Report of the Annual Meeting between ICES, Advisory Councils and other Observers (MIACO)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report presents a comprehensive overview of the 2025 meeting between ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) and Advisory Councils and other observers (MIACO). It covers the advisory outputs produced in 2024, quality assurance initiatives, future directions for fishing opportunities advice, ecosystem service and effects advice, stakeholder engagement, and planning for 2025. The meeting aimed to review current practices, discuss challenges, and gather stakeholder feedback to improve ICES advisory processes.ICES produced a record 251 advisory documents in 2024, covering fishing opportunities for 192 stocks with an estimated catch of 5.2 million tonnes in the North Atlantic. Advice also included special requests on management plans, marine strategy directives, and ecosystem-based fisheries management. Ecosystem services advice encompassed Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs), bycatch of endangered and protected species, and spatial trade-offs related to benthic impacts. New developments included workshops on offshore wind energy and the publication of the Framework for Ecosystem-Informed Science and Advice (FEISA) and a roadmap for marine recreational fisheries. Quality assurance efforts focused on the Transparent Assessment Framework (TAF) and data management improvements, including clearer data calls and enhanced diagnostics to increase reproducibility and transparency of advice.The ICES Action Plan to Address Quality Assurance was detailed, highlighting coordinated sampling programs, data governance, and the benchmark process as key quality control elements. The plan emphasizes accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement through audits, diagnostics, and training. Challenges such as complex model errors and software version inconsistencies were noted, with a transition to TAF expected to reduce such issues. Ten prioritized actions for 2025 include adherence to deadlines, improved benchmark planning, independent audits, standardized diagnostics, and automation of outputs.Discussions on rebuilding strategies and reference points highlighted ongoing work by ICES workshops and the MIRIA subgroup. While rebuilding scenarios are under development, implementation in 2025 advice was considered premature. The separation of operational reference points from stock status reference points is proposed to improve clarity. Stakeholders expressed diverse views on mixed stock guidelines, emphasizing the need for clarity, consistency, and communication of risks to managers. Concerns about economic impacts and the practicality of zero catch advice in mixed fisheries were raised, with calls for more adaptive and pragmatic approaches. ICES reaffirmed its role in providing precautionary advice while maintaining independence and engaging stakeholders through open workshops.The Framework for Ecosystem-Informed Science and Advice (FEISA) was introduced as a tool to support ecosystem-based management by integrating indicators, risk assessment, and operational objectives aligned with management goals. FEISA facilitates translation of scientific knowledge into actionable advice, emphasizing risk communication and incremental development from contextual to objective-based assessments. The approach aims to connect diverse ecosystem considerations with fisheries advice while allowing for tailored management strategies.Planning for next-generation Ecosystem Overviews (EOs) will focus on enhancing relevance and usability by integrating overviews with fishing opportunities advice. Feedback highlighted the importance of actionable management objectives by ecoregion and the potential role of overviews in advancing ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). The interaction between descriptive and strategic advice remains a topic for development.Progress on the ICES Offshore Renewable Energy roadmap includes reports and workshops addressing socioeconomic impacts on fisheries, cumulative impact assessments, and ecosystem effects of ORE developments. The advice will focuses on scientific assessment rather than management actions, considering both negative and positive ecological impacts, including artificial habitats and species introductions. The scope primarily covers bottom-fixed and floating wind systems, with attention to lifecycle phases from construction to decommissioning.ICES activities supporting the Kunming-Montreal Framework and EU Nature Restoration Regulation include the planned Workshop on Nature Restoration (WKREST) aimed at defining restoration types, recovery timeframes, and monitoring capacities. The workshop will involve experts across fisheries, habitat mapping, and marine spatial planning. WKREST is positioned as a scientific exercise to build advisory capacity aligned with policy drivers and international frameworks.The new ICES stakeholder webpage was launched to improve transparency and showcase stakeholder roles in ICES processes. The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, developed since 1980 and formalized in 2023, aims to build a diverse and competent stakeholder pool, enable effective contributions, and maintain traceable engagement processes. The Working Group on Stakeholder Engagement (WGENGAGE) will launch in March 2025 to support implementation of the strategy. The revised Observer Rules, revised in 2025, clarify observer types and access, balancing openness with the need to maintain impartiality in advice. Stakeholders expressed appreciation for the openness but noted challenges in participation in certain closed groups, emphasizing the need for balanced and timely engagement.The 2025 work plan aligns expert group meetings and advice requester deadlines to optimize advice production and quality control. New tools, such as PowerBI and SharePoint, will enhance advice process visibility. The meeting concluded with a summary of discussions and action points emphasizing quality assurance, stakeholder engagement, ecosystem-based approaches, and pragmatic advice frameworks. Participants valued the hybrid meeting format and highlighted the importance of transparency, balanced stakeholder input, and improved communication of scientific debates.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».