Report of the Workshop on Eel and Salmon DCF Data (WKESDCF)

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ICES CM / ACOM:62

REF. PGCCDBS, WGEEL, WGNAS, WGRECORDS

Report of the Workshop on Eel and Salmon DCF Data (WKESDCF)

3 – 6 July 2012

ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer

H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected]

Recommended format for purposes of citation:

ICES. 2012. Report of the Workshop on Eel and Salmon DCF Data (WKESDCF), 3 – 6 July 2012, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM / ACOM:62. 67 pp.

For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen- eral Secretary.

The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | i

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Purpose of the Workshop ...... 3 1.2 Organization of the meeting ...... 3 1.3 Structure of the report ...... 4

2 Current DCF requirements relating to eel and salmon as diadromous species ...... 5 2.1 Current Regulation and Decision ...... 5 2.2 DCF requirements relating to diadromous species...... 6 2.2.1 Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 ...... 6 2.2.2 Commission Decision 2010/93/EU ...... 6 2.3 Concerns with the current DCF requirements for diadromous species ...... 12 2.4 DCF and CFP reform ...... 14 2.5 Links with other EU Directives and Regulations ...... 14

3 Data collection requirements for eel assessment ...... 16 3.1 Background information on eel life history and production ...... 16 3.2 Anthropogenic impacts on the stock ...... 16 3.3 Management objectives for European eel ...... 17 3.4 Assessments to meet management needs for European eel ...... 17 3.4.1 International assessment ...... 17 3.4.2 National assessments ...... 20 3.5 Data requirements for management of European eel ...... 21 3.6 Workshop proposed data collection under the DC-MAP for European eel ...... 26

4 Data collection requirements for salmon assessment ...... 30 4.1 Baltic and Atlantic salmon stocks and fisheries ...... 30 4.1.1 Stock structure ...... 30 4.1.2 Wild and reared salmon ...... 30 4.1.3 Salmon fisheries ...... 31 4.2 Baltic Salmon ...... 31 4.2.1 National and international management objectives for Baltic salmon...... 31 4.2.2 Assessments to meet management needs for Baltic salmon ...... 32 4.2.3 Data requirements for Baltic salmon ...... 33 4.2.4 Proposed data collection for Baltic salmon under the DCF ...... 35 4.3 North Atlantic Salmon ...... 36

ii | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

4.3.1 National and international management objectives for North Atlantic salmon ...... 36 4.3.2 Assessment to meet management needs for North Atlantic salmon ...... 37 4.3.3 Data requirements for assessments of North Atlantic salmon ...... 39 4.3.4 Proposed data collection under the DCF for North Atlantic salmon ...... 40

5 Standards for data collection (precision, accuracy and quality control) ...... 44

6 Harmonization of collection methods for eel and salmon ...... 46

7 Summary of recommendations ...... 47 7.1 General recommendations: ...... 47 7.2 Recommendations concerning data collection for eel: ...... 47 7.3 Recommendations concerning data collection for Baltic salmon: ...... 48 7.4 Recommendations concerning data collection for North Atlantic salmon: ...... 49

Annex 1: Terms of Reference for WKESDCF ...... 51

Annex 2: Agenda ...... 52

Annex 3. Participants ...... 53

Annex 4. References ...... 56

Annex 5. Glossary of terms and acronyms ...... 58

Annex 6. Guidance for reporting progress with Eel Management Plans ...... 61

Annex 7. Map of ICES Fishing Areas ...... 63

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 1

Executive summary

The Workshop on Eel and Salmon DCF Data met at the IDA Centre, Copenhagen from 3 to 6 July 2012, under the co-chairmanship of Ted Potter (UK) and Alan Walker (UK). The Workshop was attended by 23 experts in eel and salmon assessment and management, representing nine EU Member States (Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and UK). Changes to the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF) in 2007 introduced requirements to collect data on eel and salmon, but the specific data requested for these species did not meet the needs of national and international assessments. The proposed development of the new Data Collection - Multi-Annual Programme (DC-MAP) in 2013 provides the opportunity to coordinate and improve the collection of data used in assessments for these species. The key tasks of the Workshop were therefore to:  Determine the data required to support international obligations for the assessment of eel and salmon;  Describe the national monitoring and survey programmes required to meet these data requirements; and  Consider options for integrating salmon and eel surveys and monitoring. The Workshop met in plenary to discuss the current data collection requirements for these two diadromous species and the various ways that these had been addressed by different countries. The Workshop then split into two subgroups to address the future data collection requirements for eel and salmon, with the latter subgroup considering the different requirements for Baltic and North Atlantic salmon. For each species/area, the subgroups structured their discussions by considering: the national/international management objectives; the assessments undertaken to support these objectives; the data required to undertake the assessments; and the proposed changes to the DC-MAP to provide these data. The existing DCF also requires the collection of data on economics and aquaculture. These data are important in the management of diadromous species, but the Workshop did not contain the expertise necessary to consider these elements in detail. Eel and salmon differ markedly from marine species in their biology, the nature and distribution of their fisheries, and the methods used to assess stock status and provide management advice. As a result, the data collection requirements do not fit well into the ‘standard’ approaches used for marine species. In particular, much of the assessment of both species is conducted at a local and national level even when the results contribute to international assessments (e.g. development of Conservation Limits for salmon river stocks and assessment of silver eel escapement for individual eel management units). These approaches may differ depending upon a range of factors including the practicalities of collecting particular data. The Workshop made detailed recommendations for several tiers of data collection. For both eel and salmon, there are some data (e.g. catches) that are required for all stock components; these data are of little value if they are not collected in a consistent way for all fisheries. The collection of other data may depend on local requirements and constraints. A key recommendation of the Workshop was that ICES (through the assessment Working Groups) should, therefore, have a role in agreeing the data that

2 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

should be collected in specific areas (e.g. agreeing ‘index rivers’). This and other recommendations are summarized in Section 7 of this report. The Workshop also identified a number of areas where coordinated data collection might offer opportunities for increased cost-effectiveness in some circumstances, including: electric fishing surveys; trapping programmes; operation of automatic counters; and habitat surveys.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 3

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Workshop Changes to the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF) in 2007 introduced requirements to collect data on eel and salmon. However, the specific data requested for eel are not well aligned with what is needed for national and regional assessments under the EU Eel Regulation and to report progress under Eel Management Plans (EMPs). Nor are the requirements for salmon appropriate to support national and international assessments and the provision of advice to the North Atlantic Salmon Conser- vation Organization (NASCO) and the EU. The Workshop was established following discussions between eel and salmon experts and the European Commission concerning problems that had been experienced in implementing the current DCF requirements. It is important that fishery management decisions are based upon the best scientific assessments that can be achieved, but there are inevitable constraints on the data that can be obtained from monitoring programmes. There is therefore a need to define clearly the nature of the assessments that are required and to plan practical data collection and monitoring programmes to support them. Articles 37 and 38 of the CFP reform proposal will repeal the existing DCF legislation, and details on data collection obligations will be laid down in a new EU Data Collec- tion Multi-Annual Programme (DC-MAP) replacing provisions currently in Council Regulation 199/2008. This presents an opportunity to resolve the problems relating to data collection for eel and salmon and put in place programmes that will support the assessments required by the EU. The key aspects of the Terms of Reference (see Annex 1 for full ToRs) are therefore to:  Determine the data required to support international obligations for the assessment of eel and salmon;  Describe the national monitoring and survey programmes required to meet these data requirements; and  Consider options for integrating salmon and eel surveys and monitoring. The existing DCF also requires the collection of data on economics and aquaculture, but the Workshop did not have the expertise necessary to consider these elements, and therefore they are not discussed in the report.

1.2 Organization of the meeting The Workshop was due to meet at the ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen but had to move venue to the IDA Centre due to the flooding that occurred in the ICES building on the morning that the meeting started. The meeting was attended by 23 experts in eel and salmon assessment and management (Annex 2), representing nine EU Mem- ber States (Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and UK). The Workshop adopted the draft Agenda (Annex 3), but recognized that due to the disruption of their meeting, there would be a need to modify their work plan and the production of the report was likely to be delayed. The Workshop met in plenary to discuss the current data collection requirements for eel and salmon and the various ways that these had been addressed by different countries. The Workshop then split

4 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

into two subgroups to address the future data collection requirements for eel and salmon, with the latter subgroup considering the different requirements for Baltic and North Atlantic salmon.

1.3 Structure of the report The Workshop report considers the current DCF requirements relating to eel and salmon (Section 2) in order to set the context for the Workshop. The next two chap- ters summarize the data collection requirements for eel and salmon assessment, with the latter split into sections for Baltic and Atlantic salmon Section 5 considers standards for data collection, while Section 6 considers some of the most obvious potential opportunities for harmonization of collection methods for eels and salmon. The Workshop made detailed recommendations for amendments to the data collection for eels and salmon, and these are summarized in Section 7. Standard ICES report details are reported in a series of Annexes, including a glossary of terms and acronyms in Annex 5.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 5

2 Current DCF requirements relating to eel and salmon as diadromous species

2.1 Current Regulation and Decision The Workshop considered the following three documents which specify the current legislative requirements relating to the Data Collection Framework: Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (dated 25 February 2008) (“concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Pol- icy”).This Regulation sets out a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data for the purpose of establishing a solid basis for scientific analyses of fisheries and for providing the formulation of sound scientific advice for the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 665/2008 (dated 14 July 2008 (“laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy”). This Regulation implements Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 and provides rules dealing with the minimum content of the multiannual national programmes to be adopted by Member States and the submission of an annual report on fisheries, as well as with management of data relevant to the fisheries sector. Commission Decision 2010/93/EU of (18 December 2009) (“adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013”). This Decision establishes the multiannual Community programme for the period 2011-13. (This replaced Decision 2008/949/EC on 1/1/2011) The Decision is structured around four modules which relate to the evaluation of:  The fishing sector (Section III): this chapter addresses the collection of biological data for stock assessment purposes and has sections relating to economic data, biological data, transversal variables and research surveys at sea;  Economic information on aquaculture and the fish processing industry ( SectionIV): data are currently required only on marine aquaculture;  the effects of the fisheries sector on the marine ecosystem (Section V): this chapter relates to the collection of indicators of the status of the marine ecosystem; and  The management and use of the data covered by the DCF ( SectionVI): this chapter covers the development of databases, data storage, quality control and validation, and data processing from primary data into detailed or ag- gregated data. The parts of these Regulations/Decisions relating to diadromous fish are discussed in more detail below.

6 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

2.2 DCF requirements relating to diadromous species

2.2.1 Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 The overall requirements of the ‘Community Programme’ as they affect eel and salmon are addressed in Chapter 2, Section 1, Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, which states that: “1. A multi-annual Community programmes for collection, management and use of biological, technical, environmental and socio-economic data concerning:

(a) commercial fisheries carried out by Community vessels1 (i) within Community water, including commercial fisheries for eels and salmon in inland waters; (ii) outside Community waters (b) recreational fisheries within Community waters, including recreational fisheries for eels and salmon in inland waters; (c) aquaculture activities related to eel and salmon, carried out within Member States and Community waters; (d) industries processing fisheries products; shall be defined in accordance with procedure referred to in Article 27(2).” ‘Community waters’ is defined within the Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 as ‘the waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Member States with the exception of waters adjacent to the territories mentioned in Annex II to the Treaty’; which is understood to include both the ‘internal waters and territorial sea of a Member State’ (Churchill and Owen, 2010). The above section of the Regulation therefore indicates a clear intention for the Community programmes to include both commercial and recreational fisheries for eel and salmon operating in the sea, estuaries and freshwater. However, many commercial fisheries for eel and salmon are operated from un- registered vessels or without a vessel, and so it is unclear whether all fisheries for these species are covered by the Regulation. The Workshop emphasized that collecting data only from registered vessels would not enable adequate assessments to be undertaken at either national or international levels. While paragraph 1(c) refers to aquaculture in ‘Community waters’, it is understood from the Commission that this only applies to marine aquaculture at the present time. Aquaculture in inland waters may be included in the reformed regulation.

2.2.2 Commission Decision 2010/93/EU The current requirements for collecting data on diadromous species (including eel and salmon) and the fisheries exploiting them appear in Chapter III of Commission Decision 2010/93/EU. Section ‘A’ relates to the collection of economic data and Sec- tion ‘C’ to transversal variables. Economic data are particularly important in the management of diadromous species and the Workshop recommends that such data should be collected for both salmon and eel fisheries. However, the Workshop did not contain the expertise necessary to consider these elements in detail and therefore

1 ‘Community fishing vessel’ means a fishing vessel flying the flag of a Member State and registered in the Community;

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 7

they are not discussed further in the report. It is understood that transversal data are required for all fishing methods for which other data are collected. Section ‘B’ relates to the collection of biological data and includes subsections on mé- tier-related data and stock-related variables. Métier-related data: The Decision requires that data must be collected by métier as specified in Level 6 of Appendix IV. The relevant parts of this Appendix relating to diadromous species have been extracted in Tables 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2. Within this appendix diadromous species are listed by name (‘salmon’ and ‘eel’), and by group (‘anadromous’ and ‘catadromous’). There are also entries for ‘finfish’ which according to an STECF glossary is a ‘generic term, including all teleostans and elasmobranchs’ and therefore includes both eel and salmon. Eel appear to be included in all areas for a variety of gear types including hand and pole lines, pots and traps, and fyke nets. Recreational fisheries and glass eel fisheries are included in all areas except the Baltic. These listings therefore appear to be broadly consistent with the aims of the Regulation. Salmon are included in the Baltic (as anadromous species or finfish) for eight different commercial gear types and for recreational fisheries. The only specific mention of salmon in other areas is for recreational fisheries in the North Atlantic, but ‘finfish’ are included under hand poles and lines in all other areas and also under pots and traps in the North Sea and East Arctic and seine nets in the North Atlantic. [Finfish are also listed in the Mediterranean but there are no salmon in this area.] These lists therefore provide complete coverage on fisheries for salmon in the Baltic, but incom- plete and inconsistent data collection on North Atlantic salmon. As a result they do not therefore appear to be consistent with the aims of the Regulation. The Workshop therefore recommends that the revised DC-MAP covers collection of data on all recreational and commercial eel and salmon fisheries regardless of how they are undertaken; however it should be noted that the distinction between recreational and commercial fisheries is not always clear, and it may be difficult to define precise métier because of the varied and specialised methods used to exploit these species.

Stock-related variables: The decision requires that data must be collected on age, length, weight, sex, maturity and fecundity for species listed by area in Appendix VII. The relevant parts of this Appendix relating to diadromous species have been extracted in Table 2.2.1.3. Within this appendix all species are listed by name (English and Latin) and the diadromous species that are included are eel (Anguilla anguilla), salmon (Salmo salar) and sea trout (Salmo trutta). Eel are listed for all ICES areas including the Baltic (see map at Annex 7). There are specific requirements for age analysis for European eel which require that, ‘Age analysis for European eel (Anguilla anguilla) shall be set at a minimum of 5 individuals per cm length intervals. A minimum of 100 individuals shall be analysed per management unit as specified in Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007 for yellow and silver eels separately’. Weight, sex and maturity data are also required every three years.

8 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

The Workshop confirmed that the areas specified for eel are appropriate; requirements for biological data are discussed further below, but eel maturity data are not used in any assessments because eels mature after they emigrate as silver eels. Salmon are listed for all areas except ICES area IIIa (Swedish west coast) and VIId (English Channel) (see map at Annex 7), but both of these areas have salmon rivers entering them. Under the NASCO Convention, no salmon fishing is permitted beyond 12 mile limits. No EU vessel fishes for salmon in Greenland or Faroese waters, but the EU currently participates in an international programme to sample catches at west Greenland, although Member States (currently UK and Ireland) currently provide samplers at national expense. The Workshop therefore recommends that ICES Areas IIIa and VIId should be added to the areas for which the collection of biological variables is required for North Atlantic salmon (currently specified in Ap- pendix VII of Commission Decision 2010/93/EU) but that areas containing no coastal waters and around Greenland and Faroes could be excluded. The Work- shop also recommends that participation in the NASCO Salmon Sampling Pro- gramme at West Greenland should be eligible for DC-MAP funding because the programme is endorsed by the EU and the data relate to the exploitation of EU stocks and are essential to the provision of advice to NASCO. Age analysis is required for 250 fish per 1000 t landed, except around Greenland where 500 fish are required per 1000 t. However, the total annual declared catch in all Member States combined is currently less than 1000 t, with UK having the largest 5 yr mean catch of 271 t for 2007-11. The existing DCF therefore provides for insuffi- cient age analysis of North Atlantic salmon; new requirements are discussed further in Section 4.3.4. Furthermore, no EU vessels fish for salmon in Greenland waters. Weight, sex and maturity sampling is required every three years, except in the Baltic and around Greenland where yearly sampling is required, but maturity data are not used in any salmon assessments because all salmon returning to freshwater are assumed to be maturing in the current year (except in a few cases where corrections are made for adult fish that will remain in freshwater for a year before spawning). The Workshop confirmed that the areas specified for salmon are not appropriate in this instance and that the requirements for age analysis and maturity sampling are not consistent with current best international stock assessment procedures. The Work- shop’s recommendations for future biological sampling are addressed in Section 4.3.4. All entries for eel and salmon in Appendix VII put them in Group 1 indicating that they are ‘species that drive the international management process including species under EU management plans or EU recovery plans or EU long term multi-annual plans or EU action plans for conservation and management based on Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (3)’.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 9

Table 2.2.1.1 Extracts from “COMMISSION DECISION (2010/93/EU) - Appendix IV - List of biological variables with species sampling specification” which address data collection for catadromous species.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 LOA Classes AREA ICES Activity Gear Gear Gear Type Target assemblage Mesh size and other <10 10-<12 12-<18 18-<24 24-<40 40 % + selective devices classes Groups Baltic Subdiv 22-32 Fishing Hooks & Rods & Hand and Finfish (b) activity lines lines Pole lines Long Set longlines Catadromous spp. (b) lines Traps Traps Pots and Catadromous spp. (b) Traps Fyke nets Catadromous spp. (b) Stationary Catadromous spp. (b) uncovered pound nets Nets Nets Set gillnet Catadromous spp. (b) Seines Seines Beach & boat Finfish (b) seines Recreational fisheries Eel N/A All vessel classes combined North Sea & I, II, IIIa, IV, Fishing Hooks & Rods & Hand and Finfish (b) Eastern Arctic VIId activity lines lines Pole lines Traps Traps Pots and Finfish (b) Traps Fyke nets Catadromous spp. (b) Other Other Glass eel Glass eel (b) gear gear fishing Recreational fisheries Eel N/A All vessel classes combined North Atlantic V-XIV & NAFO Fishing Hooks & Rods & Hand and Finfish (b) activity lines lines Pole lines Traps Traps Pots and Finfish (b) Traps Fyke nets Catadromous spp. (b) Seines Seines Beach & boat Finfish (b) seines Other Other Glass eel Glass eel (b) gear gear fishing Recreational fisheries Eel N/A All vessel classes combined Mediteranean & Fishing Hooks & Rods & Hand and Finfish (b) Black Seas activity lines lines Pole lines Traps Traps Fyke nets Catadromous spp. (b) Other Other Glass eel Glass eel (b) gear gear fishing Recreational fisheries Eel N/A All vessel classes combined

10 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 Table 2.2.1.2 Extracts from “COMMISSION DECISION (2010/93/EU) - Appendix IV - List of biological variables with species sampling specification” which address data collection for anadromous species.

Mediteranean & Fishing Hooks & Rods & Hand and Finfish (b) Black Seas activity lines lines Pole lines

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 11 Table 2.2.1.3 Extracts from “COMMISSION DECISION (2010/93/EU) - Appendix VII - List of biological variables with species sampling specification” which address data collection for all diadromous species.

Area/Stock Age Species (Eng.) Species (Lat (ICES Sub Div) Species Group No/1000t Weight Sex Maturity Fecundity

European eel Anguilla anguilla I, II G1 (b) T T T IIIa G1 (b) T T T IIIb-d G1 (b) T T T IV, VIId G1 (b) T T T V, VI, VII (exc.VIId), VIII, IX, X,XII, XIV G1 (b) T T T Mediterranean & Black Seas G1 (b) T T T

Salmon Salmo salar I, II G1 250 T T T 22-31/32 G1 250 Y Y Y IV G1 250 T T T V, VI, VII (exc.VIId), VIII, IX, X,XII, XIV G1 250 XIV & NAFO I G1 500 Y Y Y Areas not listed = ICES IIIa & VIId

Sea trout Salmo trutta 22-32 G1 250 T T T

Y = yearly; T = every three years

12 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

2.3 Concerns with the current DCF requirements for diadromous species Conventional marine fisheries management is built upon regionally coordinated data collection programs feeding into a stock-specific assessment. Given the substantial convergence in methodologies across the ICES-assessed stocks (mostly age-based cohort assessments to reconstruct populations based on catches, with a sub-ordinate role for standing stock surveys of juveniles for assessment tuning only), this allows for a substantial standardization in data collection programs, as in the current DCF Regulation. For eel and salmon, however, the situation is much more complex, and the standardized approach applied to marine species is inappropriate. For eel, there is thought to be one (panmictic) population spread over Europe, (including the Mediterranean) and parts of north Africa, but local conditions vary so much that uniform stock-wide management is impractical. The development and implementation of protection measures has therefore been delegated to the national / regional levels and management / assessment is at the national, Eel Management Unit (EMU) / River Basin District (RBD) or individual river level as set out in the Eel Man- agement Plans. For salmon, stocks are managed at the individual river level, and river-specific sampling programs are required for stock assessment. These river-stocks are also grouped on the basis of geographic and political boundaries (which do not conform to current ICES Areas (Annex 7)) when conducting assessments for the provision of management advice for certain mixed river-stock fisheries. For both eel and salmon, monitoring programs thus need to be locally adapted, and in many cases this has resulted in different methods being developed to meet both national and international obligations. This means that full international standardization (facilitating Community support) may need to be more flexible than for tradi- tional marine fisheries, although there might be scope for a general move to more standardized approaches, which might aid quality control in future. Given this situation, the Workshop recommended that, for clarity, eel and salmon should be dealt with in separate subsections to marine species in the new DC-MAP. Furthermore the Workshop recommended that there will need to be some flexibility in the requirements for data collection on eel and salmon, but that ICES should be given the role of confirming that proposed data are appropriate and/or required; this is discussed further below. The Workshop reviewed brief overviews of the data collection programmes for eel and salmon currently implemented under the DCF and the problems and concerns identified by those Member States represented at the meeting. It was evident that Member States had adopted very different approaches to meeting the requirements of the DCF, further highlighting the ambiguities in the current measures relating to diadromous species. Some Member States had collected no information because they believed (rightly or wrongly) that the measures did not apply to diadromous species in their waters; others had collected only the data specified in Commission Decision 2010/93, using data in assessments, but not all equally efficient or not on an annual basis; and others had developed pilot studies to cover a wide range of sampling required to address national and international obligations for assessments. Workshop participants identified examples of the problems that they had encountered with the current data collection requirements for diadromous species; these included:

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 13

Eel:  Inadequate geographical coverage;  Incompatibility of the requirements with the wide range of fishing methods employed;  Requirements are based on fisheries and not local river conditions (i.e. each river basin, and part, is subject to different recruitment patterns and human pressures leasing to localized differences in stock structures);  Reduction or closure of fisheries removes the requirement to collect data;  No fisheries-independent data collection requirement, especially in the absence of fisheries;  No requirement to collect recruitment data;  Inappropriate requirements for age analysis;  No data collection on non-fisheries anthropogenic factors affecting stocks;  Bycatch sampling is of limited use and value;  Maturity data are not required for assessment.

Baltic salmon:  There is a need for more electrofishing data on juvenile salmon densities;  The Baltic salmon assessment model also needs input data from non-index rivers;  Electrofishing is not mandatory within the DCF, but is crucial to the stock assessment including in non-index rivers;  Maturity data are not needed;  Need to include more data from reared stocks/rivers, i.e. establish “reared” index rivers;  Index rivers with wild salmon have not been fully established in various parts of the Baltic catchment;  M74 monitoring not included in DCF.

Atlantic salmon:  Salmon not covered in ICES Areas III and VIId in Appendix VII;  Requirements are based on fisheries and not stocks;  Uncertain coverage of marine and estuarine fisheries in Appendix IV;  Incompatibility of the requirements with the wide range of fishing methods employed;  Most vessels fishing for salmon are not registered;  Data collection intensity does not match the distribution or abundance for salmon;  Maturity data are not needed in the format required, age at maturity is more important;  Fecundity data are not required annually;  Specified age analysis inappropriate;  There were suggestions to include reared stocks/rivers, i.e. establish “reared” index rivers.

14 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Other species:  Sea trout are included in Appendix VII of the Decision, but data collection requirements for waters outside the Baltic are unclear. NB – the Workshop did not further consider the data collection requirements for sea trout.

2.4 DCF and CFP reform The revised draft of the proposal for the reform of the CFP, dated 12 June 2012, defined 'marine biological resources' as ‘available and accessible living marine aquatic species, including anadromous and catadromous species during their marine life’. However, this differs from the definition in earlier drafts which included anadromous and catadromous species during all phases of the life cycle, and so there must remain some un- certainty about the final extent of the CFP with respect to diadromous species. The extent to which this will influence the implementation of the new DC-MAP is also unclear. However the EC (DG-MARE) has indicated some general principles which are relevant to diadromous species, including:  Simplification of rules and better flexibility in the legal framework;  Harmonization of DCF data with data collected under the Control regulation, EUROSTAT standards, with the Marine Strategy (MSFD), Habitats and Water Framework Directives (WFD) and with RFMO obligations;  Simplification of data formats used by the Commission (COM), MS and End-Users;  Involvement of third countries, RFMOs, FPAs in the DCF;  Meeting needs of different regions in terms of data for assessment/ management purposes;  Better harmonization of obligations to collect data and needs expressed by scientists;  Improving the quality of data and coverage of recreational fisheries. The Workshop took these issues into account when proposing new data collections requirements for eel and salmon.

2.5 Links with other EU Directives and Regulations The European Commission has expressed a desire to harmonize DCF data with data collected under other Regulations and Directives, including the Control Regulation, EUROSTAT standards, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), Habitats Directive (HD) and Water Framework Directive (WFD) as well as with RFMO obligations. The Workshop noted that in the context of diadromous species, data requirements to support the WFD and the Habitats Directive are particularly relevant. The WFD establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater and commits Member States to take steps to prevent any deterioration in the status of all bodies of surface water. Moreover, all aquatic ecosystems should aim to achieve Good Ecological Status (GES) or Good Ecological Potential (GEP) by 2015 (with possible extensions to 2021 or 2027). Surface water status is determined by the lower of a water body's 'ecological status' and its 'chemical status'; thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'. Ecological status is an expression of the quality of the structure and

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 15

functioning of surface water ecosystems as indicated by the condition of a number of 'quality elements', with one of these being ‘fish’. There is therefore a requirement for data to assess the status of fish stocks in freshwater. The main aim of the Habitats Directive is to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or restore natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora listed in the Annexes to the Directive at a favourable conservation status. The Directive requires Member States to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for listed habitats and species, which include salmon. Member States must ensure that conservation measures are in place to appropriately manage these SACs and to undertake appropriate assessments where a plan or project may give rise to significant effects on the integrity of an SAC. Member States are also required, among other things, to undertake surveillance of habitats and species (Article 11) and to report on the implementation of the Directive every six years (Ar- ticle 17). For both the WFD and the HD, the responsibility for monitoring and assessment re- sides with the Member States.

16 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

3 Data collection requirements for eel assessment

3.1 Background information on eel life history and production The European eel (Anguilla anguilla) is distributed across the majority of coastal countries in Europe and North Africa, with its southern limit in Mauritania (30°N) and its northern limit situated in the Barents Sea (72°N) and spanning all of the Mediterra- nean basin. Commission Decision 2008/292/EC of 4 April 2008 established that the Black Sea and the river systems connected to it did not constitute a natural eel habitat for European eel for the purposes of the Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel (EC 1100/2007). European eel life history is complex and atypical among aquatic species, being a long- lived semelparous and widely dispersed stock. The shared single stock is genetically panmictic and data indicate the spawning area is in the southwestern part of the Sar- gasso Sea and therefore outside Community Waters. The newly hatched leptocepha- lus larvae drift with the ocean currents to the continental shelf of Europe and North Africa where they metamorphose into glass eels and enter continental waters. The growth stage, known as yellow eel, may take place in marine, brackish (transitional), or freshwaters. This stage may last typically from 2 to 25 years (and could exceed 50 years) prior to metamorphosis to the silver eel stage and maturation. Age-at-maturity varies according to temperature (latitude and longitude), ecosystem characteristics, and density-dependent processes. The European eel life cycle is shorter for populations in the southern part of their range compared to the north. Silver eels then mi- grate to the Sargasso Sea where they spawn and die after spawning, an act not yet witnessed in the wild. The amount of glass eel arriving in continental waters has declined since the early 1980s, to an index average of less than 1% in the continental North Sea and less than 5% elsewhere in Europe compared to the means for 1960-1979 levels (ICES, 2011a). The reasons for this decline are uncertain but may include overexploitation, pollution, non-native parasites and other diseases, migratory barriers and other habitat loss, mortality during passage through hydropower turbines, and/or oceanic-factors affecting migrations. These factors will have been more or less important on local production throughout the range of the eel, and therefore management has to take into account the diversity of conditions and impacts in Community Waters, in the planning and execution of measures to ensure the protection and sustainable use of the population of European eel.

3.2 Anthropogenic impacts on the stock Anthropogenic mortality may be inflicted on eel by fisheries (including where catches supply aquaculture for consumption), hydropower turbines and pumps, pollution and indirectly by other forms of habitat modification and obstacles to migration. Fisheries exploit the phase recruiting to continental waters (glass eel), the immature growth phase (yellow eel) and the maturing phase (silver eel), and are prosecuted by registered and non-registered vessels, by commercial and recreational fisheries and by fisheries not linked to vessels, such as fixed traps, fixed net gears, mobile (bank- based) net gears, and rod and line. Commercial fisheries operate all gears except rod and line, whereas recreational fisheries operate mainly rod and line but also fixed net gears. The exploited life stage and the gear types employed vary between river, country and regions.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 17

3.3 Management objectives for European eel Given that the European eel is a panmictic stock with widespread distribution, the stock, fisheries and other anthropogenic impacts are currently managed in accordance with the European Eel Regulation EC No 1100/2007, “establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel” (European Commission 2007). This regulation sets a framework for the protection and sustainable use of the stock of European eel of the species Anguilla anguilla in Community Waters, in coastal lagoons, in estuaries, and in rivers and communicating inland waters of Member States that flow into the seas in ICES areas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX or into the Mediterranean Sea (Annex 7). The Regulation sets the national management objectives for Eel Management Plans (EMPs) (Article 2.4) to “reduce anthropogenic mortalities so as to permit with high probability the escapement to the sea of at least 40 % of the silver eel biomass relative to the best estimate of escapement that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock. The EMP shall be prepared with the purpose of achieving this objective in the long term.” Each EMP constitutes a management plan adopted at national level within the framework of a Community conservation measure as referred to in Article 24(1)(v) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund, thereby meaning that the implementation of management measures for an EMP qualifies, in principal, for funding support from the EFF. The Regulation sets reporting requirements (Article 9) such that Member States must report on the monitoring, effectiveness and outcomes of EMPs, including the proportion of silver eel biomass that escapes to the sea to spawn, or leaves the national territory, relative to the target level of escapement; the level of fishing effort that catches eel each year; the level of mortality factors outside the fishery; and the amount of eel less than 12 cm in length caught and the proportions utilized for different purposes. This reporting will initially be every 3 years, starting 2012, and then every 6 years from 2018 onwards. These reporting requirements were further developed by the Commission in 2011/2012 and published as guidance for the production of the 2012 reports (in this report at Annex 6). This guidance adds the requirement to report fishing catches (as well as effort), and provides explanations of the various biomass, mortality rates and restocking metrics.

3.4 Assessments to meet management needs for European eel

3.4.1 International assessment The EC obtains recurring scientific advice from ICES on the state of the eel stock and the management of the fisheries and other anthropogenic factors that impact it, as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding 2012 between EU and ICES. In support of this advice, ICES is asked to provide the EU with estimates of catches, fishing mortality, recruitment and spawning stock, relevant reference points for management, and information about the level of confidence in parameters underlying the scientific advice and the origins and causes of the main uncertainties in the information available (e.g. data quality, data availability, gaps in methodology and knowledge). The EU is required to arrange – through Member States or directly – for any data collected both through the DCF and legally disposable for scientific purposes to be available to ICES. The international assessment is conducted by the Working Group on Eels (WGEEL) – a joint working group of the European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advisory Commission of the FAO (EIFAAC) and ICES – prior to being reviewed and approved

18 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

by the Advisory Committee of ICES (ACOM), and the ICES advice is submitted to the EU in November each year. ICES requests information from national representatives on the status of national eel production each year, and ICES provides assessments at regional and whole-stock levels. The knowledge and data are lacking to support a classical fisheries stock assessment based on the principles of a stock–recruitment relationship and the assump- tion that mortality due to fishing far outweighs other anthropogenic and natural mortalities. Therefore, the WGEEL assessment has, to date, been based on a time- series of recruitment indices from fishery-dependent and -independent sources, along with some discussion of the status of the stock based on landings data, though incon- sistencies in the reporting of landings limit the usefulness of these data (ICES, 2011a). Most recently, the recruitment indices from 11 countries have been separately analysed and reported for 2 regions of the stock (continental North Sea, and elsewhere in Europe which is in effect, the Atlantic coast including all of Great Britain and Ireland) because of different time-trends identified by spatial analysis (ICES, 2010a). For the most recent five years of assessments (2007–2011), the WGEEL recruitment index averaged between less than 1% (continental North Sea) and 5% (elsewhere in Europe) of 1960–1979 levels. The series for yellow eel recruitment remain at a low level around 10% of the 1960–1979 mean. WGEEL 2011 summarized the development of ICES advice on the eel stock since the late 1990s (ICES, 2011a). Since 1998 (ICES, 1999 through to ICES, 2010), ICES has given advice that: the stock has shown a long-term decline and therefore management actions are not adequate; fisheries are unsustainable and other non-fisheries anthropogenic impacts should be reduced; a recovery plan should be compiled and implemented; preliminary reductions in mortality to as close to zero as possible, are required until such a plan is implemented, and most recently, until stock recovery has been achieved. Looking to the future of international eel assessment, it is anticipated that the provision by Member States of estimates of escapement biomass and rates of mortality associated with fishing and other anthropogenic factors (and restocking) in 2012, 2015, 2018 and every 6 years thereafter, as part of the process of EMP Review, should allow stock assessment based on prespawning-stock biomass and anthropogenic mortality. ICES has not yet developed the means to estimate national silver eel escapement for historic target and current circumstances, but relies on nations providing their own estimates. Therefore, it is essential to the whole-stock assessment process that nations report their estimates of silver eel escapement and anthropogenic mortalities to ICES, and the Workshop recommended that the future DC-MAP should make delivery of EMP assessment results for eel (biomass, mortality rates, restocking amounts) to ICES an obligation for Member States. In addition to this recurring advice, the EU requires a scientific and technical review of the effectiveness of the Regulation and implementation of the EMPs, and it is anticipated that ICES will be asked to conduct this review or post-evaluation. Due to the panmixia of the eel (i.e. local silver eel production contributes an unknown fraction to the entire European eel spawning stock, which in turn generates new glass eel recruitment to the entire productive area), the efficacy of a single EMP cannot be post-evaluated without considering the overall efficacy of all EMPs. This requires an international post-evaluation, which has been planned by WGEEL and the ICES

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 19

Study Group on International Post-Evaluation of Eel (SGIPEE) (ICES 2010b, 2011b) considering two different approaches. The first approach is to conduct a central assessment with data from all areas/EMU’s (spatial aggregation of data); the second approach consists of regional stock assessment and the post hoc summing up of indicators. The second approach appears more pragmatic because most of the necessary monitoring structures and data should be available at the EMU level, and the interpretation of the results would be simpler. Additionally, the regional assessments would be required for post-evaluation of national EMPs anyhow. Thus, Member States will have to set reference points for their own EMP(s), to which the state of the local stock and efficacy of their actions can be compared, and this would also be expected to feed into the international post-evaluation framework. SGIPEE (ICES 2010b, 2011b) and WGEEL (ICES 2010a, 2011a) derived a framework for post hoc summing up of stock indicators, based on an adaptation of the classical ICES precautionary diagram. In the ICES Precautionary Diagram, annual fishing mortality (averaged over the dominating age-groups) is plotted versus the spawning- stock biomass. In the Modified Precautionary Diagram (Figure 3.4.1), lifetime anthropogenic mortality ΣA is plotted against silver eel escapement (as a percentage of pristine biomass). This modified diagram allows for comparisons between EMUs (both in terms of %-wise ‘Spawning’ Stock Biomass (SSB) and lifetime summation of anthropogenic mortality) and comparisons of the status to limit/target values, while at the same time allowing for the integration of local stock status estimates (by EMU, country or region) into status indicators for larger geographical areas (ultimately: population wide). Figure 3.4.1 presents an example of the use of the modified precautionary diagram to illustrate stock status, with spawning-stock biomass determining whether the stock has achieved full reproductive potential, and the impact of anthropogenic mortality determining whether the anthropogenic mortality, including fisheries exploitation, is sustainable or not.

20 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

A Σ

2 NL Lifetime mortality mortality Lifetime

BE 1 FR IE

SE DK

PO Total

UK 0 1 10 100 Spawner escapement, %

Figure 3.4.1 Modified Precautionary Diagram (reproduced from WGEEL 2011), presenting the status of the stock and the anthropogenic impacts, per country as presented in the Eel Manage- ment Plans in 2008. For each, the size of the bubble is proportional to Bbest, the best achievable spawner escapement given the recent recruitment, while the position of the bubble gives the stock status relative to the targets/limits. The x-axis represents the status of the stock in relation to pristine conditions, while the YEAR-axis represents the impact made by anthropogenic mortality. Data from national Eel Management Plans, supplemented by Country Reports; not all countries supplied estimates (ICES 2011a).

3.4.2 National assessments The status of eel production in EMUs is assessed by national or sub-national fishery/environment management agencies to meet the terms of the national EMPs. The setting for data collection varies considerably between countries, depending on the management actions taken, the absence/presence of fisheries / hydropower / restocking / etc, but also on the type of assessment procedure applied. Additionally, the assessment framework varies from area to area, even within a single country. Accordingly, a range of methods may be employed to establish silver eel escapement limits (40% of B0) and management targets for individual rivers, EMUs and nations, and for assessing compliance of current escapement (Bcurrent) with these limits/targets. The original EMPs indicated some of the methods applied in 2009, but it is anticipated that other and new methods have been applied in assessing production for the 2012 review. The Workshop did not have access to the 2012 Reviews and therefore did not have a full list of methods applied across nations, but used previous reviews by WGEEL, SGIPEE and EU projects to indicate the likely range of approaches. These approaches require data on various combinations of catch, recruitment indices, length/age structure, recruitment, abundance (as biomass and/or density), length/age structure, maturity ogives, to estimate silver eel biomass, and fishing and other anthropogenic mortality rates. The Workshop noted that it is currently not possible, where major fisheries are absent, to estimate density or standing stock of eels in large open water bodies, such as lakes, deep rivers, transitional and coastal waters. WGEEL (ICES, 2011a) recommended a coordinated programme of work to address this assessment data gap. This Workshop therefore supports this recommendation,

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 21

and goes further to suggest that this is a suitable topic for an international “Pilot Study” under the DC-MAP. Not all Member States reported estimates of historic and / or current silver eel escapement biomass in their original EMPs, but it is anticipated that a fuller dataset will become available in 2012 or 2013 deriving from the first reviews of EMPs reported to the EU in mid-2012.

3.5 Data requirements for management of European eel Eel was first included in the Data Collection Regulation (DCR) in 2004 and the Euro- pean Commission held a workshop in Sånga Såby, Sweden, in 2005, with the objective to specify minimum requirements on sampling levels for fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data, for the three exploited life stages (glass eel, yellow eel and silver eel), in both inland and coastal waters. The EC required national sampling programmes on European eel to be established by 2006 within the DCR, but these were restricted to sampling commercial fisheries alone. Under the DCF, data collection was extended to include recreational fisheries in 2008, but has never included the non- fisheries data required for eel stock assessments. The WGEEL considered the issues of data collection under the various frameworks in its reports of 2008 (Section. 3.3.5), 2010 (Section. 4.3) and 2011 (Section. 2.9), and SGIPEE also addressed the issue in its 2010 report (ICES, 2010b, Section. 4). WGEEL (ICES, 2008) reviewed the compatibility of data collected under the DCR with the data needed for the international and national eel stock assessment. This review was prior to the development of the international stock indicators and the Modified Pre- cautionary Diagram assessment framework, but the conclusions remain pertinent. WGEEL (2008) fully supported the usefulness of the cross compliance between the Eel Regulation and the DCR process, but noted that the DCR driven data provision was dependent on continuation of commercial and recreational eel fisheries, whereas continuation of commercial eel fishing was far from guaranteed given the continuing downward trends in catches, the possibility of approaching economic extinction, and the probability of widespread cuts in eel fishing activity as a consequence of Member States taking actions to meet their national escapement targets. WGEEL noted that there was no requirement for any sampling to continue where and when fisheries closed, nor for any fishery independent eel sampling in the DCR. WGEEL (ICES, 2008) concluded that the DCR on its own would not support a framework to estimate the size of the spawning stock as the programme did not provide estimates of eel abundance in small fisheries or in those waters not fished. There remains a poten- tially important stock component in the totality of the diffuse, low-density areas, and some estimate of its potential contribution to the spawning stock is needed. It is ac- knowledged that it is simply not economically viable to survey every river, lake, estuary, lagoon and coastal water containing eels, but a stratified sampling programme in the unfished areas may become more and more necessary as large-scale single commercial fisheries decline or are closed in line with conservation reasons. Fishery independent monitoring by scientific survey of stock provides data which will not be collected by commercial fishery monitoring (and therefore not reported to the current DCF) yet is vital to eel assessments. WGEEL (ICES, 2011a) reviewed the current requirements for eel data collected under the auspices of the DCF. In 2011, only 14 countries attending or represented at WGEEL had a DCF programme in place, and not all of the data collected in these programmes was in a format that can be used in the international assessment process

22 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

(Table 3.5.1). Only 5 countries were using the DCF collected data in their stock assessments (Table 3.5.2). The DCF is, therefore, not providing the most efficient support for national stock assessments for eel or for EU post-evaluation of the implementation of the Regulation.

Table 3.5.1 Country participation in WGEEL, production of ‘Country Reports’, implementation of DCF for eels, and whether DCF eel data are reported in the Country Report (Table 2.13 from ICES 2011a)

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 23

Table 3.5.2 Summary of the number of countries applying eel data collected under the DCF in their assessments (Table 2.14 from ICES, 2011a)

Fecundity data, currently required under the DCF, are not used in any assessments, nor could they be collected in the wild because adult eels have never been caught in the spawning area. The Workshop therefore recommends that the requirement to collect fecundity data on European eel should be removed from the DC-MAP. Data required for the assessment and management of European eel fall into three broad categories:  Data requested by ICES to undertake annually recurring international assessment;  Data requested by ICES or another scientific / technical review group to periodically (2012, 2015, 2018, 2024, and every 6 years thereafter) establish stock reference points, post-evaluate the Eel Regulation and implementation of EMPs; and

24 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

 Data required by Member States to determine silver eel escapement levels relative to the target set out in the national EMPs and undertake river- specific stock assessments according to EMPs. The method(s), and therefore data requirements, to conduct the international assessments in the first and second categories have yet to be finalized. This task was beyond the capabilities of the Workshop but is included within the ToR of WGEEL for 2012 and 2013. However, it is anticipated that the final method(s) will use the indicators of silver eel biomass and anthropogenic mortality rates that Member States are required to report in their EMP reviews (2012), along with data on the amount of glass eel (and elvers) recruiting to continental waters. The associated country data currently requested by ICES through the annual stock ‘assessment’ report to WGEEL are, where appropriate:  Quantity of glass or yellow eel recruitment, derived from commercial or recreational fisheries, or fisheries-independent surveys;  Catches and landings by EMU, stage (yellow, silver eels), gear, commercial and recreational, and marine fisheries, and length frequency;  Catches and landings of eel<12 cm by EMU, with proportion retained for restocking and destination;  Quantity and origin of eel restocked, by glass eel, bootlace or ongrown;  Aquaculture production weight of eel, distinguishing between that sold for stocking versus sold for consumption, quantity and source of seed;  Fishing capacity by EMU, e.g. number companies, boats, fishermen, by stage (glass, yellow, silver) and by marine fisheries;  Fishing effort by EMU, e.g. number licences fished, number of net nights, by stage (glass, yellow and silver) and by marine fisheries;  Catch per unit effort (CPUE) for commercial and recreational fisheries, by EMU, stage (glass, yellow, silver) and for marine fisheries;  Other anthropogenic impacts (non-fisheries), including type and quantity of impact, e.g. turbines – mortality rate and amount of silver eel killed in tonnes;  Scientific surveys of the stock: abundance of recruitment, yellow eel standing stock, silver eel, by sampling method;  Catch composition by age and length, for commercial catches and scientific surveys, by sub-catchments, catchments or EMU;  Other biological sampling to inform biological characteristics, e.g. length, weight and growth, parasites and pathogens, contaminants and predators, by sub-catchments, catchments or EMU. In addition, with reference to the Indicators requested by EU in the review of EMPs in 2012, and presumably 2015, 2018, 2024, and so on, for review of EMP implementation and post-evaluation of the effectiveness of the Eel Regulation, ICES request the following, by EMU:  Silver eel production (biomass):

1 ) B0 The amount of silver eel biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock;

2 ) Bcurrent The amount of silver eel biomass that currently escapes to the sea to spawn. NB – listed in the ICES template as Bpost;

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 25

3 ) Bbest The amount of silver eel biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the current stock, included restocking practices, hence only natural mortality operating on stock; 4 ) Wetted area habitat, by water type (lacustrine, riverine, transitional and lagoon, coastal); 5 ) Production values per unit area, e.g. kg/ha. 6 ) Anthropogenic mortality (impacts): ΣF The fishing mortality rate, summed over the age-groups in the stock, and the reduction effected; 7 ) ΣH The anthropogenic mortality rate outside the fishery, summed over the age-groups in the stock, and the reduction effected (e.g. turbines, parasites, viruses, contaminants, predators, etc); 8 ) ΣA The sum of anthropogenic mortalities, i.e. ΣA = ΣF + ΣH. It refers to mortalities summed over the age-groups in the stock.  Restocking requirements: 9 ) R(s*) The amount of eel (<20 cm) restocked into national waters annually. The source of these eel should also be reported, at least to originating Member State, to ensure full accounting of catch vs restocked (i.e. avoid ‘double banking’). Note that R(s*) for restocking is a new symbol devised by the Workshop to differentiate from “R” which is usually considered to represent Recruitment of eel to continental waters. Spawning Stock: Larval monitoring in the spawning area could be regarded as an indicator of spawner escapement integrated over the whole stock and as an absolute prerequisite for evaluating eventual climatic and oceanographic effects in larval transport and survival between the spawning area and the European coasts. Were it to be both possible and practical, it might provide a more immediate indicator of spawning-stock biomass than measuring continental recruitment since the latter has already been impacted by oceanic factors. In addition, egg and larval surveys in the spawning area of the Sargasso Sea might provide a more immediate measure of fluc- tuations in European eel spawning biomass. Since the current DCF program is restricted to community waters, this principle would have to be modified for such sampling in international waters to be included. Data required by Member States for their EMPs:  Member States use a variety of methods, employing different data, to establish silver eel escapement limits and to assess annual compliance with these limits; these data may include data from fisheries, counters, traps, electric fishing surveys and other sampling programmes (Figure 3.5.1) , as illustrated in the following flow diagram.

26 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Standard Removal Life stage Stock Surveys Assessment METRICS DATA Point Recruitment Biomass Glass Eel Fishery F, A Mortality

Scattered Yellow Eel Standing Stock Density, Biomass, Fishery Structure (size, age)

F, A Mortality

Point Silver Eel Escapement Biomass, Fishery Structure (size, sex, age)

F, A Mortality

SSB - Index Catchments &/or Sargasso datasets for validation of assessments

Figure 3.5.1 Flow diagram illustrating the data requirements for the different methods used by EU Member States to establish silver eel escapement limits and to assess annual compliance with these limits.

3.6 Workshop proposed data collection under the DC-MAP for European eel Member States have obligations to collect data on national production of European eel, and on fisheries and other anthropogenic mortality, in order to meet the requirements of ICES and EU for the international stock assessments, and to conduct national assessments to comply with EMPs, as expected by EU. The present data collection requirement for DCF provides the data appropriate to conduct ‘classical’ fishing mortality-based stock assessments where fishing mortality on yellow eels is a/the major factor limiting production. But such assessments are not appropriate when estimating the impact of the fishery on the glass eel and silver eel stage and, with reductions in fisheries, are also becoming less appropriate for yellow eel. The present DCF does not support the collection of appropriate data for those biomass-centred stock assessments that are based on yellow eel density and biomass estimations, especially where fishing mortality is a relatively minor mortality factor or in those countries which have reduced or no longer have fisheries. In such areas, the DCF sampling requirements for eels will need to be extended to include scientific surveys. Given that the Eel Regulation supports Member States in selecting and applying assessment approaches appropriate to ‘local’ conditions, it is not possible to be specific about the methods that should be included under the DC-MAP. The DC-MAP for eel, therefore, should allow Member States the flexibility to select methods to make assessments and set levels of confidence, but National Programmes should qualify for

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 27

DC-MAP support only if they are approved by an independent scientific body (e.g. the EU STECF, ICES, etc). This would mean that these independent organizations would require benchmarks to judge whether different EMUs are meeting qualifying standards for inclusion under DC-MAP. The Workshop therefore considered the data collection for eel that should be modified under the new DC-MAP and these modifications are summarized below.

Fishery data: Where fisheries exist, data on numbers and/or weight of fish caught by location and gear type, associated fishing effort, and the length or age composition of the catch are all utilized in national assessment procedures, e.g. to derive estimates of silver eel escapement, and therefore support the international assessment. Fishing effort (expressed here as the number of gear units, per unit time) provides an important measure of fishing activity used as a predictor of exploitation rate within assessment models and to derive catch-per-unit–effort figures as indicators of fishing success or stock abundance. The Workshop therefore recommends that the following data should be collected annually for all fisheries exploiting European eel:  fishing capacity and effort;  number and weight of all eel caught, separated by: – commercial and recreational fisheries – location of fishery (freshwater, transitional and coastal) – stage (eel<12 cm length*, yellow, silver)  number and weight of glass eel/elver used for restocking and that the following data should be collected at least once in every EMP reporting period (currently 3 years) for fisheries exploiting European eel, subject to minimum catch thresholds:  information on the abundance and distribution of exploited eels necessary to estimate mortality rates in those EMUs supporting fisheries where the catch is estimated at or exceeding 25 t per year of silver eel equivalents (or as approved by ICES).

‘*’ the Eel Regulation does not refer to glass eel per se, but to eels <12 cm in total length; the use of the latter term in the list above can be considered synonymous with the glass eel fishery catch.

Eel Index river basins: Eel Index river basins are intensively monitored systems that employ a variety of sampling methods (e.g. use of electronic counters; traps; electrofishing surveys; tagging programmes) to produce census and other biological data for pertinent life stages (glass, yellow, silver). This information is needed to investigate and track whole life cycle processes, e.g. survival between life stages, and develop understanding of the complex relationships between recruitment and spawning stock production, to assess ‘exploitation’ rates by fisheries and other anthropogenic factors, and to ground-truth model-based estimates of production and escapement. This ground- truthing is a key part of the process to ensure the accuracy and precision of model- based estimates, which is necessary for international and national assessments, and one of the main recommendations arising from the testing of eel assessment models in the EU-POSE project (Walker, et al. 2012).

28 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

The Workshop therefore recommends that the following data should be collected annually for stocks in at least one Eel Index river basin per EMU, as agreed by ICES:  information on abundance of recruits (glass eel and/or elvers)  information on abundance of standing stock (yellow eel)  counts or estimates of the number, weight and sex ratio of emigrating silver eel  information on anthropogenic impacts in these systems, on all life stages

Recruitment surveys: To date, the ICES stock assessments of European eel have been based largely on ex- amining trends in glass eel, elver and yellow eel recruitment time-series. While quantifying recruitment is a necessary component of any ‘Eel Index river basin’ scheme (above), it is also vital that the existing recruitment time-series are maintained in order to provide consistent baseline international assessments, even where these monitoring programmes are not conducted in Eel Index river basins. The Workshop therefore recommends that eel recruitment time-series identified by ICES as contributing to the annual international stock assessment process should be included in the new DC-MAP.

Standing stock surveys: Annual surveys to establish the abundance, distribution and size structure of yellow eel – particularly using electro-fishing techniques – are widely applied by Member States to the range of rivers within their jurisdictions. The data generated are used to inform local management at catchment scale, including through integration into procedures to assess compliance with EMP targets and as part of index river basin programmes. For eels, these data may be considered equivalent to the various fisheries surveys conducted under the DCF for marine species. These data types are also critical to the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies (sub-catchment units) to comply with the WFD and MSFD, and in that context, it is recommended that they should be collected under the DCF. The Workshop therefore recommends that the new DC-MAP should include surveys for standing stock of eel as employed for assessing stock compliance with EMP limits, and should integrate the DC-MAP surveys with WFD and MSFD surveys.

Biological characteristics: Member States require data on a number of biological characteristics of eel (e.g. length distribution, age profiles, growth rates, and sex ratios) on a periodic basis for national eel stock assessments. Some of this information can be obtained from the catch sampling, trapping or survey programmes referred to above, although sampling programmes for age and sex ratio, both of which require the killing of fish and therefore removal from the stock, would have to be organized as distinct sampling programmes by Member States. Accordingly, the Workshop recommends that the following data collection is included in the new DC-MAP, estimated at EMU level and at appropriate temporal frequencies:  Growth rates of eel, determined at yellow and silver stages

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 29

 Sex ratio of standing stock and silver eel. Freshwater contaminants and the parasite Anguillicoloides crassus are thought to have very significant effects on eels in some rivers; although these factors are not currently included in eel assessments, there may be a requirement to include them in future. Therefore, the Workshop recommends that the following data collection is included in the new DC-MAP, each estimated at EMU level and at appropriate temporal frequencies:  Infection intensity and abundance of Anguillicoloides crassus, and other parasites and diseases as recognized by ICES as having a potential impact on effective spawner stock biomass;  Tissue concentrations of contaminants as recognized by ICES as having a potential impact on effective spawner stock biomass.

Spawning stock: Standardized larval surveys as carried out by Germany in 2011 (Hanel, pers. comm.) with a clear target on monitoring and evaluating eel leptocephali (or egg) densities in the Sargasso Sea need to be continued on a regular basis to enable more immediate detection of changes in Spawning-stock biomass than can be achieved by monitoring medium and longer term trends in continental recruitment. The Workshop therefore recommends the new DC-MAP supports the need for international surveys at sea of eel in the spawning area in the Sargasso Sea.

Non-fisheries mortality factors: The Workshop recognizes that the DCF focuses on fisheries-based assessments, but reiterates that there are other anthropogenic mortality factors that are likely to have an equal or greater impact on eel production in various parts of the productive area and should therefore be taken into account in any assessment. Quantifying these non- fishery anthropogenic impacts is also a requirement of the Eel Regulation (Article 3.5 – ΣH). Therefore, the Workshop recommends the new DC-MAP includes support for the collection of data necessary to establish the mortality caused by non- fisheries anthropogenic factors.

Availability of Data for International Assessment: For a full international eel stock assessment to be achieved, against which a post- evaluation of the implementation of the EU Regulation can be measured, there is a need for the establishment of a nationally maintained eel stock database of key stock descriptors, including fishing effort, which is made available for international compi- lation and analysis. The component and compiled data must be annually updated to enable examination of any stock–recruitment relationship by those tasked with the assessment. Only when such data exist will it be possible to bring eel population and stock–recruitment assessments to the level given to most other major internationally exploited fish species. The Workshop therefore endorses the requirements to create and maintain a reporting mechanism to ensure that eel data collected under the auspices of the DCF are readily available for international assessments.

30 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

4 Data collection requirements for salmon assessment

4.1 Baltic and Atlantic salmon stocks and fisheries

4.1.1 Stock structure Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is an anadromous fish species, which spawns in freshwater but migrates to sea after one to six years to grow and mature. Salmon return to spawn in their natal river or stream with a high degree of precision, usually over 95%. This has resulted in most salmon rivers developing one or more genetically sta- ble and distinct populations, through both selective adaptation to specific river conditions and genetic drift. The basic ‘management unit’ for salmon is thus generally taken to be the ‘river stock’ (e.g. ICES, 2012a; NASCO, 1998). In some very large rivers (e.g. the Tana/Teno system in Finland) there may be a need to define a number of separate management units, possibly at a tributary level, to ensure optimal protection of the resource. In defining management objectives for the distant water fisheries in the North Atlantic, larger management units or stock complexes have been defined containing some hundreds of river stocks (e.g. ICES, 2012a). North Atlantic and Baltic salmon are the same species, but salmon originating in rivers flowing into the North Atlantic rarely enter the Baltic Sea, and vice versa. North Atlantic salmon occur in at least 2000 rivers distributed in the western Atlantic from northern USA to northern Canada and in the eastern Atlantic from northern Portugal to the Pechora River in Russia. Salmon also occur in Icelandic rivers, and there is one isolated river stock in Greenland and five in the Faroe Islands. Many stocks have been put under severe pressure as a result of habitat destruction, pollution, river obstructions, overfishing and other human activities, and at least 200 river stocks have been lost. About 900 of the rivers still support wild salmon populations are in EU Member States. In many countries, large and costly programmes have been undertaken to restore lost or depleted salmon (and sea trout) stocks. In the Baltic, salmon are known to have been present historically in 84 rivers, but, as in the North Atlantic, many stocks have been affected by human activities, and the number of rivers with native self-reproducing wild strains has now dropped to 29; 28 of these rivers are in Member States.

4.1.2 Wild and reared salmon A major difference between the North Atlantic and Baltic salmon stocks is the role played by hatchery-reared fish that are released into the wild. In the North Atlantic, there are hatchery programmes in most countries; eggs are generally taken from wild broodstock, and the aim of the stocking is usually for the reared fish to mix with their wild counterparts in order to increase the wild production of adult spawners in subsequent generations. In a relatively small proportion of rivers, stocking programmes have been required to mitigate losses from the construc- tion of hydropower schemes, reservoirs or other major developments. In most North Atlantic countries (except for USA), eggs taken for artificial rearing account for less than 2% of the total egg deposition (ICES, 2000). Ranching, which is defined as releasing smolts with the intention of harvesting all the returning adult fish, has been undertaken in only a small number of locations (e.g. Iceland) and represents a very small percentage of the current total smolt output in the North Atlantic.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 31

In the Baltic, a number of large salmon rivers have been dammed for hydropower generation. This has severely restricted natural production in these systems, and so the power companies have been required to introduce large-scale rearing programmes to mitigate the losses and/or provide fish for the commercial fisheries. These rearing programmes are not meant to supplement wild production in subsequent generations because the fish cannot access rearing habitat in the rivers of release; as a result it is desirable to harvest as many of them as possible. Historically more than 95% of the smolt production in the Baltic has been from these rearing programmes, but this is now being reduced (e.g. under the proposed new Baltic Salmon Management Plan). Currently, between four and six million smolts are released annually by the power companies representing about 70% of the total smolt output to the Baltic. A relatively small amount of additional stocking with reared fish is undertaken to aid the restoration of wild stocks.

4.1.3 Salmon fisheries There are also marked differences between the fisheries for salmon in the Baltic and North Atlantic. Within the Baltic there is a large international fishery exploiting mixed river stocks in the Main Basin; this fishery accounts for the majority of the total harvest. Both commercial and recreational fisheries operate in coastal waters and estuaries, and recreational fisheries (using a variety of methods) operate in rivers. In the North Atlantic, fishing for salmon is banned beyond 12 mile limits, under the NASCO Convention, except for the ‘distant water fisheries’ at West Greenland, which can operate up to 40 nautical miles from the baseline, and at Faroe Islands which can operate within the area of fisheries jurisdiction (i.e. the EEZ). ‘Homewater’ commercial fisheries operate in coastal waters, estuaries and rivers. Recreational fisheries in homewaters are mainly conducted by rod and line in rivers, although some countries define some other net and trap fisheries as recreational (e.g. coastal nets in France). In view of these differences between Baltic and Atlantic salmon stocks and fisheries, the Workshop recommends that the data elements for Baltic and Atlantic salmon should be separately specified under the new DC-MAP, and that these requirements should be integrated with those relating to the WFD, MSFD and HD.

4.2 Baltic Salmon

4.2.1 National and international management objectives for Baltic salmon Salmon stocks in rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea were previously managed in accordance with a Salmon Action Plan (SAP) established by the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC). The plan had the following objectives to address both the protection and restoration of the rivers stocks and the management of the mixed- stock fisheries that operate in the Main Basin and coastal waters:  To prevent the extinction of wild populations, further decrease of naturally produced smolts should not be allowed.  The production of wild salmon should gradually increase to attain by 2010 for each salmon river a natural production of wild Baltic salmon of at least 50% of the best estimate potential and within safe genetic limits, in order to achieve a better balance between wild and reared salmon.  Wild salmon populations shall be re-established in potential salmon rivers.

32 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

 The level of fishing should be maintained as high as possible. Only restrictions necessary to achieve the first three objectives should be implemented.  Reared smolts and earlier salmon life stage releases shall be closely monitored. No explicit management objectives have been agreed for Baltic salmon since IBSFC ceased to exist after 2006. To ensure that the conservation status of the entire Baltic stock (i.e. including all salmon rivers' stocks) is favourable and to provide for sustainable exploitation, the EU Commission presented in 2011 a proposal for the establishment of a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock (COM/2011/0470 final), but the plan has not yet been accepted. The specific objectives of the initiative are to ensure that:  the Baltic salmon stock is exploited in a sustainable way according to the principle of maximum sustainable yield; and  the genetic integrity and diversity of the Baltic salmon stock is safeguarded. The main elements of the proposed multiannual plan are specified as:  Objectives, and targets (reach 75% of potential smolt production in each wild salmon river within ten years after the entry into force of this regulation);  TAC based on constant fishing mortality rate of 0.1. The TAC will only cover marine fisheries but will include masters of non-fishing vessels offering services for recreational fisheries;  Obligation for Member States to define and implement technical conservation measures such as closed areas and seasons to protect migrating spawners in their coastal waters not later than 24 months from the entry into force of the plan;  A phasing out of release of salmon in rivers with man made obstacles and without potential for re-establishment of self sustaining wild salmon populations in order to protect the genetic diversity of the wild stocks;  Financial assistance from the EFF for direct restocking of rivers with potential for self-sustaining wild salmon populations as a conservation measure for the wild salmon stock.

4.2.2 Assessments to meet management needs for Baltic salmon The EC obtains scientific advice from ICES on the state of salmon stocks in the Baltic and the management of the fisheries that exploit them. The assessments are undertaken by the Working Group on Baltic Assessment of Salmon and Trout (WGBAST), and the advice is provided to the EC by the Advisory Committee on Management (ACOM) in June every year. ICES has established six Baltic assessment units based on the EU management objectives and the biological and genetic characteristics of the stocks. In setting these assessment units, ICES has assumed that stocks in any particular unit have similar migration patterns and are subjected to the same fisheries and exploitation rates. The assessment units are: 1. Northeastern Bothnian Bay stocks: on the Finnish-Swedish coast from Per- honjoki northwards to the River Råneälven, including the River Tornionjoki; 2. Western Bothnian Bay stocks: on the Swedish coast between Lögdeälven and Luleälven;

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 33

3. Bothnian Sea stocks: on the Swedish coast from Dalälven northwards to Gideälven and on the Finnish coast from Paimionjoki northwards to Kyrön- joki; 4. Western Main Basin stocks: rivers on the Swedish coast in Divisions 25 to 29; 5. Eastern Main Basin stocks: Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Polish rivers; 6. The Gulf of Finland: Division 32. WGBAST conducts a single assessment of the status of Baltic stocks in assessment units 1-5 to provide advice on the management of the fisheries. The state of the stocks is evaluated against the targets of achieving wild salmon smolt production of 50 and 75% of the potential level in each river. The potential smolt production is estimated based on a number of river parameters and expert knowledge of river habitat. There is no analytical assessment model developed for salmon stocks in assessment unit 6. The assessment of the status of Baltic stocks is performed through several submodels and a full life history model. The complete anadromous life cycle is covered, and thus information on all life stages in freshwater as well as the marine phase is essential to an adequate stock assessment.

4.2.3 Data requirements for Baltic salmon ICES 2012b (Report of WGBAST) considered the data currently collected for Baltic salmon and the extent to which this is required and used in the assessments undertaken by WGBAST. The main sources of information currently used for the assessment of the wild salmon stocks can be categorized into three groups according to the place where the actual data collection is carried out:  River surveys: parr density estimates, smolt trapping, monitoring of spawning runs and river catches;  Sea surveys: catch data, fishing effort data and catch composition estimates;  Joint river and sea surveys: tagging data (tagging in rivers, recaptures from sea and river fishery). An overview of compatibility of data collected under the DCF with the data needed for the Baltic stock assessment model is given in the 2012 WGBAST report (Table 4.2.3.1: taken from ICES 2012b, Table 8.2.1).

34 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Table 4.2.3.1 Overview of the compatibility of data collected under the DCF with the data needed for the assessment of Baltic salmon by ICES.

Type of data Collected Available Reviewed and Used in current Future Notes under DCF to WG evaluated by assessment plans WG model Fleet capacity yes yes no no n Incompatible with current assessment model Fuel consumption yes no *) no no n Incompatible with current assessment model Fishing effort yes yes yes yes n - Landings yes yes yes yes n - Discards yes yes yes yes n - Recreational fisheries yes yes yes yes n - CPUE data series yes yes yes yes n - Age composition yes yes yes partly used Increased Not incorporated in current use assessment model, river samples used Wild/reared origin (scale yes yes yes partly used Increased reading) use Length & weight at age yes yes yes no n Not incorporated in current assessment model Sex ratios yes yes no partly used n Not incorporated in current assessment model, river samples used Maturity yes***) no ***) no no n Economic data yes no *) partly used no n Incompatible with current assessment model Data processing industry yes no *) no no n Incompatible with current assessment model Electrofishing data yes **) yes yes yes n - Smolt trapping data yes **) yes yes yes n - Tagging data no yes yes yes n - Fish ladder data yes **) yes yes yes****) Increased - use Genetic data yes **) yes yes no Will be Not incorporated in current used assessment model

*) Not asked for by the working group. **) Not mandatory under current DCR. ***) DCF requires collection but only a few of the countries are doing it. ****) Partial use. n. No change.

In summary, the current DCF-data collection program satisfies most of the needs for the Baltic salmon stock assessment. However, full sets of data (parr densities, smolt counts and spawner counts) are needed from at least one index river in each assessment unit. Currently, both parr density and smolt count data are collected from at least one river in each assessment unit, but spawner count data are still lacking from the same rivers in the assessment units 5 and 6. The Workshop therefore recommends that the new DC-MAP should specifically aim to assist with the data collection for Baltic salmon in assessment units 5 and 6. In addition, the DCF currently only requires parr abundance data to be collected from index rivers, but juvenile and adult ‘census data’ from both index and non-index rivers are essential to the Baltic salmon assessment model Annual monitoring of parr densities in non-index rivers is currently used in the assessment model, but it might be sufficient to carry out monitoring for instance every second or third year, i.e. monitoring in every non‐index salmon river should be arranged so that each juvenile cohort is sampled at least once before smoltification. Numbers of ascending adult salmon (count data) from some non-index rivers are currently used in the assessment model, and the provision of these census data are partly

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 35

funded (through analyses of data) by the DCF programme. These salmon counts sig- nificantly increase the precision of the stock assessments. Information on mortality due to M74 is used in the assessment model but is currently collected outside the DCF programme. Tag-recapture data from reared fish are also used, for example to estimate salmon harvest, but the data are limited and fragmented and are not collected under the DCF. WGBAST also needs more information on marine survival of reared salmon. Maturity data, currently required under the DCF, are not used in the assessment model, and could be removed from the data collection requirements for Baltic salmon.

4.2.4 Proposed data collection for Baltic salmon under the DCF WGBAST currently utilizes most of the data on Baltic salmon collected under the DCF in the Baltic salmon assessment model but also needs some additional information. In addition, more data are required for stocks in ‘non-index rivers’ and stocks maintained by rearing programmes to meet the requirements of the Baltic assessment model, including improving the precision of the assessments: The Workshop therefore recommends that:  the requirement to collect the following data on Baltic salmon, currently covered within the DCF, should be maintained under the new DC-MAP: – fishing capacity and effort; – landings and discards from commercial and recreational fisheries; – composition of catches (genetic data and wild/reared composition); – biological data (age, weight and length composition, sex ratios, fecundity); – coastal net and troll fishery surveys (every 4th year).  the requirement to collect data annually for stocks in ‘salmon index rivers’ (as agreed by ICES) should be maintained in the new DC-MAP and should include: – information on the abundance of fry/parr; – information on the abundance of smolts; – information on the number of ascending adults; and – where necessary, tagging studies to obtain time-series of population estimates, exploitation rates, freshwater and marine survival, etc.  the collection of the following ‘salmon census data’ should be required for non-index rivers in the Baltic (as agreed by ICES) under the new DC-MAP: – fry/parr abundance; and/or; – number of ascending adults. (NB juvenile and adult data may be collected from different rivers).  the following data collection should be required for ‘monitored release programmes’ in the Baltic (as agreed by ICES) under the new DC-MAP: – number of released reared smolts; – number of returning adult reared fish; – monitoring for M74.  the requirement to collect data on maturity of Baltic salmon should be removed from the new DC-MAP.

36 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

4.3 North Atlantic Salmon

4.3.1 National and international management objectives for North Atlantic salmon The EU is a signatory to the Convention of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, which was established in 1984. The objective of NASCO is to conserve, restore, enhance and rationally manage Atlantic salmon through international cooperation taking account of the best available scientific information. One of the primary functions of the three Commissions of NASCO is to propose regulatory measures for fisheries operating in the area of one Party but catching salmon originating in the rivers of another Party. Thus the West Greenland Commission (WGC) and Northeast Atlantic Commission (NEAC)) are required to set regulatory measures for the fisheries that can operated on the west coast of Greenland and within the Faroes EEZ respectively, both of which are ‘mixed-stock fisheries’ exploiting salmon originating from a large number of different rivers. [NASCO has defined ‘mixed-stock fisheries’ as fisheries exploiting a significant number of salmon from two or more river stocks.] Although NASCO does not have competence to set regulatory measures for most ‘homewater’ salmon fisheries, including most coastal mixed- stock fisheries, these are still subject to other NASCO Agreements and Guidelines (NASCO, 2006, 2009, 2010). These are not binding upon Parties or jurisdictions (i.e. the EU or Member States), although there is an expectation that Parties will take appropriate actions to implement them (NASCO, 2012b). In 1998, NASCO adopted the ‘precautionary approach’ (as outlined in FAO 1995 and 1996), and the Agreement on the Adoption of the Precautionary Approach (NASCO 1998) states, that: ‘an objective for the management of salmon fisheries is to provide the diversity and abundance of salmon stocks’ This Agreement also states that the application of the precautionary approach to salmon fishery management is an integrated process which requires, among other things, that stocks be maintained above conservation limits (CLs) by the use of management targets (MTs); and that CLs and MTs should be set for each river and combined as appropriate for the management of different stock groupings defined by managers. These principles are further elaborated within the NASCO Guidelines on Salmon Fishery Management (NASCO 2010) which state, inter alia, that: a. Conservation limits (CLs) should be established to define adequate levels of abundance for all river stocks of salmon; these should be established for separate sea age components (i.e. one-sea-winter (1SW) and multi-sea-winter (MSW) salmon); b. Ideally, these river-specific CLs should be established based on data derived from each river; c. Where CLs have not been established, alternative measures should be used as reference points and should be shown to be effective and appropriate in defining adequate stock levels; d. Management targets (MTs) should also be established at a level above the CL to assist fishery managers in ensuring that there is a high probability of stocks exceeding their CLs, or alternative reference point; this probability level should be defined by managers;

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 37

e. Information should also be collected on the diversity of stocks (e.g. run-timing, age, size etc) to provide a basis for management.

The precautionary approach also requires that stock rebuilding programmes (including fishery management actions, habitat improvements and stock enhancement) be developed for stocks that are below CLs. As part of the ‘Next Steps’ process, the NASCO Council has agreed that all Parties (or relevant jurisdictions within Parties) should develop Implementation Plans (IPs) specifying what actions that they will take over a 5 year period to implement NASCO’s Resolutions, Agreements and Guidelines. The first round of IPs applied to the period 2006-11, and a new round is currently being developed for 2013-18 (NASCO 2012b). The IPs should include clear actions describing (i) how fisheries will be managed according to the precautionary approach to ensure maintenance of stock abundance and diversity, (ii) how salmon habitat will be conserved and restored, and (iii) how the potential impacts of aquaculture and fish introductions and transfers will be minimized or eliminated to protect wild stocks.

4.3.2 Assessment to meet management needs for North Atlantic salmon NASCO obtains scientific advice for the management of salmon stocks from ICES. In addition to a number of ad hoc questions, NASCO (e.g. NASCO 2012a) routinely requests information on:  the events in the fisheries in the preceding year, including catch and effort;  the status of stocks;  development/updating of stock reference points and assessment methods;  catch options for fisheries in the Commission areas;  significant new or emerging threats to, or opportunities for, salmon conservation and management. Assessments of the status of individual river stocks are undertaken by national fishery management agencies to meet the terms of the NASCO Agreements and Guide- lines. The international assessments are conducted by the ICES Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS) prior to being reviewed and approved by ACOM, and the advice is submitted to NASCO at the beginning of May each year.

Reference points: NASCO has previously asked ICES to develop age-specific stock CLs for all river stocks and annually requests that these be updated/reviewed (NASCO, 2012a). CLs for North Atlantic salmon have been defined by ICES (and adopted by NASCO) as the number of spawners that will achieve long-term average maximum sustainable yield (MSY). It may be noted that this is equivalent to the ICES precautionary target reference points (Spa). These CLs are limit reference points (Slim), and so allowing populations to fall below these limits should be avoided with high probability. A range of methods may be employed to establish age specific CLs and MTs for individual river stocks and for assessing compliance of returning stocks with these limits/targets. Where CLs have been derived, they are usually based on adult-to-smolt or adult‐to‐adult stock–recruitment relationships obtained from index or monitored rivers plus a range of other data (Ricker, 1975; ICES, 1994). Where such estimates have yet to be established, the NASCO Guidelines also allow for jurisdictions to apply alternative methods, although they are expected to show that these are ‘effective and appropriate in defining adequate stock levels’.

38 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Where river-specific CLs have not been developed, ICES uses a pseudo stock– recruitment relationship (between the estimated lagged egg deposition and pre- fishery abundance) to estimate CLs for national/regional stocks.

Stock status: Stocks are regarded by ICES as being at full reproductive capacity only if they are above the precautionary target reference point. This approach parallels the use of precautionary reference points used for the provision of catch advice for other fish stocks in the ICES area. NASCO requests information on the status of salmon stocks each year, and ICES provides assessments at a national or regional level and at the stock complex level. [Some national assessments have been subdivided into regions on the basis of expert advice from national representatives.] Larger stock complexes have also been employed by ICES and NASCO in the development and adoption of management objectives for the distant water fisheries. At present, ICES divides stocks in the NEAC area into four stock complexes, the Northern and Southern European, maturing 1SW and non-maturing 1SW stock complexes as defined below: Southern NEAC countries: Northern NEAC countries: France Russia Ireland Finland UK (N. Ireland) Norway UK (England and Wales) Sweden UK (Scotland) Iceland (north/east regions) Iceland (south/west regions) For the assessment of the status of stocks and advice on management of national components and geographical groupings of the stock complexes in the NEAC area, where there are no specific management objectives:  ICES requires that the lower bound of the confidence interval of the current estimate of spawners is above the CL for the stock to be considered at full reproductive capacity;  when the lower bound of the confidence limit is below the CL, but the midpoint is above, then ICES considers the stock to be at risk of suffering reduced reproductive capacity; and  finally, when the midpoint is below the CL, ICES considers the stock to suffer reduced reproductive capacity.

Catch options: In years in which the regulatory measures for the fisheries at Greenland and/or Faroes are to be renewed (or reviewed), NASCO asks ICES to “provide catch options or alternative management advice [for the potential fisheries at West Greenland and Faroes for the coming three or four fishing seasons], with an assessment of risks relative to the objective of exceeding stock conservation limits and advise on the implications of these options for stock rebuilding”. ICES (2003) uses a risk-based framework for the provision of catch advice for the fishery at West Greenland. This states that there should be at least a 75% probability of simultaneous attainment of the agreed management objectives in each of seven management units (non-maturing 1SW salmon from USA, five provincial grouping in Canada, and Southern NEAC). The management objective for each unit (except for

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 39

USA and Nova-Scotia) is that the stock should exceed the CL. [For USA and Nova Scotia the management objective is to exceed a 25% increase in the spawning escapement compared with a 1992-96 baseline.} The development of catch advice for the west Greenland fishery therefore requires an assessment of the status of the Southern European non-maturing 1SW stock complex. ICES has proposed using a similar risk-based framework for the provision of catch advice for the Faroes fishery (ICES 2012a). The details of this framework have yet to be agreed by NASCO, but ICES has proposed that it should employ a larger number of management units (perhaps 10 to 20) than the four NEAC stock complexes described above; for example, these might be national/regional stock groupings currently used in the NEAC stock assessment model (see below). In the absence of this new framework, catch advice for the Faroes fishery is currently provided on the basis of the approach described above for fisheries with no specific management objectives, taking account of the status of both Northern and Southern European maturing and non-maturing 1SW stock complexes.

Stock assessment models: WGNAS uses the NEAC salmon pre-fishery abundance (PFA) model to estimate the abundance of salmon within countries/regions in Europe each year; the model is used to provide time-series of PFA values which for most countries run from 1970 to the present day (Potter et al 2004). The model also estimates the national/regional CLs using the pseudo-stock–recruitment relationship described above, and these values are used for areas where river-specific limits have yet to be developed. WGNAS also uses a Bayesian model to forecast the abundance of the stocks in appropriate management units or stock complexes in the coming three to four fishing seasons.

Framework of Indicators: NASCO has also requested that ICES develop a Framework of Indicators (FWI) for the WGC and NEAC assessments (ICES, 2012a). The NEAC FWI comprises a number of indicator datasets for individual river stocks in the NEAC area. Data must be col- lated for these indicators early in the year (by end of January) to provide a preliminary or partial assessment of whether there is likely to have been a significant divergence from previously given multi-annual stock advice. The FWI is applied in the second and 3rd years of a multi-annual (3 year) regulatory measure. If the FWI assessment indicates that a change may have occurred, a full reassessment of the catch advice will be requested by NASCO. The datasets used in the FWI are agreed at the start of any multi-annual measure, but may be changed with the adoption of a new multi-annual measure.

4.3.3 Data requirements for assessments of North Atlantic salmon Data required to meet international commitments for the assessment and management of North Atlantic salmon fall into three broad categories:  data requested by NASCO to inform management;  data requested by ICES to undertake international assessments; and  data required by national/regional management agencies to establish stock reference points and undertake river-specific stock assessments according to NASCO principles. The second category includes data required by WGNAS to run the stock assessment (PFA and national CL model) and forecast models and the time-series of data re-

40 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

quired for the NEAC FWI. The data required to meet international commitments for the management of North Atlantic salmon stocks may therefore be summarized as follows: Data are requested annually by NASCO:  catches and landings by country, by location (river, estuary, coast);  unreported catches by location (river, estuary, coast);  numbers of salmon caught and released in recreational fisheries;  production of farmed salmon; and  production of ranched salmon. Data requested and updated annually by ICES to undertake the NEAC stock assessment:  Catch data by nets and/or rods by country/region by sea age;  Exploitation rate estimates relating to catches, index or monitored rivers;  Unreported catches (as totals or ratio of reported catch). Data requested by ICES to undertake the NEAC stock assessment but not updated annually:  Timing (midpoint) of home water returns by age (1SW and MSW);  Fecundity of adults by age (1SW and MSW);  Sex ratios of adults by age (1SW and MSW);  Age composition of smolts.

Data not specifically requested by ICES or NASCO but included in ICES advice to NASCO annually to inform on the key factors affecting salmon stock status:

 Return rates to freshwater from juvenile migration for wild and hatchery fish providing a “proxy” for marine survival and long-term changes e.g. possibly linked to climate change.  Smolt production and adult returns for index rivers

Data required for the NASCO-NEAC Framework of Indicators:  The time-series of data (e.g. returning stock counts, catches and smolt-to- adult return rates) used in the FWI are agreed at the start of any multi-annual regulatory measure, but may be changed with the adoption of a new multi- annual measure; national representatives will be expected to update the FWI time-series annually (by end of January).

Data required by national jurisdictions:  Jurisdictions require different datasets to support the variety of methods, used to establish stock specific conservation limits and to assess annual compliance with these limits (as required under NASCO Agreements and Guide- lines); these data may include data from counters, traps, electric fishing surveys and other sampling programmes.

4.3.4 Proposed data collection under the DCF for North Atlantic salmon Member States have obligations to collect data on all North Atlantic salmon stocks and fisheries in order to meet the requirements of ICES and NASCO for the international stock assessments and to conduct national assessments (e.g. compliance with

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 41

CLs) to comply with NASCO Agreements and Guidelines, as expected by EU. How- ever, there are currently no clear or consistent requirements within the current DCF to collect these data.

Fishery data: Data on numbers of fish caught by location and gear type, associated fishing effort, and the weight and age composition of the catch are all utilized in national and international assessment procedures, e.g. to derive estimates of PFA or spawning escapement. Fishing effort (expressed here as the number of gear units) provides an important measure of fishing activity used to estimate exploitation rate within assessment models and to derive catch-per-unit–effort (CPUE) figures as indicators of fishing success or stock abundance. Information on the numbers of salmon released in recreational fisheries is required to account for the contribution of these fish to total spawning escapement and track the adoption of catch-and-release as a conservation measure. Periodic assessment of the composition of stocks in the catches of mixed-stock fisheries is required to ensure that management measures remain appropriate to the protection of individual stock components (addressing the advice of NASCO). Information is also required on catches of salmon in fisheries operating at Greenland and Faroes, because they also take salmon originating in rivers in Member States. NASCO currently coordinates a sampling programme for the West Greenland fishery. This is supported by the EU, although samplers (currently provided by UK and Ireland) have to be supplied at national expense. (See recommendation in Section 2.2.2). The Workshop therefore recommends that the following data should be collected annually for all fisheries exploiting North Atlantic salmon:  fishing capacity and effort;  number and weight of all salmon caught, separated by: – commercial and recreational fisheries; – location of fishery (river, estuarine and coastal); – age class (one sea-winter and multi-sea-winter).  number of salmon released in recreational fisheries;  weight of ranched salmon caught. In mixed salmon stock fisheries, data should be collected on the stock composition of the catch at least once every 5 yrs.

Adult salmon census data: Full counts (i.e. census data) for returning salmon stocks, obtained using electronic fish counters, trapping or other survey methods, are available on a relatively small proportion of rivers throughout the NE Atlantic. Apart from producing direct measures of the numbers of returning adult fish from which to evaluate spawning escapement, they provide, in combination with catches, the information required to derive exploitation rates. The latter are a key parameter within the international assessment model as well as in many national models, in which exploitation rates from a few counted rivers are applied to rivers without counting facilities in order to gen- erate run figures for use in CL compliance assessments. Time-series of stock counts for a number of rivers are also required to apply the NEAC FWI (see above) (ICES, 2012a). Member States will be required to provide data to update the selected time-series in order that NASCO can run this intermediate

42 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

assessment. It should be noted that the time-series of data used in the FWI will be reviewed, and may be modified, by WGNAS each time that a new multi-annual regulatory measure is due to be agreed. The Workshop therefore recommends that counts of adult salmon returns should be obtained for at least one river stock in 30; these ‘census stocks’ should be agreed by ICES.

Salmon index rivers: Index rivers are intensively monitored systems that employ a variety of sampling methods (e.g. electronic counters; traps; electrofishing surveys; tagging programmes) to produce census and other biological data for both juvenile (fry/parr and smolt) and adult life stages of salmon; this may be linked with other sampling to estimate the exploitation of these stock outside their river of origin. This information is needed to investigate and track whole life cycle processes, e.g. survival between life stages, and develop understanding of the complex relationships between stock and recruitment, as well as other factors affecting management. [Data from index rivers could be used to meet targets for the number adult census data described above.] Index river data are essential to international and national stock assessments, producing data and parameter estimates that are applied by WGNAS and nationally to the assessment/management of a wider range of rivers (e.g. through generic modelling applica- tions for the derivation of CLs and compliance assessment). The Workshop therefore recommends that the following data should be collected annually for stocks in ‘salmon index rivers’, as agreed by ICES: – information on the abundance of fry/parr; – information on the abundance of smolts; – information on the number of ascending adults. This may include tagging studies to obtain time-series of population estimates, exploitation rates, freshwater and marine survival, etc.

Juvenile salmon surveys: Annual surveys to establish the abundance and distribution of juvenile salmon (fry/parr), particularly using electro-fishing techniques, are widely applied by Mem- ber States to the range of rivers within their jurisdictions. The data generated are used to inform local management at sub-catchment and catchment scale, including through integration into procedures to assess compliance with CLs and as part of index river programmes. For salmonids, these data may be considered equivalent to the various fisheries surveys conducted under the DCF for marine species. These data types are also critical to the assessment of the ecological status of Water Bodies (sub-catchment units) to comply with the WFD and MSFD, and in that context, it is recommended that they should be collected under the DCF. The Workshop therefore recommends that the new DC-MAP should include surveys for juvenile salmonids as employed for assessing stock compliance with conservation limits and meeting the requirements of WFD.

Biological characteristics: ICES and Member States require data on a number of biological characteristics of salmon (e.g. length, weight, age, fecundity and sex ratios) on a periodic basis (e.g. every 5 years) for the international and national salmon stock assessments. Some of

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 43

this information can be obtained from the catch sampling or trapping programmes referred to above, including the index river programmes, although sampling programmes for fecundity and sex ratio, both of which might require the killing and internal examination of fish, would have to be organized as distinct sampling programmes by Member States. Accordingly, the Workshop recommends that the collection of the following data for Atlantic salmon is included in the new DC-MAP:  Fecundity of adults by age (1SW and MSW) (estimated at a national/regional level every 5 years); and  Sex ratios of adults by age (1SW and MSW) (estimated at a national/regional level every 5 years). In addition, data on salmon maturity are not required and this requirement should be removed from the new DC-MAP.

44 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

5 Standards for data collection (precision, accuracy and quality control)

The issues of precision levels and sampling intensities are addressed within Chapter II, B of Commission Decision (2008/949/EC) and therefore apply to all data collection programmes. Collecting data on diadromous species in freshwater can pose particular problems because the diverse and often fragmented nature of the habitats. For example, eels occur in coastal areas and thousands of river catchments all over Europe, which can reasonably be grouped into >100 River Basin Districts. Within individual management units (catchments/River Basin Districts), one may find coastal areas, estuaries, lowland rivers, lakes and mountain creeks, with large variation in eel stock abundance and composition within and between habitats. The heterogeneity of such eel habitats makes it likely that although a study focusing on a single habitat type will be able to deliver relatively high precision rates, a more comprehensive study representative of the range of habitat types may struggle to achieve high precision rates. Thus, there are currently major complications in calculating precision levels which arise from sorting out mandatory requirements from inherent stratification in eel surveying and sampling, e.g. eel occurring in a large number of diverse still water bodies as well as in many different types of stream and river. Obtaining sufficient representative samples across all these habitats within the reasonable constraints of manpower and financial resources can pose major problems. Estimating populations of juvenile salmon throughout a whole river catchment can present similar problems, as can identifying where the fish from a specific river are exploited in mixed-stock fisheries. The calculation of achieved precision levels is an important cornerstone in the DCF for determining minimal sampling levels in relation to required precision levels. Cur- rently few countries report to ICES on the precision and confidence levels of data used in their assessments of diadromous species, and a similar situation is anticipated in the reviews of Eel Management Plans. Consequently, the basis for recommending minimum sampling levels is weak. For example, the number, size and spatial/temporal distribution of electrofishing sites to provide given levels of precision for eel or salmon is currently not well understood, and will vary between habitats and operators. The distribution and intensity of fyke net trapping in open waters to achieve a given level of representativeness will vary between catchments. In fact, since neither method can be used to quantify eel in a river basin containing rivers, lakes, lagoons, estuaries and transitional waters, a combination of methods is required but even less is known about how to combine results from different methods. It is felt that available databases in several countries may allow for analytical assessment of achieved precision levels, but that data and expertise do not coincide in one place. The Workshop recommended that sampling of diadromous species within national programmes should endeavour to meet the standards of precision required for marine species, and that where this is impractical, it should be addressed within the usual derogation procedures, or pilot studies. The Workshop also recommended that an international pilot study approach (appropriate under 93/2010, Ch. II Section B, Para. 1) would be a fruitful way forward: to establish minimum standards for data collection on the basis of current expert judgement; to analyse achieved precision levels where adequate databases exist; and to stimulate further analysis when and where more data become available

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 45

within the framework of the DC-MAP. Separate pilot studies for eels and salmon might be required, but a joint study should be considered.

46 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

6 Harmonization of collection methods for eel and salmon

Eel are a ubiquitous species, occurring in a large proportion of accessible waters within EU Member States. Salmon have more conservative habitat requirements, particularly for spawning, but nevertheless occur in over 900 rivers in EU Member States. There is therefore considerable overlap in the distribution of the two species in estuaries and freshwater, and so there are likely to be opportunities for improving the cost-effectiveness of data collection programmes by coordinating monitoring and surveys for eel and salmon. A good example is the description of habitat variables. Various types of river habitat survey are carried out by Member States. Generally these are used (i) to audit the resource and support habitat protection or improvement programmes or (ii) as part of modelling procedures to evaluate productivity or carrying capacity at various scales (e.g. reach, sub-catchment, whole catchment) and various times (comparing before and after habitat modification). The latter application is used, for example in a number of national procedures for deriving the river-specific salmon CLs required by ICES and NASCO, and by some Member States (e.g. Ireland, France), in national procedures for estimating current silver eel production.. Recent changes to European Habitats Directive (Article 17) are understood to make it a requirement for Member States to undertake river habitat surveys every five years, and this will include assessments on rivers supporting eel and/or salmon. The Workshop recommends that habitat data collection should be included under the new DC-MAP, and this should be harmonized with the requirements to collect data on habitat under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. The Workshop identified the following areas where coordinated data collection approaches were likely to be beneficial, and recommended that Member States should seek opportunities to harmonize data collection programmes:  Electrofishing surveys: Both salmon fry/parr and yellow eels are sampled by means of electrofishing, and these may be organized to ensure that both species are sampled and recorded where they occur together.  Trapping: Salmon smolts and silver eels may both be sampled by means of downstream traps (commonly using Wolfe grids) albeit at different times of the year, and there may therefore be opportunities to establish index trapping sites to sample both species.  Counters: A variety of automatic and semi-automatic counters have been developed employing electric field, light and acoustic methods. Such counters are widely used to provide census data on returning salmon. Methods are less well developed for eel, but some methods may provide useful census data for both species.  Habitat surveys: Quantitative evaluation of habitat types is required for modelling the carrying capacity of waters for both juvenile salmon and adult eel production. While different habitat features may need to be measured for the two species, there are clear opportunities for optimizing the efficiency of habitat surveys.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 47

7 Summary of recommendations

7.1 General recommendations:  The revised DCF Regulation should cover the collection of data on all recreational and commercial eel and salmon fisheries regardless of how they are undertaken; however it should be noted that the distinction between recreational and commercial fisheries is not always clear, and it may be difficult to define precise métier because of the varied and specialised methods used to exploit these species (Section 2.2.2);  Economic data should be collected for both salmon and eel fisheries (however the Workshop did not address this topic in any detail) (Section 2.2.2);  For clarity, eel and salmon should be dealt with in separate subsections to marine species in the new DC-MAP (Section 2.3), the data elements for Baltic and Atlantic salmon should also be separately specified under the new DC- MAP, and these requirements for eel and salmon should be integrated with those relating to the WFD, MSFD and HD (Section 4.1.3);  There will need to be some flexibility in the requirements for data collection on eel and salmon, but ICES should be given the role of confirming that proposed data are appropriate and/or required [see other recommendations] (Section 2.3);  Sampling of diadromous species within national programmes should endeavour to meet the standards of precision required for marine species, and where this is impractical it should be addressed within the usual derogation procedures or pilot studies (Section 5);  An international pilot study (appropriate under 93/2010, Ch. II Section B, Para. 1) would be a fruitful way forward: to establish minimum standards for data collection on the basis of current expert judgement; to analyse achieved precision levels where adequate databases exist; and to stimulate further analysis when and where more data become available within the framework of the DC-MAP. Separate pilot studies might be required for eels and salmon, but a joint study should be considered (Section 5);  Habitat data collection should be included under the new DC-MAP, and this should be harmonized with the requirements to collect data on habitat under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (Section 6);  Member States should seek opportunities to harmonize data collection programmes for eels and salmon, particularly in relation to electrofishing surveys, trapping facilities, automatic counters and habitat surveys (Section 6).

7.2 Recommendations concerning data collection for eel:  The future DC-MAP should make delivery of EMP assessment results for eel (biomass, mortality rates, restocking amounts) to ICES an obligation for Member States (Section 3.4.1);  A coordinated programme of work should be undertaken to address the assessment of densities or standing stock of eels in large open water bodies, such as lakes, deep rivers, transitional and coastal waters; this is a suitable topic for an international “Pilot Study” under the DC-MAP (Section 3.4.2);  The requirement to collect fecundity data on European eel should be removed from the DC-MAP (Section 3.5);

48 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

 The following data should be collected annually for all fisheries exploiting European eel: – fishing capacity and effort; – number and weight of all eel caught, separated by: o commercial and recreational fisheries; o location of fishery (freshwater, transitional and coastal); o stage (eel<12 cm length, yellow, silver) ; – number and weight of glass eel/elver used for restocking (Section 3.6).  The following data should be collected at least once in every EMP reporting period for fisheries exploiting European eel, subject to minimum catch thresholds: o Information on the abundance and distribution of exploited eels necessary to estimate mortality rates in those EMUs supporting fisheries where the catch is estimated at or exceeding 25 t of silver eel equivalents per year (or as approved by ICES) (Section 3.6).  The following data should be collected annually for stocks in at least on ‘Eel index river’ per EMU, as agreed by ICES: – information on abundance of recruits (glass eel and/or elvers); – information on abundance of standing stock (yellow eel); – counts or estimates of the number, weight and sex ratio of emigrating silver eel; – information on anthropogenic impacts in these systems, on all life stages (Section 3.6).  Eel recruitment time-series identified by ICES as contributing to the annual international stock assessment process should be included in the new DC- MAP (Section 3.6);  The new DC-MAP should include surveys for standing stock of eel as employed for assessing stock compliance with EMP limits, and should integrate the DC-MAP surveys with WFD and MFSD surveys (Section 3.6);  The following data collection should be included in the new DC-MAP, estimated at EMU level and at appropriate temporal frequencies: – growth rates of eel, determined at yellow and silver stages; – sex ratio of standing stock and silver eel; – infection intensity and abundance of Anguillicoloides crassus, and other parasites and diseases as recognized by ICES as having a potential impact on effective spawner stock biomass; – tissue concentrations of contaminants as recognized by ICES as having a potential impact on effective spawner stock biomass (Section 3.6).  The new DC-MAP should support the need for international surveys at sea of eel in the spawning area in the Sargasso Sea (Section 3.6);  The new DC-MAP should include support for the collection of data necessary to establish the mortality caused by non-fisheries anthropogenic factors (Sec- tion 3.6).

7.3 Recommendations concerning data collection for Baltic salmon:  The new DC-MAP should specifically aim to assist with the data collection for Baltic salmon in assessment units 5 and 6 (Section 4.2.3);

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 49

 The requirement to collect the following data for Baltic salmon should be maintained under the revised DCF: – fishing capacity and effort; – landings and discards from commercial and recreational fisheries; – composition of catches (genetic data and wild/reared composition); – biological data (age, length and weight composition, sex ratios, fecundity); and – coastal net and troll fishery surveys (every 4th year) (Section 4.2.4).  The requirement to collect data annually for stocks in ‘salmon index rivers’ (as agreed by ICES) should be maintained in the new DC-MAP and should include: – information on the abundance of fry/parr; – information on the abundance of smolts; – information on the number of ascending adults; and – where necessary, tagging studies to obtain time-series of population estimates, exploitation rates, freshwater and marine survival, etc (Section 4.2.4).  The collection of the following ‘salmon census data’ should be required for non-index rivers in the Baltic (as agreed by ICES) under the new DC-MAP: – fry/parr abundance; and/or; – number of ascending adults. (NB juvenile and adult data may be collected from different rivers) (Section 4.2.4).  The following data collection should be required for ‘monitored release programmes’ in the Baltic (as agreed by ICES) under the new DC-MAP: – number of released reared smolts; – number of returning adult reared fish; – monitoring for M74 (Section 4.2.4).  The requirement to collect data on maturity of Baltic salmon should be removed from the new DC-MAP (Section 4.2.4).

7.4 Recommendations concerning data collection for North Atlantic salmon:  ICES Areas IIIa and VIId should be added to the areas for which the collection of biological variables is required for North Atlantic salmon (currently specified in Appendix VII of Commission Decision 2010/93/EU) but areas containing no coastal waters and around Greenland and Faroes could be excluded (Section 2.2.2 and 4.3.4);  Participation in the NASCO Salmon Sampling program at West Greenland should be eligible for DC-MAP funding because the programme is endorsed by the EU and the data relate to the exploitation of EU stocks and are essential to the provision of advice to NASCO;  The following data should be collected annually for all fisheries exploiting North Atlantic salmon: – fishing capacity and effort; – number and weight of all salmon caught, separated by: o commercial and recreational fisheries; o location of fishery (river, estuarine and coastal); o age class (one sea-winter and multi-sea-winter); – number of salmon released in recreational fisheries; – weight of ranched salmon caught (Section 4.3.4).

50 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

 In mixed salmon stock fisheries, data should be collected on the stock composition of the catch at least once every 5 years (Section 4.3.4);  Counts of adult salmon returns should be obtained for at least one river stock in 30; these ‘census stocks’ should be agreed by ICES (Section 4.3.4);  The following data should be collected annually for stocks in ‘salmon index rivers’, as agreed by ICES: – information on the abundance of fry/parr; – information on the abundance of smolts; – information on the number of ascending adults. This may include tagging studies to obtain time-series of population estimates, exploitation rates, freshwater and marine survival, etc. (Section 4.3.4);  The new DC-MAP should include surveys for juvenile salmonids as employed for assessing stock compliance with conservation limits and meeting the requirements of WFD (Section 4.3.4);  The collection of the following biological data should be included in the new DC-MAP: – Fecundity of adults by age (1SW and MSW) (estimated at a national/regional level every 5 years); and – Sex ratios of adults by age (1SW and MSW) (estimated at a national/regional level every 5 years) (Section 4.3.4).  Data on salmon maturity are not required and should be removed from the new DC-MAP (Section 4.3.4).

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 51

Annex 1: Terms of Reference for WKESDCF

2011/2/ACOM61 A Workshop on Eel and Salmon DCF Data [WKESDCF] (Co-chairs: Alan Walker (UK) and Ted Potter (UK)) will be established, and will conduct preliminary work by correspondence and meet in Copenhagen on 3–6 July 2012 to: a) Conduct preparatory work to develop a standard protocol for eel stock assessment, specify indicators for international stock assessment and recovery of the stock. b) Determine the data requirements to support national and international assessments of eel stock, related to the EU Eel Regulation to support stock recovery and sustainable management of eel. c) Describe the options available for national and regional eel monitoring and survey programmes required to meet the data requirements for eel outlined in 1a. d) Propose a mechanism for data exchanges, quality assurance and availability for eel stock assessment e) Determine the data requirements to support national and international assessments of salmon required to undertake stock assessments and provide catch advice for NASCO and the EU to support sustainable management of salmon stocks. f) Describe the national monitoring and survey programmes required to meet these data requirements for salmon. g) Consider options for integrating salmon and eel surveys and monitoring.

WKESDCF will submit its report by 1 August, 2012 for the attention of ACOM, PGCCDBS and WGEEL, WGNAS and WGRECORDS.

Supporting information

Priority Changes to the EU Data Collection Framework in 2007 introduced requirements to undertake monitoring and collect data on eel and salmon. However, the specific data requested for eel are not well aligned with what is needed for national and regional assessments of eel under the EU Eel Regulation and to report progress under Eel Management Plans. Nor are the requirements for salmon entirely appropriate to support national and international assessments and the provision of advice to NASCO and the EU. The DCF is due to be reviewed in 2013, and this Workshop will recommend data collection for salmon and eel that should be taken into account in that review. The meeting has been agreed in principle by the European Commission.

Scientific justification It is important that fishery management decisions are based upon the best scientific assessments that can be achieved based on practical monitoring programmes. There is therefore a need to define clearly the nature of the assessments that will be undertaken and to plan the data collection and monitoring programmes to support these as far as possible.

Resource requirements Provision of 2 meeting rooms at ICES Headquarters

52 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Annex 2: Agenda

Day 1: 1. Opening of meeting and housekeeping 2. Terms of reference 3. Data Collection Framework (DCF) a. Objectives of DCF b. What is funded by DCF c. Current national data collection programmes and problems d. Reform of DCF

Days 2 and 3(am): - Sections 4 and 5 to run in parallel: 1. Eels a. Objectives for national and international eel management b. Assessments methods to meet national and international objectives c. Data requirement for national and international assessments d. Monitoring requirements to meet data needs e. Collaborative mechanisms f. data exchange and availability g. quality assurance

2. Salmon a. Objectives for national and international salmon management b. Assessments methods to meet national and international objectives c. Data requirement for national and international assessments d. Monitoring requirements to meet data needs e. Collaborative mechanisms f. data exchange and availability g. quality assurance

Day 3 (pm):

3. Options for integration of eel and salmon data collection

Day 4:

4. Review of report and recommendations

5. AOB

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 53

Annex 3. Participants

NAME ADDRESS PHONE/FAX E-MAIL

Alan Walker CEFAS Phone +44 (0) [email protected] 1502 562244 Pakefield Rd.

Lowestoft, Suffolk,

NR33 0HT, UK

Arvydas FRL Phone: + 370 [email protected] Svagzdys J. Lelevelio str 6

01102

PO Box 108

Vilnius, Lithuania

Caroline Pénil ONEMA Phone + 33 [email protected] 5 square felix nadar 94300 Vincennes France Dennis Ensing AFBI Aquatics Group Phone: +44 2890 [email protected] 18a Newforge Lane 255054 Belfast, BT9 5PX, UK Derek Evans AFBI HQ Phone +44 [email protected] 18a Newforge Lane Belfast, BT9 5PX, UK Fabrizio Capoc- URTV Phone + 39 [email protected] cioni Via Cracovia 1 Rome, Italy Gilles Euzenat ONEMA Phone: +33 235 [email protected] Station d’Ecologie 826207 Piscicole Rue des Fontaines 76260 Eu, France Ian Davidson EA Phone: + 44 ian.davidson@environment- Chester Rd. (0)1244 894520 agency.gov.uk Buckley, Flintshire, CH73AJ, UK Jan Andersson SLU Phone: + 46 104 [email protected] Simpevarp, 100 789112 SE – 572 95 Figeholm, Sweden Jason Godfrey Marine Scotland Sci- Phone [email protected] ence +44 (0)122429444 Freshwater Lab Faskally, Pitlochry, PH16 5LB, Scotland

54 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Johan Oster- SLU Phone: +46 703 [email protected] gren Stangholmsvagen 461429 17893 Drottningholm Sverige

Julian Maclean Marine Scotland Sci- Phone: +44 [email protected] ence (0)1674 677070 Freshwater Lab, Field Station, Inchbroach House, South Quay, Ferryden Montrose, DD10 9SL Scotland Laurent Beaula- ONEMA Phone: +33 [email protected] ton 5 square felix nadar 94300 Vincennes France

Lina Kairyte [email protected]

Marko Freese Thünen-Institute of Phone: +49 4102 [email protected] Fisheries Ecology 7086021 Wulfsdorfer Weg 204, 22926 Ahrensburg, Germany Miran Apra- EA Phone: +44 miran.aprahamian@environment- hamian Richard Fairclough (0)1925 542713 agency.gov.uk House Warrington, Cheshire, WA4 1HT, UK Niall Ó Maoilé- Marine Institute, Fish- Phone: +353 [email protected] idigh eries Ecosystems Ad- 098423000 visory Services, The Farran Laboratory, Furnace, Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland Panu Orell FGFRI Phone: + 358 [email protected] P.O.Box 413 40530 5830 90014 Univ. of Oulu, Oulu, Finland Reinhold Hanel Thünen-Institute of Phone: +49 40 [email protected] Fisheries Ecology 389052 90 Palmaille 9, 22767 Hamburg Germany Russell Poole Marine Institute, Fish- Phone: +353 98 [email protected] eries Ecosystems Ad- 42 300 visory Services, The Farran Laboratory, Furnace Newport, Co. Mayo, Ireland

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 55

Ted Potter CEFAS Lowestoft Phone: +44 152 [email protected] Pakefield Rd. 562244 NR33 0HT Suffolk, UK Tomasz Nermer NMFRI Phone: +48 58 73 [email protected] Ul. Kolletaja 1 56 211 81332 Gdynia Poland Willem Dekker SLU-Aqua Phone: + 46 [email protected] Stangholmsvagen 2 761268136 178 93 Drottningholm Sverige

56 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Annex 4. References

Churchill, R and Owen, D. 2010. The EC Common Fisheries Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 596 pp.

European Commission 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 237, pp. 1-72.

European Commission . 2007.Council Regulation No. 1100/2007 of 18 September 2007 establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel. Official Journal of the European Union, L248, pp. 17-23.

European Commission. 2008. Council Decision of 4 April 2008 establishing that the Black Sea and the river systems connected to it do not consitute a natual habitat for European eel for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2007. Official Journal, L 098, pp. 0014- 0015.

European Commission. 2008. Commission Decision of 6 November 2008 adopting a multiannual Community programme pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 establishing a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy (2008/949/EC). Official Journal of the European Union, L 346. pp. 37-88.

European Commission. 2008. Council Regulation No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union, L 60. pp. 1-12. European Commission. 2008. Council Regulation No. 665/2008 of 14 July 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and the use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Union, L 186. pp. 3-5. European Commission. 2009. Council Decision of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the collection, management and the use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011-2013. Official Journal of the Euro- pean Union, L41. pp. 8-71. European Commission. 2011. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock. COM(2011) 470 final - 2011/0206 (COD). http://ec.europa.eu/prelex/detail_dossier_real.cfm?CL=en&DosId=200747. European Council. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the Euro- pean Fisheries Fund. Official Journal of the European Union, L 223. pp. 1-44. European Council. 2008. Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Com- mon Fisheries Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 358. pp. 59-80. EU 2012 Revised draft of proposal for the reform of the CFP, 12 June 2012 FAO 1995. FAO Guidelines on the Precautionary Approach to Fisheries and Species Introduction. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 350, Part 1, Rome, FAO.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 57

FAO 1996. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 2. Rome, FAO. 1996. 54 pp. ICES 1994. Workshop on Salmon Spawning Stock Targets in the North East Atlantic. ICES CM1994/M:7

ICES. 2000. Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS) ICES CM 2000/ACFM:13

ICES 2003. Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS) ICES CM 2003/ACFM:19

ICES 2008. The report of the 2008 Session of the Joint EIFAC/ICES Working Group on Eels, September 2008; ICES CM 2008/ACOME:15, 214 pp., and country reports.

ICES. 2010a. The report of the 2010 Session of the Joint EIFAC/ICES Working Group on Eels, September 2010; ICES CM 2009/ACOM:18, 198 pp., and country reports.

ICES. 2010b. Report of the Study Group on International Post-Evaluation on Eels (SGIPEE), 10– 12 May 2010, Vincennes, France. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF:20, 42 pp.

ICES. 2011a. The report of the 2010 Session of the Joint EIFAC/ICES Working Group on Eels, September 2011; ICES CM 2011/ACOM:18, 244 pp., and country reports.

ICES. 2011b. Report of the Study Group on International Post-Evaluation on Eels (SGIPEE), 24– 27 May 2011, London, UK; ICES CM 2011/SGEF:13, 39 pp.

ICES. 2012a. Report of the Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon (WGNAS) ICES CM 2012/ACOM:09.

ICES. 2012b. Report of the Baltic Salmon and Trout Assessment Working Group (WGBAST), 15–23 March 2012, Uppsala, Sweden. ICES CM 2012/ACOM: 08. 353 pp.

NASCO. 1998. Agreement on Adoption of a Precautionary Approach CNL(98)46. NASCO, Edinburgh.

NASCO. 2006. Resolution by the Parties to the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean To Minimize Impacts from Aquaculture, Introductions and Transfers, and Transgenics on the Wild Salmon Stocks - The Williamsburg Resolution. CNL(06)48, NASCO Edinburgh.

NASCO. 2009. NASCO Guidelines for the Management of Salmon Fisheries. CNL(09)43, NASCO, Edinburgh.

NASCO. 2010. NASCO Guidelines for the Protection, Restoration and Enhancement of Atlan- tic Salmon Habitat. CNL(10)51, NASCO, Edinburgh.

NASCO. 2012a. Request for Scientific Advice from ICES. CNL(12)4, NASCO, Edinburgh.

NASCO. 2012b. Guidelines for the Preparation and Evaluation of NASCO Implementation Plans and for Reporting on Progress. CNL(12)44, NASCO, Edinburgh.

Ricker, W.E., 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 191, pp. 280-296.

Walker, A.M., Andonegi, E., Apostolaki, P., Aprahamian, M., Beaulaton, L., Bevacqua, P., Bri- and, C., Cannas, A., De Eyto, E., Dekker, W., De Leo, G., Diaz, E., Doering-Arjes, P., Fla- dung, E., Jouanin, C., Lambert, P., Poole, R., Oeberst, R. and Schiavina, M.. 2012. Lot 2: Pilot project to estimate potential and actual escapement of silver eel. Final project report, Service Contract S12.539598, Studies and Pilot Projects for Carrying out the Common Fish- eries Policy, European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), 358 pp.

58 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Annex 5. Glossary of terms and acronyms

1SW A One‐Sea‐Winter salmon is a maiden adult salmon that has spent one winter at sea. ACOM Advisory Committee of ICES

Bbest Spawner biomass corresponding to recent natural recruitment that would have survived if there was only natural mortality and no restocking.

B0 Spawner escapement biomass in absence of any anthropogenic impacts, sometimes referred to as Pris- tine Biomass.

Bcurrent Spawner escapement biomass under current conditions. Bootlace, fingerling Intermediate sized eels, approx. 10-25 cm in length. These terms are most often used in relation to stocking. The exact size limits of the eels may vary considerably. CL Conservation Limit (i.e. Slim) - Demarcation of undesirable stock levels or levels of fishing activity; the ultimate objective when managing salmon stocks and regulating fisheries will be to ensure that there is a high probability that undesirable levels are avoided. EIFAAC European Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture Advi- sory Commission of the FAO Elver Young eel, in its first year following recruitment from the ocean. The elver stage is sometimes considered to exclude the glass eel stage, but not by every- one. Eel Management Unit (EMU) Area defined by Member State that constitutes natural habitats for eel, which may include marine waters. Typically, the area covered by a single Eel Management Plan. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FWI Framework of Indicators - used to indicate if any significant change in the status of stocks used to inform the previously provided multi‐annual management advice had occurred. Glass eel Young, unpigmented eel, recruiting from sea into continental waters HD Habitats Directive Limit Anthropogenic mortality (Alim) Anthropogenic mortality, above which the capacity of self-renewal of the stock is considered to be endangered and conservation measures.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 59

Limit escapement biomass (Blim) Spawner escapement biomass, below which the capacity of self-renewal of the stock is considered to be endangered and conservation measures are requested. MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MSW A Multi‐Sea‐Winter salmon is an adult salmon which has spent two or more winters at sea or a re- peat spawner. MT The Management Target is a salmon stock level above the CL to assist fishery managers in ensuring that there is a high probability of stocks exceeding their CLs NAC North American Commission of NASCO NASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization

NEAC Northeast Atlantic Commission of NASCO PFA Pre‐Fishery Abundance - The numbers of salmon estimated to be alive in the ocean from a particular stock at a specified time. RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization River Basin District (RBD) The area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associated surface and groundwaters, transitional and coastal waters, which is identified under Article 3 of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, as the main unit for management of river basins. Term used in relation to the EU Water Framework Direc- tive. Recruitment (continental) (eel) Recruitment of glass eel, elvers or yellow eel to continental waters. This differs from the classical definition for fisheries assessment, that is the addition of small fish to the exploited population. (Re)Stocking (eel) Stocking is the practice of adding fish (eels) to a wa- terbody from another source, to supplement existing populations or to create a population where none ex- ists. Often the term “restocking” is used in reference to this activity for eels, because the seed is derived from wild fisheries. Silver eel Migratory phase following the yellow eel phase. Eels characterized by darkened back, silvery belly with a clear contrasting black lateral line and enlarged eyes. Downstream migration towards the sea, and subse- quently westwards. This phase mainly occurs in the second half of calendar years, though some are observed throughout winter and following spring.

60 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Spawner per recruit (SPR) Estimate of spawner production per recruiting individual % SPR Ratio of SPR as currently observed to SPR of the pristine stock, expressed as a percentage. Also known as Spawner Potential Ratio. Trap and Transport Traditionally, the term Trap and Transport referred to trapping recruits at impassable obstacles and transporting them upstream and releasing them. Under EMPs, trap and transport (or catch and carry) now also refers to fishing for downstream migrating silver eel for transportation around hydropower turbines. WFD Water Framework Directive WGC West Greenland Commission of NASCO Yellow eel (Brown eel) Life stage resident in continental waters. Often defined as a sedentary phase, but migration occurs within and between rivers, and to and from coastal waters. This phase encompasses the elver and bootlace stages.

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 61

Annex 6. Guidance for reporting progress with Eel Management Plans

Guidance Document for the production of Reports to be submitted in line with Article 9 of the eel Regulation 1100/2007 1. Outline the monitoring, effectiveness and outcome of the eel management plans implemented on your territory or in cooperation with neighbouring countries. 2. Provide the best available estimates of: (a) The proportion of the silver eel biomass that is currently escaping towards the sea to spawn, relative to the target level of escapement set out in Article 2(4), i.e. 40% of the pristine biomass. (b) The level of fishing effort that catches eel each year and the level of catches, and the reduction in effort and catches effected since the entry into force of the Regula- tion. (c) The level of mortality factors outside the fishery, and the reduction effected in accordance with Article 2(10); (d) The amount of eel less than 12 cm in length caught and the proportions of this utilized for all purposes such as restocking, direct consumption, aquaculture within the EU and outside the EU, export outside the EU. 3. Have all the foreseen measures been fully implemented as described within the adopted plan(s) pertaining to your national territory? 4. Provide a list of the measures foreseen and implemented and a list of the measures foreseen but not implemented. Provide the date as of which each measure was implemented. 5. Provide an explanation for each measure included in the adopted plan(s), which has not been implemented, or implemented after the foreseen date. If an alternative measure was implemented, please describe it and compare its effectiveness in relation to the measure it has replaced or will replace. 6. Please list the difficulties encountered in the implementation of the plan. 7. Do you have any indication/evidence/data to suggest that an amendment of the Regulation [and consequently the eel plans] is necessary to achieve the objective set out in Article 2(4) of the Regulation and to ensure the recovery of the species? 8. Attach as an annex the annual report required in line with Article 7(5). [Point 8 will apply once every three years in order to combine the two reporting obligations for the sake of simplification] Annex 1 The following elements are to be provided in order to demonstrate the progress achieved via the implementation of the eel management plans, and in particular, to provide a clear indication as to the achievement of the 40% escapement target. Where precise data are not available, best estimates should be provided.

B0 The amount of silver eel biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the stock.

62 | ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012

Bcurrent The amount of silver eel biomass that currently escapes to the sea to spawn.

Bbest The amount of silver eel biomass that would have existed if no anthropogenic influences had impacted the current stock. ΣF The fishing mortality rate, summed over the age-groups in the stock, and the reduction effected. ΣH The anthropogenic mortality rate outside the fishery, summed over the age- groups in the stock, and the reduction effected. R The amount of glass eel used for restocking within the country. ΣA The sum of anthropogenic mortalities, i.e. ΣA = ΣF + ΣH.

B0 is in the Regulation, as a denominator for the 40%, and in Art 2.5.

Bcurrent is in the Regulation, as the nominator of the proportion of silver eel biomass actually escaping, in Art 9.1.a. ΣH is in the Regulation, in Art 9.1.c (“level of mortality factors”).

Bbest is not in the Regulation. It could be calculated from Bcurrent, ΣF and ΣH. In line with the ICES framework this would allow for a cross-check in the interpretation of the quantities above. R is in the regulation, in Art 9.1.d, (“the amount of eel less than 12 cm in length caught and the proportions of this utilized for different purposes”).

ICES WKESDCF REPORT 2012 | 63

Annex 7. Map of ICES Fishing Areas