Browsing by Author "Ballesteros, Marta"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Working Group on Social Indicators (WGSOCIAL; outputs from 2023 meeting)Publication . Himes-Cornell, Amber; Kraan, Marloes; Bjørkan, Maiken; Ballesteros, Marta; Carvallo, Marianna; Clay, Patricia; Fraga, Ana; Fuller, Jessica; Garcia de Vinuesa, Alfredo; Glyki, Eirini; Gourguet, Sophie; Hind-Ozan, Edward; Jackson, Emmett; Lam, Mimi; Lucas, Chloe; Montova, Arina; Pita, Cristina; Pita, Pablo; Riechers, Maraja; Schreiber, Milena; Seixas, Sónia; Silva, Angela; Steins, Nathalie; Villasante, SebastiánThe Working Group on Social Indicators seeks to improve the integration of social sciences in ICES Ecosystem Overviews and Integrated Ecosystem Assessments through the development of culturally relevant social indicators. To advance progress on this, WGSOCIAL has broadly discussed the context of the social di-mension of fishing. This has led to coordination with other working groups within ICES and outside ICES with the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries Expert Working Group Social and with the Regional Coordination Group on Economics Issues. WGSOCIAL develops methods for qualitative and quantitative approaches. It has also continued providing input to the updating of ecosystem overviews finalizing those of the Celtic Seas and North Sea. WGSOCIAL has advanced work on the definition and context of trade-offs and trade-off analy sis in the social context of fisheries. To assess social and cultural significance of commercial fishing, WGSOCIAL members have advanced case studies in a number of ICES Member Countries: two regions in Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. Each case study tackles a different approach with a different context. In addition, WGSOCIAL has advanced work on the topic of what a fishing community is and how the definition can change in different contexts. Lastly, WGSOCIAL has developed a database of social and economic indicators for evaluating fisheries management and identified a comprehensive list of categories and sub-categories of social and economic indicators that could be used to structure the selection of social indicators that inform fisheries managers. As a nest step, WGSOCIAL will identify key social indicators and data gaps for selected ICES Member Countries with recommendations for approaches to close the gaps. To support integrated socio-ecological evaluations in ecosystem-based management, WGSOCIAL has contributed to the development of work on the impacts of wind farms on com-mercial fishing activities. This work will continue in collaboration with WGECON, with whom several parallel terms of reference (ToRs) are shared. WGSOCIAL decided to transfer to the new ICES Human Dimension Steering Group.
- Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA)Publication . Angu, Chevonne; Balestri, Elena; Ballesteros, Marta; Bloecker, Alexandra; Cadrin, Steve; Christensen, Helle; Curtis, David; Dandy, Rufus; Evan, Derek; Farrell, Edward; Gamaza, Maria; Gollock, Matthew; Haase, Stefanie; Hintzen, Niels; Jones, Andrew; Korsbrekke, Knut; Libun- gan, Lisa Anne; Luedemann, Karin; Macdonald, Paul; Mackinson, Steven; Merce, Anna; Murphy, Patrick; Napier, Ian; Pastoors, Martin; Peixoto, Ualerson; Rasmussen, Jens; Reedtz Sparrevohn, Claus; Roux, Marie-Julie; Rudd, Hannah; Schwermer, Heike; Seixas, Sónia; Steins, Nathalie; Tenbrink, Talya; Torreele, Els; Valeiras, Julio; Vallerani, Matilde; Wood, PeterThe objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stake- holder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice. Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-bench- mark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be iden- tified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to ac- cess, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured infor- mation well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when prelim- inary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC ad- vice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differ- ences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment reports as well as in the ICES advice in a transparent manner. Not only should dif- ferences or similarities be documented and communicated, in those cases where there are differ- ences in perception between ICES stock assessments and stakeholders, a working group, external to the assessment working groups, should evaluate these differences and describe whether these differences can be logically explained or require further investigation. This outcome of this pro- cess may potentially lead to new data collection or additional analyses suitable for input to benchmarks. Essential in this entire process is making sure the same language is spoken between scientists and stakeholders, that there are clear and transparent processes in place on how to deal with stakeholder information and communicate clearly how this information is used in the prepara- tion of ICES advice.
- Workshop on Implementation of Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (WKSTIMP)Publication . Ballesteros, Marta; Boo, María; Ribeiro, Morgan; Chevalier, Adrien; Clay, Patricia; Dengbol, Poul; Collas, Mark; Farrell, Edward; Fernández, José; Gamaza, María; Glyki, Eirini; Haynie, Alan; Henneveux, Aurélien; Hegland, Troels; Kenny, Andrew; Kraan, Marloes; Köpsel, Vera; Minkkinen, Terhi; O´Donoghue, Sean; Pedreschi, Debbi; Rodríguez, Alexandre; Couto, Joana; Sandell, Jane; Schmidt, Jörn; Seixas, Sónia; Sverdrup, Esben; Talevska, Tamara; Van der Meeren, Gro; Wilson, AshleyWKSTIMP supports the ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, through drafting elements for ICES Implementation Plan. The report defines a suit of actions to make the ICES Strategy work. If implemented successfully, a diverse and representative pool of competent, reliable and committed stakeholders will engage with ICES. All stakeholders will be able to contribute effectively based on a clear understanding of the process and what is expected from them. ICES will become a natural place for stakeholders to engage and collaborate, delivering better science and advice by integrating essential knowledge and providing arenas for meaningful dialogues. And, the engagement process will be fully traceable, and its monitoring and evaluation outcomes inform decision-making and organizational learning. The WKSTIMP participants represented a plurality of profiles and backgrounds including natural and social scientists, representatives from the fisheries sector, NGOs, Advisory Councils, ICES Head of SCICOM and ACOM and ICES staff. The analysis and reflective thinking on the Strategy set the basis for exploring actions within the ICES system (Expert Groups, Advice Drafting Groups, MIACO and MIRIA meetings) and across topics (research ethics, data protection, informed consent, conflicts of interest, transparency). The discussion in WKSTIMP highlighted the centrality of stakeholders as data, information and knowledge providers, and highlighted how two complementary ICES initiatives reinforce the Strategy: firstly, the development of guidelines for ensuring the integrity of scientific information submitted to ICES by data providers (e.g., WKENSURE); and secondly, the accountability for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions (forthcoming Workshop on perceptions on the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice, WKAFPA). Furthermore, participants discussed risks associated with opportunistic behaviour in the engagement processes (creative and created blindness and advice shopping), tailoring specific actions to cope with them. Exploring actions for implementation was guided by feasibility within the current ICES framework. Additional considerations were to avoid burdens, disruptions, and manage change in the ICES community. WKSTIMP proposes 35 time-based priority actions, urges the implementation plan's timely approval, and suggests strengthening ICES capability by creating an expert group on engagement. Potential actions developed by stakeholders beyond ICES provide synergies that could reinforce the Strategy.