• European Marine Science
• Other research productsclose
• Other ORP type close
• European Commission close
• European Marine Science close

The Resource Manager is a SOA based service in charge of managing gCube Scope contexts. The Resource Manager 2.0, by coordinating five distinguished services (Deployer, Software Gateway, Resource Broker, gCube Hosting Node Manager, Web Hosting Node Manager), realizes the VRE dynamic deployment by, respectively, collecting service implementations, selecting target nodes for deployment within the infrastructure, and hosting resources implementations at selected nodes. The primary role assigned to this service is to collects and manage all the resources and service implementations related to a specific Virtual Organization.

This Policy Brief provides an overview of the current status, initial experiences, barriers, and opportunities with regard to applying the LO in mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, North Western Waters and South Western Waters, the Mediterranean and the Azores. This area covers the all DiscardLess case studies, including the North Sea/West of Scotland, Celtic Sea, Eastern Channel & Bay of Biscay, the western and eastern Mediterranean, and the Azores. In quota managed fisheries, Mixed demersal fisheries provide the biggest challenge for implementation of the LO due to the difficulty of matching quotas with catches for multiple species which are caught simultaneously but in varying proportions. The policy brief reviews where we are with the LO now and what the main issues are. The main orientation of the policy brief is forward looking: what do stakeholders and researchers consider as the main approaches are to deal with the issues in each region until the next CFP reform? To conclude, we take a longer perspective, providing suggestions for how to implement a workable discard policy with the next reform of the CFP. The Policy Brief is written for policy makers, the fishing industry, NGO’s and citizens with an interest in fisheries management and is based on policy documents, stakeholder interviews, meetings and literature. Box 1: Report Highlights Implementation of the LO is occurring across all DiscardLess case studies with measures such as trials of selective gears, provision of information on implementation requirements and the use of exemptions among the aspects most evident. There is very little evidence to date of changes in discard rates or fishing practices although that is not confirmation that these are not occurring but reflects a lack of data to draw such conclusions at present. Recording of discards under exemptions and unwanted catches remains lower than expected although there is evidence of some increase in these practices in early 2019. It is difficult to assess whether changes in fishing practices to promote selectivity and avoid discards are taking place. Given some delays in sanctioning and gradual uptake of new gears (e.g. for trawlers catching Baltic Cod), recent changes to permitted gears (e.g. new mesh size and TCM requirements in the Celtic Sea) and the upcoming implementation of the new Technical Measures framework some improvements in selectivity and discard rates would be expected. The quality of discard data is not improving due to industry fears about the potential negative impact of providing discard data and subsequent decrease in observer coverage in some Member States. Stakeholders across all backgrounds have expressed concerns about the risks associated with potential rises in fishing mortality. Concerns about efficient and effective monitoring of the LO are increasingly being channeled into calls for electronic monitoring across all fleets or on a risk assessment basis. These calls are particularly strong in some MS such as Denmark. A move towards a Results Based Management approach involving electronic monitoring is being advocated with some industry stakeholders specifying that it would require changes to the LO in order for it to gain industry support. Despite a general negative attitude towards the LO among fishers contributions to the final DiscardLess conference in January 2019 including from fishers outlined both positives, such as the incentivising of change, as well as implementation barriers. These are described in greater detail in Section 8.2 below. Box 2: The methods/approaches followed Interviews with a broad range of stakeholders from Commission level, through national administrators, industry and NGO representatives and individual fishermen. Participation in relevant national, regional and EU meetings. Analysis of relevant policy statements, regulatory documents and academic literature. Box 3: How these results can be used and by who? The policy brief on guidelines for the implementation of the discard policy in European regions is of interest to stakeholders at all levels in EU fisheries as the question of what is actually happening with the LO in other fisheries and regions is asked regularly. Box 4: Policy Recommendations Data shortfalls make it difficult to make a reliable assessment of the extent of LO implementation and it’s impact. Improvements in the following areas of data provision would greatly assist with this assessment process. Recording of discards and unwanted catches at vessel level is poor across all case studies and has been identified by STECF as the most significant problem with monitoring LO implementation. MS will have to develop stronger accounting measures based on last haul analysis if this trend continues. As part of annual reporting on LO implementation MS should provide data not just on selectivity trials undertaken but also on the uptake rates for the use of such gears beyond trial situations. This would allow assessments of changes in selectivity patterns within fisheries to be made. The uptake rates of selective gears could be potentially accelerated by incentivising their use with additional quota. Negative industry attitudes towards the LO across all case studies point to the necessity to find workable discard reduction plans at regional level. The evolving regionalisation process which now incorporates technical measures, multi-annual plans, discard plans and in some cases bycatch reduction plans may provide the necessary framework to overcome industry fears particularly regarding choke closures. Reduced uncertainty regarding the use of measures such as inter-species flexibility and it’s effect on relative stability would assist with mitigating potential chokes. The need for effective monitoring and control of the LO is clear. Calls for the use of electronic monitoring as the solution will also require some degree of industry acceptance in order for this to be viable. Implementing an electronic monitoring approach either on a risk basis or as part of a wider results-based management approach could make this a more feasible option.

The Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004 set out 12 principles to underpin implementation of the ecosystem approach that can be broadly grouped into four categories: People - The care of nature is a shared responsibility for all of society; we most value all knowledge and perspectives; we most involve more of society in decisions. Scale and Dynamics - Work at the right geographic scale and timescale; look well ahead into the future; work with inevitable environmental change. Functions and services - Maintain the flow of ecosystem services; work within the capacity of natural systems; balance the demand for use and conservation of the environment. Management - Allow decisions to be led locally, as far as practicable; assess the effects of decisions on others; consider economic factors. Fifteen years later the integration of ecosystem services and natural capital into environmental assessment is still very much in its infancy. Despite their seemingly remote nature, deep sea benthic habitats generate ecosystem services which provide benefits to society. Examples of these ecosystem services include provisioning ecosystem services such as fisheries, regulating ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling and maintenance of biodiversity and cultural ecosystems such as existence value. This report examines the assessment, mapping and valuation of ecosystem services in the marine and specifically for deep sea benthic habitats in the ATLAS case studies. For the provisioning ecosystem service of fisheries, a comparison is made between qualitative and quantitative approaches in methods of measuring and mapping ecosystem services generated from benthic habitats. In addition, this report has collated maps assessing the risk of fisheries impact - the most widespread and impacting human activity in the North Atlantic – in areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems and fish habitat are likely to occur in each ATLAS case study. This work presented as an atlas will provide a foundation to underpin subsequent testing of blue growth scenarios in each of the case studies.

Eurodoc Newsletter Issue #21

A tool for multidimensional variational analysis (divand) is presented. It allows the interpolation and analysis of observations on curvilinear orthogonal grids in an arbitrary high dimensional space by minimizing a cost function. This cost function penalizes the deviation from the observations, the deviation from a first guess and abruptly varying fields based on a given correlation length (potentially varying in space and time). Additional constraints can be added to this cost function such as an advection constraint which forces the analysed field to align with the ocean current. The method decouples naturally disconnected areas based on topography and topology. This is useful in oceanography where disconnected water masses often have different physical properties. Individual elements of the a priori and a posteriori error covariance matrix can also be computed, in particular expected error variances of the analysis. A multidimensional approach (as opposed to stacking 2-dimensional analysis) has the benefit of providing a smooth analysis in all dimensions, although the computational cost is increased. Primal (problem solved in the grid space) and dual formulations (problem solved in the observational space) are implemented using either direct solvers (based on Cholesky factorization) or iterative solvers (conjugate gradient method). In most applications the primal formulation with the direct solver is the fastest, especially if an a posteriori error estimate is needed. However, for correlated observation errors the dual formulation with an iterative solver is more efficient. The method is tested by using pseudo observations from a global model. The distribution of the observations is based on the position of the ARGO floats. The benefit of the 3-dimensional analysis (longitude, latitude and time) compared to 2-dimensional analysis (longitude and latitude) and the role of the advection constraint are highlighted. The tool divand is free software, and is distributed under the terms of the GPL license (http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/mediawiki/index.php/divand). PREDANTAR, EMODNET Chemistry 2, SeaDataNet II

This deliverable presents the results of the bio-economic modelling assessments carried out under tasks 2.3 and 2.4. Task 2.3 covered the choice and initial parametrisation of relevant bio-economic models for the included case studies, and formulation of scenarios to be analysed. Models were chosen on the basis that they were already operational (i.e. had been used in other applications previously to Discardless) and as such thoroughly tested and documented in peer-reviewed journals, to secure a high scientific standard of the models and the expected assessment results. The selected scenarios firstly included, for all considered case studies, two benchmark scenarios; (i) ‘Business as usual‘, i.e. how the economic outcome of the fishery would evolve if the Landing Obligation (LO) was not implemented, and (ii) ‘Full implementation‘, i.e. what the predicted economic consequences for the fishery will be given a full implementation of the LO with no exemptions or mitigation measures implemented. Secondly a number of relevant scenarios were defined for each case study based on either expectations on or direct knowledge about how the LO, and possible exemptions and mitigation strategies will be implemented in the specific case study. And finally, each case study has assessed and applied outputs from Work Packages (WPs) 3-7, to the extend possible given the bio-economic model in use. Task 2.4 has firstly throughout the project updated the parametrisation of the chosen bio-economic models given the newest knowledge about the fisheries in question. Secondly task 2.4 has covered the running of the models, given the scenarios identified in task 2.3, and documentation of the resulting outputs. The following case studies have been analysed (parenthesis displaying the bio-economic model used): The Danish North Sea Demersal fishery (Fishrent) The UK mixed demersal fisheries in the North Sea, West of Scotland and Area 7 (SEAFISH model) The French mixed demersal fishery in the Eastern English Channel (ISIS-Fish) The Spanish mixed demersal fishery in the Bay of Biscay (FLBeia) The Icelandic mixed demersal fishery (Model for various use of unwanted catches) The Spanish demersal fishery in the Western Mediterranean (MEFISTO) The Greek demersal and small-scale fishery in the Thermaikos gulf (MEFISTO) The outcomes of the simulations are mixed and indicate that the economic effects of the LO for affected fishing fleets depends on both the fishery in question, on the management system on which the LO is superimposed, and on applied exemptions and mitigation strategies. A full implementation of the LO with no quota-uplifts and no exemptions or mitigation strategies applied will in the long run lead to on the average (average over all fleet segments considered in a given case study) reduced or at best similar economic outcomes, compared to the situation with no LO, for the considered fisheries. Application of mitigation strategies and exemptions improves this result for most considered cases, but has in few cases been predicted to make the economic situation worse given redistributional effects, i.e. that the applied mitigation strategy or exemption will have further consequences for the stocks and other fleets, and thus indirectly make the economic situation worse for the considered fleet. When individual fleet segments are considered the picture becomes even more complex as it is in most case studies predicted that some fleet segments will profit while others will loose out given the LO, both without and with added exemptions and/or mitigation strategies. Thus, in all it is concluded that the economic effects of the LO for affected fisheries are, according to model predictions, very varied, going from losses to actual gains. And that the effects to a high degree depends on (i) the management system on which the LO is superimposed, and (ii) on which and how exemptions and mitigation strategies are implemented. Finally, it must be emphasized that the work performed in tasks 2.3 and 2.4 has built up a valuable model library that can be used for ongoing assessments of the economic outcomes of introducing exemptions and mitigation strategies in relation to the LO in the case studies covered. Understanding the consequences of various approaches to the implementation of the LO, and possible mitigation strategies, on economic performance of affected fishing fleets (using these models) is of broad interest for fishers, policy makers and stakeholders, as well as for anybody interested in sustainable fisheries and life in the oceans. The Deliverable report consists of two sections. Section 1 presents a synthesis of the work performed in the seven case studies, and as such gives a short introduction to each case study, to the applied models, to the scenarios analysed and a final synthesis and discussion of the results. Section 2 includes individual case study chapters, that present in-depth information about the case study, the applied model, the reasoning behind the chosen scenarios, discussion on interaction with WP3-7, and detailed outline and discussion of the assessment results. Box 1: Highlights from the bio-economic model assessments The in-depth analysis of the effects of the landing obligation on the economy of the case study fishing fleets has been conducted in the project using complex bio-economic models. The results of these simulations indicate: In Denmark, the ITQ management system applied is predicted to mitigate the economic effects of the LO in the long run and use of exemptions and improved selectivity may reduce possible economic losses further. In UK, the LO will mean losses in revenue due to choke in the medium long run after full implementation of the policy in 2019. However, application of various mitigation strategies, including quota adjustments, catch allowances for zero TAC stocks, TAC deletions, vessel movements between metiers, quota swaps (both nationally and internationally) and selectivity measures, all to some degree mitigate these negative economic consequences. In West Mediterranean, a full implementation of the LO will lead to reduced profitability, but other measures such as reduced fishing mortality and improved selectivity, may lead to increased profitability in the long term due to increased SSB and Yield. In E. Mediterranean, a full implementation of the LO and partial implementations with reduced fishing mortality will lead to slightly reduced profitability, but improved selectivity may lead to increased SSB that will in turn increase catches and profitability in the long term. In Bay of Biscay, the Basque trawler fleet is better off with a fully implemented LO than without in terms of Gross value added (remuneration of labour and capital), as long-term gains outweigh short term losses. Inter-species year-to year flexibility and de minimis reduces this result and makes the fishery worse off than without the LO. On the other hand, application of improved selectivity makes the fishery significantly better off than without the LO. In the Eastern English Channel ISIS-Fish runs suggest that full implementation of the LO induces a slight increase in long-run gross revenues at about 2.5% relative to the no-LO case. Introducing de minimis increases this to about 12.5% relative to the no-LO case. However, fleet opportunism, i.e. how flexible the fishers are in their choice of metiers, may affect these results both negatively (low flexibility) and positively (high flexibility). Closures of fishing grounds to protect whiting and sole has a negative effect for the economic outcome but allows delaying TAC exhaustion. For Iceland the model works opposite to the other models in the WP2 modelling, as the baseline is a fishery under LO. This case is used to contrast the results of the other case studies and reflect the possible value of landing UUC. It is found that the combined yearly value of products produced from these UUC is around 12.5 M Euros. Box 2: The Methods/Approaches followed Existing numerical bio-economic models have been applied with focus on assessment of the effects of the LO on the economic performance of European fishing fleets affected by the LO, and to test the economic effects of possible discard mitigation strategies. Analysed scenarios have been designed based on the problems faced, given the LO, by the specific case study and the management system on which the LO is superimposed. These problems may differ depending on whether the case study fishery is managed primarily through quotas or through Minimum Conservation Reference Size (MCRS) regulation. Analysed scenarios have been designed based on current knowledge on how the LO will be implemented and on mitigation strategies expected to be introduced in the given case study. Interaction with Discardless Work Packages 3-7 and implementation of results from these have been performed where possible in the different case study models. Box 3: How these results can be used and by whom Understanding the consequences of various approaches to the implementation of the LO, and possible mitigation strategies, on economic performance of affected fishing fleets (using bio-economic models) is of very broad interest for fishermen, policy makers and stakeholders, as well as for anybody interested in sustainable fisheries and life in the oceans.

The gCube social networking facilities manifest in a number of applications made available through a thin Web browser are conceptually close to the common facilities promoted by social networks - e.g., posting news, commenting on posted news - yet adapted to deal with large scale collaboration and cooperation on comprehensive scientific products, data sets, theories and tools. Social Profile allow users to enter their professional data and contact information. It also allows to import the profile data directly from LinkedIn via the OAuth 2.0 protocol.

IRMNG SPD plugin is a plugin of the Species Products Discovery service that interacts with IRMNG, the Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera, through the Darwin Core Archive format. The data exchange format for publishing checklist data based on Darwin Core (DwC), a standard for biodiversity data.

The Species Discovery Service support species queries based on the SPQL language. This library offers a parser for the SPQL language.