The North Sea Advisory Council
Preliminary Advice on a Mixed Fishery Plan for the North Sea.
Note this paper has been prepared to promote discussion and the preparation of
additional content, by members. It is not yet agreed NSAC advice.
This version has comments to the draft by: WWF, MCS, PEW, North Sea Foundation,
EDF and the Dutch Elasmobranch Society
Changes to the original by CNPMEM have also been added
1
Background
1.1
The Commission has recently announced its intention of producing a Mixed Fishery
Plan for the North Sea. The plan is intended to achieve the overall CFP objective of
maintaining stocks at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), whilst recognising that a
number of species are caught within the mixed fishery in this area and conflict must be
avoided between management proposals for these different species.
1.2
The Commission has accepted that the Cod Management Plan, which has had a
dominant effect upon the management of North Sea fisheries, is in urgent need of
revision. Ambiguities in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty led to an Inter-institutional dispute over
who was responsible for Management Plans under the CFP, delaying revision of the
Cod Management Plan. A new agreement, arrived at by a joint task force, has
proposed that all major fisheries decisions must now be taken by co-decision between
the Council and Parliament. A new mechanism exists for approving and implementing
management plans.
1.3
The North Sea Mixed Fishery Plan will be amongst the first of the new management
plans. It will need to:

Recognise the need to restore fish stocks in line with MSY objectives of the
CFP

Contribute to achieving GES by 2020 under the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD). Specifically, the plan should contribute to descriptors for:
1
Biodiversity (D1), Abundance & Structure of Fish Populations (D3), Foodwebs
(D4), and Seafloor Integrity (D6)

Recognise the existence of the landing obligation and integrate discard
reduction measures including spatial and temporal closures; coherence with
the landing obligation will be critical

Enable scope for a regional approach to management

Incorporate the view that future management plans will have to be more flexible
and adaptable, to avoid the problems encountered with the Cod Management
Plan.

Recognise the diversity of the mixed fisheries that are targeting the main
species in the North Sea, sometimes at highly different levels, and
consequently recognise that trade-offs will have to be adopted, driven not only
by scientific consideration.

Recognise that the ICES mixed fisheries advice released in June must not be
considered as full management advice, but as an evaluation of a limited
number of scenarios that are not sufficient to give a comprehensive view of all
the trade-offs possible. Furthermore these scenarios have limitations as they
are based on a number of assumptions and will have to be completely
reconsidered with the introduction of the landing obligation.
1.4
In preparing a North Sea Mixed Fishery Plan the Commission is seeking scientific
advice from ICES, and is also asking the Advisory Council for advice and comment. In
preparing its advice the NSAC wishes to emphasise that the Advisory Councils have to
play a full role in the development of the new plan. NSAC does not simply want to
comment on a fully developed plan from the Commission. The NSAC therefore looks
forward to full and transparent collaboration with the Commission every step of the
way.
1.5
Initially, it has been proposed by the Commission that stocks concerned in the Mixed
Fishery Plan should include:






Cod
Haddock
Whiting
Saithe
Plaice
Sole
There might also be a case for including Nephrops, if ICES can deliver the requisite
scientific advice. In any event the plan will have to account for fishing mortality for
these stocks in other fisheries. Thus, the Commission is proposing a simple plan
initially, with relatively few stocks. However, the Commission does recognise that an
important aspect of any mixed fishery plan will relate to how the plan will deal with
minor or by-catch stocks. Furthermore it should be noted that some of these main
2
species could be targeted or fished in a mixed assemblage, though they are not being
considered as by-catch species.
1.6
The Commission also recognises that within a mixed fishery plan there is a need to
make full use of the sustainable yield that is available. Any deviation from a single
stock management plan to a multiple stock and ‘‘metier” approach implies a
suboptimal biological outcome for some of those stocks. The plan has therefore to
search for optimal exploitation on a main species’ group basis, which implies trade-offs
that are not only driven by science, while ensuring that other stocks are safeguarded.
The Commission proposes to set a range of target fishing mortalities for each stock, as
originally suggested by the NSRAC. That is, set Fmsy ranges consistent with scientific
advice rather than point estimates (e.g. fishing mortalities consistent with Fmsy and
article 2.2 of the CFP regulation).
The Commission also accepts the need to reduce the impact of any unavoidable
associations between species (where targeting one species in a given area may result
in the capture of another), by reaching agreement at regional level on technical
measures, closed areas and other means for reducing the capture of the unwanted
species.
1.7
1.8
Preliminary discussions on a mixed fishery plan for the North Sea demersal fisheries
took place at a Commission scoping meeting, held in Brussels on 29th and 30th
September 2014. The objectives of the meeting were to:

Reach a shared understanding of the new legal and political framework for
multiannual plans.

Present the outline for a multiannual mixed fisheries plan for North Sea
demersal stocks.

Take forward collective thinking on the possible "building blocks" for a future
plan (e.g. remedial actions, bycatch stocks, etc.)

Collect the ideas, concerns and expectations of participants on the plan and
process ahead.
Under Article 10 of the CFP Basic Regulation multiannual plans have several
mandatory elements that must be included:

Defined objectives

Quantifiable targets and deadlines

Conservation reference points

Objectives and measures to achieve those objectives

Be consistent with the landings obligation

Contain safeguards for target species

Revision clause
3
Optional elements include:
1.9

Other conservation measures (e.g. discard reduction, ecosystem objectives)

Monitoring
After discussion, the Commission’s scoping meeting concluded that a number of major
issues would need to be resolved in preparing a mixed fishery plan for the North Sea.
These issues include:

Dealing with cod. How do we continue to rebuild the cod stock whilst
maintaining other fisheries?

Incorporating measures for dealing with by-catch species and species of lesser
financial importance to the fishery

Defining the areas to be covered by a Mixed Fishery Plan for the North Sea
2
Dealing with cod
2.1
There is a need to reflect objectives for cod appropriately in the plan. Currently, the
objective of reaching MSY biomass for cod has not been met, although MSY fishing
mortality is achievable within the anticipated timeframe and by 2020 at the latest. The
other key species in the North Sea fishery are exploited at levels much closer to MSY
targets. A pragmatic and balanced way of delivering effective measures is required for
cod, aimed at rebuilding cod stocks whilst maintaining viable fisheries for other
species. There is a particular problem arising from the uneven distribution of cod in the
North Sea..There is evidence that cod form sub-stocks in the North Sea and that
these may be responding differently to management measures, yet there is currently
no specific scientific advice available for these substocks. . Fishers maintain that in
some areas the cod stock is expanding, and that inevitably leads to discarding of cod
in those areas. Next year’s ICES benchmark meeting should look more closely at the
stock distribution. TACs based on the abundance of cod over the whole North Sea
inevitably leads to the discarding of cod in those areas. This is supported in the latest
stock assessment1 from ICES which states that “The presence of subpopulations
largely inhabiting different regions of the North Sea will mean that there is a potential
for regional differences in fishing mortality… Management measures ensuring
sustainable exploitation of substocks may be needed in addition to management for
the stock as a whole. The change in spatial distribution of cod in combination with the
relative stability criteria used to allocate the quota has changed the access of the
different fisheries to the resource. This may create problems in managing the fisheries.
In some areas, where the present abundance of cod is low, a quota based on historical
allocation keys cannot be fully used while in other areas where abundance is relatively
high, the quota may be exhausted prematurely and increase the incentive to
discarding of catches of over-quota cod.”
Much has already been done by fishermen to improve the status of cod through the
adoption of more selective fishing methods and cod avoidance measures. Yet it is
1
ICES, 2014. North Sea cod advice. Available at
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/cod-347d.pdf [Accessed OCt
2014].
4
clear that any mixed fishery management plan including North Sea cod needs to have
the flexibility and mechanisms to allow for quota and fishing opportunities to better
match the regional abundances of cod based upon scientific advice if and when such
advice becomes available.
2.2
The Commission has confirmed that Article 2 of the Basic Regulation means that it is
reaching an MSY level of fishing mortality by 2015 where possible, by 2020 in any
event that is required, in order to reach the MSY biomass level. However, it will be
important within the new plan to ensure that cod biomass continues to increase year
on year, although this cannot always be guaranteed because of variations in
recruitment and changes in the distribution of this species. Annual TACs must be set
to aim for a projected increase in biomass. There is a question however over how long
a period should be set for cod biomass to recover to the MSY level. A practical
approach is required that aims to restore cod biomass on a progressive and
incremental basis whilst enabling the fisheries for other species to continue at an
appropriate level. MSY ranges will have to be included within the mixed fishery plan for
all the key species, including cod. However, in setting the range for cod, the current
limiting species, it will be important to ensure that fisheries for other species are taken
into account, considering that many fisheries in the North Sea are not driven by cod. A
solution may lie with timing. Cod biomass must be steadily rebuilt, and we should
aspire to reach a destination of exploitation at MSY levels; but perhaps this can be
achieved for cod on a different timeline from the rest of the stocks.
2.3
Further text is required to develop this idea and advice from the NSAC. It was agreed
at the Focus Group Meeting that Michael Andersen and Andrew Clayton would attempt
to write a form of words that will describe the NSAC's views on the timeline to achieve
the MSY management objective for North Sea cod, within the context of a mixed
fisheries plan. They should look closely at the MSY timetable and try to agree on a
position for the NSAC to adopt. We all wish to see a progressive and incremental
increase in cod biomass included within the plan, and should aim to move as fast as
possible within a practical and balanced mixed fishery plan. These co-authors may
wish to obtain scientific help from Eskild Kierkegaard of the Danish Institute (DTUAqua).
3
Ecosystem considerations: by-catch,
importance and seafloor integrity
3.1
For species caught as by-catch it will be necessary to decide whether TACs are
required, aimed at attaining MSY, or whether alternative fishery measures are more
appropriate. Some by-catch species are targeted species for other fishermen and in
other areas, and in these cases management through TACs to achieve MSY may be
entirely appropriate. However, the by-catch may also include fishes from data-deficient
stocks, where it may not be possible to set a TAC and where MSY levels are
uncertain. The precautionary approach requires more precautionary limits on mortality
to be set for these species.
species of lesser financial
Some of these species may be vulnerable to overexploitation, and have special
conservation status, while others may be more resilient but caught in quite large
quantities. It is possible that alternative management measures will be required for
5
some of these by-catch species, matched to their different life history and stock
characteristics. Productivity/Susceptibility analysis may provide a means for ensuring
that appropriate measures are designated for species with differing life histories.
In considering bycatch species and seafloor integrity the mixed fishery plan should
propose spatial and temporal measures to avoid unwanted catches of fish and other
species, and to contribute to the protection of important seafloor habitats. To review
the fitness for purpose of the plan, also the overall impacts on the ecosystem have to
be audited. Where bycatch is unavoidable, the plan should include the requirement to
introduce additional gear or handling measures, matched to the characteristics of the
species/stock. Any measure should be accompanied by a transparent and verifiable
monitoring scheme.
3,2
A balanced and proportionate approach is required for dealing with these by-catch
species through the mixed fishery management plan. ICES scientists are currently
developing a risk-based approach, and close liaison should be maintained with ICES
scientists as these ideas are developed further.
3.3
Additional text is required to develop these ideas and advice from the NSAC. It was
agreed at the Focus Group Meeting that Liane Veitch and Michael Park would attempt
to write a form of words that will describe the provision of measures for by-catch
species within the context of a mixed fisheries plan. These co-authors may wish to
obtain scientific help from Simon Northridge of the University of St Andrews.
4
Areas to be covered by a Mixed Fishery Plan for the North Sea
4.1
It will be important to ensure that the mixed fishery plan for the North Sea is
compatible with plans in adjacent areas, which share the same stocks. Although the
plan for the North Sea must concentrate on that core area for jurisdictional reasons,
there needs to be coherence with plans for other areas. For the North Sea those areas
include:
4.2

Eastern Channel

Kattegat

Skagerrak

West of Scotland
To enable the ease of implementation and prevent unnecessary administrative
burdens it would be advisable to agree an overall generic format for all mixed fishery
plans, to ensure that they are compatible across areas, considering that fishermen
often move from one area to another and some fisheries extend across areas.
Furthermore coherence and some link may be necessary to set TACs from the stocks
that extend across more than one area. Nevertheless, management measures have to
be set on a regional basis in order to take into account fisheries and ‘metiers’ of
specific areas.
6
..
At the same time, mechanisms to review plans must be transparently justified and
should not be so frequent as to remove the benefits that accompany multiannual
plans, such as better financial stability for industry participants and a lessened political
and administrative burden over the duration of the plan. If plans are repeatedly and
extensively reviewed and changed there is little point developing them. It is suggested
that criteria to trigger any ad-hoc review of plans must be prior agreed and included in
the generic format of the plan. It is recommended that criteria should be solely based
upon scientific evidence.
5
The way forward
5.1
The NSAC has taken note that ICES will provide advice on mixed fishery assemblages
to the Commission in October. However, the ICES mixed fisheries advice released in
June must not be considered as management advice, but as an evaluation of a limited
number of scenarios that are not sufficient to give a comprehensive view of all the
possible trade-offs. Furthermore these scenarios have some limits as they are based
on a number of assumptions and will have to be completely reconsidered with the
introduction of the landing obligation. The Commission intends to undertake a socioeconomic impact assessment, and will then come forward with a final proposal for the
second half of 2015 (before implementation of the landing obligation). The NSAC
wonders on what assumptions this impact assessment will be based and would like to
have more information on this. In the meantime the Commission intends to prepare
and circulate a new discussion document and may hold a further scoping meeting to
help its deliberations. The NSAC wishes to play a full role in the development of the
new plan, in line with the intentions of a regionalised approach of the new CFP.
5.2
Norway’s support will be necessary for the implementation of the mixed fishery plan for
the North Sea. We need to be open and transparent with Norway on the development
of these plans. However, we should avoid reaching a position where Norway may wish
use this plan to extract concessions from the EU during the EU/Norway negotiations.
The requirements of those conducting those negotiations must be taken into account2.
Otherwise Norway may extract a high price for what the EU is seeking.
5.3
Mixed fisheries plans will only be as good as the data they are based on, a strong
knowledge base build on sufficient scientific data is key to the success of the plans. It
is therefore important to continue building on the improved cooperation and
understanding between fishermen and scientists that has emerged in recent years.
Any control tasks resulting from the implementation of the landing obligation should not
impede on this but instead make the control process verifiable and transparent,
making use of additional forms of monitoring, like CCTV..
5.4
Finally, the NSAC observes that any mixed fishery plan for the North Sea must be
adaptive; it must be possible to adjust and revise the plan as a result of experience
2
Norway targets saithe like some EU fleets; any decision to set the saithe fishing possibilities at a
level below those recommended in the single species advice will disturb (or destabilise) the regular
balance of exchanges with Norway.
7
and changing circumstances. There must be provision for monitoring progress with the
plan, and scope for revising the plan should any problems arise that jeopardize the
overriding objective of restoring fish stocks in line with the MSY objective or reaching
GES with special regard to descriptor D1, D3, D4 and D6.
8