Search

This report synthesises the main findings from the value chain- and governance analysis in FarFish, and point at some potential policy changes that could improve governance of the SFPAs and the high seas fisheries of the European external fishing fleet. This is the final deliverable from work package 3 (WP3) of the FarFish project, containing lessons learned and policy recommendations based on the work conducted in T3.1 Evaluation of governance structures and T3.2 Value chain analysis. The overall objective of FarFish is to improve knowledge on and management of EU fisheries outside Europe, while contributing to sustainability and long-term profitability. To this end, WP3 has conducted value chain analysis and evaluations of the governance structure of the EU external fishing fleet in the selected case studies. The studies have provided insights to how these fisheries are managed and conducted, and how the fisheries are utilized and are contributing to the seafood supply, including to the European market and partner countries. This report synthesises the main findings from these studies. Based on the lessons learned as well as interaction with other areas within the project, we discuss recommendations for potential policy changes that could improve governance of the SFPAs and European high seas fisheries. The fisheries and value chains analysed are highly professional and are based on the different companies’ commercial considerations. The recommendations to improve the performance of these companies or to achieve wider socio-economic goals are therefore directed at the potential for changes and improvements by way of regulations. The suggestions would in most cases require further elaboration and discussions, hence the term potential.

This report is the final deliverable of work package four (WP4) within the FarFish project. The WP is titled “Development of management recommendations” and has focused on developing so called Management Recommendations (MRs) within the FarFish case studies. The MR concept is based on Results-Based Management (RBM) approaches, with the aim to delegate management responsibilities to resource users. The aim or this reportis to review the RBM process applied in FarFish and the lessons learned in the case studies. The report is in the format of a peer-review journal paper, which is planned to be submitted to a journal shortly. Chapter 2 contains the paper.

More than 20% of the European fishing fleets catches are taken from non-European waters. Access to these waters is often based on agreements with coastal states that allow the EU fleet to fish from surplus stocks in return for financial support. These agreements have been subjected to criticism, as these fisheries are sometimes poorly regulated and management decisions are often based on limited knowledge, compliance, and enforcement capabilities. It is also too often the case that trust between stakeholders is lacking. The aim of the FarFish project is to overcome these hurdles. The FarFish project is designed around six case study areas in which the European fleet is actively engaged in fishing activities, including Cape Verde, Mauritania, Senegal and Seychelles, as well as the international high-seas areas in the southeast and southwest Atlantic. Among the Research & Innovation outputs of the FarFish project is a development of a management approach where the management authorities and the resource users come to an agreement on some key objectives and how to meet them. This approach is designed to reduce micromanagement by involving stakeholders and increase the degree of co-management by delegating management responsibilities to resource users. The process is broken into a number of steps, which include a) the provision of guidelines on how to develop so called management recommendations (MRs), b) provision of an invitation from the authorities to the resource users to develop MRs, where overall objectives are established, c) development of MRs, d) third party audit of the MR, where the success of the MR is evaluated. Draft guidelines and MR invitations have been published, and this report compiles the first proposals for MRs for each of the FarFish case studies. These will then be audited by an independent auditor and the whole process will then be re-iterated. The aim is that by the end of the project, we will have a tested / validated approach for how to manage fisheries in cocreation between authorities and resource users.

This report contains an evaluation of the governance structures of the EU long-distance fishing fleet in the six case studies of the FarFish project. These case studies include two high seas fisheries and four fisheries that are based on Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) between the EU and coastal states. All of these fisheries are important for the fishing fleets of multiple EU countries or respond to the priorities of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The report focuses on different aspects of both the structural and actor conditions, in particular focusing on monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of the EU external fishing fleet. For each of the four SFPAs, we present the requirements set within the SFPAs, the legal framework and systems for MCS in the coastal state and their capacity. For the high seas cases, we present the governing framework of the area where such is in place and the practice of managing the EU fleet. For all cases, challenges of and measures to mitigate by-catch and discard issues and IUU fishing are presented. Lastly, we summaries the main findings regarding both achievements and identified challenges for the six case studies. This report is based on available data and synthesizes already existing information. It will function as a primer for further studies in the FarFish project of the governance structure of the EU fisheries outside Europe.&nbsp

The ICES Benchmark Workshop on Baltic Cod Stocks (WKBALTCOD2) met at ICES Headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark on 4–8 February 2019, following a data evaluation workshop (Chair Johan Lövgren) and several preparatory web conference meetings. The meeting, cochaired by Meaghan Bryan, USA (External Chair) and Michele Casini, Sweden (ICES Chair), was attended by two invited external experts, Vladlena Gertseva, USA, and Verena Trenkel, France, and 47 participants from 10 countries. Participants represented a diversity of groups including industry, NGOs, managers, and scientists. The objectives of WKBALTCOD2 were to evaluate the appropriateness of the data and the assessment methods to determine stock status for the Western Baltic cod (SD 22-24) and the Eastern Baltic cod (SD 24-32) stocks, evaluate the short-term forecasting methods, re-examine and update the reference points, and update the stock annex as appropriate to these stocks. The workshop started with a group discussion of data issues and decisions that were integral to both assessments. Subsequent, stock-specific discussions were held in smaller subgroups and the main results and conclusions were presented in plenary. Around 15–20 persons, together with at least one external reviewer/co-chair, participated in each of the subgroups. A single modelling approach, the state-space stock assessment model (SAM), was presented for Western Baltic cod. This model has been used previously to determine stock status of Western Baltic cod and the panel agreed that this model should be used for the current assessment. The main issues that emerged and were addressed during the workshop for this stock were stock mixing in SD 24, the inclusion of new recreational data from Sweden and Denmark, the inclusion of a German pound-net survey index of age-0 fish in the assessment model, the extension of the time-series of the assessment back in time, and the update of reference points. Future efforts should be made to update the mixing proportion of Eastern and Western Baltic cod in SD 24 by length and season, and continue improving the stock splitting methods and the geographical coverage of the samples. An analytical quantitative assessment had been lacking since 2014 for the Eastern Baltic cod stock. The key issues addressed during the benchmark included how to best account for changes in productivity (e.g. growth, mortality, maturity) in the assessment model, stock splitting in SD 24, the use of age–length keys in the assessment, and ageing error and bias. Stock assessment models using Stock Synthesis and the stochastic surplus production model (SPiCT) were put forward for the benchmark as two possible model candidates. The panel agreed that the Stock Synthesis model assuming time-varying growth, natural mortality, and maturity to account for changes in productivity was acceptable to provide scientific advice, while the SPiCT model should be maintained as an alternative approach. The accepted model exhibited some residual patterns that were likely due to assuming that ages were precisely known. Stock Synthesis can accommodate an ageing error matrix to account for precision and bias. Ageing error and bias statistics should be developed and thoroughly reviewed for the next benchmark. Additionally, future work should focus on improving the growth estimates, which will allow a more precise separation between growth and natural mortality. The Stock Synthesis model would also benefit from information on sample size associated with length distributions of commercial catches. Estimates of fishing mortality compatible with a precautionary FMSY was not attainable for this stock, therefore probabilistic forecasts with Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were proposed to be used instead.

FarFish is a H2020 project that aims to provide knowledge, tools and methods to support responsible, sustainable and profitable EU fisheries outside European waters. To achieve this, FarFish will develop practical, achievable and cost-effective fisheries management tools and advice. The work will be done in collaboration of scientists, policy makers, resource users and other stakeholders aimed to improve fisheries management competences. A key output of the project are case specific Management Recommendations (MRs) that are based on Results-Based Management (RBM) principles in line with the Responsive Fisheries Management System (RFMS) approach, which was developed in the FP7 project EcoFishMan. The fisheries included in FarFish are in the high-seas areas of the SW-Atlantic Ocean (FAO area 41) and the SE-Atlantic Ocean (FAO area 47); as well as in the waters of Cape Verde, Senegal, Mauritania and the Seychelles. In line with the RFMS approach, the engagement of stakeholders is highly prioritized in the project. Wide variety of stakeholders have been contacted throughout the first year of the project in order to contribute to the development of the MRs. The first multi-stakeholder physical meeting was held in Vigo, Spain, on the 26th -27th of June 2018. The meeting was titled “Strengthening fisheries sustainability outside EU” and was the official MR kick-off meeting. This document reports on that meeting. The aim of the meeting was to discuss stakeholders’ interests and needs, related to how they can contribute to the development of the MRs, while improving the sustainability of the fishery of the EU fleet fishing in distant waters. The current status of the work in the different FarFish working groups and case studies were presented to inform the attendants on issueslike “where are we”, “what are the options” and “what do we need”. Despite all challenges in culture, language and interest/needs, progress was made on important issues in the project. Having representatives from both EU and China, as well as authorities from countries that haves signed Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPA) with the EU around the table was one important step towards strengthening EU fisheries sustainability outside EU waters. With relevance to the high-seas case studies, representatives from both the Chinese Academy of Fisheries Sciences (CAFS) and the Long Distance Advisory Council (LDAC) presented their views on the high-seas fisheries. LDAC emphasized the need for a level playing field for fishing operators from EU and nonEU countries, ensuring that all fleets abide by the same international rules and regulations. CAFS highlighted the challenges and main policies that apply to the Chinese distant water fleet and want to contribute actively towards goals aiming towards a more sustainable fishery. To ensure the best utilization of stakeholders’ knowledge and contribution, the participants from similar case studies separated into two working groups. In light of the communicated interests and needs of stakeholders, potential Outcome Targets (OTs) and management recommendations were drafted. Defining OTs is challenging as they are to be initially defined by authorities and implemented by operators, but through the cooperation of both authorities and operators, FarFish has now succeeded in drafting OTs that most stakeholders took part in the discussions of, which in accordance to the RFMS approach should ensure successful implementation of the MRs. The fruitful discussionsin this meeting emphasize that this exercise can be thought provoking. Work Package 3 (WP3) and Work Package 4 (WP4) drafted potential alternative scenarios after the meeting, based on outcomes of the meeting, the MP0 (see D4.1), and OTs presented in MR Invitations (see D3.2). It is however, obvious that many management strategies will achieve a given OT, when the set indicators are yes/no or present/absent. In those cases, the need for modelling of scenarios is redundant.

Purpose and Scope of the Policy Brief: The Landing Obligation (LO) was introduced in the Common Fisheries Policy of 2014 and requires that all catches of certain fish species are landed. This Policy Brief provides an overview of the current status and initial experiences, barriers, and opportunities with regard to applying the LO in the Mediterranean. The Policy Brief is written for policy makers, the fishing industry, NGO’s and citizens with an interest in fisheries management and is based on policy documents, stakeholder interviews, meetings and literature.

A Landing Obligation (LO), or a requirement to land all catches of certain fish species, was introduced as part of the EU’s new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2014. This DiscardLess policy brief focuses on initial experiences with LO implementation in the Baltic and Pelagic fisheries. It summarises the discard plans in these fisheries, presents stakeholder experiences from interviews, meeting attendance and literature review and highlights emerging issues relevant to all fisheries where the LO is being implemented. Background and main elements of the landing obligation. In March 2007, the Commission published a communication recognising the serious problem of discarding in European fisheries. A public consultation was held and discarding was subsequently highlighted in the Commission’s Green Paper on CFP reform. While a discard ban received significant support, industry recommended instead that discard reduction should be planned, on a fisheries basis, through creating incentives to enhance selectivity. An incident involving a UK trawler in Norwegian waters in 2008 generated public pressure to end discarding, which increased from August 2010 in response to a UK celebrity chef’s public campaign known as “Hugh’s Fish Fight”. In 2011 the Commission included an obligation to land catches of regulated species in its CFP reform proposal. The adopted CFP included a LO, which applied for Baltic and pelagic fisheries from January 2015. The main elements of the LO are as follows: Scope: The LO applies to all catches of species which are subjected to Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits or, in the Mediterranean, to a minimum landing size (MLS). Species that are not subject to TACs or MLS can still be discarded. Minimum conservation reference size (MCRS): The LO requires that fish under the MCRS are landed but prohibits their use for direct human consumption. Catches of all fish, including fish below the MCRS must be recorded and counted against quotas. Exemptions: The LO does not apply to species and fisheries with demonstrably high survival rates for discarded fish. Also up to 5% of the total catch of species may be discarded in cases where selectivity increases are difficult to achieve or where handling of unwanted catches creates disproportionate costs (de minimis exemptions). Discard plans: In the absence of multiannual plans groups of member states organised at a regional level develop discard plans in consultation with advisory councils. These plans are submitted as “joint recommendations”, which detail the species to be included in the LO, at which times and also any exemptions. Following review of the joint recommendations by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) the plans are adopted by the European Commission either in full or with amendments. Quota flexibility The LO requires that fishermen have access to quotas to cover their catches or they have to cease fishing (see “choke species problem” below). Accordingly, there are rules that allow for conditional transfer of quota between years and between species.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is the primary advisory body in the North-East Atlantic, coordinating about 700 marine institutions throughout Europe, five affiliates, and other international projects. ICES offers guidance on a wide range of topics, from the impact of pollutants on individual animals to the state of fish populations and the consequences of numerous human stressors and climate on an ecoregional scale. Each year, the ICES delivers different advice to member nations on fisheries resources and ecosystems, and among the various forms of advisory service requests, the Special request system stands out. The peculiarity of the special request for ICES advice (SRIA) is reflected in a more extensive interaction between the requesters and the ICES to develop a clear and transparent advisory product in response to the request. With the advocate of ecosystem management, it is expected that a transition towards this approach is likely to increase the demand for SRIA. Dolan et al. classified the different EMs into four separate levels: SSAFM (single-species approach to fisheries management), EAFM (ecosystem approach to fisheries management), EBFM (ecosystem-based fisheries management), and EBM (ecosystem-based management). The categorization of these levels, which are here referred to as Dolan’s levels, are utilized as a tool to examine the SRIA to establish whether or not there is a trend in the EM levels. Through the research of SRIA, a novel approach for evaluating trends in single-species management to more advanced degrees of ecosystem integration may also be developed. In addition, the study set out to establish a preliminary method for studying the SRIA’s conspicuous features, see how fisheries management has been categorized toward Dolan’s levels in the SRIA, and investigate the various SRIA requesters and geographic affiliations. This research employs some elements of the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Mata-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist to establish a framework for assessing the SRIA. The most recent data for this study were obtained from the ICES official homepage and the baseline period covered by the review was from 2010-2020. In the study, The SRIA was examined using Dolan’s EM levels, the SRIA requesters were divided into eight major groups, and the SRIA’s geographic scope was generally grouped into four important groups. This study discovered no significant trend in the SRIA. The SRIA requesters submitted two unique types of special requests: non-ecoregion-specific special requests (NESSR) and ecoregion-specific special requests (ESSR). Finally, in the geographical affiliation of the SRIA different forms of geographical or non-geographical variables may account for the variation in the number of SRIA. However, the research encountered some uncertainty about the classification into one of Dolan’s EM levels, which may have compromised the robustness of the categorization of SRIA. As a best practice, SRIA expert panel discussion is recommended to debate on individual SRIAs to eliminate these concerns about bias across the entire research.

Fisheries agreements between EU-Seychelles have been in place since 1984. Since then, the agreements have been in constant changes in response to the constructive criticisms from NGOs and scientists to the CFP. An exploratory study assessing the relationship between the EU-Seychelles Fisheries Agreements has been conducted. It focuses on the changes and the differences between the Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) and the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement (SFPA); and to finish with the perception whether the SFPA has reached its goals or not. It was not possible to give a final evaluation of the SFPA as the agreement is still being in use and expected to last until January 2020. Yet, a qualitative approach that involves both a literature review and semi-structured interviews allowed a tentative examination of performance of the current agreement. The results indicate that the EU-Seychelles FPA has not fully delivered its objectives toward sustainable development and responsible fisheries. Therefore, it has been revised and improved to SFPA, which came into force January 2014. The difference between the two agreements lies within its nature and characteristics, its protocol and technical annexes. SFPA is four folded: sustainable, transparent, coherent and mutual benefit rather than concentrated only within the sustainability and development approach. Nonetheless, the study revealed that Seychelles suffers from capacity shortage within the Seychelles Fishing Authorities, and as such, SFPA does not achieve its purpose in term of accountability and transparency of the sectoral support so far, which may lead to significant delays in term of infrastructure development in the region.