Commission staff working document - 21st Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries - (Second Plenary Meeting) - Brussels, 7-11 November 2005
Date: 2007-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fisheries policy, fishery management, impact study, report, scientific committee (EU)













EUR-Lex - 52007SC0474 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52007SC0474

Commission staff working document - 21st Report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries - (Second Plenary Meeting) - Brussels, 7-11 November 2005  /* SEC/2007/0474 final */  








SEC(2007) 474COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT21 st REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES (Second Plenary Meeting) Brussels, 7-11 November 2005This report does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area.CONTENTS1 INTRODUCTION 52 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 63 TERMS OF REFERENCE 73.1 INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION AND 2006 PLANNING 73.2 FISHERIES CONSERVATION 73.2.1 Review the scientific advice on stocks of Community interest 73.2.2 Specific requests from the Commission on stocks of Community Interest 73.2.3 propose sustainable exploitation rules for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa 83.2.4 Identify demersal fisheries where mixed species are caught in Community waters and adjacent areas and estimate their catches for 2006 83.2.5 Assess the effectiveness of the cod recovery plan 83.2.6 Assess harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and advise on actions for 2006 including level of sentinel fishing 93.2.7 Fishing effort for vessels in the context of the recovery of certain stocks 93.2.8 Future position of beam trawlers in management of demersal North Sea fishing – Proposal For Amendment Of Annex IVa Of The EU TAC And Quota Regulation 27/2005 93.2.9 Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005 for fisheries with demersal trawls other than beam trawls 93.3 FISHERIES ECONOMICS 93.3.1 propose a way forward for bio-economic modelling in the EU 93.3.2 assess the economic impact on European fleets of the latest ICES-ACFM advice 103.3.3 Assess Member States' progress in achieving a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. 103.4 ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 103.4.1 Review evidence on by-catch of sea turtles in EU long line fisheries. 103.4.2 Revision of the Data Collection Regulation to take into account the ecosystem approach 104 INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION AND 2006 PLANNING 114.1 NOMINATION OF NEW STECF 114.2 MANDATE FOR THE STECF NOVEMBER 2005 – NOVEMBER 2006: TASKS, ORGANISATION, SUBGROUP COORDINATORS, PLANNING 2005/2006. 114.3 WRITTEN PROCEDURE (BY CORRESPONDENCE) FOR ADOPTION OF THE FORTHCOMING SGRN REPORT (28 NOVEMBER – 2 DECEMBER ) ADDRESSING MS NON CONFORMITIES AND DEROGATIONS FOR 2006 NATIONAL PROGRAMS. 114.4 RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE STECF 114.5 IMPROVEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVICE FOR THE NON-EU FISHERIES 125 FISHERIES CONSERVATION 135.1 REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE ON STOCKS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST 135.1.1 STECF Statement on the Johannesburg Declaration and the CFP 145.2 SPECIFIC REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSION ON STOCKS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST 155.2.1 Fishing effort for Cancer pagurus and Maja squinado stocks 155.2.2 Greenland Halibut in V, XII and XIV 165.2.3 Nephrops stocks 185.2.4 Anchovy in the Bay of Biscay 215.2.5 Haddock in the North Sea (ICES Sub-area IV and Division IIIa) 265.2.7 Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa 295.3 SUSTAINABLE EXPLOITATION RULES FOR BAY OF BISCAY SOLE, CELTIC SEA COD AND ANGLERFISH IN ICES DIVISIONS VIIIC AND IXA 305.3.1 Background and target reference points for long-term management 305.3.2 STECF Comments and Recommendations 315.4 MIXED FISHERIES 325.4.1 background 325.4.2 STECF Comments and Recommendations 335.5 ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COD RECOVERY PLAN 335.5.1 Background 345.5.2 STECF comments 345.5.3 Trends in effort for the main fleets exploiting cod 345.5.4 STECF conclusions and recommendations 355.6 HARVEST CONTROL RULE FOR SAND EEL IN NORTH SEA AND SKAGERRAK AND ACTIONS FOR 2006 355.6.1 Harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and actions for 2006 365.6.2 Review of ad hoc sand eel WG 365.6.3 STECF comments and recommendations. 375.7 FISHING EFFORT FOR VESSELS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECOVERY OF CERTAIN STOCKS 385.7.1 Proposal by the Dutch fishery sector regarding the position of beam trawlers in the Cod Recovery Plan (Annex IVa of Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22nd December 2004). 395.7.2 Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005- Fisheries with demersal trawls other than beam trawls from the Dutch Fisheries Organisation. 405.7.3 Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005. SSF / North Sea RAC proposal for effort, selectivity and enforcement changes. 416 FISHERIES ECONOMICS 486.1 PROPOSE A WAY FORWARD FOR BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING IN THE EU 486.1.1 Background 486.1.2 Terms of reference for the subgroup 486.1.3 General observations and recommendations 506.2 ASSESS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON EUROPEAN FLEETS OF THE LATEST ICES-ACFM ADVICE 506.2.1 AER (Annual Economic Report) 506.2.2 Fisheries in 2006 516.3 ASSESS MEMBER STATES' PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITY AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES 536.3.1 Background 536.3.2 STECF Comments and Recommendations 547 ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 567.1 BY-CATCH OF SEA TURTLES IN EU LONG LINE FISHERIES. 567.1.1 STECF observations and comments 567.1.2 STECF Recommendations 577.2 REVISION OF THE DATA COLLECTION REGULATION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH 587.2.1 Review of SGRN report 587.2.2 STECF comments and recommendations 58APPENDIX 1 THE FRENCH ANCHOVY FISHING FLEET – AREA VIII STRUCTURE, RECENT TRENDS AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A FISHERY BAN ON THE FISHING FLEETS 62INTRODUCTION 62MATERIALS 63RECENT TRENDS IN THE FRENCH ANCHOVY LANDINGS IN AREA VIII 63The pelagic trawl fleet 64The mixed and other trawl fleet 64The French anchovy purse seine fleet 65ANCHOVY LANDINGS AND PRICES PER FLEET 66A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS BANS ON THE GROSS REVENUE OF THE MAIN FLEETS. 68Assumptions 68Scenarios: 69Indicators: 69Application to the main different fleets 69ANNEXES 76APPENDIX 2: REVISIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE 2005 ICES FORECAST FOR NORTH SEA HADDOCK 80WORKING GROUP FORECAST AND ACFM CONCLUSIONS 80ALTERNATIVES 81Corrections in spreadsheet implementations 81Exploitation 81Mean weights-at-age 82Industrial bycatch 84Sensitivity 84Summary and conclusions 84APPENDIX 3 LIST OF STECF SUBGROUP MEETINGS SINCE APRIL PLENARY 94INTRODUCTIONSTECF met on the premises of DG FISH, Rue Joseph II, 99 in Brussels from 7 to 11 November 2005.The Chairman of the STECF, Dr John Casey, opened the plenary session at 1400h.Mr John Farnell Director, DG FISH, welcomed participants, offering his apologies for the less than satisfactory meeting facilities. He indicated that the option of holding future Plenary sessions at the Secretariat headquarters in Ispra, Italy would be investigated and expressed his good wishes for a successful meeting.The terms of reference for the meeting were reviewed and the meeting agenda agreed. The session was managed through alternation of Plenary and working group meetings.The meeting closed at 1345h on 11 November.LIST OF PARTICIPANTSMembers of the STECF:Ardizzone, GiandomenicoBertignac, Michel,Caminas, Juan-AntonioCasey, JohnCosta Monteiro, CarlosDi Natale, AntonioDickey-Collas, markErnst, PeterFarina, Antnio CelsoFranquesa, RamonGustavvson, ToreVan Hoof, LucKeatinge, MichaelKukka, Sakari,Lokkegaard, JørgenMessina, gaetanoMunch-Petersen StenOfficer, RickPerraudeau, YvesPestana, GraçaPetrakis, GeorgeVanhee, WillyVirtanen, JarnoOther ScientistsAbaunza, PabloBell, EwenGrzebielec RyszardGuyader, OlivierSmith, MikeUriatte, AndreasDG-FISHBiagi, FrancoFarnell, JohnHagstrom, OlleMoguedet, PhilippePertierra, Juan-PabloJRCDoerner, HenddrikShepherd, IainZiegler, RobertTerms of REFERENCEINFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSION AND 2006 PLANNINGThe Commission will inform STECF of progress on issues concerning the framework for scientific advice in 2006 and afterwards. The issues concerned will include:1.  Nomination of new STECF (new Regulation)2.  Mandate for the STECF November 2005 – November 2006: tasks, organisation, subgroup coordinators, planning 2005/2006.3.  Data collection. Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000: Written procedure (by correspondence) for adoption of the forthcoming SGRN report (28 November – 2 December) addressing MS non conformities and derogations for 2006 national programs.4.  Rules of procedures of the STECFFisheries CONSERVATIONREVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC ADVICE ON STOCKS OF COMMUNITY INTERESTBased on the report prepared during the SGRST-SGECA meeting of October 24-28, STECF should update the stock status report prepared November 2004 using the most recent scientific information. The STECF should take into account the most recent scientific advice from the ICES-ACFM and scientific committees of relevant Regional Fisheries Organizations. Furthermore STECF is requested to address the following questions on specific stocks:Specific requests from the Commission on stocks of Community InterestFishing effort for Cancer pagurus and Maja squinado stocksEvaluate whether the fishing effort regime as established in Council Regulations 1954/2003 and 1415/2004 is adequate for sustainable exploitation of edible crab (C ancer pagurus ) and spider crab ( Maja squinado ) stocks as targeted by the Irish fleet.Greenland Halibut in V, XII and XIVEvaluate the soundness of the assessment for Greenland halibut in V , XII and XIV and the appropriateness of the management plan, agreed at the last December Council, which foresee a large effort reduction of 66% as well as a consequent reduction of the EU quota with respect to the year 2004. The plan foresees gradual annual reductions of the quota rather one instant reduction in order to reach the ICES advised effort level by 2008.Nephrops stocksIdentify which harvest rates for stocks of Nephrops are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum sustainable yields (or suitable proxy) and, if relevant economic information is available, STECF should also identify which harvest rates are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum economic yield. This request applies to all stocks of Nephrops where ICES provided advice in the form of a table of harvest rates in October 2005.Anchovy in the Bay of BiscayIdentify which harvest control rules for Bay of Biscay anchovy need to be developed for 2006 in the light of the ICES advice that no fishing shall be undertaken until a strong year class recruits to the exploited stockHaddock in the North Sea (ICES Sub-area IV and Division IIIa)Evaluate whether there are inconsistencies in the ICES catch forecast table for haddock in IV and IIIa and, if the case, produce another one.Haddock in the North Sea (ICES Sub-area IV and Division IIIa)The forecast for this stock are based on historical levels of industrial by-catches, but there will be no industrial fisheries in 2006. STECF is asked to make forecast calculations with a range of levels of industrial by-catch (to cover the possibility that the industrial fisheries will be reopened mid year).Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXaAssess appropriateness of model used by ICES to assess anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa. Fishing mortality on anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa is estimated to have more than doubled since 2002. The total catch for these species ( L. piscatorius and L. budegassa ) increased during this period from 1802 tonnes to 4000 tonnes. Most of this increase is of L piscatorius in Division VIIIc However, information on the effort of these fleets does not indicate an increase, and F in related species such as southern hake or megrims is stable over this period. Survey biomass indices for this period show an increase of 56% (Spanish survey) or 167% (Portuguese survey), although the latter must be looked at with caution because of the small quantities of anglers caught during the survey. Commercial CPUEs of the Santander fleet increased by 97% during this period. Similarly, those of trawlers from La Coruña increased by 60% (see SDWG report). With this information, does STECF think that the ASPIC model used by ICES to assess this stock is appropriate for exploring trends in SSB and F?propose sustainable exploitation rules for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXaSTECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGMOS-05-01 (26-30 September, 2005) which proposed targets for sustainable exploitation, and harvesting rules for catch and/or fishing effort limits for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa.Identify demersal fisheries where mixed species are caught in Community waters and adjacent areas and estimate their catches for 2006STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRST-05-02 (17-21 October, 2005) which compiled recent data on demersal mixed fisheries, identified stocks, areas and fleets where there are significant mixed catches and estimated catches for 2006.Assess the effectiveness of the cod recovery planSTECF should deliver an opinion based on the conclusions of subgroup meetings SGRST-05-01 (13-17 June 2005) and SGRST-05-4 (19-21 September 2005) which aimed to (a) identify the location and season of the most important fishable concentrations of cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak, eastern Channel, Kattegat, Baltic Sea, west of Scotland, Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea (b) review the current system for the management of fishing effort (Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005) in the context of the cod recovery plan (Regulation 423/2004) (c) evaluate systems feasible for management of fishing effort in the context of a multi-annual management plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea.Assess harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and advise on actions for 2006 including level of sentinel fishingSTECF should deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the ad-hoc working group ADHOC-05-03 which aimed to (a) evaluate whether the current HCR for sand eel in the North Sea and Skagerrak are suitable or need to be changed (b) determine what actions shall be envisaged for 2006 on the basis of the ACFM advice and considering that Council Regulation n.1147/2005 of July 2005 has prohibited sand eel fishing until the end of 2005 on the basis of the agreed HCR; (c) assess what level of monitoring fishing (sentinel fishing) shall be allowed in 2006 with a view of monitoring the 2005 recruitment strength in case that a 0 TAC or a very low level of fishing effort need to be established for 2006.Fishing effort for vessels in the context of the recovery of certain stocksSTECF is requested to comment on the proposal from the Scottish Fisheries Federation forwarded from the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) for improving the basis of target species (Nephrops) management and enhancing selectivity in the finfish by-catch in small mesh fisheries in the Northern North Sea, evaluating where possible the biological and economic effects of the measures from FRS (restricted web-site)Future position of beam trawlers in management of demersal North Sea fishing – Proposal For Amendment Of Annex IVa Of The EU TAC And Quota Regulation 27/2005STECF should check, consider and give an opinion on the request from the Dutch fishermen forwarded by the North Sea RAC to remove beam trawlers with V nets must from Annex IVa of the 2005 TAC (Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22 December 2004) and to regulate the effort of this fleet within the scope of a plaice management plan.Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005 for fisheries with demersal trawls other than beam trawlsSTECF should check, consider and give an opinion on the request from the Dutch fishermen forwarded by the North Sea RAC to (1) restructure days at sea in Annex IVa for demersal trawls other than beam trawls and (2) split the days-at-sea, now defined as consecutive period of 24 hours, in two 12 hour periods.FISHERIES ECONOMICSPROPOSE A WAY FORWARD FOR BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING IN THE EUThe recent subgroup meeting SGECA-SGRST-05-01, assessed bio-economic models, their data requirements and ongoing projects. Based on the outcome of this meeting STECF should propose how better bio-economic advice can be delivered in the future.assess the economic impact on European fleets of the latest ICES-ACFM adviceSTECF should deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the EIAA model calculations made during the SGRST-SGECA meeting of October 24-28Assess Member States' progress in achieving a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities.The Commission, on the basis of the data in the Community Fleet Register and information contained in the Member States’ annual reports, has prepared a summary annual report and presented it to the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries on 29 July 2005. STECF should provide its opinion on this report.ECOSYSTEM APPROACHReview evidence on by-catch of sea turtles in EU long line fisheries.STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRST-SGFEN-05-01 which (a) summarised EU long line fisheries, (b) assessed the known by-catches of turtles (c) reviewed data from national rescue centres and (d) assessed knowledge on effectiveness of mitigation measures.The subgroup identified severe shortage of data from the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, but also in many Atlantic areas. The subgroup recommended more research into mitigation techniques that addressed the whole by-catch problem in order to avoid endorsing techniques that shift the problem from one species to another.Revision of the Data Collection Regulation to take into account the ecosystem approachSTECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRN-05-03 which recommended the data could be collected to provide information on (a) the spatial and temporal distribution of different fishing activities (b) trends in fish assemblages. (c) impact of fishing on species that are intentionally exploited and on unintended by catch (d) genetic erosion of commercial wild stocks.The subgroup recommended collecting data that would support the production of pressure and state indicators. These included making VMS data available for scientists and extending the data collected in surveys. The focus is on impact of fisheries on environment rather than the other way round (because we do not have models to include environmental data)Information from the Commission and 2006 planningThe Commission will inform STECF of progress on issues concerning the framework for scientific advice in 2006 and afterwards. The issues concerned will include:NOMINATION OF NEW STECFThe Commission drew attention to Commission decision of 26 August 2005 establishing a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (2005/630/EC). Members were informed that the new Committee to be established under the decision should be appointed before the plenary meeting of April 2006. The term of office of the present Committee will continue until the new Committee is appointed.MANDATE FOR THE STECF NOVEMBER 2005 – NOVEMBER 2006: TASKS, ORGANISATION, SUBGROUP COORDINATORS, PLANNING 2005/2006.Given the extensive potential list of meetings for 2006 and the demanding agenda for the current meeting, the Committee took the decision to defer detailed planning of meetings for 2006. It was decided that a meeting of the STECF Bureau should be convened at a mutually convenient date and venue in December 2006 to address detailed planning of Sub-group meetings for 2006.The date of the next plenary meeting was not fixed but it was agreed it should take place either during the week beginning 27 March, 2006 or 3 April 2006. The exact dates are to be decided by the STECF Bureau.WRITTEN PROCEDURE (BY CORRESPONDENCE) FOR ADOPTION OF THE FORTHCOMING SGRN REPORT (28 NOVEMBER – 2 DECEMBER ) ADDRESSING MS NON CONFORMITIES AND DEROGATIONS FOR 2006 NATIONAL PROGRAMS.The SGRN Sub-group will meet as follows:Date: 28 November – 2 December 2005Venue: BrusselsChair: Frank RedantThe Chairman of the Sub-group should send the report of the Sub-group to the Secretariat by 6 December 2005. The Secretariat should immediately place the Report on the meeting web site and inform STECF members that it is ready for review. Masimilliano Cardinale will assume responsibility for drafting the STECF comments and recommendations and forwarding to the Secretariat by 8 December 2005. The STECF comments and recommendations should be finalised by Masimilliano Cardinale in the light of suggestions for amendments from members of STECF. The final response should be sent to the Secretariat by 1200h GMT on 13 December 2005.RULES OF PROCEDURES OF THE STECFThe Commission drew attention to a draft document drawn up by the Commission containing proposed rules of procedure for STECF. The Committee was informed that the document will be circulated to the existing committee for comment by correspondence and that new rules of procedure should be adopted by the STECF at its plenary meeting in March/April 2006.IMPROVEMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVICE FOR THE NON-EU FISHERIESA. Di Natale informed STECF that he had received an invitation from DG Fishery (FISH/B/1/DC/ca/D2005) to represent STECF at an International Seminar organised by the EC in Mauritius, on the “Improvement of scientific and technical advice for the non-EU fisheries”. STECF welcome this invitation, considering it a further step forward in the integration of the STECF in the work of DG FISH and underlining the role of the STECF within the CFP.FISHERIES CONSERVATIONReview the scientific advice on stocks of COMMUNITY INTERESTThe STECF review of stocks of Community interest is published in the report produced in the meeting SGECA-SGRST-05-02 of 24-28 October, 2006. This review presents summary information on the state of stocks and management advice for stocks of Community interest throughout the world including those in Third Countries and international waters. In undertaking the review, STECF has consulted the most recent reports on stock assessments and advice from appropriate scientific advisory bodies or other readily available literature, and has attempted to summarise it in a common format. The review is partially incomplete, since in some cases, appropriate information was not readily available to the group. For some stocks the review remains unchanged from the Review of advice for 2004 (SEC(2004)372), since no new information on the status of or advice for such stocks was available at the time the review took place. This does not mean that no such information exists; merely that STECF did not have access to it. A comment to this effect is included in the relevant stock sections. Nevertheless, the report provides summary assessment and management advice on about 300 stocks of interest to the Community.STECF notes that the term ‘stock’ in some cases, may not reflect a likely biological unit, but rather a convenient management unit. In specific cases STECF has drawn attention to this fact. STECF also is of the opinion that, as far as possible, management areas should coincide with stock assessment areas.For each stock, a summary of the following information is provided:STOCK: [Species name, scientific name], [management area]FISHERIES: fleets prosecuting the stock, management body in charge, economic importance in relation to other fisheries, historical development of the fishery, potential of the stock in relation to reference points or historical catches, current catch (EU fleets’ total), any other pertinent information.SOURCE OF MANAGEMENT ADVICE : reference to the management advisory body.MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: where these exist.PRECAUTIONARY REFERENCE POINTS: where these have been proposed.STOCK STATUS: Reference points, current stock status in relation to these. STECF has included precautionary reference point wherever these are available.RELEVANT MANAGEMENT ADVICE: summary of advice.STECF COMMENTS: Any comments STECF thinks worthy of mention, including errors, omissions or disagreement with assessments or advice.STECF notes that following the introduction of mixed fishery advice in 2003, ICES began providing overviews of its advice for groups of stocks commencing in 2004. Such advice is summarised in section 16 of this report. In addition, the advice in relation to single species exploitation boundaries and the associated terminology has also been modified. For most stocks, the single species advice on the state of the stock is formulated under two main headings:-  Exploitation boundaries in relation to high long-term yield, low risk of depletion of production potential and considering ecosystem effects .-  Exploitation boundaries in relation to precautionary 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.Furthermore, brief overviews of the fisheries in the Mediterranean and Southwest Atlantic are also included in the report in Section 17.A list of reports and publications consulted is given at the end of the document. STECF recognises that in future the format of the stock review publication may evolve, taking into account comments from users of the publication.The STECF review of scientific advice was drafted by the STECF Sub-group on Resource Status (SGRST, Chair, J. Casey) during its joint meeting with the Sub-group on Economic Assessment (SGECA) of 24 – 28 October 2005, and subsequently finalised and endorsed at the 21st STECF Plenary meeting (7 – 11 November 2005).STECF Statement on the Johannesburg Declaration and the CFPThe EU has committed to the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg (2nd to 4th September 2002). STECF considers, that the Johannesburg Declaration requires agreement on new operational management objectives within the CFP and as a consequence, impacts on the advisory criteria of STECF, ICES and other advisory bodies.Paragraph 31 (a) of the Declaration defines that stocks should be recovered to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields (MSY) by 2015. This objective was established in the "Rio Declaration" of 1992, but without an agreed time schedule of reaching the objective.The Johannesburg plan of implementation is a commitment to rebuild individual stocks to the states at which they can produce maximum sustainable yields. This means that each fish resource should be able to produce maximum sustainable yields within the constraints of the ecosystem that it inhabits. This excludes the possibility of attempting to manipulate ecosystem structure by over-fishing some species in order to improve the yields of others.The productive capacity of the seas and oceans is limited and it may not be possible to achieve the maximum sustainable yield that would be predicted starting from current conditions for all stocks in an ecosystem simultaneously - mainly because species compete with each other for resources. Therefore, management measures must be found that are robust to prediction uncertainty.It has been stressed, that the practical problems of estimating the biomass required to reach MSY are so great, that biomass should not be used as an operational aim, even though it is used as the aim in the Declaration. The problems are related to the uncertain stock-recruit information and to the variability of the aquatic environment. As a result, it has been suggested that instead of using the uncertain Bmsy, the use of Fmsy would be a less uncertain management goal. STECF agrees that Fmsy can be used instead of Bmsy, if there is no useful S/R information available.In order to reach the goal of Johannesburg Declaration, STECF considers that the biomasses of fish stocks in year 2015 should consist of year classes which have been recruited to the stock as a result of applying Fmsy earlier on in the management. Then provided a stock is in a state where it would be expected to experience normal recruitment (i.e. is above Blim) and if the fishery (including discards) on a stocks is only substantial in terms of total fishing mortality or overall biomass for age groups 2 – 7 then Fmsy must be achieved 6 years (number of significant age groups) before the target year of 2015 in order to reach the political aim. This implies a need for an additional element in management current plans to reach Fmsy in the required time period. For the example above, this would mean an operational objective to reach Fmsy by 2009 at the latest.STECF recommends that a management objective satisfying the above criteria be set for each stock.STECF further recommends that Fmsy or an agreed proxy should routinely be included in stock status reports and advice.Specific requests from the Commission on stocks of Community InterestFishing effort for Cancer pagurus and Maja squinado stocksSTECF was asked the following:Evaluate whether the fishing effort regime as established in Council Regulations 1954/2003 and 1415/2004 is adequate for sustainable exploitation of edible crab (Cancer pagurus) and spider crab (Maja squinado) stocks as targeted by the Irish fleet.backgroundAs a background for the evaluation the STECF had at its disposal a document requesting increased effort provided by Ireland containing an overview of the development of the Irish fishery (IR 2005a), a response from the Commission (COMM 2005), an addendum to the Irish Govt. request (IR 2005b), a resource evaluation report (Tully et al. 2005) and recent ICES crab study group reports (ICES 2003; 2004; 2005).As the landings into Ireland of spider crab from area VI are negligible, the biological data submitted relates only to edible crab ( Cancer pagurus ). STECF notes that catches of spider crab in ICES area VI are generally negligible as the species reaches the northern limits of its distribution on the mid west coast of Ireland (ICES area VII). STECF notes, however, that comments regarding the current fishing effort regulation also apply to fisheries for this species.Status of edible crab stock in Area VIThe LPUE series provided to STECF show a declining trend during 1990-1994 (the development phase of the offshore fishery) followed by a period of apparent stability in the mid 1990s and more recently a further decline in LPUE. Declining LPUE appears to coincide with periods of expansion of capacity and effort in the fishery. In addition, available landings and effort data indicate that recent high levels of effort have realised only small increases in landings and that LPUE has declined linearly with increasing effort.STECF considers that the observed decline in LPUE indicates a decline in abundance.STECF further notes, however, that 1) that there appears to be no recent change in the average size of crabs in the landings and 2) that the cumulative size distribution of landings indicates that landing of crabs does not occur until they are significantly larger that the minimum landing size (Minimum legal size: 130mm, landing size is generally (>95%) >150 mm). Maturity ogives presented indicate that 50% of crabs are mature at 120mm and all crabs by 130mm. This implies that a significant proportion are able to spawn before capture. However, these figures relate to combined sex data: size at 50% maturity for female crabs in this fishery varies from 133 to 138mm dependent on area (ICES 2004).Effort trends in the fishery for edible crab in Sub-area VISTECF notes that deployed effort in the Irish northwest crab fishery (ICES area VI and part of area VII) exceeded 775,000 kW days in 2003 – a figure smaller than the total allowed effort provided for in Council Regulation 2027 of 1995. The nominal effort limit set for Ireland by Regulation 1415/2004 is 465,000 kW days, based on the average effort deployed from 1998–2002.Effort, in terms of pot hauls, has increased six-fold over the period 1992-2004 (for the analysed group of offshore vessels). Effort (pot hauls) increased rapidly in the period 1990-1994, was relatively stable from 1994-2000 and has since increased rapidly to the series maximum in 2004.Appropriateness of current effort regulationsSTECF notes that the introduction of the 2004 kW days regulations actually provides for a marked increase of the total allowable effort compared to previously observed levels. Whilst STECF was not provided with information on the level of uptake, it is believed that some Member States do not fully utilise their effort allocations. There is therefore a considerable amount of latent capacity (in nominal effort) available.The increase in numbers of pots hauled in the presented data since the implementation of the 2004 effort regulations also demonstrates that these regulations have not restricted effective effort.The combination of latent capacity and the ability of the fleet to increase effective effort by deploying more gear render the effort regulations ineffective.ConclusionsSTECF notes a decline in abundance, current high levels of effective effort and the inability of current regulations to effectively control effort in this fishery. STECF therefore concludes that the fishing effort regime, as established in Council Regulations 1954/2003 and 1415/2004, is inadequate for sustainable exploitation of edible crab ( Cancer pagurus ) stocks.STECF suggests that effective effort would be better regulated by restricting the number of pots and number of pot hauls in the fishery. STECF considers that regulation of effective effort should apply to all vessels prosecuting this fishery, rather than just those >15m.During the mid 1990s LPUE was sustained at a stable level. STECF suggests that the average annual effective effort as proposed above, over this period (which was not available to STECF due to lack of data from some fleets) could be used as an appropriate level of effort that may sustain the fishery.ReferencesCOMM (2005). Response of the Commission to a request by Ireland for increased effort for edible crab & spider crab in ICES area VI. Dated 12th April 2005.ICES (2003). The Report of the ICES Study Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs. ICES CM 2003/G:11.ICES (2004). The Report of the ICES Study Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs. ICES CM 2004/G:13.ICES (2005). The Report of the ICES Study Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs. ICES CM 2005/G:10.IR (2005a). Request for increased effort for edible crab & spider crab in ICES area VI. Submitted 16th March 2005.IR (2005b). Addendum to a request for increased effort for edible crab & spider crab in ICES area VI. Submitted 2nd September 2005.Tully, O., Robinson, M., Cosgrove, R., O Keeffe, E., Doyle, O. & Lehane, B. (2005). The Brown Crab (Cancer pagurus L.) fishery: Analysis of the resource in 2004-2005. Report compiled for the Crab Advisory Group, Ireland.Greenland Halibut in V, XII and XIVSTECF was asked the following:Evaluate the soundness of the assessment for Greenland halibut in V , XII and XIV and the appropriateness of the management plan, agreed at the last December Council, which foresee a large effort reduction of 66% as well as a consequent reduction of the EU quota with respect to the year 2004. The plan foresees gradual annual reductions of the quota rather one instant reduction in order to reach the ICES advised effort level by 2008.evaluation of the assessment for Greenland halibut in Sub-areas V, Xii and XIVSTECF notes that the genetic and productivity structure of the stock is weakly defined within the management areas V, VI, XII and XIV. Moreover, there are no precautionary reference points defined and the assessment is only based on area-disaggregated stock indices although none of those indices covers the entire distribution of Greenland halibut in these areas.Surveys indices:Vb | no information |Va | drastic drop in abundance for all size classes |XIVb | insignificant changes or slight decrease compared to 1998-2000. |Commercial CPUE indices:Vb | recently stable but low compared to 1991-1993. |Va | recently sharply decreased and at historical low level. |XIVb | no trend recognisable. |The ACFM indicated a general decline in stock abundance for the whole area. However, based on the trends in the indices given above, there is a recent sharp decline in stock size indicated in Va both from surveys and commercial CPUE, while the stock appears stable in area XIVb. The status in Vb, VI and XII is uncertain but catches from theses areas represent only a minor component of the international catch. The observed decrease in abundance in Va is probably the result of increased fishing effort and landings since the late 1990s. In this area the largest part of the catch is usually taken.STECF concludes that the stock abundance in all management areas V, VI, XII and XIV as a whole remains uncertain, although there are indications of substantial local depletion in some of the management areas.Appropriateness of the management planSTECF is unaware of any management plan for Greenland halibut in V, VI, XII and XIV but notes that any management plan needs to be agreed and implemented by the coastal states of Greenland, Iceland and Faeroes Islands.The ACFM advice for 2006 applies to all management areas (i.e. V, VI, XII and XIV) and recommends a TAC of less than 15,000 t which is considered to be consistent with an effort reduction of 2/3 compared to the level estimated for 2003.STECF notes that there is no analytical basis for proposing a TAC for 2006 of less than 15000 t. for all areas combined. However, taking into account the available information on the state of the stock.In the absence of an area based management plan the area STECF recommends that the fishing mortality of Greenland halibut should be reduced in all management areas (i.e. V, VI, XII and XIV). STECF recommends a stronger effort reduction in those areas where Greenland halibut shows a larger decline in stock size would be preferred. STECF recommends that if an area based management plan with higher effort reduction in area Va be agreed, this is expected to decrease the probability of local deletion and contribute positively to improvements in the state of the stock.There is no reliable basis to give unequivocal advice on a catch level for the whole area. The CPUE data from area Va suggests that previously a catch level of 11,000 was sufficiently low to allow CPUE to increase in subsequent years. In the absense of any better information the choice of this effort / catch level for area Va would not be inappropriate. For area XIVb the current catch level of is 7,000 t (average of last 6 years treating the final year as uncertain). CPUE series for this area is relatively stable over this period despite fluctuation in catch. There is no evidence to suggest that 7,000 t is an inappropriate level for catch in this area. If these amounts are to be allocated, it must be in the context of an area management agreement that ensures that these are the maximum amount taken in each area. In the absence of an area based management agreement the Va reduction rate should be applied across all areas (this implies 16,500 t for all areas). STECF recommends that stock monitoring data be collected for any significant fishery and stock evaluation should be carried out possibly through coordination of existing surveys.Nephrops stocksSTECF was asked the following:Identify which harvest rates for stocks of Nephrops are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum sustainable yields (or suitable proxy) and, if relevant economic information is available, STECF should also identify which harvest rates are consistent with exploiting the stocks at maximum economic yield. This request applies to all stocks of Nephrops where ICES provided advice in the form of a table of harvest rates in October 2005.BackgroundICES advice on the status of Nephrops stocks has been based since 1992 on XSA assessments using sliced length composition data. In recent years, however, the quality of official landings data has been called into question leading to doubts about the reliability of both the TAC advice and the analytical assessments conducted by ICES. In its 2005 analysis, ICES did not include assessments based on landings data – in particular because of unreliability and uncertainties in the suitability of the XSA method for Nephrops . ICES did, however, provide information on the state of some stocks using fishery independent data; specifically, underwater television surveys. These avoid the problem of variable catch rates in trawls surveys that arise from the emergence behaviour of Nephrops . ICES further showed that for a number of Nephrops stocks (in the North Sea and West of Scotland) current levels of exploitation appear sustainable but advised against any increase in effort. ICES/ACFM also noted the need for mandatory collection of accurate data to assist in the future assessment process.Based on the available fishery independent data (underwater television surveys), ICES went on to advice on potential catch levels for 2006; this advice was obtained by applying a range of possible harvest ratios (HR) to the TV abundance data. However, in the absence of a more suitable approach, these harvest ratios were based on a comparison with reported landings. Given that the quality of landings and other official data is questioned in the ICES report, the appropriateness of harvest ratios based entirely on these data is problematic.STECF commentsSTECF considered an alternative approach, based on yield per recruit analysis, to determine more appropriate harvest ratios, (see ICES Nephrops assessment WG Report 2004). Although the use of length cohort analysis (LCA) or other similar techniques have shortfalls, the concerns mainly relate to estimating the current state of exploitation, and not the overall shape of the yield per recruit curve, and, consequently, reference points based on that curve. Yield per recruit analysis provides estimates of a number of reference points including Fmax (a proxy for MSY) and the more cautious F0.1. STECF noted both that Fmax is more difficult to estimate than F0.1 and that F msy is normally expected to be at or below Fmax but also depends also on stock recruit relationships that are unknown for these stocks. Given these uncertainties STECF is of the opinion that F0.1 is an appropriate fishing mortality to recommend for exploitation: this would be consistent with the precautionary approach. Data from six major Nephrops fisheries (in two groups of 3 stocks, in the North Sea and to the West of Scotland) and for which extensive data exist, were considered and the results, Fmax, F0.1 and the corresponding harvest ratios (HR), are shown in the Table 5-1Table 5-1 Fmax, F0.1 and the corresponding harvest ratios (HR)Stock | Fmax | HR% | F0.1 | HR% |Group 1: West of Scotland stocks. |North Minch | 0.40 | 33.1% | 0.23 | 20.5% |South Minch | 0.55 | 42.4% | 0.23 | 20.7% |Clyde | 0.36 | 30.0% | 0.23 | 20.4% |Mean | 35.2% | 20.5% |Group 2: North Sea stocks. |Fladen | 0.39 | 32.4% | 0.21 | 19.2% |Forth | 0.36 | 30.5% | 0.22 | 19.4% |Moray Firth | 0.45 | 36.1% | 0.24 | 21.0% |Mean | 33.0% | 19.9% |The (combined sex) yield per recruit curves for these two groups are also shown. Both the yield per recruit curves and the estimated reference points generated from the curves are relatively consistent between areas. This is not unexpected given the similar growth and natural mortality and selection patterns in the fisheries.-  F max varies between 0.36 and 0.55, and exploitation at this level would imply an average harvest ratio between 33 – 35%.-  A more precautionary level, F0.1 appears particularly consistent, ranging from 0.21 to 0.24, equating to a harvest rate of approximately 20%.[pic]Figure 5-1 Combined sex relative yield per recruit curve for West of Scotland Nephrops stocks, based on LCA.[pic]Figure 5-2 Combined sex relative yield per recruit curve for Northern North Sea Nephrops stocks, based on LCA.TV survey abundance and use of the harvest ratios to provide catch advice.Based on the available fishery independent data (underwater television surveys), ICES has reported that the six Nephrops stocks considered here are stable or in some cases increasing in abundance. STECF considered trends in TV abundance and trends in mean size in the landings and catch and concurred with the ICES conclusion. Increases in abundance were particularly evident for the West of Scotland Nephrops stocks. Mean size of the larger component of the landings are generally stable while in the small component there is more fluctuation, reflecting recruitment variability. The stable mean size of the larger components provides a further indicator of the healthy nature of these stocks.Economic AspectsWhen the production (income) and cost curves are not known in detail it is not possible to calculate the maximum economic yield (MEY). When the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (or other biologically based exploitation rate) has been established, it is possible to determine the appropriate maximum number of vessels (capacity) taking into account the days at sea, and the harvest per day at this exploitation rate. When this level is achieved in practice, a step by step procedure should start with cuts in capacity in order to explore the shape of the production curve as the maximum economic yield is more conservative than the MSY. The commission should investigate this further through a WG with appropriate TOR.STECF ConclusionsThe results given here, which provide guidance for the general exploitation targets for Nephrops functional units in VIa (North Minch FU 11, South Minch FU 12, Clyde FU 13) and in the North Sea (Fladen FU 7, Forth FU 8, Moray Firth FU 9). STECT considers that implementation of these exploitation rates needs to take the following points into consideration.-  There is evidence of unreported catch (from ICES reports and an EU project 99/OJ C122) and therefore current catches are already higher than reported landings. As a result current exploitation rates as estimated by landings data and reported by ICES are almost certainly underestimates.-  Management is currently carried out on a management area basis, within which are several Functional Unit based fisheries. If the object is to manage these areas in accordance with an F0.1 objective there is a need to ensure that appropriate harvest rations are maintained in each of the functional units. i.e. separate Nephrops stocks must be managed separately.-  Some of the “ Nephrops ” fisheries make an important contribution to mortality on depleted stocks. Therefore there is a need for effort management and mandatory by-catch mitigation methods that are consistent with recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught in fisheries for Nephrops .Taken together these points lead to the following STECF conclusions for exploitation of Nephrops .STECF considers that F0.1 is a suitable sustainable exploitation target for Nephrops Functional Units in VIa (North Minch FU 11, South Minch FU 12, Clyde FU 13) and in the North Sea (Fladen FU 7, Forth FU 8, Moray Firth FU 9) and that is best achieved through a functional unit based effort management regime with accompanying by-catch mitigation measures. Any such regime should be consistent with recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught together with Nephrops .STECF notes that exploiting Nephrops at F0.1 implies an approximate harvest rate corresponding to a catch/biomass ratio of about 20%. However, given the concerns regarding unreported catch, the harvest rates for the above Nephrops Functional Units presented in the ICES advice, which are based on the ratio of reported landings to the estimated biomasses from underwater TV surveys, are almost certainly underestimated.Taking into account the requirements of recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught in fisheries that exploit Nephrops, together with the uncertainty regarding current harvest rates, STECF makes the following two recommendations:5.  STECF recommends that there should be no increase in the exploitation rate on Nephrops Functional Units in VIa (North Minch FU 11, South Minch FU 12, Clyde FU 13) and in the North Sea (Fladen FU 7, Forth FU 8, Moray Firth FU 9). STECF stresses that this means that Nephrops catches i.e. landings and discards, and effort in these fisheries for Nephrops should be capped at the recent (2004) level or reduced in line with the requirements of recovery plans and management plans for other stocks that are caught together with Nephrops from these Functional Units.6.  STECF recommends that without a move to a functional unit based effort management regime with accompanying by-catch mitigation measures there should be no move to F0.1 as a target.Marrs, S.J., Tuck, I.D., Arneri, E., La Mesa, M., Atkinson, R.J.A., Ward, B., & Santojanni. A. 2002. Technical Improvements in the assessment of Scottish Nephrops and Adriatic clam fisheries.(99/077 Study Project in support of the Common Fisheries Policy call for proposals 99/OJ C122)Report of the Working Group on Nephrops Stocks 28–01 April 2004 Lisbon, Portugal ICES CM 2004/ACFM:19Anchovy in the Bay of BiscaySTECF was asked the following:Identify which harvest control rules for Bay of Biscay anchovy need to be developed for 2006 in the light of the ICES advice that no fishing shall be undertaken until a strong year class recruits to the exploited stock.BackgroundICES advice in 2005Based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classifies the anchovy stock in Sub-Area VIII (Bay of Biscay) as suffering from reduced reproductive capacity. SSB is estimated to be well below B lim . The stock in 2005 is the lowest in the time series. Low recruitment since 2001 and almost complete recruitment failure in 2004 are the primary causes of the stock collapse. This led to the closure of the fishery in July 2005. ICES recommends that the fishery should remain closed and should, at the earliest, be considered for opening if the acoustic and egg surveys in May-June 2006 demonstrate a strong 2005 year-class.STECF advice in 2005STECF agrees with the ICES’ advice and reiterates its July 2005 recommendations that the Biscay anchovy fishery should remain closed until reliable estimates of the 2006 SSB and 2005 year-class become available based on the results from the spring 2006 acoustic and DEPM surveys. This implies closure of the fishery until at least July 2006.Autumn surveys resultsResults of the September-October surveys on anchovy juveniles (JUVENA and JUVAGA) were presented to STECF. JUVENA 2005 survey (aiming at producing a recruitment index) has not yet delivered any quantitative acoustic estimate of juveniles, but has detected higher juvenile abundances spread over larger areas (south of 46ºN) than in JUVENA2004 (when very few detections were made while failure of recruitment was occurring). Nevertheless, the short series of JUVENA surveys (only 3 surveys) precludes so far any quantitative use of their results. A minimum of 4-5 years of comparisons between JUVENA acoustic estimates of juveniles and recruitment at age 1 estimates in the following year is necessary to decide on the utility of this survey indices for recruitment forecast. JUVAGA surveys also reported on acoustic detections and behaviour of juveniles in different areas. Hence, although these surveys provided qualitative information on juvenile distribution and abundance, they cannot be used yet to predict 2005 year-class strength.3.2.4.3 Economic evaluation of the French fleets for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay.The STECF reviewed working documents (Appendix 1 ) which describe the evolution of the French fleets that exploit anchovy and evaluate the likely economic impact of a complete closure on the French fishery for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay. The long term evolution of the total annual gross revenue of the French fleets is more stable than the landings because of price effects. More recent figures on the monthly evolution of price and landings underline the sensitivity of price to changes in supply.A preliminary analysis of the potential impacts of different scenarios bans on the gross revenue and other economic indicators of the main fleets was carried out. It considers the anchovy dependency of the main fleets in terms of gross revenue at an annual and a monthly basis and the potential consequences of different scenarios for anchovy bans based on a retrospective analysis on the fleets gross revenue. Anchovy dependency can be high for some fleets (e.g. 60% annual average for the trawler fleet and the share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue per quarter can reach 80% for this fleet), but the seasonality of the anchovy landings differs from a fleet to another. Moreover, the quarterly analysis of the variation in gross surplus (in percentage), are larger than the variations in gross revenues.The evaluation also considered the impact of potential mitigation measures that the fleets may be able to adopt such as directing some of their effort on to species other than anchovy by changing gear used or not. The overall results indicate that cessation of all fishing activity for the trawler fleet targeting anchovy would lead to losses in gross revenue ranging from 40% - 80% depending on the length of closure. Continuing to fish for species other than anchovy but maintaining their base-line activity would result in losses of 55%. Maximizing their potential revenue by targeting species other than anchovy with bottom trawl would result in losses in the region of 20%. The latter option should be considered optimistic since crewing effects, licensing quota restrictions for other species, price effects, etc, have to be taken into account in the predictions. The recent evolution of the situation on other fisheries during the third quarter of 2005 have shown that effort reallocation is problematic (e.g. the example of albacore), for the reasons mentioned before, and leads to a cost (not measured here) for the other fleets targeting these species.STECF notes that there may be some scope for reducing the economic impact of a closure for the French fleets fishing for anchovy, provided that they are able to diversify their activity and target other species. The analysis suggests that in the most optimistic scenario, losses in gross revenue of the order of -55% could be reduced to -20%. However this is dependent on the period of closure, the availability of other fishing opportunities, their ability to exploit them and the market consequences of changes in supplies.The analysis of the consequences of the ban on the trawler fleet in terms of economic indicators (gross surplus, crew share) was also carried out. It assumes a shift of fishing effort from pelagic trawl to bottom trawl in the first 6 months of 2006 and the re-opening of the fisheries in July 2006. The analysis considers that the switch from pelagic trawling to bottom trawling implies investments costs in new gears and equipments. The share of gross surplus in gross revenue was around 20% over the period 2001-2003, then it declines in 2004 and in 2005. In 2006, according to effort reallocation (options 2 and 3), these fleets would reach gross surplus ratio levels close to those of the beginning of the years 2000. However, taking into account reimbursement cost (capital and interests) the profitability of a large number of vessels in the fleet would be poor.It is also possible to consider the spill over effects of the anchovy fishing activity on the harbour activities and the related economic local sectors. In the case of harbors specialized on anchovy (Pays de la Loire region), 200 full time equivalent (FTE) fishermen are supposed to yield 200 and around 300 FTE employment in the harbour’s and the local economy, respectively (Baranger et al. 2002). The impacts of the anchovy on specific coastal areas are high compared to other fishing activities.The results of a complementary anaysis presented at the anchovy sub-group SGRST-05-03, July 2005, provides information on other economic indicators (gross surplus or financial profitability). It underlines that theses indicators are more sensitive to the effects of a fishery closure.STECF notes that it could be useful to consider the impact of different HCR scenarios by providing economic indicators for the fleet targeting anchovy and other fleets operating in fisheries potentially concerned by effort re-allocation. Based on the work presented, the analysis of price effects and the study of markets structure for the main related species should be considered.STECF comments and recommendationsHarvest control rule for 2006Given the information presented above, STECF recommends the following:-  there should be a zero TAC for anchovy in Sub-Area VIII (Bay of Biscay) for at least January-June 2006.-  the fishery for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay is only re-opened in 2006, if the results of the 2006 spring surveys indicate that the Spawning Stock Biomass in 2006 is above B lim (21,000 t).-  any TAC for the period July-December 2006 should be set at a level that is predicted to result in a SSB in 2007 above B pa (33,000 t) according to the following rationale.Rationale for prediction of appropriate catch level for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay for the period July-December 2006To estimate an appropriate TAC for July-December 2006, deterministic short-term projections were carried out for a range of SSBs for 2006 with the following assumptions:-  Fishing mortality for the period July 2006- June 2007 is apportioned equally between the second half of 2006 and the first half of 2007.-  Recruitment of the 2006 year-class in 2007 is set to the 25th percentile of the historically observed recruitment.The results are presented in Table 5-2, which shows the maximum level of catch that can be taken in the second half of 2006, and first half of 2007 to ensure a SSB in 2007 above B pa .Despite the fact that Bpa is not be well defined, STECF considers that 33,000 t is a “reasonable” threshold level, as estimated historical SSBs have been above this level most of the time. It also gives you a high probability of being above B lim , considering uncertainties in the assessment. The projections in Table 5-2 have been carried out over a large enough range of SSBs for 2006 to include an option to fish at F pa (estimated by ICES as 1.2 per year). Under this harvest rule the option to fish at Fpa in 2006 is only possible if SSB in 2006 is above 82 000t.STECF considerations for a longer-term management regimeSTECF notes that the spring acoustic and DEPM surveys provide the main tuning indices to the current assessment and should be maintained. Acoustic and fishing surveys should continue to be carried out in the period of September/October every year to provide an index of abundance of recruits. The survey(s) should cover the known distribution area of the juvenile anchovy and should include pelagic trawling as well as purse seine fishing. All nations and/or institutes involved in the fishery should be encouraged to collaborate in these surveys and STECF recommends that co-ordination should be under ICES WGACEGG. The STECF encourages development of any other research surveys that could provide additional information on the recruitment process in this stock.STECF notes that further to the HCR for 2006, a revision of the current management regime is still required to maintain the longer-term viability of the stock and the fishery. These would need to be scientifically evaluated prior to adoption. As a consequence, STECF recommends that a working group evaluate alternative HCRs before next STECF plenary. This evaluation should take into consideration the following elements:-  The recruitment levels and/or the stock recruitment relationship,-  The incorporation of information from the surveys and/or from the fishery in an in-year management procedure.-  The appropriateness of any controls or indicators in addition or alternative to current reference points (Blim and Bpa).-  If possible, the use of all available surveys (spring and autumn) as indicators of recruitment and any alternative timing for those surveys.-  The use of alternative management measures such as TAC level, effort control, area or seasonal closures-  The bio-economic consequences of each HCRs evaluated.Investigate candidates for Fpa and Flim.Table 5-2 Maximum allowable catches for the second half of the year in 2006Basis: | F(sq) 2-8 = | 0.28 | SSB(05) = | 249 | SSB(06) = | 254 | Bpa = | 140 |Landings(05) = | 48 | Disc(05) = | 9 | IBC(06) = | 0 | Blim = | 100 |F(2-8) 06 | F mult | Catches 2006 | Landings 2006 | Disc 2006 | IBC 2006 | SSB 2007 |Zero catch | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 302 |Status quo | 0.285 | 1.000 | 64 | 45 | 19 | 0 | 250 |High long-term yield | 0.180 | 0.632 | 42 | 30 | 12 | 0 | 268 |Agreed management plan | 0.300 | 1.052 | 67 | 48 | 20 | 0 | 248 |Precautionary limits | F(pa) * 0.1 | 0.063 | 0.221 | 15 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 290 |F(pa) * 0.25 | 0.158 | 0.553 | 37 | 26 | 11 | 0 | 272 |F(pa) * 0.5 | 0.315 | 1.105 | 70 | 50 | 21 | 0 | 245 |F(pa) * 0.75 | 0.473 | 1.658 | 101 | 70 | 30 | 0 | 222 |F(pa) * 0.9 | 0.568 | 1.989 | 118 | 82 | 36 | 0 | 209 |F(pa) | 0.631 | 2.210 | 129 | 89 | 40 | 0 | 201 |Others | 15% red. TAC | 0.385 | 1.347 | 84 | 59 | 25 | 0 | 235 |0.100 | 0.351 | 24 | 17 | 7 | 0 | 281 |0.200 | 0.701 | 46 | 33 | 13 | 0 | 263 |0.300 | 1.052 | 67 | 47 | 19 | 0 | 246 |0.400 | 1.402 | 86 | 61 | 26 | 0 | 231 |0.500 | 1.753 | 105 | 74 | 31 | 0 | 217 |0.600 | 2.103 | 122 | 85 | 37 | 0 | 204 |Basis: | F(sq) 2-8 = | 0.28 | SSB(05) = | 249 | SSB(06) = | 254 | Bpa = | 140 |Landings(05) = | 48 | Disc(05) = | 9 | IBC(06) = | 0 | Blim = | 100 |F(2-8) 06 | F mult | Catches 2006 | Landings 2006 | Disc 2006 | IBC 2006 | SSB 2007 |Zero catch | 0.000 | 0.000 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 299 |Status quo | 0.294 | 1.000 | 70 | 45 | 19 | 6 | 247 |High long-term yield | 0.185 | 0.632 | 48 | 30 | 12 | 6 | 265 |Agreed management plan | 0.300 | 1.022 | 72 | 46 | 19 | 6 | 246 |Precautionary limits | F(pa) * 0.1 | 0.065 | 0.221 | 22 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 287 |F(pa) * 0.25 | 0.162 | 0.553 | 43 | 26 | 11 | 6 | 269 |F(pa) * 0.5 | 0.324 | 1.105 | 76 | 50 | 20 | 6 | 243 |F(pa) * 0.75 | 0.487 | 1.658 | 107 | 70 | 30 | 6 | 219 |F(pa) * 0.9 | 0.584 | 1.989 | 124 | 82 | 35 | 6 | 207 |F(pa) | 0.649 | 2.210 | 134 | 89 | 39 | 6 | 199 |Others | 15% red. TAC | 0.396 | 1.347 | 90 | 59 | 25 | 6 | 232 |0.100 | 0.341 | 29 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 278 |0.200 | 0.681 | 51 | 32 | 13 | 6 | 261 |0.300 | 1.022 | 71 | 46 | 19 | 6 | 245 |0.400 | 1.363 | 90 | 59 | 25 | 6 | 230 |0.500 | 1.704 | 108 | 72 | 30 | 6 | 216 |0.600 | 2.044 | 125 | 83 | 36 | 6 | 203 |0.700 | 2.385 | 141 | 94 | 41 | 6 | 191 |0.800 | 2.726 | 157 | 104 | 46 | 6 | 180 |0.900 | 3.066 | 171 | 113 | 51 | 6 | 170 |1.000 | 3.407 | 185 | 122 | 56 | 6 | 160 |Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa-  STECF was asked the following:Advise on the appropriateness of the ASPIC model used by ICES to assess the combined stock of Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa in VIIIc and IXa for exploring trends in SSB and F. ICES chose the ASPIC model because there is a lack of appropriate time series of age-based catch data.Assessment and Survey resultsThe ASPIC model implements the logistic stock production model (Schaefer model, 1954). This model estimates total annual stock biomass and fishing mortality based on yield and effort data. The production models may not detect changes in recruitment.The results of the ASPIC model indicate that F has increased dramatically over the period 2002 –2004. However the data from the commercial fishery in VIIIc and IXa that exploits anglerfish indicate that effort has remained relatively stable and total catch and catch rates have both increased from 2002 to 2004. Furthermore, the fishing mortality on species that are caught together with anglerfish has also remained relatively stable.The results from the Portuguese and Spanish bottom trawl surveys both indicate an increase in abundance of anglerfish. However, catch rates for anglerfish in both surveys are very low and STECF does not consider that the observed changes in catch rate are necessarily a reflection of the changes in abundance of the stock as a whole.The increased catches and catch rates in 2003 and 2004 may be attributable primarily to increased recruitment to the fishery of L. piscatorius and L. budegassa in the periods 2002-2003 and 2001-2002 respectively. This is supported by the observed increase in the numbers of smaller, younger anglerfish in the commercial catch.The results of the 2005 ASPIC model assessment of anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa indicate a decreasing trend in SSB from the mid-1980s to reach a level in recent years of about 50% of BMSY.STECF comments and recommendationsSTECF notes that the use of the ASPIC model for the assessment of anglerfish in VIIIc and IXa is appropriate given the data available for the assessment. However, STECF is not in a position to judge whether it is the most appropriate. Furthermore, while the model provides a good representation of historic long-term trends in F and SSB, it is not an appropriate method to detect any short-term changes in these parameters and is insensitive to short-term changes in recruitment.ReferencesICES, 2002. Report of the Working Group on Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks. ICES CM 2002/ACFM:ICES, 2003. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Hake, Monkfish and Megrim. ICES CM 2003/ACFM:sustainable exploitation rules for Bay of Biscay Sole, Celtic Sea Cod and Anglerfish in ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXaSTECF was asked the following:To deliver an opinion on the work done by a Subgroup on management of stocks (SGMOSD-05-01) which met in Lisbon, 26-30 September 2005 to evaluate “Long-term Management strategies for Bay of Biscay sole, Celtic Sea cod and anglerfish in VIIc-IXa.Background and target reference points for long-term managementIn the absence of agreed long term management strategies that lead to safe biological levels, the study group considered Fmax as a proxy for a long term target conservation reference point for Celtic Sea cod and Bay of Biscay sole and Fmsy in the case of anglerfish in VIIc and IXa.The Group carried out 3 standard projections, to be used as references: (i) projection at Fsq, (ii) projection at constant catch, (iii) projection with a 10% reduction every year until F reaches Fmax/Fmsy.STECF Comments and RecommendationsCeltic Sea codSTECF notes that the 2005 cod VIIe-k assessment was not accepted by ICES due to a recent deterioration in data quality. The main issues were un-quantified high-grading of catches since late 2002, unreported catch, the absence of a time-series of discards estimates, and specific concerns over the commercial and research vessel CPUE data.As a result projections were carried forward using population numbers in 2003 with fishing mortalities in 2004 and 2005 predicted from trends in fishing effort of the main fleets.Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005, Annex III, part A 12 (b) prohibited fishing in ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4 and 32E3 during January-March 2005 was assumed to have resulted in an approximately 10% reduction in F on cod in 2005, based on the analysis by Ifremer (Biseau, 2005).STECF notes that these procedures may give an over-optimistic estimate of the number of years it will take to reach Fmax.The projections indicate that a constant-catch strategy with catches below 6,000t gives a high probability of SSB falling below Blim and is not an appropriate strategy.Progressively reducing fishing mortality by 10% annually until Fmax is reached would result in a gradual increase in median landings until 2010 at around 11,600t with a high probability of SSB remaining above Blim. However STECF notes that results are very sensitive to assumptions regarding the starting populations and initial assumptions about fishing mortality. A combination of smaller initial stock size and reduced future recruitment results in declining landings for the first 5 years and a large risk of SSB falling below Blim.Although a 15% variation in TAC constraint was not explored in combination with a progressive reduction in F, the simulations that were undertaken indicate that TAC variations were within the range of year-to-year variations that occurred in the past.STECF further notes that although progressively reducing fishing mortality by 10% annually until Fmax is reached is conditional on the correctness of the assumptions for the early years of the projection and the lack of any implementation error.Therefore STECF advises that in reality, progressive annual reductions in F well in excess of 10% will probably be required to reach Fmax.Bay of Biscay soleSTECF notes that Fmax for this stock is well defined at 0.20 with acceptable variability between years (0.02 for the last 5 years). In the absence of any specific management objective, STECF proposes Fmax as a target reference point for a long-term management strategy.SSB for Bay of Biscay sole in 2004 is estimated to be lower then Bpa and fishing mortality in 2004 is estimated to be at about Fpa. However, status quo fishing mortality (average over 2000-2004) is above Flim. Therefore measures to reduce fishing mortality and increase biomass in the short term are desirable.Maintaining fishing at status quo fishing mortality would bring SSB further down to a level where the population dynamics are unknown. STECF notes that this is a high-risk strategy and does not recommend it.Simulations suggest that the stock can sustain landings at a level, similar to the 2005 TAC. Since median SSB is predicted to maintain SSB below Bpa, this strategy is not compatible with the precautionary approach.STECF recommends that taking into account the precautionary approach, in order to ensure that SSB reaches Bpa in the short term; a significant reduction in F is required. In the longer-term subsequent gradual but less severe F reductions towards Fmax might be more acceptable.STECF notes that there are no options presented with realistic implementation error that result in achieving Fmax within 10 years. STECF considers that it cannot recommend an appropriate minimum annual reduction in F as part of a sustainable HCR.Anglerfish in Divisions VIIIc and IXa.As anglerfish are caught in a mixed fishery with Hake, Megrim, Norway Lobster and other species, Recovery Plans of Southern Hake and Iberian Norway lobster stocks is expected to have some impact on the anglerfish catches.A non-equilibrium production model (ASPIC) is used as assessment tool. It is apparent that fishing mortality has been over Fmsy for the whole data series and SSB shows a decrease since the beginning of the time series with recent values at about 50% of Bmsy. The assessment indicates that a 57% reduction in fishing mortality is required to bring F at Fmsy. The ASPIC model is not a good estimator of short-term changes in F and SSB, hence STECF is uncertain that the implied recent changes in F have been reliably estimated.Several evaluations were undertaken, changing fishing mortality and varying the input parameters for projections covering a 50-year period.Maintaining fishing at status quo fishing mortality SSB is predicted to continue to decline further below Bmsy and would bring SSB further down into unknown population dynamics and therefore not recommended by STECF as an appropriate management strategy.Simulations indicate that in a “most optimistic” reducing F-scenario, there is a 50% probability that the decline in SSB will be reversed only in the next 2-7 years and that SSB is not expected to reach Bmsy within three decades.With no fishing after 2005, biomass will increase at around 10%, 20% or 30% depending on the assumed input parameter and will reach Bmsy level in 2013-2012-2011 respectively.Given the uncertainties in input parameters used for simulation and the current status of anglerfish in VIIIc-IXa, STECF strongly recommends that a substantial reduction in fishing mortality is needed as soon as possible. STECF notes that even with zero catches of anglerfish in VIIc-IXa after 2005, there is less than a 50% probability of achieving Bmsy by 2011.Given the current state of the stock and the absence of clear objectives relating to the desired rate of stock recovery, STECF is unable to advise on an appropriate long-term management strategy.STECF notes that regulating F with days at sea for static gears is unlikely to be an effective instrument. Anglerfish in VIIIc-IXa are taken in about equal amounts by static gears and trawl fisheries.ReferencesICES, 2006a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Hake, Monk and Megrim. ICES CM 2006/ACFM:01.ICES. 2006b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks. ICES CM 2006/ACFM: 03.BISEAU, 2005 Working document to the 2005 Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Demersal Stocks - Effect of the Cod closure (ICES rectangles 30E4, 31E4, 32E3) in the Celtic Sea on the fishing behaviour.Mixed FisheriesSTECF was asked the following:STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRST-05-02 (17-21 October, 2005) which compiled recent data on demersal mixed fisheries, identified stocks, areas and fleets where there are significant mixed catches and estimated catches for 2006.backgroundThe Commission convened a STECF-SGRST mixed fisheries meeting in Ispra (Italy) at the JRC premises during 17-21 October 2005 as a follow up of a series of annual meetings, with the following terms of reference:8.  Obtain and compile all available recent data concerning mixed-species demersal fisheries in Community waters and adjacent areas. The data of specific interest are landings and discards by species and by fleet, where possible disaggregated by age and by number of fish.9.  Review the data compiled in (1) and identify those stocks, areas and fleets where significant technical interactions exist and for which adequate data exist to permit those interactions to be evaluated.10.  For each of the area-fleet-stock groupings identified in (2), calculate catch forecasts for 2006 for the stocks concerned, based on:11.  the most recent ICES assessments12.  ACFM advised catches for 200613.  an appropriate range of assumptions for the factors describing the relative policy weights to be attached to each fish stock, including any particular values that may be requested by the Commission services on receipt of the ICES advice.14.  In support of the above tasks, continue methodological and software development as initiated by this Ad Hoc Working Group since 2002.The main conclusions and STECF comments and recommendations are presented below.STECF Comments and RecommendationsSTECF agrees with the findings presented in the report of October 2005 STECF-SGRST meeting on mixed fisheries and has drawn the following conclusions and recommendations:15.  STECF notes that sampling of catch at sea including discards to quantify technical interactions between mixed demersal fisheries is expensive and difficult. This means that sampling coverage tends to be rather limited, and raised estimates of discards are subject to high uncertainty. This is true of all of the discard estimates, and in some cases the discard estimates presented represent the first attempt to use the discard data from some fisheries in an advisory context. Where the coverage is considered adequate to estimate the overall catch compositions of specific fleets these are presented in the sub-group report. However STECF considers that, they only provide an approximate indication of fleet catch compositions.16.  Technical interactions between mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea and Skagerrak, Kattegat and West of Scotland only, are indicated in the report based on estimated catch data including discards.17.  Both the lack of stock specific forecast inputs on stock size and exploitation rates and considerable concern regarding incomplete fleet specific catch data including discards prevented meaningful analytical mixed fisheries forecasts for the management areas North Sea and Skagerrak, Eastern Channel, Kattegat, Eastern and Western Baltic, West of Scotland, Irish Sea, Porcupine Bank, Celtic Sea, Bay of Biscay and around the Iberian Peninsula.18.  All mixed fisheries scenarios for the North Sea and Skagerrak that attempt to balance the ICES advice for 2006 of 0-TAC for cod and a 0.68 F-multiplier for plaice, indicate that stringent cuts in fleet-specific fishing mortality are required across the board. Such overall cuts imply that the fishing possibilities as advised under precautionary single species boundaries would have to be severely reduced. STECF considers that the fleet landings and discard information and specific stock parameters are too imprecise to provide MTAC runs that are an acceptable basis for management advice.ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COD RECOVERY PLANSTECF was asked the following:STECF should deliver an opinion based on the conclusions of subgroup meetings SGRST-05-01 (13-17 June 2005) and SGRST-05-4 (19-21 September 2005) which aimed to (a) identify the location and season of the most important fishable concentrations of cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak, eastern Channel, Kattegat, Baltic Sea, west of Scotland, Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea (b) review the current system for the management of fishing effort (Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005) in the context of the cod recovery plan (Regulation 423/2004) (c) evaluate systems feasible for management of fishing effort in the context of a multi-annual management plan for the cod stocks in the Baltic Sea.BackgroundSTECF notes that the objectives of the cod recovery plan are rebuilding targets related to SSB increases, and the maintenance of fishing mortality below precautionary levels. Unfortunately these objectives were not embodied within the Terms of Reference of these SGRST meetings. SGRST’s terms of reference included a request to review of “the current system for the management of fishing effort (Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005) in the context of the cod recovery plan (Regulation 423/2004).”STECF considers that the effectiveness of the cod recovery plan is best evaluated with reference to the current status of cod recovery stocks. STECF considerations of the current status of cod stocks are given by the SGRST in the Stock Status Review (SGRST-05-04)STECF commentsUnder the present term of reference STECF was asked to base its opinion on the reports of the SGRST meetings 05-01 and 05-04. The following STECF comments on the effectiveness of the cod recovery plans consider the sub-group’s discussion of effort limitation.Effort limitation was introduced in “cod recovery” areas as a mechanism for achieving desired reductions in fishing mortality. These effort regulations limited the days that vessels of different categories may spend at sea but did not specify how these limitations related to previous levels of effort exerted. Furthermore, the introduction of days at sea restrictions was not accompanied by clearly defined objectives for the reduction of effort, nor for fishing mortality, and the relationship between effort and fishing mortality remains unclear. The SGRST review of the efficacy of effort regulations was therefore complicated by the lack of stated objectives of the regulations in terms of intended fishing mortality reductions.Trends in effort for the main fleets exploiting codThe SGRST summarised recent trends in nominal effort (kW days) by the main fleets:-  For the west of Scotland effort data were reported for the whole of Division VIa rather than for the area within which effort is regulated. SGRST was therefore unable to evaluate changes in effort exerted by regulated gears to the west of Scotland.-  In the Irish Sea, there has been an overall decline of 19% from 2000-2004 in the effort exerted by vessels using 70-99mm meshes. From 2000-2003 the nominal effort of demersal trawlers using ≥100mm mesh increased. In 2004 the effort reported for this category declined by 19% relative to 2000 (38% relative to 2002). There is some evidence since 2002 of a transfer of effort from trawls using ≥100 mm mesh to 70-99mm mesh. The nominal effort in 2004 of beam trawlers using ≥ 80mm mesh has decreased by 15% and 35% compared to 2000 and 2002, respectively.-  In the North Sea and Skagerrak, the total nominal effort for all demersal gears decreased between 2000 and 2004 by 21% (15% between 2002 and 2004). Demersal trawlers using ≥100mm mesh showed the greatest decline in effort (43% since 2000, 35% since 2002), while the effort of demersal trawlers using 70-99mm mesh increased by 54% and 12% over the same periods. Between 2000 and 2004 nominal effort of beam trawlers using ≥ 80mm mesh declined by 25% (14% between 2002 and 2004).-  In the Eastern Channel, total nominal effort increased between 2000 and 2004 by 22%, and decreased between 2002 and 2004 by 3%. Demersal trawlers using 70-99mm mesh accounted for most of the fishing effort, and this increased by 14% between 2000 and 2004 and decreased by 3% during 2002-2004.-  In the Kattegat, total nominal effort decreased by 27% during the period 2000 to 2004 (16% between 2002 and 2004). Effort of demersal trawlers using ≥100mm mesh decreased by 79% whilst that of demersal trawlers using 70-99mm mesh decreased by 22% between 2000 and 2004.STECF notes the SGRST conclusion that effort regulations have provided an incentive for some vessels previously using >100mm mesh demersal trawls to switch to smaller mesh gears, thus claiming a higher number of days-at-sea. Under EC Regulation No. 850/1998 these vessels are also required to target either Nephrops or anglerfish, megrim, and whiting, with various catch and bycatch composition limits.The SGRST findings of minimal decreases / increases in the effort of trawlers using 70-99mm mesh and simultaneous decreases in the effort of ≥100mm mesh demersal trawlers indicate an overall reduction in the mesh size used in demersal fisheries. Adherence to catch composition regulations required when using 70-99mm mesh would result in high-grading and discarding of cod and other species. The SGRST report provides evidence of discarding of cod, and other demersal species, particularly in the 70-99mm mesh category.The SGRST was also provided with information on the control and enforcement of effort regulations (Commission’s evaluation report: Cod recovery verification programme 2004, Working Document 9 to SGRST-05-01). The report considers that the actual reduction in terms of fishing effort by the main fleets is likely to have been modest, that high-grading and mis-declaring of cod was a common practice during 2004 and that landings composition regulations of the regulated gears were poorly enforced.STECF conclusions and recommendationsSTECF draws the following conclusions from the SGRST report:-  high-grading, discarding and mis-declaring of cod will compromise the intended impact of effort management,-  current exploitation rates remain excessive in the context of the cod recovery plan.Given these conclusions STECF considers that effort controls, as currently formulated in Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005, have not, and are unlikely to satisfy the objectives of the cod recovery regulation.Harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and actions for 2006STECF was asked the following:To deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the ad hoc working group ADHOC-05-03 which aimed to (a) evaluate whether the current HCR for sand eel in the North Sea and Skagerrak are suitable or need to be changed (b) determine what actions shall be envisaged for 2006 on the basis of the ACFM advice and considering that Council Regulation n.1147/2005 of July 2005 has prohibited sand eel fishing until the end of 2005 on the basis of the agreed HCR; (c) assess what level of monitoring fishing (sentinel fishing) shall be allowed in 2006 with a view of monitoring the 2005 recruitment strength in case that a 0 TAC or a very low level of fishing effort need to be established for 2006.Harvest control rule for sand eel in North Sea and Skagerrak and actions for 2006STECF was asked the following:To deliver an opinion based on the outcome of the ad hoc working group ADHOC-05-03 which aimed to (a) evaluate whether the current HCR for sand eel in the North Sea and Skagerrak are suitable or need to be changed (b) determine what actions shall be envisaged for 2006 on the basis of the ACFM advice and considering that Council Regulation n.1147/2005 of July 2005 has prohibited sand eel fishing until the end of 2005 on the basis of the agreed HCR; (c) assess what level of monitoring fishing (sentinel fishing) shall be allowed in 2006 with a view of monitoring the 2005 recruitment strength in case that a 0 TAC or a very low level of fishing effort need to be established for 2006.Review of ad hoc sand eel WGSTECF reviewed the report of the ad-hoc working group on sand eel, which met at short notice for 3 days running concurrently with the STECF plenary meeting. STECF acknowledges that the timing in relation to the STECF plenary meeting has prevented the report from undergoing the usual process of self-review and that the short notice reduced the ability of the group to do justice to the ToRsThe ad-hoc group met principally to evaluate a range of potential harvest control rules (HCRs) including the Commission’s current HCR. The group was also tasked with compiling information regarding the ecosystem requirements for sand eel as a food source. The only analytical assessment of sand eel consumption available to the group was from the ICES study group on multi-species assessment in the North Sea (SGMSNS) which, using MSVPA, estimates average consumption of at least 1.7 million tonnes. This estimate does not include consumption by seals, cetaceans and most non-commercial fish species.For the purpose of HCR evaluation, the group used new software, which is an extension of the SMS (Stochastic Multi-Species) model. The projection framework follows the STPR3 approach, which has previously been used by ICES (AGLTA). The SMS HCR implementation makes use of half-annual time steps, which is applied for the sand eel assessment. Essentially the HCR is applied to “observed” or “perceived” stock numbers and translated into a TAC, which is subsequently taken from the true population. Uncertainty enters the system as observation noise, recruitment variation and implementation error. The HCR evaluation framework has further options to further refine HCRs in terms of limiting inter-annual change in TAC or F, which were not explored by the group but are potentially useful options for managers to consider.Management of North Sea sand eel is particularly problematic due to the fishery being principally on the 1-group whilst there is no reliable assessment estimate of this year-class at the time of the December Council to assist TAC setting. Currently the Commission uses an in-year monitoring system in the first 17 weeks of the year to estimate the size of the 1-group and subsequently enact management. Within the HCR evaluation model it was assumed that the fishery in the part year before a management decision is reached operates with a fixed F of 0.1. Historical performance of the in-year estimation of the 1-group indicates a CV of 35%, whilst the observation uncertainty from the assessment of other age groups is assumed to be 25%. Recruitment was generated from a hockey-stick stock-recruit relationship parameterised from historical assessments and a fixed inflexion point of 430kt (Blim ). One of the group’s ToRs was to investigate whether there were grounds for changing the value of Blim . However there was no new information to suggest that changes were warranted.A range of HCRs was evaluated, including the Commission’s current HCR as well as use of a fixed TAC and target SSBs.The use of a fixed TAC as a management tool would do away with the need for the in-year estimation of the 1-group. In the long term (10 years) a TAC of around 200-300kt would ensure that SSB would be below Blim with a <5% probability. The probability of being below Blim in 2007 is around 65% due to the current poor state of the sand eel stock.The in-year estimation of the 1-group permits the fishery to take, around 500kt (long term average) whilst complying with the SSB<Blim<5% condition. The HCR currently employed by the Commission implies frequent closure of the fishery immediately after the in-year estimation. Another HCR, using Bpa (600kt) as a target SSB for the following year results in a lower probability of closure whilst still complying with the SSB<Blim< 5% condition. However, use of Bpa as a target implies that true SSB is <Bpa about 35% of the time. The use of an HCR based on an SSB target results in a lower probability of being below Blim in 2007 compared to the Commission’s current HCR.In order to investigate the performance of HCRs in the event of lowered recruitment, scenarios were run where mean recruitment was 50% of the historical value. Under this scenario the F=0.1 inflicted by the monitoring fishery is such that the probability of being below Blim is well in excess of the 5% limit. Another scenario, with a hockey stick SSB/R relation and an inflection point at the 25 percentile of the historical values, showed a probability that true SSB is <Bpa at less than 5% of the time. Long-term yield for this scenario was about 500kt.All of the HCRs evaluated by the group give a high probability of SSB in 2007 being less than Bpa, even with a minimal F of 0.1 as inflicted by the monitoring fishery. WGNSSK, using a short-term deterministic forecast with 25th percentile recruitment suggested that and F of 0.2 would permit the stock to be over Bpa in 2007. The difference between these results are due to the model used, SMS being more pessimistic regarding the current stock status than the seasonal XSA adopted by WGNSSK. In addition, the SMS simulation uses the hockey stick SSB/R relation, which with the present low SSB produces a low recruitment.The minimum escapement implied by the use of a target SSB rule does not directly address the in-year ecosystem requirements for 0 and 1-group sand eel. Resolving this issue is not a straightforward exercise and requires further work.The group were asked to comment on the level of monitoring fishery required for reliable estimation of the incoming year-class. The group has previously reported that a minimum of 100 biological samples, covering the main sand eel fishing grounds is required. The monitoring fishery is currently market driven in terms of effort and location, subject to a maximum effort cap of KW days for the North Sea as a whole. There was no information available to determine appropriate effort levels at finer spatial subdivisions. The group recommends that the current effort cap remains in force as a means of preventing excessive F before the strength of the incoming year-class can be evaluated.STECF comments and recommendations.Long-term considerationsThe ad-hoc group presented a number of HCRs and scenarios most of which perform similarly in terms of probability of being above Blim and long-term yield. The main difference between the scenarios is the inter-annual variability in yield. Without further guidance from managers regarding long-term objectives for the stock and fishery, STECF cannot recommend any one HCR over another. The signal from the Danish fishing industry is however a preference for a more stable yield and capacity reduction. In the long-term, an HCR based upon a target SSB may perform better in terms of stability of yield than the Commission’s current HCR, however the outcome is highly sensitive to the target SSB chosen. Furthermore, ecosystem considerations, including predator requirements for sandeel, need to be taken into account in determining an appropriate target SSB.Options for 2006The short-term prognosis for the sandeel stock is uncertain and highly dependent upon the strength of the incoming year-class. ICES advice for 2006 is to achieve Bpa by 2007. STECF notes that there is a real possibility that even in the absence of fishing in 2006, SSB in 2007 will not reach Bpa.There is currently no alternative to the use of fishery data for either assessment of North Sea sandeel or the estimation of the incoming year-class strength. Unless managers are willing to enter a phase of total uncertainty regarding North Sea sandeel stock status, a monitoring fishery at the start of the 2006 is a prerequisite despite the risk of preventing the stock reaching Bpa in 2007. However STECF notes that in the longer term, exploiting sandeel at F= 0.1, (estimated mortality of the monitoring fishery) poses little risk to the stock.STECF therefore recommends that the in-year estimation of the 1-group continues in 2006.STECF further recommends the maintenance of the current cap on effort (40% of the total effort deployed in 2004) at least until the decision on a HCR for 2006 is agreed and implemented by managers.STECF recommends that managers decide on an appropriate target SSB for 2007 that is not less than Bpa (600,000 t). Pending the estimated size of the 2005 year-class following the monitoring fishery, the total catch for 2006 should not result in a predicted SSB in 2007 that is below the agreed target.STECF stress that all of the above recommendations are conditional on management action being taken immediately following the evaluation of the monitoring fishery and implementation of the HCR.FISHING EFFORT FOR VESSELS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECOVERY OF CERTAIN STOCKSSTECF received three communications from elements of the North Sea fishing industry: two from Dutch Fishery Sector and one from Scottish Fishermen’s Federation via the North Sea RAC. These are listed as items 1.2.6, 1.2.7 and 1.2.8 in the Terms of reference. Since they are inter-related, these are considered here under sections 3.7.1, 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.In considering each of these proposals STECF was cognisant of the following issues:19.  STECF welcomes proposals from the industry to improve the efficacy of effort regulation and considers such proposals to be a positive development. Any measures that have the support of the industry are more likely to be successful than measures imposed by regulatory authorities.20.  Effort controls, as currently formulated in Annex IVa of Regulation 27/2005, have not, and are unlikely to satisfy the objectives of the cod recovery regulation (See response to ToR 2.d in Section 3.5)21.  Despite this misgiving, STECF considers that the concept of regulating days at sea is probably the most effective method in place for controlling effort in fisheries and therefore welcomes any measures that reinforce or increase the effectiveness of this measure. STECF does not support measures that may increase fishing effort in fisheries that impact on depleted stocks.22.  STECF recognises that fisheries that exploit several stocks and/or discard add complexity to fisheries management. STECF welcomes any measures that improve species- and size-selectivity in catches so that fisheries may reduce their impact on non-target species and reduce discards of target species. STECF considers that measures that increase discards and catches of non-target species should be discouraged.23.  Increased segmentation of regulated gear categories potentially creates control, enforcement, implementation and monitoring difficulties.STECF concludes that a comprehensive review of effort regulations is required. STECF considers that proposals such as those received from the industry should be considered in the context of such a review. Therefore STECF recommends that the Commission convenes a series of expert working groups under the auspices of STECF to review Effort Regulations, with terms of reference that include the following:-  Define appropriate objectives for the effort regulations,-  Evaluate the effectiveness of existing effort regulations with respect to these objectives,-  Consider proposals for amendments to the regulations that:-  improve effectiveness in the context of recovery of depleted stocks, and,-  are consistent with management requirements of other stocks.-  improve species- and size-selectivity in catches so that fisheries reduce their impact on non-target species and reduce discardsTherefore, in this report STECF only presents preliminary responses to the industry proposals.Proposal by the Dutch fishery sector regarding the position of beam trawlers in the Cod Recovery Plan (Annex IVa of Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22nd December 2004).STECF was asked the following:STECF should check, consider and give an opinion on the request from the Dutch fishermen forwarded by the North Sea RAC to remove beam trawlers with V nets from Annex IVa of the 2005 TAC (Council Regulation 27/2005 of 22 December 2004) and to regulate the effort of this fleet within the scope of a plaice management plan.Preliminary STECF responseSTECF welcomes the increased exchange of ideas on the revision of the days-at-sea regime in Annex IVa. The document submitted by the Dutch Fisheries Organisation describes problems in the days-at-sea regulation related to annex IVa and vessels that use beam trawls. It argues that proportionality (in terms of cod by-catch of a fleet) was an inherent part of the formation of the days-at-sea regulation, and that a “level playing field” has not been applied to those affected by the regulation or its implementation. It suggests that the Dutch beam trawl fleet is inappropriately listed in the annex. It also welcomes the European Commission offer, in its non-paper “Development of effort management”, to open discussions on the amendment of the restriction on days at sea regime, Annex IVa of the TAC and Quota Regulation 27/2005.STECF considers that the principle concerns of the Dutch fishing sector are:24.  The definition of the 5% by-catch of cod within annex IVa (paragraph 6d)25.  Whether the application of annex IVa with regard to the by-catch is consistent across all fleets26.  Whether annex IVa covers both the cod and the plaice recovery plansThe document also suggests that the Dutch beam trawler fishing fleet is willing to voluntarily cooperate in Real Time Closures for cod, to expand on its own discards study for cod, and is willing to take along observers on board, as a contribution to the recovery of cod stocks.The industry proposal concludes that the beam trawler fleets with V nets with 80-99 mm and V nets with mesh ≥100 mm have caught by-catches of less than 5% cod since before the reference year of Annex IVa (2002). The time series of Dutch beam trawl nominal hp days (source LEI, The Netherlands) does suggest a sizable reduction in effort in the fleet, but this does not account for year on year increase in efficiency of the fleet. The SGRST (cod recovery) meeting in 2005 showed that both the Dutch fleet of beam trawlers (>=80mm mesh) and total North Sea beam trawl fleet had a reduction in effort of 25% (in terms of kw days-at-sea) between 2000 and 2004.Issues relating to the methods used for estimating the numbers of cod discarded by fleets are described in the SGRST report. STECF notes that there is poor precision in the estimation of discarded cod in many fleets. However, discounting the discarding of cod, the records of landings of cod in 2003 and 2004 by the beam trawl fleet were still sizable (5370 tonnes in 2003 and 3754 tonnes in 2004, making 18% and 14% respectively of the total international landings of cod (Table 4.3.1, STECF Mixed Fisheries Report (SGRST-05-02),. In terms of weight estimated from landings alone, cod appears to have made up less than 5% of the total landings of the Dutch V net beam trawlers in 2000-2003 (data source VIRIS, Dutch Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Fisheries Directorate).STECF notes that Table I of paragraph 6(a) of Annex IVa of Council Regulation 27.2005, restricts beam trawlers using a mesh size greater than or equal to 80 mm to 13 days per month. A derogation of 14 days (i.e. the allocation of an additional day), which according to Table II in paragraph VId ofAnnex IVa of Council Regulation 27/2005, may be allocated to beam trawlers using meshes of at least 120mm, that on the basis of their 2002 track record, it can be shown that they caught less than 5% cod. STECF also notes that for demersal towed gears other than beam trawls a derogation to have no restriction on the number of fishing days is only allowed if on the basis of their 2002 track record it can be shown that they caught less than 5% of each of cod, sole and plaice.Although STECF has no documented explanation as to the basis for Annex IVa, it appears that it is designed to impose days at sea restrictions on those fishing vessels that on the basis of their 2002 track record have been shown to have a landing composition that contains at 5% or more of cod or for some fleet categories 5% or more of each of cod, plaice or sole.STECF wishes to stress that in terms of reducing the mortality on cod or on other stocks, a rule that imposes days at sea restriction on individual vessels, based on the proportion of cod in their overall landings is unlikely to be an effective measure, since it is the mortality on the stock that is generated by the fleet as a whole, that must be managed. Furthermore, the proportion of the international TAC landed by Member States’ fleets, is largely determined by the quota available to those fleets. STECF also wishes to stress that basing effort restrictions solely on the proportions in landed catch, takes no account of the actual fishing mortality rate being exerted by those fleets.In the case of the Netherlands’ beam trawl fleet, the reported landings of cod for 2003 and 2004 accounted for 14% and 18% of the international landings of cod from the North Sea and Skagerrak. Hence, STECF concludes that the Netherlands’ beam trawl fleet is a significant contributor to the fishing mortality on North Sea cod and as such, should be subject to the effort restrictions that are agreed under the cod recovery plan.Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005- Fisheries with demersal trawls other than beam trawls from the Dutch Fisheries Organisation.STECF was asked the following:STECF should check, consider and give an opinion on the request from the Dutch fishermen forwarded by the North Sea RAC to (1) restructure days at sea in Annex IVa for demersal trawls other than beam trawls and (2) split the days-at-sea, now defined as consecutive period of 24 hours, in two 12 hour periods.Preliminary STECF responseSTECF welcomes discussion with the fishing industry and the increased exchange of ideas on the revision of the days-at-sea regime in Annex IVa. The document submitted by the Dutch Fisheries Organisation describes problems in the days-at-sea regulation related to annex IVa and vessels that use demersal trawls, and proposes changes to the regulation and annex. It argues that the current effort restriction regime is counterproductive, which may be the case, in that the spatial distribution of the fleets has changed due to the restriction of effort and the regime favours the use of smaller meshes. It calls for more equity (with proportionality) in the application of the days-at-sea to those fleets with low by-catches of cod, a clear distinction to be made between the role of annex IVa in terms of the protection of cod and the protection of plaice and the creation of a mechanism to encourage the use of larger mesh sizes.The specific proposals are:27.  Restructuring of Annex IVa for demersal trawls other than beam trawls are shown in Table 5-528.  Redefinition of a day-at-sea into two 12-hour periods (currently defined in Annex IVa, Paragraph 3 as a consecutive period of 24 hours).Table 5-5 allocations for demerasl trawls other than beam trawlsCategory | Description | Days-at-sea |Allocation |4a | demersal trawls* using mesh of ≥120mm | 9 |4e-1 | demersal trawls* using mesh 70-99mm | 18** |4e-2 | demersal trawls* using mesh 100-119mm | 21 |* Other than beam trawls ** Based on proposals by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for the Nephrops fishery, which are currently under discussion in the NSRAC |STECF does not have the information available at present to assess the impact of the current proposals, nor their utility. Advice on alternatives can only be given after closer analysis of the effectiveness of the current regime and a full evaluation of the influence of the new proposals.STECF considers that moving to a 12-hour reporting period will result in an increase in the amount of effort deployed in terms of fishing hours without any apparent change in the number of days fished. Furthermore, STECF considers that such an amendment may also result in increased fishing pressure on fishing grounds close to ports.Any proposed change to Annex IVa should result in a decrease in fishing effort and not result in either the status quo, or an increase in fishing mortality.Proposal for amendment of Annex IVa of the EU TAC and quota regulation 27/2005. SSF / North Sea RAC proposal for effort, selectivity and enforcement changes.STECF was asked the following:STECF is requested to comment on the proposal from the Scottish Fisheries Federation forwarded from the North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) for improving the basis of target species ( Nephrops ) management and enhancing selectivity in the finfish by-catch in small mesh fisheries in the Northern North Sea, evaluating where possible the biological and economic effects of the measures proposed.Summary of proposals:STECF received the following proposed changes to the regulation:-  Tighten effort control-  Reduce flat rate days-at-sea allocation for vessels in the mixed Nephrops fishery (the 80-99mm trawl, 4e, category) from 21 to 18 days:-  Within that, provide incentives to use more selective gear – for those using a mesh size of at least 95mm, number of days increased to 21,-  For vessels with a track record of less than 5% cod pre-2002, derogation of unlimited days only available if using 95mm mesh size.-  More selective gear-  4mm twine single nets (Current Scottish Legislation)-  Inclusion of a 120mm square mesh panel at least 5m in length-  Data collection-  Observer programme to provide detailed biological information on Nephrops catch and by-catch species,-  Scientific tally book scheme providing spatially resolved information on catch and effort.-  Enforcement-  Reduce threshold for prior notification to a designated landing port notification to 500 kg of codGeneral comments and observationsSTECF notes three elements to the proposal: (1) improved enforcement, (2) improved selectivity in Nephrops fisheries, and (3) changes to effort through changes in days at sea regulations. In the preliminary analysis conducted by STECF each of these topics has been examined separately. In the case of both selectivity and days at seas changes, STECF was not able to predict realisable effort effects for these changes but has provided some information on potential benefits or potential changes. The realisation of potential benefits depends on the extent to which these changes are taken up by the fishermen, though STECF considers that measures that have the support of the industry are more likely to be successful than measures imposed by regulatory authorities.SFF/ NSRAC Proposed Enforcement MeasuresSTECF is unable to advise on the consequences of the change in enforcement but supports increased monitoring of cod catches in order to more accurately estimate cod mortality.SFF / NSRAC Proposed Selectivity measuresSTECF welcomes the proposed changes to the selectivity of the fishing gears and has evaluated the potential benefits of these measures through simulations of effects on cod and haddock populations in terms of stock size, landings and discards.The North Sea cod and haddock fisheries are modelled using 3 fleets:29.  the Scottish otter trawl fleet using mesh sizes between 80 and 100mm (the Nephrops fleet)30.  the Scottish otter trawl fleet using mesh sizes above 100mm (the whitefish fleet)31.  A third international fleet comprising all other fisheries taking haddock and cod is also modelled.The selectivity and effort applied by both the Scottish whitefish fleet and the international fleet are assumed to remain constant. ‘North Sea’ should be interpreted as meaning ICES sub-area IV and divisions IIIa and VIId for cod and sub-area IV and division IIIa for haddock as these are the areas for which the data are available.The method is based on that described in Kunzlik (2003). Data were obtained from FRS Aberdeen on the landings and discards and weights of haddock and cod at age for individual Scottish gears. Similar disaggregated data by gear at age are available from the STECF database for all the international fisheries in the North Sea. The 2004 values for stock numbers, total fishing mortality, proportion mature and natural mortality are taken from the 2005 WGNSSK Working Group Report or in the case of cod from the trial run in file ado_all04.csv used by the WGNSSK. Recruitment is assumed to be constant and near the average for the last 10 years although this has little effect on the comparative results. The long-term effects of changes assumed to be implemented in 2006 are obtained.Gear optionsTable 5-6documents the mesh and panel combinations tested. A lifting bag is permitted in all cases. The panel must be fitted so that e.g. in option 1, its aft edge is no more than 13m from the codline (the end of the codend). The minimum length of panel is indicated by the range.Table 5-6 Gear options testedCodend MS | Open meshes | Twine | Panel MS | Panel position from codline | Haddock L50 | Cod L50 |Scotland 2004 spec | 80 | 120 | 4s = 4mm single | 90 | 15-18m | 21.9 | 24.5 |Option 1 | 80 | 120 | 4s | 120 | 13-18 | 26.2 | 29.3 |Option 2 | 80 | 120 | 4s | 120 | 6-9 | 28.5 | 31.9 |Option 3 | 95 | 100 | 4s | 120 | 13-18 | 32.0 | 35.8 |The 50% retention lengths are estimated from the model in the STECF Expert Group report (Anon, 2003). It should be noted that the new cases lie outside the range of gears used to develop the model. Data on square mesh panels with a mesh size of 120mm or of 5m length in a position 13-18m from the codline have not been tested. Further selectivity data obtained from gears closer in specification to the proposed measures may be available shortly from Denmark. If these data become available the studies may need to be repeated.Cases to be runTwo scenarios are run. It is first assumed that no technical change is implemented – this is the baseline case. The model is then run again with the technical change implemented. The baseline for the Scottish Nephrops fleet is shown under “Scot 2004 spec” in Table 5-6 and is the gear currently required of Scottish fishermen. It is more selective than under EU regulations as 4mm single twine and a 90mm square mesh panel must be used. It should be noted that the precise specification used as the baseline will not significantly affect the conclusions made in this paper.The gear changes indicated in the above table are applied only to the Scottish Nephrops fleet and the whole of this fleet is assumed to adopt the change. This will give an indication of the magnitude of the effect of each option. All effects are the long-term effects after the measures have been in place for 8 years so that the benefits to the stock as a whole can be seen.General findings for the potential effects of selectivity changes both cod and haddockThe proportion of the total catch of North Sea cod and haddock taken by the Scottish Nephrops fleet is quite small - <5% for cod and <10% for haddock. The proposed measures therefore do not have a significant effect on the total stock size (3% or less) nor consequently on the landings of the Scottish whitefish fleet and other international fleets.The main effects are in the discard rate for the Scottish Nephrops fleet and in some cases on the level of landings by that fleet.Option 1 – Proposal to use 120mm square mesh panel at 13m from the codlineA reduction in haddock discards by the Nephrops fleet of 23% is achieved and of 29% for cod. For haddock this weight of discards saved is equivalent to about 1% of the total haddock catch by all North Sea fleets. For cod it is not significant.Option 2 – Positioning the 120mm panel at 6m from the codlineTrials have been undertaken in Denmark on this particular gear. Square mesh panels have been found to be more effective when they are placed further aft nearer the codline. Discards are the main beneficiary with reductions of about 44% for haddock and 49% for cod. For haddock this weight of discards saved is equivalent to about 1.5% of total haddock catch by all fleets.Option 3 – Proposal to move to 95mm codend mesh size as well as a 120mm panel at 13m from the codlineThis case was proposed as an option to encourage use of a larger mesh size in the Nephrops fishery. In the long term, landings of cod and haddock by the Scottish Nephrops fleet would drop by about 4% and 14% respectively, compared to the levels they would have been with no change in technical measures. Discards of haddock would be reduced by 72% in Scottish Nephrops gears. This weight of discards saved is equivalent to about 2% of the total haddock catch by all North Sea fleet. Discards of cod would be reduced by about 74% but this represents only a very small fraction of the total cod catch.SFF/NS RAC proposed effort restrictions.It is difficult to estimate what the effect of the proposed restrictions will be on individual vessels, because we don't know how each skipper shares their allocation between Nephrops and fish, and so exactly what a vessels allocation is. In addition the data available is on a an ICES rectangle basis for each voyage, and the allocation of time is by whole voyages, so effect of different effort regimes spatially will not be correctly modelled.Current days at sea regulations limit Nephrops trawlers using mesh of 80-99mm to 21 days, while vessels with less than 5% of each of cod, plaice & sole are unlimited in their days.Effort (days absent) by Functional Unit or remaining part of Nephrops Management Areas is tabulated below,( Table 5-7) for the Scottish Nephrops gears TBN and TBNT, as reported in the Scottish Fisheries Information Network (FIN) system.Table 5-7 absent from Fisheries Information Network (FIN) system.Days absent, TBN & TBNT |North Sea |North Sea |historical observed days |Month |historical observed days |Month |Situation 2004: | 604 | 1,011 | 674 | 252 | 1,685 |Fuel price +25%: | 755 | 953 | 582 | 159 | 1534 |Fuel price +50%: | 907 | 894 | 489 | 67 | 1,383 |Fuel price +100%: | 1,209 | 777 | 304 | -119 | 1,081 |In many countries fishermen are paid on share basis, often a percentage of the value of landings after costs of fuel have been subtracted. For the 64 fleet segments, the average share amounts to 39%. Consequently, when fuel price rises, part of the expenses is born by the crews.The table shows that these fleets have spent in 2004 approximately 600 million EUR on fuel and at the same time realized an aggregate profit of 252 million EUR. The fuel prices were in October 2005 approximately 60% higher than the price at the end of 2004. If the fuel price would for a prolonged period of time increase by 50%, than the crew share would deteriorate by 11% and the gross cash flow by 28%. The aggregate net profit would still be slightly positive. This positive result is however largely attributable to the performance of the 6 segments of the Italian fleet. Most other segments would not only face a net loss but also their gross cash flow would be close to zero, so that they would not be able to meet their debt obligations.STECF conclusions of the economic impact of the ACFM advice for 2006When the STECF, in an overall view, is considering the fuel prices, the current situation in fisheries as described in the AER, and the results of the EIAA model calculations, it is obvious that the fleet segments targeting demersal species with towed gears could be in a serious economic situation in 2005 and this state might be made worse during 2006 due to major restrictions on fishing due to the state of certain stocks. The segments using passive gears will be less touched by the high fuel prices but they could also be affected by the stock situation. The purse seiners targeting pelagic species will not be affected to the same magnitude but the trawlers will be seriously influenced by the fuel price. The STECF also has some doubts if such a substantial decrease of the crew share, as indicated in the table is socially possible. If there will not be any substantial price increases, many enterprises could face bankruptcy due to this combination of factors. Trying to curb this trend by way of input subsidies does not address the underlying fundamental structure of the fisheries such as over-capitalization and extensive fuel consumption in towed-gear fisheries. However this situation might facilitate the necessary re-structuring of the European fishing fleet and hasten the recovery of many critical stocks. Though many fishermen will face unemployment.Finally it is observed that in the Mediterranean areas, where there is no agreement for changes to the present fisheries management setup, economic costs can exist as a consequence of the continuation of the present situation. Given the absence of concrete proposals these hidden costs are not being evaluated at present by the STECF.ASSESS MEMBER STATES' PROGRESS IN ACHIEVING A SUSTAINABLE BALANCE BETWEEN FISHING CAPACITY AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIESSTECF was given the following Term of reference:The Commission, on the basis of the data in the Community Fleet Register and information contained in the Member States’ annual reports, has prepared a summary annual report and presented it to the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries on 29 July 2005. STECF should provide its opinion on this report.BackgroundArticle 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002[1] and Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2004[2] require Member States to submit to the Commission, before 1 May each year, a report on their efforts during the previous year to achieve a sustainable balance between fleet capacity and available fishing opportunities. On the basis of these reports and the data in the Community Fishing Fleet Register[3], the Commission produced for the year 2004, a summary[4] which was presented to the ‘Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries’ (STECF) and the ‘Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture’. This report presents the considered opinion of the STECF on the Commission’s Summary Report.STECF Comments and RecommendationsSTECF notes that the Commission’s report is presented in two main parts; one describing the rules governing the management of capacity and the information that member states are required to submit to the Commission, and a second describing the development of Member States’ fleet capacities during 2004.STECF is of the opinion that the aim of achieving a balance between fishing capacity and resource availability is crucial for the long-term viability of the EU fleets. Continued over-capacity and over capitalisation compared to the economic optimum[5] will tend to lead and maintain over-exploitation, which is likely to result in unsustainable fisheries.STECF notes that in their National Reports submitted to the Commission, Member States emphasised the implementation of national fleet management rather than the assessment of the balance between fishing fleet capacity and available fishing opportunities. In terms of physical capacity the EU fleet reduced by 69,500 GT and 321,000 kW over the years 2003 and 2004, representing net reduction of 3.7 % of the total tonnage and 4.7 % of power of the EU-15 fleet. Furthermore, STECF also notes that in new Member States, starting from 1 May 2004, fleet capacity has been reduced by 7,000 GT and 18,500 kW. This represents a reduction of 3.1 % in the total tonnage and 3.3 % of Power for the fleets of new Member States.The report from the Commission points out that there has been an improvement in compliance with the regulation by Member States and that the degree of non-compliance is rather small. If this is the case then by definition, the agreed targets to reduce overcapacity must also have been rather small and in the opinion of the STECF, far too small to effect the reductions in exploitation rates required for the majority of stocks exploited by the EU fishing fleets. In economical terms this situation is clearly reflected in the Annual Economic Report 2005, in which it is shown that most of the European fishing fleets operate at negative or zero profit level.While the reported reductions in GT and kW represent an attempt to move towards a balance between fishing capacity and available fishing opportunities, reductions in physical capacity alone, are insufficient to achieve this objective. Not only are the reported reductions rather trivial, compared to the existing imbalance between fishing opportunities and fleet capacity, to achieve such a balance, there is a need to reduce the EU fleet’s capability to catch fish, and not simply its physical capacity.A reduction in physical capacity alone does not equate to a reduction in the capability to catch fish, since the latter is a function of numerous factors; physical, technological, temporal and economic, each of which can be used by managers to influence exploitation rates according to their objectives.STECF notes that the implied objective of managing the fishing capacity of the EU Fleet, is to achieve a balance between the capacity and available fishing opportunities, it is how the capacity that exists at a particular time is deployed and the availability of fish resources at the same time that will achieve the correct balance.A current overriding objective from a biological perspective is to achieve exploitation rates that are consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield (Fmsy) by 2015. In principle this can be achieved with the existing EU fleet capacity, provided it is deployed in such a way that results in the desired level of fishing mortality. It is how the capacity is deployed that will influence the exploitation rate, and not the physical capacity itself. Hence, taken in isolation, the EU capacity management rules as implemented at present are rather a blunt instrument, which in principle may work against the objectives of fishery managers. Depending on the objectives of the managers, the decisions they take and the degree of compliance with those decisions, the desired balance between exploitation rates and resource availability could be achieved by a large capacity fleet being deployed for a small amount of time or a smaller fleet for a longer amount of time. However sustainable from an ecological perspective, this rather large overcapacity, or underutilisation of resources is from an economical and social perspective unsustainable.From an economic perspective, if the fleet is underutilized (as measured by f.e. days at port, or time spend not fishing, but also in terms of over investment in capacity), this is a measure of overcapacity and economic waste. From an economic point of view the aim should be at maximising the economic resource rent of the fisheries i.e. profits of the fishing fleets. This process of optimisation will result in a most advantageous size of the fleet, i.e. the minimum and efficient capacity to harvest the long-term sustainable stock.(Maximum Economical Yield, MEY; F MEY )If the overriding objective of the EU capacity management rules is simply to reduce the physical capacity of the EU fleet, the rules as they exist, may continue to achieve this. However, it is debatable whether this alone will result in any reduction in the fleets’ capability to catch fish. The time series of capacity measures for different fleets do suggest a sizable reduction in capacity for some fleets, but do not account for year on year increase in fishing capability of the fleet.STECF recommends management objectives to be set for ´manageable units´ i.e. set objectives for those EU fleets that can be managed independently. In addition, it should be taken into account that from a stock assessment perspective (i.e. MSY) and an economic perspective (MEY) and from a governance perspective (i.e. full employment) different sets of objectives can be formulated. STECF therefore recommends that a common set of objectives be established for those EU fleets and fleet segments, for which clear and consistent targets can be set. In addition, STECF suggests that in addition to using biological reference points as indicators for management, additional emphasis should be placed on utilising indicators such as capacity utilisation of the fleet (number of sea days per year deployed per fleet segment in proportion to the maximum number of sea days) and economic indicators such as operating profit margin (net profit relative to gross revenue) or return on capital i.e. profit before interest and depreciation relative to invested capital. Further indicators could be considered e.g. resource rent at the optimum level, break-even revenue in proportion to current revenue. All of these indicators will assist in defining what is meant by balance between resources and exploitation and in defining objectives for management.With clearly stated objectives, fisheries scientists and economists will then be able to evaluate the effects of different management measures that are designed to achieve those objectives and advise on the biological and economic consequences of such measures.ECOSYSTEM APPROACHBy-catch of sea turtles in EU long line fisheries.STECF was asked the following:To review, comment as appropriate and endorse the report prepared by SGRST/SGFEN 05-01 (4-8 July 2005) on this matter, which (a) summarised EU drifting long-line fisheries, (b) assessed the known by-catch of turtles, (c) reviewed data from national rescue centres and (d) assessed knowledge on effectiveness of mitigation measures.STECF observations and commentsSTECF reviewed the report prepared by SGRST/SGFEN 05-01, noting that to collate most of the available information on these issues was a significant task which was further hampered by the unavailability of some experts to attend the meeting As a consequence, most of the information provided by the SGRST/SGFEN report were related to the Mediterranean Sea, resulting in an incomplete and regionalized overview of the EU drifting long-line fleets activities and their turtle by-catch. It is desirable that scientists with a good knowledge of drifting long-line fisheries in distant waters should be convened to fill the existing gaps in our knowledge of these fisheries.STECF notes that several EU drifting long-line vessels usually fish in areas where important concentration of marine turtle species are known to occur.STECF notes that worldwide, seven marine turtle species, Loggerhead ( Caretta caretta) , Green ( Chelonia mydas ), Hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricate ), Kemp´s Ridley ( Lepidochelys kempi ), Olive Ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea ), Flatback ( Natator depressus ) and Leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), are likely to be impacted by the EU drifting long-line fleets..STECF further notes the difficulties encountered in obtaining good descriptions of the EU drifting long-line fleets operating that currently operate in the various fisheries worldwide. A major problem is the inability to obtain information on multipurpose licences that exist in several EU Member States. A similar problem also exists even in international fishery commissions such as ICCAT, where a register of vessels has been already established, but where there is no obligation to specify the fishing gear used. The present EU Data Collection Regulation (EC Reg. 1543/2000) is inadequate to provide this type of information by metier . As a result, SGRST/SGFEN was unable to provide a general figure of the EU drifting long-line fleet as a whole, although information from some EU countries, where data has been obtained from specific research projects was relatively comprehensive.STECF notes that the SGRST/SGRN report provides a useful list of bilateral drifting long-line agreements between the EU and several other countries for the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, STECF shares the concern by SGRST/SGFEN regarding the fact that no data and information from such fisheries was available to the sub-group.STECF notes that the information collated by the Sub-group indicates the large variability of the by-catch rates of marine turtles by sea area and time. However, since the available information not extensive, together with the scant information about the life cycle of the most frequent turtle species encountered, the scope to clearly identify the likely “hot spots” for marine turtle by-catch is rather limited.On this last issue, STECF notes that of the 18 research projects carried out in various EU countries, most of the research effort (11+1) was concentrated in the Mediterranean Sea, the majority of the EU funded projects were co-funded by DG Environment (7), while only one was co-funded by DG FISH. This may explain the limited attention given to the fisheries concerned and the limited spatial coverage of some projects. In addition, while several research projects are still on-going, SGRST/SGFEN found that some experiments on mitigation approaches have been conducted with inappropriate methodologies and as a consequence, their results are not conclusive with regard to their utility and potential effectiveness in mitigating turtle by-catch in the long-line fisheries (e.g.: bait colour, lures, etc.).STECF notes that although information at present is incomplete, several stranding networks and rescue centres are active in EU countries. These activities should be able to provide useful additional information on marine turtles, particularly on the incidental effects of various fishing gears, including surface drifting long-lines. Rescue centres are a very good source of detailed information about the possibility for a turtle to survive after hooking. Rescue centres are also able to increase the survival rate of hooked marine turtles, but their effects on the turtle populations as a whole, are unknown.Regarding trials on mitigation approaches by using circle hooks, the US investigations in the Pacific and the western Atlantic have suggested that the use G-shaped hooks (= circle hooks) above a certain size reduce the by-catches compared to by-catches in fisheries using the traditional Jj-shaped hooks. On basis of the results from the Grand Bank trials, FAO concluded in 2004 that: “(the use of) circle hooks reduce catches of sea turtles (compared to J-hooks)”.However, it also appears that the hook-shape and size based mitigation effects do not seem to be the same for all marine turtle species. Furthermore, the bait species and size also appear to have an influence the by-catch. Another broad overview, recently concluded that the overall effect of circle hooks in reducing by-catch is largely limited to the soft-shelled leatherback turtle.The main conclusions of the available knowledge on these issues, examined by SGRST/SGFEN, are the followings:32.  circle hooks reduce the catch rate of leatherback turtles and hard-shelled turtles, but the effect of bait type and size has not been evaluated.33.  mostly because of mouth size, catch rates of hard-shelled turtles is probably reduced by large hooks, i.e. it is the size of the hooks rather than the shape which influences the by-catch rate of hard-shelled turtles.34.  Experiments have been limited so far only to a very few fisheries and target species; the extrapolation of these preliminary results to all pelagic drifting long-line fisheries is not appropriate.35.  The are indications from experiments that changing from J to Circle hooks may in some instances increase the by-catch of some shark species.The available data about the effects of different bait species and their size are confounded by the effects of different hook size and design. However, from the experiments in the northwest Atlantic, it seems that when using J-hooks switching from using squid to mackerel as bait, reduces the by-catch of both loggerheads and leatherbacks in pelagic drifting long-lines. Change in bait type could affect some specific fisheries. The bait size is another important factor to be taken into account, but this information is often not available.STECF notes that its previous opinion on the use of different circle hooks and baits, reported on SEC(2005)369, is still valid and the consideration reported there can be retained.Trials on mitigation approaches using circle hooks or by setting lines deeper in the water column are currently ongoing. However STECF shares the view of SGRST/SGFEN’s, that further research is still required to better assess the biological and economical effects of a change in fishing technique or fishing strategy on either target species or other species like sharks.STECF RecommendationsDue to the importance of the drifting long-line fisheries for the EU fishery, STECF makes the following recommendations:In view of the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fishery management, the revised Data Collection Regulation, should include the mandatory collection of by-catch data on marine turtles (and other protected species) by observers on board.In future, drifting long-line fisheries should be properly described according to a more appropriate fleet segmentation is required in the revised Data Collection Regulation; basic data on fleets, by gear type and area, should be collected and available for use by STECF or other appropriate bodies.CPUE data from the drifting long-line fishery in all oceans should be collected according to international standards (e.g. ICCAT methodologies); therefore, the EC Data Collection Regulation should be adapted accordingly.EU drifting long-line fleets fishing under EU Bilateral Agreements worldwide, should provide information about their fishing activities and the turtle (and other species) by-catch. Their activity should be properly monitored by on-board observersd, particularly during at least the first year of activity in a newly exploited area. This information should be made available to STECF when necessary.Co-operation among EU scientist working on marine turtle conservation and fisheries should be encouraged, with the purpose to standardised data collection, by using agreed protocols. Participation of EU experts in international commissions dealing with these issues should be also encouraged and supported.Co-funded EC projects and activities dealing with the drifting long-line fishery and the marine turtle by-catch should provide data when specifically requested by STECF, even in a provisional format. These projects should be conducted following scientific methodologies and properly taking into account the scientific literature.Data from turtle rescue centres should be annually reported to EU Member States and made available to the EC when necessary.Further monitoring of EU drifting long-line fisheries worldwide is needed to better assess marine turtle by-catch and population mortality. Research should be carried out over large areas and for consecutive years, in an attempt to identify areas and periods when by-catch rates are significant.Research on possible mitigation measures regarding marine turtle by-catch in drifting long-line fisheries targeting various species, directly tested at sea, should be further encouraged. Such research should involve collaboration between different countries and cover large geographical areas. Research data should provide a comprehensive overview of the catch, including all fish and other species, and detailed technological descriptions of the fishing gears used, setting procedures, hook type and size, and bait type and size.Research on marine turtle population dynamics, including migrations, concentrations and genetics should be encouraged and these data should be made available to STECF when necessary.REVISION OF THE DATA COLLECTION REGULATION TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACHSTECF was asked the following:STECF should deliver an opinion based on the work done by subgroup SGRN-05-03 which recommended the data could be collected to provide information on (a) the spatial and temporal distribution of different fishing activities (b) trends in fish assemblages. (c) impact of fishing on species that are intentionally exploited and on unintended by catch (d) genetic erosion of commercial wild stocks.Review of SGRN reportA group met under SGRN in July 2005 to address this issue. STECF commends the work of the group and welcomes the report. The group identified and prioritised immediate data and research and development needs to support the integration of environmental protection requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), consistent with COM (2002) 185 final and COM (2002) 186 final.STECF comments and recommendationsSTECF draws the following summary from the report:36.  The most rapid and cost-effective progress towards environmental integration is expected to be achieved by the modification and/or development of existing data collection methods, coupled with the introduction of methods not in the existing data collection programme when modification and/or development is not possible.37.  Data are required to support rational and evidence-based decision making. Data needs will depend on the choice of management system that is used to achieve environmental integration. In proposing data needs, the report assumes that management will be guided by indicators, with indicators selected and prioritised to support management of those fishing effects most likely to compromise environmental integration. Data collection requirements follow from the necessity to support the calculation and reporting of indicators.38.  STECF recommends that two types of indicator are needed to support the environmental integration process, indicators of the state of the marine environment and indicators of the pressure that affects state. Understanding and predicting the links between pressure and state is essential if managers are to modify pressure (e.g. manage fishing) to achieve desired states. Pressure may come from sources not directly anthropogenic.39.  STECF recommends classes of indicator for immediate application. These indicators were selected because they would assist with the management of fishing effects most likely to compromise sustainability. These indicators meet previously published criteria. Although an absence of data prevented the application of the indicators.40.  The state indicators recommended by SGRN for immediate application were (1) Abundance of vulnerable fished species and/ or (trends?) in their conservation status in relation to International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), or other appropriate, but yet to be identified criteria, (2) Abundance of vulnerable marine mammals, reptiles and seabirds, (3) Mean size and mean maximum sizes of bottom dwelling fishes, (4) Proportion of sensitive habitats impacted/ protected, (5) Abundance of rare or vulnerable species or habitats and (6) Age and size of maturity of abundant and/ or commercially targeted species. Within regions, the detailed specification for each indicator would depend on the population, species, community or habitat of regional relevance. The associated pressure indicators were (1) spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort and (2) catch and discard rates, with their specifications dependent on the state indicators (as listed above).STECF notes the use of the IUCN criteria alone may be not be appropriate for all marine species.STECF further notes that the following definitions apply to the indicators listed above:Vulnerable - species which show a greater than average (or some other specified point on a distribution) reduction in population size for a given rate of mortality (or other pressure)Mean maximum size (of a community) - [pic]or equivalent for weight where L max j is the maximum length obtained by species j (Linf is often used), and N is the number of individuals of species j.Sensitive habitats - habitats which show a greater than average (or some other specified point on a distribution) rate of degradation in response to a given pressure. It can be considered as the index 1-e-R where R is recovery time to 90% of un-impacted biomass, production or other metric.Rare - species that meet some specified criteria for rarity, such as adult numbers of species j as a proportion of adult numbers of all species or percentage coverage of habitat type j as proportion of coverage of all habitat types.Special interest - of concern to some interest group- be it Government, NGOs, fishermen etc41.  Data requirements to support the (state) indicators were: (1) Identification and quantification of species that are sampled using standard survey methodologies but not systematically recorded, (2) Identification, quantification and ageing of species that are currently sampled and contribute substantially to community biomass or production, (3) Records of species of special interest, (4) Acoustic survey records of specific habitats, (5) Monitoring of relative abundance and distribution of cetaceans, seabirds and reptiles and (6) Sampling benthos. The report identifies how progress with collecting these data could be made in the short term by modifying and developing existing data collection activities. In addition, SGRN recommended that bottom temperature and salinity data should be routinely collected on bottom trawl surveys.STECF interprets “species of special interest” as those covered by habitat directives and international conventions. STECF considers that the data requirement to sample benthos means the identification and monitoring of benthic communities particularly affected by fishing activities. STECF notes that water column temperatures are also collected during other types of survey.42.  Changes to existing data collection procedures are needed to provide fishing effort, catch and discard data to calculate pressure indicators and to support environmental integration. To support environmental integration, VMS data must be freely available for analysis. One of the greatest impediments to progressing current studies of the environmental effects of fishing, and to linking pressure and state indicators, is the non availability of international VMS data. STECF notes, that considering that many stocks are exploited by more than one member state, access to the disaggregated VMS data is crucial for technical analysis of fleet behaviour. The requirement for VMS data and catch and bycatch data, that are the focus of state indicators, will be common to all regions. Thus access to VMS data and collation of international VMS data should be pursued at the pan-(european) scale while catch and discard monitoring will be adjusted regionally following identification of state indicators.43.  Regional representation at SGRN was not comprehensive and it was considered premature to make firm proposals for all regional data collection activities. However, experts from some areas (Mediterranean, Baltic Sea, North Sea, Eastern Channel and Area II) were present and they have put forward proposals for regional data collection activities based on their own experience. STECF considers these proposals are only an intial step as the regional representation at the SGRN meeting was poor, hence more effort and work on the regional context needs to take place.44.  In most regions, the data requirements to support environmental integration could not be sufficiently refined to make immediate recommendations for a new data regulation. However, changes to the existing regulation could be proposed in the short-term at the regional scale. For surveys, SGRN recommends that this should be done through regional co-ordinating groups.45.  STECF considers that developments are required in four areas to support immediate progress towards environmental integration: (1) to modify and improve research vessel survey design to provide appropriate data to support the state indicators, (2) to collect appropriate catch, discard and fishing effort data to support the pressure indicators and to modify and develop procedures for collation and analysis, (3) to establish links between proposed state and pressure indicators that might be used to manage fisheries and (4) to map habitats to allow an assessment of fishery-habitat interactions.46.  SGRN focused on immediate data needs to support the environmental integration process in the short-term. In the medium-term, however, STECF emphasised that a fully developed ecosystem approach has to take account both of the effects of fishing on the environment and the effects of the environment on fisheries. In the medium term, any data regulation should evolve and adapt in response to accumulated knowledge. Examples of such data are those that help describe changes in productivity or interactions among species.STECF notes that the SGRN report often refers to the INDENT and INDECO projects, and would like to be kept informed as to the results of the projects. STECF recommends that the Commission also considers input from other projects currently running on the use of indicators within the ecosystem approach.STECF Working GroupAnchovyBrussels, 11-13 July 2005APPENDIX 1 THE FRENCH ANCHOVY FISHING FLEET – AREA VIII STRUCTURE, RECENT TRENDS AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF A FISHERY BAN ON THE FISHING FLEETSOlivier Guyader*, Fabienne Daurès*, Olivier Thébaud*, Emilie Leblond**, Sébastien Demaneche***[6]* Ifremer - Dpt of Marine Economics** Ifremer - Dpt of Biology and Technical Sciences*** Oceanic DevelopmentINTRODUCTIONThe objectives of the paper are twofold; (1) to provide a description of the structure of the fleet and sub-fleets operating in the anchovy fishery in area VIII and their recent evolution between 2000 and 2004[7]; (1) to provide a preliminary analysis the potential consequences of the current fishery ban (3 months) and its extension to 6 or 9 months.The paper is organised as followed. We first describe the data sets used for this study, the recent trends of the French Anchovy landings being presented in a second step. The structure and evolution of the fleet and sub-fleet leads distinguish the trawlers fleet (pelagic or mixed) from the purse seiners fleet and their distribution per regions and districts, respectively. Key parameters by fleet such as the vessel technical characteristics or crew size are provided. We then discuss the evolution per fleet of the anchovy landings, landings per vessel and prices and the dependency of the vessels to anchovy over the period considered.A preliminary analysis of the potential impacts of different scenarios bans on the gross revenue of the main fleets is carried out. It considers the anchovy dependency of the main fleets in terms of gross revenue at an annual and a monthly basis and the potential consequences of different scenarios for anchovy bans based on a retrospective analysis the fleets gross revenue. The following assumptions are used. In a first step, the analysis is static as fishermen behaviours are not considered. This means that to potential shifts in the fishing effort from the anchovy metiers to others fishing activities during the bans are not taken into account. In a second step, we consider fishermen could be able to switch from the anchovy fishery to a best alternative ( e.g. dynamic behaviour ). A best alternative should be appreciated by taking into account the current management regulations either for quotas or licences or permits. These regulations may limit the possibility set of the vessels. The analysis uses only the four past years for assessing the potential consequences of a ban. The scenarios studied are a 3 months ban, from the 1st of July to the end of September, a 6 months ban, from the 1st of July to the end of December, a 9 month ban, from the 1st of January to the end of March, then from the 1st of July to the end of December.MATERIALSFour data sets are used for this study work; the national vessels register is available since 1990. It gives the technical characteristics of each vessel active in the fleet at the end of each year. The vessel activity database from Ifremer covers the years 2000 to 2004. For each vessel registered in the fleet, a census of the monthly fishing activity is provided with the list of metiers (Berthou and al. 2002). Each metier is defined by the combination of the gear used the species or group of species targeted and the two main fishing areas in which the vessel operates. The other sources of information available at vessel level are; the auction sales giving landings per species in quantity and value and the logbooks dataset providing a declaration by fishermen of the catches per species and effort.The French anchovy fleet, hereafter the FAF, is identified by crossing systematically the information on the four data sets described before. According to this methodology, a registered vessel belongs to the FAF if it lands at least 1 ton of anchovy reach. Another threshold (50 tons) is used for the pelagic trawler in a second step.RECENT TRENDS IN THE FRENCH ANCHOVY LANDINGS IN AREA VIIIThe Figure 7-1 shows a significant decline in annual landings in quantity - 53% between 2001 and 2004 - while the demand responded to the shortage in supply, by a more than 130% increase in price. After a fall between 2000, the combined effects of these variations was a slight increased in landing value (+11%) to reach around 25 Millions Euros per year.[pic]Figure 7-1 Evolution of landings in quantity, value and average price (constant Euros)Source: DPMA - Ifremer (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer) - OfimerThis recent evolution in price can be compared to the prices in the 90s. Anchovy annual prices remained quite stable with an average price around 1.6 Euros/kg over the period. A preliminary statistical analysis of the French price flexibility to change in anchovy supply in area VIII is given in annex.Description of the anchovy fleet and its evolution between 2000 and 2004The description of the fleet is based on a fleet segmentation depending on the gear used for anchovy catches: purse seine or pelagic [8] trawl (single or pair). In 2003, the FA fleet was composed by 104 vessels: 75 trawlers and 29 purse seiners. Trawlers using exclusively pelagic trawl during the year are predominant (46 vessels) but anchovy is also targeted by French mixed or other trawlers (29 vessels which combine during the year pelagic trawl with bottom trawl or other mobile gears such as dredge).Table 7-1. The French Anchovy Fleet (vessels landing at least 1 ton of anchovy)[pic]Source: DPMA - Ifremer (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer)A large majority of vessels (95 to 100%) come from the Bay of Biscay harbours, from Southern Brittany to the Aquitaine region.The pelagic trawl fleetBy pelagic trawl fleet, we mean the vessels using exclusively mid water trawl during the year. In 2003, the French anchovy pelagic trawl fleet is mostly concentrated in the Pays de Loire’s region (Saint Naza ire and Les Sables d’Olonne harbours). There is a strong decrease in terms of number of vessels between 2000 and 2003 (no vessel from this category left in Bayonne in 2003).Table 7-2 : The French anchovy pelagic trawl fleet (vessels landing at least 1 ton of anchovy)Pelagic Trawlers | Pays de Loire | Aquitaine | Other | Total Fleet |2003 |Number of vessel | 44 | 0 | 2 | 46 |Average length (m.) | 19,1 | - | 19,2 |Average GRT | 54 | - | 56 |Average kW | 338 | - | 340 |Number of fishermen | 255 | - | 267 |Average crew | 6 | - | 6 |2000 |Number of vessel | 55 | 4 | 3 | 62 |Average length (m.) | 19,3 | 20,1 | - | 19,3 |Average GRT | 53 | 65 | - | 54 |Average kW | 342 | 307 | - | 342 |Number of fishermen | 318 | 20 | - | 353 |Average crew | 6 | 5 | - | 6 |Source: DPMA - Ifremer (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer)The average vessel is 19 meters long, 56 GRT and 340 kW with 6 fishermen on board. These characteristics remain stable between 2000 and 2003. The number of fishermen involved in this fleet decreased by 30% (from 342 to 267 fishermen), due to the decrease in the number of vessels.The mixed and other trawl fleetThis fleet is represented all along the Atlantic coast from South Brittany to Aquitaine ports. It contains vessels using during the year pelagic trawl in combination with bottom trawl and/or other mobile gears, such as dredge. A strong decrease is observed between 2000 and 2003 mainly in Lorient and Les Sables d’Olonnes ports. In the Pays de Loire region, the remaining vessels are bigger, leading to an increase of the average characteristics of vessel during the period.Table 7-3 : The French anchovy mixed and other trawl fleet (vessels landing at least 1 ton of anchovy)Average length (m.) | 16,58 | 17,30 | 20,70 | - | 17,59 |Average GRT | 45 | 52 | 69 | - | 52 |Average kW | 282 | 295 | 375 | - | 303 |Number of fishermen | 43 | 78 | 25 | - | 149 |Average crew | 5 | 5 | 5 | - | 5 |Average length (m.) | 15,75 | 14,17 | 20,72 | - | 15,50 |Average GRT | 36 | 33 | 65 | - | 38 |Average kW | 255 | 237 | 375 | - | 260 |Number of fishermen | 89 | 86 | 24 | - | 214 |Average crew | 5 | 4 | 5 | - | 4 |Source: DPMA - Ifremer (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer)The average vessel is now less than 18 meters long, 52 GRT, 303 kW with 5 fishermen on board. In 2003, the fleet is composed by around 150 fishermen.The French anchovy purse seine fleetThe purse seine fleet is composed by 29 vessels in 2003, mainly coming from South Brittany (Le Guilvinec and Concarneau are the mains ports) and Aquitaine (Bayonne). The average vessel is around 15 meters long, 28 GRT and 187 kW. The fleet has slightly decreased between 2000 and 2003 with different tendencies between regions: a slight increase in the South Brittany and a strong decrease in Bayonne. Around 180 fishermen are now involved in this fleet.Table 7-4. The French anchovy purse seine fleet (vessels landing at least 1 ton of anchovy)Purse-seiners | South Brittany | Aquitaine | Other | Total Fleet |2003 |Number of vessel | 20 | 8 | 1 | 29 |Average length (m.) | 15,4 | 14,1 | - | 14,9 |Average GRT | 31 | 22 | - | 28 |Average kW | 197 | 169 | - | 187 |Number of fishermen | 137 | 39 | - | 179 |Average crew | 7 | 5 | - | 6 |2000 |Number of vessel | 17 | 14 | 1 | 32 |Average length (m.) | 15,3 | 15,6 | - | 15,4 |Average GRT | 31 | 33 | - | 32 |Average kW | 202 | 178 | - | 190 |Number of fishermen | 94 | 72 | - | 169 |Average crew | 6 | 5 | - | 5 |Source: DPMA - Ifremer (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer)Since 2000, the FA fleet has decreased by 30% in total, mostly due to the decline in the trawler fleet. The decrease in the fleet is mainly observed in:-  Pays de Loire (Les Sables d’Olonnes) and South Brittany (Lorient and Auray) for the mixed trawlers;-  Bayonne and Saint Nazaire’s maritime quarters for the pelagic trawlers;-  Aquitaine (Bayonne) for the purse seinersThe FA fleet is defined by taking into account the vessels landing at least 1 ton of anchovy per year. The trends observed among this fleet can be compared to the trend of the rest of Bay of Biscay pelagic fleet (trawl and purse seine) not targeting anchovy. We mean all the vessels using pelagic trawl or purse seine at least one month during a given year.Table 7-5 : The Bay of Biscay pelagic trawl and purse seine fleet (vessel potentially able to target anchovy)[pic]Source: DPMA - IFREMER (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer)Whereas the FA fleet decreases between 2000 et 2003, the Bay of Biscay pelagic trawl and purse seine fleet remains quite stable in the same period. In 2003, the purse seiners are still composed by 38 vessels and the total trawlers targeting pelagic species decrease from 161 to 154 vessels. Faced to the depletion of anchovy, the fishing effort of trawlers seems to have been reported to other targeted species. These reports are not obvious for purse seine fleet. It is interesting to notice that the Bay of Biscay pelagic trawlers are mainly composed by mixed trawlers with opportunistic behaviour more remarkable.ANCHOVY LANDINGS AND PRICES PER FLEETThis section provides some indications on the evolution of the anchovy landings for a selection of the mains fleets described before and for the years 2000-2004. The French anchovy production in area VIII is mainly landed by the trawlers fleets. This fleet accounted for 90% of the total landings as reported in the next figure. Within this fleet, the pelagic fleet covered the major part, but with a decreasing share over the period; from 90% in 1990 to 74% in 2004. The landings of the mixed trawlers fleet oscillated between 1500 and 2000 tons with no specific trend. The rest of the production, from 6% to 14% by year, is supplied by the purse seiners fleet divided in two set of vessels, those operating from the Aquitaine region and the Brittany region, respectively[9]. This last fleet landed a significant share of the purse seine landings.Whatever the vessel length categories, average landings per vessel and per fleet shows heterogeneous evolutions over the period. The average landings of the pelagic trawlers plummeted from 250 to around 110 tons and this declining trend follows the evolution of total production. There is no significant trend for the mixed trawl fleet with around 50 tons per year, except for 2002 (less than 100 tons). The purse seine landings are characterized by a high level of inter-annual variability, especially for the southern Brittany fleet. It ranges from 17 tons per boat in 2001 to more than 100 tons in 2001Price evolutions per fleet highlight similar and increasing trends except for purse seine fleet of Aquitaine in 2003 and 2004. However, purse seine landings are better valued than the trawlers landings but the gap is not constant. This gap ranges from 0 to 1.4€/kg and this could be explained by the either a different seasonality in landings or a differentiation in landing products.Figure 7-2. Pelagic and mixed trawlers – Annual landings per fleet (in tons) | Figure 7-3. Pelagic and mixed trawlers - % of Purse seine landings in total French landings (area VIII) |[pic]Figure 7-4. Pelagic and mixed trawlers – Average anchovy landings per vessel and per fleet (in tons) | Figure 7-5. Pelagic and mixed trawlers – Average prices per fleet (Euros/kg) |[pic]Source: DPMA - Ifremer (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer) - OfimerFigure 7-6. Purse seiners – Annual landings per fleet (in tons) | Figure 7-7. Purse seiners - % of Purse seine landings in total French landings (area VIII) |[pic]Figure 7-8. Purse seiners – Average anchovy landings per vessel and per fleet (in tons) | Figure 7-9. Purse seiners – Average prices per fleet (Euros/kg) |[pic]Source: DPMA - Ifremer (Fishery Observatory of Ifremer) - OfimerFigure 7-10shows the monthly trends in landings and price. Price soared in June with around 10€/kg just before the ban of the fishery.Figure 7-10. Monthly price and landings (January 2004 to June 2005)[pic]Source: OfimerA PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS BANS ON THE GROSS REVENUE OF THE MAIN FLEETS.As seen previously, the level of activity of the vessels into the anchovy fishery is characterised by significant changes at an annual scale (see also, Duhamel et al. WD 2004). The following analysis considers the dependency of the main fleets in terms of gross revenue at an annual and a monthly basis and the potential consequences of different scenarios for anchovy bans based on a retrospective analysis the fleets gross revenue.AssumptionsIn a first step, the analysis is static as fishermen behaviours are not considered. This means that to potential shifts in the fishing effort from the anchovy metiers to others fishing activities during the bans are not taken into account. In a second step, we consider fishermen could be able to switch from the anchovy fishery to the best alternative ( e.g. dynamic behaviour ). The best alternative should be appreciated by taking into account the current management regulations either for quotas or licences or permits. These regulations may limit the possibility set of the vessels and other management regulations like compensation for staying in the harbours have to be considered. The analysis uses only the past years for assessing the potential consequences of a ban.Scenarios:-  A 3 months ban , from the 1st of July to the end of September (referred as 2 in the figures).-  A 6 months ban , from the 1st of July to the end of December (referred as 3 in the figures).-  A 9 month ban , from the 1st of January to the end of March, then from the 1st of July to the end of December (referred as 4 in the figures).The analysis is carried out over the 2000-2003 period and for each year according to the following methodology.Indicators:Different indicators, calculated for each fleet or sub-fleet, deal with the economic weight of anchovy in gross revenue:-  The share of anchovy annual revenue in the total annual revenue of each fleet (referred as A.R/T.R. in the figures)-  The share of anchovy revenue over each ban period in the annual anchovy revenue-  The share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period-  The average annual revenue per vessel-  The number of vessels involved in each fleet or sub-fleet-  The average monthly gross revenue per vessel and per speciesIn principle, more informative economic indicators would include inter alia gross surplus, net profit and wages.Application to the main different fleetsThe analysis could be carried out at different fleet levels but only the mains fleets are included hereafter. The fleets considered are:47.  The exclusive pelagic trawlers fleet from the Bay of Biscay districts[10],48.  The subset fleet of exclusive trawlers landings at least 50 tons of anchovy per pair49.  The mixed trawlers fleet operating from the Bay of Biscay districts,50.  The purse seine fleet operating from the districts belonging the Aquitaine region51.  The purse seine fleet operating from the districts belonging to the Brittany regionThe degree of dependency to anchovy at an annual level was very different according to the fleets over the considered period.1. The exclusive pelagic trawlers fleet from the Bay of Biscay districts [11] ,The Exclusive pelagic trawlers fleet was the most dependent, with on an average basis, 50% to 60% of the total annual gross revenue coming from the anchovy landings (see figure 11). This dependency may be higher for specific vessels. The average revenue per vessel was quite stable, between 700 k€ and 800 k€, and the number of vessels declined over the period (51 to 43 vessels).From year to year, the share of anchovy revenue in the annual anchovy revenue ranged from 38% to 51% (3 months ban), 52% to 86% (6 months ban), 86% to 93% (9 months ban). The share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period ranged from 53% to 77% (3 months ban), 49% to 79% (6 months ban), 54% to 65% (9 months ban)The other main species in value landed over the years were European sea-bass, horse mackerel and albacore and the evolution per year of the monthly revenues per vessel is described in annex.Figure 7-11. Pelagic trawl fleet - share of anchovy annual revenue in the total annual revenue - Share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period | Figure 7-12. Pelagic trawl fleet - Share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period |[pic]Figure 7-13. Pelagic trawl fleet - average annual revenue per vessel - Number of vessels involved | Figure 7-14. Pelagic trawl fleet – Sensitivity of average gross revenue to different ban scenarios |[pic]Source: Ifremer2. Pelagic trawlers (>50 tons per pair): A preliminary analysis of the potential report of fishing effort to alternative fisheriesWe first selected the population of trawlers using pelagic trawl from the bay of Biscay harbours and we identified two subsets of vessels; The pelagic pair trawlers landing at least 50 tons of anchovy per year and per pair, and the mixed trawlers not targeting anchovy but using mid water trawl and bottom trawl. These two subsets of vessels are comparable in terms of technical characteristics, and their size gives them the possibility to target species in different fishing areas (Ices area VIII and VII). We assume at this stage that the switch from the pelagic trawler fleet to the mixed trawl fleet is the easiest alternative in terms of fishing activity but other catch possibilities should have to be considered [12].Figure 7-15 and Figure 7-16 present for 2003, the compared monthly evolution of total and per species gross revenue, respectively. The main differences in gross revenue occurred from June to November when the pelagic trawlers were operating in the anchovy fishery. The landings composition of the mixed trawlers also gives indications on the target species; albacore from august to October, Norway lobster and Anglerfish mainly between April and July, Sea Bass for some vessels at the beginning of the year, Hake and Sole, etc.Figure 7-15. Average revenue of pelagic trawlers (>50 tons per pair) and mixed trawlers of the bay of biscay not targeting anchovy in 2003[pic]Source: IfremerFigure 7-16. Pelagic trawl fleet (50tons) - Average revenue per month and per species in 2003 | Figure 7-17. Mixed trawler fleet – Average revenue per month and per species in 2003 |[pic]Source: IfremerA re-allocation of effort to these species should be considered optimistic since crewing effects, licensing and quota restrictions for other species, price effects, etc, have to be taken into account in the predictions.For example, entering the albacore or the Norway lobster fisheries is subject to licence or fishing permit holding. Fleets targeting anchovy do not necessarily have the right to enter these fisheries and to catch these species. As underlined in the next table, the consumption rates of national quotas for the main species have increased over the last years either in area VIII or VII. These levels rise from around 70% in 1998 to 99% in 2003, for the three main species in area VIII. Rates of consumption reached high levels in 2003 for in area VII, except for species like Norway lobster and megrims. The TAC for albacore was not fully consumed before 2004. As a consequence, the capacity for the fleet studied to switch to other species is in many case limited by the levels of the TAC constraints and potentially by the individual fishing vessels rights when there are allocated in P.O.’s.Table 7-6 Levels of French Quotas after exchanges, and Rate of Consumptions for Ices area VIII*TAC (in tons) | 7010 | 5599 | 6259 |TAC Consumption (in %) | 88.1 | 76.2 | 46.8 |Source: TECTAC-manenq data baseTable 7-8 Levels of French Quotas after exchanges, and Rate of Consumptions for Ices area VII**[pic]Figure 7-21. Mixed trawl fleet - average annual revenue per vessel - Number of vessels involved | Figure 7-22. Mixed trawl fleet - Sensitivity of gross revenue to different bans scenarios (no report in fishing effort) |[pic]Source: Ifremer4. T he purse seine fleet operating from the districts belonging the Aquitaine RegionThe dependency of this fleet increased over the period, from around 20% until 2002 to around 40% of the annual gross revenue in 2003. With around 150k€ per vessel, the average revenue was quite stable over the years, except for year 2001 (200k€). A significant fall in the number of vessels belonging to the French anchovy fleet, from 14 to 8 fishing units, is noticed.From year to year, the share of anchovy revenue in the annual anchovy revenue was extremely variable. For the 9 months period, this level ranged from 7% in 2003 to 61% in 2002. The share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period ranged from 8% to 25% (3 months ban), from 7% to 22% (6 months ban) and from 5% to 16% (9 months ban). Of course, the decrease in gross revenue could be higher for this fleet if the anchovy harvest are forbidden as bait for the catch of bluefin tuna which represent a significant revenue in summer. In 2004, the monthly gross revenue for anchovy was quite similar (in value and over the months) to the year 2003. The anchovy gross revenue is, however, very low for the first six months of 2005.The other main species landed by this fleet were, in decreasing value, Horse mackerel, Bluefin tuna, European pilchard. The evolution per year of the monthly revenues per vessel is described in annex.The analysis of fishing effort re-allocation to other fisheries is not considered hereafter.Figure 7-23. Purse seine fleet (Aquitaine) - share of anchovy annual revenue in the total annual revenue - Share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period | Figure 7-24. Purse seine fleet (Aquitaine) - Share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period |[pic]Figure 7-25. Purse seine fleet (Aquitaine) - average annual revenue per vessel - Number of vessels involved | Figure 7-26. Purse seine fleet (Aquitaine) - Sensitivity of gross revenue to different bans scenarios (no report in fishing effort) |[pic]Source : DPMA-Ifremer5 The purse seine fleet operating from the districts belonging the Brittany regionThe dependency of this fleet fell over the period, especially in 2002 and 2003 (around 12% compared to 25% in 2000 and 2001). The average revenue per vessel increased significantly, from 400k€ in 2000 to around 500k€ and soared to 600k in 2002. Three vessels entered the anchovy fleet between 2000 and 2001.This fleet landed most of the anchovy in the second semester for the four years studied. Within the period covering the month from July to September, the minimum (53%) and the maximum (75%) of the annual anchovy landings were reached in 2003 and 2001, respectively. Almost all the landings were sold between July and December (94% in 2003 and 100% for the other years). Over this period, anchovy accounted for around 35% of the total landing value in 2000 and 2001 and less than 20% in 2002 and 2003. However, very high landings in value were registered in 2004, especially in August and this change has probably increased the level of anchovy in the total revenue of this fleet.The other main species landed by this fleet were, in decreasing value, European pilchard, Horse mackerel and Atlantic mackerel.The analysis of fishing effort re-allocation to other fisheries is not considered hereafter.Figure 7-27. Purse seine fleet (Brittany) - share of anchovy annual revenue in the total annual revenue - Share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period | Figure 7-28. Purse seine fleet (Brittany) - Share of anchovy revenue in total gross revenue over each ban period |[pic]Figure 7-29. Purse seine fleet (Brittany) - average annual revenue per vessel - Number of vessels involved | Figure 7-30. Purse seine fleet (Brittany) - Sensitivity analysis of different fisheries bans on average gross revenue (no report in fishing effort) |[pic]Source : DPMA-IfremerANNEXESFigure 7-31: Price-Landings relationship for anchovy in area VIII (1990-2005)*[pic]* Preliminary resultsNote : International landings in area VIII, average French annual priceSource: WGMHSA (2004) Ofimer-DPMA (1990-2005)Purse seiners | South Brittany | Aquitaine | Other | Total Fleet |[pic][pic]Source: DPMA-Ifremer (2000-2003), Ofimer (2004-2005)Figure 7-34. Purse seine fleet (Aquitaine) – Average monthly revenue per vessel and per species | Figure 7-35. Purse seine fleet (Britanny) - Average monthly revenue per vessel and per species |[pic][pic]Source: DPMA-Ifremer (2000-2003), Ofimer (2004-2005)Appendix 2: REVISIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE 2005 ICES FORECAST FOR NORTH SEA HADDOCKC. L. Needle, C. Millar, and S. HolmesFRS Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, Scotland.WORKING GROUP FORECAST AND ACFM CONCLUSIONSThe WG forecast carried out in 2005 attempted to account for the perceived slow growth of the very large 1999 year-class, as well as indications of a different exploitation rate on that year-class. The WG also used results from the third-quarter Scottish groundfish survey in determining the probable size of the incoming 2005 year-class, which appears to be moderately large. The WG forecast retained the use of a plus-group at age 7: this was incorrect, as the 1999 year-class will reach age 7 in 2006 and a general plus-group mean weight-at-age and exploitation pattern may not be appropriate.Recruitment. The RCT3 program was used to provide a forecast of the abundance of the 2005 year-class, based on the application to the 2005 Scottish third-quarter survey index of the historical relationship between the survey and the WG estimates of recruitment. This forecast was around 30 billion, compared to a recent average of around 3 billion. The estimated 1999 recruitment was 112 billion. Recruitment in subsequent years was taken to be around 10 billion, which is the average of the 5 lowest values between 1992 and 2001.Mean weights-at-age . The WG observed that estimated mean weights-at-age for the 1999 and 2000 year-classes have been low. Figure 1 (from ICES 2005) shows the mean weight-at-age for ages 0–10, along with lines showing ±2 standard deviations (s.d.) of these weights. The weights for the 1999 and 2000 year-classes are also shown, and appear to be following the lower s.d. line closely. The WG therefore decided to use the lower s.d. line in determining mean weights-at-age in future years for the 1999 and 2000 year-classes. For other year-classes, a five-year average of mean weights-at-age was used, where this average was calculated using all year-classes apart from 1999 and 2000.Exploitation. The exploitation rate for the 1999 year-class also appears to have been low. This is demonstrated in Figure 2, which compares exploitation on the 1999 year-class with that on other recent year-classes. However, the rates converged in 2004 and are now quite similar. The WG decided, on this basis, to assume flat-topped exploitation: that is, future F values for the 1999 year-class would be the same as they were in 2004.The ACFM Review Group examined the forecast very closely and agreed that it was appropriate. The ACFM catch option table is reproduced in Table 1.ALTERNATIVESCORRECTIONS IN SPREADSHEET IMPLEMENTATIONSIn order to explore more fully the range of possible options, and to facilitate flexibility, the forecast was implemented in an Excel spreadsheet. In the course of this work, several small errors in the WG forecast were discovered, as well as points where a more scientifically defensible option could have been taken.The main difference in the spreadsheet implementation is that the plus-group is at age 15, rather than age 7. This allows the weights and exploitation of the 1999 year-class to be considered separately from the rest of the population, as that year-class reaches age 7 and beyond. This is important as general assumptions made for a 7+ group are unlikely to be appropriate for the 1999 year-class at age 7. The other errors are less important – for example, the weights-at-age for discards and bycatch are full 5-year averages, not 5-year average minus the 1999 and 2000 year-classes as stipulated in the text. These smaller errors have been corrected in the spreadsheet.ExploitationThe spreadsheet allows the user to choose between five different methods of calculating exploitation, as follows. In addition, it is possible to set bycatch mortality to zero in the years 2006 onwards. This would be appropriate if, as advised by ICES, the small-mesh industrial fishery remains closed.2004 estimatesIn this approach, the 2004 estimates of mortality for each of the catch components (landings, discards, bycatch) are used unchanged throughout the forecast period. This captures the decline in 2004 in bycatch, but also bases the forecast on the mortality estimates about which there is the most uncertainty.3-year scaled mean adjusted for 1999 year-class (1 st approach)Here the basis for the status quo F is a mean of the exploitation pattern over the years 2002–2004, scaled to the level of the last year (i.e. adjusted so that the average over ages 2–4 of the mean exploitation pattern is the same as the average over ages 2–4 of F in 2004). The three-year mean for each age does not include the values for the 1999 year-class. In this first approach, the total F is split up into components (landings, discards, bycatch) on the basis of historical observations of abundance, and then the scaled status quo F is calculated for each component separately.The additional feature in this version is that the 1999 year-class is treated differently. As in the WG approach described above, the future exploitation on this year-class is assumed to remain at the 2004 level for all future years for landings. For discards and bycatch, the exploitation on the 1999 year-class in 2005 is half the 2004 level, while it is zero for 2006 and beyond (this models the reduced discarding observed on sampling trips, and the greatly decreased industrial fishery, in 2005).3-year scaled mean adjusted for 1999 year-class (2 nd approach)This is very similar to the approach described above (Section 3.2.2), except that here the exploitation rate is calculated on the basis of total catch and then split into components. This is what the WG did, and leads to small differences in outcomes from that in Section 3.2.2.3-year unscaled meanHere a simple 3-year mean of 2002–2004 estimates of fishing mortality is used as the status quo F . All available year-classes are included in the calculation of the mean, and the 1999 year-class is treated as a normal cohort.3-year unscaled mean without 1999 years-classAs above, except the 1999 year-class data are removed from the calculation of the 3-year mean.Mean weights-at-ageIn order to convert forecasted numbers into a forecasted total catch it is necessary to predict estimates of mean weights at age for the TAC year and if a TAC constraint is used for both intermediate and TAC years. The method commonly used by ICES is to take an average of the previous three years estimates of mean weight at age. This method is appropriate if the mean weight at age has been relatively constant and there are no reasons to expect future weights to differ from a three year mean.The haddock 1999 yearclass has so far been observed as one of the slowest growing year-classes since 1963. This means that it may not be appropriate to predict weights at age for 2005 and 2006 (i.e. age 6 and age 7 weights for the 1999 yearclass) by taking an average of the previous three years. The spreadsheet implementation includes four options for forecasting weights-at-age, as follows.3-year mean for all componentsHere a simple 3-year mean of 2002–2004 estimates of weights-at-age is used for the forecast. All available year-classes are included in the calculation of the mean, and the 1999 year-class is treated as a normal cohort.Slow-growing 1999 year-class for all componentsWeights-at-age derived from market and observer sampling (Figure 1) show that the 1999 and 2000 year-classes appear to be slow-growing. Furthermore, the trajectory of weights for these year-classes appears to be following the line described by mean( w ) – 2sd( w ). Therefore, in this approach the weights-at-age for the 1999 and 200 year-classes are assumed to continue along this line. Values for other year-classes are given by a five-year average calculated without the 1999 and 2000 year-classes.Slow-growing 1999 year-class for landings onlyAs above, but with the modification applied to total (catch) and landings weights only. Discard and bycatch weights are unaffected. This was the option taken by the WG.Regression approachThe problem with the aforementioned approach (as used by the WG) is that the estimates of mean weights at age are uncertain, and this uncertainty increases with age primarily due to decreasing samples at older ages. The use of two standard deviations less than the mean incorporates natural variability in mean weight-at-age, but also incorporates age-dependent sampling error (Figure 3). Furthermore, Figure 3 shows that the distributions of mean weights around the mean are skewed for older ages (6, 7, 8 and 9) with the more extreme values tending to be in the upper tail of the distributions, thus the mean weights at 2 standard deviations less that the mean actually goes below the extent of the data for most ages 6 and older. In other words: using a symmetrical interval method for obtaining the lower limit of variability in mean observed weight, reduces the postulated mean weight further below the mean than the observed data would suggest.Growth of the 1999 year-class to age 7. In order to more appropriately model the growth in the 1999 year-class, a statistical approach was taken based on regressing weight at age 7 against various covariates. Several models were investigated, varying the time-span over which the regression was fitted (the full time series, i.e. the 1963-1997 cohorts, the most recent 10 cohorts and the most recent 3 cohorts), incorporating weights for age 4 and incorporating a linear trend in mean weight with time. It was found that:-  the full time series was required to get a significant regression;-  weights at age 4 were not significant for estimating age;-  there was marginal evidence for including a linear trend with time (Table 2).The two models considered further are as follows: regressing age 7 against age 5 with and without a linear trend with time. We tested the two models by cross-validation: refitting the models using the data for the 1963 to 1994 cohorts; predicting weights at age 7 for the 1995 to 1997 cohorts; and comparing predictions with estimates based on market sampling data. Figure 4 shows the predictions for the model without a linear trend with time and Figure 5 shows the predictions for the model with a linear trend with time. The coloured dashed lines show the estimated mean weight at age trajectories for the 1995 to 1997 cohorts. It can be seen that the model not incorporating a trend with time results in predictions that are not validated by the data. By incorporating a time trend all estimates are within 2 standard errors of the predictions. The model using a time trend seems the most appropriate. The output for the model fit of age 7 against age 5 and a linear trend with time is given in Table 3.Growth of the 1999 year-class to age 6 . The 1999 year-class is known to be slow growing and even though the model includes weight at age 5 there may be concern that a general growth model derived from all years may not capture the growth of this yearclass acceptably. To investigate this, a further methodological check is to apply the same statistical modelling method to predict weight at age 6 from weight at age 5 and to compare it to survey estimated mean weight at age 6 from surveys conducted in the intermediate year (2005). Table 4 shows the model regression to be significant and similar to that for age 7. Figure 6 shows the prediction for age 6, with error bars representing 2 standard errors. The 1999 year class is shown in red and the survey derived estimates of mean weight at age are plotted as red circles with bars representing sample variation. The survey derived estimates lies within 2 standard errors of the modelled prediction. The WG projection to age 6 was very similar.Conclusion. The regression approach uses fitted linear models to forecast the mean weight of the 1999 year-class for ages 6 and 7, based on historical relationships between weights at ages 5 and 6, and ages 5 and 7. The combination of the validation of forward prediction using the 3-year truncated data set for three yearclasses to age 7, and the special case of validated forward prediction to age 6 for the 1999 yearclass, provides very good evidence that the modelling approach is reliable. The method is soundly based and uses all the data dealing with an apparent general reduction in growth rates by including trend. This method is not significantly different from the quite reasonable but rather arbitrary method used by the ICES WG but is thought to be a better point estimate as it has a formal statistical basis including prediction error bars. The point estimate growth of the 1999 yearclass using this method is illustrated in Figure 7. The weights at ages 6 and 7 are 0.535 kg and 0.845 kg, respectively.Survey weights-at-ageThe mean weights-at-age used in the assessment, and therefore the forecast, are based on market-sampled length data, converted to weights using fixed weight-length relationships. To investigate whether this approach had led to bias in weights, and especially to determine if the perception of slow growth of the 1999 year-class was artefactual, weights measured on the first and third quarter Scottish groundfish surveys were analysed (Figure 8). As expected, the Q3 weights are greater than the Q1 weights, but allowing for this, it is clear that the survey-measured weights are in fact very similar to those used in the assessment WG. Therefore it is unlikely that the data measurement and collation procedure used in the WG has skewed perceptions of growth.Industrial bycatchThe WG forecasts for 2006 and 2007 included a continued industrial-bycatch component in the catch. ICES advice for the small-mesh fisheries for reduction (targeting sandeel and Norway pout) is that these should remain closed unless there is strong evidence of an incoming year-class large enough to increase SSB above the precautionary limit by 2007. It would seem reasonable to argue that, on the balance of probability, this is unlikely to happen, in which case there would be no industrial bycatch of haddock. The spreadsheet implementation allows for the possibility of zero bycatch F from 2006 onwards.SensitivityTable 4 indicates the sensitivity of the forecast approach to input parameters. Both landings in 2006 and SSB in 2007 are sensitive to choices made for status quo F and mean weights-at-age. The maximum landings forecast for 2006 that can be obtained is 58 kt, but this uses possibly unrealistic assumptions about mean weights (i.e. that the 1999 year-class is not slow-growing). The configuration used by the WG leads to a relatively low landings forecast.Summary and conclusionsIn this paper the assumptions and methods used to produce the ICES forecast for North Sea haddock have been closely examined. Small errors have been corrected, and methods modified where necessary to increase scientific justifiability. The outcome is a spreadsheet model which can be used to explore the sensitivity of the choices made in the forecast, and which can also form the basis of new advice if need be.Table 5 summarises the forecast output for one particular configuration of the spreadsheet: recruitment (30 billion), weights (regression approach), status quo F (3-year scaled mean adjusted for 99 year-class, 2nd approach), no industrial bycatch. This is presented here as one of many possible configurations, and is not necessarily being proposed as a final forecast. However, it is a useful test case to highlight the issue of what mean F is being referred to in management plans. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that this is likely to be the most appropriate configuration. It is similar to the accepted WG forecast, except for the weights for the 1999 year-class at ages 6 and 7 (which are now estimated on a statistically sound basis), the use of a high plus-group (which avoids problems as the 1999 year-class enters the previously-used 7+ group), and the zero industrial bycatch (which seems reasonable given current ICES advice).The notional management plan F is 0.3, and this is to be measured over an “appropriate range” of ages. This raises the question of what an appropriate age range is for this stock. The mean over ages 2–4 does not encompass the age which is contributing the great majority of the fishery. A mean over ages 2–8 does, but is biased by estimated F on younger ages. An alternative is to calculate a weighted mean over ages 2-8, where the weights used are the estimated abundances at age. These values for 2006 are listed in Table 5 (for this particular configuration). Here we can see that a notional status quo F of 0.335 in 2005 (measured over ages 2–4) translates to an F in 2006 of 0.240 (weighted-mean over ages 2–8), which is actually well below the F called for in the management plan. It could be argued that this is a more pertinent approach, and has a precedent in the way Norwegian spring-spawning herring is managed. Basis: F(2005) =scaled mean F (2002-2004). F (ages 2-5) = 0.32, SSB(2006)=232, HC landings (2005) =51, Discards(2005) =13, Industrial bycatch (2005) =5.SGRN-05-03 | 20-24 June 2005, Brussels, | data collection - environmental integration and move toward an ecosystem approach. |SGRN-05-01 | 27 June - 2 July, Brussels, | evaluation of 2004 data collection programme. |SGRST-SGFEN-05-01 | 4-8 July 2005, Brussels | by-catches of turtles in longline fisheries. |SGRST-05-03 | 11-14 July 2005, Brussels | anchovies in the Bay of Biscay |SGRST-05-01 | 19-21 September, Ispra, | cod-recovery plan – second meeting. |SGMOS-05-01 | 26-30 September, Lisbon | long-term management strategies and target reference points for bay of biscay sole, celtic cod and anglerfish. |SGECA-SGRST-05-01 | 3-7 October, Ispra, | bioeconomic modeling. |SGRST-05-02 | 17-21, October, Ispra | mixed fisheries |SGECA-SGRST-05-02 | 24-28 October, Brussels | stock and fleet status – economic impact of tac |ADHOC-05-03 | 7-9 November, Copenhagen | ad hoc WG on north sea sandeel |PLEN-05-02 | 7-11 November, Brussels | second STECF plenary meeting 2005 |[1] Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (OJ L 358 of 31 December 2002, p.59 -80)[2] Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2004 (OJ L 204 of 13 August 2004, p.21-28)[3] Commission Regulation (EC) No 26/2004 (OJ L 5 of 9 January 2004, p.25-35)[4] Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Member States’ effort during 2004 to achieve a sustainable balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. COM (2004)799[5] The economical optimum, or Maximum Economical Yield in this respect, balances investment and returns in a fishery to the level in which the resources are optimally allocated.. In a single species set up this will lead to, compared to the Maximum Sustainable Yield, taking the production function (or yield curve) and cost curve into consideration, a situation in which less effort will be applied[6] The authors are grateful to Ofimer for providing landings information for 2004 and 2005.[7] A comprehensive analysis of the fleet evolution since 1989 was given by Duhamel E., Biseau A., Massé J and H. Villalobos 2004. The French anchovy fishery ICES. Working Group on the assessment of Mackerel, Horse Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovy. Copenhagen, 7-16 September 2004[8] Mid water trawl[9] Less than 5% of the production is landing by the other fleets described before.[10] Few vessels operate from Channel districts[11] Few vessels operate from the Channel districts[12] To consider fishing alternatives, the comparison of margin on variable costs should be considered in order to include the difference in variable costs from a metier to another. We assume here, variable costs of these fleets are homogeneous