link to page 1 link to page 2 link to page 3 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9
Ref. Ares(2018)3460993 - 29/06/2018
Ref. Ares(2019)2387732 - 04/04/2019
ANNEX VII 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 4% of the total annual catches of these species made by gillnetters (gear
codes: GNS, GND, GNC, GTR, GTN) 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 gillnets (GNS, GND, GNC, GTR, GTN)
in ICES subarea 8 and 9, up to 4% in 2019 and after of the total annual catches of those
species caught with demersal vessels using 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 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 ............................................................................................................................ 8
Annexes ............................................................................................................................... 9
Motive
Gillnet operating in ICES 8 and 9 catch simultaneously a diversity of species during the same
fishing operation. They are depending financially on several species (hake, sole, etc.) 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 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
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 gillnets, trammel nets and entrangling nets fishery and its activity
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.
For the rest of the member states
Table 1.1. Métiers included in the SWW discard atlas and their target stocks.
Métier
Métier code
Target species
Hake
Nephrops
Sole
Portuguese métiers
Polyvalent Portuguese fleet
LLS, GNS_>80mm,
S
IXa
GTR_>100mm
Spanish métiers
Set gillnet targeting demersal species using a mesh size
GNS_DEF_60-
S
of 60mm in north Spanish Iberian waters (‘Beta’)
79_VIIIc_IXa
Set gillnet targeting hake using a mesh size of 90mm in
GNS_DEF_80-
S
north Spanish Iberian waters (‘Volanta’)
99_VIIIc_IXa
French métiers
Set gillnetters smaller than 15 meters targeting demersal GTR_GNS_DEF_CRU_I
N
VIIIab
fish and crustaceans in the northern Bay of Biscay
nf15m_ VIIIab
Set gillnetters larger than 15 meters targeting demersal
GTR_GNS_DEF_CRU_S
N
VIIIab
fish and crustaceans in the northern Bay of Biscay
up15m_ VIIIab
Composition of catches, landings and discards
When they are targeting demersal species, especially hake and pollack, gillnetters are
catching a group of varied species, which several are under TAC management. 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 19% of overall catches of TAC species. (Fig 1).
Figure 1: catch composition of TAC species in weight for gillnetters 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 anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting
and pollack represent approximately 21% of overall TAC discards.
Discard co
ard mposition (TAC species)
LEZ; 0,3% PLE; 0,1%
POL; 2,2%
ANF;
8,2%
WHG;
10,7%
Other TAC
species; 79%
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 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) gillnetters in ICES subarea 8 and 9 caught 24 634
tonnes of TAC species (average 2013-2016) of which 4735 tonnes were anglerfish, megrim,
plaice, whiting and pollack catches. Thus, a de minimis of 4% would represent theoretically a
maximum volume of discards of 190 tonnes (for all european gillnetters in ICES 8 and 9).
- Anglerfish: a maximum of 38% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Megrim: a maximum of 1% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Plaice: a maximum of 1% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Whiting: a maximum of 50% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Pollack: a maximum of 10% 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 4% 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 48% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Megrim: a maximum of 2% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Plaice: a maximum of 1% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Whiting: a maximum of 62% of the total of anglerfish, megrim, plaice, whiting and pollack
discards volume
- Pollack: a maximum of 13% 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
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 gillnets 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 gillnets fleet in ICES subarea 8 and 9
f
o
s
m
%
i
e
e
4
t
u
mi
8
a
m
m
a
3
8
.
i
u
r ni
.
5
4
0
.
.
.3 7
m
l
3
1
1
i
x
e
a
o
d
m
9
2
1
st
v
n
e
E
M
u
d
m
u
d
r
e
%
%
%
m
r
%
%
i
a
a
7.
8
8
6.
2.
x
sc
7
.
.
2
2
a
i
d
sh
4
1
0
1
6
M
se
n
u
d
oit
M
e
i
D
t
s
r
o
o
ma
f
it mp
s
s
o
el
e
c
u
e
e
r
h
ra
e
t
l
f h
b
o
s
a
d
ci
%
r
l
5
a
p
2
cs
p
i
A
d
h
n
2
8
1
0
2
4
m
f
ti
i(
.2 .2 .1 .9 .4 .9
u
o
e
w
s)
7
1
9
8
m
M
e
1
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 4
d
a
h
n
2
1
9
3
7
1
m
f
ti
i(
.4 .2 .0 .4 .0 .2
u
o
e
w
s)
5
1
7
4
m
M
e
1
i
d
n
x
m
r
D
n
a
ul
a
%
ot
M
ov sci 3
d
a
h
n
1
4
6
5
1
7
m
f
ti
i(
.6 .1 .0 .9 .7 .4
u
o
e
w
s)
3
4
9
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
1%
1%
t
d
t
)
38%
10%
50%
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
2
3
1
2
7
t
d
t
r
s
.
.
.
.
.
21%
a
ra er si e e 8 0 0 2 0
o
v
h
1
m
a
c
i
sci
p
o
t
st
d
sh
m
n
ac
E
o
o
c
n
h
7.
0.
1.
1.
8.
7.
ct
9
7
3
5
0
5
a
6
6
5
3
1
3
c
0
9
6
7
l
3
4
atoT
s
ot
e
i
t
M
c
c
D
e
ej
p
e
G
l
S
b
ht
at
su
Z
EL OL H
ANF
EL P P W oT
Annex III - Landing and discard of the gillnets fisheries in (ICES 8 and 9) by country
Data: STECF data base
3
4
4
6
8
1
L
2.
7.
.3 5. 2. 0.
A
16 48 81 18 56 36
OT
0
7
4
T
1
2
3.
65 93
G
1
.
.
H
13 08
W
4
2
1.
9
9
9
5
2
5
5
3
8
5
.2 .0
.4 .2
OL
1
4
8
2016
P
7
31 11
93 51
E
.
.
.
.
L
2
0
0
3
P
5
45 71
13 50
Z
.
.
.
.
E
6
0
6
0
L
2
2
9.
6
6
1
.1
.6
ANF
980
7
182
8
1513
9
L
5
0
9
A
3.
.
3
162
21
OT
1090
5
2766
7
T
G
0
0
5
H
263
573
W
31 3 1
2
6
.
1.
.7 .4
OL
3
1
8
3
P
9
7
2015
8
9
4
E
8
0
51
5
L
.
.
.
P
2
0
3
94 43
20 61
Z
.
.
.
.
E
8
9
3
2
L
3
1
2
6.
9
6
5
7
1
5
.2 156
.
1643
9
ANF
9
3
9
L
2
0
2
A
5.
.
9
196
73
OT
1213
1
2974
5
T
10 0 13
21 1.
G
.
.
2
H
0
04 52
W
2
82 7
6
1
.
7
2
.
9
.2
.9 41
OL
1
3
1
P
1
9
2014
6
9
9
1
E
7
0
.
5
L
.
.
7
.
P
1
0
4
6
85
92
Z
.
.
E
8
5
L
6
1
24 6
1
2
.
6
.
5
3
.
183
1
.
2
6
3
4
0
1
71 61
ANF
1
s
S
g
s
sg s sg s sg s
R
n
d
d
d
d
i
r
ni
r
ni
r
ni
r
A
d
a
d
a
d
a
d
a
E
n
c
c
c
c
Y
a
si
n
si
n
si
n
si
L
D
aL D aL D aL D
Y
l
R
m
a
T
u
n
e
i
i
g
c
N
g
a
u
n
l
p
tr
a
e
S
o
r
B
P
F
COU