On the brink: The most depleted fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic

On the brink:

The most depleted fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic

On the brink:

Executive summary

Introduction

Depleted stocks in the Northeast Atlantic

Identification and status of the ten most heavily depleted stocks

Management and exploitation of the most heavily depleted stocks

Overfishing and other reasons that may explain the status of heavily depleted stocks

Conclusions and management recommendations

References

Credits

Suggested citation: López, J. & Perry, A. (2022). The most depleted fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic. Oceana, Madrid. 28 p.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7408382

Design: Yago Yuste

Photos and illustrations: All photos are © OCEANA. Species illustrations on page 9 are © Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook

Cover photo: © OCEANA / Carlos Suárez. Cod entangled in a fishing net, Baltic Sea.

The content of this document is the sole responsibility of Oceana and the views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect the position of the institutions supporting Oceana. Similarly, the institutions supporting Oceana are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained in this document.

Oceana is grateful for the support of:

European countries have committed to restore and maintain populations of commercial fish species above sustainable levels. However, despite some progress made during recent years, the status of some fish stocks continues to be in a critical state. Thus, based on the latest available scientific information, Oceana has identified the over 20 depleted fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic, to highlight their ongoing dire status and the urgent need for management measures aimed at their recovery.

The list of Northeast Atlantic depleted stocks covers a diverse group of species (including pelagic, demersal, and benthic species) and sea basins, from the Baltic Sea to the west of Scotland and from the Barents Sea to Iberian waters. Species like anchovy, eel, herring, horse mackerel, Norway lobster, sardine, and whiting, among others, have one or more stocks that are known or considered to be depleted. The most extreme case is that of cod, with the highest

number of depleted stocks (nine) across the whole region.

The depletion of these stocks raises concerns not only about their status, but also about the possibility that their abundance may have fallen below tipping points that have negative biological and ecological implications, as well as adverse economic and social consequences, since the stocks cannot sustain direct exploitation. Their reproductive capacity and subsequent are impaired, and there is an increased risk of stock collapse. This situation also makes these stocks more vulnerable to anthropogenic pressures (such as habitat degradation and loss) and to environmental variation, including in relation to climate change.

Most depleted stocks in the Northeast Atlantic are managed jointly by different parties, mainly by the European Union and the United Kingdom, through a solid regulatory framework that, if

well implemented, would facilitate the recovery and sustainable exploitation of depleted stocks. Nevertheless, only very limited attempts have been made to apply measures for their recovery (e.g., catch limits and technical measures). Indeed, depleted stocks are far from meeting the objectives set for their international and domestic management. For example, the abundance of the three most heavily depleted stocks, Irish Sea whiting, West of Scotland cod, and Celtic Sea cod, is only 8%,16%, and 21%, respectively, of the minimum target.

Overfishing is the main driver that has reduced the abundance of depleted stocks to unsustainable levels. Despite being clearly problematic, this excessive fishing pressure has been long ignored: for all of the most heavily depleted stocks, fishing mortality has exceeded sustainable levels for nearly the entire duration of the time series. The situation of the depleted stocks is so alarming that, in most cases, scientists advise that catches must be strongly reduced or stopped altogether (i.e., ‘zero catch’) to facilitate their recovery and sustainable exploitation. The need to implement such reductions is made more pressing by the fact that stock recovery is being hampered by other ongoing anthropogenic impacts and environmental changes, such as habitat

degradation and climate change. Nevertheless, the scientific recommendations are regularly ignored by decision-makers.

A further complication arises because depleted stocks are typically captured as by-catch together with other fish stocks in mixed fisheries. Management decisions related to the exploitation rate and pattern of stocks caught in mixed fisheries typically take a stock-by-stock approach, and prioritise the catches of the most productive stocks, rather than securing the recovery of those stocks with the poorest conservation status. In addition, there are signs of non-compliance with the provisions of the landing obligation, such that illegal discarding continues to be a problem. As result, actual catches of depleted stocks may far exceed the levels that are scientifically advised for permitting them to recover.

Based on the findings of this report, any prospect of recovering these severely overexploited fish populations appears unlikely without decisive management action. Implementation of adequate policies and measures by Northeast Atlantic decisionmakers, such as the EU and UK, is both crucial and urgent to recover depleted stocks above sustainable levels in the shortest possible time.

Oceana therefore recommends that these decision-makers act without delay to:

Adopt multi-year management strategies for stock recovery;

Set catch limits in line with scientific advice; Prioritise the recovery needs of depleted stocks in mixed fisheries;

Fully document fisheries that target or catch depleted stocks as bycatch; Implement the most effective by-catch reduction measures;

Eliminate anthropogenic activities that negatively affect depleted stocks;

1. Introduction

Protect essential fish habitats (those habitats that are critical for the life cycle of exploited fish species); and

Avoid any increase in fishing capacity of fleets catching depleted stocks; Safeguard food availability for depleted stocks;

European countries have committed through different international agreements 1,2,3,4 and domestic regulations 5,6 to exploit fish resources at sustainable levels. However, despite the progress made during recent decades towards this goal, EU Member States and the UK have failed to meet the 2020 deadline established under UN Sustainable Development Goal 14 and the Common Fisheries Policy, which required them to restore and/or maintain all populations of harvested species above biomass levels that can produce the Maximum Sustainable Yield a,7(MSY). Furthermore, the status of some fish stocks continues to be in a poor state, while the conservation and exploitation status of many others remains unknown.

Recent data published by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 8 (ICES), an independent scientific institution that provides advice on fish stocks, indicate the

ongoing depleted status of certain key fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic, many of which are jointly managed by different parties (mainly by the EU and the UK). The situation of these stocks is so critical that for many of them, the ICES advice on appropriate levels of fishing to facilitate their recovery is a strong reduction in catches – or even a complete reduction in catches (i.e., ‘zero catch’ 8 ).

a MSY is a theoretical maximum catch that can be taken from a stock in the long-term under constant environmental conditions.

Despite the heavy depletion of stocks representing a major failing in the management of Northeast Atlantic fish resources, very limited effort has been made by the relevant parties to apply effective management and recovery measures.

Despite the heavy depletion of stocks representing a major failing in the management of Northeast Atlantic fish resources, very limited effort has been made by the relevant parties to apply effective management and recovery measures. However, such recovery efforts are needed more urgently than ever 9 , given not only the poor status of the stocks, but also their lowered resilience to other anthropogenic impacts, such as habitat degradation and climate change 10

This technical report provides an overview of the status, management, and exploitation of the most depleted stocks in the Northeast Atlantic and analyses the main reasons that may explain their condition. Based on the findings, Oceana sets out measures and recommendations for the recovery and sustainable exploitation of these stocks. Recovering depleted stocks is not only necessary for achieving healthy and resilient marine ecosystems, but also for thriving coastal communities that depend on fisheries.

2. Depleted stocks in the Northeast Atlantic

The most recent ICES annual advice covers 185 individual Northeast Atlantic fish stocks, representing over 60 species. To complement this single-stock advice 8, ICES also produces mixed-fisheries considerations, fisheries overviews by ecoregion 11, and ecosystem overviews 12. Together, this information provides a good description of the status of the main fish populations in the Northeast Atlantic.

However, due to limitations in data and available knowledge, it is not possible for ICES to produce quantitative and analytical assessments for all 185 fish stocks. Thus, data for only 74 stocks are sufficient for estimating abundance (in the form of spawning stock biomass; SSB), fishing mortality rate (F), and reference points for these two indicators b. Comparing the biomass and fishing mortality estimates against their respective reference points allows for an assessment of the status and exploitation of the stocks, respectively.

b For the rest of stocks, commonly known as data-limited stocks, ICES usually provides advice on abundance and exploitation status, but without traditional analytical assessments and reference points. Therefore, in most of these cases the ICES assessments are based on trends.

The main reference points used by ICES to assess the conservation status of fish stocks are Blim, Bpa, and MSY Btrigger. Stocks are classified in different conservation categories depending on whether their biomass is above or below these reference points. For a large majority of cases MSY Btrigger is determined as B pa, and therefore in practical terms there are three main possible states of conservation:

Sustainable, if stock biomass is above MSY B trigger

Overexploited, if stock biomass is below MSY B trigger

Severely overexploited or depleted, if stock biomass is below B lim

Figure 1. Categories of stock conservation status (sustainable, overexploited, and depleted) according to stock biomass (SSB) and the main biomass reference points (MSY Btrigger and Blim). The example shown is for the western Baltic cod stock. Data source: ICES13

Blim is a biomass reference point below which the reproductive capacity and subsequent recruitment c of a stock are considered to be impaired and there is an increased risk of collapse 14. This reduced level of biomass may also fall below levels associated with broader adverse ecological impacts, and with negative economic and social impacts 15, as reduced stocks are not able to support fisheries.

In addition, in some cases ICES is able to identify whether the abundance of a data-limited stock Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) among algae and bryozoans.

is below any possible biomass reference point (including Blim), regardless of the fact that SSB and/or Blim cannot be quantified. Any such stock is therefore classified as depleted d .

c The process by which new individuals enter the exploitable stock and become susceptible to fishing.

d There are also examples of data-limited stocks that show very worrying trends, like: Rockall cod; Skagerrak, Kattegat, southern and central North Sea, and eastern English Channel horse mackerel; Celtic Seas, English Channel, and Bay of Biscay blackspot seabream; and Baltic Sea salmon (excluding Gulf of Finland).

The most depleted fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic On the brink:

Based on these criteria, the following Northeast Atlantic stocks are known or considered to be depleted:

Atlantic Iberian waters anchovy

Northeast Atlantic eel ( Sebastes mentella ), demersal, reb.27.14b 17

( Anguilla anguilla ), ele.2737.nea 29 .

Northeast Atlantic golden redfish

Southeast Greenland beaked redfish

Iceland and Faroes grounds, north of Azores, east of Greenland beaked redfish , shallow and deep pelagic stocks, reb.2127.sp18 reb.2127.dp19

Northeast Atlantic blue ling ( Molva dypterygia ), bli.27.nea 20 .

Western English Channel and southern Celtic Seas cod

Irish Sea, Celtic Sea and southwest of Ireland herring

( Engraulis encrasicolus ), southern component, ane.27.9.a 16 . ( Sebastes norvegicus ), reg.27.1-2 30 . ( Clupea harengus ), her.27.irls 31 her.27.20-24 32 .

Eastern Baltic Sea cod , Faroe Plateau cod , Irish Sea cod , Kattegat cod , North Sea, eastern English Channel and Skagerrak cod ,

Northern Norwegian coastal cod , West of Scotland cod ,

Western Baltic Sea cod ,

( Gadus morhua ), cod.27.7.e–k 21 cod.27.24-32 22 cod.27.5b1 23 cod.27.7a 24 cod.27.21 25 cod.27.47d20 26 . cod.27.1-2.coastN 27 . cod.27.6a 28 cod.27.22-24 13

This list of depleted fish stocks covers a diverse group of species (including pelagic, demersal, and benthic species) and sea basins, from the Baltic Sea to the west of Scotland, and from the Barents Sea to Iberian waters. As the abundance of all of these stocks is below B lim , it also falls below the level of biomass that can support MSY, which is the primary binding

Skagerrak, Kattegat and western Baltic herring , Western horse mackerel , Atlantic Iberian waters East, western Galicia, and northern Portugal Norway lobster,

Southern Bay of Biscay and northern Galicia Norway lobster ,

Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters orange roughy

Central and southern North Sea sardine Bay of Biscay sardine Irish Sea whiting

Southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel whiting ,

( Trachurus trachurus ), hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k833 ( Nephrops norvegicus ), nep.fu.2627 34 nep.fu.2535 . ( Hoplostethus atlanticus ), ory.27.nea36 ( Ammodytes spp.), san.sa.2r37 ( Sardina pilchardus ), pil.27.8abd38. ( Merlangius merlangus ), whg.27.7a39. whg.27.7b-ce-k40

management objective for stocks under current international 1,2,3,4 and domestic agreements 5,6 across Europe (see Section 3 ). It is important to note that to ensure their sustainable status and exploitation, depleted stocks should be restored and maintained not only above the B lim reference point, but above levels that can produce MSY.

3. Identification and status of the ten most heavily depleted stocks

status of these three stocks nevertheless seems to be among the most worrying of the list of depleted Northeast Atlantic stocks.

The ten most heavily depleted stocks comprised three species ( Table 1 ): whiting (two stocks), cod (six stocks) and herring (two stocks). It should be noted that, for the eel stock 29 and the two depleted Norway lobster stocks 34,35, ICES only provides relative values of biomass; therefore, they have not been included in this analysis. The

The most heavily depleted stocks are widely distributed across the Northeast Atlantic. They are found in sea basins such as the Baltic Sea, North Sea, West of Scotland, Irish Sea, and Celtic Sea, among others, although cod appears to be doing poorly across the whole Northeast Atlantic region.

Across the ten most heavily depleted stocks, there is a wide range of values relative to Blim and MSY Btrigger (Table 1). The SSB of Irish Sea whiting (ranked as the most heavily depleted stock) is only approximately 13% of its Blim, whereas for

e In cases where 2022 biomass data were not available, 2021 data has been used.

Celtic Sea whiting, SSB is about 88% of its Blim (ranked tenth). The status of some of these stocks is so deplorable that they are not expected to recover above Blim in the medium-term, even in the event of no fishing. It is important to note that, as MSY Btrigger values are greater than Blim values, all of the most heavily depleted stocks are at a significantly lower biomass level than the MSY objective. For example, the SSB of Irish Sea whiting is only about 8% of its MSY Btrigger reference point, while the SSB of Celtic Sea whiting is approximately 64% of its MSY Btrigger

Although trends in abundance (i.e., SSB) for the most heavily depleted stocks have been variable

over the last 30-50 years (given the available data), most of them show an overall reduction trend during the time series, from sustainable levels (SSB > MSY Btrigger) to depletion (SSB < Blim), with their lowest levels of abundance having been recorded in recent years ( Figure 4 ).

Many stocks have experienced steady declines in stock abundance, such as Irish Sea whiting, West of Scotland cod and western Baltic cod (the first two stocks have remained below B lim for nearly the last 30 years), while others are far more variable (i.e., Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, and southwest of Ireland herring, eastern Baltic cod, and southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel whiting).

Table 1. Quantification of the conservation status of the ten most heavily depleted Northeast Atlantic fish stocks in relation to their respective Blim and MSY Btrigger reference points. Rankings reflect the relative size of stocks as a percentage of their Blim reference point (SSB/Blim), from the smallest to the largest. Values in the table for SSB, Blim, and MSY Btrigger refer to weight in tonnes. Data source: ICES.

Ranking Stock name

Stock code

g The ICES advice for Irish Sea whiting was not updated in 2022. SSB data refer to the short-term forecast for 2022 by ICES. h Stock name has been simplified by naming only partially its area of distribution or using an ICES code. Details on the stock’s full name can be found in the list of depleted stocks (Section 1 of this report). SSB data refer to the short-term forecast for 2022 by ICES.

4. Management and exploitation of the most heavily depleted stocks

Management of all of the ten most heavily depleted stocks occurs within the context of a solid international and domestic fisheries regulatory framework ( Figure 5), with management objectives and principles that, if well implemented, would ensure their recovery and sustainable exploitation. Other relevant

environmental agreements and regulations, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity 41 (CBD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 42 (MSFD) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), also include targets and objectives related to the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish populations.

Aside from the main global agreements for the management of fish stocks 1,2,3 , the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) 5 is the legal framework that covers all of the most heavily depleted stocks. All ten of them are also of commercial interest to the EU. In addition, the EU has multiannual management plans in place for stocks fished in the Baltic Sea 43 , North Sea 44 , and in western waters 45 , which cover nine of the ten most heavily depleted stocks ( Figure 5 ).

On the UK side, the 2020 Fisheries Act 6 covers the majority of the most heavily depleted stocks, except for those in the Baltic Sea. Although the Fisheries Act requires the development of Fisheries Management Plans (to replace the EU multiannual plans), these plans have not yet been developed. Both the EU and the UK have also established a specific regulatory framework for shared stocks under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

(TCA) 4,j . Finally, the Norway Marine Resources Act 46 applies to one of the most heavily depleted stocks: North Sea cod. As a result of Brexit, the three parties that are responsible for managing this stock – the EU, Norway, and the UK - are in negotiations to adopt a fisheries agreement for the management of their shared fish stocks k , which will cover North Sea cod, among other fish stocks.

The fundamental and shared objective in the regulatory framework of the most heavily depleted stocks is to restore and maintain fish populations above biomass levels that can produce the MSY (see, for example, CFP Article 2.2, UK Fisheries Act 1.(3).(b), EU-UK TCA Fish.2.2, or SDG target 14.4). Parties involved in the exploitation of these stocks adopt measures, such as annual catch limits and technical measures, to make progress towards the agreed management objectives.

The setting of catch limits is the most important tool to control the exploitation rate of commercial fish stocks. All of the most heavily depleted stocks are managed through annual catch limits (Total Allowable Catches; TACs), expressed in weight (tonnes), and with quotas assigned to the relevant parties ( Table 2 ). Decisions on TACs are adopted by different decision-makers depending on the stock and based on scientific advice provided by ICES. However, scientific recommendations on the fishing mortality levels that would be consistent with achieving sustainable fisheries are rarely followed 47,48 . This is particularly pronounced in the case of the depleted stocks (see Section 5 ), for which actual catches even exceed agreed catch limits.

Irish Sea whiting

West of Scotland cod

Western Baltic cod

However, the measures adopted by decision-makers to date are insufficient and/or inefficient, not only to achieve their commitments7 (e.g., MSY) for the depleted stocks, but even to recover them. Stocks managed by the EU and the UK : Stocks managed by the EU : Stocks managed by the EU, Norway, and the UK :

North Sea cod

Fisheries agreements for shared stocks usually also include mutual access to each other’s waters and the exchange of fish quotas.

k Before Brexit, the EU-Norway agreement covered the fish stocks that now are shared among the three parties (EU, Norway, and UK). The EU-Norway agreement is still in place for the stocks shared between those two parties, but it is in the process of being reformed.

Russia accounts also for a small quota of eastern Baltic cod.

Due to the critical status of the most heavily depleted stocks, TACs that permit directed fisheries are only in place for two of the ten stocks (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel whiting; and North Sea, eastern English Channel and Skagerrak cod). For the remainder of stocks, the agreed TACs are exclusively for accidental catches (i.e., “by-catch TACs”), and so they are no longer considered target stocks. In the specific case of Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, and southwest of Ireland herring, the TAC is only allocated to vessels participating in a sentinel fishery.

Like other Northeast Atlantic stocks managed through TACs, the most heavily depleted stocks are included under the landing obligation, which is also known as the ‘discard ban’. This means that during fishing activities, all catches of these stocks must be retained on board, recorded, landed, and counted against the quotas m . Despite efforts to implement the landing obligation, it is broadly recognised that non-compliance is widespread across fishing fleets, unreported discarding continues, and the landing obligation is not effectively controlled 49,50 , posing significant risk to

the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks (see Section 5 ).

The demersal fishes that are among the most heavily depleted stocks, like cod and whiting stocks, are regularly caught together with other fish stocks in mixed fisheries. For example, most catches of Irish Sea whiting are made by the Norway lobster fleets, and almost all fleets targeting Celtic Sea demersal species, like haddock, catch cod to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore, management decisions for individual stocks included in mixed fisheries have consequences for the rest of stocks in these fisheries, including those that are depleted. For

m Note that there are some exemptions to the landing obligation when catches are used as live bait, for prohibited species, for high survivability species, and catches falling under de minimis exemptions. See CFP Article 15 for details.

The

most depleted fish stocks in the Northeast

The trajectories for stocks show that, in some cases (e.g., stocks ranked 5th—9th), despite substantial reductions in fishing mortality in recent years, these reductions have not yet resulted in increased biomass. This lack of recovery may be due to two main reasons. First, as noted in Section 1, when the abundance of a stock falls below Blim, the stock is so depleted that recruitment is compromised. Second, the critical status of depleted stocks makes them more vulnerable to other types of anthropogenic and environmental impacts, further affecting their capacity to recover.

In stark contrast to the agreed management objectives, annual decisions on catch limits (TACs) for fish stocks are rarely set in line with scientific advicep,47,48. This particularly applies to the depleted stocks for which, due to their critical status, scientific advice from ICES usually recommends either a major reduction in catches or no catches at all. Despite these expert recommendations, decision-makers often adopt catch limits for the most heavily depleted stocks that merely roll-over the previous year’s agreed catch limits, rather than adopting restrictive limits in line with the scientific advice (Table 3). Setting TACs above scientific advice clearly not only hinders the recovery of depleted stocks, but in some cases may even worsen their decline.

Furthermore, despite signs of illegal discarding49,50, countries currently adopt TACs under the false assumption that all catches are landed and counted against respective quotas. This poses significant risks for these stocks, as setting TACs for depleted stocks whilst continuing to ineffectively control discarding results in catches that likely exceed both the scientific advice and agreed limits51

Moreover, heavily depleted stocks that are captured as by-catch in mixed fisheries are rarely prioritised in management decisions for those fisheries. Catch limits set for target stocks of such fisheries often result in incidental catches of heavily depleted stocks that are too high to permit their recovery. ICES assesses and provides information about the potential implications of single-stock advice on catches of stocks in mixed fisheries, for the main sea basins of the Northeast Atlantic, including the Greater North Sea52, Irish Sea53, Celtic Sea54, Bay of Biscay55 and Atlantic Iberian waters56. Despite this advice, management decisions for mixed fisheries stocks are not driven by the need to recover and/or sustainably exploit the less productive stocks, including those that are depleted or heavily depleted.

p A 2022 CEFAS report on “Assessing the sustainability of fisheries catch limits negotiated by the UK for 2020 to 2022”, stated that only around one third of the TACs agreed during the last three years with parties like the EU or Norway have been consistent with scientific advice.

Table 3. Summary of ICES headline advice on catch limits for 2022 and 2023 for the most heavily depleted stocks, with subsequent agreed 2022 catch limits. Values refer to weight in tonnes, while number in parentheses indicate the percentage difference in 2022 TACs compared to 2021 TACs (e.g., a difference of 0% indicates that the 2022 TAC was identical to the 2021 TAC).

Ranking Stock name TAC code ICES 2022 advice 2022 agreed TAC

2023 advice 1 Irish Sea whiting WHG/07A 0 721 (0%) 0 2 West of Scotland cod COD/5BE6A 0 1279 (0%) 0

Celtic Sea cod COD/7XAD34 0 644 (-20%) 0 4 Western Baltic cod COD/3BC+24 698q 489 (-87%) 943q

Eastern Baltic cod COD/3DX32 0 595 (0%) 0 6 Irls herring HER/7G-K 0 869 (0%) 0

Western Baltic herring HER/3BC+24 0 788 (-50%) 0 8 Irish Sea cod COD/07A 74 206 (0%) 0 9 North Sea cod

cod (Gadus morhua).

13 246 (0%) 26 008 COD/07D 772 (0%) COD/03AN 1893 (0%) 10 Celtic Sea whiting WHG/7X7A-Cs 3435-4029t 10 696 (+4%) 1715

COD/2A3AX4 14 276r

q This advice applies to the sum of commercial and recreational catches. According to ICES, recreational fisheries constitute 46% of all catches of western Baltic cod. It is worth noting that the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS) recommended zero catches of this stock. See p. 132 of the following report: ICES. (2022). Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group (WGBFAS). ICES Scientific Reports, 4(44). http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.19793014

r Other catch scenarios were provided by ICES to consider six alternative TAC overshoot assumptions for 2021 ranging from 5% to 40%: ICES Technical Service. 2021. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.8938.

s This TAC also includes the eastern English Channel (ICES Division 7d), which is part of the North Sea whiting stock (whg.27.47d).

t ICES headline advice is provided in the form of a range in response to the EU multiannual plan (MAP) for the Western Waters and adjacent waters.

Beyond the direct impacts of fisheries, depleted stocks are also affected by an array of other factors. It has long been known that fish stocks are responsive to climate conditions, with impacts ranging from changes in distribution patterns to variation in the success of annual recruitment57. Thus, fish populations fluctuate in terms of

understanding of the sensitivity of individual species and stocks to environmental drivers, and predicted climate impacts.

In the Northeast Atlantic, current climate scenarios project ongoing increases in temperature 58, and therefore changes in species’ distribution. Species like cod and herring have been already identified as “big movers” in the Northeast Atlantic region, with observed changes in distribution in response to environmental conditions (mainly temperature) 59 The main potential ecological implications for these species include, for example, limited areas of suitable habitat (e.g., for cod), isolation between habitats for different life stages (e.g., for herring), and altered predator-prey interactions and subsequent competition between predators 59 .

Warming temperatures caused by climate change can also drive changes in terms of the reproductive capacity of stocks, with clear implications for recruitment success and for the size structure of fish populations 60,61. Indeed, for cod, the species with the largest number of depleted stocks, rising temperatures have been shown to affect its spawning phenology 62 and have resulted in a new low productivity state of some cod stocks, which is likely to continue15 . Such temperature effects can be amplified when stocks are faced with increased fishing pressure 61 Furthermore, some southern cod populations, such as in the Baltic Sea, appear to be at their upper limit of temperature tolerance 63 .

Species’ interactions, primarily through predator-prey relations, also appear to be major drivers of stock distribution and status 64 . Food availability and predation are often intertwined, as prey and predator species switch roles depending on their respective life stages. For example, North Sea cod is preyed upon by a variety of species throughout its life cycle. Species like grey gurnard, whiting, harbour porpoise, and various seabirds contribute to predation mortality of juvenile (i.e., 0-group) cod 65 . High abundance of herring, which also preys on early life stages of cod, has been found to lead to significant declines in cod 66 . Lastly, predation by harbour porpoise and grey seal (and also cannibalism) seem to have a significant impact on the mortality of cod aged 1-2 years, whilst grey seals are the main influence on mortality of cod aged 3-4 years 67 . At the same time, cod is a top predator that feeds and depends on various species, like sprat, herring, and sandeel, among others 68 .Fishing pressure can exacerbate or modify these various predator-prey interactions, making it difficult for struggling stocks to recover by altering the ecological state of the system 69 .

Essential fish habitats, such as spawning and nursery grounds, are also vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts. For example, gravel substratum is an essential habitat for spawning herring, and activities such as dredging, sand and gravel extraction, dumping of dredge spoil, waste from fish cages, or the construction of structures such as wind turbines in the vicinity of spawning grounds negatively affect these habitats and, ultimately, stock status. Scientists have consistently advised that those activities that disturb herring spawning grounds should be avoided31

In addition to this direct damage to key habitats, other human activities and impacts affect depleted stocks. For example, levels of nutrients, pollutants, and deoxygenation are higher in the Baltic Sea than in most other European seas. Some Baltic Sea stocks also face high levels of recreational fishing pressure. These pressures

affect both the status and recovery of depleted Baltic cod stocks 70 and western Baltic herring. The overall environmental situation in the Baltic also affects the functioning of the food web and reduces ecosystem resilience and resistance to additional environmental changes.

Recovery of depleted stocks is complex but is nevertheless possible. Experience has shown how, with strong political will, appropriate management decisions, and stakeholder collaboration, it is possible to recover depleted stocks to sustainable levels. In the Northeast Atlantic there are strong examples of recovery success, covering different species categories and sea basins. Good examples of recovery are illustrated by the cases of Cantabrian Sea and Atlantic Iberian waters sardine ( Sardina pilchardus ) 71, Irish Sea sole ( Solea solea ) 72, and northern hake ( Merluccius merluccius ) 73 .

6. Conclusions and management recommendations

Depleted stocks in the Northeast Atlantic have been systematically subjected to overfishing for many years. As a result of this excessive fishing, these stocks have suffered major declines in biomass, bringing them beyond tipping points that have severe biological and ecological consequences, with associated socio-economic impacts.

Until now, European countries have adopted management measures that are insufficient to recover these stocks, creating a situation in which they are also more vulnerable to other anthropogenic pressures and environmental changes, such as habitat degradation and climate change. Any prospect of recovering depleted fish populations appears unlikely under the current status quo approach to management.

It is imperative and urgent that decision-makers adopt and implement adequate policies and measures that are firmly in line with sciencebased management, in order for overexploited stocks to recover. They must reduce fishing pressure, including unwanted catches that occur in mixed fisheries, and take into account other anthropogenic pressures and environmental conditions, which also impact the status of many depleted stocks.

Depleted stocks are a public resource and recovering them is not only a necessity to achieve agreed fisheries management objectives and contribute to healthy and resilient marine ecosystems, but will also provide long-term benefits for coastal communities that depend upon them.

In line with previous joint NGO recommendations for the setting of fishing opportunities in the Northeast Atlantic to recover and sustainably exploit depleted stocks74,75,76, Oceana urges European countries to:

Adopt multi-year management strategies to recover depleted stocks as the basis for setting management measures (i.e., catch limits). To ensure progress in the recovery of depleted stocks, countries should ensure that these multi-year management strategies include specific conservation objectives, with concrete targets and timeframes for recovery, bycatch reduction plans, and safeguard measures that should be implemented in the event that objectives and targets are missed. Management strategies should also incorporate:

• Provisions to implement Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM), to support data collection and improve transparency and accountability.

• Precautionary measures to allow depleted stocks to adapt to anthropogenic and environmental drivers that affect their conservation.

• Shared multilateral strategies among all parties exploiting depleted stocks, which extend beyond the boundaries of individual management units, to align and harmonise stock management objectives and measures.

Set catch limits for depleted stocks in line with scientific advice to ensure that stocks recover to sustainable levels in the shortest possible time. These limits should also be set in accordance with the following points:

• Where possible, countries should set catch limits below the levels recommended in the ICES headline advice, to buffer against other pressures or ecosystem dynamics, such as habitat degradation and climate change.

• Since the biomass of depleted stocks is critically low, countries should not allow interannual and interarea flexibilities in catch limits for these stocks.

• Exploitation of shared depleted stocks should be conditional on agreeing catch limits and shares.

Prioritise the recovery of depleted stocks in mixed fisheries, in which depleted stocks are caught either as the target or as bycatch, rather than aiming to fully exploit the most productive stocks. This requires setting certain catch limits for the more abundant stocks caught in mixed fisheries below the levels recommended in their respective single-stock advice, in order to safeguard other stocks and ensure that the by-catch of depleted stocks does not exceed unsafe levels.

Ensure that fisheries catching depleted stocks as a target stock or as bycatch are fully documented using Remote Electronic Monitoring and/or a reliable and independent catch documentation scheme. This is particularly crucial for countries to monitor and enforce adopted management measures, in view of long-standing concerns about the lack of compliance with the landing obligation, as well as the fact that fisheries regularly overshoot agreed catch limits for certain depleted stocks. Fully documented fisheries will also contribute to improving the quality of stock assessments, providing a stronger basis for management.

Mandate the implementation of the most effective by-catch reduction measures. Being granted access to fishing grounds where depleted stocks are known to occur should be conditional on using the best available technology and practices for selectivity to minimise the by-catch of these stocks. This also includes applying measures such as temporary and permanent area restrictions.

Eliminate and, where not possible, minimise anthropogenic activities and impacts that have a negative effect on depleted fish stocks and habitats associated with them. Examples of such activities include the dumping of dredge spoil and the extraction of marine aggregates in herring spawning grounds; and recreational fishing, pollution, and eutrophication, which all affect Baltic cod. Countries should continue to restrict damaging activities until it has been scientifically proven that their effects are not detrimental to the conservation of stocks.

Avoid any increase in fishing capacity of fleets catching depleted stocks, and reduce it where possible. Countries should not grant any reallocation of fishing capacity or new authorisations for these fleet segments until the depleted stocks concerned have recovered.

Protect essential fish habitats for depleted stocks, like nursery and spawning grounds, by adopting spatial and/or temporal restrictions for any fishing activity that has, or is likely to have, an adverse impact on these habitats. Where possible, restore degraded essential fish habitats so they can fulfil their ecological role.

Safeguard food availability for depleted stocks. Countries should exercise precautionary management of prey species of depleted stocks, by setting catch limits below levels recommended in single-stock scientific advice. Ensuring that depleted stocks have sufficient food available is a key requirement to facilitate their recovery.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

References

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/ convention_overview_convention.htm

United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, September 8, 1995,: https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/ fish_stocks_agreement/CONF164_37.htm

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Union. 2020. Official Journal of the European Union, L149/10. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX :22021A0430(01)&from=EN

Regulation (EU) 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX :32013R1380&from=EN

UK Fisheries Act 2020. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/22/enacted/data.pdf

STECF. (2022). Monitoring of the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy. (STECF-Adhoc-22-01). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/566544

STECF. (2022). Monitoring of the performance of the Common Fisheries Policy. (STECF-Adhoc-22-01). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/566544

Sumaila, U. R., & Tai, T. C. (2020). End overfishing and increase the resilience of the ocean to climate change. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, Article 523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00523

Drinkwater, K. F. (2005). The response of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) to future climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62(7), 1327-1337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.05.015

ICES. (2022). Fisheries overviews. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). https://www.ices.dk/advice/ Fisheries-overviews/Pages/fisheries-overviews.aspx

ICES. (2022). Ecosystem Overviews International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). https://www.ices.dk/advice/ESD/ Pages/Ecosystem-overviews.aspx

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in subdivisions 22–24, western Baltic stock (western Baltic Sea). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.22–24. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447868.v1

1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ICES. (2022). Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF2). ICES Scientific Reports, 4(68). http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.20557008

Möllmann, C., Cormon, X., Funk, S., Otto, S. A., Schmidt, J. O., Schwermer, H., Sguotti, C., Voss, R., & Quaas, M. (2021). Tipping point realized in cod fishery. Scientific Reports, 11, Article 14259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93843-z

ICES. (2022). Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in Division 9.a (Atlantic Iberian waters). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, ane.27.9a. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447751.v1

ICES. (2022). Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in Division 14.b, demersal (Southeast Greenland). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, reb.27.14b. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19772464.v1

ICES. (2021). Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in ICES subareas 5, 12, and 14 (Iceland and Faroes grounds, north of Azores, east of Greenland) and in NAFO subareas 1 and 2 (shallow pelagic stock < 500 m). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, reb.2127.sp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7839

ICES. (2021). Beaked redfish (Sebastes mentella) in ICES subareas 5, 12, and 14 (Iceland and Faroe grounds, North of Azores, East of Greenland) and in NAFO subareas 1 and 2 (deep pelagic stock > 500 m). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, reb.2127.dp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7838

ICES. (2019). Blue ling (Molva dypterygia in subareas 1, 2, 8, 9, and 12, and in divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2019. ICES Advice 2019, bli.27.nea. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.4813

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in divisions 7.e–k (western English Channel and southern Celtic Seas). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.7e–k. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447898.v2

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in subdivisions 24–32, eastern Baltic stock (eastern Baltic Sea). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.24–32. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447874.v1

ICES. (2021). Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subdivision 5.b.1 (Faroe Plateau). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, cod.27.5b1. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7748

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.7a. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447895.v3

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 The most depleted fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic On the brink:

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subdivision 21 (Kattegat). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.21. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447865.v1

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in Subarea 4, Division 7.d, and Subdivision 20 (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak). In Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.47d20. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21406881.v1

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in subareas 1 and 2 north of 67°N (Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea), northern Norwegian coastal cod. Replacing advice provided in 2021. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.12coastN. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.20072054.v1

ICES. (2022). Cod (Gadus morhua) in Division 6.a (West of Scotland). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, cod.27.6a. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447889.v1

ICES. (2022). European eel (Anguilla anguilla) throughout its natural range. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, ele.2737.nea. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19772374.v1

ICES. (2022). Golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus) in subareas 1 and 2 (Northeast Arctic). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, reg.27.1-2. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19453697.v1

ICES. (2022). Herring (Clupea harengus) in divisions 7.a South of 52°30’N, 7.g–h, and 7.j–k (Irish Sea, Celtic Sea, and southwest of Ireland). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, her.27.irls. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19448003.v1

ICES. (2022). Herring (Clupea harengus) in subdivisions 20–24, spring spawners (Skagerrak, Kattegat, and western Baltic). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, her.27.20-24. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19447964.v1

ICES. (2022). Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Subarea 8 and divisions 2.a, 4.a, 5.b, 6.a, 7.a–c, and 7.e–k (Northeast Atlantic). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k8. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19772383.v1

ICES. (2022). Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in Division 9.a, functional units 26–27 (Atlantic Iberian waters East, western Galicia, and northern Portugal). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, nep.fu.2627. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19453496.v1

38 35

ICES. (2020). Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) in subareas 1–10, 12 and 14 (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2020. ICES Advice 2020, ory.27.nea. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.5767

27 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 49

ICES. (2022). Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in divisions 4.b–c and Subdivision 20, Sandeel Area 2r (central and southern North Sea). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, san.sa.2r. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.10001

ICES. (2021). Sardine (Sardina pilchardus) in divisions 8.a-b and 8.d (Bay of Biscay). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, pil.27.8abd.

https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7815

ICES. (2021). Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, whg.27.7a. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7887

ICES. (2022). Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in divisions 7.b–c and 7.e–k (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, whg.27.7b-ce-k. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices. advice.19458416.v2

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056&from=EN

Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 establishing a multiannual plan for the stocks of cod, herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R1139&from=en

Regulation (EU) 2018/973 establishing a multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligation in the North Sea. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018R0973&from=EN

Regulation (EU) 2019/472 establishing a multiannual plan for stocks fished in the Western Waters and adjacent waters, and for fisheries exploiting those stocks. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0472&from=en

Norwegian Marine Resources Act. Act of 6 June 2008 no. 37 relating to the management of wild living marine resources. https://www.fiskeridir.no/English/Fisheries/Regulations/Themarine-resources-act

Grossman, J. (2022). Taking stock 2022 - are TACs set to achieve MSY? ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/rine44zc/ taking-stock-2022-are-tacs-set-to-achieve-msy.pdf

48

Bell, E., Nash, R., Garnacho, E., De Oliveira, J., & O’Brien, C. (2022). Assessing the sustainability of fisheries catch limits negotiated by the UK for 2020 to 2022. Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1061261/Assessing_ negotiated_catch_limits_2020_to_2022.pdf

STECF. (2020). Evaluation of Member States’ Annual Reports on the Landing Obligation (for 2019). (STECF-Adhoc20-02). Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/304431

European Commission. (2022). COM(2022) 253 final. Towards more sustainable fishing in the EU: state of play and orientations for 2023. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0253

McQueen, K., Eveson, J. P., Dolk, B., Lorenz, T., Mohr, T., Schade, F. M., & Krumme, U. (2018). Growth of cod (Gadus morhua) in the western Baltic Sea: estimating improved growth parameters from tag–recapture data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76(8), 1326-1337. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0081

ICES. (2022). Greater North Sea mixed fisheries considerations. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21532941.v1

ICES. (2022). Irish Sea mixed fisheries considerations. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21532950.v1

ICES. (2022). Celtic Sea mixed fisheries considerations. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21532935.v1

ICES. (2022). Bay of Biscay mixed fisheries considerations. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21532932.v1

ICES. (2022). Iberian waters mixed-fisheries considerations. In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.21532947.v1

63 58

Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J., & Reynolds, J. D. (2001). Marine Fisheries Ecology. Blackwell Science.

ICES. (2017). Report of the Working Group on Fish Distribution Shifts (WKFISHDISH). 22–25 November 2016, ICES HQ, Copenhagen.

ICES CM 2016/ACOM: 55. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.3798

Ottersen, G., Stige, L. C., Durant, J. M., Chan, K. S., Rouyer, T. A., Drinkwater, K. F., & Stenseth, N. C. (2013). Temporal shifts in recruitment dynamics of North Atlantic fish stocks: effects of spawning stock and temperature. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 480 205–225. https://doi.org/10.3354/MEPS10249

Tu, C. Y., Chen, K. T., & Hsieh, C. H. (2018). Fishing and temperature effects on the size structure of exploited fish stocks. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25403-x

McQueen, K., & Marshall, C. T. (2017). Shifts in spawning phenology of cod linked to rising sea temperatures. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 74(6), 1561–1573.

https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx025

64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Akimova, A., Hufnagl, M., & Peck, M. A. (2019). Spatiotemporal dynamics of predators and survival of marine fish early life stages: Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the North Sea. Progress in Oceanography, 176, Article 102121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2019.102121

74 75

Bund, ClientEarth, Coalition Clean Baltic, Danmarks Naturfredninesforenine, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Estonian Fund for Nature, FishSec, Greenpeace, Lithuanian Fund for Nature, Oceana, OurFish, Polski Klub Ekologiczny, Seas at Risk, Soumen Luonnonsuojeluliitto, WWF. (2022). Joint NGO recommendations on Baltic Sea fishing opportunities for 2023. https://europe. oceana.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/final_joint_ngo_ recommendations_baltic_tacs_2023.pdf

Blue Marine Foundation, ClientEarth, Marine Conservation Society, Oceana, RSPB & Whale and Dolphin Conservation. (2022). NGO recommendations to the EU on the setting of fishing opportunities for 2023.

https://europe.oceana.org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/26/2022/10/NGO-TAC-recommendations-to-UK-for2023-signed-off.pdf

ICES. (2015). Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK). 28 April - 7 May 2015. ICES Expert Group reports (until 2018). Stock Annex: Cod (Gadus morhua in Subarea 4 and divisions 7.d and 20 (North Sea, eastern English Channel, Skagerrak). https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.5325

Speirs, D. C., Guirey, E. J., Gurney, W. S. C., & Heath, M. R. (2010). A length-structured partial ecosystem model for cod in the North Sea. Fisheries Research, 106, 474–494.

ICES. (2020). Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM; outputs from 2020 meeting). ICES Scientific Reports, 3(10). https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7695

ICES. (2013). Report of the ICES Advisory Committee 2013. ICES Advice, 2013. Book 6.

Durant, J. M., Aarvold, L., & Langangen, Ø. (2021). Stock collapse and its effect on species interactions: Cod and herring in the Norwegian-Barents Seas system as an example. Ecology and Evolution, 11(23), 16993–17004. https://doi.org/10.1002/ECE3.8336

Birgersson, L., Söderström, S., & Belhaj, M. (2022). The Decline of Cod in the Baltic Sea: A review of biology, fisheries and management, including recommendations for cod recovery The Fisheries Secretariat, Stockholm.

https://www.fishsec.org/app/uploads/2022/03/FishSec-ReportDecline-Baltic-Cod-March2022.pdf

ICES. (2021). Sardine (Sardina pilchardus) in divisions 8.c and 9.a (Cantabrian Sea and Atlantic Iberian waters). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021, pil.27.8c9a. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.7816

ICES. (2022). Sole (Solea solea) in Division 7.a (Irish Sea). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, sol.27.7a. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19453817.v1

ICES. (2022). Hake (Merluccius merluccius) in subareas 4, 6, and 7, and in divisions 3.a, 8.a–b, and 8.d, Northern stock (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the northern Bay of Biscay). In: Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2022. ICES Advice 2022, hke.27.3a468abd. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.advice.19448012.v1

76 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 62 © OCEANA / LX

Borges, L. (2020). The Unintended Impact of the European Discard Ban. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78(1), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa200 52 53 27

Bird Watch Ireland, Blue Marine Foundation, Bund, ClientEarth, Danmarks Naturfredninesforenine, Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, des requins et des hommes, Ecologistas en Acción, Fair Seas, FishSec, France Nature Environment, NEV, Sciaena, Seas at risk, Oceana, Our Fish. (2022). NGO recommendations to the EU on the setting of fishing opportunities for 2023. https://europe.oceana.org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/26/2022/10/NGO-TAC-recommendations-to-EU-for2023-signed-off.pdf

OCEANA IN EUROPE

European Headquarters: Madrid, Spain europe@oceana.org

European Union Office: Brussels, Belgium brussels@oceana.org

Baltic and North Sea Office: Copenhagen, Denmark copenhagen@oceana.org

Follow @OceanaEurope on Facebook Instagram Twitter

europe.oceana.org