Commission staff working document - 20th report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries - Brussels, 04-08 April 2005
Date: 2007-04-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: fisheries policy, fishery management, report, scientific committee (EU)













EUR-Lex - 52007SC0469 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52007SC0469

Commission staff working document - 20th report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries - Brussels, 04-08 April 2005  /* SEC/2007/0469 final */  








SEC(2007) 469COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT20 th REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES Brussels, 04-08 April 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.Contents1.1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 41.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 51.2.1 Information from the Commission and reflections on scientific advice improvement (I) 51.2.2 Sandeel fishery 51.2.3 Management year(s) 51.2.4 Swordfish Mediterranean fisheries © 51.2.5 Data collection. Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000 (DCR) 51.2.6 Economic advice (I) 61.2.7 STECF organization and 2005 Workplan (I) 61.2.8 Other matters 62.1 BRIEFING FROM COMMISSION 72.2 STECF COMMENTS. 73.1 BACKGROUND: 93.2 THE HARVEST RULE 93.3 ESTIMATION OF SANDEEL YEAR-CLASS STRENGTH 93.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HCR 103.5 FUTURE MANAGEMENT 103.6 FAST TRACK PROCEDURE FOR 2005 114.1 STECF REMARKS 124.1.1 Option 1: Long Term Management Strategy 124.1.2 Option 2: Staged Administrative Action 124.1.3 Option 3: Realigned Management Year 134.2 CONCLUSION 135.1 BACKGROUND 145.1.1 Distribution 145.1.2 Stock Status 145.1.3 The fishery 145.1.4 Length at maturity and mean length in landings 145.1.5 Current regulations 155.2 CLOSED SEASON AND MINIMUM LANDING SIZE FOR MEDITERRANEAN SWORDFISH 155.2.1 Incidence of juvenile swordfish in Mediterranean catches. 155.2.2 The potential effect of the introduction of a minimum landing size and seasonally closed area for EU fisheries 155.2.3 STECF conclusions and recommendations 165.3 LENGTH-WEIGHT RELATIONSHIPS 175.3.1 Current estimates 175.3.2 STECF conclusions and recommendations 205.4 LITERATURE CITED FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN SWORDFISH FISHERY 206.1 BACKGROUND. 226.2 PROCEDURE AGREED BY STECF. 226.3 STATE OF PLAY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY IT SYSTEM TO QUERY NATIONAL DATABASES. 226.4 ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF DATA COLLECTED UNDER THE DATA COLLECTION REGULATION (COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 1543/2000) 236.4.1 Summary of conclusions of the JRC study on data quality 236.4.2 STECF comments. 236.5 PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT DATA COLLECTION REGULATION. 236.5.1 Unbiased Sampling of fishing fleets 236.5.2 Availability of collected data to assessment groups 246.5.3 Harmonisation of discard and market sampling schemes 246.5.4 Harmonisation of DCR and legal control measures 246.5.5 Coordination of Surveys 246.6 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE SGRN MEETINGS ON THE DATA COLLECTION REGULATION (DCR) REVISION. 246.6.1 General Aims of the Data Collection Regulation (DCR) revision 246.6.2 Proposed Meetings and terms of reference 257.1 INTRODUCTION 277.2 ECONOMIC ADVICE IN 2005 277.3 ECONOMIC ADVICE FROM 2006 ONWARD 278.1 COMBINED MEETING OF BIOLOGIST AND ECONOMISTS ON BIO-ECONOMIC MODELLING (SGRST/SGECA 05-01). 298.1.1 Objective of the bio-economic advice. 298.1.2 Types of models used. 298.1.3 rlevant projects 298.1.4 Data requirements 308.1.5 adustments data regulation 308.1.6 Advice procedures and organisational framework 308.2 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND TARGET REFERENCE POINTS FOR BAY OF BISCAY SOLE, CELTIC SEA COD, ANGLERFISH VIIIC-IXA AND BALTIC COD (SGMOS 05-01) 308.2.1 Background 308.2.2 The detailed request 308.3 COD RECOVERY PLAN, TECHNICAL ISSUES (SGRST 05-01) 318.4 MIXED FISHERIES (SGRST 05-02) 318.5 AD HOC WG ON THE BY-CATCH OF SEA TURTLES IN THE EU LONG LINE FISHERIES. LONG LINE FISHERIES AND THEIR TURTLE BY-CATCHES: BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL ISSUES, OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEMS AND MITIGATION APPROACHES (SGRST/SGFEN 05-01). 328.5.1 Background: 328.5.2 Purpose of the WG : 338.5.3 Terms of reference 338.6 SENSITIVE FISH AND MARINE HABITATS. IMPORTANCE FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND PRODUCTION ETC. IN THE MEDITERRANEAN. (SGFEN 05-01) 338.6.1 Background. 338.7 FAST TRACK ADVICE FOR IN YEAR HCR NORTH SEA SANDEEL (ADHOC 05-02). 348.8 AD HOC WG ON NORTH SEA SANDEEL (ADHOC 05-03) 348.8.1 Background 348.8.2 Terms of Reference 34IntroductionThe 20 th meeting of the STECF was convened at the headquarters of DG FISH, 99 Rue Joseph II, Brussels from 4-8 April 2005.The terms of reference for the meeting were surveyed and briefly discussed to arrange the agenda and timetable. The session was managed through alternation of plenary and parallel working groups meetings.The 20th meeting of the STECF was also attended by invited experts from Member States that acceded to European Union in 2004.List of participantsThe complete address of the participants is listed in Annex 1.Members of the STECF: | Ardizzone,Giandomenico |Bertignac, Michel |Camiñas, Juan Antonio |Cardinale, Massimiliano |Casey, John (Chairman) |Di Natale, Antonio |Dickey, Collas Mark |Ernst, Peter |Fariña, Celso Antonio |Franquesa, Ramon |Gustavsson, Tore |Keatinge, Michael |Kuikka, Sakari |Lokkegaard, Jorgen |Messina, Gaetano |Munch-Petersen, Sten |Perraudeau, Yves |Petrakis, George |Polet Hans |Rätz, Hans-Joachim |Simmonds, Edmund John |Somarakis, Stylianos |Vanhee, Willy |Virtanen, Jarno |Invited experts: | Grzebielec, Ryszard |Krušnik, Ciril |Kuzebski Emil |Redant, Frank |Saat, Toomas |Vitins, Maris |Statkus, Romas |Van Ooostenbrugge, Hans |JRC: | Althoff, Wiking |Doerner, Hendrik |Geronymaki, Maria |Shepherd, Iain |Ziegler, Robert |DG-FISH | Biagi, Franco |Hagstrom, Olle |Moguedet, Philippe |Terms of referenceInformation from the Commission and reflections on scientific advice improvement (I)1.  Reinforced role of STECF and strengthening of its Secretariat. (new Commission Decision, rules of procedure, economic advice, etc..)2.  Information on selection of proposals presented under the Call for proposal FISH/2004/03 and way forward3.  Financial issues to support the provision of scientific advice through the STECF and other ad hoc working groups.Sandeel fisherySTECF is requested to evaluate and to comment as appropriate the report prepared by the ad hoc working group (08-10 February 2005) with particular attention on the suitability of the agreed methodology. STECF is also requested to agree on the fast written procedure to adopt its opinion on the strength of the sandeel 2004-class strength by 10th May.Management year(s)STECF is requested to advise on the most suitable management year(s) for the various fisheries undertaken in ICES area by taking into consideration seasonality, mixed nature of the fisheries and biological characteristics of exploited marine living resources as well as the timing of the scientific advice provision.STECF is in particular requested to advice on advantages and disadvantages of :4.  establishing a different management year from January-December to April-March5.  establishing different adoption times and different management years for groups of fisheries/stocksSwordfish Mediterranean fisheries ©STECF is requested to advise about the suitability of implementing both a minimum landing size and a closed season, with a possible spatial dimension, for the protection of juveniles of swordfish in the Mediterranean (working document section 13 of SGME D report SEC(2002)1374) ( part 1 , part 2 , part 3).STECF is in particular requested to provide:6.  the expected percentage reduction of juveniles catches for the various measures taken separately or in conjunction.7.  the length-weight relationships both for the entire and gutted/gilled specimens.Data collection. Council Regulation (EC) 1543/2000 (DCR)8.  STECF is requested to agree a written procedure by correspondence for adoption of the future SGRN report “ Analysis of 2004 national reports on data collection programs”.9.  State of play for the establishment of a Community IT system to query national databases. Presentation by JRC (I)10.  Assessing the quality of data collected under the DCR Presentation by JRC (I)11.  STECF is requested to identify possible points of poor-functioning of the data collection programs as also implemented at national levels (e.g. under-sampling; over-sampling; poor relationship between the sampling of fishing effort data and catch survey assessment; etc..) and, in particular, to underline the suitability of the Community data collection program to improve the provision of scientific advice for fisheries management. Possible integration or alternative options should be identified. STECF is, in particular, requested to identify and evaluate what feature of the data collection programme have not properly worked to improve the quality of the ICES advice.12.  STECF is requested to organize a roadmap of SGRN meetings to address the revision of the data collection program (surveys; fleet segmentation; Appendixes; etc…) in order improve it and tailoring it with a view of implementing the ecosystem and bio-economic approaches to fisheries management. STECF shall, in particular, revise the following Appendixes:13.  Fisheries management-Fleet based approach: Appendixes II;III;IV;V;VI;VII;VIII;IX; X; XI;XII;XIII;XV and XVI14.  Ecosystem approach: Appendix XIV and identify new candidate parameters to set up a new Appendix15.  Bio-economic modelling: Appendixes XVII and XVIIIThe work shall be finalized before October 2005. STECF shall agree on the fast written procedure by correspondence to adopt its opinion before the November plenary session. © ®Economic advice (I)STECF is invited to evaluate the most appropriate organization framework to deliver an integrated bio-economic advice in 2005 and afterwards.STECF organization and 2005 Workplan (I)STECF is requested to16.  fix the date, venues, Chairpersons and invited experts list of the meetings in its 2005 workplan.17.  adopt the terms of reference for each meeting18.  appoint the coordinators of each Sub-Groups19.  evaluate and possibly adopt its rules of procedureOther matters(I) Information - © Consultation - ® ReflectionInformation from the Commission and reflections on improvement of scientific adviceBriefing from CommissionMr Biagi informed the Committee on various issues relating both to the functioning of the Committee itself and to the ways the Commission intends to continue supporting the provision of scientific advice in fisheries.He confirmed that in response to the significant increase in workload for STECF, commencing in January 2005, the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy, had taken over the Secretariat of the STECF. The JRC has is well equipped to facilitate the increasing work of the CommitteeMr Biagi apologized for being unable to arrange interpretation and for the less than ideal meeting room arrangements, explaining that unforeseen events, in particular the huge amount of “competing” meetings resulted in the usual meeting location in Centre Borchette being unavailable.He informed the Committee that respondents to the Call for proposals for provision of scientific advice (FISH/2004/03) will be informed of the results of the evaluations within a few days. A further call for proposals, with a new rolling programme for scientific advice covering the years 2006 and 2007, should be launched in June 2005, with a likely deadline of September 2005.From 2007, the implementation of the future Council framework for financial interventions for the implementation of the CFP and the revision of data collection regulation, will result in a more inclusive legal basis to oblige Member States to collect and analyse fisheries data, and provide advice. In this way the European Community will be able to support the provision of timely scientific advice without the need to launch calls for proposals on an annual basis.The process to adopt a new Commission Decision establishing the STECF has already commenced, and the new framework should be available in the near future. The new decision will include provision for financial support to experts attending STECF, STECF Sub-groups and ad hoc expert working groups meetings. Mr Biagi recalled that in future, members of STECF and expert working group participants will be selected from a register of scientists drawn up in response to the Call for expression of interests FISH/2004/AMI that is available at the following web-site:http://europa.eu.int/comm/fisheries/news_corner/corner_en.htm.Mr Biagi encouraged members to publicise this call to potential candidates within the scientific community.Mr Biagi further recalled that under the new framework, individuals chosen to participate in STECF activities will be contracted to the Commission and will be remunerated on the basis of the number of days in attendance. Payment will be carried out according to the instruction given by each participant. It will be the responsibility of the participant to ensure the financial rules adopted by his/her Member States and research Institute are adhered to in his/her instruction for payment.The forthcoming Commission Decision establishing the STECF foresees that the STECF adopt a set of rules of procedure in order to further strengthen its working capacity. The Commission will prepare and circulate to the STECF, well in advance of the next plenary session, preliminary draft rules of procedure that can be examined and amended by the Committee for adoption at the plenary session of November 2005.Until the new STECF is appointed, scientists of the new EU Member States participating in STECF activities attend in the capacity of invited experts.Mr Biagi recalled that the STECF is an independent advisory body of the Commission and therefore participation in STECF activities is as independent experts and not as Member States’ representatives.With respect to financial support for the provision of the 2005 Annual Economic Report (AER) and to evaluate the economic consequences of the ACFM advice (EIAA model), Mr Biagi recalled that a call for tender to support only the analysis of data was due to be launched imminently. He stressed that the call would be for data analysis only, since the data itself should already be available through the data collection regulation.In the case, the call for tender may not be published in due time for whatever reason, it would be just a matter to cover the costs of experts preparing and analysing the data with a view of producing the AER and to run the EIAA model. In this latter case, it may be that the same fleet coverage, as ensured by the Concerted Action, may not be attained. Nevertheless both the outcomes of the Call for proposal FISH/2004/03 and the selection of economists following the FISH/2004/AMI may help to ensure that the Institutes and the economists deliver at least part of the AER and to run the EIAA model within an STECF working group.STECF Comments.STECF welcomed the new Secretarial arrangements, noting that the JRC had already taken several useful initiatives regarding communications between itself, the Committee and DG FISH.The Committee thanked Mr Biagi, for all the tremendous hard work that he had undertaken over the years on behalf of the Committee, noting that despite the ever-increasing workload of STECF, he had successfully managed to combine the successful running of the STECF Secretariat with his other demands within DG FISH. At the same time, the Committee noted the important contribution of several other members of DG FISH, notably Mdm Murielle Hassewer and Mdm Celine Randa in providing secretarial support.The Committee looks forward to working with the JRC and welcomed the organisational initiatives already put in place.Sandeel fisherySTECF is requested to evaluate and comment on the report of the ad hoc working group on sandeel (08-10 February 2005), paying particular attention on the suitability of the agreed methodology. STECF is also requested to agree on the fast written procedure to adopt its opinion on the strength of the 2004 year-class strength by 10th May.Background:In 2004 based on the most recent estimates of SSB, ICES classified the North Sea sandeel stock as having reduced reproductive capacity. SSB in 2004 was estimated to be at a historic low value (325 000 t). SSB in 2003 was above Blim, but has in 2004 decreased to below Blim due to a historic low recruitment in 2002. In absence of a defined F reference point, the state of the stock cannot be evaluated with regard to sustainable harvest. The fishing mortality in 2003 was slightly below the time-series mean. The 2003 year-class is currently estimated at 570 billion which is little below the long-term average. The 2004 year-class is currently uncertain but particularly important to the state of the stock and the fishery in 2005.In 2003 the Council of the EU agreed that the Commission should implement a fishing effort regulation for vessels fishing for sandeel in the North Sea and the Skagerrak. A harvest control rule based on size of the incoming year-class was adopted by the EU and STECF was requested to provide an estimation approach to enable implementation of this rule. In 2004 and again in 2005 an Ad Hoc Working Group was convened to prepare a report on the estimation of the incoming year-class and to propose a long term method for estimating the size of the year-class.The Harvest RuleThe harvest control rule as agreed by the Fisheries Council in2004 (Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005):20.  unrestricted: where STECF estimates the size of the incoming year class of North Sea sandeel to be at or above 500 000 million individuals at age 0, no restrictions in kilowatt-days shall apply;21.  limited: where STECF estimates the size of the incoming year class of North Sea sandeel to be between 300 000 and 500 000 million individuals at age 0, the number of kilowatt-days shall not exceed the level in 2003 as calculated in total kilowatt-days;22.  prohibited: where STECF estimates the size of the incoming year class of North Sea sandeel to be below 300 000 million individuals at age 0, fishing with demersal trawl, seine or similar towed gears with a mesh size of less than 16mm shall be prohibited for the remaining of the year.Note in the original agreement related only to the 2003 year-class however, the rule above has been expressed as a general rule using the term ‘incoming year-class’ to identify the recruiting 1 group year class.The analysis carried out by the ad hoc working group, was based on the XSA assessment of sandeel and conditional on a natural mortality of 0.8 and 1.2 for ages 0 and 1 respectively. This resulted in a CPUE based rule on the 2003 year class at age 1.Estimation of sandeel year-class strengthIn 2004 STECF expressed some concerns about the estimation. In response the Ad Hoc Working Group has proposed an improved year-class estimation method for 2005 with lower probability of overestimating a small incoming year-class. This change in the estimation procedure results in a requirement for a higher CPUE at lower stock size in order to reach the numerical values required to trigger the changes in F given in the HCR. This change should decrease the risk of the sandeel stock falling below Blim.The Ad Hoc WG report presents the data requirements and monitoring scheme proposed for the 2005 sampling and estimate of the 2004 year-class. The WG indicate it should be possible to have the required estimate of the 2004 year-class strength before the end of the week 1-7 May following data collection to week 24- 30 April. It is therefore hoped to meet the Commission deadline of 10 May for the provision of the estimate of the 2004 year-class.The report presents what little pertinent information currently available on the 2004 year class, which on the basis of patterns in landings, does not appear to be a very large year-class.Implementation of the HCRSTECF considers that the harvest control implementation proposed by the ad hoc working group is an improvement on the previous management regime and an improvement on the model proposed in 2004. For the 2005 fishery the harvest control rule uses a classification model based on CPUE and biological data from age 1 fish, based on data up to 30th April 2005, though one additional week is required to prepare the data and carry out the analysis.The Ad Hoc WG report provides a short term, deterministic projection model to evaluate the possible effect of the Commission’s Harvest Control Rule for 2005 on spawning biomass reference points. This simple analysis indicates that the Commission’s Harvest Control Rule appears incompatible with achieving Bpa in 2006 except for the cases with above average year-classes. But the Ad Hoc WG proposes an alternative rule that would be compatible with achieving Bpa in 2006 given in the text box below. This rule provides a linear progressive change in F compatible with maintaining the estimated SSB at Bpa in 2006 for recruitment between 300 and 500 billion. STECF therefore considers that this approach (alternative HCR) would have been more appropriate for 2005.Table 3-1 alternative harvest control rule for sand-eelsRecruitment age 0 of 2004 year-class | Current HCR | Recommended HCR |R2004 < 300 billion | F mult 2005 = 0.3 | F mult 2005 0.3 |300 billion < R2004 < 500 billion | F mult 2005 = 1.0 | [pic] |R2004 > 500 billion | Unbounded | [pic] |Changes in temporal or spatial distribution of effort might cause the CPUE based implementation of the harvest control rule to give erroneous classification. The CPUE based rule is dependent on the assumption that effort in 2004 should be dispersed in the same manner as in the last 15 years.Future ManagementSTECF considers that the currently agreed methodology (HCR)is not adequate for long-term management of NS sandeels. STECF considers that a revised HCR should be developed and evaluated. The detail of this is discussed below and given in detail in the TOR for the Ad Hoc WG for 2005/6 included in section 7 of this report.As the fishery relies on the strength of recruiting year class at age 1, STECF considers that within year management is crucial to the sustainable exploitation of this stock. In 2004 STECF stated that it considered that a development of a more permanent harvest control rule should take into account the following:23.  ICES advice concerning spawning biomass reference points24.  the need to avoid local depletion25.  the significance of the sandeel as a prey species in the North Sea26.  continuing updates of any model to account for changes in the deployment of effortThe Ad Hoc WG report indicates that later this year, members of the WG will conduct a more thorough examination of the HCR, incorporating uncertainty and looking at the longer term consequences for North Sea sandeel stock. STECF strongly supports the Ad Hoc WG in this respect and considers that it is essential that further evaluation of the HCR be undertaken, specifically incorporating the uncertainty in the estimation process. In this context it is noted that the current Bpa may not be suitable as a biomass trigger in a HCR designed to keep sandeel SSB above Blim. The current value of Bpa predates the current management regime which now involves in year estimation of the incoming year-class. The Ad Hoc WG estimates the precision of the incoming year-class at ±50%. Bpa is less than 50% greater than Blim. Therefore, the use of the current Bpa might result in too great a risk of SSB being below Blim. A stochastic simulation is required to evaluate the use of the current Bpa as a trigger value in the HCR based on accuracy of the estimate of the incoming year-class week by week 17. Further details are given in the ToR for the Ad Hoc WG in section 8.7 of this report.For the longer term STECF notes that the significance of the sandeel as a prey species in the North Sea is not explicitly included in the estimation of Blim and would encourage an evaluation of information on the minimum level of sandeels that would be compatible with the eco-system approach to fisheries management in the North Sea.Fast track procedure for 2005STECF will submit the report on the size of the 2004 year-class from the Ad Hoc WG to JRC during week 18 in 2005. JRC will notify all STECF members once the report is available. The comments by STECF members will be posted on the web site and collated over the next 2 days by STECF Chairman and the Sandeel Coordinator. The agreed report will be supplied to the commission by 10th May.STECF notes that it is important that the management action resulting from the agreed HCR is then communicated immediately to the fishers as the current HCR assumes immediate management action (by 15 May) in order to operate correctly.Management year(s)STECF is requested to advise on the most suitable management year(s) for the various fisheries undertaken in ICES area by taking into consideration seasonality, mixed nature of the fisheries and biological characteristics of exploited marine living resources as well as the timing of the scientific advice provision.STECF is in particular requested to advice on advantages and disadvantages of :27.  establishing a different management year from January-December to April-March28.  establishing different adoption times and different management years for groups of fisheries/stocksstecf remarksAs the problem is one for the whole system of fisheries management, STECF has considered the problem in this fashion rather than just an issue related to the assessment cycle. Three options are given below in order of preference. These descriptions highlight the main possibilities, but should not be considered either as completely comprehensive nor mutually exclusive:Option 1: Long Term Management StrategySTECF discussed the traditional, annual, sequence of events leading to the adoption of Council Regulations fixing for the coming year the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels. STECF recognises that the demands of this process have increased in recent years, including important and complex decisions on effort management or closed areas, an increasing number of stocks to consider, consultation with stakeholders etc. STECF are of the opinion that the best way forward is to focus debate on the development of adaptive long-term management plans. In this way management decisions will be made on the basis of agreed long-term strategies for the exploitation of the major fish stocks and thereby help avoid anomalous decisions on the basis of short-term political considerations. Such long term plans should be implemented after consultation with Member States and RACs and, by pre-establishing the management rules that correspond to various biological outcomes, remove much of the contentious outcomes of these decisions.Option 2: Staged Administrative ActionThe process leading to the adoption of these Council Regulations is complex, involving:29.  A scientific evaluation of the state of each stock - the ‘scientific element’ culminating with the ACFM and STECF advice.30.  An administrative phase - consultation with Member States, RACs and other stakeholders, multilateral or bilateral consultations, etc, and culminating with the adoption of a Council Regulation(s).31.  An exploitation phase that, in the main operates on an annual business cycle that requires critical knowledge of fishing opportunities in advance and, for most European countries, this best aligns with the economic year (January to December).The additional demands now evident in this cycle, largely reside in the administrative phase. STECF is of the opinion that adaptations to the annual cycle described above can be most readily achieved by modifying the administrative timetable to take account of advice available in June and thereby leave largely unaltered both the scientific and exploitation phases. STECF is of the opinion that there are only very few stocks with analytical assessments that could be moved from the October to May ACFM. Nevertheless, if this option is considered STECF recommends that ICES be requested to consider ways that would increase the proportion of advise available in the first part of the year (for example completing basic advice on all stocks for which there is currently no analytical assessment, along with those already dealt with in May).Option 3: Realigned Management YearThis option has two major versions, a) retaining the scientific year January to December, and b) adjusting the science year to align with a new management year.Retaining the scientific yearThis strategy would see the administrative phase extend forward into the New Year but would not alter the scientific timetable. This has two important consequences:32.  Assuming the currents scientific timetable is retained, the prediction interval would increase by amount equal to the extension of the administrative phase with a resulting decrease in the quality of that prediction.33.  Similarly the exploitation phase while still operating on an annual cycle would no longer be aligned with the economic year (January to December).Adjusting the science yearAn alternative of this strategy would extend forward the administrative phase into the New Year (for example the Council Regulation fixing for the coming year the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels would be agreed at the end of March) and adjust the scientific phase to align with the new management year.34.  Simply moving forward the entire year (scientific, administrative, and exploitation phases) would not address the increased demands on the process in recent years. Instead, the scientific phase would begin later (reflecting the new management year) but critically it would continue to finish at the same time in the autumn thereby allowing an increased interval between the provision of scientific advise and the adoption of appropriate Council Regulation(s).35.  As there would still be a requirement for the completion of national catch databases in advance of any assessment, then either that process could be accelerated or the assessments could take place later (i.e. reduce the time provided for the assessment phase). This strategy would thus see a transfer of additional demand, now evident in the cycle from the administrative phase, to the scientific phase.36.  STECF is of the opinion that Member Sates and ICES could only contemplate such a change after a considerable reorganisation of their traditional timetable for data acquisition and processing. If this option is considered, STECF recommends that ICES be requested to consider the specific biological and administrative implications in detail - this consultation should extend to individual working groups.ConclusionIn conclusion, STECF considers that whereas adopting a different management year or different adoption times and different management years for groups of fisheries/stocks (or some combination of the two) are possible alternatives to the current management cycle, the most desirable solution, by far, remains the development of adaptive long-term management plans.In the shorter term, and recognising that the additional demands now evident in this cycle largely reside in the administrative phase, STECF recommends that ICES be requested to consider ways that would increase the proportion of advice available in the first part of the year, thereby providing a mechanism to reduced the end-of-year workload whilst minimising the impact on the current scientific and exploitation calendar.Further, STECF considers that the most suitable management year remains the current one (January – December) and that Member Sates and ICES could only contemplate a realigned management year after a considerable reorganisation of their traditional timetable.Mediterranean swordfish fisheriesTECF is requested to advise about the suitability of implementing both a minimum landing size and a closed season, with Sa possible spatial dimension, for the protection of juveniles of swordfish in the Mediterranean (working document section 13 of SGMED report SEC(2002)1374 (part 1, part 2, part 3).STECF is in particular requested to provide:37.  the expected percentage reduction of juveniles catches for the various measures taken separately or in conjunction;38.  the length-weight relationships both for the entire and gilled/gutted specimens.BackgroundDistributionThe Mediterranean swordfish is a unit stock, genetically distinguished from the Atlantic stocks. Its distribution is limited to the Mediterranean (and possibly the Black Sea) and the Atlantic areas close to Gibraltar, with very limited exchange with the Atlantic stocks.Stock StatusBoth production modelling and age-based VPA indicated that since 1986, the stock has remained stable with regard to recruitment, total and spawning stock biomass. This was confirmed by the ICCAT stock assessment in 2003. Fishing mortality rates reached a maximum in late 1980s, dropping to a minimum in 1990, after which they increased again to levels observed in the 1980s. Recent F estimate (around 1.0) is unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.The fisheryAccording to the current knowledge, most of the EU Mediterranean countries participate in the Mediterranean swordfish fishery. The average catch over the period 1984-2001 was about 14.500 t. Annual mean landings over the period 1997-2001 show that the most important EU countries are Italy with 42%, Greece (12%) and Spain (9%), while Cyprus, France, Malta and Portugal also participate in the fishery. Non-EU countries taking part in the Mediterranean swordfish fishery[1] are Morocco, which accounts for 22% of the landings, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Turkey, Japan, Croatia, Albania and Monaco.For centuries, the Mediterranean swordfish fishery was carried out using driftnets or harpoons, while the use of surface drifting longlines is much more recent, with a broad expansion all over the Mediterranean after the 1960s. The driftnet fishery is has been banned over most of the Mediterranean (from 1st January 2002 in the EC countries and from 2005 for all the ICCAT members), although illegal activity is continuing. The harpoon fishery is limited to a few vessels in the Strait of Messina, while the longline fishery takes place throughout the Mediterranean by most EU countries using various methodologies and fishing techniques.The longline fishery for swordfish is usually carried out year-round, but mostly from March to November. It is the most important activity in fall and winter and sometimes the only method used at that time. Swordfish are also taken as by-catch in long-line fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species, particularly in the albacore fishery.The highest catches of juvenile swordfish occur between September and December.Length at maturity and mean length in landingsThe estimated size at which 50% of the female swordfish population is mature (L50) is about 142 cm LJFL[2]. Males reach sexual maturity at a smaller size. Variations between gears, areas and years are also known. Mean length in the landings is well below the L50 for females. The mean length from Greek landings is reported to be 124 cm LJFL in the Greek longline fishery (varying from 107 to 143 cm) and 111 in the Italian longline fishery (varying from 95 to 112 cm).The low mean length is a reflection of the number of juveniles present in the population, the low size selectivity of pelagic longlines and the high presence of juveniles in the catches from fall to winter (particularly from September to February, with peaks in September to November) although juveniles are present in the catches throughout the year.Current regulationsA minimum size limit for the Mediterranean swordfish (120 cm LJFL) was adopted by the Council Regulation (EC) 1626/94, which was dropped in 2002 and, at present, no minimum size regulation is in place for this species in the Mediterranean.Greek national regulations prohibit the use of surface longline between 1st October to 31st January. A minimum landing size of 140 cm (UJFL[3] equal to about 93 cm LJFL) applies in Italy and a minimum landing size of 120 cm LJFL applies in Tunisia.No TAC regulation applies for the Mediterranean swordfish stock.closed season and minimum landing size for Mediterranean swordfishIncidence of juvenile swordfish in Mediterranean catches.Juveniles[4] are found throughout the Mediterranean all the year round, but often tend to concentrate in areas of favourable trophic and oceanographic conditions, particularly in autumn, when the 0 age-class aggregate. The spatial distribution of the juveniles varies from year to year. The percentage of juveniles among swordfish landings might vary from 15% to 100%, according to area, month, depth, type of the hook and bait, both in the swordfish fishery or in the albacore fishery[5]. It is quite difficult to properly assess each fishery based on monthly data, because of differences in samplings. In addition monthly landings data are not available in the ICCAT data base for most of the Mediterranean countries. The situation is improving according with the EC Data Collection Regulation. Furthermore, very small swordfish are sometimes discarded at sea, consumed on board or landed sliced and it is quite difficult to assess how landings could represent the real incidence of juveniles on catches. This gives rise to a clear underestimation of juvenile component in the landings and a consequent underestimation of fishing mortality of juveniles in the models used by ICCAT.The incidence in number of juveniles in the overall swordfish catch in the most productive area in the Mediterranean sea (South Tyrrhenian Sea and Strait of Sicily) from September to December [6], taken as an example, in a mean over the period 2001-2004, is given in table Table 5.2.1.Table 5-1 Incidence of juvenile swordfish in the catches of the most productive Mediterranean area in South Tyrrhenian Sea and Strait of Sicily from September to DecemberHypothetical minimum landing size LJFL | Juvenile estimated swordfish component in landings in the period September-December (number of specimens) |cm | Size class cm (LJFL) | mean % | limits |110 | <110 | 31.3 | 23% - 39% |120 | <120 | 53.8 | 40% - 66.7% |130 | <130 | 70.3 | 59.9% - 80% |140 | <140 | 81,6 | 73.3% - 89.4% |The potential effect of the introduction of a minimum landing size and seasonally closed area for EU fisheriesThe adoption of a minimum size limit for the Mediterranean swordfish is unlikely to reduce fishing mortality on juveniles, since a reduction in minimum landing size alone will have no effect on the catch of juveniles. On the contrary, a minimum landing size is likely to lead to increased discarding and illegal landings and further deterioration in catch data. Furthermore, enforcement might be ineffective, since several non EU fleets operate in the same area and according to WTO rules in the absence of an internationally agreed common regulation, international trade of juveniles cannot be avoided.A seasonal closure for the pelagic longline fishery during the period September-December is considered to be a more suitable option to reduce swordfish juvenile fishing mortality. A seasonal closure is practical and is relatively easy to enforce and control. The length of the closure and the fishery in question should be determined depending on the reduction in juvenile catch required. The greatest reductions in mortality would occur if a closure were to be implemented towards the beginning of the period.A seasonal closure, especially during the fall, would also be expected to reduce the catch of juveniles of other large pelagic species. However, seasonal closures are also likely to reduce the overall catch of adult swordfish and of other commercial and non-commercial species to varying degrees. An estimate of the overall effects of closures over the period September to December on the catch in weight of swordfish and albacore are given in Table 5-2Table 5-2 Indicative percentage landing by weight by month in 2003 of swordfish estimated from the swordfish fishery in the Southern Tyrrhenian and the Strait of Sicily. This fishery, which is the most important Mediterranean swordfish fishery, is used as an example. Cumulative percentage reductions are for consecutive periods starting at the beginning of SeptemberMonth | Swordfish landings | Albacore landings |% predicted lost | Cumulative % predicted lost | % predicted lost | Cumulative % predicted lost |September | 9 | 9 | 5 | 5 |October | 7 | 16 | 13 | 18 |November | 6 | 22 | 8 | 26 |December | 1 | 23 | 2 | 28 |Although Table 5-2 is only indicative and the seasonal nature of the fishery may vary considerably, STECF nevertheless agrees with ICCAT, that the effects of a closure of less than 2-months duration is likely to have only a marginal effect on the fishing mortality of juveniles.However, largely because of a lack of reliable data on the catches from the fishery (reported to ICCAT), STECF is unable to provide a precise prediction of the potential impact of a seasonal closure (with or without a minimum landing size). However STECF considers that a fully enforced seasonal closure of at least 2 months (with or without 110 cm LJFL minimum size), should result in a overall reduction in swordfish landings.STECF also points out that the choice of season should take into account the overall economic effects on the albacore fishery.STECF conclusions and recommendationsAssuming effort is not allowed to increase at other times of the year, STECF recommends that the adoption and the implementation of a seasonal closure for the pelagic longline fishery in the Mediterranean (including longline sport fishing) during the period September-December would be an effective way to reduce fishing mortality on juvenile swordfish. Such a measure should be relatively easy to enforce and control. A seasonal closure would also reduce the fishing mortality on adult swordfish and on other commercial and non-commercial species to varying degrees. This recommendation is further qualified by the comments below:39.  STECF agrees with ICCAT that the effects of a closure of less than 2-months duration is likely to have a marginal effect on the fishing mortality of juveniles.40.  STECF recognizes that the implementation of a minimum landing size alone will have no effect on catches or juvenile fishing mortality for Mediterranean swordfish. STECF notes the difficulties in implementing the minimum size regulation for this species, and the fact that a minimum size regulation may result in a general deterioration in data quality and an increase in discards.41.  A combined seasonal closure and minimum landing size regulation is unlikely to lead to any greater reduction in catches or fishing mortality on juvenile swordfish compared to a closure alone.42.  STECF recommends that GFCM and ICCAT should be involved in the process to adopt common rules for the management of Mediterranean swordfish fisheries.Length-weight relationshipsCurrent estimatesThe growth equations adopted by the GFCM/ICCAT Working Group in 1995 and used for the ICCAT Mediterranean swordfish stock assessment in 2003 are those published by Tserpes and Tsimenides (1995) and still used as follows:Linf = 238.60 (1 – e –0.185 (t + 1.404) ) for sexes combinedLinf = 203.08 (1 – e –0.241 (t + 1.205) ) for malesLinf = 226.53 (1 – e –0.210 (t + 1.165) ) for females.According to these parameters, the predicted length at age is as follows:Table 5-3 age-length relationship for Mediterranean swordfishAGE | MALES (cm) | FEMALES (cm) |1 | 83 | 82 |2 | 109 | 110 |3 | 129 | 132 |4 | 145 | 149 |5 | 158 | 165 |6 | 167 | 176 |7 | 175 | 186 |8 | 181 | 194 |9 | 186 | 200 |Swordfish usually exhibit sexual dimorphism (females are bigger than males) and since most fish are landed gutted, it is not straightforward to estimate realistic length-whole (round) weight relationship. The current conversion from gilled and gutted weight (GWT) to round weight (RWT) for Mediterranean swordfish as used by ICCAT is as follows:GWT x 1.33333 = RWTThis general conversion factor does not consider variations by age, sex or physiological status of each animal.Several authors have proposed length-weight relationships that allow estimates of various weight forms (gilled-gutted, round, etc) from lower jaw-fork length (LJFL) measurements (De Metrio et al., 1987, cited in ICCAT 1990; Tsimenides and Tserpes, 1989; Mejuto and de la Serna, 1993; De la Serna et al.,1995; Hattour, 1996; Orsi-Relini et al., 1999; Alicli and Oray, 2001; Tserpes et al., 2003).Currently, the ICCAT is still using the length-weight relationship proposed by De Metrio et al, 1990, that was based on a limited sampling, which is the following:GWT = 5.701 x 10-6 x LJ-F3.16.The results of the most recent study work by Tserpes et al. (2003), based on 24,668 specimens, are compared with those of De Metrio et al (1990) in Figure 5.3.1. parameter estimates from Tserpes et al, (2003), are given in Table 5-4 and plots of various fitted length weight relationships are given in Figure 5.1.[pic]Figure 5.1 Graphical plots of the estimated LJFL-GWT relationships for the swordfish from Central and Eastern Mediterranean Sea.Table 5-4 Coefficients of the general equation used (GWT= a LJFL b ) for predicting swordfish gilled and gutted weight (GWT kg) to lower jaw fork length (LJFL cm) for the central and Eastern Mediterranean Sea (Tserpes et al ., 2003).[pic][pic]Figure 5.2 LJFL-GWT relationships for Mediterranean swordfish based on the results of various studies.Table 5-5 shows the results of numerous other studies on the length weight relationship for Mediterranean swordfish.Table 5-5. Length-weight relationships for Mediterranean swordfish from various studiesAlthoff, Wiking | EC, Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Italy) | +339-0332-785995 | +339-0332-789658 | Stecf-secretary@jrc.it |Ardizzone, Giandomenico | Universitá di Roma “La sapienza” (Italy) | +39-06-49914773 | Giandomenico.ardizzone@uniroma1.it |Bertignac, Michel | IFREMER (France) | +33-298224525 | +33-298224653 | michel.bertignac@ifremer.fr |Biagi, Franco | EC, DG FISH, Brussels (Belgium) | +32-2-29-94104 | +32-2-2994802 | Franco.Biagi@cec.eu.int |Camiñas, Juan Antonio | IEO (Spain) | +34-952478148 | +34952463808 | jacaminas@ma.ieo.es |Cardinale, Massimiliano | Havsfiskelaboratoriet (Sweden) | +46-523-187-00 | +46-523-139-77 | Massimiliano.cardinale@fiskeriverket.se |Casey, John | CEFAS (U.K.) | +44-1502524251 | +44-15025244511 | j.casey@cefas.co.uk |Di Natale, Antonio | Aquastudio (Italy) | +39-090-346408 | +39-090-364560 | aquauno@tin.it adinatale@acquariodigenova.it |Dickey-Collas, Mark | RIVO-DLO (The Netherlands) | +31-255-564685 | +31-255-564644 | Mark.dickeycollas@wur.nl |Doerner, Hendrik | EC, Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Italy) | +339-0332-789343 | +339-0332-789658 | Stecf-secretary@jrc.it |Ernst, Peter | Institut für Ostseefischerei Rostock (Germany) | +49-381-810352 | +49-381-810445 | peter.ernst@ior.bfa-fisch.de |Fariña, Celso Antonio | IEO (Spain) | +34-981-205362 | +34-981-229077 | Celso.farina@co.ieo.es |Franquesa, Ramon | GEM, Fac. Economiques (Spain) | +34-932-856803 | ramon@gemub.com |Geronymaki, Maria | EC, Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Italy) | +339-0332-789329 | +339-0332-789658 | Maria.geronymaki@jrc.it |Grzebielec, Ryszard | Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia (Poland) | +48586201728 | rysiek@mir.gdynia.pl |Gustavsson, Tore | Swedish National Board of Fisheries (Sweden) | +46-31-7430300 | +46-31-7430444 | tore.gustavsson@fiskeriverket.se |Hagstrom, Olle | EC, DG FISH, Brussels (Belgium) | +32-2-29-92116 +32-2-29-67148 +32-2-29-53646 | +32-2-2994802 | olle.hagstrom@cec.eu.int |Keatinge, Michael | BIM (Ireland) | +353-1-2144230 | keatinge@bim.ie |Krušnik, Ciril | Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia (Slovenia) | +386-41243601 | Ciril.krusnik@zzrs.sl |Kuikka, Sakari | University of Helsinki (Finaland) | +358 919158257 | Sakari.kuikka@helsinki.fi |Kuzebski, Emil | Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia (Poland) | +48586206636 | emil@mir.gdynia.pl |Lokkegaard, Jorgen | FOI Danish Institute of Food Economics (Denmark) | +45-35 286890 | +45-35 286801 | jl@foi.dk |Messina, Gaetano | Instituto di Scienze Marine (Italy) | +39-071-2078831 | +39-071-55313 | g.messina@ismar.cnr.it |Moguedet, Philippe | EC, DG FISH, Brussels (Belgium) | +32-2-29-86817 | +32-2-2994802 | philippe.moguedet@cec.eu.int |Munch-Petersen, Sten | DIFRES (Denmark) | +45-33963390 | +45-33963333 | smp@dfu.min.dk |Perraudeau, Yves | Universit of Nantes (France) | Yves.perraudeau@sc-eco.univ-nantes.fr |Petrakis, George | Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (Greece) | +30-210-9822557 | +30-210-98711716 | gpetr@ncmr.gr |Polet, Hans | VLIZ: Flanders Marine Institute (Belgium) | +32-59-342253 | +32—59-330629 | Hans.polet@dvz.be |Rätz, Hans-Joachim | BFA Institute for Sea Fisheries (Germany) | +49-40-38905-169 | +49-40-38905-263 | hans-joachim.raetz@ish.bfa-fisch.de |Redant, Frank | CLO – Sea Fisheries Department (Belgium) | +32-59-34-22-50 | +32-59-34-22-61 | Frank.redant@dvz.be |Saat, Thomas | Estonian Marine Institute (Estonia) | +37-267-18-901 | +37-2-67-18-900 | tsaat@sea.ee, tsaat@hot.ee |Sheperd, Iain | EC, Joint Research Centre, Ispra (Italy) | +339-0332-789489 | +339-0332-789658 | Stecf-secretary@jrc.it |Simmonds, Edmund John | Fisheries Research Services (UK) | +44-1224-295566 | +44-1224-295511 | j.simmonds@marlab.ac.uk |Somarakis, Stylianos | University of Patras (Greece) | +30-2610-969225 | +30-2610-996100 | somarak@upatras.gr |Statkus, Romas | Fishery Research Laboratory. Klaipeda (Lithuania) | +370-46-391122 | +370-46-391104 | statrom@gmail.com |VanHee, Willy | VLIZ: Flanders Marine Institute (Belgium) | +32-59342255 | +32-59330629 | Willy.vanhee@dvz.be |Van Oostenbrugge, Hans | LEI (The Netherlands) | +31-70 3359239 | +31-70 3615624 | Hans.vanOostenbrugge@wur.nl |Virtanen, Jarno | Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (Finland) | +358-205-751302 | +358-205-751202 | Jarno.virtanen@rktl.fi |Vitins, Maris | Latvian Fish Ressources Agency (Latvia) | +371 7612409 | +371 7616946 | maris.vitins@latzra.lv |87.  [1] The percentages are related to the period 1997-2002, according to the ICCAT report in 2004.[2] Lower Jaw Fork Length[3] Upper jaw fork length.[4] For the purpose of this response, “juveniles” are defined as immature fish.[5] Due to the small size of the hooks used in the albacore fishery, the incidence of juvenile swordfish in catches is particularly high in autumn, as clearly reported in several EC study project.[6] Landing data for the Southern Tyrrhenian Sea and Strait of Sicily from 2001 to 2004.