Marine Stewardship Council Pre-Assessment Final...

Marine Stewardship Council Pre-Assessment

Final Report

For The

Nephrops trawl fishery

Facilitated By the

Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM)

Assessors: Conor Donnelly

Report Code: Pre-Assessment 027 Report Date: August 2018

SAI Global 3rd Floor, Block 3, Quayside Business Park, Mill Street, Dundalk, Co. Louth, Ireland. T + 353 42 932 0912 F + 353 42 938 6864 www.saiglobal.com

Form 12h Issue 4 October 2017 © SAI Global Limited Copyright 2009 - ABN 67 050 611 642 Page 1

Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... 1

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Aims/scope of pre-assessment ............................................................................................... 8

2.2. Full assessment process .......................................................................................................... 8

2.3. Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery ................................................................... 9

2.4. Unit(s) of Assessment ............................................................................................................. 9

2.5. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ........................................................................ 14

3. Description of the fishery .............................................................................................................. 16

3.1. Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme ...................................................... 16

3.2. Overview of the fishery ......................................................................................................... 16

3.3. Principle One: Target species background ............................................................................ 19

3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem background ................................................................................. 28

3.5. Principle Three: Management system background .............................................................. 46

4. Evaluation Procedure .................................................................................................................... 47

4.1. Assessment methodologies used .......................................................................................... 48

4.2. Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment ....................................... 48

4.3. Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment ........................................................ 48

4.4. Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries .............................................. 48

5. Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification) ................................................... 49

5.1. Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody ........................................ 49

6. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery ............................................................................................ 50

6.1. Applicability of the default assessment tree ........................................................................ 50

6.1.1. Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ................................. 50

6.2. Evaluation of the fishery ....................................................................................................... 50

6.3. Summary of likely PI scoring levels ....................................................................................... 53

7. References .................................................................................................................................... 77

8. Annex 1. Preliminary Risk Based Framework (RBF) assessment....................…………………………….83


Glossary CAB Conformity Assessment Body ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected FEAS The Marine Institute’s Fisheries Ecosystems Advisory Services FCR MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements FU ICES Functional Unit (Nephrops management unit) HCR Harvest Control Rule ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Seas MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment SFPA Sea Fisheries Protection Authority STECF EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification UWTV Underwater television survey VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems


1. Executive Summary This report includes the details of the MSC pre-assessment of the Nephrops trawl demersal fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. The report includes an introduction to the fishery, the results of the pre-assessment, the rationales that substantiate the scores for each performance indicator (PI) and a recommendation as to whether the fishery is in a position at present to move forward and undergo full assessment.

Assessment team This pre-assessment was conducted by Conor Donnelly and carried out using the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 (issued 1st October 2014 and effective 1st April 2015). The expertise and experience of the assessor is summarized below: Conor Donnelly Conor is an experienced marine ecologist and environmental manager with a background of over 17 years at one of the UK’s statutory nature conservation bodies, Natural England, where he was Senior Marine Adviser responsible for marine delivery across the East Midlands, Norfolk and Suffolk. He has extensive experience of shellfisheries and their management in Marine Protected Areas, in particular the mussel, cockle and shrimp fisheries of The Wash and working with fisheries managers, the fishing sector, local communities and eNGOs to assess the environmental impacts of these fisheries and provide advice on their management. He was Natural England’s representative on the Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and its predecessor and has advised and supported the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on fisheries casework in the southern North Sea under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) including at meetings with other member states. Other experience includes Marine Protected Area designation, conservation advice and condition assessment; conservation legislation and policy; and working with partners and stakeholders to deliver positive environmental outcomes. Conor has a BSc. in Environmental Science from King’s College, University of London; an MRes. in Marine and Coastal Ecology and Environmental Management from the University of York and is certified as a Fisheries Team Leader under MSC FCR versions 1.3 and 2.

Pre-assessment process and summary of assessment activities This assessment was conducted using the information and documents collected during a desktop review of the fishery and through emails with stakeholders involved in the fishery. No site visit was held. SAI Global would like to thank BIM and the Marine Institute for their collaboration and for providing the information and data necessary to carry out this pre-assessment.

Main strengths and weaknesses of the Nephrops trawl fishery Strengths Weaknesses

Functional Unit (FUs) 15 is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.

Assessing UoA/UoCs comprising FUs 15, 20-21 and 22 is problematic as they are only partially within Irish waters.

A harvest strategy exists for the FUs as a whole which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012.

In FUs 17, 19 and 22 fishing mortality hasn’t been fluctuating around a level consistent with FMSY for long enough to score ≥80 at PI 1.1.1.


Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy.

FUs 16, 18/Areas outside FUs and 20-21 do not have sufficient reference points to be able to assess stock status. However, preliminary RBF assessment suggest these stocks would score ≥80 at PI 1.1.1.

The fishery is likely to present a low risk to ETP species and so meet national and international requirements for protection of ETP species.

The availability of information is not consistent across the FUs. The time series is short for FUs 16, 19 and 20-21 and absent for FU18/Areas outside FUs.

The footprint of most UoAs does not overlap with VMEs.

In relation to the harvest strategy and control rules, the TAC is set at the level of the subarea rather than the individual stocks (FUs) which risks unsustainable fishing of particular stocks.

There is robust governance and policy, consultation and decision making processes.

One of the main primary species in the Irish Sea Nephrops fishery, whiting, is below its PRI and discards remain high despite measures to reduce bycatch. One of the main primary species in the Celtic Sea area, cod is below its PRI and fishing mortality is above FMSY.

Clear, long term objectives are explicit within the management system.

It is not possible to determine whether the main secondary species, Rajidae, are above biologically based limits. RBF is likely to be required to enable assessment of stock status. Preliminary RBF assessment suggests Rajidae would pass.

Evidence exists that fishers comply with the management system including providing information on the fisheries performance

It is not possible to determine that the UoAs do not cause serious or irreversible harm to commonly encountered habitats.

There is a system for evaluating the performance of the fishery.

In FU16 there have been issues reported of misreporting occurring over a number of years and high-grading.

PRINCIPLE 1 7 Nephrops Functional Units have been evaluated. 1 FU, FU15 has been determined to be fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY and is likely to attain a score of ≥80 for PI 1.1.1. A further 3 FUs, FU17, 19 and 22, are fluctuating around MSY Btrigger (ICES consider this the lower bound of MSY) and so considered to be above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) however cannot be said to fluctuating around BMSY. In the absence of specific BMSY reference points for Nephrops stocks FMSY has been used as a proxy and, in FU17, 19 and 22, fishing mortality hasn’t been fluctuating around a level consistent with FMSY for long enough to meet this performance indicator (PI) for these FUs. They likely score 60-79 for this PI. The remaining 3 FUs, 16, 18/Areas outside FUs and FU20-21 do not have sufficient reference points to be able to assess stock status and consequently should they go forward to full assessment the Risk Based Framework (RBF) should be used to score them. A preliminary pre-assessment was undertaken for this pre-assessment which found Nephrops in these FUs to be at medium risk and would likely score 60-79 for this PI. It should be noted that the preliminary assessment was undertaken without the stakeholder input that would occur in a full assessment and which is very important to scoring the susceptibility attributes. Consequently, the preliminary scores may change with that input.

Mike Fitzpatrick

This contradicts the strengths/weaknesses table


Although FUs 17, 19 and 22 would be considered to be in a rebuilding phase (i.e. biomass is not at a level consistent with BMSY) a rebuilding timeframe is not set for these stocks and so they likely score <60 for this PI. A harvest strategy exists for the FUs as a whole, involving an annual TAC set at Subarea level, and it has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy including stock abundance and harvest rates which is used to identify FU-specific reference points but the availability of this information is not consistent across FUs such that the time series is short for FUs16, 19 and 20-21 or absent for FU18/Areas outside FUs. There is some uncertainty over whether the Management Strategy in FU17 and also 22 is expected to work given recent high fishing mortality in these FUs which is likely to result in a score of 60-79 for this PI. A key issue affecting the scoring of Management Strategy and Harvest Control Rule (HCR) PIs for all FUs, is that the TAC, is not set at the appropriate spatial resolution. This should be implemented at FU level to ensure sustainable exploitation of the stocks. In UoA/UoCs 3 (FU17), 4 (FU18/Areas outside FUs), 5 (FU19) and 7 (FU22), some PIs obtained a likely score of less than 60 which meant they failed to pass Principle 1. UoA/UoC 1 (FU15), 2 (FU16) and 6 (FU20-21) are likely to pass Principle 1 with conditions. PRINCIPLE 2 The primary and secondary species of each FU have been identified. For FUs 15 and part of 19, the poor status of whiting in the Irish Sea which is mostly caught as bycatch in the Nephrops fishery is a major issue. It is below its PRI and the stock size is extremely low. Discards remain high despite technical measures introduced to reduce fin fish catch. Consequently, for these FUs, primary species outcome and management PIs score less than 60. In the Celtic Sea, cod bycatch affects FUs 16, 17, 18/Areas outside FUs, 19 (part), 20-21 and 22. Cod is below the PRI in this area and fishing mortality, although decreasing, is above Fmsy. A stock recovery plan is in place to rebuild the stock. Mortality is difficult to control due to mixed fisheries interactions. The FUs in this area are likely to score 60-79 in the primary species outcome and management PIs. The main secondary species affecting all FUs is Rajidae species. The discard data available to the pre-assessment did not distinguish Rajidae bycatch to species level so it was not possible to determine whether species populations affected are above biologically based limits. However, in most cases the status of skate and ray species is unknown or reference points are not defined, consequently RBF is recommended to score the outcome PI if the fishery moves toward full assessment. A preliminary RBF assessment was undertaken and found a low risk to Rajidae (using Raja clavata as an example) so the UoA/UoCs are likely to score 80 in this PI. Demersal trawling is likely to present a low risk to Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species, although some by-catch is observed. EC regulations are in place to monitor and reduce by-catch of marine mammals but ICES note that shortcomings in current monitoring and reporting means it is unlikely to reflect the magnitude of cetacean bycatch in European fisheries. Consequently the UoA/UoCs are likely to score 60-79 for the ETP information PI. It should be noted that the bycatch data available for the pre-assessment was not at the level of the individual UoA/UoCs so the assessment had to be undertaken at a broader level (Irish Sea, ICES division VIIa, and Celtic Seas ICES divisions b, c, e, f, g, h, j, k). It may be possible to request data to enable an assessment at finer resolution. The footprint of the UoAs does not appear to overlap with VMEs except in the Kenmare River SAC (within FU19) where it has been identified bottom trawling may have cumulative impacts on a


sediment community. Therefore, with the possible exception of FU19 (UoA/UoC5), it would seem the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of VME habitats to a point of serious or irreversible harm. However, the same cannot be said for commonly encountered mud habitats. There is some evidence of long term adverse effects from Nephrops trawling on benthos in mud habitats. A closer look at this and other research into trawling impacts is necessary to better understand the impact of this fishery in relation to the serious or irreversible harm threshold used in the Habitats Outcome PI. At present the UoA/UoCs are unlikely to score 60 or above in the Habitats outcome and management PIs. As all UoA/UoCs obtained a likely score of less than 60 in at least two PIs (Habitats outcome and management) they fail to pass Principle 2. FUs 15 and 19 (part) also scored less than 60 in the primary species outcome and management PIs. PRINCIPLE 3 The management exists within an effective legal framework and includes a comprehensive consultation process. The management policy has clear long term objectives under the CFP. However, it cannot be said that the long and short term objectives of the UoA/UoCs are all consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC principles 1 and 2. In relation to Principle 1, although scientific advice is available at the FU level, management is applied at the subarea rather than the FU level which risks unsustainable levels of fishing in certain FUs. In some FUs there is insufficient data to set reference points (FUs 16, 18, 20-21) or the time series of available data is insufficient to assess stock status against (FU19). In others, fishing levels have been high recently such that they are not fluctuating at or around a level consistent with FMSY (FU17, 22). In relation to Principle 2, whiting the main primary species for the Irish Sea UoA/UoCs (FU15 and part of 19), is below its PRI with an extremely low stock size and although a strategy is in place to recover and rebuild the stock, discards remain high so it cannot be said the strategy is likely to work at present. The main primary species for the other UoA/UoCs is the Celtic Sea stock of cod. It is also below its PRI and has a strategy in place to recover and rebuild the stock. Fishing mortality is decreasing but it is difficult to control due to mixed species interactions. Evidence from the Irish Sea indicates Nephrops trawling can have long term adverse effects on soft sediments so it cannot necessarily be said that the UoA/UoCs are unlikely to reduce structure and function of VME habitats. Although there are established decision making processes that result in measures to achieve the fishery-specific objectives which respond to serious issues identified in research, monitoring and consultation (for example the measures introduced to minimise bycatch) there isn’t necessarily evidence that they result in measures and strategies to achieve all the fishery-specific objectives of these UoA/UoCs . A monitoring control and surveillance system is implemented in the fishery although in FU16 there have been issues reported of mis-reporting occurring over a number of years. There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system. All UoA/UoCs are likely to pass Principle 3 with conditions.

Overall conclusion and Recommendation The current pre-assessment identified obstacles to be addressed before proceeding to an MSC full assessment.


On the completion of the analysis and scoring of the Nephrops trawl fishery against the MSC Criteria and Principles, using MSC FCR v2, it has been concluded that at this stage the 7 UoAs are not recommended to move forward to full MSC assessment process.


2. Introduction

2.1. Aims/scope of pre-assessment This pre-assessment of the Nephrops trawl fishery does not attempt to duplicate a full assessment against the MSC standard. A full assessment involves expert team members and public consultation stages that are not included in a pre-assessment. A pre-assessment provides a provisional assessment of a fishery based on a limited set of information provided by the client. The objectives of the pre-assessment include: � Enabling CAB planning for a full assessment; � Identifying potential issues; � Informing the client of the likelihood of achieving certification; � Highlighting major barriers to achieving certification; and � Enabling client planning for full assessment.

2.2. Full assessment process The full MSC assessment is a multiple-step process to determine whether a fishery meets the MSC Standard for Sustainable Fishing. It involves consulting with stakeholders, scoring the fishery against a set of performance indicators and scoring guideposts, setting conditions (if needed) which aim to improve the fishery performance, peer review and making a final determination about whether the fishery meets the MSC Standard for Sustainable Fishing. This is an intensive process that calls for a high level of information to be provided by the fishery and others and also calls for a significant level of involvement by the fishery client. The following are the stages of the MSC full assessment process (as per MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v.2.0): 1. Confirmation of scope (determining the fishery is eligible for MSC assessment and confirming the units of assessment (UoA) and units of certification (UoC) to be put forward for assessment)

2. Agreement of contract

3. Return of the Client Document Checklist, as completed by the client

4. Announcement of Fishery Assessment which is where the fishery is announced as going forward for assessment. At the same time the CAB is required to: - provide the names and CVs of the assessment team

- announce the use of the default assessment tree (if to be used) and application of Risk-Based Framework (RBF), where necessary

- announce the date and location of the proposed site visit(s)

- submit to the MSC, the MSC Notification Report Form (outlining the fishery details)

- submit to the MSC the returned Client Document Checklist - provide MSC with a copy of pre-assessment reports it has written for the fishery or provide MSC with the name of the pre-assessment report’s author if SAI Global is aware of any pre-assessment report(s) written by other parties

5. Allow for a period of at least 30 days before the site visit

6. Site visit, to include stakeholder meetings and data gathering

7. Scoring of the performance indicators and drafting of the Client Draft Report


8. Review of Client Draft Report by client (maximum 30 calendar days)

9. Preparation of Client Action Plan by client, if required

10. Drafting of Peer Review Draft Report

11. Selection and approval of peer reviewers from the MSC Peer Review College

12. Peer review of Peer Review Draft Report

13. Incorporation of Peer review comments, as required, and subsequent production of Public Comment Draft Report

14. Publication of Public Comment Draft Report on MSC website for stakeholders’ consultation and MSC review (30 calendar days)

15. Response to stakeholder comments; revision of report as required

16. Certification determination and publication of the Final Report

17. Stakeholders given opportunity to object to the certification determination (15 working days)

18. Objection procedure and consultation with stakeholders, if necessary

19. Certification and publication of Public Certification Report – assuming a successful certification outcome A certificate lasts for 5 years from date of issuance, during which time it is subject to annual surveillance audits to ensure continuing compliance with all MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and to evaluate progress against any conditions of certification. These surveillance audits will vary between the requirement for a full on-site audit, off-site audit or review of information, dependent on the risk as assessed during the previous audit by the CAB. When the certificate is due to expire, a reassessment against the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements is required to ensure on-going certification beyond the original certificate expiry date. This reassessment may constitute a full reassessment (same process as followed for initial certification) or a reduced reassessment. The reduced reassessment allows for fisheries which meet set criteria to have a ‘reduced ‘ audit with only one team member required to go on-site during the process and only one peer reviewer required to review the reassessment peer review report. Please note that optional MSC training material on the fishery assessment process is available for clients – should you wish to receive this, please let us know.

2.3. Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery The main constraint was the availability and reliability of data on bycatch and ETPs species interactions with the Nephrops fishery at the level of the Functional Units (FUs).

2.4. Unit(s) of Assessment The MSC Guidance for the Fisheries Certification Requirements defines the Unit of Certification (UoC) and the Unit of Assessment (UoA) in G7.4.7 – G7.4.9. The UoC (i.e., the unit entitled to receive an MSC certification) is defined as follows: “The target stock or stocks (=biologically distinct unit/s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practices (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock and any fleets, groups of vessels, or individual vessels of other fishing operators.”


The UoA defines the full scope of what is being assessed and is therefore equal to or larger than the UoC. If it is larger, it means it will include other eligible fishers. Other eligible fishers are fishers who are not members of the client group and fish for the target species using the same fishing gear under the same management system. There are a number of options for defining the UoA and UoC for the Nephrops trawl fishery. Whilst there is a single TAC for Nephrops in Subarea 7, there are several Functional Units (FU) within the Subarea, which ICES assess as 7 discrete stocks (Figure 1). Therefore, one option would be to identify a single UoA which encompasses all functional units within Irish jurisdiction. An alternative option would be to have several UoAs aligned to the boundaries of the individual FUs. The former approach would enable the whole Irish Nephrops trawl fishery to progress towards certification at once whereas the latter approach would enable a staggered approach that might be beneficial if FUs differ significantly in their ability to meet certification requirements. For the purposes of the pre-assessment we have identified several UoAs/UoC’s for each stock within the area of Irish jurisdiction within Subarea 7, these are shown in Table 1. With the exception of FUs 15, 20-21 and 22, the UoA and UoC are the same because the stock, client group and management system are the same. FUs15, 20-21 and 22 have been included but assessing them is problematic as they are only partially within Irish waters. Vessels from Other Member States (OMS) fish for Nephrops within all the FUs but do not represent eligible fishers since they are fishing from OMS rather than Irish quota. Some fishing for Nephrops with creels also occurs but this effort is considered negligible compared to trawling.


Figure 1. Nephrops lobster functional units in Subareas 6 and 7. Source1

Table 1. Units of Assessment and Certification for the Nephrops Trawl fishery.

1 http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/downloads/Fish-Man-Cht-2017.pdf

UoA / UoC 1: FU15 Irish Sea West

Species Nephrops or Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)

Geographical Area FAO 27 North East Atlantic; Subarea VII (division a) Stock Functional Unit 15 Western Irish Sea Method of capture Nephrops trawl Management system (and Science)

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Sea Fisheries Policy and Management Division (quota management) & Sea Fisheries Administration (licensing). Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (Enforcement, Monitoring and Control) Marine Institute of Ireland (Scientific Evaluation) EU Common Fisheries Policy

http://www.bim.ie/media/bim/content/downloads/Fish-Man-Cht-2017.pdf


Client group and other eligible fishers

Registered Irish vessels within the UoA jurisdiction. There are no other eligible fishers.

UoA / UoC 2: FU16 Porcupine Bank


Geographical Area FAO 27 North East Atlantic; Subarea VII (divisions b-c, j-k) Stock Functional Unit 16 Porcupine Bank Method of capture Nephrops trawl Management system (and Science)

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Sea Fisheries Policy and Management Division (quota management) & Sea Fisheries Administration (licensing). Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (Enforcement, Monitoring and Control) Marine Institute of Ireland (Scientific Evaluation) EU Common Fisheries Policy



UoA / UoC 3: FU17 Aran, Galway Bay and Slyne Head


Geographical Area FAO 27 North East Atlantic; Subarea VII (division b) Stock Functional Unit 17 Aran, Galway Bay and Slyne Head Method of capture Nephrops trawl Management system (and Science)

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Sea Fisheries Policy and Management Division (quota management) & Sea Fisheries Administration (licensing). Sea Fisheries Protection Agency (Enforcement, Monitoring and Control) Marine Institute of Ireland (Scientific Evaluation) EU Common Fisheries Policy



UoA / UoC 4: FU18 & areas outside FUs


Geographical Area FAO 27 North East Atlantic; Subarea VII (divisions a, b, c, f, g, h, j, k) Stock Functional Unit 18 and areas outside of FUs Method of capture Nephrops trawl


Management system (and Science)




UoA / UoC 5: FU19 South and South West Ireland


Geographical Area FAO 27 North East Atlantic; Subarea VII (divisions g, j) Stock Functional Unit 19 South and South West Ireland Method of capture

Nephrops trawl

Management system (and Science)




UoA / UoC 6: FU20-21 Labadie, James and Cockburn


Geographical Area FAO 27 North East Atlantic; Subarea VII (divisions f-g, j) Stock Functional Unit 20-21 Labadie, Jones and Cockburn Method of capture Nephrops trawl Management system (and Science)





2.5. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data Nephrops are currently managed under the Common Fishery Policy (CFP). A single Total Allowable Catch (TAC) covers the entire ICES Subarea VII and is 23,348 tonnes as shown in Table 2 (EU, 2016a). A proportion of the TAC is specifically allocated to FU16 (Table 3). Table 2. TAC and Catch Data

TAC1 Year 2016 Amount 23,348 tonnes live weight

UoA share of TAC1 Year 2016 Amount Not available UoC share of TAC1 Year 2016 Amount Not available Total green weight catch by UoC:

UoC 1: FU15 Year (most recent) 2016 Amount 1609 tonnes2, 3 Year (second most recent) 2015 Amount 2202 tonnes2

UoC 3: FU17 Year (most recent) 2016 Amount 641 tonnes2,3 Year (second most recent) 2015 Amount 370 tonnes2

UoC 4: FU18 and outside FUs

Year (most recent) 2016 Amount 38 tonnes4 Year (second most recent) 2015 Amount 65 tonnes2


UoC 6: FU20-21 Year (most recent) 2016 Amount 1531 tonnes2,3 Year (second most recent) 2015 Amount 1620 tonnes2


Notes: 1. The TAC is set at the level of the Subarea and is not available for individual FUs, although a

proportion of the TAC is specifically allocated to FU16 – see table below. With the exception of FU16, this means it is not possible to assign a tonnage to the UoA and UoC share of the TAC for individual FUs.

UoA / UoC 7: FU22 Smalls


Geographical Area FAO 27 North East Atlantic; Subarea VII (division g) Stock Functional Unit 22 Smalls Method of capture Nephrops trawl Management system (and Science)





2. Based on summing landings data (L+D, adjusted to account for discard survival) sourced from ICES FU advice (ICES 2017a, c, h, d, e, f)

3. Preliminary figure Table 3. Proportion of TAC allocated to UoC 2: FU16 and catch data

TAC Year 2016 Amount 1850 tonnes live weight1

UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 671 tonnes1 (36%) UoC share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 671 tonnes (36%) Total green weight catch by UoC

Year (most recent) 2016 Amount 1052 tonnes2,3 Year (second most recent) 2015 Amount 744 tonnes2

Notes: 1. (EU, 2016a) 2. Based on landings data (discarding considered negligible in FU16) sourced from ICES FU advice

(ICES 2017b) 3. Preliminary figure


3. Description of the fishery

3.1. Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme The fishery is eligible for certification and able to be assessed within the scope of the MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing (MSC FCR 7.4):

� The target species is not an amphibian, a reptile, a bird, or a marine mammal; � Fishing operations are not conducted using destructive fishing practices such as poisons or

explosives; � The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international

agreement; � The fishery is not the subject of controversy and/or dispute; � The fishery does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for violations

against forced labour laws. � The fishery under pre-assessment is not an enhanced fishery; � The fishery under pre-assessment is not an introduced species based fishery; � The species under assessment is not considered to be a key Lower Trophic Level (LTL) species; � There are no catches of non-target stocks (Principle 2) that are inseparable or practicably

inseparable (IPI) from the target stock (Principle 1). � The fishery has not previously failed an MSC assessment within the last 2 years; � The assessment of the Nephrops trawl fishery will not result in an overlapping assessment with

another MSC certified or applicant fishery.

3.2. Overview of the fishery

3.2.1 Description of the Nephrops trawl fishery The fishery operates in Irish waters within ICES Subarea VII predominantly by vessels using Nephrops trawls but there is also some creel fishing. Within Subarea VII Nephrops stocks are managed under the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. A number of nations fish in Subarea VII namely Ireland, UK, France and Spain. EU Regulation 2017 (EU, 2017) agreed a total TAC for ICES subarea VII of 25356 tonnes, divided amongst Ireland (9352, or 36% of the TAC), UK (8317), France (6166) and Spain (1521). A special condition is set that no more than 3100 tonnes of the TAC can come from FU16 (Ireland 1124, Spain 935, France 586 and UK 455).

3.2.2 Fishing practices and history The fishery is prosecuted throughout year by vessels using Nephrops trawl and also creels in some locations. The vast majority of landings (95%) are taken by single or multi-rig trawls. The use of four trawls known as quad-rig trawling was introduced in Ireland in 2012 and now accounts for approximately 80% of Nephrops landings by the Irish fleet (unpublished data from Marine Institute referred to in Browne et al., 2017) (Figure 2).


Figure 2. Outline of quad-rig gear including net position in relation to the vessel. From Browne et al., 2017 who reproduced and edited from Seafish.

Nephrops populations are grouped into separate FUs of which there are nine within ICES Subarea VII: Irish Sea East (FU14), Irish Sea West (FU15), Porcupine Bank (FU16), Aran Grounds (FU17), Ireland North West (FU18), Ireland SW and SE coasts (FU19), Labadie (FU20), Jones and Cockburn (FU21) and the Smalls (FU22). ICES assesses these as a total of 7 stocks, with FU20 and FU21 assessed together and FU18 is usually referred to as part of ‘areas outside the FUs’ and is not yet assessed due to very low landings. Effort and landings varies across the FUs, with the bulk of landings coming from FUs 15, 20-21 and 22 as shown in Figure 3 (data from all member states).


Figure 3. Nephrops in Subarea VII: percentage of the total landings by functional unit (FU) and from rectangles outside the FUs. Landings from FUs 20-21 and FU 22 are combined prior to 1999 (ICES, 2013a)

3.2.3 Administration of the fishery Within Irish waters the fishery is administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine Sea Fisheries Policy and Management Division (quota management) and Sea Fisheries Administration (licensing). Scientific advice on stock is provided by the Marine Institute which is then used by ICES to provide catch advice to the EU who set the annual TAC. Monitoring and enforcement of fishing activity is undertaken by the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA). Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) are the Irish State Agency responsible for developing the Irish seafood industry and are facilitating this pre-assessment. Access to fishery is controlled by license, any boat intended to be used for sea fishing requires a license under S.4 of the Fisheries Act 2003 and it is an offence to engage in fishing without this authorisation2.

2 https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/seafood/seafisheriesadministration/fishingboatlicencing/

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/seafood/seafisheriesadministration/fishingboatlicencing/


3.3. Principle One: Target species background

3.3.1. Biology, ecology and life history of Nephrops

Nephrops norvegicus is a decapod crustacean which grows to a maximum total length of 25 cm (including tail, carapace and legs), although individuals are normally between 18-20 cm. In the Irish Sea they are not thought to live longer than 8 or 9 years whereas on the Porcupine Bank they can live over 15 years. Nephrops are distributed throughout the North East Atlantic from Iceland in the north, to Morocco in the South and into the western and central Mediterranean, occurring at depth ranges of 20-800m. They require muddy sediment with a silt & clay content of between 10 – 100% to excavate their burrows so availability of suitable sediment is a key factor in defining their distribution. Adult Nephrops only emerge from their burrows to forage and mate and only undertake small-scale movements (a few 100 m). It is an opportunistic predator feeding mainly on crustaceans but also molluscs and to a lesser extent polychaetes and echinoderms. Suspension feeding is also thought to occur when food is scarce. Nephrops are preyed upon by many fish species including cod, thornback ray and catsharks (dogfish) Females mature at approximately 3 years of age and incubate eggs in their burrows during which time they leave their burrows less frequently. After hatching, larvae are pelagic for one month before metamorphosing and settling on the seabed3. Temperature and hydrographic factors are key to recruitment success in Nephrops, particularly during the larval phase. The FU15 stock has a well understood larval retention mechanism. The Western Irish Sea Gyre which forms during spring and summer when Nephrops larvae are present in the plankton and retains the larvae in the vicinity of the hatching areas of adults. Other stocks, such as the Porcupine Bank stock, have less well understood larval retention mechanisms. Increasing water temperature leading to shorter larval development times is thought to improve recruitment in areas such as the Irish Sea. Increased storminess related to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) has also been linked to reduced recruitment and low catch rates several years later on the Porcupine Bank (ICES 2013a).

3 MarLIN, accessed Dec 2017

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1672

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi2wafswpPYAhVI7SYKHZNkDqwQjRwIBw&url=https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/marine_species/wild_species/norway_lobster_en&psig=AOvVaw0USMmllLifDdO6RW3BKF-9&ust=1513685174565503


3.3.2 Nephrops stock status and biological reference points Nephrops stocks are surveyed annually by the Marine Institute using underwater TV (UWTV) to count burrow abundance by video analysis (Figure 4). ICES then use this information to set reference points and provide catch advice for each FU. For the biomass reference point, ICES use MSY Btrigger which is based on the lower bound of spawning stock biomass around BMSY (ICES 2016b). The level of monitoring varies across the Subarea and in some FUs is short or absent (eg FU18/areas outside FUs). Precautionary reference points (Bpa and Blim) have not been defined (ICES 2013a). Exploitation rates are based on observed harvest rate (defined as the fraction of a reference biomass that is caught during a year) or landings and used to propose exploitation rates consistent with achieving an MSY approach. Due to the way Nephrops is assessed it is not possible to assess FMSY directly so proxies are used (F0.1, F35%SpR and Fmax) and proposed at the individual FU level according to FU specific factors such as stock resilience, recruitment, population density, knowledge of biological parameters and nature of fishery (relative exploitation of sexes, historical harvest rate vs stock status) (ICES 2013a).

Figure 4. Areas Covered during Marine Institute Nephrops UWTV Survey. Source4

The latest stock status information for each of the UoA’s is provided below. This information relates to total landings in each FU not just those from Irish (UoC) vessels. Table 4 gives an indication of the contribution of the Irish fleet to landings from each FU in 2016 (preliminary figures):

4https://www.marine.ie/Home/site-area/areas-activity/fisheries-ecosystems/nephrops-under-

water-tv-surveys

https://www.marine.ie/Home/site-area/areas-activity/fisheries-ecosystems/nephrops-under-water-tv-surveys

https://www.marine.ie/Home/site-area/areas-activity/fisheries-ecosystems/nephrops-under-water-tv-surveys


Table 4. Contribution of UoC vessels to total landings from each UoA. Functional Unit Total landings (t)

(excl discards) 2016 Landings (t) by Irish Vessels 2016

Proportion % Ref

FU15 7327 1609 22 ICES 2017a FU16 2154 1052 49 ICES 2017b FU 17 641 641 100 ICES 2017c FU18/Areas outside FUs 118 38 32 ICES 2017h FU19 591 583 99 ICES 2017d FU20-21 2453 1531 62 ICES 2017e FU22 3276 2952 90 ICES 2017f

UoA/UoC 1: FU15 Stock abundance has been above MSY Btrigger since 2003. In the last decade the harvest rate has fluctuated around FMSY and is below FMSY in 2016 (Figure 5). ICES note that the density of Nephrops in FU15 is considered very high (average density 0.9 individuals m−2) compared to other FUs. Recent harvest rates have been high (around Fmax) and the stock size has been stable at a high level. The exploitation rate between the sexes is similar. MSY Btrigger is based on the lowest observed abundance estimate from the UWTV survey time-series. The FMSY proxy used in FU15 is equivalent to Fmax for combined sexes and derived from a length-based per recruit analysis (ICES 2017a]

Figure 5. Nephrops in FU15. Summary of the stock assessment: Catches (discard data are only available from 1986), harvest rate (sum of landings and dead discards in numbers, divided by total abundance), survey abundance (Underwater TV, billions; SSB proxy; 95% confidence intervals). Harvest rates between 2003 and 2006 may be unreliable because of underreporting of landings. Orange lines represent MSY Btrigger and the FMSY harvest rate (ICES, 2017a).


UoA/UoC 2: FU16 Stock abundance is estimated to have declined slightly in 2017 but is still above average. The harvest rate has increased but remains below the FMSY (Figure 6). The UWTV survey provides abundance since 2012 (except 2015) with high precision, but the time-series is too short to provide an MSY Btrigger. ICES consider landings are fairly well estimated. Area misreporting occurs but this has been accounted for by an ‘unallocated component’ being added to the landings data since 2011 (ICES 2017b). ICES note that until 2015 discarding was considered negligible in FU16. Since 2015 some discarding has been observed (although sampling levels are insufficient to accurately estimate total discards) and discarding (high-grading) may be increasing partly due to a strong incoming recruitment. Further, FU16 is the only FU which has a specific proportion of the TAC specifically allocated to it. This has resulted in very restrictive quotas for some vessels which has increased area misreporting and the risk of discarding. ICES consider data from fishers (grade information) is very important in calculating mean weight from landings. Irish vessels provided this for nearly 50% of landings in 2016.

Figure 6. Nephrops in FU16. Summary of the stock assessment: Catches (discards are considered negligible), harvest rate (sum of landings in numbers, divided by total abundance), stock abundance (Underwater TV, millions; SSB proxy; 95% confidence intervals). The harvest rate in 2015 was calculated using an interpolated value for abundance since no survey data are available for 2015. The orange line represents the FMSY harvest rate (ICES 2017b).

UoA/UoC 3: FU17 Abundance data shows a declining trend over time and is currently below MSY Btrigger (Figure 7). The harvest rate has been below or around FMSY but not in recent times when it has been fluctuating at times significantly higher than FMSY (in 2008, 41% higher than FMSY, 2012, 70%; and 2013 85% higher).


ICES consider biological sampling for this stock is adequate. An annual UWTV survey of the FU has been undertaken since 2002 and provides abundance estimates with high precision. The MSY Btrigger reference point is based on abundance in 2008 from the UWTV survey time-series. ICES note observed burrow density has declined, from high (>0.8 individuals m−2) at the start of the series to medium density (~0.3 individuals m−2) towards the end of the time-series. The nature of the fishery has also changed, from a continuous fishery throughout the year to a fishery concentrated on periods of high catch rates. For these reasons a harvest rate consistent with a combined sex F0.1 is considered an appropriate proxy for FMSY (ICES, 2017c).

Figure 7. Nephrops in FU17. Summary of the stock assessment: Catches (discard data only available from 2002), harvest rate (sum of landings and dead discards in numbers, divided by total abundance), survey abundance (Underwater TV, millions; SSB proxy; 95% confidence intervals). Orange lines represent MSY Btrigger and the FMSY harvest rate (ICES, 2017c).

UoA/UoC 4: FU18 & outside FUs The state of Nephrops outside the functional units (FUs) is unknown. Nephrops in these areas are not considered to be separate stocks but small populations outside of the main stock units (FUs). Landings have fluctuated throughout the time-series and have been below average since 2013 (Error! Reference source not found.) (ICES 2017h).


Figure 8. Nephrops in FU18/Areas outside FUs. ICES estimated landings (tonnes). Discard estimates are not available (ICES, 2017h).

UoA/UoC 5: FU19 The harvest rates have been below FMSY since 2014. Stock abundance has been declining since 2011 but has remained above MSY Btrigger, except in 2016 (Figure 9). This FU is quite a heterogeneous area with discrete patches of Nephrops. However, ICES consider the survey gives an abundance estimate of the entire stock with acceptable precision. The MSY Btrigger reference point is based on the 5% interval of the probability distribution of abundance for the time-series 2011–2015, assuming a normal distribution. The knowledge of biological parameters is poor and the exploitation rate on males is usually higher than on females. Because of this, a harvest ratio consistent with a combined sex F0.1 is considered an appropriate proxy for FMSY. The proportion of discarded Nephrops in FU 19 is high relative to other areas (average 25%) because the vessels tend to be small with limited space and crew so that the on-board tailing of the catch is not as prevalent as in other FUs around Ireland (ICES 2017d)

Figure 9. Nephrops in FU19. Summary of the stock assessment: Catches, harvest rate (sum of landings and dead discards in numbers divided by total abundance), stock abundance (Underwater TV, millions; SSB proxy; 95% confidence intervals). Orange lines represent MSY Btrigger and the FMSY harvest rate (ICES, 2017d).


UoA/UoC 6: FU20-21 The historical harvest rate is below FMSY for the time-series. Stock abundance increased substantially in 2017 (Figure 10). A dedicated annual UWTV survey has been undertaken since 2013 and ICES consider these provide abundance estimates of adequate quality, but the time-series is too short to provide an MSY Btrigger. In 2017 the observed densities throughout the FUs increased substantially, thought to be due to high recruitment, which has led to a large increase in abundance. ICES note that sampling of landings and discards remains very low and some samples could not be accurately allocated to functional units (FUs) in the Celtic Sea. Discarding of Nephrops is substantial (around 40% by number for the last five years) (ICES 2017e).

Figure 10. Nephrops in FUs 20-21. Summary of the stock assessment: Catches (discards only available from 2012), harvest rate (sum of landings and dead discards in numbers divided by total abundance), survey abundance (Underwater TV, millions; SSB proxy; 95% confidence intervals). The orange line represents the FMSY harvest rate (ICES, 2017e).

UoA/UoC 7: FU22 The harvest rate increased well above FMSY in 2016. The stock abundance has been above MSY Btrigger, except for 2016 (Figure 11). A dedicated annual UWTV survey of this FU has taken place since 2006 which ICES considers gives abundance estimates for the FU with high precision. Sampling of this stock is adequate. The density observed during the UWTV survey is medium (~0.4 individuals m−2). The fishery in this area has been in existence since the 1960s and has been relatively stable for many years. Harvest rates around the F35%SpR are used as proxy for FMSY (ICES, 2017f)


Figure 11. Nephrops in FU22. Summary of the stock assessment: Catches (discards only available from 2003), harvest rate (sum of landings and dead discards in numbers, divided by total abundance), survey abundance (Underwater TV, millions; SSB proxy; 95% confidence intervals). Orange lines represent MSY Btrigger and the FMSY harvest rate (ICES, 2017f).

3.3.3 Harvest strategy and Harvest control rules Within Subarea VII Nephrops stocks are managed under the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. The European Commission prepares annual TAC proposals based on advice from ICES which are then set by the Council of fisheries ministers and become Council Regulations (e.g. EU, 2017; EU 2016a). Since 2012, the TAC set by the EU has followed the percentage change in landings recommended in ICES advice (Marine Institute, 2017). ICES catch advice is provided annually and is based on an MSY approach and application of the precautionary principle. The quality of the data available enables analytical assessment for most FUs. Following the introduction of the landings obligation which relates to discard banning, ICES provides catch advice on the assumption catches previously discarded will now be landed (ICES 2016b). ICES bases its MSY approach on attaining a fishing mortality rate of no more than Fmsy while maintaining the stock above Blim with at least 95% probability [ICES 2016b]. In this approach it uses the reference points FMSY and MSY Btrigger. If spawning stock falls below MSY Btrigger, ICES advise that fishing mortality is reduced to allow stock to rebuild to levels allowing for MSY. The reduction in fishing mortality is proportional to the ratio between the size of the spawning stock and MSY Btrigger. This rule leads to the following catch advice corresponding to a fishing mortality of: • F = FMSY when the spawning stock biomass is at or above MSY Btrigger, and • F = FMSY× spawning–stock biomass/MSY Btrigger when the stock is below MSY Btrigger. [ICES 2016b] If the stock is below Blim ICES advice is based on bringing the stock above Blim in the short term which may result in advice of zero catch. However, Blim is not currently defined for Nephrops stocks. The scientific basis for ICES advice is developed by expert groups. An advice drafting group prepares the advice based on the findings of the expert groups. The advice prepared by the advice drafting


group is finalized and adopted by ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM). ICES has implemented a benchmark process in which the methods, including the data series to be used by the expert groups in addressing the requests, are developed. The results from the benchmarks are subjected to a peer-review process (ICES 2016b). Specific measures (and to which UoA/UoC they apply) include: TAC (all) A single TAC covers Subarea VII whereas ICES advice recommends management should be implemented at the level of the discrete stocks (FUs) within that wider area. Currently this doesn’t occur although FU16 has a specified amount of the TAC allocated to it. Without FU-specific management there is a risk of displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs which could imply unsustainable harvest rates in some FUs. Further, the specific catch for FU16, without other management measures, has increased the risk of discarding, high-grading and area misreporting affecting that area (for example some catches reported in FU17 and outside the FUs are re-allocated to FU16) (ICES 2013a), (Marine Institute, 2017). In relation to management of Ireland’s Nephrops TAC, the Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) introduced a scheme to promote the use of selective fishing gears in the Irish Nephrops fishery in subarea 75 in 2018. The scheme provides an opportunity for participating vessels to access enhanced Nephrops quota (an extra 20%) on condition that they must commit to exclusively using BIM specified gear options in Subarea 7 (Table 5). The scheme runs for 3 months from 1 June 2018. It does not apply to FU16. The intention is to promote the use of fishing gears that have demonstrated the escape of unwanted catches, in particular (i) small Nephrops and (ii) small and/or quota limited whitefish such as cod, whiting, haddock and black sole. Table 5. Specified gears for the purposes of the Irish Nephrops Scheme. *Must be used with a codend mesh size greater or equal to 80mm. Source5

5https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/seafood/sea-

fisheriespolicymanagementdivision/policyquotamanagement/nephropsschemefortheuseofselectivefishinggears/ManArrangementsNephropsSch040518.pdf

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/seafood/sea-fisheriespolicymanagementdivision/policyquotamanagement/nephropsschemefortheuseofselectivefishinggears/ManArrangementsNephropsSch040518.pdf




approved gear hat they must use higher monthly catch limits for anglerfish on condition that they accept reduced by-catch limits and a 28 day tie-up period where all fishing activity must stop, thereby reducing pressure on other fisheries. Landings Obligation (all) Since 2016 fisheries catching Nephrops in Subarea 7 are covered by the EU landings obligation (EU, 2015). This requires catches of species subject to the obligation to be kept on board, landed and counted against the quota. Creel fisheries are exempted from the landings obligation but there are negligible creel fisheries in this area. There is a de minimis exemption consisting of a 6% discard rate by weight for the trawl fishery in 2018 (reduced from 7% in 2016 and 2017) (Marine Institute, 2017). Porcupine Bank closed area (UoA/UoC 2, FU16) A closure of the Porcupine bank for fisheries was in place between 1 May and 31 July between 2010 and 2012, designed to reduce fishing mortality on Nephrops. The period of the closure was reduced to May only since 2013. Irish Sea measures (UoA/UoC 1, FU15; part of UoA/UoC 5 FU19) Since 2000 effort control limitations applied to the main Nephrops catching fleet (Trawl Regulation 2, TR2) operating in Division VIIa under the cod long term plan (EC 1342/2008). This was replaced with new measures in 2017 (EU 2094-2016 Amending 1342-2008 long term plan for cod stocks and fisheries exploiting them). All Irish TR2 vessels operating in Division VIIa must now use species selective gears i.e. SELTRA trawl, large mesh (300mm) square mesh panels or sorting grid as a condition of national license obligations. Irish vessels (>12 m) fishing Nephrops in the Irish Sea are required to use a cod end mesh size >80mm (S.I. No. 510 of 2016) (Marine Institute, 2017).

3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem background UoA/UoC’s are found within the Irish Sea between Ireland and the UK and the Celtic Sea that encircles the rest of Ireland. Waters are relatively shallow in the area reaching 100m before dropping at the edge of the coastal shelf down to 1000m+.

3.4.1. Primary and secondary species Under non-target species that are not Endangered, Threatened or Protected Species (ETP, see section 3.4.3), the MSC considers two components: Primary and Secondary Species. Table 1Table 6 gives the definition of these two components. Table 6. Definition of Primary and Secondary Species according to MSC Guidance for the Fisheries Certification Requirements, 2014.

Primary Species Secondary Species ● In scope species, e.g. fish and shellfish ● Managed with tools controlling exploitation ● Reference points are in place ● Analytical or empirical derived stock assessment in place

● Fish and shellfish, and out of scope species (birds, reptiles, amphibians and mammals) that are not ETP species ● Reference points are not in place ● No analytical or empirical derived stock assessment in place


Primary and secondary species can be either landed or discarded. According to MSC FCR SA3.4.2, a species shall be considered “main” if:

- The catch of a species comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species; or - The species is classified as less resilient and the catch of the species comprises 2% or more by

weight of the total catch of all species. Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10 below show the primary and secondary species defined for the UoA/UoC’s. The information comes from landings and discard data compiled by the EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) Expert Working Group on the Evaluation of Fishing Effort Regimes in European Waters (Appendix 2_02, STECF, 2013) using national data supplied by each Member State, under the Data Collection Framework (DCF). The DCF requires each Member State to collect information on the fleets and their activity, and biological data covering catches, including discards. Further information, was also obtained from the North West Waters Discard Atlas (Cefas, 2014) which analysed the STECF dataset. STECF aggregated the data at the level of defined regulatory areas which correspond with ICES divisions but unfortunately do not go down to the resolution of individual FUs. There are 3 STECF Regulatory areas to which the UoA/UoC’s of this assessment fall into, set out in Table 7 below. It was also possible to search the database by gear type (TR2 - mesh size 70-99mm which is the Nephrops directed fishery, Cefas, 2014) and country (Ireland) so it was possible to identify the landings from Irish Nephrops trawlers within these broader areas. All species exceeding 20 tonnes in any year were included and an average of the total catch (landings and discards in tonnes) for each species was calculated over the 5 year period 2008-2012 inclusive. A key issue for this pre-assessment is that information is not available at the level of the individual FUs. It may be possible to request the data so that an analysis can be undertaken at that resolution should this go forward to full assessment. Note on quality of data:

x Cefas compared STECF and ICES discard data in the North West Waters Discard Atlas (Section 4; Cefas, 2014). They note the differences in how each data source produces its estimates and that estimation of discards is not the main purpose of the STECF database. They also compare estimates for some species/areas, exploring reasons for agreement and disagreement.

x Nephrops discard data was only available from the STECF database for the Celtic sea area but not elsewhere. Cefas considered this unreliable so did not use it in the discard atlas (Cefas, 2014).

x Some haddock discard data was also considered unreliable. It has been incorporated here but advice in Cefas, 2014 is that it shouldn’t be used.

x There is an apparent disparity between STECF data and ICES landings figures for Nephrops. For example, the STECF landings figures for Nephrops in STECF Area IIa, 3c is 3084.4tonnes whereas the ICES data for FU15 which is the main Nephrops stock within that area (although it also includes part of FU19) is 1632.7tonnes. At least part of the difference may be explained by STECF data not including discards data for this area. ICES note an average discard rate for FU15 of 26% over 2008-2012 (ICES, 2015a).

x A full assessment should explore these data quality issues further.


Table 7. Relationship between STECF areas and UoA/UoC’s STECF Annex / Regulatory Area

ICES Area UoA/UoC FUs

Cel2, 7fg Subarea VII f-g 5 (part), 6 (part), 7 FU19 (part), FU20-21 (part), FU22

Cel1, 7bcefghjk Subarea VII b-c, e-k 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. FUs16, 17, 18/Areas outside FUs, 19, 20-21, 22.

IIa 3c Subarea VIIa 1, 5 (part) FU15, FU19 (part) Table 8. Landings and Discards by Irish vessels using TR2 gear in STECF area Cel2, 7fg (ICES Subarea VII f,g). This contains FUs 19 (part), 20-21 and 22.

Species Landings and discards (tonnes)

% Category Stock Status Area to which status applies

Reference

Nephrops 2247.7 29.6 P1 Target Whiting Merlangius merlangus

2156.7 28.4 Main Primary

SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim and F<FMSY, Fpa, Flim

7.b-c; 7.e-k ICES 2017l

Haddock

Melanogrammus aeglefinus


SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim. F>Fmsy although F<Fpa, Flim

7.b-k ICES 2017j

Angler Lophius piscatorius


SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim and F< Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

7.b-k, 8a-b and 8.d

ICES 2016c

Cod Gadus morhua


SSB < MSY Btrigger and Bpa, Blim and F > Fmsy

7.e-k ICES 2017n

Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis

340.3 4.5 Minor Primary

SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim. F>Fmsy but < Fpa, Flim

7.b-k, 8.a-b and 8.d

ICES 2017s

Plaice Pleuronectes platessa


SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim and F<Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

7.f-g ICES 2017q

Hake Merluccius merluccius



Subareas 4,6,7 and 3.a, 8.a-b and 8.d

ICES 2017r

Rajidae 128.8 1.7 Minor secondary or ETP

Information available for individual species

Lemon sole Microstomus kitt

88.5 1.2 Minor Secondary

No ICES species specific information in this area

Ling Molva molva


No stock size information but F < Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

Subareas 6-9, 12, 14 and divisions 3.a and 4.a

ICES 2017t

Witch Glyptocephalus cynoglossus




Pollock Pollachius pollachius


Unknown Subareas 6-7 ICES 2017u

Total (tonnes) 7602.7

Table 9. Landings and Discards by Irish vessels using TR2 gear in STECF area Cel1, 7bcefghjk (ICES Subarea VII b-c,e-k). This contains FUs 16, 17, 18/Areas outside FUs, 19 (part) and 20-21, 22.


% Category Stock Status Area to which status applies

Reference

Nephrops 5820.6 40.6 P1 Target Whiting Merlangius merlangus


SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim. F < FMSY,

Fpa, Flim

7.b-c, e-k ICES 2017l

Haddock



SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim. F > Fmsy although F<Fpa, Flim

7.b-k ICES 2017j



SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim. F < Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

7.b-k, 8a-b and 8.d

ICES 2016c

Megrim Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis


SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim. F > Fmsy although F<Fpa, Flim

7.b-k, 8.a-b,d

ICES 2017s

Cod Gadus morhua

430.7 3.0 Main Primary (less resilient)

SSB < MSY Btrigger and Bpa, Blim. F > Fmsy although F<Fpa, Flim (in 2016, first time since 2012)

7.e-k ICES 2017n

Mackerel Scomber scombrus


SSB > Fmsy, Fpa, Flim. F > Fmsy although F<Fpa, Flim

Subareas 1-8, 14 and division 9.a

ICES 2017x

Rajidae 318.1 2.2 Main Secondary or ETP


Hake Merluccius merluccius



Subareas 4,6,7 and 3.a, 8.a-b and 8.d

ICES 2017r



7.b-c: unknown; 7.f-g: SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim and F<Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

7.b-c, f-g, ICES 2017p,q

Lemon sole Microstomus kitt



Ling Molva molva


No stock size information but F < Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

Subareas 6-9, 12, 14 and divisions 3.a and 4.a

ICES 2017t


Sole Solea solea


7.b-c: unknown; 7.f-g: SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim but F > Fmsy; 7.h-k: SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim and F<Fmsy, Fpa, Flim.

7.b-c, f-g, h-k

ICES 2017y, z, aa

Pollock Pollachius pollachius


Unknown Subareas 6-7 ICES 2017u

Greater Silver Smelt Argentina silus


Reference points undefined

Subareas 7-10, 12 and 6.b

ICES 2017ac

Dab Limanda limanda



Jack and Horse mackerel


SSB < MSY Btrigger. F < Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

Subarea 8 and 2.a, 4.a, 5.b, 6.a, 7.a-c,e-k

ICES 2017ab

Spurdog Squalus acanthias


SSB < MSY Btrigger. F < Fmsy.

Northeast Atlantic

ICES 2016d

Turbot Scophthalmus maximus



Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou


No recent ICES species specific information in this area




Total (tonnes) 14,329.1

Table 10. Landings and Discards by Irish vessels using TR2 gear in STECF area IIa 3c (ICES Subarea VIIa). This contains FUs 15, 19 (part).


% Reference Category Stock Status Area to which status applies

Reference

Nephrops 1632.7 STECF 2013

P1 Target

Whiting Merlangius merlangus

472.9 15.3 STECF 2013

Main Primary

SSB < MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim and F > FMSY,

Fpa, Flim

7.a ICES 2017k

Haddock


440.7 14.3 STECF 2013

Main Primary


7.a ICES 2017i


157.1 5.1 STECF 2013

Main Primary

SSB > MSY Btrigger, Bpa, Blim. F

7.a ICES 2017o


< Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

Rajidae 106.9 3.5 STECF 2013

Main secondary or ETP


Cod Gadus morhua

81.3 2.6 STECF 2013

Minor Primary

SSB > MSY Btrigger and Bpa, Blim (for first time since early 1990s). F < Fmsy, Fpa, Flim

7.a ICES 2017m

Dab Limanda limanda

66.0 2.1 STECF 2013

Minor Secondary



47.6 1.5 STECF 2013

Minor Primary



32.2 1.0 STECF 2013

Minor Secondary


Sprat Sprattus sprattus

24.8 0.8 STECF 2013

Minor Secondary

Undefined Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a-c, f-k

ICES 2017v

Herring Clupea harengus

24.2 0.8 STECF 2013

Minor Primary


7.a north of 52030’N

ICES 2017w

Total (tonnes) 3086.4 There is a strategy in place to protect the main primary and secondary species. This includes: TAC Annual TACs for species such as cod and whiting informed by annual catch advice from ICES with reference limits. Mortality can be difficult to control due to mixed fisheries interactions e.g. fisheries which catch cod, haddock, whiting and saithe. Access to the target species TAC has also been used as an incentive to reduce pressure on other fisheries. Ireland’s Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) introduced a scheme to promote the use of selective fishing gears in the Irish Nephrops fishery in subarea 76 in 2018. 6https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/seafood/sea-






Participating vessels can access enhanced Nephrops quota on condition that they commit to exclusively using gears that have demonstrated the escape of unwanted catches, in particular (i) small Nephrops and (ii) small and/or quota limited whitefish such as cod, whiting, haddock and black sole. Landings obligation The Landings Obligation bans the wasteful discarding of fish and is being phased in with full implementation by 2019. The LO will require all catches of quota managed species to be landed except in cases where high post catch survival can be demonstrated. A ‘de minimis’, level of discarding can continue if improvements in selectivity are considered to be very difficult or if a need arises to avoid disproportionate costs of handling unwanted catches. Under the Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013) member states may co-operate to develop a discard plan to put in place regional management measures to reduce discards and facilitate implementation of the LO. A discard plan has been developed by the member states in North Western Waters through the NWW High-Level Group, working with the NWW Advisory Council. The latest plan covers 2018 and Table 11 shows the species to which the obligation is recommended to apply in 2018. These are hake and Nephrops throughout Subarea VII and to haddock in the Irish Sea (FUs15 and 19) and whiting in the Celtic Sea area (FUs16, 17, 19, 20-21 and 22). The LO is thought likely to significantly affect the Nephrops fishery in the Irish Sea where the majority of whiting caught are discards in the Nephrops fishery and are below the minimum landings size. Despite the introduction of several technical measures to reduce fin fish catch and discards in the Nephrops fishery, the total discards estimates remain high. Given the continued high discards and low TAC this stock could become a major ‘choke species’ for the Division 7.a Nephrops fishery (ICES, 2017k). Table 11. Joint Recommendation of the North Western Waters High-Level Group Discard Plan for demersal and deep-sea fisheries in the North Western Waters Updated version for 2018 (29 May 2017) (from Marine Institute, 2017). The recommendation identifies Nephrops trawl fishery (gear code TBN) as subject to landing obligation in the following fisheries in subarea VII (all the sub-area unless otherwise stated):

Fishery UoA/UoC’s to which this applies

Gear Mesh Landing Obligation

Hake All Trawls and seines

All Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2015 and 2016* consist of more than 10% of hake, the landing obligation shall apply to hake.

Nephrops All Trawls, Seines, Pots, Traps & Creels

All Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2015 and 2016* consist of more than 10% of Norway lobster, the landing obligation shall apply to Norway lobster.

VIIa: Cod, haddock, whiting, saithe

FU15, FU19 (part)

Trawls and Seines

All Where total landings per vessel of all species in 2015 and 2016* consist of more than 10% of the following gadoids: cod, haddock, whiting and saithe combined, the landing obligation shall apply to haddock.

VIIb, c, e, f – k: Cod, haddock whiting, saithe

FU16, 17, 19 (part), 20-21, 22,

Trawls and Seines

All Where the total landings per vessel of all species in 2015 and 2016* consist of more than 10% of the following


gadoids: cod, haddock, whiting and saithe combined, the landing obligation shall apply to whiting.

Technical measures Irish research initiatives focus on anticipating and finding solutions to potential problems arising from the implementation of the landing obligation. A range of measures have recently been assessed by BIM to reduce unwanted fish catches in Nephrops trawls. A trial of a 300 mm square mesh panel (SMP) in the Irish Sea resulted in reductions across all size classes of haddock and whiting of 52% and 70% respectively with marginal increases in Nephrops and reductions in flatfish catches compared with a standard trawl (BIM, 2014 cited in Tyndall et al., 2017). A standard rigid sorting grid achieved major reductions in all size classes of all fish species with a small loss (4%) of market sized Nephrops (Cosgrove et al.., 2016a, cited in Tyndall et al., 2017). A dual codend with net separator panel effectively provided a means of separating fish from Nephrops catches, facilitating improved selectivity and significant reductions of undersize whiting (84%) and haddock (49%) while retaining marketable Nephrops and fish (Cosgrove et al.., 2016b, cited in Tyndall et al., 2017). Tyndall et al., 2017 note that the dual codend has great potential to deal with a range of challenges posed by the landing obligation but some financial investment and legislative change will be required before widespread uptake occurs. A trial of the of the SELTRA sorting box found it comparable to other gears in reducing catches of very small haddock and whiting (c. <20cm and c. <15cm respectively) and more effective at reducing haddock and whiting catches and retaining more Nephrops than a standard two panel codend with a 300mm SMP – with highest reductions the closest the escape window was positioned to the codend. It was also found to have major reductions in cod catch and substantial reductions in lesser spotted dogfish compared to the 300mm SMP gear (Tyndall et al., 2017). The authors note this gear is eligible for BIM grant aid. As noted in the previous section a conditional national licence has been introduced by Ireland since March 2012, making the use of grids or separator panels mandatory for all TR2 boats fishing in the Irish Sea. Around 55% of the Irish vessels use separator trawls while 45% have opted to use Swedish grids to reduce bycatch (AFBI, 2013). The effectiveness of measures have been reviewed by the EU with recommendations made on improving selectivity of gears, for example this STECF report, which looked at technical measures in place in the TR2 fleet: http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/Image/TCM%20Western%20Waters%20Report%20for%20Commission%20Final%20Draft.pdf As noted previously, recently Ireland’s Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) introduced a scheme to promote the use of selective fishing gears in the Irish Nephrops fishery in subarea 77. The scheme provides an opportunity for participating vessels to access enhanced Nephrops quota (an extra 20%) on condition that they must commit to exclusively using BIM specified gear options in Subarea 7 (Table 5). The scheme runs for 3 months from 1 June 2018. It does not apply to FU16. The intention is to promote the use of fishing gears that have demonstrated the escape of unwanted catches, in particular (i) small Nephrops and (ii) small and/or quota limited whitefish such as cod, whiting, haddock and black sole.

7https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/seafood/sea-


http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/Image/TCM%20Western%20Waters%20Report%20for%20Commission%20Final%20Draft.pdf

http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/Image/TCM%20Western%20Waters%20Report%20for%20Commission%20Final%20Draft.pdf





There are also specific measures for cod arising from EU Regulation No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 which established a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. This regulation defines how the allocation of additional fishing effort can be awarded with the use of highly selective gear and cod-avoiding fishing trips, and established the Irish Sea Cod Recovery Plan (CEFAS, 2014). Recovery plans for cod were first implemented in the Irish Sea in 2000. Two emergency closed areas were established (EC 304/2000) in which fishing for cod was prohibited between 14th February and 30th April. Subsequent regulations (EC 2549/2000 and EC 1456/2000) established additional technical measures for the protection of juveniles. The closed area in the western Irish Sea was continued in subsequent years. A derogation to fish inside this closed area has applied in all years for vessels fishing for Nephrops. There are also specific measures for haddock and whiting in the Celtic Sea. Thee require the use of square-meshed panels to improve the size selectivity of fishing gears so as to protect juvenile haddock (and whiting) entering the stock and to reduce discarding of these species. The regulation was introduced in 2012 and applies to fishing vessels operating with bottom trawls or seines in ICES Divisions VIIf, VIIg and the part of VIIj that lies north of latitude 50° N and east of 11° W. It requires that a square-meshed panel must be used in a defined position and of a specified mesh size depending on the gear type and engine power of the vessel and includes TR2 vessels (EU Regulation No 737/2012). Spatial closures Spatial closures are shown in Figure 12. Prohibition of fishing for or landing certain species Skates and rays can be taken in trawl fisheries. Current EU regulations prohibit specified species in particular areas from being fished, retained on board, trans-shipped, or landed (Article 12(1) of Council Regulation Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127)). This includes basking shark, common skate and white skate within subarea VII (EU, 2017). There are also legal obligations to declare most elasmobranchs to species level (ICES 2016e).


Figure 12. Spatial closures in Subarea VII. Source: Marine Institute, 2017.

3.4.2. ETP species ETP species are Endangered, Threatened and Protected species recognized by national ETP legislation and listed in binding international agreements. A species listed on Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix I, even though the national management authority does not recognize it as an ETP species, shall be considered ETP species (MSC Guidance to Fisheries Certification Requirements, 2014). Several ETP species inhabit the area where the Nephrops trawl fisheries operate (Table 12). EU member states report observed and estimated ETP by-catch on an annual basis under Regulation 812/2004 (Reg. 812). The ICES Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC) have raised


concerns about the Reg. 812 reporting, noting its shortcomings in accurately reflecting the full magnitude of cetacean bycatch in European fisheries (ICES, 2017ad). This reporting mechanism is being replaced by EUMAP – Adopting a multiannual Union programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors for the period 2017-2019 (2016/1251/EU) (ICES, 2017ad). Demersal trawl fisheries are likely to present a low risk of ETP bycatch although the risk is not absent as can be seen in the available information. In Reg. 812 reports from 2015, EU member states reported one common seal (Phoca vitulina) and one northern gannet (Morus bassanus) caught in North Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries in 2015 (ICES, 2017ad). Total bycatch estimates were extrapolated from these and used to estimate a total bycatch of 83 animals of each species, although the confidence around this estimate was not reported and ICES have noted elsewhere that these extrapolations can be biased and too high due to assumptions made across métiers and areas (ICES, 2017ae). In Europe there are binding legal requirements to monitor and reduce by-catch of marine mammals under Reg. 812. This is being repealed and incorporated into a proposed Regulation on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (2016/0074). Table 12. ETP species inhabiting the Nephrops trawl fisheries area. Source: Kingston, 2012; http://www.iucnredlist.org/ and https://www.speciesplus.net/

Group Species Irish National legislation

European Directives International conventions

Cetacea

Dolphins, porpoises and whales (all species)

Whale Fisheries Act, 1937 (including an order made in SI 240/1982); Wildlife Act, 1976

European Protected Species (Annex IV of the European Habitats Directive)

Listed in CITES Appendix I or II

Bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus



Listed in CITES Appendix II, ASCOBANS

Harbour Porpoise, Phocoena phocoena



Listed in CITES Appendix II, ASCOBANS, OSPAR list of threatened or declining species

Blue whale, Balaenoptera musculus



Listed in CITES Appendix I, listed in IUCN Red List as endangered, OSPAR list of threatened or declining species

North Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis



Listed in CITES Appendix I, listed in IUCN Red List as endangered, OSPAR list of threatened or declining species

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

https://www.speciesplus.net/


Pinnipeds

Grey seal Halichoerus grypus

Wildlife Act, 1976

Harbour seal, Phoca vitulina

Wildlife Act, 1976

Sea turtle Leatherback turtle, Dermochelis coriacea

Wildlife Act, 1976 European Protected Species (Annex IV of the European Habitats Directive)

Listed in CITES Appendix I, listed in IUCN Red List as vulnerable, OSPAR list of threatened or declining species

Loggerhead Caretta caretta


Listed in CITES Appendix I, listed in IUCN Red List as vulnerable, OSPAR list of threatened or declining species

Kemp’s ridley Lepidochelys kempii


Listed in CITES Appendix I, listed in IUCN Red List as critically endangered

Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata


Listed in CITES Appendix I, listed in IUCN Red List as critically endangered

3.4.3. Habitats Habitats encompass commonly encountered habitats, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) and minor habitats. A commonly encountered habitat is defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with the gear used by the UoAs taking into account the spatial overlap of the fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management areas covered by the governance body relevant to the UoA (SA3.13.3.1; MSC FCR V2.0). Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) are as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines (SA3.13.3.2; MSC FCR V2.0). This defines VMEs by one or more of the following characteristics: uniqueness or rarity; functionally significant habitat (discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages such as nursery grounds or rearing areas; or for ETP species), fragility, life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, structural complexity.

Minor habitats comprise all other habitats.

Figure 13 shows the habitats present within Irish waters and their overlap with the Nephrops grounds. Figure 14 shows Marine Protected Areas for habitats (Special Areas of Conservation, SACs) and birds (Special Protection Areas, SPAs) listed under Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive and their overlap with the Nephrops grounds. Threatened and declining habitats as listed by OSPAR are summarised in Table 13.


Table 13. Threatened and declining habitats in the Celtic Seas according to OSPAR (includes OSPAR Regions III and V). Source: ICES, 2016a.

Carbonate mounds Modiolus modiolus beds Coral gardens Oceanic ridges with hydrothermal vents/fields Deep-sea sponge aggregations Ostrea edulis beds Intertidal Mytilus edulis beds on mixed and sandy sediments

Sabellaria spinulosa reefs

Intertidal mudflats Seamounts Lophelia pertusa reefs Sea-pen and burrowing megafauna communities Maerl beds Zostera beds


Figure 13. Habitats present within Irish waters (left) and their overlap with the Nephrops grounds (right). Source: Ireland’s Marine Atlas http://atlas.marine.ie/.

Nephrops fisheries occur almost exclusively on mud habitats at varying depths.

http://atlas.marine.ie/


Figure 14. Irish marine protected areas (left) and their overlap with the Nephrops grounds (right). Source: Irelands Marine Atlas http://atlas.marine.ie/.

The only apparent overlap with an MPA is in Kenmare River SAC (FU19) where the fishery footprint does appear to overlap with the features of the site (NPWS, 2013).

http://atlas.marine.ie/#?c=53.8849:-12.8760:6


Most of the offshore SACs are protected within fisheries closures (Figure 14) which prohibit fishing by bottom trawls or static gears including bottom set gillnets and longlines under Council Regulation (EU) 850/98 (Marine Institute, 2017). Further, the Irish government has agreed a process with the EU whereby new and existing fishing activities in Natura sites (SACs and SPAs designated/classified under the European Habitats and Birds Directives respectively) are assessed against the conservation objectives of the sites. This involves an Appropriate Assessment (AA) process for those fisheries considered ‘plans or projects’ i.e. subject to secondary licensing or by Risk Assessment (RA) for all other fisheries (Marine Institute, 2015). Fisheries in Ireland, including aquaculture but not including oyster fisheries, are licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine (DAFM). Oyster fisheries are licensed by the Department of Communications Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR). There is a process for identifying fisheries plans and projects (existing or proposed) and submitting these for assessment, outlined in SI 346/2009. Industry or the Minister may propose ‘Fishery Natura Plans’ (FNPs) which can simply describe existing activities or also propose mitigation of potential effects to the ecology of designated feature/s in a site, prior to appropriate assessment (Marine Institute, 2015). If the AA or the RA process finds that the possibility of significant effects cannot be discounted or that there is a likelihood of negative consequences for designated features then the activities will need to be mitigated further if they are to continue. The assessments are not explicit on how this mitigation should be achieved but rather indicate whether mitigation is required or not. This process involves consultation with industry and other stakeholders, the marine agencies and the competent authority for the management of the sites (National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS) (Marine Institute, 2015). In relation to the UoA/UoC fisheries considered in this assessment there do not appear to be AAs or FNPs relevant to them. However, the Marine Institute undertook an RA in 2015 (Marine Institute, 2015) covering the waters around Ireland from Carnsore Pt. in the south east to Mulroy Bay in the north including all waters in between and offshore beyond the 12nm limit (but does not appear to include the offshore SACs) and including the range of fishing activities including bottom trawl gears. The Irish Sea wasn’t included in the RA. The RA noted that fisheries data is generally insufficient to identify and map the distribution of fishing activity at sufficiently fine resolution relative to the scale and size of habitat features which are the target for conservation. Fisheries using bottom trawls or dredges pose a particular risk to maerl, sea grass and biogenic or geogenic reef habitats because these habitats are sensitive to physical disturbance. Dredging is more likely to occur on or close to these habitats, which occur in shallow water, than trawling although maerl can also occur in waters up to 30m deep. Fisheries using bottom trawls or dredges may impact marine communities in sedimentary habitats. The consequence for these communities depends on the intensity and seasonality of the activity relative to the capacity of the habitat to recover between fishing seasons. Therefore, fisheries that fish or could fish intensively on such habitats for protracted periods of time need to be, or would need to be, managed to enable habitat recovery and to avoid cumulative effects. In relation to the Kenmare River, the RA noted that bottom trawling occurs mainly in the outer part of the site in the muddy fine sand community complex. It noted that these communities are sensitive to trawling but not at low levels (a single pass for instance) and noted recovery time can be longer than other substrates due to the fact it is mediated by a combination of biological, chemical and physical processes (in contrast to coarse sediments, for example, which are dominated by physical processes). The report suggests the intensity of trawling in the Kenmare River could be classed as medium so that


some of the habitat probably experiences more than a single pass of the gear per annum. It concluded that cumulative effects on muddy fine sand communities may occur.

Bottom trawling can have significant impacts on benthic communities and habitats. Hinz et al.., 2009 looked at the response of benthic macrofauna to chronic otter-trawl disturbance from a Nephrops fishery along a gradient of fishing intensity over a muddy fishing ground in the northeastern Irish Sea. Chronic otter trawling had a significant, negative effect on benthic infauna abundance, biomass, and species richness. Benthic epifauna abundance and species richness also showed a significant, negative response, while no such effect was evident for epibenthic biomass. Hinz et al.., found that chronic trawl disturbance led to clear changes in community composition of benthic infauna and epifauna. The results presented indicate that otter-trawl impacts are cumulative and can lead to profound changes in benthic communities, which may have far-reaching implications for the integrity of marine food webs. Studies investigating the short-term effects of fishing manipulations previously concluded that otter trawling on muddy substrates had only modest effects on the benthic biota. The authors concluded that the results presented by this study highlight that data from experimental studies cannot be readily extrapolated to an ecosystem level and that subtle cumulative effects may only become apparent when fishing disturbances are examined over larger spatial and temporal scales. Further work has been undertaken at the European level on the impacts of fishing on benthic ecosystems and reported recently8. Fisheries assessed included Nephrops trawls in the North Sea and Western Waters. This work is likely to further inform understanding of the impacts of the fishery on benthic habitats.

Trawling intensity in the UoAs/UoCs is shown in Figure 15. Abrasion can be intense in the Irish Sea in particular, which includes Nephrops fisheries such as FU15.

Figure 15. Surface and subsurface abrasion pressure expressed as the swept-area ratio from VMS data from 2013 in the ICES Celtic Seas ecoregion (ICES, 2015b cited in ICES 2016a).

Using vessel monitoring system (VMS) and logbook data (excluding Spanish fishing effort) ICES estimates that mobile bottom trawls used by commercial fisheries in the 12m+ vessel category have been deployed over approximately 235,000km2 of the Celtic Sea in 2013, corresponding to ca. 26% of 8 https://www.benthis.eu/en/benthis.htm

https://www.benthis.eu/en/benthis.htm


the ecoregion’s spatial extent. Fishing is mainly concentrated along the shelf edge, i.e. around the southern shelf regions and on fishing grounds in the Irish Sea and to the west of Scotland (ICES, 2016a) STECF data show that fishing effort with bottom mobile gears decreased by 35% from 2003 to 2012 in the Celtic Seas ecoregion. This has reduced the spatial fishing footprint and the average number of times the seabed is trawled per year. A reduction in spatial extent and intensity is particularly apparent for bottom otter trawling for the mixed demersal fishery in the area northwest of Scotland and beam trawling in the Irish Sea. The proportion of swept seafloor was gradually reduced from 2009 until 2013 by ca 2.5% in total (ICES, 2016a).

3.4.4. Ecosystems The five most important pressures in the Celtic Seas ecoregion are selective extraction of species, abrasion, smothering, substrate loss, and nutrient and organic enrichment. These pressures are linked mainly to the following human activities: fishing, aquaculture, coastal construction, land-based industry, maritime transport, agriculture, dredging, and offshore structures for renewable and non-renewable energy sources (Marine Institute, 2017) FEAS (Marine Institute, 2017) advises that the following considerations should be taken into account when developing ecosystem based management objectives:

x Demersal fisheries in the Celtic Sea, Irish Sea, West of Scotland and Rockall are mixed fisheries, catching a large number of commercial and non-commercial species. Many of the species caught are discarded.

x Mixed fisheries do not only affect the commercial stocks but impact on the wider fish community.

x Discarding rates are also high on many commercial species in these areas. Certain demersal and pelagic quota species are now subject to the demersal landing obligation.

x Demersal trawling impacts on benthic habitats and their communities. The resilience and recoverability of habitats varies depending on substrate type, biota, and type of fishing gear. The overall impact of demersal trawling on the seabed needs to be evaluated in relation to the proportion of different habitats impacted (see Fig. 5.1.4 in ICES Ecosystem Overview).

x A number of rare, endangered and/or vulnerable species of cetaceans, seals, seabirds and elasmobranchs are resident or transient in Irish waters. The management of fisheries needs to ensure that the conservation of these species is not compromised

x In order to implement the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAFM), fisheries management should incentivise fishing behaviour and introduce management tools that reduce the impact of fishing on the wider ecosystem.

x Overall fishing pressure on the commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Celtic Seas ecoregion has decreased since its peak in 1998 and the average F to FMSY ratios for the combined demersal, flatfish, and pelagic stocks is now close to FMSY.

x Overall biomass of commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Celtic Sea has increased and the average SSB to Btrigger ratio for the combined demersal, shellfish, and pelagic stocks in the Celtic Seas ecosystem is now above Btrigger.

x The fishing effort of bottom mobile gears in the Celtic Seas ecoregion decreased by 35% from 2003 to 2014. This has reduced the spatial fishing footprint and the average number of times the seabed is trawled per year.


3.5. Principle Three: Management system background 3.5.1. Area of operation of the fishery The UoA/UoCs are all shared stocks that are managed under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy 2013. The EC through the Council of Fisheries Ministers sets an annual TAC in ICES Subarea VII that is shared between Ireland, UK, France and Spain. The UoA/UoCs fall within Irish waters except for parts of FUs 15, 20-21 and 22 which are shared with the UK. 3.5.2. Recognised groups with interests in the fishery

x The EC set annual quota through the CFP, 2013. x Annual catch advice is provided to the Commission by ICES. x This is informed by stock abundance estimates by the Marine Institute following UWTV

surveys of the Nephrops grounds x Discard advice is provided in a Discard Plan which supports implementation of the Landing

Obligation under the CFP. Advice encompassing the UoA/UoCs is provided by the North West Waters High Level Group (NWWHLG) of member states.

x NWWHLG advice is informed by the North West Waters Regional Advisory Council (NWWRAC) of stakeholders.

x Irish quota is administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) x In the UoA/UoC licensed Irish vessels using appropriate gear have access to the fishery. x Vessels for sea fishing are licensed by the Registrar General of Fishing Boats. x Monitoring and enforcement of fishing activity is undertaken by the Sea Fishery Protection

Authority (SFPA). x Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) are responsible for developing the Irish seafood industry

3.5.3. Decision making and consultation Each year the Commission proposes the TACs to be applied the following year to most commercial stocks in EU waters except for the Mediterranean Sea. The proposed amounts are based on biological advice and economic analysis from advisory bodies such as ICES and STECF (Science, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries). Under this process, ICES working groups produce annual assessment for the stocks under their remit, which are reviewed and approved by ICES ACOM before being submitted to the Commission (Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG Mare). The advice is reviewed by STECF. In December, on the basis of the Commission proposals, the Council composed of the Fisheries Ministers of each Member State makes a final decision on these TACs. Once fixed, the amounts for each stock are divided up among Member States according to pre-agreed shares (based on the 'relative stability' key), the so-called quotas. The TAC and quotas are enacted through the annual Fishing Opportunities Regulation (e.g. Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120). Member States manage the national quotas and allocate them among the fishing industry, as a right to fish and land a certain amount of fish within the calendar year. The consultation process for stakeholder input into the development of the Commission's proposals for 2018 is shown below.


The reformed CFP has shifted to more de-centralized governance on the basis of multiannual plans at sea basin level and delegated acts reflecting this regionalization. Regionalization gives Member States the possibility to cooperate on a regional basis and agree on Joint Recommendations for achieving the objectives of environmental legislation or for shaping specific discard plans. The Advisory Councils (ACs), are stakeholder organizations composed of representatives from the industry and from other interest groups, play a central role in regionalization, as Member States must consult the ACs on the Joint Recommendations. More generally, the ACs are tasked with providing the Commission and Member States with recommendations and information on fisheries management and the socioeconomic and conservation aspects of fisheries and aquaculture. The UoA/UoCs fall under the remit of the North West Waters AC.


4. Evaluation Procedure

4.1. Assessment methodologies used This pre-assessment was carried out using the MSC Fisheries Certification v.2.0. The below MSC Scheme Documents and report template were used by SAI Global (Table 14).

Table 14. Version number of the FCR used to conduct the pre-assessment for the fishery and of the ‘MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template’ used to create this report.

MSC Scheme Document Issue date General Certification Requirements v2.1 February 20, 2015 MSC Certification Requirements and Guidance v.2.0 October 1, 2014 Pre-assessment Reporting Template v.2.1 October 4, 2017

4.2. Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment This assessment was conducted using the information and documents collected during the pre-assessment. In addition some emails were exchanged with stakeholders involved in the fishery for clarifications and additional information specific to the Nephrops trawl fishery.

4.3. Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment Table 15. Key stakeholders in the Nephrops trawl Fishery and their special interest.

Stakeholders Special interest Management Department for Agriculture Fisheries and the Marine Quota management and licensing Marine Institute Survey and advice Sea Fisheries Protection Authority Monitoring, control and enforcement The North West Waters Advisory Council Dialogue between stakeholders, advice to

EU and member states Bord Iascaigh Mhara Support fisheries development Other Nephrops fishers UK, French and Spanish TR2 trawlers Fishing Creel fishers Fishing ENGOs Community Groups Industry Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation Fishing Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation Fishing Irish Fish Producers Organisation Fishing

4.4. Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries Other MSC certified fisheries in the area include:

x Ireland Bottom Grown mussel. Certification status: Certified

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/ireland-bottom-grown-mussel


x MINSA North East Atlantic mackerel. Certification status: Certified x Northern Ireland Bottom Grown mussel. Certification status: Certified x Northern Ireland Pelagic Sustainability Group (NIPSG) Irish Sea-Atlantic mackerel & North

Sea herring. Certification status: Certified x Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation Group (SFSAG) Rockall haddock. Certification

status: Certified The scope of the Nephrops trawl fishery does not overlap with any other relevant certified or applicant fisheries.

5. Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification) 5.1. Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody There may be some traceability risks including potential for vessels outside the unit of certification or client group fishing the same stock.

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/minsa-north-east-atlantic-mackerel/

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/northern-ireland-bottom-grown-mussel

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/northern-ireland-pelagic-sustainability-group-nipsg-irish-sea-herring

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/northern-ireland-pelagic-sustainability-group-nipsg-irish-sea-herring

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/scottish-fisheries-sustainable-accreditation-group-sfsag-rockall-haddock


6. Preliminary evaluation of the fishery

6.1. Applicability of the default assessment tree There is no need to revise the default assessment tree.

6.1.1. Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) The RBF should be used to score 1.1.1 Stock Status for UoA/UoC 2 (FU16), UoA/UoC 4 (FU18/Areas outside FUs) and UoA/UoC 6 (FU20-21) as there are insufficient reference points to score the stock against. The RBF should be used to score 2.2.1 Secondary species outcome as the status of Rajidae species is unknown or reference points are not defined.

6.2. Evaluation of the fishery The current pre-assessment identified obstacles to be addressed before proceeding to a MSC full assessment (Table 16).


Table 16. PIs where the 60 and 80 levels are not likely to be met and the implication for the overall Principle score.

Principle Component PI No.

Performance Indicator

UoA 1 FU15

UoA2 FU16

UoA3 FU17

UoA 4 FU18

UoA 5 FU19

UoA 6 FU20-21

UoA 7 FU22

Principle likely overall score

1

Outcome 1.1.1

Stock status Pass (≥80)

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79 Some PIs

obtained a likely score of <60

leading 4 of the UoAs to fail to

pass Principle 1 (FCR 7.10.10).

UoAs 1, 2 and 6 are likely to pass with condition/s

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding Not scored Not scored Fail (<60) Not scored Fail (<60) Not scored Fail (<60)

Manage-ment

1.2.1

Harvest strategy Pass with

condition 60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Fail (<60)

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

1.2.2

Harvest control rules & tools

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass with condition

60-79

1.2.3 Information / monitoring Pass

(≥80)

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass (≥80

Fail (<60)

Pass (≥80)

Pass with condition

60-79

Pass (≥80)

Principle Component PI No.

Performance Indicator UoAs 15, 19(part) UoAs FUs 16, 17, 18, 19 (part), 20-21, 22 Principle likely

overall score

2

Primary species 2.1.1 Outcome Fail (<60) Pass with condition 60-79

Some PIs obtained a likely score of

<60 leading the 5 UoAs to fail to

pass Principle 2 (FCR 7.10.10)

Primary Species 2.1.2 Management Fail (<60) Pass with condition 60-79

ETP Species 2.3.3 Information Pass with condition 60-79 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome Fail (<60)

Habitats 2.4.2 Management Fail (<60)

Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome Pass with condition 60-79

Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management Pass with condition 60-79


3

Fishery-specific

manage-ment system

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives

Pass with condition 60-79 Principle 3 is likely to pass with condition/s 3.2.2

Decision-making processes

Pass with condition 60-79


6.3. Summary of likely PI scoring levels List of tables:

x Table 17. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC1 FU15 Irish Sea West x Table 18. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC2 FU16 Porcupine Bank x Table 19. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC3 FU17 Aran, Galway Bay & Slyne Head x Table 20. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC4 FU18 and areas outside FUs x Table 21. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC5 FU19 South and Southwest Ireland x Table 22. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC6 FU20-21 Labadie, James and Cockburn x Table 23. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC7 FU22 Smalls x Table 24. Simplified Scoring – Principle 2. x Table 25. Simplified Scoring – Principle 3.

Table 17. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC1 FU15 Irish Sea West

Principle Component PI Performance Indicator

RBF required? (y/n)

Likely scoring level

Rationale/ Key points

1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status N Pass

(≥80)

Note on scoring stock status in relation to achievement of MSY (issue b). MSC advise that CABs should consider proxy indicators and reference points where BMSY is not defined by ICES, as is the case in this fishery (SA2.2.3, MSC FCR V2.0). Fishing mortality rate is usually defined and thus should be used in accordance with SA2.2.4 which states that teams shall demonstrate that F has been low enough for long enough to ensure that corresponding biomass levels have been met. In ICES stocks, BMSY is assumed to be achieved through consistent maintenance of fishing mortality at or below FMSY. Consistent with requirements in PI 1.1.2a (Rebuilding PI) MSC recommends that to achieve an assumed status of BMSY, F should have been at or below FMSY for at least 1 Generation Time (GT) from a starting point close to Bpa or Btrigger, and 2 generation times from a starting point close to Blim (Carruthers and Agnew 2016). GT is assumed to be given by the proxy GT = AM50 + 1/M, where AM50 is the age at 50% maturity, and M is natural mortality (MSC, 2017).



RBF required? (y/n)



Natural mortality (M) for Nephrops in subarea 7 is assumed to be 0.3 for all age classes and years of males and immature females (except for males in FU16), and 0.2 for mature females (due to reduced emergence while ovigerous and assumed lower rate of predation) (ICES 2009). In subarea 6, M is assumed to be 0.2 for all age classes and both sexes. The accuracy of this assumption is unknown but has been subject to sensitivity testing (ICES 2013b). Ageing Nephrops is difficult due to the lack of any structures (for example otoliths in fish) that display increments with age. There is information on size at maturity (especially for females) but little on age. Tuck et al. (2000) have estimated age at onset of maturity as 4 to 4.5 years in males and 3 to 3.5 years in females. They note this appeared relatively constant in their study area (the Clyde). For the purposes of the GT calculation a figure of 4.25 for males and 3.25 for females is used in the absence of explicit AM50 information. This gives a GT of 7.58 for males and 8.25 for females. In FU15 stock abundance is above MSY Btrigger throughout the time series so there is a high degree of certainty the stock is above the PRI. Given fishing mortality has been fluctuating around FMSY throughout the time series which extends beyond one generation time (GT) of Nephrops and the quality of assessment is considered good it is likely that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY so SG100 is met.

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding Not

scored Not scored as PI 1.1.1 has achieved a score of 80 or above (SA2.3.1, MSC FCR v2.0).

Management 1.2.1 Harvest

Strategy N Pass with Condition (60-79)

A harvest strategy is in place, involving an annual TAC set at Subarea level, which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Monitoring of stock abundance and harvest rates occurs which is used to identify reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual



RBF required? (y/n)



analytical catch advice at individual FU level. The scientific advice is designed to achieve FMSY in the following year. Although scientific advice is provided at FU level and recommends that management should be implemented at the FU level so as to ensure sustainable management of individual stocks within the Subarea, management is applied through a TAC at the Subarea level. This approach risks displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs resulting in unsustainable levels of fish landings in particular areas. The harvest strategy in FU15 is expected to achieve stock management objectives and is likely to work based on experience but since management is not at the appropriate spatial resolution the harvest strategy is not expected to achieve SG80.

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools

N Pass with Condition (60-79)

Well defined harvest control rules (HCR) and tools are in place, including a TAC, the EU Landings Obligation (EU, 2015) and a closure. However, the TAC is not set at the appropriate spatial resolution to ensure exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. For this reason the HCR is not robust to the main uncertainties, in particular the risk of unsustainable effort being concentrated in particular FUs and SG80 is not met. Despite this there is some evidence that the tools in use are effective in controlling exploitation for some FUs, including FU15.

1.2.3 Information and monitoring

N Pass (≥80)

In FU15 there is likely to be sufficient relevant information to support a harvest strategy and there is regular monitoring of stock abundance and removals (including by vessels not covered by the UoA) to a level of accuracy consistent with achieving a HCR such that SG80 is met.

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status

N Pass (≥80)

For FUs 15, 17, 19 and 22 stock status assessment is based upon stock abundance data and harvest rate information which is gathered and used by ICES to identify appropriate reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. This advice takes uncertainty into account at the FU level and is subject to a peer review process. SG80 is likely to be met.



RBF required? (y/n)



Number of PIs less than 60 0

Table 18. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC2 FU16 Porcupine Bank


RBF required? (y/n)



1 Outcome

1.1.1 Stock status Y Pass with Condition (60-79)

See Note on scoring stock status in PI 1.1.1 of Error! Reference source not found. In FU16 there is not enough stock data for ICES to set MSY Btrigger yet. Fishing mortality has increased but is below FMSY throughout the available time series, which is relatively short, extending from 2012. Area misreporting is considered to occur but landings data is considered fairly well estimated with an unallocated component related to the misreporting added to the data since 2011 (ICES 2017b). There is not enough information to determine whether this stock is above the point where recruitment could be impaired (PRI) as such it does not meet SG60. The RBF should be used to score this PI if the fishery moves to full assessment in the absence of sufficient reference points to score the stock against. A preliminary RBF assessment using Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) found Nephrops in FU16 to be at medium risk and recommended it pass with conditions (60-79). The preliminary assessment and information used to inform it can be found in Section 8. It should be noted that this was a preliminary assessment undertaken without stakeholder input which is very important to informing the susceptibility scoring.


scored

If RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1 Stock Status this PI is not scored (PF1.1.2 and table PF1, MSC FCR V2.0). RBF is recommended if the fishery moves toward full assessment.



RBF required? (y/n)



Management

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy N

Pass with Condition (60-79)

A harvest strategy is in place, involving an annual TAC set at Subarea level, which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Monitoring of stock abundance and harvest rates occurs which is used to identify reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. The scientific advice is designed to achieve FMSY in the following year. However, the availability of this information is not consistent across FUs, the time series of data for FU16 is very short. Although scientific advice is provided at FU level and recommends that management should be implemented at the FU level so as to ensure sustainable management of individual stocks within the Subarea, management is applied through a TAC at the Subarea level. This approach risks displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs resulting in unsustainable levels of fish landings in particular areas. The harvest strategy in FU16 is expected to achieve stock management objectives and is likely to work based on limited experience to date but since management is not at the appropriate spatial resolution the harvest strategy is not expected to achieve SG80.



Well defined harvest control rules (HCR) and tools are in place, including a TAC, the EU Landings Obligation (EU, 2015) and a closure. However, the TAC is not set at the appropriate spatial resolution to ensure exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. For this reason the HCR is not robust to the main uncertainties, in particular the risk of unsustainable effort being concentrated in particular FUs and SG80 is not met.



In FU16 there is likely to be some relevant information to support a harvest strategy such that SG60 can be met.


N Pass (≥80)

If RBF is used to score P1.1.1 for the a default score of 80 is awarded to this PI (Table PF1; MSC FCR v2.0)



RBF required? (y/n)




Table 19. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC3 FU17 Aran, Galway Bay & Slyne Head


RBF required? (y/n)



1

Outcome

1.1.1 Stock status N Pass with Condition (60-79)

See Note on scoring stock status in PI 1.1.1 of Error! Reference source not found. In FU17 there is a decreasing trend in abundance over time and the stock has been below but fluctuating close to MSY Btrigger since 2012. ICES consider this the lower bound of MSY, below which triggers a cautious response in their advice. Given the stock has been fluctuating close to MSY Btrigger in recent years it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. ICES do not define BMSY but fishing mortality rate information is available which can be used as a proxy (SA 2.2.4 MSC FCR V2.0). Fishing mortality has been below or around FMSY but not within the recent generation time (GT) of Nephrops when it has been fluctuating at times significantly higher than FMSY (in 2008, 41% higher than FMSY, 2012, 70%; and 2013 85% higher). For this reason the stock cannot be said to be fluctuating at or around a level consistent with FMSY so does not meet SG80.

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N Fail (<60) FU17 fails this PI because there are no rebuilding timeframes set for the

stock.



A harvest strategy is in place, involving an annual TAC set at Subarea level, which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Monitoring of stock abundance and harvest rates occurs which is used to identify reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. The scientific advice is designed



RBF required? (y/n)



to achieve FMSY in the following year. Although scientific advice is provided at FU level and recommends that management should be implemented at the FU level so as to ensure sustainable management of individual stocks within the Subarea, management is applied through a TAC at the Subarea level. This approach risks displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs resulting in unsustainable levels of fish landings in particular areas. The harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives and is considered likely to work in FU17 although there is uncertainty around this given declining trend in stock abundance and significant increases in fishing mortality above FMSY in the recent past. Further, since management is not at the appropriate spatial resolution the harvest strategy is not expected to achieve SG80.



Well defined harvest control rules (HCR) and tools are in place, including a TAC, the EU Landings Obligation (EU, 2015) and a closure. However, the TAC is not set at the appropriate spatial resolution to ensure exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. Fishing mortality has also significantly exceeded FMSY in the recent past. For these reasons the HCR is not robust to the main uncertainties, in particular the risk of unsustainable effort being concentrated in particular FUs and SG80 is not met.


N Pass (≥80)



N Pass (≥80)

In FU17 stock status assessment is based upon stock abundance data and harvest rate information which is gathered and used by ICES to identify appropriate reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to the FU and to produce annual analytical catch advice at the FU level. This advice takes uncertainty into account at the FU level and is subject to a peer review process. SG80 is likely to be met.



RBF required? (y/n)




Table 20. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC4 FU18 and areas outside FUs


RBF required? (y/n)



1 Outcome


See Note on scoring stock status in PI 1.1.1 of Error! Reference source not found. In FU18/Areas outside FUs, there is not enough information to assess the status of the stock. No stock status information is available, landings data is available but fishing mortality reference points are unknown. There is not enough information to determine whether this stock is above the point where recruitment could be impaired (PRI) as such it does not meet SG60. The RBF should be used to score this PI if the fishery moves to full assessment in the absence of sufficient reference points to score the stock against. A preliminary RBF assessment using Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) found Nephrops in FU18/Areas outside FUs to be at medium risk and recommended they pass with conditions (60-79). The preliminary assessment and information used to inform it can be found in Section 8. It should be noted that this was a preliminary assessment undertaken without stakeholder input which is very important to informing the susceptibility scoring.


scored

If RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1 Stock Status this PI is not scored (PF1.1.2 and table PF1, MSC FCR V2.0). RBF is recommended if the fishery moves toward full assessment.



RBF required? (y/n)



Management

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy N Fail (<60)

A harvest strategy is in place, involving an annual TAC set at Sub-area level, which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Monitoring of stock abundance and harvest rates occurs which is used to identify reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. The scientific advice is designed to achieve FMSY in the following year. However, the availability of this information is not consistent across FUs, the time series of data doesn’t exist in FU18/outside FUs. Although scientific advice is provided at FU level and recommends that management should be implemented at the FU level so as to ensure sustainable management of individual stocks within the Subarea, management is applied through a TAC at the Subarea level. This approach risks displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs resulting in unsustainable levels of fish landings in particular areas. It cannot be said that the harvest strategy is expected to achieve stock management objectives or likely to work given the lack of information on the stocks in FU18/outside FUs. Further, since management is not at the appropriate spatial resolution the harvest strategy is not expected to achieve SG60.





N Fail (<60)

Due to the lack of information FU 18/areas outside FUs is likely to fail this PI.



RBF required? (y/n)




N Pass (≥80)



Table 21. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC5 FU19 South and Southwest Ireland


RBF required? (y/n)



1

Outcome


See Note on scoring stock status in PI 1.1.1 of Error! Reference source not found. In FU19 there has been a declining trend in stock abundance but it has been at or above MSY Btrigger in recent years so it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI. Fishing mortality has been below or around FMSY throughout the time series of data available, although this is relatively short and does not extend to one GT of Nephrops. Consequently it is not possible to state at present that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY so SG80 is not met.

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N Fail (<60) FU19 fails this PI because there are no rebuilding timeframes set for the

stock.



A harvest strategy is in place, involving an annual TAC set at Subarea level, which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Monitoring of stock abundance and harvest rates occurs which is used to identify reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. The scientific advice is designed to achieve FMSY in the following year. Although scientific advice is provided at FU level and recommends that management should be implemented at



RBF required? (y/n)



the FU level so as to ensure sustainable management of individual stocks within the Subarea, management is applied through a TAC at the Subarea level. This approach risks displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs resulting in unsustainable levels of fish landings in particular areas. The harvest strategy in FU19 is expected to achieve stock management objectives and is likely to work based on experience but since management is not at the appropriate spatial resolution the harvest strategy is not expected to achieve SG80.


N


Well defined harvest control rules (HCR) and tools are in place, including a TAC, the EU Landings Obligation (EU, 2015) and a closure. However, the TAC is not set at the appropriate spatial resolution to ensure exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. For this reason the HCR is not robust to the main uncertainties, in particular the risk of unsustainable effort being concentrated in particular FUs and SG80 is not met. Despite this there is some evidence that the tools in use are effective in controlling exploitation for some FUs, including FU19.


N Pass (≥80)

In FU19 there is likely to be sufficient relevant information to support a harvest strategy and there is regular monitoring of stock abundance and removals (including by vessels not covered by the UoA) to a level of accuracy consistent with achieving a HCR. SG80 is met.


N Pass (≥80)

In FU19 stock status assessment is based upon stock abundance data and harvest rate information which is gathered and used by ICES to identify appropriate reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. This advice takes uncertainty into account at the FU level and is subject to a peer review process. SG80 is likely to be met.



Table 22. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC6 FU20-21 Labadie, James and Cockburn


RBF required? (y/n)



1

Outcome


See Note on scoring stock status in PI 1.1.1 of Error! Reference source not found.. In FU20-21 there is not enough stock data for ICES to set MSY Btrigger yet. There has been a substantial increase in stock abundance in 2017. Fishing mortality is below FMSY throughout the available time series, which is short, extending from 2013. There is not enough information to determine whether this stock is above the point where recruitment could be impaired (PRI) as such it does not meet SG60. The RBF should be used to score this PI if the fishery moves to full assessment in the absence of sufficient reference points to score the stock against. A preliminary RBF assessment using Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) found Nephrops in FUs 20-21 to be at medium risk and recommended they pass with conditions (60-79). The preliminary assessment and information used to inform it can be found in Section 8. It should be noted that this was a preliminary assessment undertaken without stakeholder input which is very important to informing the susceptibility scoring.


scored

If RBF is used to score PI 1.1.1 Stock Status this PI is not scored (PF1.1.2 and table PF1, MSC FCR v2.0). RBF is recommended if the fishery moves toward full assessment.



A harvest strategy is in place, involving an annual TAC set at Subarea level, which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Monitoring of stock abundance and harvest rates occurs which is used to identify reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. The scientific advice is designed to achieve FMSY in the following year. However, the availability of this



RBF required? (y/n)



information is not consistent across FUs, the time series of data for some is very short including FUs20-21. Although scientific advice is provided at FU level and recommends that management should be implemented at the FU level so as to ensure sustainable management of individual stocks within the Subarea, management is applied through a TAC at the Subarea level. This approach risks displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs resulting in unsustainable levels of fish landings in particular areas. The harvest strategy in FU20-21 is expected to achieve stock management objectives and is likely to work based on limited experience to date but since management is not at the appropriate spatial resolution the harvest strategy is not expected to achieve SG80.






In FU20-21 there is likely to be some relevant information such that SG60 can be met.


N Pass (≥80)




Table 23. Principle 1 – Simplified scoring sheet for UoA/UoC7 FU22 Smalls


RBF required? (y/n)



1

Outcome


See Note on scoring stock status in PI 1.1.1 of Error! Reference source not found.. In FU22 the stock has been above MSY Btrigger throughout the time series with the exception of 2016 so it is high likely that the stock is above PRI. Fishing mortality has historically been high before dropping at or below FMSY between 2009 and 2015. In 2016 it increased well above FMSY. For this reason the stock cannot be said to be fluctuating at or around a level consistent with FMSY so does not meet SG80.

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N Fail (<60) FU22 fails this PI because there are no rebuilding timeframe set for the

stock.



A harvest strategy is in place, involving an annual TAC set at Sub-area level, which has been set in line with scientific advice since 2012. Monitoring of stock abundance and harvest rates occurs which is used to identify reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to individual FUs and to produce annual analytical catch advice at individual FU level. The scientific advice is designed to achieve FMSY in the following year. Although scientific advice is provided at FU level and recommends that management should be implemented at the FU level so as to ensure sustainable management of individual stocks within the Subarea, management is applied through a TAC at the Subarea level. This approach risks displacement of unused catch from one FU to other FUs resulting in unsustainable levels of fish landings in particular areas. The harvest strategy in FU22 is expected to achieve stock management objectives and is likely to work although there is uncertainty around this given the recent significant increase in fishing mortality above FMSY. Further, since management is not at the appropriate spatial resolution the harvest strategy is not expected to achieve SG80.



RBF required? (y/n)







N Pass (≥80)



N Pass (≥80)

In FU22 stock status assessment is based upon stock abundance data and harvest rate information which is gathered and used by ICES to identify appropriate reference points (MSY Btrigger and FMSY) specific to the FU and to produce annual analytical catch advice at the FU level. This advice takes uncertainty into account at the FU level and is subject to a peer review process. SG80 is likely to be met.



Table 24. Simplified Scoring – Principle 2.


RBF required? (y/n)



2 Primary Species 2.1.1 Outcome N

Fail (<60): FUs 15, 19 (part)

FU15, 19 (part): Main primary species are whiting, haddock and plaice. The latter two species are above the PRI (Blim) but whiting is below and present stock size is extremely low. SSB has been declining since the start of the time series and below Blim since the mid-1990s. Recruitment has been low since the early 1990s and fishing has been above Flim for the entire time series. Most whiting caught are discards in this Nephrops fishery and despite technical measures to reduce fin fish catch and discards, discards remain high. It is thought this could become a major ‘choke species’ for this UoA in the context of the landing obligation (ICES 2017k). The UoA/UoCs in this area do not meet SG60 for this PI

Pass with Condition (60-79): FUs 16, 17, 18/Areas outside FUs, 19 (part), 20-21, 22

FU16, 17, 18/Areas outside FUs, 19 (part), 20-21, 22: Main primary species are whiting, haddock, angler, megrim and cod. All species are highly likely to be above PRI except cod which is below the PRI (Blim). Recruitment is highly variable for this stock and recent recruitment has been weak. Fishing mortality is decreasing but is above FMSY. There is a strategy in place to recover and rebuild the cod stock but mortality is difficult to control due to mixed fisheries interactions. The UoA/UoCs in this area are not likely to meet SG80 for this PI. FU19 (part), FU20-21, FU22: Main primary species are cod, whiting, haddock, angler. The latter 3 species are highly likely to be above PRI. Cod is below the PRI (Blim). Recruitment is highly variable for this stock and recent recruitment has been weak. Fishing mortality is decreasing but is above FMSY. There is a strategy in place to recover and rebuild the cod stock but mortality is difficult to control due to mixed fisheries interactions. The UoA/UoCs in this area are not likely to meet SG80 for this PI.



RBF required? (y/n)



2.1.2 Management N

Fail (<60): FUs 15, 19 (part)

FU15, 19 (part): There is a strategy in place to recover and rebuild the whiting stock which is mainly caught as bycatch in the Nephrops fishery. However, despite technical measures to reduce fin fish catch and discards, discards remain high so it cannot be said that the strategy is likely to work based on plausible argument. There is regular review of the effectiveness of measures to minimise the rate of incidental mortality in the Nephrops fishery. The full implementation of the Landings obligation in 2019 will have more impact. The UoA/UoCs in this area do not meet SG60 for this PI.

Pass with Condition (60-79): FUs 16, 17, 18/Areas outside FUs, 19 (part), 20-21, 22

FU16, 17, 18/Areas outside FUs, 19 (part), 20-21, 22: There is a strategy in place to recover and rebuild the cod stock and some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. However, mortality is difficult to control due to mixed fisheries interactions. Regular review of the effectiveness of measures to minimise the rate of incidental mortality has been undertaken in the Nephrops fishery. The full implementation of the Landings obligation in 2019 will have more impact. The UoA/UoCs in this area are not likely to meet SG80 for this PI. FU19 (part), FU20-21, FU22: There is a strategy in place to recover and rebuild the cod stock and some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. However, mortality is difficult to control due to mixed fisheries interactions. Regular review of the effectiveness of measures to minimise the rate of incidental mortality has been undertaken in the Nephrops fishery. The UoA/UoCs in this area are not likely to meet SG80 for this PI.

2.1.3 Information N Pass (≥80)

In most cases stock assessments and reference points are derived from analytical assessments. Landings data is from official national statistics derived from log books and compiled under the control regulation (Council Regulation 1224/2009). Discard information is mainly collected by



RBF required? (y/n)



observers and through self-sampling. The former has low coverage (c. 1%) (Cefas, 2014). No European countries are currently employing routine remote sampling using CCTV. Some quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the fishery and management of the main primary species. The UoA/UoCs are likely to meet SG80 for this PI.

Secondary species

2.2.1 Outcome Y Pass (≥80)

The main secondary species in the FUs are skates and rays (Rajidae). STECF 2013 does not provide a breakdown to species level. In this pre-assessment it is not possible to state which species are caught and whether they are likely to be above biologically based limits as such it is not possible to score this PI. However, in most if not all cases the status of skate and ray species is unknown or reference points are not defined (see summary table page 12, Marine Institute, 2017). Consequently RBF is recommended to score this PI if the fishery moves toward full assessment. A preliminary RBF assessment using Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) was undertaken and found a low risk to skates and rays (using Raja clavata as an example). These species were considered to pass (≥80) this PI. The preliminary assessment and information used to inform it can be found in Section 8. It should be noted that this was a preliminary assessment undertaken without stakeholder input which is very important to informing the susceptibility scoring. Based on the preliminary RBF assessment the UoA/UoCs are likely to meet SG80 for this PI

2.2.2 Management N Pass (≥80)

A partial strategy is in place including a ban on fishing for some species and also technical measures to improve the selectivity of the fishery. Technical modifications to fishing gear can increase survival of discarded skates (Enever, 2009, 2010), although their large flattened body form may mean these modifications are less effective for these species. Kynoch et al., 2015 noted modifications specifically designed to reduce Rajidae bycatch that



RBF required? (y/n)



may be more effective. The partial strategy may be expected to ensure the fishery maintains or does not hinder the rebuilding of skates and rays to levels above biologically based limits and there is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work given research into gear modifications in the UoA. The UoA/UoCs are likely to meet SG80.


As the RBF is used to score PI 1.2.1 the RBF alternative ‘scoring issue a’ is used here. Some quantitative information is available for Rajidae and adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes. The UoA/UoCs are likely to meet SG80 for this PI.

ETP species

2.3.1 Outcome N Pass (≥80)

EU Regulation 812/2004 requires member states to monitor and reduce by-catch of marine mammals. ICES have flagged concerns around how far the current reporting system under Reg. 812 accurately reflects the magnitude of cetacean bycatch. It is being repealed and incorporated into a new technical measures regulation. Demersal trawls are likely to present a low risk of ETP by-catch and the available data indicates low levels of by-catch, for example, one harbour seal and one northern gannet observed to be caught in bottom trawls by member states in 2015. Consequently, the combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the ETP populations are highly likely (>80% probability) to be within limits set by national / international legislation or highly likely not to hinder recovery or create unacceptable impacts from direct/indirect impacts. SG80 is likely to be met.

2.3.2 Management N Pass (≥80)

There is a strategy in place to ensure the fishery does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Weaknesses have been identified in the current legislation (Regulation 812) and it is currently being repealed. However as noted above demersal fisheries are likely to present a low risk to ETP species so that there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG80 is likely to be met.

2.3.3 Information N Pass with Condition (60-79)

Some quantitative information is available but it may not be adequate to support the management of the fishery’s impacts on ETP species. The UoA/UoCs may not meet SG80



RBF required? (y/n)



Habitats

2.4.1 Outcome N Fail (<60)

The footprint of the UoAs does not appear to overlap with VMEs except in the Kenmare River SAC (within FU19) where it has been identified bottom trawling may have cumulative impacts on a sediment community. Therefore, with the possible exception of FU19 (UoA/UoC5), it would seem the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. However, it cannot be said that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of commonly encountered habitats due to information which indicates there are long term adverse effects from Nephrops trawling on the benthos in mud habitats (Hinz et al., 2009). A closer look at this and other research into trawling impacts is necessary to better understand the impact of this fishery in relation to the ‘serious or irreversible harm’ threshold referred to in this PI (SA3.13.4) as it relates to commonly encountered habitats. The UoA/UoCs may not meet SG60.

2.4.2 Management N Fail (<60)

There is a partial strategy in place to prevent serious or irreversible harm to VMEs with some objective basis of confidence that it will work, although with some uncertainty for UoA/UoC5. For commonly encountered habitats there are measures in place to achieve the habitat outcome 80 level of performance, including information on habitats, use of VMS and fishery closures. There has been a significant decrease in fishing effort using bottom towed gears since 2003 and small decrease in swept area. However, research from the Irish Sea indicates long term adverse effects from Nephrops trawling so it cannot be said they are likely to work. The UoA/UoCs may not meet SG60.


Habitat data (at EUNIS level) is available for much of the FUs and coverage is increasing, so too is information on overlap with fishing gear and there is a peer reviewed scientific study from the Irish Sea into the impact of trawling on benthic habitats (Hinz et al., 2009). Consequently the



RBF required? (y/n)



distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA are known at a relevant level of detail and information is likely to be adequate to allow identification of the main impacts and continues to be collected. The UoA/UoCs are likely to meet SG80.

Ecosystem

2.5.1 Outcome N Pass with Condition (60-79)

It is not possible to say that the UoAs are highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function given research indicating significant effects on soft sediments even at low-medium intensities with wider food-web implications. The FUs are not likely to meet SG80.

2.5.2 Management N Pass with Condition (60-79)

There is a partial strategy in place (e.g. MPAs, fishery effort and discard reductions) which takes into account available information which may be expected to restrain impacts and some objective basis for confidence and some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. However, given uncertainties over impacts on benthic soft sediment habitats it is not possible to say that the partial strategy is likely to work. The FUs are not likely to meet SG80.


There is an adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoAs on the ecosystem. Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Main impacts of the fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail. The FUs are likely to meet SG80.

Number of PIs less than 60: 4


Table 25. Simplified Scoring – Principle 3


RBF required? (y/n)



3

Governance & policy

3.1.1

Legal and customary framework

N Pass (≥80)

There is an effective legal system and binding procedures governing co-operation with other parties through the CFP. The management system incorporates a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes involving national courts and ultimately the EU Court of Justice that has been tested and proven to be effective (as seen recently in the legal challenge over the Porcupine Bank Nephrops closure9). This PI is likely to meet SG100.

3.1.2

Consultation, roles and responsibilities N Pass

(≥80)

Key elements of the CFP are stakeholder consultation and regionalisation of decision making. In this UoA/UoCs the NWWAC is actively involved in decision making and providing advice to the EU and member states and receives response to that advice (as can be seen in NNWC correspondence10). As such the management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used. The consultation process provides opportunity for interested parties to be involved and facilitates their active engagement for example through EU funding of the Advisory Council’s (AC) and the tiered approach to membership within the AC. This PI is likely to score at least SG80.

3.1.3

Long term objectives N Pass

(≥80)

Within the CFP there are clear long terms objectives that guide decision making consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach and are explicit and required by management policy. However, it should be noted management is not always set in line with these objectives. This PI is likely to meet SG80.

It cannot be said that the long and short term objectives of the UoA/UoCs are all consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC

9 http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/fishermen-tell-high-court-quota-for-dublin-bay-prawn-fishing-will-be-almost-halved-if-they-lose-case-813949.html 10 http://www.nwwac.org/category/correspondence.26.206.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/fishermen-tell-high-court-quota-for-dublin-bay-prawn-fishing-will-be-almost-halved-if-they-lose-case-813949.html

http://www.nwwac.org/category/correspondence.26.206.html



RBF required? (y/n)



Fishery specific management system

3.2.1

Fishery specific objectives

N


principles 1 and 2. In relation to Principle 1, although scientific advice is available at the FU level, management is applied at the subarea rather than the FU level which risks unsustainable levels of fishing in certain FUs. In some FUs there is insufficient data to set reference points (FUs 16, 18, 20-21) or the time series of available data is insufficient to assess stock status against (FU19). In others, fishing levels have been high recently such that they are not fluctuating at or around a level consistent with FMSY (FU17, 22). In relation to Principle 2, whiting, the main primary species for the Irish Sea UoA/UoCs (FU15 and part of 19) is below its PRI with an extremely low stock size and although a strategy is in place to recover and rebuild the stock, discards remain high so it cannot be said the strategy is likely to work at present. The main primary species for the other UoA/UoCs is the Celtic Sea stock of cod. It is also below its PRI and has a strategy in place to recover and rebuild the stock. Fishing mortality is decreasing but it is difficult to control due to mixed species interactions. Evidence from the Irish Sea indicates Nephrops trawling can have long term adverse effects on soft sediments so it cannot necessarily be said that the UoA/UoCs are unlikely to reduce structure and function of VME habitats. SG80 is unlikely to be met.

3.2.2

Decision making processes N


There are established decision making processes that result in measures to achieve the fishery-specific objectives which respond to serious issues identified in research, monitoring and consultation (for example the measures introduced to minimise bycatch) there isn’t necessarily evidence that they result in measures and strategies to achieve all the fishery-specific objectives of these UoA/UoCs. Information on the fishery’s performance and management is available. This PI may not meet SG80

3.2.3 N Pass

(≥80) A monitoring control and surveillance system is implemented in this fishery and sanctions to deal with non-compliance exists and are



RBF required? (y/n)



Compliance and enforcement

consistently applied and some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system including providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. For example ICES note the importance of industry information on commercial size categories in developing their advice. In 2016 this information was provided by the industry for c. 50% of landings in FU16 (ICES, 2017b).


There have been issues reported of high-grading and misreporting in FU16 over a number of years (ICES have adjusted their landings figures to account for it since 2011). Also note industry provision of grade information referred to above. This PI may not meet SG80.

3.2.4

Management performance evaluation N Pass

(≥80)

There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system which are subject to regular internal and external review. For example, by ICES and STECF (e.g. STECF review of technical measures to assess the effectiveness of discarding measures, and STECF, 2013 evaluating effort regimes in European Waters). This PI is likely to meet SG 80

Number of PIs less than 60: 0


7. References AFBI (2013). NNWRAC Focus Group on Mixed Fisheries Management Plan for the Irish Sea (VIIa). Presentation by Alessandro Ligas, AFBI, Dun Laoghaire, Dublin 7 June 2013. http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/Image/Irish_Sea_Stocks_Assessment_AFBI_NWWRAC_7June2013.pdf Browne et al. 2017: Browne, D., Minto, C., Cosgrove, R., Burke, B., McDonald, D., Officer, R., and Keatinge, M. A general catch comparison method for multi-gear trials: application to a quad-rig trawling fishery for Nephrops. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw236. CEFAS 2014. Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal Fisheries. Cefas, Lowestoft, UK. 14 December 2014. http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/CEFAS_Discard%20Atlas%20of%20the%20North%20WesternWaters%20Demersal%20Fisheries_15_12_2014_FINAL.pdf Enever, R., Catchpole, T. L., Ellis, J. R., & Grant, a. (2009). The survival of skates (Rajidae) caught by demersal trawlers fishing in UK waters. Fisheries Research, 97(1-2), 72–76. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2009.01.001 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783609000046 Enever, R.; Revill, A.S.; Caslake, R. and Grant, A. (2010). Discard mitigation increases skate survival in the Bristol Channel. Fisheries Research, 102(1-2), 9-15. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783609002598?via%3Dihub#! EU 2017: Council Regulation (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters EU 2016a: Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 EU 2016b: Regulation (EU) 2016/2094 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) NO 1342/2008 establishing a long term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. EU 2015: COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2015/2438 of 12 October 2015 establishing a discard plan for certain demersal fisheries in north-western waters Hinz, H., Prieto, V. and Kaiser, M. J. (2009). Trawl disturbance on benthic communities: chronic effects and experimental predictions. Ecological Applications, 19: 761–773. doi:10.1890/08-0351.1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/08-0351.1/abstract ICES 2017a. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in division 7.a, Functional Unit 15 (Irish Sea, West). Published 31 October 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.fu.15.pdf

http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/Image/Irish_Sea_Stocks_Assessment_AFBI_NWWRAC_7June2013.pdf

http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/Image/Irish_Sea_Stocks_Assessment_AFBI_NWWRAC_7June2013.pdf

http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/CEFAS_Discard%20Atlas%20of%20the%20North%20WesternWaters%20Demersal%20Fisheries_15_12_2014_FINAL.pdf

http://www.nwwac.org/_fileupload/CEFAS_Discard%20Atlas%20of%20the%20North%20WesternWaters%20Demersal%20Fisheries_15_12_2014_FINAL.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783609000046

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783609002598?via%3Dihub

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/08-0351.1/abstract

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.fu.15.pdf


ICES 2017b. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in divisions 7.b–c and 7.j–k, Functional Unit 16 (west and southwest of Ireland, Porcupine Bank). Published 31 October 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.fu.16.pdf ICES 2017c. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in division 7.b, Functional Unit 17 (west of Ireland, Aran grounds). Published 31 October 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.fu.17.pdf ICES 2017d. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in division 7.b, Functional Unit 19 (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, Eastern part of southwest of Ireland). Published 31 October 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.fu.19.pdf ICES 2017e. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in divisions 7.g and 7.h, Functional Units 20 and 21 (Celtic Sea). Published 31 October 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.fu.2021.pdf ICES 2017f. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in divisions 7.g and 7.f, Functional Unit 22 (Celtic Sea, Bristol Channel). Published 31 October 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.fu.22.pdf ICES 2017h. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Subarea 7, outside the functional units (southern Celtic Seas, southwest of Ireland). Published 31 October 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.27.7outFU.pdf ICES 2017i. EU request to ICES on in-year advice on haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea). Published 1 March 2017. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/Special_requests/EU_In-year_advice_had.27.7a_SR201703.pdf ICES 2017j. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in divisions 7.b–k (southern Celtic Seas and English Channel). Published 30 June 2017 had.27.7.b–k DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3123. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/had.27.7b-k.pdf ICES 2017k. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas ecoregion Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea). Published 30 June 2017 whg.27.7a DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3268. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/whg.27.7a.pdf ICES 2017l. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in divisions 7.b–c and 7.e–k (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel). Published 30 June 2017 whg.27.7b–ce–k Version 2: 07 July 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3269 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/whg.27.7b-ce-k.pdf






http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/nep.27.7outFU.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/Special_requests/EU_In-year_advice_had.27.7a_SR201703.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/Special_requests/EU_In-year_advice_had.27.7a_SR201703.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/had.27.7b-k.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/whg.27.7a.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/whg.27.7b-ce-k.pdf


ICES 2017m. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion. Cod (Gadus morhua) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea) Published 30 June 2017 cod.27.7a Version 2: 04 July 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3102. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/cod.27.7a.pdf ICES 2017n. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. Cod (Gadus morhua) in divisions 7.e–k (western English Channel and southern Celtic Seas). Published 30 June 2017 cod.27.7.e–k Version 2: 07 July 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3103 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/cod.27.7e-k.pdf ICES 2017o. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea) Published 30 June 2017 ple.27.7a Version 2: 05 July 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3198 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ple.27.7a.pdf ICES 2017p. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in divisions 7.b–c (West of Ireland). Published 30 June 2017 ple.27.7bc DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3199 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ple.27.7bc.pdf ICES 2017q. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in divisions 7.f and 7.g (Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea). Published 30 June 2017 ple.27.7f-g Version 2: 05 July 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3202. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ple.27.7fg.pdf ICES 2017r. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Greater Northern Sea, Celtic Seas, and Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast ecoregions. Hake (Merluccius merluccius) in subareas 4, 6, and 7, and in divisions 3.a, 8.a–b, and 8.d, Northern stock (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the northern Bay of Biscay) Published 30 June 2017 hke.27.3a46-8abd DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3134 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/hke.27.3a46-8abd.pdf ICES 2017s. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast, Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic Ecoregions. Megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) in divisions 7.b–k, 8.a–b, and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland, Bay of Biscay) Published 30 June 2017 meg.27.7b-k8abd DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3155. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/meg.27.7b-k8abd.pdf ICES 2017t. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Ecoregions Ling (Molva molva) in subareas 6–9, 12, and 14, and in divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean). Published 7 June 2017 lin.27.3a4a6-91214 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3138. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/lin.27.3a4a6-91214.pdf ICES 2017u. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. Pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in subareas 6–7 (Celtic Seas and the English Channel). Published 30 June 2017 Pol.27.67 DOI:10.17895/ices.pub.3209. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/pol.27.67.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/cod.27.7a.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/cod.27.7e-k.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ple.27.7a.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ple.27.7bc.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ple.27.7fg.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/hke.27.3a46-8abd.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/meg.27.7b-k8abd.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/lin.27.3a4a6-91214.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/pol.27.67.pdf


ICES 2017v. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a–c and 7.f–k (West of Scotland, southern Celtic Seas). Published 30 June 2017 spr.27.67a–cf–k DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3258. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/spr.27.a-cf-k.pdf ICES 2017w. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas Ecoregion. Herring (Clupea harengus) in Division 7.a North of 52°30’N (Irish Sea). Published 30 June 2017 her.27.nirs DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3133 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/her.27.nirs.pdf ICES 2017x. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Ecoregions in the Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1–8 and 14, and in Division 9.a (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters). Published 29 September 2017 mac.27.nea DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3023. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/mac.27.nea.pdf ICES 2017y. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions. Sole (Solea solea) in divisions 7.b and 7.c (West of Ireland). Published 30 June 2017 sol.27.7bc DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3231. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/sol.27.7bc.pdf ICES 2017z. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas ecoregion. Sole (Solea solea) in divisions 7.f and 7.g (Bristol Channel, Celtic Sea). Published 30 June 2017 sol.27.7fg DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3234. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/sol.27.7fg.pdf ICES 2017aa. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Celtic Seas and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic ecoregions Published 30 June 2017 sol.27.7.h–k DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3235. Sole (Solea solea) in divisions 7.h–k (Celtic Sea South, southwest of Ireland). http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/sol.27.7h-k.pdf ICES 2017ab. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Ecoregions in the Northeast Atlantic. Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Subarea 8 and divisions 2.a, 4.a, 5.b, 6.a, 7.a–c, and 7.e–k (the Northeast Atlantic). Published 29 September 2017 hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k8 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3026. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k8.pdf ICES 2017ac. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Azores, Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast, Celtic Seas, Greenland Sea, Icelandic Waters, Greater North Sea, and Oceanic Northeast Atlantic Ecoregions aru.27.6b7-1012. Greater silver smelt (Argentina silus) in subareas 7–10 and 12, and in Division 6.b (other areas). Published 7 June 2017 DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3045 ICES 2017ad. Report of the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC), 12–15 June 2017, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:24. 82 pp. ICES 2017ae. ICES, 2017v. ICES Advice. Bycatch of small cetaceans and other marine animals – review of national reports under Council Regulation (EC) No. 812/2004 and other information. Published 29 August 2017. DOI: 10.17895/ices.pub.3052 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/byc.eu.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/spr.27.a-cf-k.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/her.27.nirs.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/mac.27.nea.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/sol.27.7bc.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/sol.27.7fg.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/sol.27.7h-k.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k8.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/byc.eu.pdf


ICES 2016a: ICES Ecosystem Overviews 5.1 Celtic Seas Ecoregion – Ecosystem overview. Version 2, 13 May 2016. ICES 2016b. ICES Advice Basis. February 2016. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Introduction_to_advice_2016.pdf ICES 2016c. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast and Celtic Seas ecoregions. 5.3.2 White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b–k, 8.a–b, and 8.d (southern Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay). Published 30 June 2016 Version 2; 22 August 2016 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/anp-78ab.pdf ICES 2016d. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort Northeast Atlantic. 9.3.17 Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic. Published 11 October 2016, ICES Advice 2016, Book 9 1 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/dgs-nea.pdf ICES 2016e. 5.3.12 Common skate (Dipturus batis-complex (blue skate (Dipturus batis) and flapper skate (Dipturus cf. intermedia)) in subareas 6–7 (excluding Division 7.d) (Celtic Seas and western English Channel) Celtic Seas Ecoregion Published 11 October 2016. ICES Advice 2016, Book 5 1 http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/rjb-celt.pdf ICES 2013a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee 2013. ICES Advice, 2013. Book 5. 416 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2013/Book%205%20-%20Celtic%20Sea%20and%20West%20of%20Scotland.pdf ICES 2013b: ICES. 2013. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Nephrops Stocks (WKNEPH), 25 February–1 March 2013, Lysekil, Sweden. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:45. 230 pp. ICES 2009: ICES. 2009. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Nephrops (WKNEPH), 2–6 March 2009, Aberdeen, UK. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:33. 156 pp. Kynoch, R.J., Fryer, R.J. & Neat, F.C. (2015). A simple technical measure to reduce bycatch and discard of skates and sharks in mixed-species bottom-trawl fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 72, Issue 6, 1 August 2015, Pages 1861–1868 https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/72/6/1861/921176 Marine Institute 2017: The Stock Book. Report to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Annual Review of Fish Stocks in 2017 with Management Advice for 2018. November 2017. Marine Institute, Foras na Mara, Fisheries Ecosystems Advisory Services, Rinville, Oranmore, Co. Galway, Ireland. 496pp Marine Institute 2015. Article 6.2 (Habitats Directive) Risk Assessment. The effects of fisheries on Qualifying Interests in Special Areas of Conservation in Irish coastal waters. Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Co. Galway. Version 2.0, July 2015. http://www.fishingnet.ie/media/fishingnet/content/fisheriesinnaturaareas/siteassessments/southandwestcoasts/MIArt62RiskAssessmentSouthandWestCoasts071217.pdf MSC 2017. MSC Interpretations: Scoring stock status against Bmsy for ICES stocks. 03/04/2017. ID2897

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Introduction_to_advice_2016.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/Introduction_to_advice_2016.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/anp-78ab.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/dgs-nea.pdf

http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/rjb-celt.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2013/Book%205%20-%20Celtic%20Sea%20and%20West%20of%20Scotland.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2013/Book%205%20-%20Celtic%20Sea%20and%20West%20of%20Scotland.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/72/6/1861/921176

http://www.fishingnet.ie/media/fishingnet/content/fisheriesinnaturaareas/siteassessments/southandwestcoasts/MIArt62RiskAssessmentSouthandWestCoasts071217.pdf

http://www.fishingnet.ie/media/fishingnet/content/fisheriesinnaturaareas/siteassessments/southandwestcoasts/MIArt62RiskAssessmentSouthandWestCoasts071217.pdf


MSC 2014. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance. Version 2.0, 1st October 2014. NPWS 2013. Conservation Objectives: Kenmare River SAC 002158. Version 1. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/protected-sites/conservation_objectives/CO002158.pdf STECF (2013). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Evaluation of Fishing Effort Regimes in European Waters - Part 2. (STECF-13-21). 2013. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26327 EN, JRC86088, 863 pp. Main Report: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/653873/STECF+13-21+-+Evaluation+of+Fishing+Effort+Regimes+-+p2.pdf Appendices: https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/stecf/ewg1313 Tuck I.D., Atkinson R.J.A. & Chapman, C.J. (2000). Population biology of the Norway lobster, Nephrops norvegicus (L.) in the Firth of Clyde, Scotland II: fecundity and size at onset of sexual

maturity. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 57, Issue 4, 1 August 2000, Pages 1227–1239.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0809 Tyndall, P., Oliver, M., Browne, D., McHugh, M., Minto, C. and Cosgrove, R. (2017) The SELTRA sorting box: a highly selective gear for fish in the Irish Nephrops fishery. Fisheries Conservation Report, BIM. February 2017.

https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/protected-sites/conservation_objectives/CO002158.pdf

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/653873/STECF+13-21+-+Evaluation+of+Fishing+Effort+Regimes+-+p2.pdf

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/653873/STECF+13-21+-+Evaluation+of+Fishing+Effort+Regimes+-+p2.pdf

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/stecf/ewg1313

https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0809


8. Annex 1. Preliminary Risk Based Framework (RBF) assessment Section PF4 of the FCR 2.0 sets out the instructions and provides guidance on conducting a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA). The assessment is undertaken using the MSC RBF worksheet and involves scoring productivity and susceptibility attributes on a three-point risk scale: low (3), medium (2) or high (1) using the cut-offs shown in Table 26 and Table 27 below. The preliminary assessments undertaken for this pre-assessment are shown in sections 8.1 and 8.2 below. The information used to support the assessment is presented in section 8.3.


Table 26. PSA productivity attributes and scores (Source: PF4, MSC FCR v2.0)

Table 27. PSA susceptibility attributes and scores (Source: PF4, MSC FCR v2.0)


8.1 Performance Indicator 1.1.1 PSA

Notes:

x PF4.4.3.1 (MSC FCR v2.0) requires that, when scoring PI 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the given target stock shall be identified and listed separately. The UoA is responsible for 49% of the landings in FU16. For the purposes of this preliminary assessment only the UoA fishery has been considered but there will be other fisheries that affect the stock and would need to be considered in a full assessment.

x It is important to note this was a preliminary assessment undertaken without stakeholder input which is very important to informing the susceptibility scoring.

8.2 Performance Indicator 2.2.1 PSA

Note:

x PF4.4.3.3 (MSC FCR v2.0) requires that, when scoring PI 2.2.1, if the UoA has main species with catches at 10% or more of the total catch by weight of the UoA, all MSC UoAs having a catch of the same species that is 10% or more of the total catch of the UoAs shall be identified and listed separately. The catch of Rajidae is less than 10% by weight of the UoA so other fisheries do not need to be considered.


8.3 Supporting Information Performance Indicator 1.1.1

11 Discard rates used as a proxy for scoring selectivity which considers frequency of capture of immature individuals and ability of immature animals to escape or avoid gear. 12 http://www.marlin.ac.uk/biotic/browse.php?sp=4390 13 Oakley (1978) cited in: Jiming, Y. A (1982). Tentative Analysis of the Trophic Levels of North Sea Fish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Vol 7: 247-252. http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/7/m007p247.pdf 14 No information on whether compensatory or depensatory processes exist for Nephrops so precautionary score of 3 allocated as per guidance to table PF4 in FCR v2.0.

Species / area

Productivity information Susceptibility information

Aver

age

age

at

mat

urity

(yr)

Aver

age

max

age

(yr)

Fecu

ndity

(egg

s)

Aver

age

max

size

(c

m)

Aver

age

size

at

mat

urity

(cm

)

Repr

oduc

tive

stra

tegy

Trop

hic

leve

l

Dens

ity d

epen

danc

e

Avai

labi

lity

Enco

unte

rabi

lity

Sele

ctiv

ity11

Post

-cap

ture

m

orta

lity

Nephrops norvegicus FU16

2 6 to 1012

735 n/a n/a Eggs carried then 1 month pelagic period

3.313 314 >30% Target Discarding considered negligible until 2015. Since 2015 some has been observed and may be increasing due to strong recruitment

Retained

Impact of other fisheries

PF4.4.3.1 (MSC FCR v2.0) requires that, when scoring PI 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the given target stock shall be identified and listed separately. The UoA is responsible for 49% of the landings in FU16. For the purposes of this preliminary assessment only the UoA fishery has been considered.

Nephrops norvegicus FU18 / Areas outside FUs

As above >30% Target No information available

Retained

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/biotic/browse.php?sp=4390

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/7/m007p247.pdf


Performance Indicator 2.2.1

15 This is the main Rajidae species landed in Irish fisheries (319 tonnes from subarea 6 and 7 in 2016)(Stock Summary Table, page 12, Marine Institute, 2017). There are a

range of other Rajidae species that may encounter the fishing gears used in the UoAs.


PF4.4.3.1 (MSC FCR v2.0) requires that, when scoring PI 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the given target stock shall be identified and listed separately. The UoA is responsible for 32% of the landings in FU18/Areas outside FUs. For the purposes of this preliminary assessment only the UoA fishery has been considered.

Nephrops norvegicus FU20-21

As above >30% Target ICES note discarding rates can be high - 40% by number last 5 years.

Retained


PF4.4.3.1 (MSC FCR v2.0) requires that, when scoring PI 1.1.1, all fisheries impacting the given target stock shall be identified and listed separately. The UoA is responsible for 62% of the landings in FU20-21. For the purposes of this preliminary assessment only the UoA fishery has been considered.

Species

Productivity information Susceptibility information

Aver

age

age

at m

atur

ity

(yr)

Aver

age

max

age

(yr)

Fecu

ndity

(egg

s)

Aver

age

max

size

(cm

)

Aver

age

size

at m

atur

ity

(cm

)

Repr

oduc

tive

stra

tegy

Trop

hic

leve

l

Dens

ity d

epen

danc

e

Avai

labi

lity

Enco

unte

rabi

lity

Sele

ctiv

ity

Post

-cap

ture

mor

talit

y

Rajidae, for example Raja clavata15

7.3 10 27-170 101 72.85 Oviparous, lays paired eggs in shallow subtidal

3.8 n/a >30% High overlap

Mesh size >80mm

Evidence of majority released postcapture and survival


PF4.4.3.3 (MSC FCR v2.0) requires that, when scoring PI 2.2.1, if the UoA has main species with catches at 10% or more of the total catch by weight of the UoA, all MSC UoAs having a catch of the same species that is 10% or more of the total catch of the UoAs shall be identified and listed separately. The catch of Rajidae is less than 10% by weight of the UoA so other fisheries do not need to be considered.

Marine Stewardship Council Pre-Assessment Final...

Documents

Transcript of Marine Stewardship Council Pre-Assessment Final...