Midwater Trawl

Overview

There are two fisheries captured within this FIP: the North East Atlantic (NEA) mackerel fishery, and the Atlanto-Scandian herring (ASH) (also known as the Norwegian spring spawning herring) fishery.

Both fisheries are prosecuted using pelagic (midwater) trawls and purse seines. Coastal vessels also use mechanised handlines.

These fisheries are managed by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). NEAFC was formed to recommend measures to maintain the rational exploitation of fish stocks in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. Most of this area is under the fisheries jurisdiction of NEAFC’s Contracting Parties (Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland (DFG)), the EU, Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation), but four large areas (including the area around the North Pole) are international waters and constitute the NEAFC Regulatory Area.

The allocation of national quotas is based on allocation keys negotiated in connection with the establishment of the EU Common Fisheries Policy or negotiated in the framework of NEAFC, the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC) or in bilateral agreements between EU (at the time EC) and Norway and the Faroe Islands. Many of these allocations were established when the 200 nm EEZs were established in the late 1970s. These keys are to a large extent based on the coastal states’ fishing records during the period 1971–76 and has subsequently and with only a few amendments been used by the European Union (EU) for the annual allocation of fishing quotas among its Member States. Known as “the relative stability” this is one of the cornerstones of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, CFP.

However, the changing distribution of these stocks has led to demands for a share of the catch by those countries that have little history of it. The parties have not been able to reach a satisfactory agreement on quotas.

All mackerel MSC certificates were suspended in March 2019. The suspension originally took place after ICES advice showed stock (SSB) level below trigger point. After revised ICES advice, showing the stock (SSB) above trigger level, the relevant CABs nevertheless concluded:

The outcome of harmonisation during the 2nd surveillance audit is that despite the change in mackerel stock status with the SSB currently above the MSY BTrigger, PI 1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules & Tools score remains < 60 and the fishery still fails, for the following reasons:

  • The current level of exploitation does not provide evidence that the tools used to implement the generally understood HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation.
  • There is a continuing dispute over mackerel quota allocation resulting in annual catches well in excess of the advised catches. There is an absence of long-term management strategy for the mackerel agreed by all parties involved in mackerel fisheries. Therefore, it could not be concluded with confidence that the management agency can and will act effectively and in a timely manner to reduce exploitation rate if the point of recruitment impairment is approached.
  • Despite the change in mackerel stock status with the SSB currently above the MSY BTrigger and the improvement in the management of the advised catch, with current and predicted exploitation level together with low recruitment, the stock is nevertheless predicted to continue to decline. Therefore, there is a reason to conclude that such high level of exploitation will lead to a situation where the stock is likely to fall below sustainable level in the foreseeable future.

Therefore, the suspension of the fishery certificate is not lifted

The reinstatement of certification is reliant on the effective adoption and implementation of the HCRs. 

For herring, independent assessors identified the risk to future stock health and set conditions against their certification in 2015, requiring states to reach a quota-sharing agreement by November 2020. This was not achieved and these fisheries lost their MSC certificates on 30 December 2020. The latest expedited audit (Aug 2020) reveals that the fisheries require:

  • The fishery needs to demonstrate that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives and that overall quotas are within sustainable limits.
  • The ongoing allocation dispute needs to be resolved.
  • The fishery should work with the EU, the Pelagic Advisory Council, other certified or suspended UoCs in the fishery and/or other parties as appropriate to support the resolution of the dispute between the Coastal States and to re-establish an effective international cooperation and dispute-resolution mechanism for the fishery.

There are two fisheries captured within this FIP: the North East Atlantic (NEA) mackerel fishery, and the Atlanto-Scandian herring (ASH) (also known as the Norwegian spring spawning herring) fishery.

Both fisheries are prosecuted using pelagic (midwater) trawls and purse seines. Coastal vessels also use mechanised handlines.

FIP Leads

Organization Name 
North Atlantic Pelagic Advocacy Group (NAPA)
Organization Type 
Industry
Primary Contact 
Tom Pickerell
FIP Identification Number The FIP Identification Number is automatically generated by FisheryProgress when a FIP profile is created. While the number itself is not meaningful, they are used by NGOs, academia, and industry to refer to FIPs in a consistent way.
15338

Overview

The Gulf of Califonia hake fishery is a relatively recent fishery, carried out by 80 permitted vessels. These vessels operate mainly out of Sonora and Baja Califonia states. The fishery produces between 5,000 and 7,000 tons a year and is expected to soon be managed under a quota system. This hake FIP will focus on issues related to fishery-specific management objectives, the definition of HCRs, and defining appropriate reference points. Providing additional and more detailed information regarding its impacts on habitats and ecosystems is also of paramount importance in this FIP.

The Gulf of Califonia hake fishery is a relatively recent fishery, carried out by 80 permitted vessels. These vessels operate mainly out of Sonora and Baja Califonia states. The fishery produces between 5,000 and 7,000 tons a year and is expected to soon be managed under a quota system. This hake FIP will focus on issues related to fishery-specific management objectives, the definition of HCRs, and defining appropriate reference points. Providing additional and more detailed information regarding its impacts on habitats and ecosystems is also of paramount importance in this FIP.

FIP at a Glance

View current status
September 01, 2019
14% 39% 46%
Progress Rating (A) Advanced Progress

Reserved for comprehensive FIPs that have achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result within the past 12 months.

(B) Good Progress

A basic FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result within 12 months.

(C) Some Recent Progress
  • A FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result in more than 12 (but less than 24) months AND has reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
  • A FIP younger than 12 months that has never achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result but has reported a Stage 3 activity within the first 12 months.
(D) Some Past Progress
  • A FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result in more than 12 (but less than 24) months BUT has not reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
  • A FIP for which the most recent Stage 4 or 5 result is more than 24 (but less than 36) months old AND a Stage 3 activity has been reported within six months.
  • A FIP 12-36 months old that has never reported a Stage 4 or 5 result AND has reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
(E) Negligible Progress
  • A FIP for which the most recent Stage 4 or 5 result is more than 24 (but less than 36) months old, with no Stage 3 activity reported in the last six months.
  • A FIP younger than 12 months with no Stage 3 activity reported within 12 months.
  • A FIP 12-36 months old that has never reported a Stage 4 or 5 result AND has not reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.

The ratings are currently derived by SFP from publicly available data on FIP websites, including FisheryProgress.org, and are determined using the following methodology: View PDF

B Good Progress
Actions Complete

This pie chart represents completed environmental actions. Non-completed environmental actions may contain completed sub-tasks that are not illustrated here. For more information on environmental action progress visit the Actions Progress tab.

  • Complete
  • Incomplete
Next Update Due FisheryProgress requires a FIP to provide update reports every six months, and two missed reports will render the FIP inactive. If a report is overdue, this date will appear red.
Jul 2024
Target End Date
Dec 2024
Additional Impacts:
TraceabilityRoundtableOther

FIP Leads

Organization Name 
Environmental Defense Fund de Mexico
Organization Type 
NGO
Primary Contact 
Aristo Stavrinaky
Phone 
+52 6121232011
FIP Identification Number The FIP Identification Number is automatically generated by FisheryProgress when a FIP profile is created. While the number itself is not meaningful, they are used by NGOs, academia, and industry to refer to FIPs in a consistent way.
11926

Overview

What is a Completed FIP?

Completed FIPs are those that have independent verification that they have achieved their environmental objectives and/or graduated to MSC full assessment or other program assessment. Completed FIPs no longer report on their environmental performance but may choose to voluntarily report on their social performance.

Date of Completion: Sep 2020

Explanation of Completion: This FIP entered MSC full assessment in 2020 and achieved certification in July 2021.

Completion Link

The FIP is led by Pollock Catchers Association which represents 26 Russian fishing companies which harvest Alaska (Walleye) Pollock in the West Bering Sea Zone. Self-analysis made with OSMI Rapid Assessment Tool has revealed some areas where certain improvements may be needed to achieve an unconditional pass. To address that, the Pollock Catchers Association has designed a 3 year workplan that specifies specific actions aimed at making or initiating improvements. Improvements include collecting additional information about fishery's impact on certain elements of the ecosystem and preparation scientific information on MSC performance indicators needed for the asessement. Improvement actions were initiated in May 2019.

The FIP is led by Pollock Catchers Association which represents 26 Russian fishing companies which harvest Alaska (Walleye) Pollock in the West Bering Sea Zone. Self-analysis made with OSMI Rapid Assessment Tool has revealed some areas where certain improvements may be needed to achieve an unconditional pass. To address that, the Pollock Catchers Association has designed a 3 year workplan that specifies specific actions aimed at making or initiating improvements.

FIP at a Glance

View current status
September 01, 2019
29% 71%
Progress Rating (A) Advanced Progress

Reserved for comprehensive FIPs that have achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result within the past 12 months.

(B) Good Progress

A basic FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result within 12 months.

(C) Some Recent Progress
  • A FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result in more than 12 (but less than 24) months AND has reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
  • A FIP younger than 12 months that has never achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result but has reported a Stage 3 activity within the first 12 months.
(D) Some Past Progress
  • A FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result in more than 12 (but less than 24) months BUT has not reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
  • A FIP for which the most recent Stage 4 or 5 result is more than 24 (but less than 36) months old AND a Stage 3 activity has been reported within six months.
  • A FIP 12-36 months old that has never reported a Stage 4 or 5 result AND has reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
(E) Negligible Progress
  • A FIP for which the most recent Stage 4 or 5 result is more than 24 (but less than 36) months old, with no Stage 3 activity reported in the last six months.
  • A FIP younger than 12 months with no Stage 3 activity reported within 12 months.
  • A FIP 12-36 months old that has never reported a Stage 4 or 5 result AND has not reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.

The ratings are currently derived by SFP from publicly available data on FIP websites, including FisheryProgress.org, and are determined using the following methodology: View PDF

Not yet available
Actions Complete

This pie chart represents completed environmental actions. Non-completed environmental actions may contain completed sub-tasks that are not illustrated here. For more information on environmental action progress visit the Actions Progress tab.

  • Complete
  • Incomplete
Target End Date
Sep 2024

FIP Leads

Organization Name 
Pollock Catchers Association
Organization Type 
Industry
Primary Contact 
Alexey Buglak
Email 
FIP Identification Number The FIP Identification Number is automatically generated by FisheryProgress when a FIP profile is created. While the number itself is not meaningful, they are used by NGOs, academia, and industry to refer to FIPs in a consistent way.
11596

Overview

Fishery Improvement Projects provide an opportunity to improve and document information and management of fisheries not yet eligible to receive sustainability certifications.

The  Atlantic Groundfish Council (AGC) is an organization that represents the  >100’ groundfish license holders in Atlantic Canada. The membership of AGC holds almost 80% of the quotas for each of the two management units.  As the fishery recovers from historic lows, the importance of a sustainable economic development of this expanding resource has never been higher. This FIP is a forum to plan for any sustainability issues to be resolved prior to assessment against the performance indicators of the MSC assessment framework.  

Fishery Improvement Projects provide an opportunity to improve and document information and management of fisheries not yet eligible to receive sustainability certifications.

FIP at a Glance

View current status
April 01, 2018
7% 29% 64%
Progress Rating (A) Advanced Progress

Reserved for comprehensive FIPs that have achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result within the past 12 months.

(B) Good Progress

A basic FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result within 12 months.

(C) Some Recent Progress
  • A FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result in more than 12 (but less than 24) months AND has reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
  • A FIP younger than 12 months that has never achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result but has reported a Stage 3 activity within the first 12 months.
(D) Some Past Progress
  • A FIP that has achieved a Stage 4 or 5 result in more than 12 (but less than 24) months BUT has not reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
  • A FIP for which the most recent Stage 4 or 5 result is more than 24 (but less than 36) months old AND a Stage 3 activity has been reported within six months.
  • A FIP 12-36 months old that has never reported a Stage 4 or 5 result AND has reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.
(E) Negligible Progress
  • A FIP for which the most recent Stage 4 or 5 result is more than 24 (but less than 36) months old, with no Stage 3 activity reported in the last six months.
  • A FIP younger than 12 months with no Stage 3 activity reported within 12 months.
  • A FIP 12-36 months old that has never reported a Stage 4 or 5 result AND has not reported a Stage 3 activity within the past six months.

The ratings are currently derived by SFP from publicly available data on FIP websites, including FisheryProgress.org, and are determined using the following methodology: View PDF

A Advanced Progress
Actions Complete

This pie chart represents completed environmental actions. Non-completed environmental actions may contain completed sub-tasks that are not illustrated here. For more information on environmental action progress visit the Actions Progress tab.

  • Complete
  • Incomplete
Next Update Due FisheryProgress requires a FIP to provide update reports every six months, and two missed reports will render the FIP inactive. If a report is overdue, this date will appear red.
Mar 2024
Target End Date
Dec 2024

FIP Leads

Organization Name 
Atlantic Groundfish Council
Organization Type 
NGO
Primary Contact 
Steve Devitt
Phone 
(902) 497-4586
FIP Identification Number The FIP Identification Number is automatically generated by FisheryProgress when a FIP profile is created. While the number itself is not meaningful, they are used by NGOs, academia, and industry to refer to FIPs in a consistent way.
7511

Overview

Note: This FIP went inactive on April 30th, 2020.

UPDATE FOR MAY 2019: Research to support the rational management of threadfin bream along India's westcoast is now a federal priority and backed by a major thrust of research by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Demersal Fisheries Division. (Ref. http://www.cmfri.org.in/division/demersal-fisheries-division)

Launched in April 2017 and led by Gadre Marine Export PVT Ltd., this FIP is working to address challenges in the Japanese threadfin bream trawl fishery (Nemipterus japonicus) operating along the length of India's west coast where the stock is located. The project will advance the objectives to improve this fishery, and will focus on the rules and tools in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala. Gadre Marine Export PVT Ltd. is a surimi processor purchasing threadfin bream from five coastal states in India. Gadre will host roundtables for the industry, fishing societies and regulators to meet, discuss, and set the objectives in motion. 

A preliminary assessment against the Marine Stewardship Council Standard was completed in May 2017.The pre-assessment included a comprehensive assessment of scientific literature, interviews with fishing boat owners, and consultations with scientists in the coastal states. The major finding was that trawler boat owners, as well as scientific institutions, are optimistic that the fishery can rebound to optimum levels if concrete steps are undertaken over a five-year period.

Overfishing is occurring on west coast threadfin bream according to the 2014 stock assessment which recommended a 20% reduction in fishing.  The major problem is overfishing on juveniles.  Fishery scientists and managers agree it is the major target.  There is a 61 day fishing ban during breeding season 1 June through 31 July every year.  To further reduce fishing impacts on juveniles, Kerala has extended the ban and Maharashtra has required use of square mesh in the cod-end of trawls.  The FIP supports the notion of a coastwide Winter closure to reduce fishing impacts on juveniles further.

Fundamentally, the area most needing improvement is the age of threadfin bream at capture.  This can be achieved with short- and long-term measures that include seasonal bans to avoid fishing when juveniles dominate the catch, enforcement of increased mesh size in the cod-end of trawl nets, and seizure of illegal gears at fishing ports; so that harvest rates drop to appropriate levels.

Note: This FIP went inactive on April 30th, 2020.

UPDATE FOR MAY 2019: Research to support the rational management of threadfin bream along India's westcoast is now a federal priority and backed by a major thrust of research by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Demersal Fisheries Division. (Ref. http://www.cmfri.org.in/division/demersal-fisheries-division)

FIP Leads

Organization Name 
Gadre Marine
Organization Type 
Industry
Primary Contact 
Arjun Gadre
FIP Identification Number The FIP Identification Number is automatically generated by FisheryProgress when a FIP profile is created. While the number itself is not meaningful, they are used by NGOs, academia, and industry to refer to FIPs in a consistent way.
6111
Subscribe to Midwater Trawl