The North Sea Advisory Council
Nephrops Focus Group
The Royal Scots Club
29 - 31 Abercromby Place
Edinburgh
10th September 2015, 10.30 – 15.30hrs
Rapporteur: Tony Hawkins
Draft (2)
1.
Welcome & Introduction
1.1
Michael Park, the chairman, welcomed participants to the Nephrops Focus Group.
Participants introduced themselves.
2.
Background and discussion of work to date (Paper 2.1)
2.1
Michael Park described the background to preparation of the Long Term Management
Plan (LTMP) for North Sea Nephrops by the NSAC. In formulating that plan the industry
had preferred the flexibility of having an overall TAC for the North Sea, rather than
individual TACs for each local Functional Unit (FU). However, the plan recognised the
need for local management and this was dealt with in the plan by proposing that Fishing
Plans be prepared for the individual FUs.
2.2
Tony Hawkins, the rapporteur, described the scope of the LTMP. It was longer and more
explanatory than a conventional fisheries management plan, but now it had been
discussed with the Commission it could be made shorter and more to the point. The
context of the plan was important. It had been prepared before the reforms to the CFP
had been implemented. Procedures for the adoption of management plans had now
changed, especially through the new process of Regionalisation. Plans would now need
to be adopted through the regional group of Fisheries Directors – the Scheveningen
Group – before submission to the Commission. Moreover, the Commission was now
preparing a Multi-Annual Mixed Fishery Plan for the North Sea, and it was not yet clear
how the LTMP for Nephrops would fit into that. The LTMP might be attached as an
annexe to the Mixed Fishery Plan. The draft LTMP had now been reviewed by STECF,
the scientific advisers to the Commission. Although there were some points that needed
to be clarified, including emphasis from STECF that the FUs needed to be managed
separately, there were no real problems with the core elements of the LTMP, including
the concept of Fishing Plans for the FUs.
Page 1
NSAC
2.3
Barrie Deas commented that the LTMP had evolved through a very thorough process.
There had been a unique level of stakeholder involvement, which would serve as a
model for the preparation of future plans. He agreed that the context of management
plans had now changed and that the LTMP would need to be reconciled with the Mixed
Fishery Plan through a new decision-taking process. However, we had already come
quite far in reaching a consensus view on the management of Nephrops.
3.
The Nephrops LTMP and the new Mixed Fishery Plan for the North Sea
3.1
Eckehard Reussner from the Commission was asked how the LTMP for Nephrops would
fit in with the Commission’s proposals for an overall Mixed Fishery Plan. He said that
the Commission is currently drafting such a plan and he could imagine that an extra
article on Nephrops could be inserted into it. The Mixed Fishery plan will guide the
Council and will be the legal instrument for Regionalisation. For Nephrops, once there
were Fishing Plans for the FUs these would need to be defined in law. If agreed by the
Scheveningen Group they could then be rubber-stamped by the Commission. Otherwise
they would just be plans from the industry, not enshrined in law.
3.2
There was a wish to manage through Fmsy ranges for those FUs for which data were
available. Those Fmsy values could go into the Mixed Fishery Plan leading to a global
TAC. However, the Mixed Fishery Plan has to be approved by the Parliament and
Council, and it will not be very flexible; if Fmsy ranges were enshrined within the Mixed
Fishery Plan it would be difficult to change them.
3.3
Michael Park asked whether alternatives to management by individual FUs could be
included within the proposals for Nephrops. Eckehard Reussner replied that it would not
be necessary to implement TACs or other proposals for the individual FUs within the
Mixed Fishery Plan. A global TAC could be set for Nephrops. Fishing Plans proposed
through the Scheveningen Group could make provision for specific FU measures and
would provide greater flexibility.
3.4
On the question of individual TACs for the FUs, Ewan Bell pointed out that ICES does
not recommend one form of management over another. The ICES advice is that
individual FU management would be better, and would avoid problems of excess fishing
pressure in vulnerable areas. Management should be at the level of the FU, although
ICES do not stipulate what those measures should be. ICES would be able to evaluate
any measures put forward in a Fishing Plan. If quotas are the only management tools
being proposed then ICES could go with a global TAC.
3.5
Where do we go now with the LTMP for Nephrops? Eckehard Reussner said that we
had to decide whether to insert Fmsy ranges for Nephrops into the Mixed Fishery Plan.
The NSAC would then need to discuss specific measures for Nephrops with Member
States. The Scheveningen Group could send the agreed proposals to the Commission
to implement those measures through specific regulations (i.e. delegated acts). Pim
Visser pointed out that it was not easy for the NSAC to discuss such complex issues
with the Scheveningen Group. As an alternative the Production and Marketing Plans
from the Producer Organisations might take account of our proposals. POs from around
the North Sea could come forward with joint proposals.
Page 2
NSAC
3.6
Michael Park asked whether we could actually provide Fmsy ranges for the Nephrops
FUs. Ewan Bell replied that it would be possible. Fmsy ranges for data limited stocks
were being considered by ICES Working Groups and have already been looked at for
Nephrops within those FUs subject to analytical assessments. However, the Fmsy
ranges for Nephrops are narrow compared with those for species like cod.
3.7
Tom Bryan-Brown remarked that the Commission’s Mixed Fishery Plan looked as if it
would be a code of practice rather than a detailed plan. Eckehard Reussner replied that
quotas had to be built into the Mixed Fishery Plan, but technical measures could be dealt
with more flexibly outside the plan. If getting the agreement of the North Sea Member
States on such measures proved difficult, the Advisory Council could put forward an
agreed proposal and then it would be difficult for the Member States to ignore it. For the
Farne Deeps, if an “of which no more than” measure was agreed with Member States
then the Commission could find a way of implementing it. Retaining a way of exiting from
the measure would also have to be considered but it should be possible to deal with this
legal issue.
3.8
John Anderson wished to know whether the Mixed Fishery Plan would supersede the
discard plans coming in next year. Eckehard Reussner replied that the current discard
plans are time limited to three years. The Landing Obligation is supposed to be dealt
with through the Multi-Annual Mixed Fishery Plan. Once that plan was in place then it
will give the Scheveningen Group the right to adopt new discard plans that do not need
to be time limited. The current proposed discard plans do not have to be removed
straight away. Greig Chalmers understood that the Mixed Fishery Plan provided a
derogation to allow the Member States to produce new discard plans. However, the
Mixed Fishery Plan can be modified by Parliament and that could mean that this regional
derogation might be overthrown. Eckehard Reussner thought it was unlikely that the
Parliament would do this.
3.9
The Mixed Fishery Plan will affect not just TAC setting but it will also address biomass
protection, and it will also enable problems with choke species to be addressed through
measures other than TACs. The Scheveningen Group and the Advisory Council will
soon be able to comment on the Commission’s proposals for a Mixed Fishery Plan for
the North Sea.
4.
Development of Further Advice on the Nephrops LTMP (Paper 3.1)
4.1
It was evident from the preceding discussion that future revision of the Nephrops LTMP
will have to take place in the context of the Mixed Fishery Plan currently being developed
by the Commission. Decisions will have to be taken on whether there should be specific
mention of NSAC’s Nephrops proposals for Fishing Plans for the FUs within that Mixed
Fishery Plan, and whether there is a need to specify Fmsy ranges for the individual FUs.
It might be better for the plan simply to provide for a global TAC for Nephrops.
4.2
The NSAC will also need to discuss specific measures for Nephrops with Member
States. With the implementation of the Mixed Fishery Plan it is anticipated that the
Scheveningen Group will be able send proposals to the Commission to implement
additional measures through specific regulations. They would be able to support a
Page 3
NSAC
system of Fishing Plans for the management of the individual FUs, and propose specific
measures within those plans for consideration by the Commission.
5.
The Farne Deeps Nephrops Fishery
5.1
The NSAC has to decide what to do about the Farne Deeps fishery. We had earlier
developed advice on the Management of Nephrops stocks in the Farne Deeps FU. We
had wished to draw the attention of the Commission and Member States to the problems
in the Farne Deeps and had considered proposing that they be handled through the
adoption of a Fishing Plan for this ground, as suggested in the draft NSAC Long Term
Management Plan. There had been doubts, however, whether the timing had been right
to propose specific measures, and the advice had not been submitted.
5.2
Michael Park pointed out that the situation in the Farne Deeps fishery has not improved;
it has worsened. Removal of Nephrops has been three times greater than the
recommended level. We could not simply sit back and ignore these changes. However,
there were still some uncertainties. We needed to reconsider our proposals for
management of the fishery.
5.3
What is the current scientific position? Ewan Bell said that the scientific advice
developed during 2015 was based on underwater TV surveys. 110 stations had been
monitored in the Farne Deeps FU. A statistical model had been used to scale up the
observations. The abundance figures were the lowest ever observed. There were higher
densities on the eastern side of the FU, but overall abundance was lower. Landings are
increasingly dominated by large mature females, which have failed to successfully mate
and are not carrying eggs. This is likely to have a negative impact upon future
recruitment levels.
5.4
The latest estimate of stock abundance (from the survey conducted in June 2015) of
568 million animals was below the MSY Btrigger value (858 million). The ICES MSY
Approach states that under such conditions the Fmsy Harvest Rate (8.1% for FU6
Nephrops) should be reduced by multiplying it by the ratio of current abundance to MSY
Btrigger. This corresponded to a harvest rate of 5.4% for 2016, giving a total catch of
738 tonnes. The average landings over the past three years have been 2,700 tonnes.
On the basis that the sorting of catch into discarded and retained components proceeds
as previously, a 70% reduction in the harvest rate is required, and a 75% reduction in
landings.
5.5
What would be the impact of any changes in fleet composition? If only inshore boats
fished the stocks would there be any changes? Most of the stock is outside the 6-mile
limit. However, the area of peak abundance is fished by all kinds of vessel, including the
English <12m fleet and the Scottish >15m fleet. Most of the local fleet are single rig
vessels, while many of the larger vessels are using twin rigs. There are actually no limits
to the number of nets that can be towed by a vessel (although there are restrictions
within Scottish waters and for Scottish vessels fishing in English waters). An observer
programme has shown that mesh sizes fall within the range 80 to 100mm. However,
there are currently insufficient data to indicate whether different vessels with different
gears are discarding differently, and having different impacts. It is essentially the heavy
Page 4
NSAC
fishing pressure in the area that is causing the current problems. A high fishing rate has
reduced the number of large males, and the many large females present do not have
sufficient males to mate with, leading to a reduction in recruitment. The males emerge
from the burrows during the winter fishing season, making them more vulnerable to
capture.
5.6
Alan McCulla observed that back in 2000 the stock was in a good state. Had predation
by cod stocks caused the current problem? Ewan Bell said it was not unreasonable to
think that there may have been an increase in predation, but there were no figures
available. There had been similar levels of fishing effort in the past, without recruitment
declining. Back in 2000 there had been a higher proportion of large males, although the
difference was not especially pronounced.
5.7
Michael Park asked whether it was likely that there would be a further decline in the
stock if fishing continued at the current level. Ewan Bell said that if there had recently
been higher levels of recruitment it might be possible to maintain the current level of
removals. But recruitment had been low and there is now a high risk of stock depletion.
Ned Clark asked whether there were similar problems in other FUs. Ewan replied that
the Fladden Ground had also experienced a harvest rate above recommended levels
for a number of years but the stock there seemed to be holding up. There was no issue
over the sex ratio there. Ned remarked that the imbalance in the sex ratio on the Farne
Deeps went back to 2005/6. Fewer small Nephrops were now being seen.
5.8
Alan McCulla said that it was clear from the ICES data that the discard rate had
increased between 2001 and 2002. But there had been a massive decrease in
discarding since then. Ewan Bell thought that sampling might have affected the figures.
There had been more retention of prawns down to MLS since then, either because
fishing gears had become more selective or because there were fewer small Nephrops
to be discarded.
5.9
Michael Park wondered whether the means existed to bring back the number of male
animals. Ewan thought it would be quite difficult to have a fishery that discriminated
between sexes. The sexes were not spatially separated, and there was no evidence that
seasonal changes in fishing would help. The large females were found throughout the
fishing season at all locations.
6.
The Local Area Management Plan for the Farne Deeps (Paper 4.1)
6.1
Draft advice had earlier been prepared on the Management of Nephrops stocks in the
Farne Deeps fishery, but the NSAC had decided not to go forward at that time with a
proposal for the adoption of “of which no more than” measures for 2015. We now needed
to revisit that decision. Were we now in favour of making some recommendations to the
European Commission for 2016, which would act to safeguard the stock against further
depletion?
6.2
Barrie Deas said that there was certainly pressure from scientists for management at
the FU level. This might frame the TAC decisions for 2016. The NSAC had previously
looked at effort controls, gear restrictions and spatial measures. We could revisit those
Page 5
NSAC
but our overall decision had been that “of which no more than” was the least worse
option. But this measure would have a disproportionate effect upon that part of the fleet
that did not have the option of fishing elsewhere. We had not been able to reach a
consensus on how to deal with the sharing of the quotas to deal with that situation. It
was for Member States and POs to take the decisions on this. However, we must say
something. We cannot simply walk away from the problem. But what we propose should
be effective, equitable, and reached through consensus. Keeping the fleet fishing next
year was already going to be difficult because of the Landing Obligation. We need to
consider who should fish in the Farne Deeps next year, with which gears, and for how
long. John Anderson said that the position of Scottish fishermen had not changed. There
was support for the “of which no more than” measure, but we should leave discussion
of quota allocations to the POs at national level, and should continue to explore other
possible options.
6.3
Pim Visser thought that selectivity was an important measure and some projects in the
Netherlands had shown that there was scope for improving selectivity. Selectivity can
work in the fishery by releasing small flatfish and small prawns. We could perhaps
exchange information on our various initiatives and join forces to deal with the problems.
George West remarked that the Scottish fleet now operated with a mesh size of 9899mm and could not go any further. There was a short discussion of gear changes in
the Northern Irish fishery, where discards had increased as a result of some gear
modifications (perhaps through chafers attached to the cod end to reduce wear and tear,
although this was uncertain). However, Ned Clark pointed out that such attachments
were not used in the Farne Deeps fishery. Iain Glasgow remarked that most of the
DEFRA selectivity projects had been aimed at whitefish. Greig Chalmers said that there
had been some Scottish selectivity initiatives but he was not sure that they had been
reported. Michael Park pointed out that the problem was not really one of discarding and
selectivity but had been created by the large number of animals being removed from the
stock. Ewan Bell added that if only the largest animals were removed while retaining the
same tonnage it would affect the spawning potential of the stock.
6.4
It might be possible to come up with a spatial solution. Perhaps a proportion of the area
could be closed to give part of the stock protection? However, spatial measures require
monitoring, and smaller fishing vessels do not carry systems to allow their positions to
be checked. Moreover, condensing the fishery into smaller areas would cause the
profitability of the fishery to decline, although it might meet Fmsy needs. Ned Clark
thought that the area was already too small for area closures to take place, and closures
would result in heavier effort in the remaining areas. Alan McCulla added that the
Porcupine Bank fishery, which already incorporated “of which no more than provisions”,
was subject to area closures. However the displacement of fishing to other areas had
become a problem. On the Porcupine Bank, which was an international fishery, quota
was allocated according to Relative Stability provisions. The Farne Deeps is mainly a
UK fishery.
6.5
Michael Park concluded that implementing an “of which no more than” measure was the
best option. We could continue to look at more selective gears. Improving selectivity was
generally a good thing; but it would not solve the problems of the Farne Deeps. For
2016 our advice would have to be based on a restriction in the total catch. We would
however face the problem of agreeing on any statement on safeguards for different fleet
Page 6
NSAC
sectors. That was what we had failed to agree on previously. We could certainly state a
NSAC position on this but within the UK what would actually happen would be up to
national governments and the POs. Ned Clark reminded participants that a large number
of English vessels fished only on the Farne Deeps. The winter prawn fishery was the
mainstay of that fleet. Their position needed to be safeguarded.
6.6
Michael Park thought that the allocation of quota within the UK was not really an
international issue and it could therefore not be handled by the NSAC. He asked what
the position of the national administrations was on this. Iain Glasgow said that DEFRA
had not yet come to a conclusion. The “of which no more than” measure was suitable
but there would be a problem in allocating the fishing opportunities. It might be possible
to allocate access rather than quotas and an ideas paper had been prepared on that.
There might also be other ways. There was a need to be fair to all fishers, but those
fishers most dependent on the area would need to be placed at the top of the list.
6.7
Greig Chalmers outlined the Scottish position. They were interested in first hearing the
Commission’s view. Scotland had a wide-ranging fisheries sector with many interests to
consider, and they fished in all the FUs. If the Commission came up with an “of which
no more than” proposal for the Farne Deeps then the UK would have to reach a collective
view on how to allocate fishing opportunities. There is a Concordat, and there would
need to be further discussions before a definite conclusion could be reached.
6.8
Barrie Deas was concerned with how far the NSAC could go. We could say that we
support an “of which no more than” proposal subject to the agreement of measures to
avoid disproportionate effects, and we would be happy to facilitate discussions between
POs and other interests to ensure the safeguarding of different interests. The role for
other additional measures was not yet clear. However, we essentially have a plan that
says that in the event of stock reduction we must take action. Adoption of “of which no
more than” is the right thing to do. Allocation of fishing opportunities within a Member
State is not our responsibility but we are willing to help with that.
6.9
Michael Park thought we should look at the text of our original advice to see how that
could be modified. We could say:
Having discussed the merits of various measures to be considered for the
Farne Deeps the NSAC decided that the most effective means for promoting
the recovery of the Farne Deeps Nephrops fishery is by the application of
an “of which no more than” measure. That is, the temporary imposition of a
landings quota to the Farne Deeps until such time as the Nephrops stock
within the FU is no longer vulnerable. The landings quota would then be
lifted once the stock had recovered.
Management at the FU level through the preparation of a Fishing Plan for the
Farne Deeps would provide the necessary controls to ensure that catch
opportunities and effort are compatible and in line with the scale of the
resources on this ground. However, the NSAC recognises that with this
approach a problem arises over the allocation of shares in the catch for that
fishery.
Page 7
NSAC
However, we could not go beyond that point. John Anderson agreed; we had to take a
step back from the earlier text. Alan McCulla also thought that we did not need to go into
great detail. We might mention however that there would be a displacement issue for
vessels moved away from the Farne Deeps
6.10 Ned Clark said that any further solutions would depend on the level that the catch
restriction was set at. Michael Park asked whether there was any possibility of changing
the catch level recommended by ICES. Ewan Bell said that ICES was suggesting a
fishing mortality rate that was consistent with MSY. However, as a precaution, when the
biomass dropped below a pre- specified or action level (Btrigger), a more cautious
response was advised involving a greater decrease in fishing. In the ICES advice for the
Farne Deeps, the ICES MSY Approach gave a harvest rate of 5.4%, leading to a total
catch option of 738 tonnes. However, the Fmsy harvest rate of 8.1% would give a larger
total catch option of 1,114 tonnes. Rather than accept the additional reduction in harvest
rate we could suggest taking the normal Fmsy harvest rate leading to a higher take. This
would reduce the speed of stock recovery. An argument would need to be presented to
persuade ICES and STECF to move away from the current MSY Approach in favour of
Fmsy.
6.11 Michael Park wondered whether we could adopt a 2-stage approach to bring fishing
pressure down. We could argue that the Fmsy option could be followed for the next two
years, switching in the third year to the MSY Approach. That would give time for the
fleets to adjust. Would advice like that be acceptable to the Commission? Eckehard
Reussner replied that a staged approach would be in line with the provisions of the
Common Fisheries Policy, but it would depend on the details. Michael Park suggested
that we should therefore put forward a staged approach that would enable the more
vulnerable fleet components to be protected while also allowing time for displacement
effects to be dealt with and other complementary protective measures to be explored.
6.12 It was agreed that the advice paper on the Farne Deeps would be revised as discussed.
We would suggest a 2-stage approach, as that would give us some time to understand
the dynamics and consider other measures. Ned Clark wished the advice to reflect his
concern that quota availability would become a serious issue for locally based vessels
dependent on this single fishery. John Anderson said however that we should not
propose specific quota allocation measures. Others agreed that it was not the role of the
NSAC to recommend particular quota allocations. We would have to agree a form of
words satisfactory to everyone. We would also need to include specific proposals for
lifting the measures once the stock had recovered, although this was already covered
by text within the LTMP.
6.13 Michael Park asked Eckehard Reussner to take back to the Commission the message
that the NSAC would be preparing advice for the Farne Deeps FU, suggesting the
adoption of an “of which no more than” approach for this functional unit. We would put
forward a 2-stage approach, pending the consideration of additional complementary
management measures, and plans for dealing with the displacement of fishing effort.
7.
Action Points
Page 8
NSAC
Actions
Responsible
1. Revision of the Nephrops LTMP will take place in the Michael Park
context of the Mixed Fishery Plan currently being
developed by the Commission. Decisions will be Secretariat
taken by the NSAC on whether there should be
mention of the proposals for Fishing Plans for
individual FUs within that Mixed Fishery Plan, and
whether there will be a need to specify Fmsy ranges
for the individual FUs. (4.1).
2. Specific measures for Nephrops will be discussed Michael Park
with Member States through the Scheveningen
Group. That group will be able send proposals for Secretariat
management measures to the Commission for
implementation through specific regulations. (4.2).
3. The draft advice paper on the Farne Deeps will be Michael Park
revised and commented upon by members of the
Focus Group before it is forwarded to the Executive Rapporteur
Committee for approval. It will suggest the adoption Members
of an “of which no more than” approach for the Farne
Deeps Functional Unit and recommend a 2-stage
approach, pending the consideration of additional
complementary management measures, and plans
for dealing with the displacement of fishing effort.
The advice will reflect concerns over quota
availability but will not propose specific quota
allocation measures. Specific proposals will be
included for lifting the measures once the stock has
recovered. (6.12).
8.
Attendance
Family Name
Given Name
Organisation
Anderson
John
SFO
Bell
Ewen
CEFAS
Blackadder
Lynda
Marine Scotland Science
Page 9
NSAC
Bryan-Brown
Tom
MNWFA
Chalmers
Greig
Scottish Government
Clark
Ned
NFFO
Deas
Barrie
NFFO
Duguid
Lorna
NSAC
Ferrari
Lauren
Marine Scotland
Glasgow
Iain
DEFRA
Hawkins
Tony
NSAC
Leocadio
Ana
CEFAS
McCulla
Alan
ANIFPO
Mulugeta
Elias
Agriculture Food and
Bioscience Institute
Park
Mike
SFF
Parker
Ross
Marine Scotland
Reussner
Eckehard
DG MARE
Samuel
Aurelia
AFBI
Visser
Pim
VisNed
West
George
SWFPA
Page 10
NSAC