Search

The main objective of the Working Group on Biological Parameters (WGBIOP) is to review the status, issues, developments, and quality assurance of biological parameters for use in assess-ments and management that are in line with the requirements of end-users. In this final year of the three-year term, WGBIOP operated under challenging circumstances due to COVID-19 measures. The initial action plan was replaced by a more flexible one, where online plenary and subgroup meetings were spread over the year with intersessional work to finalize the proposed deliverables. WGBIOP continued the review of past exchanges and workshops under the remit of the working group. Since 2019, these calibrations on age, maturity, and larvae identification have been carried out in SmartDots, an online platform for sharing images and facilitating the reading of otoliths, staging of gonads, and identification of early life stages. Developments are underway to include an improved calculation of modal age and error matrices in the SmartDots standard report. WGBIOP investigated ways to incorporate error matrices into assessments and studied the effect of this inclusion together with stock assessors. Requests for new exchanges and workshops were reviewed, with a focus on stocks to be bench-marked in the coming years. Issue lists were scrutinized, problems identified, and information provided to stock coordinators via regular channels and through the Stock Identification Data-base (SID). Despite close cooperation with stock assessors and continued efforts, it has not been possible to further streamline the WGBIOP workflow with the benchmark process. This will be addressed with the Advisory Committee. The need for validation studies was stressed by the repeated low levels of agreement between readers of some stocks and recurring issues and recommendations to WGBIOP. Lack of resources is the main obstacle. As a first step for measures to prioritize validation studies, WGBIOP iden-tified precision, trueness, and feasibility of validation methods (as well as the urgency for the assessment). WGBIOP continued investigations into new life-history parameters for integrated assessment and advice in cooperation with end-users (Working Group on Integrative, Physical-biological and Ecosystem Modelling-WGIPEM and Regional Coordination Groups-RCGs). This included a standardization and quality assurance action plan for stomach sampling. Efforts have also been taken to streamline data and workflows across databases and groups. A step has been taken in the standardization of quality assurance procedures at the regional level. Institute-level overviews of methods and quality assurance protocols used for ageing and maturity are now available. Also, a new method for quality grading was developed, tested, and implemented in SmartDots.

The Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG) reviews new methods for the defi-nition and investigation of stock structure and provides advice to other ICES expert groups on how to interpret patterns of population structure. The identification of the spatial boundaries of exploited stocks is a fundamental requirement before any stock assessment or modelling can be contemplated, and therefore lies at the heart of resource management. SIMWG continues to provide annual updates on recent applications of stock identification methods to species assessed by ICES and on advances in stock identification methods. Based on the wide expertise of SIMWG members, the group provides reviews of recent literature on genetics, growth marks in calcified structures, life history parameters, morphometrics/ me-ristics, tagging, otolith shape, otolith chemistry, parasites and interdisciplinary approaches. A key activity of SIMWG is to address requests by ICES working groups for technical advice on issues of stock identity. In 2020, the working group reviewed the outcome of the Workshop on Stock Identification of North Sea Cod (WKNSCodID). SIMWG contributes to the general understanding of the biological features of the north Atlantic ecosystem through its work to describe fish population structure. Additionally, SIMWG’s annual reviews on advances in stock identification methods keeps ICES members abreast of best prac-tices in this field of study. SIMWG expert reviews on questions of stock structure for particular ICES species are directly relevant to the appropriate definition of stock and contribute to the accuracy of stock assessment and effectiveness of management actions. We see an important role for SIMWG in the future as ICES copes with the shifting distributions of fishery resources and questions regarding the appropriate definition of fish stocks. Understanding stock structure is a fundamental requirement before any assessment or modelling on a stock can be contemplated and SIMWG will continue to work with ICES expert groups to address pressing stock identifica-tion issues.

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This reportdeals with the revision of the EU-MAP and Work Plan template. The Expert Group report was reviewed during the 2019 STECF November plenary meeting during the 2019 STECF November plenary meeting.

Assessment of individual age through the use of calcified structures (scales, otoliths, opercular bones, fin rays, etc.) has been proven to be very useful in assessing the status of any fish stock. According to Panfili et al. (2002), data on age and growth of fish are essential for understanding vital traits of species and populations (e.g. lifespan, age at recruitment, age at sexual maturity, reproduction periods, migrations, mortality) and the study of population demographic structure and its dynamics (e.g. age-based stock assessment). The age profile of a fish stock can be indicative of its general “health”, as one will expect to see evidence of a broad range of ages in a healthy population. A lack of young fish may indicate recruitment failure, which will have repercussions in future years, while a lack of older fish can signal overexploitation of the stock. Fisheries scientists are especially concerned with the dynamics of exploited populations, with the view to providing advice about the sustainable harvesting of the resource. In the ICES Area, this task is generally focused on providing a quantitative assessment and forecast on a stock, with age data at its core. Hilborn and Walters (1992) pointed out that the “aim of such studies is not only to assess the state of stocks and fisheries relative to historical states, biological reference points or management targets, but also to evaluate the consequences for both fish stocks and fishermen, of alternative management scenarios.” Therefore, it is clear that reliable age–length data are important for the management and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks. The need for reliable data is especially acute in times when stock levels are low and errors in predictions can have devastating effects on the resources, Sí

The Regional Coordination Meeting NS&EA met in Edinburgh from 5th to 9th September 2016. Thirty four participants from 12 members states, representatives from Commission and ICES were in attendance. The meeting was largely devoted to subgroup work relating to regional sampling, cost sharing models, data needs and the sampling of anadromous and catadromous species

The 12th RCM North Atlantic was held in Hamburg (Germany) 14-18 September 2015. The main purpose of the RCM is to coordinate the National Programmes (NP) of the Member States (MS) in the North Atlantic region. National Programmes for 2011-2013 have been rolled over for the period 2014-2016. Therefore, the main focus at this year was to improve regional data collection, analysis and storage and the evolution towards Regional Coordination Groups (RCG).The impact of the introduction of the landing obligation and preparations for its implementation was also discussed taking into account possible changes in scientific sampling schemes. The participation of four National Correspondents make possible to address National administration issues related to the oncoming EU MAP. A data call was launched by the chairs of the RCM NA, RCM Baltic and RCM NS&EA where MS were requested to upload data for 2014 in the regional database (RDB Fishframe) hosted by ICES. All MS except France and Northern Ireland complied with this request on landings and effort data. All MS except France uploaded sample data for 2014. French data were available for the meeting using a web base interface. Evaluation of the data call for submission data to the RDB revealed the numbers of species in landings and sample data and the numbers of metiers in effort data are in general data stable. RCM NA see big improvements in the work MS are doing regarding data calls coming from a situation where some countries didn´t provide any data to a new scenario where everyone is providing data; at the same time the overall quality has significantly improved, which is a large step forward. Regional data collection, analysis, storage and the evolution towards Regional Coordination Groups (RCG). Optimizing and harmonizing fisheries management across MS is dependent on improving regional coordination. The group discussed various needs and aspects relevant for facilitating future work of the RCM. Future tasks for the RCM don’t differ much from the current tasks. The discussion was focused on the structure of the RCGs, funding and short term needs to address tasks in an efficient way in the future. Regional coordination encompasses many different aspects, ranging from regional cooperation, sampling design, quality control procedures, data storage and analysis to the actual coordination, reporting and accountancy. Current task sharing and coordination procedures as well as future mechanisms are partially covered under the current MARE study 2014/19 (FISHPI). The project and its progress were presented to the group. The outcomes of this study will demonstrate future procedures based on case studies. As substantial effort and costs are involved to facilitate the process of regional coordination, the group highlighted the importance to access to budgets to cover these costs. Development of the RDB is also crucial for future work of the RCGs; funds are needed for the development. Additionally, RCM NA identified 4 supra regional topics where work can be done intersesionally in cooperation with the rest of RCMs: (1) Cost sharing of funding surveys; (2) Impact of landing obligation; (3) reviewing the ICES list of data needs ; and (4) review and follow up on RDB upload logs. Due to the importance to moving to a regional catch sampling scheme, an exercise was realised using the distribution of landings by harbour and fleet segment as a proxy of sampling frames that could hypothetically operate in a regional probability based design. The exercise was based on landing weight, for the simple reason that this was the only complete variable that was available for all the various national data sets. A regional sampling design can however be optimized in any number of ways (e.g. by landings value, by métier diversity, by species diversity, by number of fishing trips). The aims and aspirations of the end users need to be defined to ascertain which is most appropriate. It is one of the overriding advantages of a regional sampling design (as opposed to the aggregation of national designs) that the overall coverage can be set out to achieve regional goals. The RCM NA analyzed and discussed the main achievements of WKISCON2. It was clear that concurrent sampling at-sea is a long-established practice in most MS and that, where it was applied, concurrent sampling of fishing trips on-shore resulted in substantial increases in species collected without jeopardizing the main uses of data. Stock assessment and discard estimation and management are the major current uses of concurrent sampling data. Concurrent sampling has also been providing other benefits than its initial reason, such as advice to local, national and international authorities, research on MSFD descriptors, mixed fisheries and gear interactions and on mortality of rare species, data-poor stocks and PETS. It was clear that concurrent sampling being a statistically valid method for species selection which has proven to fulfil different end-users needs, implementation constraints hinder concurrent sampling on-shore. Thus, in order to meet end-users needs and to overcome the constraints that may arise from the implementation of concurrent sampling in some countries, particularly on-shore, RCM NA considers that different statistically sound approaches other than concurrent sampling must be developed to be tested in the field, so they may provide useful alternatives. Introduction of the landing obligation and its impact in the implementation in scientific sampling schemes. In terms of evaluating the impact of the introduction of the Landing Obligation (LO) regulation on data collection, there is only limited experience as the current implementation only covers Pelagic and Industrial fisheries in this region but MS have or are preparing for the implementation where they can. It is currently perceived that this year is a transition period for the pelagic fisheries and that these fisheries and control agencies are not fully implementing the LO (managing but not enforcing). As a result MS did not have a lot of comments on the current year and are in general preparing for next year. During the meeting it was decided to gather further information to address this issue by getting member states who were present to fill in a table on “Monitoring the impact of the landing obligation on data collection in the North Atlantic region” outlining the current state of play. This table could be considered as a live document which should be filled in year by year as the Landing Obligation is phased in. This table will then serve to provide an historical record as countries can document the changes year by year and will also provide guidance and act as a learning tool to all member states on how other countries are implementing the LO. National administrations The group discussed the proposal for task sharing and criteria for joint surveys. RCM NS&EA and RCM NA 2014 discussed a cost model for the present joint MS financed surveys and for future joint surveys. In addition to this model, the RCM NA 2015 highlighted that four categories of surveys should be considered in relation to task sharing and criteria for joint surveys. In the light of cost sharing, the group commented that the current DCF recast proposal refers to ‘exploitation of stocks’ rather than EU TAC or landings. Given the relative stability, EU TAC shares are the preferred basis for sharing costs. The exploitation of stocks shall be interpreted as EU-TAC share as a default. In specific cases, RCGs can in the future agree on different interpretation where needed and feasible. Fully agreement among the group was concerning to the engagement and participation of National Correspondent (NC) in this meeting. The future role of the NCs in the RCG context was discussed, indicating a formal role for the NCs in the RCG process to approve and agree on regional arrangements. However, the current recast of the DCF doesn’t include the formal involvement of the NCs in the coordination procedures and meetings. RCM NA highlights this as potentially problematic for the foreseen formal role of the NCs. Other items on the agenda were the consideration of the follow up of relevant recommendations made last years by Liaison Meeting and presentations and relevant development from ICES, EC and SC-RDB.

The RCM NS&EA met 31st August - 4th September 2015 at den Haag, Netherlands with 27 participants form 11 member states and autonomous regions attending, including representatives of ICES and the Commission. National correspondents from Spain, UK, Denmark, Lithuania, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands were present. The meeting was co-chaired by Katja Ringdahl (Sweden) and Alastair Pout (Scotland). The RCM N&SEA considered the recommendations from the 11th Liasion meeting and summaries were presented of the work of expert groups and end users for the 2014-15 period to the plenary session of the meeting. The expert groups included WGCATCH, PGDATA, WKISCON2, WKRDB 2014-01, RDB–SC, STECF and the Zagreb meeting on transversal variables. ICES, as a main end user, provided feedback. A summary was presented of the progress in the regional coordination project (fishPi). This project involves over 40 participants from 12 members states from NS&EA, NA and Baltic regions, two external statistical experts, and ICES. The project has a wide scope of regional cooperation issues including sampling designs, data formats, code lists, PETS, stomach sampling, small scale and recreational sampling, and data quality software production. It has a budget of €400,000, and a one year time line and with a planned completion date of April 2016. A project with identical aims is running in paralleled in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions The majority of the ToRs of the RCM NS&EA were addressed by three subgroups: one concerned with data analysis, one with the landing obligation, and one with issues particularly related to role and work of national correspondents.

The 12th Liaison meeting was held in Brussels on 8th and 9th October 2015 to address the following Terms of Reference: TOR 1. Discussion on possible follow-­‐‑up to the main outputs/recommendations of: • The 2015 RCMs -­‐‑ specific recommendations addressed to the Liaison Meeting • PGECON, PGDATA, PGMed – outcomes and recommendations from their 2015 meeting • STECF EWG and STECF Plenary -­‐‑ outcomes and recommendations from their 2015 meetings • Data end users (ICES, STECF, RFMOs – GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC, WCPFC, NAFO, SPRFMO, CECAF, WECAFC) TOR2. End user feedback on data transmission and related issues • Discuss feedback received from data end-­‐‑users on data transmission: main issues and possible harmonization of end user feedback to the Commission • JRC data transmission IT platform: experience gained and future steps • Discuss best practices on automatization of data upload by MS: data validation tools used by end users • Discussion on new set-­‐‑up for STECF evaluation of AR2014 & data transmission 2014 used in 2015 – continue like this next year? • Harmonisation and dissemination of DCF metadata: codelists, metiers, nomenclatures, best practices, standards • RCM data calls – overview of how MS responded TOR 3. Regional cooperation • Call for proposals MARE/2014/19 'ʹStrengthening Regional Cooperation in the area of fisheries data collection– state of play'ʹ. Presentation by a representative of the two RCG grants and discussions by LM thereafter. What should be the way forward? • Regional databases • Overview of use of the Regional Databases for RCMs in 2015 and problems identified • Other developments (RDB trainings in 2015, RDB Med&BS development) • Changes for the future – any recommendations from the LM? • Future role of RCMs and DCF-­‐‑related meetings: best practices, coordination, cohesion and common structure in line with emerging needs of DCF TOR 4. EU MAP • Discuss recommendations/ output of RCMs: List of proposed stocks, landing obligation, metiers • Discuss design-­‐‑based sampling in relation to DCF: does it fulfil DCF requirements? TOR 5. Availability of data • Overview of latest developments (DCF Database Feasibility Study and plans for a follow-­‐‑up study to this) TOR 6. AOB • Agree on a list of recommendations relating to DCF (that MS will need to report on in their AR2015) – COM will provide a compilation of proposed recommendations from LM & STECF Plenaries in 2014 as input • Prepare a list of recommended meetings for 2016 as guidance for MS • Review and prioritize DCF-­‐‑related study proposals from RCMs, PGECON, EGs etc • ICES update on workshop on concurrent sampling and plans to re-­‐‑evaluate surveys

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 43rd plenary on 8-12 July 2013 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of referenceincluded both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topicsdealt were inter alia assessments of the economic performance of the EU fishing fleet, fishing effort regime evaluations, future EU data collection, andreview of stock advice.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 41st plenary on 5-9 November 2012 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms ofreference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission.Topics dealt were inter alia assessments of Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks, evaluations of fishing effort regimes, technical measures, review ofscientific advice on stocks and fisheries of EU interest, fisheries management plans evaluation issues.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 39th plenary on 16-20 April 2012 in Brussels (Belgium). The terms of referenceincluded both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topicsdealt with ranged from fisheries economics to management plan evaluation issues.

This corrigendum should replace the corresponding section 8.4 of the 38th Plenary meeting report of the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (PLEN-11-03). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 25033 EN, JRC67714.

The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries hold its 36th plenary on 11-15 April 2011 in Barza d’Ispra (Italy). The terms of reference included both issues assessments of STECF Expert Working Group reports and additional requests submitted to the STECF by the Commission. Topics dealt with ranged from fisheries economics to management plan evaluation issues.

EWG-11-11 meeting was held on 26 – 30 September 2011 in Cadiz (Spain). This Section of the report covers the Deep Sea and Western Waters and provides fleet specific trends in catch (including discards), nominal effort and catch (landings) per unit of effort in order to advise on fleet specific impacts on stocks under multiannual management plans. STECF reviewed the report during its November 2011 plenary meeting.