1. Outcomes shark and ray expert meeting Amsterdam, 1-2 February 2016 Irene Kingma – Dutch Elasmobranch Society For NSAC DWG meeting Copenhagen, 9 February 2016

2. Background  2014 advice recovery plan for sharks and rays in the North Sea  Education and communication (ID-skills, biology, ecology)  Invest in innovative solutions bycatch reduction  Avoidance, selectivity and survival  International coordination and cooperation

3. 1st expert meeting, 8 Dec 2016  14 participants  Reps from management, industry, science and civil society  Positive discussion  Formulated 9 common goals COMMON GOALS All participants see the need of appropriate management of elasmobranch species which should encompass: Reducing dead discards Avoid quota overshoot  after 2019 this would lead to choke issues Set TAC appropriately Make use of best available avoidance/selectivity/survival methods Make most of available data Share data/build trust Uniform data collection format Share information / keep track of who’s doing what Data you have needs to be used to manage the species: making the most of the data available to be able to make informed decisions Address the lack of data in general International coordination working towards a common approach Look at the spatial context in management Set appropriate fishing opportunities

4. 2 nd expert meeting, 1-2 Feb 2016 28 participants  5 management  10 industry (4 active fishermen)  7 scientist  6 civil society representatives

5. Main issues in Shark and Ray management  Lack of data (biology, fisheries, distribution)  Management through TAC & quota is a bad fit  Landing obligation

6. Main issues: Lack of data Lack of data (biology, fisheries, distribution)  Species are not caught in all scientific surveys due to selectivity of gear used  Issues with identification throughout the supply chain  Unwillingness to share data because of potential implications

7. Main issues: TAC & Quota Management through TAC & quota is a bad fit  Group TAC is restrictive for abundant species and does not protect depleted species  A 0-TAC leads to increased discarding without addressing mortality  Moving species to the prohibited species list does not trigger any protective management

8. Main issues: Landing obligation Landing obligation  Taking into account the current level of discarding skates and rays will become a choke species in many demersal fisheries  A 0-TAC is incompatible with the LO  It is highly improbable that there will be evidence for high survival for all species in al areas, metiers and seasons by mid-2018.

9. Working towards solutions

10. Working towards solutions: Lack of data i. Incentivise data collection by industry by:  Making clear what the benefits and consequences are (carrot and stick)  Transparency on where and how data is to be used  Commitment from policy makers to operators providing data that they will be involved in mitigating issues arising  Streamlining data collection formats (make use of new techniques like apps)  Resource efficiency in data collection  Premium value for ‘doing the right thing’

11. Working towards solutions: TAC & Quota i. Find a way to introduce a spatial element in the management ii. Use escapement as a way to protect a core of the biomass  Work out specific case studies and evaluations  If closures are needed look at seasons/gears  Should not displace fisheries with other economic drivers iii. GAP analysis of actions taken/programs developed iv. Case studies of different fisheries/scenarios

12. Working towards solutions: Landing obligation i. 2 tracks to address exemptions : 1) increase scientific evidence base for survival, 2) develop a package of ‘best practice’ measures addressing avoidance, selectivity and survival. ii. Ecological risk assessment incorporating species/area/fisheries iii. Make objectives for management clear

13. NEXT STEPS  Report from the meeting for NL govt  Additional workshops together with ICES WGEF  Joint research proposals