The North Sea Advisory Council
Agenda No 2.0
Paper no. 2.1
Demersal Working Group
10th November, 2015
Paper for Approval
Report of Meeting 13th July 2015
Demersal Working Group
Scotland House
Rond-Point Schuman
Brussels
13th July 2015
Rapporteur: Tony Hawkins
Draft (3)
1
Welcome and Introductions
1.1
Barrie Deas opened the meeting and welcomed participants to the Demersal Working
Group of the North Sea Advisory Council. Participants then introduced themselves.
Guests were welcomed from the Control Agency, ICES and the Commission.
1.2
Apologies had been received from Ned Clark, Erik Lindebo and John Pope.
1.3
The agenda for the meeting was agreed.
2
Report of Previous Meeting and Action Points
2.1
The report of the previous meeting, which had been held in Paris on the 14th April, had
been circulated. The report was agreed as a true and accurate record.
2.2
Lorna Duguid summarised progress with the action points of the previous meeting:
Page 1
NSAC
1.
The NSAC had sent a short letter to the Scheveningen Group, acknowledging their
latest proposals on the Landing Obligation. We had later responded to their joint
recommendations, when they had emerged
2.
Irene Kingma’s paper had been used as a basis for a small group of members to
draft advice on Monitoring, Control and Enforcement. The draft paper was now
available for discussion at this meeting.
3.
Stella Nemecky had asked for more time to redraft a paper on quota uplift
conditions. The NSAC would return to this subject today.
4.
Kenn Skau Fischer’s paper on a flexibility model for quota uplift had been put on
one side. Member States were currently discussing this issue and we would await
the outcome of those discussions before developing advice.
5.
The NSAC will receive a further update on the overhaul of the Technical Measures
Regulation from the Commission at the ExCom meeting in September.
6.
The ExCom had considered the request by the Norwegian Fishermen’s
Association for full membership of the NSAC. Legally they cannot be full members,
but we can hold and pay for meetings in Norway and can reimburse their travelling
expenses for attending meetings.
7.
The NSAC advice paper on the Commission’s proposals for a Mixed Fishery Plan
for the North Sea Demersal Fisheries had been revised, approved by the ExCom
and submitted to the Commission on the 30th April.
8.
A meeting of the Pulsed Fishing Focus Group had taken place on the 19th May.
The paper from that meeting, and further comments received, would be discussed
today.
9.
The Brown Shrimp Focus Group had met on May 19th and a paper was available
for discussion today.
10.
There had been discussions with Norman Graham, the chairman of the STECF
technical group, about the NSAC Nephrops paper. Future developments in
relation to the Nephrops Management Plan would be discussed today.
11.
A meeting on sea bass with the NWWAC had taken place in Paris and a report
had been produced summarising the position of different groups. There had been
further developments on sea bass and we would now need to produce more
concrete advice. Barrie Deas had prepared a draft paper for further discussion at
this meeting.
12.
The North Sea Fishers’ Stock Survey would not take place this year as some
organisations did not wish to take part.
Page 2
NSAC
3
Landing Obligation
3.1
Much work had been done by the NSAC on the Landing Obligation, and three advice
papers had been submitted. The joint recommendations from the Scheveningen Group
were now with the Commission, and aspects of it were being evaluated by STECF, most
notably the de minimis provisions. The NSAC now needed to consider other aspects of
the LO, including TAC uplift, quota flexibility, and control issues. There had been a recent
Commission policy statement on quota uplift. We had also prepared a draft paper on
Monitoring, Control and Enforcement. What advice should we now be preparing?
3.2
Pim Visser voiced his concern over relations with the Scheveningen Group. The group
is not unified in its openness to stakeholder participation and some Member States wish
to maintain a top-down approach. We need clarity on our involvement with the group
and should arrange a meeting with them to discuss this. Michael Park added that we
also needed to produce additional advice for the group, especially in relation to what will
happen in the years 2017 to 2019. Kenn Skau Fischer thought that there were no plans
for the Scheveningen Group to discuss the discard plan further, but there was in fact
much more work to be done. Niels Wichmann was concerned about the lack of
cooperation from the expert control group. Some of the control experts from Member
States want no contact with the NSAC, but we have to persist with our efforts to take
part in their discussions.
3.3
The French chairperson of the Scheveningen Group has been invited to our general
Assembly in September and has accepted. However, her successor as chairperson
would be appointed in September.
3.4
Miguel Neuvo said that liaison with the Advisory Councils was supposed to be through
the Scheveningen high-level group rather than the control group. Niels remarked that
the high-level group knew nothing about control. A national representative had told
Christien Absil that the control agency was not happy about its own relations with the
high-level group. John Anderson stated that during the Roskilde meeting the Irish control
group expert had clearly stated that it was not part of the control group’s terms of
reference to liaise in any way with the ACs and suggested that for better dialogue going
forward this would need to be changed. B Miguel added that most of the points raised
by the Advisory Councils had in fact been considered at meetings of the control group.
Barrie Deas concluded that we needed to have greater clarity on our relations with the
high-level group, and also with the control group, as monitoring, control and enforcement
are very important for implementation of the LO. Terms of engagement are needed. We
must have a meeting with the Scheveningen high-level group to discuss this.
3.5
We also have to put good arrangements in place for developing future advice that is
useful to the Scheveningen Group. Despite the criticisms of relations with the group they
had taken on board much of the advice we had provided in the past. They had been
willing to take on board our ideas on phasing and exemptions even though they had
considered that the Regulation precluded a species approach. Emiel Brouckaert would
have liked to receive feedback from them on our advice, but thought we should continue
our dialogue with the Scheveningen Group.
Page 3
NSAC
3.6
There are a number of LO issues on which we should produce advice. Quota flexibility,
with common rules, was especially important. Michael Park thought that someone
should prepare a paper on the options available, so that we could consider them in
greater detail. Perhaps Michael Andersen could prepare a draft? John Anderson added
that there was also the STECF paper to consider. It was pointed out that pelagic
fishermen had originally said that they would not need any quota flexibilities, but some
of them had now decided that they did. Michael Park said that there would be particular
problems arising with choke species like hake in the North Sea. We may have to suggest
a political decision be taken on this – we might need to break away from the official path,
as hake just does not fit into the current arrangements. Arnold Locker also thought we
faced a big problem with hake, where the question of disproportionate costs would arise.
Barrie Deas thought that de minimis exemptions might be used to deal with this initially,
but he agreed that there would be great difficulties in avoiding the capture of hake.
3.7
Barrie Deas concluded that we needed to produce clear advice on quota flexibilities. We
should perhaps start with the Commission’s recent policy statement, the STECF advice,
and the terms of the basic regulation. We should also revisit the queries we had received
from the Scheveningen Group on this subject. Peter Hopkins said that the Commission
had recently asked STECF for advice on the implications of combining quotas to
increase flexibility. He pointed out that the existence of choke species creates an
incentive for illegal discarding. Scientists will then lose data. We need a system where
fishers and scientists are able to record all discards. However, STECF had said that it
would not be a good idea to combine quotas for high and low value species. We need
to think about flexibilities in relation to the December TACs exercise. The Commission
would welcome advice on how quota flexibilities might work.
3.8
Barrie Deas thought we had two options: a small drafting group, or a broader scale
meeting involving scientists and fisheries managers where we could highlight the issues
and seek ideas. David Anderson thought that small drafting groups did not always work,
and often resulted in the need for further discussions. The issues were complicated
ones and required a broad approach. Michael Park agreed. We really need to involve
experts, including scientists and managers, in developing our ideas. Barrie Deas
concluded that a larger group should be convened to look at the avoidance of problems
arising from choke species, in order to minimise impacts on the fisheries. However,
currently the NSAC did not have funding for such a meeting. We would also need to
decide on an appropriate date, perhaps in September. We would need to talk to the
Commission about the need for such a meeting, and then decide which experts we might
need. Michael Park suggested that we could begin the process off by producing an ideas
paper to stimulate discussion. Scottish fishers could do this, to start things off.
3.9
Barrie Deas concluded that we now needed to do two things. Firstly, seek a meeting
with the Scheveningen Group to discuss our relations with them. We should also start
producing advice on dealing with choke species, to be ready within 6 months. We would
begin with an ideas paper from Scottish members. Niles Wichmann advised that we
should adopt a broad approach with respect to developing the advice as other issues
might develop as we go along. Kenn Skau Fischer added that we should also follow the
discussions of Council on these issues, and also the advice emerging from STECF,
where the discard plan had recently been discussed in plenary, although we did not yet
have their report. Peter Hopkins summarised the current position for the Commission.
Page 4
NSAC
The joint recommendations had been received, STECF’s comments were emerging, and
we have to see whether there are any problems before the Commission can decide how
to go forward. The Commission hasn’t accepted anything yet.
4
Brown shrimp
4.1
Pim Visser reported that there had been several meetings of the Brown Shrimp Focus
Group. A draft paper is now available for discussion. The ICES report on brown shrimp
was considered, and the issues arising from that advice are reflected in the paper. Some
management rules need to be developed for the fishery. The rules should be North Seawide and should have input from the wider community. Since there are so many
uncertainties on how best to manage brown shrimp the incorporation of some sort of
(adaptive) result-based management would be preferred. It would not yet be appropriate
to manage brown shrimp fishing on a State or EU level. The next step would be to
produce such a plan and to discuss it more fully at a focus group meeting with
representation from all interested parties. The existing paper will now be sent to the
ExCom for approval and would then be forwarded to the Scheveningen Group.
4.2
Irene Kingma had a question about paragraph 5.12. What were the ICES bullet points
and why is there no intention of providing advice on the “nice to know” issues? Pim
responded that we couldn’t do anything about the latter issues, as we simply do not have
enough information. We can address the “need to know” issues however. He would now
draft a covering letter to the Scheveningen Group to accompany the paper once the
ExCom had approved it. The present paper will be sent out again to members for further
comment before September 1st. It will then be amended and forwarded to the NSAC
ExCom on 22nd September for approval.
5
Monitoring, Control and Enforcement
5.1
Irene Kingma introduced a draft advice letter on Monitoring Control and Enforcement
under the Landing Obligation, prepared by a small drafting group and addressed to the
Control Agency and Member States. We had also received a report of a meeting of the
Advisory Councils with the Control Agency, held in Roskilde. The purpose of that
meeting had been to further discussions on the implementation of the landing obligation
between Member States and the Advisory Councils, with the participation of EFCA and
the Commission. The Commission itself has also announced a rolling review of the
Control Regulation. Similar issues had recently been discussed at a meeting of the
Pelagic AC, which had stressed the need for more AC involvement in the discussion of
control issues. Perhaps the ACs needed to join together to prepare a statement about
this lack of involvement with Member States? The EFCA seminars are to continue, which
is a welcome development.
5.2
The NSAC paper on MCE is not yet complete. Barrie Deas thought that it was a good
start, but it did not yet contain sufficient concrete advice. Lots of additional issues came
up at Roskilde, including items like sorting up to 30 species on board fishing vessels.
The LO also threatens fishing business models. Issues like recording of discards,
Page 5
NSAC
catches above and below MCRS, vessel stability, choke species, quota uplift, and
exemptions all have control dimensions. Guidance is also required by the industry. The
rules need to be clear if a culture of compliance is to be achieved. There are likely to be
problems with inter-regional coherence, derogations from existing rules, the
incorporation of new technologies and many other things. There is a need for a dialogue
on control issues. Michael Andersen thought that the whole Control Regulation was in
need of revision. It was certainly time for us to start highlighting the issues that need to
be considered.
5.3
Barrie Deas thought that we needed a beefed-up focus group to develop the current
paper further, integrate the issues identified in Roskilde, and list the various points we
want to have considered. Miguel Nuevo agreed that there were many points made in
Roskilde that needed to be incorporated into the NSAC paper. Various problems had
been identified and they would now be taken back to the Scheveningen Group. Andrea
Giesecke supported the identification in the paper of the need for the development of
training and information packs/workshops, and thought this idea should be developed
further.
5.4
Barrie Deas asked what success would look like for the LO. The Norwegians were very
satisfied with their discard ban, although there were few measures of its success. What
criteria would we use, especially in relation to monitoring, control and enforcement, that
would allow us to say that the LO had been a success? Pim Visser said that scientists
had concluded that there were hardly any ecological objectives from a discard ban that
could be measured, and ethical objectives were difficult to analyse. Only the
implementation of the LO could be evaluated. Michael Andersen added that since the
objectives of the LO had never been clearly set out, then its success could never be
measured. Peter Hopkins said that the idea of a discard ban was that it would bring
better management of the fish stocks and better recording of catches. TACs generate
discards and these have to be dealt with through a discard ban. Michael Andersen
thought that better recording of catches could be achieved without having to actually
land the fish. John Anderson stated that Peter’s explanation was at odds with the
Scottish Governments understanding. A senior civil servant within the Scottish
Government had recently informed the Scottish industry that the purpose of the
Landings Obligation was to reduce unacceptable ecological waste from society’s point
of view. Miguel Nuevo said that the Control Agency would be mounting a compliance
evaluation over the next few years. Peter Olsson questioned whether there really was a
discard ban in Norway. They have a very flexible system and are not going to change it;
this will result in our fishermen being placed at a disadvantage. Michael Park added that
the Norwegians have a range of measures in place that promote best practice with
respect to discards; rather than a set of rules that are unworkable.
5.5
Barrie Deas concluded that we would develop our draft advice paper, using the Roskilde
report, and the current focus on a new control regulation to develop new substantive
advice on Monitoring Control and Enforcement under the Landing Obligation. In the
meantime there is a need for a short letter, explaining our intentions to the Scheveningen
Group. There will need to be some coordination of this focus group with the group
developing advice on dealing with avoidance of problems arising from choke species. In
the meantime participants were asked to add their comments and additions to the
Page 6
NSAC
current paper (7.1) before the end of September, as that will provide a basis for taking
things forward at the ExCom.
6
Nephrops update
6.1
Michael Park reminded participants that the NSAC draft Management Plan for North
Sea Nephrops had been sent to the Commission. STECF had then been asked for their
thoughts. The April STECF plenary report had been quite complimentary about the plan
but had asked a number of further questions. The Nephrops Focus Group should
perhaps meet again to deal with the questions that STECF had raised. One particular
issue is that STECF thinks the plan falls short of the functional unit management being
sought by ICES.
6.2
The issue of over-exploitation of the Farne Deeps functional unit has been raised again
in the latest advice from ICES. The situation on the Farne Deeps has now worsened.
There is a need for the focus group to provide further advice on this functional unit.
Advice had been provided earlier, but only as an example of how a functional unit might
be managed.
6.3
One major issue for STECF is how well a management plan for Nephrops will fit within
the Mixed Fishery Plan that is currently being developed for the North Sea. A single
species management plan will no longer suffice. Peter Hopkins said that within the Mixed
Fishery Plan the Commission might need to insert precautionary measures for
Nephrops, and those could be based on recommendations from the NSAC. However,
the Council will not be legally obliged to adopt any detailed management rules, although
it might pay heed to safeguards proposed within the Mixed Fishery Plan. John Anderson
questioned the wisdom of pursuing a Nephrops long term management plan when it was
clear that a mixed fisheries plan including Nephrops was required. He asked how it
would tie in with the discards plans that would commence in 2016, with management
plans taking over in 2019.
6.4
It was decided that the Nephrops focus group would meet in Edinburgh in September,
before the next ExCom, and it would deal with two major issues: responding to the
STECF’s comments, especially in relation to a Mixed Fishery Plan, and dealing with the
immediate problems of the Farne Deeps.
7
Sea bass
7.1
Barrie Deas reported that he had prepared a draft paper on sea bass but that paper had
now been overtaken by events. Emergency measures for sea bass had been introduced
including seasonal closure of the pelagic fishery, and the imposition of catch and bag
limits. There had also been an increase in the Minimum Conservation Reference Size.
The focus now must be on developing a management plan for sea bass, but there was
a question over whether this should stand-alone or be part of a mixed fishery plan. There
was also the issue of how sea bass would fit into the LO.
Page 7
NSAC
7.2
An Inter-AC meeting on sea bass had taken place in May in Paris, but it had been difficult
to reconcile all the different views. The NWWRAC has set up a focus group but it might
be difficult for the NSAC to engage with that. Should we develop our own views on sea
bass? So far, discussions were always running behind events. We now need to focus
on the real issues. We could seek observer status within the NWWRAC focus group to
integrate our work with theirs, and if there was a convergence of views then we could
integrate our work with theirs. However, in the meantime we should create our own small
focus group to set out our own solutions, whilst liaising with the NWWRAC. We really
need a draft document now, to provide advice that fits with current initiative to develop
a management plan for sea bass, setting catch limits, recognising the need to adopt a
mixed fishery approach, and taking account of the LO.
7.3
It was pointed out that pelagic vessels now have to land all regulated non-pelagic
species. Bass below the MCRS will have to go to fishmeal. Peter Hopkins remarked that
the sea bass is not caught in a mixed fishery, and there will be difficulties in fitting it into
a mixed fishery plan. Jan Kappel added that the emergency measures have now
changed everything, and they may be followed up in 2016. There is very little room to
work within. Any management plan will have to run alongside the emergency measures.
It was also pointed out that there is a sea bass by-catch in some fisheries, and we should
liaise with the NWWRAC concerning these aspects.
7.4
It was concluded that we need to use informed advice to decide what to recommend for
sea bass in the North Sea – either in terms of interim advice or a developing
management plan, depending on the views expressed within our focus group. First, we
need a draft paper, which will assist us in developing more concrete proposals. Jan
Kappel and Anne Doeksen, together with other interested parties from the NSAC, will
prepare a new bass paper and will submit it by September 11th, to allow for further
consideration and discussion at the September ExCom.
8
Commission Paper on Fishing Opportunities for 2016
8.1
Barrie Deas remarked that there were no surprises in the Commission’s paper. The MSY
approach was becoming more systematic. The only major difference this year was the
acceptance of quota uplift and the adjustments needed to TACs. Both STECF and the
Member States had been asked to provide discard estimates, and that will affect quota
uplift decisions at the December Council. Should we prepare a letter responding to the
paper?
8.2
Niels Wichmann thought that account would also need to be taken of the Scheveningen
Group’s joint recommendation on the LO; where quota uplift is mentioned. There is also
a need to take account of the STECF advice on the joint recommendations. It was
agreed that Michael Andersen and his Danish colleagues, with assistance from Andrew
Clayton, would prepare a short paper highlighting any points of significance in the
Commission’s paper. The draft would go to the ExCom for approval.
Page 8
NSAC
8.3
John Anderson thought that the concept of “partial” uplifts needed clarification. Barrie
Deas said that the Commission had signalled that this would be related to the best
available science on discard rates. If discarding is above a particular level then a full
uplift is received. If it is below that level then a partial uplift is received. We would need
to highlight any questions of this kind. Overall, there is a lack of clarity and understanding
of some of the issues, but resolution for those stocks included under the LO in 2016
would have to be resolved at the December Council. We can perhaps add to the level
of wisdom on these issues.
9.
ICES Advice for the North Sea in 2016
9.1
Carmen Fernández presented the latest ICES advice. She began be describing the
basis for arriving at the management advice. It could be based on a Management Plan,
or the ICES MSY approach, or the ICES precautionary approach. The various categories
included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Quantitative assessment & forecast – the ICES MSY approach.
Qualitative assessment & forecast – the ICES MSY approach.
Abundance index only.
Catch data only, and some biological information.
Data-poor stocks
The ICES MSY approach aims to maximise the long-term average yield, and provides
safeguards against low Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB), staying within precautionary
boundaries. Advice on category 3 stocks was based on previous advice, or recent
catches and landings, modified according to index information. It also incorporates an
uncertainty cap and a precautionary buffer. The advice does not change every year.
Work is continuing on the lower categories to provide plausible MSY reference point
proxies for category 3 and 4 stocks. Workshops are being held.
9.2
If discards can be quantified then catch, rather than landing, advice is provided. If
discards are unknown then qualitative information may be used to provide catch advice
if the information indicates that the discards are < 5%. Landings advice is provided if the
information on discards is uncertain or thought to be > 5%. For stocks coming under the
LO in 2016, a distinction is made between:


Wanted catch – based on fish landed in the absence of the LO.
Unwanted catch – the component previously discarded.
The split is based on the previous performance of the fishery.
9.3
There is a new structure for the advice. For each ecoregion it is provided as:



Stock advice,
Fisheries advice,
Ecosystem advice.
Mixed fisheries analysis has been conducted for the North Sea
Page 9
NSAC
9.4
Carmen then described the advice for each of the main stocks in the North Sea. Her
slide presentation is available on the NSAC website. Detailed advice is available on the
ICES website at www.ices.dk for the following North Sea stocks:







Cod
Haddock
Whiting
Saithe,
Nephrops, by Functional Unit
Plaice (areas IV and VIId)
Sole (areas IV and VIId)
Fishing opportunities are calculated for total catches and all catches count against the
TAC.
9.5
Some fleets had high discards in the past (especially of whiting), with only small landings
of those species. If catches continue like this for those fleets the species becomes very
limiting, as future catches are aligned to previous landings, not catches. There are
several mixed fishery scenarios, defined on the ICES website:






Minimum
Maximum
Cod
Status quo effort
Effort management
Value
The last of these is new this year and tries to take account of the most valuable species.
Following discussion with participants it was noted that these scenarios are simply mixed
fishery options provided by ICES scientists. It is not literal advice. It was suggested that
ICES needed to emphasis this fact.
9.6
Carmen pointed out that individual stock objectives cannot all be achieved
simultaneously. From the single stock advice being provided for 2016 the most limiting
species in mixed fisheries are likely to be:



Whiting
Nephrops in Functional Unit 6 (the Farne Deeps)
Eastern Channel Sole
The least limiting are likely to be:




Page 10
North Sea Plaice
Eastern Channel Plaice
Nephrops in Functional Unit 7 (the Fladen Ground)
Haddock
NSAC
9.7
A number of points arose during discussion of the advice on individual stocks. In
particular, for plaice there are local stock components in the Skagerrak but they cannot
be distinguished and assessed separately. Catches in the Skagerrak should not
increase to avoid local depletions. A new management plan is needed for plaice. It was
pointed out that there are some problems with the way that the level of FMSY is arrived
at for plaice. Also the assumption of zero survival of discarded plaice is likely to be
flawed. Fishers see stable recruitment of plaice and an increase in SSB, and yet the
advice is for a reduction in F. This seems contrary to what is occurring in nature. It was
also pointed out that combined TACs should be allowed for species like Witch and
Lemon Sole as both these are by-catches in fisheries for other species. They were not
being targeted. Carmen said that she would take these views back to ICES. Barrie Deas
thanked Carmen for presenting the ICES advice. Her presentation was an important
event in the NSAC Calendar. He thought that there were still major arguments about
what MSY actually is, or should be, but overall it was clear from the science that the
stocks in the North Sea were going in the right direction.
10
Pulsed Fishing Focus Group
10.1 Peter Breckling, the chairman of the group, presented the latest advice paper. There
had been a Dutch seminar on the 2nd July, and it was clear that it had already been
influenced by the work of the NSAC focus group. The Dutch Government has already
taken up a number of the points raised in our paper about research, and we may be able
to participate in a future research group that is being set up. The advice paper was now
on its 5th draft. We had reached agreement on the most important points, but some
unexpected additional comments had been received only 2 days ago.
10.2 The main question was how could those who want to use pulse gear influence the
Scheveningen Group on the issue of the introduction of new fishing gears. What impact
assessments are needed? We could accept our report as it stood, and simply forward it
to the group. Or we could have another focus group meeting. Or we could try to finalise
it through written procedures. Heather Hamilton said that the latest comments really only
related to the first paragraph of the draft paper. Other changes were small, although one
sentence had been added to the conclusions. Peter thought that we perhaps now
needed to develop a coherent text. Pim Visser said that a number of the detailed
questions asked in the paper would be dealt with in the next few weeks, and any new
questions could be taken on board. There is to be a meeting on the research programme
in August. However, he could not accept some of the latest amendments to the paper.
10.3 Peter Breckling proposed that a small drafting group should be formed to move things
forward. Barrie Deas agreed. A lot of work had gone into this paper. It has to be taken
seriously, but it needs to be looked at again before it can be submitted. There was
general agreement that we should keep the essential points and any recommendations
for research, but should perhaps leave out controversial material on which no consensus
could be reached. Peter said that the focus group had worked hard to reach a
compromise, and it would be difficult to revise the document without losing the agreed
Page 11
NSAC
positions. It was agreed that a small drafting group (Peter Breckling, Pim Visser and
Heather Hamilton) would go through the document and put a new version forward with
a few amendments. Any additional comments from others should be forwarded to the
drafting group.
11
Any other Business
11.1 The next meeting of the Demersal Working Group will take place on the 10th November,
possibly in Hamburg.
12
Action points
1. An expert meeting should be convened to look at solutions Barrie Deas
to the problems arising from choke species under the
Landing Obligation, in order to minimise impacts on the Secretariat
fisheries. Currently the NSAC does not have sufficient
funding. The NSAC will talk to the Commission about the
need for such a meeting, before assembling appropriate
experts and taking this forward, perhaps in September if
funding is available (3.8).
2. The NSAC should also seek a meeting with the Niels Wichmann
Scheveningen high-level group to discuss our relations
with them and to establish rules of engagement (3.9).
3. In the meantime, Scottish fishermen will prepare a draft Michael Park and
paper containing preliminary advice on dealing with choke colleagues
species under the LO (3.9). The paper will start with the
Commission’s recent policy statement, the STECF advice,
and the terms of the basic regulation, and will also take
account of ongoing discussions within Council (3.7, 3.9).
4. The advice paper from the Brown Shrimp Focus group Secretariat
(paper 6.1) will be sent out again to members for further
comment before September 1st. It will then be amended Members
and forwarded to the NSAC ExCom on 22nd September for
approval (4.2).
5. The draft NSAC paper on Monitoring, Control and
Enforcement (paper 7.1) will be developed further to
provide substantive advice, using the Roskilde report, and
in the context of the rolling review of the Control Regulation
proposed by the Commission. Members are asked to send
their comments and additions to the current paper to the
Secretariat before the end of September (5.5).
Irene Kingma
Michael Park
Samuel Stone
Pim Visser
Other members
Page 12
NSAC
Secretariat
6. In the meantime there is a need for a short letter to the Secretariat
Scheveningen Group, explaining our intention to produce
a paper on MCE (5.5).
7. The Nephrops focus group will meet in Edinburgh in Michael Park
September, before the next ExCom, to deal with two major
issues: responding to the STECF’s comments, especially Secretariat
in relation to a Mixed Fishery Plan, and dealing with the
immediate problems of the Farne Deeps (6.4).
8. A draft paper will be prepared, providing new advice on Jan Kappel
sea bass, to assist the NSAC in developing new
management proposals (7.4). The NSAC will continue to Anne Doeksen
liaise with the NWWRAC on sea bass issues (7.2).
Barrie Deas
Secretariat
9. A short paper will be prepared, highlighting any points of Michael Andersen
significance in the Commission’s paper on fishing and colleagues
opportunities for 2016 (8.2).
Andrew Clayton
Secretariat
10. A small drafting group will go through the draft paper on Peter Breckling
Pulsed Fishing and prepare a new version with a few
agreed amendments. Any additional comments from other Pim Visser
members should be forwarded to the drafting group (10.3). Heather Hamilton
Members
11. The next meeting of the Demersal Working Group will take Barrie Deas
place on the 10th November, possibly in Hamburg (11.1).
Secretariat
13
In Attendance
Absil
Christine
Seas at Risk
Andersen
Michael
Danish Fishermen
Anderson
David
AFPO
Page 13
NSAC
Anderson
John
Scottish Fishermen
Berends
Derk Jan
Dutch Fishermen
Birnie
Anne
NESFO
Brouckaert
Emiel
Rederscentrale
Bryan-Brown
Thomas
MNWFA
Charlot
Kevin
CNPMEM
Clayton
Andrew
PEW
Collins
Simon
Scottish Fishermen
Dandanell
Rene
Danish Fishermen
Deas
Barrie
NFFO
Doeksen
Anne
Stichting de Nordzee
Duguid
Lorna
NSAC
Fernandez
Carmen
ICES
Fisher
Kenn Skau
Danish Fishermen
Giesecke
Andrea
EDF
Gonzague
De Moncuit
French Ministry
Hamilton
Heather
Client Earth
Hawkins
Tony
NSAC
Page 14
NSAC
Kappel
Jan
EAA
Kingma
Irene
Dutch Elasmobranch
Society
Locker
Arnold
NFFO
Meun
Geert
Visned
Nemecky
Stella
WWF
Nuevo
Miguel
EFCA
Olsson
Peter
Swedish Fishermen
Park
Michael
SFF
Parlevliet
Koos
EFCA
Veitch
Liane
Client Earth
Visser
Pim
Page 15
VisNed
NSAC