Whiting & Haddock MSC pre-assessment report

See below for a summary of the report

Click Here

Hake, Monk & Megrim MSC pre-assessment report

See below for a summary of the report

Click Here

Background information and terminology for MSC reports:

MSC fishery assessments are based against 3 principles:

Principle 1 – Stock Management and Status;

Principle 2 – Minimising Environmental Impact;

Principle 3 – the Management System.

Under each of these principles there are a list of sub-criteria which are assessed and scored. In order to pass an assessment criteria must get a score of over 80.

Under Principle 1 available scientific information and assessments are evaluated. In order for stock status to be effectively evaluated there must be clearly defined reference points (e.g. FMSY – Fishing mortality consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield, or MSY Btrigger – the biomass level which triggers a cautious response within the scientific MSY framework).  If these reference points are not defined or in other cases where limited information is available a risk based assessment framework (RBF) is used.

ETP species are Endangered, Threatened or Protected species.

VMEs are Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems.

HCRs are Harvest Control Rules. These are rules for pre-agreed management actions dependent on the status of the stock. For example, a control rule can specify how F or yield should vary depending on the spawning biomass level.

 Primary and secondary species refer to other species caught in the fishery regardless of whether they are retained or discarded. Primary species are other species caught that have management measures in place intended to achieve stock management objectives. Secondary species are other species caught which do not have management limits or reference points in place.

Whiting and Haddock

This report covers the following two stocks:

Haddock in ICES area 7b-k and part of 7a south (statistical rectangles 33E2 and 33E3);

Whiting in ICES area 7b, c, e-k and part of 7a south (statistical rectangles 33E2 and 33E3) 

Main strengths and weaknesses of the Hake, Monk and Megrim trawl fishery

Strengths

Weaknesses

Principle 1 – Stock Management and Status

Haddock and whiting are both above MSY BTRIGGER

The most significant issue is that fishing mortality of haddock is high and above FMSY throughout the time series. F of whiting has increased in recent years and is now just above FMSY.

For both stocks, a harvest strategy is in place involving an annual TAC. High quality, quantitative data enables analytical assessment of the stocks and reference points are defined

No HCRs are in place for either stock.

 

Sufficient relevant information is available to support the harvest strategy for both stocks.

 

Discard Rates continue to be high for both species but particularly for Haddock.

 

Whiting is likely to pass Principle 1 with some conditions.

Haddock is unlikely to pass Principle 1 due to the number of criteria with conditions.

Principle 2 – Minimising Environmental Impact

Quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the fishery on the main primary species.

 

The main primary species cod has poor stock status and high fishing mortality. It cannot be said that there is evidence of a recovery. A partial strategy is in place that is expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species. It is considered likely to work but there is not yet evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully.

The main secondary species lack reference points but preliminary RBF assessment indicates there is a low risk to all of them.

Some quantitative information is available but may not be adequate to support the management of the fishery’s impacts on ETP species.

The combined effects of the UoAs are highly likely not to hinder recovery of ETP populations.

In relation to commonly encountered habitats, it cannot be said that the UoAs are highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of commonly encountered habitats.

Both species are likely to pass Principle 2 with conditions.

Principle 3 – The Management System

There is an effective legal system and binding procedures governing co-operation with other parties.

Fishery-specific objectives, consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are not yet explicit within the fishery-specific management system.

There are clear long term objectives that guide decision making consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and the precautionary approach and are explicit and required by management policy.

There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system which are subject to regular internal and external review.

 

Both species are likely to pass Principle 3 with conditions.

Overall Conclusion

The pre-assessment identified obstacles which need to be addressed before proceeding to an MSC full assessment. The report recommended that Whiting could move forward to full assessment but it is not recommended to move forward to full assessment with Haddock.

 

Hake, Monkfish and Megrim

This report breaks the fisheries into 5 Units of Assessment (UoA) as follows:

UoA 1: Hake in ICES areas 6 and 7

UoA 2: Megrims stock complex (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis and L. boscii) in Subarea 6

UoA 3: Megrims stock complex in Subarea 7

UoA 4: Anglerfish stock complex (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) in Subarea 6

UoA 5: Anglerfish stock complex in Subarea 7.

 

Some of the issues with the assessment outlined below follow from the definition of UoAs used. For example ICES do not provide separate species advice for the two species of Megrim and there are combined TACs for both Megrim species and both Monkfish species. At the same time MSC requires that none of the component stocks in a stock complex are reduced below their limit reference point and in some cases making this assessment is difficult. Should these fisheries progress to full assessment it is recommended that additional UoAs (a total of 8) are defined in order to avoid at least some of these complications. 

Main strengths and weaknesses of the Hake, Monk and Megrim trawl fishery

Strengths

Weaknesses

Principle 1 – Stock Management and Status

Hake appears to be fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.

Separate species advice is not provided for the megrim and anglerfish stock complexes in Area 6.

A harvest strategy and HCRs exist for all UoAs. For Hake it enables stock management objectives to be achieved.

Anglerfish in Areas 6 and 7 do not have sufficient reference points to be able to assess stock status. Preliminary risk based assessment suggest these stocks would fail on this criteria.

Sufficient relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy for Hake.

 

For all 4 monk and megrim UoAs, risks of over-exploitation of individual species and stocks arise from the existence of combined species TACs, and the lack of alignment of stocks and management areas.

 

TACs are frequently set higher than recommended by scientific advice, particularly for hake and also megrims in Area 7.

Principle 2 – Minimising Environmental Impact

The fishery is likely to present a low risk to ETP species.

It is not possible to determine whether the main secondary species, skates and rays, are above biologically based limits. Preliminary risk based assessment suggests skates and rays would pass. However the assessment suggests that white-bellied angler would fail the secondary species criteria in three UoAs.

The footprint of most FUs does not overlap with VMEs.

Available information indicates trawling in the long term can have significant effects on soft sediments even at low-medium intensities. A closer look at this and other research into trawling impacts is necessary to better understand the impact of this fishery. Consequently, the risk based assessment may be required to score the habitats outcome criteria.

Principle 3 – The Management System

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

 

UoAs vary in their fishery-specific objectives such that it cannot be said that all have long and short term objectives consistent with achieving P1 and P2 outcomes.

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

All UoAs are likely to pass Principle 3 with conditions.

There isn’t necessarily evidence that decision- making processes result in measures and strategies to achieve fishery specific objectives for all the UoA/UoCs.

Overall Conclusion

The pre-assessment identified obstacles which need to be addressed before proceeding to an MSC full assessment.