link to page 1 link to page 2 link to page 3 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 8
Ref. Ares(2018)3458266 - 29/06/2018
Ref. Ares(2019)2387732 - 04/04/2019
Annex X
De minimis request for pelagic species under landing obligation for vessels using gillnets
(GNS, GND, GNC, GTR, GTN) in ICES subarea 8 and 9.
In the framework of the landing obligation in accordance with article 15 of regulation (EU) N°
1380/2013, a de minimis exemption obligation is requested for pelagic species caught with
vessels using gillnets (GNS, GND, GNC, GTR, GTN) in ICES subarea 8 and 9, up to 3% in 2019
after of the total annual catches of pelagic species caught with those gears.
The request for an exemption for de minimis is based on article 15.c.i), due to difficulties to
further increase selectivity in those fisheries, and on article 15.c.ii), due to disproportionate
costs a total application of the landing obligation would cause in this fishery. The fleet is
particularly vulnerable for the risk of commercial catch losses an improvement in selectivity
would cause.
Summary
Motive ................................................................................................................................. 1
Definition of the species ..................................................................................................... 2
Definition of the management unit .................................................................................... 3
Specifying de minimis volume ............................................................................................ 5
Reference ............................................................................................................................ 7
Annexes ............................................................................................................................... 8
Motive
Gillnet operating in ICES 8 and 9 catch simultaneously a diversity of species during the same
fishing operation. Some pelagic species can be spatially and temporally related to those
catches. The selectivity in those fisheries is already high; therefore, it is very difficult to
improve selectivity without causing significant commercial losses.
This difficulty is even truer regarding the differences of those species morphology. Moreover,
even with all scientists’ efforts on developing mixed species models, it is for now unreal to
find the appropriate balance between fishing opportunity taking into account technical and
biological interactions. That is why, besides the description of choke species issues linked to
this activity (mixed fisheries), it is highly necessary to establish suitable solutions.
This specificity of mixed fisheries justifies this exemption request due to this difficulty to
improve the selectivity.
Therefore, there are situations where TAC cannot be entirely consumed without
overconsuming the TAC of another stock exploited simultaneously.
In addition to those situations of choke species, landing application enforcement may
generate disproportionate cost due to hold overloading and increase the sorting time by the
crew.
This specificity of mixed fisheries justifies this exemption request due to this difficulty to
improve the selectivity. This de minimis request aims at giving some flexibility needed for
fishermen, exercising gillnet metier, to implement the landing obligation.
Definition of the species
All pelagic fish under landing obligation are concerned by this exemption. Pelagic fish inhabit
the water column (not near the bottom) of coasts, open oceans, and lake
(National Ocean
Service).
Below, the states of the stocks affected by this exemption, according to ICES:
- Mackerel (subareas 1–8 and 14, and in Division 9.a): ICES advises that when the MSY
approach is applied, catches in 2018 should be no more than 550 948 tonnes. The spawning-
stock biomass (SSB) is estimated to have increased in the late 2000s and has remained above
MSY Btrigger since 2008. The fishing mortality (F) has declined from high levels in the mid-
2000s, but remains above FMSY. Discarding is known to take place, but is only quantified for
part of the fisheries; the proportion of the landings covered cannot be calculated. Partial
discard estimates are included in the assessment and overall discarding is assumed
negligible.
- Horse-mackerel (Subarea 8 and divisions 2.a, 4.a, 5.b, 6.a, 7.a–c, and 7.e–k): ICES advises that
when the MSY approach is applied, catches in 2018 should be no more than 117 070 tonnes.
The stock and the fishery are very dependent on occasional high recruitments. Recruitment
from 2002 onwards has been low; however, recruitment in the last three years is above the
geometric mean (1983–2016). In recent years, SSB has been declining and is currently the
lowest observed in the time-series, below MSY Btrigger. Fishing mortality increased from 2007,
but dropped in 2015–2016 and is currently below FMSY.
- Horse-mackerel (Division 9.a (Atlantic Iberian waters)): ICES advises that when the MSY
approach is applied, catches in 2018 should be no more than 55 555 tonnes. Fishing mortality
has been below FMSY over the whole time-series. The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has
been above MSY Btrigger over the whole time-series and has slightly increased in recent years.
Recruitment (R) in 2011–2015 has been above the time-series average.
- Anchovy (Subarea 8 (Bay of Biscay)): ICES advises that when the management strategy is
applied, catches in 2018 should be no more than 33 000 tonnes. The spawning–stock
biomass (SSB) has been above Blim since 2010. Recruitment and SSB have been well above
the historical average in recent years. The incoming recruitment (age 1) in 2018 is the third
highest in the historical series. Harvest rates since the reopening of the fishery in 2010 have
been below average.
- Boarfish (subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas, English Channel, and Bay of Biscay)): ICES advises that
when the precautionary approach is applied, catches should be no more than 21 830 tonnes
in each of the years 2018 and 2019. The relative stock biomass was stable until 2009, and
then increased in 2010–2012 before declining rapidly in 2013 and 2014. Since 2014, relative
biomasses have been stable but lower than previously.
Definition of the management unit
Characteristics of the gillnets, trammel nets and entrangling nets fishery and its activity
Portugease fisheries
Spanish fisheries
Set gillnet targeting demersal species using a mesh size of 60mm (GNS_DEF_60-79) ) in
north Spanish Iberian waters (‘Beta’)
Set gillnet targeting hake using a mesh size of 90mm (GNS_DEF_80-99) ) in north Spanish
Iberian waters (‘Volanta’)
Belgium fisheries
French fisheries
The SWW Discard Atlas reports that two French fisheries of gillnetters exist in ICES subarea 8:
- Gillnetters smaller than 15 m in the Bay of Biscay. This metier uses gillnets and trammel
nets to target a wide diversity of fish, cephalopods and crustaceans in coastal areas in the
Bay of Biscay (8a,b). This metier is operated by a large number of small vessels, which deploy
a diversity of gears with a wide range of mesh sizes throughout the year. Trip duration is 1
day. The most targeted species is sole (30 to 40% of observed fishing operations).
- Gillnetters larger than 15 m in the Bay of Biscay. This metier uses gillnets and trammel nets
to target either sole in coastal areas, or hake farther offshore, in the Bay of Biscay (8a,b). The
two most important fleets operating this metier are based in the Loire area (Yeu,
Noirmoutier), or in the Southern Basque area (Bayonne). Trips last 1 to 9 days with a 4 days
average.
Composition of catches, landings and discards
When they are targeting demersal species, especially hake and sole, gillnetters are catching
a group of varied species, which several are under TAC management including pelagic
species, such as horse-mackerel, mackerel, boarfish and anchovy. Therefore, those species
are potential choke species for those vessels. Based on STECF database (2013-2016) we tried
to establish a catch and discard profile.
It is important to notice that data used are not always representative, thus an extreme care
on the interpretation and use of the estimates presented below is needed. The
nonrepresentativness of discard data in general and the mixed character of those fisheries
makes hard to establish a profile discard and to estimates which quantity of every species
could be discarded under the use of a de minimis as presented here. Nevertheless, it gives us
a general idea based on the best data available for now (STECF data). It is also important to
notice that discards and catches may highly vary from a year to another.
Based on the estimates, catches of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and anchovy
represent approximately 11% of overall TAC catches. (Fig 1.).
Catch composition (TAC species)
BOR; 0,00% JAX; 6,93%
ANE; 0,01%
MAC; 4,36%
Other TAC
species; 89%
Figure 1: catch composition of TAC species in weight for gillnet in ICES subarea 8 and 9
(
STECF data base - average 2013-2016)
Discards represent approximately 12% of the total TAC catches (average 2013-2016) of
gillnetters.
The main TAC specie discarded is hake (Fig 2). Discards of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish
and anchovy represent approximately 40% of overall discards of TAC species.
It has to be said that a part of the species discarded by gillnetters in ICES 8 and 9 are not
under catch limit. It is the main reason why pelagic species represent almost 40% of the
discard whereas the same species does not represent a heavy weight.
Discard composition (TAC species)
ANE; 0,00% BOR; 0,00%
JAX; 21,76%
Other TAC
MAC; 20,35%
species; 58%
Figure 2: Discard composition of TAC species for gillnetters in ICES 8 and 9 (
STECF data base -
average 2013-2016)
Specifying de minimis volume
Discard volume Based on STECF data (average 2013-2016, see annexe I), we established a discard profile
in order to estimate maximum volumes of species that would be theoretically discarded
under a de minimis as presented in this case. All precautions shall be taken in interpreting
and using those estimates as discards can vary significantly from a year to another due to the
aleatory specify of fishery activity. Moreover, data used are not always representative.
Nevertheless, estimates present hereafter can give a general idea of maximum volume
discard estimates.
Those data present an average of catch and discard data for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016
(STECF data base).
Based on annex II (
STECF data), gillnetters in ICES subarea 8 and 9 caught 24 634
tonnes of TAC species (average 2013-2016) of which 2 783 tonnes were mackerel, horse
mackerel, boarfish and anchovy catches. Thus, a de minimis of 3% would represent
theoretically a maximum volume of discards of 83 tonnes (for all gillnetters in ICES 8 and 9).
- Mackerel: 20% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and anchovy discards
volume
- Horse mackerel: 79% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and anchovy
discards volume
- Boarfish: 0.01% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and anchovy discards
volume
- Anchovy: 0.01% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and anchovy discards
volume
Safeguards
This de minimis would respond partly in how to implement landing obligation in specific
fisheries where it is difficult in a 2019 scenario to implement it. Also this de minimis has its
limits and its risks. It is true that the combination of several species can represent a high
volume of possible discards. Nevertheless, it will never be more than 3% of the catches
concerned.
As said before, volume and composition of catches can be unpredictable and vary from a
year to another. It is also important to emphasize that, because of the mixed character of the
fisheries it is highly unlikely that only one species would be discarded. This is all the point of a
combined de minimis: giving some flexibility needed for fisherman to face the variability of
by-catch stocks abundance.
Nevertheless, in order to limit the risk of discarding only one species and because discard
rate can be significantly different from a species to another it is propose to put in place
safeguard.
Here after is a proposition of safeguards that need to be evaluated and discussed:
According to the discard profile of the fishery (see annexe I), a margin on 25% shall apply.
This margin would allow the flexibility needed to face the variability of catches and discards.
On the overall discard volume permitted by this exemption, only the proportion calculated
(+25%) could be discarded on the overall discard. In this case, and taking all precaution in
using those data, this would allow fishermen to discard (see annexe II):
- Mackerel: a maximum of 25% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and
anchovy discards volume
- Horse mackerel: a maximum of 99.7% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish
and anchovy discards volume
- Boarfish: a maximum of 0.03% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and
anchovy discards volume
- Anchovy: a maximum of 0.03% of the total of mackerel, horse mackerel, boarfish and
anchovy discards volume
Those safeguards should be revised if necessary and according to discard profile that can
evolve over the years.
Only for informative purpose, theoretical volumes of discards are presented in Annex II.
Reference
Cornou Anne-Sophie, Quinio-Scavinner Marion, Delaunay Damien, Dimeet Joel, Goascoz
Nicolas, Dube Benoit, Fauconnet Laurence Rochet Marie-Joelle (2015). Observations à
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle. Bilan de l'échantillonnage 2014.
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00286/39722/38188.pdf
Cornou Anne-Sophie, Quinio-Scavinner Marion, Delaunay Damien, Dimeet Joel, Goascoz
Nicolas, Dube Benoit, Fauconnet Laurence Rochet Marie-Joelle (2016). Observations à
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle. Bilan de l'échantillonnage 2015.
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00353/46441/46185.pdf
Cornou Anne-Sophie, Quinio-Scavinner Marion, Delaunay Damien, Dimeet Joel, Goascoz
Nicolas, Dube Benoit, Fauconnet Laurence Rochet Marie-Joelle (2017). Observations à
bord des navires de pêche professionnelle. Bilan de l'échantillonnage 2016.
http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00353/46441/46185.pdf
ICES 2017a.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)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-
k8.pdf
ICES 2017b. Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1–8 and 14, and in Division 9.a (the
Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/mac.27.nea.pdf ICES 2017c. Boarfish (Capros aper) in subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas, English Channel, and Bay of
Biscay)
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/boc.27.6-8.pdf
ICES 2017e. Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in Subarea 8 (Bay of Biscay)
http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ane.27.8.pdf
ICES 2017f. Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in Subarea 8 (Bay of Biscay)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ane.27.8.pdf
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pelagic.html
Annexes
ANNEX I - Catch, landing and discard of TAC species of the gillnet fisheries in ICES 8 and 9
Source : STECF data
2014
2015
2016
Average (2013-2016)
species landings discards catch landings discards catch landings discards catch landings discards catch discards catch
ALF
10
10
37
37
19
5
24
19
5
21
0%
0%
ANE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0%
0%
ANF
3163
181 3344
2843
133 2976
2766
256 3021
2825
245 3070
8% 12%
BOR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
BSF
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
COD
16
1
17
36
9
45
16
1
17
19
4
22
0%
0%
DGS
2
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0%
0%
HAD
2
0
2
3
3
4
0
4
3
0
3
0%
0%
HKE
12980
485 13465
13872
1598 15470
13314
419 13733
13197
925 14122
31% 57%
JAX
896
728 1624
1049
343 1393
903
1233 2136
1058
650 1708
22%
7%
LEZ
84
84
62
22
83
53
0
53
60
9
67
0%
0%
LIN
81
17
98
87
346
433
58
8
66
66
95
160
3%
1%
MAC
588
313
901
783
1217 2000
205
707
912
465
608 1073
20%
4%
NEP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0%
0%
PLE
50
7
56
54
4
57
53
3
56
49
4
53
0%
0%
POK
3
0
3
3
0
3
5
0
5
3
0
4
0%
0%
POL
1078
119 1196
919
36
955
822
96
918
871
64
935
2%
4%
RNG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
SBR
28
25
54
18
0
18
13
0
13
19
6
26
0%
0%
SOL
2838
47 2885
2792
79 2872
2444
36 2479
2676
49 2725
2% 11%
SOO
0
1
1
0
1
0
0%
0%
SRX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
WHB
29
13
42
17
17
42
1
43
28
5
32
0%
0%
WHG
253
252
505
268
573
841
433
280
713
292
319
611
11%
2%
TOTAL
22102
2188 24290
22845
4361 27205
21151
3045 24196
21655
2988 24634
100% 100%
Annex II - Specifying de minimis for 2019 of the gillnet fleet in ICES subarea 8abde
f
o
s
m
%
i
e
e
3
t
u
mi
a
m
m
a
3
0
i
u
r ni
.
0
0
3
.1 . .
m
l
0
0
i
x
e
a
o
d
m
8
2
st
v
n
e
E
M
u
d
m
u
d
r
e
%
%
%
%
m
r
i
a
a
7.
2.
3
3
x
sc
9
5
0.
0.
a
i
d
sh
9
2
0
0
M
e
l
r
e
d
oi
b
h
e
d
ti
a
of
se
t
t
r
e
s
c
f
r
i
u
a
o
l
s
o
ma
c
a
p
el
M
i
si
hs
p
u
D
%
t
5
s
d
mp
A
r
2
e
oc
h
n
6
8
0
0
5
m
f
ti
i(
.6 .6 .0 .0 .3
u
o
e
w
s)
6
1
8
m
M
e
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 3
d
a
h
n
4
2
0
0
7
m
f
ti
i(
.4 .1 .0 .0 .5
u
o
e
w
s)
4
1
5
m
M
e
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 2
d
a
d
o
e
i
0%
0%
t
d
t
)
80%
20%
a
ra er sio S
100%
m
a
D
i
sci
p
(
st
d
sh
m
n
E
oc
l
d
o
l
%
%
%
%
e
i
a
0
1
0
0
t
d
t
r
s
.
.
.
.
40%
a
ra er si e e 2 8 0 0
o
v
h
3
m
a
c
i
sci
p
o
t
st
d
sh
m
n
ac
E
o
o
c
n
h
7.
9.
9.
1
6.
c
0
t
7
2
1
.
2
a
0
7
0
8
c
7
0
7
l
1
1
2
ato
l
T
er
ek
s
ot
c
e
l
i
t
M
e
y
c
c
D
ma
r
v
hs
e
ej
e
o
i
p
e
es k h fr l
S
b
ht
r
c
c
a
at
su
o
a
n
o
H
M
A
B
oT
Document Outline