The North Sea Advisory Council
Executive Committee Meeting
Royal Scot’s Club, Edinburgh
19th June, 2015
Rapporteur:
Lorna Duguid
Approved (V1)
1.0
Welcome and Introductions
1.1
The Chairman Niels Wichmann welcomed everyone to the meeting. A tour de
table followed.
1.2
The agenda was approved with no amendments. (The order of the agenda was
changed to accommodate the later than expected arrival of Mr Friess of the
European Commission).
1.3
There were apologies from Sam Stone (MCS), Irene Kingma (Dutch
Elasmobranch Society), Ned Clark (NFFO) and Tony Hawkins (NSAC
rapporteur). Late apologies were received from Calum Duncan who was to
attend representing the MCS but was unable to do so.
1.4
Niels informed the group that we would be joined during the meeting by Mr
Bernhard Friess from DG Mare.
2.0
Report of Last Meeting
2.1
The report of the last meeting was reviewed for accuracy. Euan Dunn
requested that an amendment be made to section 10.2. The wording would be
changed to better reflect the situation between the participating member states.
Once these changes had been made the report was approved as an accurate
record of the meeting.
2.2
The actions from the last meeting were reviewed.
Page 1 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
3.0
Scheveningen Group Update
3.1
Niels Wichmann informed the meeting that we had an established contact with
the Scheveningen Group for 18 months, our first meeting with them had been
held in 2013. Work had continued, frequency of meetings had increased during
the last year as they have had to develop the Joint Recommendation for
Demersal fisheries in the North Sea. The NSAC had been involved with the
high level group and the technical group meetings. Each were attended by 2-3
NSAC people. The same people were invited to attend to ensure consistency.
He informed the meeting that they had finalised the Joint Recommendation and
submitted it to the Commission. If they had not done this the Commission
would have made a plan themselves. The Scheveningen Group produced the
Joint Recommendation after their last meeting on the 29th May. All members
had been sent a copy of the Joint Recommendation with annexes and a
covering letter from Chairman of Scheveningen Group.
3.2
Niels noted that we have been able to participate in the technical group
meetings but participation in the high level group meetings was limited. We had
taken part in meetings but he felt that we needed a closer relationship with the
group similar to that experienced with STECF and ICES. Our aim would be to
have total openness.
3.3
Niels outlined the current situation with the Joint Recommendation. It
recommends a hybrid solution for certain species and gears for 2016. No
solution for 2017 and 2018 had been set out so work would have to continue
for those years.
3.4
He explained that we had given a presentation on 29th May to the high level
group. He could not give a consensus view on the draft discard plan due to
time constraints so had pulled together a presentation representing the
opinions of different interest groups He would have liked more time to be able
to achieve and present a consensus but this had not been possible in the time
given. The Commission were now looking at the Joint Recommendation.
STECF is now looking at high survival and de minimis. They are not looking at
quota uplift which still needs to be discussed, the Commission will have to
agree this in the autumn and they will consult the European Parliament on this
issue prior to writing the delegated act.
3.5
Andrew Clayton informed the meeting that he shared many of Niel’s concerns
about the Member States and the process. He thought that the NSAC had
done well to provide a response to the draft plan in such a short time however
he had some issues with the way the paper had been pulled together. He had
particular concerns with differences between the paper and the presentation
given to the High Level Group and thought that it would have been useful to
use the same language in the presentation as was in the paper. He noted that
some members are disenfranchised about what will be sent to the Commission
and wanted assurance that they would be truly represented. He felt that an
Page 2 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
inaccurate view had been given and did not want the current level of trust
damaged. Niels replied that he was disappointed that Andrew was
disappointed.
3.6
Peter Breckling thought that members of Scheveningen Group were not
interested in NSAC discussions. He asked if we could obtain meeting dates in
advance to allow us to provide the group with information. He asked if they
really wanted to include NSAC or preferred to deal with themselves only. If the
later was the case then this was not a good picture of regionalisation and we
should communicate this to the European Parliament. Niels agreed that the
working relationship between the Scheveningen group members had not been
the best. We were trying to improve our working relationship with them. The
Chairman, Mme Bigot had been invited to attend the General Assembly in
September. The group would not have many more meetings prior to
September so it was unlikely they would be able to produce a time schedule of
forthcoming meetings. Pim Visser thought that we had raised these concerns to
the group before to no result. They had not taken on board the advice of the
pelagic group and had declined the offer of an MOU. He thought that the
immediate issue of 2016 had been solved but they had pushed back some big
problems which still need to be addressed, causing capacity issues for the
coming years. He considered that the situation could get worse. He thought
that this must change and this must be put forward strongly by all AC’s to their
regional groups.
3.7
Barrie Deas said that he understood everyone’s frustration and agreed that the
current position was far away from the ideal of co-management. He thought
that before we respond to the Scheveningen group it was important that we
understand the context. This was the first outing for the Scheveningen group
and they have had to define their working relationship. Despite limited access
to meetings the NSAC influence of our advice had been significant. He gave
examples of limited phasing and a hybrid fisheries approach which was close
to our thinking. He thought that we would always have tensions in NSAC due to
the wide range of views we have to work with. He thought that we had made a
good start, we have regionalisation perhaps not the way we want but it is a
start. He agreed with the Chairman that we should work to deepen the
relationship. We should aim to be co-equals and address constraints until this
was achieved. Mike Park agreed with this, he thought that we had an unreal
expectation at the beginning of the process. The output of the Group now
marries with what we wanted. He thought that there was work to be done with
regional groups before the NSAC was to be treated as partners. Mike made
reference to GAP 2 work which suggested that this would work well. If we had
had more time the approach and output would have been different, however as
we move forward he expected that a better relationship would be developed.
3.8
Kenn Skau Fischer agreed with Barrie and Mike but noted that this was not the
first discards plan developed with the Scheveningen group, they had also
developed the industrial fisheries plan and the pelagic plan. Kenn had been
Page 3 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
involved in the development of these plans and he had seen an improvement in
how things had developed since then. Cooperation had improved however
more improvements could be made. For North Sea demersal fisheries there
were questions that still needed to be resolved and the group might need to
continue working on this over the autumn. This would depend on what the
Commission decided to do regarding implementation, quota, mixed fish effort
regime etc. He thought that we needed to push the Scheveningen Group to
continue working.
3.9
Neils Wichmann asked that at the coming Demersal Working Group meeting
(13th July) members make a list of points that need to be addressed. We would
ask Scheveningen Group representatives to attend the NSAC Ex Com meeting
in September and we would seek to get a timetable of meetings from them.
4.0
Demersal Working Group Update
4.1
Barrie Deas informed the group that the DWG met in Paris on 14th April, we
had been joined by the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association. The DWG is
working on the development of mixed fisheries advice, the landings obligation,
monitoring and control, pulse fishing, brown shrimp and nephrops.
4.2
At our April meeting we had achieved a consensus and submitted advice on a
mixed fisheries plan. The next meeting would be held on 13th July in Brussels.
The next steps in the Landings Obligation would be important, we are working
on a monitoring and control paper; the Commissions communication on the
approach to TAC’s and quotas from 2016 which includes the quota uplift issue.
Stella Nemecky is working on a quota distribution paper. The issue of effort
control was back, we would have to consider the Commission’s Advocate
General’s opinion in the European Court and what this would mean to effort
freeze. We will also have to prepare our advice on seabass.
4.3
Mike Park provided an update on Nephrops. The Long Term Management Plan
(LTMP) had been sent to the Commission with questions for STECF. The
STECF had responded that they were unclear how the plan would sit alongside
the framework of a multi annual plan they had expressed concern about
duplication of process. They had agreed that the plan was a positive step
towards sustainability and it had demonstrated consultation approach in its
development. They were concerned that the approach would not determine
outtake levels at the Functional Unit level consistent with mortality rates at
MSY, this was something that we may have to look at again. They had
suggested that the Bbuff reference points would be consistent with the
precautionary approach, which was positive. They had mentioned that the
absence of detailed information explaining how the plan would be put into
practice was a flaw as it was not possible to say if it would achieve CFP
objectives. They had concerns about the overall TAC and suggested that there
should be a limited outtake on each functional unit. Mike asked if we should
revisit the plan or should we respond to the comments. He suggested a further
Page 4 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
meeting to address points raised. Niels Wichmann suggested that another
meeting was held before the next Ex Com in Sept. Prior to the meeting Mike
would speak to scientists involved to produce a paper which would aim to
address the concerns highlighted.
4.4
Jan Willem Wijnstroom provided an update on Seabass. A Joint AC workshop
had been held in Paris on the 26th May. Emergency measures were introduced
on 1st January to prohibit fishing with pelagic trawls in spawning areas, this had
expired on 1st May. We then had an amendment to TAC and quota regulations
and a bag limit for recreational fishers. There is now a proposal pending for
monthly catch limits for fisheries. The ICES presentation given at the meeting
showed that the fishery is in a terrible state and the ICES advice for this year is
not expected to change. The discussion at the meeting focused on proposals
for monthly catch limits. Some fisheries representatives wanted more flexibility
however the Commission is proposing monthly limits. The outcome of meeting
was a table listing various points of view from stakeholders. The EAA was part
of the drafting group but stepped out of it as they wanted to follow the
Commission proposals. A proposal to set the MCRS to 42 cms would be
decided on 2nd July.
4.5
Peter Breckling commented that at the last LDAC meeting the Commission
realised that EAA were not members at they had no activity over 200 miles.
The Commission wanted to keep them in as they wish recreational fisheries to
be represented in all areas. In the Baltic Sea for the first time they have
developed advice, for cod, that presents a position for both recreational and
commercial fisheries. This was considered to be a positive step forward.
4.6
Barrie Deas commented that he recognised the role of sea bass and providing
an appropriate response within the context of adverse science was tricky. He
did not think that the table produced at meeting was an adequate basis for
advice and much more work would be required to address all sources of
mortality. We must also consider catch limits and if bass would be included in
the landings obligation. Barrie informed the group that he had drafted a paper
for discussion at the DWG. He was surprised that the MCRS would be decided
on 2nd July as he understood that this would be part of the technical regulation
exercise. He thought that catch limits spread over 3 months would address
spikes in catches but he needed to ask if the AC would support this, we also
needed to look at options for MCRS. Jan Willem Wijnstroom agreed that we
needed to work on a LTMP and EAA would continue to contribute. He noted
that Bass is an iconic species for recreational fishing and we needed to focus
on sea bass for angling members and reflect this in our advice. He noted that
recreational fishing was valuable to the economy, the Commission are aware of
the socio economics of bass fishing so the plan was a good development.
4.7
Jan Willem Wijnstroom took the opportunity to inform the group that this would
be his last meeting. Nigel Proctor would attend NSAC meetings until a
replacement was recruited. Niels Wichmann thanked him for his contribution.
Page 5 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
He noted that Jan Willem had contributed to setting up and developing NSAC
and he had been a Chairman of the General Assembly. He wished him a future
of less work and more angling.
4.8
Pim Visser reported back from the Brown Shrimp Focus Group. The group had
wanted to present advice to the Ex Com but the advice paper required further
work and would be discussed at the DWG meeting. We have some questions
for ICES regarding their advice but the big decision is whether we develop a
plan such as the one produced for nephrops. Members of the focus group had
thought that there was a need for a plan which would also be welcomed by the
Member States. A plan would best be proposed by industry, supported by the
NGO’s. Once considered by the DWG the paper would be sent to the Ex Com
for approval via a written procedure.
(Bernhard Friess joined the meeting)
4.9
Peter Breckling informed the meeting that the Pulse Fishing Focus Group had
prepared an advice document for consideration by the DWG and Ex Com.
There had been intensive discussions about this type of fishing and some
areas in the advice paper had to be confirmed. He was concerned that some
members continued to suggest changes to documents at later stages in their
development and asked that we have some agreement on when we stop
accepting further amendments. He summarised the main areas of the paper
and highlighted the urgent need to have some rules on an EU level. One of the
most difficult is how to use in Natura areas. The Dutch government are hosting
a workshop on the 2nd July and is open for registration. Pim Visser added that
as result of discussions in the focus group we recognised that there is a need
for dialogue, the workshop program includes a fieldtrip to a fishing boat
operating pulse gear. He encouraged people to attend.
5.0
Skagerrak and Kattegat Working Group Update
5.1
Carl Jesper Hermansen reported on the work of the SKWG. They discussed a
meeting with Norway on management plans and regionalisation within new the
CFP. Control enforcement in the Skagerrak was a concern, they currently
have free access to each other’s waters without need for notification. If this was
not maintained and Norway introduces a similar 2 hour rule as that in the North
Sea, it would be difficult for fishermen. Fishing organisations had sent a letter
to the relevant Member States requesting that the current regime is maintained.
5.2
The Landings Obligation and demersal discard plan was discussed. There had
been a discussion about lowering the MCRS of nephrops, incentives to further
increase selectivity and quota uplift. They had discussed stocks in Kattegat,
fishermen do not think that the latest ICES information reflects the stock levels
they are experiencing, giving cod in the Kattegat as an example. The Working
Group will need to explore this further with a view to achieving a quota uplift.
Supported by The
Page 6 NSAC
European Commission
They had ongoing concerns about the disposal of industrial waste which is
currently subject to a court case. It had been noted that the Norwegian
government want to increase the Minimum Landing Size of shrimp to 6cm
which the industry had protested against. They were looking at a grid to
increase selectivity. They had discussed plaice, there is a LTMP for plaice in
the Skagerrak which would allow them to apply for MSC certification. They had
agreed that the working group would get results on cod and sole surveys in
Kattegat and present these at the next meeting.
6.0
European Commission Update
6.1
The Chairman introduced Bernhard Friess, he had recently taken over from
Carla Montesi (North Sea and Baltic). Mr Friess explained that he was also
responsible for the Atlantic areas.
6.2
Mr Friess informed the meeting that the Commission had proposed a Mixed
Fisheries Plan (MFP) for the Baltic a year ago, legislation for this should be
finalised soon. The Council of Ministers (CoM) had adopted the management
plan and were at the last step of the process which was a discussion between
CoM and the European Parliament (EP) to agree a final version of plan. This
was important for everyone as the process of legislation would have reference
for other sea basins. The structure and philosophy of developing the plan
would be similar, how it is implemented would be different.
6.3
Mr Friess presented elements of the plan that would be required for the North
Sea. The management plan will cover all demersal fisheries in the North Sea
and will replace the current cod plan system of effort management and days at
sea. Fisheries management will be agreed via the Member States and
technical measures. The objective of the plan is to meet MSY. The second
objective is where science to assess MSY is not available a precautionary
approach is followed. The third collective approach for a mixed fishery is to
avoid choke species by being more flexible. Everything applied would have to
be achieved within good environmental practices.
6.4
Mr Friess explained that within the Baltic plan and to be in NS plan they had
introduced a system of brackets (ranges) for fishing mortality targets around
the value of MSY. The authorities that determine quota will be given leeway to
adopt whatever works best within a different fishery whilst keeping within
sustainability objectives. This was one of the main innovations within the plan.
Brackets would been introduced for cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice and
sole.
6.5
The second element of the plan was to have biomass safeguards; if biomass
was falling below the precautionary level, measures would have to be taken
and there would be an obligation to take action. For the management plan
there would be requirement for proposals to take fish stocks to safe levels.
Supported by The
Page 7 NSAC
European Commission
6.6
The concept of the plan is to implement more regional decision making, he
considered this to be one of the most important elements of the reformed CFP.
How to make regional decision making possible is through legally approved
management plans. The process to make this happen is similar to the current
discard plans. Groupings of Member States will consult with stakeholders and
come up with recommendations, these joint recommendations will be agreed
and if they are scientifically defendable they will cast into an EU legal act with
no need to take them to the European Parliament. All fishermen will have same
rules applied to them. He thought that pulling together the Discard Plans had
been a very positive experience, moving to a situation where practical solutions
was agreed between Member States.
6.7
In summary the current management plans would be applicable for 3 years, we
may need more technical or conservation measures, these would have to be
decided on a local basis. Control measures to match local regional
requirements would be required. The Commission was developing a paper
which should confirm the process by autumn this year to present to the Council
in December. An impact assessment study would look at the economics of the
proposal.
6.8
The Chairman asked for questions or comments. Peter Breckling noted that the
plan aimed to have stocks at a biomass level that can produce MSY but that no
one could predict the level of biomass that can produce MSY and we currently
use Btrig. He asked if the plan used Btrig or a different method to predict MSY.
He also asked what role the BSAC would have in the decision process and
noted that the European Parliament could block the proposal of a delegate act.
Bernhard Friess replied that the Commission will put a fishing mortality target in
the plan not a biomass target this may be the only way that it will work but
others think it should be stricter. We would wait until the outcome of the Baltic
decision. In terms of how regionalisation will work he noted that we still have a
democracy and the EP can block plans. The EP had not raised anything
regarding the pelagic discard plan however demersal may be more
controversial.
6.9
Peter Olsen noted that the Landings Obligation should not create a market for
undersized fish but it may create a new product that could cause damage to
stocks, giving nephrops as an example. Bernhard Friess replied that we would
need to be flexible to start with, use exemptions and de minimus or a lower
MCRS and try to avoid catching small fish.
6.10 Barrie Deas noted that we had submitted initial advice on mixed fisheries but
that there were indications that Norway was not so keen on a mixed fish
approach. He asked if we could progress without their agreement did he think
there would be a cost to other areas. He also asked if when we introduce the
new plans there would be scope to correct mistakes as it progressed unlike the
cod plan. Bernhard replied that they wanted to introduce more flexibility.
Regional decision making and cooperation will allow for flexibility and technical
Page 8 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
and conservation measures could be changed more easily. With the revision of
the technical measures they planned to keep a certain framework at European
level and have flexibility at regional level. They had not been notified of any
objections from Norway.
6.11 Erik Lindebo commented about delegated acts, he thought that the European
Parliament could only block a delegated act if procedure had not be followed,
they could not block it if they did not agree with a technical element within the
plan. He asked what their thoughts were regarding the impact of choke
species. Bernhard replied that Parliament checked that the Commission had
stayed within its boundaries. Regarding choke species they would allow an
extension beyond MSY to make a fishery work. This would be reviewed on an
annual basis.
6.12 Liane Veitch asked if nephrops would be included in the plan and if the
Commission was planning to include predetermined management measures
that could be introduced quickly if stock is approaching biomass safeguards.
Bernhard replied that the proposal the Commission was working on was only
the legal architecture not content, a statutory law framework empowering the
regionalisation process, it was planned to have this submitted in November for
approval within 12-18 months. In terms of management measures, the Baltic
plan does have a list of measures in it or MS emergency measures. There was
a question of whether these should be mandatory or not. If we wish them
included it may encourage others to accept this approach. Nephrops will not be
a lead species but it could be included in the plan.
6.13 Andrew Clayton asked about F and B objectives and noted that F ranges may
be resolved within the Baltic process. He understood setting BPA as safeguard
level but asked if it would make sense to have a Bmsy target in the plan.
Bernhard replied that the compromise was to say that if you fished at MSY,
MSY would be achieved overtime, that is why the target in the CFP was Fmsy.
They are trying to replicate that logic in the new plan. If scientists could develop
a methodology to identify what Bmsy is in quantative terms then they would
consider it. Kenn Skau Fisher thought that Article 2 was open to interpretation.
He thought that there was a limit to which fishing organisations could contribute
to Bmsy levels. He thought that the regulation could be quite technical. He
noted that what had been seen in the Baltic was an issue when the best
science available no longer fits the model this makes it difficult to manage
fisheries policy.
6.14 Stella Nemecky asked if ICES had been asked when BMSY would be reached.
Did they know how long the rebuilding process would take? Bernhard replied
that the target was to reach Fmsy by 2016 not 2020. The Commission are
looking at models and ranges, modelling fishing and economic impact science
advice. Impact assessment studies were being reviewed and would soon be
available. They would do their best to produce figures within the uncertainties.
Page 9 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
6.15 Euan Dunn noted that a recently produced NSAC paper covered impact in noncommercial fish stocks. He asked if the proposal would give more
consideration to ecosystem impacts, endangered species, gear design and
sensitive species. The response was that the Baltic plan will have specific
references to these issues and that we should include them for consideration in
the North Sea plan.
6.16 Pim Visser noted that he has attended a DG Env workshop on the 21st May
and it had shown that issues around the framework directive were not clear and
MSY points were still being discussed with scientists. He thought that
consideration should be given to scientists before conclusions were made. He
thought that we should learn from the development of the Baltic Plan but that it
should not be used as a template. Bernhard responded that there should be
flexibility regarding targets, that there were differences in each area that would
require specific solutions.
6.17 John Anderson asked what could be done to alleviate choke species, would
there be some flexibility beyond Fmsy. Bernhard replied that there was a
possibility that it could be above or below Fmsy. The Council of Ministers would
decide quotas but they wanted to offer a flexible path of how to get to MSY,
working with ICES to make sure it was precautionary. He thought that much
had been and could be achieved with technical innovation and that this should
be agreed at a regional not European level.
6.18 Christine Absil asked that for stocks where there is a need for a biomass
safeguard would they be making provisions to provide better data. She also
asked when measures would take effect where there was no sufficient data.
Bernhard replied that the precautionary principle could only be applied within
the context of appropriate science.
6.19 Jimmy Buchan returned to the subject of choke species. He asked that
fishermen be consulted to report on what they were experiencing.
6.20 Barrie Deas asked about the drift net ban. NSAC had presented advice against
a blanket ban. He asked what current thinking was regarding this. There had
been attempts in the EP to withdraw the proposal. Bernhard replied that the
Commission were keen to listen to views on the matter to find a solution. He
was sure it would not become law as it was proposed.
7.0
Spatial Planning Working Group Update
7.1
Euan Dunn reported for the Spatial Planning Working Group. The Dogger Bank
issue was now in its 5th year and discussions may be coming to conclusion.
The Dutch minister had written to the government in support of the proposals
and these may be supported by the 3 involved member states. A resolution
could be agreed in the next few weeks. The issue of seine fishing in
management zones was still an outstanding issue. The next SPWG would also
Supported by The
Page 10 NSAC
European Commission
look at proposals for MSFD measures for 2 sites; the Friesian Front and Oyster
Grounds areas. Details of both were available in the background paper
provided.
8.0
Feedback from meetings attended for NSAC
8.1
Mike Park had attended STECF Landings Obligation meetings. Requests
presented were considered relevant but most required further information, he
thought a further STECF would be required. Barrie Deas had also attended the
meeting and thought that it would go directly to the Commission and views
would be relayed to the Member States. He thought it would have been more
helpful of there had been a format for submitting requests. Bernhard Friess
reported that the Commission had sent the observations to the Member States.
9.0
Projects Update
9.1
Mike Park had attended the final Gap2 meeting which was attended by around
180 people including scientists, fishers and policy makers. It was a very social
facing meeting generating 144,000 tweets. The main messages resulting from
the project were that fishers want to be included in consultations, policy makers
like getting this type of information, co management is desired and we need to
look at ways of embedding a consultative process. Fishers are transitioning
from being observers to challenging systems. Mike would make available the
notes from the meeting.
9.2
Barrie informed the meeting that some members had joined a MAREFRAME
teleconference with John Pope. He has demonstrated a decision support
platform he was developing as part of the project. John would be attending the
Demersal Working Group meeting where he would demonstrate the model.
9.3
Christine Absil reported on the launch of the Discardless project. The work will
cover technical advances and how to work on policy. She thought that it was a
disadvantage is that not every region would be involved. Further information
was available on the Discardless website and it was expected that the NSAC
would be invited to future meetings. Niels Wichmann noted that Kenn Skau
Fisher had regular contact with DTU Aqua and he could keep us updated with
developments. Erik Lindebo said that Coby Needle (Marine Scotland) was
directing the North Sea case studies. Anyone who was interested in
collaborating should approach Coby. Barrie thought that the project was rather
late, the Landings Obligation was to be put in place and now we were
establishing a knowledge base for a discard ban. Pim asked if an interim report
would be made available to inform policy makers as the information was
required as soon as possible. Kenn Skau Fischer replied that there were 8-9
work packages underway and reports would be available for each during the
project.
Page 11 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
10.0 Function of NSAC Groups
10.1 Comments were invited by the Chair. Euan requested further clarity about
composition of drafting groups in paragraph 2. Peter Breckling thought that the
current system worked where there was a common goal of finding a
compromise by all parties. This had to be the aim of the group Chairman. He
wanted to continue with the informal approach that the NSAC operated but we
should aim to reach agreement as soon as possible.
10.2 NW asked that the secretariat amend the paper and circulate for approval via
written procedure.
11.0 Protocol for NSAC Papers
11.1 Mike Park queried the point that WG Chairs had the right to refuse a paper for
presentation and asked that clear grounds for refusal should be documented.
11.2 Christine asked for clarification regarding the requirement that GA members
could only submit comments via an Ex Com member. Lorna Duguid replied that
this would only be for the approval of final advice and until that stage
comments from GA members were welcome.
11.3 Euan Dunn had a number of point to present from the NGO’s. He noted Para
2.5; fast track procedure and said that this was where most issues came from.
He suggested caveats;
The Chairs should agree that fast track is appropriate.
Ex Com members should have a minimum of 48 hours to comment on advice.
He asked that these be built into the procedure.
Para 3.4 and 3.5 and asked that the number of members be removed.
Para 3.3 he asked that all comments be considered up to the closing date.
He requested that a maximum size for minority positions was stated.
A discussion followed regarding the length of time required to submit changes
to a paper. Members were encouraged to return comments as soon as
possible and not wait until the end of the consultation period.
Stella questioned why an alternative text was required and thought that where
an alternative was not suitable it was acceptable to ask for the comment to be
removed. This was agreed.
Page 12 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
John Anderson asked that where a minority position is presented that it be
stated at the beginning of the paper. This was agreed.
Erik Lindebo asked that we do not introduce a password protected area on the
website and we remain transparent. This was agreed.
The remarks would be taken into account and the papers circulated for
approval.
12.0 Work Plan Priorities for 2015/16
12.1 Work Plan priorities for 2014/15 were presented. Members were asked what
changes were required for 2015/16. Mike Park thought that the CFP reform
point was no longer relevant and should be removed. This was approved.
13.0 NSAC Appointments for 2015/16
13.1 Lorna Duguid set out the timescales and processes required for appointments
to be made for 2015/16. Members were asked to note the timescales and
submit nominations before the deadlines.
13.2 Tender processes to appoint contractors for the coming year were approved.
14.0 Finance Update
14.1 Lorna Duguid provided a financial update. She noted that there had been
increased expenditure in travel and subsistence due to the higher number of
people attending meetings and the additional meetings we had to attend. We
would have to be cautious with spend to the end of the year. If travel and
attending meetings were to continue at current levels we would have to review
membership fees. This would be discussed further by the NSAC Directors.
14.2 An amendment to the travel policy was proposed to increase the number of
people claiming costs from 10 to 15 people per meeting. The amendment was
approved. It was confirmed that only one person per member organisation
could claim for each meeting.
15.0 Membership Applications
15.1
An application for GA Membership by Oceana was approved.
Page 13 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
16.0 AOB
16.1 Lorna Duguid asked that all members make use of connections with the PECH
Committee to raise awareness of the NSAC work and invite them to meetings.
16.2 Guus Pastoor gave an update on the development of the Markets Advisory
Council. He informed the group that it had made its formal application to the
Commission. There was an issue with the 60:40 structure as the AC covers all
Europe and there were more representative organisations than seats available.
The compromise was to develop another group “The Friends of the MAC”. The
current challenge was to finance the secretariat before funding from the
Commission was made available. Pim noted that the NSAC had agreed that we
would take market information into consideration when making advice, he
suggested that the new MAC should not alleviate our duties and we continue to
do this.
17.0 Date and Time of Next Meeting
17.1 The next Ex Com and General Assembly meetings would take place on 22nd
and 23rd September in Brussels. A dinner on the 22nd would be hosted by the
Belgian Member State.
17.2 Pim informed those members who would be attending the DWG on 13th July
that they were invited to the Dutch Herring party in the evening. Members
wishing to attend should inform the secretariat.
Actions
Action
Responsibility
1. Amend the report of the last meeting in section 10.2 to
LD
better reflect situation between member states. (2.1)
2. At the DWG in July list all outstanding issues that still
BD
need to be addressed by the Scheveningen group (3.9)
LD
3. Invite Scheveningen Group Members to the NSAC Ex
NW
Com / GA meetings in September.(3.9)
LD
4. Request a list of forthcoming meetings from the
LD
Scheveningen Group (3.9)
5. Arrange a meeting of the Nephrops Focus Group before
MP
the Ex Com 22nd Sept. (4.3)
LD
6. Contact STECF scientists to discuss their response to the
MP
nephrops LTMP and prepare a paper for the Nephrops
focus group. (4.3)
7. Seabass management would be discussed at the DWG
BD
13th July. (4.6)
LD
8. Brown Shrimp draft advice to be discussed at the DWG.
PV
(4.8)
LD
9. Pulse Fishing draft advice to be discussed at the DWG.
PB
(4.9)
LD
Page 14 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
10. Circulate information from GAP2 conference (9.1)
MP
LD
LD
11. Papers 11.2 and 11.3 to be amended and recirculated for
approval (11.3)
12. Amend the travel policy to allow 15 claims per meeting
(14.2)
13. Members wishing to attend the Dutch Herring Party 13th
July should inform the secretariat.
LD
All
Attendees
First Name
Last Name
Organisation
Christine
Absil
Seas at Risk
Executive Committee Member
Svend-Erik
Andersen
Danish Fishermen
Executive Committee Member
John
Anderson
SFO
Executive Committee Member
Peter
Breckling
Executive Committee Member
Emiel
Brouckaert
Deutscher Fischerei
Verband
Rederscentrale
Jimmy
Buchan
SFO
NSAC Member
Simon
Collins
SFF
NSAC Member
Barrie
Deas
NFFO
Executive Committee Member
Lorna
Duguid
NSAC
NSAC Secretariat
Euan
Dunn
RSPB/BirdLife
Executive Committee Member
Kenn Skau
Fischer
Danish Fishermen
NSAC Member
Bernhard
Friess
DG MARE
European Institution
Joanna
Grigorjeva
NSAC
NSAC Secretariat
Carl Jesper
Hermansen
Danish Fishermen
Executive Committee Member
Erik
Lindebo
EDF
Executive Committee Member
Geert
Meun
VisNed
Executive Committee Member
Leeanne
Mullan
Marine Scotland
Member State
Stella
Nemecky
WWF
Executive Committee Member
Peter
Olsson
Executive Committee Member
Michael
Park
Swedish Fishermen's
Federation
SFF
Guus
Pastoor
AIPCE/CEP
Executive Committee Member
Emil
Remisz
North Atlantic Producers Executive Committee Member
Organization (NAPO)
Page 15 NSAC
Executive Committee Member
Executive Committee Member
Supported by The
European Commission
Liane
Veitch
Client Earth
Executive Committee Member
Antony
Viera
CNPMEM
Executive Committee Member
Pim
Visser
VisNed
Executive Committee Member
Niels
Wichmann
Danish Fishermen
Executive Committee Chairman
Jan Willem
Wijnstroom
EAA
Executive Committee Member
Page 16 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission