The North Sea Regional Advisory Council

Transcription

1 The North Sea Regional Advisory Council Demersal Working Group Agreed Record of Meeting February 22nd, 2006, Gdynia, Poland NSRAC Rapporteur: A D Hawkins Agreed Record for ExCom 1. Apologies & Welcome 1.1 There was an apology from Flemming Kristensen. The Chair of the Demersal WG Barrie Deas welcomed representatives Poul Degnbol & Constantin Alexandrou of the Commission to the meeting. 2. Report of the Meeting held in Brussels on 16 th November The record of the meeting was agreed without further amendment. 3. Action Points 3.1 Front-loading had not materialised during 2005, and there had been a serious lack of input from the Commission into the work of the NSRAC. Front-loading is an important issue. The UK Presidency had circulated a note to the Commission and Member States on future timetabling. It proposes circulation in July of proposals with respect to the ICES May and October advice. 3.2 The Commission representatives informed the WG that the Commission was developing new proposals for the timetable, with mid-year agreement on all stocks for which there was final advice. Preliminary proposals for the remaining stocks (some of which awaited the results of autumn surveys) were being developed. The Commission did not want to reopen discussions on all stocks in November. 3.3 It was agreed that there was a conflict between closing discussions on particular species and considering the latest advice. Some fishers wondered whether a new timetable was even feasible. However the Commission will try to make a start in rescheduling this year with the aim of adopting a new timetable in It was pointed out that for some species, like the cod, proposals could come forward based on last year s assessments. For shorter-lived species the stock Demersal WG Agreed Record Page 1 03/04/2006

2 biomass was very dependent on recent recruitment and data from 2005 could not be used to decide allowable catches in Thus the proposals from the UK were acceptable for species like the cod, but might be less appropriate for other stocks, like the herring and perhaps the haddock, which needed to be reevaluated later in the year. Long-term management plans may be based on a threshold for fishing mortality (F). The TACs decided upon will be linked to the stock biomass at the beginning of the year and it would be important to get this biomass right. The WG agreed that different species required different approaches. It would certainly be possible to change the TACs mid-year for fisheries which started mid-year, like Bay of Biscay sole. Other fisheries required the current timetable to remain as it was. Michel Goujon agreed to prepare a discussion paper outlining possible timetables for a range of North Sea species and fisheries. 3.4 The UK observer welcomed the need to allow fishers advance notice of TACs and other measures to allow them to make business plans. That had been the purpose of the discussion paper. However, countries like Norway, Iceland & the Faroe Islands had to be persuaded of the merits. The TACs to be agreed with them are decided on the basis of assessments released in October. Many stocks are now shared with others. The Commission agreed that the bilateral discussions were important. Norway may not accept a split between different stocks. Moreover, the list of joint stocks is becoming longer and longer. We had to avoid disadvantaging our negotiations with other parties. 3.5 Some fishers thought we should seek to change the system. Even Norway had to agree that there were advantages to be gained from front-loading. However, scientists urged caution and pointed out that the assessments were already outof-date. Did we really want to move to a timetable where the assessments are 18 months or two years out of date? The Commission also asked whether fishers simply wanted more time from front-loading or whether they had specific biological or other objectives. It was agreed that Michel Goujon would consider these issues in his discussion paper. 4. Cod recovery measures 4.1 The Executive Secretary of the NSRAC had written to the Commission seeking a review of the cod recovery plan, echoing similar suggestions from ICES and STECF. Commissioner Borg has now announced that there will be a review. A communication on this topic is being prepared. The Commission view was that the plan had to be revised if was to have a chance of being implemented. 4.2 The Chair of the WG said that the fundamental issues had been encapsulated in two recent articles in the ICES Newsletter, which pointed in different directions for cod. The Commission believed that the most important factor affecting cod was fishing and that further reductions in fishing mortality upon cod were necessary for cod to recover. The Commission believed that cod could recover rapidly if fishing pressure was reduced. In contrast, others believed that changes in ocean climate did not favour cod, and that recovery was not guaranteed if fishing pressure was reduced. There was inconsistency between these two views and the position of cod should be reconsidered. It was important to evaluate the Demersal WG Agreed Record Page 2 03/04/2006

3 benefits which had or had not been gained as a result of the major effort reductions which had taken place and which had placed a severe burden upon fishers. It was also important to evaluate the merits of technical measures aimed at reducing the capture of cod. There appeared to be a view that the measures adopted had not reduced fishing mortality upon cod. Where did the truth lie? 4.3 Fishers pointed to the great benefits that both effort reductions and technical measures had brought for species other than cod. Saithe, whiting and Nephrops had all shown benefits, and fishing mortality on haddock had also been reduced as a result of the measures adopted. We should lose our obsession with restoring cod quickly to its previous levels and adopt a more holistic approach which considered all fish and shellfish stocks. Environmental NGOs agreed that a more holistic approach was needed. It was important to integrate ecosystem research into stock assessment. We should be harvesting in a sustainable way and not attempting to manage stock by stock. 4.4 Scientists stressed that the ICES article on environmental change and cod was referring to quite large temperature changes occurring over a long time scale. Climate change might eventually result in fewer cod but they will grow faster. Cod recovery can be achieved but fishing mortality for cod has still not come down sufficiently to allow cod biomass to recover. Some scientists and the Commission thought that although effort reductions had taken place they may not have achieved a significant reduction in cod catches. They believed that the data on landings of cod were poor. The scientific advice remained that there was a further need to reduce F for cod. Development of a long term plan was especially relevant here. Under the current regime the Commission was seeking a 30% increase in cod biomass year on year. That target involved a very large progressive reduction in F. Under a long term plan the target might be less stringent. 4.5 Fishers pointed to the role of seals in causing additional mortality of cod. Seals should be considered in any revision of the plan for cod. 4.6 The Scottish observer summarised the position as managers saw it. The scientific advice from ICES and STECF is that cod is recoverable and that fishing mortality has to be decreased to achieve the recovery. There appears to be no new evidence coming forward to support the idea that reductions in F are not necessary. If ICES and STECF continue to maintain their viewpoint what will the response of the NSRAC be? STECF, the Commission & Member States would welcome the views of the NSRAC. 4.7 The Commission representatives made it clear that any long term management plan for cod had to be agreed with Norway, and could only be implemented when progress had been achieved with cod recovery. The cod recovery plan is essentially being reviewed to determine how it can be made more effective. 4.8 It was agreed that a drafting group would prepare advice from the NSRAC on the re-evaluation of the cod recovery plan for consideration by the WG and the ExCom. Michael Park, Michael Anderson, Michel Goujon, Arnold Locker, John Nichols and Chris Darby would prepare a draft which would evaluate the impact Demersal WG Agreed Record Page 3 03/04/2006

4 of different gear categories upon cod. The draft will need to capture all the issues. 5. Revision of the Technical Conservation Regulation 5.1 The Commission is seeking views on the revision of the Technical Conservation Regulation. Some fishers believed that simplification of the regulation is an important aspect. The idea that a general regulation can be written to cover all eventualities should be questioned. Michel Goujon presented the views of French fishers. The revision should concentrate on technical measures. It should not consider stock restoration, or effort management measures. The new regulation should operate at two levels. There should be a general framework, but to avoid the need for derogations there should be a set of fisheries-specific management procedures. Individual fisheries could be defined through a combination of species exploited, fishing grounds, gears and fishing communities, and also through the TACs, gear specifications and effort management measures which applied to them. The framework regulation should be concerned with general measures like minimum landing sizes, the permitted gears and rules for selectivity. The fishery specific measures would be concerned with detailed gear specifications and the definition of selectivity devices. The Commission non-paper drew attention to the conflict between the regionalisation of measures and the need for simplification. Applying the same general rule to all fisheries in all regions is not possible. Regionally specific measures would be necessary, and fishers themselves should be involved in defining the fisheries-specific rules. The RACs had been established to bring all the fishers from within a regional sea together. RACs were the right place to identify fisheries management units and to advise on appropriate technical measures. 5.2 It was pointed out by other fishers that regionalisation can achieve simplification. Species composition within a fishery was a important factor in determining technical measures. Ideally species composition should be set for the point of landing, but this could result in discarding at sea. 5.3 The Commission representative remarked that the non-paper had so far produced little response. A more specific non-paper is being prepared. Dialogue on this regulation would be an important test for interaction with the RACs. Comments were still required on the first non-paper. However, the second nonpaper would provide further opportunity to engage in discussion with the Commission. 5.4 There was agreement that the RACs should concentrate on the more general aspects of the regulation. In particular, the RACs could help to define the key fisheries. Comment on the more detailed proposals would have to involve the fishers concerned, many of whom object strongly to the current technical measures and to their complexity. It might be better for the NSRAC to collate fishers comments for the different fisheries within the North Sea than to leave it to ACFA. However, both defining the fisheries and deciding on the measures appropriate to each fishery would be a difficult task. Demersal WG Agreed Record Page 4 03/04/2006

5 5.5 The WG agreed that within each fishery a bottom-up approach was necessary to decide on appropriate measures and inappropriate measures. The initial analysis had to take place within each Member State. The NSRAC could then play a co-ordinating role for the North Sea. Member State observers supported this approach. 6. Workshop on Long Term Management Plans 6.1 A Workshop would be held in Edinburgh on March 2 nd and 3 rd to develop criteria for long term management plans. The NSRAC had already begun to develop its own ideas on questions of long term management. A focus group had considered how to move towards a system of low fishing mortality but high yields. The purpose of the Workshop and the associated DEFRA funded project was to take the preliminary steps towards the achievement of long term management plans for North Sea fisheries. The Workshop would review the scientific, technical and economic background and present proposals for discussion and elaboration. The outcome of the Workshop would be a report which would enable the NSRAC to develop its own plans for the long term management of the main demersal fisheries within the North Sea. A document describing the project had been circulated. 6.2 Two case studies had been suggested for closer examination at the Workshop; the flatfish fishery in the southern North Sea and the Nephrops fishery in the northern North Sea. Scots fishers requested that the Nephrops case study should be replaced by the haddock fishery, as the latter provided a more suitable example, and this substitution was agreed by the WG. 6.3 Some elements of long term management plans for North Sea species had already been agreed between the Commission and Norway. These would need to be taken into account. Some fishers were concerned whether the Commission would heed any suggestions coming forward from the RACs. It seemed that the Commission wished to develop its own proposals. Nevertheless, it was important for the NSRAC to develop its own ideas and present these to the Commission, rather than simply complain about Commission proposals. The report of the NSRAC project will be completed by the end of March and will be circulated directly to members of the WG and members of the ExCom, so that the NSRAC could begin to formulate its proposals. 7. Wind-farms in the North Sea 7.1 John Nichols of the Thanet Fishermen s Association said that many wind-farms were being planned for the North Sea. Several would affect fisheries in the area he fished, in the outer Thames Estuary and along the Southeast coast of England. They were being constructed or proposed in sensitive areas for fishermen and there were concerns that sound and vibration and electromagnetic fields from them would affect fish and fisheries adversely. The wind-farms should be sited in less sensitive areas. Nigel Proctor of the European Angler s Alliance gave an overview of the current procedures applied to the evaluation of fish resources for windfarms in the UK and highlighted the deficit in comparison to the Demersal WG Agreed Record Page 5 03/04/2006

6 seabird and migratory birds evaluation. He undertook to provide information on the electromagnetic effects on electro-sensitive species such as elasmobranches (Cowrie research) and evidence on other impacts from the Horns Rev site (Denmark), provide a copy of the guidance for biological assessments (DTI) and other relevant information. 7.2 Danish, German and French fishers shared John Nichol s concern. Observers from the Member States would mention this concern to their departments. 7.3 The WG agreed that the issues over the siting of wind-farms would be passed to the Spatial Planning WG for closer consideration. That Working Group had been established to examine different uses of marine space. Chris Darby would see what advice was available from within CEFAS to supplement that to be provided by Nigel Proctor. Michael Andersen would also see what was available from Danish sources, where wind-farms were an established fact. 8. AOB 8.1 French fishers had concerns over fisheries in the English Channel. Area IVc is very similar to Area VIId, yet different measures applied to some fisheries in these areas. They would come forward with proposals for the weekend closure of certain fisheries in these areas at the next WG meeting 8.2 The date of the next meeting would be decided by the Chair in consultation with members. It would precede the next meeting of the Executive Committee, due to take place in Den Helder, the Netherlands on 15 June Action Points 1. A discussion paper will be prepared, outlining possible timetables Michel Goujon for TAC decisions on a range of North Sea species and fisheries. The paper will consider whether fishers simply wish more time for front-loading or whether they have specific biological or other objectives (3.3). 2. A drafting group will prepare advice from the NSRAC on the reevaluation of the cod recovery plan for consideration by the WG Drafting Group and the ExCom, taking account of the impact of different gear categories upon cod and other aspects (4.8). 3. Initial analysis for the revision of the Technical Conservation WG Chair to Measures Regulation should take place within each Member State. discuss with The NSRAC would be able then to play a co-ordinating role for the Member State North Sea (5.5). representatives 4. The report of the NSRAC Workshop on long term management Project Coordinators & plans will be completed by the end of March and will be circulated directly to members of the WG and members of the ExCom, so Rapporteur that the NSRAC can quickly develop its own plans for the long term management of the main demersal fisheries within the North Sea (6.3). Demersal WG Agreed Record Page 6 03/04/2006

7 5. Issues over the siting of wind-farms will be passed to the Spatial Planning WG for closer consideration. Advice and information will also be sought on the impact of wind-turbines on fish and fisheries (7.3). 6. French fishers will come forward with proposals for the weekend closure of certain fisheries in areas IVc & VIId at the next WG meeting (8.1). 7. The next meeting of the WG will precede the ExCom and will take place in Den Helder, the Netherlands, on the 15 June Chair of Spatial Planning WG, Michael Andersen, Chris Darby, Nigel Proctor French fishers WG Chair & Secretariat 10. In Attendance Barrie Deas (Chair) Tony Hawkins Karsten Kristensen Michael Andersen Nigel Proctor Peter Breckling Poul Degnbol Constantin Alexandrou Pierre-Georges Dachicourt Michel Goujon Anna Zaradna Christine Szot Barbara Strathern Bertie Armstrong Mike Park Arnold Locker P John E Nichols Nathalie Steins Chris Darby Iria Soto Christine Absil Jarek Zielinski Gerard von Balsfoort Pim Visser Willem de Boer Barbara Schoute National Federation of Fishermen s Organisations NSRAC Rapporteur European Transport Worker s Federation Danish Fishermen s Association European Angler s Alliance VDKK European Commission European Commission CNPMEM CNPMEM DEFRA DEFRA Scottish Executive Scottish Fishermen s Association Scottish Fishermen s Association National Federation of Fishermen s Organisations Thanet Fishermen s Association Dutch Fishermen s Organisation CEFAS MAPA Spain NSF/Seas at Risk PAOP Dutch Fishermen s Organisation EAFPA Dutch Fishermen s Federation Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries, the Netherlands Demersal WG Agreed Record Page 7 03/04/2006