Search

In the OSPAR area, the degree of interactions may be moderate between finfish mariculture and wild fish populations at the scale of a river local to a salmon farm, but are lower at a broader scale. The supply of food for mariculture creates a demand for small pelagic fish. ICES has advised that the fishing mortality on some small pelagic stocks should be reduced. A risk assessment is presented that identifies the research needed to more fully understand the nature and impact of these interactions and pressures.

ICES advises to maintain the existing closed areas to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). No additions to, or extensions of, the existing closed areas to protect VMEs in the NEAFC Regulatory Areas are advised at this time.ICES notes that bottom-fishing activity was observed in a VME closure area on Rockall Bank in 2020 and occured outside of the existing NEAFC bottom-fishing areas on Hatton Bank and in NEAFC Regulatory Area 3 in the Barents Sea.ICES advises that any bottom-contact fishing on VME habitats using static or mobile bottom-contacting gears will result in damage to these habitats and poses a risk of significant adverse impacts (as described by FAO [2009]). The inclusion of gear code in the daily catch

ICES provides a preliminary protocol for monitoring of plastics in fish stomachs in the OSPAR maritime area. There has been no such monitoring of plastics previously, so it is recommended that, if adopted, this protocol is reviewed at regular intervals and improved on the basis of experience. Integration with fish disease and fish stock surveys will be cost-effective, and the possibility of using samples from commercial vessels should be explored. Certain plastics are better monitored through otherways than the examination of fish stomachs.

ICES provides a revised version of the OSPAR JAMP phytoplankton monitoring guidelines. The motivation for the suggested changes is summarized below. ICES advises that: • there are no reliable widespread “indicator” plankton species yet agreed by the scientific community, whether for ocean acidification or for eutrophication; • standard lists are still required for trophic type/functional groups and non‐indigenous/cryptogenic species, and a further process to keep these and other lists up to date is also required; • if OSPAR wishes to collectively store, use, analyse, or assess phytoplankton data (including for biodiversity) then a common data reporting, handling, and storage system is required, as well as agreed analysis and assessment systems; • some choices by OSPAR may therefore be needed in relation to phytoplankton data; • OSPAR encourages its Contracting Parties to invest in both the equipment and personnel necessary to monitor picoplankton.

The NASCO Framework of Indicators for North East Atlantic stocks for 2013 was run in January 2014, and did not indicate the need for a revised analysis of catch options. Thus, no new management advice is provided for 2014. The most recent multi-year advice for the North East Atlantic Commission was provided by ICES (2013a). In that assessment, there were no catch options for the Faroes fishery that would allow all stock complexes to achieve their conservation limits (CLs) with a greater than 95% probability in any of the seasons 2013/14 to 2015/16. In the absence of specific management objectives, ICES advised that there were no mixed-stock fishery options on the NEAC complexes at Faroes in 2013 to 2016. The results from the exploratory assessment conducted by ICES in 2013 based on smaller management units (countries) were in line with this advice.While stocks remain in a depleted state and in the absence of a fishery at Faroes, particular care should be taken to ensure that fisheries in homewaters are managed to protect stocks that are below their CLs.

ICES advises that it is possible to monitor the geographic distribution of these stocks in the ice-free parts of the Arctic Ocean once a year, using existing survey methodology. This could be coordinated by existing ICES expert groups.

On the basis of the MSY approach, ICES advises that fishing should only take place on salmon from rivers where stocks have been shown to be at full reproductive capacity. Furthermore, because of the different status of individual stocks within stock complexes, mixed-stock fisheries present particular threats. The management of a fishery should ideally be based upon the individual status of all stocks exploited in the fishery.

Advice f or 2011 On the basis of the MSY approach, ICES advises that fishing should only take place on maturing 1SW salmon and non-maturing 1SW salmon from rivers where stocks have been shown to be at full reproductive capacity. Furthermore, due to the different status of individual stocks within the stock complex, mixed-stock fisheries present particular threats to stock status. The management of a fishery should ideally be based on the status of all stocks exploited in the fishery. Given the current abundance levels from the NEAC run reconstruction model and associated Bayesian abundance forecasts, the following advice on management is provided for the two age groups in the Northern and Southern NEAC stock complexes (Figures 10.2.1, 10.2.2; Table 10.2.1). Northern European 1SW stocks: For 2011 to 2014, this stock is forecasted to be at risk of suffering reduced reproductive capacity prior to the commencement of distant-water fisheries. This stock complex therefore offers no mixed-stock fishing opportunities. Northern European MSW stocks: For 2011 and 2012, this stock is forecasted to be at full reproductive capacity prior to the commencement of distant-water fisheries. For 2013 and 2014, the stock is at risk of suffering reduced reproductive capacity prior to the commencement of distant-water fisheries. There are mixed-stock fishing opportunities on this stock complex only in 2011 and 2012. Southern European 1SW stocks: For 2011 to 2014, the stock is forecasted to be at risk of suffering reduced reproductive capacity prior to the commencement of distant-water fisheries. This stock complex therefore offers no mixed-stock fishing opportunities.. Southern European MSW stocks: For 2010 to 2014, the stock is forecasted to be at risk of suffering reduced reproductive capacity prior to the commencement of distant-water fisheries. This stock complex therefore offers no mixed-stock fishing opportunities..

ICES advises that an appropriate Blim to be used as a basis for ICES Advice Rule cannot be identified with the currently available data for this stock. As a consequence of this, the proposed harvest control rule (HCR) and rebuilding plan are not considered consistent with the precautionary approach or ICES MSY approach. ICES further advises that a precautionary HCR for the stock is a fishing mortality of F0.1, a conservative proxy for FMSY, applied at all stock sizes above Bloss (minimum observed spawning-stock biomass [SSB]).

ICES advises that the harvest control rules (HCRs) considered in this request for cod and haddock are all precautionary inaccordance with the ICES standard that the annual probability of SSB falling below Blim should be no more than 5%.For cod, scenarios with a higher F (HCRs 3 to 10) than used presently (HCR 2) result in 1%–4% higher long-term median yield,but there is up to a threefold increase in interannual TAC variability. The median long-term SSB expected with the higher FHCRs is 4%–16% lower than under the HCR used presently. The HCR with the lowest F (HCR 1) leads to a 7% decrease inmedian long-term catch relative to HCR 2, lower interannual variability in TAC, and higher SSB.For haddock, scenarios with a higher F (HCRs 3, 5, and 6) than under the one used presently (HCR 2) result in 0%–4% higherlong-term median yield, with an increase in interannual TAC variability between 13% and 36%. The median long-term SSBexpected with the higher F HCRs is around 20% lower than under the HCR used presently. HCRs 1 (lower target F) and 4 (10%limit on interannual TAC variation) lead to lower long-term catch, lower interannual TAC variability, and higher median longtermSSB than HCR 2.For cod, yield is expected to decline relative to the 2015 TAC and SSB is expected to stabilize in the short term (next threeyears), whereas for haddock both yield and SSB are expected to decline in the short term for all the HCRs in the request.For capelin, the HCRs based on the 90%, 85%, and 80% criteria are not precautionary in the ICES evaluation context bydefinition; only the rule implemented in the current management plan, corresponding to the 95% criterion, may beprecautionary. An examination of the stock dynamics in recent decades, when the current HCR (based on 95% criterion) orthe previous HCR (based on a similar escapement strategy) were in operation suggests that these HCRs resulted insustainable exploitation. The overall effect of allowing a higher probability of SSB < Blim would be that the fishery would beopened at a lower survey biomass (maturing capelin), the TAC would increase and the resulting spawning biomass would belower, potentially increasing the risk of recruitment failure. The 2015 survey estimate for capelin was low and would have ledto closure of the fishery in 2016 under all suggested HCRs.