Last updated on 25 July 2018

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Ammodytes spp.

SPECIES NAME(s)

Sandeels nei, Sandlances nei

The complete stock structure of North Sea sandeel is unclear, and although several reproductively isolated sub-populations have been identified, some exchange appears to take place between neighbouring populations in early life stages. From 2010 onwards ICES has presented advice for the North sea sandeel divided into 7 management areas, based on the assumption that this will better reflect the stock structure and enable improved management avoiding local depletion (ICES, 2010a). This profile represents the Dogger Bank area – SA1. Since 2017, the name of this management area changed to Sandeel Area 1r because of a change in the statistical rectangles (divisions 4.b–c,) included in management area (ICES, 2017).  


ANALYSIS

Strengths
  • Stock assessments are now conducted separately for each of the sandeel management areas in the North Sea. The combination of a new assessment model “SMS-effort” with the specific area based approach is considered to have improved the quality of the assessment. 
  • Spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been recovering from lowest values (2013-2014) and is now above the precautionary biomass level and the stock has been considered to be at “Full reproductive capacity”. 
  • In recent years, EU have used real-time monitoring for setting TACs within the fishing year, explicitly taking in consideration closing areas known to be commercially depleted.
  • Misreporting in the Danish fleet has been overpassed with the introduction of the only one fishing area per trip rule.
  • Closures of depleted areas and for certain periods are used as a management measure on a local scale. Several coastal areas and zones of known deep-water coral communities in the North Sea have been closed to fishing.
  • Dogger Bank has been approved by the European Commission as a Site of Community Importance (SCI).
Weaknesses
  • There are no fishing reference points defined.
  • A management plan needs to be developed.
  • Additional information on the gears interaction with bottom habitat is needed
  • Additional information on the effects of sandeel removal on ETP stocks, as well as direct accounting for sandeels as forage in the harvest control rule, are needed
  • Fishing mortality has recently increased substantially
  • Current recruitment is below average and the fishery is working on older individuals.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

10

Future Health:

7.3


RECOMMENDATIONS

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN
  • Press regional advisory bodies, national fisheries administrations and the European Commission to develop a multi-species, ecosystem-based management plan for North Sea pelagic fisheries, including a harvest control rule(s).
  • Ensure these recommendations are represented to the EU Pelagic Advisory Council (https://www.pelagic-ac.org/) directly or through one of the General Assembly members. 
  • 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

  • DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat sandeel, sprat and Norway pout:

    MSC Certified

  • 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
Dogger Bank area Norway/EU North Sea SA 1 Denmark Small mesh bottom trawls
Norway Small mesh bottom trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 20 June 2018

Strengths
  • Stock assessments are now conducted separately for each of the sandeel management areas in the North Sea. The combination of a new assessment model “SMS-effort” with the specific area based approach is considered to have improved the quality of the assessment. 
  • Spawning stock biomass (SSB) has been recovering from lowest values (2013-2014) and is now above the precautionary biomass level and the stock has been considered to be at “Full reproductive capacity”. 
  • In recent years, EU have used real-time monitoring for setting TACs within the fishing year, explicitly taking in consideration closing areas known to be commercially depleted.
  • Misreporting in the Danish fleet has been overpassed with the introduction of the only one fishing area per trip rule.
  • Closures of depleted areas and for certain periods are used as a management measure on a local scale. Several coastal areas and zones of known deep-water coral communities in the North Sea have been closed to fishing.
  • Dogger Bank has been approved by the European Commission as a Site of Community Importance (SCI).
Weaknesses
  • There are no fishing reference points defined.
  • A management plan needs to be developed.
  • Additional information on the gears interaction with bottom habitat is needed
  • Additional information on the effects of sandeel removal on ETP stocks, as well as direct accounting for sandeels as forage in the harvest control rule, are needed
  • Fishing mortality has recently increased substantially
  • Current recruitment is below average and the fishery is working on older individuals.
RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain
  • Press regional advisory bodies, national fisheries administrations and the European Commission to develop a multi-species, ecosystem-based management plan for North Sea pelagic fisheries, including a harvest control rule(s).
  • Ensure these recommendations are represented to the EU Pelagic Advisory Council (https://www.pelagic-ac.org/) directly or through one of the General Assembly members. 
  • 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.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 20 June 2018

Since 2010, stock assessment is conducted separately for each of the sandeel management areas in the North sea. A Seasonal age based analytical model (SMS-effort), based on data from dredge surveys and total international fishing effort, is used for the assessment (ICES 2018). According to ICES, this combination of the new assessment model “SMS-effort” with the specific area based approach have much improved the quality of the assessment, and removed retrospective bias in Fishing mortality (F) and Spawning stock Biomaass (SSB) estimates for the recent years (ICES, 2012a). The quality of the assessment is considered to be good (ICES, 2015). In 2014 and 2015 occurred some misreporting of catches taken in SA 1, but reported to SA 3 (Central Eastern North Sea). The catches and fishing effort in SA 3 were revised based on information from VMS and previous catch distributions (ICES 2018).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 20 June 2018

Following the MSY approach (Escapement strategy) for a short-lived species, ICES advises that the catch in 2018 should be no more than 134,461 t, a large drop from the previous 255,956 t. This is due in part to the low recruitment in 2017 as the large year class of 2016 will make up the bulk of the fishery in 2018 (ICES 2018)

ICES recommended that management measures similar to those applied in the Danish fishery, should be taken to avoid similar misreporting in the future by other countries (ICES 2018)

A new proposed method to monitoring the sandeel fishery based on real-time monitoring was made by the Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries in 2016. This method is similar to the 2012 request; however, this new method includes an option to provide TAC advice through a TAC-setting procedure that sets a TAC from the observed catch rates of age 1 sandeel in the early 2016 fishery (in the period 15 April to 6 May 2016). This proposal was reviewed by ICES and considered suitable for monitoring sandeel abundance in SA1 (ICES, 2016b). 

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 20 June 2018

The stock is considered to be at “Above escapement trigger/ Full reproductive capacity”. The spawning stock biomass (SSB) is estimated at around 278 thousand tonnes (ICES 2018). In 2018, the reproductive biomass has increased substantially but with variation from a near time series low in 2014. Recruitment in 2015 and 2017 were low, however. Fishing mortality (F) was below long-term average and in 2016 was the lowest value estimate of the time-series, but has increased substantially in 2017; this value is however less certain as it is the terminal estimate (ICES 2018)

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 20 June 2018

Since 2011 separated quotas are defined for each of the seven management areas. EU has been using a real-time monitoring for setting TACs (more information at Scientific Advice section). For 2018, European Commission  set the TAC and quotas provisionally at zero before ICES scientific advice has been released. The EU established the final TAC value for Dogger Bank (SA 1r) in 2018 and followed the scientific (EUR-Lex 2018) advice setting the area quota at ~134,000 t

Temporal closures from January 1st – March 31st and from August 1st – December 31st, apply to all management areas for towed gears with a mesh size less than 16 mm (e.g. European Commission 2017). No specific management plan is known for this fishery (ICES 2018).

As of 1 January 2015, the landing obligation applies also to fisheries for industrial purposes (e.g. fisheries for capelin, sandeel and Norwegian pout).

To avoid area misreporting, only one fishing area per trip is mandatory for the Danish fishery since 2015 (ICES, 2016a).

Biomass reference points:

MSY Approach: A MSY Bescapement has been defined at 145,000 tonnes (= Bpa). ICES introduced a ceiling on Fishing mortality (F) level on the escapement strategy to ensure the ICES precautionary criterion (probability of Spawning Stock biomass (SSB)  being below Blim is ≤ 5%) is met. The value of Fcap was defined at Fcap=0.49.

Precautionary approach (PA): Lower limit threshold biological reference point, Blim, has been defined at 110,000 tonnes, corresponding to lowest SSB at which a high recruitment is observed. Bpa has been defined at 145,000 tonnes (ICES 2018).

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 20 June 2018

Prior to 2010 set TACs referred to the entire North Sea area (which encompasses the zone IIIa, EC waters of Division IIa and Subarea IV). Historically compliance has been strong in the North Sea sandeel fishery; with the exception of 2007 and 2010, overall landings in the North Sea have not surpassed set TACs in recent years (ICES, 2013a).

For the Dogger Bank area specifically, landings have considerably surpassed the TAC in 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016. A total of 164,770 tonnes of sandeel were landed in 2015, well above the set TAC for this management area (133,000 tonnes). In 2016, landings (12,751 tonnes) no overpassed the total TAC (13,000 tonnes). With the reformulation of the management area into SA 1r,  the total catch estimate for this area in 2016 (15,264 tonnes) it was higher than the previous area SA 1. Discards are considered to be negligible (ICES 2017).Preliminary catches for 2017 appear to be in-line with the scientific advice (ICES 2018).

In the past, misreporting occurred of catches taken in SA 1, but reported to SA 3 (Central Eastern North Sea) which ICES has reallocated a total of 44,000 tonnes in 2014 and 15,000 tonnes in 2015 from SA 3 to SA 1 during the 2017 assessment. This situation seems to be due the management system operated with individual vessel quotas by sandeel area (SA), which created the incentive and opportunity for misreporting through allocating small shares to vessels in the low TAC areas (ICES, 2015). Management measures adopted in 2015 (only one fishing area per trip) eliminated the misreporting issue for Danish catches. However, this situation seems to occur for other nations which ICES recommends that similar management measures should be implemented (ICES 2018).

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 20 June 2018

In the North Sea ecosystem, sandeel is considered a very important prey species for a variety of predators, including fish, marine mammals and seabirds. In general, fishing on sandeel aggregations at a distance less than 100 km from seabird colonies has been found to affect some surface feeding bird species, especially kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla; IUCN, 2012: “Least Concern”) and sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis; IUCN, 2012: “Least Concern”) (ICES, 2010a; ICES, 2010d). There are some concerns that the industrial fishery may indirectly impact predatory fishes by depriving them of food (Engelhard et al., 2008; Cook et al., 2014). According to Daunt et al. (2008), years of bad recruitment in sandeels have led to poor breeding success in seabirds (e.g., little tern and black-legged kittiwakes) that feed mainly the 0-group cohorts. Fish and mobile marine mammals’ populations are assumed to be less vulnerable to local sandeel depletion (ICES, 2010c).

Other than trophic effects direct impacts of the fishery on ETP species is not thought to be problematic (Rice et al. 2017).

Other Species

Last updated on 20 June 2018

Sandeel catches include several Ammodytoidei species but consist largely of Ammodytes marinus. At some of the grounds in the Dogger Bank area the smooth sandeel Gymnammodytes semisquamatus can be important (ICES, 2007c). The levels of bycatch in the sandeel fishery are considered to be very low. In years with low abundance of sandeel, bycatches of sprat, herring, mackerel and whiting may occur, however in recent years, those species represented less than 1% of sandeel (Scheveningen Group, 2014). Heath et al. (2014) alerts for possible ecological effects of eliminating fishery discards.

Sandeel fishing effort on the Dogger Bank is concentrated when and where sandeels are most available and where, in turn, they are locally preyed upon by at least 10 predatory fish species (e.g. dab, whiting, lesser weever and grey gurnard), including 8 commercially important ‘human consumption’ species. Despite this, direct interactions with these important predators is considered low as a result of the gear used and the overall fishing method employed by the fleet (Rice et al. 2017). This fishery is under the landing obligation for the EU (Rice et al. 2017).

HABITAT

Last updated on 20 June 2018

Information on exact fishing location is avail bile thought the vessel monitoring system (VMS) used by the fleet. Additionally, detailed habitat maps of the normal fishing grounds are also available. However direct observational studies of the physical impacts of this gear on the seabed are not available (Rice et al. 2017).

While this fishery uses bottom trawling gear, impacts to the sea-bed are not thought to be problematic.  This is in part due to the lack of tickle chains, sweeps, or bobbins, other gear on the bottom of the net near the foot rope. Additionally, the sand eel fishery is conducted in areas of sand, which tend to be high energy environments in their natural state. As such the limited disturbance of the gear is not thought to be important when compared to natural disturbances (Rice et al. 2017).

Several coastal areas and zones of known deep-water coral communities in the North Sea have been closed to fishing, in order to protect both benthic communities/habitats and juvenile demersal fish (OSPAR, 2009).

FishSource Scores

Last updated on 13 July 2018

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

Since 2011, ICES bases the advice on the MSY approach, allowing for sufficient stock (MSY Bescapement) to remain for successful recruitment. No formal management plan is in place, but in recent years EU have used real-time monitoring for setting TACs within the fishing year, explicitly taking in consideration closing areas known to be commercially depleted.

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Set TAC is 134 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 134 ('000 t) .

The underlying Set TAC/Advised TAC for this index is 100%.

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Catch is 236 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 256 ('000 t) .

The underlying Catch/Set TAC for this index is 92.1%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2018 data.

The score is 10.0.

This measures the SSB as a percentage of the Bmsy.

The SSB is 278 ('000 t). The Bmsy is 145 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/Bmsy for this index is 191%.

As calculated for 2017 data.

The score is 7.3.

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

The F is 0.570 (age-averaged). The F management limit is 0.490 .

The underlying F/F management limit for this index is 116%.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE RISK

High Medium Low

This indicates the potential risk of human rights abuses for all fisheries operating within this stock or assessment unit. If there are more than on risk level noted, individual fisheries have different levels. Click on the "Select Scores" drop-down list for your fisheries of interest.

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
  • From 2010 onwards ICES presented advice for the North Sea sandeel divided into 7 management areas, based on the assumption that this will better reflect the stock structure and enable improved management avoiding local depletions (ICES, 2010a).  
  • This profile refers to the central and southern North Sea, Dogger Bank Area – SA1r.
  • Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) estimate for 2018 was calculated using mean weight-at-age from 2013 to 2017 and proportion mature from December 2016 (ICES, 2017).
  • The Fishing mortality (F) management target here is taken as the defined reference point Fcap=0.49, the ceiling fishing mortality (upper limit).
  • Catches are represented as the ICES estimated catches for the SA1r area. Catches for 2017 are preliminary.  

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

DFPO and DPPO North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat sandeel, sprat and Norway pout

STATUS

MSC Certified on 17 March 2017

SCORES

  Sandeel Sprat  Pout  
Principle Trawl   Trawl     Purse seines

Trawl

Principle 1 - Target Species 82.3 84.4 81.3
Principle 2 - Ecosystem 82.3 82.3 85.0 82.3
Principle 3 - Management System 87.5

Certification Type: Silver

Sources

Credits
  1. Bergman, M.J.N., and van Santbrink, J. W. 2000. Mortality in megafaunal benthic populations caused by trawl fisheries on the Dutch continental shelf in the North Sea in 1994. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1321–1331.Bergman_and_Santbrink_impact_trawl_North_Sea_IJMS_2000.pdf
  2. Callaway, R., Engelhard, G.H., Dann, J., Cotter, J. and Rumohr, H., 2007. A century of North Sea epibenthos and trawling: comparison between 1902-1912, 1982-1985 and 2000. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 346: 27-43.http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m346p027.pdf
  3. Cook, Aonghais S.C.P., Dadam, D., Mitchell, I., Ross-Smith, V.H., Robinson, R.A., 2014. Indicators of seabird reproductive performance demonstrate the impact of commercial fisheries on seabird populations in the North Sea.Ecological Indicators 38:1-11http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X13003981
  4. Council Regulation (EU) No 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. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0072&from=EN
  5. Council Regulation (EU) No 297/2013 of 27 March 2013 amending Regulations (EU) No 44/2012, (EU) No 39/2013 and (EU) No 40/2013 as regards certain fishing opportunities.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:090:0010:0047:EN:PDF
  6. Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Greenstreet, S.P.R., Jensen, H., Hamer, K.C. & Harris, M.P., 2008. The impact of the sandeel fishery closure in the northwestern North Sea on seabird food consumption, distribution and productivity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 362-381https://core.ac.uk/download/files/79/62542.pdf
  7. Deurs, M.,Jørgensen, C., Fiksen, Ø., 2015. Effects of copepod size on fish growth: a model based on data for North Sea sandeel. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 520: 235–243.http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m520p235.pdf
  8. Eigaard, O.R., Deurs, M., Behrens, J.W., Bekkevold, D., Brander, K., Plambech, M., Plet-Hansen, K.S., Mosegaard, H., 2014. Prey or predator—expanding the food web role of sandeel Ammodytes marinus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 516:267-273 doi:10.3354/meps11064http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v516/p267-273/
  9. Engelhard, G.H., van der Kooij, J., Bell, E.D., Pinnegar, J.K., Blanchard, J.L., Mackinson, S., Righton, D.A., 2008. Fishing mortality versus natural predation on diurnally migrating sandeels Ammodytes marinus. Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 369: 213–227http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2008/369/m369p213.pdf
  10. European Commission (EC), 2011a. Council Regulation (EC) No 57/2011 of 18 January 2011, fixing for 2011 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in EU waters and, for EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:024:0001:0125:EN:PDF
  11. European Commission (EC), 2011b. Council Regulation (EC) No 476/2011 of 17 May 2011, amending Council Regulation (EU) No 57/2011 as regards catch limits for the fisheries on sandeel in EU waters of ICES zones IIa, IIIa and IV.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:131:0012:0013:EN:PDF
  12. European Commission (EC), 2012a. 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
  13. European Commission (EC), 2012b. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 368/2012 of 27 April 2012 amending Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2012 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 agreement.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:116:0017:0018:EN:PDF
  14. European Commission (EC), 2013a. Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 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:2013:023:0054:0153:EN:PDF
  15. Greenstreet S., Armstrong E., Mosegaard H., Jensen H., Gibb I., Fraser H., Scott B., Holland G. and Sharples J. 2006. Variation in the abundance of sandeels Ammodyes marinus off southeast Scotland: an evaluation of area-closure fisheries management and stock abundance assessment methods. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 1530 - 1550.Greenstreet_et_al_ICES_J_M_Sci_2006.pdf
  16. Hiddink J.G, Kennings S., and Kaiser, M.J., 2006. Indicators of the ecological impact of bottom-trawl disturbance on seabed communities. Ecosystems, 9: 1190-1199. Hiddink_et_al._Ecosystems.pdf
  17. ICES, 2007a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak – Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK); 4 – Sandeel in IV. 66 p.04-Sandeel__WGNSSK_Sep_07_.pdf
  18. ICES, 2007b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Book 6 – North Sea, section 6.4.24 – Sandeel in subarea IV. 12 p.san-nsea_advice07.pdf
  19. ICES, 2007c. North Sea sandeel Quality Handbook. In Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak – Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK) – Annex 2 (Stock Annexes). 04-Sandeel__WGNSSK_Sep_07__-_ANNEXES.pdf
  20. ICES. 2008a. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak – Combined Spring and Autumn (WGNSSK), 7–13 May 2008 (ICES CM 008/ACOM:09).http://www.ices.dk/products/icesadvice/2008/ICES%20ADVICE%202008%20Book%206.pdf
  21. ICES. 2008b. Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Sandeel (AGSAN), 25 ‐ 30 August 2008, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. Diane. 68 pp. http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2008/AGSAN/AGSAN08.pdf
  22. ICES, 2009a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.4.22 Sandeel in Subarea IV excluding the Shetland area.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/2009/san-nsea.pdf
  23. ICES, 2009b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.4.23 Sandeel in Division IVa North of 59ºN and West of 0ºE (Shetland area).http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/2009/san-shet.pdf
  24. ICES, 2009c. Report of the Ad hoc group on Sandeel – II, 19-21 October 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES Advisory Committee (ICES CM 2009\ACOM:51).http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2009/AGSAN/AGSAN-2%20report%202009.pdf
  25. ICES, 2009d. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.3.3.1 EC and Norway request on in-year management advice for sandeel in the North Sea http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/Special%20Requests/EC%20Norway%20in-year%20management%20advice%20for%20Sandeels-2009.pdf
  26. ICES, 2010a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.4.21 Sandeel in Division IIIa and Subarea IV.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/san-34.pdf
  27. ICES, 2010b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.3.3.1 EC request on in-year management advice for sandeel in the North Seahttp://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/Special%20Requests/EC%20in-year%20management%20advice%20for%20sandeel.pdf
  28. ICES, 2010c. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), 5 -11 May 2010, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen (ICES CM 2010/ACOM:13). 1058 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2010/WGNSSK/WGNSSK%202010.pdf
  29. ICES, 2010d. Report of the Benchmark Workshop on Sandeel (WKSAN), 6–10 September 2010, Copenhagen, Denmark (ICES CM 2010/ACOM:57). 201 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2010/WKSAN/wksan_2010.pdf
  30. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.4.21 Sandeel in Division IIIa and Subarea IV.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/san-34.pdf
  31. ICES, 2011b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK Feb. 2011); 4 – Sandeel in IV. 95 pp.http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2011/WGNSSK/Sec%2004%20Sandeel.pdf
  32. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.4.21 Sandeel in Division IIIa and Subarea IV.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/san-34.pdf
  33. ICES, 2012b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), 27 April - 3 May 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:13. 1346 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/WGNSSK/WGNSSK%202012.pdf
  34. ICES, 2012c. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.3.3.1 Sandeel real-time monitoring assessment. Special request, Advice May 2012. 7 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2012/Special%20Requests/EC_Sandeel_Real_Time_Monitoring_assessment.pdf
  35. ICES, 2013a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.4.21 Sandeel in Division IIIa and Subarea IV. Advice February 2013. 33 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/san-34.pdf
  36. ICES, 2014a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.4.22. Sandeel in Division IIIa and Subarea IV. Advice s for 2014. 33 pphttp://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/san_34.pdf
  37. ICES, 2015b. Report of the Herring Assessment Working Group for the Area South of 62° N. Sec. 11 Sandeel in IV and IIIa (HAWG Feb. 2015). 116pp http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2015/HAWG/13%20HAWG%20Report%20-%20Sec%2011%20Sandeel%20in%20IV.pdf
  38. ICES, 2015. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. Book 6: North Sea. 6.3.42. Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions IVb and IVc, SA 1 (central and south North Sea, Dogger Bank) ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion. 8 pp http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/2015/san-ns1.pdf
  39. ICES, 2016a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch and effort Greater North Sea Ecoregion. 6.3.41 Sandeel (Ammodytes spp.) in Divisions 4b and 4c, SA 1 (Central and South North Sea, Dogger Bank) http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/2016/san-ns1.pdf
  40. ICES, 2016b. ICES Special Request Advice Greater North Sea Ecoregion. 6.2.3.1 Danish request regarding real-time monitoring for sandeel in Divisions 4b and 4c, SA 1 (Central and South North Sea, Dogger Bank).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2016/Special_Requests/Denmark_RealTimeMonitoring.pdf
  41. IUCN, 2012. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Downloaded on 18 February 2012.http://www.iucnredlist.org
  42. JNCC, 2014. Scottish MPA Project – Fisheries Management Guidance. Sandeels (Ammodytes marinus and A. tobianus). July 2014. 5pp http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/Sandeels_Fisheries_Management_Guidance_v2_0_July14.pdf
  43. Lancaster, J. (Ed.), McCallum, S., Lowe A.C., Taylor, E., Chapman A. & Pomfret, J.,2014. Development of detailed ecological guidance to support the application of the Scottish MPA selection guidelines in Scotland’s seas. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No.491. Sandeels – supplementary documenthttp://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1211586.pdf
  44. MFCA, 2010. Agreed Record of Fisheries Consultations between Norway and the European Union for 2011, Bergen, 4 December 2010. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs.http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FKD/Vedlegg/Kvoteavtaler/2011/EU/Final-Agreed_record-North_Sea-2011.pdf
  45. NSRAC, 2012. Final Position Paper April 2012. Fisheries management in relation to nature conservation for the combined area of 3 national Natura 2000 sites (SACs) on the Dogger Bank. The North Sea Regional Advisory Council. April 2012. 31pphttp://nsrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NSRAC-1112-7-2012-04-09-Dogger-Bank-SACs-Position-Paper-FINAL.pdf
  46. OSPAR, 2009. OSPAR assessment of the environmental impact of fishing. Publ. no. 465/2009. OSPAR Commission. 89 pp.http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00465_JAMP_QSR_fisheries_assessment.pdf
  47. OSPAR, 2010. 2009/10 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. Publ. no. 493/2010. OSPAR Commission: Biodiversity Series. 61 pp.http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00493_Status%20report%20MPAs.pdf
  48. OSPAR Commission, 2011. OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas. [Assessed on 09 June 2011].http://www.ospar.org/
  49. Regjeringen, 2010. Agreed Record of Conclusions of Fisheries Consultations between the European Union and Norway for 2010, Brussels, 26 January 2010.http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FKD/Vedlegg/Kvoteavtaler/2010/EU/fiskeriavtale%20Norge%20EU.pdf
  50. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and 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. Official Journal of the European Union 28.12.2013.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1380&from=EN
  51. 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 . Official Journal of the European Union.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:024:0001:0145:EN:PDF
  52. Scheveningen Group, 2014. Joint recommendation of the Scheveningen Group Discard plan for the industrial fisheries in Kattegat, Skagerrak and the North Sea. http://www.nsrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Sch-Ind-Fish-NS-final-2014-07-17.pdf
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Sandeels nei - Dogger Bank area

    comments powered by Disqus