Best practices for assessing ocean health in multiple contexts using tailorable frameworks

Marine policy is increasingly calling for maintaining or restoring healthy oceans while human activities continue to intensify. Thus, successful prioritization and management of competing objectives requires a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the ocean. Unfortunately, assessment frameworks to define and quantify current ocean state are often site-specific, limited to a few ocean components, and difficult to reproduce in different geographies or even through time, limiting spatial or temporal comparisons as well as the potential for shared learning. Ideally, frameworks should be tailorable to accommodate use in disparate locations and contexts, removing the need to develop frameworks de novo and allowing efforts to focus on the assessments themselves to advise action. Here, we present some of our experiences using the Ocean Health Index (OHI) framework, a tailorable and repeatable approach that measures health of coupled human-ocean ecosystems in different contexts by accommodating differences in local environmental characteristics, cultural priorities, and information availability and quality. Since its development in 2012, eleven assessments using the OHI framework have been completed at global, national, and regional scales, four of which have been led by independent academic or government groups. We have found the following to be best practices for conducting assessments: Incorporate key characteristics and priorities into the assessment framework design before gathering information; Strategically define spatial boundaries to balance information availability and decision-making scales; Maintain the key characteristics and priorities of the assessment framework regardless of information limitations; and Document and share the assessment process, methods, and tools. These best practices are relevant to most ecosystem assessment processes, but also provide tangible guidance for assessments using the OHI framework. These recommendations also promote transparency around which decisions were made and why, reproducibility through access to detailed methods and computational code, repeatability via the ability to modify methods and computational code, and ease of communication to wide audiences, all of which are critical for any robust assessment process.

Evaluation of marine subareas of Europe using life history parameters and trophic levels of selected fish populations

European marine waters include four regional seas that provide valuable ecosystem services to humans, including fish and other seafood. However, these marine environments are threatened by pressures from multiple anthropogenic activities and climate change. The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was adopted in 2008 to achieve good environmental status (GEnS) in European Seas by year 2020, using an Ecosystem Approach. GEnS is to be assessed using 11 descriptors and up to 56 indicators. In the present analysis two descriptors namely "commercially exploited fish and shellfish populations" and "food webs" were used to evaluate the status of subareas of FAO 27 area. Data on life history parameters, trophic levels and fisheries related data of cod, haddock, saithe, herring, plaice, whiting, hake and sprat were obtained from the FishBase online database and advisory reports of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Subareas inhabited by r and K strategists were identified using interrelationships of life history parameters of commercially important fish stocks. Mean trophic level (MTL) of fish community each subarea was calculated and subareas with species of high and low trophic level were identified. The Fish in Balance (FiB) index was computed for each subarea and recent trends of FiB indices were analysed. The overall environmental status of each subarea was evaluated considering life history trends, MTL and FiB Index. The analysis showed that subareas I, II, V, VIII and IX were assessed as "good" whereas subareas III, IV, VI and VII were assessed as "poor". The subareas assessed as "good" were subject to lower environmental pressures, (less fishing pressure, less eutrophication and more water circulation), while the areas with "poor" environment experienced excessive fishing pressure, eutrophication and disturbed seabed. The evaluation was based on two qualitative descriptors ("commercially exploited fish and shellfish populations" and "food webs") is therefore more robust.