Report Open Access

Identification of standard ecosystem evaluation criteria for the assessment of the Discard Mitigation Strategies

Morato, Telmo; Savina, Marie

Editor(s)
Ulrich, Clara
Researcher(s)
Lehuta, Sigrid; Travers, Morgane; Pham, Christopher K.; Taranto, Gerald H.; Andonegi, Eider; Heath, Mike

Executive Summary

Standard criteria and indicators to assess the most relevant effects of discards on MSFD descriptors are required to ensure that the evaluation of the Discard Mitigation Strategies suggested in DiscardLess focuses on aspects relevant to the Good Environmental Status. The descriptors considered in DiscardLess to evaluate whether the Discard Mitigation Strategies promote GES are: the descriptors D1 (biodiversity), D3 (commercial fish and shellfish), D4 (food web), D5 (eutrophication) and D6 (sea-floor integrity).

DiscardLess uses a selection of the simulation models developed with Ecopath with Ecosim, OSMOSE, Atlantis, ISIS-Fish, and StrathE2E to assess the outcomes of scenarios in different case studies based on standard criteria. In D1.2, DiscardLess defined the criteria and indicators to be used in determining the effects of discards on marine ecosystems. Indicators were defined for the following criteria: population abundance or biomass (D1), population demographic characteristics (D1), composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components (D1), fishing mortality (D3), spawning stock biomass (D3), proportion of fish larger than the mean size of maturity (D3), performance of key predator species using their production per unit biomass (D4), proportion of large fish (D4), abundance trends of functionally groups or species (D4), nutrients concentration in the water column (D5), chlorophyll concentration in the water column (D5), dissolved oxygen changes and size of the area concerned (D5), and bottom trawling effort maps (D6). Discard Mitigation Strategies will be translated into scenarios and assessed by using projections. Resulting time series of criteria will be compared across strategies and to the baseline scenarios.

This is DiscardLess Project Delliverable Report 1.2 towards Strategies for the gradual elimination of discards in European fisheries.
  • Borja, A., M. Elliott, J.H. Andersen, A.C. Cardoso, J. Carstensen, J.G. Ferreira, A.-S. Heiskanen, J.C. Marques, J.M. Neto, H. Teixeira, L. Uusitalo, M.C. Uyarra, N. Zampoukas. 2013. Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: What is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Marine Pollution Bulletin 76: 16–27
  • Cardoso, A.C., S. Cochrane, H. Doerner, J.G. Ferreira, F. Galgani, C. Hagebro, G. Hanke, N. Hoepffner, P.D. Keizer, R. Law, S. Olenin, G.J. Piet, J. Rice, S.I. Rogers, F. Swartenbroux, M.L. Tasker, W. van de Bund. 2010. Scientific Support to the European Commission on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Management Group Report. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Luxembourg, 57 pp
  • Christensen, V., C.J. Walters. 2004. Ecopath with Ecosim: methods, capabilities and limitations. Ecological Modelling, 172: 109-139.
  • Christensen, V., D. Pauly. 1992. ECOPATH II – a software for balancing steady-stage models and calculating network characteristics. Ecological Modelling 61: 169–185.
  • EC JRC, 2015. Review of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU concerning MSFD criteria for assessing good environmental status. Descriptor 1
  • European Commission, 2010. Commission decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. Official Journal of the European Union L 232/14, 2.9.2010
  • Farriols, M.T., F. Ordines, M. Hidalgo, B. Guijarro, E. Massutí. 2015. N90index: A new approach to biodiversity based on similarity andsensitive to direct and indirect fishing impact. Ecological Indicators 52: 245-255
  • Forrest R.E., M. Savina, E.A. Fulton, T.J. Pitcher. 2015. Do marine ecosystem models give consistent policy evaluations? A comparison of Atlantis and Ecosim. Fisheries Research 167: 296-312
  • Fulton E.A., A.D.M. Smith, D.C. Smith, P. Johnson. 2014. An integrated approach is needed for ecosystem based fisheries management: insights from ecosystem-level management strategy evaluation. PLoS ONE 9: e84242
  • Fulton, E.A. 2010. Approaches to end to end ecosystem models. Journal of Marine Systems 81: 171–183
  • Girardin R. 2015. Ecosystem and fisher's behaviour modelling: two crucial and interacting approaches to support Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management in the Eastern English Channel. PhD thesis, Université de Lille 1.
  • Heath, M.R. 2012. Ecosystem limits to food web fluxes and fisheries yields in the North Sea simulated with an end-to-end food web model. Progress in Oceanography 102: 42–66.
  • Heath, M.R., R.M. Cook, A.I. Cameron, D.J. Morris, D.C. Speirs. 2014. Cascading ecological effects of eliminating fishery discards. Nature Communications 5, 3893.
37
7
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 3737
Downloads 77
Data volume 5.8 MB5.8 MB
Unique views 3737
Unique downloads 77

Share

Cite as