Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) : 55th plenary meeting report (PLEN-17-02).
Date: 2017-09-21
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: Community fisheries, Joint Research Centre, conservation of fish stocks, environmental economics, research report

SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND 
ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR 
FISHERIES –  
55TH PLENARY MEETING REPORT 
(PLEN-17-02) 

PLENARY MEETING,  

10-14 July 2017, Brussels 

Edited by Clara Ulrich & Hendrik Doerner 

2017 

1

EUR 28359 EN 

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European 
Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support 
to the European policy-making process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy 
position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on 
behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication. 

Contact information  
Name: STECF secretariat 
Address: Unit D.02 Water and Marine Resources, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra VA, Italy 
E-mail: stecf-secretariat@jrc.ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +39 0332 789343 

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC107569 

EUR 28359 EN 

PDF 

ISBN  978-92-79-67488-4 

ISSN 2467-0715; 1831-9424  doi:10.2760/53335 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

© European Union, 2017 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

How  to  cite:  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  55th  Plenary 
Meeting Report (PLEN-17-02); Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 28359 
EN; doi:10.2760/53335 

All images © European Union 2017 

Abstract 

Commission  Decision  of  25  February  2016  setting  up  a  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic 

Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult 

the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries 

economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. 
The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 55th plenary on 10-14 July 
2017 in Brussels. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 4 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................. 4 

INFORMATION TO THE PLENARY ................................................................. 5 

ASSESSMENT OF STECF EWG REPORTS ........................................................ 6 

4.1  EWG  17-01  and  EWG  17-06:  Economic  fleet  data  of  check  to  support  economic 
analysis in 2017 and draft AER national chapters and Annual Economic Report of 
the fleet of 2017 ....................................................................................... 6 

4.2 EWG 17-02 Methodology EWG in the MED .......................................................... 8 

4.3 EWG 17-03 Evaluation of LO joint recommendations .......................................... 16 

4.4 EWG 17-05 Fisheries Dependent Information - Classic........................................ 40 

4.5 EWG 17-07 DCF 2016 Annual reports evaluation & Data Transmission to end users in 
2016 ..................................................................................................... 43 

4.6 EWG 17-04 Quality assurance for DCF data ...................................................... 49 

5. 

ADDITIONAL  REQUESTS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  STECF  PLENARY  BY  THE 
COMMISSION ......................................................................................... 52 

5.1 Interspecies flexibility .................................................................................... 52 

5.2 Irish avoidance programme for picked dogfish .................................................. 63 

5.3 Clarification on STECF Report on Joint Recommendations for Natura 2000 sites under 
CFP Article 11 (STECF-16-24) ................................................................... 71 

5.4 Eastern Bluefin tuna ...................................................................................... 77 

5.5 Effort regime for Mediterranean demersal fisheries ............................................ 83 

5.6 Management Plan for small pelagics fishery using purse seine net "srdelara" (Republic 
of Croatia) ............................................................................................. 92 

5.7 Derogation for 'gangui' trawlers in certain territorial waters of France .................. 101 

6. 

7. 

8. 

STECF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STECF-PLEN-17-02 ................................ 115 

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS .................................................................... 116 

CONTACT DETAILS OF STECF MEMBERS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS ............. 117 

3 

 
 
55th PLENARY MEETING REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC, 
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE FOR FISHERIES 
(PLEN-17-02) 

PLENARY MEETING 

10-14 July 2017, Brussels 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  STECF  plenary  took  place  at  the  Centre  Borschette,  Brussels,  from  10  to  14  July 
2017.  The  chair  of  the  STECF,  Clara  Ulrich,  opened  the  plenary  session  at  10:15h.  The 
terms  of  reference  for  the  meeting  were  reviewed  and  discussed  and  consequently  the 
meeting  agenda  agreed.  The  session  was  managed  through  alternation  of  plenary  and 
working  group  meetings.  Rapporteurs  for  each  item  on  the  agenda  were  appointed  and 
are identified in the list of participants. The meeting closed at 16:00h on 14 July 2017. 

2.  LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 

The  meeting  was  attended  by  22  members  of  the  STECF,  five  invited  experts  and  four 
JRC  personnel.  13  Directorate  General  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  (DG  MARE) 
attended parts of the meeting. Section nine of this report provides a detailed participant 
list with contact details. 

The following members were unable to attend the meeting: 

1.  Haritz Arrizabalaga 
2.  Michel Bertignac 
3.  Lisa Borges 
4.  Massimiliano Cardinale 
5.  Hazel Curtis 
6.  Georgi Daskalov 
7.  Didier Gascuel 
8.  Hilario Murua 
9.  Alen Soldo 
10. Luc van Hoof 
11. Hans van Oostenbrugge  
12. Nedo Vrgoc 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  INFORMATION TO THE PLENARY 

The  STECF  was  informed  on  the  current  state  of  planning  for  meetings  in  3rd  and  4th 
quarters 2017 and on possible upcoming requests for advice by written procedure. 

Meetings 2017: 

  EWG  17-11:  Stock  assessments  in  the  Black  Sea  2017  plus  associated  data 
preparation meeting: data prep. meeting 7-8 September, EWG 11-15 September, 
Ispra, Italy, chair: M. Cardinale 

  EWG 17-08: Balance / Capacity: 18-22 September, Cyprus, Chair: G. Scarcella 
  EWG  17-09:  Stock  assessments  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  2017-  Part  I:  23-29 

September, Split, Croatia, chair: J. Simmonds 

  EWG 17-10: Long-term management of skates and rays: 16-20 October, Brussels, 

chair: M. Bertignac 

  EWG  17-12:  Fisheries  Dependent  Information  -  new  FDI:  23-27  October,  JRC-

Ispra, chair: S. Holmes 

  PLEN  17-03:  Winter  plenary  meeting:  6-10  November  (start  time:  11:00h), 

Brussels, chair: C. Ulrich 

  EWG 17-13: Evaluation of DCF National work plans amendments for 2018/19: 13-

17 November, Hamburg, Germany, chair: C. Stransky 

  EWG  17-15:  Stock  assessments  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  2017-  Part  II,  27 

November – 3 December, venue tbd, chair: J. Simmonds 

Meetings 2018: 

  EWG 17-16: Economic report fish processing: 1st quarter 2018, venue tbd, chair: 

R. Döring 

  EWG 17-20: Support to Tuna or tuna like species assessments: 1st quarter 2018, 

venue tbd, chair tbd 

  EWG 17-14: Evaluation and updating the list of mandatory surveys: provisionally 
scheduled  Nov/Dec  2017  will  be  moved  to  March-May  2018,  JRC/Ispra/Vaarese, 
chair: D. B. Sampson 

Forthcoming written procedures: 

1.  Top-up tables using FDI data from 2015 and 2016 – will take place after plenary 

report release / summer 2017 

2.  Review  of  work  of  EWG  17-11:  Stock  assessments  in  the  Black  Sea  2017  – 

deadline OWP 20 October 2017 

3.  Review  of  work  of  EWG  17-13:  Evaluation  of  DCF  National  work  plans 

amendments for 2018/19 – deadline for OWP 8 December 2017 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. ASSESSMENT OF STECF EWG REPORTS 

4.1  EWG  17-01  and  EWG  17-06:  Economic  fleet  data  of  check  to  support 
economic  analysis  in  2017  and  draft  AER  national  chapters  and  Annual 
Economic Report of the fleet of 2017 

Request to the STECF 

STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  report  of  the  STECF  Expert  Working  Group  meetings, 
evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations. 

STECF response 

STECF observations 

STECF reviewed the 2017 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing fleet and notes that 
the  EWG  adequately  addressed  all  the  ToRs.  STECF  acknowledges  the  extensive  work 
undertaken  by  all  personnel  involved in  the preparation  of  the  2017  AER  by  attendance 
to two EWGs (EWG17-01 and 17-06). The 2017 AER represents the most comprehensive 
overview  of  the  structure  and  economic  performance  of  the  EU  fishing  fleets  (at  EU, 
regional and Member states’ level) and replaces previous AER reports.  

The  results  of  the  AER  2017  report  indicate  that  the  profitability  of  the  EU  fishing  fleet 
again  increased  in  2015  compared  to  2014  and  is  expected  to  have  continued  in  2016 
and into 2017 mainly because of increased landings and low fuel prices. At the regional 
level, the profitability of the European fleets is improving in almost all the regions except 
for  the  Baltic  region  where  the  net  profit  still  shows  negative  values  and  after  a  slight 
improvement in 2013 and 2014, deteriorated again in 2015. Regarding the other regions, 
in  the  Northeast  Atlantic,  despite  the  decrease  in  landings,  the  overall  performance 
improved as well as in the North Sea & Eastern Arctic region and in the Mediterranean & 
Black Sea, where 2015 was the most profitable year so far analysed. 

The data in this report have undergone extensive data validation procedures by JRC and 
assessment by the two EWGs. STECF acknowledges that a significant amount of effort is 
required to carry out quality check and correct the first data uploaded by MS, before and 
during the first EWG. Data errors observed during the first EWG can be corrected by the 
MS up to two weeks after the first EWG.  

Based on the EWG report, STECF made a number of observations:  

The  identification  and  the  assessment  of  data  transmission  failures  should  be  improved 
as reported under TOR 5.5. 

The quality and coverage of data submitted by Member States has continued to improve, 
allowing for more accurate and precise observations about the economic performance of 
the  EU  Member  States’  fishing  fleets.  Overall,  the  coverage  has  improved,  and  in  the 
2017 AER report only Greece was excluded from the EU overview (due to incompleteness 
of  data  series);  and  only  a  few  fleet  segments  were  excluded  due  to  confidentiality 
reasons. 

STECF  acknowledges  the  positive  development  in  the  two  EWG’s  moving  from  data 
handling towards more detailed discussions about the applied methodologies and analysis 
of  why  observed  developments  takes  place  (e.g.  main  drivers).  Some  preliminary 
investigations are provided in the report, including for example discussions on high wage 
levels in some member states or negative economic performance in the Baltic Sea. Such 
analyses are expected to be further developed in the future. 

6 

 
 
 
 
As  observed  in  PLEN  16-02,  the  use  of  the  CPI  (Consumer  Price  Index)  to  adjust  time 
series  for  inflation  is  still  a  pending  issue.  CPI  is  an  index  compiled  using  the  price 
development  of  many  goods.  However,  many  of  these  goods  are  not  directly  used  in 
fisheries,  thus  other  indices  could  potentially  be  applied,  if  such  are  available  and 
applicable. 

Many  Member  States  have  voluntarily  provided  information  about  fleet  structure  and 
landings for 2016. This information is used as the basis for the 2016 and 2017 economic 
projections based on the BEMEF-model, including other types of information as well (e.g. 
agreed TACs, average fuel prices and first-sale prices).  

A  thorough  description  of  the  BEMEF-model  is  included  in  the  2017  AER  addressing  the 
some  of  the  limitations  raised  in  PLEN  17-01-report  (i.e  uncertainty  estimates  and 
robustness  of  outputs  given  model  structure).  The  possibility  of  incorporating  technical 
interactions  at  the  metier  level  was  not  addressed  because  not  required  for  the  specific 
needs of the AER. 

The  approach  of  using  “days  at  sea”  to  split  fleet  segment  data  by  region  continues  to 
have some drawbacks. Given that it is based on the assumption that the cost structure, 
and/or  costs  per  day  at  sea,  are  the  same  for  all  regions,  it  can  result  in  inaccurate 
estimates.  Furthermore,  it  is  not  within  the  DCF  data  possible  to  make  a  distinction 
between  how  much  time  is  used  for  fishing  and  steaming  between  fishing  areas  and 
homeport.  

The EWG has considered last years’ deviations in the methodologies for calculating some 
economic  indicators  across  different  STECF  working  groups.  Thus,  STECF  acknowledges 
that the use and estimation of capital costs in AER 2017 are consistent with the approach 
used in the report on the Balance between fleet capacity and fishing opportunities (STECF 
16-18).  

STECF  notes  that  the  AER  reports  have  never  included  any  information  about  the 
downstream  services  covering  the  processing  industry  and  onshore  service  industries 
(e.g.  shipyards,  oil  bunkers,  gear  producers,  provision  suppliers  etc.).  STECF  observes 
that  the  general  interest  about  the  downstream  services  beyond  just  covering  the 
processing  sector  is  increasing  in  order  evaluate  the  importance  and  potential  effect  on 
e.g. local communities following changes in the level of activity in the primary fishery. 

STECF conclusions 

The  2017  Annual  Economic  Report  (AER)  on  the  European  Union  (EU)  fishing  fleet 
provides  the  most  comprehensive  overview  of  the  structure  and  economic  performance 
of EU Member States’ fishing fleets prepared up to date. STECF concludes that the report 
represents  a  step  forward  and  that  the  report  can  provide  useful  information  to 
managers, policy-makers, as well as other end-users. 

STECF  concludes  that  the  appropriateness  in  using  the  CPI  compared  to  other  more 
specific price/cost indices should be further evaluated. 

STECF  concludes  that  the  methodology  on  data  disaggregation  by  fishing  regions  using 
the  days  at  sea  should  be  further  investigated  in  order  to  assess  its  potential  bias  and 
inaccuracy,  and  to  consider  alternative  options  to  obtain  better  cost  estimates  for  the 
different regions.  

STECF notes the interest of DG MARE for analysis regarding the downstream services. A 
process  would  need  to  be  initiated  to  identify  the  purpose  of  collecting  the  information, 
which  industries  should  be  in  focus,  potential  approaches  for  collecting  this,  and  how  it 
can be presented. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2 EWG 17-02 Methodology EWG in the MED 

Request to the STECF 

STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  EWG  17-02  report,  to  evaluate  its  findings  and  make 
appropriate  comments  including,  where  possible,  explicit  endorsement  with  respect  to 
the methods and advices provided therein. 

In particular, on the basis of the EWG results and STECF is requested: 

As regards the Length based Analyses 

To provide solutions including shared guidelines, where feasible, on how to overcome 
the shortcoming identified  

As regards the Data Limited Stocks  

to provide a reasoned list of Mediterranean data limited stocks that can be regularly 
assessed with the identified methods over the next 3-5 years 

As regards the target stocks and main by-catch associated species for possible 
future multiannual plans  

-To advise on the stocks that should be considered, either as driving the fisheries or 
as relevant by-catches  
-To provide pros and cons of the geographical scope of each possible plan taking into 
account  the  content  requirements  of  the  multiannual  plans,  the  distribution  of  the 
stocks, the dynamics and technical interactions between fleets as well as the scientific 
knowledge currently available to the scientific community.  

STECF response  

STECF observations  

The working group was held in Arona, Italy, from 5th to 9th June 2017. The meeting was 
attended by 18 experts in total, including 3 STECF members and 4 JRC experts.  

The objective of the Mediterranean Methodology EWG 17-02 was to develop a number of 
scientific  areas  to  assist  in  future  assessments.  The  ToRs  were  partially  based  on  ideas 
developed  from  STECF-16-17  (Demersal  stock  assessments  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea). 
In addition, two review ToRs were added. 

TERMS OF REFERENCE GIVEN TO THE EWG: 

The STECF-EWG 17-02 was requested: 

(1)  To  collate  and  review  all  relevant  information  of  length  based  analyses  (including 
length slicing to age and choice of biological parameters) used so far in STECF-EWG for 
Mediterranean  stock  assessment  (STECF  16-22;  16-21;  16-17  and  other  relevant 
sources).  Consider  both  the  influence  on  the  results  of  stock  assessment  and  also  the 
influence on MSY reference points. In the light of this review, provide solutions on how to 
overcome the shortcomings and develop shared guidelines so that further improvements 
in the estimates of parameters, reference points, stock status and exploitation rates are 
delivered.  The  following  species  are,  inter  alia,  to  be  considered,:  hake  (Merluccius 
merluccius),  red  mullet  (Mullus  barbatus#)  and  deepwater  rose  shrimp  (Parapenaeus 
longirostris). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(2)  

i)  To  apply  and  compare  potential  data  poor  methods  to  provide  MSY  advice  by  taking 
into  account  timespan  and  types  of  data  series  available  under  the  DCF.  The  following 
stocks are, inter alia, to be considered: blue whiting in GSAs 6 and 9 (STECF 14-17) and 
hake in GSAs 6, 7 and 9, 

ii)  for  the  same  stocks,  to  compare  the  data  poor  methods  to  the  existing  analytical 
assessments in order to indicate differences in the quality of the results obtained by the 
different approaches; 

iii) to apply the best available data poor method that resulted from point 2i and 2ii above 
to the following data poor stocks: blue whiting in GSAs 17, striped red mullet in GSA 11 
(tbc). 

(3) To carry out a critical review of the stock boundaries for the species and areas listed 
below.  This  review  shall  take  into  account  the  latest  bioecological  and  fishery-related 
information available including, inter alia, recent analyses on the topic supported by DG 
MARE  (see  Annexes  [X]1).  In  the light  of  this  review,  propose  scientifically  sound  stock 
units for: 

a)  anchovy  (Engraulis  encrasicolus)  and  sardine  (Sardina  pilchardus)  in  the  western 
Mediterranean Sea (GSAs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11); 

b) common Pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) and 
common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) in the Adriatic Sea (GSAs 17 and 18); and 

c)  European  hake  (Merluccius  merluccius)  and  red  mullet  (Mullus  barbatus#)  in  the 
Ionian Sea (GSAs 19 and 20). 

(4)  To advise on the stocks that should be considered, either as driving the fisheries or 
as  relevant  by-catches,  for  possible  multiannual  plans  addressing  the  small  pelagic 
fisheries  of  the  Western  Mediterranean  Sea  (GSAs  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11),  the  demersal 
fisheries of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas (GSAs 17, 18, 19, 20) and the demersal fisheries 
of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea (GSAs 22, 23, 25). For this purpose, the annexes [1], 
[2] and [3] provide an overview of the main elements that could be considered so far. 

The advice shall provide also pros and cons of the geographical scope of each plan taking 
into  account  the  content  requirements  of  the  multiannual  plans,  the  distribution  of  the 
stocks,  the  dynamics  and  technical  interactions  between  fleets  as  well  as  the  scientific 
knowledge  currently  available  to  the  scientific  community.  Synoptic  overview  of  the 
information used in support of the advice shall be reported. 

*1 Work to be done through ad-hoc contracts during the first semester of 2017.  

#  red  mullet  (Mullus  barbatus)  was  originally  noted  incorrectly  in  the  as  Mullus  surmuletus  this  is  corrected 
here 

STECF comments 

In relation to each of the Terms of Reference (ToRs), STECF notes the following: 

ToR 1 - STECF acknowledges the EWG’s exploration of the impact of length slicing to age 
and choice of biological parameters to the assessment of stock status. STECF notes that 
in the past there has been considerable variation in the parameter values used for length 
slicing  and  for  natural  mortality  for  the  three  important  demersal  species  investigated. 
STECF analysed the impact of changes in von Bertalanffy Growth Parameters (hereafter 
VBGP)  and  M  values  on  the  assessment  outcomes.  While  minor  changes  to  the 
parameters  may  not  have  a  significant  impact,  STECF  notes  that  in  the  cases  the 
assessment  outcome  is  close  to  the  MSY  reference  point,  a  change  of  0.05  in  k 
(corresponding  to  a  approx.  10%  uncertainty  around  the  estimate)  could  lead  to  a 

9 

 
 
 
different diagnosis of the stock from overexploited to underexploited. In the case of deep 
water rose shrimp, European hake and red mullet, major differences have been observed 
in  VBGP  parameters  historically  estimated,  and  these  can  have a considerable  influence 
on stock assessment.  

STECF  agrees  with  the  EWG  that  there  is  a  need  for  greater  consistency  in  VBGP 
parameters  across  stocks  of  the  same  species  and  that  EWGs  should  attempt  to  base 
VBGP values on the underlying data where possible (and not on values published in the 
literature). The EWG suggests calling for the underlying data, the age length keys (ALK) 
for the stocks for which these are planned in the DCF National Plans. STECF supports the 
request  to  include  the  information  in  future  data  calls,  and  reiterates  the  need  to  have 
data  by  quarter.  In  addition,  the  EWG  suggests  that  the  DCF  Catch  Table  should  be 
amended to include a field documenting the method and parameters used for the length 
to age determination and the range of years used for the VBGP estimation in case of use 
of a deterministic slicing.  

STECF notes that in the case that direct ageing can be carried out (e.g. otolith reading) 
and  the  ageing  process  has  been validated  and  is  well  documented,  an  approach  based 
on  estimated  ages  is  preferable  to  slicing.  In  the  case  direct  ageing  is  not  possible  and 
the species shows rapid and variable growth during the first 1-2 years (e.g. deep water 
rose shrimp), the use of length based models, ideally based on quarterly data, should be 
explored.  

ToR  2  -  STECF  acknowledges  the  EWG’s  evaluation  of  stock  exploitation  indicators 
(proxies for stock status) suitable for data limited stocks. STECF supports the conclusions 
that individual indicators are often unbiased but can be noisy indicators of stock status, 
and  therefore  supports  the  view  for  further  development  work  on  use  of  multiple 
indicators.  STECF  supports  the  request  for  an  ad-hoc  contract  to  develop  this  work 
further  to  explore  the  basis  for  the  provision  of  advice  using  data  limited  indicators, 
STECF provide draft background and ToR for the ad hoc contract (annex). 

ToR 3 - STECF notes that the proposed ad-hoc contracts to evaluate appropriate species 
areas  considered  in  ToR  3  were  not  placed.  Given  the  limited  information  available 
(STOCKMED report and a few additional published papers collected during the meeting), 
STECF agrees with the EWG conclusion that the basis for many stock divisions is weak. 
STECF  is  not  aware  of  currently  ongoing  projects  dealing  with  stock  identity,  and 
acknowledges that unless more data become available, population boundaries will remain 
uncertain. STECF recalls that the STOCKMED project (which finished in 2014) that aimed 
at  the  definition  of  stocks  units  in  the  Mediterranean  was  not  conclusive  due  to  a 
generalized  lack  of  evidence  on  some  aspects  useful  for  stock  discrimination  such  as 
larval  dispersal,  connectivity,  genetics,  and  also  in  detailed  fisheries  activities  as  spatial 
distribution  of  the  fleets  (STECF  PLEN  17-01).  STECF  considers  that  the  proposed  stock 
boundaries  (Section  2.1.3  of  the  EWG  report)  should  be  used  for  current  assessments 
and management until better options become available.   

ToR 4 - In addressing ToR 4 (the identification of main species and main gears either as 
driving  the  fisheries  or  as  relevant  by-catches)  the  EWG  built  on  work  performed 
previously as part of the work on multiannual plans (MAP) (Mediterranean Methods July 
2016 (STECF 16-14)) and Landing obligation part 6 from October 2015 (STECF 15-19)). 
STECF  endorses  the  EWG  proposals  for  inclusion  of  extra  gears  (beam  trawl,  hydraulic 
dredge, shore and boat seine) in geographical scope in ToRs Annex 1 (GSAs 17, 18, 19 
and 20). Regarding the list of species, STECF endorses the conclusions for species list in 
the  three  areas’  MAPs  detailed  in  the  ToR,  but  notes  that  some  commercially  important 
shellfish  species  have  been  previously  omitted  and  should  be  added  to  the  MAPs: 
Primarily  the  addition  of  one  major  species  (striped  venus  clam  Chamelea  gallina)  in 
GSAs in ToRs Annex 1; but also the minor changes to ‘additional species’ lists for areas in 
Annex  1  and  Annex  3  (GSAs  22,  23  and  25)  (see  Section  2.1.4  of  EWG  report).  STECF 

10 

 
 
notes that these species have been proposed based on the current catches and the EWG 
did  not  differentiate  whether  the  plans  should  be  implemented  at  national  or  multi-
national level. 

As regards the request to STECF to provide solutions including shared guidelines, where 
feasible,  on  how  to  overcome  the  shortcoming  identified  in  the  length-based  analyses, 
STECF  notes  that  the  EWG  proposed  recommendations  for  future  work.  These 
recommendations refer to the need of i) coherence of all growth parameters used in the 
assessments;  ii)  improvement  in  documenting  and  defining  the  growth  models  and  age 
slicing;  iii)  test  where  possible  age  slicing  by  sex;  iv)  t0  should  be  truncated  to  values 
between 0 and -0.2; v) review the raw age length data, where necessary refitting growth 
models (section 2.2 in the EWG report). 

STECF  was  also  requested  to  provide  a  list  of  Mediterranean  data  limited  stocks  (DLS) 
that can be regularly assessed with the identified methods over the next 3-5 years. This 
request had not been included in the EWG 17-02 ToRs, and STECF was unable to derive 
such a list during the Plenary meeting. An initial analysis was carried out by STECF EWG 
16-05  in  June  2016.  However,  the  evaluation  by  EWG  16-05  could  only  investigate  the 
presence/absence  of  data,  not  the  quality  of  the  information.  In  order  to  develop  the 
required  list  STECF  proposes  a  further  work,  under  an  ad  hoc  contract  to  assess  the 
availability and suitability of survey data and/or catches. Following this a selection of the 
most  promising  DLS  can  be  made.  This  preliminary  list  would  later  be  assessed  by  the 
EWG  and  STECF.  Draft  terms  of  reference  of  the  ad-hoc  contract  are  proposed  in  the 
annex. STECF notes that in addition to this analysis, it is necessary to explore the use of 
multiple  indicators  for  giving  advice  for  data  limited  stocks,  which  should  also  be  done 
through an ad hoc contract - see above.  

STECF conclusions 

STECF acknowledges that the EWG has addressed all its terms of reference, which could 
also  be  performed  thanks  to  better  and  more  timely  coordination  on  the  work  need 
between STECF, JRC and DGMARE.  

STECF  commends  the  EWG  on  its  exploration  of  the  impact  of  length-based  factors  in 
assessments and stock status. STECF notes that in the past there has been considerable 
variation in the parameter values used for length slicing and for natural mortality, so the 
analyses  performed  by  the  EWG  were  strongly  needed  to  improve  the  quality  of  stock 
assessment. 

STECF commends the EWG for its evaluation of stock exploitation indicators (proxies for 
stock  status)  suitable  for  data  limited  stocks.  STECF  supports  the  conclusions  that 
individual  indicators  are  often  unbiased  but  can  be  noisy  indicators  of  stock  status,  and 
therefore supports the view for further development work on use of multiple indicators.  

Regarding  the  request  to  provide  pros  and  cons  of  the  geographical  scope  of  each 
possible  MAP,  STECF  notes  that  the  main  issue,  the  stocks  configuration,  remains 
uncertain. There is hardly any new information on stock boundaries existing in addition to 
that  collected  during  the  STOCKMED  project.  In  order  to  advance  knowledge  on  stock 
boundaries, it is necessary to initiate new data collection (such as tagging, genetic etc.) 
that can generate new information on stock identity and distribution.  

STECF proposes two ad hoc contracts, one to evaluate the quality of the DCF data, which 
will  allow  the  elaboration  of  a  list  of  data  limited  stocks  that  can  be  assessed,  and  the 
second  one  to  explore  the  use  of  multiple  indicators  for  giving  advice  for  data  limited 
stocks. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 

AD-HOC contract to evaluate quality of DCF data for data limited information. 

The purpose of this is to obtain summary information to be used to identify stocks with 
promising  or  unpromising  data  for  future  work.  The  objective  would  be  to  check  for 
consistency of data in terms of availability and sampling and the potential for significant 
changes  in  time,  that  might  provide  useful  signals.  The  proposal  is  to  concentrate  on 
demersal data for stocks of general interest. Two types of DCF data should be evaluated, 
survey data and catch data.  

1)  Survey  evaluation  -MEDITS  survey  by  species  by  GSA  presented  on  no  more 
than  one  page  per  species/  GSA  this  should  be  based  on  annually  tabulated 
summary data in a simple data frame (in R) and then output in plots on a single 
page,  combined  with  some  overall  statistics  for  the  data  set  for  a  species  in  a 
GSA. 

Annual summary stats for each species for each year calculate and tabulate and plot. 

DCF calls for TA file (hauls), TB (catch by species and haul), TC (length, sex and maturity 
by target species). Analysis on biomass and density indexes should be possible for all the 
species caught during the survey (based on the TB file in the DataCall) while the length 
analysis can be carried out only for target species (TC file in the DataCall). For example 
in  TB  file  GSA9  for  year  (2015)  reported  data  for  270  species  and  for  63  in  TC  file  and 
obviously  not  for  all  these  species  we  have  enough  information  to  do  anything.  The 
following should be stored in a data frame and plotted 

  Total number of trawl stations by year 
  Proportion of positive stations by year 
  Mean and CV of (standardised) catch abundance (including zero values) by year  
  Mean and CV of (standardised) catch weight (including zero values) by year 
  Min. max and mean day in year of survey data by year (or 5,50,95%) 

For species with length data (TC data file): 

  5, 50 and 95% on fish length caught by year. 
  Mean  and  CV  of  (standardised)  mature  catch  abundance  (including  zero  values) 

by year  

  Mean  and  CV  of  (standardised)  mature  catch  weight  (including  zero  values)  by 

year 

Age based evaluation based on deterministic length slicing using VBGF from the Data Call 
biological  file.  In  addition  in  for  a limited  number  of  species  and  limited  years  age  data 
has  been  collected  since  2012  for  some  target  species  (Hake,  Red  mullet,  Striped  red 
mullet) and stored in TE MEDITS file. This should be used if available:- 

  Matrix plot of n at age at age in year y with n at age a+1 in year y+1 

Series Summary statistics across all years 

  Autocorrelation coefficient on mean abundance (1st order)  
  Autocorrelation coefficient on mean catch weight (1st order)  
  Autocorrelation coefficient on mean time (1st order)  
  Fraction of years with the mean abundance outside median of mean values +-2CV  
  Fraction of years with the mean biomass outside median of mean values +-2CV  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
For Multiple GSAs 

In addition to single GSA the following combinations should also be presented: 

1,5,6, 7,8,9, 10,11, 15,16 17-18, 20,22,23. 

Notes : 

MEDITS  is  a  standardized  survey  based  on  random  sampling  stratification  with  hauls 
number  by  strata  allocated  based  on  the  surface  of  the  strata  (see  MEDITS  handbook) 
http://www.sibm.it/MEDITS%202011/principaledownload.htm. 

The TA file contain hauls information including distance covered and horizontal net open 
so we can estimate swept area by haul. For all the GSA JRC has the stratification scheme 
by  strata  and  stratum so we  can compute  the  abundance  and  biomass index  by  square 
kilometre.  

Having the stratification surface we can combine across GSAs.  

The issue that will arise dealing with some GSAs in which MEDITS time series is different 
(e.g. GSA17 ITALY, CROATIA and SLOVENIA) for which some extra assumptions may be 
needed (maybe assuming some kind of proportion for missing year based on the years in 
which we have data). 

Additionally,  in  some  areas  (16  and  maybe  18),  the  random  stratified  design  has  been 
violated with the addition of a new area of sampling after 10 years of survey. So in these 
cases a statistical standardization with GLMs would likely be more appropriate.  

2)  2 Catch evaluation - by species by GSA presented on no more than one page 

per GSA 

Quality  of  fleet  segment  sampling  by  year  using  whatever  fleet  segmentation  has  been 
delivered  by  MS.  It  is  known  that  for  some  areas  the  metier  (as  combination  of  gear, 
fishery and mesh size) is not clearly reported in the data, so the data should be analysed 
in the best way  

  No of different fleet segments or metiers reporting catch by year  
  Fraction of catch with samples (sum of catch with samples/total) 

For species with length data and if applicable growth data: 

  5, 50 and 95% on fish length caught by year. 
  Matrix plot of n at age at age in year y with n at age a+1 in year y+1 from 

commercial catch 

AD  HOC  contract  for  developing  advice  for  stocks  without  survey  time  series 
and only a short time series of commercial catch at length data. 

Background 

There is a need to improve understanding of the utility of simple annual indicators based 
on catch at length data. The EWG 17-02 has examined LB-SPR, VIT and Lmean/LFeM for 
existing  assessment  data  in  order  to  obtain  year  by  year  estimates  of  indicators 
exploitation,  proxies  for  F/FMSY.  Some  of  these  approaches  require  ancillary  information 
such as VBGPs, L-W, Terminal F, M, Maturity ogive, to run. It seems that Lmean/LFeM is 
unbiased  but  very  noisy  indicator  of  stock  status  but  it  is  not  directly  suited  for 
management  advice  on  its  own.  It’s  possible  that  by  adding  other  indicators  the  noise 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
might  be  reduced  and  the  advice  may  be  more  reliable.  The  limited  exploration  of  VIT 
and LB-SPR carried out by EWG 17-02 suggests that these methods may also give useful 
indicators of exploitation rate. An AD HOC contract is needed to take this the next step 
onwards.  The  JRC  has  a  database  of  assessment  results  and  assessment  stock  objects, 
this  should  be  used  to  calculate  stock  exploitation  indicators  to  be  compared  with 
assessed  annual  values  of  F/F0.1.  This  has  already  been  done  for  the  length  indicator 
Lmean/LFeM. Some of the other approaches require ancillary information such as VBGPs, 
L-W,  Terminal  F,  M,  Maturity  ogive,  for  this  study  these  are  available  from  the 
assessment files, and could mostly be obtained for data poor stocks, if the methodology 
appears  useful.  The  purpose  of  this  exercise  is  to  complete  the  analysis  for  other 
indicators, to build a better understanding of the use of multiple indicators. 

ToR  

For  a  maximum  of  10  years  per  stock  (using  whichever  years  are  available  for  2004  to 
2013) for the listed assessed stocks from 2016 in the table below carry out the following. 

1)  Using existing JRC archived stock objects carry out further analyses to derive the 

annual indicators of F/FMSY from VIT  

2)  Using existing JRC archived stock objects carry out further analyses to derive the 

annual indicators of exploitation rate from LB-SPR by stock and by year.  

3)  Tabulate  these  with  existing  Lmean/LFeM  values  and  existing  assessment 

estimates of F/F0.1 for all the stocks and assessed years . 

4)   Other  methods  could  be  added  here  if  applicable  to  single  year  LF  commercial 

catch data  

Species 

GSA 

MUR 

NEP 

NEP 

NEP 

DPS 

DPS 

DPS 

ANE 

ANE 

ANE 

PIL 

PIL 

9 

6 

9 

11 

1 

9 

10 

6 

9 

17_18 

6 

17_18 

14 

Linf  

32.0 

74.1 

74.1 

74.1 

45.0 

38.3 

43.0 

19.0 

17.0 

19.4 

25.0 

19.8 

 
 
 
 
Provide: 

1)  The R scripts to carry out the analyses and  
2)  a  data  frame  with,  input  data  used  and  collated  results  of  all  methods  and 

assessment results  

3)  Explore  the  relationships  between  single  /  multiple  indicators  and  the  assessed 
values,  and  evaluate and  propose  the  best  weighting  of  these  indicators to  most 
closely indicate stock exploitation status. 

4)  Provide a report of the analyses carried out and results obtained. 

15 

 
 
  
 
 
 
4.3 EWG 17-03 Evaluation of LO joint recommendations 

Request to the STECF 

STECF is requested to review the report of the STECF Expert Working Group meeting and 
the additional information received from the Regional Groups after the EWG, evaluate the 
findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations. 

STECF Response 

Background of the EWG 17-03 

The  report  of  the  Expert  Working  Group  17-03  (STECF  EWG  17-03)  represents  the 
findings of the meeting convened to review the joint recommendations (JR) from Member 
States  regional  groups  for  the  implementation  of  the  landing  obligation  (LO)  in  2018. 
Joint recommendations for discard plans represent the agreement among Member States 
(MS)  cooperating  regionally  on  the  elements  for  the  preparation  of  Union  law 
(Commission  delegated  act)  in  accordance  with  Article  15.6  of  the  Common  Fisheries 
Policy.  These  elements  are:  definitions  of  fisheries  and  species;  de  minimis  and  high 
survivability  exemptions;  fixation  of  minimum  conservation  references  sizes;  additional 
technical  measures  to  implement  the  landing  obligation;  and  the  documentation  of 
catches.  EWG  17-03  reviewed  the  new  or  amended  joint  recommendations  from  the 
North  Sea,  North-western  waters  (NWW),  South-western  waters  (SWW)  Baltic  Sea  and 
Western  Mediterranean.  EWG  17-03  also  carried  out  an  analysis  of  the  progression  in 
implementing the landing obligation, following the terms of references. 

STECF EWG 17-03 was requested to: 

1.  Screen any changes in the defined fisheries to be subject to the landing obligation in 
2018  for  potential  anomalies  which  may  create  difficulties  for  managers  and 
fishermen. 

2.  Review  the  supporting documentation  underpinning  exemptions  on  the  basis  of  high 

survivability in respect of: 

  Exemptions  agreed  for  2017  on  the  basis  of  high  survivability  where  there  was  a 

requirement for further information to be supplied.  

  New  exemptions  based  on  high  survivability.  In  data  poor  situations,  assess  what 
further  supporting  information  may  be  available  and  how  this  be  supplied  in  the 
future (e.g. survival studies, tagging experiments). 

3.  Review the supporting documentation (biological, technical and/or economic) for the 
de  minimis exemptions  on the basis  that  either increasing  selectivity  is  very  difficult 
to achieve, or to avoid handling unwanted catches would create disproportionate cost 
in respect of: 

  De  minimis  exemptions  agreed  for  2017  where  there  was  a  requirement  for 

further information to be supplied.  

  New  de  minimis  exemptions.  In  data  poor  situations,  assess  what  further 
supporting  information  may  be  available  and  how  this  could  be  supplied  in  the 
future (e.g. discard data collection, selectivity studies). 

4.  Review  whether  there  is  sufficient  information  to  support  proposed  minimum 
conservation reference size(s) that deviate from existing minimum landing sizes, and 
whether they are consistent with the objective of ensuring the protection of juveniles. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  Review  the  supporting  documentation  provided  for  technical  measures  aimed  at 
increasing  gear  selectivity  for  reducing  or,  as  far  as  possible,  eliminating  unwanted 
catches. 

6.  Where  Joint  recommendations  have  not  been  put  forward  by  the  Member States  for 
relevant  sea  basins,  STECF  will  need  to  provide  input  on  the  preparation  of  discard 
plans. 

7.  In addition, EWG 17-03 was asked to evaluate additional requests on the following: 

  A  de  minimis  request  for  combined  species  under  the  landing  obligation  for 
vessels  using  bottom  trawls  >  80mm  in  the  Celtic  Sea  and  the  English  Channel 
(NWW) 

  Additional  scientific  information  provided  by  France,  supporting  the  survivability 
exemption  from  the  landing  obligation  for Norway  lobster provided  caught  in  the 
Bay of Biscay by bottom trawling (SWW).  

STECF observations 

There  is  a  large  number  of  JRs  analysed  by  the  EWG  17-03.  The  STECF  response  is 
therefore  structured  as  follows:  General  observations  first,  then  observations  on 
ADRIATICA  and  SUDESTMED  joint  recommendations  (sent  to  STECF  plenary  and  not 
reviewed  by  EWG  17-03),  STECF  comments  on  the  EWG  17-03  report  when  NO  new 
information is available, and STECF comments on the EWG 17-03 report when SOME new 
information is available to the PLEN STECF 17-02 

Regarding  the  ADRIATICA  and  SUDESTMED  JR,  STECF  underlines  that  JR  that  are  dealt 
with by plenary cannot receive the same amount of scrutiny and consistency check than 
those addressed in the dedicated EWG. STECF emphasises that JR should be submitted in 
time for the EWG.  

STECF general observations 

STECF acknowledges that the EWG 17-03 has addressed all the Terms of Reference.  

STECF observes that the EWG is of the opinion that the quality of the preparation of the 
joint recommendations has improved, including: 

 

the  completion  of  new  high  quality  survival  experiments,  considering  differences  in 
survivability  related  to  seasonality  and  following  ICES  guidelines  for  conducting 
survival experiments based on ICES WKMEDS (Catchpole et al.); 

  Member State Regional Groups have used the templates developed by STECF in 2016 

to supply fisheries and fleet descriptors. 

 Regarding the request to suggest additional information in data poor situations, EWG 17-
03  provided  information  on  potential  studies/projects  that  could  be  used  to  justify  the 
requested exemptions. For example, the EWG referred to the Solemon project regarding 
the survivability of common sole; ADRIATICA sent two reports of this project for STECF 
consideration  during  the  Plenary  meeting,  and  STECF  reviewed  it  (see  Table  4.3.6  for 
details).  However,  other  studies/papers  may  exist  that  could  be  used  by  MS  to  support 
the requested exemptions. STECF  encourages MS to systematically  investigate potential 
studies and existing scientific articles, and review their main findings before any request 
is sent out to the EWG.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
Notwithstanding  these  progresses  in  analyses  and  reporting,  STECF  notes  that  many 
challenges remain in implementing the landing obligation fully: 

  Currently  97  out  of  174  stocks  subject  to  LO  (excluding  the  Med)  will  be  covered  in 
discard plans in 2018 if all JR are implemented. This means that 77 stocks (45%) will 
have to be brought under the LO at the beginning of 2019. 

  Survival experiments do not cover all complex “situations” and therefore many gaps 
of  knowledge  remain  regarding  differences  in  survival  rates  concerning  different 
areas,  seasons  &  temperature,  handling  practices,  habitat  (discarding  bottoms), 
experimental conditions vs commercial conditions, etc.; 

  The  subjective  nature  of  the  conditionalities  for  exemptions  (high  survival, 
disproportionate costs, de minimis & economic data) means that the observations and 
conclusions are based on many assumptions; 

  Many of the requests for de minimis exemptions remain of a “national nature” rather 

than regionally focused;  

  While  many  regional  groups  use  the  template  developed  by  STECF,  there  are  still 
limitations  in  the  information  provided  (landings,  fleets,  speculative  assumptions). 
Often information is provided for one fleet but not for other fleets using similar gears 
and  which  would  be  also  affected.  In  these  cases,  further  clarification  may  be 
required; 

  There is a need to improve the collection of catch documentation data as highlighted 
by STECF PLEN 17-01 and by EWG 17-03. The joint recommendations would benefit 
from containing provisions that strengthen data collection in this respect. Progressive 
implementation of innovative monitoring measures, e.g. remote electronic monitoring 
and CCTV is still absent; 

STECF reiterates the position of the EWG 17-03 that when using the provisions of the de 
minimis  under  Article  15,  the  requirements  of  Article  2  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy 
(CFP)  to  fish  at  FMSY  can  only  be  met  if  the  de  minimis  discard  quantities  are  deducted 
from the agreed catch opportunity (TAC) arising from FMSY based advice.  

STECF  also  supports  EWG  17-03  point  of  view  that  article  15.5(c)(ii)  states  that  where 
continued discarding is permitted through the application of de minimis provisions, whilst 
these  catches  “shall  not  be  counted  against  the  relevant  quotas”;  however,  all  such 
catches should be fully recorded. 

STECF observations on ADRIATICA and SUDESTMED joint recommendations 

STECF  notes  that  after  the  completion  of  EWG  17-03,  two  joint  recommendations  were 
received from the Member State regional groups in the Mediterranean: 

  For the Adriatic Sea EU Member States (ADRIATICA) (Discard Plan for Certain Small 
Pelagic  Fisheries  in  the  GFCM/GSAs  17  and  18  (2018)  and  the  accompanying  letter 
(dated 03-07-2017)); 

  For  certain  small  pelagic  fisheries  in  the  South  Eastern  Mediterranean  Sea  GFCM 

/GSAs 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25 (SUDESTMED). 

STECF  notes  that  the  ADRIATICA  JR  states  that  it  is  necessary  to  put  in  place  a  new 
discard plan for the small pelagic fisheries, in order to ensure that the existing measures 
remain in place for an additional three year period or until a relative multiannual plan is 
approved. The JR states that the discard management plan will be implemented in GFCM 
GSAs 17 (northern Adriatic) and GSA 18 (southern Adriatic). 

18 

 
 
 
STECF notes that in addition to the objectives, the definitions, the duration and the areas 
covered, the JR also includes two general principles that: 

a) 
 any technical, control or compliance measures adopted for the pelagic fisheries in 
the  Adriatic  Sea  be  efficient,  proportional,  and  enforceable  upon  all  vessels  operating 
under this discard plan. 

increased  selectivity,  where  possible,  is  the  most  desirable  way  to  deliver 

b) 
compliance with the landing obligation 

STECF  notes  however  that  there  is  no  indication  or  any  detail  within  the  JR  as  to  how 
these principles will be met. 

In  the  accompanying  letter  from  ADRIATICA,  it  is  stated  that  “Relating  to  the  high 
survivability  exemption  in  purse  seine  fisheries  when  the  catch  is  released  before  the 
purse  seine  is  closed,  we  consider  that  as  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  this  practice  is  not 
forbidden  by  the  technical  measures  regulation,  there  is  no  sense  of  asking  for  a  high 
survivability  exemption”.  STECF  highlights  that  this  describes  the  process  of  slipping. 
‘Slipping’  occurs  when  fish  are  intentionally  released  from  fishing  gear  before  being 
brought on-board, and before the purse seine is closed. While STECF acknowledges that 
this practice is not prohibited in the Mediterranean, ‘slipped’ catches of regulated species 
are essentially discards and therefore subject to the Landing Obligation. Following Article 
15(1) of  Basic  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013,  regulated species  must  be  landed  unless 
exemptions are granted. Therefore, STECF points out that catches taken by purse seine 
vessels, even before the purse seine is closed, can only be released if an exemption from 
the Landing Obligation has been granted.  

Existing Commission Delegated Regulations for the NWW, SWW and the North Sea define 
survivability  exemptions  for  slipped  catches  from  purse  seines  (Regulations  (EU) 
1393/2014, (EU) 1394/2014 and (EU) 1395/2014 These Delegated Regulations authorise 
catches to be slipped where the following conditions are met: 

 

 

 

the catch is released before a defined percentage of the purse seine is closed (‘the 
point of retrieval’); 

the  purse  seine  gear  is  fitted  with  visible  buoys  clearly  marking  the  limit  for  the 
point of retrieval; 

the vessel and the purse seine gear are equipped with an electronic recording and 
documenting  system  monitoring  when,  where  and  the  extent  to  which  the  purse 
seine has been hauled for all fishing operations. 

STECF  notes  that  the  JR  requests  a  de  minimis  exemption  of  up  to  5  %  of  the  total 
annual catches of species subject to minimum sizes in the small pelagic mid-water trawl 
and  purse  seines  fisheries.  This  percentage  is  different  from  the  exemptions  currently 
included in the Regulation (EU) 1392/2014 which state:  

-in the northern Adriatic Sea, up to 5 % of the total annual catches of species subject to 
minimum sizes in the small pelagic mid-water trawl and purse seines fisheries;  

-in  the  southern  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Sea:  (i)  up  to  3  %  of  the  total  annual  catches  of 
species subject to minimum sizes in the small pelagic purse seines fisheries; and (ii) up 
to 7 % in 2015 and 2016 and up to 6 % in 2017 of the total annual catches of species 
subject to minimum sizes in the small pelagic mid-water trawl fisheries.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In particular, STECF notes that the JR de minimis request (5%) implies an increase from 
the  3%  threshold  given  in  the  Delegated  act  in  the  case  of  small  pelagic  purse  seines 
fisheries in the southern Adriatic. 

STECF  notes  that  there  is  no  justification  for  this  change  in  the  de  minimis  volumes 
included in the JR, and that the current discard rates are not indicated, so STECF cannot 
comment on this change. 

STECF  notes  that  the  JR  from  the  SUDESTMED  HLG  is  very  similar  to  the  Adriatic  and 
Western  Mediterranean  plans.  The  JR  states  that  the  discard  management  plan  will  be 
implemented  in  GFCM  GSAs  15,  16,  19,  20,  22,  23  and  25  of  the  South  Eastern 
Mediterranean Sea. 

STECF notes that regarding the species and fisheries covered, the JR states the specific 
discard  plan  will  be  applicable  to  pelagic  fisheries  subject  to  minimum  conservation 
reference  size  in  South  Eastern  Mediterranean  (GFCM  GSAs  15,  16,  19,  20,  22,  23  and 
25). GSA 18 (southern Adriatic Sea) is not included in the JR because it is included in the 
ADRIATICA JR. 

STECF  further  notes  that  the  JR  includes  GSA  25  (Cyprus)  which  was  not  included  in 
article 2 (definitions) of Regulation (EU) No 1392/2014. 

STECF notes, as with the Adriatic plan, there are differences in the de minimis exemption 
requested in the new JR compared to the existing Regulation. The new JR requests a de 
minimis exemption of 5% for small pelagic fisheries in the South eastern Mediterranean 
whereas Regulation (EU) 1392/2014 states that:  

-in the southern Adriatic (GSA 18) and Ionian Sea (GSA 19, 20 and 21), (i) up to 3 % of 
the  total  annual  catches  of  species  subject  to  minimum  sizes  in  the  small  pelagic  purse 
seines fisheries; and (ii) up to 7 % in 2015 and 2016 and up to 6 % in 2017 of the total 
annual catches of species;  

-in  the  Malta  Island  (GSA  15)  and  South  of  Sicily  (GSA16):  (i)  up  to  3  %  of  the  total 
annual  catches  of  species  subject  to  minimum  sizes  in  the  small  pelagic  purse  seines 
fisheries; and (ii) up to 7 % in 2015 and 2016 and up to 6 % in 2017 of the total annual 
catches  of  species  subject  to  minimum  sizes  in  the  small  pelagic  mid-water  trawl 
fisheries, set out in point 4 of the Annex;  

-in the Aegean Sea (GSA 22) and Crete Island (GSA 23), up to 3 % of the total annual 
catches  of  species  subject  to  minimum  sizes  in  the  small  pelagic  purse  seines  fisheries 
set out in point 5 of the Annex. 

In particular, STECF notes that the JR de minimis request (5%) implies an increase from 
the  3%  threshold  given  in  the  Delegated  act  in  the  case  of  small  pelagic  purse  seines 
fisheries  in  (i)  the  Ionian  Sea,  (ii)  the  Malta  Island  and  South  of  Sicily  and  (iii)  the 
Aegean Sea and Crete Island. 

STECF  notes,  as  with  the  Adriatic  plan,  that  there  is  no  justification  or  supporting 
information  to  explain  the  difference  in  de  minimis  requested,  and  that  the  current 
discard rates are not indicated, so STECF cannot comment on this change... 

STECF  comments  on  the  EWG  17-03  report  when  NO  new  information  is 
available 

For  the  case  of  the  Baltic  Sea  (Table  4.3.1)  and  North-Western  Waters  (Table  2)  and 
Pelagic  plans  (Table  3),  STECF  notes  that no  additional  information  has  been  submitted 
after  the  EWG.  STECF  comments  are  summarized  in  Table  4.3.1,  4.3.2  and  4.3.3, 
respectively.  

20 

 
 
 
 
Some new information has been provided for some South-Western Waters (SWW), North 
Sea,  Mediterranean  and  Black  Sea  fisheries,  so  the  discard  plans  for  these  regions  are 
treated further below (Tables 4.3.4 to 4.3.8). 

Table 4.3.1. Main findings of the STECF EWG 17-03: Baltic Sea. 

High Survivability 

Fishery 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Cod,  plaice  and  salmon  caught  with  trap-nets,  creels/pots,  fyke-nets 
and pound net 

Existing exemption extended to include plaice. Fleet and fishery 
descriptions are incomplete. Reference only to 4 German vessels but 
EWG aware that many other countries participate in these fisheries.  

Supporting study is rather limited and more detailed information 
would be useful to assess the representativeness and quality of the 
discard survival estimate attained. However, the fishing gears used 
are relatively benign and all available information indicates mortality 
of discarded fish is likely to be low in such fisheries. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF notes that no additional information on the fleets from other 
Member States has been provided. STECF is unaware as to whether 
this information was requested by the Commission.  

MCRS 

Fishery 

Baltic Cod 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Technical measures 

Fishery 

Modifications to T90 codend 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

New. Proposal to derogate from existing technical measures 
regulations allowing the use of a modified T90 codend.  

Results from a series of catch comparison experiments provided which 
show the modified codend to provide positive benefits in terms of 
reducing unwanted catches of cod below mcrs. New codend has a 
smaller mesh size, larger number of meshes in the codend 
circumference and is longer. Two of these changes intuitively would be 
expected to decrease selectivity. Therefore if the derogation to allow 
the use of this modified gear is granted then it should be conditional 
on further experimentation to demonstrate that the presented results 
are correct. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF is aware that additional selectivity trials are currently being 
performed in Denmark, and the results could be included in a future 
evaluation 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4.3.2. Main findings of the STECF EWG 17-03: North-Western Waters. 

De minimis 

Fishery 

Common sole caught in gillnets and trammel nets in the Channel and 
the Celtic Sea 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Fishery 

Common sole caught with beam trawls with a mesh size of 80-119mm 
with increased mesh sizes in the extension of the beam trawl 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing  provision  and  was  therefore  not  evaluated  by  EWG  17-03. 
The definition for the Flemish panel proposed by the NS group should 
also be included in any new version of the NWW discard plan. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

STECF has no further comments 

Fishery 

Nephrops caught with bottom trawls with a mesh size of 80-99mm in 
ICES subareas VI and VII 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Fishery 

Whiting  caught  with  bottom  trawls  and  seines  <100mm  and  pelagic 
trawls to catch whiting in the Channel 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Fishery 

Whiting  caught  with  bottom  trawls  and  seines  ≥100mm  and  pelagic 
trawls to catch whiting in the Celtic Sea and the Channel 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Fishery 

Whiting  caught  with  bottom  trawls  and  seines  <100mm  and  pelagic 
trawls to catch whiting in the Celtic Sea 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Fishery 

Combined  de  minimis  for  species  under  the  landing  obligation  for 
vessels using bottom trawls >80mm in the Celtic Sea and the English 
Channel 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Not part of JR but EWG asked to consider a standalone proposal. 

No new information is presented to support the proposal and 
justification is based on previous experiments used to support existing 
de minimis exemptions for whiting in the Celtic Sea and Channel. 

Combining catches to calculate de minimis increases the volume of de 
minimis available. Provided this is taken into account in setting catch 
advice then this in itself is not a problem. However, MS should be 

22 

 
 
 
Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

aware it will mean the eventual TAC will be much lower. 

Combining catches effectively means the volume of de minimis for any 
individual species can be in excess of 5%. 

STECF  notes  that  to  respect  the  precautionary  approach,  under  a 
combined  de  minimis,  the  separate  de  minimis  volume  for  each 
individual species within the combined species can only be accounted 
for  in  respective  stocks  TACs  by  discounting  the  maximum  possible 
amount  of  de  minimis  for  each  species  that  could  potentially  be 
discarded.    STECF  notes  that  this  is  likely  to  reduce  the  fishing 
opportunities for all other fleets catching these stocks.   

High Survivability 

Fishery 

Nephrops  caught  with  Pots,  Traps  or  Creels  in  ICES  subareas  VI  and 
VII 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Fishery 

Common sole (undersized only) caught with trawl gears in area VIId 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing. Delegated act required submission of additional scientific 
information supporting the exemption. 

Additional information has been supplied including the results from 
new experiments which show no effect of seasonality on survival 
between trips in August and October.  

Information relating to the location of nursery areas as referred to in 
the Delegated Act is missing. These areas are not defined so it is not 
possible to monitor whether fishing is occurring outside such areas 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments but re-iterates the observations of 
EWG 17-03 that the nursery areas referred to in the Regulation should 
be defined.  

Table 4.3.3. Main findings of the STECF EWG 17-03: Pelagic plans. 

De minimis 

Fishery 

Artisanal  pelagic  trawl  fisheries  using  OTM  and  PTM  in  ICES  sea  area 
IV b,c and VIId 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing. Extension of existing exemptions contained in the North Sea 
and NWW discard plans to include PTM gear.  

The  transition  from  the  current  discard  rate  to  the  1%  (de  minimis 
level)  will  be  challenging  without  significant  changes  of  fishing 
pattern, either by improvements in selectivity or by avoiding areas of 
higher  unwanted  catch.  This  may  provide  an  incentive  for  the  fleets 
involved  to  adapt  their  behaviour  and  continue  research  on  ways  to 
improve  selectivity  and  is  a  reasonable  justification  to  retain  the 
exemption. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

High Survivability 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Fishery 

Mackerel  and  Herring  in  the  ring  net  fishery  in  ICES  areas  VIIe  and 
VIIf 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

New exemption for 2019 but previously assessed by STECF in 2015. 

The basis for the exemption is similar to other exemptions included 
under the existing de minimis plans and there are certain similarities 
between the fisheries.  

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

Technical measures 

Fishery 

Sprat fisheries in the North Sea 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

New derogation. 

Given the fact that the supporting study for this derogation request 
only covered two years further research would be useful in evaluating 
the validity of the conclusions reached by ICES.  

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments.  

STECF  comments  on  the  EWG  17-03  report  when  NEW  information  is  available 
to the PLEN STECF 17-02 

South West Waters 

STECF  notes  that  in  relation  to  the  main  findings  of  the  EWG,  the  Commission  has 
requested additional information from the Member States regional groups. In most cases 
this information has been provided to the Commission. 

For  the  case  of  South-Western  waters  the  following  additional  documents  were  made 
available to the PLEN STECF 17-02: 

 

Informe:  asesoramiento  para  aportar  información  científica  a  una  solicitud  de 
información  complementaria  sobre  el  estudio  de  la  merluza  para  la  solicitud  del 
"de mínimis" y la de las cigalas. IEO. 

  Study of the Portuguese Fleets catching hake (Merluccius merluccius) in area IXa. 

Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services  

  Additional  information  for  the  de  minimis  exemption  consolidation  request  for 
hake  (merluccius  merluccius)  of  6%,  for  2017  and  2018  and  5%  thereafter 
proposed)  from  Spain  for  trawlers  catching  hake  in  the  Bay  of  Biscay  (ICES 
VIIIa,b,d). Anon. 

  A  scientific  paper  titled:  Bio-economic  assessment  of  a  change  in  fishing  gear 
selectivity:  the  case  of  a  single-species  fleet  affected  by  the  landing  obligation. 
Scientific paper. 

  A  table  for  the  Nephrops  survivability  exemption  where  additional  information  of 

the fleets subject to this exemption is provided. 

In  light  of  this  new  information  the  following  comments  apply  in  addition  to  the 
observations from STECF EWG 17-03 (Table 4.3.4).  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  4.3.4.  Main  findings  of  the  STECF  EWG  17-03  and  summary  of  additional 
information received relating to exemptions presented: South-Western Waters. 

DE MINIMIS 

Fishery 

Common sole caught in gillnets and trammel nets in the Channel and 
the Celtic Sea 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Common sole caught with beam trawls and bottom trawls in directed 
fishery in ICES subareas VIIIa,b 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Hake  caught  with  trawls  in  directed  fisheries  in  ICES  subareas  VIII 
and IX 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Data missing in respect of number of vessels, catches, discards and 
de minimis volumes already recorded and for other fleets which have 
significant catches of hake. 

Baseline selectivity data for the standard gears used in the fisheries 
not supplied. 

EWG cannot assess if the additional workload created by the landing 
obligation represents a disproportionate cost for the fisheries covered 
by this exemption. 

COM 
Groups  

comments 

to  Regional 

A  request  for  more  information  of  the  economic  impact  of  increasing 
selectivity  and  of  sorting  and  handling  catch.  Information  about  the 
fleets and fisheries concerned by the exemption are requested.  

Response by Regional Groups  

Additional  information  of  fleets  and  métiers  definition  for  vessels 
operating in the Bay of Biscay (VIIIabd) is provided, including: 

 

 

Additional  information  on  the  increased  workload  required  to 
meet  LO  requirements.  It  includes  physical  and  economic 
estimations for fleets operating in the VIIIabd and VIIIc. 

Additional  information  on  the  likely  economic  consequences  of 
increasing  the  selectivity  in  for  Portuguese  fleets  (IXa)  and 
Spanish  Pair  trawlers  (VIIIabd),  demonstrating  the  economic 
losses from improvements in selectivity. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF notes that no new information is provided in terms of de 
minimis volumes already recorded. 

STECF notes that no information has been provided for French fleets, 
which have significant catches of hake. 

STECF notes that further information on the baseline selectivity data 
for the standard gears is needed to provide a full assessment. 

STECF notes that from the studies provided no economic gain is 
obtained from increasing the selectivity (Pair trawler), and an 
economic loss of 71% is reported for Portuguese trawlers. 

STECF notes that according to the information provided, there is a 
likelihood of increasing of effort on board being required in sorting 
catches and deteriorating safety conditions even if mitigation 

25 

 
 
 
measures to reduce unwanted catches are adopted. STECF cannot 
assess whether this is specific to these fisheries or generic to all 
fisheries subject to the landing obligation. 

STECF reiterates the conclusion of the STECF EWG 17-03 that  
selectivity experiments presented were not successful in reducing 
catches of unwanted hake, but comparative information of the 
selectivity with larger mesh size is not available  

High survivability 

Fishery 

Nephrops caught with trawls in ICES subareas VIII and IX 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing. Delegated act required submission of additional scientific 
information supporting the exemption. 

Additional studies have been completed and have largely addressed 
the issues raised by STECF in 2016 regarding the duration of the 
original experiments.  

The fleet descriptions provided are detailed for French and Portuguese 
fleets but there are other relevant fleets, notably Spanish, for which 
no information has been provided. 

COM 
Groups  

comments 

to  Regional 

Not available 

Response by Regional Groups  

A  table  including  the  details  of  Spanish  vessels  affected  by  this 
exemption has been provided 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF  notes  that  according  to  the  additional  information  provided 
there  are  up  to  191  French,  198  Spanish  and  24  Portuguese  vessels 
that  fall  under  the  existing  exemption.  STECF  further  notes  that  this 
new information addresses the observation from EWG 17-03 and that 
the  full  scope  of  fisheries  to  which  the  exemption  could  apply  is  now 
known. 

STECF  agrees  with  the  observations  of  EWG  17-03  that  the  evidence  
provided for the survival of discarded Nephrops gives robust scientific 
estimates  of  discard  survival.  The  derived  survival  rates  were 
calculated as 36.9% (20.9-52.9%) for individuals with the "standard" 
sorting  process  and  51.2%  (30.9-71.5%)  for  individuals  sorted  with 
the "chute system". These survival estimates should be interpreted as 
the  maximum  discard  survival  estimates  as  they  do  not  account  for 
induced experimental mortality, and exclude marine predation. 

MCRS 

Fishery 

Horse mackerel in ICES VIIIc and IXa 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

North Sea 

For the case of the North Sea the following additional documents were made available to 
the PLEN STECF 17-02: 

 

Information  has  been  provided  by  the  UK  on  the  numbers  of  vessels,  catch  etc. 
for  Nephrops  grounds  outside  the  Farn  Deeps  in  respect  of  the  high  survivability 
exemption  for  Nephrops  caught  with  trawl  gears  in  area  IV.  Limited  information 
has also been provided for relevant NL vessels in respect of this exemption. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
  Fleet  and  fishery  information  has  been  provided  by  DE  and  NL  in  respect  of  the 
high survivability exemption for fish bycatch in pots and fyke nets in area IIIa and 
IV. 

  Fleet and fishery information has been provided by DE, NL and the UK in respect 
of  the  de  minimis  exemption  for  whiting  and  cod  caught  using  bottom  trawls  < 
100mm (TR2) 

Table  4.3.5.  Main  findings  of  the  STECF  EWG  17-03  and  summary  of  additional 
information received relating to exemptions presented: North Sea. 

De minimis 

Fishery 

Fish bycaught in Nephrops targeted trawl fishery 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Existing  but  NS  regional  group  propose  to  include  cod  catches  in 
the calculation of de minimis volume. 

There are no additional studies provided to support this exemption 
over  and  above  what  was  presented  in  2016.  The  only  additional 
information  is  a  re-calculation  of  the  volumes  with  cod  catches 
added. 

Combining catches to calculate de minimis increases the volume of 
de minimis available. Provided this is taken into account in setting 
catch  advice  then  this  in  itself  is  not  a  problem.  However,  MS 
should be aware it will mean the eventual TAC will be much lower. 

A detailed description of the fleets and fisheries is provided 

COM comments to Regional Groups  None 

Response by Regional Groups 

No action required 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Nephrops caught by bottom trawls with a mesh size of 80-99mm 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Existing  provision  by  NS  regional  group  propose  the  level  of  de 
minimis from 6% to 2%.  

There are no issues with this exemption 

COM comments to Regional Groups  None 

Response by Regional Groups 

No action required 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

No additional comments 

Fishery 

Whiting and cod caught using bottom trawls < 100mm (TR2) 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Existing provision with cod added. 

No additional supporting information is supplied and the exemption 
is based on the justification provided in 2016 for the French fleet. 

An  additional  Dutch  Fleet  has  been  included  under  the  exemption 
but no information describing this fleet is provided. No information 
is  also  provided  for  justifying  the  inclusion  of  this  fleet  under  the 
exemption 

With  cod  and  whiting  catches  now  combined  for  the  de  minimis 
there  is  a  possibility  that  the  volumes  of  de  minimis  requested 
could exceed the actual volume of cod discards particularly for the 
Dutch fleet. MS should be aware it will mean the eventual TAC will 
be much lower as the increased volumes of de minimis will need to 

27 

 
 
 
be  taken  account  of  in  the  catch  advice  and  deducted  from  the 
available fishing opportunities. 

Very  little  information  on  the  economic  impact  of  increasing 
selectivity and of sorting and handling catch is provided for either 
the French or Dutch fleets. 

COM comments to Regional Groups 

Information  on  other  fleets  that  may  avail  of  this  exemption  in 
addition to the French fleet. 

Response by Regional Groups 

Fishery  and  fleet  descriptor  data  has  been  supplied  for  UK, 
Netherlands (NL) & Germany (DE).  

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

 

 

UK  report  22  TR2  vessels  in  area  IVc  targeting  sole  and 
landing  more  than  5  tonnes  of  species  other  than 
Nephrops.  These  vessels  had  catches  of  19.2  tonnes  of 
cod and 4.7 tonnes of whiting of which 1.3 tonnes of cod 
and  2.2  tonnes  of  whiting  were  discarded.  Discard  rates 
for cod and whiting were 7.5%and 91% respectively. A de 
minimis  volume  of  1.15  tonnes  of  cod  and  281kg  of 
whiting is requested. 
NL  report  38  TR2  vessels  not  targeting  Nephrops.  These 
have  very  small  catches  of  cod  and  whiting  are  recorded 
and  a  de  minimis  of  93kg  of  whiting  is  requested, 
equating to 4% of the total catches of whiting. 

  DE report 3 vessels operated in IVc with TR2 gear mainly 
in  a  mixed  fishery  targeting  plaice.  Landings  data  is 
provided shows landings of cod of 151kg with no landings 
of whiting. No discard data is provided. 

Fisheries  and  fleet  descriptor  data  has  been  provided  for  FR,  UK, 
NL  and  DE.  For  NL  is  not  clear  what  the  actual  landings  and 
discards were from the vessels reported. The DE data is incomplete 
as  no  estimates  of  discards  are  included.  Therefore  STECF  is  not 
able  to  comment  on  the  total  level  of  de  minimis  volume  being 
requested  under  this  exemption.  However,  given  that  the  catches 
of  cod  and  whiting  by  the  UK,  NL  and  DE  (landings  only)  are 
is 
negligible  and  provided  discarding  under  the  exemption 
monitored, the impact from these fleets is likely to be minimal. The 
FR  fleet  has  much  higher  levels  of  catches  of  cod  and  whiting. 
STECF re-iterates the observations of EWG 17-03 that the potential 
maximum  volumes  of  de  minimis  for  whiting  and  cod,  taking 
account  of  the  limitation  of  2%  on  cod  discards,  should  be 
deducted  from  the  catch  advice  and  deducted  from  the  available 
fishing opportunities. 

STECF  also  observes  that  economic  information  to  support  the 
exemption  is  still  lacking  but  notes  that  the  Member  States  were 
not asked by the Commission to provide any further information.  

Fishery 

Fish  bycaught  in  Northern  prawn  trawl  fishery  with  a  sorting  grid, 
with unblocked fish outlet 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Existing  but  NS  regional  group  propose  to  include  cod  catches  in 
the calculation of de minimis volume. 

There are no additional studies provided to support this exemption 
over  and  above  what  was  presented  in  2016.  The  only  additional 
information  is  a  re-calculation  of  the  volumes  with  cod  catches 
added. Levels in the case of this exemption are quite low reflecting 
the relatively low discards of undersized fish in this fishery. 

Combining catches to calculate de minimis increases the volume of 
de minimis available. Provided this is taken into account in setting 
catch advice then this in itself is not a problem.  

A detailed description of the fleets and fisheries is provided. 

28 

 
 
COM comments to Regional Groups  None 

Response by Regional Groups 

No action required 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

No additional comments 

Fishery 

Whiting caught in bottom trawls ≥ 90mm in IIIa 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

New.  A  combination  of  previous  studies  and  ongoing  studies  are 
used  to  justify  the  exemption  based  on  difficulties  in  increasing 
selectivity.  Limited  economic  data  based  on  prices  for  whiting  are 
provided  for  the  fisheries  involved.  This  data  shows  the  handling 
costs exceed the selling price for the landings of all whiting. 

The  2%  de  minimis  volume  requested  is  higher  than  the  current 
discard  volume  of  whiting  below  MCRS  so  in  effect  the  exemption 
encourages  high-grading  by  allowing 
for  the  discarding  of 
otherwise  marketable  whiting.  This  may  also  act  as  an  incentive 
not to try to improve selectivity in the fishery any further. 

The  request  covers  one  fishery  where  there  are  no  reported 
discards.  

The fisheries and fleets are well described. 

COM comments to Regional Groups  None 

Response by Regional Groups 

No action required 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

No additional comments 

Fishery 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Bycatch  of  plaice  in  fisheries  caught  in  the  Nephrops  trawl  fishery 
with a mesh size ≥ 80-99mm with a SEPNEP  in ICES area IIa and 
IV 

New.  Detailed  information  is  provided  to  support  this  exemption 
which  is  based  on  the  use  of  a  selective  gear  to  reduce  plaice 
discards. The case is well presented and the information provided is 
reasonable. It shows plaice discards can be reduced by up to 80% 
and  the  de  minimis  is  requested  to  cover  residual  discards  that 
cannot be released. 

A  definition  of  the  SEPNEP  gear  modification  is  provided  in  the  JR 
which is useful. The definition would benefit from some re-drafting 
as it is not altogether clear. 

COM comments to Regional Groups  None 

Response by Regional Groups 

No action required 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

No additional comments 

High survivability 

Fishery 

Nephrops caught with trawl gears with a Netgrid selectivity device 
in area IV 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Existing. Delegated act required submission of additional scientific 
information supporting the exemption. 

No  new  studies  have  been  completed  although  additional 
information  relating  to  two  of  the  factors  known  to  affect  discard 
survivability  was  provided;  catch  composition  and  environmental 
variables  (ambient  air  and  water  temperature)  on  different 
the  knowledge 
Nephrops  grounds.  These  studies 

increase 

29 

 
 
 
regarding  the  representativeness  of  the  underpinning  survival 
study for the current exemption. They show survival is unlikely to 
differ  due  to  environmental  conditions  between  the  Nephrops 
grounds in the Farne deeps and Firth of Forth and Moray Firth but 
not  whether  differences  in  fisheries  and  catch  compositions  is 
likely to differ between the Farne deeps and these two areas. The 
information does not support a survival exemption in the whole of 
area IV at all times of the year. 

COM comments to Regional Groups  Provision of information on the numbers of vessels, catch etc. for 
Nephrops  grounds  outside  the  Farne  Deeps,  using  the  STECF 
template. 

Response by Regional Groups 

Detailed  information  on  the  number  of  vessels,  catch,  discard 
rates and estimated survival rates for Nephrops by FU’s excluding 
the Farne Deeps has been provided by the UK. 

Limited information has been provided for the NL that reports that 
1  vessel  fished  in  the  Farne  Deeps  and  caught  3  tonnes  of 
Nephrops 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

Fisheries  and  fleet  information  is  now  completed  for  the  UK. 
Limited information is provided for NL but only 1 vessel is involved 
with very limited catches. 

STECF  re-iterate  the  observations  of  EWG  17-03  that  there  is 
insufficient  evidence  to  support  applying  this  exemption  for  the 
whole of area IV and at all times of the year. 

Fishery 

Common  sole  (undersized  only)  caught  with  trawl  gears  in  area 
IVc 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Existing. Delegated act required submission of additional scientific 
information supporting the exemption. 

Additional  has  been  supplied  including  the  results  from  new 
experiments  which  show  no  effect  of  seasonality  on  survival 
between trips in August and October.  

Information relating to the location of nursery areas as referred to 
in  the  Delegated  Act  is  missing.  These  areas  are  not  defined  so 
impossible  to  monitor  whether  fishing  is  occurring  outside  such 
areas. 

COM comments to Regional Groups  Clarify the location of the nursery areas referred to in the JR (if at 
all applicable for area IVc). 

Response by Regional Groups 

No information provided 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

STECF re-iterates the comments of EWG 17-03 that it is important 
that the position of these nursery areas is clearly indicated in the 
relevant  Regulation.  These  nursery  areas  have  been  identified  for 
VIId  in  an  earlier  STECF  plenary  meeting  (15-02).  It  is  not  clear 
whether such nursery areas have been identified in the North Sea.  

Fishery 

Fish bycatch in pots and fyke nets in area IIIa and IV 

Main findings of EWG 17-03 

Exemption  is  intended  to  replace  existing  de  minimis  exemption 
included in the Delegated Act. 

No  direct  evidence  is  presented  on  the  survival  rates  of  the 
discarded species in the proposed fisheries. The exemption applies 
to pot fisheries targeting crustaceans but the evidence is based on 
the  survival  of  discarded  cod  from  pots  used  to  target  fish 

30 

 
 
 
 
(consistently  >75%).  Increasing  depth  has  a  negative  effect  on 
the health of released cod.  

The  exemption  assumes  that  haddock,  whiting,  cod,  plaice,  sole, 
hake and saithe released from crab and lobster pots and Nephrops 
creels  have  the  same  survival  chances  as  cod  released  from  pots 
used to target fish. There is no direct evidence to support this but 
it is reasonable to infer that, at the point of release, and assuming 
environmental  and  technical  operations  are  comparable,  the 
likelihood  of  survival  is  high.  The  risk  of  substantial  avian 
predation  of  discarded  fish  needs  to  be  considered  in  such  an 
exemption. 

Fleet  and  fishery  descriptions  are  detailed  for  Sweden,  less  clear 
for  UK,  and  there  may  be  other  countries  associated  with  the 
proposed exemption that have not been described. 

COM comments to Regional Groups  Fleet and fishery information for all fleets that potentially will avail 

of this exemption, using the STECF template. 

Response by Regional Groups 

Limited data has been provided for DE and NL. 

  DE  reports  that  between  1-3  vessels  used  pots  to  target 
edible crab in area IIIa and IV. There was no fish bycatch 
landed and there is no discard data available. 
NL  reports  that  67  vessels  (<  10m)  target  Chinese  river 
crab  and  lobster  in  coastal  and  estuarine  waters  with 
pots.  There  is  no  reported  bycatch  of  species  subject  to 
the landing obligations. 

 

Other  Member  States  –  UK,  DK,  BE  and  FR  -  are  not  affected  by 
this exemption. 

The  information  provided  helps  to  clarify  which  fleets  intend  to 
avail  of  this  exemption.  In  this  regard  STECF  re-iterates  the 
observations  of  EWG  17-03  that  given  these  gears  are  relatively 
benign,  all  information  available  indicates  that  mortality  of 
discarded  fish  is  likely  to  be  low  and  that  the  actual  catches  are 
negligible, the impact of this exemption is minimal. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02 

Mediterranean 

For the case of Mediterranean, the following additional documents were made available: 

  A  document  provided  by  PESCAMED  high  level  group  with  information  on  fishery  of 

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Spain, France and Italy; 

  Two reports provided by Italy on behalf of ADRIATICA on Solemon project (2015 and 
2016)  with  preliminary  results  on  survivability  of  common  sole  caught  with  rapido 
trawl  in  GSA17  in  the  Adriatic  Sea,  together with  data  on  the  fishery:  Report  of  the 
Adriatic  Beam Trawl Survey  (SoleMon)  in  GSA  17  –  2015  and  Report  of  the  Adriatic 
Beam Trawl Survey (SoleMon) in GSA 17 – 2016. 

On  the  light  of  this  new  information  the  following  comments  apply  in  addition  to  those 
coming from the STECF EWG 17-03 (Table 4.3.6).  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  4.3.6.  Main  findings  of  the  STECF  EWG  17-03  and  summary  of  additional 
information received relating to exemptions presented: Mediterranean 

De minimis 

Fishery 

Hake  and  red  mullet  by  vessels  using  trawl  nets  in  the  Western 
Mediterranean 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Hake  and  red  mullet  by  vessels  using  gillnets  in  the  Western 
Mediterranean 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Hake and red mullet using trawls in the Adriatic 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Hake and red mullet using gillnets in the Adriatic 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Hake and red mullet using rapido (beam trawls) in the Adriatic 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Common sole using trawl nets in the Adriatic 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Common sole using gillnets in the Adriatic 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Hake  and  red  mullet  by  vessels  using  trawl  nets  in  the  south-eastern 
Mediterranean 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Hake  and  red  mullet  by  vessels  using  gillnets  in  the  south  eastern 

32 

 
 
 
Mediterranean 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Deep-water rose shrimp in the south eastern Mediterranean 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing provision and was therefore not evaluated by EWG 17-03 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

High survivability 

Fishery 

Scallop caught with mechanised dredges in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6; 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing. Delegated act required submission of additional discard data 

and any other relevant scientific information supporting the exemption. 

No information provided to EWG 17-03 so no analysis carried out. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Carpet clams caught with mechanised dredges in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing.  Delegated  act  required  submission  of  additional  discard  data 

and any other relevant scientific information supporting the exemption. 

No information provided to EWG 17-03 so no analysis carried out. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Venus shells caught with mechanised dredges in GSAs 1, 2, 5 and 6 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Existing.  Delegated  act  required  submission  of  additional  discard  data 

and any other relevant scientific information supporting the exemption. 

No information provided to EWG 17-03 so no analysis carried out. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF has no further comments. 

Fishery 

Nephrops norvegicus caught with trawls in the western Mediterranean 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  The JR from the PESCAMED high level group (HLG) requested a new 

exemption for Nephrops norvegicus caught with trawls in the western 
Mediterranean on the basis of high survivability The PESCAMED HLG 
provided a report of survivability experiments carried out as part of the 
EU funded Minouw project - “Survival of discarded N. norvegicus from 
the Catalan Sea bottom trawl fishery”. EWG 17-03 noted that the 
discard survival estimates generated were not representative, as 
samples for observation were taken only at the beginning of the sorting 
process. PESCAMED HLG did not provide any data for the fisheries 
affected (Spain, France and Italy).  

COM  Comments  to  Regional 
Groups  

Not available 

Response by Regional Groups  

PESCAMED  HLG  has  provided  a  document  with  information  on  the 
fisheries for N. norvegicus in Spain, France and Italy 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF notes that the fisheries and fleet information provided for Spain 
and France is brief and not fully homogeneous. These countries provide 
a  brief  summary  of  the  Nephrops  fishery  in  these  countries  regarding 
gear  characteristics,  fishing  grounds,  associated  species  in  the  catch, 

33 

 
 
 
number  of  vessels  and,  in  the  case  of  France,  landings  data.  No  catch 
information is provided for Spain.  

Regarding  the  information  provided  by  Italy,  STECF  wondered  whether 
there  could  be  an  error  in  the  information  supplied.  The  reported 
information  relates  to  lobster,  but  STECF  emits  some  concerns  that  it 
may  not  be  Norway  lobster  (Nephrops)  but  probably  spiny  lobster, 
Palinurus elephas, instead of Nephrops. The reasons for these concerns 
relate  to  the  description  of  the  gear  used  and  the  price.  The  Italian 
information  refers  to  trammel  nets  and  not  to  trawls.  In  the 
Mediterranean,  including  in  Italy,  the  main  gear  to  catch  Nephrops  is 
trawls whereas spiny lobster is fished mainly with trammel nets. 

In  conclusion,  is  this  sufficient/insufficient,  check  the  template  with 
regards to other areas/JR, EWG 16-17 

Fishery 

Common sole (Solea solea) caught with rapido (beam trawl) in GSAs 17 
and 18 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/86 includes an exemption 
on  the  basis  of  high  survivability  for  common  sole  caught  with  rapido 
trawls  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  GSA  17  and  GSA  18.  This  exemption  was 
granted  for  one  year  on  the  provision  that  the  Member  States 
concerned in the fishery should submit relevant data to the Commission 
to  allow  STECF  to  further  assess  the  justification  for  this  exemption. 
However,  this  information  was  not  provided  to  EWG  17-03  so  the 
working group was unable to carry out an evaluation. EWG 17-03 noted 
that  survivability  studies  for  the  common  sole  in  the  GSA  17  were  in 
progress  in  the  framework  of  the  SOLEMON  project  carried  out  by  the 
CNR-ISMAR  (Ancona,  Italy).  It  also  noted  that  there  exist  other 
published  studies  on  the  survivability  of  this  species  in  other  areas. 
EWG  17-03  stated  that  these  studies  may  provide  supporting 
information for the requested exemption. 

COM  Comments  to  Regional 
Groups  

Not available 

Response by Regional Groups  

Italy  on  behalf  of  ADRIATICA  provided  two  reports  of  the  Solemon 
project  (2015  and  2016)  with  preliminary  results  on  survivability  of 
common  sole  caught  with  rapido  trawl  in  GSA17  in  the  Adriatic  Sea, 
together with data on the fishery. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF  notes  that  results  of  the  Solemon  project  are  preliminary  and 
that  the  project  was  not  designed  to  specifically  evaluate  the  survival 
rates  of  Common  sole  caught  with  rapido  trawl  in  the  Adriatic.  Results 
are based on two experiments conducted in 2015 and 2016 comprising 
a  total  of  8  hauls  and  about  150  individuals,  covering  common  sole 
below the MCRS (20 cm TL). 

STECF notes that the experiments were only conducted in GSA 17 (i.e. 
GSA  18  was  not  covered),  and  that  the  methodology  used  in  the 
experiments is not fully explained (there is reference to van Beek FA et 
al.  1990;  On  the  survival  of  plaice  and  sole  discards  In  the  otter  trawl 
and  beam  trawl  fisheries  in  the  North  Sea.  Neth  J  Sea  Res  26:  151  – 
160)  

STECF notices that preliminary results of the Solemon project show that 
survival  at  the  point  of  release  is  between  83.2%  and  72.3%,  and 
between  69.7  and  57.4%  after  72  hr  observation.  However,  it  is  not 
known whether mortalities had ceased by this time, but based on other 
studies, additional mortalities are likely to have occurred beyond 72 hr, 
therefore  an  absolute  discard  survival  estimate  cannot  be  determined 
from the evidence provided.  

STECF  notices  that  the  surveys  were  done  in  winter  (late  November) 
and therefore it is likely that the reported survival rates are higher than 
the  rates  that  could  have  been  estimated  in  summer  months  when 
temperatures are much higher. 

34 

 
 
STECF  notes  that  the  surveys  were  done  in  shallow  waters  (8-14  m 
depth)  and  therefore  it  is  likely  that  the  reported  survival  rates  are 
higher  than  the  rates  that  could  have  been  estimated  if  individuals 
would have been caught in deeper waters. 

STECF  further  notes  that  the  experiments  were  conducted  as  part  of 
research  cruises.  It  is  not  clear  how  representative  the  gear  used  and 
the  conditions  under  which  the  sole  were  collected  are  of  commercial 
practice.  In  particular,  STECF  observes  the  tow  times  were  of  a  very 
short  duration  and  this  may  be  a  factor  in  the  high  survival  rates 
observed. 

In  conclusion,  there  are  some  indications  of  potential  survival  in  this 
fishery,  but  the  method  used  was  not  sufficient  to  derive  robust  and 
representative estimates of survival.   

In conclusion, the information provided by France is quite complete in relation to fisheries 
data,  but not  the  information  provided  by  Spain,  whereas  Italy  still  has  to  present  data 
on that fishery. Regarding survival rates of Nephrops, only Spain has submitted data. A 
table summarizing all existing information (fishery + survival rates), which updates table 
10.1.1  shown  in  EWG  17-03  report,  is  given  below  in  Table  4.3.7.  This  updated  table 
shows the information by country that is still missing.  

Table 4.3.7. Update of Table 10.1.1 given in STECF EWG 17-03 report: Summary of high 
survivability exemptions submitted as part of the Mediterranean Joint Recommendations 
(restricted to new of re-assessed exemptions) 

Country 

-            

Exemptio
n  applied 
for 
(species, 
area, 
gear 
type)* 

Species 
as 
bycatch 
or target 

Number 
of vessels 
subject 
to the LO 

Landings 
(by 
LO 
subject 
Vessels) 

Estimat
ed 
Discard
s* 

Estimat
ed 
Catch 

Discard 
Rate 

Estimated 
discard 
survival 
rate 

from provided studies 

France 

Norway 
lobster 
caught 
with 
trawls 

GSA7: 
bycatch 

GSA8: 
target 

50   (but  
<10 
really 
targeting 
Nephrop
s,  mainly 
in GSA 8) 

GSA7:  9t 
GSA8:  7-
18t 

<10% 
of  total 
catch 

unkno
wn 

unkno
wn 

unknown 

Fisheries: https://ec.eur
opa.eu/fisheries/sites/fis
heries 

/files/docs/body/annex_
en.pdf 

target 

608 

unknown 

unkno
wn 

unkno
wn 

unkno
wn 

-  Winter 
74% 

Survival  rates:  MINOUW 
project 

target 

unknown 

unknown 

unkno
wn 

unkno
wn 

unkno
wn 

Spring 

- 
36% 

-  Summer 
6% 

unknown 

Spain 

Italy 

Norway 
lobster 
caught 
with 
trawls 

Norway 
lobster 
caught 
with 
trawls 

-          * The information given here should be disaggregated by exemption applied 

35 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Black Sea 

For the Case of Black Sea, the following additional documents were made available: 

  A letter from Bulgaria explaining the motivations for the exemption of turbot (Psetta 
maxima) caught with bottom set gillnets (GNS) in the Black Sea on the basis of high 
survivability. 

In light of this new information the following comments apply in addition to those coming 
from the STECF EWG 17-03 (Table 4.3.8).  

Table  4.3.8.  Main  findings  of  the  STECF  EWG  17-03  and  summary  of  additional 
information received relating to exemptions presented: Black Sea 

High survivability 

Fishery 

Main findings of the EWG 17-03 

Turbot  (Psetta  maxima)  caught  with  bottom-set  gillnets  (GNS)  in  the 
Black Sea 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/87 established a discard 
plan  for  turbot  fisheries  in  the  Black  Sea.  This  discard  plan  is  valid 
until  31  December  2019  and  includes  an  exemption  on  the  basis  of 
high survivability  for  turbot  caught in bottom  set gillnets  (GNS). This 
exemption was granted for one year on the provision that the Member 
States  concerned  in  the  fishery  should  submit  relevant  data  to  the 
Commission to allow STECF to further assess the justifications for this 
exemption.  However,  no  information  was  provided  to  EWG  17-03 
therefore the working group was unable to carry out an evaluation. 

STECF also notes that according to the Delegated Act, by 1 May 2017 
Member  States  having  a  direct  management  interest  in  the  turbot 
fisheries  in  the  Black  Sea  shall  submit  to  the  Commission  additional 
discard  data  to  those  provided  for  in  the  Joint  Recommendation  of  4 
July 2016 and any other relevant scientific information supporting the 
exemption  laid  down  in  paragraph  1.  The  Scientific,  Technical  and 
Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  shall  assess  those  data 
referred in paragraph 3 by July 2017 at the latest. 

COM  Comments 
Groups  

to  Regional 

Not available 

Response by Regional Groups  

Bulgaria  provided  a  letter  explaining  the  motivations  for  the 
exemption of turbot caught in bottom set  gillnets (GNS) on the basis 
of high survivability. 

Comments STECF PLEN 17-02  

STECF notes that the letter provided by Bulgaria does not provide any 
discard  data.  The  reason  stated  in  the  letter  for  not  providing  this 
information  relates  to  the  provisions  included  in  Recommendation 
GFCM/37/2013/2 on the establishment of a set of minimum standards 
for  bottom-set  gillnet  fisheries  for  turbot  and  conservation  of 
cetaceans  in  the  Black  Sea.  STECF  understands  that  (i)  if  member 
states  ensure  that  mesh  size  of  the  GNS  is  greater  or  equal  to  400 
mm  as  stated  in  the  GFCM  recommendation,  and  (ii)  if  turbot  with  a 
size less than 45 cm measured from the tip of the snout to the end of 
the tail fin (Total length) is not caught (as it is also stated in the GFCM 
Recommendation), then discards may be low. It is stated in the letter 
that  gillnets  use  mesh  size  ≥  400mm,  but  STECF  notes  that  no  data 
are  presented  to  support  this  statement,  and  that  no  length 
distributions are provided either..  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF notes however that the letter from Bulgaria acknowledges that 
a pilot study is currently being implemented to assess the discards of 
turbot  caught  with  GNS,  and  that  data  will  be  submitted  when 
available. Furthermore, the letter acknowledges that discard data will 
be also evaluated in the frame of the DCF work plan in 2018 through 
on  board  sampling.  STECF  recognizes  the  potential  value  of  these 
sampling programs that should provide discard information. 

STECF notes that the letter from Bulgaria does not provide any results 
on  survival  rates  of  turbot  caught  with  GNS.  The  letter  simply  states 
that  the  Bulgarian  scientists  support  the  survivability  exemption  for 
turbot  caught  with  GNS  in  the  Black  Sea,  and  on  the  basis  of  this 
statement,  the  Bulgarian  authorities  request  an  extension  of  the 
exemption.  

that 

STECF  points  out 
the  exemption  should  supported  by 
experimental studies demonstrating high survivability as with all other 
exemptions  currently  in  place  in  other  sea  basins.  STECF  notes  that 
according  to  the  current  discard  plan,  not  only  Bulgaria  but  also 
Romania  have  a  direct  fisheries  management  interest  in  the 
exploitation of turbot in the Black Sea. Romania has not provided any 
background  on  discards  or  justification  for  the  high  survivability 
exemption for turbot.  

In  conclusion  the  information  that  would  support  a  high  survival 
exemption has not been provided and STECF cannot evaluate it.  

STECF conclusions 

Conclusions about the EWG 17-03 report 

STECF concludes the EWG 17-03 has addressed all the terms of references and has also 
provided information on the progress in implementing the LO. 

STECF supports the EWG 17-03 observations that avoidance of unwanted catch through 
improved  selectivity  or  other  means  should  be  the  primary  focus  in  implementing  the 
landing obligation. STECF notes though that none of the JR received contain any concrete 
measures to promote an increased selectivity.  

STECF notes similarly that none of the JR received contain any concrete measure for the 
control and documentation of catches. STECF understands that several regional groups of 
Member  States  have  set  up  control  expert  working  groups  working  with  the  European 
Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  to  consider  this  element  and  they  have  put  forward  a 
number of proposals for appropriate measures. STECF urges the regional Member States 
to  consider  these  findings  and  implement  the  measures  proposed  where  relevant  and 
appropriate 

STECF also supports the EWG 17-03 observations that the decision to accept or reject an 
exemption  proposal  based  on  the  survival  value  presented  is  a  decision  for  managers. 
STECF cannot adjudicate on whether exemptions should be accepted or not.  

STECF concludes that it is necessary to better understand the complex variables affecting 
the  survival  rate  of  species  (e.g.  area,  temperature,  season,  handling  times  and 
procedures,  habitat  where  individuals  are  discarded),  as  well  as  the  socioeconomic 
justification  for  the  de  minimis  exemptions.  This  will  support  future  evaluations  of 
proposed exemptions, and assist managers in drawing up future discard plans. 

In  this  regards,  STECF  recalls  also  the  conclusions  made  by  STECF  PLEN-16-02  and 
reported in STECF 16-06 regarding the impact of the survival vs. de minimis exemptions 
in terms of discard mortality. STECF highlights that what constitutes high survival needs 
also  to  be  seen  in  relation  with  the  relative  amount  of  fish  that  die,  and  not  only  in 
consideration of those that survive, and this relates not only to the survival rate but also 

37 

 
 
 
to  the  discard  ratio  in  the  fishery.  STECF  PLEN  16-02  had  provided  examples  of  this, 
highlighting  that  for  example  an  exemption  based  on  a  survival  rate  at  51%  with  a 
discard ratio at 15% (Figure 4.3.1) implies a discard mortality of 0.51*0.15=7.6%, which 
might be higher than with a corresponding de minimis exemption.  

Figure 4.3.1. Discards, survivors and landed proportion using a discard rate = 15% and a 
survival rate = 51% 

STECF  highlights  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  speed  of  implementation  between 
regions.  STECF  notes  that  all  stocks  in  the  Baltic  are  now  subject  to  the  landing 
obligation.  Implementation  progresses  vary  between  74%  of  the  number  of  TACs  being 
at  least  partly  under  the  landing  obligation  in  2018  in  the  North  Sea  to  around  50%  in 
the  NWW.  For  the  TACs  which  straddle  two or  more  regions,  around  50%  of stocks  are 
now  covered.  In  non-Union  waters  only  the  Highly  Migratory  species  are  subject  to  the 
landing  obligation.  It  is  understood  that  other  TAC  species  in  non-Union  waters  will  be 
subject to the landing obligation in 2018 but no details were available to EWG 17-03 on 
the  number  of  stocks  affected.  STECF  concludes  that  based  on  Joint  Recommendations 
for  2018  if  implemented,  55%  of  the  TAC  species  will  be  subject  to  the  landing 
obligation. 

Regarding  the  suggestion  for  a  combined  de  minimis  for  cod,  haddock  and  whiting  in 
trawl fisheries in the Celtic Sea and Western Waters, STECF concludes that this approach 
offers a degree of flexibility which may help fishermen adapt to the landing obligation in 
mixed  fishery  situations.  However,  STECF  agrees  with  EWG  17-03  that  for  any  de 
minimis, discard quantities should be deducted from the catch opportunities arising from 
FMSY based catch advice. In this context and to respect the precautionary approach, under 
a  combined  de  minimis,  the  separate  de  minimis  volume  for  each  individual  species 
within  the  combined  species  can  only  be  accounted  for  in  respective  stocks  TACs  by 
discounting  the  maximum  possible  amount  of  de  minimis  for  each  species  that  could 
potentially be discarded. STECF notes that this is likely to reduce the fishing opportunities 
for all other fleets catching these stocks. As such, any flexibility granted to some groups 
of vessels could have negative implications for other groups of vessels. Further analysis 
may be required to fully understand the trade-offs involved in this approach or in similar 
approaches put forward by regional groups of Member States. 

Conclusions about the  new  information  received  to address some  of the issues 
identified by EWG 17-03 

STECF concludes that the regional groups of Member States have addressed some of the 
issues  identified  by  EWG  17-03.  Regional  groups  have  generally  clarified  the  fleet 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
segments  to  which  the  exemptions  would  apply  and  also  how  the  de  minimis  will  be 
calculated.  The  regional  groups  have  also  provided  some  additional  information  in 
support  of  several  specific  exemption  proposals  where  inconsistencies  or  gaps  were 
identified by EWG 17-03. 

STECF notes that Bulgaria and Romania have not provided discard data for turbot caught 
by  bottom-set  gillnets  (GNS)  in  the  Black  Sea  as  requested  in  the  existing  Regulation. 
STECF  acknowledges  the  effort  of  Bulgaria  to  obtain  new  discard  data  through  pilot 
studies and through the planned DCF 2018 work programme. 

STECF  also  notes  that  Bulgaria  and  Romania  have  not  provided  any  information  to 
support  the  high  survivability  exemption  for  turbot  caught  by  GNS  in  the  Black  Sea. 
STECF  is  therefore  unable  to  carry  out  any  evaluation  as  to  whether  this  exemption  is 
justified or not.  

STECF concludes that regarding the de minimis exemption requested for the Hake caught 
with  trawls  in  directed  fisheries  in  ICES  subareas  VIII  and  IX,  some  information  is  still 
missing  (de  minimis  recorded  and  French  fleet  data).  STECF  notes  that  the  selectivity 
experiments  presented  were  not  successful  in  reducing  catches  of  unwanted  hake,  but 
comparative information of the selectivity with larger mesh size is not available. Further 
selectivity  experimentation  could  provide  estimates  of  baseline  selectivity  of  existing 
gears to allow comparison with experimental gears. 

STECF concludes that regarding the high survivability exemption requested for Nephrops 
caught  with  trawls  in  ICES  subareas  VIII  and  IX,  the  supporting  information  provides 
robust scientific estimates of discard survival for one Functional Unit (FU23). 

STECF concludes that most of the missing fleet and fishery information requested for the 
North  Sea  de  minimis  exemptions  and  high  survivability  exemptions  has  been  provided 
by the Member States and was considered adequate. However, no information has been 
provided in relation to nursery areas for sole related to the high survivability exemption 
for areas IVc and VIId. 

Conclusions on the JRs in the Mediterranean Sea 

STECF  concludes  that  the  ADRIATICA  and  SUDESTEMED  HLGs  have  not  provided 
information to support the changes in the  de minimis levels proposed in the JRs for the 
Adriatic Sea and South Eastern Mediterranean. In the absence of such information STECF 
is unable to assess whether an increase from 3% to 5%  de minimis in some GSAs (i.e. 
small  pelagic  purse  seines  fisheries  in  (i)  the  southern  Adriatic  and  Ionian  Sea,  (ii)  the 
Malta Island and South of Sicily and (iii) the Aegean Sea and Crete Island) will have any 
additional impact in terms of increased catch of the corresponding small pelagic species . 

STECF  notes  the  inclusion  of  GSA  25  (Cyprus)  in  the  JR  for  the  South-eastern 
Mediterranean.  However,  in  the  absence  of  any  justification  to  support  the  inclusion  of 
this GSA, STECF cannot comment further. 

Regarding the assertion raised in the letter accompanying the ADRIATICA JR, relating to 
slipping  in  purse  seine  fisheries,  STECF  considers  that  a  request  for  high-survival 
exemption  is  necessary  as  slipping  represents  discarding.  Any  such  request  should  be 
supported by relevant scientific evidence. This would be consistent with similar requests 
received from other regions for exemptions in purse seine fisheries on the basis of high 
survivability. 

STECF  emphasises  that  JR  that  are  dealt  with  by  plenary  cannot  receive  the  same 
amount  of  scrutiny  and  consistency  check  than  those  addressed  in  the  dedicated  EWG. 
STECF considers that JR should be submitted in time for the EWG.  

39 

 
 
 
 
4.4 EWG 17-05 Fisheries Dependent Information - Classic 

Request to the STECF 
STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  report  of  the  STECF  Expert  Working  Group  meeting, 
evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations. 

STECF response  

One meeting of the STECF EWG dealing with FDI was scheduled for 2017. The report of 
EWG  17-05  has  been  prepared  using  the  same  format  as  in  2016;  all  major  tables  are 
placed  at  the  end  of  the  report  and  related  information  made  available  on  the  STECF 
website through the JRC dissemination site.  

STECF  notes  that  the  Terms  of  Reference  relating  to  fishing  effort  and  catches  in  the 
following sea areas have been addressed fully by the Report of the EWG 17-05: 

1. Baltic Sea, 

2. Kattegat, 

3. Skagerrak, North Sea and the Eastern Channel, 

4. West of Scotland, 

5. Irish Sea, 

6. Celtic Sea, 

7. Atlantic waters off the Iberian Peninsula, 

8. Western Channel, 

9. Western Waters and Deep Sea 

10. Bay of Biscay. 

The EWG 17-05 Report is based on data submitted by Member States in response to the 
2017  FDI-classic  Data  Call  (Ref.  Ares  (2017)1601140  -  24/03/2017).  Only  the  data  for 
2016 were requested but some member states also resubmitted some historical data to 
correct data submitted in previous years. 

As  last  year,  all  data  used  by  the  EWG  17-05  was  submitted  by  the  Member  States 
through the JRC upload facility. STECF notes that the data upload facility functioned well. 
STECF  also  notes  and  that  the  processed  data  has  been  made  available  to  the  working 
group  experts  through  a  secure  access  version  of  the  Data  Dissemination  Tool  and  the 
introduction  this  year  of  additional  post-upload  data  checks  on  the  JRC  secure  server. 
STECF welcomes this progress. 

STECF  notes  that  since  2016  the  upload  facility  has  been  altered  to  be  more  ‘strict’  in 
order to improve the quality of uploaded information, i.e. there are more instances where 
data files are rejected if containing incorrect codes. Even so, with one exception, all data 
requested in the FDI Data Call were provided by the Member States in time. STECF also 
notes  a  generally  high,  and  improving,  standard  in  member  states’  submissions  with 
regard to data completeness, timeliness and quality. Completeness and quality are being 
improved  further  by  the  willingness  of  member  states  to  investigate  and  produce 
corrections  where  necessary  in  response  to  the  post  upload  checks  and  ahead  of  the 
EWG. To endorse where possible the data provided by the member states in response to 
the data call, and/or to comment on quality, (also to highlight any unexpected evolutions 
in the estimated parameters which are not in line with the general trend), the EWG 17-05 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
was  asked  to  prepare  a  table  describing  data  transmission  issues  by  country.  STECF 
welcomes the EWG 17-05 presentation of the overview of MS responses to the Data Call 
and notes the year on year reduction in the number of outstanding issues by the end of 
the EWG. 

However,  STECF  notes  that  information  on  landings  and  discards  from  small  vessels 
(without logbooks) remains very sparse. 

As  noted  above  the  report  of  EWG  17-05  is  in  the  same  format  as  last  year.  This  was 
agreed at STECF PLEN-16-03 because the data dissemination tool currently performs an 
electronic dissemination of STECF report tables, while the report provides the necessary 
references to data sources and to the analyses performed. In addition it is important to 
maintain a process by which experts check and verify the processed data, and producing 
tables  and  figures  is  one  way  to  identify  possible  mistakes.  STECF  notes  that  (minor) 
errors  in  data  were  found  and  corrected  as  part  of  the  report  production  process  this 
year. 

STECF  notes  that  the  EWG  discussed  the  raising  of  discard  data  and  the  practice  of 
providing  discard  estimates  for  those  vessel/gear  groups  for  which  estimates  were  not 
provided by Member States (“fill-ins”). STECF also notes that the EWG found a number of 
discard  values  obtained  after  the  raising  to  be  unrealistic.  For  transparency  the  EWG 
decided  to  not  raise  discards;  also  to  not  show  catch  results  where  they  were  not 
considered representative of true catch levels. 

STECF also notes that in estimating overall discard rates for each gear group across MSs, 
which  are  used  in  computing  TAC  top-ups  for  those  stocks  subject  to  the  Landing 
Obligation,  the  EWG  17-05  used  only  those  estimates  provided  by  the  Member  States, 
without any raising.  

STECF  understands  the  concerns  expressed  by  the  EWG  on  the  potential  risk  of 
automatic  discards  raising  procedures  to  provide  unrealistic  figures,  mainly  in  those 
strata  where  the  available  discard  information  is  scarce.  These  automatic  procedures 
have been used in the FDI database over the last decade. These concerns are well known 
and well founded, and are among the drivers calling for the “new-FDI” to be used from 
2017 on. The reasons and magnitude for the discrepancies in discard estimates between 
the FDI database and ICES assessments (which involve more manual raising procedures 
for  unsampled  countries  and  métiers)  have  been  investigated  in  details  in  STECF  2013 
[LO part 1 STECF 13-23]. There it was observed that discrepancies were of limited extent 
for several commercial stocks, but could be more substantial for less well sampled stocks 
and for stocks with either very high or very low discard rates. 

Nevertheless,  STECF  decided  to  revert  to  the  old  raising  procedure  for  calculating the 
TAC top-ups, on the basis of several considerations: 

1. In the absence of a discard estimate, a value of zero was used for those gear groups 
that  were  not  sampled,  implying  that  such  gear  groups  are  assumed  to  have  zero 
discards.  Hence  the  average  discard  rate  for  such  gear  groups  would  be  an 
underestimate of the true discard rate. 
2.  It  was  considered  preferable  to  maintain  consistency  with  the  procedure  applied  in 
previous years to compute TAC top-ups 
3. It was noted that these discards estimates, although possibly unrealistic, are not used 
as absolute values to compute the TAC top-ups, but only as fractions of the overall top-
up;  as  such,  the  total  top-up  cannot  exceed  the  ICES  catch  advice  and  the  discard 
estimates used do therefore not pose higher risks for the stocks 
4.  It  is  understood  that  the  current  FDI  database  will  no  longer  be  updated,  and  that 
revised  procedures  will  be  available  next  year  in  the  new-FDI.  Therefore,  it  was 
considered  the  most  pragmatic  approach  to  complete  the  current  time  series  with 

41 

 
 
 
  
  
unchanged procedures and dedicate effort to improve the new FDI rather than changing 
the current one.  

Hence,  for  the  above  reasons  STECF  recalculated  the  average  discard  rates  for  gear 
groupings  across  Member  States  as  in  previous  years,  and  removed  the  original  tables 
from the EWG report. The STECF estimates are given  in annex of the STECF  comments 
on the EWG plenary report. 

STECF notes that the tables 5.1.2-5.1.5 and 5.1.7-5.1.8 contained in the STECF plenary 
report (PLEN-16-03) (Top-up tables) using FDI data from 2015 and 2016 were thus not 
available to the plenary. Tables 5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.1.7 and 5.1.8 could not be calculated as 
Member  States  did  not  submit  the  necessary  information.    Updates  to  tables  5.1.2  and 
5.1.3  will  be  provided  afterwards,  using  the  same  raising  procedures  as  in  previous 
years.  The  tables  will  thus  be  be  published  through  written  STECF  procedure  after 
publication of the plenary report. 

STECF  notes  that  the  effort  management  regimes  which  motivated  formation  and 
maintenance  of  the  FDI  data  base  are  being  repealed  as  the  area  based  multi-annual 
plans  and  the  landing  obligation  come  into  effect.  It  further  notes  that  with  respect  to 
future  activities  a  new  data  call  ‘New-FDI’  has  been  developed  by  JRC  in  consultation 
with  multiple  end-users  and  data  providers,  to  better  reflect  new  developments  in  the 
management  applying  in  European  waters. The  intention  is  for the  ‘New-FDI’  to  replace 
the  “FDI-classic”  as  the  reference  database  for  transversal  data  plus  age  (and 
additionally length) based landings and discard data. STECF notes that the content of the 
two  databases  are  sufficiently  different  so  that  the  ‘New-FDI’  is  likely  not  to  be 
considered as a continuation of the FDI-classic. 

STECF notes that it is important that the ‘New-FDI’ data handling process should include 
transparent and clearly documented procedures/code on how the data is processed post 
upload,  so  the  EWG  can  track  and  understand  the  implications  of  any  changes  to  the 
procedures.  

Taking  into  account  the  enormous  amount  of  valuable  information  available  in  the  FDI-
classic database and its proven usefulness in the past, STECF considers that it may not 
be prudent to stop this database before the New-FDI has proven its utility and reliability. 

42 

 
 
  
 
 
 
4.5 EWG 17-07 DCF 2016 Annual reports evaluation & Data Transmission to end 
users in 2016 

Request to the STECF 
STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  report  of  the  STECF  Expert  Working  Group  meeting, 
evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations 

STECF response 

Background for the EWG 17-07 

The  STECF  Expert  Working  Group  (STECF  EWG  17-07)  met  in  Gavirate,  Italy,  from  the 
26th  to  the  30th  of  June  2017  to  assess  Annual  Reports  (AR)  for  the  data  collected  in 
2016 by the 23 non landlocked Member States submitted as part of the Data Collection 
Framework  and  to  evaluate  Member  States  (MS)’  transmission  of  DCF  data  collected  in 
2015  (and submitted  according  to data  calls  in  spring  2016)  based on  information  from 
end users and Member States' clarifications & explanations in response to the end users 
feedback.  

Under  the  process  of  evaluation  and  approval  of  the  outcomes  of  the  National 
Programmes (NP), the European Commission is consulting STECF about the execution of 
the  NP  approved  by  the  Commission  and  about  the  quality  of  the  data  collected  by  the 
Member  States  in  accordance  with  articles  7.1  and  7.2  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
199/2008.  

In addition, the EWG 17-07 was requested to discuss how the methodologies used for the 
evaluation  exercises  of  AR  and  DT  (data  transmission)  failures  can  be  simplified  and 
streamlined  in  light  of  the  new  legislative  framework  and  on-going  technological 
developments. 

Ten  independent  experts  pre-screened  the  MS  annual  reports  (AR)  and  the  data 
compliance  feedback  from  the  end  users  before  the  EWG  meeting.  As  an  output  of  the 
evaluation of ARs and DT issues, the EWG was requested to produce for every MS: a) an 
evaluation of the AR in a table template provided by the Commission; b) an evaluation of 
the  DT  issues,  commented  by  MS  and  pre-screeners,  including  an  STECF  judgment  on 
whether the MS comments are acceptable. The evaluation process at the EWG was set up 
to  focus  on  topics  where  the  pre-screeners  have  raised  a  problem  or  where  the  pre-
screeners’ final assessment of a particular point has revealed to be contentious.  

STECF observations  

 As  a  general  comment,  STECF  observes  that  the  assessment  of  DT  issues  and  the 
evaluation of AR should be better aligned. To date for instance, the EWG 17-07 evaluated 
AR on data collection activities performed in 2016, but assessed the DT issues of the data 
call  from  the  previous  year,  which  means  e.g.  2015  biological  data  and  2014  economic 
data.  This  alignment  would  be  needed  to  link  data  transmission  failures  with  the 
corresponding  annual  reports,  and  to  link  those  directly  with  any  subsequent  necessary 
amendment required in the Work Plans for the following period. . 

Evaluation of Annual Reports  

STECF  acknowledges  that  despite  the  very  tight  deadline  between  the  EWG  17-07  and 
the STECF plenary, the EWG report was finalized in time to be presented and reviewed.  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
STECF  acknowledges  that  the  EWG  was  able  to  address  the  terms  of  reference  with 
regard  to  Annual  Reports  (AR)  and  Data  Transmission  (DT)  evaluation  and  analysis, 
resulting in a list of follow-up actions to be addressed by MS.  

STECF notes that the AR and DT pre-screening, as in previous years, has proven to be an 
important and very helpful preparation for the evaluation process. To undertake the pre-
screening exercise the COM provided the pre-screening experts with an updated version 
of  the  evaluation  template  previously  used.  The  updated  evaluation  template  included 
new columns: (i) ‘Issues addressed’, (ii) ‘Minor/Major Issue’. In the case of minor issues, 
the pre-screeners were requested to give a final judgement. 

STECF  observes  that  overall,  the  level  of  compliance  of  the  2016  Annual  Reports  with 
National  Programs  shows  an  improvement  compared  with  previous  years.  This 
improvement  refers  both  to  the  achievements  attained  by  MS  and  to  the  reporting 
procedures. The ARs of 7 MSs reached a “mostly” (50-90%) overall compliance and ARs 
of 16 MSs were assessed with a “yes” (>90%) overall compliance. Last year, the overall 
compliance for 3 MS was “partially” (10-50%), the ARs of 6 MSs reached a “mostly” (50-
90%) overall compliance and ARs of 14 MSs were assessed with a “yes” (>90%) overall 
compliance. 

STECF observes that there is a need to improve the communications between STECF and 
the  other  bodies  involved  in  the  implementation  of  the  DCF.  So  far,  outcomes  of  ARs 
evaluations  have  mainly  be  used  into  bilateral  discussions  between  COM  and  MSs.  But 
STECF  considers that  the  outcomes  of  the  evaluation  process are  also useful  to  identify 
gaps  in  data  collection  at  the  regional  level,  comparing  activities  and  achievements 
among  MSs  fishing  in  the  same  region.  STECF  suggests  thus  that  the  outcomes  of  the 
evaluation  could  also  be  addressed  with  the  appropriate  regional  groups  such  as  the 
RCG’s, PGECON and others. 

Evaluation of data transmission (DT) issues  

Regarding the assessment of data transmission issues, STECF notes that, as in previous 
years, the online compliance platform provided by the JRC on the DCF website facilitated 
the  work  of  the  experts.  Some  improvements  to  this  platform  are  suggested  in  the 
conclusions.  

STECF notes that, compared to previous years, the number of DT issues has decreased. 
This trend was due to improvements in MS data collection and transmission but, also, to 
a  different  approach  applied  by  ICES  in  2016.  ICES  has  increased  the  direct 
communication  with  MS’s  on  DT  failures,  and  filtered  out  miscommunication  or 
inappropriate  failures  prior  to  the  STECF-EWG  17-07.  STECF  agrees  with  EWG  that  this 
has  been  a  useful  approach  for  improving  data  transmission  as  the  number  of 
outstanding  DT  failures  was  much  reduced,  and  all  failures  could  be  evaluated.  STECF 
also  observes  that  in  some  cases  the  DT  issue  identified  by  an  end-user  is  not  always 
clearly and explicitly described. 

STECF  observes  that  no  feedback  on  data  transmission  was  received  from  the  GFCM 
Secretariat.  Representative  of  the  GFCM  Secretariat  informed  EWG  that  within  the 
context of the new Data Collection Reference Framework (DCRF), the implementation of 
tentative  data  quality  indicators  (i.e.  conformity,  stability  and  consistency  indicators  for 
data  quality  checks  with  preliminary  thresholds)  have  been  approved  by  the  GFCM 
Compliance Committee (CoC) in January 2016; once consolidated these will allow a more 
comprehensive assessment of the submitted data. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
STECF conclusions  

STECF  concludes  that  the  EWG  17-07  report  adequately  addresses  all  Terms  of 
References. STECF endorses the findings presented in the report.  

In addition, the STECF discussed the following:  

Evaluation of Annual Reports  

  The overall  AR evaluation process has improved over the past years through the 
use  of  pre-screeners  and  the  progressive  evolution  of  the  evaluation  sheets.  In 
particular,  the  new  columns  added  in  2017  evaluation  template  were  considered 
useful.  However,  the  process  still  requires  various  manual  cross-checks  between 
tables and checks on formatting and editorial issues. STECF again (cf. EWG 14-17, 
15-10,  PLEN  16-02)  concludes  that  there  is  an  urgent  need  for  online  reporting 
and automatic checking tools for effective and efficient compilation and monitoring 
of ARs;  

  The  evaluation  procedure  for  the  AR  under  the  EU  MAP  2017-2019  has  to  be 
revised according to the new amended regulation framework. STECF suggests that 
the format and guidelines for Annual Reports be revised before the end of 2017 to 
allow for implementation by Member States during early 2018; 

  A  traffic  light  table  by  regions  could  be  added  in  the  EWG  evaluation  report  in 
order to introduce a regional component in the evaluation,  which would ease the 
communication of the AR assessment results to the Regional Coordination Groups 
(RCGs). 

Evaluation of data transmission (DT) issues  

  The online platform for data transmission issues should continue to be used and if 
possible improved according to the proposals in the EWG 17-07 report (adding an 
extra column to flag recurrent issues, better identification of data call names). The 
platform  should  be  used  by  end  users  to  upload  DT  issues,  as  a  tool  for 
communication with MS; 

  Data  transmission  issues  should  only  relate  to  actual  data  collection  failures 
(data/variables  not  collected,  data/variables  not  transmitted  at  all  or  not 
transmitted  according  to  deadlines,  incomplete  coverage  of  the  fleet,  poor  data 
quality). DT issues that relate to file consistency and format/coding requirements 
(cross  checking  of  variables  in  different  tables,  decimals,  small  divergences  in 
average  values,  etc.)  should  not  be  flagged  as  DT  failures  but  should  be 
addressed and solved with MS soon after the submission of data;  

  The number of data transmission issues for the 2016 Mediterranean data call was 
very high (95). Several of them are flagged as “low severity” and the majority of 
them have been assessed by the EWG as “satisfactory”, meaning that MSs’ replies 
on each individual issue have been considered appropriate and the data issues do 
not  refer  to  actual  data  collection  failures.  It  remains  however  unclear  whether 
these  issues  are  addressed  and  corrected  in  future  data  collection.  The  overall 
process  should  be  streamlined  because  at  present  MS  are  informed  on  the  DT 
issues emerged during the quality checks performed by JRC, but it would be more 
beneficial to communicate DT issues that actually impacted the work of the stock 
assessment WGs. The present process is not useful to identify drawbacks in data 
collection  activities  and  it  does  not  allow  MS  in  identifying  gaps  to  be  addressed 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
and corrected. STECF considers the need to improve the dialogue between MS and 
end users at regional level. STECF suggests to establish an ad-hoc working group 
within  the  Mediterranean  &  BS  RCG  (as  specified  in  article  9  of  EU  Reg. 
1004/2017)  to  deal  with  data  transmissions  issues.  This  group  could  be 
established  during  the  forthcoming  MED&BS  RCG  meeting  in  September.  The 
group  could  then  meet  or  hold  web  conferences  every  year  to  assess  the  data 
failures  identified  by  end  users  in  stock  assessment  meetings  and  when 
appropriate  discuss  the  data  needs  for  the  next  year(s).  MED&BS  MSs  and 
regional end-users (namely GFCM and STECF/JRC) should be part of this dialogue; 

  Regarding  the  Fleet  Economic  Data  Call,  the  process  of  identification  of  the  DT 
issues  starts  right  after  the  data  calls  and  MS  are  initially  informed  of  any 
problems in data transmission. MS are allowed to resubmit the data if some errors 
have  to  be  corrected.  In  this  case,  the  list  of  still  pending  DT  issues  should  be 
updated  by  the  second  AER  EWG  (and  not  by  JRC),  for  the  MS  who  proceeded 
with resubmission. This task does not happen at present, and should be explicitly 
be added to the ToRs for the AER group. Actual data failures should be separated 
from coding and format issues. Such an approach will also allow any DT issues for 
a  given  data  year  and  the  AR  on  data  collected  in  that  year  to  be  assessed 
simultaneously. 

  The  procedure  to  identify  and  to  assess  DT  failures  should  follow  a  step  by  step 
process as illustrated in figure 4.5.1 to ensure consistency among end-users and 
to guarantee a systematic consultation among end users and MSs. 

Figure 4.5.1. Process for identification and assessment of DT failures 

Future improvements in methodologies used for the evaluation exercises of AR  

Article 11 of EU Reg. 2017/1004 requires Member States to submit to the Commission on 
an  annual  basis  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  their  national  work  plans  (NWP), 
following  guidelines  and  format  provided  by  the  Commission.  In  accordance  with  Article 
10,  STECF  shall  evaluate:  (a)  the  execution  of  the  national  work  plans;  and  (b)  the 
quality of the data collected by the Member States. 

a)  Evaluation of Annual Reports (AR) - execution of the national work plans 

STECF  suggests  that  the  present  evaluation  procedure  with  the  pre-screening  exercise 
should  continue  to  be  used  but  one  additional  consultation  with  the  MS  could  be 
introduced between the pre - screening and the EWG, as suggested by EWG 17-07. This 
additional  step  would  allow  MS  to  respond  to  pre-screeners’  comments  and  clarify  any 

46 

legal dedaline - I submission of data by MS      end users quality checks              trasmission of the results of the quality checks to MS                   MS replies to DT issues and II submission of data by MS (operational deadline)WG on stock assessment, AER (II meeting), etc.identification of DT issues that impacted on the WG with assessment of the severityICES WG  (ICES data calls)MED&BS ad hoc working group of RCGs (GFCM DCRF, STECF MED data call)ad hoc working group of PGECON (fleet economic data call)end users upload DT failures on the JRC platform       MS upload replies           STECF assessment of the DT  (satisfactory, unsatisfactory, unknown)MS updates National Work Plan to avoid that the identified DT failures will occur in the futuredata callConsultation end users-MSSTECF assessment of DT failuresDT issuesDT failuresquality checks 
 
 
 
 
issues raised. Such an approach is likely to reduce the number of outstanding issues to 
be addressed by the STECF EWG. 

STECF  considers  that  the  time  schedule  proposed  by  EWG  17-07  is  too  tight  and 
therefore suggests following the schedule reported in figure 4.5.2. 

The revised DCF does not prescribe any deadline for submission of AR. Therefore, on the 
basis  of  suggestions  from  EWG  17-07  and  according  to  the  proposed  annual  cycle  for 
reporting  and  evaluation  given  in  figure  4.5.2,  STECF  proposes  to  anticipate  the 
delivering of the AR to the middle of May.  

STECF  considers  that  the  present  evaluation  procedure  should  be  adjusted  to  allow  a 
more efficient evaluation of ARs. This could be done if the format of ARs is simplified as 
follows: 

  AR  text  should  only  report  a)  deviations  from  NWP  planning  and  the  reasons  for 
these  deviations,  b)  follow  up  of  recommendations  from  Regional  Coordination 
Groups (RCGs) and PGECON 

  AR tables  should  be  aligned  to  NWP  tables  and  should  be  maintained  in  a online 
tool  to  allow  for  comparison,  cross-checking  and  assessment  of  the  level  of 
execution.  

The simplification of AR formats will also help in anticipating the presentation of the AR, 
as proposed above.  

b)  Evaluation of Annual Reports (AR) – evaluation of the quality of the data collected 

by the Member States 

Conclusions and suggestions are reported in section 4.6 of this plenary report (EWG 17-
04 Quality assurance for DCF data).  

47 

 
 
 
Figure  4.5.2.  AR  annual  cycle  for  reporting  and  evaluation  (dates  reported  in  the  figure 
refers to AR2017 to be submitted, evaluated and approved in 2018) 

48 

MS updates Work Plans to address issues raised in the AR evaluationAR Submission15 May 1st legal deadlineMS AR submission25 MayCOM admisibility procedure26 May -5 June Pre-screening excercise12 JuneCOM feedback to MSAR evaluation22 June 2nd Final operational deadlineMS submission of revised AR25-29 JuneSTECF EWG AR evaluationJuly STECF plenaryAR approvalJuly/August COM feedback to MSby 15 September MS repliesxxCOM procedure of acceptance of ARMS updates Work Plans to address issues raised in the AR evaluation 
 
 
 
 
 
4.6 EWG 17-04 Quality assurance for DCF data 

Request to STECF 
STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  report  of  the  STECF  Expert  Working  Group  meeting, 
evaluate the findings and make any appropriate comments and recommendations 

STECF response 

Background of the EWG 17-04 

The quality of DCF data was formerly evaluated by the use of the coefficient of variation 
(CV).  However,  this  is  no  longer  the  case,  as  previous  STECF  EWGs  have  come  to  the 
conclusion that the levels of CVs, as requested by the previous EU MAP, are not realistic 
and  therefore  cannot  be  met  by  Member  States.  As  a  result,  this  quality  indicator  has 
been removed from the Annual Report template of Member States. In addition, the new 
EU MAP no longer prescribes specific quality indicators for the reporting of Member States 
under  the  DCF.  Instead,  there  is  a  more  general  reference  to  quality  assurance  in  the 
Work  Plan  template.  STECF  Plenary  (PLEN-16-02)  discussed  quality  assurance 
procedures  for  biological  and  economic  data  under  the  DCF  and  suggested  a  dedicated 
EWG on data quality to establish: (a) guidelines on data quality for Member States; (b) 
main principles of evaluation of data quality for STECF EWGs; (c) minimum/ meaningful 
requirements. Although a wealth of information exists on data quality, clarity is missing 
on what should be the requirements for data quality under the DCF. The aim of the EWG 
17-04 was to  create  a roadmap with timeline  for all  steps of the  procedure  of  sampling 
pertaining to quality: 1) planning; 2) implementation; 3) reporting; 4) evaluation. 

The EWG 17-04 took place from 3-7 July 2017 at ICES in Copenhagen and was attended 
by  20  independent  experts,  5  Commission  members  (3  DG  MARE,  2  JRC)  and  2 
observers. 

STECF comments 

STECF  acknowledges  that  the  Commission  has  established  EWG  17-04  based  on  a 
suggestion by STECF PLEN 16-02, in order to "improve the guidelines on data quality for 
MS and set the main principles for evaluation of data quality and results of data collection 
as well as establish minimum/meaningful requirements". 

STECF  acknowledges  that  the  EWG  17-04  took  place  the  week  just  before  the  STECF 
plenary.  A  draft  EWG  report  was  made  available  in  time  to  be  presented  and  reviewed. 
However, this STECF review of the EWG outcome is primarily based on the presentation 
by the EWG chair held during the Plenary meeting rather than on the draft report. 

STECF  considers  that  the  EWG  17-04  has  fully  addressed  all  Terms  of  Reference  and 
provided  various  suggestions  for improvements  of  the  Quality  Assurance  Framework for 
DCF  data,  including  amendments  to  the  Work  Plan  templates  and  Annual  Report 
requirements. 

STECF notes that the assessment of data quality has been addressed in many other fields 
(Eurostat,  ISO  norms,  Farm  Accountancy  Data  Network  (FADN),  etc.)  and  that  existing 
principles  (e.g.  European  Statistical  System  (ESS),  ICES,  GFCM  etc.)  criteria  and 
guidelines should be fully utilised in the context of DCF data. STECF notes that PGECON 
has already made some steps in that direction. 

STECF  further  notes  that  various  parties  are  involved  in  the  process  of  assessing  and 
improving  data  quality,  e.g.  Member  States,  data  end-users,  STECF,  regional 
coordination  groups  (RCGs),  PGECON.  STECF  considers  that  the  roles  of  these  parties 

49 

 
 
 
 
have  to  be  clarified  based  on  the  suggestions  of  the  EWG  17-04,  and  once  clarified,  be 
taken up as firm commitments by the involved parties. 

STECF  acknowledges  that  its  own  role  is  enshrined  in  the  EU  regulation  (2017/1004), 
which  specifies  that  "STECF  shall  evaluate  the  national  and  draft  regional  work  plans 
referred  to  in  Articles  6  and  9.  When  doing  so  it  shall  take  into  account:  (a)  the 
conformity of the work plans and any amendments thereto with Articles 6 and 9; and (b) 
the scientific relevance of the data covered by the work plans for the purposes laid down 
in Article 1(1) and the quality of the proposed methods and procedures." (Article 10) and 

"In  accordance  with  Article  10,  STECF  shall  evaluate:  (a)  the  execution  of  the  national 
work plans; and (b) the quality of the data collected by the Member States." (Article 11).  

As  the  DCF  data  quality  assessment  is  strongly  linked  to  the  evaluation  of  DCF  Annual 
Reports and Data Transmission, as well as the Annual Economic Report and other STECF 
reports,  STECF  provides  general  observations  and  suggestions  for  future  improvements 
in this context in section 4.5 of this plenary report. 

STECF also notes that metadata (e.g. on the number of samples from which the variables 
have  been  derived)  and  quality  indicators  should  be  reported  with  the  data  during  data 
calls  and  stored  in  the  respective  regional  or  international  databases.  These  databases 
should also be used to facilitate MS producing tables for the Annual Report and to inform 
STECF during evaluation of the quality of the data collected by MS. 

STECF conclusions 

STECF  concludes  that  the  findings  of  EWG  17-04  should  be  fully  considered  by  the 
Commission  and  supports  the  implementation  of  the  suggested  ways  forward,  including 
(i)  better  use  of  international  standard  procedures  for  quality  assurance  and 
transparency  in  protocols,  (ii)  areas  of  convergence  between  biological  and  economic 
sampling, (iii) improved statistical design and optimisation of sampling programmes. 

In  addition,  STECF  considers  that  perennial  regional/international  databases  storing  the 
detailed  or  aggregated  data  collected  by  Member  States  and  adapted  to  the  needs  of 
relevant end-users would play an important role in the quality assurance of DCF data and 
facilitate  the  access  to  and  use  of  data  collected  under  the  DCF.  Regional  Databases 
(RDBs) allow producing summary reports at regional level where metadata are presented 
and  metrics  are  estimated  together  with  their  uncertainty.  Additionally,  RDBs  allow  for 
some internal peer-review, where data collected by one MS can be more easily used, and 
thus cross-checked, by other users. STECF supports therefore that steps are undertaken 
to further ensure the existence and maintenance of such databases.    

Regarding Work Plans, STECF concludes that the current guidelines for the evaluation of 
Work  Plans  should  be  revised  based  on  the  suggestions  of  the  EWG  17-04,  to  facilitate 
the  STECF  evaluation  of  the  quality  of  the  proposed  methods  and  procedures. 
Additionally,  the  suggestions  for  changes  in  the  Work  Plan  tables  should  be  taken  into 
account for future revisions of the Work Plan templates. 

Regarding  Annual  Reports,  STECF  suggests  that  the  format  and  guidelines  for  Annual 
Reports  be  revised  before  the  end  of  2017  and  used  by  Member  States  during  early 
2018.  That  would  enable  the  assessment  of  the  quality  of  data  collected  by  Member 

50 

 
 
 
States under the revised EU MAP. For this revision, the suggestions of both the EWGs 17-
04 and 17-07 should be taken into account. 

In  the  medium  term,  STECF  suggests  that  the  proposals  of  the  recent  EWGs  on  the 
review of Annual Reports and Data Transmission (STECF EWGs  13-071, 14-072, 15-103, 
16-084, 17-075) and the EWG 14-176 (revised at EWG 15-157) with regard to improved 
information  flow  for  National  Workplans  and  Annual  Reports  are  implemented.  STECF 
acknowledges that the Commission has launched the "FishHub" project (MARE/2015/04) 
that includes a proposal for "a tool (…) that will enable to simplify the transmission and 
analysis of WPs and ARs and to automatize/verify the intended/mandatory data collection 
with the achieved data collection". 

1  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Evaluation  of  2012  MS  Technical 
Reports under DCF (1) (STECF- 13-07). 2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
EUR 26090 EN, JRC 83658, 183 pp. 

2  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  –  Evaluation  of  2013  MS  DCF  Annual 
Reports  &  Data  Transmission  (STECF-14-13)  2014.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, EUR 26811 EN, JRC 91550, 257 pp. 

3  Scientific,  Technical  and  Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries  (STECF)  Evaluation  of  2014  MS  DCF  Annual 
Reports  &  Data  Transmission  (STECF-15-13).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg, EUR 27410 EN, JRC 96975, 287 pp. 

4 Reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of DCF 2015 
Annual  Reports  &  Data  Transmission  to  end  users  in  2015  Quality  assurance  procedures  (STECF-16-
12); Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; EUR 27758 E; doi:10.2788/352294 

5 https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ewg1707 

6 Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)  – Preparations for future data collection 
under the revised DCF (STECF-14-24). 2014. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
EUR 26954 EN, JRC 93103, 44 pp. 

7 Reports of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)  – Evaluation of Proposals 
to  Revise  DCF  National  Programmes  for  2016  (STECF-16-01).  2015.  Publications  Office  of  the 
European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27758 EN, JRC 100350, 68 pp. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
5. ADDITIONAL  REQUESTS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  STECF  PLENARY  BY  THE 

COMMISSION 

5.1 Interspecies flexibility 

Background provided by the Commission 

At the Council in December 2016 Council and Commission gave a joint statement taking 
note of requests from certain Member States to introduce specific by-catch provisions in 
fisheries targeting pelagic species. The requests were put forward with a reference to the 
choke  species  issues  that  arise  with  the  landing  obligation.  Member  States  putting 
forward  the  requests  asked  for  provisions  like  the  footnotes  that  currently  apply  to 
certain industrial fisheries (sandeel, sprat, Norway pout and horse mackerel). 

Please refer to the joint Council and Commission statement from December 2016 for any 
additional information.  

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to review the data received from Member States on bycatches in 
particular  pelagic  fisheries,  and  on  this  basis,  if  data  are  robust,  the  STECF  is  asked  to 
identify the levels of recurrent bycatches in the following fisheries: 

  The blue whiting fisheries in the North East Atlantic 
  The mackerel fisheries in the North East Atlantic 
  The horse mackerel fisheries in: 

o  Union waters of IVb, IVc and VIId, 
o  Union  waters  of  IIa,  IVa;  VI,  VIIa-c,VIIe-k,  VIIIa,  VIIIb,  VIIId  and  VIIIe; 
Union and international waters of Vb; international waters of XII and XIV, 

o  Area VIIIc, 
o  Area IX. 
  The herring fisheries in: 

o  Area IIIa, 
o  Area IV, 
o  Areas I and II. 

This  review  of  the  above  mentioned  fisheries  should  be  at  the  area-level  perceived  as 
relevant by the STECF, this could for example be according to TAC areas. 

The STECF is furthermore requested to:  

  Reflect on the possible impacts of introducing footnotes in certain pelagic fisheries 
and  associated  risks,  introducing  bycatch  provisions  to  be  deducted  from  the 
targeted  species,  in  the  light  of  solving  the  issue  of  choke  species  in  the 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
introduction  of  the  landing  obligation.  Such  impacts  could  for  example  be 
biological or in terms of fisheries management and control. 

  Review  if  it  is  possible  through  other  measures,  for  example  specific  selective 
devices or the use of alternative gears to reduce or eliminate these bycatches in 
the pelagic fisheries. 

Annex – further explanations of the data provided 

Data from Germany 

Germany provides aggregated data covering 2014-2016 for certain bycatches in pelagic 
fisheries. An overview is provided for the German catches for the stocks JAX and MAC as 
well as the catches recorded under special conditions separately per species and stock for 
which  by-catches  have  been  reported,  e.g.  BOR/567.  Additionally  a  table  is  added  with 
rough figures on reported discards in JAX and MAC-fishing trips. As to HKE/571214, by-
catches and discards do not only occur in the JAX/MAC fishery but also in the fishery on 
Blue Whiting in areas 6A and 7. The data is primarily provided at the level of TACs. The 
discard data provided have to be seen in addition to the reported catches. The discards 
reported  under  OTH  can  currently  not  be  related  to  specific  species.  The  BMS  data  was 
included  as  it  has  a  bearing  on  quota  management.  Since  2016  the  relevant  BMS  data 
are counted against the quota. This data is reported accordingly to the EU. 

Data from the Netherlands  

The  Netherlands  provides  data  covering  2016  for  all  pelagic  catches,  including 
undersized.  The  data  is  provided per fishing trip,  specifying  the  level  and  percentage of 
catches/bycatches  per  species.  The  data  also  covers  catch  data  outside  EU  waters 
(CECAF) – these can be disregarded. The data is provided at the level of ICES divisions. 

Data from Denmark 

Denmark provides aggregated catch data for 10 years (2007-2016), covering for each of 
the years bycatches (both TAC and non-TAC species) caught in the targeted fisheries for 
herring  and  mackerel.  The  data  are  provided  at  the  level  of  ICES  divisions.  The  Danish 
data is provided along with a letter setting out the specific requests for additional bycatch 
species to be added in a footnote.  

STECF response 

To address this TOR, STECF has reviewed the material supplied by 3 Member States and 
also  referred  to  the  STECF  FDI  database  (STECF  EWG  16-20),  various  TAC  and  Quota 
Regulations  (COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EU)  2015/104;  2017/127)  and  the  Council, 
Commission statement referred to in the background (see Appendix 1 to this section) . 

Bycatch refers here to landings, not to discards. Bycatches are usually recorded onshore 
when being sorted in the factories, and not through on board observers programs. STECF 
notes  also  that  the  bycatch  estimates  can  be  considered  as  uncertain,  as  they  are  not 
always recorded in the logbooks.   

Review of material supplied by MS  

STECF  examined  each  of  the  data  submissions  and  considered  whether  these  were 
sufficiently  robust  to  identify  recurrent  levels  of  bycatch.  Some  cross-checking  for 
reliability  in  the  data  was  possible  using  the  publicly  available  STECF  FDI  (Fisheries 
Dependent Information) database. Using the landings reported by area for pelagic trawls 

53 

 
 
 
 
it was possible to broadly check member state landings of target pelagic species and of 
bycatch  demersal  species.  Information  on  bycatch  pelagic  species  could  not  be  checked 
in this way since the FDI cannot be used to discriminate between target and non-target 
landings of a given pelagic species in a particular gear type.  

Data  from  Germany  are  provided  on  https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/plen1702.  The 
information  consists  of  landings  data  for  2014-2016  from  mainly  horse  mackerel  and 
mackerel  targeted  fisheries.  Landings  of  the  target  species  reported  in  the  submission 
are  very  similar  to  those  reported  in  the  FDI  database.  Landings  of  bycatch  demersal 
species  are  mostly  small  (<10  tonnes)  and  variable  from  year  to  year  and  values 
frequently  differed  from  the  FDI  data.  Landings  of  bycatch  pelagic  species  were  larger, 
(for  example  250  tonnes  mackerel  in  the  widely  distributed  horse  mackerel  fishery 
amounting to about 2% of the target species landing) 

Data  from  Denmark  are  provided  on:  https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/plen1702.  The 
information  consists  of  a  comprehensive  set  of  area  based  landings  data  from  2007  to 
2016 subdivided into target pelagic species each with associated bycatch information and 
an  indication  of  the  bycatch  percentage.  In  general,  the  agreement  between  the 
submitted  data  and  the  FDI  database  was  closer  for  Area  IV  than  Area  III.  In  the 
following  text,  %  of  bycatch  are  given  in  reference  to  the  total  landings  of  the  given 
fishery in a given area, average over the last 5 years, and according to the MS data, not 
the FDI database. Mackerel fishery: Bycatches in area III were generally quite small and 
in  the  last  5  years  limited  to  one  case  of  herring  bycatch  (2.5  tonnes  amounting  to 
2.2%).  In  area  IV,  bycatches  of  blue  whiting  and  herring  were  more  significant  and 
recurrent  in  the  case  of  the  latter  (landings  between  47  and  460  tonnes  in  the  last  5 
years; overall bycatch was in the range 0.3 to 1.9% in the last 5 years. Herring fishery: 
In the targeted herring fishery in area IIIa, blue whiting contributed some of the largest 
bycatches  (up  to  41  tonnes  in  one  year  in  the  last  5  years)  while  mackerel  and  saithe 
contributed small intermittent landings (maximum 23 tonnes in one year in the last five 
years).  Overall  bycatch  has  increased  in  the  last  couple  of  years  in  IIIa  Skagerrak 
(3.8%). In the North Sea (area IV) herring fishery, there is evidence of recurrent bycatch 
landings of saithe and mackerel, particularly in IVa where the quantities have increased 
in recent years. Overall bycatch in the North Sea has mostly been below 1% but in IVb 
reached about 1.5 % in 2015. Blue whiting bycatches occurred more sporadically. Atlanto 
scandian herring fishery in IIa: In the Atlanto scandian herring fishery, bycatch landings 
of blue whiting and saithe have been made on a regular basis, the  latter at a relatively 
small scale. Overall bycatch has been higher in the last three years (up to 2.6%) mostly 
owing to blue whiting bycatch. 

Data from the Netherlands consisted of a very large file of individual vessel landings for 
all pelagic trips in 2016. No indication was provided of the species targeted during each 
trip.  STECF  has  summarised  the  material  into  a  simpler  table  of  landings  by  species  by 
area  (Appendix  4)  –  no  attempt  was  made  to  subdivide  the  material  by  target  species. 
Since only one year’s worth of data was provided it was not possible to consider whether 
bycatch  levels  are  recurrent  and  since  the  FDI  data  for  2016  remain  to  be  published, 
crosschecking  with  these  data  was  not  possible.  Depending  on  area,  landings  of  target 
pelagic  species  were  often  large  and  in  line  with  TAC  expectations.  Landings  of  many 
bycatch  demersal  species  were  small  or  non-existent  in  a  number  of  areas.  A  notable 
exception was a large (604 tonnes) bycatch landing of hake in Area VI. 

STECF  notes  that  the  existing  TAC  and  Quota  Regulation  (TQR)  footnote  provisions  for 
sandeel,  sprat,  horse  mackerel  and  Norway  pout  are  in  the  range  2-5%  of  the  target 
species  (TAC  and  Quota  Regulation  COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EU)  2017/127).  The 
provision  allows  up  to  the  prescribed  percentage  of  the  target  species  TAC  to  comprise 
landings of a specified list of species. STECF notes that in the case of the current request 
for  horse  mackerel,  this  adds  to  the  list  of  species  already  covered  in  the  existing 
footnote provision. 

54 

 
 
STECF comments 

Bycatch levels 

STECF notes the part of the information provided by MS that could be compared with FDI 
outputs,  showed  reasonable  agreement.  The  data,  however,  do  not  provide  a  basis  to 
robustly identify and estimate levels of recurrent bycatches in the various target pelagic 
fisheries.  There  are  several  reasons.  Firstly, data  from  two countries  (Germany  and  the 
Netherlands)  covered  insufficient  periods  of  time  (3  years  and  1  year  respectively)  on 
which  to  base  such  a  judgement.  Secondly,  the  data  relate  to  only  three  countries, 
primarily  fishing  in  the  North  Sea,  and  such  a  limited  number  of  countries  cannot  be 
considered  to  provide  a  robust  picture  of  what  is  occurring  across  the  wider  range  of 
European  countries  exploiting  pelagic  stocks.  STECF  considers  that  the  perceptions 
gained  from  specific  Member  States  in  specific  fisheries  and  specific  areas  cannot  be 
extrapolated  to  fisheries  in  other  sea  areas,  as  current  bycatch  levels  and  possible 
industry  response  to  footnotes  might  be  completely  different,  especially  for  fisheries 
operating at much wider scale. Detailed bycatch information is therefore crucially needed 
for all types of pelagic fisheries, in order to get a reliable estimate of bycatch levels. The 
material  provided  by  Denmark,  while  alone  inadequate  for  addressing  the  TOR,  is 
nevertheless  more  informative  than  the  material  provided  by  Germany  and  the 
Netherlands,  including  in  particular  a  larger  range  of  years  and  a  better  split  between 
target  and  bycatch  species.  Similar  material  from  all  pelagic  fleets  operating  across  the 
EU  waters  listed  in  the  request  would  be  required  before  a  full  assessment  could  be 
undertaken. 

In  order  to  help  provide  a  more  general  picture  of  bycatch  quantities  occurring  in  the 
pelagic  fisheries,  aggregate  data  (across  all  countries)  on  landings  recorded  for  Pelagic 
trawl  gear  was  extracted  from  the  FDI  database  (thus  not  including  industrial  fisheries 
operating with other gears). Owing to the confounding problems mentioned above, only 
bycatch data of demersal species was extracted and the selection was based on some of 
the  key  demersal  species  proposed  in  the  Council/Commission  joint  statement  for 
inclusion in footnote provisions (see Appendix1). STECF cannot though assess the quality 
and completeness of these demersal bycatch reported by Member State in the FDI.  

Table 5.1.1 shows landings and discards by species and area for the years 2011 -2015. 
These provide a preliminary guide to the current scale and recurrence of bycatch species 
in  the  main  gear  used  to  catch  pelagic  species.  For  some  species  only  relatively  small 
bycatches  appear  to  occur  (e.g.  flounder,  plaice  and  sole).  For  others,  quite  substantial 
bycatch landings of some demersal species occur in some areas. Most notable examples 
of landings in 2015 are hake in areas VI (641 tonnes) and VIII (4058 tonnes) and whiting 
in areas III (511 tonnes), IV (1834 tonnes) and VII (288 tonnes landings). In the case of 
whiting  in  IV,  some  of  this  catch  may  come  from  the  existing  5%  provision  associated 
with  the  horse  mackerel  TACs  applying  in  the  area.  STECF  notes  that  the  scale  of  this 
pelagic  gear  landing  of  whiting  in  area  IV  in  2015  (over  1800  tonnes)  is  a  bycatch 
equivalent to more than 13% of the agreed 2015 whiting TAC in the area (13678). This 
also  exceeds,  by  some  margin,  the  2015  agreed  individual  whiting  quotas  of  5  EU 
countries operating demersal fisheries in the area. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.1.1 Pelagic trawl landings and discards by species and area for the years 2011 -
2015 (from FDI database). 

56 

speciesArealandingsdiscardslandingsdiscardslandingsdiscardslandingsdiscardslandingsdiscards2 NON EU0.601.7130.31188.23 NO BALTIC1.34.79.30.413.212.9414.54.119.328.60.426.56 EU0.407 EU NO 7D10.998.253.316.26.47D7.87.22.663.6298.618.68 EU02.600.203 NO BALTIC1.90.1040.100.17 EU NO 7D000.107D1.90.98 EU0.10.12 NON EU0.23.774.63 NO BALTIC0.25.418.20.52.348.735.328.241.20.151.96 EU4.10.61.311.77 EU NO 7D39.2250.514452.3113.57D00.20.50.808 EU06.90.12.21.72 NON EU24.93 NO BALTIC00.50.10.10.114140141.518.933.6026.36 EU17.990.6166.9177.6640.85137 EU NO 7D562.3260.627.318.8195.316.9280.407 NON EU407D4.38.20.130.108 EU485.482872.6477.91032.2890.73148946.34057.79 EU3.43.50.83.61.60.90.39 NON EU0.134.1.1 COAST10.434.1.2 EU0.20034.1.2 NON EU33.234.1.3 NON EU25.6017.140.7194.33 NO BALTIC0.91.20.209.614.440.84.223.119.214.46 EU0.60.10.37 EU NO 7D3.61127.74.80.79.60.14.67D1515.727.82.19.840.10.122.44.58 EU5.69.41.920.31.19 EU002 NON EU18.627.42.83 NO BALTIC23656.91.712.611.841.96.545.3216.70.1135.306 EU0.43015.57 EU NO 7D0.900.808 EU00.103 NO BALTIC000040.30.500.906 EU0.40.10.10.37 EU NO 7D2.52.43.94.200.57D1527.6010.84.9038 EU5.420.3010.254.19 EU0.10.200.10.102 NON EU0.73 NO BALTIC0127.356.70291.6511.7424.3576.10.2582.511.81431.101833.906 EU0.100.124.37 EU NO 7D7110.2123.393.5157.93.5296.40287.67D25.4180470.773.231.8126143.6171.7898 EU76.743.2760.5103.225.159.215.254.3262PLEHKEHADCODWHGSOLPOKFLE20112012201320142015 
 
 
 
 
Potential impacts of introducing footnotes 

STECF  notes  that  the  above  observation  points  to  potential  problems  arising  from  the 
provision  of  interspecies  flexibility  footnotes  in  the  TQR.  STECF  has  previously 
commented  on  the  risks  associated  with  the  interspecies  flexibility  provisions  available 
under  Article  15  (landing  obligation)  of  the  CFP  (STECF,  2013).  In  the  case  of  possible 
footnote  provisions  many  of  the  same  warnings  apply  and,  indeed,  there  are  additional 
considerations.  For  example,  unlike  the  LO  provision,  there  is  no  requirement  for  the 
bycatch species to be inside safe biological limits before it can be taken as a bycatch in a 
pelagic fishery. 

STECF considers that the most significant issue relates to the large scale of some of the 
pelagic  stocks  to  which  the  footnotes  would  be  applied  (compared  to  the  generally 
smaller  scale  of  likely  bycatch  species).  This  is  is  compounded  by  the  opportunity  to 
utilise multiple footnote provisions (across several pelagic TACs) leading to even greater 
bycatch landings. Table 5.1.2 shows the available area TACs for the 4 species of pelagic 
fish  included  in  the  request.  Several  of  these  TACs  are  large  and  extend  across  several 
ICES  areas.  An  extreme  example  of  the  scale  of  the  potential  problem  is  illustrated  by 
considering  the  larger  of  the  two  blue  whiting  TACs  (385254  tonnes)  and  the  largest 
mackerel TAC (407507 tonnes). A 5% footnote provision in each would allow a combined 
bycatch of nearly 40000 tonnes, while a 2% footnote provision would imply a bycatch of 
almost  16000  tonnes  (these  figures  ignore  the  existing  bycatch  provision  in  the  horse 
mackerel fishery). These bycatches could be taken in any of the ICES areas covered by 
both  of  the  TACs  (ie  V,VI,VII,  VIIIabde,  XII  and  XIV)  potentially  impacting  on  a  wide 
variety of demersal fish stocks and fisheries occurring in these areas. 

Table 5.1.2. 2016 TACs for the pelagic species and areas listed in the request to STECF  

The  scale  of  the  potential  landings  of  bycatch  species  arising  from  pelagic  footnote 
provisions  presents  very  real  risks  in  terms of  biology,  management  and  governance  of 
the  bycatch  species.  There  is  potential  to  significantly  increase  the  mortality  on  non-
targeted bycatch species to levels inconsistent with achieving FMSY and to the extent that 
stock biomass could be reduced below safe biological limits. For some stocks, (eg whiting 
in  VIa),  already  reduced  to  a  low  level,  there  is  potential  for  bycatch  removals  in  the 
extreme example given above to be at a scale comparable to the remaining SSB (16247 
tonnes in 2016). 

The  limited  recent  information  provided  by  the  three  Member  States  indicates  that 
bycatches  of  unwanted  species  have  been  occurring  for  some  time,  and  that  in  most 
cases the rates are below those typically available in existing footnotes.  

For  a  few  stocks  like  whiting  in  the  North  Sea,  effort  have  long  been  made  by  ICES  to 
include industrial and pelagic bycatches in the stock assessment and TAC advice. But for 
most other stocks, these catches are likely not monitored and included in the assessment 
at  all.  In  cases  where  these  bycatches  have  not  hitherto  been  included  in  assessments 
they would essentially represent unseen mortality; their inclusion would lead to elevated 
SSB  estimates  and  not  necessarily  to  higher  fishing  mortality.  Where  modest  bycatches 

57 

IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIabdeXIIXIVVIIIcIXX435743417421327173349?14697 (IVb, IVc, VIId )horse mackerelnot applicable82229 (inc. IVa  and not VIId) herringblue whitingmackerel42059385254517194663152190407517 
 
 
 
 
have been occurring and the health of the stocks has not shown signs of being impaired, 
the  case  for  footnotes  can  be  persuasive.  Nevertheless,  STECF  warns  that  the 
generalisation  of  bycatch  provisions  to  all  pelagic  fisheries  based  on  recently  observed 
bycatch  percentages  from  these  3  member  states  may  have  unforeseen  implications  in 
other  areas.  Bycatch  provisions  will  create  new  fishing  opportunities  in  other  pelagic 
fleets, and industry responses to these are unpredictable and should not be assumed to 
be the same as in the few member states which supplied data. There is, indeed, growing 
evidence  for  example  in  the  Celtic  Sea  where  herring  are  currently  scarce,  that  some 
pelagic  vessels,  have been  incentivised  to  start  targeting  whiting  which  attract  a  higher 
unit  price.  The  use  of  footnotes  in  a  general  and  widespread  way  would  leave  open 
opportunities  for  further  developments  of  this  kind.  Restricting  the  use  of  footnotes  to 
specific cases in limited areas and at levels similar to those observed previously may help 
to limit the potential for damage to stocks. In preference to the use of % rates based on 
the target species, a more acceptable approach would be to define maximum permitted 
bycatch (in tonnes) based on the size and status of the bycatch species itself. That way, 
greater control over additional mortality etc. could be exerted. 

In terms of management and governance, additional potential difficulties arise: 

  Footnotes  essentially  have  the  potential  to  adjust  the  relative  stability  fishing 
opportunities since a country with a high proportion of the target pelagic species 
TAC could create access to a much greater quantity of a bycatch species than its 
agreed  share  would  predict;  particularly  where  the  bycatch  was  of  demersal 
species. 
In  some  cases,  the  footnote  provision  would  create  fishing  opportunities  for  the 
pelagic  fleets  of  countries  which  previously  had  none.  Given  the  scale  of  the 
potential  problem  indicated  above,  this  could  easily  imply  a  fishing  opportunity 
larger  than  the  TACs  available  to  some  of  the  countries  with  established  fishing 
opportunities. 

 

  Adding the footnote provision to the T&Q regulation undermines the incentive for 
strategic  management  to  contribute  to  solving  choke  issues.  Under  the  discard 
plans  developed  and  agreed  in  regional  groups,  there  is  scope  to  discuss  and 
agree the extent to which interspecies flexibility may be used to alleviate a discard 
issue (particularly a choke issue). STECF has already warned of the risks of using 
the  LO  interspecies  flexibility  particularly  in  view  of  the  scope  to  use  potentially 
large amounts of ‘donor’ or target species quota (up to (9%) to make landings of 
non-target species (for example, a choke species). However, the transfer % is an 
upper limit and regional group managers can choose to utilize lower % tailored to 
the  specific  needs  of  a  species  in  a  choke  situation.  In  utilizing  the  LO  flexibility 
approach,  an  element  of  control  and  common  understanding  between  MS 
managers  is  maintained.  Although  STECF  remains  of  the  view  this  should  be 
considered  a  LO  option  of  ‘last  resort’,  it  nevertheless  appears  to  present  fewer 
risks than the present proposals for extending TQR footnote provision which would 
apply across wide areas, to multiple species and require no strategic management 
discussion 

  Since the proposed pelagic footnote rules would potentially allow for bycatches in 
widely  distributed  stocks  to  be  taken  in  a  number  of  ICES  areas,  managers 
concerned  with  more  localized  stocks  would  be  unclear  as  to  what  additional 
catches  were  being  taken  from  those  stocks  (as  pelagic  bycatch)  until  well  after 
the event. 

Methods to mitigate bycatch issues 

STECF notes that mitigating bycatch issues in pelagic fisheries  is technically challenging 
given the size of the catches, the complexity of the gears used, the practicalities of the 

58 

 
 
 
operations on board pelagic vessels and also, in some cases the similarities between the 
size of the target pelagic species and the bycatch species.  

Gear  based  technical  approaches  could  include  the  application  of  grids  to  separate  out 
unwanted  fish.  These  have  been  applied  in  pelagic  fisheries  in  the  Faroes  and  e.g. 
Norway  pout  industrial  fisheries  and  shrimp  fisheries.  Recently  gear  trials  in  Skagerrak 
carried out by Sweden tested a new flexible pelagic grid in the herring fishery to reduce 
bycatch  of  saithe.  These  trials  were  successful  and  using  the  grid  has  led  to  a  90% 
reduction  of  saithe  bycatch  while  the  loss  of  herring  is  no  greater  than  15%  (PELAC, 
20168; 
http://www.pelagic-
ac.org/media/pdf/Presentation%20Hjelm%20pelagic%20grid.pdf).  The  result  of  work 
carried  out  to  date  suggests  the  utility  of  grids  is  most  pronounced  where  the  target 
species are of small size relative to the unwanted bycatch. 

In  some  of  the  pelagic  fisheries,  such  as for herring  and  horse  mackerel,  the  species  is 
often  located  fairly  close  to  the  seabed  and  fishing  operations  reflects  this.  In  such 
fisheries towing times can be long and the likelihood of catching demersal species is quite 
high. In some fleets, gear adaptations to prevent pelagic fish escaping under the footrope 
involve  elements  of  the  gear  being  in  contact  with  the  seabed.  Such  adaptations  may 
increase  the  risk  of  unwanted  catches  of  demersal  species  and  it  is  unclear  what  is  the 
effect on target species of removing these. 

The  use  of  acoustic  technologies  has  long  been  employed  as  a  method  for  locating  and 
targeting  aggregations  of  some  pelagic  species.  In  these  cases,  catches  are  generally 
very  ‘clean’  and  contain  only  very  small  quantities  of  bycatch.  In  contrast  some  pelagic 
trawl  fisheries  employ  longer  towing  times  and  distances,  fishing  across  numerous 
aggregations  or  at  seasons  where  the  fish  are  less  aggregated.  In  the  latter  cases,  the 
likelihood  of  encountering  unwanted  bycatch  species  is  increased.  Measures  to  avoid 
unwanted  catch  could  involve  the  use  of  more  targeted  approaches  making  use  of  a 
variety of emerging underwater technologies such as acoustics (potentially including fish 
size discrimination), underwater TV and devices to open and close the mouth of the net 
while in operation. 

While not reducing bycatch ‘per se’, it is also worth noting that the use of de minimis to 
allow  the  discarding  of  catches  of  demersal  species  in  pelagic  fisheries  is  a  potential 
option  to  reduce  choke  situations.  De  minimis  is  not  currently  used  because  it  would 
require sorting bycatch and discarding it over the side. Most pelagic catches are pumped 
aboard  in  large  volumes  and  stored  in  refrigerated  sea  water  tanks  or  frozen  on  board, 
which makes it very difficult to sort out at sea. It might though be technically possible to 
mechanically  sort  demersal  bycatch  from  pelagic  catches  during  the  operation  of 
pumping fish on board vessels. Most modern pelagic trawlers and purse seines have fish 
/  water  separator  arrangements  on  board  and  it  may  well  be  possible  to  sort  demersal 
bycatches at this point of the operation. However, to date this has not been tested. 

Economic impacts 

STECF observes that the bycatch of a substantial amount of demersal species in pelagic 
fisheries could have two main economic impacts: 

8 http://www.pelagic-ac.org/media/pdf/Newsletter%201-2016.pdf 

59 

 
 
 
                                          
 
1)  With  the  footnotes,  The  bycatch  reduces  the  short-term  catches  in  demersal 
fisheries  (as  the  bycatch  would  be  part  of  the  overall  fishing  mortality)  and, 
therefore,  the  economic  activity  of  the  affected  fleet  segments.  The  landings  of 
the fleets with quota of the respective species are or will be reduced. In case of a 
substantial  increase  of  catches  of  the  bycatch  species  the  flexibility  leads  to  an 
increase  in  fishing  mortality  and  this  could  reduce  additionally  long-term  catch 
opportunities. 

2)  Not  including  the  footnotes  allowing  the  pelagic  vessels  the  bycatch  of  demersal 
species may lead to severe choke species problems for the vessels implementing 
the  LO.  They  don’t  have  a  quota  for  the  bycatch  species  and  it  may  be 
complicated  or  even  impossible  for  a  MS  to  distribute  a  quota  to  these  vessels. 
Therefore,  they  have  to  stop  their  activity  relatively  early,  which  might  lead  to 
economic losses. 

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that the limited member State data supplied were not sufficiently robust 
to identify the level and recurrence of bycatch across all of the fisheries listed. Data were 
supplied  from  too  few  countries  to  make  an  objective  review.  In  some  cases,  data 
covered  too  short  a  time  period  and  did  not  separate  landings  into  the  different  target 
fisheries. STECF concludes that to conduct a review adequate for evaluating all the areas 
and  fisheries  listed,  submissions  from  all  member  states  with  pelagic  fisheries  in  those 
areas would be required. STECF notes that detailed material was received from Denmark 
and that in some of the smaller areas where pelagic vessels from that country operate, 
the information may be helpful in informing footnote provisions. 

STECF recognises the importance of trying to provide tools for avoiding choke situations 
and  understands  the  value  to  the  pelagic  vessels  of  a  provision  (such  as  bycatch 
footnotes)  which  avoids  closing  fisheries  or  adversely  impacting  efficient  operating 
practices.  STECF  concludes,  however,  that  in  common  with  interspecies  flexibility 
provision  in  the  LO,  an  extension  of  the  footnote  based  interspecies  flexibility  provision 
presents considerable risks if extended to pelagic stocks distributed across wide sea area 
in which numerous bycatch species may be caught. STECF suggests that in specific, more 
localised  fisheries  where  a  history  of  predictable  bycatches  has  occurred  and  is  well 
documented,  there  may  be  a  case  for  considering  footnote  provision,  but  STECF 
considers  that  this  should  not  be  generalised  to  all  pelagic  fisheries.  STECF  concludes 
that  it  would  preferable  to  operate  any  such  bycatch  provisions  through  a  maximum 
permitted  bycatch  (tonnes)  of  the  bycatch  species  and  not  on  a  %  basis  of  the  target 
species TAC. STECF also concludes that any such footnote provision should attract strict 
rules  on  full  documentation  and  reporting  so  as  to  ensure  transparency  and  the 
opportunity to scientifically assess the impact of these catches.  

STECF  concludes  that  when  the  target  stocks  are  widely  distributed  and  the  potential 
bycatches are less well known, there are potential negative impacts of footnote provision 
for stock status and the ability to achieve and maintain CFP FMSY targets. Although it was 
noted that bycatch information was lacking from many member states operating in these 
widespread  fisheries,  STECF  is  aware  of  changes  in  targeting  behaviour  by  pelagic 
vessels (both potential and  already observed) that could increase mortality and thereby 
risk stock status in bycatch species. Given the scale of these pelagic fisheries, the scope 
for damage to associated stocks is high. STECF further concludes that there are potential 
impacts  on  the  general  coherence  of  the  management  and  governance  in  a  number  of 
fisheries,  particularly  demersal  ones.  Of  particular  concern  is  the  potential  reduction  in 
fishing  opportunities  and  concomitant  economic  viability  for  those  operating  in  fisheries 
targeting  the  bycatch  species.  This  situation  would  be  e.g.  analogous  to  those  where 

60 

 
 
 
 
growing  and 
opportunities for those involved in directed commercial fisheries.  

largely  unpredictable  recreational 

fisheries  are 

limiting  catching 

STECF  concludes  that  a  number  of  mitigation  measures  to  avoid  bycatch  may  be 
available  but  recognises  that  avoidance  of  bycatch  in  pelagic  fisheries  is  not  always 
straightforward.  Potential  measures  including  technical  solutions  and  changes  to  fishing 
operations would require to be considered on a case by case basis. STECF considers that 
any one solution would not be suitable in all cases. 

Appendix 1 - 2016 December Council and Commission joint statement on associated by-
catch species (Council and Commission) as provided by the Commission to the STECF. 

Council and Commission have taken note of the requests by Member States to allow for 
specific  provisions  allowing  by-catches  in  fisheries  targeting  pelagic  species  for  the 
following stocks: 

–        hake, boarfish, whiting, haddock, cod, saithe, greater silver smelt, skates, tusk, 

common sole, plaice, flounder and mackerel in the Blue Whiting North East Atlantic; 

–                hake,  haddock,  boarfish  and  whiting  in  the  mackerel  fishery  in  the  North  East 

Atlantic; 

–        herring in the mackerel fishery in areas IIIa and IV; 

–        boarfish, whiting, haddock, cod, saithe, greater silver smelt, skates, tusk, common 

sole, plaice and flounder in the mackerel fishery in areas VIIIc, IX, and X; 

–        hake in horse mackerel in areas IVb, IVc, and VIId, and in horse mackerel in areas 

IIa-XIV 

–       cod, saithe, greater silver smelt, skates, tusk, common sole, plaice, flounder, hake 

in the horse mackerel fishery on the Western stock (main area); 

–        boarfish , whiting, haddock, cod, saithe, greater silver smelt, skates, tusk common 

sole,  plaice,  flounder,  an  mackerel  in  the  horse  mackerel  fishery  on  the  Western 

stock (area VIIIc); 

–        boarfish, whiting, haddock, cod, saithe, greater silver smelt, skates, tusk, common 

sole, plaice, flounder and mackerel in the horse mackerel fishery in area IX; 

–        saithe and mackerel in the herring fishery in IIIa; 

–        saithe and mackerel in herring fishery in IV; 

–        saithe in Atlantico-scandic herring in I and II. 

Given  that  these  by-catches  occur  in  fisheries  for  species  which  have  not  yet  been 
scientifically  assessed  for  the  purpose  of  interspecies  flexibility,  the  Member  States 
concerned commit to providing the Commission by 28 February 2017 with the necessary 
supporting data for scientific assessment by ICES. 

61 

 
 
 
 
In  light  of  the  available  scientific  advice,  the  Commission  will  consider  proposing 
appropriate provisions for the general approach on any associated by-catch species in the 
fishing opportunities, including on inter-species flexibility. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2 Irish avoidance programme for picked dogfish 

Background provided by the Commission 

At  the  Council  in  December  2016  the  Commission  gave  a  statement  on  avoidance 
programmes  for  picked  dogfish.  This  invited  Member  States  to  develop  avoidance 
programmes  for  picked  dogfish  similar  to  the  current  programme  that  has  been  put  in 
place  in  Union  and  international  waters  of  I,  V,  VI,  VII,  VIII,  XII  and  XIV.  If  these 
programmes are developed and positively assessed by the STECF, the Commission would 
consider  making  a  proposal  to  include  TACs  for  unavoidable  by-catches  in  the  areas 
concerned. 

STECF has already assessed a catch avoidance programme from the UK. Ireland has now 
submitted a catch avoidance programme to be assessed by the STECF. 

Request to the STECF 

STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  proposal  received  from  Ireland  on  an  avoidance 
programme for picked dogfish, and on this basis assess whether, taking into account the 
latest ICES advice on the stock9, this programme will:  

  Contribute to the avoidance of picked dogfish in the fisheries concerned. 

Furthermore STECF is asked to assess, whether this programme will contribute to: 

 

 

Improving the current data deficiencies. 

Increasing the knowledge on spatial aggregations of picked dogfish. 

Increasing the knowledge on discard survival. 

 
  Facilitating the introduction of the landing obligation. 

STECF response 

Summary of the Irish avoidance programme 

The  proposed  scheme  builds  on  the  latest  management  legislation  for  the  species 
(Council  Regulation,  2017),  which  states  that  it  shall  be  prohibited  for  Union  fishing 
vessels to fish for picked dogfish, also known as spurdog (Squalus acanthias), except for 
avoidance programmes in which picked dogfish shall not be targeted. When accidentally 
caught  in  fisheries  where  picked  dogfish  is  not  subject  to  the  landing  obligation, 
specimens shall not be harmed and shall be released immediately. A vessel engaged in a 
by-catch  avoidance  programme  may  land  not  more  than  2  tonnes  per  month  of  picked 
dogfish  that  is  dead  the  moment  when  the  fishing  gear  is  hauled  on  board.  Member 

9 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/dgs-nea.pdf  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
States  participating  in  the  by-catch  avoidance  programme  shall  ensure  that  the  total 
annual  landings  of  picked  dogfish  do  not  exceed  the  amounts  set  out  in  Council 
Regulation  (2017).  They  shall  communicate  the  list  of  participating  vessels  to  the 
Commission  before  allowing  any  landings  and  shall  exchange  information  about 
avoidance areas. Council Regulation (2017) also states that it shall be prohibited to fish 
or  retain  on  board  any  picked  dogfish  (and  other  listed  species)  in  the  Porcupine  Bank 
during the period from 1 May to 31 May 2017. 

The proposed Irish avoidance programme is based on this regulation. It is proposed that 
avoidance is achieved by allowing limited by-catch for authorised vessels. These vessels 
would then inform other vessels  of  the  risk  of  high  picked  dogfish  catches,  allowing  the 
fleets at large to avoid them (the level of ‘high’ is not defined in the proposal, neither is 
the  mechanism  to  inform  other  vessels,  or  the  required  response  from  those  vessels). 
Thus, the authorised vessels would serve as the industry’s “look-out fishery”. Other main 
aspects of the proposed programme: 

• 

The scheme shall operate only in the following fisheries: 

  Sub-area 6a OTB 
  Sub-area 7b GNS for hake 
  Sub-area 7b/7j OTB for Nephrops or Sub-area 7g OTB or GNS; 

In each of the three fisheries, no more than 8 vessels shall participate; 
Each vessel shall receive a quota of 2t per month; 
Each vessel shall carry VMS; 
The  programme  is  not  applicable  during  the  spawning  period  (October  to 
January); 
Once  the  quota  available  is  exhausted,  all  fishing  by  vessels  in  the  avoidance 
programme in that ICES statistical rectangle shall cease for a period of 120 hours 
(5 days).  
Landings of picked dogfish cannot be taken in Tralee Bay (documented spawning 
grounds); 
Vessels  taking  part  in  the  programme  will  carry  a  scientific  observer  who  shall 
record the vitality of catches and the quantity of live discards of picked dogfish; 
Upon landing, the local Marine Institute office shall be contacted to allow for catch 
sampling to occur. 
Protected species shall be released alive, taking great care not to harm them. 
Picked dogfish shall not be targeted and any picked dogfish retained must be dead 
on hauling; 
Include a maximum landing length of 100cm (a provision in place before the zero-
TAC was introduced); 
The programme will be reviewed on a triennial basis. 

• 
• 
• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

Additional background information provided by STECF 

This is the latest in a series of four related requests to STECF, and to ensure consistency 
in  responses  and  provide  further  context,  STECF  17-02  have  summarised  previous 
conclusions that are relevant to this latest request: 

STECF PLEN 13-03 

64 

 
 
 
  On  granting  exemptions  to  land  unintended  picked  dogfish  by-catches,  STECF  PLEN 
13-03 considers it will generate additional mortality and compromise the recovery of 
the stock. 
It may be possible to monitor long term trends in abundance of picked dogfish using 
existing  monitoring  programmes,  but  due  to  the  wide  distribution,  low  abundance, 
and  low  predicted  rate  of  recovery,  any  change  in  abundance  is  unlikely  to  be 
detected for at least 10 years. 

 

  STECF PLEN 13-03 supports additional information collection systems, that would not 
increase  mortality,  including  observer  programs,  remote  electronic  monitoring,  and 
skippers’  self-reporting,  but  exemptions  to  land  unintended  by-catches  are  likely  to 
be less effective at achieving recovery of picked dogfish than maintaining a zero TAC. 

STECF PLEN 14-03 

  The  UK  proposed  a  real-time  monitoring  programme  using  a  picked  dogfish  bycatch 
quota as an incentive for skippers to participate. The proposal incorporated reporting 
of  by-catches  by  fishermen,  which  is  validated  by  observer  sampling,  and  includes 
agreed move-on rules to avoid areas where picked dogfish catches were high. 

  STECF PLEN 14-03 supported the collaborative approach and the use of an incentive 
whereby good behaviour is rewarded with a landing allowance of picked dogfish, that 
comes at no apparent cost to the stock. 

  Monthly quota limits and the prohibition of quota movement was supported by STECF 

to avoid the possibility of the development a targeted fishery. 

  STECF  PLEN  14-03  noted  that  when  picked  dogfish  catch  levels  are  below  the 
maximum monthly threshold, there may be an incentive to misreport the “lively” fish 
as “dead” and land those fish and increase fishing mortality by landing fish that may 
have otherwise survived. Measures needed to avoid this include observer coverage or 
CCTV systems. 

  While the landing of dead discards would mean there should be no increase in fishing 
mortality,  without  successful  avoidance  behaviour  from  skippers,  the  programme 
would not progress the conservation objectives for picked dogfish. 

  STECF  PLEN  14-03  observed  that  it  would  not  possible  to  predict  the  usefulness  of 
move-on rules because it is not known whether moving from one area to a different 
area  will  result  in  higher  or  lower  incidental  catches.  Moreover,  there  were  no 
indicators  presented  against  which  individual  avoidance  behaviour  could  be 
measured. 

  STECF PLEN 14-03 concluded that managers need to base their decision on whether 
to permit the pilot to go ahead without having access to objective scientific advice. 

STECF PLEN 15-03 

  The UK undertook a pilot project on the management of picked dogfish and proposed 
a full avoidance programme, based on real-time monitoring and a bycatch quota. 
  STECF  15-03  considered  the  UK  proposal  could  potentially  aid  the  rebuilding  of  the 
stock of picked dogfish by promoting avoidance behaviour, which may in turn lead to 
reductions in fishing mortality. 

  STECF 15-03 considered that the main potential benefits of the proposed pilot project 
are  in  providing  an  incentive  for  participating  vessels  to  report  incidental  catches  of 
picked  dogfish  and  the  proportions  of  the  catch  that  are  brought  aboard  dead  and 
alive. 

65 

 
 
 

If  operationally  successful,  it  would  require  that  vessels  move  away  from  areas  of 
high  incidental  catch,  which  may result in  a reduction  in  fishing  mortality  relative to 
that which would occur in the absence of the programme. 

  Picked  dogfish  is  not  included  in  any  discard  plans  to  implement  the  Landing 
Obligation  (Delegated  Regulations),  therefore  vessels  that  do  not  opt  into  the 
programme can continue discarding catches of picked dogfish, it is likely that realised 
catches will exceed any agreed by-catch TAC. 
In  order  to  promote  a  reduction  in  fishing  mortality  through  discard  avoidance, 
provisions  to  opt  into  the  project  should  be  expanded  to  include  additional  vessels 
and MS. 

 

STECF notes the following to provide further context to its response: 

Picked  dogfish  is  a  long-lived,  slow-growing,  and  late-maturing  species  and  is  therefore 
particularly  vulnerable  to  fishing  mortality.  ICES  (2016)  advised  that  when  the 
precautionary approach is applied, there should be no targeted fisheries on this stock in 
2017 and 2018. 

From  2011  to  2016,  picked  dogfish  was  managed  by  a  zero-TAC,  which  meant  that  no 
picked  dogfish  could  be  landed,  but  incidental  catches  were  still  taken.  And  because 
some discards do not survive, fishing mortality still occurred. 

ICES  advice  (2016)  states  that,  based  on  medium-term  projections,  annual  catches  at 
the recent assumed level (2468 tonnes) would allow the stock to increase at a rate close 
to that estimated with zero catches. 

From  2019,  stocks  with  a  TAC  will  be  subject  to  the  Landing  Obligation,  whereby  all 
catches  will  be  landed  and  counted  against  quota,  unless  exemptions  are  awarded,  and 
fishing activities must stop once the quota has been fulfilled. 

If  picked  dogfish  has  an  associated  TAC  in  2019,  it  will  be  subject  to  the  Landing 
Obligation.  A  zero-TAC  would  mean  that  any  catches  of  picked  dogfish  could  stop  or 
‘choke’ fishing activities. 

An  alternative  management  approach  for  picked  dogfish  is  for  it  to  be  classified  as  a 
prohibited  species.  A  species  for  which  fishing  is  prohibited,  will  not  be  subject  to  the 
Landing  Obligation.  As  a  prohibited  species,  incidental  catches  picked  dogfish  could  not 
be landed for sale and would not stop fishing activities.  

As a prohibited species, there are  though no direct incentive to avoid incidental catches 
of picked dogfish. The level of incidental catches as a prohibited species are likely to be 
the same as that under zero-TAC, but there would be no control on mortality levels. 

In  contrast,  under  a  TAC  subject  to  the  Landing  Obligation,  there  would  be  a  limit  of 
fishing  mortality,  economic  benefits  to  the  fishing  industry,  and  an  incentive  to  avoid 
picked  dogfish  to  mitigate  the  risk  of  exhausting  the  quota.  However,  this  assumes 
effective control of the Landing Obligation and accurate catch reporting. 

Since 2017, outside of avoidance programmes, fishing for this stock of picked dogfish is 
prohibited  (Council  Regulation  2017/127).  “Prohibited  species”  by  their  nature  are 
sensitive species, mostly CITES listed, where even limited fishing activity could result in a 

66 

 
 
serious  risk  to  their  conservation.  The  conservation  status  is  the  main  criteria  used  to 
define a species as prohibited. 

Therefore,  there  are  clear  differences  between  the  management  options  for  this  stock; 
applying  a  TAC  subject  to  the  Landing  Obligation  or  categorising  picked  dogfish  as  a 
prohibited  species.  To  determine  whether  it  is  most  appropriate  to  have  a  TAC  or  to 
classify  picked  dogfish  as  a  prohibited  species,  it  is  necessary  to  investigate  trade-offs 
and risks to the stock. 

This task is made more challenging by concerns over the quality of the data for this stock 
as  a  consequence  of  (a)  uncertainty  in  the  historical  level  of  catches  because  of 
misreporting  and  generic  landings  categories;  (b)  lack  of  commercial  length–frequency 
information  for  countries  other  than  the  UK;  (c)  lack  of  data  on  dead  discards;  and  (d) 
the survey data examined do not cover the entire stock area (ICES, 2016). 

The  avoidance  programmes  described  in  2017/127  use  limited  fishing  opportunities  for 
picked dogfish as an incentive for fishermen to participate in collecting additional fishery 
dependent  data.  These  data  can  be  used  to  inform  management  measures  that  are 
appropriate for the short and medium term. 

STECF comments on the ToRs 

Will  the  proposed  programme  contribute  to  the  avoidance  of  picked  dogfish  in  the 
fisheries concerned? 

The  incentive  for  skippers  to  move  on  from  areas  in  which  picked  dogfish  are  being 
caught is based on the authorisation to land and sell picked dogfish up to a limit of two 
tonnes  per  month.  Once  this  threshold  is  met  by  a  single  vessel,  all  the  vessels  on  the 
programme  are  required  to  stop  fishing  in  that  ICES  statistical  rectangle  for  five  days. 
The  avoidance  of  catches  of  picked  dogfish  will  be  successful  when  the  following 
conditions are met (i) fish that would have otherwise have been caught by these vessels 
are  not  caught  and  (ii)  that  other  dogfish  are  not  caught  in  the  area  into  which  the 
vessels have moved and (iii) the picked dogfish that were present in the closed rectangle 
are  then  not  caught  when  the  rectangle  opens  to  fishing.  There  is  currently  insufficient 
information  to  determine  if  these  conditions  are  likely  to  be  met  and  so  whether  the 
programme would reduce fishing mortality on picked dogfish. 

It is stated that vessels on the programme would inform the wider fleet of areas of high 
catches  of  picked  dogfish  so  that  they  could  avoid  these  areas.  STECF  notes  that  it  is 
unclear  how  this  will  work  in  practice.  The  mechanisms  to  capture  and  exchange 
information  need  to  be  specified  in  order  to  comply  with  the  condition  of  Council 
Regulation  2017/127,  including  what  is  expected  of  the  vessels  that  are  not  on  the 
programme.  Also,  information  is  required  on  what  happens  if  further  catches  of  picked 
dogfish  are  taken  by  a  vessel  in  a  month  in  which  its’  two  tonne  threshold  has  already 
been  met.  And  similarly,  what  happens  when  further  catches  are  taken  in  an  area  that 
has  been  recently  closed.  The  economic  consequences  of  vessels  moving  on  from  an 
ICES  rectangle  are  not  mentioned  and  may  be  considered  before  implementing  the 
programme. 

In summary there is no a priori means to assess whether implementation of the proposed 
programme will result in a reduction in catches of picked dogfish (through the avoidance 
provisions)  relative  to  the  catches  that  would  occur  in  the  absence  of  the  programme. 

67 

 
 
Also,  before  it  is  implemented,  further  details  on  the  practical  design  of  the  proposed 
programme are needed to assess the potential for meeting its objectives. 

Will  this  programme  contribute  to  improving  the  data  deficiencies  and  increasing  the 
knowledge on spatial aggregations of picked dogfish? 

The  proposed  programme  states  that  ‘100%  observer  coverage  is  provided  for  in  the 
proposal’ and ‘Vessels taking part in the programme must undertake to carry a scientific 
observer’.  If  such  an  undertaking  actually  results  in  all  vessels  participating  in  the 
programme carrying an observer on all trips, detailed information on the fishing activity 
and catches of the vessels, including that on catches, aggregations, and vitality of picked 
dogfish  could  be  collected.  Such  an  undertaking  would  also  be  expensive  since  it 
potentially  implies  24  observers  being  deployed  simultaneously  for  an  unspecified 
number of days each month for up to nine months of the year. An alternative approach 
to  consider  would  be  using  Remote  Electronic  Monitoring  with  CCTV  cameras  for  more 
cost effective monitoring. 

The  proposal  also  states  that  upon  landing,  the  local  Marine  Institute  office  shall  be 
contacted to allow for catch sampling to occur. It is not clear why this would be needed if 
there  are  observers  on-board  already  and  so  STECF  suggest  that  more  clarity  on  the 
biological  monitoring  of  the  participating  vessels  is  provided.  While  useful  fishery-
dependent  information  on  participating  vessels  is  likely  to  be  collected,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  determine  how  representative  such  data  are,  before  extrapolating  to  the 
wider  fleet.  Therefore,  information  on  the  effort,  timing  and  location,  of  the  wider  fleet 
would also need to be collected. 

Will this programme contribute increase the knowledge on discard survival? 

STECF  considered  that  at-sea  monitoring  by  trained  observers,  could  generate  useful 
data  on  the  health  condition  of  picked  dogfish  at  the  point  they  would  normally  be 
discarded.  There  are  detailed  guidance  notes  on  how  to  develop  vitality  and  injury 
assessment protocols in ICES WKMEDS (2014). While this would provide information on 
the immediate mortality and the condition of released fish, this would not provide discard 
survival estimates. Studies have shown that mortality caused by the catching and sorting 
process  can  occur  sometime  after  release.  However,  where  the  correlation  between 
health  state  and  survival  probability  is  known,  then  absolute  survival  estimates  can  be 
inferred.  If the  stock became  subject  to the Landing  Obligation,  such  information  would 
inform on  the  appropriateness  of awarding  an  exemption  from  the obligation  to  land  all 
catches on the basis of high survival. 

Will this programme facilitate the introduction of the landing obligation? 

Prior  to  2017,  picked  dogfish  was  managed  by  a  zero  TAC.  Consequently,  under  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  landing  obligation,  it  had  the  potential  to  become  a 
‘choke’ species as soon as picked dogfish were caught, forcing fishing activities to stop. 
In recognition that zero-TAC species are not compatible with the Landing Obligation, two 
possible alternatives have been described. The first is to remove all fishing opportunities 
and add picked dogfish to the list of prohibited species, thereby prohibiting the retention 
on  board  of  all  catches  of  picked  dogfish  and  accepting  continued  fishing  mortality 
through discarding. This option would likely maintain levels of fishing mortality equivalent 
to  those  that  would  occur  under  a  zero-TAC  and  would  provide  no  direct  economic 
incentive  to  avoid  incidental  catches  because  any  picked  dogfish  caught  could  not  be 
landed  and  sold.  The  alternative  would  be  to  manage  under  a  TAC,  based  on  scientific 
advice  and  subject  to  the  Landing  Obligation  from  2019,  which  would  allow  catches  of 

68 

 
 
picked  dogfish  to  be  landed  and  sold.  A  catch  limit  would  incentivise  fishers  to  avoid 
picked  dogfish  which  would  otherwise  mean  that  fishing  activities  had  to  stop.  The 
incentive  to  avoid  incidental  catches  would  only  be  realised  with  effective  monitoring  of 
the Landing Obligation. Whether such an incentive would in practice, result in avoidance 
behaviour that would reduce catches to less that would be achieved in the absence of the 
programme cannot be predicted. 

To inform on which of the options is preferable it is necessary to have more detailed data 
on catch levels and to know to what extent it is possible to avoid picked dogfish. STECF 
considers  that  implementation  of  the  proposed  programme  under  Council  Regulation 
2017/217,  will  undoubtedly  benefit  participating  vessels  through  the  provision  to  land 
and  sell  up  to  2  tons of  picked dogfish,  per vessel  per  month,  up to  53 tonnes  and  will 
provide  an  opportunity  to  collect  fishery-dependent  information  through  the  observer 
programme which may also inform decision making under the Landing Obligation. 

The proposal includes a triennial review, although it does not indicate how this would be 
structured.  The  proposal  mentions  that  the  key  tools  for  enforcement  are  the  by-catch 
quotas  and  the  VMS  observations,  and  that  observer  data  will  be  collected.  STECF  note 
that  a  review  method  should  be  provided  which  defines  the  indicators  against  which 
avoidance  behaviour  can  be  measured.  Moreover,  full  implementation  of  the  Landing 
Obligation is scheduled for the beginning of 2019, so it would likely be necessary to fully 
assess  the  trade-offs  between  the  management  options  (prohibited  species  or  TAC) 
before that time. 

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that there is no a priori means to assess whether implementation of the 
proposed programme will result in a reduction in catches of picked dogfish (through the 
avoidance  provisions)  relative  to  the  catches  that  would  occur  in  the  absence  of  the 
programme. 

STECF  concludes  the  programme  would  potentially  provide  detailed  information  on  the 
fishing activity and catches of the participating vessels. This would include information on 
catches and aggregations of picked dogfish, and would provide useful data on the health 
condition  of  picked  dogfish  at  the  point  they  would  normally  be  discarded  which  would 
inform discard survival rates. However, the level of observer coverage of the programme 
remains unclear and this will determine the extent and utility of the data. In agreement 
with ICES (2016) any provision for the landing of picked dogfish bycatch should include 
close monitoring of the stock and fisheries. 

STECF  concludes  that  to  improve  the  chances  of  meeting  its  objectives,  further  details 
are needed before the programme is initiated. This includes the  mechanisms to capture 
and exchange information on incidental picked dogfish catches between participants and 
with the wider fleets (a requirement of Regulation 2017/127), and details of what would 
happen if catches of picked dogfish were taken by a vessel during a month in which its’ 
two  tonne  threshold  has  already  been  met.  And  similarly,  what  would  happen  when 
further picked dogfish catches are taken in an area that has been recently closed.  

STECF  concludes  that  to  investigate  the  trade-offs  and  risks  to  the  stock  and  to  the 
fishing industry for adopting different management approaches (including TAC subject to 
the Landing Obligation vs prohibited species), it is necessary to have more detailed data 

69 

 
 
 
on  catch  levels,  to  enhance  stock  advice,  and  to  know  to  what  extent  it  is  possible  to 
avoid picked dogfish.  The focus of avoidance programmes should be to ensure that this 
information  is  collected  so  it  can  inform  on  management  decisions  of  the  future  of  this 
stock. 

References 

Council  of  the  European  Union,  2017.  Council  Regulation  (EU)  2017/127  of  20  January 
2017  fixing  for  2017  the  fishing  opportunities  for  certain  fish  stocks  and  groups  of 
fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-
Union waters. 172 pp. 

ICES  WKMEDS,  2014.  Report  of  the  Workshop  on  Methods  for  Estimating  Discard 
Survival  (WKMEDS),  17–21  February  2014,  ICES  HQ,  Copenhagen,  Denmark.  ICES 
CM 2014/ACOM:51. 114 pp. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3  Clarification  on  STECF  Report  on  Joint  Recommendations  for  Natura  2000 
sites under CFP Article 11 (STECF-16-24) 

Background provided by the Commission 

STECF  issued  a  piece  of  advice  on  Joint  Recommendations  for  Natura  2000  sites  under 
CFP Article 11 (STECF-16-24) in 2016. 

In May 2017, Denmark submitted some clarification to the Commission in relation to the 
two different mapping techniques used for the site called ‘Centrale Storebælt og Vresen’ 
as  well  as  to  the  protection  of  harbour  porpoise,  grey/  harbour,  seals,  mudflats, 
sandbanks, lagoons and several birds species mentioned in the STECF conclusions.  

Request to the STECF 

STECF  is  requested  to  take  into  consideration  the  comments  received  by  Denmark  for 
Joint Recommendation for Natura 2000 sites under CFP Article 11 (STECF-16-24) and to 
revise the previous advice of 10 December 2016, if applicable . 

STECF response 

STECF observations 

The Danish authorities submitted clarifications on three issues raised in the STECF-16-24 
report:  (i)  protection  of  reef  structures  in  relation  to  scientific  advice  from  ICES,  (ii) 
protection  of  harbour  porpoise  grey/harbour  seals,  sea  birds  and  other  marine  habitats 
such  as  sandbanks  and  mud  flats  etc.,  and  (iii)  control  and  enforcement  of  smaller 
vessels < 12 meters. These issues are addressed consecutively below.  

Protection of reef structures in relation to scientific advice from ICES 

In  December  2016  STECF  (STECF-16-24)  concluded  that  the  Joint  Recommendation 
measures  will  contribute  towards  ensuring  that  reef  habitats  of  community  interest  are 
maintained and restored at favourable conservation status inside the delineated areas as 
stipulated under Article 2 of Directive 92/43/EEC. However, STECF noted that in the area 
'Centrale  Storebælt  og  Vresen'  the  proposed  boundaries  of  the  no-take  zones  are 
positioned  very  close  to  the  reefs,  and  in  some  cases  do  not  encompass  a  buffer  zone 
defined in accordance with ICES Guidelines. 

In  their  May  2017  reply  the  Danish  authorities  clarified  that  for  the  site  ‘Centrale 
Storebælt  og  Vresen’,  two  different  mapping  techniques  have  been  used,  and  that  for 
one  of  the  mapping  techniques  both  'back  scatter  data'  and  verifications  are  lacking.  '. 
The Danish, Swedish and German authorities agreed that areas where fishing takes place 
and reef structures have not been verified should be kept open to fishing. 

STECF  acknowledges  that  the  overall  aim  of  the  proposal  is  to  ensure  adequate 
protection of reef structures, and to  contribute to the obligation of achieving favourable 
conservation  status  for  these  habitat  types  in  accordance  with  Article  6  (2)  of  the 
Habitats  Directive.  This  will  be  achieved  by  prohibiting  fishing  activities  with  mobile 
bottom  contacting  gears  in  areas  mapped  as  reefs  (habitat  code  H1170).  Moreover,  at 
some sites fishing activities with passive gears such as gillnets, lines, traps and pots will 
also  be  prohibited  in  areas  mapped  as  bubbling  reefs  (habitat  code  H1180).  The  reef 
structures  mapped  in  the  Natura  2000  sites  will  be  protected  from  fishing  impacts  by 
placing  buffer  zones  around  the  reef  structures.  STECF  considers  that  the  proposed 
measures  for  the  management  of  reef  habitats  are  a  step  forward  to  minimise  the 
negative impacts of fishing activities on reef habitats and ensure that fisheries activities 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
avoid  the  degradation  of  the  marine  environment  as  stipulated  under  Article  2(3)  of 
Regulation 1380/2013.  

With  regards  to  the  presence  of  buffer  areas,  the  ICES  advice  states  that  a  buffer 
equivalent to 4x water depth is an adequate size for buffer zones. The Danish authorities 
clarified  that  the  buffer  zone  around  the  verified  reef  structure  is  no  less  than  240  m, 
equivalent  to  6x  water  depth,  and  as  such  will  cover  and  protect  several  areas  where 
unverified  reef  structures  are  present,  STECF  notes  thus  that  if  unverified  reefs  are  not 
treated as reefs, the proposed buffer zone is in compliance with ICES advice. 

STECF  notes  that  a  low  resolution  technique  was  used  to  map  the  central  area  where 
conflicts between mobile bottom contacting gears and  some unverified reefs were seen, 
and that this area was excluded from the proposed fishery closure (see red area in Figure 
5.3.1). The area in which fishing will not be banned covers an area of 2.7 km2, compared 
to a total reefs area at the site (verified and not verified) of 120.6 km2, so only 2.3% of 
possible  reefs  will  not  be  protected.  Given  the  overall  low  percentage  of  possible  reefs 
which will not be protected, and the fact that only unverified reefs are located within the 
proposed  buffer zone,  STECF  agrees  with  the  assessment  of  the Danish  authorities  that 
this  approach  should  not  pose  a  risk  to  the  overall  conservation  status  of  the  verified 
reefs at the site ‘Centrale Storebælt og Vresen’. 

Figure 5.3.1. Map of Natura 2000 site ‘Centrale Storebælt og Vresen’ provided by Danish 
authorities.  Source:  Clarification  regarding  STECF  Report  on  Joint  Recommendations  for 
Natura  2000  sites  under  CFP  Article  11  (STECF-16-24)  submitted  by  the  Danish 
authorities to the European Commission in May 2017. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Protection of harbour porpoise, grey / harbour seals, sea birds and other marine habitats 
such as sandbanks and mud flats etc. 

In December 2016 STECF concluded that additional measures may be required to ensure 
protection  of  species  and  habitats  other  than  reefs  for  which  the  Natura  2000  sites 
included in the Joint Recommendation have been declared.  

The  clarifications  submitted  to  the  Commission  explain  that  a  thematic  approach  is 
pursued  by  Denmark  and  the  other  Baltic  Member  States  concerned,  where  the  marine 
habitats  and  species  which  need  urgent  attention  are  protected  first.  Until  2021  the 
protection  of  reef  structures  will  be  the  overall  focus  of  the  management  plans  for  the 
designated  Natura  2000  sites  since  fishing  is  considered  to  be  posing  a  threat  to  reefs. 
The  Danish  authorities  point  out  that  unlike  for  harbour  porpoise,  seabirds,  sandbanks 
and  other  marine  habitats,  knowledge  and  scientific  evidence  does  exist  on  the  conflict 
between fishing with mobile bottom contacting gears and the conservation status of reef 
structures. 

With regards to the protection of marine mammals / seabirds and other marine habitats 
found at the Natura 2000 sites, the Danish authorities acknowledge that fishing may also 
cause  a  threat,  but  state  that  the  protection  of  these  features  is  considered  to  be  less 
urgent compared to reef structures. It is further clarified that several projects on bycatch 
of  harbour  porpoise  and  seabirds  have  been  launched  and  are  currently  ongoing.  The 
clarification  letter  submitted  to  STECF  further  explains  that  it  is  expected  that  these 
studies  will  be  an  important  inputs  to  a  Danish  National  Strategy  for  Harbour  Porpoise 
Protection.   

The  Danish  proposal  states  that  the  Commission's  2008  guidelines  concerning  the 
development  of  proposals  for  fisheries  management  measures  in  marine  Natura  2000 
sites  within  the  scope  of  the  CFP10  were  taken  into  account  when  drafting  the  Joint 
Recommendations.  According  to  these  guidelines,  Member  States  may  envisage  the 
implementation of certain fisheries management and control measures depending on the 
conservation  objectives  of  the  Natura  2000  sites,  with  the  information  provided  in  the 
site  Standard  Data  Form  (SDF)  providing  the  basis  for  a  Member  State's  conservation 
objectives.  The  SDFs  of  the  sites  included  in  the  Joint  Recommendation  submitted  by 
Denmark  in  fact  include  a  number  of  species  and  habitats  besides  reefs,  such  as  for 
example harbour / grey seals, harbour porpoises, and sandbanks. STECF notes that there 
is  practically  no  background  information  provided  on  threats  to  species  /  habitats  other 
than reefs listed in Annex I and species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive from 
different  types  of  fishing  gears  (corresponding  to  item  4  of  the  11  required  information 
items in the Commission guidelines from 2008).  

STECF observes that (with the exception of site DK00VA261) the Natura 2000 sites under 
consideration  were  established  in  1998,  and  confirmed  Special  Areas  of  Conservation 
(SACs)  in  2011.  Member  States  should  take  the  necessary  management  or  restoration 
measures to ensure favourable conservation status of sites within 6 years at the most as 
required by the Habitats Directive. STECF observes that although the Danish authorities 
state  they  will  assess  whether  there  is  a  need  to  propose  fisheries  management 

10  Fisheries  measures  for  marine  Natura  2000  sites  –  a  consistent  approach  to  requests  for  fisheries 
Policy: 

management 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/fish_measures.pdf  

measures 

Common 

Fisheries 

under 

the 

73 

 
 
                                          
 
measures for additional marine species and habitats before 2021, only reef habitats will 
be  the  overall  focus  of  the  planned  fisheries  management  measures  until  2021.  In 
addition  to  the  planned  fisheries  management  measures,  Denmark  also  aims  to 
implement  a  national  strategy  for  harbour  porpoise  protection  as  part  of  management 
plans being formulated before 2021 for 16 out of a total of 97 Danish Natura 2000 sites.  

STECF  considers that  it  may  have been  appropriate  to  use  an  approach  in  line  with  the 
(albeit  non-binding)  common  methodology  for  assessing  the  impact  of  fisheries  on 
marine  Natura  2000  sites11,  which  inter  alia  recommends  that  (i)  a  conflict  matrix  is 
constructed  to  identify  which  gears  used  in  marine  Natura  2000  sites  is  impacting 
habitats  /  species  for  which  Natura  2000  sites  have  been  designated,  and  (ii)  fisheries 
management  measures  are  established  where  impacts  are  not  considered  acceptable. 
Where insufficient information was available to assess conflicts or establish management 
measures  for  certain  species  or  habitats  a  clear  explanation  could  have  been  provided, 
together with a road-map for addressing remaining challenges for each species / habitat 
listed in the site SDFs. 

Control and enforcement of smaller vessels <12 meters 

STECF notes that the clarifications submitted to the Commission emphasize that effective 
and  targeted  control  and  enforcement  of  adopted  measures  have  been  developed.  The 
control  and  enforcement  model  is  based  on  a  risk  assessment,  and  also  takes  fishery 
from smaller vessels into account. In 2018, this model will be evaluated.  

Furthermore, the Danish comments clarify that VMS signals are submitted every hour for 
Swedish  and  Danish  vessels  >12  meters,  and  not  every  two  hours  as  previously  stated 
by  STECF.  STECF  is  also  informed  that  VMS  signals  of  Danish  vessels  >12  meters  are 
polled every 10 minutes when the vessels are present in the alert zone.  

The  submitted  clarifications  also  state  that  since  smaller  vessels  have  fishing  patterns 
which  are  similar  to  those  of  larger  vessels,  there  is  no  indication  of  fishing  activities 
taking  place  in  the  areas  mapped  as  reefs,  nor  in  the  buffer  zones.  STECF  notes  that 
Figure  6b  in  proposal  for  fisheries  management  measures  for  the  protection  of  reef 
structures in Natura 2000 sites located in Danish territorial waters in western Baltic  Sea 
(reproduced  below)  shows  that  some  fishing  activities  by  vessels  larger  than  12  meters 
have been recorded both on the reefs and in the buffer zones. 

STECF  notes  that  the  Commission  delegated  regulation  (EU)  2017/118  establishes 
fisheries  conservation  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  marine  environment  in  the 
North  Sea,  and  has  introduced  additional  control  measures  to  ensure  their  effective 
implementation  in  the  'Bratten'  area  located  in  the  Skagerrak.  Sweden,  Denmark  and 
Germany  have  a  direct  management  interest  in  this  area.  These  additional  measures 
include (i) provisions that bottom contacting gears are lashed and stowed whilst present 
in  or  transiting  through  the  protected  area  concerned,  and  (ii)  a  requirement  for  all 
fishing  vessels  present  to  be  fitted  with  and  to  maintain  in  operation  an  automatic 
identification  system  (AIS).  STECF  considers  that  the  same  Member  States  are 
concerned,  and  similar  concerns  exist  with  regards  to  the  effective  implementation  of 

11  Common  methodology 

for  assessing 

the 

impact  of 

fisheries  on  marine  Natura  2000:: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/Fisheries%20methodology.pdf  

74 

 
 
 
                                          
 
appropriate  monitoring  and  control  measures  for  the  seven  Natura  2000  sites  in  the 
Danish part of the Kattegat and Western Baltic Sea. 

Figure  5.3.2.  Map  of  Natura  2000  site  ‘Centrale  Storebælt  og  Vresen’  showing  reef 
structures, proposed buffer zones and VMS positions for Danish vessels above 12 meters 
–  left  map  showing  fishing  activities  with  bottom  contacting  gears,  and  right  map 
showing  fishing  activities  with  other  gear  types.  Source:  Proposal  for  Fisheries 
Management Measures for the protection of reef structures (H1170) in Natura 2000 sites 
located  in  Danish  territorial  waters  in  western  Baltic  Sea  submitted  by  the  Danish 
authorities to the European Commission. 

STECF conclusions 

With regards to the protection of reef structures in relation to scientific advice from ICES, 
STECF concludes that as a result of the overall low percentage of possible reefs which will 
not  be  protected,  and  of  the  fact  that  only  unverified  reefs  are  located  within  the 
proposed  buffer  zone,  the  approach  proposed  in  the  Joint  Recommendation  should  not 
pose  a  risk  to  the  overall  conservation  status  of  the  verified  reefs  at  the  site  ‘Centrale 
Storebælt  og  Vresen’.  Overall  the  proposed  measures  for  the  management  of  reef 
habitats  will  contribute  to  minimising  the  negative  impacts  of  fishing  activities  on  reef 
habitats,  and  to  ensure  that  fisheries  activities  avoid  the  degradation  of  the  marine 
environment as stipulated under Article 2(3) of Regulation 1380/2013.  

STECF  notes  that  fishing  activities  at  the  Natura  2000  sites  considered  in  the  Joint 
Recommendation may cause a threat to species and habitats other than reefs which are 
listed  in  the  sites'  Standard  Data  Forms.  These  include  for  example  harbour  porpoise, 
harbour  and  grey  seals,  seabirds,  sandbanks,  as  well  as  other  marine  habitats.  STECF 
observes  that  ongoing  work  on  harbour  porpoise  bycatch  and  sandbank  impacts  are 
mentioned, but notes that no systematic analysis of fishing impacts on species / habitats 
other  than  reefs  seems  to  have  been  carried  out  when  formulating  the  Joint 
Recommendations,  despite  the  fact  that  the  conservation  objectives  of  the  relevant 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Natura  2000  sites  go  beyond  the  protection  of  reef  habitats.  Several  species  /  habitats 
listed in the site Standard Data Forms are not mentioned when discussing management 
measures  in  the  submitted  proposals.  And  for  those  species  /  habitats  which  are 
mentioned, but for which further work is required before management measures can be 
formulated,  it  remain  unclear  what  is  the  precise  status  of  ongoing  work  as  well  as 
planned  future  activities  STECF  considers  that  this  needs  to  be  addressed  in  order  to 
achieve favourable conservation status of all species and habitats present at the Natura 
2000  sites  under  consideration,  most  of  which  were  designated  'Special  Areas  of 
Conservation' in 2011.    

STECF  considers  that  in  addition  to  the  'consistent  approach  to  request  for  fisheries 
management  measures  under  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy'  which  were  taken  into 
account by the Member States who formulated the Joint Recommendations, the 'common 
methodology  for  assessing  the  impact  of  fisheries  on  marine  Natura  2000  sites'  is 
considered  by  the  Marine  Expert  Group  set  up  by  the  European  Commission  to  support 
the implementation of marine Natura 2000 sites12 to be the best practice approach when 
formulating fisheries management measures under the Common Fisheries Policy. STECF 
notes that although this methodology is not legally binding, it is in line with the relevant 
articles of the Habitats and Birds Directives, and provides guidance on the application of 
existing legal provisions in the context of fisheries in the Natura 2000 network. 

STECF  restates  that  the  control  areas  of  the  Natura  2000  sites  are  small,  which 
complicates  enforcement  and  control.  There  is  a  risk  that  fishing  could  take  place  by 
fishing  vessels  operating  within  the  Natura  2000  sites  for  which  VMS  signals  are  not 
polled every 10 minutes (i.e. fishing vessels from Member States other than Denmark), 
or which are not monitored by VMS at all (i.e. all vessels < 12 meters in length) without 
being detected. STECF thus considers that additional control and enforcement measures 
may be appropriate for such fishing vessels.  

12 (see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm) 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                          
 
5.4 Eastern Bluefin tuna 

Background provided by the Commission 

The  management  of  the  Eastern  Bluefin  tuna  stock  is  under  the  purview  of  the 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). On the basis of 
data  collected  and  provided  by  the  different  CPCs,  the  ICCAT  Standing  Committee  on 
Research and Statistics (SCRS) is asked to release both a scientific advice on the status 
of the stocks and associated management recommendation. 

The stock assessment for eastern Bluefin is scheduled this year between the 20 and 28 
July.  During  a  Data  preparatory  meeting  in  early  March  2017,  scientists  have  identified 
both  data  requirements  and  assessment  methods  to  be  considered  for  this  year  stock 
assessment.  

Unfortunately,  the  focus  will  likely  remain  on  making  stock  projections  using  the  same 
methodology (VPA) which was used during the last full stock assessment in 2014, and for 
which  results  are  characterized  by  significant  uncertainties.  These  uncertainties  are 
linked  to  shortcomings  of  both  the  data  and  the  methodology  and  may  prevent  the 
delivery of clear advice for this important stock. 

ICCAT  Recommendation  14-04  stipulates  that  the  ICCAT  scientific  committee  (SCRS) 
should deliver a new advice in 2016 on the basis of new modelling approaches. However 
the  stock  assessment  was  not  delivered  in  2016  and  it  was  decided  that  an  additional 
year was required to facilitate the development of the new modeling approach. 

In order to improve the advice, some significant progresses have been made in terms of 
the quality of the data. Concerning the methodology, and despite the provisions of ICCAT 
Recommendation  14-04,  in  2017  the  work  plan  for  the  upcoming  assessment  refers 
mainly to the use of VPA and the possibility to explore some additional methods. In order 
to  facilitate  the  delivery  of  a  more  accurate  advice  in  2017,  it  is  therefore  necessary  to 
conduct before July some additional work on the use of alternative modelling approaches 
which could then be fully considered during the stock assessment. 

One  particularly  relevant  approach  would  consist  of  using  a  State  Space  Assessment 
Model. The state-space assessment model (SAM) is an assessment model which is used 
for  several  assessments  within  ICES.  The  model  has  fewer  model  parameters  than  full 
parametric statistical assessment models, with quantities such as recruitment and fishing 
mortality modelled as random effects. 

One  advantage  of  SAM  is  that  it  actually  includes  a  prediction  mechanism,  unlike  VPA 
where the historical estimation is backwards and a variety of additional assumptions have 
to be made for the projections, particularly related to recent year-class strength. 

SAM also has a web based interface which will allow members of the BFT Working Group 
to  be  involved  intersessionally,  to  see  all  details  of  the  implementation,  run  it 
themselves, experiment with data, experiment with model assumptions, get help directly 
where they are (no matter where the helpers are) and also to ensure transparency. 

The  ToRs  concerning  the  support  to  the  EBFT  stock  assessment  have  been  addressed 
through a study conducted by Anders Nielsen and Abdelouahed Ben Mhamed.  

Request to the STECF 

STECF  is  requested  to  review  and  provide  an  opinion  on  the  report  of  the  ad-hoc 
contracts in order to facilitate its use as an input to the ICCAT stock assessment process 
taking place in late July 2017, and in particular if it can offer an alternative to the use of 
VPA and its associated limitations. 

77 

 
 
 
STECF response 

Summary of the ad hoc contract SCRS/2017/146 report 

The TORs of the ad-hoc contract were: 

1.  Apply  the  State  Space  Assessment  Model  (SAM)  of  Anders  Nielsen  to  assess  the 

East Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin stock in 2017; 

2.  Add  the  current  version  of  SAM  to  the  ICCAT  software  catalogue  before  end  of 

April so that it can be used in the 2017 stock assessment; 

3.  Modify  the  likelihood  function  so  that  CPUE  series  used  in  the  VPA2  can  be 

included in SAM; 

4.  Run comparisons between SAM and VPA based on the 2014 assessment dataset. 
In  particular  STECF  should  compare  the  levels  of  uncertainties  between  the 
outputs  from  SAM  and  the  VPA  methodology  used  during  the  2014  stock 
assessment model; 

5.  Set  up  and  run  a  range  of  scenarios  including  diagnostics  following  the 

recommendations of the 2017 data preparatory meeting of ICCAT; 

6.  Develop hindcast procedure to verify the validity of the model by checking how it 

performs as a predicting tool. 

STECF assumes that ToRs 2 and 3 have been performed, the other ToRs are addressed in 
the report.  

In order to answer these TORs the state-space stock assessment model SAM was used as 
an approach to evaluate the impact of uncertainty. The report gives a general description 
of the properties of the SAM model, a brief description of input data sets and scenarios, a 
limited description and analysis of the results and a brief discussion/conclusion.  

To evaluate the robustness of SAM a range of diagnostics (e.g., residual plots, Q-Q plots 
and  retrospective  runs)  were  presented.  The  data  used  were  the  VPA  inputs  from  the 
2014  assessment  and  the  updated  data  available  to  the  Bluefin  working  group  on  the 
22nd  May  2017.  In  total  five  scenarios  were  run  with  SAM  (see  Table  5.4.1).  Based  on 
the  2014  data  set  a  comparison  with  the  VPA2  approach  is  presented.  For  the  different 
scenarios a three-year forecast is also presented.  

The following main conclusions are drawn by the experts: “The comparison between the 
two models using the different scenarios shows that SAM tend to have large confidence 
intervals compared to the VPA2. The comparison shows also that VPA tend to detect an 
increasing pattern in the recent years based on the 2014 dataset. The differences in the 
SSB  and  recruitment  pattern  between  SAM  and  VPA2  could  be  related  to  the  selection 
pattern.  Older  ages  are  more  selected  based  on  SAM  model.  However  the  same  plots 
show  that  younger  ages  are  selected  based  on  VPA2  model.  The  study  shows  that  the 
State-Space  Model  SAM  is  a  powerful  tool  that  can  detect  the  uncertainties  in  the 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
assessment datasets. The presentation of the existing uncertainties makes the provision 
of scientific advice to be more cautious.” 

The report can be found on https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/plen1702. 

Table 5.4.1 Description of the scenarios run with SAM.  

STECF observations on the ad-hoc contract report 

1)  Assessment results  

STECF  notes  that  an  inflated  catch  dataset  updated  to  2017  is  not  presented  in  the 
report. Since inflated catch are considered by the SCRS to be the best dataset, it remains 
unclear  to  STECF  whether  a  new  inflated  dataset  will  be  made  available  to  ICCAT,  or 
whether  the  “revised  reported  catch”  data  set  is  actually  equivalent  to  the  “inflated” 
catch..  

Both  assessment  methods  (VPA2  and  SAM)  and  all  scenarios  tested  show  a  decreasing 
trend  in  fishing  mortality  after  2000.  This  indicates  that  management  was  successful  in 
reducing  fishing  pressure  and  this  conclusion  is  robust  to  the  two  assessment  methods 
and  various  scenarios  tested.  The  SAM  assessments  further  show  a  strong  decrease  in 
the selectivity for younger age groups over time.  

Changes  and  additions  to  the  2014  data  sets  in  2017  seem  to  have  a  large  impact  on 
SAM assessment results. For example, the SAM assessment indicates that the stock is in 
a  low  productivity  phase  when  the  2014  data  set  is  used,  with  recruits  estimated  at  a 
historically low level after 2010. This perception changes when the 2017 data set is used 
as input to the SAM assessment. With this dataset, the median recruitment after 2010 is 
estimated to be at or above the long-term average. This effect can be partly attributed to 
the addition of two more years in the 2017 data set (see notes on retrospective patterns 
below)  but  also  the  data  revisions  and  additions  may  have  an  impact.  Conversely,  the 
median SSB estimated with the 2017 dataset is lower than with the 2014 dataset in most 
of the years. It is unclear whether the difference comes from the shortening of the time 
series  in  the  2017  data  set  (start  year  in  the  2014  data  sets:  1950;  start  year  in  the 
2017 data sets: 1968) or from the revision and addition of input data.  

The comparison of the VPA2 and SAM assessment based on the 2014 data set revealed 
large  differences  in  assessment  results  especially  for  the  years  after  2000.  Although 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
confidence  intervals  are  wide  in  the  SAM  assessments,  the  VPA2  estimates  are  outside 
the  SAM  confidence  intervals  in  several  years  for  various  metrics.  Apart  from  the  years 
before  1960  and  after  2008,  the  VPA2  returns  a  more  pessimistic  assessment,  with  F 
estimated systematically higher and SSB systematically lower compared to SAM.  

In the years after 2010 SSB shows a strong increase in VPA2 while the SAM assessment 
shows  a  much  less  pronounced  increase  until  2013.  STECF  notes  though  that  a  similar 
increase  in  SSB  after  2010  is  nevertheless  identified  by  the  SAM  assessment  with  the 
time  series  updated  in  2017.  This  similarity  indicates  that  although  noisy,  there  is  a 
sufficient signal in the data to indicate that biomass is increasing.  

STECF notes that the VPA2 assessment with the 2017 dataset has not been performed. It 
is  thus  not  possible  to  judge  whether  both  assessment  methods  are  more  in  line  with 
each other after the revision of the input data in 2017. 

2)  assessment diagnostics  

As  also  stated  in  the  report,  STECF  notes  that  the  diagnostics  presented  in  the  report 
indicate  overall  that  residual  patterns  are  not  a  major  issue  in  the  suggested  SAM 
assessments, regardless of the scenario. Nevertheless, some residual patterns are found 
for example in the fit to the larval index from the 2017 data set and to a minor extent for 
ages  11  and  12  in  the  fit  to  the  catch  at  age  data  from  the  2017  data  set.  Residual 
analyses  on  autocorrelation  and  trends  with  fitted  estimates  indicate  further  issues  for 
some fleet and age combinations. The appropriateness of including all CPUE series could 
be investigated further (see below). 

The  difference  in  residual  diagnostics  between  scenarios  appears  to  be  minor  in  most 
cases.  Some  differences  were  found  between  scenario  2  (2014  data  set  with  inflated 
catch) and the other scenarios according to the figures provided in the report. 

STECF  notes  that  there  are  some  retrospective  patterns  in  the  different  SAM  scenarios. 
When using the 2014 input data set, recruitment in the most recent years is consistently 
overestimated,  and  the  whole  time  series  of  SSB  gets  rescaled  dependent  on  the  final 
year of  the  assessment.  This indicates  that the  assessment  is  not fully  stabilised.  Using 
inflated  catch  reduces  the  SSB  scaling  problem  but  does  not  remove  the  retrospective 
pattern  on  recruitment.  When  using  the  2017 
input  data  set,  a  substantial 
underestimation  of  both  recruitment  and  SSB  was  observed  in  the  runs  with  2010  to 
2012 as final year compared to the assessments with 2013 to 2014 as final year. This is 
not unexpected as by definition SAM provide smoother estimates of trends compared to 
assessment methods like VPA that are less robust to noise in the data. 

These observations are robust to the tested changes in natural mortality assumptions.  

3)  Some shortcomings and suggestions for improvement  

Overall,  the  narrative  text  in  the  report  is  rather  short  and  does  not  provide  sufficient 
description and analysis of the results. Additional considerations on how to interpret the 
figures, such as provided by STECF above, would improve the quality of the analysis. In 
addition, standard summary plots including confidence intervals for the SAM assessments 
with the 2017 data set would be useful.  

STECF notes that although the results of the SAM assessments provided look promising, 
the report does not provide basic description of the chosen settings for model parameters 
and  configuration.  Alternative  settings  could  be  explored  to  identify  the  best 
configuration for the most robust assessment.  

80 

 
 
 
 
The  assessments  include  a  large  number  of  CPUE  indices  from  commercial  fleets,  and 
their impact on assessment results might be explored further. According to the report, it 
was  agreed  at  the  data  preparatory  meeting  that  the  fleet  structure  may  require  some 
adjustment from the initial proposal following the examination of model diagnostics, but 
it  remains  unclear  whether  and  how  this  has  been  done.  For  example,  the  influence  of 
each index was tested by removing them from the assessment one at a time (“leave one 
out”  runs).  These  runs  were  not  included  in  the  report  but  STECF  extracted  them  from 
http://stock assessment.org. These shows that for example, the new aerial survey have 
a large influence on the SAM assessment results with the 2017 data set and SSB would 
be  estimated  considerably  lower  in  2015  if  this  index  was  left  out  (Figure  5.4.1).  The 
impact  of  the  various  survey  indices  and  associated  structural  uncertainties  might  be 
undertaken during the ICCAT assessment. 

In  addition,  STECF  underlines  that  tuning  series  in  a  stock  assessment  should  be 
consistent  with  the  spatio-temporal  distribution  of  the  catches  and  of  the  stock.  Some 
CPUEs used in the report are derived from fleets which may not cover the full distribution 
of  the  stock,  such  as  the  fisheries  from  Japan,  US  and  Canada.  The  suitability  of  these 
indices as tuning series should be considered. 

Figure 5.4.1: Leave one out runs for the SAM assessment using the 2017 input data sets 
and no change in natural mortality. 

According  to  the  report,  a  range  of  diagnostic  procedures  were  suggested  at  the  data 
preparatory  meeting.  These  included  residual  plots,  retrospective  analyses,  hindcasting, 
jackknifing and the bootstrap. It was also agreed that steps taken to ensure convergence 
to  global  best  solution  (e.g.,  jitter  starting  values  test  that  different  starting  values 
achieve  the  same  minimum  negative  log-likelihood)  should  be  reported,  and  likelihood 
profiling  of  key  estimated  parameters  should  be  conducted.  In  addition,  parameters 
should  be  reported  with  standard  errors.  STECF  agrees  that  this  comprehensive  list  of 
diagnostics  would  give  a  coherent  picture  of  the  quality  and  robustness  of  the  SAM 
assessments. However, apart from residual plots and retrospective analysis, STECF notes 
that  the  report  does  not  provide  these  additional  diagnostics.  STECF  acknowledges  that 

81 

 
 
   
residual  plots  and  retrospective  analyses  are  the  most  usual  diagnostics  used  to  assess 
the  quality  of  an  assessment;  nevertheless,  the  suggested  additional  diagnostics  would 
provide important information on the robustness of the results presented. 

STECF notes that the analysis and interpretation of the forecast runs remain limited, and 
the ToR 6 on “Develop hind cast procedure to verify the validity of the model by checking 
how it performs as a predicting tool” is thus only partially addressed. 

Finally,  STECF  notes  that  an  important  follow  up  requirement  for  this  work  will  be  the 
estimation and/or the revision of reference points in accordance with the new assessment 
setup. Reference points like FMSY are sensitive to the assessment method used, and thus 
any significant change in the assessment model requires their re-evaluation. This has not 
been  considered  in  the  ToR for the  contract,  but  this work  would have to  be  performed 
during the ICCAT assessment. STECF notes that ICES provides tools like Eqsim that can 
be  used  in  conjunction  with  SAM  or  VPA  assessments  to  estimate  FMSY  (and  sustainable 
ranges) in a fast and efficient way. 

STECF conclusions 

STECF  reviewed  the  latest  version  of  the  report  of  the  ad  hoc  contract.  The  TORs  were 
answered apart from the last TOR (predictive skills), which was addressed only partially. 
STECF considers though this to be a minor issue which does not affect the validity of the 
results  presented.  In  addition,  not  all  recommendations  from  the  data  preparatory 
meeting were followed and a number of shortcomings were identified. Addressing these 
shortcomings  would  further  improve  the  quality  of  the  work  performed  and  would  allow 
for a more  comprehensive evaluation  of  the  robustness  of  the  stock assessment  results 
presented.  

STECF agrees with the general conclusion that the State-Space Model SAM is a powerful 
tool to investigate uncertainties in the assessment datasets. VPA-like assessment models 
usually  assume  some  certainty  in  the  catch  data,  which  may  not  be  the  case.  The 
comparison between the two models across the different scenarios shows that SAM tends 
to  have  larger  confidence  intervals  compared  to  the  VPA2.  SAM  is  considered  to  be  a 
more  robust  assessment  method  especially  when  input  data  are  uncertain,  and  would 
lead  to  more  precautionary  scientific  advice.  STECF  considers  thus  that  SAM  is  a  more 
appropriate alternative than VPA for the assessment of Eastern Bluefin tuna.  

However,  STECF  considers  that  the  assessment  scenarios  presented  here  remain 
exploratory trial runs, and that further analyses would be necessary to identify the most 
robust set of input data, model configuration and selection of CPUE indices time series for 
the final 2017 assessment.  

Finally,  STECF  underlines  the  necessity  to  revise  reference  points  in  2017  if  significant 
changes are brought in the final assessment compared to the 2014 setup. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.5 Effort regime for Mediterranean demersal fisheries 

Background provided by the Commission 

DG  MARE  is  considering  improving  the  fishing  effort  regime  so  far  implemented,  only 
through  the  national  management  plans  (Article  19,  MEDREG),  in  Mediterranean 
demersal  fisheries.  The  new  effort  regime  would  possibly  set  fishing  opportunities  (in 
terms  of  input  controls)  in  accordance  with  the  scientific  advice  of  the  relevant 
fisheries/metiers. 

For this purpose, MARE is seeking advice from the STECF on:  

 

 

two concrete  elements of the possible new effort regime for Mediterranean demersal 
fisheries; and  
the  current  limitations  and  information  needed  (e.g.  data,  modelling)  to  adjust  and 
improve the provision of scientific advice. 

Request to the STECF 

The STECF is requested to: 

1. 
Discuss, comment as adequate and advice whether the settings below are appropriate 
for  the  establishment  of  a  fishing  effort  regime  in  the  western  Mediterranean  demersal 
fisheries, taking into account the availability of data and scientific advice: 

(a) 

Effort unit in term of 'number of fishing days'. 

(b)  Effort groups in term of 'gear type/target species/Member State' (see example for 

the western Mediterranean in Table below). 

(c) 

In  the  case  that  these  settings  are  not  appropriate,  other  alternatives  should  be 
discussed,  commented  as  adequate  and  proposed  for  an  efficient  and  effective 
fishing effort regime. 

Gear type 

Target species 

Member State 

TRAWL  
(continental shelf & upper slope) 

HKE+MUL+DPS+NEP 

France/Italy/Spain 

TRAWL 
(deep-waters) 

NETTERS 

NETTERS 

LONGLINERS 

ARA+ARS 

France/Italy/Spain 

SBS+PAG 

France/Italy/Spain 

HKE 

HKE 

France/Italy/Spain 

France/Italy/Spain 

Give advice on the aspects to be improved in current scientific knowledge to provide, 
2. 
by 2018, commensurate fishing effort levels with respect to the estimated target FMSY, which 
could refer to the less vulnerable stock (equivalent to the highest FMSY), the most vulnerable 
stock (equivalent to the lowest FMSY) or a mixed stocks average. 

83 

 
 
 
 
STECF response 
STECF  considered  that  the  questions  asked  were  very  specific,  directly  looking  at 
particular issues linked to the quantification of effort. STECF is of the opinion that before 
focusing  on  such  implementation  details,  it  is  necessary  to  address  the  intrinsic 
characteristic  s  of  effort  management.  Effort  management  has  been  trialled  and 
implemented  in  various  parts  of  the  world,  and  the  experience  collected  allows 
understanding the pros and cons of effort management, both in general terms and more 
specifically  in  the  context  of  the  Mediterranean.  During the  plenary  meeting,  a dialogue 
was engaged with DGMare on this, and some of the outcomes of this discussion is briefly 
reported below before addressing the ToRs.  

STECF general comments on effort management 

Current effort measures in the Mediterranean 

In  the  Mediterranean  countries,  management  is  mainly  based  on  some  technical 
measures,  with  only  limited  control  of  the  total  level  of  effort  .The  regulations  in  place 
are  mainly  linked  to  area  and  seasonal  closures,  with  the  implementation  of  protected 
areas closed to fishing for the whole year or for certain periods, the seasonal protection 
of nursery areas or spawning areas, and seasonal fishing bans for certain fleets. In some 
management  plans  presented  in  the  past,  the  regulation  of  fishing  effort  levels  were 
mostly  based  on  proposals  for  the  decommissioning  of  vessels,  overall  reductions  in 
fishing  capacity,  but  seldom  on  reduction  in  activity  (e.g.  fishing  days  by  week  or  daily 
hours  of  activity).  The  effectiveness  of  most  of  the  measures  implemented  to  actually 
reduce fishing pressure is not demonstrated, as fishing mortality has remained very high 
for most Mediterranean stocks. This is because measures linked with spatial management 
do  not  necessarily  reduce  the  level  of  effort,  but  often  simply  displace  it  towards  other 
areas. While measures protecting juveniles can ensure that the stocks do not collapse by 
maintaining some productivity, fishing pressure is applied to the adult component of the 
stocks. So reducing fishing mortality towards Fmsy implies reducing this fishing pressure, 
i.e. reducing the total catches of the adult populations.  

The  declared  reductions  in  “overall  fishing  effort”  by  reducing  fleet  capacity  through 
decommissioning  did  not  appear  to  produce  an  effective  reduction  in  fishing  pressure, 
because  decommissioning  schemes  often  first  remove  the  oldest  and  least  efficient 
vessels, some of them being no longer operating.  

TAC vs. effort control 

The definition of maximum catch limits (TAC) during a certain timeframe and for certain 
number of species is a management option that has been widely adopted, particularly in 
most  developed  countries.  Providing  a  TAC  advice  based  on  Fmsy  criteria  is  rather 
straightforward  when  accurate  assessments  exist.  Although  major  progresses  are 
currently  being  achieved  regarding  the  accuracy  and  precision  of  Mediterranean  stock 
assessment,  implementing  TACs  in  the  Mediterranean  remain  challenging  because  the 
available  data  are  not  reliable  enough  as  fisheries  information  is  often  partial  and 
imprecise and time series relatively short.  

There are additional issues linked to the enforcement of a management regime based on 
output  controls  (TACs)  in  the  Mediterranean.  The  main  one  is  the  difficulty  to  monitor 
and control the catches of the numerous fleets spread along the Sea.  Demersal fisheries 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
target  species  mixes  often  without  clear  dominant  species.    Landings  occur  over  an 
extremely high number of ports and landing  places and the fishery is dominated by  the 
small scale fisheries whose catches are difficult to quantify. 

STECF  notes  though  that  the  same  difficulties  would  to  a  large  extent  also  apply  with 
effort control. First of all, STECF underlines that it would be at least as difficult to monitor 
and  control  the  amount  of  effort  exerted  by  a  vessel  as  it  is  to  monitor  and  control  its 
catches,  especially  for  small  vessels.  In  the  Mediterranean,  there  is  a  clear  gap  in 
knowledge  of  where  and  when  do  the  small  vessels  operate,  as  vessels  under  10m  are 
not required to fill in logbooks. STECF notes that this limit is set at 8m in the Baltic Sea. 
Effort  control  would  then  need  to  be  simple  to  implement  and  control  if  it  is  applied  to 
vessels without logbooks.  

Relationship between fishing effort and fishing mortality 

It would be necessary to estimate a desirable level of fishing effort consistent with 
the management objectives based on yields (e.g. MSY) or in certain limits based 
on fishing mortality rates. Even when reliable formal assessments are carried out, 
the relationship between fishing effort (e.g. in fishing days) with FMSY is not linear 
and is difficult to assess and predict. The impact of each unit of effort (one fishing 
day) on the target species differ not only between fleets, metiers and gears, but 
also  between  two  fishers  with  the  same  type  of  vessel,  and  between  two  fishing 
trips  of  the  same  vessel.  This  relationship  has  been  extensively  studied  also  in 
data-rich areas (cf e.g. Marchal et al. 2006, 2007; Mahevas et al., 2011, Ulrich et 
al.,  2012,  Kraak  et  al.,  2013),  but  with  only  limited  success.  Obviously,  if  effort 
reduces  a  lot  so  will  fishing  mortality,  but  the  effects  of  limited  reductions  are 
likely  small.  The  co-occurrence  of  many  species  characterised  by  different  life 
history  traits  in  the  exploited  fish  assemblages  makes  this  further  difficult, 
because different species are impacted differently by the effort, depending on the 
catchability.  

Overcapitalisation and input substitution 

Effort  regimes  are  in  fisheries  economics  generally  characterized  as  inefficient  with  an 
incentive structure leading to overcapitalisation (FAO 2016). Limiting the time allowed to 
fish leads to an investment in equipment to catch more fish at the same amount of time. 
Seminal  papers,  as  Squires  (1987),  Kompas  et  al.  (2004),  or  Da  Rocha  et  al  (2016)  in 
the Mediterranean, show that policies based on input control lead then to a fishery with 
more  fishing  firms  with  lower  productivity,  and  overcapitalization.  Therefore,  the  effort 
needs to be adjusted regularly to take the improvement in efficiency into account. 

On an already overcapitalized fishery the introduction of a management system based on 
input controls generates additional incentives for increased overcapitalization. The values 
of  these  overcapitalization  differ  on  how  expectations  of  fishers  are  considered.  Under 
rational  expectations  the  source  of  this  overcapacity  is  based  on  the  existence  of 
imperfect  markets  (fisher  do  not  have  a  market  to  insure  the  risk  derived  from  the 
natural and management induced variability – as they can not judge what the future will 
hold they would need some kind of insurance to minimize the risks). In this situation, the 
less productive vessels stay in the fishery and pay the idling cost to wait for better times, 
which  reduces  the  average  factor  productivity  of  the  fleet.  The  result  of  input  controls, 
will  be  that  more  vessels  with  reduced  efficiency  are  required  to  achieve  the  same 
biological targets, compared to non-distortionary instruments limiting the catch/landings 
(i.e ITQs). This all implies an overcapitalized fleet. 

From  the  total  factor  productivity  point  of  view,  it  should  be  also  noted  that  an  input-

85 

 
 
based  management  system  can  substitute  regulated  inputs  (i.e  vessel  power)  by 
unregulated  ones  (i.e.  gear  headrope  length)  (Wilen,  1979)  which  could  potentially 
decrease  technical  efficiency  of  the  vessels,  as  shown  in  the  Australia's  banana  prawn 
fishery (Kompas et al., 2004). For example, if vessels below 12 m are not regulated all 
fishers will invest in vessels with a length of 11.99 m.  

Finally,  it  should  be  also  added  that  fishers  see  also  fishing  not  simply  as  an  economic 
activity.  For  many  it  is  more  a  way  of  living  and,  therefore,  they  also  stay  in  a  fishery 
although they have a comparable low income. 

Effort management in mixed-fisheries 

It  is  well  established  that  most  of  the  commercial  resources  in  the  area  are  heavily 
exploited  and  need  a  strong  reduction  of  removals  (total  catches)  in  order  to  make  the 
stocks  sustainable.  Therefore,  if  such  reduction  is  to  take  though  effort  control  rather  
than TAC, effective and significant reduction of fishing effort (i.e. a reduction of the total 
number  of  fishing  days)  would  need  to  be  considered,  rather  than  further  reduction  of 
fleet capacity through decommissioning or additional spatio-temporal technical measures. 
STECF  notes  however  that  such  decision  may  have  important  impacts  under  a  socio-
economic  point  of  view  and  will  trigger  unpredictable  changes  in  fishers’  behaviour  that 
could  jeopardize  the  success  of  any  enforced  measure.  A  generalized  fishing  effort 
reduction  may  also  penalize  certain  fractions  of  the  fleets  which  are  exploiting  more 
sustainable stocks.  

STECF notes that the implementation of a management based on a fishing effort regime 
is  difficult  also  because  assessments  on  exploitation  status  are  not  available  for  many 
stocks. Only these few stocks are currently considered in the plans for the identification 
of the necessary measures for the sustainable exploitation of the stock assemblages. The 
choices are based on  the assumption that the status of this limited number of stocks is  
sufficiently representative of the general status of the whole stock assemblage and also 
that  their  evolution  under  alternative  management  measures  will  be  similar  to  the 
expected evolution of the other not-assessed stocks.  

The success of an effort-based management for mixed-fisheries single-species objectives 
may  not  be  reached  if  not  considered  the  differences  in  the  stocks  dynamics.  A  single 
effort limit applied to all fleets in a management area needs to ensure sustainability and 
high  revenues,  but  may  produce  under-exploitation  or  over-exploitation  of  some  stocks 
(Maravelias et al., 2012). 

There  are  many  other  important  considerations  regarding  the  relative  pros  and  cons  of 
effort  control  versus  TACs,  and  there  are  also  important  lessons  to  be  drawn  from 
experiences with effort regimes in other areas; but providing a full and synthesis of this 
knowledge goes beyond the work achievable during a plenary session. STECF remains at 
disposal for providing a more comprehensive overview at a later stage. 

STECF comments to the ToRs 

1. Discuss, comment as adequate and advice whether the settings below are appropriate 
for  the  establishment  of  a  fishing  effort  regime  in  the  western  Mediterranean  demersal 
fisheries, taking into account the availability of data and scientific advice:  

(a) Effort unit in term of 'number of fishing days'. 

86 

 
 
 
STECF notes that the number of fishing days is  a standard measure of fishing effort for 
trawlers, but it is usually not a very precise estimate of the actual fishing pressure, not 
least due to the observed differences in daily effective fishing duration (hours fishing by 
day,  and  time  fishing  vs.  time  steaming  etc)  among  port,  countries  or  regions  which 
should be included in the same Management unit. 

Additionally, fishing days do not account for differences between small and large vessels. 
STECF  notes  that  nominal  fishing  effort  is  thus  often  expressed  as  the  product  of  some 
capacity measure and fishing activity. For example KwDays have been used in the effort 
control  for  the  EU  cod  management  plan.  This  can  improve  the  relationship  between 
fishing  effort  and  fishing  mortality  (Marchal  et  al.,  2002)  but  is  still  not  sufficient,  as 
fishing power is determined by many other characteristics. Moreover, different and more 
complex  functional  relationships  may  apply  for  each  stock  according  to  their 
characteristics (Rijnsdorp et al., 2005). 

STECF  also  notes  that  the  number of  fishing  days  as  a  proper  measure  of  effort  and  of 
ability of a vessel to capture fish is not the more suitable for other gears. In these other 
gears  the  efficiency  of  the  capture  is  mostly  depending  on  the  number  of  gears  each 
vessel  uses  in  a  fishing  trip,  the  number  and  size  of  the  set  nets,  the  number  of  set 
hooks, the soaking time, etc.  

STECF considers that as the relationship between fishing effort and fishing mortality rate 
F varies depending to the stock and other variables, the choice of proper effort measures 
is critical and may undermine the ability of a management plan based on a fishing effort 
regime to effectively control F. 

(b) Effort groups in term of 'gear type/target species/Member State' (see example 
for the western Mediterranean in Table 5.5.1 below).  

Table 5.5.1. Effort groups in western Mediterranean  

Gear type  
TRAWL  (continental  shelf 
& upper slope)  
TRAWL (deep-waters)  
NETTERS  
NETTERS  
LONGLINERS  

Target species  
HKE+MUL+DPS+NEP  

Member State  
France/Italy/Spain  

ARA+ARS  
SBS+PAG  
HKE  
HKE  

France/Italy/Spain  
France/Italy/Spain  
France/Italy/Spain  
France/Italy/Spain  

STECF notes that the level of aggregation of fisheries/stocks defined for the collection of 
data and for giving management advice named “continental shelf & upper slope” fisheries 
has  been  adopted  over  all  the  Mediterranean  GSAs  in  the  frame  of  the  European  Data 
Collection Frame. STECF observes that it includes a great variety of stocks and may not 
be  appropriate  for  effort  management.  The  defined  aggregation  includes  different 
fisheries  operating  at  different  depths  and  targeting  different  stock  assemblages  with 
fairly  different  species  composition.  As  an  example,  in  the  NW  Mediterranean,  Mullus 
barbatus  is  mainly  caught  by  trawlers  in  coastal  areas  at  depths  <100m    with  octopus, 
mantis  shrimp,  cuttlefish  as  the  main  targets  and  also  by  artisanal  fisheries  operating 
close  to  the  coast.  Over  a  deeper  depth  range,  mainly  in  the  range  100-250m  Rose 
shrimp is caught with hake. A fishery targeting Nephrops norvegicus operate in the depth 
range  250-400m  with  other  octopus  spp.,  squids,  Scyliorhinidae  as  accompanying 
species.  A  fleet  operating  on  the  slope  in  depths  between  500  and  1000m  target  red 
shrimps. This last fishery have been kept separated to the so-called “continental shelf & 

87 

 
 
 
upper slope” fisheries, but still remains problems for assign the target of one fishing trip 
to red shrimps.  

STECF  notes  that  the  aggregation  defined  in  the  data  collection  framework  was  initially 
mainly  based  on  economic  considerations  and  due  to  practical  sampling  issues.  STECF 
considers  that  in  the  case  a  management  plan  based  on  fishing  effort    regime  for  the 
main stocks is planned, there is the need of a more disaggregated information as it will 
allow a more realistic and useful quantification of effort partitioning. STECF considers that 
In  the  present  conditions,  we  are  not  able  to  quantify  specific  effort  for  single  stocks 
assemblages nor to define, based on the current allocation of fishing effort and status of 
the  different  exploited  assemblages,  the  changes  in  fishing  pressure  needed  for  driving 
stocks to better status.  
However, disaggregation may lead to other type of issues. The imposition of a reduction 
of effort on some stock/assemblage in some area/depth may produce opportunistic shifts 
in effort allocation of part of the fleet on other resources/areas in the case in such other 
areas effort is not limited.  

2)  In  the  case  that  these  settings  are  not  appropriate,  other  alternatives  should  be 
discussed,  commented  as  adequate  and  proposed  for  an  efficient  and  effective  fishing 
effort regime.  

STECF  identified  as  an  alternative  to  the  existing  aggregation,  a  more  detailed 
disaggregation  for  the  group  called  “continental  shelf  &  upper  slope”  over  all  the 
Mediterranean.  Such  disaggregation  should  consider  3  areas/depth  intervals  where 
different fisheries target different fish assemblages: coastal area up to 100m, continental 
shelf (100-200 m) and upper slope (250-400m).  

STECF also considers that it is necessary to assess exploitation status of more stocks per 
gear  type/target  species/Member  State  aimed  at  defining  the  more  adequate  fishing 
effort levels for the whole species assemblages  

3. Give advice on the aspects to be improved in current scientific knowledge to provide, 
by  2018,  commensurate  fishing  effort  levels  with  respect  to  the  estimated  target  FMSY, 
which could refer to the less vulnerable stock (equivalent to the  highest FMSY), the most 
vulnerable stock (equivalent to the lowest FMSY) or a mixed stocks average.  

STECF stresses the need for better data on age structure of the catches and longer catch 
time  series  for  carrying  out  assessments  for  an  enlarged  list  of  stocks.  These  stocks 
should  be  selected  based  on  different  aspects  as  they  should  represent  different  life 
strategies,  different  velocity  of  response  to  alternative  management  choices,  to  have 
different commercial importance, etc.   

The choice of optimal fishing effort levels for stocks should be based, when possible, on 
formal  assessments  of  the  current  exploitation  status  and  in  the  case  of  stocks  with 
limited  data,  using  sound  indicators  of  stock  status.  STECF  stress  that  is  necessary  to 
make  available  detailed  data  on  the  vessels  daily  operations  (areas  and  targets)  using 
VMS  information,  logbooks,  interviews,  or  other  sources  for  effort  partitioning  among 
exploited stock assemblages.  

STECF  notes  that  is  impossible  to  define  a  single  adequate  effort  level  for  all  stocks  as 
large  differences  in  catchability  and  stock  status  across  stocks.  In  any  case,  trade-offs 
would have to be made between the most and the least overexploited stocks, if a unique 
effort  level  is  to  be  applied.  STECF  notes  that  the  elements  used  for  defining  a 
desirable/commensurate  effort  level  can  be  based  on  the  status  of  the  less  vulnerable 
stock  or  based  on  the  status  of  the  most  valuable  stocks  or  through  a  mixed  stocks 
status average.  Scientists may show the likely consequences of different choices but the 

88 

 
 
 
 
final decision will have to be made by managers based on biological, social and economic 
considerations.  

STECF considers that it is unlikely that for 2018 it will be reached the planned objectives 
based  on  MSY  considerations.  The  current  exploitation  status  for  most  of  the  exploited 
resources  is  too  high  and  a  drastic  reduction  of  fishing  effort  would  be  necessary. 
Assuming a relationships between fishing effort and fishing mortality (even if not linear) 
would  mean  that  effort  should  be  reduced  by  at  least  the  same  proportion  as  the 
expected reduction in fishing mortality. Such a 1-to-1 relationship has for example been 
applied in the EU cod plan 1352/2008. Even in the case a drastic reduction is enforced, 
stocks will need many years to recover to more sustainable levels  

STECF  considers  that  additional  regulations  such  as  closed  areas  or  fishing  seasons  can 
only  have  an  effect  is  the  overall  amount  of  catches  is  reduced.  Spatial  management 
affect selection  and  size  composition  but  does  not  necessarily  reduce fishing  effort.  The 
decision to close an area to fishing can though also justified by a desire to restrict vessel 
efficiency.  Such  closures  would  be  defined  in  areas  with  high  catch  rates  and  where 
vulnerable  ages  are  found.  Any  measure  aimed  at  restricting  efficiency  will  though 
produce a reduced profitability.  

Modelling may help define the more sound management measures based in effort, some 
scenarios  of  management  setting  fishing  effort  regimes  for  a  certain  number  of  stocks 
(i.e.  at  different  levels  of  area  aggregation  or  considering  a  variable  number  of 
interacting  stocks)  can  be  simulated.    It  is  for  example  possible  to  measure  the  ability, 
following  alternative  choices,  to  meet  the  management  needs  based  on  the  available 
scientific perception of stock status.  STECF stresses that in the Mediterranean, however, 
it  is  not  possible  to  compare  likely  performances  and  advantages  of  TAC  based 
managements against effort based or particular combinations of  individual TACS as was 
already  done  in  other  areas  (Baudron  et  al.  2010,  Zeller  &  Reinert,  2004,  Kraak  et  al, 
2004 and others).  

Other  simulations  should  be  related  to  the  consequences  of  alternative  management 
choices (management based on the more biologically weak species, aimed at optimizing 
total yields, to prioritize the more valuable stocks or others). A potential idea that could 
be investigated further in the Mediterranean is the implementation of tariffs-based RTIs 
(Real-Time  Incentives),  where  different  “effort  tariffs”  apply  in  different  areas  and 
seasons (Kraak et al., 2015), 

STECF conclusions 

Effort  management  has  been  well  studied  in  other  areas,  and  there  are  a  number  of 
characteristics  that  may  be  discussed  with  managers  before  implementation  in  the 
Mediterranean Sea. A major difficulty foreseen is the poor monitoring and documentation 
of the actual effort levels of a large fraction of the fleet.  

The  relationship  between  fishing  effort  and  fishing  mortality  is  not  linear,  as  there  are 
many technical and human factors that govern the impact of one unit of fishing (e.g. one 
day)  on  the  exploited  stocks,  and  fishers  can  also  compensate  effort  reductions  with 
increased fishing efficiency. Therefore reductions of fishing mortality cannot be obtained 
with  small  adjustments  in  the  fishing  effort,  and  larger  reductions  would  be  necessary 
before observing measurable effects. 

The measurement of fishing effort and the choice of the appropriate unit of measurement 
Nominal effort expressed as capacity x activity is a usual but still unprecise unit. Days at 
sea  is  also  little  appropriate  for  small  vessels  with  set  gears,  as  vessels  may  bring  on 
board and utilize during a single trip different types and numbers of gears or to leave set 
fishing gears for several days 

89 

 
 
 
The  criteria  for  aggregation  of  the  stocks/areas  has  to  be  revised  to  account  for  more 
realistic fishing patterns. The definition of a sound effort management unit depends on a 
good  definition  of  stock  boundaries  and  good  information  on  catch  composition,  which 
may be lacking. 

It  is  advisable  to  consider  the  feasibility  and  the  respective  pros  and  cons  of  output 
control measures (TAC) vs. effort control in the different fisheries.  

Spatio-temporal  measures  aimed  e.g.  at  the  protection  of  juveniles  or  spawning 
aggregations  may  be  useful  but  are  not  sufficient  to  reduce  fishing  mortality  on  adult 
populations.  

Finally, STECF stresses that the feasibility of effort management in the Mediterranean is a 
complex  issue  that  cannot  be  fully  addressed  within  the  frame  of  an  STECF  plenary. 
STECF  encourages  further  dialogue  with  stakeholders,  regional  states  and  scientists 
regarding the potential efficiency of a diversity of management measures.  

References 

Baudron,  A.,  Ulrich,  C.,  Nielsen,  J.  R.,  and  Boje,  J.  2010.  Comparative  evaluation  of  a 
mixed-fisheries  effort-management  system  based  on  the  Faroe  Islands  example.  – 
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1036–1050. 

Da-Rocha,  J.  M.,  Prellezo,  R.,  Sempere,  J.,  &  Antelo,  L.  T.  (2016). Fleet  dynamics  and 
capital  malleability (No.  2016-09).  El  Colegio  de  México,  Centro  de  Estudios 
Económicos 

FAO (2016). Effort rights in fisheries management – General principles and case studies 

from around the world. Rome (FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture proceedings 34). 

Hartman J.L., Sands N.J. 1999. A simulation model to assess management and allocation 
alternatives  in  Multi-Stock  Pacific  Salmon  Fisheries.  (in)  Sustainable  Fisheries 
Management  Pacific  Salmon  Knudsen  E, Cleveland  R.  Steward, Donald  D. 
MacDonald, Jack  E.  Williams  and Dudley  W.  Reiser(eds)  eBook  ISBN:  978-1-4398-
2267-8. 

Hegland, T.J., Hopkins, C., 2014. Towards a new fisheries effort management system for 
the  Faroe  Islands?  -  Controversies  around  the  meaning  of  fishing  sustainability. 
Marit. Stud. 13, 12. doi:10.1186/s40152-014-0012-7 

Í  Jákupsstovu,  S.H.,  Cruz,  L.R.,  Maguire,  J.J.,  Reinert,  J.,  2007.  Effort  regulation  of  the 
demersal  fisheries  at  the  Faroe  Islands:  A  10-year  appraisal,  in:  ICES  Journal  of 
Marine Science. pp. 730–737. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsm057 

Kompas,  T.,  Che  T.N., and  Grafton  Q.R.,  “Technical  Efficiency  Effects  of  Input  Controls: 
Evidence from Australia’s Banana Prawn Fishery,” Applied Economics, 2004, 36 (15), 
1631–1641. 

Kraak  B.M.,  Buisman  F.C.,  Dickey-Collas  M.  ,  Poos  J.J.  ,  Pastoors  M.A.  ,  Smit  J.G.P.  , 
Daan  N.    and  Kell  L.T.  2004.  How  can  we  manage  mixed  fisheries?  A  simulation 
study  of  the  effect  of  management  choices  on  the  sustainability  and  economic 
performance of a mixed fishery ICES CM 2004/FF:11. 

Kraak, S.B.M., Bailey, N., Cardinale, M., Darby, C., De Oliveira, J.A.A., Eero, M., Graham, 
N.,  Holmes,  S.J.,  Jakobsen,  T.,  Kempf,  A.,  Kirkegaard,  E.,  Powell,  J.,  Scott,  R.D., 
Simmonds,  E.J.,  Ulrich,  C.,  Vanhee,  W.,  Vinther,  M.,  2013.  Lessons  for  fisheries 
management 
from  the  EU  cod  recovery  plan.  Mar.  Policy  37,  200–213. 
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.002 

90 

 
 
 
Kraak, S.B.M., Reid, D.G., Bal, G., Barkai, A., Codling, E.A., Kelly, C.J., Rogan, E., 2015. 
RTI  (“Real-Time  Incentives”)  outperforms  traditional  management  in  a  simulated 
mixed  fishery  and  cases  incorporating  protection  of  vulnerable  species  and  areas. 
Fish. Res. 172, 209–224. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2015.07.014 

Mahévas, S., Vermard, Y., Hutton, T., Iriondo, A., Jadaud, A., Maravelias, C.D., Punzón, 
A., Sacchi, J., Tidd, A., Tsitsika, E., Marchal, P., Goascoz, N., Mortreux, S., Roos, D., 
2011. An investigation of human vs. technology-induced variation in catchability for 
a  selection  of  European  fishing  fleets.  ICES  J.  Mar.  Sci.  68,  2252–2263. 
doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsr150 

Maravelias,  C.D.,  Damalas,  D.,  Ulrich,  C.,  Katsanevakis,  S.,  Hoff,  A.,  2012.  Multispecies 
fisheries  management  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea:  Application  of  the  Fcube 
methodology. 
doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2400.2011.00801.x 

Fish.  Manag. 

189–199. 

Ecol. 

19, 

Marchal,  P.,  2002.  A  comparison  of  three  indices  of  fishing  power  on  some  demersal 
604–623. 

J.  Mar. 

ICES 

Sea. 

Sci. 

59, 

fisheries 
the  North 
doi:10.1006/jmsc.2002.1215 

of 

Marchal,  P.,  Andersen,  B.,  2006.  Improving  the  definition  of  fishing  effort  for  important 
European  fleets  by  accounting  for  the  skipper  effect.  Can.  J.  Fish.  Aquat.  Sci.  63, 
510–533. doi:10.1139/F05-238 

Marchal,  P.,  Andersen,  B.,  Caillart,  B.,  Eigaard,  O.,  Guyader,  O.,  Hovgaard,  H.,  Iriondo, 
A.,  Le  Fur,  F.,  Sacchi,  J.,  Santurtún,  M.,  2007.  Impact  of  technological  creep  on 
fishing  effort  and  fishing  mortality,  for  a  selection  of  European  fleets.  ICES  J.  Mar. 
Sci. 64, 192–209. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsl014 

Pascoe,  S.,  Robinson,  C.,  1998.  Input  Controls,  Input  Substitution  and  Profit 
Maximisation  in  the  English  Channel  Beam  Trawl  Fishery.  Agric.  Econ.  49,  16–33. 
doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1998.tb01249.x 

Rijnsdorp  A,  Daan  N,  and  Dekker  W.  2005  Partial  fishing  mortality  per  fishing  trip:  a 
useful indicator of effective fishing effort in mixed demersal fisheries. ICES Journal of 
Marine Science, 63: 556e566 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.10.003 

Squires,  D.,  “Public  Regulation  and  the  Structure  of  Production  in  Multiproduct  Indus- 
tries:  An  Application  to  the  New  England  Otter  Trawl  Industry,”  RAND  Journal  of 
Economics, 1987, 18 (2), 232–247. 

Ulrich,  C.,  Wilson,  D.C.K.,  Nielsen,  J.R.,  Bastardie,  F.,  Reeves,  S.  a.,  Andersen,  B.S., 
Eigaard,  O.R.,  2012.  Challenges  and  opportunities  for  fleet-  and  métier-based 
approaches  for  fisheries  management  under  the  European  Common  Fishery  Policy. 
Ocean Coast. Manag. 70, 38–47. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.06.002 

Wilen,  J.,  “Fisherman  Behavior  and  the  Design  of  Efficient  Fisheries  Regulation  Pro- 
grammes,” Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 1979, 36, 855–858. 

Zeller  D,  Reinert  J  2004  Modelling  spatial  closures  and  fishing  effort  restrictions  in  the 

Faroe Islands marine ecosystem Ecological Modelling 172 (2004) 403–420 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.6 Management Plan for small pelagics fishery using purse seine net "srdelara" 
(Republic of Croatia) 

Background provided by the Commission 

Under  Article  19  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006  (hereafter  referred  to  as 
"MEDREG"13),  Member  States  shall  adopt  management  plans  for  fisheries  conducted  by 
trawl  nets,  boats  seines,  shore  seines,  surrounding  nets  and  dredges  within  their 
territorial waters. Measures to be included shall pursue a sustainable exploitation of the 
marine biological resources while minimizing the impact on marine ecosystems. 

According to paragraph 5 of Article 19 of the Mediterranean Regulation, the measures to 
be included in the management plan shall be proportionate to the objectives, the targets 
and the expected time frame and shall have regard to: 

a)  the conservation status of the stock or stocks;  
b)  the biological characteristics of the stock or stocks; 
c)  the characteristics of the fisheries in which the stocks are caught; 
d)  the economic impact of the measures on the fisheries concerned. 

In 2013, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP14) introduced new elements for conservation 
such as the target of maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate (MSY) for all the stocks 
by 2020 at the latest, the landing obligation and the regionalisation approach. 

In  line  with  these  two  regulations,  the  plans  shall  be  based  on  scientific,  technical  and 
economic  advice,  and  shall  contain  conservation  measures  to  restore  and  maintain  fish 
stocks  above  levels  capable  of  producing  maximum  sustainable  yield  or  MSY.  Where 
targets relating to the MSY (e.g. fishing mortality at MSY) cannot be determined,  owing 
to  insufficient  data,  the  plans  shall  provide  for  measures  based  on  the  precautionary 
approach, ensuring at least a comparable degree of conservation of the relevant stocks. 

The  plans  may  also  contain  specific  conservation  measures  based  on  the  ecosystem 
approach to achieve the objectives set. In particular, they may incorporate any measure 
included  in  the  following  list  to  limit  fishing  mortality  and  the  environmental  impact  of 
fishing  activities:  limiting  catches,  fixing  the  number  and  type  of  fishing  vessels 
authorized  to  fish,  limiting  fishing  effort,  adopting  technical  measures  (structure  of 
fishing  gears,  fishing  practices,  areas/period  of  fishing  restriction,  minimum  size, 
reduction  of  impact  of  fishing  activities  on  marine  ecosystems  and  non-target  species), 
establishing  incentives  to  promote  more  selective  fisheries,  conduct  pilot  projects  on 
alternative types of fishing management techniques, etc. 

A national management plan addressing, in particular, fisheries harvesting stocks shared 
amongst  different  countries  shall  inevitably  take  into  account  the  overall  supranational 
context in terms of scientific basis, of already existing conservation/control measures as 
well as of opportunities and constraints stipulated by the decision making process. 

13  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006  of  21  December  2006  concerning  management  measures  for  the 
sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, amending Regulation (EEC) No 
2847/93 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1626/94. OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 11–85 

14 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy,  amending  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  1954/2003  and  (EC)  No  1224/2009 
and  repealing  Council  Regulations  (EC)  No  2371/2002  and  (EC)  No  639/2004  and  Council  Decision 
2004/585/EC.  OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22–61 

92 

 
 
                                          
 
Croatia  has  recently  submitted  a  revised  national  "Management  Plan  for  small  pelagic 
fishery  using  purse  seine  net  'sredlara'  "  with  a  view  to  align  it  to  the  goals  set  by  the 
Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 for reaching the MSY by 2020 as well as those related to 
the landing obligation. All data on fleet and catches should have been updated including 
also the socio-economic analysis based on the DCF data. 

During  recent  years,  Croatia  has  submitted  various  draft  management  plans  to  the 
European  Commission  (EC).  The  STECF  has  provided  advice  in  four  occasions  (in  April 
2016, in July 2016, in October 2016 and in March 2017) 

Request to the STECF  

1.  STECF  is  requested  to  review  the  scientific  basis  of  the  abovementioned  revised 
Management  Plan,  to  evaluate  its  findings  and  make  appropriate  comments  with 
respect  to  conservation/management  measures  proposed  therein  from  the  point  of 
view,  particularly,  of  their  conformity  with  the  conservation  and  management 
requirements/objectives  stipulated  by  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006 
("MedReg") and by the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 while taking into account the 
relevant  provisions  adopted  by  the  General  Fisheries  Commission 
for  the 
Mediterranean (GFCM). 

2.  In the event that the scientific/technical basis or the management measures are not 
sufficient  or  consistent,  the  STECF  shall  provide  recommendations  on  the  additional 
information  needed  and  on  the  likely  mitigation/adaptation  measures  to  address  the 
drawbacks identified.  

  More specifically, STECF is requested to  advice, and comment as adequate, whether 
the  management  plan  contains  satisfactory  elements/measures  and  scientifically 
sound comments/interpretations in terms of: 
−  The biological characteristics and the state of exploited resources with reference in 
particular  to  long-term  yields  and  low  risk  of  stock  collapse.  Specific  advice  and 
comment is requested on 

o  which  biological  conservation  and  management  indications  can  be  drawn 

from data and information reported in Section 11? 

o  Whether the provisions stipulated by the Article 13.3 of Council Regulation 
(EC)No  1967/2006  could  serve  the  conservation  scope,  other  than  the 
protection  of  the  sea  bed  habitats,  of  protecting  spawning  and  nursery 
grounds  in  coastal  areas  where  spawners  of  both  anchovy  and  sardine 
migrate as reported in section 11 

o  whether  the  sardine  and  anchovy  must  be  considered  short-lived  species 

taking into account their expected life-span?  

o  Whether there are scientifically well-known examples of fish stocks without 
parental  care  where  the  recruitment  strength  is  mostly  independent  from 
the environmental factors? 

o  Coherence of analysis reported in the section on the "Status of the stocks" 

with respect to the information provided in graphs 10 & 11 

−  The  description  of  the  fishing  pressure  and  the  measures  to  accomplish  a 

sustainable exploitation of the main target stocks; 

−  The data on catches, effort and catches/landing per unit of effort (CPUE-LPUE), as 
well as the biological reference points ensuring the conservation of the concerned 
stocks:  

o  Specific advice and comment is requested on the LPUE reported in table 10 
and whether such metric could be considered a good indicator of the status 
of exploited stocks providing indication of some positive trend.  

93 

 
 
 
−  The  catch  composition  in  terms  of  size  distribution,  with  particular  reference  to 
the percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with 
Annex III of the Mediterranean Regulation; 

−  The potential impact of the fishing gear on the marine environment with particular 
interest on protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl 
bed); 

−  The social and economic impact of the measures proposed; 

  The scientific monitoring of the plan; 

−  Objectives that are consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 and with the 

relevant provisions of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; 

−  Quantifiable  targets  such  as  fishing  mortality  rates  and/or  spawning  stock 

biomass; 

−  Clear time-frames to reach the quantifiable targets; 
−  Conservation reference points consistent with the objectives set out in Article 2 of 

Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; 

−  Objectives  for  conservation  and  technical  measures  to  be  taken  in  order  to 
achieve  the  targets  set  out  in  Article  15  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013,  and 
measures designed to avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches; 
−  Safeguards to ensure that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial action, 
where  needed,  including  for  situations  where  the  deteriorating  quality  of  data  or 
non-availability put the sustainability of the main stocks of the fishery at risk; 
−  Other  conservation  measures,  in  particular  measures  to  gradually  eliminate 
discards,  taking  into  account  the  best  available  scientific  advice,  or  to  minimise 
the negative impact of fishing on the ecosystem; 

−  Quantifiable  indicators  for  periodic  monitoring  and  assessment  of  progress  in 

achieving the targets of the management plan. 

STECF response 

STECF notes that some of the given ToRs were beyond the scope of the usual evaluation 
of  similar  management  plans  and  were  not  entirely  clear.  These  have  been  discussed 
with  the  Commission,  and  after  clarification  it  has  been  agreed  to  restrict  the  STECF 
evaluation to the standard review of the elements of the plan.  

STECF comments on the information provided  

The submitted document (first submission in April 2017, re-submission with amendments 
in July 2017) is a revision of the national management plan for the “srdelara” purse seine 
(the Croatian purse seine targeting sardine) which was adopted in 29 May 2014.  

The fleet involved consists of 249 vessels with total tonnage 18538 GT and engine power 
77146  kW.  The  licences  (249)  for  “srdelara”  were  authorised  in  2014  to  vessels  with 
minimum activity of 20 fishing days with this net during the period from 1 July 2009 to 
30 June 2014. The total number and capacity of vessels that are active in the “srdelara” 
fishery  varies  from  year  to  year  because  certain  of  the  authorised  vessels  may  not  use 
“srdelara”  in  a  particular  year  as  the  vessels  are  also  authorized  to  use  other  fishing 
gears.  

STECF  notes  that  the  information  presented  in  the  plan  concerning  the  composition  of 
catches  and  discards  and  corresponding  fish  sizes  remains  rather  incomplete  and 
fragmented  and  does  not  provide  a  clear  overview  of  the  impact  of  that  fleet.  In 
particular the plan provides the following data: 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
−  Total  landings  of  the  purse  seine  “srdelara”  (65552  t,  which  was  99%  of  the 
landings  of  all  Croatian  purse  seines)  and  their  composition  (78%  sardine,  19% 
anchovy, 3% other) are only provided for 2015. 

−  Total  landings  of  sardines,  anchovies  and  unsorted  (anchovy  +  sardine)  small 
pelagic  fish  are  presented  for  2014  and  2015  regardless  of  the  gear  used  (not 
specifically for “srdelara”). It is though stated that the landings of anchovies and 
sardines  attributable  to  other  purse  seines  (not  “srdelara”)  in  2015  represented 
the 0.06% of total catches of these species, so STECF considers that it might have 
been possible and preferable to present all information for “srdelara” only.  

−  Data  are  presented  for  2015  concerning  the  number  of  fishing  vessels,  GT, 
number of fishing days, landings, value of  landings, including landings and value 
of landings of sardine, anchovy and unsorted small pelagic fish for all purse seines 
(not  specifically  for  “srdelara”)  per  vessel  length  category  (6-12,  12-18,  18-24, 
24-40, >40m). 

−  Landings per unit effort (days x GT) per vessel length category are presented for 

the years 2013, 2014 and 2015, which does not allow an analysis of trends. 

−  Landings of sardines and anchovies in Croatia are presented for the period 1975-

2015. 

−  Bycatch composition of “srdelara” is only presented from a research study carried 

out in 2011. 

−  The plan includes information on the mean length of the fish, the parameter b of 
the length-weight relationship and the age composition of catches for anchovy and 
sardine caught in the period 2000-2015. 

The plan contains several additional information. 

In  a  chapter  entitled  “Socio-economic  indicators”,  data  on  effort,  capacity,  prices, 
employment, salaries and a suite of economic variables and indicators are presented for 
the  period  2012-2014  per  vessel  length  category  (6-12,  12-18,  18-24,  24-40), 
regardless of the purse seine net used. These data follow the Data Collection Framework 
(DCF)  segmentation  as  reported  in  the  AER  (Annual  Economic  Report),  based  on  the 
prevalent gear. Nevertheless, STECF notes that there is inconsistency in what is reported 
in  the  table  and  the  notes  about  the  currency  used.  Incidentally,  from  a  comparison  of 
data  reported  in  some  tables  of  the  MP  (e.g.  table  11)  with  AER  2017  data,  STECF 
observed  that  these  data  are  not  expressed  in  Euros,  as  described  in  the  note  to  the 
same table, but in the national Croatian currency.  

The  plan  provides  a  chapter  with  technical  characteristics  of  the  “srdelara”  net  which  is 
based  on  a  study  of  2015  (Technical  properties  of  purse  seine  nets  targeting  small 
pelagics in the Adriatic Sea and impact of their use on the marine environment). 

The  plan  lists  a  large  number  of  potential  management  measures  that  could  be  taken 
along the lines of Regulation (EC) No 1380/2013. These measures are categorized under 
the headings “Permanent cessation of fishing activities”, “Temporary cessation of fishing 
activities”,  “Authorisation”,  “Specific  measures”  and  “Measures  for  the  prevention  of 
unwanted catch”.  

STECF notes however that most measures listed in the management plan (except some 
specific measures in 2017 and 2018, added in the July version of the plan to comply with 
the  2016  GFCM  recommendation,  see  below)  remain  poorly  specified,  as  the  processes 
by  which  each  of  these  measures  will  be  decided  and  how  and  when  they  will  be 
implemented  is  not  described.  For  example,  it  is  said  that:  “In  order  to  reduce  fishing 
mortality,  protect  sexually  mature  stock  at  the  time  of  spawning,  increase  the  level  of 
recruitment and protect younger age categories, the measure of temporary cessation of a 
fishing  activity  in  a  particular  area  can  be  carried  out”…  “In  order  to  increase  the 
selectivity  of  fishing  gear,  a  higher  minimum  mesh  size  or  compulsory  installation  of 

95 

 
 
 
special  devices  to  increase  selectivity  or  to  avoid  unwanted  catches  can  be  defined”…. 
“The minimum reference size for the conservation of sardines in the Republic of Croatia is 
11  cm,  and  for  anchovy  9  cm,  ….if  it  proves  biologically  justified  more  stringent 
provisions may be prescribed.”….  

STECF comments in response to Request 2  

-Biological characteristics and the state of exploited resources with reference in particular 
to long-term yields and low risk of stock collapse. Description of the fishing pressure and 
the measures to accomplish a sustainable exploitation of the main target stocks 

Section  11  includes  plots  of  spawning  stock  biomass,  fishing  mortality  and  recruitment 
for sardine and anchovy in GSA17 & GSA18 from the most recent GFCM assessments of 
the  stocks  carried  out  within  the  WGSASP/SAC/GFCM  in  2016.  According  to  these 
assessments, endorsed by SAC/GFCM in its 19th session (Ljubljana, Slovenia, May 2017), 
the  stocks  of  sardine  and  anchovy  in  the  Adriatic  Sea  are  overexploited  and  at  low 
biomass levels. SAC recommended to decrease the fishing effort on these stocks. 

STECF notes that the fishing mortality (F) exerted on sardine increased abruptly (tripled) 
between  2009  and  2014.  At  the  same  period,  the  SSB  remained  at  a  very  low  level 
despite  the  slightly  increasing  trend  in  recruitment.  Noticeably,  the  Croatian  landings 
increased  also  abruptly  at  the  same  period,  with  a  doubling  between  2009  and  2014 
(from  about  30000  to  60000  t,  see  Fig.  2  in  the  plan).  The  Croatian  “srdelara”  is 
responsible for the largest share of the sardine stock catches.  

STECF further notes the steady increase in F exerted on anchovy since the late 80’s and 
the declining trend in recruitment and SSB during the last decade. 

Anchovy  and  sardine  are  short-lived  species  (few  age  classes  comprise  the  bulk  of  the 
catches, e.g. Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 in the plan). STECF PLEN 17-01 has discussed stock and 
recruitment  relationships  for  small  pelagics  in  the  Adriatic  and  noted  that  there  is  a 
strong  unbounded  linear  relationship  between  spawning  stock  biomass  (SSB)  and 
recruitment; and conversely, there is also a strong correlation between recruitment and 
the following SSB: high recruitment gives rise to a large stock in subsequent years, but 
when  the  recruitment  declines,  so  does  the  stock.  Changes  in  recruitment  are  partly  in 
response to environmental changes, and not only a result of SSB.  

STECF  considers  that  fishing  mortality  on  both  stocks  is  now  high,  in  a  period  of  low 
stock  productivity  and  low  biomass,  which  increases  the  risk  of  stock  collapse  under 
unfavourable environmental conditions. 

No specific measures and harvest control rules to achieve the sustainable exploitation of 
sardine and anchovy in the Adriatic have been specified in the national plan for “srdelara” 
(see ‘STECF observations’ above).  

-Data  on  catches,  effort  and  catches/landing  per  unit  of  effort  (CPUE-LPUE),  as  well  as 
the biological reference points ensuring the conservation of the concerned stocks 

As detailed above (‘STECF observations’), the plan contains limited and fragmentary data 
on catches, by-catches, discards, and CPUEs/LPUEs.  

The LPUE time series presented in Table 10 of the plan are very short (3 years) and do 
not allow any realistic inference of increasing/decreasing trends. As analysed in detail by 
STECF when examining the management plan of "Ciplarica" and "Palamidara” (PLEN-17-
01), the use of LPUE as an indicator of stock abundance has many important drawbacks 
and should be avoided for pelagic species.    

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
-Catch  composition  in  terms  of  size  distribution,  with  particular  reference  to  the 
percentage of catches of species subject to minimum sizes in accordance with Annex III 
of the Mediterranean Regulation 

As  detailed  above  (‘STECF  observations’),  the  plan  contains  limited  data  on  catch  and 
size compositions. The “srdelara” fishery targets Annex III species, anchovy and sardine. 
Thus,  the  purse  seine  fishery  is  not  regulated  for  the  catch  of  these  species  to  be 
minimal. No information is provided for Scomber spp. and Trachurus spp. which are also 
Annex III species 

-The  potential  impact  of  the  fishing  gear  on  the  marine  environment  with  particular 
interest on protected habitats (i.e. seagrass bed, coralligenous habitat and maërl bed) 

It  is  stated  in  the  plan  that  the  purse  seine  “srdelara”  does  not  come  into  contact  with 
the sea bed during its operation and it has no impact on seagrass beds. This conclusion is 
based on a study carried out in 2015 (Technical properties of purse seine nets targeting 
small pelagics in the Adriatic Sea and impact of their use on the marine environment).  

STECF  examined  the  results  of  the  aforementioned  study  in  PLEN-16-02  and  concluded 
that,  according  to  the  information  provided,  the  physical  impact  of  the  lead-line  on  the 
seabed  seems  to  be  negligible  for  the  seines  operating  in  the  Central-Southern  Adriatic 
Sea (e.g. mean depth around 80 m). However, it is unclear whether these conditions are 
met for the purse seines used in shallow waters (e.g. <25 m depth). Further clarifications 
are  needed  regarding  the  distance  between  the  lead-line  and  the  seabed  during  the 
fishing operations. 

The  provisions  stipulated  by  article  13.3  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006 
(minimum  fishing  depth  set  at  70%  net  drop)  could,  in  addition  to  securing  minimum 
impact  on  protected  habitats,  also  contribute  to  the  protection  of  coastal  spawning  and 
nursery grounds of anchovy and sardine.  

STECF  notes however that  no  information  is  provided  in  the  plan  regarding  the  location 
and depth of the srdelara fishing activities. 

-The social and economic impact of the measures proposed 

No  such  impact  analysis  is  provided  in  the  plan.  Despite  the  economic  relevance  of  the 
“srdelara”  fishery  for  the  Croatian  fishing  sector  (including  the  processing  sector),  as 
stated in the MP and as emerging from the data provided, no social and economic impact 
of the measures proposed is provided in the MP. The availability of detailed data by fleet 
segments  (as  reported  in  the  MP  and  in  the  AER  2017)  could  allow  for  a  simple 
evaluation  of  the  potential  impacts  of  the  measures  proposed  (i.e.  capacity  reduction, 
temporal  closure,  restriction  in  the  number  of  fishing  days)  on  employment,  income, 
costs and wages. 

-Objectives  that  are  consistent  with  the  objectives  set  out  in  Article  2  and  with  the 
relevant  provisions  of  Article  6  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013.  Quantifiable  targets 
such  as  fishing  mortality  rates  and/or  spawning  stock  biomass.  Clear  time-frames  to 
reach  the  quantifiable  targets.  Conservation  reference  points  consistent  with  the 
objectives  set  out  in  Article  2  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1380/2013.  Safeguards  to  ensure 
that quantifiable targets are met, as well as remedial action, where needed, including for 
situations where the deteriorating quality of data or non-availability put the sustainability 
of the main stocks of the fishery at risk 

The objectives of the plan are described in a generic manner in Section 12 of the plan. In 
Section 13 the “goals”, “specific goals” and “indicators” are listed for biological, economic 
and  social  objectives.  For  example,  for  the  goal  of  “Achieving  the  highest  level  of 

97 

 
 
 
 
sustainable  catches  of  target  species  by  2020”  the  proposed  “indicators”  are  “SSB-
Sardine biomass index”, “SSB-Anchovy biomass index” and “F-Fishing mortality”. In the 
April 2017 version of the plan, no reference target values have been specified for any of 
listed  indicators  (namely,  SSB-Sardine  biomass  index,  SSB-Anchovy  biomass  index,  F-
Fishing  mortality,  Average  value  of  the  catch  at  the  first  sale/vessel,  Number  of 
participants in the fishery and fish processing industry, Average salaries of employees).  

The  exact  way  in  which  each  of  these  indicators  will  be  used  in  order  to  achieve  the 
respective management goal is not specified. 

In  the  July  2017  version  of  the  plan,  the  following  biomass  reference  points  have  been 
specified for the two stocks: 

Sardine  

Anchovy 

SSBlim   

SSBpa   

125318 t 

45936 t 

250636 t 

91872 t 

STECF  notes  that  these  values  (biomass  reference  points)  have  been  proposed  by 
WGSASP/SAC/GFCM  in  2015  (benchmark  GFCM  assessments)  but  have  not  yet  been 
adopted  by  GFCM.  STECF  notes  that  additional  considerations  on  SSB  reference  points 
are given in PLEN 17-01. 

It  is  said  that  no  reference  points  based  on  F  have  been  defined  in  the  plan  based  on 
“recent STECF conclusions” (PLEN 17-01), and existing concerns about determination of 
the value of fishing mortality corresponding to FMSY, as well as the discrepancy between 
GFCM and STECF assessments. 

STECF  recalls  its  recommendation  in  PLEN-17-01,  that  until  objective  means  to 
determine  the  most  appropriate  stock-recruitment  relationships  are  decided  upon, 
proxies for FMSY for Adriatic sardine and anchovy be derived using Patterson’s method and 
adopted  as  an  upper  limit  for  the  exploitation  rate  on  these  stocks.  The  corresponding 
values for proxies for FMSY are as follows: 

Anchovy in the Adriatic (GSAs 17&18) FMSY = 0.48 

Sardine in the Adriatic (GSAs 17&18) FMSY = 0.4 

-Objectives for conservation and technical measures to be taken in order to achieve the 
targets set out in Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, and measures designed to 
avoid and reduce, as far as possible, unwanted catches 

Regarding the landing obligation, it is said that the plan shall be in line with Commission 
Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1392/2014 of 20 October 2014 establishing a discard plan 
for certain small pelagic fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea (de minimis exemption).  

STECF  notes  that  this  Regulation  shall  apply  until  31  December  2017.  The  actions  that 
will be taken in order to conform to article 15 after the end of 2017 are not specified, and 
no specific measures to avoid and reduce unwanted catches have been formulated  

-Other  conservation  measures,  in  particular  measures  to  gradually  eliminate  discards, 
taking  into  account  the  best  available  scientific  advice,  or  to  minimise  the  negative 
impact of fishing on the ecosystem 

See ‘STECF comments on the information provided’ above. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
STECF  notes  that,  in  its  fortieth  session  (Malta,  May-June  2016),  GFCM  adopted 
Recommendation  GFCM/40/2016/3  establishing  further  emergency  measures  in  2017 
and 2018 for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea (GSA 17 and GSA 18). According to 
it:  

1.  The  country  shall  not  exceed  the  level  of  catches  for  small  pelagics  exerted  in 

2014.  

2.  Fishing  vessels  targeting  small  pelagic  fish  shall  not  exceed  180  fishing  days  per 
year,  with  a  maximum  of  144  fishing  days  targeting  sardine  and  a  maximum  of 
144 fishing days targeting European anchovy.  

3.  In  2017  and  2018,  the  country  shall  apply  spatiotemporal  closures  in  view  of 
protecting  nursery  and  spawning  areas.  Such  closures  shall  cover  the  entire 
distribution of small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea, for periods of not less than 
15 continuous days and up to 30 continuous days. These closures shall take place 
during  the  following  period:  for  sardine,  from  1  October–31  March,  and  for 
European anchovy, from 1 April – 30 September.  

4.  In 2017 and 2018, the country shall apply additional closures for vessels  over 12 
m for not less than 6 months. Such closures shall cover at least 30% of the area 
which  has  been  identified  as  a  nursery  area  or  as  an  important  area  for  the 
protection of early age classes of fish (in territorial and inner sea). 

STECF  notes  that,  in  the  July  2017  version  of  the  plan,  actions  to  comply  with  the 
emergency  measures  established  in  Recommendation  GFCM/40/2016/3  have  been 
included,  specifically,  with  points  1,  2,  and  3  above  (catch  limitation,  restrictions  in 
number  of  fishing  days,  temporal  closures).  With  regard  to  point  4  (additional 
spatiotemporal closures for vessels larger than 12 m to protect nursery areas/early age 
classes),  specific  actions  have  not  been  defined  due  to  the  poor  knowledge  on  the 
distribution and extent of nursery grounds of anchovy and sardine in Croatian waters.   

STECF  notes  that  the  2014  catches,  which  have  been  set  as  a  limit  in  the  2016  GFCM 
recommendation,  correspond  to  the  highest  sardine  catch  of  the  Croatian  fleet.  STECF 
considers  that  the  GFCM  emergency  measures  are  not  sufficient  to  reduce  the  fishing 
mortality to levels consistent with MSY, i.e. at reference levels recommended by STECF in 
PLEN-17-01  –see  above.  STECF  further  notes  that  the  effects  of  GFCM  emergency 
measures  have  been  tested  in  the  “Workshop  on  the  assessment  of  management 
measures”  (WKMSE)  held  by  GFCM  in  2016  and  2017,  and  the  various  simulations  that 
were run showed that such emergency measures do not have any positive effect on the 
sardine and anchovy stocks, compared to the status quo simulations (no measure taken).  

Finally, the plan envisages the revision/reissuing of authorizations for using “srdelara” in 
2017,  applying  stricter  criteria  in  terms  of  historical  vessel  activity  (number  of  fishing 
days) although these criteria have not been specified yet.   

-The scientific monitoring of the plan. Quantifiable indicators for periodic monitoring and 
assessment of progress in achieving the targets of the management plan 

No  specific  information  is  provided  regarding  the  scientific  monitoring  of  the  plan.  The 
assessment  of  sardine  and  anchovy  in  GSA17  and  GSA18  is  carried  out  yearly,  first, 
within AdriaMed (FAO regional program) and then in WGSASP/SAC/GFCM.  

No  reference  values  are  specified  for  the  indicators  listed  in  Section  13,  except  for  Blim 
and  Bpa  as  described  above  (namely,  F-Fishing  mortality,  Average  value  of  the  catch  at 
the  first  sale/vessel,  Number  of  participants  in  the  fishery  and  fish  processing  industry, 
Average salaries of employees). 

99 

 
 
 
 
STECF conclusions 

STECF  notes  that  the  sardine  and  anchovy  stocks  in  the  Adriatic  are  overexploited  and 
have a high risk of collapse due to the currently low productivity of the stocks combined 
with overfishing at low stock levels.  

The sardine and anchovy stocks in the Adriatic Sea are of direct management interest to 
five countries (Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, Montenegro and Albania), hence, there is a need 
for  regional  cooperation  and  coordination  on  adopting  effective  management  measures 
for  the  stocks.  Within  the  general  framework  of  the  new  CFP,  the  management  of  the 
“srdelara” fishery should be part of a regional management plan for small pelagic fish in 
the Adriatic Sea. Nevertheless, STECF notes that the “srdelara” fishery is responsible for 
the  largest  share  of  the  sardine  catches  in  the  region,  and  consequently  has  a  major 
impact  on  the  fishing  mortality  on  that  stock.  Therefore,  any  measure  undertaken 
nationally to significantly reduce the sardine catches of this fleet will directly contribute to 
improving the conservation for this stock. No specific measures and harvest control rules 
to achieve the sustainable exploitation of sardine and anchovy in the Adriatic have been 
specified in the national plan for “srdelara”. 

STECF notes that many potential management measures are listed in the plan. However, 
they remain poorly specified, as the processes by which each of these measures will be 
decided and implemented are not described.  

The  specific  measures  complying  with  the  GFCM  emergency  measures  are  specified. 
However,  based  on  the  evaluation  carried  out  by  GFCM  in  the  Workshop  on  the 
assessment of management measures (WKMSE) held in 2016 and 2017, STECF considers 
that  these  measures  are  likely  insufficient  to  reduce  fishing  mortality  to  the  levels 
specified in the objectives.  

STECF  notes  that  the  information  provided  in  the  plan  does  not  allow  for  the  full 
assessment  of  the  effects  of  “srdelara”  on  the  stocks  of  anchovy  and  sardine.  The 
national  management  plan  for  “srdelara”  has  to  include  all  those  elements  needed  for 
assessing  such  effects  and,  specifically,  gear-specific  data  on  catches  and  discards, 
fishing effort, CPUE and respective size and age compositions of catches for the longest 
time series available.  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
5.7 Derogation for 'gangui' trawlers in certain territorial waters of France 

Background provided by the Commission 

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006  (hereafter  the 
MedReg) the use of towed gears is prohibited within 3 nautical miles (nm) of the coast or 
within the 50m isobath where that depth is reached at a shorter distance from the coast. 
In addition, Article 13(2) prohibits the use of trawl nets within 1,5 nm of the coast. At a 
request  of  a  Member  State,  derogation  from  Article  13  (1)  and  (2)  may  be  granted, 
provided that the conditions set in Article 13(5) and (9) are fulfilled.  

Furthermore,  Article  4(1)  of  MedReg  prohibits  fishing  with  trawl  nets,  dredges,  purse 
seines,  boat  seines,  shore  seines  or  similar  nets  above  seagrass  beds  of,  in  particular, 
Posidonia  oceanica  or  other  marine  phanerogams.  Derogation  from  this  article  may  be 
granted,  provided  that  the  conditions  stipulated  in  Article  4(5)  are  fulfilled.  If  a  fishery 
benefits  from  derogation  under  Article  4(5)  then  derogation  to  the  minimum  distance 
from the coast and depth shall be allowed. 

Finally, a general condition for all derogations is that the fishing activities concerned are 
regulated by a management plan provided for under Article 19 of the MedReg. According 
to paragraph 5 of Article 19, the measures to be included in the management plan shall 
be  proportionate  to  the  objectives,  the  targets  and  the  expected  time  frame  and  shall 
have regard to: 
a) 
b) 
c) 
d) 

the conservation status of the stock or stocks;  
the biological characteristics of the stock or stocks; 
the characteristics of the fisheries in which the stocks are caught; 
the economic impact of the measures on the fisheries concerned. 

In  2013,  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  introduced  new  elements  for  conservation 
such as the target of maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate (MSY) for all the stocks 
by 2020 at the latest, the landing obligation and the regionalisation approach. 

In  line  with  these  two  regulations,  the  plans  shall  be  based  on  scientific,  technical  and 
economic  advice,  and  shall  contain  conservation  measures  to  restore  and  maintain  fish 
stocks  above  levels  capable  of  producing  maximum  sustainable  yield  or  MSY.  Where 
targets relating to the MSY (e.g. fishing mortality at MSY) cannot be determined, owing 
to  insufficient  data,  the  plans  shall  provide  for  measures  based  on  the  precautionary 
approach, ensuring at least a comparable degree of conservation of the relevant stocks. 

The  plans  may  also  contain  specific  conservation  measures  based  on  the  ecosystem 
approach to achieve the objectives set. In particular, they may incorporate any measure 
included  in  the  following  list  to  limit  fishing  mortality  and  the  environmental  impact  of 
fishing  activities:  limiting  catches,  fixing  the  number  and  type  of  fishing  vessels 
authorized  to  fish,  limiting  fishing  effort,  adopting  technical  measures  (structure  of 
fishing  gears,  fishing  practices,  areas/period  of  fishing  restriction,  minimum  size, 
reduction  of  impact  of  fishing  activities  on  marine  ecosystems  and  non-target  species), 
establishing  incentives  to  promote  more  selective  fisheries,  conduct  pilot  projects  on 
alternative types of fishing management techniques, etc. 

On 2 June 2014 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 586/2014 granted derogation 
from Articles 4(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the MedReg in territorial waters of France adjacent 
to the coast of the Province-Alpes-Cote d'Azur region to 'gangui' trawlers: 

(a) bearing the registration number mentioned in the French management plan;  

101 

 
 
 
(b)  having  a  track  record  in  the  fishery  of  more  than  five  years  and  not  involving  any 
future increase in the fishing effort deployed; and  

(c) holding a fishing authorization and operating under the management plan adopted by 
France in accordance with Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006.  

This derogation applies until 6 June 2017. 

In line with the above Commission Implementing Regulation granting derogations, France 
committed  to  communicate  to  the  Commission,  within  3  years  following  the  entry  into 
force of this Regulation (i.e. until 6 June 2017), a report drawn up in accordance with the 
monitoring  plan  established  in  the  management  plan.  The  Management  plan  for 
professional  'gangui'  fishing  in  the  Mediterranean  Sea  by  vessels  flying  the  French  flag 
was adopted on 13/05/201415.  

On  16  June  2017  France  submitted  a  request  to  prolong  the  derogation  from  the  first 
subparagraph  of  Article  4(1),  from  the  first  subparagraph  of  Article  13(1)  and  from 
Article 13(2) of the MedReg for 3 more years. The request is supported with the following 
documents:  the  implementation  report  justifying  the  request  to  renew  the  double 
derogation,  30  annexes  providing  supporting  data  and  information,  the  list  of  annexes 
and  the  list  of  bibliography.  The  management  plan  for  professional  'gangui'  fishing  is 
attached under annex 3. 

Request to the STECF 

their 

STECF  is  requested  to  review  both  the  implementation  report  of  the  'gangui'  fisheries 
supporting  the  request  to  renew  the  derogation  and  the  current  Management  Plan,  to 
evaluate 
to 
conservation/management  measures  proposed  therein 
from  the  point  of  view, 
particularly,  of 
conservation  and  management 
requirements/objectives  stipulated  by  the  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1967/2006 
("MedReg") and by the Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013. 

findings  and  make  appropriate  comments  with 

conformity  with 

respect 

their 

the 

More specifically, STECF is requested to advice, and comment as adequate, whether the 
implementation  report  and  the  management  plan  contain  adequate  and  up-to  date 
scientific and technical justifications ensuring that:  

 1) the conditions set by the MedReg are still fulfilled: 

  The  fishing  vessels  concerned  have  an  overall  length  of  less than  or  equal  to 
12 meters of overall length and engine power of less than or equal to 85 kW, 
in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of MedReg. 

 

the fishing activities concerned affect not more than 33% of the area covered 
by  seagrass  beds  of  Posidonia  oceanica  within  the  area  covered  by  the 
management  plan  and  not  more  than  10%  of  seagrass  beds  in  the  territorial 

15 Arrêté du 13/05/2014 portant adoption de plans de gestion pour les activités de pêche professionnelle a la 
senne tournante coulissante, a la drague, a la senne de plage et au gangui en mer Méditerranée par 
les navires battant pavillon français. (NOR: DEVM, JO no. 122 du 27 mai 2014).   

102 

 
 
                                          
 
waters  of  France,  in  line  with  requirements  of  points  (ii)  and  (iii)  of  the  first 
subparagraph of Article 4(5) of MedReg.  

  catches  of  species  subject  to  minimum  conservation  size  as  mentioned  in 

Annex III are minimal, in line with Article 13(9) of MedReg. 

 

the mesh size comply with the requirement of at least a square-meshed net of 
40mm or a diamond meshed net of 50mm and panels of netting smaller than 
40mm mesh size are not used for fishing or kept on board, in line with Article 
9 of MedReg. 

  appropriate  steps  have  been  undertaken  to  ensure  the  collection  of  scientific 
information with a view to the identification and mapping of Posidonia habitat, 
in line with Article 4(6) of MedReg.  

2)  the  impact  on  the  Posidonia  beds  has  been  mitigated  further,  in  the  years  of 
implementation of the management plan, in particular ensuring an effective reduction of 
the fishing capacity and effort. In the event that these justifications are not sufficient, the 
experts shall provide recommendations on the additional information needed and on the 
likely mitigation measures to counteract possible nonfulfillment. 

3)  the  current  management  plan  would  continue  to  ensure  a  sustainable  exploitation  of 
species 
the  socio-economic 
sustainability  of  the  overall  fishing  fleets  involved  in  exploiting  those  resources  in  the 
coastal area.  

trawler  without 

targeted  by 

jeopardizing 

'gangui' 

STECF response 

On  2  June  2014  Commission  Implementing  EC  Reg.  No.  586/2014  granted  derogation 
from Articles 4(1), 13(1) and 13(2) of the MedReg in territorial waters of France adjacent 
to the coast of the Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur region to gangui trawlers having a track 
record in the fishery of more than five years. STECF notes that it is not known whether 
the  vessels  concerned  have  track  records  of  more  than  5  years,  as  the  relevant 
information is lacking in the documentation submitted by France. 

On  6  June  2017,  French  submitted  to  the  Commission  a  request  to  prolong  the 
derogation  from  Articles  4(5),  13(1)  and  13(2)  of  the  MEDREG  for  3  more  years.  The 
request  was  supported  with  an  Implementation  Report  of  the  scientific  monitoring  plan 
2014-2016  and  the  management  plan  (adopted on  13/05/2014)  for professional  gangui 
fishing. The Report and the Management Plan were submitted to the STECF for opinion. 
Therefore, the current request has a double derogation: 

- 

- 

from  Article  13(1)  and  13(2)  of  MedReg  for  the  use  of  the  gangui  within  1.5 
nautical miles (nm) of the coast or within the 50 m isobath where that depth is 
reached at a shorter distance from the coast, and; 
from Article 4(1) of MedReg  for the fishing with gangui above seagrass beds, 
in particular Posidonia oceanica.  

The STECF response is hence based on the information contained in the Implementation 
report  ‘Report  in  support  of  the  application  for  renewal  of  the  double  derogation  from 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 by the Commission Implementing Regulation of 2 
June 2014 (EU) No 586/2014’ prepared by France and 30 annexes providing supporting 
data and information. The management plan for professional gangui fishing was attached 
under Annex 3. All the material was submitted in French. 

103 

 
 
 
The  gangui  management  plan  was  revised  by  the  STECF  EWG  11-05  in  2011  and 
endorsed by the STECF PLEN 11-02 afterwards. The main comments raised by STECF in 
2011  were  (i)  insufficient  information  on  the  conservation  status  and  the  biological 
characteristics  of  the  stocks,  (ii)  unknown  impact  of  the  small-scale  fishing  gears 
operating  in  coastal  waters  on  habitats  and  species,  (iii)  insufficient  measures  for  the 
protection of coastal habitats and (iv) lack of a clear definition of the objectives, and  of 
the justification of the time schedules proposed for the different proposals.  

These aspects are also part of the current evaluation.  

According  to  MEDREG,  Mediterranean  Member  States  have  to  adopt  MPs  for  fisheries 
conducted  with  trawl  nets,  boats  seines,  shore  seines,  surrounding  nets  and  dredges 
within  their  territorial  waters.  MEDREG  sets  conditions  of  minimum  distance  from  the 
coast  and  minimum  depths  for  these  fisheries.  Derogations  are  possible  only  under  a 
number  of  conditions,  and  provided  that  there  is  no  significant  impact  on  the  marine 
environment.  

More specifically, STECF is requested to advice whether the Implementation Report and 
the  management  plan  contain  adequate  and  up-to  date  scientific  and  technical 
justifications ensuring the following conditions. 

Fishing vessels have LOA ≤12 m and engine power ≤85 kW, in accordance with the first 
subparagraph of Article 4(5) of MedReg 

According to the Implementation Report, in 2017 a total of 24 vessels were fishing with 
gangui gear. With regards to vessel length categories: 15 vessels measured between 8-
12 m (4 vessels fishing the small gangui and 11 fishing with gangui with otterboards); 7 
vessels between 5-8 m (6 small gangui and 1 gangui with otterboards); 2 vessels under 
5 m (1 small gangui and 1 gangui with otterboards). With regards to engine power: 12 
vessels  were  equipped  with  engines  of  50-85  kW  (2  small  gangui  and  10  gangui  with 
otterboards); 12 vessels under <50 kW (9 small gangui and 3 gangui with otterboards). 
STECF notes that this condition is fulfilled. 

Fishing activities concerned affect not more than 33 % of the area covered by seagrass 
beds of Posidonia oceanica within the area covered by the management plan and 10 % of 
seagrass  beds  in the territorial  waters of  France,  in line with  requirements  of points (ii) 
and (iii) of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of MedReg 

The  report  of  the  17  May  2010  of  the  former  Protected  Marine  Areas  Agency  (AAMP) 
assessed the surface of the Posidonia beds on the coastline of the three departments of 
Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur to be 320 km2. While the overall value of the surface 
of the Posidonia beds in Mediterranean French territorial waters in 2017 was 893 km². 

According  to  the  Implementation  Report,  the  total  swept  area  (TSA)  affected  by  French 
ganguis  can  be  assessed  by  the  formula: 
,  where  w  is  the 
horizontal opening (at the gangui wing tips); h is the time duration of a single tow; t is 
the  towing  speed;  n  is  the  number  of  tows  per  day  for  a  single  gangui  vessel;  d  is  the 
number of fishing days; v is the number of active gangui vessels; r is the repetition rate. 
The Implementation Report used for the estimation of the total swept area the following 
values:  w=10  m;  h=1h15’  (1.25  in  decimal);  t=1  kn  (1852/3600=0.514  m/s);  n=5; 
d=150  and  50  days  for  ganguis  with  otterboards  and  for  small  ganguis,  respectively; 
v=24 (12 ganguis with otterboards and 12 small ganguis).  

The report use a repetition rate of 0.2, which means that the swept area is only 20 % of 
the total swept area of all hauls cumulated, considering that most hauls are taken in the 
same place. Following this approach, the estimated swept area in 2017 was estimated in 

104 

rvdnthwTSA 
 
 
 
the  Implementation  Report  to  be  52  km2,  which  corresponds  to  16.2  %  of  the  total 
Posidonia  beds  surface  in  the  three  departments  of  Région  Provence-Alpes-Côte  d’Azur 
and 5.8 % of the area of Posidonia beds in French territorial waters. Therefore, according 
to the Report, these ratios are lower than the maximum limits of 33 % and 10 % set in 
the Article 4(5) of the MEDREG.  

However, STECF notes several inconsistencies in the above reported calculations. Firstly, 
by using the same values of the Implementation Report, the overall swept area by small 
ganguis  should  have  been  13.89  km2  and  not  10  km2,  resulting  in  17.4  %  of  the  area 
covered  by  seagrass  Posidonia  beds  within  the  area  covered  by  the  management  plan 
and 6.2 % of the total Posidonia beds in French territorial waters and not 16.2 % and 5.8 
%, respectively (see Table 5.7.1). 

Table 5.7.1. Estimation of the Total Swept Area (TSA) in 2017 by gangui with otterboards 
(Otter) and small gangui (Small) according to values used in the French Implementation 
Report. 

Furthermore,  STECF  notes  that  for  the  ganguis  with  otterboards,  the  overall  footprint 
(surface area of the seafloor swept by the gear) was underestimated because it is mainly 
affected by the otterboards, bridles and sweeps, and not only by the groundrope (Figure 
5.7.1). Therefore, instead of using 10 m (horizontal gangui opening at the wing tips), a 
value  corresponding  to  the  otterboard  spread  should  have  been  used.  If  not  available 
directly, this value can be estimated using published values from the scientific literature. 
STECF notes that according to the literature (Notti et al., 2013; Sala et al., 2013; Sacchi 
et  al.,  2010),  a  value  of  20  m  likely  represents  the  otterboards  spread  for  such  towed 
gears.  

On  the  other  hand,  the  value  of  10  m  for  the  horizontal  opening  of  the  small  ganguis 
appears to have been overestimated, since according to the Ministerial Decree of 16 May 
2011,  which  lays  down  technical  measures  for  the  professional  gangui  fishing  in  the 

105 

  Otter   Small  Horizontal gear opening w[m] 10   10  Towing time h[s] 4500  4500  Towing speed t[m/s] 0.514  0.514  No. hauls n 5  5  No. days d 150  50  No. vessels v 12  12  Annual tow repetition rate r 0.2  0.2             TSA/haul m2 23150  23150  TSA/day m2 115750  115750  TSA/year m2 3472500  1157500  TSA (all vessels) m2 41670000  13890000    km2 41.67   13.89 55.56            Posidonia beds [km2]     Ratio  3 departments 320    17.4%  French waters 893       6.2%   
 
 
 
Mediterranean,  the  maximum  horizontal  gear  opening  must  be  restricted  to  1.5  m. 
STECF  is  unable  to  assess  if  this  technical  measure  was  not  respected  during  the  last 
period  of  derogation,  or  it  was  mistakenly  used  for  the  calculation  of  the  swept  area  in 
the Implementation Report. STECF however notes that the Ministerial Decree of 16 May 
2011  sets  a  maximum  allowed  length  of  10  m  for  the  small  gangui  trawls,  and  thus 
considers  that  in  the  Implementation  Report  the  length  of  the  trawl  was  mistakenly 
confused with the width of the trawl. Therefore, it was decided to revise the calculation 
by using a mean width of 1.5 m for the small ganguis. 

Moreover,  according  to  the  Report  of  the  SGMED  Subgroup  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea 
(STECF, 2004), as well as the Ministerial Decree of 16 May 2011, gangui towing speeds 
range between 1.5 and 3.0 kn depending on the seabed characteristics. Therefore STECF 
considers that an average value of 2 kn might have been adopted for the calculation. 

Following  the  above  considerations,  STECF  estimated  that  the  calculation  of  the  overall 
swept  area  would  have  resulted  in  170.80  km2,  which  corresponds  to  53.4  %  of 
Posidonia  beds  surface  area  in  the  three  departments  of  Région  Provence-Alpes-Côte 
d’Azur, or 19.1 % of the total Posidonia beds in French waters (see Table 5.7.2). This is 
above the  respective thresholds  of  33 %  and  10 %,  and  therefore,  the  condition  of  the 
derogation is not fulfilled. 

Figure  5.7.1.  Conceptual  gear  footprints  of  an  ottertrawl  fished  by  one  vessel.  The 
conceptual footprint consists of three types of seabed impacts: (1) the track affected by 
the  doors/clumps/weights,  (2)  the  track  influenced  by  the  sweeps  and  bridles,  and  (3) 
the track affected by the trawl/groundgear itself. Source: Eigaard et al. (2016). 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.7.2. Estimation of the Total Swept Area (TSA) in 2017 by gangui with otterboards 
(Otter) and small gangui (Small) according to new recalculated STECF values. 

Catches of species subject to minimum conservation size as mentioned in Annex III are 
minimal, in line with Article 13(9) of MedReg 

STECF  notes  that  the  terms  ‘catch’  and  ‘landings’  were  often  mixed  up  in  the 
Implementation  Report  and  it  was  not  possible  to  identify  the  correct  meaning  of  the 
values  reported  in  the  text  and  tables.  In  the  current  STECF  response,  the  term  ‘catch’ 
will  be  used  hereafter.  The  information  is  neither  split  between  small  ganguis  and 
ganguis  with  otterboards,  and  nor  between  areas  inside  the  1.5  nm  and  outside,  and 
over Posidonia beds or away. 

According to the Implementation Report, approximately fifty different species have been 
recorded  in  gangui  catches.  Target  species  were  mainly:  sea  basses,  sea  perches, 
Labridae,  redfish,  representing  67  %  of  the  total  catch,  with  the  5  species  Scorpaena 
porcus,  Serranus  scriba,  Serranus  cabrilla,  Symphodus  tinca,  Symphodus  rostratus 
accounting  for  61 %  of  the  catch.  In  total  it  was  mentioned  that  37  main  species  were 
caught, however, detailed information and scientific names of the species were missing.  

The  Implementation  Report  shows  the  evolution  from  2014  to  2016  of  the  catch  of  the 
species listed in the Annex III of the MedReg (Table 5.7.3) in weight and in percentage of 
the total annual gangui catches. STECF however notes unusual trends in the annual catch 
composition,  for  example  some  species  were  reported  only  in  some  years  and  are 
completely  absent  in  others:  gilthead  sea  bream  (absent  in  2015),  horse  mackerel  and 
mackerel (absent in 2014 and 2015), black seabream (absent in 2014), common Pandora 
(only in 2016, being 0.62 % of the total annual gangui catches), Norway lobster (only in 
2015), etc. Also, STECF notes substantial differences between the total catch of Annex III 
species by ganguis in 2015 (149.06 kg) and those reported in 2014 (648 kg) and 2016 

107 

  Otter   Small  Horizontal gear opening w[m] 20   1.5  Towing time h[s] 4500  4500  Towing speed t[m/s] 1.029  1.029  No. hauls n 5  5  No. days d 150  50  No. vessels v 12  12  Annual tow repetition rate r 0.2  0.2             Area/haul m2 92600  6945  Area/day m2 463000  34725  Area/year m2 13890000  347250  Swept Area (all vessels) m2 1.67E+08  4167000    km2 166.68   4.167 170.8            Posidonia beds [km2]     Ratio  3 departments 320    53.4%  French waters 893       19.1%   
 
  
 
(2273  kg).  According  to  the  information  provided,  catches  of  Annex  III  species 
represented up to 7 % of the total gangui catches in 2016.  

Moreover, it is noteworthy that no information has been provided in the Implementation 
Report  about  the  length  frequencies  of  the  species  caught  annually  by  the  ganguis. 
Overall, STECF considers that the data and information presented in the Implementation 
Report  is  insufficient  and  too  inconsistent  across years,  to  conclude whether  the  gangui 
catches of the Annex III species can be expected to be minimal. Similarly, the selectivity 
of the gangui cannot be assessed.  

Despite  not  specifically  requested  in  the  current  conditions,  Article  13(9)(d)  of  the 
MedReg  requests  that  derogations  shall  apply  only  to  fishing  activities  not  targeting 
cephalopods. STECF notes that annual catches of cephalopods range between ca. 8-10 % 
of  the  total  catch  (Table  5.7.4).  STECF  notes  that  even  though  the  Implementation 
Report states that cephalopods are not in the list of the target species, the reported catch 
values  cannot  be  indeed  considered  negligible,  therefore  the  condition  requested  in  the 
Article 13(9)(d) is not supported by the data provided in the Report. 

Table  5.7.3.  Evolution  of  the  annual  catches  from  2014  to  2016  of  the  species  listed  in 
the  Annex  III  of  MedReg  reported  in  the  Implementation  Report  for  the  French  gangui 
fishing fleet by weight and in percentage of the total annual catches. 

108 

YearAnnex III speciesWeight[kg]Total weightof all species [kg]Gilt-head sea bream2511.91%Striped red mullet3973.03%Sea bream2.750.03%Norway lobster18.480.17%Striped red mullet47.830.44%Black seabream800.74%Horse mackerel1580.49%Gilthead sea bream190.06%Mackerel200.06%Common pandora2000.62%Striped red mullet12023.75%Black seabream6742.10%131231088132049201420152016Total weight of Annex III spp.[kg]6484.94%149.061.37%22737.09% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5.7.4. Evolution of the annual catches from 2014 to 2016 of Cephalopods reported 
in  the  Implementation  Report  for  the  French  gangui  fishing  fleet  by  weight  and  in 
percentage of the total annual catches.  

The mesh size comply with the requirement of at least a square-meshed net of 40 mm or 
a diamond meshed net  of  50 mm and  panels of  netting smaller  than  40 mm mesh  size 
are not used for fishing or kept on board, in line with Article 9 of MedReg 

Mesh size information is not provided. 

 According  to  the  Implementation  Report,  a  survey  in  2010  carried  out  by  IFREMER 
showed  that  the  replacement  of  traditional  22  mm  diamond-mesh  by  a  40  mm  square-
mesh in the codend would lead to a 60 % decrease in catches. The study concluded that 
although such a change to the netting could reduce catches of juveniles, this would cause 
an  increment  in the tows  per day  or  in  the  tow  duration  in  order to  try to  maintain  the 
initial landing value, with a risk of having a detrimental impact on the environment. The 
information  presented  does  not  allow  to  assess  whether  this  has  been  the  case,  and 
compliance with the mesh size requirement can thus not be inferred. 

Appropriate steps have been undertaken to ensure the collection of scientific information 
with a view to the identification and mapping of Posidonia habitat, in line with Article 4(6) 
of MedReg 

According  to  the  Implementation  Report,  STECF  notes  that  the  status  of  the  Posidonia 
beds  has  been  assessed  (Marine  Protected  Areas  Agency,  2012).  The  assessment  is 
based  on  a  set  of  well-defined  criteria  such  as:  the  density  of  the  seagrass  beds,  the 
upper or lower limit, the ravelling of rhizomes, the degree of encroachment etc. Several 
maps  showing  the  distribution  of  Posidonia  oceanica  in  gangui  fishing  grounds  were 
submitted  by  the  French  authorities.  The  maps  dates  back  to  1990  in  one  case,  and  in 
most cases the maps cover the period 2009-2012; According to the Report, the impact of 
bottom  fishing  gears  has  remained  stable  between  the  two  periods  and  it  was  evident 
that  the  main  threats  for  Posidonia  beds  comes  from  other  anthropogenic  factors.  In 
terms of  direct  impact on  Posidonia  beds  (grubbing  up)  the  most  tangible  threat  comes 
from  anchorages  from  yachting.  The  Report  also  shows  that  Posidonia  beds  are 
monitored, evaluated and protected by the Natura 2000 status of the areas in which they 
are to be integrated.  

109 

YearCephalopodsWeight[kg]Total weightof all species [kg]Squid and octopus6464.92%Cuttlefish5844.45%Squid50.05%Octopus3903.58%Cuttlefish6756.20%Squid6752.11%Octopus11723.66%Cuttlefish7202.25%131231088132049201420152016Total weight of Cephalopods[kg]1230107025679.37%9.83%8.01% 
 
 
 
 
 
STECF  notes  that  the  available  habitat  maps  have  not  been  updated  after  the 
implementation of the guangui derogation. 

In conclusion, STECF notes that while some information do exist on the identification and 
mapping  of  Posidonia  habitats,  no  analysis  can  be  made  on  the  recent  trends  in 
conservation of the Posidonia beds. 

The  impact  on  the  Posidonia  beds  has  been  mitigated  further,  in  the  years  of 
implementation of the management plan, in particular ensuring an effective reduction of 
the fishing capacity and effort. In the event that these justifications are not sufficient, the 
experts shall provide recommendations on the additional information needed and on the 
likely mitigation measures to counteract possible nonfulfillment 

Posidonia  oceanica  beds  are  protected  by  many  European  and  French  Regulations 
including the EU Habitats Directive (Annex I16, priority habitat17), and the Law of 10 July 
1976  regarding  the  nature  protection  in  France,  and  its  implementing  Decree  of  25 
November  1977  concerning  he  protection  of  the  wild  flora  and  fauna  of  the  French 
natural heritage (Boudouresque et al. 2012). This protection in France was made official 
by  the  Order  of  July  19  July  1988  of  the  list  of  protected  marine  plant  species,  which 
specifies:  “in  order  to  prevent  the  disappearance  of  threatened  plant  species  and  to 
permit the conservation of the corresponding biotopes, the following are prohibited at all 
times  and  throughout  metropolitan  France:  the  destruction,  cutting,  tearing  out, 
mutilation, picking  or  removal,  hawking,  use,  offering for sale  or  purchase  of  all  part of 
the wild species enumerated below (...) P. oceanica and Cymodocea nodosa”. P. oceanica 
is also listed in Barcelona (Annex II) and Bern (Annex I) conventions.  

Gangui fishing takes place over significant areas of posidonia beds (as estimated above), 
some of which being specifically established as Natura 2000 sites such as the site 'Rade 
d'Hyères'  (code  FR9301613).  STECF  notes  that  conservation  status  assessments  in  line 
with  Article  17  of  the  Habitat's  Directive  are  carried  out  by  Member  States  every  six 
years,  and  in  the  most  recent  (2007-2012)  assessment  Posidonia  beds  in  the  south  of 
France,  including  at  the  'Rade  d'Hyères'  site,  were  classified  as  'unfavourable  / 
inadequate'18, requiring a change in management or policy in order to return the habitat 
to favourable status. 

In  consequence,  it  is  important  to  assess  the  actual  impact  of  the  gangui  fishing  on 
Posidonia beds, and to consider mitigation measures. The Implementation Report states 
that:  “gangui  fishing  has  no  significant  impact  on  the  state  of  marine  plant  and  in 
particular  Posidonia  beds  on  which  gangui  fishing  effort”,  also  in  comparison  with  other 
anthropogenic  impacts.  Nevertheless,  according  to  the  available  literature  (see  for 
example  Andromede  Oceanologie,  2012),  gangui  trawls  are  more  weighted  than  other 
traditional bottom trawls of the same size, and thus they have a higher physical impact 

16 Natural habitat types of community interest whose conservation requires the designation of special areas of 

conservation 

17 Priority natural habitat types means natural habitat types in danger of disappearence, which are present on 
the territory referred to in Article 2 of the Directive and for the conservation of which the Community 
has  particular  responsibility  in  view  of  the  proportion  of  their  natural  range  which  falls  within  the 
territory referred to in Article 2 

18 See http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/10004 

110 

 
 
 
                                          
 
on  the  seabed  (including  by  scraping  of  the  seabed,  sediment  mobilization,  and 
penetration). This is particularly true for the gangui with otterboards, as the doors have 
been  estimated  to  be  the  gear  components  having  the  deepest  penetration  into  the 
sediment  (Eigaard  et  al.,  2017;  Lucchetti  and  Sala,  2012;  Rijnsdorp  et  al.,  2016).  So  it 
cannot  be  stated  that  the  impact  is  unsignificant.  STECF  notes  that  in  the  MP  no  clear 
distinction was made between small gangui and gangui with otterboards.  

No  mitigation  measures  have  been  described  in  the  Implementation  Plan  beyond 
reductions in fishing effort.  

The  gangui  trawl  fishery  is  subject  to  a  National  management  plan  adopted  with  the 
Decree of 13 May 2014 for all the vessels flying the French flag in the Mediterranean Sea. 
The  management  plan  for  gangui  has  the  objective  of  phasing  out  the  activity  through 
regulatory supervision of the vessel type – gear link. Article 3 in the Decree states that: 
“the  EAF  (European  Fishing  Authorisation)  –  or  Autorisations  Européennes  de  pêche 
(AEP)  – is automatically withdrawn  if  the vessel-gear pair is  broken, and  removed  from 
the quota of EAF. Transfers shall also be prohibited”. Thus, the system of EAF for gangui 
fishing  operates  by  issuing  an  authorisation  to  a  vessel-gear  pair  which  cannot  be 
transferred to another vessel of the same owner or to another vessel owner. 

In  accordance  with  the  National  management  plan  and  the  Order  of  8  September  2014 
establishing  an  EAF  regime  for  certain  gears  or  methods  of  professional  marine  fishing 
used in the Mediterranean Sea by French flag vessels, the maximum number of EAFs in 
2014 was: 14 for the small gangui and 22 for the gangui with otterboards, accounting for 
an overall capacity of 1745 kW. 

STECF  notes  that  since  2014,  the  number  of  active  vessels  and  the  total  number  of 
fishing  days  in  this  fishery  has  declined  (Table  5.7.5).  The  decrease  in  the  number  of 
vessels from 36 in 2014 to 24 in 2017 is likely the consequence of the management plan, 
which provided two instruments to achieve this: (i) the European Fishing Authorisations 
regime (EAF or AEP in French), and (ii) the opening of a fleet exit plan, implemented by 
the Ministerial Order of 4 May 2016 on the implementation of a fleet exit plan for vessels 
fishing with a gangui.  

Through  these  two  instruments  of  the  management  plan,  the  number  of  active  vessels 
fishing  on  1  January  2017  was  not  more  than  24  vessels  amounting  to  an  aggregated 
capacity of 1136 kW, representing a reduction of 35 % of total capacity and 33 % in the 
number  of  vessels  active  in  the  fishery.  STECF  notes  that  the  reduction  reported  in  the 
Report was mistakenly reported as 36 %. 

Table  5.7.5.  Number  of  French  gangui  vessels  and  fishing  days  in  2014  and  2016 
reported in the Implementation Report (data for 2015 not available).  

STECF  notes  incidentally  that  these  estimates  are  not  fully  consistent  with  the  values 
used in the estimation of the Total Swept Area, which estimated a maximum value of 150 
fishing days per year for the gangui with otterboards (against 389/17=22 fishing days in 
average using the values above), and 50 days per vessels for the small gangui (against 

111 

YearGangui typeNo. active vesselsNo. fishing daysTotal No. fishing daysWith otterboards22608Small-gangui14263With otterboards17389Small-gangui115220142016871441 
 
 
 
52/11=5  fishing  days  in  average  using  the  values  above).  The  actual  fishing  effort 
remains thus uncertain. 

In conclusion, the overall impact may have reduced mainly through the reduction of the 
number  of  gangui  vessels  with  otterboards  vessels,  but  the  actual  reduction  remains 
unclear and STECF cannot conclude whether this can be considered a sufficient reduction 
of impact. A more thorough analysis could be performed using e.g. the Total Swept Area 
approach  above,  with  a  detailed  documentation  on  the  actual  effort  deployed  by  each 
individual vessel in each year, in order to quantify the actual reduction.  

Regarding  alternative  mitigation  measures,  STECF  notes  that  alternative  gears  (e.g. 
static gears) suitable for targeting the same species may have a potentially lower impact 
on benthic communities in general and Posidonia beds in particular since such gears are 
lighter, and have a more limited spatial footprint (Jennings et al. 2001; Chuenpagdee et 
al.,  2003;  Andromede  Oceanologie,  2012),  especially  in  comparison  with  the  gangui 
groundrope and otterboards used by the largest gangui.  

The  current  management  plan  would  continue  to  ensure  a  sustainable  exploitation  of 
species 
the  socio-economic 
sustainability  of  the  overall  fishing  fleets  involved  in  exploiting  those  resources  in  the 
coastal area 

trawler  without 

targeted  by 

jeopardising 

'gangui' 

The  MP  was  enforced  in  2014-2016,  but  the  monitoring  of  fishing  activities  using 
logbooks  that  include  information  of  each  daily  trip  was  not  implemented.  Sampling  of 
species composition and sizes of catches also appears to not have been done regularly. 

Taking into account the available data, the National MP uses CPUE as a reference index of 
resource  abundance  and  management  target  (73  kg/day).  This  CPUE  refers  to  the 
landings  with  all  species  pooled.  The  group  of  the  main  target  species  is  defined  in  the 
Implementation  Report  as  'soup'  (scorpionfish,  serranidae,  labridae)  and  represents  67 
% of the total. The basis for this reference value is unclear. 

STECF  notes  that  basic  information  on  the  exploited  species  has  not  been  provided.  As 
noted above, detailed information of catch by target species and corresponding exploited 
sizes  is  unknown.  The  information  has  in  addition  not  been  provided  by  gangui  type 
(small gangui vs large gangui with otterboards), despite the fact that gear characteristics 
and sizes affect catch composition and catch efficiency. Also catch comparison within and 
outside  1.5  nm  has  not  been  performed.  In  this  regard,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  the 
highest annual catch reported by the gangui fleet in the Implementation Report in 2015 
(60.5  %)  and  2016  (39.5  %)  corresponds  to  “species  outside  area”  (i.e.  non-identified 
species). The lack of information does not permit to state that those values refer to the 
whole gangui fleet (i.e. inside and outside 1.5 nm).  It is therefore not possible  to know 
the current status of the target species and trends in CPUE during the implementation of 
the plan. It can thus not be assessed whether the current stock status is different from 
that at the beginning of the MP implementation. STECF cannot assess  whether the plan 
had  or  would  continue  to  ensure  a  sustainable  exploitation  of  the  species  targeted  by 
gangui.  

As for the socio-economic sustainability, the vessels authorized to use gangui are highly 
dependent on the use of this fishing gear, the catch from other gears being much smaller 
(trammel  net,  combined gillnet-trammel  net,  trolling  lines).  It  is  stated  that  this  fishery 
does  not  interfere  with  the  activities  of  vessels  using  gears  other  than  ganguis,  but 
STECF was not in a position to evaluate this statement.  

A  plan  for  the  permanent  cessation  of  activity  was  implemented  from  May  2016.  The 
number of vessels decreased from 36 in 2014 to 24 in 2017. It should be noted that in 
2017,  62.5  %  of  fishermen  have  reached  an  age  at  which  a  retirement  pension  for  a 

112 

 
 
 
seafarer can be requested. Indeed, 7 of the 24 currently operating fishermen-owners are 
aged 60 years and over with 2 fishermen-owners over 70 years. It is estimated that by 
2020  the  fleet  would  consist  of  16  vessels,  considering  the  age  of  the  fishermen. 
Notwithstanding this situation, economic variables and data of the vessels for the period 
2011 to 2015 indicate a profitable activity generating an average monthly income which 
is  higher  than  the  French  minimum  net  salary  of  1150  Eur  by  1  January  2017,  with 
gangui activity generating a significant proportion of that income. According to the report 
provided to STECF by France, the prohibition of that activity to these ships would imply 
that  these  vessels  would  likely  no  longer  be  profitable.  It  remains  nevertheless  unclear 
whether  the  gangui  activity  could  be  sustainability  performed  outside  of  the  prohibited 
areas.   

STECF conclusions 

STECF concludes that based on the evidence provided in the Implementation Report, not 
all the conditions which need to be fulfilled in order for a derogation to be granted were 
met. In particular, STECF has raised some concerns on the evidence provided to support 
the condition that the gangui fishing affects not more than 33 % of the area covered by 
seagrass  beds  of  Posidonia  oceanica  within  the  area  covered  by  the  management  plan, 
and 10 % of seagrass beds in the territorial waters of France. STECF calculations made 
with alternative plausible values reached higher percentage of Posidonia beds affected by 
the  gangui.  STECF  notes  also  that  some  of  these  areas  are  considered  to  be  in 
unfavourable conservation status according to Natura 2000 assessment. 

STECF  concluded  that  detailed  information  on  catch  and  impact  on  Posidonia  beds  is 
needed  to  cover  separately  the  two  types  of  ganguis,  as  STECF  notes  that  the  larger 
ganguis using otterboards are considered to have a stronger environmental impact than 
the  smaller  ganguis.  Also,  it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  activities  inside  and 
outside the derogated areas.  

STECF  notes  that  detailed  information  on  species  composition  and  sizes  of  catches  is 
unknown,  and  no  information  on  discards  is  provided.  It  is  therefore  not  possible  to 
conclude  whether  the  gangui  catches  of  species  listed  in  Annex  III  and  of  cephalopods 
can be expected to be minimal, or how selective the gangui gear is. It is also not known 
whether  the  gear  is  impacting  juveniles  of  commercial  target  species,  which  is  an 
important  concern  since  it  operates  over  Posidonia  beds  which  are  nursery  areas. 
Consequently STECF is unable to assess the potential impact of the gangui gear on fish 
mortality. 

STECF  observes  that  if  the  derogation  is  not  granted,  this  would  likely  have  a  strong 
socio-economic  impact  on  the  small  group  of  small-scale  fishermen  practicing  this 
activity; however it remains unclear whether alternative fishing activities could be used. 

No information has been provided to document that the current management plan would 
ensure a sustainable exploitation of the species targeted by gangui. 

References 

Andromede  Oceanologie,  2012.  Inventaires  biologiques  et  analyse  écologique  des 
habitats  marins  patrimoniaux  du  site  Natura  2000  «Rade  d’Hyères»  FR  9301613. 
Contrat Andromede Oceanologie / Agence des Aires Marines Protegees, 501 pp. 

Boudouresque,  C.F.,  Bernard,  G.,  Bonhomme,  P.,  et  al.,  2012.  Protection  and 
conservation  of  Posidonia  oceanica  meadows.  RAMOGE  and  RAC/SPA  publisher, 
Tunis: 202 pp. 

113 

 
 
 
 
Chuenpagdee,  R.,  Morgan,  L.  E.,  Maxwell,  S.  M.,  Norse,  E.  A.,  &  Pauly,  D.  (2003). 
Shifting  gears:  assessing  collateral  impacts  of  fishing  methods  in  US  waters. 
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(10), 517-524. 

Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  SEC  (2004)  772,  Report  of  the  subgroup  on  the 
Mediterranean Sea (SGMED) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for 
Fisheries (STECF). European Union Mediterranean Fisheries and exploited resources, 
488 pp. 

Eigaard,  O.R.,  Bastardie,  F.,  Breen,  M.,  Dinesen,  G.E.,  Hintzen,  N.T.,  Laffargue,  P., 
Mortensen, L.O., Nielsen, J.R., Nilsson, H.C., O’Neill, F.G., Polet, H., Reid, D.G., Sala, 
A., Skőld, M., Smith, C., Sørensen, T.K., Tully, O., Zengin, M., Rijnsdorp, A.D., 2016. 
Estimating  seabed  pressure  from  demersal  trawls,  seines,  and  dredges  based  on 
gear  design  and  dimensions.  ICES  Journal  of  Marine  Science,  73(1):  27-43 
(doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv099). 

Eigaard,  O.R.,  Bastardie,  F.,  Hintzen,  N.T.,  Buhl-Mortensen,  L.,  Buhl-Mortensen,  P., 
Catarino,  R.,  Dinesen,  G.E.,  Egekvist,  J.,  Fock,  H.O.,  Geitner,  K.,  Gerritsen,  H.D., 
Gonzalez, M.M., Jonsson, P., Kavadas S., Laffargue, P., Lundy, M., Gonzalez-Mirelis, 
G.,  Nielsen,  J.R.,  Papadopoulou,  N.,  Posen,  P.E.,  Pulcinella,  P.,  Russo,  T.,  Sala,  A., 
Silva,  C.,  Smith,  C.J.,  Vanelslander,  B.,  Rijnsdorp,  A.D.,  2017.  The  footprint  of 
bottom  trawling  in  European  waters:  distribution,  intensity,  and  seabed  integrity. 
ICES Journal of Marine Science 74(3), 847–865. (doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw194). 

Jennings  S.,  Michel  Kaiser  M.,  Reynolds  J.D.  2001.  Marine  Fisheries  Ecology,  Blackwell 

Science Ltd. 417 p. 

Marine  Protected  Areas  Agency,  2012.  inventories  of  biological  and  ecological  analysis 

property marine habitats of the Natura 2000 site “off” EN 9301993 Hyères 

Notti, E., De Carlo, F., Brčić, J., Sala, A., 2013. Technical specifications of Mediterranean 
trawl  gears.  In  Paschen  (eds)  Contributions  on  the  Theory  of  Fishing  Gears  and 
Related  Marine  Systems  Vol.  8.  Proceedings  of  the  11th  International  Workshop  on 
methods  for  the  development  and  evaluation  of  maritime  technologies  (Rostock,  9-
12  October  2013), 
doi: 
10.13140/2.1.3147.1687: 163-169. 

ISBN  978-3-8440-2251-3, 

ISSN  0945-0874, 

Rijnsdorp,  A.D.,  Bastardie,  F.,  Bolam,  S.G.,  Buhl-Mortensen,  L.,  Eigaard,  O.R.,  Hamon, 
K.G.,  Hiddink,  J.G.,  Hintzen,  N.T.,  Ivanovic,  A.,  Kenny,  A.,  Laffargue,  P.,  Nielsen, 
J.R.,  O’Neill,  F.G.,  Piet,  G.J.,  Polet,  H.,  Sala,  A.,  Smith,  C.,  van  Denderen  P.D.,  van 
Kooten, T., Zengin, M., 2016. Towards a framework for the quantitative assessment 
of  trawling  impact  on  the  seabed  and  benthic  ecosystem.  ICES  Journal  of  Marine 
Science, 73(1): 127-138 (doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv207). 

Sala,  A.,  Brčić,  J.,  Conides,  A.,  De  Carlo,  F.,  Klaoudatos,  D.,  Grech,  D.,  Lucchetti,  A., 
Mayans, A., Notti, E., Paci, N., Salom, S., Sartor, P., Sbrana, M., Soler, I., Spedicato, 
M.T.,  Virgili,  M.,  2013.  Technical  specifications  of  Mediterranean  trawl  gears 
(myGears).  Final  project  report,  financed  by  the  European  Commission  through  the 
Framework  service  contract  for  Scientific  Advice  and  other  services  for  the 
implementation  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  in  the  Mediterranean  (Contract 
MARE/2009/05-Lot 1), 519 pp. 

Sacchi,  J.,  Le  Corre,  G.,  Mortreux,  S.,  2010.  La  sélectivité  du  gangui  à  panneaux  des 
cotes  varoises.  Analyse  comparative  de  l’application  de  la  maille  carrée  de  40  mm. 
Project  Report  Département  HMT  –  Laboratoire  Ressources  Halieutique,  Sète, 
HMT/RH-Sète 2010-002, 32 pp. 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
6. STECF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STECF-PLEN-17-02 

Section  5.6  Management  Plan  for  small  pelagics  fishery  using  purse  seine  net 
"srdelara" (Republic of Croatia) 

STECF  recalls  its  recommendation  in  PLEN-17-01,  that  until  objective  means  to 
determine  the  most  appropriate  stock-recruitment  relationships  are  decided  upon, 
proxies for FMSY for Adriatic sardine and anchovy be derived using Patterson’s method and 
adopted  as  an  upper  limit  for  the  exploitation  rate  on  these  stocks.  The  corresponding 
values for proxies for FMSY are as follows: 

Anchovy in the Adriatic (GSAs 17&18) FMSY = 0.48 

Sardine in the Adriatic (GSAs 17&18) FMSY = 0.4 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS  

Background  documents 
https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/plen1702 

are  published 

on 

the  meeting’s  web 

site 

on: 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. CONTACT DETAILS OF STECF MEMBERS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS 

1  -  Information  on  STECF  members  and  invited  experts’  affiliations  is  displayed  for  information 
only.  In  any  case,  Members  of  the  STECF,  invited  experts,  and  JRC  experts  shall  act 
independently. In the context of the STECF work, the committee members and other experts do 
not represent the institutions/bodies they are affiliated to in their daily jobs. STECF members and 
experts also declare at each meeting of the STECF and of its Expert Working Groups any specific 
interest which might be considered prejudicial to their independence in relation to specific items 
on  the  agenda.  These  declarations  are  displayed  on  the  public  meeting’s  website  if  experts 
explicitly  authorized  the  JRC  to  do  so  in  accordance  with  EU  legislation  on  the  protection  of 
personnel data. For more information: http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/adm-declarations 

Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

Abella, 
Alvaro 
(rapporteur) 

J. 

Independent consultant 

Tel. 
3384989821 

0039-

aabellafisheries@gmail.c
om 

Andersen, 
Jesper  Levring 
(rapporteur) 

Department  of  Food  and 
Resource 
Economics 
(IFRO) 

Tel.dir.:  +45  35 
33 68 92 

jla@ifro.ku.dk 

Section 
and Natural Resources 

for  Environment 

University of Copenhagen 

Rolighedsvej 25 

1958 Frederiksberg 

Denmark 

AZTI / Unidad de 

Investigación 
Herrera 

Marina, 

kaia  portualdea  z/g  20110 
Pasaia 

(Gipuzkoa), Spain 

*Arrizabalaga, 
Haritz 

Tel.: 
+34667174477 

harri@azti.es 

Bailey, 
Nicholas 
(rapporteur) 

Marine  Scotland  Science, 
Marine  Laboratory,  P.O 
Box 101  

375 Victoria Road, Torry 

Aberdeen AB11 9DB  

UK 

*Bertignac, 
Michel 

Laboratoire  de  Biologie 
Halieutique 

IFREMER Centre de Brest 

BP  70  -  29280  Plouzane, 
France  

Tel:  +44  (0)1224 
876544  

Direct: 
(0)1224 295398  

+44 

Fax:  +44  (0)1224 
295511 

tel  :  +33  (0)2  98 
22  45  25  -  fax  : 
+33 (0)2 98 22 46 
53  

baileyn@marlab.ac.uk  

n.bailey@marlab.ac.uk 

michel.bertignac@ifreme
r.fr 

*Borges, Lisa 

FishFix, Brussels, Belgium 

info@fishfix.eu  

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

*Cardinale, 
Massimiliano 
(vice-chair) 

Catchpole, 
Thomas 
(rapporteur) 

Föreningsgatan  45, 
Lysekil, Sweden 

330 

Tel:  +46 
18750 

523 

massimiliano.cardinale@
slu.se 

Lowestoft 

thomas.catchpole@cefas
.co.uk  

CEFAS 
Laboratory, 

Pakefield Road, 

Lowestoft 

Suffolk, UK 

NR33 0HT 

*Curtis, Hazel 

Sea Fish Industry Authority 

18 Logie Mill 

Logie Green Road 

Edinburgh 

EH7 4HS, U.K. 

Tel:  +44  (0)131 
524 8664 

Hazel.curtis@seafish.co.
uk 

Fax:  +44  (0)131 
558 1442 

*Daskalov, 
Georgi 

Laboratory 
Ecology, 

of 

Marine 

Tel.:  +359 
646892 

52 

Georgi.daskalov@gmail.
com 

Institute  of  Biodiversity 
and 

Ecosystem 
Bulgarian 

Research, 

Academy of Sciences 

Döring, 
(vice-chair) 

Ralf 

Thünen 
Bundesforschungsinstitut, 
für  Ländliche  Räume,  Wald 
und  Fischerei,  Institut  für 
Seefischerei 
AG 
- 
Fischereiökonomie, 
Palmaille 
Hamburg, Germany 

D-22767 

9, 

Tel.:  040  38905-
185 

ralf.doering@thuenen.de 

Fax.:  040  38905-
263 

*Gascuel, 
Didier  

AGROCAMPUS OUEST 

65 Route de Saint Brieuc, 

Tel:+33(0)2.23.48
.55.34 

Didier.Gascuel@agroca
mpus-ouest.fr 

CS 84215, 

F-35042 RENNES Cedex 

Fax: 
+33(0)2.23.48.55.
35 

Knittweis, 
Leyla 
(rapporteur) 

France 

Department of Biology 

University of Malta 

Msida, MSD 2080 

Malta 

Lloret, 
(rapporteur) 

Josep 

Professor 
Associate 
(Professor 
Agregat), 
University of Girona (UdG), 
Spain 

118 

Leyla.knittweis@um.edu
.mt  

josep.lloret@udg.edu 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

Malvarosa, 
Loretta  

NISEA S.c.a.r.l.  

Martin,  Paloma 
(rapporteur) 

CSIC  Instituto  de  Ciencias 
del Mar  

Passeig Marítim, 37-49 

08003 Barcelona 

Spain 

Motova, Arina  

Sea Fish Industry Authority 

18 Logie Mill 

Logie Green Road 

Edinburgh 

EH7 4HS, U.K 

AZTI / Unidad de 

Investigación 
Herrera 

Marina, 

kaia  portualdea  z/g  20110 
Pasaia 

(Gipuzkoa), Spain 

The  Swedish  Agency  of 
Marine 
Water 
and 
Management (SwAM)  

*Murua, 
Hilario 

Nord, Jenny  

malvarosa@nisea.eu 

Tel: 4.93.2309500 

paloma@icm.csic.es 

Fax: 
34.93.2309555 

Tel.:  +44  131  524 
8662 

arina.motova@seafish.c
o.uk 

Tel: 
667174433 

0034 

hmurua@azti.es 

Fax: 94 6572555 

Tel.  0046  76  140 
140 3 

Jenny.nord@havochvatt
en.se 

Prellezo, Raúl 

AZTI 
Investigación Marina 

-Unidad 

de 

Tel: 
667174368 

+34 

rprellezo@azti.es 

Txatxarramendi 
z/g 

Ugartea 

48395 
(Bizkaia), Spain 

Sukarrieta 

Raid, Tiit 

Estonian  Marine  Institute, 
University 
Tartu, 
Mäealuse  14,  Tallinn,  EE-
126, Estonia 

of 

Tel.: 
58339340 

Fax: 
6718900 

+372 

Tiit.raid@gmail.com  

+372 

Sabatella, 
Evelina 
Carmen 
(rapporteur) 

NISEA, Via Irno, 11, 84135 
Salerno, Italy 

TEL.: 
089795775 

+39 

e.sabatella@nisea.eu  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

Sala, Antonello 
(rapporteur) 

Italian  National  Research 
Council (CNR) 

Tel:  +39 
2078841 

071 

a.sala@ismar.cnr.it 

Marine 
of 
Institute 
Sciences  (ISMAR),  Largo 
Fiera della Pesca, 1 

60125 Ancona - Italy 

Fax:  +39 
55313 

071 

Mob.: 
3283070446 

+39 

Scarcella, 
Giuseppe 

*Soldo, Alen 

Somarakis, 
Stylianos 
(rapporteur) 

Stransky, 
Christoph 
(rapporteur) 

Ulrich, 
(chair) 

Clara 

Italian 

1) 
National 
Research  Council  (CNR), 
Marine 
of 
Institute 
Sciences 
- 
(ISMAR) 
Fisheries  Section,  Largo 
Fiera della Pesca, 1, 60125 
Ancona – Italy 

AP 

2) 
Marine 
Environmental  Consultancy 
Ltd,  2,  ACROPOLEOS  ST. 
AGLANJIA, P.O.BOX 26728 

1647 Nicosia, Cyprus 

of  Marine 
Department 
Studies, University of Split, 
Livanjska  5,  21000  Split, 
Croatia 

Marine 
of 
Institute 
Biological  Resources  and 
Inland  Waters  (IMBRIW), 
Hellenic  Centre  of  Marine 
(HCMR), 
Research 
Thalassocosmos  Gournes, 
P.O.  Box  2214,  Heraklion 
71003, Crete, Greece 

Thünen  Institute  [TI-SF] 
Federal  Research  Institute 
for  Rural  Areas,  Forestry 
and  Fisheries,  Institute  of 
Sea  Fisheries,  Palmaille  9, 
Hamburg, 
D-22767 
Germany  

of 
Technical  University 
National 
Denmark, 
Aquatic 
of 
Institute 
Resources,  (DTU  Aqua), 
Charlottenlund 
Slot, 
JægersborgAllé  1,  2920 
Charlottenlund, Denmark 

Tel:  +39 
2078846 

071 

g.scarcella@ismar.cnr.it 

Fax:  +39 
55313 

071 

Tel.: 
99664694 

+357 

gscarcella@apmarine.co
m.cy 

Tel.: 
+385914433906 

soldo@unist.hr  

Tel.:  +30  2810 
337832 

somarak@hcmr. gr 

Fax 
6936566764 

+30 

Tel. 
+49 
38905-228  

Fax: 
+49 
38905-263  

40 

40 

christoph.stransky@thue
nen.de 

clu@aqua.dtu.dk 

*van Hoof, Luc 

IMARES,  Haringkade  1, 
Ijmuiden, The Netherlands 

Tel.: 
61061991 

+31 

Luc.vanhoof@wur.nl 

Vanhee,  Willy 
(rapporteur) 

Independent consultant 

wvanhee@telenet.be 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Name 

Address1 

Tel. 

Email 

STECF members 

*van 
Oostenbrugge, 
Hans 

*Vrgoc, Nedo 

Fisheries 
Wageningen 
Research, 
Wageningen 
Hague, The Netherlands 

Economics, 
Economic 
LEI 
The 

formerly 

UR, 

Hans.vanOostenbrugge
@wur.nl 

Institute  of  Oceanography 
Split, 
Fisheries, 
and 
Setaliste  Ivana  Mestrovica 
63, 21000 Split, Croatia 

Tel.: 
21408002 

+385 

vrgoc@izor.hr 

STECF members marked with an asterix* did not attend the PLEN-17-02 meeting (see section 2 
of this report).  

JRC experts 

Name 

Address 

Telephone no. 

Email 

Carvalho, 
Natacha 

DG  Joint  Research  Centre 
JRC 

Casey, John 

DG  Joint  Research  Centre 
JRC 

Holmes, 
Steven 

DG  Joint  Research  Centre 
JRC 

External experts 

Keatinge, 
Michael 

Kempf, 
Alexander 

Bord 
Ireland 

Iascaigh  Mhara, 

Thünen  Institute  [TI-SF] 
Federal  Research  Institute 
for  Rural  Areas,  Forestry 
and  Fisheries,  Institute  of 
Sea  Fisheries,  Palmaille  9, 
Hamburg, 
D-22767 
Germany 

Natacha.carvalho@ec.eu
ropa.eu 

John.casey@ec.europa.e
u 

steven.holmes@ec.europ
a.eu 

michael.keatinge@bim.i
e 

alexander.kempf@thuen
en.de 

Ribeiro, 
Cristina 

Rihan, Dominic 

Bord 
Ireland 

Iascaigh  Mhara, 

Dominic.Rihan@bim.ie 

Simmonds, 
Edmund John 

Independent expert 

e.j.simmonds1@gmail.c
om 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 

Name 

Address 

Telephone no. 

Email 

Calvo, Angel 

DG MARE, A.4 

angel-andres.calvo-
santos@ec.europa.eu 

Doerner, 
Hendrik 

DG  Joint  Research  Centre 
JRC, STECF secretariat 

GENZBIGELYTE
-VENTURI, 
Ramune 

DG MARE, D.1 

Stecf-
secretariat@jrc.ec.europ
a.eu  

Ramune.GENZBIGELYTE-
VENTURI@ec.europa.eu 

Graham, 
Norman 

DG MARE, D.3 

norman.graham@ec.euro
pa.eu 

Groth 
Rasmussen, 
Line 

DG MARE, C.1 

Line.GROTH-
RASMUSSEN@ec.europa.
eu 

König, 
Szuzsanna 

DG MARE, C.3 

zsuzsanna.koenig@ec.eu
ropa.eu 

Kostopoulou, 
Venetia 

DG MARE, C3 

venetia.kostopoulou@ec.
europa.eu 

Laine, Valerie 

DG MARE Unit Head D.1 

Valerie.laine@ec.europa.
eu 

Lindebo, Erik 

DG MARE, C.1 

erik.lindebo@ec.europa.e
u 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Linkute, Ula 

DG MARE C.1 

Ula.LINKUTE@ec.europa.
eu 

Perez-Perera, 
Amanda 

DG MARE D.1 

Amanda.Perez-
Perera@ec.europa.eu 

MARAVELIAS, 
Christos 

DG MARE D.1 

Christos.MARAVELIAS@e
c.europa.eu 

PEYRONNET, 
Arnaud 

DG MARE B.2 

Arnaud.PEYRONNET@ec.
europa.eu 

SHRIVES, 
Jonathan 

DG MARE C.1 

Jonathan.SHRIVES@ec.e
uropa.eu 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
. 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(*)  The  information  given  is  free,  as  are  most  calls  (though  some  operators,  phone  boxes  or  hotels  may  charge 
you). 

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
B
-
A
X
-
1
7
-
0
1
6
-
E
N
N

-

STECF 

JRC Mission 

The  Scientific,  Technical 
and 
Economic  Committee  for  Fisheries 
(STECF)  has  been  established  by 
the  European  Commission.  The 
is  being  consulted  at 
STECF 
regular 
on  matters 
intervals 
pertaining  to  the  conservation  and 
living  aquatic 
management  of 
including  biological, 
resources, 
economic,  environmental,  social 
and technical considerations. 

of 

the  science  and  knowledge 
As 
service 
European 
the 
Commission,  the  Joint  Research 
Centre’s  mission  is  to  support  EU 
independent,  
policies 
evidence 
the  whole  
policy cycle. 

with 
throughout 

125 

doi:10.2760/53335 

ISBN 978-92-79-67488-4