Search

The System for Assessment of Ecological Condition, coordinated by the Norwegian Environment Agency, is intended to form the foundation for evidence-based assessments of the ecological condition of Norwegian terrestrial and marine ecosystems not covered by the EU Water Framework Directive. The reference condition is defined as “intact ecosystems”, i.e., a condition that is largely unimpacted by modern industrial anthropogenic activities. An ecosystem in good ecological condition does not deviate substantially from this reference condition in structure, functions or productivity. This report describes the first operational assessment of the ecological condition of the marine shelf ecosystem in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea and Skagerrak. The assessment method employed is the Panel-based Assessment of Ecosystem Condition (PAEC1) and the current assessment has considered to what extent the North Sea and Skagerrak shelf ecosystem deviates from the reference condition2 by evaluating change trajectories. Panel-based Assessment of Ecosystem Condition of the North Sea Shelf Ecosystem

Essential Biodiversity variables (EBV) related to benthic habitats and high trophic levels such as fish communities must be measured at fine scale but monitored and assessed at spatial scales that are relevant for policy and management actions. Local scales, such as individual marine parks, are important for assessing anthropogenic impacts, and conservation-related and fisheries management actions, while reporting on the conservation status of biodiversity to formulate national and international policies requires much broader scales. Measurements must account for the fact that coastal habitats and fish communities are heterogeneously distributed locally and at larger scales. Assessments based on in situ monitoring generally suffer from poor spatial replication and limited geographical coverage, which is challenging for area-wide assessments. Requirements for appropriate monitoring comprise cost-efficient and standardized observation protocols and data formats, spatially-scalable and versatile data workflows, data that comply with the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles, while minimizing the environmental impact of measurements. This paper describes a standardized workflow based on remote underwater video that aims to assess fishes (at species and community levels) and habitat-related EBVs in coastal areas. This panoramic unbaited video technique was developed in 2007 to survey both fishes and benthic habitats in a cost-efficient manner, and with minimal effect on biodiversity. It can be deployed in areas where low underwater visibility is not a permanent or major limitation. The technique was consolidated and standardized and has been successfully used in varied settings over the last twelve years. We operationalized the EBV workflow by documenting the field protocol, survey design, image post-processing, EBV production and data curation. Applications of the workflow are illustrated here based on some 4500 observations (fishes and benthic habitats) in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, and Mediterranean Sea. The STAVIRO’s proven track-record of utility and cost-effectiveness indicates that it should be considered by other researchers for future applications. This paper was published as part of a Frontier Research Topic "Marine Biodiversity Observation Network". see doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.832328 Refereed 14.a Fish abundance and distribution Hard coral cover and composition Sea grass cover and composition Macroalgal canopy cover and composition Marine turtles, birds, mammals abundance and composition Mature Multi-organisational Taxonomic diversity Species distribution Population abundance Population structure by size class Phenology Habitat structure Ecosystem extent and fragmentation Ecosystem composition and functional type Marine habitats Seabed cover and morphology Underwater video lander Method

The International Bottom Trawl Survey Working Group (IBTSWG) coordinates fishery-independent multispecies bottom-trawl surveys within the ICES area. These long-term monitoring surveys provide data for stock assessments and facilitate examination of changes in fish distribution and abundance. The group also promotes the standardization of fishing gears and methods and survey coordination. This report summarizes the national contributions in 2020–2021 and plans for the 2021–2022 surveys coordinated by IBTSWG. In the North Sea, the surveys are performed in quarters (Q) Q1 and Q3 while in the Northeast Atlantic the surveys are conducted in Q1, Q3, and Q4 with a suite of 14 national surveys covering a large area of continental shelf that ranges from North of Scotland to the Gulf of Cádiz. Despite the COVID-measures and bad weather, most surveys were able to complete the majority of the planned hauls. The Portuguese survey (PT-GFS-Q4) was cancelled in 2020 due to issues associated with the new vessel and a COVID-outbreak. A COVID-related delay in submitting the cruise application form for the French CGFS20 survey resulted in no authorisation to trawl in UK waters and only 70% of the core stations were completed. Issues with the UK permits, were also experienced in the North Sea surveys, only being resolved at the last moment, expected to be a returning issue. Therefore, IBTSWG addressed the permit issue in further detail in order to better evaluate the impact and propose possible solutions.All surveys, except for the Spanish GCGF-Q1 21 which is cancelled due to a vessel refit, are planned to take place according to the manuals in the next year.The SCOROC Q3 20 survey recorded second highest recruitment of zero group haddock on the Rockall Bank since the start of the new survey series in 2011. The North Sea Q1 21 survey recorded good recruitment of haddock as well, and high recruitment of mackerel, while overall herring recruitment seemed low except for three exceptionally large catches in the Skagerrak/Kattegat bringing the index above average. Both North Sea surveys reported large amounts of target species outside their index areas, which may warrant a revision of the species-specific areas on which the standard abundance indices are calculated.IBTSWG will continue a number of collaborative activities later this year. The Workshop on the Further Development of the New IBTS Gear (WKFDN) will focus on updating results of gear trails with the potential new gears. The Workshop on the production of swept area estimates for all hauls in DATRAS for biodiversity assessments (WKSAE) will continue work on the Northeastern Atlantic Flexfile available via DATRAS, for which country specific algorithms are used to fill data gaps relevant for the calculation of the swept area. This and the already available North Sea Flexfile can be used to produces swept area indices. IBTSWG also met with members of the assessment groups, Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) and Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes (WGEF), to improve communication on for example circumstances affecting the execution of the surveys but also changes in survey design potentially impacting the indices.

The main terms of reference for the The ICES Working Group for the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak (WGNSSK) were: to update, quality check and report relevant data for the working group, to update and audit the assessment and forecasts of the stocks, to produce a first draft of the advice on the fish stocks and to prepare planning for benchmarks in future years. Ecosystem changes have been analytically considered in the assessments for cod, haddock and whiting in the form of varying natural mortalities estimated by the ICES Working Group on Multi Species Assessment Methods (WGSAM). Benchmarks and Inter-benchmarks in 2019/2020Full benchmarks were conducted during 2020 for WGNSSK stocks. These were on 3.a turbot, 3.a whiting, sole in 7.d and sole in 4. However, there were no inter-benchmark protocol (IBP) meetings during 2020. State of the StocksThe main impression in recent years is that fishing pressure has been reduced substantially for many North Sea stocks of roundfish and flatfish compared to the beginning of the century. All fish stocks with agreed reference points (Category 1 stocks) are above Blim, apart from cod in 4, 7.d and 20, and only the SSBs of cod in 4, 7.d and 20 and sole in 4 are below MSY Btrigger at the beginning of 2020. Several North Sea stocks are exploited at or below FMSY levels (haddock in 4, 6.a, plaice in 4 and 20 and sole in 7.d); however, several others are being fished above FMSY (cod in 4, 7.d and 20, saithe in 3.a, 4 and 6, whiting in 4 and 7.d, sole in 4, plaice in 7.d, turbot in 4 and witch in 3.a, 4 and 7.d). An important feature is that recruitment still remains poor compared to historic average levels for most gadoids, although there are signs of a strong recruitment forhaddock and whiting in 2019. Recruitment in 2019 continues on a high level also for flatfish stocks of plaice, sole and turbot.All Nephrops stocks with agreed biomass reference points (Category 1 stocks, excluding nep.fu.3-4) are currently above MSY Btrigger, and all Nephrops stocks with defined FMSY (Category 1 stocks, including) are being fished above FMSY in 2019, apart from Nephrops in FU 7 (nep.fu.7) and FU 3-4 (nep.fu.3-4) which are fished sustainably.WGNSSK is also responsible for the assessment of several data-limited species (Category 3+stocks) that are mainly by catch in demersal fisheries (brill in 3.a, 4 and 7.d-e, lemon sole in 3.a, 4 and 7.d, dab in 3.a and 4, flounder in 3.a and 4, sol in 7.d turbot in 3.a, whiting in 3a), along with grey gurnard in 3.a, 4 and 7d and striped red mullet in 3.a, 4 and 7.d. Biennial precautionary approach (PA) advice was provided in 2015 for the first time, and again in 2017 and 2019; for 2020, biennial advice was either PA, where catch advice was still needed, or simply reporting stock status where no catch advice was needed. Reopening of advice was triggered for several Category 1 stocks in the autumn, following the availability of Q3 survey results in 2019, namely cod in 4, 7.d and 20, haddock in 4, 6.a and 20, plaice in 4 and 20, sole in 4, and Nephrops in FU 6, 7 and 8 (Annex 7). The summary of stock status is as follows:1) Nephrops:Category 1:a) FU 3-4 (nep.fu.3-4): The stock size is considered to be stable. The estimated harvest rate for this stock is currently below FMSY. No reference points for stock size have beendefined for this stock.b) FU 6 (nep.fu.6): The stock abundance has increased since 2015, and currently it is above MSY Btrigger. The harvest rate has shown an increase since 2018, and is above FMSY in 2019.c) FU 7 (nep.fu.7): The stock size has been above MSY Btrigger for most of the time-series. The harvest rate has increased in 2019 but remains below FMSY.d) FU 8 (nep.fu.8): The stock size has been above MSY Btrigger for the entire time-series. The harvest rate is varying, increased in 2019 and is now above FMSY.e) FU 9 (nep.fu.9): The stock has been above MSY Btrigger for the entire time-series. The harvest rate has fluctuated around FMSY in recent years and is now above FMSY.Category 4:f) FU 32 (nep.fu.32): The available data is non-conclusive with regard to stock status, in recent years landings have relatively low.g) FU 33 (nep.fu.33): The state of this stock is unknown. Landings have been relatively stable since 2004, fluctuating without trend at around 1000 tonnes. The mean densityof Norway lobster decreased 2017 to 2019. Advice was provided for this stock in 2019 (although it was not scheduled) because of the availability of data from a UWTV survey conducted in 2018.h) FU 34 (nep.fu.34): The current state of the stock is unknown.i) FU 5 (nep.fu.5): The status of this stock is uncertain. Assuming the density has been constant since 2012, the harvest rate in 2018 and 2019, corresponding to the total landings, has decreased and now below the MSY proxy reference point.j) FU 10 (nep.fu.10): The current state of the stock is unknown.Category 5:k) Out of FU (nep.27.4outFU): The current state of the stock is unknown. No new advice was provided in spring 2020 for Nephrops stocks but advice was delayed until autumn 2020:2) Cod (cod.27.47d20): Fishing pressure has increased since 2016, and is above Flim in 2019. Spawning-stock biomass has decreased since 2015 and is now below Blim. Recruitment since 1998 remains poor. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY, Fpa and Flim; the spawning-stock size is below MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.3) Haddock (had.27.46a20): Fishing pressure has declined since the beginning of the 2000s, but it has been above FMSY for most of the time-series. Only in 2019, fishing pressure is at FMSY. Spawning-stock biomass has been above MSY Btrigger in most of the years since 2002. Recruitment since 2000 has been low with occasional larger year classes. The 2019 yearclass is estimated to be one of the largest since 2000. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is at FMSY, but below Fpa and Flim, and spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.4) Whiting (whg.27.47d): Spawning-stock biomass has fluctuated around MSY Btrigger since the mid-1980s and is just above it in 2020. Fishing pressure has been above FMSY throughout the time-series, apart from 2005. Recruitment (R) has been fluctuating without trend, but the 2019 year-class is estimated to be the largest since 2002. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY, but below Fpa and Flim; spawning-stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.5) Saithe (pok.27.3a46): Spawning-stock biomass has fluctuated without trend and has beenabove MSY Btrigger since 1996. Fishing pressure has decreased and stabilized at or above FMSY since 2014. Recruitment has shown an overall decreasing trend over time with lowest levels in the past 10 years. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY and Fpa, but below Flim; spawning-stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.6) Plaice (ple.27.420): The spawning-stock biomass is well above MSY Btrigger and has markedly increased since 2008, following a substantial reduction in fishing pressure since 1999. Recruitment in 2019 is estimated to be the second highest in the time-series. Since 2009, fishing pressure has been estimated below FMSY. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is below FMSY, Fpa and Flim, and spawning-stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.7) Sole (sol.27.4): The spawning-stock biomass has fluctuated around Blim since 2003, and has been estimated to be below MSY Btrigger since 1999. Fishing pressure has declined since 1999 and is above FMSY in 2019. Recruitment in 2019 is estimated to be the highest since the start of the time series in 1957. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY, but below Fpa and Flim, and spawning-stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.8) Plaice (ple.27.7d): The spawning-stock biomass has increased rapidly from 2010 following a period of high recruitment between 2009 and 2015, and is now still well above the MSY Btrigger, despite a decline since 2016. Fishing pressure has declined since the early 2000s, with an increase in the recent years to slightly above FMSY. Recruitment in 2019 is currently estimated to be highest in the time series since 1980. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY, but below Fpa and Flim, and spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.9) Turbot (tur.27.4): Recruitment is variable without a trend. In 2019 recruitment is estimated to be above average of the time series. Fishing pressure has decreased since the mid-1990s, and has been just below FMSY since 2012. The spawning-stock biomass has increased since 2005 and has been above MSY Btrigger since 2013. This stock was upgraded to Category 1 from Category 3 following an inter-benchmark during 2018. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY, but below Fpa and Flim; spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.10) Witch (wit.27.3a47d): Fishing pressure has been above FMSY since the beginning of the time-series. Spawning-stock biomass that was below Blim around 2010, has increased since then and is now above MSY Btrigger. Recruitment has declined since 2010 and is currently at a low level. This stock was upgraded to Category 1 from Category 3 following a benchmark during 2018. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY and at Fpa, but below Flim, and spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger, Bpa and Blim.11) Norway pout (nop.27.3a4): The stock size is highly variable from year to year, due to recruitment variability and a short life span. Spawning-stock biomass is estimated to have been fluctuating above Bpa for most of the time-series. Fishing pressure declined between 1985 and 1995 and has been fluctuating at a lower level since 1995. Recruitment in 2018 and 2019 was above the long-term average. Currently, spawning stock size is above Bpa and Blim; no reference points for fishing pressure or for MSY Btrigger have been defined for this stock.12) Category 3–6 finfish stocks: In 2020, new advice has been produced for bll.27.3a47de, lem.27.3a47d, tur.27.3a, sol.7d (all Category 3 stocks) and whg.27.3a (Category 5). Advice was not provided for gug.27.3a47d, dab.27.3a4, fle.27.3a4, mur.27.3a47d (Category 3) and pol.27.3a4 (Category 5).a) Brill (bll.27.3a47de): The biomass index has been gradually increasing over the timeseries until 2015, and has then decreased. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is below FMSY proxy and spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger proxy.b) Grey gurnard (gug.27.3a47d): The time-series of mature biomass index of grey gurnard from the International Bottom Trawl Survey quarter 1 (IBTS-Q1) shows a strong increase from the beginning of 1990s and has since fluctuated at a high level. Fishing pressure is estimated to be below the FMSY proxy. No reference points for stock size have been defined for this stock.c) Lemon sole (lem.27.3a47d): Total mortality has fluctuated without trend. Spawningstock biomass increased from 2007 to 2012, and has remained stable since, albeit with a small decline in 2018. Recruitment has shown a mostly downwards trend since a peak in 2011, but relatively high recruitment is estimated for 2019. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is below FMSY proxy. No reference points for stock size have been defined for this stock.d) Turbot (tur.27.3a): Catches peaked in the late 1970s and early 1990s and have been more stable in recent years. Relative exploitable biomass (B/Bmsy) declined towards2000 without a trend in later years. Relative fishing pressure (F/Fmsy) peaked in the late 1970s and early 1990s without a trend in more recent years. Currently, fishing pressure on the stock is above FMSY proxy and spawning stock size is above MSY Btrigger proxy.e) Whiting (whg.27.3a): Catches have been relatively low in recent years after a substantial industrial fishery ceased in the mid-1990s. The stock size indicator has been fluctuating and is now around the long-term mean. ICES cannot assess the stock and exploitation status relative to MSY and precautionary approach reference points because the reference points are undefined.f) Sole (sol.27.7d): This stock was downgraded from Category 1 to Category 3 following the Interbenchmark in 2019 and Benchmark in 2020. The XSA assessment is indicativeof trends only. The spawning-stock biomass (SSB) has been fluctuating without trend and has been above MSY Btrigger since 2010. Fishing pressure (F) has shown a decreasing trend since 2009 and has been below FMSY proxy since 2016. Recruitment has been fluctuating without trend. In 2019, the recruitment is estimated to be the highest of the time series.Summary of retrospective analysis (WKFORBIAS decision tree)To quantify retrospective patterns in the assessments of category 1 stocks, estimates of five year retrospective peels are produced for fishing pressure, SSB and recruitment and plotted with confidence bounds of the current assessment. The retrospective statistics (Mohn’s rho) are reported as a measure of quality. Following the decision tree formulated by WKFORBIAS (ICES 2020) to ensure more consistency in how advice is provided. Only sole in 4 and cod 4 7d and 20 showed significant retrospective patterns in SSB (Mohn’s rho above 0.2). For cod advice is given as usual since only 2 out of recent 5 peels and only 1 out of recent 3 peels fall outside the confidence bounds. A benchmark is planned in 2021 to address the retrospective pattern for cod further. For sole most of the retrospective peels fall outside the confidence bounds. The stock has recently undergone a benchmark and the retrospective pattern could not be solved yet. However, the target F (FMSY) in the forecast for 2021 is well below the F05 estimated using EqSim, and advice is given as usual this year.

An ecomorphological method was developed, with a focus on predation functions, to define functional groups in the Celtic Sea fish community. Eleven functional traits, measured for 930 individuals from 33 species, led to 11 functional groups. Membership of functional groups was linked to body size and taxonomy. For seven species, there were ontogenetic changes in group membership. When diet composition, expressed as the proportions of different prey types recorded in stomachs, was compared among functional groups, morphology-based predictions accounted for 28-56% of the interindividual variance in prey type. This was larger than the 12-24% of variance that could be explained solely on the basis of body size. (C) 2013 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles

Ce document est une synthèse des informations collectées en 2010 à bord des navires de pêche professionnelle dans le cadre de l'action ObsMer. Cette action vise à observer in situ l'activité de pêche et l'ensemble de la capture, particulièrement la partie non retenue, en identifiant les espèces capturées, les tonnages par espèce et en prenant des mesures de tailles.

Functional groups dynamics in marine communities help understanding how perturbations impact the functioning of an ecosystem. It is notably expected that functional groups respond differently to fishing pressure owing to their direct exposure to fishing and interactions between groups (indirect effects). A method was developed, based on an ecomorphological approach focusing on predation functions, to define size- and taxonomy-driven functional groups in demersal fish communities from the Celtic Sea and the North Sea. Eleven functional traits were used to define 12 functional groups in Celtic Sea (based on measurements on 930 individuals from 33 species) and seven groups in North Sea (710 individuals from 22 species). In the Celtic Sea, the functional groups better explained diet than size groups whereas diet in North Sea appeared rather size-driven. Time-series of functional group biomasses were assessed using ground-fish surveys data. Fishing seems to unequally affect different ecological functions in both communities. Furthermore it was shown that (i) fishing effects propagate from high to low trophic levels (top-down effects) in North Sea and (ii) ecological compensation may occur within functional groups in Celtic Sea. The functioning of both communities appeared impacted by fishing pressure. Nevertheless, the trophic functions appeared more affected by fishing in the North Sea than in the Celtic Sea., La dynamique de groupes fonctionnels dans une communauté favorise la compréhension des impacts d’une perturbation sur le fonctionnement d’un écosystème. Nous nous attendons en particulier à ce que les groupes fonctionnels répondent différemment à la pression de pêche en fonction de leur exposition directe et de leurs interactions (effets indirects). Une méthode basée sur une approche écomorphologique a été développée, en se focalisant sur les fonctions de prédation, pour définir des groupes fonctionnels basés sur la taille et la taxonomie des individus, dans les communautés de poissons démersaux de mer Celtique et de mer du Nord. Onze traits fonctionnels ont été utilisés pour définir 12 groupes fonctionnels en mer Celtique (basés sur 930 individus parmi 33 espèces) et sept en mer du Nord (basés sur 710 individus parmi 22 espèces). En mer Celtique, les groupes fonctionnels expliquent mieux le régime alimentaire que des groupes de taille, tandis que le régime alimentaire en mer du nord semble davantage gouverné par la taille des individus. Des séries temporelles de biomasse des groupes fonctionnels ont été reconstituées d’après des données de campagnes scientifiques de chalutage de fond. Dans les deux communautés, la pêche semble affecter inégalement différentes fonctions trophiques. Nous montrons par ailleurs (i) une propagation des effets de la pêche des hauts vers les bas nivaux trophiques (effets top-down) en mer du Nord et (ii) des phénomènes de compensation écologique intra-groupe en mer Celtique. Le fonctionnement des deux communautés paraît affecté par la pêche. Cependant, les fonctions trophiques semblent plus impactées par la pêche en mer du Nord qu’en mer Celtique.

This documents reports activities conducted within the PAMPA project for the New Caledonia case study (Noumea Marine Reserves), Ce document rapporte les activités menées dans le cadre du projet PAMPA pour le cas d'étude "Nouvelle-Calédonie" (Réserves Marines du Grand Nouméa)