SCICOM ACOM Joint resolutions - Welcome to ICES Resolutions...SCICOM /ACOM (Joint) Expert Group Resolutions 2016 . ... Month May to SSGXXX . Year 2018 . Unknown ; Unknown . Final report

i

SCICOM/ACOM (Joint) Expert Group Resolutions 2016

Contents

SCICOM/ACOM Steering Group on Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (SSGIEA) Resolutions ................................................................................................... 4

SSGIEA Resolutions approved in 2016 .............................................................................. 4

WGMARS - Working Group on Maritime Systems ....................................... 4 WKINWA – Workshop on IEA in the Northwest Atlantic............................ 6 WKIDEA - ACOM/SCICOM Workshop on Integrated Ecosystem

Assessment Methods ............................................................................... 7 WGINOR - Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the

Norwegian Sea ......................................................................................... 9

SSGIEA Resolutions approved in 2015 ............................................................................ 10

WGIAB – ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea ............................................................... 10

WGICA – Working Group proposal from WKICA – ICES/PAME Working Group on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) for the Central Arctic Ocean ................................................................. 11

WKDEICE – Workshop on DEveloping Integrated AdviCE for Baltic Sea ecosystem-based fisheries management ........................... 14

WGIPEM – Working Group on Integrative, Physical-biological, and Ecosystem Modelling ..................................................................... 16

WGMSFDemo – Working Group to Demonstrate a Celtic Seas wide approach to the application of fisheries related science to the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ................................................................................................. 20



WGEAWESS – Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European Shelf Seas ............................................................... 22

WGNARS – Working Group on the Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea ............................................................................................................ 24

WGIBAR – Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea .............................................................................................. 26

WGIMM – Working Group on Integrating Ecological and Economic Models ................................................................................... 30

WGLMEBP – Working Group on Large Marine Ecosystem Programme Best Practices ..................................................................... 34

WGINOSE – Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea................................................................................................. 38


WGCOMEDA – Working Group on Comparative Analyses between European Atlantic and Mediterranean marine

ii |

ecosystems to move towards an Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries .............................................................................................. 40

SCICOM/ACOM Steering Group on Integrated Ecosystem Observation and Monitoring (SSGIEOM) Resolutions....................................................................... 45

SSGIEOM Resolutions approved in 2016 ........................................................................ 45

WGNEPS – to be updated ................................................................................ 45


EIMSD – EFARO/ICES meeting on Cooperation in Surveys and Data Collection ....................................................................................... 45

IBTSWG – International Bottom Trawl Survey Working Group ................ 45 WGEGGS2 – Working Group on North Sea Cod and Plaice Egg

Surveys in the North Sea....................................................................... 49 WGRFS – Working Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys .................... 52 WKCOSTBEN – Workshop on cost benefit analysis of data

collection in support of stock assessment and fishery management ........................................................................................... 53

WKSUREP – Workshop to establish reporting guidelines from survey groups ......................................................................................... 55

WKNSSAGE– Workshop on Age estimation of Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring between Norway, Denmark, Iceland and the Faroe Islands .................................................................................... 56

WKARGH – ICES_NAFO Workshop on Age Reading of Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) ............................................. 57

WKARWHG– Workshop on Age reading of Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) (WKARWHG 2016) ........................................................... 58

WKARBLUE2 – Workshop on Age estimation of Blue Whiting (Micromesistius poutassou).................................................................. 60

WKARA2 – Workshop on Age reading of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) ........................................................................ 61

WKGIC2 – Workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic .................................................................................................... 62

WKARNSSH – Workshop on Age estimation of Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring (Clupea harengus) ................................................... 65

WKARSPRAT – Workshop on Age estimation of Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)................................................................................................... 66

WKFICON – Workshop on Fish Condition ................................................... 67 WKMIAS2 – Workshop on Micro increment daily growth in

European Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and Sardine (Sardina pilchardus) .............................................................................. 68

WKARMAC2 – Workshop on Age estimation of Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) .............................................................................. 69

WKMSHS2 – Workshop on Sexual Maturity Staging of Herring (Clupea harengus) and Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) .............................. 70

WKPIMP – Workshop to Plan and Integrate Monitoring Program in the North Sea in the 3rd quarter ....................................................... 72

WGCATCH – Working Group on Commercial Catches ............................. 73

iii


PGDATA – Planning Group on Data Needs for Assessments and Advice ...................................................................................................... 78

WGBIFS – Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group ...................... 82 WGBIOP – Working Group on Biological Parameters ................................. 86 WGISDAA –Working Group on Improving use of Survey Data for

Assessment and Advice ........................................................................ 89 WGMEGS – Working Group on Mackerel and Horse mackerel Egg

Surveys (WGMEGS) .............................................................................. 91 WGIPS – Working Group of International Pelagic Surveys ........................ 95

SSGIEOM Resolutions approved in 2013 ...................................................................... 101

WGIDEEPS – Working Group on International Deep Pelagic Ecosystem Surveys .............................................................................. 101

WGBEAM – Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys .............................. 104 WGFAST – Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics, Science and

Technology............................................................................................ 106 WGFTFB –ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and

Fish Behaviour ...................................................................................... 108 WGTC – Working Group on Target Classification ..................................... 110 WGELECTRA – Working Group on Electrical Trawling .......................... 113 WGACEGG – Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for

Sardine and Anchovy in ICES Areas VII, VIII and IX..................... 118

SSGIEOM Resolutions approved in 2012 ...................................................................... 123

WGISUR – Working Group on Integrating Surveys for the Ecosystem Approach ........................................................................... 123

WGALES – Working Group on Atlantic Fish Larvae and Eggs Surveys .................................................................................................. 125

SSGIEOM EGs Dissolved in 2016 ................................................................................... 128

WGNEACS – Working Group on North-east Atlantic continental slope surveys ........................................................................................ 128

SCICOM/ACOM Benchmark Steering Group (BSG) ................................................. 131

BSG Resolutions approved in 2015 ................................................................................. 131

WKIrish2 – Second workshop on the impact of ecosystem and environmental drivers on Irish Sea fisheries management ............ 131

4

SCICOM/ACOM Steering Group on Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (SSGIEA) Resolutions

SSGIEA Resolutions approved in 2016

WGMARS - Working Group on Maritime Systems

2015/MA2/SSGIEA5

The Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS), chaired by David Goldsborough, the Netherlands will work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

Meeting dates Venue Reporting details

Comments (change in Chair, etc.)

Year 2016 20–24 June 2016

Woods Hole, USA

Interim report by August 2016 to SSGIEA

Year 2017 Unknown Unknown Interim report by Date Month May to SSGXXX

Year 2018 Unknown Unknown Final report by Date Month May to SSGXXX

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

Understanding the implementation of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) in ICES

ICES has identified Ecosystem Understanding as their key priority. IEAs play an important role in supporting Ecosystem understanding and enable understanding effects of trade-offs between resource users.

1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 4.1

3 years Two annual reports and a final report with our findings will be presented to ICES. Review paper

a Understanding of IEAs, definitions, framing

Review of existing IEA reports from the relevant ICES groups; interact with ICES IEA groups to follow developments.

1.1, 1.2 year 1 Review paper

5

b Identifying IEA end-users and the required extended peer community

IEAs are seen as a important tool that enable evaluation of trade-offs and sustainable marine management. How do IEAs fit in contemporary governance and mangement systems?

2.1 year 2 Collaborative reporting in the WGMARS Report

c How have IEAs evolved and how should they be integrated in management advice.

For ICES to provide meaningful IEAs for regional seas or selected marine areas close collaboration between many ICES expert goups and the ICES secretariat is anticipated. Cases studies will be used starting with an analyses of WGNARS IEA work in the Northwest Atlantic with key stakeholders.

2.1, 4.1 3 years Collaborative reporting in the WGMARS Report

d Analyse interactions between resource users, the governance system and the complex social-ecological marine system with Behavioural Economics

Which findings from Behavioural Economics can be applied to marine ecosystem management settings, including fisheries management. Illustrate how these findings can increase alignment of individual behaviour with societal aims.

1.2, 2.1 3 years Collaborative reporting in the WGMARS Report

e Stimulate transdisciplinary research by organizing workshops involving scientist from different fields and stakeholders

Practical exercises and case studies for WGMARS transdisciplinary consulatation on how to best integrate available knowledge, including stakeholder knowledge, into IEAs

1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 4.1

Each year at least 1 workshop

Collaborative reporting in the WGMARS Report

Summary of the Work Plan

Year 1 FOCUS ON UNDERSTANDING OF IEAS

Year 2 Focus on understanding expectations of IEA end-users

Year 3 Focus on advancing IEA in management advice

Supporting information

6 |

Priority The proposed activities of WGMARS will help ICES achieve their overarching goal of providing future advice based on ecosystem understanding. IEAs are seen as an important tool in understanding how humans interact with the marine ecosystem and enabling justified trade-offs between human use of the marine ecosystem. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Resource requirements Ongoing work in the ICES groups that are currently working on the implementation of IEAs for their regional seas serves as input for our work. In addition the WGMARS will work in close colaboration with ICES SIHD (the strategic inititative on the human dimensions in IEA) and the ICES Secretariat.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 10–15 members and guests.

Secretariat facilities None.

Financial No financial implications.

Linkages to ACOM and groups under ACOM

The focus of the work is on understanding IEAs, with a direct link to the ICES science plan (SCICOM), and future integration of IEAs in management advice, which is very relevant to ACOM.

Linkages to other committees or groups

There is a very close working relationship with all the ICES IEA groups Where necessary we will reach out and collaborate with other ICES committees and groups that should play a role in ICES IEA work.

Linkages to other organizations

WKINWA – Workshop on IEA in the Northwest Atlantic

2015/2/SSGIEA6

The Workshop on IEA in the Northwest Atlantic (WKINWA), chaired by David Goldsborough, the Netherlands will be established and will meet in Woods Hole, USA, 22–23 June 2016 to:

a ) Review and analyse IEA work in the Northwest Atlantic (WGNARS) with key stakeholders with emphasis on: i ) What has been accomplished to date? (WGMARS ToRs a, c) ii ) What is required to further develop the IEA? (WGMARS ToRs d,e) iii ) Who should be involved? (WGMARS ToRs b, e) iv ) How is the IEA integrated in management advice? (WGMARS ToR c)

WKINWA will report by 1 August for the attention of the SCICOM and ACOM.


Priority This workshop will be be carried out as part of the WGMARS ToR C “How have IEAs evolved and how should they be integrated in management advice”

Scientific justificatio For a better understanding of the implementation of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEA) in ICES we need to analyse how IEA are implemented in practice. As one the ICES regional seas groups WGNARS has extensive experience with IEA and the relationshiip with marine management. This workshop will focus on IEA work in the Northwest Atlantic with focus on US management system and key stakeholders will be invited.

7

Resource requirements

No specific resource requirements

Participants 25-35 including WGMARS annual meeting members

Secretariat facilities None

Financial The workshop will be embedded in the 2016 WGMARS annual meeting. The workshop will be organized in close collaboration with NOAA.

Linkages to advisor committees

There are links to ACOM and the BSG.


There are working relationships to WGNARS and WGMARS


WKIDEA - ACOM/SCICOM Workshop on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Methods

2015/2/SSGIEA7

The ACOM/SCICOM Workshop on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Methods (WKIDEA), chaired by David Reid (Ireland) and Jörn Schmidt (Germany), will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 11–12 October 2016 (2 full days).

Under the aegis of SSGIEA there is now a range of integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA) expert groups operating within ecosystems from the Arctic to the Mediterranean, and from the Baltic to the North West Atlantic. These groups are often following similar lines of research, and although bilateral joint meetings have been held, there has been no opportunity to meet altogether. This workshop is intended to help identify common problems and solutions to them. It will allow the exchange of ideas, methodologies and analytical approaches across the expert groups. It will also provide the potential for a comparison of the different analytical approaches used and potentially lead to a synthetic review of the utility and application of these methods for publication. Where possible, the workshop will aim to identify where approaches could be harmonized across some of the IEA expert groups. The workshop will summarize the progress made and methods used across the ICES IEA groups and their utility. In particular, the workshop will specifically scope for ways to include more explicit consideration of the human dimension. The workshop will also address the issue of timings of provision of IEA based advice.

WKIDEA will report by 15 November 2016 (via BSG and SSGIEA) for the attention of SCICOM, ACOM.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS ADDRESSED

DURATION EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

A Review, summarize and compare the

Serves as a knowledge base

Integrated ecosystem

WK Guideline document and

8 |

methods of regional ICES IEA groups, based on the research question the groups have addressed.

and as comparison to other regional approaches Illustrate the utility of methods.

assessments potential peer reviewed review publication

B Explore what ‘human dimension’ means in the different systems analysed and describe how to take it into account in IEAs

There is the perceived need to include the human dimension in IEAs, but it is still open how to do this.

Integrated ecosystem assessments and the human dimension

WK Guideline document and potential peer reviewed review publication

C Identify and report on the scope for harmonized products across the IEA groups, or identify how to directly or indirectly compare and contrast the results for IEAs from different methodologies and different regions

Coherent and comparable outputs from the different ecoregions under study would potentially of great use to a wider range of users.

Integrated ecosystem assessments

WK Guideline document

D Working with the Secretariat determine the best approach to public dissemination products from IEAs

It is important that the more popular products developed by ICES for public dissemination are smoothly integrated with the outputs of the IEA expert groups.

Integrated ecosystem assessments

WK Guideline document


Year 1 Brief Summary report

Supporting Information

Priority High, this WK is seen as a key strategic move forward that will help the IEA groups to position their work in a broader context and increase their visibility in the system.

Scientific justification This workshop follows on from WKBEMIA 2012 and WKRISCO 2014. It supports the IEA groups for the next round of development and provides two products, a cross comparison of methods used and being developed

9

by the IEA groups and a scoping exercise of how a demonstration advice could be drafted.

Relation to Strategic Plan

Developing and applying greater ecosystem understanding is core to the new ICES strategic plan. The IEA groups are the key mechanisms (along with a new benchmark process) by which ICES plans to apply integrated ecosystem understanding to management needs.


Two meeting rooms at ICES HQ, webex facilities

Participants IEA group chairs or members, BSG chairs, SSGIEA chairs, SIHD chairs, ICES Secretariat

Secretariat facilities SharePoint site, secretariat support for reporting.

Financial None

Linkages to advisory committees

ACOM


SSGIEA, BSG, SIHD, all IEA groups, methodological groups like WGIPEM, WGIMM, WGSA, WGMARS


WGINOR - Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Norwegian Sea

2015/MA2/SSGIEA8

10


WGIAB – ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea

2015/2/SSGIEA01

The ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea (WGIAB), chaired by Laura Uusitalo, Finland, Saskia Otto*, Germany, Martin Lindegren*, Denmark, and Lena Bergström, Sweden, will meet in Helsinki, Finland, on 18–22 April 2016 and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2016 18–22 April

Helsinki, Finland

Interim report by 30 May 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2017 xx–xx Interim report by XX XXXX 2017 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2018 xx–xx Final report by XX XXXX 2018 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Increase understanding of Baltic Sea ecosystem functioning, with a focus on functional diversity in relation to species diversity and changes of species traits over different temporal and spatial scales, and the identification of key traits and processes for maintaining functioning ecosystems and the services they provide;

This ToR will provide further knowledge of important functional linkages between ecosystem components, to support the development of an integrated marine management, including an ecosystem based fisheries management.

Develop an integrated, interdisciplinary understanding of the structure, dynamics, and the resilience and response of marine ecosystems to change

3-year -Research articles to be decided within 2015

-Intermediate results reported in interim report 2016, 2017

11

b Explore potential new options for management, including for example studies on indicators of foodweb status, implications for ecosystem functioning, and societal drivers, in order to support integrated fisheries advice and marine management, focusing on biodiversity and ecosystem function.

This ToR will develop on existing assessment tools and explore new options, based on cases studies. The work supports the assessment work of the working group for Baltic Sea fisheries assessment (WGBFAS), and other ongoing work within ICES and HELCOM.

Understand the relationship between human activities and marine ecosystems, estimate pressures and impacts, and develop science-based, sustainable pathways

3-year - Research articles (to be decided within 2015)

- Intermediate results reported in interim report 2016, 2017


Year 1 Annual meeting, intersessional work on research articles, interaction with suggested WKDEMO to develop on the outcomes of the DEMO project.

Year 2 Annual meeting, intersessional work on research articles

Year 3 Annual meeting, intersessional work on research articles

“Supporting information

Priority WGIAB aims to conduct and further develop Integrated Ecosystem Assessment cycles for the different subsystems of the Baltic Sea, in support of implementing the ecosystem approach in the Baltic Sea.


Assistance of the Secretariat in maintaining and exchanging information and requirements data to potential participants. Assistance of especially the ICES Data Center to collect and store relevant data series.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 20 members and guests.




WGBFAS


WGINOSE, WGNARS, WGEAWESS, WGINOR, WGCOMEDA.


HELCOM

WGICA – Working Group proposal from WKICA – ICES/PAME Working Group on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) for the Central Arctic Ocean

2015/2/SSGIEA02

ICES/PAME Working Group on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) for the Central Arctic Ocean (WGICA), chaired by John Bengtson*, (ICES), USA, and Hein

12 |

Rune Skjoldal*,(PAME), Norway, will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, 24–26 May 2016 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2016 24–26 May

ICES Headquarters

Interim report by 4 July 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2017 xx–xx Interim report by XX XXXX 2017 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2018 xx–xx Final report by XX XXXX 2018 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background

Science Plan topics addressed Duration

Expected Deliverables

a Consider approach and methodology (-ies) for doing an IEA for the CAO (based on the outcome of WKICA).

Basis for carrying out IEA for the CAO; draw upon experiences in other IEA groups (WGNARS, WGINOSE, WGEAWESS, WGINOR, WGIBAR and WGIAB)

SP Goal 1 Year 1 Summary on approch and methodology in interim report

b Assemble data and information and carry out appropriate statistical and other types of analyses including mathematical modelling

Initial steps in an IEA SP Goal 1 Years 1 and 2

Summary on data sources in interim report Draft (incomplete) IEA of the CAO

13

c Prepare an IEA outline for the current status of the CAO ecosystem (CAO LME and adjacent slope waters including Atlantic and Pacific inflows and relevant shelf-basin exchanges) and effects, potential effects and vulnerability in relation to climate variability and change and human activities such as Arctic shipping and potential future fisheries

IEA is an essential component of the EBM approach to human activities. Will provide a basis for advice in an ecosystem context on future Arctic marine shipping and fisheries taking into account ongoing and future climate change

SP Goal 1 and 2

Years 2 and 3

Draft (incomplete) outline of an IEA in interim report 2nd year First complete outline for an IEA for the CAO at the end of the 3rd year

d Consider requirements and design of monitoring of the CAO to meet the need for repeated IEA in the near future as well as other types of assess-ments (which can be modular components of IEAs)

The first approach towards an IEA of the CAO builds on existing data and information, mostly from research and modelling activities. There is a need to consider improved and additional monitoring to better meet the need for refinements and update of the IEA

SP Goals 1 and 2

Years 1, 2 and 3

Summaries in interim reports 1st and 2nd years Summaries in final report after 3rd year

e Identify priority research issues which, when addressed, can improve the knowledge base for the future iterations of the IEA

Carrying out an IEA will reveal gaps in knowledge that forms the basis for identifying priority research issues

SP Goals 1, 2 and 3

Year 3 Summary in final report


Year 1 Consider approach and methodology for IEA, start assembling of data and information, and consider monitoring requirements

Year 2 Continue assembling of data and information and carry out analyses. Prepare an intial and incomplete draft of IEA

Year 3 Finalize IEA report and consider monitoring requirements and priority research issues


Priority The new ICES science plan has a strong focus on integrated ecosystem understanding and subsequent assessments, including ecosystem overviews and monitoring programmes. Furthermore, ICES is making a move toward the Arctic as a strategic activity area.

14 |

The Arctic area as defined for the work under the Arctic Council includes the Subarctic and boreal waters of the Barents and Norwegian seas and the waters around Iceland. ICES is already heavily involved with fishery advice and other activities (e.g. status reports on climate and plankton) in these parts of the Arctic area in the North Atlantic. ICES work in the past has included the Arctic Ocean. The activity of preparing an IEA for the central Arctic Ocean (CAO) gives ICES a central role in this remote and changing ecosystem and is a step needed to provide scientific advice on issues such as the prospect for future fisheries in the Arctic Ocean and sensitivity and vulnerability in relation to arctic transpolar shipping. The CAO is part of the Arctic Mediterranean Sea and is openly connected to the deep basins of the Nordic Seas through the deep Fram Strait. Atlantic water flows into the CAO through the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea, while Pacific Water flows up though the shallow Bering Strait and the Chukchi Sea. These inflows have decisive roles for the circulation and ice conditions in the CAO, and the conditions in the CAO again influence the climate and climate variability of the northern North Atlantic and North Pacific. Better understanding of the role of the CAO in the hemispherical and global climate systems will contribute to better understanding of climate and ecosystem variability of the core ICES area in the North Atlantic as well as in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska in the North Pacific.

Resource requirements The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.





There are no obvious direct linkages but work on IEA as a core element of EA has clear relevance to future advice on the CAO ecosystem.


There is a very close working relationship with all other groups of the SCICOM SSG on integrated ecosystem assessment and monitoring (SSGIOM).


The work of this group is anticipated to be a joint effort with AMAP, CAFF and PAME.

WKDEICE – Workshop on DEveloping Integrated AdviCE for Baltic Sea ecosystem-based fisheries management

2015/2/SSGIEA03 The Workshop on developing integrated advice for Baltic Sea ecosystem-based fisheries

management (WKDEICE), chaired by Rudi Voss, Germany, Christian Möllmann, Germany, and Maciej Tomczak, Sweden will be established and will meet in Helsinki, Finland 18-22 April 2016 to:

a) Develop an indicator approach providing background on state and productivity of fish stocks and the ecosystem, and propose ways to incorporate that into the present advice,

b) Conduct short-term projections for Baltic fish stocks incorporating environmental drivers to be used in the advisory process;

c) Suggest ways to incorporate the human dimension (e.g. socio-economic conditions) into future integrated advice;

15

d) Produce an innovative document (advice sheet) for Baltic Sea ecosystem-based fisheries management.

WKDEICE will report by 30 May 2016 to the attention of the ACOM and SCICOM.


Priority The planned activities of this new workshop are in line with the ICES strategic plan to progress towards integrated ecosystem assessments. This initiative was triggered by the need for a more comprehensive advice that considers environmental and socio-economic conditions and uses novel modelling multi-species and ecosystem modelling approaches. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Scientific justification Baltic fish stocks are known to be strongly depending on environmental conditions. At the same time, present fish stock advice is largely depending on fisheries catch data bearing a number of shortcomings and flaws. Both facts may result in considerable uncertainty in fish stock assessments as exemplified by the present unclear situation of Eastern Baltic cod. The new WK will collect ongoing work on indicator approaches and environmental risk assessments as well as innovative modelling approaches to supplement the present single-species advice towards an advice that integrates traditional single-species fish stock with multi-species and indicator-based environmental assessments. The WK will furthermore do a first evaluation of including the human dimension into a future integrated advice by screening and evaluating socio-economic indicator and modelling approaches.

This workshop is conceived as being the first in a series. The main aim for this first workshop will be the proactive provision of the type of information on fisheries and ecosystem interactions in the Baltic Sea that would be most useful in developing integrated advice for fish stocks. This is seen as an ongoing process where the advisory process would report back on the value and utility of the information, and perhaps suggest improvements. Ideally, this would lead to an active engagement of assessment scientists in the WK. The WK would be repeated based on the developing advice needs and on the developing ecosystem understandings. The likely outcome would likely be to ultimately benchmark the combined process.


The research programmes, which provide the main input to this group, are already underway, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.

Participants Experts on single and multi-species stock assessment, marine ecology and modelling, socio-economists.



Linkages to advisory committee

There are close links with ACOM and SCICOM.

16 |


There is a very close working relationship with the ACOM/SCICOM Benchmarking Steering Group (BSG), WGIAB, WGBFAS, SGSPATIAL and other groups (WGISDAA, WGFTFB, WGSAM, WGMM,…) holding information about the Baltic Sea System.


HELCOM, BSAC

WGIPEM – Working Group on Integrative, Physical-biological, and Ecosystem Modelling

2015/2/SSGIEA04

A Working Group on Integrated Physical-biological and Ecosystem Modelling (WGIPEM), chaired by Morgane Travers-Trolet*, France and Marc Hufnagl*, Germany, work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2016 6– 8 June Brest, France

Interim report by 15 July 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM and ACOM

Year 2017 March/April To be determined

Interim report by 1 June 2017 to SSGIEA, SCICOM and ACOM

Year 2018 March/April To be determined

Final report by 1 June 2018 to SSGIEA, SCICOM and ACOM

17

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Advance and increase the reliability of Multispecies and Ecosystem models to allow for a strategic advice on an ecosystem based approach. This includes improvement of bench-marking, model stress tests, validation, sensitivity testing approaches and inter-model comparisons.

Provide tools and methods like coupled bioeconomic models to enumerate trade-offs between management options.

MS and Ecosystem models are a fundamental tool for understanding ecosystem structure and function and for making forceasts and understanding trade offs. But the lack of evaluation of their performance and sensitivity currently limits their use in an operational context Links to all EG using MS and Ecosystem modelling (e.g. WGSAM, WGIMM, Working Groups on Integrated Assessment)

1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 5.2

annually Reports on model use in advice, and descriptions of tools and/or methods suitable for assessing model performance in an operational context. Where appropriate peer reviewed publications are envisioned.

b Identify ways to make the best use of models and model outputs for management purposes. Maintain an interface for the public and scientific community by providing tools, outputs and algorithms through e.g. through the WGIPEM webpage, workshops or conference sessions dealing with stakeholder engagement to finally increase visibility and end-user confidence in coupled physical-biological and ecosystem modelling approaches. Determine the potential use of models to improve sampling strategies and inform survey designers.

Ecosystem models can appear as “too complex” for an unfamiliar public. To facilitate their use for management purposes, it is important to propose tools to help the general understanding of these complex models.

5.2 annually Annual update of the WGIPEM webpage. Report of the several initiatives describing ecosystem models online. Where appropriate peer reviewed publications are envisioned.

18 |

c Identify gaps in knowledge that need to be closed and spot emerging fields in coupled physical-biological and ecosystem modelling approaches to improve process descriptions and ecosystem responses to anthropogenic and environmental drivers to eventually and on the longer term be able to give model based strategic management advices.

Some aspects of ecosystem models (spatial dimension, human behavior, zooplankton representation, physiology…) still need improvement, and some of those might have a stronger role in the simulated outputs of management scenarios. Research interest will focus first on filling these gaps of knowledge.

1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 5.2

2 years Report

d Discuss and provide basis for setting up future scenarios of anthropogenic pressure and climate variability. Based on the different scenarios, provide estimates of ecosystem states, functioning or services. Determine factors influencing species distribution. Discuss overarching interdisciplinary standards to be used in future scenarios.

Scenario testing is one of the core uses of these models, and this will provide the basis for user groups to develop such scenarios – all appropriate modelling EG, in particular SICCME, WGIMM and Working Groups on Integrated Assassment.

1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 5.2

3 years Reports as appropriate – presentation of likley sceanrios at ASC? Peer reviewed publications

e Improve and develop routines to describe behaviour of species and man and to include evolution and adaptation in coupled physical-biological and ecosystem modelling approaches.

The effects of the choice made for representing behavior/evolution/adaptation can be tested before being integrated in more complex models (all modelers might be interested), by identifying the different options and possibly test them using a stand-alone model

Code made available to the community, associated with a report

f Advance our understanding of bottom up and top down controls within foodwebs, Identify drivers and rules of trophic coupling, the evolution of cascades and match–mismatch processes.

Fundamental science lying behind the structural and parametric needs for these type of models

1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 5.2

3 years Peer reviewed conclusions paper

19

g Provide tools to improve our understanding of habitat connectivity to support and advice spatial management plans.

Networks of MPA represent a key response to climate change. Understanding the connectivity between these is vital. Connectivity is also essential for defining the spatial structure of stocks and better understanding of the recrutment process. Important for spatial planning EG, and for advise

1.3, 1.4, 3.3 3 years Summary report, and ASC presentations. Peer reviewed paper

h Identify and include key physiological processes and mortality sources in models to understand recruitment dynamics, life cycle dynamics and population drivers.

Base line research work to best fit the models to purpose. Linked to all modelling EG

1.3, 1.4, 3.3 Annually Report, and ASC presentations as appropriate


Year 1 Annual meeting to report on the state-of-the-art of some of the identified topics in ToRb and their related gaps of knowledge – Update of the previous established model code library for sub-routines of biophysical and ecosystem models – Specific workshop on some of the identified topics

Year 2 Annual meeting to report on the state-of-the-art of the identified topics in ToRb, identification of gaps of knowledge and actions to take to fill some of them – Joint meeting with other expert groups – update of the WGIPEM website – Specific workshop on some of the identified topics

Year 3 Final report on the state-of-the-art and gaps of the identified topics in ToRb – Joint meeting with other expert group – Specific workshop on some of the identified topics – update of the WGIPEM website


Priority This group’s activities will support the ecosystem approach to fisheries science by combining knowledge of physical and biological processes, bioeconomics of multiple marine sectors, and modelling expertise that is required to strengthen our understanding of ecosystem functioning. The Group will foster the development and report on the application of “end-to-end” modelling tools (e.g. Atlantis, Osmose, EwE, size-based model). For these reasons, the activities of the Group should be given high priority.


Activities of the group are already underway and are not envisioned to require any resources from the secretariat. The group may require support from the secretariat for the creation and maintenance of an interactive website

Participants It is envisioned that this group will attract a large community of biologists / experimentalists, and modellers – with an annual meeting attended by some 25–30 members and guests. Annual meetings will include workshops on specific topics, increasing interests / attendance.



Linkages to ACOM There are no obvious direct linkages, but discussion and/or workshop

20 |

and groups under ACOM

with other groups are envisioned.


The working group will actively pursue strong links to other groups within ICES and will propose joint meetings (workshops). The group already met with the Working Group on Zooplankton Ecology and the Working Group on Integration of Economics, Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management. Working relationships are expected with SSGEPD and the working groups WGOH, WGOOFE, WGHABD, WGPME, WGSPEC, WGSAM, WGINOSE,WGIAB, SICCME and BSG.


None

WGMSFDemo – Working Group to Demonstrate a Celtic Seas wide approach to the application of fisheries related science to the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

2014/2/SSGIEA02

Working Group to Demonstrate a Celtic Seas wide approach to the application of fisheries related science to the implementation of the MSFD (WGMSFDemo) co-chaired by Jean Paul Lecomte (France), Eugene Nixon (Ireland) and Carl O’ Brien (UK) will meet twice in 2015 to develop and initiate a 3 year work programme on 22 January 2015 in Dublin, Ireland and 28–30 April 2015 in Dublin, Ireland.

a ) To run a Celtic Seas wide MSFD Assessment with a focus on maximising the use of fisheries related science, infrastructure, data and knowledge acquired under the CFP, in particular but not exclusively D1, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11.

b ) Based on the experience gained in implementing the first MSFD cycle and a systematic analysis of the Directive (and associated Decisions) and MSFD reports generated by the three Member States to:

i. Select the elements ICES can progress within the timeframe.

ii. Collate, examine and where appropriate utilise the outputs the relevant research projects on the implementation of the MSFD.

iii. Examine and provide recommendations on the coherence of the GES, Targets (including ranges for targets), Indicators and monitoring programmes established by the 3 Celtic Seas Member States with a focus on accommodating the different approaches into a coordinated Celtic Seas wide implementation process.

iv. Prepare a concise report with recommendations.

The work of this group will coincide with and support the OSPAR Intermediate Assessment. The WG will ensure that, on an ongoing basis, progress will be communicated and feedback considered from the appropriate administrations within each of the 3 Member States, the EC and OSPAR, ICES Member States and other relevant organisations.

The WGMSFDemo will report to by the 29 May 2015 (via SSGIEA) for the attention of SCICOM, ACOM, CSG MSFD and other relevant groups.

21


Priority The approach outlined is consistent with the Implementation Plan1 of the ICES Strategic Plan2. It is anticipated that the WG members will be made up of experts from the three Member States but the normal rules governing WGs will apply3. This is consistent with and will contribute to the Objectives and Union Priorities set out in Article 5 and 6 of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation 508/20144.

Scientific Justification ICES Delegates and Experts from each three Member State consider this approach to have very significant benefits in terms of efficiency and effectiveness

Resource Requirements Experts will participate at MS expense

Participants The Membership of the Group is expected not to exceed 20 participants.

Secretariat facilities None apart of a meeting room

Financial None apart of a meeting room

Linkage to ACOM ACOM. MSs may request ACOM to facilitate a peer review

Linkage to SCICOM Integrated Assessments, SSGIEA, WGEAWESS (with input from WGSAM, WGIPEM, WGZE), WKRISCO.

Linkage to other Organisations Member States, OSPAR and RSCs, DGMare and DGEnv.

1 http://ipaper.ipapercms.dk/ICESPublications/StrategicPlan/Implementationplans/

2 http://www.ices.dk/explore-us/Documents/Strategic%20plan/ISP.pdf

3http://www.ices.dk/community/Documents/Observers/CM_2013_Del-11%203_Observer_rules.pdf

4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0508&from=EN

http://ipaper.ipapercms.dk/ICESPublications/StrategicPlan/Implementationplans/

http://www.ices.dk/explore-us/Documents/Strategic%20plan/ISP.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/community/Documents/Observers/CM_2013_Del-11%203_Observer_rules.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/community/Documents/Observers/CM_2013_Del-11%203_Observer_rules.pdf

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0508&from=EN

22



WGEAWESS – Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European Shelf Seas

2013/MA2/SSGRSP02

The Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European Shelf Seas (WGEAWESS) chaired by Steven Beggs*,UK and Eider Andonegi*, Spain will meet in Belfast, UK, from the 14–18 March 2016 work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.




Gijón, Spain

Interim report by 2 June 2014 to SSGRSP

Year 2015 9–13 March

Cadiz, Spain

Interim report by 17 April 2015 to SSGIEA

Will work back-to-back with WGIAB


Belfast, UK Final report by 15 April 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Change in Chairs for third meeting and the group will hold joint meeting with WGRMES

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS ADDRESSED

DURATION EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Carry out metadata compilation for all ecosystem components available according to ODDEM framework. Preparatory to carrying out IEA

This is linked to the recommendation of a database

4.3 2 years Data base linked to ICES for Regional Sea Programmes

b Carry out preliminary evaluation of data and trends for a regional Integrated Ecosystem Assessment;

Linked to Benchmark SSGRSP guidance for methods

4.2 3 years Report and articles on GES status of Regional Sea

c Summarize and update the regional Ecosystem overviews

Linked to WKECOVER and ACOM- SCICOM advice

4.2 3 years Articles, atlas.

d Identify ecosystem trends relevant to stock assessment and management and report these accordingly

This would be linked to the commitment to provide advice in the context of EBAFM

4.1 Ongoing

23


Year 1

The main task will be to catalogue the datasets available that would be potentially valuable in an IEA (provisionally ODEMM approach. Metadata and description will be compiled into a database. This will particularly focus on identifying pressure state relationships that are appropriate for EBAFM. Ongoing identification of important trends in ecosystem indicators.

Year 2 Carry out provisional ODEMM (or other IEA) analysis, using WG membership, and reporting on results, gaps and weaknesses, and way forward. Ongoing identification of important trends in ecosystem indicators.

Year 3 Follow up on previous year IEA, refine including any new data acquired on the basis of the gaps analysis in the previous year. If appropriate hold a workshop with a wider participation. Ongoing identification of important trends in ecosystem indicators.


Priority Heavy pressure on shelf seas (biodiversity loss, climate changes, fisheries), lack in understanding of large marine ecosystem functioning and the context of ecosystem health indicators development for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive require to address those research topics at the relevant scale i.e. the regional approach.

The EAWESS working group will focus on North Atlantic European continental shelf. Regional area of interest includes the Celtic sea, bay of Biscay and Western Iberia, involving five countries (Ireland, UK, France, Spain and Portugal). The choose of such limits is justified by :

• bio-geographical (transitional region between subtropical and Subarctic gyres)

• chemo-physical continuum: large opened and connected areas dominated by soft bottom, closely linked by regional ocean circulation process, offering ‘coast-shelf-slope’ and latitudinal environmental gradient

• management unit (ICES, OSPAR) • already existing scientific networks (e.g. IBI-ROOS)


There is no resource implication for ICES. Working group program is based on synthesis of data and results from existing scientific program, and coordination of surveys and observations networks. However, involvement of ICES data center would useful to help with sharing and harmonizing data.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 15 members and guests.




Direct link to IEA, ACOM-SCICOM advice.


There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGRSP. It is also very relevant to the Working Group on WGECO and WGSAM


DC- MAP- DG MARE, MSFD DG ENV, OSPAR

24 |

WGNARS – Working Group on the Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea

2013/MA2/SSGRSP01

The Working Group on the Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea (WGNARS), chaired by Geret DePiper*, USA and M. R. Anderson, Canada, will meet in Falmouth, MA, USA on 21–25 March 2015.



Year 2014 3-7 February April

Falmouth, USA

Interim report by 1 March 2014 to SSGRSP

Year 2015 23-27 February

Dartmouth, NS, Canada



Falmouth, MA, USA

Final report by 2 May 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Sarah Gaichas to be replaced by Geret DePiper, USA as new Co-Chair starting 1 January 2016

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Develop the scientific support for an integrated assessment of the Northwest Atlantic region to support ecosystem approaches to science and management. Review and report on the work of other integrated ecosystem assessment activities in ICES, NAFO and elsewhere. Compile and provide guidance on best practises for each step of integrated ecosystem assessment.

a) Science Requirements: see below b) Advisory Requirements: none c) Requirements from other EGs: status updates from other groups employing IEA framework components.

1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4

3 years Summary review paper of lessons learned for IEAs in general and for each step of the process in the Northwest Atlantic using results from 2013, annual reviews of IEA activities, and ToRs b, c, d, e below (2016). Brief interim progress reports to ICES (2014, 2015).

b Evaluate relationships among ecosystem level management objectives developed by past and current ecosystem based management frameworks for the NW Atlantic and identify candidate

Will employ scoping overview and qualitative mapping methods reviewed in 2013. Requires participation by managers.

3.1, 3.4 1 year (2014) Conceptual model of relationships between current objectives, identifying which conflict. Candidate list of objectives for

25

ToR Description

Background



objectives for analysis.

analysis (2014).

c Identify key large-scale drivers that influence the whole NW Atlantic and how the ecosystem response varies at different spatial scales; select and vet indicators for these drivers and responses.

Will employ indicator performance testing and risk assessment methods reviewed in 2013 for both driver and response indicators. Requires participation by scientific experts in oceanography, habitat, biology, fisheries and other system uses, and socio-economics.

1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.4

2 years (2014: identify drivers, vet key indicators; 2015: identify regional ecosystem responses, vet key indicators)

Short list of large-scale drivers and vetted set of indicators for changes in those drivers (2014). List of vetted indicators for key ecosytem responses at several scales (2015).

d Identify alternative management strategies to achieve objectives (ToR b) based on drivers and responses at multiple scales (ToR c). Outline model requirements for management strategy evaluation.

Will review potential management tools and approaches for coordinating their use. Will operationalize ToR b objectives using indicator threshold analysis and risk analysis methods reviewed in 2013. Requires participation by managers and all scientists listed under ToR c.

3.1, 3.2 1 year (2015) List of operational objectives, alternative management strategies, and approaches for coordinating managment for NW Atlantic systems. Description of model requirements for MSE (2015).

e Evaluate ecosystem trade-offs using a range of simple management strategy evaluation (MSE) methods.

Will require regional models for capable of incorporating results of ToRs b, c, d. Requires participation by managers and all scientists listed under ToR c.

1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4

1 year (2016) Review of MSE methods available. Results of methods applied for NW Atlantic systems (2016).


Year 1 Identify candidate ecosystem based management objectives and key large-scale ecosystem drivers (w/vetted indicators) in NW Atlantic.

Year 2 Identify key ecosystem responses to large-scale drivers at multiple scales (w/vetted indicators) and alternative management strategies based on candidate objectives (operationalized) and drivers/responses.

Year 3 Evaluate the ability of the alternative management strategies to achieve candidate operational objectives given large-scale drivers and multi-scale responses and report on trade-offs.

26 |


Priority A regional approach to marine science is essential to address high priority research topics in the ICES Science Plan associated with understanding ecosystem functioning, particularly climate change processes (1.1), biodiversity (1.3) and the role of coastal-zone habitat in ecosystem dynamics (1.4), as well as understanding the interactions of human activities with ecosystems, particularly fishing (2.1) and impacts of habitat changes (2.4). Identifying potential objectives and evaluating alternative management strategies to achieve them addresses the development of options for sustainable use of ecosystems, specifically marine living resource management tools (3.1) and operational modelling combining oceanography, ecosystem, and population processes (3.2). Work identifying candidate ecosystem based management objectives and evaluating potential trade-offs through MSE contributes to socio-economic undestanding of ecosystem goods and services and forecasting the impact of human activities (3.4). Therefore, our workplan addresses all three thematic areas in the ICES Science Plan and multiple high priorities in each.

Resource requirements Components of the integrated approach, such as ocean observation systems, ecosystem surveys, development of integrated modelling approaches and management objectives are being maintained by member countries, and the programme will coordinate and synthesize existing programmes.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 25-35 members and guests. However, expertise needed for each ToR differs so total participants over 3 years could be >50.

Secretariat facilities Report preparation and dissemination



During the development stage, there will be no direct linkages with advisory committees, but the integrated approach is expected to eventually support advice for implementing IEAs in NW Atlantic subregions, and may link to future ICES IEA advice in other regions.


There is a close working relationship with a number of the working groups and workshops under the Steering Group on Regional Seas, such as the Workshop on Benchmarking Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, and others within ICES, such as the Working Group on Marine Systems.


The NAFO Ecosystem Based Management Working Group has made progress toward similar objectives and will be a resource for collaboration.

WGIBAR – Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea

2013/MA2/SSGRSP03

The Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), chaired by Edda Johannesen, Norway and Yuri Kovalev, Russia, will meet in Murmansk, Russia, 22–26 February 2016 to work on their ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

27



Year 2014 24-28 March

Kirkenes, Norway

Interim report by 30 April 2014 to SSGRSP

Year 2015 1-5 June Sollia, Norway

Interim report by 6 July 2015 to SSGIEA

Year 2016 22–26 February

Murmansk, Russia

Final report by 31 March 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Prepare an inventory of, and compile, relevant data sets (such as data from the joint IMR-PINRO surveys, and others) that can be used to describe and analyse fluctuations and changes in the Barents Sea ecosystem

Science and advisory requirements

Year 1and 2 Year 2 Report on data inventory

b Perform integrated analyses of multivariate and multi-disciplinary data sets (including pressures and drivers) to examine and document past and current changes in the ecosystem


Year 1, 2 and 3

Annual reports on integrated analysis progress, papers as appropriate

c Prepare an annual status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem based on the integrated analysis of multivariate data sets from monitoring surveys and other relevant sources including 3-D physical and ecological modeling

Science and advisory requirement

Year 1, 2 and 3

Annual status reports

d Identify knowledge gaps and priority research items that when addressed, can improve future integrated ecosystem assessments


Year 1, 2, and 3

Updates in annual meeting reports

28 |

e Consider and suggest improvements to the monitoring activities and programs in the Barents Sea including survey design, observation and estimation methods and sampling that will improve the fundament for integrated ecosystem assessments


Year 1, 2 and 3

Updates in annual meeting reports

f Using and reviewing existing documents (such as the existing Barents Sea management plan and contributions from the ICES Secretariat), complete sections 1 to 3 of the ICES ecosystem overview for the Barents Sea

Year 2 Sections 1 to 3 of the ICES ecosystem overview for the Barents Sea.


Year 1 Focus will be on preparation an inventory of, and compile, relevant data sets (such as data from the joint IMR-PINRO surveys (Annex 1), and others) that can be used to describe and analyse fluctuations and changes in the Barents Sea ecosystem. Consider how to achieve regular evaluation of monitoring program (surveys design and sampling, uncertainties in stocks estimations and observation methods) and make priorities for different tasks. Start work on integrated data analyses and prepare a first version of a status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem.

Year 2 Perform integrated analyses of multivariate and multi-disciplinary data sets (including pressures and drivers) to examine and document past and current changes in the ecosystem. Identify knowledge gaps and priority research items that when addressed, can improve future integrated ecosystem assessments. Prepare an updated annual status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem based on the integrated analysis of multivariate data sets from monitoring surveys and other relevant sources including 3-D physical and ecological modeling.

Year 3 Consider and suggest improvements to the monitoring activities and programs in the Barents Sea including survey design, observation and estimation methods and sampling that will improve the fundament for integrated ecosystem assessments. Continue work to identify knowledge gaps and priority research items. Prepare updated integrated data analyses and annual status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem.


Priority WGIBAR aims to conduct and further develop Integrated Ecosystem Assessments for the Barents Sea, as a step towards implementing the ecosystem approach.

Scientific justification Term of Reference a)

There are a range of different approaches to performing integrated ecosystem assessments. We will develop an approach for the WGIBAR that

29

is based on the state of the art. This will be done with data input from all relevant monitoring surveys in the Barents Sea (see Annex below), and by summarising and analysing status of species and habitats, of ecological interactions (between species in food webs, and between species and habitats), and of human pressures and their impacts on the ecosystem, seen in relation to natural (climate) pressures and effects.

Term of Reference b)

Integrated data analyses will be performed using the compiled data sets under (a). These data span a wide range of ecosystem components and features, including meteorology, physical oceanography, sea ice, plankton, benthos, commerical fish stocks, other fish species, marine mammals , and seabirds. Relevant pressures will include fisheries, climate change, and possibly others. The integrated analyses will include multivariate techniques, statistical analyses, and possibly others.

Term of Reference c)

Using the outcome of the integrated analyses in (b), a status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem will be prepared and updated annually. This will build on and add value to annual reports from the Joint IMR-PINRO ecosyetm cruises, and status reports pprepared as part of the Norwegian Managment Plan for the Barents Sea.

Term of Reference d)

A main task in an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment is to interpret the outcome of integrated analyses in the context of existing and emerging knowledge about the food web structure, functions and dynamics of an ecosystem such as the Barents Sea. A by-product of an IEA is the knowledge gaps become apparent. These can be turned into a priority list of research tasks that will improve the basis for doing in iterative IEA .

Term of Reference e)

The survey and sampling strategy should be closely related to the integrated assessment. TOR e will be devoted to developing an overview of sampling requirements for integrated ecosystem assessment. The group will evaluate present monoriting strategy (survey design, sampling, estimation methods, data flow and products), evaluate new methods and equipment to achieve the optimal monitoring of the ecosystem and recommend changes to the monitoring committees at IMR and PINRO.

Term of Reference f)

The ecosystem overviews are a key component of the development of ICES integrated advice. Ecosystem overviews already exists for many ICES ecoregions and this work will create overviews for the two northern areas.


Several national and international research projects support the activities indicated and no further resources are needed in the short term. In the long term the group should try to develop an integrated project

Participants We expect around 20 people (IMR and PINRO) and 5 from other institutions to attend.




It is very important to link this group to ACOM and ensure cooperation between science and advice.

30 |


There are linkages to the other regional seas programmes and the Working Group on Integrating Surveys for the Ecosystem Approach (WGISUR), and different ICES WG, which responsible for stocks assessment and fisheries management advice, the most important being Artic Fisheries Working group (AFWG).


No recognised links.

Annex 1: Monitoring surveys:

Winter. There have been 4 winter surveys: Norwegian-Russian combined acoustic and bottom trawl survey; Lofoten survey, Russian winter survey and Norwegian deep-fish survey, covering the ice-free parts of the Barents Sea during November-December. These surveys aim to monitor spawning migrations of key Barents Sea fish species and ensure updated information of the commercially and ecologically important bottom fish stocks for assessment and fisheries management advice. Some of the surveys may also give information about spawning migration of capelin, pelagic components of commercially important fish species, and hydrographic conditions. These winter surveys reflect also oceanographic shifts (inflow of Atlantic waters during winter influence temperature conditions during the rest of the year). These data sets are a firm foundation for ecosystem status during winter.

Summer. There have been international fish-plankton surveys in the Nordic Sea, also covering the southern and western parts of the Barents Sea in May-June since the mid-1990s. In the most recent years these surveys have transitioned into ecosystem surveys that capture most of the key components of the ecosystem. These data sets are a firm foundation for ecosystem status during spring-summer by measuring the plankton bloom, which determine the characteristics of the feeding season. A fairly recent book on the Barents Sea ecosystem and huge amount of data collected is a good starting point for the assessment.

Autumn. The Joint Norwegian-Russian Ecosystem surveys in the Barents Sea during autumn (BESS- autumn) is appropriate to reflect the success of the feeding season and the surveys are able to monitor the whole ecosystem since the largest ice-free area is found during this period. Due to the large covered area, this survey is also suitable for providing updated information on other commercially and ecologically important species, and other ecosystem components (plankton, benthos, marine mammals and sea birds), together with environmental conditions (temperature, salinity, oxygen and pollution), biodiversity and trophic interactions. These data sets are a firm foundation for ecosystem status during autumn.

WGIMM – Working Group on Integrating Ecological and Economic Models

2013/MA2/SSGRSP05

The Working Group on Integrating Ecological and Economic Models (WGIMM), chaired by Jörn Schmidt, Germany, J. Rasmus Nielsen, Denmark and Eric Thunberg, USA, and will meet at (venue and dates to be decided) XX–XX 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

31



Year 2015 11-12 May WebEX Conference call

Interim report by 15 April to SSGIEA

Meeting now to be held as a WebEx Conference call.

Year 2016 To be decided

To be decided

Interim report by DATE to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2017 Final report by “DATE” to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) is now the basis for Fisheries Management as legally laid out in the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and subsequent meetings (Rio 1992, Johannesburg 2002, Rio 2012). The FAO (2003) guidelines for an Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries state that the understanding and management of fisheries should explicitly take into account interactions between stocks as well as social and economic considerations. Though it is acknowledged that only human activities can be managed, their optimal management will depend on the ecosystem in which they take place. Hence, the direct and indirect impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystem and vice versa must be assessed and predicted to provide management advice in support of the Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries Management. This entails a move from single species to multispecies and to ecosystem assessments, including the explicit incorporation of the economic components. To fulfil the needs for a sound science, tools need to be developed, which take these interactions into account. The aim of this expert group is to collect globally available models, to discuss their further development and to develop a sound basis for evaluating these tools, including testing their robustness. It will also analyse the needed characteristics for the use in advisory context. Another overarching goal is to make most of these models available in an online repository.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED

DURATION EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Collect globally available coupled ecological-economic models and characterize them with respect to their applicability (academic, advice, evaluation)

Serves as the basis for further work of WGIMM and provides deliverables for the wider community

1st year, will be continued over all 3 yeras

Online Repository with explanation of the different models

b Develop a framework for evaluation and comparison of these models

Models are a method to evaluate or explore specific hypotheses within systems and such need to fulfil the requirements of

2nd year White paper of good practice, manuscript for peer reviewed journal

32 |

every other method of reproducibility

c Analyse the potential, capability and performance of the models and frameworks with respect to spatial and regional explicit bio-economic evaluation of fisheries management in context of marine spatial planning and broader cross sector marine management on regional basis

Fisheries is increasingly competing for space, especially in coastal areas, but also for the high seas marine spatial planning will become the basis for decision making in the future

3 years White paper, manuscript for peer reviewed journal

d Identify further the data and information required as well as expertise needed for integrated bio-economic modelling of fisheries and application of socio-economic evaluation methods on short and long term basis enhancing the above

The models are increasingly data demanding and the collection and access needs to be harmonized. It will be of crucial importance with respect to limited resources to identify the data, which will be needed to feed the models and to serve as a sound scientific basis for decision making

3 Years White paper

e Discuss how different stakeholder groups can be incorporated in the process of model development. These participatory processes will be of increasing importance to “answer the right questions” and to make these models usable beyond the academic sphere

This is also part of ToR a, but needs to be taken explicitly, because it will influence future developments

2nd year Nested workshops with stakeholders

f Develop innovative ways of communicating the increasingly complex results

A transparent communication of complex results is the basis to increase

3rd year Schemes for decision support systems

33

from these models to decision makers, but also the wider public

literacy of fisheries related issues both for decision makers and the public


Year 1 Repository set up, general White paper

Year 2 Workshops with stakholder involvement, peer reviewed publication, white paper on evaluation schemes

Year 3 Decision support schemes


Priority High. There is an increasing demand for the development and evaluation of coupled ecological-economical models in advice giving bodies, including ICES. However, the possibilities to coordinate the expertise of economists, sociologists, and ecologists to develop and evaluate further bio-economic models and management evaluation frameworks is still not fully used. The goal will be to further couple economic and sociological expertise directly with the ecological understanding within ICES and socio-economic scientific communities (e.g. IIFET) to enhance the quality of integrated assessments and the value of the advice.

Scientific justification The incorporation of bio-economics in fisheries assessment might lead to a better result and an enhanced communication with fisheries industry, fishermen, managers and other stakeholders as the advice could be made on the basis of a deepened understanding of:

• The economic and sociological incentives of fishermen and industry the bio-economic interaction between different fisheries and both biological and economical consequences of different management scenarios and transaction costs of different policies coupled with the existing sound biological knowledge within ICES;

• The complexity of fisheries management evaluation tools which can meet the increased demands for marine spatial planning and broader cross sector marine management evaluaiton;

• The performance, characteristics and scientific and advisory capabilities of the models for application and implementation to give better advice on potentials for implementation.

Relation to Strategic Plan

The group will directly feed goals 1, 2 and 3 of the ICES strategic plan: “Develop an integrated, interdisciplinary understanding of the structure, dynamics, and the resilience and response of marine ecosystems to change“, „Understand the relationship between human activities and marine ecosystems, estimate pressures and impacts, and develop science-based, sustainable pathways“, „Evaluate and advise on options for the sustainable use and protection of marine ecosystems“.


No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting.

Participants Interested scientists, economic modellers, ecological modellers, SCICOM members, ACOM members, Assessment group members, stock assessment experts (as well as selected stakeholder observers, e.g. RACs and managers).

Secretariat facilities SharePoint site, secretariat support for reporting.

34 |

Financial None


The incorporation of economy in fisheries advice should be of basic interest to ACOM and the general scientific overview and further development of interest to SCICOM.


Assessment groups (ACOM). Scientific methods to enable Integrated Marine Management across sectors and implementing an Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries Management has significant scientific focus and is relevant for ICES SCICOM and several ICES groups hereunder.


Contact and agreement on scientific collaboration has been established with the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET).

WGLMEBP – Working Group on Large Marine Ecosystem Programme Best Practices

2013/MA2/SSGRSP06

The Working Group on Large Marine Ecosystem Programme Best Practices (WGLMEBP), chaired by Hein Rune Skjoldal, Norway, and Rudolf Hermes, Thailand, will meet in Paris, France, 28 September – 2 October 2015, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2014 8-11 July Paris, France

Interim report by 15 August 2014 to SSGRSP

Year 2015 28 September – 2 October

Paris, France

Interim report by 15 November 2015 to SSGIEA, SCICOM

Year 20XX Final report by “DATE” to “SSGIEA”, “SCICOM”…

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Gather information about past and current integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA) into an inventory of IEAs, their geographic scope or scale, and the reference points used

incorporate the results of WGNARS, WGINOSE, WGEAWESS, WGINOR, WGIBAR and WGIAB

new science plan

Year 1 An inventory of IEA’s

35

b With support from ICES scientists and LME practitioners, and based on the above output, develop a brief synthesis of the most commonly used science-based indicators for ecosystem-based management. Consider to conduct a survey among practionioners using a questionnaire

a) review and consider the different concepts in use based on published knowledge

Year 1 The synthesis, possibly a peer reviewed publication and other communication tools to disseminate these findings

c Identifying LME units as references for IEA, in the ICES area (including the Arctic LME’s), as well as in the operational LME’s;

a) consider the relevant LME delimitations for practical use

Year 1 agreed reference LME units

d Taking into account the results of WKECOVER earlier in 2013, apply the criteria proposed for producing ecosystem overviews and develop in cooperation with LMEs overviews for ICES core areas, Arctic and other LMEs as far as possible, also in partnership with PICES, NOAA, CSIRO etc.

a) WKECOVER report

Year 2 and 3 Overviews

e Identify areas of collaboration and mutual interest between ICES and LME groups; including; knowledge transfer; communication and capacity development.

a) consider science requirements of LMEs

Year 1, 2 & 3 Identification of: Areas of common interest, Partnerships and Joint Ventures


Year 1 based on published literature, LME and ICES IEA EGs produce an inventory of existing or planned IEAs and a synthesis document with recommendations; identification of reference LME

Year 2 attempt ecosystem overviews for operational LMEs and Arctic LMEs, as well as take into account the ecosystem overviews for the ICES core areas.

36 |

Year 3 partnerships, knowledge transfer and training needs.


Priority These Terms of Reference takes into account the following developments in the ICES core areas, the Arctic and other LMEs around the world to better assess the status of marine ecosystems; • The new ICES science plan will have a strong focus on integrated

ecosystem assessments, including ecosystem overviews and monitoring programmes. Furthermore, ICES is making a move toward incorporating the Arctic under the same umbrella and to work towards an ICES-Arctic Planning Group;

• Further scientific data and knowledge have been generated about the Arctic LMEs that have laid strong foundational work for ecosystem status assessments. Support from ICES for the Arctic provides further impetus in this regard;

• For the past 20 years, the GEF and World Bank have been providing substantial financial support in the amount of $3.1 billion to developing countries for planning and implementing a five-module strategy for EBM that assesses and monitors changing states of LME: (i) productivity, (ii) fish and fisheries, (iii) pollution and ecosystem health, (iv) socio-economics, and (v) governance.

• Countries apply two processes in consideration of the five modules across the modular strategy in the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and a Strategic Action Program (SAP). The outcomes of these processes are compatible with the Ecosystem Status Assessment process (ESA).

• Many LMEs around the world have finalized their Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) which generates large volumes of information and data on the ecosystems, defines threats and root causes and a way forward for improved ecosystem status assessment and stress reduction. Hence, several LMEs now have GEF-funded Strategic Action Programmes in place and have contributed information and data to the GEF Tracking Tools, UNEP Regional Seas, the Abidjan Convention (and other regional conventions), TWAP and the Regular Process to enable different scales of ecosystem status assessments. Capacities in LMEs have also been enhanced to enable such assessments with good understanding for the need for horizontal (across sectors) and vertical (within sectors) integration and thorough consideration of socio-economic and governance aspects.

• In terms of making progress in EBM the IEAs are tools for management (i.e. to manage human impacts and to monitor the response of the ecosystem for making informed decisions. It is important to monitor the response of the ecosystem and to distinguish between inputs caused by natural drivers and ones caused by human impact drivers. ICES has IEA groups to cover all ICES areas. The ICES principles for IEA include human dimensions, ecosystem drivers variation and change, data collection, and building knowledge; operational objectives, integration across sectors as an adaptive and iterative process.





37


ACOM via IEAs


There is a very close working relationship with the newly established SCICOM SSG on integrated ecosystem assessment and monitoring (SSGIOMP) and its groups.


IOC, UNDP and interaction is expected with the envisaged GEF project on LME Best practices to be launched by summer 2014. Arctic Council working groups notably AMAP, CAFF and PAME, and the PAME-led EA expert group.

38 |

WGINOSE – Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea

2013/MA2/SSGRSP04

Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea (WGINOSE), chaired by Andy Kenny, UK, will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 14–18 March 2016, to work on their ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.




ICES HQ, Copenhagen

Interim report by 30 April 2014 to SSGRSP


Hamburg, Germany



ICES HQ, Copenhagen

Final report by 29 April 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Update the integrated ecosystem trend analysis for the North Sea using as many of the ‘core’variables as identified by WGINOSE in 2013

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements c) Requirements from other EGs

1.1, 2.1 Input from relevant EWG as highlighted WGINOSE in 2013

Years 1, 2 & 3

Regional sea state trend analysis for inclusion in eco-region overviews annually.

b Update the North Sea ecosystem overview report using findings from ToR a and ToRc where possible

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements

1.1, 2.1 To facilitate the provision of IEA advice

Years 1, 2 & 3

North Sea ecosystem overview updated annually

c Develop and apply a dynamic Bayesian Belief Network model as a tool for integrated and combined effects assessments.

a) Science Requirements

2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3 Years 1, 2 & 3

Results which explore the balance of trade-offs between ecosystem protection and sustainable resource use

d Review the data needs and approaches to support the operational implementation of ToRa and ToRb (above)


4.1 Years 1, 2 & 3

Recommedations and actions giving rise to the on-going improvement to flow of data between EWG, the data centre and WGINOSE

39


Year 1. In terms of delivery, the first year will focus on developing links between relevant expert groups (ICES and others external to ICES) and the ICES data centre to compile a core set of IEA variables for the North Sea. An update of the North Sea trends analysis will be performed and the results will be used to update the North Sea ecosystem overview.

Year 2. In addition to the annual update of the trend analysis and ecosystem overview, the focus for the second year delivery will be to demonstrate the utility of the developed dBBN North Sea model, espceially in answering the ‘key’ questions around the balance of trade-offs between ecosystem protection and sustainable resource use for a range of human activities.

Year 3. In addition to the annual update of the trend analyses and ecosystem overview, the focus for the 3rd year will be a review of comparative performance of WGINOSE, especially in relation to the uptake and use of model results and trend analyses in the advisory and management processes.


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the development of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments for the North Sea (a data rich ecosystem) as a step towards implementing the ICES Science Plan and the ecosystem approach, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Resource requirements Assistance of the Secretariat in maintaining and exchanging information and data to potential partcipants, especially the services of the ICES data centre to generate data tables for analysis from selected variables held in the database.





Relevant to the work of ACOM and SCICOM


There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGSRP. It is also very relevant to the EWG identified in WGHAME 2013 report..


OSPAR, EU, NAFO, NEAFC

40


WGCOMEDA – Working Group on Comparative Analyses between European Atlantic and Mediterranean marine ecosystems to move towards an Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries

2012/MA2/SSGRSP07

The Working Group on Comparative Analyses between European Atlantic and Mediterranean marine ecosystems to move towards an Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries (WGCOMEDA), chaired by Marta Coll, Spain, Manuel Hidalgo, Spain, and Hilmar Hinz, Spain, and will meet in Bilbao, Spain, 4–6 May 2016 to work on the ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2014 1-4 April Barcelona, Spain

Interim report by 2 June 2014 to SSGRSP

Year 2015 5-8 May Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Interim report by 10 June 2015 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2016 4–6 May Bilbao, Spain

Final report by 10 June 2016 to SSGIEA, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

A Provide a comparative synthesis of current understanding, data and tools available to move towards an ecosystem-based approach in Atlantic and Mediterranean European Seas.

a) The ToR requires an integrated view on what are the drivers and functions shaping marine ecosystems in both seas (Atlantic and Mediterranean), in addition to data available and methodologies used to date. b) This ToR requires a broad knowledge on the topic for all specific regions from the different scientists attending the WG. c) ToR A will benefit from the attendance of scientists from other WGs from SSGRSP such as WGIAB, WGEAWESS or WGINOSE.

1.1 Year 1 1.1. First section of Working Document synthesising available information, highlighting challenges in data and methodological approaches for each sea.

41

c) ToR also requires a good coordination with other WGs of other institutions carrying out parallel work on EAF such as SFTEC – EAF, INDESEAS initiatives, CREAM EU FP7 action.

B Identify key sensitive ecological processes (from species and population processes, thorough inter-specific relationships, to trophic flows) to climate variability and fishing impact in Atlantic and Mediterranean exploited ecosystems.

a) The ToR requires the participation of experts with a good knowledge on ecological processes in both seas. b) ToR B will benefit from the attendance of scientists from other WGs from SSGRSP such as WGIAB, WGEAWESS or WGINOSE.

1.2 Year 1 2.1. Second section of the working document synthesising available information and sensitive ecological processes in each sea. 2.2. Design the analyses to be performed in the next future (ToR C)

C Analyse the role of climate and fishing drivers to explain the potential commonalities and differences in structural and functional ecosystem properties using results from both available indicators and models.

a) The ToR requires the access to datasets and previously developed analysis and models to perform further analysis and integration of data. b) ToR also requires a good coordination with other WGs of other institutions carrying out parallel work on EAF such as SFTEC – EAF or INDESEAS initiatives.

2.1 Year 2 3.1. Implementation of analyses. 3.2. Comparative synthesis of results. 3.3. Paper with both a reviewing and an analytical component.

D Identify how knowledge gained in previous and current work at different seas can provide feedback among regional systems to improve the scientific support for an integrated assessment of the Mediterranean and Atlantic regions for ecosystem approaches

a) Outreach of this ToR will be provided in close collaboration with SFTEC – EAF WG (‘Linkages to other committees or groups’ bellow) and other WGs from SSGRSP such as WGIAB, WGEAWESS or WGINOSE.

3.1 Year 3 4.1. Document to be disseminated to several management and assessment institutions and agencies in Europe.

42 |

to science and management.


YEAR 1 1.1 Comparative synthesis of current data and tools available to move towards an ecosystem-based approach in Atlantic and Mediterranean European Seas. The first step will aim at providing a review of all the data available and all the methodologies used in regional seas to present an accurate state-of-the-art to advance science for EAF to be used as a white document of the WG. This work needs to be performed in close collaboration with complementary initiatives already in place such as the ones lead by SFTEC – EAF WG, IndiSeas initiative, or CREAM EU FP7 action. 1.2 Identify sensitive ecological processes to climate variability and fishing impact in both Atlantic and Mediterranean exploited ecosystems. The success of EAF measures relies on an effective assessment and management of the most sensitive ecological processes to be potentially affected by fishing and/or climate. This work will be performed using a comparative platform of research including Atlantic and Mediterranean systems. The group will identify key sensitive processes at the species and population level, thorough inter-specific relationships, to trophic flows. The outreach of this review will complement the Work document to be provided after the first year of WG. During this first year, we will also design the analyses to be performed on the Year 2 to provide the opportunity to the WG participants to work before the second meeting in 2015.

YEAR 2 2.1. Analyse the role of climate and fishing drivers to explain the potential commonalities and differences in structural and functional ecosystem properties using results from both available indicators and models, The group will use the knowledge obtained during the first year to specifically analyse those sensitive ecological processes previously identified and assess the role that climate and fishing play in driving them. Results should lead to the development of a publication with both a review and an analytical component.

YEAR 3 3.1. Identify how knowledge gained in previous and current work in other seas can provide feedback among regional systems to improve the scientific support for an integrated assessment of the Mediterranean and Atlantic regions for ecosystem approaches to science and management. During the third year, the WG participants will produce an integrative synthesis of all the knowledge gain by the group that can improve the effectiveness of EAF. The group will emphasise the feedback of knowledge between regions in the Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea. The group will provide a document to be disseminated to all the management and assessment institutions in Europe. This work needs to be performed in close collaboration with SFTEC – EAF WG (‘Linkages to other committees or groups’ bellow) and other WGs from SSGRSP such as WGIAB, WGEAWESS or WGINOSE to avoid work overlapping.


Priority

The priority of this working group (WG) is to investigate both cross-systems and system-specific key scientific questions to guide research and improve the ecosystem approach to management of living marine resources of the European Seas using existing data and analysis from regional systems at the East Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea (see scientific justification). Thus, this WG aims at strengthening the scientific basis for regional and integrated ecosystem approach of coastal and marine living resources through a comparative platform of research. A comparative approach of marine ecosystems is essential to learn on how

43

Scientific justification

Mediterranean and Atlantic ecosystems are structured, how they function, and which are the more sensitive species or ecological processes to be managed within the ecosystem dynamics. This working group will investigate common processes and scientific challenges to contribute to the comparative knowledge of both systems within the context of regional European Seas. There are important challenges to deal with EAF in both the Mediterranean and Atlantic areas, and different ways of approaching the challenges in both regions. But since they are partially in European Seas we should have an integrated view on what are drivers and functions shaping ecosystems at both seas, and what is common or specific from each region. This working group aims at generating comparative knowledge of processes in both regions to inform EAF. Moving forward from analytical and theoretical EAF to an efficient and applied management of marine living resources based in the ecosystem knowledge is so far the main challenge of the marine and fisheries ecologists in the XXI century. This needs an intensive effort of integrating knowledge from different systems and approaches to embrace the ecosystem knowledge to the assessment procedures. In addition, the degree of success of such integrative procedures will be inherently linked to capability to identify the more sensitive species and/or ecological processes to be managed within the ecosystem dynamics, and thus assessing their potential responses to exogenous forcing.

Resource requirements Information from ICES and GFCM, and JRC – SFTEC EAF WG databases are the main input for this group. No additional resources are identified, although participation of some experts (especially young scientists) to working group meetings depends on funding availability.

Participants The Group aims at being normally attended by 20–25 members and guests. The preliminary list of possible (°) members is the following: o Marta Coll (ICM-CSIC, Spain) – Chair and expert on Mediterranean

ecosystems o Manuel Hidalgo (IEO, Spain) – Chair expert on Atlantic and

Mediterranean ecosystems o Miguel Bernal (IEO, Spain) – expert on Atlantic and Mediterranean

ecosystems o Didier Gascuel (Agrocampus West, France) - expert on Atlantic and

Mediterranean ecosystems (and Chair of the STECF WG EAF – JRC-EU)

o Francoise Le Loch (IRD, France) – expert on Atlantic and Mediterranean ecosystems

o Nicolas Hoepffner and Chiara Piroddi (JRC – EU) - experts on remote sensing datasets and analysis

o Chiara Piroddi (JRC – EU) - experts on Mediterranean ecosystems o Gorka Merino (PLM, UK) – expert on Atlantic and Mediterranean

ecosystems o Simone Libralato (OGS, Italy) - expert on Mediterranean

ecosystems (Adriatic Sea) o Konstantinos Tsagarakis (Greece) - expert on Mediterranean

ecosystems (Aegean Sea) o Daniela Baranu (Montpellier, France) -expert on Mediterranean

ecosystems (Gulf of Lions) o Martin Lindegrem (DYU-AQUA, Denmark) – expert on Atlantic

ecosystems (Baltic Sea)

44 |

o Michele Casini (Swidish University of Agricultural Science, Sweden) - expert on Atlantic ecosystems (Baltic Sea)

o Valerio Bartolino (University of Gotheburg, Germany) - expert on Atlantic and Mediterranean ecosystems.

o Thorsten Bleckner (Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Sweden) - expert on Atlantic ecosystems (Baltic Sea)

o Henn Ojaveer (University of Tartu, Estonia) – expert on Atlantic ecosystems (Baltic Sea)

o Sheila Heymans (SAMS, UK) - expert on Atlantic ecosystems (Western Scotland)

o Francisco Sanchez (IEO, Santander) - expert on Atlantic ecosystems (Gulf of Biscay)

o Marian Torres (IEO, Cadiz, Spain) - expert on Atlantic ecosystems (Gulf of Cadiz)

o Telmo Morato (University of Azores, Portugal) – expert on Atlantic ecosystems (Azores)

o Steve Mackinson (CEFAS, UK) - expert on Atlantic ecosystems (North Sea)

o Morgan Travers (IFREMER, France) – expert on Atlantic ecosystems (English Channel)

o (°still to contact)

Secretariat facilities Report preparation and dissemination

Financial No financial implications for ICES. Funding will be likely needed to facilitate the participation of young and early-career expert scientists. WG chairs will apply to marine research consortiums to find financial support for those early-career researchers who need travel funding.


During the development stage, there will be no direct linkages with advisory committees, but the integrated approach is expected to eventually support advice at different institutions on European Seas.


There is a close working relationship with a number of the Working Groups under the Steering Group on Regional Seas (SSGRSP) and others within ICES. Of special relevance are links with ‘ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea (WGIAB)’, ‘Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European Shelf Seas (WGEAWESS)’ or ‘Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea (WGINOSE)’. There is also a direct linkage to the SFTEC – EAF WG chaired by Didier Gascuel that deals with EAF in Atlantic European Seas but has the aim to extend to other European Seas in the Future. IndiSeas International Working group also investigates several ecosystems located in European Seas, including Mediterranean Ecosystems. Thus, their work will be important to this WG. Links to projects under development such as CREAM EU FP7 action will be also established.


The USA CAMEO program funds projects in the region aimed at improving tools for ecosystem-based management and an international framework for implementation. Linkages to the JRC and ICES initiatives under the MSDF and the Ecopath Research and Development Consortium will be sought.

45

SCICOM/ACOM Steering Group on Integrated Ecosystem Observation and Monitoring (SSGIEOM) Resolutions

SSGIEOM Resolutions approved in 2016

WGNEPS – to be updated

2015/MA2/SSGIEOM19


EIMSD – EFARO/ICES meeting on Cooperation in Surveys and Data Collection

2015/MA2/SSGIEOM01

The EFARO – ICES meeting on Cooperation in Surveys and Data Collection (EIMSD) chaired by Tammo Bult, EFARO, and Eskild Kirkegaard, ICES, will take place in ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen on 20 January 2016 to:

a) Review the position paper prepared by Paul Connolly, Fritz W. Köster, Tammo Bult, Jørgen Dalskov, Philippe Moguedet and Eskild Kirkegaard;

b) Develop proposals including ToRs for two regional pilot studies.

EIMSD will report by Date 2016 for the attention of the ICES Bureau, EFARO, SCICOM, and ACOM.

IBTSWG – International Bottom Trawl Survey Working Group

2015/MA2/SSGIEOM02

The International Bottom Trawl Survey Working Group (IBTSWG), co-chaired by Kai Wieland*, Denmark, and Corina Chaves*, Portugal, will meet in Sète, France, from 4–8 April 2016 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below:

Meeting date Venue Reporting details Comments (change in Ch etc.)

Year 2016 4–8 April Sète, France Interim report by 5 June 2016 to SSGIEOM

Year 2017 Interim report

Year 2018 Final report

ToR descriptors

ToR

Description Background Science plan topics addressed

Duration Expected deliverables

a Coordination and reporting of North Sea and Northeastern Atlantic surveys,

Intersessional planning of Q1- and Q3- surveys; communication of coordinator with cruise

30 Recurrent annual update

1) Survey summary including collected data and

46 |

including appropriate field sampling in accordance to the EU Data Collection Framework

leaders; combing the results of individual nations into an overall survey summary.

description of alterations to the plan, to relevant assessment-WGs (WGHMM, WGCSE, WGNEW, WGNSSK, HAWG, WGDEEP, WGEF, WGEEL, WGCEPH, WGHANSA) and SCICOM.

2) Indices for the relevant species to assessment WGs (see above)

3) Planning of the upcoming surveys for the survey coordinators and cruise leaders.

b Review IBTS SISP manuals and consider additional updates and improvements in survey design and standardization

Intersessional activity, ongoing in order to improve survey quality

31 Permanently ongoing

Updated version of survey manual, whenever substantial changes are made (intersessionally)

c Address DATRAS-related topics in cooperation with DUAP: data quality checks and the progress in re-uploading corrected datasets, quality checks of indices calculated, and prioritizing further developments in DATRAS.

Issues with data handling, data requests or challenges with re-uploading of historical or corrected data to DATRAS have been identified and solutions are being developed

30 Multi-annual activity, supported by WKDATR workshop in January of 2013 to solve issues with highest priorities;

Prioritized list of issues and suggestion for solutions and for quality checking routines, as well as definition of possible new DATRAS products, submitted to DATRAS group at ICES (Compare Action List in 2013 report). Once data quality control routines are estabished, annual check of recent survey data.

d Produce a swept-area-based index (instead of haul time-based index) to be explored in

Swept-area is suggested as an alternative to haul time, because it would remove possible bias resulting from different riggings or gear specifications. In order to

28 1 year Manuscript for paper or CRR, analysing the potential advantages of moving to swept-

47

collaboration with the WGISDAA

evaluate the effect changing to new indices, IBTSWG intends to liase with relevant stock coordinators or assessment groups at ICES.

area-based standardization. To be presented to assessment groups for evaluation by 2016.

e Analyse and report on the effect of variable sweep length, groundgears and GOV riggings between the participating countries

Some aspects of the gear applied in the surveys are not required to be standardized. The effect of these variations are to be evaluated. Partly, different standards for sweep lengths have been applied in Q1 vs. Q3 surveys, and different groundgears and riggings are applied. (For this ToR, the IBTS WG seeks support from gear technology experts and welcomes their contribution, in particular for advice on a potential change of the survey gear.)

28 2 years Working document(s) by 2016, Manuscript or CRR by 2017

f Evaluate the present scheme of collection of age and other biological data

Analysis of spatial distribution of sampling of age and other biological data, options to increase efficiency and minimum required sample sizes

2 years Working document(s) by 2016, Manuscript by 2017

g Evaluate the current survey design and explore modifications or alternative survey designs, identifying any potential benefits and drawbacks with respect to spatial distribution and frequency of sampling.

Specific issues to be addressed include: Effect of tow duration; Suitability of species-specific index areas; Stratification and optimal spatial distribution of effort.

3 years Paper on tow duration experiment in NS-IBTS 3Q 2015 by 2016, Manuscript for paper or CRR by 2018.

h Data overviews ICES is building an overview of the different data products and how the information flows from survey to advice, and input is needed from the survey groups in this process.

25, 27 Sept 2016 Quality assure the data product overviews

i Give input to WKSUREP on data reporting guidelines.

The information flow between data users and the data providers needs to be strengthened

31 Sept 2016 Comment on WKSUREP draft data reporting guidelines.

Summary of the Work plan

48 |

Year 1 (2016)

Evaluate the effect of changing to swept-area-based indices for additional examples/ stocks, particularly linked to WGISDAA and benchmark process (ToR d). Evaluate the results of the tow duration experiment from the NS-IBTS 3Q 2015 survey.

Year 2 Continue analyses of different GOV configurations (ToR e).

Year 3 Complete the evaluation of the current survey design and explore modifications or alternative survey designs (ToR g), Update survey manuals if necessary (ToRs e, f and g)

Recurrent annual activity

Updates for ToRs a, b and c.


Priority Essential, The general need for monitoring fish abundance using surveys is evident in relation to fish stock assessments, and it has increasing importance in relation to MSFD GES descriptors biodiversity, foodwebs, and bottom integrity. Besides the relation of fish abundance with descriptor 3 Exploited stocks.


ToR a) This is a core function of the IBTSWG, an important forum for coordination and evaluation of standardized bottom trawl surveys in the Eastern Atlantic Area, to ensure good survey coverage in relation to stocks and areas. inter-calibration work. and high quality of data. The group also provides a brief overview the result of the individual surveys undertaken during the previous year and in the firts quarter of the ongoing year. IBTSWG will continue to review feedback and implement modifications, including coordination and implementing new requirements of the EU DCF. ToR b) To ensure quality and traceability of sampling protocols, changes in the design and procedures used in the surveys coordinated by the IBTSWG have tobe implemented and documented in detail in the IBTS manuals, which have to be made available via the ICES webpage. ToR c) DATRAS has become the core database containing the data obtained in the national IBTSurveys, the The development of DATRAS needs to be evaluated annually, and the group is also the forum to discuss with ICES Data Centre and agree on the priority of desired further developments. ToR d) The change from an index based on haul duration as effort unit to a swept-area-based index will be explored to improve robustness of the indices (considered as adequate for multiannual ToR) ToR e) Further efforts to standardize gears due to the concerns on availability of materials used, and “technological creep” (considered also multianual). ToR f) Actually, a large number of age samples are taken. Many of the samples originate in clusters and do therefore not provide the most appropriate information. An alteration of the current sampling scheme could improve the quality of the resulting ALK’s being more efficient in respect of utilizing available resources. ToR g) The number of days at sea are limited and in several cases in particular poor weather conditions have caused an unbalanced sampling of the survey area. National interests to extend sampling may result in conflicts with the available time for fishing in the core areas. If survey design issues such as tow duration can be changed without affecting the quality of the data provided for stock assessments new task could be included in the survey, the survey could better follow changes in the distribution of target species and a general higher degree of flexibility and efficiency e.g. for ensuring an appropriate area coverage despite of poor weather or technical problems can be achieved.

49


A five day IBTS meeting. Prepared documents from members following ToR Leaders identified above. Eight days Chair’s time to edit. It is estimated that each ToR will require at least 8 hours preparation.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 20–25 members and guests. All members will participate on the discussion of all ToRs, but ToRs leaders have been identified and appointed to intersessionally prepare the work and lead it in the meeting.

Secretariat facilities

Sharepoint plus normal secretariat support.



ACOM. IBTS indices are used in the assessment of multiple stocks.


There are relations with other botttom trawl surveys (WGBEAM, WGBIFS) that also use DATRAS as the international repository for its data (WGDIM, DUAP). There are also a linkages with Assessment WGs using IBTS indices. Also relevant to the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO) and the Working Group on Improving use of Survey Data for Assessment and Advice (WGISDAA).


IOC, GOOS.

WGEGGS2 – Working Group on North Sea Cod and Plaice Egg Surveys in the North Sea

2015/MA2/SSGIEOM03

The Working Group 2 on North Sea Cod and Plaice Egg Surveys in the North Sea (WGEGGS2), chaired by Matthias Kloppmann*, Germany, will meet in Hamburg, Germany, 25–26 October 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

Meeting date Venue Reporting details Comments (change in Ch etc.)

Year 2016 25–26 Octob Hamburg, Germany

Interim report by 1 December 201 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

New Chair

Year 2017 Interim report by XXX XXX to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2018 Final report by XXX XXXX to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

50 |

ToR Description

Background

Science Plan topics addressed

Duration Expected Deliverables

a Review results of the 2016-2018 surveys and plan for the 2017-2019 Survey

In 2017-2019, the MIKey-M net sampling will be conducted during the IBTS-MIK sampling

4.28, 4.30 Year 1, 2, 3

Report : reviewing survey results, need for improvment and plan for potential collaborative publications

b Study the spatio-temporal distribution of winter spawning habitats

Spawning grounds are of primary relevance for fish stock renewal. They experienced inter-annual and long-time spatial variations that need to be quantified and related to environmental/biotic variations.

1.1, 4.28, 4.30

Year 3 : Samples will be collected every year, but will be analysed every three years.

Report : review current and past spatial distribution of winter spawning grounds in the North Sea.

c Write the MIKey-M Net manual

In 2012, a new net called the MIKey-M net was developped to collect fish eggs alongside the MIK sampling during the IBTS. Since 2012 it has been used each year, there is a need for a standard manual as recommended by ICES.

4.28, 4.30 Year 1 SISP: describe the MIKey-M Net, its implemetation during the IBTS since 2012 and instructions for sampling

d Prepare WGEGGS2 data for archiving

WGEGGS2 data need to be prepared and uploaded in the ICES Eggs and Larvae database

4.28, 4.30 Yearly, once the data is published

Data uploaded to the ICES Eggs and Larvae database by the ICES data centre and WGEGGS2 coordinator

51

e Review results on molecular identification of eggs

There is a potential problem in the visual identification of stage I gadoid eggs and in some areas it will be necessary to utilise genetic techniques for species identifications where spawning locations of gadoids exist. The means to undertake genetic identifications should be sought were possible

4.28, 4.30 Year 1, 2, 3

Report: review methods for genetically identifying eggs

f Publish first results of 2012-2015 surveys

MIKey-M net samples represent a huge amount of data and scientific insights on winter fish spawning grounds in the North Sea that need to be published.

4.28, 4.30 Year 3 Report: list of scientific publications based on 2012-2015 surveys


Year 1 Discuss results of the 2016 survey and plan for the 2017 survey




Priority The surveys are important in that they provide information on spawning locations of cod, plaice and other commercial (e.g. saithe and Norway pout) and non-commercial species. These results are important in relation to ongoing ecosystem based management issues. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a high priority.

Objectives:

• Describing spawning habitat, in terms of environmental parameters (e.g. temperature, salinity, density) and geographical position, of winter spawning fish species in the North Sea.

52 |

• Changes in ecosystem functioning: Describing temporal variation in the spawning habitats and early detection of changes.

• Added value to routine surveys: Collecting extra information on ichthy-oplankton on the existing IBTS and IHLS surveys.

WGEGGS2 recommends the continuance of the survey time-series by future surveys through incorporation into the IBTS and IHLS surveys, following the ICES ecosystem appraoch based surveys plan. The survey can be conducted in accordance with IBTS and IHLS surveys and WGEGGS2 recommends undertaking regular surveys for monitoring spawning areas of main fish species, which has been recommended as a high priority for Ecosystem Based Approach to Management by the Bergen Declaration Meeting of Scientific Experts.

Resource requirements The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. ICES secretariat support for WGEGGS2 reports only and advice from the ICES Data Centre is required archival of the survey data.

Participants The Group is normally attended by 5-7 members and guests.

Secretariat facilities ICES secretariat support for WGEGGS2 reports only.



Data are required by the ICES Working Group on the Assessment of Demersal Stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak


There is a very close working relationship with the IBTSWG and WGALES.


No formal linkages.

WGRFS – Working Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys

2015/2/SSGIEOM04

The Working Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys (WGRFS), chaired by Harry V. Strehlow, Germany and Kieran Hyder, UK, will take place from 6–10 June 2016 in Kavala, Greece. The ToRs for the meeting were split into multi-annual ToRs that will be addressed each year as they represent core outputs and specific ToRs for issues that will be addressed at this particular meeting.

Multi-annual ToRs:

a ) Collate and review national estimates of recreational catch, activity, and socio-economic values for candidate stocks, and identify significant data gaps in coverage and species.

b ) Evaluate the quality of national surveys using WGRFS quality assessment tool (QAT).

c ) Provide advice to ICES, Regional Coordination Groups, and European Commission on the availability of data, use of data in assessments, and design of future data collection programmes.

d ) Assess the validity of new survey designs for data collection, including the sampling efficiency, cost of delivery, and levels of accuracy and precision.

Specific ToRs:

e ) Review updates of the EU MAP data requirements for recreational fishing effort, catches, and socio-economic aspects.

53

f ) Assess the magnitude of recreational catches using non-angling active methods including spearfishing, SCUBA diving and hand gathering.

g ) Develop examples of regional data collection programmes (e.g. species, areas, third countries) using two case studies Mediterranean and Atlantic.

h ) Recommend methods extrapolating post-release mortality across species and fisheries and identify significant data gaps.

i ) Review data collection methods in inland/transitional waters and identify potential synergies with marine recreational fisheries catch sampling schemes.

j ) Assess methods for the reconstruction of recreational fisheries time series.

WGRFS will report by 1 September 2016 to the attention of SCICOM/ACOM.


Priority High – Because recreational catches can be high for some stocks


This work is required under the EC-ICES MoU that requests ICES to provide support for the Data Collection Framework (EC Reg. 199/2008 and EC Decision 2008/949/EC). WGRFS is the ICES forum for planning and co-ordination of marine recreational fishery data collection for stock assessment purposes. DG MARE should engage with WGRFS to ensure proper coordination with the DCF activities. WGRFS shall develop and approve standards for best sampling practices within its remits and for marine recreational fisheries in the ICES area, in line with the ICES Quality Assurance Framework.


Expertise on recreational fisheries surveys from areas outside Europe would be beneficial



Normal backstopping support in the organization of the group.

Financial None.


SCICOM/ACOM


WGBFAS, WGEEL, WGBAST, WGCSE, WGNSSK, WGBIE, WKMEDS and EU Regional Coordination Groups


WECAFC/OSPESCA/CRFM/CFMC Working Group on Recreational Fisheries

Many linkages to national angling associations, since WGRFS members estimate national marine recreational catches.

WKCOSTBEN – Workshop on cost benefit analysis of data collection in support of stock assessment and fishery management

2015/2/SSGIEOM05

The Workshop on cost benefit analysis of data collection in support of stock assessment and fishery management (WKCOSTBEN), chaired by Mike Armstrong*, UK and Jon Helge Vølstad*, Norway, will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen from 28 June – 1 July 2016 2016 to:

54 |

a) Propose options and analytical methods for an objective framework to evaluate the benefits vs costs of data sets used to support stock assessment and fishery management advice, where the benefits are in terms of accuracy (bias and precision) of assessment results and derived management variables, and risks to stocks associated with management under uncertainty. This framework should be able to evaluate existing data sets, new data requests from end users, and options for focusing elements of funding, survey design, spatial and temporal coverage, and sampling effort towards components of data collection that have greatest influence on quality of assessments and management decisions for particular stocks or groups of stocks.

b) Identify a range of stocks for detailed case studies, including those with full analytical age-based assessments and data-limited assessments, and contrasting stock status and biology. Describe the data used in the assessments, the design of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent sampling surveys providing the data, including hierarchical cluster sampling designs and analytical methods for quantifying precision reliably. Evaluate sampling rates and allocation for given survey designs that are required to derive estimates with adequate precision. Specify how simulations of the sampling schemes could be used to relate precision to sampling intensity and costs.

c) Develop a proposal for a longer-term (3-year) project to develop a general methodological framework and open-source software to carry out cost-benefit analysis and provide proof of concept using the case study stocks. Identify potential sources of funding.

d) Identify the need for follow-up workshops in 2017 onwards in the event of no funding for a dedicated project.

WKCOSTBEN will report by 8 August 2016 to the attention of the ACOM, SCICOM, and PGDATA..


Priority This workshop is considered to have a very high priority for establishing data requirements under the DCF and for ensuring the cost effectiveness of data collection.


International agreement to exploit all stocks at MSY means that a range of assessment methods is needed to determine MSY reference points and stock status relative to these, including for many data-limited stocks. This will lead to requests for improved or additional data that may not be feasible within existing DCF and national budgets for data collection. It is imperative that objective methods are developed to allow the most cost-effective use of data collection funds to help achieve these management goals. This may involve identifying areas of data collection that have relatively large influence on ability to assess the stocks and those that have relatively little influence, and the costs of collecting these data. Where new data are requested, it must be possible to make an informed judgement on the benefits these will bring to the assessments and management in relation to the feasibility and costs of data collection. Without such a decision framework, the ability to achieve MSY goals may be unnecessarily impeded. This framework will help the European Commission and its Regional Coordination Groups to make informed decisions on regional data needs under the revided DCF and help coordination between countries.


The principal resource requirements are people with the skills needed for the workshop. Historical data needed for the case study evaluations are already collected and must be made available.

55

Participants To be arranged


Some secretarial support will be needed.

Financial Member States may fund this through their EMFF programme..


ACOM and SCICOM


PGDATA, WGCATCH, WGRFS, WGBIOP, WGISDAA.


RCMs

WKSUREP – Workshop to establish reporting guidelines from survey groups

2015/2/SSGIEOM06

The Workshop to establish reporting guidelines from survey groups (WKSUREP) chaired by Nils Olav Handegard*, Norway, and Marie Storr-Paulsen*, Denmark, will be established and will work by correspondence to establish data reporting guideline document from the survey groups.

a ) Interact with the survey expert groups to ensure that the guidelines complies with the current requirements from the survey groups

b ) Interact with the data users to ensure that the guidelines includes key information for the use of the data, including a brief summary of time series changes (if applicable), precision estimates, survey overview tables etc.

c ) Interact with WGISDAA and PGDATA to ensure that their input is included.

d ) Develop guidelines for reporting from survey that encapsulates more and standardizes the content from the survey reports.

WKSUREP will report by 1 December 2016 (via SSGIEOM) for attention of SCICOM and ACOM and the survey groups.


Priority This is part of improving the link between SCICOM and ACOM and has been given high priority during the recent ACOM/SCICOM strategic leadership meetings.

Scientific justification During the ASC 2015 during the scicom open session on xxx, it was discussed how tpo improev the information transfer beteen the survey grups and the data users needed attention. One concrete outcome of the discussion was to give guidelines to the survey gropus on the content of the survey report. It was also brought up that the current template for EG reporting was not optimal for reporting from the surveys, and it was consensus among the participants that a broader and more standardized format for reporting from the surveys was needed.

Resource requirements For ICES none

56 |

Participants Survey group expoert group chairs, including Marie Storr Paulsen, Maria Manuel Angelico, and Sascha Fässler.


Financial None


ACOM and assessment working groups


WGIPS, WGNEACS, WGBIFS, IBTSWG, WGISDAA, WGACEGG, WGEGGS2,


WKNSSAGE– Workshop on Age estimation of Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring between Norway, Denmark, Iceland and the Faroe Islands

2015/2/SSGIEOM07

A Workshop on Age estimation of Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring between Norway, Denmark, Iceland and the Faroe Islands (WKNSSAGE), chaired by Jane A Godiksen, Norway will be established and will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, 9–10 November 2015, to:

a ) Review the technical problems regarding age-reading of Norwegian spring spawning herring between Denmark and Norway regarding the extra growth added in May-sample.

b ) Analyse the problematic structures (otoliths/scales) from the IESNS-surveys (May-surveys) described by WGWIDE.

c ) Clarify the interpretation of annual rings in particular during spring/summer.

d ) Improve the protocol of the guideline on age estimation and the applied structure (otolith or scale).

WKNSSAGE will report by 1 December 2015 for the attention of WGWIDE and WGBIOP.

57


Priority: Age determination is an essential feature in fish stock assessment to estimate the rates of moralities and growth. In order to arrive at appropriate management advice ageing procedures must be reliable.

Otolith processing methods and age reading methods might differ considerably between countries. Therefore, otolith exchanges should be carried out on a regular basis, and if serious problems exist age reading workshops should be organised to solve these problems.

Scientific justification and relation to action plan:

The aim of the workshop is to review the technical problems regarding age-reading of Norwegian Spring Spawning herring between Denmark and Norway regarding the extra growth added in May-samples.

Otoliths and scales from the May-surveys will be brought to the WK and discussed.

Resource requirements: No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting. Otoliths and scales from the May-surveys should be available.

Participants: Age readers working on Norwegian spring spawning herring.

Secretariat facilities: None.

Financial: None

Linkages to advisory committees:

ACOM, SCICOM

Linkages to other committees or groups:

WGBIOP, WGWIDE, ACOM, SCICOM, SSGIEOM, RCMs.

Linkages to other organisations:

There is a direct link with the EU Data Collection Framework

WKARGH – ICES_NAFO Workshop on Age Reading of Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides)

2015/2/SSGIEOM08

A Workshop on Age Reading of Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) (WKARGH2) chaired by Karen Dwyer, Canada, and Gróa Pétursdottír, Iceland, will be established and take place in Reykjavik, Iceland 22–26 August 2016 to:

a) Review information on age estimations, otolith exchanges, workshops and validation work done so far.

b) Evaluate all available information on individual growth patterns in order to achieve a general consensus about the most probable levels of longevity and growth rates for the different stocks.

c) Report on ageing protocols currently in use and their compliances with available validation results.

d) Join international experts on growth, age estimation and assessment in order to progress towards a recommended procedure for future age determination of Greenland halibut.

e) Address the generic ToRs adopted for workshops on age calibration (see 'WGBIOP Guidelines for Workshops on Age Calibration')

WKARGH2 will report by 1 October 2016 for attention to ACOM and SCICOM.

http://www.ices.dk/reports/acfm/pgccdbs/PGCCDBSdocrepository.asp

58 |


Priority: Essential. Age determination is an essential feature in fish stock assessment to estimate the rates of mortalities and growth. Assessment of Greenland halibut stocks using age structured models has proved useful in establishing a diagnosis on stock status. However, the approach has several limitations and shortcomings such as stock structure, natural mortality and growth. Age data is provided by different countries and are estimated using different ageing criteria which have not always been validated. Therefore, a WK should be carried out in order to evaluate available information on otolith growth patterns, age determination issues and the current situation of age estimation of Greenland halibut which has been subject of concern of ICES AFWG and NWWG and make progress towards a solution.

Scientific justification:

The previous WKARGH (Vigo, 2011) concluded that the traditional ageing method for Greenland halibut severely underestimates age of fish older than age 5. The workshop demonstrated a common understanding of the underlying growth patterns of the species and evaluated two new age reading methods as promising but there was no common agreement as to which method is most accurate. Since then several institutions have continued tagging programs, ageing structure comparisons, and other work in order to validate seasonal zones in otoliths.

The workshop should be the forum to present and discuss the results of these investigations in relation to the previous findings.

For the purpose of inter-calibration between ageing labs an appropriate exchange programme, to be carried out after the meeting, will be planned and designed during the workshop.. This will include a set of otoliths images collected partially from chemically tagged fish.

The aim of the workshop is to identify the state of art of age estimation of Greenland halibut after validation studies conducted so far.

Resource requirements:

The scientific institutions should make a concerted effort to compile the existing tagging material as well as sectioned otoliths (digital otolith images), that can be used as a reference collection.

Participants:: In view of its relevance to the ICES quality assurance , ICES NWWG and AFWG, and NAFO, the Workshop should try to include age readers and experts on fish growth and age determination working on Greenland Halibut

Secretariat facilities:

None

Financial: None

Linkages to advisory committee:

ACOM


PGCCDBS, NWWG, AFWG, SSGEIOM, SCICOM and NAFO

Linkages to other organizations:

WKARWHG– Workshop on Age reading of Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) (WKARWHG 2016)

2015/2/SSGIEOM09

59

A Workshop on Age estimation of Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) (WKARWHG2) chaired by Joanne Smith, United Kingdom and Lotte Worsøe Clausen, Denmark, will be established and take place in Lowestoft, UK, 22-24 November 2016 to:

a) Review information on age estimations and validation work done so far; b) Analyse the results of exchange programme between ageing labs, using a

set of otoliths (images) collection; c) Clarify the interpretation of annual rings; d) Improve the current age reading protocol; e) Create a reference collection of agreed age otoliths; f) Address the generic ToRs adopted for workshops on age calibration (see

'WGBIOP Guidelines for Workshops on Age Calibration').

WKARWHG2 will report by 12 December 2016 for the attention of ACOM, SCICOM, and WGBIOP.





The aim of the workshop is to review the available information on age determination, and validation for whiting, to identify the present problems in age determination for this species, improve the accuracy and precision of age determinations and spread information of the methods and procedures used in different ageing laboratories.

A number of samples (otoliths or/and images) of otoliths were circulated among different laboratories to assess the precision of age readers during 2015. At the workshop, in 2016, results from the otoliths circulation will be presented and discussed.

Resource requirements: Age stratified otolith set from Division IIIa consisting of 100-150 otoliths should supplement the already existing workshop-set of otoliths from the North Sea.

Participants: Age reader experts working on whiting stocks. Experts in whiting biology and stock assessment.


Financial: Additional funding will be required for facilitate the attendance of the scientists and technicians.


ACOM


WGBIOP, SCICOM , RCMs


None.

60 |

WKARBLUE2 – Workshop on Age estimation of Blue Whiting (Micromesistius poutassou)

2015/2/SSGIEOM10

A Workshop on Age estimation of Blue Whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) (WKARBLUE2) chaired by Patrícia Gonçalves, Portugal, and Jane A. Godiksen, Norway, will be established and will meet in Lisbon, Portugal, 5–9 June 2017 to:

a) Review information on age estimations and validation work done so far; b) Analyse the results of exchange programme between ageing labs, using a

set of otoliths (images); c) Clarify the interpretation of annual rings; d) Improve the age reading protocols produced during WKARBLUE1; e) Present and evaluate the results from age validation studies; f) Create a reference collection of agreed age otoliths; g) Address the generic ToRs for workshops on age calibration (see WGBIOP

Guidelines for Workshops on Age Calibration').

WKARBLUE2 will report by the 5th of July 2017 for the attention of ACOM, SCICOM, and WGBIOP.





The aim of the workshop is to review the available information on age determination, and validation for blue whiting, to identify the present problems in age determination for this species, improve the accuracy and precision of age determinations and spread information of the methods and procedures used in different ageing laboratories.

A number of samples (otoliths or/and images) of otoliths should be circulated among different laboratories to assess the precision of age readers during 2016. Before the workshop, results from the otoliths circulation/exchange will be presented in 2016. Based on the exchange results, in 2016, age validation studies will be stablished to be conducted by the participants until the workshop. At the workshop, in 2017, results from the exchange and from the age validation studies wil be presented and discussed.

Resource requirements: No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the exchange and in the meeting.

Participants: Age readers experts working on blue whiting


Financial:


ACOM


WGWIDE,WGBIOP, SCICOM, RCMs,

61


None.

WKARA2 – Workshop on Age reading of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus)

2015/2/SSGIEOM11

A Workshop on Age estimation of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) (WKARA2) chaired by Andres Uriarte, Spain, Begoña Villamor, Spain, and Gualtiero Basilone, Italy, will be established and will meet in San Sebastian (Spain), 28 November – 2 December 2016 to:

a) Review information on anchovy age estimations, otolith exchanges, workshops and validation work done so far;

b) Analyse growth increment patterns in anchovy otoliths and continue to improve the guidelines for their interpretation;

c) Analyse the results of the exchanges carried out in 2014 and the potential source of discrepancies, in light of ToRs a) and b);

d) Increase existing reference collections of agreed aged otoliths. e) Address the generic ToRs adopted for workshops on age calibration (see

’WGBIOP Guidelines for Workshops on Age Calibration’)

WKARA2 will report by 9 January 2017 for the attention of WGBIOP, SCICOM and ACOM.


Priority: Essential. Age determination is an essential feature in fish stock assessment to estimate the rates of mortality and growth. In order to arrive at appropriate management advice ageing procedures must be reliable. Age data are provided by different laboratories and countries using internationally agreed ageing criteria. It is necessary to continue to clarify the guideline of age interpretation. Therefore, otolith exchanges should be carried out on a regular basis, and if serious problems exist age reading workshops should be organised to solve these problems.


The aim of the workshop is to identify potential problems in Engraulis encrasicolus age determination, assess variability of growth patterns among different ecosystems, improve the accuracy and precision of age determination, and share the methods and procedures used between different ageing laboratories.

An otolith exchange was made in 2014 and at WKARA2results from this otolith exchange will be presented and discussed. In view of the poor precision of age determination resulting from the exchange, for the workshop presentation of validation studies will be encouraged.

Resource requirements: No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting.

Participants: In view of its relevance to the ICES quality assurance, the Workshop is expected to attract wide interest from both Mediterranean and Atlantic areas, ICES and GFCM. The Workshop tries to bring together international experts on anchovy age reading and fish growth and scientists involved in stock assessment to assess the accuracy and precision of the age determination.


Financial:

62 |


ACOM , GFCM


SCICOM, WGBIOP, WGCOMEDA and WGHANSA


WGSASP from GFCM

WKGIC2 – Workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic

2015/2/SSGIEOM12

A Workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic (WKGIC2) chaired by Bryan Black, USA, Christoph Stransky, Germany and Beatriz Morales-Nin, Spain, will meet in Palma de Mallorca, Spain in 18–22 April 2016

This will be a hands-on training exercise in which participants will work as a group to develop an otolith growth-increment chronology, including all phases of data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The chronology will be developed from one of the North Atlantic collections identified during WKGIC in December 2014. The 2016 workshop will involve learning:

a) Fundamental dendrochronology (tree-ring analysis) technique, with particular emphasis on visual cross dating followed by statistical verification using programs such as COFECHA.

b) How to prepare and photograph otolith samples, then measure growth-increment widths using image analysis software (i.e. Image Pro Premier).

c) Statistical techniques for generating biochronologies from growth-increment width measurements. Topics will include the removal of age effects, issues of minimum sample size, and maximizing signal-to-noise ratio. Special consideration will be given to datasets for chronologies developed using archival collections of short-lived individuals.

d) Correlation and regression techniques for relating the biochronology to instrumental climate records, principally through the use of the KNMI Climate Explorer.

A new otolith chronology based on candidate species and collections and their relationships to climate will be established over the course of the workshop.

WKGIC2 will report by 1 June 2016 for the attention of WGBIOP, SCICOM, ACOM and SSGEPD.


Priority: Over the past several decades, thousands of otoliths, bivalve shells, and scales have been collected for the purposes of age determination and remain archived in European and North American fisheries laboratories. Advances in digital imaging and computer software combined with techniques developed by tree-ring scientists provide a mean to extract additional levels of information in these calcified structures and generate annually-resolved (one value per year), multidecadal time series of population-level growth anomalies. Given

63

that they are exactly placed in time, chronologies can be directly compared to instrumental climate records, chronologies from other regions or species, or time series of other biological phenomena. In this way, chronologies may be used to reconstruct historical ranges of environmental variability, identify climatic drivers of growth, establish linkages within and among species, and generate ecosystem-level indicators.

The first workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic (WKGIC) met in2014. WKGIC identified that the greatest limitation to developing biochronologies in the North Atlantic is lack of training in the specialized crossdating and statistical apporoaches involved. WKGIC2 will be a longer training workshop in which participants will learn these techniques (i.e. Crossdating and detrending, including common dendrochronology programs ARSTAN and COFECHA.) by developing a biochronology using otoliths from the North Atlantic region.

64 |


A large and growing network of chronology datasets has been developed from annual growth-increment widths in marine fish and bivalves in the North Pacific. These chronologies have been integrated across species, marine regions, and other biological time series to develop indicators and identify climate drivers of productivity and functioning at the ecosystem level. For example, chronologies of rockfish (Sebastes spp.) and salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) have been integrated with indices of seabird reproductive success to demonstrate that winter upwelling is critical to ecosystem functioning in the California Current. This winter upwelling pattern is driven by broad-scale atmospheric pressure systems that facilitate or block onshore flows of precipitation. Due to their drought sensitivity, tree-ring chronologies can be used to hind-cast this biologically important winter pattern over the past six centuries, documenting that variance in the system has risen to unusually high levels over the past 100 years driven by a series of winters with anomalously low upwelling. Moreover, these California Current chronologies have been compared to those developed in the Gulf of Alaska, showing that the two ocean domains co-vary out of phase. Robust growth in the north is associated with poor growth in the south and vice versa, a pattern largely driven by winter El Niño Southern Oscillation activity. Such approaches have also been applied in fish chronologies off New Zealand and along the Australia west coast.

A number of exactly dated chronologies have also been developed for the extremely long-lived bivalve species Arctica islandica and Glycymeris glycymeris in the North Sea and North Atlantic for the purposes of reconstructing ocean circulation and climate. However, the “tree-ring” approach for chronology development has not yet been applied to fish or to address ecological or management issues. The first workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic (WKGIC) met at the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute in Hamburg, Germany, from 2–3 December 2014, chaired by Bryan Black (USA) and Christoph Stransky (Germany). During this meeting, we identified several pilot studies have generated strong preliminary chronologies for Atlantic cod, plaice, and the greater Argentine. However, the greatest impediment to expanding this work remains a lack of knowledge as to suitable species and collections available for chronology development in the Atlantic, North Sea, and Baltic region. To this end, we propose a training workshop (WKGIC2) in which participants will learn these techniques and foster new collaborations by developing an otolith biochronology.

Resource requirements: All necessary samples, images, and meeting space will be provided by the chairs and other members.

Participants: We anticipate 10-20 participants from leading age labs and universities.


Financial: No financial implications.


ACOM


SCICOM , WGBIOP


None.

65

WKARNSSH – Workshop on Age estimation of Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring (Clupea harengus)

2015/2/SSGIEOM13

A Workshop on Age estimation of Norwegian Spring Spawning Herring (Clupea harengus) (WKARNSSH), chaired by Jane A Godiksen, Norway and NN, XX) will be established and will meet in Bergen, Norway, XX 2017 to:

a) Review information on age estimations and validation work done so far; b) Analysis of the results of the exchange programme between ageing labs,

using a collection of otoliths and scales (images); c) Clarify the interpretation of annual rings in particular during summer: d) Improve the guidelines on age estimation for both of the applied structures

(otolith or scale); e) Create a reference collection of agreed aged otoliths and scales; f) Address the generic ToRs adopted for workshops on age calibration (see

'WGBIOP Guidelines for Workshops on Age Calibration').

WKARNSSH will report by date month 2017 for the attention of ACOM, SCICOM and WGBIOP.


Priority: Age determination is an essential feature in fish stock assessment to estimate the rates of morality and growth. In order to arrive at appropriate management advice ageing procedures must be reliable.

Otolith processing methods and age reading methods might differ considerably between countries and laboratories. Therefore, otolith exchanges should be carried out on a regular basis, and if serious problems exist age reading workshops should be organised to solve these problems.


The aim of the workshop is to review the available information on age determination, and validation for Norwegian Spring Spawning herring, to identify potential problems in age determination for this species, improve the accuracy and precision of age determinations and and and share the methods and procedures used in different ageing laboratories.

150 samples of images of otoliths and scales will be uploaded to WebGR and annotated by the different laboratories to assess the precision of age readers during 2015 (WKNSSAGE). The otoliths and scales will also be excahnged among the readers in 2016. Readers will only read the struture they usually read at their laboratory. At the workshop, in 2017, results from the exchange will be presented and discussed.

Resource requirements: 150 samples of images of otoliths and scales will be uploaded to WebGR None.

Participants: Age readers experts working on Spring Spawning Herring.


Financial:


ACOM

66 |


WGBIOP, WGWIDE, SCICOM, RCM


None.

WKARSPRAT – Workshop on Age estimation of Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)

2015/2/SSGIEOM14

A Workshop on Age estimation of Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) (WKARSPRAT), chaired by Julie Coad Davies, Denmark and Claire Moore, Ireland, will be established and will meet in Galway, Ireland, 25–28 October 2016 to:

a) Analyse the results of the rerun of the WebGR North and Celtic Sea Sprat Exchange;

b) Follow the development of age estimation and validation studies being undertaken;

c) Analyse growth increment patterns in sprat and compile guidelines for the interpretation of sprat otoliths;

d) Create a reference collection of agreed aged otoliths; e) Address the generic ToRs adopted for workshops on age calibration (see

WGBIOP’s Guidelines for Workshops on Age Calibration).

WKARSPRAT will report by the 1 December 2016 for the attention of ACOM, SCICOM and WGBIOP.


Priority: Age determination is an essential feature in fish stock assessment to estimate the rates of morality and growth. In order to arrive at appropriate management advice ageing procedures must be reliable.



The aim of the workshop is to review the available information on age determination, and validation for sprat, to identify current problems in age determination for this species, improve the accuracy and precision of age determinations and and share the methods and procedures used in different ageing laboratories.A number of samples (otoliths or/and images of otoliths) should be circulated among different laboratories to assess the precision of age readers during the first half of 2016. At the workshop results from the otoliths circulation will be presented and discussed.

Resource requirements: No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting.

Participants: Age readers experts working on sprat.


Financial: None.


ACOM

67


WGBIOP, SCICOM, RCMs


WKFICON – Workshop on Fish Condition

2015/2/SSGIEOM15

A Workshop on Fish Condition (WKFICON) chaired by Josep Lloret, Spain, Claire Saraux, France and Pierluigi Carbonara, Italy, will be established and will meet at Girona, Spain, on 17-18 November 2016 to:

a) Review information on condition indicators of exploited fish; b) Data collection: species, condition indicators and sampling strategy; c) Possibilities of inclusion of fish condition in stock assessments; d) Consideration of fish condition as a measure of ecosystem status

(ecosystem based approach);

WKFICOI will report by 16 December 2016 for the attention of ACOM, SCICOM and WGBIOP.


Priority: Body condition is defined as the quantity of nutrient reserves, which represent the quantity of metabolizable tissues exceeding those required for daily nutritional demands. Condition indices thus inform on the quantity of energy extracted from the environment and can give important insights on foraging behavior or prey distribution for instance. Body condition indices are also used as indicators of an individual’s well-being which can affect its survival and reproductive capacity. Measuring body condition is thus of outmost importance for physiologists and ecologists to understand population dynamics affected by mortality and reproduction


This workshop will provide the opportunity to regroup the ICES/GFCM community working on this field, in order to review the condition indices from the literature and discuss their applicability. As such metric could serve to measure habitat quality and the health of stocks, it is a promising biological parameter to be included in an ecossystem approach for fisheries management. The workshop will provide an arena to discuss how it could help refining stock status and whether it can be included in management advice.

Resource requirements: None.

Participants: In view of its relevance to the ICES quality assurance, the Workshop is expected to attract interest from Mediterranean and Atlantic areas, ICES and GFCM. Participants will be experts from leading labs and universities working in fish condition.


Financial: None.


ACOM


WGBIOP, SCICOM, RCMs, WGCOMEDA.

68 |


GFCM.

WKMIAS2 – Workshop on Micro increment daily growth in European Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and Sardine (Sardina pilchardus)

2015/2/SSGIEOM16

A Workshop on Micro increment daily growth in European Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and Sardine (Sardina pilchardus), (WKMIAS2), chaired by Carmen Piñeiro, Spain and XX, XX) will meet at Vigo/Málaga (Spain) in October-November 2017 to:

a) Review the validation work done, based on daily ring formation; b) Define and standardize the daily age reading criteria among areas; c) Validate methods for the identification of the first annulus in young of the

year anchovy and sardine in different areas; d) Estimate precision and accuracy of age estimates by micro-increment

counts; e) Improve the reference collection of otoliths created in the WKMIAS and start

a new collection of age-known otolith images; f) Evaluate the reliability of new age assignment techniques (i.e. discriminant

functions analysis).

WKMIAS2 will report by December 2017 to the attention of ACOM, SCICOM and WGBIOP.

69


Priority: Daily growth studies are used to analyze the effects of environmental parameters on growth and survival, and thus can understand the recruitment processes. Also are used as validaton method of the annual growth. In order to arrive at appropriate management advice ageing procedures must be reliable. Daily age determinantion is thus of outmost importance to understand population dynamics. . Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.


Based on the main results from previous ICES workshops on ageing adult anchovy and sardine and otholith exchanges (WKARA 2009, WKARAS 2011, Anchovy Exchange 2014), to correctly identify the right position of the first ring (annulus) on sagittal otoliths of these species has been one of the main sources of error affecting ageing precision. Improving precision in age reading is extremely important in general, even more in short-lived species such as anchovy and sardine. One of the most common methods to validate the timing and position of the first ring consists of counting of otolith microincrements (daily rings) in juveniles (young-of-the-year). Daily growth studies of anchovy and sardine are currently carried out in different European laboratories, principally to analyze the effects of environmental parameters on growth and survival, and thus to understand the influence of some environmental factors in the recruitment processes of these species. However, given the wide span of methodologies already existing within laboratories, ageing data are often difficult to compare, actually masking the contribution of environmental variables to the observed growth rate patterns in the different areas. The aim of the workshop is to collate the existent different protocols on microincrement counting as starting point to produce a single validated and agreed protocol to better standardize age estimates, either on a daily ring or a an annual ring basis.

Resource requirements: None.

Participants: Participants will be experts in microincrement daily growth.


Financial: None.


ACOM


WGBIOP, WGHANSA, SCICOM

Linkages to other organizations cost:

None.

WKARMAC2 – Workshop on Age estimation of Mackerel (Scomber scombrus)

2015/2/SSGIEOM17

A Workshop on Age Estimation of Atlantic Mackerel Scomber scombrus) (WKARMAC2), chaired by Mark Etherton, UK, will be established and take place in San Sebastian, Spain, XXXXX 2017 to:

70 |

a) Review information and results on age estimations and recent otolith exchanges, follow up on the previous workshop in 2010 (WKARMAC) and validate the work done so far.

b) Summarize the ageing protocols currently in use and improve them where possible.

c) Address the low agreement between age readers of this species, particularly in fish over the age of 6 years, with group exercises and reading sample sets.

d) Create a reference collection of agreed age otoliths. e) Address the generic ToRs adopted for workshops on age calibration (see

'WGBIOP Guidelines for Workshops on Age Calibration') WKARMAC2 will report by XXXX 2017 for attention to ACOM, SCICOM and WGBIOP.

Supporting information:

Priority: Essential. Age determination is an essential feature in fish stock assessment to estimate the rates of mortality and growth. In order to arrive at appropriate management advice ageing procedures must be reliable.


Scientific justification:

To identify the present problems in age determination for this species (i.e. low agreement between age readers particularly for fish over the age of 6 years), to improve the accuracy and precision of age determinations and to share information of the methods and procedures used between different ageing laboratories.

Resource requirements:

Institutes to supply otolith samples for potential inclusion in a reference set.

Participants:: The Workshop will include international experts on growth and age estimation In view of its relevance to the ICES quality assurance, the Workshop is expected to attract interest from ICES Member Countries.

Secretariat facilities:

None

Financial: None


ACOM


WGBIOP, SCICOM, RCM

Linkages to other organizations cost:

None.

WKMSHS2 – Workshop on Sexual Maturity Staging of Herring (Clupea harengus) and Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)

2015/2/SSGIEOM18

http://www.ices.dk/reports/acfm/pgccdbs/PGCCDBSdocrepository.asp

71

A Workshop on Sexual Maturity Staging of Herring (Clupea harengus) and Sprat (Sprattus sprattus) (WKMSHS2), chaired by Cindy van Damme, The Netherlands and Joanne Smith, United Kingdom, will be established and take place in Lysekil, Sweden, 13-17 March 2017 to:

a) has the goal of assessing the usefulnes of the maturity scale agreed in 2011and the conversion to and from other scales used in the different labs/institutes;

b) to validate the criteria and descriptions to classify maturity stages of the 2011 scale which takes into account the difficulties and / or inconsistencies of the maturity scales in use in different labs;

c) to calibrate staging of herring and sprat using fresh fish between the different laboratories;

d) to calibrate staging of herring and sprat following the pattern of trial-discussion-retrial using photographs, following the pattern of trial-discussion-retrial;

e) to validate with histological analysis the macroscopic maturity stage, mainly the resting stages that are incorrectly classified as immature.

f) to address the generic ToRs adopted for maturity staging workshops (see 'WGBIOP Guidelines for Workshops on Maturity Staging’).

WKMSHS2 will report by 1 May 2017 for the attention of ACOM, SCICOM and WGBIOP.


Priority: The maturity stage is an important biological parameter to be used in the calculation of maturity ogives (and therefore of Spawning Stock Biomass), for the definition of the spawning season of a species and for the monitoring of long-term changes in the spawning cycle. Moreover these parameters are essential input data for the model of fish stocks-assessment ussualy used to establish a diagnosis on stock status.


During the 2011 workshop a common maturity scale with the objective of defining common criteria was proposed for herring and sprat. Laboratories involved in the collection of maturity data agreed to use the common scale for reporting.

Resource requirements: Before the Workshop the chairs will setup a sampling plan for collecting samples for to be used during workshop. The sampling will be carried out during 2016. For the two species, the sampling parameters are: total length; gonad visual inspection - maturity stage by the new common maturity scale; total weight; gonad weight; liver weight; gutted weight; gonad photo; age; histological maturity stage; microscopic preparation photo. This workshop will be based on the analysis of both digital photos of gonads and fresh gonads. Therefore facilities suitable to examine fresh biological material must be available during the workshop. It would be necessary to have a web server for storage and easy access to the photos collected by the participants before the workshop.

Participants: In view of its relevance to the ICES data assurance, the Workshop is expected to attract interest from ICES Member Countries. The Workshop will include international experts on maturity staging.


72 |

Financial: None.


ACOM


WGBIOP, SCICOM, RCM, HAWG, WGIPS, IBTSWG


None.

WKPIMP – Workshop to Plan and Integrate Monitoring Program in the North Sea in the 3rd quarter

2014/2/SSGIEOM20

Approved by ACOM and SCICOM in April 2015

The Workshop to Plan and Integrate Monitoring Program in the North Sea in the 3rd quarter (WKPIMP), chaired by Andrew Kenny* (UK) and Ingeborg de Boois* (Netherlands), will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, in 22–26 February 2016.

The aim of the workshop is integrating monitoring for fisheries management including the monitoring of changes in productivity of the ecosystem and the impact of fisheries on the ecosystem. The final survey objectives should represent ecosystem function as well as the regulatory needs and the prioritization follows from both ecosystem function and societal relevance.

e ) The workshop will create a framework for an integrated monitoring program in the North Sea in the 3rd quarter to address the monitoring and assessment requirements for fisheries, changes in ecosystem productivity and the impact of fisheries on the environment by:

a ) Using the current NS-IBTS conditions as a starting point (ship time, temporal and spatial coverage);

b ) Taking the current NS-IBTS 3rd quarter obligations (provide information for fish stock assessment) into account;

c ) Taking the needs as defined by other bodies (EU, ICES groups, OSPAR) into account;

d ) Following stepwise approach as described in Annex 5 of WGISUR report 2015

e ) Highlight the important principles that have been discovered through this process as guidance for other areas and surveys.

Representation:

The following ICES groups should be represented in the workshop: WGISUR, IBTSWG, WGINOSE, HAWG, WGNSSK, WGEF, WGISDAA.

It is furthermore relevant that a variety of ecological expertise fields is represented, such as acoustic data collection, (ichthyo-, zoo-, phyto-) plankton, benthic data collection, hydrographical data collection including water samples, North Sea ecosystem understanding, and others if needed.

The preparation that should take place before WKPIMP is:

73

• Overview of current sampling in North Sea during Q3 –may be based on outcomes EU Project ‘Towards a Joint Monitoring Program in the North Sea and Celtic Sea’ (JMP NS/CS)

• Define the important ecosystem components/processes that should be taken into account in the ecosystem survey, characterize the important habitats, and describe important trophic interactions in the North Sea in Q3 (WGINOSE)

• Provide information on the current output needed from NS-IBTS Q3, and the constraints (WGNSSK, HAWG, WGEF)

• Overview of all current sampling activities undertaken during NS-IBTS Q3 (IBTSWG)

• Evaluate if current sampling can be made more efficient without affecting the current output (=indices for stock assessment; WGISDAA)

• Investigate if there is a ship effect in the current IBTS (WGISDAA)

WKPIMP will report by 21 March 2016 (via SSGIEOM) for the attention of WGISUR, WGINOSE, ACOM and SCICOM.


Priority Integrated monitoring and ecosystem assessment is one of the priorities in the ICES Strategic Plan. The EU needs information for the Marine Stategy Framework Directive.


Integrated monitoring plans will not be developed spontaneously. It will only happen when


None

Participants The workshop can be attended by 25-30 members and guests.


None.

Financial implications

None


There are linkages to both SCICOM and ACOM.


There are linkages to all groups currently using survey information from the North Sea like WGISUR, WGINOSE, WGNSSK, HAWG, and to other groups like BEWG, WGZE, WGOOFE, MCWG, WGSPEC


EU DGMARE, EU DGENV, OSPAR

WGCATCH – Working Group on Commercial Catches

Approved by ACOM in December 2014 and by SCICOM in January 2015

2014/2/SSGIEOM04

74 |

The Working Group on Commercial Catches (WGCATCH), chaired by Hans Gerritsen (Ireland) and Nuno Prista (Portugal), will meet in Lisbon, Portugal, 9–13 November 2015 to address the following specific and generic terms of reference:

Specific ToRs for 2015:

a ) Document current as well as best practices for data collection schemes to estimate catch, effort, catch composition, biological parameters, demographic characteristics and spatial mapping of activities of small-scale commercial fisheries (under-10m vessels) with particular focus on European fleets. Evaluate approaches to data collection by census, surveys or self-sampling.

b ) Further develop the work on sampling design and estimation through a detailed review of at least two contrasting case studies of commercial fishery sampling schemes, developed before the 2015 WGCATCH meeting, describing survey design, implementation, methods of data analysis, and derived estimates for end users with quality indicators (e.g. standard errors). The case studies should include examples of sampling of at sea and on shore.

c ) Develop examples of the use of a simulation modelling approach to investigate alternative survey designs and analysis methods for fishery sampling.

d ) Review emerging information and analyses from commercial fishery sampling schemes indicating the impact of the landings obligation legislation, or other legislation that could bias the data and estimates.

e ) Liaise intersessionally with PGDATA to develop a standardised survey approach for European countries to document historical changes in sampling design and availability of information on sampling achievements for commercial fisheries, and carry out a limited trial in 2015.

f ) Review progress in developing the ICES Cooperative Research Report on statistically sound sampling schemes for commercial fisheries, which will also act as a reference document for implementation of the EU-MAP and provide material for a planned text book.

g ) Review emerging statistical estimation procedures from ICES commercial fishery sampling schemes and comment on the implications for estimation in a regional context, in particular for the regional database to support the estimation procedures.

ToRs 2014–2016:

h ) Develop and maintain a reference list of key publications or other available resources dealing with design and implementation of fishery sampling schemes and associated data analysis, and annually review new publications of relevance to WGCATCH. This should also include studies examining relationship between precision achieved and cost of sampling, and relationships between data quality and quality of fishery management advice.

i ) Identify future research needs.

j ) Respond to recommendations to WGCATCH from ICES expert groups RCMs, liaison meetings or other groups.

k ) Develop the specific ToRs for the next WGCATCH meeting and a work plan identifying intersessional work that is needed, timelines and responsibilities.

75

l ) Ensure, where appropriate, that systems are in place to quality assure the products of WGCATCH.

WGCATCH will report by 4 December 2015 to the attention of SSGIEOM, SCICOM and ACOM.


Priority

WGCATCH supports the development and quality assurance of regional and national catch sampling schemes that can provide reliable input data to stock assessment and advice, while making the most efficient use of sampling resources. A catch data are the main input data for most stock assessment and mixed fishery modelling, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.


ToR (a): Small-scale commercial fisheries are defined as the fleet segment of vessels without logbook obligation (<8m in the Baltic and <10 elsewhere in EU). WGCATCH and earlier groups have not focussed specifically on data collection schemes for these fisheries, which pose particular challenges due to large numbers of vessels operatin from many harbours, and lack of exhaustive data on activities and catches. Such fisheries can contribute to a significant amount of the landings in some areas. The DCF workshop: "Common understanding and statistical methodologies to estimate / re-evaluate transversal data in small-scale fisheries", Nantes (2013) noted that there is a there is a great heterogeneity in the landings and effort in the small scale fishing sectors. The group suggested that ICES or STECF give advice on how t distinguish sub-populations within these sectors and how to optimise the precision and cost-efficiency of the data collection. In particular to evaluate the choice betwee census and sampling approaches and to provide guidelines for data collection. The Working Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys (WGRFS) have addressed many issues concerning best practice of catch sampling that are relevant to small-sc fisheries. It is recommended that WGCATCH builds on this work and maintains clo links with this group. It is proposed that WGCATCH organises a mini-symposium within the 2015 meetin and invite (external) experts to provide presentations. The outcomes of this symposium would be the basis of the documentation of best practice and could resu in a peer-reviewed paper. ToR (b) WGCATCH 2014 and previous WKPICS and SGPIDS reports provided guidelines f best practice in sampling at sea to estimate discards and the length or age compositions of landings and discards, and sampling on shore to estimate length/ag compositions of landings, and reviewed the sampling practices in European countries. More detailed national case studies are needed to demonstrate the performance of such schemes in practical applications covering different operationa conditions and types of fishery. The studies should evaluate the components of tota survey error (coverage error; non-response error; measurement error; processing error + sampling error). Methods for comparing and combining the estimates for retained fish from sampling at-sea and on shore should be explored. The case studie may be included in the planned Cooperative Research Report and text book on fishery sampling. ToR(c) WGCATCH 2014 identified the need for a simulation approach to evaluate the performance of competing survey designs, where there are different possible schem for selecting primary and lower level sampling units. For example, if a random selection is made from all vessel landings at a market irrespective of metier or fleet segment, or if an attempt is made to sample a target or minimum number of landin per metier or segment. The simulations should explore bias and variance of estimat

76 |

from the different schemes. Existing fleet and sampling data sets should be used as the source of information for setting up the simulated population of fishery catches be sampled. ToR(d) WGCATCH 2014 provided guidelines for Member States to investigate the impact o the landings obligation on data quality, using data from sampling at sea and on sho together with VMS, remote electronic monitoring or other sources of information on fleet activities. Member States will be monitoring the initial implementation of the regulation for pelagic fisheries and some Baltic fisheries in 2015 and for other fisher as they become included in future years. WGCATCH should compile and evaluate this information. ToR(e) National sampling schemes for commercial fisheries are moving towards statisticallsound designs, and this should result in a reduction in biases that may have varied historically if ad-hoc, non-probability based schemes have been in place. Changes in sampling design may also have occurred at intervals in the past and there is a dang that this information could get lost. Documentation of such changes should be compiled for reference in assessment EG stock annexes, and may help in evaluating the utility or weighting of data for different historical periods, or interpreting historical performance of assessment models. This information is important input to the data compilation and evaluation stage of benchmark stock assessments. WGCATCH and PGDATA should liaise intersessionally to develop a pro-forma for documenting this information, and to identify some test cases relevant to a forthcoming benchmark assessment meeting. ToR(f) The European Commission has identified the need for clear sets of guidelines for Member States to sample commercial fisheries to provide the data that will be required by the EU-MAP. Most of the material needed for this is included in the ser of reports of WKPICS, SGPIDS and WGCATCH, but there is a need to consolidate th and include clearly presented case studies. An approach is to include this in an ICES Cooperative Research Report, which would need to be agreed by the ICES Publications Committee in 2015. The content of this could form the basis for a futur text book on the subject, which has been a long-term aspiration expressed by WKPICS. Work could commence before the next WGCATCH if resources are available. WGCATCH 2015 should continue to develop this publication. ToR(g) - (k) These ToRs address tasks that need to be completed each year, and include some requirements for EGs included in the Terms of Reference for the ICES Steering Grou on Integrated Ecosystem Observation and Monitoring which is the parent SSG for WGCATCH.


The WG builds extensively on experiences gained within PGCCDBS, WKACCU, WKPRECISE, WKMERGE, WKPICS, SGPIDS and WGRFS. European countries are encouraged to provide the WG with any requested documentation of their samplin programmes, updated manuals and protocols for review and feedback by the WG, and to ensure that their national members of WGCATCH have sufficient resources t conduct the necessary intersessional work to address the ToRs.

Participants It is expected that WGCATCH will normally be attended by 30 - 40 members. Secretariat faciliti None. Financial No financial implications.


WGCATCH falls under the joint ACOM-SCICOM steering group on integrated ecosystem observation and monitoring (SSGIEOM), and supports the ICES advisory process by promoting improvements in quality of fishery data underpinning stock-based and mixed fishery assessments, and ecosystem indicators related to fishery impacts, and in developing data quality indicators and quality reports for use by assessment EGs and benchmark assessments.

77


WGCATCH links with WGBIOP in relation to collection of stock-based biological variables from sampling of fishery catches, and to PGDATA , stock assessment EGs and benchmark assessment groups by providing input on the data quality of commercial catches. WGCATCH also links closely with Regional Coordination Groups, the Regional Database Steering Group, STECF EWGs dealing with EU-MA and the Liaison Meeting.


The outputs of WGCATCH will be of interest to FAO and RFMOs, and productive linkages may be established over time.

78


PGDATA – Planning Group on Data Needs for Assessments and Advice

2014/MA2/SSGIEOM01

The Planning Group on Data Needs for Assessments and Advice (PGDATA), chaired by Mike Armstrong, UK, and Marie Storr-Paulsen, Denmark, will meet in San Sebastian, Spain, 29 February to 4 March 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2015 30 June – 3 July

Lysekil, Sweden

Interim report by 31 July 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2016 29 February – 4 March

San Sebastian, Spain

Interim report by 1 April to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 20XX Final report by “DATE” to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Design and test a Quality Assurance Framework for assessment EGs to evaluate data quality and its impact on assessments, particularly within the benchmarking process, and test this in regional case studies.

The ACOM/SCICOM assessment and advisory process needs to be based on a better understanding of the impacts of data quality. Build on experience in PGCCDBS, WKPICS, SGPIDS and other EGs; Establish close working with case study benchmark workshops; consult with WGCATCH, WGBIOP, WGISDAA, ICES Data Centre, other relevant SSGIEOM EGs & ACOM.

Year 1-3 Review of processes and outcomes of previous ICES benchmark data compilation and evaluation meetings, particularly in relation to data quality and how this was addressed in the subsequent assessment benchmark meetings. Draft Quality Assuarance Framework for ICES benchmark assessments, with associated guidelines, examples and

79

tools; Reports on case study evaluations.

b Develop and test analytical methods for identifying improvements in data quality, or collections of new data, that have the greatest impacts on the quality of advice

Objective procedures are needed to identify where data quality improvements will have greatest impact on quality of advice. Build links with statistical experts within and external to ICES; establish workshops to develop and test methods. Consult with the intergrated assessment working groups

Year 2 Workshop Methods & software Case study results

c engage with end users to raise awareness of what types and resolution of management decisions (e.g. by fleet or area) can realistically be supported by present or proposed data collections

Assessment and advisory groups need to understand the limits imposed by the quality and resolution of data. Consultation needed with ICES EGs & SSGs, RCMs/RCGs; stakeholder Advisory Committees, European Commission and other RFMOs.

Year 1 - 3 Consultation reports Documented guidelines

d Advise on objective methods for evaluating requests by end-users for new or amended data collections within the new DCF/DC-MAP

Essential to prevent wasteage of resources on inappropriate data collection. Consultation with ICES EGs & SSGs, STECF, RCMs/RCGs; stakeholder Advisory Committees, European Commission and other RFMOs. Establish workshops to develop / test methods.

Year 1 - 3 Consultation reports Documented guidelines

e Plan workshops and studies focused on specific methodological development needs

Workshops and studies are effective for attracting people with specific skills.

Workshop reports

80 |


Year 1 Consolidate 3-year workplan; establish membership & skills needed; consultation within SSGIEOM on broader QAF implementation (e.g. surveys); establish links and working procedures with ICES EGs, ICES Data Centre, external bodies, external experts; develop draft QAF guidelines for benchmarks; work with test case benchmark in autumn 2015 (Irish Sea); first PG plenary meeting summer 2015. Specific ToRs for the plenary meeting will be to:

a ) Review all or a representative selection of previous ICES benchmark and associated data compilation and evaluation meetings to determine how these were implemented, focusing particularly on how (if at all) data quality was evaluated, how this information was utilised at the benchmark assessment meeting, how proposals for new work or data collection were arrived at and prioritised, and where there were shortfalls that need to be addressed through establishing a clearer framework for each type of benchmarking process.

b ) Review the responses to the data-quality questionnaires for discards estimates included in the 2015 data call for stock assessment EGs, and how the information was used by the EGs.

c ) Using the planned benchmark meeting for the Irish Sea (WKIRIS) as a test case, work with the assessment team to identify the data needed, and use this as a test case to develop an initial draft framework and guidelines for compilation and evaluation of relevant data for benchmark assessments, including provision of time series of data quality indicators (bias and precision) that can be incorporated directly in assessment models or used as supporting information.

d ) Clearly define the scope and working practices of PGDATA and identify the working relationships that PGDATA should establish within ICES (e.g. ICES SCICOM/ACOM Steering Groups; survey and other data collection EGs; assessment EGs; ICES Data Centre) and with external bodies.

e ) Review and adapt the work programme for the next two years of PGDATA, and develop the ToRs for the 2016 meeting.

f ) Consider the need for specific workshops prior to the 2016 core-group meeting, or study proposals to address PGDATA goals.

81

Year 2 Planning of future work, including a workshop, to develop procedures for evaluating data needs in terms of impacts of data quality and cost-benefits of data through development of MSE or similar tools, focusing on the relative impacts of data improvements on quality of stock assessment estimates and associated advice; Guidelines to other SSGIEOM EGs on QAF implementation; Further development and testing of QAF procedures in benchmarks; Consultations with data end users such as stock assessors on role and operation of PGDATA. Terms of Reference for the second annual meeting of PGDATA will be: i) Plan the June 2016 PGDATA Workshop on cost benefit analysis of data

collection in support of stock assessment and fishery management (WKCOSTBEN), taking into account outcomes of the EU project DG MARE/2014/19 “Strengthening Regional Cooperation in the Area of Fisheries Data Collection”.

ii) Review outcomes of consultations, to be done prior to PGDATA meeting, with ICES SSGIEOM chair and EGs on implementing the SSGIEOM ToR to “Promote the development within EGs of standards and guidelines for good practice in data collection covering the design and implementation of surveys, fishery and other related data collection programmes, the archiving and interpretation of data and samples, the analysis of data, provision of data quality indicators, and the documentation of procedures”.

iii) Using the 2015 benchmark data evaluation meeting for the Irish Sea (WKIRISH) as a test case, work with the assessment team to identify / and review the benchmark process and modify the guidelines for benchmark data evaluation meetings if required.

iv) Develop actions in response to pre-meeting consultations with end users on PGDATA role, including the potential roles for PGDATA to provide expert support to the Regional Coodination Group process under the revised Data Collection Framework.

v) Respond to recommendations and requests for advice from other ICES Expert Groups, RCMs or other bodies.

vi) Plan the ASC theme session on “when is enough – enough” in connection to the ongoing activities in PGDATA.

vii) Map the skills required for the PGDATA future work programme. viii) Develop a strategy for collaboration between PGDATA and WGISDAA

(ICES WG on integrating survey data in assessments and advice) on topics of common interest.

ix) Develop the PGDATA workplan for 2017.

Year 3 Review of progress / results in implementing QAF; further implementation in benchmarks; Methodological Workshop – developing and testing criteria for evaluating data needs and requests; consultations with end users on data needs; 3rd PG meeting; evaluate future PGDATA workplans.

82 |


Priority This PG has high priority for improving the effectiveness of the ICES benchmarking process and the quality of ICES advice, and for ensuring the best use of available resources for data collection. An objective of the PG is to help ICES to develop advice using the most appropriate assessments given the quality of the data, and to be able to explain uncertainties in the assessments due to aspects of data quality and how these are reflected in the advice. This objective addresses single species, mixed fishery and multspecies assessments carried out by ACOM and SCICOM EGs, with particular focus on regional benchmarking. A further goal is to develop objective procedures to identify where data quality improvements will hav greatest impact on quality of advice, and to ensure that proposals to collect new data or amend existing data collection schemes can be made in an informed way taking account of factors such as feasibility, methods for collection and use of the data, impact on advice, costs of data collection relative to precision, implications for regional sampling schemes or survey and how the quality of the data can be evaluated.

Resource requirements The national science programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and will need to commit resources to suppor participation of staff in the PG. Due to relevance of the PG to fishery management under the CFP and to the DC-MAP, use of national EMFF funds to co-finance involvement in the PG should be agreed as eligible.

Participants The core PG participation required to address annual work plans and plenary meetings will require experts in statistics, sampling design, surveys, modelling, stock assessment, management strategy evaluation methods and other modelling approaches needed, DC-MAP implementation; and RCGs, and efforts are needed to ensure participation of experts directly involved in specific work areas, such as regional benchmark processes, which are being addressed. Other experts, including external experts from USA and elsewhere will be invited when required. EC DG-MARE involvement will be beneficial. A broader pool of experts and other national scientists will be identified for participation in meetings and workshops and to facilitate two-way communication between PGDATA and national institutes.

Secretariat facilities Support needed from Secretariat involved in setting up benchmarks meetings



This is a joint ACOM-SCICOM Expert group. There will be strong and direct linkages with ACOM and with assessment EGs involved in regional benchmarks targeted for case studies.


There will be a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGIEOM and with ACOM benchmarking groups.


There will be linkages with STECF, RCMs/RCGs; stakeholder Advisory Committees, European Commission and other RFMOs

WGBIFS – Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group

2014/MA2/SSGIEOM02

The Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS), chaired by Włodzimierz Grygiel, Poland, will meet in Rostock, Germany, 30 March–3 April 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

83



Year 2015 23–27 March 2015

Öregrund, Sweden

Interim report by 15 May 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM and ACOM

Year 2016 30 March–3 April 2016

Rostock, Germany

Interim report by 16 May 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM and ACOM

Year 2017 Final report by “DATE” to “SGXX”, “SCICOM”…

ToR descriptors

TOR Description Background Science plan topics addressed

duration Expected deliverables

a Combine and analyse the results of spring and autumn acoustic surveys and experiments

Acoustic surveys provide important fishery-independent stock estimates for Baltic herring and sprat stocks

Year 1, 2 and 3

Updated acoustic tuning index for WGBFAS

b Update the BIAS and BASS hydroacoustic databases

The aim of BIAS and BASS databases is to store the aggregated data from acoustic surveys

Year 1, 2 and 3

Updated databases with aggregated acoustic data for WGBIFS

c Plan and decide on acoustic surveys and experiments to be conducted


Year 1, 2 and 3

Finalized planning for the surveys for WGBIFS

d Discuss the results BITS surveys and evaluate the characteristics of TVL and TVS standard gears used in BITS

Demersal trawl surveys provide important fishery-independent stock estimates for Baltic cod and flatfish stocks

Year 1, 2 and 3

Updated BITS data in DATRAS database for ICES Data Centre and WGBFAS

e Plan and decide on demersal trawl surveys and experiments to be conducted, and update and correct the Tow Database


Year 1, 2 and 3

Finalized planning for the surveys for WGBIFS

f Review and update the Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS) manual according to SISP standards


Year 3 Updated BITS manual for WGBIFS

84 |

g Review and update the International Baltic Acoustic Surveys (IBAS) manual according to SISP standards


Year 3 Updated IBAS manual for WGBIFS

h Analyses related to the improvement of quality of acoustic indices and estimation of the uncertainty


Year 3 Improved quality of acoustic indices with estimates of the uncertainty for WGBFAS

i Coordinate cod stomachs sampling programme in the Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS)

Baltic cod stomachs collected during the demersal trawl surveys improve the basic knowledge concerning the species interactions in relation to the multispecies approach. Collected and registered information about the marine litter (mostly anthropogenic origin), occasionally appeared in the ground trawl fish control-catches, are additional source of data about present ecological status of marine seabed in investigated areas of the Baltic.

Year 1, 2 and 3

Coordinate cod stomachs and marine litter sampling programmes in the Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS)

j Discuss the possibilities to make further standardizations of IBAS. An attempt to standardize the pelagic fishing gear used in BIAS and BASS surveys.


Year 3 Agreements for further standardizations of IBAS for WGBIFS and through the improved data quality for WGBFAS. The 1st approach to designing the standard pelagic fishing gear used in BIAS and BASS surveys, including an update of the IBAS manual to ensure consistent use.

85

k Review the progress of the ICES acoustic database

Year 1 ICES is developing an acoustic database and it is important that the plans are reviewed to ensure adoption of the system.

l Define methods for the appropriate processing of the survey data and output products from the BITS survey to fee the Baltic LFI and MML indicators

The 2nd holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea by HELCOM will draw on ICES competence to provide D3 indicators; through the BalticBoost project the ICES data centre is given resources to implement the indicators based on an appropriate methodology to be defined by WGBIFS as the survey experts.

Year 2 Processing method for BITS survey data including any caveats to its use and applicability to the indicators.


Year 1 Compilation the survey results from 2014 and first half of 2015 and reporting to WGBFAS. Coordination and planning the schedule for surveys in the second half of 2015 and the first half of 2016. Coordinate cod stomachs sampling programme in the Baltic International Trawl Survey. The 1st approach to designing the standard pelagic fishing gear used in BIAS and BASS surveys.

Year 2 Compilation the survey results from 2015 and first half of 2016 and reporting to WGBFAS. Coordination and planning the schedule for surveys in second half of 2016 and first half of 2017. Coordinate cod stomachs and marine litter sampling programmes in the Baltic International Trawl Survey. An attempt to construct the standard pelagic fishing gear, which will be applied to BIAS and BASS surveys.

Year 3 Compilation the survey results from 2016 and first half of 2017 and reporting to WGBFAS. Coordination and planning the schedule for surveys in second half of 2017 and first half of 2018. Coordinate cod stomachs sampling programme in the Baltic International Trawl Survey. Reviewing and updating the common survey manuals according to SISP standards. Proposals for improvement of quality of acoustic indices and for further standardization of International Baltic Acoustic Surveys. The implementation of the standard pelagic fishing gear to control-catches in BIAS and BASS surveys and fishing gears intercalibration.


Priority The scientific surveys coordinated by this Group provide major fishery-independent tuning information for the assessment of several fish stocks in the Baltic Sea. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.


86 |





The survey data are prime inputs to the assessments of Baltic herring, sprat, cod and flatfish stocks carried out by WGBFAS. Linked to ACOM through the quality of stock assessments and management advice.


There is a very close working relationship with WGBFAS. It is also relevant to the SSGESST and WGFAST.


No direct linkage to other organizations.

WGBIOP – Working Group on Biological Parameters

2014/MA2/SSGIEOM03

The Working Group on Biological Parameters (WGBIOP), chaired by Lotte Worsøe Clausen, Denmark and Pedro Torres, Spain, will meet in Monopoli, Italy, 10–14 October 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2015 7–11 September

Malaga, Spain

Interim report by 9 October 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2016 5–11 September

Bari, Italy Interim report by 9 October to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Francesca Vitale (co-chair in 2015) will be on leave this year; potentially chairing part time

Year 2017 September tbd Final report by “DATE” to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Francesca Vitale, Lotte Worsøe Clausen and Pedro Torres will chair the 2017 meeting

87

ToR descriptors

Tor Description Background

Science plan topics addressed


a Identify and assess new biological parameters as input to integrated ecosystem assessments and continue the development of methods and guidelines for best practice in the analysis of biological samples providing such parameters meeting end- user needs

Litterature review, input from experts and consulting steering groups on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for list of potential biological parameters (SGEDP, SGEPI, SGIEA, SGIEOM)

1.2, 1.7, 3.2

3 years Identify broad groups of new and existing biological parameters that are emerging as critical components of modern assessment Descriptive database with details of the necessary data provid-ing information on the particular parameter by the types of species/ecosystems and assessmentmodel and examples of where this have been used before.

d f

b Evaluation of quality of biological parameters: Issues, quality indicators and guidelines

Due to a very close link between the 2015 TORs c and e the decision was made to merge these ToRs to one ToR for 2016-2017. Yearly collation of Issue Lists from ICES secretariat will form the background for this ToR and form the basis of the Specific ToRs for each meeting.

1.2, 1.7, 3.2

3 years /Generic

Evaluation of issues put forward by the assessment WGs for benchmark species in 2017 and 2018. Continued progress will be made on formulating quality indicators, specifically focussing on statistical indictors. Carrying out case studies on two species selected from the relevant Issuelists

c Plan studies, workshops and exchange schemes or other inter-sessional work related to interpretation and quality assurance of data on stock-related biological variables and review their outcomes

Review in-coming suggestions for intersessional work from EGs, WKs and other ICES related groups, e.g. planned benchmarks

1.2, 1.7, 3.2

Generic ToR

Yearly provision of a prioritised overview of planned studies, workshops and exchanges will be delivered to the PGDATA for review

88 |

Tor Description Background

Science plan topics addressed


d Address requests for technical and statistical recommendations/advice related to biological parameters and indicators

Filled templates for requests send to WGBIOP before a specified deadline will be the basis for this ToR

1.2, 1.7, 3.2

Generic ToR

Each received request for technical and statistical recommendations related to biological parameters and indicators will be addressed and included in the WGBIOP work plan where appropriate

e Update and further develop tools for the exchanges and workshops (e.g. WebGR, other statistical tools, age readers/maturity stagers forum)

Based feedback from users of these tools, improvement/alterations will be evaluated

1.2, 1.7, 3.2

Generic ToR

Potential improvement/alteration of the tools on a yearly basis.


Year 1 Consolidate WGBIOP workplan (ToR a). Initiate the collation of a) information related to potential new biological parameters; b) Benchmark Issue Lists; c) Guidelines. ToR e-g are generic ToRs and will be dealt with on a yearly basis in WGBIOP

Year 2 Develop methods/guidelines for best practice for the computation of the new required biological parameters with off-set in case studies; further develop the Guidelines in ToR c.

Year 3 Review the current status of issues, achievements and developments that falls under the remit of WGBIOP, identify future needs in line with the ICES objectives and Science Plan and the wider marine environmental monitoring and management within Europe and propose a future/alternative work plan. Implement the quality indicators for Benchmarks


Priority A main objective of WGBIOP will be to support the development and qualit assurance of regional and national provision of biological parameters as reliable input data to integrated ecosystem stock assessment and advice, wh making the most efficient use of expert resources. As biological parameters among the main input data for most stock assessment and mixed fishery modelling, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Resource requirements None.

Participants All National Age Reader/Maturity Stager Coordinators (ICES and GFCM) w be invited. Experts relevant for the current Benchmark of the year of WGBIO will be invited as well as relevant external experts such as statisticians or specific EG members.


Financial None.

89


WGBIOP supports ACOM and SCICOM by promoting improvements in quality of biological parameters from fishery and survey data underpinning the integrated ecosystem assessment approach.


WGBIOP links with the SCICOM/ACOM Steering Group: Integrated Ecosystem Observation and Monitoring (IEOM). It links to stock assessmen EGs and benchmark assessment groups by providing input on the data quality. WGBIOP also links with, the Regional Database Steering Group


Regional Coordination Groups and PGMed

WGISDAA –Working Group on Improving use of Survey Data for Assessment and Advice

2014/MA2/SSGIEOM05

The Working Group on Improving use of Survey Data for Assessment and Advice (WGISDAA), chaired by Sven Kupschus UK, will meet in Hamburg, Germany, 12–14 July 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2015 20–22 January

ICES HQ Interim report by 1 March 2015 to SSCIEOM, SCICOM and ACOM

Year 2016 12–14 July Hamburg, Germany

Interim report by 30 August 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM and ACOM

Year 2017 Final report by “DATE” to “SGXX”, “SCICOM”…

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS


DELIVERABLES

New a)

To work together with assessment working groups to provide resolution to assessment issues prioritized by the assessment working groups

Specific resolutions to individual assessment issues with a report to feedback into the assessment, or where necessary into the benchmark process. In addition, cataloguing and classification of issues and review of methods used to resolve problems in order to provide “self-help” options to

90 |

resolve similar issues in other assessments.

New b)

‘To work together with survey working groups to provide resolution to problems associated with index calculations, survey design changes (proposed or realized) to ensure efficient and effective use of survey resources.

Specific resolutions to individual survey issues with a report to feedback into the survey working group. In addition cataloguing and classification of issues and review of the methods used to resolve them in order to provide “self-help” options for survey working groups.

c Initiate with ACOM and secretariat a process to identify upcoming issues associated with the use of survey data in benchmarks. This should be initiated as soon as the benchmark process is started

Survey data issues, as in ToR a, are often critical in the benchmarking process. WGISDAA can advise best if involved in this process from the start, can collaborate with the operators and present conclusions at the benchmark

4.1., 5.1., 5.2 As required Reports and presentations to the appropriate Benchmark workshop.


Year 1 Initiate process elicitating advice requests from other elements of the ICES system; assessment, survey and benchmarking groups. Identify priorities within requests, and set up meeting and personnel accordingly

Year 2 Continue and update process elicitating advice requests from other elements of the ICES system; assessment, survey and benchmarking groups. Identify priorities within requests, and set up meeting and personnel accordingly

Year 3 As in year 2, plus appraisal of the success of the process, and make proposals for changes and any continuation


Priority This group will feed the results of its work directly into the assessment and hence advisory process. As such it should be considered central and of high priority

Resource requirements The key additional resource requirement is the group needs particpation of the key players in the relevant assessment, survey or benchmark group. This would be in addition to work required for the normal operations of htese groups. Essentially, this would involve key personnel attending the relevant WGISDAA meeting, and where rquired, personnel from WGISDAA attending the relevant requesting EG

Participants Dependant on information requests, but normally 12–15 persons

91

Secretariat facilities Identification in particular of upcoming benchmarks and key questions on use of survey data. As early in the process as possible.



ACOM, Benchmark Steering Group, and assessment EG will be the key clients for the work of WGISDAA


WGISDAA will have strong links to to survey working groups under SSGIOMP, and in particular to the work of WGISUR. Given surveys as an important source of wider ecosystem data there will also be important links to groups under SSGIEA


None specific

WGMEGS – Working Group on Mackerel and Horse mackerel Egg Surveys (WGMEGS)

2014/MA2/SSGIEOM06

The Working Group on Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg Surveys (WGMEGS), chaired by Cindy van Damme, The Netherlands and Finlay Burns, Scotland UK, will work by correspondence in 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

Meeting dates Venue Reporting details Comments (change in Chair, etc.)

Year 2015

20-24 April ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen

Interim report by 1 June 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM, WGISUR, ACOM, & WGWIDE

Year 2016

via correspondence

Interim report by 1 June 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM, WGISUR, ACOM & WGWIDE

2nd meeting of group via correspondence as it falls within the year of the triennial MEGS Survey.

Year 2017

Final report by “DATE” to “SGXX”, “SCICOM”…

ToR descriptors

92 |

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Coordinate the timing and planning of the 2016 Mackerel/Horse Mackerel Egg Survey in the ICES Sub-areas VI to IX.

The egg survey provides important fishery-independent stock estimates for Northeast Atlantic mackerel and for both the western and the southern horse mackerel stocks. The survey is based on a time-series since 1977. For calculating SSB from egg surveys it is important to cover the entire spawning season and area. The egg survey needs a good, timely planning in order to be able to cover the entire spawning season and area from Portugal to Iceland.

year 1 Planning description and updated manuals for the survey in 2016 for WGMEGS

b Coordinate the planning of the sampling programme for mackerel/horse mackerel fecundity and atresia.

In order to recalculate the egg production estimate into a SSB estimate a reliable estimate of realised fecundity is needed. It is therefore important to plan a good sampling of potential fecundity and atresia sampling.

Year 1 Planning description and updated manuals for the survey in 2016 for WGMEGS

c Review and report on procedures for egg sample sorting, species identification and staging.

To get a good estimate of the egg production of mackerel and horse mackerel it is vital to have good descriptions for sampling, sorting and identification and staging of the eggs. Since the survey is carried out once every 3 years, it is important to refresh participants prioir to the survey.

Year 1 Updated manual for the survey in 2016 for WGMEGS

d Review and report on procedures for fecundity and atresia estimation.

Techniques for fecundity and atresia estimation are developing quickly. Since the survey is carried out once every 3 years it is important to


93

update the protocols on the estimation of fecundity and atresia.

e Update the survey manual and make recommendations for the standardization of all sampling tools, survey gears and procedures.

Standardisation of sampling and sampling gear is important in surveys to produce a reliable estimate of SSB for stocks. As MEGS is a triennial survey it is important to update manuals in order to get as much standardisation as possible.


f Analyse and evaluate the results of the 2014 mackerel egg survey in the North Sea.

The North Sea mackerel egg survey is the only available information on the state of the North Sea mackerel. Currently the North Sea survey is carried out in the year after the Atlantic survey. Results of the survey should be evaluated and finalised during the WGMEGS meeting.

Year 1 Final estimate of North Sea mackerel SSB for WGWIDE.

g analyse and evaluate the suitability of the spawning fraction and batch fecundity data collected during the 2013 enhanced DEPM sampling programme within periods 3 and 5 for both species;

Mackerel and horse mackerel are most likely indeterminate spawners, the results of the AEPM and DEPM should be compared in order to assess the difference in variation in the SSB estimate of both methods

Year 1 Final estimate of the DEPM results for mackerel and horse mackerel and comparison of AEPM and DEPM estimates for WGMEGS.

h Examine the results of the Hamburg and Bergen workshops (October and November 2015) on mackerel and horse mackerel egg staging and identifi-cation and fecundity and histology, and incorporate these into the Survey Manual for the 2016 survey;

For quality assurance in the year before the Atlantic survey a workshop (WKFATHOM) is organised in which survey participants are obliged to participate in order to standardise egg identification and staging and fecundity estimation. The WGMEGS manual needs to be updated with the results from the WKFATHOM workshop.


i Fine-tune survey execution in 2016.

Not all institutes have the vessel planning

Year 2 Finalized planning for the

94 |

ready one year before the Atlantic survey. Hence it is necessary to fine-tune and finalize the planning of the survey in the actual survey year.

survey in 2016 for WGMEGS

j Analyse and evaluate the results of the 2016 mackerel and horse mackerel egg surveys in the western and southern areas; calculate the total seasonal stage 1 egg production estimates for mackerel separately for the western and southern areas; calculate the total seasonal stage 1 egg production estimates for the western horse mackerel stock (AEPM) and for southern stock (DEPM); analyse and evaluate the results of the mackerel and horse mackerel fecundity and mackerel atresia sampling in the western and southern areas; provide estimates of the spawning-stock biomass of mackerel, using stage 1 egg production estimates and the estimates of fecundity and atresia, separately for the western and southern areas; provide estimates of the spawning-stock biomass of horse mackerel using production estimates and the estimates of batch fecundity and spawning frequency for southern stock; evaluate the quality and reliability of the 2016 survey in the light of the previous surveys and to evaluate the reliability of the preliminary estimates calculated in 2016 against the final estimates.

Provisional estimates of mackerel SSB, and egg production of horse mackerel are delivered to WGWIDE in the year of the survey. The estimates however are finalised during the WGMEGS meeting in the year after the Atlantic survey.

Year 3 Finalized results of the mackerel SSB index, western horse mackerel egg produtcion and southern horse mackerel SSB index for WGWIDE.

95

evaluate

k Plan and coordinate the 2017 North Sea mackerel egg survey.

Currently the North Sea mackerel egg survey is carried out in the year after the Atlantic survey. Careful planning is necessary in order to get a reliable North Sea mackerel SSB estimate with the limited resources available.

Year 3 Planning of the North Sea mackerel egg survey for WGMEGS.


Year 1 Planning of the egg survey in 2016 and reporting on the North Sea egg survey of 2014.

Year 2 Survey year, the Atlantic survey is conducted in 2016, no meeting takes place in year 2. A report, by correspondence, with the updated planning and manuals is published.

Year 3 Reporting and finalizing of the results of the 2016 egg survey. Planning of the 2017 North Sea egg survey.


Priority Essential. The egg survey provides important fishery-independent stock data used in the assessment for Northeast Atlantic mackerel and for both the western and the southern horse mackerel stocks. As part of the multiannual management plan the index for horse mackerel is directly used for the calculation of the TAC.

Resource requirements None. The surveys are all part of the national programs. The surveys and associated meetings are also partially funded under the EU fisheries data directive.

Participants Usually ca. 15–20 participants from ICE, Far, N, NL, P, ESP, UK (E), UK (Scot), G, IRL.




The survey data are prime inputs to the assessments carried out by WGWIDE which provide ACOM with information required for responding to requests for advice/information from NEAFC and EC DG MARE.


WGWIDE, WKFATHOM, WGALES.


There have been a number of associated EU funded projects in the past.

WGIPS – Working Group of International Pelagic Surveys

2014/MA2/SSGIEOM22

The Working Group of International Pelagic Surveys (WGIPS), chaired by Sascha Fässler*, Netherlands, and Matthias Schaber*, Germany, will meet in Dublin, Ireland,

96 |

18–22 January 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.




Dublin, Ireland

Interim report by 5 March 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2017 Final report by XXX 2017 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2018 Final report by XXX 2018 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

a Combine and review annual ecosystem survey data to provide: indices of abundance and spatial distribution for the stocks of herring, sprat, mackerel, boarfish and blue whiting in Northeast Atlantic waters.

a) Advisory Requirements b) Requirements from other EGs

Goal 3 years 1–3 Survey reports containing indices of stock biomass and abundance at age, spatial distributions, zooplankton biomass, and hydrographic conditions. HAWG WGWIDE

b Coordinate the timing, area and effort allocation and methodologies for individual and multinational acoustic and larvae surveys on pelagic resources in the Northeast Atlantic waters covered (Multinational surveys: IBWSS, IESNS, IESSNS, HERAS, IHLS and individual surveys: CSHAS, BFAS, ISAS, PELTIC, GERAS).


Goal 1 & 3 years 1–3 Cruise plans for international and individual surveys. HAWG WGWIDE

97

c Adopt standardized analysis methodology and data storage format utilizing the ICES pelagic database repository for all acoustically derived abundance estimates of WGIPS coordinated surveys


Goal 3, 4 & 5 years 1–3 Common acoustic database for WGIPS coordinated surveys; Common analysis tools for acoustic and trawl data from WGIPS coordinated surveys including software scripts to produce results in common formats WKEVAL

d Periodically review and update the WGIPS acoustic survey manual to adress and maintain monitoring requirements for pelagic ecosystem surveys

a) Science requirements b) Advisory requirements

Goal 3 years 1–3 Updated WGIPS survey manual.

e Review and evaluate survey designs across all WGIPS coordinated surveys to ensure the integrity of survey deliverables

a) Science requirements b) Advisory Requirements c) Requirements from other EGs

Goal 3 years 1–3 Optimal sampling designs and precision estimates for the different surveys as a measure of survey quality. HAWG WGWIDE

f Assess and compare scrutinisation procedures employed for the analysis of raw acoustic data from WGIPS coordinated surveys


Goal 3 year 1 Documented standardized scrutinisation recommendations; Update of survey manual to adress and maintain monitoring requirements for pelagic ecosystem surveys. WKSCRUT

g Develop alternative analysis methods (e.g. using geostatistics) to monitor the pelagic ecosystem by extracting metrics from the collected survey data other than those requirted for single-species stock assessments


Goal 1 & 3 years 1–3 Manuscripts and working documents.

98 |

h Assess auxilliary pelagic ecosystem surveying technology (e.g. optical technology, multibeam and wideband acoustics) to: (i) achieve monitoring of different ecosystem components, and/or (ii) derive ecosystem indicators from surveys covered by WGIPS


Goal 1 & 3 years 1–3 Overview of possible ecosystem indicators that can be derived from WGIPS surveys; and protocols/recommendations for practical implementation of auxiliary pelagic surveying technoologies.

i Develop and refine methods to derive stock- or spawning component-specific survey indices for herring based on biological criteria (e.g. otolith shapa analysis or morphometric measurements)


Goal 1 & 3 years 1–3 Provide survey indices of stock biomass and abundance at age for herring in the North Sea and areas IIIa and Via, separated by spawnign component/stock based on biological criteria.

99


Year 1 General meeting, preceded by 3 post-cruise meetings which collate data of multinational surveys. Workshop to evaluate and develop joint methods from current participant-specific acoustic abundance estimation methods used in the HERAS surveys (WKEVAL). Workshop to standardize scruitinisation procedures for pelagic ecosystem surveys covered by the WG (WKSCRUT). Session to familiarise WG members with the use of the new standardized acoustic survey analysis tool (StoX) and data storage format from the ICES pelagic database repository. Session to review and evaluate survey designs across all WGIPS coordinated surveys done in Year 1; and coordinate planning and discuss designs for surveys taking place in Year 2. Session to review and provide possible updates for the WGIPS acoustic survey manual. Session to: (i) explore alternative analysis methods (e.g. geostatistics); and (ii) assess and document auxillary pelagic ecosystem surveying methodology (e.g. optical technology, multibeam and wideband acoustics), in order to monitor components of the wider ecosystem and derive ecosystem indicators from surveys covered by WGIPS. Session to review and adapt stock and spawning component splitting methods applicable to herring in the North Sea, and areas IIIa and Via; and plan methods used on surveys in Year 2 accordingly. Contributing to Session C “Ecosystem Monitoring in Practice” at the 2015 ICES ASC through active involvement of WG members as session convener and presenters. Contributing a paper analysing the HERAS survey time-series to the ICES Symposium on “Marine Ecosystem Acoustics (SOMEACOUSTICS). Submission of a manuscript on blue whiting distribution from the WGIPS survey time-series to a peer reviewed Journal.

Year 2 General meeting, preceded by 3 post-cruise meetings which collate data of multinational surveys. Session to review and evaluate survey designs across all WGIPS coordinated surveys done in Year 2, and coordinate planning and discuss designs for surveys taking place in Year 3. Session to exchange experiences and analyse progress with the use of the new standardized acoustic survey analysis tool (StoX) and data storage format from the ICES pelagic database repository. Session to compare and evaluate scrutinisation of Year 2 survey databased on the standardized procedures developed in WKSCRUT. Session to review and provide possible updates for the WGIPS acoustic survey manual. Session to review and adapt stock and spawning component splitting methods applicable to herring in the North Sea, and areas IIIa and Via; and plan methods used on surveys in Year 3 accordingly. Session to draft a manuscript on an example of alternative analysis methods (e.g. geostatistics) used with WGIPS survey data. Session to analyse progress and draft recommendations for auxiliary pelagic ecosystem surveying methodology (e.g. optical technology, multibeam and wideband acoustics) for monitoring components of the wider ecosystem in surveys covered by WGIPS. Session to draft a list of potential ecosystem indicators to be measured during WGIPS surveys.

100 |

Year 3 General meeting, preceded by 3 post-cruise meetings which collate data of multinational surveys. Session to review and evaluate survey designs across all WGIPS coordinated surveys done in Year 3. Session to analyse progress with the use of the new standardized acoustic survey analysis tool (StoX) and data storage format from the ICES pelagic database repository. Session to review and provide possible updates for the WGIPS acoustic survey manual. Session to review and adapt stock and spawning component splitting methods applicable to herring in the North Sea, and areas IIIa and Via used on surveys in Years 1–3. Session to evaluate progress to draft a manuscript on an example of alternative analysis methods (e.g. geostatistics) used with WGIPS survey data. Session to update recommendations for auxiliary pelagic ecosystem surveying methodology (e.g. optical technology, multibeam and wideband acoustics) for monitoring components of the wider ecosystem in surveys covered by WGIPS. Session to evaluate progress in listing potential ecosystem indicators to be measured during WGIPS surveys.


Priority The Group has a very high priority as its members have expertise in design and implementation of larval and acoustic-trawl surveys, including sampling of additional ecosystem parameters. It will therefore directly contribute to the implementation of integrated pelagic ecosystem monitoring programmes in the ICES area. The Groups core task is the standardization, planning, coordination, implementation, and reporting of acoustic and larvae surveys for main pelagic fish species herring, sprat, blue whiting, mackerel, and boarfish in Northeast Atlantic waters. The work provides essential data in the form of survey indices to WGWIDE and HAWG in the aim to perform integrated ecosystem assessment.






WGWIDE, HAWG


There is a very close working relationship with other groups in SSGIEOM, especially relevant links to WGACEGG, WGALES, WGBIFS, WGFAST, WGFTFB, WGISDAA, WGISUR, WGMEGS, WGTC, WGINOR, WGINOSE, WGIAB, WKEVAL, WKMSMAC2, WKSCRUT, WKSUREQ


EU H2020 project ‘AtlantOS’

101


WGIDEEPS – Working Group on International Deep Pelagic Ecosystem Surveys

2013/MA2/SSGESST01

The Working Group on International Deep Pelagic Ecosystem Surveys (WGIDEEPS), chaired by Kristján Kristinsson, Iceland and Benjamin Planque, Norway will initially work by correspondence in 2016 and meet in (dates and venue to be decided) XX 2016 to:



Year 2014

28–30 January

ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen

Interim report by 1 March 2014 SSGESST, SCICOM & ACOM

Year 2015

3–5 February

Tromsø, Norway Interim report by 27 March 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM, & ACOM

Benjamin Planque, new Co-Chair appointed at this meeting

Year 2015

4–6 August

Reykjavik, Iceland

Interim report by 1 September 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM, & ACOM

Year 2016

By correspondence

Final report by 1 September 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM, & ACOM

Meeting dates and venue for 2016 meeting still to be decided.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Transfer survey data from 2011 international redfish surveys coordinated by the group to ICES databases (January 2014 meeting)

Data is now stored by individual nations/participants. It is important to have the data within common database system for coordinated archiving and extraction.

Year 1 (2014)

WGIDEEPS 2104 report chapter database (various ICES databases) 15 March 2014 SSGESST

b Transfer survey data from other years, when ICES data centre is ready

2015 Updated data base at ICES data centre

c Develop the group strategy towards redfish assessment and ecosystem approach (January 2014 meeting).

The data collected during the surveys are used for assessment of the stocks in the areas and to map their horizontal and vertical distribution.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162,

Year 1 (2014)

WGIDEEPS 2014 report chapter 15 March 2014 SSGESST

102 |

To evaluate and revise the data collection in the surveys and assessment methodologies used for the deep-water redfish stocks (January 2014 meeting).

No analytical assessment is conducted for the stocks in the Irminger Sea and their statuses are assessed from biomass trends derived from the survey indices. Little additional data are collected to understand the trophic interaction in the areas. By broadening the work of the WG towards redfish assessment and the study of the meso-pelagic ecosystem of the North Atlantic will lead to increased knowledge of the multiple components in the deep-water ecosystem of the areas and provide better assessment data for deep-water redfish.

d To publish the results from the deep-water ecological surveys in the Irminger Sea and the Norwegian Sea in a peer-reviewed journal (2016).

This ToR is conditional on available survey effort as outlined in ToR c.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

Year 3 (2016)

Manuscript ready for submission in 2016

e Plan the international deep pelagic ecosystem survey with special emphasis on redfish to be carried out in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters in June/July 2015 (January 2015 meeting)

The WG has been responsible for the planning of the international trawl/acoustic surveys on pelagic redfish (Sebastes mentella) in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters since 1994 and corresponding reports on the survey results.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

2015 WGIDEEPS 2015 – 1 report chapter 15 March 2015 SSGESST

f Plan the international deep pelagic ecosystem survey with special emphasis

The WG has been responsible for the planning of the international

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

Year 2 (2015)

WGIDEEPS 2015 – 1 report chapter

103

on redfish to be carried out in the Norwegian Sea and adjacent waters in August 2015 (January 2015 meeting)

trawl/acoustic surveys on pelagic redfish (Sebastes mentella) in the Norwegian Sea since 2008 and corresponding reports on the survey results.

15 March 2015 SSGESST

g Prepare the report on the outcome of the 2015 Irminger Sea survey (August 2015 meeting)

a) Provide sound, credible, timely, peer-reviewed, and integrated scientific advice on fishery management and the protection of the marine environment. b) Redfish indices are being used by assessment working groups.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162,

Year 2 (2015)

WGIDEEPS 2015 – 2 report 1 September 2015 SSGESST

h Prepare the report on the outcome of the 2015 Norwegian Sea survey (September 2015 meeting)

a) Provide sound, credible, timely, peer-reviewed, and integrated scientific advice on fishery management and the protection of the marine environment. b) Redfish indices are being used by assessment working groups.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

Year 2 (2015)

WGIDEEPS 2015 – 3 report 1 October 2015 SSGESST

i Prepare the survey protocol for publication in the ICES series of survey protocols (SISP)

Year 2 (2015)

SISP manuscript


Year 1 Carry out ToR a, c

Year 2 Standard outputs for e-i.

Year 3 Carry out ToR b,c,d.


Priority Essential, primary basis for the advice on the stock status of pelagic redfish in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters and in the Norwegian Sea.


N/A

Participants <12 (incl. the cruise leaders of each vessel and the principle experts involved in abundance and biomass calculations and deep sea ecology).

104 |

Secretariat facilities N/A

Financial None.


NWWG, AFWG, WGDEC, WKFAST, WGOH, WGISDAA, WGBIODIV


SSGESST


NAFO, NEAFC.

WGBEAM – Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys

2013/MA2/SSGESST05

The Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys (WGBEAM), chaired by Kelle Moreau, Belgium, will meet in La Rochelle, France, 12-15 April 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2014 6-9 May Hamburg, Germany

Interim report by 10 July 2014 to SSGESST (SSGIEOM), SCICOM, WGISUR, and ACOM

Year 2015 14-17 April Leuven, Belgium

Interim report by 1 June 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM, WGISUR and ACOM


La Rochelle, France

Final report by 1 June 2016 to SSGIEOM, WGISUR, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Tabulate, report and evaluate population abundance indices by age-group for sole and plaice and other species if required in the North Sea, Division VIIa and Divisions VIId-g, taking into account the key issues involved in the index calculation.

Required to support indices for assessements

113, 121, 141, 144, 161, 162, 173, 211, 251, 252, 311, 321

Annually WG report chapter

105

b Further coordinate and standardize offshore and coastal beam trawl surveys in the North Sea and Divisions VIIa, VIId-g, VIIIa-b and the Adraitic, and update and publish athe standard as a SISP protocol.

Required to ensure consistent approach within and between areas to meet EU directives.

113, 121, 141, 144, 161, 162, 173, 211, 251, 252, 311, 321

Annually WG report chapter inshore manual offshore manual database (DATRAS)

c Analyse the changes in mean length-at-age for sole in the North Sea, English Channel, Bristol Channel and Irish Sea.

a). The large WGBEAM dataset has the potential to elucidate temporal and spatial changes in population parameters. b). Indices are being used by assesements working groups and any changes to age structure of species of interest need to be investigated.

145 Expected output in 2015

WGBEAM 2014 update and ultimatley ASC presentation

d Provide index calculations based on DATRAS for plaice and sole for the North Sea.


141, 143, 144 2 years for sole 3 years for plaice

Provision of new indice series to WGNSSK

e Assess the opportunities for providing plaice and sole index calculations based on DATRAS for all other areas.


141, 143, 144 3 years Provision of new index series to relevant WGs


Year 1 Annual standard outputs for a,b. Continue analysis for ToR c,d,e.

Year 2 Annual standard outputs for a,b. Continue analysis for ToR c,d,e sole index output for North Sea.

Year 3 Annual standard outputs for a,b. Combine analysis for previous year and report ToR c.


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to

the ecosystem affects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

106 |


Participants The Group is normally attended by some 10-12 members and guests.




There are no obvious direct linkages.


There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of the SSGIEOM. It is also very relevant to the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fisheries.


The work of this group is closely aligned with similar work in FAO.

WGFAST – Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics, Science and Technology

2013/MA2/SSGESST03

The Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics, Science and Technology (WGFAST), chaired by Verena Trenkel, France, will meet in Vigo, Spain 19–22 April 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2014 5–9 May New Bedford, USA

Interim report by 30 June 2014 to SSGESST (SSGIEOM)

Year 2015 29 May Nantes, France

Interim report by 30 June 2015 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM


Vigo, Spain

Final report by 30 June 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

ToR Description Background Science plan topics addressed


a Produce a list of papers originating from the community of the WGFAST working group

The WGFAST community produces several papers evey year, and an update on recent WGFAST activities that acknolwedges ICES is important.

Year 1, 2 and 3

An updated list of references

107

b Present recent work within the topics “Applications of acoustic methods to characterize ecosystem”, “Acoustic properties of marine organisms“, “Behaviour“, and “Emerging technologies, methodologies, and protocols“.

Create a venue for informing the group members on recent activities and seeking input to furhter developement. An overview of the different contributions will be presented in the annual report.

1,2,3 Report

c Write a review to showcase the work of WGFAST with particular emphasis on its relevance to the ICES/ACOM strategis plans

After three years a review paper will be written to showcase the work of WGFAST

3 year Write a review paper showing the WGFAST contribution over the last 3 years

d Organize international acoustic symposium

Organize the 8th international symposium with working title "Marine Ecosystem Acoustics – observing the ocean interior across scales in support of integrated management"

2015 Symposium and special issue in ICES Journal of Marine Science

e Organize joint sessions at ICES ASC

Organize joint sessions with survey working groups to foster collaboration regarding the use of acoustics data and cross-fertilization

2 or, 3 Topic session at ICES ASC


Year 1 Produce the annual overview of recent developments within the field, including the list of contributions originating from the WGFAST community.

Year 2 Produce the annual overview of recent developments within the field, including the list of contributions originating from the WGFAST comunity. Organize the ICES international acoustics symposium (alternatively year 3). Organize a joint session at ICES ASC (alternatively year 3)

Year 3 Produce the annual overview of recent developments within the field, including the list of contributions originating from the WGFAST comunity. Produce a review paper to showcase the developments originating from WGFAST


Priority Fisheries acoustics and complementary technologies provide the necessary tools and methods to implement the ecosystem approach to fisheries management within ICES and research into their application and further development is vital.

108 |

Resource requirements No new resources will be required. Having overlaps with the other meetings of the Working, Planning, Study and Topic Groups increases efficiency and reduces travel costs.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 60-70 members and guests.






The work in this group is closely aligned with complementary work in the WGFTFB working group. The work is of direct relevance to the survey planning groups within SSGESST and WGISUR.


The work of this group is closely aligned with similar work in FAO, the Acoustical Society of America, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Managament Organization and the American Fisheries Society.

WGFTFB –ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour

2013/MA2/SSGESST04

The ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), chaired by Pingguo He, USA, and Petri Suuronen, FAO, will meet in Merida Mexico, 25–29 April 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2014 5-9 May New Bedford, USA

Interim report by 25 June 2014 to SSGESST (SSGIEOM)

Year 2015 4-8 May Lisbon, Portugal

Interim report by 25 June 2015 to SSGIEOM

Year 2016 25-29 April Merida, Mexico

Final report by 24 June 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

109

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Present recent investigations into and synthesize current knowledge of topics related to: “Design, planning, and testing of fishing gears used in abundance estimation”; “Selective fishing gears for bycatch and discard reductions”; “Environmentally benign fishing gears and methods” and summary of research activities by nation

Through open sessions and focused, multiyear topic groups, the Working Group provides opportunities for collaboratively developing research proposals, producing reports and manuscripts, and creating techncial manuals on current developments and innovations.

21, 34, primarily; others are possible (e.g. 11,133, 223, 33, et al.)

3 Years ICES report;

b Organize an FAO hosted FAO-ICES mini-symposium with thematic issues as described in the Barange-Matthiesen exchange of letters

Under mutual agreement between ICES and FAO, FAO develops and leads a mini-symposium of relevant topics, while also continuing ICES commitments

21, 34 Year 3 FAO report, ICES report

c Present recent investigations into topics of mutual interest between WGFTFB and WGFAST

Every third year, WGFAST and WGFTFB meet for one day to share information on topics of mutual interest (JFATB)

16, 21 Year 1 JFATB report

D Every second year, describe changes in EU fishing fleets and effort relevant to assessment working groups

WGFTFB has produced this advice for several years and been encouraged to continue by Assessment WGs

Years 1, 3 Reports to individual EGs

e Organize an ICES-sponsored international fishing technology Symposium

Organize the Third ICES Symposium of Fish Behaviour

Fall 2017 (outside scope of this Multiannual TOR)

Symposium and special issue in ICES Journal of Marine Science

F Develop survey and gear expertise support for survey working groups via ASC and survey group meetings

SSGESST has identified gear expertise gaps in survey working groups.

Year 1,2 Identify WGFTFB members who can fulfill advisory roles ; Review survey protocols.

110 |


Year 1 Produce the annual report; hold joint session with WGFAST; inform assessment EGs on fleet effort changes; connect to survey WGs

Year 2 Produce annual report; Continue development of relationships with survey EGs

Year 3 Produce the annual report; inform assessment EGs on fleet effort changes; organize FAO mini-symposium


Priority The activities of WGFTFB will provide ICES with knwledge and expertise on issues related to the ecosystem effects of fisheries, especially the evaluation and reduction of the impact of fishing on marine resources and ecosystems and the sustainable use of ecosystems and other topics related to the performance of fishing gears and survey gears.






Linkages to advisory groups via reports on changes to fleets and fleet effort


There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGESST, WGFAST, and the survey groups.


The WG is jointly sponsored with the FAO.

WGTC – Working Group on Target Classification

2013/MA2/SSGESST02

The Working Group on target classification (WGTC), chaired by Rolf Korneliussen, Norway, will meet in Vigo, Spain, from 16–17 April 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.



Year 2014 3-4 May Boston, USA

Interim report by 4 July 2014 to SSGESST (SSGIEOM) and WGFAST

Year 2015 29-30 May Nantes, France

Interim report by 4 July 2015 to SSGIEOM and WGFAST


Vigo, Spain

Final report by 4 June 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM, WGFAST & ACOM

111

ToR descriptors

ToR Description Background


Expected Deliverable

a Review, summarize and report on the literature regarding (1). Acoustic systems currently used in fisheries research and surveys, (2) theoretical principles of target classification and (3) methods currently being practiced;

The ICES reference for acoustic target classification needs to be useful to practitioners of fisheries acoustics and ecosystem surveys that produce data for stock management. The first step in this process is to review, summarize and report on the literature regarding the methods that are currently used in fisheries research and surveys. The theoretical principles for target classification must be summarized, and the methods currently being practiced must be evaluated

2 year Review document presented to WGFAST in 2015

b Develop recommendations protocols for methods to be used for target classification during ecosystem surveys including (1) commonly used acoustic systems used in fisheries research and surveys (2) principles of classification, general and specific to these selected systems (3) standard protocols for classifying multifrequency data

There is a need for recommendations to the ICES community for methods to be used for acoustic target classification. These methods cover commonly used acoustic systems used in fisheries research and ecosystem surveys, and must be generic enough for application in systems not specifically considered. The methods must be practical and based on solid theoretical principles.

Year 3 Recommendations document presented to WGFAST in 2016

112 |

c Based on ToR a) and b) a CRR proposal should be developed for SCICOM consideration.

There is a recognized need to comprehensively document the current theory and recommended practice of acoustic target classification for use in Fisheries Science and ecosystem surveys, and publish them in an easily accessible report.

Year 3 CRR proposal submitted for consideration by SCICOM in Septebmer 2016


Year 1 Initiate the work

Year 2 Finalize the review (ToR a)

Year 3 Finalize the recommendations and prepare a CRR proposal (ToR b and c)


Priority Acoustic data are currently being collected from a variety of acoustic systems in many countries to address a range of ecosystem monitoring and stock management objectives. There is no ICES CRR covering this topic, but there are two CRR for related topics: CRR 238 (2000), Editor: Dave Reid, Report on Echo Trace Classification; and CRR 287 (2007), Editor John Anderson on Acoustic seabed classification of marine physical and biological landscapes. Note that the CRR-238 focused mostly on single-frequency and school-based methods, and that at the time work on multifrequency and wideband methods (while covered in that CRR) was more in development but now is much more mature. There is also a comprehensive report from an EU financed project: Fernandes, P.G., Korneliussen, R.J., Lebourges-Dhaussy, A., Masse, J., Iglesias, M., Diner, N., Ona, E., et al., 2006. The SIMFAMI project: species identification methods from acoustic multifrequency information. While much of the theoretical principles of those reports are still relevant, target classification is a fast moving field. The methods need to be expanded to include currently used technologies (e.g. multibeam and broadbandwidth systems). There exists an urgent need to evaluate recent work and to develop recommendations for protocols appropriate to target classification used in fisheries research and ecosystem surveys. This need has been identified by a number of ICES Member Countries and observer countries and has been conveyed to WGFAST and SCICOM.

Resource requirements No new resources will be required for consideration of these topics at the relevant group meetings. Having overlaps with WGFAST meetings, this SG will draw on a larger resource pool of experts which will increases efficiency in completing the objectives and reducing travel costs.

113

Participants It is expected that ca. twenty five scientists from six ICES and three observer countries will participate in the study group. The following 18 have so far committed to the group. Rolf J Korneliussen (IMR, Norway), Stephane Gauthier (Canada), Ian McQuinn (Canada), Anne Lebourges Dhaussy (France), Pierre Petitgas (Ifremer, France), Laurent.Berger (Ifremer, France), Mathieu Doray (France) Michael Jech (NEFSC/NOAA, USA) Alex.DeRobertis (AFSC/NOAA, USA) Gareth Lawson (WHOI, USA), John Horne (AFSC/USA) Dezhang Chu (NWFSC/NOAA, USA) Sasha Faessler (Netherlands) Sergey Goncharov (VNIRO, Russia), Svetlana Kasatkina (ATLANTNIRO, Russia), Sophie Fielding (BAS, UK), Martin Cox (AAD, Australia), Rudy Kloser (CSIRO, Australia)

Secretariat facilities SharePoint site.

Financial No financial implications. Having overlaps with other meetings of expert groups of SCICOM increases efficiency and reduces travel costs.


The work will enable acoustic data colelction across a wider range of taxa, and thereby provide supporting information for the advisory groups.


The EG is closely linked to WGFAST, and is relevant to the survey groups that perform acoustic surveys, and in particular those that collect information on several taxa and across several trophic levels


No direct linkages, however, organizations and institutes that organizes and perform acoustic surveys will benefit from the work. Software and hardware industrial suppliers may also be interested in the results.

WGELECTRA – Working Group on Electrical Trawling

2013/2MA2/SSGESST11

The Working Group on Electrical Trawling (WGELECTRA), chaired by Bob van Marlen, The Netherlands and Bart Verschueren, Belgium, and will meet in Ijmuiden, the Netherlands 10–12 November 2015, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

114 |



Year 2014 22-24 October

Ostend, Belgium

Interim report by 30 November 2014 to SSGIEOM (SSGESST)

Year 2015 10–12 November

IJmuiden, the Netherlands


Year 20XX Final report by “DATE” to “SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

TO

R DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE

PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSE

D

DURATIO

N EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Review knowledge of the effects of Electrical Fishing on the marine environment (changes to bycatch, impact on bottom habitat, impact on marine fauna, energy and climate related issues), in view of current technical developments and recent studies carried out in The Netherlands, Scotland, Belgium and Germany.


Need for better understanding of short-term and long-term effects on various species and life stages.

b) Advisory Requirements

Need for better understanding of thresholds of pulse characteristics and effects.

c) Requirements from other EGs

211, 214 year 1, 2, 3

Scientific paper(s) by year 3 to WGFTFB, WGCRAN, WGECO

b Evaluate the effect of a wide introduction of electric fishing, with respect to

a) Science Requirements Need for appraisal of effects of large-scale use. b) Advisory Requirements c) Requirements from other EGs

211, 214 year 1, 2, 3

Scientific paper(s) by year 3 to WGFTFB, WGCRAN, WGECO

115

the economic impact, the ecosystem impact, fleet dynamics, the energy consumption, and the population dynamics of selected species.

c Conduct a pilot study on control and enforcement procedures for flatfish pulse trawling.

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements Possible needs for advice on limits to fishing capacity in view of ecosystem effects. c) Requirements from other EGs

214 year 1 and 2

Pilot study report by year 2 to ACOM

d Evaluate the impacts of restrictions on pulse characteristics for shrimp pulse trawling and ground rope configurations.

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements Possible needs for advice on adeqaute limits to fishing capacity in view of ecosystem effects c) Requirements from other EGs

214 year 1 and 2

Report with data on limits on pulse characteristics for shrimp trawling by year 2 to ACOM

e Make an inventory of views on pulse fishing among various stakeholders in European member states.


Need for understanding views and attitudes

b) Advisory Requirements

Need for understanding management implications and policy issues.

c) Requirements from other EGs

214 year 1 and 2

Stakeholder views inventory report by year 2 to WGECO

f France request ICES to review the work of WGELECTRA and IMARES and to provide an updated advice on the ecosystem effects of the pulse trawl, and especially on

French Natura sites of relevance includ those that correspond to depths/areas trawled by pulse trawls (http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/#). These habitats will include, for example, “shallow sandbank” and any effects on sub-habitats and indicator species e.g. sandeels or certain mollusc see http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/cahab/tome2.df (see from p43 onwards for sandbanks). The following species and habitats are relevant (consideration should not necessarily be limited to them):

Natura Habitats

Year 2

http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/

http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/cahab/tome2.pdf

http://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/cahab/tome2.pdf

116 |

the lesions associated and mortality for targeted and non targeted species that contact or are exposed to the gear but are not retained on board, with special reference to those species covered by the Natura 2000 Directives.

• Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

• Estuaries • Mudflats and sandflats not

covered by seawater at low tide • Coastal lagoons • Large shallow inlets and bays • Reefs • Submarine structures made by

leaking gases

Natura Species:

• Petromyzon marinus (Sea lamprey)

• Lampetra planeri (Brook lamprey) • Lampetra fluviatilis (River

lamprey) • Alosa alosa (Allis shad) • Alosa fallax (Twaite shad) • Salmo salar (Atlantic salmon) • Tursiops truncatus (Bottlenose

dolphin) • Phocoena phocoena (Harbour

porpoise) • Lutra lutra (Otter) • Halichoerus grypus (Grey seal) • Phoca vitulina (Common seal)


Year 1 Fundamental research on the effect on pulse stimulation on sole Solea solea, cod Gaduas morhua, shrimp Crangon crangon, and sandworm Arenicola marina, both juvenile and adults stages by PhD workers under guidance of ILVO and University Ghent, Belgium.

Pilot study on defined control and enforcement procedures for flatfish pulse trawling by IMARES, Netherlands.

Further tank experiments on wild-caught cod, using pulse simulators by IMARES, Netherlands, and ILVO, Belgium.

Study effects of pulse beam trawling on benthic invertebrates in EU-project BENTHIS by IMARES, Netherlands, and ILVO, Belgium.

Monitor economic performance of more vessels in EU-project BENTHIS by LEI, Netherlands.

Ongoing experiments with electrical shrimp fishing in Belgium and the Netherlands by ILVO Fishery, Belgium.

Study on effects on electric fishing for ensis by Marine Scotland Science, and the possibilities of using other, lower energy pulse systems than currently used.

Study to optimize the front part (particularly the groundrope) of shrimp-pulse-trawls with respect to a) maintaining commercial catch rates; b) reducing unwanted bycatch; c) reducing energy consumption in Germany by Thuenen Institute.

117

Comment on the technical development of an electrical twin-trawl system as part of the Dutch “Masterplan Duurzame Visserij” by IMARES Ĳmuiden, The Netherlands.

Make an inventory of views on pulse fishing among various stakeholders in European member states.

Year 2 Fundamental research on the effect on pulse stimulation on sole Solea solea, cod Gaduas morhua, shrimp Crangon crangon, and sandworm Arenicola marina, both juvenile and adults stages by PhD workers under guidance of ILVO and University Ghent, Belgium.Study effects of pulse beam trawling on benthic invertebrates in EU-project BENTHIS by IMARES, Netherlands, and ILVO, Belgium.






Evaluate the impacts of restrictions on pulse characteristics for the shrimp pulse fishery and consider recommendations for ground rope configurations by IMARES, Netherlands, Thuenen Institute Germany, and ILVO, Belgium.



Year 3 Fundamental research on the effect on pulse stimulation on sole Solea solea, cod Gaduas morhua, shrimp Crangon crangon, and sandworm Arenicola marina, both juvenile and adults stages by PhD workers under guidance of ILVO and University Ghent, Belgium.Study effects of pulse beam trawling on benthic invertebrates in EU-project BENTHIS by IMARES, Netherlands, and ILVO, Belgium.

Study effects of pulse beam trawling on benthic invertebrates in EU-project BENTHIS by IMARES, Netherlands, and ILVO, Belgium.





118 |


Evaluate the impacts of restrictions on pulse characteristics for the shrimp pulse fishery and consider recommendations for ground rope configurations by IMARES, Netherlands, Thuenen Institute Germany, and ILVO, Belgium.




Priority Pulse trawling is used under national derogation on commercial vessels in growing extent in various ICES member states, e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, UK, and Germany. Per 01/01/2013 a total of 51 licences to use this technique were issued in The Nethrelands, , Belgium, UK, and Germany. ICES gave advice on the effects on the ecosystem of the implementation of this technique in fishing fleets in 2006, which was updated in 2009. The current activities of this Working Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem effects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.


The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and many of the resources are already committed, but for some tasks new resources ought to be found.







There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGESST. It is very relevant to the Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) , WGCRAN, WGECO and WGNSSK.


WGACEGG – Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for Sardine and Anchovy in ICES Areas VII, VIII and IX

2013/MA2/SSGESST12

Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for Sardine and Anchovy in ICES Areas VII, VIII and IX (WGACEGG), chaired by Maria Manuel Angélico, Portugal, and Pablo Carrera, Spain, will meet in Cefas, Lowestoft, UK from 16–20 November 2015, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

119



Year 2014 17-21 November

Vigo, Spain Interim report by 30 January 2015 to SSGIEOM

Year 2015 16–20 November

Cefas, Lowestoft,UK

Interim report by 30 January 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM and ACOM

Year 20XX Final report by “DATE” to “SGXX”, “SCICOM”…

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Provide echo-integration and DEPM estimates for sardine and anchovy in ICES sub-Areas VII, VIII and IX

a) Advisory Requirements b) Requirements from other EGs

1.4, 1.6 1st to 3rd years

Biomass by age group and SSB estimations, distribution area.

WGHANSA

a,b Analyse sardine and anchovy distribution (adults and eggs), aggregation patterns and their habitats in European waters (Atlantic and Mediterranean waters)

a) Science Requirements b) Requirements from other EGs

1.4, 1.6 1st to 3rd year

Manuscript comparing sardine (and anchovy) population dynamics and habitats among European waters (third year) WGHANSA

c Provide information on hydrographical and ecosystem indicators such as temperature, salinity, plankton characteristics, top predators abundances, egg densities for sardine and anchovy and backscattering acoustic energy from pelagic fish


1.6.1, 1.6.2, 3.3.5

1st to 3rd years

Update grid maps Habitat characterization

120 |

d Investigate the use of the acoustic survey data to provide indices and/or biological information on other pelagic fish species such as mackerel, horse mackerel, boar fish and blue whiting by improving survey strategies, acoustic data post-processing and research on target strength

a) Science Requirements b) Requirements from other EGs

1.4, 1.6 2nd-3rd years

Biomass by age group estimations, distribution area. Third quarter of the year Updated survey protocols WGWIDE

d Asses developments in the technologies and data analysis for the application of the Daily Egg production method (on Egg Production or adult parameters)


1.4 1st to 3rd years

Anchovy and Sardine egg production WGHANSA

e Develop CUFES as an indicator of anchovy and sardine egg production


1.4 2nd-3rd year

Anchovy and Sardine egg production WGHANSA

f Asses developments in technologies and data analysis for providing MSFD indicators and survey-base operational products for stakeholders



List of common possible MSFD indicators, including protocols to monitor them or to complement data from other surveys/monitoring programs Manuscripts describing practical implementation and results

g Coordination and standardization of the surveys



Annual plan for coordinated surveys Updated survey protocols

121


Year 1 General meeting, including joint session with MEDIAS (Mediterranean acoustic survey on small pelagic)

Session for acoustic data analysis and post-processing techniques

Session to improve egg production estimations, including new approaches for egg mortality, and the acoustic survey design aiming at to estimate sardine and anchovy egg production from CUFES and from Pairovets.

Session to analyse the proposed list of MSFD indicators by country (France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom), aiming at to choose a list of potential candidates to be measured during the WGACEGG surveys

Year 2 General meeting

Session to analyse progress on acoustic data analysis and post-processing techniques

Session on the analysis of discrepancies between egg and acoustic survey indices (in collaboration with WGISDAA)

Session to analyse progress on MSFD indicator measurements

Session to analyse possible survey-base operational products for stakeholders

Session to analyse progress on sardine and anchovy egg production estimates from CUFES and Pairovet

Work by correspondence with MEDIAS (Mediterranean acoustic survey on small pelagic)

Year 3 General meeting, including joint session with MEDIAS (Mediterranean acoustic survey on small pelagic). Session to analyse progress on acoustic data analysis and post-processing techniques Session to analyse progress on MSFD indicator measurements Session to analyse possible survey-base operational products for stakeholders

Session on the analysis of discrepancies between egg and acoustic survey indices (in collaboration with WGISDAA) Session to analyse progress on sardine and anchovy egg production estimates from CUFES and Pairovet


Priority The Group has high priority as it is responsible for providing direct monitoring for two major small pelagic stocks (sardine and anchovy) in this area. These stocks are distributed across national boundaries , including Mediterranean Sea. The most important part of its work is to standardize, plan and analyse all the relevant surveys and to integrate these together to give the best possible advice to the WGHANSA for integrated assessment purposes. In addition, acoustic surveys would also provide both useful biological information (age composition , distribution) of main pelagic species assessed in WGWIDE at the main spawning period and, in the medium term, a biomass indices estimated by echo-integration.


The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.



None.

122 |



ACOM


WGHANSA, WGSPEC, WGFE, WGEGGS, WGFAST/WGFTFB, WGISUR, WGEAWESS, WGALES, WGWIDE, WGISDAA.


Other countries/institutions applying the DEPM, or carrying out integrated acoustic-egg surveys worldwide. Linkage with Mediterranean small pelagic acoustic committees (MEDIAS) is also expected.

123


WGISUR – Working Group on Integrating Surveys for the Ecosystem Approach

2012/MA2/SSGESST19

The Working Group on Integrating Surveys for the Ecosystem Approach (WGISUR), chaired by Ingeborg de Boois, Netherlands, will meet in Hamburg, Germany, 26–28 January 2016 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below:



Year 2014 21-23 Janaury

Nantes, France

Interim report by 1 April 2014 to SSGESST (SSGIEOM)

Year 2015 27-29 January

ICES Headquarters

Interim report by 17 March 2015 to SSGIEOM

Meeting will be a joint session with the ICES Data Centre


Hamburg, Germany

Final report by 17 March 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM & ACOM

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS


DELIVERABLES

a Provide guidance on the adaptation of existing surveys to provide ecosystem data


1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5

3 years CRR

b Provide guidance on the development of an ICES ecosystem survey approach


1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5

Year 2 CRR

c Identify issues common to all surveys, set up workshops and manage them as appropriate

a) Science Requirements c) Requirements from other EGs

1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5

yearly Workshop Report

d Liaise with IEA groups, and others as appropriate (e.g. CWGMSFD), over data product needs and specification


1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5

yearly List of data product needs


Year 1 Workshop report, identify next workshop

Year 2 Workshop report, Provide data product needs

124 |

Year 3 Completion of CRR


Priority High. Integration of surveys is needed in support to the ecosystem approach. The working group will meet that objective by steering all survey groups and providing a home in which integration can be planned.

Resource requirements Surveys are coordinated on a regional basis but there are issues common to all, requiring the steering of all groups. Also the integration of surveys is needed in support to the ecosystem approach. International survey programs involve many vessels and teams. Calibration of methods, protocols and exchange in expertise requires global steering. Methodological issues include topics on: species identification, echogram interpretation, Phase I analysis of data such as combination of indices of different nature (acoustic and trawl) or of multiple surveys (different gears), precision of estimates. International survey programs deliver data and products. Regional databases are being developed for all surveys (not only for bottom trawl surveys but also for acoustic, egg and larvae surveys). Standard data format and portals to access data require global steering of all survey groups. Also, steering the format of survey products (e.g. atlas) for all surveys would contribute to constructing the overall picture needed for the ecosystem approach. International survey programs are evolving towards ecosystem monitoring platforms. Such evolution should be steered for all surveys. In particular, can ecosystem monitoring be performed by fisheries surveys as they are currently just adding new data collection protocols? Adaptation of surveys for the ecosystem approach include topics on:

• Planning of surveys to fit for a purpose and evaluation of the compliance

• of surveys to fit for the purpose; • Spatio-temporal scales and designs to sample different

components of the ecosystem; • Coordination and combination of surveys of different nature and

scales (sampling processes and surveying patterns, annual and intra-season surveys).

• WGISUR will examine and report on how to combine fishery survey information and procedures with that from other platforms (e.g. moorings, satellites, coastal stations etc. to realize broad ecosystem monitoring. This will broaden WGISURs scope in terms of planning for Integrated Observations for the Ecosystem Approach.

Participants 15–20 Chairs of identified Expert Groups and additional experts invited by the Steering Group chair as appropriate


Financial None.


Yes.


SCICOM , Survey based WGs under SCICOM, WGECO and other ecology based WGs, IEA WG under SSGRSP, and DIG


There are no direct linkages to other organizations

125

WGALES – Working Group on Atlantic Fish Larvae and Eggs Surveys

2012/MA2/SSGESST17

The Working Group on Atlantic Fish Larvae and Eggs Surveys (WGALES), chaired by Maria Manuel Angélico, Portugal, and Richard D. M. Nash*, Norway, will meet in Thessaloniki, Greece, 17–21 October 2016, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGALES will report on the activities of 2015 and 2016 (the second year) by 1 December 2016 to SCICOM


Year 2013

Correspondence Intersessional Interim report by 5 January 2015 May 2013 to SSGESST (SSGIEOM)

Group is planning to meet face to face in 2nd year – see below.

Year 2014

1–5 December San Sebastian, Spain

Interim report by 5 January 2015 to SSGIEOM

Cindy Van Damme to be replaced by Richard Nash for the next meeting of WGALES

Year 2016

17–21 October Thessaloniki, Greece

2nd Interim report by 1 December 2016 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM

Group is completing their second year of work

Year 2018

xxxc xxxx Final report by XX 2018 to SSGIEOM, SCICOM

This group could first be finalizing their third year in 2018 as every second year the group is doing field work

ToR descriptors

ToR Description Background



a Present current ichthyoplankton surveys in the light of their original purposes, with respect to design, estimation methods and challenges (including their potential as ecosystem surveys);

The activities of WGALES are vital for the delivery of state-of-the-art ichthyoplankton surveys, ensuring high standards and incorporating new techniques and developments for the future. WGALES will lead to the cross fertilization of ideas, methodologies, developments and standardization of ichthyoplankton surveys in the ICES area. Hence providing a platform

5.1, 5.2 2nd year Report in 2014

126 |

from which to improve the assessments based on the ichthyoplankton surveys. WGALES fits into the ICES science plan sections 5.1 and 5.2.

b Present current understanding and future research needs of natural mortality of fish eggs and larvae in order to improve accuracy and precision of egg production and larvae abundance estimates of the ichthyoplankton surveys;

Use of natural mortality in egg production and larvae abundance estimates is limited. Current developments and use of natural mortality estimates to improve accuracy and precision of ichtyoplankton survey estimates.

5.1, 5.2 2nd year Report with review of developments and needs for future research of natural mortality of fish eggs and larvae. Suggestions on how natural mortality can be incorporated in egg production and larvae abundance estimates of the ichthyoplankton surveys.

c Prepare a template for the ICES ichthyoplankton survey protocols

A new publication series of survey protocols on ICES surveys has been initiated. No template exists for the ichthyoplankton survey protocols.

2nd year Survey protocol template for ICES ichthyoplankton surveys.

d Receive and act upon ToRs from Working Groups within the umbrella of ichthyoplankton surveys e.g. IBTSWG, WGACEGG, WGIPS, WGMEGS, WGEGGS2.

The activities of WGALES are vital for the delivery of state-of-the-art ichthyoplankton surveys, ensuring high standards and incorporating new techniques and developments for the future. WGALES will lead to the cross fertilization of ideas, methodologies, developments and standardization of ichthyoplankton surveys in the ICES area. Hence providing a platform from which to improve the assessments based

5.1, 5.2 3 years, if necessary WGALES can react by correspondence on urgent ToR’s from other ichthyoplankton surveys groups in 2013 and 2015. During the meeting in 2014 ToR’s from ichthyoplankoton survey groups from 2013 and 2014 will be addressed and reported on.

Report in 2014.

127

on the ichthyoplankton surveys.


Year 1 If necessary WGALES will meet by correspondence to act upon urgent Tor’s from ichthyoplankton survey groups (ToR d).

Year 2 WGALES will organize a meeting to address ToR’s a,b, c and d.

Year 3 If necessary WGALES will meet by correspondence to act upon urgent Tor’s from ichthyoplankton survey groups (ToR d).


Priority The activities of WGALES are vital for the delivery of state-of-the-art ichthyoplankton surveys, ensuring high standards and incorporating new techniques and developments for the future. WGALES will lead to the cross fertilization of ideas, methodologies, developments and standardization of ichthyoplankton surveys in the ICES area. Hence providing a platform from which to improve the assessments based on the ichthyoplankton surveys. WGALES fits into the ICES science plan sections 5.1 and 5.2.

Resource requirements The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required is ICES secretariat support for reports.

Participants The Group will be attended by members of ICES groups, WGMEGS, WGEGGS2, WGIPS, IBTSWG, WGACEGG and guests carrying out ichthyoplankton surveys in the non-ICES areas.

Secretariat facilities ICES secretariat support for reports.

Financial DCF funding is required to support the attendance of the meetings.


There are linkages with the advisory committees through the individual ichthyoplankton surveys groups. Through the review and standardization of the ichthyoplankton surveys the quality of the data for the assessments is ensured.


SCICOM and there is a very close working relationship with the all the groups of ichthyoplankton surveys, WGMEGS, WGEGGS2, WGIPS, IBTSWG, WGACEGG and their assessment groups, WGWIDE, HAWG, WGHANSA.


No formal linkages.

128

SSGIEOM EGs Dissolved in 2016

WGNEACS – Working Group on North-east Atlantic continental slope surveys

2013/MA2/SSGESST06

The Working Group on North-east Atlantic continental slope surveys (WGNEACS), chaired by Rasmus Hedeholm, Greenland, will work by correspondence/intersessionally in 2015, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.


Year 2014

Correspondence/ intersessionally

Correspondence Interim report by 15 December 2014 to SSGIEOM

Year 2015

By correspondence


Group to work intersessionally in 2015.

Year 2016

Final report by “DATE” to “SGXX”, “SCICOM”…

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Coordinate and evaluate new survey initiatives.

There is an unsurveyed commercial fishing area targeting Greenland halibut northwest of Iceland. Areas in Faroese waters and surrounding waters that are not well covered.

1 Advice on better Survey coverage of deep-sea resources.

b Evaluate current surveys in relation to ecosystem monitoring.

Include "ecosystem survey components" in existing surveys.

3 Countribute to advice on deep-sea ecoregion. Report to WGDEC, NWWG

c Compare and possibly impliment joint indices on deepwater species.

Such work has been initiated on Greenland halibut data from the Icelandic and Greenlandic survey. However, the approach would possibly be applicable to other species.

2 Combined indices of stock trends Report to WGDEEP, NWWG, AFWG.

129

d Evaluate if survey data allows for detection of migrations. Also if they can reviel shift in distribution of key speceis.

Stock structure of Greenland halibut and redfish and survey results suggest migration between EEZ's. Using length and area specific data some patterns may emerge.

3 Better defination of stock structure. Joint publications (if data allow for that)

e Continue work on sampling protocols for surveys by Faroe, Greenland, Iceland and Norway, and attempt to standardize the protocols as much as possible. Special attention should be given to species identification, especially regarding non-target species. The protocol will be published as a SISP.

Facilitate use of data accross national surveys. Joint publications (in case of interesting findings)

3 Standardized measurment methods.

f Planing of deepsea surveys in the central and southern areas as defined in earlier WGNEACS reports (Approximatly the slope from Scotland to Portugal, and the Asoras).

Coordinated deep-sea surveys are currently being applied for in EU waters that have been a central subject for WGNEACS in the past. WGNEACS will again be the correct body for further planning of these surveys when they are at the stage of being realized.

3 Deep-sea surveys in central and southern WGNEACS areas


The task is to coordinate as much as practically possible about surveys on deep-sea recourses in the NE Atlantic. The main focus the coming 3 years is on surveys in the Nordic area (Greenland, Iceland, The Faroese and Norway). Work is planned regarding un-surveyed areas, ecosystem monitoring, joint indices on deepwater species, detection of migrations, and standardization of measuring methods between countries.

Additionally coordinated deep-sea surveys are currently being applied for in EU waters that have been a central subject for WGNEACS in the past. WGNEACS will again be the correct body for further planning of these surveys when they are at the stage of being realized.

YEAR COMMENT Year 1 Tentative plan for new surveys in ToR a. Start evaluation of current surveys regarding

ecosystem monitoring and suggest for improvements ToR b. Start evaluation of current surveys regarding migrations ToR c. Continue analysis for ToR c and e. React to eventual needs of central and/or southern surveys in ToR f.

Year 2 Complete work on combined indices ToR c. Continue analysis for ToR b, d and e. React to eventual needs of central and/or southern surveys in ToR f.

130 |

Year 3 Sum up ToR b, d and e. React to eventual needs of central and/or southern surveys in ToR f.


Priority High. The work of the Group is essential if ICES is to collate even the most basic data and to progress the application of assessment techniques.

Resource requirements None specific, beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting. Some of the international deep-water surveys are subject to funding




Linkages to ACOM an groups under ACOM

This working group would fulfil the need of internationally coordinating the existing dedicated deep-water surveys that are currently being carried out along the European continental shelf and Nordic seas. These internationally coordinated deep-water surveys would be a potential source of abundance indices for roundnose grenadier, black scabbardfish, deep-water sharks, Greenland halibut, bluemouth redfish, greater silver smelt and greater forkbeard and also be a platform for carrying out studies of seamounts identified by WGDEC and any related studies of the efficacy of closed areas. Close links with WGDEEP and WGEF and also for the Nordic deep-water surveys NWWG and AFWG to provide abundance indices on deep-water species including deep-water sharks; links with WGDEC for the collection and analysis of environmental data and deep-water habitat characterization.


Links with IBTS in order to benefit from expertise in the international coordination of trawl surveys.


NEAFC

131

SCICOM/ACOM Benchmark Steering Group (BSG)

BSG Resolutions approved in 2015

WKIrish2 – Second workshop on the impact of ecosystem and environmental drivers on Irish Sea fisheries management

2015/2/BSG01

f ) The Second workshop on the impact of ecosystem and environmental drivers on Irish Sea fisheries management (WKIrish2), chaired by Mike Armstrong, UK, will meet in Belfast, UK, 26–29 September 2016, to carry out the following tasks for Irish Sea whiting, cod, haddock, plaice and herring to provide input data and parameters for the WKIrish3 benchmark meeting:

a ) Explain the basis for existing assumptions on stock structure and mixing rates between stock areas, or proposed new assumptions which form the basis for spatial aggregation of fishery and survey data and/or adjustments to data sets to account for stock mixing.

b ) Review and recommend life history parameters (e.g. growth parameters, maturity ogives, fecundity, natural mortality), for use in assessments. Where applicable, provide appropriate models to describe growth, maturation, and fecundity by age, sex, or length.

c ) Describe the history of fishery management regulations and actions that are expected to have caused changes in the quality of fishery catch data or the selectivity patterns of fisheries that are of relevance for the scientific assessment of the stocks and provision of advice.

d ) Develop time-series of (commercial and recreational) fishery catch estimates, including both retained and discarded catch, with associated measures or indicators of bias and precision.

e ) Estimate the length and age distributions of fishery landings and discards if feasible, with associated measures or indicators of bias and precision.

f ) Develop recommendations for addressing fishery selectivity (pattern of catchability at length or age) in the assessment model.

g ) Recommend values for discard mortality rates, if required, following the guidelines provided by ICES WKMEDS and indicate the range of uncertainty in values.

h ) Review all available and relevant fishery dependent and independent data sources on relative trends in abundance or absolute fish abundance, and recommend which series are considered adequate and reliable for use in stock assessments. Provide measures or indicators of bias and precision.

i ) Identify any longer term or episodic/transient changes in environmental drivers known to influence distribution, growth, recruitment, natural mortality or other aspects of productivity and which are relevant for assessments and forecasts.

j ) Review progress on existing recommendations for research to develop and improve the input data and parameters for assessments, and develop and prioritise new proposals.

132 |

k ) For each stock, develop a spreadsheet of assessment model input data that reflects the decisions and recommendations of the data evaluation workshop.

l ) Prepare the data evaluation workshop report providing complete documentation of workshop actions, decisions, list of working documents, other information used by the workshop, and a list of any additional tasks to be completed following the workshop with dates and responsibilities for completion.

WKIrish2 will report by 14 October for the attention of ACOM, SCICOM, BSG and the WKIrish3.


Priority The current activities of this workshop are in line with the ICES strategic plan to progress towards integrated ecosystem assessments.


At the ICES WGCHAIRS 2015 meeting the scope of the Irish Sea Benchmark was extensively discussed. It was agreed that the Irish Sea would be a good test bed for ICES to develop an integrated ecosystem benchmark. The fisheries components to the ecosystem are relatively well understood. Several recent projects have looked at ecosystem models and reviewed the Irish Sea ecosystem in general. What has been missing thus far is how we integrate these new types of information and data into and improve the current stock assessments and management advice. Irish Sea fisheries have changed from a cod, whiting and herring dominated fishery in the 1960s to one which is dominated by Nephrops and other shellfish stocks today. Since the early 2000s, ICES has been advising zero catch for cod and whiting. Despite strong effort reductions and other measures to recover the cod stock, there is little evidence of any stock response, suggesting ecosystem aspects (e.g. various sources of natural mortality) may be playing a role. The work plan for WKIrish is a 2-year process, and focuses on improving single-species stock assessments (principally cod, haddock, whiting, plaice, herring), incorporating a mixed fisheries model, and developing the integration of ecosystem aspects and working towards an integrated assessment and advice. There is a strong link PGDATA to develop guidelines for data compliation and evaluation. There are 4 main workshops, but work needs to be co-ordinated and progressed intersessionally. The 4 workshops address: WKIrish1 (September 2015): Information sharing and scoping WKIrish2 (September 2016): Data compilation WKIrish3 (Early 2017): Stock assessment benchmark WKIrish4 (tbc): Towards development of an integrated ecosystem assessment and advice It would be beneficial to identify co-chairs for the whole process, which could, but must not necessarily also co-chair the workshops


The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway.

133

Participants Experts on integrated assessment, fish stock assessment models and Irish Sea ecosystem, stakeholders (industry, administrations, NGOs).

Secretariat facilities Professional assistance by the ICES Secretariat.


Linkages to advisory committee

There are close links with ACOM and SCICOM.


ACOM/SCICOM Benchmarking Steering Group (BSG), ACOM/SCICOM Steering Group of Integrated Assessments (SSGIEA), ACOM/SCICOM Steering Group on Integrated Ecosystem Observation and Monitoring (SSGIEOM) ,WGCSE, HAWG, WGEF, PGDATA, WGEAWESS, BEWG, WGZE, WGMME, WGSFD, WGSAM, WGMIXFISH, WGISUR, WGECO, WGBIOP


NWWAC, OSPAR