CEN Workshop Agreement

Good practice recommendations for making Climate Adaptation Plans for fisheries and aquaculture

(Draft version 2)

1

Contents1 Foreword 3

2 Introduction 3

3 Scope 3

4 Normative references 4

5 Concepts, terms and definitions 5

6 Outline of the CAP Development Process 6

7 Starting the CAP Development Process 77.1 Initiation of the CAP development process 77.2 Stakeholder identification 77.3 CAP kick-off meeting 87.4 CAP Agreement meeting 8

8 Making a CAP: Detailed description of key tasks 98.1 Task One: Assessment of risks and opportunities 9

Task One: Step 1 – Evaluation of current status of characteristics 9Task One: Step 2 – Biological forecast 10Task One: Step 3 – Risk and opportunity assessment 11First stakeholder meeting 11

8.2 Task Two: Identification of adaptation measures 11Task Two: Step 4 - Vulnerability assessment 12Task Two: Step 5 – Identification of adaptation needs 13Task Two: Step 6 – Identification and assessment of adaptation measures 14Second stakeholder meeting 15

8.3 Task Three: Operationalising the CAPs 16Task Three: Step 7 – Implementation plan 16

9 CAP monitoring and evaluation 17

References 18

Annexes 20

2

1 ForewordThis document was prepared by participants in the research project “Co-creating a Decision Support Framework to Ensure Sustainable Fish Production in Europe under Climate Change” (or ClimeFish for short), a project funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Programme, grant agreement No 677039.

2 IntroductionClimate change has a significant impact on fish stocks and aquaculture species and will affect the productivity within fisheries and aquaculture sectors in the coming years. Therefore, climate adaptation is necessary to maximise the potential of European fish1 production, and to minimize negative effects due to climate change.

3 ScopeThe aim of this document is to offer practical good practice recommendations, in the form of guidelines to develop effective Climate Adaptation Plans (CAP) for production systems within the following sectors: marine wild capture fisheries, marine aquaculture, and lake and pond fisheries and aquaculture. The guidelines are in line with existing literature and adaptation tools on creating adaptation strategies and plans (e.g. FAO, 2019; Barange et.al, 2018; ISO 14090, 2019; Brugére & De Young, 2015; Shelton, 2014; EC 2013, Glick, Stein & Edelson, 2011; Grafton, 2010; FAO, 2010; FAO, 2003).

Outcomes of the CAP process

The CAP development process results in the identification of realistic and efficient adaptation measures for the sector in question, with the aim to address its respective adaptation needs. The final CAP will contain:

- Identified risks and opportunities- Identified vulnerabilities- Identified adaptation measures- Implementation plan

By developing and implementing CAPs, users within all three sectors should be able to reduce their production system’s vulnerabilities to climate change. CAPs can further serve as a valuable source of information, addition to, or basis of a National Adaptation Plan (NAP), whether that is an existing NAP ready for revision or at an early development phase.

Users

These guidelines are applicable for authorities and operators within all three sectors in question, from national and regional administrations (e.g. ministries and directorates in charge of aquaculture and fisheries), to the industry itself (e.g. producers’ organisations, fishing companies and fish farmers), and scientists.

1 As defined by FAO, fish is used as a collective term and includes mollusks, crustaceans and any aquatic animal, which is harvested. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, FAO, 2018.

3

The CAP development process

The CAP development process follows an ecosystem-based approach, in co-creation with key stakeholders. It includes three tasks, each containing a number of specific steps, to develop a CAP for the production system in question. These steps include a detailed analysis of each of the production system’s characteristics, biological forecasting, a risk and opportunity assessment, a vulnerability assessment and prioritisation of adaptation needs and measures. Finally, each identified adaptation measure gets a procedure plan, outlining its subsequent implementation.

Requirements and limitations

The CAP development process requires a group of relevant active participants from both the industry and administrative/policy side, ideally supported by scientists. It further requires involvement of relevant stakeholders throughout the process, which will promote more robust CAPs with increased likelihood of implementation. Limitations of the approach include that not all climate related impacts can be met with adaptation measures due to adaptation constraints. Furthermore, not all identified adaptation measures can be implemented e.g. due to lack of resources or capacities, or existing legislations. Lastly, some of the identified adaptation measures may not be able to meet the full adaptation needs, leaving a gap between the actual adaption need and the effectiveness of the adaptation measure.

4 Normative referencesThe following documents, in whole or in part, are normatively referenced in these CAP guidelines and are indispensable for its application. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies.

- The most comprehensive assessment of climate change undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014a), particularly the synthetic report of Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. (IPCC, 2014b).

- The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate Special Report of IPCC (IPCC, 2019).- The work done by FAO - Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 597 on assessing

climate change vulnerability in fisheries and aquaculture. Available methodologies and their relevance for the sector. (Brugère, C., & De Young, C. 2015).

- The work done by FAO - Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. (Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M.C.M., Cochrane, K.L., Funge-Smith, S. & Poulain, F., 2018.)

- FAO's Work on Climate Change - Fisheries & Aquaculture. (FAO, 2019). - ISO standard on Adaptation to climate change — Principles, requirements and guidelines.

(ISO 14090:2019)- ISO guidelines on Adaptation to climate change — Guidelines on vulnerability, impacts and

risk assessment. Under development. (ISO/DIS 14091).

4

5 Concepts, terms and definitionsFor the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

Adaptive capacity: The ability of production systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences (IPCC, 2019).

Adaptation measures: Strategies and/or measures available and appropriate to address adaptation needs. Example: Increase use of fouling resilient materials and upgrade of infrastructures to reduce negative effects of biofouling.

Adaptation needs: The circumstances requiring action to ensure safety of populations and security of assets in response to climate impacts (IPCC, 2014b).

CAP (Climate Adaptation Plan): A long-term adaptation strategy developed for a fishery, fish farm or national aquaculture industry under the ClimeFish CAP development process. It contains a set of strategically selected adaptation measures, presented in the form of industry level adaptation measures, policy recommendation and/or research needs, that together aim to fill the long-term adaptation needs identified within the industry in question, to the extent possible.

CAP Consortium: The group of active stakeholders who have signed a particular formal CAP agreement.

CAP Agreement: A formal CAP agreement includes key aspects and information of the CAP development process: List of active participants (name, organisation); scope of the CAP and main outcomes; timeline of the CAP development process; cost estimation; project plan; main challenges foreseen and how they will be addressed; list of signatures of CAP consortium.

Indicator: Quantitative, qualitative or binary variable that can be measured or described, in response to a defined criterion (ISO 14090:2019).

Likelihood: The chance of a specific outcome occurring, where this might be estimated probabilistically (IPCC, 2019).

Opportunity: The possibility to obtain positive outcomes (consequences) from the occurrence of a climate-driven likely event. Example: Increase of biomass and production capacity.

Outcome target: Specific and measurable performance goals which is defined for an adaptation measure within the fishery or aquaculture in question, based on the broad future objective. OTs are expressed as threshold values and/or a textual or mathematical statement that can be evaluated as ''true'' or ''false'', where ''true'' is the target value.

Production System: All aspects of a fishery or a fish farm that relate to the production of the products, including biological, environmental, production, governmental and socio-economic aspects.

Reference group member: Reference group members are stakeholders that are asked for specific inputs and are given the opportunity to represent their interests within the CAP development process during stakeholder meetings.

Risk: The potential for adverse consequences for human or ecological systems, recognising the diversity of values and objectives associated with such systems. In the context of climate change, risks can arise from potential impacts of climate change as well as human responses to climate change. Relevant adverse consequences include those on lives, livelihoods, health and wellbeing, economic, social and cultural assets and investments, infrastructure, services (including ecosystem services), ecosystems and species (IPCC, 2019).

5

Stakeholders: A group of individuals and groups of individuals (including governmental and non-governmental institutions, traditional communities, universities, research institutions, development agencies and banks, donors, etc.) with an interest or claim (whether stated or implied) which has the potential of being impacted by or having an impact on a given project and its objectives (FAO, 1997).

[System’s] Characteristics: A feature or quality of a production system (a specific fishery, fish farm or national aquaculture industry) that is important for the functioning and operation of the production system. A single production system can range from having anywhere from a handful of characteristics to over 100; which can be of biological, environmental, production, governmental and socio-economic nature.

Vulnerability: The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt (IPCC, 2019).

6 Outline of the CAP Development ProcessIn order to make a CAP, a series of steps should be followed. The process is initiated with stakeholders becoming either a part of the CAP consortium or joining the reference group. The roles of the stakeholders are decided during the CAP kick-off meeting. This is followed by the CAP agreement meeting, during which the key aspects of the CAP development process are formalized in the CAP agreement. After the CAP agreement has been signed by all CAP consortium members, the CAP development formally starts. The CAP consortium needs to follow the CAP development process, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Outline of the CAP process (S: Step, T: Task)

6

All these steps are described in detail below, following the same chronological order.

7

7 Starting the CAP Development Process 7.1 Initiation of the CAP development processThe CAP initiator takes responsibility and leads the CAP development process. The CAP initiator can be any interested party with the objective to develop a CAP for a given production system within marine wild capture fisheries, marine aquaculture, and lake and pond fisheries and aquaculture. The CAP initiator role can be taken on by any individual, group, organisation, company, administrative body or others with the capacity to initiate and lead the CAP development process.

7.2 Stakeholder identificationThe CAP initiator should identify and map the relevant stakeholders of the CAP development process.

Several techniques can be used for stakeholder identification. One way to identify stakeholders is to apply a stakeholder typology (based on Newton & Elliott, 2016), where stakeholders can be distinguished as follows:

● Extractors: Those using space or taking resources from the marine or freshwater production system.

● Inputters: Those discharging materials or placing materials or infrastructure into the marine or freshwater production system.

● Beneficiaries: Those benefitting from the ecosystem services and goods created by the production system and delivered by the extractors.

● Affected: Those affected by the extractors and inputters, affected by the policy decisions or impacted by the decisions.

● Regulators: Those giving permission to occupy space or to extract/input materials, those with a controlling rule in the production system, ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ regulators.

● Influencers: Those influencing policy and extraction/input.

Relevant stakeholders could include:

● Sectoral authorities - Representatives from the sector’s key policy making bodies: the ministry in charge of the production system in question, directorates and directly related agencies.

● Primary operators - Operators who provide the raw material for processing, e.g. fishers, fishing companies, fishers and/or boat owners associations, fish farmers, aquaculture companies, farmers associations.

● Secondary operators – Operators who receive the raw material (where these are not the primary operators), e.g. processing companies and others who sell and/or market the products, builders of infrastructure.

● Related agencies – Representatives of all main managers of resources/infrastructures that either affect or are affected by the production system in question, e.g. water managing authorities, environmental agencies, tourism, transport, and marine spatial planning.

8

● Scientists/expert groups – Individual scientists and/or representatives from a scientific institution or company with relevant expert knowledge.

● NGOs, lobby groups, educators – individuals or representatives from groups that can

influence and lobby, e.g. for policy, resource use, infrastructure.

9

7.3 CAP kick-off meetingThe purpose of the CAP kick-off meeting is to determine stakeholder roles and involvement. All identified stakeholders are invited to the CAP kick-off meeting, which can be a physical or online meeting. The meeting should be announced on relevant online platforms and/or media, to reach additional potential stakeholders and to ensure openness and transparency.

During the CAP kick-off meeting, the CAP initiator outlines the ambitions and the production system’s needs for starting a CAP development process. At this meeting, all stakeholders can decide on their role and level of involvement during the CAP development process. This will depend on their interests, availability and capacity in terms of resources. Stakeholders can be involved in the following roles, with the following work requirements:

CAP consortium members:

● Allocate effort within key steps of the CAP development process, depending on their expertise;

● Assist with funding of the CAP development process in line with expected effort, either through own funding or external funding;

● Should preferably be included in the development of key documents prior to the CAP development process initiation, i.e. CAP project plan and cost estimation. Their validation and signature on these documents are required, as well as on the subsequent formal CAP agreement.

Reference group members:

● Will be informed throughout the process and consulted at relevant stages during the CAP development process while also given an opportunity to represent their own interests;

● Invited to participate in (at least) two reference group meetings during the CAP development process, at their own expense.

The CAP initiator and the stakeholders discuss and outline the scope and objectives of the CAP. To conclude the kick-off meeting, the interested parties form the CAP Consortium and the reference group. All the names and contact details of consortium and reference group members are recorded.

After the kick-off meeting, the CAP initiator prepares a draft CAP development project plan, which should include the following items:

1. Background: Leaders of the CAP development process and its scope and objectives.

2. CAP development process participants: Information and contact details on all participants and their role as members of either the CAP consortium or the reference group.

3. CAP development work plan: Outline of the CAP development process, specific tasks within the process, work task leaders and their timescale for delivery.

4. Resource requirements: Outline of resources required to execute the CAP development process, including costs of expected work effort from Consortium members. Funding of all main cost items within the CAP development and the role of each participant in collecting those funds is clarified.

10

7.4 CAP Agreement meetingThe CAP initiator invites the CAP consortium members for a meeting (physical or online) in order to scope and draft the CAP agreement. The meeting should be open to the reference group if they are interested to join. The formal invitation to the CAP Agreement meeting should be sent by the CAP initiator at least two months prior to the meeting, and the invitation should include:

● The meeting venue and time;

● Short introduction to the goals of the meeting;

● The meeting agenda (see suggested agenda in Annex 1);

● Draft CAP development project plan (developed after kick-off meeting, see above);

● Contact details of the CAP initiator.

During the CAP Agreement meeting, the CAP consortium needs to discuss and clarify the key aspects of the CAP development process, such as the scope of the CAP, cost estimate, funding allocation and the project plan. After these key aspects have been clarified and are agreed upon by the CAP consortium, the CAP initiator creates a formal CAP agreement. The formal CAP agreement should capture the following key aspects:

● List of active participants (name, organisation);

● Scope of the CAP (species, areas, gears, etc.) and main outcomes;

● Timeline of the CAP development process;

● Cost estimation (including work allocation among CAP consortium, funding opportunities and funding allocation for each participant, in line with the project plan);

● Project plan (accompanying document, developed after kick-off meeting);

● Main challenges foreseen and how they will be addressed.

After the CAP Agreement meeting, the formal CAP agreement must be circulated among the CAP consortium for validation and needs to be signed by all members. After all members of the CAP consortium have agreed and signed the CAP agreement, the CAP development process can be launched.

8 Making a CAP: Detailed description of key tasks8.1 Task One: Assessment of risks and opportunitiesIn this task, the production system in question is deconstructed and all of its different characteristics/elements are evaluated in relation to risks and opportunities. Task One consists of three steps which are described in detail below. The template “System characteristic breakdown” (see Annex 2) should be used to conduct Task One.

11

Task One: Step 1 – Evaluation of current status of characteristics

First, the categories of the production system are identified, following the sustainability pillars, where four categories should be considered: ecological, economic, social and governance, as shown in Figure 2. A fifth category, production, should be added for aquaculture production systems. While these categories will be similar for most fisheries production systems, they might vary slightly, and should therefore be evaluated for each case. For example, if at later stages in the process the user identifies one or more characteristics of the industry that do not fit into any of these categories, the user should add a new category accordingly.

Figure 2: The categories of a production system which should be used as a starting point.

Once the categories have been identified, each of them should be broken further down into sub-categories. The number of sub-categories can vary significantly, depending on the nature of the industry and the operations, but should strive to cover the whole dimension of the category.

The ClimeFish CAP “System characteristics breakdown template” (Annex 2) should be used as a starting point, as it contains suggestions for sub-categories for all three sectors. The user should go through each sub-category listed in the template and determine its relevance to the production system in question. If a sub-category is not relevant, it should be removed. If the user identifies sub-categories within his production system that is not currently listed in the template, it should be added. Once all sub-categories have been listed, the next step is to identify and allocate all characteristics of the production system into relevant sub-categories.

Once the list of characteristics has been finalised, information on the current state of these characteristics is collected. This should ideally include information on the following:

● Current condition of the characteristic and any recent changes;

● Main external drivers / external influential factors;

● Main internal influential factors (related to the operation/management);

● Existing management measures and managing authority;

● Available preventive measures/treatments (where applicable);

● Future outlook;

This is performed by filling the column ‘current status of characteristics’ in the “System characteristics breakdown template” (Annex 2). This provides a better overview and understanding of the status of the production system.

Main contributors to this step are active participants of the CAP consortium with in-depth knowledge of the day-to-day operation of the production system.

12

Task One: Step 2 – Biological forecast

Each characteristic that is likely to respond to climate change will be described and ideally simulated using biological forecasting models. The CAP consortium can choose the timeframe for the forecasting models, but it is best to cover short-term, mid-term and long-term timeframes. However, not all characteristics can be forecasted. In such cases, information regarding potential impacts of climate change on the fisheries/aquaculture production systems can be acquired through a detailed literature review and expert knowledge. If no or limited scientific or expert knowledge is available on climate change effects on key characteristics of the production system in question, ideally additional research needs to be conducted. This could include collection and analysis of biological, environmental or interview data, to obtain indications on the projected effects on key characteristics.

Main contributors to this step are members of the CAP consortium with a scientific modelling background or qualified scientist(s) hired as a third party.

Task One: Step 3 – Risk and opportunity assessment

The risk and opportunity assessment aims to use risk assessment principles to evaluate key climate-related impacts expected to affect the characteristics of the production system in question. The impacts will be evaluated as either risks and/or opportunities. There are a number of different risk/opportunity assessment methods available and the suitable method has to be evaluated for each case, depending on e.g. data availability and nature of production system. FAO’s online EAF toolbox2 provides a good overview of different risk assessment methods, including a selection criteria. The risk/opportunity assessment selected will use information acquired and results from Step 2.

Main contributors to this step are active participants of the CAP consortium who have experience with analysing risks and opportunities of climate change.

First stakeholder meeting

The list of impacts identified in Step 3 is communicated to the CAP consortium and the reference group during a workshop, where each impact will be further evaluated and validated. During this stakeholder event, the participants discuss the identified impacts and add or dismiss impacts based on their knowledge and experience. Depending on the risk assessment method used in Step 3, the stakeholders can evaluate each impact, firstly by defining whether the impact is perceived as a risk or an opportunity. Secondly, stakeholders can vote on how severely the impacts may affect or benefit their activities. The outcome of this first stakeholder meeting should be a list of validated risks and/or opportunities that have been ranked in terms of how severely they will affect the production system.

2 www.fao.org/fishery/eaf-net/toolbox

13

Outcomes of Task One

List of production system‘s characteristics and their current status Projected/forecasted effects of climate change on key characteristics List of main risks and opportunities expected to occur within the production system

under future climate change

8.2 Task Two: Identification of adaptation measuresTask Two aims to prioritize the production system’s characteristics identified in Task One, in order to focus the CAP development process on the most vulnerable and at-risk characteristics. Characteristics that are not likely to be affected by climate change will be dismissed, resulting in a reduced number of characteristics under evaluation when identifying adaptation measures.

The template ‘CAP Identification of adaptation measures’ (CAP IAM template) (Annex 3) should be used to complete Task Two.

14

Task Two: Step 4 - Vulnerability assessment

First, a risk threshold needs to be set which determines the maximum acceptable risk level. This level can be either expressed qualitatively, e.g. ranging from “No risk” to “Severe risk”, or quantitatively as a numerical score within a set range, e.g. 0-100. The maximum acceptable risk level, i.e. the risk threshold, is determined by the CAP consortium.

Selecting a risk threshold

When setting a risk threshold, the CAP consortium needs to decide between having a high-risk threshold or a low risk threshold. A low risk threshold allows more climate related impacts to be included in the vulnerability assessment, and thus, more characteristics will be under evaluation. A low risk threshold therefore results in a more comprehensive CAP where all risks facing the production system will considered. However, if the CAP development process is only intended to address the most important risks facing the production system (as opposed to all risks), the risk threshold should be high. A high-risk threshold limits the impacts considered in the CAP, as only those impacts with the highest risk score will make the cut. This means that fewer characteristics will be under evaluation and only those facing the most severe risks will be assigned an adaptation measure. The selection of the risk threshold will therefore depend on the scope of the CAP, as well as the budget available for the CAP development process, as a lower risk threshold will mean more work effort by the CAP consortium.

Selecting characteristics to enter vulnerability assessment

Once the risk threshold has been set, all impacts with a risk score above that threshold (referred to as “risks” from now on) are listed in the CAP IAM template (Annex 3). Characteristics impacted by each risk are listed in the next column of the template. The number of characteristics impacted by each risk will depend on the production system under evaluation. Characteristics that are not affected by any of the risks will be dismissed from the CAP development process as they are not considered to be highly threatened by future climate change. The remaining characteristics will next enter a vulnerability assessment.

Vulnerability assessment

Vulnerability describes to what extent a characteristic is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, the expected impacts of climate change. It is a function of three components: exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. In most cases, exposure and sensitivity will be evaluated for each risk in the risk assessment (Task One: Step 3), and those scores can be allocated to the characteristics. A remaining step is to evaluate the adaptive capacity of each characteristic. The outcome of the vulnerability assessment an overview of each characteristic’s vulnerability towards climate change. A suggested method for a vulnerability assessment of the remaining characteristics, including evaluation of adaptive capacity, can be found in Annex 4. However, various methods for vulnerability assessments are available and the CAP consortium must agree on the most suitable method for their production system.

After the vulnerability assessment, the CAP consortium selects the most vulnerable characteristics to enter Step 5.

15

Task Two: Step 5 – Identification of adaptation needs

Step 5 will identify the adaptation needs of all remaining characteristics and therefore help understand what kind of adaptation measures are needed to help each characteristic to adapt to climate change. As defined by IPCC (2014), adaptation needs are the gap between what might happen as the climate changes and what we would desire to happen.

The objective of Step 5 is to define what the CAP consortium would desire to happen for each characteristic under future climate change. In the CAP development process, this is referred to as “a broad future objective”. The broad future objective can differ for each characteristic depending on the risk it is being affected by, meaning that the same characteristic can have one broad future objective under one risk, but a different broad future objective under another risk. The broad future objective of each characteristic must therefore be defined under each risk it relates to in the CAP IAM template.

Once the adaptation need has been identified and the broad future objective has been set, it must be further defined through setting outcome targets (OT) and their associated performance indicators.

Setting indicators

Performance indicators are set based on the broad future objective for each characteristic. The most effective way to set an indicator is to start drafting it before setting the OT and the adaptation measure, that is, to only set it based on the broad future objective. By doing it this way, it should lead the CAP consortium to the most appropriate OT and then consequently, the adaptation measure. It is however highly recommended to go back and revise the indicators and OTs once the adaptation measures have been set in the end, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: selection of indicators is an iterative process where the indicators must give relevant measurement on the success of the adaptation measure. OT: Outcome Target.

A good indicator is measurable, and its measurements will give good indication of how well the adaptation measure is progressing in reaching the OT (i.e. the goal of the adaptation measure). While the broad future objective answers the question: “How would you like to see the state of this characteristics in the future?” – the indicator needs to answer the question: “What can be measured to monitor how we are progressing in reaching this broad future objective?”.

Setting outcome targets (OTs)

The OTs are specific and measurable performance goals which are defined for an adaptation measure within the fishery or aquaculture in question, based on the broad future objective. OTs are expressed as threshold values of the respective indicators set previously and/or a textual or mathematical statement that can be evaluated as ''true'' or ''false'', where ''true'' is the target value. Below are a few examples of possible OTs for set indicators within an aquaculture production system.

16

Table 1: Examples of OTs for set of indicators within an aquaculture production system

Indicator Outcome targetGrowth rate (SGR) and ongrowing period at farm (time to market size)

Time to market size ≤ X days

Annual income (€ / year) Increased Return on Assets (ROA ≥ X € / year)Employment (as # of employees/farm) Increased employment within industry (≥ X% of

workforce)Number of days (annual) where husbandry operation procedures are inhibited due to limited infrastructure durability to extreme weather

Number of non-operational days ≤ X days

Feeding costs (€ / ton of fish produced) Feeding costs ≤ X% of production costs

Main contributors to this step are members of the CAP consortium with a good knowledge on daily operations within the production system as they will be able to provide relevant and realistic indicators and OTs.

Task Two: Step 6 – Identification and assessment of adaptation measures

When identifying adaptation measures, the CAP consortium must incorporate the results from previous steps in Task Two, as the adaptation measures must:

a) Help meet the adaptation needs;b) Contribute to reaching the OTs;c) Be possible to implement.

The adaptation measures identified can be of various nature but should roughly be categorised into three groups based on the level of action needed and responsibility for implementation (Table 2).

● Industry level adaptation measures: Adaptation measures where operators are responsible for implementation and do not require changes in legislation. OTs and indicators are required for these adaptation measures, as they will be applied directly on the production processes, meaning that the changes in inputs or outputs can (usually) be measured. This will also enable operators to estimate the success of the adaptation measures themselves.

● Policy recommendations: All adaptation measures that are either a) industry level adaptation measures that require prior legislative change, or b) entirely in the hands of authorities (local, regional, national or European). As these adaptation measures cannot be implemented directly by the industry, they will be set forward in the form of policy recommendations, giving the relevant authorities guidance on desirable actions to increase the resilience of the sector towards climate change. These adaptation measures can range from being a simple change in legislation, to a development of financial instrument(s) to facilitate other adaptation measures, such as funding schemes, establishment of subsidies, or an insurance framework. OTs and indicators are not required in this category.

● Research and knowledge gaps: Identified knowledge gaps that must be filled to a) implement an adaptation measure that is already identified, or b) help identify a suitable adaptation measure. In many cases, it is clear what sort of adaptation measure is needed, but the best way to design or implement it remains unclear. OTs and indicators are not required for this category.

17

Table 2: The three adaptation measure(s) categories with examples.

AM category Type of action Presented in CAP as Responsible entity Examples

Industry level

Actions within the production system’s processes that can be implemented by the industry itself without legislative changes

Suggested adaptation measures, including OTs and indicators to monitor progress.

Operators ● Improved monitoring activities (e.g. of water quality, mortalities, growth rates, etc.)

● Improved reporting of at-sea incidents

● Operation of breeding programmes

Policy recommen-dations

Legislative change to allow for implementation of an identified industry level adaptation measure

Suggestions and guidance for relevant authorities for desirable actions to increase the resilience of the production system towards climate change

Authorities ● Improved management of re-stocking activities

● Improved marine spatial planning (revised selection criteria for aquaculture site selection)

Actions entirely in the hands of authorities (regional, national or European)

● Revision and settlement of allocation criteria for quota sharing agreements

Research and knowledge gaps

Research and knowledge building

Suggested research or identified key knowledge gaps

Scientists / academics

● Effects of copepods (Calanus finmarchicus) fishery on marine ecosystems

● Monitoring & mapping of parasitic infections

● Development of new technology

Once adaptation measures have been identified, their impact on mitigating risks and/or utilizing opportunities within the production system should be assessed. An ex-ante impact assessment is proposed to estimate the likely future effects of identified adaptation measures. The procedures for an ex ante impact assessment includes: (1) Identify who will be impacted by the adaptation measure, (2) Identify the nature of the impact, i.e. positive or negative, (3) Predict how impacts will evolve over time. A well-conducted ex ante impact assessments can support evidence-based policymaking and facilitate stakeholder participation in the whole process. If possible, the measurable adaptation measures should be included in forecasting models developed to analyse their impacts under climate change. While this is the preferred way for an impact assessment, some of the adaptation measures suggested are more general under policy recommendations or knowledge building, and thus are difficult to include in forecasts and simulations. Adaptation measures that cannot be measured can be studied using a more qualitative approach, where the impacts are evaluated using a simpler scale, and taking potential trade-offs and synergies between the impacts into account.

18

Second stakeholder meeting

The identified adaptation measures must be verified and validated by both the CAP consortium and the reference group. This should ideally be done in a second stakeholder meeting, e.g. by setting up a group work activity or through targeted discussions. In the meeting, the identified adaptation measures, OTs and indicators are presented to all participants and evaluated. Feedback is collected, along with suggestions regarding implementation in order to start preparing implementation plans (Task Three).

8.3 Task Three: Operationalising the CAPsA finalised CAP must include details on all identified adaptation measures, including pathways for their implementation, expected work effort and financial resources.

Task Three: Step 7 – Implementation plan

Step 7 aims to prepare for the implementation of all identified adaptation measures. Key actors of implementation and their roles are identified, the cost of implementation is estimated, and potential funding sources acknowledged.

Key actors of implementation

To successfully implement the identified adaptation measures and increase the likelihood of reaching the OTs, it is important that relevant actors are involved in their implementation. Therefore, it is necessary to identify key actors of implementation and describe them in the CAP. There are no restrictions in terms of the number of key actors of implementation. The level of details when describing the key actors in the CAP is up to the CAP consortium, i.e. whether it will contain specific names or designated groups (e.g. associations), or actors with specific professions/expertise (e.g. fishers, aquaculture farmers, policy makers, retailers, scientists, engineers).

Resource estimation

Estimation of the resources needed for implementation of each adaptation measure is highly recommended, where possible. When estimating the resources needed for implementation, the level of implementation needs to be defined e.g. in aquaculture farms in a specific region or the sector on a national level. The type and amount of resources will vary significantly between adaptation measures, but could include labour, product development, infrastructure, technology, investments, etc. Where possible, a cost estimation of implementation should be presented in the CAP.

Source of funding

19

Outcomes of Task Two

List of most vulnerable characteristics within the production system; Identified adaptation needs for most vulnerable characteristics; List of adaptation measures to meet the adaptation needs; Indicators and OTs to enable monitoring of progress towards adaptation.

Identification of potential funding sources and/or key financial contributors for each resource and/or cost item detailed in the resource estimation is highly beneficial and should be included in the CAP. Various sources should be explored, ranging from private funding from stakeholders and companies, to national and European research funds and international funding bodies (e.g. EMFF3, LIFE4). The funding sources do not need to be confirmed at this stage, but merely an overview of potential contributors and options should be provided.

Time Frame

The time frame of implementation refers to the time needed for planning and implementation of the adaptation measures until considered fully functional. The time frame needs to be estimated in accordance with the resources and cost estimations as these go hand in hand. A time buffer should be indicated to cover unexpected delays in the implementation process.

9 CAP monitoring and evaluationMonitoring and evaluation play an important role in ensuring the long-term success of CAPs. It helps tracking the implementation of adaptation measures, determines whether adaptation needs have been met; and improves the implementation through evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of adaptation measures. Through monitoring and evaluation, unsatisfactory progress or unexpected barriers can be identified, and additional actions or required improvements can be highlighted.

Monitoring and evaluation can be conducted by using relevant indicators for the system characteristics that track the effective process of the CAP and its long-term outcomes. For this purpose, it is recommended to use a set of indicators that provide a coherent and robust picture of the adaptation progress. The indicators can include those identified in Step 5 in the CAP development process, as well as pre-existing and new ones. These indicators should include a mix of process, output, and outcome indicators to allow for the assessment of process inputs and outputs, resources, and organizational capability and overall adaptive capacity. Indicators should be quantitative if possible but qualitative indicators can also be used. Indicators should be measurable in the short-term but still related to the long-term outcomes of the adaptation measures.

The periodicity of monitoring and evaluation will be case specific for each CAP, while ad-hoc monitoring can be conducted when new information become available or at the occurrence of significant events. The monitoring and evaluation outcomes should be documented and evaluated during relevant stages of the implementation phase. These outcomes can be used to determine whether the CAP and its implementation are still valid or need updating. As a result, the CAP should

3 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/emff_en4 https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/section/life/life-climate-action-sub-programme

20

Outcomes of Task Three

List of key actors of implementation. List of estimated resources needed. List of potential funding sources. Timeframe for of planning and implementation of adaptation measures.

be considered a living document, which means that the plan should be revisited and updated periodically.

21

ReferencesBarange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M.C.M., Cochrane, K.L., Funge-Smith, S. & Poulain, F. (Eds). (2018).

Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 627. Rome, FAO. 654 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/i9705en/i9705en.pdf

Brugère, C., & De Young, C. (2015). Assessing climate change vulnerability in fisheries and aquaculture. Available methodologies and their relevance for the sector. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 597. Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/3a200d99-b9f5-4df0-9396-9a7ce2f6cf99/

EC. (2009). IMPACT ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SEC(2009)92). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf

EC. (2013). EU Guidelines on developing adaptation strategies. European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/adaptation/what/docs/swd_2013_134_en.pdf

FAO. (1997). Fisheries management. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 4. Rome, FAO. 82p. Choudhury, K. and Jansen, L.J.M. 1999. Terminology for Integrated Resources Planning and Management. FAO, Rome. 69p

FAO. (2003). Garcia, S.M.; Zerbi, A.; Aliaume, C.; Do Chi, T.; Lasserre, G. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations, implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 443. Rome, FAO. 2003. 71 p. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4773e.pdf

FAO. (2010). Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem approach to aquaculture. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 5, Suppl. 4. Rome, FAO. 2010. 53p. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/i1750e/i1750e00.htm

FAO. (2018). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf

FAO. (2019). FAO's Work on Climate Change - Fisheries & Aquaculture, 2019. Rome, FAO, 2019. http://www.fao.org/3/ca7166en/ca7166en.pdf

Glick, P., B.A, Stein, and N.A. Edelson, editors. (2011). Scanning the conservation horizon: a guide to climate change vulnerability assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.nwf.org/~/media/pdfs/global-warming/climate-smart-conservation/nwfscanningtheconservationhorizonfinal92311.ashx

Grafton, Q.R. (2010). Adaptation to climate change in marine capture fisheries. Marine Policy, 34(3), 606-615.

ISO 14090:2019. (2019). Adaptation to climate change – Principles, requirements and guidelines. The International Organization for Standardization.

ISO/DIS 14091. (2019). ISO guidelines on Adaptation to climate change — Guidelines on vulnerability, impacts and risk assessment. Under development. (https://www.iso.org/standard/68508.html)

IPCC. (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324

22

IPCC. (2014b). Annex II: Glossary [Agard, J., E.L.F. Schipper, J. Birkmann, M. Campos, C. Dubeux, Y. Nojiri, L. Olsson, B. Osman-Elasha, M. Pelling, M.J. Prather, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, O.C. Ruppel, A. Sallenger, K.R. Smith, A.L. St. Clair, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, and T.E. Bilir (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1757-1776.

IPCC. (2019). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer (eds.)]. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf

Newton, A., & Elliott, M. (2016). A Typology of Stakeholders and Guidelines for Engagement in Transdisciplinary, Participatory Processes. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 230. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00230

Shelton, C (2014) Climate change adaptation in fisheries and aquaculture – compilation of initial examples. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1088. Rome, FAO. 34 pp. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3569e.pdf

23

Annexes

Annex 1: Suggested meeting agenda for the CAP Agreement meeting

24

Suggested agenda for the CAP Agreement meeting1. Welcome and opening of the meeting, introduction of all Consortium members (10 min)2. Introduction to the CAP development process and presentation of suggested scope and

timeline (30-40 min – presenter: CAP initiator) Discussions on scope and timeline of the CAP

3. Presentation of the draft CAP development project plan (10-20 min – presenter: [NAME]) Discussions on the CAP development project plan Discussions on effort allocation

4. Presentation of initial cost estimate and potential funding (10-20 min – presenter: [NAME]) Discussions on cost estimate and expenses from each member of the CAP

Consortium to the CAP agreement Discussions on potential funding

5. Organisation of work 6. Main challenges and how to address them7. Drafting of the formal CAP agreement (set deadlines for draft, feedback and signatures)8. Next steps9. Any other business10. Closure of the meeting

Annex 2: System characteristic breakdown template

Figure 4: Suggested list of system characteristics for marine fisheries:

25

Figure 5: Suggested list of system characteristics for freshwater fisheries:

26

Figure 6: Suggested list of system characteristics for marine aquaculture:

27

Annex 3: IAM template

Figure 7. IAM template. Risks/opportunities that reach the set risk threshold are detailed in the column on the far left and all characteristics that related to that risk/opportunity are detailed in the next column. These characteristics then enter the vulnerability assessment and consequently, adaptation measures will be developed for the most vulnerable characteristics.

28

Annex 4: ClimeFish vulnerability assessment

Evaluation of adaptive capacity:

Adaptive capacity (AC) of a characteristic refers to its abilities and the resources available to cope with climate-related changes. In order to evaluate AC, three AC indicators are considered for each of the remaining characteristics in order to capture its abilities to adapt:

1. Current state of the characteristic: What is the current situation of the characteristic? Is it in a fragile state or is it flourishing under the current conditions/environment?

2. Level of human control over the characteristic: How much control do we actually have over the characteristic? Is it completely in the hands of stakeholders5 to control (e.g. fishing mortality) or is it completely out of their hands to control (e.g. growth rates)? Or is there some degree of control but not complete (e.g. employment)?

3. Capacity to take action (financial resources, incentives and existing knowledge): What is the existing capacity of stakeholders to take action? This indicator involves three pillars: a) existing or pending financial resources to act, b) existing incentives among stakeholders (motivation, interest, importance) to act, and c) current (or pending) level of knowledge needed to take action (e.g. feedback loops of action and effects on wider production system).

Each of these three adaptive capacity indicators are scored from 1 (low AC) – 2 (medium AC) to 3 (high AC) as Table 1 below. Once all three adaptive capacity indicators have been given its score, the average AC score for the characteristic is calculated, giving it an overall AC score ranging from one (low adaptive capacity) to three (high adaptive capacity).

5 The term stakeholder is used here to grasp the overall capacity of those who are related to the production system in one way or another, whether it’s the operators or the authorities. For the adaptive capacity indicators two and three, the control and capacity might be different between the operators and the authorities.

29

Table 3: Scoring adaptive capacity

AC indicators Reference criteria AC score

Current state of characteristic

● Bad current state of characteristic (e.g. impeded growth rates or low market prices)

● High frequency of occurrence of negative characteristic (e.g. algal blooms) – i.e. has been much less frequent in the past

1

(low AC)

● Average current state of characteristic (e.g. acceptable growth rates and market prices)

● Average frequency of occurrence of negative characteristic (e.g. algal blooms) – i.e. has been less frequent in the past

2

(medium AC)

● Good current state of characteristic (e.g. high growth rates or good market prices)

● Infrequent occurrence of negative characteristic (e.g. algal blooms)

● Frequent occurrence of positive characteristics (e.g. large cohorts)

3

(high AC)

Level of human control

● No or very limited ability of operators and/or authorities to control the state of the characteristic (e.g. floods and recruitment success)

1

(low AC)

● Medium ability of operators and/or authorities to control the state of the characteristic (e.g. employment and disease outbreaks)

2

(medium AC)

● Significant ability of operators and/or authorities to control the state of the characteristic (e.g. fishing mortality, infrastructure (cages/vessels) and licensing)

3

(high AC)

Capacity to take action Existing financial resources among stakeholders to act 1 (no/limited) 1 -1.5

30

(low AC)2 (some but more needed)

3 (sufficient)

Existing incentives among stakeholders (motivation, interest, importance) to act

1 (no/limited)

1.6-2.5

(med. AC)2 (some but more needed)

3 (sufficient)

Current (or pending) level of knowledge needed to act

1 (no/limited)

2.6-3

(high AC)2 (some but more needed)

3 (sufficient)

2,6 – 3,0 High adaptive capacity 1,6 – 2,5 Medium adaptive capacity 1,0-1,5 Low adaptive

capacity

Assessment of vulnerability:

Once the AC score for each characteristic has been evaluated it is possible to start to estimate the vulnerability of the characteristics. The CAP vulnerability assessment therefore uses a matrix to estimate the vulnerability, using the AC score (high-medium-low AC) and the estimation of consequence level from the risk assessment.

Given that the risk assessment method selected for each case will differ, the values used in the matrix will depend on the risk assessment method used. Below is an example of how such a vulnerability assessment can be done. Here, the AC scores for each characteristic are set up against the consequence level for each impact, which is assessed in the risk assessment. This matrix approach (demonstrated below) can, however, be used irrelevant of the risk assessment method used in each case, by simply replacing the “consequence” level used below with the (exposure + sensitivity) estimation used for each case.

31

Table 4: The CAP vulnerability assessment matrix

AC score High AC

(2.5 - 3)

Medium AC

(1.6 -2.5)

Low AC

(1.5 - 1)Consequence level ↓

Extreme (4)

Major (3)

Moderate (2)

Low vulnerability Medium vulnerability

High

vulnerability

All remaining characteristics after the prioritisation process are the characteristics that are most at risk and most vulnerable to climate change. Other characteristics will not be considered for any further action. The remaining characteristics will now be carried throughout the CAP development process, resulting in identification of adaptation measure(s) to address the adaptation need for each remaining characteristic.

Main contributors to this step: are active participants with a good knowledge on daily operations within the production system, in order to be able to provide a relevant and realistic first estimation of the AC scores for each characteristic. Once the main contributors have provided the first assessment of the AC scores, it should be verified by a larger group of active participants with a wide background (administrative, legislative, operational), and ideally, stakeholders as well.

32