General enquiries on this form should be made to:randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=10585_… · Web viewGeneral Enquiries on the form should be made to: Defra, Procurements

General Enquiries on the form should be made to:Defra, Procurements and Commercial Function (Evidence Procurement Team)E-mail: [email protected]

Evidence Project Final Report

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 1 of 21

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The Evidence Project Final Report is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra websiteAn Evidence Project Final Report must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code MF1201

2. Project title

A Risk Analysis Framework For Fisheries Management

3. Contractororganisation(s)

CefasLowestoft LaboratoryPakefield RoadLowestoftSuffolkNR33 0HT

54. Total Defra project costs £ 1,500,000(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ April 2007

end date................. March 2012

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 2 of 21

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so. YES (a) When preparing Evidence Project Final Reports contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that

they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the Evidence Project Final Report can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain     

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

The overall objective of the project was to develop a risk analysis framework for the identification, assessment, management and communication of risk to increase our ability to understand and incorporate uncertainty and risk in fisheries management decision-making where knowledge and data are uncertain.

The main thrust of the project was the development of a set of bio-economic simulation models of fisheries and ecological systems in the programming language ‘R’ in association with researchers throughout Europe and in conjunction with several EU-funded framework programmes. The resulting framework, provides a generic ‘toolbox’ but is particularly suited to constructing simulation models for the evaluation and assessment of fisheries management strategies. It also allows stochastic evaluations of the likely outcomes and permits an analysis of the trade-offs and risks associated with different management plan scenarios.

The agreed objectives and achievements against each to achieve the aims of the project were as follows:

1. Review international best practice and appropriate knowledge bases (i.e. the gamut of information required to make fisheries management decisions).

The review of best practices were undertaken during year 1 of the project and resulted in the publication of two book chapters on management strategy evaluation and on changes to marine resources management in the face of change from ecosystem science to ecosystem management.

2. Implement appropriate tools in a common open-source framework

The open-source framework that has been developed is the Fisheries Library in ‘R’. The FLR framework (www.FLR-project.org) is a collection of tools in the R statistical language that facilitates the construction of bio-economic simulation models of fisheries and ecological systems. It is a generic toolbox, but is specifically suited for the construction of simulation models for evaluations of fisheries management strategies. It is flexible and can be used to address a range of fisheries management problems and issues. The FLR library has been developed by researchers across a number of laboratories and universities.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 3 of 21

At the project’s end nine fully operational software packages to undertake different fisheries assessments and simulations.

3. Apply to selected case studies in collaboration with other Defra and EU projects, The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and Regional management Organisations (RMOs), Regional advisory Councils (RACs) and the EU Scientific, technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

FLR is being increasingly adopted as the modelling framework of choice by scientists in the EU and elsewhere. To date, FLR has been used by 15 ICES working groups for provision of stock assessments and advice and at least 96 different stock assessments have been carried out in FLR. The ICCAT-SCRS and the IOTC have used FLR for 6 and 3 different stock assessments respectively. Furthermore, ICES and the STECF WGs, have used FLR in assessing and evaluating long term management plans for a variety of EU fisheries.

4. Write up and disseminate research findings.

25 peer-review papers and book chapters reporting the results of research and investigations undertaken with direct support from MF1201 have already been published and a further 8 are either being prepared or have been submitted for publication or are under review. Numerous working papers were prepared for ICES and STECF working groups and 8 conference presentations have been given.

In addition seven international training courses in the use of FLR for undertsaling stock assessments and simulation modelling have been run by Cefas STAFF who are expert in the devleopment and use of FLR.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of

the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Exchange).

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 4 of 21

Project overview and objectives

The overall objective of the project was to develop a risk analysis framework for the identification, assessment, management and communication of risk to increase our ability to understand and incorporate uncertainty and risk in fisheries management decision-making where knowledge and data are uncertain. There were no amendments to the original contract.

The main thrust of the project was the development of a set of bio-economic simulation models of fisheries and ecological systems in the programming language ‘R’ in association with researchers throughout Europe and in conjunction with several EU-funded framework programmes. The resulting framework, provides a generic ‘toolbox’ but is particularly suited to constructing simulation models for the evaluation and assessment of fisheries management strategies.

The essential elements of the risk analysis framework are: Risk identification: e.g. a description of hazardous or detrimental events or states) Risk assessment: probabilistic assessment of the potential occurrence or consequences

of alternative management actions) Risk management: the formulation of a variety of instruments (management measures) to

manage the risks. Risk communication: the development of mechanisms to ensure that the outputs of risk

assessment and the risk management options available are adequately understood by stakeholders.

The agreed objectives to achieve the aims of the project were as follows:

5. Review international best practice and appropriate knowledge bases (i.e. the gamut of information required to make fisheries management decisions)

6. Implement appropriate tools in a common open-source framework (www.FLR-project.org) 7. Apply to selected case studies in collaboration with other Defra and EU projects, The International

Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and Regional management Organisations (RMOs), Regional advisory Councils (RACs) and the EU Scientific, technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF).

8. Write up and disseminate research findings.

The detailed milestones and their delivery months were as follows:

1. Specification of a MSE framework for evaluation of Recovery Plans – Month 12

2. Specification of elements required for a Comprehensive Risk Analysis Framework for fisheries – Month 12

3. Specification of generic tools for conditioning of Operating Models – Month 12

4. Compilation of a risk register – Month 12

5. Specification of a MSE framework for evaluation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fishing – Month24

6. Implementation of generic tools for the evaluation of recovery plans in FLR – Month 24

7. Specification of a framework for evaluation of the cost of alternative enforcement schemes – Month 24

8. Recommendations on elements required in order to provide a comprehensive risk assessment framework – Month 24

9. Report: Risk classification for data poor to data rich stocks Month 24

10. Implementation of evaluation tool for the performance of an indicator-based operational framework in a management context – Month 36

11. Report on generic recovery plans – Month 36

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 5 of 21

12. Report on an indicator-based operational framework for an ecosystem approach in the management of European fisheries – Month 48

13. Report on evaluation of alternative enforcement scheme – Month 48

Results and achievements

The first three years of the project were largely concerned with specifying appropriate evaluation frameworks for implementing an Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries (EBAF), with the primary aim of informing the fisheries management decision-making process in an attempt to fulfil the EU and UK commitments under the WSSD. This required specifying, implementing and then applying appropriate models within a common framework. Work has been carried out in collaboration with numerous developers from a variety of institutes throughout Europe and in conjunction with a series of EU sixth and seventh Framework programmes (details below) The risk analysis framework that we have developed (Fisheries Library in “R” - i.e. FLR www.FLR-project.org) ) has been adopted by fisheries scientists worldwide for undertaking assessments and simulation modelling to provide advice on a range of fisheries management proposals.

The final 2 years of the project have seen extensive adoption and application of the tools developed under FLR together with continued development of software packages and maintenance.. The availability of such a toolset and the associated conceptual framework has allowed rapid prototyping and development of stochastic analyses of the impact on assessment and management of different management options, sampling programmes and implementation policies. This increase the capacity of quantitative fisheries scientist to respond quickly and accurately to demands of advice from Defra or other stakeholders.

Collaboration in EU Framework contracts.

Throughout the lifetime of the project work has been undertaken in association with other projects within the MF commission, through EU projects and by application with ICES and STECF. Over its lifetime MF1201 will have provided matched funding support for the UK’s (Cefas’) contribution to EU funded R&D contracts totalling some €32 million. These have included the following sixth and Seventh framework research programme projects PRONE, AFRAME, COBECOS, RECLAIM, UNCOVER, PROTECT, FISBOAT, CAFÉ, EFIMAS JAKFISH and DEEPFISHMAN. The work undertaken in en each of these framework projects is outlined in the final project reports, and hyper-links links to the respective reports are given in section 9 below (References to published material).

Progress against agreed objectives

All agreed objectives were met and milestones were met within the agreed timescales. Progress against each of the agreed objectives has been as follows:

Objective 1. Review international best practice

The review of best practices were undertaken during year 1 of the project. Two review chapters were published on management strategy evaluation and on changes to marine resources management in the face of change from ecosystem science to ecosystem management:

J.A.A. De Oliveira, L.T. Kell, A.E. Punt, B.A. Roel and D.S. Butterworth. Managing without best predictions: the Management Strategy Evaluation framework. In Advances in Fisheries Science. 50 years on from Beverton and Holt, pp. 104-134. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. xxi + 547 pp.

Barange, M., R. O'Boyle, K. L. Cochrane, C. L. Cunningham, M. J. Fogarty, A. Jarre, L. T. Kell, J. R. King, K. Reid, M. Sinclair, A. Yatsu (in press). Marine resources management in the face of change: from ecosystem science to ecosystem management. In: M. Barange, R. Harris, E. Hofmann, F. Werner, R.I. Perry and J. G. Field (Eds.) Marine Ecosystems and Global Change. Oxford University Press.

Objective 2.  Implement appropriate tools in a common open source framework (www.FLR-project.org)

Development of the FLR framework was undertaken in association with international colleagues working collaboratively on a variety of EU framework programme projects (see list above). The framework is specified by the development of a number of flexible software packages.

To date the following packages have been developed tested and used to inform on potential outcomes of fisheries management proposals and stock assessments:

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 6 of 21

Packages developed and implemented in FLR

FLCoreThe base package for FLR. It contains all the core classes that are used for representing the different components of a fisheries system (e.g. stocks, fleets, biology and tuning indices). It also contains the functions and methods for manipulating these classes (e.g. fitting stock-recruitment relationships, calculating spawning stock biomass) and for reading in data in a variety of formats (e.g. Lowestoft format). All other FLR packages depend on FLCore.

FLEDAA package for the exploratory analysis of the data available for stock assessment. It includes a combination of simple calculations and graphical representations aiming at data screening (checking for missing data, unusual values, patterns, etc), inspection of data consistency (within and between data series) and extracting signals from the basic data. Diagnostics include those recommended during the ICES 2004 Methods Working Group meeting.

FLAssessThe base package for age structured stock assessment methods. The package includes methods for performing Virtual population analysis (VPA), Seperable VPA and short term forecasts. However, it’s real strength is that it is easily adapted for other assessment methods, e.g. Extended Survivirs Analysis (XSA) and Integrated catch Analysis (ICA).

FLXSAA package that implements the XSA stock assessment method. This includes running the assessment, performing retrospective analysis, bootstrapping the data to get estimates of confidence and producing diagnostic plots. FLXSA extends the FLAssess package and provides a flexible and rapid and efficient means of undertaking fish stock assessments using XSA.

FLICAAs FLXSA, but implements the ICA stock assessment method.

FLashA package for performing stock projections through time. The projections can be performed under a range of scenarios, e.g. with a predetermined fishing mortality. It can also perform more detailed projections under different Total allowable catch (TAC) and biomass constraints. For example, projecting stocks forward in time whilst calculating the required fishing mortality (F) so that yield is equal to a particular TAC. In this way this package can be used to simulate and test harvest control rules e.g. those associated with long-term management plans. Stochastic projections can be performed by including deviates in the recruitment model.

FLBRPA package for calculating biological reference points for a fish stock ,including maximum sustainable yield (MSY), spawner-per-recruit (SPR) and yield-per-recruit (YPR) reference points. It can be used to investigate how reference point values change as the underlying biological assumptions (e.g. about the stock-recruitment relationship) change.

FLBayesImplements Bayesian analyses, including Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC).

FLBioDynA package for implementing biomass dynamic models. For example, surplus production models. Stochastic projections can also be performed. Confidence intervals of the estimated parameter values can be estimated through bootstrap methods.

Objective 3.  Apply to selected case studies in collaboration with other Defra and EU projects, ICES and Regional Management Organisations (RMOs), Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), STECF, etc.

The tools developed under the FLR framework with MF1201 support, have been applied to address a variety of fisheries management issues including stock assessments and evaluations of long-term management plans. Since 2009 FLR has been used by the following ICES Working Groups:

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 7 of 21

1. Arctic Fisheries Working Group

2. Herring Assessment Working (Area South of 62°N)

3. North Western Working Group

4. Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group

5. Working Group on the Celtic Seas Ecoregion

6. Working Group on the Biology and Assessment of Deep-sea Fisheries Resources

7. Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes

8. Working Group on the Assessment of Southern Shelf Stocks of Hake, Monk and Megrim

9. Working Group on Mixed Fish-eries Advice for the North Sea

10. Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak - Combined spring and Autumn

11. Working Group on Widely Dis-tributed Stocks

12. Workshop on the Development of Assessments based on LIFE history traits and Exploitation Characteristics

13. Impact Assessment of the new Common Fisheries Policy

14. Ad hoc Group to prepare advice for the EC cod recovery management plan request

15. Planning Group on Commercial Catches, Discards and Biological Sampling

To date at least 96 stock assessments have been undertaken by ICES using the FLR framework developed under the contract and as more researchers become expert in using FLR its utility is anticipated to further increase.

The following Expert Working Groups of the STECF (have used FLR for the assessment/evaluation of management plans. The hyper-text links to the relevant reports of those EWG meetings.

1. Impact assessment for long-term management of North Sea plaice and sole https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=122927&name=DLFE-8104.pdf

Long-term management plans for Northern hake. https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44843&name=DLFE-3302.pdf

2. Long-term management of Bay of Biscay Anchovy https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44844&name=DLFE-3305.pdf

Evaluation of Generic Harvest Control Rules https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44910&name=DLFE-3780.pdf3. Evaluation of Fishery Multi-annual Plans https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44883&name=DLFE-4615.pdf

4. Multiannual plan impact assessments https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44887&name=DLFE-4718.pdf

5. Evaluation and Impact Assessments https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44892&name=DLFE-3643.pdf

6. Evaluation of Multi-Annual Plan for hake and Nephrops in areas VIIIc and IXahttps://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44893&name=DLFE-6702.pdf

7. Evaluation of multi-annual plan for Baltic cod https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44893&name=DLFE-6703.pdf

8. Impact assessment of North Sea plaice and sole multi-annual planhttps://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44893&name=DLFE-5506.pdf

9. Impact assessment of Western Channel sole multi-annual plan https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=44893&name=DLFE-6704.pdf

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 8 of 21

10. Impact assessment for L-T management of Bay of Biscay sole https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=76311&name=DLFE-10105.pdf

11. Scoping for Impact Assessments for Baltic cod and Evaluation of Cod in Kattegat, North Sea, West of Scotland and Irish Seahttps://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=76311&name=DLFE-10104.pdf

12. Impact Assessment of Baltic cod multi-annual planshttps://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=133326&name=DLFE-12703.pdf

13. mpact Assessment of multi-annual plans for Southern hake, angler fish and Nephrops.https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=133326&name=DLFE-12705.pdf

14. Evaluation of multi-annual plans for cod in Irish Sea, Kattegat, North Sea, and West of Scotlandhttps://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=53314&folderId=133326&name=DLFE-12704.pdf

Up to the end of 2011, FLR has also been used for 6 stock assessments undertaken by the ICCAT-SCRS and for 3 stock assessments by the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

MF1201 has also facilitated the establishment of collaborative links with world experts in the field of Fishery Systems, Management strategy evaluation and Risk Analysis.

Objective 4.  Write up and disseminate research findings.

25 peer-review papers and book chapters reporting the results of research and investigations undertaken with direct support from MF1201 have already been published and a further 8 are either being prepared or have been submitted for publication or are under review. In addition numerous working papers have also been prepared for ICES and STECF working groups and 8 conference presentations have been give (see reference list in section 9 below.)

Training in FLRAn important component in the development and application of FLR has been the week-long training courses undertaken by Cefas staff with support under M1201. These were held as follows:

Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra 2008Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami FL, USA, 2007ICES (WKFLR, Jan-Jaap and myself) in 2007Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, Canada. 2008Bergen, Norway. 2008Ancona, Italy. 2009Copenhagen, Denmark. 2012

Demand for all coursed was high and all were fully subscribed.

Milestones

1. Specification of a MSE framework for evaluation of Recovery Plans2. Specification of elements required for a Comprehensive Risk Analysis Framework for fisheries3. Specification of generic tools for conditioning of Operating Models4. Compilation of a risk register

Milestones 1-4 were all related to setting up the core risk analysis framework and involved conceptualisation and software development. They were completed within the 1st year of the project and provided the basis of the FLR framework.

5. Specification of a MSE framework for evaluation of the Ecosystem Approach to FishingThis objective was completed satisfactorily by month 24 as intended. ICES has adopted FLR form numerous stock assessments and has added FLR to its training programme for fisheries scientists directly involved in its assessment and advisory process. The availability of such a toolset and the associated conceptual framework has allowed rapid prototyping and development of stochastic analyses of the likely impacts of different management options, sampling programmes and implementation policies. The increase in the capacity of quantitative fisheries scientist to respond quickly and accurately to requests for advice from Defra or other stakeholders and development and enhanced communication of its capability and utility to a wider group scientists and stakeholders has enhanced our ability to provide timely, informed advice on fisheries management at both national and international levels.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 9 of 21

6. Implementation of generic tools for the evaluation of recovery plans in FLRThis objective was completed by month 24 of the project. Implementation of generic tools in association with UNCOVER, has allowed us to undertake scenario modelling addressing a number of fishery management issues through participation in ICES and STECF Working Groups e.g. ICES Study Group on Risk Assessment and Management Advice (SGRAMA), the ICES Ad hoc Group on the Cod recovery Management plan (AGCREMP), the STECF - SG_RST Expert group on generic harvest control rules and long term management plans. The FLR toolbox has been used since 2010 to undertake impact assessments for a range of proposed long-term management plans for fisheries defined by the EU (DGMARE – see list of STECF EWG report meeting reports listed under Objective 3 above).

MF1201 was also linked with the EU 7th framework programme JAKFISH. Cefas’ involvement is with a North Sea Nephrops fishey management case study and work in association with the North Sea RAC to devise and evaluate the likely consequences of alternative management strategies using the MSE tools developed un MF1201 and associated EU contracts has been undertaken. This has involved the development and testing of general tools in FLR that can be tailored with minimal effort and applied to the Nephrops fishery case study which is very important to the UK. The work on the Nephrops fishery case study was completed and reported on in the JAKFISH final report (see link under objective 3 above). The development of general tools in FLR with MF1201 support has been fundamental to our ability to undertake assessments of the likely consequences of alternative management proposals.

7. Specification of a framework for evaluation of the cost of alternative enforcement schemesThis objective was completed by month 24 of the project as agreed. General tools for the evaluation of the cost of alternative enforcement schemes were developed in conjunction with the EU project COBECOS. This used a theoretical economics model to maximise the social benefit of the fishery. The sole fishery in area 7e was used as a case study and the dependence of the analysis on the availability of data was highlighted.

8. Recommendations on elements required in order to provide a comprehensive risk assessment framework.This objective was largely achieved by month 24 as agreed. The framework was developed under MF1201 in association with the EU contract PRONE. The PRONE report was accepted by the EU in 2009 who commented favourably as follows:

“The PRONE deliverables are of very high scientific quality and provide very useful and promising outcomes for the improvement of the scientific advice supporting decision-making for fisheries management.”

The developments under PRONE were peer reviewed by the ICES' Study Group on Risk Assessment and Management Advice (SGRAMA) in 2009 which Cefas staff working under M1201 participated in. http://www.ices.dk/workinggroups/ViewWorkingGroup.aspx?ID=157). Ideas elaborated under M1201/PRONE were adopted by the Study Group and the resulting framework now forms the basis for a lnumber of ICES Wgs. The move towards risk-based management has been supported by many participants in the advisory process but until very recently was deemed too complicated, given the length of time and the effort needed to assemble the necessary statistical models. The development of FLR has substantially changed this, and models can now be developed and run within FLR to provide results over the relatively short time scales usually required for advice. The current capabilities of the conceptual/computational framework developed in great part under M1201 presently allows a move towards risk-based advice for many stocks to be achievable in the short-medium term.

9. Report: Risk classification for data poor to data rich stocksUnder MF1201, and in conjunction with work undertaken under MF1205, ways to consider the uncertainties involved in data-limited assessment methods and to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of such methods. Work has focussed on simple assessment models that are less data demanding (and less expensive in terms of data collection) than traditional assessment models. Our general approach has been to simulate a variety of fish stocks with “typical” life history characteristics and compare the results of simple data – limited assessment methods (e.g. surplus production models) with data-hungry assessment methods e.g. VPA). The results from both methods are compared and conclusions drawn. The work is currently being prepared for publication (see Kell et al, papers being prepared in section 9).

Work under MF1201 on the analysis of life histories and their link to management responses as a way of predicting stock dynamics in data-poor situations have been used as a test case for a number of ideas linking biological and evolutionary characteristics of Scombrids (mackerels) to their capacity to sustain

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 10 of 21

fishing pressure and to recover under appropriate management. The use of life history proxies is of great interest in data-poor or new fisheries, and evolutionary correlates could allow the extension of results on robust management strategies obtained on data-intensive stocks to data-poor ones, as required under an Ecosystem Approach to Fishing and the Precautonary Approach. This work has not yet been published

10. Implementation of evaluation tool for the performance of an indicator-based operational framework in a management contextIn conjunction with the EU Project AFRAME, work under MF1201 has contributed to the successful development of an area- and fleet-based framework that integrates single species assessment and advice and which is robust to uncertainty resulting from factors such as lack of discard data. The resulting framework has switched the focus from a biological unit (fish stock) to a social unit (a fleet or fishery and represents a major shift away from the current TAC-dominated, stock based approach to fisheries management. This work also involved the development of indicators as a basis for setting management targets. Case studies were drawn from the North Sea, western Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and focused on areas where fleet-based management is urgently needed (see link to AFRAME report in section 9 below).

This approach represents a major step towards an ecosystem approach to management through the area and fleet based approach to assessments and management advice, and the analysis of stakeholder perspective in relation to these developments. Two papers were presented at the ICES annual science conference in September 2009.

In relation to provision of indicators and the ecosystem approach to fishing under MF1201 we have developed evolutionary impact assessment (EvoIA) as a set of methods for assessing the evolutionary consequences of fishing and for evaluating the merits of alternative management options. EvoIAs (i) contribute to the ecosystem approach to fisheries management by clarifying how evolution alters stock properties and ecological relations, (ii) support the precautionary approach to fisheries management by addressing a previously overlooked source of uncertainty and risk, and (iii) help realize the Johannesburg summit’s commitment to the restoration of sustainable fisheries by assisting fisheries managers to cope with the evolutionary implications of fishing.

Mounting evidence indicates that fishing can induce evolutionary changes in exploited stocks. With fishing mortalities sometimes exceeding natural mortalities by as much as 400%, adaptive responses to the altered selective environment caused by fishing seem inevitable. Case studies suggest that fisheries-induced evolution can occur Although human activity can cause rapid evolution in organisms, but quantifying anthropogenic evolutionary change can be difficult. For example, several commercial fish stocks have undergone remarkable phenotypic changes within just a few generations, but the extent to which this reflects evolutionary change rather than phenotypic plasticity is the subject of debate and that the incurred changes may be slow to reverse. Many traits are likely to be affected. However, increasing evidence supports the premise argument that modern fisheries exert strong directional selection on life history characters in fish, including maturation schedules, growth rates, reproductive investment, behaviour, and morphology, and that high fishing mortality is at least partly responsible for some of the observed phenotypic changes in certain heavily exploited stocks.

As a result, potential fisheries-induced evolution may change the utility of fish stocks, e.g. by altering utility components such as fisheries yields, stock stability, recovery potential, trophic interactions, geographical distributions, genetic diversity, benefits of tourism, and the intrinsic values of species and ecosystems. Such changes modify the ecological services through which living aquatic resources provide value to society. Therefore, quantifying and characterising the evolutionary effects of fishing is important for both economic and ecological reasons and may assist discussions among stakeholders and facilitate management of affected stocks. The need for extending traditional fisheries management to account for the potential evolutionary effects of fishing thus seems compelling.

In association with the evolutionary impact assessment work, with support from MF1201, we have undertaken studies based mainly on research survey data suggested that within the North Sea, sole (Solea solea) and plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) have shown distribution shifts in recent decades—on average southward in the case of sole, and to deeper waters in the case of plaice. Conversely, landings data tentatively suggest a northward range expansion in sole. Various hypotheses may account for such shifts, including climate change effects and more intensive fishing effort in more southerly or shallower waters; but the relatively short time spans of datasets analysed so far (~3 decades) have complicated the disentangling of these two effects. We catalogued and digitised extensive sole and plaice catch and effort data for British North Sea trawlers; these cover nine decades and are spatially detailed by ICES rectangle (0.5° Latitude, by 1° Longitude). Based on these we quantify, for the first time, long-term distribution changes of North Sea sole and plaice over a period approaching a century. We interpret the findings in the

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 11 of 21

light of climate change and long-term changes in fishing pressure. The work has been submitted for publication (Engelhard et al. see section 9 below).

11. Report on generic recovery plansWork was undertaken in the ICES Study Group on the evaluation of assessment and management strategies of the western herring stocks (SGHERWAY). A multi-fishery stock model developed under MF1201 (Kell et al. 2009) was used in collaboration with the MoU at the SGHERWAY meeting in December 2009.

Together with work carried out under the EU UNCOVER project MF1201 has helped develop recovery strategies byi) Identifying changes experienced during stock decline and their consequences for the prospects of stock recoveryii) Enhancing the understanding of mechanisms of fish stock recoveryiii) Providing recommendations for the recovery of EU fish stocks, which are outside of safe biological limits.

A multidisciplinary approach has been used to investigate changes experienced during stock decline as well as to identify key processes impacting upon the potential for stock recovery. The results were integrated in order to evaluate and develop management strategies incorporating biological and environmental factors. Delivery of this objective was achieved in conjunction with the EU project UNCOVER. A paper has been drafted under UNCOVER that examines how the inclusion of more detailed biological assumptions (for example, the use of egg production estimates) may affect the recovery and management of North Sea cod, plaice and herring (Kell et al. 2010).

12. Report on an indicator-based operational framework for an ecosystem approach in the management of European fisheriesProgress towards this milestone is outlined against milestone 10 above.

13. Report on evaluation of alternative enforcement schemeWork under this milestone represents an extension of work undertaken in the project COBECOS and has been carried out as part of a PhD study supported by MF1201. The results have been published (see Tidd et al 2012, section 9 below).

Other achievements – RESEARCH TRAINING.

An important component of MF1201 is research training. To date, two members of Cefas staff have registered for PhD studies and both have progressing well.

PhD 1. In association with imperial college London.

Research has been conducted to predict the different ways that fishers respond to management measures. For example, different management measures may result in the same biological response but elicit different responses from fishers who are likely to choose a particular preferred option to maximise e.g. revenue. The work addresses three key areas: spatial management, economics and implementation error. Two papers have been published and a third is currently in preparation. (Tidd, et al See section 9).

One paper reports on the results of modelling the strategic decision making behaviour of fishers when investing in the English North Sea beam trawl fishery using a discrete choice approach. It is assumed that the decision to enter into, stay in or exit from a fishery is dependent on anticipated future profits. Decommissioning grants are offered by the European Commission as a voluntary incentive to reduce the capacity of member states’ fishing fleets and so are additional strategic choices available to fishers. By integrating available cost data, decommissioning grants and other factors that are likely to influence future anticipated benefits or losses, we are able to predict whether operators choose to enter, stay exit or decommission. Important factors include future revenues and operating costs (e.g. potential fuel price increases), stock status of the main target species and impact of management measures (e.g. Total Allowable Catches) and total fleet size (i.e. congestion). This approach provides a strategic planning tool that can be used to help develop management plans to align fleet capacity with fishing opportunities.

A second paper applies a discrete choice model to determine how fishing effort is allocated within the English North Sea Beam trawl fleet. Individual vessels can fish in five distinct areas and the utility of fishing in an area depends on previous success measured in this case, as high catch rates expressed as value per unit effort (VPUE) and experience expressed as past fishing effort allocation. Lagged VPUE, lagged effort and lagged distance to landing port are included as explanatory factors. The paper presents

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 12 of 21

a model used to continually predict fisher location choice and assess the model validity by comparing the actual fishing patterns with the model outcomes over four model fits between the years 1996 and 2000. The fits were assessed using an ANOVA and linear models in order to assess the predictive power of each fit. The model was used to compare predicted re-allocation of effort with realised re-allocation of effort in response to 2001 partial closure of the North Sea. The results indicate that there is a good correlation between predicted re-allocation and observed re-allocation at the trip level, with a maximum 10% mis-allocation of predicted effort.

Paper 3 (in prep.) presents the results of analyses of specific fleet landing profiles due to alternative fishing strategies by demersal gears to define distinct fleet activity. Catchability was adjusted by accounting for specific targeting of these gears, changes in efficiency, seasonal and area effects and individual vessel variation. This was undertaken on the basis of results from a mixed effects general linear model (GLMM) that included random effects (in this case the vessel).

This method can be applied in cases where surveys have not been undertaken and detailed vessel/skipper specific information is not available for a sample or the population. We distinguished between effort measures such as days-at-sea and hours fished (this model) and re-fitted the relationship between fishing mortality and nominal effort in hours.

The implications of setting management decisions on effort measured in hours are discussed in the context of recent regulations (days-at-sea) that are impacting on the fleets. Irrespective of the potential changes in fishing tactics to maximise hours-fished, increases in efficiency are evident for one stock (plaice) fished by otter trawlers whereas decreases in efficiency for the other stock studied (cod) fished by both fleets (otter and beam) trawlers could indicate a switch to increases in targeting of Nephrops in the case of otter trawlers and sole in the beam trawlers.

PhD 2. in association with University of St Andrews

This PhD Study is focussing on investigating risk, and examining the sensitivity and susceptibility of elasmobranch species, primarily from the Northeast Atlantic and North sea, and also from the Mediterranean. There is an increasing focus on elasmobranchs in EU fisheries and internationally and the knowledge and skills gained will be important to address future policy in relation to the management of elasmobranch fisheries.

Part of the work under MF1201 involved contributing to the joint ICES Working Group on Elasmobranch Fishes and participated in the 2009 joint ICES / ICCAT meeting. A paper describing a novel application of the Gadget Operating Model implemented in FLR for porbeagle shark in the Northeast Atlantic has been published (McCully et al –see section 9). This application falls under the 4th tier of assessment methods proposed in the harvest strategy framework developed under MF1201 (i.e. just using life history and fishery knowledge). Although it was not accepted as the final assessment model, it did demonstrate the application of the risk classification framework as a possible way to forward-project and assess different management methods with respect to data poor stocks. In this instance the available data for porbeagle was more than that required to use the tier 4 assessment, and a more elaborate model formulation was preferred by the ICCAT SCRS as the basis for its assessment.

Other work undertaken in relation to this PhD study was to undertake a literature review on the on biological and fishery information of porbeagle, blueshark, thresher and mako sharks ahead of the ICCAT Shark group meeting. These reviews were drafted to provide chapters for an ICES Cooperative research report due to be published in 2010, however ICES has not yet published the reports (McCully – see section 11). In addition, an ecological risk assessment of all UK elasmobranchs has been completed and a generic risk paper has been drafted.

Implications of the achievements under MF1201

Work undertaken under MF1201 has essentially involved two stages:i) Development and testing work packages in the fisheries library in ‘R’ to use to indertake

simulation modelling to addressissues concerning the management of maring fisheries, especially stock assessments and the assessment/evaluation of management proposals and plans.

ii) Application on the tools developed in the framework to address real fisheries management problems facing UK and EU fisheries.

Implications of the work carried out under MF1201

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 13 of 21

The major implication of the work undertaken is that fisheries scientists in the UK and elsewhere have a flexible and powerful tool kit which has already proven to be invaluable in addressing many issues currently facing fisheries management in the UK and other European fisheries and elsewhere. The FLR framework represents an important step-forward in the ability of the scientific community to respond quickly to requests for quantitative fisheries management advice. For example the numerous long-term management plan proposals that have been assessed and evaluated through ICES and the STECF over the past 3 years would have not been possible had the FLR tool kit not been successfully developed and adopted. The potential for the tool kit was highlighted by the European Commission in 2008 in response to COMMIT, a framework 6 project report when FLR had only recently been conceived

"The results of this project will be very useful to ongoing research and stock assessment activities in CEFAS, ICES, the EU, and many other international fishery scientific advisory organizations." “will also establish DEFRA as a major contributor to international fisheries science” “this is ongoing research for which there is increasing demand ... I strongly encourage the team to continue its significant work.”

The European Commission current drive to try to have all the EU fisheries under long-term management plans means that the demand for even more assessments and evaluations will increase and the flexibility of the framework will allow scientists to undertake appropriate simulations of the likely consequences of alternative management plan proposals. It will also allow stochastic evaluations of the likely outcomes and permit an analysis of the trade-offs and risks associated with different scenarios.

Possible future workIt is clear that development of additional packages will continue as scientific knowledge the needs for policy advice on fisheries management continue to evolve. There will be a continual need to maintain and support the FLR framework, because developers worldwide are likely to continue to prepare new application packages specific to their fisheries management and assessment issues and these need to be managed through the FLR website. For the time being, The European Commission has recognised that the flexibility of the FLR framework makes the provision of scientific advice more efficient and has created a post in its Joint Research Centre to provide the support needed in the medium term. There will most likely be a need to provide support for future developments beyond 2014.For the time being the tools that have already been developed in FLR are able to address many of the issues currently concerning fisheries management in the UK and EU. Cefas has been the leading driver of the development of FLR and for Cefas and the UK to remain a leading player in the Fisheries science community, Cefas scientists will need to retain the skills and ability already learned in order to work with FLR and to develop and provide new software packages in response to changes in fisheries management approaches.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 14 of 21

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

Research papers supported by MF1201

1. J.A.A. De Oliveira, L.T. Kell, A.E. Punt, B.A. Roel and D.S. Butterworth. Managing without best predictions: the Management Strategy Evaluation framework. In Advances in Fisheries Science. 50 years on from Beverton and Holt, pp. 104-134. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. xxi + 547 pp.

2. Barange, M., R. O'Boyle, K. L. Cochrane, C. L. Cunningham, M. J. Fogarty, A. Jarre, L. T. Kell, J. R. King, K. Reid, M. Sinclair, A. Yatsu (in press). Marine resources management in the face of change: from ecosystem science to ecosystem management. In: M. Barange, R. Harris, E. Hofmann, F. Werner, R.I. Perry and J. G. Field (Eds.) Marine Ecosystems and Global Change. Oxford University Press.

3. Kell, L. T.; Mosqueira, I.; Grosjean, P.; Fromentin, J-M.; Garcia, D.; Hillary, R.; Jardim, E.; Mardle, S.; Pastoors, M.A.; Poos, J. J.; Scott, F. and Scott, R. D. 2007. FLR: an open-source framework for the evaluation and development of management strategies. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 640–646.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/4/640.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm012

4. Blanchard, J. L.; Maxwell, D. L. & Jennings, S. 2008. Power of monitoring surveys to detect abundance trends in depleted populations: the effects of density-dependent habitat use, patchiness, and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 111–120.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/1/111.full.pdf+htmlDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm182

5. Hutton, T. A., Mardle, S, Tidd, A. N.; 2008 (Book Chapter) The decline of the fishing fleets along the English and Welsh Coastline. Advances in fisheries science: 50 years on from Beverton and Holt. Blackwell Publishing, Eds: A. Payne, J. Cotter, and T. Potter, pages 26-48ISBN: 978-1-4051-7083-3http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405170832.html

6. Pilling, G. M.; Kell, L. T.; Hutton, T.; Bromley, P. J.; Tidd, A. N.; and Bolle, L. J. 2008. Can economic and biological management objectives be achieved by the use of MSY-based reference points? A North Sea plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) and sole (Solea solea) case study. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1069–1080.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/6/1069.shortDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsn063

7. Blanchard, J.L.; Jennings, S.; Law, R.; Castle, M.D.; McCloghrie P.; Rochet, M.J. and Benoît, E. 2009. How does abundance scale with body size in coupled size-structured food webs? Journal of Animal Ecology. 78: 270–280.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/DOI/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01466.x/abstractDOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01466.x

8. Kell, L. T.; Dickey-Collas, M.; Nash, R. D. M. Pilling, G. M. and Roel, B. A. 2009. Lumpers or splitters? Evaluating recovery and management plans for metapopulations of herring. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 1776–1783.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/8/1776.fullDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp181

9. Law, R.; Plank, M.J.; James, A. and Blanchard, J.L. 2009. Size-spectra dynamics from stochastic predation and growth of individuals. Ecology, 90(3): 802–811.http://www.jstor.org/stable/27651042

10. Mäntyniemi, S.; Kuikka, S.; Rahikainen, M.; Kell, L. T. and Kaitala, V.; 2009.The value of information in fisheries management: North Sea herring as an example. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 (10): 2278-2283.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/10/2278.full.pdf+htmlDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp206

11. McCully, S. R.; Scott, F.; Kell, L. T.; Ellis, J. R. and Howell, D. 2009. A Novel Application of the Gadget Operating Model to North East Atlantic Porbeagle. ICCAT SCRS/2009/071.http://www.iccat.es/Documents/CVSP/CV065_2010/no_6/CV065062069.pdf

12. Mumford, J. D.; Leach A. W.; Levontin, P. and Kell, L. T.; 2009. Insurance mechanisms to mediate economic risks in marine fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 (5): 950-959.

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 15 of 21

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/5/950.full.pdf+htmlDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp100

13. Nash, R. D. M.; Dickey-Collas, M.; Kell, L. T. 2009. Stock and recruitment in North Sea herring (Clupea harengus); compensation and depensation in the population dynamics. Fisheries Research Volume 95, Issue 1, 1 January 2009, Pages 88-97http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783608002282http://dx.DOI.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.08.003

14. Tserpes; G.; Tzanatos; E.; Peristeraki; P.; Placenti; V.; Kell, L.; 2009. Bioeconomic Evaluation Of Different Management Measures For The Mediterranean Swordfish. Fisheries Research 96, 2-3: 160-166.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783608003378http://dx.DOI.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2008.10.008

15. Butterworth, D. S.; Bentley, N.; De Oliveira, J. A.A.; Donovan, G. P.; Kell, L.T.; Parma, A. M. Punt, A. E.; Sainsbury, K. J.; Smith, A. D. M. and Stokes, T K. 2010. Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: Fundamental problems or mis-interpretations? ICES J. Mar. Sci.; 67: 567–574http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/3/567.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsq009

16. Dickey-Collas, M.; Nash, R. D. M.; Brunel, T.; van Damme, C. J. G.; Marshall, C. T.; Payne, M. R. Corten, A.; Geffen, A. J.; Peck, M. A.; Hatfield, E. M. C.; Hintzen, N. T.; Enberg, K.; Kell, L. T. and Simmonds, E. J. 2010. Lessons learned from stock collapse and recovery of North Sea herring: a review. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Volume 67. 1875-1886.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/9/1875.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsq033

17. Katsanevakis, S.; Maravelias, C. and Kell, L.T. 2010. Landings profiles and potential métiers in Greek set Longliners. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67 (4): 646-656.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/4/646.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsp279

18. Kell, L.T.; Palma, C. and Tidd, A. 2010. Standardisation of North Atlantic Albacore, Thunnus alalunga, Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 65(4): 1357-1382 E. SCRS/09/101http://www.iccat.es/Documents/CVSP/CV065_2010/no_4/CV065041357.pdf

19. Nash, R. D, Pilling, G. M.; Kell, L.T.; Schön, P-J.; Kjesbu, O. S. 2010. Investment in maturity at age and length in northeast Atlantic cod stocks. Fisheries research 104(1-3)89-99http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783610000652http://dx.DOI.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.03.001

20. Engelhard, G. H.; Pinnegar, J. K.; Kell, L. T. and Rijnsdorp, A. D. 2011. Nine decades of North Sea sole and plaice distributions ICES J. Mar. Sci. (2011) 68 (6): 1090-1104.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/6/1090.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr031

21. Mahévas, S.; Vermard, Y.; Hutton, T.; Iriondo, A.; Jadaud, A.; Maravelias, C. D.; Punzón, A.; Sacchi, J.; Tidd, A.; Tsitsika, E.; Marchal, P.; Goascoz, N.; Mortreux, S.; and Roos, D. 2011. An investigation of human vs. technology-induced variation in catchability for a selection of European fishing fleets. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 2252–2263.http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/10/2252.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr150

22. Tidd, A. N.; Hutton, T.; Kell, L.T. and Padda, G. 2011. Exit and entry of fishing vessels: an evaluation of factors affecting investment decisions in the North Sea English beam trawl fleet ICES J. Mar. Sci. (2011) 68 (5): 961-971http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/5/961.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr015

23. Ulrich, C.; Reeves, S. A.; Vermard, Y.; Holmes, S. J. and Vanhee, W. 2011. Reconciling single-species TACs in the North Sea demersal fisheries using the Fcube mixed-fisheries advice framework. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68 (7): 1535-1547. http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/7/1535.abstractDOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr060

24. Glenn, H.; Tingley, D.; Sánchez Maroño, S.; Holm, D.; Kell, L. T.; Padda, G.; Edvardssone, I. R.; Asmundssone, J.; Conides, A.; Kapiris, K.; Bezabiha, M.; Wattagea, P. and Kuikkag, S. 2012. Trust in the fisheries science community. Marine Policy 36(1) 54-72.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X11000674http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.03.008

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 16 of 21

25. Tidd, A. N.; Hutton, T.; Kell, L. T.; and Blanchard, J. L, 2012. Dynamic prediction of effort re-allocation in mixed fisheries. Fisheries Research, XX: 000–000. Available online 17 March 2012http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783612001208?v=s5

DOI:10.1016/j.fishres.2012.03.004

Research papers submitted and in preparation

26. McCully, S.R.; Scott, F. and Ellis, J.R. 2012 . Length at maturity and conversion factors for skates (Rajidae) around the British Isles, with a critique of earlier studies. (Submitted 2012) ICES J. Mar. Sci

27. Hillary, R. M.; Levontin, P.; Mäntyniemi, S.; Kuikka, S.; Kell, L.T. Bayesian hierarchical stock-recruit analysis: learning about resilience to 2 overfishing from several herring (Clupea harengus) stocks. ICES Journal of Marine Science (Submitted)

28. Kell, L.T.; Scott, F.; Bruyn, P. De, Nash. R. D. M. How to Eliminate the Unnecessary So That The Necessary May Speak. Biological Reference Points. To be submitted to plosOne (Submission imminent 2012)

29. Iriondo, A.; García, D.; Santurtún, M.; Castro, J.; Quincoces, I.; Lehuta, S.; Mahévas, S.; Marchale, P.; Tidd, A.; Ulrich, C. 2012. Managing Mixed Fisheries in the European Western Waters: application of Fcube methodology. Fisheries Research (in review)

30. Kell, L.T.; Nash. R. D. M.; Mosqueira, I.; Dickey-Collas, M. Including Biology in Biological Reference Points?: An evaluation based on North Sea cod, herring and plaice. ICES J MAR SCI. (Submission imminent 2012)

31. Kell, L.T.; Haritz Arrizabalaga, de Urbina,J.O.; Fortuna, C. and McCully, S. From Ecological Risk Asesssment to Management: Relating Observer Coverage to the Power to Detect Shark Population Trends, For submission to Aquatic Living Resources (in preparation).

32. Hillary, R. M.; Levontin, P.; Kuikka, S.; Manteniemi, s.; Mosqueira, I.; Kell, L.T. Multi-level stock-recruit analysis: beyond steepness and into model uncertainty. For submission to Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (in preparation).

33. Tidd A.N, Kell, L.T. A retrospective study to evaluate the response of a fleet to management measures. (In preparation Can. J. Aquat. Sci.)

Working Documents to Working groups

ICES. General enquiries on this form should be made to:, , . ICES CM 2008/ACOM:61. 21 pp.

APPROACH: ICES evaluated the contents of the management plans by interpreting the texts (see Annex 2 and 3) and by simulating the potential results of the plans.Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) was done using the simulation tool FLR (Fisheries Library for R, http://www.flr‐project.org, Kell et al.; 2007). This tool provides the required flexibility to address the specifics of the suggested alternative Harvest Control Rules (HCR) of the EC and Norway. The MSE compares the behaviour of the EU‐rule and Norway‐rule under the default assumptions in the underlying model but also the robustness of the HCR to different types of misspecification of the underlying processes.Thorough analysis of alternative HCRs was not feasible within the time frame that was available to conduct the evaluation. However, a few simulations were carried out with an HCR that has a perfect implementation (i.e. the calculated fishing mortality is directly applied to the underlying stock, without translating into a TAC) and with HCRs where the TAC constraint has been removed (see Annex 3 for a specification of the scenarios).Simulations have been carried out for the period 2008–2025. However, the simulated trends beyond 2015 are highly uncertain because they depend on assumptions made for the stock‐recruitment relationships which are very uncertain. Simulations with a low fishing mortality tend to generate large population sizes which are beyond the historical ranges that have been observed, which raises additional uncertainties, such as ecological constraints on stock size. Thus interpretation of the results is restricted to the period 2008–2015 for which the results are still in the observed domain. However, the results for 2025 are included in because they demonstrate interesting dynamics that may be induced by aspects of the Plans.

ICES SGRAMA REPORT 2009, ICES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, ICES CM 2009/RMC:14. Report of the Study Group on Risk Assessment and Management Advice (SGRAMA), 23-27 November 2009, ICCAT Headquarters, Madrid, Spain:

ABSTRACT: SGRAMA recommends that further progress within the field of risk assessment as a basis for management advice should be done as a planned case study with a detailed evaluation leading up to a decision whether operational risk assessments should form a basis for advice to fishery managers. The following considerations are listed in support of the ICES internal decision process:

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 17 of 21

a) A risk assessment is aimed at comparing and ranking possible harmful events and can therefore be used as a tool for prioritising the implementation of an ecosystem approach in the advisory process. The likelihood/probability of harmful events as a result of fishing with their corresponding consequences is not trivial to determine, and comparing quantified risks with qualitative expert judgments is a significant challenge. A qualitative or quantitative risk assessment can form a basis for prioritizing research issues.b) Experience gained outside ICES points to stakeholder and man‐ager participation as being essential in a risk assessment process. The “how to” part of such participation should be based on recommendations from Working Group on Fishery Systems (WGFS).c) Risk communication (a two way process involving stake‐holders) and the formulation of advice are essential in making risk assessments an operational advisory tool.d)Risk assessments are a structured approach to identify and prioritise issues. Risk assessment will include inter‐disciplinary collaboration on a case specific basis and cannot form a part of long established stock assessment working groups. Experience gained elsewhere points to a workload somewhat larger than was anticipated, but such assessments offered longer term efficiencies if they resulted in effective prioritisation of alternative actions.e) A risk assessment case study is a “learning by DOIng” exercise. The case study should be chosen according to the following criteria:• A definable scope to the assessment based on policy objectives• A limited geographical area (ecosystem) with relatively good information on fishing activity being available.• Available managers and stakeholders well motivated for participation.• Available inter‐disciplinary scientific expertise including some knowledge of the current fish stock assessments and advice.f) The planning of, and conducting of a proper evaluation of the case study is needed. In particular, criteria for the success (or failure) of the risk assessment need to be defined upfront.

Tidd, A. and Hutton, T. 2009. Defining fisheries and fishing activity based on DCR categories and results from multivariate analyses: English and Welsh data (for the North Sea). Prepared for WP2 (Café)b(North Sea Demersal case study). 93 p.

McCully, S., and Ellis, J. R. 2010. Preliminary Analysis of Porbeagle Shark (Lamna nasus) Catch and Discards from English Landings and Observer Data. Working Document submitted to ICES Study Group for Bycatch of Protected Species (SGBYC), Copenhagen, 1-4 February 2010

ABSTRACT: Official landings data from UK ports and vessels and discard data for English and Welsh fleets were analysed to examine temporal and spatial trends in catches and to identify the main gears responsible for porbeagle bycatch. For bycatch species, determining the ‘real’ extent of bycatch is impeded by discarded carcasses not always being declared, unless an observer is onboard. However, unlike species such as cetaceans, porbeagle shark are a high value species, and have therefore traditionally been retained and landed more often than discarded in many fisheries. However, given recent introduction of a restrictive porbeagle quota, discarding is likely to increase in the future. Although there have been some localised and seasonal targeted fisheries, much of the UK porbeagle catch is opportunistic and seasonal in nature, rather than supporting a full-time directed fishery. The majority (42% total) of recent porbeagle landings have been reported by gillnetters and longliners (32% total), fishing in ICES Divisions VIIe-h. Gillnetters are not as selective in their catch, while longliners are more selective of their target species, and thus porbeagle may comprise a much larger proportion (up to 50%) of their landings.

McCully, S.R., Scott, F. & Ellis, J.R. 2010. Length-weight relationships and length at maturity for skates (Rajidae) around the British Isles, and an overview of the collection of reproductive data for elasmobranchs in English groundfish surveys. Working Document to the ICES Workshop on Sexual Maturity Staging of Elasmobranchs (WKMSEL), 11‐15 October 2010, Valletta, Malta.

ABSTRACT: The relationships between total length and weight are provided for skates caught in groundfish surveys around the British Isles. Estimates of the length at first and 50% and maturity, and lengths of the largest immature skates for males and females of the main skate species encountered are given.

Conference presentations

1. Kell, L. T. Fromentin, J-M. and Scott, F. 2007. Are Reference Points a Moving Target? 2007. ICES CM 2007/R:19.http://www.ices.dk/asc2007/ThemeSessions/abstracts/ListR.pdf

ABSTRACT: Most fisheries management advice provided by ICES is on a “single-species” basis. However, an important objective of the Common Fisheries Policy is to minimise the impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems and to progressively implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (EAFM). From an ecological viewpoint, this implies taking account of environmental variability, non-stationarity in key biological processes and species interactions. This requires ecosystem targets and indicators to be defined and used alongside the stock-based biological reference points currently used by ICES. However, exploitation and environment effects often interact and their impacts may be confounded. For example, temperature effects in recruitment failure are particularly problematic when SSB is at a low level due to overexploitation. In this study we undertake an exploratory analysis to test one of the classical paradigms in fisheries science that key biological parameters, such as r and K are assumed to be constant or stationary. We then discuss the incorporation of ecosystem targets when setting fisheries reference points and how to develop robust management regimes.

2. Ulrich, C.; Andersen, B.S.; Castro J.; Jacobsen R.J.; Maravelias C.; Nielsen J.R.; Reeves, S.;

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 18 of 21

Santurtun M.; Tidd A.; Wilson D.; 2009. Potentials and challenges in fleet- and métier- based approaches for fisheries management in the CFP. ICES CM2009/R06http://www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/CM-2009/CM2009.pdf

ABSTRACT : The inconsistency of single‐species objectives in a mixed‐fisheries context has repeatedly been highlighted as a key issue in the current CFP, and it has long been recognized that this issue would be better addressed through fleet (group of vessels) and métier (type of activity) – based approaches. Since the late 1980s, when such approaches were first introduced, there have been substantial developments in this area of science to the point where the concepts of fleet and métier now underpin the whole EU Data Collection Framework. However, while fleet‐based approaches are in theory valuable improvements to the single‐species approaches, in practice their implementation in the management system has been slow and difficult. Substantial improvements have been made, but a number of intrinsic issues still remain, hampering the practical implementation of fleet‐based approaches.This manuscript summarises the current fleet‐based approaches ongoing in EU fisheries management, and discusses both their potentials and challenges in the context of the future CFP, based on our practical experience. We conclude that within the “governance headache” of mixed fisheries, due to the management complexity, the scientific uncertainty and the political sensitivity of these issues, fleets / metiers based approaches would though potentially address a wider range of problems than the current stock‐based approach.

3. Ulrich C.; Garcia D.; Castro J.; Damalas D.; Frost H.; Goti L.; Hoff A.; Mahévas, S.; Maravelias C.; Reeves, S.; Santurtun M.; 2009. Reconciling single-species management objectives in an integrating framework for avoiding overquota catches : outcomes of the AFRAME project. ICES CM2009 / M08http://www.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/CM-2009/CM2009.pdf

ABSTRACT: It is acknowledged that single‐species management is a source of discarding in mixed‐fisheries, because individual management objectives may not be consistent with each other, while the species are caught simultaneously in non selective fishing operations. As such, the TAC of a species may be exhausted before the TAC of another species, leading to catches of valuable fish which cannot be legally landed. This important issue has though never been quantitatively accounted for in the traditional ICES advice.The FP6 AFRAME research project, in cooperation with FP6 EFIMAS and other research projects, has developed a quantitative framework for addressing this issue, the Fcube (Fleets and Fisheries Forecast) approach. This method builds on the understanding of the catching potential of the individual fleets (groups of vessels) and métiers (type of activity) for the various species, based on assumed relationships between effort, fishing mortality and catches. The method is integrated in the FLR framework and as such can be used in a very flexible way. The framework was successfully applied to address a broad range of issues and scenarios to three demersal case studies suffering major mixed‐fisheries interactions: the North Sea, the Western Waters and the eastern Mediterranean waters.This manuscript presents an overview of the main outcomes of the project. We investigate the consistency of the single‐species management objectives, and propose an operational tool for providing robust and sustainable mixed‐fisheries advice allowing minimizing the risks of overquota catches.

4. Laugen, A. T. Engelhard, G. H. et al. Evolutionary impact assessment: Accounting for evolutionary consequences of fishing in an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. ICES CM 2010/M:08

5. Ellis, J.R.; Silva, J.F.; McCully, S.R.; Evans, M. and Catchpole, T. 2010. UK fisheries for skates (Rajidae): History and development of the fishery, recent management actions and survivorship of discards. ICES CM 2010/E:10http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/asc/2010/ThemeSessions/Theme%20Session%20E%20ed-bill.pdf

ABSTRACT: Skates (Rajidae) are vulnerable to overfishing because they are long-lived, slow growing, late to mature, have protracted breeding cycles and produce few young. Their large size, morphology and aggregating nature also make them susceptible to capture in mixed demersal fisheries, and several species are also taken in targeted fisheries (using longline, gillnet or trawl). The abundance and diversity of the skate community around the British Isles has changed over the course of the last 100 years. Some of the larger-bodied species (e.g. white skate Rostroraja alba) have disappeared, whilst the smaller-bodied species (e.g. spotted ray Raja montagui and thornback rays R. clavata) seem to have healthier populations. Research has also shown that some skate species can have very patchy distributions, and such locally abundant species may be prone to depletion. Current management regulations for skates include quotas (though this is a mixed quota for rajids), a minimum landing size (in some inshore waters of England and Wales), and some species are currently designated as prohibited species that cannot be retained. The efficacy of these and other potential measures is highly dependent on discard survival. Here we review the evolution of skate fisheries around the British Isles, discard and retention patterns of skates in selected UK fisheries, the recent introduction of management actions and discuss the merits of these and other potential measures in light of our current knowledge of discard survival.

6. McCully, S. R.; De Oliveira, J. A. A, Dobby, H.; Beggs S. and Ellis, J. R. 2010. The utility of fisheries-independent trawl surveys for evaluating spatial and temporal trends in the relative abundance of Northeast Atlantic spurdog (Squalus acanthias). ICES CM 2010/E:11http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/asc/2010/ThemeSessions/Theme%20Session%20E%20ed-bill.pdf

ABSTRACT: Spurdog is a frequently captured shark in various otter trawl surveys in the ICES area. Here we examine the size frequencies and sex ratios of spurdog taken in Scottish surveys in the North Sea and off northwest Scotland, English surveys in the North, Celtic, and Irish Seas, and Northern Irish surveys in the

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 19 of 21

Irish Sea. The spatial and temporal distributions of spurdog landings in commercial landings were examined to appraise the suitability of the timing of the surveys in each area. Surveys in northwest Scotland and the northern parts of the Irish Sea captured smaller sized spurdog, and mature female spurdog were often captured in the Irish Sea. Spatial and temporal patterns in the relative abundance of spurdog are discussed. Given the implementations of a zero TAC for Northeast Atlantic spurdog (with some allowance for bycatch) in 2010, fishery-independent surveys will be of increasing importance if stock recovery is to be assessed.

7. McCully, S. R., Ellis, J.R. and Brown, M. 2011. An overview of the biology and status of undulate ray Raja undulate. EEA Conference, Berlin.

8. Silva, J., de Oliveira, J.A.A., McCully, S.R and Ellis, J.R. 2011. Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the north-east Atlantic: Do they really qualify as Critically Endangered? EEA Conference, Berlin.

Links to EU project reports for which MF1201 provided matched funding

Final project reports are available via the links below.

PRONE: http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/122436711EN6.pdf

AFRAME: http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/124722731EN6.pdf)

COBECOS: http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/124722721EN6.pdf

RECLAIM: http://www.climateandfish.eu/default.asp?ZNT=S0T1O266 (a number of doc, report per WP) UNCOVER: http://www.uncover.eu/fileadmin/exchange/workpackages/wp7/UNCOVER_Final_Report.pdf

FISHBOAT: http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/124723031EN6.pdf

CAFE: http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/122436671EN19.doc

EFIMAS: http://www.efimas.org/Documents/Book.aspx (final report is a published book)

http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/ssp/efimas_en.htm

JAKFISH: https://www.surfgroepen.nl/sites/jakfish/Publications/JAKFISH%20D1.5%20Final%20report.pdf https://www.surfgroepen.nl/sites/jakfish/Publications/Forms/AllItems.aspx

DEEPFISHMAN: http://wwz.ifremer.fr/deepfishman http://deepfishman.hafro.is/doku.php?id=start

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 20 of 21

EVID4 Evidence Project Final Report (Rev. 06/11) Page 21 of 21