INTERNATIONAL - Publications deposited by Individualshttp://hdl.handle.net/1834/177562024-03-28T19:07:58Z2024-03-28T19:07:58ZWorkshop on the Development of Quantitative Assessment Methodologies based on Life- history traits, exploitation characteristics, and other relevant parameters for data-limited stocks (WKLIFEXII)Amorim, PatriciaBalestri, ElenaBouch, PaulCarleton, LieseCastellanos, PaolaChong, LisaCitores, LeireCooper, AnneDanby, RufusFarias, InêsFischer, SimonGoncalves, PatriciaGonçalves, MartaIchinokawa, MomokoJac, RomaricKell, LaurieKidd, PeterMedeiros Leal da Silva, Wendell MelquiasLino, PedroCerviño López, SantiagoMacdonald, PaulMiethe, TanjaMildenberger, TobiasMiyagawa, MitsuyoNilsen, TineO'Brien, Carlde Oliveira, JoséPawloski, LionelPennino, María GraziaPereira, BárbaraPierucci, AndreaRocha, AlbertoRocha, Marta CousidoAndrade Rodriguez, Hector AntonioSoto Ruiz, MariaAbdelfattah Soliman, Rehab FaroukUriarte, AndrésVieira, RuiVillanueva, Maria ChingWalker, NicolaYagi, Tatsunorihttp://hdl.handle.net/1834/428982023-12-20T02:19:11Z2023-01-01T00:00:00ZWorkshop on the Development of Quantitative Assessment Methodologies based on Life- history traits, exploitation characteristics, and other relevant parameters for data-limited stocks (WKLIFEXII)
Amorim, Patricia; Balestri, Elena; Bouch, Paul; Carleton, Liese; Castellanos, Paola; Chong, Lisa; Citores, Leire; Cooper, Anne; Danby, Rufus; Farias, Inês; Fischer, Simon; Goncalves, Patricia; Gonçalves, Marta; Ichinokawa, Momoko; Jac, Romaric; Kell, Laurie; Kidd, Peter; Medeiros Leal da Silva, Wendell Melquias; Lino, Pedro; Cerviño López, Santiago; Macdonald, Paul; Miethe, Tanja; Mildenberger, Tobias; Miyagawa, Mitsuyo; Nilsen, Tine; O'Brien, Carl; de Oliveira, José; Pawloski, Lionel; Pennino, María Grazia; Pereira, Bárbara; Pierucci, Andrea; Rocha, Alberto; Rocha, Marta Cousido; Andrade Rodriguez, Hector Antonio; Soto Ruiz, Maria; Abdelfattah Soliman, Rehab Farouk; Uriarte, Andrés; Vieira, Rui; Villanueva, Maria Ching; Walker, Nicola; Yagi, Tatsunori
Fischer, Simon; Mildenberger, Tobias; O'Brien, Carl
The objective of the Twelfth Workshop on the Development of Quantitative Assessment Methodologies based on Life-history traits, exploitation characteristics, and other relevant parameters for data-limited stocks (WKLIFE XII) was to further develop methods for stock assessment, stock status, and catch advice for stocks in ICES Categories 2–6, focusing on the provision of sound advice rules adhering to the ICES advisory framework and principles for fisheries management. This report addresses (i) questions from different ICES assessment working groups and stakeholders regarding the applicability of the data-limited technical guidelines, (ii) the prioritisation of future tasks regarding the ICES data-limited framework, (iii) further development and testing of data-limited methodologies with specific focus on the review of the current ICES advice framework for stock Categories 4-6, spatial indicators, and reference points for surplus production models, and (iv) other relevant data-limited topics. A survey of participants resulted in a high prioritisation score of four topics of the ICES data-limited roadmap: (1) risk equivalence, best available science, guidelines and communication of data-limited methods, (2) value of information of different data-types and data preparation, (3) better advice for slow-growing species, and (4) observation and parameter uncertainty in empirical harvest control rules and length-based approaches. The current ICES approach for Category 5 and 6 stocks, with an advice for constant annual catch and a periodic reduction with a precautionary buffer, is a form of non-adaptive management and an initial review revealed that it may not be precautionary if a stock is overfished but also overly precautionary in other situations. An exploration of spatial indicators showed that these have the potential to inform on stock status. A stochastic definition of MSY Btrigger for surplus production models takes uncertainty into account and leads to higher reference values than the current definition for stocks with low and intermediate biomass variability.
2023-01-01T00:00:00ZNext Generation EV Batteries Eliminate the Need for Deep Sea Mining.Everett, JeanneKammen, DanielRowland, Stanhttp://hdl.handle.net/1834/428582023-11-02T02:20:48Z2023-10-01T00:00:00ZNext Generation EV Batteries Eliminate the Need for Deep Sea Mining.
Everett, Jeanne; Kammen, Daniel; Rowland, Stan
Advances in electric vehicle (EV) battery technology, and the accelerating adoption of these technologies, are leading to the replacement of EV batteries dependent on cobalt, nickel, and manganese. As a result, the deep sea mining of these metals is neither necessary, economically advantageous, or environmentally advisable. In fact, efforts to promote the mining of these metals in the deep ocean now serve neither manufacturers nor consumers, but only enterprises that have been established for the express purpose of deep sea mining. Typically, companies and consumers are asked to make sacrifices for the good of conservation and the environment. Now, happily, what is good for both enterprise and the end consumer, also serves the need to protect and preserve our oceans, and the life that resides within.
2023-10-01T00:00:00ZWorkshop to Scope Assessment Methods to Set Thresholds (WKBENTH2)Artigas, Miquel CanalsBaldrighi, ElisaBelin, AliceBell, JamesBendraoui, AbdeladimBeukhof, EstherBlomqvist, MatsBoyé, AurélienDi Lorenzo, BiancaDi Bona, GabrieleDinesen, Grete ElisabethDownie, AnnaDrgas, AleksanderDuncombe-Smith, StephenFernández, UllaGavazzi, Giacomo MonterealeGutierrez, LinaHansen, FlemmingHaubner, NorbertHerbon, CristinaHiddink, Jan GeertGonzález Irusta, José ManuelKreutle, AxelKyriakoudi, DespinaL., EllenLaffargue, PascalLuff, AnnaMackie, TimMaltese, SilviaMatear, LiamMilardi, MarcoNguyen, AlessandraNystrom, AntoniaOnay, HaticePapadopoulou, NadiaPenna, MarinaPierucci, AndreaPlaza, MaiderPulcini, MarinaPunzo, ElisaRaicevich, SašaReid, DavidReizopoulou, SofiaRiva, GiadaRoux, Marie-JulieRowe, OwenRufino, Marta megaSantelli, AngellaSchartmann, HannahSchmitt, PetraSchröder, AlexanderSciberras, MarijaSmith, ChrisThompson, MurrayValanko, SebastianDenderen, Daniel vanvan der Reijden, KarinVan Hoey, GertVaz, SandrineWijnhoven, Sanderhttp://hdl.handle.net/1834/421742022-12-11T14:28:35Z2022-01-01T00:00:00ZWorkshop to Scope Assessment Methods to Set Thresholds (WKBENTH2)
Artigas, Miquel Canals; Baldrighi, Elisa; Belin, Alice; Bell, James; Bendraoui, Abdeladim; Beukhof, Esther; Blomqvist, Mats; Boyé, Aurélien; Di Lorenzo, Bianca; Di Bona, Gabriele; Dinesen, Grete Elisabeth; Downie, Anna; Drgas, Aleksander; Duncombe-Smith, Stephen; Fernández, Ulla; Gavazzi, Giacomo Montereale; Gutierrez, Lina; Hansen, Flemming; Haubner, Norbert; Herbon, Cristina; Hiddink, Jan Geert; González Irusta, José Manuel; Kreutle, Axel; Kyriakoudi, Despina; L., Ellen; Laffargue, Pascal; Luff, Anna; Mackie, Tim; Maltese, Silvia; Matear, Liam; Milardi, Marco; Nguyen, Alessandra; Nystrom, Antonia; Onay, Hatice; Papadopoulou, Nadia; Penna, Marina; Pierucci, Andrea; Plaza, Maider; Pulcini, Marina; Punzo, Elisa; Raicevich, Saša; Reid, David; Reizopoulou, Sofia; Riva, Giada; Roux, Marie-Julie; Rowe, Owen; Rufino, Marta mega; Santelli, Angella; Schartmann, Hannah; Schmitt, Petra; Schröder, Alexander; Sciberras, Marija; Smith, Chris; Thompson, Murray; Valanko, Sebastian; Denderen, Daniel van; van der Reijden, Karin; Van Hoey, Gert; Vaz, Sandrine; Wijnhoven, Sander
Hiddink, Jan Geert; Reid, David; van Denderen, Daniel
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires Member States to achieve good environmental status (GES) across their marine waters. The EU have requested ICES to advise on methods for assessing adverse effects on seabed habitats, through selection of relevant indicators for the assessment of benthic habitats and seafloor integrity and associated threshold values for GES in relation to Descriptor 6 – Seabed integrity under the MFSD. Two sets of criteria were developed to evaluate indicators and thresholds respectively for evaluation of suitability for assessing GES. 16 indicator and 12 threshold criteria were compiled and weighted by importance. The criteria were designed for evaluation at a subregional or regional level. The scoring for these criteria is meant as a guidance when choosing indicators and thresholds, so failure to meet one criterion will not necessarily prevent the use of the indicator or thresh-old in an assessment. The framework was evaluated for 6 indicators and for 11 methods for setting thresholds. The criteria were found to be useful for evaluation both indicators and thresholds. The process works most consistently when there are experts in the group on both the criteria themselves and on the indicators and thresholds. The MFSD Descriptor 6 determination of GES needs both a quality threshold (when are seabed habitats in a good state in a specific location) and an extent threshold (proportion of the assessment area that needs to have seabed habitats in good state). Eleven different methods for setting thresholds were identified, of which more are suitable for setting quality than for extent thresholds. Preferred methods identified an ecologically-motivated difference between a good and de-graded state, rather than another transition. Quality thresholds based on the lower boundary of the range of natural variation were considered most promising. This approach can be used for most, but not all, indicators. The WK collated a standardized dataset to test the specificity, sensitivity and/or responsiveness of sampling-based benthic indicators to pressure gradients for evaluation by WKBENTH3. Risk-based methods will be evaluated as maps and by scored sensitivity and impact score per MSFD habitat type and subdivision. Participants provided input into the selection of indicators for the compilation of indicators. A template was developed for documenting the characteristics of each indicator to facilitate the evaluation of the indicators.
2022-01-01T00:00:00ZWorkshop on ICES Reference Points (WKREF2)Orio, AlessandroKemp, AlexanderPierucci, AndreaKuparinen, AnnaRindorf, AnnaPeyronnet, ArnaudWilson, AshleyAlbertsen, Christoffer MoesgaardKonrad, ChristophSparrevohn, laus ReedtzMinto, CóilínHowell, DanielGilljam, DavidMiller, DavidGarcia, DorletaArmelloni, EnricoAbad, EstherMasnadi, FrancescoScarcella, GiuseppeDingsør, Gjert EndreWinker, HenningSparholt, HenrikFarias, InêsHorbowy, JanLecomte, Jean-BaptisteHutchings, Jeffrey A.Fall, JohannaLövgren, JohanSimmonds, JohnShrives, JonathanOliveira, José DeHommik, KristiinaKel, LaurenceVansteenbrugge, LiesBorges, LisaBatts, LukeTaylor, MarcPastoors, MartinScanu, MartinaCardinale, MassimilianoGras, MichaëlDeurs, Mikael vanGoñi, NicolasGraham, NormanViladomiu, Paula SilvarSampedro, PazHilborn, RaySharma, RishiMillar, SarahNimmegeers, SofieMiethe, TanjaPerälä, TommiBartolino, Valeriohttp://hdl.handle.net/1834/421722022-09-14T03:21:47Z2022-01-05T00:00:00ZWorkshop on ICES Reference Points (WKREF2)
Orio, Alessandro; Kemp, Alexander; Pierucci, Andrea; Kuparinen, Anna; Rindorf, Anna; Peyronnet, Arnaud; Wilson, Ashley; Albertsen, Christoffer Moesgaard; Konrad, Christoph; Sparrevohn, laus Reedtz; Minto, Cóilín; Howell, Daniel; Gilljam, David; Miller, David; Garcia, Dorleta; Armelloni, Enrico; Abad, Esther; Masnadi, Francesco; Scarcella, Giuseppe; Dingsør, Gjert Endre; Winker, Henning; Sparholt, Henrik; Farias, Inês; Horbowy, Jan; Lecomte, Jean-Baptiste; Hutchings, Jeffrey A.; Fall, Johanna; Lövgren, Johan; Simmonds, John; Shrives, Jonathan; Oliveira, José De; Hommik, Kristiina; Kel, Laurence; Vansteenbrugge, Lies; Borges, Lisa; Batts, Luke; Taylor, Marc; Pastoors, Martin; Scanu, Martina; Cardinale, Massimiliano; Gras, Michaël; Deurs, Mikael van; Goñi, Nicolas; Graham, Norman; Viladomiu, Paula Silvar; Sampedro, Paz; Hilborn, Ray; Sharma, Rishi; Millar, Sarah; Nimmegeers, Sofie; Miethe, Tanja; Perälä, Tommi; Bartolino, Valerio
Lordan, Colm
The ICES Workshop on ICES reference points (WKREF2) was tasked review the WKREF1 report and based on the outcome develop updated guidelines for the ICES reference points system and recommendations for ACOM consideration. The WKREF1 report has suggested 5 key recom- mendations to simplify and harmonise the ICES reference points framework representing a ma- jor change to the current guidelines. At WKREF2, we detailed discussions and four key concerns were raised about the proposed approach. The first related to the simplification of rules to define Blim. Around two thirds of category 1 stocks would end up as WKREF1 “Blim Type 2” where Blim would be set as a fraction of B0. The Allee effect or “depensation” maybe more important than previously thought and should be furthered explored for ICES stocks since it has important consequences for Blim. A number of challenges and issues around defining Blim using the current guidelines were documented. Some suggestions on improvement criteria were discussed including using classifiers to define spas- modic stocks and using change point algorithms to address non-stationary productivity regimes. However, further work is need to make these approaches operational and there was no consen- sus that the WKREF1 Blim types should replace the current guidelines. WKREF1 recommended that the FMSY proxy should be based on a biological proxies and should be less than the deterministic FMSY. It was pointed out that the stochastic FMSY estimated in EqSim for example, is lower than the deterministic FMSY and that the current guidelines ensure that the FMSY should not pose a more than 5% risk to Blim. A large amount of work described in WD 1 was carried out to develop an MSE framework to consistency and robustness test a candidate refer- ence point system for North East Atlantic stocks. However, WKREF2 recommended that further work needs to be carried out to condition and test the simulation framework before the conclu- sions could be adopted by ICES and incorporated into the guidelines. A number of considerations for defining MSY related reference points were discussed including using model validation and prediction skill to ensure that ICES provide robust and credible ad- vice. There is evidence that density dependence (DD) is important in the majority of ICES stocks (68% in recruitment and 54% in growth). The correct prediction of the shape and strength of density-dependence in productivity is key to predicting future stock development and providing the best possible long-term fisheries management advice. A suggested approach to use surplus production models (SPMs) to account for DD in FMSY was suggested and discussed but there was no consensus on whether that approach was appropriate. There was consensus that the FECO approach as a means of adapting target fishing mortality to medium-term changes in productiv- ity should be included in the guidelines subject to a benchmark and ACOM approval. While WKREF1 and 2 focused mainly on Category 1 stocks ToR c) called for a “simplified and harmonised set of guidelines for estimating MSY and precautionary reference points applicable in the advice framework across various ICES stock categories.” Ideally the ICES assessment cat- egories should provide equivalent risk across all stocks. This issue was discussed but no recom- mendations emerged. There was no consensus a revised reference point framework was proposed at WKREF2. How- ever, it was agreed that it should be presented here for further discussion at ACOM and other fora. The key feature of the suggested approach is that the stock status evaluation is treated in- dependent of the Advice Rule (AR). The main feature of the system is that the biomass trigger is not linked to a stock status evaluation, it is linked to the expected biomass when fishing at the target fishing mortality, in contrast to the current ICES approach. It also entailed that FMSY would also become an upper limit of fishing mortality and that the advised fishing mortality would be set at or lower than that level. WKREF2 did not discuss what to do in situations where SSB< Blim or alternative forms of HCR for the advice rule. Building community understanding and con- sensus around simplified and harmonised guidelines has yet to be achieved. A further workshop WKREF3 will be required to achieve that aim. The report includes 6 recommendations for ACOM consideration.
2022-01-05T00:00:00Z