Search

Das Projekt STELLA (STELlnetz-Lösungs-Alternativen) zielte darauf ab, Lösungen für die Mitigation unerwünschter Beifänge von Seevögeln und Meeressäugern und damit für den Ausgleich der Konflikte zwischen Naturschutzinteressen und den Interessen der Küstenfischerei in der Ostsee zu finden. Das Projekt wurde vom Thünen-Institut für Ostseefischerei (OF) von November 2016 bis Januar 2020 aus Mitteln des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit in Kooperation mit dem Bundesamt für Naturschutz durchgeführt. Von Februar bis Juli 2020 wurden noch ausstehende Arbeiten aus Mitteln des Thünen-Instituts fortgeführt. Die Ziele des Projektes wurden in fünf Arbeitspaketen (AP) bearbeitet: AP1 zielte auf eine verbesserte Erhebung von Aufwands- und Fangdaten aus der Stellnetzfischerei; AP 2 fokussierte auf die technische Verbesserung von Stellnetzen, um unerwünschte Beifänge zu reduzieren; AP3 widmete sich Verbesserungen an zwei Alternativen zum Stellnetz, der Fischfalle und der Hebereuse; das sozialwissenschaftliche AP4 befasste sich mit der fischereilichen Handlungspraxis in Bezug auf die Vermeidung unerwünschter Beifänge. AP5 schließlich bildete aus den Ergebnissen der APs 1 bis 4 die Synthese und leitete Handlungsempfehlungen für die Politik ab. [...] The project STELLA (Gillnet-Solution-Approaches) aimed at finding finding solutions for the mitigation of unwanted by-catches of sea birds and marine mammals, and thus reconcile nature conservation interests and the interests of coastal fisheries in the Baltic Sea. The project was carried out by the Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries (OF) from November 2016 to January 2020, funded by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety in cooperation with the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. From February to July 2020, pending work was continued with funds of the Thünen Institute. The objectives of the project were executed in five work packages (WP): WP1 aimed to improve data collection from the gillnet fishery; WP 2 focused on technical modifications of gillnets to reduce unwanted bycatches; WP3 addressed improvements to two alternatives to the gillnet, the fish trap and the pontoon trap; the social-science WP4 dealt with the fishing practice in relation to the avoidance of undesirable by-catches. Finally, WP5 synthesised the results of WPs 1 to 4 and derived recommendations to policy makers. [...]

The ICES Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Methodology (WGMIXFISH-METHODS) meet to progress work on the improvement and development of the mixed fisheries advice. In this report the group provides a summary of the work completed in 2020. Work continued on the full documentation of the mixed fisheries advice production process, including workflows, code repositories, stock annexes and associated documentation for all advice regions. A review was completed of the new data call and associated quality control procedures to identify possible areas of improvements. Working group participants responded to the outcomes and issues encountered during WGMIXFISH-Advice 2019 for Celtic Sea, Iberian Waters, and North Sea. A full list of issues and solutions were collated and discussed during the meeting. Additionally, work continued on the development of mixed fisheries advice for three new advice regions: Bay of Biscay, Irish Sea, and Kattegat.The working group responded to the outcomes of the Mixed Fisheries Scoping Meeting (WKMIXFISH), identifying timelines and requirements to meet the growing needs for mixed fisheries advice. To support these growing needs the group members presented and discussed new techniques in the field of mixed fisheries.

The ICES Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Methodology (WGMIXFISH-METHODS) met to progress work on the improvement and development of the mixed fisheries advice. In this report the group provides a summary of the work completed in 2021.Work continued on the full review and documentation of the mixed fisheries advice production process, including workflows, code repositories, stock annexes, data, and associated documentation for all advice regions.Working group participants responded to the outcomes and issues encountered during WGMIXFISH-Advice 2020 for Bay of Biscay, Celtic Sea, Iberian Waters, and North Sea. A full list of issues and solutions were collated and discussed during the meeting. Additionally, work continued on the development of mixed fisheries advice for on the Irish Sea. The working group responded to the outcomes of the Scoping workshop on next generation of mixed fisheries advice (WKMIXFISH 2020), identifying timelines and requirements to meet the growing needs for mixed fisheries advice. To support these growing needs the group members presented and discussed new techniques in the field of mixed fisheries.

The potential for exemption from the European Union (EU) Common Fisheries Policy’s (CFP) landing obligation (discard ban), where high discard survival can be demonstrated, has identified the need for scientific guidelines to conduct discard survival assessments. Robust estimates of discard survival can be used to justify exemptions from the landing obligation and inform on levels of post-release fishing mortality, which can then be accounted for in stock assessments.The Working Group on Methods for Estimating Discard Survival (WGMEDS) set out to review and update ICES guidance on Methods to Estimate Discard Survival and complete meta-analyses of discard survival evidence to investigate variables influencing survival, with a view to influencing survival through modified fishing practices. We also explored the demand for ongoing monitoring requirements to inform on discard survival and took a proactive approach to sharing discard survival estimates with those working in stock assessment so that new evidence could be applied more widely.In the past three years, the considerable investment in research in to discard survival, specifically from EU countries, has continued. The main outputs from WGMEDS include enhancements to the ICES guidance on how to quantify discard survival. This has supported the work of group members to estimate discard survival in a variety species-fishery combinations, including Nephrops, mackerel, plaice, common sole, eels, rays, much of which has been put forward as evidence to support exemptions from the EU discard ban. A critical review framework developed by WGMEDS has been used by the EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) to assess the quality of discard survival evidence for proposed exemptions. There has been a high impact of work produced by the members of the group – specifically in multiple new EU regulated exemptions from the landing obligation. This has permitted fishers to continue discarding defined species and so assisting the implementation of the EU discardban.Future work is expected to focus on applying discard survival estimates in stock assessments. This would include developing guidance to assist assessment expert groups to determine whether available survival studies can be applied. It would require reviewing and assessing the quality and confidence in available discard survival estimates and exploring the potential to combine the results of survival studies so the effect of different variables could be accounted for in estimating an overall best survival estimate. Ultimately, we would aim to include estimates of discard survival in catch scenarios in the ICES advice sheets.

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 purpose of the meeting was to bring up to date the methodologies and technical specifications that should be incorporated in Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) work in ICES. The workshop was tasked with reviewing recent methodological and practical MSE work conducted in ICES and around the world, as well as the guidelines provided by the 2013 ICES Workshop on Guidelines for Management Strategy Evaluations (WKGMSE). The Terms of Reference indicated that the revision should include all aspects involved in MSE, while paying specific attention to several issues that had been identified through ICES practice. The Terms of Reference also requested WKGMSE 2 to consider how best to disseminate the guidelines to experts within the ICES community and the need for training courses. The workshop addressed all its Terms of Reference. The main results of the workshop are the revised MSE guidelines, as well as recommendations in relation to the ICES criterion for defining a management strategy as precautionary and in relation to the evaluation and advice on rebuilding strategies.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) hold its 61st plenary on 1-5 July 2019 at the Centre Borschette, Brussels.-- 139 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

The second Workshop on Tradeoffs Scenarios between the Impact on Seafloor Habitats and Provisions of catch/value (WKTRADE2) was established to provide input on trade-offs aspects to the Working group on Fisheries Benthic Impact and Trade-offs (WGFBIT). As such, the workshop was tasked to: 1) demonstrate the applicability of a set of approaches to better estimate fisheries revenue; 2) establish ways to assess effort reduction scenarios; and 3) explore how to (better) incorporate social factors associated with fisheries. The workshop suggests that to improve estimates of the “value” of an area to fisheries that the contribution margin (income from landings minus variable costs) should be calculated. To do this two complementary approaches (disaggregation and mechanistic) are presented and can be developed using the current ICES VMS and logbook data, supplemented with economic data layers. A modular workflow to integrate the variables into the assessment is also presented. Furthermore, the workshop found that redistribution of total revenue among individual fishers and fishers’ communities will need to be considered to accurately predict displacement effects and impact evaluation on fisheries economics. Applying predictive modelling techniques adds to assessing a static picture (current fishing activity) because it considers displacement effects which may elucidate increased pressure on essential fish habitats, sensitive vulnerable habitats, or previously untrawled areas. To better identify trade-offs between ecological, economic and social factors for use by the ICES working group WGFBIT, the workshop recommends also using integrative approaches (e.g. bioeconomic models, stakeholder engagement) that account for direct linkages between fish, fisheries and benthos dynamics to address issues related to MSFD, CFP and spatial management plans in a consistent way. When considering the effects of displacement the contribution margin should be accounted for as the fishing closures are likely to have indirect (positive or negative) effects. For example, protecting part of the fish stocks might lead to better catch rates and therefore fuel savings, etc. The workshop also found static models to be operational and more easily used to identify impacted fishing fleets. While, dynamic modelling approaches allow for the adaptation of fishing fleets (e.g. displacement, gear modifications), potentially mitigating the estimated impact of spatial and temporal restrictions. Static approaches are easy to use in stakeholder processes, and can facilitate stakeholder engagement. Future development of static and dynamic models will need to account for the influence of other activities (e.g. closures due to wind farm) on fisheries activities. Running scenarios using dynamic models will indicate which areas are most valuable to fisheries after spatial management scenarios are proposed. This elicits the socio-economic valuable fisheries areas. The workshop’s focus was on the spatial management scenarios so far identified by the working group WGFBIT, but the suggested workflow can also be used to address other scenarios, e.g. technical measures aimed at reducing gear penetration depths, disturbance effects and improving selectivity, habitat credits approaches that define credits related to the sensitivity of habitat and convey credits to the fishing industry to manage either collectively or individually. The workshop also identified some follow-up work that working group WGFBIT could take on to both to improve the current scenario testing on spatial restrictions, as well as how to deal with fleet adaptation/effort displacement in reaction to the spatial restrictions. This work would benefit by stronger links to ICES working groups WGECON and WGSOCIAL to ensure the required fisheries economic expertise.

We consider the problem of regulating the rate of harvesting a natural resource, taking account of the wider system represented by a set of ecological and economic indicators, given differing stakeholder priorities. This requires objective and transparent decision making to show how indicators impinge on the resulting regulation decision. We offer a new scheme for combining indicators, derived from assessing the suitability of lowering versus not lowering the harvest rate based on indicator values relative to their predefined reference levels. Using the practical example of fisheries management under an “ecosystem approach,” we demonstrate how different stakeholder views can be quantitatively represented by weighting sets applied to these comparisons. Using the scheme in an analysis of historical data from the Celtic Sea fisheries, we find great scope for negotiating agreement among disparate stakeholders.

In situations of declining or depleted fish stocks, exploiters seem to have fallen prey to the Tragedy of the Commons, which occurs when the maximisation of short-term self-interest produces outcomes leaving all participants worse off than feasible alternatives would. Standard economic theory predicts that in social dilemmas, such as fishing from a common resource, individuals are not willing to cooperate and sacrifice catches in the short term, and that, consequently, the resource is overharvested. However, over the last decades, a multitude of research has shown that humans often achieve outcomes that are 'better than rational' by building conditions where reciprocity, reputation, and trust help to overcome the temptations of short-term self-interest. The evolution of the natural human tendency to cooperate under certain conditions can be explained, and its neuro-physiological and genetic bases are being unravelled. Nevertheless, fisheries management still often deploys top-down regulation and economic incentives in its aim to regulate fisher behaviour, and under-utilizes the potential for spontaneous responsible fisher behaviour through setting conditions that enhance natural cooperative tendencies. Here I introduce this body of knowledge on how to overcome the Tragedy of the Commons to the audience of fisheries scientists, hoping to open up novel ways of thinking in this field. I do this through a series of thought experiments, based on actual published experiments, exploring under what conditions responsible and cooperative fisher behaviour can be expected. Keys include reputation-building and indirect reciprocity, face-to-face communication, knowledge on the state of the resource, and self-decision on rules and sanctions.