Paper framework (broad overview)
- Introduction to the problem and what the paper aims to address
- Overview of current methods/theoretical approaches (mechanistic, trait based, correlative, combinations) and applications (IUCN, governmental, independent assessments, etc.)
- Challenges in developing assessments and indicators:
- Resources (financial, intellectual, human capital)
- Migratory species/cross boundaries
- Inter-operability of indicators among different populations (e.g. life histories, different temperature sensitivities, etc.)
- Social-ecological context: resource user/governance/scientist connections
- Systems/institutions to support: institutions in place to conduct assessment (government-led, academic, or NGO), policy mandates
2. Body: Indicators from conservation physiology – more detail on transferable principles, including examples of applications
- Ecosystem scale
- Species scale
- TABLE: Tool/indicator suggestions based on resource availability (human and financial)
3. Body: Methods of implementation
(A) Examples: where CPIs have been incorporated, and areas where CPIs could be incorporated or leveraged more than currently
- Examples: RedMap, Rapid Assessments, CVAs (governmental), publications
- How to incorporate - 1) Intrinsic/'sensitivity' (e.g., 'biological sensitivity')
- How to incorporate - 2) Extrinsic/'exposure' (e.g., prioritization of stressors or future monitoring based on known physiological responses)
(B) Discuss: What has worked/hasn’t worked
- For incorporation by assessment/management team
- For measurement or use by stakeholders (e.g. fishery)
- To include or communicate with the public
- E.g. Framing of results, stakeholder involvement, perceptions or attitudes of management bodies, having stakeholders involved from the beginning to increase buy-in?
- TABLE: Challenges/successes in communication, buy in, use of results
6. Collaboration and capacity building
- Identify platforms and efforts for communicating/developing indicators, lessons/case studies, and any other resources (e.g. online database for open access, serving future assessments)
Text
1. Introduction
As the impacts of climate change in marine ecosystems become more frequent and severe, there is a growing need for resource managers and users to monitor ongoing impacts and plan for change. Climate change can lead to spatial shifts of target fishery species \cite{Morley_2018} and/or introduce challenges for local populations \cite{Pankhurst_2011,Hoegh_Guldberg_2010}. In turn, a socio-economic system including fishers, resource managers, distributors, and other stakeholders may need to adapt to sustain their activities in this changing environment \cite{Aguilera_2015}.
There is a growing body of marine climate vulnerability assessments for that take a coarse scale ‘triage’ approach \cite{Hare_2016,Foden_2013,Pecl_2014,CHIN_2010}, as well as geographically \cite{Winder_2004,Thomson_2014,Nagelkerken_2015} and species-focused \cite{Waltham_2017,Rosa_2014,Jeuthe_2015} studies that assess response to climate stressors with experimentation or long-term monitoring . This wealth of methodologies and indicators employed across these assessments and studies presents a challenge in terms of common ground and interoperability, but also an opportunity; here, we synthesize physiological and ecological indicators of vulnerability to climate change in marine species and populations, and identify how to implement these indicators in management and monitoring, depending on availability financial and human capital.
Strategic frameworks for climate vulnerability assessments
- Theoretical: Mechanistic , trait based, correlative, combinations (define based on IUCN/Foden)
- Organizations facilitating or undertaking assessments: intergovernmental (IUCN \cite{2018}, IPBES \cite{ipbes2018}, FAO \cite{c2015} ), government-lead (USA/NOAA \cite{Hare2016}, UK ), academic society-lead (ICES, with government-solicitation for assessments), NGOs (Conservation International \cite{2013}, Nature Conservancy \cite{fairbanks2011}), and academic research teams \cite{Chin2010,Belhabib_2016,Wade_2016}. Broader vulnerability or risk assessments.... (California Landscape Conservation Cooperative )
Challenges
[text]
2. Vulnerability indicators
[text]
3. Communication and implementation
[text]