Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byGeert van de Brink Modified over 6 years ago
1
Marine Strategy Framework Directive Descriptor 3 Case studies
Report at
2
Approach taken: Theoretical concepts, criteria, methodologies for:
Selection of commercial species Stocks with analytical assessments Species/stocks with info from monitoring programmes Case Studies: Bay of Biscay/Iberia Baltic Sea North Sea Celtic Seas Mediterranean Synthesis: Different interpretations of GES Assessment of current status against GES
3
Baltic Sea Finland
4
Baltic Sea ICES (sub-)divisions HELCOM sub-basins
5
Need for collaboration: Stocks outside international cooperation but distributed across two or more national fishing zones
6
Selection of commercial fish dependent on period chosen
8
Mediterranean Sea Italy
9
Match GFCM - MSFD Match GFCM – MSFD areas in Italian waters
Western Mediterranean: GSA 9 (Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Sea), GSA 10 (South Tyrrhenian Sea), GSA 11 (Sardinia); Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean: GSA 16 (South of Sicily), GSA 19 (Western Ionian Sea); Adriatic Sea: GSA 17 (Northern Adriatic), GSA 18 (Southern Adriatic Sea). Match GFCM – MSFD areas in Italian waters
10
Species selection: Central Mediterranean
11
Status assessed stocks in Italian waters
12
% species covered per MSFD sub-region
13
% landings covered per MSFD sub-region
14
Bay of Biscay Spain
15
Spanish MSFD subdivisions
16
Spanish North-Atlantic subdivision
Match to ICES divisions: Entire ICES Division VIIIc part of ICES Divisions VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, IXa and IXb.
17
Species selection criteria
Landings ≥ 1%. Regularly assessed by ICES: these species are, or have been, commercially important, either because of high catch levels or due to their socio-economic value. “New ICES species”: species for which ICES gave advice for the first time in 2011 and for which there is a higher chance that assessments may be developed in the not too distant future. WFD: species that were selected for this area under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). This introduces coherence with related European legislation.
18
Assessment of GES at the stock level
19
Status assessment relative to GES
20
North Sea Netherlands
21
Species selection: effect threshold
22
Data Quality: Species with analytical assessments
23
Assessment current status against GES
Criteria 3.1 (F and HR) and 3.2 (SSB and CPUE) Example: North Sea
24
Quality assurance
25
Celtic Sea Ireland
26
Celtic Sea and West of Scotland ICES ecoregion MSFD Celtic Seas subregion
27
Data quality % Species % Landings A: Full analytical assessment
TR: Analytical assessments but qualitative evaluation only T: Analytical assessment providing F and SSB without reference levels S: Assessments based on abundance or biomass trends from monitoring programs N: Stocks/species that are not assessed or with no information % Species % Landings
28
GES assessment
29
Time series of F and SSB averaged per functional group in relation to MSY reference levels
30
Summary/Conclusions Considerable differences between case studies in terms of data quality (specifically in terms of availability of analytical stock assessments) Quality of the analytical assessments varied considerably within as well as between case studies Several methods were developed/applied for non-assessed stocks. These were not evaluated but generally were less strict than for stocks with reference levels In case of one out - all out aggregation rule, i.e. assessment by worst case, none of the case studies currently achieved GES. Independent of GES interpretation.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.