1.1.1 Stock Status It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. 1.2.4 Assessment of status - The assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rule. - The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points that are appropriate to the stock and can be estimated. - The assessment takes uncertainty into account. - The assessment of stock status is subject to peer review. Lemon Sole Stock Assessment Review Explore current status & European interest via the A.C. Review current information levels to determine requirements for stock assessment Undertake a stock assessment to establish reference points. This action can then inform 1.1.1 on stock status and 1.2.4 on assessment of stock status. In the absence of a stock assessment with reference points the RBF is used and a ‘high risk’ score is likely leading to a fail. Fisheries scientists to undertake the review and (if possible with current information) estimation of reference points (MSY proxies). SFSAG Icelandic Seachill MSC to develop funding application Cefas to undertake the assessment review subject to funding Seafish (to feed into RASS) ICES Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM) NSAC members Overall timescale: 1 year* Yr1: six months Report on AC discussions (incl. Dutch and Danish) Complete assessment review Yr1: Undertake assessment to determine reference points *Assumes existing information is sufficient to enable assessment
Use of RBF gives a default 80 for 1.2.4. 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy may not have been tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. Change to a lemon sole TAC if necessary For harvest strategy and HCRs to be sufficiently responsive to the state of the stock, a single species TAC is required. detailing the requirements and road map for a single species TAC for lemon sole. Fisheries science and management expertise to produce the position paper and road map. Icelandic Seachill Cefas – to peer review. Lowestoft PO MSC to introduce leads to Danish contact NSAC members ICES working groups Overall timescale: 4 years This action is being kept on hold at the moment. The Steering Group is currently not moving forward with year 2 & 3 milestones due to significant potential change in management with the Landings Obligation and the UK exiting the EU. The action will move forwards when a decision has been made on how the choke species recommendations are implemented, and there is more information on what future management will look like.
Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. [Same action for NS plaice] status in relation to 2.2.1 requirements for or further actions needed. 2.2.2 scoring issue (e) There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species and Review of alternative measures for Review catch composition data to identify ‘unwanted catch’. To include non-commercial, undersized and out of scope species. Fisheries expertise to undertake the review and identify potential mitigation measures Youngs (DP) WWF Icelandic Seachill Seafish – to undertake peer review. Steering group members NFFO Yr1: Review report delivered. on existing initiatives Detail on measures Yr 2: Incorporate outputs of Action 3 if required Yr 2 onwards:
they are implemented as appropriate. [Same action for NS plaice] Review measures to minimise such catch. Implementation of measures where necessary 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management and information. [Same action for NS plaice] ETP Strategy An ETP strategy should be developed that: identifies ETP species interacting with each UoA Manages and minimizes impact by the fishery Ensures sufficient information is collected to inform Fisheries / nature conservation expertise to develop the ETP strategy. Expected focus is on skates & rays. Data collection programme involving UoA vessels WWF SFSAG to provide advice on current info and provisions JNCC NFFO MMO Overall timescale: 3 years Yr 1: Strategy developed Yr 2: Data collection programme undertaken Yr 3: Analysis of data collection and review of strategy. 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3 Habitat outcome, Habitat Assessment Fisheries / nature conservation Sainsburys (AD) Cefas NFFO Overall timescale: Assessment: 6 months
management and information [Same action for NS plaice] To provide a quantitative assessment of the scale of overlap, the level of impact and the rate of recovery. In relation to commonly encountered habitats and VMEs. Results will indicate if a habitat strategy is necessary. The outcomes are dependent on the beam industry wanting to move forward. expertise to undertake the habitat assessment. If required: Fisheries / nature conservation expertise to develop habitat strategy. Data collection programme With input from MSC to develop funding proposal Fisheries administrations WWF MMO JNCC Strategy (if needed): 3 years Yr 1: Assessment undertaken Yr 2: Habitat strategy developed (if necessary) Data collection programme undertaken Yr 3: Analysis of data collection and review of strategy. 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4 fishery-specific management Management Plan for lemon sole This may be a specific management plan or a joint plan that includes lemon sole within a North Sea mixed fishery plan Check progress on mixed fishery plan & extent Fisheries science and management expertise to progress fisheries-specific management plans. Build on GAP2 outputs & NSAC mixed-fish plan to establish North Sea LTMP SFSAG Icelandic Seachill Cefas Lowestoft PO (as members of both steering group and NSAC) WWF to find out when the next NSAC Members ICES Working Group on Mixed Fisheries (WGMIXFISH) - with Overall timeline may be dependent on timescale for North Sea mixed fishery plan SG members with AC links to ask re. progress on mixed fishery plan. (if that plan includes lemon sole and so can be considered as fishery-specific management) If no inclusion of lemons, development of plan specific to
to which lemons included. See proposal for a Regulation (COM 2016/493) Depending on outcome either a. ensure inclusion of lemons in mixed plan or b. develop plan for lemons with key fishing nations Note: EU request for Fmsy values from ICES does not include lemon sole. discussion on the NS MAP is lemons required with key fishing nations: UK Germany Netherlands Belgium France Denmark Table 3: Evaluation against Action Plan milestones Standard requirement Actions Timescale / milestones Progress / outcome Revised milestone 1.1.1 Stock Status It is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. Lemon Sole Stock Assessment Review Explore current status & European interest via the A.C. Overall timescale: 1 year* Yr1: six months
together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. The harvest strategy may not have been tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. 1.2.2 Harvest Control Rules and tools Well-defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Paper detailing the requirements and road map for a single species TAC for lemon sole. group that sits on AC. Ensure asking same question. Then talk to Dutch & Danish 3mnth: Leads to write up findings and report back to group.Report on AC discussions then deliver position paper YR2: agreement on changes to the TAC arrangements. YR3: Lemon sole advice provided by ICES YR4: implementation of single species TAC (as part of well-defined HCR and tools) 2.2.1 Secondary species outcomes Main secondary species are highly likely to be above Catch composition Review. Refine UoA composition (TR1/TR2 split may enable TR1 to progress, Angler species split may reduce % below main) Overall timescale 6 months Yr1: Review report delivered.
[Same action for NS plaice] 2.2.2 scoring issue (e) There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species and they are implemented as appropriate. [Same action for NS plaice] Review of alternative measures for by-catch Review catch composition data to identify ‘unwanted catch’. To include non-commercial, undersized and out of scope species. Review measures to minimise such catch. Overall timescale: 6 months (follow action 2 – review of catch composition) Yr1: Review report delivered. Paper on existing initiatives Detail on measures Yr 2 onwards: Implementation of measures where necessary 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management and information. [Same action for NS plaice] ETP Strategy An ETP strategy should be developed that: identifies ETP species interacting with each UoA Manages and minimizes impact by the fishery Ensures sufficient information is collected to inform management. Overall timescale: 3 years Yr 1: Strategy developed Yr 2: Data collection programme undertaken Yr 3:
Analysis of data collection and review of strategy. 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3 Habitat outcome, management and information [Same action for NS plaice] Habitat Assessment To provide a quantitative assessment of the scale of overlap, the level of impact and the rate of recovery. In relation to commonly encountered habitats and VMEs. Results will indicate if a habitat strategy is necessary. The outcomes are dependent on the beam trawl industry wanting to move forward. Overall timescale: Assessment: 6 months Strategy (if needed): 3 years Yr 1: Assessment undertaken Habitat strategy developed (if necessary) Yr 2: Data collection programme undertaken Yr 3: Analysis of data collection and review of strategy. 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.4 fishery-specific management Management Plan for lemon sole This may be a specific management plan or a joint plan that includes lemon sole within a North Sea mixed fishery plan Check progress on mixed fishery plan & extent to which lemons included. Overall timeline may be dependent on timescale for North Sea mixed fishery plan SG members with AC links to ask re. progress on mixed fishery plan.
See proposal for a Regulation (COM 2016/493) Depending on outcome either a. ensure inclusion of lemons in mixed plan or b. develop plan for lemons with key fishing nations (if that plan includes lemon sole and so can be considered as fishery-specific management) If no inclusion of lemons, development of plan specific to lemons required with key fishing nations: UK Germany Netherlands Belgium France Denmark Summary of Pre-assessment results Principle Component PI Performance Indicator Likely scoring UoA 1 Seine UoA 2 Trawl UoA 3 Beam 1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status <60 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N/A Management 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 60-79 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools 60-79
1.2.3 Information and monitoring ≥80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status ≥80 2 Primary Species 2.1.1 Outcome ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 2.1.2 Management ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 2.1.3 Information ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 Secondary species 2.2.1 Outcome ≥80 <60 ≥80 2.2.2 Management <60 <60 <60 2.2.3 Information 60-79 60-79 60-79 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 60-79 60-79 60-79 2.3.2 Management 60-79 60-79 60-79 2.3.3 Information 60-79 60-79 60-79 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 60-79 60-79 <60 2.4.2 Management 60-79 60-79 60-79 2.4.3 Information 60-79 60-79 60-79 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome ≥80 ≥80 60-79 2.5.2 Management ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 2.5.3 Information ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 3 Governance & policy 3.1.1 Legal and customary framework ≥80 3.1.2 Consultation, responsibilities ≥80 3.1.3 Long term objectives ≥80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 60-79