P3: No conditions expected and therefore no actions proposed. Table 2: Action Plan details Standard requirement Actions Resources required Action lead Action partners Stakeholders Timescale / milestones 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 Revision of HCR in LTMP Work through the NSAC – to ensure that the next management plan (likely a North Sea and Skagerrak mixed-species management plan) contains a defined reduction in F as the SSB approaches the limit reference point. Engagement with NSAC. Potential need for a position paper detailing the requirements for a revised LTMP. SFSAG (as member of both steering group and NSAC) (Ongoing harmonization with other certified North Sea plaice fisheries) WWF Icelandic Seachill NSAC members Cefas Defra Overall timescale will with the MAP arrangements YR1: Remain updated on MAP progress to ensure deliver required HCR revisions. Develop a position paper if necessary if, HCRs aren’t being revised as needed. YR2: agreement on changes to the LTMP in principle by management. YR3: changes to the LTMP adopted.
2.2.1 Secondary species Main secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits OR If below biologically based limits, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND 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 Catch composition Review. detailed catch data for UoAs from MMO UoA composition (TR1/TR2 split may enable TR1 to progress, Monkfish species split may reduce % below main) Nephrops status (P2 stocks required to be above Blim) Nephrops FU status in relation to 2.2.1 requirements Data analysis and interpretation. Output expected to: define UoAs for fast track Clarify Nephrops status per FU and likely assessment route (RBF?) Provide justification for assessment or further actions needed. (on behalf of steering group) – data request MSC to explore funding MMO – data provider MSC – interpretation of standard NSAC members Overall timescale 6 months Yr1: Review report delivered.
considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. 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. NOTE: ‘main’ may include: >5% in catch >2% if vulnerable out of scope species Review of alternative measures for Review catch composition data to identify ‘unwanted catch’. To include undersized and out of scope species. Review measures (incl spatial) to minimise such 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 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. The outcomes are dependent on the beam trawl industry
wanting to move forward. 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management and information. 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. Fisheries / nature conservation expertise to develop the ETP strategy. Expected 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, management and information Habitat Assessment To provide a quantitative assessment of the scale of overlap, the level of impact Fisheries / nature conservation expertise to undertake the habitat assessment. If required: Sainsbury’s (AD) With input from MSC to develop funding proposal Cefas Fisheries administrations MMO JNCC NFFO Overall timescale: Assessment: 6 months (awaiting external funding from EMFF) Strategy (if needed): 3 years
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. Fisheries / nature conservation expertise to develop habitat strategy. Data collection programme 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. Table 3: Evaluation against Action Plan milestones Standard requirement Actions Timescale / milestones Progress / outcome Revised milestone 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 Revision of HCR in LTMP Work through the NSAC – to ensure that the next management plan (likely a North Sea and Skagerrak management plan) contains a defined reduction in F as the SSB approaches the limit reference point. Overall timescale: 3 YR1: Position paper proposing changes to the LTMP by management to specify how fishing mortality will be reduced as SSB approaches SSBLIM
trawl industry wanting to move forward. 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management and information. 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 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