Bridging the Gap: Experiments in the Heart of the Transition Zone

This book is about the on-going transition of fisheries governance and the emergence of research practices and advice frameworks that allow for the co-creation of common knowledge bases for management. This chapter introduces the context under which the GAP project (‘Bridging the gap between science and stakeholders') was conceived, describes its overall approach, orientates the reader to key issues and introduces the structure of the book

Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the arguments and discusses the results of the GAP project in the context of the ongoing reform in fisheries governance

Feasibility study into a scientific self-sampling programme for the pelagic sector : FIS020

Publisher PD

Space-time recapture dynamics of PIT-tagged Northeast Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) reveal size-dependent migratory behaviour

Based on GIS-mapping and semi-parametric modelling of recaptures from PIT-tag experiments in the North Sea nursery area (September 2011), the Celtic Seas spawning area (May-June 2014-2021) and the Icelandic Waters feeding area (August 2015-2019), we argue that the distribution of Northeast Atlantic (NEA) mackerel is influenced by a size-dependent migratory behaviour. The time-space recapture dynamics revealed that larger mackerel tended to migrate a longer distance between spawning and feeding areas, either through a western route from the Celtic Seas into the Icelandic Waters and the Greenland Sea or by following the main route northwards through the Faroe-Shetland Channel into the Norwegian Sea. This long-distance travel resulted in turn in delayed arrival in the North Sea wintering area. During the return spawning migration into the Celtic Seas, larger individuals remained in the front, likely heading to spawning grounds farther south than smaller conspecifics. Migration patterns also evolved with time at liberty as the mackerel grew older and larger, while possibly covering a progressively wider area over its annual migration cycle as suggested from the tagging data. However, the study also showed large inter-annual variability in the recapture patterns which likely reflect changes in environmental condition (prey availability and ocean current), NEA mackerel population demographics, and the spatial fishery dynamics.publishedVersio

Effort reduction and the large fish indicator: Spatial trends reveal positive impacts of recent European fleet reduction schemes

The large fish indicator (LFI), or ‘proportion of fish greater than 40 cm length in bottom trawl surveys,’ is a frequently debated indicator of Good Environmental Status in European regional seas. How does the LFI respond to changes in fishing pressure? This question is addressed here through analysis of fine-scale spatial trends in the LFI within the North Sea, compared between two periods of contrasting fisheries management: 1983–1999 and 2000–2012, respectively, before and after the onset of the European Union's fleet reduction scheme. Over the entire period, the LFI has decreased in large parts of the North Sea. However, most of the decline was from 1983–1999; since 2000 the LFI has improved in much of the North Sea, especially in UK waters. Comparison with international effort data shows that those western areas where the LFI has improved correspond with regions where otter trawl effort has decreased since 2000 (and previously was highest in the 1990s), and also with decreases in beam trawl effort. This study provides strong support that recent European effort reduction schemes are now beginning to result in an improved ecosystem state as indicated by the regional-scale improvement in the LFI

A baseline for the genetic stock identification of Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, in ICES Divisions 6.a, 7.b-c

Atlantic herring in International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Divisions 6.a, 7.b-c comprises at least three populations, distinguished by temporal and spatial differences in spawning, which have until recently been managed as two stocks defined by geographical delineators. Outside of spawning the populations form mixed aggregations, which are the subject of acoustic surveys. The inability to distinguish the populations has prevented the development of separate survey indices and separate stock assessments. A panel of 45 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, derived from whole-genome sequencing, were used to genotype 3480 baseline spawning samples (2014-2021). A temporally stable baseline comprising 2316 herring from populations known to inhabit Division 6.a was used to develop a genetic assignment method, with a self-assignment accuracy greater than 90%. The long-term temporal stability of the assignment model was validated by assigning archive (2003-2004) baseline samples (270 individuals) with a high level of accuracy. Assignment of non-baseline samples (1514 individuals) from Divisions 6.a, 7.b-c indicated previously unrecognized levels of mixing of populations outside of the spawning season. The genetic markers and assignment models presented constitute a 'toolbox' that can be used for the assignment of herring caught in mixed survey and commercial catches in Division 6.a into their population of origin with a high level of accuracy

A baseline for the genetic stock identification of Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, in ICES Divisions 6.a, 7.b-c

Atlantic herring in International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Divisions 6.a, 7.b-c comprises at least three populations, distinguished by temporal and spatial differences in spawning, which have until recently been managed as two stocks defined by geographical delineators. Outside of spawning the populations form mixed aggregations, which are the subject of acoustic surveys. The inability to distinguish the populations has prevented the development of separate survey indices and separate stock assessments. A panel of 45 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, derived from whole-genome sequencing, were used to genotype 3480 baseline spawning samples (2014-2021). A temporally stable baseline comprising 2316 herring from populations known to inhabit Division 6.a was used to develop a genetic assignment method, with a self-assignment accuracy greater than 90%. The long-term temporal stability of the assignment model was validated by assigning archive (2003-2004) baseline samples (270 individuals) with a high level of accuracy. Assignment of non-baseline samples (1514 individuals) from Divisions 6.a, 7.b-c indicated previously unrecognized levels of mixing of populations outside of the spawning season. The genetic markers and assignment models presented constitute a 'toolbox' that can be used for the assignment of herring caught in mixed survey and commercial catches in Division 6.a into their population of origin with a high level of accuracy

Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA)

The objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stake- holder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice. Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-bench- mark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be iden- tified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to ac- cess, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured infor- mation well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when prelim- inary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC ad- vice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differ- ences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment reports as well as in the ICES advice in a transparent manner. Not only should dif- ferences or similarities be documented and communicated, in those cases where there are differ- ences in perception between ICES stock assessments and stakeholders, a working group, external to the assessment working groups, should evaluate these differences and describe whether these differences can be logically explained or require further investigation. This outcome of this pro- cess may potentially lead to new data collection or additional analyses suitable for input to benchmarks. Essential in this entire process is making sure the same language is spoken between scientists and stakeholders, that there are clear and transparent processes in place on how to deal with stakeholder information and communicate clearly how this information is used in the prepara- tion of ICES advice.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (WKSHOES)

The ICES Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (WKSHOES) met online 22-24 June 2021 with the objective to organize the background information needed for SCICOM and ACOM to develop a formal ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. Stakeholder engagement has taken an increasingly important role in ICES. There was a strong consensus in the workshop that stakeholder engagement is essential to ICES’ work, as has been captured by the most recent ICES Strategic, Science, and Advisory Plans. The question is how to do it best. While WKSHOES recognized the essential nature of stakeholder engagement for addressing environmental challenges, understanding human impacts and values, the group discussed the valid concern that if stakeholder engagement is done incorrectly, it could compromise the perceived objectivity of ICES science and its independence. Workshop participants challenged the idea of objective or “pure” science, but also recognized the practical need to have ICES advice be transparent and science-based. Participants also understand that when providing advice, tradeoffs have to be made that are informed by the different weights that stakeholders place on various management objectives. A key question related to a potential stakeholder engagement strategy is “Who is a stakeholder?” This report discusses several definitions and roles. A central challenge for ICES is recognizing that the network of stakeholders is a subset of the people impacted by ICES science and advice. The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy should therefore primarily focus on ensuring that people who are part of the ICES network have clear roles and responsibilities and that ICES performs its work fairly and transparently. However, participants also recognize the need to increase opportunities for diverse resource users and citizens to have clear avenues to engage with the different aspects of the ICES network. Considering and promoting diversity and inclusion and avoiding implicit bias are crucial in this process. It is also essential to define clear goals for stakeholder engagement in general, and tangible objectives for each engagement activity in particular. Engagement objectives already formulated in various ICES documents are outlined in this report, as well as recommendations for guiding principles that provide the overarching frame of reference for engagement. This Report serves as the primary output from WKSHOES, and represents the knowledge and opinions of workshop participants. WKSHOES recommends that in order to both complete the development of the strategy and conduct successful stakeholder engagement about it, a suite of communication activities is needed that should best be coordinated from a central contact point within ICES. WKSHOES recommends that after ACOM and SCICOM draft the strategy and obtain input from the ICES Council, a diversity of stakeholders should be invited to provide input on the WKSHOES report and the development of the Engagement Strategy. ICES should solicit input from stakeholders by early 2022 to agree on the contents of the Strategy and how it will be implemented. WKSHOES also recommends that a future Expert Group address the ongoing need to develop and communicate effective stakeholder engagement methods within the ICES network.Peer reviewe