This profile has recently been updated or completed. Leave a comment to provide feedback

Profile updated on 18 July 2019

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Sprattus sprattus

SPECIES NAME(s)

European sprat

For assessment purposes, ICES formerly considered sprat in the North Sea as an independent unit. However following results of recent genetic study, ICES determined it appropriate to merge the North Sea (Subarea 4) and Skagerrak and Kattegat (Division 3a) stocks into a single assessment unit (WKSPRAT 2018 2019). The new area excludes sprat in the Norwegian fjords.

Uncertainty remains with regard to the boundary of this stock with sprat from the Baltic Sea and English Channel (ICES 2018). Local depletion of sprats is an issue of particular ecological concern in areas where there may be geographically or functionally discrete populations (e.g. coastal periphery of Division 3a, and Norwegian fjords) (ICES 2018)(ICES 2019). Further research is recommended. 

In addition to the North Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat (Subarea 4 and Division 3a) unit; FishSource consideres the following assessment units currently defined by ICES:

- Celtic Sea and West of Scotland (Subarea 6 and Divisions 7a–c and f–k)

- English Channel (Divisions 7d,e)

- Baltic Sea (Subdivisions 22–32)


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • Analytical assessment, conducted in the North Sea since 2013; has expanded to include the Skagerrak and Kattegat population in a single unit. Biomass reference points for the new unit were defined in 2018, including a revised fishing mortality cap (Fcap). The merging of the North Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat into a single assessment unit has improved the performance of the stock assessment model.
  • The newly assessed stock unit is indicated to be in a healthy condition.
  • The Fcap is designed to ensure the advice strategy is precautionary, despite uncertainty in forecasts of abundance.
  • Since 2017, the timing of TACs and management advice for Subarea 4 in the North Sea (where the majority of the catch occurs) has been aligned for the period 1 July - 30 June of the following year.
  • Fisher compliance with set TACs is generally good, despite relatively small overages in the North Sea in 2014, 2016 and 2018.
  • Management measures are in place to reduce misreporting and limit bycatch of other species, particularly juvenile herring.
  • The EU landing obligation in place (since early 2015), should facilitate continued low discarding; and discards of sprat are considered negligible.
  • Direct impacts of the fishery on sea mammals and birds is considered to be very low. 
Weaknesses
  • There are no explicit management objectives for this stock.
  • TACs have not consistently conformed to catches advised by ICES, and in Division 3a, they have been up to 6 times the advised limit. Further, the TAC timing is misaligned with the advice timing (TAC for the 3a unit is per calendar year, while the advice for the assessment unit is applicable for 1 July - 30 June of the following year).
  • Uncertainties in the forecast can lead to unexpectedly high fishing mortality (F); in the former North Sea assessment unit, the Fmsy proxy, Fcap  was often exceeded by relatively large proportions.
  • Stock structure is not completely understood, and depletion of functionally discrete local populations in the periphery of the assessment unit is a concern.
  • There is concern regarding potential incentive for illegal slippage, and resultant undocumented catch of target and non-target species.
  • Research on the indirect impacts of the fishery (i.e., by means of food web relationships) on other fish species, marine mammals and seabirds is still incomplete. 
  • Although the impact of purse seines and pelagic trawls in bottom habitats is typically assumed to be negligible, it remains to be tested in this specific fishery especially taking into account that the sea bottom might be impacted when fishing in shallow waters.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

≥ 6

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

10

Future Health:

≥ 6


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.
  • Press ICES to conduct further scientific research to fully define the stock structure to improve management.
  • Press regional advisory bodies, national fisheries administrations and the European Commission to develop a multi-species, ecosystem-based management plan, with specific management objectives for the pelagic fisheries in the North Sea and associated areas. 
  • Ensure that managers set the TAC in line with scientific advice.
  • Engage with the EU Pelagic Advisory Council (https://www.pelagic-ac.org/) directly or through one of the General Assembly members, to ensure sustainable exploitation.
  • Engage as a stakeholder in all MSC certifications for this stock and support the MSC Client groups to ensure all conditions attached to the Certifications are fully addressed.

    FIPS

    No related FIPs

    CERTIFICATIONS

    • Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat:

      MSC Certified

    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
    North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat European Union Division 3.a Denmark Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Germany Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Sweden Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    European Union Subarea 4 Belgium Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Denmark Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Faroe Islands Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    France Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Germany Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Netherlands Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Norway Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    Small mesh bottom trawls
    Sweden Midwater trawls
    Purse seines
    United Kingdom Midwater trawls
    Purse seines

    Analysis

    OVERVIEW

    Strengths
    • Analytical assessment, conducted in the North Sea since 2013; has expanded to include the Skagerrak and Kattegat population in a single unit. Biomass reference points for the new unit were defined in 2018, including a revised fishing mortality cap (Fcap). The merging of the North Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat into a single assessment unit has improved the performance of the stock assessment model.
    • The newly assessed stock unit is indicated to be in a healthy condition.
    • The Fcap is designed to ensure the advice strategy is precautionary, despite uncertainty in forecasts of abundance.
    • Since 2017, the timing of TACs and management advice for Subarea 4 in the North Sea (where the majority of the catch occurs) has been aligned for the period 1 July - 30 June of the following year.
    • Fisher compliance with set TACs is generally good, despite relatively small overages in the North Sea in 2014, 2016 and 2018.
    • Management measures are in place to reduce misreporting and limit bycatch of other species, particularly juvenile herring.
    • The EU landing obligation in place (since early 2015), should facilitate continued low discarding; and discards of sprat are considered negligible.
    • Direct impacts of the fishery on sea mammals and birds is considered to be very low. 
    Weaknesses
    • There are no explicit management objectives for this stock.
    • TACs have not consistently conformed to catches advised by ICES, and in Division 3a, they have been up to 6 times the advised limit. Further, the TAC timing is misaligned with the advice timing (TAC for the 3a unit is per calendar year, while the advice for the assessment unit is applicable for 1 July - 30 June of the following year).
    • Uncertainties in the forecast can lead to unexpectedly high fishing mortality (F); in the former North Sea assessment unit, the Fmsy proxy, Fcap  was often exceeded by relatively large proportions.
    • Stock structure is not completely understood, and depletion of functionally discrete local populations in the periphery of the assessment unit is a concern.
    • There is concern regarding potential incentive for illegal slippage, and resultant undocumented catch of target and non-target species.
    • Research on the indirect impacts of the fishery (i.e., by means of food web relationships) on other fish species, marine mammals and seabirds is still incomplete. 
    • Although the impact of purse seines and pelagic trawls in bottom habitats is typically assumed to be negligible, it remains to be tested in this specific fishery especially taking into account that the sea bottom might be impacted when fishing in shallow waters.
    RECOMMENDATIONS

    Last updated on 5 August 2019

    Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
    • Press ICES to conduct further scientific research to fully define the stock structure to improve management.
    • Press regional advisory bodies, national fisheries administrations and the European Commission to develop a multi-species, ecosystem-based management plan, with specific management objectives for the pelagic fisheries in the North Sea and associated areas. 
    • Ensure that managers set the TAC in line with scientific advice.
    • Engage with the EU Pelagic Advisory Council (https://www.pelagic-ac.org/) directly or through one of the General Assembly members, to ensure sustainable exploitation.
    • Engage as a stakeholder in all MSC certifications for this stock and support the MSC Client groups to ensure all conditions attached to the Certifications are fully addressed.
    European Union Subarea 4
    Norway
    Small mesh bottom trawls

    Last updated on 11 July 2019

    Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
    • Monitor the progress in closing out conditions placed upon the MSC certification of the fishery and if agreed timelines are met. Offer assistance in closing conditions where possible.

    1.STOCK STATUS

    STOCK ASSESSMENT

    Last updated on 17 July 2019

    The assessment proposed during the benchmark in February 2013 (ICES 2013b) introduced a new model (Stochastic Multi-species (SMS) model with quarterly time-steps). In the same year, ICES changed the assessment year from January–December to July–June, in order to facilitate more biologically coherent stock assessment (to better match the sprat life cycle) (ICES 2014a).

    ICES' 2018 stock assessment, the first for the newly combined Skagerrak and Kattegat (Division 3.a) and North Sea (Subarea 4) units, maintained the same general method (age-based analytical assessment) and data inputs as used for assessment of the North Sea unit in the prior year (ICES 2018; ICES 2019).  Quality and performance indicators for the new stock assessment showed similarities as well as some improvements over past stock assessments for the North Sea unit (ICES 2018). Modifications to the assessment model considerably reduced the strong retrospective bias in recruitment patterns observed in past assessments, which had caused overestimation of large incoming year classes (ICES 2019).  Discards of sprat since 2016 are assumed to be negligible (ICES 2019)

    The sprat stock in the North Sea is dominated by young fish; and stock size is driven primarily by the recruiting year class (ICES 2019). Unknown abundance and maturity rates for a high proportion of recruits regularly contribute to uncertainty in overall recruitment estimates and SSB predictions. For the advice published in 2019, trends for SSB, F and recruitment look very similar to trends published for the former North Sea unit in ICES’ 2018 advice (ICES 2018)(ICES 2019). Uncertainty in the forecast is accounted for by the Fcap.

    This fishery is under the mandates of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which require management of the fishery’ ecosystem effects. In the North Sea, the key predators consuming sprats, including fish and seabirds, are included in the stock assessment (ICES 2019). These estimates are used as model inputs to derive stock assessment reference points and corresponding advice. Stock assessments historically have not attempted to measure impacts of changes in zooplankton communities and consequent changes in food densities for sprats (i.e. bottom up effects); and ICES has recommended that there may be value in exploring this dynamic in future assessments (ICES 2019).

    SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

    Last updated on 17 July 2019

    In cases where recruitment information is poor, as for North Sea sprat, ICES has found an additional measure - an upper constraint to the escapement strategy derived fishing mortality (termed "Fcap") - necessary to guard against very high exploitation. Based on evaluations made in late 2013, ICES determined this necessary to ensure precautionary exploitation of the North Sea sprat stock, and set an intitial Fcap  at 1.2 (ICES 2014). The combination of the North Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat areas into a single assessment unit in 2018 made it necessary to re-estimate Fcap again (ICES 2019). The resulting advised catch for 2019, based on the revised Fcap (0.69), is 138,726 tonnes (ICES 2019).

    ICES’ advice applies for the assessment year (1 July – 30 June), and since 2017, European Union (EU) TACs for Subarea 4 (and Division 2a, not part of this assessment unit) have aligned with this timing. However, the EU’s TACs for the newly included Subarea 3a are based on a calendar year schedule. 

    ICES has advised that a management plan needs to be developed for this stock (ICES 2016)(ICES 2019). Additional recommendations include: a) bycatch of juvenile herring should continue to be monitored to ensure compliance with bycatch; b) considering the importance of sprat as a forage fish, multispecies considerations should be made. ICES has provided multispecies advice on fisheries for some ecosystem (ICES 2013; ICES 2017). ICES also cautions regarding increased effort distribution in peripheral areas of Division 3a along the Norway and Sweden coasts, where local populations (not covered in the assessment or advice) could be vulnerable to depletion (ICES 2019).

    CURRENT STATUS

    Last updated on 17 July 2019

    Surveys and the assessment conducted in November 2018 indicate the stock is in good condition (ICES 2019). The assessment model output shows SSB well above Bpa (MSY Bescapement) since 2013, and above Blim since 1991; current SSB is estimated to be more than double Blim.  The recent trend of substantially higher SSBs has occurred during a period of slightly above average recruitments (ICES 2019). Recruitment as of 1 July 2018 was estimated to be above the 10-year average, but below the long-term average.

    Fishing mortality (F) has been above long-term averages for the past 4 years (ICES 2019). The estimated F for 2018 is 1.4; more than double Fcap, as has consistently been the case in recent years. There is no management target for F, and in some years when Fcap has been exceeded, catches have exceeded the advised catch (which is based on Fcap). However, Fcap has also been exceeded in years when catches were within advised catch limits. The higher than expected F in 2018 was driven by low mean catch weight, which led to higher catch numbers. High realized F has also occurred in above-average years, when assessments have tended to overestimate recruitment (ICES 2018)

    In the 2017-2018 fishing season, total catches in the North Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat amounted to 129,729 tonnes, which represents a reduction of 50% with respect to the previous year (ICES 2018; ICES 2018). Catches increased in the 2018-2019 season, totalling 191,200 tonnes for the assessment unit, based on estimates available as of 26 May 2019 (ICES 2019).

    2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

    MANAGEMENT

    Last updated on 17 July 2019

    There have never been any explicit management objectives for this stock as it is currently defined, or for the North Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat units separately (ICES 2019). The directed sprat fishery currently is regulated via a number of management measures, including catch quotas (or TACs), fishing seasons, and by-catch limits (e.g., juvenile herring). Lack of commitment by the EU management authority to a “medium term” management plan has been highlighted as a factor hindering the consistency of alignment of TACs with scientific advice (Rice et al. 2017). The issue of TAC effectiveness also has implications for dependent predator species, including some ETP species (see "ETP Species" section below).

    Beginning in 2017, the EU established quotas effective for periods from 1 June through July 30 of the following year (Council Regulation (EC) 2017), which brought the timing into alignment with the advised catch period. The TACs and advice for the Kattegat and Skagerrak unit, meanwhile, are set by calendar year, and as such, the TAC for this management area no longer aligns with the advice year for the new assessment unit (ICES 2019).

    In January of 2019, as in recent years, the European Union published a preliminary TAC of zero for Subarea 4 and Division 2a for 2019-2020 (European Commission 2019). However, based on past years, a new catch limit is likely to be published near the beginning of the season in July 2019. Separate TACs for non-union member states have been maintained at 1,000 tonnes for Faroe Island vessels in Subarea 4 and Division 6a (NEAFC 2018), and 10,000 tonnes for Norwegian vessels in Subarea 4 (NEAFC 2018). The total 2019-2020 TAC for Division 3a, meanwhile was set at 26,620 tonnes, the same as for 2018-2019 (European Commission 2019).  

    In addition to the overall 10,000 t quota negotiated for Norway’s pelagic trawlers and purse-seiners fishing in EU waters, Norwegian vessels fishing in the North Sea are also subject to a 550t maximum sprat quota per vessel (ICES 2019). As sprat in Subarea 4 is mainly fished together with juvenile herring, the exploitation of sprat is further limited by the herring bycatch restrictions imposed on the fisheries (bycatch ceiling for herring and the herring bycatch percentage limit in industrial fisheries). The 2019 herring bycatch quotas are 13,190 t for the North Sea and 6,659 t for Division 3.a. In the Norwegian North Sea sprat fishery, there is a maximum bycatch limit of 10% herring. 

    Norway has had a discard ban in force since 1983 (NMTIF 2015). For the EU, a landing obligation was put in place in 2013 as part of the recent Common Fisheries Policy reform. The rule applies to all fisheries (i.e., EU fleet or fisheries operating in EU waters) subject to catch limits or minimum landing sizes (in the case of the Mediterranean). In the case of the small pelagic or fisheries for industrial purposes (e.g., fisheries for mackerel, herring, horse mackerel, blue whiting, boarfish, anchovy, sandeel, sardine and sprat), the landing obligation has been effective since January 2015, across all EU waters (Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013; Regulation (EU) No 2015/104). A herring by-catch of up to 10% in biomass is allowed in Norwegian sprat catches (ICES 2018)

    COMPLIANCE

    Last updated on 17 July 2019

    To avoid misreporting, Norwegian vessels can only operate in the Norwegian zone after the EU-quota is fully taken and cannot fish between April and July in the EU and Norwegian zones (WKSPRAT 2018 2019)​. Historically, the sprat fishery has been limited by bycatch constraints for other species (e.g., herring), which have tended to preclude full uptake of quotas for sprat (ICES 2018). Landings in Subarea 4 from 2012-2018 represented between 44-85% of the TAC each year, with the exceptions of years 2014, 2016 and 2018, when catches exceeded TACs by margins of up to 9% (ICES 2018; ICES 2019). In Division 3a during the same period, catches represented between 4-72% of the TAC (ICES 2018).

    Prior to 2015 discarding in the sprat fishery in the North Sea, of both sprat and bycatch species, was known to take place but could not be quantified (ICES 2019). Since 2015, and the implementation of EU landing obligations, discards of sprat have been assumed to be negligible (ICES 2017; ICES 2018; ICES 2018; ICES 2019). Uncertainty regarding discarding relates primarily to the bycatch limits on herring. In the past, a haul could not be landed if bycatch percentage limits for herring were exceeded (ICES 2015). In such cases, slippage (discarding of an entire haul) was obligatory. Slippage has been prohibited since impementation of the landing obligation, but there is some concern now that there could be incentive to slip illegally (Rice et al. 2018), and in such cases bycatch of herring (and other species) would go undocumented. This concern was identified in a condition of the 2017 MSC certification of the Danish fishery, which focused on ensuring that incentives to slip are assessed and, to the degree necessary, minimized; progress on the condition was considered on target as of the first surveillence audit in 2018. 

    3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

    BYCATCH
    ETP Species

    Last updated on 21 January 2019

    A comprehensive list and map of threatened or declining species and habitats in the North-East Atlantic, including the North Sea region, is available from OSPAR.  According to a MSC assessment (Rice et al. 2017), the most relevant ETP species potentially exposed to the fishery are: harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), minke whale (Balaneroptera acutorostrata), black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactlyla), roseate tern (Sterna dougalli), common skate (Dipturus batis), spotted ray (Raja montagui), thornback ray (Raja clavata) and starry ray (Amblyraja radiata). 

    The direct effects of the fishery are broadly understood to be negligible through information, though not verifiable, on direct impact available from code of conduct logbook reporting (Rice et al. 2017). Purse seines have the potential to catch mammals, although a report for ASCOBANS gave no indication of any cetacean bycatch in the North Sea (Northridge 2011). Direct interaction with birds is almost negligible as the catch is pumped directly from the trawl/seine into the haul. Besides, fishing occurs too far from the colonies of roseate tern to have direct impact on this species (Rice et al. 2017). The European Union Council Regulation 23/2010  requires that all catches of rays and skates must be reported separately (European Commission 2010). Although rays can be potentially caught by this fishery, there are no reports of bycatch of rays meaning that those catches are really small and escape registration  or that they are being discarded which is very unlikely due to the absence of sorting devices in the vessels (Rice et al. 2017). All ETP populations are monitored through population estimates and for seabirds, through monitoring of breeding sucess.

    Indirect effects may occur through competition between some of ETP species described above (e.g. porpoise, minke whales, seals…) and the fishery, but these are accounted for in the management (i.e. increasing the natural mortality) through escapement to ensure sufficient food for relevant ETP species (see Ecosystem section for further details).

    All ETP species are covered by the requirements of the Habitats Directives that states that Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing on animal species listed […] and take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant negative impact on the species concerned [...]. Main management tools to reduce interaction with ETP species are the fishing gears themselves that are unlikely to catch ETP species, and harvest limits as determined from multi-species modeling (see Ecosystems section). A comprehensive management strategy has not been developed by the fishery for any of the ETP species. 

    Other Species

    Last updated on 21 January 2019

    Bycatch is assessed in two ways: by self-reporting in electronic logbooks and by official sampling. Both procedures are fairly uncertain but generally report low catches of non-target species. There is, however, a significant discrepancy between logbooks and official landings data (Rice et al. 2017).

    Most sprat catches are taken in an industrial fishery where catches are limited by herring bycatch quantities. Bycatch of herring are practically unavoidable except in years with high sprat abundance or low herring recruitment. Bycatch is especially considered to be a problem in area 4.c (ICES 2018). The total amount of herring caught as bycatch in the Danish sprat fishery has typically been less than 10% except in 2012 (11%) and 2008 (11%) (ICES 2018).

    This fishery operates under the landing obligation where all fish have to be landed since 1st January 2015 (European Commission 2013). The only way to discard bycatch is by slipping the entire haul, as on-board sorting devices are not allowed. The only species where slipping could be considered an option is herring, because it acts as a choke species. In the sprat fishery, up to 9% of a catch of herring can be written off on the sprat quota, as a disincentive to slippage (ICES 2017). According to herring assessment, F<Fmsy and B>Bmsy and biomass is increasing. Levels of slipping are not quantified (Rice et al. 2017).

    HABITAT

    Last updated on 21 January 2019

    Detailed maps of North Sea habitats are available (Schlüter and Jerosch 2009) (EMODnet), including maps of threatened habitats by OSPAR (OSPAR 2018).

    The fishery is conducted with mid-water trawls and purse seines. These gears do not normally touch the bottom except when the fishery is conducted in shallow waters. Therefore, some bottom impact cannot be ruled out completely, and it can damage fragile habitats such as corals or sponges (Donaldson et al. 2010). However, the specific impact of the fishing gears in shallow waters has not been evaluated in this fishery.

    Marine protected areas are the main management tool in place to protect bottom habitats. The OSPAR Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Network (OSPAR 2018) is expanding (from 159 MPAs in 2010 to 448 in 2016) and now covers 5.9% of the OSPAR maritime area (14.7% of the Greater North Sea Area) (OSPAR 2017). Most MPAs are established within waters under national jurisdiction (200 nautical miles) in the North Sea and Eastern Channel, however few but large marine protected areas have been created in the high seas in the last years (OSPAR 2018).

    In 1998 and area off the western coast of Denmark was closed (from October to March) to the sprat fishery to protect spawning of herring caught as bycatch of the sprat fishery (Article 21(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98) (European Commission 1998).  ICES evaluated the effectiveness of the sprat box in 2017 (ICES 2017). The evaluation concluded that fishing inside the sprat box would be expected to reduce unwanted catches of herring (by weight) and that other management measures are sufficient to control herring bycatch. The sprat box was removed in 2017 (European Commission 2017).

    ECOSYSTEM

    Last updated on 21 January 2019

    Several ecosystem models have been developed for the North Sea to support management of North Sea fish stocks and other dependent species such as  the Stochastic Multispecies Model (SMS; (Lewy and Vinther 2004)) or the North Sea Ecopath Model (Mackinson and Daskalov 2007), which is a more comprehensive model in terms of species than the SMS model, and once set, the model can be used with EcoSim to simulate management alternatives (Brown and Mackinson 2011). The Ecopath model is parametrized with estimates of biomass, production and consumption rates and diet compositions compiled from surveys and literature.

    The structure and function of the North Sea ecosystem has been target of research for the last century (Daan et al. 1990) (Callaway et al. 2002). The fish community in the North Sea forms a complex food web where lower trophic levels such as sprat rely on copepods for food, and these forage species provide food for higher trophic levels such as adult predatory fish, mammals and birds (Rice et al. 2017). Sprat is mostly preyed by whiting, turbot, megrim and whales. However, sprat cannot be considered a keystone species as no single predator relies fully on it. Instead, the forage fish community as a whole (e.g. sprat, sandeel, Norway put, juvenile herring) can be considered a key trophic level. The ecosystem impact of the fishery is assessed on a triannual basis through model calculations, and many specific interactions have been investigated in detail (Rice et al. 2017). There is some evidence of recovery of cod in the North Sea (ICES 2015) meaning that forage fisheries (such as sprat fishery) are not hindering recovery of species at higher trophic levels (Rice et al. 2017). However, the influence of the sprat fishery on other fish species and sea birds are at present unknown (ICES 2018).

    Indirect effect occurs through competition for fish between ETPs and the fishery. Indirect effects are accounted for in the management through escapement to ensure sufficient food for relevant ETPs. In practice this is done by increasing the natural mortality in the assessment to account for the needs of higher trophic level species (see below).

    Management of ecosystem effects of the fishery is mandated by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The CFP recognizes the need for multispecies management as well as the need to increasingly account for ecosystem aspects in developing management plans. This is being expressed though the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Commission 2008). A “partial strategy” (as classified by MSC) of implementing ecosystem effects of fishing on other components of the food web is the use of multi-species models (updated triannually) to derive natural mortalities (M2s; (ICES 2017)). These M2s forms an explicit link between higher trophic level species (larger fish, birds and marine mammals) including ETP species, to lower trophic level species. The M2s are used in the stock assessment of sprat, and they therefore directly influence the setting of TACs (ICES 2017). There is no specific plan for the entire North Sea ecosystem with a clearly formulated objective but the integration of multi-species modeling in the advice of fish stocks in the North Sea, including the assessment of indirect effects on ETPs, is highly likely to restrain the impact of fishing on forage fish to avoid disruption of the ecosystem structure (Rice et al. 2017).

    FishSource Scores

    Last updated on 18 June 2019

    MANAGEMENT QUALITY

    As calculated for 2019 data.

    The score is ≥ 6.

    A number of management measures are in place to protect sprat and other captured species; but there is no management plan, nor a fishing mortality (F) target. In 2018 reference points were defined for a new assessment unit combining ICES Subarea 4 and Division 3a (ICES 2019c). Adherence to advised catch limits (set TACs relative to catch advice) was mixed for the former Subarea 4 unit (ICES 2018b), and nonexistent for Division 3a (ICES 2018c). However, the stock is assessed to have been well above Bpa since 2013, and to have dropped below Bpa in only three years over the past two decades (ICES 2019c).

    As calculated for 2019 data.

    The score is ≥ 6.

    The North Sea and Skagerrak and Kattegat units were assessed separately up to 2019, and issued separate catch advice (ICES 2019c). Collectively, the sum of TACs for the two units in 2018 exceeded the sum of the advised catch for the two units by approximately 10 %. Taken individually, TAC excesses over recent years were more frequent, and proportionally much higher for the former Skagerrak and Kattegat unit than for the former North Sea unit (ICES 2018b; ICES 2018c). Catches in the North Sea were typically below advised catches (2016 being an exception). Catches in Skagerrak and Kattegat typically exceeded advised catch, but by only 13% in 2016, and were well under the advice in 2017 and 2018.

    As calculated for 2018 data.

    The score is 10.0.

    This measures the Landings as a percentage of the Set TAC.

    The Landings is 191 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 204 ('000 t) .

    The underlying Landings/Set TAC for this index is 93.6%.

    STOCK HEALTH:

    As calculated for 2019 data.

    The score is 10.0.

    This measures the SSB as a percentage of the MSY Bescapement.

    The SSB is 249 ('000 t). The MSY Bescapement is 125 ('000 t) .

    The underlying SSB/MSY Bescapement for this index is 199%.

    As calculated for 2019 data.

    The score is ≥ 6.

    No target fishing mortality (F) reference point is defined for the stock; but a precautionary Fcap is used to determine advised catches in years when biomass is above precutionary levels (and forecasts become more uncertain) (ICES 2019c). The cap is set at a level which is determined to pose less than 5% risk of causing the stock to decline below Blim in the long term. Fishing pressure is assessed to have been in excess of this limit nearly every year, and estimates for the past several years are double the limit. Despite this, biomass has been above or well above precautionary limits for the better part of two decades, and has increased in the past several years.

    ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS

    Click on the score to see subscore

    Click on the score to see subscore

    Click on the score to see subscore

    ×

    Bycatch Subscores

    The herring assessment working group (HAWG) for the Area south of 62 degrees N reported the species composition in Danish sprat fishery in tonnes and percentage of the total catch in the North Sea (ICES 2018). There is no information of the annual amount of bycatch of ETP species. There are some discrepancies between bycatch reported by logbooks and official samplings (Rice et al. 2017).

    The exact amount of bycatch of ETP species is not known but there are evidences that ETP species that might be potentially impacted by this fishery (e.g. harbour seal, minki whale, etc) population are stable and/or recovering meaning that the fishery is not jeopardizing or impeding the viability of such populations (Rice et al. 2017).

    The only main bycatch species of this fishery is herring. A separate bycatch quota of herring for the sprat fishery is annualy set (ICES 2018), and according to herring assessment, F<Fmsy and B>Bmsy. Herring could be discarded by slipping the entire haul, but levels of slipping are not quantified (Rice et al. 2017)

    This fishery operates under the landing obligation since 2015. All bycatch species must be landed. The only way to discard bycatch is by slipping the entire haul, as on board sorting devices are not allowed. In the sprat fishery, up to 9% of a catch of herring can be written off on the sprat quota, as a disincentive to slippage (ICES 2017).

    ×

    Habitat Subscores

    The sprat fishery is prosecuted using pelagic trawls vessels and pelagic purse seines (ICES 2018). Althought the impact of these fishing gears is assumed to be low or negligible (Donaldson et al. 2010), they can touch the bottom if the fishery is taking place in shallow waters. Such an impact has not been evaluated. 

    Several projects have produced detailed maps of bottom habitats in the North Sea (Schlüter and Kerstin, 2009, EMODnet) and OSPAR has mapped the threatened and declining habitats (https://odims.ospar.org/maps/298).

    Marine protected areas are the main management tool in place to protect bottom habitats. The OSPAR Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Network (http://carto.mpa.ospar.org/1/ospar.map) is expanding (from 159 MPAs in 2010 to 448 in 2016) and now covers 5.9% of the OSPAR maritime area (14.7% of the Greater North Sea Area) (OSPAR 2017)

    ×

    Ecosystem Subscores

    Models have been developed to understand the role of sprat and other pelagic species in the North Sea ecosystem (Mackinson and Dasklov 2007) and the impacts of the sprat fishery on the whole ecosystem (Brown and Mackinson 2011).

    The North Sea ecosystem has been object of many studies including research on interspecific relationships (Mackinson and Daskalov 2007), oceanography (Otto et al. 1990), biodiversity (Callaway et al. 2002), bottom habitats (e.g. Emodnet project), pollution (Salomons et al. 2012), climate change (Dulvy et al. 2008), etc...Besides, ICES has published a detailed overview of the Greater North Sea Ecosystem, including maps of habitats, sea temperature, primary production and others (ICES 2016).

    Model simulations conducted with ECOSIM with ECOPATH revealed that fishing for sprat has small effects on the ecosystem because this low trophic level species has a relatively low biomass and are thus not key prey species in this mode (Brown and Mackinson 2011)

    There is no specific ecosystem-based management plan for the entire North Sea ecosystem (Rice et al. 2017). Management of ecosystem effects of the fishery is mandated by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). A partial strategy of implementing ecosystem effects of fishing on other components of the food web is the use of multi-species models to derive natural mortalities (ICES 2017)

    To see data for biomass, please view this site on a desktop.
    To see data for catch and tac, please view this site on a desktop.
    To see data for fishing mortality, please view this site on a desktop.
    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
    • ICES expanded the assessment unit in 2019 to include ICES’ Division 3a in addition to the original assessment area (which included only ICES’ Subarea 4) (ICES 2019).
    • The EU establishes TACs for 2 units with fishing areas falling within ICES’ assessment area: 1. ICES Division 3a, and 2. ICES Subarea 4 and Division 2a.  Division 2a is not covered in ICES’ assessment.
    • There is no fishing mortality (F) at low biomass defined; thus the Management Strategy score was qualitatively determined.
    • During years from 2013 to 2016, set TACs for Subarea 4 and Division 2a were established for different annual periods than that of the scientifically advised catch limits (management set TACS were established for the period from January-December, whereas advice was given for the period from July to June) (ICES 2013) (ICES 2017).  However, in 2017, ICES began releasing their advice earlier (April rather than June 30) (Rice et al. 2017), making it possible for management to make pre-season TAC adjustments (an estimated 84% of the catch is taken from July-December).  Since 2017, the EU has established quotas effective for periods from 1 June through July 30 of the following year (Council Regulation (EC) 2017), thus bringing the advised and established catch period into alignment. 
    • Catches are official catches for calendar year (i.e., from January to December).
    • At the time of the 2019 profile update, the EU had not published a new (2019) TAC for Subarea 4 (European Commission 2019; European Council (EU) 2018); and ICES did not report a TAC corresponding to their 2019 catch advice for the new assessment unit (ICES 2019).  A new Subarea 4/Division 2a TAC may yet be published for the season beginning 1 July 2019, but meanwhile score 2 has been quantitatively determined based on information from 2018.
    • Fishing mortality is represented as the estimated annual average for ages 1-2 (ICES 2019).
    • There is no F management target; however, an upper fishing mortality limit is defined (Fcap). Fcap is derived from the MSY Bescapement strategy, to ensure that realized F (actual removal rate) imposes less than 5% risk of causing the stock to decline below Blim in the long term (ICES 2014). The cap comes into play in years when SSB is projected to exceed MSY Bescapement (ICES 2019).

    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)

    SELECT MSC

    NAME

    Norway sandeel, pout and north sea sprat

    STATUS

    MSC Certified on 23 February 2018

    SCORES

    Principle Level Scores:

     

    Sandeel

    Norway pout

    Sprat

    Principle

    Area 1r

    Bottom trawl

    Area 3r

    Bottom trawl

    Area 4

    Bottom trawl

    Bottom trawl Midwater trawl Bottom trawl Midwater trawl Purse seine
    Principle 1 - Target Species

    89.2

    92.5 89.2 89.2 89.2

    Principle 2 - Ecosystem

    85.7 83.7 87.0 86.7 90.0
    Principle 3 - Management System 95.4

    Suspension for Unit of Certification for sandeel in management area 1R after 9th June 2019.

    Certification Type: Silver

    Sources

    Credits
    1. Brown, C., Mackinson, S., 2013. MSC Low Trophic Level Project: North Sea Ecosim. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 1: 2 – 18 http://www.msc.org/business-support/science-series/documentlibrary_search_result?keywords=north+sea&subject=Any%2FAll&publication=Any%2FAll&dlsubmit=search
    2. Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), 2001. Technical report (TR_003) produced for Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA2, 72 pp.http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/20461/tr_003.pdf
    3. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2015/104 of 19 January 2015 fixing for 2015 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters, amending Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 779/2014. 163 pp.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R0104&from=EN
    4. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104. 165 pp.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0072&from=EN
    5. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2017/127 of 20 January 2017 fixing for 2017 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R0127&from=EN
    6. European Council (EC), 2012. Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non- EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:025:0055:0147:EN:PDF
    7. FIRMS (Fishery Resources Monitoring System). 2006. Marine Resource Fact Sheet. Stock Status Report: Sprat - North Sea. 2006. Sprat in the North Sea (Sub-area IV)http://firms.fao.org/firms/resource/10387
    8. Haelters, J & Camphuysen, K. C.J., undated. The harbour porpoise in the southern North Sea: Abundance, threats and research- & management proposals. International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). 57 pp.http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/Program_Publications/Whales/asset_upload_file741_55396.pdf
    9. ICES, 2003. Environmental Status of The European Seas. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.http://www.ices.dk/reports/germanqsr/23222_ICES_Report_samme.pdf
    10. ICES, 2006a. ICES ADVICE 2006. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management.http://www.ices.dk/products/icesadvice/2006/ICES%20Advice%202006%20Book%206.pdf
    11. ICES, 2006b. ICES-FishMap. Sprat-Sprattus sprattus. Family Clupidae.http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishmap/ices/pdf/sprat.pdf
    12. ICES, 2007a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems. ICES Advice 2007. Book 6. North Seahttp://www.ices.dk/products/icesadvice/2007/ICES%20ADVICE%202007%20Book%206.pdf
    13. ICES, 2007b. ICES HAWG Report 2007. Sprat in the North Seahttp://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2007/HAWG/08-Sprat%20in%20the%20North%20Sea.pdf
    14. ICES, 2007c. Report of the Advisory Committee, 2007, Book 6, Sprat in the North Sea (Subarea IV). 5p.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2007/may/Spr-nsea.pdf
    15. ICES, 2008a. 6.4.20 Sprat in the North Sea (Subarea IV) ICES Advice 2008. Book 6 http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2008/2008/spr-nsea.pdf
    16. ICES, 2008b. ICES ADVICE 2008. Ecosystems. 2008. Book 6. North Sea Ecosystem Overview.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2008/2008/6.1-6.2%20North%20Sea%20ecosystem%20overview.pdf
    17. ICES, 2008c. ICES HAWG (Herring Assessment Working Group) Report 2008. Sprat in the North Sea. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/HAWG/Sec-08%20Sprat%20in%20the%20North%20Sea.pdf
    18. ICES, 2009a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2009, Book 6, Sprat in Subarea IV (North Sea). In-year Advice. 5p. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/2009/spr-nsea.pdf
    19. ICES, 2009b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N, 17-25 March 2009, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. Diane Lindemann. 648 pp. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2009/HAWG/HAWG09.pdf
    20. ICES, 2010. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2010, Book 6, 6.4.18 Sprat in Subarea IV (North Sea). In-year Advice. 5p. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/spr-nsea.pdf
    21. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: The North Sea 6.4.8 Ecoregion: North Sea; Stock: Sprat in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary for 2012, 5 pp. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/spr-nsea.pdf
    22. ICES, 2011b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the area South of 62 deg N, 16 - 24 March 2011, 763 pp. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/HAWG/HAWG%20Report%202011.pdf
    23. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: The North Sea 6.4.8 Ecoregion: North Sea; Stock: Sprat in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary for 2013, 5 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/spr-nsea.pdf
    24. ICES, 2012b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62 N (HAWG), 13 - 22 March 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:06, 835 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/HAWG/HAWG%202012.pdf
    25. ICES, 2013b. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sprat (WKSPRAT), 11–15 February 2013, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:48. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WKSPRAT%202013/wksprat_2013.pdf
    26. ICES, 2013c. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea.6.3.1. Multispecies considerations for the North Sea stocks. June 2013. 9pp http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/spr-nsea_201305211647.pdf
    27. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.3.30 Sprat in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary Advice for July 2014 - June 2015. 9 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/spr-nsea.pdf
    28. ICES, 2014b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62ºN (HAWG), 11-20 March 2014, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:06. 1257 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/HAWG/01%20HAWG%20Report%202014.pdf
    29. ICES, 2014c. Report of the Workshop to consider reference points for all stocks (WKMSYREF2), 8-10 January 2014 ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:47. 99 pp. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/WKMSYREF2/01%20WKMSYREF2.pdf
    30. ICES, 2015a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: Greater North Sea Ecoregion. 6.3.49 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary for July 2015 - June 2016. 8 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/spr-nsea.pdf
    31. ICES, 2015b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62ºN (HAWG), 10-19 March 2015, ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:06. 850 pp.http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2015/HAWG/01%20HAWG%20Report%202015.pdf
    32. ICES, 2016a. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort. Greater North Sea Ecoregion. 6.3.51 Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) in Subarea 4 (North Sea). Advice summary for July 2016 – June 2017. 8 pp. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/spr-nsea.pdf
    33. ICES, 2016b. 10 HAWG Report 2016 - Sec 08 Sprat in the North Sea. pp 531-589. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2016/HAWG/10%20HAWG%20Report%202016%20-%20Sec%2008%20Sprat%20in%20the%20North%20Sea.pdf
    34. ICES 2017b. Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice [online] Accessed April 3, 2017. http://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGMIXFISH.aspx
    35. OSPAR Commission, 2008. Case Reports for the OSPAR List of threatened and/or declining species and habitats, 261 pp.http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00358_case_reports_species_and_habitats_2008.pdf
    36. REGULATION (EU) No 1380/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. 40 pp.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0022:0061:EN:PDF
    37. Tasker, M. L., Camphuysen, C. J. (Kees), Cooper, J., Garthe, S., Montevecchi, W. A., Blaber, S. J. M., 2000. The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 531–547.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/531.full.pdf
    38. The Fisheries Society of the British Isles (FSBI), 2001. Marine protected areas in the North Sea. Briefing Paper 1, Fisheries Society of the British Isles, 19 pp. http://www.fsbi.org.uk/assets/brief-marine-protect-refs.pdf
    39. The Fisheries Society of the British Isles (FSBI), 2004. Effects of fishing on biodiversity in the North Sea. Briefing Paper 3, Fisheries Society of the British Isles, 19 pp.http://www.fsbi.org.uk/assets/brief-biodiversity-north-sea-refs.pdf
    References

      Comments

      This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

      Comments on:

      European sprat - North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat, European Union Subarea 4, Norway, Small mesh bottom trawls

      comments powered by Disqus