ICES advice on fishing opportunities in 2019 Baltic Sea. Colm Lordan, ICES ACOM Vice-Chair BSAC Joint WG, June, Tallinn

Transcription

1 ICES advice on fishing opportunities in 2019 Baltic Sea Colm Lordan, ICES ACOM Vice-Chair BSAC Joint WG, June, Tallinn

2 Baltic Sea Subdivisions

3 Dab Turbot Sea trout HERRING: Gulf of Bothnia Central Baltic Gulf Riga Plaice Plaice Herring Salmon Salmon 32 Cod SD Cod SD Sprat SD Flounder Flounder Flounder 26 & 28 Flounder 27 & Stocks assessed by ICES

4 Rules for advice on fishing opportunities The advice rules applied by ICES in developing advice on fishing opportunities depends on: - management strategies agreed by relevant management bodies and - the information and knowledge available for the stock

5 Management Plan/Strategy Consistent with PA Recognised by competent authorities No ICES MSY approach No ICES PA approach

6 ICES MSY approach Maximize long term average yield Safeguard against low SSB Stay within precautionary boundaries more caution below B lim F B lim MSY B trigger F MSY SSB at start of advisory year Category 1 and 2 stocks

7 EU Multiannual Plan for cod, herring and sprat stocks (MAP)

8 EU Multiannual Plan for cod, herring and sprat stocks (MAP)

9 Stock Advice to Catch advice No catch advice only MSY Ranges Timing for be Periodicity MSY advice on stock in the advice provided in years FMSY FMSY PA advice status relative to scenario release in 2018 point ranges MSY and PA table Brill (Scophthalmus rhombus ) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea) 3 Early Jun. x Cod (Gadus morhua) in subdivisions 22-24, western Baltic stock (western Baltic Sea) x 1 Early Jun. x Cod (Gadus morhua ) in subdivisions 24-32, eastern Baltic stock (eastern Baltic Sea) x 1 Early Jun. x Dab (Limanda limanda ) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea) 3 Early Jun. x Flounder (Platichthys flesus ) in subdivisions 24 and 25 (west of Bornholm and southwestern central Baltic 3 Early Jun. x Flounder (Platichthys flesus ) in subdivisions 27 and (northern central and northern Baltic Sea) 3 Early Jun. x Herring (Clupea harengus ) in Subdivision 28.1 (Gulf of Riga) x 1 Early Jun. x Herring (Clupea harengus ) in Subdivisions 30 and 31 (Gulf of Bothnia) x 1 Early Jun. X x Herring (Clupea harengus ) in subdivisions and 32, excluding the Gulf of Riga (central Baltic Sea) x 1 Early Jun. x Herring (Clupea harengus ) in Division 3.a and subdivisions (western Baltic spring spawners) x 1 Early Jun. x x Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa ) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea, excluding the Sound and Belt Seas) x 1 Early Jun. x Salmon (Salmo salar ) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea, excluding the Gulf of Finland) x 1 Early Jun. x Sea trout (Salmo trutta ) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea) 3 Early Jun. x Sole (Solea solea ) in subdivisions (Skagerrak and Kattegat, western Baltic Sea) x 1 End Jun. x Sprat (Sprattus sprattus ) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea) x 1 Early Jun. x Turbot (Scophthalmus maximus ) in subdivisions (Baltic Sea) x 3 Early Jun. x

10 Wanted and unwanted catch cover the fish that would be landed respectively discarded in the absence of the EU landing obligation. Catch Based on the observed discard rate by age and reported landings. Landing Discard Wanted catch Above Minimum reference size Below Minimum reference size Live discard Dead discard Landing obligation/ discard ban

11 Changing environment Changes in population dynamics (productivity) and distribution assessment method Affects reference points.

12 Baltic Sea Landings (t) by country

13 Baltic Sea Landings by species

14 Baltic Sea Progress towards CFP Objectives

15 Baltic Sea Progress towards CFP Objectives

16 Advice 2015 Advice 2016 Advice 2017 Advice 2018 Advice 2019 % change Baltic Sea Catch Landings Catch Landings Catch Landings Catch Landings Catch Landings Brill in % Cod in % Cod in % Dab in , % Flounder in 22 and % Flounder in 24 and % Flounder in 26 and % Flounder in 27 and % Herring in and % Herring in 30 and % Herring in % Herring in 3a and % Plaice in % Plaice in % Salmon in % Salmon in % Sprat in % Turbot in NA Total % Baltic Sea Advice by stock

17 Baltic cod 25stocks Bagge et al., 1994 Baltic Sea Cod stocks

18 Baltic cod 26catches by stock Baltic Sea Cod stocks

19 Baltic cod 27catches in SD 24 by stock Baltic Sea Cod stocks

20 Western Baltic Cod stock

21 Landings in tonnes Denmark Finland Germany Estonia Lithuania Latvia Poland Sweeden Cod Western Baltic SD landings by country

22 % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Landings Discards Recreational catch Landings Discards Recreational catch Western Baltic cod. Commercial landings, discard and recreational catch in tonnes and relative. Western Baltic cod stock Catches

23 3500 Recreational catch 30% % of Catch by Recrational Fishers % 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 0% Only Germen data included in the assessment. Western Baltic cod stock Recreational catches

24 0,45 0,4 0,35 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 Age Structure of Catch Commercial Recreational Relative age composition in commercial and recreational catches in 2016 & Age Structure of Catch 2017 Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Age 6 Age 7 Recrational Catch Commercial Catch Western Baltic cod stock Selectivity

25 Age 0 Quarter Age 1 Q4 Q Age 2 Age 2 Q4 Q Age 3 Q4 Age 4 Q Q1 Q Western Baltic cod stock Strong 2016 Year Class

26 SSB increasing rapidly and will be above MSY B trigger in 2019 ( t) F decling but, still above F MSY Strong 2016 yearclass Commercial catches in 2017 was 3923t, lowest observed. Discards in 2017 estimated to 4.8 % of total commercial catch. Recreational catches in 2017 estimated to 932 t.

27 Variable Value Notes F ages 3 5 (2018) 0.20 Based on catch constraint for SSB (2019) Based on catch constraint for R age1 (2018) 1633 SAM assessment. R age1 (2019) Sampled from the last ten years. R age1 (2020) Sampled from the last ten years. Total catch (2018) 5612 Commercial + recreational catches. Commercial catches (2018) 3858 Calculated as the 2018 TAC (5597 tonnes) plus an assumed discard ratio as in 2017 (4.8%), and accounting for the proportion of western Baltic cod in commercial catches in subdivisions in 2017 (66%). Recreational catches (2018) 1754 As it is unclear how the bag limit will affect the fisheries in 2018, the same recreational catch (1754 tonnes) assumed for 2017 was applied in the forecast, i.e. average over 3 years ( ) of recreational catch (2654 tonnes) minus the estimated reduction (900 tonnes) due to the introduction of the bag limit in 2017*. Western Baltic cod stock Assumptions catch forecast

28 ICES understanding of the harvest control rule in the MAP. Ftarget 0,5 0,45 0,4 0,35 0,3 Remedial measures Range B 0,25 0,2 Range A 0,15 0,1 0, B lim Western Baltic cod MSY B trigger SSB 2019 SSB

29 ICES advises that when the EU multiannual plan (MAP) is applied, total catches in 2019 that correspond to the F ranges in the plan are between 9094 tonnes and tonnes. According to the MAP, catches higher than those corresponding to FMSY ( tonnes) can only be taken under conditions specified in the MAP, whilst the entire range is considered precautionary when applying the ICES rule. Depending on the management decision for recreational catches, assumed to be between 1754 tonnes and 3227 tonnes, the corresponding commercial catches are between 5867 tonnes and tonnes. Western Baltic cod stock Catch advice

30 There is a risk of growth overfishing because the 2016 year class fish have not yet reached their full growth potential. Therefore, to make use of the full growth potential of the 2016 year class, ICES suggests to use the F MSY lower value in the MAP when setting the TAC. Western Baltic cod stock Sensitivity of Catch advice

31 Basis Total catch * (2019) Recreational catch Commercial catch Western Baltic cod stock Catch options F total (2019) F commercial (2019) SSB (2020) % SSB change *** % Advice change ^ ICES advice basis EU MAP**: F MSY F = MAP F MSY lower ^^ F = MAP F MSY upper NA ^^^ EU MAP**: F MSY F = MAP F MSY lower ^^ Other scenarios F MSY Zero commercial catch F = F pa F = F lim SSB (2020) = B lim SSB (2020) = B pa SSB (2020) = MSY B trigger F = F

32 Eastern Baltic Cod stock

33 Landings in Tonnes Denmark Estonia Finland German Dem.Rep. Germany Fed. Rep. Latvia Lithuania Poland Russia Sweden USSR Faroe Islands^ Norway Unallocated** Cod Eastern Baltic Landings SDs by country

34 Landings in Tonnes Denmark Estonia Finland German Dem.Rep. Germany Fed. Rep. Latvia Lithuania Poland Russia Sweden USSR Faroe Islands^ Norway Cod Eastern Baltic Landings SDs by country

35 Catches Tonnes Total landings Unallocated* Discards Landings BMS Eastern Baltic cod stock Catches

36 Catches Tonnes Catches % % 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Catch in 24 Catch in Catch in 24 Catch in Eastern Baltic cod stock Catch by SD

37 Small fish index (cod < 30 cm) has declined from a maximum in 2013 Stock size indicator (biomass of cod 30 cm) has decreased after 2010; Exploitation rate decreased during ; slight increase followed by no clear trend Landings include fish above and below Minumun Conservation Reference Size (MCS, 35 cm) Landings below MCS < 1% (316 t) Discarding: 10% (observer data), considered an underestimate Eastern Baltic cod stock Status of stock and exploitation

38 The precautionary buffer was last applied in The fishing mortality is above and the biomass below proxies of the MSY reference points; therefore, the precautionary buffer was applied to the advice. Index A (2017, 2018) 83 Index B (2014, 2015, 2016) 152 Index ratio (A/B) 0.55 Uncertainty cap Applied 0.80 Advised catch for tonnes Precautionary buffer Applied 0.80 Catch advice** tonnes % Advice change*** 36% Eastern Baltic cod stock Catch forecast

39 ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, catches in 2019 from the eastern Baltic cod stock should be no more than tonnes. This advice applies to all catches from the stock in subdivisions Eastern Baltic Cod Stock Catch advice

40 Cod Fishing opportunities by management area

41 Commercial catch WB cod stock Commercial catch EB cod stock Commercial catch of cod by management area (TAC) A B C D E F G H Area Total SDs SD 24 Total SD 24 SDs SDs22 24 A. Status quo distribution same settings as last year % TAC change (SDs 22 24)* Calculation = A 0.73^ = A 0.27^ = C 2.38^^ = D E = B + C + E = F SDs % TAC change (SDs 25 32)** EU MAP: FMSY F=MAP FMSY lower B. EB cod catch in SD 24 limits WB cod catch ratio in catches is mean of , max. 10.5% of EB cod total catch in SD 24 Calculation = A 0.73^ =E/ 2.38^^ = D x 0.105*** = D E = B + C + E = F EU MAP: FMSY F=MAP FMSY lower C. EB cod to WB cod ratios in SD 24 catch changed according to stock development other parameters as in option A Calculation = A 0.73^ = A 0.27^ = C 0.79^^^ = D E = B + C + E = F EU MAP: FMSY F=MAP FMSY lower Cod Catch forecast by management area

42 Flatfish stocks * Plaice in subdivisions * Plaice in subdivisions Management areas for plaice: 21 & * Turbot in subdivisions * Brill in subdivisions * Dab in subdivisions * Flounder in subdivisions * Flounder in subdivisions * Flounder in subdivisions 26 and 28 * Flounder in subdivisions 27 and 29-32

43 Plaice in subdivisions * SSB strongly increased from 2009 and above MSY B trigger since 2012 * F: declined and below F MSY since 2013 * Recruitment: increasing Catch (2017) = 4242 t (23% discarded)

44 Plaice in subdivisions and 2017 assessment Figure 2 Plaice in subdivisions Historical assessment results.

45 Plaice in subdivisions ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, as requested by the European Commission, this corresponds to catches in 2019 of no more than tonnes. Assumptions 2018: F(2018) = F(2017) = 0.26 Catch 3747 t SSB(2019) = 22044>>> MSY B trigger (5 550 kt) Basis Total catch (2019) Wanted catch* (2019) Unwanted catch* (2019) F (2019) SSB (2020) % SSB change ** % Advice change *** ICES advice basis Precautionary approach: F PA Other scenarios F = F MSY F = F lim SSB (2020) = B pa SSB (2020) = MSY B trigger SSB (2020) = B lim F = F

46 Plaice in subdivisions Strong increase in stock size F in 2017 is the lowest observed in the time-series Catch (2017) = 1058 t (38.6% discarded) Discarding varies depending on market prices and quota of target species (e.g. cod), and can affect all lengths

47 Plaice in subdivisions Figure 2 Plaice in subdivisions SPiCT model results used for the evaluation of the stock and exploitation status (the proxy F MSY and MSY B trigger are represented by horizontal lines in the left and right panels, respectively). The dots in the left panel represent Q1 and Q4 BITS indices.

48 Plaice in subdivisions SSB trend from exploratory stock assessment used as stock size indicator: The relative fishing mortality is below and the relative stock size above proxies of the MSY reference points; therefore, no additional precautionary buffer was applied. Index A (2017, 2018) 2.9 Index B (2014, 2015, 2016) 1.24 Index ratio (A/B) 2.3 Uncertainty cap Applied 1.20 Advised catch for tonnes Discard rate (2017) 0.38 Precautionary buffer Not applied - Catch advice** 3725 tonnes % change in advice ^ +20%

49 Plaice Catch by management area Table 4 Plaice in subdivisions Catch and landings overview and calculation of catches by management area for plaice in subdivisions and Basis Catch 2017 Landings 2017 ICES stock advice 2019 (catch) Stock area-based SDs SDs Total advised catch, 2019 (SDs 21 32) SD Management SDs area-based SDs Share of SD 21 of the total catch in SDs in 2017 Catch in 2019 for SD 21 Catch in 2019 for SDs calculation t / t (catch in 2017 SD 21 / catch in 2017 SDs 21 23) t (ICES stock advice in 2019 (catch) for SDs share) t t (total advised catch in 2019 SDs catch SD 21) results Share of SD 21 of the total landings in SDs in t / t (landings in 2017 SD 21 / landings in 2017 SDs 21 23) 0.247

50 Turbot in subdivisions ICES has not been requested to provide advice on fishing opportunities for this stock. Landings stable since 2007 The stock size indicator has fluctuated without trend over the time-series Mainly bycatch Landings (2017) = 264 t (discards unknown) ICES cannot assess the stock and exploitation status relative to MSY and PA reference points because the reference points are undefined.

51 Pelagic stocks 31 * Herring: Western Baltic spring spawners (subdivisions 20-24) * Herring: Central Baltic (subdivisions & 32, excluding Gulf of Riga) * Herring: Gulf of Riga (Subdvision 28.1) * Herring: Subdivision 30 * Herring: Subdivision 31 * Sprat: subdivisions 22-32

52 Landings in t Herring stocks Herring

53 Western Baltic spring spawning herring (subdivisions 20-24) This stock was benchmarked in 2018 The new assessment shows a better retrospective pattern. The new multi-fleet model adopted at the benchmark is expected to provide a better representation of the temporal development of fishing mortality. New survey indices were added giving a better coverage of younger age-classes of the stock. Revised Reference Points Reference point Old Value New Value MSY B trigger F MSY B lim B pa F lim F pa

54 Western Baltic spring spawning herring (subdivisions 20-24) SSB below B lim F above F MSY Recruitment has been low since the mid-2000s Recruitment 2016 n& 2017 lowest in the time series Figure 1 Herring in subdivisions 20 24, spring spawners. Commercial catches, recruitment, fishing mortality, and spawning Catch (2017) = ( ~ 99.6% directed fishery; discarding negligible) Mixing with North Sea herring in Division 3a and eastern part of Subarea 4

55 Western Baltic spring spawning herring (subdivisions 20-24) This stock was benchmarked in 2018 Better retrospective pattern. Better representation of the temporal development of fishing mortality. New survey indices - better coverage of younger age-classes of the stock. The historic perception of SSB and recruitment have been revised downwards. Figure 2 Herring in subdivisions 20 24, spring spawners. Historical assessment results; orange lines represent the most recent assessment following the benchmark in 2018.

56 Western Baltic spring spawning herring (subdivisions 20-24) catch options Assumptions for 2018 Variable Value Notes F ages 3 6 (2018) 0.30 Catch constraint SSB (2018) Catch constraint R age 0 (2018) Geometric mean R age 0 (2019) Geometric mean Total catch (2018) Agreed EU Norway catch options (EU Norway, 2016), including an assumed 46% transfer ( t) of the C-fleet TAC to the North Sea (in tonnes). Utilization of the TAC in 2018 of 100% for the F-fleet, 54% for the C-fleet, 46% for the D-fleet, and a small catch of western Baltic springspawning herring in the A-fleet (based on the average of , see table 8 for definition of fleets). Ratios between the North Sea and western Baltic herring stocks in Division 3.a and Subarea 4 are based on the average proportions in the catches.

57 The highest F that brings SSB above Blim in 2021 will be F = 0.1 with a yield of tonnes in This will carry a higher risk of not achieving Blim than zero catch in 2019 and All catch scenarios, including zero catch, result in SSB remaining below Blim in There has been a change in perception of the status of the stock after the benchmark in 2018 mainly due to a revision of Blim Recent recruitment has been declining and recruitment in 2016 and 2017 have been the weakest in the time-series. To explore the potential development of the stock, projections until 2021 with different low F scenarios (where F2020 = F2019) Spawning-tock biomass is expected to remain just below Blim with a fishing mortality of zero.

58 Basis Total catch (2019) F 3-6 (2019) SSB* (2019) SSB* (2020) % SSB change ** % advice change *** ICES advice basis MSY approach: zero catch % -100% Other scenarios MAP (2018)^: F = F MSY SSB 2018 /MSY B trigger % -22% MAP (2018)^: F = F MSY lower (SSB 2018 /MSY B trigger ) % -44% MAP (2018)^: F = F MSY upper (SSB 2018 /MSY B trigger ) % -7.1% F MSY % 7.2% F = F pa % 19.0% F = F lim % 46% SSB (2020) = B lim ^^ % -100% SSB (2020) = B pa^^ % -100% SSB (2020) = MSY B trigger^^ % -100% F = F % 3.6% MAP (2016)^^^: F = F MSY SSB y-1 / MSY MAP B trigger % 5.1% MAP (2016)^^^: F = F MSY.lower SSB y-1 / MSY MAP B trigger % -21% MAP (2016)^^^: F = F MSY.upper SSB y-1 / MSY MAP B trigger % 30% F = 0 {SSB 2021 = } ^^^^ % -100% F = 0.05 {SSB 2021 = } ^^^^ % -81% F = 0.1 {SSB 2021 = } ^^^^ % -63% F = 0.15 {SSB 2021 = } ^^^^ % -46%

59 Herring: information on catch opportunities by fleet and area Area where WBSS are caught Fleet Fisheries WBSS 2017 NSAS 2017 catch (t) catch (t) Division 3.a C Directed herring fisheries with purse-seiners and trawlers D Bycatches of herring caught in the small-meshed fisheries Subdivisions F All herring fisheries in subdivisions Subarea 4 A Directed herring fisheries with purse-seiners and trawlers Total area C,D,F,A All

60 A-fleet B-fleet C-fleet D-fleet Herring: information on catch opportunities by fleet and area Agreed TAC-setting procedures: o North Sea: MSY approach not EU-Norway Long-Term Management Strategy o Division 3a (directed fishery, fleet C): EU-Norway agreed TAC-setting procedure o Division 3a (industrial fishery, fleet D): Bycatch ceiling o Subdivisions (F fleet): TAC set at (1/2) x ICES advice for WBSS stock based on MSY approach opportunities by fleet and area are interlinked and have to be calculated simultaneously ICES currently has no method for fleet-based MSY advice and other catch distribution scenarios could be provided on request from clients. Basis Fages (wr) 2 6 F values by fleet and total Fages (wr) 0 1 A-fleet **** %TAC Fages (wr) 0 1 Fages (wr) 0 1 Fages (wr) 2 6 Fages (wr) 0 1 A-fleet Catches by fleet B- fleet C- fleet # D- fleet # Total stock catch SSB 2019 Biomass* SSB 2020 ** %SSB change *** % Advice change ^ MSY approach^^ Other scenarios EU Norway Management strategy F = F

61 Central Baltic herring stock (subdivisions & 32, excluding G. Riga) SSB above MSY Btrigger since 2006 F has been above FMSY since 2015 Recruitment in 2015 the highest observed Catch (2017) = t (mainly pelagic trawls; discarding negligible) * Some catch of Central Baltic herring stock occurs in Gulf of Riga, and viceversa

62 Central Baltic herring stock (subdivisions & 32, excluding G. Riga) A high variability between years in the survey index, in particular in the last years due to the large year class of 2014, is the likely cause of the downward revision of SSB and upward revision of fishing mortality for the recent years Figure 2 Herring in subdivisions and 32, excluding the Gulf of Riga. Historical assessment results (final-year recruitment estimates included).

63 Central Baltic herring stock (subdivisions & 32, excluding G. Riga) Catch options, assumptions for 2018 F ages 3 6 (2018) Variable Value Notes SSB (2018) R age1 (2018) 0.35 Based on a TAC constraint* RCT3 estimate. R age1 ( ) Geometric mean Total catch (2018) TAC constraint* * TAC constraint in 2018: EU share tonnes + Russian quota tonnes + central Baltic herring stock caught in Gulf of Riga tonnes (mean ) Gulf of Riga herring stock caught in central Baltic Sea 260 tonnes (mean ) = tonnes.

64 Central Baltic herring stock (subdivisions Central Baltic herring stock & 32, excluding G. Riga) Basis Total catch (2019) F total (2019) SSB (2019) SSB (2020) % SSB change * % Advice change ** ICES advice basis EU MAP^^: F MSY % -42% EU MAP^^: F lower % -42%*** EU MAP^^: F upper % -42%^ Other scenarios ICES MSY approach: F MSY % -42% 20% decrease in TAC ^^^ % -21% F = % -100% F = F pa % -1% F = F lim % 19% SSB (2020) = B lim % 53% SSB (2020) = B pa % -5% SSB (2020) = MSY B trigger % -5% F = F % -13% The decreased catch advice is due to a change in the perception of the stock size. The stock size was downscaled and fishing mortality was upscaled due to the low survey indices in the last two years. There is also a downward revision of the 2014 year class.

65 Herring: information on catch opportunities by management area A possible way to set TACs by management area (SDs & 32, excluding G. Riga; G. Riga) consistent with the stock advice is by assuming for 2018: o Central Baltic herring caught in G. Riga: 4363 t (average of ) o G. Riga herring caught in Subdvision 28.2: 225 t (average of ) The corresponding TAC in the central Baltic management area for 2019 would be calculated as tonnes tonnes 4363 tonnes = tonnes.

66 Gulf of Riga herring stock (Subdivision 28.1) * SSB above MSY B trigger since late 1980s * F close to F MSY since 2008, generally above * High and low recruitment in recent years Catch (2017) = t (~ 77% trawl, 23% trapnets ; discarding negligible) * Some catch of Central Baltic herring stock occurs in Gulf of Riga, and viceversa

67 Gulf of Riga herring stock (Subdivision 28.1) ICES advises that when the EU multiannual plan (MAP) is applied, catches in 2019 that correspond to the F ranges in the plan are between tonnes and tonnes. According to the MAP, catches higher than those corresponding to FMSY ( tonnes) can only be taken under conditions specified in the MAP. This advice applies to all catches from the stock in subdivisions 28.1 and Basis Total catch(2019) F total (2019) SSB (2019) SSB(2020) % SSBchange ** % Advice change *** ICES advice basis EU MAP*: F MSY % 8.1% EU MAP*: F lower % 6.5%^ EU MAP*: F upper % 7.0%^^ Other scenarios ICES MSY approach: % 8.1% F MSY F = % % F = F pa % 89.1% F = F lim % SSB (2020) = B lim % 201.2% SSB (2020) = B pa % 136.7% SSB (2020) = MSY B trigger % 125.7% F = F % -1.3% Assumptions 2018: TAC constraint + stock catch in Central Baltic catch of Central Baltic herring in Gulf of Riga

68 Herring: information on catch opportunities by management area A possible way to set TACs by management area (SDs & 32, excluding G. Riga; G. Riga) consistent with the stock advice is by assuming for 2018: o Central Baltic herring caught in G. Riga: 4363 t (average of ) o G. Riga herring caught in Subdvision 28.2: 225 t (average of ) The corresponding TAC in the Gulf of Riga management area for 2019 would be calculated as tonnes 251 tonnes tonnes = tonnes..

69 Gulf of Riga herring stock (Subdivision 28.1) The EC has requested ICES to identify if intra-specific density dependence is known to occur for Gulf of Riga herring based on existing, updated scientific evidence (EC, 2018). In the short term this stock is not expected to increase to biomasses outside the range estimated by the assessment in recent years. Mean weights in the stock have also been stable in recent years suggesting little evidence for declining growth due to intra-species interactions. The stock has been declining in recent years and the direct and indirect effects on other stocks are within the range of what would have occurred in previous years without observing significant detrimental inter-species effects. Therefore ICES does not consider that the evidence is sufficient to justify an application of the upper FMSY range based on the condition; to avoid serious harm to a stock caused by intra- or inter-species stock dynamics, set out in the MAP.

70 Herring in Subdivisions 30 & 31 (Gulf of Bothnia) Two stocks merged last year at benchmark SSB) has decreased in the last five years but above MSY B trigger F increasing trend and now above F MSY High and low recruitment in recent years Maximum sustainable yield F MSY Fishing pressure Stock size Above MSY B trigger Above trigger Catches tonnes (96% trawl, 3.3% trap nets) Precautionary approach F pa, F lim Increased risk B pa, B lim Full reproductive capacity Management plan F MGT Not applicable SSB MGT Not applicable

71 Herring in Subdivisions 30 & 31 (Gulf of Bothnia) ICES advises that when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2019 should be no more than tonnes. Basis Catch (2019) F total (2019) SSB (2019) SSB (2020) % SSB change * % TAC change ** % Advice change *** ICES advice basis MSY approach: F MSY % 5% -7% Other scenarios F = % -100% -100% F = F pa % 14% 1% F = F lim % 39% 23% SSB (2020) = B lim % 212% 177% SSB (2020) = B pa % 124% 98% SSB (2020) = MSY B trigger % 124% 98% F = F % -1% -12% F = proposed F MSY lower ^ % 22% -31%^^^ F = proposed F MSY upper ^^ % 5% -7% Assumptions 2018: Catch constraint (84 599t); F(2018) = 0.198

72 Sprat in subdivisions SSB above MSY B trigger since early 1990s increasing F has declined in recent years and is close to F MSY Recruitment: last 3 years close to average Catch (2017) = t

73 Sprat in subdivisions ICES advises that when the EU multiannual plan (MAP) is applied, catches in 2019 that correspond to the F ranges in the plan are between tonnes and tonnes. According to the MAP, catches higher than those corresponding to FMSY ( tonnes) can only be taken under conditions specified in the MAP, whilst the entire range is considered precautionary when applying the ICES advice rule. Basis Total catch (2019) F total (2019) SSB (2019) SSB (2020) % SSB change * % TAC change ** % Advice change *** ICES advice basis EU MAP^^: F MSY EU MAP^^: F MSY lower ^ EU MAP^^: F MSY upper ^ Other scenarios MSY approach = F MSY F = F = F pa F = F lim SSB (2020) = B lim SSB (2020) = B pa SSB (2020) = MSY B trigger F = F 2018^^^ Assumptions : Catch constraint of t in 2018 (EU quota of t and Russian quota of t). F(2018) = 0.26

74 Sprat in subdivisions ICES recommends that a spatial management plan is developed for the fisheries that catch sprat, with the aim to improve cod condition. The abundance of cod in subdivisions is high compared to other areas in the Baltic and the cod condition is considered to be limited by food availability. Sprat and herring are important food items for cod (especially sprat), but the present high biomass of the two prey stocks is mainly distributed outside the distribution area for cod. The relative catch proportion of sprat in the main cod distribution area has since 2010 increased from 37% of the total catch to 53% in Any increase in fishing pressure on sprat in the main cod distribution area may deteriorate the feeding condition for cod as prey availability decreases. Sprat (BIAS 2017 Q4) Cod (BITS 2017 Q4) Herring (BIAS 2017 Q4)

75 Salmon and sea trout 31 * Salmon in subdivisions * Salmon in subdvision 32 * Sea trout in subdivisions

76 Assessment Units Byskeälven Skellefteälven Vindelälven Umeälven Lögdeälven Ångermanälven Indalsälven Kalixälven Luleälven Piteälven Åbyälven 2 Råneälven Baltic salmon Tornionjoki 1 Simojoki Iijoki Oulujoki Two TAC areas: SD and SD 32 Salmon spawn in rivers and spend the beginning of their life in rivers As smolts they go to sea, where they spend 1 or more years feeding and growing until they return to rivers to spawn Germany Sweden Odra Drawa Ljungan Emån Mörrumsån 4 Ljusnan Dalälven Poland Vistula Bothnian Sea 3 Baltic Main Basin Saka Kokemäenjoki Irbe Russia Venta Lithuania Neumunas, Minja Finland Gulf of Finland Keila Vasalemma 5 Salaca Gauja 6 Estonia Latvia Daugava Luga Narva Neva Russia km Sea fisheries catch salmon from several river stocks ICES uses 6 assessment units (AU), based on biological and genetic characteristics of the stocks Stocks in same AU have similar migration patterns and are subject to same fisheries and could be managed in the same way There is an analytical assessment for AUs 1-4; for AUs 5 and 6, assessment based on available indicators and expert judgement MSY reference point: 0.75 x PSPC (potential smolt production capacity)

77 Number of Salmon Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Poland Russia Sweden

78 Salmon in subdivisions 22-31

79 Salmon in subdivisions Smolt Production in AUs 1-4 (horizontal line is PSPC): Estimated pre-fishery abundance in the sea Smolt Production in AU 5 (relative to PSPC): Fishing pressure at sea:

80 Salmon in subdivisions Catch Scenarios: Scenario Total commercial catch at sea F of commercial catch Commercial catch at sea in subdivisions in 2019 Unwanted catch Wanted (dead + alive) catch Reported Undersized Seal damaged Wanted catch Unreported Wanted catch Misreported Scenario Total sea catch (comm. + recr.) 2019 F of total catch at sea Recreational catch at sea 2019 River catch 2019 Spawners

81 Salmon in subdivisions ICES advises that when the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach is applied, total commercial sea catch in 2019 should be no more than salmon. Applying the same catch proportions estimated from observations in the 2017 fishery, the catch in 2019 would be split as follows: unwanted catch (10%; previously referred to as discards) and wanted catch (90%; i.e. 55% reported, 6% unreported, and 29% misreported). This would correspond to commercial landings (the reported wanted catch) of salmon. ICES advises that management of salmon fisheries should be based on the status of individual river stocks. Fisheries on mixed stocks that cannot target only river stocks with a healthy status, present particular threats to wild stocks that do not have a healthy status. Fisheries in open-sea areas or coastal waters are more likely to pose a threat to depleted stocks than fisheries in estuaries and in healthy wild and reared rivers. Effort in these mixed-stock fisheries has been reduced to low levels and should not increase. The salmon stocks of rivers Rickleån, Sävarån, Öreälven, Lögdeälven, and Testeboån in the Gulf of Bothnia, Emån in southern Sweden, and all rivers in the southeastern Main Basin (AU 5) are especially weak. The offshore and coastal fisheries in the Main Basin catch all these weak salmon stocks on their feeding migration. The coastal fishery in the Åland Sea and Gulf of Bothnia catches salmon from weak stocks from northern rivers on their spawning migration. These stocks need longer-term, stock-specific rebuilding measures, including fisheries restrictions in estuaries and rivers, habitat restoration, and removal of physical barriers. For these weak stocks exploitation should not increase along their feeding and spawning migration routes at sea.

82 Annual production (in thousands of fish) of wild and released smolts in the Gulf of Finland.

83 Salmon in Subdivision 32 (Gulf of Finland) The three wild salmon stocks: Smolt Production (relative to potential smolt production capacity; PSPC) Seven Estonian mixed salmon stocks: Two Russian mixed stocks:

84 Salmon in Subdivision 32 (Gulf of Finland) ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, catches in 2019 should be no more than salmon. This assumes that the amount of reared salmon released in 2018 is similar to previous years. Applying the same catch proportions estimated to have occurred in 2017, this would correspond to commercial landings (the reported wanted catch) of 9676 salmon. Fisheries-related mortality on wild salmon from all wild and mixed (hatchery wild) rivers in the Gulf of Finland should be as low as possible. Most of the salmon in the Gulf of Finland are of reared origin. Measures to focus the fishing effort on reared salmon should be implemented. Such measures could include seasonal regulations and/or relocation of coastal fisheries away from sites likely to be on the migration paths of Gulf of Finland wild salmon. Fin-clipping of reared salmon stocks in all countries would allow wild salmon to be distinguished from reared salmon, as well as helping to identify wild salmon locations and fisheries on wild salmon. Relocation of fisheries away from rivers and rivers mouths supporting wild or mixed stocks, should be maintained. Wild salmon returning to rivers should be protected from poaching. Effort in the salmon fishery in the Main Basin (subdivisions 24 29) should not increase, as wild salmon from the Gulf of Finland use the Main Basin as a feeding area.

85 Baltic - Overview Stock Status summary Baltic 2018

86

87 Baltic - Overview Pressure of fishing activity Reproductive capacity MSFD evaluation Baltic 2018

88 Thank you