Tag ICES

  • Home   /  
  • Posts tagged "ICES"

Why did Defra remove Bass Angling Conservation from the Bass Management Group?

Leave a comment , , , , , ,
Bass FMP Bass Management Group Blog Defra Fishing Opportunities News Science Uncategorized

We’ve been asked why Defra removed Bass Angling Conservation from the Bass Management Group.  Apparently, Defra has provided the BMG with some reasons and these will appear in the minutes of the last meeting.  Here is our perspective.

We have stubbornly and persistently fought for the BMG to start its most critical work.  We have raised serious issues with the scientific advice and said the BMG must take these into account when advising on bass fishing opportunities.  We have drawn attention to tasks being implemented without stakeholder approval.

Removing BAC comes at a cost.  It will greatly erode recreational sea fishers’ trust in Defra and the BMG and make it harder to deliver the Bass FMP.   Remaining BMG members may wonder what they are allowed to say before Defra removes them for “hampering” its work.  Failing to address stakeholder concerns by shutting down discussion is not in the spirit of stakeholder engagement.  Say goodbye to any real co-development and co-management.

Sea anglers deserve nothing less than strong, independent representation on bass management.  BAC will continue to hold Defra to account and ask the difficult, but necessary, questions.  But this will now happen outside the BMG.

More detail is provided below.

Control of the BMG

The BMG should be an autonomous stakeholder group and the Terms of Reference say Defra will chair for the first year and will then hand over to another member.  But Defra never stepped down as Chair, it holds a tight grip on the agenda and the BMG defers to Defra.

With Defra directing meetings and shutting down discussion of issues such as which tasks to prioritise, we see no chance of the BMG delivering what recreational sea fishers value most: an abundant and resilient bass stock, fewer “blank” sessions, and a good chance of catching a big bass.

Bass FMP work

BAC has pushed to prioritise work on Alternative Harvest Strategies so that there is an alternative to following science advice on how to kill the most bass possible over time.  We have also asked to start work on how to incorporate social and economic criteria into bass fishery modelling and decision-making so that benefits to coastal communities can be maximised.  These are the most critical parts of the Bass FMP.  But Defra’s prioritisation matrix says they are a low priority, so the BMG cannot work on them.  BAC challenged the prioritisation but was unable to make headway with Defra.

The question now needs to be asked: what has the BMG delivered for recreational sea fishers?  We can’t think of anything.

But Defra has made sure the BMG delivers for commercial fishers: an Authorisation Review was announced before the newly formed BMG had even met and was completed in record time.  By contrast, the Shore Netting Review that Defra promised recreational fishers has been indefinitely delayed because Defra won’t prioritise the legal resource to review it.

ICES scientists’ fishing pressure advice

There are serious problems with the ICES science advice.  In 2025, independent scientists said: 1) the ICES fishing pressure recommendation (“FMSY”) is not precautionary[1]; and 2) if we fish bass at FMSY and there is average recruitment, we should expect to drive the stock down to a dangerously low level (below “Blim”) by 2031[2].

But Defra says the BMG is the wrong forum to raise the quality of the ICES advice.  We can’t see how the BMG can meaningfully provide input into the fishing opportunities negotiations with the EU without recognising the deficiencies in the ICES science advice.

Accountability

Output from BMG subgroups is supposed to go to the BMG for stakeholder approval.  The Terms of Reference say “The BMG will be responsible for reviewing and, if appropriate, approving all task and finish group products and recommendations.”.  And the Bass Authorisation Review report states: “All proposals remain subject to formal decision-making processes led by Defra and the BMG.”

However, the MMO has been instructed to start implementing three recommendations from a BMG subgroup, without the BMG having approved them.  This cuts directly across the mandate of the BMG.

This raises the question: what is the point of the BMG?  Is it just for show?  To allow the “stakeholder” box to be ticked?

[1] “The ICES MSY approach to reference point estimation is not precautionary” – Winker et Al 2025

[2] “Effets de l’augmentation des plafonds de captures sur les stocks de bar nord et sud” – Ifremer, December 2025.

Defra has removed Bass Angling Conservation from the Bass Management Group

2 Comments on Defra has removed Bass Angling Conservation from the Bass Management Group , , , , , , , ,
Bass FMP Bass Management Group Blog Defra News

Defra, acting in its role as Chair of the Bass Management Group, has removed Bass Angling Conservation from the BMG and its subgroups.

BAC is a strong supporter of the goals of the Bass Fisheries Management Plan and has provided considerable constructive support to the BMG.  But we have also consistently challenged the prioritisation of Bass FMP work and have been critical of the BMG not having been involved in some bass fishery decisions.   We have also tabled serious concerns with the ICES science advice used in making bass fishing decisions.  

BAC strongly believes the most important goals of the Bass FMP are:

  • the maximisation of social and economic benefits for coastal communities; and
  • developing alternative harvest strategies that don’t target killing the most bass over time.

BAC’s work for an excellent bass fishery will continue outside the BMG.  Our primary focus is providing the evidence base to support the decisions needed to bring about an excellent bass fishery.   We will continue to lobby for improvements to the bass fishery and to oppose proposals that will damage it.

We are extremely grateful for the strong support we continue to receive from the recreational sea fishing community.

The official advice to increase bass catches by 98% in 2026 will shrink the bass stock to unsafe levels between now and 2031, say French scientists

Leave a comment , , , , , , , , , , ,
Blog Fishing Opportunities Science Uncategorized

Ifremer, the French national fisheries science institute1, has modelled the Northern bass fishery between 2026 and 2031 and advised that, due to expected lower recruitment2, following the official ICES FMSY advice3 is expected to shrink the bass stock to unsafe levels4.

Bass Angling Conservation has summarised the report in English and provided a brief discussion of Ifremer’s findings. You can read it here and download it.

If you would like to read the original Ifremer report (in French), please click here

Summary of Ifremer Paper 24 Aug 2026Download
  1. the French equivalent of the UK body Cefas
    ↩︎
  2. juvenile bass maturing and joining the mature spawning stock
    ↩︎
  3. aimed at maximising the tonnage of bass killed over time
    ↩︎
  4. under the best recruitment scenario, below Btrigger, the level below which management measures are needed. Under the worst recruitment scenario, below Blim, the level below which recruitment is impaired and the stock may not recover, even if all fishing mortality were to be stopped. ↩︎

Fisheries Stakeholder Meeting for South Coast from Greatstone to Swanage – 7 July 2026

Leave a comment , , , ,
Blog

Bass Angling Conservation regularly attends the fisheries stakeholder meetings (Regional Fisheries Group) for the South to South East region (area VIId).

Here is what we said at the last meeting – NB we’ve tidied it up to make it a bit clearer. If you’d like to listen to the meeting, you can do that on a Government website here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regional-fisheries-groups-south-7d

Mackerel

Just looking at that dismal mackerel quota take-up by under 10 metre boats reminded me I’ve been receiving comments from recreational fishers having increasing difficulty catching mackerel on the south coast and it makes me wonder whether any catch per unit of effort goes into the assessments?

Sole

I just pulled up the sole assessment and the stock is in a real mess. You can argue about the level of recruitment, but there’s a pattern of low recruitment in recent years. The top confidence interval for the stock is almost at Bpa (the level below which rebuilding is needed), so the stock is likely to be below Bpa. The answer to that is to fish at a lower level.  I’ve lost confidence in the Fmsy numbers (i.e. recommended fishing pressure level) as I’ve learned how they’ve been calculated – I’m inclined to take them with a pinch of salt. The objective should be to try to grow the stock year on year. We can’t forecast very far ahead with any degree of accuracy because of the massive uncertainty. So why don’t we do something very pragmatic and simple – say we’ll try to grow the stock each year. Maybe that will also take us away from having these huge variations in fishing opportunities as well. What we’ve got doesn’t really make any sense – it doesn’t work.

Uncertainty in ICES Science Advice

I’m laughing to myself as I look at the catch scenarios table and I see something ridiculous. The spawning stock biomass estimates for 2028 are to the nearest tonne and that is just nonsense.  There’s no real discussion in any of this ICES advice about the level of uncertainty. We can we can pick holes in recruitment, we can pick holes in all sorts of different aspects of it, but these are intended to be best estimates, nothing more than best estimates.  And yet the way that it’s presented is as if it precise – fishing pressure should be no more than 163 tons. To talk about 163 tons in the context of all of the uncertainty in the model and data – and not to say “this is really uncertain”. Managers need to be aware this is really uncertain. If you don’t recognize this uncertainty and you treat everything as if they are exact values, you get into this nonsense of fishing opportunities jumping up or down every year. It doesn’t work for fishers and it probably doesn’t work for the stock either. You need something much more progressive and incremental when you’re trying to recover a stock.