Summary

Project ID: 265401
Funded under: FP7-KBBE
Country: Iceland

Final Report Summary – ECOFISHMAN (Ecosystem-based Responsive Fisheries Management in Europe)

Executive Summary:
The EcoFishMan project has devised a new „Responsive Fisheries Management System“ (RFMS) in collaboration with key stakeholders in European fisheries. The vision of the EcoFishMan project is to contribute to a fundamentally new approach to fisheries management in Europe that can be accepted by stakeholders, governments, authorities, and industries alike, and thus have a significant impact on the future of fisheries policy.RFMS is based on Results Based Management (RBM) principles and outlines a process for transferring responsibility for fisheries management to the fishermen (resource users), provided that they document and achieve specified management objectives. Ecological, economic and social aspects are taken into account, as well as ways to improve cooperation and mutual understanding between policy makers and stakeholders to facilitate its implementation. Stakeholder‘s involvement is strengthened by taking into account their knowledge and requirements.The RFMS is implemented in stages and customised for each fishery. EcoFishMan assessed the feasibility of different policy options as a first step to recommend alternatives for each fishery. Stakeholders confirmed their interest in using RFMS as a process for involving the industry in management and data-collection, and recommended that this should be initiated in suitable pilots cases in Europe. It also provides a template for drafting discard mitigation plans as part of the current reforms of the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).Potential exploitation of the results are foreseen in real-life application of the RFMS and some candidate fisheries have already been identified within EcoFishMan for the implementation of the RFMS, such as the Clyde herring fishery West of Scotland, Faroese saithe fishery, Icelandic lumpsucker fishery, Celtic Sea herring fishery, North Sea Nephrops fishery and the Octopus fishery in Algarve Portugal.The current problems of the CFP make delivering of changes very difficult for industry and stakeholder groups. Problems such as the weakness of policy objectives and the short-sighted and often reactive decision making system, can now be tackled with this new RFMS approach to fisheries.The new system gives fishers more responsibility for managing and reporting their own activities. The responsibility for detailed allocation and control of individual quotas and compliance is moved away from centralised government towards the fishermen. This will ensure a higher degree of local ownership of the fish and of the data, and the transparency, both of decisions and transgressions will increase.

Project Context and Objectives:
The EcoFishMan project developed a responsive fisheries management system (RFMS) based on results-based management (RBM) principles. The intended context of application of the RFMS is complex, mixed-fisheries and multi-stakeholder fishery sectors like those found in the EU/Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) area.
European fisheries are in a miserable state. In the Green Paper on the reform of the fisheries policy, the EU Commission characterizes the situation in the sector in terms of overfishing, fleet overcapacity, heavy subsidies, low economic resilience and decline in the volume of fish caught. Other problems, such as discards and social problems connected to regional development are also well known.
The EcoFishMan concept is based on the notion that major problems in fisheries, particularly within complex fisheries like those in Europe, are linked to the shortcomings of the particular form of management developed within the sector. These shortcomings are typically characterized by administrative micro-management procedures. An important avenue towards more healthy fisheries can be found in a transition towards a RBM system. RBM systems are generic and flexible, but they must be specifically tailored to fit the technical, economic and political structures of the relevant sector. The general objective of EcoFishMan was to develop and pre-evaluate a responsive fisheries management system (RFMS) based on RBM principles. In this new RFMS, active stakeholder involvement is essential. The development and evaluation of the RFMS took place in an iterative process to ensure that the RFMS is adapted to different types of fisheries and changes in the environment. Each iteration of the developmental work was based on a three-step-process:
1. Design of the basic components of the RFMS (conceptualisation)
2. Develop general guidelines for making a management plan (MP)
3. Develop a management plan (MP) for the specific ecosystem

Through four case studies (three fully fledged case studies used for developing the RFMS and one approval test case study used to verify that the RFMS can be adapted to other types of fisheries), the RFMS was adapted to the respective fisheries, and the effect of the RFMS will be evaluated. A final recommendation for an overall RFMS to be applied in all EU waters is the main outcome of the project. We hope and see the opportunity to contribute to a fundamentally new approach to fisheries management in Europe.
The EcoFishMan project was aimed at developing a management approach that will contribute to solving the problems inherent in the current EU fisheries management system. It does so by addressing some of the structural problems of the CFP as pointed out in the Green Paper. These are: the weakness of policy objectives, the short-sighted decision making system and the absence of responsibility for industry and stakeholder groups. This does not mean that the two remaining problems with the CFP (fleet overcapacity, low degree of compliance) will remain unaffected by the model proposed. In the RFMS, fishers are given more responsibility for managing and reporting their own activities, and the responsibility for detailed allocation and control of individual quotas and compliance will be moved to a lower level. This will ensure a higher degree of local ownership to the fish and to the data, and the transparency, both of decisions and of transgressions, will increase. Nevertheless, the focus of this project was primarily on the system of decision making and the division of responsibilities among policy makers, managers, industry and other stakeholders.

EcoFishMan explored how results-based management (RBM) can be developed for the fisheries sector in such a way that it will contribute to solve the problems of the CFP. RBM involves the division of responsibilities between a central authority (a principal) and a regional body (an agent). The principal defines outcome targets, relevant indicators and specifications of a MP. In order to achieve the outcome targets, the agent develops and implements a detailed MP in accordance with the specifications. Instead of a system of top-down micro-management, in which the principal sets and enforces all rules, this system leaves the responsibility for the practical implementation in the hands of the agent. A part of the responsibility of the agent under the system is to provide information to the principal, so that it becomes possible to monitor performance and take corrective action. This information originates from the stakeholders, so that in reality the burden of proof is shifted from the authorities to the fishing industry, which enhances the commitment of the industry towards responsible, long-term management. This enhances cooperation and mutual understanding between scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders, for the benefit of all parties. Such a system addresses directly the key structural problems of the CFP as outlined above.

To sum up, the overall EcoFishMan aim was to develop a results-based management (RBM) system for EU fisheries. This is accomplished by defining outcome targets (top-down management) and then leaving it to those affected to identify and implement the means to meet these requirements (bottom-up management) and to document the effectiveness of those means through a reverse burden of proof.
A set of strategic objectives (SOs) were defined in order to put the mission of EcoFishMan into practice and to monitor the scientific and technological excellence of this project:
Strategic objectives (SOs) of EcoFishMan:
• SO1: Identify and evaluate existing results-based fisheries management (RBFM) systems
• SO2: Identify and evaluate a set of indicators for the outcome targets
• SO3: Specify and design the RFMS in conjunction with stakeholders
• SO4: Verify viability of the RFMS through simulated case studies
• SO5: Evaluate the RFMS and the associated costs and benefits
• SO6: Consult stakeholders regarding the RFMS and to produce a roadmap for implementation of recommendations of the RFMSIn EcoFishMan, the RFMS was designed to take into account the welfare of coastal communities, the marine environment and the interaction of fishing with other activities. The RFMS aimed at delegating the burden of proof related to the achievement of policy objectives to the industry, and the industry will have to assume greater responsibility for its own activities. The vision of the EcoFishMan project was to contribute to a fundamentally new approach to fisheries management in Europe that will find acceptance among stakeholders within governance, industry and consumers, and thus have a significant impact on the future common fishery policy. The mission of the project was to analyse and draw on experiences with results-based resource management systems and propose a feasible implementation of such principles in European fisheries management, in particular to reduce the discard problem. The aim of EcoFishMan was to develop and contribute to implementation of a new integrated fisheries management system based on increased stakeholder involvement; an ecosystem-based sustainable management system under a precautionary framework that will define maximum acceptable negative impact, target elimination of discards and maintain economic and social viability.
The RFMS is a results-based responsive management system; which means that results are continually monitored and revised in relation to interdisciplinary assessment towards the biological, social, legal and political needs. Key-words here are personal and municipal responsibility, hazard analysis, well defined critical control point reactions, quota-bank, restoration liability; all installed at a base of EU provisions that are disentangled from the present system of micro-management.The RFMS was developed in an iterative process with gradual increase in complexity. The effects of the RFMS were simulated and evaluated in four important and representative case studies:
1. The Icelandic demersal mixed fishery (including Tte Icelandic lumpsucker fishery)
2. The Portuguese crustacean bottom trawl fishery
3. The North Sea mixed demersal bottom trawl fishery
4. The Mediterranean mixed demersal trawl fisheryThe first version of the RFMS was simulated in the fairly simple case 1, whereas the later versions of the RFMS were simulated and/or tested in the more complex cases 2, 3 and 4. Case 1 was chosen because it is a single country fishery with limited number of species where a lot of data for many possible indicators have been collected already, so modelling and simulation should not be too difficult. Case 2 and 3 are more complex important fisheries under EU/CFP jurisdiction where data collection and harmonisation can be more challenging. Case 4 was included because of the different management system (no TACs) and EU/nonEU jurisdiction, but only ran as an approval test case towards the end of the project and verified that the final RFMS can be adapted for other types of fisheries.The most important delivery of EcoFishMan is the final version of the RFMS which is a generalized conceptual model and contains:
• Reference to the outcome targets the RFMS was designed to meet
• Recommendation for indicators used to measure to what degree the outcome targets have been met
• Recommendation for documentation systems and procedures, including responsibility for data recording and reporting
• Recommendation for procedures to be activated in case outcome targets are not met
• Guidelines for making management plans (MPs) based on the proposed RFMS
• Evaluation, cost-benefit analysis and stakeholder views on the proposed RFMS
• Implementation guide for RFMS and proposed road map for implementationProject Results:
The main scientific and technological results of EcoFishMan are connected to the deliverables in each WP. Each and every deliverable represents concrete S&T results, which are as follows:

A literature review was undertaken in order to identify, understand and analyse existing results-based-management systems (RBMS). After reviewing all relevant issues related to RBMS (e.g. functional side of management systems, fisheries management in practice, fisheries in society, and management measures in fisheries), key concepts of EcoFishMan were defined. A careful analysis was dedicated to the following topics:
• Results-based management systems definition
• Results-based fisheries management (RBFM) definition
• Rights Based Systems
• Adaptive management
• Co-management
• Self-governance
• Ecosystem based approach
• Social attributes in human cooperation

In compliance with the objectives of this deliverable, the state-of-the-art of some major fisheries management systems was analysed (e.g. US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia). Also, some “RBMS type” systems were studied. Overall, management systems like the New Zealand scallop or community-based goose barnacle fisheries of Galicia were considered successful examples of “RBMS type” fisheries management systems.
A review of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was undertaken. All legislatives up-dates were considered to provide a critical review of the 2012 reform of the CFP. An extensive discussion on the discards situation of all EcoFishMan case study areas was also considered. The revision of the Common Fisheries Policy included the following topics:
• Main objectives of CFP and of CFP reform
• Legal framework of CFP
• Sustainable development and precautionary principle within the CFP
• Decision making regime: actual definition, possible changes – critical reflexion
• Accession Treaty on the fisheries sector, and the division of competence between the EU and its Member States
• Political platform of the common fisheries policy: The Common Fishery Policy – Current system
• Reform of the Common Fishery Policy in 2012, objectives, main elements, management instruments
• The Green Paper

Within this context, a swot analysis identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the CFP and of the New Zealand fisheries management system was carried out. A critical analysis of the CFP compared with other fisheries management systems was also undertaken, focusing on its primary aims, policies, legal framework, compliance, ecosystem approach, among other issues. After this extensive review, the by-catch and discards situation worldwide was examined, considering reasons for discarding, discard mitigation, stakeholder’s participation and economic incentives for discards reduction. Discard and by-catch status and mitigation measures were then carefully analysed for the EcoFishMan case studies: Mediterranean fisheries; Italian fisheries; Portuguese fisheries; Icelandic Fisheries and North Sea fisheries.

Extended review was made of all available technological tools that can assist fishery management. Several key aspects were taken into consideration while reviewing useful technological data:
• Virtual environments
• Geographic Information Systems
• Genetic and genomic technological tools
• Modern Biotechnology
• Technical management tools
• Programs to control/monitor catches and discards
• Description of supporting technological tools (on board observers, camera systems on board vessels (CCTV), logbooks).

Considering specific realities and problems, all mentioned aspects were then reviewed and compiled for available management tools for: Italian, Portuguese, North Sea, Norwegian and Icelandic fisheries.

Review of current multi-parameter models was published. The most important models used in ecosystem approaches to fisheries were reviewed. For each model or approach, the following were summarized: main uses and applications, model requirements, model assumptions, model outputs, advantages, disadvantages, comparison with other models or modelling approaches, evaluation of the applicability to EcoFishMan objectives and case studies, software availability, programming requirements, key references and web links. The following models or modelling approaches were identified and reviewed: EwE (EcoPath with EcoSim), FishSUMS, BEMMFISH, ATLANTIS, NFM, MSVPA, Fcube, ADMB and FLR. Object-oriented compliable languages – Not a model, it is a set of object-oriented compliable languages (particularly Java). The object-oriented programming paradigm is especially well suited for writing individual-based (or agent-based) models. The ability to define classes of objects sharing the same kind of attributes and the same methods (functions) to be applied on them, is an abstraction akin to the definition of individuals with a given set of characteristics (attributes) and behaviours (methods).

Indicators for evaluating performance of management plans were identified and evaluated in this WP. A summary list of potential ecological, economic, social and governance indicators were presented to be used in Responsive Fisheries Management Systems in accordance to well defined fishery outcome targets (OT) of a management plan.

Each performance indicator has to be related to a specific OT and to the high-end management goals and objectives defined for each fishery. The OTs can be recognized as an indicator target or a limit reference point, in case the performance falls below the reference limit, actions to improve performance have to be taken, following the management responses outlined in each management plan.

The EcoFishMan project considers that fisheries outcome targets and associated indicators are classified in four dimensions: ecological, economic, social and governance. The four main dimensions of a fishery are associated with different criteria that represent those properties that will be affected by the process of sustainability. Therefore a well-designed operational system has to be in place in each region for the collection and monitoring of required performance indicators for each management plan. Selected performance indicators require compilation, processing, analysis and assessment of data from a number of sources.
A high number of existing candidate biological, social, legal and economic indicators for a Responsive Fisheries Management System (RFMS) were first reviewed and proposed by EcoFishMan experts of these different areas of expertise. In order to screen and check those indicators against specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound (SMART) properties, a scientific framework was adopted. For this purpose only scientific experts were considered in the scoring procedure, but the management objectives were simultaneously and interactively being defined and discussed with stakeholders at each step of the management plan development.

Since no significant differences were found between the experts background, the relative importance of each criteria was assumed the same. Hence it was possible to compute a final score for each indicator defined as the sum of the matrix products of (equivalent) criteria weights by scores. A subsequent analysis was performed to eliminate redundant indicators with comparable properties. Exploratory analysis across all indicators revealed association between 3 criteria groups on which indicators were evaluated: (1) Sensitivity, Responsiveness & Specificity; (2) Concreteness, Cost & Measurement; (3) Theoretical basis, Public awareness & Historical data.
These new performance indicators are a combination of ecological, economic, social and legal indicators. Each performance indicator is measured against an outcome target or limit reference point. Limit reference levels represent the minimum acceptable level of fishery performance The OTs can be recognized as the indicator target or limit reference point, if performance falls below the reference limit, measures to improve performance must be developed, following the management responses outlined in each management plan. Stakeholders were consulted and interviewed regarding the management principles, goals and objectives as well as the output targets linking WP2 to WP7 & WP5. Social scientists (WP7) associated with other scientists closely related to each of case study fisheries, were responsible for the operational organization of stakeholder’s interaction meetings as one of the first steps to engage and involve stakeholders in the new RFMS system. These Open Dialogue Workshops included interactive stakeholder’s sub-group and in-depth debate on the user’s suggestions for specific objectives and associated indicators in fisheries management.

This WP was to collect data from various sources relevant for describing the effects of a fisheries management system in the respective case study areas. It was also to collect, collate and harmonise data into a distributed database that could be used as a basis for quantitative analysis, simulation and decision support. And finally to develop and test a GIS based decision support system that can visualise the interactions and geographical aspects of the data.

The work was at first concentrated at establishing which indicators and data could be treated as quantitative and then to collect the relevant data related to impacts from fisheries management plans/systems. Maps and web-based visualisation of past and current situations within the case fisheries were produced as assistance material to WP5. Distributed databases were then developed for each of the case fisheries, including simulation and simple “what-if” analysis i.e. indicating what will be the results of implementing different management plans in the respective fishery.
The main T&S results in this WP are therefore the distributed databases for each of the EcoFishMan case studies and the GIS decision support tool developed to allow for a simple “what-if” analysis.

This WP was to design the actual RFMS through series of iterations, where prototypes were provided for testing and verification of applicability within the case studies in WP5 and evaluation of performances in WP6. The development of the design and concept of the RFMS has been successful through cooperation between scientists and stakeholders and is now available and well described in a number of deliverables submitted within the project (D 4.4 RFMS-Prototype 4, D 4.7 Policy-Brief and D7.5 Roadmap for implementation). The following steps are essential in the new RFMS: The development of management plans (MP) with the stakeholders (fishers organisation) through “pre MP-invitation dialogue” and MP-invitation designed according to the Management planning framework (D4.5) and the guidelines for MP-invitation (D4.6) has turned out to work well although the approach requires good organisational capacity in the fishers organisations.

The term Responsive Fisheries Management System (RFMS) was developed within the project to refer to the generic management system alternative that the project will propose as its main outcome. The RFMS is an adaptive management system that is results-based and ecosystem-based, and attempts to reduce micro-management by involving stakeholders. The RFMS comprises three defining features: 1) That authorities define measurable objectives for the utilization of fisheries resources; 2) that resource users are made responsible for achieving these objectives and for 3) providing documentation that allows for an audit of the extent to which they are met. Using incentive mechanisms, the RFMS grants flexibility to resource users to find cost-effective ways to achieve specific and measurable objectives. The concept of RFMS was developed and tried out in 5 case studies in Europe. Assuming that it would prove more feasible to implement RFMS, including the guidelines for management plan invitation, in simple cases (one species, one nation, one resource user organisation) than complex ones (multiple species, nations and resource user organisations), the five cases were selected to pose increasing challenges to the RFMS concept. We find that multiple operators, authorities and assessors may be present in a management system. The success of RBM in fisheries is dependent on good leadership, organisation and commitment of the operators. The RBM in fisheries fail if the authority does not reclaim responsibility if a MP does not deliver.

It is recommended that the RFMS is implemented on a voluntary basis, and supported throughout the policy period of the newly revised CFP. To implement RFMS as a general and mandatory resource management system in one go may neither be politically feasible nor likely to work well in a transition phase. Experiences have to be made with cases in the CFP area, and it will require time to establish the basic conditions that would support RFMS. A meaningful shift of responsibilities for documentation and management functions to resource users is conditioned on that the resource users have or may develop capacity for executing these functions in a reliable and efficient manner. It is worth noting that reported successful cases in which responsibilities for management functions have been gradually shifted to resource users appear to have involved long time spans. Voluntary RFMS implementations would allow for further experiences and best practices could be developed. This in turn could provide a basis for creating a legal and regulatory basis for fully-fledged RFMS with the subsequent CFP reform in 2022.

The RFMS: concepts and final prototype:

Building on RBM, the RFMS proposes a process by which responsibility for specific resource management and research functions in practice can be shifted to resource users. It is outside the scope of this policy brief to provide a detailed account of the process that lead to this final prototype. The focus will be on the resulting RFMS concept.

The roles of RFMS agents and the management plan
The RFMS conceptualises RBM as a contract between an authority and one or more operators. In practice, this contract is a plan, which is proposed by the operator(s).

The authority is the entity entrusted with the final responsibility for resource management, and specifies the measurable objectives (outcome targets) to be reached in a given context.

An operator is an organised group of resource users, for instance an association of fishermen with fishing rights in a given fishery.

The management plan (MP) includes the operator’s strategies for achieving the requirements set by the authority, and for documenting the effectiveness of the chosen means. In a CFP context, this plan is either a management plan for a specific fishery or a plan for implementing measures under an existing multiannual management plan or discard mitigation plan. For convenience, we refer to both of the latter as the operator’s management plan.

The role of a third agent, the auditor, is to evaluate whether the contract between the authority and the operator has been fulfilled in the sense that the outcome targets listed in the MP have been achieved.

In the RFMS, a single authority is responsible for inviting specific MPs (see below), and for approving MP proposals of sufficient quality. However, more than one operator may cooperate in developing a common MP for a fishery. Similarly, the audit process may involve different auditors in order to cover the types of expertise required to evaluate the conformance with the plan. The cooperation and division of responsibility between multiple operators and auditors should be clearly specified in the MP.

The RFMS process
The RFMS development and implementation process can be broken into the following seven steps:

Step 1: Starting dialogues
The RFMS process begins with dialogues between the authority and the operator(s). The purpose of these dialogues is to create mutual understanding of the RFMS process: What does RFMS involve? What overarching goals can the operator(s) and the authority expect to achieve with RFMS, and what would it require from each party?

Step 2: The MP invitation
If the parties agree that RFMS should be pursued in the given context, the authority prepares an invitation for a management plan. The MP invitation identifies the specific and measurable requirements – outcome targets (OTs) – that are to be achieved in the given context.

Step 3: The management plan proposal
Responding to the MP invitation, the operator proposes a management plan (MP), which explains how the outcome targets can be achieved through a suggested set of management measures. The operator may cooperate with relevant scientific expertise about developing the plan. This expertise could, among other things, assist the operator with modelling the likely effect of suggested management strategies and measures. This would not only assist the operators in developing an effective plan, but also may identify relevant risks to render the plan more robust and convincing, hence making it more likely to be approved by the authority. The plan should also establish how the fisheries will be monitored and controlled and include sanctions for individual members that fail to comply with agreed measures. Finally, the proposal should include timescales for when the performance of the plan with regard to different outcome targets should be audited (see below). In most cases this is done annually, but for some outcome targets shorter or longer timescales may be appropriate.

Step 4: Management plan evaluation
The authority examines the operator’s MP proposal, and may request revisions or clarifications. In this way, communication between operator and authority will ensure progress with the MP proposal. A complete MP draft will be “quality checked” by the authority. The purpose of this check is two-fold: 1) Does the MP present a convincing strategy for achieving the OTs? 2) Does it include an adequate strategy for obtaining information that allows the performance of the MP to be audited?
If needed, the authority may seek expert support for undertaking this quality check of the MP from a relevant scientific agent or, preferably, the auditor(s) appointed in the MP. Quality check of the biological aspects of the MP may be compared to a management strategy evaluation (Dichmont et al. 2008; Sainsbury et al. 2000; Smith et al. 1999), which often includes simulations of multiannual MPs, and this may include evaluation of other (e.g. socio-economic) aspects of the MP. For RFMS, however, the ex-ante evaluation of a MP may in practice involve the less formalised application of expert judgement. A less formalised process will be particularly relevant for RFMS in the context of small scale fisheries, low value fisheries, or data poor situations for which an intensive scientific evaluation is either impossible or economically unjustifiable.

Step 5: Management plan hearing and approval
If the authority finds that the plan is of a sufficient quality, it can approve it. Before doing so, however, it is recommended that the authority arranges a public hearing on the MP proposal, which allows comments to be raised by interested parties as well as the wider public. The purpose of this hearing is to promote transparency, public awareness and public discussions regarding the MP. The role of the hearing will be consultative as it will be up to the authority to decide if and how issues raised in the hearing should be reflected in the MP before it can be approved.

Step 6: MP implementation, control and documentation
If an MP is approved by the authority the operator can proceed with its implementation. At this stage the operator may also cooperate with the authority (the authority may for instance supply enforcement services). While implementing the plan, the operator is responsible for collecting information required for assessing whether or not the outcome targets are (or will be) achieved.

Step 7: Audit and management plan adaptation
The documentation provided by the operator during the implementation of an approved MP is reviewed by an auditor. The auditor should ideally, and to the extent possible, be institutionally independent from both operator and authority, and be trusted by both.
The auditor assesses whether or not (or the extent to which) the outcome targets are achieved. Furthermore, the auditor provides updated information about implemented management actions and their apparent consequences. An audit framework has been developed to ensure objectivity, transparency and a level playing-field in the process.
For the operator, the assessment will provide a basis for drafting modified MPs. For the authority, the assessment may be a basis for implementing sanctions or set conditions (if outcome targets were not achieved), for rewarding achievements, or for revising outcome targets.
If the audit shows that the outcome targets are achieved, the operator may continue with its MP. If the outcome targets are not met, the authority may request revisions for the MP, set stricter requirements, or implement sanctions.

The operator’s area of responsibility
The extent to which operators are made responsible for specific RFMS functions will vary between cases depending on the capacity and interests of the operators in charge. In figure 4.1 this is illustrated by the ellipse with the text “areas of responsibility”: the responsibility for the RFMS functions such as data collection, monitoring and control can in practice be divided differently between operators and the authority. The operator may for instance contract external service providers to carry out specific functions (e.g. data collection or control) or let them be carried out by the authority in the way that they are carried out in the established management system. In any case, the division of responsibility for different functions should be made clear in the MP.

The RFMS process log
To enhance transparency and other aspects of good governance, a log of key events in the RFMS process should be provided by the authority, and be made available to interested parties. Such key events include: main meetings between the operator and the authority; the submission of the MP invitation; hearing of the MP; and approval of MP. The authority should provide dates and brief minutes of such events. In addition to ensure that the RFMS is transparent to involved parties as well as external parties, the process log can be used by the auditor to provide a basis for evaluating the RFMS process (e.g. to assess the timeliness of responses from the authority).

The concept of RBM was defined; the conceptual model of RFMS was developed and the EcoFishMan glossary developed and agreed upon. The RFMS developed has been discussed and applied in the five case studies, namely the Icelandic lump-sucker fishery (case study 1a) and mixed demersal fishery (1b), the Portuguese Crustacean bottom trawl fishery (case study 2), the North Sea mixed demersal fishery – (case study 3) and the mixed demersal trawl fishery in the Northern Adriatic Sea (GSM 17) (Mediterranean (case 4). The RFMS and associated framework, guidelines and roadmap for implementation (D7.5) were developed.

A range of steps have been recommended to enable a transition to a comprehensive RFMS approach. This system would involve shifting the burden of evidence to recourse users. Subjected to full cost recovery, resource users would be responsible to demonstrate that their actions are compatible with specific and measurable policy objectives. In return, they would get access to using the resources and be granted the flexibility to design a management system of that best suits their needs, e.g. in terms of being cost-effective and acceptable. If such a fully-fledged RFMS is chosen, the legal framework to support it should be prepared in time before the subsequent CFP reform in 2022.

WP4 has produced important documents meant to disseminate the outcome of the WP i.e. Management planning procedures/Framework (D4.5), Design of call for local MPs (D4.6) and a policy brief on documented and tested RFMS design (D4.7). The policy brief is in a process for publication in a scientific journal.

The objective of WP5 was to verify viability of RFMS through simulated case studies. Four case studies were selected for this purpose, where the first version of the RFMS was to be tested on the simplest case study and then, as the RFMS became more developed, it was to be tested on more and more complex case studies, in an iterative process.
The case studies were:
1. The Icelandic demersal mixed fishery
a. The Icelandic lumpfish fishery
b. The Icelandic mixed demersal fishery (hook and line vessels <15 meters)
2. The Portuguese crustacean bottom trawl fishery
3. The North Sea demersal mixed fishery (TR1 Scottish vessels)
4. The Mediterranean mixed demersal fishery (the Northern Adriatic Sea – GSA17)

For each case study the verification of viability for the RFMS included specific objectives such as:
• Developing MPs (Management Plans) for case fisheries, based on MP specifications supplied by WP4, to be worked out in consultation with local stakeholder groups.
• Developing a simulation model, where the effects of implementing the MPs were to be simulated and presented in a graphical format understandable for everyone. The modelling was expected to focus on the performance of the MP, with a special emphasis on the reduction of discards. The simulation models were to answer the question: “what will be the effect if RFMS is used for management?” for each case.
• Evaluating, revising and implementing the MP, through an iterative interaction with WP6 and WP4.

Each of the case studies were subjected to the procedural steps identified in the RFMS prototypes (from WP4). A large amount of data were collected, some of which were sent to WP3 for inclusion in the distributed database. Simulation models aimed at predicting the impacts of implementing the MPs developed for the case studies were produced. These were simulation models for:
• The Icelandic lumpfish fishery made in Stella
• The Icelandic mixed demersal fishery made in R
• The Portuguese crustacean bottom trawl fishery made in Rule Based Fuzzy Cognitive Map (RB-FCM) model
• The North Sea mixed demersal fishery made in FishSUMS and FishRent

For the fourth and final case study, which was an acceptance test, did not involve a making of a simulation model. It was run as a workshop that included a role-play exercised where applicability and acceptance of the RFMS was addressed.

The primary S&T results from the WP are in the form of developed and tested MPs for each case study and, as well as the up and running simulation models developed within each case study.

The objective of WP5 was to evaluate the RFMS and the associated costs and benefits. The work within the WP has lead do identification of economic parameters in relation to RFMS, development of a methodology for the analysis of factors influencing economics of RFMS, cost benefit analysis for each case study MP supplied by WP5, evaluation of the implementation of the RFMS with regard to the new discard policy and finally a socio-economic evaluation of the impacts of RFMS.

Main S&T results are in the form of cost-benefit analysis for each case study iteration, which were qualitative in all cases and qualitative were applicable. It also published an Assessment framework and an Audit Framework for Management Plan Evaluation based on RFMS, which are generic and adaptable for all future MP developed within RFMS.

WP6 has successfully assessed the outcomes of the simulated systems provided by WP5 according to the following specifications:
1. Assessing to what extent the Management Plan developed by the Operator (WP5) is acceptable and likely to enable the Operator to achieve the outcome targets defined by the Authority (WP4).
2. After the simulation of the fishing activities, assessing to what extent fishing operations have been carried out according to the Management Plan.
3. Assessing to what extent the RFMS system, as it is designed and funded, is likely to achieve the tasks defined for it in a cost-effective and legitimate way.
4. Assessing the quality of documentation that has been submitted.
5. Based on the simulated case study, comparing to baseline and analysing potential changes in prices, quantities produced or consumed, fishing or observational trips, etc., as a result of changing supply and demand conditions in the market place.
6. Examining the change in revenues and operating costs for firms or individuals in the fishery in response to changes in market, biological conditions, and fishery management regulations.
7. Assessing how the regulation is expected to affect fishing businesses. In the absence of reliable cost or price data, a qualitative discussion of expected changes in fleet size and composition may be presented.

WP6 has combined these seven components into an overall Framework for Evaluation of Management Plans (EMP) and Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) in order to enable adaptive management and evaluate RFMS as a result based management system for fisheries in European waters.

The WP has also produced a report evaluation the RFMS as decision support tool for estimation of negative impact. In that report it is pointed out that the RFMS might lead to cost savings for the European tax payers in terms of less enforcement services in relation to fishery management. An estimation of the cost of EU fishery management in 2011 is €428 million. This cost shall be compared with a net profit of the EU fisheries of €410 Million in 2011. Based on these assumptions one can conclude, that the EU fishing industry would generate a net loss of €18 Million if they were to pay for the fishery management services provided to the industry! It is the conclusion of the WP that the industry should pay whatever enforcement is needed, and that this cost would be lower with RFMS than it is within the current system i.e. since the system is radically changed to self-management. The consequence should be that the cost recovery would be less than the current cost of enforcement services.

Stakeholder involvement was ensured throughout the whole project and to produce a roadmap for implementation of recommendations of the RFMS. This has included active stakeholder consultation, involvement in various stakeholder events and assistance to case studies in regards to stakeholder involvement. The following events and associated reports represent scientific results within the project.
• An open dialog workshop was held in ICES headquarters in Copenhagen September 2011 that provided expert input from various stakeholders within the scientific community to the project. The results were published in a report (D7.1) that constitutes a clear scientific results in the project.
• A Seminar on RFMS was held in Edinburgh in November 2012 where scientific and industry representatives were consulted on issues related to the RFMS. The results were published in a report (D7.4) that can be regarded as scientific results from the project.
• A stakeholder round table discussions on RFMS was held in Brussels in October 2013 towards the end of the project. The project and the main results were there presented to the scientific community, industry and to EC policy & decision makers. The results were published in a report (D7.2) that represents significant scientific results within the project.
• Simulated “in situ” pilot tests were held with selected stakeholders at the end of each iteration in the case studies i.e. when evaluation from WP6 had been received. The process and main outcomes were then presented to the relevant stakeholders and inputs gathered for the next iteration. All of the “in situ” pilot test meetings were reported on in a publication (D7.3) submitted in January 2014.
• A road map for implementation of recommendations of the RFMS was produced at the end of the project. This is a key document for the project where overall results and applicability of the RFMS into the future are addressed. This document represents a significant S&T results leading from the project.
• The WP also arranged and assisted with preparation and running of the projects final meeting held in Rome at the CNR headquarters in February 2014 and at the FDI (Fisheries Dependant Information) conference held in Rome at the FAO headquarters in March 2014. These events included a considerable stakeholder involvement that was essential in guaranteeing a successful conclusion of the project.

The objective of WP8 was to ensure adequate and wide scale dissemination on the project development. The outcomes of the WP have limited S&T results, but served as an important component of the project both in regards to gathering inputs and disseminating information (within and outside of the project).

The dissemination activities included:
• Setting up and maintaining the project webpage www.ecofishman.com
• Developing, gathering and sharing EcoFishMan presentations
• Producing flyers, one pagers and posters
• Producing, publishing and circulate news items
• Link with other relevant project web sides
• Attend relevant workshops and conferences and represent EcoFishMan
• Publish EcoFishMan related material in relevant magazines, newspapers, newsletters etc.
• Arrange a concluding symposium were the results were to be presented
• Publish a collection of articles from the project

The project homepage has been online from the project start and will continue to be accessible for at least two years. The homepage was visited more than 45,000 times while the project was running and is expected to keep on disseminating information on the project results.
The project poster has been shown in at least eight fairs and conferences – national and international during the project. Over 2,000 flyers have been distributed in Europe and more than 2,800,000 people have got information about EcoFishMan through various dissemination methods. Key dissemination events were facilitated towards the end of the project (and after the project had officially ended). These were the project’s final meeting held in Rome, where various stakeholders were invited and presented with the project results and asked for feedback. And participation at the FDI http://www.imr.no/prosjektsiter/fdi/en conference held in the FAO headquarters in Rome in March 2014, where EcoFishMan was awarded a whole session. This, along with scientific publications already submitted and in-press, are sure to guarantee that the project’s results are readily available and properly disseminated.

Co-ordination and management of the project did not include any S&T results, but many of the scientific works was though reported on in the WPs reports to the commission i.e. such as the annual reports, periodic reports and the final report.

Summary of S&T results:
The project has produced a large number of S&T results that have been reported on in the respective deliverables. Within WP1 a number of scientific results were provided in literary reviews on fisheries management issues related to development of the RFMS. In WP2 a set of indicators relevant for the project were identified, weighted, selected and recommended. In WP3 a large amount of data was collected, collated and extracted to a distributed database, and a GIS based decision support system developed. WP4 developed the actual RFMS through series of iterations where more and more advanced prototypes were produced. WP5 tested the applicability of the RFMS prototypes in selected case studies by developing Management plans and estimating effects of implementing them in simulation models produced within the project. WP6 evaluated the MPs and developed Audit and Assessment frameworks that can be applied when evaluating future MPs developed within the RFMS. WP7 insured and facilitated stakeholder involvement within the project and arranged key events where stakeholders were included in the development of the project. WP8 ensured adequate dissemination of the project progress and results. WP9 co-ordinated and managed the project.
Potential Impact:
Potential impact:

The project deliverables, supplemented by the concluding symposium, conferences, workshops and round-table discussions has provide a thorough evaluation of results-based fisheries management (RBFM) systems, and their potential application in EU waters. A recommendation for a RBFM has been provided, taking into consideration impact on societies, fishery regulatory regimes, discards and other environmental issues. The recommendations have been gathered in conceptual model (the RFMS), which also include chosen outcome targets, indicators used to measure the effect of the proposed new system, and guidelines for making management plans based on the new system.

The impact of the EcoFishMan project can be divided into the direct impact of the project activities during the course of the project, and the indirect impact related to the outcome of the project.

Direct impact:
A direct impact of the project activities is a contribution to the development of the CFP and in particular of a new discard policy in accordance with the CFP. Estimating just how much EcoFishMan has contributed to this is difficult to estimate, but some of the project‘s outcomes have clear relevance for the CFP reform process.

The topic text in KBBE-2010-1-4-07 “Using results-based management to achieve CFP objectives” states, that “the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) must increasingly integrate environmental concerns and seek to apply an ecosystem approach. These issues are presently addressed by regulation of the technologies that can be used to fish, by closed areas and by limits on landings. This approach has led to increasingly detailed micromanagement of the fishing technologies with some negative results including high levels of discarding in some fisheries.”
These negative results have proven to be poor cost efficiency due to over capacity, low profitability and direct subsidies exceeding landings value in some Member states. Also the current management system has poor process efficiency with complex decision making and implementation is characterised by high transaction costs. In addition to this – or as a consequence of the same – the legitimacy in the fishery sector and general public is low. In order to change the current system a holistic ecosystem approach is needed that can facilitate healthy interactions between ecological, socio-economic and governance elements of fisheries systems.
The aim of the topic is “to identify and evaluate mechanisms and institutions for implementing results-based management in fisheries as in other sectors, i.e. defining a maximum acceptable negative impact and then leaving it to those concerned to identify the means to meet such requirements and to document the effectiveness of these means.”

The EcoFishMan project has addressed the challenges of fisheries management by proposing the introduction of a RBM system based on specifying maximum acceptable limits of negative impacts, the responsive fisheries management system (RFMS). In RFMS stakeholder involvement is increased, burden of proof is shifted, and whole ecosystems rather than only selected species are taken into consideration. The direct impact from EcoFishMan on policy and governance, industry economics as well as other stakeholders has been obtained through each WP and their tasks and deliverables.

Indirect impact:
There have also been indirect impacts related to the outcome of the project. The topic text says that “The elimination of discards is used as a first example of the application of this approach in European fisheries”. The EcoFishMan project has developed RFMS together with the industry and other stakeholders, with the objectives such as elimination discards – and at the same time the project has developed a system that is practical and economical for all parties involved. This impact of the project has been obtained through the case simulations in WP5, evaluated in WP6 and in the interaction sessions with stakeholders in WP7.

The involvement of fishers (industry) and addressing their economic and social sustainability is an important feature of the topic text: “The project should involve approaches that would promote and encourage fishers to focus effort in ways that minimize ecological impact under a precautionary framework while maintaining economic and social viability.” The impact of EcoFishMan has been the dynamic character of RFMS in terms of a results-based and responsive system of resource utilization that regularly and frequently are adjusted to changing circumstances, physically as well as politically. These adjustments are to be balanced with regard to economic profitability, practicality and legality. In order to achieve this impact, EcoFishMan has involved industry and stakeholders and conducted analysis of conflict and harmony as well as determined contribution and reward for the individual stakeholder group to the responsive system. This process has been undertaken in WP7 and has also feed into the cost-benefit evaluation of the RFMS in WP6, and thus the industry and stakeholder response has been implemented in the three staged improvement and adjustments made on the RFMS system in WP4 and WP5.

The EcoFishMan proposal has been determined to meet the requirement of the topic text of “Creative ways to link scientists and stakeholders that could advance further cooperation in the work to identify solutions must also be considered alongside institutional aspects relating to decision making, implementation, monitoring, audit and control.” The main effort towards linking scientists and stakeholders has been made in WP7 and disseminated in WP8 with direct involvement of stakeholder groups in EcoFishMan. The involvement has included both pan-European representation throughout all stakeholder activities and rich regional representation in relation to the selected case studies. The impact has been a two-way communication ensuring rational assessment subject to mutual understanding of the substance, benefits and value creation of RFMS.

The EcoFishMan project has already had (and will hopefully continue to have) an impact on institutional, legal and technical aspects through interaction with relevant stakeholders. This has been followed by evaluation of the feedback with regard to feasible implementation strategies of a new fisheries management system.
The findings of the project have been synthesised in a roadmap for recommendation of implementation of a fundamentally new approach to fisheries management in Europe (D7.5). This roadmap can also find immediate use in the development of the new discards policy in accordance with the CFP.

• Societal impact
The vision of the EcoFishMan project was to contribute to the development of a fundamentally new approach to fisheries management in Europe that could find acceptance among stakeholders within governance, industry and consumers. This vision implies a system that is based on industrial and individual fisheries management rather than only governmental management. It enables the consumers to select seafood products coming from sustainable stocks and thereby reward industrial partners that aim for sustainability, catching in a responsible way from sustainable stocks. Long term thinking in the seafood industry is likely to increase under the proposed RFMS, and managers within the industry are likely to focus more on sustainable growth instead of running after fluctuations in market price of seafood and short term availability of catch. Discard and IUU fishing are likely to decrease, since consumers will, when they have the tool to do so, demand certification of the sustainability of their consumption.

• Economic impact
An estimation of the cost of EU fishery management in 2011 is €428 million. This cost shall be compared with a net profit of the EU fisheries of €410 Million in 2011. Based on these assumptions one can conclude, that the EU fishing industry would generate a net loss of €18 Million if they were to pay for the fishery management services provided to the industry! It is the conclusion of the WP that the industry should pay whatever enforcement is needed, and that this cost would be lower with RFMS than it is within the current system i.e. since the system is radically changed to self-management. The consequence should be that the cost recovery would be less than the current cost of enforcement services.

• Socio-economic impacts within the case studies
Following the EcoFishMan approach, a set of indicators was proposed by operators in order to measure the achievement of each outcome target (OT) included in the management plan (MP) in question. As the Authority has to approve the MP as a previous step for the implementation; therefore, indicators become the critical tool for monitoring and assessment.
Fisheries outcome targets and associated indicators can be classified in four dimensions: ecological, economic, social and governance. Ecological indicators measure the trends in the state of the environment and ecological functions, economic indicators measure the state of the human component in activities that increase conventional gross national product and trends in production accounts and economic growth, social indicators measure the human dimensions focusing on communities, household demographics and their wellbeing, and governance indicators measure the performance of rules and institutions, of the mechanism and processes to articulate interest, and of the interactions and roles of the state, civil society and private sector in fisheries management. The four main dimensions of a fishery are associated with different criteria that represent those properties that will be affected by the process of sustainability.
A well designed operational system has to be in place in each region for the collection and monitoring of the required performance indicators for each management plan. Selected performance indicators require compilation, processing, analysis and assessment of data from a number of sources. For the most part, ecological – based indicators are computed from either vessel activity information (e.g. effort, landings, discards, biomass) and from available stock assessment information. The socio-economic indicators, on the other hand, are compiled both from official national and regional statistics, as well as from individual firms and stakeholders. In some cases the relevant information may also be obtained through questionnaires and surveys, as well as direct interviews.
These indicators are defined as variables, pointers, or indexes related to an outcome target. Their fluctuations reveal the variations in those key elements of sustainability in the ecosystem, the fishery resource or the sector and social and economic well-being, as well as the governance framework. Additionally, the position and trend of an indicator in relation to reference points or values indicate the present state and dynamics of the system. In this context, the indicators accepted for the MP provide a bridge between objectives and actions (Nielsen et al., 2012).
In all, over 200 candidate indicators were considered by EcoFishMan experts of different areas of expertise. Following Rice and Rochet (2005), each indicator was assessed using nine different criteria. This allowed us to narrow the number of potential economic and social indicators to those shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
Table 1: Potential economic indicators associated with RFMS outcome targets.
1. Harvest /Catch/Landings
2. Harvest value
3. Employment in fisheries/vessel
4. Effort/ number of vessels
5. Fisheries contribution to GDP
6. Fisheries exports compared to value of total exports
7. Fishery net revenue
8. Profit
9. Economic performance
10. Income/average wage
11. Earning Before Interests, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA)
12. Invested capital
13. Rate of return of investment (ROI)
14. Ratio of profit to sales
15. Index of catch stability
16. Fuel and catching efficiency
17. Subsidies per catch value and employment
18. Maximum Economic Yield
19. Global Sea food market performance
20. Carbon budget due to fishery activity

Table 2: Potential social indicators associated with RFMS outcome targets
1. Employment rate in fisheries
2. Demography
3. Income in fishing communities
4. Participation
5. Education/training
6. Maintenance of fishery traditions/culture
7. Minorities rights met
8. Number of accidents in fisheries activities
9. Social attractiveness/ acceptance
10. Number of people under poverty
11. Protein/consumption/quality
12. Certification
13. Account of social impact on management plan changes
14. Gender distribution in decision- making
15. Fixation of fishing communities
16. Proportion of younger people in fishery jobs.

In what follows we briefly discuss the economic and social outcome targets set in each of the four case studies analysed in EcoFishMan, and the projected socio-economic impacts of each management plan, as revealed through simulations undertaken in each case.
Case study 1 focused on vessels up to 15 meters in length that take part in the Icelandic mixed demersal fishery. These vessels use only longline or hand-line as fishing gear. The management plan included 18 outcome targets, whereof the following nine where economic or social:
• At least 17% of total catches of the relevant species to be harvested by the small vessel fleet
• At least 80% of catches to be landed in municipalities with under 5.000 inhabitants
• Individual companies and related companies cannot hold more than 12% of total quota entitlements
• Average wages above the national average
• Newcomers to be provided with an opportunity to enter the fishery
• All catches to be primary processed in Iceland
• Payment of an appropriate resource rent
• Zero subsidies
• EBIDTA above zero

The simulations undertaken compared the change in the profits of operators and revenue of the central government resulting from the introduction of the new management plan. The net revenue streams under the previous management plan (MP0) and the new one (MP1) were broken down into profits (operating earnings before interest and depreciation), resource rent (taxes paid to government) and quota revenue (revue accruing to the government for auctioning 1-10% of the quotas allocated to the small vessels). Using an interest rate of 5% it was found that the present value of total profits for the period 2013-2022 decreased under MP1 from € 207.9 million to € 98.4 million, resource rent decreased by € 1.9 million, but quota revenue increased from zero to € 109.5 million. Taken together the net revenue declined by € 1.9 million.

MP1 also has certain distributional effects, as industry profits decrease while government revenue increases. Profits accruing to firms are either paid out as dividends or invested. Consumption out of dividends will increase economic growth in the present, while investment – both by the operators and those receiving the dividends – will lead to increased growth in the future. The government revenue will presumably also be spent on various expenditures, including investment in both human and physical capital. It is clearly possible that the capital spending by the government will increase future economic growth more than private investment by vessel operators. However, most economists would tend to believe that the actions of individuals would have a greater effect on economic growth than the actions of government.

Case study 2 dealt with the Portuguese crustacean bottom trawl fishery and included seven outcome targets. The following two dealt with economic or social issues:

• Profits should be stable with EBITDA in excess of 15%
• Social stability should be promoted. On board training opportunities should be provided for 25 trainees

The current management plan, with no restrictions on discards, was compared to five different scenarios assuming a complete ban on discards and different gear types. However, the audit conducted only dealt with two of these five scenarios. Although those simulations focused mostly on biological issues, such as catches per unit of effort and discards, the development of net profits was also analysed. The simulations undertaken were, however, solely based on revenue, while costs were ignored. The results may therefore give an incomplete picture of the development of net earnings. Profits were above the 15% threshold in both scenarios analysed, but still lower than under the previous management plan (MP0). The difference was though only slight – 1% – in one of the scenarios but revenues were 50% lower than under MP0 in the other case.

Case study 3 (North Sea) included 14 outcome targets, whereof the following four can be classified as economic or social:
• Profits as measured by EBITDA should be in excess of 15%
• Year-to-year changes in landings should be smaller than 15%
• Individual companies and related companies cannot hold more than 12% of total quota entitlements
• Number of jobs in the sector should not fall below 95% of the number of jobs in 2013

The simulations completed did not address these targets and it therefore proved impossible to carry out the necessary evaluation of the social-economic impact of the case study.

The experience from EcoFishMan clearly reveals the importance of identifying social-economic outcome targets and the associated indicators when introducing a new management regime in fisheries. Although biological and environmental issues may take precedence, it also important to be aware of the social and economic impacts these changes may have. For this purpose, it is necessary to scrutinize the expected impacts, using appropriate simulation tools or other models. Incomplete models, that do not cover all the outcome targets properly, may yield contradictory or strange results. This is clearly revealed in the Icelandic and Portuguese cases discussed above. Profits in both cases were smaller under the new regime than under the previous management plan, which would seem to indicate either of the following two. The simulation models do not capture fully the socio-economic impacts of the models, or those committed to taking part in the new management plan have done so without analysing fully the effects the models will have on their own welfare.

Main dissemination activities:

The objective of WP8 was to ensure adequate and wide scale dissemination on the project development. The outcomes of the WP have limited S&T results, but served as an important component of the project both in regards to gathering inputs and disseminating information (within and outside of the project).
The dissemination activities included:
Setting up and maintaining the project webpage www.ecofishman.eu
Developing, gathering and sharing EcoFishMan presentations
Producing flyers, one pagers and posters
Producing, publishing and circulate news items
Link with other relevant project web sides
Attend relevant workshops and conferences and represent EcoFishMan
Publish EcoFishMan related material in relevant magazines, newspapers, newsletters etc.
Arrange a concluding symposium were the results were to be presented
Publish a collection of articles from the project

The project homepage has been online from the project start and will continue to be accessible for at least two years. The homepage was visited more than 45,000 times while the project was running and is expected to keep on disseminating information on the project results.
The project poster has been shown in at least eight fairs and conferences – national and international during the project. Over 2,000 flyers have been distributed in Europe and more than 2,800,000 people have got information about EcoFishMan through various dissemination methods. Key dissemination events were facilitated towards the end of the project (and after the project had officially ended). These were the project’s final meeting held in Rome, where various stakeholders were invited and presented with the project results and asked for feedback. And participation at the FDI http://www.imr.no/prosjektsiter/fdi/en conference held in the FAO headquarters in Rome in March 2014, where EcoFishMan was awarded a whole session. These, along with scientific publications already submitted and in-press, are sure to guarantee that the project’s results are readily available and properly disseminated.

Exploitation of results:
The results of the project have been published in a number of scientific publications and more are in-press, are in preparation and planned. The results have also been published in the public deliverables that are a part of the project and at the International Fishery Dependent Information (FDI) Symposium hosted by FAO in Rome, March 2014.

The RFMS has been developed in close collaboration with relevant stakeholders. They confirm that RFMS gives fishers more responsibility for managing and reporting their own activities. The responsibility for detailed allocation and control of individual quotas and compliance is moved away from centralised government towards the fishermen, ensuring a higher degree of local ownership of the fish and of the data followed by increased transparency, both of decisions and transgressions. RFMS also provides a template for drafting discard mitigation plans as part of the current reforms of the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

Stakeholders have confirmed their interest in using the new RFMS as a process for involving the industry in management and data-collection, and recommended that this should be initiated in suitable pilots cases in Europe. Potential exploitation of the results are foreseen in real-life application of the RFMS and some candidate fisheries have already been identified within the project for the implementation of the RFMS, such as the Clyde herring fishery West of Scotland, Faroese saithe fishery, Icelandic lumpsucker fishery, Celtic Sea herring fishery, North Sea Nephrops fishery and the Octopus fishery in Algarve Portugal. Discussions are now ongoing between EcoFishMan partners and representatives of those fisheries for the practical implementation of the RFMS and further funding opportunities for future implementation.
List of Websites:
www.ecofishman.com

Related information

Contact

Oddur Már Gunnarsson, (Director of division)
Tel.: +354 4225000
Fax: +354 4225001
E-mail

Subjects

Agriculture