The second workshop on lists of commercial fish and shellfish species for reporting of MSFD D3 (WKD3Lists2)

WKD3Lists2 created lists of regionally relevant commercial fish and shellfish species (and higher order taxa) for the use of Article 8 reporting by EU member states under Descriptor 3 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The regional taxa lists were based on landings data from the Fisheries Dependent Information data base (FDI) provided by EU member states and compiled by the Joint Research Centre (JRC). The taxonomy of landings data was consolidated by regional experts and the consolidated data were combined to obtain absolute and proportional landing weights and values for each (sub)re-gion, which were used to apply dual (weight and vale) selection thresholds to compile (sub)re-gional D3-taxa-lists. Regional D3-taxa-lists were produced for two MSFD regions (Baltic Sea & Black Sea) and eight MSFD subregions: The Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast, Mac-aronesia, Western Mediterranean, the Ionian Sea & Central Mediterranean, the Adriatic Sea and the Aegean-Levantine Sea. To exclude taxa with very low landing weights or value from the final lists, two types of thresh-olds (cumulative and minimum) with differing cut-off values were evaluated (90%, 95%, 98% and 99% for cumulative and 0.1% and 1% for minimum thresholds). Depending on the cut-off value, the number of taxa included varied substantially and in most (sub)regions the application of thresholds reduced the initial number of taxa by more than 50%. WKD3Lists2 did not recommend any threshold type or cut-off value to be applied generically in all (sub)regions, but identified trade-offs between inclusiveness and parsimony of relevant con-tent i.e. higher cut-off values will lead to longer lists including many taxa with relatively low landings weights/values. In some (sub)regions, thresholds with lower cut-off values (90% to 95%) were considered feasible by regional experts (Mediterranean subregions, Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast, Macaronesia), whereas in other MSFD (sub)regions cut-off values in the range of 98-99% were considered as appropriate (Baltic Sea, Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas). The regional D3-taxa lists by WKD3Lists2 were created without considering the availability of data or assessments i.e. many species are included, for which no assessment information is avail-able. WKD3Lists2 decided on this approach because a representative selection of commercially targeted taxa was considered to indicate knowledge and data gaps in current data collection and assessment schemes. Regional species lists shall be used by EU member states for the national reporting of D3. Stocks and species from the regional lists shall be considered by member states, and additional stocks/species can be added where appropriate (e.g. those stocks/species of national or local of importance that do not appear on the regional lists). x WKD3Lists2 discussed and compiled recommendations on how Member States can complement the regional lists of D3-taxa. A key recommendation is to maintain taxa reported in 2018 under D3, even if they are not part of the regional D3-taxa list for 2024. Wherever possible, Member States should report on stock level. WKD3Lists2 also discussed linkages between D1 and D3-reporting of commercial taxa.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Workshop to scope and preselect indicators for criterion D3C3 under MSFD decision (EU) 2017/848 (WKD3C3SCOPE)

The workshop to scope and preselect indicators for Descriptor 3 criterion 3 under MSFD Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (WKD3C3SCOPE) provided a platform for experts from the EU member states and relevant regional bodies to meet and support development and progress the assessment methodology, based on a request by the EC (DGENV). WKD3C3SCOPE is the first of a series of three workshops (WKD3C3THRESHOLDS and WKSIMULD3) to provide guidance in relation to operational indicators for MSFD D3C3. The workshop was organized as a series of presentations with intermittent group discussions. On the first day of the workshop the participants discussed what defines a ‘healthy population structure’ for species with different life history traits (ToR a). During the following days, the group discussed and identified relevant D3C3 indicators (ToR b) and developed criteria to select among the identified D3C3 indicators to allow further testing and setting of thresholds at WKD3C3THRESHOLDS (ToR c). The participants found that overall, healthy fish stocks are characterized by high productivity, wide age and size structuring in the population, and the ability to quickly recover from disturbances. The groups noted that environmental factors, along with stock biomass and fishing pressure, influence the productivity and health of a stock, with environment playing a particularly large role in the recruitment of short-lived stocks. It was suggested that the age structure of a stock might be more relevant for evaluating the health of long-lived stocks. However, it was acknowledged that not all stocks have sufficient data to evaluate all proposed indicators, and a single indicator is unlikely to suffice for all stocks. Data availability, species- specific factors and regional or sub-regional variation are thus also important considerations. In relation to ToR b, the participants presented their work on potential indicators including: recruitment time-series, proportion of fish larger than the mean size of first sexual maturation, F rec/Fbar, length distribution L 90, relative proportion of old fish above A 90, indicators of spawner quality, and SSB/R. A discussion on pros/cons, benefits to the population of high or low indicator values, benefits supported by empirical evidence, applicability to data-poor stocks and benefits supported by simulation/theoretical considerations followed the presentations. Finally, in relation to ToR c, the difficulty emerged in ranking the indicators alone without considering the data used to estimate them and a new set of evaluation criteria for use in WKD3C3THRESHOLDS were defined. Based on the outputs of the meeting a list of indicators to be further evaluated has been drafted, which also emphasizes the stocks for which studies have empirically demonstrated effects on productivity. In addition to the listed indicators, indicators of genetic diversity and proportion of fish with parasite infestation were mentioned but to the knowledge of the participants, widespread data for these are currently not publicly available.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

CFP regionalisation : final report

Regionalisation was established to enable a bottom-up approach to fisheries governance by allowing lower-level authorities and stakeholders to step into the fisheries management process and design tailor-made management on a regional scale. A review has been undertaken to provide improved understanding on how regionalisation has worked until now and contribute information towards the European Commission (EC) report on the functioning of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Findings show that there are large differences in how regional groups operate and whether they have formal working procedures. The Advisory Councils (ACs) have clear working procedures and are transparent in the work that they do. However, this is not the case for the Member State Groups (MSGs), for which a lot of information regarding structure, working procedures and meeting outcomes are not publicly available. The onset of the Landing Obligation resulted in a large increase in the number of measures (i.e. discard plans) for several geographical areas. Stakeholders feel that there are gains and losses in participating in the regionalisation process, stating that regionalisation has provided a useful channel for individuals to put their points across and discuss them with a broader spectrum of stakeholders as opposed to writing individual position papers. The distribution of the ACs (different seas basins) is also seen as a gain as it provides EU-wide fora for discussions in fisheries management issues. The direct and closely working among different institutions (EC, ACs, scientists, MSGs) is also seen as an advantage of regionalisation. However, many of the perceived benefits have not yet been realised. Overall, regionalisation is necessary and has fulfilled its expectations although not in all fields. Regionalisation has given powers to Member States to perform functions that used to be the preserve of the EU. Without regionalisation, it would be difficult to get the same level of detail towards the various fisheries management and policy aspects. This is because, a one size fits all approach would miss a lot of detail and local specificities that apply in a particular sea basin. While regionalisation is seen as an improvement to the system that was there before 2004, stakeholders agree that more work is needed to apply regionalisation in practice. There is need for more transparency and more meaningful engagement and collaboration between AC and MSGs