· | i . SCICOM Expert Group Resolutions 2013 . Contents . SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem...

| i

SCICOM Expert Group Resolutions 2013

Contents

SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem Functions (SSGEF) Resolutions 2013 ........................................................................................................................................... 1

SSGEF Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS) ............................................... 1 Working Group on Integrated Morphological and Molecular

Taxonomy (WGIMT) ............................................................................... 1 Working Group on Cephalopod Biology and Life History

(WGCEPH) ................................................................................................ 4 Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs

(WGCRAB)................................................................................................ 8

SSGEF multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates) .................................................................................. 12 Working Group on Effectiveness of Recovery Actions for Atlantic

Salmon (WGERAAS) ............................................................................. 12 Working Group on Biodiversity Science (WGBIODIV) ............................... 13 Working Group on Small Pelagic Fishes, their Ecosystems and

Climate Impact (WGSPEC) ................................................................... 17 Working Group on Phytoplankton and Microbial Ecology

(WGPME) ................................................................................................ 18 Working group on Marine Benthal and Renewable Energy

Developments (WGMBRED) ................................................................ 21 Working Group on Crangon fisheries and life history (WGCRAN) ........... 24 Working Group on the Science Requirements to Support

Conservation, Restoration and Management of Diadromous Species (WGRECORDS) ........................................................................ 27

SSGEF annual groups ................................................................................................... 29 Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE) ............................................... 29 Working Group on Zooplankton Ecology (WGZE) ..................................... 30 Working Group on Oceanic Hydrography (WGOH) ................................... 33 Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG) .................................................... 35

SSGEF workshops ......................................................................................................... 37 Workshop on Lampreys and Shads (WKLS) ................................................. 37 Workshop of a Planning Group on the Monitoring of Eel Quality

under the subject “Development of standardized and harmonized protocols for the estimation of eel quality” (WKPGMEQ) .......................................................................................... 38

Workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic (WKGIC) ................................................................................................. 40

SSGEF EG resolutions approved in 2012 ................................................................... 42

SSGEF EGs dissolved in 2014 ...................................................................................... 42

SCICOM Steering Group on Human Interactions on Ecosystems (SSGHIE) Resolutions 2013........................................................................................................... 44

ii |

SSGHIE Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS) ........................................... 44 Working Group on Marine Renewable Energy (WGMRE) ......................... 44 Working Group for Marine Planning and Coastal Zone

Management (WGMPCZM) ................................................................. 46 Working Group on the Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments

on the Marine Ecosystem (WGEXT) .................................................... 50 Working Group on Resilience and marine ecosystem services

(WGRMES) .............................................................................................. 53

SSGHIE multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates ................................................................................... 56 Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Organisms

(WGPDMO) ............................................................................................ 56 Working Group on Biological Effect of Contaminants (WGBEC) .............. 60 Working Group on Aquaculture (WGAQUA) .............................................. 63

SSGHIE annual groups ................................................................................................ 71 Marine Chemistry Working Group (MCWG) ............................................... 71 Working Group on Marine Sediments in Relation to Pollution

(WGMS) ................................................................................................... 75 Study Group on Socio-Economic Dimensions of Aquaculture

(SGSA) ..................................................................................................... 77 ICES IOC Working Group on Harmful Algal Bloom Dynamics

(WGHABD) ............................................................................................. 80 Working Group on Application of Genetics in Fisheries and

Mariculture (WGAGFM)....................................................................... 82 SSGHIE workshops ...................................................................................................... 85

Joint Rijkswaterstaat/DFO/ICES Workshop: Risk Assessment for Spatial Management (WKRASM) ........................................................ 85

Joint CIESM/ICES Workshop on Mnemiopsis Science (JWMS) .................. 87

SSGHIE EGs to be dissolved in 2014 .......................................................................... 88

SCICOM Steering Group on Regional Sea Programmes (SSGRSP) Resolutions 2013........................................................................................................... 89

SSGRSP Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS) ........................................... 89 Working Group on the Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea

(WGNARS) ............................................................................................. 89 Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European

Shelf Seas (WGEAWESS) ...................................................................... 91 Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea

(WGIBAR) ............................................................................................... 93 Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea

(WGINOSE) ............................................................................................ 97 Study Group on Spatial Analyses for the Baltic Sea (SGSPATIAL) ......... 105

SSGRSP multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates ................................................................................. 106 ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the

Baltic Sea (WGIAB) .............................................................................. 106

SSGRSP workshops .................................................................................................... 109

| iii

SSGRSP EGs – Multi-annual ToR groups – new meeting dates and venues of groups already approved ............................................................................ 110 SSGRSP EGs to be dissolved in 2014 ............................................................ 110

SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem Surveys Science and Technology (SSGESST) Resolutions 2013 ................................................................................... 111

SSGESST Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS) ....................................... 111

Working Group on International Deep Pelagic Ecosystem Surveys (WGIDEEPS) (formerly the Working Group on Redfish Surveys (WGRS) ............................................................................................................... 111 Working Group on Target Classification (WGTC) ..................................... 114 Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics, Science and Technology

(WGFAST) ............................................................................................. 117 ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish

Behaviour (WGFTFB) .......................................................................... 119 Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys (WGBEAM) .............................. 121 Working Group on North-east Atlantic continental slope surveys

(WGNEACS) ......................................................................................... 123 SSGESST multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and

venue and other updates ................................................................................. 126 SSGESST annual groups ............................................................................................ 129

SSGESST workshops .................................................................................................. 142

SSGESST EG resolutions approved in 2011 ............................................................ 142 SSGESST EGs – Multi-annual ToR groups – new meeting dates and

venues of groups already approved .............................................................. 142

SSGESST EGs resolutions pending approval by SCICOM (reporting after the 2013 ASC) .................................................................................................... 143

SSGESST EGs to be dissolved in 2014 ...................................................................... 143

SCICOM Steering Group on Sustainable Use of Ecosystems (SSGSUE) Resolutions 2013......................................................................................................... 144

SSGSUE Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS) ........................................ 144 Working Group on Recruitment Forecasting in a Variable

Environment (WGRFE) ....................................................................... 144 Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG) .......................... 146

SSGSUE multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates ................................................................................. 151 WGVHES Revised Suggested ToRs for 2014 ............................................... 155 Working Group on Fisheries-Induced Evolution (WGEVO) .................... 156 Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data (WGSFD) ................................. 158

SSGSUE annual groups .............................................................................................. 165

SSGSUE EGs - meeting dates and venues of already approved groups ............. 169

SSGSUE EGs to be dissolved in 2014 ....................................................................... 169

Data and Information Group Resolutions 2013 ............................................................ 170

Workshop on ICES Data Guidelines (WKIDG) ........................................... 170

iv |

Workshop on Integrated DATRAS Products (WKIDP) ............................. 171

| 1

SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem Functions (SSGEF) Resolutions 2013

SSGEF Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS)

Working Group on Integrated Morphological and Molecular Taxonomy (WGIMT)

2013/MA2/SSGEF01 The Study Group on Integrated Morphological and Molecular Taxonomy (SGIMT) will be renamed the Working Group on Integrated Morphological and Molecular Taxonomy (WGIMT), chaired by Ann Bucklin, USA, and will meet in Reykjavik, Iceland, 27–29 March 2014 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGIMT will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 15 June 2014 to SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

a Expand membership of WGIMT

a) Integrative taxonomy requires experts in both morphological and molecular taxonomic approaches. b,c) Members in common will facilitate coordination between WGIMT and ACOM EGs and help ensure advisory goals are met.

1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 3.1

Year 1 WGIMT will include experts in both morphological and molecular taxonomy for major zooplankton groups; 2 members in common with ACOM EGs. (Year 1).

b Develop a web platform for promotion and exchange of relevant scientific information

a) Locating and accessing morphological and molecular taxonomic information can be difficult: some classical taxonomic references are out-of-print; molecular data are not released prior to publication. b,c) Easier access to data and information will encourage use of integrative taxonomic approaches.

1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.6.1, 3.1

Years 1,2,3 WGIMT.net web portal designed, established (Year 1) and fully populated (Year 2) Specially-designed elements and deep links created for WGAGFM, WGITMO, WGBOSV (Years 2, 3).

c Initiate and support provision of standards, training materials, and taxonomy workshops

a,b) ICES Taxonomy Workshops are very effective in engaging the target audience and ensuring trained technicians and researchers for applications in fisheries and ecosystem management. c) Co-sponsored workshops

1.2.1, 1.2.3, Year 2 ICES Taxonomy Workshop on: Future of Integrative Taxonomy (2015); SAHFOS-MBA Zooplankton Taxonomy Workshop with added molecular component

2 |

and meetings with ACOM EGs will provide cross-training and establish organic links between science and advice.

(2015). Baltic Zooplankton Expert Network with WGITMO (2015).

d Promote and encourage the continuing integration of molecular and morphological taxonomy

a,b,c) Integrative taxonomy is an emergent field; uses and applications for fisheries and ecosystem management should be explained in high-visibility settings in ICES and other organisations through special sessions

1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.6 Years 1,2,3 Organize special sessions at national and international conferences: Ocean Sciences Meetings (2014, 2016); ICES ASC (2015).

e Advise on the implications of developments for marine science and management

b,c) Integrative taxonomy (e.g., ‘library’ of DNA sequences for accurately-identified species) can provide a foundation for genetic methods for assessing species, diversity and abundance in integrated ecosystem assessments. c) Standardized metagenetic data can fulfill requirements of indicators defined in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (WGAGFM).

1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.6 Years 2,3 Report via SSGEF and ACOM EGs on uses of integrative taxonomy (e.g., environmental sequencing or metagenetics) for integrated ecosystem assessment (Years 2,3). Report on uses of metagenetic indicators to WGAGFM (Year 2).

f Cooperate with WGITMO and WGBOSV to encourage and facilitate application of molecular protocols for detection and identification of introduced and transported species in ballast water

a,b,c,) Integrative morphological-molecular taxonomic approaches will provide uniquely sensitive and accurate methods for detection of invasive species in natural assemblages and ballast water. Sources of origin and pathways of transport can be inferred from genetic analysis. These advanced will enable and facilitate better enforcement of regulations.

2.5 Years 1, 2,3 Define (Year 1), carry out (Year 2), and publish results (Year 3) of collaborative activities with WGITMO-WGBOSV. Participate in WGITMO-WGBOSV annual meetings (Years 1,2,3). Provide identifying DNA sequences for invasive species listed on AquaNIS (Year 2).

g Publish peer-reviewed articles on diverse aspects of integrative (morphological and molecular)

a) Stronger foundation and visibility in primary research literature is needed to establish the field of integrative taxonomy. b)

1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 3.1

Years 2, 3 Publish two papers related to WGIMT ToRs (Years 2, 3). Publish review article on

| 3

taxonomy, of zooplankton.

Publication in oeer-reviewed literature needed to demonstrate validity of data, protocols, and results for application to fisheries and ecosystem management.

integrative taxonomic approaches to characterising zooplankton communities (Year 2).

Summary of the Work Plan

Year 1 Focus on increasing membership (ToR a); design and establish web portal (ToR b). Advise WGAGFM on metagenetic approaches for taxonomic analysis of analysis (ToR e). Define parthership activities with WGITMO and WGBOSV (ToR f).

Year 2 Focus on integrative taxonomy workshops (ToR c). Carry out collaborative activities with WGITMO and WGBOSV (ToR f). Publish overview review article summarizing integrative approaches to zooplankton taxonomy (ToR g).

Year 3 Facilitate, encourage and enable use of integrated morphological and molecular taxonomic analysis of zooplankton in integrated ecosystem assessments in ICES area seas (ToRs d,e,f,g).

Supporting information

Priority: This Working Group will assist ICES and its Expert Groups with issues related to the development, dissemination and application of taxonomic knowledge and skills in support of Integrated Ecosystem Understanding. Accurate identification of species and characterization of species-level diversity are and will remain foundations of integrated ecosystem assessments of function and state. Integrated taxonomic approaches – including morphological, molecular, optical, and other – may enhance and accelerate progress toward rapid, automatable, and near-real-time identification of species for fisheries and integrated ecosystem assessments; detecting of the impacts of climate change on species diversity, distribution, abundance; and understanding alterations in food web structure and function, and associated biogeochemical cycles. The availability of and need for new technology and techniques in taxonomic analysis make WGIMT’s goals and activities important and high priority.

Resource requirements:

The research programs and Expert Group activities that provide input and are stakeholders for this group are already in place. Additional resources required for planned activities may include: 1) effort by an ICES web manager to maintain a web portal with taxonomic information and links.

Participants: The Expert Group now includes 23 members from 11 countries. Membership is expected to grow in near future through engagement of members from partner ICES Working Groups and other scientists with needed expertise and knowledge. The goal is to ensure balance and coverage of varied taxonomic approaches (including morphological taxonomists for the full range of taxonomic groups) and ICES geographic regions.

Secretariat facilities:

None.

Financial: No financial implications.

4 |

Linkages to ACOM and groups under ACOM:

Cooperative partnerships have been established with WGITMO and WGBOSV as defined in ToR (f); additional activities will be planned and implemented. A recommendation from WGAGFM was accepted and the requested cooperative activities will be carried out.

Linkages to other committees or groups:

WGIMT arose as a Study Group from the WGZE in response to perceived need, meeting in association with WGZE during 2012 and 2013. WGIMT will remain in close partnership with WGZE, while promoting and supporting integrated morphological and molecular taxonomy science for the benefit of other ICES Expert Groups and marine science generally.

Linkages to other organizations:

The work of this group relates to and is connected to a diversity of other projects and organisations, e.g., EU MARBEF, EDIT, GBIF, PESI, GOBI, and others.

Working Group on Cephalopod Biology and Life History (WGCEPH)

2013/MA2/SSGEF03 The Working Group on Cephalopod Biology and Life History (WGCEPH), chaired by Marina Santurtún, Spain and Jean-Paul Robin*, France, will meet in Lisbon, Portugal, 16–19 June 2014, in addition to working by correspondence, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGCEPH will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 1 August 2014 to SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

ToR

Description

Background

Science Plan topics addressed

Duration

Expected Deliverables

a Report on status and trends in cephalopod stocks: Update, quality check and report relevant data on: European fishery statistics (landings, directed effort, discards and survey catches) across the ICES area and if feasible in waters other than Europe. Produce and update CPUEs and survey data series for the main cephalopod métiers and species and assess the possibility of their use as abundance indices. Examine the above trends in relative exploitation rates (i.e., catch/survey biomass) to evaluate stock status. Start exploring economic data collected under

Data call is part of the justification of this ToR. The data collected should be reviewed by an expert group. The results of the ToR are an output of this discussion. Other outputs will include the identification of cephalopod stocks to be assessed or even managed, the evaluation of needs for further data (spatial, temporal) and the level of species information required. Thus, the baseline work of the ToR is the result of the data call.

Year 2014, 2015 & 2016

Peer-review paper in relation to status and trends (year 2016).

| 5

Data Call.

b Conduct preliminary assessments of the main cephalopod species in the ICES area, including evaluation of trends in survey and commercial fishery CPUE where available. Assess production and/or depletion methods utility, if feasible (year 2014). Explore other possible assessment methods if needed (e.g. early season assessment) (year 2015). Carry out assessment of species with the methods chosen (year 2016).

Data are being collected with the purpose of assessing the status of the cephalopods stocks for Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA).

Year 2014, 2015 & 2016

Report on the cephalopods assessed year 2014, year 2015 and year 2016)

c Implications of the application of some Policies and Directives on cephalopods: e.g. Implication of CFP (landing obligation) on cephalopod exploitation, how it has been applied in other places and how it has affected them; New regulation of Manipulation of Animals for research; Nature 2000, network of Marine Protected Areas, Blue growth (wind farms).

There are no policies or management measures specifically directed to fisheries for cephalopods but many other pressures and activities would affect them. There are, on the other hand, new regulations that will impact cephalopod research. These directives and policies are essential to assess the ecosystem as a whole (IEA).

Year 2014, 2015 & 2016

Report on effects of directives and policies on cephalopod fisheries, assessment, and management (year 2015 & year 2016). Peer review paper about the cephalopods management and governance: the management (or lack of management) of the main cephalopod stocks focused on important species/métiers and proposed alternatives for improving it (year 2016).

d Review data availability for the main cephalopod species in relation to the main population parameters: length distribution, sex ratio, first maturity at age, first maturity at

There is a need for updating main population parameters to be able to relate them to the most recent fisheries data collected through Data calls and to assess stock status.

Year 2015 Peer review paper in relation to population dynamics, biology (year 2015). Report (and/or first draft) of a methodological

6 |

length, growth, spawning season.

Also, there are particular issues in relation to cephalopod maturity stages, already the subject of an ICES workshop. Recent work on octopus has shown that estimates of size at maturity are highly sensitive to the maturity scale used.

paper about sampling resolution for best data collection for each stock/species (year 2015).

e Knowledge base: review and report on cephalopod research results in the ICES area, and if feasible in waters other than Europe, including all relevant aspects of: biodiversity, biology, ecology, physiology and behaviour, in field and laboratory studies.

Experts should be able to assess population status, and give management advice, if needed, for stocks/populations. Also there is a need for understanding response to stress, factors causing changes in cephalopod abundances and distribution. In this way the expert group will have to be able to inform ICES about population status; dynamics and their relationship with environmental variables; the role of cephalopods in the ecosystem; possible indicators for cephalopods under the MSFD and assessment methods used in commercial cephalopod fisheries.

Year 2014, 2015 & 2016

Report on scientific articles in relation to the topic worked out every year (Year 2014). Protocol for setting the database on scientific articles in relation to the topic worked out every year. This data base will make use of the already existing tools (Mendelei, Research Gate…) Year 2015. Database on scientific articles in relation to the topic worked out every year. This data base will make use of the already existing tools (Mendelei, Research Gate…) Year 2016.

f MSFD and Integrated Ecosystem Assessment: Relevant MSFD indicators (biodiversity, community role, exploitation and contaminants) applied to cephalopods.

There is a need of describing the state and pressure of cephalopods under MSFD descriptors and indicators. ToR a address topics in relation to fisheries (exploitation) and ToR e addresses MSFD from the literature review (knowledge base). In this case, ToR f will cover MSFD focused on the applicability of descriptors on

Year 2014, 2015 & 2016

Report on MSFD descriptors applicable to cephalopods Year 2014 and Year 2015. Peer review paper on cephalopod application of MSFD descriptors Year 2016.

| 7

cephalopod populations (status) and level of exploitation (pressures). Thus, ToR a, e and f are complementary in this respect.


Year 1 (2014) Report on the cephalopods assessed (b) Report on effects of directives and policies on cephalopod assessment (c) Report on scientific articles in relation to the topic worked out every year (e) Report on MSFD descriptors applicable to cephalopods (f)

Year 2 (2015) Report on the cephalopods assessed (b) Report on effects of directives and policies on cephalopod assessment (c) Peer review paper in relation to population dynamics, biology (d) Report (and/or first draft) of a methodological paper about sampling resolution for best data collection for each stock/species (d) Protocol for setting the database format needed on scientific articles in relation to the topic worked out every year (e) Report on cephalopod application of MSFD descriptors (f)

Year 3 (2016) Peer-review paper in relation to status and trends (a) Report on the cephalopods assessed (b) Report on effects of directives and policies on cephalopod assessment (c) Peer review paper on cephalopod management and alternative proposals to improve it (c) Database on scientific articles in relation to the topic worked out every year (e) Peer review paper on cephalopod application of MSFD descriptors (f)


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to Cephalopods role in the ecosystem and importance as part of directed and indirected fisheries. Cephalopods are important components of marine ecosystemsThus, for promoting the sustainable use of the seas and conserving marine ecosystems, cephalopod biology and life history has to be understood. As an example, directed cephalopod fisheries, especially small-scale fisheries, are increasingly important and it is necessary to have in place a useful system of data collection and stock evaluation that would be adequate to support managementthese activities are considered. These activities are believed to have a very high priority.

Resource requirements As noted in the 2012 report and previously, participation in WGCEPH is limited by availability of funding, especially as many members and potential members are university staff with no access to “national funds” for attendance at ICES meetings. Effords to attend to the group are ackowledged. The future direction of the group focusing more into assessment would hopefully lead to group to be applicable for DCF funding. The group is willing that effort started in 2010 could be recognised in that way. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.

Participants The Group was reduced in number of attendees form around 15 members and guests to 9 members. In 2013, number of attendes was

8 |

even reduced to 6 full time attendes. With a strong bias towards participants from the Iberian peninsula. It is desirable that more researcher working on National Fisheries Institution would have the chance to know the group work and participate in it.

Secretariat facilities None.

Financial No financial implications.

Linkages to ACOM and groups under ACOM

There are obvious direct linkages with assessment groups WGHMM, WGCS as cephalopods are caugth in stocks/fisheries considered in thos groups. Also WGNEW has a linkage to this group. PGCCDBS IBTSWG Provision of information to SciCom and its satellite committees as required to respond to requests for advice/information from NEAFC and EC DG Fish.

Linkages to other committees or groups

There is a starting working relationship with WGCRAGON as a common workshop on the nned of assessment and management on cephalopods and cragon will be deployed in October 2013. It is also a relevant linkage with groups under SCICOM.

Linkages to other organizations

Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB)

2013/MA2/SSGEF04 The Working Group on the Biology and Life History of Crabs (WGCRAB), chaired by AnnDorte Burmeister*, Greenland, will meet in Tromsø, Norway, 22–24 April 2014 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGCRAB will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 1 August 2014 to SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background

Science Plan topics addressed Duration


a Compile data on landings, discards, effort and catch rates (CPUE) and provide standardised CPUE, size frequency and research survey data for the important crab and lobster (Homarus) fisheries in the ICES area, and Atlantic Canada and Greenland.

The fisheries for crabs and lobster are socio-economically important and trans-national in Europe and Canada with the demise of fin fisheries in some regions.

212.321 3 years Landing, discard, effort and catch data on listed species, from each country. WG report chapter

b Evaluate assessment of the status of crab and lobster (Homarus) stocks including use of indicators, empirical assessment, analytical assessment in relation to data sources and data quality, development and suitability of

Management of stocks in Europe is primarily by technical measures only and in most countries there are generally no management instruments to control fishing effort. Knowledge of the

311, 334 3 years Report on evaluation of alternative assessment methods.

| 9

reference points for management.

population dynamics of these species is still weak. These stocks may be at risk from over-fishing due to the lack of control of fishing effort, and hence an evaluation of the sustainability of these fisheries is necessary.

c WGCRAB wish to produce assessment of the main crab and lobster species in the ICES area in future. (Year 1 - 2014) Review prospects for future assessmentincluding data availability, management units, and possible reference points and assessment methods. Initiate preliminary assessment exercises. (Year 2 - 2015) Review management measures applied in crab fisheries and future options. Continue exploratory assessments. (Year 3 – 2016) Preliminary assessments of stock status for relevant crab and lobster species according to MSFD D3 WGCRAB will discuss with ACOM, SCICOM, SSGEF the feasibility of including e assessment within its future ToRs.

WGCRAB aims to produce assessments on a management unit basis.

Evaluate current assessment methods and identify reference points. Develop assessment methods to identify position with respect to MSY proxies and harvest rules. It would be of great interest to make progress on assessment of stock status and further develop ideas on reference points. WGCRAB will discussions advantages and disadvantages of emphasis advice on a management basis. Secondly WGCRAB will include a workshop at the 2015 or 2016 meeting to look at prospects for future assessment and management. Third step is to consult with ACOM regarding assessment from the WGCRAB.

3 years

(Year 1) Report on data availability, management units, reference points and assessment methods (Year 2) Report on management options for crab fisheries (Year 3) Preliminary report on stock status and management plans for selected species

d Review the impact of climate divers on impor-tant crab and lobster species within the ICES, Atlantic Canada and West Greenland, including increased ocean acidification;

WGCRAB will investigate the relative importance of fishing and environment on crab and lobster recruitment. Furthermore there is a

112, 113 3 years Highlight important issues to be basis for research on effect of climate changes on important crab stocks. WG report chapter (2016)

10 |

growing concern in the WG about the consequences of future climate change for important crab species in our region. Observed increases in sea water temperatures have already entailed expanded distribution areas of some species in the northeast Atlantic. However, a rise in the seawater pH would probably be the most serious consequences of the climate change on crustaceans such as crabs. These issues will be dealt with by the WGCRAB in future.

e Review research and new knowledge on vital crab and lobster population biology parameters;

Several stock parameters are important for analytical assessments. Biological information is therefore required to provide standardised indices and for use in analytical assessments. Crab stock parameters may change due to size selective and single sex fisheries, through by-catch in other fisheries or through the impact of other seabed uses, such as gravel extraction. Since important crab stocks in Europe are managed without fishery independent data it may be an option to investigate any useful stock parameter indicators for assessment purposes.

141 Updated knowledge on crucial stock parameters for important crab stocks.


Year 1 Annual standard outputs for a, b. Continue analysis for ToR d, e. Tentative plan for ToR c.

| 11

Year 2 Annual standard outputs for a, b. Continue analysis for ToR d, e. Complete evaluation of useful assessment methods to assess crab and lobster species in ICES areas. Complete request to ACOM and SCICOM (being both an assessment, advice and working group).

Year 3 Annual standard outputs for a, b. Combine analysis, research and report ToR d and e.


Priority High. The fisheries for crabs and lobster are socio-economically important and trans-national in Europe and Canada with the demise of fin fisheries in some regions. Management of stocks in Europe is primarily by technical measures only and in most countries there are generally no management instruments to control fishing effort. Knowledge of the population dynamics of these species is still weak. These stocks may be at risk from over-fishing due to the lack of control on fishing effort, and hence an evaluation of the sustainability of these fisheries is necessary. The activity of the Group is therefore considered to be of high priority in particular if it’s activity can move towards resource assessment without losing biological inputs.

Resource requirements The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible..

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 10–15 members and guests.




There are no obvious direct linkages today, but if the EG will produce stock assessments in future WGCRAB will have linkages to several EGs under ACOM.


The EG aims to be able to give advises on how to exploit important crab stocks in the ICES area and is therefore related to EGs such as WGCRAN and the ICES/NAFO NIPAG.


12 |

SSGEF multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates)

Working Group on Effectiveness of Recovery Actions for Atlantic Salmon (WGERAAS)

2012/MA2/SSGEF03 The Working Group on Effectiveness of Recovery Actions for Atlantic Salmon (WGERAAS), chaired by Dennis Ensing, UK (Northern Ireland), will be established and meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 12–16 May 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

The Working Group on North Atlantic Salmon noted that factors other than fishing are currently constraining and, in some areas, threatening with extirpation, populations of Atlantic salmon throughout the North Atlantic. Factors acting in both the freshwater and marine environment are of concern. A review of successes and failures in wild salmon restoration could lead to a classification of activities which could be recommended under various conditions or threats to the persistence of populations. Such a classification would be of benefit to management tasked with rebuilding and restoration actions.

WGERAAS will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 30 June 2014 to WGNAS, WGRECORDS, WGBAST and SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Develop a classification system for recovery / re-building programs for Atlantic salmon, including threats to populations, population status, life history attributes, actions taken to re-build populations, program goals, and metrics for evaluating the success of re-building programs;

Advisory Requirements Rebuilding of salmon stocks is central to international management objectives (NASCO) for increasing salmon stocks to a point where sustainable fisheries can take place. Links to ACOM/WGNAS

344,345,346 Year 1 Review paper and interim report to WGNAS

b Populate the system by collecting data on recovery / re-building programs for Atlantic salmon populations from around the North Atlantic;

No systematic review of recovery programmes for salmon stocks has been carried out to date. This information will inform on best practice for rehabilitation.

232, 233 Year 1 and 2

Report with response to NASCO TORS for WGNAS

c Summarize the resulting data set to determine the conditions under which various recovery / re-building

No systematic review of recovery programmes for salmon stocks has been carried out to date. This

311,312 Year 1 and 2 Report with response to NASCO TORS for WGNAS

| 13

actions are successful and when they are not;

information will inform on best practice for rehabilitation.

d Provide recommendations on appropriate recovery/ rebuilding actions for Atlantic salmon given threats to populations, status and life history.

Definitive recommendations can be built in to catch advcoe and advice on salmon managemement generally from ICES to NASCO.

313,314 Year 1 and 2 Report with response to NASCO TORS for WGNAS Suggestions for Theme session arising with links to activities in North America and Pacific for 2015 ASC


Year 1

Provide a report outling progress towards meeting the TORS and any significant findings regarding the current strategies for rbuilding salmo stcoks – this report to be available to WGNAS in April 2013

Year 2 Comple a comprehensive review of stock rebuilding practices noting success and failures and provide guidence on best practice for salmon stocks at different levels of conservation limit attainment

Year 3 Not required

Working Group on Biodiversity Science (WGBIODIV)

2012/MA2/SSGEF02 The Working Group on Biodiversity Science (WGBIODIV), chaired by Simon Greenstreet, UK (Scotland), will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10–14 February 2014 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGBIODIV will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 31 March 2014 to SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description Background Science Plan topics addressed

Duration Expected Deliverables

1 For the suite of indicators and targets proposed for Descriptor 1 (“Biological diversity is maintained) by Member States in support of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, WGBIODIV will:

The MSFD requires that (for Descriptor 1) “The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climate conditions”

Understanding Ecosystem Functioning (Biodiversity and the health of marine ecosystems);

3 years Annual WGBIODIV reports

(a) Consider the consequences of recent changes in environmental conditions associated with climate change on the relevance of targets set on the basis of historical data baselines.

It may be that environmental conditions have changed such that the status prevailing during any historical period used as a baseline for setting targets are unlikley to be attainable under current environmental conditions. In such instances, it needs to be

14 |

considered what a new target might be that is more in line with prevailing environmental conditions.

(b) Consider the potential consequences of the introduction of management measures intended to achieve Good Environmental Status targets for particular ecosystem components on the capacity to achieve indicators/GES targets set for other ecosystem components

There may be situations where indicator targets set for different indicators might conflict with one another (e.g through trophic relationships).

(c) Assess the extent to which there are gaps in indicators and target coverage for each of the six major ecosystem components suggested by OSPAR

Member States may not have proposed indicators for certain species/habitats. It should be determined whether the reasons for these gaps are valid, and to identify how such gaps could be filled (including the identification of potential monitoring programmes, indicators and targets).

(d) Evaluate how metrics and indicators for various facets of marine biodiversity can be best integrated to derive more regional and holistic assessments of ‘biodiversity status’

For regional reporting of ‘biodiversity status’ it may be necessary to integrate a range of indicators.

2 Support to the technical specification and application of OSPAR common indicators under D1, 2, 4, and 6

ICES will be requested to undertake an independent peer review of the technical specifications and proposed operational implementation of the indicators that will be presented. The review should consider, from the perspective of producing a set of common indicators for the OSPAR Region: 1) whether the indicators put forwards are appropriate to implement at a regional scale; 2) whether the set of indicators is sufficient as a set to understand GES; 3) identify any gaps; 4) identify where there are difficulties in the operationalization of the indicators, with proposals for how to overcome these. Based on the outcomes of OSPAR request 2013-4 (below) (regarding maximising efficiencies for

Request for the quality assurance/ response to specific questions to support the work of the identification and prioritisation of common indicators to support the regional implementation of the biodiversity aspects of MSFD in the North East Atlantic. BDC 2012 have requested the submission of a first set of common indicators to be presented to BDC 2013 (noting that the relevant ICES groups will meet late February early March 2013).

OSPAR request

1 year Report by 31 March 2013

| 15

monitoring of biodiversity), 5) identify where there are opportunities to cluster indicators that can benefit from shared monitoring/ data collection. OSPAR request 2013-3

3 Provide advice on maximising the use of available sources of data for monitoring of biodiversity

Advice would be sought as to 1) the quality of these potential data sources and how they could be used, including but not limited to the relevance of outcomes identified in chapter 8 of the ICES MSFD D3+ report to Descriptors 1, 4 and 6. OSPAR request 2013-4

The purpose of this request is to seek ICES advice on the potential sources of data and information that may be available to support the monitoring and assessment of biodiversity in relation to commitments under MSFD so as to maximise efficiencies in the use of available resources, for example where efficiencies could be made to identify where there are monitoring programmes or data sources that can deliver multiple indicators, which may relate to different Descriptors, (e.g. The Data Collection Framework could be used to implement D3 and D1 indicators), or where with a small additional effort existing monitoring could be amplified to deliver a broader set of data.

OSPAR request

1 year Report by 31 March 2013

4 Identify, define and test activity-pressure-state links of indicators now and in future, including considering single/cumulative/synergistic effects of pressures' (PENDING APPROVAL OF WGBIODIV CHAIR)

This is in response to a request from SIBAS

Understanding ecosystem functioning (Biodiversity and the health of marine ecosystems); Understanding of inter-actions of human activities with ecosystems (Population and community level impacts of contaminants, eutrophication, and habitat changes in the coastal zone);

3 years Annual WGBIODIV reports

16 |

Development of options for sustainable use of ecosystems (Marine living resource management tools)


Year 1

ToR 1) In first meeting of 3y term a discusson on what is needed to address these terms and a decision on how to achieve this. The group will be working by correspondence during the course of the year and deliver text onto the ICES sharepoint. ToRs 2) and 3) were set by ICES in response to an advice request from OSPAR. Consequently WGBIODIV focused on this work for most of the first meeting and completed our reporting shortly after the meeting. A paper for submission to ICES JMS is close to finalisation. ToR 4) was a long-term tor set the group by SIBAS. We did little on this during our first meeting as effort was put on finalizing the work needed for ToRs 2) and 3).

Year 2 ToR 1) At our second meeting we will collate these contributions and decide on a plan of work to bring the tor to fruition during the course of the second year. ToR 4) work on the SIBAS ToR will commence at the second meeting and run throughout the second year.

Year 3 ToR 1) Complete the reporting at the 3rd meeting. ToR 4) Complete the ToR for reporting during the third year.


Priority High. The work of the Group is essential if ICES is to progress with making biodiversity an integral part of ICES work, especially given the requirments of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

Resource requirements No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting.

Participants Expertise from all areas of the marine benthic and pelagic food web components.The Group is normally attended by some 10–15 members.

Secretariat facilities Not exceeding the usual requirement



Potential links to some assessment and advisory groups (e.g. WGECO, WGEF).


The work of the group can be linked to some of the work of the various ecology expert groups (e.g. BEWG, WGZE etc.), survey groups (e.g. WGBEAM, IBTSWG), and some assessment and advisory groups (e.g. WGECO, WGEF).


CBD, IMoSEB, OSPAR, HELCOM

| 17

Working Group on Small Pelagic Fishes, their Ecosystems and Climate Impact (WGSPEC)

2012/MA2/SSGEF04 The Working Group on Small Pelagic Fishes, their Ecosystems and Climate Impact (WGSPEC), chaired by Jürgen Alheit, Germany, and Priscilla Licandro, UK, will meet in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 10–14 March 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGSPEC will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 30 April 2014 to SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Specific analysis of climate impact of regime shift around the mid-1990s on ecosystenms of NEAtlantic, incl. Mediterranean and NW African upwelling, with a focus on dynamics of AMO/AMV and N Atlantic gyres 1) Understand

respective physical mechanims

2) study reactions of plankton and small pelagic fish

3) compare with similar events in 1st half of 20th century

Support action for SICCME

111, 112, 113, 115

1 year Review paper

B Study mechanisms that link the variability of the small pelagic fish populations in different ocean basins with the large scale climatic forcings


111, 112, 113, 115

3 years Review paper

C Global comparison of climate variability impact on small pelagics


111, 112, 113, 115

3 years Review paper


Year 1 Specific analysis of climate impact and respective physical and biological processes around the mid-1990s

Year 2 Specific analysis of climate variability impact on non-clupeid small pelagics

Year 3 Summing up of results of WGSPEC

18 |


Priority This Working Group has a high priority because the impact of climate variability on small pelagic fishes and their ecosystems has been largely ignored, as ICES had put its focus on climate studies of larger predatory fish (cod) and more northern ecosystems. This Working Group is a support action for the new Strategic Initiative on Effects of Climate Change on Marine Ecosystems (SICCME) of ICES. This Working Group is an ideal vehicle to continue and strengthen collaboration with PICES which was successfully started some years ago in the field of small pelagics and climate by joint workshops and theme sessions. This Working Groupo aims at cooperation with the Mediterranean Science Commission (CIESM).

Resource requirements None

Participants The participants of this Working Group should represent different disciplines such as fisheries science, planktology, physical oceanography, climatology. Participation of scientists from the Mediterranean is sought.




There are no obvious direct linkages.


The Working Group will link up with other ICES groups such as SICCME, WGOH, WGZE, and ACOM, particularly in the planning of relevant workshop themes and theme sessions.


The Working Group will seek close cooperation with other international organisations, particularly from the North Pacific (PICES) and the Mediterranean.

Working Group on Phytoplankton and Microbial Ecology (WGPME)

2012/MA2/SSGEF05 The Working Group on Phytoplankton and Microbial Ecology (WGPME), co-chaired by Xosé Anxelu G. Morán, Spain, and Alexandra Kraberg, Germany, will meet in Plymouth, UK, 18–20 March 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGPME will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 15 May 2014 to SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



A Examine current marine microbial time-series sampling techniques with an effort towards harmonization if required.

WGPME can provide a summary of current methodologies used in microbial plankton time-series with the ultimate goal of achieving better comparability between sites.

112 3 years Best practice recommendations for microbial plankton time series provided in the WGPME website (wgpme.net); in 2015 with regular updates; to biological

| 19

oceanographers but especially phytoplankton and microbial ecologists.

b Examine distribution and range patterns of microbial taxa and functional groups to discern significant change over time and to identify potential environmental drivers.

After finding examples of taxa and/or functional groups that have actually changed their distribution we need to know the environmental drivers underlying these changes before we can make sound projections.

113 2 years Interim WG report; in 2014; to SSGEF

C Report progress on discovery of novel lineages and cryptic taxa of phytoplankton and marine microbes.

By providing state of the art knowledge of novel microbial biota we will be able to better understand unexplained variation of current time series datasets.

121 2 years Interim WG report; in 2014; to SSGEF

D Explore the use of hydrographic models in addition to statistical analyses to provide further understanding of distributional patterns of phytoplankton and microbial assemblages

We need to incorporate other perspectives and the expertise of researchers from different fields and ICES WGs in order to disentangle the factors causing changes of distribution in microbial plankton groups.

111, 114, 115 2 years Interim WG report; in 2014; to SSGEF

E Prepare sections for the second Cooperative Research Report on ICES Phytoplankton and Microbial Plankton Status to be completed for June 2015.

The CRR needs to be updated regularly to better establish the climatologies and long term trends for phytoplankton and other planktonic microbes as well as introduce new analyses, providing the basis for informed assessments of distributional changes at all organizational levels.

11, 12 3 years Second ICES CRR Phytoplankton and Microbial Plankton Status Report; in 2015; to research community and policy makers.

f Prepare peer-reviewed manuscripts using existing phytoplankton and

WGPME is currently entering the position to provide multi datasets comparisons

11, 12 3 years Joint peer-reviewed articles with data across North Atlantic

20 |

microbial plankton time series to describe large-scale and long-term patterns in the distribution and seasonality of phytoplankton communities and chosen key species

of microbial time series to a wider scientific community, potentially of use also by policy makers.

coastal waters on at least two of these issues: a) macroecological patterns of cyanobacteria, b) ratios of diatoms to dinoflagellates and c) comparison of drivers causing temporal dynamics of diatom species; in 2015; to oceanographic and marine ecology scientific community.


Year 1 Gather and discuss methods used with WGPME (ToR a), find examples of microbial taxa and/or functional groups that have actually changed distribution (ToR b), analysis of data (ToR d), report on what is known (ToR e), review available modelling tools, statistical relationships and macroecological patterns (ToR f).

Year 2 Harmonize methods if required (ToR a), explore potential environmental drivers (ToR b), update existing time series, include additional datasets and explore new analyses and presentations of data (ToR e), prepare and submit manuscripts (ToR f), explore geographical and recurring patterns, hindcast models and hypothesis testing using new datasets (ToR d).

Year 3 Presentation of best practice recommendations on a website (ToR a), delivery of second WGPME CRR (ToR e), provide an ecological syntheses and promote incorporation into existing time series (ToR f), make projections under IPCC and other possible scenarios (ToR d).


Priority The activities of this Group are related to issues of climate change, lower trophic level biodiversity, and ecological dynamics of coastal waters. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a high priority.

Resource requirements The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. ICES sponsorship and support must continue for covering publication costs of the 2nd Phytoplankton and Microbial Plankton Status Report due for 2015.

Participants The Group is attended by some 15-20 members.

Secretariat facilities None, beyond communication support.

Financial Beyond the publication costs for the Phytoplankton and Microbial Plankton Status Report, there are no other current financial implications.


There are no obvious direct linkages since WGPME reports directly to SSGEF.


There is a very close working relationship with WGZE. It has also established interactions with WGHABD.

| 21


The work of this group is synergistic with that of SCOR WG137.

Working group on Marine Benthal and Renewable Energy Developments (WGMBRED)

2012/MA2/SSGEF17 The Working Group on Marine Benthal and Renewable Energy Developments (WGMBRED), chaired by Jennifer Dannheim, Germany, and Andrew B. Gill, UK, will meet in Tallinn, Estonia, 25–28 March 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

Delft (Netherlands), Galway (Ireland) and Oban (Scotland) were suggested as venues for 2015. The potential hosts will confirm their offer in Tallinn where the final decision will be made on the date and venue for 2015.

WGMBRED will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 31 May 2014 to SSGEF.

22 |

ToR descriptors

ToR Description Background

Science Plan topics addressed Duration Expected Deliverables

A Critically evaluate current knowledge on the effects of offshore wind farms and other renewable energy constructions on benthal organisms (i.e. marine invertebrates, demersal fish and macroalgae) in the North Atlantic

Benthic organisms take a fundamental place in marine ecosystems and deliver numerous ecosystem goods and services. Renewable energy developments affect benthic communities over various spatial and temporal scales. The identification of the processes behind these impacts is the prerequisite for an efficient, hypothesis driven approach towards disentangling the various effects of marine energy developments on the marine benthos as well as on the whole ecosystem. The outcomes will assist to improve monitoring concepts in the context of offshore renewable energy constructions and will be also set within the context of marine spatial planning strategies and future ecosystem-based management approaches.

There is a close working relationship with Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG).

1.1, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4

3 years Review paper + research recommendations

B Review and develop guidelines for sampling techniques on renewable energy construction monitoring techniques by providing an overview of existing guidelines, in order to standardise and simplify future research and monitoring

2.3, 2.4 2 years Review Paper + research and monitoring recommendations

C Develop a meta-database for cross fostering research to

2.3 1 year Metadatabase tool in place

| 23

target monitoring and future potential modelling approaches

D Populating and keeping the meta-database updated

2.3 3 years Metadata information base up to date

E Review existing knowledge from related topics (e.g. artificial reefs) and how these are applicable to cause-effect relationships in the benthal associated with renewable energy constructions

1.1, 1.3 2 years Matrix of related topics with specific cause-effect relationships; to include assessment of level of uncertainty in understanding

F Evaluate scientific efficiency of ongoing monitoring programmes by identifying knowledge gaps and overlap in research

1.1, 1.3, 2.3, 2.4

1 year Position paper


Year 1 ToR – A, C, D, E

Year 2 ToR – A, B, D, E

Year 3 ToR – A, B, D, F


Priority The working group was initiated by the workshop “Effects of offshore wind farms on marine benthos – Facilitating a closer international collaboration throughout the North Atlantic Region” (WKEOMB) via BEWG and will lead ICES into issues related to upcoming large-scale ecosystem effects of renewable energy constructions on the marine benthal community (i.e. macroalgae, invertebrates and demersal fish). The objectives addressed here will be highly relevant in the context of future ecosystem-based management approaches, marine spatial planning and required monitoring schemes.

Resource requirements No specific resource requirements beyond the need for invited members to prepare for and resource their participation in the meeting.

Participants These would include scientists working with the effects of marine renewable energy developments on the marine benthal community, including algae, infaunal invertebrates to benthic /demersal fish. Participation is sought from ICES countries and by scientists both from disciplines and scientific circles not normally represented at ICES. Coordination between WGMBRED and WGMRE will be ensured by having one or two individuals attending part of both meetings.



24 |


There are no direct linkages with the ICES advisory services, although the expert group results will have potential here.


There is a very close working relationship with Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG) and Working Group on Marine Renewable Energy (WGMRE) and hence SSGHIE.


Working Group on Crangon fisheries and life history (WGCRAN)

2012/MA2/SSGEF12 The Working Group on Crangon fisheries and life history (WGCRAN), chaired by Marc Hufnagl, Germany, will meet in Hamburg, Germany, 6–9 May 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGCRAN will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 1 August 2014 to SSGEF.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background

Science Plan topics

addressed


A Evaluation of the stock status.

Report and evaluate population status indicators like recent landings and effort trends in the brown shrimp fisheries or length based mortality estimates from Dutch and German scientific surveys. Generate a standardized LPUE time series of higher accuracy for all nations with horse power days calculated based on hours at sea for the future but also for the past where possible.

141, 143, 131, 134, 161, 162, 212, 311, 321

year 1,2 and 3

A timeseries of standardize stock indicators shall be delivered by all WGCRAN members as an annual report.

B Derive shrimp and effort distribution indicators using VMS data.

Combine VMS, landings and effort data to gain a brown shrimp population distribution indicator and to monitor regional distribution and regional shifts in fishing effort. Evaluate potential variability of the results by comparing different VMS data interpolation methods.

133,141,143, 144, 146, 212, 311

year 1 and 2

Results shall be summarized in a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Katharina Schulte, Torsten Schulze

C Estimation of the brown shrimp biomass using scientific surveys

Publish a common publication on brown shrimp biomass estimates and annual production rates. Besides the survey based swept area estimates the publication shall also include correction factors based on new or existing information on gear selectivity, catchability and behaviour aspects.

141,143, 212, 311

year 1 and 2

Results shall be summarized in a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Ingrid Tulp, Volker Siegel

| 25

d Estimate brown shrimp natural mortality rates and the role of fishing.

Publish predation rates of cod and whiting on brown shrimp and discuss the role of fishing in relation to natural mortality.

141,143, 212, 311, 312, 334

year 1 and 2

Results shall be summarized in a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Axel Temming, Marc Hufnagl

E Parameterization and use of a population model to adress biological and management-relevantquestions.

Parameterize and use a Crangon crangon population model to investigate e.g. seasonal brown shrimp biomass dynamics, the implications of fishing effort alterations (including closures), mesh size and mesh selectivity on the population structure. The model shall be further developed to act as a decision aid for management rules and aspects.

141, 145, 134, 311, 312, 334

year 2 and 3

Results shall be summarized in a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Marc Hufnagl, Axel Temming, Chris Rückert

F Analyze the implications of the pulse-gear on the Crangon stock, shrimp-fisheries and the environment.

The on-going introduction of the electric beam trawl might have strong implications on the relation of the nominal effort and the fishing mortality of brown shrimp. Existing literature and new results on the ecosystem and population impact of the introduction of the electric beam trawl into the fisheries shall therefore be reviewed and compiled.

141, 134, 213, 214

year 2 and 3

Results shall be summarized in a publicly available report or a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Bart Verschueren, Axel Temming

G Examine the life cycle dynamics of shrimps and compare them among ICES regions.

Gain a better understanding of the life cycle dynamics and history of brown shrimps in the different ICES regions with special focus on latitudinal gradients and the comparison of the North Sea core distribution area and the Portugese Minho estuary at the most western distribution margin. This will include the application and further development of in situ growth methods, maturity and mortality estimates as well as the analysis of starvation and condition indices. Especially in the North Sea also the maturation and spawning process of brown shrimp shall be investigated to gain a better understanding the recruitment process.

141,145, 146, 134, 131,212, 311

year 3 Results shall be summarized in a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Joana Campos, Axel Temming, Volker Siegel

26 |

h Review potential methods for a brown shrimp management and suggest a suitable management plan.

Generate a common publication on existing data and possible methods to assess and manage the brown shrimp population in the ICES region. This shall include i.) A compilation of existing brown shrimp information from commercial data and scientific surveys ii.) a review of suitable management methods gained from ICES recommendations on management of data poor and lower trophic level species and iii.) an identification and avaluation (e.g overview table) of possible management strategies.

134, 131, 133, 311, 312

year 2 and 3

Results shall be summarized in a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Josien Steenbergen, Axel Temming

I Enumerate and analyze bycatch and discard fractions.

Gather, compile and evaluate information on the onboard and ashore sieving fractions and processes and new national bycatch/discards data from e.g. DCF and the Dutch “Effects of shrimp fisheries on the Natura 2000 sites” - Project on i.) Fish and ii.) all shrimp fractions including undersized shrimps.

161, 162, 141, 143, 212, 214, 215, 311

year 1,2 and 3

Results shall be summarized in a peer-reviewed paper. Lead persons: Josien Steenbergen, Ingrid Tulp

J Provide supporting information on ongoing research and national legislation.

Exchange of information on national legislation, laws (e.g concerning Natura 2000) and developments (MSC process) concerning the brown shrimp fisheries in the whole North Sea for an improved cooperation and coordination of research and advice efforts. Presentations on developments and on-going brown shrimp research in the ICES area.

312, 311, 313

year 1,2 and 3

Important results shall be summarized in the annual reports. All members

K Analysis of mesh openings and types on catch composition.

The brown shrimp fishery uses small mesh sizes that retain juvenile shrimps that are discarded after the first sieving process (part of the shrimps alive) and the second sieving process after the cooking (all dead). As the sum of both fractions can be substantial the selectivity of the mesh might have an effect on the population. Gathering data on the selectivity is therefore an essential and valuable information to identify the impact on the stock.

134, 131, 133, 311, 141,143, 212, 311, 334

year 2 and 3

Publication on selecltivity of different mesh types and openings. Lead persons: Thomas Neudecker and Bente Limmer

| 27


Year 1 For manuscript planned under ToR b, c, d and i data analysis shall be finished and a draft version shall exist. All effort time series of all countries required for ToR a shall be provided in a standardized and updated way.

Year 2 For manuscript planned under ToR b, c, d and i shall be in submittable to peer reviewed journals. Data and text for manuscripts under ToR e, f and h shall be available. Stock indicators shall be updated and reevaluated.

Year 3 Manuscripts falling uder ToR e-j shall be in a submittable form. For a set of stock indicators a sound and proofen time-series shall exist that can be used to evaluate the status of the brown shrimp population.


Priority Crangon fisheries are economically important with landings value ranking this species among the top three species caught from the North Sea. The priority of WGCRAN is to understand the interactions between the brown shrimp population (structure and abundance) and human behaviour (mainly fishing effort) the environment and the ecosystem. One important aspect is and will be the monitoring, investigation and development of population status indices.

Resource requirements The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 10 members and guests.




WGCRAN aims at a permanent linkage with ACOM after year 2 when sound and proven stock indicators have been developed and a good management plan has been developed under ToR h.


There is a linkage to WGBEAM as similar surveys are used. WGELECTRA as the use of the pulse gear by a larger fraction of the fisherman might have implications on the stock, WGINOSE by providing data for the integrated assessment. WGSAM as the SMS key runs will be used to estimate natural mortality of brown shrimp. Members of WGCRAN are also members in the these groups.


CWSS = Common Wadden Sea Secretariat; TMAP = Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Programme; RCM –NSEA

Working Group on the Science Requirements to Support Conservation, Restoration and Management of Diadromous Species (WGRECORDS)

2012/2/SSGEF14 The Working Group on the Science Requirements to Support Conservation, Restoration and Management of Diadromous Species (WGRECORDS), chaired by Niall Ó Maoiléidigh, Ireland, and Atso Romakkaniemi, Finland, will meet by correspondence and annually at the ICES ASCs in September 2013, 2014 and 2015 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below. A new Chair will be appointed for 2015.

WGRECORDS will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 1 December 2014 to SSGEF.

28 |

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background

Science Plan

topics addressed Duration


A Stimulate international scientific co-operation in the study of diadromous fish species and provide a mechanism through which issues relating to these species, including in estuarine and fresh waters, can be addressed and coordinated within the ICES science plan;

There are many topics within the new ICES Science Plan that are very relevant to the research on diadromous fish species currently being undertaken or planned. However, there is a need to be able to draw the various elements of this work together to support the management advice provided on diadromous fish, particularly in delivering commitments under various regulations, including the EU-Habitats and Water Framework Directives and the EU Eel Regulation

121-123, 131,133, 141-147, 311-314, 335,336

1,2 and 3

Report of WG and establish and maintain a network of diadromous fish experts

B Propose activities, including experts groups, theme sessions and symposia, to support the Science Plan and the work of ACOM Experts Groups on diadromous species and review their outputs;

ICES is well placed to co-ordinate scientific activities which generate up to date information on the biology of these species, the threats to their status and advice on measure to be taken to restore and rebuild depleted populations.

131,133, 151,152, 154, 232,233

1,2 and 3 Organise theme sessions, symposia or expert groups. Co-ordinate feedback from theses sources for use in publications and CRR documents

C Assist SSGEF to integrate these activities with those of other Expert Groups reporting to SSGEF. WGRECORDS will report annually by 31 December (via SSGEF) for the attention of SSGEF and SCICOM.

Issues relating to rare and data poor species arewidely dispersed across the ICES Science plan. This group provides a focal point for reporting new developments and concerns regarding diadromous fish in particular back to ICES via the SSGEF.

111 to 114, 211-214

1,2,and 3 Keep ICES abreast of important issues relating to Diadromous fish species and ensure these issues are communicated to other EGs and SGs.


Year 1 Coordinate scientific activities (theme sessions, symposia, EGS, CRRs and report to SSGEF.


| 29



Priority The Working Group will provide the mechanism to coordinate scientific activities relating to diadromous fish species in support of the ICES Science Plan. It will also permit ICES to respond fully to request from NASCO and the EU/FAO/IUCN/CITES for scientific advice on research needs and data deficiencies in these areas.

Resource requirements Meeting facilities at the ASC in 2013-2015

Participants National representatives and other invited experts working on diadromous fisheries

Secretariat facilities Secretarial support for organisation of the meeting and preparation of the report.



The proposal originates from SSGEF but will have direct significance to ACOM for advcie from WGNAS, WGBAST, WGEEL in particular


There are linkages with SCICOM and all Expert Groups working on issues relating to diadromous species in relation to improving scientific understanding of salmon and coordinating scientific activities.


NASCO, FAO

SSGEF annual groups

Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE)

2013/2/SSGEF04 The Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), chaired by Richard Veit, USA, will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, 21–25 October 2013 to:

a ) Review data and publications on “Local Enhancement” and “Facilitation” among seabirds and other marine predators to assess possible impact of these behaviors upon conservation policy;

b ) Review utility and accuracy of “Habitat Models” of birds at sea for the construction of Marine Protected Areas;

c ) Recommend priority areas of study to determine the consequences to seabirds of landing obligations/discard bans;

d ) Work with ICG-COBAM (Seabirds) Group to update information on EcoQOs for ICES Regions II and III.

e ) Work with ICG-COBAM (Seabirds) Group to consider a future joint ICES-OSPAR group structure and make recommendations.

WGSE will report by 1 December 2013 for the attention of the SCICOM and ACOM.


Priority Recent advances in the topics outlined above will importantly affect conservation policy in Europe and the North Atlantic so are of high priority.

30 |

Scientific justification Term of Reference a) positive intra- and interspecific interactions have never been quantitatively considered with a conservation policy context. It is well known that seabirds often use other seabirds and other nonbird predators as indicators of prey, but the consequences of these interactions have not yet been incorporated into conservation policy. Term of Reference b) Critical to the development of Marine Protected Areas are the use of various regression-type statistical models that estimate the abundance of birds in different parts of the ocean, with the goal of identifying “Hotspots” and, by analogy, “Coldspots”. The latter would identify areas relatively safe for development. Term of Reference c) This will require a brief review current information on discards and their positive and negative impacts on seabirds. The EU landing obligation/discard ban is being introduced in a phased manner over the next 4-5 years. This may give the opportunity to study the ecosystem effects of this change in bycatch management. Other areas on the planet already have discard bans, so lessons might be learned from those waters too. Terms of Reference d) Updating of the efficacy of EcoQOs for seabirds has been an ongoing task for WGSE; we will continue to evaluate their use, with a focus on ICES Regions II and III. Term of Reference e) There is a limited community of seabird experts working on policy and advice issues in the NE Atlantic. It is suggested that one group might be a more efficient way of bringing together and utilising such expertise.

Resource requirements

The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 10-15 members and guests.

Secretariat facilities We will meet at ICES headquarters, Copenhagen.

Financial Meetings of WGSE are usually attended by ca. 15 nominated and Chair-invited members. Although the Working Group should be able to achieve most of the above objectives, some members may not be able to attend through lack of funding. Funding of these members from Member Countries would be very welcome.

Linkages to ACOM and its expert groups

WGECO will be looking at other aspects of the discards ban and making research recommendations for other parts of the ecosystem than seabirds.

Linkages to SCICOM and its expert groups


EU, OSPAR, HELCOM, Northwest Atlantic Seabird Cooperative

Working Group on Zooplankton Ecology (WGZE)

2013/2/SSGEF05 The Working Group on Zooplankton Ecology (WGZE), chaired by Piotr Margonski, Poland, will meet in Reykjavik, Iceland, 24–27 March 2014 to:

a ) Finalize production of videos on zooplankton sampling/processing techniques as part of progress in updating the Zooplankton Methodology Manual;

b ) Examine regional and transatlantic distribution and temporal patterns with zooplankton time-series to discern significant changes over time and to identify potential environmental or climate drivers;

| 31

c ) Refine and extend the compilation of information on taxonomic categories that are currently monitored in the ICES area including species and stages, individual specific biomass, and ecologically relevant information such as existence ranges, genetic primers for species identification, to be made available and displayed via the WGZE website as an interactive web-based map system;

d ) Prepare the background data needed for calculation of zooplankton productivity and metabolic rates in the ICES area based on allometric approaches i.e. a database in terms of total abundance and total biomass, metadata, with the first calculations available before the meeting in 2014;

e ) Review the progress of the WGIMT; f ) Review the progress in development of the software and hardware for

“automatic” identification and counting of zooplankton organisms; g ) Compile the information on micro-plastics pollution and its effects on

zooplankton communities; h ) Review of the WGZE scientific achievements as a basis for preparing the

multi-annual activities planning. i ) Review the ICES response to the Norwegian request regarding the Calanus

finmarchicus exploratory assessment.

WGZE will report by 1 May 2014 (via SSGEF) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.

Supporting Information

Priority The activities of this group are a basic element of the SSGEF, fundamental to understanding the relation between the physical, chemical environment and living marine resources in an ecosystem context. Reflecting the central role of zooplankton in marine ecology, the group members bring a wide range of experienced expertise and enthusiasm to bear on questions central to ICES concerns. Thus the work of this group must be considered of very high priority and central to ecosystem approaches.

Scientific justification

Term of Reference a): SCICOM Code: 000 (Capacity Building). Updating the ICES Zooplankton Methodology Manual has been identified as a priority activity by this group. Many techniques mentioned in the manual are most effectively communicated visually. A series of short videos will be produced by teams within the group, leading to production of a video series that compliments concepts in the ICES Zooplankton Methodology Manual.

Term of Reference b) SCICOM Codes: 115, 162, 321, 322. The Zooplankton Status Report continues to evolve as a major published output of the WGZE. It covers the zooplankton time-series of 116 sites located in whole North Atlantic area as well as accompanying dataseries on sea surface temperature, chlorophyll concentration and surface salinity data (Baltic Sea only). It gives a rare opportunity to examine regional and transatlantic distribution and temporal patterns in existing zooplankton time-series and to identify potential environmental or climate drivers.. Term of Reference c) SCICOM Codes: 161, 162, 321. This would be a major product from the group and would be of relevance to various previous and current ToRs. Such a list is fundamental information needed in order to recommend indices and how to apply them.

32 |

Term of Reference d) SCICOM Codes: 152, 161. Allometric relationships are commonly used to quickly convert routinely collected monitoring data into estimates of zooplankton standing stock that are requested for the assessment and management of the marine ecosystem. At present a wide variety of allometric relationships are available for many zooplankton taxa in the literature; however, there are many taxa for which, useful allometric equations are lacking. Based on data collected in the Zooplankton Status Report it is possible to estimate zooplankton productivity and metabolic rates within the whole ICES area based on allometrc approach. Term of Reference e) SCICOM Codes: 121, 122, and 346. This study group is addressing issues of taxonomy that are directly relevant to zooplankton ecology as well as the broader ICES community. Close linkages between the WGZE and the WGIMT will ensure that the latter is successful and will keep members of the former informed about new developments in this area. Term of Reference f) SCICOM Code: 000 (Capacity Building). Sample analyses including taxonomic identification, counting and measuring procedures are costly and time consuming. Recent development of software and hardware suitable for implemetation of “automatic” identification and counting of zooplankton organisms need to be reviewed. Term of Reference g) SCICOM Codes: 241 and 245. Microplastics, are a widespread, ubiquitous and accumulating contaminant in marine ecosystems. These particles of a few µm in size are being ingested by a wide range of marine organisms incuding zooplankton. Ingestion could lead to the transfer of toxic chemicals up the food chain. Monitoring of microplastics and their potential impact on individual organisms and zooplankton communities will be summarized Term of Reference h) SCICOM Code: 000 (Capacity Building). During WGZE 2014 meeting, group will prepare the multiannual ToRs for the following three years period. This has to be done based on so far achievements and scientific priorities which lead the group work over the last years. Review will help focusing discussion on multiannual plan. Term of Reference i): SCICOM Code: Codes: 162,211, and 312. WGZE considered the Calanus Workshop as a very important step towards lower trophic level assessment and it was decided to support this initiative. However, it has to be suspended till some external funding is available as such workshop(s) should be attended by experts far beyond the WGZE internal capacity. WGZE decided to continue with this ToR in 2014, including some inter-sessional, preparatory work but it should be treated as a partial contribution only to much more holistic “ICES perspective” regarding such an important management issue, leading to increased exploitation of lower trophic levels at the very base of the food chain.


Resource required to undertake the activities of this group is negligible.


Secretariat facilities

None.


Linkages to advisory committees

The Group reports to the SSGEF, SCICOM and ACOM. Mainly WGZE provides scientific information on plankton and ecosystems and welcomes input from other committees and expert groups.

Linkages to other

Any and all expert groups interested in marine ecosystem monitoring and assessments, modelling and/or plankton studies, including fish and shellfish

| 33

committees or groups

life histories and recruitment studies. Strong working links have been developed between WGZE and Mediterranean colleagues (CIESM). WGPME will likely work closely with WGZE on issues of microzooplankton ecology and trophic coupling between phytoplankton and zooplankton.


Links with the WGPME and WGHABD are intended and some contact is maintained. The Plankton Status Report is of interest and practical use to a range of interested groups within ICES, PICES, CIESM, and GOOS with other national and international research groups and agencies. Increasingly marine research, marine management and even marine institutes are re-aligning to take an ecosystem view. These linked and collaborative approaches between many expert groups must be encouraged. IGBP, SCOR, ESF, COML/CMarZ, and others have research activities meetings etc., of interest and relevant to the activities of the WGZE. Contacts are maintained through networking and collaborative activities.

Working Group on Oceanic Hydrography (WGOH)

2013/2/SSGEF06 The Working Group on Oceanic Hydrography (WGOH), chaired by Stephen Dye, UK, and Kjell Arne Mork, Norway, will meet in Hamburg, Germany, 1–3 April 2014 to:

a ) Update and review results from Standard Sections and Stations; b ) Consolidate inputs from Member Countries to, and continue development

of the ICES Report on Ocean Climate (IROC); work with ICES Data Centre to develop web based presentation of IROC data including full meta-data;

c ) Explore areas of mutual interest with international climate monitoring programmes;

d ) Provide expert knowledge and guidance to ICES Data Centre (possibly via subgroup) on a continuous basis;

e ) Help develop the framework for regional integrated ecosystem advice, advise on best temporal and spatial scales and spatial partitioning for descriptors of trends and variability of each ICES Ecoregion (for temperature, Salinity, water column structure, connectivity/flows, freshwater run-off/ice cover/salinity events, regional scale atmospheric forcing) and design a “briefing sheet” detailing the current state of the physical and biological environment in each ecoregion;

f ) Provide expert knowledge, support and guidance to SCICOM and other Expert Groups requiring information on oceanic hydrography, and working to strengthen the role of physical oceanography within ICES in conjunction with groups such as WGOOFE, including: i ) Support SCICOM regarding elements of the EGs’ work that are relevant to Marine Strategy Framework Directive activities, ii ) Contribute to WKOOI to ensure Oceanic Hydrology is considered in the overall ICES framework for observing needs;

g ) Prepare contributions for the 2013 SSGEF session during the ASC on the topic areas of the Science Plan.

WGOH will report by 30 April 2014 (via SSGEF) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.


34 |

Priority The activities of this Group are fundamental to the work of the SSGEF.

Scientific justification ToR a) This is a repeating task established by the Working Group to closely monitor the ocean conditions in the ICES area.. ToR b)The Working Group recognises the need for disseminating climate information in a timely and appropriate manner. This agenda item will allow WGOH members to prepare the document during the meeting, thus avoiding delays in the dissemination of the information. We will review proposed new developments in IROC content. ToR c) Links have been made with the CLIVAR programme; it would be of benefit both to ICES and the international programmes to enhance internal information exchange. ToR d) An ongoing ToR supporting a request from the ICES Data Centre ToR e) Proposed by Mark Dickey-Collas, SSGEF and ACOM: ICES is developing region ecosystem overviews. The will be an ongoing and iterative process and it must become operational within the ICES advice process. WGOH documents variability and trends in the oceanic hydrography for most ecoregions. The ICES Integrated Assessment Expert groups have also provided analysis of variability and trends. This information from different sources needs to be synthesized and build into a comprehensive description of the state of the regional seas and the Atlantic Ocean. Part of the process will be ensuring that knowledge from WGOH is taken up by the integrated assessment groups. ICES requires an agreed approach on the potential scales (both spatial and temporal) that best describe the regional variability. In addition it requires agreement on the partitioning of time-series by area. In other words, is it appropriate to describe temperature of the North Sea with one metric per year, or should the North Sea be split into 2 or 3 areas (as proposed by the integrated assessment groups) and/or should winter temperatures be described separate from summer temperatures? Scientists often want to split at finer and finer scales, but at what scales do the dominant oceanographic processes occur which have a regional impact? This ToR requires a preliminary list to be developed for each Ecoregion. This list can be fine-tuned in the coming years, but WGOH is being requested to use expert judgement, based on their extensive knowledge of the oceanographic systems, to create an initial list at their next meeting. This list will also be used to stimulate debate in WGOOFE, to look into the operationalization of the provision of the time-series. This ToR also addresses a proposal by WGIPEM for all integrated assessment working groups to provide a list of any relevant hydrographic indicators of community-level changes within their region, working with WGOOFE and WGOH. Finally, it addresses a request by HAWG or the annual creation of a “briefing sheet” detailing the current state of the physical and biological environment in the ecoregions that it covers as an aid to generating advice. ToR f) To follow up on the ICES General Secretary’s suggestions for increasing the visibility of oceanography within ICES. To improve communications between working groups under the ICES system. This also responds to a request from Adi Kellerman via WGOOFE and a request for ongoing support from the SCICOM Chair in 2011. ToR g) This is in response to a request from SSGEF.

Resource requirements No extraordinary additional resources

Participants WGOH members; Chair of SSGEF




ACOM

| 35


Publications Committee


IOC, JCOMM, CLIVAR

Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG)

2013/2/SSGEF02 The Benthos Ecology Working Group (BEWG), chaired by Steven Degraer, Belgium, will meet in Dinard, France, 28 April – 2 May 2014 to:

a ) Long-term benthic series and climate change:

• To progress towards an understanding change in the benthos, e.g. regime shifts, seasonality, fine spatial scale variability;

• To facilitate collaboration by further development and promotion of the BEWG Benthic Long-Term Series network (BeLTS-net);

• To identify methodological issues in long-term series comparability.

b ) Species distribution modelling and mapping:

• To compare and report on the performance of different qualitative and quantitative species distribution modelling methods, e.g. methods validity;

• To explore the applicability of different qualitative and quantitative species distribution modelling methods, e.g. limitations, purposes, knowledge gaps.

c ) Benthos and legislative drivers:

• To report on the use of benthic indicators and targets for management: Compatibility and complementarity;

• On the myths on indicators: To investigate the importance of species autecology in indicator development and application;

• To review the development of effective monitoring programmes, e.g. design, harmonisation and quality assessments.

d ) Benthic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning:

• To identify the links between benthic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, e.g. literature review, ecological processes, biological traits;

• To identify the links between benthic functions and ecosystem services.

BEWG will report by 15 June 2013 (via SSGEF) for the attention of SCICOM.


Priority The current activities of BEWG will continue along the three major vertical axes of priority within BEWG: long-term series and climate change, benthic indicators and EU directives, and species distribution modelling, and one cross-cutting (horizontal) axis on benthic biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. All issues mentioned fit the ICES Science Programme and may hence be considered of high priority.


ICES Science Plan, Priority 1 “Understanding ecosystem functioning” Research topic “Climate change processes and prediction of impacts” Term of Reference a) BELTS-net will aid creating the forum for further identification of major ecosystem regime shifts, seasonality and fine scale spatial variability, and as

36 |

such for further consideration of the impact of climate change onto the benthos. Given the need to compile, combine and integrate different databases the identification of methodological issues in long-term series comparability is considered most important. Research topic “Biodiversity and the health of marine ecosystems” Term of Reference d) Disentangling the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is currently considered key to a full understanding of the health of marine ecosystems. This topic hence became a cross-cutting theme since the BEWG 2012 meeting. BEWG will therefore review and identify benthic indicators to reflect the link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and review how ecological function and diversity relates to different parts of the benthic communities at different spatial scales, taking account of e.g. ecological processes and biological traits. BEWG will also scope for research on the functional diversity of macrobenthos in relation to ecosystem functioning, for which a first data compilation will be dealt with intersessionally. From a more conceptual perspective, BEWG will continue investigating the link between ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services. ICES Science Plan, Priority 2: “Understanding interactions of human activities with ecosystems” Various Research topics Term of Reference c) A wide suite of benthic quality indicators were developed, intercalibrated and applied within the framework of several international regulations. At present, the most relevant directives within the Northatlantic realm are the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. BEWG will invetigate the Compatibility and complementarity within the use of benthic indicators and targets for management. It will further continue scientifically investigating the importance of species autecology in indicator development and application and review the development of effective monitoring programmes, e.g. design, harmonisation and quality assessments. ICES Science Plan, Priority 3: “Development of options for sustainable use of ecosystems” Various Research topics Terms of Reference b) Species distribution modelling (SDM) helps understanding the distribution of species and communities. As such, it helps elaborating a scientifically-sound management of the marine ecosystem. While qualitative SDM (i.e. modelling the likelihood of occurrence of benthic feature) has been regularly applied, today attention is needed to quantitative modelling techniques (e.g. modelling densities or biomass. BEWG will therefore compare and report on the performance of different qualitative and quantitative species distribution modelling methods, e.g. methods validity, and explore the applicability of different qualitative and quantitative species distribution modelling methods, e.g. limitations, purposes, knowledge gaps.


No ICES resources are required.



None.

| 37



There are no obvious direct linkages with the Advisory Committee.


There is a very close link to the work of several expert groups within SSGEF, among which WGMHM and WGEXT.


The work of this group is closely aligned with similar work in FAO and in the Census of Marine Life Programme.

SSGEF workshops

Workshop on Lampreys and Shads (WKLS)

2013/2/SSGEF07 A Workshop on Lampreys and Shads (WKLS), co-chaired by Pedro Raposo de Almeida*, Portugal, and Eric Rochard*, France, will be established and will meet in Lisbon, Portugal, 27–29 November 2014 to:

a ) Summarize existing knowledge on species distribution, population delimitation and dynamics of lampreys and shads in the north Atlantic and highlight main conservation concerns;

b ) Review current state of habitat recovery and conservation efforts relevant for these species;

c ) Describe causes of lamprey and shad mortality (both target and incidental) across the north Atlantic (including characterization of target fisheries during the spawning migration) and the level of monitoring data available to support management decisions;

d ) Propose future directions for the sustainable exploitation of these resources and the recovery of populations and habitats, as well as the most adequate representation of this theme within the ICES framework.

WKLS will report by 31 December 2014 for the attention of WGRECORDS.


Priority Under ICES, lampreys and shads are currently treated by WGBYC in the context of protected fish species. Although these species make part of Annex II in the Habitats Directive, they are also targeted by artisanal fisheries of very long tradition in several European countries, while there exists a group of scientists in both sides of the Atlantic with dedicated research and conservation action that is unrelated to the main thematic areas of WGBYC. A workshop on this theme (under WGRECORDS) is a timely opportunity to obtain an updated view and an informed recommendation on the most adequate course of action to monitor and manage fishing activities that have an impact on these anadromous species. The output of this WK can be integrated in the development of a wider ICES strategy for science and advice related to diadromous species that is currently stimualted by WGRECORDS.

Scientific justification Term of Reference a)

38 |

Several countries are conducting studies in this area and the subject would benefit from a a compiltion and critical review of existing knowledge. Although across most North Atlantic lampreys and shads are under some conservation concern, in America the land-locked form of sea lamprey is a pest, with implementation of aggressive management plans for population control.

Term of Reference b)

Riverine habitat recovery plans have been in place in several European countries and there exist success stories that have permited recolonization of spawning habitat for migrating lampreys and shads. Information on such plans is scattered and has never been adequately integrated in the monitorin and management advice for these species

Term of Reference c)

Lampreys and shads form the target of dedicated artisanal fisheries in severa European countries, mainly during their riverine migration for spawning. Although adequate monitoring data on these fisheries are only available in few systems and generic DCF data from marine fisheries provide limited information, monitoring of habitat recovery plans can provide a valuable additional insight that can improve management advice.

Term of Reference d)

There exists a group of scientists with dedicated research and conservation action on lampreys and shads that is unrelated to the main thematic areas of WGBYC. This ToR will provide an informed recommendation to ICES (via WGRECORDS) on the most adequate course of action to balance exploitation and conservation concerns and provide management advice for these anadromous species.


Participants The Group will be attended by 20–25 members and guests of several European countries and (eventually) USA.




The Workshop will report to WGRECORDS.


Mutual interests with the Working Group on Bycatch of Protected Species (WGBYC). The groups may use/support each other and consult each other’s reports.


None.

Workshop of a Planning Group on the Monitoring of Eel Quality under the subject “Development of standardized and harmonized protocols for the estimation of eel quality” (WKPGMEQ)

2013/2/SSGEF08 The Workshop of a Planning Group on the Monitoring of Eel Quality under the subject “Development of standardized and harmonized protocols for the estimation of eel quality” (WKPGMEQ), chaired by Claude Belpaire*, Belgium, and Olga Haenen*, the Netherlands, on contaminants, and on eel diseases respectively, will meet in Brussels, Belgium, 20–22 January 2015 to:

| 39

a ) Design standardized and harmonized protocols for the estimation of eel quality with regard to the bioaccumulation of contaminants (including sampling, analysis and reporting);

b ) Design standardized and harmonized protocols for the estimation of eel quality with regard to diseases (including sampling, analysis and reporting).

WKPGMEQ will report by 28 February 2015 (via SSGEF) for the attention of the WGEEL, WGRECORDS and SCICOM.


Priority WGEEL 2012 stated that to improve the assessment of the impact of contaminants and diseases on effective spawner biomass and reproductive success, national routine monitoring programmes are urgently required. The Eel Regulation does no refer to the health status of the population of European eel or possible impacts on the population due to contamination and diseases. Hence, regular monitoring programmes for eel are neither run nor reported to the EU. WGEEL 2012 recommended that Member States implement routine monitoring of lipid levels, contamination and diseases, but also identified the need to develop standardized and harmonized protocols for the estimation of eel quality, so that national data would be comparable and could be reliably incorporated in international stock assessments. In 2015 WGEEL will organize a Workshop of a Planning Group on the Monitoring o Eel Quality, in order design standardized and harmonized monitoring protocols, to facilitate the integration of eel quality parameters in quantitative assessment of the reproductive potential of the stock.

Scientific justification Reliable assessment of the eel stock quality and its quantitative effect on the reproductive stock is currently not possible, due to insufficient spatial and tempora coverage. WG EEL(2009) emphasized the need to establish a comprehensive overview with improved spatial coverage of the quality of the eel population across Europe as an essential and urgent requirement. Many countries have started compiling data on the health status of eels in their water bodies. Objectives for these monitoring actions are diverse and there is a large amount of information collected by EU member countries. However, procedures with respect to sampling, analysis and reporting are not harmonised, jeopardising stock wide assessments and risking inefficient deployment of resources. Understanding of the reproductive potential of the international spawning stock is a key component to predicting the effects on stock recovery of changes to silver eel escapement arising from management action implemented within Eel Management Plans.

Resource requirements None other than financial, see below. The host institution will provide meeting facilities.

Participants WGEEL Participants, other experts/representatives from member states

Secretariat facilities Sharepoint

Financial Support is requested to cover the travel and subsistance costs of those attending the workshop.


WGEEL and ACOM

Linkages to other committees or groups WGRECORDS, SCICOM, Eel diseases group EAFP

Linkages to other organizations FAO EIFAAC, GFCM, EU DG MARE, EU DG ENV

40 |

Workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic (WKGIC)

2013/2/SSGEF09 The Workshop on Growth-increment Chronologies in Marine Fish: climate-ecosystem interactions in the North Atlantic (WKGIC), chaired by Bryan Black*, USA, and Christoph Stransky*, Germany, will meet in Hamburg, Germany, 2–3 December 2014 to:

a ) Review the applications of chronologies developed from growth-increment widths in the hard parts (otoliths, shells, scales) of marine fish and bivalve species, including: age verification, generation of multi-decadal time series of population-wide growth anomalies, establishing climate-growth relationships, disentangling human and climate impacts, comparisons of growth among diverse taxa or across marine regions, and development of ecosystem-level indicators;

b ) Train participants on the fundamentals of chronology development. Topics to be covered include visual crossdating, increment measurement, and statistical approaches to chronology development;

c ) Discuss the assumptions and limitations of chronology development as well as the characteristics of species and collections for which these approaches would be ideally suited, including issues of longevity, archival history, use of specimens with unknown dates of death, and growth-increment clarity;

d ) Identify species and collections that are most promising for chronology development based on participants’ expertise on otolith interpretation and institutional collections;

e ) Consider other physical and biological time series (indices of fish somatic growth or size, recruitment histories, lower-trophic productivity) that could be integrated with fish or bivalve chronologies;

f ) Identify the most promising research questions that may be addressed using these techniques in the North Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea.

g ) Based on the results, conclusions, and recommendations from this workshop, initiate an international cooperative project on chronology development to commence after the workshop;

h ) Propose a future training workshop approximately one week induration for those interested in learning chronology-development techniques in depth. The workshop will involve a hands-on research project and be based on previous workshops taught in North America, Australia, and once in the UK (examples: International Sclerochronology Fieldweek, May 2013, University of Wales, Bangor; North American Dendroecology Fieldweek sclerochronology group 2006, 2009, 2011 http://dendrolab.indstate.edu/nadef/ ).

WKGIC will report by 15 January 2015 (via SSGEF) for the attention of SCICOM.


Priority Millions of otoliths, bivalve shells, and scales collected for routine ageing in support of stock assessment are archived in European and North American fisheries laboratories. Yet these structures are chronometers of the environmental conditions the organism experienced over the course of its lifespan and thus contain far more information than age. Advances in digital imaging and computing power combined with techniques developed by tree-ring scientists provide a means by which to general

http://dendrolab.indstate.edu/nadef/

| 41

exactly dated, multidecadal time series of population-level growth anomalies (i.e. chronologies). Given that they are exactly placed in time, chronologies can be directly compared to instrumental climate records, chronologies from other regions or species, or time series of other biologica phenomena such as primary productivity or recruitment history. In this way, chronologies may be used to understand long-term ranges of growth variability, associated climatic drivers of growth, linkages within and among species, and generation of ecosystem-level indicators. Such information will be particularly relevant to the desired transition from single stock assessments to ecosystem based management strategies, especially with respect to establishing historical ranges of variability, influence of climate, and ecosystem indicators and their thresholds. Here, we propose to assemble representatives of major fisheries labs to learn basic fundamentals chronology-development techniques, and most importantly, identify the most promising species and collections that woul be suitable for such an approach. We would then propose the most suitabl and immediate projects that could be pursued, initiating international cooperative projects to commence after the workshop. Overall, this workshop would be the first step in generating chronology networks in the region.

Scientific justification Over the past decade, a large and growing network of chronologies has been developed from annual growth-increment widths in marine fish and bivalves in the North Pacific. These chronologies have been integrated across species, marine regions, and other biological time series to develop indicators and identify climate drivers of productivity and functioning at the ecosystem level. For example, chronologies of rockfish (Sebastes spp.) and salmon (Oncorhynchus) have been integrated with indices of seabird reproductive success to demonstrate that winter upwelling is critical to ecosystem functioning in the California Current. This winter upwelling pattern is driven by broad-scale atmospheric pressure systems that facilitat or block onshore flows of precipitation. Due to their drought sensitivity, tree-ring chronologies can be used to hind-cast this biologically important winter pattern over the past six centuries, documenting that variance in the system has risen to unusually high levels over the past 100 years that has been driven by a series of winters with anomalously low upwelling. Moreover, these California Current chronologies have been compared to those developed in the Gulf of Alaska, showing that the two ocean domain co-vary out of phase. Robust growth in the north is associated with poor growth in the south and vice versa, a pattern largely driven by winter El Niño Southern Oscillation activity. Such approaches have also resulted in fish chronologies off New Zealand and along the Australia west coast. Over the past decade, a number of exactly dated chronologies have been developed for the extremely long-lived bivalve species Arctica islandica and Glycymeris glycymeris in the North Sea and North Atlantic for the purposes of ocean climate reconstruction. Thus, the “tree-ring” approach for chronology development works in these regions, but has not yet been applied to fish or to address ecological or management issues. In pilot studies, Black, Stransky, and Norway’s Akvaplan-NIVA have generated strong preliminary chronologies for Atlantic cod, plaice, and the greater Argentine for the North Atlantic region. However, the greatest impedimen to expanding this work remains a lack of knowledge as to suitable species and collections available for chronology development in the Atlantic, North Sea, and Baltic region. The proposed workshop would assemble those mo familiar with otolith (and bivalve) collections to identify species and locations that would be most suitable, and to identify the most promising research directions for the eastern Atlantic region. The goal would be to initiate an international cooperative project on chronology development to commence after the workshop.

42 |

Resource requirements This workshop will be held at the Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute in Hamburg, Germany. All necessary background, practice images, and meeting space will be provided by the instructors.

Participants 10-15 otolith specialists from leading age labs (IMR, IFREMER, CEFAS, DTU-Aqua, IMARES, TI, etc…)




There are no obvious direct linkages with the advisory committees.


WGBIOP


None.

SSGEF EG resolutions approved in 2012

2012/2/SSGEF01 Workshop on BALTic EEL (WKBALTEEL)

Willem Dekker*, Sweden

To be decided

2012/2/SSGEF16 Workshop on Synthesis of hydrographic, phytoplankton, microbial plankton and zooplankton time series in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas (WKSERIES)

Lidia Yebra*, Spain, and Alexandra Kraberg*, Germany

15–18 October 2013

2012/2/SSGEF15 Workshop on sea trout (WKTRUTTA)

Stig Pedersen*, Denmark, and Nigel Milner*, UK

12–14 November 2013

SSGEF EGs dissolved in 2014

2012/2/SSGEF11 Joint PICES/ICES Workshop on Global Assessment of the Implications of Climate Change on the Spatial Distribution of Fish and Fisheries (WKSICCME-Spatial)

Anne Hollowed (USA/PICES), Suam Kim (Korea/PICES), and Myron Peck (Germany/ICES

Workshop on Synthesis of hydrographic, phytoplankton, microbial plankton and zooplankton time series in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas (WKSERIES)

Lidia Yebra, Spain, and Alexandra Kraberg, Germany

2012/2/SSGEF15 Workshop on sea trout (WKTRUTTA)

Stig Pedersen*, Denmark, and Nigel

| 43

Milner*, UK

2012/2/SSGEF01 Workshop on BALTic EEL (WKBALTEEL)

Willem Dekker*, Sweden

2013/2/SSGEF04 Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE)

Richard Veit, USA

44 |

SCICOM Steering Group on Human Interactions on Ecosystems (SSGHIE) Resolutions 2013

SSGHIE Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS)

Working Group on Marine Renewable Energy (WGMRE)

2013/MA2/SSGHIE01 The Working Group on Marine Renewable Energy (WGMRE), chaired by Finlay Bennet*, UK, will be established and will meet in Pasajes, Spain, 31 March – 3 April 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGMRE will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 27 April 2014 to SSGHIE.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED

DURATION EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Provide summaries of the state of development of the marine renewable energy sector, covering offshore wind energy, in-stream tidal energy, wave energy and tidal barrages, updated on an ongoing basis, and including ‘horizon scanning’ to identify future issues for marine environmental management

a) Science Requirements: the marine renewable energy sector is rapidly emerging as a new user of marine space. There is a need for up-to-date, spatially explicit information on developments and on current research activities to determine potential interactions with ecosystems and other sea users. b) Advisory Requirements: Advice to OSPAR and other customers requires access to latest research outcomes and experience of developments in this emerging science area. c) Requirements from other EGs: marine renewable energy developments will impact or interact with topics considered by other EGs, for example marine mammals, seabirds, benthos.

231,232,233 3 years Live documents, database system and GIS outputs on marine renewable energy developments and associated research, updated and extended annually.

b Report on developments in

As above 231,232,233 3 years Live document, updated and

| 45

consenting procedures for marine renewable energy

extended annually

c Report on the development of decision-support and management tools for planning and regulation of marine renewable energy developments, considering the relevance to new technology, cumulative effects and the application of risk-based ecosystem approaches to management

As above 231,232, 233, 312, 313, 314, 331, 333, 335, 341, 344

3 years Live document, updated and extended annually

d Identify cross-sectoral issues involving marine renewable energy, for example opportunities for co-location, interactions with fishing, aquaculture, fisheries and Marine Conservations Zones

As above 231, 232, 233, 331, 335, 341

1 year Individual fact sheets on expected interactions and issues by sector, for use by other EGs and ICES customers. Produced in year 2.

e Foster strong collaborative working relationships with other ICES Expert Groups, integrating recommendations across topic areas and identifying priority issues and science applications for thematic ICES Workshops based on regulatory and planning needs in relation to marine renewable energy

As above Numerous, including 111, 122, 162, 231,232, 233, 243, 251, 312, 313, 314, 331,333, 334, 342, 343

3 years Links established during year 1, Workshops held during years 2 and 3, CRRs produced as Workshop outputs.


Year 1 - Agree the form of report, database and GIS outputs for ToR a, integrating information collated by SGWTE on development and research activities. - Draft summary reports on consenting processes and decision support tools by country (ToRs b & c). - Invite chairs and members of other EGs to participate in the WG meeting and otherwise identify cross-cutting issues; review relevant material in other EG reports. - Propose the first topic-based Workshop, jointly with one or more other EGs. - Review multi-annual ToRs for years 2 and 3 and adjust as appropriate.

46 |

Year 2 - Update and extend database, GIS outputs and reports on ToRs a, b & c. - Based on collaborations with other EGs, develop fact sheets on cross-sectoral interactions. - Plan and hold the first topic-based Workshop, with the outcome reported as a CRR. - Propose the second topic-based Workshop, jointly with one or more other EGs. - Review progress against multi-annual ToRs and adjust as appropriate for year 3.

Year 3 - Complete database, GIS outputs and reports on ToRs a, b & c. - Plan and hold the second topic-based Workshop, with the outcome reported as a CRR. - Identify science, advisory and other EG needs for continuation of WGMRE activities and formulate multi-annual ToRs as appropriate.


Priority The activities of this group will promote the capacity of ICES to provide integrated advice and information on potential ecosystem impacts and management of marine renewable energy activities in the marine environment, especially with regard to Marine Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority


Participants The Group consists of experts in marine renewable energy resources, environmental and socio-economic aspects of marine planning and regulation, and will include representatives of other EGs as appropriate. Coordination between WGMBRED and WGMRE will be ensured by having one or two individuals attending part of both meetings.






There will be a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGHIE. Close collaborative links will be made with a number of other EGs, notably WGMBRED, WGMME, BEWG, WGMPCZM and WGSE. The ICES data center needs to be involved for ToR a).


OSPAR is interested in this issue.

Working Group for Marine Planning and Coastal Zone Management (WGMPCZM)

2013/MA2/SSGHIE02 The Working Group for Marine Planning and Coastal Zone Management (WGMPCZM), chaired by Andreas Kannen, Germany will meet in Barcelona, Spain, 7–11 April 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGMPCZM will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 23 May 2014 to SSGHIE.

| 47

ToR descriptors

ToR Description Background Duration Expected Deliverables

a Update on activities in MSP, ICZM and EBM in ICES MS with particular attention to regional specifics, land-sea interactions and evaluation of MSP/ICZM/EBM processes and outcomes.

a) EU Directives b) National MSP/ICZM/EBM projects c) Research projects (at EU and national levels) d) Ecosystem Approach to Management e) Activities in Regional Sea conventions

3 years a) Review paper based on infor-mation gathered at annual meetings (year 3)

b Report on approaches and methods to develop and incorporate thresholds of acceptable environmental (social and ecological) change due to regional and transboundary activities in the context of MSP processes including support for and review of follow-up activities from Workshop on Risk Assessment for Spatial management (WKRASM ).

a) Relates to work in OSPAR and HELCOM b) Technical development in Canada c) National licensing for marine renewables d) MSP approaches and projects e) EU Directives f) Ecosystem Approach to Management g) Integrated Monitoring

3 years a) hold WKRASM (year 1), b) prepare CRR based on WKRASM (year 1-2) c) prepare summarizing review paper (year 3)

c Develop a typology of conflicts in MSP, ICZM and EBM, identify information needs to analyse selected types of conflict and instruments to address these. This includes review and support of follow-up activities from Workshop on Cultural Ecosystem Services (WKCES).

a) MSP approaches and projects b) EU Directives c) Ecosystem Approach to Manage-ment

3 years

a) Prepare report on a typology of conflicts and a review of infor-mation needs and tools (year 1-2), b) prepare report(s) on the role of cultural ecosystem services in MSP in relation to the MSP cycle, spatial data needs and the quality assurance system, developed in WKQAMSP (year 2-3). c) prepare scientific papers (year 2-3).

48 |

d

Support ICES in developing a role in providing training in Marine Spatial Planning

a) MSP approaches and projects in Member States b) EU Directives c) Ecosystem Approach to Management

3 years

a) develop a proposal for an ICES MSP Training course and hold a training course (year 1) b) prepare a review of the ICES MSP training course (year 2) c) Provide guidance (as a kind of Scientific Steering Committee) on further develop-ment of the MSP Challenge role play and review its use in MSP trainings. d) prepare a review report of applications of the the MSP Challenge game(s)

e Work with the ICES data centre to develop a strategy to source and present key datasets in support of MSP/ICZM activities

a) MSP and ICZM approaches and projects b) EU Directives c) Ecosystem Approach to Management d) Data, information, knowledge and opinions are components of a common knowledge base for informed decision-making in MSP, ICZM and EBM e) Information gaps exist in particular in trans-boundary data/information

3 years a) Review the requirements of marine planners and marine managers for “spatial data and information” concerning human activities and pressures, social and economic factors and ecological sensitivities to identify gaps, particularly in relation to trans-boundary datasets. (year 1) b) Work with ICES Datacentre to provide a review of their holdings in relation the needs for data to support MSP/ICZM processes in ICES countries: including marine habitat mapping, mapping human uses, combining data from different

| 49

sources, using fisheries data, socio-economic data etc.. (year 2) c) Develop a programme of activities to develop the ICES spatial data holdings to meet international data requirements for MSP/ICZM. (year 3)


Year 1 - Hold WKRASM (ToR b) - Prepare report on a typology of conflicts (ToR c) - develop a proposal for an ICES MSP Training course and hold a training course (ToR d) - Prepare review of requirements of marine planners and marine managers for spatial data and information (ToR e)

Year 2 - Prepare CRR on WKRASM (ToR b) - Prepare review of information needs and tools along conflict typology (ToR c) - Prepare report(s) on the role of cultural ecosystem services in MSP in relation to the MSP cycle, spatial data needs and the quality assurance system (ToR c) - Prepare a review of the ICES MSP training course (ToR d) - Prepare review of ICES data centre holdings in relation the needs for data to support MSP/ICZM (together with ICES Data Centre)

Year 3 - Prepare a review paper based on information gathered at annual meetings (ToR a) - Prepare summarizing review paper for ToR b - Prepare scientific papers for ToR c - Prepare a review report of applications of the the MSP Challenge game(s) (ToR d) - Develop a programme of activities to develop the ICES spatial data holdings to meet international data requirements for MSP/ICZM


Priority In order to maintain and improve the quality of ICES advice, the specific requirements for scientific advice in support of client initiatives on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning and CZM need to be evaluated. In response to demands for ecosystem-based advice, ICES has adopted an ecosystem-based approach, including the coastal zone that would allow ICES to provide better holistic advice based on sound scientific understanding of the requirements of MSP processes . Consequently these activities have high priority.

Resource requirements New experts have been recruited during the past four years and there is an increasing interest in this EG. Currently the group involves experts from administrations as well as from different fields of science.

50 |

Participants ICES Member Countries working with marine planning and coastal-zone issues. The Group is normally attended by 14–16 members and guests, but has more than 30 members in total.




There are obvious direct linkages with ACOM


SCICOM and several Working Groups within this committee, follow-up of SIASM/STIG-MSP


EU, OSPAR, HELCOM, VASAB, LOICZ, several EU funded projects and MSP networks.

Working Group on the Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments on the Marine Ecosystem (WGEXT)

2013/MA2/SSGHIE03 A Working Group on the Effects of Extraction of Marine Sediments on the Marine Ecosystem (WGEXT), chaired by Ad Stolk, The Netherlands, will meet in Reykjavik, Iceland, 2–6 June 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGEXT will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 30 June 2014 to SSGHIE.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



A1 Review data on marine extraction activities. Provide a summary of data on marine sediment extraction for the OSPAR region to OSPAR.

a) OSPAR Requirements b) Advisory Requirements c) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management

2.4, 3.4 yearly Chapter in all Interim and Final Reports

A2 Review of development in marine resource mapping, legal regime and policy, environmental impact assessment, research and monitoring and the use of the ICES Guidelines on Marine Aggregate Extraction.

a) Advisory Requirements b) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management

1.2, 1.3, 2.4, 3.3, 3.4

Year 3 Chapter in Final Report

| 51

B Create an ICES aggregate database comprising all aggregate related data, including scientific research, EIA, licensing and monitoring data.

a) Advisory Requirements b) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management c) Cooperation with other WG’s d) Link to ICES database

2.4, 3.3, 3.4, More than 3 years

Year 1: Draft template Year 1: Inventory other WG’s Year 2: Template to member countries Year 3: Final template for approval to ICES

C Incorporate MSFD into WGEXT

a) Advisory Requirements b) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management c) Tuning WGEXT and ICES guidelines with EU guidelines

1.2, 1.3, 3.3, 3.4

Year 2 and 3

Chapter in 2nd Interim Report and Final Report Year 3: Review of ICES Guidelines on Marine Aggregate Extraction

D Ensure outputs of the WGEXT are accessible by publishing as a group and creating a webpage on the ICES website.

a) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management b) Contribute to the visibility and impact of ICES

2.4, 3.3, 3.4 Years 1,2,3 Year 1: Populate WGEXT webpage on ICES website Year 2 and 3: Publish outputs from inventory on intensity. Develop a proposal for theme session for 2016 ICES Annual Science Conference. Year 3: Organise WGEXT theme session for 2016 ICES Annual Science Conference

E Discuss the mitigation that takes place across ICES countries and where lessons can be learned or recommendations taken forward


1.2, 3.3, 3.4 Year 2 and 3

Chapter in 2nd Interim Report and Final Report

52 |

F Study the implications of the growing interest in deep sea mining for the WGEXT (legislation, environmental, geological)

a) Initiate the incorporation of this coming issue within ICES b) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management

1.5 Year 1 and 2

Year 2: Summary paper concerning deep sea mining

G Promote harmonisation of data across ICES countries


2.4, 3.3, 3.4 Year 2 and 3

Year 2: Formulation of definition for interpretation and classification of intensity Year 3: Define other data that can be harmonised.

H Identify the way archeological, cultural and geomorphological values are taken into account

a) Initiate the incorporation of a coming issue within ICES b) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management

3.3, 3.4 Year 3 Year 3: Provide details of the manageging of these values by all member countries

I Cumulative assessment guidance and framework for assessment should be developed.

Contribute and working together with possible other ICES WG’s that are involved in this subject

1.2, 1.3, 2.4 Year 2 and 3

Review in 2e Interim Report

J Identify threshold conditions and associated reasoning for EIA’s in different countries whether similar tresholds could apply in other countries

a) Inform other countries to optimize their policy and management

3.3, 3.4 Year 3 Chapter in Final Report


Year 1 A1, B, D, F

Year 2 A1, B, C, D, E, F, G, I

Year 3 A1, A2, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, J


| 53

Priority The current activities of WGEXT will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem effects of marine aggregate extraction. Aggregate extraction is increasing in some countries and rather stable in others. This activity is connected to several Descriptors in the EU MSFD. The Report of WGEXT and the Guidelines are used in the management of this activity in the member countries. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a high priority.

Resource requirements Notice that the activities of WGEXT are focussed on the use of existing research programmes (e.g. EIA monitoring) and data on extraction and management. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible


Secretariat facilities Coordinate work on ToR b) with the ICES Data Department





There is a potentially working relationship with all the groups of SCICOM. The coming years a cooperation with other WG’s is planned on the subjects of cumulation of effects and create and use a database. ICES data center needs to be involved in ToRs b) and g).


Working Group on Resilience and marine ecosystem services (WGRMES)

2013/MA2/SSGHIE04 A Working Group on Resilience and Marine Ecosystem Services (WGRMES), chaired by Sebastian Villasante*, Spain, is directly linked to the pressing need of sustaining healthy marine ecosystems for the present and future generations and the role of ICES that is being increasingly asked for advice on management plans and mixed-fisheries interactions in securing this target. WGRMES will be established and will have a kick off meeting during the ASC in La Coruna, Spain, 15 September 2014.


The advances of the Working Group on Resilience and Marine Ecosystem Services will allow the scientific valuation of the provision of marine ecosystem services and the effects on human well-being of different adaptation strategies, with special attention to the institutional and social responses that shape the supply and demand of marine ecosystem services. Consequently, the scope of the WG is aligned with high priority research areas of the ICES Science Plan: “Development of options for sustainable use of ecosystems”, and it is also transversally related with the first and second thematic areas “Understanding Ecosystem Functioning” and “Understanding Interactions of Human Activities with Ecosystems.”

WGRMES will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 15 March 2015 to SSGHIE.

54 |

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a) Identify the emerging tools and methodologies of socio-economic dimension of marine ecosystem services

Information and data on marine ecosystem services is scarce and not organized. Links to ICES Science Plan 3rd Thematic Area, and WKSICCME-SPATIAL

Resilience properties of marine ecosystem services; Marine living resource management tools

1–2 years

-Annual Meeting (September 2014) to inform policy-makers and clients -List of potential needs from clients and stakeholders -Theme Session at ACS-Conference Spain (2014) -Interim report

b) Understand the dynamics of spatial distribution and potential conflicts between marine ecosystem services and users

Regional and local data are lacking in Europe. Links to ICES Science Plan 3rd Thematic Area; and WGMPCZM

Biodiversity and the health of marine ecosystems, Marine spatial planning.

1,5-2,5 years

-Annual meeting (September 2015) -Interim report -Prepare and submit review paper -Special Issue “Modelling marine ecosystem services”

c) Estimate the expected economic value ecosystem services; and costs and benefits of synergies and trade-offs under global change

The analysis of spatial economic valuation patterns will provide robust scientific evidence on how services are distributed across the seascape. Links to ICES Science Plan 3rd Thematic Area; and SICCME

Socio-economic understanding of ecosystem goods and Services; Forecasting of the impact of human activities.

1,5-2,5 years

-Annual meeting (September 2015) -Workshop to inform policy-makers and clients -Create a Database for ICES with detailed information about ecological, economic and social dimensions of marine ecosystem services -Interim report -Prepare scientific paper -

d) Understand the ecological, economic, cultural and social factors undermining the use of marine ecosystem services

Spatial patterns of socio-economic factors are key to understand the use of ecosytem services. Links to ICES Science Plan 3rd Thematic Area.


2-3 years

-Annual meeting (September 2016) -Interim report -Prepare scientific paper -Special Issue “Social-ecological feedbacks between marine ecosystem services”

| 55

e) Inform decision-makers on alternative strategies for the use of ecosystem services.

Decision-makers have limited knowledge and capacity to understand how they may manage complex interactions between ecosystem services. Links to ICES Science Plan 3rd Thematic Area, and SSGSUE


2-3 years

-Annual meeting (September 2016) -Interim report -Submit cientific paper -Workshop to inform policy-makers and clients -EU funding call for research project


Year 1 Annual meeting (september 2014). Review of existing methodologies and tools of ecological, economic and social dimensions of marine ecosystem services. Interim report.

Year 2 Annual meeting (september 2015). Special Issue “Modelling marine ecosystem services”. Prepare and submit a scientific paper (1). Create a public database for ICES with information of ecological, economic and social dimensions of marine ecosystem services. Interim report.

Year 3 Annual meeting (september 2016). Develop a public database for ICES with information of ecological, economic and social dimensions of marine ecosystem services. Special Issue “Modelling marine ecosystem services”. Prepare and submit a scientific paper (2). Interim report. EU funding call for research project.


Priority The new activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the understanding of marine ecosystem services, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Resource requirements None required other than those provided by the host institute.

Participants The Group will be normally attended by some 20–25 members and guests. Participants at ACS Conferences are highly encouraged.

Secretariat facilities Coordinate with ICES Data Deprtmanet on ToR c)


Linkages to ACOM an groups under ACOM

SICOM-Operational Groups; WKECOVER; ACOM groups: AFWG, WGECO, WGRFS.

Linkages to othe committees or groups

There is a close working relationship with SGIMM, SSGHIE, SIBAS, SICCME, SISAM, WGAQUA, WGBIODIV, WGISUR, WGMARS, WGMHM, WGMPCZM, WGSFD, WKSICCME-SPATIAL.

Linkages to othe organizations

The work of this group is aligned with similar work of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in which the Chair (Dr Villasante) is also co-leader of the Thematic Working Group “Economic and monetary valuation” and (www.es-partnership.org). The work is also in line with the current Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere (http://mahb.stanford.edu), ++ and numerous scientific and regulatory governmental and university’s departments in ICES countries and globally (FAO, United Nations, World Bank, OECD, etc.)

http://www.es-partnership.org/

http://mahb.stanford.edu/

56 |

SSGHIE multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates

Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Organisms (WGPDMO)

2012/MA2/SSGHIE02 The Working Group on Pathology and Diseases of Marine Organisms (WGPDMO), chaired by Neil Ruane, Ireland, will meet in at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 25–28 February 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGPDMO will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 10 April 2014 to SSGHIE.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background

Science Plan

topics addresse

d Duratio

n Expected

Deliverables

a New disease trends in wild and cultured fish, molluscs, and crustaceans based on national reports

New disease conditions and trends in diseases of wild and cultured marine organisms continue to appear and an annual assessment of these should be maintained.

1.3, 1.4, 2.2, 2.5

annual Annual summary of trends to ICES Member Countries, OSPAR

b Parasites and other infectious agents in marine finfish and shellfish species posing a hazard to human health

A range of parasites and other infectious agents reported by the WGPDMO in the annual update of disease trends have the potential to be harmful to human health if ingested in under processed food. There is an upward trend in the consumption of raw fish and other seafood products which may increase this risk. Literature reviews of risk, prevention and mitigation strategies will be prepared.

1.4, 1.7 Years 1, 2 and 3

Submit manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journal

c Disease interactions between farmed and wild finfish

WGPDMO has produced reports on disease interactions between farmed and wild finfish on disease in 2010, 2011 and 2012. These reports reflect WGPDMO’s activity in this field and are worthy for dissemination to a wider audience. The reports will be reviewed intersessionally and a decision made regarding their suitability for publication either as a single or multiple publications. These papers will be drafted for publication in the ICES Cooperative Research Report Series. Contact with ICES WGEIM will be established to exchange information on this subject and to collaborate if appropriate.

2.2, 3.1 Years 1 and 2

Manuscript submitted for publication as an ICES Coop. Res. Rep. OSPAR, WGPDMO

d ICES publication ‘Trends in important diseases affecting the culture of fish and molluscs in the ICES

The earlier “Trends” document provided valuable information to researchers and fisheries managers on trends of diseases in aquaculture and . That document requires updating with new information on those diseases of most importance for aquaculture, including new and emerging diseases, during 2003 to the present.

1.4, 3.1 Years 1 and 2

Manuscript submitted for publication as an ICES Coop Res Rep, WGPDMO

| 57

area 2003 - present’

e Maps of fish and shellfish diseases

The WGPDMO considers the information on the geographical distribution of fish and shellfish diseases provided on the ICES website (http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishdiseases/fishandshellfish.asp) as a valuable contribution to the scientific community reflecting WGPDMO’s activities and expertise in this field. The maps give scientists, managers, laypersons and politicians having interest in or needing information on this field the possibility of obtaining a rapid overview on selected diseases. However, much of the information presented at present is outdated and needs to be updated. The WGPDMO will develop a plan on the type of information considered to be useful for presentation on the ICES website and on ways facilitating a regular update. Contacts with the ICES Secretariat will be established to explore relevant requirements and steps to be taken

1.4, 3.3 Years 1, 2 and 3

ICES websites, ICES Member Countries,

f The Fish Disease Index (FDI) in relation to results of FDI assessments of diseases of flounder and Baltic cod and liver histopathology and macscopic liver lesions in the common dab

The FDI approach has been developed for the analysis and assessment of data obtained by ICES Member Countries running regular fish disease surveys as part of their national environmental monitoring programmes. There is need to review the results of an application of the FDI approach on fish species other than dab (e.g. flounder and cod). Furthermore, the FDI strategy and the assessment criteria proposed for macroscopic liver neoplasms and liver histopathology need to be validated based on available national datasets. Finalization and the application of the FDI as an assessment tool for environmental monitoring under OSPAR/HELCOM/EU MSFD is considered as a longer-term activity of WGPDMO.

1.2, 1.4, 3.3

Years 1, 2 and 3

Publish FDI methodology in the ICES TIMES series. ICES Member Countries, WGPDMO

g Disease-associated population effects of commercial fish and shellfish species

There is increasing information from studies in wild freshwater and marine fish species that diseases affect growth, reproduction and survival of different life stages of fish and shellfish and thus, may have an impact on recruitment and stock structure. However, only in a few cases have diseases been explicitly considered in population dynamics models. The potential risk to fish and shellfish populations due to diseases is of considerable ecological and economical concern. Furthermore, population dynamics and epidemiological models will be reviewed in light of their applicability for studies in wild fish and shellfish. It is anticipated that the results of the review will be relevant to a range of ICES Expert Groups, including the stock assessment groups.

1.2, 1.4, 2.5, 3.1

Years 1, 2 and 3

Manuscript to be published as an ICES Coop Res Rep. ICES Member Countries, WGPDMO

h ICES publications on pathology and diseases

A number of ICES publications, either web-based or in ICES publication series, are being prepared or updated at present, the progress of which has to be reviewed by WGPDMO. It will

1.4, 3.1 annual WGPDMO internal report

http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishdiseases/fishandshellfish.asp

http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/fishdiseases/fishandshellfish.asp

58 |

of marine organisms

be necessary to consider ways by which these can be linked to each other. New publications have to be considered.

i Provide expert knowledge and advice on fish disease and related data to the ICES Data Centre on a continuous basis.

In compliance with a request from the ICES Data Centre.

1.4, 3.3 annual Data and data management advice, ICES, ICES Member Countries

j Development of templates for the national reports from ICES Member Countries

Variability exists within the National Reports for wild and farmed finfish and shellfish regarding disease occurrence e.g. prevalence, number of animals, species infected etc. This ToR will aim to standardize the reporting structure. The group recognized the need to relate this information where possible to specific fish stocks, thereby facilitating transfer of disease information to stock assessment working groups. This will aid in the assessment of new disease conditions and trends assessed annually by the group in ToR a

1.3, 1.4 2 Reporting structure for aquatic diseases

k Special request

Interactions between wild and captive fish stocks (OSPAR 4/2014) a. Recalling the conclusion of the QSR 2010 that mariculture is a growing activity in the OSPAR maritime area, EIHA 2012 considered the potential for increasing environmental pressure relating to the growth of this industry. As yet this is not an established work stream within EIHA, and Contracting Parties have requested that more information be brought forwards on this issue. This was reiterated by EIHA 2013. b. Mariculture has a number of associated environmental pressures such as the introduction of non_indigenous species, which can have ecological and genetic impacts on marine environment and especially on wild fish stocks; in addition, pressures from mariculture might include: i. introduction of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals; ii. transfer of disease and parasite interactions; iii. release of nutrients and organic matters; iv. introgression of foreign genes, from both hatchery-reared fish and genetically modified fish and invertebrates, in wild populations; v. effects on small cetaceans, such as the bottlenose dolphin, due to their interaction with aquaculture cages c. EIHA proposes that OSPAR requests ICES to provide: i. an update on the available knowledge on these

| 59

issues; ii. concrete examples of management solutions to mitigate these pressures on the marine environment; iii. advice on which pressures have sufficient documentation regarding their impacts to implement relevant monitoring and suggest a way forward to manage these pressures. d. It may be appropriate to explore cooperation with other competent authorities working in this field, such as the European Food Safety Authority with respect to disease transfer or parasites, or the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO), in particular with respect to existing cooperation between NASCO and ICES on issues pertaining to pressures from mariculture. WGPDMO is requested to adress in particular points bii and cii. Also WGAQUA, WGAGFM and WGMME will adress this request.


Year 1 Three terms of reference (a, h and i) are annual tasks and form a core part of WGPDMO activities. The WGPDMO will tackle these and all other ToRs.

Year 2 Terms of reference c and d will be finalized with the final review by the WGPDMO and submission of manuscripts for publication. A standardized reporting structure for diseases will also be introduced.

Year 3 Terms of reference b, e, f and g will be finalized. For some (b, f and g), manuscripts will receive a final review by the WGPDMO before submission for publication. For ToRe, the WGPDMO will review comments from ICES concerning updates to maps of diseases in fish and shellfish.


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem effects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority. k) Special request.



Secretariat facilities Booking of Biscay Room, building access and set-up of IT facilities.





There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGHIE. It is also very relevant to the Working Group on

60 |

Aquaculture (WGAQUA). The ICES Data Center needs to be involved in ToR e)


OSPAR, HELCOM

Working Group on Biological Effect of Contaminants (WGBEC)

2012/MA2/SSGHIE03 The Working Group on Biological Effect of Contaminants (WGBEC), chaired by Bjorn-Einar Grøsvik*, Norway, and Ketil Hylland*, Norway, will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3–7 March 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGBEC will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 30 April 2014 to SSGHIE.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background

Science Plan topics

addressed Duration


a Respond to requests for advice from Regional Seas Conventions (e.g. OSPAR, EU) as required.

Advisory requirement.

WGBEC has a history in its ToR of responding to requests from OSPAR and these have always been considered as a priority and importance by the EG. In addition, there is a wide breadth of knowledge and expertise which allows the EG to respond in an informed manner to these requests.

Advice to ICES Annual 2012-2015

Each year advice is reported to ICES secreatariat for onward transmission e.g. to OSPAR

b Consider emerging issues of scientific merit and address knowledge gaps (in relation to the ICES science plan).

-Oil toxicity to early life stages of fish

-Ocean Acidification

-Immunotoxicity - Novel monitoring techniques (e.g. ‘omics technology) - Thiamine defficiency in marine wildlife

Science and advisory requirement

In reviews over the past three years WGBEC has considered emerging special scientific issues in relation to biological effects and contaminants and also in relation to the ICES Science Plan These topics have been selected as of current concern.

112, 172, 241, 242

2012-2015 Review paper published in the peer review literature (2015)

| 61

(2014 only)

c Review status of publications and consider requirements for new publications

- ICES TIMES

- Other ICES publications

- peer review publications

Science and advisory requirement. It is important for WGBEC to keep track of publication progress with biological effects methods it has considered useful for monitoring. Protocols are needed for national and international programmes as well as monitoring to met OSPAR and EU MSFD obligations.


Publication of ICES TIMES methods for marine monitoring purposes

d Conduct assessment of data as required

-Quality assurance data from method intercomparison trials

- Integrated assessment of monitoring data (and advise on procedures to other groups as appropriate)


AQC is vital to support, report and assess data, particularly for cross maritime areas and developments and harmonization in this area need to be taken forward in a

coordinated manner.

123, 241, 242, 244

2012-2015 Report each year via ICES secretariat to OSPAR on progress with AQC initaitives / schemes for biological effect methods. Report to ICES data centre on current AQC programmes.

e Respond to requests for advice from the Data Centre

Advisory requirement

Biological effect data are increasingly being submitted to the ICES database and technical queries arise. WGBEC can assist with answering queries from the ICES Data Centre.


Provide support and information to ICES data centre that can be used to facilitate submission of biological effects data to the ICES database

f Development and harmonization of methodologies for marine monitoring and surveillance including:

- Integrated assessments

-Environmental risk assessment

-Review and develop assessment criteria for


WGBEC has found it of value to discuss, feedback and support national monitoring programmes across the maritime areas and this is a valuable opportunity to improve and harmonize programme designs

241 Annual 2012-2015

Report via ICES secretariat to OSPAR on annual review of assessment criteria for JAMP biological effects and progress with the application of the OSPAR SGIMC integrated approach. Report to ICES

62 |

biological effects methods

- Report on national monitoring programmes for biological effects

and assessment of data (e.g. OSPAR / MEDPOL / WFD / HELCOM/ EU MSFD)

data centre on current AQC programmes. Link up with MCWG and WGMS on integrated approach and assemment of data.

g Address issues in relation to novel and emerging contaminants (e.g. pharmaceuticals, nanoparticles, toxicity of mixtures etc)

-Pharmaceuticals and recreational drugs in the marine environment.

-Biocides in the marine environment.

Science requirement

These are two issues identified by WGBEC that are of value and special scientific interest to understanding the effects of contaminants in the marine environment. Information on environmental impacts is currently lacking.

123, 172, 242, 241

2012-2015 Provide report to ICES on these special scientific issues and publish in the peer reviewed literature (year 3)..

h To evaluate the results of marine litter monitoring and research activities, especially microparticles (plastic/non plastic) and associated chemicals:

-Status on monitoring protocols for marine litter in biota

-Marine litter research outcomes and results of impact assessments on key marine organisms. Evidence of bioaccumulation, toxicity and adverse physical, biological and chemical effects of microplastics and associated contaminants on a range of marine organisms, populations and communities.

-Evidence of transfer


There has been considerable interest over the past two years on the biological effects of plastic particles, particularly in relation to contaminants associated with plastic particles. It is important that this work area is reviewed and any reports and feedback from other Expert Groups considered by WGBEC.

241, 243, 344 2012-2015 Review and report to ICES on how this work area is developing and identify how this may be progressed and applied to marine monitoring programmes. Link up with other EGs with intetrest in this topic i.e. MCWG and WGMS (planned for 2014) Publish outputs in peer review literature (Year 3).

| 63

of microplastics and associated contaminants through marine food chains.


Year 1 Subgroups were identified to respond to requests to other expert groups and to develop scientific reports to answer ToR of the requested themes. Reporting of TOR will be completed as soon as possible in readiness for final 3 yr report.

Year 2 Requests for advice from ICES, OSPAR and requests for support from data centre will be addressed each year as appropriate. Time allocation is variable depending on the task and preparation required pre the meeting and reporting post meeting.

Year 3 Requests for advice from ICES, OSPAR and requests for support from data centre will be addressed each year as appropriate. Time allocation is variable depending on the task and preparation required pre the meeting and reporting post meeting. Complete and sign off 3 yr report and report on publication outputs.


Priority The activities of this group will allow ICES to advise on issues relating to the design, implementation and execution of regional research and monitoring programmes pertaining to hazardous substances in the marine environment. To develop procedure for quality assurance of biological effects data and to improve assessments of data relating to the biological effects of contaminants in the marine environment. The highest priority relates to providing sound scientific advice in response to requests from international programmes e.g. OSPAR JAMP.

Resource requirements The main input to this group is from National experts. Each attendee is self-funded from their own / organization / institute resources.

Participants The group is normally attended by 15 - 30 members.



Linkages to ACOM an groups under ACOM

ACOM and SSGHIE

Linkages to othe committees or groups

There are linkages to MCWG, WGMS, WGPDMO and more recently WGEEL

Linkages to othe organizations

None directly althought the WG has had input and links at its meetings with MEDPOL scientists

Working Group on Aquaculture (WGAQUA)

2012/MA2/SSGHIE12 The Working Group on Aquaculture (WGAQUA), co-chaired by Pauline Kamermans, Netherlands, Peter Cranford, Canada, and Karin Kroon Boxaspen, Norway, will meet in Vigo, Spain, 31 March – 4 April 2014, to work on ToRs listed below.

WGAQUA will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 30 May 2014 to SSGHIE.

64 |

ToR descriptors

This first meeting of WGAQAU will define the direction of the group based on past ICES activities, the content of a 2012 ICES Aquaculture Discussion Paper and expert group consultations. The following three ToR descriptors will be completed in 2013.

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE

PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED

DURATION EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Synthesise reports and recommendations by WGAGFM, WGPDMO, WGHABD, and WGECO on the environmental dependence and effects of aquaculture.

WGAQUA must become familiar with the work that has previously been conducted by the study groups and EGs that were combined to form WGAQUA. This activity will identify specific environmental interactions with aquaculture that have been addressed in the past by various components of the new EG to avoid duplication of efforts. The proposed 3-year ToRs for WGAQUA that were developed based on the content of the 2012 ICES Aquaculture Discussion Paper and discussions held at the aquaculture workshop during the 2012 ICES ASC will be discussed and refined through additional expert consultation. The WGAQUA chairs will cross-reference proposed work with SCICOM and relevant Expert Groups.

1.1, 2.2, 2.5,3.1, 3.3, 3.4

1,2,3 ICES EG reports

b Synthesise previous science advice provided by ICES SGs and WGs related to sustainable aquaculture.

For WGAQUA to be able to address present and emerging issues and provide the most relevant science advice to promote the sustainable use of living marine resources and the protection of the marine environment, it must become familiar with respect to the advice that has been provided by other EGs within ICES that also address issues related to sustainable aquaculture. This activity will avoid duplication of efforts within ICES. The status of new science advisory requests will be summarized and discussed and protocols will be developed on how sustainable aquaculture advise may be provided that includes any dissenting opinions. The WGAQUA chairs will cross-reference proposed advisory work with SCICOM and ACOM and relevant

1.1, 2.2, 2.5, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4


c Identify emerging aquaculture issues and related science advisory needs for maintaining the sustainability of living marine resources and the protection of the marine environment. The task is to

For WGAQUA to effectively address relevant issues and provide timely science advice to promote the sustainable use of living marine resources and the protection of the marine environment, it must first flag emerging issues identified by the various participants. This activity will identify and rank issues identified by the group as a whole that may require future attention by the WGAQUA or other related ICES Expert Groups, either alone or through collaborative work. The task is to highlight new and important issues that may require additional attention by the WGAQUA and/or another Expert Group as

1.1, 2.2, 2.5, 3.1,3.3, 3.4


| 65

highlight new and important issues that may require additional attention by the WGAQUA and/or another Expert Group as opposed to providing a comprehensive analysis.

opposed to providing a comprehensive analysis. Proposals for Theme Sessions for the Annual Science Conference may evolve from this activity.

d Identify and assess approaches for analysing the effects of aquaculture on benthic habitats with a focus on rocky and mixed substrata bottoms. Recommend approaches to assess/monitor these habitats (Raymond Bannister)

Development and establishment of monitoring methodology/tools for detecting/evaluating environmental impacts of aquaculture to marine ecosystems has been a topic of considerable interest for traditional cultivation locations over the past two decades. However, most of this work has concentrated on soft substratum habitats. The gradual relocation of aquaculture facilities to deeper localities dominated by hard and mixed substrata habitats has resulted in problems with using these established monitoring tools. Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish standardized monitoring methodology/tools for hard bottom and/or mixed bottom habitats being exploited through aquaculture operations to improve sustainability.

3.1, 3.3 2.3 ICES EG report and, when possible, publish outputs in peer review literature

e Identify and assess approaches for analysing the interactions between aquaculture and eelgrass and maerl beds. Recommend approaches to assess/monitor these habitats (Pauline Kamermans)

Development and establishment of monitoring methodology/tools for detecting/evaluating environmental impacts of aquaculture to marine ecosystems has been a topic of considerable interest for traditional cultivation locations over the past two decades. However, most of this work has concentrated on soft substratum habitats. Aquaulture sites are also being established in more coastal areas, at times in areas with seagrasses, maerl beds, and other sensitive habitats. Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish standardized monitoring methodology/tools for seagrass and maerl beds being exploited through aquaculture operations to improve sustainability.


f Analyse and assess the environmental effects of biofouling pest management in aquaculture with an emphasis on i) chemical release,

The management of pest species in bivalve aquaculture has received increased attention in the recent past, particularly in reference to tunicate management in mussel farming. The development of treatment regimes and methods has been mainly focused on the efficiency of control methods and therapeutants. To manage tunicates in bivalve farms, farmers may apply a variety of


66 |

ii) benthic organic enrichment, iii) waste management, and iv) propagule pressure. Ultimately, a risk assessment framework will be developed with respect to treatments for bivalve aquaculture pests within a greater pest management framework. (Thomas Landry)

chemical products (e.g. lime, vinegar) to product and/or equipment or use physical methods to remove/kill fouling tunicates. In bivalve culture, mechanical methods of tunicate removal may greatly augment the deposition of organic matter (dead and dying tunicates and other fouling species and product) to the seabed within and around culture sites. The process may also encourage the liberation of propagules (larvae or fragments of colonial species) that may hasten the spread of invasive species. To date, little work has addressed these issues. Moreover, the risk associated with the various aspects of pest management has not been evaluated within a structured format such that decisions relating to treatment options are commonly made without regard to other possibilities. Greater certainty associated with the risks surrounding various aspects of pest management will support decisions relating to various treatment options.

g Analyse and assess the environmental effects of sea lice pest management in aquaculture with an emphasis on i) therapeutant release, ii) waste management, and iii) propagule pressure. (Karin Boxaspen and Dave Jackson)

The management of pest species in finfish mariculture has received increased attention in the recent past, particularly in reference to sea lice management in salmon farms. The development of treatment regimes and methods has been mainly focused on the efficiency of control methods and therapeutants. To manage sea lice levels at marine cage finfish sites, aquaculture operators rely upon a number of therapeutant treatment products. These products are delivered either in-feed (e.g. SLICE® active ingredient: emamectin benzoate) or topically through bath treatment (e.g. Alphamax ™, active ingredient: deltamethrin). The active ingredients in therapeutants, regardless of their mode of application, may enter the aquatic environment through a variety of pathways (e.g. dissolution, particle transport and sedimentation) and thus may reside in the water column or accumulate in benthic ecosystems and expose non-target organisms. To date, little work has addressed these issues. Moreover, the risk associated with the various aspects of pest management has not been evaluated within a structured format such that decisions relating to treatment options are commonly made without regard to other possibilities. Greater certainty associated with the risks surrounding various aspects of pest management will support decisions relating to various treatment options


h Assess and analyse issues

An increasing number of studies have shown that the presence of an aquaculture farm may

2.5, 3.1 2.3 ICES EG report and,

| 67

relating to the attraction and repulsion of wild populations by fish and shellfish farms and of the impact of this on these populations and the individuals (Chris Mckindsey)

affect wild fish and other species in a given area. Fish farms may attract wild fish because of feed and other waste products associated with farms, altered communities associated with farms, and the physical structure of farms, which may offer alternate refuges or food sources. In contrast, anecdotal evidence suggests that some fish have altered their spawning and migratory behaviour to avoid areas with farms. With respect to the attraction of fish to farms, their consumption of waste products may alter the quality of the fish (size, condition, texture, flavour, etc.). It is largely unknown how any of these factors differ at different life stages.

when possible, publish outputs in peer review literature

i Analyse and assess the potential ecosystem services and impacts of aquaculture, including extractive aquaculture approaches for environmental impact biomitigation (Myriam Callier, Peter Cranford, Jens Petersen)

The environmental interactions of mariculture are receiving more attention with respect to the negative impacts of the industry, despite the growing information on the ecosystem services that this activity can provide. Well managed mariculture generally increases the net production of its host environment by maximizing the use of natural resources, from a physical, chemical and biological perspective. Nutrient trading or bio-extraction as a mitigation measure for coastal eutrophication is a relatively new topic that is gaining considerable support from different industries and regulators. It entails trades between companies discharging excess nutrients to coastal waters and aquaculture farms that produce shellfish that can help to moderate phytoplankton concentrations and act as a nutrient sink when harvested. In addition, Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) strives to achieve a balance between commercial production and environmental sustainability by using a natural recycling concept where the by-products from one species become inputs for another within the same culture system. Commercial scale open-water IMTA operations are being developed to reduce organic enrichment impacts in some areas. Bivalves and other economically valuable macroinvertebrates, such as sea urchins, sea cucumbers and worms, have been evaluated as components of IMTA systems and have attracted considerable industry interest. However, there are still unresolved questions regarding these extractive aquaculture approaches such as: how efficient are they (i.e. to what extend do shellfish act as nutrient sinks relative to the nutrient supplies and how much fish waste can be extracted by shellfish and other species)? It is also important to balance the positive effect of the nutrient removal in the harvest with the potential negative effects of nutrient retention

2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4

2.3 ICES EG report and, when possible, publish outputs in peer review literature

68 |

in the coastal zone that may occur as a result of the biodeposition activities of the introduced extractive species. The economic aspects in relation to nutrient trading quotas and species diversification at IMTA farms need to be evaluated. Outstanding issues exist with the integration of ocean ranching of echinoderms with fish culture and include interactions with wild stocks (and fisheries), the potential impacts (displacement?) of existing habitat, and the required ranching densities needed to offset the waste fluxes. WGAQUA will review efforts worldwide and report on the subject. As a first step, a background paper will be produced outlining the general issues and the negative and positive endpoints of mariculture and extractive aquaculture.

j Assess the knowledge base on acceptance of aquaculture in Marine Protected Areas (Adele Boyd)

The implementation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can cause restrictions for fish and shellfish-farmers and conflicts between aquaculture producers and environmental authorities. Spatial planning can help in these issues. However, this is rarely a joint process of all stakeholders. The fact that the definition of an MPA is not clear contributes to that. Furthermore, the benefits of MPA’s to aquaculture (i.e ecosystem services) are often not communicated. For example, shellfish produced in an MPA might provide a better image of sustainable aquaculturepractices. The WGAQUA will review guidelines such as Natura 2000, and compare the implementation in different ICES countries, identify differences between different types of MPAs and identify different management strategies. In addition potential gaps between ambition and reality will be identified, and knowledge of the impact of shellfish aquaculture in different countries will be evaluated. WGAQUA can provide science-based recommendations on such topics as criteria and thresholds for management decisions, an evaluation of present management regimes, and how to deal with the lack of baseline information.

3.1, 3.3, 3.4 2.3 ICES EG report and, when possible, publish outputs in peer review literature

k Characterize risks, real and perceived, and potential ecological benefits associated with introducing foreign strains and species of finfish and shellfish and

Aquaculture companies have, and will continue to seek access to better performing aquaculture strains, however, concerns centering on the potential ecological impacts of such introductions on local wild populations often prevents transfer requests from being granted. Characterization of risks involved with introducing foreign species of organisms or domesticized strains for aquaculture purposes would help inform policy development and decision-makers and help to reduce conflict between aquaculture

2.5, 3.1, 3.4 2.3 ICES EG report and, when possible, publish outputs in peer review literature

| 69

other invertebrates for aquaculture purposes (Thomas Landry and Gef mlin)

operators, regulators and other interested members of the public (traditional fishers, NGOs, etc.). There have been many published studies that have researched interactions between cultured and wild salmonids (for both aquaculture and enhancement efforts), effects of these interactions include growth and survival, reproductive interactions between wild and cultured fish, and escape mitigation. Likely a similar body of work exists for shellfish. It would be beneficial to consolidate the body of work to provide advice on the potential/perceived risks of introducing strains for culture. A review of measures to reduce or mitigate these risks would be valuable to help inform policy development and decision-makers and reduce conflict between aquaculture operators, regulators and other interested members of the public (traditional fisheries, FliNGOs, etc.)

l Special request

Interactions between wild and captive fish stocks (OSPAR 4/2014) a. Recalling the conclusion of the QSR 2010 that mariculture is a growing activity in the OSPAR maritime area, EIHA 2012 considered the potential for increasing environmental pressure relating to the growth of this industry. As yet this is not an established work stream within EIHA, and Contracting Parties have requested that more information be brought forwards on this issue. This was reiterated by EIHA 2013. b. Mariculture has a number of associated environmental pressures such as the introduction of non_indigenous species, which can have ecological and genetic impacts on marine environment and especially on wild fish stocks; in addition, pressures from mariculture might include: i. introduction of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals; ii. transfer of disease and parasite interactions; iii. release of nutrients and organic matters; iv. introgression of foreign genes, from both hatchery-reared fish and genetically modified fish and invertebrates, in wild populations; v. effects on small cetaceans, such as the bottlenose dolphin, due to their interaction with aquaculture cages c. EIHA proposes that OSPAR requests ICES to provide: i. an update on the available knowledge on these issues; ii. concrete examples of management solutions to mitigate these pressures on the marine environment;

2.5, 3.1 2 ICES EG report for OSPAR

70 |

iii. advice on which pressures have sufficient documentation regarding their impacts to implement relevant monitoring and suggest a way forward to manage these pressures. d. It may be appropriate to explore cooperation with other competent authorities working in this field, such as the European Food Safety Authority with respect to disease transfer or parasites, or the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO), in particular with respect to existing cooperation between NASCO and ICES on issues pertaining to pressures from mariculture. Part of this request is also adressed by WGPDMO, WGAGFM and WGMME.


Year 1 Organize the work of WGAQUA and possibly propose new EGs. Discuss chairs for WGAQUA and possible new EGs. Develop workplan for ToRs depending on attendance (number of people and their expertise). Evaluate Outreach/PR activities and develop outreach plan for Year 2.

Year 2 ToR leaders will prepare an outline of each ToR report (potential publication) intersessionally and will present that at the meeting. WGAQUA members will work on ToRs c-k during the meeting depending on attendance (number of people and their expertise). Evaluate Outreach/PR activities and develop outreach plan for Year 3.

Year 3 ToR leaders prepare outline of publication intersessionally and present that at meeting. During meeting finalize products depending on attendance (number of people and their expertise). Discuss future of group.


Priority High

Resource requirements Producing leaflets, travel for SCICOM leadership to inform clients about advisory capacity of WGAQUA, travel for WGAQUA Science Advice Chair to participate in meetings where questions requiring advice are drafted.

Participants 30-40 people

Secretariat facilities Secreterial support, Support for WebEx meetings

Financial N/A.


ACOM – advice on aquaculture, WGITMO (introduced species)


Coordination and cooperation with SGSA is of high importance for WGAQUA and the chairs will consider attending the SGSA meeting in 2014 and will consider coordinating meeting time and place with SGSA with the aim of having back-to back or joint meetings in 2015. Other groups: WGPDMO, WGBEC, WGAGFM, WGICZM, WGITMO, WGHABD


European Aquculture Society

| 71

Other See also Aquaculture discussion paper tabled at ICES Council, Oct 2012

SSGHIE annual groups

Marine Chemistry Working Group (MCWG)

2013/2/ SSGHIE05 The Marine Chemistry Working Group (MCWG), chaired by Katrin Vorkamp, Denmark, will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3–7 March 2014 to:

a ) Quality assurance of marine chemistry i) Report and discuss new developments in QUASIMEME. ii) Provide information on other proficiency testing schemes with

relevance to MCWG. iii) Demonstrate new software developed by the Finnish Environmental

Institute for estimations of measurement uncertainty.

b ) Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) i) Review and discuss developments of WFD, in particular regarding

new priority (hazardous) substances and associated EQS values. ii) Review and discuss developments in MSFD, in particular regarding

the monitoring of descriptors 5, 7, 8 and 9.

c ) Present projects of relevance to MCWG activities. i) Present projects of relevance to MCWG, WGMS and WGBEC, in a

joint session.

d ) Marine litter and its role as a potential source of contaminants. i) Report on new information on marine litter and its role as a potential

source of contaminants. ii) Review the literature with regard to the role of marine litter as a

potential source of contaminants. iii) Combine information on plastics in sediment, on plastic/contaminant

interactions and on their effects in biota for a comprehensive problem description and assessment, in a joint session with WGMS and WGBEC.

e ) ICES Data Centre: Provide expert knowledge and guidance to the ICES Data Centre, as may be requested. i) Report on workshop for the development of reporting formats for

marine litter and associated contaminants.

f ) Report on activities in other expert groups on the interface to MCWG (e.g. WGMS, WGBEC, WGEEL, SGONS).

g ) Ocean acidification i) Report from the OSPAR/ICES Study Group on Ocean Acidification

and provide comments and input as follows:

72 |

– Review and discuss developments of analytical methods – Update QA/QC requirements - Assist SGOA in elaborating reporting requirements

ii) Present and discuss new chemical oceanographic data relating to ocean acidification.

iii) Report on QUASIMEME workshop on ocean acidification and discuss implications for ocean acidification monitoring.

iv) Report from theme session on ocean acidification at the ICES Annual Science Conference 2013.

v) Report on pH measurements in sediments, in a joint session with WGMS and WGBEC.

h ) Chlorophyll and nutrients ii) Report from QUASIMEME workshop on chlorophyll and nutrient

analysis. iii) Review if OSPAR guidelines for chlorophyll determination are in line

with outcomes of the QUASIMEME workshop on chlorophyll analysis and provide advice on most appropriate methodology.

iv) Discuss comparability of methods for ammonia analysis.

i ) Report on new information on emerging contaminants in the marine environment.

j ) Seabird eggs as a monitoring matrix for organic contaminants and trace elements i) Review literature that has become available since MCWG 2013 on the

monitoring of organic contaminants and trace elements in seabird eggs.

ii) Review if OSPAR guidelines on seabird eggs as a monitoring matrix present the current state of knowledge.

iii) Collect biological information on seabird egg production to elucidate the transfer of contaminants from birds to eggs.

iv) Report and comment on OSPAR and HELCOM activities with regard to seabird eggs as a monitoring matrix.

v) Discuss potential of concluding report on seabird eggs as a monitoring matrix for organic contaminants and trace elements.

k ) Passive sampling i) Report on QUASIMEME exercise on passive sampling. ii) Review and discuss information on effects of freely dissolved

concentrations, with a view of developing environmental assessment criteria, in a joint session with WGMS and WGBEC.

iii) Review and discuss information on mixture toxicity derived from passive dosing, in a joint session with WGMS and WGBEC.

iv) Report and comment on OSPAR and HELCOM activities with regard to passive sampling.

| 73

l ) Publications i) Present final draft manuscript on atmosphere-water exchange of

PFAS in the marine environment. ii) Review final draft TIMES manuscript on passive sampling in

sediments. iii) Review draft TIMES manuscript on determinations of sampler-water

partitioning coefficients. iv) Discuss potential of a TIMES publication on chlorophyll

measurements.

Special request

Review and update of the Technical Annexes to JAMP Guidelines for Monitoring of Contaminants in Biota and in Sediments (OSPAR 3/2014).

To review and update, as necessary, the following existing technical annexes to JAMP Guidelines:

a. contaminants in biota: Technical Annex 2 (Determination of metals)

b. contaminants in sediments: Technical Annexes 4 (Determination of mono-, di- and tributyltin in sediments: analytical methods) and 6 (determination of metals in sediments – analytical methods)

1) Examination of the current versions downloaded from the OSPAR website (section ‘agreements’) indicates that these are in need of review and update primarily in terms of updated literature and analytical detection limits (where given). The information is still relevant and there is nothing in there which prevents their being useful guidance.

In the light of the fact that TBT concentrations in the marine environment as shown around UK and the North Sea are now declining rapidly following completion of the implementation of the worldwide IMO ban on the use of TBT in antifouling paints on large vessels (Verhaegen et al., 2012; Law et al., 2012), when reviewed, consideration should also be given to refocusing the butyltins method on dibutyltin as the primary determinand rather than tributyltin, as this compound is still widely used in e.g. plastics and clothing.

2) The direct measurement of metals in environmental matrices such as biota and sediments is a recent development (cf. e.g. Maggi et al., 2009). This technique should be included in the technical guidelines

The updates should build on the latest developments as available to the relevant ICES working groups.

References

Law RJ, Bolam T, James D, Barry J, Deaville R, Reid RJ, Penrose R, Jepson PD, 2012. Butyltin compounds in liver of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the UK prior to and following the ban on the use of tributyltin in antifouling paints (1992-2005 & 2009). Marine Pollution Bulletin 64, 2576-2580.

Verhaegen Y, Monteyne E, Neudecker T, Tulp I, Smagghe G, Cooreman K, Roose P, Parmentier K, 2012. Organotins in North Sea brown shrimp (Crangon crangon_ L.) after implementation of the TBT ban. Chemosphere 86, 979-984.

74 |

Maggi, Chiara, Maria Teresa Berducci, Jessica Bianchi, Michele Giani and Luigi Campanella, 2009. Methylmercury determination in marine sediment and organisms by Direct Mercury Analyser. Analytica Chimica Acta 641 (2009) 32-36.

MCWG will report by 15 April 2014 (via SSGHIE) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.


Priority This group maintains an overview of key issues in relation to marine chemistry, both with regard to chemical oceanography and contaminants. The activities are considered to have a high priority.MCWG provides input across the field of marine chemistry, which underpins the advice given by ICES, and also supports the work of national and international collaborative monitoring programmes, e.g. within OSPAR. Special request from OSPAR (3/2014)


MCWG has a particular interest in quality assurance and maintains strong links with QUASIMEME with a view to supporting quality assurance activities in this field. MCWG has initiated several new activitites in QUASIMEME. This work was inititated by MCWG and will be of interest to EU/OSPAR/HELCOM. It will also tie into internal ICES initiatives, e.g. MSFDSG, and provide information exchange between EU member states. MCWG members are interested in receiving reports on relevant projects and activitites from other members. This is a new focus area within marine chemistry (MSFD descriptor 10) and an area of common interest for MCWG, WGMS and WGBEC. This is in direct respons to possible requests by the ICES Data Centre. Collaboration between expert groups, as highlighted by SSGHIE. These items will support the OSPAR/ICES study group on Ocean Acidification. This item was identified by MCWG 2012 as a relevant area for more in-depth discussions, and will be of interest to OSPAR. This was initiated by MCWG members on the basis of concerns regarding emerging contaminants in the marine environment and is an ongoing area of interest to the group. This was initiated by MCWG 2011 as an item of general interest to the group and will probably be of interest to OSPAR. This continues work by WKPSPD and MCWG 2012 and will be of interest to OSPAR. Specific parts of MCWG’s work might be of interest to a larger scientific community, i.e. relevant for publication beyond the annual report.





None.



ACOM

Linkages to other

SCICOM/SSGHIEWGMS, WGBEC OSPAR/ICES study group on Ocean Acidification

| 75

committees or groups

ICES Data Centre


The work of this group is closely aligned with EU Working Groups under the Water Framework Directive (e.g. Working Group E).

Specific agenda points will be directly relevant for QUASIMEME.

The group provides the basis for some advice to OSPAR.

Working Group on Marine Sediments in Relation to Pollution (WGMS)

2013/2/SSGHIE07 The Working Group on Marine Sediments in Relation to Pollution (WGMS), chaired by Lucia Viñas, Spain, and Craig Robinson*, UK, will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3–7 March 2014 to:

1. Sediments monitoring

a ) Finalize the development of guidelines for Spatial design of a regional monitoring programme for contaminants in sediments

b ) Review and comment on the report of the 2013 meeting of OSPAR/MIME in matters concerning sediments

2. Background concentrations

c ) Continue collection of data and develop background concentrations for alkylated PAHs and dioxins.

3. Passive Sampling

d ) Initiate a review on the use of passive sampling for measurements in sediments in relation to assessing the state of the marine environment

e ) To report on ongoing and new projects involving passive sampling 4. Miscellaneous

f ) Provide expert knowledge and guidance to ICES Data Centre (possibly via subgroup) as requested

5. Special request Investigate spatial representation of existing CEMP sediment monitoring stations (OSPAR 2/2014). Monitoring of hazardous substances within the framework of OSPAR has been carried out for decades and at stations scattered throughout the OSPAR area. Good time trends and statistical tools for assessing these are available. Assessment criteria like BACs and EACs have been developed for sediment, shellfish and fish to assess levels. Request: Except for some work on sediment (Warren 1994, 1995), little is known of what geographical area each station represents. Given the current state of ocean models combined with measured changes at each station, OSPAR is requesting ICES (WGMS) whether a method can be recommended to determine the geographic representativeness of existing sediment monitoring stations. References Warren, W.G. 1994. Spatial analysis of trace metal concentrations in North Sea sediment. Annex 13 in WGSAEM 1994. Warren, W.G., 1995. Spatial analysis of trace metal concentrations in North Sea sediment: a follow up. Annex 8 in WGSAEM 1995.

76 |

6. Special request

Review and update of the Technical Annexes to JAMP Guidelines for Monitoring of Contaminants in Biota and in Sediments (OSPAR 3/2014).

To review and update, as necessary, the following existing technical annexes to JAMP Guidelines:

a. contaminants in biota: (taken care of by MCWG)

b. contaminants in sediments: Technical Annexes 4 (Determination of mono-, di- and tributyltin in sediments: analytical methods) and 6 (determination of metals in sediments – analytical methods)

1) Examination of the current versions downloaded from the OSPAR website (section ‘agreements’) indicates that these are in need of review and update primarily in terms of updated literature and analytical detection limits (where given). The information is still relevant and there is nothing in there which prevents their being useful guidance.

In the light of the fact that TBT concentrations in the marine environment as shown around UK and the North Sea are now declining rapidly following completion of the implementation of the worldwide IMO ban on the use of TBT in antifouling paints on large vessels (Verhaegen et al., 2012; Law et al., 2012), when reviewed, consideration should also be given to refocusing the butyltins method on dibutyltin as the primary determinand rather than tributyltin, as this compound is still widely used in e.g. plastics and clothing.

2) The direct measurement of metals in environmental matrices such as biota and sediments is a recent development (cf. e.g. Maggi et al., 2009). This technique should be included in the technical guidelines

The updates should build on the latest developments as available to the relevant ICES working groups.

References

Law RJ, Bolam T, James D, Barry J, Deaville R, Reid RJ, Penrose R, Jepson PD, 2012. Butyltin compounds in liver of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the UK prior to and following the ban on the use of tributyltin in antifouling paints (1992-2005 & 2009). Marine Pollution Bulletin 64, 2576-2580.

Verhaegen Y, Monteyne E, Neudecker T, Tulp I, Smagghe G, Cooreman K, Roose P, Parmentier K, 2012. Organotins in North Sea brown shrimp (Crangon crangon_ L.) after implementation of the TBT ban. Chemosphere 86, 979-984.

Maggi, Chiara, Maria Teresa Berducci, Jessica Bianchi, Michele Giani and Luigi Campanella, 2009. Methylmercury determination in marine sediment and organisms by Direct Mercury Analyser. Analytica Chimica Acta 641 (2009) 32-36.

WGMS will report by 15 April 2014 (via SSGHIE) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.

| 77


Priority: This Group handles key issues regarding monitoring and assessment of contaminants in sediments.

Special request from OSPAR (2/2014)

Special request from OSPAR (3/2014)

Scientific justification and relation to action plan:

1. This is a direct request from OSPAR (see point 7 below)

2. Anticipating that the report of the proposed 2012 assessment will be available before the meeting, WGMS can review and comment the progress made;

3. Background values play an important role in the OSPAR assessments of contaminants in sediments. WGMS has proposed background concentrations on available information. However, the amount of available data are sparse. Additional information is expected and may warrant revision of the proposed background concentrations (OSPAR request 3, 2007) WGMS will review new information for the further development and advise accordingly.

4. Passive samplers are increasingly used in environmental monitoring, but the approaches and methodologies differ. A document focused on their use in sediments, discussing the different type of passive samplers and their use, is envisaged. The group would particularly like to develop the use of passive sampling as a tool to assess the good environmental status of the marine environment.

5. Receiving and review of national reports of projects involving the use of passive samplers by WGMS will build further experience on the field and use of passive sampling.

6. Response to internal ICES requests

Resource requirements:

None required

Participants: The Group is normally attended by some 15 members and guests.

Secretariat facilities:

None.


Linkages to advisory committees:

ACOM

Linkages to other committees or groups:

WGBEC, MCWG


OSPAR, HELCOM

Study Group on Socio-Economic Dimensions of Aquaculture (SGSA)

2013/2/SSGHIE08 The Study Group on Socio-Economic Dimensions of Aquaculture (SGSA), chaired by Gesche Krause, Germany, will meet in Biddeford, Maine, USA, 22–25 April 2014 to:

78 |

a ) Identify individual and crosscutting, integrative methods to support the evaluation of the direct and indirect socio-economic consequences of aquaculture operations and how they relate to the assessment framework;

b ) Examine how stakeholder inclusion and local ownership influences aquaculture;

c ) Identify how social, economic, governance and environmental framing conditions influence aquaculture development;

d ) Examine the role of aquaculture in economic development and in regional and global food security and protein supply

e ) Identify new emerging issues of socio-economic aspects of aquaculture.

SGSA will report by 31 May 2013 (via SSGHIE) for the attention of SCICOM.


Priority The SGSA is of fundamental importance to ICES environmental science and advisory process and addresses many specific issues of the ICES Strategic Plan and the Science Plan. The scope and aims of this group will lead ICES into issues related to the socio-economic effects of the continued rapid development of aquaculture, especially with regard to the implications of changing environmental conditions. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a high priority.


Term of Reference a) Identify individual and crosscutting, integrative methods to support the evaluation of the direct and indirect socio-economic consequences of aquaculture operations and how they relate to the assessment framework. Aquaculture can offer employment and income earning opportunities to local, often rural and marginal, communities. However, questions pertaining to social site-selection criteria, community impacts, right of access, ownership, taxation, liabilities of the negative repercussions from the environmental effects on society, ethical issues, to name but a few, have remained largely untackled in a comprehensive, integrated manner. Each of these issues follows particular interests, priorities and objectives. All operate within an array of federal, regional and international legislations, agreements and treaties. The systematic description of the social elements relevant to the sustainable management of aquaculture in general is still in its infancy. The social repercussions of environmental effects from aquaculture are central here. A clear definition of socio-economic and ecological objectives for all aquaculture operations is necessary which acknowledge the social, economic and ecological dimensions. A stronger consideration of the distribution of benefits (related to inputs and outputs) throughout the social-ecological system is necessary. Specifically, this dimension addresses questions about who is benefiting and to what extent (i.e. employment, wages, improved quality of life) and the geographical distribution and of these benefits. Future research should focus on methods for incorporating such complexity and interdisciplinarity into aquaculture assessments. The assessment framework developed by the SGSA shall be revisited and futher elaborated Term of Reference b) Examine how stakeholder inclusion and local ownership influences aquaculture Site-selection for aquaculture production sites tends to draw lines on maps and within communities by creating limited access permits and complex management structures. More often than not, local communities have little political representation with only marginal links to key decision-makers. However, these constructions are contested and negotiated by coastal communities, whose actors developed their own diverse coastal spaces, according to their social practices, economic activities, and environmental perceptions, leading to a much more fragmented coast. Drawing on the

| 79

experiences made with shellfish cultivation in several places within the ICES scope, unresolved issues of ownership in terms of process, and which stakeholders are involved in the consent procedure and their relative influence appear to crucial. Issues of the access to, and ownership and distribution of the resources are cases where the appropriators of the marine and coastal resources are not being involved in decision making For instance, social dimensions of shellfish cultivation operations, e.g. emotional ownership of the sea/coastal area by the local residents/stakeholders and the social values that drive these ownerships are difficult to capture. However, precisely these stakeholders and their supporting values are not included in the decision-making process. Next it remains difficult to keep all stakeholders in agreement on the matter—the transaction costs (the cost, not necessarily in money, of getting a group of people to agree on an issue) that make it so difficult to enact major institutional change that affects aquaculture production. Especially in the light of the “industrialisation of the oceans”, the balancing of interests of internationally acting aquaculture companies and local effects of these needs to be addressed. Term of Reference c) Identify how social, economic, governance and environmental framing conditions influence aquaculture development To address the social transformations caused by the new technological innovations that competes, and threatens to replace, a capture fishery imbued with history and mythology about traditional practices is a major challenge that science if facing today. If aquaculture is to play a vital role in the well-being of coastal communities, it must be better integrated into social life. Hereby aquaculture farms (and their value chain) or aquaculture zones which are the areas where these enterprises operate must be distinguished, as well as whether the aquaculture operation is intensive, semi-intensive, extensive or multi-trophic. Many aquaculture assessments focus primarily on the impacts of the activity without enough consideration of the framing conditions that are driving those impacts or that influence how the impacts are managed. More often than not, aquaculture productions and their assessment can be outright failures due to a lack of stakeholder participation, acceptance and/or understanding of social influences on ecosystems and of ecosystems on humans and society. Understanding the local context (social, political, environmental, economic) is critical to the effective evaluation and management of aquaculture scenarios. This is especially pertinent with respect to socio-economic framing conditions which are often overlooked in scientific studies. It is recommended to develop/review a methodological framework and tools for the assessment of socio-economic framing conditions. Potentially amenable tools include Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA), Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) and New Institutional Economics (NIE). The SGSA recommends that future research related to aquaculture should place more emphasis on these dimensions. Whilst addressing the interactions and feedbacks between issues (e.g. economic, social and environmental consequences of aquaculture) in a spatial planning context, it becomes evident that many of these play out over time (i.e. in past, present and future contexts) and space (i.e. at local, regional and ecosystem/global scale)—these are referred to as ‘cross-scale’ or ‘multi-scale’ processes. Processes commonly unfold at different geographical scales and over different time scales: the more aggregated the geographical scale (e.g. the regional ecosystem scale), the slower a system's dynamics unfold. Conversely, at a less aggregated geographical scale (e.g. the local scale) the social-ecological dynamics are more responsive. To capture this increased complexity in the context of sustainable aquaculture and its interrelation with socio-economics, new tools in the planning process are in mandate.

Term of Reference d) Examine the role of aquaculture in economic development and in regional and global food security and protein supply

This TOR addresses the role of aquaculture in the global food trade. Recent statistics from the FAO show that around 1.25 billion (109) people worldwide

80 |

rely on fish as their primary source of animal protein, and 4.3 billion people derive at least 15% of their animal protein intake from it. Currently, almost 50% of the supply of finfish and shellfish is originating from aquaculture production, thus it is believed that aquaculture production is expected to be an important part of the solution to meet global food demand in the decades to come.

Next to its growing global role as food source, aquaculture can offer employment and income earning opportunities to local, often rural and marginal, communities. However, questions pertaining to social site‐selection criteria, community impacts, right of access, ownership, taxation, liabilities of the negative repercussions from the environmental effects on society, ethical issues, to name but a few, have remained largely untackled in a comprehensive, integrated manner. Each of these issues follows particular interests, priorities and objectives. To capture this increased complexity in the context of sustainable aquaculture and its interrelation with socio-economics, new context-specific tools of assessemnt of aquaculture are central. Term of Reference e) Identify new emerging issues of socio-economic aspects of aquaculture This TOR allows the identification of emerging socio-economic issues of aquaculture and related science advisory needs for maintaining the sustainability of living marine resources and the protection of the marine environment. The task is to briefly highlight new and important issues that may require additional attention by the SGSA and/or another Expert Groups as opposed to providing a comprehensive analysis


None required other than those provided by the host institute.



None.



SCICOM


Linkage with WGAQUA is especially important. The SGSA chair will consider attending the 2014 WGAQUA meeting and will coordinate meeting time and place with WGAQUA with the aim of having back-to back or joint meetings in 2015. WGMPCZM, WGRMES++


The work of this group is aligned with similar work of the World/European Aquaculture Society (WAS/EAS), European Society of Ecological Economics (ESEE), FAO, ++ and numerous scientific and regulatory governmental departments in ICES countries.

ICES IOC Working Group on Harmful Algal Bloom Dynamics (WGHABD)

2013/2/ SSGHIE06 The ICES IOC Working Group on Harmful Algal Bloom Dynamics (WGHABD), chaired by Bengt Karlson, Sweden, will meet in Ĳmuiden, Netherlands, 29 April – 2 May 2014 to:

a ) Report on new findings in the area of harmful algal bloom dynamics; b ) Deliver National Reports on harmful algal events and bloom dynamics for

the year 2013; c ) Summarize the harmful algal bloom events 1990-1999 and in 2000 to 2009 in

the ICES region based on decadal maps using HAEDAT with a view to investigating if data are of a quality that allows interdecadal comparisons;

| 81

d ) Review progress regarding the entering of data onto the HAEDAT database and review synthesis stories (HAEDAT entries from start to date) submitted in advance from each country with a view of drafting a ‘synthesis story’ about HAB events in the ICES area;

e ) WG should report on Automated Harmful Algal Bloom in situ Observation Systems;

f ) Finalize draft a review document quantifying on the scale nature and extent of the problems associated with fish killing algae in the ICES region;

g ) Review progress and advise the conveners on the planned session on Harmful Algal Blooms in Aquaculture and Fisheries ecosystems: prediction and societal effects at the 2014 ICES Annual Science Conference in La Coruna, Spain;

h ) Review progress and advice the scientific steering committee for the planned joint ICES-PICES-IOC scientific symposium on Climate change and harmful algal blooms. The symposium is planned to be arranged in 2015;

i ) Contribute to the development of a Global Harmful Algal Bloom Status Report.

WGHABD will report by 15 June 2014 (via SSGHIE) for the attention SCICOM.


Priority The activities of this group are fundamental to the work of the Oceanography Committee. The work is essential to the development and understanding of the effects of climate and man-induced variability and change in relation to the health of the ecosystem. The work of this ICES-/IOC WG is deemed high priority.

Scientific justification and relation to action plan

Action Plan No: 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.7, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 2.3, 2.9, 3.2, 4.11, 5.10, 5.13, 5.16, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.4.

Term of Reference a)

WGHABD is a useful forum to discuss and present new findings among the members. This is an excellent forum to promote and discuss topics of relevance. There are obvious reasons to continue this topic as an ongoing term of reference


National Presentations and review occurrences of HABs in the ICES area, making use of the HAEDAT system.


The data on harmful algae events in the HAAEDAT database will be supplemented and used for the evaluation.


The HAEDAT system has been functional for the past four years and WG members have nominated responsible representatives in each country for the entering of HAB events onto the system. The WG will review the status of the database and success of the continuing updating by participant countries. The mapping and search functionality will be used.

Term of Reference e)

The WGHABD should discuss the present status of in situ, autonomous instruments for HAB monitoring and management, and consider future actions, such as a larger community workshop or conference on this topic.

82 |

The WG should also review the opportunities afforded by gliders and autonomous underwater vehicles to make measurements relevant to HAB detection.

Term of Reference f)

Harmful species of micro-algae have been associated with mortalities of farmed and wild fish and a broad variety of marine organisms. Aquaculture operations are particularly vulnerable and HABs pose a threat to the security of food supply from this sector in the ICES region and globally. During 2012-13, WGHABD will quantify the scale of the problem in ICES member states and prepare a review for discussion at the next WG meeting and presentation at the IOC intergovernmental panel on harmful algae in 2015.

Term of Reference g)

The session at the 2014 ICES ASC will be important for sharing new results among scientists, managers and also with fishery and aquaculture.

Term of Reference h)

Climate change will affect harmful algal blooms in many ways. The planned scientific symposium will be a way to promote the research area and to report new results.

Term of Reference i)

The IOC Intergovernmental Panel on Harmful Algal Blooms, IPHAB decided in 2013 to develop a Global HAB Status Report. It was decided that WGHABD should contribute to the development of the report. This will be a good opportunity to use available data, improve monitoring and reporting systems to report on the increasing problems with HAB’s.

Resource Requirements

The research programs which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 20–25 members and guests

Secretariat Facilities

None

Financial No financial implications

Linkages to Advisory Committees

There are no obvious direct linkages with the advisory committees


WGHABD interacts with WGZE, WGPME, WGPBI.


The work of this group is undertaken in close collaboration with the IOC HAB Programme. IOC should be consulted regarding ToR or discontinuation of the WG prior to the ASC. There is a linkage to SCOR through the interactions of the IOC-SCOR GEOHAB Programme.

Secretariat marginal Costs

ICES

Working Group on Application of Genetics in Fisheries and Mariculture (WGAGFM)

2013/2/SSGHIE09 The Working Group on Application of Genetics in Fisheries and Mariculture (WGAGFM), chaired by Dorte Bekkevold, Denmark, will meet in Faro, Portugal, 7–9 May 2014 to:

| 83

a ) Produce a review of the identification and use of adaptive gene markers in shellfish aquaculture and for the genetic characterization of wild populations

b ) Review and consider methods for integrating genomic methods with marine fisheries management

c ) Review and consider molecular methods for quantifying genetic introgression of farmed fish in native populations

d ) Produce an update on SNP-technology assessment. e ) Special request:

Interactions between wild and captive fish stocks (OSPAR 4/2014)

a. Recalling the conclusion of the QSR 2010 that mariculture is a growing activity in the OSPAR maritime area, EIHA 2012 considered the potential for increasing environmental pressure relating to the growth of this industry. As yet this is not an established work stream within EIHA, and Contracting Parties have requested that more information be brought forwards on this issue. This was reiterated by EIHA 2013.

b. Mariculture has a number of associated environmental pressures such as the introduction of non_indigenous species, which can have ecological and genetic impacts on marine environment and especially on wild fish stocks; in addition, pressures from mariculture might include:

i. introduction of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals;

ii. transfer of disease and parasite interactions;

iii. release of nutrients and organic matters;

iv. introgression of foreign genes, from both hatchery-reared fish and genetically modified fish and invertebrates, in wild populations;

v. effects on small cetaceans, such as the bottlenose dolphin, due to their interaction with aquaculture cages

c. EIHA proposes that OSPAR requests ICES to provide:

i. an update on the available knowledge on these issues;

ii. concrete examples of management solutions to mitigate these pressures on the marine environment;

iii. advice on which pressures have sufficient documentation regarding their impacts to implement relevant monitoring and suggest a way forward to manage these pressures.

d. It may be appropriate to explore cooperation with other competent authorities working in this field, such as the European Food Safety Authority with respect to disease transfer or parasites, or the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO), in particular with respect to existing cooperation between NASCO and ICES on issues pertaining to pressures from mariculture.

WGAGFM is requested to address in particular points biv, ci, cii and ciii. Also WGAQUA, WGPDMO and WGMME will address this request.

WGAGFM will report by 30 May 2014 (via SSGHIE) for the attention of SCICOM.

84 |


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem affects of fisheries and mariculture, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority. e) Special request from OSPAR


Term of Reference a) The application of genomic analysis is rapidly developing as a tool in shellfish mariculture. The aim is to review and consider the full set of genomic tools and techniques that are being used/examined in relation to shellfish mariculture, and to identify particular issues of concern in relation to management of wild shellfish populations, that may benefit from research using such genomic tools. To better integrate WG expertise it is an aim to approach the ICES Working Group on Aquaculture (WGAQUA) to outline the tools available and/or under development and to identify issues of concern in the culture situation and those associated with mariculture/wild interactions which may be addressed. Term of Reference b) Technological advances have facilitated the development of genomic tools for the study of non-model organisms. These developments offer new opportunities for bridging traditional gaps between population/conservation genetics and fisheries management. Yet, significant challenges still remain, for example in relation to assessing connectivity in and outside spawning seasons on local geographical scales and over single generations, and in relation to estimating population sizes; all important information in many management scenarios. Thus, it is timely to review the information that can, and cannot, at present be provided by genetic approaches, especially in relation to pertinent information required by fisheries management. The aim is to provide a general evaluation of opportunities, costs and time frames with modern population genomic approaches, and to include examples on a case-by-case basis. It is an aim to invite members of one or more ICES ACOM working groups to contribute to the ToR.. Term of Reference c) Fish strains used in aquaculture are commonly characterized by genetic changes associated with domestication and breeding selection, compared with their wild counterparts. Several studies over the last decade report that hybridization and introgression by escaped farmed fish may incur a fitness cost to wild populations, causing increasing awareness and concern about both conserving native fish gene pools and to the continuing health and viability of the wild populations. Consequently, there is an increasing need for the identification and development of statistical tools to assess and quantify the degree of genetic introgression of escaped or released farm fish. Given the dynamic nature and inherent complexity, quantifying genetic introgression using standard population genetic methods is difficult representing an ongoing challenge. The aim is to review studies estimating levels of introgression, number of possible sources contributing to farmed escapees, and impact on populations; to summarize existing tools, assumptions involved, and any studies evaluating success; to identify desired model parameters and parameter space to be evaluated using simulations; to simulate introgression into wild populations and evaluate tool effectiveness, and finally to provide recommendations on usage of analysis tools and their limitations. Term of Reference d) Issues pertaining to ascertainment bias, cost, SNP choice, ease of analyses, screening platform, technical aspects related to genotyping, data management, and broader technological and statistical approaches should be further considered by members of this working group on an ongoing basis.

| 85





None.



There are no obvious direct linkages with the advisory committees.


SIMWG, WGEVO, WGBIODIV, WGAQUA


Linkage with the EC Joint Research Centre at Ispra, Italy.

SSGHIE workshops

Joint Rijkswaterstaat/DFO/ICES Workshop: Risk Assessment for Spatial Management (WKRASM)

2013/2/SSGHIE10 The Joint Rijkswaterstaat/DFO/ICES Workshop: Risk Assessment for Spatial Management (WKRASM), chaired by Rob Gerits*, Netherlands and Roland Cormier*, Canada, will meet in The Hague, The Netherlands, 24–28 February 2014 to:

a ) Assess the use of the Bow tie analysis approach in risk evaluation of management options for achieving ecosystem objectives in a spatial management context;

b ) Develop a common understanding and language for evaluating management options in MSP;

c ) Define needs for education and training of experts in applying the methods used in the workshop.

The need for the Workshop has arisen through the increasing importance of marine spatial planning throughout the ICES area, and more widely. In particular OSPAR and HELCOM are encouraged to contribute to the workshop.

The working group has seen that there is a desire for developing a common language and understanding on cumulative impacts assessment (CIA), both on strategic and project level. This comes from the need to take account of trans-boundary impacts when developing and implementing national initiatives, and the need for exchange of information and discussion of management options.

The Bow tie approach is established in the ISO 31000 Risk Assessment standards to assist with risk evaluation and the evaluation of management options within a multi-driver context. The approach encompasses the pressures of multiple drivers leading to a given environmental effect with the intention of identifying opportunities and gaps in existing management measures. Given that the Bow tie is an ISO standard used by major industries, it also provides the basis to create a common language in CIA.

86 |

In the workshop, the applicability of the Bow tie approach to environmental risk assessment and the development of spatial management strategies will be assessed in a European trans-boundary context. Scientists from different disciplines and managers involved in MSP activities will be brought together to analyse this approach in relation to selected cases and to develop a common understanding on the applicability in MSP.

WKRASM will report by 7 April 2014 in collaboration with WGMPCZM (via SSGHIE) for the attention of SCICOM. Further output from the workshop in the form of a Cooperative Research Report will be developed together with WGMPCZM.


Priority The WKRASM is a direct outcome of the work in WGMPCZM in 2013 and the workshop on Quality Assurance in MSP (WKQAMSP) in 2012. The WK will further the scientific knowledge base for MSP and complement other activities in WGMPCZM.

Scientific justification Bow tie analysis (ISO 31010:2009)

Overview. Bow tie analysis is a simple diagrammatic way of describing and analysing the pathways of a risk from causes to consequences. However the focus of the Bow tie is on the barriers between the causes and the risk, and the risk and consequences. Bow tie diagrams can be constructed starting from fault and event trees, but are more often drawn directly from a brainstorming session.

Use. Bow tie analysis is used to display a risk showing a range of possible causes and consequences. It is used when the situation does not warrant the complexity of a full fault tree analysis or when the focus is more on ensuring that there is a barrier or control for each failure pathway. It is useful where there are clear independent pathways leading to failure.

Input. An understanding is required of information on the causes and consequences of a risk and the barriers and controls which may prevent, mitigate or stimulate it.

Some level of quantification of a Bow tie diagram may be possible where pathways are independent, the probability of a particular consequence or outcome is known and a figure can be estimated for the effectiveness of a control. However, in many situations, pathways and barriers are not independent and controls may be procedural and hence the effectiveness unclear.

Output. The output is a simple diagram showing main risk pathways and the barriers in place to prevent or mitigate the undesired consequences or stimulate and promote desired consequences.

Resource requirements None

Participants We expect between 10 – 15 participantsfrom different disciplines and working backgrounds (including practioners, natural and social scientists)

Secretariat facilities Setting up and managing the sharepoint site and registration page.

Financial None


Development of the science base for MSP in ICES is direcly relevanat t ACOM and several ACOM EGs and initiatives, as it is for SCICOM EG and initiatives.


directly relevant to WGMPCZM

| 87


OSPAR, HELCOM, EU (DG MARE, DG Environment). In addition the outcomes are relevant to other national organizations and internationa organizations working with the development of MSP (e.g.. DFO in Canada).

Joint CIESM/ICES Workshop on Mnemiopsis Science (JWMS)

2013/2/SSGHIE11 The Joint CIESM/ICES Workshop on Mnemiopsis Science (JWMS), chaired by Sophie Pitois*, UK (ICES) and Tamara Shiganova*, Russia (CIESM), will meet in La Coruna, Spain, 18–20 September 2014 (back-to-back with the ASC) to:

a ) Review and discuss the latest knowledge regarding the biogeography and ecology of Mnemiopsis leidyi and of its predator Beroe spp;

b ) Compile existing knowledge on spatio-temporal occurrence in areas where M. leidyi is already established across the ICES-CIESM sea basins. By identifying and geo-locating the likely vectors of introduction, establish which areas are most at risk and where it is likely to be established next.

c ) Compare environment-specific parameters used for modelling potential habitat and population dynamics of M. leidyi across different sea basins. Discuss the potential sea-basin specific physiological adaptations;

d ) Review the molecular genetic techniques that have or could potentially be used to study this species. Discuss sampling techniques used and the need for a standard protocol;

e ) Review the environmental and socio-economic consequences of M. leidyi in areas that have already been affected;

f ) Outline future research needs/next steps and identify management measures.

JWMS will report by 31 October 2014 to WGITMO, SSGHIE and SCICOM.


Priority High. The workshop builds on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between CIESM and ICES (of 30 August 2012) and was identified as the first joint action by the ’ Consultation meeting on non-native species cooperation between ICES and CIESM (held on 19 December 2013)’.


No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting.

Participants The meeting will be attended by around 20 specialists jointly selected by ICES and CIESM from a variety of marine science disciplines (incl. hydrology, molecular biology, ecology, and marine economics).

Secretariat facilities Not exceeding the usual requirement

Financial No financial implications


Potential links to some assessment and advisory groups (e.g. WGECO)


The work directly links to WGITMO and WGBOSV, but also to WGZE, WGCOMEDA, WGINOSE, WGIPEM, WGIMT


OSPAR, Barcelona Convention, Black Sea Convention

88 |

SSGHIE EGs to be dissolved in 2014

2012/2/SSGHIE11 Joint HZG/LOICZ/ICES Workshop: Mapping Cultural Dimensions of Marine Ecosystem Services (WKCES)

Andreas Kannen*, Germany; and Kira Gee*, Germany

17–21 June 2013

2011/2/SSGHIE08 ICES/PICES/GEOHAB Workshop on “HABs in a Changing World” (WKHABCW)

Mark Wells*, USA, and Raphael M. Kudela*, USA

8–22 March 2013

2011/2/SSGHIE01 Workshop on the Application of Passive Sampling and Passive Dosing to Contaminants in Marine Media (WKPSPD)

Craig Robinson*, UK, and Kees Booij*, NL

29–31 January 2013

2012/2/SSGHIE05 ICES Study Group on Environmental Impacts of Wave and Tidal Energy (SGWTE)

Michael Bell, UK 19–21 March 2013

| 89

SCICOM Steering Group on Regional Sea Programmes (SSGRSP) Resolutions 2013

SSGRSP Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS)

Working Group on the Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea (WGNARS)

2013/MA2/SSGRSP01 The Working Group on the Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea (WGNARS), chaired by Sarah Gaichas, USA, and M. R. Anderson*, Canada, will meet in Falmouth, USA, 3–7 February 2014.

WGNARS will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 1 March 2014 to SSGRSP.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Develop the scientific support for an integrated assessment of the Northwest Atlantic region to support ecosystem approaches to science and management. Review and report on the work of other integrated ecosystem assessment activities in ICES, NAFO and elsewhere. Compile and provide guidance on best practises for each step of integrated ecosystem assessment.

a) Science Requirements: see below b) Advisory Requirements: none c) Requirements from other EGs: status updates from other groups employing IEA framework components.

1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4

3 years Summary review paper of lessons learned for IEAs in general and for each step of the process in the Northwest Atlantic using results from 2013, annual reviews of IEA activities, and ToRs b, c, d, e below (2016). Brief interim progress reports to ICES (2014, 2015).

b Evaluate relationships among ecosystem level management objectives developed by past and current ecosystem based management frameworks for the NW Atlantic and identify candidate objectives for analysis.

Will employ scoping overview and qualitative mapping methods reviewed in 2013. Requires participation by managers.

3.1, 3.4 1 year (2014) Conceptual model of relationships between current objectives, identifying which conflict. Candidate list of objectives for analysis (2014).

90 |

ToR Description

Background



c Identify key large-scale drivers that influence the whole NW Atlantic and how the ecosystem response varies at different spatial scales; select and vet indicators for these drivers and responses.

Will employ indicator performance testing and risk assessment methods reviewed in 2013 for both driver and response indicators. Requires participation by scientific experts in oceanography, habitat, biology, fisheries and other system uses, and socio-economics.

1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.4

2 years (2014: identify drivers, vet key indicators; 2015: identify regional ecosystem responses, vet key indicators)

Short list of large-scale drivers and vetted set of indicators for changes in those drivers (2014). List of vetted indicators for key ecosytem responses at several scales (2015).

d Identify alternative management strategies to achieve objectives (ToR b) based on drivers and responses at multiple scales (ToR c). Outline model requirements for management strategy evaluation.

Will review potential management tools and approaches for coordinating their use. Will operationalize ToR b objectives using indicator threshold analysis and risk analysis methods reviewed in 2013. Requires participation by managers and all scientists listed under ToR c.

3.1, 3.2 1 year (2015) List of operational objectives, alternative management strategies, and approaches for coordinating managment for NW Atlantic systems. Description of model requirements for MSE (2015).

e Evaluate ecosystem trade-offs using a range of simple management strategy evaluation (MSE) methods.

Will require regional models for capable of incorporating results of ToRs b, c, d. Requires participation by managers and all scientists listed under ToR c.

1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4

1 year (2016) Review of MSE methods available. Results of methods applied for NW Atlantic systems (2016).


Year 1 Identify candidate ecosystem based management objectives and key large-scale ecosystem drivers (w/vetted indicators) in NW Atlantic.

Year 2 Identify key ecosystem responses to large-scale drivers at multiple scales (w/vetted indicators) and alternative management strategies based on candidate objectives (operationalized) and drivers/responses.

Year 3 Evaluate the ability of the alternative management strategies to achieve candidate operational objectives given large-scale drivers and multi-scale responses and report on trade-offs.

| 91


Priority A regional approach to marine science is essential to address high priority research topics in the ICES Science Plan associated with understanding ecosystem functioning, particularly climate change processes (1.1), biodiversity (1.3) and the role of coastal-zone habitat in ecosystem dynamics (1.4), as well as understanding the interactions of human activities with ecosystems, particularly fishing (2.1) and impacts of habitat changes (2.4). Identifying potential objectives and evaluating alternative management strategies to achieve them addresses the development of options for sustainable use of ecosystems, specifically marine living resource management tools (3.1) and operational modelling combining oceanography, ecosystem, and population processes (3.2). Work identifying candidate ecosystem based management objectives and evaluating potential trade-offs through MSE contributes to socio-economic undestanding of ecosystem goods and services and forecasting the impact of human activities (3.4). Therefore, our workplan addresses all three thematic areas in the ICES Science Plan and multiple high priorities in each.

Resource requirements Components of the integrated approach, such as ocean observation systems, ecosystem surveys, development of integrated modelling approaches and management objectives are being maintained by member countries, and the programme will coordinate and synthesize existing programmes.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 25-35 members and guests. However, expertise needed for each ToR differs so total participants over 3 years could be >50.

Secretariat facilities Report preparation and dissemination



During the development stage, there will be no direct linkages with advisory committees, but the integrated approach is expected to eventually support advice for implementing IEAs in NW Atlantic subregions, and may link to future ICES IEA advice in other regions.


There is a close working relationship with a number of the working groups and workshops under the Steering Group on Regional Seas, such as the Workshop on Benchmarking Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, and others within ICES, such as the Working Group on Marine Systems.


The NAFO Ecosystem Based Management Working Group has made progress toward similar objectives and will be a resource for collaboration.

Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European Shelf Seas (WGEAWESS)

2013/MA2/SSGRSP02 The Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European Shelf Seas (WGEAWESS), chaired by Enrique Nogueira, Spain, Dave Reid, Ireland; Pascal Laffargue, France, and Maria de Fatima Borges, Portugal, will meet in Gijón, Spain, 22–25 April 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGEAWESS will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 2 June 2014 to SSGRSP.

92 |

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS ADDRESSED

DURATION EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

a Carry out metadata compilation for all ecosystem components available according to ODDEM framework. Preparatory to carrying out IEA

This is linked to the recommendation of a database

4.3 2 years Data base linked to ICES for Regional Sea Programmes

b Carry out preliminary evaluation of data and trends for a regional Integrated Ecosystem Assessment;

Linked to Benchmark SSGRSP guidance for methods

4.2 3 years Report and articles on GES status of Regional Sea

c Summarize and update the regional Ecosystem overviews

Linked to WKECOVER and ACOM- SCICOM advice

4.2 3 years Articles, atlas.

d Identify ecosystem trends relevant to stock assessment and management and report these accordingly

This would be linked to the commitment to provide advice in the context of EBAFM

4.1 Ongoing


Year 1

The main task will be to catalogue the datasets available that would be potentially valuable in an IEA (provisionally ODEMM approach. Metadata and description will be compiled into a database. This will particularly focus on identifying pressure state relationships that are appropriate for EBAFM. Ongoing identification of important trends in ecosystem indicators.

Year 2 Carry out provisional ODEMM (or other IEA) analysis, using WG membership, and reporting on results, gaps and weaknesses, and way forward. Ongoing identification of important trends in ecosystem indicators.

Year 3 Follow up on previous year IEA, refine including any new data acquired on the basis of the gaps analysis in the previous year. If appropriate hold a workshop with a wider participation. Ongoing identification of important trends in ecosystem indicators.


Priority Heavy pressure on shelf seas (biodiversity loss, climate changes, fisheries), lack in understanding of large marine ecosystem functioning and the context of ecosystem health indicators development for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive require to address those research topics at the relevant scale i.e. the regional approach.

The EAWESS working group will focus on North Atlantic European continental shelf. Regional area of interest includes the Celtic sea, bay of Biscay and Western Iberia, involving five countries (Ireland, UK, France, Spain and Portugal). The choose of such limits is justified by :

| 93

bio-geographical (transitional region between subtropical and Subarctic gyres)

chemo-physical continuum: large opened and connected areas dominated by soft bottom, closely linked by regional ocean circulation process, offering ‘coast-shelf-slope’ and latitudinal environmental gradient

management unit (ICES, OSPAR)

already existing scientific networks (e.g. IBI-ROOS)


There is no resource implication for ICES. Working group program is based on synthesis of data and results from existing scientific program, and coordination of surveys and observations networks. However, involvement of ICES data center would useful to help with sharing and harmonizing data.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 15 members and guests.




Direct link to IEA, ACOM-SCICOM advice.


There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGRSP. It is also very relevant to the Working Group on WGECO and WGSAM


DC- MAP- DG MARE, MSFD DG ENV, OSPAR

Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR)

2013/MA2/SSGRSP03 The Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR), co-chaired by Edda Johannesen*, Norway and Juri Kovalev*, Russia, will be established and will meet in Kirkenes, Norway, in 24–28 March to work on their ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGIBAR will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 30 April 2014 to SSGRSP.

94 |

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Prepare an inventory of, and compile, relevant data sets (such as data from the joint IMR-PINRO surveys, and others) that can be used to describe and analyse fluctuations and changes in the Barents Sea ecosystem

Science and advisory requirements

Year 1and 2 Year 2 Report on data inventory

b Perform integrated analyses of multivariate and multi-disciplinary data sets (including pressures and drivers) to examine and document past and current changes in the ecosystem


Year 1, 2 and 3

Annual reports on integrated analysis progress, papers as appropriate

c Prepare an annual status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem based on the integrated analysis of multivariate data sets from monitoring surveys and other relevant sources including 3-D physical and ecological modeling


Year 1, 2 and 3

Annual status reports

d Identify knowledge gaps and priority research items that when addressed, can improve future integrated ecosystem assessments


Year 1, 2, and 3

Updates in annual meeting reports

e Consider and suggest improvements to the monitoring activities and programs in the Barents Sea including survey design, observation and estimation methods and sampling that will improve the fundament for integrated ecosystem assessments


Year 1, 2 and 3

Updates in annual meeting reports

| 95


Year 1 Focus will be on preparation an inventory of, and compile, relevant data sets (such as data from the joint IMR-PINRO surveys (Annex 1), and others) that can be used to describe and analyse fluctuations and changes in the Barents Sea ecosystem. Consider how to achieve regular evaluation of monitoring program (surveys design and sampling, uncertainties in stocks estimations and observation methods) and make priorities for different tasks. Start work on integrated data analyses and prepare a first version of a status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem.

Year 2 Perform integrated analyses of multivariate and multi-disciplinary data sets (including pressures and drivers) to examine and document past and current changes in the ecosystem. Identify knowledge gaps and priority research items that when addressed, can improve future integrated ecosystem assessments. Prepare an updated annual status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem based on the integrated analysis of multivariate data sets from monitoring surveys and other relevant sources including 3-D physical and ecological modeling.

Year 3 Consider and suggest improvements to the monitoring activities and programs in the Barents Sea including survey design, observation and estimation methods and sampling that will improve the fundament for integrated ecosystem assessments. Continue work to identify knowledge gaps and priority research items. Prepare updated integrated data analyses and annual status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem.


Priority WGIBAR aims to conduct and further develop Integrated Ecosystem Assessments for the Barents Sea, as a step towards implementing the ecosystem approach.

Scientific justification Term of Reference a)

There are a range of different approaches to performing integrated ecosystem assessments. We will develop an approach for the WGIBAR that is based on the state of the art. This will be done with data input from all relevant monitoring surveys in the Barents Sea (see Annex below), and by summarising and analysing status of species and habitats, of ecological interactions (between species in food webs, and between species and habitats), and of human pressures and their impacts on the ecosystem, seen in relation to natural (climate) pressures and effects.


Integrated data analyses will be performed using the compiled data sets under (a). These data span a wide range of ecosystem components and features, including meteorology, physical oceanography, sea ice, plankton, benthos, commerical fish stocks, other fish species, marine mammals , and seabirds. Relevant pressures will include fisheries, climate change, and possibly others. The integrated analyses will include multivariate techniques, statistical analyses, and possibly others.


Using the outcome of the integrated analyses in (b), a status report of the Barents Sea ecosystem will be prepared and updated annually. This will build on and add value to annual reports from the Joint IMR-PINRO ecosyetm cruises, and status reports pprepared as part of the Norwegian Managment Plan for the Barents Sea.

96 |


A main task in an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment is to interpret the outcome of integrated analyses in the context of existing and emerging knowledge about the food web structure, functions and dynamics of an ecosystem such as the Barents Sea. A by-product of an IEA is the knowledge gaps become apparent. These can be turned into a priority list of research tasks that will improve the basis for doing in iterative IEA .

Term of Reference e)

The survey and sampling strategy should be closely related to the integrated assessment. TOR e will be devoted to developing an overview of sampling requirements for integrated ecosystem assessment. The group will evaluate present monoriting strategy (survey design, sampling, estimation methods, data flow and products), evaluate new methods and equipment to achieve the optimal monitoring of the ecosystem and recommend changes to the monitoring committees at IMR and PINRO.


Several national and international research projects support the activities indicated and no further resources are needed in the short term. In the long term the group should try to develop an integrated project

Participants We expect around 20 people (IMR and PINRO) and 5 from other institutions to attend.




It is very important to link this group to ACOM and ensure cooperation between science and advice.


There are linkages to the other regional seas programmes and the Working Group on Integrating Surveys for the Ecosystem Approach (WGISUR), and different ICES WG, which responsible for stocks assessment and fisheries management advice, the most important being Artic Fisheries Working group (AFWG).


No recognised links.

Annex 1. Monitoring surveys:

Winter. There have been 4 winter surveys: Norwegian-Russian combined acoustic and bottom trawl survey; Lofoten survey, Russian winter survey and Norwegian deep-fish survey, covering the ice-free parts of the Barents Sea during November-December. These surveys aim to monitor spawning migrations of key Barents Sea fish species and ensure updated information of the commercially and ecologically important bottom fish stocks for assessment and fisheries management advice. Some of the surveys may also give information about spawning migration of capelin, pelagic components of commercially important fish species, and hydrographic conditions. These winter surveys reflect also oceanographic shifts (inflow of Atlantic waters during winter influence temperature conditions during the rest of the year). These data sets are a firm foundation for ecosystem status during winter.

| 97

Summer. There have been international fish-plankton surveys in the Nordic Sea, also covering the southern and western parts of the Barents Sea in May-June since the mid-1990s. In the most recent years these surveys have transitioned into ecosystem surveys that capture most of the key components of the ecosystem. These data sets are a firm foundation for ecosystem status during spring-summer by measuring the plankton bloom, which determine the characteristics of the feeding season. A fairly recent book on the Barents Sea ecosystem and huge amount of data collected is a good starting point for the assessment.

Autumn. The Joint Norwegian-Russian Ecosystem surveys in the Barents Sea during autumn (BESS- autumn) is appropriate to reflect the success of the feeding season and the surveys are able to monitor the whole ecosystem since the largest ice-free area is found during this period. Due to the large covered area, this survey is also suitable for providing updated information on other commercially and ecologically important species, and other ecosystem components (plankton, benthos, marine mammals and sea birds), together with environmental conditions (temperature, salinity, oxygen and pollution), biodiversity and trophic interactions. These data sets are a firm foundation for ecosystem status during autumn.

Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea (WGINOSE)

2013/MA2/SSGRSP04 Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea (WGINOSE), chaired by Andy Kenny, UK, and Christian Möllmann, Germany, will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10–14 March 2014, to work on their ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGINOSE will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 30 April 2014 to SSGRSP.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Update the integrated ecosystem trend analysis for the North Sea using as many of the ‘core’variables as identified by WGINOSE in 2013

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements c) Requirements from other EGs

1.1, 2.1 Input from relevant EWG as highlighted WGINOSE in 2013

Years 1, 2 & 3

Regional sea state trend analysis for inclusion in eco-region overviews annually.

b Update the North Sea ecosystem overview report using findings from ToR a and ToRc where possible

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements

1.1, 2.1 To facilitate the provision of IEA advice

Years 1, 2 & 3

North Sea ecosystem overview updated annually

c Develop and apply a dynamic Bayesian Belief Network model as a tool for integrated and combined effects assessments.

a) Science Requirements

2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3 Years 1, 2 & 3

Results which explore the balance of trade-offs between ecosystem protection and sustainable resource use

98 |

d Review the data needs and approaches to support the operational implementation of ToRa and ToRb (above)


4.1 Years 1, 2 & 3

Recommedations and actions giving rise to the on-going improvement to flow of data between EWG, the data centre and WGINOSE


Year 1. In terms of delivery, the first year will focus on developing links between relevant expert groups (ICES and others external to ICES) and the ICES data centre to compile a core set of IEA variables for the North Sea. An update of the North Sea trends analysis will be performed and the results will be used to update the North Sea ecosystem overview.

Year 2. In addition to the annual update of the trend analysis and ecosystem overview, the focus for the second year delivery will be to demonstrate the utility of the developed dBBN North Sea model, espceially in answering the ‘key’ questions around the balance of trade-offs between ecosystem protection and sustainable resource use for a range of human activities.

Year 3. In addition to the annual update of the trend analyses and ecosystem overview, the focus for the 3rd year will be a review of comparative performance of WGINOSE, especially in relation to the uptake and use of model results and trend analyses in the advisory and management processes.

| 99


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the development of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments for the North Sea (a data rich ecosystem) as a step towards implementing the ICES Science Plan and the ecosystem approach, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Resource requirements Assistance of the Secretariat in maintaining and exchanging information and data to potential partcipants, especially the services of the ICES data centre to generate data tables for analysis from selected variables held in the database.





Relevant to the work of ACOM and SCICOM


There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGSRP. It is also very relevant to the EWG identified in WGHAME 2013 report..


OSPAR, EU, NAFO, NEAFC

Working Group on Integrating Ecological and Economic Models (WGIMM)

2013/MA2/SSGRSP05 The Study Group on Study Group on Integration of Economics, Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management (SGIMM) will be renamed Working Group on Integrating Ecological and Economic Models (WGIMM), chaired by Jörn Schmidt, Germany, J. Rasmus Nielsen, Denmark and Eric Thunberg, USA, and will meet in VENUE, DATES to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGIMM will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 31 December 2014 to SSGRSP.

The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) is now the basis for Fisheries Management as legally laid out in the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and subsequent meetings (Rio 1992, Johannesburg 2002, Rio 2012). The FAO (2003) guidelines for an Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries state that the understanding and management of fisheries should explicitly take into account interactions between stocks as well as social and economic considerations. Though it is acknowledged that only human activities can be managed, their optimal management will depend on the ecosystem in which they take place. Hence, the direct and indirect impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystem and vice versa must be assessed and predicted to provide management advice in support of the Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries Management. This entails a move from single species to multispecies and to ecosystem assessments, including the explicit incorporation of the economic components. To fulfil the needs for a sound science, tools need to be developed, which take these interactions into account. The aim of this expert group is to collect globally available models, to discuss their further development and to develop a sound basis for evaluating these tools, including testing their robustness. It will also analyse the needed characteristics for the use in advisory context. Another overarching goal is to make most of these models available in an online repository.

100 |

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED


a Collect globally available coupled ecological-economic models and characterize them with respect to their applicability (academic, advice, evaluation)

Serves as the basis for further work of WGIMM and provides deliverables for the wider community

1st year, will be continued over all 3 yeras

Online Repository with explanation of the different models

b Develop a framework for evaluation and comparison of these models

Models are a method to evaluate or explore specific hypotheses within systems and such need to fulfil the requirements of every other method of reproducibility

2nd year White paper of good practice, manuscript for peer reviewed journal

c Analyse the potential, capability and performance of the models and frameworks with respect to spatial and regional explicit bio-economic evaluation of fisheries management in context of marine spatial planning and broader cross sector marine management on regional basis

Fisheries is increasingly competing for space, especially in coastal areas, but also for the high seas marine spatial planning will become the basis for decision making in the future

3 years White paper, manuscript for peer reviewed journal

d Identify further the data and information required as well as expertise needed for integrated bio-economic modelling of fisheries and application of socio-economic evaluation methods on short and long term basis enhancing the above

The models are increasingly data demanding and the collection and access needs to be harmonized. It will be of crucial importance with respect to limited resources to identify the data, which will be needed to feed the models and to serve as a sound scientific basis for decision making

3 Years White paper

e Discuss how different stakeholder

This is also part of ToR a, but needs to

2nd year Nested workshops

| 101

groups can be incorporated in the process of model development. These participatory processes will be of increasing importance to “answer the right questions” and to make these models usable beyond the academic sphere

be taken explicitly, because it will influence future developments

with stakeholders

f Develop innovative ways of communicating the increasingly complex results from these models to decision makers, but also the wider public

A transparent communication of complex results is the basis to increase literacy of fisheries related issues both for decision makers and the public

3rd year Schemes for decision support systems


Year 1 Repository set up, general White paper

Year 2 Workshops with stakholder involvement, peer reviewed publication, white paper on evaluation schemes

Year 3 Decision support schemes


Priority High. There is an increasing demand for the development and evaluation of coupled ecological-economical models in advice giving bodies, including ICES. However, the possibilities to coordinate the expertise of economists, sociologists, and ecologists to develop and evaluate further bio-economic models and management evaluation frameworks is still not fully used. The goal will be to further couple economic and sociological expertise directly with the ecological understanding within ICES and socio-economic scientific communities (e.g. IIFET) to enhance the quality of integrated assessments and the value of the advice.

Scientific justification The incorporation of bio-economics in fisheries assessment might lead to a better result and an enhanced communication with fisheries industry, fishermen, managers and other stakeholders as the advice could be made on the basis of a deepened understanding of: The economic and sociological incentives of fishermen and industry the bio-economic interaction between different fisheries and both biological and economical consequences of different management scenarios and transaction costs of different policies coupled with the existing sound biological knowledge within ICES; The complexity of fisheries management evaluation tools which can meet the increased demands for marine spatial planning and broader cross sector marine management evaluaiton; The performance, characteristics and scientific and advisory capabilities of the models for application and implementation to give better advice on potentials for implementation.

102 |

Relation to Strategic Plan

The group will directly feed goals 1, 2 and 3 of the ICES strategic plan: “Develop an integrated, interdisciplinary understanding of the structure, dynamics, and the resilience and response of marine ecosystems to change“, „Understand the relationship between human activities and marine ecosystems, estimate pressures and impacts, and develop science-based, sustainable pathways“, „Evaluate and advise on options for the sustainable use and protection of marine ecosystems“.


No specific resource requirements beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting.

Participants Interested scientists, economic modellers, ecological modellers, SCICOM members, ACOM members, Assessment group members, stock assessment experts (as well as selected stakeholder observers, e.g. RACs and managers).

Secretariat facilities SharePoint site, secretariat support for reporting.

Financial None


The incorporation of economy in fisheries advice should be of basic interest to ACOM and the general scientific overview and further development of interest to SCICOM.


Assessment groups (ACOM). Scientific methods to enable Integrated Marine Management across sectors and implementing an Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries Management has significant scientific focus and is relevant for ICES SCICOM and several ICES groups hereunder.


Contact and agreement on scientific collaboration has been established with the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET).

Working Group on Large Marine Ecosystem Program Best Practices (WGLMEBP)

2013/MA2/SSGRSP06 The Working Group on Large Marine Ecosystem Program Best Practices (WGLMEBP), chaired by Hein Rune Skjoldal, Norway, and Rudolf Hermes*, Thailand, will meet in Paris, France, 8-11 July 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGLMEBP will report on the activities of 2014 (the first year) by 15 August 2014 to SSGRSP (SSGIEA).

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Gather information about past and current integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA) into an inventory of IEAs, their geographic scope or scale, and the reference points used

incorporate the results of WGNARS, WGINOSE, WGEAWESS, WGINOR, WGIBAR and WGIAB

new science plan

Year 1 An inventory of IEA’s

| 103

b With support from ICES scientists and LME practitioners, and based on the above output, develop a brief synthesis of the most commonly used science-based indicators for ecosystem-based management. Consider to conduct a survey among practionioners using a questionnaire

a) review and consider the different concepts in use based on published knowledge

Year 1 The synthesis, possibly a peer reviewed publication and other communication tools to disseminate these findings

c Identifying LME units as references for IEA, in the ICES area (including the Arctic LME’s), as well as in the operational LME’s;

a) consider the relevant LME delimitations for practical use

Year 1 agreed reference LME units

d Taking into account the results of WKECOVER earlier in 2013, apply the criteria proposed for producing ecosystem overviews and develop in cooperation with LMEs overviews for ICES core areas, Arctic and other LMEs as far as possible, also in partnership with PICES, NOAA, CSIRO etc.

a) WKECOVER report

Year 2 and 3 Overviews

e Identify areas of collaboration and mutual interest between ICES and LME groups; including; knowledge transfer; communication and capacity development.

a) consider science requirements of LMEs

Year 1, 2 & 3 Identification of: Areas of common interest, Partnerships and Joint Ventures


Year 1 based on published literature, LME and ICES IEA EGs produce an inventory of existing or planned IEAs and a synthesis document with recommendations; identification of reference LME

Year 2 attempt ecosystem overviews for operational LMEs and Arctic LMEs, as well as take into account the ecosystem overviews for the ICES core areas

Year 3 partnerships, knowledge transfer and training needs

104 |

“Supporting information

Priority This Terms of Reference takes into account the following developments in the ICES core areas, the Arctic and other LMEs around the world to better assess the status of marine ecosystems; • The new ICES science plan will have a strong focus on integrated

ecosystem assessments, including ecosystem overviews and monitoring programmes. Furthermore, ICES is making a move toward incorporating the Arctic under the same umbrella and to work towards an ICES-Arctic Planning Group;

• Further scientific data and knowledge have been generated about the Arctic LMEs that have laid strong foundational work for ecosystem status assessments. Support from ICES for the Arctic provides further impetus in this regard;

• For the past 20 years, the GEF and World Bank have been providing substantial financial support in the amount of $3.1 billion to developing countries for planning and implementing a five-module strategy for EBM that assesses and monitors changing states of LME: (i) productivity, (ii) fish and fisheries, (iii) pollution and ecosystem health, (iv) socio-economics, and (v) governance.

• Countries apply two processes in consideration of the five modules across the modular strategy in the preparation of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and a Strategic Action Program (SAP). The outcomes of these processes are compatible with the Ecosystem Status Assessment process (ESA).

• Many LMEs around the world have finalized their Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) which generates large volumes of information and data on the ecosystems, defines threats and root causes and a way forward for improved ecosystem status assessment and stress reduction. Hence, several LMEs now have GEF-funded Strategic Action Programmes in place and have contributed information and data to the GEF Tracking Tools, UNEP Regional Seas, the Abidjan Convention (and other regional conventions), TWAP and the Regular Process to enable different scales of ecosystem status assessments. Capacities in LMEs have also been enhanced to enable such assessments with good understanding for the need for horizontal (across sectors) and vertical (within sectors) integration and thorough consideration of socio-economic and governance aspects.

• In terms of making progress in EBM the IEAs are tools for management (i.e. to manage human impacts and to monitor the response of the ecosystem for making informed decisions. It is important to monitor the response of the ecosystem and to distinguish between inputs caused by natural drivers and ones caused by human impact drivers. ICES has IEA groups to cover all ICES areas. The ICES principles for IEA include human dimensions, ecosystem drivers variation and change, data collection, and building knowledge; operational objectives, integration across sectors as an adaptive and iterative process.





| 105


ACOM via IEAs


There is a very close working relationship with the newly established SCICOM SSG on integrated ecosystem assessment and monitoring (SSGIOMP) and its groups.


IOC, UNDP and interaction is expected with the envisaged GEF project on LME Best practices to be launched by summer 2014. Arctic Council working groups notably AMAP, CAFF and PAME, and the PAME-led EA expert group.

Study Group on Spatial Analyses for the Baltic Sea (SGSPATIAL)

2013/2/SSGRSP07 The Study Group on Spatial Analyses for the Baltic Sea (SGSPATIAL), chaired by Michele Casini, Sweden, and Stefan Neuenfeldt, Denmark, will meet in Gothenburg, Sweden, 4–7 November 2014 to:

a) Continue the analyses on the drivers of the changes in spatial distribution of commercially and ecologically important fish stocks (populations) in open sea and coastal areas, including connectivity between open sea and coastal areas, and between adjacent basins;

b) Further develop the fish spatial indicators of commercially and ecologically important fish species, specifically addressing the MSFD;

c) Develop process models and update existing spatially explicit models for the population dynamics of commercial fish and major ecosystem components;

d) Quantify the horizontal and vertical small-scale properties in the spatial distributions of commercially and ecologically important species, such as schools size and inter-schools distance, different types of aggregation in relation to environmental parameters, and individual vertical and horizontal movements.

SGSPATIAL will report by 15 December (via SSGRSP) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.

Supporting information Priority The work of this SG will support the current ICES initiative to provide

multispecies advice and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). This will provide a step forward, and add the spatial dimension, to the implementation of an integrated advice and ecosystem approach in the Baltic Sea. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Scientific justification The Baltic Sea is in the front line in terms of ecosystem analyses to be used in stock assessment and management. The integration of spatial consideration in this process would add a further dimension and is therefore of fundamental importance.

In June 2012, ICES has provided for the first time an example of multispecies advice for the Baltic Sea to the EU Commission. However, both ICES and the EU Commission have pointed out that a sound multispecies fisheries management should consider the changes in spatial distribution of the interacting species. Currently, spatial considerations cannot be incorporated in the ICES multispecies advice because of the lack of sufficient and robust knowledge on the fish populations’ spatial patterns and the driving mechanisms of their spatial distribution.

106 |

Information about the changes in the spatial distribution of fish populations is also important for an ecosystem approach to the management of human activities, as directly specified in the MSFD. SGSPATIAL could serve as platform for an international coordination among the Member States to deal with motile fish species which have wide distribution and occur across the boundary of national waters, using the existing spatially-explicit data from ICES-coordinated international surveys and commercial vessels.

SGSPATIAL is specifically intended to provide the stock assessment working groups and ICES with information on the changes in spatial distribution of exploited stocks that can be directly used in single-species and multi-species assessment and fisheries advice.

It is intended, during the life period of the SGSPATIAL, to deal also with non-commercial species to further fulfil the goal of an ecosystem approach.

Resource requirements Assistance of the ICES Data Centre in the extraction and management of the data. One Data Centre expert from ICES would be beneficial to the SG, before and during the meeting.

Participants The Group is expected to be attended by some 10-15 members and guests.




Relevant to the work of ACOM and SCICOM


SSGSRP, all SG/WGs related to Baltic Sea issues (as WGBFAS, WGBIFS, WGIAB, SGEH, WGSAM), WGINOSE, WGNARS, WGISDAA, WGISUR


The work of this group is closely aligned with the priorities and work of HELCOM and OSPAR, BONUS and EU MSFD.

SSGRSP multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates

ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea (WGIAB)

2012/MA2/SSGRSP03 The ICES/HELCOM Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the Baltic Sea (WGIAB), chaired by Lena Bergström, Sweden, Laura Uusitalo*, Finland, and Christian Möllmann*, Germany, will meet in Kiel, Germany, 10–14 February 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGIAB will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 20 May 2014 to SSGRSP.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Increase understanding of Baltic Sea ecosystem structure and functioning, with a focus on species interactions and trends over different temporal

An Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) considers the physical, chemical and biological environment, including all trophic levels and biological diversity as well as

1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 3.2 3-year -Research articles on the topic of the ToR -Ecosystem overviews/fact sheets (Format to be developed further) -Contribution to

| 107

and spatial scales, and the identification of key species and processes for maintaining functioning ecosystems and sustainable use of these;

socio-economic factors and treats fish and fisheries as an integral part of the environment. This ToR will provide the detailed knowledge required as input to fisheries management (ToR b), as well as the IEA management cycle for the Baltic Sea (ToR c).

interrim report 2013, 2014 -Final report in 2015

b Support development of a framework for integrated advice for fisheries management, by data exchange, model evaluation and scientific interaction with the Baltic Sea assessment working groups.

WGIAB serves as a counterpart to the fish stock assessment working groups and provides these with information on the biotic and abiotic compartments of the ecosystems. A key task of WGIAB is to serve as a communication and organisation platform between the different science organisations involved in the area, through cooperation between ICES and HELCOM, as well as with EU and BONUS projects.

3.1, 3.2 3-year - Annual recommendations serving as input to the Baltic Sea assessment working groups. - Contribution to interrim report 2013, 2014 -Final report in 2015

c Further develop the integrated ecosystem assessment cycle, and apply case studies to investigate trade-offs between different management objectives, including effects on ecosystem services and effects at different spatial and temporal scales.

Key to implementing an ecosystem approach to management of marine resources is the development of an IEA management cycle. This ToR will strive to develop and apply a management cycle as a first step towards implementing the ecosystem approach in the Baltic Sea.

1.1, 2.1,3.1,3.2, 3.4

3-year Research articles on the topic of the ToR -Contribution to interrim report 2013, 2014 -Final report in 2015.

d Identify potential regional observing assets (both inside and outside of ICES) necessary to support development of regional ecosystems assessments.

This ToR is in response to a request from WKOOI. The addition of ToRs to the Regional Seas WGs will allow regional conside-ration of the plat-

3.1, 3.2 3-year - Contribution to interrim report 2013, 2014 -Final report in 2015

108 |

forms needed to support regional advice. This will ensure that the Regional Seas WGs define their observing needs to support the regional implemen-tation of the Eco-system Approach.

e Produce an approach for monitoring and developing assessment methods for the top three anthropogenic pressures on ecological characteristics described in the national MSFD reports (submitted in October 2012) for the appropriate regions.

The integrated ecosystem assessment groups are the key location in ICES for method development and the provision of tools for integrated ecosystem advice. ACOM is now looking forward towards receiving requests on MSFD, beyond the traditional single sectoral issues. EU member states have inter alia reported (in Oct 2012) on the (top three) pressures for each ecological characteristic through the MSFD in their initial assessment reports. The integrated ecosystem assessment groups are requested to prioritise the top three pressures for their regions, based on these reports. After this prioritisation, the integrated assessment groups are asked to develop assessment methods and monitoring for these pressures. The groups should ensure that they take account of and coordinate their work with for existing monitoring and assessment initiatives, for instance carried out by OSPAR (COBAM, CEMP) and

2.1, 3.1, 3.2 3-year - Contribution to interrim report 2013, 2014 -Final report in 2015

| 109

HELCOM (the MORE project and core indicators activity).


Year 1 Annual meeting, intersessional work on research articles, Focus on ToR a and b

Year 2 Annual meeting, intersessional work on research articles, Focus on ToR b and c

Year 3 Annual meeting, intersessional work on research articles Focus on ToR b and c


Priority WGIAB aims to conduct and further develop Integrated Ecosystem Assessment cycles for the different subsystems of the Baltic Sea, in support of implementing the ecosystem approach in the Baltic Sea.

Resource requirements Assistance of the Secretariat in maintaining and exchanging information and requirements data to potential participants. Assistance of especially the ICES Data Center to collect and store relevant data series.

Justification of 2013 venue (in a non-ICES Member Country)

The meeting in 2013 will be hosted by dr Alberto Barausse at LASA - Environmental Systems Analysis Lab, Dept. Ind. Eng. (DII), University of Padova, Italy. The Venue is expected to benefit the EG by strengthening existing scientific cooperation between LASA and EG members in the further development of methods and models for an Integrated Ecosystem Assessment framework, also enabling evaluation of the developing ICES IEA framework on a Mediterranean data set, as well as cross-comparisons between the Baltic Sea and Adriatic Sea ecosystems.





Relevant to the work of ACOM and SCICOM.


SSGSRP, all SG/Gs related to Baltic Sea issues, WGINOSE, WGNARS, WGEAWESS, WGSAM, SGIMM.


HELCOM, BONUS, EU DGs.

SSGRSP workshops

No workshops proposed.

110 |

SSGRSP EGs – Multi-annual ToR groups – new meeting dates and venues of groups already approved

C.RES CODE EG NAME &

ACRONYM CHAIR MEETING

DATE VENUE

1ST YEAR

OF MA

TOR

MEETING

2ND

YEAR OF

MA TOR

MEETING

3RD

YEAR OF

MA TOR

MEETING

2012/MA2/SSGRSP05 Working Group on the Integrated Assessments of the Norwegian Sea (WGINOR)

Geir Huse, Norway & Guðmundur J. Óskarsson, Iceland

18–22 August 2014

Torshavn, Faroe Islands

XX

2012/MA2/SSGRSP07 Working Group on Comparative Analyses between European Atlantic and Mediterranean Ecosystems to move towards an Ecosystem Based Approach to Fisheries (WGCOMEDA)

Marta Coll*, Spain, and Manuel Hidalgo*, Spain and Hilmar Hinz*, Spain

1-4 April 2014

Barcelona, Spain

X

SSGRSP EGs to be dissolved in 2014

None.

| 111

SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem Surveys Science and Technology (SSGESST) Resolutions 2013

SSGESST Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS)

Working Group on International Deep Pelagic Ecosystem Surveys (WGIDEEPS) (formerly the Working Group on Redfish Surveys (WGRS)

2013/MA2/SSGESST01 The Working Group on International Deep Pelagic Ecosystem Surveys (WGIDEEPS), formerly the Working Group on Redfish Surveys (WGRS), Co-Chaired by Kristjan Kristinsson, Iceland and Chair to be decided in January 2015 will meet in ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark, 28-30 January 2014; in Tromsø, Noway, 3–5 February 2015; in (dates and venue be decided) August 2015; in (dates and venue to be decided) September 2015 to:

WGIDEEPS will report on the activities of 2014 (the first year) by 1 March 2014 and in 2015 by 27 March 2015 and XXXXX to SSGESST, SCICOM & ACOM.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Transfer survey data from 2011 international redfish surveys coordinated by the group to ICES databases (January 2014 meeting)

Data is now stored by individual nations/participants. It is important to have the data within common database system for coordinated archiving and extraction.

Year 1 (2014)

WGIDEEPS 2104 report

chapter

database (various ICES databases)

15 March 2014

SSGESST

b Transfer survey data from other years, when ICES data centre is ready

2015 Updated data base at ICES data centre

c Develop the group strategy towards redfish assessment and ecosystem approach (January 2014 meeting). To evaluate and revise the data collection in the surveys and assessment methodologies used for the deep-water redfish stocks (January 2014 meeting).

The data collected during the surveys are used for assessment of the stocks in the areas and to map their horizontal and vertical distribution. No analytical assessment is conducted for the stocks in the Irminger Sea and their statuses are assessed from biomass trends derived from the survey indices. Little additional data are collected to understand the

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162,

Year 1 (2014)

WGIDEEPS 2014 report chapter 15 March 2014 SSGESST

112 |

trophic interaction in the areas. By broadening the work of the WG towards redfish assessment and the study of the meso-pelagic ecosystem of the North Atlantic will lead to increased knowledge of the multiple components in the deep-water ecosystem of the areas and provide better assessment data for deep-water redfish.

d To publish the results from the deep-water ecological surveys in the Irminger Sea and the Norwegian Sea in a peer-reviewed journal (2016).

This ToR is conditional on available survey effort as outlined in ToR c.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

Year 3 (2016)

Manuscript ready for submission in 2016

e Plan the international deep pelagic ecosystem survey with special emphasis on redfish to be carried out in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters in June/July 2015 (January 2015 meeting)

The WG has been responsible for the planning of the international trawl/acoustic surveys on pelagic redfish (Sebastes mentella) in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters since 1994 and corresponding reports on the survey results.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

2015 WGIDEEPS 2015 – 1 report chapter 15 March 2015 SSGESST

f Plan the international deep pelagic ecosystem survey with special emphasis on redfish to be carried out in the Norwegian Sea and adjacent waters in August 2015 (January 2015 meeting)

The WG has been responsible for the planning of the international trawl/acoustic surveys on pelagic redfish (Sebastes mentella) in the Norwegian Sea since 2008 and corresponding reports on the survey results.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

Year 2 (2015)

WGIDEEPS 2015 – 1 report chapter 15 March 2015 SSGESST

g Prepare the report on the outcome of the

a) Provide sound, credible, timely, peer-

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145,

Year 2 (2015)

WGIDEEPS 2015 – 2

| 113

2015 Irminger Sea survey (August 2015 meeting)

reviewed, and integrated scientific advice on fishery management and the protection of the marine environment. b) Redfish indices are being used by assessment working groups.

152,153,161,162,

report 1 September 2015 SSGESST

h Prepare the report on the outcome of the 2015 Norwegian Sea survey (September 2015 meeting)

a) Provide sound, credible, timely, peer-reviewed, and integrated scientific advice on fishery management and the protection of the marine environment. b) Redfish indices are being used by assessment working groups.

112,113,121,123, 141,143,144,145, 152,153,161,162

Year 2 (2015)

WGIDEEPS 2015 – 3 report 1 October 2015 SSGESST

i Prepare the survey protocol for publication in the ICES series of survey protocols (SISP)

Year 2 (2015)

SISP manuscript


Year 1 Carry out ToR a, c

Year 2 Standard outputs for e-i.

Year 3 Carry out ToR b,c,d.


Priority Essential, primary basis for the advice on the stock status of pelagic redfish in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters and in the Norwegian Sea.


N/A

Participants <12 (incl. the cruise leaders of each vessel and the principle experts involved in abundance and biomass calculations and deep sea ecology).

Secretariat facilities N/A

Financial None.


NWWG, AFWG, WGDEC, WKFAST, WGOH, WGISDAA, WGBIODIV


SSGESST


NAFO, NEAFC.

114 |

Working Group on Target Classification (WGTC)

2013/MA2/SSGESST02 A Working Group on target classification (WGTC), chaired by Rolf Korneliussen*, Norway, will be established and will meet in Boston, MA, USA, from 3–4 May 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGTC will report on the activities of 2014 (the first year) by 4 July 2014 to SSGESST and WGFAST.

ToR descriptors



Expected Deliverable

a Review, summarize and report on the literature regarding (1). Acoustic systems currently used in fisheries research and surveys, (2) theoretical principles of target classification and (3) methods currently being practiced;

The ICES reference for acoustic target classification needs to be useful to practitioners of fisheries acoustics and ecosystem surveys that produce data for stock management. The first step in this process is to review, summarize and report on the literature regarding the methods that are currently used in fisheries research and surveys. The theoretical principles for target classification must be summarized, and the methods currently being practiced must be evaluated

2 year Review document presented to WGFAST in 2015

b Develop recommendations protocols for methods to be used for target classification during ecosystem surveys including (1) commonly used acoustic systems used in fisheries research and surveys (2) principles of classification,

There is a need for recommendations to the ICES community for methods to be used for acoustic target classification. These methods cover commonly used acoustic systems used in fisheries research and ecosystem surveys, and must

Year 3 Recommendations document presented to WGFAST in 2016

| 115

general and specific to these selected systems (3) standard protocols for classifying multifrequency data

be generic enough for application in systems not specifically considered. The methods must be practical and based on solid theoretical principles.

c Based on ToR a) and b) a CRR proposal should be developed for SCICOM consideration.

There is a recognized need to comprehensively document the current theory and recommended practice of acoustic target classification for use in Fisheries Science and ecosystem surveys, and publish them in an easily accessible report.

Year 3 CRR proposal submitted for consideration by SCICOM in Septebmer 2016


Year 1 Initiate the work

Year 2 Finalize the review (ToR a)

Year 3 Finalize the recommendations and prepare a CRR proposal (ToR b and c)


Priority Acoustic data are currently being collected from a variety of acoustic systems in many countries to address a range of ecosystem monitoring and stock management objectives. There is no ICES CRR covering this topic, but there are two CRR for related topics: CRR 238 (2000), Editor: Dave Reid, Report on Echo Trace Classification; and CRR 287 (2007), Editor John Anderson on Acoustic seabed classification of marine physical and biological landscapes. Note that the CRR-238 focused mostly on single-frequency and school-based methods, and that at the time work on multifrequency and wideband methods (while covered in that CRR) was more in development but now is much more mature. There is also a comprehensive report from an EU financed project: Fernandes, P.G., Korneliussen, R.J., Lebourges-Dhaussy, A., Masse, J., Iglesias, M., Diner, N., Ona, E., et al., 2006. The SIMFAMI project: species identification methods from acoustic multifrequency information. While much of the theoretical principles of those reports are still relevant, target classification is a fast moving field. The methods need to be expanded to include currently used technologies (e.g. multibeam and broadbandwidth systems). There exists an urgent need to evaluate recent work and to develop recommendations for protocols appropriate to target classification used in fisheries research and ecosystem surveys. This need has been identified by a number of ICES Member Countries and

116 |

observer countries and has been conveyed to WGFAST and SCICOM.

Resource requirements No new resources will be required for consideration of these topics at the relevant group meetings. Having overlaps with WGFAST meetings, this SG will draw on a larger resource pool of experts which will increases efficiency in completing the objectives and reducing travel costs.

Participants It is expected that ca. twenty five scientists from six ICES and three observer countries will participate in the study group. The following 18 have so far committed to the group. Rolf J Korneliussen (IMR, Norway), Stephane Gauthier (Canada), Ian McQuinn (Canada), Anne Lebourges Dhaussy (France), Pierre Petitgas (Ifremer, France), Laurent.Berger (Ifremer, France), Mathieu Doray (France) Michael Jech (NEFSC/NOAA, USA) Alex.DeRobertis (AFSC/NOAA, USA) Gareth Lawson (WHOI, USA), John Horne (AFSC/USA) Dezhang Chu (NWFSC/NOAA, USA) Sasha Faessler (Netherlands) Sergey Goncharov (VNIRO, Russia), Svetlana Kasatkina (ATLANTNIRO, Russia), Sophie Fielding (BAS, UK), Martin Cox (AAD, Australia), Rudy Kloser (CSIRO, Australia)

Secretariat facilities Share point site.

Financial No financial implications. Having overlaps with other meetings of expert groups of SCICOM increases efficiency and reduces travel costs.


The work will enable acoustic data colelction across a wider range of taxa, and thereby provide supporting information for the advisory groups.


The EG is closely linked to WGFAST, and is relevant to the survey groups that perform acoustic surveys, and in particular those that collect information on several taxa and across several trophic levels


No direct linkages, however, organizations and institutes that organizes and perform acoustic surveys will benefit from the work. Software and hardware industrial suppliers may also be interested in the results.

| 117

Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics, Science and Technology (WGFAST)

2013/MA2/SSGESST03 The Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics, Science and Technology (WGFAST), chaired by Verena Trenkel* France, will meet in New Bedford, USA, 5–9 May 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGFAST will report on the activities of 2014 (the first year) by 30 June 2014 to SSGESST.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description Background Science

plan topics addressed

Duration Expected deliverables

a Produce a list of papers originating from the community of the WGFAST working group

The WGFAST community produces several papers evey year, and an update on recent WGFAST activities that acknolwedges ICES is important.

Year 1, 2 and 3

An updated list of references

b Present recent work within the topics “Applications of acoustic methods to characterize ecosystem”, “Acoustic properties of marine organisms“, “Behaviour“, and “Emerging technologies, methodologies, and protocols“.

Create a venue for informing the group members on recent activities and seeking input to furhter developement. An overview of the different contributions will be presented in the annual report.

1,2,3 Report

c Write a review to showcase the work of WGFAST with particular emphasis on its relevance to the ICES/ACOM strategis plans

After three years a review paper will be written to showcase the work of WGFAST

3 year Write a review paper showing the WGFAST contribution over the last 3 years

d Organize international acoustic symposium

Organize the 8th international symposium with working title "Marine Ecosystem Acoustics – observing the ocean interior across scales in support of integrated management"

2015 Symposium and special issue in ICES Journal of Marine Science

118 |

e Organize joint sessions at ICES ASC

Organize joint sessions with survey working groups to foster collaboration regarding the use of acoustics data and cross-fertilization

2 or, 3 Topic session at ICES ASC


Year 1 Produce the annual overview of recent developments within the field, including the list of contributions originating from the WGFAST community.

Year 2 Produce the annual overview of recent developments within the field, including the list of contributions originating from the WGFAST comunity. Organize the ICES international acoustics symposium (alternatively year 3). Organize a joint session at ICES ASC (alternatively year 3)

Year 3 Produce the annual overview of recent developments within the field, including the list of contributions originating from the WGFAST comunity. Produce a review paper to showcase the developments originating from WGFAST


Priority Fisheries acoustics and complementary technologies provide the necessary tools and methods to implement the ecosystem approach to fisheries management within ICES and research into their application and further development is vital.

Resource requirements No new resources will be required. Having overlaps with the other meetings of the Working, Planning, Study and Topic Groups increases efficiency and reduces travel costs.







The work in this group is closely aligned with complementary work in the WGFTFB working group. The work is of direct relevance to the survey planning groups within SSGESST and WGISUR.


The work of this group is closely aligned with similar work in FAO, the Acoustical Society of America, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Managament Organization and the American Fisheries Society.

| 119

ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB)

2013/MA2/SSGESST04 The ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), chaired by Pingguo He*, USA, and Petri Suuronen, FAO, will meet in New Bedford, USA, 5–9 May 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGFTFB will report on the activities of 2014 by 25 June 2014 to SSGESST.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Present recent investigations into and synthesize current knowledge of topics related to: “Design, planning, and testing of fishing gears used in abundance estimation”; “Selective fishing gears for bycatch and discard reductions”; “Environmentally benign fishing gears and methods” and summary of research activities by nation

Through open sessions and focused, multiyear topic groups, the Working Group provides opportunities for collaboratively developing research proposals, producing reports and manuscripts, and creating techncial manuals on current developments and innovations.

21, 34, primarily; others are possible (e.g. 11,133, 223, 33, et al.)

3 Years ICES report;

b Organize an FAO hosted FAO-ICES mini-symposium with thematic issues as described in the Barange-Matthiesen exchange of letters

Under mutual agreement between ICES and FAO, FAO develops and leads a mini-symposium of relevant topics, while also continuing ICES commitments

21, 34 Year 3 FAO report, ICES report

c Present recent investigations into topics of mutual interest between WGFTFB and WGFAST

Every third year, WGFAST and WGFTFB meet for one day to share information on topics of mutual interest (JFATB)

16, 21 Year 1 JFATB report

D Every second year, describe changes in EU fishing fleets and effort relevant to assessment working groups

WGFTFB has produced this advice for several years and been encouraged to continue by Assessment WGs

Years 1, 3 Reports to individual EGs

e Organize an ICES-sponsored international fishing technology Symposium

Organize the Third ICES Symposium of Fish Behaviour

Fall 2017 (outside scope of this Multiannual TOR)

Symposium and special issue in ICES Journal of Marine Science

120 |

F Develop survey and gear expertise support for survey working groups via ASC and survey group meetings

SSGESST has identified gear expertise gaps in survey working groups.

Year 1,2 Identify WGFTFB members who can fulfill advisory roles ; Review survey protocols.


Year 1 Produce the annual report; hold joint session with WGFAST; inform assessment EGs on fleet effort changes; connect to survey WGs

Year 2 Produce annual report; Continue development of relationships with survey EGs

Year 3 Produce the annual report; inform assessment EGs on fleet effort changes; organize FAO mini-symposium


Priority The activities of WGFTFB will provide ICES with knwledge and expertise on issues related to the ecosystem effects of fisheries, especially the evaluation and reduction of the impact of fishing on marine resources and ecosystems and the sustainable use of ecosystems and other topics related to the performance of fishing gears and survey gears.






Linkages to advisory groups via reports on changes to fleets and fleet effort


There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGESST, WGFAST, and the survey groups.


The WG is jointly sponsored with the FAO.

| 121

Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys (WGBEAM)

2013/MA2/SSGESST05 The Working Group on Beam Trawl Surveys (WGBEAM), chaired by Kelle Moreau*, Belgium, will meet in Hamburg, Germany, 6–9 May 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGBEAM will report on the activities of 2014 by 10 July 2014 to SCICOM, WGISUR and ACOM.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Tabulate, report and evaluate population abundance indices by age-group for sole and plaice and other species if required in the North Sea, Division VIIa and Divisions VIId-g, taking into account the key issues involved in the index calculation.

Required to support indices for assessements

113, 121, 141, 144, 161, 162, 173, 211, 251, 252, 311, 321

Annually WG report chapter

b Further coordinate and standardize offshore and coastal beam trawl surveys in the North Sea and Divisions VIIa, VIId-g, VIIIa-b and the Adraitic, and update and publish athe standard as a SISP protocol.

Required to ensure consistent approach within and between areas to meet EU directives.

113, 121, 141, 144, 161, 162, 173, 211, 251, 252, 311, 321

Annually WG report chapter inshore manual offshore manual database (DATRAS)

c Analyse the changes in mean length-at-age for sole in the North Sea, English Channel, Bristol Channel and Irish Sea.

a). The large WGBEAM dataset has the potential to elucidate temporal and spatial changes in population parameters. b). Indices are being used by assesements working groups and any changes to age structure of species of interest need to be investigated.

145 Expected output in 2015

WGBEAM 2014 update and ultimatley ASC presentation

d Provide index calculations based on DATRAS for plaice and sole for the North Sea.


141, 143, 144 2 years for sole 3 years for plaice

Provision of new indice series to WGNSSK

122 |

e Assess the opportunities for providing plaice and sole index calculations based on DATRAS for all other areas.


141, 143, 144 3 years Provision of new index series to relevant WGs


Year 1 Annual standard outputs for a,b. Continue analysis for ToR c,d,e.

Year 2 Annual standard outputs for a,b. Continue analysis for ToR c,d,e sole index output for North Sea.

Year 3 Annual standard outputs for a,b. Combine analysis for previous year and report ToR c.


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to

the ecosystem affects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.








There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of the SSGESST. It is also very relevant to the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fisheries.


The work of this group is closely aligned with similar work in FAO.

| 123

Working Group on North-east Atlantic continental slope surveys (WGNEACS)

2013/MA2/SSGESST06 The Working Group on North-east Atlantic continental slope surveys (WGNEACS), chaired by Rasmus Hedeholm*, Greenland, will work by correspondence/intersessionally in 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGNEACS will report on the activities of 2014 by 30 November 2014 to SCICOM.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION

EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Coordinate and evaluate new survey initiatives.

There is an unsurveyed commercial fishing area targeting Greenland halibut northwest of Iceland. Areas in Faroese waters and surrounding waters that are not well covered.

1 Advice on better Survey coverage of deep-sea resources.

b Evaluate current surveys in relation to ecosystem monitoring.

Include "ecosystem survey components" in existing surveys.

3 Countribute to advice on deep-sea ecoregion. Report to WGDEC, NWWG

c Compare and possibly impliment joint indices on deepwater species.

Such work has been initiated on Greenland halibut data from the Icelandic and Greenlandic survey. However, the approach would possibly be applicable to other species.

2 Combined indices of stock trends Report to WGDEEP, NWWG, AFWG.

d Evaluate if survey data allows for detection of migrations. Also if they can reviel shift in distribution of key speceis.

Stock structure of Greenland halibut and redfish and survey results suggest migration between EEZ's. Using length and area specific data some patterns may emerge.

3 Better defination of stock structure. Joint publications (if data allow for that)

124 |

e Continue work on sampling protocols for surveys by Faroe, Greenland, Iceland and Norway, and attempt to standardize the protocols as much as possible. Special attention should be given to species identification, especially regarding non-target species. The protocol will be published as a SISP.

Facilitate use of data accross national surveys. Joint publications (in case of interesting findings)

3 Standardized measurment methods.

f Planing of deepsea surveys in the central and southern areas as defined in earlier WGNEACS reports (Approximatly the slope from Scotland to Portugal, and the Asoras).

Coordinated deep-sea surveys are currently being applied for in EU waters that have been a central subject for WGNEACS in the past. WGNEACS will again be the correct body for further planning of these surveys when they are at the stage of being realized.

3 Deep-sea surveys in central and southern WGNEACS areas


The task is to coordinate as much as practically possible about surveys on deep-sea recourses in the NE Atlantic. The main focus the coming 3 years is on surveys in the Nordic area (Greenland, Iceland, The Faroese and Norway). Work is planned regarding un-surveyed areas, ecosystem monitoring, joint indices on deepwater species, detection of migrations, and standardization of measuring methods between countries.

Additionally coordinated deep-sea surveys are currently being applied for in EU waters that have been a central subject for WGNEACS in the past. WGNEACS will again be the correct body for further planning of these surveys when they are at the stage of being realized.

Year 1 Tentative plan for new surveys in ToR a. Start evaluation of current surveys regarding ecosystem monitoring and suggest for improvements ToR b. Start evaluation of current surveys regarding migrations ToR c. Continue analysis for ToR c and e. React to eventual needs of central and/or southern surveys in ToR f.

Year 2 Complete work on combined indices ToR c. Continue analysis for ToR b, d and e. React to eventual needs of central and/or southern surveys in ToR f.

Year 3 Sum up ToR b, d and e. React to eventual needs of central and/or southern surveys in ToR f.


| 125

Priority High. The work of the Group is essential if ICES is to collate even the most basic data and to progress the application of assessment techniques.

Resource requirements None specific, beyond the need for members to prepare for and participate in the meeting. Some of the international deep-water surveys are subject to funding





This working group would fulfil the need of internationally coordinating the existing dedicated deep-water surveys that are currently being carried out along the European continental shelf and Nordic seas. These internationally coordinated deep-water surveys would be a potential source of abundance indices for roundnose grenadier, black scabbardfish, deep-water sharks, Greenland halibut, bluemouth redfish, greater silver smelt and greater forkbeard and also be a platform for carrying out studies of seamounts identified by WGDEC and any related studies of the efficacy of closed areas. Close links with WGDEEP and WGEF and also for the Nordic deep-water surveys NWWG and AFWG to provide abundance indices on deep-water species including deep-water sharks; links with WGDEC for the collection and analysis of environmental data and deep-water habitat characterization.


Links with IBTS in order to benefit from expertise in the international coordination of trawl surveys.


NEAFC

126 |

SSGESST multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates

IBTSWG Revised Suggested ToRs for 2014

2012/MA2/SSGESST07 The International Bottom Trawl Survey Working Group (IBTSWG), chaired by Anne Sell*, Germany, will meet in Lisbon, Portugal, from 8–12 April 2013 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below:

Next meetings (Interim reports only)

The next meeting of the IBTSWG will take place in Hamburg, Germany from 31 March to 4 April 2014.

IBTSWG will report on the activities of 2014 (second year) by 1 June 2014.

ToR Description Background Science plan topics addressed

Duration Expected deliverables

a Coordination and reporting of North Sea and Northeastern Atlantic surveys, including appropriate field sampling in accordance to the EU Data Collection Framework

Intersessional planning of Q1- and Q3- surveys; communication of coordinator with cruise leaders; combing the results of individual nations into an overall survey summary.

113, 121, 141, 144, 161, 162, 173, 211, 251, 252, 311, 321

Recurrent annual update

1) Survey summary including collected data and description of alterations to the plan, to relevant assessment-WGs (WGHMM, WGCSE, WGNEW, WGNSSK, HAWG, WGDEEP, WGEF, WGEEL, WGCEPH, WGHANSA) and SCICOM.

2) Indices for the relevant species to assessment WGs (see above)

3) Planning of the upcoming surveys for the survey coordinators and cruise leaders.

b Review IBTS manuals and consider additional updates and improvements in survey design and standardization

Intersessional activity, ongoing in order to improve survey quality

161, 162, 321 Permanently ongoing

Updated version of survey manual, whenever substantial changes are made (intersessionally)

| 127

c Address DATRAS-related topics in cooperation with DUAP: data quality checks and the progress in re-uploading corrected datasets, quality checks of indices calculated, and prioritizing further developments in DATRAS. Step 2: Adressing action points as listed in IBTSWG report 2013, Action List.

Issues with data handling, data requests or challenges with re-uploading of historical or corrected data to DATRAS have been identified and solutions are being developed

161, 162, 321 Multi-annual activity, supported by WKDATR workshop in January of 2013 to solve issues with highest priorities;

Prioritized list of issues and suggestion for solutions and for quality checking routines, as well as definition of possible new DATRAS products, submitted to DATRAS group at ICES (Compare Action List in 2013 report). Once data quality control routines are estabished, annual check of recent survey data.

d Produce a swept-area-based index (instead of haul time-based index) to be explored in collaboration with the WGISDAA

Swept-area is suggested as an alternative to haul time, because it would remove possible bias resulting from different riggings or gear specifications. In order to evaluate the effect changing to new indices, IBTSWG intends to liase with relevant stock coordinators or assessment groups at ICES.

141, 144 3 years Manuscript for paper or CRR, analysing the potential advantages of moving to swept-area-based standardization. To be presented to assessment groups for evaluation by 2015.

e Compile status quo, report and propose ways forward in standardization, on the different materials and specifications of the GOVs and gears currently used by the IBTS participants. Analyse and report on the effect of variable sweep length and standardization on the uses in the IBTS.

Some aspects of the gear applied in the surveys are not required to be standardized. The effect of these variations are to be evaluated. Partly, different standards for sweep lengths have been applied in Q1 vs. Q3 surveys. (For this ToR, IBTS seeks support from gear technology experts and welcomes their contribution.)

141,144 3 years Technical paper / manuscript.

128 |

f Ensure that the most recent versions of each survey manual is submitted to the Series of ICES Survey Protocols (SISP)

The Series of ICES Survey Protocols (SISP) is an online, web-accessible series of ecosystem (fishery) survey manuals, covering the protocols and procedures used in ICES coordinated fisheries and ecosystem surveys, including trawl, acoustic, and ichthyoplankton surveys (http://www.ices.dk/products/surveyprotocols.asp). The aim is to have all ICES coordinated surveys allocated an ISSN number and become openly available.

As appropriate Updates of SISP.

Revised Work plan

Year 1 (2013)

Datras Workshop, adjustment of Quality-checking Routines (ToR c); laise with stock coordinators and assessment groups, evaluate data availability for gear parameters in Datras and in national databases (ToR d); Compile status quo, Seek and collate input from gear experts (ToR e); Evaluate output from WKECES 2012 (ToR f).

Year 2 Evaluate the effect of changing to swept-area-based indices for additional examples/ stocks, particularly linked to WGISDAA and benchmark process (ToR d). Continue analyses of different GOV configurations (ToR e).

Year 3 Continue to evaluate the effect of chaning to swept-area-based indiced for additional examples/ stocks (ToR d). Continue analyses of different GOV configurations (ToR e).

Recurrent annual activity

Updates for ToRs a and c. Additionally: ToRs a and b ongoing intersessionally.


Priority Essential, The general need for monitoring fish abundance using surveys is evident in relation to fish stock assessments, and it has increasing importance in relation to MSFD GES descriptors biodiversity, foodwebs, and bottom integrity. Besides the relation of fish abundance with descriptor 3 Exploited stocks.


ToR a) This is a core function of the IBTSWG, an important forum for coordination and evaluation of standardized bottom trawl surveys in the Eastern Atlantic Area, to ensure good survey coverage in relation to stocks and areas. inter-calibration work. and high quality of data. The group also provides a brief overview the result of the individual surveys undertaken during the previous year and in the firts quarter of the ongoing year. IBTSWG will continue to review feedback and implement modifications, including coordination and implementing new requirements of the EU DCF. ToR b + f) To ensure quality and traceability of sampling protocols, changes in the design and procedures used in the surveys coordinated by the IBTSWG have tobe implemented and documented in detail in the IBTS manuals, which have to be made available via the ICES webpage.

http://www.ices.dk/products/surveyprotocols.asp

http://www.ices.dk/products/surveyprotocols.asp

| 129

ToR c) DATRAS has become the core database containing the data obtained in the national IBTSurveys, the The development of DATRAS needs to be evaluated annually, and the group is also the forum to discuss with ICES Data Centre and agree on the priority of desired further developments. ToR d) The change from an index based on haul duration as effort unit to a swept area-based index will be explored to improve robustness of the indices (considered as adequate for multiannual ToR) ToR e) Further efforts to standardize gears due to the concerns on availability of materials used, and “technological creep” (considered also multianual).


A five day IBTS meeting. Prepared documents from members following ToR Leaders identified above. Eight days Chair’s time to edit. It is estimated that each ToR will require at least 8 hours preparation.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 20–25 members and guests. All members will participate on the discussion of all ToRs, but ToRs leaders have been identified and appointed to intersessionally prepare the work and lead it in the meeting.


Sharepoint plus normal secretariat support.



ACOM. IBTS indices are used in the assessment of multiple stocks.


There are relations with other botttom trawl surveys (WGBEAM, WGBIFS) that also use DATRAS as the international repository for its data (WGDIM, DUAP). There are also a linkages with Assessment WGs using IBTS indices. Also relevant to the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fisheries.


IOC. GOOS.

SSGESST annual groups

Working Group on Improving use of Survey Data for Assessment and Advice (WGISDAA)

2013/2/SSGESST07 The Working Group on Improving use of Survey Data for Assessment and Advice (WGISDAA) chaired by David Reid*, Ireland and Stephen Smith, Canada, will meet Nantes, France, 21–23 January 2014. This schedule will allow for one or more joint sessions with the Working Group on Integrating Surveys for the Ecosystem Approach (WGISUR) to work on TOR a) below.

a) Developing multifunction surveys and their impact on fish stock data acquisition.

b) Develop a framework and methodology for the analysis of fishery-independent survey information for stock assessment and advisory purposes.

c) Explore and suggest refinements to current survey designs that will improve the quality of data used to support assessment and advisory processes.

d) Investigate methods of combining and or improving indices across multiple surveys and other ways of consolidating survey-derived data.

e) Develop methods for use of survey derived indices and other survey data products as a basis for scientific advice.

130 |

f) Request priority case studies from assessment working groups to support the initial activities of the WG.

WGISDAA will report by 1 April 2014 to the attention of the SSGESST.


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem affects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.


Term of Reference a) Several countries are conducting or have recently completed significant studies in this area and the subject would benefit from a review of progress and an evaluation of the results obtained. The last review of significant studies occurred in 1996 by the ICES Study Group on Unaccounted Mortalities. A review of more recent work will determine the need for revision and update on planning and methodology for studying this subject. Term of Reference b) All fishing activities have influences that extend beyond removing target species. The approach recommended by FAO is that responsible fisheries technology should achieve management objectives with a minimum of side effects and that they should be subject to ongoing review. WGFTFB members and others are currently undertaking a range of research programmes to provide the means to minimize side effects.





None.





There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of the SSGESST. It is also very relevant to the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fisheries (WGECO).


The work of this group is closely aligned with similar work in FAO and in the Census of Marine Life Programme.

Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS)

2013/2/SSGESST08 The Baltic International Fish Survey Working Group (WGBIFS), chaired by Olavi Kaljuste, Sweden, will meet in Gdynia, Poland, 24–28 March 2014 to:

a ) Combine and analyse the results of spring and autumn 2013 acoustic surveys and experiments and report to WGBFAS;

b ) Update the BIAS and BASS hydroacoustic databases; c ) Plan and decide on acoustic surveys and experiments to be conducted in

autumn 2014 and spring 2015;

| 131

d ) Discuss the results from BITS surveys performed in autumn 2013 and spring 2014 and evaluate the characteristics of TVL and TVS standard gears used in BITS;

e ) Plan and decide on demersal trawl surveys and experiments to be conducted in autumn 2014 and spring 2015;

f ) Update and correct the Tow Database; g ) Review and update the Baltic International Trawl Survey (BITS) SISP

manual; h ) Review and update the SISP manual of International Baltic Acoustic

Surveys; i ) Discuss the indices of acoustic surveys based on different methods for

combining the data of fishing stations in compilation of acoustic indices and draft recommendations as appropriate;

j ) Evaluate the proportion of WBSS in SD 25 and SD 26 during the BIAS; k ) Coordinate stomach sampling programme in the Baltic International Trawl

Survey (BITS); l ) Evaluate new information on how to estimate the acoustic survey sampling

variance.

WGBIFS will report by 15 May 2014 (via SSGESST) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.


Priority The scientific surveys coordinated by this Group provide major fishery-independent tuning information for the assessment of several fish stocks in the Baltic Sea. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Scientific justification The main objective of WGBIFS is to coordinate and standardize national research surveys in the Baltic for the benefit of accurate resource assessment of Baltic and Kattegat fish stocks. From 1996 to 2003 attention has been put on evaluations of traditional surveys, introduction of survey manuals and consideration of sampling design and standard gears as well as coordinated data exchange format. Since 1995 activities have been devoted to coordinate international coordinated demersal trawl surveys using the new standard gear TV3. The most important future activities are to combine and analyse the time-series of tuning indices for the Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group, to develope a database for disaggregated hydro-acoustic data, and plan and decide on surveys and experiments to be conducted.







ACOM: The quality of stock assessments and management advice of Baltic herring, sprat, cod and flatfish stocks.


WGBFAS, WGFAST, SSGESST

132 |


No direct linkage to other organizations.

Working Group on Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg Surveys (WGMEGS)

2013/2/SSGESST09 The Working Group on Mackerel and Horse Mackerel Egg Surveys (WGMEGS), chaired by Cindy van Damme, the Netherlands and Finlay Burns, Scotland (UK) will meet in Reykjavik, MRI, Iceland, 7–11 April 2014 to:

g ) Analyse and evaluate the results of the 2013 mackerel and horse mackerel egg surveys in the western and southern areas; i ) calculate the total seasonal stage 1 egg production estimates for

mackerel separately for the western and southern areas; ii ) calculate the total seasonal stage 1 egg production estimates for the

western horse mackerel stock (AEPM) and for southern stock (DEPM); iii ) analyse and evaluate the results of the mackerel and horse mackerel

fecundity and mackerel atresia sampling in the western and southern areas;

iv ) analyse and evaluate the suitability of the spawning fraction and batch fecundity data collected during the 2013 enhanced DEPM sampling programme within periods 3 and 5 for both species;

v ) provide estimates of the spawning-stock biomass of mackerel, using stage 1 egg production estimates and the estimates of fecundity and atresia, separately for the western and southern areas;

vi ) provide estimates of the spawning-stock biomass of horse mackerel using production estimates and the estimates of batch fecundity and spawning frequency for southern stock;

vii ) evaluate the quality and reliability of the 2013 survey in the light of the previous surveys and to evaluate the reliability of the preliminary estimates calculated in 2013 against the final estimates.

h ) Plan and coordinate the 2014 North Sea mackerel egg survey. i ) Evaluate and update SISP protocol, if necessary.

WGMEGS will report by 1 June 2014 to the attention of the SSGESST, WGISUR, ACOM and WGWIDE.


Priority Essential. The egg survey provides the only fishery-independent stock data used in the assessment for Northeast Atlantic mackerel and for both the western and the southern horse mackerel stocks. As part of the multiannual management plan the index for horse mackerel is directly used for the calculation of the TAC.


The egg survey provides the only fishery-independent stock estimates for Northeast Atlantic mackerel and for both the western and the southern horse mackerel stocks. The survey is based on a time-series since 1977.

Terms of reference a): WGMEGS will finally analyse and evaluate the results of the 2013 egg survey and calculate the egg production indices as well as the estimated realized fecundity and biomass estimation for the Western and Southern stock components of mackerel and the Southern stock of horse

| 133

mackerel as used in the assessment. This will be compared with the preliminary estimate that is presented in the year of the survey and will provide a measure of its reliability.

Term of reference b): The North Sea mackerel egg survey is the only available data source that provides an estimate of the North Sea component of the Northeast Atlantic mackerel stock.


None. The surveys are all part of the national programs. The surveys and associated meetings are also partially funded under the EU fisheries data directive.

Participants Usually ca. 20 participants from ICE, Far, N, NL, P, ESP, UK (E), UK (Scot), D, IRL.


None.



The survey data are prime inputs to the assessments which provide ACOM with information required for responding to requests for advice/information from NEAFC and EC DG MARE.


WKFATHOM, WGALES.


There have been a number of associated EU funded projects in the past.

Joint Session of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour [WGFTFB] and the Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics Science and Technology [WGFAST] – [JFATB]

2013/2/SSGESST10 A Joint Session of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour [WGFTFB] and the Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics Science and Technology [WGFAST] – [JFATB], chaired by Paul Winger*, (Memorial University, Canada) and Alex de Robertis* (NOAA, USA) will meet in New Bedford, Massachusetts, USA, Monday 5 May, 2014.

This one day workshop will focus on:

a ) Emerging acoustic and optical technologies, including significant field leading advances in technology, procedures and protocols. Application may include the study of fish behaviour, abundance estimation, and impacts of fishing gear on the ecosystem. Small updates to existing systems or the transfer of existing systems to new fisheries may also be considered, if space permits.

b ) Catchability issues in trawl-surveys, including factors known to bias estimates of population abundance and size-composition, survey trawl standardization, estimates of effective swept-area, etc.

JFATB will report by 30 June 2014 for the attention of the SCICOM Committee.

134 |


Priority Every 3 years, WGFTFB and WGFAST meet at a common location and date to facilitate networking, knowledge transfer, and shared scientific discovery. On one day, both expert groups meet in plenary for a joint session (called JFATB) on topics of common interest. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.

Scientific justification Term of Reference a): While a handful of reviews exist on optical and acoustic technology (e.g. Graham et al., 2004; Churnside et al., 2012), the pace of technological advancement is exceptionaly rapid. This session will provide an opportunity to disseminate latest developments in these emerging technologies, specifically as they apply to the study of fish behaviour, abundance estimation, trawl catchability, and impacts of fishing. Term of Reference b): Bottom-trawl surveys are an indispensable methodology for assessing the abundance of many fish stocks, and provides important information for the assessments. However, changes in “survey condition” or catchability, including coverage, fish behaviour, and degree of trawl standardization are known to introduce bias in abundance estimates, resulting in less accurate population indices and stock assessments. Many of these issues remain unresolved. This session will provide an opportunity to disseminate latest research and discuss emerging issues.


No additional resources are required.

Participants The workshop is normally attended by approximately 75-150 members and guests.




JFATB addresses challenges in acoustic and trawl surveys and has relevence to survey indices used in ICES advice. It is relevant to all Assessment Survey Groups.


JFATB is a collaboration between WGFAST and WGFTFB to promote cooperation and information transfer among the groups. It is also relevant to the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fisheries


The work of this group is closely aligned with similar work in FAO; WGFTFB is jointly sponsored by ICES and FAO.

References:

Churnside, J., Jech, M., and Tenningen, E. (Eds). 2012. Fishery applications of optical technologies. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 312. 91 pp.

Graham, N., Jones, E. G., and Reid, D. G. 2004. Review of technological advances for the study of fish behaviour in relation to demersal fishing trawls. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 61: 1036–1043.

| 135

Study Group on Electrical Trawling (SGELECTRA) will be renamed as the Working Group on Electrical Trawling (WGELECTRA)

2013/2MA2/SSGESST11 The Study Group on Electrical Trawling (SGELECTRA) will be renamed the Working Group on Electrical Trawling (WGELECTRA), chaired by Bob van Marlen*, The Netherlands and Bart Verschueren*, Belgium, and will meet in Ĳmuiden/Aberdeen/Rostock, Netherlands/Scotland/Germany, 22–24 October 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGELECTRA will report on the activities of 2014 (the first year) by 30 November 2014 to SSGESST.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN

TOPICS

ADDRESSED

DURATION EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Review knowledge of the effects of Electrical Fishing on the marine environment (changes to bycatch, impact on bottom habitat, impact on marine fauna, energy and climate related issues), in view of current technical developments and recent studies carried out in The Netherlands, Scotland, Belgium and Germany.


Need for better understanding of short-term and long-term effects on various species and life stages.

b) Advisory Requirements

Need for better understanding of thresholds of pulse characteristics and effects.

c) Requirements from other EGs

211, 214 year 1, 2, 3 Scientific paper(s) by year 3 to WGFTFB, WGCRAN, WGECO

b Evaluate the effect of a wide introduction of electric fishing, with respect to the economic impact, the ecosystem impact, fleet dynamics, the energy consumption, and the population dynamics of selected species.

a) Science Requirements Need for appraisal of effects of large-scale use. b) Advisory Requirements c) Requirements from other EGs

211, 214 year 1, 2, 3 Scientific paper(s) by year 3 to WGFTFB, WGCRAN, WGECO

c Conduct a pilot study on control and enforcement procedures for flatfish pulse trawling.

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements Possible needs for advice on limits to fishing capacity in view of ecosystem effects.

214 year 1 and 2

Pilot study report by year 2 to ACOM

136 |


d Evaluate the impacts of restrictions on pulse characteristics for shrimp pulse trawling and ground rope configurations.

a) Science Requirements b) Advisory Requirements Possible needs for advice on adeqaute limits to fishing capacity in view of ecosystem effects c) Requirements from other EGs

214 year 1 and 2

Report with data on limits on pulse characteristics for shrimp trawling by year 2 to ACOM

e Make an inventory of views on pulse fishing among various stake-holders in European member states.


Need for understanding views and attitudes

b) Advisory Requirements

Need for understanding management implications and policy issues.


214 year 1 and 2

Stakeholder views inventory report by year 2 to WGECO


Year 1 Fundamental research on the effect on pulse stimulation on xx, both juvenile and adults stages by PhD workers under guidance of ILVO and University Ghent, Belgium.

Pilot study on defined control and enforcement procedures for flatfish pulse trawling by IMARES, Netherlands.

Further tank experiments on wild-caught cod, using pulse simulators by IMARES, Netherlands, and ILVO, Belgium.

Study effects of pulse beam trawling on benthic invertebrates in EU-project BENTHIS by IMARES, Netherlands, and ILVO, Belgium.

Monitor economic performance of more vessels in EU-project BENTHIS by LEI, Netherlands.

Ongoing experiments with electrical shrimp fishing in Belgium and the Netherlands by ILVO Fishery, Belgium.

Study on effects on electric fishing for ensis by Marine Scotland Science, and the possibilities of using other, lower energy pulse systems than currently used.

Study to optimize the front part (particularly the groundrope) of shrimp-pulse-trawls with respect to a) maintaining commercial catch rates; b) reducing unwanted bycatch; c) reducing energy consumption in Germany by Thuenen Institute.

Comment on the technical development of an electrical twin-trawl system as part of the Dutch “Masterplan Duurzame Visserij” by IMARES Ĳmuiden, The Netherlands.

| 137

Make an inventory of views on pulse fishing among various stakeholders in European member states.








Evaluate the impacts of restrictions on pulse characteristics for the shrimp pulse fishery and consider recommendations for ground rope configurations by IMARES, Netherlands, Thuenen Institute Germany, and ILVO, Belgium.










Evaluate the impacts of restrictions on pulse characteristics for the shrimp pulse fishery and consider recommendations for ground rope configurations by IMARES, Netherlands, Thuenen Institute Germany, and ILVO, Belgium.

138 |




Priority Pulse trawling is used under national derogation on commercial vessels in growing extent in various ICES member states, e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, UK, and Germany. Per 01/01/2013 a total of 51 licences to use this technique were issued in The Nethrelands, , Belgium, UK, and Germany. ICES gave advice on the effects on the ecosystem of the implementation of this technique in fishing fleets in 2006, which was updated in 2009. The current activities of this Working Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem effects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.


The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and many of the resources are already committed, but for some tasks new resources ought to be found.







There is a very close working relationship with all the groups of SSGESST. It is very relevant to the Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) , WGCRAN, WGECO and WGNSSK.


| 139

Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for Sardine and Anchovy in ICES Areas VII, VIII and IX (WGACEGG)

2013/MA2/SSGESST12 The Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for Sardine and Anchovy in ICES Areas VIII and IX (WGACEGG), will be renamed the Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for Sardine and Anchovy in ICES Areas VII, VIII and IX (WGACEGG), chaired by Maria Manuel Angélico*, Portugal, and Pablo Carrera*, Spain, will meet in Vigo, Spain, from 17–21 November 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGACEGG will report on the activities of 2014 by 30 January 2015 to SSGESST.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Provide echo-integration and DEPM estimates for sardine and anchovy in ICES sub-Areas VII, VIII and IX

a) Advisory Requirements b) Requirements from other EGs

1.4, 1.6 1st to 3rd years

Biomass by age group and SSB estimations, distribution area.

WGHANSA

a,b Analyse sardine and anchovy distribution (adults and eggs), aggregation patterns and their habitats in European waters (Atlantic and Mediterranean waters)

a) Science Requirements b) Requirements from other EGs

1.4, 1.6 1st to 3rd year

Manuscript comparing sardine (and anchovy) population dynamics and habitats among European waters (third year) WGHANSA

c Provide information on hydrographical and ecosystem indicators such as temperature, salinity, plankton characteristics, top predators abundances, egg densities for sardine and anchovy and backscattering acoustic energy from pelagic fish


1.6.1, 1.6.2, 3.3.5

1st to 3rd years

Update grid maps Habitat characterization

d Investigate the use of the acoustic survey data to provide indices and/or biological information on other pelagic fish species such as

a) Science Requirements b) Requirements from other EGs

1.4, 1.6 2nd-3rd years

Biomass by age group estimations, distribution area. Third quarter of the year Updated survey protocols WGWIDE

140 |

mackerel, horse mackerel, boar fish and blue whiting by improving survey strategies, acoustic data post-processing and research on target strength

d Asses developments in the technologies and data analysis for the application of the Daily Egg production method (on Egg Production or adult parameters)


1.4 1st to 3rd years

Anchovy and Sardine egg production WGHANSA

e Develop CUFES as an indicator of anchovy and sardine egg production


1.4 2nd-3rd year

Anchovy and Sardine egg production WGHANSA

f Asses developments in technologies and data analysis for providing MSFD indicators and survey-base operational products for stakeholders



List of common possible MSFD indicators, including protocols to monitor them or to complement data from other surveys/monitoring programs Manuscripts describing practical implementation and results

g Coordination and standardization of the surveys



Annual plan for coordinated surveys Updated survey protocols

| 141


Year 1 General meeting, including joint session with MEDIAS (Mediterranean acoustic survey on small pelagic)

Session for acoustic data analysis and post-processing techniques

Session to improve egg production estimations, including new approaches for egg mortality, and the acoustic survey design aiming at to estimate sardine and anchovy egg production from CUFES and from Pairovets.

Session to analyse the proposed list of MSFD indicators by country (France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom), aiming at to choose a list of potential candidates to be measured during the WGACEGG surveys

Year 2 General meeting

Session to analyse progress on acoustic data analysis and post-processing techniques

Session on the analysis of discrepancies between egg and acoustic survey indices (in collaboration with WGISDAA)

Session to analyse progress on MSFD indicator measurements

Session to analyse possible survey-base operational products for stakeholders

Session to analyse progress on sardine and anchovy egg production estimates from CUFES and Pairovet

Work by correspondence with MEDIAS (Mediterranean acoustic survey on small pelagic)

Year 3 General meeting, including joint session with MEDIAS (Mediterranean acoustic survey on small pelagic). Session to analyse progress on acoustic data analysis and post-processing techniques Session to analyse progress on MSFD indicator measurements Session to analyse possible survey-base operational products for stakeholders

Session on the analysis of discrepancies between egg and acoustic survey indices (in collaboration with WGISDAA) Session to analyse progress on sardine and anchovy egg production estimates from CUFES and Pairovet


Priority The Group has high priority as it is responsible for providing direct monitoring for two major small pelagic stocks (sardine and anchovy) in this area. These stocks are distributed across national boundaries , including Mediterranean Sea. The most important part of its work is to standardize, plan and analyse all the relevant surveys and to integrate these together to give the best possible advice to the WGHANSA for integrated assessment purposes. In addition, acoustic surveys would also provide both useful biological information (age composition , distribution) of main pelagic species assessed in WGWIDE at the main spawning period and, in the medium term, a biomass indices estimated by echo-integration.



142 |




ACOM


WGHANSA, WGSPEC, WGFE, WGEGGS, WGFAST/WGFTFB, WGISUR, WGEAWESS, WGALES, WGWIDE, WGISDAA.


Other countries/institutions applying the DEPM, or carrying out integrated acoustic-egg surveys worldwide. Linkage with Mediterranean small pelagic acoustic committees (MEDIAS) is also expected.

SSGESST workshops

No workshops proposed.

SSGESST EG resolutions approved in 2011

2011/2/SSGESST13 Study Group on Turned 90˚ Codend Selectivity, focusing on Baltic Cod Selectivity (SGTCOD)

Bent Herrmann, Norway and Waldemar Moderhak, Poland

7–8 October 2013

2011/2/SSGESST15 Workshop on the identification of clupeoid larvae (WKIDCLUP)

Cindy van Damme*, the Netherlands, and Matthias Kloppmann*, Germany

1–5 September 2014, Hamburg, Germany

SSGESST EGs – Multi-annual ToR groups – new meeting dates and venues of groups already approved

C.RES. CODE EG NAME & ACRONYM CHAIR

MEETING DATE VENUE

2ND YEAR OF MA

TOR

MEETING

3RD YEAR OF MA

TOR

MEETING

2012/MA2/SSGESST11 Working Group 2 on North Sea Cod and Plaice Egg Surveys in the North Sea (WGEGGS2)

Christophe Loots

22 October 2014

Boulogne-sur-Mer, France

XX

2012/MA2/SSGESST15 Working Group on the Nephrops Surveys (WGNEPS)

Colm Lordan

4-6 November 2014

Lisbon, Portugal

XX

| 143

SSGESST EGs resolutions pending approval by SCICOM (reporting after the 2013 ASC)

2012/2/SSGESST19 Working Group on Integrating Surveys for the Ecosystem Approach (WGISUR)

Ingeborg de Boois*, Netherlands

21–23 January 2014

2012/2/SSGESST17 Working Group on Atlantic Fish Larvae and Eggs Surveys (WGALES)

Cindy van Damme*, the Netherlands, and Maria Manuel Angélico*, Portugal,

1–5 December 2014

2012/2/SSGESST18 Workshop on Egg staging, Fecundity and Atresia in Horse mackerel and Mackerel (WKFATHOM)

Cindy van Damme, The Netherlands

will meet twice in autumn 2015

SSGESST EGs to be dissolved in 2014

2011/2/SSGESST19 Workshop on Evaluation of current ecosystem surveys (WKECES)

Sven Kupschus, UK 20–22 November 2012

2011/2/SSGESST13 Study Group on Turned 90˚ Codend Selectivity, focusing on Baltic Cod Selectivity (SGTCOD)

Bent Herrmann, Norway and Waldemar Moderhak, Poland

7–8 October 2013

2011/2/SSGESST08 Study Group on Calibration of Acoustic Instruments in Fisheries Science (SGCal)

David A. Demer, USA 20 April 2013

2012/2/SSGESST02 Workshop on DATRAS data Review Priorities and checking Procedures (WKDATR)

Ingeborg de Boois, NL and Neil Holdsworth, ICES

29–31 January 2013

2012/2/SSGESST12 Workshop on Northeast Atlantic mackerel monitoring and methodologies including science and industry involvement (WKNAMMM)

Martin Pastoors, the Netherlands, and Leif Nøttestad, Norway

25 February – 1 March 2013

2012/2/SSGESST03 Workshop of SSGESST expert groups chairs (WKESST)

Karl-Johan Stæhr, Denmark, and Nils Olav Handegard, Norway

19–20 September 2013

144 |

SCICOM Steering Group on Sustainable Use of Ecosystems (SSGSUE) Resolutions 2013

SSGSUE Multi-annual groups (NEW RESOLUTIONS)

Working Group on Recruitment Forecasting in a Variable Environment (WGRFE)

2013/MA2/SSGSUE01 The Study Group on Recruitment Forecasting (SGRF) will be renamed the Working Group on Recruitment Forecasting in a Variable Environment (WGRFE), chaired by Samuel Subbey*, Norway, and Elizabeth Brooks*, USA, and will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16–20 June 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGRFE will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 1 August 2014 to SSGSUE.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



Bridge the gap between conceptualization and practical implementation of stock recruitment models which incorporate external drivers (physical and biological). Bring together a multidisciplinary working group with the scientific research expertise which will support and provide direct input to other working groups, thereby establishing the link between the science and advice.

Despite progress made within several ICES working groups, stock recruitment modelling and forecasting continues to be based on the classical Beverton–Holt and Ricker functions.

Although most study and working groups recognize the need for external drivers, this is seldom implemented in stock recruitment models.

111,144 3 years Generic, statistical and parsimonious stage-structured models for stock recruitment, with capabilities for seamless incorporation of environmental drivers, and multispecies considerations.

a Review approaches (modelling and methodologies) where stock recruitment models incorporate external drivers, along with all caveats. Identify and collate datasets for use in TOR (b).


141, 335, 336 Year 1 Review paper

b Develop prototype, statistical recruitment tools for selected stocks, based on stage-


141, 335, 336 Year 2 Prototype models developed on a common platform (e.g.

| 145

structured models which include environmental drivers and multispecies considerations

AD Model Builder)

c Testing, validation and documentation of prototype models.


141, 335, 336 Year 3 Tested and validated computer codes in R (ADMB) for stock recruitment forecasting. Documentation of methodologies and models


Year 1 Review state-of-the-art and caveats in developing recruitment forecasting models with environmental drivers

Year 2 Development of prototype, stage-structured models for recruitment forecasting for selected ices stocks

Year 3 Testing, validation and documentation of models and methodologies for peer review


Priority The activities of this group will build on those of SGRF, which has identified potential drawbacks with current approaches to recruitment forecasting, with the result that we are, among several other things, unable to forecast spikes in the recruitment dynamics. With an ever changing climatic/abiotic environment, the need for such a working group in the next few years cannot be overemphasized. The activities of the Group will contribute to ICES quest for an ecosystem based management of marine resources, especially in an ever changing environment. Hence these activities are considered to have high priority.


The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already functional, and resources are already committed. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.





There are obvious direct linkages to ACOM and all Assessment Working Groups, including WGSAM, WGMG, etc.


Since stock recruitment modelling and forecasting is relevant for all stocks, the activities of this WG will be relevant to all stock assessment groups within the ICES community.


146 |

Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG)

2013/MA2/SSGSUE02 The Stock Identification Methods Working Group (SIMWG), chaired by Lisa Kerr*, USA, will work by correspondence in 2014, the meeting dates and venue for the second meeting to be planned by the Chair in 2014.

SIMWG will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 1) by 1 August 2014 to SSGSUE.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

a Review advances in stock identification methods

a) Personnel commitment b) Regular communications c) Regular communication

Action 1.2.1

3 years (and continued)

EG report, and contribution to ICES ASC 2014

b Build a reference data base with updated information on known biological stocks for species of ICES interest

a) Advances in stock knowledge for more species b) provision of Secretariat and HQ support c) communication of new findings

? 3 years Web pages and downloadable ICES CRR

c Develop a universal framework for consistent usage of terminology relevant to stock identification

a) Personnel commitment b) Feedback on usefulness of the task c) communicate “top” working terms

? 1 year Perspective/Review paper in international academic journal

d Review and report on advances in mixed stock analysis, and assess their potential role in improving precision of stock assessment

a) Personnel commitment b) Advice on key stocks and species to prioritise c) communication of new findings

? 2 years EG report and contribution to ICES ASC 2014, and methodological paper in international journal


Year 1 Organise a physical meeting with the new Chair, trying to identify a period of the year that would allow best coordination with benchmarking processes. Attempt to work by correspondence towards the preparation of the “glossary” draft. Work on Theme Session for ASC2014, if approved.

Year 2 Establish working agreement with ICES web designers for delivery of ToR b. Strengthen and consolidate agreements for all tasks, even if working by correspondence.

Year 3 Focus primarily on ToR b.


| 147

Priority Understanding stock structure is a fundamental requirement before any assessment or modelling on a stock level can be contemplated. SIMWG liaises with ICES expert groups and working groups on stock identification issues and continues to review new methods as they develop.

Resource requirements SharePoint website and clear feedback from expert groups, SCICOM and SSGSUE is pivotal for the efficacy of SIMWG.


Secretariat facilities Access to SharePoint to all members and Chair-nominated guests.

Financial As per previous years.


As per previous years.


WGNEW, WGDEEP, WGEF, WGAGFM, WKFLAT.


There are no obvious direct linkages, beyond the SIMWG members’ affiliation and commitment to their own employers..

Working Group on Methods of Fish Stock Assessment (WGMG)

2013/MA2/SSGSUE05 The Working Group on Methods of Fish Stock Assessment (WGMG), chaired by David Miller*, the Netherlands, will meet in Vigo, Spain, 22–26 September 2014, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGMG will report on the activities of 2014 (the first year) by 3 November 2014 to SSGSUE.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



a Review selected assessment methods proposed by ICES assessment WGs [theme 1]

WGMG is the only forum for the review and development of stock assessment methods within ICES on behalf of its assessment WGs, which can sometimes lack sufficient expertise to undertake this. This ToR is intended to accommodate such exercises.

112, 211 Continuing Peer-reviews of assessment methods suggested for assessment WGs to use.

b Review selected methods for evaluating HCRs proposed by ICES assessment WGs [theme 2]

WGMG is an appropriate forum for evaluating proposals for testing HCRs, given the reliance of these testing methods on the MSE approach with which WGMG members have the considerable experience necessary to suggest consistency and quality checks

312 Continuing Peer-reviews of proposals for the evaluation of HCRs often used as part of management plans.

c (i) Investigate applications of the state-space

A number of important stocks assessed by ICES have poor-quality catch data due to a

112, 211 One or two years

Guidelines for best practice when accounting for un-

148 |

assessment model (SAM), the Aarts and Poos model (A&P) and the time-series analysis model (TSA) that deal with estimation of underreported catch [theme 3a]

lack of estimates of discards, and illegal, unreported or unregulated (IUU) catches (e.g. North Sea cod, Northeast Atlantic mackerel). The SAM (Nielsen and Berg, submitted), A&P (Aarts and Poos, 2009) and TSA (Fryer, 2001) assessment models can include methods to internally account for this problem. The group will evaluate these approaches, suggest improvements (where applicable) and make recommendations on best practice when applying such methods. This investigation is motivated by requests from WGNSSK and WGCSE.

estimated discards and IUU catches in the SAM, A&P and TSA stock assessment models used by ICES WGs.

c (ii)

For two selected stocks, investigate implications for assessment methods for what was previously discarded and not estimated, but will now be landed [theme 3b]

The implementation of the “landings obligation” in EU waters will, for some stocks, result in a change in the congruity between reported landings and actual catch. This is particularly a problem for stocks where discarding is known to have occurred but no reliable discard estimates exist. The group will evaluate the likely impacts of this on the fitting of stock assessment models to such data and attempt to determine how best to account for this for two (yet to be decided) case studies.

112, 211 One or two years? This should be completed before the implementation of the “landings obligation”.

A report illustrating the most likely issues to arise given this change in the quality of catch data. Guidelines for best practice to account for these issues to assist ICES WGs following the implementation of the “landings obligation”.

d (i)

Review and consolidate the current suite of reference points [theme 4]

Currently ICES uses a large number of limit and target points, FMSY, Fpa, Flim, Blim, Bpa, Btrigger, BMSY and Ftarget (or perhaps Btarget). This is confusing for most people. For many stock only three values are needed: Blim, Ftarget and Btrigger. Most management plans have some Ftarget (Htarget) which will not be implemented perfectly due to stabilizers in the management plans, assessment errors and implementation errors.

211, 312 Two to three years

Recommendations for a consolidated list of reference points.

d (ii)

Review approaches for specifying Blim [theme 4]

Blim is an influential biomass limit reference point that affects the interpretation of results from HCR

211, 312 Three years Guidelines for best practice when determining Blim to assist ICES

| 149

evaluations. This is because the precautionary nature of the HCR is determined by the probability of the stock being below this level. For stocks that have not been overexploited historically, estimating an appropriate level for Blim is problematic, often resulting in the use of Bloss (the lowest observed biomass) as a proxy for Blim. This may result in overly precautious management. The group will work on (new) methods that could be used to determine Blim.

benchmark assessments.

d (iii)

Review developments of the non-parametric stock–recruit models for reference point estimation [theme 4]

Estimates of MSY-based reference points which take account of stock–recruitment effects are heavily dependent on the approach used to estimate a stock–recruitment relationship from the available information. The non-parametric method developed by Cadigan [Method 4 in Section 5; Annex 10] shows promise as an approach that might be generally applicable by WGs. Further investigation will aim at the provision, if found to be appropriate, of a set of guidelines for practical implementation of this or a related approach.

211, 312 Two years A set of guidelines on the estimation of stock–recruitment relationships and hence calculation of MSY-based reference points, together with advice on interpretation and application of the results, to serve as the default for use by ICES WGs.

e (i) Investigate specific data-limited methods that are advised as a priority based on high current usage for some of the stocks to which they have been applied [theme 5]

There is a strong need to test proposed methods that support the provision of advice for data-limited stocks in a way that ensures that the methods used are consistent with the objectives of the ICES DLS framework.

112, 211 Three years The confirmation that certain methods are consistent with the objectives of the ICES DLS framework for application by assessment WGs.

e (ii)

Investigate different ways of compiling survey indices that are suitable for the application of data-limited methods [theme 5]

Methods that rely on trends in survey indices are sensitive to noise in these indices. The noise is often caused by a few tows accounting for a large proportion of the catch. A possible solution is to take the average of nonlinear functions of abundance at

112, 211 Three years Advice on the general applicability or otherwise of such methods.

150 |

each station (square root or similar). This reduces variability but might lead to biases. Simulation testing could be tricky as it might involve modelling the distribution of fish in surveys.

f Conclude the evaluation of alternative catch-at-age based assessment methods for identified stocks based on the SISAM methods evaluation scheme, as developed during the WGMG 2012 Lisbon meeting[theme 6]

Initial results of simulation studies using the Scheme for North Sea cod and herring and presented at WCSAM have potentially important implications for assessment methods used by ICES Working Groups. However these need first to be checked, refined and possibly extended.

112, 211 Two years Recommendations on appropriate selection among catch-at-age based methods for application in ICES WGs, and on general diagnostics to be applied to methods considered in benchmark assessments

g Consider additional requests that fall under the six WGMG themes

This ToR allows flexibility for WGMG to handle additional requests

112, 211, 312

Continuing As appropriate


Year 1 Commence work under the each of the WGMG themes, particularly those dealing with inaccuracies in catch (e.g. impact of new landings regulations on assessments), estimation of reference point (including MSY and related issues), further development of data-limited methodologies, and the SISAM methods evaluation scheme.

Year 2 Continue the work under each theme; in particular, continue exploration of methods for and implications for dealing with inaccuracies in catch, and the SISAM methods evaluation scheme, and provide recommendations for these.

Year 3 Consolidate work carried out under the seven WGMG themes, assess progress under each and plan for the next cycle of 3 years, highlighting areas where additional effort is needed.


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into methods related to provision of catch advice on a sound scientific basis, including for data-limited stocks. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.






| 151


ACOM has strongly supported the work of this group. The work conducted by WGMG is highly relevant to ICES Expert Groups that conduct stock assessment.


WGMG will report to SCICOM in 2014. WGMG is involved with the ICES Strategic Initiative on Stock Assessment Methods (SISAM).


Possible future links with other organizations that have similar Methods Working Groups (e.g. ICCAT)

SSGSUE multiannual groups (updated to reflect new meeting dates and venue and other updates

Working Group on the History of Fish and Fisheries (WGHIST)

2011/MA2/SSGSUE12 The Study Group on the History of Fish and Fisheries (SGHIST), will be renamed the Working Group on the History of Fish and Fisheries (WGHIST), chaired by Georg Engelhard, UK, and Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet, Belgium, will meet in Oostende, Belgium, 5–7 September 2012 to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

The second year meeting of the Working Group on the History of Fish and Fisheries (WGHIST), chaired by Georg Engelhard, UK and Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet, Belgium will be held at Panicale, Italy, 7–11 October 2013.

The third year meeting of the Working Group on the History of Fish and Fisheries (WGHIST), chaired by Georg Engelhard, UK, and Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet, Belgium, will be held at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, 3–7 November 2014 to:

a ) Provide a platform for multidisciplinary discussion to scientists from a variety of disciplines and institutions working on the history of fish and fisheries;

b ) Present case studies on fish and fisheries using historical or recovered data from both sides of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and elsewhere, from an ecosystem perspective;

c ) Provide metadata description to the ICES Data Centre of historical datasets in the ICES region that are potentially useful for establishing population and biodiversity baselines for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD);

d ) Support historical ecological baseline development in the context of the MSFD including indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES) and aim at primary publications resulting from such analyses.

WGHIST will report by 1 December 2014 to SSGSUE and SIBAS for SCICOM.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION EXPECTED

DELIVERABLES

a Present case studies on fish and fisheries using historical or recovered data from both sides of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and elsewhere from an ecosystem

Science: Analysise of deviations in current population and community levels cannot be put in context without historical data to show conditions under pre-industrial

HPT 1, point 2, in that it seeks to provide data that can be used to assess the historical health of marine ecosystems which can be used as baselines for evaluation of current ecosystem health.

all years, culiminating in Year 3.

Primary publications in year 3. No ICES recipient except during self evaluation to SCICOM in year 3

152 |

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS ADDRESSED


perspective, with a view of preparing peer-review publications and synthesis papers.

exploitation levels. WGHIST can provide some of these historical baselines. Advisory: Increasingly, historical baselines for current ecosystem approaches demanded in national legislation are required. WGHIST can provide these data and analysis to in many cases to meet some of these demands. Other EGs: groups such as WGECO should find good use in the data and particulary analysis coming from WGHIST to establish historical levels for populaution and ecosystem phenomena.

HPT 1, point 44: WGHIST seeks to provide historical data, some of which would be surveys that are not readily available and make metadata descriptions, and in some cases data, available via the ICES data centre. HPT 2, point 1: Through making historical data available and providing analyses on these data, impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems can be assessed. HPT 3, point 1: making data and meta data descriptions openly available provides a tool to inform others of possibilities for analysis especially along the lines of historical baselines.

b Provide a platform for multidisciplinary discussion to scientists from a variety of disciplines and institutions working on the history of fish and fisheries.

TOR b) As in a, this groups needs to be a forum for common work wherever it is done as so few of the fora exist. Through the explication of case studies, from different regions, a common perspective and learning from other analyses can help guide the group’s work.

All years No deliverable

c Provide metadata description to the ICES Data Centre of historical datasets in the ICES region that are potentially useful for establishing

Is related to the HPT on marine living resource management tool development and provides data to the global community via the ICES data centre.

HPT 1, point 2, in that it seeks to provide data that can be used to assess the historical health of marine ecosystems which can be used as baselines for evaluation of current ecosystem

Year 3 Data to ICES data centre

| 153

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND



population and biodiversity baselines for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

health.

HPT 1, point 44: WGHIST seeks to provide historical data, some of which would be surveys that are not readily available and make metadata descriptions, and in some cases data, available via the ICES data centre. HPT 2, point 1: Through making historical data available and providing analyses on these data, impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems can be assessed. HPT 3, point 1: making data and meta data descriptions openly available provides a tool to inform others of possibilities for analysis especially along the lines of historical baselines.

d Support historical ecological baseline development in the context of the MSFD including indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES) and aim at primary publications resulting from such analyses.

WGHIST supports the existing indicators for the descriptors of GES as identified by EU member states. WGHIST is by nature multi-disciplinary: research and hypothesis may range from MSFD descriptor 1 to 11 but focuses mainly on topics related to descriptors 1-6. WGHIST acknowledges the formal context in which indicators of GES are developed and reported within the EU. WGHIST however has a

154 |

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND



wider geographical scope than EU, and contributors and members come from outside the EU: e.g. USA, South Africa, Australia.


Year 1 1st year: an inventory of data describing the length of time series, spatial coverage and types of data, location where the data are stored and in what format, details of pertinent contacts for the data, an evaluation of the ease with which it can be accessed and used including important caveats, strengths and weaknesses of the datasets. Results of contacts to potential analyst participants and their interest in working towards TOR (d).

Year 2 2nd year: bring together historical data in a standard format in consultation with the ICES data centre and make the data generally available through the ICES data centre. Provide descriptions of methods and results of some calculations which consider strengths and weaknesses in the data sets which could potentially be used as MSFD baseline descriptors.

Year 3 3rd year: Finalised analysis of MSFD descriptor baselines in internally consistent chapters that should directly translate into publications. A self evaluation and recommendations for this group should be provided as part of the final report of the group.


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem effects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority. Scientific scope The precursor study group (SGHIST) to the presently proposed group managed to bring together historians as well as some data keepers in a unique way in ICES but analyses of data were not often possible during the short duration of the meeting and also because there were not so many analysts with the levels of experience necessary to make usable products. Logically, including analysts to support the development of baselines from these historical data for application in the MSFD is priority work in relation to ToR d. Historical data often have difficulties in terms of partial spatial and temporal coverage and selective reporting by species and port. As such, these data contain significant biases if interpreted in the same manner as modern data collected under rigid protocols. It is therefore necessary to have both the data analysts and data historians working jointly on analysis to create a robust and applicable product to aid the development of good environmental status standards under the MSFD. Metadata descriptions and standardised historical data products if made available via the ICES data centre should encourage more historical studies both within government laboratories and universities thus providing a legacy of important work. Additionally, data recovery in

| 155

this means is essential to prevent data loss especially as staff that have transitioned between the paper and electronic archive world are now retiring and risk of data loss is increasing as a result.

Justification of venue (in a non-ICES Member Country

We are planning to hold the 2013 ICES Working Group on the History of Fish and Fisheries, 2013, Italy, upon invitation by veteran fisheries scientist Dr. Sidney Holt, associated for many years with FAO (Rome), and before that with Cefas, UK. The classic textbook authored by Dr. Holt and Dr. Beverton, On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations (1957) has been important to WG participants in developing historical analysis of fishing power changes in fishing fleets, and his feedback has been key in bringing the WG forward in this and other areas. Italy has previously participated with expertise at several ICES meetings and study groups together with ICES members. The area of interest to the study group is global and includes the Mediterranean, and this region is relevant owing to its importance in early development of fishing technologies. We expect visiting scientists from at least two other institutions in Italy (Centro Intruniversitario di Biologia Marina, Livorno; Instituto Superiore per la Proteziona e la Ricerca Ambientale [ISPRA]) and the location will facilitate attendance by scientists from the Mediterranean. The location can be easily reached through Rome Airport and there will be no large additional costs to the ICES participants; costs of accommodations and facilities will be comparable to, or lower than in Copenhagen.

Resource requirements Consultation with ICES Data Centre should be ongoing and partial attendance by data centre staff would be an asset to the group and to ICES.

Participants The Group should be attended by 15-20 members and guests. Participants must include data historians, ecologists, data keepers and analysts who can interpret and calculate quantitative indicators of MSFD descriptors.

Secretariat facilities None in 2012. 2013 and 2014 are uncertain.



There would be some linkages to WGECO especially in how that ACOM group has tasked itself with many issues concerning ecosystem interpretations and analyses under the MSFD.


SIBAS, WGBIODIV.


Clearly, there would be an interest from the European Commission for its relevance to MSFD baseline development. Participants in the fomer History of Marine Animal Populations (HMAP) have an interest in keep work of this nature going. Should an HMAP type project be resurrected, the work done by WGHIST as well as products produced for the ICES data centre would prove key for its success.

WGVHES Revised Suggested ToRs for 2014

2012/MA2/SSGSUE04 The Working Group on the value of Coastal Habitats for Exploited Species (WGVHES), chaired by Rom Lipcius*, USA, and Håkan Wennhage*, Sweden, will be established and will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, 17–21 June 2013, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

WGVHES will report on the activities of 2013 (Year 1) by 1 August 2013 to SSGSUE.

Next meetings (Interim reports only)

Second meeting dates: 30 June – 4 July 2014, Lisbon, Portugal.

156 |

WGVHES will report on the activities of 2014 (Year 2) by 1 August 2014.

Suggested Updated ToRs for 2014-2015

ToR Description Background Science Plan

topics addressed Duration Expected

Deliverables

a Produce a review paper that synthesizes and critically reviews the evidence for the importance of coastal habitats to exploited species and general patterns that may be applicable over a broad range of situations

In the 2012 workshop three subgroups made a start with three reviews to be submitted in 2013. This ToR reflects expansion and revision of the work begun by one subgroup at the 2012 workshop

131,132,134 1 year Review paper in primary literature

b Produce a review paper on the characteristics and function of natural and anthropogenic hard bottom habitats for fish and invertebrates in coastal waters

Focus literature studies on hard-bottom habitat types where many census techniques are inadequate to attain quantitative data on fish and invertebrates

131,132,134 2 years Review paper in primary literature

c Assess availability of coastal habitat maps and distribution for integration into demographic models

Communicate with WGMHM to assess the availability of maps for different habitat types (habitat quantity)

131,132,134 3 years Recommended use of coastal habitat maps in population models

d Quantify the importance of habitats for exploited species

Attaining quantitative estimates of the importance of habitats for representative species that are important for the ICES community by means of modelling

131,132,134 3 years Paper(s)


Year 1 Two review papers falling under ToR a will be revised and prepared for publication in ICES Journal of Marine Science (JMS). The remaining review under ToR d will be completed and prepared for submission to ICES JMS. In the meeting of 2013 ToR c and d will be started investigating what models will be used and species will be studied

Year 2 Focus on modelling work

Year 3 Finalize modelling work and identify future research priorities

Working Group on Fisheries-Induced Evolution (WGEVO)

2012/MA2/SSGSUE07 The Working Group on Fisheries-Induced Evolution (WGEVO), chaired by Mikko Heino, Norway, Ulf Dieckmann, Austria, and Bruno Ernande*, France, will meet at IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 19–23 August 2013, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the table below.

| 157

The second meeting of WGEVO will be held at IMARES, IJmuiden, the Netherlands, 7–11 July 2014.

WGEVO will report on the activities of 2014 (second year) by 15 August 2014.

ToR descriptors



Expected deliverables

a Provide a forum for international collaboration and exchange of emerging scientific insights on fisheries-induced adaptive changes. The activities of WGEVO will provide ICES with a basis for advice on whether and how the effects of fisheries-induced adaptive change need to be taken into account in ecosystem approach to management.

The ecosystem approach to management is the overarching motive for ICES science and management.

121, 141,143, 211, 311, 312, 314, 344, 345, 346

Years 1,2,3

b Assemble and review empirical evidence of fisheries-induced adaptive change and its consequences for the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable exploitation of marine species within an ecosystem context.

a) Research beyond current Science Plan requirements b) Research for MSFD and GES requirements c) No requirements from other EGs

141, 143, 311, 312, 344

Years 1,2 ICES publication for general audience, Wikipedia article

c Apply the Evolutionary Impact Assessment framework to specific case studies to: (i) evaluate the impact of existing management measures on fisheries-induced adaptive change; (ii) relate consequences of fisheries-induced adaptive change to stakeholder utilities and to current management objectives; (iii) evaluate possible more specific objectives for managing fisheries-induced adaptive change.

a) Research beyond current Science Plan requirements b) Research for MSFD and GES requirements c) Links with relevant Assessment WGs required

211, 311, 312, 314, 344, 345

Years 1,2,3

Peer-reviewed publications

d Develop scientific and methodological tools to monitor and respond appropriately to risks to biodiversity and sustainable exploitation posed by fisheries-induced adaptive change, with a particular emphasis on making these tools readily available for a broader range of scientists and managers.

a) Research beyond current Science Plan requirements b) Research for MSFD and GES requirements c) Links with relevant Assessment WGs required

121, 141, 143, 311

Years 1,2 Tools (R-scripts), potentially accompanied by peer-reviewed publications, as the need might arise

158 |

Summary of multi-annual work plan

Year Main deliverable

Year 1 ICES document providing an overview of FIE for a wider scientific audience and the general public; R-scripts for estimating selection differentials of exploited fish stocks

Year 2 Review of selection differentials of exploited fish stocks

Year 3 Evolutionary Impact Assessment (EvoIA) of a selected case study


Priority The activities of the Working Group on Fisheries-induced Evolution will provide ICES with a basis for advice on whether and how the effects of fisheries-induced adaptive change need to be taken into account in future management. Such advice is needed in relation with the precautionary approach, the ecosystem approach, biodiversity conservation, and the evaluation of risk and uncertainty.

Resource requirements The research activities providing input to WGEVO are ongoing, and corresponding resources have been committed by the engaged institutions. The administrative resources for convening the annual WGEVO meeting are negligible.

Participants WGEVO is normally attended by 10–20 members and guests.





Linkages to other committee or groups

ACOM and relevant Assessment WGs.


None.

Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data (WGSFD)

2012/MA2/SSGSUE05 The Study Group on VMS data, its storage, access and tools for analysis (SGVMS), will be renamed the Working Group on Spatial Fisheries Data (WGSFD), chaired by Heino Fock, Germany, and will meet at ICES HQ, Copenhagen, 11–13 September 2013, to work on ToRs and generate deliverables as listed in the Table below.

The second meeting of WGSFD chaired by Josefine Egekvist*, Denmark, will be held at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, 10–13 June 2014 to:

WGSFD will report on the activities of 2013 (Year 1) by 30 September 2013 and in 2014 (Year 2) by 1 August 2014 to SSGSUE.

ToR descriptors

TOR DESCRIPTION

BACKGROUND

SCIENCE PLAN TOPICS

ADDRESSED DURATION EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

a An annual update of an aggregated product based on VMS and logbook data giving the DCF environmental

a) DCF requirement

b) MSFD

123, 162, 21, 33 Annual DCF environmental indicators 5, 6 and 7 MSFD descriptor 6

| 159

indicators 5, 6 and 7 as well as MSFD descriptor 6. The aggregated output will contain data from as many ICES member states as possible.

b Work on standardized data products for inter alia WGDEEP, WGDEC, WGECO. Ensure standardized methods and quality assurance.

153, 34 Annual

c Review ongoing work for analyzing VMS data and developing standardized data products. This might also include new technical solutions like e-logbook, AIS and CCTV data to improve the effort estimate

Annual

160 |

Special request

d ICES is requested to work with OSPAR Contracting Parties and other relevant Competent Authorities to: 1. collate relevant

national VMS/logbook data for the exclusive use of ICES;

2. propose and apply a method for the mapping of bottom fishing intensity;

3. to prepare a first OSPAR-wide mapping of the spatial and temporal intensity of fishing activities with mobile bottom contacting gears;

It is requested that the advice should be delivered according to the MSFD regions and sub regions at a scale that is appropriate to inform decision making the most appropriate temporal and spatial scale need to be determined through a dialogue process between ICES, OSPAR Contracting Parties and data providers, noting that availability of data will limit the precision that is achievable. ICES have indicated that the finest scale that can be expected would be to the nearest minute.

OSPAR Request Year 2 VMS Mapping of bottom fishing activity

Summary of the Work Plan YEAR ACTIVITIES PLANNED

Year 1 Analysis of TACSAT/EFLALO formatted data applying VMStools by country, compiling data in a FishFrame format, calculation of indices, forward data to data base. Heino only plans to chair the WG for the first year.

| 161

Year 2 same


Priority Growing demand for fine scaled spatial fisheries information for Marine Spatial Planning, ICES working groups, estimation of environmental impacts of fisheries. ICES has a strategic goal to have a key position in relation to MSFD.

Scientific Justification Special request:

Towards a spatial and temporal description and analysis of bottom fishing intensity in the OSPAR area on the basis of high resolution VMS and logbook data (OSPAR 5/2014)

a) Recalling the OSPAR QSR 2010, which highlighted the continued impact of fishing pressure on marine ecosystems and importance for understanding these impacts for developing appropriate measures for the protection and conservation of marine biodiversity, within the remit of OSPAR’s mandate, and

b) Noting the on-going work within EIHA on cumulative effects and within ICG-COBAM on the development of common biodiversity indicators relating to Descriptor 6 (sea floor integrity) of the MSFD, in particular BH1, BH3 and BH4, Contracting Parties have identified the need to map spatial and temporal intensity of bottom fishing;

c) It is however recognised that the delivery of this request would benefit from preparatory steps by ICES, and the results of work being undertaken outside of ICES (e.g. the EU funded project BENTHIS).

d) There is a need to ensure good collaboration and exchange of information between relevant OSPAR subsidiary bodies and ICES working group(s) during the preparation for and implementation of this request.

Resource requirements Attendence by resentatives from as many countries as possible. VMS and logdata are provided to study group members through their national agencies. ICES platform to upload and distribute standardized products

Participants The Group is attended by some 20–25 members and guests. If legal expertise is required, i.e. sufficient legal advice is not available beforehand, administrators from EC and others should also be invited.




ACOM


WGDEEP, WGDEC, WGECO, WGDIM


162 |

Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM)

2012/MA2/SSGSUE09 The second meeting of the Working Group on Multispecies Assessment Methods (WGSAM) chaired by Daniel Howell, Norway and Steven Mackinson, UK, will take place in London, 20–24 October, 2014.

WGSAM will report on the activities of 2014 (second year) by 5 December 2014 to SSGSUE.

ToR descriptors

ToR Description

Background



A Report on further progress and key updates in multispecies and ecosystem modelling throughout the ICES region

This ToR acts to increase the speed of communication of new results across the ICES area

Use codes 3 years Reports on further progress and key updates for internal use in WGSAM as well as externally.

B Report on the development of key-runs (standardized model runs updated with recent data, producing agreed output and agreed upon by WGSAM participants) of multispecies and eco-system models for different ICES regions (including the Baltic EwE 2013, Barents Sea 2014, North Sea EwE 2014, North Sea SMS 2014, Baltic Sea SMS 2015 and others as appropriate)

The key runs provide information on natural mortality for inclusion in various single species assessments

Use codes 3 years Output of multispecies models including stock biomass and numbers and natural mortalities for use by single species assessment groups and external users.

C Where possible, develop standards for ‘Key Runs’ of other modelling approaches (e.g. Size spectra, TGAMs)

This work is aimed at expanding the key runs to include methods not currently suited for providing this type of information.

Use codes 3 years Key run standards for use under ToR b and externally

| 163

D Develop and compare foodweb and ecosystem indicators (e.g. from the MSFD) and advice produced by multispecies key runs (preferably together with WGFE and WGECO)

Foodweb and ecosystem indicators are increasingly demanded in management, paricularly through the implementation of the MSFD. To be succesful, the ToR requires a supporting ToR in WGECO and/or WGFE

Use codes 3 years Foodweb indicators and advice on their development under different fisheries management scenarios (as part of multispecies advice) for WGECO, other ecosystem groups and single species assessment groups

E Report on progress on including new stomach samples in the ICES area in multispecies models

WGSAM actively works for obtaining new stomach sampling programmes and incorporating the data from these programmes in multispecies models.

Use codes 3 years New stomachs are included in the models to enhance the quality of deliverables under ToR b.

F Explore the consequence of multispecies interactions and environmental factors in practical multispecies advice for fisheries management (MSY related and other biological reference points)

Multispecies reference points such as those related to MSY and the effect of environmental changes on these reference points is a key point in multispecies advice.

Use codes 3 years Multispecies advice will be provcided wherever possible based on key runs developed under ToR B. Uncertainties in models will be taken in to account.

G Compare methods used to include spatial structure (predator prey overlap) in multispecies prediction models (preferably together with WGIPEM)

Spatial structure is increasingly taken into acount in retrospective multispecies modelling. Methods are currently developed in several groups and a comparison of these methods would facilitate the future development. To be succesful, the ToR requires a supporting ToR in WGIPEM

3 years Report on joint activities together with WGIPEM for use as basis of future work in WGSAM, WGIPEM and other groups addressing spatial concerns.

164 |

H Work towards providing the basis for ecosystem advice consistent with species and technical interaction in mixed fisheries (preferably together with WGMIXFISH)

Currently, ecosystem advice on mixed fisheries and mutlispeciesissues are parallell and not coordinated. This coordination is of great importance to avoid inconsistencies. To be succesful, the ToR requires a supporting ToR in WGMIXFISH

3 years Joint multispecies-mixed fisheries ecosystem advice for use in single species assessment groups. Where models are used as a basis for advice, effects of model uncertainties will be taken into account.


Member contributions to any of the ToRs will be accepted in any year, but where possible, effort will be made to focus WG activities on particular ToRs as proposed below:

Year Work

Year 1 Work on all ToRs. Tor B restricted to Baltic EwE. Focus on D, E, G

Year 2 Work on all ToRs. Tor B restricted to Barents Sea Gadget, North Sea EwE 2014 and North Sea SMS. Focus on B, C, H

Year 3 Work on all ToRs. Tor B restricted to Baltic Sea SMS. Focus on F, H

Plans for 2014

ToR H: Work towards providing the basis for ecosystem advice consistent with species and technical interaction in mixed fisheries.

In 2014, WGSAM will invite WGMIXFISH (and possibly WGMG) members to discuss synergies in the use of models to address mixed-fisheries and multispecies issues. In particular, the discussion will focus on the level of fleet aggregation in multispecies models and how outputs on fishing mortality from multispecies models might be useful to feed into mixed-fisheries models.

Building on this initiative we hope to have representation of WGSAM members at WGMIXFISH meetings in 2014.

ToR F: Explore the consequence of multispecies interactions and environmental factors in practical multispecies advice for fisheries management (MSY related and other biological reference points)

a ) In 2014 the group will outline suggestions on how output from different models can be usefully combined for ensemble-type provision of advice. This will be built upon in future years.

| 165


Priority The current activities of this Group will lead ICES into issues related to the ecosystem effects of fisheries, especially with regard to the application of the Precautionary Approach. Consequently, these activities are considered to have a very high priority.


The research programmes which provide the main input to this group are already underway, and resources are already committed. Depending on the requirements for advice, additional resource might be required to undertake ToR H since the resource needed to shape the research into ICES advice and communicate it is likely to be more substantial than research projects can provide.

Participants Approx 20. Expertise in ecosystem, modelling and fish stock assessment from across the whole ICES region.




ACOM, most assessment Expert Groups


WGMIXFISH, WGDIM, WGBIFS, IBTSWG, WGECO, WGFE, WGINOSE, WGIAB, WGNARS, WGIPEM, most assessment Expert Groups, most EGs in the regional Seas Programme. STECF Ecosystem Approach WG.


SSGSUE annual groups

Working Group on Integrative, Physical-biological, and Ecosystem Modelling (WGIPEM)

2013/2/SSGSUE03 The Working Group on Integrative, Physical-biological, and Ecosystem Modelling (WGIPEM), chaired by Myron Peck, Germany and Rubao Ji, USA will meet in Stempels, Haarlem, The Netherlands from 17–21 March 2014 to:

a ) Report on the state-of-the-art within the ICES community and worldwide in coupled physical-biological and ecosystem modelling and simulation results (e.g. population connectivity, life cycle dynamics, foodweb interactions and/or ecosystem responses to human activities) including:

i ) Components of coupled biophysical integrated models (single species to foodwebs;

ii ) Coupled, integrative ecosystem (end-to-end) models including all core components;

iii ) Calibration, corroboration and confidence in model estimates and management application;

b ) Identify gaps in knowledge in these modelling activities and recommend activities to advance coupled modelling approaches and that will make model outputs useful to the management of marine systems including estimates related to: i ) Physics (from small-scale turbulence, mesoscale structures, to

basin-scale transport);

166 |

ii ) Biology (e.g. behaviour, growth physiology, foodweb dynamics); iii ) Socio-economics within coupled (end-to-end) models; iv ) Interactions between physics, biology and/or economics and

different spatial / temporal scales; v ) Downscaling of earth system dynamics to model at relevant

scales; c ) Convene an annual meeting with specific workshops to promote the

development and review of coupled physical-biological and ecosystem modelling including participants that have broad range of expertise (e.g. from hydrodynamics, physiology, trophodynamics, to economics) including a workshop on: i ) incorporating human behaviour and economic sectors into

coupled biophysical ecosystem modelling frameworks ii ) methods used to depict animal movements within spatially

explicit models of marine systems iii ) exploring the coupling between lower and upper trophic levels

including issues of seasonality in bottom–up and trop-down forcing

iv ) physiological rates and dynamic energy budget models and their application to key marine species or ecosystems

v ) the development and application of various end-to-end (e.g. physics to fish to fisheries) models within and outside the ICES area;

d ) Create and/or maintain an interface for the public and scientific community by:

i) Creating an online library of model code for existing biophysical models and their subroutines including an interactive information table for stand-alone and coupled models

ii) Provide a strategic dialogue within the ICES community on biological-physical and integrative models and their application by forming close links and joint activities with other expert groups.

WGIPEM will report by 1 May 2014 (via SSGSUE) for the attention of SCICOM.


Priority This group’s activities will support the ecosystem approach to fisheries science by combining knowledge of physical and biological processes, bioeconomics of multiple marine sectors, and modelling expertise that is required to strengthen our understanding of ecosystem functioning. The Group will foster the development of “end-to-end” modelling tools (e.g. Atlantis) and will provide an interface for physical and biological model code and oceanographic data including those from operational modelling. For these reasons, the activities of the Group should be given high priority.

Scientific justification and relation to action plan

ToR a and b: Physical, biophysical and coupled integrative modelling are rapidly advancing research tools and providing a synthetic overview is needed, especially to identify gaps in knowledge and to make these tools more applicable to management.

ToR c : Hosting an annual meeting is a core activity of the group and, given its broad mandate, both plenary discussions and targeted workshops will be necessary. A 5-day meeting is envisioned that includes 2.5 days of targeted

| 167

workshops (e.g. WGOOFE activities) to facilitate cross-disciplinary collaboration between modellers, experimentalists / ecologists and economists.

ToR d: A web-based interface linking this WG’s activities to the public and scientific community are needed. Construction of a library of model code has already started (via MEECE, etc.). Ongoing activities of WGOOFE would be continued in this new WG, eliminating membership overlap and strengthening the group’s membership with additional meteorologists / modellers.

ToR e: An “application” component is considered critical for success and will ensure that this group’s work is not conducted in isolation of other expert groups / organizations. The identification of concrete routes of collaboration and research activities (e.g. leading to peer-reviewed manuscripts) between this and other groups is a high priority for the first meeting.

None of the ToRs answer requests from other groups, they are all self-generated and contribute to building scientific capacity. The ToRs relate to all three priority areas of ICES (i) Understanding ecosystem functioning, (ii) Understanding of interactions of human activities with ecosystems, and (iii) Development of options for sustainable use of ecosystems.

ToRs a-e contribute to coded topic areas including: Climate Change (112, 114, 115), Biodiversity and Health of Ecosystems (123), Life History (144, 145, 147), Role of Top Predators (173), Impacts of Fishing (211), Renewable Energy issues ( ).


This group will be composed of members of the former WGPBI, ongoing WGOOFE, and formerly proposed, End-to-End ICES working groups. In many cases, resources were already committed to the formation and maintenance of the activities of those groups. The additional resource required to undertake additional activities in the framework of this group is negligible.

Participants It is envisioned that this group will attract a large community of biologists / experimentalists, and modellers – with an annual meeting attended by some 25–40 members and guests. Annual meetings will include workshops on specific topics, increasing interests / attendance.


None.





The working group will actively pursue strong links to other groups within ICES and will propose joint meetings (workshops). A previous group (WGPBI) met with the Working Group on Zooplankton Ecology and the Working Group on Harmful Algae Bloom Dynamics. This proposed WG is recommending membership that includes chairs or co-chairs of other ICES WGs (e.g. Phytoplankton and Microbial Ecology, Multispecies modelling), and a merger with WGOOFE.


None. However, it is envisioned that this initial group will include members from Mediterranean (CIESM) and North Pacific (PICES) scientific organizations. We will seek co-sponsorship of this group by other organizations in future. The expertise of working group members would encompass a range of disciplines required to construct and apply biological-physical models in marine systems including: 1) hydrodynamics, 2) numerical methods, 3) ecophysiology, 4) foodweb dynamics, 5) socio-economics, and 6) Earth System dynamics. It is envisioned that this group will be composed of both modellers and experimentalists, fostering interdisciplinary discussions with the end goal of advancing coupled modelling in marine systems. The involvement of leading researchers with active links to ongoing, large-scale European, North American and Asian research programs will help build

168 |

bridges beyond the ICES community, particularly to recruit new working group members and co-sponsorship by PICES as part of the proposed ICES-PICES strategic initiatives.

Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM)

2013/2/SSGSUE04 The Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM), chaired by Pål Buhl Mortensen, Norway, will meet in San Sebastian, Spain, 19–23 May 2014 to:

a ) International programmes: Report on progress in international mapping programmes (including OSPAR and HELCOM Conventions, Emodnet, EC and EEA initiatives, CHARM, and Mesh-Atlantic projects);

b ) National programmes (National Status Reports): Present and review important results from national habitat mapping during the preceding year, as well as new on-going and planned projects focusing on particular issues of relevance to the rest of the meeting. Provide National Status Report updates in geographic display in the ICES webGIS;

c ) Habitat mapping techniques and modelling: Evaluate recent advances in marine habitat mapping and modelling techniques, including field work methodology, and data analysis and interpretation;

d ) Habitat mapping relating to management: Review practise about the use of habitat maps, for example Mapping for the MSFD, marine spatial planning, and management of MPAs;

e ) Assess the ability to use habitat maps for monitoring of the environment.

WGMHM will report by 21 June 2014 (via SSGSUE) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.


Priority This Group coordinates the review of habitat classification and mapping activities in the ICES area and promotes standardization of approaches and techniques to the extent possible.


The working group provides an important forum to discuss international and national seabed mapping programmes, along with their relevance to Regional conventions and European directives and more specifically among them the MSFD. The MSFD required better knowledge of the seabed, both from a biodiversity but also an integrity point of view. WGMHM examines techniques with a capacity to address these issues, whether for direct mapping or through modelling. Habitat suitability modelling is a key emerging technique as it allows addressing large areas of the seabed using field data and environmental parameters or their proxies, limiting the need for survey data. Mapping physical habitats is also a promising approcah. The compilation of National status reports remains an important tool to show progress in knowledge of our seabed. This extends to interpreted and modelled maps as well as substrat maps. ToR d: This ToR is of paramount importance in view of the many developments and impacts occurring in the coastal, shelf and even deeper zones and because of the MSFD requirements where a link is sought between the ecology and the pressures. However linking science and usages remains a

| 169

difficult task and hopefully some members will be keen to address this at 2014 meeting. ToR e: It is important to understand the larger environmental context (environmental settings of habitat) when monitoring changes in environmental indicators. This issue was partly covered during the meeting in 2013 but could be further explored during the 2014 meeting.

Participants The Group is normally attended by some 15–20 members and guests. Representatives from Member Countries with experience in habitat mapping and classification.


None.



ACOM.


BEWG, WGEXT, WGDEC, WGMPCZM


OSPAR, HELCOM, EEA

SSGSUE EGs - meeting dates and venues of already approved groups

C.RES CODE EG NAME & ACRONYM CHAIR

MEETING DATE VENUE

2ND

YEAR OF MA TOR

MEETING

3RD

YEAR OF MA TOR

MEETING

2011/2/SSGSUE06 Working Group on Operational Oceanographic Products for Fisheries and the Environment (WGOOFE)

Rosa Barciela, UK & Bee Berx, UX

12–13 March 2014 & 17–18 November, 2014

ICES HQ, Copenhagen

XX

2012/MA2/SSGSUE06 Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS)

Dorothy Dankel, Norway

1–5 December 2014

ICES HQ, Copenhagen

XX

SSGSUE EGs to be dissolved in 2014

None.

170 |

Data and Information Group Resolutions 2013

Workshop on ICES Data Guidelines (WKIDG)

The Workshop on ICES Data Guidelines (WKIDG), chaired by Lesley Rickards*, UK; Sjur Ringheim Lid*, Norway; and Taco de Bruin*, Netherlands, will meet in Ostend, Belgium, 8–10 April 2014 to:

a ) Create an exhaustive list of guidelines available for the marine community (including mapping out overlaps, linkages and hierarchies between the various guidelines, cookbooks, manuals, best practice guides);

b ) Consider linkage with IODE's OceanTeacher and the IODE/JCOMM Ocean Data Standards and Best Practices Project;

c ) Develop a strategy to make the guidelines more readily accessible for data providers;

d ) Develop a communication strategy for the guidelines (including, for example, a description of benefits to users and data collectors).

WKIDG will report by 12 May 2014 to the attention of DIG and SCICOM.

*Venue and more detailed information will be discussed during the IMDIS conference, September 2013.


Priority This workshop aims to bring together the different bodies that have created and are using the guidelines to make a more coordinated approach to linking the guidelines and to map out the complex landscape. It also aims to create a communication strategy for the guidelines as it has been shown that a large part of the community is not aware of them and how to get information about them.


Data held at the ICES Data Centre are used in various assessments for expert groups and regional sea conventions. In order to ensure comparable data with high quality, guidelines have been developed and adopted. In particular, the ICES operational group, Data and Information (DIG), and its predecessors, have developed guidelines to assist those involved in the collection, processing, quality control and exchange of various types of (mainly) physical oceanographic data, for example, Moored Current Meter, Shipborne ADCP, Seasoar, Chlorophyll and Nutrient data. These guidelines have been adopted by the ICES Data Centre and are recommended to the ICES Community. Other parties within the marine community have also developed guidelines that have a similar aim as the ICES guidelines and are adopted and used by the same or different communities (e.g. IODE, major programmes like Argo, GTSPP and GEBCO, national programmes like the UK Marine Environmental Data and Information Network).



Participants The Group is can be attended by some 20–25 members and guests.


None.


| 171


There are linkages to SCICOM and ACOM, as data guidelines are relevant to the complete ICES community.


There are linkages to all groups collecting ocean data, and to DIG.


IODE

Workshop on Integrated DATRAS Products (WKIDP)

The Workshop on Integrated DATRAS Products (WKIDP), chaired by Clara Ulrich* (Denmark), will meet at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7–9 October 2014 to:

a ) Create a list of working groups using DATRAS data on different aggregation levels (e.g. by species over several surveys);

b ) Create detailed descriptions for the output/products needed, e.g. CPUE per length per haul, ALK files, etc.;

c ) Investigate the possibility to create those products; d ) Develop an implementation plan for the creation of those products and the

metadata, based on WG priorities and time schedule ICES Data Centre.

WKIDP will report by 1 November 2014 to the attention of DIG, ACOM and SCICOM.


Priority This workshop aims to create a list of new DATRAS products for ICES groups that need information from DATRAS in a different manner than currently presented. At this moment, it is only possible to download information by survey. Especially assessment groups dealing with data-poor stocks like WGEF and WGNEW have a strong wish to download all DATRAS information for a specific species at once. On the other hand, groups working from a regional perspective (integrated assessments) are interested in downloading all information on a regional level at once.


Data held at the ICES Data Centre are used in various assessments for expert groups and regional sea conventions. For the groups using the survey data stored in DATRAS from the beginning, most products are available and matching their demands. The newer groups (WGNEW, WGEF, integrated assessment groups) just use those products although they are sub-optimal and cause a lot of work within the group to get all data organised in the best way.



Participants The Group is can be attended by some 20–25 members and guests.


None.



There are linkages to SCICOM and ACOM.

172 |


There are linkages to all groups working wirh DATRAS data, and to DIG.


Not directly, but as DATRAS serves many people, it will link to the outside world in the end.

· | i . SCICOM Expert Group Resolutions 2013 . Contents . SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem...

Documents

Transcript of · | i . SCICOM Expert Group Resolutions 2013 . Contents . SCICOM Steering Group on Ecosystem...