Search

The JRC presented a brief review of the current STECF system in place to provide advice on Mediterranean fisheries management and data collection issues. JRC highlighted some structural risks and inefficiencies that currently exist. The review explored some examples of integrated actions that could reduce or mitigate such risks. Such actions as part of a long-term strategy would lead to a proactive advisory process as opposed to the current more reactive sequence of individual steps considered by STECF. STECF notes this initiative from the JRC and aims to revisit the topic in time for development of the next management plan stage, post 2025. On 21 February 2023, the Commission adopted the Fisheries and Ocean package consisting of four documents: the Communication on the functioning of the CFP, the Action Plan “Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable and resilient fisheries”, the Energy transition initiative and the report on the functioning of the Common Market Organisation (CMO). The package brings together all different aspects of the EU’s policy on fisheries and the Ocean, looking at the future, and at how we can ensure that fisheries continue to grow in resilience and sustainability. With this package, the European Commission plans on launching a policy discussion with all institutions and stakeholders the EU’s policy on fisheries and the Ocean European Commission Published Refereed

European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) is a small pelagic species of high commercial importance in European waters, in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. Ages reading on anchovy are important input data for the assessment and carried out by number of laboratories using international ageing criteria. The report on the latest workshop on age reading of European anchovy (WKARA, ICES 2009) stated that the frequency of workshops and exchanges on age reading of anchovy in the past had been good for Atlantic areas (mainly for the Bay of Biscay), and had been very poor for the Mediterranean areas. As well as for the Bay of Biscay have been many exchanges and workshops since the 90s (Astudillo et al 1990; Villamor and Uriarte, 1996; Uriarte, 2002a; Uriarte et al., 2002, 2006 and 2007), and the Gulf of Cadiz (Garcia, 1998; Uriarte et al., 2002), only one has been done for the Mediterranean areas (ICES, 2009). In this latter was the first time that anchovy otoliths of Atlantic and Mediterranean were included together. All workshops discussed and made an effort to standardize age reading methods by preparing a manual and a reference collection of agreed age otoliths. The overall result of the last exchange and workshop exercise in 2009 was that there were significant variations in anchovy age estimates between readers and areas. Low precision, and large relative biases between readers and areas were found. Most of the anchovy otoliths were not well classified by most of the readers during the 2009 exchange, excluding the results of the readers of the Bay of Biscay (BB readers), which seem to be satisfactory. Possibly the success of the readers of the Bay of Biscay set, compared with the other sets, is because exchanges and workshops have been conducted since 1990 in this area, and there are sufficient criteria for the interpretation of anchovy otoliths. Following these findings all participants in the workshop agreed to follow the guidelines of the WKARA report for the decided upcoming exchange of images to facilitate an evaluation of the guidelines. The Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS, ICES 2014a) indicated that an otolith exchange on anchovy should be organized in 2014, in order to ascertain the current level of precision among institutes and the difficulties that the age reading of anchovy otoliths present. This report represents the results of this exchange summarizing the readings of 18 readers of 10 European laboratories in five countries. The exchange was carried out from November 2014 to March 2015, organized by IEO and AZTI (Spain).

MSE testing of harvest control rules based on trends in biomass indices were analysed for generic anchovy-, sprat-, and sardine-like stocks, including several operating models. Consideration was given to coupling with different Uncertainty Cap (UC) levels and biomass safeguards, and the application of simple constant harvest rates.With regards to the coupling in time between assessment, advice, and management: results from WKDLSSLS1 were confirmed, indicating that the shorter the lag between observations, advice, and management, the bigger the catches and the smaller the risks, whereby in-year advice should always be preferred over the usual calendar (with an interim year) advice.Rules of type 1-over-2 outperform 2-over-3 (also called 1o2 and 2o3 respectively). When applied alone (without any Uncertainty cap or Biomass safeguard) for the sprat 7.de-like stock, it was shown that the 1o2 rule is capable or reducing risk faster than the 2o3 and reaching levels below 0.05 in the long term, while the latter does not. In addition, the simulations on anchovy and sardine-like stocks show that even after combining these rules with symmetric and asymmetric Uncertainty cap levels, rule 1o2 results in smaller risks for the same catch levels as the 2o3 rules, given a common Uncertainty cap level, which indicates that 1o2 outperforms 2o3 rules for these short-lived species.For all operating models, it was found that the 1o2 rule with symmetric UC(-0.8,0.8) implies faster reduction of risks than for any other tested UCs (particularly in the medium term), though at the expense of greater reductions of yield. For almost all Operating Models (OMs), the 1o2 rule with 20% cap was the least precautionary option. In general, inclusion of a biomass safeguard remarkably reduces risk in the medium and long terms by slightly reducing the relative yields for the stocks that have been historically over-exploited. A biomass safeguard based on Istat (geometricMean(Ihist)•e-1.645•sd(log(Ihist)) is proposed due to the greater robustness to the length of historical observations.Application of both an uncertainty cap and a biomass safeguard (Istat) to the 1o2 rule appears to perform better across all OMs and time-scales than either mechanism on its own. For short-lived stocks presumed to have been subject to an exploitation level before management at or above proxy FMSY levels the 1o2 rule with 80% symmetric uncertainty cap and with biomass safeguard (Istat) is the preferred option due to the faster reduction of risk levels in the first ten years (medium term). However, it should be noted that for stocks, which have likely been lightly exploited in the past, other rules may show a better balance between catches and risks. Hence, an earlier assessment of the past exploitation of the stock is very relevant to select the most suitable HCR for the management.Application of constant harvest rate rules can maintain constant risks, but are not able to move the stock towards precautionary levels when starting from high risk status, therefore, they require careful analysis of sustainable reference levels of harvest rates. Global comparisons suggest that when a careful tunning of a sustainable constant harvest rate is made by taking into account the stock life history and catchability and CV of the observation index, then such aconstant har-vest rate strategy will result in higher sustainable catches for the standard allowable levels of risks (0.05). However, if such a tuning is not achievable because of poor knowledge of the stock or of the observation properties, then the WK recommends for short-lived small pelagic fish stocks, the former trend rule 1o2 with a symmetric Uncertainty Cap constraint of 80% and with Biomass safeguard (Istat). However, due to the catch reduction properties it has, this trend rule should be considered a provisional HCR with the aim of achieving a better management system in about ten years or earlier. Longer application may lead to major losses of catches to the fishery in the long term.The work of WKDLSSLS is considered unfinished. Further research on the definition of optimal harvest control rules for data-limited short-lived stocks is ongoing. Therefore, the suggested either tuned constant harvest rate or the trend rule should be taken as an interim (provisional) proposal while guidelines are refined in 2021.

The Workshop on the Development of Quantitative Assessment Methodologies based on Lifehistory traits, exploitation characteristics, and other relevant parameters for data-limited stocks (WKLIFE X), chaired by Carl O'Brien (UK) and Manuela Azevedo (Portugal) met virtually 5–9 October 2020, to further develop methods for stock assessment and catch advice for stocks in Categories 3 and 4, focusing on the provision of sound advice rules that are within the ICES MSY framework. This tenth workshop was convened to further address the challenges to the evidence base for the provision of ICES advice with specific reference to data-limited stocks. There is an increasing number of fish stocks in Categories 3 and 4 for which assessment of status relative to MSY proxy reference points is available but for which short-term forecasts and MSY-based advice are not available. For assessments using the stochastic surplus production model in continuous time (SPiCT), WKLIFE X developed and evaluated ‘fractile rules’ that account for uncertainty and allow to consider any percentile and demonstrated that ‘fractile rules’ are more effective and precautionary than the median rule (50th percentile) and the ‘2 over-3’ rule. Additional work on advice rules for stocks in Category 3 based on life-history traits (k), tested through simulation and management strategy evaluation (MSE), showed that the addition of specific multipliers based on the stock’s life-history characteristics decreases the risk of the control rule´s performance. Annex 3 to this report contains the revised technical guidance on methods and advice rules for stocks in Category 3. The revision of the accumulated decade of ICES documentation on methods and advice for data-limited stocks into a stand-alone technical guidance document requires significant effort and dedicated work beyond the time available at the WKLIFE X meeting. It is proposed that a dedicated workshop be established to undertake and complete the updating and revision into a single reference document.

The Workshop on the Development of Quantitative Assessment Methodologies based on Life-history traits, exploitation characteristics, and other relevant parameters for data-limited stocks (WKLIFE) focuses on the provision of sound advice rules for data-limited stock (DLS) assessments that are within the ICES MSY framework. This ninth workshop was convened to further address the challenges to the evidence base for the provision of ICES advice with specific reference to DLS. The reviewers’ report of WKLIFE VIII (ICES, 2018) was used as the basis to draft ICES technical guidance on advice rules for stocks in Categories 3 and 4 following the meeting in 2018. The draft document reflected the conclusions of the WKLIFE VIII meeting report but in order to provide a good guidance document to the ICES community, some of the text and steps identified required further elaboration. The intersessional work undertaken ahead of this WKLIFE IX meeting provided a basis to revise the draft and during this WKLIFE IX meeting, the draft technical guidance was revised and updated. The draft report of, and recommendations from, the ICES workshop on data-limited stocks of short-lived species (WKDLSSLS) was re-viewed and additional simulation studies undertaken during WKLIFE IX, and the need for specific advice rules for these stocks examined. Annex 3 to this report contains the revised and agreed text by the participants at WKLIFE IX. Specifically, the draft ICES technical guidance was revised and amended based on the work presented at WKLIFE IX and its previous workshops with respect to short-term forecasts utilising a surplus production model (SPiCT – Stochastic Production model in Continuous Time), and harvest control rules for length-based approaches, for short-lived species, and for bycatch elasmobranch stocks.

The Workshop on Data Limited Stocks of Short-Lived Species aimed to provide guidelines on the estimation of MSY proxy reference points for category 3–4 short-lived species and to evaluate the management procedures currently in use and their appropriateness for short-lived species by means of Long-Term Management Strategy Evaluations (LT-MSE).In relation to assessment methods for short-lived data-limited stocks and estimation of biological and MSY proxy reference points, the WK focused on the application of SPICT (Pedersen and Berg, 2017). The WK was updated on recent improvements of SPiCT and the harvest control rules (HCRs) used to manage stocks after WKLIFE VII and VIII by including either the MSYfractile or MSY-PA rules. For the optimal SPiCT advice rule, users should refer to the update ICES guidelines. Work on fitting SPICT to case studies was made before and during the workshop: Assessments to Anchovy in 9.a South resulted in a satisfactory fitting of SPICT, whilst fitsto Anchovy in 9.a West and to Sprat 7.de were still unsatisfactory. In addition, there were some presentations on applications of SPiCT to several Cephalopod populations. Length-based indicators of stock status were discarded as generally they are not suitable for short-lived species where recruitment induces major interannual changes in the length distribution of catches. Aprovisional application of a two-stage assessment was presented for Sprat in 7de, but results were still provisional.In relation to the evaluation of management procedures for these stocks, MSE testing of harvest control rules based on trends of biomass indices were analysed for anchovy-, sprat-, and sardinelike stocks including several operating models. All simulations showed that the shorter the lag between observations, advice and management, the bigger the catches and the smaller the risk.This implies that In-year advice should always be preferred over the normal calendar (with an interim) year advice for these stocks. Major drivers of risks are by order of relevance: historical exploitation level (and trajectory), and the harvest control rule (HCR) with its selected Uncertainty Cap (UCap). This emphasizes the relevance of trying an initial assessment of the relative status of the stock regarding optimal exploitation to judge if a precautionary buffer is required to start management. Further work on the assessment of past exploitation level is required.Regarding the trend-based harvest control rules (HCRs): In general, 1-over-2 outperforms 2- over-3 rule (ICES default rule) because for quite similar catches the former implies lower risks. For symmetrical application of the interannual uncertainty cap, best performance (least risks for minimum reduction of catches) occurs using the 1-over-2 rule with a symmetrical 80% uncertaintycap. The riskiest performance results were from applying a 20% uncertainty cap, both for 1-over-2 and 2-over-3, and the performance worsens with time. For asymmetrical Uncertainty Caps, tested for rules with a maximum interannual upward revision of 20%, results showed optimal performance when allowing reductions of 60% or greater percentages from the previousadvices for in-year advice, and of 70% or greater for normal (calendar) advice. While the 1-over-2 rule with asymmetric uncertainty cap is the most precautionary, it implies a continued large reduction of catches. The 1-over-2 rule with no uncertainty cap gives the highest catches at all times. Intermediate rules in terms of balance between catches and risks are: 1-over-2 (with symmetrical80%Ucap) and 1-over-2 with biomass safeguard (using either Imin, the minimum past observed abundance index, or Itrigger, 1.4*Imin). Rule 1-over-2 with symmetrical 80% Uncertainty cap might be preferred as a good compromise between moderate risks and catches though it can lead to major reduction of catches in the long term.Given the trade-off between competing rules, it seems that selection of a rule should better be made in consultancy with managers and stake holders according to their objectives for each fishery.Further research will be needed on the definition of proxies for BRPs and of the optimal harvest control rules (including the SPiCT advice rules) for the management of these SLDLS, covering further testing of biomass safeguards and of asymmetric uncertainty caps or the use of constant or variant harvest rate strategies instead of the trend-based rules.

The ICES Workshop for management strategy evaluation for Norway Pout (WKNPOUT) took place 26–28 February 2018 at ICES Headquarter chaired by Andrés Uriarte, Spain, with the assistance of ICES Secretariat. 12 participants, both scientific experts and stakeholders, from Denmark and Norway, attended the meeting. The group addressed the special request from the European Union and Norway to advise on the long-term management strategies of Norway Pout in ICES Subarea 4 (North Sea) and ICES Division 3.a (Skagerrak-Kattegat). The proposed management strategy is based on the ICES escapement strategy with the aim of achieving a high probability of having the minimum SSB required to produce MSY (Blim) surviving to the following year. ICES was requested to evaluate: 1. Whether a management strategy is precautionary if the TAC is constrained with a lower bound in the range of 20 000 tonnes to 40 000 tonnes and an upper bound in the range of 150 000 tonnes to 250 000 tonnes, or another range suggested by ICES. 2. Whether such a strategy would be precautionary if the TAC constraints referred to in paragraph 1 are overridden by a constraint on the maximum value of fishing mortality (Fcap), and whether the application of the Fcap would allow a precautionary strategy with a higher minimum TAC than if the Fcap was not applied. 3. Whether a provision to override the minimum value of the TAC when the stock is forecast to be below some threshold value would allow a precautionary strategy with a higher minimum TAC than if the escape-clause was not included, and whether such a provision would provide any additional benefit to the inclusion of an Fcap as referred to in paragraph 2. The alternative management procedures were tested in the framework of a management strategy evaluation (MSE) set up according to the assessment model SESAM adopted for Norway pout in the 2016 benchmark. One thousand simulations (replicates) were projected over 20 years for each of the different harvest control rules. Each replicate begins in the 2018 TAC year which starts in quarter 4 of calendar year 2017. Each replicate randomly draws a true state of the system (starting population, age and quarterly fishing patterns and series of past recruitments) from the joint distribution estimated by the last stock assessment. This is taken as the approach best reflecting the uncertainties in the SESAM assessment. An alternative reducing the uncertainty in the initial stock numbers, recruitment and exploitation pattern at the median estimate from the last assessment was also tested. The simulations were conditioned by a maximum realized level of fishing mortality the fishery can exert (assumed at 0.89; Fhistorical), which means that the full TAC will not be taken if the required F exceeds this value. First the group tested whether the current ICES procedure for providing TAC advice for Norway Pout, based on an escapement strategy (the default method), was precautionary. Results showed that it is not precautionary (as tested with unconstrained levels of fishing mortality), because the probability of SSB falling below Blim is higher than 5%. This is probably linked to cases of very high TAC and F when very high recruitments occur, in association with observation errors in the assessment. This called for modifying the default escapement strategy either by setting an upper F (Fcap) or including conditions on TACmin/ TACmax as explored here. Concerning Request 1: The group tested HCR escapement strategies (as the default method) bounded by a combination of TACmin (at either 20, 30 or 40 kt) and TACmax (at 150 and 200 kt). Results show that these HCR were precautionary for TACmin at 20 kt for the two TACmax levels and for a TACmin at 30 kt when bounded by a TACmax of 150 kt. They gave median and mean TACs (around 100–130 kt depending upon the rule) and realized catches around 110–115 kt, with TACs set at TACmin or at TACmax around 20–24% and 36–46% of the cases respectively. In these cases, Fhistorical was reached in 9–16% of the years, which makes the results sensitive to the assumption that the fishery will not exceed catches requiring F above Fhistorical. Other combinations based on higher values of TACmin or TACmax led to unprecautionary outcomes. Concerning Request 2: The same combinations of TACmin and TACmax as for request 1 were explored with Fcap at either 0.3 or 0.4. Results showed that the inclusion of a Fcap increases the range of TACmin and TACmax combinations that are precautionary, reaching for Fcap up to a TACmin at 30 kt and a TACmax of 200 kt. On average, TACs become considerably lower when Fcap is applied (ranging between 72 and 97 kt depending upon the combinations) and realized catches did not exceed 92 kt. In general, TAC increases with increasing Fcap. The gain in average TAC by increasing TACmin or TACmax is minimal, but the TAC constraints affect the probability of falling below Blim. For these bounded rules, the probability of setting TAC at TACmin is very similar to the probability for HCRs without an Fcap, but the probability of reaching TACmax is considerably lower due to the application of the Fcap. The absolute changes in TAC between years are smaller with Fcap constraints as well, (in the order of 40 000 t) partly because of the lower TAC in general. Applying Fcap makes the HCR more robust to violations of the assumption of an Fhistorical, as the probability of reaching Fhistorical becomes significantly lower than for the HCR without an Fcap. The sensitivity of the performance of tested HCR to the alternative fittings of the stock recruitment relationship is minor, as shown for examples of rules with Fcap. Concerning request 3, due to time limitation and little interest from stakeholders to override the TACmin, the group did not fully cover this request, but an exercise was made to find out if the TACmin of 40 000 t might become precautionary under an alternative configuration of the escapement policy. An escapement strategy with a TACmin at 40 000 tonnes aiming at an escapement Biomass at 65 000 t instead of the current Blim (39 450 t) would become precautionary with combinations of Fcap in the range 0.3 to 0.4 and TACmax in the range 150 to 200 kt. TACmin would be set in around 48% of the years, which gives a median TAC slightly above TACmin. Mean TAC for the three HCR is in the same order of size as for Request 2. The Special request also asked ICES to evaluate whether the results of the MSE would be significantly changed if the TAC year were defined as 1 November to 31 October rather than a calendar year. The latter TAC year is applied to the EU Member States fishing in EU waters, while Norway uses the calendar year (January–December). Furthermore, ICES advice is produced based on a forecast from 1 October to 30 September, and ICES uses such forecast to advice management for the period 1 November- 31 October. The MSE adopted to answer the request follows the same practice. The WK has not compared the results of the MSE for the TAC year defined as 1 November to 31 October with those for a calendar year, as the latter would require a time shift in the assessment and forecast. The report includes some considerations on the current practice for advice and the TAC year.

Under the scope of the a4a Initiative a workshop dedicated to studying spatial effects on the stock dynamics of European Atlantic sardine took place in Ispra, Italy, the 14th to the 18th of December 2015, with the objectives of (i) explore a4a methods to assess the Southern sardine stock (Atlanto-Iberian stock) and compare the results with the current ICES assessment carried out with SS3; (ii) explore a4a methods to assess the Northern stock of sardine stock; and (iii) apply a4a to assess putative sub-stock units; discuss local depletion and mixing among sub-units of the stock. Sardine is fished mainly by UK, Netherlands France, Spain and Portugal across ICES areas VII, VIII and IXa. In France, Spain and Portugal sardine has significant social and economic importance to the fishing and canning industries. Sardine shows a complex population structure characterized by spatial heterogeneity in phenotypic characters and life-history traits. Evidence of spatial variability in dynamics does not preclude some fish mixing across the whole region, in agreement with both genetic homogeneity and the similarity in otolith element composition in larger fish. Current knowledge on sardine biology and dynamics is consistent with the hypothesis of a meta-population composed of three populations recruiting in the Bay of Biscay, off northern Portugal, and in the Gulf of Cadiz. The workshop looked into three options of spatial structures (i) current stock structure Bay of Biscay stock (BB; VIIIa,b) and Ibero Atlantic stock (IB; IXa and VIIIc); (ii) three separate sub-units Bay of Biscay, Northwest stock (NW; VIIIc, IXa-North to IXa-Central South) and South stock (S; IXa South); and (iii) a single stock. The a4a stock assessment model was used to estimate the dynamics of each sub-units in each option. To carry out the comparison across sub-units the models used were kept as similar as possible, to mitigate the effect that the choice of model can have on the final results. Uncertainty was estimated using MCMC with the ADMB implementation, which, in the most recent version, can be assessed through the FLa4a package. In the case of the overall stock, a sensitivity analysis about survey's data processing options was carried out, to investigate the robustness of the assessment results. For the Bay of Biscay a bayesian approach has also been implemented. In order to compare both methods (a4a and bayesian) a very simple separable model was selected. A visual evaluation of the consistency between the spatial hypothesis was done based on the SSB estimates, showing that both trends are remarkably similar until 2012, when they start to diverge. In 2012 the Iberian stock (sub-units NW and S) was at a very low level and the migration rates between the Iberian and the Bay of Biscay sub-units may have increased. In such case, the stock assessment model assumption of closed population is less likely to be maintained and the two estimates of SSB diverge. One of the advantages of the approach proposed is to make it possible to look into sub-units of the stock with regards to their productivity and exploitation. These results are shown as time series of fishing mortality and recruitment for each sub-unit., JRC.E.6-Demography, Migration and Governance

The objective of fisheries management is the sustainable exploitation of the fish resources over the extent of their spatial distribution. Along with the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) objectives, the socio-economic viability of the fisheries exploiting the resource is also to be achieved. To reach these aims, managers need to define the management units they are going to work with. For the purpose of GEPETO project, we define a management unit (MU) as the set of fishing fleets exploiting a common pool of fish resources with strong spatial overlapping and sharing of habitats, which make them being typically fished together. In other words, a MU is the set of fishing fleets exploiting a common fish community over their spatial distribution. MUs have to be defined by the fish community, by the spatial range of distribution of the fish community, and by the set of fishing fleets sharing the exploitation of the fish community, L'objectif de gestion de la pêche est l'exploitation durable des ressources halieutiques sur l'étendue de leur répartition spatiale. Avec la nouvelle Politique Commune de la pêche (PCP) l' objectif de la viabilité socio-économique des pêcheries exploitant la ressource doit également être réalisé. Pour l'atteindre, les gestionnaires doivent définir des unités de gestion. Les partenaires du projet GEPETO, définissent une unité de gestion (MU) comme l'ensemble des flottes de pêche exploitant un pool commun de ressources halieutiques disponibles dans des habitats communs, ce qui les rend très imbriquées. En d'autres termes, un MU est l'ensemble des flottes de pêche exploitant une communauté de poissons ordinaires sur leur répartition spatiale. La MU peu être définie par la communauté de poissons, par la gamme spatiale de la distribution de la communauté de poissons, et par l'ensemble des flottes de pêche qui partagent l'exploitation de la communauté de poissons.