Fisheries TAC’s and Quotas 2013

Sustainability Impact Assessment

December 2012

1

Sustainability Impact Assessment of EU Commission Proposal for

“for a Council Regulation fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to European Union vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements” - COM (2012) 608 final

1 Summary

This Sea Fisheries Sustainability Impact Assessment on the EU Commissions proposals for certain fishing opportunities for 2013, draws it’s conclusions from a consultation process with all major stakeholders and expert contributions from The Marine Institute(MI) and Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM). The Commissions proposal is only in relation to certain mainly whitefish stocks and does not cover some pelagic stocks, such as mackerel which economically is Irelands most important stock, or albacore tuna, or inshore fish and shellfish stocks not subject to TAC and quotas such as lobster and crab.

In the preamble to the proposals the Commission itself states:-

“All fishing opportunities regulations must limit the harvesting of the fish stocks to levels which must be consistent with the overall objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). In this respect, Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy sets out the objectives for the annual proposals for catch and fishing effort limitations to ensure that Union fisheries are ecologically, economically and socially sustainable.”

It goes on to state that

“This year, the Communication from the Commission concerning a Consultation on Fishing Opportunities for 2013 (COM(2012)278 final, hereinafter "Commission Consultation on Fishing Opportunities") provides an overview of the state of the stocks based on the findings of the scientific advice issued in 2011. The Communication thus reports that 65% of fish stocks in EU waters are not fully assessed. It also signals some trends that are of concern, notably a decrease in the proportion of stocks within safe biological limits, but also some positive ones: where the state of stocks has been assessed, they seem to be improving slowly. In the Atlantic and nearby areas, the proportion of overfished stocks has fallen almost by half, down to around 47% from 94% in 2004.

The underlying ethos of the Impact Assessment results support both these statements.

What is undeniable is that the Irish fishing fleet depends on healthy and sustainable stocks for it’s medium and long term viability. What is also made clear is that managing fisheries is a complex undertaking, more so in the context of mixed fisheries which is the nature of the fisheries in the waters around Ireland.

The EU Commission has put forward a new vision for Europe’s ocean and seas. The new policy will tackle all maritime activities and sustainable development, including the marine environment in an overarching fashion. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MFSD) aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of the EU’s marine waters by 2020, and to protect the resource base (e.g. fish stocks) upon which marine related economic and social activities depend. A key objective of the MFSD is to have fishing mortality values equal to or lower than FMSY to ensure sustainable

2

development. These objectives are in line with the CFP, to achieve MSY exploitation rates “where possible” by 2015 and 2020 for all stocks.

The Impact Assessment acknowledges that while many stocks in which the Irish fleet have an interest are not in a healthy biological state, there has been an improvement in 2012 on the state of the resource base in relation to pressure and state indicators. Of the 59 stocks in which Ireland has a share of the EU TAC, 42% are now fished below FMSY compared to 36% in 2011. The state of the resource base in terms of SSB in relation to biomass trigger points has also improved, with 34% above Btrigger, an increase of 8% on last year. The number of depleted stocks has declined from 12 to 8 and now 14% of stocks are assessed to be depleted. The number of stocks with unknown SSB, no assessments or undefined Btriggers remains relatively high at 51%.

It is also noted that the activities of the fleet have other impacts on the wider marine ecosystem. Greater efforts are necessary to achieve a more harmonious and eco-friendly interaction with the broader environment and to ensure compliance with European Environmental Directives. These efforts will be required to be imposed at European level on all EU fleets fishing in shared fisheries under the EU Common Fisheries Policy.

Specific details of the status and scientific advice on a stock by stock basis can be found in the following pages, and in the accompanying Stock Book.

This Impact Assessment agrees with the need to cut the quotas for many of the stocks as per the Commission proposals, though the level of these cuts is queried in some cases, while in others there is clear scientific data to suggest that a cut is unwarranted.

In 2012 in response to a request from the EC, ICES addressed the issue of providing a quantitative advice where a precise assessment may not have been possible. Implementing this has required ICES to develop a decision framework based on a categorisation of the information on the stock and fishery and to use expert judgement in estimating the fishing pressure and state of the stock. This has resulted in some inconsistencies with the implementation of available information to produce advice. In these cases the Marine Institute has provided a clear advice and a rationale for doing so, for instance Plaice in VIIa and Pollack in VII.

There are a number of stocks where ICES provide no advice (6 stocks), due to the uncertainty in landings the stock is a minor component in mixed fisheries, and/or the TAC is well in excess of landings. In these cases the MI has provided advice and a clear rationale.

In one important instance, Celtic Sea Herring, the ICES advice is for a TAC of 19,000 tonnes but the management plan, agreed by industry, proposes a lower TAC of 17,200 t. The Commissions approach to the science appears contradictory and inconsistent and they are ignoring additional pieces of scientific advice (ie. trends in landings and effort), that while not giving detailed forecasts of future catches, does give indications on the state of the stock and should inform the TAC setting exercise.

It is clear that decisions on quota levels must be made on a fishery by fishery basis, a position which the Commission in their statements at October Council have now accepted. However, the Commission demand that we should have MSY advice in all cases is simply not attainable. For instance the fisheries for Sole and Plaice in VIIb and VIIc are so small that it is not economically viable or justifiable to do a comprehensive scientific sampling programme. However, the science that is available indicates that neither stock is in trouble and should not be subject to cuts proposed.

3

One major concern surrounds managing for fisheries that need remedial action in a mixed fishery by means of landing restrictions only. It is a fact that in mixed fisheries it is often the case that if you cut quotas without introducing additional technical measures there is a likelihood that this will only increase discards. In addition, it is clear that if you cut quotas in a situation where the science is indicating increasing biomass you will also increase discards. This is the situation in the mixed cod, haddock , whiting fishery in the Celtic Sea.

Practical, prudent and carefully thought out measures are clearly required.

At the June 2012 Fisheries Council the Cypriot Presidency achieved a General Approach on the Common Fisheries Policy basic regulation which places solving the discards problem high on the list of priorities. Decisions on TAC’s particularly in the case of mixed fisheries which exacerbate the problem are of major concern and need to be carefully considered.

At an overall level, reductions in fishing levels on certain stocks are both justified and inevitable. These reductions will come at a social and economic cost.

It is estimated that the proposal as it currently stands will result in a net reduction in fishing opportunity, (i.e. quotas) for the Irish whitefish and prawn fishing industry of 21% by volume. In financial terms this amounts to a direct income reduction, for the primary producers, the fishermen, of €15.4 million (14% on 2012). There would be resultant knock on decreases for processors, hauliers, etc.

At a regional level the 12% reduction in fishing opportunities (quotas) in the Celtic Sea and in waters off the west coast will result in a €10.6m primary production loss for the whitefish and prawn fleets operating there. This will directly impact the ports of Castletownbere, Ros an mhíl, Dunmore East, Dingle and Kilmore Quay, and other, smaller, ports along the south and west coasts.

The level of reductions in fishing opportunities, (quotas) in the Irish sea amounts to 44% with a resultant economic fisheries production loss to the fleets (whitefish and prawn) operating there of €2.2 million, impacting directly, the ports of Clogherhead and Howth, and other, smaller, ports along the east coast.

Turning to the North West fishing fleets they will say their opportunities (quotas) are being reduced by 20% with a fishery production income loss of €1.4 million for that demersal (whitefish and prawn) fleet, directly impacting the ports of Greencastle and Killybegs.

When landings are reduced there is a corollary knock on effect on the operation on the seafood processors dependent on this resource. In other ancillary industries such as net making, chandlery, engineering, refrigeration etc are also negatively impacted. Based on a total turnover generated per tonne of fish landed, BIM estimates that the full cost (direct and indirect) of the proposed quota reductions are in the order of €53 million.

It is estimated that reductions in economic activity across the seafood sector in the magnitude outlined would result in significant negative impacts for between 450 - 550 full and part time jobs either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies.

The proposal does not include the “Hague Preferences” which are a safety net for the Irish fleet on specific stocks where Total Allowable Catches (TAC’s) are in decline. They are negotiated annually at the Fisheries Council and when agreed offer additional quotas to Ireland. The loss of these allocations in 2013 would amount to 1,625 tonnes of fish with a direct value of €2.95 million. It is

4

estimated that the full value (direct and indirect) of the Hague quotas in 2013 would be in the region of €9.2 million with an associated impact on between –90-100 full and part time jobs.

2 Background

Fishing opportunities (quotas and fishing effort) for each Member State are agreed on an annual basis in the EU Fisheries Council of Ministers on the basis of a proposal produced by the European Commission. A proposal which sets out 2013 fishing levels for certain stocks was circulated by the EU Commission on the 24th October 2012. 

This proposal covers stocks which are not subject to third party international agreements and are in the main whitefish (demersal) stocks

The Programme for Government 2007 – 2012 states that a Sea Fisheries Sustainability Impact Assessment, based on consultation with all major stakeholders, will be brought before the Dáil annually before EU fisheries negotiations commence.

3 Objectives

The objective of this document is to look at the overall impacts the proposal could have on the sustainability of the fishing sector from a biological, economic, social perspective. and to put these conclusions before the houses of the Oireachtas for debate.

4 Process

4 (a) Consultation:

Stakeholders were asked to comment on the Commission proposal for fishing opportunities for 2013 – COM (2012) 608 final. From November 2nd, 2012 an online web portal on www.fishingnet.ie was activated to enable electronic submissions be forwarded for consideration. This facility was kept open until 20th of November, 2012.

In addition a meeting of stakeholders, which Minister Coveney attended, was held on the 15th of November to further assist and inform consideration of the proposal and the submission of comments.

In all 10 submissions were received by the closure date. Of the submissions received 5 from OCEAN2012 and its members had identical text outlining the position of the grouping. The full content of the submissions received are available on the website www.fishingnet.ie.

4 (b) Synopsis of key points from consultation process:

A general welcome for the opportunity to partake in the consultation process. An acknowledgement of the improvement in overexploitation in the past few years while

stressing the need for further measures to improve vulnerable stocks and reduce discards. Commitment to scientific advice to achieve the commitment given at the 2002 World

Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg of reaching “Maximum Sustainable Yield” (MSY) by 2015.

In mixed fisheries FMSY to be set according to the most vulnerable stock to minimise discards.

5

A commitment to maintaining or restoring stocks at levels that are capable of producing Maximum Sustainable Yield.

Criticism of the Commissions arbitrary cuts in TACs and their view on what kind of science they are prepared to accept.

Concerns that cuts in the TAC of certain species will lead to further discards and instances where an abundance of mature stock cannot be avoided (even when) using selective gear types.

Fears for adverse socio economic consequences resulting from cuts to TAC and requests for increases on that basis.

Issues with ICES advice on data limited stocks and a suggestion that decreased catches due to reductions in effort is being misinterpreted as reduced biomass.

The need for full implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and a network of Marine Protected Areas.

Ensure the long term sustainable viability of the fishing industry, while improving the broader ecosystem around our shores.

Concerns on the information available in relation to by-catch records. Where scientific advice from bodies differs to go with the most precautionary figures.

5 The Marine Institutes assessment of the Biological Impacts5 (a) Methodology.

The basis for the assessment of the biological impacts of the Commissions proposal for fixing 2013 fishing opportunities is the annual Stock Book. The Stock Book is produced annually by the Marine Institute’s Fisheries Ecosystems Advisory Services (FEAS) and provides up to date scientific information on the state of the fisheries resources exploited by the Irish fleet. It provides the latest scientific advice that informs the debate on fishing opportunities for the following year. A copy of the stock book is available on the Marine Institute’s web site at www.marine.ie and specifically at http://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/841

The majority of the scientific advice presented in the Stock Book is formulated by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES). Scientific advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICATT) is also used. However, in a minority of cases, the Marine Institute may not agree with some aspects of the scientific advice. In such cases an alternative FEAS advice is given with a clear rationale for this advice.

The majority of the ICES scientific advice is released in June each year. This is to facilitate consultation with industry and managers on available fishing opportunities for the coming year. ICES produces the remaining scientific advice in October. The EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) also review the state of fish stocks. The Stock Book draws on both the ICES and STECF material and the resultant scientific advice relates to those stocks exploited by the Irish fleet that come under the remit of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

The Stock Book contains impartial scientific advice developed by the Marine Institute working with other international scientists at ICES and STECF. This advice is developed using the latest available research, assessments and advice on the fisheries resource. It is formulated by consensus. The function of the Stock Book is to inform management decisions on fishing opportunities for 2013 using the latest scientific advice.

6

While every effort has been made to ensure that the Stock Book contains the most up to date and accurate information, the final ICES, ICCAT, STECF reports and various cited reports should be consulted for the official and definitive advice. More detailed information on specific stocks is available in the relevant ICES Working Group Reports. Definitive information on TAC areas and quota allocations should be obtained from the official EU Journal.

5 (b) The Fisheries Resource. The fishing industry in Europe employs 141,110 full time equivalents and has a fishing fleet of 84,909 vessels with a total gross tonnage of 4.5 million tonnes and annual landings of value of €6.6 billion in 2009. The overall value of the production sector is around €23 billion which by revenue comparison, puts the industry among the top 250 of the Fortune 500 companies. In 2009, turnover of the EU fishing industry lay between the global turnover of Coca Cola and Google.

The seas around Ireland (ICES Sub Areas VII and VI) are among the most productive and biologically sensitive areas in EU waters. Most of the fisheries resource within the area come under the remit of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The 2012 fishing opportunities (i.e. Total Allowable Catches, TAC’s species) for the international fleets that operate in the waters around Ireland were 1,054,153 tonnes of fish, with an estimated landed value of €1.137 billion. This economic value is based on 2011 average prices and represent a conservative estimate. Ireland’s share of these fishing opportunities represents 23% by tonnage and 18% by value.

These values do not include the valuable inshore fisheries (e.g. lobster, whelk) which are not managed using internationally agreed TACs but do come within the remit of the CFP. These inshore fisheries resource represents a very important resource base for the coastal communities around Ireland.

Irelands share of the TAC (the Irish quota) varies depending on the stock concerned. Ireland has 86% of the Celtic Sea herring TAC; 69% of the Boarfish; 37% of Nephrops in VII; 25% of Horse Mackerel and 21% of mackerel. In other stocks it has a much lower share of the TAC; 7% of Anglerfish in VII; 14% of Celtic Sea cod and 5% of Northern Hake (Fig1.1).

7

Hake (Fig. 1.1).

8

Species TAC Area Irl.

Tonnes Est. Value of

Irl Quota Est. Value of

EU TAC MACKEREL North East Atlantic 68,089 €72,594,976 €342,299,559NEPHROPS VII 8,025 €33,222,789 €90,080,333HORSE MACKEREL Western Atlantic 40,803 €17,831,099 €69,041,919ALBACORE TUNA North Atlantic 3,896 €9,025,422 €62,406,765MEGRIMS VII 2,878 €8,217,152 €49,636,965HERRING VIIghjk 18,236 €8,052,933 €9,317,662BOARFISH VI, VII and VIII 56,666 €7,978,285 €11,545,184ANGLERFISH VII 2,325 €6,945,146 €91,637,096WHITING VIIb-k 5,298 €6,052,161 €21,765,162HADDOCK VIIb-k,VIII,IX,X 3,699 €4,938,619 €22,223,117HAKE Vb,VI,VII,XII,XIV 1,704 €3,120,863 €56,593,111COD VIIbc,e-k,VIII,IX,X 1,459 €3,116,423 €21,486,019SKATES & RAYS VIa, VIb, VIIa-c and VIIe-k 1,294 €2,270,439 €17,396,756HERRING I,II (Atlanto-Scandic) 4,810 €2,124,074 €23,946,833PLAICE Vlla 1,063 €2,026,368 €3,101,506SOLE VIIhjk 190 €1,873,780 €4,171,626POLLACK VII 1,030 €1,800,346 €23,588,026HERRING VIaS,VIIbc 3,861 €1,705,000 €1,875,456SAITHE VII,VIII,IX,X 1,516 €1,672,920 €3,689,032ANGLERFISH Vb,VI,XII,XIV 518 €1,547,349 €15,482,448HERRING Vb,VIaN,VIb 3,459 €1,527,478 €10,112,534HADDOCK Vb,VIa 985 €1,315,096 €8,030,763MEGRIMS Vb,VI,XII,XIV 439 €1,253,415 €9,670,429BLUE WHITING I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII 8,030 €1,204,500 €10,188,150NEPHROPS Vb,VI 190 €786,583 €58,335,492LING VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV 591 €798,359 €10,839,308HADDOCK VIIa 542 €723,636 €1,670,238SOLE Vlla 67 €660,754 €2,958,600HERRING VIIa 1,237 €546,253 €2,098,461COD VIIa 251 €536,136 €811,680HORSE MACKEREL IVb, IVc, VIId 1,216 €531,398 €17,755,497PLAICE Vb,VI,XII,XIV 275 €524,225 €1,321,047COD I,II 244 €521,184 €34,836,016SOLE Vb,VI,XII,XIV 48 €473,376 €591,720SAITHE Vb,VI,XII,XIV 407 €449,128 €8,640,479PLAICE VIIfg 197 €375,536 €703,415SOLE VIIbc 37 €364,894 €433,928HADDOCK VIb,XII,XIV 260 €347,132 €4,405,905SOLE VIIfg 33 €325,446 €10,453,721PLAICE VIIhjk 77 €146,783 €335,504PLAICE VIIbc 62 €118,189 €148,689WHITING Vb,VI,XII,XIV 92 €105,096 €350,701POLLACK Vb,VI,XII,XIV 56 €97,883 €693,920WHITING VIIa 52 €59,402 €101,669COD VIb, West Vb,XII,XIV 17 €36,312 €166,608GR. SILVER SMELT V, VI and VII 305 €30,500 €431,600TUSK V, VI and VII 17 €18,550 €320,811GR. SILVER SMELT III and IV 7 €700 €108,200

€209,994,089 €1,137,799,6600% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

21.2%36.9%25.8%

14.5%16.6%

86.4%69.1%

7.6%27.8%

22.2%5.5%

14.5%13.1%

8.9%65.3%

44.9%7.6%

90.9%45.3%

10.0%15.1%

16.4%13.0%11.8%1.3%7.4%

43.3%22.3%

26.0%66.1%

3.0%39.7%

1.5%80.0%

5.2%53.4%

84.1%7.9%

3.1%43.8%

79.5%30.0%

14.1%58.4%

21.8%7.1%

5.8%0.6%

% Share of 2012 EU TAC By Ireland & Other EU Membersand approximate value of Irish Quota & EU TAC

% Irl % Other EU

Fig. 1.1 % Share of 2012 EU TAC By Ireland & Other EU1

Members

1 Only TAC areas where Ireland has a share of the TAC are included above.2 Est. value per tonne based on 2011 average values of Irish Landings in Irish Ports.

5 (c) Organisation of the Stock Book

The Stock Book is divided into the following parts; Introduction

o About the Stock Book o The Fisheries Resourceo Rationale for ICES Advice and Commission Proposal on Fishing Opportunities o Sustainability

Marine Institutes Summary on the Status, Scientific Advice and Proposed 2013 Fishing Opportunities for those stocks of interest to Ireland

Irish Sea Stocks West of Scotland and Rockall Stocks Celtic Sea Stocks Widely Distributed and Migratory Species Deepwater Stocks Other Stocks of Interest to Ireland

For each stock, the “FEAS single stock considerations” section (the yellow box) provide the latest scientific advice for the stock (e.g. TAC) for the following year. This advice is generally based on MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield) or agreed Management Plan considerations. In cases where FEAS does not agree with the ICES advice, the reasons are given and an alternative FEAS advice is proposed. In some cases, this section also provides stock relevant comment on the Communication from the Commission (COM(2012) SG-018l. Salient information on the future management of the stock may also be presented in the FEAS – single stock considerations section.

The current management section gives information on the past TAC; the match between assessment area and management area and quota allocations by country.

For some stocks, the FEAS advice is supplemented with the details of the ICES advice.

The stocks are grouped by areas (e.g. Irish Sea). For each area, FEAS have produced an ecosystem overview which includes information on the physical, biological, environmental and fishery effects on the benthos and fish communities. The ecosystem overviews also provide ecosystem considerations in terms of formulating ecosystem advice for the particular area.

A summary table of the status of the resource and the advice for each stock is presented at the beginning of the Stock Book (Table 1.5).

The Stock Book also contains a series of annexes which include definitions of the technical terms and acronyms used throughout the text.

5 (d) Rationale for ICES Advice and the Commission Proposal on Fishing Opportunities

This section deals with changes to the basis for ICES advice in 2012 and the EC policy on Fishing Opportunities for 2013 and interpretations of these by FEAS with a focus on Data Limited Stocks.

BackgroundThe basis for ICES advice has changed over the past several years. Since 2010 ICES has introduced an MSY framework for the advice and has advised clients on transition to MSY compatible harvest rates where possible by 2015. The ICES MSY framework is essentially a harvest control rule (HCR) which is designed to maintain stocks in a state whereby they can produce high long term yield. In 2012 in response to a request from the EC, ICES also addressed the issue of providing a quantitative advice where a precise assessment may not have been possible. Implementing this has

9

required ICES to develop a decision framework based on a categorisation of the information on the stock and fishery and to use expert judgement in estimating the fishing pressure and state of the stock. In addition ICES has had to assume a risk tolerance in situations where information is insufficient to conclude expert judgement on either fishing pressure or state of the stock.

In a parallel process, the EC also reissued its communication on fishing opportunities (COM 2012:278). This communication continues the EC approach from 2012 where there was a simplification of the decision tree (see Fig 1.2). Essentially there are 4 outcomes in the 2013 communication: either follow the management plan (if such exists), or apply international agreements (where relevant), or apply ICES advice (where ICES gives a quantitative value), or apply the Precautionary Approach (if ICES does not apply a quantitative approach).

5 (e) 2012 ICES approach for Data Limited Stocks (DLS)The categorisation of stock information used by ICES was published in June 2012 (ICES CM 2012/ACOM:68). Arising from the assignation to an ICES category, methods are applied to give a catch advice figure which approximates to a sustainable harvest rate. In the most data rich situation (i.e. where there is a precise assessment) the method is the application of the ICES MSY HCR. The general principle followed in the application of methods to the categories is that where the information is less certain that the conservativeness of the advice on yield increases. Following this logic ICES has categorised the information base on stocks into 6 categories (Fig. 1.3). A short description of the categories is given in Table 1.1. Where the information is not complete enough to estimate the sustainable harvest rate corresponding to MSY and the biomass precisely, ICES advice is more conservative than the MSY HCR. In the most extreme data limited cases where the exploitation pressure and stock status is unknown, ICES advises a 20% reduction in catch relative to the average catch of the past 3 years. This is intended to be a one off measure which would be in place for a number of years until more information about the state of the stock is available (i.e. not the year on year ratchet proposed by the Commission last year (General context of the ICES advice). Whether the reduction should be 5% or 20% or 35% in the face of uncertainty, is really a manager’s prerogative, but in the absence of any policy detail on this, ICES has proposed 20%. This is referred to as a PA buffer by ICES. ICES also applies a ±20% limit where the multiplier for the recent catch advice comes from a noisy index (i.e. the multiplier could be highly variable), this limit is referred to as the Uncertainty Cap.

5 (f) Technical issues with the implementation of the ICES 2012 DLS adviceThe categorisation of stocks by ICES and the subsequent methods used to produce catch advice has produced some transparency issues and inconsistencies with the application of the methods. These inconsistencies arose when the process of information review was not transparent enough: For example ICES advice places a stock in Category 4 when a trends based assessment was presented by the Expert Group (which would imply Category 2) e.g. Plaice in VIIhjk, where the assessment was rejected by a review group. Or in the case where expert judgement has placed different value on similar information series between stocks (See anglerfish and megrim advice). This has given rise to the situation where the application of the PA buffer appears to be inconsistent across stocks.

Furthermore the use of average catch as a reference to be modulated in producing a quantitative advice has also created difficulties. These arise:

1. When there are uptake issues in the fishery between Member states (i.e. one or more countries which do not fully utilise their quota) e.g. Sole VIIhjk Plaice VIIa.

2. When the landings data do not adequately represent the out take due to fishing because of incomplete landings data or discarding e.g. Pollack VI & VII, Haddock VIIa.

3. Where the landings arise only from very small volumes of by-catch, e.g. Plaice VIIbc, Sole VIIbc.

10

In any of these situations the most recent catch data may not represent a useful proxy for either changes in exploitation pressure or abundance of the stock. Although ICES advice drafting groups highlighted the limitations in using average reported landings in such situations, it has been applied by ICES in the published advice.

Where FEAS interpretation of the information differs from ICES, then FEAS advice also deviates from that given by ICES. For these cases the logic of the FEAS interpretation is given in Table 1.2. In general FEAS does not advise using average landings where the landings data do not adequately reflect the pressure on the stock or where there are uptake issues, and in some cases FEAS opinion is that there is insufficient information to give a quantitative catch advice.

5 (g) FEAS comments on ICES Advice for Data Limited StocksFEAS points out that many of the difficulties with the 2012 ICES advice for data limited stocks arises from process issues which could be addressed by ICES in 2013. These relate to 3 primary areas.:

1. The ToR and roles of the ICES Expert Groups (EG) Review groups (RG) and Advice Drafting Groups (ADG) need to be agreed and delivered to the relevant groups in a timely fashion. This was not done in 2012 due to the timing of the development of the Data Limited Approach and its rollout which was coincident in time with other EGs and ADGs which had already addressed their ToRs.

2. The use of landings data was never intended to be applied to situations where the only available out-take data do not adequately reflect the catch (e.g. major unquantified discarding), and yet it seems to have been applied to such cases in the 2012 ICES advice; in addition FEAS recognises that the application of average catch advice in situations where there are uptake issues with the quota, would result in a greater than intended reduction in exploitation.

3. FEAS note that the magnitude of the PA buffer (20% is proposed by ICES) is a management prerogative. Where ICES have implemented this in the advice it is clear from the introduction to the advice that this is so and also that it was meant to be applied as a multiannual measure; whereas it is not clear that the advice is intended to be multiannual from the individual stock summary sheets. In order to remain in step with the EC cycle of providing fishing opportunities on an annual cycle FEAS suggests that this could be implemented as a 5% annual decrement, until such time as stock state and fishing pressure can be evaluated as being appropriate.

A table of stocks with inconsistencies between ICES and FEAS advice is presented at the end of this chapter in Table 1.6. The reasons for these inconsistencies arise in stocks:

With substantive uptake Issues Where discards are greater than landings With no ICES TAC advice and/or minor by-catch stock With mis-match between advice and TAC area With developed management plan

It should be noted that ICES and FEAS are in full agreement with the pressure (F) and state (SSB) of each stock as summarised in Table 1.5. Where there are differences between the numerical values for the advice between ICES and FEAS, this is due to a different implementation of the available information. In the majority of cases, the principles of ICES and FEAS advice are the same. A detailed explanation for the FEAS advice is given in the “yellow box” for each stock.

11

Fig. 1.2 FEAS interpretation of EC policy communication for 2013 fishing opportunities

12

Fig. 1.3 Overview of categories of ICES assessment types for data rich (category 1) and the data limited stocks (DLS) (categories 2-6). The availability of high quality data and proxies for the assessments decreases and the precautionary approach increases from left to right.

13

Table 1.1 ICES categories for classifying information value for stock status and pressure

Category 1 – data rich stocks (quantitative assessments)This category includes stocks with full analytical assessments and forecasts; e.g. North Sea cod, and stocks with quantitative assessments based on production models (e.g. anglerfish in Iberian waters).

Category 2 – stocks with analytical assessments and forecasts that are only treated qualitativelyThis category includes stocks with quantitative assessments and forecasts which for a variety of reasons are merely indicative of trends in fishing mortality, recruitment and biomass; e.g. Eastern Channel plaice.

Category 3 – stocks for which survey-based assessments indicate trendsThis category includes stocks for which survey indices (or other indicators of stock size such as reliable fishery-dependant indices [CPUE] and mean length in the catch) are available that provide reliable indications of trends in total mortality, recruitment and biomass; e.g. Irish Sea haddock.

Category 4 – stocks for which reliable catch data are available for short time-seriesThis category includes stocks for which a time series of catch can be used to approximate MSY.

Category 5 – data poor stocksThis category includes stocks for which only landings data are available; e.g. pollack in subareas VI and VII.

Category 66 – negligible landings stocks and stocks caught in minor amounts as by-catchThis category includes stocks where landings are negligible in comparison to discards; e.g. Irish Sea whiting. It also includes stocks that are part of stock complexes and are primarily caught as by-catch species in other targeted fisheries; e.g. North Sea brill in the targeted North Sea plaice and sole fishery. The development of indicators may be most appropriate for such stocks.

Table 1.2 Scenarios where FEAS advice differs from ICES

Scenario 1: Stocks which represent minor components in mixed fisheries Where species are caught as a minor component in mixed fisheries, average landings may well have reduced in recent years due to effort reductions or changing targeting practices.  In such case, exploitation rates are not well controlled by TACs on the by-catch species.   In such cases FEAS advises a roll over TAC unless there is evidence that the stock is over exploited or in decline.

Scenario 2: Stocks where there are discards/quota uptake issue Where discards and/or quota uptake would result in a reduction in TAC which is in excess of the intended reduction in fishing mortality, FEAS follow the ICES advice but apply the reductions to the TAC and not to recent landings.

Scenario 3: Stocks where FEAS has a different interpretation of available information from ICES.Where FEAS expert opinion differs from ICES in relation to the interpretation of available information, FEAS advice may be different but follows the ICES approach. In some cases where exploitation and biomass levels are unknown but FEAS considers the stock indicators to be stable, FEAS advises a reduction in TAC of 5% per year until there is information that the exploitation rate is sustainable.

Scenario 4: Stocks where the catches are dominated by high discard ratesWhere exploitation rates are mainly associated with high discard rates, further reductions in TAC will not reduce mortality, and will exacerbate discarding. FEAS considers that management measures other the TAC’s are more appropriate to achieve reductions in fishing mortality e.g. gear or spatial/temporal measures. In such cases FEAS advises a roll over TAC with the introduction of appropriate technical measures.

6 After simulation the distinction between categories 5 and 6 was not clear as catch curves did not perform well within the context of the HCR (RGLIFE Report, ICES 2012)

14

KEY to Stock Status Symbols used in ICES Advice and Summary Table of Stock BookReference points, current stock status in relation to these. ICES has included precautionary reference point wherever these are available. The stock status is summarised in a “traffic light” table utilising four separate symbols to indicate status in relation to different reference points. The key to the symbols is as follows:

- indicates an undesirable situation based on a quantitative evaluation e.g. F is estimated to be above the relevant reference point or SSB is estimated to be below the relevant reference point

- indicates an undesirable situation based on a qualitative evaluation e.g. based on expert judgement F is considered to be above the relevant reference point or SSB is considered to be below the relevant reference point

- indicates a desirable situation on a quantitative evaluation e.g. F is estimated to be below the relevant reference point or SSB is estimated to be above the relevant reference point

- indicates a desirable situation on a qualitative evaluation e.g. based on expert judgement F is considered to be below the relevant reference point or SSB is considered to be above the relevant reference point

- indicates that the status is unknown e.g. the reference point is undefined or unknown, or F or SSB is unknown relative to a defined reference point

- indicates a qualitative evaluation of direction in recent trends e.g. SSB and F are increasing, decreasing or stable.

15

5 (h) Sustainability In its simplest sense, sustainable use of renewable resources, whether it be timber or fish, means that the resource can be used indefinitely. There are many definitions of sustainability. Fisheries can be defined as sustainable, when it can be conducted over the long term at an acceptable level of biological and economic productivity, without leading to ecological changes that exclude options for future generations. These desired levels of biological and economic productivity are in part management decisions, but it is clear that for many stocks both could be greater than they are today.

Overfishing does not necessarily mean that a fish stock is at risk of extinction or collapse – it simply means that more could be caught with less fishing activity. This means taking each year a proportion of fish in the sea that is the right size to let fish grow and reproduce at their most productive level. Under these conditions the long term catches from fish stocks will be at their maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Fishing too hard means that fish will be caught too soon, too small and using too much fuel. The European Union and Member States have committed themselves to reach the objectives of fishing at MSY by 2015 where possible. For several stocks, high discarding is an issue. Improving selectivity to reduce this will also help in achieving MSY for example for haddock and whiting in the Celtic Sea.

The Commission have outlines the benefits of MSY in COM(2011) 298. The move to MSY should bring significant benefits and will mean a change from fishing intensively on scarce resources to fishing lightly on larger stocks. The same or larger quantities of fish should be caught, but with lower impact on the environment. Impacts of fishing on sea bottoms will be less, by catches of vulnerable organisms, including porpoises, dolphins and other marine mammals will decrease because the overall intensity of fishing will be less. Fuel costs will decrease significantly because it takes less fishing time to catch a tonne of fish from an abundant stock than from a scarce one. This will reduce carbon emissions as well as the fuel expenditure of fishing vessels.

In June 2012, the Commission reported that fish stocks in European waters are improving (EC COM(2012) 278 final). The proportion of overfished stocks in the Atlantic has declined from around 90% of all stocks between 2005-2009 to 47% in 2012. Several stocks in the west of Scotland, Irish Sea and Celtic sea have been over fished in the past and now remain at very low levels (i.e. Cod in Divisions VIa and VIIa, Sole in Division VIIa, Whiting in Divisions VIa and VIIa). Exploitation rates of these depleted stocks appears to remain high in most cases despite significant reductions in fishing effort over the last decade (EC COM(2012) 278 final).

5 (i) Summary of The Resource Base

ICES and FEAS evaluate the state of the resource base in relation to pressure and state indicators. These are Fishing mortality (F) the last year of the assessment relative to Fmsy or the fishing mortality which is expected to deliver maximum sustainable yield given and SSB in the last year if the assessment in relation to a defined Biomass trigger point (B trigger - below which the stock is at risk of impaired recruitment). In table 1.5, FEAS gives an overview of the scientific status and advice on 59 fish stocks, where Ireland has a share of the TAC.

Table 1.3 summarise the pressure on the 59 stocks detailed in the 2012 Stock Book and compare with a similar evaluation presented last year. In general, the situation has improved with a higher number (25) and percentage (42%) of stocks assessed to be sustainably fished in 2012 compared with last year. This is in line with the improvements in stock status reported for European waters (EC COM(2012) 278 final). The percentage and number of stocks overfished has declined slightly in 2012 and the number and percentage of stocks with unknown status remains similar.

16

Table 1.3 Summary of FEAS evaluation of Fishing Mortality in relation to Fmsy for stocks of interest to Ireland.

Stock Status F~FMSY Number Percentage Number PercentageFished Below Fmsy 19 36% 25 42%Fished Above Fmsy 14 26% 13 22%F Unknown, Undefined Fmsy or na (not available) 20 38% 21 36%

Total Number of Stocks 53 59

2011 2012

Table 1.4 summarises the state of the resource base in terms of SSB in relation to biomass trigger points. Here too there is a general improvement compared to a similar such evaluation on last year’s Stock Book. Over a third or 20 stocks are above biomass trigger points. The number of depleted stocks has declined from 12 to 8 and now 14% of stocks are assessed to be depleted. The number of stocks with unknown SSB, no assessments or undefined B triggers remains relatively high at 51%. There are several different reason why this may be the case:

Some stocks are very relatively small and sampling is insufficient to support traditional assessment approaches e.g Plaice and Sole in VIIbc, VIa, Pollock in VI.

Some have uncertain assessment data for biological or stock identity/mixing reasons (e.g. megrim in VII, anglerfish in VII, Pollock in VII, Sprat, Plaice and Sole in VIIhjk)

The absolute level of catch is an issues for stocks with high discards (e.g. Whiting in VIa and VIIa, Plaice in VIIa and VIIfg), where several species are landed together (e.g. rays) or where there are other catches (e.g. angling in the case of Pollock)

For other stocks the time series of data is too short to properly define B trigger levels (e.g. Nephrops Stocks).

Over time the number of stocks with unknown status should decline but it is likely that for some stocks problems will remain and the management and advisory framework should that that into account.

Table 1.4 Summary of FEAS evaluation of SSB in relation to biomass reference points for stocks of interest to Ireland.

Stock Status SSB ~ Btrigger Number Percentage Number Percentage

SSB > Btrigger 14 26% 20 34%

SSB >Blim <Btrigger 0 0% 1 2%

SSB < Btrigger 12 23% 8 14%

SSB Unknown, Btrigger Undefined or na (not available) 27 51% 30 51%

Total Number of Stocks 53 59

2011 2012

17

18

Table 1.5 Marine Institute Summary on the Status, Scientific Advice and Proposed 2013 Fishing Opportunities for those Stocks of Interest to Ireland

Use the Following Table in Conjunction with the Detailed FEAS Advice for Each Stock Provided Throughout the Book.

F ~MSY SSB ~ BtrigProposed

TAC in 2013Proposed

Irish Quota% Change TAC relative to 2012

% Change in Irish Quota

Basis Of EC proposal

Cod VIa 41 8% 103% 523 5,841 0 0 0 Y 0 0Cod VIb 12 12% 71% 97 ? <70 Lowest poss. level 78 17 Y 62 8 -21% -53% -20% on 2012 TACHaddock VIa 291 17% 89% 1,700 1,350 <3,100 <3,100 6,015 985 N 3,100 244 -48% -75% Follow ICES AdviceHaddock VIb 123 6% 42% 1,900 200 0 0 3,300 260 N pm pmWhiting VIa 149 65% 154% 230 300 0 0 307 92 N 246 73 -20% -21% -20% on 2012 TACAnglerfish VI, IIa, IIIa, IVa 595 17% 109% 3,570 ? Decrease catches by 20% 4146 5,183 518 Y 4,146 415 -20% -20% -20% on 2012 TACMegrim VIa and IV 226 8% 51% 2,779 490 <4,700 1,845 IV & 3,387 VI 1,845 IV & 3,387 VI 439 NMegrim VIb 72 52% 51% 138 ? <160 Part of 3,387 Part of 3,387 YSaithe IV & VI and IIIa 359 0% 84% 97,000 Low <100,684 <100,684 79,000 407 N pm pmLing IIIa, IVa, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, and XIV 581 4% 98% 12,936 Low ≤10,800 7,433 for VI-XIV 7,824 for VI-XIV 576 Y pm pmPlaice Vb(EU waters), VI, XII, XIV 14 34% 7% 41 ? na na No ICES Advice 554 693 275 Y 554 202 -20% -27% -20% on 2012 TACSole Vb(EU), VI, XII, XIV 11 75% 29% 15 ? na na No ICES Advice 60 60 48 Y 48 38 -20% -21% -20% on 2012 TACNephrops (FU11) VIa 0 0% 2,696 150 <4,200 <4,200 NNephrops (FU12) VIa 9 0% 3,725 92 <5,800 <5,800 NNephrops (FU13) VIa 0 0% 5,701 556 <6,400 <6,400 NNephrops (VI outside) VIa 28 5% 569 ? No increase in catch No increase in catch YPollock VI 8 ~40% 14% 45 ? <62 397 397 56 Y 397 56 0% 0% Status Quo TACHerring VIaN 3,956 19% 120% 21,358 NA MP: 27,480 MP: 27,480 22,900 3,459 N 27,480 4,151 20% 20% Following agreed LTMP

Cod VIIe-k 1,011 40% 123% 4,745 2,555 <10,200 <10,200 10,059 1,459 N 10,200 1,479 1% 1% Follow ICES AdviceHaddock VIIb-k 3,311 26% 112% 12,524 14,275 <9,500 <9,500 16,645 3,699 N 7,500 1,667 -55% -55% Straight to FMSYWhiting VIIe-k 4,205 46% 86% 9,077 5,700 <17,500 + 7,000 for VIId <24,700 19,053 5,298 N 24,500 6,812 29% 29% Follow ICES AdvicePollock VII 921 23% 89% 4,072 ? <4,150 13,495 13,495 1,030 Y 13,495 1,030 0% 0% Status Quo TACSaithe VII, VIII, IX, X, 683 70% 20% 982 ? na na No ICES advice 2,674 3343 1,516 Y 2,674 752 -20% -50% -20% on 2012 TACPlaice VIIfg 67 16% 34% 421 1,107 <360 351 369 197 Y 300 21 -19% -89% -20% on 2012 TACPlaice VIIbc 16 89% 26% 18 ? <30 78 78 62 Y 62 50 -21% -19% -20% on 2012 TACPlaice VIIhjk 71 40% 88% 176 200 <100 167 176 77 Y 113 50 -36% -35% -36% ICES advice Applied to TACSole VIIfg 30 3% 77% 1,029 31 <1,100 <1,100 1,060 33 N 1,100 34 4% 3% Follow ICES AdviceSole VIIbc 22 81% 59% 27 ? <30 44 44 37 Y 35 29 -20% -22% -20% on 2012 TACSole VIIhjk 63 29% 33% 217 ? <200 423 423 162 Y 338 153 -20% -6% -20% on 2012 TACNephrops (FU19) VIIjg 585 96% 608 137 <820 <820 NNephrops (FU20-21) VIIgh 637 51% 1,237 ? <2,500 <2,500 YNephrops (FU22) VIIg 1,548 96% 1,617 153 <3,100 <3,100 NNephrops (FU17) VIIb 600 100% 600 83 <590 <590 NNephrops (FU16) VIIck 864 73% 188% 1,186 ? <1,800 <1,800 1,260 457 Y 1,800 653 43% 16% 43% increase on 2012

Megrim VIIb-k & VIIIabe2,233

17% 98% 13,200* 4,400* <12,000 16,516 VII & 1,630 VIIIabde

17,385 VII & 1,716 VIIIabde

2,878 Y 13,908 VII & 1,373 VIIIabde

2,302-20% -20% -20% on 2012 TAC

Anglerfish VII & VIII 3,197 15% 131% 28,880* ? <24,800 29,143 VII & 7,809 VIIIabde

30,677 VII & 8,220 VIIIabde

2,325 Y 24,542 VII & 6,576 VIIabde

1,860-20% -20% -20% on 2012 TAC

Hake II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII 1,895 3% 111% 73,000* 6,700* <45,400 45,400 55,100 1,704 Y 37,200 1,151 -32% -32% Straight to FMSY

Skates & Rays VI & VII (excl. VIId) 1,133 13% 76% 8,590 ? TAC not app. Sps sp. Meas.

TAC not app. Sps sp. Meas.

9,915 1,294 Y 7,932 1035-20% -20% -20% on 2012 TAC

Grey gurnard VI & VII (excl. VIId) 0 0% na 82 ? Reduce catch by 20% No Advice none na Y na naSprat VI and VII (excl. VIId and VIIe) 3,753 83% na 4,500 na <3,500 Reduce Catches NA N na naHerring VIIaS VIIg,j 11,503 96% 100% 12,004 na MSY: 19K 17,200 21,100 18,236 N 17,200 14,864 -23% -20% Long term Management PlanHerring VIaS VIIbc 4,247 61% 110% 6,919 na 0 t or Rebuilding plan 1,458 4,247 3,861 Y 1,500 1364 -183% -166% Proposed Management Plan

Cod VIIa 156 42% 83% 370 ? 0 0 380 251 N 285 132 -25% -47% CLTMP -25%

Haddock VIIa 432 53% 76% 813 ? 710 710 & TCMs 1,251 542 Y 1,001 433 -20% -20% -20% on 2012 TAC

Whiting VIIa 94 87% 138% 108 1,200 0 0 & TCMs 89 52 Y 71 28 -20% -46% -20% on 2012 TAC

Plaice VIIa 118 20% 11% 594 604 490 1,627 1,627 1,063 Y 1,627 651 0% -39% Status Quo TACSole VIIa 48 15% 66% 330 13 0 0 300 67 N 60 7 -80% -90% By catch fishery only

Nephrops (FU15) VIIa 3,575 35% 10,162 2,700 9,300 9,300 N

Nephrops (FU14) VIIa 31 6% 561 112 880 880 N

Herring VIIaN 0 0% 0% 5,202 ? 5,100 5,100 4,752 1,237 N 4,993 1,300 5% 5% Unknown

NEA mackerel Northeast Atlantic 61,596 7% 89% 930,000 9,000 497,000 - 542,000 497,000 - 542,000 927,000 N pm pm

Blue whiting Northeast Atlantic 1,195 1% 100% 104,000 negligible 643,000 643,000 391,000 N pm pm

Western Horse mackerel IIa IVa VI VIIa-c,e-k VIII 38,464 19% 94% 193,000 7,000 126,000 183,000 183,000 N pm pm

Herring in the NE Atlantic I II 5,727 0.01% 100% 992,997 low 619,000 619,000 833,000 N pm pm

Spurdog in the NE Atlantic Northeast Atlantic11

1% ∞ 578 ? No target fishery bycatch at LPL

No target fishery bycatch at LPL

0 0 Y 0 0 0% 0% Status Quo TAC

Boarfish VI, VII, VIII 20,685 56% 93% 36,937 ? 82,000 82,000 82,000 56,666 Y 82,000 56,666 0% 0% Status Quo TAC

Albacore Tuna North Atlantic 3,597 18% 101% 19,995 ? 28,000 28,000 28,000 N pm pm

North Sea horse mackerel IVb, IVc and VIId 0 0% 0% 29,000 ? 25,500 25,500 44,000 Y pm pm

Bluefin Tuna East Atlantic & Mediterranean 4 0.001% 15% 3,989 ? 12,900 <12,900 12,900 N pm pm

* 2010 landings/catch have been used because Spanish data were not provided to ICES ** The Nephrops TACs for VII and VI applied to w ider areas w hereas the ICES assessessments and advices are by individual Functional Units

Species

21759**

TAC in 2012 (Tonnes)

FEAS Advice for 2013 (Tonnes)

14091**

98%

ICES Stock Status 2011 ICES Advice for 2013

(Tonnes)

20%

International Landings

2011

International Discards

2011

Irelands % Uptake in

2011Stock area

Ireland 2011 Landings (tonnes)

Ireland's % of 2011

Landings

98% 21,759 as above**

190

Irish Quota 2012

(Tonnes)

2,040 264

Data limited

EU Proposal (COM(2012) 608 final & update 27/11/12

-40% -40% ICES advice of 4,700 t split based on survey biomass ratio

18% Follow ICES Advice18%16,650 225

-12% -12% see above18,576 6,851

-12% -12%Sum of the November Advice for All Stocks except FU 16 where a 43%

increase is used = 1,800 t8,025 19,190 7,078

Celt

ic Se

a St

ocks

Wid

ely

Dist

ribu

ted

Hig

hly

Mig

rato

ryIr

ish S

ea S

tock

sW

est o

f Sco

tland

& R

ocka

ll St

ocks

Table 1.6 Stocks with Inconsistencies between ICES and FEAS Advice

Megrim VIIb-k & VIIIabe 12,000 t16,516 t VII & 1,630 t VIIIabde

(5% annual reduction)

Substantial uptake issues, and resultant TAC adjustment w ell in excess of intended reduction in F, positive stock indices in recent years

Anglerfish VII & VIII 24,800 t (VII and VIII)29,143 t VII & 7,809 t VIIIabde

(5% annual reduction)

Substantial uptake issues, and resultant TAC adjustment w ell in excess of intended reduction in F, gradual decline in TAC until F show n at Fmsy

Pollock VI 62 t 397 t (Rollover TAC) Substantial uptake issues, and resultant TAC adjustment w ell in excess of intended reduction in F

Pollock VII 4150 t 13,395 t (Rollover TAC) Substantial uptake issues, and resultant TAC adjustment w ell in excess of intended reduction in F

Sole VIIhjk 200 t 423 t (Rollover TAC) TAC not fully utilised, stock exploited at or below Fmsy and TAC adjustment based on average landings not appropriate

Haddock VIIa 710 t 710 t + Technical MeasuresDiscarding major component of catch and TAC reductions w ill not achieve desired outcome, technical measures required

Whiting VIIa low est possiblelow est possible + Technical

MeasuresDiscarding major component of catch and TAC reductions w ill not achieve desired outcome, technical measures required

Plaice VIIa 490 t 1,627 t (Rollover TAC)Discarding major component of catch and TAC reductions w ill not achieve desired outcome, qualitative assessment gives high SSB and low F

Plaice VIIfg 360 t 351 t (5% annual reduction)Discarding major component of catch and TAC reductions w ill not achieve desired outcome, reduce TAC gradually until F show n at Fmsy

Plaice VIIhjk 100 t 167 t (5% annual reduction)Discarding major component of catch and TAC reductions w ill not achieve desired outcome, reduce TAC gradually until F show n at Fmsy

Anglerfish VI, IIa, IIIa, IVa20% cut but no catch

advice4,146 t (20% cut in TAC)

Uncertainty in landings data. Declining biomass follow ICES advice but apply reduction to 2012 TAC

Plaice Vb(EU w aters), VI, XII, XIV no advice 554 t (20% cut in TAC)Minor component in mixed fisheries, TAC adjustment not likely to lead to changes in F, TAC >>landings

Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X, no advice 2,674 t (20% cut in TAC)TAC w ell in excess of landings and should be reduced and a management plan developed

Sole Vb(EU), VI, XII, XIV no advice 60 t (Rollover TAC) Minor component in mixed fisheries, TAC adjustment not likely to lead to changes in F, large effort decline and TCMs already in in place

Plaice Vb(EU w aters), VI, XII, XIV no advice 554 t (20% cut in TAC)Minor component in mixed fisheries, TAC adjustment not likely to lead to changes in F , TAC >>landings

Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X, no advice 2,674 t (20% cut in TAC)TAC w ell in excess of landings and should be reduced and a management plan developed

Sole Vb(EU), VI, XII, XIV no advice 60 t (Rollover TAC) Minor component in mixed fisheries, TAC adjustment not likely to lead to changes in F, large effort decline and TCMs already in in place

Cod VIb 70 tlow est possible + additional

measures

Minor component of a mixed f ishery. TAC adjustment FEAS considers that TAC adjustments are not likely to constrain f ishing mortality. FEAS advises that appropriate measures to reduce catches be introduced.

Sole VIIbc 30 t 44 t (Rollover TAC)Minor component in mixed fisheries, TAC adjustment not likely to lead to reductions in F, substantial decline in effort

Plaice VIIbc 30 78 t (Rollover TAC) Minor component in mixed fisheries, TAC adjustment not likely to lead to reductions in F, substantial decline in effort

Whiting VIIe-k <17,500 + 7,000 for VIId

<17,500 + 7,000 for VIId + 200t for VIIbc

Mis-match betw een advice area and TAC area

Megrim VIb 160 t 3,387 t (Rollover VI TAC) major inconsistencies betw een TAC and assessment areas, stock lightly exploited, major uptake dif ferences,

Ling VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII, XIV ≤10,8007,433 t (5% annual

reduction)

Mis-match betw een advice area and TAC area, the TAC should be gradually reduced from 2013 until it can be show n that F is below FMSY

Sprat VI and VII (excl. VIId and VIIe) <3,500 t Reduce Catches

FEAS agrees w ith the broad approach of ICES that a reduction in outtake is required in the absence of better information on sustainable harvest rates. How ever, as stock identity is poorly understood and catch data require further scrutiny, it is not possible to quantify the catch level.

Horse Mackerel Western Horse Mackerel 126,000 t 183, 000 t (Rollover TAC) Follow Management Plan

Herring VIIaS VIIg,j MSY: 19K 17,200 t (long term management plan)

FEAS advice based on the long term management plan

Herring VIaS VIIbc 0 t or Rebuilding plan 1, 458 t (rebuilding plan) FEAS advice based on a rebuilding plan

Stocks with Substantive Uptake Issues

Stocks where discards greater than landings

Stocks with no ICES TAC Advice and/or Minor By-catch Stock

Stocks with Mis-match between Advice and TAC area

Species Stock area FEAS CommentsFEAS AdviceICES Advice

Stocks with Developed Management Plan

19

6 Bord Iascaigh Mhara’s (BIM) assessment of the Socio Economic ImpactsCOM(2012) (608 final): COUNCIL REGULATION fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements provides Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and member state shares (Quotas) advice for 85 fish stocks. While 39 of these are stocks where Ireland receives a quota, five stocks are provided without advice. Thus, the proposal contains advice on 34 stocks of relevance to Ireland.

These stocks account for 96% of Ireland’s share of whitefish.

These stocks account for 100% of Ireland’s share of shellfish.

These stocks account for only 8% of Ireland’s share of pelagic species.

As a consequence of the above this assessment of the economic impact of the Commission’s proposal will be confined to whitefish and shellfish only.

6 (a) General Assessment of Economic ImpactThe current set of proposals tabled by the European Commission for Total allowable Catch and Irish Quotas in 2013 for the key whitefish and prawn stock will see a net reduction in fishing opportunity (Quotas) for the Irish fishing industry of 21% by volume (tonnes). In financial terms this amounts to a direct income reduction of €15.4 million (14%) on 2012. Table 1.7 provides a stock-by-stock analysis of the financial impact of these proposals:

Individual stocks as set out in the Communication from the Commission, For each stock, the area affected by the quota allocation The value of the quota in 2012 and 2013, The change in value 2012 – 2013 in absolute and percentage terms.

Taken at a regional level, this equates to the following impacts (see Table 1.8): 12% reduction in fishing opportunity, or - €10.6 million for the demersal (whitefish and

prawn) fleet in the Celtic sea and west coast. This will directly impact the ports of Castletownbere, Ros an mhíl, Dunmore East, Dingle and Kilmore Quay, and other, smaller, ports along the south and west coasts.

44% reduction in fishing opportunity, or €2.2 million for the demersal (whitefish and prawn) fleet in the Irish Sea. This will directly impact the ports of Clogherhead and Howth, and other, smaller, ports along the east coast.

20% reduction in fishing opportunity, or - €1.4 million for the demersal (whitefish) fleet in the Northwest. This will directly impact the ports of Greencastle and Killybegs.

6 (b) Processing and ancillary sectorsIn addition to the direct losses to the fleet, income is also lost from the processing sector as a direct result of reduced catches and in a number of ancillary industries (net making, chandlery, engineering, refrigeration etc). Based on a total turnover generated per tonne of fish landed, BIM estimates that the full cost (direct and indirect) of the proposed quota reductions are in the order of €53 million.

6 (c) EmploymentBIM further estimates, on the basis of the most recent employment surveys of the catching sector, that these reductions could impact between 450 - 550 full and part time jobs either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies.

6 (d) Hague Preferences

20

At its meeting on 30 October 1976 in The Hague, the Council of the EEC adopted a resolution that, amongst other things, provided Ireland (and a number of other member states, including Great Britain) with additional fishing opportunities, on an annual and ongoing basis under certain circumstances. While these additional fishing opportunities, traditional referred to as the Hague Quotas, have been allocated to Ireland each year since the late 1980’s, in the current proposal they are not awarded. The loss of these allocations in 2013 will amount to 1,625 tonnes of fish with a direct value of €2.95 million. BIM estimates that the full value (direct and indirect) of the Hague quotas in 2013 is €9.2 million with an associated impact on between 90 - 100 full and part time jobs either through reduced incomes, partial lay-offs or redundancies.

21

Table 1.7 : Financial impact of current offers for whitefish (inc deep-water) and prawn stocks.Species AREA TAC 2012 TAC 2013 €,000

2012€,000 2013

€,000 Change

Cod North-West Ireland 78 62 €44 €21 -€24 -53%

Cod North-West Ireland 1,182 0 €104 €0 -€104 -100%Megrims North-West Ireland 3,387 2,040 €1,379 €829 -€550 -40%

Monkfish North-West Ireland 5,456 4,146 €2,241 €1,704 -€538 -24%Haddock North-West Ireland 3,748 ----

Haddock North-West Ireland 2,005 3,100 €540 €401 -€138 -26%Whiting North-West Ireland 323 246 €129 €97 -€32 -25%

Norway lobster North-West Ireland 13,681 16,500 €1,203 €1,463 €260 22%Plaice North-West Ireland 693 554 €605 €444 -€161 -27%

Pollack North-West Ireland 397 397 €118 €118 €0 0%Saithe North-West Ireland 9,682 ----

Common sole North-West Ireland 60 48 €456 €361 -€95 -21%Redfish North-West Ireland 0 ----

Orange Roughy North-West Ireland 0 0 €0 €0 €0 ----

40,692 27,093 6,818 5,437 -€1,380 -20%

Megrims Celtic Sea, West Coast & Irish Sea 18,300 13,908 €9,514 €7,231 -€2,284 -24%

Monkfish Celtic Sea, West Coast & Irish Sea 32,292 24,542 €10,045 €7,635 -€2,410 -24%Norway lobster Celtic Sea, West Coast & Irish Sea 21,759 19,190 €52,161 €46,004 -€6,157 -13%

Pollack Celtic Sea, West Coast & Irish Sea 13,495 13,495 €2,166 €2,166 €0 0%Saithe Celtic Sea, West Coast & Irish Sea 3,343 2,674 €1,937 €961 -€976 -50%

Orange Roughy Celtic Sea, West Coast & Irish Sea 0 0 €0 €0 €0 ----Cod Celtic Sea & West Coast 4,023 10,200 €2,157 €3,866 €1,710 79%

Haddock Celtic Sea & West Coast 13,316 7,500 €4,867 €2,742 -€2,125 -44%Whiting Celtic Sea & West Coast 16,568 24,500 €6,470 €9,060 €2,590 40%

Plaice Celtic Sea & West Coast 78 62 €136 €110 -€26 -19%Plaice Celtic Sea & West Coast 410 300 €440 €46 -€394 -90%

Plaice Celtic Sea & West Coast 185 113 €178 €110 -€68 -38%Common sole Celtic Sea & West Coast 44 35 €351 €275 -€76 -22%

Common sole Celtic Sea & West Coast 1,241 1,100 €370 €323 -€47 -13%Common sole Celtic Sea & West Coast 423 338 €1,804 €1,453 -€351 -19%

125,477 117,957 92,598 81,982 -10,616 -12%

Cod Irish Sea 506 285 €870 €491 -€379 -44%Haddock Irish Sea 1,317 1,001 €938 €712 -€225 -24%

Whiting Irish Sea 118 71 €90 €37 -€53 -59%Plaice Irish Sea 1,627 1,627 €2,338 €1,432 -€906 -39%

Common sole Irish Sea 390 60 €693 €66 -€627 -90%

3,958 3,044 4,929 2,739 -€2,190 -44%

Hake All Areas 30,900 20,860 €3,638 €2,457 -€1,181 -32%

Others All Areas 52,391 12,609 €1,068 €990 -€78 -7%

83,291 33,469 4,706 3,447 -€1,259 -27%

TOTAL 253,418 181,563 109,051 93,605 -€15,446 -14%

22

Table 1.8 : Financial Impact by key areas

AREA TAC 2012 TAC 2013 €,000 2012 €,000 2013 €,000 Change

North-West including Rockall 40,692 27,093 6,818 5,437 -€1,380 -20%

Celtic Sea, West Coast & Irish Sea 125,477 117,957 92,598 81,982 -10,616 -12%Irish Sea 3,958 3,044 4,929 2,739 -€2,190 -44%All Areas 83,291 33,469 4,706 3,447 -€1,259 -27%Total 253,418 181,563 109,051 93,605 -€15,446 -14%

23