Title |
EWG 11-01: Multi-annual management plans - part 1 |
|
Description |
Scoping, evaluation and/or assessment: IA Bay of Biscay sole, Scope IA new plans for Eastern & Western Baltic cod, Scope historic evaluations of existing plans for North Sea cod, Kattegat cod, West of Scotland cod, and Irish Sea cod. |
|
Meeting open to observers: Yes |
The meeting is open to observers - i.e. stakeholders (nominated by RACs), fisheries managers (nominated by the Commission or the Member states) and scientists (nominated by ICES). Observers participation will only be limited by the capacity of the venue. The rules and conditions under which observers attend is provided below. For clarification of attendance please contact the chairman. Observers must register. |
Please Note: Only those receiving an invitation letter to attend a meeting as observers will be granted access to the meeting. If you are interested to attend the meeting as observer please make yourself familiar with the rules and procedures for observer registration/invitation including the protocol for observers. |
|
Date |
28 February 2011 - 4 March 2011 |
|
Venue |
Copenhagen, ICES headquarters |
|
Chair |
John Simmonds |
|
DG MARE unit / focalpoint |
Regional Units focal persons |
|
STECF Secretariat / JRC focalpoint |
jrc-stecf-secretariat@ec.europa.eu |
|
Review Process |
STECF Spring Plenary 2011 |
|
Registration Instructions |
Deadline for the expression of interest to attend a meeting is 20 working days before the start of a meeting. Those experts who register after the deadline will be given lower priority depending on the number of registered participants and seats available. |
|
Terms of Reference |
Hold a meeting 28 February to 4 March in Copenhagen, for scoping and preparation of Impact Assessments for new management plans, and historic Evaluations of existing plans. The meeting should involve Observers (Commission staff, Managers, Stakeholders) and Scientists dealing with Economy and Biology and should prepare for work on the following stocks: Impact Assessments for new plans for
Scoping for Impact Assessments for new plans
Scoping for historic Evaluations of existing plans
Clarification of ICES advice on NS whiting For the Scoping the meeting should to determine the workload required and to reconcile this with available resources, to arrive at an effective detailed plan of what is needed to carry out the technical work that will underpin the required Impact Assessments and Evaluations. For North Sea cod the review should take account of any specific request from Norway (either relayed by the European Commission or submitted to ICES), and STECF guidelines. For the Baltic cod the meeting should concentrate on Impact Assessment for Western Baltic Cod, only amending the Eastern Baltic Cod plan if it is thought to need amendment in context of combined management with the Western Stock. Separate reports will be prepared the Impact Assessment on Bay of Biscay sole and scoping for all other cod plans. Reports should taking into account of the generic ToR from STECF report SG-MOS 10-01 and annex from SG –MOS 09-02.(See docs below) For the Evaluation of NS cod plan the meeting should consider the reporting requirements of STECF and ICES and the information required by Commission and Norway (see below) and propose the best approach to provide the reporting requirement for all concerned. As a deliberate policy, in addition of scientists to be invited by the STECF to join this meeting as external experts, this EWG 11-01 will be open to scientists appointed or nominated by ICES. The meeting should also examine work requirements and the appropriate expert group to answer the request to ICES from Norway (see below) concerning clarification of ICES advice on exceptions to 0.3 as the target fishing mortality rate for whiting in subarea IV (North Sea) and division VIId (Eastern Channel) specifically: the level and number of years for which recruitment is considered poor to trigger action; the lower level to which fishing mortality should be reduced when required; and the rate of reduction to the lower level in the event of poor recruitment. |
|
Documents |
|
Final Report |