Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Table 1: Action Plan overview
Fishery name: North Sea Plaice
Start date: 01/01/2017
Fishery location:
Fishing methods:
End date (anticipated):
ICES Subarea 4 (North Sea) and Subdivision 3.a.20 (Skagerrak).
Seine
31/12/2019 (3 years)
Demersal trawl
Beam trawl
Project leaders (organisation responsible for Action Plan):
Improvements recommended by:
Project UK Fisheries Improvement (PUKFI)
Poseidon
Overview of the Action Plan:
P1: There is a need to align with conditions set for other certified North Sea plaice fisheries on improvements to Harvest Control Rules & Tools.
This involves working through the North Sea Advisory Council to encourage improvements at a European level.
P2:
The priority action (i.e. to address those PIs not currently meeting 60) is on the management of secondary species. A review of alternative
measures to reduce unwanted catch of secondary species should be carried out. This should include any out of scope species, such as
incidental bird by-catch.
The proposed review should also define the catch composition for a range of gears as separate UoAs and highlight those without secondary
‘main’ species. Separation of demersal trawl into TR1 and TR2 gear is expected to show that TR1 gear could progress to assessment, while
further actions are necessary for TR2 gear to address management of Nephrops and monkfish as ‘main’ secondary species.
Actions are required under P2 to develop an ETP strategy which will improve information, management and help to inform status of ETP
species interacting with the fishery.
The more specific requirements under version 2.0 of the standard in relation to habitat, makes it more of a challenge for mobile bottom gears to
achieve the standard. A habitat strategy is needed to (i) quantify the impact of gears on commonly encountered and VME habitats; (ii) manage
the impact, taking steps to reduce potential impacts.
P3: No conditions expected and therefore no actions proposed.
1
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Table 2: Action Plan details
Standard
requirement
Resources
required
Action lead Action
partners
Stakeholders Timescale /
milestones
Revision of HCR
in LTMP
Work through the
NSAC – to ensure
that the next
management plan
(likely a North Sea
and Skagerrak
mixed-species
management plan)
contains a defined
reduction in F as
the SSB
approaches the
limit reference
point.
Engagement with
NSAC.
Potential need for a
position paper
detailing the
requirements for a
revised LTMP.
SFSAG
(as member WWF
of both
Icelandic
steering
Seachill
group and
NSAC)
NSAC
members
Cefas
Defra
Overall timescale: 3
years
2.2.1 Secondary
Catch
composition
species
Main secondary species Review.
are highly likely to be
 Request detailed
above biologically based
catch data for
limits
UoAs from MMO
Data analysis and
interpretation.
Output expected to:
SFSAG (on
behalf of
steering
group) –
data
request
NSAC
members
Overall timescale 6
months
Yr1:
Review report delivered.
1.2.2
Harvest Control Rules
and tools
Well-defined harvest
control rules are in place
that are consistent with
the harvest strategy and
ensure that the
exploitation rate is
reduced as limit
reference points are
approached
Actions

define UoAs
for fast track
MMO – data
provider
MSC –
interpretation
of standard
YR1: Position paper
proposing changes to
the LTMP by
management to specify
how fishing mortality will
be reduced as SSB
approaches SSBLIM
YR2: agreement on
changes to the LTMP in
principle by
management.
YR3: changes to the
LTMP adopted.
(As per existing
conditions. Timing could
be amended in line with
expected LTMP review
cycle)
2
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Standard
requirement
Actions
OR
If below biologically
based limits, there is
either evidence of
recovery or a
demonstrably effective
partial strategy in place
such that the UoA does
not hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
AND
Where catches of a
main secondary species
outside of biological
limits are considerable,
there is either evidence
of recovery or a,
demonstrably effective
strategy in place
between those MSC
UoAs that have
considerable catches
of the species, to
ensure that they
collectively do not
hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
 Refine UoA catch
composition
(TR1/TR2 split
may enable TR1
to progress,
Monkfish species
split may reduce
% below main)
3. 2.2.2
scoring issue (e)
There is a regular
Review of
alternative
measures for by-
 Explore
Nephrops status
(P2 stocks
required to be
above Blim)
Resources
required


Clarify
Nephrops
status per FU
and likely
assessment
route (RBF?)
Action lead Action
partners
Stakeholders Timescale /
milestones
MSC to
explore
funding
Provide
justification
for
assessment
or further
actions
needed.
 Assess Nephrops
FU status in
relation to 2.2.1
requirements
Fisheries expertise
to undertake the
review and identify
potential mitigation
Youngs
(DP)
WWF
Icelandic
Seachill
Steering
group
members
Overall timescale: 6
months
(follow action 2 – review
3
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Standard
requirement
review of the potential
effectiveness and
practicality of alternative
measures to minimise
UoA-related mortality of
unwanted catch of main
secondary species and
they are implemented
as appropriate.
NOTE: ‘main’ may
include:
a. >5% in catch
b. >2% if
vulnerable
c. out of scope
species
2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3
ETP species
outcome,
management and
information.
Actions
Resources
required
Action lead Action
partners
catch
measures
Review catch
composition data
to identify
‘unwanted catch’.
To include noncommercial,
undersized and out
of scope species.
Review measures
(incl spatial) to
minimise such
catch.
ETP Strategy
An ETP strategy
should be
developed that:
a. Identifies ETP
species
interacting with
each UoA
b. Manages and
minimizes
impact by the
Fisheries / nature
conservation
expertise to develop
the ETP strategy.
Expected focus is on
skates & rays.
Data collection
programme involving
UoA vessels
WWF
Stakeholders Timescale /
milestones
Seafish – to
NFFO
undertake peer
review.
of catch composition)
Yr1:
Review report delivered.
a. Paper on existing
initiatives
b. Detail on
measures
Yr 2 onwards:
Implementation of
measures where
necessary. The
outcomes are
dependent on the beam
trawl industry wanting to
move forward.
SFSAG to
provide advice
on current info
and provisions
Overall timescale: 3
years
Yr 1:
Strategy developed
Yr 2:
Data collection
programme undertaken
Yr 3:
Analysis of data
collection and review of
JNCC
NFFO
MMO
4
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Standard
requirement
Actions
Resources
required
Action lead Action
partners
Stakeholders Timescale /
milestones
fishery
c. Ensures
sufficient
information is
collected to
inform
management.
2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3
Habitat outcome,
management and
information
Habitat
Assessment
To provide a
quantitative
assessment of the
scale of overlap,
the level of impact
and the rate of
recovery.
In relation to
commonly
encountered
habitats and
VMEs.
Results will
indicate if a habitat
strategy is
necessary. The
outcomes are
dependent on the
beam trawl
industry wanting to
strategy.
Fisheries / nature
conservation
expertise to
undertake the
habitat assessment.
If required:
Fisheries / nature
conservation
expertise to develop
habitat strategy.
Data collection
programme
Sainsbury’s
(AD)
With input
from MSC
to develop
funding
proposal
Cefas
NFFO
Fisheries
administrations
MMO
JNCC
Overall timescale:
Assessment: 6 months
(awaiting external
funding from EMFF)
Strategy (if needed): 3
years
Yr 1:
Assessment undertaken
Habitat strategy
developed (if
necessary)
Yr 2:
Data collection
programme undertaken
Yr 3:
Analysis of data
collection and review of
strategy.
5
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Standard
requirement
Actions
Resources
required
Action lead Action
partners
Stakeholders Timescale /
milestones
move forward.
6
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Table 3: Evaluation against Action Plan milestones
Standard
requirement
Actions
Timescale /
milestones
1.2.2 Harvest Control
Rules and tools
Revision of HCR in LTMP
Overall timescale: 3 years
Well-defined harvest control
rules are in place that are
consistent with the harvest
strategy and ensure that
the exploitation rate is
reduced as limit reference
points are approached
Work through the NSAC – to ensure
that the next management plan
(likely a North Sea and Skagerrak
mixed-species management plan)
contains a defined reduction in F as
the SSB approaches the limit
reference point.
Progress / outcome
Revised
milestone
YR1: Position paper
proposing changes to the
LTMP by management to
specify how fishing mortality
will be reduced as SSB
approaches SSBLIM
YR2: agreement on changes
to the LTMP in principle by
management.
YR3: changes to the LTMP
adopted.
(As per existing conditions.
Timing could be amended in
line with expected LTMP
review cycle)
2.2.1 Secondary
species
Main secondary species
are highly likely to be
above biologically based
limits
OR
If below biologically based
limits, there is either
evidence of recovery or a
demonstrably effective
partial strategy in place
such that the UoA does not
hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
AND
Catch composition Review.
Request detailed catch data for
UoAs from MMO
Refine UoA catch composition
(TR1/TR2 split may enable TR1
to progress, Monkfish species
split may reduce % below main)
Overall timescale 6
months
Yr1:
Review report delivered.
Explore Nephrops status (P2
stocks required to be above
Blim)
Assess Nephrops FU status in
relation to 2.2.1 requirements
7
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Standard
requirement
Actions
Timescale /
milestones
Progress / outcome
Revised
milestone
Where catches of a main
secondary species outside
of biological limits are
considerable, there is
either evidence of
recovery or a,
demonstrably effective
strategy in place between
those MSC UoAs that
have considerable
catches of the species, to
ensure that they collectively
do not hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
2.2.2 Secondary
species
scoring issue (e)
Review of alternative
measures for by-catch
Review catch composition data
There is a regular review of
to identify ‘unwanted catch’. To
the potential effectiveness
include non-commercial,
and practicality of
undersized and out of scope
alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related
species.
mortality of unwanted
Review measures (incl spatial)
catch of main secondary
to minimise such catch.
species and they are
implemented as
appropriate.
NOTE: ‘main’ may
include:
>5% in catch
>2% if vulnerable
out of scope species
Overall timescale: 6
months
(follow action 2 – review
of catch composition)
Yr1:
Review report delivered.
c. Paper on existing
initiatives
d. Detail on
measures
Yr 2 onwards:
Implementation of
measures where
necessary. The
outcomes are
dependent on the beam
8
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Standard
requirement
Actions
Timescale /
milestones
Progress / outcome
Revised
milestone
trawl industry wanting to
move forward.
2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3
ETP species
outcome,
management and
information.
ETP Strategy
An ETP strategy should be
developed that:
d. identifies ETP species
interacting with each
UoA
e. Manages and minimizes
impact by the fishery
Ensures sufficient information
is collected to inform
management.
Overall timescale: 3
years
Yr 1:
Strategy developed
Yr 2:
Data collection
programme undertaken
Yr 3:
Analysis of data
collection and review of
strategy.
2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3
Habitat outcome,
management and
information
Habitat Assessment
To provide a quantitative
assessment of the scale of
overlap, the level of impact
and the rate of recovery.
In relation to commonly
encountered habitats and
VMEs.
Results will indicate if a habitat
strategy is necessary. The
outcomes are dependent on
the beam trawl industry
wanting to move forward.
Overall timescale:
Assessment: 6 months
Strategy (if needed): 3
years
Yr 1:
Assessment undertaken
Habitat strategy
developed (if
necessary)
Yr 2:
Data collection
programme undertaken
9
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Standard
requirement
Actions
Timescale /
milestones
Progress / outcome
Revised
milestone
Yr 3:
Analysis of data
collection and review of
strategy.
10
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Summary of Pre-assessment results
Likely scoring
Principle
Component
Outcome
1
Management
Primary
Species
Secondary
species
2
ETP species
Habitats
Ecosystem
PI
Performance Indicator
UoA 1
UoA 2
UoA 3
Seine
Trawl
Beam
1.1.1
Stock status
≥80
1.1.2
Stock rebuilding
N/A
1.2.1
Harvest Strategy
≥80
1.2.2
Harvest control rules and tools
60-79
1.2.3
Information and monitoring
≥80
1.2.4
Assessment of stock status
≥80
2.1.1
Outcome
≥80
≥80
≥80
2.1.2
Management
≥80
≥80
≥80
2.1.3
Information
≥80
≥80
≥80
2.2.1
Outcome
≥80
<60
≥80
2.2.2
Management
<60
<60
<60
2.2.3
Information
60-79
60-79
60-79
2.3.1
Outcome
60-79
60-79
60-79
2.3.2
Management
60-79
60-79
60-79
2.3.3
Information
60-79
60-79
60-79
2.4.1
Outcome
60-79
60-79
<60
2.4.2
Management
60-79
60-79
60-79
2.4.3
Information
60-79
60-79
60-79
2.5.1
Outcome
≥80
≥80
60-79
2.5.2
Management
≥80
≥80
≥80
11
Project UK Fisheries Improvement Action Plan
Likely scoring
Principle
Component
Governance &
policy
3
Fishery specific
management
system
PI
Performance Indicator
UoA 1
UoA 2
UoA 3
Seine
Trawl
Beam
≥80
≥80
2.5.3
Information
≥80
3.1.1
Legal and customary framework
≥80
3.1.2
Consultation, roles responsibilities
≥80
3.1.3
Long term objectives
≥80
3.2.1
Fishery specific objectives
≥80
3.2.2
Decision making processes
≥80
3.2.3
Compliance and enforcement
≥80
3.2.4
Mgt performance evaluation
≥80
12