Last updated on 26 January 2018

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Lophius spp.

SPECIES NAME(s)

Monkfishes nei, Anglerfish nei (multispecies), angler, monkfish, monk

COMMON NAMES

white anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius), blackbellied angler (Lophius budegassa)

ICES considers several different units of anglerfish for assessment and management purposes:

1) Anglerfish in Division IIIa (Kattegat and Skagerrak), Subarea IV (North Sea), and Subarea VI (West of Scotland and Rockall) (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) (covered by this profile);
2) Angler (L. piscatorius) and blackbellied angler (L. budegassa) in Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIa,b,d (Southern Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay);
3) Angler and blackbellied angler in Divisions VIIIc and IXa (Cantabrian Sea and Atlantic Iberian waters).

However, the boundaries between stocks are not based on biological criteria, according to studies carried out in genetic and morphometric analysis (Duarte et al., 2004 and Fariña et al., 2004 in ICES, 2014a). In the unit covered by this profile the two species: angler, or white anglerfish (L. piscatorius) and blackbellied angler (L. budegassa) are assessed and advised by ICES as a single assessment unit (ICES, 2014c). Angler (L. piscatorius) in Divisions IVa, Division VIa and Rockall might in fact extend into VII, V or IIa, although there is currently insufficient evidence to support an extension of the stock area (ICES, 2013).


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • The average stock biomass indicator in the last two years is higher than the average of the 3 previous years for both species, and the survey indicates that recruitment in 2014 is above average compared with the time-series (ICES, 2014c).
  • Underreporting of landings is no longer considered an issue because of the unrestrictive TACs and the substantial reduction in the offshore gillnet fishery (ICES, 2014c).
  • Effort has decreased steadily and the stock is not expected to be affected if recent catch levels are maintained (ICES, 2014c).
  • In 2015 TAC was set following the scientific advice, although management area is not aligned with assessment area.
Weaknesses
  • Biological or fishing mortality reference points are not set.
  • There is evidence of ageing problems (ICES, 2013) and discards of gillnet fisheries are not estimated leading to uncertainty in catch estimates and advice and contributing to the lack of an analytical assessment (ICES, 2014c).
  • Immature fish are subjected to exploitation for a number of years prior to first maturity.
  • Management of the two anglerfish species under a combined TAC prevents effective control of the single-species exploitation rates and could potentially lead to overexploitation of either species.
  • The mismatch between the management area and the assessment area constrains the effectiveness of the assessment.
  • The assessment is based on a single survey (SCO-AMISS-IV-VI) which does not cover Divisions IIIa, IVb, and IVc, that collectively account for approximately 11% of landings (ICES, 2014c).
  • Catches in Division IIIa are not regulated.
  • The impacts of the fishery on ETP species and habitat are not known.
Options
  • Improve the understanding of anglerfish biology (ICES, 2013).
  • Support the alignment of management measures with scientific advice (ICES, 2014c).
  • ICES have highlighted the generally poor data for this stock and the need to continue with the recently instigated data collection schemes (both survey and commercial data) in order to obtain time-series of sufficient length (ICES, 2013). Further development of existing model and associated reference points, and explore other modelling approaches (ICES, 2013).
  • Projects aiming to increase gear selectivity should be supported by the stakeholders.
  • Management measures for both species (L. piscatorius and L. budegassa) must be considered together and in conjunction with other species caught in these fisheries (sole, cod, rays, megrim, Nephrops, and hake).
  • More information and studies are needed in order to evaluate interactions with ETP species, so adequate mitigation measures can be implemented and evaluated for every fishery.
  • More effort should be put to gather comprehensive information is needed in relation to the seabed habitats and communities that may be associated with the areas that are most intensively fished.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

< 6

Managers Compliance:

≥ 6

Fishers Compliance:

8.5

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

≥ 6

Future Health:

≥ 6


FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

No related MSC fisheries

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

ASSESSMENT UNIT MANAGEMENT UNIT FLAG COUNTRY FISHING GEAR
Skagerrak, Kattegat, North Sea and West of Scotland EU 2a, 3a, 4, 6 Spain Single boat bottom otter trawls
United Kingdom Bottom trawls
Set gillnets (anchored)
Small mesh bottom trawls
Norway 3a, 4bc Norway Gillnets and entangling nets

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 28 January 2015

Strengths
  • The average stock biomass indicator in the last two years is higher than the average of the 3 previous years for both species, and the survey indicates that recruitment in 2014 is above average compared with the time-series (ICES, 2014c).
  • Underreporting of landings is no longer considered an issue because of the unrestrictive TACs and the substantial reduction in the offshore gillnet fishery (ICES, 2014c).
  • Effort has decreased steadily and the stock is not expected to be affected if recent catch levels are maintained (ICES, 2014c).
  • In 2015 TAC was set following the scientific advice, although management area is not aligned with assessment area.
Weaknesses
  • Biological or fishing mortality reference points are not set.
  • There is evidence of ageing problems (ICES, 2013) and discards of gillnet fisheries are not estimated leading to uncertainty in catch estimates and advice and contributing to the lack of an analytical assessment (ICES, 2014c).
  • Immature fish are subjected to exploitation for a number of years prior to first maturity.
  • Management of the two anglerfish species under a combined TAC prevents effective control of the single-species exploitation rates and could potentially lead to overexploitation of either species.
  • The mismatch between the management area and the assessment area constrains the effectiveness of the assessment.
  • The assessment is based on a single survey (SCO-AMISS-IV-VI) which does not cover Divisions IIIa, IVb, and IVc, that collectively account for approximately 11% of landings (ICES, 2014c).
  • Catches in Division IIIa are not regulated.
  • The impacts of the fishery on ETP species and habitat are not known.
Options
  • Improve the understanding of anglerfish biology (ICES, 2013).
  • Support the alignment of management measures with scientific advice (ICES, 2014c).
  • ICES have highlighted the generally poor data for this stock and the need to continue with the recently instigated data collection schemes (both survey and commercial data) in order to obtain time-series of sufficient length (ICES, 2013). Further development of existing model and associated reference points, and explore other modelling approaches (ICES, 2013).
  • Projects aiming to increase gear selectivity should be supported by the stakeholders.
  • Management measures for both species (L. piscatorius and L. budegassa) must be considered together and in conjunction with other species caught in these fisheries (sole, cod, rays, megrim, Nephrops, and hake).
  • More information and studies are needed in order to evaluate interactions with ETP species, so adequate mitigation measures can be implemented and evaluated for every fishery.
  • More effort should be put to gather comprehensive information is needed in relation to the seabed habitats and communities that may be associated with the areas that are most intensively fished.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 28 January 2015

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is a global organization established in 1902 for enhanced ocean sustainability. ICES has 20 member countries from both sides of the North Atlantic and comprises a network of more than 4000 scientists from almost 300 institutes, with 1600 scientists participating in activities annually. ICES is the entity responsible for providing management advice to the European Commission (EC) and Governments of ICES member countries. ICES advice is based on peer-reviewed Expert Group reports. The Working Group for the Celtic Sea Ecoregion (WGCSE) is responsible for the provision of assessments and draft advice for 39 demersal fish and Nephrops stocks across ICES Subareas VI and VII (with the distribution of megrim extending into Division IVa and anglerfish into Subarea IV and Division IIIa). The Working Group meets once a year and carry out stock assessments and provide a first draft of the ICES advice for all the stocks. Annual fish stock assessments are evaluated every three to five years in a benchmark workshop where all information is reviewed.

There is no analytical assessment for this stock. ICES uses as stock size indicator the biomass data from the Scottish and Irish anglerfish and megrim industry/science surveys for the Northern shelf (SCO-IV-VI-AMISS-Q2) in Division IVa and Subarea VI (ICES, 2014c).

Last benchmarked in 2013 (ICES, 2013), which did not result in a revision of the assessment method. No reliable forecast can be presented for this stock, because the assessment is only indicative of trends (ICES, 2013).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 28 January 2015

For data-limited stocks for which biomass estimates are available, ICES uses as harvest control rule an index-adjusted status quo catch. The advice is based on a comparison of the two most recent biomass values with the three preceding values, combined with recent catch or landings data. Knowledge about the exploitation status also influences the advised catch (ICES, 2014c).

For this fishery ICES advice is based on a biomass index from one survey (SCO-IV-VI-AMISS-Q2), used as an indicator of stock size (ICES, 2014c). This indicates that the average biomass has been 20% higher in the last two years (2013–2014) than the average of the three previous years (2010–2012). The implied landings for 2015 should be no more than 14,702 tons (ICES, 2014c).

The methods applied to derive quantitative advice for data-limited stocks are expected to evolve as they are further developed and validated. The harvest control rules are expected to stabilize stock size in the short term (3–5 years), but they may not be suitable if the stock size is low and/or overfished (ICES, 2014c).

The mismatch between the management area and the assessment area constrains the effectiveness of the assessment. ICES advises that the management area should be consistent with the assessment area (ICES, 2014c).

It is also important to remark that assessment is based on a single survey (SCO-AMISS-IV-VI) which does not cover Divisions IIIa, IVb, and IVc, that collectively account for approximately 11% of landings (ICES, 2014c).

Reference Points

Last updated on 28 Jan 2015

No reference points have been defined for this stock. Because of identified problems with growth estimates and uncertainties in ageing, previous reference points are not considered to be valid (ICES, 2014c).

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 28 January 2015

For this stock the biomass is estimated to have increased by more than 20% in the period 2010–2012 (average of the three years) to 2013–2014 (average of the two years). This implies an increase of catches of at most of 20% in relation to the last two years’ average landings (2012–2013), corresponding to landings of no more than 14,702 tons (ICES, 2014c).

Considering that the effort in the main fisheries has decreased significantly over the last decade, no additional precautionary reduction is needed (ICES, 2014c).

Anglerfish are caught in a targeted anglerfish fishery and as a bycatch in other demersal fisheries, including roundfish fisheries in Division VIa, the haddock fishery on Rockall Bank (Division VIb), Nephrops fisheries, and fisheries in deeper waters. In the North Sea, anglerfish are caught mainly as a bycatch in demersal fisheries for mixed roundfish and Nephrops and, to a lesser extent, in small-meshed Pandalus fisheries. A Norwegian large-meshed gillnet fishery targeting fish over 60 cm has developed along the Norwegian coast (Division IVa) since the early 1990s (ICES, 2014c).

Estimated landings in 2013 were 12,054 tons (7,322 tons in Division IIIa and Subarea IV (59% demersal trawls, 24% gillnets, 9% Nephrops trawl, 8% other gears or not specified); 4,729 tons in Subarea VI (68% demersal trawls, 8% gillnets, 1% other gears, and 23% not specified)). Discards are known to take place but are only quantified for part of the fisheries (787 tons for 82% of the landings covered) (ICES, 2014c).

Trends

Last updated on 28 Jan 2015

There is no trend in biomass over the full time-series of survey data, from 2005 to 2014 (ICES, 2014c).

It is important to remark that, because of the particular spawning of the Lophius species, recruitment can be heavily influenced by favorable or unfavorable ecosystem conditions (Hislop et al., 2001). The survey indicates that recruitment in 2014 is above average compared with the time-series (ICES, 2014c).

Until the mid-1980s, anglerfish was taken mainly as bycatch in bottom-trawl groundfish fisheries. Restrictive TACs for other species in Division VIa led to increased fishing pressure on anglerfish in that area, where they are now caught in a targeted anglerfish fishery and as bycatch in other demersal fisheries (ICES, 2014c).

The fishery has expanded into deeper waters since the mid-nineties, areas that are believed to have been a refuge for adult anglerfish (ICES, 2014c). This fishery thus increases the vulnerability of the stock to overexploitation. Immature fish are subjected to exploitation for a number of years prior to first maturity (ICES, 2014c).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 28 January 2015

The distribution of anglerfish in the North Sea, Kattegat, and Skagerrak is associated with the distribution to the west of Scotland (Divisions VIa and VIb). It is likely that catches from these areas come from the same biological stock (ICES, 2014c). Genetic studies have found no evidence of separate stocks and particle-tracking studies have indicated interchange of larvae between areas. From a biological perspective, the management and assessment units should be appropriately aligned and they should encompass the full spatial structure of the stock (ICES, 2014c). However, at this moment the regulation for this biological stock is split in two different TACs, one for Division IIa and Subarea IV, and another for Division Vb and Subareas VI, XII and XIV. The current EU-agreed TAC for Subarea IV and the EC waters of Division IIa as well as the EU–Norway-agreed TAC for the Norwegian North Sea EEZ do not include Division IIIa: no internationally agreed management rules for anglerfish appear to exist in Division IIIa (ICES, 2014c).

The mismatch between the management and the assessment area, and the limitations of the assessment method (it is only indicative of trends and cannot quantify the resulting catches) limits the possibility of comparing scientifically advised catches to management set TACs. Despite this misalignment, for 2015, advised catches and the summed TACs coincided. However, the sum of the two TACs set for 2014 was 20% higher than the ICES advice.

No specific management objectives are known to be in place for this stock (ICES, 2014c). There is no minimum landing size for anglerfish, but an EU Council Regulation (EC, 1996) laying down common marketing standards for certain fishery products fixes a minimum weight of 500 g for anglerfish.

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 28 Jan 2015

Not applicable.

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 28 January 2015

Underreporting of total landings is known to have been a significant problem in the past (ICES, 2014c). However, it is no longer considered an issue because of the unrestrictive TACs and the substantial reduction in the offshore gillnet fishery (ICES, 2014c). This is expected to have led to improved data on total catches of anglerfish.

Between 1990 and 1997 the TAC was set at 8,600 tons and annual average annual catches for that period were 25,100 tons, almost three times higher than the set TAC. Compliance was very weak during this period, particularly taking into account that the TAC before 1998 covered only Division Vb (EC) and Subareas VI, XII, and XIV.

Since 1998 catches have been adjusting to set TAC. For this period annual average of official catches equals 16,310 tons, and the ratio between catches and set TAC has been oscillating between 1.32 (catches 32% higher than Set TAC) and 0.69 (catches 31% lower than Set TAC). As calculated for 2013 data the actual catch was 12,190 tons, while set TAC was 13,627 tons (ICES, 2014c). The underlying Actual Catch/Set TAC for this index is 0.89 in 2013.

Discards for the gillnet fisheries (which constitute 18% of the stock landings) cannot be estimated (ICES, 2014c). Therefore total stock catches cannot be calculated.

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 28 January 2015

The following table from Pawson et al, 2014 and Hervás et al., 2014 is not designed to be exhaustive in terms of which PET species could be encountered by the different fisheries targeting the stock. For example, in relation to seabirds, their range changes with food availability, currents and storms, seasons, as well as success rates at their breeding colonies (Hervás et al., 2014).

SpeciesIUCNHabitats Directive (92/43/EEC)EU Council Reg 57/2011Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)
Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)LCApp. II  
Harbour Seal (Phoca vitulina)LCApp. II  
Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus)LCApp. II  
Tope (Galeorhinus galeus)VU   
Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus)VU  
Angel shark (Squatina squatina)CR  
Common Skate (Dipturus batis)CR  
Spurdog (Squalus acanthias)VU  
Allis Shad (Alosa alosa)LCApp. II  
Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)VUApp. II  
Lophelia pertusa (as part of biogenic reefs) App. I  
Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus)CR  App. I
Madeira Petrel (Pterodroma madeira)EN  App. I
Fea’s Petrel (Pterodroma feae)NT  App. I
Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea)LC  App. I
Little shearwater (Puffinus assimilis)LC  App. I
Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus)LC  App. I
Little gull (Larus minutus)LC  App. I
Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis)LC  App. I
Common tern (S. hirundo)LC  App. I
Arctic tern (S. paradisaea)LC  App. I
Roseate tern (S. dougallii)LC  App. I

IUCN: LC-Least concern (NOT PET sp);NT-Near threatened (NOT PET sp); VU-Vulnerable; EN-Endangered ; CR-Critically endangered

Bycatch of demersal elasmobranchs is a concern in the fisheries of the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay, particularly of spurdog Squalus acanthias and tope Galeorhinus galeus (ICES, 2008c), both classified as vulnerable on IUCN’s Red List (IUCN, 2008). Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus, also appears to be severely depleted in the Celtic Sea (ICES, 2008c). In 2010, EU legislation restricting landings of spurdog from EU waters to 10% of the previous year’s quota for this species came into effect (Council Regulation 23/2010), while no landings from EU waters were permitted from 2011 onwards (Council Regulation 57/2011). In 2012, ICES advised on the basis of the precautionary approach that there should be no targeted fishery for spurdog in 2013 or 2014, that catches in mixed fisheries should be reduced to the lowest possible level, and that a rebuilding plan should be developed for this stock. The prohibition of landing catches of spurdog by EU vessels has resulted in landings across all ICES subareas declining in recent years, though Subareas II–IV accounted for 70% of the total landings of spurdog in 2012 as spurdog is still subject to a discards ban if caught in Norwegian waters and has to be landed (Pawson et al, 2014).

Common skate is now assessed as Critically Endangered globally on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Dulvy et al. 2006).
Recent genetic research (Iglésias et al. 2009) indicates that the species reported as Dipturus batis is actually comprised of two species of Dipturus (provisionally D. cf.flossada and D. cf. intermedia). The implications of these observations are that members of the ‘D. batis’ species complex are even more depleted than formerly understood. A prohibition for EU vessels to fish for, to retain on board, to transship or to land common skate in EU waters of ICES Division IIa and ICES Subareas III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X was introduced in 2010 (Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011).

Occasional but rare occurrence of Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena mortality in mobile gear is documented by Fertl & Leatherwood (1997). Both Harbour seal and Grey seal are also known to be captured incidentally in bottom and demersal gears as well as in the set net fishery in Divisions IV and IIIa (Pawson et al, 2014). Incidental capture of seals is believed to happen when they are foraging around mobile gears (Morizur et al 1999).

The supply of discards, particularly from demersal fisheries, has been shown to be positively correlated with seabird distribution and population state (ICES, 2008). There are a number of seabird species listed as PET whose range covers parts of the fishing area, though little interaction is known to occur between seabirds and bottom trawling. There is still a potential for interaction during hauling of gear. It can also be noted that there are no protected bird sites (SPA in the Natura 2000 network) in the area where the fishery occurs, although each of the member states where the fishery occurs (UK and Ireland) have designated appropriate sites elsewhere (Hervás et al., 2014).

Other Species

Last updated on 28 January 2015

Other species in the diverse community of which anglerfish is a component may also be caught, depending on the gear type, fishing area and biological conditions: megrim, hake, nephrops, sole, seabass, ling, blue ling, greater forkbeard, tusk, whiting, blue whiting, Trachurus spp, conger, pout, cephalopods (octopus, Loligidae, Ommastrephidae and cuttlefish) and rays (ICES, 2008).

Main retained species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or if outside the limits there is a partial strategy of demonstrably effective management measures in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding (Pawson and Pfeiffer, 2014; Hervàs et al., 2014).

Anglerfish mature at large size, resulting in a large proportion of the catch consisting of immature fish (ICES, 2014c). This makes the stock susceptible to overfishing and management measures are required to ensure sufficient numbers to survive to spawning size.
Discard data are available for most of the fleets except the gillnet fishery, which is not adequately sampled (ICES, 2014c). Therefore, discards are known to take place but are only quantified for part of the fisheries (discards are 7% in weight for 82% of the landings covered) (ICES, 2014c).

Since the introduction of the high opening trawls in the mid-1990s, no significant changes in fishing technology have been introduced in the hake trawl fishery. However, since discard ban was assumed as one of the objectives of the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) approved in 2014, gear selectivity has become a key issue for the fishing industry and Estate Member and new findings are likely to happen in a close future.

HABITAT

Last updated on 28 January 2015

Lophius piscatorius is a Northeastern Atlantic species, with a distribution area from Norway (Barents Sea) to the Straits of Gibraltar (and including the Mediterranean and the Black Sea). Lophius budegassa has a more southern distribution from the British islands and Ireland to Senegal (including the Mediterranean and the Black Sea). Although ICES considers different anglerfish stocks in different areas for each species, the boundaries are not based on biological criteria (ICES, 2014b,c).

68% of the anglerfish caught in 2013 in Division IIIa and Subareas IV and VI was caught by bottom trawling (ICES, 2014c), a gear that may cause severe impacts on benthic communities (ICES 2008b). Impacts are generally greatest for sensitive communities such as corals, burrowing mega fauna and seapens, all of which may be slow growing and long lived. This fishery takes place in deep water on the continental shelves in areas where cold-water corals (Lophelia spp.) occur, particularly at Rockall (ICES, 2014c). However, demersal trawling is prohibited in several large areas at Rockall, and near the Wyville–Thomson ridge, which affords protection for corals in those areas. Measures for mitigating damage to coral from the fishery are being developed by ICES WGDEC (ICES, 2013).

Maerl and seagrass beds are also considered to be vulnerable to the effects of mobile gears. Long lived and slow growing species tend to be removed by multiple passes of trawls or by the effects of sedimentation as each pass of the net re-suspends sediment which then may settle on and smother sessile fauna. In this way, large, long lived and slow growing fauna may gradually be replaced by smaller, short lived and abundant populations of fast growing organisms which have a greater capacity for recovery through rapid reproduction and recolonisation. In addition, habitats that typically are not subject to high rates of natural disturbance from current and/or wave action tend to support more complex communities that are less resilient to physical impacts. Trawling may affect seabed habitats and communities by removing boulders and stones, flattening relief and the reducing the seabed to a flat two dimensional structure.

However, the patchy distribution of fishing effort, and soft bottom sediments favoured by anglerfish, limit this type of ecosystem effect. In general, the gear is designed for fishing on mud, sand, and sandy mud seabed sediments that dominate in the areas where the fishery takes place. Seabeds are relatively homogenous throughout the area or may comprise a mosaic of sediments, and according to the EUN habitat survey the main habitats are ‘mud and sandy mud’, ‘sand and muddy sand’ and ‘coarse sediments’ (data and maps can be consulted at the European Marine Observation and Data Network – EMODnet).

There is a good knowledge of habitat types and changes over time in this region which associated with fishing locations (i.e. from VMS data) can be used to support management decisions and evaluate how risks change over time (Hervás et al., 2014). In would be advisable to compare location of known sensitive / vulnerable habitats (available on OSPAR or EMODnet websites) with the location of fishing vessel activities (from VMS), in order to identify those areas with a higher degree of overlapping. Nowadays, management of potential impacts is facilitated in part through effective monitoring of the spatial and temporal aspects of the trawl fishery, although there could be more comprehensive information in relation to the seabed habitats and communities that may be associated with the areas that are most intensively fished (Pawson and Pfeiffer, 2014). This information would allow assessing on the harm caused by this bottom trawl fishery to habitat structure and function, and any possible interaction with sensitive or vulnerable seabed habitats as defined by OSPAR.

The fishery also operates within the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 (31) provides that the CFP is to apply the precautionary approach in taking measures to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems. The CFP imposes a range of restrictions and requirements on national fishing fleets and individual vessels which indirectly limit the impact that fisheries may have on EU seabed habitats. Some key elements of CFP fishing rules include:
• A requirement for all vessels to be registered on the national register
• All vessels >15 m in length must carry a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) – a means for monitoring and spatial management of fishing activity of the fleet
• Regulations that set clear limits in terms of fishing effort (KW hours), fishery removals (TAC’s, national quotas) and fleet capacity

Under EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, coastal EU countries have created an ecologically-coherent network of protected areas within which the most sensitive and /or vulnerable habitats and species are protected.

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 28 Jan 2015

Several vulnerable deep sea habitats are also protected, with bottom trawling and fishing with static gear prohibited, including the Hatton Bank, North West Rockall, South West Rockall, the Logachev Mound, West Rockall Mound (Subarea VI) (EC, 2013). Besides, the EU implemented other spatial measures restricting the fishing activity for the protection of juveniles (EC, 2013):

• All fishing except with longlines is banned in the Rockall haddock box in ICES Subarea VI
• Demersal trawling is prohibited near the Wyville–Thomson ridge (between the Faroe Islands and Scotland)
• All fishing is banned within an area surrounding northern Ireland and Scotland
• Below 200 m depth in Divisions VIa,b the use of gillnets with a mesh size smaller than 120 mm or greater than 150 mm is constrained

Member states may also declare emergency closures of areas within their jurisdiction for a maximum period of 21 days in cases of serious threats to the conservation of a species or fishing grounds (EC, 2009).

Under EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, coastal EU countries have created an ecologically-coherent network of protected areas within which the most sensitive and /or vulnerable habitats and species are protected (Natura 2000 sites).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 17 December 2016

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is < 6.

No management objectives are stated. No reference points have been defined. A TAC is set but it is not aligned with the assessment area (ICES, 2014c).

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Advised and Set TACs are not comparable as the management area does not align with the assessment area. HDespite the misaligned areas the TAC was set at the advised level for 2015.

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is 8.5.

This measures the Estimated landings as a percentage of the Set TAC.

The Estimated landings is 16.1 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 14.7 ('000 t) .

The underlying Estimated landings/Set TAC for this index is 110%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

The biomass index used as stock size indicator for the assessment indicates that the average biomass has been 20% higher in the last two years (2013–2014) than the average of the three previous years (2010–2012) (ICES, 2014c).

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

The stock is not expected to be affected if recent catch levels are maintained, as recognized by the ICES working group in charge of assessing this fishery (WGCSE) (ICES, 2014c) but fishing pressure on immature individuals is still regarded as high (and in the case of the gillnet fisheries cannot be quantified).

No data available for biomass
No data available for biomass
To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
No data available for fishing mortality
No data available for fishing mortality
No data available for recruitment
No data available for recruitment
To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.
To see data for stock status, please view this site on a desktop.
DATA NOTES
  1. Due to deficiencies in discarding data and ageing, no analytical assessment can be conducted for either species. As a consequence, there is a lack of biomass, fishing mortality series and reference points. In the absence of available quantitative data to answer scores 1, 4 and 5 qualitative information was used.
  2. Score 2 is also scored qualitatively. for two reasons: a) The scientific advice is emitted for the biological stock but the TAC is set for a management area that is not aligned with the stock distribution; b) Due to the limitations of the assessment method (it is only indicative of trends and cannot quantify the resulting catches) ICES has not always issued quantitative advice on catch. Advised catches for 2015 are “implied catches” based on a data-limited approach.
  3. Advised TACs and landings are for both species and Division IIIa and Subareas IV and VI combined. Landings are ICES estimates except for 2005 to 2010, which are official landings as no estimates are available.
  4. The EU sets two separate TACs which partially cover the stock: i) EU waters of Division IIa and Subarea IV, and ii) Subareas VI and Division Vb and Subareas XII, and XIV (EU and intl. waters). TACs presented are sums of both these TACs. TACs do not cover catches in Division IIIa.
  5. Discards for the gillnet fisheries cannot be quantified. Therefore, total catches cannot be calculated. Underreporting of landings was substantial in previous years but is thought to have decreased.

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs)

No related FIPs

Certifications

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

No related MSC certifications

Sources

Credits

The following authors contributed the majority of the content of this profile:

Fernández, Cynthia (cynthia@uvigo.es): Facultade de Ciencias do Mar, Campus Lagoas-Marcosende, Universidad de Vigo, 36210 Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain.

Macho, Gonzalo (gmacho@uvigo.es): Facultade de Ciencias do Mar, Campus Lagoas-Marcosende, Universidad de Vigo, 36210 Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain.

Ríos, José (joserios@consultorpesquero.com): Palmás, 1º Domaio, 36957 Moaña (Pontevedra), Spain.

under contract to CLUPESCA (Clúster del Sector Pesquero Extractivo y Productor)
Ed. Ramiro Gordejuela, Puerto Pesquero s/n
36202 Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain.
Email: arvi@arvi.org

References 

1. Anon. 2001. The distribution and biology of anglerfish and megrim in waters to the west of Scotland. EC Study Contract 98/096 Final Report August 2001.

2. Cefas, 2014. Discard Atlas of the North Western Waters Demersal Fisheries. Prepared by Cefas, Lowestoft, UK. Version 4, 16 November, 2014. Editors: Thomas Catchpole, Ana Ribeiro Santos.

3. Duarte, R., Bruno, I., Quincoces, I., Fariña, A.C. and Landa, J. 2004. Morphometric and meristic study of white and black anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) from the south-west of Ireland to the south-western Mediterranean. ICES 2004 Annual Science Conference, Vigo (Spain). ICES CM 2004/EE: 22.

4. Fariña, A.C., Duarte, R., Landa, J., Quincoces, I. and Sánchez, J.A. 2004. Multiple stock identification approaches of anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius and L. budegassa) in western and southern European waters. ICES 2004 Annual Science Conference, Vigo (Spain). ICES CM 2004/EE: 25.

5. Cetmar, 2011. Memoria Global Proyecto singular-estratégico PSE-Redes: Mejora de la selectividad y la selección de las artes de pesca para la reducción de los descartes. Desarrollos y posibles repercusiones en el sector extractivo. SPROYECTO PSE-060000-2009-7. https://web.archive.org/web/20140106083853/http:/pseredes.org/

6. Dulvy, N.K., Notobartolo di Sciara, G., Serena, F., Tinti, F. & Ungaro, N., Mancusi, C. & Ellis, J. 2006. Dipturus batis. In: IUCN 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org

7. EC, 2010. Council Regulation (EC) No 23/2010. fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur92230.pdf

8. EC, 2011. Council Regulation (EU No57/2011) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:024:0001:0125:EN:PDF

9. EC, 2013. Council Regulation (EC) No 227/2013 of 13th March amending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R0227&from=EN

10. EC, 2014. Outcome Of The Council Meeting. 3360th Council meeting, Agriculture and Fisheries. Brussels, 15 and 16 December 2014.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/146304.pdf

11. Fertl, D., Leatherwood, S., 1997. Cetacean interactions with trawlers: a preliminary review. J. Northwest Atl. Fish. http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/prot_res/atgtrp/lor/5%20cet.%20interactions%20with%20trawls.pdf

12. Fordham, S., Fowler, S.L., Coelho, R., Goldman, K.J. & Francis, M. 2006. Squalus acanthias. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org

13. Hervás, A., Southall, T., Arenas, M.C., Pawson, M., Gaudian, G., Macintyre, P., 2014. Grupo Regal Spain hake longline fishery – Public Certification Report. Food Certification International Ltd, April 2014. 154 pp http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/grupo-regal-spain-hake-longline/assessment-downloads-1/20140401_PCR_HAK208.pdf

14. Hislop, J. R. G., Gallego, A., Heath, M. R., Kennedy, F.M., Reeves, S.A. and Wright., P.J. 2001. A synthesis of the early life history of the anglerfish, Lophius piscatorius (Linnaeus, 1758) in northern British waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58: 70–86. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/1/70.short

15. ICES, 2008. Report of the Working Group for Regional Ecosystem Description (WGRED), 25-29 February 2008, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark (ICES CM 2008/ACOM:47). http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/WGRED/wgred_2008.pdf

16. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 5: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland + North Sea. 5.4.29 Anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius & L. budegassa) in Divisions IIa and IIIa, and Subareas IV and VI. 12 pp. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/ang-ivvi.pdf

17. ICES, 2011b. ICES. 2011. Report of the Working Group for Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE), 11 -19 May 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen (ICES CM 2011/ACOM:12). 1573 pp. http://www.ices.dk/workinggroups/ViewWorkingGroup.aspx?ID=357

18. ICES, 2013. WKROUND Report of the benchmark workshop on roundfish stocks 4-8 february 2013.ACOM:47 http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WKROUND/WKROUND%20Report%202013.pdf

19. ICES, 2014a. Report of the Working Group for the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Waters Ecoregion (WGBIE), Annex D Stock Annex. Anglerfish in Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIa,b,d. 7–13 May 2014, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:11. 714 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/WGBIE/19%20WGBIE%20report%20-%20Annex%20D%20Stock%20Annex%20Anglerfish%20in%20Divisions%20VIIb%E2%80%93k%20and%20VIIIa,b,d.pdf

20. ICES, 2014b. Digest of the ICES October 2014 Advice. Anglerfish in the waters of West Scotland and the North Sea. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/publication%20reports/advice/popular%20advice/ang-ivvi_popular.pdf

21. ICES, 2014c. ICES October Advice 2014, Book 5.3.1. Anglerfish (L.piscatorius and L.budegassa) in divisions IIIa and Subareas IV and VI. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/ang-ivvi.pdf

22. Iglesias, S., Toulhoat, L. and. Sellos, D. 2009. Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: important consequences for their conservation status. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems Volume: 20, Issue: 3, Pages: 319-333. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.1083/pdf

23. Morizur, Y., Berrow, S.D., Tregenza N.J.C., Couperus, A.S., Pouvreau S. 1999. Incidental catches of marine-mammals in pelagic trawl fisheries of the northeast Atlantic. Fisheries Research 41 (1999) 297-307. http://www.eurocbc.org/morizuretal1999.pdf

24. Pawson, M, Pfeiffer, N. and Aldous, D., 2014. DFPO Denmark North Sea, Skagerrak & Kattegat hake- Public Certification Report. Food Certification International Ltd, September 2014. 262 pp. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/germany-eastern-baltic-cod/assessment-downloads-1/Final_Report_-Final_-KttrEBC-20.06.11.pdf

25. Pérez N., V. Trujillo and P. Pereda (1996). Discards of the trawl and long line Spanish fleets in ICES Sub-area VII in 1994. Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Apdo. 1552. 36280 Vigo, España. PSE REDES Website: https://web.archive.org/web/20140106083853/http:/pseredes.org/

References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Monkfishes nei - Skagerrak, Kattegat, North Sea and West of Scotland, EU 2a, 3a, 4, 6, United Kingdom, Bottom trawls

    comments powered by Disqus