ICES CM 2009/R (Potential changes in the EU common fisheries policy: implications for science) R:20

Developing a Management Plan for the Anchovy Fishery in the Bay of

By Uriarte A.1, P. Abaunza3, O. Guyader4, L. Ibaibarriaga2, S. Sanchez1, L. Pawlowski4, R. Prellezo2, B. Roel5, I. del Valle6, Y. Vermard4, B. Villamor3

1 AZTI Tecnalia, Marine Research Division, Herrera Kaia Portualdea z/g; 20110 Pasaia, Spain 2 AZTI Tecnalia, Marine Research Division, Txatxarramendi Ugartea z/g; 48395 Sukarrieta, Spain 3 Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO), Centro Costero de Santander, Apdo. 240, 39180 Santander, Spain 4 IFREMER - Station de Lorient Laboratoire de Biologie Halieutique Departement Sciences et Technologies Halieutiques, 8 rue François Toullec, 56100 Lorient, France 5 Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science, CEFAS, Lowestoft 6 Department of Applied Economics V, Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences, University of the Basque Country, Avda. Lehendakari Agirre, Nº 83, 48015

The context of the Anchovy management: According to the Common Fisheries Policy - Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 - multi-annual plans and recovery plans will be progressively implemented for the management of fisheries resources of interest to the Community. International Fishery with a fix TAC in the past Key elements: Seasonal Catches & Monitoring System 90000 8000 France • Short lived species, highly fluctuating according to recruitment oscillations. 80000 7000 Not yet • Poor stock condition led to failure of the fishery and its closure since 2005 (ICES Recruitment 70000 Spain operative 2009). 6000 acoustic surveys 60000 TAC • Biological reference points: Blim=21,000 t, Bpa=33,000 t 5000 50000 • The past management of the stock (fixed TAC) did not have any regulatory effect. 4000 40000

Ctches (t) Ctches • Past TAC formulation applied from January to December was set regardless any Catches 3000 30000 recruitment information. ICES advice suffered the same lack of information. 2000 20000 SSB surveys • The poor management of the anchovy fishery and its collapse made mandatory 1000 10000 formulating a Long Term management Plan (LTMP) DEPM & Acoustic 0 0 •The Management calendar: should better go from July to June next year, setting the TAC according to the latest biomass estimates from the direct surveys in spring. 123456789101112 40 45 50 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 19 1 1 1955 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 1 2000 2005 Months

The process of formulation of the Long Term Management Plan: 1- Objectives (Ec non paper - Dec. 2007) 3- Management strategy evaluation (MSE) European –to ensure the exploitation of the stock at high yields Commission Operating Model ( OM STECF) Launching the process consistent with maximum sustainable yield; Biological and (EC Non Paper – Nov. 2007) Model Performance statistics: to evaluate the Economical –to guarantee the stability of the fishery, as far as possible, conditioning performance of the management Performance and with a low risk of stock collapse. strategies depending on the objetives evaluation on a Two population 10 years Agree on Management Objectives, Models: projections 1 Biomass based Implementation measures (1000 times) 2- Proposed Harvest Control Rules and an Age Operating Model: represents the system’s “true” dynamics and Relevant Knowledge for decisions structured – TAC formulation from July to June next year based on (EC general policy models and Population Fleet Three Stock biology dynamics On half year most recent evaluation from May surveys of Spawning in consultation with SWWRAC and scientists) basis and at (Nov.2007- April 2008) Recruitment Biomass (SSB). Models: Ricker, national levels Hockey-stick for different Observation Implementation TAC allocation – Rules tested in April and June 2008 – first loop – and Permanent Model Model 2 Propose Harvest Control Rules (HCR) Low Rec. Rule A: harvesting a constant Rule B: harvesting a constant pro- and technical measures (TM) proportion of Biomass (SSB) in portion of SSB, with a gradual and discuss their performance July-June: Population Management excess of Blim reduction between Bpa and Blim. (among Scientists, SWWRAC and the EC) assessment Decisions Perfect (Iterative process during 2008 and 2009) Joint Observation HCRs implementation Rule A Example of Harvest Control Rules errors of surveys (No error) 50.000 50,000 & assessments 45.000 45,000 Exploitation (gamma)= 0.1 to 1 TAC max=33,000 t Exploitations= 0.1. to 1 Management process: assumptions and methods used to 40.000 40,000 with a CV of 25% represent the “real” world 35.000 35,000 3 30.000 30,000 Evaluate performance of HCRs and TM 25.000 25,000 Catch

Catch regarding objectives 20.000 20,000 15.000 15,000 Scientists STECF 2008 (April-July) HCRs performance (STECF) 10.000 10,000 and 2009( February - April) 5.000 5,000 Example of Evaluation of Harvest Rules with TACmax 0 0 0

0 SSB Biological Risk of falling below Blim 6000 6000 12000 18000 24000 30000 36000 42000 48000 54000 60000 66000 72000 78000 84000 90000 96000 12000 18000 24000 30000 36000 42000 48000 54000 60000 66000 72000 78000 84000 90000 96000 Spawning Biomass Spawning Biomass ) lim B 4 < Selection of HCRs & TM SSB B SSB ( Rule C: harvesting a 77% of the HCRs were tested for the following A P A Proposal of a Long Term Management Plan B

SSB in excess of a Bmin (=26,500 options: 40000 50000 60000 70000

SWWRAC position on HCR and TM (April 2009 ) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 t); A Variant of Rule A seeking for EC proposal for anchovy LTMP (July 2009) Harvest Rate Harvest Rate • Harvest Rates: Range 0 – 1 (in 0.1 steps) Catch Catch Variability a constant risk of about 15% in • TAC constraints: Imposing or not: B case of Low Recruitment No A A maximum TAC (of 33,000 t) Council decision Rule C: Short term risk of 15% for a Low Recruitment Sd Catch Average Catch Average 45000 A minimum TAC (of 7,000 t), below which (Current state) 10000 15000 20000 6000 8000 10000 12000 40000 the fishery is closed. Short Term Risk 15% 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 35000 Fitting capped to a max Harvest Rate Harvest Rate TAC of 33000 t • Allocation of TAC between Countries: 30000 Yes Probability of Closure Risk vs Catch

25000 -- Historical Constant Allocation (50% for Catch 20000 ) each) B lim B < 15000 – Optional Allocations from SSB P(closure) ( 10000 90%(Sp)/10%(Fr) to 60%(Sp)/40%(Fr) Implementation of the LTMP A P

5000 EC and Member stated 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

– Variable allocation (draft proposal 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 SWW-RAC) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 0 0 00 00 05 000 000 000 000 000 000 Harvest Rate Average Catch 4 80 12000 16000 20000 24 280 32000 36000 40000 44000 48 52 56000 60000 64000 68000 72 76 80000 84000 8800 92000 96000 1E+ Spawning Biomass Conclusions of HCRs Evaluation (STECF) - SWWRAC proposal July 2008 - tested in first half of 2009

Every 3Years: • The higher the exploitation rate the higher the catch, and associated risk. All rules Rule E: Variant of Rule B with a fix 35.000 Rule B TACmax 33,000 t imply similar biological risk at equal mean annual catches. 30.000 Evaluation of performance and compliance precautionary TAC ( 5,000 or 6,000 Rule E 25.000 with original objective •Adding a ceiling TAC of 33,000 t (TACmax) reduces average catches, but also their or 7,000 t) between Bpa and Variant Rule E for a TACmax 25,000 t 20.000 Inclusion of improved scientific knowledge. inter-annual variability, implying lesser associated risks and better economic performance of the fishery (The value of a TAC is maximized at 32,000 t) 24,000 t, which should assure a 15.000 EC (based on STECF and RAC consultations) TAC minimum viable TAC. It was also 10.000 • Setting a bottom TAC of 7,000 t (TACmin) does not alter mean catch or associated tested for TAC max of 25,000 t. 5.000 Warning: biological risk but increases the probability of closures. Rule E was initially proposed for a 0 If recruitment would stay persistently low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .00 .0 0 .000 .0 0 .000 0 0 0 .00 5 0. 0. 5. 5. 5. 0 the risks associated to the rules • Rule B and E at harvest rates 0.3 or 0.4 have similar performance: So Setting a fix 10.000 15 2 25.00 30 35 4 45.00 50 5 60.00 65.00 70.00 7 80.00 85.00 90.000 9 10 -5.000 harvest rate of 40%. SSB would be far higher . TAC at 7000 t (TACpa) between Bpa and 24,000 t (Rule E) don’t alter Rule B. • With TACmax, performance of Rule C is similar to that of Rule A at gamma=0.6 • The Allocation of TAC into quota by countries has no major effect for the International 4- Selection of HCRs and Proposal of a LTMP Fishery but a direct effect on the national fleets.

SWWRAC position: EC position on HCRs Harvest Control Rule proposal in the LTMP for anchovy EC LTMP Proposal 35.000 Rule E as proposed originally: Harvest Rates of 40% Rule E with a Harvest Rate 30% of SSB Harvest rate at 0,3 Management Year: July-June, 30.000 TACmax = 33,000t TACmax = 33,000 t ; TACpa (below Bpa) = 7000 t TACmax = 33,000 t ; TACpa (below Bpa) = 7000 t Harvesting Rule E applied to SSB inference from precedent May surveys. 25.000

Closure at SSB < 24,000 t Closure at SSB < 24,000 t 20.000 Clauses for Monitoring, Inspection and Surveillance control of the fleet

Expected average annual Catch: 19,000 t Expected average annual Catch: 17,400 t TAC 15.000 Clause for Evaluation/Revision every 3 years according to: Expected Risk of falling below Blim: 0.1 Expected Risk of falling below Blim: 0.07 10.000 Performance of the fishery and the stock regarding objectives TACpa = 7,000t Expected Risk of fishery closure: 0.15 Expected Risk of fishery closure: 0.11 5.000 Improvements on the scientific knowledge. 0

+ Others: Cession of 10% of TAC from Spanish quota 0

to France and permission of close to shore operations 6.000 Current state: Awaiting EC council decision 12.000 18.000 24.000 30.000 36.000 42.000 48.000 54.000 60.000 66.000 72.000 78.000 84.000 90.000 96.000 for live bait fishing to Spanish boats and 102.000 108.000 114.000 120.000 SSB adjustements of fishing calendar for French boats, etc Balance and Suggestions: Positive aspects Difficulties of the process Suggestions for future EC Policy • The consultative process launched by the EC and the very active role of the SWWRAC • Interactions between the RAC and STECF were not clearly planned in the LTMP process • Formulation of a LTMP should be started by the leading body (EC in Europe) , coupled with the scientific studies at the STECF level (earlier at ICES and National and in practice, they took place thanks to managers and particularly to scientists attending establishing a road map of the process including the key elements to be institutes) allowed a successful completion of the process both meetings. The SWWRAC was asked to answer to the EC non-paper before the considered, the scientific groups and the discussion groups and schedule of work. • Fruitful discussions among scientists, stake holders of both countries and managers on STECF results were available. Fortunately the delays in the process allowed a full the management of the anchovy fishery enriched the process on: discussion of MSE results with stake holders. • The exchanges with stakeholders should be iterative with several iterations. A –Revision of the Management calendar • A highly fluctuating small-pelagic resource makes risk highly unavoidable. The degree of single consultation does not allow for a proper feedback. Here, the feedbacks – Proposal of management measures such as the above HCRs and TAC constraints were risk acceptable for managing fisheries and who has to decide on it (scientists, proposed directly by Fishermen or through the joint discussion with scientists : Rules C and E stakeholders or managers) has appeared in the choice of the “best” HCR. from stakeholders have greatly improved the definition of HCRs by incorporating and TACmin or TACpa. Additional Management measures were outlined (although not • Evaluation of biological Risk was a difficult task of the MSE due to the unsolved issues of additional elements for the fishery economic sustainability. evaluated in the STECF). Recruitment dynamics and potential environmental regime shifts and partly to the –Monitoring, Inspection and Surveillance control of catches and the fleet activities. population dynamic model. Ecosystem considerations were not explicitly incorporated. • The definition of the acceptable level of risk should be part of the LTMP and be –Proposals of alternative sharing of TAC beyond the principle of relative stability, These limitations were explicitly admitted. agreed by managers and stakeholder as a compromise between biological and • The adoption of LTMP aims at harvesting in a sustainable manner the stock. TAC is • Assessment of the Economic performance at National fishery levels was also difficult due social sustainability. subtracted from the political discussion and linked only to the monitoring of the to the lack of sufficient details on the fleet dynamics and allocation of effort to anchovy or population and the scientific advice. to other pelagic species (including here prices by species and catchability parameters etc). • Formulation of a LTMP is a process implying time of research and consultations. Data available do not fully allowed such a detailed modelling in the short time of STCEF This requires dedicated funds or projects at the level of National Institutes. meetings. As a result not all the economic performance indicators were equally taken into account when selecting the HCRs due to their lesser reliability. • Revisions every 3-5 years of the LTMP is convenient to properly incorporate scientific advances or different fishery or management requirements. References: CEC, 2007. Non-paper of the EC on Long term management for anchovy in Bay of Biscay, November 2007./////// STECF-SGRST 2008: Report of the Meeting to inform the Commission on a long-term management plan for the stock of anchovy in the Aknowledgements: We thank the European Commission (and J.P. Pertierra) for launching and sustaining the Bay of Biscay (ICES Sub-area VIII). Held in Hamburg, 14-18 April 2008 ////// STECF/SGBRE-08-01: Working Group Report on the long term management of Bay of Biscay anchovy. San Sebastian, 2-6 June. ///// EC COM(2009) Proposal for a Council Regulation process of the formulation of the anchovy LTMP, and to the participants of the two meetings of a subgroup of the STEC) to inform Establishing a long term plan for the anchovy stock in the Bay of Biscay and the fisheries exploiting that stock (SEC(2009)XXXX). the Commission on a LTMP for the stock of anchovy in the Bay of Biscay, as well as the different stakeholders participating in the SWWRAC meetings. This work has been partially supported by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Department of the Basque ICES. 2009. Report of the Working Group on Anchovy and Sardine (WGANSA), 15 -20 June 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. 354 pp. ICES CM 2009/ACOM:13 Government, and by the EC through the STECF meeting and the project PRONE (EU contract no. 022589). SWWRAC, 2008. SWWRAC functioning. Advices and recommendations from the SWWRAC on the 19th September 2008. http://www.ccr-s.eu/EN/download.asp?../Upload/EN/Avis/Syntheses/Avis_FctCCR_EN.pdf. And SWWRAC position in April 2009.