SEC(2007) 474

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

21 st REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (Second Plenary Meeting) Brussels, 7-11 November 2005

This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area.

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 6

3 TERMS OF REFERENCE 7

3.1 INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION AND 2006 PLANNING 7

3.2 FISHERIES CONSERVATION 7

3.2.1 Review the scientific advice on stocks of Community interest 7

3.2.2 Specific requests from the Commission on stocks of Community Interest 7

3.2.3 propose sustainable exploitation rules for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa 8

3.2.4 Identify demersal fisheries where mixed species are caught in Community waters and adjacent areas and estimate their catches for 2006 8

3.2.5 Assess the effectiveness of the cod recovery plan 8

3.2.6 Assess harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and advise on actions for 2006 including level of sentinel fishing 9

3.2.7 Fishing effort for vessels in the context of the recovery of certain stocks 9

3.2.8 Future position of beam trawlers in management of demersal North Sea fishing – Proposal For Amendment Of Annex IVa Of The EU TAC And Quota Regulation 27/2005 9

3.2.9 Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005 for fisheries with demersal trawls other than beam trawls 9

3.3 FISHERIES ECONOMICS 9

3.3.1 propose a way forward for bio-economic modelling in the EU 9

3.3.2 assess the economic impact on European fleets of the latest ICES-ACFM advice 10

3.3.3 Assess Member States' progress in achieving a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 10

3.4 ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 10

3.4.1 Review evidence on by-catch of sea turtles in EU long line fisheries. 10

3.4.2 Revision of the Data Collection Regulation to take into account the ecosystem approach 10

4 INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION AND 2006 PLANNING 11

4.1 NOMINATION OF NEW STECF 11

4.2 MANDATE FOR THE STECF NOVEMBER 2005 – NOVEMBER 2006: TASKS, ORGANISATION, SUBGROUP COORDINATORS, PLANNING 2005/2006. 11

4.3 WRITTEN PROCEDURE (BY CORRESPONDENCE) FOR ADOPTION OF THE FORTHCOMING SGRN REPORT (28 NOVEMBER – 2 DECEMBER ) ADDRESSING MS NON CONFORMITIES AND DEROGATIONS FOR 2006 NATIONAL PROGRAMS. 11

4.4 RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE STECF 11

4.5 IMPROVEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVICE FOR THE NON-EU FISHERIES 12

5 FISHERIES CONSERVATION 13

5.1 REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE ON STOCKS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST 13

5.1.1 STECF Statement on the Johannesburg Declaration and the CFP 14

5.2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSION ON STOCKS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST 15

5.2.1 Fishing effort for Cancer pagurus and Maja squinado stocks 15

5.2.2 Greenland Halibut in V, XII and XIV 16

5.2.3 Nephrops stocks 18

5.2.4 Anchovy in the Bay of Biscay 21

5.2.5 Haddock in the North Sea (ICES Sub-area IV and Division IIIa) 26

5.2.7 Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa 29

5.3 SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION RULES FOR BAY OF BISCAY SOLE, CELTIC SEA COD AND ANGLERFISH IN ICES DIVISIONS VIIIC AND IXA 30

5.3.1 Background and target reference points for long-term management 30

5.3.2 STECF Comments and Recommendations 31

5.4 MIXED FISHERIES 32

5.4.1 background 32

5.4.2 STECF Comments and Recommendations 33

5.5 ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COD RECOVERY PLAN 33

5.5.1 Background 34

5.5.2 STECF comments 34

5.5.3 Trends in effort for the main fleets exploiting cod 34

5.5.4 STECF conclusions and recommendations 35

5.6 HARVEST CONTROL RULE FOR SAND EEL IN NORTH SEA AND SKAGERRAK AND ACTIONS FOR 2006 35

5.6.1 Harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and actions for 2006 36

5.6.2 Review of ad hoc sand eel WG 36

5.6.3 STECF comments and recommendations. 37

5.7 FISHING EFFORT FOR VESSELS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECOVERY OF CERTAIN STOCKS 38

5.7.1 Proposal by the Dutch fishery sector regarding the position of beam trawlers in the Cod Recovery Plan (Annex IVa of Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22nd December 2004). 39

5.7.2 Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005- Fisheries with demersal trawls other than beam trawls from the Dutch Fisheries Organisation. 40

5.7.3 Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005. SSF / North Sea RAC proposal for effort, selectivity and enforcement changes. 41

6 FISHERIES ECONOMICS 48

6.1 PROPOSE A WAY FORWARD FOR BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING IN THE EU 48

6.1.1 Background 48

6.1.2 Terms of reference for the subgroup 48

6.1.3 General observations and recommendations 50

6.2 ASSESS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON EUROPEAN FLEETS OF THE LATEST ICES-ACFM ADVICE 50

6.2.1 AER (Annual Economic Report) 50

6.2.2 Fisheries in 2006 51

6.3 ASSESS MEMBER STATES' PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITY AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES 53

6.3.1 Background 53

6.3.2 STECF Comments and Recommendations 54

7 ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 56

7.1 BY-CATCH OF SEA TURTLES IN EU LONG LINE FISHERIES. 56

7.1.1 STECF observations and comments 56

7.1.2 STECF Recommendations 57

7.2 REVISION OF THE DATA COLLECTION REGULATION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 58

7.2.1 Review of SGRN report 58

7.2.2 STECF comments and recommendations 58

APPENDIX 1 THE FRENCH ANCHOVY FISHING FLEET – AREA VIII STRUCTURE, RECENT TRENDS AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A FISHERY BAN ON THE FISHING FLEETS 62

INTRODUCTION 62

MATERIALS 63

RECENT TRENDS IN THE FRENCH ANCHOVY LANDINGS IN AREA VIII 63

The pelagic trawl fleet 64

The mixed and other trawl fleet 64

The French anchovy purse seine fleet 65

ANCHOVY LANDINGS AND PRICES PER FLEET 66

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS BANS ON THE GROSS REVENUE OF THE MAIN FLEETS. 68

Assumptions 68

Scenarios: 69

Indicators: 69

Application to the main different fleets 69

ANNEXES 76

APPENDIX 2: REVISIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE 2005 ICES FORECAST FOR NORTH SEA HADDOCK 80

WORKING GROUP FORECAST AND ACFM CONCLUSIONS 80

ALTERNATIVES 81

Corrections in spreadsheet implementations 81

Exploitation 81

Mean weights-at-age 82

Industrial bycatch 84

Sensitivity 84

Summary and conclusions 84

APPENDIX 3 LIST OF STECF SUBGROUP MEETINGS SINCE APRIL PLENARY 94

INTRODUCTION

STECF met on the premises of DG FISH, Rue Joseph II, 99 in Brussels from 7 to 11 November 2005.

The Chairman of the STECF, Dr John Casey, opened the plenary session at 1400h.

Mr John Farnell Director, DG FISH, welcomed participants, offering his apologies for the less than satisfactory meeting facilities. He indicated that the option of holding future Plenary sessions at the Secretariat headquarters in Ispra, Italy would be investigated and expressed his good wishes for a successful meeting.

The terms of reference for the meeting were reviewed and the meeting agenda agreed. The session was managed through alternation of Plenary and working group meetings.

The meeting closed at 1345h on 11 November.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Members of the STECF:

Ardizzone, Giandomenico

Bertignac, Michel,

Caminas, Juan-Antonio

Casey, John

Costa Monteiro, Carlos

Di Natale, Antonio

Dickey-Collas, mark

Ernst, Peter

Farina, Antnio Celso

Franquesa, Ramon

Gustavvson, Tore

Van Hoof, Luc

Keatinge, Michael

Kukka, Sakari,

Lokkegaard, Jørgen

Messina, gaetano

Munch-Petersen Sten

Officer, Rick

Perraudeau, Yves

Pestana, Graça

Petrakis, George

Vanhee, Willy

Virtanen, Jarno

Other Scientists

Abaunza, Pablo

Bell, Ewen

Grzebielec Ryszard

Guyader, Olivier

Smith, Mike

Uriatte, Andreas

DG-FISH

Biagi, Franco

Farnell, John

Hagstrom, Olle

Moguedet, Philippe

Pertierra, Juan-Pablo

JRC

Doerner, Henddrik

Shepherd, Iain

Ziegler, Robert

Terms of REFERENCE

INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION AND 2006 PLANNING

The Commission will inform STECF of progress on issues concerning the framework for scientific advice in 2006 and afterwards. The issues concerned will include:

1. Nomination of new STECF (new Regulation)

2. Mandate for the STECF November 2005 – November 2006: tasks, organisation, subgroup coordinators, planning 2005/2006.

3. Data collection. Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000: Written procedure (by correspondence) for adoption of the forthcoming SGRN report (28 November – 2 December) addressing MS non conformities and derogations for 2006 national programs.

4. Rules of procedures of the STECF

Fisheries CONSERVATION

REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE ON STOCKS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST

Based on the report prepared during the SGRST-SGECA meeting of October 24-28, STECF should update the stock status report prepared November 2004 using the most recent scientific information. The STECF should take into account the most recent scientific advice from the ICES-ACFM and scientific committees of relevant Regional Fisheries Organizations. Furthermore STECF is requested to address the following questions on specific stocks:

Specific requests from the Commission on stocks of Community Interest

Fishing effort for Cancer pagurus and Maja squinado stocks

Evaluate whether the fishing effort regime as established in Council Regulations 1954/2003 and 1415/2004 is adequate for sustainable exploitation of edible crab (C ancer pagurus ) and spider crab ( Maja squinado ) stocks as targeted by the Irish fleet.

Greenland Halibut in V, XII and XIV

Evaluate the soundness of the assessment for Greenland halibut in V , XII and XIV and the appropriateness of the management plan, agreed at the last December Council, which foresee a large effort reduction of 66% as well as a consequent reduction of the EU quota with respect to the year 2004. The plan foresees gradual annual reductions of the quota rather one instant reduction in order to reach the ICES advised effort level by 2008.

Nephrops stocks

Identify which harvest rates for stocks of Nephrops are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum sustainable yields (or suitable proxy) and, if relevant economic information is available, STECF should also identify which harvest rates are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum economic yield. This request applies to all stocks of Nephrops where ICES provided advice in the form of a table of harvest rates in October 2005.

Anchovy in the Bay of Biscay

Identify which harvest control rules for Bay of Biscay anchovy need to be developed for 2006 in the light of the ICES advice that no fishing shall be undertaken until a strong year class recruits to the exploited stock

Haddock in the North Sea (ICES Sub-area IV and Division IIIa)

Evaluate whether there are inconsistencies in the ICES catch forecast table for haddock in IV and IIIa and, if the case, produce another one.

Haddock in the North Sea (ICES Sub-area IV and Division IIIa)

The forecast for this stock are based on historical levels of industrial by-catches, but there will be no industrial fisheries in 2006. STECF is asked to make forecast calculations with a range of levels of industrial by-catch (to cover the possibility that the industrial fisheries will be reopened mid year).

Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa

Assess appropriateness of model used by ICES to assess anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa. Fishing mortality on anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa is estimated to have more than doubled since 2002. The total catch for these species ( L. piscatorius and L. budegassa ) increased during this period from 1802 tonnes to 4000 tonnes. Most of this increase is of L piscatorius in Division VIIIc However, information on the effort of these fleets does not indicate an increase, and F in related species such as southern hake or megrims is stable over this period. Survey biomass indices for this period show an increase of 56% (Spanish survey) or 167% (Portuguese survey), although the latter must be looked at with caution because of the small quantities of anglers caught during the survey. Commercial CPUEs of the Santander fleet increased by 97% during this period. Similarly, those of trawlers from La Coruña increased by 60% (see SDWG report). With this information, does STECF think that the ASPIC model used by ICES to assess this stock is appropriate for exploring trends in SSB and F?

propose sustainable exploitation rules for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGMOS-05-01 (26-30 September, 2005) which proposed targets for sustainable exploitation, and harvesting rules for catch and/or fishing effort limits for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa.

Identify demersal fisheries where mixed species are caught in Community waters and adjacent areas and estimate their catches for 2006

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRST-05-02 (17-21 October, 2005) which compiled recent data on demersal mixed fisheries, identified stocks, areas and fleets where there are significant mixed catches and estimated catches for 2006.

Assess the effectiveness of the cod recovery plan

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the conclusions of subgroup meetings SGRST-05-01 (13-17 June 2005) and SGRST-05-4 (19-21 September 2005) which aimed to (a) identify the location and season of the most important fishable concentrations of cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak, eastern Channel, Kattegat, Baltic Sea, west of Scotland, Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea (b) review the current system for the management of fishing effort (Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005) in the context of the cod recovery plan (Regulation 423/2004) (c) evaluate systems feasible for management of fishing effort in the context of a multi-annual management plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea.

Assess harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and advise on actions for 2006 including level of sentinel fishing

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the ad-hoc working group ADHOC-05-03 which aimed to (a) evaluate whether the current HCR for sand eel in the North Sea and Skagerrak are suitable or need to be changed (b) determine what actions shall be envisaged for 2006 on the basis of the ACFM advice and considering that Council Regulation n.1147/2005 of July 2005 has prohibited sand eel fishing until the end of 2005 on the basis of the agreed HCR; (c) assess what level of monitoring fishing (sentinel fishing) shall be allowed in 2006 with a view of monitoring the 2005 recruitment strength in case that a 0 TAC or a very low level of fishing effort need to be established for 2006.

Fishing effort for vessels in the context of the recovery of certain stocks

STECF is requested to comment on the proposal from the Scottish Fisheries Federation forwarded from the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) for improving the basis of target species (Nephrops) management and enhancing selectivity in the finfish by-catch in small mesh fisheries in the Northern North Sea, evaluating where possible the biological and economic effects of the measures from FRS (restricted web-site)

Future position of beam trawlers in management of demersal North Sea fishing – Proposal For Amendment Of Annex IVa Of The EU TAC And Quota Regulation 27/2005

STECF should check, consider and give an opinion on the request from the Dutch fishermen forwarded by the North Sea RAC to remove beam trawlers with V nets must from Annex IVa of the 2005 TAC (Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22 December 2004) and to regulate the effort of this fleet within the scope of a plaice management plan.

Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005 for fisheries with demersal trawls other than beam trawls

STECF should check, consider and give an opinion on the request from the Dutch fishermen forwarded by the North Sea RAC to (1) restructure days at sea in Annex IVa for demersal trawls other than beam trawls and (2) split the days-at-sea, now defined as consecutive period of 24 hours, in two 12 hour periods.

FISHERIES ECONOMICS

PROPOSE A WAY FORWARD FOR BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING IN THE EU

The recent subgroup meeting SGECA-SGRST-05-01, assessed bio-economic models, their data requirements and ongoing projects. Based on the outcome of this meeting STECF should propose how better bio-economic advice can be delivered in the future.

assess the economic impact on European fleets of the latest ICES-ACFM advice

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the EIAA model calculations made during the SGRST-SGECA meeting of October 24-28

Assess Member States' progress in achieving a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.

The Commission, on the basis of the data in the Community Fleet Register and information contained in the Member States’ annual reports, has prepared a summary annual report and presented it to the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries on 29 July 2005. STECF should provide its opinion on this report.

ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

Review evidence on by-catch of sea turtles in EU long line fisheries.

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRST-SGFEN-05-01 which (a) summarised EU long line fisheries, (b) assessed the known by-catches of turtles (c) reviewed data from national rescue centres and (d) assessed knowledge on effectiveness of mitigation measures.

The subgroup identified severe shortage of data from the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, but also in many Atlantic areas. The subgroup recommended more research into mitigation techniques that addressed the whole by-catch problem in order to avoid endorsing techniques that shift the problem from one species to another.

Revision of the Data Collection Regulation to take into account the ecosystem approach

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRN-05-03 which recommended the data could be collected to provide information on (a) the spatial and temporal distribution of different fishing activities (b) trends in fish assemblages. (c) impact of fishing on species that are intentionally exploited and on unintended by catch (d) genetic erosion of commercial wild stocks.

The subgroup recommended collecting data that would support the production of pressure and state indicators. These included making VMS data available for scientists and extending the data collected in surveys. The focus is on impact of fisheries on environment rather than the other way round (because we do not have models to include environmental data)

Information from the Commission and 2006 planning

The Commission will inform STECF of progress on issues concerning the framework for scientific advice in 2006 and afterwards. The issues concerned will include:

NOMINATION OF NEW STECF

The Commission drew attention to Commission decision of 26 August 2005 establishing a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (2005/630/EC). Members were informed that the new Committee to be established under the decision should be appointed before the plenary meeting of April 2006. The term of office of the present Committee will continue until the new Committee is appointed.

MANDATE FOR THE STECF NOVEMBER 2005 – NOVEMBER 2006: TASKS, ORGANISATION, SUBGROUP COORDINATORS, PLANNING 2005/2006.

Given the extensive potential list of meetings for 2006 and the demanding agenda for the current meeting, the Committee took the decision to defer detailed planning of meetings for 2006. It was decided that a meeting of the STECF Bureau should be convened at a mutually convenient date and venue in December 2006 to address detailed planning of Sub-group meetings for 2006.

The date of the next plenary meeting was not fixed but it was agreed it should take place either during the week beginning 27 March, 2006 or 3 April 2006. The exact dates are to be decided by the STECF Bureau.

WRITTEN PROCEDURE (BY CORRESPONDENCE) FOR ADOPTION OF THE FORTHCOMING SGRN REPORT (28 NOVEMBER – 2 DECEMBER ) ADDRESSING MS NON CONFORMITIES AND DEROGATIONS FOR 2006 NATIONAL PROGRAMS.

The SGRN Sub-group will meet as follows:

Date: 28 November – 2 December 2005

Venue: Brussels

Chair: Frank Redant

The Chairman of the Sub-group should send the report of the Sub-group to the Secretariat by 6 December 2005. The Secretariat should immediately place the Report on the meeting web site and inform STECF members that it is ready for review. Masimilliano Cardinale will assume responsibility for drafting the STECF comments and recommendations and forwarding to the Secretariat by 8 December 2005. The STECF comments and recommendations should be finalised by Masimilliano Cardinale in the light of suggestions for amendments from members of STECF. The final response should be sent to the Secretariat by 1200h GMT on 13 December 2005.

RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE STECF

The Commission drew attention to a draft document drawn up by the Commission containing proposed rules of procedure for STECF. The Committee was informed that the document will be circulated to the existing committee for comment by correspondence and that new rules of procedure should be adopted by the STECF at its plenary meeting in March/April 2006.

IMPROVEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVICE FOR THE NON-EU FISHERIES

A. Di Natale informed STECF that he had received an invitation from DG Fishery (FISH/B/1/DC/ca/D2005) to represent STECF at an International Seminar organised by the EC in Mauritius, on the “Improvement of scientific and technical advice for the non-EU fisheries”. STECF welcome this invitation, considering it a further step forward in the integration of the STECF in the work of DG FISH and underlining the role of the STECF within the CFP.

FISHERIES CONSERVATION

Review the scientific advice on stocks of COMMUNITY INTEREST

The STECF review of stocks of Community interest is published in the report produced in the meeting SGECA-SGRST-05-02 of 24-28 October, 2006. This review presents summary information on the state of stocks and management advice for stocks of Community interest throughout the world including those in Third Countries and international waters. In undertaking the review, STECF has consulted the most recent reports on stock assessments and advice from appropriate scientific advisory bodies or other readily available literature, and has attempted to summarise it in a common format. The review is partially incomplete, since in some cases, appropriate information was not readily available to the group. For some stocks the review remains unchanged from the Review of advice for 2004 (SEC(2004)372), since no new information on the status of or advice for such stocks was available at the time the review took place. This does not mean that no such information exists; merely that STECF did not have access to it. A comment to this effect is included in the relevant stock sections. Nevertheless, the report provides summary assessment and management advice on about 300 stocks of interest to the Community.

STECF notes that the term ‘stock’ in some cases, may not reflect a likely biological unit, but rather a convenient management unit. In specific cases STECF has drawn attention to this fact. STECF also is of the opinion that, as far as possible, management areas should coincide with stock assessment areas.

For each stock, a summary of the following information is provided:

STOCK: [Species name, scientific name], [management area]

FISHERIES: fleets prosecuting the stock, management body in charge, economic importance in relation to other fisheries, historical development of the fishery, potential of the stock in relation to reference points or historical catches, current catch (EU fleets’ total), any other pertinent information.

SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE : reference to the management advisory body.

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: where these exist.

PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: where these have been proposed.

STOCK STATUS: Reference points, current stock status in relation to these. STECF has included precautionary reference point wherever these are available.

RELEVANT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: summary of advice.

STECF COMMENTS: Any comments STECF thinks worthy of mention, including errors, omissions or disagreement with assessments or advice.

STECF notes that following the introduction of mixed fishery advice in 2003, ICES began providing overviews of its advice for groups of stocks commencing in 2004. Such advice is summarised in section 16 of this report. In addition, the advice in relation to single species exploitation boundaries and the associated terminology has also been modified. For most stocks, the single species advice on the state of the stock is formulated under two main headings:

- Exploitation boundaries in relation to high long-term yield, low risk of depletion of production potential and considering ecosystem effects .

- Exploitation boundaries in relation to precautionary limits

For those stocks for which management plans have been agreed, ICES has also provided advice under the heading

- Exploitation boundaries in relation to existing management plans.

The ICES advice also contains other information that may be important to the formulation of management proposals and agreements. However, in this report, STECF provides only a summary of the pertinent points in the ICES advice and suggests that the full ICES advice, together with any comments from STECF are taken into account before any management decisions are taken.

Furthermore, brief overviews of the fisheries in the Mediterranean and Southwest Atlantic are also included in the report in Section 17.

A list of reports and publications consulted is given at the end of the document. STECF recognises that in future the format of the stock review publication may evolve, taking into account comments from users of the publication.

The STECF review of scientific advice was drafted by the STECF Sub-group on Resource Status (SGRST, Chair, J. Casey) during its joint meeting with the Sub-group on Economic Assessment (SGECA) of 24 – 28 October 2005, and subsequently finalised and endorsed at the 21st STECF Plenary meeting (7 – 11 November 2005).

STECF Statement on the Johannesburg Declaration and the CFP

The EU has committed to the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg (2nd to 4th September 2002). STECF considers, that the Johannesburg Declaration requires agreement on new operational management objectives within the CFP and as a consequence, impacts on the advisory criteria of STECF, ICES and other advisory bodies.

Paragraph 31 (a) of the Declaration defines that stocks should be recovered to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields (MSY) by 2015. This objective was established in the "Rio Declaration" of 1992, but without an agreed time schedule of reaching the objective.

The Johannesburg plan of implementation is a commitment to rebuild individual stocks to the states at which they can produce maximum sustainable yields. This means that each fish resource should be able to produce maximum sustainable yields within the constraints of the ecosystem that it inhabits. This excludes the possibility of attempting to manipulate ecosystem structure by over-fishing some species in order to improve the yields of others.

The productive capacity of the seas and oceans is limited and it may not be possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield that would be predicted starting from current conditions for all stocks in an ecosystem simultaneously - mainly because species compete with each other for resources. Therefore, management measures must be found that are robust to prediction uncertainty.

It has been stressed, that the practical problems of estimating the biomass required to reach MSY are so great, that biomass should not be used as an operational aim, even though it is used as the aim in the Declaration. The problems are related to the uncertain stock-recruit information and to the variability of the aquatic environment. As a result, it has been suggested that instead of using the uncertain Bmsy, the use of Fmsy would be a less uncertain management goal. STECF agrees that Fmsy can be used instead of Bmsy, if there is no useful S/R information available.

In order to reach the goal of Johannesburg Declaration, STECF considers that the biomasses of fish stocks in year 2015 should consist of year classes which have been recruited to the stock as a result of applying Fmsy earlier on in the management. Then provided a stock is in a state where it would be expected to experience normal recruitment (i.e. is above Blim) and if the fishery (including discards) on a stocks is only substantial in terms of total fishing mortality or overall biomass for age groups 2 – 7 then Fmsy must be achieved 6 years (number of significant age groups) before the target year of 2015 in order to reach the political aim. This implies a need for an additional element in management current plans to reach Fmsy in the required time period. For the example above, this would mean an operational objective to reach Fmsy by 2009 at the latest.

STECF recommends that a management objective satisfying the above criteria be set for each stock.

STECF further recommends that Fmsy or an agreed proxy should routinely be included in stock status reports and advice.

Specific requests from the Commission on stocks of Community Interest

Fishing effort for Cancer pagurus and Maja squinado stocks

STECF was asked the following:

Evaluate whether the fishing effort regime as established in Council Regulations 1954/2003 and 1415/2004 is adequate for sustainable exploitation of edible crab (Cancer pagurus) and spider crab (Maja squinado) stocks as targeted by the Irish fleet.

background

As a background for the evaluation the STECF had at its disposal a document requesting increased effort provided by Ireland containing an overview of the development of the Irish fishery (IR 2005a), a response from the Commission (COMM 2005), an addendum to the Irish Govt. request (IR 2005b), a resource evaluation report (Tully et al. 2005) and recent ICES crab study group reports (ICES 2003; 2004; 2005).

As the landings into Ireland of spider crab from area VI are negligible, the biological data submitted relates only to edible crab ( Cancer pagurus ). STECF notes that catches of spider crab in ICES area VI are generally negligible as the species reaches the northern limits of its distribution on the mid west coast of Ireland (ICES area VII). STECF notes, however, that comments regarding the current fishing effort regulation also apply to fisheries for this species.

Status of edible crab stock in Area VI

The LPUE series provided to STECF show a declining trend during 1990-1994 (the development phase of the offshore fishery) followed by a period of apparent stability in the mid 1990s and more recently a further decline in LPUE. Declining LPUE appears to coincide with periods of expansion of capacity and effort in the fishery. In addition, available landings and effort data indicate that recent high levels of effort have realised only small increases in landings and that LPUE has declined linearly with increasing effort.

STECF considers that the observed decline in LPUE indicates a decline in abundance.

STECF further notes, however, that 1) that there appears to be no recent change in the average size of crabs in the landings and 2) that the cumulative size distribution of landings indicates that landing of crabs does not occur until they are significantly larger that the minimum landing size (Minimum legal size: 130mm, landing size is generally (>95%) >150 mm). Maturity ogives presented indicate that 50% of crabs are mature at 120mm and all crabs by 130mm. This implies that a significant proportion are able to spawn before capture. However, these figures relate to combined sex data: size at 50% maturity for female crabs in this fishery varies from 133 to 138mm dependent on area (ICES 2004).

Effort trends in the fishery for edible crab in Sub-area VI

STECF notes that deployed effort in the Irish northwest crab fishery (ICES area VI and part of area VII) exceeded 775,000 kW days in 2003 – a figure smaller than the total allowed effort provided for in Council Regulation 2027 of 1995. The nominal effort limit set for Ireland by Regulation 1415/2004 is 465,000 kW days, based on the average effort deployed from 1998–2002.

Effort, in terms of pot hauls, has increased six-fold over the period 1992-2004 (for the analysed group of offshore vessels). Effort (pot hauls) increased rapidly in the period 1990-1994, was relatively stable from 1994-2000 and has since increased rapidly to the series maximum in 2004.

Appropriateness of current effort regulations

STECF notes that the introduction of the 2004 kW days regulations actually provides for a marked increase of the total allowable effort compared to previously observed levels. Whilst STECF was not provided with information on the level of uptake, it is believed that some Member States do not fully utilise their effort allocations. There is therefore a considerable amount of latent capacity (in nominal effort) available.

The increase in numbers of pots hauled in the presented data since the implementation of the 2004 effort regulations also demonstrates that these regulations have not restricted effective effort.

The combination of latent capacity and the ability of the fleet to increase effective effort by deploying more gear render the effort regulations ineffective.

Conclusions

STECF notes a decline in abundance, current high levels of effective effort and the inability of current regulations to effectively control effort in this fishery. STECF therefore concludes that the fishing effort regime, as established in Council Regulations 1954/2003 and 1415/2004, is inadequate for sustainable exploitation of edible crab ( Cancer pagurus ) stocks.

STECF suggests that effective effort would be better regulated by restricting the number of pots and number of pot hauls in the fishery. STECF considers that regulation of effective effort should apply to all vessels prosecuting this fishery, rather than just those >15m.

During the mid 1990s LPUE was sustained at a stable level. STECF suggests that the average annual effective effort as proposed above, over this period (which was not available to STECF due to lack of data from some fleets) could be used as an appropriate level of effort that may sustain the fishery.

References

COMM (2005). Response of the Commission to a request by Ireland for increased effort for edible crab & spider crab in ICES area VI. Dated 12th April 2005.

ICES (2003). The Report of the ICES Study Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs. ICES CM 2003/G:11.

ICES (2004). The Report of the ICES Study Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs. ICES CM 2004/G:13.

ICES (2005). The Report of the ICES Study Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs. ICES CM 2005/G:10.

IR (2005a). Request for increased effort for edible crab & spider crab in ICES area VI. Submitted 16th March 2005.

IR (2005b). Addendum to a request for increased effort for edible crab & spider crab in ICES area VI. Submitted 2nd September 2005.

Tully, O., Robinson, M., Cosgrove, R., O Keeffe, E., Doyle, O. & Lehane, B. (2005). The Brown Crab (Cancer pagurus L.) fishery: Analysis of the resource in 2004-2005. Report compiled for the Crab Advisory Group, Ireland.

Greenland Halibut in V, XII and XIV

STECF was asked the following:

Evaluate the soundness of the assessment for Greenland halibut in V , XII and XIV and the appropriateness of the management plan, agreed at the last December Council, which foresee a large effort reduction of 66% as well as a consequent reduction of the EU quota with respect to the year 2004. The plan foresees gradual annual reductions of the quota rather one instant reduction in order to reach the ICES advised effort level by 2008.

evaluation of the assessment for Greenland halibut in Sub-areas V, Xii and XIV

STECF notes that the genetic and productivity structure of the stock is weakly defined within the management areas V, VI, XII and XIV. Moreover, there are no precautionary reference points defined and the assessment is only based on area-disaggregated stock indices although none of those indices covers the entire distribution of Greenland halibut in these areas.

Surveys indices:

Vb | no information |

Va | drastic drop in abundance for all size classes |

XIVb | insignificant changes or slight decrease compared to 1998-2000. |

Commercial CPUE indices:

Vb | recently stable but low compared to 1991-1993. |

Va | recently sharply decreased and at historical low level. |

XIVb | no trend recognisable. |

The ACFM indicated a general decline in stock abundance for the whole area. However, based on the trends in the indices given above, there is a recent sharp decline in stock size indicated in Va both from surveys and commercial CPUE, while the stock appears stable in area XIVb. The status in Vb, VI and XII is uncertain but catches from theses areas represent only a minor component of the international catch. The observed decrease in abundance in Va is probably the result of increased fishing effort and landings since the late 1990s. In this area the largest part of the catch is usually taken.

STECF concludes that the stock abundance in all management areas V, VI, XII and XIV as a whole remains uncertain, although there are indications of substantial local depletion in some of the management areas.

Appropriateness of the management plan

STECF is unaware of any management plan for Greenland halibut in V, VI, XII and XIV but notes that any management plan needs to be agreed and implemented by the coastal states of Greenland, Iceland and Faeroes Islands.

The ACFM advice for 2006 applies to all management areas (i.e. V, VI, XII and XIV) and recommends a TAC of less than 15,000 t which is considered to be consistent with an effort reduction of 2/3 compared to the level estimated for 2003.

STECF notes that there is no analytical basis for proposing a TAC for 2006 of less than 15000 t. for all areas combined. However, taking into account the available information on the state of the stock.

In the absence of an area based management plan the area STECF recommends that the fishing mortality of Greenland halibut should be reduced in all management areas (i.e. V, VI, XII and XIV). STECF recommends a stronger effort reduction in those areas where Greenland halibut shows a larger decline in stock size would be preferred. STECF recommends that if an area based management plan with higher effort reduction in area Va be agreed, this is expected to decrease the probability of local deletion and contribute positively to improvements in the state of the stock.

There is no reliable basis to give unequivocal advice on a catch level for the whole area. The CPUE data from area Va suggests that previously a catch level of 11,000 was sufficiently low to allow CPUE to increase in subsequent years. In the absense of any better information the choice of this effort / catch level for area Va would not be inappropriate. For area XIVb the current catch level of is 7,000 t (average of last 6 years treating the final year as uncertain). CPUE series for this area is relatively stable over this period despite fluctuation in catch. There is no evidence to suggest that 7,000 t is an inappropriate level for catch in this area. If these amounts are to be allocated, it must be in the context of an area management agreement that ensures that these are the maximum amount taken in each area. In the absence of an area based management agreement the Va reduction rate should be applied across all areas (this implies 16,500 t for all areas). STECF recommends that stock monitoring data be collected for any significant fishery and stock evaluation should be carried out possibly through coordination of existing surveys.

Nephrops stocks

STECF was asked the following:

Identify which harvest rates for stocks of Nephrops are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum sustainable yields (or suitable proxy) and, if relevant economic information is available, STECF should also identify which harvest rates are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum economic yield. This request applies to all stocks of Nephrops where ICES provided advice in the form of a table of harvest rates in October 2005.

Background

ICES advice on the status of Nephrops stocks has been based since 1992 on XSA assessments using sliced length composition data. In recent years, however, the quality of official landings data has been called into question leading to doubts about the reliability of both the TAC advice and the analytical assessments conducted by ICES. In its 2005 analysis, ICES did not include assessments based on landings data – in particular because of unreliability and uncertainties in the suitability of the XSA method for Nephrops . ICES did, however, provide information on the state of some stocks using fishery independent data; specifically, underwater television surveys. These avoid the problem of variable catch rates in trawls surveys that arise from the emergence behaviour of Nephrops . ICES further showed that for a number of Nephrops stocks (in the North Sea and West of Scotland) current levels of exploitation appear sustainable but advised against any increase in effort. ICES/ACFM also noted the need for mandatory collection of accurate data to assist in the future assessment process.

Based on the available fishery independent data (underwater television surveys), ICES went on to advice on potential catch levels for 2006; this advice was obtained by applying a range of possible harvest ratios (HR) to the TV abundance data. However, in the absence of a more suitable approach, these harvest ratios were based on a comparison with reported landings. Given that the quality of landings and other official data is questioned in the ICES report, the appropriateness of harvest ratios based entirely on these data is problematic.

STECF comments

STECF considered an alternative approach, based on yield per recruit analysis, to determine more appropriate harvest ratios, (see ICES Nephrops assessment WG Report 2004). Although the use of length cohort analysis (LCA) or other similar techniques have shortfalls, the concerns mainly relate to estimating the current state of exploitation, and not the overall shape of the yield per recruit curve, and, consequently, reference points based on that curve. Yield per recruit analysis provides estimates of a number of reference points including Fmax (a proxy for MSY) and the more cautious F0.1. STECF noted both that Fmax is more difficult to estimate than F0.1 and that F msy is normally expected to be at or below Fmax but also depends also on stock recruit relationships that are unknown for these stocks. Given these uncertainties STECF is of the opinion that F0.1 is an appropriate fishing mortality to recommend for exploitation: this would be consistent with the precautionary approach. Data from six major Nephrops fisheries (in two groups of 3 stocks, in the North Sea and to the West of Scotland) and for which extensive data exist, were considered and the results, Fmax, F0.1 and the corresponding harvest ratios (HR), are shown in the Table 5-1

Table 5-1 Fmax, F0.1 and the corresponding harvest ratios (HR)

Stock | Fmax | HR% | F0.1 | HR% |

Group 1: West of Scotland stocks. |

North Minch | 0.40 | 33.1% | 0.23 | 20.5% |

South Minch | 0.55 | 42.4% | 0.23 | 20.7% |

Clyde | 0.36 | 30.0% | 0.23 | 20.4% |

Mean | 35.2% | 20.5% |

Group 2: North Sea stocks. |

Fladen | 0.39 | 32.4% | 0.21 | 19.2% |

Forth | 0.36 | 30.5% | 0.22 | 19.4% |

Moray Firth | 0.45 | 36.1% | 0.24 | 21.0% |

Mean | 33.0% | 19.9% |

The (combined sex) yield per recruit curves for these two groups are also shown. Both the yield per recruit curves and the estimated reference points generated from the curves are relatively consistent between areas. This is not unexpected given the similar growth and natural mortality and selection patterns in the fisheries.

- F max varies between 0.36 and 0.55, and exploitation at this level would imply an average harvest ratio between 33 – 35%.

- A more precautionary level, F0.1 appears particularly consistent, ranging from 0.21 to 0.24, equating to a harvest rate of approximately 20%.

[pic]

Figure 5-1 Combined sex relative yield per recruit curve for West of Scotland Nephrops stocks, based on LCA.

[pic]

Figure 5-2 Combined sex relative yield per recruit curve for Northern North Sea Nephrops stocks, based on LCA.

TV survey abundance and use of the harvest ratios to provide catch advice.

Based on the available fishery independent data (underwater television surveys), ICES has reported that the six Nephrops stocks considered here are stable or in some cases increasing in abundance. STECF considered trends in TV abundance and trends in mean size in the landings and catch and concurred with the ICES conclusion. Increases in abundance were particularly evident for the West of Scotland Nephrops stocks. Mean size of the larger component of the landings are generally stable while in the small component there is more fluctuation, reflecting recruitment variability. The stable mean size of the larger components provides a further indicator of the healthy nature of these stocks.

Economic Aspects

When the production (income) and cost curves are not known in detail it is not possible to calculate the maximum economic yield (MEY). When the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (or other biologically based exploitation rate) has been established, it is possible to determine the appropriate maximum number of vessels (capacity) taking into account the days at sea, and the harvest per day at this exploitation rate. When this level is achieved in practice, a step by step procedure should start with cuts in capacity in order to explore the shape of the production curve as the maximum economic yield is more conservative than the MSY. The commission should investigate this further through a WG with appropriate TOR.

STECF Conclusions

The results given here, which provide guidance for the general exploitation targets for Nephrops functional units in VIa (North Minch FU 11, South Minch FU 12, Clyde FU 13) and in the North Sea (Fladen FU 7, Forth FU 8, Moray Firth FU 9). STECT considers that implementation of these exploitation rates needs to take the following points into consideration.

- There is evidence of unreported catch (from ICES reports and an EU project 99/OJ C122) and therefore current catches are already higher than reported landings. As a result current exploitation rates as estimated by landings data and reported by ICES are almost certainly underestimates.

- Management is currently carried out on a management area basis, within which are several Functional Unit based fisheries. If the object is to manage these areas in accordance with an F0.1 objective there is a need to ensure that appropriate harvest rations are maintained in each of the functional units. i.e. separate Nephrops stocks must be managed separately.

- Some of the “ Nephrops ” fisheries make an important contribution to mortality on depleted stocks. Therefore there is a need for effort management and mandatory by-catch mitigation methods that are consistent with recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught in fisheries for Nephrops .

Taken together these points lead to the following STECF conclusions for exploitation of Nephrops .

STECF considers that F0.1 is a suitable sustainable exploitation target for Nephrops Functional Units in VIa (North Minch FU 11, South Minch FU 12, Clyde FU 13) and in the North Sea (Fladen FU 7, Forth FU 8, Moray Firth FU 9) and that is best achieved through a functional unit based effort management regime with accompanying by-catch mitigation measures. Any such regime should be consistent with recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught together with Nephrops .

STECF notes that exploiting Nephrops at F0.1 implies an approximate harvest rate corresponding to a catch/biomass ratio of about 20%. However, given the concerns regarding unreported catch, the harvest rates for the above Nephrops Functional Units presented in the ICES advice, which are based on the ratio of reported landings to the estimated biomasses from underwater TV surveys, are almost certainly underestimated.

Taking into account the requirements of recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught in fisheries that exploit Nephrops, together with the uncertainty regarding current harvest rates, STECF makes the following two recommendations:

5. STECF recommends that there should be no increase in the exploitation rate on Nephrops Functional Units in VIa (North Minch FU 11, South Minch FU 12, Clyde FU 13) and in the North Sea (Fladen FU 7, Forth FU 8, Moray Firth FU 9). STECF stresses that this means that Nephrops catches i.e. landings and discards, and effort in these fisheries for Nephrops should be capped at the recent (2004) level or reduced in line with the requirements of recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught together with Nephrops from these Functional Units.

6. STECF recommends that without a move to a functional unit based effort management regime with accompanying by-catch mitigation measures there should be no move to F0.1 as a target.

Marrs, S.J., Tuck, I.D., Arneri, E., La Mesa, M., Atkinson, R.J.A., Ward, B., & Santojanni. A. 2002. Technical Improvements in the assessment of Scottish Nephrops and Adriatic clam fisheries.(99/077 Study Project in support of the Common Fisheries Policy call for proposals 99/OJ C122)

Report of the Working Group on Nephrops Stocks 28–01 April 2004 Lisbon, Portugal ICES CM 2004/ACFM:19

Anchovy in the Bay of Biscay

STECF was asked the following:

Identify which harvest control rules for Bay of Biscay anchovy need to be developed for 2006 in the light of the ICES advice that no fishing shall be undertaken until a strong year class recruits to the exploited stock.

Background

ICES advice in 2005

Based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classifies the anchovy stock in Sub-Area VIII (Bay of Biscay) as suffering from reduced reproductive capacity. SSB is estimated to be well below B lim . The stock in 2005 is the lowest in the time series. Low recruitment since 2001 and almost complete recruitment failure in 2004 are the primary causes of the stock collapse. This led to the closure of the fishery in July 2005. ICES recommends that the fishery should remain closed and should, at the earliest, be considered for opening if the acoustic and egg surveys in May-June 2006 demonstrate a strong 2005 year-class.

STECF advice in 2005

STECF agrees with the ICES’ advice and reiterates its July 2005 recommendations that the Biscay anchovy fishery should remain closed until reliable estimates of the 2006 SSB and 2005 year-class become available based on the results from the spring 2006 acoustic and DEPM surveys. This implies closure of the fishery until at least July 2006.

Autumn surveys results

Results of the September-October surveys on anchovy juveniles (JUVENA and JUVAGA) were presented to STECF. JUVENA 2005 survey (aiming at producing a recruitment index) has not yet delivered any quantitative acoustic estimate of juveniles, but has detected higher juvenile abundances spread over larger areas (south of 46ºN) than in JUVENA2004 (when very few detections were made while failure of recruitment was occurring). Nevertheless, the short series of JUVENA surveys (only 3 surveys) precludes so far any quantitative use of their results. A minimum of 4-5 years of comparisons between JUVENA acoustic estimates of juveniles and recruitment at age 1 estimates in the following year is necessary to decide on the utility of this survey indices for recruitment forecast. JUVAGA surveys also reported on acoustic detections and behaviour of juveniles in different areas. Hence, although these surveys provided qualitative information on juvenile distribution and abundance, they cannot be used yet to predict 2005 year-class strength.

3.2.4.3 Economic evaluation of the French fleets for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay.

The STECF reviewed working documents (Appendix 1 ) which describe the evolution of the French fleets that exploit anchovy and evaluate the likely economic impact of a complete closure on the French fishery for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay. The long term evolution of the total annual gross revenue of the French fleets is more stable than the landings because of price effects. More recent figures on the monthly evolution of price and landings underline the sensitivity of price to changes in supply.

A preliminary analysis of the potential impacts of different scenarios bans on the gross revenue and other economic indicators of the main fleets was carried out. It considers the anchovy dependency of the main fleets in terms of gross revenue at an annual and a monthly basis and the potential consequences of different scenarios for anchovy bans based on a retrospective analysis on the fleets gross revenue. Anchovy dependency can be high for some fleets (e.g. 60% annual average for the trawler fleet and the share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue per quarter can reach 80% for this fleet), but the seasonality of the anchovy landings differs from a fleet to another. Moreover, the quarterly analysis of the variation in gross surplus (in percentage), are larger than the variations in gross revenues.

The evaluation also considered the impact of potential mitigation measures that the fleets may be able to adopt such as directing some of their effort on to species other than anchovy by changing gear used or not. The overall results indicate that cessation of all fishing activity for the trawler fleet targeting anchovy would lead to losses in gross revenue ranging from 40% - 80% depending on the length of closure. Continuing to fish for species other than anchovy but maintaining their base-line activity would result in losses of 55%. Maximizing their potential revenue by targeting species other than anchovy with bottom trawl would result in losses in the region of 20%. The latter option should be considered optimistic since crewing effects, licensing quota restrictions for other species, price effects, etc, have to be taken into account in the predictions. The recent evolution of the situation on other fisheries during the third quarter of 2005 have shown that effort reallocation is problematic (e.g. the example of albacore), for the reasons mentioned before, and leads to a cost (not measured here) for the other fleets targeting these species.

STECF notes that there may be some scope for reducing the economic impact of a closure for the French fleets fishing for anchovy, provided that they are able to diversify their activity and target other species. The analysis suggests that in the most optimistic scenario, losses in gross revenue of the order of -55% could be reduced to -20%. However this is dependent on the period of closure, the availability of other fishing opportunities, their ability to exploit them and the market consequences of changes in supplies.

The analysis of the consequences of the ban on the trawler fleet in terms of economic indicators (gross surplus, crew share) was also carried out. It assumes a shift of fishing effort from pelagic trawl to bottom trawl in the first 6 months of 2006 and the re-opening of the fisheries in July 2006. The analysis considers that the switch from pelagic trawling to bottom trawling implies investments costs in new gears and equipments. The share of gross surplus in gross revenue was around 20% over the period 2001-2003, then it declines in 2004 and in 2005. In 2006, according to effort reallocation (options 2 and 3), these fleets would reach gross surplus ratio levels close to those of the beginning of the years 2000. However, taking into account reimbursement cost (capital and interests) the profitability of a large number of vessels in the fleet would be poor.

It is also possible to consider the spill over effects of the anchovy fishing activity on the harbour activities and the related economic local sectors. In the case of harbors specialized on anchovy (Pays de la Loire region), 200 full time equivalent (FTE) fishermen are supposed to yield 200 and around 300 FTE employment in the harbour’s and the local economy, respectively (Baranger et al. 2002). The impacts of the anchovy on specific coastal areas are high compared to other fishing activities.

The results of a complementary anaysis presented at the anchovy sub-group SGRST-05-03, July 2005, provides information on other economic indicators (gross surplus or financial profitability). It underlines that theses indicators are more sensitive to the effects of a fishery closure.

STECF notes that it could be useful to consider the impact of different HCR scenarios by providing economic indicators for the fleet targeting anchovy and other fleets operating in fisheries potentially concerned by effort re-allocation. Based on the work presented, the analysis of price effects and the study of markets structure for the main related species should be considered.

STECF comments and recommendations

Harvest control rule for 2006

Given the information presented above, STECF recommends the following:

- there should be a zero TAC for anchovy in Sub-Area VIII (Bay of Biscay) for at least January-June 2006.

- the fishery for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay is only re-opened in 2006, if the results of the 2006 spring surveys indicate that the Spawning Stock Biomass in 2006 is above B lim (21,000 t).

- any TAC for the period July-December 2006 should be set at a level that is predicted to result in a SSB in 2007 above B pa (33,000 t) according to the following rationale.

Rationale for prediction of appropriate catch level for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for the period July-December 2006

To estimate an appropriate TAC for July-December 2006, deterministic short-term projections were carried out for a range of SSBs for 2006 with the following assumptions:

- Fishing mortality for the period July 2006- June 2007 is apportioned equally between the second half of 2006 and the first half of 2007.

- Recruitment of the 2006 year-class in 2007 is set to the 25th percentile of the historically observed recruitment.

The results are presented in Table 5-2, which shows the maximum level of catch that can be taken in the second half of 2006, and first half of 2007 to ensure a SSB in 2007 above B pa .

Despite the fact that Bpa is not be well defined, STECF considers that 33,000 t is a “reasonable” threshold level, as estimated historical SSBs have been above this level most of the time. It also gives you a high probability of being above B lim , considering uncertainties in the assessment. The projections in Table 5-2 have been carried out over a large enough range of SSBs for 2006 to include an option to fish at F pa (estimated by ICES as 1.2 per year). Under this harvest rule the option to fish at Fpa in 2006 is only possible if SSB in 2006 is above 82 000t.

STECF considerations for a longer-term management regime

STECF notes that the spring acoustic and DEPM surveys provide the main tuning indices to the current assessment and should be maintained. Acoustic and fishing surveys should continue to be carried out in the period of September/October every year to provide an index of abundance of recruits. The survey(s) should cover the known distribution area of the juvenile anchovy and should include pelagic trawling as well as purse seine fishing. All nations and/or institutes involved in the fishery should be encouraged to collaborate in these surveys and STECF recommends that co-ordination should be under ICES WGACEGG. The STECF encourages development of any other research surveys that could provide additional information on the recruitment process in this stock.

STECF notes that further to the HCR for 2006, a revision of the current management regime is still required to maintain the longer-term viability of the stock and the fishery. These would need to be scientifically evaluated prior to adoption. As a consequence, STECF recommends that a working group evaluate alternative HCRs before next STECF plenary. This evaluation should take into consideration the following elements:

- The recruitment levels and/or the stock recruitment relationship,

- The incorporation of information from the surveys and/or from the fishery in an in-year management procedure.

- The appropriateness of any controls or indicators in addition or alternative to current reference points (Blim and Bpa).

- If possible, the use of all available surveys (spring and autumn) as indicators of recruitment and any alternative timing for those surveys.

- The use of alternative management measures such as TAC level, effort control, area or seasonal closures

- The bio-economic consequences of each HCRs evaluated.

Investigate candidates for Fpa and Flim.

Table 5-2 Maximum allowable catches for the second half of the year in 2006

Basis: | F(sq) 2-8 = | 0.28 | SSB(05) = | 249 | SSB(06) = | 254 | Bpa = | 140 |

Landings(05) = | 48 | Disc(05) = | 9 | IBC(06) = | 0 | Blim = | 100 |

F(2-8) 06 | F mult | Catches 2006 | Landings 2006 | Disc 2006 | IBC 2006 | SSB 2007 |

Zero catch | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 302 |

Status quo | 0.285 | 1.000 | 64 | 45 | 19 | 0 | 250 |

High long-term yield | 0.180 | 0.632 | 42 | 30 | 12 | 0 | 268 |

Agreed management plan | 0.300 | 1.052 | 67 | 48 | 20 | 0 | 248 |

Precautionary limits | F(pa) * 0.1 | 0.063 | 0.221 | 15 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 290 |

F(pa) * 0.25 | 0.158 | 0.553 | 37 | 26 | 11 | 0 | 272 |

F(pa) * 0.5 | 0.315 | 1.105 | 70 | 50 | 21 | 0 | 245 |

F(pa) * 0.75 | 0.473 | 1.658 | 101 | 70 | 30 | 0 | 222 |

F(pa) * 0.9 | 0.568 | 1.989 | 118 | 82 | 36 | 0 | 209 |

F(pa) | 0.631 | 2.210 | 129 | 89 | 40 | 0 | 201 |

Others | 15% red. TAC | 0.385 | 1.347 | 84 | 59 | 25 | 0 | 235 |

0.100 | 0.351 | 24 | 17 | 7 | 0 | 281 |

0.200 | 0.701 | 46 | 33 | 13 | 0 | 263 |

0.300 | 1.052 | 67 | 47 | 19 | 0 | 246 |

0.400 | 1.402 | 86 | 61 | 26 | 0 | 231 |

0.500 | 1.753 | 105 | 74 | 31 | 0 | 217 |

0.600 | 2.103 | 122 | 85 | 37 | 0 | 204 |

Basis: | F(sq) 2-8 = | 0.28 | SSB(05) = | 249 | SSB(06) = | 254 | Bpa = | 140 |

Landings(05) = | 48 | Disc(05) = | 9 | IBC(06) = | 0 | Blim = | 100 |

F(2-8) 06 | F mult | Catches 2006 | Landings 2006 | Disc 2006 | IBC 2006 | SSB 2007 |

Zero catch | 0.000 | 0.000 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 299 |

Status quo | 0.294 | 1.000 | 70 | 45 | 19 | 6 | 247 |

High long-term yield | 0.185 | 0.632 | 48 | 30 | 12 | 6 | 265 |

Agreed management plan | 0.300 | 1.022 | 72 | 46 | 19 | 6 | 246 |

Precautionary limits | F(pa) * 0.1 | 0.065 | 0.221 | 22 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 287 |

F(pa) * 0.25 | 0.162 | 0.553 | 43 | 26 | 11 | 6 | 269 |

F(pa) * 0.5 | 0.324 | 1.105 | 76 | 50 | 20 | 6 | 243 |

F(pa) * 0.75 | 0.487 | 1.658 | 107 | 70 | 30 | 6 | 219 |

F(pa) * 0.9 | 0.584 | 1.989 | 124 | 82 | 35 | 6 | 207 |

F(pa) | 0.649 | 2.210 | 134 | 89 | 39 | 6 | 199 |

Others | 15% red. TAC | 0.396 | 1.347 | 90 | 59 | 25 | 6 | 232 |

0.100 | 0.341 | 29 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 278 |

0.200 | 0.681 | 51 | 32 | 13 | 6 | 261 |

0.300 | 1.022 | 71 | 46 | 19 | 6 | 245 |

0.400 | 1.363 | 90 | 59 | 25 | 6 | 230 |

0.500 | 1.704 | 108 | 72 | 30 | 6 | 216 |

0.600 | 2.044 | 125 | 83 | 36 | 6 | 203 |

0.700 | 2.385 | 141 | 94 | 41 | 6 | 191 |

0.800 | 2.726 | 157 | 104 | 46 | 6 | 180 |

0.900 | 3.066 | 171 | 113 | 51 | 6 | 170 |

1.000 | 3.407 | 185 | 122 | 56 | 6 | 160 |

Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa

- STECF was asked the following:

Advise on the appropriateness of the ASPIC model used by ICES to assess the combined stock of Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa in VIIIc and IXa for exploring trends in SSB and F. ICES chose the ASPIC model because there is a lack of appropriate time series of age-based catch data.

Assessment and Survey results

The ASPIC model implements the logistic stock production model (Schaefer model, 1954). This model estimates total annual stock biomass and fishing mortality based on yield and effort data. The production models may not detect changes in recruitment.

The results of the ASPIC model indicate that F has increased dramatically over the period 2002 –2004. However the data from the commercial fishery in VIIIc and IXa that exploits anglerfish indicate that effort has remained relatively stable and total catch and catch rates have both increased from 2002 to 2004. Furthermore, the fishing mortality on species that are caught together with anglerfish has also remained relatively stable.

The results from the Portuguese and Spanish bottom trawl surveys both indicate an increase in abundance of anglerfish. However, catch rates for anglerfish in both surveys are very low and STECF does not consider that the observed changes in catch rate are necessarily a reflection of the changes in abundance of the stock as a whole.

The increased catches and catch rates in 2003 and 2004 may be attributable primarily to increased recruitment to the fishery of L. piscatorius and L. budegassa in the periods 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 respectively. This is supported by the observed increase in the numbers of smaller, younger anglerfish in the commercial catch.

The results of the 2005 ASPIC model assessment of anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa indicate a decreasing trend in SSB from the mid-1980s to reach a level in recent years of about 50% of BMSY.

STECF comments and recommendations

STECF notes that the use of the ASPIC model for the assessment of anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa is appropriate given the data available for the assessment. However, STECF is not in a position to judge whether it is the most appropriate. Furthermore, while the model provides a good representation of historic long-term trends in F and SSB, it is not an appropriate method to detect any short-term changes in these parameters and is insensitive to short-term changes in recruitment.

References

ICES, 2002. Report of the Working Group on Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks. ICES CM 2002/ACFM:

ICES, 2003. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Hake, Monkfish and Megrim. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:

sustainable exploitation rules for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa

STECF was asked the following:

To deliver an opinion on the work done by a Subgroup on management of stocks (SGMOSD-05-01) which met in Lisbon, 26-30 September 2005 to evaluate “Long-term Management strategies for Bay of Biscay sole, Celtic Sea cod and anglerfish in VIIc-IXa.

Background and target reference points for long-term management

In the absence of agreed long term management strategies that lead to safe biological levels, the study group considered Fmax as a proxy for a long term target conservation reference point for Celtic Sea cod and Bay of Biscay sole and Fmsy in the case of anglerfish in VIIc and IXa.

The Group carried out 3 standard projections, to be used as references: (i) projection at Fsq, (ii) projection at constant catch, (iii) projection with a 10% reduction every year until F reaches Fmax/Fmsy.

STECF Comments and Recommendations

Celtic Sea cod

STECF notes that the 2005 cod VIIe-k assessment was not accepted by ICES due to a recent deterioration in data quality. The main issues were un-quantified high-grading of catches since late 2002, unreported catch, the absence of a time-series of discards estimates, and specific concerns over the commercial and research vessel CPUE data.

As a result projections were carried forward using population numbers in 2003 with fishing mortalities in 2004 and 2005 predicted from trends in fishing effort of the main fleets.

Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005, Annex III, part A 12 (b) prohibited fishing in ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4 and 32E3 during January-March 2005 was assumed to have resulted in an approximately 10% reduction in F on cod in 2005, based on the analysis by Ifremer (Biseau, 2005).

STECF notes that these procedures may give an over-optimistic estimate of the number of years it will take to reach Fmax.

The projections indicate that a constant-catch strategy with catches below 6,000t gives a high probability of SSB falling below Blim and is not an appropriate strategy.

Progressively reducing fishing mortality by 10% annually until Fmax is reached would result in a gradual increase in median landings until 2010 at around 11,600t with a high probability of SSB remaining above Blim. However STECF notes that results are very sensitive to assumptions regarding the starting populations and initial assumptions about fishing mortality. A combination of smaller initial stock size and reduced future recruitment results in declining landings for the first 5 years and a large risk of SSB falling below Blim.

Although a 15% variation in TAC constraint was not explored in combination with a progressive reduction in F, the simulations that were undertaken indicate that TAC variations were within the range of year-to-year variations that occurred in the past.

STECF further notes that although progressively reducing fishing mortality by 10% annually until Fmax is reached is conditional on the correctness of the assumptions for the early years of the projection and the lack of any implementation error.

Therefore STECF advises that in reality, progressive annual reductions in F well in excess of 10% will probably be required to reach Fmax.

Bay of Biscay sole

STECF notes that Fmax for this stock is well defined at 0.20 with acceptable variability between years (0.02 for the last 5 years). In the absence of any specific management objective, STECF proposes Fmax as a target reference point for a long-term management strategy.

SSB for Bay of Biscay sole in 2004 is estimated to be lower then Bpa and fishing mortality in 2004 is estimated to be at about Fpa. However, status quo fishing mortality (average over 2000-2004) is above Flim. Therefore measures to reduce fishing mortality and increase biomass in the short term are desirable.

Maintaining fishing at status quo fishing mortality would bring SSB further down to a level where the population dynamics are unknown. STECF notes that this is a high-risk strategy and does not recommend it.

Simulations suggest that the stock can sustain landings at a level, similar to the 2005 TAC. Since median SSB is predicted to maintain SSB below Bpa, this strategy is not compatible with the precautionary approach.

STECF recommends that taking into account the precautionary approach, in order to ensure that SSB reaches Bpa in the short term; a significant reduction in F is required. In the longer-term subsequent gradual but less severe F reductions towards Fmax might be more acceptable.

STECF notes that there are no options presented with realistic implementation error that result in achieving Fmax within 10 years. STECF considers that it cannot recommend an appropriate minimum annual reduction in F as part of a sustainable HCR.

Anglerfish in Divisions VIIIc and IXa.

As anglerfish are caught in a mixed fishery with Hake, Megrim, Norway Lobster and other species, Recovery Plans of Southern Hake and Iberian Norway lobster stocks is expected to have some impact on the anglerfish catches.

A non-equilibrium production model (ASPIC) is used as assessment tool. It is apparent that fishing mortality has been over Fmsy for the whole data series and SSB shows a decrease since the beginning of the time series with recent values at about 50% of Bmsy. The assessment indicates that a 57% reduction in fishing mortality is required to bring F at Fmsy. The ASPIC model is not a good estimator of short-term changes in F and SSB, hence STECF is uncertain that the implied recent changes in F have been reliably estimated.

Several evaluations were undertaken, changing fishing mortality and varying the input parameters for projections covering a 50-year period.

Maintaining fishing at status quo fishing mortality SSB is predicted to continue to decline further below Bmsy and would bring SSB further down into unknown population dynamics and therefore not recommended by STECF as an appropriate management strategy.

Simulations indicate that in a “most optimistic” reducing F-scenario, there is a 50% probability that the decline in SSB will be reversed only in the next 2-7 years and that SSB is not expected to reach Bmsy within three decades.

With no fishing after 2005, biomass will increase at around 10%, 20% or 30% depending on the assumed input parameter and will reach Bmsy level in 2013-2012-2011 respectively.

Given the uncertainties in input parameters used for simulation and the current status of anglerfish in VIIIc-IXa, STECF strongly recommends that a substantial reduction in fishing mortality is needed as soon as possible. STECF notes that even with zero catches of anglerfish in VIIc-IXa after 2005, there is less than a 50% probability of achieving Bmsy by 2011.

Given the current state of the stock and the absence of clear objectives relating to the desired rate of stock recovery, STECF is unable to advise on an appropriate long-term management strategy.

STECF notes that regulating F with days at sea for static gears is unlikely to be an effective instrument. Anglerfish in VIIIc-IXa are taken in about equal amounts by static gears and trawl fisheries.

References

ICES, 2006a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Hake, Monk and Megrim. ICES CM 2006/ACFM:01.

ICES. 2006b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks. ICES CM 2006/ACFM: 03.

BISEAU, 2005 Working document to the 2005 Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks - Effect of the Cod closure (ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4, 32E3) in the Celtic Sea on the fishing behaviour.

Mixed Fisheries

STECF was asked the following:

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRST-05-02 (17-21 October, 2005) which compiled recent data on demersal mixed fisheries, identified stocks, areas and fleets where there are significant mixed catches and estimated catches for 2006.

background

The Commission convened a STECF-SGRST mixed fisheries meeting in Ispra (Italy) at the JRC premises during 17-21 October 2005 as a follow up of a series of annual meetings, with the following terms of reference:

8. Obtain and compile all available recent data concerning mixed-species demersal fisheries in Community waters and adjacent areas. The data of specific interest are landings and discards by species and by fleet, where possible disaggregated by age and by number of fish.

9. Review the data compiled in (1) and identify those stocks, areas and fleets where significant technical interactions exist and for which adequate data exist to permit those interactions to be evaluated.

10. For each of the area-fleet-stock groupings identified in (2), calculate catch forecasts for 2006 for the stocks concerned, based on:

11. the most recent ICES assessments

12. ACFM advised catches for 2006

13. an appropriate range of assumptions for the factors describing the relative policy weights to be attached to each fish stock, including any particular values that may be requested by the Commission services on receipt of the ICES advice.

14. In support of the above tasks, continue methodological and software development as initiated by this Ad Hoc Working Group since 2002.

The main conclusions and STECF comments and recommendations are presented below.

STECF Comments and Recommendations

STECF agrees with the findings presented in the report of October 2005 STECF-SGRST meeting on mixed fisheries and has drawn the following conclusions and recommendations:

15. STECF notes that sampling of catch at sea including discards to quantify technical interactions between mixed demersal fisheries is expensive and difficult. This means that sampling coverage tends to be rather limited, and raised estimates of discards are subject to high uncertainty. This is true of all of the discard estimates, and in some cases the discard estimates presented represent the first attempt to use the discard data from some fisheries in an advisory context. Where the coverage is considered adequate to estimate the overall catch compositions of specific fleets these are presented in the sub-group report. However STECF considers that, they only provide an approximate indication of fleet catch compositions.

16. Technical interactions between mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak, Kattegat and West of Scotland only, are indicated in the report based on estimated catch data including discards.

17. Both the lack of stock specific forecast inputs on stock size and exploitation rates and considerable concern regarding incomplete fleet specific catch data including discards prevented meaningful analytical mixed fisheries forecasts for the management areas North Sea and Skagerrak, Eastern Channel, Kattegat, Eastern and Western Baltic, West of Scotland, Irish Sea, Porcupine Bank, Celtic Sea, Bay of Biscay and around the Iberian Peninsula.

18. All mixed fisheries scenarios for the North Sea and Skagerrak that attempt to balance the ICES advice for 2006 of 0-TAC for cod and a 0.68 F-multiplier for plaice, indicate that stringent cuts in fleet-specific fishing mortality are required across the board. Such overall cuts imply that the fishing possibilities as advised under precautionary single species boundaries would have to be severely reduced. STECF considers that the fleet landings and discard information and specific stock parameters are too imprecise to provide MTAC runs that are an acceptable basis for management advice.

ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COD RECOVERY PLAN

STECF was asked the following:

STECF should deliver an opinion based on the conclusions of subgroup meetings SGRST-05-01 (13-17 June 2005) and SGRST-05-4 (19-21 September 2005) which aimed to (a) identify the location and season of the most important fishable concentrations of cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak, eastern Channel, Kattegat, Baltic Sea, west of Scotland, Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea (b) review the current system for the management of fishing effort (Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005) in the context of the cod recovery plan (Regulation 423/2004) (c) evaluate systems feasible for management of fishing effort in the context of a multi-annual management plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea.

Background

STECF notes that the objectives of the cod recovery plan are rebuilding targets related to SSB increases, and the maintenance of fishing mortality below precautionary levels. Unfortunately these objectives were not embodied within the Terms of Reference of these SGRST meetings. SGRST’s terms of reference included a request to review of “the current system for the management of fishing effort (Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005) in the context of the cod recovery plan (Regulation 423/2004).”

STECF considers that the effectiveness of the cod recovery plan is best evaluated with reference to the current status of cod recovery stocks. STECF considerations of the current status of cod stocks are given by the SGRST in the Stock Status Review (SGRST-05-04)

STECF comments

Under the present term of reference STECF was asked to base its opinion on the reports of the SGRST meetings 05-01 and 05-04. The following STECF comments on the effectiveness of the cod recovery plans consider the sub-group’s discussion of effort limitation.

Effort limitation was introduced in “cod recovery” areas as a mechanism for achieving desired reductions in fishing mortality. These effort regulations limited the days that vessels of different categories may spend at sea but did not specify how these limitations related to previous levels of effort exerted. Furthermore, the introduction of days at sea restrictions was not accompanied by clearly defined objectives for the reduction of effort, nor for fishing mortality, and the relationship between effort and fishing mortality remains unclear. The SGRST review of the efficacy of effort regulations was therefore complicated by the lack of stated objectives of the regulations in terms of intended fishing mortality reductions.

Trends in effort for the main fleets exploiting cod

The SGRST summarised recent trends in nominal effort (kW days) by the main fleets:

- For the west of Scotland effort data were reported for the whole of Division VIa rather than for the area within which effort is regulated. SGRST was therefore unable to evaluate changes in effort exerted by regulated gears to the west of Scotland.

- In the Irish Sea, there has been an overall decline of 19% from 2000-2004 in the effort exerted by vessels using 70-99mm meshes. From 2000-2003 the nominal effort of demersal trawlers using ≥100mm mesh increased. In 2004 the effort reported for this category declined by 19% relative to 2000 (38% relative to 2002). There is some evidence since 2002 of a transfer of effort from trawls using ≥100 mm mesh to 70-99mm mesh. The nominal effort in 2004 of beam trawlers using ≥ 80mm mesh has decreased by 15% and 35% compared to 2000 and 2002, respectively.

- In the North Sea and Skagerrak, the total nominal effort for all demersal gears decreased between 2000 and 2004 by 21% (15% between 2002 and 2004). Demersal trawlers using ≥100mm mesh showed the greatest decline in effort (43% since 2000, 35% since 2002), while the effort of demersal trawlers using 70-99mm mesh increased by 54% and 12% over the same periods. Between 2000 and 2004 nominal effort of beam trawlers using ≥ 80mm mesh declined by 25% (14% between 2002 and 2004).

- In the Eastern Channel, total nominal effort increased between 2000 and 2004 by 22%, and decreased between 2002 and 2004 by 3%. Demersal trawlers using 70-99mm mesh accounted for most of the fishing effort, and this increased by 14% between 2000 and 2004 and decreased by 3% during 2002-2004.

- In the Kattegat, total nominal effort decreased by 27% during the period 2000 to 2004 (16% between 2002 and 2004). Effort of demersal trawlers using ≥100mm mesh decreased by 79% whilst that of demersal trawlers using 70-99mm mesh decreased by 22% between 2000 and 2004.

STECF notes the SGRST conclusion that effort regulations have provided an incentive for some vessels previously using >100mm mesh demersal trawls to switch to smaller mesh gears, thus claiming a higher number of days-at-sea. Under EC Regulation No. 850/1998 these vessels are also required to target either Nephrops or anglerfish, megrim, and whiting, with various catch and bycatch composition limits.

The SGRST findings of minimal decreases / increases in the effort of trawlers using 70-99mm mesh and simultaneous decreases in the effort of ≥100mm mesh demersal trawlers indicate an overall reduction in the mesh size used in demersal fisheries. Adherence to catch composition regulations required when using 70-99mm mesh would result in high-grading and discarding of cod and other species. The SGRST report provides evidence of discarding of cod, and other demersal species, particularly in the 70-99mm mesh category.

The SGRST was also provided with information on the control and enforcement of effort regulations (Commission’s evaluation report: Cod recovery verification programme 2004, Working Document 9 to SGRST-05-01). The report considers that the actual reduction in terms of fishing effort by the main fleets is likely to have been modest, that high-grading and mis-declaring of cod was a common practice during 2004 and that landings composition regulations of the regulated gears were poorly enforced.

STECF conclusions and recommendations

STECF draws the following conclusions from the SGRST report:

- high-grading, discarding and mis-declaring of cod will compromise the intended impact of effort management,

- current exploitation rates remain excessive in the context of the cod recovery plan.

Given these conclusions STECF considers that effort controls, as currently formulated in Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005, have not, and are unlikely to satisfy the objectives of the cod recovery regulation.

Harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and actions for 2006

STECF was asked the following:

To deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the ad hoc working group ADHOC-05-03 which aimed to (a) evaluate whether the current HCR for sand eel in the North Sea and Skagerrak are suitable or need to be changed (b) determine what actions shall be envisaged for 2006 on the basis of the ACFM advice and considering that Council Regulation n.1147/2005 of July 2005 has prohibited sand eel fishing until the end of 2005 on the basis of the agreed HCR; (c) assess what level of monitoring fishing (sentinel fishing) shall be allowed in 2006 with a view of monitoring the 2005 recruitment strength in case that a 0 TAC or a very low level of fishing effort need to be established for 2006.

Harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and actions for 2006

STECF was asked the following:

To deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the ad hoc working group ADHOC-05-03 which aimed to (a) evaluate whether the current HCR for sand eel in the North Sea and Skagerrak are suitable or need to be changed (b) determine what actions shall be envisaged for 2006 on the basis of the ACFM advice and considering that Council Regulation n.1147/2005 of July 2005 has prohibited sand eel fishing until the end of 2005 on the basis of the agreed HCR; (c) assess what level of monitoring fishing (sentinel fishing) shall be allowed in 2006 with a view of monitoring the 2005 recruitment strength in case that a 0 TAC or a very low level of fishing effort need to be established for 2006.

Review of ad hoc sand eel WG

STECF reviewed the report of the ad-hoc working group on sand eel, which met at short notice for 3 days running concurrently with the STECF plenary meeting. STECF acknowledges that the timing in relation to the STECF plenary meeting has prevented the report from undergoing the usual process of self-review and that the short notice reduced the ability of the group to do justice to the ToRs

The ad-hoc group met principally to evaluate a range of potential harvest control rules (HCRs) including the Commission’s current HCR. The group was also tasked with compiling information regarding the ecosystem requirements for sand eel as a food source. The only analytical assessment of sand eel consumption available to the group was from the ICES study group on multi-species assessment in the North Sea (SGMSNS) which, using MSVPA, estimates average consumption of at least 1.7 million tonnes. This estimate does not include consumption by seals, cetaceans and most non-commercial fish species.

For the purpose of HCR evaluation, the group used new software, which is an extension of the SMS (Stochastic Multi-Species) model. The projection framework follows the STPR3 approach, which has previously been used by ICES (AGLTA). The SMS HCR implementation makes use of half-annual time steps, which is applied for the sand eel assessment. Essentially the HCR is applied to “observed” or “perceived” stock numbers and translated into a TAC, which is subsequently taken from the true population. Uncertainty enters the system as observation noise, recruitment variation and implementation error. The HCR evaluation framework has further options to further refine HCRs in terms of limiting inter-annual change in TAC or F, which were not explored by the group but are potentially useful options for managers to consider.

Management of North Sea sand eel is particularly problematic due to the fishery being principally on the 1-group whilst there is no reliable assessment estimate of this year-class at the time of the December Council to assist TAC setting. Currently the Commission uses an in-year monitoring system in the first 17 weeks of the year to estimate the size of the 1-group and subsequently enact management. Within the HCR evaluation model it was assumed that the fishery in the part year before a management decision is reached operates with a fixed F of 0.1. Historical performance of the in-year estimation of the 1-group indicates a CV of 35%, whilst the observation uncertainty from the assessment of other age groups is assumed to be 25%. Recruitment was generated from a hockey-stick stock-recruit relationship parameterised from historical assessments and a fixed inflexion point of 430kt (Blim ). One of the group’s ToRs was to investigate whether there were grounds for changing the value of Blim . However there was no new information to suggest that changes were warranted.

A range of HCRs was evaluated, including the Commission’s current HCR as well as use of a fixed TAC and target SSBs.

The use of a fixed TAC as a management tool would do away with the need for the in-year estimation of the 1-group. In the long term (10 years) a TAC of around 200-300kt would ensure that SSB would be below Blim with a <5% probability. The probability of being below Blim in 2007 is around 65% due to the current poor state of the sand eel stock.

The in-year estimation of the 1-group permits the fishery to take, around 500kt (long term average) whilst complying with the SSB<Blim<5% condition. The HCR currently employed by the Commission implies frequent closure of the fishery immediately after the in-year estimation. Another HCR, using Bpa (600kt) as a target SSB for the following year results in a lower probability of closure whilst still complying with the SSB<Blim< 5% condition. However, use of Bpa as a target implies that true SSB is <Bpa about 35% of the time. The use of an HCR based on an SSB target results in a lower probability of being below Blim in 2007 compared to the Commission’s current HCR.

In order to investigate the performance of HCRs in the event of lowered recruitment, scenarios were run where mean recruitment was 50% of the historical value. Under this scenario the F=0.1 inflicted by the monitoring fishery is such that the probability of being below Blim is well in excess of the 5% limit. Another scenario, with a hockey stick SSB/R relation and an inflection point at the 25 percentile of the historical values, showed a probability that true SSB is <Bpa at less than 5% of the time. Long-term yield for this scenario was about 500kt.

All of the HCRs evaluated by the group give a high probability of SSB in 2007 being less than Bpa, even with a minimal F of 0.1 as inflicted by the monitoring fishery. WGNSSK, using a short-term deterministic forecast with 25th percentile recruitment suggested that and F of 0.2 would permit the stock to be over Bpa in 2007. The difference between these results are due to the model used, SMS being more pessimistic regarding the current stock status than the seasonal XSA adopted by WGNSSK. In addition, the SMS simulation uses the hockey stick SSB/R relation, which with the present low SSB produces a low recruitment.

The minimum escapement implied by the use of a target SSB rule does not directly address the in-year ecosystem requirements for 0 and 1-group sand eel. Resolving this issue is not a straightforward exercise and requires further work.

The group were asked to comment on the level of monitoring fishery required for reliable estimation of the incoming year-class. The group has previously reported that a minimum of 100 biological samples, covering the main sand eel fishing grounds is required. The monitoring fishery is currently market driven in terms of effort and location, subject to a maximum effort cap of KW days for the North Sea as a whole. There was no information available to determine appropriate effort levels at finer spatial subdivisions. The group recommends that the current effort cap remains in force as a means of preventing excessive F before the strength of the incoming year-class can be evaluated.

STECF comments and recommendations.

Long-term considerations

The ad-hoc group presented a number of HCRs and scenarios most of which perform similarly in terms of probability of being above Blim and long-term yield. The main difference between the scenarios is the inter-annual variability in yield. Without further guidance from managers regarding long-term objectives for the stock and fishery, STECF cannot recommend any one HCR over another. The signal from the Danish fishing industry is however a preference for a more stable yield and capacity reduction. In the long-term, an HCR based upon a target SSB may perform better in terms of stability of yield than the Commission’s current HCR, however the outcome is highly sensitive to the target SSB chosen. Furthermore, ecosystem considerations, including predator requirements for sandeel, need to be taken into account in determining an appropriate target SSB.

Options for 2006

The short-term prognosis for the sandeel stock is uncertain and highly dependent upon the strength of the incoming year-class. ICES advice for 2006 is to achieve Bpa by 2007. STECF notes that there is a real possibility that even in the absence of fishing in 2006, SSB in 2007 will not reach Bpa.

There is currently no alternative to the use of fishery data for either assessment of North Sea sandeel or the estimation of the incoming year-class strength. Unless managers are willing to enter a phase of total uncertainty regarding North Sea sandeel stock status, a monitoring fishery at the start of the 2006 is a prerequisite despite the risk of preventing the stock reaching Bpa in 2007. However STECF notes that in the longer term, exploiting sandeel at F= 0.1, (estimated mortality of the monitoring fishery) poses little risk to the stock.

STECF therefore recommends that the in-year estimation of the 1-group continues in 2006.

STECF further recommends the maintenance of the current cap on effort (40% of the total effort deployed in 2004) at least until the decision on a HCR for 2006 is agreed and implemented by managers.

STECF recommends that managers decide on an appropriate target SSB for 2007 that is not less than Bpa (600,000 t). Pending the estimated size of the 2005 year-class following the monitoring fishery, the total catch for 2006 should not result in a predicted SSB in 2007 that is below the agreed target.

STECF stress that all of the above recommendations are conditional on management action being taken immediately following the evaluation of the monitoring fishery and implementation of the HCR.

FISHING EFFORT FOR VESSELS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECOVERY OF CERTAIN STOCKS

STECF received three communications from elements of the North Sea fishing industry: two from Dutch Fishery Sector and one from Scottish Fishermen’s Federation via the North Sea RAC. These are listed as items 1.2.6, 1.2.7 and 1.2.8 in the Terms of reference. Since they are inter-related, these are considered here under sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.

In considering each of these proposals STECF was cognisant of the following issues:

19. STECF welcomes proposals from the industry to improve the efficacy of effort regulation and considers such proposals to be a positive development. Any measures that have the support of the industry are more likely to be successful than measures imposed by regulatory authorities.

20. Effort controls, as currently formulated in Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005, have not, and are unlikely to satisfy the objectives of the cod recovery regulation (See response to ToR 2.d in Section 3.5)

21. Despite this misgiving, STECF considers that the concept of regulating days at sea is probably the most effective method in place for controlling effort in fisheries and therefore welcomes any measures that reinforce or increase the effectiveness of this measure. STECF does not support measures that may increase fishing effort in fisheries that impact on depleted stocks.

22. STECF recognises that fisheries that exploit several stocks and/or discard add complexity to fisheries management. STECF welcomes any measures that improve species- and size-selectivity in catches so that fisheries may reduce their impact on non-target species and reduce discards of target species. STECF considers that measures that increase discards and catches of non-target species should be discouraged.

23. Increased segmentation of regulated gear categories potentially creates control, enforcement, implementation and monitoring difficulties.

STECF concludes that a comprehensive review of effort regulations is required. STECF considers that proposals such as those received from the industry should be considered in the context of such a review. Therefore STECF recommends that the Commission convenes a series of expert working groups under the auspices of STECF to review Effort Regulations, with terms of reference that include the following:

- Define appropriate objectives for the effort regulations,

- Evaluate the effectiveness of existing effort regulations with respect to these objectives,

- Consider proposals for amendments to the regulations that:

- improve effectiveness in the context of recovery of depleted stocks, and,

- are consistent with management requirements of other stocks.

- improve species- and size-selectivity in catches so that fisheries reduce their impact on non-target species and reduce discards

Therefore, in this report STECF only presents preliminary responses to the industry proposals.

Proposal by the Dutch fishery sector regarding the position of beam trawlers in the Cod Recovery Plan (Annex IVa of Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22nd December 2004).

STECF was asked the following:

STECF should check, consider and give an opinion on the request from the Dutch fishermen forwarded by the North Sea RAC to remove beam trawlers with V nets from Annex IVa of the 2005 TAC (Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22 December 2004) and to regulate the effort of this fleet within the scope of a plaice management plan.

Preliminary STECF response

STECF welcomes the increased exchange of ideas on the revision of the days-at-sea regime in Annex IVa. The document submitted by the Dutch Fisheries Organisation describes problems in the days-at-sea regulation related to annex IVa and vessels that use beam trawls. It argues that proportionality (in terms of cod by-catch of a fleet) was an inherent part of the formation of the days-at-sea regulation, and that a “level playing field” has not been applied to those affected by the regulation or its implementation. It suggests that the Dutch beam trawl fleet is inappropriately listed in the annex. It also welcomes the European Commission offer, in its non-paper “Development of effort management”, to open discussions on the amendment of the restriction on days at sea regime, Annex IVa of the TAC and Quota Regulation 27/2005.

STECF considers that the principle concerns of the Dutch fishing sector are:

24. The definition of the 5% by-catch of cod within annex IVa (paragraph 6d)

25. Whether the application of annex IVa with regard to the by-catch is consistent across all fleets

26. Whether annex IVa covers both the cod and the plaice recovery plans

The document also suggests that the Dutch beam trawler fishing fleet is willing to voluntarily cooperate in Real Time Closures for cod, to expand on its own discards study for cod, and