Search

The objective of WKFISHDISH2 was to develop a standardized and open-source way of routinely using trawl survey data to produce distribution maps which can be easily updated. To do so, workshop participants (i) reviewed models that can produce distribution maps from survey data in DATRAS and MEDITS formats, (ii) considered best practice guidance for data, and models, (iii) implemented best practice to produce distribution maps in a transparent manner, and (iv) populated an ICES repository with distribution maps and associated scripts. Nine models were reviewed, seven of which were considered appropriate to produce distribution maps using survey data. The two models excluded failed to estimate gear standardization factors. Best practice for data should consider the following: correct/remove erroneous observations, account for changes in haul duration/timing affecting catchability, use species-specific modelled areas, remove gears/surveys with no observations to reduce model converging time, and include appropriate explanatory variables. A step-by-step list to preprocess survey data was provided. Best practice for models should consider the following: account for skewed distribution of survey data by exploring different statistical error distributions, use open-source models able to reproduce distributions from simulated data, consider the complexity of the model required vs. the run-time (e.g. number of knots), avoid extrapolating the model to areas/depths where the species is not observed, and perform relevant model diagnostics/model selection. To compare distribution estimated by different models, the SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF) was used together with centres of gravity, biomass hot spots (90 th percentile), and effective occupied areas. All seven models were able to produce satisfactory distribution maps for at least one species within the workshop time constraints, both with DATRAS data in the Atlantic and the MEDITS data in the Mediterranean. Comparisons between model estimates showed reasonable consistency overall, although discrepancies were noted owing to different model structures. Distribution maps produced during the workshop and the associated script are available at the ICES SharePoint. Participants identified priorities for future research to be tackled during a subsequent workshop: combine outputs of different models in a single distribution map, include fish length in models, investigate environmental covariates and their use for predictions, investigate models’ abilities to reproduce known distributions and further consider the impact of vessel/gear effects.

This report describes the data procedures and guidelines of the SEAwise project with the aim to increase the awareness about the data collected, processed and stored in the project, to ensure that all relevant data collected and used in the project is available in a well-documented, discoverable, standardised and easily accessible form, to give information on data quality and sampling protocols and, to clearly state the usage rights on the different data and to ensure use and handling of data is in accordance with Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR). Sharing research knowledge and data is integral to the SEAwise project and this is attained through implementing the FAIR principles, employing dedicated quality assurance processes and carefully considering ethical aspects of knowledge and data storing and sharing. More information can be found at the SEAwise website: https://seawiseproject.org/

The ICES Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF2) was tasked review the WKREF1 report and based on the outcome develop updated guidelines for the ICES reference points system and recommendations for ACOM consideration. The WKREF1 report has suggested 5 key recommendations to simplify and harmonise the ICES reference points framework representing a major change to the current guidelines. At WKREF2, we detailed discussions and four key concerns were raised about the proposed approach. The first related to the simplification of rules to define Blim. Around two thirds of category 1 stocks would end up as WKREF1 “Blim Type 2” where Blim would be set as a fraction of B0. The Allee effect or “depensation” maybe more important than previously thought and should be furthered explored for ICES stocks since it has important consequences for Blim. A number of challenges and issues around defining Blim using the current guidelines were documented. Some suggestions on improvement criteria were discussed including using classifiers to define spasmodic stocks and using change point algorithms to address non-stationary productivity regimes. However, further work is need to make these approaches operational and there was no consensus that the WKREF1 Blim types should replace the current guidelines.WKREF1 recommended that the FMSY proxy should be based on a biological proxies and should be less than the deterministic FMSY. It was pointed out that the stochastic FMSY estimated in EqSim for example, is lower than the deterministic FMSY and that the current guidelines ensure that the FMSY should not pose a more than 5% risk to Blim. A large amount of work described in WD 1 was carried out to develop an MSE framework to consistency and robustness test a candidate reference point system for North East Atlantic stocks. However, WKREF2 recommended that further work needs to be carried out to condition and test the simulation framework before the conclusions could be adopted by ICES and incorporated into the guidelines.A number of considerations for defining MSY related reference points were discussed including using model validation and prediction skill to ensure that ICES provide robust and credible ad-vice. There is evidence that density dependence (DD) is important in the majority of ICES stocks (68% in recruitment and 54% in growth). The correct prediction of the shape and strength of density-dependence in productivity is key to predicting future stock development and providing the best possible long-term fisheries management advice. A suggested approach to use surplus production models (SPMs) to account for DD in FMSY was suggested and discussed but there was no consensus on whether that approach was appropriate. There was consensus that the FECO approach as a means of adapting target fishing mortality to medium-term changes in productivity should be included in the guidelines subject to a benchmark and ACOM approval.While WKREF1 and 2 focused mainly on Category 1 stocks ToR c) called for a “simplified and harmonised set of guidelines for estimating MSY and precautionary reference points applicable in the advice framework across various ICES stock categories.” Ideally the ICES assessment categories should provide equivalent risk across all stocks. This issue was discussed but no recommendations emerged.There was no consensus a revised reference point framework was proposed at WKREF2. However, it was agreed that it should be presented here for further discussion at ACOM and other fora. The key feature of the suggested approach is that the stock status evaluation is treated independent of the Advice Rule (AR). The main feature of the system is that the biomass trigger is not linked to a stock status evaluation, it is linked to the expected biomass when fishing at the target fishing mortality, in contrast to the current ICES approach. It also entailed that FMSY would also become an upper limit of fishing mortality and that the advised fishing mortality would be set at or lower than that level. WKREF2 did not discuss what to do in situations where SSB< Blim or alternative forms of HCR for the advice rule. Building community understanding and consensus around simplified and harmonised guidelines has yet to be achieved. A further workshop WKREF3 will be required to achieve that aim. The report includes 6 recommendations for ACOM consideration.

An ecosystem approach to fisheries management requires the consideration of commercial species as components of an ecosystem and the acknowledgement of the links between their productivity and the surrounding environment. To provide a knowledge base for such links, SEAwise consulted stakeholders throughout Europe and conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature.The systematic review resulted in 2050 articles from the literature search that were screened for their tile and abstract. 516 of them were retained for data extraction. The majority of studies were conducted in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, followed by the Western Waters, and with only a few dozen papers in the Mediterranean Sea. Cod and herring were the most studied species, temperature and more generally climate and hydrodynamics indicators were the main drivers investigated, and reproduction was the main productivity-related process. The output of the systematic review is a database of scientific articles organised by regions, species, environmental drivers and productivity-associated processes and where outcomes, but also spatial and time scales, analytical methods etc. are described in a standardised fashion. This database will be analysed in the coming months and used in the downstream tasks of WP3.The most frequently driver identified by stakeholders across regions was climate change followed by species interactions, cod, pollution, commercial fish/shellfish and plankton. Climate change effects on stocks through temperature and salinity are relatively well covered in the literature as are effects of plankton and species interaction. Studies of the effects of pollution do not occur frequently and as a consequence require a dedicated effort is made in SEAwise to remedy this. Species reported frequently by the stakeholders included cod, seabass, sardine, sole, crabs, flatfish, Norway lobster, octopus, shrimps, herring, sprat, anchovy, hake, new species (species increasing in abundance as a result of climate change as well as invasive species of commercial interest) and sandeel. Among these, more than 10 papers were retrieved for cod, sardine, sole, herring, sprat, selected flatfish, anchovy, hake and sandeel. For the remaining species, a dedicated effort must be made in SEAwise if they are to be included in stock models.

To best utilize labor, companies need to match employees' skills with jobs that best fit those skills. Exploiting unique features of the mutual fund industry, we identify instances when this matching happens for fund managers and study its consequences. After fund managers are matched, they improve their risk-adjusted performance significantly. Fund companies use this information to maximize company value by reallocating existing and directing new capital to their matched managers and by collecting higher fees from the matched managers' funds. In addition, they make the expertise of matched managers available to the other managers of the fund company. July 28, 2022

The ICES Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF2) was tasked review the WKREF1 report and based on the outcome develop updated guidelines for the ICES reference points system and recommendations for ACOM consideration. The WKREF1 report has suggested 5 key recommendations to simplify and harmonise the ICES reference points framework representing a major change to the current guidelines. At WKREF2, we detailed discussions and four key concerns were raised about the proposed approach. The first related to the simplification of rules to define Blim. Around two thirds of category 1 stocks would end up as WKREF1 “Blim Type 2” where Blim would be set as a fraction of B0. The Allee effect or “depensation” maybe more important than previously thought and should be furthered explored for ICES stocks since it has important consequences for Blim. A number of challenges and issues around defining Blim using the current guidelines were documented. Some suggestions on improvement criteria were discussed including using classifiers to define spasmodic stocks and using change point algorithms to address non-stationary productivity regimes. However, further work is need to make these approaches operational and there was no consensus that the WKREF1 Blim types should replace the current guidelines. WKREF1 recommended that the FMSY proxy should be based on a biological proxies and should be less than the deterministic FMSY. It was pointed out that the stochastic FMSY estimated in EqSim for example, is lower than the deterministic FMSY and that the current guidelines ensure that the FMSY should not pose a more than 5% risk to Blim. A large amount of work described in WD 1 was carried out to develop an MSE framework to consistency and robustness test a candidate reference point system for North East Atlantic stocks. However, WKREF2 recommended that further work needs to be carried out to condition and test the simulation framework before the conclusions could be adopted by ICES and incorporated into the guidelines. A number of considerations for defining MSY related reference points were discussed including using model validation and prediction skill to ensure that ICES provide robust and credible advice. There is evidence that density dependence (DD) is important in the majority of ICES stocks (68% in recruitment and 54% in growth). The correct prediction of the shape and strength of density-dependence in productivity is key to predicting future stock development and providing the best possible long-term fisheries management advice. A suggested approach to use surplus production models (SPMs) to account for DD in FMSY was suggested and discussed but there was no consensus on whether that approach was appropriate. There was consensus that the FECO approach as a means of adapting target fishing mortality to medium-term changes in productivity should be included in the guidelines subject to a benchmark and ACOM approval. While WKREF1 and 2 focused mainly on Category 1 stocks ToR c) called for a “simplified and harmonised set of guidelines for estimating MSY and precautionary reference points applicable in the advice framework across various ICES stock categories.” Ideally the ICES assessment categories should provide equivalent risk across all stocks. This issue was discussed but no recommendations emerged. There was no consensus a revised reference point framework was proposed at WKREF2. However, it was agreed that it should be presented here for further discussion at ACOM and other fora. The key feature of the suggested approach is that the stock status evaluation is treated independent of the Advice Rule (AR). The main feature of the system is that the biomass trigger is not linked to a stock status evaluation, it is linked to the expected biomass when fishing at the target fishing mortality, in contrast to the current ICES approach. It also entailed that FMSY would also become an upper limit of fishing mortality and that the advised fishing mortality would be set at or lower than that level. WKREF2 did not discuss what to do in situations where SSB< Blim or alternative forms of HCR for the advice rule. Building community understanding and consensus around simplified and harmonised guidelines has yet to be achieved. A further workshop WKREF3 will be required to achieve that aim. The report includes 6 recommendations for ACOM consideration. nonPeerReviewed