Last updated on 24 October 2016

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Solea solea

SPECIES NAME(s)

Common sole, European Dover sole

Several studies indicated absence of population structure for sole populations in the Northeast Atlantic (Rolland et al., 2007). Recently, Cuveliers et al. (2012) revealed a clear genetic structure for sole in this region with at least three different populations: Kattegat/Skagerrak region, the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay, and with indications for a fourth population, namely the Irish/Celtic Sea. This study supports the current approach by ICES for assessing sole as biological stock units in the North Sea (ICES subarea IV), Skagerrak and Kattegat (ICES Division IIIa and Subdivisions 22–24) and Bay of Biscay (ICES Divisions VIIIa,b).

Adjacent sole assessment units defined by ICES- although not clearly identified as biological stocks- are: Eastern Channel (ICES Division VIId), Western Channel (ICES Division VIIe), Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions VIIf,g), Irish Sea (ICES Division VIId, SW of Ireland (ICES Divisions VIIh-k), West of Ireland (ICES Divisions VIIb,c) and Atlantic Iberian waters (ICES Divisions VIIIc and IXa).

ICES considers that from an stock assessment point of view, it is valid to evaluate connected stocks individually rather than lumping several together in one assessment, since this may obscure local dynamics and depletion.


ANALYSIS

Strengths

• Stock status of target stock (sole) and of main bycatch stocks (monkfish, plaice, lemon sole, megrim, cuttlefish) are good
• Management plan in place and being complied with
• Annual stock assessment and scientific advice provided by independent body, with peer review
• Suitable reference points in place
• Negligible discarding of target stock (sole)
• Misreporting and TAC overshoot previously a problem but now apparently under control
• No evidence of IUU
• Protection in place for some inshore habitats; additional work underway
• Work is underway towards the implementation of the forthcoming EU discard ban (landing requirement) in this fishery

Weaknesses

• Discarding of commercially-important species (monkfish, plaice, lemon sole) when undersized
• Discarding of species of no commercial value (mainly invertebrates) results in unknown population impacts
• May interact with some PET species (blonde ray: IUCN ‘near-threatened’; undulate ray: IUCN ‘endangered’)
• Habitat impacts in areas where they are not protected, including some European marine sites
• Harvest control rule does not allow for changes to target F where stock is depleted

Options

• Evaluate ways for the fishery to improve its selectivity by species and by size (e.g. gear technology, season/area closures)
• Strengthen protection for sensitive habitats where required
• Amend management plan such that target F is reduced at low stock biomass

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current
Health:

8.9

Future Health:

8.3


FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

  • C&WSTG English Channel megrim, monk and sole beam trawl:

    Withdrawn

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
Western English Channel EU France Set gillnets (anchored)
Single boat bottom otter trawls
United Kingdom Beam trawls
Set gillnets (anchored)
Single boat bottom otter trawls

Analysis

OVERVIEW

Last updated on 2 December 2014

Strengths

• Stock status of target stock (sole) and of main bycatch stocks (monkfish, plaice, lemon sole, megrim, cuttlefish) are good
• Management plan in place and being complied with
• Annual stock assessment and scientific advice provided by independent body, with peer review
• Suitable reference points in place
• Negligible discarding of target stock (sole)
• Misreporting and TAC overshoot previously a problem but now apparently under control
• No evidence of IUU
• Protection in place for some inshore habitats; additional work underway
• Work is underway towards the implementation of the forthcoming EU discard ban (landing requirement) in this fishery

Weaknesses

• Discarding of commercially-important species (monkfish, plaice, lemon sole) when undersized
• Discarding of species of no commercial value (mainly invertebrates) results in unknown population impacts
• May interact with some PET species (blonde ray: IUCN ‘near-threatened’; undulate ray: IUCN ‘endangered’)
• Habitat impacts in areas where they are not protected, including some European marine sites
• Harvest control rule does not allow for changes to target F where stock is depleted

Options

• Evaluate ways for the fishery to improve its selectivity by species and by size (e.g. gear technology, season/area closures)
• Strengthen protection for sensitive habitats where required
• Amend management plan such that target F is reduced at low stock biomass

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Last updated on 2 December 2014

The stock assessment is carried out by ICES WGCSE (Working Group for the Celtic Seas Ecoregion) and is updated annually (WGCSE 2014). It is based on a periodic detailed ‘benchmarking’ analysis (review of data and assessment options) carried out most recently in 2012 by ICES’ flatfish benchmarking workshop WKFLAT (WKFLAT 2012). The assessment uses XSA (extended survivors analysis) – a type of VPA.The key input data are: i) catch number by age (excluding discards) and ii) six tuning fleets derived from UK fishery-dependent and independent data – UK beam trawl LPUE split into early and late (two data sets), UK otter trawl LPUE, and three UK survey data sets. ICES note that these data sets all produce relatively consistent year-class estimates, without strong year effects. Data are screened before input into the model to check for anomalies (WGCSE 2014).

In 2014, WGCSE performed a five-year retrospective analysis, which showed some retrospective bias in the mid-late 2000s; recent estimates are more stable in relation to trends in Fishing mortality (F) and Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) estimates. The Working Group considered that at least part of the problem arose from two of the survey indices used for tuning which are relatively short. The Working Group noted that short-term predictions from the assessment are relatively insensitive to issues arising from the retrospective pattern, but are more sensitive to estimates of F and recruitment in 2014.

ICES assessments are always peer-reviewed, internally by the advisory committee ACOM and also frequently externally, e.g. by STECF (European advisory committee). There is also a formal peer review process for benchmark assessments.

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Last updated on 3 December 2014

Scientific advice is provided by ICES (WGCSE; ICES 2014a).Although ICES have not evaluated the management plan, the most recent benchmarking for this stock (WKFLAT 2012) notes that the management reference point FMSY ‘is considered an appropriate proxy for FMSY given the mortality and growth schedule of the stock as well as the uncertainty about the sources of recruitment’. Thus ICES provide advice in relation to a management target which does seem to take account of the key source of uncertainty (recruitment). However, retrospective bias is not explicitly taken into account in management advice, although it is evaluated and discussed annually, and considered in detail during benchmarkings as a criterion in the evaluation of different model and data options. Note that the management plan has been evaluated by STECF (in 2014) who considered that the plan is meeting its stated objective of exploitation of the stock at MSY level (STECF 2014).

Both ICES MSY approach and the agreed EC management plan implies an F of 0.27 in 2015, resulting in catches of no more than 851 tons (ICES 2014).

ICES advice, in relation to the level of the TAC, has been followed since 2013 (i.e. for 2013 and 2014) and was exceeded only slightly in 2011 and 2012 (no quantitative advice on the TAC provided in 2010). From 2004-2009, when the stock was depleted, the TAC exceeded the advice from ICES by a considerable margin. Nevertheless, ICES consider now that the stock has recovered (biomass and fishing mortality in line with MSY reference points).

The ICES working group (WGCSE 2014) suggest that the effort limitations in place have been successful in reducing effort on the stock, but STECF (2014) consider that effort restrictions are not limiting.

Reference Points

Last updated on 03 Dec 2014

The reference points set for this stock are as follows (ICES 2014):

Source / role of reference pointReference pointValueTechnical basis
Management planFMSY0.27Stochastic long-term simulations by ICES (WKFLAT 2012), confirmed conclusion of WKFRAME2 meta-analysis (WKFRAME 2011)
MSY approachMSY Btrigger2800tLower 95% confidence interval of simulations to 2069 with exploitation at F=0.27 (WKFLAT 2012)
Precautionary approachBpa1800tWKFRAME2 meta-analysis (WKFRAME 2011)
 Blim1300t 

Of these, the key reference point is FMSY, since this is the only reference point used for the management of the stock.

WKFLAT (2012 – the most recent benchmarking by ICES for this stock assessment) reviewed options for the revision of reference points based on the stock-recruit relationship (the definition of ICES precautionary reference points being related to the risk of recruitment impairment). They evaluated three possible forms of the stock-recruit relationship (Ricker, Beverton-Holt and hockey stick) but the analysis was not successful – mainly because the data available on the stock-recruit relationship is not at all informative about the nature of the relationship. Likewise, an attempt to estimate BMSY directly by this method resulted in an estimate that was more than twice the highest observed stock biomass. Typically in this situation, ICES has set MSY Btrigger to be the same as the previous Bpa, but since Bpa was set by WKFRAME2 at a level of biomass which is very low relative to those so far observed for the stock, WKFLAT carried out a separate evaluation of BMSY, based on long-term forward projections of the stock assessment model based on exploitation at F=0.27. MSY Btrigger (2800 t) is set at the lower 95% confidence interval of the resulting stock biomass. (Note that MSY Btrigger is not necessarily required to be an estimate of BMSY, but is rather a value which should ‘trigger’ management action under the MSY framework – on that basis, this appears to be a reasonable approach.)

CURRENT STATUS

Last updated on 3 December 2014

The most recent spawning stock biomass estimate (2014) is 3,434 tons, which is above MSY Btrigger (2,800 tons). The most recent estimate of Fishing mortality (F) (2013) is 0.25, below the target/MSY level of 0.27.

Estimates of the numbers of fish of each age class in the catch (from WGCSE XSA analysis 2014) do not suggest that the age structure is truncated, nor that the fishery is dependent on particular age classes. In the most recent advice (2014), ICES state that their estimates of recruitment (age 1) have fluctuated without trend, but that year classes 2010 and 2011 are below average (ICES, 2014a). Nevertheless, there is no evidence of any stock-recruit relationship from existing data .

Trends

Last updated on 03 Dec 2014

Trends in biomass, catches and fishing mortality are available since 1969. Biomass dipped to at or below MSY levels from ~1990 to 2010, but is now considered by ICES and STECF to be ‘recovered’. Fishing mortality has likewise reduced significantly on the stock since the late 2000s.

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

Last updated on 3 December 2014

The key management objective, as set out in the management plan, is exploitation at MSY level, as quantified by a target fishing mortality of FMSY=0.27, which, as noted above, ICES consider ‘an appropriate proxy for FMSY’ (WKFLAT 2012). This is the only harvest control rule set out in the current management plan (see ‘Recovery Plans’section below), and although ICES have defined target and limit biomass reference points (MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim) they are not included in the management plan, nor is there an alternative harvest control rule to be applied in the event that B<Btarget or Blim.

The most recent agreed TAC (2014: 832 tons) is in line with the management plan and ICES advice (832 tons). The TAC has been set at more or less the level of the advice since 2011, but prior to that exceeded advice in most years, often by a considerable margin.

The management plan provides for an annual TAC constraint of +/-15%, with the objective of ironing out large inter-annual fluctuations in the TAC. STECF (2014) note that the 15% constraint has been marginal in the TAC setting, although it has been invoked – they also note that ‘the constraint has increased stability in fishing opportunities by its mere presence in the plan’.

Management measures in place include the TAC as well as effort restrictions and technical measures. STECF (2014) consider that the TAC is the only effective management element, since effort restrictions are above levels of effort in the current fleet (although they did lead to some decommissioning in the UK beam trawl fleet in the past). The TAC is set in relation to landings, but this seems to be appropriate since ICES consider that discards of sole are negligible.

Technical measures (gear mesh sizes) are designed mainly to try minimize discarding of other, larger species when vessels are targeting sole (e.g. juvenile plaice) and have little effect on sole catch since sole are the smallest of the flatfish species targeted by the beam trawl fleets. Sole are mainly taken in this area as part of a multi-species trawl fishery targeting (apart from sole) plaice, anglerfish, lemon sole and cuttlefish. In this area, plaice and anglerfish are subject to a TAC but lemon sole and cuttlefish are not (EU 2014). More information is provided on the management of these species under ‘Other target and bycatch species’ section.

Recovery Plans

Last updated on 03 Dec 2014

The stock is not considered to be depleted anymore. However, when the management plan was drafted, the stock status was less good, and the management plan states that in its initial three years (2007-2009) it should be considered as a recovery plan (EU 2007). On this basis, it applied the following rules:

• 2007-2009: TAC to be higher of i) TAC associated with F=0.27 (target reference point) or ii) TAC resulting in a 20% reduction in Fishing mortality (F) compared to the average rate in 2003-05;
• 2010-12: as above with 15% reduction in F;
• 2013-15: as above if stock has not reach target F, otherwise TAC set to achieve target F;
• 2016 onwards: TAC set to achieve target F.

As shown above, F dropped below 0.27 in 2009 and has remained there since, thus this recovery plan only applied for two years, and no longer applies.

COMPLIANCE

Last updated on 3 December 2014

Aside from the most recent year for which catch data are available (2013), catches have always overshot quotas. STECF, in their review of the management plan (STECF 2014) note: ‘The TAC has been consistently overshot since 2004 and although compliance regarding area misreporting of catches recently has improved, there still remains scope for further improvement regarding quota overshooting’. Landing over-quota fish into EU ports has now got quite difficult – vessels over 12m must have electronic logbooks in place which are visible to control authorities in real time, and against which mandatory landings declarations are compared. These vessels are likewise required to have VMS, which is also visible to both flag state and coastal state in real time. The main source of misreporting remains misreporting by area (e.g. between areas VIId and VIIe, which have separate quota allocations, although this is also declining as controls get stricter and (perhaps more importantly) fleet capacity gets better matched to fishing opportunities available in terms of quotas.

Penalties for violations are generally variable depending on the gravity of the offense and the track record of the offender. The EU has just introduced a points-based system, whereby different offences accrue different numbers of points, and the accumulation of a given number of points by a fishing vessel results in the suspension of the license for a given period. The countries concerned (UK, France, Belgium) have both an administrative route and a legal route to sanction offenders – the former consisting of fines and license suspension as described above, while the latter consists of legal prosecution (both may operate at the same time). Organisations such as Producer Organisations (of which most of the vessels in this fishery will be members) may also have a system of sanction for their members if they infringe rules (e.g. overshooting their individual quota allocation or causing the PO to overshoot its total allocation), which again may consist of fines, or of being excluded from the organisation.

As noted above, ICES consider that discarding of sole is not significant (<<1% of landings). Discarding of other species, except in the form of highgrading, is not illegal (for the moment – a landing obligation is being implemented fleet by fleet under the reformed EU Common Fisheries Policy (EU 2013), but is not likely to be applied to this fleet for several years). Discarding is, however, regulated via rules for minimum mesh sizes (described below), which are enforced by periodic at-sea inspections – compliance is believed to be good.

3.ENVIRONMENT AND BIODIVERSITY

BYCATCH
ETP Species

Last updated on 3 December 2014

The gear used by this fishery are trawls (otter and mainly beam). Large mobile species such as cetaceans, seals, birds, basking sharks etc. are usually not vulnerable to trawls. PET species which might be at risk from this fishery include the following:

• Eunicella verrucosa (pink seafan) and other soft or hard coral species mentioned in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan

• skates and rays listed by IUCN as vulnerable or worse, and/or protected by EU fisheries legislation (EU 2014) under a requirement to discard alive.

Corals and other benthic PET species:
Most of the western Channel is a sedimentary benthic environment without sensitive habitats. However, they do occur in inshore coastal areas on both the French and UK side (see map under habitats below). Areas of particular interest include Granville Bay (France/Channel Islands) – parts of which are Ramsar sites and/or SPAs for birds, and Lyme Bay (England), which is known to have important populations of Eunicella verrucosa which have been impacted by scallop dredging. Both jurisdictions have measures in place to protect inshore areas from trawl impacts which are described under ‘habitats’ below. (Note that the reef-building cold water coral species Lophelia pertusa does not occur in this area).

Skates and rays:
ICES published advice in 2013 for skates and rays in the North Sea and Channel (ICES 2013a). The two species of concern in VIIe are the blonde ray (Raja brachyura) and the undulate ray (Raja undulata).

• Blonde ray: Based on the advisory framework for data-limited stocks, ICES advise that catches should be reduced by at least 20%, although this not based on any assessment of trends in stock status. ICES also suggest that technical or other measures be considered to regulate exploitation of this species. IUCN (Ellis et al. 2009) assess the species as ‘near threatened’ based on historic declines shown in surveys around the UK over the course of the 20th centure, although it reportedly remains abundant in some areas.
• Undulate ray: ICES advice for R. undulata is as follows: ‘Based on the precautionary approach ICES continues to advise that there be no targeted fishery for undulate ray unless information is provided to show that these are sustainable. Measures should be taken to minimize bycatch.’ IUCN (Coelho 2009) list the species as ‘endangered’ and note that catches in the eastern Channel beam trawl survey and the French Celtic Sea fishery have both declined in recent years (it also notes that their assessment needs updating). Undulate ray may not be retained on board under EU fisheries legislation (see EU 2014, Article 12.1e).

No information is available about bycatch in the Western Channel sole fishery directly, for either of these species

Other Species

Last updated on 3 December 2014

The main target species of the fishery is sole, but plaice, lemon sole, monkfish, megrim and cuttlefish are also targeted (Catchpole 2009). The status of these stocks, where known, is summarised in the table below – all the stocks appear to be reasonably healthy.

Species Stock Stock Status Information Source
Plaice Western Channel Biomass is above MSY Btrigger and after being very high for many years, fishing mortality has reduced to just above target reference point level. Discards estimated ~20% ICES 2014b
Lemon sole North Sea No information is available for the western Channel. For the eastern Channel and North Sea, there is no quantitative assessment, but a biomass index from surveys is increasing. ICES 2013b
Monkfish Celtic Sea and W. Scotland No quantitative assessment but qualitative assessment suggests that biomass of both species is increasing. ICES 2014c,d for L. piscatorius and L. budegassa
Megrim Celtic Sea and W. Scotland No quantitative assessment but qualitative assessment suggests that biomass has increased and fishing pressure has decreased over the last decade. ICES 2014e
Cuttlefish Channel No evidence of over-exploitation, recruitment independent of biomass at current and recent biomass levels. Gras et al. 2014

There are two reasons for discarding in this fishery: i) the species is commercially important but undersized, and ii) the species has no commercial value. The former is problematic for some of the species listed above; notably those where the minimum legal size is larger than that for sole (the most valuable of the target species along with monkfish). Catchpole (2009) states that 43% of plaice, 48% of monkfish and 37% of lemon sole are discarded in the UK western Channel beam trawl fishery. Note that discards are explicitly taken into account in the quantitative stock assessment for plaice, and implicitly in the qualitative assessments the other species, since they are based on trends in survey biomass.

Discarding of species of no commercial importance is also more significant for beam trawls than for most other types of fishing gear. The species in question are often crustaceans, echinoderms and molluscs, many but not all of which have high discard survival (Kaiser and Spencer 1995), but for which no information is available on population trends.

In terms of management measures to reduce discards, the key measure in place at the moment is the EU technical measure governing gear mesh size (EU 1998). For towed gear, a cod end mesh size of 80mm or above must be used to target sole, and mesh size <100mm may only be used if >70% of the retained catch is sole; otherwise a mesh size of >100mm must be used. This does not, however, control any part of the catch which is discarded. The EU is implementing a discard ban (landing requirement) under the revised CFP (EU 2013) but in this fishery it is not likely to come into force for several more years.

HABITAT

Last updated on 3 December 2014

Key areas for sensitive habitats in the western Channel are inshore: these include areas with sensitive coral species, but also seagrass beds, maerl beds, mussel beds etc. The vulnerability of OSPAR habitats to this fishery is focus mainly in coral gardens and maerl beds. No data could be found to show the main fishing areas in relation to habitats – the fishing vessels are tracked by VMS, but these data are not publically available.

Measures to protect vulnerable inshore habitats exist on both side of the Channel. On the French side, trawling is banned inside 3 miles, although some derogations exist, e.g. for very small vessels or for pelagic trawlers – these are variable by area. Other local regulations also apply, such as vessel size and power limits set by Comités Régionaux de Pêche Maritimes. On the UK side, fisheries inside 6 miles are subject to regulation by Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorites (IFCAs), the Southern, Devon and Severn, Cornish and Scilly IFCA in this case, who likewise apply vessel size and power limits, as well as some inshore areas closed to towed gears. On the UK side there is no default inshore trawling ban, but there are various areas which are closed to towed gear, including coral areas in Lyme Bay, and Start Bay. Lyme Bay and various other inshore areas on both sides of the Channel are designated as SACs (Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive). There is a presumption of use in these areas (including fishing with towed gears) but EU Member States are under an obligation to ensure that the features for which the SAC is designated do not deteriorate. In the UK, there is an ongoing process of appropriate assessment for all fisheries operating in these areas, which is being managed by the IFCAs.

Marine Reserves

Last updated on 03 Dec 2014

No-take marine reserves: There are no significant areas explicitly protected as no-take marine reserves in the western Channel. Some exist (e.g. ‘cantonnements’ on the west coast of the Cotentin Peninsula) but they are very small and do not interact with this fishery.

Areas closed to towed gear: There are several boxes in Lyme Bay which are closed to towed gear for the protection of pink seafans Eunicella verrucosa. These areas likewise do not interact with this fishery because they are not suitable for beam trawling – this issue was scallop dredging. There are likewise several inshore areas on the English coast which are closed to towed gear. Mainly these coincide with European marine sites (see below). The regulation of these sites is in flux because of the ongoing project to carry out appropriate assessments of fisheries in these areas, but all the IFCAs concerned have the power to set byelaws to close areas as required. As noted above, the French coast is closed to trawling inside three miles, but there are some derogations.

European marine sites: Some inshore marine areas are included in European marine sites protected under the Habitats or Birds Directive. For the most part, fishing can operate in these areas, but subject to appropriate assessment on the UK side (ongoing project). These areas include the Scillies, Fal and Helford estuaries and Plymouth Sound, with Lizard Point, Start Bay and Lyme Bay as candidates (UK) and Mont St. Michel Bay, Chausey, the Côte Granit Rose and islands and the Crozon Peninsula, with eastern St. Brieuc Bay and the Rance estuary as candidates (France). For the most part, however, this fishery does not operate close inshore where these areas are situated.

National Parks: The western tip of Brittany, including the islands and the marine area, is the Parc Naturel Marin Iroise. There are no particular commercial fisheries regulations associated with this park, as far as we know.

FishSource Scores

SELECT SCORES

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

There is a management plan in place (EU 2007) which has not been evaluated by ICES as to whether it is precautionary or not. The management plan sets a target F of 0.27, regardless of biomass, with an inter-annual constraint on TAC changes of +/-15%, and effort limitation (days at sea, technical measures).

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Set TAC is 0.832 ('000 t). The Advised TAC is 0.832 ('000 t) .

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

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is 10.0.

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

The Landings is 0.883 ('000 t). The Set TAC is 0.890 ('000 t) .

The underlying Landings/Set TAC for this index is 99.2%.

STOCK HEALTH:

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is 8.9.

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

The SSB is 3.43 ('000 t). The MSY Btrigger is 2.80 ('000 t) .

The underlying SSB/MSY Btrigger for this index is 123%.

As calculated for 2013 data.

The score is 8.3.

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

The F is 0.250 (age-averaged). The F management target is 0.270 .

The underlying F/F management target for this index is 92.6%.

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) TAC and catch are expressed by ICES as catch, not landings. ICES assumes that all catch is landed, based on data from the UK and Belgian beam trawl fleets showing that discards represent 0.2% and 0.04% of the catch respectively (WGCSE 2014).
2) Fishing mortality (F) defined as mean F on ages 3-9
3) Biomass reference points: MSYBtrigger and Bpa are both defined by ICES (with different values). Management advice is given based on FMSY (which is included as the target in the management plan). MSYBtrigger is based on FMSY, so this has been included as the target biomass reference point rather than Bpa, although it is not used in management.
4) FMSY is included as a reference point from 2007, which is when the management plan was agreed. Other reference points are only included from 2011 when they were estimated by ICES (WKFRAME2 2011).
5) Data is taken from ICES 2014a (ICES advice 2014 for this stock).

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

C&WSTG English Channel megrim, monk and sole beam trawl

STATUS

Withdrawn on 4 December 2014

SCORES

Certification Type:

Sources

Credits
  1. Catchpole T. 2009. Effective discard reduction in European fisheries: options for fishers and fisheries managers. WWFhttp://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/discard_reduction.pdf
  2. Coelho, R., Bertozzi, M.,Ungaro. N.,Ellis, J. 2009. Raja undulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. . Downloaded on 05 August 2014. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/161425/0
  3. Cuveliers, E.L., Larmuseau, M.H.D., Hellemans, B., Verherstraeten, S.L.N.A., Volckaert, F.A.M., and Maes, G.E. 2012. Multi-marker estimate of genetic connectivity of sole (Solea solea) in the North-East Atlantic Ocean. Marine Biology, v. 159, 15 pp. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00227-012-1905-x
  4. Ellis, J., Ungaro, N., Serena, F., Dulvy, N.K., Tinti, F., Bertozzi, M., Pasolini, P., Mancusi, C., Noarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2009. Raja brachyura. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. . Downloaded on 05 August 2014. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/161691/0
  5. EU 1998.Council Regulation 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1998R0850:20130101:EN:PDF
  6. EU 2007. Council Regulation 509/2007 establishing a multi-annual plan for the sustainable exploitation of the stock of sole in the Western Channel sole. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:122:0007:0010:EN:PDF
  7. EU 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1380&from=EN
  8. EU 2014. Council Regulation 43/2014 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/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2014:024:0001:0145:EN:PDF
  9. Exadactylos, A., Geffen, A.J., Thorpe, J.P., 1998. Population structure of the Dover sole, Solea solea L., in a background of high gene flow. Journal of Sea Research 40 (1998) 117–129.http://folk.uib.no/nfiag/nfiag/reprints/Exadactylos%20et%20al%201998%20JSR.pdf
  10. Food Certification International (FCI), 2013. Surveillance Report 1 for the DFPO Denmark North Sea Sole Fishery. Food Certification International (FCI) Ltd. September 2013. 30 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/dfpo_denmark_north_sea_sole/assessment-downloads-1/20130916_SR_V2_SOL239.pdf
  11. Food Certification International (FCI), 2014. On-Site Surveillance Visit - Report for DFPO Denmark North Sea Sole Fishery. 2nd Annual Surveillance. July 2014. 41pphttp://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/north-east-atlantic/dfpo_denmark_north_sea_sole/assessment-downloads-1/20140918_SR_v3_SOL239.pdf
  12. Gras, M., Roel, B.A., Coppin, F., Foucher, E., Robin, J-P. 2014. A two-stage biomass model to assess the English Channel cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.) stock. ICES Journal of Marine Science. In press.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/05/19/icesjms.fsu081.abstract
  13. Hervàs, A., Keus B.J., Read A. and Frederiksen M. 2012. DFPO Denmark North Sea sole Public Certification Report. Food Certification International Ltd, May 2012. 248 pp.http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/in-assessment/north-east-atlantic/dfpo-denmark-north-sea-sole/assessment-downloads-1/20120607_PCR.pdf
  14. ICES, 2010a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: The North Sea 6.4.10 Ecoregion: North Sea. Stock: Sole in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary for 2011, 10 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2010/2010/sol-nsea.pdf
  15. ICES, 2010b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2010. ICES Advice, 2010. Books 1 - 11. 1, 928 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Advice/2010/ICES%20ADVICE%202010%20BOOK%201.pdf
  16. ICES, 2011a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: The North Sea 6.4.10 Ecoregion: North Sea. Stock: Sole in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary for 2012, 11 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2011/2011/sol-nsea.pdf
  17. ICES, 2011b. Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), 4 - 10 May 2011, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2011/ACOM:13. 1214 pp. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2011/WGNSSK/WGNSSK%202011.pdf
  18. ICES, 2011c. Sole in Division VIIe (Western Channel). ICES Advice 2011, Book 5, 5.4.14. 91-97.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/sol-echw.pdf
  19. ICES, 2012a. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland 5.4.14 Ecoregion: Celtic Sea and West of Scotland. Stock: Sole in Division VIIe (Western Channel). Advice summary for 2013, 8 p.http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2012/2012/sol-echw.pdf
  20. ICES, 2012b. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: The North Sea 6.4.10 Ecoregion: North Sea. Stock: Sole in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary for 2013, 11 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2012/2012/sol-nsea.pdf
  21. ICES, 2012c. 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
  22. ICES 2013a. Advice June 2013 - Lemon sole in Subarea IV and Divisions IIIa and VIId. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/lem-nsea.pdf
  23. ICES 2013b. Advice October 2013 - Rays and skates in Divisions and Subarea IIIa, IV, and VIId,e (Kattegat, Skagerrak, North Sea, and English Channel). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/Rays%20and%20skates%20in%20the%20North%20Sea.pdf
  24. ICES, 2013d. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, Book 6: The North Sea 6.4.27 Ecoregion: North Sea. Stock: Sole in Subarea IV (North Sea). Advice summary for 2014, 11 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/sol-nsea.pdf
  25. ICES, 2013e. DRAFT Report of the Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK), 24 - 30 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Co-penhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:13. 6 pp.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2013/WGNSSK/DRAFT%20Report%20of%20the%20Working%20Group%20on%20the%20Assessment%20of%20Demersal%20Stocks%20in%20the%20North%20Sea%20and%20Skagerrak.pdf
  26. ICES 2014a. Advice June 2014 – Sole in Division VIIe (Western Channel). http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/sol-echw.pdf
  27. ICES 2014b. Advice June 2014 – Plaice in Division VIIe (Western Channel).http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/ple-echw.pdf
  28. ICES 2014c. Advice June 2014 - Anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIa,b,d. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/anb-78ab.pdf
  29. ICES 2014d. Advice June 2014 - Anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIa,b,d.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/anp-78ab.pdf
  30. ICES 2014e. Advice June 2014 - Megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) in Divisions VIIb–k and VIIIa,b,d.http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/mgw-78.pdf
  31. Kaiser M.J. and Spencer B.E. 1995. Survival of by-catch from a beam trawl. Marine Ecology Progress Series 26: 31-38. http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/126/m126p031.pdf
  32. Keus, B., Medley, P., Southall, T., Smith, R. 2011. The Dutch Fisheries Organisation (DFO) Gill Net Sole Fishery, 2nd Annual Public Surveillance Report, MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification, 19 pp. http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/north-east-atlantic/dfo-gill-net-sole/assessment-downloads-1/20111201_2nd_SR_Dutch_gillnet_sole.pdf
  33. OSPAR threatened and/or declining species: http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00730302240132_000000_000000
  34. Rogers, S. and Stocks, R. 2001. North and Sea Fisheries, Technical report produced for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA2), Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, 40 pp. http://cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/20461/tr_003.pdf
  35. Rolland, J.L., Bonhomme, F., Lagardère, F., Hassan, M., Guinand, B. 2007. Population structure of the common sole (Solea solea) in the Northeastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea: revisiting the divide with EPIC markers. Marine Biology 151, 1-17. http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/2007/publication-2400.pdf
  36. STECF, 2014. Evaluation of the multi-annual plan for the management of Western Channel sole (Regulation EC 509/2007) (STECF-14-04)http://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/704266/2014-04_STECF+14-04+-+WC+sole+management+plan_JRC89793.pdf
  37. WGCSE, 2014. Report of the Working Group on Celtic Seas Ecoregion (WGCSE), 13–22 May, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:12 DRAFThttp://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/WGCSE/IntermediateDraft_WGCSE2014.pdf
  38. WKFLAT, 2012. Report of the benchmark workshop on flatfish species and anglerfish. 1-8 March 2012, Bilbao, Spain. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:46. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2012/WKFLAT%202012/wkflat_2012.pdf
References

    Comments

    This tab will disappear in 5 seconds.

    Comments on:

    Common sole - Western English Channel

    comments powered by Disqus