1. Generic Management Plans Use of the EFIMAS toolbox in their evaluation John Casey, Chair STECF

2. Generic management plans EC obligation to undertake impact assessment of management plans before implementation. 2006 and 2007. Publication of a policy statement on TAC setting for stocks not subject to management plans 2007 – 2 meetings (STECF) to evaluate likely outcome and risk of proposed rules in the Commission's Communication COM(2006) 499.

3. Generic management plans Three sets of rules depending on whether stocks currently considered to be “well managed”, “depleted” or “outside safe biological limits”. Rules basically HCRs to derive a TAC conditional on stock status and with a (+-15%) constraint in annual TAC variation – details not important for purposes of this talk. Group used FLR framework to investigate. Aim – not to use specific stocks but to investigate generic stocks with different life history traits i.e. early maturing, e.g. herring-like and later maturing, e.g. cod- like stocks.

4. Generic Management Plans Request to examine the TAC-setting rules and advise on the likely long-term (ca. 10-year) consequences, and associated risks for the stocks and the fisheries, in terms of: (a) The future development of spawning biomass, and associated risks of transgressing biological reference points. (b) The future development of yield, and associated risks.

5. General results Results illustrate the potential effects of implementing the Commission’s harvest rule proposals for a range of fish stocks with different life history strategies, different stock status and different exploitation rates. Results extremely informative and have important implications for management.

6. Results For well-managed stocks and stocks which are depleted but not over-fished, the HCR performs acceptably well and either maintains stocks or leads to rebuilding in the mid-term (10-18 years). For stocks which are depleted and overfished, some rebuilding occurs, but catches never achieve their targets and can even decrease

7. Results For short-lived, relatively low productivity stocks, the HCR can generate aberrant decisions leading to stock collapse and a major loss of catches. Can become stuck on relatively high fishing mortality rates that can harm the stocks. e.g. Fpa can act as a target rather than a limit and in cases of low productivity this can have catastrophic consequences.

8. Results TAC constraint: If circumstances lead to a fishery collapsing, with catches being reduced to very low levels, the 15% TAC constraint is likely to lead to slow recovery of the fishery, even after the stock has recovered. Under some circumstance, such a constraint could lead to stock rebuilding exceeding the target level (e.g. B msy ) and to a loss of catching opportunities.

9. Conclusion The results indicate that the harvest rules are likely to have different effects on different stocks and fisheries, and are unlikely to achieve their desired objectives for all stocks and should be revised. What appear to be logical and acceptable rules for TAC setting, may lead to perverse consequences.

10. Conclusions On the basis of the outcome of the 2007 meetings, the EC has produced a new set of proposals which are due to be evaluated under the auspices of STECF in June this year. As a scientific “customer” of FLR, I conclude that the flexibility of the FLR framework makes it potentially very useful for investigating a range of different fisheries management issues and is likely to continue to play an increasing and important role in management plan evaluation and impact assessments.

11. STECF WORKING GROUP ON EVALUATION OF "POLICY STATEMENT" HARVEST RULES. The European Commission asked the STECF to evaluate HCRs for setting TACs based on ICES stock assessments and forecasts. An main objective of was is to provide stability (i.e. 15% TAC rule) for the industry but the HCRs also had to be evaluate with respect to associated risks for the stocks and the fisheries, in terms of the future development of “spawning biomass, and associated risks of transgressing biological reference points.” “yield, and associated risks” The SG was requested to conduct Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) using an Operating Model/Management Procedure approach Generic Management Plans Set target F 1) Set target F F y =max(F sq,F 0.1 ) Check F limit 2) Check F limit if F y > Fpa then set F y = F p and stimate TAC y Check SSB limit 3) Check SSB limit if SSB y+1 <B pa then re-estimate TAC y so that SSB y+1 = B pa Check catch stability 3) Check catch stability if TAC y ≤ (1- α)TAC y -1 then TAC y = (1- α)TAC y-1 else if TAC y ≥ (1+ α)TAC y-1 then TAC y = (1+ α)TAC y-1 Check for stock collapse and implement recovery plan 4) Check for stock collapse and implement recovery plan If SSB y < B pa and SSB y+1 <= SSB y then re-estimate TAC y so SSB y+1 = SSB y If impossibleclose fishery 5) If impossible close fishery if SSBy+1 < SSBy even if F=0.0 then set F = 0.01. Check for rise in F 6) Check for rise in F if Fy > Fsq then set Fy = Fsq and re-estimate TACy

12. STECF Underline STECF underlines the need to include economic impact evaluations to the analyses. CFP legislation requires this, and economic information may help the stakeholders to find acceptable management options more easily. STECF aggress with SGMOS that a follow up meeting would be valuable but stresses that additional progress and the completion of the TORs is only likely to be achieved if adequate intersessional work is undertaken.