Pelagic AC. Co-funded by the EU. Pelagic Advisory Council- Working Group II

Transcription

1 Pelagic AC meeting 12 July :00-17:00 hrs The Palace Hotel Prince Street Peterhead, Aberdeenshire AB42 1PL Scotland, United Kingdom Louis Braillelaan EK Zoetermeer The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) Website: Participants 1 Sean O Donoghue, chairman Killybegs Fishermen s Organisation 2 Alex Wiseman Scottish Fishermen s Federation 3 Almudena Del Burgo Ramírez Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente 4 Andrew Campbell Marine Institute Ireland 5 Aukje Coers Cornelis Vrolijk 6 Brian Isbister Shetland Fishermen s Association 7 Christine Absil Seas at Risk 8 Christopher Moore Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 9 Claus Reedtz Sparrevohn Danish Pelagic Producer Organisation 10 Edward Farrell University College Dublin 11 Eric Roeleveld Jaczon 12 Esben Sverdrup-Jensen Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation 13 François Hennuyer From Nord 14 Frederik Schutyser European Commission: DG MARE 15 Gerard van Balsfoort Pelagic Freezer Trawler Association 16 Ghislain Chouinard ICES 17 Goncalo Carvalho Pew Charitable Trusts 18 Ian Gatt Scottish Pelagic Fishermen s Association 19 Ignacio Fontaneda Lopez Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente 20 Inge van der Knaap Pelagic Freezer Trawler Association 21 Irene Kingma Dutch Elasmobranch Society 22 Jens Carlsson University College Dublin 23 Jesper Raakjær AIPCE 24 John Anderson Scottish Fishermen s Organisation 25 John Ward Irish Fish PO 26 José Beltran OPLUGO 27 Justyna Zajchowska The Pew Charitable Trusts 28 Kees Taal Van der Zwan 29 Ken Whelan Atlantic Salmon Trust 30 Lauren Ferrari Marine Scotland 31 Lesley Duthie North Sea Women s Network Page 1 of 19

2 32 Lisbet Nielsen Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries 33 Maria Aira Martin Shetland Fishermen s Association 34 Martin Pastoors Pelagic Freezer-Trawler Association 35 Matthew Cox National Federation of Fishermen s Organisation 36 Miren Garmendia Federacion de Cofradias de Pescadores de Guipuzcoa 37 Nicholas Michelet Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins 38 Niels Hintzen IMARES 39 Noelia Cuervo Álvarez Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente 40 Patrick Murphy Irish South & West PO 41 Reine Johansson Swedish Fishermen s Federation 42 Rob Banning Parlevliet & Van der Plas B.V. 43 Sheila O Neill Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine 44 Søren Anker Pedersen Marine Ingredients Denmark 45 Stella Nemecky WWF 46 Steve Mackinson Scottish Pelagic Fishermen s Association 47 Verena Ohms Pelagic AC 48 William Stewart European Fisheries Control Agency 1. Opening of the meeting by the chairman, Sean O Donoghue The chairman opened the meeting at 12:00 hrs and welcomed the participants. 2. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. 3. Follow-up on action items The first action item was to raise the issue of non-quantitative stakeholder information with ICES at the MIACO meeting in 2017 and hence will be kept on the list of action items. The next two action items were in relation to the genetics project and the industry survey for herring in area VIa and VIIb,c. Both were dealt with later that day. In regards to Irish Sea herring the chairman did not manage to contact Alan McCulla, but he did talk to Pieter-Jan Schön, the Northern Irish scientist working on Irish Sea herring, and understood from him that scientists and industry in Northern Ireland are revisiting the draft management plan. It was decided to keep the action item on the list. Andrew Campbell will present an update on developing a juvenile index for Western horse mackerel and Edward Farrell on the genetic stock identification study. A WebEx meeting with the focus group on Western horse mackerel had been arranged in June and proved very fruitful. The group decided to focus on the groundfish survey and genetics in trying to get the management plan back on track. The only action item in relation to mackerel was to follow-up on the developments in relation to the draft management strategy submitted to ICES by the Coastal States. ICES has now pushed that request to 2017 and the action item will hence remain on the list. Regarding Southern horse mackerel there has been a very good presentation by Manuela Azevedo at the Pelagic AC meeting in February. The intention back then was to have a draft management strategy Page 2 of 19

3 available today that could be put forward to the Executive Committee by the Working Group. Unfortunately it was not possible in the end to present a management strategy at this meeting, but the chairman hoped that one could be presented in October and that a draft can be circulated in advance. The second-last action item was about the boarfish closures that are foreseen in the management strategy developed by the Pelagic AC. The Commission advised at the last meeting that these closures could not be implemented through the TAC and Quota Regulation, but that they could be implemented through the pelagic discard plan. However, the NWW regional group firmly rejected such a request by the Pelagic AC. The chairman said that he would come back to this issue and the question how to address it. He expressed his disappointment that unanimous and useful recommendations by the Pelagic AC are completely ignored by the regional groups. Even an issue as straightforward as the boarfish closures were rejected and he had no explanation for this kind of behavior. Regarding the boarfish assessment model the chairman informed the meeting that the Marine Institute in Ireland is still working on having an age-based assessment. However, he understood from the relevant scientists that there are still some issues which might not be resolved in time for the WGWIDE meeting. 4. Fishing opportunities 2017: presentation of ICES advice by Ghislain Chouinard The chairman invited Ghislain Chouinard to present the ICES advice for the herring stocks in the Celtic Sea. Celtic Sea herring Ghislain Chouinard explained that the ICES advice for Celtic Sea herring is based on MSY which implies a catch of no more than tonnes in It is also advised that activities that have an impact on the spawning habitat of herring should not occur, unless the effects of these activities have been assessed and shown not to be detrimental. SSB is above MSY Btrigger and has been revised upwards. F has been below Fmsy for the past ten years. Recruitment has declined in recent years, however, the estimates are very uncertain and bounce a lot from one assessment to the next. The acoustic survey from has not been used in the assessment, because it did not cover the stock. The chairman said that each year there is an issue with this stock in relation to the basis of the advice. The Commission has instructed ICES to give advice based on MSY and not the management strategy developed by the Pelagic AC even though this management strategy is in accordance with the precautionary approach and fully supported by the Pelagic AC. The chairman wanted to know if the Commission has formally objected the management strategy. In his view ICES should use the strategy unless the Commission has formally objected it. His second comment was about the fact that ACOM decided to change the stakeholder information in the advice. In the original information there had been sentence included that the Pelagic AC favored the management strategy rather than MSY for this stock. To his understanding the editorial rights of the stakeholder information lie with the stakeholders and not ICES. If ICES decides to arbitrarily omit part of that information it calls into question the usefulness of including stakeholder information in the first place. Ghislain Chouinard replied that in relation to the first comment ICES checks each year with the authorities if a management strategy has been agreed or not and whether it should be used as basis for the advice. The Commission requested ICES to provide advice for this stock based on MSY. Regarding the second comment Ghislain Chouinard pointed out that the advice remains an ICES document approved by ACOM. He thought that there was a misunderstanding that needed to be Page 3 of 19

4 discussed. Including everything that stakeholders demand could lead to a very different and potentially confusing advice document and ICES decided on an approach where the stakeholder information is kept as long as it is clear and in direct relation to the advice. ICES does not accept including preferences for one management strategy or the other since it does not want to get involved in this sort of discussion. In other stocks ICES reworded some information, because it was not clear. He concluded that generally if the information directly relates to the assessment, then ICES will include it. However, he emphasized again that these are ICES documents. He expected that the chairman will raise the issue at the next MIACO meeting. It did not make sense to the chairman that the Commission favored MSY advice instead of the management strategy. He said that there are other strategies which have not gone through the codecision process, e.g. mackerel, and yet the Commission used this strategy. Frederik Schutyser did not want to use the word formally objected. He explained that every year the Commission receives a table from ICES asking what to use as top line advice for which stock. He promised to check the situation regarding mackerel. To the best of his knowledge the Commission has always been consistent in using MSY unless there has been a co-decided management plan in place (and in the future even such plans can be applied only if they are in line with the CFP objectives). That does not mean that the Commission does not appreciate the efforts by the Pelagic AC and when looking at the annual TAC proposal people will see that the Commission usually proposes to follow the Pelagic AC s management strategy which then gets adopted by the Council. There are other stocks dealt with by other ACs for which the Commission follows the same procedure, i.e. it uses the management strategy developed by the AC for setting the TAC, but asks ICES to use MSY in the top line of the advice. The chairman said that Frederik Schutyser had given the same explanation last year. While the chairman did not agree with the explanation, he could understand it. He said that the main stakeholder of the management strategy is Ireland and the Irish Member State has not rejected the strategy. On the contrary the chairman thought that Ireland is very supportive of the plan. He said that the Commission's approach causes a lot of problems within the industry. The management strategy is more conservative than MSY and it looks like the Pelagic AC is taking an extremely cautious approach leading to strong discussions with fishermen. This would not be the case if the first line of the ICES advice followed the management strategy. The other issue is that ACOM decided to change the stakeholder information without consulting the stakeholders first. The only conditions that were mentioned by ICES previously was that the stakeholder information has to be short and concise. It was unacceptable to the chairman that the stakeholder information was changed, especially given the importance of this specific piece of information. Today was also the first time that ICES said that the information had to be relevant for the assessment. He asked Ghislain Chouinard to take this message back to ICES. Ghislain Chouinard understood the point and said that it has been raised with ACOM already. He admitted that there has been a misunderstanding because ICES did not spell out that information not relevant to the assessment or advice could not be included. He strongly encouraged stakeholders to continue bringing data and information to ICES, because it is very useful when that information can be taken into account in the assessment and advice. He also recalled that there has been the idea to have a pre working group session prior to the MIACO meeting where some of the information could be brought to the attention of the relevant Working Groups. The chairman pointed out that the Pelagic AC has been the original initiator of this pre-meeting and he suggested that the issue of stakeholder information in the advice will be discussed at the MIACO meeting. He said that it will be necessary to put the rules down in writing. Page 4 of 19

5 Goncalo Carvalho said that the NGOs support following the management strategy just like they did last year. The chairman thanked the NGOs for their support and hoped that this will be the unanimous position by every member. In regards to the two surveys that have been excluded from the assessment he wanted to know how likely this will affect the assessment going forward. Niels Hintzen did not expect this to be a huge issue in the future unless the problem cannot be resolved. Missing two survey years means that the assessment next year will be more vulnerable and react quicker to contrasting information. He was not sure how to prevent missing part of the stock in future surveys and a solution had to be found, because it is necessary that the survey covers the entire stock. Missing another survey year can lead to bigger concern, but the management strategy is still precautionary, because it is driven by catches. The chairman said that the Celtic Sea herring management committee in Ireland will be looking into the issue. Irish Sea herring The ICES advice for Irish Sea herring was based on MSY and stated that in 2017 no more than tonnes should be caught. It was again advised that activities that have an impact on the spawning habitat of herring should not occur, unless the effects of these activities have been assessed and shown not to be detrimental. SSB has been above MSY Btrigger since 2006 and F was at Fmsy in However, recruitment has gradually declined since In the latest assessment there has been a 15% downwards revision of SSB and a 10% downwards revision of recruitment. The chairman presumed that Irish Sea herring will be included in WKIRISH. However, Niels Hintzen was not sure about that, because there is a manpower problem in relation to Irish Sea herring. He said that work is underway to organize a benchmark and the Pelagic AC will be invited to participate. Ghislain Chouinard promised to check whether Irish Sea herring will be included in WKIRISH and to inform the Pelagic AC once he knows more. Looking at the assessment the chairman understood that there has been a problem with reading otoliths. Niels Hintzen explained that there had been an age reading workshop last year at which it turned out that the age reading for Irish Sea herring was indeed incorrect which resulted in the change in stock perception. The age reading is now correct and given that this problem was special to Irish Sea herring he did not expect any effects on other stocks. Herring in area VIa and VIIb,c Ghislain Chouinard summarized that herring in area VIa and VIIb,c consists of two stocks which have to be assessed combined, because it is not possible to differentiate between the stocks. For 2017 ICES recommends zero catches and that a stock recovery plan will be implemented. Furthermore activities that have an impact on the spawning habitat of herring should not occur, unless the effects of these activities have been assessed and shown not to be detrimental. F has been below Fmsy since the late 1990ies. Recruitment is at the lowest in the time series and SSB is slightly below Blim. The catch in 2015 is assumed to be tonnes. The assessment is uncertain given the lack of information on recruitment. SSB has been revised upwards. ICES also issued advice on the 29 th April for 2016 on a scientific monitoring TAC of tonnes. Page 5 of 19

6 Ian Gatt said that he attended the ADG at which the possibility of a benchmark in 2017 was raised if new data is available. It seemed that the scientists attending the ADG were not aware this was the case. He wanted to know if such a benchmark would have to be triggered by ICES or if the Commission would have to request it. Ghislain Chouinard explained that if there was significant new data and manpower available to hold the benchmark, then this could be done without a Commission request. The reason no benchmark has been planned yet is because ICES has not yet received any new information. As soon as there is an indication that there is new information available ICES will look at the information and can decide to have a benchmark if enough experts are available to attend it. The chairman was surprised that the ADG had not been aware of a possible benchmark. He wondered if the Commission might be willing to send a request to ICES if the Pelagic AC asked for it and maybe the Member States involved could send such a request as well. Frederik Schutyser said that the Commission would certainly consider such a request. Steve Mackinson added that the industry is currently in the process of planning a VIa herring survey. However, since ICES decides what data trigger a benchmark, he would like to have that information from ICES first to ensure that the industry collects the right data. Ghislain Chouinard understood that work by industry scientists is progressing and that people are working on collecting new information. In his understanding it could be possible to add these stocks to the list of stocks being benchmarked next year providing data are sufficient and there is adequate available scientists for the benchmark. ICES would have to ensure that it can deliver before accepting to hold a benchmark. Niels Hintzen said that a benchmark is tentatively planned for 2018 and he considered 2017 quite ambitious. He said that having a benchmark in 2018 would be more realistic and give people enough time to process all the new data. The chairman wanted to come back to the issue in the afternoon. He said that having a benchmark is very important for the industry to see if the stocks could be separated again. Martin Pastoors said that there are valid arguments for having a benchmark both in 2017 or 2018 and the most suited year will depend on the data available. He wanted to know how long it takes to decide whether a benchmark should take place or not and whether autumn is early enough to decide having a benchmark late in Ghislain Chouinard replied that the more time there is to prepare for a benchmark the better. He was not sure how much work has been done already and he did not promise having a benchmark in any year. He said that in general people need at least one year for preparation. The chairman emphasized that having this benchmark is a key issue for the Pelagic AC and he hoped that the Commission sees the same urgency. 5. Celtic Sea herring Adoption of Pelagic AC advice The chairman summarized that there has been a debate about MSY and the management strategy. He proposed following the management strategy which has already been supported by the NGOs. He also suggested asking the Commission to change its view and ask ICES next year to give advice based on the management strategy instead of MSY. Moreover he wanted to mention the Pelagic AC's concern about what will happen if the survey has to be excluded for a third year. Page 6 of 19

7 The meeting agreed to these suggestions. 6. Irish Sea herring Adoption of Pelagic AC advice The chairman suggested following the ICES MSY approach given the lack of a management strategy for this stock. He pointed out that the proposed TAC reduction was due to the errors discovered in the otolith readings. He also wanted to keep the pressure on the Northern Irish members to develop a management strategy as soon as possible as they had promised. The meeting agreed. 7. Herring in VIa and VIIb,c Update genetics study Ed Farrell presented an update on the genetic stock ID project he is carrying out for herring in area VIa and VIIb,c aiming at separating the two herring stocks in the area. Previous studies have used very small sample sizes and did not repeat the studies between years. The current project is instead looking at high throughput methods that can be used each year. He was still hoping that there will be a benchmark in 2017 at which he can use the results of his study. Stage 1 of the project screens baseline spawning samples from different areas in UK and Irish waters to confirm the temporal stability of the genetic structure and to create a baseline database with which to compare future mixed survey and fishery samples. DNA extraction is always a bottleneck. Therefore Ed Farrell worked together with Weatherbys, a specialized laboratory, to upscale dealing with the samples. They used high throughput robotic extraction which allowed to carry out the work within two days for which he would have previously needed one month. Further optimization of the process is possible and handling large numbers of samples will be no problem anymore in the future. DNA has been extracted from about 1300 herring samples which are now ready for inclusion in the screening step. Regarding the genetic marker development he reanalyzed 91 markers used in the pilot study and redesigned four and removed 17 that had scoring issues. He also redesigned and added 26 markers from previous herring studies so that there is now a revised panel of 100 microsatellite markers available. The sample screening is currently underway and expected to be completed by early September. One of the big issues last year was the length it takes to analyse data. Therefore, part of the project looks at how this process can be automated. The development is underway and a beta version with manual genotyping has been trialed during the horse mackerel pilot study. Although this part of the project has not been finished yet, things have already speeded up significantly. Ed Farrell explained that a software will be trained on previous data sets which were screened manually for automatic scoring. Any uncertainty will be flagged and can then be manually checked. He expected to run a trial with the software on the herring baseline set in quarter four. At the same time Ed Farrell is also involved in testing the so-called BioBanker, a small sampling device that allows standardization of sample collection and preservation. With this tool anyone can take tissue samples quickly and easily while preventing cross contamination. Using this device not only increases efficiency, but also improves the quality of the samples taken and greatly reduces processing time and costs. At the moment only prototypes are available that he has been testing and there is an ongoing trial on herring and a few other species. At the same time Martin Pastoors has been in contact with a company in Tasmania that is developing something similar for tuna. Page 7 of 19

8 With regards to continued sampling in 2016 Ed Farrell said that he is looking at SGHERWAY samples, both in terms of morphometry and genetics. He also assumed that there will be a scientific monitoring fishery in VIa in the autumn which he intends to analyze morphometrically and genetically and perhaps there will be industry surveys in the autumn and the winter. To secure funding for future stages of the project he applied for a four year grant by the Irish Department of Food, Agriculture and The Marine and although there were no negative comments in the expert evaluation he did not receive the grant and no feedback was provided as to why the project was rejected. Another funding possibility could be the EU Commission's work program for Tender documents are currently being developed, but the earliest starting date if successful would be quarter three of Also, this opportunity would only provide funding for one year to analyze survey samples. A third option could be the Strategic Partnership Programme of the Science Foundation Ireland which would require 50% industry funding. In conclusion Ed Farrell had no results to present yet, but was optimistic to have results by the end of this year and intended to present them at the Pelagic AC meeting in February Given that Ed Farrell hoped to get the screening done in September the chairman wanted to know whether that means he would have data to present in October. Ed Farrell replied that the sequencing will take a couple of weeks. He might know the quality of the data by October, but he will not have any results yet. It was decided that Ed Farrell will provide a short update at the October meeting anyway. The chairman pointed out that funding remains an issue. There had been a brief discussion on this at the April meeting, but now it seemed that realistically a contract with DG MARE could not be signed before the autumn next year. This means that there will be a funding gap of five to six months. The chairman said that the industry and other bodies involved will need to discuss this and try to find a way to bridge that gap. A decision on this has to be taken in October and the chairman emphasized the importance of keeping momentum. It was decided to address the issue within the Northern Pelagic Working Group. The chairman also asked Ed Farrell to provide a list with additional equipment that needs to be automated and particularly the costs involved. Ed Farrell agreed to provide such a list. He said that at the moment the equipment is indeed a bottleneck and just updating small pieces of equipment can already speed up things significantly. Niels Hintzen wanted to know if there are enough samples available to have a longer time series and whether Ed Farrell was trying to generate a new time series. Ed Farrell responded that this was indeed the idea. For now he had samples from 2014 only, but he will also look at morphometrics and try to do a retrospective analysis. This will, however, take time and probably be carried out together with the Marine Institute. Niels Hintzen wanted to know what people had in mind for the genetics data in regards to a possible benchmark in The chairman said that if the pilot project shows that the stocks could be separated based on their genotypes then it should be possible to split the stocks at least for the years 2014, 2015 and Ed Farrell confirmed that this could be done and also that further survey samples would be analyzed throughout Martin Pastoors said that the real challenge is going back in time which is necessary for the assessment. Jens Carlsson wondered if otoliths could be used for analysis of previous years. Page 8 of 19

9 Ed Farrell replied that he has looked at this option before, but that the otoliths are cleaned so well that they cannot be used and also that there is no archive going back as far as he knew. Niels Hintzen thought that it might be possible to have a hybrid in terms of the assessment which first splits the two stocks and then combines them. This could still end up with a sensible assessment and would be better instead of waiting ten years to build up a new time series. Christine Absil said that the structure of the two stocks will not be stable in the future and she wanted to know how much people will have to invest in future screenings. Ed Farrell confirmed that range and abundance will change, therefore requiring yearly sampling. He hoped that ultimately genetic sampling will be covered by the Data Collection Framework. Ken Whelan said that because money was needed quickly there is a danger that people will look at the genetic work on a project basis where in essence a program approach is needed rather than a project approach. He asked the various groups involved in pelagic fisheries to get behind the work and write a letter of support. He committed to support the work as well by drawing on his experience with salmon to move this forward as a program and make annual genetic sampling a reality. He said that people needed to take a step back and figure out how to influence the funding mechanisms required to make this a useful tool. The chairman thanked Ken Whelan for his support and said that the Pelagic AC should ask the Member States to include genetic sampling under the Data Collection Framework. Ed Farrell said that taking genetic samples now and having them in reserve is a huge advantage. They could be stored and analyzed later. With BioBanker it would be very easy to collect and store these samples. Gerard van Balsfoort asked how the Pelagic AC and the industry could quickly start influencing the Member States in regards to the Data Collection Framework. He said that there is a group in the Commission which regularly meets with Member States on the Data Collection Framework and certainly asks input from ICES and the marine institutes as well. He suggested trying to take an active role in this regard and agreed with Ken Whelan that a program approach is urgently needed instead of running from one project funding to another. He said that he had some experience with fisheries outside the EU which took several years to include in the Data Collection Framework. He said that the Pelagic AC and the Commission will have to think about this together and start writing letters. The chairman agreed with Gerard van Balsfoort and asked Frederik Schutyser to help getting genetic sampling included in the Data Collection Framework. He also said that the Pelagic AC has to write to Member States and ask them to include genetic sampling in their data collection programs. He pointed out that the costs for genetic analysis have been significantly reduced in the past years making it very feasible now. He also emphasized that collecting the samples and storing them for later use would be very valuable. Frederik Schutyser said that a lot is happening at the moment in regards to data collection. He promised to bring this point back to his colleagues dealing with data collection and to provide an update on the possibilities at the October meeting. The chairman thanked Frederik Schutyser for his support. He pointed out that one of the action items for Western horse mackerel is to submit a request to ICES asking ICES to include genetic sampling in their future surveys. Ed Farrell explained that before going to ICES with such a request it will be necessary to establish a standardized method ensuring that everyone collects samples in the same way. He said that it would be valuable to bring this to the attention of ICES. Page 9 of 19

10 Martin Pastoors thought that it was important to reflect on what people promise and what they can deliver. Having spoken to various researchers he noticed that they are quite sceptic and therefore he considered it important to show that people can deliver valuable results before arguing genetic sampling should be part of a research program. He wanted to make sure that this type of research lands within ICES and mentioned a workshop that will look at splitting herring stocks. He argued that genetics should be included in the workshop and thereby feed into ICES. Niels Hintzen confirmed that such a workshop will be organized and he had just received an outlook from the organizers. He said that there might a possibility to include genetics, but that this requires a proactive approach. The chairman decided to add this to the list of action items. Update on industry surveys Steve Mackinson explained that there had been a survey planning meeting for VIa North the previous day, but the timeframe is very short and there is still a lot of work to do. The idea of the industry survey is to have an acoustic survey, but also to take samples for genetic and morphometric analysis. During the planning meeting it was agreed to use five vessels, three from the PFA and two from the SPFA. The survey will cover four areas and three spawning aggregations. The earliest start date is the 8 th of August, the latest end date is the 16 th of September. The survey group is now working on the fine scale details. The bottleneck at the moment is calibration and staffing. To collect quality data all vessels involved have to be calibrated. This is a complicated matter, contingent upon weather and other conditions. Another challenge is to have the right staff available at the right time. The chairman wanted to know if the survey design has been sorted out. Steve Mackinson said that there is a suggestion available for the tracks and the group is looking into surveying the same areas two to three times. There is the opportunity to take several snap shots to find out where the big biomass is. The chairman explained that a similar survey will take place in VIa South at a later point, sometime during October and the end of January when spawning takes place in the area. He intended to have a survey planning meeting before the end of July to organize that. Steve Mackinson said that it would make sense if the VIa North survey group was involved in that too. The chairman agreed and said that there will also be some support from the Marine Institute in Ireland as well as Irish skippers. Gerard van Balsfoort pointed out that in order to carry out such a survey it is necessary to have quota. He understood that there has been a discussion last week regarding a monitoring TAC. Frederik Schutyser said that indeed a proposal was tabled and discussed for the first time last week and that a number of Member States wanted a higher figure than what the Commission proposed. This will be further discussed in the next working party and he expected that the final figure will be published soon. The chairman concluded to follow up on the VIa South survey since the one in VIa North is well underway now. The final thing to discuss was the benchmark. The chairman understood from the scientific community that they would like to have as much time as possible to prepare for the benchmark. From a Pelagic AC point of view he suggested asking the Commission to ask ICES to add the benchmark to its priority list. There will likely be some additional information available since the plan is to have the survey and genetic data worked up by February. He said that the Commission will Page 10 of 19

11 start discussing its MoU with ICES in October and he asked the Commission to include the benchmark in the MoU. 8. Western horse mackerel Utilization of groundfish surveys to calculate a juvenile index The chairman summarized that the focus group on Western horse mackerel identified the groundfish survey work by Andrew Campbell as the only additional data source for this stock. Andrew Campbell introduced himself and said that he works at the Marine Institute in Galway and has been actively involved in the focus group on Western horse mackerel where he has already presented part of his work on the groundfish surveys. He presented a stock distribution map for Western horse mackerel and pointed out that the stock is characterized by pulse recruitment events, the most prominent of which have taken place in 1982 and However, nobody knows what drives such events and it is very difficult for an assessment model to handle these, leading to huge uncertainty in the assessment. Therefore, the focus group decided to try to develop an abundance index. Ideally, such an index is available for each age class and derived from fishery-independent data annually. It can complement fishery-dependent data and reduce uncertainty in the assessment, thereby improving near-term management. Sometimes an index is available from a dedicated survey, but not always and wide distribution of a stock further complicates things. The groundfish IBTS surveys have been running for a long time and produced a lot of data. At the moment Andrew Campbell is using five of the IBTS surveys in his work. He said that it was definitely possible to spot juvenile horse mackerel, smaller than 15 cm, in the individual hauls. Especially the French survey has a lot of juvenile horse mackerel. It seems that raw data from the IBTS indicate a signal consistent with people s experience from the fishery and sampling, but a method has to be found to formalize this information into an index that can be included in the assessment, i.e. develop a model. There are number of possible approaches, such as a swept area model, simple regression, a Delta-GLM as used for Icelandic cod, a Bayesian Delta-GLM or a Log-Gaussian Cox Process model. Andrew Campbell announced to present some very preliminary data on several of those. He said that there are a lot of difficulties and challenges. The data contain a lot of zero values which models do not like. There is also a risk of overdispersion, because there are some very large values in the data which could be chance events and not necessarily representative of the overall picture. The data is high non-normal and there individual survey effects, e.g. vessel effects, gear variation, stratification etc. The Delta-GLM model consists of two separate processes of which the first one predicts the probability of catching juveniles and the second, given that juveniles are present, predicts the number. However, the population is not evenly distributed and there are changes with depth and latitude. Therefore, a stratification scheme is used that splits the total survey area into separate strata and assigns each haul to a stratum, dependent upon its depth and latitude. The Bayesian Delta-GLM uses a similar approach to the Delta-GLM, but is more complicated. It uses a Bayesian statistical approach and also requires a stratification scheme. It estimates the correlation between the probability of catching juveniles and the size of the catch which might be important. Preliminary runs indicate that this correlation is indeed significant. The Log-Gaussian Cox Process model is even more complicated. A grid is constructed over the survey area without strata and each haul is assigned to a grid cell. This model accounts for temporal and spatial correlations more completely. Page 11 of 19

12 At the moment all indices are still under consideration. It is known that 2008 was a strong year class and it is also known which year classes were weak. This information is used to verify the information shown by the indices. The Delta-GLM looks good except for the 2009 year class. There no is information beyond 2013, because these fish are not in the catches yet. However, the Delta-GLM shows a signal in the last years which gives hope. Comparing the models overall is quite encouraging. The next steps will see further model investigation and the inclusion of additional data. Andrew Campbell will update WGWIDE on his work and he said that the stock is scheduled for an inter-benchmark next year. He will submit his data to the data collection workshop and hoped that it will get accepted and be used in the assessment. The chairman thought that the preliminary results looked very promising and they confirmed what people report on the fishing grounds regarding juveniles. He also pointed out that the egg survey will be available too next year. Andrew Campbell said that the egg survey is carried out every three years only and that the advantage of the groundfish surveys is that they are annual. Using these surveys would take some uncertainty out of the assessment. The chairman wanted to know whether the juvenile index would be included in the assessment if it gets accepted by WGWIDE. Andrew Campbell replied that it is highly unlikely that the index will be included in next year s assessments, because it has to go through a benchmark first. Niels Hintzen congratulated Andrew Campbell on the nice work and wanted to know what the error bars are on the estimates. Andrew Campbell could not give an exact answer, but assumed that they would be quite large. Gerard van Balsfoort wanted to know whether this was the first time that someone tried to develop an index from a non-intended survey. Andrew Campbell explained that this has also been done for mackerel and there is now a juvenile index for mackerel that is used in the assessment. Christine Absil wanted to know if edna could be a solution in the future for stocks for which so little information is available. She said that edna is a hot topic in fresh water and a lot of research is being done in the US. Jens Carlsson said that this is exactly what he and his lab are looking into. One of the species they currently deal with is Atlantic salmon. He said that he would give a presentation on the topic later that day. The chairman assumed that Andrew Campbell will drop the first model and concentrate on the Log Gaussian Cox Process model. However, Andrew Campbell said that he will first have to investigate why the models are different, but that he will likely use either of the latter two. The chairman concluded that the focus group will meet again before the October meeting, preferably by WebEx in September. He thanked Andrew Campbell for his work and said that the results so far look very promising. Horse mackerel research: results so far Martin Pastoors presented an overview of the work carried out by IMARES, UCD and many skippers in the horse mackerel fishery. What started as a research plan focusing on North Sea horse mackerel, has Page 12 of 19

13 turned into a generic horse mackerel research project. He said that the different partners involved are looking for new techniques for stock identity and new indicators of stock development. While the focus is on the North Sea, the work is strongly linked to Western horse mackerel as well. The focus areas with regards to stock identity are genetic analysis, chemical analysis and vessel quality analysis. With regards to stock indicators the focus areas are vessel catch rates and new survey data. For the genetic analysis Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is used to identify whether North Sea and Western horse mackerel are two separate populations and to identify when and where mixing zones exist. The principal investigator of that part of the project is Ed Farrell. NGS makes genetic analysis faster, better and cheaper and provides direct access to the genetic code. It enables rapid marker discovery, development and implementation. In 2015 Western samples have been collected during the boarfish acoustic survey while North Sea samples have been collected on commercial vessels in June and July. DNA has been extracted from 96 fish from each sample. After that 96 new genetic markers were identified and primers designed for all of them. Subsequently 192 fish were analyzed at a US university, but unfortunately there was an error in the genetic analysis meaning that not all markers are useable due to sequencing errors. Of the 34 potential markers only 17 could be used. With only these 17 markers there was a low level of genetic differentiation which was statistically not significant, because the statistical power to detect differences was too low. Some markers, however, look promising for future use and the aim is to re-run the analysis with a larger sample set including the southern stock or a Mediterranean outgroup and to optimize and utilize the newly developed marker set. This, however, will need development time and contingency in future studies. Another part of the project uses chemical compounds as markers of the geographical origin of the fish. The North Sea is more pollutant than the Western waters and this might be traced back in the fish. To tackle this idea gas chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry are being used to identify e.g. PCBs, pesticides etc. When comparing North Sea and Western samples for fat content it turned out that the fat content was much lower in the North Sea samples in early July compared to North Sea samples from late August/September and Western samples from both early July as well as late August/September. A low fat content also means low pollutants, because pollutants accumulate in fat tissue. While it was possible to detect some differences in chemical substances in North Sea and Western horse mackerel the sample size was very small and it remains unclear if the results are reproducible. When used for classification there was a misclassification rate of 15-35% and the method is expensive. The last part of the stock ID project concerned the analysis of vessel quality records, meaning data collected by fishing companies and processing factories on individual length and weight, fat percentage, stomach content and photographic records. However, data compilation and analysis are still ongoing. In order to derive a stock abundance indicator from catch rates of commercial vessels information is collected by interviewing skippers and quality managers and by analyzing skippers notes and paper logbooks of which the oldest one dates back to The type of data that has been collected includes information on trip duration, haul location, haul duration, estimation of catch composition/size, environmental information (depth, temperature), time between hauls, i.e. search time and freezing time, gear settings used and notes on specific issues. Mapping catch per haul shows how catches change over time and how the fishery moves out of the North Sea, possibly following horse mackerel to a more southern area. Martin Pastoors said that these records are not only interesting for developing abundance indicators, but also for the skippers themselves who are enthusiastic about seeing their own history visualized. Page 13 of 19

14 In the next steps the time series has to be completed for as many vessels as possible and the catch rates and search times will be analyzed in different time periods and seasons, different areas, using environmental co-variates such as temperature, depth and springtide and using gear co-variates, e.g. type of gear. Subsequently an abundance index will be developed by area and year which will hopefully be available by August In collaboration with Thomas Brunel from IMARES new survey data from groundfish surveys are also being explored to develop an abundance indicator. The UK groundfish survey in VIIe did not contain any useable information. However, the French groundfish survey in quarter 4 in VIId (CGFS) seems promising and was used for further analysis. In summary, the genetic analysis is potentially powerful if the technical errors can be fixed. The chemical analysis might be useful to cross-check stock ID, but is also rather expensive. In terms of batch analysis the data compilation is still ongoing and it remains to be seen whether the available data can be used for stock ID purpose. Regarding the development of stock indicators there is a lot of information available that can be used and the French CGFS survey is available now for the assessment. The chairman thanked Martin Pastoors for his presentation and concluded that three out of five methods have potential. He was wondering how easy it would be to join the CGFS survey data with the work Andrew Campbell has done. Andrew Campbell replied that it would be very straightforward to re-run his analysis and include another survey. There are lots of hauls in a small area and a long time series of that survey is available which is quite valuable. Ghislain Chouinard found the presentation very interesting. In relation to the chemical analysis he said that some techniques also look at elements in the otoliths, e.g. magnesium to determine where an individual comes from. He wondered whether that could be valuable. Martin Pastoors explained that he is primarily looking for cost-effective methods that allow easy collection of data on commercial vessels. When he started this project he was not aware of the implications of the chemical analysis. The chairman concluded that not everything people are trying out in this project will be successful, but it was important to try things out. He wanted to know if the genetic samples will have to be re-run if the sequencing problem cannot be sorted out. He also asked whether the samples are spawning samples. Ed Farrell replied that he has never seen such a sequencing problem before and he hoped that it will be possible to sort it out. One of the main aims of this genetics project was to develop markers and now there is a good panel of markers available and a full baseline set of samples will be collected with WGMEGS. These samples will have to be run again with the markers to see what the outcome is. This procedure has to be repeated for a number of years to see if the structure is temporally stable. The chairman presumed that none of the work presented can be contributed in time to WGWIDE. Martin Pastoors explained that he will give a shorter presentation of the work to WGWIDE, preparing for next year s benchmark. José Beltran wanted to know if the horse mackerel encountered in the surveys is always Trachurus trachurus. Martin Pastoors confirmed that it is always Trachurus trachurus in these surveys, but that in e.g. Mauritania there are different Trachurus species. Goncalo Carvalho said that around the Azores one can also find Trachurus picturatus. Page 14 of 19

15 Aukje Coers said that one of her university supervisors was working on automatically analyzing the shape of whales and elephant ears based on photographic records. Although he recently retired she suggested asking him if he might be interested in collaborating on this project. The chairman agreed that that could be interesting. 9. Southern horse mackerel Discussion of the amendment proposal for the minimum conservation reference size (MCRS) of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in ICES VIIIc and IXa by the SWW regional group The chairman explained that the Pelagic AC received a proposal from the SWW regional group to amend the pelagic discard plan. Before addressing the content of the proposal he wanted to discuss the consultation process. He referred to the correspondence with the SWW regional group that has been circulated to Pelagic AC members. The Pelagic AC had received the amendment proposal out of the blue with a deadline of three working days to respond to it. In response the chairman of the Pelagic AC wrote a very strong letter to the SWW regional group pointing out that the group was in breach of mandatory consultation procedures. He also made a formal complaint to the Commission. The SWW regional group apologized, but at the same time said that the amendment is minor. To the chairman it seemed that the SWW regional group does not recognize the Pelagic AC as a valid consultee, despite the AC having approached the SWW regional group at least four times asking to be consulted. The chairman furthermore said that there are difficulties also with other regional groups and he suggested considering this issue during the Executive Committee meeting. He considered it unacceptable that the regional groups ignore the provisions set out in the CFP. His understanding from the response of the SWW regional group is that the group will go ahead with the amendment even if the Pelagic AC does not provide advice. He said that according to the CFP there is a minimum notice of two months that the ACs have to get for formulating a response. The Commission sent a letter to the Pelagic AC pointing out that the SWW regional group apologized and promised that this will not happen again. However, the chairman asked the Commission to take up this issue very seriously with the regional groups. There are requirements under the CFP which the regional groups do not adhere too and that is entirely unacceptable. In relation to the content of the proposal he said that the SWW group omitted a significant line of the TAC and quota proposal which allows for the 5% harvest of horse mackerel between 12 and 15 cm. That does not apply, however, to species under the landing obligation. So, the question is how this was applied in 2015 and so far in 2016 given that the 5% does not apply considering that southern horse mackerel and horse mackerel in area VIIIc is covered by the landing obligation. Frederik Schutyser said that this footnote was also problematic in regards to the provision in the Omnibus Regulation which states that 10% undersized fish can be used for human consumption. According to the SWW regional group there is a special situation for a specific small-scale fishery which is described in the background document submitted by the SWW regional group. Apparently this smallscale fishery has difficulty meeting 90% oversized fish. Goncalo Carvalho said that in his understanding the 10% of the Omnibus provision overwrites the 5%. Regarding this specific small-scale fishery he said that its total landings do not add up to 5%. The chairman said that the proposal is split into two parts. One relates to an MCRS between 12 and 15 cm. At the moment the MCRS is 15 cm. Going forward this proposal suggests that there would be the 5% limit in both VIIIc and IXa, allowing fishermen to have horse mackerel between 12 and 15 cm of up to 5% of the quota. The second part of the proposal relates to the Portuguese beach seine fishery which is a very small fishery. The proposal says that 1% of the 5% would be allowed to be catches below 12 cm. People should consider that this beach seine fishery is tiny and its catches makes very Page 15 of 19