Browsing by Author "Kraan, Marloes"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Working group on ecosystem assessment of Western European shelf seas (WGEAWESS)Publication . Abrantes, Fatima; Andonegi, Eider; Beggs, Steven; Bentley, Jacob; Borges, Fátima; Christensen, Villy; Corrales, Xavier; Depestele, Jochen; Fariñas, Andrea; Fox, Clive; Gal, Gideon; Gascuel, Didier; Halouani, Ghassen; Heymans, Sheila; Holdsworth, Neil; Issac, Pierre; Kalinina, Olga; Kellner, Julie; Kempf, Jed; Kraan, Marloes; Lehuta, Sigrid; Llope, Marcos; López, Romain; Martinez, Inigo; Motova, Arina; Payne, Mark; Pedreschi, Debbi; Piroddi, Chiara; Potier, Mikaëla; Preciado, Izaskun; Püts, Miriam; Ramirez-Monsalve, Paulina; Reid, Dave; Rufino, Marta; Salgueiro, Emilia; Schoenen, Lea; Schuchert, Pia; Seixas, Sónia; Serpetti, Natalia; Silvar Viladomiu, Paula; Steenbeek, Jeroen; Szalaj, Dorota; Tomczak, Maciej; Torres, Marian; Travers-Trolet, Morgane; Vernhout, Gerben; Villanueva, ChingThe ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Assessment of Western European Shelf Seas (WGEA-WESS) aims to provide high quality science in support to holistic, adaptive, evidence-based man-agement in the Celtic seas, Bay of Biscay and Iberian coast regions. The group works towards developing integrated ecosystem assessments for both the (i) Celtic Seas and (ii) Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast which are summarized in the Ecosystem Overviews (EOs) advice products that were recently updated. Integrated Trend Analysis (ITA) were performed for multiple sub-ecoregions and used to develop an understanding of ecosystem responses to pressures at varying spatial scales. Ecosystem models (primarily Ecopath with Ecosim; EwE) were developed and identified for fisheries and spatial management advice. The updated Celtic Seas EO represents a large step forward for EOs, with the inclusion of novel sections on climate change, foodweb and productivity, the first application of the new guidelines for building the conceptual diagram, inclusion of socio-economic indicators, and progress made toward complying with the Transparent Assessment Framework (TAF). We highlight ongoing issues relevant to the development and communication of EO conceptual diagrams. A common methodology using dynamic factor analysis (DFA) was used to perform ITA in a comparable way for seven subregions. This was supported by the design and compilation of the first standardized cross-regional dataset. A comparison of the main trends evidenced among subregions over the period 1993–2020 was conducted and will be published soon. A list of available and developing EWE models for the region was also generated. Here, we re-port on the advances in temporal and spatial ecosystem modelling, such as their capacity to model the impacts of sector activities (e.g. renewables and fisheries) and quantify foodweb indi-cators. We also reflect on model quality assessment with the key run of the Irish sea EwE model. The group highlighted the hurdles and gaps in current models in support of EBM, such as the choice of a relevant functional, spatial, and temporal scales and the impacts of model structure on our capacity to draw comparisons from models of different regions. The group aims to ad-dress these issues in coming years and identify routes for ecosystem model derived information into ICES advice.
- 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 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.
- Workshop to compile evidence on the impacts of offshore renewable energy on fisheries and marine ecosystems (WKCOMPORE)Publication . Alexander, Karen; Akimova, Anna; Aonghusa, Catriona; Schreiber, Arias; Arjona, Yolanda; Arrigan, Michael; Balestri, Elena; Beerman, Jan; Belgrano, Andrea; Bicknell, Anthony; Birchenough, Silvana; Bolam, Stefan; Brown, Elliot; Buchholzer, Helene; Buyse, Jolien; Cadrin, Steve; Carlier, Antoine; Carlström, Julia; Carlén, Ida; Causon, Paul; Villanueva, Maria; Coolen, Joop; Cormier, Roland; Costa, Gisela; Daewel, Ute; Dameron, Tom; Dauvin, Jean-Claude; Desroy, Nicolas; Egidazu, Beñat; Evans, Peter; Pardo, Juan; Farrell, Edward; Fernandes, Ana; Gee, Kira; Gill, Andrew; Gilles, Anita; Gimpel, Antje; Grazino, Marcello; Hall, Raymond; Hamdi, Ilhem; Hamon, Katell; Henriques, Sofia; Hjorleifsson, Einar; Hogan, Fiona; Hovstad, Knut; Ibanez-Erquiaga, Bruno I; Janas, Urszula; Jong, Karen; Jongbloed, Ruud; Jon, Patrik; Kannen, Andreas; Kenny, Andrew; Kloppmann, Matthias; Koschinski, Sven; Kraan, Marloes; Lindkvist, Emilie; Lloret, Josep; Lusseau, David; MacDonald, Hannah; Machado, Ines; MacLeod, Ellie; Chai, Stephen; Martine, Roi; Mateo, Maria; Mazaleyrat, Anna; McQueen, Kate; Morrissey, Karyn; Morsbach, Samuel; Muench, Angela; Ndah, Anthony; Neumann, Hermann; Niiranen, Caitriona; Donnell, Aodh; Pascual, Jose; Pirrone, Claudio; Pita, Cristina; Police, Simon; Polte, Patrick; Rebai, Nourhaen; Rehren, Jennifer; Rumes, Bob; Hjøllo, Solfrid; Schulze, Torsten; Silva, Alexandra; Skog, Malin; Stelzenmüller, Vanessa; Tamis, Jacqueline; Thebaud, Olivier; Tierney, Kieran; Trifonova, Neda; Valcarce, Paula; Vanaverbeke, Jan; Velasco, Eva; Villasante, Sebastian; Vinagre, Pedro; Vries, Pepijn de; Waldo, Staffan; Want, Andrew; Watson, Gordon; Wrede, Alexa; White, Jonathan; Wright, Kirsty; Wu, Huixin; Seixas, Sónia; Hamon, Katell; Kannen, Andreas; Vanaverbeke, JanThis report provides a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the current state-of-the art in available evidence and science concerning the economic, social, and ecological impacts of offshore wind farms (OWF) and floating offshore wind farms (FLOW) on fisheries in the Baltic Sea, Celtic Seas, and Greater North Sea. It describes the observed and potential economic, social, ecological and cumulative impacts of OWF and FLOW, with a focus on the scope of the existing evidence base, data and methods to assess impacts, and mitigation options to avoid or reduce unwanted impacts. Overall, the workshop to compile evidence on the impacts of offshore renewable energy on fisheries and marine ecosystems (WKCOMPORE) highlights the need for additional high-resolution data, comprehensive assessments, and stakeholder involvement to better understand and mitigate the impacts of OWF and FLOW on fisheries and marine ecosystems. Specific ‘key findings’ arising from WKCOMPORE include: Economic and Social Impacts: The assessment of economic and social impacts of OWF and FLOW requires high-resolution data on vessel positions, fisheries catch and effort, fisheries economics, and social data. However, existing data are often insufficiently detailed and not well-linked, making comprehensive impact assessments a challenge. Both ex-ante (before) and ex-post (after) methods are used to assess these impacts. Studies have shown that OWF and FLOW can negatively affect income, fishing grounds, catching opportunities, and operating costs. It was concluded there are generally more studies reporting on negative impacts than positive benefits. Context factors such as the type of OWF and FLOW, development phase, and adaptive capacity of fisheries influence the nature and magnitude of impacts. No studies were found on trade-offs between economic impacts on fisheries and OWF and FLOW. Ecological Impacts (benthos and higher trophic levels): OWF and FLOW development phases have known or predicted local impacts on commercially fished species, but no population-level assessments were identified. The requirements for such analyses are, however, described. Assessing the potential impact of offshore wind farms (OWF) (fixed and floating) on commercial species requires a detailed understanding on how related human operations and the pressures they exert cause environmental effects leading to population-level impacts across spatial and temporal scales. Combined pressures caused by OWFs, climate change and other human pressures give rise to cumulative risks, demanding integrated environmental assessments such as cumulative effects assessments (CEA) and multi-scale management strategies. · The trait-based framework (TAFOW) applied in the current study links OWF-induced state changes to population characteristics and response traits, enabled species vulnerabilities to all phases of OWF life cycle to be assessed. · A total of 34 commercial species were assessed in the North Sea, Celtic Sea, and Baltic Sea, using the TAFOW framework, which identified that sediment resuspension was likely to be the most impactful state change, with highest vulnerabilities noted in the Celtic Sea driven by changes in larval dispersal and predator-prey interactions. The present study revealed that from the 34 commercially most important fisheries resources assessed; herring, great scallop, and monkfish are the most vulnerable species across the three regions. Trophic interactions and recruitment survival of fisheries resources are particularly vulnerable to pressures that are exerted by operational OWF. It was concluded there is insufficient evidence to directly assess and quantify the effects of OWF and FLOW on the Western Baltic herring stock, although there is no direct specific evidence to suggest existing OWF sites are impacting Western Baltic herring stocks. Baltic Proper harbour porpoise will likely be directly affected during all stages of offshore renewable energy development, and especially by the introduction of underwater noise. Given the aforementioned critically low population size, even moderate impacts are to be avoided. Cumulative Impacts: WKCOMPORE evaluated existing methods and models with the potential to assess cumulative impacts of OWF and FLOW. Some models and tools were deemed suitable or had potential through further development to quantify cumulative impacts and test mitigation options. An important distinction is made between CEA models/ tools based on risk assessment framework approaches which are useful in identifying ecosystem components in areas at highest risk, from ecosystem models which can quantitatively assess the interactions between specific aspects of windfarm developments and fisheries in support of operational management advice. The models/ tools evaluated in the present study (in terms of their operational utility), classified as ecosystem models, offering the greatest utility to support operationally CEAs were; VMStools, FishSET, Community Profiling Tools. DISPLACE, OSMOSE and EwE/ Ecospace. The importance of developing case studies to demonstrate the practical application of available strategic risk-based assessment frameworks (such as BowTie, FEISA, ODEMM and SCAIRM) should be linked explicitly with the outputs of quantitative (mechanistic) ecosystem models where possible. It was concluded there is no single CEA or ecosystem model/ tool available to provide a comprehensive assessment of all component interactions at a social, economic and ecological level, between windfarm developments and fisheries. The application of a combination of CEA and ecosystem models/ tools is therefore recommended for assessment purposes. The current study concluded the need to increase focus on exploring long time-series fisheries and environmental data (>10 years) to better describe and understand the spatial/temporal dynamics of core fishing areas and climate effects in response to offshore windfarms. Hydrodynamic and Pelagic Ecological Effects: (foodweb, productivity and lower trophic levels): Most commercial species with a pelagic life stage within an ecoregion will overlap in spatial distribution with dynamic cables associated with OWF and FLOW throughout the time that the cables are in the water column (construction, operation and decommissioning). Interactions between species and cables leading to responses will relate to either direct energy emissions, physical effects and/or indirect ecological effects. Only during OWF and FLOW operations will dynamic power cables create energy emissions sufficient to represent potential stressors to commercial pelagic fisheries species. The timing of exposure to energy emissions will be determined by the operational characteristics of the cables and the length of time that species use the pelagic environment around dynamic power cables. An approach to assess the impacts of dynamic power cables on commercial fish species is proposed. Turbines create atmospheric wakes, and underwater structures modify currents and stratification. These changes affect primary production and support communities of filter feeders. Offshore wind farms (OWFs) provide stepping stones for species dispersal across unsuitable environments, benefiting both indigenous and non-indigenous species (NIS), especially benthic species with long larval pelagic phases. However, the relative influence of OWFs compared to other artificial substrates remains unclear. All NIS observations in OWFs had previously been reported from the region. Floating OWFs are likely to harbour non-indigenous species (NIS) and facilitate their spread through turbine transport between ports and wind farms. Evidence from similar structures supports this, but direct studies on floating OWFs are lacking. Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) may enhance calcifying organism growth in biofouling communities, with potential regional variations due to environmental factors. Confidence in this effect is however low, as it lacks robust empirical support. Galvanic Anode Cathodic protection (GACP) may impact biofouling communities through metal toxicity effects, but confidence is low due to limited studies. Elevated temperatures on cooling water pipes and dynamic cables in OWFs might influence biofouling community composition and growth rates. However, evidence remains inconclusive, and further studies of this pressure is required. OWF sound pollution may impact biofouling organism behaviour, with variability across species. The relationship between sound and invertebrate behaviour in OWFs is poorly understood, and its ecological significance remains uncertain. Underwater structures can directly affect ocean dynamics by causing friction and flow obstruction. This increases turbulence, reduces current speed, and weakens water stratification up to 400 meters behind the structures. Enhanced mixing induced by OWFs may increase nutrient availability in the euphotic zone, promoting local phytoplankton production in the near-field of the structures. This effect applies primarily to fixed-bottom foundations. Reduced wind speeds within atmospheric wakes decrease wind-driven currents and ocean mixing, strengthening water stratification on scales up to 100 km away from the OWFs. Large wind farms create vertical circulation patterns (upwelling and downwelling). This can increase primary production around and decrease it inside wind farm areas. The currently planned OWF installation in the North Sea can induce changes in hydrographic conditions that might alter spatial and temporal dynamics in the marine ecosystems. In a published model scenario considering the installation of 120GW in the North Sea, local ecosystem changes could reach up to 10% not only at the OWF side but on a regional scale. Mitigation measures Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP): Maritime (or Marine) Spatial Planning (MSP) provides a way to allocate areas to OWF & FLOW and other human activities, and through subordinate planning processes, instruments and supporting procedures contribute to the identification and implementation of management measures, including mitigation options. Multi-use and co-use approaches seek to enable co-existence between users and activities. Stakeholder involvement, engagement and co-design help enable development of mitigation options that are technically, economically, politically, socially and ecologically feasible, and supported, or at least accepted, by stakeholders.