MOODY MARINE LTD
Ref: 802020 v6
Author(s): J Nichols, T Huntington, D. Bennett, A. Hough
Public Certification Report for
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery
Client: North East Sea Fisheries Committee
Certification Body: Client Contact: Moody Marine Ltd North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee Moody International Certification Town Hall Merlin House Bridlington Stanier Way East Riding of Yorkshire. YO16 4LP Wyvern Business Park Tel: +44 (0)1482 393690 Derby DE21 6BF Fax: +44 (0)1482 393699 UK Tel: +44 (0) 1332 544663 Fax: +44 (0) 1332 675020
802020 v6 Public Certification Report Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION ...... 1 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 1 1.3 INFORMATION SOURCES USED ...... 2 1.3.1 Principal Information Sources ...... 2 1.3.2 Other information sources ...... 2 2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY ...... 5 2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES ...... 5 2.2 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY ...... 8 2.2.1 NW European Fishery ...... 8 2.2.2 North Sea Fishery ...... 9 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT FISHERY ...... 10 2.3.1 Gears Used ...... 10 2.3.3 Quotas and Controls ...... 12 2.3 FISHING LOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES ...... 13 2.4 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS ...... 14 2.5 BY-CATCH AND DISCARD ...... 16 2.5.1 Incidental Catch ...... 16 2.5.2 Discards ...... 17 2.5.3 Catch of Threatened, Rare and Iconic Species ...... 17 2.6 HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS ...... 17 2.6.1 Habitat Impacts ...... 17 2.6.2 Gear Loss and Ghost Fishing ...... 17 2.6.3 Ecosystem Impacts ...... 18 3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT ...... 19 3.1 LEGISLATION ...... 19 3.1.1 General ...... 19 3.1.2 Species Specific ...... 19 3.1.3 Local Byelaws ...... 20 3.2 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS ...... 20 3.2.1 North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee ...... 20 4 STOCK ASSESSMENT ...... 22 4.1 MANAGEMENT UNIT ...... 22 4.2 MONITORING OF STOCK STATUS ...... 22 4.3 MODELLING ...... 23 4.4 MANAGEMENT ADVICE ...... 24 5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT ...... 25 5.1 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES ...... 25 5.2 CONSULTATIVE PROCESS ...... 25 6 STANDARD USED ...... 26 PRINCIPLE 1 ...... 26 PRINCIPLE 2 ...... 26 PRINCIPLE 3 ...... 27
802020 v6 Public Certification Report 7 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION ...... 29 7.1 EVALUATION TEAM ...... 29 7.2 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS ...... 29 7.3 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY ...... 30 8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 31 8.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 31 8.2 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES ...... 31 9 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING ...... 32 9.1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY ...... 32 9.2 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 32 10 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY ...... 33
11 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION ...... 34 11.1 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION ...... 34 11.2 SCOPE OF CERTIFICATION ...... 34 11.3 PRE-CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTIFICATION ...... 34 11.3.1 Pre-Conditions ...... 34 11.3.2 Conditions ...... 34 11.3.3 Recommendations ...... 36 12 AGREEMENT ...... 37 12.1 APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO MEET SPECIFIED CONDITIONS...... 37
Appendices APPENDIX A: SCORING TABLE APPENDIX B: CLIENT ACTION PLAN APPENDIX C: PEER REVIEW REPORTS
List of Tables and Figures Tables TABLE 1: PROPORTION MATURE AND MEAN WEIGHT AT AGE FOR SEA BASS (COMBINED SEXES) ...... 7 TABLE 2: MEETINGS HELD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS...... 30 TABLE 3: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS HELD ...... 31
Figures
FIGURE 1: DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION OF A INTERTIDAL SEA BASS NET ...... 11 FIGURE 2: PHOTOGRAPH OF A FIXED NET SITE (A) ...... 11 FIGURE 3: PHOTOGRAPH OF A FIXED NET SITE (B) ...... 12 FIGURE 4: LOCATION OF INTERTIDAL SEA BASS NET „FIXED ENGINES‟ UNDER NESFC JURISDICTION ...... 13 FIGURE 5: WATER DEPTHS OFF EASTERN ENGLAND ...... 14 FIGURE 6: FLAMBOROUGH HEAD EMS DELIMITATION ...... 15 FIGURE 7: PROPORTION OF TARGET AND INCIDENTAL CATCH ...... 16
802020 v6 Public Certification Report 1 INTRODUCTION
This report sets out the results of the assessment of the North East Sea Fisheries Committee (NESFC) Sea Bass Fishery against the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. 1.1 THE FISHERY PROPOSED FOR CERTIFICATION The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specify that the unit of certification is “The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework”. The fishery proposed for certification is therefore defined as: Species: Sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) Geographical Area: The Holderness Coast between Flamborough Head Lighthouse and Spurn Point and between High Water and Low Water of Spring Tides. Method of Capture: Intertidal fixed gill-nets. Stock This stock is considered part of a discrete North Sea stock unit for management purposes. Although it may be part of a wider biological entity, the North Sea population can be considered separate for management purposes due to the distinct seasonal movement of sea bass in this sea area.
1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS The aims of the assessment are to determine the degree of compliance of the fishery with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing, as set out in Section 5. It must be stressed that this assessment is concerned only with the fishery defined above. This report firstly sets out: the background to the fishery under assessment the qualifications and experience of the team undertaking the assessment the standard used (MSC Principles and Criteria) stakeholder consultation carried out. Stakeholders include all those parties with an interest in the management of the fishery and include fishers, management bodies, scientists and Non- Governmental Organisations (NGO‟s) Section 9 of the report sets out the methodology used to assess („score‟) the fishery against the MSC Standard. The scoring table then sets out the Scoring Indicators adopted by the assessment team and Scoring Guidelines which aid the team in allocating scores to the fishery. The commentary in this table then sets out the position of the fishery in relation to these Scoring Indicators. The intention of the earlier sections of the report is to provide the reader with background information to interpret the scoring commentary in context. As a result of the scoring, the Certification Recommendation of the assessment team is presented, together with any conditions attached to certification. In draft form, this report is subject to critical review by appropriate, independent, scientists („peer review‟). The comments of these scientists are appended to the final report. With peer review comments, the draft report is circulated for stakeholder review and is placed on the MSC website.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 1 The report, containing the recommendation of the assessment team, any further stakeholder comments and the peer review comments is then considered by the Moody Marine Governing Board (independent of the assessment team) which makes the final certification determination. When updated with the certification determination, the final report is then circulated for a further round of stakeholder review. It should be noted that, in response to comments by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the Moody Marine Governing Board, some points of clarification may be added to the final report.
1.3 INFORMATION SOURCES USED
1.3.1 Principal Information Sources Information used in the main assessment has been obtained from interviews and correspondence with stakeholders in the trawl fishery, notably: I1. NESFC I2. DEFRA I3. CEFAS I4. Natural England I5. Environment Agency I6. Seafish Industry Authority I7. Yorkshire Forward I8. Yorks and Links Assoc. of Recreational Sea Anglers I9. Flamborough and Bridlington Fisherman‟s Society I10. Frank Powell & Andrew Sanderson, licensed intertidal fixed netsmen.
1.3.2 Other information sources Published information and unpublished reports used during the assessment are: R1. Anon. (2005). North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee BYELAWS. County Hall, Beverley. HU17 9BA. 18pp. R2. British Geological Survey (1991a. Geology of the United Kingdom, Ireland and the adjacent continental shelf (south sheet). 1:1,000,000). R3. British Geological Survey (1991b. Spurn. Sheet 53N-00, Quaternary Geology. 1:250,000 series. R4. Evans, 2000. Flamborough Head European Marine Site Management Scheme. Published by: Flamborough Head Special Area of Conservation Management Group. R5. Fahy, E. (2003). Recent Findings On Sea Bass Undermine Some Beliefs But Emphasise The Need For a Continued Active Conservation Policy. Published in: The Marine Times: April 2003. R6. George. J.D., I. Tittley, P.J. Chimonides & N.J. Evans (1988). The macrobenthos of chalk shores in north Norfolk and around Flamborough Head (north Humberside). Contractor Natural History Museum, London. Nature Conservancy Council, CSD Report No. 833. R7. ICES (2002) Report of the Study Group on Sea Bass. ICES CM 2002/ACFM:11 Ref. G. R8. ICES (2004a). Report of the Study Group on Bass, Lowestoft, England. ICES CM 2004/ACFM: 04. 73pp.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 2 R9. ICES (2004b). ICES Advice 2004. (section 4.4.15 Atlantic Sea Bass) ACFM/ACE Report. R10. ICES (2005a). Report of the Study Group on Sea Bass. ICES CM 2005/ACFM:04 Ref. G. 28pp. R11. ICES. (2005b). Report of the Study Group on Multispecies Assessment in the North Sea (SGMSNS), 5–8 April 2005, ICES Headquarters. ICES CM 2005/D:06. 163 pp. R12. Jennings, S. and Pawson, M.G. (1992). The origin and recruitment of bass, Dicentrarchus labrax, larvae to nursery areas. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 72: 199 - 212. R13. Jones, N.S. (1950). Marine bottom communities. Biological Reviews, 25: 283-313. R14. MAFF, (1990). Bass – Nursery Areas and Other Conservation Measures. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. MAFF Publications, London. 15pp. R15. Methot, R.D. (1990). Synthesis Model: an adaptable framework for analysis of diverse stock assessment data. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Application of Stock Assessment Techniques to Gadoids. Pp 259 – 277. INPFC Bulletin, 50. R16. Munk, P and Nielsen, J.G. (2005). Eggs and Larvae of North Sea Fishes. Published by: Biofolia. Frederiksberg, Denmark. 215pp. R17. Pawson, M.G. (1992). Climatic influences on spawning success, growth and recruitment of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) in British waters. ICES Marine Symposia, 195: 388-392. R18. Pawson, M.G. and Pickett, G.D. (1987). The Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and management of its fishery in England and Wales. Lab. Leafl., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, (59): 37pp. R19. Pawson, M.G. and Pickett, G.D. (1996). The annual pattern of condition and maturity in bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L) in waters around the UK. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 76: 107 - 126. R20. Pawson, M.G., Kelley, D.F. and Pickett, G.D. (1987). The distributions and migrations of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L) in waters around England and Wales as shown by tagging. J. Mar. biol. Ass. U.K., 67, (1) 183 – 217. R21. Pickett, G.D. (1990). Assessment of the UK bass fishery using a log-book based catch recording system. Fish. Res. Tech. Rep., MAFF Direct. Fish. Res., Lowestoft, 90 33pp. R22. Pickett, G.D. (2005). A 3-year gillnetting trial (1-31 October 2002 - 2004) and complimentary studies undertaken near Bridlington, East Yorkshire. CEFAS Contract Report, No. C2277. 34pp. R23 Pickett, G.D., Brown, M., Harley, B., and Dunn, M.R. (2002). Surveying fish populations in the Solent and adjacent harbours using the CEFAS bass trawl. CEFAS Science Series Technical Report, 118. 16pp. R24. Pickett, G.D., Kelley, D.F. and Pawson, M.G. (2004). The patterns of recruitment of sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax L., from nursery areas in England and Wales and implications for fisheries management. Fisheries Research, 68: 329 – 342. R25. Russell, F.S. (1976). The Eggs and Planktonic Stages of British Marine Fishes. Academic Press. London. 1976. 524pp. R26. Senior, R. (1999a). Preliminary study investigating the types and potential effects of fishing activities in and around the Flamborough Head candidate Special Area of Conservation site. North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee/ Natural England Joint Report.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 3 R27. Senior, R. (1999b). The Flamborough Head cSAC fishing fleet (1999): Inventory of vessels and gear and analysis of fishing effort. North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee/ Natural England Joint Report. R28. Thompson, B.M. and Harrop, R.T. (1987). The distribution and abundance of bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) eggs and larvae in the English Channel and southern North Sea. J. Mar. biol. Ass. U.K., 67, (2) 263 – 274. R29. Williams, R., J.A. Lindley, H.G. Hunt and N.R. Collins (1993). Plankton community structure and geographical distribution in the North Sea. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 172: 143-156. R30. Bradshaw, B. 2005. Letter to editor. Fishing News, 2 December, p. 4. R31. Mayer, I., Shackley, S.E. and Witthames, P.R. 1990. Aspects of the reproductive biology of bass, Dicentrarchus labrax L. II. Journal of Fish Biology. (36) 141-148.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 4 2 BACKGROUND TO THE FISHERY 2.1 BIOLOGY OF THE TARGET SPECIES The European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) is a strongly migratory, shoaling predator, and is exploited commercially throughout most of its geographical range. It is distributed in European waters from the Mediterranean along the north Atlantic coast north of Morocco in the south to Ireland in the north-west and as far north as the coasts of Norway in the north–east (Pawson and Pickett, 1987). Adult fish can be found in deep water of over 30 fathoms but also in inshore waters, shallow estuaries, bays and sometimes in brackish and freshwater rivers (Pickett, 2005). The distribution of sea bass in NW European waters has expanded considerably over the past twenty years with a definite extension northwards. An ICES Study Group (ICES, 2005a) noted that the spawning stock biomass in ICES Divisions IVc and VIId seemed to be increasing and that there was an expansion of the sea bass population into the North Sea. Whether this is the result of subtle changes in sea temperatures, which may be related to global warming or simply the natural geographical extension of an expanding population, or other factors, is still a matter of conjecture. However in the same report it was stated that an increase in water temperatures in the English Channel and North Sea since the late 1980‟s has led to better conditions for growth and recruitment of sea bass. Since the exceptionally strong year class of 1989 there has been an increased frequency of above average year classes and an expansion of the stock northwards throughout the North Sea. Fahy (2003) reports that European sea bass have been thriving in recent years and concludes that this is as a consequence of both large recruitments to the stock, and also because cod has been declining. He speculates that this has provided a niche for another top predator and in response to this sea bass have been pushing their range into the North Sea. The stock fished is a part of what is now proposed as a separate North Sea management stock whose links with adjacent populations in the eastern English Channel appear weaker than previously. However there is still considerable mixing of late juvenile fish from both areas and of pre and post spawning adults, which has been showing signs of an increase in recent years. Spawning and nursery areas in UK waters are reasonably well described as a result of both egg and larvae surveys in the English Channel (Thompson and Harrop, 1987), from pre-recruit surveys of inshore waters and estuaries and from tagging data. Sea bass <32cm in length tend to stay inshore in nursery areas (Pawson et al, 1987; Jennings and Pawson, 1992) whereas fish >36 cm in length tend to emigrate from these areas and are dispersed widely around the coasts of England and Wales (Pickett et al, 2004). Sea bass begin maturing at age 4 years old but the proportion mature doesn‟t reach 100% until they are 8 years old (Table 2.1.1). Male sea bass first mature at a length of 31–35cm (age 4-7 years) whilst female sea bass mature at around 40-45cm (age 5-8years). Once mature they adopt the habit of migrating between summer feeding areas and offshore pre-spawning and spawning areas. During the winter months mature fish begin this migration offshore and westwards into the pre-spawning areas in the deeper water of the western English Channel, where they remain until after spawning. After they have spawned, tagging data indicates that spent fish move north and east onto feeding grounds in the eastern English Channel and southern North Sea (Pawson, et al 1987). The results of a recent tagging study (Pawson, pers comm.) confirms that this migration pattern has remained largely unchanged although the seasonal migration of adult sea bass from the North Sea to the western Channel is now less evident. Compared with the 1987 study the most recent tagging study shows a higher proportion of adult sea bass being caught in the inshore areas during winter. Pickett (2005) notes that, in recent years, there has been an increased tendency for mature fish found in the North Sea in summer not to migrate back to the spawning areas in the English Channel, leading to an increase in the spawning stock in the North Sea. During sampling in Bridlington Bay in the spring of 2003 and 2004 he noted the presence of
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 5 maturing and ripe sea bass, indicating that spawning appeared to be taking place in that area in late April and May although the exact location has not been determined and there is no evidence that this produced successful local recruitment. In a study of bass fecundity, Mayer et al. (1990) examined 16 specimens from south west English waters over the size range 1060 - 3800 g. They found that absolute fecundity over this size range varied between 360 thousand and 2 million (oocytes > 200 m-9), and the relationship between fecundity and weight was F= 557Wt- 2.26.105 The egg and larval stages of sea bass are planktonic, readily identifiable (Russell, 1976.; Munk and Neilsen, 2005) and may be found throughout the water column. From spring plankton surveys carried out in the English Channel in 1981, 1982 and 1984 Thompson and Harrop (1987) showed that spawning starts well offshore in February and, except in the vicinity of headlands, continues mainly outside the English twelve mile zone, through March and April. Spawning moves closer inshore during May and June but is still centred three miles or more offshore. The larvae remain planktonic for two to three months but little is known of the transition to the „0‟ group phase where they are found in inshore waters during the autumn and winter of their first year. Some spawning may now occur in the North Sea but to date the distribution and extent of such spawning has not been described. Pawson (pers. comm.) suggests that climate warming may have lengthened the time that adult sea bass spend in the summer feeding areas and, at least in the North Sea, has allowed sea bass to spawn much further north than the main spawning areas in the English Channel. Sea bass nursery areas are very well described for the English Channel, the Thames estuary area of the southern North Sea and the UK west coast round to the river Dee estuary in North Wales. They are frequently found in the vicinity of the warm water from power station cooling outlets. Pickett (2005) provides an excellent summary of the habits of post larval sea bass. He states that they have an affinity for estuaries and bays and shortly after arrival in these inshore waters they become easily recognisable as juvenile sea bass of around 2cm in length. At this stage they are found in large shoals in tidal pools, saltmarshes and Marinas during their first summer, moving into slightly deeper water nearby during the winter. The young sea bass normally stay close inshore until they are around 35cm in length (about 4 years old) after which they move into wider coastal areas for a year or so, as „school bass‟ before becoming fully mature. In recent years „O‟ group sea bass have also been found in the Humber estuary. This has not been designated as a nursery area because there is no evidence to date that the area contains significant quantities of pre-adult bass or that there is a threat to these bass from fishing. It seems likely, at present, that the local population off the Yorkshire coast is strongly supplemented by recruiting sea bass from other areas and that it is not a self contained unit. Survival of the planktonic and young stages of sea bass is very variable leading to big fluctuations in year class strength. Recruitment estimates for the English Channel stock components show large year classes in 1989, 1994, and 1995 with poor year classes in 1985, 1986 and 1996. An ICES Study Group on Sea Bass has noted that there is a strong positive correlation between sea temperature patterns and sea bass recruitment in ICES sub-areas IV and VII which is explained by improved reproductive performance and first year survival of sea bass at higher temperatures (ICES, 2004a). The study group also noted that the positive correlation between recruitment and spawning stock biomass (SSB) is clearly driven by recruitment and not by SSB, as expected in an expanding stock under low exploitation (ICES, 2005a). The recruitment patterns for the different stock components do show common features regarding year class strength which indicates that either they are linked biologically or that their recruitment is controlled by large scale, common environmental factors.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 6 Sea bass are opportunistic predators feeding on a wide range of fish, shellfish and plankton species. Pickett, (2005), notes that their prey species include shrimps, marine worms, sandeels, sprats and mackerel. He also notes that, compared with most northern temperate roundfish species, sea bass grow slowly at a rate of around 10cm per year for the first five years of life in the North Sea after which their growth rate slows. In UK waters sea bass may live up to a maximum of thirty years but are now rarely found beyond fifteen years old or approximately 3- 5Kg in weight. Sea bass are easily aged by reading the annual growth checks on the scales. Table 1: Proportion mature and mean weight at age for sea bass (combined sexes) Age Proportion Mean weight at age (yrs) mature (kg) 3 0.03 0.462 4 0.23 0.578 5 0.43 0.683 6 0.57 0.878 7 0.9 1.112 8 1 1.460 9 1 1.568 10 1 1.756 11 1 2.194 12 1 2.424 13 1 2.710 14 1 3.066 15+ 1 3.469 Source: After Pawson and Pickett, 1996
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 7 2.2 HISTORY OF THE FISHERY
2.2.1 NW European Fishery The European sea bass is exploited commercially throughout its geographical range. Because of the behaviour and biology of the species, exploitation tends to be split between inshore and offshore components. The inshore fisheries operate a variety of gears including lines and gill nets from small boats and fixed nets on shore. These may be targeted at sea bass but are generally a part of other fisheries with sea bass as a by-catch. The offshore fisheries are based mainly on mid-water pair trawling often targeted directly at sea bass although sea bass are also taken as a by-catch in other pelagic trawl fisheries such as the mackerel and horse mackerel fisheries. There is also a large recreational fishery for sea bass in Europe exploited by anglers fishing either from the shore or near-shore in small boats. Their catches go mainly unrecorded but at times may equal or exceed the commercial inshore catches. The main change in sea bass fisheries over the past twenty years has been the increase in pair trawling in winter for aggregations of pre-spawning and spawning sea bass offshore in the English Channel and Bay of Biscay (ICES, 2004a) The most recent Report of the ICES Study Group on Sea Bass (ICES, 2005a) gives details of both the official and estimated landings of sea bass from all ICES Sub-areas and Divisions. These data show the development of the international fishery and the increasing landings with time at the northern and eastern boundaries of the distribution of sea bass in the eastern English Channel and North Sea. Here landings have increased from an annual average of around 500t between 1984 and 1990 up to 1900t in 1994. Since then landings have fluctuated between 1210t and 1810t. Landings have also increased over the same period in the western English Channel and western Approaches averaging 465t over the period 1984 to 1995 then increasing sharply to 1230t in 1996 and 1440t in 1997. Landings from this area in 2003 were 1600t. In the Biscay area there was a rapid rise in landings between 1984 and 1987 from 380t to 1550t. Since then landings have been high, fluctuating between 1300t and 1900t annually reaching a new peak in 2003 of 2400t. The main countries exploiting sea bass commercially are France, UK, Spain, Portugal and more recently The Netherlands. The French fishery is mainly in ICES sub-areas VII, where it is mainly an offshore pair trawl fishery and sub-area VIII, where it is mainly prosecuted with long lines and gill nets. Their annual landings averaged 2000t over the period 1986 to 1995 but have increased to around 4000t in recent years. Much of the recent increase reflects higher landings from ICES Divisions IVc and VIId, but mainly from VIId (eastern English Channel) Official Spanish data show that their annual landings fell from an average of around 400t from 1984 to 1988 to an average of just 125t over the next eleven years. Since 2000 the average landings have increased to 275t. Most of their landings come from the Cantabrian coastal area of northern Spain with the remainder from other parts of the Bay of Biscay and also off their Atlantic coast in ICES Division IXa. . Portugal has a fishery for sea bass in ICES Division IXa covering the whole of their coastal area. Official annual landings from that area have averaged 320t over the period 1987 to 2003, with a high of 507t in 1989 and a low of 181t in 1986. Annual landings by the Netherlands, mainly from ICES Division IVc, were negligible up to 1998 but since then have increased to 169t in 2003.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 8 The development of the commercial fishery generally is typified by the pattern recorded around the coasts of England and Wales. Here the UK fishery increased rapidly in the late 1970‟s and 1980‟s and by 1986 some 3000 fishermen operating from more than 2000 boats were involved in taking a catch estimated to be worth between three and four million pounds. The catch by anglers at that time was estimated to be similar to that taken in the commercial fishery (Pawson, pers. comm.). Current estimates suggest that about one third of the present UK catch is taken by anglers (Pawson, pers. comm.). During the 1980‟s sea bass became one of the main target species for the inshore commercial fishery in southern Britain (Pawson and Pickett, 1987). Because so much of the commercial sea bass catch in the UK is taken by small inshore vessels <10m in length, in mixed gear fisheries, it tends not to be recorded accurately. This is because there is no requirement for such vessels to carry log books and the landings tend not to go through major ports. Official annual landings for England and Wales for ICES sub-areas IV and VII rose from 106t in 1985 to 660t in 1995 and have averaged around 500t since then. In 1984 CEFAS started a voluntary log book scheme for UK inshore vessels (Pickett, 1990). The scheme is ongoing and is used to obtain a reliable best estimate of the actual landings. These data suggest that annual landings remained at around 600t between 1985 and 1992 then rose rapidly to 2,200t in 1994 (the effect of the large 1989 year class) and then fluctuated between 1050t and 1900t until 2003 (ICES, 2005a).
2.2.2 North Sea Fishery Pawson (pers.comm) has provided an excellent and detailed summary of the sea bass fisheries off the English coast of the North Sea which includes the Holderness coast, the subject of this certification process. The sea bass population has been increasing for several decades in the North Sea where it may now be caught as far north as Cape Wrath and Dunnet Bay in Scotland and near warm water discharges from power stations on the Scottish east coast. Sea bass in these areas are towards the most northerly limit of the current range of their distribution. Official statistics for the North Sea (ICES Divisions IVb,c) show that annual landings were less than 35t for the period 1982 to 1993 and that most of these were from Division IVc. Landings increased sharply in 1994 and 1995 reaching 120t and 135t respectively. Landings have fallen since then averaging around 60t per year. Again most of these landings have been from the southern area south of latitude 53o 30‟N. To the north of that area annual landings have generally been lass than 1t but increased to around 4t in 2003 and 2004. It is known that official landings statistics are not reliable for sea bass and that the best estimates of actual annual landings for the North Sea are based on a fishermen‟s voluntary log book scheme operated by CEFAS. These data show, for an example, that landings in 1994 and 1995 were 425t and 273t respectively compared with official landings of 120t in each of those years (Pickett, 2005). The first reference to sea bass in the Humber Estuary comes from anglers and dates back as far as 1970 and since then sea bass have regularly been targeted by anglers in east Yorkshire (Pickett, 2005). However match records show that it was only the occasional big fish which was taken, up to the late 1980‟s, and that sea bass were generally not common. The history of sea bass catches off the east coast of Yorkshire is well described by Pickett (2005). Small quantities of sea bass have been taken off the north east coast of England as a by catch in trawls and set nets and occasionally by sea anglers down to Yorkshire and Lincolnshire during the 1980‟s and 1990‟s. On the Holderness coast, commercial fishing began in the mid-1990‟s with sea bass being taken as a by-catch in salmonid directed fisheries with fixed „T‟ and „J‟ nets. This led to the development of a sea bass-directed fishery for the first time in 2003 with fish being taken during the unregulated period from November to March. This autumn/winter fishery on the east Yorkshire coast is in contrast to the commercial fishery in other parts of the UK coast where sea bass are targeted mainly between April and November.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 9 From North Norfolk southwards to the Thames Estuary the coastal sea bass fishery is well established. It is an important part of a mixed fishery involving around 200 small boats, in 2002, using fixed and drift nets, trawls and lines. The fishery is targeted at local estuaries and around wrecks and offshore banks from May until November. In recent years there has been a resurgence of charter boat angling in the Thames estuary. There is an offshore fishery for sea bass in the southern North Sea prosecuted by French boats using bottom trawls and also a commercial and recreational rod/line fishery, from shore and from boats, off the Belgian and The Netherlands coasts.
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT FISHERY The fisheries within the jurisdiction area of the North eastern Sea Fisheries Committee extend from the river Tyne in the north to Spurn Point in the south and include the Holderness coast. Sea bass abundance has been increasing steadily along the north-east coast of England since the early 1990‟s and this has seen the development of small scale commercial and recreational fisheries for sea bass. The development of commercial fishing on the Holderness coast, in the mid-1990‟s resulted in sea bass appearing as a by-catch, in fixed nets, in the summer salmonid fishery. Since then a relatively new commercial fishery has developed in this area, targeted directly at sea bass, in the winter period, and using almost entirely fixed nets from the shore (Pickett, 2005). This fishery currently extends from November to March although there are local Sea Fisheries Committee proposals to extend the season by two weeks to begin in mid-October. Sea bass continue to be taken as a by-catch in salmonid-directed fisheries in this area from 26th March and 31st August. A census of fishing effort in the area showed that there were five full time netsmen and up to thirty part timers taking part in the sea bass directed fishery between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point in 2004. There were also twelve fishermen taking a by catch of sea bass in the licensed salmon fishery between March and August (Pickett, 2005). It has been noted that the number of licence applications for the summer salmonid fishery has been increasing in order to take advantage of the sea bass by-catch. In addition to these net fisheries, sea bass are also taken in recreational fisheries in the area by both shore and boat anglers. There are also at least two commercial fishermen targeting sea bass in a gill net fishery in the Withernsea area of the Holderness coast. The fishery which is subject to this assessment is the intertidal fixed net fishery on the Holderness coast, between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point. There are five full time fishermen involved in the fishery which takes place between November and March.
2.3.1 Gears Used The fishery in this assessment uses intertidal fixed nets which run straight out from the shore (see Figures 1-3) and not the J or T type fixed nets used for salmon and sea trout. The nets are of either monofilament or multi-monofilament construction with a mesh size of either 90mm or 100mm. The nets are between 50 and 100 meshes deep and stretch to a maximum of about 180m from the shore, dependant on the height of the tide (spring or neap). The net is weighted along the groundrope and has cork floats along the whole surface line and large floats evenly spaced about every 20m. The nets are designed to fish the whole water column. The net is firmly fixed at the shore end and then anchored with side anchors to permanently fixed posts every 10m. The fixed nets are therefore shot at a series of permanently marked, fixed positions, along the coast. The nets, once set, are examined and cleared of all fish at each low water (i.e. twice per day) and, because they are set intertidal, they do spend between 6 and 12 hours partially dry and therefore not fishing.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 10 Figure 1: Diagrammatic Representation of a Intertidal Sea Bass Net
Cliff face
Key: Net
Rope
Anchor
High tide mark
m
0
5 1
Low tide mark
Figure 2: Photograph of a Fixed Net Site (A) Part of the Holderness coast showing a fixed net stretching out from the beach at about half tide (middle foreground)
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 11 Figure 3: Photograph of a Fixed Net Site (B) A close up of the net in Figure 2.3.1 showing the headline corks and evenly spaced headline floats. The two floats positioned away from the net mark two of the fixed anchor posts
2.3.3 Quotas and Controls Sea bass are neither an EU nor UK quota species and therefore there are no current restrictions on the quantity landed. Control of the exploitation of bass up to 1990 was by means of minimum landing size only, based wholly on biological criteria. In 1990 the minimum landing size was increased, under EC regulations from 32cm total length to 36cm total length (Pickett et al. 1995). Within the UK the minimum landing size measures were extended to include gill net mesh size controls and the prohibition of bass fishing in specified nursery areas. (Pickett et al. 1995). The minimum landing size and mesh regulations resulted in improved recruitment and growth and an increase in the average yield per recruit (Pickett et al. 1995). The UK are currently proposing to unilaterally increase the minimum landing size of bass to 40cm from April 2007. This proposal is now subject to a consultation process involving all stakeholders. Because the Holderness area has a licensed salmon and sea trout fishery, targeted commercial sea bass fishing is only permitted between 1st November and 25th March. This sea bass directed fishery is governed by NESFC byelaws (Anon. 2005) which define this time period and also define closed areas within which fixed netting is prohibited. All fisheries for sea bass, including the recreational and part time fisheries, are governed by EU legislation which prohibits the landing of sea bass below 36cm in length. The NESFC are currently working on plans to set bag limits of four sea bass per person for anglers in the area. Relevant mesh size regulations are described in section 3.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 12 2.3 FISHING LOCATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES Sea bass netting in the area takes place in the intertidal zone at specific locations (associated with coastal access) along the Holderness Coast.. Because of the nature of the coastline and limited access, fishermen use all terrain vehicles (ATVs) and are thus able to distribute nets along wide stretches of the coast, notably from Fraisthorpe, Barnston, Skipsea and Mappleton. As noted in 2.3 (above) sea bass fishermen in this area comprise full-time (5 netsmen in 2004) and part-time fishermen (30 in 2004).The five full time netsmen also hold licences to fish in the summer salmonid fishery in the area together with seven other full time fishermen. Sea bass are taken as a by-catch in this fishery. Figure 4: Location of Intertidal Sea Bass Net ‘Fixed Engines’ under NESFC Jurisdiction
Symbol key
Netting Station
Fraisthorpe
Barmston
Ulrome
Skipsea
Mappleton
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 13 2.4 ECOSYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS The water depth off this part of the coast is relatively shallow, being within 20 m at 10 km out to sea (see Figure 5). The tidal ranges are more than other parts of the North Sea, with a mean spring range of 5 to 6 m, increasing from North to South. Water temperatures vary between 5 C in winter to 14.5 C in summer. The salinity is around 34.5‰, depending upon season and proximity to freshwater flows from estuaries such as the Humber to the south. Figure 5: Water Depths off Eastern England The coastal geology of the region consists of Upper Cretaceous chalk in the north at Flamborough Head with a covering of Devonian till with localised areas of associated sands and gravels. The offshore geology is more complex, being unconsolidated sediments laid down since the sea transgressed across the area in the early Holocene rise in sea level. These sediments are essentially sand in the northern half of the region (Flamborough to Hornsea) and gravely sand from Hornsea to Spurn Head. These tend to be less than a metre thick atop the Upper Cretaceous chalk (British Geological Survey, 1991a, British Geological Survey, 1991b). Sediment transport results from cliff erosion and is predominantly southwards through wave action and currents. There is rapid and persistent cliff erosion, especially between Bridlington and Spurn Head. The Holderness coast suffers from strong erosion by waves and erodes at around 1m per year, the fastest in Europe. As a result the foreshore is characterised by sandy shingle that forms low-lying, southward migrating bars oblique to the shore. Flamborough Head is widely considered to represent a biogeographic divide between the north and south North Sea. The north-facing shore of Flamborough head has been identified as being of international importance for its algal communities, particularly in the splash zone on the cliffs (extending 15-20 m above mean high water) and in caves (Natural England 1994; Tittley 1988). Wave-cut platforms are present on the more sheltered south side of the headland, where the chalk is softer. There are no bedrock outcrops and the terraces are lower, often being covered by boulders, cobbles and pebbles (mostly flint). On the southern side especially, a well developed kelp forest of Laminaria hyperborea extends down to a depth of 4 m. This species does not recur further south until the Dover Strait. A total of 112 algal species have been recorded form the shores around Flamborough Head, with the greater proportion from the more sheltered sites (George et al., 1988). A wide variety of hydroids and bryzoans are dominant in the areas of strong tidal streams and sand scour, along with the soft coral Alconium digitatum and colonial sea squirts. A total of 270 invertebrates and 112 algal species have been recorded around Flamborough Head, with the greater proportion from sheltered sites. On the largely sedimentary coast to the south, intertidal invertebrates mainly consists of amphipods and polychaete worms
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 14 with the distribution of communities depending upon particle size The sublittoral macrobenthos is typical of Jones‟ (1950) „boreal offshore gravel association‟ with horse mussels Modiolus modiolus, brittlestars Ophiothrix fragalis and the bryozoan Flustra foliacea characterising the fauna. The nationally rare bryozoan Smittina affinis is found in Selwick‟s Bay to the north of Flamborough Head. Flamborough Head has now a European Marine Site (EMS) based on the representative chalk-associated species and for the site‟s location at the southern limit of distribution of several northern species. The site covers around 14% of UK and 9% of European coastal chalk exposure, represents the most northern outcrop of chalk in the UK, and includes bedrock and boulder reefs which extend further into deeper water than at other sub tidal chalk sites in the UK, giving one of the most extensive areas of sublittoral chalk in Europe. Flamborough is has unusually high levels of calcareous cliff vegetation. There are larger numbers and a wider range of cave habitats at Flamborough than at any other chalk site in Britain and is important for its specialised cave algal communities, which contain abundant Hildenbrandia rubra, Pseudendoclonium submarinum, Sphacelaria nana and Waerniella lucifuga. The Humber Estuary to the south is also a possible SAC whilst the Dogger Bank has been included as a draft SAC but not yet submitted to the European Commission. Figure 6: Flamborough Head EMS Delimitation
Scale 1:75,000
Source: Natural England
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 15 In terms of the pelagic environment, Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) surveys indicate that the planktonic assemblage is made up of mainly neritic (coastal water species), although some southern intermediate (mixed water) species are also present. During autumn months, waters from the north-eastern part of the North Sea brings various oceanic species from the north-west. The spring phytoplankton bloom arrives in coastal waters around April and following the diatom bloom, dinoflagellates become prominent in the near-shore production zones (Williams et al, 1993). Total primary production is low (75-79 g C m-2 y-1) compared with the central and eastern North Sea, although rises in the vicinity of the Humber Estuary. The zooplankton is dominated by small copepods, especially in nearshore waters. Predatory zooplankton peak between May and September. The estuarine areas of the region are important habitats for birds and includes a number of Special Protection Areas (SPAs including the (i) Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast, (ii) Hornsea Mere (the largest freshwater lake in Yorkshire, situated less than 1 km from the sea) and (iii) Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPAs.
2.5 BY-CATCH AND DISCARD 2.5.1 Incidental Catch Detailed information is known about the retained non-target species as most fishers maintain accurate „haul by haul‟ records. The main by-catch species are sea trout over summer months (when they are the target species), sole, whiting and to a lesser extent cod. The figure below shows the different species components of the catch over 2005 in percentage terms (it is important to note the monthly sample sizes), which shows the seasonal nature of the sea bass, sole, sea trout and whiting catches. The most important consideration to note is that the sea trout fishery is essentially limited to the summer months (May – August) whilst the sea bass fishery – which is licensed to retain fish over October (proposed) to March of each year. Over this period bycatch is mainly sole, cod and whiting. All these fish are retained and marketed, except for undersize fish, mainly whiting as the gear is highly selective. The NESFC has conducted various length frequency studies of sea bass catches whilst the Environment Agency has done similar work with sea trout. Figure 7: Proportion of Target and Incidental Catch
197 n/a 424 182 537 1630 406 370 22 1183 314 n/a Sample size (n) 100% 90% 80% Sea trout 70% Skate 60% Cod 50% Whiting 40% Soles 30% Bass 20%
Proportioncatch of (%) 10%
0%
Jul
Jan
Sep Oct
Feb Jun Dec
Mar Apr
May
Aug Nov Month (2005)
Source: Tide books of Frank Powell (netsman)
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 16 2.5.2 Discards This selective fishery has a very low level of discarding as most bycatch is marketable and therefore retained. Small whiting constitute the main bycatch, peaking at 5-10 individuals per tide during autumn and dropping away sharply thereafter. 2.5.3 Catch of Threatened, Rare and Iconic Species Sea mammals: over four years of operation, no live seals are known to have been caught in these nets1. There has been evidence of contact with the nets, but this has always resulted in the escape of the seal as the gear is very fragile. During winter months when the sea bass fishery is active, there is little interaction with seals, as they tend to move inshore to predate on the sea trout as they migrate up the coast during summer months when the sea bass fishery is inactive. Cetacean populations in the Southern North Sea are well known and a new census is planned. Larger sea mammals such as porpoises are not known to be found in these shallow inshore waters except under unusual circumstances e.g. unexplained stranding or illness. The netsmen have now installed porpoise „pingers‟ on a voluntary basis in order to further prevent any problems, especially during the summer salmon season. Birds: Flamborough Head/Bempton Cliffs to the north are major seabird breeding sites and populations are subject to close monitoring. Seabird catch in these gears is low as most will feed in clear, deeper waters rather than the highly turbid intertidal zone. However there is some bird by-catch reported, mostly in the upper part of the seaward portion of the net. Fishermen estimate that around 10 birds may be caught annually by each netting station, with the majority being released alive. Most of these are reported to be guillemots, with a smaller number of razorbills. No seagulls or gannets are apparently caught. Other species: no interaction with threatened, rare or protected species is known.
2.6 HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS 2.6.1 Habitat Impacts The intertidal zone consists of around 2 metres of sand laid upon a clay base. The intertidal sea bass gear occupies a dynamic section of the marine environment that is subject to wave action and diurnal tidal change. The net and its attendant bridles will contact the benthic substrate, especially during low tides when the net, top lines and floats and bridles will be laid upon the exposed sand. Given the highly dynamic and exposed nature of the intertidal zone, it is considered that this gear will not have any long-term habitat impact.
2.6.2 Gear Loss and Ghost Fishing Gear loss: despite the exposed nature of the gear, complete gear loss is unknown. This is mainly due to the large number of anchors used (see figure on page 11). The gear is vulnerable to splitting, especially when seaweed builds up on the current side2. However no portion of the net sheet has ever been actually lost. The gear is derigged and removed from the dishing location if bad weather is expected to reduce the risk of gear loss further. Ghost fishing: as these gears are never actually lost, ghost fishing is not considered an issue. However if lost, light gear like this frequently becomes quickly rolled into a tight ball before becoming accreted into the sediment where its catchability is zero.
1 One dead seal was found in the bight of a net but the lack of evidence of struggle strongly suggested that it was dead when it first came in contact with the net. 2 Cleaning the gear of weed is one of the primary maintenance requirements of this gear and is conducted during each low tide
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 17 2.6.3 Ecosystem Impacts In terms of the wider North Sea context, the sea bass is a voracious predator and may exert considerable pressure on lower trophic levels. However it is recently expanded into this particular nearshore ecosystem, possibly to fill niches vacated by species impacted by environmental change and other factors. Therefore the impact of expanding sea bass populations, and the modifying effect of their removal by fishing pressure on this overall change, is not known and still undergoing change. Given this scenario, the sea bass fishery may or may not be influencing a possibly changing ecology which is essentially outside the influence of the fishery. This evolving scenario is recognised by ICES, who state that “a change in temperature will affect consumption, growth, migration and predator-prey overlap, and hence species interactions, but it has also led to the appearance of „new‟ warm water species in the North Sea, e.g., red mullet and sea bass. The estimation of the effect of these „new‟ species and changes to distributions of existing species on predator-prey inter-actions requires a multispecies model” (ICES, 2005b). However, landings within the NESFC fishery are minimal in relation to overall population levels and landings in the North Sea and so are unlikely to have ecological consequences of any significance. 2.7 Other Fisheries Relevant to this Assessment Sea bass are taken in small quantities, mainly inshore over a wide area of the southern and central North Sea. To the north of the Yorkshire coast most of these are taken as occasional catches, usually of large sea bass, by anglers. Southwards along the English east coast, through Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, small quantities of sea bass are taken as a by catch in commercial trawl fisheries, in fixed nets and also by anglers. There are no commercial fixed net fisheries for sea bass north of Flamborough Head. From north Norfolk southwards there is an increased targeted effort on sea bass as part of mixed commercial fisheries, using fixed and drift nets, trawls and lines, from May to November. There is also recreational angling throughout this area and in the Thames Estuary charter boat angling, directed at sea bass, has shown resurgence in recent years (Pawson, pers comm.). Directed fishing for sea bass has also been increasing since 1998 on the continental coasts of the southern North Sea. Here the French have a bottom trawl fishery whilst The Netherlands have a developing pair trawl fishery as well as shore and boat angling. From a negligible catch prior to 1998 the recorded landings, for The Netherlands in 2003 were 169t (ICES, 2005a). Within the Holderness coast area sea bass form a regular part of the by-catch in the licensed salmonid „T‟ and „J‟ net fishery from 26 March to 31 August (see 2.3 above). The twelve licensed fishermen take an average of four sea bass each per day during the period of the fishery (Pickett, 2005). There are also near-shore commercial gill net fisheries operated by boat during the unregulated winter period. Two of these vessels operate from Withernsea but there may be others currently not recorded. Beach and boat anglers also fish the whole coastal area from Flamborough Head to Spurn Point. The numbers of anglers involved and the effort impacted on the sea bass population is difficult to quantify. Procter (pers. comm.) has suggested that most of the effort, directed at sea bass, comes from the boat anglers fishing for pleasure rather than shore anglers fishing in organised club matches where whiting are the target species. Procter also stated that there could be as many as 200 anglers fishing the area on a match day and that they would outnumber boat anglers in the ratio of approximately 7 to 3.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 18 3 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT 3.1 LEGISLATION 3.1.1 General The species is taken in two separate fisheries – the „winter‟ sea bass-directed fishery and as a by- catch in the „summer‟ salmonid (mainly sea trout) directed fishery. Both fisheries are governed by EU legislation preventing the landing of sea bass below a minimum size of 36 cm. There are also unilateral UK regulations, enforced by DEFRA (MFA), prohibiting the targeted fishing of sea bass from boats within thirty seven designated nursery areas around the coasts of England and Wales (MAFF, 1998). None of these nursery areas are within the NESFC area. The MFA also enforce the regulation prohibiting the use of enmeshing nets with mesh sizes between 65mm and 90mm. The sea bass-directed fishery on the Holderness coast is governed by NESFC by-law (Anon, 2005) specifying the time period of the fishery (1/11 to 26/3 inclusive) and closed areas within which fixed netting is prohibited. There is also EU legislation setting a minimum mesh size of 90 mm for sea bass-directed fisheries. NESFC are currently in the process of establishing an amended by-law(s) to set a limited number of permits, restrict the area of the fishery, set constraints on effort (number of nets) and specify catch return data. There is also a plan to set bag limits for anglers (of 4 fish per person). The salmonid fishery is managed by the Environment Agency and sea bass are taken as a by- catch. It is noted that the number of licence applications is increasing to take advantage of the sea bass by-catch. 3.1.2 Species Specific The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has an overall responsibility for scientific research and management of the European (Atlantic) sea bass throughout its geographical range. At present six stocks, or management units, are recognised by ICES within its area of jurisdiction. ICES are responsible for providing the scientific advice on the status of these stocks, within European Community waters, to the European Commission. At its annual statutory meeting in 2000 ICES established a Sea Bass Study Group (SGBASS) in order to be able to respond to the questions being posed by the European Commission on the status of sea bass stocks, their sustainability and management requirements for the fisheries within Community waters. The Study Group has met twice in 2002 (ICES, 2002) and in 2003 (ICES, 2004a) and subsequently has met by correspondence (ICES, 2005a)3. Initially the Study Group compiled information on the European fisheries for sea bass, the international landings back to 1984, the identity of stock assessment units and some information on stock status (ICES, 2002). Subsequently the group has provided some preliminary assessments for ICES sub-area VII (ICES, 2004a) and extended that stock analysis in order to reduce some of the uncertainty about stock status (ICES, 2005a). The group has been instrumental in improving the extent and quality of landings and biological data available for sea bass within the ICES area. However they
3 The ICES Study Group, SGBASS, was dissolved in 2005, since when a new ICES working group (WGNEW) has been initiated to provide data and assessments for a number of species that are not presently dealt with by assessment WGs. Bass is included in WGNEW, but there is no actual requirement from ICES to do assessments and give advice for bass based on international data. So, a bass study group does not currently exist, even by correspondence although international scientists involved are in regular contact. In that context there is the possibility that WGNEW will eventually collect sufficient data to conduct an assessment on bass stocks in ICES sub-areas IV, VII and VIII that reflect international catches.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 19 recognise that these data still fall short of the requirements for a full analytical assessment and the provision of management advice. The extent of the advice currently available from ICES on Atlantic Sea Bass can be found in section 4.4.15 (ICES, 2004b). 3.1.3 Local Byelaws Because of the inshore nature of most of the sea bass fisheries within UK waters, both local Sea Fisheries Committees (SFC‟s) and the Environment Agency (EA) as well as DEFRA (Marine Fisheries Agency, MFA), have an involvement in legislation and management. For the Holderness coast the area is controlled by the North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee (NESFC) and the local Environment Agency (North Eastern) who is responsible for salmon, sea trout and eel fisheries. All control of the inshore sea bass fishery is exercised through the NESFC Fixed Engine (Authorisation) Byelaw XVIII (Anon, 2005) and the Environment Agency, through their licensing scheme for salmon, sea trout and eel fishing. The regulation effectively prohibits the use of fixed shore nets for the whole NESFC area to the north of Flamborough and regulates their use south of this area. For the Holderness coast no fixed nets are permitted during the period 26 March to 31 October unless they are seaward of the 10m depth contour and their headlines are more than 4m from the surface at all states of the tide. The main exception to this is for those fishermen holding an Environment Agency licence to fish for salmon and sea trout in the area. In 2005 there were a total of 19 net licences issued for Bridlington Bay, twelve between Bridlington and Mappleton and seven between Mappleton and Spurn Point. Fishing with a fixed net for sole is also permitted from 1 April to 31 August but there are strict rules about the construction of the net, its mesh size (50mm), and the way that it is anchored to the sea-bed. The Environment Agency also authorises the use of fixed nets, in specified areas, for the purpose of taking eels only. There are currently no restrictions on the use of fixed nets on the Holderness coast for the period 1 November to 25 March. The NESFC are currently working on a proposal to restrict the use of fixed nets during this period, with derogation for a specified number of licensed commercial fishermen. Within the area there is a specified trawl free zone from Witter Hole, just north of Hornsea, to Spurn Point and out to 3miles from the shore. This is to allow static gear to be worked unimpeded.
3.2 MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND INTERACTIONS 3.2.1 North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee The North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee (NESFC) is one of 12 Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) in England and Wales. SFC‟s are statutory bodies with statutory powers, first created under the Sea Fisheries (Regulation) Act 1888 with the main aim of encouraging, maintaining and regulating sea fisheries within local areas. Today, SFCs are constituted under the Sea Fisheries (Regulation) Act 1966, which supersedes and consolidates all previous legislation. The Committees are regionally based organisations, funded by annual levy on the constituent County and Borough Councils. Half of a Committee‟s members are appointed by such authorities and the remaining half are appointed by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) or the Welsh Office. Appointees are chosen for their knowledge of sea fisheries of the relevant coastal zone and marine environmental matters generally.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 20 Under the 1966 Act the area of jurisdiction of all SFCs extends out to the six mile fishery limit. The authority and the responsibility for the regulation of sea fisheries lies in the ability of each SFC to create byelaws local to its District, as contained in Section 5 of the 1966 Act. New byelaws are subject to confirmation by DEFRA and most usually are created for the purpose of regulating a specific aspect of local fisheries. They can include for example the regulation of mesh sizes or minimum landing sizes and also the prohibition of certain fishing activities in certain areas. Byelaws thus provide a very important and widely used instrument for the regulation of inshore fisheries. The byelaws are enforced by Fishery Officers who under the 1966 Act are empowered to inspect catches, carry out searches of vessels and premises within their jurisdiction, and are deemed “to be constable(s) and to have the same powers and privileges and be subject to the same liabilities as a police constable,”. The Holderness coast sea bass directed fishery and the summer salmonid fishery are both land- based and fishermen are easily monitored by fishery officers patrolling beaches using ATV‟s. Enforcement is governed by set objectives and performance targets for inspections. As a consequence all monitoring activity and all action taken by fishery officers is well recorded. Records, going back to 1974, show that compliance with the local byelaws has been generally good. However there has been a recent increase in the number of cautions issued in relation to the fixed net regulations, which includes beach netters for sea bass. Most byelaw offences resulting in prosecutions have been the result of non-compliance by boat fishermen using trammel nets inside the specified 10m depth zone. Within the NESFC area there is a unique arrangement of cross warranting between the Environment Agency and the NESFC in relation to the fixed net regulations. Under this arrangement each authority has the power to inspect and to enforce the relevant regulations of the other. The NESFC also has some limited powers to exercise the warrants of the Marine Fisheries Agency (DEFRA) as well. There is an ongoing process of continuing to develop more cross agency cooperation and collaboration on regulation monitoring and enforcement issues. 3.2.2 The Environment Agency (North East Region) The EA have responsibility within the area for inspection and enforcement of the regulations relating to salmon and sea trout under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1975 and the Environment Act 1995. Under the terms of these Acts the EA has its own Fisheries Byelaws. These byelaws prohibit fishing for salmon and sea trout between 31 August and 25 March, within specified conservation areas, and issues a limited number of licences, to individual fishermen, to fish at other times. The EA, through the cross warranting scheme, is fully committed to enforcement of all local byelaws related to the fixed net shore fisheries. They have recently expressed some concern about the management of the increasing effort on sea bass in the Holderness coast area and the risk of it becoming an „open ended‟ fishery. 3.2.3 The Marine Fisheries Agency (DEFRA) The MFA are responsible for the enforcement of the minimum landing size of 36cm for sea bass. They are also responsible for enforcing all relevant mesh regulations which includes the EC regulation of a minimum mesh size of 90mm for targeted sea bass fisheries and the prohibition of mesh sizes between 65mm and 90mm for all enmeshing nets. MFA officers fully cooperate with the NESFC and EA in monitoring and enforcing their byelaw regulations through the cross warranting scheme.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 21 4 STOCK ASSESSMENT
4.1 MANAGEMENT UNIT For management purposes ICES has proposed six management units within which it would be possible to collect separate fishery and biological data at a level sufficient for assessment purposes. The six units are based on ICES Divisions IVb,c; VIId; VIIe,h; VIIa,f,g (excluding Irish waters); VIIa,b,g,j (Irish waters) and VIIIa,b. These management units are not biological entities because of mixing and a lack of genetic population structuring in NW European sea bass. They are however based on the current pattern of observed seasonal movement of sea bass in exploited populations. This is supported both by the results of recent tagging and the characteristics of the seasonal fisheries in which they are taken. As a consequence it is now considered that the North Sea is a separate stock unit for management purposes. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the links between Sea bass in the North Sea and those in the eastern Channel have become weaker, at least for adult fish >36cm in length. The sea bass landings from all the fisheries on the Holderness coast, throughout the year, are all part of this North Sea stock unit. 4.2 MONITORING OF STOCK STATUS The designation of sea bass in the North Sea as a separate stock unit for management purposes is a relatively recent decision. (ICES, 2004a). The proposal was firmly based on the expectation that it was possible to collect relevant fisheries and biological data in appropriate detail for stock assessment purposes. Annual landings data for the North Sea, are now available through ICES. These are based on the EU official landing statistics augmented by confidential information on national catches provided by individual sea bass Study Group members. The UK (CEFAS) have developed a voluntary log book scheme, for commercial sea bass fishermen (Pickett, 1990). This has been running since 1984 and provides a reliable basis on which to raise the official UK landings to a more realistic level. These data are now available in sufficient detail to provide a separate estimate of the annual landings from the North Sea and the scheme has recently been extended to cover the area north of the river Humber. Monitoring and biological sampling programmes by France and the UK now provide effort, catch at age, sex ratio and maturity data for the North Sea stock unit. The UK data set is based on biological sampling carried out between 1982 and 1990 and more recently in the UK offshore fishery in 1999 and 2000. There has also been some specific sampling for length at age, wt at age, and maturity from the Yorkshire gill-net fishery, for comparison with data from other areas. The ICES sea bass study group have used UK and French data, from 1984 to 2002, on catch at age per unit of effort for three different fishing „metiers‟ for four stocks including the southern North Sea (ICES Division IVc). These fishery dependant indices have been used by the Study Group in the SURBA analysis of the status of each stock (ICES, 2004a; 2005a) and more recently by Pawson et al (in prep) in a new analysis of the state of these stocks. Because of the uncertainties in the data, in particular the catch data, the study group considered that the results indicate common features of the SSB trends within the stocks and recruitment patterns within and between stocks. The estimates of fishing mortality are considered to be less informative. There are no fishery-independent abundance indices, for post recruit fish, directly applicable to the North Sea. The only fishery-independent abundance indices available for any area are seven „0‟ group and pre-recruit surveys, five of which are carried out by the UK, one by The Netherlands and one by Ireland. Two of these surveys are in the North Sea, one in the east by The Netherlands, which is ongoing, the other in the Thames estuary. (ICES, 2004a; 2005a). The Thames Estuary survey was discontinued in 1996 but it was replaced by a trawl survey (1997 to
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 22 date) carried out each November, and which now produces a pre- recruit index for 0-2 year-olds (CEFAS unpublished data) using similar methodology to the Solent survey (see below). A reliable recruitment index for sea bass, which may be relevant for the North Sea, comes from a comprehensive trawl survey that covers the main sea bass nursery areas in the Solent (ICES Division VIId). The survey, consisting of 35 trawl hauls over a four day period, has been carried out in a standard way, in May and September, since 1983 (Pickett et al, 2002). The time series data are used to provide an age disaggregated abundance index for sea bass ages 2, 3 and 4 and also provides trawl selectivity data for sea bass (Pawson, 1992). The „Solent index‟ shows good correlation with subsequent year-class strength in the fishable stock As a result of the efforts, spearheaded by CEFAS, to improve data quality it has been possible to calculate preliminary estimates of fishing mortality (F) and spawning stock biomass (SSB) for the North Sea (Pawson, pers. comm.). The results indicate that F rose sharply to 0.5 in 1993 and since 1995 has decreased to around 0.2 to 0.4. Over a similar period the SSB in the North Sea has increased slightly from around 600t to 800t. It should be noted that these estimates of F and SSB should currently be considered to be indicative of levels rather than absolute estimates. This also means that the individual estimates of SSB for the six ICES Divisions should not be summed to calculate total SSB over the whole area.
4.3 MODELLING In their most recent advice on the Atlantic sea bass stocks (ICES, 2004b) the ICES Advisory Committee for Fisheries Management states that there are insufficient data to carry out an analytical assessment of sea bass in the North Sea (Subarea IV) In 2003 the ICES Study Group on Sea Bass carried out a preliminary assessment of the stock units in four areas, including the North Sea (Divisions IVb,c) using the SURBA program (ICES, 2004a; ICES 2005a). This program used UK and French data on the sea bass catch at age and fishing effort by „metier‟, which is basically a fishery using the same gear and with a fairly consistent species catch composition. This simple separable model using data from across the four stocks did provide an independent assessment of the status of each of those stock units and indicated common trends in SSB between them and similar recruitment patterns. Estimates of fishing mortality using the SURBA program were considered to be less informative. The assessment served to highlight the need for improved data, in particular, independent data for the North Sea which could be used in a more complex fully statistical age structured model to provide reliable estimates of both SSB and F for each of the stock units. The Study Group, which met by correspondence in 2004, (ICES, 2005a) reported that, because of the poor quality of the catch at age and effort data, they had considerable difficulty in extending this analytical assessment to the North Sea. As a result an analytical assessment was only carried out in the adjacent Division VIId and in Divisions VIIe (north) and VIId,e,h (offshore). The study group considers even those assessments to be insufficiently robust to permit calculation of meaningful reference points for each stock unit. One of the major obstacles to progress on this front is that the population of sea bass in the English Channel and the North Sea appears to be expanding and it is impossible to estimate the ultimate „carrying capacity‟ of sea bass in these areas. In their comments on the modelling of these sea bass stocks the ICES, ACFM, published in their Technical Minutes, state that there is considerable uncertainty associated with the input data and the model structure. They go on to comment that “any model such as this which relies heavily on commercial effort, and landings per unit of effort data, should be viewed with caution”. As a consequence they state that the results for F and SSB should only be presented in relative terms and that this should be emphasised.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 23 Research and development is ongoing in this area to improve the quality of the output information about the status of the sea bass stocks. The main thrust of this work has been to find suitable modelling techniques which can take into account the changing dynamics of the sea bass fisheries, mixing between adjacent stock units, environmental influences on the changes in distribution and abundance, the quality of the basic biological and fishery data and the paucity of fishery independent indices. In that context Pawson (pers. comm.) has applied a multi-metier, fully statistical , separable catch at age model (Methot, 1990) to UK data sets for four sea bass stocks in ICES Divisions IVb,c; VIId; VIIe,h; and VIIa,f,g. They have described the dynamics of sea bass stocks in English and Welsh coastal waters over the period 1985-2004 and evaluated the model‟s outputs in relation to fishing activity and increased productivity mediated by climate change. They go on to discuss the implications of their results in relation to the need for further model development to provide quantitative advice on the management of sea bass fisheries. In relation to the North Sea the model results do provide estimates of both F and SSB which reflect the general perception of the changes in this area over the past twenty years (see section 4.2). It is worth noting that bass is currently a non-quota species whose fishery has been effectively managed in the UK for the last 20 years without having the benefit of the knowledge of the absolute values of SSB.
4.4 MANAGEMENT ADVICE Advice on the management of the Atlantic sea bass is provided by ICES. An analytical stock assessment is available for only three of the designated stock units, VIId, VIIe (inshore) and VIId,e,h (offshore) and no defined reference points are available for any of the six stock units. ICES however does state that for the North Sea, Division IVb,c and for Divisions VIId, VIIe,h and VIIa,f,g sea bass are fished with an exploitation pattern and at a fishing mortality level which causes little growth overfishing, both combining to give a near maximum yield per recruit. The succession of strong year classes has enabled the stock biomass to increase in Divisions VIId and IVb,c. In relation to precautionary considerations ICES advises that effort should not be allowed to increase in any area. The ICES advice in 2004 also reiterates its consideration that implementation of input controls (preferably through technical measures aimed at protecting juvenile fish, in conjunction with entry limitations into the offshore fishery in particular) should be promoted and that output controls, such as TAC‟s, are inappropriate.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 24 5 FISHERY MANAGEMENT
5.1 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES There are no explicit management objectives for any of the six stock units within the ICES area (ICES, 2004b). The EC has decided to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, to provide for their sustainable exploitation and to minimise the impact of fishing on marine ecosystems. Within the UK the current CEFAS / DEFRA objectives for the North Sea stock unit are the same as those for all sea bass stocks within UK waters. They are to ensure biological sustainability and to maximise the yield per recruit to the fishery. This has been achieved by raising the age at first capture to around six years old through a package of technical measures introduced in 1990 (36cm minimum landing size, a ban on the use of enmeshing nets with mesh sizes between 60mm and 90mm and the closure of thirty seven designated sea bass nursery areas to fishing for sea bass from a boat (MAFF, 1990). The resultant improvement of the exploitation pattern in the inshore fisheries of England and Wales has seen a change from peak exploitation at ages 2 to 5 in the 1980‟s to around age 6 since 1990. This improvement has considerably ameliorated the pattern of growth-overfishing of sea bass which took place in the 1980‟s (ICES, 2002). 5.2 CONSULTATIVE PROCESS At local level, due to the very limited number of licensed netsmen, there is no formal forum for fishermen representation. However the netsmen seem a small and cohesive social group with good communication and a willingness to work together on behalf of all the licensees. There are mechanisms at National level for issues to be raised by industry and other bodies with National Governments and resolved where possible by them. The European Commission is also accessible to interested parties to make direct representations. The Commission may well decide to ask the Member State concerned for its opinion before taking the matter forward. Consideration by the Commission may range from a meeting between DG Fish and the complainant to formal discussion in the Commission's Fisheries Advisory Committee. Any necessary legislative action would be on the basis of a proposal by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Disputes between the Member States and the Commission are resolved in the Council of Ministers if bilateral discussions have not been able to resolve the issue. Both the Commission and the Council of Ministers can be called to account through the normal political process in the European Parliament. Ultimately, any European Citizen or organisation can take legal action against the Council of Ministers in the European Court of Justice. This is a system which is widely known and has been used when considered necessary. The 2001 / 2002 review of the CFP included „road shows‟ led by the Commission and other Consultation processes with all relevant stakeholders including industry and NGO groups. These were designed to provide maximum transparency and feedback about the shape the post 2002 CFP should take.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 25 6 STANDARD USED
The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries form the standard against which the fishery is assessed and are organised in terms of three principles. Principle 1 addresses the need to maintain the target stock at a sustainable level; Principle 2 addresses the need to maintain the ecosystem in which the target stock exists, and Principle 3 addresses the need for an effective fishery management system to fulfil Principles 1 and 2 and ensure compliance with national and international regulations. The Principles and their supporting Criteria are presented below.
PRINCIPLE 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 4: Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that the productive capacities of resources are maintained at high levels and are not sacrificed in favour of short term interests. Thus, exploited populations would be maintained at high levels of abundance designed to retain their productivity, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and retain their capacities for yields over the long term. Criteria: 1. The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2. Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. 3. Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs reproductive capacity.
PRINCIPLE 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. Intent: The intent of this principle is to encourage the management of fisheries from an ecosystem perspective under a system designed to assess and restrain the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.
4 The sequence in which the Principles and Criteria appear does not represent a ranking of their significance, but is rather intended to provide a logical guide to certifiers when assessing a fishery. The criteria by which the MSC Principles will be implemented will be reviewed and revised as appropriate in light of relevant new information, technologies and additional consultations
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 26 Criteria: 1. The fishery is conducted in a way that maintains natural functional relationships among species and should not lead to trophic cascades or ecosystem state changes. 2. The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 3. Where exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields.
PRINCIPLE 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable. Intent: The intent of this principle is to ensure that there is an institutional and operational framework for implementing Principles 1 and 2, appropriate to the size and scale of the fishery. A. Management System Criteria: 1. The fishery shall not be conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement. The management system shall: 2. Demonstrate clear long-term objectives consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and contain a consultative process that is transparent and involves all interested and affected parties so as to consider all relevant information, including local knowledge. The impact of fishery management decisions on all those who depend on the fishery for their livelihoods, including, but not confined to subsistence, artisanal, and fishing-dependent communities shall be addressed as part of this process. 3. Be appropriate to the cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery – reflecting specific objectives, incorporating operational criteria, containing procedures for implementation and a process for monitoring and evaluating performance and acting on findings. 4. Observe the legal and customary rights and long term interests of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood, in a manner consistent with ecological sustainability. 5. Incorporates an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes arising within the system5. 6. Provide economic and social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing and shall not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing. 7. Act in a timely and adaptive fashion on the basis of the best available information using a precautionary approach particularly when dealing with scientific uncertainty.
5 Outstanding disputes of substantial magnitude involving a significant number of interests will normally disqualify a fishery from certification.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 27
8. Incorporate a research plan – appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery – that addresses the information needs of management and provides for the dissemination of research results to all interested parties in a timely fashion. 9. Require that assessments of the biological status of the resource and impacts of the fishery have been and are periodically conducted. 10. Specify measures and strategies that demonstrably control the degree of exploitation of the resource, including, but not limited to: a) setting catch levels that will maintain the target population and ecological community‟s high productivity relative to its potential productivity, and account for the non-target species (or size, age, sex) captured and landed in association with, or as a consequence of, fishing for target species; b) identifying appropriate fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas; c) providing for the recovery and rebuilding of depleted fish populations to specified levels within specified time frames; d) mechanisms in place to limit or close fisheries when designated catch limits are reached; e) establishing no-take zones where appropriate. 11. Contains appropriate procedures for effective compliance, monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement which ensure that established limits to exploitation are not exceeded and specifies corrective actions to be taken in the event that they are. B. Operational Criteria Fishing operation shall: 12. Make use of fishing gear and practices designed to avoid the capture of non-target species (and non-target size, age, and/or sex of the target species); minimise mortality of this catch where it cannot be avoided, and reduce discards of what cannot be released alive. 13. Implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning and nursery areas. 14. Not use destructive fishing practices such as fishing with poisons or explosives; 15. Minimise operational waste such as lost fishing gear, oil spills, on-board spoilage of catch etc. 16. Be conducted in compliance with the fishery management system and all legal and administrative requirements. 17. Assist and co-operate with management authorities in the collection of catch, discard, and other information of importance to effective management of the resources and the fishery.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 28 7 BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION
7.1 EVALUATION TEAM Evaluation leader: Tim Huntington: Tim Huntington is Founder and Director of the Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd, a UK-based international consultancy specialising in fisheries, aquaculture and aquatic environment. He has over twenty years experience in aquaculture and fisheries as a fisheries biologist. He has designed, managed and directed coastal, marine and freshwater resource management projects in Europe and many other countries worldwide and is an environmental impact assessment specialist with wide-ranging experience of fisheries and aquaculture development world-wide. He has recent experience in fisheries, aquaculture and „chain of custody‟ certification. Recent or ongoing projects he has taken part in include assessment of World Fisheries By-catch Issues for FAO; Feasibility Study for the Environmental Certification of Aquaculture for MSC; Assessment of Environmental Variables for Inclusion in the Common Fisheries Policy (EU); Evaluation of the NAFO Fisheries Observer Programme (EU) and Valuation of Biodiversity Damage for Environmental Liability (EU). Tim Huntington led the assessment against Principle 2, but also contributed on Principles 3 and 1. Expert advisor: Mr. John Nichols. John Nichols is a retired UK government fisheries biologist with 42 years research experience in plankton ecosystems, including ichthyoplankton, in the North Atlantic. From 1977 he was involved in plankton surveys for stock assessment. From 1994 to 2000 he was involved in the assessment of pelagic and western demersal fish stocks, including North Sea herring and Thames Estuary herring and North East Atlantic mackerel, running a team of six permanent staff. He has been a member of ICES working groups on herring, mackerel, horse mackerel, sardine and anchovy assessments; and was chairman of the mackerel and horse mackerel egg survey working group. He was also a member of ICES study groups on herring larval surveys and plankton sampling. John provided detailed fishery knowledge and stock management advice in relation to the MSC certification of the Thames Estuary Driftnet herring fishery. John also provided detailed fishery knowledge and stock management advice for the MSC accreditation process for the Pelagic Freezer Association, North Sea herring fishery which is currently ongoing. John Nichols led this assessment against Principles 1 and 3, but also contributed on Principle 2. Expert advisor: Dr. David Bennett. David Bennett has 36 years experience in fisheries research, specialising in the biology, population dynamics, and assessment of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks, the provision of national and international fisheries management advice, and fisheries aspects of environmental impact studies. Dr. Bennett has particular experience in UK crustacean fisheries. David Bennett contributed to all three Principles.
7.2 PREVIOUS CERTIFICATION EVALUATIONS No previous certification evaluations have been carried out for the NESFC sea bass fishery. There is currently an assessment of the NESFC lobster fishery being conducted by the same team in parallel to this assessment.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 29 7.3 INSPECTIONS OF THE FISHERY Inspection of the fishery focused on the practicalities of fishing operations within the NESFC area, the mechanisms and effectiveness of management agencies (DEFRA and the NESFC) and the operation of the fishers. The landing and subsequent handling of fish was also investigated to determine the suitability of fish landed to enter into a subsequent chain of custody. Meetings were held as follows. The key issues discussed have been identified for each meeting. Table 2: Meetings held during the Assessment Process Name Affiliation Date Key Issues David McCandless NESFC 11/10/05 Fisheries research and management Simon Prince Frank Powell Licensed sea bass 12/10/05 Fisheries operation and management Andrew Sanderson netsmen Robbie Fisher Natural England 12/10/05 Conservation issues Steve Bailey Environment 12/10/05 Conservation issues and interactions Agency with salmonid fisheries Nick Garside Defra 12/10/05 Fisheries management (Scarborough) David McCandless NESFC 13/10/05 Post-site visit debriefing meeting Laura Farr Yorkshire Forward Nigel Procter University of 13/10/05 Recreational fisheries activities Hull/ Yorks and Links Assoc. of Recreational Sea Anglers Mike Pawson CEFAS 17/10/05 Fisheries research and management Ken Arkley Seafish Industry Contacted By-catch and gear use Gary Dunlin Authority by phone
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 30 8 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION
8.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION An eventual total of 14 stakeholders were identified and consulted specifically by Moody Marine over both the consultation and fieldwork periods. Information was also made publicly available at the following stages of the assessment: Table 3: Stakeholder Consultations Held Date Purpose Media 03 June 2005 Notification of confirmation of Direct E-mail/letter assessment Notification on MSC website Advertisement in press O6 July 2005 Notification of Assessment Team Direct E-mail nominees Notification on MSC website 29 July 2005 Confirmation of Assessment Team Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 17 August 2005 Consultation on draft Scoring Indicators Direct E-mail and Guideposts Notification on MSC website 13 September Notification of assessment visit and call Direct E-mail 2005 for meeting requests Notification on MSC website 10 – 13 October Assessment visit Meetings 2005 10 March 2006 Notification of Proposed Peer Reviewers Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 17 October 2006 Notification of Draft Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 13 April 2007 Notification of Final Report Direct E-mail Notification on MSC website 10 September – Determination and release of Final Direct E-mail 1 October 2007 Report for stakeholder consultation Notification on MSC website
8.2 STAKEHOLDER ISSUES Feedback from stakeholders was also received on the scoring indicators and guideposts. The only specific issue raised by stakeholders outside of the field visit meetings was the possibility that the nets might include cetaceans as bycatch (email from Ali Ross of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society). This issue was investigated in detail during the site assessment and no evidence was found that this might occur. Fishermen have voluntarily trialled acoustic deterrents (porpoise „pingers‟) on nets and these will be implemented from 2006 on a precautionary basis. The draft Report (v3) was put out for stakeholder consultation for a period of 30 days on 6th November 2006. No comments were received from stakeholders. The Final Report (v5) was put out for stakeholder consultation for a period of 30 days on 10th September 2007. No comments were received from stakeholders.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 31 9 OBSERVATIONS AND SCORING
9.1 INTRODUCTION TO SCORING METHODOLOGY The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements of certified fishery. The certification methodology adopted by the MSC involves the interpretation of these Principles and Criteria into specific Scoring Criteria against which the performance of Fishery can be measured. Performance is determined on the basis of compliance with each Scoring Criterion. The Scoring Criteria developed by the Moody Marine assessment team have been identified on the MSC website (Certification Performance Criteria and Scoring Guidelines). In order to make the assessment process as clear and transparent as possible, these identify the level of performance necessary to achieve 100, 80 (a pass score), and 60 scores for each Indicator. These generic Scoring Indicators and Guideposts have been the subject of stakeholder consultation and have been confirmed or modified following this process based on the judgement of the assessment team. Prior to scoring, the Indicators are also „weighted‟ in relative importance according to the nature of the fishery undergoing certification. At the top level, no weightings are assigned in terms of each MSC Principle; a fishery must „pass‟ each of Principles 1, 2 and 3 in order to achieve certification and these are of equal importance. Within each Principle, Scoring Indicators are grouped in a hierarchy. Each level represents separate areas of important information (e.g. Indicator 1.1 requires a sufficient level of information on the target species and stock, 1.2 requires information on the effects of the fishery on the stock and so on). At the level of Scoring Indicators, the performance of the fishery is assessed as a „score‟. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, an overall score of 80 is considered necessary for each of the three Principles, 100 represents surpassing of the performance necessary and 60 a measurable shortfall. As it is not considered possible to allocate precise scores, a scoring interval of five is therefore used in evaluations. As this represents a relatively crude level of scoring, weighted average scores are rounded to the nearest whole number. Weights and scores for the NESFC sea bass fishery are presented in the scoring table. Weights for criteria, sub-criteria and sub-sub criteria add to a total of 100 for each Principle or Scoring Indicator, Scores are allocated relative to the Scoring Guidelines. 9.2 EVALUATION RESULTS Observations are presented in the scoring table in Appendix A, together with any weighting applied to the Fishery and the scores allocated.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 32 10 LIMIT OF IDENTIFICATION OF LANDINGS FROM THE FISHERY
The extent of the fishery certification is the landing of sea bass by those fishermen licensed by the NESFC to fish for sea bass with fixed beach nets in the area from Flamborough head in the north to Spurn Point in the south. To be eligible to carry the MSC logo, these fish must then enter into separate Chain of Custody certifications.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 33 11 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION
11.1 CERTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION The performance of the NESFC sea bass fishery in relation to MSC Principles 1, 2 and 3 is summarised below: MSC Principle Fishery Performance Principle 1: Sustainability of Exploited Stock 85 Pass Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem 85 Pass Principle 3: Effective Management System 92 Pass
The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria. It is therefore determined that the NESFC sea bass fishery be certified according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.
11.2 SCOPE OF CERTIFICATION This assessment relates only to the fishery defined in Section 1.1 up to the point of landing as defined in Section 10. Monitoring and control of fishing locations and methods is considered sufficient to ensure fish and fish products invoiced as such by the fishery originate from within the evaluated fishery. Accordingly, the assessment team recommend a joint fishery and chain of custody certificate. This would allow fish and fish products from this fishery to enter into further chains of custody subject to appropriate assessment and certification.
11.3 PRE-CONDITIONS, CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CERTIFICATION 11.3.1 Pre-Conditions The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any MSC Criteria. No pre-conditions are therefore required prior to certification being granted.
11.3.2 Conditions The fishery attained a score below 80 against a number of Scoring Indicators. The assessment team has therefore set a condition for continuing certification that the client is required to address. The conditions are applied to improve performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the certification body but no longer than the term of the certification. The conditions are associated with five key areas of performance of the fishery, each of which addresses a number of Scoring Indicators. Condition, associated timescale and relevant Scoring Indicators are set out overleaf.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 34
Condition 1. Accurate recording of fishing mortality In the North Sea there is a poorly quantified mortality on the sea bass stock generated by existing and developing fisheries, both commercial and recreational. Action required: In the NESFC district, the total catch of sea bass, both commercial and recreational, including that taken by both boat and shore anglers should be recorded or accurately estimated. For the shore-based netsmen subject of this certification, reporting should include all sea bass landings and any discards on an appropriate time interval. NESFC should encourage participation in the CEFAS voluntary logbook scheme by all fishermen operating in their district, and more widely through the association of SFC‟s, as far as possible Timescale: This should be commenced within 1 year of certification Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.2.1, 3A.6.1
Condition 2. Appropriate reference points / Decision Rules for biomass Appropriate reference points for stock biomass and fishing mortality have not been developed for the North Sea stock. These reference points are required in order that appropriate decision rules can be developed to manage the stock in accordance with the ICES Precautionary Approach. Action required: NESFC should liaise with CEFAS in order to ascertain their part in the overall strategy which will lead to the development of appropriate reference points for the North Sea stock. Once their part in the overall strategy has been determined, NESFC must ensure that they carry out all the requirements. Timescale: This should be commenced in 1 year of certification Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.3.1, 1.1.4.2, 1.1.5.4, 3A.6.2,
Condition 3. Improvement of biological sampling / stock monitoring indices The collection of reliable biological data, (length, sex, weight, age, maturity) for stock assessment and management, needs to be greatly improved for the North Sea. There is also a need to establish fishery dependant and fishery independent indices, specific to the North Sea stock. Action required: NESFC should liaise with CEFAS and: (i) set up a system for the sampling of net catches and beach and boat angling catches from their district, as required by CEFAS (ii) discuss appropriate ways to help provide fishery dependent and fishery independent indices for stock assessment and modelling. The NESFC should encourage other SFC‟s to become involved in improving data collection in their areas through the national association of SFC‟s. Timescale: This should be commenced in 1 year of certification Relevant Scoring Indicators: 1.1.1.5
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 35 Condition 4. Recording of by-catch of seabirds and sea mammals Action required: Set up recording scheme to record all seabird and sea mammal bycatch that indicates the fate of the animal involved (i.e. found dead, released injured or unharmed, etc) as well as the tidal and sea prevailing conditions. Timescale: immediately Relevant Scoring Indicators: 2.2.1.2
11.3.3 Recommendations The assessment team has also made two recommendations. These are not required to maintain certification but would improve the performance of the fishery against the MSC Principles and Criteria. Accordingly, the action taken and timescales are at the discretion of the client. The recommendations are as follows. Recommendation 1: Recording of effort. Through the joint monitoring and surveillance schemes with the EA and MFA, the NESFC should set up a system to accurately record or estimate the total direct and indirect effort on sea bass within their district. This should include both the commercial and recreational effort including beach anglers. Advice on the best way forward should be sought from CEFAS. Recommendation 2: Stock assessment modelling. To contribute to the development of an assessment model for the North Sea stock that should be continued to the point where, through the collection of more reliable data for example, it is acceptable as the basis for specific advice on the management of this stock. NESFC could provide data as requested by CEFAS (conditions 1 and 3) in order to encourage the continuing development of appropriate models, with assumptions and uncertainties specified.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 36 12 AGREEMENT
12.1 APPLICANT'S AGREEMENT TO MEET SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. The applicant‟s Action Plan to address the above conditions is appended to this document (see Appendix B on page 39).
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 37 APPENDICES Appendix A: Scoring Table
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 38 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
Principle 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those 33.3 populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. 1.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated 33.3 ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 1.1.1 There should be sufficient information on the target species and stock separation to allow the effects of the fishery on the stock to be evaluated. 16.7 Weighting Commentary No weighting is applied to the MSC Principles – these are equally weighted and each must attain a weighted score of 80 or more for certification to be granted. Within MSC Criterion 1, each element at the next level of the scoring hierarchy (1.1.1 to 1.1.6) is considered to be of equal importance Species identification (1.1.1.1) was weighted high as it is fundamental to 1.1.1. Stock, size, abundance and nature also important. Other elements in 1.1.1 have a longer time scale for assessment, especially environmental influences (1.1.1.7). 1.1.1.1 Are the species readily identified as adults and juveniles? 21.5 100 60 Misidentification is possible and increases The species are readily identified at all stages in their development. This includes the egg and R12, R16, R22, R25, recording errors of catches, but this does not larval stages and the ‘0’ group phase in the inshore nursery areas. In the commercial and R28 compromise monitoring to unacceptable recreational fisheries for sea bass there is no potential for confusion with any other species levels. caught. 80 The target species are unlikely to be confused with any other species at the size caught in the fishery; 100 The species is readily identified throughout its life history. It is easily distinguished in the fishery by fishermen and by regulators and is recorded appropriately.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 1 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.1.2 Is the life history of the species understood and the spawning and nursery areas well described? 13.5 80 60 There are gaps in information but the basis The life history of the species is well understood and fully described. Egg and larvae surveys R8, R10, R14, R18, of the life history is understood. Information have helped to determine the offshore nature of the spawning areas in the English Channel and R20, R22, R28, is adequate to support a general population this has been supported by the results of tagging. Inshore surveys and sampling in the vicinity Pawson pers. comm. model. There is little information on of cooling water outflows from estuarine power stations has helped to identify the nursery areas spawning and nursery areas. for bass in English and Welsh coastal waters. 80 The life history of the species is clearly documented and understood. Information is Extensive tagging studies, of both juveniles and mature adults have confirmed the seasonal adequate to support an appropriate migration patterns of juveniles from the nursery areas and adults to the pre-spawning and population model. Spawning and nursery spawning areas. areas are well described This does result in a degree of mixing between designated stock units which complicates the 100 The life history of the species is clearly process of population modelling for assessment purposes. documented and understood including behaviour and ecological interactions. Much of the above information relates to stock units of sea bass in English and Welsh waters Spawning and nursery areas are well and the information for other NW European areas is not so extensive. There is also some described in spatial and temporal detail. This evidence that sea bass are now spawning in the North Sea but the spawning area and related information is sufficiently well documented nursery areas have not been described. Because the sea bass population appears to be to support closed area / seasons where this is expanding, and is dynamic, the situation is changing and full knowledge of spawning and deemed necessary. nursery areas is perhaps not to be expected in the North Sea.
The fishery scores well in terms of knowledge of life history, but less well in terms of knowledge of spawning and nursery areas, although these can be easily determined, as required environmental conditions are well known.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 2 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.1.3 Is the geographical range of the target stock known and any seasonal migration described? 13.3 90 60 An estimate of the geographical range of the The geographical range of the Atlantic sea bass and the seasonal migration is well known and R8, R10, R18, R20, target stock is available. A management unit described. Extensive tagging studies have confirmed the pattern of migration of both juveniles R22. approximating the stock is used with some in inshore areas and the spawning migrations of mature adults. Recent tagging studies have CEFAS meeting biological justification. confirmed that the seasonal pattern of migration has changed little over the years other than a 80 A reliable estimate of the current geographic tendency for adults to remain longer in inshore areas and in the North Sea in winter. range of the target stock is available including seasonal patterns of movement Because of the migratory nature of the species there is mixing between designated adjacent and availability. stock units. This is particularly so for the North Sea stock unit although recent studies have 100 The complete geographic range of the stock, suggested that such mixing has become less as the species begins to establish itself as a including seasonal patterns of spawning unit in the North Sea. movement/availability, is estimated and documented each year. Changes in the Considering the dynamic nature of the expanding sea bass population, the detailed knowledge distribution of the stock, over time, are well of seasonal migration and the changes occurring is impressive. documented and described.
1.1.1.4 Is there information on fecundity and growth? 13.3 85 60 There is some information available on There is a reasonable international data set relating to growth rates in length and weight at age R7, R8, R10, R19, fecundity and growth which can be used in and maturity which is sufficient to for stock modelling. For some ICES Divisions, including the stock assessment process. IVb,c, there is an extensive UK data set for sex ratio, maturity and weight at age based on 80 Estimates are available of fecundity at size biological sampling, from 1982 to 1990 (R18) and from UK offshore bass fishery 1999 and and growth rates, sufficient to fully inform 2000. Some data on weight at age are available on a quarterly basis over the period 1994 to and enhance the stock assessment process. 2003. These data serve to monitor and identify any changes in these parameters with time. 100 There is comprehensive and reliable There has also been specific sampling for length at age, wt at age, and maturity from the information on the fecundity at size, growth Yorkshire gill-net fishery for comparison with other areas. rates, and length and weight at age. These Natural mortality is estimated as part of the stock assessment process at 0.1 factors are monitored over time to detect trends and shifts. Factors affecting annual Specific data on fecundity is sparse and for most areas non-existent. However this is not a variability in fecundity and growth are well parameter currently used in the present generation of stock assessment models and therefore known and fully described does not affect the process.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 3 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.1.5 Is information collected on the abundance, density and age/sex composition of the stock? 16.7 75 60 Either fishery dependent or fishery All the quantitative data available on abundance, stock density age and sex composition of the R8, R10, R17, R21, independent indices are available on the stock and CPUE data sets comes directly from the various fisheries, for bass, both commercial R23 abundance of the stock biomass. Qualitative and recreational. The only fishery independent survey data is a series of seven ‘0’ group and information exists on the appropriateness of older juvenile surveys which provide a valuable recruitment index. Two of these are in the the indices as proportional indicators of North Sea and one, the Solent survey, in the adjacent ICES Division VIId. Solent index shows stock size. good correlation with subsequent yr-class strength in the fishable stock. 80 Fishery dependent and/or fishery independent indices are available on the There are currently no other fishery independent survey data and therefore no fishery abundance and age/sex composition of the independent indices of stock abundance. Through the ICES Study Bass Group attempts stock. Uncertainties have been analysed and continue to be made to obtain data of this nature in order to improve the stock assessment those uncertainties have been reduced so as process. The fishery related CPUE (LPUE) indices, over the period 1986 - 2002 currently to allow trends to be determined from provide some useful information on stock abundance and recruitment generally but are indices. unreliable for estimates of fishing mortality. The weakness of these indices is the unreliable 100 Fishery dependent and/or fishery nature of the landings data. As a consequence they are at present only considered to be independent indices are available on the indicative of common features of SSB trends within stocks and recruitment patterns within and abundance, density and age/sex composition between stocks of the stock. Indices are consistent and there is clear evidence that they are proportional Again, one of the complicating factors for the North Sea and eastern English Channel is the to the stock size. rate of change in stock status, distribution and behaviour (especially spawning in the North Sea).
Condition 3 applies to this PI and requires NESFC to liaise with CEFAS and set up a system to improve the biological sampling of all bass catches in their area.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 4 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.1.6 Is the size structure and sex ratio of the landings and discards measured? 15.2 85 60 Data on the size structure and sex ratio of Landings data are collected on an international basis and there are some national biological R7, R8, R10, R21 catches are known well enough to support a sampling programmes. The most comprehensive of these data sets comes from the UK Meeting with frank rudimentary evaluation of the fishery. biological sampling programme. This provides comprehensive and reliable information on Powell length, and sex ratio in the landings from the UK inshore and offshore fisheries dating back to 80 Data on the size structure and sex ratio of 1982. The data set also includes information about the recreational bass catch. catches in the main fishery are of adequate accuracy and measured for enough years to There are some limited discard data available for the UK commercial and recreational handline support a high degree of confidence in the fisheries via the CEFAS voluntary log book scheme. Most of the discarded fish are expected to evaluation of the fishery. survive. There are no reliable data on discarding in the North Sea offshore fisheries.
100 There is comprehensive and reliable data on There is a very comprehensive data set, from two fishermen operating fixed shore nets in the the size Holderness coast area for the period January 2004 to November 2005 in which the whole catch Structure and sex ratio of all significant is recorded on a daily basis (including some size and sex composition data). catches (including any recreational catches) to support a very high degree of confidence in the evaluation of the fishery.
1.1.1.7 Is information available on environmental influences on the stock dynamics? 6.6 90 60 There are some studies on the effects of All the evidence in relation to NW European bass stocks suggests that environmental R8, R10, R12, R17, biological and physical influences on the influences have played a significant part in the changes in distribution and abundance and also R24, stock (including natural mortality). Research in the variability in year class strength. An increase in water temperature in the English is encouraged and ongoing. Channel and the North Sea in the late 1980’s did lead to better conditions for growth and 80 There is some knowledge of biological and survival of bass. That factor, plus a succession of strong year classes following on from the physical factors affecting distribution, exceptionally large year class, in 1989, has led to an expansion of the stock northwards survival and year class strength (including throughout the North Sea. natural mortality). 100 There is comprehensive knowledge of In relation to year class strength there is a positive correlation between sea temperature patterns biological and physical factors affecting and bass recruitment in some areas which is explained by improved reproductive performance distribution, survival and year class strength and first year survival of bass at higher sea temperatures (cold temperatures are key factor in (including natural mortality). Key natural mortality in 0 group bass). information is sufficiently robust for use in the stock assessment process.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 5 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.2 There should be sufficient information on the fishery to allow its effects on the target stock to be evaluated 16.7 Weighting Commentary Knowledge of mortality considered fundamental, as is the level of effort. 1.1.2.1 Are all major sources of fishery related mortality recorded/ estimated, including landings, 23.2 70 discards, incidental mortality and mortality of juveniles? 60 Sufficient information is available to allow Although the North Sea is now designated as a separate stock unit for management purposes R7, R8, R10, R21 accurate estimates to be made of landings the official landings statistics are combined for ICES Divisions IVb,c and VIId. North Sea data Pawson pers. Comm.. broken down as required for stock now independently available (and in press), but not yet separated in ICES official landing Meeting with Frank assessment. Estimates of discards and statistics. Powell. incidental mortality are available. Meeting with Nigel 80 All landings / catches are accurately There are some data available on the North Sea split, between 1984 and 2003 but these are Procter (Yorks, recorded. The sources of discarding and considered to be of poor quality. In recent years The Netherlands has begun to provide official Lincs, Assoc. of incidental mortality are well known and landings data for bass. It is recognised that official landings data underestimate the actual catch recreational Anglers. can be estimated. Mortality on juveniles is (fishing mortality) of bass in most areas although the fisheries in the English Channel have monitored and recorded separately. been well sampled in recent years. The CEFAS voluntary log book scheme has proven to be a 100 Landings, anglers catches, discards and valuable tool to calculate a best estimate of actual landings data although it is only directly incidental mortality are all accurately applicable to the UK landings and currently does extend as far north as the Holderness coast monitored and recorded. Mortality on and has been expanded recently. The log book scheme also includes a sample of UK charter juveniles is monitored and recorded and casual angling boats to provide some estimate of the recreational catch which can represent separately as much as one third of the total fishing mortality on bass.
In the Holderness coast area there is an unrecorded catch of bass from part time netsmen and anglers operating both from the shore and from boats. Commercial (licensed) landings data are recorded by both NESFC and EA
Discarding in the offshore bass fisheries is considered to be negligible, because it is targeted mainly on the adult portion of the population. Both the UK and French fleets provide discard data for their trawl fisheries in the English Channel. In the inshore commercial line and recreational angling fisheries, discards of undersized fish are returned to the sea live. In the fixed net and offshore gill net fisheries, mesh size regulation dictate that only marketable size fish are retained and therefore there is considered to be no discarding of bass (see also 1.1.1.6.above). Mesh regulation bans 65-90mm mesh therefore only 36cm+ bass expected to be caught. Condition 1 applies to this PI and requires the NESFC to accurately record the all bass catches in their area, both commercial and recreational. All commercial bass fishermen should be encouraged to participate in the CEFAS voluntary log book scheme.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 6 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.2.2 Is fishing effort recorded/ estimated? 23.2 80 60 Data are available which can be used to The effort exerted, in the offshore fisheries is well recorded for the English Channel (French R7, R8, R10, R21, estimate likely fishing effort trends. and UK fleets) and provide good quality data. Similar data, currently available for the North R22, Pawson pers. 80 Accurate estimates of fishing effort can be Sea, are considered by ICES to be of poor quality. However there are very detailed data about comm. made. the number of UK boats fishing for bass in the North Sea since 1985 and also the netting fleets. Meeting NESFC 100 Comprehensive records are kept of fishing Meeting CEFAS effort from both full and part-time fishers, On the Holderness coast the effort exerted by commercial licensed fishermen is well recorded. recorded at sub-annual intervals at an There is however, an unrecorded effort of part timers targeting bass, anglers (which could be appropriate degree of spatial resolution. significant) and some commercial boat fishermen. This issue is now being addressed through the extension of the CEFAS voluntary logbook scheme to this area over the past two years.
Trends in effort are monitored in an ongoing basis. Reasonable data for commercial fishers but not anglers, although numbers of anglers can be estimated.
1.1.2.3 Are the participants, fishing methods and gear types known throughout the fishery? 10.1 80 60 The main fishing methods and gear types are The fleets and the types of gear used (metiers), in the offshore commercial fisheries is well R7, R8, R10, R21, known for this fishery. Information is known and described for the well fished areas of the English Channel. This information is R22, available on the numbers of fishermen and current and up to date. Similar information is available for the expanding North Sea offshore Pawson pers. comm. anglers involved, but this is not monitored or fisheries, but not in such detail, although this is an improving situation, but principally for UK Meeting with Frank regularly updated. based fleets. Powell. 80 The main fishing methods and gear types are Meeting with Nigel known and information is available on On the Holderness coast the number of commercial fishermen involved in catching bass, the Procter (Yorks, where they are used. Records of the no’s of types of gear used and the number of nets deployed, is well known and recorded. Current Lincs, Assoc. of fishermen, the number of fleets of nets and details of the fishery and any changes are known to NESFC officers and noted on a very recreational Anglers. the number of anglers involved in the fishery regular basis. Enforcement on Holderness coast sufficient to control mesh sizes used by part- NESFC meeting are available. This information is always time fishers. EA meeting current and up to date. 100 All fishing methods and gear types Numbers of anglers and part-time fishers not well known, but can be estimated. employed in the fishery are known and well described. In-situ observations are made of fishing practices including the number of fleets of nets used by individuals. Comprehensive knowledge is recorded and regularly updated, on the number of fishermen, full time and part time, and the number of anglers involved.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 7 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.2.4 Is gear selectivity known for the fishery? 7.6 100 60 Information is available on selectivity and A considerable amount of research effort has been put into establishing the selectivity of mesh R18, R23, Pawson qualitative changes in selectivity. sizes and gear types. These data have been used to fully inform the debate and the original pers. comm.. 80 Selectivities of the fixed nets are well decision on a minimum legal landing size of 36cm total length for bass. Similarly these data, estimated by size, sex and maturity stage. backed up by ongoing research are being used to inform the ongoing debate on a possible 100 Full selectivities have been accurately unilateral UK increase in the minimum landing size of bass. estimated for the fixed nets, and the data used to help establish minimum landing sizes.
1.1.2.5 Is the target species taken in other fisheries in the North Sea that are not subject to this 15.5 80 certification and are such catches recorded or estimated? 60 There is some information relating to other Fisheries for bass in the North Sea have been expanding in recent years and they are now taken fisheries in the North Sea that are not subject in offshore fisheries off the Belgian Netherlands and French coasts. Landings data from these R7, R8, R10. to this certification, although these are not fisheries are currently not well recorded but the situation is improving and they are sufficiently CEFAS meeting fully identified. The catches are estimated in well estimated to provide the basis for a stock assessment. the stock assessments. 80 The main fisheries on this stock, not subject The catches in the UK bass fisheries in the southern North Sea, mainly coastal fisheries, are to certification are identified. The catches of well recorded both through DEFRA (MFA) official landings statistics and through the CEFAS the target species are either recorded or log book scheme which includes some charter and boat anglers. However the much lower level estimated in the stock assessments. of bass catches in the central North Sea (ICES Division IVc) which includes the Holderness 100 All fisheries (and other sources of human- coast, are not so well recorded. Official landings from commercial fishermen in this area are induced mortality) on this stock in the North well estimated but generally the recreational catch and the catch from part time fishermen is Sea, that are not subject to this certification, not well known. are identified and monitored. All the catches are recorded and used in the stock assessment.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 8 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.2.6 Are there robust systems to monitor any area and landings misreporting? 20.4 85 60 There is some information on area and Because bass are not a quota species this is not considered to be a big problem in the bass landings misreporting in the offshore fisheries throughout the ICES area. Monitoring systems are in place to estimate unrecorded R7, R8, R10, R21 fisheries. Estimates are included in the stock landings, e.g. from the <10m fleets and to estimate recreational and non-commercial landings. assessments. There is anecdotal information on the Good monitoring systems are in place to observe and control reporting of landings in the near- misreporting and under-reporting of catches shore fixed net fishery. in the near-shore fixed net and angling fishery. 80 Monitoring systems are in place to observe and control misreporting in the offshore fisheries Where it occurs, it is carefully evaluated and taken into account in the stock assessment. There are good monitoring systems in place to observe and control reporting of landings in the near-shore fixed net and angling fisheries. 100 A high degree of mandatory, modern, technical; surveillance measures are in place to monitor and control misreporting of both area of capture and landings in the offshore fisheries. Where it occurs, reliable estimates are made and used in the stock assessment. Robust monitoring and control measures are in place for the near-shore fixed net and angling fishery.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 9 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.3 Appropriate reference levels have been developed for the stock 16.7 1.1.3.1 Are there appropriate limit and precautionary reference points based on both biomass and 100 75 fishing mortality? 60 Limit and precautionary reference points for Formal ICES reference points have not yet been defined for any of the bass stocks in the ICES R8, R10, Pawson the North Sea stock have been chosen and area. pers. comm. are considered appropriate for the long term sustainability of the fishery. A preliminary assessment of the status of the North Sea stock, based on current levels of data, 80 Limit and precautionary reference points for concludes that it is currently not possible to set either absolute or relative F reference points the North Sea stock are justified based on based on stock and recruitment relationships because the stock recruitment relationship is weak stock biology (e.g. a stock-recruitment and is driven by increasing recruitment and not by SSB. Furthermore the stocks of bass in the relationship) and are measurable given data Channel and North Sea appear to be expanding and therefore there is currently no idea of the and assessment limitations. ‘carrying capacity’ in those areas upon which to begin to determine SSB reference points. 100 Limit and precautionary reference points for the North Sea stock are justified based on However, the results of the recent preliminary assessments suggest that the exploitation of bass stock biology, uncertainty, variability, data stocks in all UK coastal waters is sustainable, and precautionary, at a level of F of around 0.2 to limitations and statistical simulations of 0.3. This is being developed on an ongoing basis as the stock and fisheries develop. these factors. The proposed new NESFC byelaws would effectively reduce landings below their current level and control the commercial effort to no more than is currently exerted, through a licensing scheme. Reference levels could be considered to be an SSB no lower than the current level once determined and fishing mortality no higher than the present level.
Condition 2 applies to this PI and requires the NESFC to liaise with CEFAS to determine what part they can play in a strategy to develop appropriate reference points and then to take what action is needed.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 10 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.4 There is a well-defined and effective harvest strategy to manage the target stock. 16.7 Weighting Commentary The three indicators at this level were considered to be of equal significance. 1.1.4.1 Is there a mechanism in place to contain harvest as required? 33.3 85 60 Mechanisms exist to monitor and (if Because bass stocks currently appear to be increasing in the eastern English Channel and R8, R9, R10 necessary) reduce harvest. These further expanding into the North Sea, a very careful watch is being kept on the developing NESFC meeting. mechanisms have not been tested, but a fisheries by the ICES. The results of the most recent assessments suggest that bass stocks in CEFAS meeting system is in place whereby they could be ICES Divisions IVb,c, VIId VIIe,h, VIIa,f,g appear to be fished with an exploitation pattern strengthened as necessary. and a fishing mortality that causes little growth overfishing and these factors combine to give 80 Mechanisms are in place to reduce harvest near maximum yield per recruit. If this situation begins to change then advice would quickly as and when required to maintain, or allow become available through the ICES monitoring system and measures could be put in place both the target stock to return to, productive unilaterally and internationally through the EU. levels. 100 Robust mechanisms are in place to reduce These ICES / EU mechanisms are robust as can be seen from actions in recent years in relation harvest as and when required to maintain (or to depleted fisheries (North Sea herring, cod recovery programmes) and have been proven to be allow the target stock to return to productive effective in similar cases (North Sea herring). levels. The proposed methods of input and/or output control are well described and ICES are currently advising that the implementation of ‘input’ controls (preferably through measures to demonstrate their potential technical measures aimed at protecting juvenile fish, in conjunction with entry limitations into effectiveness are in place. the offshore fishery in particular) should be promoted and that ‘output’ controls, such as TAC’s are inappropriate. They also advise that fishing effort on bass should not be increased in any area although no attempts have been made for capping effort ion most EU countries, as no mechanism currently exists.
NESFC control effort by inshore fishermen by licensing and area and seasonal restrictions – further developed in proposed bylaws to limit number of nets in any sub-area.
A well-defined strategy is in place, not yet required, but available as required.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 11 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.4.2 Are clear, tested decision rules set out? 33.3 75 60 It can be demonstrated that the decision making Current decision rules are clearly based on a careful monitoring of developing fisheries R9, process has been recorded and that it is logical and and increasing stock size in some areas. Any requirement to reduce harvest will be NESFC meeting appropriate. Rules have not been tested. based on ‘input’ controls via technical measures such as increasing minimum landing CEFAS meeting 80 Clear decision making rules exist, are fully size (MLS), changes in minimum mesh size and controlling effort via licensed entry to a documented, but have not been fully tested. fishery. Such measures are explicit in the current ICES advice on bass stocks and in UK Decision rules are reconciled with reference points unilateral investigations into increasing MLS. and with data and assessment limitations. 100 Clear, documented and tested decision rules are However, decision rules have not been formally documented. Testing has taken place to fully implemented and have been fully reconciled some extent as 36cm min size tested and shown to increase yield per recruit, further with reference points, and the data and assessment increase to 45cm expected to also increase 'yield per recruit'. limitations, and have been periodically evaluated. The UK are currently proposing to unilaterally increase the minimum landing size of bass to 40cm from April 2007. DEFRA have a statutory public consultation process to be applied where appropriate and this proposal is currently subject to that process.
Condition 2 applies to this PI and requires the NESFC to liaise with CEFAS to determine what part they can play in a strategy to develop appropriate reference points and then to take what action is needed.
1.1.4.3 Are appropriate management tools specified to implement decisions in terms of input 33.3 90 and/or output controls? 60 Management tools exist to implement decisions of Management tools are available through the EU Common Fisheries Policy, to R1 input and/or output controls although these are not implement all recommended ‘input’ controls, such as MLS changes, mesh regs, nursery NESFC meeting developed for the specific fishery: or management area closures and licensed entry into fisheries including the big offshore fisheries. EA meeting tools are not fully developed, but are specifically related to the fishery. Some evidence exists to show There are also controls available unilaterally both through national legislation that tools can be effective. (DEFRA)and within the UK through local Sea Fisheries Committees. NESFC can 80 Management tools have been specified to implement decisions through byelaws as per draft by-law for bass fishery. ICES implement decisions of input and/or output currently advise that ‘output’ controls, such as TAC’s are inappropriate for NW controls. These are generic although some attempt European bass fisheries. has been made to relate them to the specific fishery OR tools are lacking in some details but are specifically related to the fishery. Evidence exists to show clearly that tools are effective.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 12 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
100 Management tools, appropriate to the species and fishery, have been specified to implement decisions of input and/or output controls. Tools are responsive, relevant and timely. Performance of the tools has been evaluated and evidence exists to show clearly that tools achieve their objectives.
1.1.5 There is a robust assessment of stocks. 16.7 Weighing Commentary The first four indicators at this level were considered of equal weight. The inclusion of harvest strategies is also considered of use but not such great relevance to this fishery. 1.1.5.1 Are assessment models used and are they appropriate to the biology of the target species 22.2 75 and the type of fishery? 60 Assessment models are used. These are generic but In their most recent advice on the Atlantic Sea bass stocks the ICES Advisory R7, R8, R10, do take account of some specific characteristics of Committee for Fisheries Management states that there are insufficient data to carry out Pawson et al (in the biology of the species and the nature of the an analytical assessment of bass in the North Sea (Sub-area IV). In 2003 and 2004 the prep). fishery. ICES Study Group on Sea Bass carried out a preliminary assessment of the stock units 80 Assessment models are used. Major criteria are in four areas, including the North Sea (Divisions IVb,c) using the SURBA program related to the species and/or the fishery, and address (ICES, CM 2005. ACFM:04 ref G. appendix). ICES considers that this model provides most of the management questions being asked. output which is only suitable for comparative purposes However there are some areas of the assessment that are generic. Since the last Bass Study Group meeting in 2004, however, Pawson (CEFAS) has 100 Assessment models are used and capture all major progressed considerably in an analysis of the data using an appropriate model, which is features appropriate to the biology of the species applicable to the North Sea data set. This will provide the basis for future assessments of and the nature of the fishery and address all of the this species in the North Sea. management questions being asked.
1.1.5.2 Does the assessment take into account major uncertainties in data and have assumptions 22.2 80 been evaluated? 60 Major uncertainties are identified. Some attempt The major uncertainties in relation to bass is the increase in abundance in the eastern R7, R8, R10, has been made to evaluate these in the assessment. Channel and further expansion of the stock northwards into the North Sea; the influence Pawson et al (in 80 The assessment takes into account major of environmental factors, in particular climate warming, and their effect on recruitment prep).. uncertainties in the data and functional and distribution; the variability of recruitment; the estimation of actual fishing mortality relationships. The most important assumptions have in a multi metier situation with no requirement on the part of some sectors to report their been evaluated and the consequences are known. landings (e.g. recreational catch, <10m boat fleets). In the most recent attempt to model
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 13 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
100 The assessment addresses all significant bass stocks an attempt has been made to evaluate and take some of these uncertainties uncertainties in the data and functional relationships into account. and evaluates the assumptions in terms of scope, direction and bias relative to management-related quantities. There is a high degree of confidence in the assessment model for this stock.
1.1.5.3 Are uncertainties and assumptions explored and reflected in management advice? 22.2 80 60 Major uncertainties are recognised and are reported Because of all the uncertainties surrounding the dynamics of the NW European bass R7, R8, R9, R10, in management advice, as well as possible populations all management advice is couched in precautionary terms. Basically Pawson pers. comm implications of those uncertainties on the because of the uncertainties (notably landings data, recreational fishing effort and management advice. recruitment variability), and the lack of any meaningful reference points, the advice is 80 Major uncertainties and assumptions are addressed for no increase in landings from any area and no increase in effort or fishing mortality. in the management advice and through the It is recognised that the bass stock in the North Sea is increasing, and that current appropriate decision rules to address those fishing mortality levels are sustainable. limitations. 100 All significant uncertainties and assumptions are addressed and reflected in the management advice, including appropriate decision rules.
1.1.5.4 Does the assessment evaluate current stock status relative to reference points and make 22.2 75 forecasts for the future? 60 The stock status is estimated relative to reference Because there are currently no formalised reference points for any of the bass stocks it is R8, R9, R10 points. Forecasts of future trends are not made. not possible to fully comply with this criterion. However it is recognised that the 80 The assessment makes an approximated evaluation populations of bass are increasing in the eastern Channel and the North Sea and that the of the stock status relative to the reference points. current levels of fishing mortality, which are low, are sustainable. Because of the Both short and medium term forecasts are made. uncertainty surrounding the reasons for the increase in bass stocks forecasts for the 100 The assessment makes a reliable statistical future are precautionary and based on a status quo situation for effort and F. evaluation of the stock status relative to the reference points and projects these into medium and Condition 2 applies to this PI and requires the NESFC to liaise with CEFAS to longer term projections with probability estimates. determine what part they can play in a strategy to develop appropriate reference points and then to take what action is needed.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 14 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.1.5.5 Does the assessment include the consequences of current harvest strategies? 11.1 80 60 The assessment makes an initial approximation of In the North Sea, Division IVb,c and for Divisions VIId, VIIe,h and VIIa,f,g sea bass R8, R9, R10 the consequences of current harvest strategies. are fished with an exploitation pattern and at a fishing mortality level which causes little 80 The assessment includes a robust approximation of growth overfishing, both combining to give a near maximum yield per recruit. The the consequences of current harvest strategies. succession of strong year classes has enabled the stock biomass to increase in Divisions 100 The assessment includes the consequences of VIId and IVb,c current harvest strategies, forecasts future However in view of all the uncertainties surrounding the current status of bass stocks consequences of these, with probability estimates, and in particular the fluctuation in year class strengths it is recommended that the and evaluates stock trajectories under decision current effort should not be increased and that the current low fishing mortalities should rules. not be increased.
1.1.6 The stock(s) is/are at appropriate reference level(s). 16.7 1.1.6.1 Is the stock(s) at or above reference levels? 100 85 [YES - Criteria 1 is complete. NO - Answer Criteria 2] 60 The stock is likely to be above the limit Trends in the North Sea stock are currently positive in that it has been steadily increasing for R7, R8, R9, R10 reference levels and trends in the stock are some time Pawson pers. comm. positive. If it is below the limit reference There are currently no meaningful reference points but, despite some uncertainties, available point, or there is a declining trend then an evidence is that fishing mortality is low (at or below status quo F) and there is strong evidence appropriate recovery / rebuilding plan is in that SSB is continuing to increase and the species is expanding its range in the North Sea. place (go to 1.2) 80 The stock is above both the target reference levels for SSB and below the target for F. 100 The stock is significantly and has been consistently above target reference levels for SSB and F over recent years.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 15 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.2 (MSC Criterion 2) Where the exploited populations are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is 33.3 allowed to occur to a specified level consistent with the precautionary approach and the ability of the populations to produce long-term potential yields within a specified time frame. Weighting Commentary 1.2.1 If the stock is below the precautionary reference point for either SSB or F, then measures to 100 rebuild the stock are specified Not applicable to this fishery.
1.3 (MSC Criterion 3) Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not alter the age or genetic structure or sex composition to a degree that impairs 33.3 reproductive capacity. 1.3.1 Fishing activity maintains the age, genetic structure or sex composition of the stock to a degree that does not impair reproductive 100 capacity. Weighting Commentary 1.3.1.1 Is there adequate information on the nature and dynamics of sub-populations/sex/age structure? 33.3 95 60 There is some information available on the There is a reasonable body of information on the sex, and age composition of the stocks of bass R8, R10, R17, R19, sex, age and genetic structure of the stock, in NW European waters, including the North Sea stock unit. This is all based on biological Pawson pers. comm. and the relationship of these to reproductive sampling of the fisheries and the provision of a considerable amount of data voluntarily, from capacity. the UK recreational sector. These data are continuously updated and evaluated against the 80 Estimates are available of the sex, age and potential for changes in reproductive capacity. For an example, mesh size and minimum genetic structure of the stock, and the landing size regulations are targeted at maintaining adequate reproductive capacity within the relationship of these to reproductive various populations. capacity. 100 There is comprehensive and reliable There has been a reasonable amount of work done on population structure in bass in relation to information on the sex, age and genetic identifying separate stocks for management purposes. The genetic studies carried out to date structure of the stock, and the relationship of suggest that there is little, if any, sign of population structuring in sea bass in NW European these to reproductive capacity as well as waters where there is still considerable mixing of sea bass. It is therefore unlikely that there are evaluations of the implications of shifts in biologically discrete bass stocks in these areas although populations in the North Sea, Biscay these parameters on productivity and and around Ireland appear to show low interchange of adult fish with adjacent areas. management quantities.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 16 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
1.3.1.2 Is the age/sex/genetic structure of the stock monitored so as to detect any impairment of 33.3 85 reproductive capacity? 60 Population structure is based on some The age and sex structure of the bass populations, including the North Sea, are reasonably well R8, R10, R17, R19, sampling and verification. Some genetic sampled both from the commercial and recreational fisheries. However, target sampling levels Pawson pers. comm. information is available as necessary. from the commercial fishery are not fully met by all the countries participating in the fishery. 80 Population structure is based on adequate Biological sampling is, however, considered to be adequate. sampling and verification for this stock. Ageing errors are estimated and included in Ageing techniques, based on scales, are well established and tested and have been subjected to the stock assessment. Genetic studies have some cross country calibration.. As indicated in 1.3.1.1 above, some genetic studies have been been carried out as appropriate. carried out and these are ongoing in relation to the examination of population structure. 100 Population structure is well estimated with only insignificant errors. Genetic studies have been conducted at appropriate time intervals.
1.3.1.3 Does information from stock assessment indicate any changes in structure that would alter 33.3 85 reproductive capacity? 60 Changes in stock structure have been All the biological sampling and preliminary assessment work carried out to date (despite some R8, R10, R17, R19, detected but there is no evidence of negative weaknesses in the data) do indicate that current level of fishing, in the various fisheries, is not Pawson pers. comm. effect on recruitment of the stock. having an adverse effect on stock structure and that it is not having an effect on recruitment 80 There is no evidence of fishery-related levels to the stocks. Recruitment currently appears to be strongly driven by environmental changes in stock structure that would affect factors and not by SSB. recruitment. 100 Data and assessments strongly indicate a robust age, sex and genetic structure in the stock, such as would maintain reproductive capacity.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 17 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
Principle 2 Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including 33.3 habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends 2.1 (MSC Criterion 1) The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that continually maintain the high productivity of the target population(s) and associated 33.3 ecological community relative to its potential productivity. 2.1.1 There is adequate determination of ecosystem factors relevant to the geographical scale and life history strategy of the target species. 20 Weighting Commentary The potential for bycatch from this fishery was considered of higher relevance than the other factors at this level. 2.1.1.1 Are the nature, sensitivity and distribution of habitats relevant to the fishing operations known? 20 100 60 Information exists but may not be The exact locations of the 5 main net licensees and their 1-3 net stations is known and habitats R22 comprehensive or up to date. The seasonal present are visible at low water (LWS). NESFC meeting distribution of fishing operations is mapped. EA meeting 80 Nature, sensitivity and distribution of all The inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitats are well known as they are shallow (generally <10 m) and Meeting Frank main habitats are known in moderate detail. the bottom substrate mapped by the British Geological Survey in 1991. The area around Powell Information is recent. The distribution of Flamborough Head is particularly well known as it has been designated a candidate SAC fishing operations is monitored. (surveys 1999/2000?). There is also currently an evaluation of the habitats, and fishing 100 The nature, sensitivity and the distribution impacts, within and outside of trawl exclusion zones within the NESFC district. of all habitats relevant to the fishing operations are known in detail. Information is current. The distribution of fishing operations and their effort is well known and is constantly monitored.
2.1.1.2 Is information available on non-target species directly affected by the fishery? 40 95 60 The main non-target species affected by the Detailed information is known about the retained non-target species as most fishers maintain R22, Powell pers. fishery have been identified. accurate haul by haul records. Main by-catch species are sea trout, sole, whiting and to a lesser comm.. Pawson pers. 80 Information is available on most non-target extent cod. comm. species directly affected by the fishery Meeting Frank including some aspects of their distribution These are all commercially important species whose distribution and ecology have been well Powell and/or ecology. studied. 100 Information is available on all non-target species directly affected by the fishery including detailed information on their distribution and ecology.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 18 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.1.1.3 Is information available on the trophic position, status and relationships of the target 20 90 species within the food web? 60 Key prey, predators and competitors are known. The sea bass is a top predator. As such there is comprehensive generic information on 80 Qualitative information is available on the position, its position and relationship within the food web at key life stages. As this is a recently relationships and importance of target species in the established species in the central North Sea, localised relationships are less well known, environment at key life stages. but are likely to be similar 100 Comprehensive data are available on the position and importance of the target species and their relationships within the food web at key life stages.
2.1.1.4 Is there information on the potential for the ecosystem to recover from fishery related 20 95 impacts? 60 Key elements of the functioning of the nearshore The nearshore environment, especially the inter-tidal elements are highly dynamic and R26, R27 ecosystem, relevant to the fishery, are identified. capable of absorbing considerable perturbation without long-term effects. The ecology 80 The main elements of the functioning of the of these shores are well known as is their ability to recover for physical alteration. nearshore ecosystem, relevant to the fishery, have been documented and are understood. 100 Detailed information is available on the potential for affected elements of the nearshore ecosystem to recover from fishery related impacts.
2.1.2 General risk factors are adequately determined. 20 Weighting Commentary Both factors as this level were considered of equal importance. 2.1.2.1 Is information available on the nature and extent of the by-catch (capture of non-target 50 90 species)? 60 Qualitative information is available on significant Quantitative information on the bycatch of these nets has been collected for at least two I1, I10, R22 by-catch species and this can be used to inform years on a haul by haul basis, and is therefore based upon at least one of the 5 licensed relevant bodies. operators within the fishery. The nature of bycatch has been recorded on a species basis 80 Quantitative information is available on significant and further biological sampling (e.g. length, sex and weight compositions) has been by-catch species. If obtained by sampling, this is recorded for the key salmonid bycatch. considered sufficient to provide adequate information. 100 Accurate records are kept, by all participants in the fishery, on the nature and extent of all by-catch species. The records include species size and sex composition of the by-catch.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 19 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.1.2.2 Is information available on the extent of discarding (the proportion of the catch not landed)? 50 80 60 Monitoring of the fishery is adequate to Discarding in bass fisheries generally is considered to be very low and in the fixed net and line R22, I1, I4, I5, I10 determine whether any discarding is fisheries it is virtually non existent. Discards are not currently recorded but are easily occurring. Where discarding occurs, monitored as the fishery is essentially land-based. Selectivity of gear is high and so discarding monitoring provides information on the is of little importance as most if not all of the catch is marketable and landed. Notwithstanding extent of discarding including an assessment this, it would be desirable that records of all discarded catch are recorded and quantified. of the main species represented. 80 Monitoring of the fishery is sufficient to detect discarding when it occurs and to allow estimates of discarding to be calculated and interpreted. 100 Monitoring of the fishery detects all discarding when it occurs and provides accurate and verifiable information on the extent of all discarding and the consequences of this practice. Or the entire catch is landed.
2.1.3 There is adequate knowledge of the effects of gear-use on the receiving ecosystem and extent and type of gear losses. 20 Weighting Commentary Habitat impacts of gear are considered minimal whilst ghost fishing is substantially more likely 2.1.3.1 Is there adequate knowledge of the physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear? 25 95 60 Main impacts of gear use on the habitat are Habitat impacts are limited to the positioning of anchors in the sand veneer and clay substrate. R22, I1, I4, I5, I10 identified including extent, timing and In addition, the net and its attendant bridles will contact the benthic substrate, especially during location of use. low tides when the net, top lines and floats and bridles will be laid upon the exposed sand. 80 Impacts of gear use on the habitat are Given the highly dynamic and exposed nature of the intertidal zone, it is considered that this identified including extent, timing and light gear will not have any long-term habitat impact and do not warrant specific study. location of use and estimates of habitat recovery. 100 The physical impacts on the habitat due to use of gear have been studied and quantified, including details of any irreversible changes.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 20 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.1.3.2 Is any gear lost during fishing operations and can ‘ghost fishing’ occur? 75 95 60 Gear losses are recorded and an assessment Despite the exposed nature of the gear, complete gear loss is unknown. This is mainly due to R22, I1, I4, I5, I10 can be made of possible ‘ghost fishing’. the large number of anchors used to secure the gear in the intertidal zone. The gear is 80 There is complete knowledge of the type, vulnerable to splitting, especially when seaweed builds up on the current side, however no quantity and location of gear lost during portion of the net sheet has ever been actually lost. The gear is uninstalled and removed from fishing operations and the level of success in site if poor weather is anticipated. Based on this, specific study of this issue with this gear is gear recovery attempts. not considered warranted. 100 Gear loss in this fishery is negligible and when it occurs retrieval is routinely and If parts of the gear is lost, the fate is this is most probably to roll and accrete into a non-fishing comprehensively carried out. Because of the form. Some loss of gear from part-time fishermen (not subject to this certification assessment) nature of the fishery and the action of the may occur. fishermen there is no possibility of ghost fishing occurring.
2.1.4 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant impacts of the fishery 20 on the ecosystem. Weighting Commentary The two factors at this level were considered of equal importance 2.1.4.1 Are levels of acceptable impact determined and reviewed? 50 85 60 There is sufficient information to determine Bass stocks currently appear to be increasing in the eastern English Channel and further R10, R22, I1, I4, I5, acceptable impacts for main target and non- expanding into the North Sea, so very careful watch is being kept on the developing fisheries by I10 target species and habitats. the scientists involved. The results of the most recent assessments suggest that bass stocks in 80 Levels of acceptable impacts (e.g. biological ICES Divisions IVb,c, VIId VIIe,h, VIIa,f,g appear to be fished with an exploitation pattern and reference points) for key aspects of the a fishing mortality that causes little growth overfishing and these factors combine to give near ecosystem within main fishing areas have maximum yield per recruit. If this situation begins to change then advice would quickly become been estimated and are regularly reviewed. available through the ICES monitoring system and measures could be put in place both 100 Levels of acceptable impact for key unilaterally in the UK and internationally through the EU. populations (such as of indicator species) and habitats have been estimated and are The impact on the key non-target species, sea trout, is monitored by the Environment Agency subject to frequent review. and levels of acceptable impact have been established and are regularly reviewed. Other bycatch species are taken at insignificant levels in this fishery and are also subject to different levels of management regulation, most being quota species.
The impact on the dynamic inter-tidal habitat is considered negligible and therefore unnecessary to estimate or monitor.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 21 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.1.4.2 Are management objectives set in terms of impact identification and avoidance/reduction? 50 85 60 Limited management objectives exist that For sea bass, current decision rules are clearly based on a careful monitoring of developing R10, R22, I1, I4, I5, identify ecosystem impacts and lead to some fisheries and increasing stock size in some areas. Any requirement to reduce harvest will be I10 degree of avoidance/reduction. based on ‘input’ controls via technical measures such as increasing minimum landing size 80 Management objectives are set to detect and (MLS), changes in minimum mesh size and controlling effort via licensed entry to a fishery. reduce ecosystem impacts, although these Such measures are explicit in the current ICES advice on bass stocks and in UK unilateral have not been fully tested. These are investigations into increasing MLS. designed to adequately protect key aspects of the ecosystem within main fishing areas. For migratory salmonids, the Environment Agency has set clear management objectives that 100 Tested management objectives are set to have been fully tested. detect and reduce impacts. These are designed to adequately protect ecosystems, No management objectives have been specifically considered necessary for inter-tidal habitat habitats and populations of target and non- maintenance, although these areas are subject to development control. target species.
2.1.5 Assessments of impacts associated with the fishery including the significance and risk of each impact, show no unacceptable impacts 20 on the ecosystem structure and/or function, on habitats or on the populations of associated species. Weighting Commentary All factors were considered of equal importance except for habitat impacts (2.1.5.4) which were considered likely to be insignificant with this gear type. 2.1.5.1 Have the significant effects of the fishery on the ecosystem been identified? 22.2 85 60 Main impacts of the fishery on the nearshore The impacts of the fishery upon the dynamic inter-tidal and sub-tidal habitats are considered of R26, R27, I1, I4, I5, ecosystem are known from existing low magnitude and short-term. Their impacts on target and bycatch species transitorily present I10 information. over high water periods have been established through landing data and length-frequency 80 There is a comprehensive evaluation of the studies. effects of the fishery on the nearshore ecosystem based on existing information. 100 The effects of the fishery on the nearshore ecosystem have been identified by appropriate comparative and/or experimental studies.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 22 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.1.5.2 Does the removal of target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and function? 22.2 80 60 The removal of target stocks could lead to In terms of the wider North Sea context, the sea bass is a voracious predator and may exert R10, R22, I1, I4, I5, impacts upon ecological systems (applying considerable pressure on lower trophic levels. However it is recently expanded into this particular I10 the precautionary approach where nearshore ecosystem, possibly to fill niches vacated by species impacted by environmental change necessary). A program is in development to and other factors. Therefore the impact of expanding sea bass populations, and the modifying identify these and, if appropriate, reduce effect of their removal by fishing pressure on this overall change, is not known and still undergoing these to acceptable, defined limits. change. Given this scenario, the sea bass fishery may or may not be influencing a possibly 80 Some information is available on changing ecology which is essentially outside the influence of the fishery. consequences of current levels of removal of target species. These suggest no However, landings within the NESFC fishery are minimal in relation to overall population levels unacceptable impacts of the fishery on and landings in the North Sea and so are unlikely to have ecological consequences of any ecological systems within the nearshore significance. fishing zone. 100 The ecological consequences of current levels of removal of target stocks has been quantified and documented to be within acceptable, pre-determined, limits.
2.1.5.3 Does the removal of non-target stocks have unacceptable impacts on ecosystem structure and 22.2 90 function? 60 The removal of non-target stocks could lead The coastal salmonid fishery has been monitored (by the EA) for many years and its impact upon I4, I5 to impacts upon ecological systems river returns reasonably well understood. There is no suggestion that the inter-tidal gill net fishery (applying the precautionary approach where has any unacceptable impact on coastal or riverine ecological systems. necessary). A program is in development to identify these and, if appropriate, reduce The level of bycatch other than salmonids is low and based on current landings will not have an these to acceptable, defined limits. impact upon coastal ecosystems. 80 Some information is available on consequences of current levels of removal of non-target species. These suggest no unacceptable impacts of the nearshore fishery on ecological systems within this area. 100 The ecological consequences of current levels of removal of non-target stocks has been quantified and documented to be within acceptable, pre-determined, limits.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 23 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.1.5.4 Does the fishery have unacceptable impacts on habitat structure? 11.1 95 60 There is no evidence from direct or No unacceptable impacts of the fishery on the nearshore habitat are considered likely or have been R26, R27 comparative studies that the fishery is demonstrated. The impacts of minor shoreline modification in a dynamic environment are well having unacceptable impacts, although the known and the impacts of net installation and use are considered to be within acceptable limits. issue has not been directly studied. 80 No unacceptable impacts of the fishery on the nearshore habitat have been demonstrated. 100 Effects on the nearshore habitat structure are well documented and are within acceptable tested/justified limits.
2.1.5.5. Are associated biological diversity, community structure and productivity affected to 22.2 85 unacceptable levels? 60 From the information available there is no The effects of the fishery on biological diversity, community structure and productivity are R26, R27 evidence that the fishery is having considered to have no unacceptable impacts. unacceptable impacts, although the issue has not been directly studied. 80 The effects of the fishery on biological diversity, community structure and productivity have been considered and no unacceptable impacts have been found. 100 The effects of the fishery on biological diversity, community structure and productivity have been quantified and are within acceptable tested/justified limits
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 24 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.2 (MSC Criterion 2) The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten biological diversity (at the genetic, species or population levels and avoids 33.3 or minimises mortality of, or injuries to endangered, threatened or protected species. 2.2.1 Fishing is conducted in a manner, which does not have unacceptable impacts on recognised protected, endangered or threatened 50 species. Weighting Commentary All three factors were considered of equal importance at this level 2.2.1.1 Is there information on the presence and populations of protected, endangered or threatened 33.3 90 species? 60 There is a program in place to identify Sea mammals: seals (not a protected species in the context of this fishery) are known to follow I1, I4, I5, I10, R26, protected, threatened and endangered sea trout migrations over summer months and therefore are likely to be found in the vicinity of R27 species directly related to the fishery. There the net fisheries. Populations are monitored. Both grey seal and common seal populations in the is periodic monitoring of the main western North Sea are increasing. population trends and status of protected, endangered and threatened species. Cetacean populations are well known and a new census is planned. Larger sea mammals such 80 All protected, threatened and endangered as porpoises are not known to be found in these shallow inshore waters except under unusual species directly related to the fishery have circumstances e.g. unexplained stranding or illness. been identified. The populations of all protected, threatened and endangered Fish: no protected fish species interact significantly with this fishery species directly related to the fishery are monitored on a regular basis. Seabirds. Flamborough Head/Bempton Cliffs to the north are major seabird breeding sites and 100 There is knowledge of all populations of populations are subject to close monitoring. Seabird activity in the vicinity of these gears is low protected species directly or indirectly as most will feed in clear, deeper waters rather than the highly turbid intertidal zone. related to the fishery including their dynamics. Regular monitoring of protected, Other Species. No other protected, endangered or threatened species are known to interact endangered and threatened species is with the fishery. undertaken, supported by research programmes to assess threats and promote their conservation. The type and distribution of critical habitats have been identified.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 25 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.2.1.2 Are potential and actual interactions of the fishery with such species adequately determined? 33.3 75 60 The main interactions directly related to the Sea mammals: Over four years of operation, no live seals are known to have been caught in I1, I4, I5, I10, R26, fishery are known. these nets and the fishery does not take place at a breeding location where these species are R27 80 Quantitative estimates are made of the protected. effects of all interactions directly related to the fishery. There is a requirement to record Interactions with porpoises (the only cetacean present) has not been quantified, information and report all incidental mortalities. suggests all are offshore of net locations and no mortalities or interactions with gear have been 100 Reliable quantitative estimates are made of recorded. Fishermen have voluntarily trialled acoustic deterrents (porpoise pingers) on nets and the interactions of all populations directly these will be implemented from 2006 on a precautionary basis. related to the fishery, and qualitative information is available on indirect impacts. Fish:. no protected, endangered or threatened fish species are known to interact with the Incidental mortalities are recorded and fishery. reported. Seabirds. There is some bird by-catch reported, mostly in the upper part of the seaward portion of the net. Fishermen estimate that around 10 birds may be caught annually by each netting station, with the majority being released alive. Most of these are reported to be guillemots, with a smaller number of razorbills. No seagulls or gannets are apparently caught.
Other Species. No other protected, endangered or threatened species are known to interact with the fishery.
2.2.1.3 Do interactions pose an unacceptable risk to such species? 33.3 85 60 Known effects are within acceptable limits Sea mammals: Critical interactions are estimated and would not threaten protected species. I1, I4, I5, I10, R26, of national and international legislative R27 requirements and are believed to create no Fish: Critical interactions do not occur and so do not threaten protected species. biological threats to the species concerned. 80 Critical interactions are well estimated and Seabirds. Critical interactions are estimated and at the levels indicated would not be expected do not threaten protected species. to threaten the status of local populations of protected species. 100 It is known that the direct and indirect effects of fishing on threatened and endangered species are within acceptable limits.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 26 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
2.2.2 Strategies have been developed within the fisheries management system to address and restrain any significant impacts of the fishery 50 on protected, endangered or threatened species. 2.2.2.1 Are management objectives set in terms of impact identification and avoidance/reduction? 100 80 60 Some management systems exist in terms of Impacts with protected, endangered or threatened species are not currently considered I1, I4, I5, I10 impact identification and significant and so no specific management strategies appears to be required. However, avoidance/reduction. voluntary use of acoustic deterrents for cetaceans (porpoise pingers) is being implemented by 80 Management objectives are set to detect and the fishermen on a precautionary basis. reduce impacts. These are designed to adequately protect key aspects of the ecosystem within main fishing areas. 100 Tested management objectives are set to detect and reduce impacts These are designed to adequately protect ecosystems, habitats and populations of target and non- target species.
2.3 (MSC Criterion 3) Where exploited populations (of non-target species) are depleted, the fishery will be executed such that recovery and rebuilding is 33.3 allowed to occur to a specified level within specified time frames, consistent with the precautionary approach and considering the ability of the population to produce long-term potential yields. 2.3.1 There are management measures in place that allow for the rebuilding of affected populations. 100 Weighting Commentary Both factors were considered of equal importance at this level 2.3.1.1 Is there sufficient information to allow determination of necessary changes in fishery 50 management to allow recovery of depleted populations? Not applicable to this fishery
2.3.1.2 Do management measures allow for recovery of affected populations? 50 Not applicable to this fishery
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 27 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
Principle 3 The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and 33.3 incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable
3.A Management System Criteria 50 Weighting Commentary Within MSC Principle 3, the 3A (management system criteria) and 3B (operational criteria) were considered of equal importance.
Under 3A, equal importance was provided to the 8 factors at this level. 3A.1 (MSC Principle 3 Intent A management system containing an institutional and operational framework exists with clear lines of responsibility. 12.5 and Criterion 3) Weighting Commentary The four indicators at this level were considered to be of equal significance. 3A.1.1 Are all organisations with monitoring and/or management responsibility clearly defined 25 100 including their areas of responsibility and interactions? 60 Organisations with monitoring and All the countries participating in bass fisheries in NW European waters are members of the EU. R1, R7, R8, R10, management responsibility are known. As a consequence, the overarching management system for bass fisheries is through the NESFC meeting. Responsibilities and interactions require Common Fisheries Policy of the EU in accordance with the basic fisheries regulation EA meeting. clarification but are currently being (2371/2002). This is supported by scientific research and assessment carried out by member DEFRA (MFA) determined. states, both unilaterally and through ICES. Advice is provided through the ICES Advisory meeting. 80 Organisations with monitoring and Committee on Fisheries Management (ACFM) on the status of stocks to the European CEFAS meeting management responsibility have been clearly Commission. defined including key areas of responsibility and interaction. Additionally member states may have their own regulations applicable to nationally registered 100 An overarching management system exists fleets. The inshore fisheries, such as the Holderness coast fixed net fishery, the subject of this within which monitoring and management accreditation process, are managed at a local level, through the Sea Fisheries Committees and responsibilities are clearly defined including the Environment Agency but under the overall control of DEFRA. Areas of responsibility all areas of responsibility and interaction. within this management structure are very clearly defined and followed. Inter agency Inter-agency cooperation and interactions cooperation in managing the fishery is demonstrably effective in terms of the consultative are demonstrably effective. process for developing the regulations, and for enforcement, through the inter-agency cross warranting scheme In summary the bass fishery on the Holderness coast is regulated by a well established framework consistent with the scale of the fishery and with traditional local practices.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 28 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.1.2 Is the system consistent with the political and cultural context, scale and intensity of the 25 95 fishery? 60 Inconsistencies arise in some key areas but a These overarching systems are considered to be entirely consistent with the multi-national R1 programme is in place to address these. nature, scale of the overall offshore fisheries. Locally, measures applied by NESFC and EA are NESFC meeting. 80 The system is consistent with key elements relevant and appropriate to the small scale, low intensity artisanal nature of the bass fisheries EA meeting. of the political, and cultural context, scale off the Holderness coast. DEFRA (MFA) and intensity of the fishery. meeting 100 The system is entirely consistent with the political and cultural context, scale and intensity of the fishery.
3A.1.3 Is the management system subject to internal review? 25 85 60 There are mechanisms in place to allow for Because of the dynamic nature of the current bass fisheries there is ongoing review of the R8, R9, R10, internal review of some elements of the management system. On the broader scale this is particularly directed at stock separation and NESFC meeting. management system. the problems that this poses in relation to stock assessment. There is ongoing development and DEFRA (MFA) 80 The whole management system is subject to review of suitable models for stock assessment and new methods are regularly tried and meeting internal review. This includes the implemented where applicable through the ICES ACFM. performance of the assessment methods. 100 The management system is subject to regular Within the UK, and applicable to this inshore fishery, there are ongoing reviews in relation to and frequent internal review. This includes the effectiveness of local regulations on, for example, mesh sizes, MLS, fixed net rules and no evidence that the assessment methodology take zones. Any recommended changes are implemented through a process of local and has been evaluated extensively and that any national consultation and eventual endorsement by DEFRA. This process, by its very nature, recommended changes have been made. can be a lengthy one. Monitoring and evaluation are ongoing and improvements quickly tested and Development of the UK Marine Act is currently prompting a review of UK marine implemented. management.
Within the SFC, proposals by officers are reviewed by the committee and licensing is reviewed annually.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 29 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.1.4 Is the management system subject to external review? 25 80 60 There are mechanisms in place to allow for In relation to the major fisheries ICES can, and do, involve external scientists in review of its NESFC meeting.. external review but to date this has not taken methodologies if considered necessary. However, to date the assessment methodology for bass DEFRA (MFA) place. stocks has not been developed and implemented to the point where external review would be meeting. 80 The management system has been subjected appropriate. This mechanism exists and is used by ICES. As the management has been R15, R17, R18 to an external review. developing peer reviewed scientific papers have been produced. This is a rigorous, well defined 100 The management system is subject to regular and credible process. and frequent external reviews. In relation to the inshore commercial fisheries and their interaction with the recreational fisheries, relevant reviews have been carried out and reports written (CEMARE report and Drew report).
The structure and effectiveness of SFC’s has also been recently reviewed within England and Wales and SFC byelaws are reviewed externally by DEFRA. SFC’s are also in contact in a less formal manner. SFC annual reports are in the public domain and open to questioning.
3 A.2 (MSC Criteria 1, 2, 4) The management system has a clear legal basis. 12.5 Weighting Commentary As an inshore fisheries, less weight was allocated to consistency with international conventions 3A.2.1 Is the fishery consistent with EU and other international legislation? 20 90 60 The management system operates under The major offshore fisheries for bass are entirely consistent with the basic EC fisheries NESFC meeting. relevant EU and international legislation. regulation which was elaborated in the full knowledge of the FAO Code of Conduct and all EA meeting. There is no evidence that the fishery is not other international conventions dealing with fishing. English Nature consistent with these agreements. meeting. 80 The management system operates in full The inshore fisheries is compliant with international legislation and the national and local DEFRA (MFA) compliance with EU and international facility to impose local regulations, such as mesh sizes and MLS and no take zones, is done meeting legislation. An evaluation of the system to under an international derogation through DEFRA. Such local regulations are in addition to provide documented compliance is planned. international ones and do not ameliorate them. 100 The management system is demonstrably compliant with all relevant EU and The Habitats Directive is also relevant in terms of protected habitats and species and is international legislation. An evaluation has implemented in the UK through the Habitats &c Regulations. been carried out which clearly documents the performance. Evaluations of compliance are regularly undertaken by the European Commission.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 30 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.2.2 Is the fishery consistent with national legislation? 40 95 60 The management system operates under The inshore fisheries are fully compliant with all national legislation and also the local NESFC meeting. legislation. There is no evidence that the regulations imposed by NESFC and the EA. This is actively enforced by British Sea Fisheries EA meeting. fishery is not consistent with these Officers (MFA) by the NESFC and EA and tested in the courts during prosecutions. While English Nature agreements. there is no documented evaluation, legal case law supports the interpretation and meeting. 80 The management system operates in full implementation of the legislative management system. DEFRA (MFA) compliance with national legislation. An Sea Fishery Committees are established by the DEFRA Minister under the Sea Fisheries meeting evaluation of the system to provide Regulation Act 1966, but funded by a levy on their constituent local Councils. SFCs regulate documented compliance is planned. sea fisheries in their districts by means of byelaws that come into force when confirmed by the 100 The management system is demonstrably Secretary of State (DEFRA), after advertisement for objections, in accordance with the Sea compliant with all relevant national Fisheries (Byelaws) Regulations 1985 (Statutory Instrument 1985 No; 1785). Internal legislation. An evaluation has been carried performance reviews are carried out by NESFC out which clearly documents the All the enforcement agencies have targets for inspection and all records of enforcement action performance. and compliance are published in the records of the NESFC and EA and reviewed on an annual basis.
3A.2.3 Does the system observe the legal and customary rights of people who are dependent upon 40 90 fishing and others with an interest in the fishery for recreational purposes 60 The customary and legal rights of the Rights are set out in EC and National State law and as such the system does recognise all NESFC meeting. people, within the fishery, dependent upon relevant rights. These are paramount and cannot be overridden by local or national fisheries EA meeting. fishing, and those with a recreational regulations. DEFRA (MFA) interest, are known and no major conflicts meeting. have occurred. In relation to inshore recreational fisheries both the Drew and CEMARE reports recognise and Meeting Yorks. 80 The system observes the legal and detail the legal and customary rights of the angling community and their economic value to the Lincs. Assoc. of customary rights of all individuals within the UK. recreational anglers. fishery who are dependent upon fishing and those involved for recreational purposes. Although rights are not specifically set out, common law sets out rights. However the system does not necessarily have a formal codified system to recognise this position. 100 The system observes all legal and customary rights of all people, within the fishery, who are dependent upon fishing and those involved for recreational purposes. A formal codified system exists which recognises these various rights.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 31 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.3 (MSC Criteria 2, 5, 7) The management system includes strategies to meet objectives including consultative procedures and dispute resolutions. 12.5 Weighting Commentary Equal weight was assigned to the six factors at this level 3A.3.1 Does the management system contain clear short and long-term objectives? 16.7 85 60 Short and long-term resource and An implicit long-term objective is to allow the North Sea stock to expand to a point of the R9, R10. environmental objectives are implicit within carrying capacity. The current explicit short and long term objectives for the management of NESFC meeting. the management system. the North Sea bass stock is for biological sustainability and maximising the yield per recruit EA meeting. 80 The management system contains short and from the various fisheries. Monitoring of ‘yield per recruit’ is being monitored (and increased English Nature long-term resource and environmental through increases in MLS – to 36 cm). F can be, and is, measured, although with some objectives which can be measured. deficiencies (see above). meeting. CEFAS meeting 100 The management system contains clear and Environmental objectives are specified for Flamborough Head SAC. explicit short and long-term resource and Within the UK inshore fisheries the same overarching resource objectives exist together with environmental objectives. These are well the well defined environmental objectives of the NESFC and EA in relation to salmonid and defined and can be measured by bass fisheries. NESFC have performance measures which are monitored on an ongoing basis. performance indicators.
3A.3.2 Do operational procedures exist for meeting objectives? 16.7 85 60 Operational procedures exist which are The overarching resource objectives are achieved by a package of technical measures, which R14 applied to the meeting of objectives. include MLS, a ban on mesh sizes 65-90mm for enmeshing nets and the closure of 37 nursery CEFAS meeting. 80 Transparent operational procedures are areas in UK to fishing for bass from boats. Off Holderness coast there are also seasonal NESFC meeting. applied to the meeting of objectives. These closures (although targeted at meeting objectives for salmonids). There is some testing and EA meeting.. procedures can be shown to support the review of technical measures. DEFRA (MFA) objectives. meeting 100 Operational procedures are transparent and Within the inshore fisheries these are monitored and enforced by a cross warranting scheme clearly applied. There is a feedback operated by the NESFC and the EA plus enforcement measures operated by the DEFRA mechanism testing their effectiveness. (MFA). DEFRA has biannual meetings with its’ customer, Cefas, to set bio sampling targets, in order to monitor and improve performance according to an established system.
3A.3.3 Are there procedures for measuring performance relative to the objectives? 16.7 80 60 Operational procedures exist which can be Within the North Sea, a biological sampling programme exists which collects data relevant to CEFAS meeting used to measure performance relative to the measuring performance (age/length, ‘yield per recruit’ etc). This is an ongoing programme NESFC meeting. objectives. within EU, but currently has several deficiencies, which are under review. EA meeting. 80 There are procedures used for measuring DEFRA (MFA) performance relative to the objectives. For the relevant inshore fisheries, relevant research and monitoring projects are undertaken. meeting 100 Tested procedures are used for regular Performance in relation to the objectives is presented in annual reports and ad-hoc reports of measurement of performance relative to the the relevant management organisations (NESFC, the EA and CEFAS (DEFRA)). objectives.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 32 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.3.4 Do objectives and operational procedures follow the precautionary approach? 16.7 80 60 Some objectives and procedures implement In the absence of formally defined reference points for the North Sea stock and stock R9, a precautionary approach. assessment, the advice and objectives for this stock are for no increased effort at all which is CEFAS meeting 80 Key objectives and procedures explicitly firmly based on the ICES precautionary approach. Any future developed points etc would be implement a precautionary approach. expected to also incorporate the precautionary approach under ICES methodology. 100 All relevant objectives and procedures There are currently no mechanism is in place for capping bass fishing effort at international or explicitly implement a precautionary national level. The NESFC has set an example by attempting to constrain bass fishing effort in approach. part of its’ district.
3A.3.5 Does the system include a clearly defined and effective consultative process including relevant 16.7 95 and affected parties? 60 The system includes a consultative process EU/UK consultation. Effectiveness of consultation process at international level is not R1, R9 including key stakeholders. considered to be fully demonstrated. NESFC meeting. 80 The system includes a consultative process There are standard consultative procedures adopted by DEFRA to consult the majority of EA meeting. including all main public and private stakeholders, either directly via press announcements, postal and website consultative DEFRA (MFA) stakeholders and can provide examples of documents, or via fishers’ organisations or associations. The NESFC has similar consultative meeting. where consideration of such representations procedures and is subject to Statuary consultation over byelaws. See their Performance Target Meeting Yorks. has been taken. 5 “To continue the programme of regular consultation meetings with representatives of all Lincs. Assoc. of 100 The system includes a clearly defined sectors of the fishing industry, including recreational angling interests, and to ensure that recreational anglers. consultative process including all affected substantive issues raised at the consultation meetings are drawn to the attention of the stakeholders. Decisions specifically discuss Committee. Most of these processes are statutory and include a requirement for public and/or address stakeholder concerns. There consultation with all stakeholders. This provides an opportunity for environmental NGO’s to are examples of the effectiveness of the participate and in the general fisheries management context there are numerous examples of process. the system operating effectively.
The management system for the relevant inshore bass fisheries therefore has a very clear consultative process in relation to the implementation of changes in technical conservation rules and enforcement. The process involves the local SFC, EA and representatives of the recreational fishing community and is carried out under the auspices of DEFRA. The process clearly seeks to involve all relevant stakeholders (including, for example EA, EN) and appears to be successful in that respect. Ongoing discussions about new NESFC byelaws in relation to bass fisheries, and the publication of two recent reports about recreational fisheries, clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the process. Commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen are all represented on the NESFC and are included in all consultations.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 33 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.3.6 Is there an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of disputes within the system, including disputes with third parties 16.7 90 with an interest in the fishery. 60 Informal mechanisms exist for the resolution There are mechanisms at National level for issues to be raised with National Governments and NESFC meeting. of disputes but these have not been resolved where possible by them. EA meeting. consistently applied or tested. DEFRA (MFA) 80 There is an appropriate and established Ultimately, any European citizen or organisation can take legal action against the Council of meeting. mechanism for the resolution of all disputes Ministers in the European Court of Justice. This is a system which is widely known and has Meeting Yorks. within the system. Where disputes have been used when considered necessary. Lincs. Assoc. of occurred there is some evidence of the recreational anglers effectiveness of the system in action. At a local level within the NESFC area disputes are dealt with either by them or where 100 There is an appropriate and tested appropriate by the EA. SFC have a well defined feedback policy covering normal and mechanism within the system for the vexatious disputes. Records are kept of all such disputes and subsequent actions and are documentation and resolution of all disputes reported annually by those bodies. NFFO may also be involved in relevant dispute management of varying magnitude. Where disputes have and resolution. occurred there is well documented evidence of the effectiveness of the system in action. Recording of disputes and actions are recorded at each of these levels. However, effectiveness of dispute resolution is not specifically demonstrated.
3A.4 (MSC Criterion 6) The management system operates in a manner appropriate to the objectives of the fishery. 12.5 Weighting Commentary The impact of subsidies was considered more fundamental than the influence of incentives for sustainable practises 3A.4.1 Does the system include subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing? 66.7 100 60 Subsidies exist that may contribute No subsidies, direct or indirect, have been identified in this inshore fishery, which might NESFC meeting. indirectly to unsustainable fishing. These contribute to unsustainable fishing or have detrimental environmental or ecosystem effects. EA meeting. are short-term and are in the process of DEFRA (MFA) being removed within acceptable timescales. Any subsidies that were made available would have to be cleared with the European meeting. 80 Some indirect subsidies may exist but the Commission under the EC State Aid rules. system is essentially free from subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation. 100 The system has no direct or indirect subsidies and none that could contribute to unsustainable fishing or ecosystem degradation.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 34 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.4.2 Does the system include economic/social incentives that contribute to sustainable fishing? 33.3 90 60 Measures to allocate fishing opportunities The management of this inshore bass fishery is clearly targeted at maintaining a sustainable NESFC meeting. and/or entry to the fishery, or other fishery to provide an adequate living for the commercial fishermen currently involved either EA meeting. incentives, are generally supportive of directly or those that take bass as a by-catch in the salmonid fisheries. Proposed changes to the achieving fishery objectives. byelaws, currently going through the consultation process will further reinforce this system. R30. B. Bradshaw. 80 Allocations of fishing opportunities and/or 2005. Fishing News, entry to the fishery, and/or other incentives, FIFG and regional fishing is being used to encourage sustainable fishing in the region. 2 Dec 2005, p4. all help to promote fishery and ecosystem management goals. No direct subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing have been identified. Grants are 100 The system has well established economic available to help fishers adopt sustainable catching methods, maximise fish quality and make and social incentives that are all clearly improvements to working conditions and safety equipment. targeted at promoting sustainable fishing and ecosystem management.
3A.5 (MSC Criterion 8) A research plan exists in line with the management system to address information needs. 12.5 Weighting Commentary All three factors at this level were considered to be of equal importance 3A.5.1 Have key research areas requiring further information been identified? 33.3 90 60 Some areas requiring further research have One of the key research areas for bass at present is the identification of stock structure which is R7, R8, R10. been identified. linked to the species response to climate change through changing patterns of seasonal CEFAS meeting 80 Many key areas requiring further research migration. This can be studied by conventional tagging, data storage tagging and by genetic have been identified. research. Ongoing research into the benefits changes in MLS is also identified as important in 100 A comprehensive review has been carried relation to maintaining an adequate SSB. out to identify all the key areas of research needed to provide all the information Therefore considered that key areas have been identified through the ICES Sea Bass Study requirements for present and future Group, established through a specific set of terms of reference to identify and meet research management needs. requirements.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 35 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.5.2 Is research planned/undertaken by the scientific advisers to meet the specific requirements of the management plan? 33.3 95 60 Research is planned for highest priority The UK has undertaken tagging studies of juveniles and adults in relation to describing R8, R10, R12, R17, information needs. changing migration patterns and the identification of stock structure. Research was also carried R19, R20, R22, R24, 80 Research is planned and undertaken to out to support the current international legislation on minimum mesh sizes and MLS. The UK CEFAS meeting provide necessary scientific support to the is also planning further tagging studies including the use of the data storage tag which records plan. There are demonstrable resources to environmental parameters. The UK are also engaged in research on the socio-economic value allow implementation of the programme. of recreational fisheries versus commercial fisheries for sea bass and how the management of 100 There is an ongoing, funded, comprehensive the fishery might enable this to be maximised. and balanced research programme, linking all the identified research areas to the This research is linked to the specific requirements of stock assessment and management, as management plan. identified by the Sea Bass Study Group and further developed through UK unilateral measures. This is ongoing and funded through various EU and national mechanisms.
NESFC have also funded and targeted specific research areas, e.g. the extension of the fishing season into October, in relation to local fishery management requirements.
3A.5.3 Is relevant research carried out by other organizations (e.g. Universities and other agencies). Is the research fully 33.3 90 coordinated to form an integral part of the management requirements and is the research taken into consideration? 60 The management system is aware of ICES Study and Working Groups are fully informed by research taking place within the wider R22 research carried out by other organisations scientific community. Meeting NESFC and elements of this are taken into At national level Defra has contracted other organisations e.g. CEMARE, to conduct research Meeting EA consideration. on recreational fisheries and fisheries economics (Pickett et al 1995). Much basic work on bass 80 Appropriate research is carried out by other biology has been undertaken at Universities, especially Swansea and Plymouth, often with organisations and, where appropriate, is CEFAS external supervision. All of this work has fed in to providing better management taken into consideration in the management advice plan, There is some evidence of proactive The NESFC and EA have their own research programmes and also commission research from co-ordination or cooperation between other bodies such as Hull University. The NESFC also have their own Environmental Officer. organisations carrying out the research The research programmes of the NESFC and EA are very clearly targeted at relevant questions 100 Relevant research carried out by other in relation to the management of the fishery. For an example the recent gill netting study on the organisations is fully utilised for Holderness coast was targeted at determining the effect of an earlier start to the bass fishing management purposes. This research is season within their area of jurisdiction. either commissioned, or co-ordinated with existing research plans and forms an . integrated part of the management system requirements.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 36 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.6 (MSC Criteria 7, 9, 10) The management system includes measures to pursue objectives for the stock. 12.5 Weighting Commentary All three factors at this level were considered to be of equal importance 3A.6.1 Are the resource and effects of the fishery monitored? 33.3 70 60 A monitoring programme is in place that As noted elsewhere there are some deficiencies in the recording of actual bass catches and R8, R10, addresses some aspects of resource and landings in all sea areas including the North Sea. The ICES has been pressing for CEFAS Meeting effects and which can be extended. improvements at a national level and in this context the UK efforts are exemplary. NESFC meeting 80 A monitoring programme is in place that DEFRA (MFA) addresses all key aspects of resource and In the Holderness coast area the landings from the commercial fixed net fishery and the bass by meeting. effects at appropriate intervals and results catch in the licensed salmonid fishery, are very well recorded because the fishermen involved Meeting Yorks. are recorded. all voluntarily provide records to NESFC. However there is also a mainly unrecorded catch of Lincs. Assoc. of 100 The resource and effects of the fishery are bass by part time fishermen and a mainly unrecorded recreational catch by both boat and shore recreational anglers closely monitored as appropriate to the scale anglers. and geographical area of the fishery Full Condition 1 applies to this PI and requires the NESFC to accurately record the all bass catches records are kept of monitoring results and in their area, both commercial and recreational. All commercial bass fishermen should be these are made available to relevant research encouraged to participate in the CEFAS voluntary log book scheme. and management bodies.
3A.6.2 Are results evaluated against precautionary target and limit reference points? 33.3 70 60 Target and limit reference points exist and Stock assessment modelling has not yet developed to the point where formal ICES target and R9, R21 some level of evaluation against these is limit reference points can be specified, as discussed more fully under Principle 1. CEFAS Meeting possible. 80 Results of monitoring are regularly However the results of monitoring, in particular the catch and effort data from the CEFAS interpreted in relation to precautionary, voluntary log book scheme, are evaluated against the stated precautionary approach objective target and limit reference points of not increasing effort in any of the bass fisheries. This takes place through formal and 100 Results of monitoring are quantitatively informal communications between ICES Study Group delegates. Within CEFAS, the voluntary evaluated against precautionary target and logbook scheme is being expanded and evaluated against existing reference points. limit reference points on a regular and timely basis. Condition 2 applies to this PI and requires the NESFC to liaise with CEFAS to determine what part they can play in a strategy to develop appropriate reference points and then to take what action is needed.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 37 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.6.3 Do procedures exist for reductions in harvest in light of monitoring results and how quickly and effectively can these be 33.3 90 implemented? 60 Practical procedures exist to reduce harvest The CFP allows the European Commission to make a proposal to the Council for action in CEFAS meeting if necessary. Programmes to link these with relation to the management of fisheries within EU waters. Such action can be immediate if a NESFC meeting. monitoring results are underway. situation arose which required it. This is the overarching management system which is in place EA meeting. 80 Practical procedures exist to reduce harvest to manage bass stocks in EU waters. In addition to this system there are national arrangements, DEFRA (MFA) in the light of monitoring results and could particularly applicable to the management of the inshore bass fisheries. These systems operate meeting. provide for stock recovery to specified through national legislation and through local bye laws enforced by the local SFC’s and Meeting Yorks. levels. Measures could be implemented regional EA’s. Lincs. Assoc. of speedily. recreational anglers 100 Practical procedures exist to reduce harvest These systems have been shown to be effective in relation to other fisheries and would be Pickett et al 1995. in light of monitoring results and provide for equally fast and effective if required in relation to the expanding bass fishery. For example the stock recovery to specified levels within EU could introduce and enforce quotas, changes in minimum landing size and mesh sizes, all specified time frames. There are well of which could be used to reduce harvest. Increase in MLS to 36cm has been shown to greatly documented procedures to implement a improve yield per recruit. reduction in harvest and these can be introduced with immediate effect. At a local level, in relation to the Holderness coast fishery the NESFC and EA have the authority to suggest changes in MLS and mesh size, closed seasons or changes to them to DEFRA, These measures could all be used to reduce harvest although, because of the necessary consultation process, the action would not be immediate.
3A.7(MSC Criterion 10) The management system includes measures to pursue objectives for the affected ecosystem. 12.5 Weighting Commentary Management mechanisms to reduce environmental impacts were considered of priority. No take zones could be considered a subset of this an therefore was weighted lower 3A.7.1 Are measures in place to identify and address (avoid or minimise) significant environmental impacts should they occur 42.6 85 ? 60 Potential environmental impacts are known The Holderness coast fishery is carefully monitored by the NESFC, the EA and the MFA and NESFC meeting. and measures are in place to monitor them none of them have noted any significant environmental impacts of the commercial fixed net EA meeting. and to consider their application to reduce shore fishery for bass. NESFC and EA beach patrols do note any problems of this nature and DEFRA (MFA) key impacts. whenever possible will discourage the perpetrators. meeting. 80 Most environmental impacts are known. CEFAS meeting Measures are being applied to minimise all The use of acoustic deterrents to avoid cetacean entanglements (porpoise pingers) have been Meeting Frank significant ones and there is evidence that trialled in this fishery under a Sea Fish Industry Authority set of trials. However, it is not yet Powell the measures are effective clear that this will be a requirement within this fishery. 100 Measures are in place to avoid all significant environmental impacts and are subject to monitoring and periodic review.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 38 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.7.2 Do fishing operations identify appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat, especially 32.5 95 in critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas? 60 Fishing operations use measures that The operation of the commercial fixed net shore fishery on the Holderness coast is such that it NESFC meeting. significantly reduce major impacts on has a negligible impact on the habitat. The fishery is not in a spawning or nursery area and the EA meeting. habitat, especially in critical or sensitive gear has minimum impact on the sea bed and its fauna. DEFRA (MFA) zones such as spawning or nursery areas. meeting. 80 There is evidence that fishing operations are This is apparent from the nature of the fishery, but has not been specifically investigated. CEFAS meeting effective in avoiding significant adverse Meeting Frank effects on the environment, especially in Powell critical or sensitive zones such as spawning or nursery areas. 100 There is direct evidence that fishing operations implement appropriate methods to avoid significant adverse impacts on all habitats.
3A.7.3 Are no take zones, Marine Protected Areas or closed areas for specific periods appropriate and, if so, are these 24.8 100 established and enforced? 60 Suitability of no-take zones and/or closed The Holderness coast area is in a salmonid fishery area where there are restrictions on the use R1 areas / seasons has been reviewed against of enmeshing nets either on shore or from boats. Only licensed salmonid (salmon and sea NESFC meeting. objective biological criteria. Plans are in trout) fishermen are permitted to use such nets for the period 26 March to 31 August. No EA meeting. place to implement some or all of these as fishing with enmeshing nets at all is permitted during September and October and the ‘open DEFRA (MFA) appropriate. season’ for the use of such nets extends from 1 November to 25 March. These measures are meeting. 80 Suitability of no-take zones and closed areas entirely appropriate in relation to the management of the salmonid fisheries and also serve to CEFAS meeting / seasons has been reviewed and these have limit and control the effort on bass. All these regulations are very strictly enforced by the been or are currently being implemented and NESFC and EA. enforced if and where appropriate. 100 No-take zones and closed areas / seasons are There is also one trawling free zone at the southern end of the Holderness coast area. This is a well established part of the management designed to allow static gear to be worked unimpeded out to 3mls from the shoreline. This is system. They are rigorously enforced and strictly enforced and there are records of action by the NESFC including some prosecutions. their effectiveness continuously monitored. Also Flamborough Head is a SAC with no intertidal enmeshing net fishery in the area.
Enforcement action by NESFC and EA is effective and is reported annually
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 39 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3 A.8 (MSC Criterion 11) There are control measures in place to ensure the management system is effectively implemented. 12.5 Weighting Commentary All three factors were consider of equal importance at this level 3A.8.1 Are information, instruction and/or training provided to fishermen in the aims and methods of the management system? 33.3 100 60 Mechanisms exist for the dissemination of This is done through local fishermen’s organisation meetings and information sent directly by NESFC meeting. information, instruction and training of NESFC and EA as a result of their licensing scheme for the salmonid fishery. EA meeting. fishermen but they are not fully Meeting Frank implemented. During the site visit we found these inshore commercial fishermen to be very well informed Powell 80 Information and training are provided to and knowledgeable about the management system and the need for accurate effort and landings fishermen in the aims and methods of the data. management system. There is evidence of the beneficial effects of this approach, in the management of the fishery. 100 Information, instruction and training are provided to fishermen in the aims and methods of the management system allowing effective management of the fishery. The fishermen demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the management system.
3A.8.2 Is surveillance and monitoring in place to ensure that requirements of the management system 33.3 100 are complied with? 60 An enforcement system has been There is an excellent system in place for monitoring and enforcement of the regulations relating R1. implemented; however, its effectiveness to the bass fisheries off the Holderness coast. This is achieved through a high degree of NESFC meeting. and/or compliance has not been fully cooperation between the three enforcement agencies involved, NESFC, EA and DEFRA EA meeting. demonstrated relative to management (MFA). They operate a cross warranting scheme and all have target levels of inspection and DEFRA (MFA) objectives. surveillance to achieve. The system is effective and as result the level of compliance with the meeting. 80 There are set measures that can be applied in regulations is high. the event of non-compliance although these may not be overtly included in any formal or Byelaws and changes to byelaws are all published. codified system. Measures are in place to monitor their effectiveness. In the event of non-compliance either a verbal or written warning will be issued for less serious 100 Agreed and tested corrective actions can be infringements or for more serious cases they will proceed to prosecute. Comprehensive records applied in the event of non-compliance. of monitoring and enforcement actions are kept by each of the agencies. The records, which These are explicit, well documented and date back to 1974, show that most of the recent enforcement action in this area is in relation to publicised. Formal arrangements are well infringements, by boat fishermen, of the bye law restricting the use of some demersal fish established and tested to monitor gears, such as trammel nets, within the 10m depth zone. effectiveness.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 40 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3A.8.3 Can corrective actions be applied in the event of non-compliance and is there evidence of their effectiveness? 33.3 100 60 Mechanisms exist or are being developed Non-compliance is dealt with by DEFRA the SFC or the EA through the UK criminal justice NESFC meeting. which can be implemented or applied to deal systems using agreed and tested procedures. EA meeting. with non-compliance. DEFRA (MFA) 80 An effective enforcement system has been Performance in relation to monitoring and surveillance targets and records of compliance and meeting. implemented and there is an appropriate enforcement actions are published annually by the three agencies involved. There is evidence degree of control and compliance. of a high degree of compliance with the regulations, in the Holderness coast area, which has 100 An effective enforcement system has been resulted in a low incidence of enforcement actions and prosecutions. This record suggests that implemented and there is a high degree of the system is highly effective. control and compliance.
3 B Operational Criteria 50 Weighting Commentary The operational use of gear (3B.1), compliance levels (3B.5) were considered of highest importance. Destructive practises (3B.3) and Operational waste (3B.4) were both considered of minor consequence. 3B.1(MSC Criterion 12) There are management measures that include practices to reduce impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon target 25.8 species. 3B.1.1 Do management measures, principally through the use of gear and other fishing practices, include avoidance of impacts 100 85 on non-target species and inadvertent impacts upon target species 60 Measures have been implemented that The type of gear used, and the method of operation in this fixed net shore fishery is clearly NESFC meeting. should reduce the major impacts on non- targeted at bass and has a low impact on other species. There is a small by-catch of other EA meeting. target species and inadvertent impacts on species mainly whiting, sole, cod and sea trout. Meeting English target species. Such measures appear Nature appropriate, but their effectiveness has not There is also a potential impact on seals, cetaceans and seabirds although generally these are CEFAS meeting been demonstrated. infrequent and are expected to rarely result in a mortality. The frequency of examination of Meeting Frank 80 Measures have been implemented that these intertidal nets, twice per day at low water, considerably reduces the chances of Powell reduce major impacts on non-target species inadvertent impacts on non target species. and inadvertent impacts on target species and there is evidence that they are having the desired effect. 100 Measures have been implemented that avoid major impacts on non-target species and inadvertent impacts on target species, and their effectiveness is clearly demonstrated.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 41 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3B.2 (MSC Criterion 13) There are management systems in place that encourage fishing methods that minimise adverse impacts on habitat. 13.4 3B.2.1 Do fishing operations implement appropriate fishing methods designed to minimise adverse impacts on habitat. 100 95 60 Fishing operations use measures to reduce major The nature of the gear used is such that impacts will be avoided. Use of gear is well impacts on habitat controlled (e.g. by appropriate anchoring) by the fishermen to prevent gear loss. Also, NESFC meeting. 80 There is evidence that fishing operations are gear is not deployed if adverse weather is expected. EA meeting. effective in avoiding significant adverse effects DEFRA (MFA) on the environment meeting. 100 There is direct evidence that fishing operations Meeting English implement appropriate methods to avoid Nature significant adverse impacts on all habitats. Meeting Frank Powell
3B.3 (MSC Criterion 14) The management system incorporates measures that discourage destructive practices. 3.1 3B.3.1 Does the fishery employ destructive fishing practices (such as poisons or explosives)? 100 100 60 The fishery does not allow any such destructive The EC technical conservation regulation prohibits use of explosives, poisonous or NESFC meeting. fishing practices. stupefying substances or electric current. This is fully supported at a national and local EA meeting. 80 The fishery does not employ any such destructive level through the promotion of responsible fishing activities. Meeting English fishing practices and enforcement is considered Nature. sufficient to prevent their use. Meeting Frank 100 The fishery does not employ any destructive Powell fishing practices. There is a code of conduct for responsible fishing, prohibiting these, which is fully supported by the fishermen.
3B.4 (MSC Criterion 15) The management system incorporates measures that reduce operational waste. 9 3B.4.1 Do measures exist to reduce operational waste? 100 100 60 Measures/facilities are in place to reduce sources In this fixed net shore fishery the whole catch, including by catch species, is cleaned from NESFC meeting. of operational waste the nets at each low water and it is all landed. There is no evidence of operational waste in EA meeting. 80 Measures/facilities are in place to reduce all this fishery. Meeting Frank sources of operational waste which may have Powell detrimental environmental consequences, and Fishermen are on the beach for very short times and all fuelling etc takes place away from there is evidence they are effective. the beach. 100 Measures/facilities are in place to reduce all sources of operational waste that are known to have detrimental environmental consequences, and there is evidence they are effective and these measures are supported by the fishermen.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 42 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3B.5 (MSC Criterion 16) Fishing operations are conducted in compliance with the management system and legal and administrative requirements. 27.1 Weighting Commentary All three factors at this level were considered of equal importance 3B.5.1 Are fishermen are aware of the management system, legal and administrative requirements 33.3 95 60 Fishermen are aware of key management and The relevant laws in relation to this fishery are clearly documented by DEFRA, the NESFC NESFC meeting. legal requirements. and the EA. Any changes to the regulations are quickly disseminated to interested parties EA meeting. 80 Fishermen are aware of all key management and through representatives on the various committees. The relevant NESFC and EA bye laws DEFRA (MFA) legal requirements upon them and are kept up to are published in booklet form. The level of compliance and also the knowledge meeting. date with new developments. demonstrated during our site visit suggests that the system is very effective. Meeting Frank 100 Fishermen are aware of all management legal Powell requirements through a clearly documented and There is, however, no documented code of conduct which reduces the score slightly. communicated mechanism such as a code of conduct.
3B.5.2 Do fishermen comply with management system, legal and administrative requirements? 33.3 100 60 Fishermen appear generally to comply with Those involved in the shore fixed net fishery are very keen to protect their livelihood and are NESFC meeting. requirements, but there is incomplete information knowledgeable about the relevant bye laws and are fully cooperative with the administrative EA meeting. on the actual extent of compliance. requirements,. Records of compliance are available back to 1974. DEFRA (MFA) 80 Fishermen are fully compliant with all relevant meeting. management requirements. Meeting Frank 100 Fishermen are fully compliant with, and fully Powell supportive of, legal, and administrative requirements, such as through a code of conduct.
3B.5.3 What is the record of enforcement of regulations in the fishery: quota control, by-catch limits, MLS, mesh 33.3 95 regulations and closed areas? 60 There is some information on breaches of The NESFC are the main enforcement agency in relation to this fishery although through the NESFC meeting. regulations and on corrective action to prevent or effective cross warranting scheme the EA and the MFA are also involved. The MFA have EA meeting. curtail such breaches. specific responsibility for the enforcement of MLS. The three agencies do operate regular DEFRA (MFA) 80 Evidence of rigorous monitoring of all the beach patrols using MPV’s. They all have targets to achieve in terms of patrol and meeting. enforcement measures and evidence of actions inspection and their performance in relation to these is published annually. taken in the event of breaches is available. 100 Documented evidence of rigorous monitoring and The NESFC, EA and DEFRA (MFA) keep up to date records of all cautions and control of the enforcement measures. There is enforcement actions in relation to this fishery and they are published and in the public documented evidence of firm action having been domain. NESFC records go back to 1974. The record for the bass fishery in this area is very taken in the event of breaches having occurred. good, and minor infringements of the fixed engine bye laws have been dealt with by cautions. Most of the enforcement action relates to infringements by boat fishermen, not subject to this certification, fishing inside the 10m depth zone.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 43 of 44 SCORING INDICATORS Comments Audit Trace Ref. Weight Score
3B.6 (MSC Criterion 17) The management system involves fishers in data collection. 21.5 3B.6.1 Do fishermen assist in the collection of catch, discard and other relevant data required for the management system? 100 95 60 Fishermen are involved in the collection of The fishermen involved in this fixed net shore fishery have been very cooperative with all three R21, R22 some catch, discard and other information. agencies in relation to the collection of statistics and research data. Some of those fishermen NESFC meeting. 80 Fishermen are regularly involved in the participate in the CEFAS voluntary log book scheme which has now been extended to the EA meeting. collection and recording of relevant catch, Holderness coast since 2004. They do keep accurate catch records on a daily basis including DEFRA (MFA) discard and other information. records of their by-catch and discards meeting. 100 Fishermen are proactive and assist These fishermen recently cooperated fully with the NESFC and CEFAS in the gill netting CEFAS meeting significantly in the collection and recording experiment to examine the effects of extending the start of sea bass fishing season into October. Meeting Frank of all appropriate catch, discard and other One fisherman has carried out biological sampling for Cefas, recording length and weight, Powell information required for the management taking scale-age samples, plus sex determination, gonad and stomach samples. system.
NESFC Sea Bass Fishery FN 082020 v5 10/09/2007, 3:13 PM Scoring Comments Page 44 of 44 Appendix B: Client Action Plan
NORTH EASTERN SEA FISHERIES COMMITTEE Holderness Sea Bass Fishery Action Plan for Meeting the Conditions for Continued MSC Certification
July 2007
CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 3
MSC CONDITIONS & ACTIONS 4
MSC RECOMMENDATIONS 6
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 39 INTRODUCTION The North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee (NESFC) is constituted pursuant to the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1888, the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, the North Eastern Sea Fisheries District Order 1986 and the North Eastern Sea Fisheries District (Constitution of Committee and Expenses)(Variation) Order 1996. It is one of twelve such committees surrounding the coastlines of England and Wales. Each committee has the same principal statutory function, to manage and conserve marine resources within pre-defined areas or districts. NESFC‟s district covers the area from the River Tyne, in the North, to a point South of the Humber Estuary, known as Donna Nook and out to the six-mile limit. Since its inception the Committee has played a key role in the management and regulation of inshore fisheries along the Yorkshire coast. The enforcement of national and European fisheries legislation and the development of local fisheries Byelaws tailored to meet local fisheries management needs remain central to this role. Throughout the last decade Committee work has focused on the conservation, management and development of inshore lobster and edible crab fisheries. Finfish work on the other hand, particularly during the last five years, has focused on the management and development of a fledgling fixed net fishery for sea bass along the Holderness coast of East Yorkshire. Throughout the last decade the frequency of sea bass captures has risen steadily along the Yorkshire coast. It is thought that this pattern is linked to rises in mean seawater temperature occurring throughout the North Sea. During 2002 two local fishermen developed a small intertidal fixed net fishery on the Holderness coast, specifically targeting sea bass. NESFC in partnership with the Centre for the Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CFEAS) and the Environment Agency (EA) instigated a monitoring programme to gather data on the developing fishery. Since 2002 the fishery has expanded and during 2004 up to ten fishermen took part, landing approximately 7 tonnes of sea bass to local outlets. Since 2004 the fishery has stabilised at five regular commercial fishermen. During 2005 NESFC appointed U.K based consultancy, Moody Marine Ltd, to undertake a pre- assessment study of the Holderness intertidal fixed net sea bass fishery, against the Marine Stewardship Council‟s (MSC) environmental standards. Following consideration of the pre- assessment report, NESFC instructed Moody Marine Ltd to commence a full assessment of the sea bass fishery against the MSC principles and criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment was completed during October 2005 and the final assessment report was released for consultation and comment during 2006. The fishery attained a „pass‟ score of 80 or more against each of the three guiding MSC principles and has been recommended for certification. The report, however, identified four conditions for improving the performance of the fishery. This action plan outlines how NESFC intends to meet these conditions and maintain certification of the Holderness sea bass fishery. NESFC agrees to meet, as far as possible, the full intent of the conditions laid out in the certification report dated 27th October 2006. NESFC recognises its responsibilities as applicant/licensee in the certified fishery to comply with annual surveillance audits by an accredited MSC certification body.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 40 MSC CONDITIONS & ACTIONS The following conditions, set by the certification Body, are associated with five key areas of performance of the fishery including over-fishing, ecosystem diversity, effective management, environmental impacts and research. Condition 1 – ‘Accurate recording of fishing mortality’ In the North Sea there is a poorly quantified mortality on the sea bass stock generated by existing and developing fisheries, both commercial and recreational. Action Required – In the NESFC District, the total catch of sea bass, both commercial and recreational, including that taken by both boat and shore anglers should be recorded or accurately estimated. For the shore-based netsmen subject of this certification, reporting should include all sea bass landings and any discards on an appropriate time interval. NESFC should encourage participation in the CEFAS voluntary logbook scheme by all fishermen operating in their district, and more widely through the Association of SFC‟s, as far as possible. Timescale – This should be commence within 1 year of Certification Relevant scoring indicators – 1.1.2.1, 3A.6.1 NESFC Proposed Actions:- Within 1 year of Certification NESFC will implement a new fixed netting Byelaw provision establishing a limited permit scheme enabling 5 fishermen to participate in the Holderness sea bass fishery between the 15th October and the 30th April inclusive. The submission of a monthly catch return detailing the type and weight of all species caught will become a mandatory condition of holding a permit. Within 1 year of Certification NESFC will develop a voluntary sea bass catch reporting scheme, in full consultation with CEFAS, for implementation throughout its District. This scheme will be promoted nationally through the Association of Sea Fisheries Committee‟s to other SFC‟s. NESFC will provide regular updates to the certification body. Condition 2 – ‘Appropriate reference points/Decision rules for biomass’ Appropriate reference points for stock biomass and fishing mortality have not been developed for the North Sea stock. These reference points are required in order that appropriate decision rules can be developed to manage the stock in accordance with the IECS precautionary approach. Action Required – NESFC should liaise with CEFAS in order to ascertain their part in the overall strategy which will lead to the development of appropriate reference points for the North Sea stock. Once their part in the overall strategy has been determined, NESFC must ensure that they carry out all the requirements. Timescale – This should be commenced in 1 year of certification Relevant scoring indicators – 1.1.3.1, 1.1.4.2, 1.1.5.4, 3A.6.2
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 41 NESFC Proposed Actions :- Within 1 year of Certification NESFC will explore all options for the development of appropriate sea bass stock reference points for the North Sea. NESFC will provide regular updates to the certification body. In addition NESFC will immediately implement local fisheries indicator targets for the certified sea bass fishery based on available catch per effort data Condition 3 –‘Improvement of biological sampling/stock monitoring indices’ The collection of reliable biological data (length, sex, weight, age, maturity) for stock assessment and management needs to be greatly improved for the North Sea. There is also a need to establish fishery dependent and fishery independent indices, specific to the North Sea stock. Action Required – NESFC should liaise with CEFAS and: (i) set up a system for the sampling of net catches and beach and boat angling catches from their district, as required by CEFAS (ii) discuss appropriate ways to help provide fishery dependent and fishery independent indices for stock assessment and modelling NESFC should encourage other SFC‟s to become involved in improving data collection in their areas through the National Association of SFC‟s. Timescale - This should be commenced in 1 year of certification Relevant scoring indicators – 1.1.1.5 NESFC Proposed Actions:- As with condition 1, NESFC will implement a mandatory catch reporting scheme, in consultation with CEFAS, for the permitted netsmen and a voluntary scheme for other recreational and commercial fishermen within its jurisdiction, within 1 year of certification. NESFC will explore all options for the provision of fisheries indices for sea bass stock assessment and modelling purposes including the development of annual juvenile fish surveys within its District. Condition 4 – ‘Recording of by-catch of seabirds and sea mammals’ Action Required - Set up a recording scheme to record all seabird and sea mammal by-catch that indicates the fate of the animal involved (i.e. found dead, released injured or unharmed, etc) as well as the tidal and sea prevailing conditions. Timescale – immediately Relevant scoring indicators – 2.2.1.2 NESFC Proposed Actions:- From the commencement of the fishery in October 2007 NESFC will require all permitted sea bass fishermen to record by-catches of all seabirds and sea mammals including the fate of the animal involved. It will also be a mandatory requirement for all nets used in the fishery to contain an acoustical deterrent device in accordance with EC fisheries provisions.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 42 MSC RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the above conditions, the certification body made two further recommendations for the fishery: 1. Recording of effort 2. Stock assessment modelling Following Certification, NESFC will work with the Marine & Fisheries Agency, the Environment Agency and CEFAS to examine ways of improving the monitoring and surveillance of total effort on sea bass stocks and developing a stock assessment model for the North Sea. Action Plan agreed and approved by the Members of North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee on the 31st July 2007. Contact Officer:- David McCandless Chief Fishery Officer Tel: 01482 393 690 Email: [email protected]
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 43 Appendix C: Peer Review Reports Peer Review A The following commentary begins with an overview of the assessment report and it‟s findings, and continues by section, save for Conditions and Recommendations, that have been left until the end. Comments against individual criteria in the Appendix table are only made where this reviewer disagrees with the interpretation/scoring, or has something to add. No comment implies agreement. 1. General The assessment has been carried out following the MSC Principles and Criteria and the Yorkshire bass gillnet fishery and its management have been vigorously evaluated. The description of the assessed fishery and its context to the wider European bass fishery is thorough, with appropriate reference to most of the relevant literature, expert opinion and representatives of most stakeholder groups. The technical information on bass has been accurately described and interpreted – I have only a few minor corrections to make. The geographical/ecosystem context of the local fishery is well documented and all relevant environmental concerns appear to have been addressed. The scoring indicators have been appropriately weighted and except in very few cases, the weighting commentaries have been well interpreted. The technical information has been appropriately applied to the scoring indicators in almost all cases. There are a few minor grammatical errors in the narrative that should surface on checking and I have drawn attention to one or two repetitions and ambiguities that need addressing. I have also suggested adding a couple of further references. Sometimes it is not clear under Principles 1 and 3 sub-criteria, whether comments should apply to the local fishery, the North Sea stock, or the NW European stock. I have suggested some additional sentences to cover any gaps. However, although I may have given a slightly different scoring to some criteria, my overall assessment would have produced a similar outcome for each of the three Principles. The application and interpretation of the information and science according to the MSC Principles and Criteria therefore justifies the decision regarding certification of this fishery. The assessment correctly identifies weaknesses in fisheries data and sampling. These aspects are addressed locally within some of the Conditions and Recommendations. I am, however, concerned that, although laudable, some requirements may be unrealistic at the present time – see my detailed comments and suggested modifications in section 7. 2. Background to the fishery. 2.1 Biology of the target species. A succinct description, using appropriate and the most up- to-date published material available. Suggest that the last sentence in para 3, beginning „ However it is recognised…‟ is ambiguous and to delete or clarify meaning. MML comment: text modified. Penultimate sentence in para 7 suggests that the Humber has not been designated a bass nursery area because of possible overwinter mortality. This is not the case – firstly a potential nursery should have been proved to contain significant quantities of pre-adult bass and secondly that there is a threat to these bass from fishing. The Humber fails on both counts at the present time. MML comment: text modified. 2.2 History of the Fishery. A useful summary of the northern European bass fisheries that helps put the Yorkshire fishery in perspective. The information is accurate and up to date. Mention should also be made in the last sentence, of trawling for bass by Netherlands boats.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 44 2.3 Description of the current fishery. The first part of the second paragraph more or less repeats the fourth paragraph of 2.2.2. Either at the end of 2.2.2 or 2.3 it would be useful to mention the substantial landings of bass made by 2-3 pair teams off Flamborough in the late winter/spring of this year (2006). These Scarborough-based vessels were initially targeting cod, but found a higher value of bass catch. It is likely that this fishery may be repeated and expand next season. See also Scoring Tables 1.1.2.5. The depiction/description of the net fishery is simple and effective. In Table 2 the red line delimiting the intertidal net fishery under NESFC jurisdiction, includes Flamborough, where it is stated elsewhere that there is a ban on intertidal netting within the SAC. Is this correct? See Fig 5. MML comment: this line does not infer any absolute limit to intertidal netting as it provides only an indication of where the net stations are. Map has been adjusted accordingly and renamed as a figure. 2.4 Ecosystem Characteristics. A useful description, although the fixed net fishery does not extend into the Flamborough SAC? In this section it might have been useful to put in something on local temperature regimes (NESFC collect and collate data) that may help explain why a winter bass fishery takes place here and not in other parts of the North Sea. 2.5 By-catch and discards. At 2.5.1 a little clarification about what constitutes „by-catch‟ would help (sea-trout in season?). Much of the length frequency work was conducted by the fishermen working with CEFAS, with the data being copied to NESFC and the EA (one season funded by Yorkshire Forward). MML comment: the seabass season is deliberately timed to coincide with low catches of sea trout and salmon (the targeted summer catch when the sea bass season is closed). Therefore salmon and sea trout are retained, but are regarded as an incidental and not a target species during the sea bass season. 3. Administrative Context 3.1.1 Legislation – general Third sentence – there are now (post 1998) 37 designated bass nursery areas. MML comment: text and references updated. 4. Stock Assessment 4.2 Monitoring of stock status. Second sentence - ref Pawson (pers. comm.). It might be appropriate to include the full reference title of this work (Pawson et al, in prep‟) that I have included at the end of this review. In the third sentence it is stated that the Thames Estuary survey was discontinued in 1996. This was a 20 year plus time –series of power station „Cooling Water Intake Structure‟ (CWIS) sampling, but it was replaced by a trawl survey (1997 to date) carried out each November, and this now produces a pre- recruit index for 0-2 year-olds (CEFAS unpublished data) using similar methodology to the Solent survey. MML comment: text and references updated. 4.3 Modelling. It could be mentioned, at the end of the first para, that bass is a non-quota species whose fishery has been managed very effectively in the UK for the last 20 years without requiring absolute values of SSB. MML comment: text updated. 5 Fishery Management 5.1 Management objectives. Second sentence – again correct to 37 bass nursery areas. MML comment: text updated.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 45 6 Appendices – Scoring Table Principle 1 1.1.1.2 Third para of comments suggests that little is known of bass spawning in the North Sea, but eggs and larvae were found off North Norfolk and the Thames Estuary in surveys in the 1980s and the Thames nurseries are well sampled and described. The fourth sentence suggests that it is easy to determine spawning areas – but it is a time consuming and very expensive task. 1.1.1.4 First sentence – should mention that there has also been specific sampling for L at age, wt at age, and maturity samples have been collected from the Yorkshire gill-net fishery (for comparison with other areas). There are several references to bass fecundity in the literature, from Mayer (1987) onwards. On this basis the score should be increased (90). MML comment: text updated. 1.1.1.5 Should mention that the Solent index shows good correlation with subsequent yr- class strength in the fishable stock. MML comment: text updated. 1.1.2.3 The scoring indicators to obtain 100 are unrealistic in the requirement for recording the number of anglers involved – there is nowhere in the UK where this is known for sea angling – and to what use would the data be put? The weighting commentary is talking about knowledge of fishing methods and gear types being known. Suggest changing the wording in this box and raising the score (to 85?). MML comment: original scoring and text reviewed and considered robust. 1.1.2.5 Scoring Indicators and comments - there are no systems in place anywhere for recording annual recreational catches, other than the few boat angling participants in the CEFAS logbook scheme, so it is a little unfair to include this requirement. However, I would question whether the pair-trawl landings of bass at Scarborough are accurately recorded by Defra or NESFC. Score the same. 1.1.2.6 The question concerns misreporting, which is an irrelevance in the <10m bass fishery and in the offshore fishery largely applies to the English Channel which is now considered to be a different stock for management purposes. Under- recording is a separate issue. A higher score might then be justified. 1.1.3.1 For a start, I would question the need, at present, for precautionary reference points based on biomass – bass has been successfully managed in English and Welsh waters for 20 years without them, although monitoring relative F is desirable. In para 3 of comments, 2nd sentence, what is being developed? In the last paragraph it should be noted that no attempts have been made to control fishing effort in other N. Sea bass fisheries, including the Yorkshire trawl fishery. If these points are accepted, the authors may wish to reconsider the scoring. 1.1.4.1 Comments, second para – delete „other‟. Third para, last sentence – append „although no attempts have been made for capping effort in most EU countries, as no mechanism exists.‟ A further paragraph, explaining the national technical measures, through Statutory Instrument and implemented by Defra, would give better balance. MML comment: text updated. 1.1.4.2 Comments – mention of Defra public consultation process might be appropriate here. MML comment: text updated. 1.1.4.3 Comments – add „and at national level by Defra‟ to first sentence. Also note that the effectiveness of the bass management package, introduced in 1990, was evaluated by Pickett et al 1995, and benefits, including increased YPR were clearly demonstrated. Consider increasing score. 1.1.5.1 Audit trace ref - Pawson pers. comm.. – see Pawson et al (in prep). MML comment: reference updated.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 46 I am in broad agreement with scoring indicator criteria, comments and other scores under Principle 1. and a slightly higher overall score might be obtained if the above suggestions are adopted. Principle 2 2.1.1.4 Comments – as noted elsewhere, impacts from this type of fishery are considered to be minor. 2.1.2.2 Comments – could add that the Cefas bass logbook scheme encourages fishermen to record discards by species as RTS (returned to sea) 2.1.5.3 Audit trace ref add R22 Although the reviewer has limited expertise in this field, the potential ecosystem impacts appear to have been properly evaluated, with reference to main interested parties and stakeholders. Appropriate monitoring and safeguards are in, or will be put in place. I am therefore in agreement with the overall scoring for this Principle. Principle 3 3A.3.2 Comments – to second para add that Defra has biannual meetings with its‟ customer, Cefas, to set bio sampling targets, to monitor and improve performance according to an established system. MML comment: text updated. 3A.3.4 Comments – could add that, as yet, no mechanism is in place for capping bass fishing effort at international or national level. The NESFC has set an example by attempting to constrain bass fishing effort in part of its‟ district. MML comment: text updated. 3A.5.3 Are we talking about the local, national or international context here? The comments relate to the international and local situation. At national level Defra has contracted other organisations e.g. CEMARE, to conduct research on recreational fisheries and fisheries economics (Pickett et al 1995). Much basic work on bass biology has been undertaken at Universities, especially Swansea and Plymouth, often with Cefas external supervision. All of this work has fed in to providing better management advice. MML comment: text updated. 3A.6.1 Comments – need to clarify whether the question relates to the local net fishery or the bass fishery in general as the comment in the first sentence may be irrelevant. If this is so then a score of 70 appears too low. Mention should be made of the winter pair-trawl fishery operating off Flamborough and whether landings are adequately monitored. MML comment: text updated. 3A.6.3 Audit trace ref - include Pickett et al 1995 in respect of improvements in YPR. MML comment: text and reference updated. 3A.7.2 Comments - it is stated that the fishery is not in a spawning area, but we do not know this – some ripe female bass have been caught in spring. MML comment: all the plankton surveys indicate that bass spawn well offshore. It was this type of anecdotal evidence which led to the belief in the past that bass were inshore spawners 3B.6.1 Comments - could add that one fisherman has carried out bio sampling for Cefas, recording length and weight, taking scale-age samples, plus sex determination, gonad and stomach samples. MML comment: text updated. Under this Principle there was some low scoring relating to level of monitoring and target reference points. The latter factor (3A.6.2) I would have given a much lower weighting, for the reasons I have outlined elsewhere in this review. Management and enforcement score highly in what is already a tightly controlled fishery and I agree with the comments and scoring.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 47 8. Conditions and Recommendations Condition 1. Accurate recording of fishing mortality – action required. Inclusion of shore anglers in recording of total catch is not practical. The only estimates of angler catch have been made in one-off studies e.g. Pickett et al 1995, that are expensive and full of logistical difficulties. In terms of fishing mortality, it has been shown that some of the bass in this area are also exploited in other areas by both commercial and recreational sectors and where there are no accurate catch figures. MML comment: whatever the problems an attempt to improve the quality of the data must be made. Condition 2 I would dispute the need for reference points in relation to stock biomass whilst bass is a non-quota species and the population appears to be expanding geographically. I agree that NESFC should continue to liaise with Cefas as regards management strategy although it is likely that management of bass stocks will be subject to changes at national level in the near future and these changes may affect the viability of this fishery Condition 3 Agreed, NESFC are well placed to advise on management and monitoring of inshore bass fisheries. Condition 4 Specify if this is just for the net fishery applying for certification. If not, then should include the new pair-trawl fishery. MML comment: only for the certified fishery. Recommendation 1. Recording of effort. As with catch, only more difficult, is the requirement to record recreational angling effort. Some estimate of boat angling effort (boat days) might be obtained via the Cefas logbook scheme if extended, but this is Cefas‟ responsibility. I cannot envisage how any estimate of total beach bass angling effort could be obtained without large investment and specialist outside help – a census, based on site visits and both on site and postal questionnaires would be required. I think it unfair to impose this recommendation on the NESFC. Recommendation 2. Sampling is already at reasonable levels here and in the Thames Estuary, but there is none in Northumberland, Scotland, the Netherlands and Belgium, whose fisheries also share the stock. Given the relatively small local landings, there is a danger of sampling bias. Already NESFC liaises with Cefas and this recommendation looks a bit like „over-egging the pudding‟ to me. MML comment: this is a recommendation and not a condition. 9. Additional references Pickett, G.D., Eaton, D.R., Cunningham, S., Dunn, M.R., Potten, S.D and Whitmarsh, D. (1995). An appraisal of the UK bass fishery and it‟s management. MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft. Laboratory Leaflet Number 75. Pawson, M.G., Kupschus, S and Pickett, G.D. (in prep‟) The status of seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax, L) stocks around England and Wales, derived using a separable catch-at-age model, and implications for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Pawson, M.G., Pickett, G.D., Leballeur, J., and Brown, M (in prep‟). Distribution and migrations of seabass, Dicentrarchus labrax, L. in NW Europe and implications for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 48 Peer Review B This peer review has been carried out on behalf of Moody Marine Ltd with an allocation of 1.5 professional days. The volume of information cited is extensive as is the level of detail provided in the body of the report and assessment scoring tables. This review is thus necessarily brief and is not able to consider the information cited and its application to the assessment in any depth. Comments are thus somewhat generalised. General Comments on the Report The report is clearly put together and informative. There clearly has been a thorough approach to searching out information relevant to the assessment. The report appears to have identified a significant volume of relevant literature, though I am not in a position to comment on whether there are particular omissions. The background to the target species (section 2.1) is very thorough. I think the authors should be clearer as to whether the information in Fahy (2003) about the demise of the cod as a reason for bass filling a “niche” as top predator in the North Sea is scientifically established or conjecture. At first sight the notion seems rather weak. Cod have been in decline in the North Sea throughout most of the last century and if this had opened up a niche for bass, they would have arrived long ago. Availability of niches, primarily a food supply in the case of cod or bass, is not the limiting factor on populations, fishing is. The huge difference in biomass of the two populations also makes the niche argument weak. Warming of the North Sea seems a much more plausible explanation. MML comment: text has been clarified to reflect the above. The report wishes to consider the stock targeted by the fishery as being “part of a discrete North Sea stock unit for management purposes”. The description of knowledge of fish stocks on pages 5-7 suggests the argument for the North Sea stock being discrete from that in the English Channel is not very strong. Nevertheless it appears from later discussion (section 4) that ICES now consider this to be the case. The North Sea stock is thus the stock under assessment, though it seems appropriate that the situation in the Channel stock should not be ignored in this and any future assessment. It is worth noting that all management measures (MLS and mesh size) are national. 2.3 Description of current fishery. The fishery is clearly small-scale and localised and so is inherently “low impact”. However the text is not quite fully clear. The substantive para talks about 5 full time and up to 30 part-timers, while the final para talks only about the 5 full time netsmen. What about the 30 part-timers, do they also operate fixed nets and want to be part of the assessment? MML comment: as described by the report, only full-time fishermen are covered in this assessment. 2.4 Ecosystem. As with the lobster report, the description of geological conditions are largely irrelevant. The bottom type and depth are all that is really needed. The discussion of the Flamborough cSAC is too detailed. The northern most netting station is well removed from Flamborough. The minor bird interaction perhaps warrants minor mention of the bird populations there. 2.6.3. Ecosystem impacts. Agree with these statements and it could also be mentioned that the biomass of bass in the North Sea is very low compared to other species, so their presence, or removal by fishing, is masked by changes in other species. Comments on Scoring 1.1.2.1. Mortality. This question concerns the fishery so answers only need to concern the five (to be clarified) licensed netsmen, not fishing in the North Sea generally. This applies to the whole of this section. MML comment: this section does apply to the whole North Sea stock.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 49 The two sentences in the third para seem to be contradictory. MML comment: text clarified. It might be worth noting that many casual anglers are unaware of MLS or choose to ignore it. This is almost impossible to police. 1.1.2.2 Again comments are only required for this fishery. 1.1.2.3 As previous comment. Maybe I am missing something but we need more clarity here as to the role of the part-timers. Are they fishing fixed nets from the beach like the 5 full-timers? Are they licensed? Are they part of the certification process? Are their landings recorded? MML comment: text clarified. 1.1.2.6. Again this fishery only. 1.1.3.1 Reference levels. The answer here is essentially “no” and perhaps the score should be lower. MML comment: the score adequately reflects the current state of progression towards formal reference points based on an analytical assessment. There are tentative F reference points and a suggestion that the SSB reference points could be based on current stock levels. 1.1.4.2 Decision rules. Score maybe a bit high. The two paras are somewhat contradictory. The proposed increase in MLS is substantial and perhaps suggest that management decisions not as refined as the text makes out. An update on the MLS consultation would be interesting here. 1.1.5.2 Uncertainties. The answer coincides more closely with guidance for score 60 than 80, which has been awarded. The second para does not shed light on uncertainties and is copied from the previous answer. Suggest omit. MML comment: second para is now deleted. 1.1.5.4 The answer here is again “no” and the score should reflect it. While the current general picture of increasing stocks and constraining of effort implies sustainability, which is welcome, there is a sense that some of the answers in 1.1.5 are attempting to “talk up” the situation on stock assessment. It is agreed that stocks probably are sustainable and in practical terms all that can reasonably be done is being done to assess a stock of this size and commercial importance, but the answers should more accurately reflect the overriding question in this section, i.e. is there a robust assessment of stocks? Note that the score guidance 60 I suspect should read “the stock status is not estimated relative to reference points ……..” MML comment: this was discussed in detail during the assessment and we consider our response to be robust. 1.1.6.1 Reference levels. Again “no” is the simple answer and a score of 60 seems appropriate given the guidance. 1.3.1.1 Adequate info on population structure: Again the narrative more closely equates with the 80 score than 100, so 95 looks unjustified. 2.1.1.1 Habitats: First para is a bit at odds with the body of the report which suggests five netting stations. This section suggests 1-3, or is it 1-3 per netsman?? Again some better clarification in the narrative on how this fishery works, the role of part-timers etc would be beneficial. Second para is irrelevant. It would be worth adding here a reminder of what the habitat consists of, presume that it is a high energy sand beach with associated fauna. 2.1.3.1. Habitat impacts. Promote to 100? 2.1.3.2 Gear loss. Agree comments. There is some mention of the part-timers here which starts to shed light on what they do, this would have been welcome earlier. 2.1.4.1 Impact on ecosystem: This question refers to the fishery, not the stock, so first para is redundant
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 50 2.1.5.2 Impact of removal of target stock. Again this should only apply to this fishery and agree that the effect will be minimal. First para too long/omit? 2.1.5.3 Impact of removal of by-catch. I think any possibility of an “impact” on migratory salmonids as by-catch needs careful handling and explaining if it is to appear at all. As I understand it the bass net fishery will be Nov to Mar. From the graph on page 16 as far as I can tell there is no catch of salmonids at all, so this should not be an issue, if the unit of certification is as I understand it, i.e. the five netsmen for those months only. Salmonids is a contentious issue and while I am not familiar with the detail, I have the impression that EA are trying to buy out and cancel netting licences on the east coast to prevent possible impact on salmon in particular. Sea- trout may not be so threatened, but even so this is a point people can get excited about, so suggest it is presented carefully if at all. 2.2.1.1 Presence of protected etc species: If there is to be any mention of salmonids at all in this section, should something be said about salmon here? 2.2.1.2 Interaction with other species: The answers are a bit vague. The scoring guidance focuses on a need to report incidental mortalities. Is this part of NESFC licence condition or similar by law? 3.A.1 Management system. Principle 3 is referring to the fishery. Much of the answers in this section refer to the management of the wider stock. MML comment: we consider it important to reflect the whole management system. 3.A.1.3. Internal review: Interesting discussion but needs much more focus on the fishery being certified. The NESFC deserve greater weight here being local managers and as such 85 looks a bit generous on this particular point. MML comment: see point above. 3.A.1.4 External review: Again too little emphasis on NESFC. It is the management of this fishery that is of interest, not general comments on SFC‟s. 3.A.2.1 Consistent with EU etc: The answer here should just be “yes” and the narrative refer to this fishery only. However the scoring guide suggests 60 unless the system is formally evaluated for compliance. I realise that this is splitting hairs and that this small fishery is well regulated, making it tempting to score highly, but unless there is documented compliance the score here should be lower. MML comment: the fishery is operated in full compliance with all national and EU regulations. 3.A.2.2 Consistent with national: Same comment as above. MML comment: see point above. 3.A.3.1 Short/long objectives: Narrative is closer to the guide for 60 than the others. Again it is the management of the fishery under certification which is of prime interest, too much padding here on the big picture. This is a theme throughout this section which I will not repeat in subsequent comments. MML comment: this was discussed in detail during the assessment and we consider our response to be robust. 3.A.4.2. Economic incentives: Disagree. The management system is not targeted at providing the fishermen with a living. It is targeted at protecting the fish stock from over exploitation and making sure there is sufficient fish for all interests. The system is tolerant of people making a living, but would sacrifice that if it had to. But this is not really the point….the management system has technical measures to ensure sustainable fishing, not economic or social ones as far as I can see, so the answer is “no”. However I find the scoring guidance here somewhat baffling. Could this question just be removed as not relevant?? MML comment: text amended to reflect this view.
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 51 3.A.5. Research plan within the management system. Again the discussion should be primarily local management of the fishery under certification throughout the section. 3.A.6.3 Again surely it is the local management system that should be at the front of the discussion and the text is clear that the process locally is not very fast, speed being required in the 80 and 100 scores. MML comment: it is important to reflect the wider management system here. We consider the NESFC response to be adequate for the scoring given. Summary There seems to be sufficient information gathered and presented which, from the point of view of somebody not intimate with the literature cited, gives confidence that the bass stock in the North Sea is sufficiently monitored to provide a picture of sustainability. This thus allows this small beach-based fishery dependent on that stock to pass with respect to Principle 1. I have suggested several areas where the scores appear incorrect, and suggest these are re-visited, but these are unlikely to influence the overall result for this Principle. Clearly this is small, low-impact fishery which can be expected to pass on Principle 2. It is clear from the report and comments in the scoring tables that the management of this small fishery is successful and as such it could be expected to pass on Principle 3. Again I have suggested some scoring inconsistencies and again their correction seems unlikely to change the outcome. As a generality, for Principles 2 and 3, too much of the discussion and some of the scoring considerations have been directed towards impact and management of the North Sea bass fisheries as opposed to the local fishery under certification, which is of primary interest. There is an underlying feeling of over-scoring in the analysis of Principle 3, perhaps through the assessors feeling that common sense dictates that this fishery should pass, rather than following the scoring instructions to the letter, (which are sometimes not very helpful for this fishery).
FN 082020 v6 Public Certification Report Page 52