Pelagic AC. Working Group I meeting 28 February hrs Parkhotel Den Haag, Netherlands

Transcription

1 Pelagic AC meeting 28 February hrs Parkhotel Den Haag, Netherlands Louis Braillelaan EK Zoetermeer The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) Website: Participants 1 Esben Sverdrup-Jensen, chairman Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation 2 Alex Wiseman Scottish Pelagic Fishermen s Association 3 Aukje Coers Cornelis Vrolijk 4 Bent Pallisgaard Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Denmark 5 Edward Farrell University College Dublin 6 Fredrik Lindberg Swedish Fishermen s Federation 7 Gerard van Balsfoort Pelagic Freezer Trawler Association 8 Goncalo Carvalho Pew Charitable Trusts 9 Ian Gatt Scottish Pelagic Fishermen s Association 10 Irene Kingma Dutch Elasmobranch Society 11 Jerome Jourdain Union des armateurs a la pêche de France 12 Jerome Nouis Compagnie des pêches de Saint Malo 13 Jesper Raakjær University of Aalborg 14 Joakim Hjelm Swedish Agricultural University 15 John Ward Irish Fish PO 16 José Beltran OPLUGO 17 Karin Linderholm Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 18 Ken Whelan Atlantic Salmon Trust 19 Leon Bouts European Fisheries Control Agency 20 Lise Laustsen Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation 21 Lotte Huisman Seas at Risk 22 Ludmilla van der Meer Pelagic AC 23 Mads Larsson AIPCE 24 Matthew Clarke Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU 25 Patrick Murphy Irish South & West PO 26 Piebe Hotsma Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs 27 Reine Johansson Swedish Fishermen s Federation 28 Romain Soisson From Nord Producers Organisation 29 Sean O Donoghue Killybegs Fishermen s Organisation 30 Søren Anker Pedersen EU Fishmeal 31 Stefan Kalogirou Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 32 Stella Nemecky WWF 33 Steven Mackinson Scottish Pelagic Fishermen s Association 34 Uwe Richter Deutscher Hochseefischerei-Verband / Seefrostvertrieb 35 Verena Ohms Pelagic AC Page 1 of 13

2 1. Opening of the meeting by the chairman, Esben Sverdrup-Jensen The chairman opened the meeting at 10:05 hrs and welcomed the participants. He noticed that the Commission was not represented at the meeting despite having registered online which came as a surprise. A tour de table followed. 2. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted without amendments. 3. Follow-up on action items The first action item was to raise concerns about inter-benchmark procedures carried out by correspondence in terms of access, transparency and preparation. This was done at the MIACO meeting in January. The official report of that meeting should be published soon, but in essence ICES responded that it is working a new system trying to improve things. However, there had been a request from clients not to involve stakeholders to closely in benchmarks. Another issue was in regards to the revised Fmsy reference point for North Sea herring. It was not very transparent what caused the revision and how that impacted the existing management strategy. During the MIACO meeting the Pelagic AC representatives asked ICES to reflect more on how these kinds of decisions impact the management of the stock and said that this issue should be reflected in the advice, not just the Working Group report. The third action item was to pick up the work on the technical measures again and the focus group has drafted a recommendation which was dealt with later that day. There were two issues regarding the latest blue whiting advice that Carmen Fernandez followed-up on. One was in relation to the variability of the advice, the other in relation to the quality of the survey. She provided a response in writing and basically said that blue whiting is a challenge, because it relies only on one survey. If the quality of the assessment was to be improved, then this would require another survey which is unlikely to be realized anytime soon. The quality of the surveys was also raised at the MIACO meeting. Surprisingly, ICES explained that there is no forum to deal with the issue of survey quality. ICES said that it is working on state of the art survey techniques, but for now people had to accept that the surveys had some issues. The final action item was to ask ICES if it might have missed discard information on herring and mackerel. Carmen Fernandez had explained in writing that during the benchmarks of these stocks all available information including on discards is dealt with. However, she promised to raise awareness for discard data again. 4. Atlanto-Scandian herring Results 2016 The chairman recalled that the ICES advice for Atlanto-Scandian herring was set at tonnes according to the management strategy. The Pelagic AC supported the ICES advice, but also hoped that new reference points would be in place before the TAC was being set. That process, however, is still ongoing and the Coastal States agree to set the TAC at tonnes. This was quite an increase compared to the previous year due to a change in stock perception. Page 2 of 13

3 Priorities 2017 Priorities in 2017 for this stock will be the ongoing revision of reference points and the re-evaluation of the management strategy. This work should be followed closely. There is also a Norwegian initiative to reinstate an acoustic survey which should be followed closely. 5. North Sea herring Results 2016 The chairman recalled that ICES had based its advice on the EU-Norway management strategy which contains an outdated Fmsy reference point. Therefore, the Pelagic AC suggested to revise the management strategy in light of the new advice and to set the TAC accordingly. In the end the TAC was set in line with MSY, but the management strategy still has to be revised. Priorities 2017 In terms of priorities the focus will be on mapping spawning areas which will be dealt with by the Ecosystem Focus Group and on updating the management strategy. The chairman hoped that stakeholders will be allowed to participate in this work. 6. Western Baltic spring spawning herring Results 2016 A management strategy had been in place for the last couple of years and the Pelagic AC advice had been to follow that strategy. However, since the TAC setting procedure for 3.a herring is closely linked to the TAC setting procedure for North Sea herring, any change in the North Sea herring TAC is reflected in the 3.a herring TAC which has also been the result in the EU-Norway negotiations. Accordingly, the TAC in 3.a was set to tonnes and to tonnes in area Priorities 2017 The priorities for 2017 were to continue monitoring the mixing between stocks in the area and to deal with issues arising from the discard ban. One issue is the potential bycatch of saithe and work has been done in Sweden on improving selectivity in the fishery. Presentation on pelagic grid developed in Sweden (Joakim Hjelm) The chairman invited Joakim Hjelm from the Swedish Agricultural University to present the results of a research project which aimed to reduce saithe bycatch in the herring fishery using a flexible grid. Joakim Hjelm thanked the Pelagic AC for the opportunity to give this presentation and pointed out that many people are involved in the research project. He said that this project was a collaboration between his University and a Swedish pelagic vessel. The idea for this project came with the introduction of the landing obligation in During quarter 3 saithe sometimes mixes with herring in the Skagerrak and hence there is often bycatch of saithe in the herring fishery in August and September. There is no specific quota for saithe in the Swedish pelagic system. Therefore, the SPFPO contacted the Swedish Agricultural University to find a technical solution to the problem. Grids in pelagic gear have already Page 3 of 13

4 been used in the blue whiting and Norway pout fisheries in Norway and the Faroe Islands, but they have not been extensively tested or evaluated in other fisheries. The gear trials were supported by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the Ministry. Huge cameras with very strong lights were used for observations and quantitative evaluation. The grid was installed in such a way that it kept the net opening on the bottom side of the trawl free. While herring passes through the grid, saithe is released through the opening. The size of the grid depends on the size of the trawl. The objective of the vessel was to set up the grid in such a way that loss of herring was minimal while most saithe was removed. At the same time no fish should get stuck in the grid. The results show that herring loss ranged from 2 to 15% while saithe bycatch ranged from 0 to 7.9%. That means that the grid reduced bycatch of saithe by 92 to 100%. With grid, saithe bycatch amounts to approximately 30 kg of saithe per hour. Without grid, saithe bycatch amounts to 1.5 tonnes per hour. The average herring loss was 7.7% which was acceptable to the fishermen. In 2015 two vessels used the grid, in 2016 eight vessels used the grid and for 2017 the entire Swedish pelagic fleet is planning to use the grid. Joakim Hjelm said that this was an excellent example of how the landing obligation should be dealt with within the CFP framework. Using the grid mitigates the saithe choke problem and reduces catch handling which leads to improved quality. He considered it likely that such a grid could be used in other fisheries selecting small fish from large fish. The chairman thanked Joakim Hjelm for the presentation and invited questions from the audience. Reine Johansson also thanked Joakim Hjelm for his presentation. He said that the grid works very well due to the size difference between saithe and herring. If the size difference was not as pronounced the grid would not work so well and other solutions would have to be found. He was pleased about the good cooperation between fishermen and scientists which led to a mutual understanding and enabled the scientists to understand where the problems are. He also said that one of the main problems of the landing obligation is that many people have an opinion about the landing obligation, but do not know what they are talking about. This was especially clear in regards to minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS) and mesh sizes. He said that if people did not agree on changing those it will take two CFPs to cope with the landing obligation. In regards to the pelagic grid, however, he said that both fishermen and scientists benefited from the collaboration. The results of the project can hopefully be used for other species in the future, maybe even in the demersal sector. Martin Pastoors said that the project was very interesting for the pelagic fisheries of the PFA too. The PFA has been developing similar approaches for escapement of hake. He wanted to know whether a project report was available. He also wondered how Sweden dealt with the derogations from the technical measures regulation to allow for such trials and this will be applied in new EU regulations. Joakim Hjelm responded that a report is available in Swedish, but will be translated soon. He explained that he had an exemption allowing researchers to carry out the experiments. In general, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management can provide derogations for such experiments and given its importance in regards to implementing the landing obligation granting such an exemption was not a problem. Karin Linderholm elaborated that the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management considers that the use of this grid is in line with the technical measures and therefore allowed its fishermen to use it in commercial fisheries as well. She said that there are similar projects ongoing which will be reported on in due time. Sean O Donoghue was not familiar with the fishery, but it seemed to him that the problem was restricted to a few months per year and he wondered whether it was really necessary to fish during those months. Joakim Hjelm said that the practicality of using a grid has been shown world-wide. However, its success depends on the size difference between the wanted and bycatch species. The grid also works well if Page 4 of 13

5 the different fish species behave differently. The reason that saithe is only a problem a few months a year is for the fishery to answer. However, if fishermen want to fish in that particular period, it will be good to use the grid. Reine Johansson explained that herring is of the best quality in those few months, because during that period fat content is highest. Therefore, it is important for the industry to catch herring during that specific period. The chairman wanted to know whether the phenomenon of saithe turning pelagic is a general trait of the species in all waters or whether this only occurs in Skagerrak. Sean O Donoghue said that in western waters saithe does not cause any problems. The issues there were with whiting and hake and he did not think that the grid developed by Sweden would work with those species. Martin Pastoors said that different demersal species are caught in pelagic trawls, because they predate on pelagic fish. Even though they are called demersal, they basically are pelagic too. Jerome Jourdain said that in France there have been problems with bycatch of pelagic trawlers in the Bay of Biscay and some work has been done using acoustics to identify size and species composition of fish concentrations in the water. The results were not yet available, but he wanted to point out that some studies beyond selectivity of the trawl itself have been carried out. He promised to share the results with the Pelagic AC as soon as they become available as he considered it important to inspire each other and keep each other updated on things that do and do not work. The chairman asked Jerome Jourdain to pass the information through the secretariat and thanked Joakim Hjelm again for his presentation. He also said that in the past it has been concluded that improvements in selectivity are generally difficult to achieve. However, solutions on a local level can be developed and might prove useful in other areas too. He pointed out that in similar trials fish got mashed in the trawl and he wanted to know whether that could be related to the size of the trawl. Joakim Hjelm replied that the size of the trawl is not an issue, because the grid is relational which makes the pressure the same. He said that in Norwegian trials a static grid has been used which snapped eventually since it could not withstand the pressure. Therefore, it was important to use a flexible grid and also the angle within the trawl was important. Martin Pastoors pointed out that in the PFA trials the grids got blocked by fish and just slipped out of the trawl due to the weight of the fish. He wanted to know how Joakim Hjelm determined the correct angle. Joakim Hjelm explained that both the angle, flexibility and mesh size of the grid are crucial. The pressure will differ by species and in this specific case the scientists used a very steep angle that had been recommended by the crew. Norway and the Faroe Islands used a less steep angle as well as different sized parts of the grid instead of one big structure. When asked how many weeks in total it took to carry out the trials, Joakim Hjelm explained that it took 6 or 7 weeks in total. He furthermore pointed out that the vessel was also commercially fishing at that time. Gerard van Balsfoort said that sometimes people overlook the costs of carrying out such experiments. Even if there is a guaranteed income this kind of experiments is still very expensive. However, he congratulated the Swedish fishermen and government for taking this forward. Joakim Hjelm said that it was only possible to carry out the experiments thanks to the willingness of the vessel s crew. Page 5 of 13

6 Reine Johansson said that Gerard van Balsfoort raised an important point. These experiments cannot always be carried out within a commercial fishery and it was important that scientists take the lead in such projects. At the same time, however, they had to listen to the fishermen and be willing to collaborate. He said that it was possible to break even if the quota was increased with 2% to carry out the research. He asked national authorities to support such initiatives, but also pointed out that there are situations when selectivity cannot be increased and under such conditions implementing the landing obligation will require a re-consideration of mesh sizes and MCRS. The chairman agreed that the 2% scientific quota should be kept in mind when thinking about carrying out such experiments. In regards to the functioning of the grid it looked like saithe was swimming out of the grid without touching it. Therefore, he concluded that mesh size was not so important to sort out saithe. Joakim Hjelm agreed to some extent. He said that a small number of saithe seemed to get tired and got caught in the grid, but most of the saithe just swam out of it. 7. Blue whiting Results 2016 Regarding blue whiting ICES based its catch advice for 2017 on MSY which implied a TAC of tonnes. The Pelagic AC supported the advice, but also said that the stabilizing mechanism in the NEAFC management strategy should be explored further as well as the management strategy developed by the Pelagic AC. The TAC was set to tonnes. Priorities 2017 In terms of priorities for 2017 the chairman suggested promoting the Pelagic AC two-tier management strategy again in order to get more stability in the management of the stock. Gerard van Balsfoort said that the Pelagic AC put a lot of effort into developing its management strategy and tried to sell it to the different parties without success and he did not expect to succeed in the future. He said that this issue could again be made a priority, but he preferred to think of a different way to go forward. The Coastal States agreed on a TAC and a sort of management approach which is not in line with the Pelagic AC s strategy. Maybe it would be better to focus on the management approach suggested by the Coastal States instead of sticking to a strategy which has been rejected by the Coastal States. Sean O Donoghue said that the problem with blue whiting repeated itself every 3 to 4 years. Either the ICES advice was skyrocketing or down to almost zero. He thought that the Pelagic AC had to do a better job selling its management strategy. The benchmark on blue whiting has come closer to defining a recruitment index and he thought that the Pelagic AC should engage with all parties again and maybe it can convince some of the stakeholders in the other Coastal States to look at the strategy again. He said that it was necessary to implement the strategy in order to get some stability, because it was impossible to continuously deal with the massive fluctuations coming out of the assessment. The chairman agreed with Sean O Donoghue. He also pointed out that he was not referring to the original text from 2012, but rather the principles of the strategy. Some of the numbers have to be changed to reflect new reference points. He also wanted to talk about how to improve the science for blue whiting. When asked about it, ICES provided a very general answer about the acoustic survey, but the problem is more than just the survey. There is also a problem with the assessment and it was necessary to find the right way to raise this issue. It could be done prior to the ICES Working Group Page 6 of 13

7 meeting. There is the possibility to raise questions with ICES in relation to the stock and the assessment and that opportunity should be used. Sean O Donoghue considered it a key area to explore how to improve the ICES advice. He said that there are some key areas where the Pelagic AC is not involved and does not have the resources to get involved, but he suggested pushing people who are involved in those areas. One thing is the subpolar gyre. If information in relation to the subpolar gyre had been used, it would have been possible to predict high recruitment years coming in. He was not sure in how far the scientific community has picked up on this. Another issue is that developments in the blue whiting and hake stock go hand in hand. At the moment both are very high. He thought that there is a pelagic-whitefish complex people can learn from. Given that the industry is already devoting significant resources to genetic research he thought that there might be a place for genetics to look at blue whiting too. Edward Farrell explained that a lot could be done in terms of stock ID using genetics and it was a matter of initiating sample collection. Since people first looked at stock structure in blue whiting, things have quickly moved on. He said the first step would be to define the research question and consider how much the answer would change the assessment in the end. If the southern stock component is very small, then it will not change much about the assessment. Ken Whelan supported Sean O Donoghue s idea. He said that a lot of interesting stuff is happening in genetics. Some people are now looking at climate change using genetics rather than leaving that to the climate modelers. He said that whatever is driving the changes people observe in the ecosystem is important to all of us and we all need to understand what is going on. He mentioned a symposium that will take place in May where a presentation will be given on the consequences of climate change in the Northeast Atlantic and ICES is aware of these changes too and shifting its thinking in that direction. The chairman concluded that there are a number of things the Pelagic AC can do in regards to blue whiting. He suggested establishing a small subgroup that will look at scientific initiatives and what could be done to improve the ICES advice. 8. North Sea horse mackerel Results 2016 The chairman recalled that the ICES catch advice was tonnes, because it included information on discards. The wanted catch was tonnes, but ICES added the registered bycatch on top. The Pelagic AC advised to set the TAC according to the wanted catch in order to avoid a situation where a TAC is set that does not reflect the wanted catch and where the top up gets distributed to those fleets that do not have the bycatch problem. In the end the Council decided to set the TAC at tonnes and this increase in TAC got allocated to the Member States that have a quota for this stock. This now creates a situation where bycatches will continue and lead to a further increase of the TAC advice next year and so on. This issue was raised at the MIACO meeting and the Pelagic AC representatives asked ICES to communicate at lot clearer what the basis for its advice is to help managers make wise decisions. However, the chairman was not sure whether there will be any procedural changes for the advice this year. He considered this a major issue and was worried that it will spread to other stocks too. Martin Pastoors said that ICES clearly distinguishes between wanted und unwanted catch. The challenge lies in the decision-making process. Maybe there is a role for the AC to interact more closely with the decision-making process and there should be a distinction between wanted and unwanted catch. Page 7 of 13

8 The chairman responded that the Pelagic AC advice had been very clear in its advice, but of course it was possible to be even clearer in the future. Priorities 2017 The priorities for 2017 included continuing the industry-initiated research project, securing information on bycatch in the demersal sector and discussing the issue of wanted vs unwanted catch with ICES and its clients. The chairman was surprised by the large number of discards and suspected that either something is wrong with the stock perception or the discard data. Benchmark 2017 Martin Pastoors explained that he participated in the benchmark on widely distributed stocks which also covered North Sea horse mackerel. There was no new information on discards unfortunately, but the time series of discards will be included in future assessments. The knowledge base is quite limited and mainly based on two surveys: the IBTS and the French groundfish survey in 7.d The intention is to merge the two survey indicators into one trend for juveniles and one for adults. This does, however, not change the perception of the stock. There are indications that recruitment has increased and the fishery also encounters more small horse mackerel in the Channel. Detailed information will be provided in the benchmark report. Ongoing research Martin Pastoors said that genetic research was ongoing to discriminate between Western and North Sea horse mackerel. For that a lot of samples have been collected from different fisheries and surveys. Some samples have also been taken from Mauritania for comparison. Eventually he hoped to develop a way to differentiate between the stocks in the catches. Another ongoing research project is looking at the catch history from Irish and PFA vessels. Some of the results have been presented at the benchmark, but need a bit more work before they can be included in the assessment. 9. Update on the Ecosystem Focus Group (EFG) The chairman announced that with the assistance of Bauke de Vries the terms of reference of the EFG have been revised. One of the decisions in this regard was to focus on herring spawning grounds and the development of multiannual-multispecies plans (MAMP). The spawning grounds have been on the agenda for quite a while and it was time to finish that work. In regards to developing a MAMP for pelagic fisheries there are several things ongoing. The Pelagic AC had been invited to a scoping workshop organized by the Commission in November, but since then has not heard anything anymore and it was not clear what the timeframe is or what will happen next. The EFG appointed Martin Pastoors and Steven Mackinson to guide the work on these issues in the future. However, the chairman also pointed out that the Pelagic AC only has limited resources available and people are already working more than fulltime. Therefore, the Pelagic AC was limited in what it can do and the level of ambition had to be aligned to the resources available. Steven Mackinson said that in relation to the North Sea MAMP nothing official has been communicated, but he got the impression that there will not be much progress anytime soon from the Commission s side. He said that it was very complicated to think about the system as one complex. Page 8 of 13

9 The chairman agreed that this seemed to be the general view. Unfortunately, the Commission was not present at today s meeting and hence could not provide an update, but it seemed that the original deadline will not be met. One of the issues raised at the scoping workshop was that the Pelagic AC deals with pelagic stocks in the North Sea, but the North Sea AC deals with industrial species. Combining them would require too much effort at the moment. Sean O Donoghue said that ICES mentioned at the MIACO meeting that it uses non-quantifiable stakeholder information in regards to the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. He suggested pursuing this issue and find out if that information could be included in the assessment process. 10. Technical Measures Regulation (discussion, decision) The chairman recalled that the Focus Group on technical measures has had a bumpy life. It had started its work, but then struggled to find a way forward after the BREXIT vote. At the last meeting it was decided to get back on track and a draft position paper by the Focus Group has been circulated. The last comments to this draft have only been received yesterday and therefore, there had not been enough time to circulate a revised draft. The comments pointed out that in 2014 the Pelagic AC replied to the Commission s white paper and that these comments, which already reflected an agreed position in relation to mesh sizes and onboard production, should be included in the current recommendation. Some other issues had been raised today, e.g. difficulties to try out new gear, MCRS and basic principles in relation to mesh sizes, which should be discussed as well. Martin Pastoors explained that the current Technical Measures Regulation prescribed certain measures for trawls and whenever the PFA wants to test something it needs derogations, because usually the mesh size necessary for such trials is too big. This causes a lot of hassle due to the international environment in which the PFA operates, because it needs derogations for all the Member States it works in. Stella Nemecky said that she would be happy to support allowing larger mesh sizes in any case. Smaller mesh sizes are a different issue, but larger mesh sizes should be allowed. Reine Johansson said that allowing larger mesh sizes is one thing, but in light of the landing obligation it was also necessary to think about MCRS. He considered it impossible to have a system under the landing obligation where 10% of undersized catch is allowed for human consumption and he was convinced that this regulation will change in the future. However, if the Pelagic AC provided a consensus advice, the Commission could change this immediately. Allowing only 10% of undersized fish to go into human consumption and the rest into fishmeal creates an incentive against the landing obligation and increases the risk of high grading. Gerard van Balsfoort said that the Pelagic AC has already spent quite some time discussing the revision of the Technical Measures Regulation. For a number of issues, e.g. minimum size for mackerel in the North Sea, it has not been possible to reach consensus. The new framework tries to get away from micro-management and the Member States have already discussed the Commission proposal several times. The Malta presidency also tries to take the issue forward quickly. He said that some of the issues being raised are not going in the right direction in his opinion and the Pelagic AC is expected to give advice, while it is not clear where things are going. He understood the position of giving general guidance only, but refraining from providing specific comments, because they might already be obsolete, then requires a fundamental discussion in the Council and the Parliament on things like mesh sizes, MCRS etc. Gear specialists have already pointed out many times that mesh size restrictions in pelagic fisheries are useless and nobody wants to use too small mesh sizes due to the risk of losing the gear. People do not want to use too large mesh sizes either, because of the risk of losing fish. Last year Page 9 of 13

10 the PFA wanted to carry out trials with larger mesh sizes, but could not do it, because it was impossible to get the required derogation. He considered it a nice statement to say that people care about sustainability, but he also wanted to discuss fundamental issues like getting rid of mesh sizes. Maybe the conclusion will be that there should be a lower mesh size in the end and he would accept that, but the discussion must be had first. The Commission thought about these issues too, but did not have the courage to put it on paper. Therefore, he wanted to start the discussion. Before taking any further comments, the chairman ran briefly through the current draft and the advice provided in The general comments in the current draft recommendation referred to the appreciated simplification and intention to deal with details at regional level. Nevertheless, the framework part of the proposal contains more detail than necessary. The new regulation will have to stand the test of time and must secure sustainability while also allowing for necessary developments. Some of the definitions in the framework part of the proposal should be moved to the regional annexes, as fisheries vary depending on regions. A separate annex for widely distributed stocks would ensure a coherent management approach across regions where migrating stocks are concerned. Gross tonnage should be allowed to increase to improve safety and comfort of the crew as long as this does not increase catching capacity. Other recommendations from 2014 refer to the removal of mesh size restrictions in pelagic fisheries and the rigorous implementation, monitoring and control of the landing obligation. In 2014 the Executive Committee also agreed that onboard processing should be allowed under the landing obligation. The final recommendation concerned a general comment on stakeholder consultation and how the ACs should be involved in the process. In addition, a number of issues had been raised today, e.g. in relation to mesh size restrictions and developing more selective gear. The more fundamental issue is to have a thorough discussion on MCRS. The chairman concluded that it will be necessary to re-draft the text and continue in written procedure. However, he wanted to hear comments from the Working Group first. Sean O Donoghue recalled that in 2014 when Dominic Rihan was working for the Commission, he advised that mesh sizes in pelagic fisheries are irrelevant. This advice was taken up by the Pelagic AC and he suggested continuing with it. The second issue that might solve some of the difficulties would be to have a purely pelagic annex in the new Technical Measures Regulation. While he agreed to having the debate about MCRS, he also reminded the meeting about the recommendations included in the Pelagic AC s discard plan where it was recommended to keep the current MCRS. This was also the only recommendation taken onboard by the Member States. So, while it can be argued that MCRS have no bearing with the landing obligation, he considered it important to remain consistent across recommendations. Reine Johansson supported the interventions by Gerard van Balsfoort and Sean O Donoghue to a certain extent, but could not accept a more general approach. He said that progress in regards to selectivity will only be made when it comes to demersal bycatch in pelagic fisheries. However, people did not understand that selectivity will not help in regards to MCRS. He said that having MCRS and mesh sizes was incompatible with the landing obligation. It was impossible to explain to people that only 10% of herring under 18 cm can be used for human consumption. This was impossible to measure and to control. In addition, he mentioned that there were also trade barriers. Karin Linderholm noted that while the Omnibus Regulation states that 10% of undersized fish can go into human consumption, there are still marketable sizes which contradict the provision in the Omnibus Regulation since there is no derogation from market sizes. That is the conclusion reached in the Swedish agencies. She furthermore noted that during the negotiations on the Omnibus Regulation some Member States argued for deleting MCRS in small pelagics, while others wanted to keep them. The chairman summarized that there was a contradiction between the Omnibus Regulation which states that up to 10% of undersized fish can be used for human consumption while at the same time trade provisions prohibit such use. This seemed like an urgent issue to solve. Page 10 of 13

11 Reine Johansson agreed that this was a very urgent issue, but the biological situation was clear and indicated that it was necessary to get rid of MCRS. It was impossible to explain to fishermen that there was a 10% derogation and still that part of the catch must not be sold to human consumption. He thought that the Pelagic AC had a moral obligation to fight against this kind of situation. In order to implement the landing obligation, it was necessary to abolish MCRS. Sean O Donoghue agreed that the situation was confusing to say the least. He had a different interpretation than the Swedish authorities. To his knowledge the Marketing Regulation is going to be reviewed since it is no longer fit for purpose. He also thought that the contradiction between the Omnibus Regulation and the Marketing Regulation had been resolved. Unfortunately, the Commission was not present to provide clarification. The chairman agreed that it was most unfortunate that the Commission did not join today s meeting and he promised to point this out to the Commission. He said that it was necessary to clarify what was correct in regards to the 10% undersized fish. He also suggested incorporating the advice from 2014 in the current draft recommendation and to endorse this in the Executive Committee through written procedure. In regards to MCRS he sensed that there should be a fundamental discussion and he proposed initiating such a discussion through a dedicated workshop or seminar. Stella Nemecky said that it will be very difficult for the NGOs to support recommending the abolishment of MCRS without good scientific reason. She was not against having a fundamental discussion, but she said that it would be very helpful to provide scientific evidence during the planned workshop why it would be reasonable to get rid of MCRS. After all, MCRS have been established to protect juveniles. The chairman assured that for the workshop the right scientists will be invited. However, to his knowledge MCRS were introduced to protect the market, not juveniles. Sean O Donoghue pointed out that the main issue was to get a separate pelagic annex. Even if MCRS were being maintained, it would be easier to change them in the future if there was a pelagic annex. He supported organizing a workshop on MCRS. Reine Johansson was not against having such a workshop, however, he pointed out that the Scheveningen Group never sleeps and the Pelagic AC gave veto power to people who do not understand the issue. He emphasized that MCRS have never been introduced for selectivity, but for market reasons. If this opportunity to get rid of MCRS was not used, it would take several more years before the next opportunity arises. The civil servants and scientists were aware of that too and the Pelagic AC had no reason to delay the process. He agreed that in demersal fisheries minimum sizes have a bearing, but that they were irrelevant in pelagic fisheries. The chairman clarified that he had no intention to delay the process or veto any decisions. His suggestion was to instigate a fundamental discussion on MCRS in pelagic fisheries as soon as possible. He did not think that it would be wise to take a decision today even if everyone agreed on the issue. He proposed finishing the draft and approving it through written procedure. At the same time he would start preparations to find a suitable place and time for a workshop on MCRS, hopefully with participation of the regional groups, Parliament and relevant scientists. He was confident that the Pelagic AC can still have an impact. Sean O Donoghue considered the proposal to be very helpful. He said that the letter had to be sent as soon as possible and he saw no problem in mentioning that the Pelagic AC would launch a discussion on MCRS. He also said that nobody seemed to be latching on to the pelagic annex and he wanted to get that idea into the system as soon as possible. Aukje Coers wanted to know whether the workshop on MCRS will also include a discussion on mesh sizes. Page 11 of 13

12 The chairman replied that the Pelagic AC had already developed a position on mesh sizes in 2014, but he was happy to include the topic in the workshop too. He also asked people to put forward names of relevant speakers they would like to invite for the workshop. In regards to the draft recommendation he concluded to let the Executive Committee deal with this through a speedy written procedure. 11. AOB Irene Kingma said that spurdog has been added to the prohibited species list of the TAC and Quota Regulation, even though spurdog is on the rise and doing better. She said that the Council can add and remove species at it wishes without providing any information on why and how. She said that this made the prohibited species list a very unstable instrument. She also raised this issue with other ACs and the North Sea AC is currently drafting a letter to ask for a re-evaluation of the list and its criteria. She asked the Pelagic AC to support the letter by the North Sea AC. The chairman concluded that once the letter by the North Sea AC has been circulated, the Pelagic AC will decide whether it can support the letter. 12. End of meeting The chairman closed the meeting at 12:55. Page 12 of 13

13 Action items Share results of acoustic studies carried out in the Bay of Biscay once available (Jerome Jourdain) Establish blue whiting focus group to look at scientific initiatives that could improve the ICES advice (chairman) Ask ICES how it intends to use non-quantifiable stakeholder information for its ecosystem assessments (chairman, Sean O Donoghue) Ask the Commission to attend future Pelagic AC meetings again (chairman) Organize workshop on MCRS (chairman, secretariat) and put forward names of relevant scientists (all WG I members) Approve draft technical measures recommendation through written procedure (Executive Committee) Page 13 of 13