Calibrating ecological models or making decisions with them is an optimisation problem with challenging methodological issues. Depending on the optimisation formulation, there may be a large variety of optimisation configurations (e.g. multiple objectives, constraints, stochastic criteria) and finding a single acceptable solution may be difficult. The challenges are exacerbated by the high computational cost and the non linear or elusive mathematical properties that increased with the complexity of numerical models. From the feedbacks of practitioners, the need for a guideline for conducting optimisation of complex models has emerged. In this context, we propose a practical guide for the complex model optimisation process, covering both calibration and decision-making. The guide sets out the workflow with recommendations for each step based on existing tools and methods usually scattered throughout the literature. This guide is accompanied with an ODDO template (Overview, Design, Details of Optimisation) to standardise the published description of model-based optimisation and suggests research directions.

Mistrust between scientists and non-scientist stakeholders is a key challenge in fishery management. This problem is exacerbated with the use of complex models to support management: these models suffer from difficulties in communicating their results and a lack of confidence from end users. The European eel is an illustrative example; its complex life cycle raises problems of coordination and discussion among the multiple actors involved in the management of the species. The GEREM model has been proposed as a tool for estimating recruitment, but its complexity, which is essential for addressing the characteristics of the species, makes it difficult to understand and accept by all stakeholders. In the context of the SUDOANG project, we proposed a co-parametrization of this assessment model to tackle this mistrust. Through the use of various questionnaires and appropriate statistical analyses, stakeholders were involved in two important choices for the model (zone definition and prior construction). Regular workshops and presentations were organised to explain the model rationales and to gather feedback and expectations. The results show that stakeholders have very similar perceptions of the potential definitions of sub-areas of recruitment in south-western Europe, and these perceptions are consistent with the underlying environmental conditions. On the other hand, the stakeholders have contrasting opinions about the exploitation rates of fisheries in different river basins, and the use of their knowledge currently has little effect on GEREM estimates. More importantly, the overall approach of this study is thought to have reconstructed the trust and confidence among participants.