Thain, J. E., Vethaak, A. D., and Hylland, K. 2008. Contaminants in marine ecosystems: developing an integrated indicator framework using biological-effect techniques. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1508–1514. Input of contaminants is an important pressure in most urbanized coastal areas, but establishing appropriate indicators of their presence and effects has been challenging. Such indicators would, at the very least, have to integrate chemical and biological data. One difficulty has arisen because the measurements provide information on different levels of biological organization (gene level up to community), although it is not obvious how this information could be conceptually linked. In addition, there are complicating factors, such as the differing ecological relevance of measurements, natural variation, confounding factors, and knowledge of background level or responses for each method. The challenge of how to take these issues forwards is discussed in light of current scientific thinking and of meeting international obligations. First, an integrated approach must be developed to using biological-effect techniques with chemical measurements, and second, assessment tools are required. Proposals for both of these have been initiated by ICES and OSPAR working groups and workshops. Concomitantly, steps have been taken to develop integrated assessment tools on a national basis. These show promise but highlight the difficulties of using biological-effect measures as indicators of ecosystem health.

Rees, H. L., Hyland, J. L., Hylland, K., Mercer Clarke, C. S. L., Roff, J. C., and Ware, S. 2008. Environmental indicators: utility in meeting regulatory needs. An overview. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1381–1386. The utility of environmental indicators in meeting regulatory needs was addressed at an international symposium held in November 2007. This paper summarizes the attributes and range of uses of indicators and highlights key points from theme sessions and a workshop on unifying concepts. The symposium attracted regulators and scientists, who supported the need to promote dialogue during the construction of indicator-based management frameworks and at key stages towards operational use. Scientists expressed willingness to engage with the wider societal context for indicator applications, which is essential to the development of ecosystem-based management. For the latter to be effective, more effort is needed to combine indicators with thresholds to guide management actions and, in the process, to assess the full range of consequences of non-compliance. There are clear benefits to periodic interdisciplinary reviews of progress in this area, and a follow-up event with a regulatory emphasis is suggested.

Marine tailings disposal from mineral production is expected to have an environmental impact. In this case study we use a discharge of limestone processing tailings to a Norwegian fjord to describe an adaptive management process. The aim of the paper is to describe the development of an environmental adaptive management system (EAMS), contrasted with management simply based on the quantity of the discharge. The main driver for developing a new management system for the submarine tailings deposits was a desire to establish a system based on what was perceived as important to all stakeholders, that is, environmental impact. Involvement of stakeholders is essential, and a resource group with members from fisheries, local interest organizations, scientists, independent experts, and managers from the mining company jointly defined common sets of acceptance criteria to evaluate impact. Introduction of an EAMS has resulted in a change in the company's view of the impact their activity has on the environment and in an increased willingness to initiate monitoring and research to reduce knowledge gaps and uncertainty and impact on the marine environment. Environmental adaptive management has facilitated the development of a more ecologically relevant, integrated, and focused submarine tailings deposits management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:575–583. © 2019 SETAC