Scientific advice in support of the CFP Shaping the future of the CFP ALDE high level conference

1. Scientific advice in support of the CFP Shaping the future of the CFP ALDE high level conference Brussels 8 february 2011 Poul Degnbol Head of Advisory Programme ICES

2. An evidence based policy... All western jurisdictions have some legal requirement that fisheries policy decisions must be based on best available science The present CFP: 2. The Common Fisheries Policy shall be guided by the following principles of good governance: …. (b) a decision-making process based on sound scientific advice which delivers timely results; ….

3. Objectives - the basis for scientific advice Formal scientific advice to assist policy implementation is about what is required to achieve given objectives: If your objectives are these and the implementation instruments at your disposal are those, then these are the options for achieving them Objective setting is a policy issue Means to achieve objectives is a political choice between options which, based on best available science, are predicted to lead to fulfilment of objectives

4. New directions • Integrated approach to marine and maritime management • Increasing focus on marine ecosystem health • Within fisheries • from avoiding disaster • to provision of services (economic, social, ecological)

5. From PA (single stock) through MSY to an ecosystem approach Precautionary approach, single stock: - avoid to impair future productivity of stock, avoid stock collapse MSY limit: - rebuild and maintain stock at high productivity Ecosystem approach /precautionary approach regarding ecosystem impacts: - limits to biodiversity impacts (bycatches of sensitive species etc) - limits to impacts on ecosystem integrity (foodwebs etc) - limits to impacts on habitats (impacts on bottom habitats)

6. From PA (single stock) through MSY to an ecosystem approach Impact limit re ecosystem impacts / ecosystem PA MSY Impact limit Impact limit re Precautionary Approach, single stock

7. From PA (single stock) through MSY to an ecosystem approach Impact limit re ecosystem impacts / ecosystem PA Fisheries plans MSFD D1, 4, 6 Management plans MSFD D3 MSY Impact limit Recovery plans Impact limit re Precautionary Approach, single stock

8. Towards sustainable fisheries • Reduce / maintain fishing pressure to MSY as upper limit • Safeguard minimum populations by taking specific measures at low stock size • Incoporate specific measures regarding • Bycatches on noin-target populations • Habitat impacts • Biodiversity and food web impacts • Continuously asses and reconsider reference points in scientific advice and management plans as • Populations and ecosystems rebuild • Evidence for incoporating knowledge about evolutionary and ecological aspects of ecosystem rebuilding comes forward

9. State of stocks MSY Fishing pressure Stock size

10. State of demersal stocks Fishing pressure Stock size

11. State of pelagic stocks Fishing pressure Stock size

12. MSY advice w ecosystem considerations, present examples Foodweb considerations: for species low in foodweb: Escapement strategy to ensure food for predators (example – Barents Sea capelin to ensure food for Barents Sea cod) Fodweb considerations: natural mortalities based on foodweb models (example: natural mortalities for North Sea stocks derived from multispecies models) Biodiversity considerations: advice on low impacts on sensitive species (example: deep sea stocks) Habitat impact limitation: protect sensituive bottom habitats from impacts from bottom gear (example: advice on closure of areas with cold water corals)

13. Science advice to inform policy Based on best available science (data, expertise, peer review) Relevant to policy issues, operational Legitimate process: - Independent - Transparent - Inclusive – developed in dialogue with authorities and stakeholders

14. Best available data? Scientific advice can only be given if relevant data are available Limitation 1: red tape - Formally there is access to data collected through Data Collection Framework - Limitations are however pursued by some member states – making relevant advice impossible Limitation 2: ecosystem impacts data (nearly) missing in DCF Limitation 3: resources – but new methods and cooperation with sector is developing

15. Relevant and operational advice? Relevant and operational advice can only be given on basis of clear policy on - objectives - risk acceptance - trade off between conflicting objectives Present CFP gives limited guidance on the basis for advice Insufficient alignment between different policies (CFP, MSFD, habitats directive)

16. Inclusive and transparent process The RACs have made a great difference A forum for exchange of views The scientific advice is presented and dicussed RACs are involved in the advisory process – as observers and in cooperative data collection The culture in the scientific community has changed – the advisory bodies used by the EU have opened for observers and stakeholders are seen as valuable contributors and partners The culture in fisheries organisations is changing – engaging in dialogue and in the advisory process, cooperative data collection, taking a long term perspective, agreeing on the need for an evidence based policy

17. New advice delivery models Transparency Authority Vatican model Black box Non-transparent Appears to be based on divine revelation Socratic model Dialogue based Exploratory Based on transparent evidence and argument

18. Should following scientific advice be mandatory? - In a democracy objective setting is not a science task - Deciding on acceptable risk levels and the trade off between conflicting objectives is not a science task - Science can help exploring options, risks and trade-off but not make the choices - A mandatory requirement to follow scientific advice requires that there is clear policy guidance on objectives, risk acceptance and trade off choices - Management plans may provide such guidance - But beware of pressure to politisize scientific advice

19. The science basis in a future CFP Integrated advice to be guided by clear objectives and choices regarding risk acceptance and trade off • - Fisheries management plans integrating ecosystem impacts as per MSFD, habitats directive etc Informed by best available science - best available expertise, peer review, independent and transparent process Based on adequate unbiased data – access to data including ecosystem impacts Developed and delivered in an interactyive, inclusive process with authorities and stakeholders