v

EFCA: Pelagics WW JDP

Pelagic RAC, Executive Committee

Amsterdam 8 February 2012

Why Joint Control Programmes for pelagics WW?

• Common regional challenges call for common solutions: JDPs

• SCIP in 2011 • By organising the best use of human and material

resources pooled by MS, we can promote: – Better basis for Risk Management

– Uniformity and effectiveness of control

– Increased transparency

– Level playing field for fishing industry

– Cost effective use of national control resources

Why Joint Control Programmes?

• The JDP cycle: Advantages can be gained by cooperation at all stages!

JDP management

based on

flexibility

JDP assessment

based on

accountability

JDP Planning

based on clear

objectives and

risk management

JDP Planning

Catch, effort & landing

data gives the Steering

Group the prerequisite

information to plan

campaigns spatially.

The Regional Risk Analysis

gives the Steering Group

the prerequisite information

to establish the tactical

objectives of the

campaigns.

Results of Regional Risk Analysis

• Main risks/threats identified were:

– Incorrect recording of species / weigh in log book

– Failure to report a landing

– Failure to send entry , exit or change of area

– High grading and discards

JDP Cycle: Implementation and Assessment

JDP Implementation (short-term):

- Close cooperation and permanent exchange of information provides a better basis for daily recommendations and risk analysis to derive at target vessels list

JDP Assessment:

- Common exercise, transparent, according to a common methodology

- Gives the best evaluation of effectiveness and of the regional risks to compliance

WESTERN WATERS JDP 2011

Western Waters Joint Activities 2011

Vessels inspected

Vessels

inspected with

at least 1

infringement

found

1 Joint Campaign –

completed in 2011 (119

days)

SEA 64 1

LAND 285 8

WESTERN WATERS JDP 2011

TYPE of INFRINGEMENT TOTAL: 13

Management and Conservation Measures:

Fishing without quota (on non-pelagic species but JDP species were on board, too)

2

Undersized catches on board 1

Reporting obligations:

Non compliance with ERS (no data transmission or device fitted on board)

3

No prior-notification to entry in port 3

No VMS transmission 1

Misrecording in logbook 3

Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) stock situation in Divisions IIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIIa–c,e–k, and VIIIa–e

(Western stock)

ICES Advice September 2011

•Fishing mortality has been increasing since 2006 but is still under MSY reference •Uncertainty in the absolute estimation of SSB

Mackerel (Scomber Scombrus) stock situation in the Northeast Atlantic (Combined Southern, Western and

North Sea spawning components)

•Fishing mortality has been relatively stable since 2006. •The SSB has increased considerably from 2002, and remains above MSY.

Herring (Clupea Harengus) in the Northeast Atlantic (Norwegian spring-spawning herring)

• Recruitment has been poor from 2004 onwards. •The SSB is expected to continue to decline until 2014 possibly 2015.

Draft WP 2012 WP 2011→ WP 2012

The WP 2012 does not contain significant changes from the one in 2011 although some additional tasks have been included, inter alia: • Assistance to the Commission and Member States in cooperation with Third countries, within the JDPs areas • Working on Joint Regional Inspection Programmes with Member States and the Commission

• New fiche for a JDP in Western Waters!

• Further develop the level of cooperation within the WW pelagic JDP

Future orientations: Towards Regional Control Areas:

– Make the most of MS control assets by: • Avoiding the unnecessary concentration human and

material resources

• Promote rational and complementary joint deployment of the resources available at MS

– More flexible and year-round JDPs, covering wider range of priority species /fisheries

– Permanent exchange of information and intelligence

– Common evaluation and reporting

Likely developments in JDPs / pelagics

– More flexible and year-round JDPs, covering wider range of priority species /fisheries (Pelagics in the Baltic Sea?)

– Further integration with National control programmes

– Reinforce the exchange of information and intelligence

– Reinforce the common regional risk analysis evaluation and reporting

THANK YOU!

www.efca.europa.eu