Pelagic AC. Working Group II meeting 5 October :00-18:10 hrs Parkhotel Molenstraat 53, 2513 BJ Den Haag

Transcription

1 Pelagic AC meeting 5 October :00-18:10 hrs Parkhotel Molenstraat 53, 2513 BJ Den Haag The Netherlands Louis Braillelaan EK Zoetermeer The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) info@pelagic-ac.org Website: Participants 1 Sean O Donoghue, chairman Killybegs Fishermen s Organisation 2 Alex Wiseman Scottish Fishermen s Federation 3 Anne-Mette Baek Jespersen EU Fishmeal 4 Aukje Coers Cornelis Vrolijk 5 Bauke de Vries Pelagic AC 6 Bent Pallisgaard Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Denmark 7 Carl Jesper Hermansen Danish Fishermen Organisation 8 Carmen Fernandez ICES 9 Claus Reedtz Sparrevohn Danish Pelagic Producer Organisation 10 Edward Farrell University College Dublin 11 Emil Remisz North Atlantic Producers Organisation 12 Eric Roeleveld Jaczon 13 Esben Sverdrup-Jensen Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation 14 Fredrik Lindberg Swedish Fishermen s Federation 15 Gerard van Balsfoort Pelagic Freezer Trawler Association 16 Gersom Costas Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia 17 Goncalo Carvalho Pew Charitable Trusts 18 Ian Gatt Scottish Pelagic Fishermen s Association 19 Inge van der Knaap Pelagic Freezer Trawler Association 20 Jerome Nouis Union des armateurs a la pêche de France 21 Jesper Juul Larsen Danish Fishermen Organisation 22 John Anderson Scottish Fishermen s Organisation 23 John Ward Irish Fish PO 24 Joost Paardekooper European Commission DG MARE 25 José Beltran OPLUGO 26 Justyna Zajchowska The Pew Charitable Trusts 27 Ken Whelan Atlantic Salmon Trust 28 Lauren Ferrari Marine Scotland 29 Lesley Duthie North Sea Women s Network 30 Lotte Huisman Seas at Risk 31 Ludmilla van der Meer Pelagic AC 32 Manuela Azevedo Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera 33 Maria Aira Martin Shetland Fishermen s Association Page 1 of 16

2 34 Martin Pastoors Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association 35 Matthew Cox National Federation of Fishermen s Organisation 36 Patrick Murphy Irish South & West PO 37 Reine Johansson Swedish Fishermen s Federation 38 Rob Pronk W van der Zwan 39 Robert Griffin European Commission DG MARE 40 Romain Soisson From Nord 41 Steve Mackinson Scottish Pelagic Fishermen s Association 42 Thomas Brunel IMARES 43 Verena Ohms Pelagic AC 44 Victor Simoncelli Marine Stewardship Council 45 Wietze Kampen European Transport Worker s Federation 46 William Stewart European Fisheries Control Agency 1. Opening of the meeting by the chairman, Sean O Donoghue The chairman opened the meeting at 13:00 hrs pointing out that the meeting was running behind schedule and asked people to keep their interventions short and to the point. 2. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. 3. Follow-up on action items The first two action items were in relation to (non-quantitative) stakeholder information and the rules for including it in the ICES advice and will be addressed at the MIACO meeting in In regards to Irish Sea herring the chairman was informed by Alan McCulla that he is working on the development of a management strategy, but there are difficulties with the assessment which have to be resolved. The TAC recommendation from the Working Group to the Executive Committee would be dealt with the following day. In relation to Celtic Sea herring Frederik Schutyser had promised to check whether the Commission has ever proposed a TAC based on a management strategy that has not gone through co-decision. Since Frederik Schutyser has left DG MARE the chairman asked the other Commission representatives whether they would be able to comment on this issue. Joost Paardekooper said that there are different kinds of management strategies. There are some very specific strategies laid down in multiannual plans which were adopted before 2009, i.e. before multiannual plans had to be adopted through co-decision. There are other management strategies which the Commission used to base its TAC proposal on that have not gone through co-decision. This is the case for stocks which are jointly managed with other countries, e.g. mackerel. He pointed out that in the past the Commission has been very open to considering alternative strategies coming from stakeholders. So, there are many examples where the TAC is not based on a plan that has been agreed through co-decision. He was not sure if the Parliament was too happy with the approach taken by the Commission, but the Commission has always tried to apply different mechanisms in a reasonable way. Page 2 of 16

3 The chairman acknowledged that the Commission has been very consistent in basing its TAC proposal on the Pelagic AC s management strategy, but always asks ICES not to use the plan for the top line of the advice. Instead ICES is being instructed to use MSY for the top line of the advice and the chairman considered this inappropriate, because it causes huge problems on the fishing grounds. The MSY figure is usually considerably higher and some fishermen therefore accuse the Pelagic AC of being too precautionary. He therefore asked the Commission again to ask ICES to use the management strategy as top line for the advice. The next action items were in relation to herring in 6.a and 7.b-c. Steve Mackinson and Martin Pastoors liaised with ICES in regards to the industry acoustic surveys and more information would be presented later at the meeting. Edward Farrell would also present a brief update on the genetics study. In regards to funding for the genetics work Gerard van Balsfoort emphasized that the Northern Pelagic Working Group (NPWG) wanted to continue with the project and in principle decided to continue, but the NPWG also wanted to know from University College Dublin (UCD) what the state of affairs is by the end of the year and if the trajectory is promising. He said that the NPWG needed some confirmation in that regard. The chairman concluded that this was a fair decision and pointed out that Edward Farrell will provide an update later that day which should confirm that it is worth continuing with the project. He added that Edward Farrell will also include an overview of expected costs in his presentation. Another action item was to ask the Commission and Member States to include genetic sampling in the Data Collection Framework. However, before this can be done a protocol has to be established first and Edward Farrell has already promised to help with that. Robert Griffin said that it had to be clear what should be achieved with the genetic sampling before it can be included in the Data Collection Framework. The chairman said that is the reason why the herring Focus Group was planning to design a protocol with assistance from Edward Farrell. Once this protocol is in place the Pelagic AC will ask ICES to have a workshop on this. The next action items was to arrange a survey meeting for area 6.a South and 7.b-c and this meeting was scheduled for the following day. The last action item for this stock was to include a benchmark request in the MoU between ICES and the Commission. At the last meeting Frederik Schutyser indicated that the Commission is positive about the request and Robert Griffin confirmed that the request has been included in the MoU. Regarding Northeast Atlantic mackerel the chairman pointed out that the draft management strategy developed by the Coastal States will be evaluated by ICES in 2017 as part of the benchmark. Carmen Fernandez clarified that ICES' intention was to take into account possible revisions to the assessment occurring at the benchmark when carrying out the management strategy evaluations. That does not necessarily mean that both will be done in the same meeting. In relation to Southern horse mackerel the chairman announced that a presentation will be given later on progress made towards designing a management strategy. In terms of the discard plan amendment put forward by the South Western Waters regional group he said that no common position has yet been agreed, but he hoped to resolve the issue at this meeting. A focus group meeting for Western horse mackerel was held in the previous week and a brief update on the groundfish survey modelling would be presented later today. In terms of photographic analysis of catches the chairman recalled that Aukje Coers has already referred to this during Working Group I. Page 3 of 16

4 The last action item concerned the boarfish closures. Despite the Pelagic AC's recommendation to implement them through the North Western Waters pelagic discard plan as advised by the Commission the regional group refused to do so. Given the generally difficult relationship with the regional groups the Management Team decided to ask for a meeting with the regional groups facilitated by the Commission to discuss how the situation could be improved. The issue of the boarfish closures has been added to the topics to be discussed at this meeting. 4. Fishing opportunities 2017: presentation of ICES advice by Carmen Fernandez The chairman invited Carmen Fernandez to present the ICES advice for Northeast Atlantic mackerel Carmen Fernandez said that the IBTS recruitment index was used incorrectly in the 2015 mackerel assessment. Therefore ICES has provided a corrected catch advice for 2016 based on the corrected 2015 assessment. This resulted in a 14% upward revision of SSB in 2015 and a 3% downward revision of fishing mortality in 2014 relative to the advice released in September Following the MSY approach this led to a corrected catch advice of no more than tonnes for The advice for 2017 also follows the MSY approach implying catches of no more than tonnes. Measures to protect the North Sea spawning component should remain. SSB increased since the early 2000s and has been above MSY Btrigger since Fishing mortality is currently above Fmsy and there have been several large year classes since The triennial egg survey carried out in 2016 provides a lower index compared to 2013 while the IESSNS survey indices are higher in 2016 than in SSB estimates from this year s assessment are closer to those from the 2014 assessment than from the corrected 2015 assessment. Carmen Fernandez pointed out that there will be a data evaluation workshop in the autumn preceding the benchmark in If people were interested in attending this workshop they should register rather soon. Regarding discards Carmen Fernandez said that they are assumed to be less than 1%. However, thinking about comments made earlier by Gerard van Balsfoort she said that if anyone felt that ICES is missing important discard data, then the data evaluation workshop would be a good moment to bring this forward. The chairman said that ICES has to be commended for correcting the error in last year's assessment. At the same time, however, he was questioning the quality control process to make sure such errors do not occur. He was aware that this can easily happen with such large data sets and therefore recommended that ICES established a thorough control procedure. Carmen Fernandez responded that ICES always tries to be very careful and always performs audits of the assessments, meaning that someone carries out the assessment while someone else doublechecks what has been done. Simple mistakes like copy/paste errors can happen and are easily corrected by double-checking. ICES will try to keep minimizing errors. The chairman agreed that it is normal that errors happen, but any manufacturing process has a robust quality control system and he was concerned about the ICES quality control system, because it did not work in this case. In regards to the contrasting survey signals he said that a 60% difference is very large and he wanted to know if ICES was satisfied with the egg survey and considered it complete, because the survey results do not corroborate what people see on the fishing grounds. He expected a higher egg survey result and was wondering whether there was too much pressure between finishing the survey and the start of the Working Group. Carmen Fernandez said that the survey was described in the Advice Drafting Group and she did not recall anyone suspecting a problem with the survey. It was quite long starting in February and finishing Page 4 of 16

5 in July and people felt that the survey worked well and that the results were as expected. Fecundity studies are not yet finalized and fully incorporated. So, there could be some revisions next year. She asked whether the chairman expected an upwards revision of the index. The chairman replied that the last two times there have been revisions due to lack of time and whether these revisions are upward or downward they do have an effect. John Ward wanted to know if the revised catch figure for 2016 has been banked. He was not aware that it has been passed down to the catching sector. The chairman explained that the agreed TAC between the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands is higher than the revised ICES advice which should answer the question. He said that the revised advice was published by ICES on 20 September, but many people were not aware of this and he suggested coming up with a system to make people aware of revised advice documents. Gerard van Balsfoort agreed that it was difficult to really target the right area and time with the egg survey. Last year the industry carried out a pre egg survey thanks to which the real egg survey has been adapted. However, he still felt that people were missing part of the eggs and maybe the distribution of the eggs was different this year. He wanted people to think about that. Regarding the management strategy put forward, Norway and Faroe Islands he said that it is very unfortunate that ICES will only evaluate it in 2017 whereas the Coastal States will already deal with it in a few weeks from now. He also noticed that the management strategy was included in the catch options table even though ICES has not yet evaluated the strategy. He was very unhappy that the management strategy evaluation has been postponed until 2017 given that the Coastal States need the advice already this fall. Carmen Fernandez confirmed that the management strategy has been included in the catch options table even though ICES has not yet evaluated it. As far as she knew ICES received the request to evaluate this strategy at the end of last year. However, given that ICES had already scheduled the benchmark for 2017 it seemed unreasonable to evaluate the management strategy before the benchmark since it would have to be done again after the benchmark. ICES communicated this to NEAFC and NEAFC accepted the argument. Esben Sverdrup-Jensen remembered that there had been quite a few discussions on safe biological limits. Back in 2015 the stock was outside safe limits and he wanted to know if the stock is back inside safe limits in 2017 and possibly also in 2016 given the updated advice. He pointed out that this was very relevant for the inter-species flexibility. Carmen Fernandez said that as far as she knew ICES does not have a definition of safe biological limits. In only has a table that classifies a stock according to its reference points. However, she promised to double-check. Regarding SSB there is no issue, because the stock is above the trigger point. Regarding fishing mortality there is a problem, because F is above Fmsy i. Western horse mackerel The ICES advice for Western horse mackerel is based on MSY resulting in no more than tonnes. The stock seems dependent on occasional high recruitment which has been low since SSB is currently at the lowest value observed. Fishing mortality has increased after 2007 and is now around Fmsy. There is a large uncertainty in the stock assessment given that the only fishery-independent information is from the triennial egg survey. The egg survey in 2016 led to a downward revision of SSB estimates since the early 2000s. With SSB at the lowest in the time series and limited recruitment information it is difficult to predict stock development. Even if there were zero catches in 2017 the stock would fall below the MSY Btrigger. The substantial decrease in catch advice for 2017 compared to Page 5 of 16

6 2016 is mainly because SSB in 2017 is estimated to be considerably lower than SSB in 2016 was estimated last year. Therefore fishing mortality is reduced to a value lower than Fmsy. Gerard van Balsfoort emphasized the importance to develop a management plan for this stock, because following the MSY advice is like being on a roller coaster. Last year the catch advice increased considerably, this year it decreased and who knows what it will look like next year. José Beltran agreed with Gerard van Balsfoort on the need for a management plan. He said that as the years go by and the Pelagic AC works on a new management plan the TACs decrease further and further. He said that the situation for the fleet in area 8 is quite complicated and he wanted to know if ICES takes into account discards in that area, because the proposed stock decline as suggested by ICES is not something fishermen observe in the southern region. He pointed out that there are certain fleets that discard horse mackerel, e.g. the purse-seine fleet under the high survivability exemption, but thought that these data were not taken into account by ICES and he did not know what the total discards were. Carmen Fernandez said that it was her understanding that it is being acknowledged that some discarding takes place and that it can only be quantified for some part of the fishery. It is not believed to be major though. Whatever information ICES has is included in the assessment. Martin Pastoors said that the treatment of the fishery is very much divided into demersal and pelagic, but there are discards of one in the other and vice versa. Generally people report pelagic discards to the pelagic Working Groups and demersal discards to the demersal Working Groups, but they should be reported to all groups. Southern horse mackerel The ICES catch advice for Southern horse mackerel follows the MSY approach implying catches of no more than tonnes. All reference points for this stock have been calculated this year. Carmen Fernandez said that the stock will be benchmarked next year and there could be some revision to the reference points, but for the moment everything looked good. Fishing at Fmsy would lead to an increase in F by a factor of 2.5. While from a sustainability point of view this is certainly possible not increasing F to Fmsy immediately could allow spreading the yield over a longer period of time and provide more stability. José Beltran said that there is a mixing of fish between area 9 and area 8.c, i.e. between the Southern and the Western stock. He therefore wanted to know whether it would be possible to determine the percentage of fish moving from area 9 into area 8 and vice versa. Given that the Southern stock is doing so well he was wondering if part of that stock is migrating into area 8. Carmen Fernandez could not answer the question, but said that stock ID will be addressed at the upcoming benchmark although not all horse mackerel stocks are dealt with by the same benchmark. She was not sure about any recent developments in regards to stock ID for horse mackerel other than that the benchmark will look into this. At this point the chairman invited Manuela Azevedo to present the latest developments in regards to a management strategy for Southern horse mackerel. Manuela Azevedo said that following the presentation she gave at the Pelagic AC meeting in February and the ICES Working Group meeting in July the analysis has been updated using the latest assessment and finally reference points have been adopted for the stock. Subsequently some simulations have been run using an operating model. This model used biological components and fishing as well as productivity uncertainty to simulate a population on which a stock Page 6 of 16

7 assessment was performed using the current assessment model. She also tried to mimic assessment uncertainty. The outcome was the current perception of the stock status to which subsequently the harvest control rule was applied resulting in a TAC which in turn will have an influence on the future stock. The harvest control rule itself was already discussed in the Pelagic AC in February and afterwards in the SWWAC. Southern horse mackerel is caught in a mixed fishery and stakeholders said that they wanted to consider a very low F for bycatch in case the stock ever gets depleted. In terms of management scenarios Manuela Azevedo presented three options: business as usual and two TAC management scenarios. In one of those the TAC of the current year will be based on the TAC of the previous year +/- 15% (TAC scenario), in the other one it will be based on the catch of the previous year +/- 15% (catch scenario). In terms of stock dynamics each scenario has been considered with strong year classes and without strong year classes. The simulations have been projected from 2017 to The results of the simulations indicate that the trajectory of both the TAC scenario and the catch scenario are very similar, but the scale is different. Under the catch scenario there will be a gradual increase in the TAC, because so far catch has always remained well below the TAC. In the TAC scenario there will be a sharp increase to Fmsy which subsequently levels off. Both scenarios are precautionary with and without strong year classes and the main conclusion is that both scenarios have very similar results in the long term and only differ in the short term. Manuela Azevedo then asked several questions to stakeholders regarding the assumptions on the intermediate year. At the moment scientists assume that fishing mortality this year will be similar to fishing mortality in However, is that realistic considering that the TAC has been set much higher? On the other hand, this has been the case for many years for this stock. Scientists needed guidance on how to model the intermediate year and how to do so in the future, because if the TAC is fully fished, this will make a big difference. Another aspect to think about is when to reach the fishing mortality target, i.e. in 2017 or at a later point? Stakeholders might prefer a more gradual increase in which case the target should be met in a later year. Selectivity could also change due to the sardine crisis leading to an effort transfer to horse mackerel and the Western horse mackerel crisis leading to an effort transfer of the Spanish fleet from area 8.c to area 9. Will this pattern continue and if yes for how long? If there are changes in selectivity this will have an impact on reference points, but also stock dynamics. In terms of management options which one should be chosen and should the +/-15 % constraint remain or should it be changed to a different number? Should it be symmetrical or asymmetrical? Are there other aspects that should be taken into account? Regarding the Fbycatch Manuela Azevedo pointed out that it would have to be very low, probably amounting to tonnes. This would be to insure that other fisheries will not be stopped if Southern horse mackerel ever falls below Blim. The chairman thanked Manuela Azevedo for her presentation and said that she raised a significant number of questions which cannot all be answered today. He therefore suggested that José Beltran, as main stakeholder, will convene with his colleagues under the auspices of the Pelagic AC and decide about the choices to be made. The bycatch level seemed a very good idea too. The chairman asked José Beltran to report back at the Pelagic AC meeting in February and to present an agreed draft management strategy at that meeting. José Beltran agreed with this suggestion and explained that he, Manuela Azevedo and Gersom Costas are already working on a survey to be sent to stakeholders to collect their responses to the different questions. Some of the stakeholders are not members of the Pelagic AC, but of the SWWAC and he was willing to liaise with the SWWAC too. He was hoping to have a meeting before November and to submit some tangible results before the benchmark. Page 7 of 16

8 The chairman thanked Jose Beltran for his initiative and appreciated all his efforts. He also hoped that he would be able attend the data evaluation workshop together with Goncalo Carvalho and Verena Ohms. He thanked Manuela Azevedo again for her presentation. Martin Pastoors considered it unfortunate that southern horse mackerel is in a different ICES group than the other horse mackerel stocks. Apart from the concern on fishing mortality he said that people also had to look at natural mortality which is much higher for this stock. Therefore, the suggestion on being more moderate on increasing fishing mortality means that this part of the biomass is left in the sea for something else and he was not sure if ICES has considered that. Manuela Azevedo said that the decision of having Southern horse mackerel in the same groups as sardine is because of the commonality of the fishery and the ecosystem. However, both groups have agreed to have a common WebEx meeting in January with colleagues involved in the benchmarks of all horse mackerel stocks to address some common aspects. Boarfish The ICES advice for boarfish follows the precautionary approach and stipulates that catches should be no more than tonnes in Boarfish is a category 3 stock with an exploratory assessment indicative of trends. Stock status relative to potential reference points is unknown, but the assessment indicates that stock biomass has sharply declined in recent years and is now at the lowest observed in the time series. The assessment uses several survey indices: one from an acoustic survey that does not fully contain the stock and six from bottom trawl surveys. Overall the assessment is heavily influenced by the acoustic survey. The chairman said that there seemed to be a big problem with the acoustic survey. Over the last two years it did not seem to cover the stock, but it is a strong driver in assessment. He thought that the problem in terms of coverage, especially in the Celtic Sea, had to be addressed. The picture emerging from the assessment is not corroborated by what people see on the fishing grounds. He was not sure if the WGWIDE addressed the stock coverage issue or not. Carmen Fernandez replied that the current assessment recognizes that the acoustic survey does not cover the entire stock. Her understanding was that scientists are aware of the issue and there is quite some communication between different surveys to address the issues. 5. Northeast Atlantic mackerel Benchmark update and preparation The chairman reminded the meeting that a benchmark has been scheduled for early next year which will be preceded by a data evaluation workshop in November in Copenhagen. Adoption of PELAC advice The chairman recalled that the TAC for this year was set in accordance with the management strategy, but ICES based its advice for 2017 on MSY implying catches of no more than tonnes. He recalled that quite some effort had been put into developing a management strategy, a recommendation given by the Pelagic AC last year. He therefore suggested following the agreed Coastal States management strategy, to actively participate in the benchmark and to address a number of technical issues, including the difference in the egg survey versus the IESSNS survey, RFID tagging and density dependent growth. Page 8 of 16

9 Ian Gatt had a look at last year s advice which was to develop a management strategy. He said it would be strange not to recommend following the strategy now that it is available. Gerard van Balsfoort added that two years ago ICES investigated different combinations of target F and Btrigger that would be sustainable and the Coastal States chose one of those combinations for their management strategy. Therefore, he was confident that the strategy will be found to be precautionary by ICES. Justyna Zajchowska suggested following the MSY approach, because the management strategy has not yet been evaluated by ICES and because it was not agreed by all parties. However, the main argument was that ICES has not yet evaluated the strategy. The chairman said that this position is contrary to the position she and her colleagues took in the past when they advocated to follow the management strategy. Goncalo Carvalho said that he and his colleagues have always been very consistent in recommending following a management strategy once it has been deemed precautionary by ICES. Gerard van Balsfoort said that the combination of trigger point and fishing mortality chosen by the Coastal States has already been assessed by ICES to be precautionary, but not in its current form including the stabilizers. The chairman asked whether the Commission had a particular view in relation to the discussion. Robert Griffin said that there was a management strategy that been agreed for 5 years while Fmsy is slightly lower. He promised to take the discussion back to the Commission. The chairman suggested parking the issue and continuing the discussion offline in the hope of reaching a common position before the Executive Committee meeting. He had no intention to put forward a non-consensus position. 6. Southern horse mackerel Update on the development of a management strategy The chairman pointed out that an update on the management strategy development had already been provided and he moved on to the next point. Benchmark update and preparation The chairman explained that the data evaluation workshop preceding the benchmark will take place in November in Lisbon and Jose Beltran, Goncalo Carvalho and Verena Ohms will attend the workshop on behalf of the Pelagic AC. He also said that it had to be ensured that there will be some linkage between the benchmarks of the different horse mackerel stocks. SWW discard plan amendment The chairman summarized that after the July meeting he had put forward a compromise in relation to the SWW regional group s pelagic discard plan amendment of minimum conservation reference sizes. However, there are some difficulties and he therefore proposed dealing with the issue at the Executive Committee meeting the following day. At the same time he pointed out that the SWW group moved ahead anyway and submitted the proposal to the Commission which in turn drafted a delegated act for it. Page 9 of 16

10 Adoption of PELAC advice The chairman proposed following the ICES advice and to continue developing a management strategy. He also hoped to provide advice in regards to the SWW pelagic discard plan amendment if a common position can be found. The meeting agreed. 7. Western horse mackerel Update on genetic stock ID study Edward Farrell gave a brief update on the genetic stock ID study. The sequencing error has not been resolved and even though it had been the contracted lab s fault people there were unwilling to re-run the sequencing. In the meantime a lot more samples have been collected covering the three stocks and an outgroup from Mauritania. The next step would be to re-run the analysis with the larger sample set including the southern stock and outgroup. To develop a new genetic baseline will cost approximately plus overheads charged by UCD. Part of the funding could potentially come from the ATLAS project in which Edward Farrell is a partner. However, this funding would be very limited. The chairman thanked Edward Farrell for the update and concluded that there is another funding issue to be dealt with. Martin Pastoors wanted to know whether there is still tissue available from the 2015 samples that have been analyzed erroneously. Edward Farrell confirmed that the tissue is still available and could be re-analyzed in the future. Ken Whelan said that the Atlantic Salmon Trust (AST) has been in the same position the Pelagic AC is in now 10 years ago trying to convince people about the feasibility of this sort of genetics projects. A workshop on genetics together with ICES would be very useful, also to show what the AST has done with salmon. He would be delighted to work together with Martin Pastoors to organize such a workshop. Another aspect to be taken into consideration is peer-reviewing the ongoing work. At the AST there is a scientific panel that does the peer-reviewing and three members of that panel have been appointed to review the final report from Jens Carlsson and Edward Farrell on the edna project they are carrying out for the AST. He suggested that the AST will also help reviewing the herring genetics project to show that there is merit in pursuing the work in the future. The chairman gladly accepted the suggestion. He also considered it an excellent idea that the AST would help organize a genetics workshop. Coming back to the funding issue and given that there will be a benchmark soon he thought that it would be important to continue the genetic analysis and he therefore asked whether the NPWG could look into this. Even if part of the funding could come from the ATLAS project it would probably not be enough to cover all costs. Edward Farrell explained that ATLAS is more of an academic project that does not care much about stock ID, but rather wants to compare the Northeast Atlantic with the West Atlantic. So, the project could only fund a small part if at all. Given that the benchmark will take place in February he considered it too ambitious to have the samples analyzed by then. He suggested focusing on herring first and then moving on to horse mackerel, but to make sure that sample collection will continue. He also said that the final paper on the boarfish genetic study is ready now which describes the entire study. The chairman decided to leave it to Gerard van Balsfoort to follow up with the NPWG on the funding question, but he agreed that it was not possible to have the data ready for the benchmark. Update on utilization of groundfish surveys to calculate a juvenile index Page 10 of 16

11 The chairman presented an update on the groundfish survey modelling that he received from Andrew Campbell prior to the meeting. It was the intention to include this work in the data evaluation workshop. Additional model runs have been carried out using variations of the geostatistical modelling framework and data from 2001 and 2002 have also been included. Data from additional groundfish surveys, i.e. the Spanish Porcupine survey and the Spanish North Coast survey, were being examined. There have been some updates to the index calculation method and a comparison with recruitment estimates from the latest assessment. A discussion of the approach took place in WGWIDE. There are further investigations to explicitly include gear parameters in the model and there will be additional model comparisons. Andrew Campbell will also look into the availability of ageing data to determine the possibility of extending to an age based index. Benchmark update and preparation The chairman said that the data evaluation workshop will take place on November in Copenhagen followed by the actual benchmark on 30 January-3 February also in Copenhagen. Adoption of PELAC advice In terms of the Pelagic AC TAC advice for 2017 the chairman suggested following the ICES MSY approach. To prepare for the benchmark in 2017 he wanted to submit a list of issues to ICES that stakeholders felt should be addressed at the benchmark. There was already such a list from WGWIDE, but the chairman said that there might be some issues which are not included on that list. He also wanted the groundfish survey and industry data to be considered at the benchmark. Furthermore he pointed out that the Pelagic AC should continue developing a new management strategy and also examine a potential seasonal closure in the West of Ireland to protect incoming year classes. The meeting agreed. 8. Boarfish Adoption of PELAC advice For boarfish the chairman suggested following the ICES precautionary approach and set the TAC at tonnes. He said that there was a fundamental issue with the acoustic survey that needed to be addressed. He also wanted to pursue the implementation of the closures again pointing out that the Pelagic AC has recommended including them in the NWW pelagic discard plan in Unfortunately the NWW regional group was against the proposal, but he suggested trying again in The assessment needed to be developed further with help from the Marine Institute in Ireland and he wanted to call for a benchmark in The meeting agreed. 9. Herring in 6.a and 7.b,c Update on genetics study Edward Farrell gave a presentation on progress made in the herring genetics study. The first stage of the project, i.e. developing a new baseline, has almost been completed. There were a few bottlenecks that have been identified during sample collection and tracking and sample processing and sequencing set-up. However, DNA extraction has now been automated and new sequencing technologies have been developed. Work on optimizing data analysis is ongoing. Page 11 of 16

12 Regarding sample collection and tracking standardized sampling and preservation protocols have been developed using the BioBanker leading to reduced processing time and costs. However, further work is needed to develop data capture and database and to invest in tube reader hardware and software. Estimated costs for this amount to Sample processing and sequencing can also be improved and speeded up by using bigger plates and automated pipettes etc. This will require an initial investment of about In terms of data analysis the goal is to use automated genotyping in the future. The development is ongoing and a good automated version of the genotyping application will hopefully be available by December. Edward Farrell explained that there will be a funding gap between this stage and the next stage of the project. The current stage of the project will end on the 9 th of March However, in order to avoid delays in stage 2 a contract has to be in place with UCD by the end of Potential funding from DG MARE will not be available before quarter 3 in He said that it would be possible to make a decision on how to continue funding once there is more information available on the outcomes of stage 1. However, it will be important to think about this interim period, because stage 2 has to be agreed before the current contract with UCD stops. The chairman thanked Edward Farrell for his presentation and said that funding had already been discussed in the morning. The NPWG will be willing to continue funding if stage 1 proves to be successful. He also pointed out that the results of this project will be relevant for many stocks while only the pelagic industry pays for this. Ken Whelan advised looking at this project in a broader context, i.e. regarding the entire pelagic family, not only the commercial pelagic family. He suggested arranging a meeting with Jacque Fuchs in DG RESEARCH, who is great in taking up such projects and maybe DG RESEARCH could provide funding. However, the project would have to be sold in a broader context and someone like Jacque Fuchs could be very helpful in this regard. The chairman considered this a very good idea and asked Ken Whelan to follow-up on this issue which Ken Whelan happily accepted. Update on industry surveys Instead of showing a power point presentation Steve Mackinson showed a video that summarized the industry herring survey in area 6.a North which has just been completed. The video can be found here: The chairman congratulated Steve Mackinson on the video and wanted to know when he expected the survey data to be analyzed. Steve Mackinson said that work is ongoing and he hoped to complete the analysis by the end of the month. However, there might be some delay in regards to ageing samples. He said that data storage is an issue that people have to think about and that Marine Scotland offered storing the data in their system. This would be preferable to simply having it on Steve Mackinson s hard drive. It would provide a proper archiving system and he therefore suggested accepting the offer. John Ward wanted to know if people saw a lot of herring that was not supposed to be there during the survey. Page 12 of 16

13 Steve Mackinson replied that this was impossible to say preempt to the analysis. However, he did not see an awful lot of herring in the Outer Hebrides and his first impression was that there was not much herring there. He thought that the main bulk was on the North Coast of the mainland. The chairman thought that storage of the data is crucial and he supported taking up the offer by Marine Scotland. He hoped that BREXIT will not have an effect on this. Gerard van Balsfoort said that the skippers did an excellent job, but in order to continue the survey in the future he thought that there had to be an evaluation moment and he wondered if one had already been scheduled. He also wondered whether ICES should be included in the evaluation or whether people involved in the survey could do it themselves. Steve Mackinson said that this issue will be discussed at the focus group meeting in December and that the data which are being analyzed now will inform the process. Regardless of the outcome of the data he wanted to publish them in a scientific journal to demonstrate the rigor and emphasized the need for also carrying out the southern survey successfully. The chairman added that the southern survey will take place between November and January and that at the focus group meeting on 9 December the next steps will be determined. Benchmark update and preparation The chairman said that it was important to get a benchmark soon and he was glad that the Commission was positive about including a benchmark request in the MoU with ICES. Adoption of PELAC advice The chairman summarized that the MSY advice for herring in area 6.a and 7.b-c is zero and that ICES has provided advice on a scientific monitoring TAC for He suggested that it was crucial to continue with a monitoring TAC in 2017 to continue the industry acoustic surveys and to provide funding for the next stage of the genetics project in 2017 and He also wanted to examine the merit of the larval and genetics study planned by the Norwegian marine research institute. Finally he wanted to pursue having a benchmark in 2017 and to actively prepare for that. Carmen Fernandez was not aware that the benchmark request had been included in the MoU. She knew that the Commission asked ICES informally what they felt about having it in So far ICES said that it will organize a benchmark if there is sufficient data, analyses and resources. Once that is the case a benchmark can take place, but not before. The chairman understood Carmen Fernandez remarks, but emphasized that having a benchmark is a key issue for stakeholders concerned and they wanted to have a commitment that the benchmark will happen. Frederik Schutyser was very anxious to progress with the benchmark and therefore mentioned including it in the MoU which Robert Griffin confirmed this morning has happened. The chairman accepted that if there were no new data then there will not be a benchmark. However, he expected that new data will be available in time. Martin Pastoors advised that at the focus group meeting in December people should make a timeframe of what data can be provided and when. People needed time for the analysis and to digest the data. If the Pelagic AC asked for benchmark, but the new data were not ready in time, then that would be a waste of resources. The chairman agreed, but also thought that the more time is given to people the more time they will use. He decided to discuss this further in December. Page 13 of 16

14 Ian Gatt said that he was fully committed to continue with the industry surveys, but stressed the importance of the Council agreeing on a monitoring TAC at the December meeting. It was crucial to know well in advance that a monitoring TAC will be granted to be able to plan the survey well ahead. The chairman fully agreed since otherwise it would not be possible to carry out the survey in January as planned. Goncalo Carvalho congratulated the industry on their efforts to collect data. He wanted ICES to give an opinion on what a monitoring TAC could look like in He quoted from the ICES advice released in June 2016 that fishing should not proceed unless accompanied by a stock recovery plan. Such a plan should include rebuilding targets and time lines as well as protections for each stock. This would also imply including a research component to resolve the lack of information on stock mixing and recruitment. Therefore, if the Pelagic AC recommended a monitoring TAC it should also recommend that a recovery plan will be proposed. The chairman explained that a recovery plan was being actively pursued with the genetics project and the industry surveys. He concluded that an immediate request had to be put forward to the Commission on a monitoring TAC. Martin Pastoors said that last time the advice on a monitoring TAC was handled by HAWG. If people used the same mechanism again it would be far too late for the southern survey. The chairman therefore concluded that such a request should be submitted to STECF and he hoped that the Member States will provide help in this regard too. He also said that Goncalo Carvalho s point will be taken onboard too. 10. AOB Aukje Coers and Rob Pronk said that they could arrange additional horse mackerel samples from the North Sea that were bycaught in the September sprat fishery for Edward Farrell s genetic analysis. The chairman thanked Aukje Coers and Rob Pronk for this contribution and was sure that Edward Farrell will be delighted to receive additional samples. 11. End of meeting The chairman closed the meeting at 18:10 hrs and thanked all participants for a fruitful meeting. Page 14 of 16

15 Action items General Raise the issue of non-quantitative stakeholder information with ICES at the 2017 MIACO meeting (chairman) Discuss at MIACO meeting what the rules are for including stakeholder information in the ICES advice (chairman, MIACO) Irish Sea herring Continue development of a management strategy (Alan McCulla) Herring in VIa and VIIb,c Provide funding for stage 2 of the genetics project if stage 1 turns out to be successful (NPWG) Develop a genetic sampling protocol (6.a herring focus group) Arrange a genetics workshop with ICES once the sampling protocol is available (6.a herring focus group, Ken Whelan) Ask Member States and Commission to include genetic sampling in Data Collection Framework once a protocol has been developed (Pelagic AC) Use Marine Scotland s data storage system for industry survey data (Steve Mackinson) Organize focus group meeting on 9 December (chairman, secretariat) Arrange meeting with DG RESEARCH to seek funding for broad pelagic genetics project (Ken Whelan) Provide timeframe of what data can be provided when at December 9 th focus group meeting (focus group) Peer-review herring genetics project (Ken Whelan, AST) Southern horse mackerel Liaise with other stakeholders and provide a questionnaire to them with the questions posed by Manuela Azevedo and Gersom Costas to collect stakeholder s opinions (José Beltran) Participate in data evaluation workshop and benchmark (Goncalo Carvalho, José Beltran, Verena Ohms) Present draft management strategy at PELAC February meeting (Manuela Azevedo, Gersom Costas, José Beltran) Western horse mackerel Follow-up with NPWG on funding genetics project (Gerard van Balsfoort) Submit modelling work on groundfish surveys to data evaluation workshop (Andrew Campbell) Provide horse mackerel samples from the North Sea for genetics project (Aukje Coers, Rob Pronk) Page 15 of 16

16 Boarfish Follow-up on boarfish closures with NWW regional group at face-to-face meeting facilitated by the Commission (Management Team) i Carmen Fernandez double-checked the issue on safe biological reference points after the meeting and reported the following: According to the MoU with the EU ICES is asked to provide a scientific view on which stocks are within safe biological limits (stocks with a high probability that the estimated spawning biomass at the end of the previous year is higher than the limit biomass reference point (Blim) and its estimated fishing mortality rate for the previous year is less than the limit fishing mortality rate reference point (Flim)). This is done in the stock status table (front page of the advice sheets). The Precautionary Approach line of that table should be interpreted as follows: A green tickmark for F essentially means that there is at least 95% probability that F is < Flim. A green tickmark for SSB essentially means that there is at least 95% probability that SSB > Blim. Although ICES does not state explicitly if a stock is inside or outside safe biological limits, the stock status table has so far been accepted as the ICES response to the question. The ICES presentation of this may change with the fisheries overviews (first ones due to become available in just a few months from now), but I do not know for sure at this stage as the fisheries overviews process has not yet concluded. Page 16 of 16