Search

The ICES Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF2) was tasked review the WKREF1 report and based on the outcome develop updated guidelines for the ICES reference points system and recommendations for ACOM consideration. The WKREF1 report has suggested 5 key recom- mendations to simplify and harmonise the ICES reference points framework representing a ma- jor change to the current guidelines. At WKREF2, we detailed discussions and four key concerns were raised about the proposed approach. The first related to the simplification of rules to define Blim. Around two thirds of category 1 stocks would end up as WKREF1 “Blim Type 2” where Blim would be set as a fraction of B0. The Allee effect or “depensation” maybe more important than previously thought and should be furthered explored for ICES stocks since it has important consequences for Blim. A number of challenges and issues around defining Blim using the current guidelines were documented. Some suggestions on improvement criteria were discussed including using classifiers to define spas- modic stocks and using change point algorithms to address non-stationary productivity regimes. However, further work is need to make these approaches operational and there was no consen- sus that the WKREF1 Blim types should replace the current guidelines. WKREF1 recommended that the FMSY proxy should be based on a biological proxies and should be less than the deterministic FMSY. It was pointed out that the stochastic FMSY estimated in EqSim for example, is lower than the deterministic FMSY and that the current guidelines ensure that the FMSY should not pose a more than 5% risk to Blim. A large amount of work described in WD 1 was carried out to develop an MSE framework to consistency and robustness test a candidate refer- ence point system for North East Atlantic stocks. However, WKREF2 recommended that further work needs to be carried out to condition and test the simulation framework before the conclu- sions could be adopted by ICES and incorporated into the guidelines. A number of considerations for defining MSY related reference points were discussed including using model validation and prediction skill to ensure that ICES provide robust and credible ad- vice. There is evidence that density dependence (DD) is important in the majority of ICES stocks (68% in recruitment and 54% in growth). The correct prediction of the shape and strength of density-dependence in productivity is key to predicting future stock development and providing the best possible long-term fisheries management advice. A suggested approach to use surplus production models (SPMs) to account for DD in FMSY was suggested and discussed but there was no consensus on whether that approach was appropriate. There was consensus that the FECO approach as a means of adapting target fishing mortality to medium-term changes in productiv- ity should be included in the guidelines subject to a benchmark and ACOM approval. While WKREF1 and 2 focused mainly on Category 1 stocks ToR c) called for a “simplified and harmonised set of guidelines for estimating MSY and precautionary reference points applicable in the advice framework across various ICES stock categories.” Ideally the ICES assessment cat- egories should provide equivalent risk across all stocks. This issue was discussed but no recom- mendations emerged. There was no consensus a revised reference point framework was proposed at WKREF2. How- ever, it was agreed that it should be presented here for further discussion at ACOM and other fora. The key feature of the suggested approach is that the stock status evaluation is treated in- dependent of the Advice Rule (AR). The main feature of the system is that the biomass trigger is not linked to a stock status evaluation, it is linked to the expected biomass when fishing at the target fishing mortality, in contrast to the current ICES approach. It also entailed that FMSY would also become an upper limit of fishing mortality and that the advised fishing mortality would be set at or lower than that level. WKREF2 did not discuss what to do in situations where SSB< Blim or alternative forms of HCR for the advice rule. Building community understanding and con- sensus around simplified and harmonised guidelines has yet to be achieved. A further workshop WKREF3 will be required to achieve that aim. The report includes 6 recommendations for ACOM consideration. ICES The main objective of the workshop was to review the recommendations of WKREF1 and con- sider how these might feed into a new reference points framework and guidelines for ICES. There were a number of presentations on the wider issues of best practice for reference points, the Allee effect, density dependence and the WKIRISH approach. The starting point was to try and develop a set of simplified and harmonised guidelines based on the WKREF1 report rather than evolving the current guidelines to include the WKREF1 conclusions. A key aspect of the meeting was to allow for discussions in order to build a shared understanding of the strengths and weakness of the current framework and of the new framework emerging from WKREF1. Published Non Refereed

The simulation testing approach put forward here follows that developed at the 2012 ICES Working Group on Methods of Fish Stock Assessment. This as adopted for the SISAM assessment methods testing exercise for which results were reported at the 2013 Boston World Conference on Stock Assessment Methods, and involves conditioning the parameters of the operating model on the data available to better provide results pertinent to the situation being analysed.

Supplementary Materials S1 and S2

This document sets out the issues arising in taking existing computations forward (those reported in MARAM/IWS/DEC15/PengD/P2 on the basis of the framework set out in MARAM/IWS/DEC15/PengD/P1) to address such bias estimation, particularly with a view to obtaining the Panel���s advice on choices amongst some of the possible courses of action that could be pursued. These choices relate, inter alia, to methods of estimation, methods for generating data for simulation-based evaluation of bias, and interpretation of the results particularly in circumstances where conclusions have to take account of the large number of plausible scenarios which may introduce bias into the estimation. It is intended to adopt such choices for the methodology to be used to take this work to completion in the new year.

This document indicates how the analyses which estimate the fishing effect parameters �������� or ��i are extended to estimate the power of an Island Closure Experiment. Statistical power reflects the probability that an experiment will detect an effect if it exists.

Documents MARAM/IWS/DEC15/PengD/P1-4 summarise the work carried out under the auspices of the Task Team and the agreed outputs from the associated computations.The purpose of this document is to provide a brief ���walk through��� of those four documents to embellish the rationale for the choices of analyses pursued, to assist external readers follow the logic of this process as seen by the Task Team.

The ICES Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF2) was tasked review the WKREF1 report and based on the outcome develop updated guidelines for the ICES reference points system and recommendations for ACOM consideration. The WKREF1 report has suggested 5 key recommendations to simplify and harmonise the ICES reference points framework representing a major change to the current guidelines. At WKREF2, we detailed discussions and four key concerns were raised about the proposed approach. The first related to the simplification of rules to define Blim. Around two thirds of category 1 stocks would end up as WKREF1 “Blim Type 2” where Blim would be set as a fraction of B0. The Allee effect or “depensation” maybe more important than previously thought and should be furthered explored for ICES stocks since it has important consequences for Blim. A number of challenges and issues around defining Blim using the current guidelines were documented. Some suggestions on improvement criteria were discussed including using classifiers to define spasmodic stocks and using change point algorithms to address non-stationary productivity regimes. However, further work is need to make these approaches operational and there was no consensus that the WKREF1 Blim types should replace the current guidelines. WKREF1 recommended that the FMSY proxy should be based on a biological proxies and should be less than the deterministic FMSY. It was pointed out that the stochastic FMSY estimated in EqSim for example, is lower than the deterministic FMSY and that the current guidelines ensure that the FMSY should not pose a more than 5% risk to Blim. A large amount of work described in WD 1 was carried out to develop an MSE framework to consistency and robustness test a candidate reference point system for North East Atlantic stocks. However, WKREF2 recommended that further work needs to be carried out to condition and test the simulation framework before the conclusions could be adopted by ICES and incorporated into the guidelines. A number of considerations for defining MSY related reference points were discussed including using model validation and prediction skill to ensure that ICES provide robust and credible advice. There is evidence that density dependence (DD) is important in the majority of ICES stocks (68% in recruitment and 54% in growth). The correct prediction of the shape and strength of density-dependence in productivity is key to predicting future stock development and providing the best possible long-term fisheries management advice. A suggested approach to use surplus production models (SPMs) to account for DD in FMSY was suggested and discussed but there was no consensus on whether that approach was appropriate. There was consensus that the FECO approach as a means of adapting target fishing mortality to medium-term changes in productivity should be included in the guidelines subject to a benchmark and ACOM approval. While WKREF1 and 2 focused mainly on Category 1 stocks ToR c) called for a “simplified and harmonised set of guidelines for estimating MSY and precautionary reference points applicable in the advice framework across various ICES stock categories.” Ideally the ICES assessment categories should provide equivalent risk across all stocks. This issue was discussed but no recommendations emerged. There was no consensus a revised reference point framework was proposed at WKREF2. However, it was agreed that it should be presented here for further discussion at ACOM and other fora. The key feature of the suggested approach is that the stock status evaluation is treated independent of the Advice Rule (AR). The main feature of the system is that the biomass trigger is not linked to a stock status evaluation, it is linked to the expected biomass when fishing at the target fishing mortality, in contrast to the current ICES approach. It also entailed that FMSY would also become an upper limit of fishing mortality and that the advised fishing mortality would be set at or lower than that level. WKREF2 did not discuss what to do in situations where SSB< Blim or alternative forms of HCR for the advice rule. Building community understanding and consensus around simplified and harmonised guidelines has yet to be achieved. A further workshop WKREF3 will be required to achieve that aim. The report includes 6 recommendations for ACOM consideration. nonPeerReviewed

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. Within a management strategy evaluation harvest control rules were tuned and robustness tested for the anchovy and sardine stocks in the Adriatic Sea. This investigation was done in support of GFCM and a continuation of the preliminary report (EWG 21-adhoc-02). For the sardine stock no meaningful MSE could be conducted. For the anchovy stock two HCRs were identified to be achieving the management targets and being robust. European Commission Published Non Refereed

CMSY++ is an advanced state-space Bayesian method for stock assessment that estimates fisheries reference points (MSY, Fmsy, Bmsy) as well as status or relative stock size (B/Bmsy) and fishing pressure or exploitation (F/Fmsy) from catch and (optionally) abundance data, a prior for resilience or productivity (r), and broad priors for the ratio of biomass to unfished biomass (B/k) at the beginning, an intermediate year, and the end of the time series. For the purpose of this User Guide, the whole package is referred to as CMSY++ whereas the part of the method that deals with catch-only data is referred to as CMSY (catch MSY), and the part of the method that requires additional abundance data is referred to as BSM (Bayesian Schaefer Model). Both methods are based on a modified Schaefer surplus production model (see paper cited above for more details). The main advantage of BSM, compared to other implementations of surplus production models, is the focus on informative priors and the acceptance of short and incomplete (i.e., fragmented, with missing years) abundance data. This document provides a simple step-by-step guide for researchers who want to apply CMSY++ to their own data.

This contribution presents the detailed responses to the peer-review of Froese et al. (2019) “Estimating stock status from relative abundance and resilience” (ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2019) which outlined a method called “AMSY” for inferring biomass trends for stocks for which only catch-per-unit-effort and limited ancillary (‘priors’) data are available. The responses emphasize that the required priors are legitimate and straightforward to obtain, thus, making AMSY a method of choice in data-sparse situations. This is also a good example of the role of peer-review in validating and improving science.