The North Sea Advisory Council
Nephrops Focus Group
DEFRA, Nobel House, London
21st July 2014
Rapporteur: Tony Hawkins
Draft (2)
1.
Introduction and agenda
1.1
Michael Park, the chairman, welcomed participants to the Nephrops LTMP
Development Group. Apologies had been received from Jane Sandell and Helen
Dobby. The agenda for the meeting was agreed.
2.
Report of the previous meeting
2.2
The report of the previous meeting, held in London on 13th May 2014, was approved.
The various actions were discussed. The rapporteur had revised and updated the
draft plan, which had then been recirculated. We would spend much of the meeting
discussing the draft and how to proceed with it.
3.
Update on the Fladen Sustainability Plan
3.1
Magnus Johnson and his colleagues from the Centre for Environmental and Marine
Science at Hull University had now provided Michael Park with a summary of their
sustainability plan for the Fladen Ground. It will be circulated. The document has not
provided a clear Fishing Plan for the Fladen, as originally envisaged by the NSAC, but
it has contributed to our understanding of the fishery. The findings of the study will
now be discussed with fishers operating on the Fladen, who are mainly from Scotland,
at a meeting in August.
3.2
Amongst the suggestions put forward for managing the fishery are possible restrictions
in effort; the continued use of highly selective gears fishing gears; and the setting of
Bpa and Blim at particular levels. Other options are also discussed.
3.3
There was some discussion by the Focus Group of the setting of biomass levels.
Essentially what we were looking for in a Fishing Plan for the Fladen were options in
terms of management measures should the biomass level drop below Bbuff. Ana
Leocadio reported that discussions were taking place within the ICES Working Group
Page 1
NSAC
on how best to set levels for Bbuff. The outcome would have implications for our Long
Term Management Plan, which had endorsed the Bbuff approach. We would need to
update the text of the Management Plan to take account of any developments in
setting the Bbuff level.
3.4
So far, in preparing our Fishing Plan for the Farne Deeps we had decided to adopt the
“of which no more than…” approach. The main issue with this is how the subsequent
quota will be allocated. Those vessels fishing the Farne Deeps do not necessarily
hold the quota. Much of it is held by the Producer Organisations, who would need to
be consulted over quota allocations under the “of which no more than…” approach.
The kind of arrangement being considered by the NSAC would shift the allocation
criteria from an exclusive reliance on historical track record to a temporary
redistribution that would allow the local fleet to continue to fish at or near its customary
levels during the period of recovery. This could not be resolved by the Advisory
Council and would require the involvement and indeed agreement of the Member
State authorities and the Producer Organisations concerned.
3.5
One of the advantages of adopting “of which no more than...” provisions is that they
would only apply to a Functional Unit that was in difficulties and the restriction would
be lifted when the stock was no longer below the buffer biomass level. In contrast, if
TACs were imposed for Functional Units then the restrictions would not be lifted
following recovery.
3.6
Essentially it is the ICES advice for a particular Functional Unit that will determine
whether the fishery is sustainable. One of the problems with the proposal to set new
targets for Bpa and Blim for the Fladen, as suggested in the sustainability plan from
Hull, is that the targets would parallel those being set by ICES. This would not be
sensible. Regionalisation of management will be a key feature of the process for
deciding on measures for particular Functional Units under the NSAC Long Term
Management Plan, and there will be a need to follow the ICES advice.
3.7
Discussion moved on to possible alternatives to the “of which no more than…”
approach, which might be considered for the Fladen or Farne Deeps. ICES advice for
Functional Units, like the Farne Deeps and Fladen, makes use of annual Underwater
TV surveys and applies an MSY approach. With some of the other Functional Units in
the North Sea the stocks are classed as data limited, and it is not possible to apply the
ICES MSY approach or to set biomass targets. Arriving at management measures for
these data limited stocks is likely to be much more difficult. However, we do have the
example of an alternative approach for the Porcupine Bank, which is cited in the Long
Term Management Plan. Here, management is through seasonal closures. The
pragmatic measures that were arrived at for the Porcupine Bank involve deciding on
the duration of a seasonal closure, which depends on the estimated level of
exploitation and the estimated level of recruitment. It was agreed by the Focus Group,
however, that this approach, although appropriate for some Functional Units with data
limited stocks, would not be appropriate for Functional Units where there are TV
surveys, and where an MSY approach is possible. In any case, seasonal closures
would not be appropriate as a management measure for the Farne Deeps, as this is
essentially a fishery with a fairly short season.
Page 2
NSAC
3.8
Restrictions in effort had been suggested in the Fladen sustainability study. The
NSAC had looked at this as an option but did not consider it to be appropriate. There
were no other management proposals emerging from the sustainability project,
suitable for inclusion in a Fishing Plan, that had not already been considered by the
NSAC
4.
The Draft Long-term Management Plan
4.1
The draft Management Plan had been revised as a result of discussions at the
previous meeting. Comments on the draft had recently been received from Helen
Dobby. She had emphasised that the document is over long and that some of the
material should be removed, as it was no longer necessary. The Focus Group agreed
that the rapporteur would revise the draft plan to take account of Helen’s useful
comments. We would also take this opportunity to consider any further comments
from members of the Focus Group or others. Members of the Focus Group were
asked to send their comments by Friday 25th July. The rapporteur would then prepare
a new version of the plan and it would be sent out to the eNGOs and other members of
the ExCom for their comments. Once their comments had been received the plan
could then go out for peer review. Then it would go to the Executive Committee for
formal approval. Then it would be sent to the Commission with a request that it be
reviewed by STECF.
4.2
There was a need at the beginning of the plan to emphasise that because this was our
first management plan it was rather longer and more detailed than a conventional
Management Plan. The plan includes information on how we had reached our
conclusions and how the plan had evolved.
4.3
A link is needed in the Management Plan to the discard plan for Nephrops. The first
draft of the discard plan has to be prepared for the lead species in the fishery
(Nephrops itself) by March/April 2015 in order to meet the target date for introduction
of the landings obligation for demersal species by January 2016. The preparation of
the discard plan will have to proceed initially as a parallel development to our
Management Plan. The discard plan will need to consider survivability issues, and de
minimis and other exemptions for both TR2 and TR1 vessels, which our plan has not
yet considered. There was some discussion of whether we could insert some
suggestions into the Management Plan on ways of meeting the landings obligation.
For example, could we suggest that Nephrops shows high survival and can therefore
be discarded? Did the Nephrops fisheries qualify for de minimis exemption? It was
decided, however, that settlement of these issues was best left to discussions with
Member States as part of the preparation of the discard plan. We would then consider
meeting the landings obligations, and also dealing with mixed fishery issues, at a
second stage of development of the Management Plan. For the time being we should
concentrate on dealing with the issue of management at the Functional Unit level as
the main theme of our plan. We should emphasise this point at the beginning of the
plan.
Page 3
NSAC
4.4
It was agreed that we also needed to let the Commission know what stage we have
reached. We could inform them of our progress at the Executive Committee meeting
on the 23rd September and alert them to the requirement for review by STECF. It
would be important to insert the plan into the European process.
4.5
For peer review of the plan four names had come forward:




Ann Marie Porter of the National University of Ireland, Galway
Colm Lordan of the National Marine Institute, Ireland
Pieter-Jan Schön of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Northern Ireland
Stuart Reeves of Cefas, Lowestoft, UK
All four scientists would be contacted to request that they peer review the revised
Management Plan
5.
Paper for the Commission and Member States on our Fishing Plan for the
Farne Deeps
5.1
The ICES advice received for the Farne Deeps Functional Unit at the recent Demersal
WG had been fairly bleak. Abundance has declined since 2005. The harvest rate is
above Fmsy and has increased in the last 3 years. The biomass is below Btrigger.
There have been signs of overexploitation in recent years, with an unbalanced sex
ratio leading to poor recruitment. The advice for 2015 under MSY leads to a harvest
rate (landings and discards) of 6.7% leading to landings < 983 tonnes (assuming a
discard rate at the last 3-yr average). Concern over this state of affairs at the last
meeting had led to the suggestion that the NSAC should prepare a short paper
summarising our work so far on the Management Plan, and the measures we had
identified for the Farne Deeps. This paper could be a pointer to the need to consider
the internal quota allocation issues. There would be two audiences for this paper: the
Commission and the Member States. It had also been suggested that we should
prepare a Plan B, outlining an alternative approach.
5.2
Cefas had now carried out an Underwater TV survey for Nephrops in the Farne Deeps,
and new data were available. Ana Leocadio reported that the survey had been based
on a randomised grid with a total of 110 stations. At each station a sledge-mounted
TV camera and multi-beam sonar had been deployed and a clear 10-minute tow
recorded. The water clarity had been very good with excellent footage recorded.
Burrows were counted for each minute block for 7 clear minutes. As in previous years
the highest abundance area was distributed on the east side of the ground. The 2014
abundance index was back to the 2012 level, and the ICES advice is likely to be
update accordingly.
5.3
However, the abundance is still below the 2007 trigger level. Following the ICES MSY
approach, for a Harvest Rate of 7% the advice for the landings will go from 983 to
1132 tonnes. The Farne Deeps fishery is usually male-based but last year there were
more females caught and their mean size was increasing. Males were scarcer, and
their size was decreasing. The effect of this on recruitment is not fully understood.
Page 4
NSAC
5.4
Ana provided a breakdown of the landings at English (and Welsh) ports. The total
international landings were much larger than the ICES advice for this Functional Unit.
In 2013 the advice had been for 1.3k tonnes but 2.98k tonnes had been landed. The
local fleet alone, disregarding Scottish and Northern Irish vessels, is taking the level of
landings advised by ICES. Despite the improvements observed from the UWTV
surveys Fmsy was still too high and the stock was still below Btrig. Much will depend
on future levels of recruitment
5.5
The rapporteur had drawn up a draft paper, based on the Management Plan that set
out the position of the NSAC on the measures to be taken under a Fishing Plan for the
Farne Deeps Functional Unit. This drew attention to the quota distribution problems
that would ensue if management adopted the “of which no more than…” measure. The
Scottish PO holds the majority of quota and it may be difficult to guarantee that local
vessels are able to continue to fish with such a measure in place.
5.6
Our Management Plan is essentially saying that if the “of which no more than…”
approach is to work then a redistribution of quota is required and this must involve the
member State authorities and the POs. We would hope that there could be a
temporary redistribution of quota. We could not dictate that but we could aspire to
that. Enough quota was needed to be available to the local fleet, which had limited
mobility, to protect their businesses. In terms of the international allocation of quota,
the principle of relative stability would apply. There could be a swap with quota
elsewhere in the North Sea. But the bulk of the Nephrops quota would go to the UK
and it would be for the UK authorities and the POs to come to some temporary
agreement.
5.7
There was some discussion of whether the “of which no more than….” measure
needed to be introduced in a “big bang” or whether a stepped approach could be
adopted. It was perhaps less pressing now to introduce such measures in view of the
latest survey results. A lot depended on whether the Commission would see the need
for immediate action. However, as Ana Leocadio pointed out, if nothing is done it is
very unlikely that the landings will match the ICES advice.
5.8
It was agreed that it would be a positive step to send this paper to the Commission and
Member States. We should not stipulate a particular tonnage but should aim to show
that the NSAC had thought about this problem and was suggesting steps that might be
taken to deal with the situation. If we do nothing the Commission may put a Functional
Unit TAC in place, with no exit strategy. And it might apply to all the Functional Units.
We were putting forward a measure that retained scope for future adjustment.
5.9
Actual changes to the document were discussed. A Plan B will not be included. It was
agreed that the paper would be revised by Friday 25th July, re-distributed to the Focus
Group for further comment within 2 weeks. It would then be sent to the ExCom for
approval by written procedures. We should aim to gain the approval of the ExCom by
the end of August. The paper would not need a detailed accompanying letter, as it
was self-explanatory.
Page 5
NSAC
6.
Next Meeting
6.1
The next meeting of the Focus Group will be on the afternoon of November 11th in
Brussels, before the Demersal WG on the 12th. We can also discuss any issues at the
ExCom meeting on the 23rd September.
7.
Action Points
Actions
Responsible
1. A summary of the Sustainability Plan for the Fladen Michael Park
Ground will be circulated. (3.1).
Secretariat
2. The draft LTMP will be revised to take account of Members
comments from Helen Dobby and other members
of the Focus Group. Members of the Focus Group Rapporteur
are asked to send any additional comments to the
rapporteur by Friday 25th July. The rapporteur will
then prepare a new version of the plan before
Friday 1st August. (4.1).
3. Once revised, the LTMP will be sent out to the Secretariat
eNGOs and other members of the ExCom for their
further comments. (4.1).
4. Once comments had been received and reconciled Secretariat
the LTMP will then go out for peer review to four
selected scientists before it is approved by the
ExCom and sent to the Commission for review by
STECF. (4.1 & 4.6)
5. The ICES Working Group will be discussing Bbuff Ana Leocadio
and we will need to be kept aware of those
discussions and their outcome. We will need to Rapporteur
update the text of the LTMP to take account of any
developments in setting the Bbuff level. (3.3).
6. The NSAC will inform the Commission of progress Secretariat
with the LTMP at the Executive Committee meeting
on the 23rd September and will alert them to the
requirement for review by STECF. (4.3).
7. The paper for the Commission and Member States Rapporteur
on our Fishing Plan for the Farne Deeps will be
revised by Friday 25th July, and re-distributed to the Secretariat
Focus Group for further comment within 2 weeks. It
will then be sent to the ExCom for approval by
written procedures. We will aim to gain the approval
Page 6
NSAC
of the ExCom by the end of August. (5.8).
8. The next meeting of the Focus group will be on the Secretariat
afternoon of November 11th in Brussels, before the
Demersal WG on the 12th. We can also discuss
any issues at the ExCom meeting on the 23rd
September.
8.
Attendance
Thomas Bryan-Brown
Mallaig & North West Fishermen’s Association
Nuala Carson
DEFRA (Agenda no. 5 only)
Ned Clark
NFFO
Barrie Deas
NFFO
Lorna Duguid
NSAC Secretariat
Iain Glasgow
DEFRA
Tony Hawkins
NSAC Rapporteur
Ana Leocadio
CEFAS
Leeanne Mullan
Marine Scotland
Michael Park
Chairman (SFF)
Andrew Randall
DEFRA (Agenda no. 5 only)
Pim Visser
Visned
Page 7
NSAC