Download MFFG 20150310 Copgn MReport3

The North Sea Advisory Council
Mixed Fisheries Focus Group
Copenhagen Plaza
Copenhagen, Denmark
10th March 2015
Rapporteur: Tony Hawkins
Draft 16 03 15
1
Welcome and Introductions
1.1
Barrie Deas opened the meeting and welcomed participants to this Mixed Fishery
Focus Group of the North Sea Advisory Council. Participants then introduced
themselves. Guests were welcomed, including Chris Darby and Steve Mackinson from
Cefas, and Edgars Goldmanis from the Commission.
1.2
Apologies had been received from Marc Ghiglia, Pim Visser, and Guus Pastoor.
1.3
The agenda of the meeting was agreed.
2
Background
2.1
Barrie Deas opened discussions. The purpose of the meeting was to develop NSAC
advice on the Commission’s proposals for a Multi-annual Mixed Fishery Plan for
Demersal Fisheries in the North Sea. A Consultation paper had now been sent out by
the Commission. In the meantime we had prepared a draft advice paper for further
consideration.
2.2
With the new plan there would be a move away from taking ad hoc annual decisions on
TACs. The risks of making wrong judgements in the sometimes intense autumn
negotiations were well recognised. A multi-annual arrangement was now being sought.
This was not a new concept for the NSAC, which had organised a workshop on the
Page 1
NSAC
concept of Long Term Management Plans in 2007, which pointed to the need for a multiannual approach that considered all species. The NSAC had also come up with the idea
of setting ranges rather than point values for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). It had
advocated that we should avoid the almost theological pre-occupation with targets and
destinations that had prevented us moving in the right direction. The NSAC had
suggested that a more collaborative approach was needed, involving stakeholders.
Management plans containing harvest control rules had been agreed by the EU and
Norway for the main joint stocks in the last few years, but with a rather narrow focus.
The NSAC’s views had been influential. We now find ourselves in a position where a
new way of setting TACs is being sought, where management measures for different
fish stocks will be coherent with one another. However, an additional complication is that
we now have to deal with the Landing Obligation.
2.3
There had been two productive seminars with the Commission, involving stakeholders,
managers and scientists. The Commission has now released a Consultation paper and
we have to decide how we are to respond to that. We also have evolving scientific advice
and the outcome of the recent ICES benchmark meeting on cod to consider.
2.4
There has been an inter-institutional dispute within the EU in recent years over the
approval of management plans, and a task force report has been produced on this,
which goes some way towards resolving the problems. There is also a European Court
Judgement on this issue with an Opinion to be released in the next few months.
However, all this does not take place in a vacuum. Norway’s position will be important
in relation to the management of fish stocks in the North Sea. Norway is not very
interested in a mixed fishery plan.
3
Mixed Fishery Advice from ICES
3.1
Chris Darby guided the meeting through the scientific advice from ICES, which had been
circulated to participants.
3.2
ICES provides mixed-fisheries advice for the North Sea Eco-region which is based on
single-stock assessments, combined with knowledge on the species composition in
catches in the North Sea, Skagerrak, and Eastern English Channel fisheries. It considers
the implications of mixed fisheries under current TAC and effort regimes, taking into
account the fishing pattern and catchability of the various fleets. It considers trade-offs
between the different TACs and can identify interactions and conflicts between different
management actions and fishing opportunities.
3.3
The advice is recalculated each year. This year the single species advice was for a 25%
cut in fishing opportunities for cod to achieve Fmsy, but this restricts fishing opportunities
for haddock and other species to around 50% of their MSY. Single species yield curves
are generally flat-topped and in a mixed fishery context it would be sensible to choose
from the range of values for Fmsy rather than selecting fixed points to help reduce
conflicts. This is why it is necessary to consider mixed fishery strategies for the North
Sea that include MSY ranges for management.
Page 2
NSAC
3.4
ICES currently presents five different scenarios for fishing opportunities. Those
scenarios are:





“Maximum”: Fishing stops when all stocks considered have been caught, up to
the ICES single-stock advice.
“Minimum”: Fishing stops when the catch for any one of the stocks considered
meets the single-stock advice. This option is the most precautionary option,
causing underutilization of the single-stock advice possibilities of other stocks
“Cod management plan”: All fleets set their effort corresponding to their cod
quota share, regardless of other catches. This causes undershoot for the other
stocks
“Status quo effort”: The effort is set equal to the effort in the most recently
recorded year for which landings and discard data are available. There is less
loss of plaice, haddock and whiting with this option
“Effort management”: The effort in metiers using gear controlled by the EU
effort management regime; which has not been implemented by the EU yet
Predicted landings are given in the advice for each of these scenarios.
3.5
Essentially, the ICES advice depends to a large extent on the questions being asked by
managers, along with ICES suggested scenarios that highlight potential problems. It
would be useful for the NSAC to explore other options with ICES and managers to
enable the ICES mixed fishery advice calculations to become more relevant, by
incorporating questions on management options from the NSAC itself. Barrie Deas said
that it is clear that the NSAC needs to be involved in discussions of the different
scenarios. This might be done on a regional basis.
3.6
The ICES advice also assumes constant spatial overlap of the stocks and constant
catchability by the fleets, which is not always the case. This is where advice from bodies
like the NSAC can be useful in providing guidance on practical management options
where the impact on the mixed fishery advice of measures such as cod avoidance can
be determined
3.7
Edgars Goldmanis noted that the effort management option examined by ICES no
longer exists. Chris noted that this option was still there because it had not been replaced
by other options. This is where the NSAC could help, by being involved in determining
alternative scenarios for the ICES scientists to examine.
3.8
Barrie Deas observed that cod was potentially the limiting factor and needed special
attention. Even with MSY ranges, cod would be a problem. What had happened at the
cod benchmark meeting? Chris Darby said that the report of the cod benchmark meeting
had not yet been finalised. However, the 3rd Quarter survey had now been re-introduced
and that has given a more positive picture for the cod increase in recent years. It has
also been identified that cod are spawning at a younger age, and this has given rise to
higher Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) estimates in recent years, resulting in changes
to the stock recruitment relationship as well as the reference points derived from it. Blim
has now been increased and is now based on the spawning biomass in the last year to
produce a good year class; Bpa has been revised downwards slightly. The associated
precautionary fishing mortality reference points (Flim and Fpa) have not been revised.
Page 3
NSAC
Fmsy is now estimated to be higher at 0.22 and its associated Fmsy range has also
been provided.
3.9
The result of the benchmark revisions to the assessment have not changed the trends
in the spawning stock or fishing mortality, the biomass is still increasing and fishing
mortality declining. It is likely that the cod stock was just above Blim at the end of 2013,
rather than just below as previously estimated in the ICES 2014 advice. The conclusions
are still provisional as the benchmark report has to be finalised and adopted by ICES
and there will also be a new assessment of status by ICES using the revised benchmark
assessment and the 2014 data in May of this year.
3.10 Simon Collins observed that if the cod mixed fisheries scenario were adopted, leading
to a large cut in fishing opportunities for haddock and whiting, then particular problems
would arise if a large haddock year class suddenly appeared. There would be a massive
problem in avoiding haddock. Michael Park pointed out that hake was now very
abundant, and that could now become a choke species. He also emphasised that there
are separate stocks of cod in the North Sea and that management needs to consider
the existence of these different stocks. Chris Darby replied that there were practical
problems in doing that. For management purposes it would be necessary to identify the
proportions of these different stocks within the catch. The stocks might separate from
one another at spawning, but they mix with one another on the fishing grounds, where
they cannot be separated with any certainty. However, we should certainly try to use the
best available information to manage the stocks. Michael Park added that we should not
discard information simply because it makes things more difficult. Michael Andersen
agreed. We have to view this from a practical standpoint and try to incorporate such
factors into the advice.
4
The Latest thinking on long-term management plans
4.1
Steve Mackinson was asked to advise the group on the extent to which cutting edge
scientific advice on multispecies and mixed fisheries might be incorporated into the
advice. Steve was engaged in the GAP2 project case study, which aimed to evaluate
multi-annual fishery management plans, taking account of the food-web (aka ‘predatorprey’ or ‘multispecies’) interactions simultaneously with interactions among multiple
fleets in the North Sea. The project began 4 years ago.
4.2
Currently, STECF is evaluating how multispecies and multifleet interactions affect the
performance of alternative options for a new multispecies multi-annual management
plan for the North Sea. The STECF Working Group will meet on the 16th to the 20th
March to consider the issues. The terms of reference for STECF require them to address
the following questions:
a) What are the consequences of achieving, by 2016 and by 2020, fishing mortalities
within the Fmsy ranges provided by ICES, with particular emphasis on the stocks of cod,
haddock, whiting, saithe, sole, plaice and Nephrops?
b) In addition, for stocks that are below Bpa, what are the consequences for fishing
opportunities in the mixed fisheries if the stocks are rebuilt to a spawning biomass
Page 4
NSAC
greater than Bpa within i) 5 years or ii) 10 years. (Considering that North Sea cod is near
Blim, the impact of this is likely to be driven largely at the rate at which you can recover
cod).
c) Would by-catch stocks in the main fisheries be sufficiently protected through the
management measures to achieve FMSY on the species defining the fisheries, or would
one or more need specific conservation measures? Can the stocks that are likely to
need specific conservation measures be identified?
d) Based on the response to point c), what would be the advantages and disadvantages
of grouping the by-catch stocks into an "other species" TAC? Are there any by-catch
stocks for which individual TACs would be still recommended?
The baseline management scenario that other options will be compared against is
‘Fishing under Council Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, including the landing obligation’
4.3
Cefas will use a calibrated Key Run model of the North Sea ecosystem (ref ICES
WGSAM) to evaluate options that include ranges of Fmsy and different assumptions
about discarding and discard survival. The options, called ‘strategies’ in the model are
the combination of 2 components:
1. Harvest Control Rules, which specify the fishing mortality to apply at a given
stock biomass.
 In the baseline management scenario, F is fixed at the same value regardless
of stock biomass. This represents NO HCR – and is consistent with the basic
regulation.
 ‘Safeguards’ are included by defining a threshold level of stock biomass,
below which F is reduced linearly to zero. The biomass threshold is MSY
Btrigger (=Bpa usually). F=Fmsy when a stock is above the ‘safe’ biomass
threshold.
2. Regulatory Rules:
 Highest Value: Discarding taking place. Fleets target the quota of the highest
value species. When fulfilled they discard any fish caught above quota while
targeting the next highest value. Quota can be overshot. [=’maximum’ scenario
in the f-cube mixed fishery model]
 Weakest stock: No discarding. Fleets stop fishing when they fulfil the quota of
any one of their target stocks. Quota is underutilised. [=’minimum’ scenario in
the f-cube mixed fishery model]
 Selective fishing: No discarding, 100% selectivity (configurable). Fleets target
highest value quota and can continue fishing until all exhausted. Perfect
control.
4.4
The model takes account of the following:


Page 5
Feeding and food web interactions among fish, benthos, marine mammals,
birds. There are 68 biological groups in the model.
Fleet interactions – 11 fleets, including economic data (mixed fisheries)
NSAC







4.5
The model does not take account of:








4.6
MSY policy
Landing obligation policy and possibility for selective fishing
Differences in survivability - ref to de minimis
Conservation safeguards for target and other species
Limits to changes in relative effort
Uncertainty in knowledge and process
F based on stock biomass status
Interspecies quota flexibility
Quota swaps
Relative stability (fleets are represented as single EU fleets – based on DCF
categories)
Ability to fish selectively based on fishing time and location –avoiding choke
species
Impact of any quota uplift
Does not define when Fmsy must be achieved (NB: a different question)
Assumes quotas based on proportion of species caught in model base year (to
be changed in future)
It cannot guess how fleet behaviour might change
In summary, the three main conclusions from initial model runs are:
1. Regulatory component effects of the strategy far outweigh the effects from
changes in the range Fmsy values-based ICES advice. Landing Obligation
scenarios always have a big impact on landings, but do not always result in a
higher biomass of target stocks. Sometimes, quite the contrary. For cod all the
Fmsy ranges perform similarly – getting the stock above Bpa 97%.
2. The Landing Obligation has an obvious negative impact on value of catches,
across all fleets. A key reason for this is the quotas are underutilised when fishing
is stopped due to the quota of the weakest stock being exhausted
3. Ecosystem impacts are most evident for higher predators. Prey species are
relatively insensitive to the changes. Predators of the fished target species are
visibly affected – including threatened and vulnerable species of conservation
interest. Ecosystem indicators (ref: MSFD) will also be examined in the
evaluation.
4.7
Barrie Deas commented that all models are wrong, but some can be useful. There needs
to be some kind of social infrastructure that brings together all the players to interrogate
such models and pose the important questions. Steve replied that currently only the
Commission are the ones asking the questions about the exploration of management
options. Thus the strategies being explored with the model try to closely reflect the
conditions of the CFP. In effect this means running an impact assessment of what the
implications are of applying single species targets in the framework of the new CFP rules
– including the landing obligation. It would also be desirable to consider a wider range
Page 6
NSAC
of options that take in to account (i) the flexibilities that are possible under the CFP (ii)
plausible and practicable options that might fall outside the present CFP but
nevertheless be relevant for good management and shaping future policy. This builds
on the comments made already in relation to the ICES mixed fishery advice, where the
ACs involvement in posing relevant questions to the models and defining alternative
plausible management options for evaluation, would benefit the practical utility of such
modelling work.
4.8
Barrie Deas thought that in the North Sea the big question was does cod drag everything
else down. What is the timescale for achieving Fmsy for cod could be a key question.
Steve responded that while cod is an important focus, it couldn’t be taken in isolation.
The interaction of cod with other stocks, competition among fisheries for stocks and
environmental influences are all part of the picture. The ecosystem model is able to look
at all these kinds of aspects, including the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive. In the preliminary evaluations undertaken, the regulatory provisions have the
greatest impact on the model outputs. For example, if fishing stops when the quota is
taken you get a better trajectory for increasing biomass than if fishing continues with
permission to discard. These results indicate that the focus for debate should be policy
implementation rather than the fine detail of Fmsy values. Ranges of Fmsy provide an
important flexibility for minimizing undesirable ecological fishery trade-offs, and this
offers a space for discussion and to find agreement.
4.9
Michael Park observed that outputs essentially depended on the management decisions
taken. Biomass would be lower with discarding, but this would not always be the case.
For Nephrops the biomass deteriorates if discarding stops, because the Landing
Obligation increases predation upon Nephrops. This model essentially enables us to
ask: “where is this policy taking us?” Michael Andersen thought that the question of
whether we are fishing for large stocks or large catches was important. Another
important finding was that prey species are not impacted heavily by the decisions taken
for target species. However, predator species like seals and birds are greatly affected
by these decisions.
4.10 Barrie Deas agreed that these models allowed us to explore the consequences of
different management options. The science is evolving but it is clear that it is going to
be very important. The advice that we give will be affected by the changing science.
However, we now have to consider our response to the Commission’s consultation
paper. What was the timeline for this? Edgars Goldmanis said that the timeline for
introduction of such a plan was still being considered. An impact assessment needs to
take place, and consultation with all parties is important. There is a need to demonstrate
that the proposed action is needed. The terms of reference for STECF set out the 4
questions that Steve had listed. These were written for the general public to comment
upon. Very general questions are being asked. There would now need to be discussion
within STECF of whether the current models were fit for purpose. A key question is what
will happen if we change the timelines for achieving MSY, and what will the economic
impacts be. The Council will ultimately decide upon the plan. However, the Commission
would like your views on the different options, and there will be further discussion of
these options once comments have been received. The next stage will then be the
impact assessments, which will take several months. The Long-term Management Plan
Page 7
NSAC
will be a repository of information that will guide decision taking for all species and not
just the targeted species.
4.11 Barrie Deas suggested that it would appear that Harvest Control Rules were unlikely to
be part of the plan for legal and political reasons. In reality, the setting of the main joint
stock TACs is done during the EU/Norway negotiations and is then simply ratified by the
Council. Steve Mackinson agreed that the overall plan would not include HCRs, but he
thought that Member States might want to introduce HCRs into the plan, particularly to
represent ‘safeguards’ when the biomass of a stock falls below a certain threshold..
Michael Park questioned whether it was wise to introduce such a new approach during
a transitional period, where the implementation of the Landing Obligation was being
given priority. Shouldn’t we wait until 2020? Edgars Goldmanis replied that the plan
would not be introduced in 2016. The Commission is simply looking forward into the
future, perhaps as far as 2020. Emiel Brouckaert asked about the outcome of the various
scoping meetings. Much information had been exchanged but there had been very little
feedback from the Commission. Will there be an assessment of these meetings? Edgars
replied that the Commission had been focussing on the main questions. However, a
report on the discussions was available and would be circulated.
4.12 Barrie Deas emphasised that the Landing Obligation and now this proposal for multiannual plans both posed a major challenge for the NSAC. Should we simply respond to
the consultation paper questions, or should we present our own advice? Simon Colins
thought that we should not limit ourselves to answering the Commission’s questions.
However, Irene Kingma thought that we did need to consider them. Edgars Goldmanis
added that part of the thinking behind multi-annual plans was that these might mitigate
some of the difficulties raised by the Landing Obligation. That was essentially the
background to the questions being asked.
4.13 Barrie Deas concluded that we should continue to develop our own advice, and then
subsequently we should respond to the Commission’s paper in the light of our
conclusions. Kenn Skau Fischer agreed. Member States are keen to hear our views on
these proposals and we should continue to develop our own advice. Christine Absil
asked what the procedure would be, and it was agreed that, as always, individual
members would be free to submit their own responses to the Commission. What we
were preparing was a jointly agreed position from the NSAC.
5.
The Advice Paper
5.1
The Rapporteur introduced the advice paper. The ideas within the paper had been
discussed at the Demersal Working Group, and an updated version had been produced.
A number of people had commented on that version. Liane Veitch, Michael Park and
Heather Hamilton had modified the text on by-catch stocks, and Michael Andersen and
Andrew Clayton had contributed to the section on cod. The latest version had been
revised to reflect those comments. The paper was perhaps already rather long, and a
number of additional points had now been raised by the Commission’s consultation
paper. In revising the paper we should perhaps aim to remove any text that was not vital
to the document.
Page 8
NSAC
5.2
Barrie Deas thought the paper had captured the main themes that had been discussed.
It reflected a consensus position, and he hoped we could retain a high level of
agreement. The Background section needed to be updated in the light of the
Commission’s new paper. Kenn Skau Fischer thought that we needed to be more
precise in stating the aims of introducing a mixed fishery plan. What were the
Commission’s intentions?
5.3
Emiel Brouckaert thought that the reference to Good Environmental Status was not
important. It should be removed. Michael Andersen agreed. The Rapporteur advised
that earlier drafts had mentioned the MSFD at some length but reference to it had been
reduced in the current draft. Barrie Deas thought we should refer to it, as the
Commission’s paper says that all the relevant legislation has to be considered. Others
agreed that we should mention it, but without dwelling on it at great length.
5.4
A number of other points were raised:

It was important to recognise the importance of multi-species, multi-fisheries
models, while emphasising the need to assess the relevance of the models being
used. The validation of the models would be important. The NSAC needed to be
involved in discussions of the models and their application. If models were
moving management in the wrong direction we should not endorse them. Our
involvement in looking at scenarios should be emphasised in the text.

Discussion of the models being used should take place on a regional basis. It is
very important that managers and stakeholders should discuss the preparation
of multi-annual management plans at a regional level.

We should welcome the opportunities that had been provided to engage with the
Commission by the scoping meetings. These meetings would need to continue.

Our advice should mention the difficulties raised by the lack of enthusiasm in
Norway for a multi-species plan for the North Sea. Any plan that comes forward
must take into account the Norwegian dimension.

Despite reservations about the preparation of over- prescriptive management
plans, there is support within the NSAC for a mixed fishery management
approach. There were difficulties in staying where we are now, with a defective
cod management plan. The setting of ranges for Fmsy is a significant step
forward. We need to decide how wide those ranges need to be, and models may
help with this. Such an approach may also be helpful in reducing the impact of
the Landing Obligation. There is a need to move to a multispecies approach, but
if a particular approach has a significantly negative effect upon the fishing fleets
then we may need to question it. The current system provides some socioeconomic safeguards.

A number of other corrections were suggested to the text.
Page 9
NSAC
5.5
It would be important to retain a section of text dealing with the review of any agreed
management plan, to be inserted at the very end of our paper. Michael Park, Kenn Skau
Fischer and Heather Hamilton would decide what we wanted to say on this, taking into
account delegated acts etc. We needed to decide which aspects of a plan required
flexibility of action. It was noted that Baltfish has agreed that plans should be revised in
accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Framework regulation every second
year, whilst other aspects might be revised on a 6-year basis.
5.6
There is a need to mention that there has been progress in the recovery of cod stocks.
We need to capture the current position. The existing text is essentially dealing with the
past for cod. Chris Darby would check the new text for cod.
5.7
Michael Andersen would provide alternative text for section 4.1, dealing with the areas
to be covered by a mixed fishery plan for the North Sea. We should recognise that
dealing with straddling stocks is important, but we do not wish to put specific advice
forward at this stage.
5.8
In response to a request from Edgars Goldmanis that we should provide comment on
the Terms of Reference set out for STECF by the Commission, it was agreed that we
would ask the Executive Committee for approval to appoint a small group of people to
look at these questions and prepare a short separate document on this.
5.9
It was recognised that more options and aspects, on which the NSAC will wish to
comment, will appear following the impact assessment. However, the current draft
would now be revised within one week, and recirculated to participants on the 16th
March. A deadline of 31st March would be set for any comments on the new text and a
revised draft would then be presented to the Demersal Working Group in Paris on 14th
April. Final approval would be necessary by the 17th April
5.10 Barrie Deas closed the meeting by thanking participants for their contributions. Our
gratitude was especially due to Chris Darby, Steve Mackinson and Edgars Goldmanis
for attending and assisting us with our discussions.
6
Action points
7
In Attendance
Absil
Christine
NSF
Anderson
John
SFO
Andersen
Michael
Danish Fishermen
Page 10
NSAC
1. There has been very little feedback from the Commission Secretariat
on the outcome of the scoping meetings. A report on the
discussions is available and will be circulated to Commission
participants in the Focus Group. (4.1).
2. The section of text dealing with the review of any agreed
management plan will be revised and inserted at the very
end of the NSAC advice paper. Michael Park, Kenn Skau
Fischer and Heather Hamilton will draft the new text for the
Rapporteur to insert (5.5).
Michael Park
Kenn Skau
Fischer
Heather Hamilton
Rapporteur
3. New text will be inserted on progress in the recovery of cod. Rapporteur
Chris Darby will check the new text (5.6).
Chris Darby
4. Alternative text will be provided by Michael Andersen for Michael Andersen
section 4.1, dealing with the areas to be covered by a mixed
Rapporteur
fishery plan for the North Sea. (5.7).
5. The Executive Committee will be asked for approval to Barrie Deas
appoint a small group to provide a separate paper
commenting on the Terms of Reference set out for STECF Secretariat
by the Commission (5.8).
6. The current draft will now be revised, and recirculated to Rapporteur
participants on the 16th March. A deadline of 31st March
will be set for any comments on the new text and a revised Participants
draft will then be presented to the Demersal Working Group Secretariat
in Paris on 14th April. Final approval will be necessary by
the 17th April. (5.9).
Brouckaert
Emiel
Rederscentrale
Bryan-Brown
Thomas
MNWFA
Buchan
James
SFO
Collins
Simon
Scottish Fishermen
Darby
Chris
CEFAS
Deas
Barrie
NFFO
Doeksen
Anne
Seas at Risk
Page 11
NSAC
Duguid
Lorna
NSAC
Fischer
Kenn Skau
Danish Fishermen
Goldmanis
Edgars
European Commission
Hamilton
Heather
Client Earth
Hawkins
Tony
NSAC
Kingma
Irene
Dutch Elasmobranch
Society
Lindebo
Eric
EDF
Locker
Arnold
NFFO
Mackinson
Steve
Cefas
Nemecky
Stella
WWF
Park
Michael
SFF
Stride
Frank
SFO
Viera
Anthony
CNPMEM
Visser
Pim
Visned
Page 12
NSAC