1. WP5: Reference points and harvest control rules Richard Hillary and Polina Levontin, Imperial College London, Division of Biology

2. Deliverables D5.1: Global review of ref. points/HCRs used for deep-water species D5.2: Strengths/weaknesses of current ref. points/HCRs as applied to case-study stocks D5.3: Report on suitable ref. points/HCRs for EU-related deep water fisheries – present and future

3. Interaction with other WPs WP2 – certain review deliverables should provide background/motivation for some of WP5 WP3 – Bioeconomic ref. pts./HCRs WP4 – clearest linkage: “follows” much of WP4 work (SW analysis, ref. pt./HCR development)‏ WP7 – Clear link from WP4/5 but also from WP7 to WP5 – MSE informs candidate HCRs

4. Review: D5.1 Brief review complementary to those in WP2/4 Aim to identify EU applicable/”successful” bio(economic) reference points from wider field

5. Case study RPs/HCRs: D5.2 Identification of appropriate indicators/RPs/HCRs for case study stocks Also identify potential MPs (given objectives) to be tested in WP7 Problems with current (if relevant) RPs/HCRs will be identified

6. Designing HCRs for CS: D5.3 Strong linkage with WP4 work – clear that relevant RP/HCR for CS conditional on relevant assessment method/outputs/uncertainty Feedback with WP7 – candidate HCRs from WP5 but MSE process can inform HCR construction/selection...

7. Reference points Biological/bioeconomic values from which we can measure stock status/targets/objectives Data hungry: MSY paradigm, “absolute” targets (F/biomass limit/reference points)‏ Data diet-friendly: abundance depletion (current to unfished/”good” conditions), indicator-based RPs derived directly from observations

8. Harvest Control Rules (I) Automatic changes to exploitation level/pattern given stock status relative to RPs (II) Agreed exploitation level – status quo or agreed changes in fishing pressure/pattern at agreed rate until target is reached Future harvest “actions” given RPs, indicators, auxiliary information and historic harvest “actions”

9. Utility of RPs/HCRs Achieve management objectives specified Use agreed (and tested) MPs to reduce conflict and delays in action Increase transparency in management process

10. Uncertainty and precautionary approach From WP4 selection of assessment methods will incorporate uncertainty in stock dynamics Preferable to have “probabilistic” RPs HCRs designed according to prec. appr. as a rule require “probabilistic” information on both stock status and reference points

11. Requirements for RP/HCR/MP design Clear and specific management objectives: time horizons, constraints, targets, some quantification of risk of key events Reference points/assessment models that are estimable from the data available now and in the future

12. Ecosystem approach Probably the most challenging aspect of designing RPs/HCRs Likely to be qualitative/semi-quantitative given data and trophic dependence/spatial understanding “Simple” multi-species ideas possible Data poor: composite indices of fishery impact