LOW IMPACT AND FUEL EFFICIENT

FISHING

SHAHANA S
FRM-PB0-04
 INTRODUCTION
 Fishing provides high quality seafood and creates employment and
income for people worldwide.

 Most of the capture methods used for fishing are heavily dependent on
the use of fossil fuels.

 High consumption of fuel constitutes a major constraint to their

economic viability but also represents a significant source of
greenhouse gas emissions.

 Fishing activities can sometimes impact the marine environments

through excessive removals of ecologically and economically valuable
species and also by direct physical contact with critical habitats.
 Fishing practices and gears vary widely in their environmental impacts and fuel
efficiency

Most fishing techniques in use today have their origin in an era when
fisheries resources were abundant, energy costs were dramatically lower
than current levels
and
when less attention was paid to operating efficiency and negative
impacts of fishing on ecosystems.

 Prices and greater awareness of ecosystem impacts are realities and current
high energy challenges the viability of fisheries.

 Despite a growing number of initiatives and experimentation, there is presently

no viable substitute to the use of fossil fuels for powering fishing vessels.
 With fossil fuels remaining, pursuing energy efficiency may
realize a multitude of benefits such as reduced operating costs
and environmental impacts.

 Modification of existing gears, development of low drag gears

and adoption of alternative fuel-efficient gears are the means to
improve fuel efficiency.
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FISHING OPERATIONS

 Fishing gears vary widely in their impacts on marine ecosystems and

without a specific context their ranking is extremely difficult

 Overall ecosystem impacts largely depend on the physical

characteristics of the gear, the mechanics of its operation,
where, when and how the gear is being used as well as the
extent of its use.

 Gears that rank highly for one type of impact may have a lower rank for
another.

 Dredge gears may generally have a high rank for bottom impacts
(Løkkeborg, 2005) but have a low rank for bycatch of ETP species.
 Physical damage to the marine environment may result from
the nature of the capture technology or from the inappropriate use
of an otherwise acceptable gear.

 Some fishing activities capture a significant quantity of species and

sizes beyond those targeted leading to the incidental catch of a
wide variety of fish and invertebrates

 There is concern about impacts of unaccounted fishing mortalities

including ghost fishing
FUEL CONSUMPTION RANKING
 POTENTIAL APPROACHES IN LIFE FISHING
 Changes to methods with lower energy consumption and ecosystems impacts,
offer opportunities for conserving fuel, preserving ecosystems and improving
food security.

 Transitioning from one gear type to another, however, is seldom easy or

practical.

 Size and design of existing fishing vessels and their machinery and equipment
often limit the possibilities of changing the fishing method.

 Fishing gears, fishing vessels, operations, and practices have evolved over a
considerable period of time, around specific fishing grounds and behavior of
target fish species.
 The evolved fishing gear and practices often perceived to be optimized to the
best technical and economic scenarios
 Where fishing practices are rooted in tradition, there is a strong
resistance to change

Fuel consumption and ecosystem impacts can be reduced through

changes in operational techniques and gear design without drastic
changes in behaviour and is often preferred by the fishing industry

 Transitioning to a completely new gear type and fishing practice is an

alternative that has many more uncertainties and higher economic risks.

 When incremental improvements in existing technology do not allow

low-impact and fuel-efficient fishing, alternative practices and/or gear
may need to be considered.
 SEINING
 Bottom seining (Danish, Scottish and pair seining) is generally
considered to be a more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient
fishing method than bottom trawling (ICES, 2010).

 The gear is lighter in construction and the area swept is much smaller
than in bottom trawling, and because there are no trawl doors or
warps, there is less pressure on the seabed.

 The light gear and low hauling speed means that fuel usage may be
lower than for a comparable trawling operation.

 A seine is cheaper and less bulky than a trawl and can therefore be an
effective technique for smaller and low horsepower vessels, depending
on the target species.
 Bottom seine nets are generally regarded as having low impact on
benthos

 Encircling gears, that are dragged a limited distance at slow speed, such
as bottom seines, are generally considered less damaging than bottom
trawls

 Well-managed purse seine fisheries generally have minor ecosystem

impacts (Morgan and Chuenpagdee, 2003).

 In some purse seine fisheries the release of the catch or portions of the
catch from seine (slipping) is a common method of regulating the size
and quality of the catch(Huse and Vold, 2010).
 TRAP-NET FISHING

 Trap-nets are passive fishing gears that have evolved from simple
barriers to modern-day netting enclosures with herding and retaining
devices.

 They are usually set on traditional sites in the path of migrating fish in
coastal waters

 Trap-net fisheries can be energy efficient, selective and habitat-friendly

providing catches of high quality since the catch is usually alive when
brought aboard the vessel.

 Potential new innovations may include large-scale ocean-based fish

traps which may use chemical, electrical, light or acoustic attractants.
• The pontoon trap is a new
innovation and offers various
advantages compared to
traditional trap-nets such as
easy to transport, handle
and haul, and is adjustable in
terms of size, target species
and capture depth as well as
being predator-safe

• A large stationary trap-net may

attract marine life and function
as an artificial reef.

• Incidental capture of non-target

species is a problem in some
trap-net fisheries, and
development of designs and
practices that prevent the
entangling of non-fish species in
the netting and mooring ropes of
 Pot fishing
 Pots typically have relatively low capture efficiency for finfish, especially when
compared to other gears.

 They are successfully used in fisheries targeting coral reef species inhabiting
areas where the use of active gears is banned or not practical.

 Pots, like trap-nets, possess several appealing characteristics compared to

many other fishing gears: low energy use, minimal habitat impact, high
quality, and live delivery.

 Pots may continue catching target and non-target species when lost (ghost-
fishing) and contribute to marine debris and its associated effects

 Design features such as biodegradable materials and galvanic timed releases

may reduce ghost fishing while delayed surface marker buoys and location aids
may promote the recovery of lost gear
 Spatial and temporal separations from other fisheries can also reduce gear loss.

 Pots can induce habitat damage on seabed and coral reefs and have impacts on
marine mammals due to entanglement on riser lines.

 Understanding fish behavior in relation to pots is essential to increase efficiency

for those species that are currently not captured by pots in commercially viable
quantities

 Collapsible (foldable) pots are found with promising results for Atlantic cod

 Floating the pot off bottom has proved to be an effective way to avoid non-target
catch of crabs, and may also reduce the seabed impacts compared to a pot
sitting on the bottom.
 HOOK AND LINES

 Wide variations in hook and line configuration and their mode of

operation have made them an effective gear type for a wide variety of
species

 Fuel consumption in these fisheries is relatively low although it can be

increased significantly depending on the distances vessels have to travel
to fishing ground

 Where natural bait is used, there may be a need for targeted fishing
activity to obtain the bait and this will increase the total amount of fuel
burned.

 The shape of the hook affects not only the hooking rates but also the
 LONG-LINE FISHING

 Long-line fishing can cause the incidental mortality of seabirds, sea

turtles and sharks

 Bycatch interactions may reduce gear efficiency (and profitability of

fishing) due to the associated loss of baits.

 Long-lines set with a streamer line in order to deter seabirds from

seizing the baited hooks give nearly 30% higher target catch rates than
those set without this measure in a demersal long-line fishery

 Hook designs such as the Circle-hook and “weak hook” have

successfully been developed to help increase the survival rates of
animals that are released from the hook but the effects are species
specific
 Bottom-set long-lines may snag and damage benthic epifauna
and irregular objects on the bottom and most pronounced
during gear retrieval.

 long-linefisheries offer the potential to conduct fishing without

severe habitat damage relative to many other methods.

 The potential for catching species that are not currently pursued
with hook and line gear should be investigated
 GILL-NETTING
 Gill-netting is a versatile, fuel-efficient and flexible fishing method but
can also be labor intensive.

 With the exception of trammel-nets, the size selectivity for finfish is

generally good but, depending on species assemblages in the area
fished, species-selectivity may be poor

 Fish caught by gill-netting are often mortally injured during capture

 The practice of leaving nets at sea with long soak times often leads to
high discarding of dead and partly decomposed catch.

 The capture of seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals by

gillnets has received increased attention
 Efficient measures to reduce seabird bycatch in gillnet have not yet
been identified

 There is concern about impacts of ghost fishing by lost and abandoned

gillnets can be partially addressed by the use of biodegradable
materials or other means to disable unattended gillnets

 In some areas, gillnet fishing grounds are periodically “swept” for lost
nets.

 Lost gillnets are common in areas where bottom trawling activity is

high, since the trawl gear displaces or cuts the nets, or their buoy lines.

 Gillnet fishing requires a careful selection of the fishing ground.

 GILL NET & PINGERS

✓ Exclude marine mammals by targetting

the echolocators

✓ Produce shot pulses “ping” every 4s

LIFE FISHING TECHNOLOGIES
DEVELOPED IN INDIA
(CIFT)
 FUEL EFFICIENT MULTIPURPOSE FISHING VESSEL

 The FV SagarHarita, a 19.75m long fuel efficient multipurpose fishing

vessel designed by Fishing Technology Division of CIFT and built by Goa
Shipyard Limited (GSL).

 The vessel has met all the requirements of the Indian register of
shipping (IRS) and CIFT.

 This new generation energy efficient green fishing vessel is fitted with
the latest technology solar panels, aiming to promote green energy and
reduce the carbon foot prints.

 The solar panels fitted on the vessel cater to the energy requirement for
navigational lights, cabin lights etc.
THE FV SAGAR HARITA, A 19.75M LONG FUEL
EFFICIENT MULTIPURPOSE FISHING VESSEL

• The vessel also incorporates an

optimized hull design with a
bulbous bow, fuel efficient propeller
design and improved sea keeping
characteristics.

• The ship's super structure above deck level has been made
from FRP using the latest 'resin infusion technology' thereby
significantly enhancing the sea keeping performance
 COLLAPSIBLE FISH TRAP

 Two different designs of innovative collapsible fish trap with

dimensions of 1 m ×0.6 m ×0.6m &1.5 m x 0.8 m for fishing
along the backwaters of Kerala was developed and tested in the
field.

 HDPE webbing of 80mm mesh size rigged with iron bar as frame
was used and two funnels measuring 35cm DIA were attached
both the sides to allow fish to enter.

 The traps were operated at depths ranging from 1.5-2m and
retrieved after a soak time of 16-18h.
Collapsible Fish Trap

The catch efficiency for

the trap derived as
3crabs/operation and
6fish/operation in terms of
number and 1.05kg 1.02
kg respectively for crab
and fish in terms of weight.
 MYCTOPHID TRAWLS
 Two new myctophid trawls (45m and 28.4m) with four equal panels
were designed and two prototype trawlswere fabricated, for
experimental operations from FORV Sagar Sampada.

 The total weight of the four equal panel 45 m myctophid trawl net,
excluding buoyancy elements has been estimated as 832 kg.

 The twine surface area (TSA) of the myctophid trawl, which

predominantly determines the trawl drag, has been estimated as 412
m2.

 Estimated trawl drag in terms of towing speeds of 2to 3kn range from
4.9 to 7.3 t.
 Myctophid trawl
• The new mid-water trawl system
designed to attain larger mouth
area, smoothly tapering trawl
body with small meshes in belly
and codend, which can be towed
at about 2.5 kn is adjudged to be
appropriate
• Taking into consideration available information on biological
characteristics and behavior of myctophids, fishing conditions and
vessel characteristics.

• The gear will be rigged with 40 floats of 270 mm dia along the headline
and about 100 kg of iron link chain along the foot rope.

• Double sweeps of 98 m, 350kg bunched chain depressors and 5 m 2

 CIFT TURTLE EXCLUDER DEVICE (TED)
 TEDs are recognized internationally as a convenient and effective
measure for protecting sea turtles from trawling-related mortality.

 An indigenous design of TED was developed at CIFT, after extensive

field trials off southwest coast and east coast, with focus on reducing
catch losses, which is a cause of concern for trawler fishermen in
adopting the device.

 Field trials with CIFT-TED, so far, has shown a mean catch loss in the
range of 0.52-0.97% for shrimp and 2.44-3.27% for non-shrimp
resources, which is considerably less than the loss incurred during the
operations with imported TED designs.
 • The loss of finfish catch is expected to
CIFT vary from zone to zone and from
season to season, depending on the
TED percentage representation of large fin
fishes and elasmobranchs in the trawl
catch.

• The large species that are excluded

due to installation of TED are not lost
to the fishery as a whole, as they can
be caught by other fishing techniques
in vogue in the fishing area.
 CIFT SEMI-PELAGIC TRAWL SYSTEM
 Trawler fishermen in India cannot depend on shrimp and associated
species alone for viable commercial operations any more, and there is
need to adopt responsible alternate trawl systems for harvesting large
demersal and semi-pelagic species.

 CIFT semi-pelagic trawl system, christened as CIFT SPTS was

developed as an alternative to shrimp trawling in the small-scale
mechanized trawler sector, after extensive field-testing.

 It is capable of attaining catch rates beyond 200 kg h-1 in moderately

productive grounds
 It selectively harvest fast swimming demersal and semi-pelagic
finfishes and cephalopods, which are generally beyond the reach of
conventional bottom trawls, currently used in commercial trawl
fisheries in India.

 CIFT SPTS has been developed and perfected after extensive field
trials and observations, using acoustic gear monitoring
instrumentation and inference from statistical evaluation of catch,
over an extended period.
 Large Mesh Purse Seine
 Purse seining is one of the most efficient and advanced commercial
fishing methods.

 Purse seine nets was using mesh sizes ranging from 10 to 22

mm in the main body of the netting and was mainly for targeting
anchovies, sardines and mackerels in the coastal waters.

 With the objective of targeting the under exploited large pelagic

fishes in deeper waters, a purse seine net was designed with large
mesh size (45 mm), so as to reduce fishing pressure in the coastal
waters.

 Introduction of large mesh purse seines facilitated by CIFT has led to

the revival of small mechanized purse seine fishery in Kerala
 Large Mesh Purse Seine
• The traditional fishermen and the purse seiners were targeting
small pelagic like anchovies, sardines and small mackerels in the
costal waters.

• The purse seiners were also targeting the same resource in the
coastal waters.

• There was severe competition and rifts between the tradition and
mechanized purse seiners.

With the introduction of large mesh purse seine, the

fishermen could go to deeper and farther waters targeting
large pelagic like tunas, seer fish, pomfrets and large
mackerels thus reducing the competition and fishing pressure
in the coastal waters
 LOW DRAG TRAWLS
 Drag and fuel consumption are 17% and 10% lower when
compared to HDPE trawls
 Increased mesh size, reduced twine size and usage of fuel
saving material called ULTRA HIGH MOLECULAR WEIGHT
POLYETHYLENE reduce the drag
BARRIERS TO THE TRANSITION TO LIFE FISHING

• lack of familiarity with cost-effective and practical

alternatives
• availability of technologies
• incompatibility of vessels with alternative gear
• risk of losing marketable catch
• additional work
• concerns with safety at sea by using unfamiliar gears or
strategies
• high investment costs
• lack of capital or restricted access to capital
• ineffective technology infrastructure support
• inflexible fisheries management systems
 RECOMMENDATIONS
 promoting and funding studies of cost-effective gear designs and fishing
operations, including the establishment of technology incubators and other
public–private sector initiatives to commercialize economically viable,
practical and safe alternatives to conventional fishing methods

 analysis and review of best practice operations across fisheries improvement

of technical ability among fishers

 establishment of appropriate incentives

 execution of robust but flexible fishery management policies that support the
transition to alternative technologies.

Close cooperation between the fishing industry, scientists, managers

and other stakeholders will be necessary to enable the development
and introduction of LIFE fishing technologies.
REFERENCES
 Suuronen, P., Chopin, F., Glass, C., Løkkeborg, S., Matsushita, Y., Queirolo,
D. and Rihan, D., 2012. Low impact and fuel efficient fishing—Looking
beyond the horizon. Fisheries research, 119, pp.135-146.
 Kopp, D., Coupeau, Y., Vincent, B., Morandeau, F., Méhault, S. and Simon,
J., 2020. The low impact of fish traps on the seabed makes it an eco-
friendly fishing technique. PloS one, 15(8), p.e0237819.
 https://cift.res.in/technology-and-products
 Gulbrandsen, O., 2012. Fuel savings for small fishing vessels. A manual.
FAO.
 Boopendranath, M.R., 2002. Energy optimization in fishing. Central
Institude of Fisheries Technology.
 Szczepanek, M., 2015. Factors affecting the energy efficiency of fishing
vessels. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiej w Szczecinie.
 Singh, J., Sarma, K., Kumar, T., Ahirwal, S.K., Raman, R.K. and Bharti, V.,
Fuel and Energy Optimization Approaches in Fishing.
 Baiju, M.V., 2017. Energy saving in fishing vessels. ICAR-Central Institute
of Fisheries Technology.
 Nasar, M., 1998. Fuel saving in fishing by improving the propeller
design.
 Sayana, K.A., Remesan, M.P. and Edwin, L., 2018. Low drag trawls for
fuel saving.
 Muir, J.F., 2015. Fuel and energy use in the fisheries sector: Approaches,
inventories and strategic implications. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Circular, (C1080), p.I.
 Singh, V.V., Sathe, A.R. and Vichare, P., 2013. Energy optimization in
fishing through m-KRISHIm Fisheries Service in Raigad district,
Maharashtra.
 Behrendt, C., 2014. Energy saving technologies for fishing vessels.
Zeszyty Naukowe/Akademia Morska w Szczecinie, (39 (111)), pp.11-15
 Løkkeborg, S., 2005. Impacts of trawling and scallop dredging on benthic
communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 472. FAO, Rom
 ICES, 2010. Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology
and Fish Behavior (WGFTFB). ICES Fisheries Technology Committee. ICES
CM 2010/SSGESST:14, 252 pp
 Morgan, L., Chuenpagdee, R., 2003. Shifting Gears: Addressing the
Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters. Pew Science Series
on Conservation and the Environment, ISBN 1-55963-659-9, 42 pp
 Huse, I., Vold, A., 2010. Mortality of mackerel (Scomber scombrus L.)
after pursing and slipping from a purse seine. Fish. Res. 106, 54–59
THANK YOU