ices@firms 2010-06-02 7 ICES Advice 2137 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) +45 33 386700 +45 33 934215 david@ices.dk http://www.ices.dk/ 7 ICES Advice ICES Advice ICES Advice International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) FIRMS Reports Rapports FIRMS 2010-06-02 159082 10452 Angler fish - Bay of Biscay and Iberian Basin 3378 Monkfishes nei Baudroies nca Rapes nep Bay of Biscay, Iberian Basin 561 Bay of Biscay - South (Division 27.8.c) Golfe de Gascogne - Sud (Division 27.8.c) Golfo de Vizcaya - sur (División 27.8.c) 10 Atlantic, Northeast Atlantique, nord-est Atlántico, nordeste 5016 Celtic-Biscay Shelf 5017 Iberian Coastal 564 Portuguese Waters - East (Division 27.9.a) Eaux portugaises - Est (Division 27.9.a) Aguas Portuguesas - este (División 27.9.a) 10 Atlantic, Northeast Atlantique, nord-est Atlántico, nordeste 5017 Iberian Coastal 5019 Canary Current 2008 2009 Anglerfish in Divisions VIIIc and IXa (L. piscatorius and L. budegassa) 2009 13458 Angler - Bay of Biscay South and Portuguese Waters East 13459 Blackbellied angler - Bay of Biscay South and Portuguese Waters East There are no explicit management objectives for these stocks. <b>Management considerations</b> Although combined landings have declined from 2006 onwards, the TAC has been exceeded every year since 2004. Measures should be taken to ensure that the agreed TAC effectively restricts the fishery. The two species are managed under a common TAC. They are usually caught and recorded together in the landing statistics. It is impossible to manage each species separately under a common TAC. This problem is highlighted by the different status of the two stocks.<i> L. </i><i>piscatorius</i> (the stock in poor condition) constitutes around 70 % of the total anglerfish landings. Stock status for <i>L. </i><i>piscatorius</i> has remained unchanged since the last assessment in 2007, while stock status for <i>L. </i><i>budegassa</i> has improved considerably with the current F below F_MSY. Since they are caught together in most fisheries and managed under a common TAC, the advice depends on the stock in the poorer condition. Even setting <i>L. </i><i>piscatorius</i> fishing mortality equal to zero is not expected to bring the stock to <font color="#000000">B</font><font color="#000000">_MSY</font> until 2013. Therefore, in order to reach B_MSY as soon as possible, ICES reiterates its previous advice of zero catches for both stocks. Moreover, ICES recommends a rebuilding plan. A rebuilding plan should take into account that the two stocks of anglers are caught together and are part of a mixed fishery for hake, megrim and <i>Nephrops</i>. <font color="#000000">Following the EU Commission consultation paper on TACs for 2010 (</font><font color="#000000">A</font><font color="#000000">COM(</font><font color="#000000">2009) 224, 12 May 2009) this stock would be categorised as being overfished with respect to the fishing mortality that will deliver maximum sustainable yield. A 15% reduction in TAC in </font><font color="#000000">2010,</font><font color="#000000"> would generate more than a 37% increase in SSB in both anglerfish stocks between 2010 and 2011. </font><font color="#000000">ICES has</font><font color="#000000"> not evaluated the proposed option in relation to the precautionary approach.</font> <b>Scientific basis</b> <i>Data and methods</i> A surplus production model (ASPIC) was used to estimate stock biomass and fishing mortality relative to their respective maximum sustainable yield (MSY) values (see Figure 7.4.3.1). Two commercial lpue series were used in the model for each species. <i>Uncertainties in assessment and forecast</i> The assessment of anglerfish in Divisions VIIIc and IXa was performed separately for each species which allows the evaluation of the status of each species separately. The assessments are completely dependent on commercial lpue data which may be biased due to targeting, local depletions, and changes in efficiency. Large amounts of small L. budegassa were observed in the 2006 and 2007 landings and these fish may have generated the good catch rates recorded in 2008. Discards are not included in the assessment, but data indicate that the level of discarding is low. <i>Comparison with previous assessment and advice</i> The 2009 assessments are consistent with the 2007 assessments. No assessments were performed in 2008. This year the advice was based on high-long term yield (F_MSY) and to reach B_MSY in the short term (2011) for L. piscatorius (the stock in poor condition). Precautionary reference points have not been defined for these stocks. F_MSY could be considered as a candidate for a reference point consistent with high long-term yield <table class="firmsResourceTable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"> <tr> <td> </td> <td>L. pisc.</td> <td>L. bud.</td> <td>Combined species</td> <td> </td> <td colspan="3" style="border-top: 1px solid;border-left: 1px solid;border-bottom: 1px solid;border-right: 1px solid;">L. piscatorius</td> <td colspan="3" style="border-left: 1px solid;border-bottom: 1px solid;">L. budegassa</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rationale</td> <td> <p>Landings</p> <p>(2010)</p> </td> <td> <p>Landings</p> <p>(2010)</p> </td> <td> <p>Landings</p> <p>(2010)</p> </td> <td>Basis</td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;"> <p>F</p> <p>(2010)</p> <p>/</p> <p>F_MSY</p> </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;border-bottom: 1px solid;"> <p>B</p> <p>(2011)</p> <p>/</p> <p>B_MSY</p> </td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;border-bottom: 1px solid;">% B change ¹⁾</td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid;"> <p>F</p> <p>(2010)</p> <p>/</p> <p>F_MSY</p> </td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid;"> <p>B</p> <p>(2011)</p> <p>/</p> <p>B_MSY</p> </td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid;">% B change ¹⁾</td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid;">% TAC change ²⁾</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;">Zero catch</td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;">0</td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;">0</td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;">0</td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;">F=0</td> <td style="border-top: 1px solid;">0</td> <td>0.50</td> <td>+79%</td> <td>0</td> <td>1.34</td> <td>+46%</td> <td>-100%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>F_MSY</td> <td>1831</td> <td>2375</td> <td>4206</td> <td> <p>L. pis.: F(2008)*0.64 </p> <p>L. bud.: F(2008)*1.64 </p> </td> <td>1</td> <td>0.36</td> <td>+29%</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.95</td> <td>+3%</td> <td>139%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reduction of 69%</td> <td>971</td> <td>525</td> <td>1496</td> <td>F(2008)*0.31</td> <td>0.49</td> <td>0.43</td> <td>+49%</td> <td>0.19</td> <td>1.26</td> <td>+37%</td> <td>-15%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reduction of 50%</td> <td>1487</td> <td>828</td> <td>2315</td> <td>F(2008)*0.50 </td> <td>0.79</td> <td>0.39</td> <td>+39%</td> <td>0.30</td> <td>1.21</td> <td>+32%</td> <td>32%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reduction of 40%</td> <td>1736</td> <td>981</td> <td>2717</td> <td>F(2008)*0.60 </td> <td>0.94</td> <td>0.37</td> <td>+32%</td> <td>0.37</td> <td>1.19</td> <td>+29%</td> <td>54%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reduction of 30%</td> <td>1970</td> <td>1131</td> <td>3101</td> <td>F(2008)*0.70 </td> <td>1.10</td> <td>0.35</td> <td>+25%</td> <td>0.43</td> <td>1.16</td> <td>+26%</td> <td>76%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reduction of 20%</td> <td>2192</td> <td>1278</td> <td>3470</td> <td>F(2008)*0.80 </td> <td>1.26</td> <td>0.33</td> <td>+18%</td> <td>0.49</td> <td>1.14</td> <td>+24%</td> <td>97%</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Reduction of 10%</td> <td>2400</td> <td>1421</td> <td>3821</td> <td>F(2008)*0.90 </td> <td>1.41</td> <td>0.31</td> <td>+11%</td> <td>0.55</td> <td>1.11</td> <td>+21%</td> <td>117%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><i>Status quo</i></td> <td>2597</td> <td>1560</td> <td>4157</td> <td>F_sq</td> <td>1.57</td> <td>0.30</td> <td>+7%</td> <td>0.61</td> <td>1.09</td> <td>+18%</td> <td>136%</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="12"> <p>TAC weights in tonnes.</p> <p>¹⁾ B 2011 relative to B 2010.</p> <p>²⁾ Landings 2010 relative to TAC 2009 (1 760 t).</p> </td> </tr> </table> <b>Single-stock exploitation boundaries</b> <b>ICES advises</b><b> on the basis of exploitation boundaries in relation to high long-term yield, low risk of depletion of production potential and considering ecosystem effects. In order to reach B</b><b>_MSY</b><b> the 2010 catches should be zero or a management </b><b>plan should be developed. The advice accounts for the poor condition of </b><b><i>L.</i></b><b> </b><b><i>piscatorius</i></b><b><i> </i></b><b>stock.</b> <i>Exploitation boundaries in relation to high long term yield, low risk of depletion of production potential and considering ecosystem effects</i> <i>L. </i><i>piscatorius</i> fishing mortality equal to zero is not expected to bring the stock to <font color="#000000">B</font><font color="#000000">_MSY</font> until 2013. <i>L. </i><i>budegassa</i><i> </i>fishing mortality equal to F <i>status quo </i>is expected to bring the stock to <font color="#000000">B</font><font color="#000000">_MSY</font> in 2011Short-term implications <table class="firmsResourceTable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"> <tr> <td align="center"><b>Year</b></td> <td><b>ICES Advice / Single-Stock Exploitation Boundaries from 2004 onwards</b></td> <td align="center"><b>Predicted catch</b><b>¹⁾</b><b> </b><b>corresp</b><b>. to advice </b><b>/ </b><b>Single-Stock Exploitation Boundaries</b></td> <td align="center"> <p><b>Agreed</b></p> <p><b>TAC</b><b>¹⁾</b></p> </td> <td align="center"> <p><b>ICES</b></p> <p><b>Landings</b><b>¹</b></p> </td> <td align="center"> <p><b>Landings of</b></p> <p><b><i>L. </i></b><b><i>piscat</i></b><b><i>.</i></b></p> </td> <td align="center"> <p><b>Landings of</b></p> <p><b><i>L. </i></b><b><i>budeg</i></b><b><i>.</i></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1987</td> <td align="both">Not dealt with</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">12.0</td> <td align="center">8.9</td> <td align="center">5.1</td> <td align="center">3.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1988</td> <td align="both">Not dealt with</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">12.0</td> <td align="center">10.0</td> <td align="center">6.3</td> <td align="center">3.7</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1989</td> <td align="both">Not dealt with</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">12.0</td> <td align="center">7.6</td> <td align="center">5.0</td> <td align="center">2.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1990</td> <td align="both">Not dealt with</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">12.0</td> <td align="center">6.1</td> <td align="center">3.8</td> <td align="center">2.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1991</td> <td align="both">No advice</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">12.0</td> <td align="center">5.8</td> <td align="center">3.6</td> <td align="center">2.2</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1992</td> <td align="both">No advice</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">12.0</td> <td align="center">4.2</td> <td align="center">3.4</td> <td align="center">2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1993</td> <td align="both">No long-term gain in increasing F</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">13.0</td> <td align="center">4.5</td> <td align="center">2.3</td> <td align="center">2.2</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1994</td> <td align="both">No advice</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">13.0</td> <td align="center">3.6</td> <td align="center">2.0</td> <td align="center">1.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1995</td> <td>If required a precautionary TAC</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">13.0</td> <td align="center">3.6</td> <td align="center">1.8</td> <td align="center">1.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1996</td> <td>If required a precautionary TAC</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">13.0</td> <td align="center">4.6</td> <td align="center">3.0</td> <td align="center">1.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1997</td> <td>If required a precautionary TAC</td> <td align="center">-</td> <td align="center">13.0</td> <td align="center">5.5</td> <td align="center">3.7</td> <td align="center">1.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1998</td> <td align="both">Restrict catch to &lt; 80% recent levels</td> <td> </td> <td align="center">10.0</td> <td align="center">5.1</td> <td align="center">3.0</td> <td align="center">2.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">1999</td> <td align="both">Reduce F to F_pa</td> <td align="center">4.2</td> <td align="center">8.5</td> <td align="center">3.8</td> <td align="center">1.9</td> <td align="center">1.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2000</td> <td align="both">60% reduction in F</td> <td align="center">1.6</td> <td align="center">6.8</td> <td align="center">2.6</td> <td align="center">1.3</td> <td align="center">1.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2001</td> <td align="both">50% reduction in F</td> <td align="center">2.8</td> <td align="center">6.0</td> <td align="center">1.8</td> <td align="center">0.8</td> <td align="center">1.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2002</td> <td align="both">30% reduction in F</td> <td align="center">3.5</td> <td align="center">4.8</td> <td align="center">1.8</td> <td align="center">1.0</td> <td align="center">0.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2003</td> <td align="both">5% reduction in F</td> <td align="center">3.2</td> <td align="center">4.0</td> <td align="center">3.2</td> <td align="center">2.3</td> <td align="center">0.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2004</td> <td align="both">²⁾F = 0 or recovery plan</td> <td align="center">²⁾0</td> <td align="center">2.3</td> <td align="center">4.1</td> <td align="center">3.1</td> <td align="center">1.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2005</td> <td align="both">F = 0 or recovery plan</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">2.0</td> <td align="center">4.5</td> <td align="center">3.6</td> <td align="center">0.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2006</td> <td align="both">F = 0 or recovery plan</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">2.0</td> <td align="center">4.1</td> <td align="center">3.0</td> <td align="center">1.1</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2007</td> <td align="both">F = 0 or recovery plan</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">2.0</td> <td align="center">3.6</td> <td align="center">2.3</td> <td align="center">1.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2008</td> <td align="both">F = 0 or recovery plan</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">2.0</td> <td align="center">3.3</td> <td align="center">2.3</td> <td align="center">1.0</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2009</td> <td align="both">Same advice as last year</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td align="center">1.8</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center">2010</td> <td align="both">F = 0 or management plan</td> <td align="center">0</td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="7" align="both"> <p>Weights in ‘000 t.</p> <p>¹⁾For both species combined.</p> <p>²⁾Single-stock boundary and the exploitation of this stock should be conducted in the context of mixed fisheries protecting stocks outside safe biological limits. </p> <p/> </td> </tr> </table> <b>Factors affecting the fisheries and the stock</b> <i>Regulations and their effects</i> Hake, <i>Nephrops</i>, anglerfishes and megrim are partly caught in the same mixed fisheries. Since the implementation of the southern hake and <i>Nephrops</i> recovery plan implemented in January 2006, fishing mortality of both anglerfish stocks has declined. Although ICES has not conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the recovery plan, the overshooting of annual TACs suggests that the plan has not been fully effective. <i>Impacts of the environment on the fish stock</i> Spawning of <i>Lophius</i><i> sp</i>. involves the extrusion of eggs in a buoyant, gelatinous ribbon, which may measure more than 10 m. This can lead to a highly clustered distribution of eggs and newly emerged larvae. Although this could result in recruitment being sensitive to environmental variations, this has not been observed. <table class="firmsResourceTable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"> <tr> <td>Spawning biomass in relation to precautionary limits</td> <td>Fishing mortality in relation to precautionary limits</td> <td>Fishing mortality in relation to high long-term yield</td> <td>Fishing mortality in relation to agreed target reference points</td> <td> <p>Comment</p> <p/> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Undefined</td> <td>Undefined</td> <td> <p><i>L. </i><i>piscatorius</i> – Overfished</p> <p><i>L. </i><i>budegassa</i> – Appropriate</p> </td> <td>NA</td> <td> <p><i>L. </i><i>piscatorius</i>- B &lt; B<font color="#000000">_MSY</font></p> <p><i>L. </i><i>budegassa</i> - B &lt; B<font color="#000000">_MSY</font></p> </td> </tr> </table> In the absence of defined reference points, the state of the stock cannot be evaluated in relation to these. The assessment is only considered indicative of stock trends and provides relative measures of stock status. Biomass (in 2009) of <i>L. </i><i>piscatorius</i> is estimated to be below <font color="#000000">B</font><font color="#000000">_MSY</font> and despite the decrease in fishing mortality since 2005, F (in 2008) is still above <font color="#000000">F</font><font color="#000000">_MSY</font>. The fishing mortality in 2008 is estimated to be 1.6 times higher than <font color="#000000">F</font><font color="#000000">_MSY.</font> Fishing mortality for <i>L. </i><i>budegassa</i> shows a decreasing trend since 1999 and in 2008 is below <font color="#000000">F</font><font color="#000000">_MSY</font>. This has led to an increase in biomass but in 2009 it is still below <font color="#000000">B</font><font color="#000000">_MSY</font>. ICES.2009.Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2009. ICES Advice, 2009.