1. ASCOBANS and bycatch issues
Input for the OSPAR-HELCOM Workshop
to examine possibilities for developing indicators for
incidental bycatch of birds and marine mammals
(Copenhagen, Denmark, 3-5 September 2019)

2. What is ASCOBANS?
Legally-binding, international UN Agreement under the auspices of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)
10 Parties
7 Non-Party Range States
Covers any species, subspecies or population of toothed whales (Odontoceti) occurring in the Agreement Area (with the exception of the Sperm Whale)
10 Parties: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, the UK (+ EU has signed but not ratified)
7 Non-Party Range States: Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain
1992: available for signature
1994: entered into force
Depository: UNHQ, New York

3. Conservation objectives (bycatch)
Bycatch recognized as main threat in the Agreement text; each MOP has had bycatch-related decisions; regional WGs focus heavily on bycatch
The ASCOBANS Conservation and Management Plan coins the term “unacceptable interaction”
Key conclusions set out in Res.3.3 (2000) and Res.5.5 (2006) on Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans:
ASCOBANS’ aim “to restore and/or maintain biological or management stocks of small cetaceans at the level they would reach when there is the lowest possible anthropogenic influence“
ASCOBANS has had a Bycatch Working Group since 2010; and a joint one with ACCOBAMS established early 2019 (ACCOBAMS = Agreement for the Conservation on Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area)

4. Conservation objectives (bycatch)
a suitable short-term practical sub-objective “to restore and/or maintain stocks/populations to 80% or more of the carrying capacity”
“the general aim should be to minimise (i.e. to ultimately reduce to zero) anthropogenic removals within some yet-to-be-specified time frame, and that intermediate target levels should be set”
© T. Genov, Morigenos
defines, for the present, according to the most recent scientific information ‘unacceptable interactions’ as being, in the short term, a total anthropogenic removal above 1.7 % of the best available estimate of abundance”

5. Conservation objectives (bycatch)
“underlines the intermediate precautionary objective to reduce by-catches to less than 1% of the best available population estimate”
“if available evidence suggests that a population is severely reduced, or in the case of species other than the harbour porpoise, or where there is significant uncertainty in parameters such as population size or by- catch levels, then ‘unacceptable interaction’ may involve an anthropogenic removal of much less than 1.7 %”
© C. Lanfredi, Tethys
In addition to Agreement text and Resolutions, other mandates for Parties regarding bycatch:
Species- and location-specific Action Points under one of the species Action Plans (3 for Harbour Porpoise, 1 for Common Dolphin)
Action Points from individual Working Groups, e.g. “immediate use of pingers in gillnet fisheries, irrespective of vessel size or type“

6. Assessment needs
AC20/Doc (2013): the ASCOBANS conservation objective “to allow populations to recover to and/or maintain 80% of carrying capacity in the long term” stands, but requires some key policy decisions in order to become fully applicable.
‘Society’ should decide on parameters that scientists should use, such as:
Whether the conservation objective should be met on average or some other percentage of the time (>50%)
The timeframe over which it should be applied (e.g. 100 years, 200 years, another period)
The spatial areas to which the procedure is to be applied (i.e. appropriate management units)
A Working Group was formed in order to assist the ASCOBANS Advisory Committee (AC) in addressing these questions.
In 2013, the UK presented Societal decisions required for the determination of safe bycatch limits for harbour porpoise, common dolphin and bottlenose dolphin (AC20/Doc.3.1.2)

7. Assessment needs
ASCOBANS workshop to develop a shared understanding on the use of thresholds / environmental limits (July 2015)
Key outcomes also reflected in the recommendations sent to the European Commission (October 2015), which include:
Reflections on the Way Forward Proposed by the Commission, underlining the need for an overarching legislation for the protection of cetaceans
Proposed Strategy for Assessing and Managing Cetacean Bycatch in European Waters, calling for a management framework defining the threshold of ‘unacceptable interactions’ or ‘bycatch limits’
ASCOBANS considerations on the need for a risk-based regional approach to the revision of Regulation 812/2004
Reflections on the Way Forward Proposed by the Commission, underlining the need for an overarching legislation for the protection of cetaceans
Proposed Strategy for Assessing and Managing Cetacean Bycatch in European Waters, calling for a management framework defining the threshold of ‘unacceptable interactions’ or ‘bycatch limits’ to help safeguard the favourable conservation status in the long term, and drive toward the ASCOBANS overall aim of zero bycatch
ASCOBANS considerations on the need for a risk-based regional approach to the revision of Regulation 812/2004, for example taking into account regional differences in species composition, types of fisheries present and the density and spatial distribution of cetaceans
TO BE SCHEDULED: Workshop on Further Development of Management Procedures for Defining the Threshold of ‘Unacceptable Interactions’ / Removals of Concern – Part II
Recommendations of ASCOBANS on the Requirements of Legislation to Address Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch

8. Existing assesment processes
National reporting data
In line with Res. 8.1 (2016) on National Reporting, bycatch issues are reported to Advisory Committee’s meeting in 2018 and to the Meeting of Parties in 2020
Prior to 2016, bycatch issues were reported on annually
Action Points regarding bycatch from AC24, for example:
Parties to work nationally and regionally (through DCF Regional Coordination Groups) to improve quality and availability of fishing effort data
Commission a cost-benefit analysis of available and potential monitoring tools aboard fishing vessels that will investigate options for more robust and cost- effective bycatch monitoring in the ASCOBANS region → consultant recruited by the Secretariat
Action Points (in more detail):
Parties to work nationally (e.g. through EU data collection work plans) and regionally (through DCF Regional Coordination Groups) to improve quality and availability of fishing effort data (e.g. by region, gear-type, net length, vessel size category, …)
Commission a cost-benefit analysis of available and potential monitoring tools aboard fishing vessels (e.g. observers, mobile REM) that will investigate options for more robust and cost-effective bycatch monitoring in the ASCOBANS region, in liaison with Parties and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. HELCOM, OSPAR, EC, ICES, IWC)

9. Existing assesment processes
Action Points regarding bycatch from AC24, for example (cont.):
Parties to draw on fisheries funding from the EU (e.g. EMFF) to jointly implement better bycatch monitoring and mitigation
Commission a review of available mitigation methods applicable to high-risk fisheries within the ASCOBANS area, to investigate gear- and area-specific solutions to mitigate bycatch → consultant recruited
Parties to take mitigation action as soon as possible where it is already known that particular fisheries are resulting in notable bycatch
Action Points (in more detail):
Parties should draw on fisheries funding from the EU (e.g. EMFF) to jointly implement better bycatch monitoring and mitigation, with assistance from the EC
Commission a review of available mitigation methods applicable to high- risk fisheries within the ASCOBANS area, to investigate gear- and area- specific solutions to mitigate bycatch, including alternative fishing methods → consultant recruited
Parties to decide a management procedure approach to ensure that ASCOBANS objectives (e.g. minimising bycatch whilst working towards a zero bycatch target) are met. Quantitative triggers for action may need to be established [in line with requirements under EU environmental legislation]
Parties to take mitigation action as soon as possible where it is already known that particular fisheries are resulting in notable bycatch

10. Thank you for your attention!
Key references:
(e.g. summary of bycatch process, link to workshop reports, link to recommendations sent to the European Commission)
Workshop on the Further Development of Management Procedures for Defining the Threshold of ‘Unacceptable Interactions’ – Part I: Developing a Shared Understanding on the Use of Thresholds / Environmental Limits (July 2015)
Expert Workshop ‘Unacceptable Interactions’ and Bycatch (February 2017) bycatch
Resolution 8.5 (2016): Monitoring and Mitigation of Small Cetacean Bycatch bycatch