Commission staff working document - Report of the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries - Review of scientific advice for 2007 - Part 1 : advice on deepwater resources and stocks in the Baltic Sea - STECF-SGRST-06-06, Brussels, 14-16 June 2006#This report was reviewed and endorsed by the STECF by correspondence in June 2006#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
Date: 2007-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, committee (EU), fisheries policy, fishery management, fishing area, fishing regulations, report













EUR-Lex - 52007SC0471 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52007SC0471

Commission staff working document - Report of the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries - Review of scientific advice for 2007 - Part 1 : advice on deepwater resources and stocks in the Baltic Sea - STECF-SGRST-06-06, Brussels, 14-16 June 2006 - This report was reviewed and endorsed by the STECF by correspondence in June 2006 - 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  /* SEC/2007/0471 */  








SEC(2007) 471COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTREPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FOR 2007 PART 1 ADVICE ON DEEPWATER RESOURCES AND STOCKS IN THE BALTIC SEA STECF-SGRST-06-06, Brussels, 14-16 June 2006 THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED AND ENDORSED BY THE STECF BY CORRESPONDENCE IN JUNE 2006.This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this areaScientific Technical and Economic Committee for FisheriesREVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FOR 2007TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Terms of Reference 41.1. General request 41.2. Specific requests 42. Introduction to review of advice for deepwater resources and stocks in the Baltic Sea. 52.1. Background 52.2. SGRST 06-06 stock review: participants 63. Resources in the Baltic Sea 73.1. Cod (Gadus morhua) in the Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 22-24) 73.2. Cod (Gadus morhua callarias) in the Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 25-32) 93.3. Cod (Gadus morhua) in the Kattegat 113.4. Flounder (Platichthys flesus) – IIIbcd (EU zone), Baltic Sea 123.5. Herring (Clupea harengus) in Divisions IIIbcd, Baltic Sea 123.5.1. Herring (Clupea harengus) in the Skagerrak, the Kattegat and in the Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 22-24). 133.5.2. Herring in Sub-divisions 25-29 (excluding Gulf of Riga) and 32. 143.5.3. Herring in the Gulf of Riga. 143.5.4. Herring in Sub-div. 30, Bothnian Sea (Management Unit 3) 153.5.5. Herring in Sub-div. 31, Bothnian Bay (Management Unit 3) 153.6. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in the Baltic Sea (Div. IIIb,c,d) 153.7. Salmon (Salmo salar) in the Baltic Sea, Div. IIIb,c,d (Main Basin and Gulf of Bothnia, Sub-div. 22-31) 163.8. Salmon (Salmo salar) in the Baltic Sea, Gulf of Finland (Sub-div. 32) 183.9. Sea trout (Salmo trutta trutta) in the Baltic Sea, Div. IIIb,c,d (Main Basin and Gulf of Bothnia, Sub-div. 22-31) 193.10. Sole (Solea solea) in Division IIIa 203.11. Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in IIIbcd, Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 22-32) 214. Deepwater Resources in the North-east Atlantic 224.1. Deep-water fish (several species) in (IVA), IIIa, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII. 224.2. Alfonsinos/Golden eye perch (Beryx spp.) 244.3. Ling (Molva molva) 254.3.1. Ling in Divisions I and II (Arctic) 254.3.2. Ling in Va (Iceland) 254.3.3. Ling in Vb (Faroes) 254.3.4. Ling in IIIa, IVa, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIV (Other areas) 264.4. Blue Ling (Molva dypterygia). 264.4.1. Blue Ling in Va and XIV 264.4.2. Blue Ling in Vb, VI and VII 264.4.3. Blue ling in other areas (I, II, IIIa, IVa, VIII, IX, and XII) 274.5. Tusk (Brosme brosme) 274.5.1. Tusk in Divisions I and II (ARCTIC) 274.5.2. TUSK Va (Iceland) 284.5.3. Tusk in IIIa, IVa, Vb,VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIV (Other areas) 284.6. Greater silver smelt or argentine (Argentina silus) 284.6.1. Greater silver smelt in Va 284.6.2. Greater silver smelt in other areas (I, II, IIIa, IV, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV) 294.7. Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) 294.8. Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) 304.9. Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) 304.10. Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) 314.11. Red (blackspot) seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) 324.12. Miscellaneous deep-water species 325. Specific request from the Commission to STECF regarding deepwater resources. 336. Specific request from the Commission to STECF on Baltic cod. 356.1. A fixed reference value for F. 356.1.1. Scenarios for Eastern Baltic cod (25-32) 356.1.2. Scenarios for Western Baltic cod (22-24) 366.2. To determine the most appropriate reference value for F 376.2.1. Scenarios for Eastern Baltic cod (25-32) 376.2.2. Scenarios for Western Baltic cod (22-24) 406.3. STECF Conclusions 427. Additional comments on ICES advice on other stocks 427.1. Special request: Update of assessment of Norway pout in IIa, IIIa, IV. 427.2. Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in IIa and the North Sea. 438. Other specific request to ICES. 448.1. EC REQUEST CONCERNING THE IDENTIFICATION OF KEY AREAS/SPECIES TO BE RECORDED ON A DEDICATED INTERNATIONALLY COORDINATED SURVEY 448.2. NEAFC REQUEST CONCERNING THE SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL EXTENT OF DEEP-WATER FISHERIES IN THE NE ATLANTIC:- 441.  Terms of Reference2.  General requestSTECF is requested to evaluate and comment on the 2006 ACFM spring advice with respect to the exploitation of the deep-sea fisheries resources and the Baltic stocks. Based on the ACFM advice, review other stocks that may need special attention. STECF is requested, in particular, to pinpoint possible inconsistencies, if any, between the assessment and the ACFM advice.3.  Specific requests1) Deep sea stocksA) ACFM has advised appropriate catch levels as well as effort levels.Are these levels consistent with a strategy to bring exploitation rates to sustainable levels in the medium term (i.e. 3-5 years)?Considering catch trends, were the catch levels during the reference period used by ACFM an appropriate basis for advising catch levels over the next few years?B) Are the catch levels advised by ACFM coherent between stocks given that deep-sea stocks are taken in mixed fisheries?2) Catch forecast for Baltic CodBackground: The EC is currently developing a new multi-annual plan for the management of the two cod stocks in the Baltic to come into force beginning of 2007.The objective of the plan is to lower fishing mortality gradually (10% per year) to sustainable levels as advised by ICES in 2005 by setting TACs and limiting fishing effort accordingly. For the Western stock (subdivisions 22-24) this means F = 0.6 for the ages 3 to 6 years and for the Eastern stock (subdivisions 25-32) F=0.3 for the ages 4 -7 years respectively.TAC decisions for 2006 have already been taken according to the management measures proposed in the new plan although, on the basis of the 2005 ICES advice, TACs have been raised in particular for the Eastern stock to take into account the high estimates of illegal landings (35-45%).In order to provide for a continuous reduction of the fishing mortality down to sustainable levels, it is necessary to use a fixed reference Fsq instead of recalculating it from year to year as usually done. Since measures proposed in the plan have been already applied in 2006, the reference value for Fsq shall be fixed either at the fishing mortality level in 2005 or at any other year which has the lowest value in the time series used to estimate Fsq in 2005.A) STECF is requested to provide a catch forecast for 2007 by calculating different scenarios for reducing the fishing mortality (F*0.9 / F*0.8 / F*0.7 etc.) based, as the reference value, both on F2005 and any other year which has the lowest value in the time series used to estimate Fsq in 20054.  Introduction to review of advice for deepwater resources and stocks in the Baltic Sea.5.  BackgroundThis review presents summary information on the state of stocks and management advice for deepwater stocks of Community interest in the north Atlantic and for fish resources in the Baltic Sea. In undertaking the review, STECF has consulted the June 2006 ICES advice and other relevant literature, and has attempted to summarise it in a common format.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.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 limitsFor 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.The STECF review of scientific advice was drafted by the STECF Sub-group on Resource Status that met in Brussels from 14-16 June 2006, and subsequently finalised and endorsed at the STECF by correspondence during June 2006. For medical reasons, the Chairman of the Sub-group (John Casey) had to leave the review meeting on the afternoon of 15 June and Michael Keatinge took over the Chair’s responsibilities for the remainder of the meeting.6.  SGRST 06-06 stock review: participantsThe following scientists attended the SGRST 06-06 meeting:CASEY John (Chair 14-15 June)KEATINGE, Michael (Chair 15-16 June)KORNILOUS, GeorgesLARGE, PhilipMUNCH-PETERSEN, StenPETRAKIS, GeorgesRADTKE, KrzysztofRÄTZ Hans-JoachimTOLIUSIS, SarunasSTECF SecretariatZABLECKIS, Sarunas7.  Resources in the Baltic Sea8.  Cod (Gadus morhua) in the Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 22-24)FISHERIES: Cod in Sub-divisions 22-24 is exploited predominantly by Denmark and Germany, with smaller catches taken by Sweden. The fishery is conducted by trawl and gillnets. Landings fluctuated between 15,000 and 54,000 tonnes (1965-2004), falling in the late 1980s but increasing again in the 90´s because the fishery activities of Denmark and Germany shifted from the former traditional fishing grounds of the eastern cod stock to the area of the western cod stock due to the decline of the eastern cod stock and its fishing possibilities. Furthermore, quota transfers (up to 2001) of cod from the eastern Baltic stock to the western Baltic involving countries that normally exploit the eastern cod stock resulted in increased fishing pressure on the western cod stock. As a result, the average landings for 1996-99 amounted to 43,000 tonnes. Since then landings have declined and in 2005 amounted to 22,000 tonnes. The fishery is largely based on recruiting year-classes (3 years and younger), and as a result of IBSFC regulations the discard rate is substantial. Technical measures including an increase in the minimum landing size and the mandatory use of 110 mm mesh BACOMA windows in trawls.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. The advice is based on an age-based assessment using commercial as well as survey data.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: The proposed precautionary reference point for spawning biomass is Bpa = 23,000 tonnes. ICES consider that Blim, Fpa and Flim are not yet defined. An establishment of Fpa is problematic because of the large exchange of cod from this stock to adjacent stocks.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: Since the dissolution of the IBSFC, there is no longer any agreed management plan for this stock. However until, and including, 2005 the fisheries in the Baltic were managed through the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC). IBSFC had in 2003 adopted a long-term management strategy for cod in the Baltic based on annual TACs supplemented by gear regulations, minimum landing sizes, and closed areas:1. The management targets are to maintain the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) at levels greater than 23,000 tonnes for the Western stock and 240,000 tonnes for the Eastern stock.2. The Contracting Parties agree to implement two management areas, one for the Western cod stock, and one for the Eastern cod stock.3. a) IBSFC shall only adopt TACs that are predicted by ICES to generate an annual fishing mortality rate not exceeding 0.6 for the Eastern stock and 1.0 for the Western stock.b) Where the SSB is estimated by ICES to be greater than or equal to the target levels defined in chapter 1, the TACs shall not exceed a level which, according to ICES, will result in the SSB being below the target levels at the end of the year of the application of the TACs.Within the constraints laid down in paragraph 3a, the TACs shall not be set at levels which are more than 15% less or 15% greater than the TACs of the preceding year.c) Where the SSB is estimated by ICES to be less than the target levels defined in chapter 1 but above 9,000 tonnes for the Western stock and 160 000 tonnes for the Eastern stock, the following rules shall apply:i) The TAC shall be fixed at a level which, according to ICES, will result in an increase of at least 30% in the SSB or in a SSB greater than the target levels, defined in chapter 1, at the end of the year of the application of the TAC;ii) Where it will not be possible, according to ICES, to achieve the increase in the SSB indicated in paragraph 3a, the TAC shall be set at the lowest possible level.Within the constraints laid down in paragraph 3a, the TACs shall not be set at levels, which are more than 15% less or 15% greater than the TACs of the preceding year.d) Where the SSB is estimated by ICES to be less than 9,000 tonnes for the Western stock or 160,000 tonnes for the Eastern stock, the following rules shall apply:i) The TAC shall be fixed at a level which, according to ICES, will result in the SSB being above these levels at the end of the year of the application of the TAC and will give an increase of at least 30% in the SSB;ii) Where it will not be possible, according to ICES, to increase the SSB to 9 000 tonnes for the Western stock or 160,000 tonnes for the Eastern stock within one year, the TAC shall be set at the lowest possible level.4. a) IBSFC shall provide for consistency between gear selectivity and the minimum landing size for cod, in order to reduce discards and fishing mortality on juvenile cod.b) The minimum landing size of 38 cm for cod shall be kept under regular review. In accordance with the development in the stocks and the selectivity in the fisheries, the minimum landing size shall be revised no later than 2005 with a view to adopting an increase to apply from 2006.c) IBSFC shall, for all fisheries targeting cod, from 2003 keep under regular review the development in the fishing activities, including the impact of closed areas and seasons, and gear regulations in terms of control, conservation and sustainable exploitation objectives. On the basis of scientific advice and any review carried out, IBSFC shall adopt, where appropriate, adjustments to the fishery rules.5. The Contracting Parties of IBSFC shall continue their co-operation on control and enforcement with the aim of establishing a comprehensive and efficient Control and Enforcement Scheme, which supports this management plan and ensures compliance with IBSFC recommendations and Fishery Rules.9.  This management plan shall be reviewed as necessary, on the basis on scientific information and advice, not later than 2006.However, with the close down of IBSFC in 2006, the EC is in the process of developing a multi-annual plan for the two cod stocks in the Baltic to be implemented in 2007. These plan target-fishing mortalities resulting in a low risk to reproduction and high long-term yields as proposed by ICES in 2005. The objective of the plans are to ensure sustainable exploitation for both cod stocks in the Baltic by gradually reducing fishing mortalities until sustainable levels are met and to maintain those levels thereafter. The plan includes measures to set catch limits and defines a number of technical measures to reduce fishing effort respectively.STOCK STATUS: Based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity, with the spawning stock slightly above Bpa. In the absence of defined fishing mortality reference points the state of the stock cannot be fully evaluated. The estimated fishing mortality exceeds the IBSFC fishing mortality reference point (1.0). At this high exploitation rate the stock is highly dependent upon the strength of incoming year-classes.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE:Exploitation boundaries in relation to existing management planThere is no agreed management plan for this stock. The EU-proposed management plan would imply landings of 21 400 tonnes in 2007, assuming that this includes a 20% reduction in fishing effort. ICES has not evaluated the consistency of this management plan with the Precautionary Approach.Exploitation boundaries in relation to high long-term yield, low risk of depletion of production potential and considering ecosystem effects.ICES has previously recommended target fishing mortalities of 0.3 - 0.6 which would result in a low risk to reproduction and high long-term yields.Exploitation boundaries in relation to precautionary limitsLandings of less than or equal to 20 500 tonnes in 2007 are in accordance with reaching in 2008 the Precautionary Approach reference point B pa of 23 000 tonnes.Conclusions on exploitation boundariesIn the absence of an agreed management plan that is consistent with the precautionary approach, ICES concludes that the exploitation boundaries for this stock should be based on the precautionary limits. Accordingly, the catch in 2007 should be less than or equal to 20 500 tonnes.STECF COMMENTS: STECF notes that the ICES advice is based on the precautionary reference point (Bpa=23,000 tonnes) previously adopted by the IBSFC. However this advice implies a fishing mortality in excess of the fishing mortality that ICES considers sustainable. STECF agrees with the ICES advice. Since 2004, there have been two management areas, one for cod in Subdivisions 22 – 24 and one for Subdivisions 25 – 32. STECF emphasizes that biological reference points are very different for these stocks, reflecting the estimated difference in productivity of the two stocks. These stocks are overlapping in Sub-divisions 24 and 25 and the landings cannot be assigned to the stocks. STECF recommends that further studies on the inter-dependency of these two stocks be undertaken, as they may have important impacts on assessment and management conclusions.10.  Cod (Gadus morhua callarias) in the Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 25-32)FISHERIES: Cod in Sub-divisions 25-32 is exploited predominantly by Poland, Sweden, and Denmark, the remaining catches taken by Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Germany, Finland, and Estonia. The fishery is conducted by trawl and gillnets. The reported landings for the years 1992–1995 are known to be incorrect due to incomplete reporting and these landings have therefore been estimated. The extent of unreported and misreported catches from 1993 - 1996 range between about 7% and 38%. Recent estimates are available for misreporting from a range of industry and enforcement sources. These indicate that catches have been around 35 - 45% higher than the reported figures. Landings have fluctuated between 45,000 tonnes and 390,000 tonnes (1965 - 2001). Landings, including unreported landings, have been at low levels since 1997 (around 80,000 tonnes) and further declined to about 55 000 tonnes in 2005.Since the mid 90´s the fishery activities of Denmark and Germany shifted from the former traditionally fishing grounds of the eastern cod stock to the area of the western cod stock due to the decline of the eastern cod stock and its fishing possibilities.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. The advice is based on an age-based assessment using commercial and survey data.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: The precautionary reference points for fishing mortality and biomass proposed by ICES are Bpa = 240,000 tonnes and Blim = 160,000 tonnes, Fpa = 0.6 and Flim = 0.96. Note that the Blim figure is influenced by the high recruitment levels of the 1960s and 1970s.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: With the closure of IBSFC in 2005 there is no formally agreed management plan for this stock. The EU is in the process of developing a multi-annual plan for the two cod stocks in the Baltic to be implemented in 2007. These plan target-fishing mortalities resulting in a low risk to reproduction and high long-term yields as proposed by ICES in 2005. The objective of the plans are to ensure sustainable exploitation for both cod stocks in the Baltic by gradually reducing fishing mortalities until sustainable levels are met and to maintain those levels thereafter. The plan includes measures to set catch limits and defines a number of technical measures to reduce fishing effort respectively.STOCK STATUS: SSB cannot be estimated precisely, however, all available information indicates that SSB in the most recent years is below Blim. Based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classifies the stock as suffering reduced reproductive capacity. The stock is at an historic low level. Fishing mortality cannot be estimated precisely, however, all available information indicates that fishing mortality in the most recent years is well above Fpa and in 2005 is estimated to be above Flim. Based on estimates of fishing mortality in recent years, ICES classifies the stock as being harvested unsustainably. The stock is overexploited in relation to long-term maximum sustainable yield.Since the late 1980s recruitment has been low. And although the surveys indicate that the 2003 year-class is the highest in 15 years, the strength is still below the high recruitment observed in the 1970s and 1980s. The fish of this year-class had not fully recruited to the fishery in 2005.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: ICES has given the following considerations (May 2006) on this stock.Exploitation boundaries in relation to existing management plans. There is no longer an agreed management plan for this stock. The proposed EU-management plan would imply landings of 62 000 tonnes in 2007 assuming a 20% reduction in fishing effort. ICES has not evaluated the consistency of this management plan with the Precautionary Approach.Exploitation boundaries in relation to high long-term yield, low risk of depletion of production potential and considering ecosystem effects.ICES has previously recommended a target fishing mortality of 0.3, which would result in a low risk to reproduction and high long-term yields.Exploitation boundaries in relation to precautionary limitsNo catch should be taken from this stock in 2007 and a recovery plan should be developed and implemented as a prerequisite to reopening the fishery.Conclusion on exploitation boundariesIn the absence of an agreed management plan, ICES concludes that the exploitation boundaries for this stock should be based on the precautionary limits. Accordingly, no catch should be taken from this stock in 2007 and a recovery plan should be developed and implemented as a prerequisite to reopening the fisherySTECF COMMENTS:STECF notes that in the absence of any agreed management plan, the ICES advice for zero catch in 2007 is based on the precautionary approach and even with no catches of cod from the eastern Baltic stock in 2007, the spawning stock biomass will not attain the Blim value of 160,000 tonnes by 2008. Blim was introduced in 1998 based on average recruitment levels seen since the mid 1960’s and does not consider the deteriorating hydrographic conditions. STECF also notes that to achieve a zero catch of eastern Baltic cod in 2007 implies no fishing by all fleets likely to catch cod. STECF recommends the introduction of a long-term management plan that aims to gradually reduce fishing mortality to sustainable levels in the region of F=0.3-0.4, which once achieved, should be maintained. Such an approach does not make any a priori assumptions about the spawning stock biomass required to ensure high reproductive success.STECF suggests that implementation of such an approach be best achieved through effort controls on those fleets likely to catch cod. Effort controls could also be supplemented by corresponding catch limits and appropriate technical measures including gear restrictions and closed areas.Section 6 of this report documents the STECF response to a specific request from the European Commission on catch options for Eastern Baltic cod for 2007. STECF suggests that if managers can agree on an appropriate management plan that aims to gradually reduce fishing mortality through sequential annual reductions until sustainable levels are reached, the catch options given in section 6 of this report, could be used as a guide for setting catch limits for 2007.STECF stresses that the desired reductions in fishing mortality are unlikely to be achieved through annual TAC agreements alone and that accompanying effort restriction are an essential requirement of any agreed management plan.If an management plan is not agreed and implemented before management decision are taken for 2007, STECF recommends that the ICES advice for a zero catch of eastern Baltic cod in 2007 be implemented.11.  Cod (Gadus morhua) in the KattegatFISHERIES: Cod in the Kattegat is exploited by Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. The fishery is conducted by both trawl and gillnets. Landings fluctuated between 4,000 and 22,000 tonnes (1971-2001) and were all taken by EU Member States. Landings have decreased continuously down from a level of 9500 tonnes in 1997 to around 1100 tonnes in 2005.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. The advice is based on an age-based assessment using commercial and survey data.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: The Kattegat cod is covered by the EC recovery plan (Council Regulation no. 423/2004, of 26 February, 2004, (see Annex 1)), which allows a TAC even though biomass is below Blim. ICES considers the agreement to be inconsistent with the precautionary approach, even with no fishing the stock will remain below Blim and any fishing will involve a risk of further depletion of the stockPRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: Bpa = 10,500 tonnes, Blim = 6,400, Fpa = 0.6 and Flim = 1.0STOCK STATUS: All available data indicate the SSB to be in the range of the historically lowest stock estimates and below the value currently set for Blim, though the exact estimate for SSB is uncertain due to unreliable catch data. Recruitment has been low in recent years. The fishing mortality has generally exceeded 1.0 since the early 1980s. The present estimate of fishing mortality is considered uncertain due to unreliable catch data; however, there are indications from survey analyses that it remains high.The stock is depleted with low SSB and low recruitment in recent years. The stock size is not precisely known, but is indicated to be below Blim. The present level of fishing mortality is uncertain but there are indications that it remains high.The spawning stock declined steadily from about 32,000 tonnes in the early 1970s to about 10,000 tonnes in the 1990s, with a concurrent drop in recruitment (age 1) from 30 million in the 1970s to around 10 million in the 1990s. The fishing mortality exceeded 1.0 during most of the 1980s and 1990s. In the present state (with SSB below 10,000 tonnes and still declining the fishery is dependent on the strength of incoming year-classes only.STECF notes that due to the uncertainties in the official landing data in most recent years, the assessment is not considered reliable in the most recent years. A survey-based analysis confirms the long-term declining trend in stock and indicates that the fishing mortality in recent years remains high.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE:Exploitation boundaries in relation to existing management plans .The management plan requires annual predictions of spawning stock size which are not available given the recent poor catch data. However, even with no fishing in 2007, the SSB in 2008 is expected to remain below 6,400 tonnes (Blim).Exploitation boundaries in relation to precautionary limits.Taking into account the current perception of the stock abundance, fishing at any level will involve a risk of further depletion of the stock. There should therefore be no fishing on this stock in 2007.Conclusion on exploitation boundariesImplementation of the management plan requires a reliable assessment which is not available because of the poor quality of the catch data. Therefore, ICES concludes that the exploitation boundaries for this stock should be based on the precautionary limits. Accordingly, there should be no fishing on this stock in 2007.Short-term implicationsOutlook for 2008Even with no fishing in 2007, the stock is expected to remain below Blim.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice and the following comments: The effects of the present management measures are difficult to evaluate due to uncertainties in the catch information. There is evidence of misreporting of catches (non-reporting and misreporting by fishing area) as well as significant discarding of marketable cod. The decline in the catch data quality is related to the restrictive TAC presently in place. Discarding is claimed to have increased to achieve compliance with the quota regulations (including high-grading), but the available information shows a decline in discarding in the most recent years. The North Sea RAC proposal for effort control, which is currently under review, is aimed at reducing misreporting and under-reporting as well as discarding.12.  Flounder (Platichthys flesus) – IIIbcd (EU zone), Baltic SeaFISHERIES: All countries surrounding the Baltic report landings of flounder. It is mainly taken as by-catch in fisheries for cod, but there are also local coastal fisheries targeting this species. In the past 10 years total recorded landings have fluctuated between 8,000 and 19,000 tonnes. It is likely that in this period total landings from SD 22 –26 are overestimated due to the misreporting of cod as flounder in the landings of the directed cod fishery, especially in the years in the mid 90s. The reported landings for 2005 (19,639 tonnes) were the highest in period 1975 - 2005. The landings increased since 1995 and fluctuated in the range of 14-19 thousand tonnes.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. The analytical assessment is considered exploratory and is based on long-term catch data and two BITS surveys (1st and 4th quarter). In 2006 no analytical assessment was presented.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been proposed for the flounder stocks in the Baltic.STOCK STATUS: Baltic flounder is composed of several sub-stocks. The most recent ICES advice states that the size of most of the stocks is unknown. Results from an exploratory assessment of the stock in Subdivisions 24–25 indicated a stable spawning stock in the entire period of the assessment (since 1978). There were indications of above average recruitment in recent years, fishing mortality has increased slightly over this period, and landings have increased since the late 90s. However, the assessment was rejected by ICES and remained exploratory. In 2006 no analytical assessment was made because the data quality was regarded poor. The main problems are age reading and discards both in cod and flounder fisheries.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: There are no explicit management objectives for this stock. Data are insufficient for management advice and no advice is available from ICES.STECF COMMENTS: STECF has no comment.13.  Herring (Clupea harengus) in Divisions IIIbcd, Baltic SeaThe present ICES stock assessment units of Baltic herring and the existing management units are shown in the text table below:Herring Unit | Existing Management Area |Herring in Sub-divisions 22-24 | South-western Baltic, Subdivisions 22,23,24 |Central Baltic Herring | Sub-divisions 25,26,27,29, 32 and 28 (excl. Gulf of Riga) Central Baltic |Gulf of Riga Herring | Gulf of Riga (part of Sub-division 28) |Herring in Sub- division 30 | Management Unit 3 (Sub-divisions 30-31) |Herring in Sub-division 31 | Management Unit 3 (Sub-divisions 30-31) |14.  Herring (Clupea harengus) in the Skagerrak, the Kattegat and in the Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 22-24).FISHERIES: Herring of this stock are taken in the North-eastern part of the North Sea, Division IIIa and Sub-divisions 22–24. Division IIIa has directed fisheries by trawlers and purse seiners, while Sub-divisions 22–24 have directed trawl, gillnet and trapnet fisheries. The herring by-catches taken in Division IIIa in the small mesh trawl fisheries for sprat, Norway pout and sandeel are mainly autumn-spawners from the North Sea stock. After a period of high landings in the early 1980s the combined landings of all fleets have decreased to below the long-term average. In recent years approximately 50% of the catches from this stock are taken in the western Baltic. In 2005, the overall TAC of 120,000 t was not taken as ACFM estimated the catch to amount to 89,000 t. The TAC comprises both the autumn- and spring-spawning stocks in the area as well as mixed clupeoid TAC and by-catch ceiling in small mesh fisheries.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. The mixing in Divs. IIIa and IVa of the autumn spawners from the North Sea with this spring spawning stock complicates assessment as well as management of both these stocks. The analytical assessment of the spring spawners in IIIa and western Baltic is based on catch data and acoustic and trawl survey results. But in order to continue to improve the assessment, a comprehensive survey covering the whole stock is needed.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: Precautionary Approach Reference Points have not been defined. Based on a comparison to other herring stocks all likely candidates of F pa will be less than F max, for instance F 0.1 .STOCK STATUS: In the absence of defined reference points, the state of the stock cannot be evaluated with regard to these. The recent assessment indicates that both SSB and fishing mortality have been stable over a number of years. The fishing mortality estimates for 2005 are 0.41 for adults. The 2003 year-class was above average, whereas the 2004 and 2005 year classes seem to be around average. Apparently, the strength of a year class is not firmly established before the year class has been followed for 2–3 years.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: Current fishing mortality has led to stable or increased SSB and the fishing mortality should not be allowed to increase. This corresponds to landings of less than 99,000 t in 2007.STECF COMMENTS: STECF notes that the assessment in 2006 is consistent with the 2005 assessment and agrees with the advice from ICES. STECF notes that because the proportion of the herring in IIIa that are IVa autumn spawners cannot be predicted in advance, management measures applied to IIIa will have an influence on the exploitation rate of both the IIIa spring spawning herring and the North sea autumn spawners.15.  Herring in Sub-divisions 25-29 (excluding Gulf of Riga) and 32.FISHERIES: All the countries surrounding the Baltic, exploit the herring in these areas as part of fishery mixed with sprat. Over the last 29 years, landings of herring have decreased from a peak of 369,000 tonnes in 1974 to 91,300 tonnes in 2005.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. The assessment is based on long-term catch data and an acoustic survey. Previously the assessment was rather uncertain, that was related to the complexity of the stock structure and the uncertain split between herring and sprat in most pelagic fisheries in the area, and due to the restrictions on the herring TAC, this problem may be further exacerbated by species misreporting.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: The proposed precautionary reference point for fishing mortality is Fpa = 0.19 There is no biological basis at present for determining biomass reference points.STOCK STATUS : In 2006, based on the most recent estimates of fishing mortality, ICES classifies the stock as harvested sustainably. The 2006 assessment has revised the value of SSB in 2003 upward by 16%. The SSB has decreased steadily since the mid-1970s and in 1999-2001 was at the lowest level. The SSB has increased in recent years but is still below long term average.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: There are no explicit management objectives for this stock. ICES recommends that fishing mortality in 2007 should be below the Fpa = 0.19 that corresponds to a TAC in 2007 of less than 164,000 tonnes.STECF COMMENTS : STECF agrees with the ICES advice.16.  Herring in the Gulf of Riga.FISHERIES: Herring catches in the Gulf of Riga include both Gulf herring and open-sea herring, which enter the Gulf of Riga from April to June for spawning. In the past 25 years landings have fluctuated between 15000 and 40000 tonnes. The herring in the Gulf of Riga is fished by Estonia and Latvia. The structure of the fishery has remained unchanged in recent decades: approximately 70% of the catches are taken by the trawl fishery and 30% by a trap-net fishery on the spawning grounds.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: The proposed precautionary reference point for SSB (Bpa) is set at 50,000t while Blim is considered to be 36,500t. The proposed precautionary reference point for F (Fpa) is set at 0.40; Flim is not defined.STOCK STATUS: In 2005, based on the most recent estimates of SSB and fishing mortality, ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and as being harvested sustainably. SSBs have been high since 1990, based on high recruitment. The two year-classes 1996 and 2003 were weaker. .RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : ICES recommends that fishing mortality does not exceed Fpa (0.40). This is expected to reduce the SSB in the short term because the 2003-year-class is very poor. However, SSB will remain well above Bpa. F below Fpa = 0.40 corresponds to landings less than 33 900 tonnes in 2007.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice.17.  Herring in Sub-div. 30, Bothnian Sea (Management Unit 3)FISHERIES: Finland and Sweden carry out herring fishery in this area, mainly with bottom trawls. On average 90% of the total catch is taken by trawl fishery. The trap-net fishery is of minor importance. In the trawl fishery more effective and larger trawls have been introduced in the 1990s.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: The proposed precautionary reference point for SSB (Bpa) is set at 200,000t while Blim is considered to be 145,000t. The proposed precautionary reference point for F (Fpa) is set at 0.21 while Flim is considered to be 0.3.STOCK STATUS: Based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity. The spawning stock biomass has been high since the late 1980s, and seems to have increased in recent years. It is presently well above Bpa. Based on the most recent estimates of fishing mortality (0.15), ICES classifies the stock to be harvested sustainably. The fishing mortality has decreased since 2000 and has been below Fpa since 1998. Recruitment has been high since 1989 and the 2002 year-class appears exceptional.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: There are no explicit management objectives for this stock. Nor have target reference points been agreed, however the present F (0.15) is similar to the candidate reference points F0.1. Assuming a fishery in 2006 at status quo Fsq = 0.15 fishing below Fpa in 2007 corresponds to landings of less than 83 400 tonnes.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice.18.  Herring in Sub-div. 31, Bothnian Bay (Management Unit 3)FISHERIES: Trawl fisheries account for the main part of the total catches. Normally the trawl fishing season begins in late April and ends before the spawning season in late May to July. It resumes in August/September and continues, until the ice cover appears, usually in early November.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: Precautionary Approach reference points are not defined.STOCK STATUS: In the absence of defined reference points, the state of the stock cannot be evaluated with regard to these, however a tentative analytical assessment indicates that SSB has been high in the 1980s and has declined considerably in the mid-1990s to a low level. Since then SSB has increased and is now near the long-term average due to large year-classes in 1999 and 2001. The year-class 2002 is perceived as a record high.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: ICES advises that catches at recent average levels (2002-2005) 4700 tonnes are below the long-term average catches for this stock and should not be exceeded. It is further noted that this stock is part of the resource basis for the herring TAC set for IBSFC Management Area including Subdivisions 30 and 31.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice.19.  Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in the Baltic Sea (Div. IIIb,c,d)FISHERIES: In the Baltic, plaice is mainly taken in Sub-divisions 22-24 (the western Baltic). The highest total landings were recorded in the late 1970s (8,300 tonnes in 1979), but have decreased since the 1980s to the lowest on record in 1993 (269 tonnes). Since 1995 landings have fluctuated between 1,500 and 2,700 tonnes, mainly due to increased landings from Subdivision 22. In 2005 reported total landings were about 2,220 tonnes.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: There are no precautionary reference points proposed for plaice in the Baltic.STOCK STATUS: The stock status is unknown. The only information available for this stock is landing statistics.MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVESNo management objectives have been defined for this stock.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The available data are insufficient for assessing the current stock size and exploitation, and ICES gives no management advice on the Plaice stocks in the Baltic.STECF COMMENTS: STECF has no comments.20.  Salmon (Salmo salar) in the Baltic Sea, Div. IIIb,c,d (Main Basin and Gulf of Bothnia, Sub-div. 22-31)FISHERIES: The salmon fishery in the Baltic is based both on reared and wild fish. The exploitation rate of the wild stocks as a whole is high, and the exploitation rate of many reared stocks is also high. In latest few years, the proportion of wild fish has increased and presently remains at more than 50 % of the catch. These estimates are based on genetic stock composition analysis and scale readings. In the current situation, the proportion of wild salmon is economically important for the fishery. All the Baltic countries participate in the salmon fishery. The total nominal salmon catch in the Baltic Sea has declined, starting in 1990 from 5636 tonnes and decreasing 1740 tonnes in 2005. The nominal catch in the offshore fisheries decreased by 29% from 247 455 salmon in 2004 to174 959 salmon in 2005; in the coastal fisheries the decrease was 20% and the number of salmon caught by the river fisheries increased by 24%.Since 1987 the total numbers of fish landed have varied between 324,000 and 1131,000 specimens with a noticeable decreasing trend. The nominal catches in 2005 (324,000 specimens), shows decline. Decreased catches since the mid 1990s are largely explained by TAC restrictions, strong regulations in coastal fisheries, reduced survival rates of reared salmon in post smolt phase, and poor market prices. Non-reported catches and discards are estimated to be about 20% of the reported landings. About 70% of discards are caused by seal damage. These loses are not included in the TAC. The TAC of 460 000 salmon in the Main Basin and the Gulf of Bothnia was utilised to 64% only, but is considered restrictive for some of the different fishery segments.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS:To evaluate the state of the stock ICES uses the current smolt production relative to the 50% level of the natural production capacity on a river-by-river basis. Furthermore, ICES has calculated the probability of attaining 50%, 75%, and 100% of the natural production capacity for the period 2011 2015.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS:In 1997 IBSFC adopted the Salmon Action Plan (SAP) running 1997–2010 where the long-term objectives are:21.  To prevent the extinction of wild populations, further decrease of naturally produced smolts should not be allowed.22.  The production of wild salmon should gradually increase to attain by 2010 for each salmon river a natural production of wild Baltic salmon of at least 50% of the best estimate potential and within safe genetic limits, in order to achieve a better balance between wild and reared salmon.23.  Wild salmon populations shall be re-established in potential salmon rivers.24.  The level of fishing should be maintained as high as possible. Only restrictions necessary to achieve the first three objectives should be implemented.25.  Reared smolts and earlier salmon life stage releases shall be closely monitored.The objective of the Salmon Action Plan (SAP), as adopted in 1997 by the former IBSFC, is to increase the natural production of wild Baltic salmon to at least 50% of the natural production capacity of each river by 2010, while retaining the catch level as high as possible. In addition, objectives state that the genetic diversity of the stocks should be maintained. Catch options for 2007 do mainly influence the smolt year-classes beyond year 2010. No update of objectives has been set by the EU Commission replacing the IBSFC Salmon Action Plan (SAP).STOCK STATUS: To evaluate the state of the stock ICES uses the current smolt production relative to the 50% level of the natural production capacity on a river-by-river basis. This objective is likely to be met for several large rivers in the Northern Baltic Sea area while the status of less productive wild stocks, especially in the Southern Baltic Sea area is poor, and even a negative trend in smolt production has been observed within the assessment units (Figure 8.4.14.2). The total wild smolt production has increased about fourfold since the Salmon Action plan was adopted in 1997 and is now estimated to be around two thirds of the overall potential smolt production (Tables 8.4.14.1 and 8.4.14.2). However, this increase in smolt production is not uniform among rivers and is particularly low in the potential rivers, i.e. rivers where salmon were extirpated and are now being reintroduced.Figure 8.4.14.3 summarises the status on a river basis, relative to the potential smolt capacity estimates There has been an increase in the total proportion of wild salmon in catches, relative to reared salmon, which reflects the increased abundance of the wild salmon stocks.The stocks of unit 1 are very likely to reach 50% of the smolt production capacity in 2010, and the rivers Tornionjoki and Kalixälven are very likely to even reach 75% of the smolt production capacity in 2010. For the rivers Tornionjoki and Kalixälven it is respectively uncertain and unlikely that they will reach 100% of the smolt production capacity in 2010. It is uncertain and unlikely that Simojoki and Råneälven will reach 75% and 100% of the smolt production capacity in 2010, respectively (Figure 8.4.14.3 and Table 8.4.14.3) All stocks in assessment unit 2 show a similar trend in smolt production, but the actual status of the stocks differs, with most stocks being likely or very likely to reach the target of 50% of the potential smolt production in 2010. The exceptions are the River Öreälven and River Rickleån, where the smolt production capacities are uncertain. In general, the recovery of the assessment unit 2 stocks seems to be delayed in comparison with the stocks in assessment unit 1. The probability of reaching 75% and 100% of the smolt production capacity in 2010 for stocks of assessment unit 2 is lower than for stocks of assessment unit 1, which can partly be explained by the higher uncertainty in the smolt production and smolt production capacity estimates for stocks of this unit compared to stocks of unit 1.The stock in the river Ljungan (unit 3) is likely to reach 50% of the smolt production capacity in 2010, but it is uncertain and unlikely whether it will reach 75% and 100% of the potential level, respectively. Within unit 4, Mörrumsån and Emån differ significantly in their status. While it is very likely that Mörrumsån will reach 50% of the smolt production capacity in 2010 and most likely 75%, Emån is unlikely to reach the 50% target. Unit 5 consists of a diverse range of stocks with some stocks, such as the River Pärnu and the River Nemunas being heavily depleted while others, such as the rivers Salaca, Vitrupe, Irbe, Venta, Uzava, and Barta are likely to reach 50% estimates can vary more widely from year to year.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE:Single-stock exploitation boundariesICES recommends that catches should not increase. The current exploitation pressure will not impair the possibility of the larger stocks attaining the management objective. For the smaller stocks long-term benefits are expected from a reduction of the fishing pressure, although it is uncertain whether this is sufficient to rebuild these stocks to the level indicated in the SAP.The present TAC (460 000) is not fully utilised; the catches in 2005 were 324 000. Other factors have limited the fishery. These include: 1) technical measures such as opening time of fishery and closed areas, 2) restrictions on driftnets, 3) large salmon cannot be marketed due to the dioxin level, and 4) increased seal damage to catches and gear. As ICES suggests that catches should not increase, it is recommended that the technical regulations be continued.For the rivers Emån and Rickleån, which are unlikely to reach 50% of the smolt production capacity within 2010, it is recommended that special stock rebuilding measures are taken, including habitat restoration and removal of physical barriers. River catches are negligible in these rivers. Furthermore, it is recommended for the stocks of unit 5 to implement additional measures to decrease the exploitation of these stocks by fisheries intercepting them during migration. ICES has not been able to identify differences in migrating routes or timing which could be used to distinguish fisheries of these fish (Emån, Rickleån, and Unit 5 fish) from the general exploitation.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice. STECF underlines the need to establish new operational aims for the Baltic salmon stocks for the future management.26.  Salmon (Salmo salar) in the Baltic Sea, Gulf of Finland (Sub-div. 32)FISHERIES: The salmon fishery in the Gulf of Finland is mainly based on reared fish. In recent years reared fish would have constituted 96 and 99% of the catch, if the estimates of smolt production of reared and wild fish are valid indicators of recruitment to the fisheries. Estonia, Finland and Russia are participating in the salmon fishery. Salmon catches in the area are low, and although commercial effort is low there is substantial (but poorly quantified) effort and catches by recreational fishers. Since 1996 the landings decreased continuously. In 1996 the landings still amounted to about 80,000 specimens, but in 2005 the landings only amounted to 17,658 specimens or 99 tonnes. This was one of the lowest recorded catches since 1981 and represents about 15% of the maximum recorded catch of salmon in the area (in 1991).SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: Not established.STOCK STATUS: The condition of the wild stocks is poor. Although the estimates of smolt production as well as the potential production capacity of the extant wild salmon rivers are uncertain the status of these populations is considered to be precarious. Parr densities in 2005 suggest increased recruitment in most rivers.Catches of salmon in the area remained low despite increased smolt releases. Although commercial effort is low there is substantial (but poorly quantified) effort and catches by recreational fishers. The total catches in 2005 in the Gulf of Finland were 17 658 salmon or 99 tonnes, about 5500 salmon more than in 2004. This is one of the lowest recorded catches since 1981 and represents about 15% of the maximum recorded catch of salmon in the area (in 1991). Catch samples indicate that Gulf of Bothnia salmon contribute occasionally to the catches of Gulf of Finland, particularly during the early summer fishing.Wild stocks: The only remaining native salmon populations of the area exist in three Estonian rivers. In one of these rivers (Kunda) the estimated smolt production has been less than 25% of the potential in the last few years. In the other two rivers (Keila and Vasalemma) smolt production has been even lower, and in 2004 2005 no smolts came out from these rivers. The wild salmon populations are genetically distinctive from each other, which indicate that there are still original salmon stocks left, but there is also some evidence of straying among rivers. Surveys indicate that parr densities vary greatly over time in these rivers, but densities are generally much lower than in similar rivers at these latitudes. Some year-classes have occasionally been lacking in Estonian rivers during the last 30 years. One of the main reasons preventing the recovery of these small Estonian populations is poaching for salmon in the rivers.Mixed stocks: There have been wild salmon populations in 9 Estonian rivers in the Gulf of Finland. However, six of these populations (Selja, Loobu, Valgejõgi, Jägala, Pirita, Vääna) have been supported by smolt releases of the river Narva strain in the last few years. Despite enhancement releases some of these rivers may still support fractions of the original wild salmon populations, and a recovery programme should therefore be considered for these rivers. Wild salmon production was lost in rivers on the Finnish side of the Gulf of Finland by the 1950s due to pollution and damming of rivers. There is a suitable habitat in the lowest part of the River Kymijoki, and natural reproduction has been observed by returning spawning salmon, released as smolts.Surveys also indicate that some natural reproduction occurs in the river Luga in Russia. This population is supported by long-term releases. However, there are no national plans to attain self-sustainable populations in this river.Reared stocks: Most of the salmon catch in the Gulf of Finland originates from smolt releases. Despite major releases, the catches have decreased considerably in the last few years with no evidence of improvements to stock status. This pattern indicates a lowered initial smolt survival of released salmon. Tagging results also provide evidence of decreased survival of reared smolts.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS: The objective of the Salmon Action Plan (SAP), as adopted by the former IBSFC, is to increase the natural production of wild Baltic salmon to at least 50% of the natural production capacity of each river by 2010, while retaining the catch level as high as possible. In addition, objectives state that the genetic diversity of the stocks should be maintained. The management objective concerned has expired in practice because catch options for 2007 mainly influence smolt year-classes beyond year 2010. No update of objectives has been set by the EU Commission after the former IBSFC Salmon Action Plan (SAP).RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: ICES recommends that catches should not increase. In light of the precarious state of the wild stocks in the Gulf of Finland and the very low wild smolt production in recent years, fisheries should only be permitted at sites where there is virtually no chance of taking wild salmon from the Gulf of Finland stocks along with reared salmon. It is particularly urgent that national conservation programmes to protect wild salmon be enforced around the Gulf of Finland. In addition actions should be taken to stop poaching in Estonian rivers still carrying native wild salmon.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice and recommends that the River Kymijoki should be added to the Salmon Action Plan. STECF notes that the management objectives lead to a need of stock specific assessments that can be carried out by models utilising genetic stock identification results and river specific smolt estimates.27.  Sea trout (Salmo trutta trutta) in the Baltic Sea, Div. IIIb,c,d (Main Basin and Gulf of Bothnia, Sub-div. 22-31)FISHERIES: Most of the sea trout is caught as by-catch, either in offshore fisheries for salmon or in coastal fisheries for salmon, whitefish, and pikeperch. The exploitation pattern is variable in different areas. In the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland sea trout are to a large extent caught by bottom gillnets for other species. Particularly on the Finnish side of the Gulf of Bothnia, the bottom gillnet fishing effort has remained high in the last 10 years. The parr densities of these wild stock are at a low level. The total sea trout catch from the Baltic Sea was 855 tonnes in year 2005, which is 190 tonnes less than in 2004.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: Not established.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS: Many stocks are international in the sense that stock migrations cross state boundaries. This makes it necessary to have international cooperation regarding the management of these stocks. There is no TAC set for the sea trout. National regulations include minimum landing size and local and seasonal closures. The status of the weak sea trout populations has not been improving with present regulations. ICES considers that the current status of some of the wild sea trout stocks in the Gulf of Bothnia and the Gulf of Finland is critical. There is an urgent need to decrease the exploitation of these sea trout stocks. As some of them have relatively long migration and are exploited by more than one country, ICES recommends that a management plan is considered for the sea trout stocks.STOCK STATUS: Stocks in several rivers in the Main Basin are considered to be in good or satisfactory condition with nursery areas well utilised. These populations do not seem to be subjected to as high exploitation rates as some of the populations in the Gulf of Bothnia and in the Gulf of Finland where sea trout is caught as a by-catch in, e.g. whitefish and pike-perch fisheries. However, populations in numerous small Danish brooks are assessed to be in poor condition, mainly because of poor quality of the freshwater habitat (Table 8.4.16.1). In the Gulf of Bothnia, a large number of the natural sea trout stocks have died out due to a combination of loss or decreased quality of freshwater habitat and recruitment over-fishing in the last 40 years. The status of the remaining populations is very weak (Table 8.4.16.1). In most of the rivers, both on the Swedish and Finnish side of the Gulf, densities of 0+ parr observed in electrofishing surveys were zero or close to zero. Many of the remaining stocks are endangered due to the high fishing mortality rates. In the Gulf of Finland the situation of many sea trout populations is similar to the Gulf of Bothnia (Table 8.4.16.1). Many populations have disappeared due to pollution and damming of the rivers and the r remaining populations are heavily affected by a high exploitation rate in the fishery.The total sea trout catch from the Baltic Sea was 855 tonnes in year 2005, which is 190 tonnes less than in 2004.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: To protect the sea trout populations, spatial fishing restrictions, minimum mesh size for gillnets, and effort limitations should be implemented in order to decrease the exploitation and increase the number of spawners in rivers. As sea trout and salmon have many similarities concerning their ecological demands, life cycle, and fishing exploitation, the sound management of salmon fishery could also be beneficial for the recovery of the sea trout.Single-stock exploitation boundariesSTECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice. As there is an incentive to misreport salmon catches in the mixed sea trout/salmon fishery, further improvement of control measures should be carried out in order to prevent such misreporting in offshore fishery. The state of the sea trout stocks in some areas is poor. STECF recommends that a similar type of action plan, as salmon has, should be considered.28.  Sole (Solea solea) in Division IIIaFISHERIES: The fishery is mainly conducted by Denmark, with smaller landings taken by Germany and Sweden. Significant amounts of sole are taken as by-catch in the fishery for Nephrops . Landings fluctuated between 200 tonnes and 1,400 tonnes (1971-2002). From 1987-2002 the catches did not exceed the TAC except for 1990 and 2002. In 2005 the catch was around 730 tonnes.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The management advisory body is ICES. The advice is based on an age-based assessment using commercial and survey data.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: The proposed precautionary reference points for fishing mortality and biomass are Fpa = 0.30, Bpa = 1,060 tonnes.STOCK STATUS Based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity. The assessment is still uncertain due to substantial discarding and non-reporting in the most recent years (2002-2004). A major problem is the correction for this non-reported catches. However the assessment is believed to have improved somewhat and the SSB increasing. The fishing mortality estimate in the most recent year is uncertain, but available information indicates sustainable exploitation.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE Given the uncertainties in the assessment regarding non-reporting and discarding in recent years, ICES advises a TAC for 2006 not higher than the TAC for 2005, even though SSB is estimated much higher than Bpa. The estimate of present (status quo) fishing mortality is uncertain but status quo fishing mortality is probably at or below Fpa. It is thus not considered precautionary to increase the fishing mortality above status quo irrespective of the actual estimate.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice.STECF recognises the uncertainty of fishing mortality estimates, which makes this stock assessment very uncertain. STECF welcomes the efforts to utilise new data (CPUE series based on private and official logbooks and estimates of non-reporting and discards of legal sized sole in recent years) to supplement the data formerly available for the assessment. However, STECF is unable to comment on whether these fully resolve the deficiencies and ambiguities of the assessment.29.  Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in IIIbcd, Baltic Sea (Sub-div. 22-32)FISHERIES: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden exploit sprat in the Baltic. During the 1990s total catches increased considerably, from a level of 85,000 tonnes in the 1990 to 530,000 tonnes in 1997. Since then there has been a decrease again until 2003. In 2005 total catches increased to 405,200 tonnes. Trawlers account for most of the catches. The increase in catches since 1992 is due to the development of an industrial pelagic fishery. Varying amounts of herring are taken in the fisheries for sprat. The catches from this fishery consist mainly of sprat (about 70%) and herring.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. The age-structured assessment is based long-term catch data and two survey indices.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: The IBSFC long-term management plan for the sprat stock was terminated in 2006. The present advice was given in relation to precautionary limits.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: The proposed precautionary reference point for SSB (Bpa) is set at 275,000 tonnes while Blim is considered to be 200,000 tonnes. The proposed precautionary reference point for F ( F pa) is set at 0.40; Flim is not defined.STOCK STATUS: Based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classifies the stock as having full reproductive capacity and based on the most recent estimates of fishing mortality (0,386), ICES classifies the stock to be harvested sustainably.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE:Fishing mortality in 2007 should be below Fpa=0.4 corresponding to landing of less than 477 000 tonnes. This catch (the management plan) is expected to decrease the SSB to 1.25 million tonnes in 2008. The strong year-classes of 2002-2003 contribute 54% to the yield in 2007. The 2004 year-class is estimated to be weak, while the 2005 year-class is predicted to be above averageThe current level of SSB is very high and is well above Bpa. In 2007-2008 the stock and the catch opportunities under the current management plans will still be good due to strong year-classes 2002 and 2003, and above average year-class of 2005. The prospect of the sprat fishery in the coming years will to a great extent depend on the 2006 and 2007 year-classes. In the presented projections they were assumed as the long-term average, in which case they constitute 33% of the SSB predicted for 2008. However, available environmental data (NAO index) suggest that the 2006 year-class may be weak, which would only slightly affect the 2007 catches, but would lead to 17% lower SSB in 2008 than the one predicted in present forecast.The highest fishing mortality rate which this stock can sustain in the long term depends on natural mortality, which is linked to the abundance of cod. Strong recruitment and low predation in recent years contributed to the high SSB in the mid-1990s and 2000s. The exploitation rate on sprat may have to be reduced if the cod stock recovers.Fishing at Fsq in the medium term will lead to about 15% decline in biomass and catches. However, all of these levels of exploitation show a high probability of the stock remaining above Bpa.The catch possibilities can vary considerably from year to year because of the recruitment pattern with the occasional large year-classes.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice on the exploitation of Baltic sprat. STECF further recommends the necessity of an efficient monitoring of the by-catch of herring in this sprat fishery.30.  Deepwater Resources in the North-east Atlantic31.  Deep-water fish (several species) in (IVA), IIIa, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XII.GENERAL COMMENTS AND DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIESThe term ‘deep-water’ is defined by ICES to include waters of depths greater than 400 m. Deep water in the ICES area covers the deep parts of ICES Sub-areas I, II, III, V-X, XII, and XIV. However, some of the species included as deep-water species in the management advice by ICES are also distributed in more shallow waters, e.g. ling and tusk. Other species/stocks which have similar depth distributions, e.g. anglerfish and Greenland halibut, are already assessed by ICES in area-specific assessment working groups.Deep-water covers a huge area from the Arctic north to the sub-tropical south. It also covers ridges and underwater seamounts often with a quite unique biology. Productivity is very low in the deep-water. The diversity of deep-water life history strategies is considerable, but many species of fish targeted by fisheries are particularly vulnerable to disturbance because they grow slowly, mature late in life, and form aggregations easily accessible to fisheries. Recovery rates are much slower than in shallower waters. The knowledge of central biological characteristics such as stock identity, migration, recruitment, growth, feeding, maturation, and fecundity of most deep-water species still lags considerably behind that of commercially exploited shelf-based species. Such information is required to expand our understanding of the population dynamics of deep-water fishes, which in turn is required to underpin stock assessments.Fisheries data including length and age compositions, discards, and cpue, are slowly increasing for deep-water stocks but time-series data are often short and are not available in sufficient spatial resolution for some stocks e.g. orange roughy and alfonsinos. VMS data are not readily available for most fleets.ICES in 2006 has commented on the precautionary reference points used for some stocks. Reference points that were previously suggested were: U lim= 0.2* U max and U pa= 0.5* U max (where U is the index of exploitable biomass). The ICES SGPA and NAFO proposed these reference points in 1997 for use in data poor situations. However, for most stocks ICES does not consider the available cpue series as suitable for defining U max because the series are too short and Umax is not an index virgin biomass. STECF agrees that this is a valid point but in a data-poor situation and in the precautionary context, these reference points are likely to the best available for these stocks, even though they may underestimate depletion/overestimate recovery in relation to actual Umax.Fisheries on deep-water species have developed rapidly and the resources they exploit are generally especially vulnerable to over-fishing. Within the ICES area species/stocks have been depleted before appropriate management measures have been implemented e.g. orange roughy. It is also of concern that the landings statistics available may not reflect the true scale of the recent fishing activity, especially in waters outside national EEZs.In ICES Division IVa there is a by-catch of Greater silver smelt ( Argentina silus ) in the industrial trawl fishery. A longline fishery targets tusk ( Bosme brosme ) and ling with forkbeard ( Phycis blennoides ) and grenadier as a by-catch. Some deepwater species are landed as a by-catch in the trawl fisheries targeting anglerfish and Greenland halibut.In ICES Division IIIa there is a targeted trawl fishery for roundnose grenadier ( Coryphaenoides rupestris ) and greater silver smelt. Several deep-water species are also taken as a by-catch in, for instance, the trawl fisheries for northern shrimp.In ICES Sub-area V there are trawl fisheries targeting blue ling, redfish species, argentine and orange roughy ( Hoplostethus atlanticus ), which have as by-catch a great number of other deep-water species. There are also traditional longline fisheries for ling and tusk, and trawl and gill net fisheries for Greenland halibut and anglerfish.In ICES Sub-areas VI and VII there are directed fisheries for blue ling, roundnose grenadier, orange roughy, black scabbardfish and deep-water sharks.In Sub-area VIII there is a longline fishery, which mainly targets greater forkbeard, and trawl fisheries for hake, megrim, anglerfish and Nephrops which have a by-catch of deep-water species.In ICES Sub-area IX some deep-water species are a by-catch of the trawl fisheries for crustaceans. Typical species are bluemouth ( Helicolenus dactylopterus ), greater forkbeard , conger eel ( Conger conger ), blackmouth dogfish ( Galeus melastomus ), kitefin shark ( Dalatias licha ), gulper shark ( Centrophorus granulosus ) and leafscale gulper shark ( Centrophorus squamosus ). There is a directed longline fishery for black scabbard fish ( Aphanopus carbo ) with a by-catch of the Portuguese dogfish ( Centroscymnus coelolepis) and leafscale gulper shark ( Centrophorus squamosus) . There is also a longline (Voracera) fishery for Pagellus bogaraveo .In ICES Sub-area X the main fisheries are by handline and longline near the Azores, and the main species landed are red (blackspot) seabream ( Pagellus bogaraveo ), wreckfish ( Polyprion americanus ), conger eel , bluemouth , golden eye perch ( Beryx splendens ) and alfonsino ( Beryx decadactylus ). At present the catches of kitefin shark are made by the longline and handline deepwater vessels and can be considered as accidental. There are no vessels at present catching this species using gillnets. Outside the Azorean EEZ there are trawl fisheries for golden eye perch , orange roughy , cardinal fish ( Epigonus telescopus ), black scabbard fish , and wreckfish .In ICES Sub-area XII there are trawl fisheries on the mid-Atlantic Ridge for orange roughy, roundnose grenadier, and black scabbard fish. There is a multispecies trawl and longline fishery on Hatton Bank, and some of this occurs in this sub-area, some in Sub-area VI. There is considerable fishing on the slopes of the Hatton Bank, and effort may be increasing. Smoothheads ( Alepocephalus species.)were previously usually discarded but now feature to a greater extent in the landings statistics.In ICES Sub-area XIV there are trawl and longline fisheries for Greenland halibut ( Rheinhardtius hippoglossoides ) and redfish that have by-catches of roundnose grenadier, roughhead grenadier ( Macrourus berglax ) and tusk.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE : The main management advisory body is ICES.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: Whereas precautionary reference points have been proposed for some stocks ICES does not consider the available cpue series as suitable for defining U max because the series is too short.STOCK STATUS: With the exception of 2005, ICES provided advice on individual deep-water species every second year - the last stock assessments were presented by ICES in 2006 (ICES 2006). Exploratory assessments were attempted for ling at Vb, blue ling in Vb, VI and VII, red seabream in IX, Xa .MANAGEMENT MEASURESSome fisheries are regulated by unilateral or internationally agreed TACs and these may have reduced exploitation /curbed expansion.In the NEAFC regulatory area, NEAFC has introduced measures requiring that effort should be reduced by 30% in 2006 and the EU introduced measures in 2006 that set effort for vessels holding deepwater licences to 80% of the 2003 level.No update or benchmark stock assessments could be made in 2006, and information on exploitation rates remains uncertain. Under a precautionary approach regime, and given that no new assessments could be made, the conclusion on stock status in 2006 remains similar to that made in 2005. According to this, the state of the stocks of most exploited deep-water species, are considered unknown, uncertain or outside safe biological limits.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: While in previous years ICES has provided general advice for deep-water stocks, this has not been done in 2006. Instead, advice has been, largely, provided on a stock-by-stock basis. These have been supplemented by new advice arising from recent requests to ICES made by the EC and NEAFC (see section 8).STECF COMMENTS : STECF agrees with the ICES recommendation and considers the proposals as a constructive way forward in the light of uncertainties on the states of these stocks and the likely risks to them. STECF once again reiterates its comment that management measures based on effort/fleet regulation are a more appropriate long-term approach for management of these fisheries and consequently fisheries based advice, in addition to that currently given, has value.STECF notes that in any scheme to reduce existing fisheries in the short term, attention would need to be paid to potential effort displacement into other neighbouring fisheries on the continental shelf. STECF further notes that several of these deep-water fisheries take place in international waters outside national or EU jurisdiction. Hitherto this has rendered it difficult to enforce management measures for these fisheries.32.  Alfonsinos/Golden eye perch (Beryx spp.)FISHERIES: The section deals with two species, Beryx splendens and B. decadactylus . Most of the landings of Beryx are from hand-lines and long-lines within the Azorean EEZ of Sub-area X and by trawl outside the EEZ on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The trawl fishery landings refer to both species combined. Under-reporting of catches from international waters is suspected. Alfonsinos aggregate in shoals, often associated with seamounts, and the fisheries have high catch rates once the shoals are located. Localized sub-units of the population can be quickly depleted by fisheries, even within a single season. In various seamounts of the Sub-area X there are some indications that the stocks were intensely exploited during the last decade.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.STOCK STRUCTURE: The stock structure of both species is uncertain. They are distributed over a wide area, which may be composed of several populations.REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been proposed for the stock(s) of Alfonsino/golden eye perch in the NE Atlantic, due to the lack of appropriate data.STOCK STATUS: Assessment data are sparse and reliable assessments are not possible at present. Standardized cpue from the Azores longline commercial fishery indicates an overall slowly decreasing trend for Beryx decadactylus.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : Due to their spatial distribution associated with seamounts, their life history and their aggregation behaviour, alfonsinos/golden eye perch are easily overexploited by trawl fishing; they can only sustain low rates of exploitation. Fisheries on such species should not be allowed to expand above current levels unless it can be shown that such expansion is sustainable To prevent wiping out entire subpopulations that have not yet been mapped and assessed the exploitation of new seamounts should not be allowed.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice, and notes that there may be a need to harmonise management measures in Sub-area X with those for red (blackspot) seabream.33.  Ling (Molva molva)FISHERIES: Ling is primarily fished in the depth range 200-500 m, though it is also found in shallower depths. This species does not have such extreme low productivity and high longevity as typical deep-water species, though specific data for many areas are lacking. The major fisheries are the longline and gillnet fisheries, but there are also by-catches in other gears, i.e. trawls and handline.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.STOCK STRUCTURE: There is insufficient scientific information to establish the extent of putative stocks; however, ling may be sufficiently isolated at separate fishing grounds to be considered as individual management units. On this basis ICES advice is presented for the following management units:-  Divisions I and II (Arctic)-  Va (Iceland)-  Vb (Faroes)-  IIIa, IVa, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIV (other areas).-  Ling in Divisions I and II (Arctic)REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established.STOCK STATUS: Commercial cpue indicates that the abundance, which remained at a reduced level from the 1970s to the 1990s, may have been increasing in recent years.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : The cpue shows an increasing trend while the catches have been stable. However, the cpue also suggests a lower current abundance than in the 1980s. Therefore the advice in a precautionary context is to maintain catches below the recent level of about 6000 tonnes, which is assumed to permit an increase in abundance.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice, but notes there may be a need to harmonise management measures for ling and tusk in this area.34.  Ling in Va (Iceland)REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established.STOCK STATUS: A survey biomass index shows increasing abundance since 2000. The levels are currently at a similar high level as in the start of the series.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : The biomass index shows an increasing trend while the catches have been stable. Advice in a precautionary context is to maintain catches at the recent level (2001-2004) level of about 3800 tonnes, at which level the stock has increased. This fishery should not expand until it is confirmed that the stock has recovered to the levels before 1990.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice, but notes that cpue for this stock in recent years is in the range of values observed before 1990.35.  Ling in Vb (Faroes)REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established.STOCK STATUS: Based on data from Norwegian and Faroese longliners, cpue declined during the 1980s and has remained at about half the level that it was in the 1970s.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : Based on the current perception of status and trends and as part of an adaptive management strategy, effort should not be allowed to increase.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice.36.  Ling in IIIa, IVa, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIV (Other areas)REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established.STOCK STATUS: The cpue series of the main fleet in Divisions IVa, VIa, and VIb suggest that the abundance has remained at a reduced level after the decline in the 1970s to 1990s.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : Landings of ling have declined in recent years and the overall cpue on ling has remained at a reduced level. ICES recommends to reduce catches to 10 000 tonnes (about 30%) and to monitor if the indicators show that stock sizes increase.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice but notes that this is precautionary given that there is evidence of a slight increase in stock in recent years. The advice is consistent with the advice for tusk in these areas.37.  Blue Ling (Molva dypterygia).FISHERIES: The majority of landings are from the Norwegian coast (II), Iceland (Va), Faroes (Vb), west of Scotland and Rockall Trough (VI) and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Hatton Bank (XII). Landings from the west of Ireland and Western Approaches (VII) and further south are very small. A major part of this fishery is on spawning aggregations. Landings from Division IIa are mainly catches in a gillnet fishery off mid-Norway, elsewhere this species is taken mainly as by-catch in trawl fisheries.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. No reliable analytical assessments are available.STOCK STRUCTURE: There is insufficient scientific information to establish the extent of putative stocks; however, blue ling may be sufficiently isolated at separate fishing grounds to be considered as individual management units. On this basis advice is presented for the following management units:-  Subdivisions Va and XIV (Iceland and Reykjanes ridge);-  Subdivisions Vb,VI, and VII (Faroes Rockall and Celtic shelf); and-  Subdivisions I, II, IIIa, IVa, VIII, IX, and XII.The latter grouping is a combination of isolated fishing grounds and these areas are grouped thus due to lack of data. Blue ling is more vulnerable to over-exploitation than ling due to a slower growth rate and higher age at first maturity. It is particularily susceptible to rapid local depletion due to its highly aggregating behaviour during spawning. Ageing is a problem in this species, and thus age-structured analytical assessments are unlikely in the short term.38.  Blue Ling in Va and XIVREFERENCE POINTS: Reference points that were previously suggested for blue ling were: U lim= 0.2* U max and U pa= 0.5* U max. ICES does not consider the available cpue series as suitable for defining U max because the series is too short.STOCK STATUS: Based on cpue from Iceland trawlers the abundance of blue ling in Va and XIV has steadily declined from 1991 to 2000and has remained at a low level since then.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: There should be no directed fisheries and measures should be implemented to reduce/minimise catches in mixed fisheries. Closed areas to protect spawning aggregations should be maintained and expanded where appropriate.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the advice of ICES and recommends the introduction of by-catch limitations for individual fisheries and an appropriate TAC to encompass these by-catches.39.  Blue Ling in Vb, VI and VIIREFERENCE POINTS: Reference points that were previously suggested for blue ling were: U lim= 0.2* U max and U pa= 0.5* U max. Given that the catch history of ling extends well before the beginning of the available survey series, U max is difficult to define.STOCK STATUS: Cpue information suggests that the abundance of blue ling remains at a low level.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: There should be no directed fisheries and measures should be implemented to reduce/minimise catches in mixed fisheries to the lowest possible level. Closed areas to protect spawning aggregations should be maintained and expanded where appropriate.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice and recommends the introduction of by-catch limitations for individual fisheries and an appropriate TAC to encompass these by-catches.40.  Blue ling in other areas (I, II, IIIa, IVa, VIII, IX, and XII)REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for this species in these areas.STOCK STATUS: Trends in landings suggest serious local depletion or stock depletion, at least in Sub-areas IIa and IIb.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: There should be no directed fisheries and measures should be taken to minimise the by-catch of this species in mixed fisheries to the lowest possible level. Such measures could include closing known spawning grounds during spawning.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice and recommends the introduction of by-catch limitations for individual fisheries and an appropriate TAC to encompass these by-catches.41.  Tusk (Brosme brosme)FISHERIES: Tusk is primarily fished in the depth range 200-500 m, though it is also found at shallower depths. Tusk is more vulnerable to overexploitation than ling due to a slower growth rate and higher age at first maturity. The majority of landings are from ICES sub-areas IIa, IIIa, IVa along the Norwegian coast, Va (around Iceland), and Vb (around Faroe Islands). This species is taken mainly in long line fisheries, and most of the catches are by-catches in ling fisheries. Tusk is also taken as by-catch in bottom trawl fisheries.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.STOCK STRUCTURE: There is insufficient scientific information to establish the extent of putative stocks; however, tusk may be sufficiently isolated at separate fishing grounds to be considered as individual management units. On this basis advice is presented for the following management units:-  I and II (Arctic)-  Va (Iceland)-  IIIa, IVa, Vb,VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIV (other areas).-  Tusk in Divisions I and II (ARCTIC)REFERENCE POINTS: Reference points that were previously suggested for tusk were: U lim= 0.2* U max and U pa= 0.5* U max. ICES does not consider the available cpue series as suitable for defining U max because the series is too short.STOCK STATUS: Tusk has been exploited in Sub-areas I and II for centuries, but landings increased from the 1950s onwards. The state of the stock is unknown. CPUE has in recent years been well below historical levels.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: Landings of tusk have declined in recent years and the overall cpue on tusk has remained at reduced levels. ICES recommends to reduce catches to 5,000 tonnes (about 30%) and to monitor whether the indicators show an increase in stock sizes.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice that catches should be reduced by 30% to about 5,000 tonnes, but notes there may be a need to harmonise management measures for ling and tusk in this area.42.  TUSK Va (Iceland)REFERENCE POINTS: Reference points that were previously suggested for tusk were: U lim= 0.2* U max and U pa= 0.5* U max. ICES does not consider the available cpue series as suitable for defining U max because the series is too short.STOCK STATUS: A survey index shows that abundance has remained stable in recent years, but lower than in the mid-1980s. Recruitment (fish < 40 cm) has increased substantially from a low level in 1995. The impact of increased recruitment will only be detected in the fishable stock after 8-10 years.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The survey index shows an increasing trend in abundance while the catches have been stable. However, it also suggests a lower current abundance than in the 1980s. Therefore advice in a precautionary context is to maintain catches at the recent level (average 2001-2004) of about 5000 tonnes, which is assumed to permit an increase in abundance.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice, but notes that overall stock abundance has increased in recent years, probably due to increased recruitment.43.  Tusk in IIIa, IVa, Vb,VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIV (Other areas)REFERENCE POINTS: Reference points that were previously suggested for tusk were: U lim= 0.2* U max and U pa= 0.5* U max. ICES does not consider the available cpue series as suitable for defining U max because the series is too short.STOCK STATUS: The cpue series of the main fleet in Divisions IVa, VIa, and VIb suggest that the abundance has remained at a reduced level.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: Landings of tusk have declined in recent years and the overall cpue on tusk has remained at a reduced level. There has been no response in the cpue series and a further reduction of 30% is advised. ICES recommends to limit catches to 5000 tonnes and to monitor whether an increase in stock size is indicated.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice and notes that this is consistent with the advice for ling in these areas44.  Greater silver smelt or argentine (Argentina silus)FISHERIES: Argentine is primarily fished in the depth range 100 to 700 m. The majority of landings are from ICES sub-areas IIa, IIIa, IVa along the Norwegian coast, Va (around Iceland), and Vb (around Faroe Islands). This species is taken mainly in long line fisheries, and most of the catches are by-catches in ling fisheries. This species is also taken as by-catch in bottom trawl fisheries. The Norwegian fishery accounts for the more than 50% of total catches.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. No reliable analytical assessment is available.STOCK STRUCTURE : There is insufficient scientific information to establish the extent of putative stocks; however, argentine may be sufficiently isolated at separate fishing grounds to be considered as individual management units. On this basis advice is presented for the following management units:-  Sub-area Va (Iceland); and-  Sub-areas Vb, VI, VII I, II, IIIa, IVa, VIII, IX, and XII (other areas).The latter grouping is a combination of isolated fishing grounds and these areas are thus grouped due to their mutual of lack of data.45.  Greater silver smelt in VaREFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for stocks of this species.STOCK STATUS: There is no reliable index on which to determine the state of argentine abundance in Subdivision Va.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: Due to its low productivity greater silver smelt can only sustain low rates of exploitation. Fisheries on such species should always be accompanied by programmes to collect data on both target and by-catch fish. The fishery should not be allowed to expand unless it can be shown that it is sustainable.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the comments of ICES, but notes there may be a need to harmonise management measures with those for redfish and blue whiting.46.  Greater silver smelt in other areas (I, II, IIIa, IV, Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV)REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for stocks of this species.STOCK STATUS: The only sources of information on abundance trends are cpue series and these show different patterns in different areas. Because greater silver smelt is an aggregating pelagic species, the use of cpue series to reflect stock abundance is questionable. Mean length in the catches in Subdivision Vb has decreased since 1995 which could be due to high exploitation rates.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: Due to its low productivity greater silver smelt can only sustain low rates of exploitation. Fisheries on such species should always be accompanied by programmes to collect data on both target and by-catch fisheries. The fishery should not be allowed to expand unless it can be shown that it is sustainable.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the comments from ICES, but notes there may be a need to harmonise management measures with those for roundnose grenadier in IIIa and small-mesh bottom trawl industrial fisheries mainly in IVa47.  Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo)FISHERIES: Black scabbardfish is caught in two very different fisheries: (1) in waters off Mainland of Portugal (Division IXa) and (2) to the west of British Isles. In the waters off Mainland of Portugal it is taken in a targeted artisanal longline fishery and CPUE data have been relatively stable over the years. To the west of the British Isles it is taken in a mixed species, mainly French trawl fishery along with roundnose grenadier and sharks.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.STOCK STRUCTURE: The stock structure is uncertain. This section deals with a species distributed over a wide area which may be composed of several populations. Two units are considered:-  northern (Sub-areas V, VI, VII, and XII);-  southern (Sub-areas VIII and IX).REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for the stock(s) of this species.STOCK STATUS:In the northern area trawl cpue series shows a consistent decline to an historical low level in 1999. It is unlikely that the recent increase reflects a corresponding increase in stock abundance. Longline cpue in Division IXa has been relatively stable during the past decade.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE :Given the perceived decrease in stock abundance in the northern areas, ICES recommends a reduction in exploitation to the level before the expansion of the fishery started (1990-1996) in Sub-areas V, VI, VII, and XII, corresponding to landings of no more than 3500 tonnes.In the southern areas (Subdivisions VIII and IX) a sta tus quo exploitation level is advised.Any measure taken to manage this species in these areas should take into account the advice given for other species taken in the same mixed fishery. Fisheries on black scabbard should be accompanied by programmes to collect data on both target and by-catch fish. The fishery should not be allowed to expand unless it can be shown that it is sustainable.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice, and recommends that an attempt be made to harmonise management measures on this species with other species taken in these fisheries, particularly deep-water sharks.48.  Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides)FISHERIES: The landings of greater forkbeard are mainly by-catch from both trawl and longline fisheries. Landings from Sub-areas VI and VII comprise around the 85% of the total landings of this species in the ICES area. Fluctuations in landings are probably the result of changing effort on different target species and/or market prices. The increase in landings in Sub-areas VIII and IX probably represents a directed longline fishery.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for the stock(s) of this species.STOCK STATUS: There is no information available that allows for evaluation of the stock trends. The state of the stock is unknown.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : Fisheries on greater forkbeard should be accompanied by programmes to collect data. The fishery should not be allowed to expand unless it can be shown that it is sustainable.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice49.  Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus)FISHERIES: The main fishery for orange roughy in the northern hemisphere is on separate aggregations west of Ireland in Sub-area VII. This fishery has declined markedly in the past 2 years. The fishery in Sub-area VI has decreased dramatically since the depletion of the main aggregation on the Hebrides Terrace Seamount in the early 1990s. Faroese fisheries in Sub-areas VI, XII, and X have ceased and so has an Icelandic fishery in Division Va.There are currently four fisheries for orange roughy in the North-east Atlantic. In Sub-area XII, the Faroes dominated the fishery throughout the 1990’s, with small landings by France. In recent years, New Zealand and Ireland have targeted orange roughy in this area. There are many areas of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge where aggregations of this species occur, but the terrain is very difficult for trawlers.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.STOCK STRUCTURE: It is not known if individual aggregations are reproductively distinct.REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for the stock(s) of this species.STOCK STATUS: The state of the populations varies between ICES areas. Overall catches have fluctuated because of shifts in fishing effort between fishing grounds. In Sub-area VI orange roughy catches increased rapidly and subsequently dropped to about 5% of the maximum catch. It is presumed that the aggregations were fished out. Orange roughy fisheries in Sub-area VII have exhibited a similar pattern to that in VI. High catches have not been sustained by individual fleets, suggesting sequential depletion. It is not clear if there are unfished aggregations remaining in Sub-area VII. Based on an acoustic survey, a biomass of 19 000 tonnes was estimated for orange roughy on six seamounts in Sub-area VII. There is no information on stock status from otherSub-areas.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : Orange roughy can only sustain very low rates of exploitation. Currently, it is not possible to manage a sustainable fishery for this species. Hence, ICES recommends no fishery for this species. By-catches in mixed fisheries should be limited as far as possible.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice, which is precautionary given the lack of suitable data for assessments and fisheries management.50.  Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris)FISHERIES: The majority of international landings are from the Skagerrak (III), Faroes (Vb), west of Scotland and Rockall Trough (VI), west of Ireland and Western Approaches (VII) and the Mid-Atlantic ridge and western Hatton Bank (XII). In most areas, roundnose grenadier is the target species of mixed trawl fisheries.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.STOCK STRUCTURE: This section deals with a species distributed over a wide area which may be composed of several populations. The scientific basis for stock identification is uncertain. The Wyville-Thomson Ridge and fjord sills, between Western Scotland and the edge of the North Sea slope, could be natural physical boundaries. It is therefore considered that the northern North Sea and the Norwegian Deep could represent a separate unit. The roundnose grenadier on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Hatton Bank are separated by a major oceanic basin and may constitute separate units. This would indicate that the units could be split as:-  Divisions IIa, IIIa, and IVa;-  Divisions Vb, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and XIIa (Hatton bank);-  Mid-Atlantic ridge (Subdivisions Xb, XIIc, Va1, XIIa1, and XIVb1) and Division Va;-  All other areas.REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for the stock(s) of this species.STOCK STATUS: The state of the stocks within all ICES areas is uncertain, but probably at a low level.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : Catches in Division IIIa have increased sharply and are estimated around 12,000 tonnes. For this fishery, the fishing pressure should be reduced considerably to low levels and should only be allowed to expand again very slowly if and when reliable indicators show that increased harvests are sustainable. ICES recommends a 50% reduction of effort compared to the level before the fishery expanded (1991-1999). This is interpreted as a reduction of 50% in landings and corresponds to a catch level around 1,000t in 2007.For the fishery in Divisions Vb, VI, VII, and XIIb, the fishing pressure should be reduced considerably to low levels and should only be allowed to expand again very slowly if and when reliable indicators show that increased harvests are sustainable. ICES recommends a 50% reduction of effort compared to the level before the expansion of the fishery started (1990-1996). This is interpreted as a reduction in catches of 50% over that period. This means that the catch level in 2007 should be at most 6,000 tonnes.In addition to their low productivity, roundnose grenadier on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (Areas Xb, XIIc, Va1, XIIa1, and XIVb1) and Division Va exhibit spatial distributions associated with seamounts and aggregating behaviour. These grenadiers are therefore easily overexploited. Landings from this area appear to be low in recent years, but the quality of the landings data is suspect. Fishery on such species should be permitted only when accompanied by programmes to collect data. The expansion of the fisheries should not be allowed until reliable assessments indicate that increased harvests are sustainable.Roundnose grenadier in other areas has a low productivity and the species can only sustain a low fishing mortality. Recovery of depleted stock(s) will be slow. Fisheries on such species should always be accompanied by programmes to collect data on both target and by-catch fish. The fishery should not be allowed to expand unless it can be shown that it is sustainable.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice and supports the view that precautionary management is required for roundnose grenadier.STECF notes that the choice of reference period has not been explained in the ICES advice.STECF recommends further research be carried out into stock dynamics and production processes in IIIa.STECF noted that data and associated comments, particularly relevant to this management unit, might usefully have been included in the ICES stock summary.51.  Red (blackspot) seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo)FISHERIES : There is a directed hand-line and longline fishery in Sub-areas IX and X. Red seabream have been caught in hook and line fisheries off the Azores since the 16th Century. There are now directed artisanal hand-line as well as longline fisheries in area Xa2. Historically, improvements in fishing technology have taken place in the directed hand-line and longline fisheries. These include the introduction of bottom longlines and bigger fishing vessels. The resulting improvement on fishing efficiency has not been quantified. Red seabream is caught by Spanish and Portuguese fleets in Sub-area IX. The Spanish artisanal longline fishery targeting red sea began in early 1980s. After 1997 there was a serious decline in landings. In Sub-areas VI, VII and VIII Red seabream appears as by-catch in the longline and trawl fisheries for hake, megrim, anglerfish, and Nephrops .SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES. STOCKS STRUCTURE: The stock structure is uncertain. This section deals with a species distributed over a wide area, which may be composed of several populations. Three units are considered:-  Sub-areas VI, VII, and XII;-  Sub-area IX;-  Sub-area X.Recent studies suggest that the area Xa2 component of this stock can be considered as a separate management unit.REFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for the stock(s) of this species.STOCK STATUS (ALL STOCKS): Stock trends of seabream are largely unknown. Exploratory analyses indicate that the stock in IX has been stable or slowly declining for the past decade. Based on historical catches, the stock in VI, VII, and VIII appears to be depleted.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : Red seabream are hermaphroditic and are particularly susceptible to overexploitation, thus measures to ensure balanced exploitation between younger fish (males) and older fish (females) are critical. Fisheries on red seabream should always be accompanied by programmes to collect data on both target and by-catch fish. The fishery should not be allowed to expand unless it can be shown that it is sustainable.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with the ICES advice and notes that studies focussing on defining the spatial distribution of juveniles should be carried out with the aim of implementing management measures to protect juveniles. In Sub-area IX, the local technical measures relating to the Regional Recovery Plan for this species should be maintained/improved.52.  Miscellaneous deep-water speciesFISHERIES: This section deals with a number of species, which are caught in various deepwater fisheries. Vulnerability to exploitation of these species is largely unknown. In some cases, landings data do not reflect true catches due to high levels of discarding.The following species are considered in this section:Roughhead grenadier ( Macrourus berglax ),Smoothhead ( Alepocephalus spp.),Rabbit fish ( Chimaera monstrosa and Hydrolagus spp.),Common mora ( Mora moro ) and Moridae,Wreckfish ( Polyprion americanus ),Bluemouth ( Helicolenus dactylopterus ),Silver scabbard fish ( Lepidopus caudatus ),Deepwater cardinal fish ( Epigonus telescopus )SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES.STOCK STRUCTURE: Not knownREFERENCE POINTS: No precautionary reference points have been established for the stock(s) of this species.STOCK STATUS: Vulnerability to exploitation of these species is largely unknown.In some cases, landings data do not reflect true catches due to high levels of discarding.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE : There are no assessments of these stocks. The knowledge of the biology of these species is insufficient and it is unclear how vulnerable they are to exploitation. When these fisheries develop or existing fisheries spread into new areas, relevant pressure, state, and impact indicators should be established on the basis of small, initial fisheries which should only be allowed to expand very slowly if and when reliable assessments indicate that increased harvests are sustainable.STECF COMMENTS: STECF has no comments.53.  Specific request from the Commission to STECF regarding deepwater resources.The Commission requested STECF to address points A and B below. The STECF response is given after the respective requests.A) ACFM has advised appropriate catch levels as well as effort levels.-  Are these levels consistent with a strategy to bring exploitation rates to sustainable levels in the medium term (i.e. 3-5 years)?-  Considering catch trends, were the catch levels during the reference period used by ACFM an appropriate basis for advising catch levels over the next few years?STECF Comments :In relation to exploitation rates (F), the current inadequacy of data, the absence of analytical assessments and reference points render it impossible at present to identify sustainable catch-rates and to advise whether the proposed measures are consistent with a strategy to bring exploitation rates to sustainable levels in the medium term. The only exception is orange roughy where exploratory stock reduction analyses (working document submitted to WGDEEP in 2002) indicate that sustainable annual catches are around 100 tonnes compared with actual landings at the start of the fishery, which in 1992 were 3,500 tonnes.Previously, ICES has mainly expressed management advice in terms of effort reductions rather than in reductions in catches. This, for the main part, was due to lack of knowledge of the relationship between F and catches, but was also consistent with a widely held view that managing effort was the most appropriate way forward for these stocks. However, there have been problems defining directed and by-catch effort for deep-water stocks. NEAFC has requested from ICES suitable definitions but little progress was made in 2006. A further concern is that historical effort data for some countries are incomplete and therefore the setting of meaningful reference periods is problematical. In 2006 ICES has therefore expressed management advice mainly in terms of catches. These values have not been derived analytically and are based largely on historical catches that may be considered sustainable and/or precautionary. This situation is far from ideal but may be largely unavoidable given the current paucity of data. Additionally, while not all catches of deep-water species are taken in mixed fisheries, many are; in these cases effort management is more appropriate.Regarding the impact of these measures in the medium term (i.e. 3-5 years): in relation to biomass this definition of medium term may only be applicable to faster growing species such as ling, black scabbardfish, alfonsino etc. For more long-lived species, e.g. orange roughy and roundnose grenadier a more suitable definition of medium term may be 10 to 20 years.For most stocks, ICES has taken the view that catches should continue to be reduced incrementally until stock levels show signs of recovering. Given the scarcity of assessment data for these stocks and the lack of short/medium term forecasts, this is both an appropriate and precautionary approach. However STECF recommends that effort management and comprehensive observer and data collection programmes continue to form a critical component of the management of these fisheries.STECF notes that the catches used by ICES over the reference period for deep-water stocks are the best estimates of actual removals and at present, has no additional information that would warrant a revision of these estimates. STECF also notes that the reference periods vary for different stocks and that the justification for varying periods is not clearly stated in the ICES ACFM Report. STECF is of the opinion that considering catch trends for deep-water stocks, there is a some risk that continued exploitation at the level of catches observed in the reference period, further stock depletion will occur. STECF therefore recommends that managers adopt a precautionary approach and continue to reduce fishing effort on deep-water stocks to ensure that catches are reduced to below those levels observed in the reference period.An additional concern relates to black scabbardfish in V, VI, VII and XII, where the ICES advice for a TAC of less than 3 500 t is inconsistent with a reduction in exploitation because landings in 2005 were 3 500 tonnes and the current TAC is 3353 tonnes.(B) Are the catch levels advised by ACFM coherent between stocks given that deep-sea stocks are taken in mixed fisheries?STECF notes that while many deep-water species are taken in mixed fisheries there are notable exceptions; orange roughy, blue ling, and roundnose grenadier in IIIa, are predominantly taken in directed fisheries with low levels of by-catch.STECF has identified those stocks that are taken in mixed fisheries and for which there is a need to harmonise management measures so they are coherent. However, in the absence of reliable assessments of stock status and their exploitation rates, STECF is unable to determine whether the recommended catch levels advised by ICES for those deep-water stocks that are taken in mixed fisheries are coherent. STECF also recognises that major species-interactions may have been missed because the spatial and temporal mapping of deep-water fisheries as documented by ICES WGDEEP, is incomplete. STECF does not currently have the necessary data to complete this task.54.  Specific request from the Commission to STECF on Baltic cod.Background:The EC is currently developing a new multi-annual plan for the management of the two cod stocks in the Baltic to come into force beginning of 2007.The objective of the plan is to lower fishing mortality gradually (10% per year) to sustainable levels as advised by ICES in 2005 by setting TACs and limiting fishing effort accordingly. For the Western stock (subdivisions 22-24) this means F=0.6 for the ages 3 to 6 years and for the Eastern stock (subdivisions 25-32) F=0.3 for the ages 4 -7 years respectively.TAC decisions for 2006 have already been taken according to the management measures proposed in the new plan although, on the basis of the 2005 ICES advice, TACs have been raised in particular for the Eastern stock to take into account the high estimates of illegal landings (35-45%).In order to provide for a continuous reduction of the fishing mortality down to sustainable levels, it is necessary to use a fixed reference Fsq instead of recalculating it from year to year as usually done.Request: ‘to evaluate if 1) a fixed reference value for F should be established and if so 2) which value this should be. 3 )Based on that value STECF shall then provide a catch forecast for 2007 by calculating different scenarios for reducing the fishing mortality (F*0.9 /F*0.8 / F*0.7)’.55.  A fixed reference value for F.To determine if a ‘fixed’ or other (moving) reference value for F is more appropriate, two different scenarios of short-term predictions were calculated as follows:Moving F:-  F2006 was set equal to the average F over the period 2003 to 2005.-  Thereafter Fy was determined as 0.9 times the average F in the 3 preceding years.Fixed F:-  F2006 was set equal to the average F over the period 2003 to 2005.-  Thereafter Fy was determined as the average F in the years 2003 to 2005 decreased by 10% for each year after 2006.-  Scenarios for Eastern Baltic cod (25-32)Table 6.1.1 and Figure 6.1.1 shows the results for both the fixed and moving reference F in each year from 2006 to 2010 for eastern Baltic cod. It can be observed that while F decreases in each year after 2006 in both cases, the rate of decline is greater in the case of the fixed reference F scenario.Table 6.1.1 Eastern Baltic cod.Fixed | Moving |Year | F | F |2003 | 0,9205 | 0,9205 |2004 | 1,3768 | 1,3768 |2005 | 1,0328 | 1,0328 |2006 | 1,1100 | 1,1100 |2007 | 0,9990 | 1,0559 |2008 | 0,8991 | 0,9596 |2009 | 0,8092 | 0,9377 |2010 | 0,7283 | 0,8860 |[pic]Figure 6.1.1 Eastern Baltic cod.56.  Scenarios for Western Baltic cod (22-24)Table 6.1.2 and Figure 6.1.2 shows the results for both the fixed and moving reference F in each year from 2006 to 2010 for eastern Baltic cod. It can be observed that while F decreases in each year after 2006 in both cases, the rate of decline is greater in the case of the fixed reference F scenario.NOTE: It should be noted that as the ‘moving’ F scenario depends on the average F in the three most recent years, if any of the F values in the period 2003 to 2005 (the initial reference period) differs considerable from the other two reference years, the pattern of F’s emerging in the period 2006 – 2010, may not only be greater than in the most recent year (2006), they may also display an increase in the period 2007 to 2010. For this reason the choice of a moving reference period should be avoided.Table 6.1.2Fixed | Moving |Year | F | F |2003 | 0,7491 | 0,7491 |2004 | 1,0591 | 1,0591 |2005 | 1,2384 | 1,2384 |2006 | 1,0155 | 1,0155 |2007 | 0,9140 | 0,9939 |2008 | 0,8226 | 0,9744 |2009 | 0,7403 | 0,8951 |2010 | 0,6663 | 0,8590 |[pic]Figure 6.1.2STECF notes that as the ‘moving’ F scenario depends on the average F in the three most recent years, and therefore if any of the F values in the period 2003 to 2005 (the initial reference period) differs considerable from the other two reference years, the pattern of F’s emerging in the period 2006 – 2010, may not only be greater than in the most recent year (2006), they may also display an increase over some are all of the period 2007 to 2010. This must also be borne in mind where it is decided to update reference period F’s that change as a result of a retrospective pattern in the assessment.STECF Conclusions: In general a fixed reference value for F (e.g. F = average F, 2003 to 2005) is preferable as it displays a continuous year on year decrease.57.  To determine the most appropriate reference value for F58.  Scenarios for Eastern Baltic cod (25-32)To determine the most appropriate reference value for F, three different scenarios of short-term predictions of landings 2006-2008 and SSB 2006-2008 were calculated. The input parameters are adopted from the most recent ICES WG on the assessments of Baltic stocks (ICES CM 2006). For the intermediate year 2006, for which management decisions are already decided, the scenarios simulate:-  Status quo fishing at Fsq = 1.11, implying landings of 65,600 tonnes in 2006.-  Fishing at F = 0.75, implying landings of 49,200 tonnes consistent with the TAC for 2006.-  Fishing at the lowest F2003-2005 = 0.92, implying landings of 57,400 tonnes in 2006.The 3 scenarios are illustrated in Figures 6.1a and 6.1b, and show the resulting landings in 2007 and SSB in 2008. Detailed information is listed in the management option Tables 6.2.1a to 6.2.1c.It can be seen that the option with the lowest F in the intermediate year 2006 (compliance with TAC) will both result in the highest landings in 2007 and the highest SSB in 2008 over the exploitation rates F = 0 to F = 1.2 (Figure 6.2.1a and 6.2.1b). In contrast, lowest landings in 2007 and highest SSB in 2008 will result from status quo fishing, the highest exploitation rate in 2006.[pic][pic]Figure 6.2.1a & 6.2.1b.Eastern Baltic cod, short term forecasts of landings in 2007 (A) and SSB in 2008 (B) for the 3 scenarios described above and given in Tables 6.2.1a-c.  Table 6.2.1a. Eastern Baltic cod (25-32). Short term forecast with Fsq = 1.11 implying landings of 65,552 tonnes in 2006.[pic]Table 6.2.1b. Eastern Baltic cod (25-32). Short term forecast with F = 0.75 implying TAC constraint of 49,500 tonnes in 2006 ~ TAC.[pic]Table 6.2.1c. Eastern Baltic cod (25-32). Short term forecast with lowest F2005-2005 = 0.92 implying landings of 57,441 tonnes in 2006.[pic]59.  Scenarios for Western Baltic cod (22-24)Two different scenarios of short-term predictions of landings 2006-2008 and SSB 2006-2008 were calculated. The input parameters are adopted from the most recent ICES WG on the assessments of Baltic stocks (ICES CM 2006). For the intermediate year 2006, for which management decisions are already decided, the scenarios simulate:-  Status quo fishing at Fsq=1.26, implying landings of 28,400 tonnes.-  Fishing at the lowest F in 2003-2005=0.74, implying landings of 19,900 tonnes.The two scenarios are illustrated in Figures 6.2.2a and 6.2.2b, showing the resulting landings in 2007 and SSB in 2008. Detailed information is listed in the management option Tables’ 6.2.2a and 6.2.2b.It can be seen that the option with the lowest F in the intermediate year 2006 will both result in the highest landings in 2007 and the highest SSB in 2008 over the exploitation rates F = 0 to F = 1.2 (Figures 6.2.2a and 6.2.2b). In contrast, lowest landings in 2007 and highest SSB in 2008 will result from status quo fishing, the highest exploitation rate in 2006.[pic][pic]Figure 6.2.2a & 6.2.2b. Western Baltic cod. Short term forecasts of landings in 2007 (A) and SSB in 2008 (B) for the 2 scenarios described above and given in Tables x4-5.Table 6.2.2a. Western Baltic cod (22-24). Short term forecast with Fsq=0.124 implying landings of 29,800 t in 2006.[pic]Table 6.2.2b. Western Baltic cod (22-24). Short term forecast for with lowest F observed in 2003-2005=0.74 implying landings of 21,231 t in 2006.[pic]60.  STECF ConclusionsSTECF notes : The long-term management plan for Baltic cod foresees a stepwise reduction of fishing mortality to reach a target fishing mortality; F = 0.3 for Eastern cod and F = 0.6 for Western cod. This implies annual decrease of fishing mortality by 10% if the target fishing mortality is not reached.STECF has made several short-term forecast runs with different F or TAC constraints. The results show that if the reference F (Fsq) is taken from the most recent (2006) assessment a 10% reduction would result in a fishing mortality for 2007 that is higher than that corresponding to the TAC in 2006. Furthermore, because of the retrospective pattern in the assessment, adopting an approach where the reference F is updated after each assessment will prolong the time taken to achieve the target F.STECF Concluded: STECF concludes that to achieve the target F, for the Baltic cod stocks, annual reductions in F should be based on an agreed fixed reference F value. The scenarios assuming fixed reference years (2003-2005) of the exploitation rates demonstrate clearly for both Eastern and Western Baltic cod stocks that the lower the exploitation rate is in 2006, the higher are potential landings in 2007 and SSB in 2008. For the Eastern Baltic cod stock, SSB cannot recover to Blim by 2008, even if there is no fishing in 2007. STECF notes that the results derived from simple deterministic forecasts do not account for the uncertainty in the various stock specific parameters.Reference: ICES CM 2006. Report of the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS). ICES CM 2006/ACFM:24, 684 pp.61.  Additional comments on ICES advice on other stocks62.  Special request: Update of assessment of Norway pout in IIa, IIIa, IV.The group was asked to review an update assessment of the Norway pout stock in the North Sea. This stock and its exploitation were assessed by the WGNSSK in Sept 2005. The stock has in recent years been at very low-level due to poor recruitment in 2003 and 2004. In September 2005 only insufficient information on the incoming 2005 year-class was available. However, analyses of survey data from later in 2005 indicate that the 2005 year-class is above average.With the aim of revising management for this stock in 2006 based on the new information on the 2005 year-class strength, the EC requested ICES for an update assessment including options for the 2006 catches from this stock. Based on the updated assessment ICES advised the following:The 2005-year-class of Norway pout is estimated to be above average. This year-class has the potential to rebuild the stock to above Bpa in 2007 if a prudent harvest strategy is followed. ICES considers that a small fishery for Norway pout could be allowed in 2006 with a maximum TAC of 95,000 tonnes.Exploitation boundaries in relation to mixed fisheries and ecosystem considerationsThe cod stock in the North Sea is very low and consequently there is a need to prevent by-catches of cod in non-directed fisheries.There is a need to ensure that the stock remains high enough to provide food for a variety of predator species (e.g. cod, whiting and saithe). The lower the catch will be in 2006, the more will be available to predator fish.STECF agrees with the ICES advice. STECF also notes the uncertainties associated with the estimated year-class strength and subsequent estimate of SSB (spawning stock size).63.  Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in IIa and the North Sea.The information in is based on the ICES 2006 assessment of Sprat in the North Sea.FISHERIES: Denmark, Norway and UK exploit the sprat in this area. The fishery is carried out using trawlers and purse seiners. There are considerable fluctuations in total landings, from a peak in 1975 of 641,000 tonnes to a low in 1986 of around 20,000 tonnes. Since 1994, landings have varied from a high, in 1994, of 320,000 tonnes to a low, in 1997, of 103,400 tonnes. Estimated total landings in 2005 were around 207,000 tonnes.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE: The main management advisory body is ICES who note that assessments of short-lived species, like sprat, require reliable survey data. While a Catch-Survey Analysis (CSA) was implemented in 2004 as an exploratory assessment, ICES once again considers that the available information is inadequate to evaluate trends in stock biomass and exploitation rate, so the state of the stock is unknown.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: There are no reference points for this stock.STOCK STATUS: Precautionary reference points have not been defined for this stock and the available information is inadequate to estimate the absolute stock size. However, relative trends in biomass from an exploratory assessment indicate an increase over most of the time-series. The recent increase from 2004 to 2005 is due to the strong 2004 year-class recruiting to the fishery. The 2005 year-class is estimated to be very low in the IBTS survey carried out in 2006.RECENT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: There are no precautionary reference points for this stock that can guide the single-stock exploitation boundaries. Two different approaches have been explored to evaluate potential harvest strategies for 2006:64.  The regression between survey index and catches suggests catches in 2006 in the order of 150,000 tonnes under the assumption of a similar exploitation rate.65.  An extrapolation of the exploratory assessment with a TAC in 2006 at the same level as in 2005 (257,000 tonnes) suggests that the stock is expected to decrease sharply.There is no basis for a specific numeric advice for the TAC in 2006. The two methods are expressions of the uncertainty of the forecasting process and show the trade-off between different assumptions and choices.STECF COMMENTS: STECF agrees with ICES that there is no basis for a specific numeric advice for the TAC in 2006.STECF notes that whereas the very strong 2004 year-class appears to have resulted in a substantial increase in the stock in 2005, the 2005 year-class appears to be very weak and this year-class is expected to dominate the stock and catches in 2006. STECF therefore recommends that in an attempt constrain any potential increase in exploitation rate, catches of sprat from the North Sea in 2006 be restricted to a level well below that achieved in 2005. This implies that catches in 2006 should be well below 200,000 t.Using a simple regression of survey index against observed catches, and assuming a constant exploitation rate, ICES estimates that catches in 2006 should be about 150,000t. STECF therefore suggests that for 2006, catches of North Sea sprat be restricted to about 150,000 t.66.  Other specific request to ICES.67.  EC REQUEST CONCERNING THE IDENTIFICATION OF KEY AREAS/SPECIES TO BE RECORDED ON A DEDICATED INTERNATIONALLY COORDINATED SURVEYICES was of the opinion that the choice of key species/areas could depend on a range of criteria including value of fisheries, state of exploitation and degree of vulnerability. No single species or area was a priori seen of a higher priority than any other. Therefore this request was addressed with regards the full set of stocks investigated by WGDEEP, and not only those exploited by the EU fleets. Given the size of the geographic area where these stocks are found, a single dedicated survey would not be feasible. Therefore the Working Group recommended a series of dedicated surveys and extensions to existing surveys, which would provide appropriate data on the relevant deepwater species in each area. In general terms, the survey(s) covered dedicated bank and continental slope areas where fisheries have been active, or are suspected to take place. The key stocks to be investigated in the different areas were categorised as either “fully/heavily exploited” or in “unknown state”. Considering the fully or heavily exploited stocks, the WG recommended that surveys be conducted regularly. The frequency of these surveys would depend on the requirements for stock assessment analyses and management requirements.68.  NEAFC REQUEST CONCERNING THE SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL EXTENT OF DEEP-WATER FISHERIES IN THE NE ATLANTIC:-The NEAFC Commission requested ICES to provide “ information on the spatial and temporal extent of all current deep-water fisheries in the NE Atlantic. ICES was also asked to develop suitable criteria for differentiating fisheries into possible management types (e.g. directed deep-water fisheries, by-catch fisheries etc) and to apply these criteria to categorise individual fisheries. This information is required to enable NEAFC to develop fishery-based management initiatives ”.The ICES response was as follows. ICES WGDEEP is using definitions of deep-water fisheries, but these are not based on consistent criteria. The WG was of the opinion that fisheries definitions should not be restricted to the deep-sea fraction, but should be approached on a broader scale. The ICES Study Group on Fishery-based Forecasts (SGDFF) has met in 2003 and 2004, and it has provided some general guidelines on methods to segment fleets and fisheries. In the context of its Data Collection Regulation (DCR) programme, the EC has recently promoted a number of workshops intended to standardise definitions of fleets and fisheries, including deep-sea fisheries, at EU or Regional levels. The methods and criteria used to make that segmentation shall be finalised by the end of 2006. The WG was of the opinion that deep-water fisheries definitions for EU countries should be consistent with the classification made up in relation to the DCR. For other countries, fisheries definitions should be worked out inter-sessionnally, e.g. following the general guidelines provided by the ICES SGDFF.