1 Action items- specific Action items- specific Western horse - - PDF document

SLIDE 1

1

Working Group I meeting, 30 June 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands

Joint Working Group I and II meeting

5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Agenda

1) Opening of the meeting 2) Approval of the agenda 3) Follow-up on action items 4) Report from the 2nd STECF meeting on the landing

• bligation
• Articles 15 and 16 of the CFP (section 6 of discard

plan) 5) Draft discard plans of priority 1 stocks 6) Draft discard plans for priority 2 stocks 7) Action plan for finalisation of Joint Working Group report 8) Future meetings 9) AOB 10) End of meeting

Action items- general

General

• Explore possibilities of developing a discard atlas using GIS in

collaboration with scientists (Dominic Rihan)

• Clarify what will happen if Member States do not cooperate in area IIIa

(Dominic Rihan)

• Submit fishery information like gear type, area, number of vessels etc.

for all other stocks (deadline 15 November 2013):

• Denmark: Esben Sverdrup & Bent Pallisgaard
• France: Jean-Marie Robert 
• Netherlands: Gerard van Balsfoort 
• Germany: Uwe Richter 
• Ireland: Eibhlin O’Sullivan & John Ward 
• Portugal: Portuguese administration
• Spain: José Beltran
• Sweden: Reine Johansson 
• UK: Ian Gatt & DEFRA 

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Action items- general

• Submit possible discard causes/problems for all stocks before 15

November 2013 (Working Group I and II)

• Draft a short document on Atlanto-Scandian herring (Christian

Olesen) 

• Decide on meeting date in February as soon as possible

(Management Team) 

• Draft documents for priority 2 stocks and distribute them before

February meeting (Christian Olesen, Sean O’Donoghue, Verena Ohms) 

• Provide a list of various stocks identified as category 1, 2 or 3 at the

STECF discard meeting (Dominic Rihan) 

• Present STECF conclusions at Pelagic RAC February meeting (Dominic

Rihan)

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Action items- specific

Northeast Atlantic mackerel

• Update background information in draft document including charts from

the 2013 egg survey (Claus Reedtz-Sparrevohn) 

• Update catch data for 2012 (Claus Reedtz-Sparrevohn) 
• Decide whether to include 2013 catch predictions in draft document

(Christian Olesen)

• Correct draft documents regarding fisheries information (Everybody) 
• Update number of vessels for Portugal (Portuguese administration) 
• Submit data on allocation for handliners per Member State (Ian Gatt

together with DEFRA, Jean-Marie Robert, Bent Pallisgaard, Gerard van Balsfoort, José Beltran, Eibhlin O’Sullivan, Reine Johansson) 

• Formulate criteria in the introduction of the draft document regarding

when vessels will be included in the fisheries table (Sean O’Donoghue, Christian Olesen, Verena Ohms) 

• Liaise with Andrew Campbell regarding discard data (Sean O’Donoghue)
• Update discard information based on WGWIDE 2013 report (Claus

Reedtz-Sparrevohn) 

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Action items- specific

Northeast Atlantic mackerel

• Draft paragraph about usefulness of ITQ system to reduce discards and

decide at next meeting whether it will be included in the document or not (Sean O’Donoghue, Christian Olesen)

• Add flexigrid and fishmeal/oil production plants on board under solutions

to problem 5.2 pointing out the necessity for good control regarding the latter (Christian Olesen) 

• Follow research projects relating to the development of acoustic

equipment and other selectivity measures (Sean O’Donoghue, Gerard van Balsfoort)

• Address market regulation with Commission experts in terms of discard

problem (Dominic Rihan)

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

SLIDE 2

2

Action items- specific

North Sea autumn spawning herring

• Update background information in draft document (Claus Reedtz-

Sparrevohn) 

• Verify catch data for 2012 (Christian Olesen) 
• Deciding and formulating the relevant discard maps (Christian Olesen,

Verena Ohms, Dominic Rihan) 

• Report missing discard measures and problems/solutions before 1

November 2013 (Everybody) 

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Action items- specific

Western horse mackerel

• Follow-up on discard risk analysis with Maurice Clarke (Sean

O’Donoghue) 

• Include under problems mackerel bycatch including juvenile mackerel

due to a much higher mackerel stock than what science acknowledges (Christian Olesen) 

• Update background information in draft document including charts from

the 2013 egg survey (Claus Reedtz-Sparrevohn)

• Update catch for 2012 (Sean O’Donoghue, Verena Ohms) 
• Add sorting grid as solution under problems (Christian Olesen) 
• Suggest more flexibility regarding percentage in bycatch provision

under problems (Christian Olesen)

• Suggest to remove mesh size in the cod-end (Christian Olesen, Sean

O’Donoghue) 

• Add sorting machines under solutions (Christian Olesen) 

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Action items- specific

Boarfish

• Update background information in draft document (Claus Reedtz-

Sparrevohn) 

• Update catch data for 2012 (Claus Reedtz-Sparrevohn) 
• Ask Edd Farell for information on discards (Sean O’Donoghue) 
• Move boarfish from priority 1 to priority 2 list (Verena Ohms) 

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Discard plan

Content

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Fisheries
• 3. Information on existing discard data
• 4. Discard measures already in place
• 5. Problem areas and types of discards, solutions
• 6. Article 15 and 16 of the CFP
• 7. Implementation and control
• 8. Conclusions and recommendations

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Report from the 2nd STECF meeting & New requirements in articles 15 and 16 of the CPF in relation to pelagic stocks,

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Article 15 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Article 15, paragraph 4 The landing obligation shall not apply to: (a) species in respect of which fishing is prohibited and which are identified as such in a Union legal act adopted in the area of the CFP; (b) species for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates, taking into account the characteristics of the gear , of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem; (c) catches falling under de minimis exemptions.

SLIDE 3

3

Article 15 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

(b) species for which scientific evidence demonstrates high survival rates, taking into account the characteristics of the gear , of the fishing practices and of the ecosystem; But at the first STECF landing obligation meeting it was concluded that:

• “high survival rates” is a highly subjective term
• Scientific evidence is variable and often contradictory due to a

lack of standardized controlled experiments

• Extremely unlikely to identify fisheries and species with

high survival rates before landing obligation comes into force

Article 15 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Article 15, paragraph 5 c Provisions for de minimis exemptions of up to 5 % of total annual catches of all species subject to the landing obligation referred to in paragraph 1. The de minimis exemption shall apply in the following cases: (i) where scientific evidence indicates that increases in selectivity are very difficult to achieve; or (ii) to avoid disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches, for those fishing gears where unwanted catches per fishing gear do not represent more than a certain percentage, to be established in a plan, of total annual catch of that gear .

Article 15 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Pelagic RAC:

• No indications are given regarding criteria to be used to

determine the amount of the de minimis exemption

• No indications are given regarding when costs for handling

unwanted catch is disproportionate

• Unclear whether de minimis applies at Member State and

species level or across Member States and species Commission referred to STECF report, but STECF noted the same indistinctness:

• Interpretation of the exemption can have a significant impact on

its effect

• Conditionalities are highly subjective and metrics have to be

found which allow setting trigger levels

Article 15 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Article 15, paragraph 8 By way of derogation from the obligation to count catches against the relevant quotas in accordance with paragraph 1, catches of species that are subject to the landing obligation and that are caught in excess of quotas of the stocks in question, or catches of species in respect of which the Member State has no quota, may be deducted from the quota of the target species provided that they do not exceed 9 % of the quota of the target species. This provision shall only apply where the stock of the non-target species is within safe biological limits.

Article 15 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Pelagic RAC:

• What is the target species in a mixed fishery?
• How to perform the appropriate calculations?
• Does “safe biological limits” refer to the stock status before or

after the quota transfer?

• Is the existing 5% species flexibility, e.g. for western horse

mackerel, in the TAC and quota regulation additional to the 9% inter-species flexibility? Commission reply:

• “safe biological limits” refers to the stock status before the quota

transfer

• Analysis by STECF has shown that depending on the

interpretation and implementation of the inter-species flexibility effects can very greatly

Article 16 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Paragraph 2: When the landing obligation in respect of a fish stock is introduced, fishing opportunities shall be fixed taking into account the change from fixing fishing

• pportunities that reflect landings to fixing fishing
• pportunities that reflect catches, on the basis of the

fact that, for the first and subsequent years, discarding

• f that stock will no longer be allowed.

SLIDE 4

4

Article 16 of the CFP

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Pelagic RAC:

• Which methodology will be used when setting TACs
• nce the landing obligation comes into force?

Commission reply:

• ICES and STECF analysed catch data and classified

stocks based on the availability of data and discard rates

• This analysis will be used to develop a methodology

for the calculation of catch quotas

• Adjustment of TACs should not jeopardize MSY
• bjectives nor lead to an increase of fishing mortality

The PRAC discard plan so far

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

• Priority 1 stocks most advanced:
• Northeast Atlantic mackerel
• Western horse mackerel
• North Sea autumn spawning herring
• Still a lot of gaps to fill for priority 2 stocks:
• Background information for some stocks missing
• Not all fisheries tables are completed
• No information on discard data for most herring stocks

available

• Paragraph on the usefullness of ITQ systems missing
• Maps missing
• Problems and solutions not identified for all stocks
• Recommendations available for only 5 stocks

Northeast Atlantic mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 1: Whole-year fishery closure in ICES IIIa and IVb,c to protect North Sea component and juveniles has led to mackerel discards in non-directed fisheries, especially horse mackerel. Solution: An inter-species rule like it is known in the Western Waters – catches of certain other species may be registered against the horse mackerel quota under a 5% rule (boarfish, haddock, whiting and mackerel) – could solve

• r reduce the problem.

Northeast Atlantic mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 2: In the autumn, mackerel gathers in the North Sea before migrating to the spawning area southwest of the British Isles. The fishery follows the mackerel during this migration. Since the larger individuals are the first to leave the North Sea, the experience from the fishery is that the average size

• f the individuals in the catches falls through the season as the mackerel

gets closer and closer to the spawning area. This has led to some high- grading in the Western area. Solutions:

• a. The fishermen could take more advantage of the jigging technology that

gives an indication of the size composition before the net is shot. However, this is only possible in day-time and the fishery takes place in January with limited hours of daylight

• b. More effort could be put into fast-tracking the development of electronic

equipment that could give clear indication of the size composition in a shoal of mackerel

• c. For purse-seiners, adapting the Norwegian system which allows releasing

fish retained in the purse-seine until 7/8 of it has been retracted.

• d. Mackerel grids

Northeast Atlantic mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 3: In the North Sea mackerel appears occasionally as bycatch in the herring fisheries and if the percentage of mackerel is too high the catches – under the present Market Regulations – are not legal to land. This results in discard of the catches. Solutions:

• e. More effort could be put into fast-tracking the development of electronic

equipment that could give clear indication of the composition of species in a shoal of herring

• f. Change the Market Regulation and allow the catches to be landed.

However, the regulation that prohibits sorting machines on RSW vessels should be removed to allow the fishermen to land mackerel as mackerel and herring as herring and thus allow the fishermen to optimise the economic return from the landings.

• g. For purse-seiners, adapting the Norwegian system which allows releasing

fish retained in the purse-seine until 7/8 of it has been retracted.

• h. Allow fishmeal plants on board freezer-trawlers and RSW vessels

Northeast Atlantic mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 4: In the later years, fishermen have experienced a difference in the catches between the area inside the 12 mile zone around Shetland/Orkney islands and the area outside. The experience is that catches inside the zone often seem to be of better sizes and with less mixing with herring. This can result in increased discard outside the 12 mile zone. Solution:

• Problem 5:

In the later years, fishermen in the North Sea have experienced increased, although still minor, by-catches in the small mesh industrial fisheries, especially for sandeel and sprat. Solution: The 5% de minimis rule should be applied to mackerel caught in the industrial fisheries in the North Sea.

SLIDE 5

5

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Northeast Atlantic mackerel recommendations

The Pelagic RAC recommends the following initiatives:

• An inter-species rule like it is known in the Western Waters – catches of

certain other species may be registered against the horse mackerel quota under a 5% rule (boarfish, haddock, whiting and mackerel) – should be introduced in the fishery for horse mackerel in the North Sea.

• In EMFF, fast-tracking the development of electronic equipment that

could give clear indication of the composition of species in a shoal of herring should be prioritized

• Change the Market Regulation and allow the mixed catches to be landed.

However, the regulation that prohibits sorting machines on RSW vessels should be removed to allow the fishermen to land mackerel as mackerel and herring as herring and thus allow the fishermen to optimize the economic return from the landings.

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Northeast Atlantic mackerel recommendations

The Pelagic RAC recommends the following initiatives:

• For purse-seiners, adopt the Norwegian system which allows releasing

fish retained in the purse-seine until 7/8 of it has been retracted.

• Allow fishmeal plants on board freezer-trawlers and RSW vessels

Western horse mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 1: Boarfish appears frequently as bycatch when trawling for horse mackerel. Solution: A solution to avoid bycatch of boarfish in horse mackerel fishery could be to increase selectivity in the trawl using either sorting grids or selection panels. Problem 2: Boarfish appears frequently as bycatch when trawling for horse mackerel and freezers have until today discarded the boarfish Solution: A solution could be to allow the freezers to produce fishmeal / -oil from the unwanted catches or to allow freezers to produce silage from the unwanted catches.

Western horse mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 3: Juvenile mackerel is caught as bycatch in the directed horse mackerel fishery. Solution: Remove mesh size in the codend. (needs further clarification) Problem 4: The lack of mackerel quota is a huge problem in the horse mackerel fishery since mackerel is caught as bycatch and this problem is especially severe when the mackerel stock is at a high SSB, but quota are relatively low. Solution: Have sorting machines on board to investigate the survival rate with these machines.

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Western horse mackerel recommendations

The Pelagic RAC recommends the following initiatives:

• Scientific projects that examines whether
• the use of sorting grids and/or selections panels can help reduce

the bycatch of mackerel

• removal of the mesh size in the codend can help reduce the

bycatch of mackerel

• the survival rate of mackerel in case sorting machines are used
• n board the vessels is sufficiently high should be encouraged

and financed

• Allow production of fishmeal / -oil from the unwanted catches or

allow production of silage from the unwanted catches onboard freezer trawlers and RSW vessels.

North Sea autumn spawning herring problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 1: In the North Sea mackerel appears occasionally as bycatch in the herring fisheries and if the percentage of mackerel is too high the catches – under the present Market Regulations – are not legal to land. This results in discard of the catches. Solutions:

• a. More effort could be put into fast-tracking the development of electronic

equipment that could give clear indication of the composition of species in a shoal of herring

• b. Change the Market Regulation and allow the catches to be landed.

However, the regulation that prohibits sorting machines on RSW vessels should be removed to allow the fishermen to land mackerel as mackerel and herring as herring and thus allow the fishermen to optimise the economic return from the landings.

• c. For purse-seiners, adopting the Norwegian system which allows

releasing fish retained in the purse-seine until 7/8 of it has been retracted.

• d. Allow fishmeal plants on board freezer-trawlers and RSW vessels

SLIDE 6

6

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

North Sea autumn spawning herring recommendations

The Pelagic RAC recommends the following initiatives:

• In EMFF, fast-tracking the development of electronic equipment that

could give clear indication of the composition of species in a shoal of herring should be prioritized

• Change the Market Regulation and allow the mixed catches to be
• landed. However, the regulation that prohibits sorting machines on

RSW vessels should be removed to allow the fishermen to land mackerel as mackerel and herring as herring and thus allow the fishermen to optimize the economic return from the landings.

• For purse-seiners, adopt the Norwegian system which allows releasing

fish retained in the purse-seine until 7/8 of it has been retracted.

• Allow production of fishmeal / -oil from the unwanted catches or allow

production of silage from the unwanted catches on board freezer trawlers and RSW vessels.

Atlanto-Scandian herring problem and solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem No known problems with discards for this stock. However , in NEZ North of 62* bycatch of saithe does occur and causes problems for MS without quota for saithe. Solution An inter-species rule allowing bycatch of saithe in the herrring fishery to be counted against the herring quota would solve the problem. 1- 2% would suffice.

Atlanto-Scandian herring recommendations

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

The Pelagic RAC recommends that the Commission seeks an international agreement with Norway that introduces an inter-species arrangement for bycatch of saithe to be counted against the quota for Atlanto-Scandian herring.

Blue whiting problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 1: On-board French filleting vessels every fish caught must be filleted. However, due to bad weather conditions it can happen that some fish remains in the trunk too long before it can be filleted and gets damaged. This in turn has a negative effect on quality as well as food safety and therefore this fish must not be filleted. Solution: ? Problem 2: Some fish are too small to be filleted correctly. Blue whiting usually forms shoals of fish aged 3 years and older, which are all big enough to be filleted. Bigger fish usually stay at the bottom of a shoal and by operating the trawl at the lower part of the shoal it is possible to only catch the bigger fish. However, when shoals are very big there is more mixing between ages making it unavoidable to catch some fish that is too small to be filleted. Solution: ?

Blue whiting recommendations

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Boarfish problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

There are no known discard problems in the directed fishery for boarfish. However, boarfish appears as a by-catch in other fisheries; primarily fishery for horse mackerel. And in that fishery, the catches may be registered against the horse mackerel quota under the 5% ‘other species’ rule (boarfish, haddock, whiting and mackerel).

SLIDE 7

7

Boarfish recommendations

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Herring- Celtic Sea and South of Ireland problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Herring- Celtic Sea and South of Ireland recommendations Herring- Irish Sea problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Herring- Irish Sea recommendations Herring- VIa South and VIIb,c problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

SLIDE 8

8

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Herring- VIa South and VIIb,c recommendations Herring- West of Scotland (VIa North) problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Herring- West of Scotland (VIa North) recommendations Western Baltic spring spawning herring problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Western Baltic spring spawning herring recommendations North Sea horse mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

Problem 1: Whole-year fishery closure in ICES IIIa and IVb,c to protect North Sea component and juveniles of mackerel has led to discards of mackerel in non-directed fisheries, especially horse mackerel. Solution: An inter-species rule like it is known in the Western Waters – catches of certain other species may be registered against the horse mackerel quota under a 5% rule (boarfish, haddock, whiting and mackerel) – could solve or reduce the problem.

SLIDE 9

9

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

North Sea horse mackerel recommendations

The Pelagic RAC recommends the following initiative: An inter-species rule like it is known in the Western Waters – catches of certain other species may be registered against the horse mackerel quota under a 5% rule (boarfish, haddock, whiting and mackerel) – should be introduced in the fishery for horse mackerel in the North Sea.

Southern horse mackerel problems & solutions

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

?

Southern horse mackerel recommendations

Action plan for finalisation of Joint Working Group report

Future meetings

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

10 April: discard meeting May: Executive Committee meeting

AOB

Joint Working Group I and II meeting, 5 February 2014, The Hague, The Netherlands

SLIDE 10

10

Working Group I meeting, 30 June 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands

Thank you