DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN ICES

Developments Within ICES – The annual meeting between ICES and fisheries stakeholders (MIACO) was held recently in Copenhagen, with many joining the event online, including the NFFO.

The event provided a useful update and opportunity to discuss on a number of important developments within the ICES system that have significance for commercial fisheries, including:

• Quality control (there had been 10 adjustments to ICES 2021 advice)
• Implementation of an ecosystem approach
• Governance of data quality
• Stakeholder engagement and communications
• The science/management required to keep fishing mortality on track once target levels have been achieved
• The need for better and more timely mixed fisheries advice
• Ensuring that fisheries science is continually sense-checked against reality
• Constraints imposed by Covid and the temporary suspension of Russia from the advice process

Divergence in Stock Perception

In one of the most significant developments for the fishing industry, effort will now go into establishing a mechanism within the ICES system to deal with those circumstances where there is a radical divergence between the industry and scientists on the fortunes of a particular stock. Experience has shown that whilst science generally provides a reliable understanding of biomass and fishing trends, occasionally things can go wrong. Important input data can be missed, developments in the fishery misunderstood, assessment models and their assumptions can be flawed. Likewise, different perceptions can arise from an incomplete understanding of what is going on – from either side. Counting the number of fish in the sea was never a straightforward task.

Fishing vessel operators have a direct everyday experience of stock trends and developments and if that experience is seriously at odds with the outcomes of stock assessments, the issue requires investigation. A proposal will now be developed as a matter of priority to deal with such cases. In the recent past retrospective adjustments have had to be made to correct the science. The assessment process is the best chance that we have for generating an objective and impartial understanding on which to base management and harvesting decisions – but it is not infallible.

The proposal to establish a new mechanism for dealing with circumstances where fishers’ experience suggests one thing and the science something else will be done at speed and will complement the periodic benchmark process. This initiative is a sign that ICES has confidence that it mainly gets things right. In those cases where there are radically different perceptions the issues will now be addressed directly. Western mackerel recently provided an example where there was such a divergence. In that case a retrospective adjustment to the science was required. North Sea cod is currently another stock that merits deeper analysis – with suggestions that the assessment model may not be fit for purpose. In the case of North Sea cod, ICES has already agreed to a meeting of fisheries scientists, fisheries managers and fishers later this year initially proposed by the industry. That meeting will take a root and branch look at the science of North Sea cod, including data inputs, models and management.

The MIACO meeting, and this particular initiative, underline how far the ICES system has evolved from the days when it was a black box into which only a few elite scientists were allowed to peer and from which smoke emerged at the end of each year. There are now multiple opportunities for fisheries stakeholders to observe and participate in the assessment process. This latest development is a further step in delivering a system of robust, authoritative, impartial system of stock assessments and advice that is open to internal and external criticism and comment.

Displacement

The MIACO meeting also provided insight into ICES work on the increased spatial pressures on fisheries, particularly those arising from the accelerated expansion of offshore wind and displacement effects from marine protected areas. ICES made clear that it had made extensive preparations to provide advice in this sphere – and has already provided some advice on spatial pressures. ICES largely works in response to specific requests for advice. The potential for fisheries displacement and how that this could be mitigated, rather inexplicably, have not been the subject of requests to ICES. The member countries of ICES are those who generally make those requests. Given the apparent inertia within both the UK and EU to even begin to address the consequences of displacement, this gap is hard to comprehend.

The absence of a coherent joined-up approach to understanding the consequences of fisheries displacement arising from policy decisions on environmental protection and offshore wind is a glaring omission of political will and direction. If the ICES system is set up to address the issues but no requests are forthcoming, something is far wrong.

Ecosystem Based Management

In a world where everything is connected, the need for management approaches to take into account the wider ecosystem has become more apparent by the year, especially against the background of climate change. The challenge of how to implement an ecosystem-based approach formed part of the MIACO discussions. A non-exhaustive list of what is required included:

• Mediating the necessary trade-offs between say, offshore wind, MPAs, and fishing (businesses, communities, employment, food security)
• Understanding the consequences of management actions
• Breaking down silos in science and government
• Assessing the impact of climate change on species distribution and species mixes as part of mixed fishery advice
• Incorporating the social and economic dimensions
• Protecting existing balances or assisting the shift to new equilibriums (for example protection for forage as well as target species)
• Making uncertainties more visible
• Adapting ICES advice to take account of ecosystem-based management
• Incorporation of climate change into ICES advice

MIACO

 MIACO is an important annual event that provides for the two-way communication that is essential if scientists and stakeholders are to understand each other.

Source