Table 2: Action Plan details Standard requirement Actions Resources required Action lead Action partners Timescale / milestones 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. There should also be a review of alternative measures. The current management measures and reference points need to be formulated into a coherent harvest strategy that include adaptive management measures where appropriate. This strategy would cover the UoA, thus spanning the inshore (<6 nm) IFCA managed areas and offshore areas under national management. Fisheries management expertise CEFAS & Industry as represented by Beshlie Pool MSC & Seafish to work on finding funding Industry IFCAs (hereafter refers to Cornwall, Devon & Severn, Scilly Isles & Southern) Defra MMO WGCRAB Overall timescale 3 years 6 months. Position paper produced, inc. identification of effort distribution by different fleets around the UoA, and identifying current harvest strategies, gaps and potential conflicts. Needs to recognise different management needs of UoA segments e.g. UK inshore areas, offshore areas, etc. Yr 2: Based on the Position Paper, proposals for a holistic harvest strategy. Yr 3: Public consultation and formal acceptance of agreed strategy. 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. Based on the harvest strategy developed in Action #1, further development and formalisation of harvest control rules for that are both adaptive and where appropriate, precautionary. This would span the IFCA areas and include offshore (>6 nm) areas of the UoA. Fisheries management expertise CEFAS IFCAs Defra MMO Industry WGCRAB Overall timescale 4 years Yr 2: Develop proposals for harvest control rules, based on the strategies identified in Action #1 above. Yr 3: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised. Yr 4: Improved harvest control regime embedded in management processes. Yr 5. Review and finalisation of harvest control
2.1.2 Primary and 2.2.2 Secondary species management strategy There is a partial strategy in place for the UoA, if necessary, that is expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary and secondary species at/to levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI. is a need to review alternative management measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of all non-target primary and secondary species caught by this fishery. Expertise to undertake the review and identify potential mitigation measures Seafish CEFAS IFCAs Industry – SD&CS MMO Overall timescale 2 years Yr 1: Conduct review of alternative management measures for non-target species. Yr 2: Mainstreaming of alternative measures into management. 2.2.3 Information (secondary species) Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main and minor secondary species, and for a management strategy. Information available on secondary species caught by the fisheries quantified and made available to managers. This would form a more coherent, coordinated approach to monitoring of bycatch by the IFCAs. Observer / other monitoring programmes South Devon and Channel Shellfishermen & Devon & Severn IFCA IFCAs CEFAS Industry Seafish Overall timescale 3 years Yr 1: Risk assessment carried out. Yr 2: Based on the risk assessment, further data collection (1° or 2°) as required (possibly via FSP funding). Yr 3. Formal report published.
2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management and information Effects of the UoA on populations within national / international limits. Management strategy in place. Information is adequate for the assessment of impacts and their management. Information on the nature and scale of impacts on ETPs by these fisheries needs to be assessed. Based on this, appropriate management measures need to be developed, if required. This needs to be embedded in an risk-based ETP impact monitoring system. Expertise to assess fisheries-related impacts on ETP populations, and to develop both alternative management measures to combat these and a risk-monitoring program. Seafish JNCC IFCAs Defra CEFAS Industry MMO Natural England Overall timescale 4 years Yr 1: GIS-based risk assessment. Listing of potential ETPs interacting with UoAs, and then mapping of ETP distribution overlap with UoA potting effort. Yr 2-Yr 3. Based on the risk assessment, further data collection (1° or 2°) as required (possibly via FSP funding). Based on the ETP risk assessment and additional data, identification of interactions with ETPs and consequences for ETP populations and the development of possible management approaches for reducing ETP interactions and impacts Yr 4. Mainstreaming of ETP management approaches and introduce of the risk-monitoring system. 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives Short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Wider discussion and agreement of management needs and objectives with management authorities e.g. across UK inshore and offshore areas, and with French and Irish MAs. Facilitation of discussions and agreements Crab and lobster FIP Steering Group Defra MMO IFCAs NWWAC NWAG Overall timescale 1 year Each SG Meeting: Review and where necessary, promote improvements to UK and non-UK consultation and joint management processes. Table 3: Evaluation against Action Plan milestones
Standard requirement Actions Timescale / milestones Progress / outcome Revised milestone 1.2.1 Harvest strategy Action #1: Develop formal harvest strategy that includes adaptive management measures where appropriate. 6 months. Position paper produced, inc. identification of effort distribution by different fleets around the UoA, & identifying current harvest strategies, gaps and potential conflicts. Yr 1: Based on the Position Paper, proposals for a holistic harvest strategy. Yr 2: Public consultation and formal acceptance of agreed strategy. 1.2.2 HCRs & tools Action #2: Development of formal harvest control rules Yr 1: Develop proposals for harvest control rules, based on the strategies identified in Action #1 above. Yr 2: Proposals put out for consultation and finalised. Yr 3: Improved harvest control regime embedded in management processes. Yr 4. Review and finalisation of harvest control rules. 2.1.2 Primary & 2.2.2 Secondary species management strategy Action #3: Review alternative management measures to minimise mortality of all non-target 1° & 2° species 6 months: Conduct review of alternative management measures for non-target species. Yr 1: Mainstreaming of alternative measures into management. 2.2.3 Information (secondary species) Action #4: Information available on 2° species caught by the fisheries quantified & made available to managers. Yr 0: Risk assessment based upon SeaScope FR and other sources. Yr 1: Based on the risk assessment, further data collection (1° or 2°) as required (possibly via FSP funding). Yr 2. Formal report published. 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 ETP species outcome, management & information Action #5: Gather additional information on nature & scale of ETP interactions and impacts. Yr 0: GIS-based risk assessment. Listing of potential ETPs interacting with UoAs, and then mapping of ETP distribution overlap with UoA potting effort. Yr 1. Based on the risk assessment, further data collection (1° or 2°) as required (possibly via FSP funding).