ICES SYMPOSIUM REPORTS 2007 ICES CM 2007/GEN:02

ICES Symposium Reports 2007

ICES/PICES FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARINE BIOINVASIONS, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, USA, 21–24 MAY 2007

ICES/PICES/GLOBEC SYMPOSIUM “THE 4TH INTERNATIONAL ZOOPLANKTON PRODUCTION SYMPOSIUM", HIROSHIMA, JAPAN, 28 MAY–1 JUNE 2007.

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT, ARENDAL, NORWAY, 11–14 JUNE 2007

EARLY CAREER SCIENTISTS CONFERENCE (ECSC), BALTIMORE MD, USA, 25–29 JULY 2007

SYMPOSIUM ON MPAS AS A TOOL FOR FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION, MURCIA, SPAIN, 25–28 SEPTEMBER 2007

NAFO/PICES/ICES SYMPOSIUM ON REPRODUCTIVE AND RECRUITMENT PROCESSES OF EXPLOITED MARINE FISH STOCKS, LISBON, PORTUGAL, 1–3 OCTOBER 2007

SYMPOSIUM ON MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS: UTILITY IN MEETING REGULATORY NEEDS, LONDON, UK, 20–23 NOVEMBER 2007

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK‐1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected]

Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2007. ICES Symposium Reports 2007, ICES CM 2007/GEN:02. 38 pp.

For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2007 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | i

Contents

1 ICES Fifth International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 21–24 May 2007...... 1

2 ICES/PICES/GLOBEC Symposium “The 4th International Zooplankton Production Symposiumʺ, Hiroshima, Japan, 28 May–1 June 2007...... 2

3 International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Arendal, Norway, 11–14 June 2007 ...... 17

4 Early Career Scientists Conference (ECSC), Baltimore MD, USA, 25– 29 July 2007...... 24

5 Symposium on MPAs as a Tool for Fisheries Management and Conservation, Murcia, Spain, 25–28 September 2007...... 25

6 Symposium on Reproductive and Recruitment Processes of Exploited Marine Fish Stocks, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–3 October 2007...... 35

7 ICES Symposium on Environmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs, London, UK, 20–23 November 2007 ...... 37

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 1

1 ICES Fifth International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 21–24 May 2007

Conveners: Judith Pederson (USA), James Carlton (USA), Erkki Leppäkoski (Finland) and Yasuwo Fukuyo, PICES (Japan) Co‐Sponsors: ICES, PICES, The National Sea Grant Office, The MIT Sea Grant College Program, Biosecurity Zealand, Woods Hole Oceanographic Marine Policy Program In 1999, the Conference on Marine Bioinvasions was one of the very first major meetings to focus specifically on marine bioinvasions. Subsequently, the Conference has been held biennially at locations throughout the US and in New Zealand bringing together scientists and managers to address the science of bioinvasions and support decisions to prevent and management new introductions. The Fifth International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, hosted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 21 to 24 May 2007 brought together 181 participants from 22 countries. The Conference was co‐sponsored by the National Sea Grant Office, the MIT Sea Grant College Program, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), and the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES). The conference topic areas were on Patterns of Distribution in Time and Space, Ecological Impacts and Evolutionary Consequences, Vectors, Risks, and Management Responses, and New Tools and Insights. Plenary sessions by J.E. Byers, University of New Hampshire on Going Against the Flow: Retention, Range Limits and Invasions in Advective Environments, Janet Lawrence, University of New Hampshire, on Furtive Foes: The role of Viruses on Plankton Dynamics, and James Carlton, Williams College‐ Mystic Marine Program on Marine Bioinvasions: The Assessment of Impacts and Diversity set the stage for the day’s following talks. In addition, there were 71 oral and 44 poster presentations. The collective insights from the 2007 meeting presentations provided insight into the progression of marine invasion science as a discipline that has continued to enhance understanding of the basic ecological processes related to marine invasions, as well as the evaluation and documentation of their impacts. The proliferation of studies on life histories, environmental factors, and biological impacts of invaders on ecosystems is valuable to risk assessments and management options and has spawned development of theoretical models for future experimental research. Along with economic assessments, these studies can become powerful tools for managers and policy‐makers alike. Yet we still have many challenges. Among these is the need to close the gap in our understanding of impacts, prevention, and mitigation of marine invaders, as well as evaluating the role of introduced species in the context of global climate change. Armed with current knowledge, however, we can make predictions, develop risk scenarios, and test hypotheses that should provide managers with greater certainty and more tools for preventing invasions and managing post‐ invasions. Copies of the Conference Agenda and Abstract Book are available at http://seagrant.mit.edu/conferences/bioinvasion2007/abstract_book.pdf. A special issue of the ICES Journal of Marine Science on the results of the Symposium will be published in 2008 under the co‐editorship of Judith Pederson and April Blakeslee.

2 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

2 ICES/PICES/GLOBEC Symposium “The 4th International Zooplankton Production Symposium", Hiroshima, Japan, 28 May–1 June 2007

Conveners: Michael J. Dagg (USA), Roger Harris (UK), Luis Valdez (Spain), and Shin‐ichi Uye (Japan).

Executive summary The 4th International Zooplankton Production Symposium convened with the title: “Human and Climate Forcing on Zooplankton Populations”, and co‐sponsored by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) and Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics Project (GLOBEC), was held from 28 May to 1 June 2007, at the Congress Center in Hiroshima (Japan), gathering 334 participants from 56 countries from around the world. This International symposium followed the one organized in Gijón (Spain) in 2003 and was the culmination of an intensive and interactive, three years planning process, resulting from a proposal discussed in a joint meeting of ICES, PICES and GLOBEC members during the Symposium in Gijón. Four conveners and two committees (Annex 1) were responsible for preparing the scientific programme and the local organization. The symposium was partially supported with funds from several international, national and local institutions (Annex 1) that covered total or partially the costs and travel support for ~60 young scientist. The full programme of the Symposium included three half‐day workshops, 3 plenary speakers and 10 scientific sessions. Scientific sessions accommodating a total of 139 oral presentations and 12 invited talks. Parallel to the oral presentations, two poster sessions exhibited 292 posters during the Symposium. At the closing ceremony it was remarked that this symposium was a firm step toward close cooperation between ICES, PICES and GLOBEC and it was recognized that this was the largest and most important zooplankton symposium that has ever been held. The major objectives of the Symposium were fulfilled and at the end the Organizing and Scientific Committees honoured the two students who prepared the best posters. A selection of the best symposium papers will be published in a volume of the ICES Journal of Marine Science in late 2008, invited Guest Editors are Shin‐ichi Uye and Mike Dagg (PICES, )Roger Harris (GLOBEC) and Luis Valdés (ICES).

Introduction

Rationale Scientific congress and symposia constitute the most effective and practical manner for the scientific community to communicate progress in their research field, discuss practical applications of new technological developments, interchange experiences, identify synergies, find new research directions and ideas, and make new liaisons. It is more than 45 years since ICES convened in 1961 the first “Symposium on Zooplankton Production” at Charlottenlund (Denmark). At this time the traditional approach to the study of the plankton was based on individual scientist working in

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 3

relative isolation (Reeve, Skjoldal and Harris, 1995)1. ICES also had a lead role in the organization of the 2nd Symposium on Zooplankton Production, Plymouth (UK) in 1994. By then, the integration of physics and biology combined in large scale cruise efforts move the zooplanktologists for integrated approaches to the study of plankton (Reeve, Skjoldal and Harris, 1995). The increasing importance of international programmes such as IGBP (and GLOBEC) and the general concerns about global change were also present in the spirit of this symposium. During the last decade (1990–2000), international and national research programmes within the essence of GLOBEC have collected and accumulated an important amount of data and information, and the scientific community was demanding a new international “Symposium on Zooplankton Production”. The ICES Working Group on Zooplankton Ecology (WGZE) was sensible to this demand and in 2000 the WGZE met in Hawaii with the colleagues of PICES. A main result of the discussions of this meeting was the joint proposal to organise the 3rd international Symposium on Zooplankton Production, which was held in Gijón (Spain) in May 2003. In Gijón there was a movement to formally convene an International Zooplankton Symposium every four years, and so an offer for a venue in Japan was announced by Prof. Shin‐ichi Uye. This offer was accepted by ICES, PICES and GLOBEC, under the local support of the University of Hiroshima (Japan).

The 4th International Zooplankton Symposium held in Hiroshima was the first of the Symposia to be held outside Europe. As such it represented an important opportunity to further develop the truly international nature of zooplankton research. The Hiroshima Symposium was also a landmark in developing closer cooperation between the three co‐sponsors, ICES, PICES and GLOBEC.

Organisation, venue and participants

The 4th International Zooplankton Production Symposium convened with the title: “Human and Climate Forcing on Zooplankton Populations”demanded the collaboration of four conveners (representing ICES, PICES and GLOBEC) and two committees (Annex 1), who were the responsible for preparing the scientific programme and the local organization. Progress on the local organization and on the scientific programme was reported and discussed at the ICES WGZE annual meeting (see ICES WGZE reports of 2005, 2006 and 2007). Preparation of this event has demanded intense work and substantial coordination among colleagues of ICES, PICES, GLOBEC and the Univ. of Hiroshima. PICES Secretariat provided professional assistance in the planning and development of the Symposium; designing and production of the symposium poster and brochure, on‐ line registration at PICES Homepage and correspondence with contributors. GLOBEC International Project Office at Plymouth (UK) also shared the organization. ICES is contributing with the edition of a special volume do the ICES JMS where the best papers will be published in 2008 and the distribution of a complimentary copy of this volume to each symposium’s participant.

1 Reeve M.R., H.R. Skjoldal and R. Harris. 1995. Zooplankton Production: Introduction. ICES J.mar.Sci., 52:261-262.

4 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

The Symposium was held at the Congress Center in Hiroshima. This is a modern, well‐facilitated building complex with rooms for scientific sessions, workshops, poster exhibition and private offices for the Scientific/Organising Committee. The Symposium was held from 28 May–1 June 2007, gathering 334 participants from 56 countries from around the world (Table 1).

Symposium programme and description of activities The four conveners and the SSC were responsible for preparing the scientific programme and mobilizing a wide representation of scientific teams to attend the meeting. The full programme of the Symposium included 10 scientific sessions, 3 half‐day workshops, and 3 plenary speakers. A full detail on the rationale is given in Annex 2.

Symposium scientific sessions The sessions and their conveners were: S1. Global comparisons of zooplankton time series. Dave Mackas (Canada) and Luis Valdés (Spain) S2. Importance of zooplankton in biogeochemical cycles. Hiroaki Saito (Japan) and Deborah K. Steinberg (USA) S3. The role of zooplankton in food‐webs: changes related to impacts of climate variability and human perturbation. Mike St John (Germany) and Hans Damm (USA) S4. Mortality impacts on the ontogeny and productivity of zooplankton. Serge Poulet (France) and Mark Ohman (USA) S5. Zooplankton functional groups in the ecosystem. Sun Song (China) and Sanae Chiba (Japan) S6. Microbial loop vs. classical short food chains: implications for appraisal of food‐ websʹ efficiency and productivity. Ulf Bamstedt (Sweeden) S7. Environmental and other constraints on zooplankton behaviour, life histories and demography. Charles Miller (USA) and Atsushi Tsuda (Japan) S8. Zooplankton biochemistry and physiology: practical and potential biotechnology application. Adriana Ianora (Italy) and Kurt Tande (Norway) S9. Advance in image technologies and the application of image analysis to count and identify plankton. Xabier Irigoien (Spain) and Cabell Davis (USA)

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 5

S10. Analysis and synthesis: Modelling zooplankton in aquatic ecosystems. Daniel Grubaum (USA) and Michio Kishi (Japan) Nearly 450 contributions were received for the scientific sessions. It was considered an excellent indication of how dynamic the research in zooplankton is and demonstrated the importance of the resources that it is possible to mobilise through international collaborative research. The selection and arranging of such a large number of contributions was a laborious work. The selected contributions were allocated to sessions 1–10 as oral communication or as poster (a total of 151 oral presentations including the invited talks). Parallel to the oral presentations, a poster session, organized by Shin‐ichi Uye exhibited 292 posters during the Symposium.

The Scientific sessions of the 4th International Zooplankton Production Symposium were held at the Congress Center in Hiroshima and opened in the morning of May 29 with a warm welcome address by the Chairman of the Local Organizing Committee (Shin‐ichi Uye), followed by representatives of the conveners: Luis Valdés in behalf of ICES, Mike Dagg on behalf of PICES and Roger Harris in behalf of GLOBEC. The Opening Session was chaired by the President of the University of Hiroshima. Two sessions run concurrently each day and each session included two chairs and one or two keynote speakers followed by contributed papers. Time for discussion of posters submitted to each session was allocated on two special poster sessions on the afternoon of the first and second days. At the Closing Ceremony, we honoured the students who prepared the best posters. These were: 1 ) Yuichiro Nishibe. University of Tokyo (Japan). Metabolism and elemental composition of four oncaeid copepods in the western subartic Pacific (authored by Y. Nishibe & T. Ikeda). 2 ) Jörn Schmidt. Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, university of Kiel (Germany). Verticl distribution and diel vertical migration of main copepod species in the Bornholm Basin (Baltic Sea) (Authored by J. Schmidt, J. Renz & J. Dutz). Each winner was gifted with a beautiful Japanese cloth, two scientific books, a diploma and an invitation to attend the Climate Change Symposium to be held in Gijón (Spain) in May 2008.

Workshops Three half‐day workshops were programmed: WK 1. Temporal and regional responses of zooplankton to global warming: Phenology and poleward displacement. Wulf Greve (Germany) and Anthony Richrdson (Australia)

WK 2. Zooplankton research in Asian countries: Current status and future prospects. Sanae Chiba (Japan), Young Shil Kang (Korea) and Sun Song (China) WK 3. Krill research: Current status and its future. So Kawaguchi (Australia) and William T. Peterson (USA)

6 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

The workshops were held on 28 May immediately prior to the Symposium. Facilities at the Congress Center were used for hosting the workshops. A total of 137 scientists attended the three workshops.

Plenary talks and key note speakers 1 ) Victoria J. Fabry (USA). Impacts of ocean acidification on marine zooplankton: Knowns and unknowns. 2 ) Anthony Richardson (Australia). In hot water: Zooplankton communities now and in the future. 3 ) Albert Calbet (Spain). Role of microzooplankton in a changing ocean.

Conclusions In the past, the First Zooplankton Production Symposium was held in 1961 in Denmark. Then, the Second International Zooplankton Symposium was held in 1994 in Plymouth, England, gathering 200 people from 22 countries. In Gijón it was attended by, 333 people from 38 countries. This time in Hiroshima we gathered 334 (one more than in Gijón) coming from 56 countries. Everyone agreed that this was an exciting zooplankton symposium. In particular, it was a rare occasion that zooplanktologists living in North Pacific and North Atlantic could meet and discuss the common issues. The major objectives of the Symposium were fulfilled and the exchange of views, ideas and data by zooplanktologists from around the world facilitated development of new research directions and ideas. The symposium revealed a number of long‐term data sets and of researchers interested in variability, trends, cycles and comparative ecology of plankton systems (Symposium Session 1 and Workshops 1 and 2). The needed of harmonization of procedures, results and analyses was discussed. It was also stated that the collective value of data sets is greater than its dispersed value and that an accessible world data bank for time series is strongly needed. Variability’s close relationship to climate indicates that plankton time series analyses are needed if we are fully to understand variability in fish stocks and fisheries, and that such information should be incorporated within the basic conceptual approaches and quantitative models of biological oceanography. Biogeochemical fluxes and cycles were treated in Session 2 and the biochemistry in Session 8, where nice examples of the importance of zooplankton mediating the transport and the balance of particulate and dissolved matter in the system were presented. It was shown that the degree of coupling of zooplankton and producers gives rise to regional and seasonal variations in the abundances of producer stocks, nutrient utilization and recycling efficiencies, and elemental export ratios. Hence, there is a growing recognition of the essential role that zooplankton play in regional and global biogeochemical cycles. Two sessions were devoted to present technical innovations to study zooplankton (Sessions 8 and 9). Recent technical developments on automatic methods (Session 9) to count and measure zooplankton at real time are now able to provide 3‐D data from the physical environment and biota with high temporal resolution. However the trade‐off between gaining spatial and temporal resolution and losing details on species and life‐stage information has hampered a breakthrough in new methods. Progress in molecular biology (Session 8) can help to solve this bottleneck, as genetic system promise to be more popular, cheap and easier to apply for identification of species. But molecular biology is also revealing as a powerful tool to understanding

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 7

zooplankton diversity, dynamics and production and field studies presented at this symposium demonstrate practical applications that have yielded new insights into the role of zooplankton in ocean ecosystems. New approaches to zooplankton modeling were discussed in Session 10. Innovative applications of models were presented. Models cover the full range of processes and scales: coupled bio‐physical models, models of the populations dynamics of zooplankton species or taxa, biogeochemical models, individual based models, and predator‐prey models, and it was demonstrated that modeling is an especially powerful tool because it allows one to conduct novel experiments and to test hypotheses that are otherwise too expensive or too difficult to conduct in situ. The role of zooplankton in food webs was the topic for Sessions 3 (classical approach) and 6 (microbial loop). As oceans are warming this topic is gaining new interest as in temperate areas the microbial loop is being more important. The stratification of the water is limiting the fuelling of nutrients in surface waters; this is decreasing the net production of the system enhancing the microbial functioning of the pelagic ecology. This is affecting the biological processes and community structure and modifying the quantity and/or quality of particulate matter and therefore have consequences for biogeochemical fluxes and biological pump. The zooplankton behaviour, life histories, mortality, productivity and functional groups, were discussed in Sessions 4, 5 and 7 (and Workshop 3). Biological properties in the life histories of zooplankton species are still obscure and our knowledge is limiting our ability to produce good models. The classification of plankton species in functional groups with similar characteristics and role in the ecosystem is an approach that can be helpful in the studies of the ecosystems. Effects of global warming in the ecology of zooplankton was the main focus of the three plenary talks. Loss in biodiversity due to acidification, warming and latitudinal displacement of species as well as the shift from the classical food web to oligotrophic conditions, more favourable to recycling the nutrients in the microbial loop was discussed.

Progress on the publication of the Symposium volume The ICES Journal of Marine Science has published special issues on plankton resulting from the 1994 Plymouth Zooplankton Symposium (ICES Journal of Marine Science. 1995, 53 (3–4): 261–773), from the 1997 Kiel Symposium on “The temporal variability of plankton and their physico‐chemical environment” (ICES Journal of Marine Science. 1998, 55(4): 555–824), and from the 2003 Gijón 3th International Zooplankton Production Symposium (ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2004, 61(4): 441–737). Negotiations with the ICES JMS editors and with the ICES Publication Committee commenced in May 2005, and at the ICES ASC in Aberdeen (2005) the Conc. stated that the proceeding of this Symposium be published in the ICES JMS. During 2006– 2007 we agree on the number of pages (350). The publication date for the Volume according with the ICES JMS schedule will be 2008, and were assigned a responsible editor (DrPierre Pepin) to assist the invited guest‐editors in the publication process. The invited Guest Editors: Shin‐ichi Uye, Mike Dagg, Roger Harris and Luis Valdés met during the Symposium with the Chair of the ICES Publication Committee (Dr Pierre Pepin). The guest editors consider that a large number of high‐quality oral presentations and posters, on a variety of current topics, presented in the Symposium

8 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

could be considered for publication and that this collection of papers will include substantial and authoritative contributions on a range of aspects of zooplankton ecology that will increase the reputation of the ICES JMS. We also got the compromise to strictly respect the publication schedule agreed with ICES to ensure that the Special Issue appears within one year of the Symposium (Annex 3). The number of papers expected together with the restricted number of pages available to us in the Special Issue, means that we expect to be able to accept only about 40% of submissions. Normal international peer‐review criteria apply, and referees were provided with the IJMS guidelines and standard forms in order to unify the criteria of selection.

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 9

Annex 1. Organisation Committees and sponsors

The organisation and sponsors

Symposium Convenors Michael J. Dagg (USA/PICES) Roger P. Harris (UK/GLOBEC) Shin‐ichi Uye (Japan) Luis Valdés (Spain/ICES)

Scientic Steering Committee Local Organising Committee Michael J. Dagg (USA/PICES) Michio J. Kishi (Hokkaido University) Rubén V. Escribano (Chile/GLOBEC) Hideaki Nakata (Nagasaki University) Roger P. Harris (UK/GLOBEC) Shuhei Nishida (University of Tokyo) David L. Mackas (Canada/PICES) Shin‐ichi Uye (Hiroshima University) Steven Hay (UK/ICES) David L. Mackas (Canada/PICES) Sun Song (China) Luis Valdés (Spain/ICES)

International sponsors North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC)

Local sponsors With additional support from Hiroshima University Hiroshima Convention and Visitors Bureau The Japanese Society of Fisheries Shibuya Scholarship Foundation Oceanography (JSFO) Commemorative Organization for the The Plankton Society of Japan (PSJ) Japan World Exposition (’70) Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research

10 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

Annex 2. Symposium programme

S1 Global comparisons of zooplankton time series Cconveners: David L. Mackas (Canada) and Luis Valdés (Spain) Invited speaker: Evelyn C. (Chris) Pielou (University of Lethbridge, Canada) Zooplankton time series are now being collected in many widely‐separated ocean regions. Several important within‐region analyses of the longer time series were completed during the past decade, and a new SCOR Working Group (#125) was recently formed to promote between‐region comparisons. In this session, we invite papers that provide either new within‐region zooplankton time series data or analyses, or make between‐region and between‐variable comparisons. We are especially interested in zooplankton time series that go beyond biomass to include information on variability of community composition, zoogeographic distributions, phenology, and/or physiological “condition”, and in papers that examine the role of zooplankton in how entire marine ecosystems might respond to climate variability and change.

S2 Importance of zooplankton in biogeochemical cycles Conveners: Hiroaki Saito (Japan) and Deborah K. Steinberg (USA) Invited speaker: Laurence P. Madin (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA) Zooplankton plays an integral role in the cycling of elements in the sea. As key drivers of the biological pump, zooplankton feed in surface waters and produce sinking faecal pellets, and actively transport dissolved and particulate matter to depth via vertical migration. Zooplankton grazing and metabolism transforms particulate organic matter into dissolved forms, affecting primary producer populations, microbial remineralisation, and particle export to the ocean’s interior. The elemental stoichiometry of zooplankton and their prey often differ, resulting in non‐Redfield cycling of C, N, and P. We invite papers on the role of zooplankton (both metazoan and protozoan) in biogeochemical cycles reflecting the significant strides that have been made in this area, as well as identifying crucial gaps in our knowledge. Topics may include, but are not limited to: the role of zooplankton in the biological pump, mesopelagic and deep sea processes, trophic interactions and nutrient cycling, ecological stoichiometry, effects on biogeochemical cycling (measured or modelled) of human– or climate‐influenced changes in zooplankton community structure, and regional or global syntheses of the importance of zooplankton in biogeochemical cycles. This session theme is closely related to research goals within IMBER (Integrated Marine Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem Research) and GLOBEC.

S3 The role of zooplankton in food webs: changes related to impacts of climate variability and human perturbation Conveners: Hans G. Dam (USA) and Mike A. St. John (Germany) Invited speaker: Phillip C. Reid (Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, UK) Global change, a combination of both natural and anthropogenic processes, impacts heavily upon the marine environment and its services (e.g. fisheries, green house gas sequestering). A critical issue facing marine and climate researchers is developing a predictive understanding of how changes in climate and food web structure due to

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 11

exploitation of marine resources feedbacks to global climate. Marine zooplankton performs a critical role in this change via structuring of higher and lower trophic levels. This structuring impacts upon the population dynamics of exploited species, as well as modifying the flux of organic materials to deep ocean. In this session, we encourage contributions highlighting the effects of climatic processes and changes in anthropogenic forcing on individual and population rates, life cycles and distributions as well as the structure of marine communities, in order to further our understanding of the role of zooplankton in global change.

S4 Mortality impacts on the ontogeny and productivity of zooplankton Conveners: Mark Ohman (USA), Serge Poulet (France) and Anthony Verschoor (The Netherlands) Invited speaker: Anthony M. Verschoor (Netherlands Institute of Ecology, Netherlands) Understanding the patterns and causes of zooplankton mortality has been an elusive goal. Yet both theoretical and empirical studies illustrate the sensitivity of virtually all domains of zooplankton research to this understudied component of population dynamics. In recent years, it has become clear that a multiplicity of factors may account for mortality in different phases of the life history, ranging from chemical compounds to predators and parasites. The aim of this session is to bring together contemporary research approaches that address issues such as the estimation of mortality rates in natural zooplankton populations, the causal agents of mortality at different ontogenic stages, trade‐off models exploring the costs and benefits of different behaviours and life history traits that influence mortality risk, and related studies. Participants are invited to present appropriate methods, up‐to‐date results, key issues and perspectives in order to better understand and further model the complex processes linking mortality and zooplankton productivity processes.

S5 Zooplankton functional groups in ecosystems Conveners: Sanae Chiba (Japan) and Sun Song (P.R. China) Invited speaker: Akira Taniguchi (Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan) Zooplankton plays vital roles in aquatic ecosystems. Biodiversity and biomass change will shape the ecosystem, but it is only general concepts. The most important aspect is to ascertain the main contributor to the structure and function of the ecosystem. In previous research, the focus was mostly on biodiversity, dominant species and the key species population dynamics of zooplankton. This is not practical from the point of ecosystem modelling, because we must consider the role of zooplankton in the ecosystem. Since many species have similar roles, we divide them into different functional groups, based on size, morphology, trophic level, or physiological parameters. In this session, we will focus on the zooplankton functional groups in ecosystems: composition, shift under the force of human activities and climate change, its effects to the food web structure and biogeochemical cycling. Our particular interests are toward the mechanisms and consequences of the alternation of major functional groups. What kind of environmental perturbation causes the alternation, and what are the ecological and biogeochemical consequences? In addition to the presentations from field– and laboratory‐based studies, suggestions and proposals from theoretical and modelling approaches are welcome.

12 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

S6 Microbial loop vs. classical short food chains: implications for appraisal of food web efficiency and productivity Convener: Ulf Bamstedt (Sweden) Invited Speaker: Michael R. Landry (University of California, USA) Theoretically, the productivity at the top level of a pelagic food web is determined by the productivity at the basic level (here defined as phytoplankton and bacteria), the number of trophic links, and the efficiency by which energy or carbon is transferred between subsequent trophic levels. This implies that habitats with a dominance of organisms in the size below a few microns at the basic level will generate longer food chains and thereby relatively lower productivity at the mesozooplankton level, i.e. they have lower food web efficiency. However, this theoretical consideration has not been verified from more than a few field‐based and experimentally‐based studies. We therefore invite papers in this session that can highlight how contrasting food web structure is controlled and demonstrate what consequences the food web structure has on productivity at higher trophic levels such as mesozooplankton or fish. Studies from marine as well as freshwater habitats are welcome since they usually complement each other by showing different trophic structures. Reports from field studies, laboratory experiments and mesocosm studies are all welcome.

S7 Environmental and other constraints on zooplankton behaviour, life histories and demography Conveners: Charles B. Miller (USA) and Atsushi Tsuda (Japan) Invited speaker: Claudia Halsband‐Lenk (The University Centre in Svalbard, Norway) Egg and copepodite dormancy, egg‐sac carrying and free spawning, vertical migration, depth selection, feeding rhythms, growth rates and generation lengths of zooplankton have evolved as adaptations to fluctuating environmental factors. These include cyclic food availability, predation pressure, patterns in advection, oxygen supply and temperature variations. Behaviours and phenologic patterns also respond to inter– and intra‐species competitions. Zooplankton activity variations and life cycle timing are key parameters for the survival of animals at higher trophic levels. For example, fish may spawn at times that anticipate availability of copepod eggs or nauplii for larval feeding. Many findings in these regards have accumulated from widespread areas of the ocean in recent decades, especially with the attention given to zooplankton in the GLOBEC programme. Presentations and posters are sought addressing any aspect of zooplankton phenology or behaviour, including effects on biogeochemical cycles.

S8 Zooplankton biochemistry and physiology: practical and potential biotechnology applications Conveners: Ann Bucklin (USA), Adrianna Ianora (Italy) and Kurt Tande (Norway) Invited Speaker: Angelo Fontana (Institute of Biomolecular Chemistry, Italy) Advanced methodologies are emerging that are strongly impacting research development in the marine sciences. Studies using microsatellite markers are now providing new understanding of genetic differentiation, phenotypic plasticity and identification of subpopulations that are shaping the future of zooplankton ecology research. Fluorescent molecular probes have facilitated studies on physiological processes regarding the reproduction, development, growth and mortality of zooplankton. There is also a growing interest in marine bioprospecting, i.e. search for

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 13

bioactive compounds relevant for drug development and other product categories. Although few zooplankton groups have been commercially utilised historically for this purpose, there may be great scope for research in this field in the future. This theme session seeks contributions from practical and potential biotechnological applications in zooplankton within, but not restricted to, the above outlined areas.

S9 Advances in image technologies and the application of image analysis to count and identify plankton Convenors: Cabell Davis (USA) and Xabier Irigoien (Spain) Invited speakers: Mark Benfield (Louisiana State University, USA) and Philippe Grosjean (Mons University, Belgium) One of the main problems confronting plankton research is low sampling resolution, both spatial and temporal. Although it is widely recognised that the relevant scales for plankton are much smaller than those usually sampled, the work involved in plankton sample analysis has made it impossible to sample at very high resolution in most programmes. To some extent the lack of sampling capability has been resolved using simplified measurements such as Chl a, total biovolume, biomass (wet or dry weight) or more sophisticated systems providing size and number of particles (e.g. OPC). However, these methods have a common problem: they lack the ability to distinguish between different functional groups of plankton that we know have very different roles in the ecosystem (e.g. diatoms vs. flagellates, marine snow, or copepods vs. appendicularia). In recent years several in situ and laboratory imaging systems have been developed. These systems are capable of obtaining relatively good resolution images at high sampling rates that would in theory allow quantification of the abundance of taxonomically well‐resolved groups in the appropriate spatial and temporal scales. These systems have been confronted by a new problem, due to the huge amount of information (images) they produce, which is again impossible to analyse manually. New image analysis systems offer an advantage over other methods of counting/sizing: the images can be used for automated taxonomic identification using different recognition systems to identify at least major groups. Many sophisticated automatic recognition algorithms exist, and the research in this area is very active. The objective of this session is to present state of the art systems (imaging and analysis software) as well as examples of the results obtained using image analysis approaches to high resolution sampling.

S10 Analysis and synthesis: modelling zooplankton in aquatic ecosystems Convenors: Daniel Grunbaum (USA) and Michio Kishi (Japan) Invited speaker: Daniel Grunbaum (University of Washington, USA) Zooplankton models have a long history and have made major contributions to our understanding of trophic impacts in marine ecosystems, giving us key quantitative insights into spatial processes such as vertical fluxes and temporal phenomena such as spring blooms. In the future, models of zooplankton dynamics will have rapidly expanding and increasingly central roles as tools for interpreting, integrating and extracting predictive insights from observations. Improving technology is resulting in an exponential growth of biological oceanography datasets that span spatial, temporal and organisational scales from organism‐level genetics and physiology to basin‐wide biomass distributions. At the same time, scientific and societal needs for quantitative understanding of ecological and evolutionary dynamics in the oceans are increasing in accuracy and scope. Translating better data into enhanced

14 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

understanding will require new breadth and depth in zooplankton modelling approaches. We invite papers that advance spatial, temporal or organismal analysis of interactions among zooplankton and between zooplankton and other components of plankton communities, and of zooplankton dynamics in global and regional ecosystems. We especially welcome new, integrative applications of existing modelling approaches such as biomass‐based (NPZ) models and individual‐based models, and novel modelling techniques that promise to synthesize and reconcile diverse observations at multiple organisational levels. A more comprehensive understanding of the boundary current systems requires modelling approaches, although the data for model validation is often limited. This session will also provide consideration of observing system requirements and techniques for monitoring boundary current circulation and ecosystems, in particular the necessary combination of data and models.

W1 Temporal and regional responses of zooplankton to global warming: phenology and poleward displacement Convener: Wulf Greve (Germany), Anthony Richardson (Australia) The mean temperature of the biosphere is increasing on land and ‐ after a lag‐phase ‐ in the oceans. The organisms of the sea – evolutionarily accustomed to a low level of annual and seasonal variance in temperature – respond to the global warming with changes in the seasonal timing and with lateral shifts of the range of distribution. Phenology, the science of the timing of recursive events in organism’s life cycles, established in terrestrial sciences, will help to recognise temporal responses of zooplankton including fish and benthic larvae and to understand distributional change on a local and global scale. Community changes, the appearance of neozoa and the loss of even key species to regional biota can be understood as responses to climatic change, mismatch with their traditional environment and opening of their ecological niches elsewhere. The process of global warming‐related community change has begun. In trying to observe, document and analyse it we can increase our understanding of the functioning of the pelagic ecosystem regarding this process as a large natural experiment. This workshop will address aspects of this natural experiment, new data, new approaches, and new syntheses.

W2 Zooplankton research in Asian countries: current status and future prospects Conveners: Sun Song (P.R. China), Sanae Chiba (Japan) and Young‐Shil Kang (Republic of Korea) The Indian‐Pacific region is a region of high zooplankton biodiversity, covering several high biological productivity areas and several important fishing grounds. Many Asian countries are developing countries, and they are facing the common issues: marine pollution, coastal destruction, overfishing, and marine aquaculture etc. These activities affect the coastal ecosystem more seriously than climate change, in turn; the marine ecosystems in this area are being influenced both by climate change and human activities. As zooplankton play vital roles in the aquatic ecosystem, it can be used as an indicator of ecosystem change. Zooplankton research in Asian countries has developed very rapidly in recent years, from primitive level studies in local waters to internationally collaborative projects in the open ocean. However, these are still weak compared to European and Northern American countries. The purpose of this workshop is to facilitate zooplankton research in Asian countries by presenting research activities, results, progress, main problems, strategies, surveys, standard methods, and main instruments. We aim to strengthen our cooperative

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 15

research and long‐term zooplankton survey, and establish a list of Asian zooplankton communities and a zooplankton data exchange system. Although several workshops, conferences and symposia have been carried out in the last 10 years in Japan, the Republic of Korea and China under the framework of GLOBEC, LME, HAB and PICES, we hope other Asian countries will participate in these activities.

W3 Krill research: current status and its future Conveners: So Kawaguchi (Australia) and William T. Peterson (USA) Invited Speaker: Stephen Nicol (Australian Antarctic Division, Australia) The significance of euphausiids in marine ecosystem has been recognised for centuries particularly because of their obvious importance in the diet of baleen whales and many fish. They are excellent experimental organisms because of their relatively large size and high survival rate in captivity. They are also an ideal model organism for studying interactions between environmental and organismal variability at a variety of scales ranging from short‐term variation up to regime shifts. Recent advances in technology have increased the range of techniques that can be used for studies on krill biology and ecology, and the outcomes are now covering numerous research topics. The purpose of this workshop is to review current knowledge of krill biology, to highlight gaps and future areas for research, and to explore how the study of a range species of krill can further address general problems of the euphausiids (flux, biomass, recruitment, behaviour, growth and ageing, genetics).

16 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

Annex 3: ICES Journal of Marine Science: manuscripts handling time table

Guest Editors: Mike Dagg (Canada), Shin‐ichi Uye (Japan), Roger Harris (UK) and Luis Valdés (Spain)

Week beginning 6 Deadline to submit manuscripts (electronic submission only). July Agree procedure – provide feedback – assign papers to Guest

Editors.

Week beginning 14 Guest Editors suggest names of two reviewers for each of their July manuscripts. These lists of reviewers collated centrally by Mike Dagg for potential overlaps and any duplication resolved with Guest Editors. Master list of reviewers agreed and circulated. Week beginning 21 Guest Editors sent their manuscripts out for review. Allow 6 July weeks for review. Template letter will be provided (modify as appropriate) 15 September Deadline for reviews to be returned to Guest Editors Guest Editors consider reviews and in light of them recommend a decision on their manuscripts: Accept with minor revisions Accept with major revisions (and possible re‐review) Reject

30 September Manuscripts in categories 1 & 2 returned to authors be Guest Editors allowing 4 weeks for revision. Send authors ICES JMS Copy Right forms etc. Category 3) authors receive rejection letter sent our centrally

30 October Deadline to receive final revised manuscripts, electronic copies, and completed forms. Final decisions (based on re‐reviewing?) on Category 2) mss. All authors informed of final acceptance. All finally accepted mss. returned to Mike Dagg for collation and checking. 1 December Complete collection sent to Pierre Pepin, ICES JMS, Editorial Board member. (If some manuscripts are accepted at an early date, send it to Pierre Pepin) June 2008 Target publication data (1 year after the Symposium)

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 17

3 International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Arendal, Norway, 11–14 June 2007

Convener: Erlend Moksness (Norway) The main objective of the Symposium “Integrated Coastal Zone Management” was to present current knowledge and to address issues on advice and management related to the coastal zone. This international multi‐disciplinary conference intended to promote science and integration of knowledge for the sustainable management of coastal resources. It provided a venue for scientists, engineers, managers and policy‐makers to discuss recent advances and innovative ideas, share experiences and develop networks. A total of 167 persons (including 19 students) from 36 countries participated in the symposium (Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, EU, France, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, The Netherlands, UK, USA). The symposium offered financial support to 17 persons from 10 countries: Bangladesh (2), Barbados (1), Brazil (2), Chile (1), Guyana (1), Iran (1), India (4), Philippines (2), Russia (1), Sri Lanka (1) and South Africa (1). During the Symposium, a total of 133 presentations (8 keynotes, 55 oral and 70 posters) addressed issues within the following four themes: • Coastal habitats • Impacts on coastal systems • Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) • Coastal governance Award for the best oral presentation were given to Carissa Klein, University of Queensland, The Ecology Centre, Australia: Title of presentation: “Integrated planning framework and decision support methods for biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management in the coastal zone”. The award for the best poster presentation was given to Nibedita Mukherjee, B. Muthuraman and Kartik Shanker, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment, India. Title of the poster: “Bioshields and ecological restoration in tsunami‐affected areas in India.”

Theme Reports

Theme 1 – Coastal habitats The main results in this theme were: • The importance of habitat integrity for the maintenance of diversity, productivity and fisheries. • Importance of the evaluation of degradation and the restoration possibilities. • Coastal zones receive impact from different areas, so the study scale can not be local i.e. general circulation patterns must be considered. • The importance to take advantage of long time series, or start building them. • Need to develop network of observations, mapping of resources, inclusion of social values.

18 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

These were some of the recommendations about habitats that need to be included towards management.

Theme 2 – Impacts on coastal systems To develop sustainable utilization of coastal resources, the major challenge facing us is to manage human activities, including conserving significant coastal resources such as tropical reefs, mangroves, sea grass etc. Dr Støttrup looked at this from the viewpoint of three areas; goods service and threats. She discussed the key coastal resources as they relate to these:

Goods Services Threats Reefs Habitat Biogeochemical cycles Pollution Seagrass Fish and shellfish Nursery Areas Eutrophication, habitat trawling

Many other resources are also under threat such as rocky shores, sandy shores. In general there is a major issue with habitat Deterioration as a result. Internationally (e.g. Convention on Biodiversity) and within the EU (e.g. EC Habitat Directive), there are agreements and new legislation that address the issues related to habitat degradation and the sustainability of coastal resources. An important tool to apply to this is Spatial Planning that draws upon the new tools provided by Geographic Information Systems. In particular the ability to capture information on human activities, the protection provided for resources and the abundance and occurrence of unique resources. Spatial Planning helps address the scramble that occurs for space in the coastal zone. This approach should also draw upon the Fisher’s knowledge of the area as well, since they often know a great deal about where the essential fish habitat is located. The ICES Fisheries Ecology Working Group has listed five key habitat types: 1 ) Spawning grounds 2 ) Shelter/refuges 3 ) Migratory corridors 4 ) Feeding grounds 5 ) Nursery grounds In general fisheries management efforts focus on 1 and 4, however there is a need to put more focus on 5. The size and extent of nursery grounds is the key to recruitment and survival of different species. Mapping of Nursery Grounds for some species is challenging though. For instance Cod nursery grounds in the North Sea may be difficult to map because of the wide dispersal of the juveniles. It can also be difficult to connect human activities and effects. For example attempts to link effects on Plaice and Beach Nourishment activities failed to establish strong correlations. The effect of asking the question though was beneficial as it got the institutions responsible for the beach nourishment to review their methodology. The real challenge will continue to be the balancing of human use and habitat conservation in a way that is both responsible and imaginative in approach.

Examples 1: Management of Fisheries in South Africa’s largest lagoon, the Saldanha Bay, and possible effects on local fish stocks The objective was to improve fish stocks through multi species management looking at biology, mortality and migration in Saldhanna Bay. This is an area used for iron or shipping, mussel production, military uses. The overall population is around 100,000

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 19

but growing at 6% per year. The fishing pressure is increasing rapidly in Commercial fishing, (mullet gillnet), recreational fishing and subsistence fishing. Research involves tracking fish movement and examining fish behaviour and investigating the effect of marine protected areas on the fish stocks. The fishery is in the danger zone, partly a function of natural causes but also due to the fishing pressure. The results have shown that fish in and outside of the MPA are roughly the same size. Fishers have complied with the MPA and stay outside. However many fish right at the boundary which may effect the success of the MPA. Future actions may require moving fishers further from the MPA boundary. The current level of exploitation is felt to be sustainable. However future growth will exceed the limits and it is expected that group conflicts will increase. The conclusion is that MPAs are not enough and that it will be necessary to implement catch and effort regulations. The MPA was established in 1979 so there was sufficient time to have seen a difference. However the commercial boats were having a large impact and it may be necessary to impose quotas on commercial boats.

Example 2: The population density and urbanization or the Northeast Baltic Sea, the time spatial analysis This was a study in the North East Baltic Sera in the Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Riga. This is an area of high population density and urban growth in the past 50 years. Using Census data they have looked at population growth and urban spread. It has shown that population growth is particularly strong in the Helsinki area, the cities have grown at the fastest rate. Cities greater than 2 million have grown the fastest. The result of the urban growth has been high nutrient loads and habitat loss. In particular nitrate and phosphorous loads have increase dramatically. Runoff generated by conversion of 40% of the land area to impermeable surface has lead to large impacts. They have reached the conclusion that they will need to develop a socio‐ecological approach in order to bring changes to the trends they have been experiencing.

Example 3: Searching for the European Water Framework Directive’s “reference conditions” The use of paleoecological indicators (forminifera) measures of long term change has provided a means of tracking major quality changes including reference to the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority’s classification system. It has been found useful in tracking the initiation of hypoxia events in coastal waters. Example 4: Protected areas as a measure to reduce coastal zone vulnerability in the Amazon region, State of Para, Brazil

The coastal planning involving 22 coastal municipalities in Brazil includes 16000 km2 of coastline with stretches of highly sensitive coastal zone. They are experiencing expansion within Oil and Gas activities, tourism, infrastructure and fishing. The approaches using land use and occupational planning include the development of conservation units. Within the system there are over 3000 km2 of mangroves. The development of the conservation areas that include about 21% of the total area have proven to be effective means for protecting the valuable mangrove systems particularly against coastal floods, and development pressures from the local population.

Example 5: Knowledge based management Knowledge based management can only be based on high quality information on the ecosystems in question. This has been recognised by Norwegian politicians and in 2003 a national program for surveillance and monitoring of biodiversity was

20 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

launched. The first period of the program (2003–2006) was used to develop cost efficient surveillance methods in close collaboration with local communities in three areas of regional government (South – Mid – Northern Norway). The work has been based on the Directorate for Nature conservations report on surveillance of biodiversity and habitats. Through the pilot period it has been developed further to include new habitats, organisation model for local participation and foundation of the work and a second generation tool for classification of habitats i.e. local, regional and national importance.

Theme 3: Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Among the central messages of the theme was the challenge of doing integrated coastal management in a responsible and open manner. There are so many different goals that participants in an ICZM process are pursuing, that finding effective ways of doing the ʺIʺ (integration) part of ICZM is a very demanding task, leading as well to the potential for increasing the conflict among participants. One core issue concerned protection of coastal zones. It was emphasized that protection is not necessarily in opposition to use. Protection may also be a prerequisite for use at it is a prerequisite for sustaining resources like fish stocks. Nevertheless, making trade‐offs between conflicting uses and between protection and use is a demanding task. As an example, small and poor coastal communities see tourism as a way to increase the income of the residents (as well as the tax base). Tourism can be eco‐friendly, but when done rapidly for immediate gain, it can lead to lower environmental conditions in the coastal waters as well as in the coastal ecosystems themselves. Similarly, protecting the biodiversity of the coastal waters means for some advocated that local fishers should be restricted in pursuing commercial fishing – even thought this pushes long‐term residents out of a job. Repeatedly the term ʺcoastal squeezeʺ was applied during the session. Many of the problems of watersheds, urban developments, and ocean waters are squeezed together and the papers in this session highlight how diverse regions had tried to cope with (or, had failed to recognize) these challenging problems. Another theme that ran through many of these papers was that the poorest of the poor were the persons who were more likely than others to pay a very large share of the costs of developing coastal areas. Those who benefit from knowing that biodiversity is saved rarely need to earn their living from fishing or they have not established very small huts along the shore for living. While tourism frequently creates jobs and can be done in a way that enhances the overall social‐ecological coastal system, if the interests of poor residents of a region are not well represented in the planning of new policies, they may be the ones who end up losing livelihoods and long‐term links to a local community. The role and forms of information in the decision process was also emphasized. The theme hence included papers focusing on stakeholder perceptions, scenario development and modeling. The participatory dimension of information development and information evaluation was emphasized both in the presentations and in the debate that followed.

Theme 4: Coastal governance The keynote defined governance as encompassing the values, mores, policies, laws, and institutions by which a society defines a course of action or addresses a set of issues. Governance probes the fundamental goals, the institutional processes and the

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 21

structures that are the basis for planning and decision making. It spans the formal and informal arrangements, institutions, and values that structure and influence: • How a resource or an environment is utilized • How problems and opportunities are evaluated and analyzed • What behaviour is deemed acceptable or forbidden • What rules and sanctions are applied to affect how natural resources are distributed and used The processes of governance are expressed through the institutions and arrangements of markets, government, and civil society. Several speakers pointed out that coastal governance is informed by science but is only sometimes science‐driven. It was stressed repeatedly that coastal governance makes it imperative to integrate information and knowledge from both the social and the natural sciences. The diversity of contexts from which the speakers drew in their papers underscored the crucial importance of the condition of the ecosystem, the pre‐ existing traditions of governance and the spatial scale of a project or program in determining how best to tailor the processes of governance to a specific place and set realistic goals within a given time period. The CHARM project in Thailand, illustrated the challenges of coastal governance in a context where social, political and ecosystem changing is occurring very rapidly and where a natural disaster like the 2004 tsunami can radically alter priorities. This contrasts to the more stable and structured situations described by speakers drawing upon governance at a similar spatial scale in Europe. Governance of the Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) in the Wider Caribbean offer a quite distinct set of challenges and opportunities. Despite such wide differences in context the session reaffirmed the importance of achieving nested systems of governance in which the fundamental goals and processes integrate with one another across a range of spatial and temporal scales. This is increasingly urgent as trends in current patterns of human activity reduce the capacity of coastal ecosystems to generate goods and services and become more brittle. The need to construct resilient coastal governance systems that will in turn encourage resilient socio‐ecological systems was another issue in this theme. The paper suggested that there is a world‐wide need to strengthen such capacity particularly at the municipal and linked watershed‐to‐estuary scale. Several papers identified and reaffirmed broad, universally applicable principles that are emerging as useful in guiding coastal governance at a time of accelerating global change. They emphasized the need to set realistic goals and to structure initiatives to overcome the widening “implementation gap” between issue analysis and planning and the effective implementation of a plan of action directed at selected social and environmental issues. Many urged that those funding and practicing and evaluating coastal governance initiatives accept the diversity and the complexity that is a defining characteristic of both coastal systems and their governance. The Keynote speaker Dr Ostrom spoke on topic of “Beyond panaceas: understanding the role of context in affecting institutional choice and performance”. In her address, Dr Ostrom spoke of the importance of putting people and ecology together, and on how difficult it is to achieve. She criticized universities for keeping people and ecology apart by compartmentalizing them into widely separate disciplines, often in different Faculties or Schools. This lack of interdisciplinary makes it difficult to bring about a true understanding of the nature of interaction within complex ecosystems, of which humans are an integral part. Overcoming this challenge is essential for

22 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

understanding dynamic systems. Dr Ostrom laid out a number of challenges for dealing with the assessment of complex socio‐ecological systems, including: • The need to overcome the “panacea” trap, namely the notion that scientists and scholars can come up with simple models to predict outcomes and produce the ideal solution to resource problems; there is no simple panacea to solve such problems. • The need to accept and embrace complexity rather than reject it. • The need to approach solutions in the form of multi‐year frameworks and multi‐user scenarios. • The need to build nested theories that reflect complex systems rather than single theories that reflect an unrealistic view of real life. Dr Ostrom made reference to Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” and his First Law of Ecology that “you cannot do only one thing”, stressing the need for institutional diversity in managing the complex realities of socio‐ecological systems. Tim Smith who presented a multi‐authored paper entitled “Managing coastal vulnerability: new solutions for local government”. In many ways, Mr. Smith’s paper build on Dr Ostrom’s argument by stating that effective coastal governance requires recognition of uncertainty, complexity, and interactions between various components of complex, dynamic systems. This poses a great challenge for local governments, which often do not have the training and resources necessary to take such an approach. Mr. Smith addressed the need to provide support to local governments so that they can build their capacity to manage change and uncertainty. One key aspect is to provide the capacity to turn information into knowledge by recognizing uncertainty and embracing a multi‐disciplinary systems approach. Science is value laden and we need to be highly participatory in our approach. By taking a systems approach, we move from being disciplinary to multi‐disciplinary, and from being reductionist to being holistic. He emphasized the need to link science and the community, and to present information in a way that can be understood and utilized by local governments. The Australian National Climate Change Adaptation Programme, through the Australian Greenhouse Office is helping to build capacity for adaptation and assisting coastal governments to reduce their vulnerability to climate change. The final speaker of the conference was Joseph Arbour, and his topic “The evolution of governance mechanisms for the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative” covered the development of an Integrated Ocean Management Plan over for one of the Large Ocean Management Areas (LOMAs) under Canada’s Oceans Action Plan. Mr. Arbour spoke about the challenges of developing governance mechanisms for such a large area (over 325,000 square kilometers), covering multiple resources and uses, and involving multiple levels of government (federal, provincial, municipal, First Nations) and a wide range of stakeholder groups and communities. In additional to the governance challenges, there was also the problem of deriving the scientific data and information necessary to support informed decision‐making within the area. The completion of this first phase has put in place a model for a governance structure that has the potential for addressing the complex human, resource, and environmental aspects of managing ocean and coastal systems. All three speakers spoke to the difficulties of managing complex systems, the importance of incorporating the human element into the ecosystem approach, and the need to recognize and incorporate complexity, uncertainty, and change into the

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 23

management models. All of this emphasizes the challenges of developing effective governance structures and mechanisms that can cope with the inherent complexities and vagaries of coastal and ocean systems. There is no simple solution to integrated management, but while it challenges our traditional methods of governance, progress is being made towards more effective approaches.

The Symposium proceedings The Symposium proceedings (Editors: E. Dahl, E. Moksness and J. Støttrup) will be published by Blackwell Publishing. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/. Papers including those based on poster presentations, will be considered for publication following peer review. The proceeding will be restricted to 440 pages, this will allow approximately 30 papers (max 5000 words each) to be included. Those that meet the deadlines and pass the review process will be included in the symposium volume. The publishing date is estimated to November 2008. The preliminary content of the book is as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction – Peter Ricketts (Canada) – State of Fear or State of Oblivion? What coastal zones are telling us about global change and why we need integrated ocean and coastal management on a global scale? Section 1: Coastal habitats Chapter 2: Josianne Støttrup (Denmark) – The challenge of establishing sustainable utilization of our coastal resources Chapter 3– 6 Case studies Section 2: Impacts on coastal systems Chapter 7: Alan Pickaver (EUCC) – EU Indicators to monitor the progress in ICZM(keynote address) Chapter 7–10 Case studies Section 3: Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Chapter 11: Svein Jentoft (Norway) – Future challenges in Environmental Policy relative to ICZM Chapter 12–15 Case studies Section 4: Coastal governance Chapter 16: Stephen Bloye Olsen (USA) – Management or Governance, Environment or Ecosystem; what are the Differences and Does It Matter? Chapter 17–20 Case studies

24 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

4 Early Career Scientists Conference (ECSC), Baltimore MD, USA, 25–29 July 2007

Steering Committee: Elisabeth North, US, Jens Floeter, Germany, Kang Sukyung, Korea, Julie Keister, US, A. Lopez‐Urrutia, Spain Franz Mueter, US Co‐sponsors: ICES, PICES, NOAA, NPRB, KORDI ICES Observer: Adi Kellermann, Head of Science Programme The conference was a great success. We have seen very good to excellent quality of talks and posters; there was a large participation of scientists from US laboratories, however, many of these were from Asia, Africa and Europe; there was an about 50:50 gender ratio. The meeting was hosted by the University of Maryland, UM Center of Environmental Science which was founded about 30 years ago. The venue was the Congress Center of the Maritime Institute of Technology (CCMIT). The facilities were excellent with an integrated restaurant and hotel in close proximity to both Washington and Washington/Baltimore airports. The quality of keynote talks both by senior and early career scientists was very good to excellent, and, combing experience with fresh ideas and thinking proved to be a successful concept; keynotes were given for parallel sessions in plenary first thing in the morning, so participants were able to attend talks on both topics. The Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) was a very active and dedicated and managed to cope with all scientific and organizational issues; the organization of meetings and social events was perfect; unfortunately, the Korean senior scientist who was the only senior scientist (advisor for the SSC) able to participate. There was a remarkably good spirit of the congress and remarkable networking and enthusiasm perceivable, the idea was raised to make it a recurrent event; there was awareness although that the participants would be at their “middle” career by then. A “Mini‐symposium” presenting intergovernmental organizations and international research programmes was well received and there were many questions to the representatives of ICES, PICES, SCOR, EUROceans, Globec, IMBER and EAST time‐ series; one talk was about professional skills (communication, facilitation etc.) that will be needed in today’s science environment to promote career and facilitate the development of good science. The conference was opened by the ICES representative; both US delegates were present and addressed participants during the evening social (dinner) event; the strength of P/ICES was emphasized when joining forces, covering the entire northern hemisphere; the complementary features of both organizations were noted, ICES with top down science and bottom‐up driven advice process allowing for close interaction between applied and advancement motivated science processes, while PICES is free to focus on topics of “pure” science matters with more resources for those. The added value of ICES was emphasized during keynote talks and the “Mini‐ Symposium”. Quite a few questions addressed the inquiries of the early career scientists on how to promote their ideas through the system. A selection of papers will be published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science.

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 25

5 Symposium on MPAs as a Tool for Fisheries Management and Conservation, Murcia, Spain, 25–28 September 2007

Conveners: the two EU‐funded research projects PROTECT (Erik Hoffmann, Denmark) and EMPAFISH (Angel Perez‐Ruzafa, Spain). Co‐sponsors: Spanish Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, European Commission, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), University of Murcia, Technical University of Denmark, Fundación Séneca (Region of Murcia), Regional Ministry for Agriculture and Water (Murcia), Fundación Cajamurcia, and Office for Congresses at the Region of Murcia. The Symposium has been co‐organised by the EC 6FP research projects EMPAFISH (SSP8‐006539) and PROTECT (SSP8‐CT‐2004‐513670). The committees acting as direct scientific and organising responsible of the Symposium have been the following: Symposium Organizing Committee: • Erik Hoffmann, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Denmark; Ángel Pérez‐Ruzafa, University of Murcia, Spain; Concepción Marcos, University of Murcia, Spain; Fuensanta Salas, University of Murcia, Spain; Jean Boncoeur, University of Western Brittany, France; Jose Antonio García‐ Charton, University of Murcia, Spain; Ole Vestergaard, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Denmark; Thomas Kirk Sørensen, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Denmark. Symposium Scientific Committee: • Erik Hoffmann, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Denmark; Ángel Pérez‐Ruzafa, University of Murcia, Spain; Anthony Grehan, Earth and Ocean Sciences, NUI, Galway, Ireland; Ben Stobart, Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Baleares, Spain; Claire Armstrong, University of Tromsø, Norway; Dominique Pelletier, Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploration de la Mer IFREMER, Nantes, France ; Francesc Maynou, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Barcelona, Spain ; Fritz Köster, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Denmark; Gerd Kraus, IFM‐GEOMAR, Germany ; Jan Helge Fosså, Institute for Marine Research, Bergen, Norway ; Jean Boncoeur, University of Western Brittany, France; Jesper L. Andersen, FOI, Denmark; John Pinnegar, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science CEFAS, Lowestoft Laboratory, UK; José J. Pascual, University of La Laguna, Spain; Just Bayle Sempere, University of Alicante, Spain; Lisandro Benedetti‐Cecchi, University of Pisa, Italy; Mark Mellet, Naval Service, Ireland; Melanie Austen, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK; Ole Vestergaard, Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Denmark; Paolo Domenici, Instituto dell’Ambiente Marino Costiero Oristano, Italy; Ricardo Serrao Santos, Instituto do Mar IMAR, Portugal; Serge Planes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CNRS, France. The main goal of the Symposium was to integrate ecological, economic and social aspects for the selection, design, and management of marine protected areas (MPAs), facilitating discussion and exchange amongst stakeholders, scientists, lawyers, and managers. For doing so, five general themes were proposed:

26 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

• Theme 1: Ecological effects of MPAs • Theme 2: MPAs effects on fisheries and other uses • Theme 3: Assessing MPAs performance: monitoring, models and indicators • Theme 4: Tools for MPAs planning and design • Theme 5: Science, Management and Stakeholders A webpage was habilitated in September 2006 (www.mpasymposium2007.eu) to disseminate the symposium as widely as possible, manage inscriptions, facilitate the abstract submission, and provide all the information relative to this event. This website has received up to 19882 visits from 75 countries (at 23 November 2007). Due to the high number (214) of abstracts submitted as oral presentations, the Symposium programme was reconfigured in order to accommodate as much contributions as possible in the sessions; finally, three rooms were fitted out to functioning in parallel during the oral sessions. The Scientific Committee was in charge of evaluating and selecting the abstracts to be included in the oral sessions. Finally, the communications presented to the Symposium have been the following: • 5 invited keynote speakers: • When do protected areas help to achieve management objectives for the marine environment? Dr Simon Jennings, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Lowestoft, United Kingdom • Arguments for conventional fisheries management and against no‐take marine protected areas: only half of the story? Peter J.S. Jones, Dept. of Geography, University College of London, London, United Kingdom • Lessons from the past for marine conservation and management in Europe Callum M. Roberts, Environment Department, University of York, York, United Kingdom • Matching the Hammer to the Nail: Research Questions Underpinning the Success of MPAs Steve Murawski, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA • Human Dimensions of Marine Protected Areas Anthony Charles, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada • 122 oral communications, spread over 27 sessions, coordinated by the following chair‐persons: • Dr John Pinnegar; Dr Indrani Lutchman; Dr Claire Armstrong; Dr Per Nilsson; Dr Fabio Badalamenti; Dr Anthony Greham; Dr Giusseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara; Dr Paloma Martín; CDr Mark Mellet; Dr Charles F. Boudouresque; Dr Serge Planes; Dr Renato Chemello ; Dr Jan Helge Fosså; Dr Ronan Long; Dr Dominique Pelletier; Dr Mireille Harmelin‐Vivien; Dr Ulf Bergstrøm; Dr José Antonio García‐Charton; Dr Ricardo Serrão Santos; Dr Fritz Köster; Dr Leonardo Tunesi; Dr Giovanni de Falco; Dr Tundi Agardy; Dr Gerd Graus; Dr Jean Boncoeur; Dr Melanie Austen; Dr Manuel Zetina‐Rejón. • 133 posters, which were exposed throughout 3 days, with two sessions specifically devoted to discussion of these contributions • 2 roundtables, under the headlines “MPAs for ecosystem conservation and fisheries management – a search for common grounds”, and “What are the

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 27

key costs and benefits policy makers and stakeholders might consider in the MPA decision making process?”, coordinated by Dr Tundy Agardy and Dr Carl Gustaf Lundin, respectively. These two roundtables were preceded by a general presentation by M. Jacques Fuchs, Dr Leticia Martínez‐Aguilar and Dr Miguel Nuevo‐Alarcón. The roundtables were composed by researchers as well as representatives from sectors involved in the management of MPAs: • Tundi Agardy, Senior Marine Specialist, USA; Michael Andersen, Danish Fishermen’s Association, rep. Baltic RAC & North Sea RAC, Denmark; Jeff Ardron, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Germany; Jacques Fuchs, EU Comission, DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs; Mireille Harmelin‐Vivien, Université d’Aix Marseille, Centre d’Océanologie de Marseille, France; Peter Jones, University College of London, Dept. of Geography, UK; Indrani Lutchman, Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), UK; Leticia Martínez‐Aguilar, EU Commission, DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs; Miguel Nuevo‐Alarcón, EU Commission, DG Research; Carl Gustav Lundin, Head, IUCN Global Marine Programme; Fabio Badalamenti, Laboratorio di Ecologia Marina e Conservazione della Natura, Univ. Di Palermo, Italy; Charles François Boudouresque, Université d’Aix‐Marseille, Centre d’Océanologie de Marseille, France; Anthony Charles, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada; Martín Fernández Díez‐Picazo, EU Commission, Maritime Policy Task Force; Mark A. Mellet, Commander, National Maritime College of Ireland, Ireland; Giuseppe Notarbartolo, Tethys Research Institute, Italy; Christian Pusch, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Germany; Silvia Revenga, Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Spain; Callum Roberts, University of York, UK; Jessica Sanders, FAO, Fisheries Dept. A total of 397 delegates from 32 countries attended the MPA Symposium The symposium was opened in a ceremony held Tuesday 25th, and chaired by Dr Miguel Nuevo‐Alarcón as EC representative. The presidential table was co‐chaired by Dr Silvia Revenga (General Secretariat for Maritime Fisheries at the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food), Dr Adolfo Falagán (General Director for Ranching and Fisheries at the Regional Ministry for Agriculture and Water, Regional Autonomous Government of Murcia), Dr José Antonio Cobacho (Rector of the University of Murcia), and Dr Ángel Pérez‐Ruzafa and Dr Erik Hoffmann, representing the European research projects EMPAFISH and PROTECT, respectively. During the symposium a series of social events were celebrated, namely welcome reception at the Cloister of the Faculty of Law (University of Murcia), Symposium official dinner, and two parallel excursions at Saturday 29th, one for diving at the Cabo de Palos – Islas Hormigas marine reserve, and the other for visiting the town of Cartagena, both finishing by a visit to the Cabo de Palos lighthouse, from which a short talk was organised in order to describe the characteristics of the marine protected area.

28 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

Synthesis of scientific contents presented at the Symposium The central topic of the “European Symposium on MPAs as a Tool for Fisheries Management and Ecosystem Conservation” has been the search for common grounds for the management of fisheries and the conservation of biodiversity. The numerous and qualified participation at the symposium highlighted the current situation of research on the “MPA tool”, in the framework of marine conservation.

Invited keynotes The oral sessions and debates were organised around 5 keynotes, for which prestigious personalities from different fields of the “MPA science” were invited to expound their views. Simon Jennings (CEFAS, Lowestoft, UK) defended that science could play a stronger role in supporting the selection of objectives of MPAs, by assessing whether these objectives are measurable, achievable or compatible, and by predicting the effects of the combinations of management tools, including MPAs, that might be used to meet them; in addition, he highlighted that MPAs that meet local management objectives might not contribute to meeting objectives at larger scales, and these incompatibilities need to be understood and managed. Peter J. S. Jones (University College of London, UK) argued the need to ‘sell’ no‐take MPAs (NTMPAs) against conventional fisheries management approaches (CFMAs) from a holistic, trans‐disciplinary rather than reductive, intra‐disciplinary perspective. This holistic approach attempts to accommodate both uncertainty and wider societal values and preferences, both values being intrinsic to the functioning of MPAs. The speaker emphasized the inappropriateness to extend the reductive approach inherent in CFMAs analyses to encompass the broader ethical and scientific concerns embraced by NTMPAs, given that marine biodiversity conservation objectives and fisheries management objectives do not always stride in the same direction. The dissertation of Callum M. Roberts (University of York, UK) was about the need to take a historical perspective of marine conservation, by establishing reference points of harvested populations at much longer temporal scales. In doing so, it appears evident that reversing damage to European seas will require a much higher level of ambition with extensive networks of MPAs, and, although many benefits will become apparent soon after protection, full ecosystem recovery will require decades to centuries. Steve Murawski (National Marine Fisheries Service, Maryland, USA) emphasized that several key scientific questions regarding the use of MPAs are largely unresolved either as general principles or in specific cases, including (1) source‐sink recruitment dynamics, (2) potential for subpopulation selection impacts, (3) benthic‐pelagic interactions, (4) edge effects and spillover, (5) effort re‐allocation and concentration outside MPAs, and (6) human behavioural adaptations to the imposition of MPAs. Finally, Anthony Charles (Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada) closed the series of invited keynote speakers by stressing the importance of human dimensions – social, economic and institutional considerations that can dramatically affect the outcome of an MPA implementation process. He highlighted the role of participatory processes and community involvement as key elements of the success of MPAs.

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 29

Communications The symposium benefited of a very high degree of participation: a total of 255 communications were presented, from which 122 as oral presentations. The symposium covered a very wide geographical range, from European coasts (Mediterranean and central‐eastern islands –Canary is., Madeira and Azores; north‐ eastern Atlantic –including UK, Ireland, Scandinavian coasts, Iceland, North Sea and Baltic Sea), to African coasts (Western Africa, South Africa), Red Sea, Indo‐Pacific (Reunion is., Great Barrier Reef, Tasmania, Western Australia, New Zealand, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Cook is.), North America (Canada, California, Baja California, Mexican Caribbean, Florida, Gulf of Mexico), Central America (Cuba, El Salvador), and Asia (Eastern China). The 122 oral presentations were gathered in 5 thematic areas:

Theme 1: “Ecological effects of MPAs” The communications included under this heading dealt with research performed using very diverse methods (underwater visual census and other techniques requiring the use of SCUBA, tagging, acoustic telemetry, ROVs, video techniques, and data issued from fisheries –either commercial or experimental surveys). The studies undertaken ranged from meta‐analysis of bibliographic as well as raw data, to field works (both observational and experimental), going through ecological investigations using relatively novel techniques (e.g. stable isotopes). Further from the well known positive effects of MPAs on protected populations (of exploited species, but also of other groups as marine birds) and habitats (namely those formed by fragile benthic species), during the meeting participants focused on the interest of designing MPA networks from a multi‐scale perspective, due to the large variability in home range, site fidelity, migratory habits and habitat use of species concerned. In this sense, large MPAs are those offering greater warranties of success, although in particular cases it would be more interesting to propose networks of smaller (< 2000 ha) MPAs, provided that the spatial distribution of habitats is well known. Another recurrent idea is that the recovery of harvested populations is more a question of decades than years. Special emphasis has been placed on the complex effects of protection, such as spillover, indirect trophic consequences, or the implications of MPAs for the fecundity and reproductive success of populations. Several interventions showed up the difficulties to detect ecological effects of protection when some fishing pressure exists in the protected area (e.g. buffer zones), since the spatial distribution of fishing effort within MPA limits introduces biases in the observations. This is one of the reasons to advocate multidisciplinary approaches when surveying the effectiveness of MPAs.

Theme 2: “MPA effects on fisheries and other uses” The communications presented in this section were mostly based on field surveys by questionnaires and interviews to stakeholders (namely fishermen and the tourism sector), or from landings and other commercial fishing data. Also, bio‐economic modelling has been used. The influence of data quality for measuring MPA performance and suitability was raised. Several strong ideas emerged from the interventions. Firstly, researchers have stressed the interest of MPAs for the development of fisheries; but, on the other hand, the need to complement MPAs with other fishing regulation tools has been recurrently argued. Secondly, it appears very important to achieve a true integration of conservation of fishing resources and protection of biodiversity. Some papers addressed the interest of environmental

30 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

measures (such as Natura 2000 network) to reach fisheries goals. Also, fishery‐habitat value of particular ecosystems (e.g. Posidonia oceanica beds, cold water corals) has been emphasized. The importance of emergent sectors related to MPAs, such as recreational uses, was also repeatedly invoked. In particular, recreational fishing was cited as a major and still neglected sector in terms of economic importance, but also as a significant source of impact on marine resources. Finally, some papers highlighted the need to adapt the MPA concept to developing countries.

Theme 3: “Assessing MPA performance: monitoring, models and indicators” The methods developed by the studies integrated in this section included direct count techniques (visual census, video, etc.), analysis of meta‐data (meta‐analysis, data mining), modelling tools of very different nature (e.g. bio‐economic, population dynamics, hydrographical, tropho‐dynamics, eco‐genetic), more conceptual methodologies (e.g. GOIS –Goals, Objectives, Indices and Status, EF – Evaluation Frame), and methodologies based on interviews and expert panels (DSS –Decision Support Systems, Delphic methods). The existence of gaps in knowledge to fully understand the functioning of MPAs has been highlighted. Some authors stressed the importance of evaluating the performance of MPAs relative to the prevailing environmental regime, especially in cases where harvested populations live at the border of their geographical distribution. These environmental factors include the characteristics of habitat (at the appropriate spatial scale) and its ecological role in key processes for the success of MPAs in terms of design and monitoring, such as feeding, reproduction, recruitment, and spillover of exploited species. Also, the need to consider multiple biological attributes of species (in particular larval dispersion and connectivity patterns) has been underlined for the correct design of MPAs. Importantly, authors advocated for having an evolutionary perspective (i.e. considering the genetic response of species to fishing pressure) when implementing management strategies. The importance of simulating and forecasting future scenarios has been emphasized by several papers. A suite of papers treated about the importance of incorporating stakeholders willing in MPA design and networking, moreover if we consider the likely discrepancies between managers, stakeholders and scientists regarding management goals, design, and monitoring indicators to be adopted.

Theme 4: “Tools for MPAs planning and design” A number of papers presented under this title were global or regional revisions of the present situation of MPAs (based either on original data or on literature reviews). On the other hand, diverse techniques have been proposed for MPA planning and design, such as those establishing the optimal surface of MPAs by estimating the home range and connectivity patterns of key species (using different methods, such as acoustic tracking, tagging, otolith shape and microchemistry). Some papers reported the results of habitat mapping studies (using ROV or video and taking advantage of GIS systems). Some papers dealt with DSS, and presented the outputs of using modelling tools (e.g. MARXAN). The need to address strategic MPA planning, i.e. selecting sites to be protected in order to have a representative network of MPAs has probably been the most recurring idea during the sessions. Furthermore, the importance to develop management plans in conjunction with local stakeholders (including conservationists) was also emphasized. In this sense, two approaches have been used (and, in some case, confronted): low‐tech, expert opinion‐ & local knowledge‐based (Delphic) vs. high‐tech (e.g. habitat mapping using GIS, MARXAN, modelling,

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 31

geostatistics), DSS‐assisted methodologies, the latter being much more demanding of high‐quality empirical data. In this section, it was highlighted the need of systematic surveys of marine biodiversity, mostly in under‐represented regions and ecosystems (e.g. deepwater canyons and seamounts, nursery habitats, Lophelia areas). Also, some papers dealt with marine species not harvested, but affected by spatial protection measures (e.g. cetaceans, sea turtles, marine birds). Other problems approached have been the incorporation of the risk of catastrophic events (such as those linked to climate change) into MPA planning and networking, and the need of incorporating natural variability and spatial aspects of assemblage structure into decision‐making process of MPA design.

Theme 5: “Science, management and stakeholders” The works presented were mainly based on interviews, questionnaires and public participation systems. In addition, more automated management procedures have been explained, together with conceptual models such as DPSIR. The key issue has probably been “public participation”. Not only delegates emphasized the importance of establishing fluid ways of communication and information to stakeholders, but moreover they highlighted the need for implementing adaptive management schemes, by the bottom‐up involvement of stakeholders in all phases of MPA planning, instauration, and monitoring. During the meeting, some actors explicitly asserting their claim to participate in the MPA process were NGOs, fishermen, tourism representatives, and (paradoxically) scientists. Scientists claimed for being increasingly involved in the decisions about site selection and MPA‐zoning and networking, but also in the design of performance indicators and monitoring / assessment plans. Also, the institutional and management aspects were putted forward into the MPA‐implementation practice, besides bio‐physical and socio‐economic sciences. As examples of this, some participants defended the use of pragmatic criteria –such as enforcement considerations, when designing MPAs, while others highlighted the importance of assessing the actual effectiveness of MPA management (further from ecological or uses‐related aspects). Further aspects of MPA approached during the oral communications were MPAs as management tool to address conflicts among users, and the interest of transboundary MPAs. Special emphasis was done on the future perspectives of the MPA tool, in combination with the fisheries‐oriented EA (ecosystem approach) and the environment policy. Some authors defended the need of protecting a very significant part of the marine areas (up to at least 40% globally) within MPA networks, bearing the 2012 target in mind. MPAs have been proposed as a paradigm towards the development of a true Oceans Policy, based on the interdisciplinary spatial planning, as well as the ecosystem‐based management of both the littoral areas and the high seas.

Roundtables As mentioned above, the last day of the Symposium was devoted to hold two roundtables intending to dynamize a discussion at plenary session about the main questions tackled during the communications in parallel sessions. In the following paragraphs, a summary of the main ideas emerging from such discussions is presented.

32 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

Session A: MPAs for ecosystem conservation and fisheries management: a search for common ground The first strong idea in this session was that MPAs constitute a priority for the European administrations. EC representatives emphasized that Common Fisheries Policy (hereafter CFP) is increasingly incorporating environmental concerns. Moreover, the need for a narrower collaboration and coordination between Environment and Fisheries managers (at regional, national and European levels) was underlined. It is to be stressed, however, that most examples of such an integrative perspective refer only to Nordic seas, and not so much in the Mediterranean or Central‐Eastern Atlantic archipelagos. On the other hand, the existence of unresolved questions and gaps in knowledge, at both the scientific and management spheres, constitutes a true obstacle to the advance of this integration between environmental and fisheries issues. The interest that MPAs arose to EC was patently obvious by the prominence of this thematic in successive European R&D Framework Programmes (FM). Amongst those already developed within 4 and 5FPs it is worth mentioning the EC projects ECOMARE, BIOMEX, BEMMFISH, COST‐IMPACT, RESPONSE, ETHOFISH, OGAMP, EDFAM, VALFEZ, etc. Within the 6FP, the research projects EMPAFISH and PROTECT (co‐organizers of this symposium) are giving promising results, which are surely providing useful conclusions to future European policies. Within the ongoing 7FP the EC is intending to fill the gaps of knowledge about the functioning of MPAs, as those interestingly conveyed during this meeting. Multidisciplinary approaches have emerged as the best way to tackle the MPA problem. Some voices warned against an excessive emphasis on purely scientific issues (reductionist, long‐term, with an important part of uncertainty), in opposition to more pragmatic approaches, possibly further adapted to local realities (i.e. to the need to conserve not only resources, but also the living conditions and the culture of coastal communities). To this end, an approach to the “MPA problem” from the social sciences came out as an essential concern. Although diverse strategies are possible for engaging a dialog between the two approaches emphasized in this symposium (“conservation of fishing resources” vs. “ecosystem protection”), a critical agreement emerged about the need to reach such a close consensus at larger geographical scales beyond the MPA limits, to expand to a wider area as well as to the high sea. Furthermore, the necessity to be much more ambitious when stating the goals and objectives of fisheries conservation was raised, because of the highly degraded state of harvested marine populations and ecosystems. Several comments in the room considered that international commitments regarding marine conservation (Johannesburg, objectives by 2012, etc.) will be hardly attained by the EU, given the current levels of achievement by member states. Most participants were critics but optimistic regarding our capability to fill the cumulated delay, bearing in mind, however, that rush is not a good allied for the development of a coherent conservation policy. The importance of multidisciplinary perspective to MPA research and development was recurrently stressed by participants, together with the difficulties preventing to accomplish this approach. Practical questions (time, money) were put forward, but a key issue raised was the large gap existing between the unrealistic time frames asked by donors and managers in the planning process (linked to the short‐term of science‐ funding schemes), and the scientists’ inclination to think in the long‐term. Rapprochement of both sides requires managers planning more in the long‐term (i.e.

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 33

territory and strategic integral management), and scientists thinking more in the short‐term (i.e. giving answers to managers even if they have no absolute sureness on their conclusions). Some delegates mentioned aspects linked to the human dimension of research, with deep historical and even psychological aspects carrying weight on the manner research is performed, and therefore on the acceptance to bring gaps between disciplines. EU research funding‐system is probably more advanced than other regions to allow multidisciplinary schemes. But yet a multiplicity of organisms and institutions exist that, having the same objectives and even methodologies, demonstrate a surprising lack of interaction and exchange. The EU has to face the difficulty to correctly harmonise the conservation objectives of member states, as well as the different sector policies at both national and EU levels. The capacity of CFP alone to solve the problem of fisheries conservation was called into question. Not at all times (or not everywhere) fisheries and environmental objectives can be compatible, as it is not always possible to reconcile spatial measures of protection (MPAs) with more traditional fisheries management measures (such as seasonal closures, quotas or limiting fishing effort); thereby it is inevitable that one aspect overcome the other in each case. One example of that is Natura 2000 network, which has nothing to do with harvested populations, but rather with habitats and endangered species (i.e. a marine area integrating this network might give up productive facets to reach biodiversity protection goals). Thus, this network would be to a certain extent complementary to other management measures more specific to fisheries. On the other hand, in certain large‐scale closure areas (e.g. Faeroe Islands, George Bank) environmental objectives are played down in favour of fisheries purposes, even though they can harbour habitats of special interest, such as deep white corals. In view of this panorama, perhaps it is necessary to assign persons (or field of expertise) to serve as links amongst disciplines (scientific, technical, social) and productive / administrative sectors, given the reductionist way to face the problems by the different parts.

Session B: What are the key costs and benefits policy makers and stakeholders want to understand and evaluate before they can make decisions about implementing MPAs? This roundtable begun with some key questions related to the management of MPAs: How to resolve complex conflicting issues amongst the diverse stakeholder sectors converging in MPAs? What are the costs of incorporating opinions and needs of stakeholders in the different stages of MPA implementation? How effectively do we balance the views of local and remote stakeholders? How much consideration is there of non‐use values (e.g. existence, bequest) compared with use‐values (e.g. production and consumption values including fisheries, diving, angling, ecotourism)? How do we effectively manage uncertainty and connect higher‐level goals, such as ecologically sustainable development, to day‐to‐day management decisions? From the point of view of stakeholders, is it fair to establish MPAs on the basis of probability and uncertainty? Some key ideas discussed turned around the agreement mechanisms between fisheries and environmental administrations to implement MPAs, this concurrence being a prerequisite to adequately handle new MPA projects. This was so much the case that the EC indicated the interest to establish pre‐agreements between administrations at all management scales (from local to European). The application of science (their objectives, methods, results and achievements) to MPAs has to go through two premises. Firstly, scientist must be aware of the present

34 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

limitations of science, in terms of gaps in knowledge (to be necessarily filled), thus establishing priority operational objectives for the next years, to be turned into management measures readily applicable. Secondly, incorporating stakeholder groups into the MPA process pose the need of pragmatic considerations (e.g. opportunity reasons, or the importance of adequately taking enforcement into consideration) to be made compatible with present and future scientific knowledge. But such pragmatism should not be taken to the extreme case of ignoring the results of scientific research. Science, as the crucial support to management, should be considered as the guarantee of MPA success. In this sense, MPAs constitute true scientific experiments at the ecosystem scale, and hence the privileged scenario for the advancement of knowledge to drive the solution to the present fisheries and environmental crisis.

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 35

6 Symposium on Reproductive and Recruitment Processes of Exploited Marine Fish Stocks, Lisbon, Portugal, 1–3 October 2007

Conveners: Ed Trippel, Canada (NAFO), Richard D. Brodeur, US (PICES), and Mark Dickey‐Collas, the Netherlands (ICES) ICES in conjunction with the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the North Pacific Marine Sciences Organization (PICES) sponsored an international symposium on Reproductive and Recruitment Processes of Exploited Marine Fish Stocks on 1–3 October in Lisbon, Portugal. The symposium was organized and convened by Ed Trippel (representing NAFO), Ric Brodeur (PICES) and Mark Dickey‐Collas (ICES). It has been almost a decade since the topic of fish reproduction and recruitment has been addressed at a symposium and it was felt that this area of research was ripe for an attempt at integration and synthesis. The participation by the scientific community reflected this as 151 scientists and managers from 23 countries and 6 continents attended the three day meeting. The participation level was also high with 52 oral and 70 poster presentations. The symposium was led off with a stimulating keynote talk by Dr Ed Houde of the University of Maryland entitled: “Emerging from Hjort’s shadow” which outlined the history of recruitment research starting with the famed Norwegian scientist Johan Hjort (1869–1948) who introduced the ʹcritical periodʹ hypothesis that framed much of the early research on recruitment. Dr Houde brought us up to date on the current thinking on the physical and trophodynamic factors that affect fish survival and, ultimately, recruitment. He challenged us to examine paradigms currently directing research on fish reproduction and recruitment, highlighting some of the recent advances made by many interdisciplinary programs initiated in the last couple of decades on these topics. Dr Houde emphasized that all life stages of fishes are important in generating variability and thus potentially critical in generating year‐ class fluctuations. He concluded by stating: “Solving the recruitment problem” is no longer the holy grail of fishery science. Appreciating recruitment variability, explaining probable causes, considering implications for management, and understanding it in the context of broader variability in marine ecosystems are worthy goals.ʺ The overall meeting was structured along four main themes each with two invited talks and a number of contributed talks. The first theme dealt with Age and Size at Sexual Maturation, with invited talks from Tara Marshall (UK) and Mikko Heino (Norway). The second was Fecundity and Spawning Success with keynote addresses by Yvan Lambert (Canada) and David Armstrong (US). Then the emphasis shifted to Survival of Eggs and Larvae with invited presentations by Brian McKenzie (Denmark) and Yoshiro Watanabe (Japan). The final session integrated among the previous topics with a slant toward Stock Assessment and Management Implications with a diverse spectrum of presentations with invited talks by Joanne Morgan (Canada) and Louis Botsford (US). Ending up on a positive but cautionary tone, Keith Brander (ICES) summed up the presentations and gave his take on the progress in the field and suggested that the future will not be like the past and we need to take a precautionary approach in managing fluctuating populations. He left us with the challenge: ʺHow can we use all our new knowledge to guide sustainable management of marine ecosystems?ʺ

36 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

Similarly, the poster session held the second evening, had representation from a broad spectrum of topics and species of interest, with a strong representation of management applications. Although the majority of talks and posters examined finfish in marine waters, there were also several presentations on commercially important shellfish which have their own unique reproductive and life history patterns (sperm storage, multiple paternity). There was even a talk on freshwater fish reproduction and recruitment and how these processes differed from those in the marine environment. Altogether, the symposium was declared to be a successful integration of current thinking on these processes which may regulate production of most fish species. Several talks pointed out that due to the substantial variation in maturity rates, sex ratios, fecundity, spawning frequency, and viability of eggs; we can no longer use spawning stock biomass as an indication of reproductive output. The integration of management principles along with the science was a critical element considering the present depressed state of many fish stocks and the potential for unknown trajectories in the presence of climate and anthropogenic changes that are occurring in most marine ecosystems. It is planned that suitable manuscripts from the meeting will be published in a special volume of the Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science due out in 2009.

ICES Symposium Reports 2007 | 37

7 ICES Symposium on Environmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs, London, UK, 20–23 November 2007

The Symposium on Environmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs was held in London on 20–23 November, 2007 with H. L. Rees (Cefas/UK), E. Jagtman (IMARES/The Netherlands) and H. Hillewaert (ILVO/Belgium) as Conveners. The Science Committee included: J. L. Hyland (NOAA/USA), G. J. Piet (IMARES/The Netherlands), R. Fryer (FRS/UK), E. Corcoran (UNEP‐WCMC/UK), E. McManus (Cefas/UK) and K. Hylland (NIVA/Norway). The Steering Committee members were: H. L. Rees (Cefas/UK), E. Jagtman (IMARES/The Netherlands), H. Hillewaert (ILVO/Belgium) and J. H. Andersen (DHI/Denmark). The Symposium was sponsored by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA/UK), the European Environment Agency (EEA), the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the OSPAR Commission (OSPAR) and the European Network of excellence for Ocean Ecosystems Analysis (EUR‐OCEANS). A total number of 114 people from 21 countries attended the four‐day conference, collectively providing a useful insight into the utility of environmental indicators in meeting regulatory needs. Most of the participants were from Europe (particularly United Kingdom, Spain and the Netherlands). The symposium was organized along 4 major themes: (1) Policy/regulatory frameworks for indicator applications, (2) Satisfying the need: case studies of the operational use of environmental indicators, (3) Promising new indicator developments and (4) Overview and forward look. Invited session papers were presented by Thomas C. Wainwright (US) “Environmental Indicators and Pacific Salmon Conservation”, Simon Jennings (UK) “ Indicator systems to support marine environmental management”, Virginia Engle (US) “Selecting, developing, and maintaining ecological indicators of estuarine condition: The National Coastal Assessment experience”, Paul J. Somerfield (UK) “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning; novel formulations for indices of relevance”, Trine Christiansen (DK) “Improving pan‐European assessments: moving from 2005 to 2012” and Michael Depledge (UK) “The role of indicators in the assessment of interconnections between ocean and human health” A total of 43 talks and 16 posters were presented. The importance of incorporating multiple indicators was stressed throughout the various talks of the symposium. Yet, the development and selection of the right indicators to use can be a complex process, given that the measurable characteristics of ecosystems that the indicators are tracking again are practically limitless. Thus the need for appropriate frameworks, or paradigms, for organizing and selecting the right combination of indicators must also be considered. Very important points have been delivered throughout all of these presentations including demonstrations of the utility of indicator applications in specific areas, as well as descriptions of new indicator approaches and tools. Jeff Hyland and Ketil Hylland, in their closing statement, summarized this well, emphasizing (among other points) the need to embrace principles of ecosystem‐based management inclusive of effective indicator frameworks that incorporate appropriate combinations of ecological and socioeconomic indicators with corresponding thresholds for management action and that recognize humans as both a source and receptor of environmental impacts; the need for collaborative programs that agree to some

38 | ICES Symposium Reports 2007

common ecosystem‐quality goals using consistent sets of indicators to address them; and also the need for indicators and reporting to be available at local scales, in order to account for differences that may exist among various regions and ecosystem types. Hereto time‐series observations of key ecosystem components, pathways & forcing processes should be promoted and the involvement of ICES or other international scientific organizations could strengthen these processes. A special issue of the ICES Journal of Marine Science on the results of the Symposium will be published in 2008 under the guest‐editorship of Niels Daan (the Netherlands).