Report of the 11th Liaison Meeting

The   11thLiaison   Meeting   between   the   Chairs   of   the   RCMs,   the   ICES   PGCCDBS,   PGMED  and  PGECON,  the  STECF  EWGs  on  the  DCF,  the  Regional  Database  Steering   Committees,  the  ICES  and  GFCM  representatives  and  the  European  Commission  was   held  at  the  DG  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  Brussels  from  8th  to  9th  October  2014. The  11th  Liaison  meeting  was  held  in  Brussels  on  8th  and  9th  October  2014  to  address  the   following  terms  of  reference:     TOR  1.  Discussion  on  possible  follow-­‐‑up  to  the  main  outputs/recommendations  of:   • The  2014  RCMs  and  to  the   sp ecific  re commenda tions  a ddr e sse d  to  th e  Liaison   Meeting   • P G ECO N ,  PG CCDBS,  PG Med   –   ou tcome s  an d  r e commendation s  fr om  the ir   2014  meeting     • STECF  EWG  and  STEC F  Plen ary   -­‐‑   ou tcome s  a n d  r e commendation s  fr om  the ir   2014  meeting     • Data  end-­‐‑ users  (IC ES,  G F C M,  RC Ms)   TOR  2.  Compilation  of  recommendations  on  the  DCF   A  compilation  of  DCF  recommendations  will  be  established  by  the  COM  by  end  2014.   LM   needs   to   agree   on   which   recommendations   should   be   included   (i.e.   from   which   bodies)  &  covering  which  years.     TOR  3.  Regional  cooperation   • G r ants  for  str eng thene d  reg ion al  coop eration     • R e g ional  da ta b ases   o O ver view  of  use  of  the  Reg ional  Datab ases  for  R CMs  in  2014,  and  p rob lems   identified   o O ther  deve lop ments  (RDB  training s  in  2014,  RDB  Med&BS  develop ment)   o Chang es  for  the  fu tu re   –  an y  re commen da tions  from  th e  LM?   • R C M  data  calls   –  ove rview  of  h ow  MS  r esp onde d.   TOR  4.  Recommended  meetings/workshops   • P r ep a r e  a  list  of  r ecommen ded  me etin g s  for  2015  as  g u idance  for  MS   TOR  5.  Studies   • O ver view  of  p rocess   • LM  comme nts  and  p r ioritization  of  studies  p r op osed  b y  RC Ms,  PG ECO N ,  ICES,   GFCM   TOR  6.  AOB     1. The  DCF  website  has  been  revamped  by  the  JRC.  Any  comments  on  this?   2. Access  to  the  RCM  SharePoint   3. Derogations  –  List  of  derogations  by  Member  State  has  been  prepared  by  DG   MARE.  Have  any  RCMs  updated  this?     4. ICES  will  provide  an  update  on  their  plans  to  re-­‐‑evaluate  surveys.  Should  this   be  followed  by  STECF  work  on  surveys  to  be  included  in  future  EU  MAP?   5. Annual  reports  –  simplification:  presentation  of  process. 6. Data  transmission:   a. new   platform   for   information   exchanges   between   COM,   MS   and   end-­‐‑ users   b. new   tool   for   reporting   on   how   MS   complied   with   the   DG   MARE/JRC   data  calls     In   addition   to   the   above   Terms   of   Reference,   an   item   was   added   at   the   start   of   the   meeting,  regarding  the  implication  of  the  Landing  Obligation  on  data  collection  and   the  Discard  Plans.

Report on the Workshop on Transversal Variables. (Linking economic and biological effort data (call) design). 19th -23rd January 2015

The Workshop on the Transversal Variables took place in Zagreb from the 19th to 23rd of January, 2015 mainly to tackle the issues related to the increasing need of having fisheries fleet economic data and fisheries biologic data on a level of disaggregation that would allow a proper interoperability between datasets to underpin bioeconomic modelling. For that, several analyses were carried out and conclusions taken. These analyses were : 1. comparison of economic and biological effort data calls both with respect to their level of resolution and the landings and effort values obtained from equivalent aggregations was performed. This was compared to what would be needed in order to undertake bioeconomic modelling for a chosen management plan. 2. The description of how MS are calculating effort variables and a proposal on the way forward to harmonize approaches, 3. Conclusions on how to harmonize levels of resolution, the variable definitions and the codification in use amongst data calls, in order to make them comparable and based on coherent standard codifications.JRC.G.3-Maritime affair

Revision of the EU-MAP and Work Plan template (STECF-19-12)

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This reportdeals with the revision of the EU-MAP and Work Plan template. The Expert Group report was reviewed during the 2019 STECF November plenary meeting during the 2019 STECF November plenary meeting

Report of the ICES WKROUNDMP 2011 / STECF EWG 11-07. Evaluation and Impact As-sessment of Management Plans PT II

A joint ICES / STECF meeting was held in Hamburg 20-24 June 2011, to prepare an Evaluation of multi-annual plans for cod in Kattegat, North Sea, Irish Sea and West of Scotland. The meeting involved STECF, ICES scientists dealing with Economy and Biology and included Observers (Commission staff, Managers, Stakeholders). Three separate reports to the STECF were prepared by the EWG-11-07, one on the Impact Assessment of Southern hake, Nephrops and Angler fish (EWG-11-07c) and another on the Impact Assessments for Baltic cod (EWG 11-07a) and this third on the Evaluation of Cod in Kattegat, North Sea, West of Scotland and Irish Sea (EWG-11-07b) and clari-fication of Advice on NS whiting.JRC.G.4-Maritime affair

Introduction: New Approaches to Sustainable Offshore Food Production and the Development of Offshore platforms

As we exhaust traditional natural resources upon which we have relied for decades to support economic growth, alternatives that are compatible with a resource conservation ethic, are consistent with efforts to limit greenhouse emissions to combat global climate change, and that support principles of integrated coastal management must be identified. Examples of sectors that are prime candidates for reinvention are electrical generation and seafood production. Once a major force in global economies and a symbol of its culture and character, the fishing industry has experienced major setbacks in the past half-decade. Once bountiful fisheries were decimated by overfishing and destructive fisheries practices that resulted in tremendous biomass of discarded by-catch. Severe restrictions on landings and effort that have been implemented to allow stocks to recover have had tremendous impact on the economy of coastal communities. During the period of decline and stagnation in capture fisheries, global production from aquaculture grew dramatically, and now accounts for 50% of the world’s edible seafood supply. With the convergence of environmental and aesthetic concerns, aquaculture, which was already competing for space with other more established and accepted uses, is having an increasingly difficult time expanding in nearshore waters. Given the constraints on expansion of current methods of production, it is clear that alternative approaches are needed in order for the marine aquaculture sector to make a meaningful contribution to global seafood supply. Farming in offshore marine waters has been identified as one potential option for increasing seafood production and has been a focus of international attention for more than a decade. Though there are technical challenges for farming in the frequently hostile open ocean environment, there is sufficient rationale for pursuing the development of offshore farming. Favorable features of open ocean waters include ample space for expansion, tremendous carrying and assimilative capacity, reduced conflict with many user groups, lower exposure to human sources of pollution, the potential to reduce some of the negative environmental impacts of coastal fish farming (Ryan 2004; Buck 2004; Helsley and Kim 2005; Ward et al. 2006; Langan 2007), and optimal environmental conditions for a wide variety of marine species (Ostrowski and Helsley 2003; Ryan 2004; Howell et al. 2006; Benetti et al. 2006; Langan and Horton 2003). Those features, coupled with advances in farming technology (Fredheim and Langan 2009) would seem to present an excellent opportunity for growth, however, development in offshore waters has been measured. This has been due in large part to the spill over from the opposition to nearshore marine farming and the lack of a regulatory framework for permitting, siting and managing industry development. Without legal access to favorable sites and a “social license” to operate without undue regulatory hardship, it will be difficult for open ocean aquaculture to realize its true potential. Some parallels can be drawn between ocean aquaculture and electricity generation. Continued reliance on traditional methods of production, which for electricity means fossil fuels, is environmentally and economically unsustainable. There is appropriate technology available to both sectors, and most would agree that securing our energy and seafood futures are in the collective national interest. The most advanced and proven renewable sector for ocean power generation is wind turbines, and with substantial offshore wind resources in the, one would think there would be tremendous potential for development of this sector and public support for development. The casual observer might view the ocean as a vast and barren place, with lots of space to put wind turbines and fish farms. However, if we start to map out existing human uses such as shipping lanes, pipelines, cables, LNG terminals, and fishing grounds, and add to that ecological resource areas that require some degree of protection such as whale and turtle migration routes, migratory bird flyways, spawning grounds, and sensitive habitats such as corals, the ocean begins to look like a crowed place. Therefore, when trying to locate new ocean uses, it may be worthwhile to explore possibilities for co-location of facilities, in this case wind turbines and fish and shellfish farms. While some might argue that trying to co-locate two activities that are individually controversial would be a permitting nightmare, general agreement can probably be reached that there are benefits to be gained by reducing the overall footprint of human uses in the ocean. Meeting the challenges of multi-use facilities in the open ocean will require careful analysis and planning; however, the opportunity to co-locate sustainable seafood and renewable energy production facilities is intriguing, the concept is consistent with the goals of Marine Spatial Planning and ecosystem based management, and therefore worthy of pursuit