Louis Braillelaan 80 Working Group II meeting … WG II 11072017.pdf · 4 Charles Berkow The...

of 16 Pelagic Advisory Council-

Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

Pelagic AC

Louis Braillelaan 80 2719 EK Zoetermeer

The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)63 375 6324

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.pelagic-ac.org

Participants

1 Sean O’Donoghue Killybegs Fishermen’s Organisation 2 Alex Wiseman Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association 3 Aukje Coers Cornelis Vrolijk 4 Charles Berkow The Fisheries Secretariat 5 Christine Absil Seas at Risk 6 Claus Reedtz-Sparrevohn Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation 7 Esben Sverdrup-Jensen Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation 8 Gerard van Balsfoort Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association 9 Gersom Costas Instituto Español de Oceanografía 10 Ghislain Chouinard ICES 11 Goncalo Carvalho Sciaena 12 Hugo Mendes Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera 13 Ian Gatt Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association 14 Irene Kingma Dutch Elasmobranch Society 15 Jerome Nouis Union des armateurs a la pêche de France 16 Jesper Raakjær University of Aalborg 17 Jessica Demblon EBCD 18 John Ward Irish Fish PO 19 Jonas Sorensen EU Fishmeal 20 José Beltran OPLUGO 21 Justyna Zajchowska The Pew Charitable Trusts 22 Leon Bouts EFCA 23 Lesley Duthie North Sea Women’s Network 24 Line Groth-Rasmussen European Commission- DG MARE 25 Ludmilla van der Meer Pelagic AC 26 Mads Larsson AIPCE 27 Manuela Azevedo Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera 28 Miguel Cunha ADAPI 29 Mikkel Stage The Danish AgriFish Agency 30 Reine Johansson Swedish Fishermen’s Federation 31 Rob Banning Parlevliet & van der Plas 32 Romain Soisson From Nord

Working Group II meeting 11 July 2017

12:00-17:00 hrs

Parkhotel

Molenstraat 53

The Hague

The Netherlands


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

33 Sheila O’Neil Department of Agriculture, Food & Marine, Ireland 34 Steven Mackinson Scottish Pelagic Fishermen’s Association 35 Uwe Richter Deutscher Hochseefischerei-Verband/ Seefrostvertrieb 36 Verena Ohms Pelagic AC

1. Opening of the meeting by the chairman, Sean O’Donoghue

The chairman opened the meeting at 12:00. Despite the long agenda he intended to close the meeting by 17:00 hrs.

2. Adoption of the agenda

The chairman announced that he wanted to add an extra item to the agenda, namely the choke mitigation tool developed by the NWW AC which he thought might be useful for the Pelagic AC as well. He suggested dealing with this item after the EFCA presentation. The meeting agreed.

3. Follow-up on action items

The first action item was to write a letter to ICES inquiring whether it retains the editorial rights to stakeholder information. A response to the letter has been received recently. The chairman was a bit surprised about the response and asked Ghislain Chouinard for clarification.

Ghislain Chouinard replied that the letter was the result of one particular statement from stakeholders that had not been included in the ICES advice for Celtic Sea herring. Stakeholders wanted to make their preference for the management plan over MSY known in the advice. However, any information in the ICES advice sheets had to be related to the stock assessment, e.g. that fishermen observed herring near the bottom in the Celtic Sea or that abundance indicators are being developed in other fisheries. However, uttering a preference is not related to the stock assessment and ICES already mentioned the management plan in its catch options table. At the same time ICES had been requested to give advice based on MSY. Therefore, ICES was of the opinion that the Pelagic AC should take up the issue with the Commission. Any stakeholder comments to be included in the advice sheets should be factual and relevant for the stock assessment.

The chairman thanked Ghislain Chouinard for his explanation, but also said that he had a few issues with his response. He said that there was a contradiction between what is stated in the letter and what is common practice. A lot of information in the stakeholder section has not been considered by the Working Groups and yet has been included in the advice documents, e.g. in relation to genetics. The Pelagic AC has spent a lot of time developing a management strategy for Celtic Sea herring, but for some unknown reason the Commission has instructed ICES to use MSY instead. He would consider it very strange if stakeholders did not mention this issue given that it is of critical importance to them. Ever since the management strategy has been developed the Pelagic AC advised according to that strategy even though that meant accepting a lower TAC. The question remained whether ICES retained the editorial rights to information provided by stakeholders. If yes, then the Pelagic AC should reconsider providing information under such constraints.

Ghislain Chouinard replied that the advice sheets are ICES documents and as such ICES has editorial rights. If information is presented that is relevant to the assessment, then ICES will include it. However, it happens all the time that advice is being re-written or that people do not agree on something. ICES tried to accommodate stakeholders as much as possible and he would hate to see them not providing


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

information anymore. However, the information should be relevant to the assessment issues. He understood that the Pelagic AC had a strong interest in the Celtic Sea herring management strategy, but opinions can better be taken up with decision-makers rather than ICES, especially since there might be different opinions by different parties.

The chairman said that the problem was not with the Advice Drafting Groups, but with ACOM, because ACOM decided to delete the sentence. He would have been happy to adjust the text, but changing or deleting text without communicating this to stakeholders prior to the advice being published was not appreciated. Regarding different opinions he said that that was not an issue in the pelagics, because the Pelagic AC always operates on a unanimous basis. The chairman asked Ghislain Chouinard to take the issue back to ACOM and deal with it again at the October meeting.

Ghislain Chouinard promised to raise it with ACOM and also considered it a possibility to discuss it again at the MIACO meeting.

The next action item was to continue developing a management strategy for Irish Sea herring.

Steven Mackinson said that he had been in contact with Pieter-Jan Schön, who seems entirely focused on the assessment, but has not progressed any further with the management strategy.

The chairman decided to leave the item on the list and asked Steven Mackinson and Ian Gatt to follow up on it, given that Alan McCulla hardly attended any Pelagic AC meetings and is in generally rather unresponsive.

The next action items were in relation to 6a herring. A lot of them are ongoing and dependent on other things that have to be completed first. The development of a sampling protocol is ongoing after which a workshop will be arranged with ICES. Genetics will also be included in WKSPLIT. The Commission provided advice on how genetic sampling could be included in the Data Collection Framework and the focus group was looking into the options. A major action item was to submit the rebuilding plan which has been done and the Commission has already sent a request to ICES for evaluation. Genetic, acoustic and morphometric research is ongoing and a proposal from Edward Farrell has been submitted to the Commission in relation to the genetics project. The chairman hoped that the project will receive funding soon.

Later today a draft management strategy for southern horse mackerel will be presented.

In regards to western horse mackerel the genetics project has already been discussed and people were awaiting a decision from the NPWG on providing funding. A focus group meeting took place on the 27th of June and people had a good discussion, also on the proposed closure. The chairman hoped that the group could continue developing a strategy and maybe put something into the system later this year. However, he also pointed out that there was still a lot of work to do. Natural mortality has also been dealt with at the focus group meeting, but required more work too.

A while ago a letter has been sent to the NWW regional group suggesting a way forward to get over the issue of the boarfish closures. Unfortunately, the NWW regional group never replied to the letter. The chairman asked Sheila O’Neil to follow-up on the issue with the NWW regional group and she promised to do so. As Spain is currently chairing the group, the chairman also asked José Beltran to mention the letter to the Spanish administration.

Another action item was in relation to problems with the boarfish assessment model and that was being worked on by the Marine Institute.

There were also a number of action items on high survival and de minimis exemptions which all have been followed up on. As far as the chairman was aware the recommendations from the Pelagic AC had been taken up by the regional groups in the new joint recommendations they submitted to the Commission.


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

4. Fishing opportunities 2017: presentation of ICES advice by Ghislain Chouinard (information)

• Herring in 6a and 7bc

Ghislain Chouinard explained that the advice for this stock is similar to last year. ICES still considered the herring stocks in the area two separate stocks, but because of mixing issues the assessments had to be combined. With the updated assessment this year it seems that the stock is even more below Blim than previously thought. Therefore, the catch advice was again zero and ICES recommended that a recovery plan be put in place. It further recommended that activities that have an impact on the spawning habitat of herring should not occur, unless the effects of these activities have been assessed and shown not to be detrimental. Fishing mortality has been below Blim since the late 1990ies, but recruitment has been at an all-time low since 2013. SSB in 2015 has been revised downwards by 30% compared to the previous assessment. However, the assessment was very uncertain given the lack of information on recruitment. Last year ICES was asked to advise what a scientific monitoring TAC should be and the figure provided by ICES was 4 840 tonnes based on the number of samples needed.

The chairman said that the advice was as he had expected it to be. He wanted to know why ICES gave advice on a combined stock even though it still believed that there were to separate stocks.

Ghislain Chouinard explained that this was the only way to be able to give any advice at all.

The chairman was disappointed that there was no comment on the scientific monitoring TAC other than including it in the catch options table. He would have expected a sentence on whether it is still relevant or not.

Ghislain Chouinard replied that ICES has only been asked what a monitoring TAC should look like, not whether it should be taken or not. The advice on the monitoring TAC is still valid which is the reason that ICES did not comment on it any further this year.

The chairman said that the change in SSB between the MSY option and the scientific monitoring TAC option is so small that it cannot really be discerned and that it is certainly within the bounds of error.

Ghislain Chouinard agreed with this observation and pointed out that there does not seem to change much in perspective, because the stock size is so low.

Claus Reedtz-Sparrevohn noted that ICES recommended developing a recovery plan for the stock. He asked Ghislain Chouinard to elaborate on the elements such a plan should entail.

Ghislain Chouinard said that the aim of such a plan is to get out of the current situation. He understood that the plan submitted by the Pelagic AC to the Commission has already been forwarded to ICES and ICES was currently in the process of responding if and when the request can be accommodated. He thought that members of the focus group might have an idea on what elements should be included in such a plan.

Steven Mackinson said that the ICES advice on the monitoring fishery contained a list of elements that should be covered in the recovery plan and the focus group used that as template.

• Irish Sea herring

Ghislain Chouinard explained that this was one of the stocks covered by WKIRISH in early 2017. As a result of the benchmark the stock perception has changed quite substantially and SSB has been revised

upwards. Follow MSY ICES advises that catches should be no more than 7 016 tonnes in 2018 and activities that have an impact on the spawning habitat of herring should not occur, unless the effects of these activities have been assessed and shown not to be detrimental. Fishing mortality has been below Fmsy since 2007 and recruitment has been higher in recent years, but was low in 2016. SSB


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

has been above MSY Btrigger since 2006. Ghislain Chouinard also pointed out that a new acoustic survey has been included in the assessment. Reference points have also been updated and are somewhat higher now.

John Ward said that due to the presence of herring from other stocks the assessment might overestimate SSB. In light of that he wanted to know why the advice is so decisive and why concern from reviewers seems to have been sidelined.

Ghislain Chouinard replied that the mixing has been going on for some time, but so far ICES has not been able to develop approaches to take that into account and therefore only mentions it. Over the next few years ICES plans to have a look at it. As usual ICES provides the best available estimates, but in the comments section it is indicated that there could be some impact from mixing. He also pointed out that the benchmark continued working after the original meeting, because there were different views from reviewers. Additional work was therefore presented to the reviewers. At that point one reviewer more or less agreed with the results, while the other did not. However, the latter one said that he did not have the expertise to make a judgment and it was therefore decided to have HAWG do the evaluation. The herring experts then arrived at the conclusion that the new assessment should be used including the new acoustic information. However, a minority report has been added to the Working Group report since the group could not reach a consensus position. One person was of the view that the mixing should be taken into account. However, this was not possible and therefore ICES is left with the current assessment which is the best ICES can do at the moment. Ghislain Chouinard admitted that it was unusual to have the benchmark continue after the real meeting.

The chairman said that members of the Pelagic AC have been fully active during the benchmark, but it appeared now that there had been another process going on outside the benchmark. He strongly advised ICES to look at its processes and think about a quality control system. The process is very important to stakeholders who had not been aware that the discussions continued after the benchmark. ICES should make sure that this will not happen again. Mixing was a very relevant issue and the chairman was amazed at the differences between the assessments over the years. He wanted to know what effect the mixing will have on Celtic Sea herring.

Ghislain Chouinard said that that was difficult to predict, but ICES wanted to understand all the mixing issues. In terms of benchmark processes he promised to try to ensure that stakeholders will be involved also when issues are addressed by correspondence. In this specific case the benchmark was already quite advanced and there was only one issue that needed to be resolved. However, he promised to take the comment back to ICES.

• Celtic Sea herring

The catch advice for 2018 is based on MSY which implies catches of no more than 5 445 tonnes. Activities that have an impact on the spawning habitat of herring should not occur, unless the effects of these activities have been assessed and shown not to be detrimental. There has been a change in the perception of the stock. SSB is now estimated to be below MSY Btrigger and close to Blim. Fishing mortality has increased since 2008 and is now above Fmsy. Recruitment has been below average since 2013. The data from the acoustic surveys in 2014 and 2015 were not used in the assessment, because the surveys did not cover the stock. The 2016 coverage is adequate, but the estimates are low. Herring was observed close to the bottom which made the estimates more difficult.

The chairman said that the acoustic survey and the fact that the fish is close to the bottom which made the estimates more difficult, was a major concern. He wanted to know whether ICES had a solution to address the issue.


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

Ghislain Chouinard hoped that Celtic Sea herring would be included in the benchmark for North Sea and WBSS herring next year. He also said that ICES will look at the survey next year and maybe find another type of analysis that could be done.

The chairman pointed out that ICES has previously found the management strategy to be precautionary. He assumed that ICES had nothing new to say about this.

Ghislain Chouinard confirmed that there was no reason to revisit the management strategy unless reference points will change in the new benchmark.

The chairman understood that ICES has been instructed by the Commission to give advice based on MSY rather than on the management strategy. Nevertheless, the Commission has not provided a satisfactory explanation on this, especially considering that its proposal usually follows the management strategy.

Line Groth-Rasmussen said that this was the case for many stocks where the Commission asked for MSY advice to be the top line of the advice. If the Pelagic AC wanted a more historic explanation she could go back and find out about it.

The chairman said that asking for MSY advice was irrelevant in this case, because the Commission always follows the management strategy in the end. This simply did not make any sense.

John Ward wanted to have more information on the benchmark planned for next year.

Ghislain Chouinard explained that there will be a herring benchmark and the plan was to include Celtic Sea herring. However, this will also depend on the amount of new information available. There will be a notice coming out about the benchmark in the late summer/early fall.

The chairman wanted to know what effects the new assessment for Irish Sea herring will have on Celtic Sea herring.

Ghislain Chouinard said that that was difficult to say yet since there was not enough information about mixing.

5. Celtic Sea herring

• Adoption of Pelagic AC advice (decision)

The chairman suggested having a brief discussion on the advice for the stocks today, but to finalize the advice at the October meeting. The MSY advice for Celtic Sea herring corresponds to 5 445 tonnes whereas the management strategy would result in 10 127 tonnes. The TAC in 2017 was set at 14 467 tonnes in accordance with the management strategy. The chairman proposed following the management strategy again as has been done in previous years. He also wanted to explore the issue with the acoustic survey and highlight that in the advice.

Goncalo Carvalho agreed that the situation with the acoustic survey is worrying and he supported recommending trying to solve this as much as possible. While the NGOs have supported following the management strategy in previous years, he was now worried that the stock is so close to Blim and might therefore be affected quite dramatically if the management strategy was followed.

The chairman understood these concerns, but pointed out that the risk of going below Blim was fully addressed in the management strategy and he was happy to show this at the October meeting. He furthermore pointed out that the issue was not whether MSY yields higher or lower TACs, but whether the Pelagic AC stayed true to itself by supporting its management strategy which is precautionary


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

according to ICES. In fact, it is more precautionary than MSY, because the management strategy advises zero catch when SSB falls below Blim whereas MSY would still follow the slope.

Goncalo Carvalho said that one of the issues with some of the management strategies is that they have been adopted prior to the latest CFP reform. Of the three possibilities on the table MSY might be the best choice as it reduces the chance of actually falling below Blim.

The chairman said that the new CFP has been in place since 2014 and some of the concerns mentioned have been addressed in 2014 and 2015. He considered it important to stay consistent and not change opinions unless there were strong reasons to do so. However, he assured Goncalo Carvalho to take his concerns onboard at the October meeting. He hoped to have some more information by then.

Goncalo Carvalho agreed and also offered to have some side discussions between now and October.

John Ward said that in previous years people were clearly able to differentiate spawning fish in different areas which was taken into account, but this year that was completely ignored.

Ghislain Chouinard promised to check up on what happened and to report back.

The chairman found it unusual to have a minority report and he was surprised that people did not try to reach consensus.

Steven Mackinson said that it was not true that people did not try to reach consensus. In fact, a huge effort was put into that, but it proved impossible.

Ghislain Chouinard agreed that this was not the preferred way, but it is an option ICES has to make sure that everything is disclosed and unfortunately the disagreement persisted.

Ian Gatt considered it a positive development that the acoustic survey which one of his fishermen has carried out for many years is now being used.

The chairman wanted to know whether WKIRISH will address the mixing issue.

Ghislain Chouinard did not want to make any promises, but he thought that stakeholders should raise the issue.

6. Herring in 6a and 7bc

The chairman envisaged focusing the recommendation on gathering as much information as possible to split the stocks again. Until the stocks can be split the ICES catch advice will be zero. He therefore suggested concentrating on four major issues: genetics, acoustic surveys, the rebuilding plan and a possible benchmark in 2018 as included under the stakeholder information section in the ICES advice. Rather than focusing on catch advice he wanted to focus on how to progress.

Goncalo Carvalho said that he generally agreed with this suggestion. However, he was also expecting to get an update on the rebuilding plan.

The chairman explained that this would be dealt with under the next agenda item.

• Update from the Commission on the proposed rebuilding plan (information)

The chairman informed the meeting that the rebuilding plan has been submitted to the Commission which has already forwarded a request for evaluation to ICES.

Steven Mackinson provided a brief overview of the plan and pointed out that the plan was also available on the Pelagic AC website along with the response received from the Commission. There were nine articles in total. The first one provided some background information outlining the current


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

situation. The second article listed the principle objectives of the plan followed by a number of criteria and definitions. Article 4 referred to reference points that have already been established by ICES for the stock as a whole. The next section covered the TAC setting procedure. A very important element of that section is Flow which refers to a very low F that is consistent with a monitoring TAC which applies when the stock is below its reference points. This Flow should be re-examined and if necessary changed each year by HAWG to ensure that it remained adequately low. The rest of the articles referred to issues like conditions, the vessels involved in a monitoring fishery, which data should be collected etc. There also was an article about ecosystem considerations and one on when the plan becomes redundant, i.e. when it gets superseded by a management strategy if SSB has been above Blim for three consecutive years.

The chairman thanked Steven Mackinson for the overview and acknowledged the effort put in by the group of scientists that helped developing the rebuilding plan. He wanted to know whether ICES had already any news on the plan.

Ghislain Chouinard said that ICES indeed received a request from the Commission which is currently being examined in terms of timing and resources. He had no further news at this stage.

Steven Mackinson said that it was unrealistic to push for a benchmark in 2018 given the time scale and the amount of information that still has to be produced. Plus, the rebuilding plan should be reviewed before the benchmark.

• Update on acoustic surveys by Steven Mackinson (information)

Steven Mackinson explained that another industry acoustic survey in 6a North was planned for September which will be looked at by HAWG in March and represent another data point. It would be useful to have that data point before a benchmark takes place. The survey itself will be very much comparable to the survey last year, but this time the 5 vessels will start a little later. There has been a planning meeting a few weeks ago to agree on the details, i.e. areas and timing. The areas have been revised a bit to ensure that the spawning locations will be sampled while at the same time guaranteeing a high degree of continuity. 3 vessels will be dedicated to the acoustic work and 2 vessels will concentrate on morphometric sampling. Calibration could potentially be a bottleneck, but Steven Mackinson was confident that he could get that under control. The planning was well underway.

The chairman thanked Steven Mackinson for the information. He said that there will also be a survey in 6a south and 7bc in November/December. The planning phase for that survey was supposed to start soon. Even though 2018 might be unrealistic for having a benchmark, the chairman considered it possible to collect enough information to have one relatively soon and certainly before 2021 like some others suggested would be an appropriate date.

7. Irish Sea herring

• Adoption of Pelagic AC advice (decision)

The chairman summarized that the perception of the stock has changed and that the ICES advice is based on MSY implying catches of no more than 7 016 tonnes. He recommended following the ICES advice given that there was no management strategy available for the stock, but said that the final decision will be taken in October.

Ian Gatt considered it a fair suggestion to follow MSY. This was in line with the Pelagic AC’s advice over the previous 4-5 years even when there were cuts in the TAC. The stock is above the trigger point and the F is low. The mixing issue will be addressed through the genetics project anyway and he proposed including some text about this in the Pelagic AC advice.


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

8. Southern horse mackerel

• Presentation of a draft management strategy by Manuela Azevedo & Gersom Costas (information, decision)

Manuela Azevedo presented the results of the management strategy evaluations (MSE) for southern horse mackerel. The process of developing a management strategy for this stock started in October 2014 with a meeting between interested stakeholders and scientists. The harvest control rule (HCR) and management options were defined following a stakeholder questionnaire and several other meetings with both the Pelagic AC and the SWW AC. Today a full management strategy evaluation was available thanks to the benchmark that took place at the beginning of this year where the assessment was agreed as well as the assumptions to be used in the forecast. There also has been a brief stakeholder meeting in June which was very useful, because some metrics were identified that stakeholders wanted to see and that the scientists in the project had not thought of yet.

The MSE uses an operating model that includes productivity (recruitment), biological characteristics (natural mortality, mean weight, proportion mature) and the starting conditions from the stock assessment which has data from 1992 until 2016. While there is an observation error, the simulations assume no implementation error. Within the management procedure a short term forecast is provided.

The MSE looked at different management scenarios and the HCR is based on comments received from pelagic stakeholders. Reference points have been adopted by ICES. Stakeholders said that they wanted to move to Fmsy gradually and set 2025 as target for reaching Fmsy. Manuela Azevedo reminded the meeting that F has been below Fmsy for the entire time series. The following three options for setting the TAC were tested:

• TAC y+1 = Catch y-1

• TAC y+1 = mean (Catch y-3: Catch y-1)

• TAC y+1 = TAC y

Furthermore, a TAC change limit of +/- 15% and +/- 20% was explored as well as no TAC change limit.

The simulations were done over 200 populations and projected until 2080. Two productivity scenarios were used: geometric mean and hockey stick.

The results can be summarized as follows:

• The harvest control rule proposed by stakeholders for the long-term management strategy for southern Horse Mackerel (hom9a), with Fmsy (0.11) target year in 2025, Blim= 103 000 tonnes and MSY Btrigger= Bpa= 181 000 tonnes, is precautionary for all the management scenarios explored.

• There are marginal differences between the options 15% and 20% TAC change limits.

• The long-term catch is estimated to be around 40 000 t (median value) but in the short term the inter-annual variability in catch is smaller (2%) for the management option TACy+1=TACy (between 5-6% for the other options).

• Sensitivity tests indicate that the HCR combined with catch stabilizing mechanisms is robust to changes in selectivity and status quo period. In a scenario of low recruitment, only catch options “TACy+1=TACy “ and “no TAC change limit”, are precautionary. With a 20% change limit there is lower probability of falling below Blim in all scenarios.

Manuela Azevedo invited comments or questions from the audience and wanted to know how to follow up on the work.

The chairman thanked Manuela Azevedo for the very comprehensive presentation and said that the follow-up will be critical.


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

Gerard van Balsfoort also thanked Manuela Azevedo for the presentation and congratulated her with the amount of work she and her colleagues have done. He said that in the past couple of years there was a lot of uncertainty in the ICES advice for southern horse mackerel and he wanted to know how she dealt with that uncertainty.

Manuela Azevedo replied that the uncertainty was one of the reasons why it was so important to carry out a full MSE, because the assessment incorporated the uncertainty. However, she said that bias was even more important and by putting the assessment inside the management procedure this was reflected. It made people more confident about the outcomes of the analysis and all the results are valid as long as the assumptions are kept.

António Miguel Cunha thanked the Pelagic AC for allowing him to attend the meeting as an observer. He wanted to know what the Fbycatch of 0.01 would amount to in tonnes.

Manuela Azevedo explained that one of the wishes of the stakeholders was to have a very low Fbycatch around 5 000 tonnes which would be a minimum catch level so that in the worst case not all fisheries that bycatch southern horse mackerel would be closed.

António Miguel Cunha also said that there are ongoing discussions on what the TAC is for. Simulations were only done for Trachurus trachurus while the TAC also covers two other Trachurus species. Therefore, he wondered whether the TAC should be set only for Trachurus trachurus.

Manuela Azevedo confirmed that the computations have only been carried out for Trachurus trachurus.

The chairman was concerned about mixing between stocks. He said that 8c was included in the western horse mackerel stock. However, he wondered what would happen if there was mixing between the western and the southern stock.

Manuela Azevedo explained that the current simulations have only considered a mixed fishery with other species, but not mixing of stocks, because at the benchmark people came to the conclusion that there was no reason to consider this.

The chairman said that the follow-up will be very important. He was aware of the tremendous work done by Manuela Azevedo and her colleagues and he asked her to draft a management strategy based on the results she presented today, so that it could be circulated two weeks prior to the October meeting for discussion at the next Working Group and Executive Committee meeting.

Manuela Azevedo said that she will have to talk to her colleagues first and check with them whether they have time in September to produce the report.

The chairman added that the background information does not have to be included in the actual plan, but could be attached in an annex.

Goncalo Carvalho offered help in drafting the management strategy following the setup in the CFP. He considered this a good news story given that the stock is in a healthy condition. Even so, he would prefer the TAC setting procedure that uses the mean TAC of the three previous years, because that had the lowest probability of going over the trigger points. However, he recognized that almost all scenarios were positive and as long as ICES evaluated the strategy as precautionary he would agree to it.

The chairman thanked Goncalo Carvalho for the help he had offered. He encouraged all interested parties to have a final discussion before submitting the draft strategy to the Pelagic AC.


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

9. Western horse mackerel

• Summary of focus group meeting on 27 June 2017 (information)

The chairman provided a brief update on the outcomes of the last focus group meeting on western horse mackerel. All the information will also be uploaded to the Pelagic AC website soon. Basically, the objective of the focus group is to develop a long-term management strategy. Given the problems previously with the assessment these efforts have been parked for a while. However, since there was a benchmark at the beginning of this year the group felt that it was appropriate to continue the work. First, the group discussed the outcomes of the benchmark and the new model from NOAA that is being used now. The new assessment will be used as the starting point for further work. In regards to stock ID progress has been made and Edward Farrell has been asked to draft a project proposal to tackle the issue. The chairman was confident that over the next months a full genetics program will be in place to cover all of the horse mackerel stocks. The focus group also had a look at the reference points which have been changed and which will likely have a significant effect on the assessment this year. Natural mortality has also been discussed which is estimated to be significantly higher than fishing mortality. Another issue that was looked at was the protection of juveniles through the proposed closure.

The chairman hoped to have another focus group meeting in September and that people will participate in that meeting in person. Coming in through WebEx proved very difficult and he will therefore try to find a date in September/October that will suit everybody. A number of people have been identified to work on a preliminary draft. Ideally a new draft strategy should be available at the October meeting, but that might not be realistic. The chairman also pointed out that some drastic measures were needed to avoid a zero TAC. MCRS were briefly discussed as well during the meeting.

Claus Reedtz-Sparrevohn wanted to know whether the focus of the group was still to develop a management strategy or whether that has changed into a rebuilding plan.

The chairman said that the group was still focusing on a management strategy, but he was aware that that might have to shift to a rebuilding plan depending on the new advice that will be released at the end of September.

10. Presentation by EFCA on the gramme size project (information)

Leon Bouts thanked the Pelagic AC for the opportunity to present an update on the gramme size analysis in the mackerel fishery that EFCA is carrying out. The idea for this project came from discussions on whether gramme size data could be used for monitoring purposes.

The value of mackerel is related to the weight of the individual fish. The overall weight range is from 200 to 600 grams. 1 mackerel of 600 grams is worth more than 2 mackerels of 300 grams. In the past, on this basis of this and other indicators control authorities have assessed the risk of discarding smaller mackerel to be substantial. The analysis of this project therefore focused on the presence and absence of lower size ranges.

Data collection took place within a Joint Deployment Plan. The information on gramme sizes of the catch is not reported by operators in the regulated reporting forms and therefore needs to be collected by Member States authorities on a voluntary basis and requires cooperation by the industry. The data received was of a scattered nature, giving potential issues for interpretation and comparison It was difficult for Member States to provide verified data on gramme sizes obtained during inspection.

Data were collected from RSW vessels and freezer-trawlers. Regarding RSW vessels the data were collected from sampling at sea by the individual vessel and from sampling upon landing at the factory by the operator. The data from freezer-trawlers were collected from the production log of the catch


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

during a full fishing trip. However, these were all self-reported data and data from inspections at sea were difficult to gather.

On RSW vessels approximately 0.05% of the total catch is sampled. In factories 0.08% of the landings are sampled. This means that the samples are very limited and in some cases only one average number is provided. On freezer-trawlers the catch is not sampled when pumped onboard, but goes into the tanks from where it is pumped into the factory for grading. In the factory the size categories are established for which grading will take place. One category is for fish below MCRS. Fish is sampled for quality and for manual cross-check with the automatic grading. The grade distribution is obtained through the grading.

Regarding data interpretation there were several assumptions and uncertainties. Were the data comparable if vessels had fished in the same area and at the same time? Does the weight frequency distribution correspond to a normal distribution? How reliable are the data when only a certain amount of samples is reported while more have been taken?

In May 2017 a workshop was held with data experts from Member States. The following observations were made:

• Reference data is needed for the project to succeed

• More complete and consistent catch data will be needed

• Verified data at sea, (but circumstances are difficult) followed up by landing inspection

• The focus should not be on average gramme size, but on gramme size distribution (catch composition)

• Analysis should focus on degree of absence/presence of lower weight mackerel in the catch.

The next steps will include contracting an external data analyst to analyze all the data already collected, but not yet analyzed. In September the steering group will discuss possible options for a way forward in view of the conclusions from the data expert workshop. It was also intended to create an operational plan for the 4a fishery to collect verified data.

EFCA also cooperates with the regional control expert groups (CEGs) on a uniform implementation of the landing obligation. The North Western Waters CEG has made a recommendation on gramme size analysis as a complementary tool to remote electronic monitoring in April 2015. Recently the High Level Group has asked the CEG to further develop its recommendations around the potential utility of catch conformity/variance appraisal (specifically gramme size and species mix) as an input to the assessment of risk of non-compliance with the landing obligation. The CEG is currently discussing a reply to the High Level Group. It will be essential to have verified data to develop a view of what catch composition could be expected. In conclusion, it was too early to say what the way forward will be.

Gerard van Balsfoort said that now that the tool has been assessed, there was still no conclusion on its usefulness. One of the issues raised was the need for reference data. He asked Leon Bouts to be more specific and explain what exactly he meant, i.e. whether those should be data collected per day, area or year and how often should the data be collected.

Leon Bouts said that he was referring to control data. In the demersal sector inspectors go on board to record the size composition of the catch and they noticed some discrepancies. At the same time, the circumstances for having inspections on demersal vessels are better and EFCA acknowledged that it is more difficult to have them on pelagic vessels. One option could be to have an observer on board for the whole trip, but that would be very time consuming. So, one clear message to the High Level Group will be that pursuing this avenue will be resource expensive.

John Ward thought that the EFCA report suggested things to be a lot more complicated than they really are. RSW vessels have to possibility to grade the fish and everything they catch is being landed. Why would it hence be necessary to have observers on board the vessels?


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

Leon Bouts said that that would imply that there is no discarding on RSW vessels.

The chairman believed in the gramme sizes as a control tool. He said that the RSW vessels sample the catch every few minutes and that they get paid on the basis of that information. Furthermore, in the factories people recorded exactly what size is landed by each vessel. However, he emphasized the importance of making this a mandatory, not a voluntary, tool.

Leon Bouts agreed with the chairman when it comes to comparing data sets. However, he thought that EFCA looks at the issue on two levels. One is data that is being reported, but control experts also wanted to see data that have been verified by control inspectors.

Esben Sverdrup-Jensen explained that Denmark is currently working on developing a certified self-sampling system for pelagic and industrial fisheries. The idea is to take samples according to a specific protocol and subsequently deliver reliable information on catch composition, but also on gramme size. This has already been done for vessels fishing for human consumption and Esben Sverdrup-Jensen was surprised to hear that it is difficult to find a uniform way of reporting. More generally he found it strange that the issue of resources is mentioned so many times. It were the CEGs that identified pelagic fisheries as high risk because of the catch volumes. If the CEGs identify something as a high risk area, they should also come up with the resources to cover that risk.

Leon Bouts said that it would indeed be helpful if data collection by the industry was mandatory and if the Danish system could be adapted more broadly. In regards to resources he also agreed that the resources should be allocated appropriately. He was not a sea inspector himself, but he has been told that the situation can be quite rough on a pelagic vessel.

Gerard van Balsfoort said that if there was a high risk for discarding, then maybe the landing obligation was a high risk policy. In terms of process he wanted to know when EFCA expected to receive an answer from the regional groups on the feasibility of gramme sizes as a control instrument.

Leon Bouts considered this difficult to say, because first the CEGs had to formulate a response to the High Level Group’s request. He did not expect to hear anything before the end of this year.

Rob Banning wanted to know whether this was an EU project or whether other Coastal States were also involved.

Leon Bouts explained that this was an EU project only.

The chairman concluded by emphasizing the importance of the topic. He hoped that EFCA will keep the Pelagic AC updated on the project and asked for another short presentation at the October meeting.

11. Choke species mitigation tool

The chairman explained that the NWW AC has developed a choke mitigation tool to identify choke situations when the Landing Obligation is fully implemented. The NWW AC has had assistance from experts from the Member States and the Commission in developing the tool. The tool first identifies area, gear and the stock in question, then quantifies the choke problem and finally presents solutions for the choke problem. He wanted to consider using this tool as well given that 2019 is less than 18 months away and the tool might help prevent situations where fisheries will be closed prematurely.

Steven Mackinson wanted to know who developed the tool and who is already using it.

The chairman said that the tool was developed by the NWW AC in collaboration with the NWW regional group and the Commission. The parties are now putting forward their analysis of the Celtic


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

Sea to show the problem areas that need to be solved. The Member States will be the primary customer of the tool.

Irene Kingma added that she was a member of the original group that started the process. Basically this tool was used to show policy makers what could happen. It helps identify very tangible issues.

Steven Mackinson wanted to know who owns the tool and who will use it.

The chairman said that the Member States will have to come up with solutions and therefore they will own the tool.

Gerard van Balsfoort said that if this tool was used to alert Member States, then it could work. However, his Member State already knew very well where the problems are in pelagic fisheries. Specifically, there were a few bycatch species for which he had no quota, but he was also aware that his Member State would never close its biggest fishery because of that. In light of this he considered using the tool as a relatively large exercise and he wondered who should do it. In his view the POs should use the tool, but he already knew where his problems are and therefore felt that the tool was not very useful for him.

The chairman disagreed and felt that the ACs can use the tool as this was not only a matter of the POs. The primary goal of the tool was to identify whether there was a problem in a specific area or not. He also thought that it would be quite easy to do in the pelagics and he intended to raise the issue with the Executive Committee.

12. AOB

There was no other business.

13. End of meeting

The chairman closed the meeting at 17:10 hrs.


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

Action items

General

• Raise the issue on the editorial rights to stakeholder information with ACOM and report back at October meeting (Ghislain Chouinard)

• Suggest to the Executive Committee to use the choke mitigation tool developed by the NWWAC for pelagics (chairman)

• Present another short update on the gramme size project at the October meeting (EFCA)

Irish Sea herring

• Continue development of management strategy (Ian Gatt, Steven Mackinson)

• Communicate to ICES the concern by stakeholders regarding their lack of involvement after benchmark continued by correspondence (Ghislain Chouinard)

• Include text on mixing issue and that it will be addressed through the herring genetics project in the Pelagic AC advice (chairman, secretariat)

Herring in 6a and 7bc

• Develop a genetic sampling protocol (6.a herring focus group)

• Arrange a genetics workshop with ICES once the sampling protocol is available (6.a herring focus group, Ken Whelan)

• Ask Member States and Commission to include genetic sampling in Data Collection Framework once a protocol has been developed (Pelagic AC)

• Include genetic sampling at WKSPLIT (Martin Pastoors)

• Arrange meeting with DG RESEARCH to seek funding for broad pelagic genetics project (Ken Whelan)

• Peer-review herring genetics project (Ken Whelan, AST)

• Continue genetic, acoustic and morphometric research (NPWG)

• Present update on genetics project at October meeting (Edward Farrell)

Celtic Sea herring

• Check why information on spawning fish in different areas was not taken into account in the assessment (Ghislain Chouinard)

• Ask ICES to address mixing issue at WKIRISH (chairman, secretariat)

Western horse mackerel

• Continue genetics project (NPWG, PFA)


Working Group II

Co-funded by the EU

• Continue PFA research project (PFA)

• Continue to develop management strategy (focus group)

• Arrange another focus group meeting in September or October (chairman, secretariat)

Southern horse mackerel

• Draft management strategy and circulate 2 weeks prior to October meeting based on MSE outcomes (Manuela Azevedo, Gersom Costas, Hugo Mendes, Goncalo Carvalho, José Beltran, Antonio Miguel Cunha)

Boarfish

• Follow-up on the boarfish closures with the NWW regional group (Sheila O’Neil) and the Spanish administration (José Beltran)

• Continue work on the assessment model

Louis Braillelaan 80 Working Group II meeting … WG II 11072017.pdf · 4 Charles Berkow The...

Documents

Transcript of Louis Braillelaan 80 Working Group II meeting … WG II 11072017.pdf · 4 Charles Berkow The...