Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||ICES WKFRAME REPORT 2011 Report of the Workshop on Implementing the ICES FMSY framework|
|Authors:||KELLY C.; SIMMONDS EDMUND|
|Publisher:||International Council for the Exploration of the Sea|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||WKFRAME-2 met for 4 days in January to provide further technical guidelines to assist ICES expert groups in the implementation of the ICES MSY framework for advice which was introduced in 2010. The workshop was attended by scientists from the ICES community, stakeholders from the fishing industry and environmental interest groups. This year a particular focus of the group was trying to develop technical solutions to issues which proved problematic with the advice formulation in 2010. For this reason the meeting was overlapped with WGCHAIRS, which provided an important input to the first term of reference, ¿to evaluate the implementation of the advice and identify areas where further development is required¿. Apart from technical issues related to model fits of SRR, a major issue which arose last year was the confusion of what ICES was advising in relation to sustainable harvest rates, in situations either where stocks were reproductively impaired, or where there were technical differences between fishing at a defined Fmsy and according to an accepted management plan. The latter issue is now clarified and it is ICES policy to have a hierarchical approach to advice, where agreed management plans will be the primary consideration. In the situation where stocks are at risk of productivity impairment, the approach was to provide several options on the slope of the advised F rule where SSB is below MSYBtrigger. The decision on the implementation of any of these options is the responsibility of ACOM. WKFRAME suggests that adopting a singular approach will make it possible to give advice using the ICES MSY framework which is consistent with both the PA and MSY approaches. Several technical issues arose in 2010 also in regard to the calculation of advised exploitation under the transition schemes. The approach where SSB is above MSYBtrigger, is relatively straightforward, and there is a suggestion to calculate the transition from F2010 and follow 5 equal steps to the Ftarget. In the case where SSB is or falls below MSYBtrigger during the transition, the situation is more complicated. To help clarify the options, WKFRAME has produced generic equations which cover the various options and suggests that ACOM choose one of these options with a caution against the mechanistic application of whatever rule is chosen. Most of these issues fall under the second ToR ¿on [the basis of issues arising in 2010] to further develop the MSY approach¿ and the details are provided in section 2 of the report. Finally there was a ToR to ¿further develop the MSY approach to be applied in cases where no analytical assessment is available¿. The first issue here was to address the semantic concern where the labelling of advice as maximum sustainable yield, when it was based on relatively imprecise determinations of whether overfishing (in relation to MSY) is occurring, caused problems. A suggested solution is to label this advice as sustainable yield advice. A clarification of the guidelines from WKFRAME I, with some references to appropriate methodologies is provided in section 4. In order to assist EG¿s to provide the basis for determinations required by the ADG¿s in drafting advice in situations where there is no forecast, a flow chart is provided.|
|JRC Institute:||Space, Security and Migration|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.