SKAGERRAK PLAICE WORKSHOP

1. SKAGERRAK PLAICE WORKSHOP Charlottenlund, 16. April 2013

2. 2010 STATUS • NO ACCEPTED STOCK ASSESSMENTfor Skagerrak/Kattegat plaicestock • No long term management • Category 11 stock (potential TAC reductions) • MSC certification not possible (competitive problem)

3. SINCE 2010 DFPO We have a problem!

4. SINCE 2010 DFPO DTU Aqua Testing hypotheses Skagerrak probably linked to North Sea

5. SINCE 2010 DFPO DTU Aqua NSRAC Skagerrak HCR proposal based upon state of knowledge

6. 2011 HCR DRAFT

7. SINCE 2010 DFPO DTU Aqua NSRAC WKPESTO HCR proposal evaluated New stock delineations proposed

8. SINCE 2010 DFPO DTU Aqua NSRAC WKPESTO Revised SkagerrakHCR proposal

9. SINCE 2010 DFPO DTU Aqua NSRAC WKPESTO TODAY!

10. Agenda • Welcome and introductions • Background • The project on assessment and management of plaice in the Skagerrak (DFPO) • Last years’ work and results from ICES (DTU Aqua) • Current research • Stock identities - genetics project (DTU Aqua) • Short term proposal • NSRAC proposal for interim harvest control rule (DFPO) • Discussion - next steps

12. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL - input • Combined North Sea and Skagerrak stockassessment

13. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL - input

14. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL - input • Combined North Sea and Skagerrak stockassessment • Surveyindex for Western Skagerrak • > 90 % of catches – indexshows increasingabundance (with NS SSB)

15. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL - input

16. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL - input • Combined North Sea and Skagerrak stockassessment • Surveyindex for Western Skagerrak • > 90 % of catches – indexshows increasingabundance (with NS SSB) • Surveyindex for local component in Eastern Skagerrak • Index shows decliningabundance – ICES advisesprecaution

17. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL - input

18. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL - input • North Sea LTMP • F target (msy) • B trigger • Year-on-yearrule (15 %)

19. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • ICES performs a combined assessment for the North Sea and Skagerrak. • Total allowable catches (landings + discards) for the combined area is calculated, based upon the applicable fishing mortality in the North Sea LTMP.

20. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL Skagerrak contribution to combined SSB: 13 %

21. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • Out of the combined TAC, the Skagerrak TAC is 13 %. Skagerrak total allowable landings will be TAC minus estimated discards.

22. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • But North Sea LTMP must have it’s share!

23. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • Until a revision of the North Sea LTMP takes the new stock delineation into account, the Skagerrak TAC is the lower number from the two methods in 4. and 5. below. • Out of the combined TAC, the Skagerrak TAC is 13 %. Skagerrak total allowable landings will be TAC minus estimated discards. • Out of the combined TAC, the NS TAC is deducted. A separate North Sea only assessment is performed to inform this North Sea TAC. The Skagerrak TAC is set as the remaining difference between the combined TAC and the ‘pure’ North Sea TAC. Skagerrak total allowable landings will be TAC minus estimated discards.

24. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • Caution! – no fast changes

25. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • If in the first year of application of the HCR, the difference between the TAC as set before the application and as set according to this HCR is more than 25 %, then the change in TAC shall be implemented step-wise over a period corresponding to maximum 25 % change per year.

26. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • The Eastern component– avoiding targeted fisheries when survey CPUE is low

27. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • EASTERN SKAGERRAK • ICES updates the Skagerrak area based survey index. • An abundance limit is proposed at 6,0 in the survey index. • An abundance target is proposed at 10,0 in the survey index. • If the average of the last three years’ survey index for the Eastern part of the Skagerrak is below the limit, then a maximum of 500 tons out of the total Skagerrak TAC may be taken in this area. • If the average of the last three years’ survey index for the Eastern part of Skagerrak is above the limit, but below the target, then a maximum of 1000 tons out of the total Skagerrak TAC may be taken in this area. • If the average of the last three years’ survey index for the Eastern part of Skagerrak is above the target, no area-specific limit shall be set.

28. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL

29. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • The ‘boundaries of the box’

30. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • WESTERN SKAGERRAK • If the difference between the trend (see 14.) of the survey index for the Western part of Skagerrak and the trend of the North Sea SSB is more than 1.5 then the underlying stock assumption in the HCR is questioned and the HCR shall be reevaluated and adjusted accordingly. • Until the HCR has been adjusted: • If the trend of the Western Skagerrak index is lower than the trend of the North Sea SSB trend (e.g. Skagerrak falling, North Sea rising), then the initial Skagerrak TAC shall be lowered by 25 %. • If the trend of the Western Skagerrak index is higher than the trend of the North Sea SSB trend (e.g. Skagerrak rising, North Sea falling), then the initial Skagerrak TAC shall be raised by 25 %, unless this leads to an unsustainable exploitation of the combined stock. • The trend of the survey or the North Sea SSB is defined as the average of the last two years CPUE/SSB compared to the average of the preceding three years. • As ICES notes, survey coverage in the Western part of Skagerrak is poor. The NSRAC urges the Member States, National Institutes and the Fishing industry to collaborate in order to extend survey coverage in this area, as soon as possible.

31. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL

32. REVISED HCR PROPOSAL • Combinedassessment • 13 % - unless North Sea LTMP ‘needs’ > 87% • Max. 25 % change • Protecting the Eastern component • The box

34. NEXT STEPS • ICES WGNSSK and advice • EU-Norwaynegotiations for 2014