The North Sea Advisory Council
Report of Ex Com Meeting 13-14 June, 2017
Hotel Novotel Paris 17
34 Avenue de la Porte d'Asnières,
75017 Paris, France
Rapporteur: Katrina Ryan
[Draft 1]
1
Welcome & Introduction
1.1
Participants were welcomed to the Executive Committee Meeting by the Chairman,
Niels Wichmann, who announced the sad passing of colleague and friend Lothar
Fischer. Lothar has been instrumental in the setting up of the NSAC and a key member
of the North Sea Fisheries Partnership. A moment of silence was observed in his
memory.
1.2
The agenda for the meeting was adopted. Apologies had been received from Mike
Park, Svend Erik Andersen (substitute Claus Hjorne Pedersen), Kenn Skau Fischer
(13th only), Peter Breckling (vote passed to Michael Andersen), Paul MacDonald,
Henrike Semmler (substitute Nicolas Fournier), Anne Doeksen (substitute Christine
Absil), Sam Stone (substitute Deborah Crockard), Erin Priddle, Pim Visser (14th only,
vote passed to Geert Meun).
2
Report of the Previous Meeting
2.1
The report of the previous meeting, held on 9th March 2017 in Den Haag, was approved
with the inclusion of one amendment from Euan Dunn, of the RSBP. Dunn highlighted
a phrase from section 7.2 of the meeting report, correcting the final line from ‘a new
level of engagement with the Commission’ to ‘engaging with the regional coordination
group’.
2.2
Lorna Duguid updated the group on actions since the last meeting of the ExCom:
Page 1
NSAC












A North Sea MAP Focus Group had been established and had met on two
occasions since the last Executive meeting. A resulting paper was on the
agenda for approval by the ExCom.
A Plaice Focus Group had been established and had worked quickly to develop
and submit advice to the Scheveningen High Level Group by the 10th May.
A paper on the Landing Obligation had been updated, re-circulated to the Ex
Com and subsequently completed. This was submitted to the Scheveningen
High Level Group on the 30th March.
Paper 8.1, advice on “Matters arising from application of Art.11 and 18 of the
CFP” had been submitted to the Scheveningen Group.
The Ecosystem Working Group were to consider advice on the data collection
framework, but had not met since the last Ex Com.
Terms of Reference for the Skagerrak and Kattegat Working Group had been
drafted at the meeting of the S&KWG on the 31st May, and were submitted for
approval by the Ex Com.
The NSAC Chairman, Executive Secretary and Tony Hawkins had met to draft
a paper on the development of NSAC advice, and this was submitted for
discussion and approval by Ex Com.
The Secretariat and Chairman had written to Aberdeenshire Council to thank
them for their cooperation during the repayment of the deficit.
Fees for 2017/18 were set at EUR 1000 for Ex Com membership and EUR 500
for membership of the General Assembly. This had been incorporated into the
latest NSAC annual budget, for approval at the General Assembly meeting.
New member NetVISwerk had been informed of their successful application to
join the General Assembly.
The Chairman and Secretariat had written to the Norwegian Fishermen’s
Association, stating the NSAC’s willingness to cooperate with them moving
forwards. It was noted that the NFA have participated in DWG meetings.
The new NSAC website had been tested by volunteers and launched, with
some final tweaks still due to be made.
3
Presentation on the Evaluation of the Control Regulation (EC) 1224/2009 (art.1)
– European Commission
3.1
The Chair welcomed Pascale Colson, DG MARE, to the meeting, and gave her the
floor.
3.2
Colson outlined the basic objective of the Control Regulation (CR): “to establish a union
system for control, inspection and enforcement to ensure compliance with the rules of
common fisheries”, and detailed the rationale behind the evaluation of the Regulation,
five years into its implementation. She described how Member States (MS) provide
five-year implementation reports to the Commission, which in turn reports to the
European Parliament. She detailed how the Commission would be seeking to evaluate
the impact of the CR on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as well as assessing the
Regulation from the perspective of simplicity and regulatory burden.
Page 2
NSAC
3.3
The presentation showed methods used by the Commission to engage stakeholders
throughout the evaluation process, including the five-year reports from MS, visits to
MS, a dedicated, consultant-led external study and a public consultation between
December 2015 and March 2016. In addition to this, workshops had been held with
the ACs, various NGOs, industry associations and the European Parliament.
3.4
Colson commented that the results of the evaluation of the CR had been broadly –
though not exclusively – positive. It was seen that MS had implemented the main
provisions, with a resulting positive impact on behaviours at sea and compliance with
CFP rules. It was also considered that there was a more level playing field as a result
of the CR, an increase in quality of catch data, more collaboration between MS and a
decrease in the overall administrative burden. The presentation would be circulated via
email to meeting attendees.
3.5
Following the Commission’s presentation, the floor was opened to questions and
comments. Michael Andersen, Danish Fishermen’s PO, commented that he felt the
assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the CR provided was overly positive.
He stated that from an industry perspective there are some ‘good’ elements to the
Regulation, but little that is ‘functional’. He felt overall the evaluation did not reflect the
perspective of the fishing industry, and was supported in this statement by Pim Visser,
VisNed. Visser further asserted that findings in a limited number of MS could not be
considered sufficient to cover all MS. He also pointed to what he saw as an increase
in the administrative burden in terms of delivery of catch data, and finally commented
that they – the Dutch industry – looked forwards to offering a more ‘realistic’ point of
view.
Pascale Colson responded that there were some remaining ‘rigidities’ in the system
which needed working through, and that the Commission recognised that some of the
IT used for data submission was not yet perfect. She commented that part of the
intention of the evaluation is to identify these rigidities and work to find solutions.
Andersen further commented that he felt the drive towards creation of a level playing
field was a problem with the CR – saying that the important thing was to ensure the
CFP is adhered to, but to respect that there are ‘different situations in different waters’
and potentially more regionalisation was required. Chair Niels Wichmann remarked
that the NSAC was in the fortunate position of having a strong relationship with the
control group within the Scheveningen Group, and said the NSAC would work closely
with them to ensure the correct measures were identified for the North Sea. He thanked
Pascale Colson for her presentation.
4
Scheveningen Group Update
4.1
Niels Wichmann provided an update on activity with regards to the Scheveningen
Group. He stated that since the last Ex Com meeting, the Scheveningen Group had
worked on a joint recommendation (JR) on the Landing Obligation (LO) for 2018. The
JR had been finalised and delivered to the European Commission, so the Commission
can now adopt a ‘delegated act’. He said the NSAC had given various pieces of advice
on the LO over years, and also given advice prior to the adoption of the JR. From the
Page 3
NSAC
most recent NSAC paper submitted to the Scheveningen Group, Wichmann
highlighted a number of key points:

The NSAC had sign-posted areas requiring further work, one of which is around
the by-catch of plaice. The NSAC had advised the Scheveningen Group that
the by-catch of plaice should be postponed from entry under the LO until 2019,
when further data from survivability trials would be available.

The NSAC had highlighted a lack of scientific data available to assess the
abundance levels ofcod in Kattegat which may lead to cod becoming a choke
species early in the year.

The NSAC had stated that point seven in the JR, covering Minimum
Conservation Reference Sizes (MCRS), required further work as it currently
only discusses nephrops.
Following this introduction, Wichmann opened the floor to comments on the JR and
annexes thereof.
4.2
Kees Verbogt, of the Netherlands Ministry for Economic Affairs and the Scheveningen
Group, commented that the Group had appreciated advice from the NSAC in the
development of the JR, and that it was helpful that consensus advice had been
produced. He said this had simplified the process of developing the Recommendation.
Barrie Deas echoed the appreciation of the working relationship between NSAC and
the Scheveningen Group. He said that the AC was very conscious that working with
the Scheveningen Group on the LO is important in itself, but that it is also represents
the ‘first level of working in a regionalised CFP’. He commented that there had been a
close dialogue: engagement at the technical level and the high level. Both have been
exceptionally good. Deas said that the consensus advice on plaice was example of
effective working between the NSAC and the Scheveningen Group. However, he
stated that there remain issues within the JR that still cause problems: offering the
specific example of a discrepancy between ICES and STECF estimates on whiting
discards (joint stock with Norway). Despite this, Deas concluded that, as a process,
the development of the JR had been successful.
5
Demersal Working Group Update
5.1
Barrie Deas provided an update on the work of the Demersal Working Group (DWG).
The last time the DWG had met was on the 19th April 2017, in Den Haag. Members
had been in full attendance, and the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association had joined
as observers. The Commission was also present. Discussions of the Landing
Obligation took up the majority of the meeting, with the principal focus being the Joint
Recommendation and interactions with the Scheveningen Group. Deas highlighted
that advice had been submitted, with approval via the Ex Com, and was delivered on
time. He commented that there were some residual issues with regards to advice and
the implementation of the LO, particularly how to deliver a ‘workable’ LO in 2019 and
Page 4
NSAC
beyond, and how to deal with choke issues within this context. Deas said the Chair of
the Scheveningen Group had expressed significant interest in receiving the next piece
of NSAC advice on these subject areas.
Given this, the Landing Obligation Focus Group (LOFG) had met again and continued
work on advice, which falls into three parts: a broad introduction to the subject and key
issues; technical measures and what can be done at the vessel level to ensure
compliance; and how far does the existing toolbox go in helping industry with the key
issues raised. He explained that LOFG advice was working around the assertion that
‘on the most optimistic interpretation’ (and with some ‘important caveats’) the existing
management toolbox is sufficient to support the implementation of the LO for the main
commercial species. However, when all species come under the LO in 2019, the
existing toolbox will not be sufficient. The LOFG would be working on a ‘menu of
options’ – outside of the toolbox – which may help to arrive at a workable LO.
Deas briefly outlined other activities within the DWG, stating that the Group had sent a
joint summary letter to co-decision makers of the Technical Conservation Regulations,
drawing attention to simplifications being sought within the Regulation.
He said that there was on-going work being carried out on the North Sea MAP and that
there may be an ‘important political discussion’ to be had to understand how a MAP
being worked on by Norwegian fishing interests would dovetail with the European NS
MAP.
He commented the Group had also received an update from the MAREFRAME project
and an update on pulse fishing.
5.2
Deas then moved on to the discussion of papers submitted, beginning with Paper 5.1
“Managing Fisheries within the Landing Obligation”. He felt this spelled out a range of
options for consideration and continued dialogue with the Scheveningen Group, and
that the provision of these options was a valuable service to have performed. He
commented that the draft was ‘highly provisional’ – with more shaping, drafting and
refining to be done over the Summer.
Michael Andersen agreed that more work was needed on the document. He said it
should be seen not as a list of tools for recommended use, but an inventory of options.
He asked that it be recorded that the Danish PO is against the use involvement of the
Commission in quota swaps, and does not want to see changes in the quota allocation
key – but that the PO does acknowledge these options as a valid part of any ‘inventory’.
Emiel Brouckaert, of the Belgian PO, suggested that the FG needed to take a ‘hands
on’ approach and offer wisdom on how these options could be put into practical use.
He felt tools needed to be put into application, rather than just listed – and that this was
one way in which the AC can support the Scheveningen Group, in exploring options
not currently available to MS. Heather Hamilton, Client Earth, agreed this could be a
useful follow-on work stream from the current focus of listing options and discussing
their potential positives and negatives. Pim Visser also agreed that practical examples
for a ‘workable and enforceable’ Article 15 were vital, including identifying where which
Page 5
NSAC
tools are applicable. Kees Verbogt underlined that the Scheveningen Group
understood the current toolbox might not always contain appropriate solutions, but that
their responsibility was to first look closely at all options available and then see where
the toolbox will not suffice. The aim would be to identify ‘clear problems and clear
possible solutions’, in order to take these to the Commission.
5.3
The discussion of Paper 5.1 concluded with an agreement that the paper would return
to the LOFG for further work, followed by approval by written procedure. It was broadly
agreed that a meeting of the Focus Group could take place in July.
5.4
Pim Visser presented Paper 5.2 on the North Sea Multi-Annual Plan (NS MAP),
highlighting how previous advice from the NS MAP FG had underpinned the writing of
this document. He outlined, in brief, the timeline for the NS MAP: he believed the PECH
Committee would vote ‘before the Summer’, in order that a plenary vote could take
place after the Summer recess. Next a Trilogue process would commence, and Visser
commented that ‘under Estonian Chairmanship and with Scottish support, this could
be brought to a conclusion before the end of the year’.
5.5
Irene Kingma asserted that the draft presented appeared different to what was agreed
during the last call between FG members – lacking an ‘industry only’ position on one
element of the paper. Lorna Duguid and Pim Visser agreed that efforts were being
made to avoid a ‘split opinion’ and the aim had been to provide text all parties could
agree on. There was agreement around the room of the value of consensus advice.
Heather Hamilton highlighted that only one paragraph of text was up for discussion
with regards to a split opinion, and commented that she felt concerns raised by WWF
had not been addressed in the new draft, and that it hadn’t been circulated in advance.
Pim Visser felt he had done his utmost to incorporate all views. Michael Andersen
commented that the draft stated that there may be ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in
which the structures of the MAP may be deviated from, ‘as long as there is an obligation
to improve the status of the stock’.
Visser, Andersen, Hamilton and Kingma were subsequently requested to meet during
a break of the meeting and try to come to consensus text on paragraph 3.6 of Paper
5.2.
5.6
Upon return from the break, the Chair announced that no consensus had been found
for the paragraph in question. He stated that Other Interest Groups (OIGs) thought the
wording of the section provided the possibility of ‘meeting MSY after 2020’ due to
vague wording – and that this was unacceptable to them. Industry representatives did
not agree that this would cause problems. OIGs and industry representatives from the
NS MAP FG were asked to formulate their own 3.6 sections, to be presented the
following day and submitted as majority and minority positions in the final document.
6
Ecosystem Working Group Update
Page 6
NSAC
6.1
Euan Dunn provided an update on the latest meeting and work of the Ecosystem
Working Group (EWG). A meeting had been held on the 23rd February, and the
agenda for the Group, and its advice, was dominated by fishery management
measures for marine protected areas (MPAs). The Group had received a
presentation from Michael McLeod, of Marine Scotland, on Scottish Natura 2000
sites and national MPAs. The Group had been interested to be asked by McLeod
how they would like to be consulted on these subject matters, which demonstrated
there was no ’set way’ of stakeholder consultation. The next iteration of the advice on
Scottish MPAs was scheduled for the ad hoc Scheveningen Group meeting in The
Hague on June 20, with adoption anticipated in October. Pim Visser had asked if the
NSAC could give advice on control and enforcement in these MPAs. Pim will attend
the June 20 meeting as industry observer, along with Emilie Reuchlin-Hugenholtz for
the NGOs.
6.2
Dunn highlighted some difficulties experienced by the Group around different
approaches by Member States regarding consultation on the application of Articles 11
and 18. A letter had been sent to the Scheveningen Group presidency on this subject.
A lack of consistency of response from different MS was proving confusing, the UK,
Germany and Denmark had appeared reluctant to give the NSAC any further attempt
at commenting on the final recommendation during the formal consultation process.
The response to the letter, from the President of the Scheveningen High Level Group,
had been: “members of the Scheveningen Group agreed that once MS have reached
agreement, consultation of Advisory Councils should not lead to a re-opening of the
discussion”. Within the letter sent, the WG had also asked to be invited to a Danish
meeting on the ‘Dogger Bank process’. The response indicated they would ‘come back’
on this point, but no further information had been received.
6.3
The Group had received an update on fisheries management measures for the Cleaver
Bank, Central Oyster Grounds and Frisian Front in the Netherlands, from the Dutch
Ministry; Pim Visser had provided feedback to the Group on attendance at a meeting
on German MPAs; a presentation on the Dutch DISCLOSE project (generating highres seafloor habitat maps to benefit marine communities in the North Sea) had been
received; as well as a presentation on Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) of the
UK from the JNCC; and Irene Kingma had given a presentation on the issue of listing
Prohibited Species under the CFP. There was currently no fixed date for the next EWG
meeting, but it was felt the next one would take place towards the end of the Summer.
6.4
Irene Kingma had completed a draft letter on the use of Prohibited Species and this
would be shared with the Secretariat.
6.5
Pim Visser presented Paper 7.1 “Incorporation of Socio-Economic Impact in NSAC
Advice”, commenting that this was ‘not yet a paper, but a plan’ which had come about
following a discussion at the last EWG meeting. The plan envisaged the creation of a
specialist group of those involved, in different MS, in bringing together social and
economic knowledge. The creation of this new FG would require agreement from the
Ex Com. Niels Wichmann proposed that Erik Lindebo, former NSAC Vice-Chair and
now fisheries economist at DG MARE, be considered to join such a group.
Page 7
NSAC
Heather Hamilton commented that her understanding had been that this FG would sit
within the EWG, and therefore have a very focused remit of the socio-economic side
of MPAs and their management, and that the paper presented seemed to cover a
broader remit. Visser agreed that the Focus Group was part of the EWG and therefore
the remit was currently MPA-focussed, but said this could be expanded over time.
Christine Absil, Seas at Risk, remarked that the NSAC had done previous work on
socio-economic sustainability – potentially as long as 10 years ago – and that any
future work should use that previous thinking as a foundation, to avoid replicating effort.
Guus Pastoor agreed, and added that in previous attempts to consider socio-economic
impacts the AC had cast their net too wide and the scope had become unfeasible. He
concurred that focusing on the MPA debate would provide a ‘clear scope’ to such a
group, but highlighted the issue of allocating budget to pay for expert time. Euan Dunn
agreed that objectives needed to be clearly defined, and said that the practicalities of
paying for expert time needed to be fully considered.
Niels Wichmann concluded that the NSAC would move forward with the creation of a
Socio-Economic Focus Group for MAPs and better define the Terms of Reference.
6.6
Euan Dunn then presented a slide on the potential creation of an artificial island within
the North Sea region, to support up to 30GW of wind power – describing the island as
‘an idea to rationalise the grid and achieve economies of scale’ in wind generation. He
said that the plan had the backing of the European Commission and some MEPs in
the European Parliament, adding that such projects were seen as ‘essential for the
European internal energy market’. The development of any such island may have the
potential to displace fish species and fishing effort, and as a ‘major chunk of
infrastructure’, its development shouldn’t be taken lightly. The EWG would be following
the project.
7
Preparing and Presenting NSAC Advice
7.1
Niels Wichmann commenced a discussion around Paper 8.1 “Presenting, Developing
and Approving NSAC Advice”, underscoring the importance of providing consensus
advice in a timely way which is also efficient from the perspective of the Secretariat.
Wichmann invited comments on the paper presented.
Jamie Davies, Pew Trusts, asked, as a newer member of the AC, what the difference
was between what is stipulated in the paper presented, and what he had witnessed
since joining the NSAC. He sought clarification as to whether this was considered a
complete change, or finessing of details. Wichmann responded that the paper
represented what was occurring within the AC ‘five years ago,’, but he felt that the AC
was now in a position where consensus and non-consensus advice was presented
without distinction, and that it was increasingly difficult to meet deadlines.
7.2
Irene Kingma read a statement on behalf of the OIGs within the NSAC Executive
Committee:
Page 8
NSAC
“We welcome the Advice Forward Plan developed by the secretariat as having a
guide to keep us on track for the advice we are drafting is surely a positive
development.
However we are confused about the other document prepared by the secretariat, we
have only recently reviewed the advice procedure by the AC and even if what was
agreed then is not perfect it does not warrant a complete overhaul. We would prefer
to leave the current framework in place for now as to us the AC benefits from a stable
situation in a very turbulent field.
We are highly concerned by the content of paragraph 6.1 of the new document as to
us this hollows out the ‘raison de etre’ of the AC which is to find consensus where
possible between a broad group of stakeholders. If the AC is to be governed by
simple majority from now on this would take away incentive to be involved in the
advice drafting for those representing a minority.
The world is a complex place, last year’s developments in the UK have shown us that
trusting simple majority to come to a workable outcome could lead to a disastrous
outcome.
And on a personal note I would like to add that you all know how hard I worked on
getting the plaice advise through approval by all AC parties in time. Having this as full
consensus advise was vital for our audience, in this case the Scheveningen group, to
take it on board. I would truly be saddend if the AC chooses to close the door on
these processes.”
7.3
Barrie Deas said he felt the AC ought to continue to strive for consensus advice and
where this wasn’t possible greater clarity – and, in places, a concise description – was
needed on where minority opinions differ from majority opinions. Irene Kingma
reminded the group of an email from the Scheveningen Group Chair, praising the
NSAC for its advice on the LO. She said that in the past year the NSAC had produced
lengthy advice submissions with ‘tiny’ minority positions – covering just one paragraph
in some instances – which have been very effective. She felt this provided a clear view
of the different perspectives from around the table, and that it would be ‘sad to shut
the door on this’.
Pim Visser agreed that the example of the consensus LO advice on plaice was an
‘enormous achievement’, and said he felt ‘hopefully’ this could provide a way forwards
for dealing with differences of opinion between members.
Pascale Colson, DG MARE, referred the Ex Com to rules for the functioning of ACs
set out Annexe 3 of the CFP, and commented she felt that what was being discussed
was in line with those rules.
Page 9
NSAC
7.4
A discussion followed whereby a number of Ex Com members reasserted the
importance and value of consensus advice to the function of the AC. Both Heather
Hamilton and Pim Visser highlighted the volume of work being undertaken by the
NSAC at this point in time, which may be contributing to the difficulty in taking enough
time to find common ground on all fronts.
Irene Kingma expressed a particular disagreement with the use of the term ‘majority’
within paragraph 6.1 of the presented paper. She felt it was used in a way which
suggested a majority could dictate to the minority within the AC. Michael Andersen
countermanded by saying OIGs within the AC felt they had the ‘right to veto anything’,
and the paper presented was about moving beyond this.
Niels Wichmann and Guus Pastoor underlined a separate, practical point on the
importance of submitting advice in a timely way, which suited the working practices of
the NSAC Secretariat. Lorna Duguid agreed timing was an issue: saying that now the
NSAC was submitting advice to the timescale of other organisations’ work
programmes, it was crucial that submissions came in before deadline. Submissions or
amends to NSAC documents coming in after deadlines had been making life difficult
for the Secretariat.
Duguid also explained the importance of transparency in submitting edits: she outlined
how, when 5 or 6 organisations have worked together on a submission, it becomes
impossible to know who to call for clarification on specific details, or to negotiate with
to achieve consensus.
Euan Dunn welcomed this intervention, and felt it was in the spirit of the report of the
last Ex Com meeting: the overriding aim had to be to meet significant deadlines. He
remarked that there is ‘extreme sensitivity’ around the 60-40 split within the AC, and
said it was important to get the language in section 6.1 correct as a result. He said
OIGs were ‘not here to block’ and supported a suggestion by Irene Kingma that the
section could be word-smithed and returned to the Ex Com for discussion later within
the meeting.
7.5
Lorna Duguid presented Paper 8.2 – the NSAC forward plan: a pipeline of advice that
the NSAC would aim to generate across the coming year. This had been agreed as a
useful tool during the previous Ex Com meeting. The pipeline was agreed and no
additions were proposed.
Following this, Niels Wichmann closed the meeting for the day with a request that
members come prepared with alternative wording for section 6.1 of Paper 8.1 the
following morning.
DAY 2 of the meeting:
8
Resolving remaining business from DAY 1
8.1
Niels Wichmann welcomed participants to the meeting, and opened the day’s
discussion by inviting Barrie Deas to present amends text on Section 3.6 of Paper 5.2
Page 10
NSAC
(North Sea Multi-Annual Plan), covering ‘extreme adverse socio-economic conditions’
which may arise through application of the MAP as currently drafted. Having reviewed
the text in full, Irene Kingma indicated that consensus could not be reached on this text
and requested a minority position be included on behalf of all Other Interest Groups
(OIGs).
8.2
Wichmann then invited comments on amended text for Section 6.1 of Paper 8.1. Upon
reviewing the projected text, he asserted that ‘100% agreement equals consensus’
and did not agree with the use of ‘part consensus’ by the OIGs. Heather Hamilton said
that the text was aiming to highlight that papers where consensus can be achieved on
all but one or two phrases are ‘strong’ submissions, too, and that there is value in
highlighting where divergence has occurred.
Wichmann put the original text versus the amended text to a vote, with 8 Ex Com
members voting in favour of the original and 6 against. Irene Kingma request that this
majority versus minority be reflected in the text of the document in question, this was
declined as the document is a working procedure and not NSAC advice. Wichmann
invited her to express any formal complaint in writing to the Commission. Deborah
Crockhard suggested the replacement of the word ‘consensus’ within the text of 6.1
with the word ‘agreement’, this was not accepted.
Euan Dunn requested that it be formally noted that he considered the agenda point
had not been fully discussed. He felt that the discussion had not allowed for ‘fair
coverage of the importance of the point under consideration’. He said a ‘sweeping
approach’ had been applied, which he found ‘extraordinary’.
Wichmann concluded by saying that no comments on Paper 8.1 had been received in
advance of the meeting, and that the group was trying to work in an ‘orderly way’
towards producing advice.
9
Skagerrak and Kattegat Working Group Update
9.1
Kenn Skau Fischer provided an update on the work of the Skagerrak and Kattegat
Working Group, which had been reactivated since the last Ex Com meeting. Fischer
said that new Terms of Reference had been agreed, and different work streams had
been delegated to different members of the WG.
A prominent item on the agenda for the S&KWG was the implications of the LO from
2019 and beyond in Skagerrak and Kattegat waters. The WG would be looking at
potential choke species in these areas and working to provide additional insights to
the LOFG.
Fischer moved on to discuss cod stocks in the Kattegat, saying that fishermen and
scientists appeared to be in agreement around the state of the cod stock, but that
management did not reflect the reality in the water. He referenced a split within ICES
regarding whether or not an analytical assessment of the stock was possible, and
pointed to the fact that this cod stock would not be included in the LO until 2019.
Page 11
NSAC
The Group had also discussed the need for a ‘helicopter view’ of all spatial
management and conservation measures being carried out across the area. This
would continue to be on the agenda for the S&KWG.
Moving on to specifically discuss Skagerrak, Fischer described an EU-Norway
meeting on a management strategy for deep sea shrimp. He said that discussions
had taken place on moving the ‘management year’ from May to April and that
information was being sought from ICES on whether this would have an impact on
ICES advice. He said implications of this should be considered in an EU-wide
context, and that he foresaw more stocks moving away from the calendar year in
terms of management.
Fischer concluded by telling the Ex Com that Norway had been unable to attend the
recent meeting of the S&KWG but that they had expressed an interest in attending
future meetings.
10
Planning and Appointments
10.1
Lorna Duguid presented a summary of services for the next year of operation of the
NSAC. Timelines for tenders and contracts were outlined in Paper 10.1.
She highlighted that rapporteur and secretariat services need to go out to tender on
an annual basis – this will go out beginning of August. The process will be completed
by beginning of October and contracts in place by November.
Renewal of accountancy and audit services was agreed.
Christine Absil noted – in reference to Paper 10.1 – that in other ACs, Chairmanships
of WGs were not paid positions, as members of WGs contribute to the work of the
Groups as well as Chairs. She suggested the paid positions may be ‘from the past’
when Chairs were mostly expected to prepare and edit papers.
11
Date and Location of Next Meeting
11.1 The 4th October 2017 was agreed as the date of the next Ex Com meeting, with location
to be determined.
12
AOB
12.1 Niels Wichmann highlighted an event on Brexit in the European Parliament on
Wednesday 21st June. Geert Meun informed members of an event on the same day, in
the afternoon, on pulse gear. Christine Absil informed members of a session on ‘new
ways of seafood consumption’ also held by the Parliament on the 21st.
Katrina Ryan, Mindfully Wired Communications, briefed the group on a new North Seafocused initiative called ‘GearingUp’, which would be bringing together data on gear
Page 12
NSAC
selectivity trials carried out in Northern and North-Western Waters, and converting this
into an interactive online tool. She requested permission to present in detail on the
project at the next Demersal Working Group meeting. This was agreed.
The meeting then concluded.
13
Attendance
Page 13
Family Name
Given Name
Organisation
Absil
Christine
Seas at Risk
Andersen
Michael
Danish Fishermens’ PO
Berkow
Charles
The Fisheries Secretariat
Brouckaert
Emiel
Colson
Pascale
DG MARE
Crockard
Deborah
MCS
Davies
Jamie
PEW
Deas
Barrie
NFFO
Duguid
Lorna
NSAC
Dunn
Euan
SchitingBirdlife Europe
Fischer
Kenn Skau
Fournier
Nicholas
Oceana
Grigorjeva
Joanna
NSAC
Hamilton
Heather
Client Earth
Rederscentrale
Danish Fishermen’s PO
NSAC
Page 14
Kingma
Irene
Dutch Elasmobranch Society
Lindberg
Fredrik
Meun
Geert
VisNed
Pastoor
Guus
AIPCE
Pedersen
Claus Hjorne
Ronelov Olsson
Peter
Swedish Fishermen’s
Federation
Ryan
Katrina
NSAC / Mindfully Wired
Communications
Ton
Caroline
CNPMEM
Verbogt
Kees
Visser
Pim
VisNed
Wichmann
Niels
Danish Fishermen’s PO
Swedish Fishermen’s
Federation
Danish Fishermen’s PO
Netherlands – Ministry of
Economic Affairs
NSAC
Action Points Ex Com 13-14th June 2017
Action
Responsibility
1. Amend para 7.2 of report from previous meeting. (2.1)
Secretariat
2. Circulate copy of Pascale Colson’s presentation (3.1)
Secretariat
3. Arrange meeting of the Landing Obligation Focus Group for Secretariat
late July (5.3)
4. Agree final version of NS MAP Advice and circulate for Ex
Com approval (5.6)
Secretariat
Ex Com
5. Arrange date for EWG meeting in late summer (6.3)
Secretariat
Euan Dunn
6. Circulate draft letter from Irene Kingma on the use of
prohibited species to the EWG (6.4)
Irene Kingma
Secretariat
7. Review previous NSAC work on Socio-economic impacts
(6.5)
Secretariat
8. Establish a Focus Group for developing a socio-economic
impact analysis for MPAs. (6.5)
Secretariat
Heather Hamilton
Pim Visser
9. Monitor progress with the development of artificial island.
(6.6)
Euan Dunn
Secretariat
10. Arrange introduction to “Gearing Up” Project in advance of
the Demersal Working Group 13th July (12.1)
Secretariat
Katrina Ryan
11. Confirm location of next meeting 4th October. Malta
proposed but to be confirmed. (11.1)
Niels Wichmann
Secretariat
Page 15
NSAC