Search

The System for Assessment of Ecological Condition, coordinated by the Norwegian Environment Agency, is intended to form the foundation for evidence-based assessments of the ecological condition of Norwegian terrestrial and marine ecosystems not covered by the EU Water Framework Directive. The reference condition is defined as “intact ecosystems”, i.e., a condition that is largely unimpacted by modern industrial activities. An ecosystem in good ecological condition does not deviate substantially from this reference condition in structure, functions or productivity. This report describes the first operational assessment of the ecological condition of the pelagic ecosystem in the Norwegian Sea. The assessment method employed is the Panel-based Assessment of Ecosystem Condition (PAEC1) and the current assessment has considered to what extent the Norwegian Sea pelagic ecosystem deviates from the reference condition2 by evaluating change in trajectories. Panel-based Assessment of Ecosystem Condition of the Norwegian Sea Pelagic Ecosystem

The Workshop on pathways to climate-aware advice (WKCLIMAD) met in the autumn of 2021 to develop a proposal for an advisory framework that accounts for the influences of climate change on aquaculture, fisheries, and ecosystems. The workshop worked through online sessions with over 40 participants.Climate-informed advice should be provided through a risk-based framework that considers magnitude and likelihood of impacts, effectiveness and feasibility of measures. A wealth of data, tools and methods exists to on-ramp the advice. However, it is important to consider how these are utilised. To provide robust climate-informed advice, there is a need to identify and rank climate impacts and the associated risks, and match adaptation measures with public policy objectives. There must be a balance between actionable advice and reporting of uncertainty.The next steps for ICES should be to evaluate these three recommended additions to the advice framework/principles:• Development of a framework for spatial knowledge and advice, that includes definitions of temporal and spatial scale of management challenges.• Proactive solicitation of experts and stakeholders in relevant fields. Co-production of knowledge with iterative feedback, accounting for the plurality of knowledge and participation mechanisms.• Formulation of a plan for outputs, and communication, from the start of process, including allocation of sufficient resources to deliver advice.Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the communication and co-creation of advice.Climate-informed advice should include an assessment of current conditions in relation to the desired state. This requires not just an evaluation of the current state of the system, but the likely and/or desired future state of the fisheries/aquaculture system. This will also require greater effort on scoping of future scenarios of ecosystem state, and potential management measures for adaptation, and some mitigation. Advice should document the expected effects of specific management actions, giving attention to the potential distribution of management costs and benefits. Advice should be produced in response to requests but also be proactively produced by ICES. WKCLIMAD provides ICES with definitions, language and terminology that align with, and build on, those of the IPCC and calls on ICES to consistently use this terminology. The workshop also provides example lists of drivers, impacts, measures and potential actions.ICES needs to attract expertise from beyond its traditional areas of ecosystem and population dynamics and oceanography. Engagement with the plurality of the knowledge base is required, as a mean to refine goals, explore trade-offs between management objectives, as well as to build a common understanding and build knowledge about the system and efficient pathways of action to governance. WKCLIMAD considered that to provide credible climate-informed advice, the evidence base needs to be strengthened in the following scientific fields:• future scenarios of management options and ecosystem state• risk, vulnerability and resilience analysis of species, ecosystems, and human communities• spatial planning information and models• trade-offs among potential actions, and incentives for best practice sharing including technological developments• carbon accounting across the system• monitoring and early-warning systems

On its western side, the Bay of Biscay is located at the limit between the North Atlan­tic sub-polar and subtropical gyres, while the eastern and southern sides are bounded by land with a large continental shelf to the east and a narrow one to the south. The sharp continental slope results in a separation between hydrological processes taking place on and off the shelf. On the shelf, mesoscale hydrodynamic features, such as coastal upwellings, river plumes, and freshwater lenses, mostly depend upon regional climate forcing rather than upon the general oceanic circulation. Here, we review how three key regional climate and hydrological forcing factors (sea surface temperature, windspeed and river run-off) have varied during the past decade in comparison with multi-decadal historical records. The 1990s were characterized by warmer temperature and windier conditions than during the previous century, while the river run-off is slightly lower than average and highly variable. The Bay of Biscay lies between two regions where the responses to the North Atlantic Oscillation are opposite, and, as a result, it is expected that the NAO would only account for a very small fraction of the variability observed in temperature, windspeed, and river run-off in this region. Our results confirm this hypothesis.Description not yet available. Article from Marine Science Symposia Vol. 219 - "Hydrobiological variability in the ICES Area, 1990-1999", symposium held in Edinburgh, 8-10 August 2001. To access the remaining articles please click on the keyword "MSS Vol. 219".

Numerical models of ecological systems are increasingly used by scientists to address complex environmental questions. One challenge for scientists, managers, and stakeholders is to appraise the performance of these models to answer specific questions of scientific or societal relevance, that is to perform, communicate or access transparent evaluations of ecological models. While there have been substantial developments to support standardised descriptions of ecological models, less has been done to standardise and to report model evaluation practices. We present here a general protocol designed to guide the reporting of model evaluation. The protocol is organised in three major parts: the objective(s) of the modelling application, the ecological patterns of relevance and the evaluation methodology proper, and is termed the OPE (objectives, patterns, evaluation) protocol. We present the 25 questions of the OPE protocol which address the many aspects of the evaluation process and then apply them to six case studies based on a diversity of ecological models. In addition to standardising and increasing the transparency of the model evaluation process, we find that going through the OPE protocol helps modellers to think more deeply about the evaluation of their models. From this last point, we suggest that it would be highly beneficial for modellers to consider the OPE early in the modelling process, in addition to using it as a reporting tool and as a reviewing tool., The published version of this article is available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110059