Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Workshop on "Marine environment and fisheries – applying the new CFP and
environment policy together"
Brussels 3-4 April 2014
Summary Report (Draft)
Title:
Date prepared:
Prepared by:
Summary report of the Workshop on "Marine environment and fisheries – applying
the new CFP and environment policy together"
13 May 2014
Milieu & DG Environment
1. Welcome & introduction
The European Commission (DG Environment & DG MARE) welcomed the participants and the organisation
of this workshop at this crucial moment when the Member States are implementing both the
environmental policy, in particular the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the new Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP). During the previous workshops it had already become apparent that there was an
interest in discussing the policy inter-linkages but the negotiations on the CFP were not yet finalized. The
policies have shared/complementary competences but some of the issues require cooperation in different
areas, such as fisheries and marine protection, as well as for trans-boundary issues.
The Commission expressed their wish that the two policies will deliver results in a way that is consistent
with the objectives of both policies. The Commission expressed their commitment to achieving the CFP
objectives, which is also crucial for achieving the objectives of the MSFD, and their belief that the workshop
participants shared this commitment as well. The Commission expressed their interest in hearing about the
issues that Member States are facing in regard to the implementation of the policies' objectives and stated
that they were in a consultative mode and wanting to understand how various stakeholders would like to
see the process to develop.
During the workshop a range of presentations were made which are all available on Circabc.
2. Objectives of the workshop
The objective of the workshop was to provide an opportunity to discuss relevant issues such as the
interplay between the CFP and the MSFD, particularly concerning the achievement of Good Environmental
Status (GES), to get input from stakeholders on their view of the implementation process and to keep
stakeholders up to date on where the implementation process currently stands. Furthermore, it was an
opportunity to present and discuss the latest work carried out by ICES in relation to Descriptor 3 and other
relevant descriptors of the MSFD.
The workshop was designed to be informal in nature and was not meant to take any decisions. The
outcome of the workshop would be reported back to the various stakeholder groups, such as the MSFD
working groups, and it would be discussed there how to take these issues forward. The participants came
1
from different policy backgrounds and were nominated following invitations that had been sent to the
MSCG (the coordination group for the MSFD), the CGBN (the coordination group for biodiversity and
nature) and various fisheries stakeholder fora. This allowed experts from Member States, other associated
countries and stakeholders such as the fishing industry and NGOs to contribute to the discussions.
3. The New CFP, EMFF and its link to environment legislation
The presentation of DG MARE on the CFP underlined that the CFP is binding for all EU Member States and
sets forth the objectives for European Fisheries Management. The objective of the CFP is to manage
fisheries in such a way that stocks are exploited sustainably and the fishing industry has a perspective of
profitable activity while also taking into account social and employment effects. The CFP was recently
reformed and has been brought into line with international agreements to manage fish stocks to achieve
the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) 1 exploitation by 2015 where possible and on a progressive,
incremental basis by 2020 at the latest for all managed stocks. The new CFP has taken into account the
MSFD; the needs of Member States to comply with obligations under Union environmental legislation; and
it introduced a landing obligation that will ban discarding2. Fish stocks under the new CFP will be managed
using multi-annual plans that introduce a long-term management perspective, in combination with annual
total allowable catches (TACS).
The implementation of the CFP is challenging with significant tasks ahead (modernisation of technical
measures, data collection, multiannual plans, landing obligation). In relation to environmental legislation
(Birds and Habitats Directives, MSFD), the new CFP has new mechanisms which facilitate a more swift
adoption of fisheries-related measures under the Member States' programmes for marine area protection
under the mentioned Directives (e.g. in Natura 2000 sites). The new CFP does not allow for increases in
fishing capacity, but rather obliges Member States to develop reduction plans for situations of excess
capacity. The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) is designed to help stakeholders adapt to the
new CFP and has considerable links to the environmental impact of fisheries, and should contribute to a
more efficient management of the marine environment.
Discussion
The presentation by DG MARE was followed by a discussion with participants during which the two main
points addressed were the scope of Article 11 of the CFP and the requirement of MSY targets for all stocks.
Article 11 of the CFP
Participants requested clarification on Article 11 of the CFP (on fisheries measures to meet environmental
obligations). The Commission recalled that Member States are not allowed to make decisions affecting
fishing fleets flying the flag of another Member State on their own; this needs to be done through
European measures. Article 11 of the CFP allows Member States collectively to propose measures under
certain conditions, in particular for the successful establishment and protection of a Natura 2000 site or a
future protected area under the MSFD. If the measure to be taken affects only the national fleet, the
Member State can implement it directly. When other Member States are affected by a proposed measure,
those Member States can agree on the joint proposal to be recommended to the Commission who will
assess its compatibility with the CFP and can then adopt it in a fast track procedure saving the time of
negotiation the with Parliament and Council. In the situation where there is no agreement between the
affected Member States it will be necessary to revert to the co-decision procedure. In case there is an
urgent need for measures there is the possibility for the Commission to implement measures for up to 24
months until the co-decision process is completed.
1
Maximum Sustainable Yield. The largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing
environmental conditions.
2 Discards: Are those components of a fish stock thrown back after capture e.g. because they are below the minimum landing size
or because quota have been exhausted for that species. Most of the discarded fish will not survive.
2
It was noted by a participant that this new article has led to the revitalization of regional groups such as the
Scheveningen group in the North Sea. It should however be taken into account that under Article 11
Member States potentially affected by a measure and not included in such regional groups should also be
taken into account. The CFP itself does not prescribe how regional cooperation should occur and it is not
the role of the Commission to suggest how this should be done, however participation of both fisheries and
nature authorities of each Member State is necessary in this process.
Does the MSY target apply for all species?
A participant asked whether the MSY target referred only to stocks under the CFP or also local stocks. The
Commission clarified that this applies to stocks managed under the CFP. Management will not only be
based on TACs and Quotas, but e.g. in the case of the Mediterranean it will be more effort-focused3, but it
will also have to apply the MSY approach. A few additional remarks were made by participants:
-
-
The GFCM has adopted the first management plan for small pelagic species in the Adriatic Sea and
it is working to have one next year in the Black Sea for turbot. They are also working on fleet
capacity issues.
The CFP goes beyond the management of fish stocks and also covers topics such as aquaculture.
Data sharing is essential and the Commission was invited to provide more information about the
process of preparation for the new legislation on fisheries data.
4. Progress on implementation of the MSFD
DG ENV made a presentation on the progress with regard to the implementation of the MSFD. The
Commission's assessment on the first phase of the MSFD implementation (Art. 12) has been published in
February 2014. The assessment looked at the reporting of the Member State’s Good Environmental Status
(GES) definitions (art. 9), their initial assessments (Art. 8) and their targets (Art. 10) for the MSFD. A number
of good outcomes were found such as marine litter and food-webs have now been addressed at EU level,
cooperation in the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) has significantly improved and each RSC has embraced
the MSFD. The report found, however, several issues that still need to be resolved, such as the limited
quantitative data, the imprecise target and GES definitions and the link between the initial assessments and
the targets. Furthermore, at regional level, there was an absence or limited level of coherence between
Member States. While the MSFD does not require harmonization it does require coherence and regional
cooperation.
The GES definition for Descriptor 34 dealing specifically with exploited stocks was assessed as adequate only
for two Member States and the targets for three Member States. The assessment in particular identified
the need for more work on Criteria 3.35 of the Commission Decision which deals with, as per the Descriptor
text: “exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.” This work
should not just take place at EU level but also within regional organizations and should be built on the best
available advice. Finally, DG ENV stressed that the achievement of the MSFD is clearly linked to the CFP
reform and that it is clear that GES cannot be achieved without a good implementation of the CFP.
ICES also made a presentation on the results from the ICES D3+ workshop of January 2014. The ICES
presentation explained the agreed common approach for Descriptor 3, the approach for dealing with data
limited stocks, the evaluation of the current status of stocks in relation to Fmsy6 and where available
SSBtrigger7 and the gaps for Descriptor 3.
3
Fishing effort management is a combination of limitations to the fleet capacity and the amount of time that can be spent at sea by
that fleet. Often effort restrictions are applied in addition to the more generally used system of total allowable catches.
4 Descriptor 3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population
age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.
5 Criteria 3.3: Population age and size distribution
6 Fishing mortality consistent with achieving Maximum Sustainable Yield
7 SSBtrigger: A biomass reference point that triggers a cautious response within the ICES MSY framework
3
Discussion
The discussion focused on the issues of data availability, stock assessments using expert knowledge and the
EMFF.
Based on a question about the ICES graphs showing the proportion of overfished stocks, ICES specified that
the graphs in the presentation were based on FAO landing data, as there was more data available with a
longer time series than for the CFP Data Collection Framework (DCF). For the Black Sea, FAO data are more
comprehensive since there are only two EU Member States in the Black Sea whose landings contribute only
to a small proportion of the catches in that sea. At EU level, the best data available should be used and be
publicly available, as transparency is a legal requirement. But ICES mentioned that DCF data are not always
available to their experts due to Member States’ objections to the use of the data for certain purposes.
Answering a question about the criteria used for expert judgments when evaluating the status of current
stocks, ICES clarified that stocks assessed using expert knowledge were stocks for which experts had a good
insight whether they were overfished based on historical knowledge, not necessarily using measurements
of fishing mortality (F). A participant mentioned that this type of expert knowledge could be used for
example in the case of salmon stocks which are now no longer present in certain rivers; in this case, while
ICES MSY research would not show such an event, qualitative data could. Therefore MSY data are not
always sufficient to take environmental concerns into account.
Some participants also shared concerns that the graphs presented by ICES might be too optimistic. ICES
mentioned that the graph designs and data used were under review (some of these issues were discussed
during Day 2 in parallel session 1 – see below). Regional differences were also noted. In the Mediterranean
Sea the graph covers only a small amount of the landings as there is data only for a few stocks, while in the
Baltic Sea there are considerably fewer stocks that contribute to most of the landings and for most of those
stocks data is available.
Lastly discussion focused on whether financial assistance under the new European Maritime and Fisheries
Fund aiming to support the new CFP will be sufficient to cover all data collection requirements. The
Commission stated that the EU co-financing rate has been increased to 80% so MS financial participation
has now been decreased to a 20%, so available budget should be enough to fulfil their national data
collection programmes. Both the Commission and the Member States agreed that existing data should be
used for maximum effect and that there is still room for efficiency gains.
5. Biodiversity and Nature policy
DG ENV made a presentation on Target 4 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the implementation of the
Habitats and Birds Directive. The EU Biodiversity Strategy was adopted as a Commission Communication in
2011, with the headline target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2020 and restoring ecosystems as far as
possible. Target 1 (halt deterioration in the status of species and habitats), Target 2 (maintain ecosystem
and their services) and Target 4 (achieve MSY and MSFD GES) of the Strategy were relevant to the
workshop. In particular, the commitment in Target 4 to achieve MSY extends beyond EU waters to all
waters where EU fleets fish, including the exclusive economic zones of nations with which the EU has
bilateral fisheries agreements as well as international waters covered by RFMOs. The target as such does
not specify whether it is related to achieving FMSY or BMSY. Among the challenges regarding Target 4 are the
inclusion of ecological considerations which still requires theoretical and practical work as well as the
indicators needed for by-catch.
An update was also provided about the status of Target 1 and in particular the establishment of MPAs.
About 4% of EU marine waters are now protected under the Natura 2000 network. Current priorities
include finish setting up the marine Natura 2000 network (particularly offshore), more coordination
between Member States and the establishment of good management, in particular regarding the
sustainability of fisheries and those activities and fishing gears which can have effects on protected areas.
The Article 11 procedure (see above) should also be an improvement for facilitating the tasks of the
4
authorities and the Commission to achieve well-managed MPAs. Furthermore the reformed CFP will also
provide some good opportunities to address issues such as the by-catch of protected species and more.
DG Environment is using the Marine Expert Group to research the links between Natura 2000 and the
MSFD. DG Environment will host a workshop on coherence and representativity of MPA networks and will
send out invitations to this Expert Group soon. DG Environment also has the intention to set up marine
biogeographic groups at a regional level, which will identify all existing networks and sources of data. Any
information provided in writing would be useful and can be used for feedback at a later stage.
Discussion
ICES took the opportunity to inform participants that it also advises on by-catch issues8, including cetacean
by-catches. ICES has compiled a database that goes back to 2005 with by-catch data that is becoming
increasingly useful. Additionally, some Member States also provide information on other by-catch, such as
that of seals and birds. While this is still quite scattered, it is improving. STECF also noted that some of its
activities might be interesting for the Biodiversity Strategy and for the implementation of EU nature law.
They have a working group on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and several recommendations on how to
collect data on cetacean by-catch at the Mediterranean and Black Sea scale, including advice for non EU
States.
In reaction to a question to ICES on the requirement that stocks should be exploited at FMSY, the
Commission clarified that ICES is an advisory body and does not make policy decisions. Decision-making on
the exploitation of stocks is the role of the European institutions. ICES stated that an increasing number of
stocks are being assessed with respect to MSY targets, and an increasing proportion of the stocks assessed
are being exploited in conformity with MSY.
With regard to the use of the EMFF for projects targeting by-catch reduction and biodiversity monitoring,
the Commission mentioned that the EMFF has two components:
1. One budget line supports the data collection for the DCF, which is executed by the Member States
who receive contributions based on the delivery of the results. Contributions do not cover all of the
expenses. Any biodiversity aspect covered under the DCF may therefore receive partial funding.
2. The second budget line is to fund national projects. The Member States have a significant liberty to
decide how they will spend this money. There are however differences in how much funding each
Member State is eligible to receive. It is not the Commission’s role to tell Member States how the
money under the second budget line should be spent.
The EMFF however is not the only funding source available to Member States. DG Environment also has a
budget line for the implementation of the MSFD and is working closely with Member States to identify
other sources of funding to close data gaps. It is understood that everyone has resource limitations and it is
the intention to maximise the policy results that can be realised using the available resources. Financing
issues will be discussed at length during the next MSCG meeting in May. The Commission wishes to exploit
existing synergies rather than creating competition in existing data collection.
One participant also emphasized that, as per Article 38 of the EMFF Regulation, it should be clear that any
financial support should be linked to the interaction of fisheries with other environmental issues.
Participants also mentioned that guidance should be provided on how to assess the impacts of fisheries
measures on fishermen as they might be affected differently by measures taken by different Member
States. Finally, guidance on how to apply Article 6 of the reformed CFP (on laying down conservation
measures) is needed, especially as Natura 2000 sites are increasing. The issues that arose during the
discussions about closing an area of the Doggerbank from fishing are illustrative of the lessons that can be
learnt in this context.
8
By-catch: the unwanted fish and other marine creatures trapped by commercial fishing nets during fishing for a different species.
5
6. Day 2, parallel session 1: D3 assessment under MSFD
Parallel session 1 opened with a presentation of ICES Advice on the Report of the ICES Workshop to draft
recommendations for the assessment of Descriptor D3 (WKD3R). Further presentations were made during
the group work session: “GFCM approach” by Miguel Bernal, GFCM secretariat; “Possible ways of
prioritizing species assessments: Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)” by Chato Osio, JRC.
The overall purpose of parallel session 1 was to explore a common approach for the assessment of
Descriptor 3, consider gaps and recommendations and draft an annotated Table of contents and make
recommendations for the preparation of a guidance document. The meeting agreed on the 4 steps
proposed for the assessment of stocks in relation to MSFD Descriptor 3:
Step 1 – Prepare a list of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks in the relevant marine region and
provide the rationale for the selection of stocks.
Step 2 – Catalogue and document the available information for each of the stocks selected for the
Descriptor 3 assessment.
Step 3 – Evaluate the stock status against the three GES criteria mentioned in EC Decision 2010/477/EU, i.e.
criterion 3.1 (level of pressure of the fishing activity), criterion 3.2 (reproductive capacity of the stock), and
criterion 3.3 (population age and size distribution) by stock and species-functional group (e.g. pelagic,
demersal/benthic, shellfish, elasmobranch, deep-water).
Step 4 – Determine the overall status and identify issues, problems, gaps, and links to other MSFD
descriptors (e.g. D1 – Biodiversity and D4 – Foodwebs), together with any additional monitoring needs.
The meeting also considered and discussed each of the Recommendations made by ICES in the advice that
can be found here. The following table indicates whether the participants agreed or disagreed with the ICES
recommendation. All agreements were unanimous.
Agree/
Disagree
Recommendation
STEP 1 (Selection of stocks)
1. The Member States’ lists of commercial stocks should first be derived at
the MSFD regional (subregional in the case of the Northeast Atlantic) level
by including stocks that are assessed at the international level.
2. In addition to the internationally assessed stocks, there may be several
fish and shellfish stocks that are important for small-scale/local coastal
fisheries on a regional or national scale. Member States should identify
these stocks and add them to their national list.
3. It should be ensured that the list set up in accordance with point 1 and 2
covers a very high proportion of the landings (e.g. >90%) in weight.
4. The selection of stocks based on the ranking of the landings by weight (or
commercial value) should be applied using the longest available time-series
in order to also include depleted stocks that in the past had much larger
landings. Extirpated species should not be included but would be covered
under Descriptor 1.
STEP 2 (Cataloguing and documenting)
1. For the selection of commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the relevant
marine (sub)region, assign each stock to one of the six ICES stock categories
and collate either the MSY reference points or the MSY proxies for
undertaking the Descriptor 3 assessment.
2. For stocks in Category 6, evaluate whether each stock should be assessed
under Descriptor 3 or more appropriately, under the biodiversity Descriptor
D1 when the level of catch has historically been low. If low catches are likely
to be due to low stock abundance, the stock should be considered under
Descriptor 3.
STEP 3 (Assessing status)
1. For MSFD stocks for which there is no assessment of stock status but for
which data is available, a priority ranking should be developed where
6
Comment
A
A
D
A
1. Should % landing be used or MS ad hoc choice?
2. If used then % landings needs to be defined
3. How to deal with EU/non-EU part of region?
1. Where possible, use DCF landings
2. Consider if species could be evaluated under D1,
D2 or D4
3. MS should justify their data sources used
A
Need to incorporate GFCM’s new classification of
DLS
A
Need to incorporate any revisions in CITES etc.
classifications
A
E.g. Chato’s Mediterranean analysis
landings/value and vulnerability (derived from a Productivity and
Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)) are used jointly. Such analysis would provide a
road map indicating how to fill the main gaps in stock status knowledge in
order to assess the criteria of MSFD Descriptor 3.
2. An overarching framework should be established to ensure the
coordination of approaches for the assessment of GES for Descriptor 3 at
the Mediterranean Sea regional scale.
3. Demersal and pelagic research surveys, as well as other relevant data
collection programmes for the entire Black Sea basin should be
internationally coordinated and information from these processed and
stored in standardized formats to facilitate the estimation of the Descriptor
3 indicators.
4. For data-limited stocks in the Mediterranean and Black seas currently
lacking assessment methods, the data-limited stocks approaches developed
by ICES should be considered for application.
5. For Criterion 3.2, ICES recommends that the methods in the FAO report
(Rosenberg et al., 2014) should be considered to fulfil the needs for ICES
Categories 4 and 5 stocks.
6. ICES recommends that a review of methods to assess Criterion 3.3 and
the utility of the indicators and the associated reference points is conducted
in order to compare their effectiveness in indicating pressure on status of
size/age structure.
7. Under Criterion 3.3, ICES concurs with Zampoukas et al. (2014) and
recommends not using indicator 3.3.2 (mean maximum length across all
species) as this is a community indicator and does not address Criterion 3.3.
8. Under Criterion 3.3, ICES has previously recommended to not use
indicator 3.3.4 (size at first sexual maturation) as targets cannot be set,
trends are not linked to a clear consequence or benefit, and management
response to achieve targets are not defined (ICES, 2012b).
9. Under Criterion 3.3, it is recommended that the remaining available
indicators (indicators 3.3.1 and 3.3.3) should be monitored for trends while
their utility is being investigated (Piet et al., 2010).
Is criterion 3.3 necessary?
- Finfish
- Shellfish
A
Conceptual framework for the assessment of GES
for D3 in EU waters
A
GFCM has a workshop planned
A
Need to incorporate GFCM’s new classification of
DLS
A
A
A
A
A
Further science needed; e.g. ICES WKLIFE IV ToR
regarding utility for healthy stock evaluation
A
Monitoring trends in the short term but need to
investigate other options for the future
Monitoring trends in the short term but need to
investigate other options for the future
A
STEP 4 (Overall status)
Baltic Sea Region
Northeast Atlantic Region
Mediterranean Region
Black Sea Region
Presentation of results
Easily understandable graphics
Guidance on what constitutes a healthy stock
needed
A
A
A
A
Criterion 3.1.1 low % rather than number
GFCM has a new working group
A
Clear explanation of basis and information being
displayed
Future collaboration
ICES to be requested to repeat the process started by WKD3R
?
Finalising the guideline
?
1. EC to decide
2. Coordination of calendars with GFCM desirable
for Mediterranean and Black Sea Regions
EC to decide
7. Day 2 Parallel session 2: Fisheries and other relevant MSFD descriptors
Parallel Session 2 opened with an introductory presentation by ICES. The session discussed what happens
once you reach fishing at MSY. It included three other presentations with the intention of informing the
participants and stimulating discussion: “Fishing and habitat integrity” (Leonie Dransfeld, Ireland); “Fishing
and top predator bycatch” (Begoña Santos, Spain); “Fishing and food webs” (Mark Dickey-Collas, ICES). The
participants were then asked to discuss three questions:
1. How does reaching MSY contribute to MSFD GES?
2. How do technical measures contribute to the ecosystem approach under the CFP, and GES under
the MSFD?
7
3. How do we optimize the knowledge base in support of the policy objectives of the MSFD and CFP?
Summary of the presentations
Achieving MSY across most European fisheries will likely result in a reduction of the pressures on
biodiversity, food webs and sea bed integrity caused by fishing through a reduction of the current fishing
mortality. In theory, fishing at MSY should result in more fish, which would allow a bigger catch even with a
reduced fishing activity throughout Europe. However MSY is assessed and managed at a regional (or subregional) scale whereas habitats, sensitive species and food web are often impacted by fisheries at a local
scale. This difference in operational spatial scales results in a likely requirement for Member States to
adopt additional measures to address local (sub-regional) challenges to GES under the MSFD. In addition,
considerations of MSY on single fish stocks cannot account for specific pressures on sensitive species or
habitats. As well as Member State action, the CFP allows for the adoption of technical measures and the
workshop provided many examples of how technical measures can be used as tools to achieve
management objectives for habitats, species biodiversity and food webs. Under the new CFP, it is hoped
that fleet based management approaches will be developed that will enable specific actions to be taken on
specific pressures that pose a specific risk to GES.
Discussion
1. Contribution of reaching MSY to MSFD GES
MSY as currently assessed assumes no change in selectivity of the fishing (the size of the fish caught).
Selectivity impacts on the composition of the catch and thus the impact of fishing on the ecosystem. As
such Europe has not investigated the likely effect of change to either the overall selectivity or the
distribution of the catch across fleets in terms of MSY and the implication of any such change on the
pressure of fishing on the marine ecosystem.
2. Contribution of technical measures to the ecosystem approach (CFP) and GES (MSFD)
Technical measures deliver benefits in terms of conserving the marine ecosystem and can be used to
mitigate the effects of fishing pressure. Spatial measures are effective tools to manage habitat impacts, but
can also be applied to manage foodweb interactions and to protect biodiversity. Technical measures such
as gear modifications can help to reduce/eliminate unwanted bycatch. However the imposition of technical
measures by those outside the direct arena of fishing activity often has a counterproductive outcome. It is
always preferable to bring about local solutions for local challenges through participatory processes that
also allow the incorporation of fishermen´s knowledge. A particular challenge to assessing the impact of
fishing and implementing the programme of measures to achieve GES is the large number of smaller
vessels (<12m or artisanal fleets) that currently operate with limited monitoring data (eg VMS and
logbooks), and/or without organised association to engage in finding local solutions.
3. Optimising the knowledge base in support of the policy objectives of the MSFD and CFP
The workshop participants considered the optimization of the knowledge base in support of the shared
policy objectives of the MSFD and CFP. With regards to fishing pressure, the data collection framework
(DCF) is a key mechanism, but not the only one. All mechanisms have limited resources, so an optimisation
is required in terms of knowledge base and the provision of data when faced with the likely trade-offs
between several objectives. The DCF covers many impacts of fishing and could and must provide data for
the ecosystem approach to managing fisheries, and not just stock assessments. Current challenges include:
the difference in publically-funded monitoring between fisheries advice or control purposes; the demand
for resources for competing policy objectives; and the drive to manage the impacts and pressures of fleets,
rather than the pressure of fishing on a collection of single stocks. Monitoring programmes should be
integrated to provide for different objectives. Prioritisation is needed between monitoring incidental, low
impact pressures caused by fishing and more targeted monitoring of higher impacting fisheries.
8
8. Report back from parallel sessions
Parallel Session 1 (Find the concluding presentation here: link).
The final session started with a sum-up of Parallel Session 1 on D3 assessment under the MSFD. The
discussion in relation to criterion 3.3 was quite wide and explored a common approach for all four regional
seas. ICES made four recommendations for assessing GES for Descriptor 3. Slide four of the presentation
shows all the recommendations from ICES and the degree of support of these recommendations by
participants. All agreements were unanimous. For the assessment of stocks, participants generally
supported that Member States should identify MSFD regional stocks and then identify local stocks. The
Member State’s list of stocks should be a significant proportion of the weight; however, the question
remains whether Member States should use a percentage of the total landing weight or whether they can
use ad hoc lists. For the Mediterranean and Black Sea, clarification is needed on whether GES applies to
stocks only in EU waters or also those that occur outside of EU waters. When there is a decision to cover
stocks/species not under Descriptor 3 but instead Descriptor 1, those species should be clearly excluded
from the assessment. Choices in the selection of stocks and data sources (DCF/FAO) should be clearly
explained and justified.
One ICES recommendation relates to classifying stocks according to data availability, while the GFCM is
currently working on their own definitions for data limited stocks (DLS). Stocks in category 6 of the ICES
classification with negligible catches could possibly be considered under Descriptor 1 or Descriptor 4 but
stocks with a low abundance due to historic fishing pressure should be kept under Descriptor 3. All stock
status assessment recommendations were generally supported by the participants. In relation to criterion
3.3, two indicators (3.3.2 and 3.3.4) were considered inappropriate for criterion 3.3 and two indicators
investigated (3.3.1 and 3.3.3) require further work. Regarding the status assessment for Descriptor 3 in the
Black Sea, the Commission recognizes that the situation there is challenging and that the European part of
the catches in this area is comparatively small. Anyway, EU law does not apply in international waters, or in
the waters of third countries. The new CFP says that in all international discussions, the MSFD objectives
will be brought-up in the discussions.
Finally, the participants remained open as regards the need for repeating such a WKD3R workshop (which
ICES organised in January) but the coordination of the timing for future workshops is important. The
Commission recalled that the outcome of the workshop in relation to ICES advice and the guidance
document were part of the consultation and preparation of reviewing the Commission Decision where the
advice and the views expressed will be fed into this process.
Parallel session 2 (Find the concluding presentation here: link)
In general, it was underlined that fishing at MSY will reduce environmental impacts but it will not resolve all
environmental impacts from fishing. Additionally, the concept of MSY does not have any spatial
components, which are relevant when looking at by-catch, habitat and other impacts. The discussion on
technical measures concluded that spatial measures work for habitats. Technical measures to assist
environmental goals should often be taken at a local level, while the MSY target is often implemented at a
regional level. In addition, the possibility of trade-offs was discussed as some fisheries have bigger impacts
than others. The discussion on by-catch was more complex and it became apparent that monitoring of bycatch poses a major challenge. The discussion focused on two aspects: which fleets should be monitored
and what types of by-catch should be monitored. It was also pointed out that reducing by-catch would be
advantageous both for the environment and for the fishing industry.
The final discussion focussed on the optimisation of the knowledge base exploring how the DCF could be
used for the MSFD implementation and that there is a difference between the need of the DCF to monitor
and collect data and its potential use for control.
9
9. Conclusions, follow-up and next steps
The co-chairs from DG ENV and DG MARE concluded that overall the workshop had proven useful. DG
MARE’s main objective is now for the CFP to be implemented successfully. There will be many effects of the
current reform and not all impacts are known so there is a need to solve problems as they arise. DG MARE
is keen to make sure that during this reform process, all considerations regarding the MSFD are integrated.
DG Environment complemented that the current situation shows that policies in the environmental area
have progressed, but there is now a strong need to pool together all available data in order to achieve the
policy objectives. Another wider challenge is the complementarity of the different policy objectives and the
need to address all issues and not just a selection because of limited funding.
There was also a lot of discussion on data and the need for more data for both policies. Good decisions
require good data. However, a data hungry system is expensive because it requires time and resources. The
DCF will prioritise the collection of data that are needed to implement the CFP and that allow scientists to
do their work. The DCF data will also be relevant for the implementation of the MSFD. Looking beyond the
DCF will allow to see whether synergies can be achieved across other databases. It is also important to
remember that the DCF does not cover the entire marine environment issues and fisheries are not the only
sector impacting the marine environment.
Finally, there is a strong need for all parties to work together and to use existing data and work occurring in
the RSCs and other relevant organizations. The Commission referred to its Marine knowledge agenda.
The follow up process
After finalising the summary report of the workshop with input from the participants, the document will be
used to communicate back to the relevant constituencies, i.e. the relevant groups for MSFD, Biodiversity
and Nature, Fisheries policies. A similar follow up workshop will probably take place once a year, i.e. the
next one in April 2015. However, the scope and the goal of such a workshop will need to be discussed and
defined further. The Commission will also discuss in the context of the MSFD implementation whether
further guidance is needed depending on the further discussions following the presentation of the
Commission's assessment on the MSFD implementation (Article 12 report).
10