link to page 1 link to page 2 link to page 3 link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 11
Ref. Ares(2018)3460993 - 29/06/2018
Ref. Ares(2019)2387732 - 04/04/2019
ANNEX VI Report to support the request for by-catches of the species megrim
(Lepidorhombus spp.), anglerfish (Lophiidae), plaice (Pleuronectes platessa), whiting
(Merlangius merlangus) and pollack (Pollachius pollachius), a combined de minimis up to a
maximum of 5% of the total annual catches of these species made by trawlers (gear codes:
OTT, OTB, PTB, OT, PT, TBN, TBS, TX, SSC, SPR, TB,TBB, SDN, SX, SV) in divisions VIII and IX.
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 anglerfish, megrim, plaice,
whiting and pollack caught with demersal vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, OTT, PTB, OT,
TBN, TBS, TX, SSC, SPR, TB, TBB, SDN, SX, SV) in ICES subarea 8 and 9, up to 5% in 2019 and
beyond of the total annual catches of those species caught with demersal vessels using
bottom trawls.
The request for an exemption for de minimis is based on article 15.c.i), due to difficulties to
further increase selectivity in this mixed fishery, 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 ............................................................................................ 6
Reference ............................................................................................................................ 9
Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 11
Motive
Vessels having a mixed activity catch simultaneously a diversity of species during the same
fishing operation. They are depending financially on several species (Nephrops, whiting,
megrims, and anglerfish) which can be spatially and temporally related. Thus, 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
1
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 demersal 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. Those arguments justify this de minimis request also for disproportionate costs. Some
studies demonstrate those aspects such as EODE program
(Balazuc et al. 2016). According to
the study, in bottom trawler case, total landing obligation enforcement would cause a
workable time increase on board of around 30% to 60% depending on vessel size. Besides,
20% of fishing trip could be concerned by hold overloading issues.
This specificity of mixed demersal 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 bottom trawler metier, to implement the landing
obligation.
Definition of the species
Below, the states of the stocks affected by this exemption, according to ICES:
- White-Anglerfish (in divisions 7.b–k, 8.a–b, and 8.d): ICES advises that when the
precautionary approach is applied, landings should be no more than 26 691 tonnes in each of
the years 2017 and 2018. ICES cannot quantify the corresponding total catches.
The EVHOE-WIBTS-Q4 biomass index shows high interannual variability with no strong
trends, and a decrease in the last two years. The other indices, IGFS-WIBTS-Q4 and the
SPPGFS-WIBTS-Q4, show an overall increasing trend during the last five years. The
recruitment index varies without clear trends over time.
-Black-bellied anglerfish (in divisions 7.b–k, 8.a–b, and 8.d): ICES advises that when the
precautionary approach is applied, landings should be no more than 10 757 tonnes in each of
the years 2017 and 2018. ICES cannot quantify the corresponding total catches. The biomass
index has been fluctuating without trend over the time-series and with high interannual
variability. The recruitment shows an increasing trend over time, although the last year is
around the average of the time-series.
- Megrim (in divisions 7.b–k, 8.a–b, and 8.d): ICES advises that when the MSY approach is
applied, catches in 2018 should be no more than 15 720 tonnes. If discard rates do not
change from the average of the last three years (2014–2016), this implies landings of no
more than 12 884 tonnes. The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been above MSY Btrigger
since 2008. The fishing mortality (F) has decreased since 2004, although it is still above FMSY.
Recruitment (R) has been relatively stable throughout the time-series.
- Whiting (in subarea 8 and Division 9.a (Bay of Biscay and Atlantic Iberian waters)): ICES
advises that when the precautionary approach is applied, wanted catches in each of the
years 2018 and 2019 should be no more than 1613 tonnes. ICES cannot quantify the
corresponding total catches. Landings have been reasonably stable over the time period. The
available information is insufficient to evaluate stock trends and exploitation status.
- Plaice (in Subarea 8 and Division 9.a): ICES advises that when the precautionary approach is
applied, wanted catches1 in each of the years 2018 and 2019 should be no more than 194
tonnes. ICES cannot quantify the corresponding total catches. Landings have been relatively
stable over the time period. The available information is insufficient to evaluate stock trends
and exploitation status.
- Pollack (in Subarea 8 and Division 9.a): ICES advises that when the precautionary approach
is applied, commercial catches in each of the years 2018 and 2019 should be no more than
1131 tonnes. All commercial catches are assumed to be landed. ICES cannot quantify the
corresponding total catches because the recreational catches cannot be quantified. The
commercial landings have been stable for the last 17 years. The information available is
insufficient to evaluate stock trends and exploitation status.
Definition of the management unit
Characteristics of the bottom trawl fishery and its activity
The SWW Discard Atlas reports that two French fisheries of TR2 and TR1 exist in ICES subarea
8:
- Bottom-trawlers targeting demersal fishes and cephalopods in the Bay of Biscay. The
vessels which operate this metier use a bottom otter-trawl or otter twin trawls in ICES areas
8a, b ; Trip duration varies from 1 to 14 days with an average 4 days. It is the one concerned
by this exemption.
- Bottom-trawlers targeting Nephrops in the Bay of Biscay. The vessels which operate this
metier use a bottom otter-trawl or otter twin trawls to target Nephrops in ICES areas 8a, b.
For the rest of the member states find here the table of metiers in SWW.
Table 1.1. Métiers included in the SWW discard atlas and their target stocks.
Métier
Métier code
Target species
Hake
Nephrops
Sole
Portuguese métiers
Otter bottom trawl targeting crustaceans or demersal
OTB_>70mm
S
IXa
species in Portuguese waters
Spanish métiers
Pair bottom trawl targeting demersal species in the Bay of PTB_DEF_VIIIabd
S
Biscay
Otter bottom trawl targeting demersal species in the Bay OTB_DEF_VIIIabd
S
of Biscay
Otter bottom trawl targeting demersal fish and
OTB_DEF_CEP_VIIIabd
[S]
cephalopods in the Bay of Biscay
Otter bottom trawl targeting demersal species in north
OTB_DEF_>=55_VIIIc_I
S
Spanish Iberian waters (‘Baca’)
Xa
Pair bottom trawl targeting pelagic and demersal species
PTB_MPD_>=55_VIIIc_
S
in north Spanish Iberian waters (‘Pareja’)
IXa
Otter bottom trawl targeting crustaceans and demersal
OTB_MCD_>=55_VIIIc
S
VIIIc
species in south Spanish Iberian waters
_IXa
French métiers
Bottom trawls targeting demersal fish and cephalopods in OTB_OTT_PTB_DEF_C
N
VIIIab
the northern Bay of Biscay
EP _VIIIab
Bottom trawls targeting crustaceans in the northern Bay
OTB_OTT_CRU_VIIIab
VIIIab
of Biscay
Belgian métier
Beam trawls targeting sole in the Bay of Biscay
TBB_DEF_70-99
VIIIab
Composition of catches, landings and discards
When they are targeting demersal species, bottom trawlers are catching a group of varied
species, which several are under TAC management: blue-whiting, megrim, anglerfish, etc.
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 for those vessels.
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 anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack represent
approximately 7% of overall catches of TAC species. (Fig 1).
Figure 1: catch composition of TAC species in weight for bottom trawl fleet in ICES subarea 8
and 9 (
STECF data base - average 2013-2016)
NB: "Other TAC species" includes all demersal species under TAC management but also
pelagic species that can be caught by demersal vessels, especially blue-whiting, a pelagic
species that is sometimes targeted by Spanish and Portuguese demersal trawlers.
Discards represent approximately 70% of the total TAC catches (average 2013-2016) of
bottom trawlers. The French data observer program indicates an overall discard rate of
around 38% in 2016 for French vessel targeting demersal fishes and cephalopods (Cornou
et
al., 2017).
The main TAC specie discarded is blue whiting (Fig 2). Discards of anglerfish, megrim, plaice,
whiting and pollack represent approximately 4.2% of overall TAC discards.
Figure 2 : Discard composition of TAC species for bottom trawl fleet 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 II), 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 I (
STECF data), mixed bottom trawl vessels in ICES area 8 and 9
caught 296 396 tonnes of TAC species (average 2013-2016) of which 19 782 tonnes were
anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack catches. Thus, a de minimis of 5% would
represent theoretically a maximum volume of discards of 990 tonnes (for all European
bottom trawl in ICES 8 and 9).
- Anglerfish: a maximum of 12% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Megrim: a maximum of 69% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Plaice: a maximum of 0.04% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Whiting: a maximum of 18% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Pollack: a maximum of 0.01% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
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 5% 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 II), 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):
- Anglerfish: a maximum of 15% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Megrim: a maximum of 86% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Plaice: a maximum of 0.05% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Whiting: a maximum of 23% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Pollack: a maximum of 0.02% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
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
Balazuc A., Goffier E., Soulet E., Rochet M.J., Leleu K., 2016. EODE – Expérimentation de
l’Obligation de DEbarquement à bord de chalutiers de fond artisans de Manche Est et mer
du Nord, et essais de valorisation des captures non désirées sous quotas communautaires,
136 + 53 pp.
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. Black-bellied anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in divisions 8.c and 9.a (Cantabrian
Sea, Atlantic Iberian waters)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ank.27.8c9a.pdf
ICES 2017b. White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b–k, 8.a–b, and 8.d
(southern Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/anp-78ab.pdf
ICES 2017c. Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Subarea 8 and Division 9.a (Bay of Biscay and
Atlantic Iberian waters)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/whg.27.89a.pdf
ICES 2017d. Megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) in divisions 7.b–k, 8.a–b, and 8.d (west
and southwest of Ireland, Bay of Biscay)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/meg.27.7b-k8abd.pdf
ICES 2017e. Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Subarea 8 and Division 9.a (Bay of Biscay and
Atlantic Iberian waters)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/ple.27.89a.pdf
ICES 2017f. Pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in Subarea 8 and Division 9.a (Bay of Biscay and
Atlantic Iberian waters)
http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2017/2017/pol.27.89a.pdf
Annexes
ANNEX I - Catch, landing and discard of the bottom trawl 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
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
0%
0%
ANE
45
0
45
4
0
4
22
0
22
30
0
30
0%
0%
ANF
7450
1515
8965
7057
1755
8812
7417
727
8144
6829
1120
7949
1%
3%
BOR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
BSF
9
9
10
0
10
3
3
7
102
59
0%
0%
BSH
5
5
7
7
9
9
7
5
0%
0%
COD
46
44
90
48
0
48
30
0
30
39
15
50
0%
0%
DGS
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0%
0%
HAD
137
33
171
202
37
238
188
10
198
147
23
170
0%
0%
HKE
8998
5400 14398
9767
4791 14559
10332
6771 17104
9368
6365 15733
3%
5%
JAX
19172
89962 109134
18856
70890 89746
22830
1570 24400
19029
41035 60064
19% 20%
LEZ
2408
21554 23963
2732
1138
3870
2998
1093
4092
2506
6308
8814
3%
3%
LIN
150
4
154
124
0
124
108
0
108
119
1
120
0%
0%
MAC
13197
6781 19978
14326
2923 17249
11647
5867 17514
11394
4809 16203
2%
5%
NEP
2978
1576
4554
3813
1497
5310
4380
1806
6186
3285
1462
4746
1%
2%
PLE
96
8
104
92
1
93
71
0
71
76
3
79
0%
0%
POK
4
0
4
2
2
3
0
3
3
0
3
0%
0%
POL
410
0
410
200
0
200
155
4
159
243
1
244
0%
0%
RNG
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
SBR
47
1
48
50
0
50
42
8
50
64
15
79
0%
0%
SOL
1664
209
1873
1289
53
1342
1180
170
1349
1361
122
1483
0%
1%
SOO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
SRX
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0%
0%
WHB
26493
6729 33222
26615 600853 627468
25182
3331 28513
23688 154178 177866
71% 60%
WHG
913
2240
3153
1321
3108
4429
1150
497
1647
1020
1676
2696
1%
1%
TOTAL
84222 136057 220279
86519 687046 773565
87749
21855 109604
79217 217237 296396
100% 100%
Portuguese fisheries
Trawl
Catches
Vessels
Species
Species
(tonnes)
(%)
(tonnes)
(%)
ANF
29,652
1,86%
ANF
15
22,39%
LEZ
3,151
0,20%
LEZ
11
16,42%
PLE
0,206
0,01%
PLE
4
5,97%
POL
0,030
0,00%
POL
5
7,46%
WHG
0,001
0,00%
WHG
5
7,46%
Other
species
1.558,394
97,92%
Total
1.591,434
Total
67
Annex II - Specifying de minimis for 2019 of the bottom-trawl fleet in ICES subarea 8 and 9
f
o
s
m
%
i
e
e
5
t
u
mi
3
2
4
a
m
m
a
.
.
.
i
u
r ni
1
2
7.
8.
6
m
l
5
5
4
1
2
i
x
e
a
o
d
m
1
8
2
st
v
n
e
E
M
u
d
m
u
d
r
e
m
r
%
%
i
a
a
5
2
x
sc
.
.
a
i
15%
86%
23%
d
sh
0
0
M
d
se
r
u
a
cs
M
i
n
D
d
o
r
d
it
o
e
i
f
t
s
s
o
el
mai
u
t
mp
r
s
oc
e
e
l
e
e
b
r
a
ht a
c
i
f
h
l
o
s
p
p
%
A
52
h
n
0
7
8
4
1
1
m
f
ti
i(
.1 .1 .3 .1 .1 .9
u
o
e
w
s)
2
8
8
8
m
M
e
1
6
1
9
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 5
d
a
h
n
8
4
0
1
9
3
m
f
ti
i(
.6 .5 .3 .1 .4 .1
u
o
e
w
s)
9
4
4
9
m
M
e
5
1
7
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 4
d
a
h
n
6
0
3
9
7
5
m
f
ti
i(
.2 .9 .2 .0 .8 .3
u
o
e
w
s)
7
0
0
9
m
M
e
4
1
5
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 3
d
a
h
n
4
7
5
6
4
6
m
f
ti
i(
.8 .2 .1 .0 .2 .5
u
o
e
w
s)
4
7
7
9
m
M
e
2
3
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 2
d
a
d
o
%
%
e
i
t
d
t
)
12%
69%
.4
.1
18%
a
ra er si
0
0
o
S
100%
m
a
D
i
sci
p
(
st
d
sh
m
n
E
oc
l
d
o
l
%
%
%
%
%
e
i
a
5
9
2
1
8
4%
t
d
t
r
s
.
.
0
0
.
a
ra er si e e 0 2 . . 0
o
v
h
0
0
m
a
c
i
sci
p
o
t
st
d
sh
m
n
ac
E
o
o
c
n
h
7.
4.
9.
5.
1.
7.
ct
8
4
8
3
6
1
a
4
1
7
4
9
8
c
9
8
2
6
7
l
7
8
2
9
a
1
t
oT
s
ot
h
e
i
t
M
si
c
c
D
f
k
g
e
ej
r
mi
e
c
ni
p
e
el
r
c
a
t
l
S
b
ht
g
g
i
ll
i
at
su
n
e
al
o
h
A
M
P
P
W
oT
ANNEX III - Landing and discard of the bottom trawl fisheries in (ICES 8 and 9) by country
Source : STECF data
4
3
6
9
5
6
8
5.
L
0.
4.
1.
6.
8.
4.
0.
8
A
43 56 37 06 91 6 56 84
OT
2
3
7
2
9
1
T
3
7
55
5
1
5
0
5
9
.
2
1
0
.
.
0
.1 .9 .9
99 78
G
4
0
4
H
1
W
50
8
5
3
3
.
0
2
9
6
0
.9 .
.
.
1
0
53 3
OL
1
P
4
2016
9
7
0
4
0
.
6
6
0
.1
.86
ELP 85 4 2 9
6
7
.
9
4
8
4
4
3
.
.
.
.
.
1
9
46 72
02 55
Z
4
6
5
4
EL
1
1
29 9 4 4 8 6 5 5
.
4
7
4
.
4
5
.
8
.
.
.
0
.
.
1
1
5
6
3
1
6
0
4
2
5
48 2 2
4
5
1
1
15
ANF
6
2
9.
5
4
4
6.
L
1.
0.
0
2.
247
6.
6.
3
A
29 01 01 31
31 26 68
OT
1
1
3
0
8
4
T
1
7
68 7 2 2
4
3
.
5
1
7
3
3
1
.0 .5 .2
.4 .4
G
5
3
6
7
H
1
21 92
W
51 0 1 1
5
9
.
0
0
4
0
0
.3 .
.
.
1
0
68 0
OL
1
P
9
2015
0
0
7
2
4
9
.
8
0
3
6
2
.1 .0
.8 .
8
0
ELP 86 7 6 8
3
8
.
5
8
2
4
6
4
.0 .8 .
.
.
8
90
83 72
Z
3
5
3
6
EL
1
1
83 8 4 2
4
8
1
.
8
0
2
6
0
8
3
.
.
.
247
.
.
.
8
8
2
1
3
5
0
1
01 46 7
1
8
6
1
3
94 21
ANF
4
3.
6
3.
8
1
9.
L
3.
1
2.
0
181
2.
2.
0
A
30 01 40 16
4
78 06
OT
3
5
1
2
3
T
3
1
7
1
18 1 8 8 1 8
7
.
5
3
0
6
2
0
.2 .3 .5
.0 858 .1
G
5
0
3
H
1
12
W
70
9
0
2
0
.
1
2
0
.8
.
9
11
OL
3
P
2
2014
1
0
6
6
6
1
.
5
2
9
8
1
.1 .0
.2 .
9
7
ELP 22 4 7 1
4
.
9
9
.
9
2
.
.
8
.
1
1
77 51
71
Z
4
1
9
10394
EL
1
1
21 5 6 5
6
9
3
.
8
1
8
.
0
8
9
.
.
.
180
3
.
.
8
6
3
6
7
7
2
9
78 4
0
6
1
3
15 01
ANF
s
S
g
s
sg s sg s sg s
R
n
d
d
d
d
A
i
r
ni
r
ni
r
ni
r
E
d
a
d
a
d
a
d
a
Y
n
c
c
c
c
a
si
n
si
n
si
n
si
L
D
aL D aL D aL D
Y
l
R
m
a
T
ni
g
e
u
N
i
a
u
c
g
t
n
l
p
r
a
e
S
o
r
B
P
F
COU