Working Group I meeting, 13 September 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands Working Group I meeting, 30 June 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands
Working Group I meeting Chaired by Christian Olesen
13 September 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands
Working Group I meeting, 13 September 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands
Start of meeting
- Approval of the agenda
- Approval of the minutes of 30 June 2011
Working Group I meeting, 13 September 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands
Herring in IIIa (and 22-24) TACs
- TACs 2011:
- ICES advice 2012:
Management Objective (s) 22-24 IIIa Fleet F Fleet C Fleet D MSY Framework
20.9 26.4 3.4
Fsq*0.5
18.2 22.9 2.9
Fsq*0.59
21.4 27.0 3.4
Fsq*0.7
24.7 31.1 3.9
22-24 IIIa Fleet F Fleet C Fleet D
15.9 30.0 6.7 +31%
- 12%
Working Group I meeting, 13 September 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands
Herring in IIIa (and 22-24)
- PRAC recommendation?
– TAC 2012 – LTM plan
Working Group I meeting, 13 September 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands
North Sea herring advice
- TAC 2011 = 200 000 t
- Assumed catch in 2011 = 215 000 t (including
50% transfer from IIIa quota)
- SSB(2011) = 1 714 000 t (above Bpa, above
Btrig)
Management Objective (s) Landings in 2012 SSB in 2012 LTM plan (which invokes the 15% limit on TAC change) 230 kt 2013 kt The EU–Norway Harvest Control Rule as implemented within the management plan (no restriction on TAC change); this is also the
- ption for FMSY and Fpa
478 kt 1845 kt
Working Group I meeting, 13 September 2011, Leiden, The Netherlands
PRAC recommendation 22 July 2011
The PRAC requests that ICES is tasked to investigate a number of options:
– The present LTM plan – “Benchmarking” the 2012 TAC to F = FMSY after which the LTM plan is kept in tact. – The present LTM plan without the 15% IAV constraint. – The present LTM plan but without the exception for the 15% IAV constraint. (i.e. removal of
- par. 6).
– The present LTM plan with alternatives for “TAC-stabilisers”:
- A range of values for the rule (not only 15%) in combination with the choice whether or
not to apply the constraint above as well as below the SSB trigger point (e.g. possible application of the rule only above the trigger point).
- Introducing a different type of TAC-stabiliser similar to what is used for instance in the
LTM plan for Icelandic cod or horse mackerel, i.e. to set the TAC as a weighted average
- f the projected value according to a target F and the previous year’s TAC.
– The present LTM plan with a symmetrical derogation rule to the IAV constraint (new formulation of par. 6) allowing managers to adjust the TAC more then 15% when considered appropriate.