REDFISH in Sub-areas I and II. Nominal catch (t) by countries in Sub-area I, Divisions IIa and IIb combined as officially reported to ICES.

Transcription

1 .1. Redfish in Sub-areas I and II Table.1..1 REDFISH in Sub-areas I and II. Nominal catch (t) by countries in Sub-area I, Divisions IIa and IIb combined as officially reported to ICES. Year Can Den Faroe France Ger Green Ice Ire Nether Nor Po Port Russia Spain UK UK Total ada mark many land land land lands way land ugal (E&W) (Scot.) ,970 7, ,60-1,806 69, , ,26 6, ,6-2,06 9, , ,719, ,2-1,91 20, , ,611, ,01-1,17 7, , ,9 2, , , , ,89 1, ,29-0 1, , , , , , , , , , , ,1-977, , ,19-1,00 7, , , , , , , , ,67-2 1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,8 1 Provisional figures. 2 Working Group figure. As reported to Norwegian authorities. 6 UK(E&W)+UK(Scot.).1..a Sebastes mentella in Sub-areas I and II State of stock/exploitation: The stock is considered to be outside safe biological limits. Although the current assessments are only indicative of the relative trends in stock size, they show that the spawning stock is close to its historical low. The year classes are indicated to be well below those of the 1980s. Management objectives: No explicit management objectives have been established for this stock. Consistent with the precautionary approach a management plan, including monitoring of the development of the stock and of the fishery, with corresponding regulations, should be developed and implemented. Reference points: No precautionary reference points have been proposed for this stock. Advice on management: ICES recommends that there be no directed fishery on this stock until a significant increase in spawning stock biomass has been detected in surveys with a following increase in the number of juveniles. In addition, the by-catch of redfish in other fisheries should be reduced to the lowest possible level. Relevant factors to be considered in management: Recruitment failure has been observed in surveys since 1991, and this indicates that the stock will decrease unless immediate action is taken. In this connection it is of vital importance that the juvenile age classes be given the strongest protection from being caught as by-catch in any fishery, i.e., the shrimp fisheries in the Barents Sea and Svalbard area. This will ensure that the recruiting year classes can contribute as much as possible to the stock rebuilding. The year classes (approx. 27 cm) are currently about to recruit to the spawning stock. These year classes will be followed by at least 10 poor ones and consequently offer the last opportunity of increasing the spawning stock for a number of years to come. This opportunity will be lost unless the year classes are exploited with significantly reduced fishing mortality. Based on estimates of current SSB and the size of year classes in the 1990s, this stock will not be able to support a directed fishery for at least several more years. Rather, it will be necessary to prevent the stock from declining further, to maintain measures to protect this stock from by-catch in other fisheries in the medium term to SSBs much below any previously observed. Elaboration and special comment: The only directed fishery for S. mentella is a trawl fishery. In addition, bycatches are taken in cod and shrimp-trawl fisheries. After the introduction of sorting grids in 199, discarding in the shrimp fishery was reduced. Small ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 26 1

2 redfish less than cm are, however, not sorted out by the grid, and criteria for the maximum number of redfish per kilogram shrimp are enforced (10 juvenile redfish per 10 kg shrimp). Additional protection for adult S. mentella comprise area closures. Traditionally, the directed fishery was conducted by Russia and other East-European countries on grounds from south of Bear Island towards Spitsbergen. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s large catches were taken annually. From the mid-1980s Norwegian trawlers started fishing along the continental slope (around 00 m depth) further south, on grounds never harvested before, and inhabited primarily by mature fish. After a sharp decrease in the landings from the traditional area until 1987, this fishery on new grounds resulted in a temporary increase in the landings until 1991, after which the landings declined. Since 1991 the fishery has been dominated by Norway and Russia. Because of the slow growth of this species, the surveys should detect improvements to incoming year classes for several years before they contribute to the fisheries or the spawning population. Source of information: Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group, May 2001 (ICES CM 2001/ACFM:19). 2 ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 26

3 Catch data (Tables.1..a.1 ): Year ICES Advice Predicted catch corresp. to advice Agreed TAC Official landings 1 ACFM landings of S. mentella 1987 Precautionary TAC F F 0.1 ; TAC Status quo F; TAC Status quo F; TAC F at F med ; TAC If required, precautionary TAC If required, precautionary TAC If required, precautionary TAC Lowest possible F Catch at lowest possible level Catch at lowest possible level No directed fishery, reduce by-catch No directed fishery, reduce by-catch No directed fishery, by-catch at lowest possible level 2001 No directed fishery, by-catch at lowest - - possible level 2002 No directed fishery, by-catch at lowest possible level 1 Includes both S. mentella and S. marinus. Weights in 000 t. Sebastes mentella in Sub-areas I & II Landings Landings in 1000 t ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 26

4 Table.1..a.1 Sebastes mentella. Nominal catch (t) by countries in Sub-area I, Divisions IIa and IIb combined. Year Canada Denmark Faroe France Germany Greenland Ireland , , No species specific data available by country ,09, , Iceland Year Norway Poland Portugal Russia Spain UK (Eng. UK Total & Wales) (Scotland) ,27-1,27 17, , ,88-1,17 6, , No species specific data available by country. 1, ,6-0 1, , , , , , , , ,71-972, ,90 199, , , ,11-89, , , , , , , , , , ,2 1 12, , , , , , , ,228 1 Provisional figures. 2 Including 1,1 tonnes in Division IIb not split on countries. UK(E&W)+UK(Scot.) ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 26

5 Table.1..a.2 Sebastes mentella. Nominal catch (t) by countries in Sub-area I. Year Faroe Germany Greenland Norway Russia UK(Eng. Iceland Total &Wales) , , , , Provisional figures. 2 Split on species according to reports to Norwegian authorities. Based on preliminary estimates of species breakdown by area. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 26

6 Table.1..a. Sebastes mentella. Nominal catch (t) by countries in Division IIa. Year Faroe France Germany Greenland Ireland Norway , ,06 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,028 Year Portugal Russia Spain UK(Eng.& UK Total Wales) (Scotland) ,27 16, , ,16,69-1 7, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,1 1 Provisional figures. 2 Split on species according to reports to Norwegian authorities. Based on preliminary estimates of species breakdown by area. 6 UK(E&W)+UK(Scot.) 6 ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 26

7 Table.1..a. Sebastes mentella. Nominal catch (t) by countries in Division IIb. Year Canada Denmark Faroe France Germany Greenland Ireland 1986 Data not available on countries , Year Norway Poland Portugal Russia 6 Spain UK(Eng. & Wales) UK (Scotland) Total 1986 Data not available on countries 1, , , , , ,1-6 10, , , , , , , , , , ,191 1 Provisional figures. 2 Split on species according to reports to Norwegian authorities. Split on species according to the 1992 catches. Based on preliminary estimates of species breakdown by area. 6 7 UK(E&W)+UK(Scot.) ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 26 7