ISSUE NO. 49 / SEPTEMBER 2012 Observe, interpret, and express

It was once commonplace to find an artist on board a mysteries of the deep waters around the northern portion research vessel. Working alongside the marine scientists, of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge provided the artist with a new they also recorded the findings of the expedition as well inspirational challenge. as the various seascapes and life on board. The detailed drawings of flora and fauna from the HMS “Challenger” “For fourteen days, I followed what was brought up expedition of 1872–1876 provided much of the basis for by the trawls and the remotely operated underwater modern marine biology. The scientific illustrator and vehicle (ROV), until a whole stream of images based on distinguished artist, Thorolv Rasmussen, began his impressions of what I had seen and experienced suddenly career on the 1910 RV ”Michael Sars” expedition. emerged”.

However, as audiovisual technology advanced and other “What I found was that I tended to work a little bit forms of documentation increased in use, the need for a like the scientists, in that I gathered my impressions in ship’s artist became less and less. the shape of sketches. This material makes up my own ‘findings’, which I will continue to work with as the basis Ørnulf Opdahl, Norway’s most distinguished contem- for oils, watercolours, and prints”, says Opdahl. porary landscape painter, brought the tradition into the twenty-first century when he participated in the “What really struck me was how nature evolves to MAR-ECO expedition aboard the RV “G.O. Sars” in the meet extreme conditions. We experienced an enormous summer of 2004. MAR-ECO, one of several field projects diversity of life forms, from seabirds in the sky and large contributing to the 2001–2010 Census of Marine Life, marine mammals on the surface, to unknown species at explored life on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at various depths great depths.” down to 4 kilometres. Sixty-five scientists and students from thirteen countries took part in the 2004 expedition A selection of Opdahl’s findings are displayed on our and collected a wealth of new information and insights, front cover. This painting, Census of Marine Life, 2004, stunning images, and a diverse scientific specimen is composed of nine individual watercolours and was collection, including several organisms later shown to kindly donated to ICES Secretariat by the Institute be species new to science. of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway. If you would like to explore more of Opdahl’s work from the MAR- Aboard the RV “G.O. Sars”, Opdahl captured his ECO expedition, it can be found in Peter Boyle’s 2009 impressions in sketches and watercolours. His “on board” publication Life in the Mid-Atlantic, which presents the anthology has provided the basis for inspiration for final findings of the MAR-ECO project. many oil and watercolour paintings and prints. We hope you enjoy this issue of ICES Insight. As always Opdahl has used his artistic talent to convey something we thrive on your comments and would be happy to of the diversity of the life and mysteries that lie hidden consider your ideas for future articles. Send both to in this part of the ocean. The savage landscapes and [email protected].

ICES INSIGHT Published annually by Editor ICES does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication, nor Issue No. 49 International Council for Celine Byrne does ICES or any person acting on its behalf accept responsibility for any use September 2012 the Exploration of the Sea thereof. ICES has not, save where otherwise stated, adopted or in any way approved H.C. Andersens Consulting Editor any view appearing in this publication, and statements should not be relied upon ISBN Boulevard 44-46 Emory D. Anderson as statements of ICES views. 978-87-7482-117-5 DK-1553 Copenhagen Denmark Editorial Associates Unless otherwise stated, the copyright for articles in ICES Insight is vested in the ISSN Ellen Johannesen publisher. Material herein may not be reproduced without written permission from 1995/7815 tel +45 / 33 38 67 00 Søren Lund the copyright owners. fax +45 / 33 93 42 15 Terhi Minkkinen Katie Rice Eriksen Send your comments or story ideas to [email protected]. www.ices.dk Claire Welling

Graphic design Hoogs Design Contents Large Marine Ecosystems: from talking the talk to walking the walk of sustainable development Kenneth Sherman recalls the beginnings of the LME approach and traces further 4 developments.

Taking a broader view of ecosystem modelling Myron Peck and WGIPEM members discuss end-to-end modelling. 12

What is a statutory meeting? Everything you ever wanted to know but were too afraid to ask. Emory D. Anderson 18 is your guide.

Climate change and the Arctic Harald Loeng considers ecosystem responses to the changing Arctic climate and 24 debates the possible effects on fish populations.

Due south Expedition leader Svein A. Iversen and biologist Georg Skaret look back on their 30 cruise in search of swarming Euphausia superba.

ICES and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive – providing the science needed for implementation 36 Ellen Johannesen reviews the development of ICES work in support of the MSFD.

Bergen – the marine capital of the world Kari Østervold Toft tells the story of how this proud maritime city became a world 40 leader.

Evolution of a journal Emory D. Anderson shares the history of the ICES Journal of Marine Science and 44 the story of those who shaped it. Large Marine Ecosystems: ICES Insight September 2012 4/5 Large Marine Ecosystems: from talking the talk to walking the walk of sustainable development Kenneth Sherman recalls the beginnings of the LME approach and traces further developments.

The perception of marine coastal waters degraded EBM. The group of 200 signed a “Scientific Consensus by overfishing, pollution, nutrient over-enrichment, Statement on Marine Ecosystem-based Management” acidification, habitat degradation, loss of biodiversity, (COMPASS, 2005). and the effects of climate change has dominated the public discourse (Jackson et al., 2001; Worm et al., 2006; Lubchenco and Petes, 2010). Less publicized are the Falling leaves and Polish vodka ecosystem-based initiatives operating around the globe to recover depleted fisheries, control pollution, restore It took approximately ten years for the LME approach to habitats, conserve biodiversity, and adapt to climate emerge as a useful method for assessing and managing change. The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) approach marine goods and services. The decade-long journey is steadily becoming one of the foremost tools to began in autumn 1983 while I laboured on my front advance the sustainable use of marine resources and lawn raking thousands of leaves into neat piles for environments. Its status was confirmed in 2005 when a bagging and disposal. My neighbour, the persistent, group of 200 respected marine experts, including self-appointed supervisor of my labours, Dr. Lewis scientists and policy professionals, compared the Alexander, was then serving as the US Geographer at advantages of an ecosystem-based approach to the the State Department, on a leave of absence from the research, assessment, and management of marine University of Rhode Island where he directed the Marine resources with a sector-by-sector approach. This group Affairs Department. He was working on Law of the Sea defined ecosystem-based management (EBM) and and thought it could be made more effective through recognized LMEs as appropriate areas for applying regionalization. When the nagging reached its climax, I suggested that management. By 2006, Elsevier Science had become we call a truce and reconvene later for a drink. And the LME publisher of choice. Along with the five earlier so it was that, over Polish Bison vodka, the idea of a volumes published with AAAS and Blackwell Science, Large Marine Ecosystem approach to the assessment nine additional LME volumes brought the total of peer- and management of marine goods and services was reviewed pages to more than 6000. broached. To my surprise, the ecological criteria put forward for designating boundaries of LMEs – To be found in the chapters of the early LME volumes bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophic are topics and titles from the best and brightest of linkages – were found worthy, on follow-up studies, by ICES scientists. ICES firm roots in the LME approach none other than the geographer of the United States! were made apparent in chapters by O. S. Assthorsson (Iceland), G. Beaugrand (France), K. Drinkwater During the decade between 1983 and 1993, we held (Norway), N. Daan, (The Netherlands), E. Gaard, (Faroe a series of multidisciplinary LME symposia at the Islands), G. Hempel (Germany), G. Hubold (Germany), annual meetings of the American Association for the G. Kullenberg (Sweden), A. D. McIntyre (UK), P. C. Advancement of Science (AAAS) with a cross section Reid (UK), J. C. Rice (Canada), M. P. Sissenwine (USA), of marine research scientists, economists, geographers, H. R. Skjoldal (Norway), M. Sinclair (Canada), S. Sundby and resource-policy and management experts, in New (Norway), and L. Valdés (Spain). York, Chicago, Boston, and New Orleans, followed by an international symposium in Monaco. Invited papers from the symposia were peer reviewed and published in five LME volumes by AAAS, Westview Press, and Blackwell GEF contacted me and asked if I was Science. “the LME Sherman”.

6000 Peer reviewed pages of LME Studies

Cumulative pages Introducing GEF 7000 By 1995, the firm scientific foundation of the LME 6000 approach – largely contributed by the ICES scientific 5000 community, along with scientists and resource managers

4000 from developing countries – caught the attention of a newly established international financial institution, 3000 the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF 2000 was established as an independent financial centre

1000 physically located within the World Bank in Washington, DC. It disburses financial assistance to economically 0 developing countries that have demonstrated a commitment, at the highest levels of government, to AAAS, 1986AAAS, 1989AAAS, 1990AAAS, 1991AAAS, 1993 arresting the degradation of LMEs along the coasts of ElsevierScience,ElsevierScience, 2002ElsevierScience, 2002ElsevierScience, 2003ElsevierScience, 2005 2006 Blackwell BlackwellScience, Blackwell1996 Science,Blackwell Science,1998 1999Science, 1999 Africa, Asia, Latin America, and eastern Europe, and introducing ecosystem-based management practices. More than 6000 peer-reviewed pages of LME Studies. Publishers and publication dates are listed along the horizontal axis. The GEF draws its funds from a trust of contributions made by countries that are more economically advanced, to improve the global environmental condition. Initially, Response from the scientific community to the first world leaders were made aware of this degradation at volumes was quite favourable. That success spurred two summits promoting the sustainable development of interest in comparative studies of, not only the science global resources. The first summit , the UN Conference of LMEs, but also the human dimension of LME on Environment and Development (UNCED), took place ICES Insight September 2012 6/7

in Rio in 1992, and the second, the World Summit on in financial assistance from GEF, the World Bank, and Sustainable Development (WSSD), was held ten years donor countries toward the recovery and sustainability later in Johannesburg. of LMEs.

Following UNCED, GEF contacted me and asked if I was “the LME Sherman”. They informed me Turning green in the Yellow Sea that the LME approach was, as far as they could determine, “where the rubber meets the road on the Within the framework of the LME modular approach, way to sustainable development” for their International the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Waters (IW) focal area and asked if the LME Program Korea are joined in a GEF-supported Yellow Sea would be willing to advise countries on implementing LME (YSLME) project to promote ecosystem-based GEF-supported projects by introducing the modular management and sustainable uses of Yellow Sea LME approach to the assessment and management of goods and services. The success of ecosystem-based transboundary, international marine waters. management depends on one simple mechanism: science driving management. This is where the rubber It became clear to the GEF-supported LME project meets the road. leaders that the five LME modules – productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, socio- GEF has pioneered a new methodology to systematically economics, and governance – provided the time-series advance this process – a Transboundary Diagnostic data needed to support adaptive management actions Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Program (SAP). aimed at the recovery and sustainable development of This method has been applied in seventeen GEF- LME goods and services. supported LME projects and begins with a joint fact- finding exercise known as a TDA. The participating Since 1995, NOAA’s LME Program, located at the countries prioritize transboundary issues, environmental Narragansett Laboratory of the Northeast Fisheries and socio-economic concerns, and the immediate and Science Center, has been partnering with the GEF and root causes of these issues. five UN executing and implementing agencies (UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, FAO, and IOC–UNESCO) to assist developing countries in implementing LME projects. Currently, 110 countries receive scientific and technical Response from the scientific community assistance and an unprecedented total of $3.1 billion to the first volumes was quite favourable.

Zhanhai Zhang (left), Director-General, Department of International Cooperation, State Oceanic Administration, People’s Republic of China, shaking hands with Sang-Pyo Suh, Director, Economic Organization and Environment Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Republic of Korea, after signing the statement of agreement approving the SAP at an endorsement ceremony in China in November 2009. Photo: Shouting Wang. A buoy field using the integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) method, at the production site in Sanggou Bay, Shandong Peninsula, China. Photo: Yihang Jiang.

Lantern nets with separate platforms for abalone Loading Laminaria for processing at dockside. Harvesting Laminaria and other species. and bay scallops. Photo: Ken Sherman. Photo: Ken Sherman. Photo: Ken Sherman.

For the Yellow Sea, the People’s Republic of China and As a result of reductions in fishing effort of up to 30 the Republic of Korea agreed to focus remedial actions per cent, both countries are ramping up integrated on the following priority issues: overfishing, pollution, multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) methods in the annual nutrient overenrichment, habitat degradation, and production of shellfish (molluscs) and marine benthic climate change. The countries also agreed to address the invertebrates (sea cucumbers). priority issues over a specific time-frame in the SAP. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also supported these priorities. Level upon level

The Yellow Sea SAP is notable for its high level of IMTA is adaptive and efficient. Buoys with strings of country commitment, including the agreement to reduce lantern nets are placed strategically over large coastal fishing effort by 25–30 per cent by 2020, a vessel buy- embayments. Fishermen travel to these fishing fields back programme, and the retraining of fishermen for in a convoy of up to eight connected boats towed by alternative livelihoods (UNDP/GEF, 2009). a single motorized boat. At the worksite, fishermen move manually through the buoy field, so reducing There is also a joint commitment to reduce nutrient greenhouse gas emissions and conserving energy. discharges to the Yellow Sea by 10 per cent every five years, through enhanced wastewater treatment and Immediately under each buoy, small pieces of the kelp the reduction in fertilizer use and industrial discharges Laminaria are affixed by hand, where they grow into long (UNDP/GEF, 2009). fronds. The kelp serves as food for juvenile abalone, that are seeded in the top tier of lantern nets. The next tier is Another major outcome of the SAP was the agreement seeded with bay scallops. At the base of the string is a by the two countries to establish a YSLME Commission, collection receptacle with juvenile sea cucumbers. a first in the Asia–Pacific region. The commission is to act as a decision-making body to expand efforts The abalone grow rapidly on the Laminaria diet. Given to implement management actions for recovering the high levels of primary productivity, the bay scallops and sustaining YSLME goods and services from an grow rapidly and the sea cucumbers feed on the faecal ecosystem perspective. pellets and organic detritus from above. ICES Insight September 2012 8/9

ECC

25–30% reduction in fishing effort

PROVISIONING Rebuilding of overexploited fish stocks

Improvement in mariculture techniques

International contaminant requirements met REGULATING Reduction in nutrient loading

Reduction in marine litter

Reduction in contamination of beaches CULTURAL

Better prediction of ecosystem change

Improved biodiversity status SUPPORTING Maintenance of habits

Reduction in risk from introduced species

The relationship between Ecosystem Carrying Capacity (ECC) services (left) and LME targets (right) that seek to maintain these services in the YSLME (UNDP/GEF, 2009).

The juvenile stocks of abalone, scallops, and sea significant amount of carbon in the LMEs. The production cucumbers are raised in concrete tanks at shoreside of abalone and scallop shells also locks up carbon as facilities in strategic locations around the embayment calcium carbonate. As a result, the planned ramping and transported in the wooden work boats to the up of IMTA methods in the YSLME will contribute mariculture fields. In turn, the mature Laminaria, significantly to improving the capacity of the YSLME to abalone, bay scallops, and sea cucumbers are returned absorb atmospheric CO2 (Tang et al., 2011). to the shoreside facility for processing and market destinations. Transferring innovative IMTA methodology to GEF and other LME assessment and management projects around the globe could contribute towards the goals Clearing the air (of carbon) of the Cancun Agreements, drafted at the 2010 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Within the framework of the YSLME project, ecosystem Mexico, and green energy initiatives aimed at reducing carrying capacity (ECC) is defined as “the sum of the excess levels of atmospheric CO2. ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural) that benefit mankind (UNDP/GEF, 2009)”. The integrated multitrophic aquaculture methodology is The partnerships help support a based on calibrated models of spatial carrying capacity using upper-water-column primary production data. substantial effort of 110 developing It is estimated that 3.8 million tonnes of carbon are countries engaged in 17 GEF sequestered annually by China in shellfish and seaweed LME projects. mariculture production in the Yellow Sea LME (Tang et al., 2011).

The harvesting of seaweed in the YSLME removes The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of an estimated 1.2 million tonnes of carbon per year. Korea are meeting ECC goals by reducing fishing effort, The combined photosynthesis of phytoplankton and rebuilding capture fisheries, improving non-polluting ingestion of organic particulates by shellfish can utilize a mariculture technology, and conserving habitat. The LME approach to sustainable development of coastal Literature cited ocean goods and services has grown from a $6 million COMPASS. 2005. Communication Partnership for Science and GEF grant supporting six countries in the Gulf of Guinea Sea: Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based demonstration project in 1995, to a global effort with Management. Available online at www.compassonline.org/sites/all/files/ $3.1 billion through 2010 in cumulative financial support document_files/EBM_Consensus_Statement_v12.pdf. from GEF grants, World Bank investment funds, UN Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., agencies, and participating countries (US Department of Limburg, K., et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and Commerce, 2010). natural capital. Nature, 387: 253–260.

The downward spiral in the health of the world’s Duda, A. 2009. GEF Support for the Global Movement toward the Improved Assessment and Management of Large Marine Ecosystems. In oceans was described by Jeremy Jackson in the Sustaining the World’s Large Marine Ecosystems, Ed. by K. Sherman, Scripps News (Scripps Institute of Oceanography/ M-C. Aquarone, and S. Adams. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. University of California, San Diego) of 13 August Jackson, J. B. C., Kirby, M. X., Berger, W. H., Bjorndal, K. A., Botsford, L. 2008. “Human activities are cumulatively driving the W., and Bourque, B. J. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse health of the world’s oceans down a rapid spiral, of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293: 629–637. and only prompt and wholesale changes will slow or perhaps ultimately reverse the catastrophic problems Lubchenco, J., and Petes, L. E. 2010. The Interconnected Biosphere: Science at the Ocean's Tipping Points. Oceanography, 23(2): 115–129. they are facing”. However, the influx of funding, innovative methodologies, and new partnerships Tang, Q., Zhang, J., and Fang, J. 2011. Shellfish and seaweed mariculture between developing countries and UN agencies, non- increase atmospheric CO2 absorption in coastal ecosystems. Marine governmental organizations (IUCN, WWF), and donor Ecology Progress Series, 424: 97–104. countries (e.g. Canada, Germany, Iceland, Norway, UNDP/GEF. 2009. UNDP/GEF Project: Reducing Environmental Stress Sweden, USA) have supported sustainable development in the Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. Strategic Action Programme. of LME resources since 1995 (Duda, 2009). ISBN: 978-89-964543-0-493530. 56 pp.

US Department of Commerce, NOAA NMFS Office of Science and The partnerships help support a substantial effort of 110 Technology. 2010. Scope and Objectives of Global Environment Facility developing countries engaged in 17 GEF LME projects. Supported Large Marine Ecosystem Projects. Ed. by K. Sherman, S. The projects support ecosystem-based management Adams, and M-C. Aquarone. NOAA, Narragansett, RI. 199 pp. actions focused on the recovery and sustainable use of Worm, B., Barbier, E .B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, LME goods and services that contribute an estimated B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., et al. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean $12.6 trillion annually to the global economy (Costanza ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800): 787–790. et al.,1997).

For readers interested in learning more about the LME approach for the sustainable development of coastal ocean resources during climate change, Kenneth Sherman is Director of the Large Marine Ecosystem Program, a commemorative LME volume has been published by the IUCN. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an Adjunct Professor of Oceanography at the University of Rhode Island To order, send request to: Galen McGovern, Large Marine Ecosystem Graduate School of Oceanography, and serves as scientific adviser to Program Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic several UN organizations and the Global Environment Facility in the and Atmospheric Administration, Narragansett, RI 02879, Galen. development and implementation of LME assessment and management [email protected], phone 401-782-3209. projects in Asia, Africa, Latin America and eastern Europe. His studies include comparisons among Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) in The publication is also available online at http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/ relation to the impacts of natural and human interventions on ecosystem edocs/2010-079.pdf. productivity and biomass yields.

To be found in the chapters of the early LME volumes are topics and titles from the best and brightest of ICES scientists. ICES Insight September 2012 10/11

Large Marine Ecosystems of the World and Linked Watersheds

1 East Berling Sea 23 Baltic Sea 44 West-Central Australian Shelf 2 Gulf of Alaska 24 Celtic-Biscay Sea 45 West-Central Australian Shelf 3 California Current 25 Iberian Coastal 46 New Zealand Shelf 4 Gulf of California 26 Mediterranean Sea 47 East China Sea 5 Gulf of Mexico 27 Canary Current 48 Yellow Sea 6 Southeast U.S. Contintental Shelf 28 Guinea Current 49 Kuroshio Current 7 Northeast U.S Contintental Shelf 29 Benguela Current 50 Sea of Japan/East Sea 8 Scotian Shelf 30 Agulhus Current 51 Oyashio Current 9 Newfoundland-Labrador Shelf 31 Somali Coastal Current 52 Okhotsk Sea 10 Insular Pacific-Hawaiian 32 Arabian Sea 53 West Bering Sea 11 Pacific Central-American Coastal 33 Red Sea 54 Chukchi Sea 12 Caribbean Sea 34 Bay of Bengal 55 Beaufort Sea 13 Humboldt Current 35 Gulf of Thailand 56 East Siberian Sea 14 Patagonian Shelf 36 South China Sea 57 Laptev Sea 15 South Brazil Shelf 37 Sulu-Celebes Sea 58 Kara Sea 16 East Brazil Shelf 38 Indonesian Sea 59 Iceland Shelf 17 North Brazil Shelf 39 North Australian Shelf 60 Faroe Plateau 18 West Greenland Shelf 40 Northeast Australian Shelf- 61 Antarctic 19 East Greenland Shelf Great Barrier Reef 62 Black Sea 20 Barents Sea 41 East-Central Australian Shelf 63 Hudson Bay 21 Norwegian Sea 42 Southeast Australian Shelf 64 Arctic Ocean 22 North Sea 43 Southwest Australian Shelf

Courtesy of LME Program Office. TAKING A BROADER VIEW OF ECOSYSTEM MODELLING

WGIPEM and the creation of responsive virtual worlds. ICES Insight September 2012 12/13

During the past twenty years, the coupling of biological For Peck, trying to combine models and identify their and physical models has improved our understanding utility for answering questions about fish stocks and of the dynamics of marine species and the ecosystems assessment requires a common language. Creating such in which they live. Some models, particularly three- an environment of mutual understanding, where many dimensional, biophysical, individual-based models different aspects of modelling can be discussed, will be (IBMs) and multispecies population models, have been one of the group’s main tests. part of the ICES portfolio for a long time, particularly through the ICES Working Group on Modelling of Communicating with other ICES working groups will Physical/Biological Interactions (WGPBI). be a priority. “Our task is to make sure that the other groups understand what our models can and can’t Parallel with the development of IBMs and multispecies/ do.” As an example of fruitful intergroup cooperation, upper trophic level models, has been the development, Peck cites the ICES Working Group on Operational under the generic term “end-to-end” models, of a Oceanographic Products for Fisheries and Environment number of spatially explicit foodweb models, with (WGOOFE), which established a web portal that acts as diverse frameworks and emphases. Initially, this new a two-way link between the producers and the users of generation of integrated modelling attracted the oceanographic data products (www.wgoofe.org), and its interest of the academic scientific community, but close association with the Herring Assessment Working recently it has attracted marine resource managers and Group for the Area South of 62°N (HAWG), which applied scientists. These coupled models are appealing contributes heavily to the site. because they integrate various parts of the ecosystem and can incorporate human and environmental drivers The first meeting of WGIPEM covered a wide field of in a single framework. topics, presenting cutting-edge science and innovative ecosystem modelling tools. The meeting, held in March 2012, attracted fifty participants including global experts in the field of modelling.

“Models help people see that, if they Peck feels that the meeting went well: “The group mixes change one factor in the system, this can people having lots of ICES experience with people who have never previously worked together. When we met also cause changes in other factors.” in smaller discussion groups, people started to see the things they have in common and realize how they could work together to advance the field. We identified at least four specific topics that will improve end-to- end models, as well as many other kinds of models.” ICES Science Committee (SCICOM) identified this area, which has developed largely outside the traditional ICES The challenge will be to keep the far-flung group community, as a gap in its science portfolio. Working meeting regularly. “We have to make sure that they can with members of the modelling network and academia, continue to meet, because each member offers expertise SCICOM dissolved WGPBI in 2011 and created ICES that is quite rare”. Working Group on Integrative, Physical-biological, and Ecosystem Modelling (WGIPEM), which is meant to take Peck envisions cooperation with other international a broader view of ecosystem modelling. groups in the future. “This is not just an ICES issue, but is very important for effective spatial planning and “It’s time to take it to the next level, which is end-to- management of marine ecosystems throughout the end modelling”, says Myron Peck, Co-Chair (with world.” Miguel Bernal) of WGIPEM. This means coupling individual models produced by groups such as WGPBI and inserting the human element at the top, thus creating virtual worlds that can help us understand how ecosystems respond to changes. “The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers; he's one who asks the right questions.” – Claude Lévi-Strauss

Some of the international experts attending WGIPEM’s Kenneth Rose is a professor at Louisiana State University first meeting in Copenhagen took a moment to discuss Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences in the development of marine ecosystem modelling. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, working on computer simulations of fish population dynamics, with particular Enrique Curchitser is an oceanographer based at interest in modelling fish movement in space. Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA. His main interests are the intersection of climate and ecosystems, Olivier Thébaud is a resource economist at CSIRO, regional climate impacts, and numerical modelling. Brisbane, Australia, working on how to bring the human dimensions into models in terms of how people interact Beth Fulton leads a marine ecosystem modelling with the ecosystem, but also in terms of economic team based at the Commonwealth Scientific and impacts and social dimensions. Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Marine and Atmospheric Research in Hobart, Australia. She led the development of Atlantis, one of the world’s most successful models in the field of whole-of-ecosystem modelling for the marine environment. “Using humans as a computational part is powerful, because humans can make intuitive leaps that computers cannot.” ICES Insight September 2012 14/15

Q: Let's start at the beginning: How do you Enrique Curchitser: build a model? I agree with Olivier. I think fundamentally we write models to make projections and predictions; the reason to create a model Beth Fulton: is to make a projection of some future state. The framework There are two parts in making a model. On the one side, that decides the complexity of a model and therefore what is there is the software that you use, and on the other side, included will be dependent on the questions asked and the there is the actual model building. Therefore, the way that we time-scales. approach building a model is to sit at the drawing table and ask, “What are the key parts that we need in the system?” Beth Fulton: Then you go to the software to tie the right bits together I would like to add that some of the questions come from the to build a computerized version of what you have drawn public and politicians, who are now demanding more complex on the whiteboard. These two slightly different sides come ecosystem information rather than single-stock or single- together in your end result. species information.

Kenneth Rose: Another way to think of it is in terms of a model and a code. Q: Do you try to be right when you make The model is the mathematics which represent the key parts models? And, if so, how do you know when in the system, and the code is how you solve those equations. the model is right?

Beth Fulton: Q: The model builders must therefore input It is not about being right; it is about helping people think the equations; they are not created by the about the system in a new way, which will give them an computer? insight into decision-making. The way we naturally think is very linear, so models help people understand more complex Kenneth Rose: systems with feedbacks and interactions. Models help people Exactly. Computers are fast, but not smart. They are amazing see that, if they change one factor in the system, this can also if you repeatedly tell them what to do, but you do have cause changes in other factors. to tell them what to do. In terms of model building, this means the equations that you come up with. Q: Are you saying that models can be used to teach the public, or non-scientists, a Q: How objective or subjective are models different way of thinking, a different way of builders in deciding what should be included? anticipating?

Olivier Thébaud: Beth Fulton: It is not so much a question of who decides what should Certainly. In Australia, we have created simpler, user-friendly be in a model, but rather what the question is that people versions of the models, which can be played on iPhones or want to address with a model, which will lead then to the small laptops. So, it is not only stakeholders, but also the choices made. For example, if we want to be able to predict general public who are able use the models. This means that what might happen in the uses of the ocean, then that is the everybody learns together. question which drives what you include and what you factor out in a model. Olivier Thébaud: In fact, it is often a two-way process. The interaction with Several models of the same system can exist and each of stakeholders and the public provides us, the developers, with these will have a different way of representing things. This information and understanding which were not captured is because there are different questions that people want to in the models initially. This is useful, particularly when address through the models. One of the challenges of the you are trying to capture some of the human dimensions whole end-to-end debate is whether we need to bring some of within the models. these different models together to get a more integrated vision of what is going on, and if so, how? Beth Fulton: Q: Is it possible to take “the unexpected” into Yes, we learn by watching people play; we give them the account in models? model, they play, and we observe that, “Well, they made their decisions this way,” or, “We never thought about that Beth Fulton: facet of interaction with each other when making their There are a couple of ways to approach this. In one way, decision.” you just have to accept that it is not possible to anticipate everything. But you can also try to shock the system to see what would happen; what you don’t say is, “This event will Q: Can models be developed into computer happen”, instead you ask, “What if it happened? How would games and virtual worlds? we respond?”

Olivier Thébaud: Yes, it is a growing field; they call it companion modelling. Q: How do end-to-end models relate to There is a whole network internationally that is developing the more traditional methods in marine models alongside these interactions with the stakeholders. research? Experimental context and workshop settings are used to enable people to play a virtual game where they can learn Beth Fulton: about other people’s views. For example, you get different I can answer that from the Australian perspective. We are water quality managers to play a model-based video game, not in competition with the stock assessments in Australia, where, essentially, people can select various options. You then we work in parallel. Stock assessments are still used to make get the participants to change their roles to see what the other the day-to-day, year-to-year decisions, whereas ecosystem person across the table has in terms of decisions to make. models are used to give strategic context for those decisions. They don’t compete, but rather complement each other. Beth Fulton: Using humans as part of the a part is powerful, because humans can make intuitive leaps that computers can’t. Interview conducted by William A. Anthony.

Olivier Thébaud: But there are still a lot of questions as to how you bring that information back into the whole model development; so this is still a developing area. ICES Insight September 2012 16/17

Atlantis The Atlantis model is considered the foremost ecosystem model worldwide. Developed by the Commonwealth MSE DESIGN BIOPHYSICAL SIMULATION CYCLE Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in AND ANALYSIS • environment (currents, bathymetry, and climate) Australia, it is a model that considers the ecosystem in its • resources entirety (Fulton et al., 2004). Physical, chemical, ecological, (flora and fauna) • impacts and fisheries dynamics information are integrated in a spatially-explicit, three-dimensional domain. The overall DEFINE INDUSTRY OBJECTIVES • development structure of Atlantis is based around the Management • exploitation • multiple fleets Strategy Evaluation (MSE) approach, where there is a (behaviour and gears) sub-model (or module) for each of the major steps in the IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING • economic pressures • observers adaptive management cycle. When first developed, the (costs, markets, trading) • surveys model’s focus was on the biophysical world and gradually • effort allocation and gear choice • reporting • investment progressed to address fishery management questions (the • social pressures • public perception first in the world to do so) which has become its primary • ports use. However, Atlantis has now evolved to the point that PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT it is being used to explore multiple uses of marine systems MEASURES • estimation • classification and climate questions. There are more than nineteen MANAGEMENT • RBC • decision rules Atlantis models in use today, mainly in Australia and North (harvest strategy) America. The first ICES region to introduce an Atlantis JUDGING • all levers (input & output) OUTCOMES • management costs model is the Barents Sea (run by the IMR). The first case study from this model which observed the effect that migrating whales have on the Barents Sea ecosystem will be discussed during ICES Annual Science Conference 2012. Atlantis model structure – based on the management strategy New Atlantis models are being parameterized for the North evaluation cycle. Courtesy of CSIRO. Sea and the Channel that will include interactions among various economic sectors and activities such as fisheries, Literature cited renewable energy, shipping and conservation. These new models were discussed at the first meeting of the ICES Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D. M. and Johnson, C. R. 2004. Effects of spatial resolution on the performance and interpretation of marine ecosystem WGIPEM. models. Ecological Modelling 176: 27–42.

Systems where Atlantis is in use or under development (red) or proposed (blue). Courtesy of CSIRO.

ICES Insight September 2012 18/19

What is a statutory meeting? Everything you ever wanted to know but were too afraid to ask. Emory D. Anderson is your guide.

This coming 24–25 October, ICES will hold its Annual Science Conference (ASC)”. For the next ten 100th Statutory Meeting at ICES Headquarters in years, from 1994 until 2004 (92nd Statutory Meeting), Copenhagen. So, you ask, what is a statutory meeting? the annual meeting consisted of both the ASC and the And why is the 100th Statutory Meeting worthy of Statutory Meeting; the former being sessions for scientific mention when the Council is 110 years old? presentations and meetings of scientific committees, and the latter being business meetings of the Council and By definition, a statutory meeting is a meeting of a its various subgroups. Beginning in 2005, the Statutory company, organization, or other constituted body that Meeting was separated from the ASC, with the former is mandated by law or statute. In the case of ICES, the being held approximately a month later in Copenhagen. Statutory Meeting is the annual meeting of the Council, the principal decision- and policy-making body of ICES comprised of the ICES President and two Delegates appointed by each of the twenty Member Countries. Only twenty-one individuals from Article 7 of the ICES Convention states: “The Council shall meet in ordinary session once a year. This session the eight Member Countries attended shall be held in Copenhagen, unless the Council decides the inaugural meeting in Copenhagen otherwise.” Therefore, simply stated, the Statutory in 1902. Meeting is the annual meeting of the ICES Council.

What 's in a name? There is considerable history associated with Statutory Meetings, beginning with the inaugural meeting held To the uninformed, there might be some confusion 22–25 July 1902. Statutory Meetings have been held regarding nomenclature about the annual meeting. Prior every year since 1902, except in 1911 (two were held to 1994, the annual gathering of scientists and Delegates in 1912), 1915–1917 (in 1918, only Delegates from the under the ICES umbrella was termed the “Statutory neutral countries of Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Meeting”. This meeting, generally held in September and Sweden attended), 1919, and 1940–1944. As stated or October, included sessions of standing scientific in Article 7 of the ICES Convention, Statutory Meetings committees (including working group reports, scientific shall be held in Copenhagen unless the Council decides presentations, and discussion of current and proposed otherwise. For many years and until about the mid- scientific activities and programmes) as well as business 1980s, Copenhagen alternated with Member Countries meetings of the Council (Delegates) and various Council as the venue for the annual meeting, but since 1986, subgroups. Beginning in 1994 (82nd Statutory Meeting all except two annual meetings have been held outside held in St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada), the science Copenhagen at Member Country venues in response to portion of the annual meeting, was termed the “ICES national invitations.

The frazzled Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory librarian reacts to receiving a full set of CM documents from the 1979 ICES Statutory Meeting. Photo: ICES archives. If you build it, they will come Paperwork

Compared with today, when ASC attendance numbers The ICES annual meeting has also been referred to as 600–700 participants from thirty-five to forty countries, the “Council Meeting”. Documents prepared for and participation in the early years was sparse; only twenty- presented at the annual meetings are still designated as one individuals from the eight Member Countries “CM” documents. Prior to 2001, when CM documents (Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, were first made available in CD-ROM format, all papers Russia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) attended the presented at annual meetings were disseminated to inaugural meeting in Copenhagen in 1902. However, participants in hard-copy format. Authors were required attendance steadily increased as more countries joined to provide 200 copies of their papers to the Secretariat ICES and more people, particularly experts, became for distribution at the meetings. Needless to say, involved in Council and committee activities and with hundreds of CM documents submitted to each business. annual meeting, the logistics, cost, and Secretariat time associated with shipping, displaying, and distributing Both science and business were integral components of them to meeting participants were substantial. Statutory Meetings, with the Council’s scientific work managed primarily through a series of committees, the number of which and whose names, topics, functions, and remits have changed and evolved over the years. Three important committees were established at the July Today, ICES annual gathering consists of 1902 inaugural meeting: (i) Committee A, concerned two separate events: a vibrant scientific with the study of the migrations of the principal food conference and the traditional governing fishes of the North Sea; (ii) Committee B, concerned with the question of overfishing of parts of the North meeting of Member Country Delegates. Sea, mostly fished by trawlers; and (iii) Committee C, concerned with the investigation of Baltic fish. Went (1972) provides a complete listing and description of the Council’s committees from 1902 until 1972. The first time that “Statutory Meeting” was mentioned in any annual meeting report was in reference to In the early years, an annual meeting, simply called the resolutions passed by the 41st Statutory Meeting, held “Meeting”, lasted only two to three days. However, as in Copenhagen in 1953 (ICES, 1954). Not until the report the years passed attendance grew, as did the number of of the 1966 meeting in Copenhagen (ICES, 1967) was meeting days. In 1948, for example, the 36th Meeting “Statutory Meeting” used in the title of the annual meeting. held in Copenhagen, was eight days (4–11 October) in From the beginning of ICES and until the early duration, and was attended by 154 Delegates, experts, 1990s, attendance at Statutory Meetings was closely observers, guests, and Secretariat staff from seventeen controlled. Council Rules of Procedure specified that different countries. The agenda included two sessions each “Contracting Party” (i.e. Member Country) must of Special Scientific Meetings, meetings of seven area inform the General Secretary in writing of the names committees (North-Eastern Area, North-Western of its Delegates, experts, and advisers being appointed Area, Atlantic, Northern North Sea, Southern North to attend each meeting. Participation from non- Sea, Transition Area, and Baltic Area) and five subject Member Countries or from cooperating organizations committees (Hydrographical, Plankton, Salmon and or international agencies was by Council invitation, Trout, Whaling, and Statistical), each with their own extended formally by the General Secretary. However, scientific presentations, two sessions of the Consultative by the early 1990s, this protocol began to be relaxed, Committee, and three sessions of the Delegates’ meeting and the science portion of the annual meeting began to (ICES, 1949). be viewed more as an open scientific conference rather than as a somewhat closed “club”. Since 1994, when the annual scientific meeting became the ASC, participation has been handled by individual registration. Given ICES Insight September 2012 20/21

Participants at the 1904 ICES Statutory Meeting in Hamburg, Germany on board the RV "Poseidon”. Photo: ICES archive.

Participants at the 1948 ICES Statutory Meeting in Copenhagen. Photo: ICES archive.

General Assembly of the 1988 Statutory Meeting held in Bergen, Norway. Photo: Courtesy of Emory Anderson. the increasing costs associated with hosting an ASC, ecosystem-oriented, the agendas of annual meetings participants are now required to pay a registration fee; began to include joint committee sessions, with scientific previously, no such fees were charged. presentations on topics of mutual interest. Mini- symposia were included as well. Beginning at the 1984 Statutory Meeting (ICES, 1985), theme sessions were Core committees first featured.

As mentioned earlier, meetings of ICES scientific By the 1980s and early 1990s, a typical Statutory committees have always been an integral part of all Meeting spanned ten days of scientific and business annual meetings. This was the mechanism chosen by the sessions. For example, the 78th Statutory Meeting founding fathers of ICES for discussing, planning, and held in Copenhagen 4–12 October 1990 (ICES, 1991) reviewing needed collaborative scientific investigations began on a Wednesday with meetings of the Bureau, to address pressing questions of the day. In essence, the two advisory committees (Advisory Committee these various subject/area committees over the years on Fishery Management and Advisory Committee on have been the “heart and soul” of ICES. They provided Marine Pollution), and the Consultative Committee. The venues for like-minded scientists to meet and discuss General Assembly on Thursday morning was the official topics of common interest and to plan research and opening, followed by eight scientific theme sessions, working group activities relevant to the particular meetings of twelve subject/area committees (Fish committee theme. Out of the committee discussions Capture, Hydrography, Statistics, Marine Environmental, were born the multitude of working and study groups Mariculture, Demersal Fish, Pelagic Fish, Baltic Fish, and collaborative international research experiments Shellfish, Biological Oceanography, Anadromous and and programmes that have characterized the work of Catadromous Fish, and Marine Mammals). There ICES. Went (1972) labelled the 1960s as the “decade of was also a mini-symposium, two sessions (Thursday the Working Groups”, because from this time forward, and Monday) of the Delegates’ meeting, and meetings a large number of groups were established to deal with of the Finance (Friday), Publications (Monday), and urgent and specific tasks, many of them associated with Consultative (Saturday) committees, concluding with the requirements of client regulatory bodies to whom a Closing Session on the following Tuesday afternoon. ICES has provided scientific advice. Today, ICES Sunday was a free day, with a bus tour (for those so working groups (or expert groups) generally number inclined) of scenic and interesting sites in and around over a hundred at any given time and involve the Copenhagen. The Consultative Committee met collective participation of thousands of experts. following the Closing Session on Tuesday and all day Wednesday to take care of scientific business and prepare recommendations for Delegates’ consideration. Lastly, the Delegates met all day Thursday and half of Until the early 1990s, attendance Friday to complete their business.

at Statutory Meetings was closely controlled. Popular science

In 1993, the Council began to discuss the need to enhance the interdisciplinary role of ICES and The ICES subject/area committees were each traditionally improve the focus on the ecosystem approach to fishery rather narrowly focused, in keeping with the general management by (i) modifying the structure of Statutory approach to marine science at the time. They served a Meetings and (ii) possibly restructuring existing subject/ valuable purpose, attracting the participation of and area committees (ICES, 1994). It was pointed out that providing a scientific “home” for scientists in a wide a record 613 scientific papers (CM documents) had spectrum of marine science disciplines. However, in the been submitted to the 1993 meeting, which resulted in late 1970s and early 1980s, as scientific thinking and insufficient time for their proper presentation at sessions inquiry began to become more cross-disciplinary and of the twelve subject/area committees and the eleven ICES Insight September 2012 22/23

Main entrance of the Gdansk Music and Congress Centre, venue for the 2011 Annual Science Conference held in Gdansk, Poland. Photo: ICES archives.

joint and theme sessions. Further discussions over the Emory Anderson was ICES Statistician during 1985–1989 and General next few years finally led to the current structure of the Secretary from 1989 through 1993. In 2008, he became an editor of Statutory Meeting/Annual Science Conference, wherein ICES Journal of Marine Science as well as editor of ICES Cooperative the ASC was treated as an open scientific conference Research Report series and consulting editor of ICES Insight analogous to those of many professional societies and magazine. organizations, and all scientific papers were submitted to and presented at theme sessions. Acknowledgements

Assistance from Søren Lund and Henrik Larsen in the ICES Secretariat and from Jacqueline Riley, librarian at the NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Theme sessions were first featured in 1984. USA, in researching old Council reports is greatly appreciated.

Literature cited

At the 2011 ASC in Gdansk, Poland, a more manageable ICES. 1949. 1ère Partie Procès-Verbaux (Octobre – 1948). Rapports et 287 papers and 106 posters were presented at nineteen Procès-Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 124: 6–49. theme sessions (ICES, 2012). The twelve subject/area committees of the 1980s and 1990s have now been ICES. 1954. 1ère Partie Procès-Verbaux (Septembre–Octobre – 1953). replaced by five steering groups, functioning under the Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour control of the ICES Science Committee (SCICOM). l’Exploration de la Mer, 135: 5–36.

These five groups now manage the activities of the ICES. 1967. Procès-Verbaux de la Réunion 1966. Rapports et Procès- many scientific expert groups of ICES, the reports of Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la which and terms of reference for future meetings are still Mer, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. 126 pp. discussed and planned at meetings held during the ASC. ICES. 1985. Procès-Verbaux de la Réunion 1984. Rapports et Procès- Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la As you can see, the name and format of the annual Mer, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. 259 pp. ICES Statutory Meeting has evolved over the years. Today, ICES annual gathering consists of two seperate ICES. 1991. 78th Statutory Meeting 1990 Copenhagen. ICES Annual Report. Procès-Verbaux de la Réunion, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. 304 events: The first is a combination of business meetings pp. and a vibrant scientific conference attracting marine scientists from all corners of the globe each September, ICES. 1994. 81st Statutory Meeting 1993 Dublin. ICES Annual Report. Procès-Verbaux de la Réunion, ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. 306 pp. and, one month later, the traditional governing meeting of Member Country Delegates to oversee the affairs of ICES. 2012. Annual Report 2011. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark. 94 pp. the Council and plan for the future. Given what has transpired over the first 110 years of ICES, it is exciting to Went, A. E. J. 1972. Seventy years agrowing. A history of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 1902–1972. Rapports et Procès- contemplate what lies ahead. Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 165. 252 pp. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ARCTIC Harald Loeng considers ecosystem responses to the changing Arctic climate and debates the possible effects on fish populations.

Conditions in the Arctic have always been challenging. and thickness of the sea ice has declined rapidly over the Dramatic seasonal changes, low temperatures, and last few decades. It remains uncertain as to how quickly extensive ice cover combine with a high proportion the ice will decrease, but it is believed that the Arctic’s of shallow continental shelves and a large supply of summer sea ice will eventually disappear. When this freshwater from rivers and melting ice to create a truly happens, it will open up a lot of water, and scientists unique marine ecosystem. While a number of highly are already looking at what might happen in the marine specialized organisms have, over time, adapted to the ecosystem. Arctic’s environment, they are constantly challenged by the extreme intra-annual variations. Climate change and fish Current climate models and trends in observations indicate that the polar ecosystems will change Climate variability affects ecological processes in a significantly in the coming decades. The Arctic and multitude of ways. These effects on the dynamics of Subarctic sea ice are already melting. Both the extent the marine ecosystems may have potentially important ICES Insight September 2012 24/25 CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ARCTIC

implications for commercial fisheries. The abundance important fish stocks to migrate from Subarctic and distribution of commercially important fish and areas into the Arctic Ocean or other Arctic continental shellfish stocks in marine ecosystems associated with shelf seas. Significant progress has already been long-term temperature changes is one such example. made in identifying mechanisms by which climate change can affect fish population dynamics through Attempting to predict the response of commercially understanding how climate change will impact shifts important species to further climate change is of in the distribution of fish species and developing climate great interest to scientists, governments, and fishing models to predict the future effects of climate change on communities. While acknowledging the present species distribution. There are several examples of how limitations in understanding, several scientists have increased temperature has encouraged northward fish synthesized existing information to develop conceptual migration or greater productivity of southern species, models of how climate change will impact marine for example, in the North Sea. ecosystems. One question that weighs heavily is the possibility of evaluating the potential for commercially Fish may be affected both directly and indirectly by Advective corridors must be available for immigration climate change and variability. Directly, fish can be to the new region, thermal windows must be suitable affected physiologically, including their metabolic and for survival at key life stages, and suitable prey must reproductive processes. Indirect effects may result from be available. Due to their direction and intensity of changes in their biological (predators, prey, species flow, ocean currents on the eastern boundary of the interactions) and abiotic (habitat type and structure) Arctic Ocean are more favourable to immigration. environments. Added to these processes are the While distances between similar habitat types are ecological responses to climatic variation, which may be relatively small along the shelf areas of the Barents Sea, immediate or lagged, linear or nonlinear, and may result topography may influence the potential for immigration from interactions between climate and other sources into the Arctic. Fram Strait, for example, is the only of variability (such as the amplification or damping of deep-water connection between the Arctic Ocean and climate effects due to fishing). the surrounding seas.

Although fish that exhibit the appropriate life history adaptations may be more likely to expand or move Due to their direction and intensity of flow, into the high Arctic than other species, the processes ocean currents on the eastern boundary of governing survival are spatially and temporally complex. Some species, such as capelin (Mallotus villosus), the Arctic Ocean are more favourable to Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), and immigration. cod (Gadus morhua), are already living close to the Arctic Ocean. However, considerable uncertainty remains whether these species will be able to successfully colonize the region. Despite the fact that many species What might happen? may have evolved temporal patterns of feeding and reproductive behaviour that maximize survival, if Qualitative assessments have identified several factors climate change shifts the temporal match with key that will govern the potential expansion and movement aspects of their life history, survival may be affected. of commercially important fish and shellfish species into the Arctic. Important environmental factors include spatial distribution of suitable thermal conditions, Primary and secondary production availability of prey, and depth of migration corridors into, or out of, the Arctic Ocean. Key life history and The anticipated loss of seasonal sea ice is expected to behavioural characteristics include growth potential, lead to higher phytoplankton production in the Arctic. fidelity to spawning sites, foraging flexibility, thermal Higher phytoplankton production should normally tolerances, habitat depth, and projected spawning- result in increased zooplankton production. However, the stock size. species composition of Calanus and other zooplankton ICES Insight September 2012 26/27

groups could be strongly affected, similar to what was seen for C. finmarchicus and C. helgolandicus in the North Sea, thus making the overall effect on zooplankton production difficult to predict. Subsequently, zooplankton abundance, distribution, and species composition may strongly affect recruitment, growth, and migration of many fish species.

Cod

Cod recruitment in the Barents Sea is positively correlated with temperature, but it is unknown if this will continue to be the case if temperature increases outside the range for which we have observations. An improved understanding of the physiological and behavioural responses of cod to changes in environmental conditions and the responses of other components of the marine ecosystem are required for future projections of cod abundance. A more northward and eastward shift in cod distribution than observed in recent years has been suggested under climate change, with the potential of penetrating as far as the Kara Sea. However, as cod is a demersal species, it will not migrate into the Arctic Ocean itself because of the great depths, and the The Northeast Arctic cod stock geographical distribution 2011. distribution observed during autumn 2011 is close to the northernmost distribution we can expect.

Pelagic species

Pelagic species that exhibit long-distance feeding migrations may be capable of utilizing the Arctic Ocean as a summer feeding area if temperature and food conditions are suitable. However, retrospective studies suggest that pelagic foragers predominantly Attempting to predict the response of commercially important species to further climate change is of great interest to scientists, governments, and fishing communities.

track gradients in prey. Gradient-tracking foragers are Polar cod (Boreogadus saida) is an important part of the more likely to conserve energy and forage on local prey ecosystem in the northern part of the Barents Sea. It is sources. Therefore, the emergence of foraging migrations possible that a northward extension of the distribution of into the Arctic is expected to evolve over a considerably capelin may force polar cod to move even further north, longer time period. and this stock could possibly be negatively affected by a warmer climate. Possible impacts on the capelin population under climate change have also been explored. As the ice edge retreats farther north and the Polar Front shifts northeastward, Deep-water species feeding areas for capelin may also shift northeastward, a result consistent with distributional changes observed Greenland halibut have already been observed on the between cold and warm years. Capelin spawning areas shelf break between the Barents Sea and the Arctic may also shift, from the southern border of the Barents Ocean as far east as the St. Anna Trough in the Kara Sea (Finnmark and Murman coasts) to the eastern border Sea. Other species that have taken the opportunity (southeastern Barents Sea and Novaya Zemlya), where to migrate northwards include redfish (Sebastes spp.). some spawning has been observed in previous warm Redfish are normally found only in Atlantic water periods. masses. However, juveniles are now widely distributed over the western Barents Sea shelf, while reproducing adults concentrate on the shelf break when extruding larvae. In the case of Sebastes mentella (beaked redfish), The anticipated loss of seasonal sea ice is adults are distributed in open water during summer expected to lead to higher phytoplankton feeding migrations. The potential for redfish to expand production in the Arctic. into the Arctic is related to the expansion of Atlantic water masses; reproducing adults can potentially expand ICES Insight September 2012 28/29

ICES role in the Arctic ICES has several expert groups that deal with species living in the Subarctic and the Arctic border. However, ICES should look beyond stock size and development and consider relevant processes that determine distribution and migration in these areas.

What action could ICES take?

• provision of leadership on Arctic issues at North Atlantic scale that are a priority to ICES (enhanced research coordination);

• increase efficiency and focus of the extant ICES science capacity with respect to strategic priorities and shorter-terms needs (improved governance);

• expand ICES science capacity in a directed manner to address specific gaps through engagement of scientists in Member Countries and through partnerships (enhanced science capacity).

Hypothesized expansion of the distribution area of redfish under future ocean climate in the Barents Sea and surrounding areas. Shaded areas and arrows indicate current distribution areas and migration routes. Plain colour areas and arrows indicate the potential expansion of distribution and migration routes. Adapted from Nedreaas et al. (2011)

over the northern and eastern sides of the shelf break, The future and beaked redfish can potentially expand into the open Arctic Ocean during summer months, given appropriate Climate change and variability will alter the distribution temperature and feeding conditions. and productivity of species (but it will depend on temperature and food availability). While guesses and predictions will continue to be made for this region, we Marine mammals will have to wait for the answer.

Seals (Phocidae) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are highly dependent on sea ice throughout the year. Harald Loeng is Research director at the Institute of Marine Research The disappearance of summer ice combined with the (IMR) in Norway. His main scientific interest is climate and its impact reduction in ice-covered areas in winter could have on the marine ecosystems. He has had many positions within ICES, including chair of the Consultative Committee. detrimental effects for these animals as well as providing a further influence on the dynamics on the stocks on which they prey. Due south RV “G. O. Sars” braves the notorious Southern Ocean in search of swarming Euphausia superba

Expedition leader Svein A. Iversen and biologist Georg Skaret look back on the cruise and discuss Norway’s growing contribution to the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. ICES Insight September 2012 30/31

Krill is one of the most abundant and successful animal this project was to be Norway’s first major contribution. species on our planet. Its importance in the Southern The Antarctic Krill and Ecosystem Survey (AKES), led Ocean is such that the ecosystem is often labelled “krill- by the IMR, was carried out with the RV “G. O. Sars” centric”. At the beginning of 2008, Norway, as the major in 2008 as part of the International Polar Year (IPY), with krill fishing nation and member of the Convention on major contributions from the University of Oslo and the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCAMLR, and was funded by the Research Council of Due south (CCAMLR), conducted a research cruise to learn Norway, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, ABB, more about Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) and the Norsk Hydro, and the IMR. ecosystem which it inhabits. Management of the Antarctic krill fishery has, so far, The total biomass of Antarctic krill in the Southern Ocean been based on an acoustic survey carried out by Russia, is, as yet, unknown, but it is vast and it dominates the USA, UK, and Japan in 2000 in FAO Areas 48.1–48.4. ecosystem. Krill feeds mainly on phytoplankton, but it is This survey estimated the krill biomass to be 44 million in its role as prey for fish, marine mammals, and seabirds tonnes. However, it became clear that this estimate was that it earns its key status in the Southern Ocean. associated with large uncertainties. In particular, there was a huge, uncertain bias related to the necessary The krill fishery is situated in the Southwest Atlantic conversion from acoustic backscatter to real krill biomass sector of the Southern Ocean in the area surrounding (Conti and Demer, 2006). With IMR’s acoustic expertise South Georgia (FAO Area 48.3), the South Orkney and the RV “G. O. Sars” especially equipped for acoustic Islands (FAO Area 48.2), the South Shetlands Islands, investigations, one of the main objectives of the AKES and the Antarctic Peninsula (FAO Area 48.1). Norwegian project was to investigate the acoustic properties of vessels began fishing Antarctic krill here in 2005 and Antarctic krill in order to understand and reduce the have, in a few short years, established Norway as the uncertainty in the krill biomass estimates. A further major krill fishing nation with catches of 120 000 tonnes aim was to investigate the acoustic properties of two and 103 000 tonnes in 2010 and 2011, respectively, which other important organisms in the Southern Ocean accounts for more than 50 % of the total catch. At present, ecosystem: salps (Salpa thompsoni) and mackerel ice there are three active Norwegian vessels. A fourth license fish (Champsocephalus gunnari). As the survey was to be has been issued, but not yet activated. extensive in terms of time at sea, coverage of latitudinal and longitudinal gradients, and expert competence from different scientific fields, broader research Why fish krill? questions could also be posed. For instance, could different properties of the krill population, such as Krill meal is used in aquariums and aquaculture. demography, distribution, and swarm dynamics, be Human consumption of krill includes omega-3, related to hydrographical conditions, phytoplankton medicine, and cosmetics. concentrations, and nutrients, and could the distribution ? of krill-dependent predators like birds and baleen whales be related to the distribution of krill? An array At your service of Norwegian and international scientists representing biodiversity, paleoclimatology, fish physiology, birds, Due to the significant Norwegian activity in the area, mammals, air pollution (aerosol), and hydrography also the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) in Bergen took part in the AKES survey. Studies of krill genetics took the initiative to further the scientific work on and fish parasites were also carried out. Throughout the which the management of the marine resources in the AKES project, there was continual progress in the use Southern Ocean was based. The management body, the of acoustic frequency response to distinguish between Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine targets such as krill and salps. Living Resources (CCAMLR), was established in 1980, with its headquarters in Hobart, Tasmania, and currently comprises twenty-four member states. Norwegian Krill is one of the most abundant and scientists have worked with CCAMLR since 1982, but successful animal species on our planet. Cruising for krill concentrations observed in the vicinity of shelves and ridges. Demography varied between regions investigated On 4 January 2008, “G. O. Sars” sailed out of Monte- (Krafft et al., 2010), and the frequency of swarms video, Uruguay. The first leg of the survey brought the was much higher west of Bouvetøya than east. The crew and scientists via the Falkland Islands to South results show that environmental factors, particularly Georgia where instrument calibration and the first currents, strongly influence swarm properties (Krafft et acoustical investigations of krill and mackerel ice fish al., In revision). Genetic samples from krill were also were carried out before heading east to Bouvetøya. Cape collected throughout the survey period to obtain more Town marked the halfway point for the survey and an information about the stock’s genetic structure and exchange of crew and scientists. The second leg of the composition. Based on these investigations, CCAMLR has journey travelled south from Cape Town, along 15°E to opened the Bouvetøya area (Area 48.6) to an exploratory the Astrid Ridge and then north along 7°E to Walvis krill fishery. Bay, Namibia, where the survey ended on 27 March. The total distance sailed was 12 500 nautical miles. Pre- A total of 82 species from 29 families of fish were caught departure worries concerning the infamous weather in during the survey; however, in comparison to krill, the survey area proved to be almost unfounded. Work on the fish catch was small and dominated by the small board the ship during the first six weeks was hampered mesopelagic lantern fish. 227 fish were fully examined by only one hurricane, but during the second part of the for external macroparasites. 620 individual metazoan survey, the Bouvetøya area had to be evacuated prior to parasites were collected, and several new microscopic schedule due to adverse weather forecasts. parasite species were discovered in the digestive systems of fish specimens. Hydrographical data were collected with a CTD equipped with fluorometer and an oxygen sensor. Phytoplankton samples were collected from water samples and vertical An ecosystem-based approach net hauls. Zooplankton and fish were collected by MOCNESS, krill trawl, Juday-, and WP-2 nets. Marine CCAMLR was established on the premise that a krill mammal sighting surveys were also performed during fishery should not inadvertently or disproportionately the second part of the survey. To investigate acoustic affect the ability of land-based krill predators to feed. properties, a Simrad EK60 equipped with six frequencies For example, model simulations suggest that penguins (18–333 kHz) was applied. In the southernmost part of might be adversely affected if too much krill were caught the investigated area, the Astrid Ridge, the bottom was in a concentrated area (Watters et al., 2009). Building mapped for the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate using on this, CCAMLR has developed a management a 30-kHz multibeam echosounder. regime which is considered to be the most progressive ecosystem-based approach in the world today. This Despite the extensive coverage of west–east and north– includes the identification of a catch trigger level south gradients throughout the survey, swarms or layers whereby once reached, all fishing is stopped to avoid of Antarctic krill were only detected along the transect interference with predators that are dependent on krill. of their habitat range, south of 52 °S, with the highest ICES Insight September 2012 32/33

Rising salp Future work

Salps are another significant species in the Southern Lack of funding and ship time has prevented CCAMLR Ocean ecosystem. They live in an environment similar to from repeating the survey carried out in 2000. Therefore, that of Antarctic krill and also feed on phytoplankton. it is not known how the krill biomass has evolved over Research appears to indicate that salps are more tolerant the past decade. Based on an analysis of all available of increasing temperatures than krill and may, therefore, surpass the krill population in areas where water scientific net hauls, Atkinson et al. (2004) found a temperatures are rising. While salps also feed on algae, significant decline in krill densities in the Southwest they are not an important food source for other animals Atlantic sector since 1976, while the densities of salps and are often regarded as something of a nuisance have increased over the same period. The results of this species because of their explosive population levels. study are alarming and need to be investigated further.

From 2011 to 2015, Norwegian krill fishing companies According to CCAMLR, fishing beyond the trigger level will allocate five survey days annually free of charge for can only be allowed by moving the fishing vessels out krill research in the target area of the South Orkneys. into open waters (outside the primary catch areas) and This ship time forms the basis of a Norwegian–Chinese allocating catch limits in small-scale managements units krill project (NorChiK), which is investigating krill (SSMUs). As this SSMU management regime is not yet abundance and overlap with krill predators. The survey in place, the trigger level remains as the actual TAC. hopes to gain more knowledge regarding the accuracy of Since 1992, krill catches have varied between 100 000 area-based trigger levels. and 220 000 tonnes, which is far below the trigger level of 620 000 tonnes that is divided between the four FAO Areas 48.1–48.4. Based on the results from the AKES An array of Norwegian and international project, the krill estimate from 2000 has now been revised to 60 million tonnes. scientists took part in the AKES survey. A trawl net filled with krill. Photo: Leif Nøttestad.

The Norwegian investigations are now an important this, BAS and IMR are currently planning to transfer complement to the US–Antarctic Marine Living the knowledge gained from the regional surveys into Resources Program (US–AMLR) off the Antarctic a broader understanding of the ecosystem dynamics. Peninsula and the British Antarctic Survey’s (BAS) In this context, Norway has started looking at funding investigations off South Georgia. IMR is responsible possibilities for a new survey to the Southern Ocean for the science together with the Yellow Sea Fisheries with RV “G.O. Sars” in the 2014/2015 season. In Research Institute, Qingdao, China, and two surveys the meantime, the ongoing work of collecting and have been successfully carried out to date. Together, analysing acoustic data from commercial vessels during these regional efforts from different CCAMLR member normal fishing operations continues to provide valuable nations effectively cover the regions with highest krill information at low costs. The ultimate aim of these concentrations and the most extensive fisheries. joint international efforts is to facilitate an improved However, the flux and connectivity between the regions, management system due to increased information and as well as the dynamics in other areas important for a better understanding of the ecosystem. young krill, are still poorly understood. To address

The route taken by the RV "G. O. Sars" with the first leg marked in red and the second leg marked in blue. ICES Insight September 2012 34/35

RESEARCH VESSEL “G.O. SARS”: • Built 2003. • Length 77.5 m, beam 18.6 m. • 4096 tonnes. • Cruising speed 10 knots, top speed 17 knots. • Very quiet. • Advanced acoustical instruments (echo sounders, sonars, current meter). • Large and well equipped trawl deck. • Large hangar amidships for storing and operating various pieces of sampling equipment and instruments. • Special laboratories for analysing samples: oceanography, plankton and fish. • Echo sounder that penetrates 150 m into the sea bottom, and core sampling equipment. • Equipment for seismic research.

“G. O. Sars” berthed at Grytviken, South Georgia. Photo: Kjartan Maestad.

Literature cited and further reading Svein A. Iversen has worked at the Institute of Marine Research (IMR) Atkinson, A., Siegel, V., Pakhomov, E., and Rothery, P. 2004. Long-term in Bergen since 1973, mainly on the biology, migration, and population decline in krill stock and increase in salps within the Southern Ocean. dynamics of pelagic fish such as mackerel, horse mackerel, herring, and Nature, 432: 100–103. sprat in European waters and Japanese anchovy in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea. He has been a member of various ICES working groups Calise, L., and Skaret, G. 2011. Sensitivity investigation of the SDWBA since 1982, mainly those dealing with mackerel and horse mackerel. Antarctic krill target strength model to fatness, material contrasts and He was the Norwegian representative to the scientific committee of the orientation. CCAMLR Science, 18: 97–122. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources in 2003–2011 and is currently leading the project Antarctic Krill and Conti, S. G., and Demer, D. A. 2006. Improved parameterisation of the Ecosystem Study (AKES) at IMR. SDWBA for estimating krill target strength. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 928–935. Georg Skaret is a research scientist at the Institute of Marine Research Iversen, S. A., Myklevole, S., Maestad, K., and Nøttestad, L. (eds) 2010. (IMR). In 2007, he received his PhD from the University of Bergen Cruising for Krill In the Southern Ocean with G.O Sars. Bergen. ISBN working on behavioural ecology of pelagic fish. He has been working at 978-82-7128-572-2. the IMR since 2008, with a focus on Antarctic krill in the Southern Ocean. In particular, his work is related to acoustic properties applied during Krafft, B. A., Melle, W., Knutsen, T., Bagøien, E., Broms, C., biomass estimation and during ecological and behavioural studies. He Ellersten, B., and Siegel, V. 2010. Distribution and demography has participated in several CCAMLR scientific workshops focusing on of Antarctic krill in the Southeast Atlantic sector of the krill and ecosystem assessment. Southern Ocean during austral summer 2008. Polar Biology, 33: 957– 968.

Krafft, B. A., Skaret, G., Knutsen, T., Melle, W., Klevjer, T. A., and Søiland, H. Antarctic krill swarm characteristics in the Southeast Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. In revision for Marine Ecology Progress Series.

Lee, C. I., Pakhomov, E., Atkinson, A., and Siegel, V. 2010. Long-Term Relationships between the Marine Environment, Krill and Salps in the Southern Ocean. Journal of Marine Biology, Article ID 410129.

Watters, G., Hill, S., Hinke J., and Trathan, P. 2009. The risks of not deciding to allocate the precautionary krill catch limit among SSMUs and allowing uncontrolled expansion of the krill fishery up to the trigger level. CCAMLR WGEMM 09/12.

Wiebe, P. H., Chu, D., Kaartvedt, S., Hundt, A., Melle, W., Ona, E., and Batta-Lona, P. 2009. Acoustic properties of Salpa thompsoni. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 583–593. ICES and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive – providing the science needed for implementation Ellen Johannesen reviews the development of ICES work in support of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ICES Insight September 2012 36/37

Management of the marine environment involves a The Directive defines eleven descriptors of GES of marine complicated web of actors and institutions at a range of waters, which can be summarized as follows: scales from local to international. Lately, scientists in the Member States of the European Union (EU) have been Descriptor 1. Biodiversity is maintained. extremely busy preparing for and implementing the Descriptor 2. Non-indigenous species do not Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). During adversely alter ecosystems. this process, ICES has been involved by contributing scientific input and supporting the work in the ICES Descriptor 3. The populations of commercially Member Countries and other EU countries. In autumn exploited fish and shellfish are healthy. 2012, the EU Member States will deliver the first initial Descriptor 4. Elements of foodwebs ensure assessment, including a determination of what is long-term abundance and reproduction. understood by “Good Environmental Status”, and will set environmental targets and associated indicators. But Descriptor 5. Human-induced eutrophication there is still a need for further development, and ICES is minimized. aims to support this development by providing the Descriptor 6. Sea-floor integrity ensures structure needed scientific input. and functioning of ecosystems.

In order to improve and maintain the environmental Descriptor 7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions of marine waters in Europe, the EU adopted conditions does not adversely affect ecosystems. the MSFD (MSFD; Directive 2008/56/EC) in June Descriptor 8. Concentrations of contaminants 2008. The main objective of the Directive is to achieve give no pollution effects. “Good Environmental Status in all European marine waters by 2020”. Article 3 of the Directive defines Good Descriptor 9. Contaminants in fish and seafood Environmental Status (GES) as “the environmental are below safe levels. status of marine waters where these provide ecologically Descriptor 10. Marine litter does not cause harm. diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, Descriptor 11. Introduction of energy (including and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is underwater noise) does not adversely affect the sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and marine environment. activities by current and future generations”. For a number of these descriptors, knowledge and data are limited, necessitating scientific developments in the coming years.

Since the entry into force of the Directive, many Europeans have begun to wonder “What is good environmental status?” For ICES scientists, one of the main questions is “How do we measure degrees of The main objective of the Directive goodness?” Other questions are “How do we deal with cumulative impacts?”, “How do we differentiate between is to achieve “Good Environmental uncertainty in monitoring data and real ecosystem Status in all European marine regime shifts?”, “What about aggregation of indicators?”, waters by 2020”. “Can the same measure for ’good‘ be used in the Baltic Sea and in the Mediterranean Sea?”, and “How will it all be coordinated?” There are still many questions to be answered as EU Member States progress with implementation. These questions and others will need to be answered at the European Commission (EC) level with a harmonized and flexible approach that is capable of accounting for regional differences. Why is this important for ICES? There is still work to be done as EU Member States translate these criteria and apply them to their own Supporting the implementation of the MSFD is regional realities. In order to aid Member States in important for ICES, not only because the majority of the implementation of Descriptor 3, ICES produced a ICES Member Countries are also a part of the EU, but also report ICES MSFD D3+. The “+” indicates that some of because the Directive takes a more holistic or ecosystem the methods described may be useful to inform other approach, which is a priority issue for ICES and part of descriptors as well. The report outlines five main steps a globally recognized commitment. As an organization, and uses a case-study approach to help provide guidance ICES has begun to ask “What can ICES do to support the to Member States on how to select the appropriate EU and its Member States?” It is both an important and indicators for assessment of GES. The report is available a natural role for ICES to help its Member Countries that for download from the ICES website. are required to fulfil the obligations of the Directive. The MSFD may be new, but it builds on widely agreed ICES was founded more than a hundred years ago by concepts of environmental management, namely scientists who recognized the importance of regional the ecosystem approach. ICES has been working to cooperation for sustainable management of marine advance the application of the ecosystem approach for resources. Coordinating, promoting, and supporting over a decade. One important example of this work is regional cooperation continues to be a great strength the development of integrated ecosystem assessments of ICES. Recently, ICES reviewed both its current (IEAs).1 ICES is developing the IEA concept for several and potential scientific work relevant to supporting European ecoregions (Baltic Sea, North Sea, Bay of implementation of the MSFD. The detailed reports of Biscay, and Northwestern waters). During the next these reviews are available on the ICES website (http:// few years, operational IEAs for these regions will be www.ices.dk/). completed and will be used to provide ecosystem advice. As this work continues, MSFD implementation realities and requirements will need to be considered Looking back and integrated into the process. IEAs could, among other applications, be used to test MSFD indicators to evaluate The ICES network has been directly involved in the their reliability to detect changes in the ecosystem. development of the MSFD since 2009, when ICES Currently, the IEAs provide scientifically sound analyses worked with the European Commission’s Joint Research of ecosystem states and retrospective regime shifts, and Centre (JRC) to coordinate task groups comprising could substantially contribute to the future assessments independent scientific experts to develop and identify required by the MSFD. criteria and methodological standards for each descriptor of GES. The task groups’ reports helped to inform the Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status (GES) of marine waters, adopted on 1 September 2010. The MSFD builds on widely The criteria and indicators help to make the descriptors agreed concepts of quantifiable and are an important step in defining GES environmental management. and the implementation of the MSFD. ICES Insight September 2012 38/39

Photo: Alessio Viora/Marine Photobank.

Existing ICES services, such as the Data Centre, Training being reported. Programmes of measures to remediate Programme, and communication and scientific networks, areas not meeting the specified goals and updated are already informing the MSFD implementation process monitoring programmes will need to be developed in a and may be tailored to meet future MSFD requests. ICES relatively short time-frame. It’s “all hands on deck” as the maintains substantial international databases containing scientific community works to implement the ecosystem long-term dataseries on marine living resources and approach. ICES continues to support the national the marine environment that are required for defining implementation of the MSFD, working towards the most targets and setting thresholds for MSFD indicators. ICES important goal of sustainable management of the marine is uniquely positioned to synthesize approaches that environment. integrate across indicators and to craft and tailor outputs and recommendations to the objectives of the Directive. A Global Commitment

Looking forward The international community has progressively agreed on the application of the ecosystem approach, in 2000

under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and in 2002 Drawing on its extensive network of scientists and in the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Other experts, ICES continues to develop the application of international fora and organizations have also promoted the ecosystem approach and to ensure that relevant the ecosystem approach, such as FAO, UNEP, UNDP, and scientific work is complementary to the implementation the Global Environment Facility (GEF). At the regional of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This will and subregional levels, a number of mechanisms provide be accomplished by strengthening collaboration with for development and implementation of the ecosystem relevant organizations and countries, especially with the approach in a coordinated manner, including the Regional European regional seas commissions, and drawing on Seas Programmes, the regional fisheries management the experience of the Large Marine Ecosystem projects. organizations, and the Large Marine Ecosystem projects.

The 2020 deadline for achieving the Good Environ- mental Status for all European marine waters, as 1 ICES IEAs use multivariate analyses of a large set of indicators that defined by the Directive, is fast approaching, especially represent all biotic components of an ecosystem and their abiotic drivers. considering that the initial assessments are only now Bergen – the marine capital of the world

With a proud maritime history, Bergen today hosts a number of management and research institutions, as well as global actors in the marine industry. Not least of these is the Institute of Marine Research. Kari Østervold Toft, the Communications Director at the Institute, tells the story from the beginning. ICES Insight September 2012 40/41

The Norwegian Parliament chose Bergen as the Until the end of the 1970s, the role of a marine scientist hometown for the Norwegian Fisheries Board when it was mainly to assess the size of the fish stocks and guide was established in 1900. This was the forerunner of the fishermen to the fish. Finn Devold, the famous “herring institutions we know today as the Institute of Marine scientist”, was well known along the Norwegian coast Research (IMR), the Directorate of Fisheries, and the for guiding the fishing fleet to areas where they could Norwegian Institute of Seafood and Nutrition (NIFES). find herring. He was indeed the “fishermen’s helper”. IMR and NIFES are important institutions that produce scientific knowledge and deliver scientific advice for management, often represented by the Directorate of Technological development Fisheries. After World War II, a number of people who had worked in the navy came to the Institute with experience in the Science is the basis use of acoustic instruments. This was the beginning of the strong acoustics group that exists in Bergen today, The appointment of the marine biologist Johan Hjort which, in close cooperation with the high-tech industry, as one of the three original managers of the Fisheries has developed increasingly more advanced instruments Board demonstrates that science has always played an which give a much more reliable picture of what is essential role in the development of Norwegian fishery happening “down there”. “Seeing the sea with sound” is management. Today, fishery managers talk about four a good expression for describing their ambitions. important pillars for sustainable fishery management: science, laws, control, and sanctions. In other words, New knowledge gained through the development of there must be a scientific basis for regulations, laws advanced acoustic instruments has also had a strong to enforce regulations, a strong control system, and impact on the design of new research vessels. The first sanctions to ensure compliance with regulations. Norwegian research vessel, the “Michael Sars”, was built in 1900 and was used for scientific purposes until Even though Norwegian fishery management has twice the beginning of World War I. Later, a number of other been assessed as being the most effective in the world vessels were built for scientific work, the newest of and its fisheries the most sustainable (Chatham House- which, “G. O. Sars”, was built in 2003. Plans for a new WWF, 2007; University of British Columbia-WWF, 2009), ice-going vessel have been developed over the past few there are always areas that can be improved. This includes years in collaboration with other Norwegian research our knowledge of the ocean and the interactions between institutions working in the Arctic, but funding has not species in marine ecosystems. yet been approved. Photos courtesy of IMR.

ICES is important The fact that scientists from a number of different countries are providing the scientific basis on how to The assessment of fish stocks is still an important manage marine resources gives credibility and status to function at the IMR, as we are the main adviser to the the advice. Norwegian Government in questions regarding quotas. Cooperation with ICES is crucial for this area of our work. Results from a wide range of data collected during Cooperation in the North 2000 days at sea every year are discussed and evaluated in working groups. The resulting advice from ICES is Norway has an ocean area nearly seven times that of its forwarded through IMR to the Norwegian Government, land area. This creates a challenge for the IMR, as we are where it is used for negotiations and setting quotas. responsible for the advice which covers the entire area. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to establish Data from our research cruises also include monitoring close cooperation and mutual trust with countries who physical and chemical changes in the marine share the ocean area with us. One example of this environment, such as temperature, salinity, currents, cooperation is the long-lasting and strong relationship density, and pollution. Over the years, this information we have with our colleagues in Russia. Since the late has increasingly been included in the assessment of fish 1950s, we have carried out cruises together in the stocks, as well as in providing the basis for advice on Barents Sea, we have shared data, we have taken part climate change and information to Norwegian radiation in each other’s projects, and we have worked in each authorities. other’s institutions. We consider this cooperation to be a pillar for the sound management plans we have jointly established for the Barents Sea, plans that have resulted, for example, in a strong and healthy stock of Northeast Arctic cod this year.

More and more focus is now on the north. IMR has Science has always played an essential been working in the northern areas for more than role in the development of Norwegian one hundred years, and more than 60 per cent of our fishery management. research is performed in the north. In the beginning, we focused on fish stocks, but now the environment and seabed mapping have as much focus. The Norwegian ICES Insight September 2012 42/43

seabed-mapping programme, Mareano, has increased Sharing knowledge is always important. Norway our knowledge of biology, geology, and biodiversity has had projects in developing countries for nearly in the northern part of our Exclusive Economic Zone. forty years to enable these countries to establish Knowledge gained from this project provided important and implement the sustainable management of their input to the revised management plan for the Barents own marine resources. A number of these projects have Sea and Lofoten area. proven to be successes, and FAO has named the EAF- Nansen project in Namibia as one of its most successful projects. Sharing knowledge

The IMR has a long and strong history of outreach. One of the biggest Dialogue with fishermen’s associations has sometimes been loud, but always with a generous portion of respect IMR has more than 700 employees located in the main from both sides. Politicians were clear in their demand office in Bergen, the department in Tromsø, and at our for the increased use of data from the commercial fishing research stations in Flødevigen, Austevoll, and Matre. fleet. Ten years ago, a reference fleet was established to We own four research vessels and manage two more. address this demand. An international panel evaluated The budget is close to NOK 890 million in 2012, which the project in 2011 and found it to be a good platform makes us one of the largest marine research institutions both for data collection and for improved understanding in the world. Our goal is to be the best when it comes of scientific methods. to science. This demands a continuous effort from all of our staff and a broad range of cooperation with the The aquaculture industry has grown to be one of the rest of the scientific world. Read more about us on most important food production industries in Norway http://www.imr.no. over the last thirty years. The environmental impact of this industry has become the main focal point for the Institute’s work in this area. Many of the projects are Kari Østervold Toft is Communications Director at the Institute of carried out in our two research stations in Austevoll and Marine Research in Norway, a position she has held since 2006. She has been employed at IMR since 1992 and before that worked at the Matre. Over the last couple of years, these stations have Informations Department in the Directorate of Fisheries. She has also also been organized to expand their work in broader had a long career in politics and sports. fields of research, such as climate studies.

ICES Insight September 2012 44/45

Evolution of a journal Emory D. Anderson shares the history of the ICES Journal of Marine Science and the story of those who shaped it.

In February 1926, the first issue of Volume 1 of a new containing a single paper on a biological or hydrographic marine science journal was published in Copenhagen topic, and concluding with Issue 91 in June 1926. under the name Journal du Conseil. More than eighty- eight years later, we celebrate the publication of Volume In September 1925, at its 18th Annual Meeting, the 69 of that same journal, which has morphed into the Council adopted a reorganization scheme for the ICES Journal of Marine Science. Over this span of time, conduct of its work, including publications (ICES, 1925). the Journal has grown in size and acquired a new name, Five categories of publication were specified, including but all the while serving as the principal means of the Journal du Conseil. The Journal would contain (i) publishing the results of scientific inquiry carried out in abstracts and reviews of current publications of scientific the North Atlantic and adjacent seas under the auspices investigations carried on by or in connection with the of the International Council for the Exploration of the Council or in the area covered by the Council’s work; Sea (ICES). In recent years, it has expanded to become (ii) scientific papers formerly published in Publications de a preferred publication outlet both for researchers in the Circonstance; and (iii) such other matter as the editor may ICES area and for scientists in non-ICES countries in deem suitable. distant parts of the world and for a broadening spectrum of marine science topics.

As pointed out by Arthur Went in his history of ICES (Went, 1972), the Council, since its establishment in Contributions submitted to the Journal 1902, has recognized the need to publish the results of were initially acceptable if written in scientific research carried out under its auspices. There has, subsequently, been an extensive series of ICES English, French, German, or Spanish... publications devoted to this aim, some short-lived and others continuing longer, a few even to this day. The forerunner of today’s Journal was the Publication de Circonstance, a series first issued in 1903, with each issue Edward S. Russell (1925–1938)

John R. Lumby (1938–1957)

Edward S. Russell (1925–1938) five years); from 1969 to 1983, Robert (Bob) R. Dickson from the Lowestoft Laboratory served as Review Editor. Edward S. Russell from the UK was appointed the first As stated in the obituary to Harden Jones (Arnold, Editor and served from 1925 to 1938. Russell was director 2011), Roy “was a dedicated and grammatically astute of the Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory from 1921 to 1946, editor, and the Journal’s reputation developed along and was the first of five Journal Editors with Lowestoft with its size while he held its reins. Roy succeeded Árni affiliation. In 1930, John R. Lumby, a hydrographer at the Friðriksson and preceded Ray Beverton as editor of the Lowestoft Laboratory, was appointed Assistant Editor Journal, and he was known for putting huge effort into and served in that capacity until 1938, when he succeeded improving the publications of authors for whom English Russell as Editor. was not their native language. Regrettably, however, he was less tolerant of those whom he expected by birth to have a better command of written scientific English, John R. Lumby (1938–1957) and whose submissions to the Journal often languished on his overcrowded office floor for long periods. Piled in Lumby served as Editor until 1957 and had the distinction haphazard heaps, they were a serious fire hazard, once of managing the Journal during the years of World War nearly realized when sunlight focused by a large lens set II, when publication was disrupted; no issues were his office carpet in Lowestoft smouldering.” published between December 1939 and July 1947. From its start, the purpose of the Journal, as stated in a standard note on the inside of the cover of each issue Árni Friðriksson (1957–1958) for a number of years, was to publish general articles, reviews, and bibliography, and the special papers hitherto Árni Friðriksson from Iceland, who was the Council’s issued in the series of Publications de Circonstance. Notes General Secretary from 1954 to 1965, briefly took on the for authors in later issues (e.g. the 1970s) indicated that editorship of the Journal for part of 1957 and 1958; he was the Journal published original papers, notes, letters to assisted during those two years by Frederick “Roy” Harden the editors, and reviews within the broad field of marine Jones, another scientist based at the Lowestoft Fisheries and fisheries science, with particular reference to living Laboratory. resources and their environment.

Contributions submitted to the Journal were initially Frederick “Roy” Harden Jones (1958–1983) acceptable if written in English, French, German, or Spanish, but articles in German or Spanish had to be In 1958, Jones assumed the editorship and served accompanied by a synopsis in English or French; in unassisted in that capacity until 1983, at which point he addition, all figure and table captions and legends had had become the longest serving Editor (parts of twenty- to be in either English or French. This policy continued ICES Insight September 2012 46/47

Frederick “Roy” Harden Jones (1958–1983)

Árni Friðriksson (1957–1958) Raymond J. H. Beverton (1983–1991)

until about 1973, after which papers could be faulty manuscripts, and particularly to poor illustrations. submitted only in English or French, with the latter Only twenty-eight manuscripts were submitted in 1983 having English abstracts. Overall, though, few papers (Ramster et al., 2003), and the rejection rate at that time were ever published in a language other than English, was 37 per cent. although abstracts occasionally appeared in English and another language. Raymond J. H. Beverton (1983–1991)

Raymond J. H. Beverton from the UK (who once also worked at the Lowestoft Fisheries Laboratory) succeeded ...the decision to change all titles to Roy Harden Jones as Editor in 1983 and set about English, while retaining French subtitles, improving the Journal in many respects. Beverton also was made to adapt to changing times... asked John W. Ramster from the Lowestoft Laboratory to serve as his Assistant Editor. Although it had long been considered, at least within ICES, as the Council’s prestige house journal and a well-respected publication in the world of marine science, it was acknowledged When the Journal was first published in 1926, the stated that the Journal du Conseil was not well known or used intent was that it would appear quarterly and that each outside the ICES community. Beverton pointed out at volume would contain four issues. Volume 1 in 1926 did the 1984 meeting of the ICES Publications Committee include four issues totalling 383 pages, but subsequent (ICES, 1985) that papers published in the previous ten volumes from 2 through 48 (in 1991) generally contained years were heavily weighted in favour of research on only three issues maximum each and maintained about fish populations or experimental research ashore, and the same average number of pages per volume (387). that physical and chemical oceanography, shellfish Between 1947 and 1986, although the number of issues research, and environmental quality studies were poorly per volume remained constant at three, the number of represented. In short, they were unrepresentative of issues per year was erratic, varying from one to three and the total spectrum of ICES activities. Similarly, papers averaging 2.2. In eight different years, only one issue was published then were heavily weighted with respect to published. Because of this and also because no issues country of origin, with about 50 per cent being from were published during World War II, there are fewer the UK and almost 70 per cent from the UK and USA volumes of the Journal than the number of years in which combined. Beverton proposed that a major element the Journal was published. At his last meeting of the ICES of future editorial policy for the Journal should be to Publications Committee in 1982 as outgoing Journal reduce these imbalances by inviting contributions on a editor (ICES, 1983), Harden Jones noted that the main wide range of topics relevant to ICES overall activities, causes of delay in publishing manuscripts were due to and from more countries. He also advocated actively Niels Daan (1997–2003)

John H. S. Blaxter (1991–1997)

soliciting contributions from authors of documents The number of pages per volume averaged 497 pages in submitted to ICES Annual Meetings, including theme those three years. sessions, mini-symposia, and committee meetings. The quality of manuscripts submitted during the first several Ray Beverton stepped down as Editor in 1991 after years of Beverton’s editorship was, however, regrettably having been arguably the most instrumental of all the poor, resulting in a rejection rate of more than 70 per Journal’s Editors up to then in improving the quality and cent in 1984, although that rate declined to 50 per cent status of the publication. By 1991, the rejection rate for in 1985. An improved flow of higher quality manuscripts submitted manuscripts had dropped to 25 per cent, but soon led to a steady three issues per volume and year with quality steadily improving. Beverton was replaced in 1987–1989. Also in 1987, a new cover design was by John H. S. Blaxter from the UK, who first served one approved, incorporating the English subtitle “The ICES year as Assistant Editor before taking over the reins of journal of marine science”. the Journal late in 1991. With a new name, an improved reputation, and being published by Academic Press, the In 1990, there were two major changes with the “new” ICES Journal of Marine Science was on its way to a Journal. First, following several years of discussion brighter future. about transferring the complete handling of the Journal to a commercial publisher, Council approved a plan whereby Academic Press would assume total financial John H. S. Blaxter (1991–1997) responsibility for publication of the Journal in 1991 and would also assume any losses until the accumulated In the first several years of Blaxter’s tenure as Editor, the deficit had been recovered and the Council could begin rejection rate of manuscripts dropped to about 13 per receiving 50 per cent of the net profits (at that time, it was cent, with overall quality viewed as generally very good. predicted that the Journal would become commercially The number of submissions had increased from just 28 profitable in 1994). In addition to this fundamental in 1983, when Beverton had taken over as Editor, to 88 change in publishing strategy, the Journal du Conseil in 1993, a few years into Blaxter’s tenure (Ramster et al., was renamed the ICES Journal of Marine Science, with 2003). Subscriptions and subscription rates increased, “Journal du Conseil” retained as a subtitle. At that and by 1993, the joint financial account between ICES point in time, five of the Council’s six publications had and Academic Press had reached the break-even point, French titles. Therefore, the decision to change all titles although the large cumulative debt that had built up in to English, while retaining French subtitles, was made the first two years under the new arrangement would to adapt to changing times, to have the titles correspond not be dissipated until the beginning of 1995. Since then, better with the identity of the contents, and to enhance and with the exception of only a couple of symposia, sales. The number of issues per volume and year increased two to four such proceedings have been included in to four in 1992 and remained at that level through 1994. each Journal volume. There have been a few instances ICES Insight September 2012 48/49

Howard I. Browman (2012–present)

Andrew I. L. Payne (2003–2011)

when symposia proceedings have had to be published journals, electronic versions of papers became accessible as ICES-funded supplements when insufficient Journal to subscribers on the Internet. Electronic (generally issues were available from the publisher because of e-mail) submission and handling of manuscripts was prior page commitments. Approved symposia were introduced. Submission and publication of manuscripts granted 250 pages per proceedings gratis, with any steadily increased each year, requiring the appointment page overruns paid for by the symposium organizers of additional editors. (the page limit is now 200). Symposia proceedings had hitherto been published in the ICES Marine Science For the first time since the establishment of the joint Symposia series (previously the Rapports et Procès-Verbaux ICES–Academic Press financial account for the Journal in des Réunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de 1991, a profit devoid of debts carried forward was realized la Mer series). The number of issues per volume expanded in 2000. The citation impact factor for the Journal in 2000 to six in 1995–2001, each volume averaging 1273 pages. was the highest since 1990. In 2001, Harcourt Publishers, including Academic Press, was sold to Reed Elsevier. The number of manuscript submissions almost doubled from 88 in 1993 to 155 in 2002 (excluding symposium proceedings; Ramster et al., 2003). By 2002, 21 per cent The number of manuscript submissions of the papers published by the Journal were derived from almost doubled from 1993 to 2002. non-ICES countries and 50 per cent were from university based (as opposed to government-funded laboratories) researchers.

Niels Daan (1997–2003) Andrew I. L. Payne (2003–2011)

Niels Daan from the Netherlands succeeded John Blaxter Andrew I. L. Payne from the Lowestoft Laboratory, who as editor in 1997. From that point on, the Editor’s title had up to 2000 worked for thirty years at the South became “Editor-in-Chief”, and the Assistant Editors African Sea Fisheries Research Institute, was appointed became “Editors”. The scope of the Journal continued to to replace Niels Daan as Editor-in-Chief in 2003. Payne broaden too, and included topics in the social sciences, had served since 2000 as a Journal Editor. In 2004, the resource management, habitat conservation, and number of manuscripts submitted surged again to 222, interdisciplinary subjects, and papers from a broader with a rejection rate of about 40 per cent. In 2007, Oxford geographic coverage than just the ICES area were being University Press took over from Elsevier as publisher of accepted as long as they were of sufficient quality and the Journal, after a competitive bidding process for the relevance. Since about 1995, and in line with many other contract. With manuscript submissions continuing to increase year on year (from 262 in 2008 to 313 in 2009), published. The number of issues per volume increased the fairly constant manuscript rejection rate of about to eight in 2004 and 2005, averaging 1584 pages per 50 per cent was also forced to increase to more than volume; then, from 2006 through 2011, the number of 60 per cent in 2010 and 2011 to confine the number issues per volume varied between nine and ten, averaging of published papers within the publisher-allotted 2000 pages per volume. number of pages per volume. Although web-based electronic submission and review of manuscripts had been in place in some journals for several years and had been trialled by the Journal while still under the In the 1990s, when the number of Elsevier flag, an electronic manuscript-submission manuscript submissions and subsequent system (ScholarOne Manuscript Central, later referred to simply as ScholarOne) began to be used formally in editorial workload began to swell, more 2009 by authors, Editors, and reviewers for the complete than one Assistant Editor was necessary. handling of manuscripts from start to finish. Initially, and while the new process was bedding in, symposium manuscripts did not use ScholarOne, but by 2011, the final symposium proceedings handled outside that Financially, the relationship initiated between ICES and system had been held, and all current and new symposia Academic Press in 1991 and continued with Oxford will follow that form of publication. University Press until today has been very successful. After the initial losses were paid off and a modest profit Payne retired as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal at the was first achieved in 2000, income to ICES improved end of 2011 at the same time as Oxford University Press markedly to about DKK 350 000 in 2006, to nearly DKK signed a second five-year contract with ICES. He had by 950 000 in 2007, and about DKK 730 000 in 2009. then accumulated nearly 40 years of editorial experience, editing several other journals too, and he continued the notable improvements achieved by each of his recent Howard I. Browman (2012–present) predecessors. His own strong trait was his insistence on improving the grammatical standard of the papers being Howard I. Browman assumed the position of Editor-in- Chief of the Journal in January 2012. A Canadian working at the Institute of Marine Research in Norway since Editors and, since 1998, Editors-in-Chief of the Journal du Conseil/ 1998, Browman brings to the table extensive previous ICES Journal of Marine Science. experience with journal editing and administration. In the few months since he has taken over the reins of the Name Years served Journal, numerous changes have been implemented, Edward S. Russell 1925–1938 including faster handling time for manuscripts so as to improve the Journal’s competitiveness, and a stated John R. Lumby 1938–1957 goal of offering authors an industry-leading standard Árni Friðriksson 1957–1958 of turnaround times, presentation, and accessibility Frederick R. Harden Jones 1958–1983 (Browman, 2012). Browman (2012) stated that“the Journal holds a strong position with its core community (the Raymond J. H. Beverton 1983–1991 ‘ICES’ part of the title). That strength must be maintained John H. S. Blaxter 1991–1997 and nurtured while also leveraging it to expand the Niels Daan 1997–2003 Journal’s horizons (the ‘Marine Science’ part of the title). Therefore, while continuing the traditional focus on how Andrew I. L. Payne 2003–2011 the actions of humans impact the marine environment, Howard I. Browman 2012–present the Journal will more fully embrace content on topics such as biophysical coupling; ecosystem modelling; studies of the controllers of population dynamics (including density-dependence and competition); foodwebs and ICES Insight September 2012 50/51

foodweb theory; evolutionary theory as it applies to Assistant Editors or Editors (since 1998) of the Journal du Conseil/ marine ecology and fisheries; predator–prey interactions; ICES Journal of Marine Science. effect of multiple stressors (e.g. temperature, ocean acidification, envirotoxins) on marine organisms and Name Years served ecosystems; innovations in observation methodology; John R. Lumby 1930–1938 and/or data analysis that advance marine science. Frederick R. Harden Jones 1957–1958 The Editorial Board will be expanded at a pace and in a manner that is consistent with, and reflective of, this Robert R. Dickson* 1969–1983 strategy.” John W. Ramster 1983–2011 John H. S. Blaxter 1990–1991 The commentary above has focused almost totally on the Editors and Editors-in-Chief of the Journal, and only Stephen J. Smith 1991–1996 brief mention has been given to some of the thirty-four E. Michael P. Chadwick 1997–2000 individuals who have served as Assistant Editor, Review John R. G. Hislop 1997–2000 Editor, or who, since 1998, have had the title of “Editor”. In addition, there has been no mention of key individuals Andrew I. L. Payne 2000–2003 in the ICES Secretariat or in the publishing firms who Bernard A. Megrey 2001–2008 have also been instrumental in the growth and evolution Pierre Pepin 2001–2011 of the Journal. Four individuals served as Assistant Editor (John Lumby, Roy Harden Jones, and John Blaxter) Chris L. J. Frid 2002–2004 or Editor (Andy Payne) before taking over as Editor or Verena M. Trenkel 2003–2012 Editor-in-Chief. The late John Ramster, who was brought Audrey J. Geffen 2005–present in as Assistant Editor to Ray Beverton, had the distinction of serving longest in this capacity, 1983–2011, for a total Panayiota Apostolaki 2006–2009 of twenty-nine years. In the 1990s, when the number Emory D. Anderson 2008–present of manuscript submissions and subsequent editorial Sarah B. M. Kraak 2008–present workload began to swell, more than one Assistant Editor was necessary. Both Ramster and Stephen Smith Rochelle A. Seitz 2009–present assisted John Blaxter during his editorship, and Michael William R. Turrell 2009–2012 Chadwick, John Hislop, Andy Payne, Bernard Megrey, Anthony T. Charles 2012–present Pierre Pepin, and Chris Frid served as Editors under Niels Daan. While Andy Payne was Editor-in-Chief, David A. Demer 2012–present ten different Editors provided professional support (see Mikko P. Heino 2012–present table). Shortly after his appointment as Editor-in-Chief, Francis Juanes 2012–present Jason S. Link 2012–present Claire B. Paris 2012–present Stéphane Plourde 2012–present Subscription rates David H. Secor 2012–present The annual subscription price for the Journal has changed Marta Coll Monton 2012–present markedly over the years. In 1926, it was set at DKK 15, Fanny Douvere 2012–present dropped the following year to DKK 12, but then increased steadily to DKK 300 in 1990 before prices changed Carmel Finley 2012–present again when publication of the Journal was taken over by Mark Gibbs 2012–present Academic Press, and separate rates began to be charged for Michel Kaiser 2012–present institutional and personal subscriptions. Today, rates differ according to the type of subscription. Mitsutaku Makino 2012–present Shijie Zhou 2012–present

* Book review editor Different cover designs over the years of the Journal du Conseil and the ICES Journal of Marine Science.

Howard Browman selected eight additional Editors, and On the publishing side, many people have, of course, in August 2012 appointed seven more Editors to provide assisted in bringing issues of the Journal to readers for over greater expertise in specific marine science disciplines twenty years. With Academic Press and, subsequently, and subject areas. William Turrell, appointed as Editor in Elsevier, Andrew Richford served effectively as Executive 2009, found it necessary to step down in summer 2012, Editor, assisted by numerous Publishing and Production and Verena M. Trenkel, appointed in 2003, will step down Editors, such as Debbie Barrett, Els Bosma, and Christiane at the end of 2012. Currently, therefore, the number of Barranguet. More recently with Oxford University Press, active Editors of the Journal, including the Editor-in- Cathy Kennedy initially and Ian Sherman since 2009 Chief, is twenty-one. have handled the Journal as Senior/Publishing Editors, together with Production Editors Kay McArdle, Hannah In the ICES Secretariat, this writer’s recollection of Proctor (2009–June 2012), and Kate Puttrick (since staff members assisting with the work of the Journal June 2012). Lulu Stader joined the Journal’s editorial only goes back as far as Judith Rosenmeier, who served office at Oxford University Press at the start of 2012 in that capacity for twenty-seven years (1977–2004). and successfully handles day-to-day interactions with Rosenmeier, as Senior Technical Editor, had oversight for Editors, reviewers, and authors. Stader, plus Colleen a range of publications, but focused most of her attention Cusworth and Simone Larche at Oxford, are responsible on the Journal, for which she handled some copy-editing, for overseeing and providing advice on the use of the designed new covers and the ICES logo. She can be ScholarOne site. credited with coining the new name for the Journal (“ICES Journal of Marine Science”), and played an important role in the initial transition of the Journal to Academic Press. Succeeding Rosenmeier in the Secretariat was William The ICES Journal of Marine Science (Bill) A. Anthony, who held the title of ICES Executive enjoys a rich heritage and owes its Editor and ably handled all formal, administrative interactions between ICES and the publisher, but who present high stature in the world of left the Secretariat in summer 2012. Katie Rice Eriksen marine science to many individuals. joined the Secretariat in August 2012 as Editor in Charge of Publications. Søren Lund, ICES Technical Editor and a long-time Secretariat staff member, took on the task of handling the manuscript processing system in 2002 and The ICES Journal of Marine Science enjoys a rich heritage steered it through the initial ScholarOne years (up to and owes its present high stature in the world of marine 2011), and now carries the title of ICES Technical Editor. science to many individuals, be they authors, reviewers, ICES Insight September 2012 52/53

Editors, publishers, or ICES staff. All can claim a share Literature cited of the credit for the manifold jobs well done. No one Arnold, G. 2011. Obituary. F. R. Harden Jones. ICES Journal of Marine can foretell the future and see what lies in store for the Science, 68: 2005–2006. Journal, but ICES, Oxford University Press, and those recently and currently involved in publishing it are Browman, H. I. 2012. Quo Vadimus. ICES Journal of Marine Science, confident that it will continue to serve the Council well 69: 1–2. in formally publishing or otherwise disseminating the ICES. 1925. Report of the 18th meeting of the Council. Rapports et results of research and investigations carried out under Procès-Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration its auspices. de la Mer, 38: 9–61.

ICES. 1983. Procès-Verbal de la Réunion 1982. 70th Statutory Meeting. Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, Copenhagen, Emory Anderson was ICES Statistician during 1985–1989 and Denmark. 174 pp. General Secretary from 1989 through 1993. In 2008, he became an editor of ICES Journal of Marine Science as well as editor of ICES ICES. 1985. Procès-Verbal de la Réunion 1984. 72nd Statutory Meeting. Cooperative Research Report series and consulting editor of ICES Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, Copenhagen, Insight magazine. Denmark. 259 pp.

Ramster, J., Daan, N., Frid, C., Megrey, B., Payne, A., and Pepin, P. 2003. Acknowledgements Sixty volumes of the Journal du Conseil / ICES Journal of Marine Science. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 1169–1171. I thank Andy Payne for his critical review of the first draft of this article and for his helpful suggestions that have helped to improve the text. Went, A. E. J. 1972. Seventy years agrowing. A history of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 1902–1972. Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 165. 252 pp.

ICES ICES Insight September 2012 54/55 Training Programme Building capacity to support scientific advice

Upcoming courses for 2013

• Application of geostatistics to analyse spatially explicit survey data in an ecosystem approach

• AD Model Builder and Stock Assessment

• Ecosystem Modelling for Fishery Management

• Fisheries Management to meet biodiversity conservation needs

• Stock Assessment (introduction)

• Trawl Survey Design and Evaluation

• Analysing and visualization of VMS and EU logbook data using the VMStools R package

• Communicating Science and Advice

• How to Lead an Effective Technical Meeting

For more information, visit www.ices.dk/training ICESAnnual Science 2013 Conference Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre Reykjavik, Iceland 23–27 September

Photo: Þorvarður Árnason