Advice and Recommendations

The Pelagic, Long Distance, North Western Waters, North Sea and Markets Advisory Councils produced a joint-lettter informing the Commission of the set up of the newly formed ‘inter-AC Brexit Forum’, composed of the ACs impacted by Brexit. Through this Forum, the ACs wish to address horizontal issues with the Commission specifically in the context of UK-EU fisheries management. In its recommendation, the Forum has formulated a number of key questions in relation to the setup and operational mode of the Specialised Committee on Fisheries (SCF) moving forward, and sought to establish a formalised framework for consultation on specific topics prior to relevant SCF meetings. The members of the Inter-AC Brexit Forum reiterated their plea for structured stakeholder engagement in SCF proceedings and invited the Commission to actively support our ambitions towards transparent, just and sustainable management of shared resources. The Forum invited the Commission to attend its next meetings on 5 May and 2 June 2022, to contribute to the discussions with details concerning developments in the SCF.

In its response, the Commission supported the establishment of the inter-AC Brexit Forum and provided further detail on the functioning of the SCF in response to the different queries raised by the ACs in the letter. PelAC members were pleased with the quality of the interaction with the Commission in the following Inter-AC Brexit Forum meeting.

The Inter-AC Brexit Forum sent a follow-up to the previous two letters concerning stakeholder engagement in future management and governance post-Brexit, as well as addressing the Commission’s response to these. The Commission’s direct engagement with the Inter-AC Brexit Forum has been particularly welcomed by the members most affected by Brexit and is considered critical for further endeavours to set the course of the Inter-AC Brexit Forum, the establishment of which the Commission services clearly supported. The Forum remains open to establishing a framework for formal consultations on specific topics prior to relevant SCF meetings. As the Forum evolves organically from one meeting to the next, its structure and format are being determined through iterative, consensus-based processes. One of the resolutions of the last meeting related to the scheduling of Forum meetings within one week after every SCF WG meeting to allow for timely transmission of relevant information on SCF procedures through the Commission’s SCF debrief. The Forum invited the Commission to its next meeting in September 2022.

In this recommendation, the PelAC asked the Commission to support the Pelagic AC by requesting ICES to improve the quality of the data available for the North Sea horse mackerel and boarfish stocks, and to prioritize the transition of these two stocks to stronger ICES stock categories and subsequent full-assessments.

In its response, the Commission mentioned the planned benchmark meeting for the boarfish stock which would look at the available data. It also expressed its willingness to further discuss with ICES on the possibility of reinforcing science on these stocks in line with the suggestions made by the PelAC.

In a joint-letter from 10 ACs regarding the process of targeting ACs for public consultations, as well as on the consideration of AC responses by the Commission services, the ACs ask the Commission to:

• Treat contributions from ACs to public consultations with added weight compared to responses from individuals/individual organisations;
• Document AC advice uptake at the end of the consultation process;
• Take working processes of ACs into account in a systematic fashion, i.e. by flagging upcoming consultations as early as possible, by providing translated documents in relevant working languages and by extending timelines for feedback submissions from ACs as appropriate.
• In addition to the questionnaire consultations, engage in active dialogue with ACs through bilateral meetings on relevant policy consultations,
when launching relevant EU consultation questionnaires.

In its response, the Commission confirmed that flexibility in the response format would be given to the ACs, and also confirmed that AC responses to consultations adopted by consensus are treated with added weight. The Commission is aware of the need for advance notice of consultations, and dedicates effort to make this possible. As for direct dialogue, the Commission does its utmost to attend relevant AC meetings but asks ACs to prioritize and send meeting invites with enough notice, noting the strain on the Commission resources.

In its response to the Commission consultation questionnaire on the Fisheries Action plan, the PelAC made a number of general remarks on the consultation format. The questions formulated in the questionnaire were often so generic that it makes responses from ACs the Pelagic AC very difficult. The PelAC recommended the Commission to reflect on the extent to which targeting broad stakeholder groups such as ACs is useful following this format. Many of the questions also requested submission of factual/scientific evidence to support an opinion. The PelAC believes it would be more appropriate to conduct meta-analyses of work done by different institutions on a common topic. Finally, the PelAC felt the issues raised in the questionnaire to be trivial relative to the wider issue of the sustainable management of pelagic stocks in the Northeast Atlantic, which was not mentioned in the questionnaire at all.

In Autumn 2020, the Pelagic AC convened a Southern horse mackerel Focus Group (SHOM FG) together with the SWWAC and discussed proposed amendments to the agreed LTMS. It was proposed during the meeting that the established target year to reach Fmsy within the strategy – the year 2025 – be amended to a target year of 2022, in order to bring the fishing opportunities based on the LTMS more swiftly in line with those based on the ICES MSY advice. Following a second meeting of the SHOM FG between the PelAC and the SWWAC on the 18th May where this decision was endorsed, the Pelagic AC informed the Commission of this single amendment – to Article 5.1 of the management strategy – which had been agreed on a consensus basis. The PelAC requested the Commission to urgently convey the revised LTMS to ICES so that it could be included for consideration in the WGHANSA meeting on 24th-28th May 2021.

The PelAC was surprised by the response from the Commission, indicating it would stick to ICES top-line advice on the basis of MSY, as its ‘legal basis’. The PelAC feels this is regrettable considering the amount of effort that the PelAC puts in developing management strategies/rebuilding plans, and will seek further clarification moving forward.

In a joint letter co-signed by the Pelagic Ac and seven other Advisory Councils, the vital importance was riased of stakeholder participation in future management and governance structures to be established for partnership working with the UK. The ACs urged the Commission to ensure that stakeholder engagement and advice remain central to all future management and governance structures being developed as the new relationship between the EU and UK takes concrete form, and requested this subject to be included for further discussion as an agenda item at the following inter-AC meeting planned for May 2021.

Following the March 2021 Pelagic AC Working Group meetings, the annual meetings where Pelagic reviews and evaluates the final uptake of its TAC recommendations issued the year prior, the PelAC members wished to request clarification from the Commission on how the different Total Allowable Catches (TACs) are calculated for herring in Area 4 and herring in Area 3a.

In addition, in its TAC recommendations for 2021 the PelAC had raised its concerns that the Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for blue whiting may no longer be precautionary – based on concerns shared by ICES in the advice around the impacts of unilateral quota-setting by Coastal States for this stock. The PelAC wished to reinvigorate this issue with the Commission once more and asked for confirmation whether it is willing to pursue an MSE of the blue whiting management plan at the Coastal States level and send this request on to ICES.

The Pelagic AC was surprised by ICES’s decision to permanently remove the “Stakeholder Information” section in ICES advice sheets, which was conveyed at the annual MIAC/O in January 2021. The Pelagic AC shared its concerns over this issue with the Commission, highlighting the importance of maintaining a mechanism through which stakeholders can provide informal input to ICES advice. The PelAC offered its full engagement and cooperation towards developing a robust formal procedure for incorporating information flow from stakeholders in a systematic fashion into the ICES advice system, recognizing the trade-offs that exist between stakeholder input vs the credibility of science.

The Pelagic AC requested the Commission to formally include this as an objective in its MoU with ICES, and also asked that the PelAC be actively consulted during this process by ICES. While this procedure is being developed, the PelAC asked that stakeholder information should be maintained as a standing item within advice. This will be followed up on at the next MIAC/O meetings in 2022, as the Commission rightly pointed out in its response that such a decision is an internal ICES matter.

The PelAC responded to the Commission’s questionnaire on the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, by providing answers to the questionnaire with specific input from the perspective of pelagic fisheries. One key message from the PelAC is to ensure existing measures to mitigate incidental catches of sensitive species are monitored and evaluated before new measures are introduced. The PelAC also indicated its intent to create an overview of existing protection measures relevant to pelagic fisheries under all relevant legislation. Finally, while the PelAC agrees that there is a need to put in place research projects, data collection frameworks and technical measures that adequately identify, monitor and minimize fishing impacts, there is also an urgent need to rigorously assess and mitigate the impacts that other activities have on these populations. The need to engage all the relevant stakeholders in these processes in a timely, continuous and transparent way was further underlined.

The Pelagic AC highlighted its work on a large-scale genetics project funded under EASME (‘Herring in Divisions 6.a, 7.b and 7.c: Scientific Assessment of the Identity of the Southern and Northern Stocks through Genetic and Morphometric Analysis’) undertaken to support stock identification of herring in areas 6a and 7bc, underscoring the need for these methods of data collection and analysis to be included in the scope of the Data Collection Framework (DCF). For the sake of continuity of the data flow, the PelAC believes it is vital that the methods used for genetics sampling and analysis are included in the Data Collection Multi-Annual Programme that is under development.

The Commission directed the Pelagic AC towards Member States, which are responsible for defining sampling methods, plans and protocols for data collection. Coordination of data collection at sea basin level is done through Regional Coordination Groups.