Fish species sensitivity to fishing

Data on fish species sensitivity to fishing combining vulnerability from Cheung et al 2007 supplementary material and on precautionary fishing mortality in European waters from Rindorf et al 2020. Following STECF (2022), low sensitivity species are defined as species with a precautionary fishing mortality greater than 3 for the Rindorf et al data or with a vulnerability less than 40 for the Cheung data. Species with a high sensitivity are defined as species with a precautionary fishing mortality less than 0.41 for the Rindorf et al data or with a vulnerability greater than 70 for the Cheung data. Remaining species are defined as medium sensitivity.  Reference for the data and definitions: Cheung, W. W., Watson, R., Morato, T., Pitcher, T. J., & Pauly, D. (2007). Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 333, 1-12.  Rindorf, A., Gislason, H., Burns, F., Ellis, J. R., & Reid, D. (2020). Are fish sensitive to trawling recovering in the Northeast Atlantic?. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(10), 1936-1947.  STECF (2022). Validation of selected sustainability indicators and underlying methodologies for the revision of the EU marketing standards for fisheries products (STECF-22-12)</p

SEAwise Report on communications strategy and activities, March 2022

This report is part of the SEAwise project and summarises the key activities under WP1: Knowledge Exchange and Integration, Task 1.4, Communications and Outreach, from the period October 2022 – March 2023. The critical activities undertaken during this period include the creation of a project website, drafting of project communications and social media strategies, and support to establish a synthesised base of communications across the project. Outputs from these activities are attached to this report in the Annexes. More information can be found at https://seawiseproject.org/</p

SEAwise EBFM tool box prototype, September 2023

The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishers, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). The SEAwise EBFM Toolbox contains two separate targeted elements: A technical EBFM toolbox and a non-technical SEAwise Website Tool.The EBFM toolbox prototype consists of a series of linked RShiny applications, allowing Work Package-specific results to be displayed in detail in dedicated applications and separately presenting synthesised results. Prototyping efforts have focused on the WP3-specific application (accessible online at https://ices-taf.shinyapps.io/seawise/). The application allows users to navigate by clicking between tabs, select regions and stocks of interests and to view data for different climate scenarios and timescales. Stakeholder feedback validated this ‘region first’ organisation, and a similar structure will therefore be utilised across all WP-specific applications where possible. The SEAwise Website Tool progress has focused on the tool’s design and map user experience, consultation with stakeholders, and refinement into a working prototype. Stakeholder input was provided at a Pan-Regional Workshop in June 2023, with critical input including a preference to navigate by case-study region, rather than Work Package, and the need to include a range of management scenarios to make the Tool truly fit for purpose. A detailed description of the functionality of each step included in the Tool is provided, along with illustrative screenshots, and the prototype may be accessed at https://seawiseproject.org/tool/. This report also details the next steps that will be taken in developing the prototype, including consultation with project partners to populate the Tool with information of greatest relevance to end users (policy makers, fishers, consumers, and the general public).Read more about the project at www.seawiseproject.org</p

SEAwise report on requirements for transparency and quality control month 12-24, September 2023

The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishers, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). This SEAwise report describes some improvements to the common protocol for producing openly available, quality-assuring data and methods used in SEAwise. The data and methods used in SEAwise are all collected, processed, and stored in connection with the project. Making quality assured data openly available is a key priority in SEAwise in accordance with the FAIR principles: Ensuring that data are findable, openly accessible, interoperable and available for increased re-use. In this report some improvements are suggested to achieve this. SEAwise data are divided into four types: · Quantitative data are organised in the  SEAwise quantitative metadatabase, listing primary data sources and responsible parties for these · Qualitative data from interviews and workshops are organised in the  SEAwise qualitative metadatabase, listing primary data sources and responsible parties for these · Software code will be available at the SEAwise Github after the first year of the project. · Reports and other publications (scientific and otherwise) are available on the SEAwise website. All data and models are evaluated using the SEAwise Output Quality Assurance Process. Model evaluation is conducted both in SEAwise, by presentation in existing ICES groups and by dedicated SEAwise/ICES workshops to produce guidance on best practice.</p

SEAwise Report on communications strategy and activities, September 2023.

The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishers, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). This SEAwise report summarises the key activities in SEAwise on Communications and Outreach from September 2022 – September 2023. The critical activities undertaken during this period include continued updates to the project website and drafting of public syntheses to share research results with broad audiences; ongoing social media engagement and management; drafting pieces for and management of a public-facing blog on the SEAwise website; production of materials for and support with stakeholder engagement meetings; the monthly publication of a project newsletter; video production; and engagement with the media. These have been carried out in parallel with additional activities that will allow for continued interaction and engagement with SEAwise’s work long after its lifetime – the development of a public facing prototype tool, alongside planning for physical and online training courses disseminating the knowledge co-created within the project. All activities have been crafted in line with the objectives and agreed methods of the SEAwise communications and social media strategies and have been supported by input from Work Package and Case Study leads, where appropriate.Read more about the project at www.seawiseproject.org</p

SEAwise Report on requirements for transparency and quality control

This report describes the common protocol for producing openly-available, quality assuring data and methods used in SEAwise. SEAwise data and methods are all data collected, processed, used or stored in connection with the SEAwise project. Making quality assured data openly available is a key priority in SEAwise in accordance with the FAIR principles: Ensuring that data are findable, openly accessible, interoperable and available for increased re-use. The processes in place to ensure this are described in this report.  This report shows the results of the SEAwise project. More information on the project can be found at https://seawiseproject.org/</p

Synthesis of ProByFish modelling approach and the effect of TACs for target species on bycatch species

   The ProByFish study was initiated to assist in the development of methods to evaluate the impact of different fisheries management options on the objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The study developed robust methods to a) define target and bycatch species and b) to divide the bycatch species into valuable and collateral bycatch species, the first generally retained on board and landed and the latter generally discarded. The classification of a species depended on the fleet and area in which the fleet operates. The study also identified species which can only sustain low levers of fishing and proceeded to include examples of these in mixed fisheries models.  This report describes the work under the study to analyse of effect of TACs for target species on fishing mortalities of hybrid, valued and collateral bycatch species assuming different management strategies to define TACs for the target species, while no management applies on the bycatch species. The analyses were conducted in a mixed fisheries Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) framework to examine the probability that single stock TACs are sufficient under natural variability, mixed fishery dynamics and management strategies. The result shows that the effect of changing the species on which to define a TAC are minor compared to the effects concerning the uncertainty around the implementation of the landing obligation.</p

SEAwise review of health impact of different fish and fish sizes

The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishers, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) in their fisheries. This SEAwise report evaluates the health impacts of different fish species. The consumption of different types of fish is part of a healthy diet, where the health impact depends on the nutrient content of fish as well as possible contaminants. Information on these aspects were collected from institutional and governmental sources and quality assured. National nutritional databases were consulted to obtain regional data to respond to the case studies approach of the SEAWISE project. When data was not available from national databases, a literature review was conducted to attain complementary data. As the raw data from different sources was in various formats and structures, the data was subsequently adapted to ensure unit equivalence and homogeneous descriptions to allow combination and analyses of all the information.The health impacts of nutrients and contaminants content in fishes depends on the person’s requirements. Certain population groups can have increased nutritional needs, e.g. pregnant or elderly people, and citizens of certain countries can present specific nutritional deficits. To determine the potential health impact, an in depth analysis of European nutritional needs was therefore conducted.The combination of the fish nutritional and contaminant contents and the nutritional requirements and characteristics of the populations groups enabled SEAwise to design a fish recommendation system. The system is based on a ranked list of fishes that was created in the project and from this, best choices for overall health benefits of each population group was established.More information about the SEAwise project can be found at https://seawiseproject.org/</p

SEAwise report on requirements for fisheries governance to be effective

The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishers, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) in their fisheries. This SEAwise report discusses the concept of governance, how to understand ‘effective’ governance, and a research plan for further studies of the effectiveness of and potential for improving governance at the regional and sub-regional level in the SEAwise regions (Baltic Sea, North Sea, Western Waters, and the Mediterranean Sea). The theoretical insights from the first two main parts inform and are merged into the research plan, forming the last part of the report. The work is based on the recognition that fisheries management in Europe is still struggling to deliver on its objectives relating to ecology, economy, and social considerations although improvements have been made over the last decades. On top of this, marine biodiversity and ecosystem integrity can be identified as pressing challenges, while climate-change presents renewed uncertainties and risks.Improved governance, appropriately designed for Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), is key to improving the system performance towards the societal objectives. Lack of appropriate measures towards cooperation between the EU, national, and regional levels has led to uncoordinated decision-making processes and prevented coherent management through the implementation and adoption of EU legislation, leading to lower than desired performance both of fisheries and environmental policies. Referring specifically to the involvement of stakeholders, the European Commission stresses the importance of transparency, cooperation, outreach, information, and inclusiveness in developing and implementing measures to ensure that all stakeholders, not least fishers, have a say in the management process, and that their needs and concerns are considered (European Commission, 2023a). Improvement of what can broadly be defined as ‘governance’ is, thus, among the pathways that the European Commission has identified for improvements in the area.In SEAwise, we understand governance as a social process, mediated by a variety of social actors: governments, regional authorities, private industry, and civil society. As such, governance is “the whole of public as well as private interactions taken to solve societal problems and create societal opportunities. It includes the formulation and application of principles guiding those interactions and care for institutions that enable them” (Kooiman & Bavinck, 2005, p. 17). Following this, effective governance requires that this constellation of actors is able to speak to each other, coordinate activities, be included in decision-making processes, and work together to define, frame and understand problems, and ultimately, come to solutions. It is, consequently, the effectiveness of the governance ‘set-up’ for such interactions that is studied under Task 2.4. The outputs of this social process in the shape of policy interventions and management measures, affecting e.g., fisheries practices, are typically evaluated through indicators for performance vis-à-vis ecology, economy, and social aspects. However, for governance, a fourth set of attributes and indicators has to come into play.In responding to this, the evaluation of the effectiveness of fisheries governance in the EU is informed by two sources: i) the approach taken by the Canadian Fisheries Research Network (CFRN) (reported in Stephenson et al. 2017a, 2017b, 2018), which constitutes a framework for comprehensively evaluating fisheries and includes potential performance indicators selected from a comprehensive review of the literature (comparing a wide variety of existing frameworks); and ii) the Aquaculture Governance Indicators (AGIs) framework (Toonen at al. 2021), which not only provides a comprehensive governance framework but operationalizes it via scoring of specific indicators and criteria across the core components of governance.The CFRN framework operates with three overall institutional (or governance) objectives: a) legal objectives, b) good governance structure, and c) effective decision-making processes, which are then further decomposed into attributes of these objectives. As an example, attributes under ‘effective decision-making processes’, include (among others) concerns around participation, transparency, structuredness, and integration. The CFRN framework goes on to suggest candidate indicators for these attributes. The CFRN framework are supplemented with insights from the AGIs framework, which serves to provider further insight in how to go from specific indicators and to criteria that these can be measured according to.In the final section, a plan for further work under Task 2.4 is outlined. The plan involves focussing on both the overall regional governance arrangements in the Baltic Sea, North Sea, Western Waters and the Mediterranean Sea, and in-depth studies of sub-regional cases of fisheries governance in the same regions. The analysis of the cases will result in recommendations on how the effectiveness of governance could be improved.Using the governance elements outline in the first section of the deliverable as a lens to approach the research undertaken under Task 2.4, a two-pronged research plan allowing comprehensive understanding of the general nature and quality (i.e., how effective) of governance arrangements is outlined in the final section. The first prong is through the implementation of an expert elicitation survey, which is comprised of specific governance-related questions that is sent to the diverse range of governance actors across sectors (academia/research, civil society, government) for each of the SEAwise regional seas (at regional level). The second prong consists of a selection of in-depth sub-regional case studies informed by SEAwise partners based on their experiences and existing knowledge while also leveraging their research network to inform the details of the case study through for instance interviews.The outlined research plan is designed to deal with multi-level dynamics of fisheries governance (level of the regional seas and sub-regional level) and can accommodate the study of ‘socially acceptable’ management measures, and how social acceptance of management measures might be increased by considering increased use of self-governance (or other improvements to the governance arrangement studied).More information about the SEAwise project can be found at https://seawiseproject.org/</p

SEAwise Report on review guidelines

This deliverable report provides the framework, guidelines, and specific instructions for systematic reviews to be undertaken with SEAwise. The report also includes pre-registered review protocols for five key systematic reviews focussing on the social effects of and on fishing, ecological effects on fisheries yield, ecological effects of fisheries, spatial management impacts, and evaluation of management strategies. The results of these reviews are reported in subsequent x.1 deliverable reports and will provide a synthesis of foundational knowledge for each of SEAwise’s work packages two-through-six, respectively.  This report contains a brief overview of the motivation for undertaking a series of systematic reviews and the selected framework that is being employed for all reviews across the project. Furthermore, this report provides detailed instructions for carrying out each step of a systematic review which can be applied to both the key SEAwise reviews, but also any other review either within or outside of this project. This includes, descriptions of how important databases function, R-scripts for processing records from databases and approaches to data-management for large collaborative reviews.  Additionally, this report serves as the repository for the search protocols for five reviews. These protocols ensure transparent methods and reduced bias in the searching, screening and data extraction.  The success of the coordination across five large-scale systematic reviews is illustrated in the coherence of the approaches and detailed methods described in this report. This report describes results of the SEAwise project. More information about the project can be found at https://seawiseproject.org/</p