The North Sea Regional Advisory Council
Agenda Item 5
Paper 5.1
For information
Nephrops Long Term Management Plan Development Group
Europe House, Smith Square, London
4th April 2013
Rapporteur: Tony Hawkins
First Draft
1.
Introduction, agenda and reports of previous meetings
1.1
Michael Park, the chairman, welcomed participants to the Nephrops LTMP
Development Group. The main purpose of the meeting was to consider and update the
draft Long Term Management Plan for the Nephrops fisheries of the North Sea. We
would start with the draft plan itself, go through it, and examine where updating would
be necessary. There had been a number of changes to fisheries management under
the Common Fisheries Policy that would have an impact upon the plan. The new
emphasis on mixed fisheries management would need to be taken into consideration.
The move towards discard-free fisheries and the recording of all catches would need
to be reflected in the document. In addition, plans to implement the provisions of the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive would also need to be considered. The
agreement of Management Plans had now become a political issue between the
Commission, Council and Parliament and ultimate responsibility for their development
and approval had yet to be decided. It was not yet clear how a LTMP for Nephrops in
the North Sea could be delivered. However, there was hope that in the future Member
States and the Advisory Councils might play a significant role in the local development
of Management Plans, as part of a more regional approach in a reformed Common
Fisheries Policy.
1.2
The Group then ran through the draft document section by section, discussing the
changes that would be necessary and allocating responsibilities for redrafting and
inserting new text.
2
Section 1: The Scope of the Long Term Management Plan
Page 1
NSRAC
2.1
We needed to revise parts of Section 1 substantially, including mention of the
objectives of the plan. The text on economic objectives within the draft plan was
currently rather shallow. However, the text on economic objectives could not really be
revised until the Fishing Plans for different functional units had been agreed. Fishing
Plans were a key element of this Long Term Management Plan. On that there was
some recent news. The SWFPA was now proceeding with the development of a
Fishing Plan for the Fladen Ground. They were currently seeking a contractor to
prepare a draft plan and would shortly be considering bids.
2.2
There was a short discussion on the role of the Fishing Plans. The current text placed
emphasis on developing Fishing Plans only for the vulnerable functional units. That
had been the original agreed purpose of the plans. Progressively, however, the group
had moved towards a preference for developing Fishing Plans for all functional units,
whether they had been deemed vulnerable or not. Such Fishing Plans would not
necessarily be put into operation for all the units, but they could be prepared, and then
drawn upon when required. It was agreed that this change in emphasis would need to
be brought to the attention of the wider NSRAC membership, through the Demersal
Working Group.
2.3
Following the meeting, however, discussions took place with Michael Andersen on the
5th April, in the margins of a meeting on the cod management plan. Michael put the
view that the earlier approach of the Group had much to commend it. That is, that
Fishing Plans were not required unless there is an indication that the Nephrops stock
in a particular vulnerable unit was approaching a state when it might become
vulnerable. If it approached that provisional state, then a Fishing Plan would be
prepared. That plan would then be implemented if ICES subsequently declared the
functional unit vulnerable.
With this arrangement, unnecessary work on the
preparation of Fishing Plans for functional units that remained in a healthy state would
be avoided. This issue would be discussed further at the next meeting of the
Demersal WG.
2.3
Returning to the Nephrops meeting, fishers from Sweden and Denmark had not been
heavily involved in the preparation of the overall LTMP, and although they had seen
the text they had not yet commented with respect to their own interests. It would be
necessary for them to make it clear whether the Nephrops fisheries in the Skagerrak
and Kattegat were to be covered by the plan. This would be discussed at the next
Demersal WG.
2.4
On the economic objectives of the LTMP, the EU market organisation regime (also
known as the Common Market Organisation) is designed to help smooth out variations
in supply and price, and intervene in the market, for the benefit of fishers and
processing companies and consumers. Under the CMO regime, fishing operators in
many regions are organised into producers' organisations (POs) that plan production
and develop marketing strategies. The current LTMP does not refer to the CMO
regime, but that regime was very relevant, and some reference to it would need to be
incorporated. The POs within Member States would soon be producing marketing
plans. A toolbox would be needed that the POs could draw upon. Although the RACs
would play no part in this process, these developments in the CMO regime would need
to be reflected within the economic objectives of any Management Plans.
Page 2
NSRAC
2.5
It was agreed that Pim Visser and Jane Sandell would revise those parts of the draft
plan that dealt with economic issues, altering them to reflect the CMO developments.
Those parts of the plan that needed to be revised would be highlighted in pink. Pim
Visser would also revise the aims for the plan outlined in section 1 – highlighted in
green.
2.6
It was agreed that all mention of accreditation of the Nephrops fisheries would be
removed from the entire text of the draft plan, as this was no longer relevant.
3.
Section 2: The Summary
3.1
It was decided that this would be the last section to be updated. It could not be
rewritten until all the other parts of the draft had been revised.
3.2
Originally the term “Sustainable Fishing Plans” had been used for the fishing plans for
the different functional units. Then the term “Recovery Plans” had been substituted.
These terms were not without problems and it was decided that the neutral term
“Fishing Plans’ would henceforth be used. Michael Park would revise the final
paragraphs of the Summary to reflect this and would deal with the issue of whether
Fishing Plans would be developed for all the functional units, in advance; or only
prepared for units that were already deemed vulnerable or thought to be approaching
a vulnerable state. The section of text is highlighted in blue.
4.
Section 3: Preparation of the Plan
4.1
The section headed Where we are now? should be revised, as it was now out of date.
Barrie Deas would undertake revision of the section highlighted in red.
4.2
The section on Setting overall targets would be revised by Ana Leocadio to reflect
current scientific thought, especially in relation to the setting of a biomass trigger point,
as this was no longer the appropriate terminology. The relevant section is highlighted
in yellow.
4.3
Jane Sandell, with help from Ana Leocadio and Helen Dobby, would revise the final
statement on Biological objectives, and state the objectives with greater clarity. This
section again mentions the setting of a biomass trigger point. The section is
highlighted in pink.
4.4
The section on Wider ecological objectives was generally satisfactory but did not
deal adequately with the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Pim Visser has been attending meetings with the Commission on this topic and would
revise the section highlighted in green.
4.5
The section on economic objectives is rather meagre, and needs to mention the
CMO developments. There is also too much mention of reducing fishing mortality in
this section and other sections. Jane Sandell would revise the part highlighted in pink
and would confer with Pim Visser.
Page 3
NSRAC
4.6
The section on Biological instruments continued to mention trigger points and would
be amended by Ana Leocadio using more suitable terminology. The section is
highlighted in yellow. The section on Managing fisheries within vulnerable
functional units also refers to trigger points and the relevant text has again been
highlighted in yellow.
4.7 The section on a Draft Rebuilding Plan for the Farne Deeps would be revised to
refer instead to a draft Fishing Plan. In addition Ana Leocadio would revise two
paragraphs mentioning the setting of a trigger point for biomass (highlighted in yellow).
4.8
The section on discards within the section on Wider ecological instruments would be
revised by Michael Park to reflect recent changes in policy towards discards and to
make the main points clearer. This section is highlighted in blue. The section on
Damage to the seabed and vulnerable organisms deals with Marine Protected
Areas and would be revised by Pim Visser, who would also emphasise the
requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (highlighted in green).
4.9
The section on Ecological instruments was satisfactory for now and would not be
amended.
4.10 At this point a discussion took place on peer review of the document. It would
undoubtedly benefit from review by experts once a near-final text was available. It was
decided that the Group should try to arrange for the plan to be peer reviewed, and that
the text should be divided into chunks to enable this to be done. An independent
fisheries biologist might review the biological objectives, an ecologist the ecological
objectives, and an economist the economic objectives. There was no funding for this,
but we might be able to persuade staff from government and organisations like Seafish
to undertake these reviews without charge.
4.11 The section on Economic instruments was too long and did not say very much. Only
the final paragraph would be retained and it would be modified by Jane Sandell to refer
to the CMO developments (section highlighted in pink).
4.12 The section on Monitoring of the Management Plan would need to refer to
monitoring against the stated objectives of the plan. This section would be left as it
was for the moment, but would be re-written once the overall objectives had been
clarified.
4.13 The section on Linkages with other management plans should be revised so that it
mentioned the latest initiatives on management plans for mixed fisheries, and the need
to take account of multi-species interactions. Many of the Nephrops fisheries could be
regarded as mixed fisheries. Discussions were currently taking place on the
management of mixed fisheries and advice was being developed in relation to a mixed
fishery approach. Michael Park would revise this section (highlighted in blue).
4.14 The section dealing with Future institutional structures does not reflect properly
recent changes in regulatory architecture. Those changes were continuing, and we
did not yet know what would happen. There might be a significant devolution of
responsibilities to regional structures. That would have significant advantages from
Page 4
NSRAC
the standpoint of achieving adaptive management. The Rapporteur would revise this
section.
5.
Section 4, 5 and 6: Background Information; Major trends in the Nephrops
fisheries; The state of Nephrops stocks
5.1
This material had been useful in the initial stages of preparation of the plan, but it was
no longer necessary and would now be removed by the Rapporteur.
6.
Section 7: Mixed fishery considerations
6.1
The section on Mixed fisheries considerations was considered useful and would be
merged with the earlier section on Linkages with other management plans by the
Rapporteur.
7.
Section 8: Ecosystem considerations
7.1
This section was inoffensive, but it was essentially repeating material already
presented in discussing Ecological objectives. The Rapporteur would remove it.
8.
Section 9: Research & Monitoring
8.1
This section needed to be streamlined. Jane Sandell would revise it (highlighted in
pink).
9.
Section 10: Uncertainties
9.1
This section was valuable. The Rapporteur would review it and purge it of any
mention of accreditation. He would also ensure that it matched the state of current
discussions and developments. The section needed to mention the need for an
adaptive approach. We had already experienced the problems that can arise when a
management plan is too rigid and could not be changed.
10. Section 11: Defining the objectives
10.1 This material was useful, but it should be removed to the beginning of the LTMP,
where the objectives of the plan were discussed. The Rapporteur will try to embed it in
the preliminary text.
Page 5
NSRAC
11. Section 12: Instruments
11.1 This section would be treated similarly to Section 11 and embedded in text at the
beginning of the LTMP.
12. Section 13: Timeframe
12.1 This section would be retained for now. Section 13: References could be taken out,
however.
13. Actions
13.1
The different sections of the draft LTMP would be revised by those
designated to do so by Friday 5th July. The text would then be worked on
by the Rapporteur to ensure consistency and would be re-distributed by
Friday 12th July. The Nephrops LTMP Development Group would then
reconvene on Friday 19th July in London to discuss the text further.
All
13.2
Following the revision of the draft LTMP it would be put out to peer
review.
Secretariat
13.3
There is an issue over whether Fishing Plans are required for all
functional units, or whether they are required only for vulnerable functional
units. A compromise position might be to develop Fishing Plans for units
that looked as if they might become vulnerable, but implement them only if
and when ICES subsequently declared the functional unit vulnerable
(paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3). This will be discussed further at the NSRAC
Demersal Working Group.
Secretariat
13.4
It will be necessary for Swedish and Danish fishers to make it
clear whether the Nephrops fisheries in the Skagerrak and Kattegat are to
be covered by the LTMP. This aspect will be discussed at the next
Demersal WG (2.4).
Secretariat
Secretariat
14. In Attendance
Tony Hawkins
NSRAC Rapporteur
Michael Park
Chairman (SFF)
Barrie Deas
NFFO
Page 6
NSRAC
Jane Sandell
SFO
Ned Clark
NFFO
Pim Visser
Visned
Ana Leocadio
CEFAS
Kari Stange
Wageningen University
Lorna Duguid
NSRAC
Page 7
NSRAC