Olsen, E., Aanes, S., Mehl, S., Holst, J. C., Aglen, A., and Gjøsæter, H. 2010. Cod, haddock, saithe, herring, and capelin in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters: a review of the biological value of the area. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 87–101. Cod, haddock, saithe, herring, and capelin are the most important fish species in the Barents Sea and adjacent waters. Ecosystem-based management requires species-specific knowledge of the biological value and vulnerability throughout their life history and distributional range. For each of the five species and four annual quarters, the spawning (egg) areas, nursery areas for larvae and juveniles, and feeding grounds for adults are described and mapped. Areas of eggs (spawning) and larvae were the most important because these are the life stages when fish are most vulnerable to anthropogenic impact. The greatest overlap of spawning areas was from Røstbanken in the south to the Varanger Peninsula in the northeast, and overlap of larval distribution was more extensive.

Risk assessments quantify the probability of undesirable events along with their consequences. They are used to prioritize management interventions and assess tradeoffs, serving as an essential component of ecosystem-based management (EBM). A central objective of most risk assessments for conservation and management is to characterize uncertainty and impacts associated with one or more pressures of interest. Risk assessments have been used in marine resource management to help evaluate the risk of environmental, ecological, and anthropogenic pressures on species or habitats including for data-poor fisheries management (e.g., toxicity, probability of extinction, habitat alteration impacts). Traditionally, marine risk assessments focused on singular pressure-response relationships, but recent advancements have included use of risk assessments in an EBM context, providing a method for evaluating the cumulative impacts of multiple pressures on multiple ecosystem components. Here, we describe a conceptual framework for ecosystem risk assessment (ERA), highlighting its role in operationalizing EBM, with specific attention to ocean management considerations. This framework builds on the ecotoxicological and conservation literature on risk assessment and includes recent advances that focus on risks posed by fishing to marine ecosystems. We review how examples of ERAs from the United States fit into this framework, explore the variety of analytical approaches that have been used to conduct ERAs, and assess the challenges and data gaps that remain. This review discusses future prospects for ERAs as EBM decision-support tools, their expanded role in integrated ecosystem assessments, and the development of next-generation risk assessments for coupled natural-human systems.

Abstract.-We compared the relative abundance of lake trout Salvelinus namaycush spawners in gill nets during fall [1999][2000][2001] in Lake Michigan at 19 stocked spawning sites with that at 25 unstocked sites to evaluate how effective site-specific stocking was in recolonizing historically important spawning reefs. The abundance of adult fish was higher at stocked onshore and offshore sites than at unstocked sites. This suggests that site-specific stocking is more effective at establishing spawning aggregations than relying on the ability of hatchery-reared lake trout to find spawning reefs, especially those offshore. Spawner densities were generally too low and too young at most sites to expect significant natural reproduction. However, densities were sufficiently high at some sites for reproduction to occur and therefore the lack of recruitment was attributable * Corresponding author: charles_bronte@fws.gov 1 Retired.

Need to Assess the Skill of Ecosystem ModelsAccelerated changes to global ecosystems call for holistic and integrated analyses of past, present and future states under various pressures to adequately understand current and projected future system states. Ecosystem models can inform management of human activities in a complex and changing environment, but are these models reliable? Ensuring that models are reliable for addressing management questions requires evaluating their skill in representing real-world processes and dynamics. Skill has been evaluated for just a limited set of some biophysical models. A range of skill assessment methods have been reviewed but skill assessment of full marine ecosystem models has not yet been attempted.Northeast US Atlantis Marine Ecosystem ModelWe assessed the skill of the Northeast U.S. (NEUS) Atlantis marine ecosystem model by comparing 10-year model forecasts with observed data. Model forecast performance was compared to that obtained from a 40-year hindcast. Multiple metrics (average absolute error, root mean squared error, modeling efficiency, and Spearman rank correlation), and a suite of time-series (species biomass, fisheries landings, and ecosystem indicators) were used to adequately measure model skill. Overall, the NEUS model performed above average and thus better than expected for the key species that had been the focus of the model tuning. Model forecast skill was comparable to the hindcast skill, showing that model performance does not degenerate in a 10-year forecast mode, an important characteristic for an end-to-end ecosystem model to be useful for strategic management purposes.Skill Assessment Is Both Possible and AdvisableWe identify best-practice approaches for end-to-end ecosystem model skill assessment that would improve both operational use of other ecosystem models and future model development. We show that it is possible to not only assess the skill of a complicated marine ecosystem model, but that it is necessary do so to instill confidence in model results and encourage their use for strategic management. Our methods are applicable to any type of predictive model, and should be considered for use in fields outside ecology (e.g. economics, climate change, and risk assessment).

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is often considered as a pragmatic approach to implement an ecosystem based management in order to manage marine space in a sustainable way. This requires the involvement of multiple actors and stakeholders at various governmental and societal levels. Several factors affect how well the integrated management of marine waters will be achieved, such as different governance settings (division of power between central and local governments), economic activities (and related priorities), external drivers, spatial scales, incentives and objectives, varying approaches to legislation and political will. We compared MSP in Belgium, Norway and the US to illustrate how the integration of stakeholders and governmental levels differs among these countries along the factors mentioned above. Horizontal integration (between sectors) is successful in all three countries, achieved through the use of neutral ‘round-table’ meeting places for all actors. Vertical integration between government levels varies, with Belgium and Norway having achieved full integration while the US lacks integration of the legislature due to sharp disagreements among stakeholders and unsuccessful partisan leadership. Success factors include political will and leadership, process transparency and stakeholder participation, and should be considered in all MSP development processes.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) of the ocean considers all impacts on and uses of marine and coastal systems. In recent years, there has been a heightened interest in EBM tools that allow testing of alternative management options and help identify tradeoffs among human uses. End-to-end ecosystem modeling frameworks that consider a wide range of management options are a means to provide integrated solutions to the complex ocean management problems encountered in EBM. Here, we leverage the global advances in ecosystem modeling to explore common opportunities and challenges for ecosystem-based management, including changes in ocean acidification, spatial management, and fishing pressure across eight Atlantis (atlantis.cmar.csiro.au) end-toend ecosystem models. These models represent marine ecosystems from the tropics to the arctic, varying in size, ecology, and management regimes, using a three-dimensional, spatially-explicit structure parametrized for each system. Results suggest stronger impacts from ocean acidification and marine protected areas than from altering fishing pressure, both in terms of guild-level (i.e., aggregations of similar species or groups) biomass and in terms of indicators of ecological and fishery structure. Effects of ocean acidification were typically negative (reducing biomass), while marine protected areas led to both "winners" and "losers" at the level of particular species (or functional groups). Changing fishing pressure (doubling or halving) had smaller effects on the species guilds Olsen et al. Ocean Futures Explored Using Models or ecosystem indicators than either ocean acidification or marine protected areas. Compensatory effects within guilds led to weaker average effects at the guild level than the species or group level. The impacts and tradeoffs implied by these future scenarios are highly relevant as ocean governance shifts focus from single-sector objectives (e.g., sustainable levels of individual fished stocks) to taking into account competing industrial sectors' objectives (e.g., simultaneous spatial management of energy, shipping, and fishing) while at the same time grappling with compounded impacts of global climate change (e.g., ocean acidification and warming).

Olsen, E., Gjøsæter, H., Røttingen, I., Dommasnes, A., Fossum, P., and Sandberg, P. 2007. The Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 599–602. In April 2006, the Norwegian government launched a White Paper on a new holistic management plan for the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea, including the fishery protection zone around Svalbard. Following international guidelines for ecosystem-based management, the plan provides an overall framework for managing all human activities (oil and gas industry, fishing, and shipping) in the area to ensure the continued health, production, and function of the Barents Sea ecosystem. The primary function of area-based management is the identification of areas of special importance from either ecological or human perspectives. In each area, access for different human activities is to be carefully managed. The plan is based on an assessment of the current and anticipated impact of human activities and of the interactions between them, taking into account deficits in current knowledge of ecosystem state and dynamics. To monitor the overall development of the Barents Sea's state of health, a set of indicators with associated environmental quality objectives has been developed.

No abstract