Project UK Fisheries Improvements
Western Channel monkfishSteering Group meeting minutes
Thursday 19th January 2017
BrixhamLaboratory, Brixham
Attendees:
Ally Dingwall (AD)Sainsburys
Andrew Pillar (AP)Interfish
Chloe North (CN)MSC
Gus Caslake (GC)Seafish SW
Jim Portus (JP)SWFPO
Nathan de Rozarieux (ND)Falfish
Paul Trebilcock (PT)CFPO
Ruth Hoban (RH)New England Seafood
Tim Huntingdon (TH) Poseidon
Apologies:
Cassie LeiskNESI
Claire PescodMSC
Clarus ChuWWF
Hannah MacintyreM&S
Iain GlasgowDefra
Jeremy SheaNESI
Lisa ReaddyCefas
Mark Webber Oceanfish
Simon DixonMMO
Minutes & Terms of Reference
The minutes of the previous meeting and Terms of Reference were discussed in the morning session before the scallop meeting. For these, please see the scallop meeting minutes.
- Monkfish pre-assessment results and discussion
Tim Huntingdon (TH) from Poseidon joined us to present the pre-assessments and draft action plans. Acoura carried out the pre-assessments but Poseidon created the action plans so as not to have any conflict of interest in future full assessments.
This pre-assessment was not part of Project Inshore and therefore this is brand new, rather than an update like the other fisheries in PUKFI. Three Units of Assessment (UoAs) were assessed, these were three gear types being used in the Western Channel monkfish fishery. Beam trawl, demersal trawl & tangle/trammel net.
TH explained some MSC terms such as:
-Target species: The species you are considering under Principle 1, that you want to eventually carry the MSC certificate.
-Main: Non-target species that comprise 5% or more, by weight of the total catch. Or 2% is the species is less resilient.
-Minor: All other species not considered ‘main’, are considered minor.
-CR 2.0: The most recent version of the Certification Requirements (the standard) that we are using as the basis for these pre-assessments.
-Primary species: All non-target species that are managed via limit or target reference points.
-Secondary species: All non-target species that are not managed through reference points, and all out-of-scope species unless considered ETP.
-ETP: Endangered, Threatened & Protected.
-Out of scope: Birds, mammals & Reptiles.
TH commenced the presentation on the pre-assessment results. This will be available in a separate document on the fishery webpage.
The fishing industry members queried the landings data in the pre-assessmentbecause it didn’t add up to what the fishery thought it was landing. The gear type was listed as gill net when actually they use trammel and tangle nets which are similar but slightly different. This meant that the catch composition data was not what was expected as well, so it was hard to accurately tell what would be main and minor P2 species. For example, the industry thought that ray and ling should be primary. The gear type should also be made more specific to tangle and trammel nets.There are different codes for specific gears so we can get that granularity of data.
Minutes action 1: TH to work with the pre-assessment author to make these corrections.
Minutes action 2: TH to liaise with industry to get the correct gear type and code and then request the right data from the MMO. CN to put TH in touch with the MMO.
AP would like this to be a fisheries recognition project rather than an improvement project to recognise all the improvements the fishery has already made. He also highlighted his discomfort in certifying just one target species in a mixed fishery.
CN explained to everyone about the mixed fishery standard that the MSC is developing. But it is based on a fishery that is managed as mixed whereas this fishery is managed as a mix of single species. Sainsbury’s showed interest in the mixed fishery standard.
- Monkfish action plan presentation & discussion
Action-plan action 1. Stock status & assessment
There are two monkfish/anglerfish species that get caught in the same fishery. These are inseparable until you cut them open and look at the colour of the skin inside them in the belly area. SW fishermen generally land only the monkfish tail which removes the belly area of the fish making separation of species on the market extremely difficult It is extremelydifficult to change behaviour of how fishermen work on their boat because of safety, space and time. They do sorting and any processing in the most efficient way, whist remaining safe.
Catches are usually about 80% Piscatoris and 20% Budegassa. Budegassa stocks are in worse shape. We have little power over management of Budegassa because it is in higher quantities in areas further south therefore the Spanish catch more of it and have more of an influence over how it is managed.
The question was posed and discussed that if you can’t avoid Budegassa, you can’t tell it apart and it is depleted, is there anything this project can do to address P1 issues?Cefas do species specific sampling and ICES are working on the stock assessments which are species specific already.It would require a change in the working practices of fishermen to enable recording of monkfish by species. Unfortunately, the Cefas representative on this project was unable to attend the meeting so some Principle 1 questions remained unanswered.
Minutes action 3: CN to ask Cefas the question if we can do this and how?
Minutes action 4: CN to feed the results of the Cefas discussion back to the group feed back to the group via a virtual meeting
It was highlighted that there has been a lot of data gathered by the Fisheries Science Partnership over the last 10-15 years.
There was discussion of discard ban and data because we don’t want to increase mortality. However, it was pointed out that there will always be some small monk caught no matter how selective your gear, because of the shape of them.
Potentially Cefas to lead on this action subject to discussion after the steering group meeting
Action-plan action 2. Harvest strategy
For the review of alternative measures, we need a baseline of what is an acceptable level of catch of small monkfish.
Seafish will lead this actionand will look at what work had been done in terms of selectivity within the beam trawl fleet.
This action will have a 6 month timescale.
Action-plan action3. Harvest control rules & tools
Spain breaks their monkfish catch down by species. However,in the UK, observers and Cefas scientists take samplesand recordby species. From this we get approximate ratios between the two species and then this is scaled up to landings and discards.
The ratios between the two species was discussed. There may be different ratios in different areas. Observers could show this data. Budegassa is deeper water so the ratios of Piscatoris and Budegassa may change in different fishing areas because of depth. Therefore, avoiding areas where there are higher percentages of Budegassa could be one mitigation measure. There could be a move-on rule like the Cornish hake fishery is trialling with spurdog.
There was discussion that species specific catch accounting and management might be extremely difficult to achieve because the species are inseparable for our fishermen in the current way they function and process the fish.
Minutes action 5: CN to talk to Cefas and discuss their opinion on whether this action can be achieved.
RH brought up that the cape hake fishery has two inseparable species and we could investigate how they manage them. Can cape hake models be applied to this fishery?
Minutes action 6: CN to investigate what other MSC certified practically inseparable species have done to manage the fishery, and feed back to the group.
Cefas to lead
Principle 2
The action on gear-specific catch composition was removed because the action was already being done. There was discussion over the correct gear type that the fishery actually uses. The data for very specific gears is available by gear code so this action is not necessary.
Minutes action 7: TH to change the data
Minutes action 8: PT & GC to provide TH with the gear codes for the MMO data.
Action-plan action 4. Secondary species status
The group agreed to re-visit this action at the next meeting when the correct data has been obtained. This action doesn’t need to be commenced immediately as it is a short action.
This action is funding dependant so will be included in the EMFF bid.
Minutes action 9: CN to liaise with Cefas on costing to put into the EMFF bid.
Minutes action 10: when we have the correct data, the industry members will review the catch composition to ensure it is correct.
Action lead: Cefas or other consultant depending on funding
Action-plan actions56. Secondary species management & information
These actions don’t commence in the first year, therefor the group decided to revisit them after the analysis in Action 4 has been completed.
Action-plan action 7. ETP species status, management & information
Minutes action 11: TH to add ‘if necessary’ after ‘management measures need to be developed’.
It was pointed out that there are ETP studies that have already been done,especially for gill nets. The certified hake boats are the same boats as the monkfish fishery, only usingslightly different gear. We should investigate how the hake boats have addressed this condition and if they have an ETP map or list of species.
Minutes action 12: PT to provide information on how the hake fishery has addressed the ETP Performance Indicators
This action is similar to the scallop action as the fisheries operate in similar areas and the work is being commenced for the scallop fishery so we could tag this action onto that work. We will investigate if the JNCC has the ETP data and the MMO can provide the fishery footprint data.
Minutes Action 13: CN to investigate adding this action onto the scallop ETP work.
Action-plan actions 8 & 9. Habitat status, management & information, & ecosystem status
PTstated that they have contributed to extensive consultation on the MPA network and he feels that this network has been designed to protect vulnerable habitats so should be sufficient to satisfy MSC.
However not all MPAs have been put in place yet, and the ones that have often don’t have management yet. An assessment is required to ascertain whether the MPA network is sufficient.
AP stated that all Interfishboats have VMS so with habitats assessment he expects we will see their overlay is on productive ground that has been productive for a long time.
Habitats & ecosystem assessment will be subject to funding.
Minutes action 14: CN to get quotes for assessment and seek funding through EMFF
P3
Action-plan action 10. Fishery specific objectives & decision-making process
There is a Western Waters Multi-Annual Plan (WW MAP)that has been under development, similar to the North Sea one. The development has stalled slightly and one of the main issues that has led to this is the fact that it is very hard to separate the two species of monkfish
Is it possible to develop a long-term management plan without going through the European Commission etc. But there was concern that the AC would not be persuaded to drive through the agreement of the MAP merely due to pressure from this group. There needs to be a common desire from other members of the AC.
Another difficulty is that the stockactually extends across two different ACs and therefor two different multi-annual plans: North West Waters & South West Waters.
PT pointed out that the CFP binds all fisheries to reach MSY for all stocks including these ones, by 2020 and that therefore the CFP should count as a management plan. Getting along term management plan on top of the CFP will be too hard. The CFP has been used in the hake fishery as a potential justification.
Minutes action 15: CN to get clarity from the MSC Standards Team on if the CFPhas ever been used as a fishery specific management plan in an MSC certified fishery in the past, and whether it is specific and explicit enough.
MF inputted from the point of view of the French part of the fishery.There may be support from the French to work towards MSC as well, which would help in discussions at the AC. MF plans to start the industry engagement as soon as she has the confirmation from the potential funder.
Action-plan action 13. Monitoring & evaluation
This action to externally evaluate the management of the fishery could be done by a panel that is set up and led by Seafish.
Action lead: Seafish
Date for next meeting: 6 months for the next meeting. Virtual meeting in 3 or 4 months
Summary table of Minutes Actions
Number / Lead / Action / Status1 / TH / To work with the pre-assessment author to make the corrections. / Complete
2 / TH / to liaise with industry to get the correct gear type and code and then request the right data from the MMO. CN to put TH in touch with the MMO. / Complete
3 / CN / To ask Cefas the question if we can do this (stock status & assessment) and how? / Complete
4 / CN / To feed the results of the Cefas discussion back to the group feed back to the group via a virtual meeting / Complete
5 / CN / To talk to Cefas and discuss their opinion on whether this action (harvest control rules & tools) can be achieved. / Complete
6 / CN / To investigate what other MSC certified practically inseparable species have done to manage the fishery, and feed back to the group. / Complete
7 / TH / To change the catch-composition data / Complete
8 / PT & GC / To provide TH with the gear codes for the MMO data. / Complete
9 / CN / to liaise with Cefas on costing to put into the EMFF bid. / Complete
10 / Industry / When we have the correct data, the industry members will review the catch composition to ensure it is correct.
11 / TH / To add ‘if necessary’ after ‘management measures need to be developed’. / Complete
12 / PT / To provide information on how the hake fishery has addressed the ETP Performance Indicators
13 / CN / To investigate adding this action onto the scallop ETP work with the Seafish SAG. / Complete
14 / CN / To get quotes for the habitats & ecosystem assessment and seek funding through EMFF / Complete
15 / CN / To get clarity from the MSC Standards Team on if the CFP has ever been used as a fishery specific management plan in an MSC certified fishery in the past. / Complete