Last updated on 3 September 2018

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Merluccius merluccius

SPECIES NAME(s)

European hake

European hake is widely distributed over the Northeast Atlantic shelf, from Norway to Mauritania, with a larger density from the British Islands to the south of Spain (Casey and Pereiro, 1995) and in the Mediterranean and Black sea. ICES assumes since the end of the 1970s two different stocks units (ICES, 2013b):

• The Northern stock is distributed throughout the Kattegat, the Skagerrak, the North Sea, the English Channel, to the west of Scotland and Ireland and into the Bay of Biscay (EC, 2004)
• The Southern stock, in Divisions VIIIc and IXa along the Spanish and Portuguese coasts.

However, there is still no consensus on the stock structure of European hake in the Northeast Atlantic. Several studies have raised the issue that there is no genetic evidence of multiple populations in the Northeast Atlantic (Roldán et al., 1998, Castillo et al., 2005, Pita et al., 2010). On the other hand, the analyses by Lundy et al. (1999), suggested a differentiation between Bay of Biscay and Portugese samples, both considered by ICES as part of the Southern stock. In a recent study Pita el al. (2013) found evidence that a large genetic connectivity exists among Atlantic grounds and is mediated by significant migration rates from the Celtic Sea towards its adjacent Atlantic grounds. Therefore, the spawning biomass of the northern hake population could play a crucial role in ensuring the sustainability of southern hake fish grounds. However, the Cap Breton canyon (close to the border between the Southern part of Division VIIIb and the eastern part of Division VIIIc, i.e. approximately between the French and Spanish borders) is still considered to be a geographical boundary limiting exchanges between the two stocks (ICES, 2013b).


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • The spawning stock is at historically high levels, above any possible reference points and considered to be at “Full reproductive capacity”.
  • Fishing mortality has decreased strongly in recent years (with the exception of 2013) but it is still above MSY levels.
  • The assessment was benchmarked in 2014 and ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach. New biological reference points were defined: FMSY, MSY Btrigger, Blim and Bpa.
  • Recruitment in 2012 was estimated to be the highest in the time-series.
  • Several management measures and changes in fishing technology have been introduced in the fishery to mitigate unwanted bycatch (and further developments are being studied, in particular in trawling).
Weaknesses
  • The recovery plan CR811/2004 is no longer considered appropriate by the ICES.
  • Since 2009 landings have been systematically higher than set TACs.
  • Stock discards are substantial (20% of catches) mainly of juvenile hake, particularly in some areas and by certain gears but data on discarding is incomplete (only 75% of the known discards are included in the assessment) and increases occurred in the most recent year both in sampled fleets and non-sampled areas. Additionally, discards of large individuals also have increased in recent years because of quota restrictions in certain fleets.
  • More specific information on possible effects of this fishery on endangered, threatened and protected species and habitat is needed.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 8

Managers Compliance:

7.5

Fishers Compliance:

8.3

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

10

Future Health:

5.8


RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS
  • Catchers to follow and regulators to strictly enforce the total allowable catch limit.
  • Regulators to adopt and implement a management plan.
  • Support the collection of discard data.
RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Contact your national administration and the European Commission advocating for the adoption and implementation of a management plan and your support for a strict enforcement of the total allowable catch.
  • Contact your supply chain and request the improvement of discard reporting by catchers.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • Cornish hake gill net:

    MSC Certified

  • DFPO Denmark North Sea & Skagerrak hake and plaice:

    MSC Certified

  • Grupo Regal Spain hake longline:

    Suspended

  • SFSAG Northern Demersal Stocks:

    MSC Recertified

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
NE Atlantic northern stock EU 2a, 3a, 4, 6, 7, 8abd Denmark Bottom-set longlines
Danish seines
Scottish seines
Set gillnets (anchored)
Single boat bottom otter trawls
Trammel nets
France Bottom trawls
Ireland Bottom trawls
Gillnets and entangling nets
Hooks and lines
Spain Bottom pair trawls
Bottom-set longlines
Single boat bottom otter trawls
United Kingdom Set gillnets (anchored)

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 23 January 2015

Strengths
  • The spawning stock is at historically high levels, above any possible reference points and considered to be at “Full reproductive capacity”.
  • Fishing mortality has decreased strongly in recent years (with the exception of 2013) but it is still above MSY levels.
  • The assessment was benchmarked in 2014 and ICES advises on the basis of the MSY approach. New biological reference points were defined: FMSY, MSY Btrigger, Blim and Bpa.
  • Recruitment in 2012 was estimated to be the highest in the time-series.
  • Several management measures and changes in fishing technology have been introduced in the fishery to mitigate unwanted bycatch (and further developments are being studied, in particular in trawling).
Weaknesses
  • The recovery plan CR811/2004 is no longer considered appropriate by the ICES.
  • Since 2009 landings have been systematically higher than set TACs.
  • Stock discards are substantial (20% of catches) mainly of juvenile hake, particularly in some areas and by certain gears but data on discarding is incomplete (only 75% of the known discards are included in the assessment) and increases occurred in the most recent year both in sampled fleets and non-sampled areas. Additionally, discards of large individuals also have increased in recent years because of quota restrictions in certain fleets.
  • More specific information on possible effects of this fishery on endangered, threatened and protected species and habitat is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 10 October 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators
  • Catchers to follow and regulators to strictly enforce the total allowable catch limit.
  • Regulators to adopt and implement a management plan.
  • Support the collection of discard data.
Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Contact your national administration and the European Commission advocating for the adoption and implementation of a management plan and your support for a strict enforcement of the total allowable catch.
  • Contact your supply chain and request the improvement of discard reporting by catchers.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 23 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 Bay of Biscay and the Iberic Waters Ecoregion (WGBIE) (formerly WGHMM) meets once a year and carries out stock assessments and catch forecasts of NE Atlantic shelf fish stocks and provides 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.

Prior to ICES 2010 advice stock biomass and fishing mortality rates were estimated using an age-base model and stock status was defined in relation to the reference points defined in the recovery management plan CR811/2004 following the precautionary approach (EC, 2004). However, tagging studies provided evidence that current otolith methodology was leading to substantial growth underestimation for both northern and southern stocks (de Pontual et al., 2006; Piñeiro et al., 2007; Mellon-Duval et al., 2010). This fact was acknowledged by ICES in 2009 (ICES, 2010). However, a replacement ageing method with sufficient precision and accuracy is currently not available (ICES, 2013b).
Therefore, the northern hake assessment was completely revised during the benchmark workshop held in 2009 that led to a complete re-start relative to previous assessments (ICES, 2010). The new assessment used for the ICES 2010 advice shifted from an age-based approach to a length‐based approach using the Stock Synthesis 3 (SS3) assessment model (Methot, 2009). This approach allows direct use of length–composition data and explicit modelling of a retention process that partitions total catch into discarded and retained portions (ICES, 2010). However, results for the 2013 assessment showed a marked retrospective pattern when more recent data were incorporated into the assessment. Therefore, during the peer-review the working group did not accept the updated assessment and it was necessary to fix the growth parameters (ICES, 2013b).

The stock had another benchmark assessment in 2014. One of the main objectives of the workshop was to address the retrospective pattern (ICES, 2014b). It was felt that this pattern was mainly due to changes in the size of hake caught by the majority of the fleets which the assessment model had difficulties coping with. Most of the benchmark workshop was thus focused on obtaining the most appropriate way to account for the changes in retention and selectivity for the two most influential fleets and the group agreed that the model was an improvement in terms of taking into account the changes in stock structure and accepted the assessment model with the proviso that the model be developed and fine-tuned as more data and information become available (ICES, 2014b). Although the retrospective patterns are still present in the 2014 assessment, they are less important than in the previous year and limited to the recent years. The group was requested to provide biological reference points and a specific software, similar to plotMsy and eqSim, was developed to evaluate the reference points under a risk analysis approach and values for FMSY, MSY Btrigger, Blim and Bpa were proposed by the WG (ICES, 2014b).

The model currently incorporates commercial landings, discard estimates from several sampled fleets, abundance indices from four fishery-independent surveys, and uses constant values for the maturity ogive and natural mortality (0.4) (ICES, 2013b).
Problems in the assessment are related to shortage of fishery-independent data, particularly for some areas and for larger fish and earlier years (ICES, 2013a). Discarding is significant as hake is caught in mixed fisheries. Discard data availability (number of fleets sampled and area coverage) has improved but sampling still does not cover all fleets contributing to hake catches, and has increased in some areas where data is not collected and so cannot be included in the assessment (ICES, 2013a). Only 75% of the known discards are included in the assessment and model growth estimates are uncertain (ICES, 2014a).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 23 January 2015

From 1987 to 1991 ICES advice was limited to setting a precautionary TAC (between 54 and 59,000 tons) and promoting juvenile protection. However set TACs were always higher than advised (between 23 and 10%). From 1993 to 1998 ICES advice called for a 20-30% reduction in F, but TACs were systematically set 11 to 78% higher than advised TAC, and therefore actual F remained close to 1 for the whole period. This led to a critical situation and in 1998 only 35,060 tons were landed (the lowest record for the whole historical series). To overcome this situation in 1998 the first reference points were set and ICES drastically reduced the advised TAC for 1999 and 2000. However, set TAC in 2000 was twice as high as ICES advised.

In 2001 an emergency plan was implemented by the Commission, and ICES advice for the next three years was to get the lowest possible catch (no advised TAC). The difference was that this time managing authorities implemented a 46% reduction of the TAC (reaching in 2001 the lowest agreed TAC of the historical series: 22,600 tons). Although landings were higher than agreed TAC, the emergency plan managed to stabilize F around 0.72-0.78 between 2001 and 2003.

In 2004, under EC Reg No 811/2004, management objectives for the recovery of the northern hake stock were established, and for the period 2004-2010 ICES advice adjusted to the plan limits. Fpa was established as 0.25 and advised TAC increased steadily during this period from 33,000 tons in 2005 to 55,200 in 2010. More important is that during this period the difference between advice and agreed TAC was reduced to zero from 2008 to 2010. During this period F was reduced from 0.86 in 2005 to 0.25 in 2010, SSB estimation increased from 43,648 tons in 2005 to 180,564 tons in 2010, and total biomass estimation increased from 63,158 tons to 251,106 tons in 2010. Therefore, the plan managed succeeded to bring the stock within the desired limits.
However, the benchmarked assessment in 2009 led ICES to consider that no reliable assessment could be presented for this stock and the stock assessment model was changed to a length-based model (ICES, 2013b). As a result, reference points contained within the hake recovery plan were no longer appropriate and need to be re-calculated. Besides, length-based assessment could not provide good estimates of current stock abundance and mortality. Therefore, ICES considered that the assessment of the stock status in 2010 was indicative of trends only (ICES 2013b). For years between 2011 and 2013 ICES advice consisted on a transition to MSY, limiting the year to year variation in TAC to a maximum of 15% as established in recovery plan agreed in 2004. F during these years has remained low, total biomass and SSB estimates keep increasing to historical maximum values. ICES advice for 2014 left behind the 15% increase limitation and followed a MSY approach targeting a FMSY = 0.24. For 2015, ICES also advises on the basis of the MSY approach, which implies that landings should be no more than 78,457 tons, a 4% decrease on the 2014 TAC, implemented by a fishing mortality of 0.27, the revised FMSY. This scenario is expected to lead to a spawning biomass (SSB) of 277,000 tons in 2016 (ICES, 2014a).

It has been argued that trajectories for SSB and fishing mortality, and indices of year class strength, have been consistent through the assessments carried out in 2009 – 2013, which suggests that the signals arising from landings and survey information represent a true reflection of the stock’s dynamics (Hervás et al., 2013). On this basis it could be concluded that SSB is at an historically high level, well above the Bpa established after the 2014 benchmark assessment (46,200 tons), although fishing mortality is still above Fmsy.

Reference Points

Last updated on 23 Jan 2015

The reference points set in the 2004 recovery plan (Fpa =0,25, Flim = 0.35, Bpa = 140,000 btons, Blim =100,000 tons) were considered no longer appropriate after the benchmark assessment in 2010. In a special request for advice in June 2010, the Commission asked ICES to advise on whether a target fishing mortality rate of 0.17 (averaged on ages 2 to 6) remained appropriate for exploiting the stock consistently with MSY (as included in 2009 ICES advice). ICES responded to the Commission’s request and in 2010 recommended a F30%SPR (i.e. F = 0.24) as a potential proxy for FMSY as direct estimation of FMSY could not be provided (Hervás et al., 2013), nor could a corresponding biomass trigger be defined (ICES, 2013b).

The assessment was benchmarked in 2014 and ICES approved new reference points for this stock (FMSY, MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim) (ICES, 2014a,b). A maximum sustainable yield proxy target fishing mortality is defined as FMSY=0.27 with a corresponding biomass trigger reference point defined at 46,200 tons that corresponds at Bpa (ICES, 2014). The lower limit biomass reference point was defined at 33,000 tons (ICES, 2014a).

The table below summarizes the biological reference points that have been set since 1998 (ICES, 2014b. Annex C-Stock Annex).

WG 1998 ACFM 1998 ACFM 2003 ACOM 2010 ACOM 2014
MSY Btrigger Not defined 46,200 t
FMSY 0.24 0.27
Flim No proposal 0.28
(=Floss WG 98)
0.35
(=Floss WG 03)
Not defined Not defined
Blim No proposal 120,000 t
(=Bloss=B94)
100,000 t
(=Bloss=B94)
Not defined 33,000 t
Bpa 119,000 t 165,000 t (=Blim* e1.645 *0.2) 140,000 t (=Blim* e1.645 *0.2) Not defined 46,200 t
CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 23 January 2015

Based on the most recent estimates of spawning biomass (161,707 tons in 2014), ICES classifies the stock as being at full reproductive capacity. Spawning biomass (SSB) is estimated to be well above MSY Btrigger (46,200 tons) but fishing mortality (in 2013 F was estimated at 0.42) has been always above sustainable levels (FMSY=0.27). The 2012 year class is the largest recorded (ICES, 2013a).

Furthermore, the expansion in spatial distribution of the species together with recent changes in size structure of the stock (commercial sampling of length distribution show an increase in the larger fish in the most recent years) support the idea of a healthy stock.

Recruitment appears to fluctuate without substantial trend over the whole series. After low recruitments in 2009, 2010, and 2011, recruitment estimated for 2012 is the highest in the whole series (880 million). In 2013, recruitment decreased to an average level (431 million) (ICES, 2014b).

EU countries are now required under the EU Data Collection regulation to collect data on discards. After the 2008 Working Group assessment, discards estimates from several sampled fleets were used in the assessment. This includes data from the French Nephrops trawl in VIIIabd from 2003 to the present, the Spanish trawl in VII in 1994, 1999, 2000, 2003 to the present and the Spanish trawl in VIII and from 2005 to the present. Since 2010 the stock is assessed using SS3 and discard data is partly included in the model.

Trends

Last updated on 23 Jan 2015

Landings decreased steadily from 66,500 tons in 1989 to 35,000 tons in 1998. A general increase followed from the early 2000s with landings peaking in 2011 at almost 80,000 tons.

The spawning stock reached a local maximum (100,000 tons) in 1980. A general decrease followed, leading to an extended period of very low stock size, with a minimum in 1998 of 24,000 tons. This low state continued until 2008, when a rapid recovery followed, with steep increases in the following years. This rapid increase coincided with a sudden fall in fishing mortality, which had been consistently high during the stock lull.

Recruitment is variable, but appears not to have decreased significantly during the decades of low spawning biomass. After low recruitments in 2009, 2010, and 2011, the recruitment in 2012 is estimated to be the highest in the time-series (ICES, 2014a).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 23 January 2015

Objectives for the management of the stock have been defined in the recovery plan, implemented in 2004 (EC, 2004). According to the objectives of the recovery plan, once the stock size has been at 140,000 tons (the previous precautionary target reference point) for two consecutive years, a management plan should be implemented (EC, 2004). This target had been thought to have been achieved both in 2006 and 2007 but in 2008 the estimates for those years were revised downwards. The stock increased above that level in 2010 but ICES advice determined that problems in age-reading and determination of maturity led to consider that no reliable assessment could be presented for this stock and the assessment model shifted to a length-based model. This meant that absolute levels of spawning biomass, fishing mortality, and recruitment have shifted to different scales. As a consequence the reference points used in the recovery plan (Fpa =0.25, Flim = 0.35, Bpa = 140,000, Blim = 100,000) were no longer appropriate.

Therefore, stock status was unknown but trends based assessment indicated an increase in SSB. This situation meant that between 2010 and 2013 ICES advice was based on the precautionary assumption that the resulting TAC increase should not exceed 15%. This situation changed in 2013 when, on the basis of the MSY approach, ICES advised that landings in 2014 could increase up to 81,846 tons (ICES, 2013a). After the benchmark assessment in February 2014 management directions are now to follow scientific advice to achieve or maintain the stock at MSY levels (Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014).

Historically set TAC was systematically higher than advised TAC, and this situation reached its peak in 2000 with a set TAC twice as high as advised. Only when the Commission implemented an emergency plan in 2001 the set TAC was drastically reduced from previous years (reaching in 2001 the lowest agreed TAC of the historical series: 22,600 tons). From 2004 to 2010, during the implementation of EC Reg No 811/2004, the difference between advice and agreed TAC was reduced to zero in 2008 and remained like that until 2010. In 2011, 2012 and 2013 set TAC was between 6 and 53% higher than advised. In 2014 there was no discrepancy between advice and set TAC as both were set at 81,846 tons (ICES 2013b). In 2015 set TAC (90,850 tons) exceeds ICES’s recommendation (78,457 tons) by 15.8%.

Discards of juvenile hake can be substantial in some areas and fleets (ICES, 2013b) and an important increase in landings has occurred in the northern part of the distribution area (Division IIIa, and Subareas IV and VI) in recent years (ICES, 2013b). Discards of large individuals also have increased in recent years because of quota restrictions in certain fleets (ICES, 2014a). In 2013 ICES estimated total discards as 15,800 tons (compared to 76,700 tons of landings) (ICES 2014a). In Subarea VII, a significant increase in the estimated discard rate was observed from 2010 to 2012 when compared with previous years. Discards were estimated to vary from very small amounts to more than 1,000 tons in 2003–2005 and over 5,000 tons since 2010. CVs were highly variable from 20% to more than 100% (ICES 2014b).

During the 2003 assessment, the Working Group noted that, quantity and quality of discard data available was not enough to them into the assessment in a consistent way and discard estimates were removed from the full time-series of catch data (ICES, 2013b). From 2003 to 2008, the assessment was thus conducted on landings only. In 2008 discard estimates from several sampled fleets were included in the assessment, including the Spanish trawl data in VII in 1994, 1999, 2000, 2003 to present and the Spanish trawl data in VIII from 2005 to present (ICES, 2013b). It is estimated that 75% of the known discards are included in the assessment. Additional discards are known to occur in other fleets but the data are not available, although EU countries are now required under the EU Data Collection regulation to collect data on discards (ICES, 2013b). They mainly concern fleets for which discards data were not made available during the 2014 benchmark (non-Spanish trawlers in Subareas VII and VIII), or fleets for which discards have only been reported for the last two years (gillnets). For the latter, it is not yet clear if discarding is a recent practice or if it also occurred prior to 2012 but was simply not sampled and reported. Fixed gears were also sampled in order to design the Spanish Discards Sampling Programme, but no relevant discards were observed (Pérez et al., 1996).

The spawning biomass and the long-term yield can be substantially improved by reducing mortality of small fish. This could be achieved by measures that reduce unwanted bycatch through shifting the selection pattern towards larger fish (ICES 2013b). Several changes in fishing technology have occurred in the fishery to mitigate unwanted bycatch (ICES, 2013b): introduction of the high vertical opening trawls in the mid-1990s and introduction of selective gears in the Nephrops trawl fishery of the Bay of Biscay (square mesh panel). Other management measures include a minimum landing size of 27 cm (Subareas areas IV, VI, VII and VIII) or 30 cm (Division IIIa) , and, as part of the Emergency Plan implemented in 2001 (Council Regulations N°1162/2001, 2602/2001 and 494/2002), the following technical measures were implemented (ICES, 2012a).

• A 100 mm minimum mesh size has been implemented for otter-trawlers when hake comprises more than 20% of the total amount of marine organisms retained onboard. This measure did not apply to vessels less than 12 m in length and which return to port within 24 hours of their most recent departure.
• Furthermore, two areas have been defined, one in Sub area VII and the other in Sub area VIII (the Bay of Biscay), where a 100 mm minimum mesh size is required for all otter-trawlers, whatever the amount of hake caught.
• In the Bay of Biscay a minimum of 70mm is required for trawls (other than otters), Danish seines and similar gears.
• A partial ban on the use of gillnets with a mesh size less than 120 mm or greater than 150 mm below 200 m applies in Divisions VIa,b and VIIb,c,j,k (EC, 2013).

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.

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 23 Jan 2015

The Northern hake emergency plan (EC 1162/2001, EC 2602/2001 and EC 494/2002) was followed by a recovery plan in 2004 (EC 811/2004). The recovery plan aimed at achieving a spawning stock biomass (SSB) of 140,000 tons (Bpa). This was to be achieved by limiting fishing mortality to Fpa=0.25 and by allowing a maximum change in TAC between consecutive years of 15%. ICES advised in 2008 that the northern hake stock had met the SSB target in the recovery plan for two consecutive years (2006 and 2007). The recovery plan indicates that, in such a situation, a long-term management plan should be implemented. In 2009, a proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a long-term plan for the Northern stock of hake and the fisheries exploiting that stock was presented by the European Commission (COM/2009/0039). However, the shift in 2010 by ICES from an age-based approach to a length-based model to assess the status of the stock, prevented the finalisation of the proposed long-term management plan as target and limit biomass reference points were no longer appropriate (Hervás et al., 2013). Such a plan is currently under development by the EC (ICES 2014b) and plan should ensure that reference points are defined consistently with MSY (Hervás et al., 2014).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 23 January 2015

Compliance was historically strong in the fishery until 2001 when the TAC was reduced by almost 50%. Compliance with the TAC improved in 2006 to 2008, coinciding with increases in the set TACs, but has worsened since then and landings exceeded the 2012 TAC by 36% and 2013 TAC by 10.5% (ICES, 2014a). In 2013, landings were about 76,700 tons divided by: trawl (19%), gillnet (23%), longline (26%) and unspecified gears (32%). Discarding is significant in some areas and fleets but sampling does not cover all fleets and discarding increased sharply in non-sampled areas in the most recent year (ICES, 2013).

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 ETP 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 ETP spp); NT-Near threatened (not ETP spp); 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).

Many species of cetaceans and seals occur in the region and cetacean bycatch, particularly in hake gillnet fisheries, has been cited as a threat to cetacean conservation in the Celtic Sea eco-region (ICES, 2008c). Gillnets are also responsible for a large bycatch of harbour porpoise in the North Sea region (ICES, 2008c). Marine mammal bycatch towards the south of the region has mainly been recorded for pelagic trawl fisheries (ICES, 2008c), such as the bycatch of common dolphin Delphinus delphis and other small cetaceans known to occur in French and Spanish trawling for hake in the Bay of Biscay and of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena and dolphins in Celtic Sea and continental shelf edge fixed net hake fisheries (SFGEN, 2002). Occasional but rare occurrence of Harbour porpoise 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 (Pawson et al, 2014). Incidental capture of seals is believed to happen when they are foraging around mobile gears (Morizur et al 1999). Limited data available suggest that it can and does occur, though the indications are that it is at a low level relative to seal populations in the North Sea and northeast Atlantic which are known to be increasing (Pawson et al, 2014).

When it comes to longlines relatively few non-seabird ETP species that occur in the area of the fishery are thought to have even a theoretically potential interaction with the gear (Hervás et al., 2014), in part due to the depth of the gear and in part due to the relatively lightweight nature of the hooks and lines, meaning that gear would break if taken by a cetacean. Demersal longlining is not seen as a high risk fishery for cetacean by catch and there is little evidence of interaction. There are 3 shark species listed under CITES known to occur in the area of the fishery, though demersal long lining is not thought of as a threat to this species. Sea turtles have been shown to rarely occur in the area, but they do have a potential for interaction in the form of entanglement with buoy ropes, or to a perhaps lesser extent, indirect effects of lost or damaged gear. (Hervás et al., 2014).

The supply of discards, particularly from demersal fisheries, has been shown to be positively correlated with seabird distribution and population state (ICES, 2008c). There are a number of seabird species listed as ETP whose range covers parts of the fishing area, and which can become entangled by longline fisheries if certain measures are not taken. Bird bycatch is frequently associated with longline fisheries but some mitigation measures have been implemented in some fleets (e.g. deck lights are off during night time hours at the time of shooting and hauling gear, bird scaring devices, etc) (Hérvas et al., 2014). However, the likely interaction between birds and deep demersal set gear, compared to surface longlining, is lower as for much of the fishing time the bait and gear are out of reach. There is still a potential for interaction during setting and 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).

Spain

Last updated on 23 January 2015

The Shipowners Cooperative from Vigo (Asociación de Armadores de Vigo, ARVI) promoted and celebrated in October 2014 an international symposium on the interaction between seabirds and fishing, aiming to put in common initiatives and techniques implemented in different fleets for the protection of the seabird populations and seek for innovative solutions.

Other Species

Last updated on 23 January 2015

Other species in the diverse community of which hake is a component may also be caught, depending on the gear type, fishing area and biological conditions: megrim, anglerfish, 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, 2008b).

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).

Spain

Last updated on 23 January 2015

The Spanish effort in the Celtic Sea is mainly exerted by longliners and otter trawlers, targeting hake, anglerfish and megrims. The main discarded species by the Spanish fleet in 2012 was haddock, with most of the catches being discarded (92%), followed by megrims (35%), anglerfish (18%), witch (12%) and hake (7%) (CEFAS, 2014). According to data from the observers program run by the Spanish Oceanographic Centre (Instituto Español de Oceanografía, IEO), catches from the Spanish trawl fleet targeting hake and monk in VII, VIIIa,b,d and VIa,b comprise a 51% in weight of unwanted catches of fish and crustaceans (IEO, 2010). Between 2009 and 2011 the Shipowners Cooperative from Vigo (Asociación de Armadores de Vigo, ARVI) was involved in a European Project (ww.pseredes.org) aiming to gain knowledge on the factors affecting bycatch and discards, with a special focus on studying the factors influencing trawl gear selectivity in order to minimize bycatch and discards in the hake, megrim and monk fisheries (Cetmar, 2011; Pérez et al., 2010). The results were used to design different selective gears and devices; some scale models were built and tested in the laboratory (Cetmar, 2011). In addition, in 2014 ARVI launched a new research project pursuing to test new net designs (different configurations of the traditional trawl net, varying mesh size and rotation) for the hake, megrim and monk fisheries in the Celtic Sea Ecoregion. The main research institution involved is the Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries, in collaboration with the Spanish Institute of Oceanography. According to ARVI field tests should be held in 2015.

HABITAT

Last updated on 28 January 2015

Hake spawn between February and July along the shelf edge, from the northern Bay of Biscay to south and west of Ireland. Juveniles move to shallow areas after they become demersal dwelling, in the main nursery areas in the Bay of Biscay and south of Ireland (ICES, 2008a). The fishing fleets follow hake’s seasonal movements: in the first quarter they are more common in the north of the Bay of Biscay, moving to the shelf edge of the Celtic Sea in June and July and are mainly located to the west and southwest of Ireland between August and December (ICES, 2008a).

Hake is caught in a variety of fisheries which use a range of gears. Many of these are mixed fisheries. The impact of the fisheries on the ecosystem has not been assessed (ICES 2009a). However, given its ecological role as a top level predator (the top level fish predator) in the North Sea, the removal of hake at current levels is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements of the underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (Pawson et al 2014).

For a number of reasons, longline fishing activity is regarded as low impact and there is only a small chance that the gear could significantly impact upon benthic habitats. In spite of some direct impacts on the seabed (dragging anchors and lines snagging on benthic epifauna or 3-D seabed structures) it can be concluded that demersal longline fisheries may be employed without significant habitat damage – and are certainly highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm (Hervás et al., 2014).

Most hake are taken by bottom trawling, which can cause severe impacts on benthic communities (ICES 2008c). 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 (Pawson et al 2014). 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 (Pawson et al, 2014). 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 recolonization (Pawson et al, 2014). 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 thus reducing the seabed to a flat two dimensional structure (Pawson et al, 2014).

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). It 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 et al, 2014).

In the case of the Danish Fishermen’s Producer Organisation demersal trawl fishery in North Sea and Skagerrak there is adequate information to indicate that the gear used is unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, and there is little if any known interaction with sensitive or vulnerable seabed habitats as defined by OSPAR (Pawson et al, 2014).

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 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), the Belgica Mound province, the Hovland Mound province, North West Porcupine Bank and the South West Porcupine Bank (Subarea VII) (EC, 2009; 2013). Besides the EU implements other spatial measures for the conservation of fishery resources for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (EC, 2009; 2013).

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).

Council Regulation 1954/2003 (EC, 2003) established measures for the management of fishing effort in a “biologically sensitive area” in Divisions VIIb, VIIj, VIIg, and VIIh. Effort exerted within the “biologically sensitive area” by the vessels of each EU Member Country may not exceed their average annual effort (calculated over the period 1998–2002).

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.

Besides, the UK Marine Act require Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) to be designated in England and Wales, to form a representative network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in conjunction with other types of MPA designation (most significantly, marine Natura 2000 sites). 27 Marine Conservation Zones were designated on November 2013 (click here to see Ministerial Orders for every MCZ), they are distributed through ICES Divisions IVb,c and VIIa,d,e,f,g,h.(click here to visualize the different MPAs around UK)

FishSource Scores

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 8.

A recovery plan was implemented in 2004 but the target values used in the recovery plan are based on reference points that are no longer considered appropriate by ICES. The assessment was benchmarked in 2014 and ICES approved new reference points for this stock (FMSY, MSY Btrigger, Bpa, and Blim ) (ICES, 2014). There are several management measures in place (TAC, minimum mesh size, closed areas, etc.).

As calculated for 2015 data.

The score is 7.5.

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

The Set TAC is 90.9 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 78.5 ('000 t) .

The underlying Set TAC/Advised TAC for this index is 116%.

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is 8.3.

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

The Landings is 76.7 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 69.4 ('000 t) .

The underlying Landings/Set TAC for this index is 111%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The SSB is 162 ('000 t). The MSY Btrigger is 46.2 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/MSY Btrigger for this index is 350%.

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is 5.8.

This measures the F as a percentage of the F management target.

The F is 0.420 (age-averaged). The F management target is 0.270 .

The underlying F/F management target for this index is 156%.

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
  1. The set TAC corresponds to the sum of the TACs of the northern stock’s distribution plus Division IIa (EC zone only), which is set as a joint TAC with subarea IV; and EC and international waters of Vb and international waters of XII and XIV, which are set with VI and VII (Council Reg. EC,2014).
  2. New reference points were defined by the ICES based on the 2014’s assessment benchmark (ICES, 2014a,b).
  3. The advised TAC for 2015 (78,457 tons) is based on the MSY approach (ICES, 2014a).
  4. Catches show above represent landings only. Discards are estimated by ICES for some years but not included here.

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

Cornish hake gill net

STATUS

MSC Certified on 11 June 2015

SCORES

Principle Level Scores:

Principle Score
Principle 1 – Target Species 89.4
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 82.3
Principle 3 – Management System 89.5

Certification Type: Silver

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

Additional References

  1. Acoura, 2015. On-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for Grupo Regal Spain hake longline fishery. First Surveillance Audit, April 2015. 23pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/grupo-regal-spain-hake-longline/assessment-downloads-1/Final_report_SA_EurHake_210515.pdf
  2. Andrews, J. and M. Pawson, 2015. MSC Assessment Report for Cornish Hake Gill Net Fishery. Intertek Fisheries Certification, June 2015. 205pphttps://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/cornish-hake-gill-net/assessment-downloads-1/20150520_PCR_HAK194.pdf
  3. Casey, J and Pereiro, J., 1995.European Hake (M. merluccius) in the Northeast Atlantic. In Hake: Biology, Fisheries and markets. 125–147, (Chapman & Hall, London. ISBN). http://books.google.es/books/about/Hake.html?id=A-Y1msyf0I8C
  4. Castillo, A. G. F., Alvarez, P., and Garcia-Vazquez, E. 2005. Population structure of Merluccius merluccius along the Iberian Peninsula coast. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 1699-1704. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/search?fulltext=castillo&submit=yes&x=15&y=8
  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. PSE REDES Website: https://web.archive.org/web/20140106083853/http:/pseredes.org/
  6. Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;jsessionid=Hg6XTVWSYtGQ0glV8G7LKGzmntGtvNDlW31jLpm1qRhkzSrJJGGn!-491969241?uri=CELEX:32014R0043
  7. 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
  8. Council Regulation (EU No57/2011) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:024:0001:0125:EN:PDF
  9. Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009, fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:022:0001:0205:EN:PDF
  10. Council Regulation (EC) No 811/2004 of 21 April 2004 establishing measures for the recovery of the northern hake stock. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:185:0001:0003:EN:PDF
  11. Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4th November 2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur40286.pdf
  12. de Pontual, H., Groison, A.L., Pineiro, C., Bertignac, M. 2006. Evidence of underestimation of European hake growth in the Bay of Biscay, and its relationship with bias in the agreed method of age estimation. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 1674–1681. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/9/1674.abstract?sid=1ab65884-da6e-435a-9328-d3cfe777acc3
  13. 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
  14. 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”:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/146304.pdf
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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 pphttp://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
  18. ICES, 2008a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim (WGHMM), 30 April - 6 May 2008, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen (ICES CM 2008/ACOM:07).http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/WGHMM/WGHMM08.pdf
  19. ICES, 2008b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, Book 9: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks. 9.4.1 Hake – Northern Stock (Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d).http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2008/2008/hke-nrtn.pdf
  20. ICES, 2008c. 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
  21. ICES. 2009a. ICES Advice 2009, Book 9 9.4 Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks 9.4.1 Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d) (Northern stock) http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/2009/hke-nrtn.pdf
  22. ICES. 2009b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk, and Megrim (WGHMM), 5-11 May 2009, ICES CM 2009/ACOM:08. . 3 Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI and VII and Divisions VIIIa,b,d (Northern stock) http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2009/WGHMM/Sec%2003%20Hake%20in%20Division%20IIIa,%20Subaareas%20IV,%20VI%20and%20VII%20and%20Divisions%20VIIIa,b,d.pdf
  23. ICES, 2010. Book 9: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks. 9.3.2.1. Ecoregion: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks. Subject: Northern hake FMSY, Special request Advice June 2010, 9 pp. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/Special%20Requests/EC%20Northern%20hake%20FMSY.pdf
  24. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 9: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks 9.4.1 Ecoregion: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks. Stock: Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d (Northern stock). Advice summary for 2012, 9 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/hke-nrth.pdf
  25. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 9: Widely distributed and migratory stocks 9.4.1 Ecoregion: Widely distributed and migratory stocks. Stock: Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d (Northern stock). Advice summary for 2013, 8 p.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/hke-nrth.pdf
  26. ICES, 2012b. ICES advice 2012. Book 9 4.6 Widely distributed and migratory stocks. Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2012/2012/Spurdog%20NEA.pdf
  27. ICES, 2013a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 9: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks. 9.4.10: Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d (Northern stock). 9 pp. http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/hke-nrth.pdf
  28. ICES, 2013b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of the Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim (WGHMM). 10-16 May 2013. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:11A. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WGHMM/WGHMM%202013.pdf
  29. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 9: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks 9.3.10 Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d) (Northern stock).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/hke-nrth.pdf
  30. ICES, 2014b. Report of the Working Group for the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Waters Ecoregion (WGBIE), 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/05%20WGBIE%20report%20-%20Sec%2003%20Hake%20in%20Division%20IIIa,%20Subareas%20IV,%20VI%20and%20VII%20and%20Divisions%20VIIIa,b,d%20(Northern%20stock).pdf
  31. IEO, 2010a. Informe con la descripción de las Unidades Operativas elegidas en el proyecto. Entregable 10 (E10), Febrero 2010). Proyecto 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. PSE REDES Website: https://web.archive.org/web/20140106083853/http:/pseredes.org/
  32. 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
  33. IUCN, 2008. 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded on 17 April 2009. http://www.iucnredlist.org
  34. Lundy, C.J., Moran, P., Rico, C., Milner, R.S. and Hewitt, G.M., 1999. Macrogeographical population differentiation in oceanic environments: a case study of European hake (Merluccius merluccius), a commercially important fish. Molecular Ecology, 8, 11: 1889-1898.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00789.x
  35. Mellon-Duval, C., de Pontual, H., Metral, L., Quemener, L. 2010. Growth of European hake (Merluccius merluccius) in the Gulf of Lions based on conventional tagging. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 62–70. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/1/62.abstract?sid=2809fa53-8ac0-4a2a-829d-4ac77798db00
  36. 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
  37. 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/dfpo-denmark-north-sea-skagerrak-and-kattegat-hake/assessment-downloads-1/20141030_PCR_HAK243.pdf
  38. Piñeiro, C., Rey, J., de Pontual, H., Goñi, R. 2007. Tag and recapture of European hake (Merluccius merluccius L.) off the Northwest Iberian Peninsula: First results support fast growth hypothesis. Fisheries Research, 88: 150–154. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01657836/88
  39. Pita A., Pérez M., Balado M, Presa P. 2013. Out of the Celtic cradle: The genetic signature of European hake connectivity in South-western Europe. Journal of Sea Research 11/2013; 93:90-100. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258540089_Out_of_the_Celtic_cradle_The_genetic_signature_of_European_hake_connectivity_in_South-western_Europe
  40. Pita A., Pérez M., Cerviño S., Presa P. 2010. What can gene flow and recruitment dynamics tell us about connectivity between European hake stocks in the Eastern North Atlantic? Continental Shelf Research 31: 376–387 http://www.researchgate.net/journal/1873-6955_Continental_Shelf_Research
  41. 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/
  42. Roldán, M.I.; García-Marín, J.L.; Utter, F.M. and Pla, C. 1998. Population genetic structure of European hake, Merluccius merluccius. Nature 81(3): 327–334. http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v81/n3/full/6883830a.html
  43. SFGEN, 2002. Report of the second meeting of the Subgroup on Fishery and Environment (SFGEN) of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), Commission of the European Communities: Incidental catches of small cetaceans, Brussels, 11-14 June 2002. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/factsheets/legal_texts/sec_2002_1134_en.pdf

Appended content

  1. 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 pphttp://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
  2. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 9:Widely distributed and migratory stocks 6.4.2 Ecoregion:Widely distributed and migratory stocks. Stock:Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d(Northern stock). Advice summary for 2013, 8 pp.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/hke-nrth.pdf
  3. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 9: Widely Distributed and Migratory Stocks 9.3.10 Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d) (Northern stock) http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/hke-nrth.pdf
  4. ICES, 2014b. Report of the Working Group for the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Waters Ecoregion (WGBIE), 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/05%20WGBIE%20report%20-%20Sec%2003%20Hake%20in%20Division%20IIIa,%20Subareas%20IV,%20VI%20and%20VII%20and%20Divisions%20VIIIa,b,d%20(Northern%20stock).pdf
  1. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 9: Widely distributed and migratory stocks 9.4.1 Ecoregion: Widely distributed and migratory stocks. Stock: Hake in Division IIIa, Subareas IV, VI, and VII, and Divisions VIIIa,b,d (Northern stock). Advice summary for 2013, 8 p.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/hke-nrth.pdf
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    European hake - NE Atlantic northern stock

    comments powered by Disqus