Search

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 report is the 10th of a suite of STECF EWG reports dedicated to the evaluation of the implementation of the Western Mediterranean Sea Multi-Annual management Plan (hereafter, MAP), following EWG reports 18-09, 18-13, 19-01, 19-14, 20-13, 21-01, 21- 13, 22-01 and 22-11. The group was requested to continue the development of socio-economic indicators to be used in the evaluation of management measures for the West Med MAP in both West Med management units (EMU1 and EMU 1) (TOR1). Two roadmaps were discussed, a short term approach and a long term approach which would consider the expansion of all the mixed-fisheries bio-economic models to both management units. As a first step, the group focused on the proposal of harmonizing the economic indicators across the models implemented (TOR2). The group was than requested to further develop the approach implemented during EWG 22-01 to identify persistence hotspots of the six target species of the West Med MAP using scientific survey data (MEDITS) in combination to commercial spatial data (VMS joined with logbooks), to test existing and additional closure areas (TOR 3). The group was also requested to revise Article 8 of the 2023 fishing opportunities for the West Med MAP (COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2023/195), which lists the compensation mechanisms that MSs can implement within the West Med MAP to obtain additional fishing days in 2023 (TOR 4). For TOR 1 a roadmap was discussed and proposed on how to organise the work on socio-economic assessments for the West Med MAP in 2023. The EWG suggests that here should be a three-step process: a scoping exercise (done with EWG 23- 01), a meeting with stakeholders in the middle of the year to discuss their perception of the socio-economic consequences of measures of the West Med MAP and the running of scenarios during EWG 23-11 with results from socio-economic assessments. The EWG notes that the modellers have only the five-day meeting in September to run scenarios. Therefore, it would be crucial for the success of the assessments that the 6 scenarios provided by DG Mare for the EWG 22-11 and with some adjustments for EWG 23-01 will not change for EWG 23-11. It is crucial because those scenarios are already implemented in the models and the implementation of new scenarios would take a lot of time. The EWG proposes to run a few additional scenarios with only one measures to separate impacts of certain measures from the six scenarios where a mixture of measures is included. This would hopefully allow to give an indication what additional efforts may be necessary to reach MSY (in 2025 but also beyond in case the objective is not reached by 2025) and when gains from the implementation of the West Med Plan could be expected. The EWG observes that modelers need to put in additional effort and resources to improve the models for an improved assessment of the West Med MAP. The models were not originally developed for the assessment of the West Med MAP and only cover parts of the area of the Western Mediterranean. Such an improvement of the models could also include work to provide longer-term socio-economic assessments of measures where modelers need to take additional assumptions into account. The EWG notes that it would be beneficial if modelers receive a basic list of assumptions for key economic variables before the EWG 23-11 meeting in September. In 2022, for example, the increased fuel costs were an important factor regarding the economic performance of the fleets. In 2023 fuel costs have decreased but there are other cost categories with a substantial increase. The EWG concludes that DG Mare should not change the 6 provided scenarios substantially before the EWG 23-11 meeting in September. This would allow the modelers to run the models during the meeting and provide the socio-economic results. The EWG concludes that STECF and DG Mare should further discuss how resources could be provided to modelers to improve the applied models. The EWG concludes that the chairs of EWG 23-01 and 23-11 will provide a list of assumptions for the implementation of the models regarding key variables for the socio-economic assessments (short- and long-term). For TOR 2 the EWG discussed what variables and indicators the applied models include and provide. From that discussion a list of indicators was developed for which modelers will be able to provide results in the EWG 23-11 report. The EWG concludes that a list of indicators is provided for which EWG 23-11 will present results in autumn 2023. For TOR 3 the EWG notes that new closure areas for 2023 were implemented only by Spain (EMU 1) (Orden APA/80/2023). All closures areas implemented under the West Med MAP are described to allow testing if their implementation would reduce the catches of juveniles and adults of the six target species of the MAP by 15-25%. The EWG notes that the methodology followed to prioritise, developing and updating closure areas based on their conservation value on the basis of existing closures, proposed closures from EWG 22-01 and new proposals developed by EWG 23-01 based on updated MEDISEH layers is similar to the one used during EWG 22- 01. Updated MEDISEH layers were used for priority species (ARA, MUT and HKE) in combination with old MEDISEH layers for other species and distribution maps of commercial effort from EWG 22-01. Calculation of the percentage of the trawlable GSA area closed to fishing is higher in EMU 1 than EMU 2, therefore the estimation of additional closure areas on top of the existing ones foccused on this management unit. Additional closure areas to test were based on persistence hotsposts from survey data and from areas of high effort in order to impact directly on the reduction of fishing mortality. The EWG notes that the exisiting and additional closures could be tested only in EMU 2 and GSA 7 as for GSA 1, 5 and 6 the extension of the spatially-explicit model ISIS-Fish is not complete yet and it is still limited to a single species (HKE). The EWG notes that closure areas in GSA 7 were tested with two different methods. A static method comparing effort distribution data before and after the closures implementation in 2020, and a dynamic method applying ISIS-Fish. The first method showed how the establishment of the spatio-temporal closure imposed a strong seasonal constraint to the fishing effort in the Gulf of Lions, and that the fishermen community responded quite well to the new rule, although vessels increased their fishing effort along the closure border, with a typical « fishing the line » pattern, especially in the fall. The second model showed that introducing an additional closure did not improve the rebuilding of the hake stock, while changing the closures from seasonal to permanent suggested the strongest effect. The EWG notes that in EMU 2 that temporal closures for the whole fleet reduce global effort while additional spatial closures increase effort towards coastal areas (depths

Eine Grundregel der Gemeinsamen Fischereipolitik (GFP) ist die „relative Stabilität“: ein fester Verteilungsschlüssel der EU-Höchstfangmengen auf die Mitgliedstaaten. Ein Problem dieses festen Verteilungsschlüssels ist, dass er auf historischen Fängen aus den 1970er Jahren beruht, die nicht mehr der heutigen Zusammensetzung der Fänge und der Flotten entsprechen. Hauptgründe sind die Änderungen in der Verteilung der Arten durch den Klimawandel und der Verlust an Fangoptionen durch den Brexit. In der Konsequenz können Fischer die verfügbaren Ressourcen nur noch bedingt ausnutzen. Zusätzlich dürfen quotierte Arten nach Einführung der Anlandepflicht 2015 nicht mehr zurückgeworfen werden und die Fischerei muss eingestellt werden, sobald die Quote einer Art in einer gemischten Fischerei ausgeschöpft ist. Zahlreiche Ausnahmeregelungen von der Anlandepflicht versuchen diesen Fehler zu korrigieren, aber die Ausnahmen konterkarieren das Ziel der Verringerung unerwünschter Beifänge. Das aktuelle System ermöglicht den Tausch von Quoten zwischen den Nationen als Möglichkeit für mehr Flexibilität, allerdings sind die bürokratischen Auflagen hoch und durch den Brexit haben sich die Tauschoptionen mit dem Vereinigten Königreich verschlechtert. Einige der deutschen Fischereien, wie beispielsweise die Fischerei auf Kaisergranat, sind jedoch auf diesen Tausch angewiesen. Auch innerhalb Deutschlands werden die Fangquoten nach einem festen Schlüssel vergeben, was die Flexibilität auf nationaler Ebene beschränkt. Allerdings gibt es derzeit keine echte Alternative zur relativen Stabilität. Anpassungen des Schlüssels und eine größere Flexibilität wären jedoch sinnvoll., A basic rule of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is "relative stability": a fixed distribution key of the EU share of the Maximum Allowable Catch among Member States. One problem with this fixed distribution key is that it is based on historical landings from the 1970s, which no longer reflect the current composition of catches and fleets. The main reasons are changes in the distribution of species due to climate change and the loss of fishing opportunities due to Brexit. As a consequence, fishermen will only be able to utilise the available resources to a limited extent. In addition, regulated species are not allowed to discard after the introduction of the landing obligation in 2015, and fishing must stop once one species' quota is exhausted in a mixed fishery. Numerous exemptions from the landing obligation attempt to lower this risk, but the exemptions thwart the goal of reducing unwanted bycatch. The current system allows for the swapping of quotas between nations as a way to provide more flexibility. However, bureaucratic burdens are high and Brexit has worsened swap options with the United Kingdom. However, some of Germany's fisheries, such as the Norway lobster fishery, are essential to swap. Within Germany, fishing quotas are also allocated according to a fixed key, which also limits flexibility at the national level. However, there is currently no real alternative to relative stability. Nevertheless, adjustments to the key and greater flexibility would be useful.

In der vorliegenden Stellungnahme setzt sich das Thünen-Institut mit der Frage auseinander, wie sich wichtige Strategiepapiere, die die EU-Kommission und die Bundesregierung im zurückliegenden Jahr veröffentlicht haben, voraussichtlich auf Landwirtschaft, Forstwirtschaft und Fischerei auswirken werden. Im Einzelnen handelt es sich um: Green Deal, Farm-to-Fork-Strategie, Biodiversitätsstrategie 2030, Aktionsprogramm Insektenschutz. Die Strategiepapiere sind zumeist vage formuliert und lassen hinsichtlich der jeweils erforderlichen Politikmaßnahmen einen weiten Interpretationsspielraum zu. Eine solide quantitative Politikfolgen-abschätzung ist somit nicht möglich, denn deren Ergebnisse hingen von zahlreichen (spekulativen) Annahmen über konkrete Politikmaßnahmen ab. Außerdem weisen die Papiere erhebliche thematische Überschneidungen auf, d. h. ein und dasselbe Themenfeld (z. B. Klimaschutz, Biodiversität) wird in mehreren Strategiepapieren adressiert. Vor diesem Hintergrund beschränkt sich die vorliegende Stellungnahme darauf, für die Gesamtheit der Strategien qualitativ abzuschätzen, wie sich bestimmte Themenfelder voraussichtlich entwickeln werden, sofern die Politik die in den Strategien deklarierten Ziele mit bestimmten Maßnahmen (Politikoptionen) verfolgen wird. Aus dieser Diskussion der verschiedenen Politikoptionen werden Empfehlungen an die Politik abgeleitet.

The Workshop on guidelines and methods for the evaluation of rebuilding plans (WKREBUILD) chaired by Vanessa Trijoulet (Denmark) and Martin Pastoors (Netherlands) met from 24 to 28 February 2020. The workshop attracted 27 participants from the US, Canada, Europe and FAO. When stocks are estimated to be below Blim1 and there is no perceived possibility of rebuilding above Blim within the time-frame of a short-term forecast, ICES has regularly recommended zero catch in combination with the development of a rebuilding plan. A review was carried out on the international experience on the development, evaluation and implementation of rebuilding plans for fisheries management in the Northeast Atlantic and in other fora around the world. In the Northeast Atlantic, rebuilding plans have been implemented in the past (e.g. the cod recovery plans of the early 2000s) but ICES has played a limited role in evaluating the performance of such recovery plans and does not have the tools or criteria to evaluate such plans. Recently, when a rebuilding plan for herring in 6.a 7.bc was submitted to ICES for evaluation, ICES refrained from providing such an evaluation. In the US and Canadian approaches, the legal framework determines the triggering and required elements of rebuilding plans. Such a legal imperative does not exist in the Northeast Atlantic. Nevertheless, the US and Canadian experiences provided useful elements that could be included in establishing ICES approach to rebuilding plans. Several case studies were presented on potential tools for the evaluation of rebuilding plans. Particular attention was given to evaluating options for harvest control rule options of such a plan. The tools focused mostly on short to medium term explorations of the probability of achieving a rebuilding of stocks. Because rebuilding plan evaluations need to be ready and available at short-notice when required, it was concluded that relatively standardized tools (i.e. packages or compiled code) to carry out such evaluations would be preferable over custommade evaluation tools. In addition, certain modelling considerations were highlighted as important such as realistic assumptions of productivity, uncertainty, bias in assessments and implementation error and the possibility of estimating the probability of achieving a rebuilding of stocks.Criteria for the acceptability of rebuilding plans will require an agreed Limit Reference Point (LRP) for initiating a rebuilding plan, definition of targets for fishing mortality or stock biomass, time-frames and the acceptable probabilities whether the rebuilding targets have been achieved. All of these should take into account realistic levels of uncertainty and being consistent with international best (scientific) practices. Although it was recognized that Blim would be the most likely candidate LRP triggering a rebuilding plan, the current approach in ICES for the determination of Blim was questioned during the workshop because it requires a more or less subjective classification of the stock-recruitment pairs into different types. In other regions, the LRP is often set as a certain proportion of the SSB at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY), e.g. 40% BMSY. If changes in productivity have been experienced in recent years at these are taken into account when estimating MSY reference points, the proportion of BMSY approach would likely lead to greater changes in the estimated value of LRP than the current ICES procedures used to estimate Blim, which rely on stock-recruitment pairs or definition of the lowest observed biomass (Bloss). This could have a large impact on the rebuilding target for stocks that experience changes in productivity regimes. Some concerns were raised regarding the often small distance between Blim and MSY Btrigger2 reference points for ICES stocks in comparison to the distance between trigger and limit in other jurisdictions. MSY Btrigger could therefore represent a late trigger to start decreasing fishing mortality when SSB is decreasing. The workshop recommended a future workshop on the revision of the procedure to estimate reference points within the ICES framework.An estimate of the minimum time (TMIN) by which rebuilding may be expected to be achieved, could be calculated by assuming zero catch and should be used as baseline for comparison with other rebuilding scenarios. The maximum time for rebuilding in the US and New Zealand is set to TMAX = 2 * TMIN or to TMIN plus one generation time1 (average length of time between when an individual is born and the birth of its offspring NRC (2014)). While the workshop did not arrive at an overall agreement on a default value for TMAX, it was suggested that TMAX = 2 * TMIN could be explored as a potential bounding on the rebuilding period, even though this should be subject to scientific analysis of potential effects on the stock in question. The workshop generated a guidance table summarizing the best practices for evaluation of rebuilding plans against the potential criteria of acceptability. The guidance table includes elements such as estimation of reference points, time-frames for rebuilding, rebuilding targets, handling uncertainties and bias, probability of achieving rebuilding targets and visualizing results. The workshop recommended that a follow-up workshop (WKREBUILD2) be organized for testing the guidelines with actual test cases, with the aim of defining more specific criteria and guidelines, i.e. learning by doing. Some of the elements that were discussed in the workshop but that have not (yet) entered the guidelines for evaluation of rebuilding plans are socio-economic trade-offs (e.g. between fast and slow rebuilding), mixed fisheries aspects (e.g. unavoidable bycatch due to mixed fisheries) and elements in rebuilding plans other than the HCR part (e.g. monitoring to improve the knowledge base). Most of the discussion at WKREBUILD was centred on stocks with analytical assessments (Category 1+2). Identifying when a data limited stock is in need of rebuilding (or has rebuilt) and how to evaluate rebuilding plan options for such stocks would likely require a separate process.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) not hold its 63rd Plenary Meeting as originally foreseen on 16-20 March 2020 but was requested to draft its advice by written procedure instead.-- 94 pages, The STECF was originally planned to meet in plenary on 16-20 March at the JRC, Ispra. Due to the emergent covid-19 situation in northern Italy and later on the whole of Europe, the meeting was first shifted to Brussels, and then cancelled and replaced by a written procedure with STECF members addressing the ToRs from their home offices. The original ToRs were re-prioritised by the Commission in order to facilitate the STECF working under non-ideal conditions. In addition, the Commission supported the STECF chair and vice-chair, rapporteurs and those STECF members being able to contribute to the written procedure by issuing individual ad hoc contracts. Below DG MARE lists the points to be developed under written procedure. All other points originally included in the draft ToR and Agenda are either postponed to one of the future plenaries or to be dealt with under different procedures, or will no longer be dealt with by STECF. After consultation within DG MARE, this exceptional written procedure to replace the Plenary March session, will need to deal with the following points and ToR. These concern, in summary: - 2 points in the Atlantic – both technical measures - 3 points in the Med – some diversity in the subject - 1 point in the Black Sea – on data collection. Finalization of the written procedure on all topics was foreseen for 3 April 2020

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) held its 65th plenary as virtual meeting from 9-13 November 2020.-- 152 pages, 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

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. The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries held its 64th plenary as a virtual meeting from 6 to 10 July 2020.

The main aim of this publication is to highlight the current thinking in ecosystem service valuation for the marine environment. Valuation of the benefits stemming from marine ecosystem services, including often unnoticed benefits to society, can help to assess the long-term sustainability of blue growth, support policy development and marine management decisions, and raise awareness of the importance of the marine environment to society and in the economy. Recommendations are made on how to incorporate outputs from valuation studies into the traditional analyses used in resource and environmental economics and into the European marine policy landscape and related management and decision making choices. The publication is primarily aimed at stakeholders interested in valuation of marine ecosystem services and natural capital accounting, spanning diverse roles from commissioning, managing, funding and coordinating, to developing, implementing, or advising on, marine ecosystem service and natural capital programmes. Such programmes will have strategic and policy drivers but their main purpose may vary from predominantly research driven science to provision of valuation data and reporting to legally-binding regulations or directives. The main focus is on European capabilities but set in a global context with the various actors spanning a variety of geographical scales from national to regional and European. Key stakeholder organizations include environmental or other agencies; marine research institutions, their researchers and operators; international and regional initiatives and programmes; national, regional and European policy makers and their advisors. It will also be of interest to the wider marine and maritime research and policy community. The publication recommends: 1. Marine ecosystem valuation should be used to support policy making, regulation and management and decision making; 2. The quality and availability of monetary and non-monetary valuation data should be improved and increased through research, development and implementation actions; 3. The spatial and temporal dimensions of ecosystem valuation need to be mapped and their implications for policy and management decisions assessed; 4. In order to strengthen the use and derivation of ecosystem service values to support policy, regulation and management, underpinning research and development actions should be undertaken: a. To improve understanding of the role of marine biodiversity and ecosystem processes in providing services and benefits; b. To improve modelling approaches to support ecosystem valuation and decision making; 5. Systems to enable and use marine natural capital accounting and enhance the experimental ecosystem accounts should be further developed and implemented including: a. A natural capital portfolio approach utilising existing marine data sets and assessment results and addressing scale and aggregation as well as ecosystem degradation; b. Valuation methods for both ecosystem services and assets that can be standardised and are compatible with National Accounting; c. Payment for marine ecosystem services and other financing mechanisms to restore marine natural capital and improve its sustainable use.

This publication highlights current thinking in ecosystem service valuation for the marine environment. Valuation of the direct and indirect benefits (for either societal welfare, health and economic activities) stemming from marine ecosystem services, can help to assess the long-term sustainability of blue growth, support policy development and marine management decisions, and raise awareness of the importance of the marine environment to society and in the economy. Recommendations are made on how to incorporate outputs from valuation studies into the traditional analyses used in resource and environmental economics and into the European marine policy landscape and related management and decision making choices.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) hold its 60th plenary on 25-29 March 2019at JRC, Ispra, Italy.-- 159 pages, 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

Globally fish has become more important in the human nutrition, thus global consumption is expected to highly increase in the future years. Business-as-usual projections for fish market are limited by availability of reliable data that hinders the differentiation on fish category level on the supply and demand side and across EU member states. The Fishmodul in AGEMEMOD provides long term predictions for the fish market by fish categories at EU member state level. For this, a status-quo simulation to the year 2030 is developed in AGMEMOD. Additionally, opinions of market experts from private sector and research institutions through interviews and an elaborated questionnaire is integrated into the model to deal with the insufficient information. Thus, expertise knowledge provides better and accurate information of the sector for market projections. As results, baseline projections were adjusted, showing a slowly increase over the years, but higher production level by 2030., Proceedings in Food System Dynamics, Proceedings in System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2017

Although there exists an EU-Norway long-term management plan for North Sea saithe, including a catch regulation, the spawning stock biomass has declined in the last few years, recruitment has been below average since 2006 and growth rates are low. Moreover, catch rates used as a proxy of stock abundance in stock assessment, are believed to decline much more slowly than the actual stock abundance. Thus, a quota-based system may not be sufficient to sustain the stock. A bio-economic simulation and optimisation model was used to explore how various area closures in combination with the quota-system affect levels of by-catch, net profit of individual fleet segments from different ports, and stock development in that fishery. Tested area closures differed in duration, size and location relative to major ports and to seasonal movement patterns of species. These closures were tested under variable recruitment. Area closures that were covering the seasonal migration route of saithe revealed almost two times greater increases in spawning stock biomass than closures that were not covering the migration route. Even area closures where a high dispersal rate of individuals was assumed resulted in increased spawning stock biomass of saithe. Benefits of the tested area closures were distributed heterogeneously among individual fleet segments. Increases of saithe stock size were offset by increases in cod by-catch. The location of an area closure relative to the home port of fleet segments decided if steaming costs increased and catches decreased.

Globally fish has become more important in the human nutrition, thus global consumption is expected to highly increase in the future years. Business-as-usual projections for fish market are limited by availability of reliable data that hinders the differentiation on fish category level on the supply and demand side and across EU member states. The Fishmodul in AGEMEMOD provides long term predictions for the fish market by fish categories at EU member state level. For this, a status-quo simulation to the year 2030 is developed in AGMEMOD. Additionally, opinions of market experts from private sector and research institutions through interviews and an elaborated questionnaire is integrated into the model to deal with the insufficient information. Thus, expertise knowledge provides better and accurate information of the sector for market projections. As results, baseline projections were adjusted, showing a slowly increase over the years, but higher production level by 2030.

We present options for a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany (NEA-DE) that could inform decision-makers on the state and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Characterizing a NEA-DE, we argue that its cross-sectoral, integrative approach would have the advantages of increased scientific understanding, addressing specific policy questions and creating science-policy dialogues. Challenges include objections against a utilitarian perspective, reservations concerning power relations, and responsibilities concerning the funding.