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 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

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 stakeholder 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-benchmark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be identified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to access, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured information well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when preliminary 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 advice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differences 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 differences or similarities be documented and communicated, in those cases where there are differences 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 process 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 preparation of ICES advice.Peer reviewe

Workshop on Trade-offs between the Impact of Fisheries on Seafloor Habitats and their Landings and Economic Performance (WKTRADE4)

The Workshop on Trade-offs between the Impact of Fisheries on Seafloor Habitats and their Landings and Economic Performance (WKTRADE4) met three times with the objectives to: a) operationalize linking of available VMS, STECF FDI and AER economic data to estimate landings and economic performance indicators of each fishery. b) describe the practical steps to determine the economic costs and benefits associated with bottom fishing at a fine spatial scale using FDI-like data; c) demonstrate the applicability of proposed approaches for estimating spatial fisheries performance indicators (including revenue, costs, landings, value added, etc.) at local, habitat and regional scales and for different gear/metiers given the present data availability and cross regional applicability. The purpose is to demonstrate what measures of these economic performance indicators can be used in WGFBIT to describe trade-offs; d) to address objectives a to c in all European marine regions, including the Mediterranean and Black Seas, to the extent possible; e) and, for the regions represented document opportunity and limitations of spatial fisheries performance indicators (including revenue, costs, landings, value added, etc.) and/or of the input data needed and the capacity to link to benthic impact. For this workshop, the group has compared different approaches of use of FDI and AER data and it’s use for spatial analysis. It operationalized the links between three data calls (for NAO region), outlined limits and problems of methods used by different approaches. Although important progress has been made, this framework is still evolving and much still needs to be done to improve the resolution of primary data and resolve various misalignment issues. The group evidenced that the spatial resolution of the FDI data is very low, especially in Meds and Black Sea, and that the VMS/Logbook data are lacking for Med and Black Sea, as well as that there are gaps in the FDI data (e.g. landing value). Finally, the group demonstrated that the structure of the FDI data for Med and Black Seas is adequate for the analysis in terms of spatial data; however, to provide useful advice at MPAs level, higher resolution and more complete spatial data is needed, e.g. similar data collated from the ICES VMS data call for the Northeast Atlantic area. The group envisioned that the future work would consist of acquiring better resolution needed for data to perform more precise analyses, collating national studies which would be required for a better understanding of economic data availability at lower than the EU DCF aggregation level, and using existing samples collected and possibly re-stratified economic data to access regional differences whenever more precise and spatial level economic analyses will be collated in the future