The North Sea Regional Advisory Council
The Future for Cod Recovery in the North Sea
A Draft Advice paper for the NSRAC to consider
First Draft
1.
Background & Antecedents
1.1
The NSRAC held a Focus Group meeting in London on 5th April 2013 on to discuss
cod management issues. Participants concluded that further advice on future
management of cod within the mixed fisheries of the North Sea was urgently needed.
1.2
At the subsequent meeting of the Demersal Working Group on April, in Trondheim
Norway, it was proposed that the next step was for the Chair and the Rapporteur to
draft an advice paper for the NSRAC to consider further. This is that paper.
1.3
Previous advice papers from the NSRAC have commented upon the management of
cod in the North Sea. Cumulative advice from the NSRAC and the NWWRAC has
highlighted some of the inherent flaws in the EU Cod Recovery Plan and its successor,
the EU/Norway Cod Management Plan.
1.4
The criticisms of the plans from the RACs have largely been shared by STECF and
were reflected in its 2011 evaluation of the EU Cod Management Plan. Moreover, the
EU/Norway bilateral negotiations at the end of 2012 recognised that an opportunity
had been missed to review and adapt the EU/Norway Cod Long Term Management
Plan.
1.5
Thinking within ICES has now evolved further on the management of mixed fisheries,
taking account of multi-species interactions.
Scientists are proposing early
development of mixed fishery and multi-species advice, leading to multi-annual plans
based on that advice.
1.6
The Commission's proposal for an amended Interim Cod Plan has, in the main,
followed the advice proffered by the RACs and reflected in the STECF
recommendations. Current discussions on CFP reform suggest that replacement
Page 1
NSRAC
plans for the demersal fisheries in the North Sea will need to take place within a
changing regulatory framework, key elements of which will be:

A strong regional dimension to future fisheries management, led by
cooperating member states working closely with the RACs

Multi-annual Management Plans as the main vehicle for fisheries management
at the regional seas level

Strong emphasis on mixed fisheries and multi-species advice

An obligation to land all catches of regulated species

Agreement on maintaining stocks at MSY
1.6
In November 2012 the NSRAC forwarded to the Commission its comments on the
proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending
Council Regulation (EC) No1342/2008 of 18th December 2008 establishing a Long
Term Plan for Cod Stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. Now, our
immediate priority is to see the early adoption of the new regulation through a fast
track co-decision procedure. We are concerned that the process has currently
reached stalemate. The Council’s proposal is currently going through a complex and
convoluted process of co-decision-taking. In the meantime fishers in the North Sea
face the immediate problem of an expanding cod stock, with cod being caught in a
number of mixed fisheries. For industry, there is a pressing need to address the
problems of the future for cod management in the North Sea. This advice paper is
intended to draw attention to the immediate need for changes to the management of
cod, pending longer-term improvements in the system of fisheries management in the
North Sea.
2.
Progress
2.1
Notwithstanding the serious flaws in earlier management approaches, outlined in the
STECF evaluation, substantial progress has now been made in reducing fishing
mortality on cod stocks and rebuilding the biomass of cod in the North Sea. A series of
measures, many of them introduced with the support of North Sea fishers, have had
the overall effect of reducing fishing mortality and rebuilding biomass during a period of
lower than average recruitment to the cod stock.
2.2
ICES and STECF have found it impossible to unravel and allocate individual weight to
those specific measures that have contributed to these positive developments but the
list includes:
Page 2

Fleet Capacity reduction through publicly funded decommissioning schemes

Fleet capacity reduction through rationalization

Improved gear selectivity to avoid the capture of cod
NSRAC
2.3
2.4

Real Time Closures

More effective landing controls

Effort Control

Individual Transferable Quotas (in some member states)

Fully Documented Fisheries/Catch Quota trials

Changes in the mind-set of fishers and acceptance of the need for cod
avoidance

Alignment of incentives with management objectives.
STECF has taken the view that:

The partial refocusing of cod management measures, within the EU Cod
Management Plan, towards providing incentives for cod avoidance under
Article 13, proved to be a more effective and productive alternative to rebuilding
cod biomass to target levels than the traditional vehicle of TAC and effort
reductions.

The central obstacle to an even more rapid rebuilding of the spawning stock
biomass in the North Sea has been a huge surge of discards of cod in the
mixed fisheries, resulting from restrictive TACs during a period when the stock
was rebuilding.
Further progress towards reaching fishing mortality targets can best be made through:

Further initiatives on discard reduction/cod avoidance, aimed at reductions in
fishing mortality on cod.

Closer consideration of how an MSY state might be achieved in the mixed
fisheries of the North Sea, with landings obligations imposed. There is a
particular need to decide how best to handle “choke” species.
3.
Current status of cod in the North Sea
3.1
ICES scientists have advised the NSRAC that in recent years fishing mortality on cod
has progressively been reduced. The evidence suggests that this has largely come
about as a result of the cod avoidance measures adopted by the industry, rather than
the effort restrictions imposed under the cod recovery plan. Whatever the reason, the
cod stock in the North Sea is now rebuilding itself. We note, however, the opinion of
ICES scientists that recruitment remains low, probably for environmental reasons, and
that further increase in spawning stock biomass is still required.
3.2
Spawning stock biomass is currently based on two reference points BLIM and BPA. The
North Sea cod stock is now above BLIM (70k tonnes) and is approaching BPA (150k
tonnes). As biomass increases higher recruitment levels may be expected, although
Page 3
NSRAC
environmental factors like the influx of warm water into the southern North Sea might
interfere with recruitment.
3.3
The Cod Management Plan aims for lower fishing mortality (F). However, although the
target F has been 0.4 the actual level has been higher at F = 0.68. The value of 0.4
was based on the prevailing low level of recruitment. If recruitment increases in the
future, then a higher value of F might be possible.
3.4
ICES scientists advise that it likely that biomass will continue to increase if an F of 0.4
is maintained – the value agreed in the EU/Norway management plan. With this level
of F as a long-term target biomass will continue to be restored even if recruitment
remains low. If a lower value of F is chosen, it may run the risk of increasing levels of
natural mortality. At high levels of biomass cod tend to eat cod, and the stock is also
preyed upon by a variety of other predators. Although some scientists have sought
lower values of F it is evident that the choice of an F of 0.4 in the EU/Norway
management plan was rational and sensible. Multi-species interactions may cause
reduced yields if a much lower F is maintained. A very high cod biomass might also
cause difficulties for fisheries on other species, like Nephrops, that are preyed upon by
cod.
3.5
Reducing discards is one way of improving biomass. Mortality from discarding is
especially high for the younger age groups (1-4 years). Older fish tend to make up the
bulk of fish landed. Removing the discarding of cod would take the current level of F
rapidly towards the target of 0.4. Fully documented fisheries and a reduction in
discards would move things in the right direction. Additional reductions in F may also
result from cod avoidance measures and from the use of more selective fishing gears.
The adoption of such measures, resulting in reduced fishing mortality, will restore
spawning stock biomass.
3.6
As we have noted, mixed fisheries and multi-species interactions are to be central
considerations within a reformed Common Fisheries Policy. We are aware that ICES
and the Commission are investigating ways of providing advice on mixed fisheries, and
their technical interactions, that also takes into account the biological interactions
between species. A particular need in the management of mixed fisheries is advice on
how to deal with “choke species” (species that cause a halt to fishing when their
quotas run out). There is also a need to consider impacts upon the whole ecosystem.
3.7
A particular issue in relation to reducing ecosystem effects is the estimation of FMSY,
especially when the yield of one species affects that of another. The NSRAC has
previously pointed out that yields corresponding to MSY cannot be achieved for all
species simultaneously. At a workshop on the Long Term Management of North Sea
Fisheries in Edinburgh in 2006, attended by distinguished fisheries scientists, it was
concluded that Maximum Sustainable Yield could not be achieved by simply plotting a
unique point on the yield or income versus effort curve. Selecting a range of values is
important. ICES scientists now accept this viewpoint. They have suggested that a
sensible approach is to try to define a safe area, close to achieving MSY. A fishing
mortality target set close to MSY (within a ‘safe’ range) can form the basis of Harvest
Control Rules for mixed fisheries.
Page 4
NSRAC
4.
Particular difficulties resulting from the current cod management plan
4.1
The current cod management plan has delivered much less than promised. The
outcome has been less than could reasonably have been hoped for in terms of
reducing fishing mortality. The plan has generated large-scale discards because of the
rigidity of its rules on setting TACs. The plan has also increased administrative
complexity and with respect to effort control led to a number of perverse outcomes.
Whilst effort restrictions have forced fishers out of fishing in some countries, they have
had little or no effect in other countries with larger effort allocations. Because of days
of sea restrictions some fishers had been forced to move away from catching valuable
species like monkfish to catching more easily caught species like cod and haddock.
Effort control has distorted fishing opportunities without any appreciable direct effect
on fishing mortality. In particular effort control has hindered the use of more selective
gears. Fishers have had to use smaller mesh nets than they would otherwise have
done to remain in the higher days at sea category.. Under the plan it has been
especially difficult to gain exemption and derogations from effort controls under Articles
11 and 13 for vessels that do not catch cod.
The effect of increased discarding as a result of the Plan’s provisions has been
especially negative.
In addition to an increase in unwanted mortality, products have
been disqualified and markets have shifted to fish from other areas. From the
perspective of fish buyers the plan has been too rigid, leading to market failure and a
negative perception of fish products from the North Sea.
4.2
Those measures that have effectively reduced fishing mortality include:

The introduction of Individual Transferrable Quota (ITQ) systems, with pooling
of quotas (in some countries).

Increased awareness of discards leading to more ‘correct’ behaviour.

The adoption of more selective fishing gears to reduce the catch of juveniles
and unwanted species

The adoption of cod avoidance measures, including seasonal closures and real
time closures

Fishers in some countries have radically cut the amount of fish they discarded
as a result of ‘Catch Quota’ trials, where they were required to fully record all
the fish they caught.
5.
The way forward
5.1
The NSRAC suggests the following way forward:

Page 5
A fishing mortality rate of around 0.4 for cod is currently reasonable and
sensible for cod in the North Sea, even with low recruitment, and is in line with
NSRAC
delivering MSY for cod. If a lower value of F is chosen, it may run the risk of
increasing levels of natural mortality, reducing yields. A very high cod biomass
might also cause difficulties for fisheries on other species, like shrimps and
Nephrops
5.2

As cod recover, more problems of cod avoidance and gear selectivity will arise
if discards are to be avoided. Fully documented fisheries, cod avoidance
measures and the use of more selective fishing gears will reduce discards,
reduce fishing mortality and assist in restoring spawning stock biomass.

The exemptions and derogations offered by modifications to Articles 13 and 11,
as set out in the new regulation, will allow a broader, less rigid approach to be
adopted, providing exemption from the effort regime and incentives for vessels
to fish sustainably

It must be recognised that effort control has been a blunt instrument that has
led to perverse incentives and unanticipated outcomes.

Management of cod cannot be considered in isolation in the North Sea as the
fish is caught in mixed fisheries. Moreover, the cod interacts with a range of
other species. It has become increasingly evident that a move to mixed
fisheries management is desirable, and that this must incorporate interactions
between species

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to agree on a single point management
objective for the mixed fisheries. MSY cannot be achieved for all stocks
simultaneously. Setting a unique ecosystem MSY has little support from ICES
scientists, as weighing the effects of species upon each other is very difficult to
achieve. However, a safe area, close to MSY, can be defined if there is
cooperation between the EU, ICES and the RACs.

That safe area might also include Good Environmental Status constraints such
as by-catch or bottom impact

A fishing mortality target close to MSY (and within the ‘safe’ range) can form
the basis of Harvest Control Rules for mixed fisheries, including economic
trade-offs. Those Harvest Control Rules can be optimised by stakeholders, in
accord with technical interactions

Mixed fishery advice can be sought to accompany an agreed fishing mortality
target set close to MSY. Such advice will provide managers with options and
scenarios to explore to achieve particular economic and other outcomes from
the fishery.

Choke species may still be a problem because of regulatory difficulties. A
review of the regulatory problems that result in some species choking the
fisheries would now be appropriate.
In the longer term, there is a need to move away from the prescriptive approach
offered by the cod management plan and towards a more result-based and adaptive
Page 6
NSRAC
approach. For management to work there is a need for greater confidence in the
institutional arrangements for deciding on management measures. There can be no
delay in coming forward with alternative proposals to the cod management plan, not
least because of the need to take into consideration the implications of the proposed
discard ban.
5.3
The NSRAC sees the best option as bringing forward the development of mixedfishery management plans for the North Sea. There must be greater priority given to
the early development of mixed fishery and multi-species advice, leading to multiannual plans based on that advice.
6.
Mixed fishery management plans
6.1
The NSRAC accepts the need for mixed fishery management plans and wishes to
engage, as a matter of priority, in the development of such plans for the principal
demersal stocks in the North Sea. It is evident from discussions with ICES scientists
that it will take some time to develop the necessary scientific underpinnings but the
equally important dialogue with stakeholders can begin now.
6.2
In the meantime it is entirely appropriate to adopt interim arrangements, not least to
address the flaws in the current plan identified amongst others by STECF and the
NSRAC. The NSRAC recognises that the Council has attempted to deal with some of
the problems of the existing arrangements in its recent proposals on cod management
and has commented on these in its previous advice.
Page 7
NSRAC