|
| Fact Sheet Title Fact Sheet |
| |
| Norway lobster - Baltic Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat |
 | Nephrops in Division IIIa (Management Area E) |
| | Data Ownership | | This document provided, maintained and owned by International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) , is part of ICES Advice data collection. |
|
| ident Block | ident Block | | | | Species List: | | Species Ref: en - Norway lobster, fr - Langoustine, es - Cigala |
|
|
| ident Block Norway lobster - Baltic Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Map tips - Click on
 to turn layers on and off - Double-click to zoom in
- Drag to pan
- Hold down the shift key and drag to zoom to a particular region
| fao Div |
|---|
| 27.3.a | Skagerrak and Kattegat (Division 27.3.a) |
|---|
| ices Fu Nep |
|---|
| 3 | |
|---|
| 4 | |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Aq Res | Biological Stock: Yes Value: Sub-Regional
Management unit: Yes Reference year: 2008
|
| Considered a management unit: An aquatic resource or fishery is declared as [Fishery] Management Unit if it is effectively the focus for the application of selected management methods and measures, within the broader framework of a management system. According to the FAO Glossary for Responsible Fishing, "a Fishery Management Unit (FMU) is a fishery or a portion of a fishery identified in a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) relevant to the FMP's management objectives." FMU's may be organised around fisheries biological, geographic, economic, technical, social or ecological dimensions , and the makeup and attribute of a fishery management unit depends mainly on the FMP's management objectives. |
| Jurisdictional distribution: Jurisdictional qualifier (e.g. "shared", "shared - highly migratory") of the aquatic resource related with its spatial distribution. |
| Environmental group: Classification of the aquatic resource according to the environmental group (e.g. pelagic invertebrate, or demersal fish) to which the species belong. |
| Reference Year: The Reference Year is the last year considered in the stock assessment and/or fishery status. |
| | | | | | Habitat Bio Depth Zone: Shelf (50 m - 200 m). Vertical Dist: Demersal/Benthic. Geo Dist Geo Dist: Shared between nations Water Area Overview Spatial Scale: Sub-Regional Water Area Overview  | | Water Area Overview Norway lobster - Baltic Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat
| fao Div | 27.3.a: Skagerrak and Kattegat (Division 27.3.a) | | ices Fu Nep | 3: | | 4 |
| | | | | | Water Area Overview |
Water Area OverviewNorway lobster - Baltic Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat Aq Res Struct Biological Stock: Yes Bio Assess Sci Advice Single-stock exploitation boundaries Table 6.4.13.1 Nephrops in Division IIIa (Skagerrak – Kattegat). Single-stock exploitation boundaries (advice), management and landings. | Year | ICES advice | Recommended TAC | Agreed TAC | ICES landings 1 | | 1987 | | | | 4.0 | | 1988 | | | | 3.7 | | 1989 | | | | 3.9 | | 1990 | | | | 4.3 | | 1991 | | | | 4.2 | | 1992 | | ~4.0 | 3.5 | 2.9 | | 1993 | | ~4.3 | 3.5 | 3.2 | | 1994 | | 2.9 | 3.5 | 2.9 | | 1995 | | 2.9 | 4.8 | 3.4 | | 1996 | Status quo TAC | 2.9 | 4.8 | 4.0 | | 1997 | Status quo TAC | 2.9 | 4.8 | 4.2 | | 1998 | | 4.0 | 4.8 | 5.0 | | 1999 | | 4.0 | 4.8 | 4.9 | | 2000 | | 3.8 | 5.0 | 4.7 | | 2001 | | 3.8 | 4.5 | 4.1 | | 2002 | Catches to be maintained at the 2000 level | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.4 | | 2003 | Catches to be maintained at the 2000 level | 4.7 | 4.5 | 3.8 | | 2004 | Catches to be maintained at the 2000 level | 4.7 | 4.7 | 4.0 | | 2005 | Catches to be maintained at the 2000 level | 4.7 | 5.2 | 4.0 | | 2006 | No increase in effort | | 5.2 | 3.7 | | 2007 | No increase in effort | | 5.2 | 4.5 | | 2008 | No increase in effort | | 5.2 | 4.9 | | 2009 | Current effort appears to be sustainable | | 5.2 | | | 2010 | Current effort appears to be sustainable | | | | | Weights in ‘000 t. 1) Does not include discards | Management Management unit: Yes Objectives There are two Functional Units in Division IIIa: Skagerrak (FU 3) and Kattegat (FU 4). The advice for 2009 is biennial and valid for 2009 and 2010 (see ICES, 2008). The 2008 assessment had lead to the conclusion for the two FUs in Division IIIa that, given the apparent stability of the stocks, the current levels of exploitation appeared to be sustainable. The most recent assessment data compiled in 2009 do not indicate any changes in the state of the stock. Sources ICES.2009.Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2009. ICES Advice, 2009. |
|
| |
|
