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecological data from observer programmes underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management

Gilman

Weijerman

Suuronen

2017

ICES Journal of Marine Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data required from fisheries monitoring programmes substantially expand as management authorities transition to implement elements of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). EBFM extends conventional approaches of managing single fishery effects on individual stocks of target species by taking into account the effects, within a defined ecosystem, of local to regional fisheries on biodiversity, from genotypes to ecological communities. This includes accounting for fishery effects on evolutionary processes, associated and dependent species, habitats, trophic food web processes, and functionally linked systems. Despite seemingly insurmountable constraints, through examples, we demonstrate how data routinely collected in most observer programmes and how minor and inexpensive expansions of observer data fields and collection protocols supply ecological data underpinning EBFM. Observer data enable monitoring bycatch, including catch and mortality of endangered, threatened and protected species, and assessing the performance of bycatch management measures. They provide a subset of inputs for ecological risk assessments, including productivity-susceptibility analyses and multispecies and ecosystem models. Observer data are used to monitor fishery effects on habitat and to identify and protect benthic vulnerable marine ecosystems. They enable estimating collateral sources of fishing mortality. Data from observer programmes facilitate monitoring ecosystem pressure and state indicators. The examples demonstrate how even rudimentary fisheries management systems can meet the ecological data requirements of elements of EBFM.

show abstract

Section: Inferring Effects Of Bycatch Mitigation Management Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Collateral Sources Of Fishing Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological data from observer programmes underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management

Gilman

Weijerman

Suuronen

2017

ICES Journal of Marine Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IMO, 1978;Anonymous, 1990;Wright & Doulman, 1991;Richards, 1994;Macfadyen, Huntington & Cappel, 2009;FAO, 2011;UNEP & NOAA, 2012;Gilman, 2015). Since 2004, several United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions have explicitly recognized problems resulting from ALDFG and called upon states and international organizations to take steps to mitigate these problems (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have been substantial efforts to understand the characteristic, quantity and impact of ghost fishing, and to find solutions for reducing negative impacts (Matsuoka et al, 2005;Ayaz et al, 2006;Brown & Macfadyen, 2007;Baeta et al, 2009;Campbell & Sumpton, 2009;Anderson & Alford, 2014;Kim, Lee & Moon, 2014a;Gilman, 2015). Through these efforts it has become obvious that structural design features on specific gear components may markedly help to reduce ghost fishing in particular in trap-net and pot fisheries, but are less likely to be as feasible in driftnet, trammel net and set gillnet fisheries (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of biodegradable driftnets to prevent ghost fishing: physical properties and fishing performance for yellow croaker

Kim

Lim

et al. 2016

Anim Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When synthetic non-biodegradable fishing nets are lost, abandoned or discarded at sea, they may continue to catch fish and other animals for a long period of time. This phenomenon is known as 'ghost fishing'. Biodegradable fishing nets, on the other hand, are intended to degrade or decompose after a certain period of time under water and thereby lose their ghost fishing capacity more quickly than conventional gear. A biodegradable net material, a blend of 82% polybutylene succinate (PBS) and 18% polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate (PBAT), was developed. We examined the physical properties and degradability of the biodegradable monofilament, and compared the fishing performance of driftnets made of conventional nylon and of the biodegradable material. When dry, conventional nylon monofilament exhibited a greater breaking strength and elongation than biodegradable monofilament of the same diameter. When wet, the biodegradable monofilament exhibited a stiffness of c. 1.5-fold than nylon monofilament. This suggests that a net made of the less flexible biodegradable monofilament would have lower fishing efficiency than conventional nets. The fishing performance comparisons between the biodegradable and conventional nylon nets, however, revealed similar catch rates for yellow croaker Larimichthys polyactis. Biodegradable monofilament started to degrade after 24 months in seawater by marine organisms. We conclude that biodegradable netting may become a feasible alternative to conventional nylon netting and can contribute to reducing the duration of ghost fishing. Nonetheless, there remain many uncertainties, challenges and knowledge gaps that have to be solved before we are able to draw firm conclusions about the overall benefits of these materials in driftnet fisheries.

show abstract

“…Ghost fishing occurs when ALDFG continues to catch and kill organisms, which can contribute to compromising the viability of some populations of at-risk species (Kaiser et al, 1996;IWC, 2013;Gilman, 2015;Gilman et al, 2016). Mortalities from ghost fishing are a source of wastage and reduce the economic viability of the fishing sector.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodegradable fishing gear: part of the solution to ghost fishing and marine pollution

Gilman¹

2016

Anim Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Status of international monitoring and management of abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear and ghost fishing

Cited by 162 publications

References 57 publications

Ecological data from observer programmes underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management

Ecological data from observer programmes underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management

Use of biodegradable driftnets to prevent ghost fishing: physical properties and fishing performance for yellow croaker

Biodegradable fishing gear: part of the solution to ghost fishing and marine pollution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About