Project Structure

The project is divided into four Themes and ten Work Packages (WPs), four of which are Regional Case Study WPs. Each of the Themes represents a major interdisciplinary component of the project. In parallel, there are groups established to ensure a sound science-policy dialogue and a robust peer review mechanism. This consists of a Project Advisory Board of major institutional stakeholders, coordinated by WP1, and Regional Liaison Groups, each coordinated by a Regional Study WP. The practical structure of the project in Themes and Work Packages is illustrated in Figure 1.3 below.

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.3 - Practical structure of KnowSeas project

WP1 will provide management support, coordination and the inter-operable database and WP2 will ensure coherence between policy needs (and the issues addressed), the conceptual approach and the products of the project. WPs 3 and 4 will operate as ‘think tanks’ with a wide range of expertise. Individual members of the ‘think tanks’ will liaise with corresponding specialists in the Regional Case Study WPs. This will enable a two-way dialogue with specialists from other areas in the WP and Theme, and with specialists from a similar area across Regional Case Study WPs. WPs 5 and 6 provide expertise that may not be available in all Regional Case Study WPs and in some cases will need to work as a team in their interaction with regional colleagues. All tools developed by WP6 will be tested in each Regional WP.

Queries about the work of any of the Work Packages should be directed to: knowseas-coordination@sams.ac.uk

THEME 1: COORDINATION AND CONCEPTS

Theme 1 is the initial driving force behind the project. It will coordinate the smooth running of the project, set up and coordinate the Project Advisory Board and establish the interoperable database. WPs within this Theme will set the conceptual basis for the Ecosystem Approach to Management, identifying the issues (services provided by marine ecosystems and the problems faced), the scale at which the components of the DPSWR (Driver-Pressure-State-Welfare-Response) conceptual model operate and the policies that are currently in place that use or regulate access to ecosystem services. Together with the Project Advisory Board, it will examine and clarify the conceptual basis of current policies and identify the policy options that will be tested by the KnowSeas models.

Work Package 1 - Project Management

In addition to the internal management of the project and liaison with the external Project Advisory Board, this WP will be responsible for the dissemination of the project’s work through reports, a website and an interoperable database.

Project Website Communications Tool

The Project Coordinator will establish and manage a web-based Communications System and Administrative Tool as a subsidiary project management activity. This incorporates the development of a project web-based Communications Tool Box which will enable all Project Documentation to be deposited electronically for fast retrieval. This will ensure that partners cannot fail to find a project document, and that they will be kept fully up to date. Access to the documentation will also be provided to the Commission for their own monitoring activities, but will not be made available to the general public unless previously agreed. The Tool Box will also contain Project and Work Package Bulletin Boards to facilitate communication while at the same time centrally logging the communication in order to have a complete communication audit trail.

Partners will also benefit from story groups so that discussion strings can be established on a particular topic. A public access section of the website will aid dissemination to and communication with stakeholders and also host the interoperable database. Public access will also promote continued quality assessment and control for the projects outputs. The website will host the project’s interoperable database.

Interoperable database

KnowSeas will provide a multidisciplinary database with information on existing tools used for management of the marine environment. Data used or generated by these tools will be included in a searchable database and will be displayed as tables, graphically, in a downloadable format for use in spreadsheet programmes or as a printable document. The database will continually be expanded throughout the course of KnowSeas as part of WP3’s data mining activities. The integrated interdisciplinary structure of this database will allow the holistic operationalisation of data currently only considered thematically.

The database will be produced via MySQL and be accessible through web pages using ASP.net server language. This allows public access to those elements of the database considered acceptable to release as well as providing tools for online editing of the database at different levels through a tiered password system. The relational nature of such a system allows searching of the database by any variable including standard text searches similar to those used in internet search engines. The MySQL database file may also be imported into standard database programmes (e.g. MS Access) if an offline version is required. During development and population the database will be held on the Scottish Association of Marine Science’s servers and transferred to the Commission as a deliverable on completion of the project.

Work Package 2 - Policy Frame

Guidelines on the Ecosystem Approach

WP2 provides the conceptual context for KnowSeas. There is a widespread perception that the Ecosystem Approach (EA) is a fuzzy concept that is difficult to operationalise. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) has attempted to do this at an EU-wide scale but has left much detail to be elaborated in the first few years following adoption. The first task of WP2 will be to clarify conceptual understanding of the EA, its terminology and the existing science underpinning it. It will develop a common terminology for use in the project and also map the areas where consensus is still lacking on its conceptual framework.

During the development of the project, following the iterative reasoning in Figure 1.2, an improved consensus will emerge as a result of research and dialogue. This activity will also develop the stochastic models that will help other WPs engaged in modelling to interpret conceptual models. The guidelines on the Ecosystem Approach will be revised during this process and will pass from being an internal to an external product of the project. Partners engaged in this process have prior engagement with the development of the MSFD and the EU Maritime Policy Blue Book.

In a similar manner, it will be important to elaborate an initial understanding of the issues, policies and actors involved in managing Europe’s seas. This ‘scoping study’ will be an additional input to the systems approach described by Figure 1.2. It will also help to initiate the process of ‘joint fact finding’ with the stakeholders represented in the Project Advisory Board and the Regional Liaison Groups. As the project proceeds, this understanding will also be updated by the regional study Work Packages. It will be incorporated in the Conceptual Framework Guidelines described in the previous paragraph.

Understanding mismatches of spatial and temporal scale and their policy implication: a Decision Space Analysis

Drivers, Pressures, State changes, Impacts and Responses generally occur at different spatial and temporal scales and this presents formidable challenges for policymakers. An invasion by an opportunistic species for example, may cause a major State change at the sub-regional level with severe local economic and social Impacts. It may well be a result of the Pressure of ballast water discharges from ships that operate across entirely different scales, perhaps even global, as a consequence of national, regional and global shipping policy.

Policy would need to consider actions that can be taken at each of these scales and effort focused on measures that would generate greatest benefits per unit cost and be achievable within meaningful timeframes. Measures that must be taken at geographical scales much larger than the State changes and their Impacts require complex negotiations backed by convincing technical evidence.

Within KnowSeas, we propose to develop an analytical framework for examining issues of scale and have termed this “Decision Space Analysis”. It is important to map all issues, their causes (D, P and S) as well as Welfare changes and potential Responses in a number of decision space matrixes. This makes the scope of action clear to policymakers. Only a limited amount of action can be taken within each space and it is important to consider this when reviewing policy options. We shall explore how this concept can be applied to issues involving multiple Pressures and multiple issues arising from Pressure combinations. Our selection of case studies also considers how this matrix will be tested and applied.

The Decision Space Analysis (DSA) plays an important role in integrating the outputs from each of the project’s sub-disciplines. By including each of the DPSWR elements within the DSA framework, this tool also helps to integrate the work of several of the project Work Packages. Natural science data (WP3; S), economic data (WP4; W) and governance data (WP 5; R,D) will be included in the DSA for each regional sea in collaboration with each of the regional seas WPs (7, 8, 9, and 10). The case study Work Packages will use the outputs of the “think tank” Work Packages, acting as an integrating component of the project by bringing together various multidisciplinary outputs. These outputs will in turn feed into the DSA which provides a rapid and useful means of communicating with the target audience. The Ecosystem Based Management System (EBMS) and accompanying guidelines developed by WP6 will summarise and explain aspects from each discipline and communicate the information in a series of uniform and easy to read documents. A final project brochure in non-technical language will also be produced.

THEME 2: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Theme 2 is the KnowSeas systems analysis ‘think tank’ – WPs 3 and 4 offer a wide range of expertise. WP3 focuses on causes and consequences of ecosystem change, including the combined effects of deteriorating water quality, damage from fisheries practices, habitat loss, and climate change. WP3 will also use systems modelling to analyse past, present and future trends in ecosystem indicators.

WP4 will focus on the analysis of costs and benefits including monetary and non-monetary benefits from marine and coastal goods and services, costs of human-induced changes, and costs, risks, benefits and opportunities of policy options including non-action and monitoring. Individual members of the ‘think tanks’ will liaise with corresponding specialists in the Regional Case Study WPs of Theme 4.

Work Package 3 - Causes and Consequences of Ecosystem Change

Marine ecosystems are subject to significant natural variability over a range of temporal and spatial scales, as well as direct pressures from maritime and land-based activities such as fishing, shipping, agriculture, and wastewater treatment. Climate change exerts a further influence on natural systems and affects our use of them. Recent wind farm developments are a response to climate change with implications for marine ecosystems. The impact of human-induced Pressures may be difficult to distinguish, from each other and from natural variability.

KnowSeas WP3 will extend the findings of previous studies on pressures and marine state changes, notably the EC Framework Programme 6 (FP6) European Lifestyles & Marine Ecosystems (ELME) project, to characterise their spatial and temporal dimensions, to identify their past, current and likely future trends, and to compare this with a preliminary assessment of Good Environmental Status. WP3 will develop methodology and tools to estimate future marine states in Regional Study case studies (WP7-10), providing a basis for calculating the benefits of ecosystem goods and services and costs using the products of WP4. WP3’s products will contribute to the information tools developed within WP6.

Extensive monitoring programmes and databases exist or are being established, e.g. Cooperative Programme for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-range Transmission of Air Pollutants in Europe (EMEP), Continuous Plankton Recorder, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) databases, the Joint Cetacean Database and European Seabirds at Sea. Many were mined during ELME to derive past and current trends in marine eutrophication, habitat loss, chemical contamination and overfishing.

KnowSeas WP3 will enlarge this database, in conjunction with WP1, to include climate change and a wider range of human activities, especially maritime industries, fisheries and aquaculture. The database will then be used as a resource to refine and extend stochastic Bayesian Belief Networks developed in ELME, deterministic models held within the KnowSeas consortium, as well as a range of multivariate and linear modelling techniques for covariance and time series analysis.

These models will be used to scale ecosystems for the purpose of their effective management, to predict future marine states, to flag the occurrence of significant ‘regime shifts’ and to identify factors that need careful consideration in specifying Good Environmental Status, as will be required by the MSFD. In conjunction with WP6, regional analyses (via regional seas case studies) will contribute to a comparative analysis among regional systems with respect to, for example, the relative importance of resource-driven bottom-up and predation-driven top-down controls on food webs, climate forcing, the ‘threat’ posed by regime shifts, and scale mismatches among ecosystem processes and between ecosystems and their management.

Scale mismatches form a central theme for KnowSeas WP3’s activities. Analysis in KnowSeas WP3 will identify scale dependencies in a number of case studies by mapping ecosystem States and changes in them as a function of the scale of Pressures. The purpose is to identify scale mismatches that could constrain effective implementation of the MSFD and Integrated Maritime Policy, and to improve insight into the most effective scale of management for different problems.

This effort will draw from such activities as the ICES Regional Ecosystem Study Group for the North Sea (REGNS) and the ICES-HELCOM integrated assessment of the Baltic Sea. It will make effective use of the output of reaction-transport models or population / community models and large spatially-explicit data sets and time series held within the consortium. The methodological development aims to improve interpretation of these data sets, in conjunction with models, to derive statistically reliable scale dependence models. Multivariate data analysis, as well as spatial statistics and time series analysis, will be combined in the mapping.

Work Package 4 - Analysis of Costs and Benefits

KnowSeas WP4 has “direct tasks” which yield outputs that are specified in the Call, and for which the Work Package is substantially solely responsible, and “indirect tasks” which support the outputs of other Work Packages in Themes 3 and 4. We note that the Call refers to the “valuation of coastal and shelf seas” but the “assessment of.....impacts from .....within the EEZ (Economic Exclusive Zone) (sic) of the Member States” which could be the source of various interpretations. Therefore, we clarify our approach to the issues of geographical scope and the measurement system which set the frame for the description of WP4’s tasks and contribution to the project.

Geographical Scope

There is some potential for mismatch between “coastal and shelf seas” and Member States EEZs that could be detrimental to the comparison of benefits (from goods and services) and costs (of ecosystem degradation). The EEZ concept will be used in KnowSeas since it is objectively defined. Nevertheless the extent of EEZs may be contested or unclear in certain areas. A more general issue, discussed below, arises in applying this concept of scope to ecosystems which do not fall wholly within specified EEZs.

Measurement System

In order to link benefit/cost assessment to policy implications, a common metric is needed. Monetary values, whether obtained through market or non-market methods, are a natural choice for such a metric. However, the availability of reliable monetary estimates for benefits and costs in certain areas is limited and therefore complicates the use of monetary values in practice. When monetary values are not available proxy indicators may instead be substituted.

Benefits of Goods and Services

This element of our work is concerned with the benefits of goods and services (i.e. contributions to human welfare) derived from assets located within the EEZs of Member States. Our analytic framework stretches across three dimensions, combining characteristics of the natural environment, means of use to humans and the types of value that appertain, thus:

1. Functionality – This dimension refers to the distinction between physical existence and ecosystem quality. Certain forms of exploitation rely only on the space constituted by the EEZ; others on properly functioning ecosystems. For example, maritime transport, energy-related activities and the extraction of non-renewable resources depend on physical existence regardless of ecosystem quality while other benefits, such as those derived from fisheries and the disposal of wastes, require a functioning ecosystem. The significance of this distinction becomes apparent when considering benefit/cost trade-offs, conflicts and management options. For example, shipping and fisheries yield benefits from exploitation of the EEZ but suffer the costs of exploitation in very different ways. Shipping can be obstructed by congestion but fisheries can be completely exterminated by unsustainable exploitation.

2. Means of use – Ultimately it is the benefits enjoyed by individuals that matter; however, to enable analysis it is convenient to segregate human activities across sectors such as those employed in ELME (based on the TEPI system - European Commission, 1999, "Towards Environmental Pressure Indicators for the EU"): agriculture, energy (including hydrocarbon extraction), extraction (other than of energy intermediaries, e.g. aggregates), fisheries and aquaculture, households, industry, tourism and recreation, transport, and urbanisation. The households sector includes benefits to individuals not captured under the other headings. The use of this sectoral framework assists not only in ensuring the capture of all benefits but also in the analysis of costs as described below.

3. Types of value – The above examples refer to direct uses of the EEZ’s functions. However, we must include the other sources of value that make up total economic value: indirect use (broadly, the value to life of the biogeochemical properties of the marine environment), existence value (derived from the very existence of ecosystems regardless of use) and bequest value (arising from the expected value of ecosystems to future generations as perceived by the current generation). In addition, option value (from the potential to exploit in the future in a different way) will be considered where there is a potential conflict in alternative uses. Each of these sources of value has a potential correspondence with the means of use in (2) above (e.g. shipping has a direct use value and an option value when compared to offshore wind farm development – its potential effects on existence value for marine species are also important but are dealt with below).

By applying this framework, we will comprehensively identify the full range of benefits derived from each EEZ as far as existing data will allow and otherwise identify shortcomings in the existing dataset. As indicated above, we intend to capture monetary values wherever possible and, where this is not possible, proxy measures will be used. Measures of direct use at an EU level will likely be more accessible than those of other sources of value. However, we will attempt to identify sources and apply measures for other, non-direct use, values wherever possible and apply the techniques of benefit transfer where considered justified. Even if such values prove elusive, the current value of direct uses acts as a useful minimum estimate of total value.

Equipped with a historical perspective on benefit flows, it will be possible to prepare an assessment of the present value of future benefits based on publicly available forecasts of economic activities, current trends and known or likely policy measures. We see this form of analysis as critical to policy-making and the other activities of KnowSeas but recognise at the outset that data constraints will impose limits on the extent to which reliable forecasts can be made.

The above work involves direct tasks of WP4 but the knowledge gained will be of use to both Themes 3 (in providing common methods of benefit assessment for application in case study contexts with local data) and 4 (particularly in terms of establishing the benefits at stake in market intervention).

Costs of Marine Ecosystem Degradation

Our approach to estimating the costs of marine ecosystem degradation incorporates many features of the above analysis in order to support comparability and sectoral accountability. Thus, the same types of value (3 above) are at stake and the sectoral framework (2 above) is used to identify Drivers of ecosystem degradation, i.e. human activities that exert Pressures on marine ecosystems, such as through emissions. However, there is a subtle difference in terms of how this framework defines scope. Benefit assessment includes benefits derived from either physical or ecological functions of the EEZ, while cost assessment is concerned only with the latter. Therefore, fewer sectors will be needed to account for the Impacts of degradation, notably: fisheries and aquaculture, tourism and recreation, and households. Nevertheless, all sectors are relevant to the analysis in terms of the Pressures they exert on the marine environment.

As in the case of benefit assessment, we will be seeking a comprehensive set of values representing the interaction of human activities with marine ecosystems. However, paucity of data in many areas is expected to limit what can be achieved at an aggregate level, particularly outside fisheries. The underlying issue here is that Impacts are not generally observable in markets either through lack of a relevant market (e.g. for the indirect uses of ecosystems, existence values etc.) or difficulties in attributing ecosystem State changes to market effects (e.g. tourism values in a given area may be affected by deterioration in the marine environment but it might be very difficult to isolate this Impact from that of new opportunities for substitution by visits to other locations).

These considerations limit the direct task of WP4 to provide a reliable aggregate-level assessment of costs and indicate a focus on indirect tasks in supporting the case studies. WP4 will be responsible for defining relevant methods of cost assessment at these scales, advising on the suitability of data and assisting through the provision of data. Furthermore, by working at this level we will be better able to establish likely future developments, which will be used in the assessment of future costs in the absence of new policy measures (i.e. the costs of non-action).

Costs and Benefits of Management Strategies and Tools

Given measures of benefits and costs associated with EEZs (above), it is theoretically possible to estimate the benefits from measures to improve (or avoid degradation) of marine ecosystems. In addition, this assessment can be used to estimate the costs of any such measures borne through limiting Driver activities affecting marine ecosystems. However, a complete cost/benefit analysis of policy measures also needs to account for any incremental costs that are not manifested in such Drivers: for example, improved monitoring and assessment impose social costs. This element of WP4’s work deals with the assessment of such costs.

Given that costing will depend on the nature of the proposed policy measure and this in turn will be shaped by context-specific factors (e.g. the target issue, geographical scope), we envisage that this work element will be entirely associated with the regional seas case studies. The potential strategies and tools that they identify will constitute the cost objects to be evaluated by WP4, with the results feeding back into the cost/benefit analyses of those proposals. As with benefits and costs generally, data limitations are likely to constrain the calculation of entirely context-specific costs. In these circumstances, appropriate adaptation of cost values identified in other contexts will be used when justified.

THEME 3: INTEGRATION

Theme 3 will provide expertise on integration of products developed in KnowSeas. WP5 will focus on institutional and social analysis including governance structures, conflicts of interest/trade-offs between regions/actors, and values and perceptions of stakeholders. WP6 will develop an assessment toolbox containing tools for conflict management and decision support, planning and policy strategy development, and strategic tools for MSFD implementation. WPs 5 and 6 provide expertise that may not be available in all Regional Case Study WPs and in some cases will need to work as a team in their interaction with regional colleagues. All tools developed by WP6 will be tested in each Regional WP.

Work Package 5 - Institutional and Social Analysis

The aim of KnowSeas WP5 is to analyse the institutional and social dimensions of Ecosystem-Based Management, especially focusing on the interface of values and decision making. Successful implementation of Ecosystem-Based Management in general and specific policies like the MSFD needs to consider political, institutional and social contexts at different levels. This includes the history and the framing of problems and risks by decision makers as well as recognition of attitudes and values driving decisions of authorities, investors, NGOs and other stakeholders. Recognising these factors, thereby increasing policy coherence and acceptance, is one of the key demands to successfully establish intersectoral / integrated planning, to implement sustainable use patterns and to link targets from the EU Maritime Policy and the EU Marine Strategy.

Policy coherence requires integrated research efforts that can identify conflicts and synergies between policies. It is also important to note that conditions and context evolve and therefore there is a demand for social learning and adaptive approaches. Recognising in this frame that successful implementation of directives and policies does not solely depend on costs and benefits alone, WP5 will provide the institutional and social context relevant for the design of integrative, participatory and Adaptive Management approaches as part of the conflict resolution framework in WP6. In this sense WP5 forms the link between WP3 and WP4 on one hand and WP6 on the other.

To achieve this, the focus in WP5 lies in analyses of values, attitudes, behaviour and risk/problem perceptions driving relevant decision making institutions, in analysis of governance structures and mechanisms at EEZ and regional seas scale and the assessment of institutional capacities for dealing with observed problems and challenges (for areas and issues). This will help to identify conflicts of interest as well as potential alliances between different stakeholders and sectors.

The research in WP5 will be implemented using a range of case studies at national and regional sea scale, performed in the frame of regional WPs 7-10. WP5 will act as a think tank for these case studies, providing analytical concepts and tools (e.g. document analysis, interviews and focus groups), ensuring coherence and comparability by identification of a common set of governance dimensions and associated values and performing comparison across the case studies as well as in the global context of LOICZ (the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme for Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone).

Key questions to be addressed are:

a) What is the role of different values (economic, cultural, existence) in decision-making affecting the state of the sea?

b) How do the different framings of risks/problems and values affect the decision making concerning management of coastal and marine resources?

c) Where are the main differences and conflicts between perceptions and values of different actors in the management of the coastal and marine ecosystems?

d) What is the coherence of different policies affecting the state of the sea and where do possible conflicts and also synergies between different policies exist?

e) What possibilities are there for negotiated solutions that would successfully implement intersectoral / integrated planning and management and sustainable use patterns, in agreement with the objectives of the EU Maritime Policy and the EU Marine Strategy legislation?

For institutional and social analyses, interactions between decision making scales (including for example investors, which act at multinational scales according to very different rules than authorities) and recognition of multilevel governance become highly relevant. Taking wider political context into account through cooperation with WP2, the initial focus in WP5 assessments will be on national level institutions relevant for decisions in the EEZ (following the approach of the MSFD), but recognising their interaction with institutions at regional sea and/or subnational levels in specific case studies where appropriate.

Integrating social issues into Ecosystem-Based Management will require new modes of analysis as well as involvement with institutions and stakeholders affected either by ecosystem change directly or by Ecosystem-Based Management strategies. Placing the social context at the centre of analysis and focusing on governance, institutions and stakeholders will contextualise the system analysis in WPs 3 and 4 and provide new knowledge of factors affecting the uptake of ecosystem-based strategies. The objective is to provide understanding of socio-ecological issues and processes, which are fundamental for achieving the social change required to deliver Ecosystem-Based Management.

WP5 will offer tools, advice and guidance on MSP and governance to case study Work Packages.

Work Package 6 - Assessment Toolbox

We recognise from the outset that the needs for information and guidance by stakeholders (including policymakers) cannot be met by ‘black box’ prescriptive tools and that the most useful approach is a system of unambiguous guidance documents supplemented by optional specific tools, data sets and worked examples from demonstration (pilot) projects. Seven guidance documents/tools ‘cascade’ from the products of all Work Packages and will be structured into final products by WP6 and submitted to stakeholder review (including consultation with Commission services) to ensure that they are ‘fit for purpose’ prior to publication. The members of WP6 have been selected to facilitate this process and to prepare a ‘toolbox’ of deliberative and
technical tools that can be tested as potential components of an ‘Ecosystem-Based Management System (EBMS)’.

Adaptive Management is important as a practical process to deliver Ecosystem-Based Management (the mechanism for articulating the Ecosystem Approach) in Europe’s Seas. In practice, this logical stepwise process for management meets with many challenges, however. It requires interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral thinking leading to a consensus on how systems operate; agreement on spatial and temporal scales; stakeholder mapping consultation and ‘buy in’; a common ‘vision’ (expressed in the MSFD as ‘Good Environmental Status’) of how future socio-ecological systems should look; appropriate data and agreed scientifically sound indicators; a practical knowledge of costs and benefits of management actions; sound governance; appropriate monitoring systems; and conflict resolution (and avoidance) mechanisms to overcome human ‘choke points’ in implementing the approach.

The EBMS framework that we propose supports the Adaptive Management cycle. It combines classical environmental management systems with the concept of ecosystem management (International Union for Conservation of Nature - IUCN) that melds the core objective of ecosystem management (as the sustainable, efficient and equitable use of ecological services), with the traditional idea of minimizing the environmental impact exerted by human activities. The proposed framework aims to be flexible enough for application at any geographical and temporal scale. The framework will include tools to identify those environmentally significant aspects that need to be addressed, to help in the decision making process and to be able to alert corrective actions when needed, altogether with the final objective to reach Good Environmental Status for the system under assessment.

The specific tools within the EBMS framework can be classified in three components (a three pillar structure: the managerial pillar, an information pillar, and a participatory pillar). Specific tools produced by WP6 are cited below; additional tools will flow from the other WPs or arise during the implementation of the project:

The managerial component
The conceptual thinking underpinning this component is the policy cycle assessment developed inter alia by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP, 1996) . This follows a classical PDCA (Plan-Do-Check- Act) managerial scheme that uses an iterative logic of a similar kind to that shown in Figure 1.2. The GESAMP five step process consists of: a) issues identification and assessment (environmental key aspects and risk assessment), b) program preparation (goals and objectives), c) formal adoption and funding (structure, responsibilities, training, capacity building, and communication), d) implementation (control, monitoring, and corrective actions), and e) evaluation (audit and review). The particular tools developed under this component are:
* Risk assessment – DEcision MAking tool (DEMA tool)
* Corrective action – COnflict REsolution tool (CORE tool)

The CORE tool will be used to facilitate Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) in a selection of regional seas case studies. Relevant stakeholders will be identified at the local level, from fisheries organisations, the renewable energy sector and other local interests such as tourism and natural heritage, and case studies illustrating how MSP can be facilitated using participatory workshops will be held at local scales as well as larger, regional scales. The tool will be used both to gather new information and to engage with relevant stakeholders from the project’s Regional Liaison Groups, from local interest groups to national government representatives depending on the case. The workshops will explore current uses of marine areas as well as facilitating trade-offs between current uses of the marine environment which are potentially conflicting with developing future use.

The information component
In addition to the interoperable database created and maintained as part of WP1, there is a need to provide tools for data mining and presentation. WP6 will develop a GIS-based platform that has the aim of providing a better knowledge-based socio-ecological information system for European seas. The tool will permit the restructuring and presentation of the information according to stakeholder needs. In addition, it will assist with the work of WPs 2, 3 and 4 to develop operational indicators for managing socio-ecological systems at different scales. Current indicator systems are insufficient to service the needs of the emerging European policy framework (European Environment Agency - EEA, 2005).

WP6 will seek strategic alliances outside the KnowSeas consortium, particularly regarding the data depositories available at ICES, OSPAR, HELCOM (the Helsinki Commission), and the EEA, as well as national data. Close cooperation with WP3, WP4 and WP5 will ensure coherence and efficiency. The workflow of the WP will allow a timely delivery of the available information into the regional seas case studies and vice versa. Four European Seas Smart Virtual Observatories will be developed to facilitate full testing of this approach. To complement the tools developed by WP2, the following key tool will be provided by WP6:
* Development of a GIS information platform tool and demonstration (GIS-Seas tool)

The participatory component
Good Environmental Status is ultimately determined by the needs of society. It is unlikely that goals based on a return to pristine conditions could be achievable so the process has to be forward looking and relies on a dialogue with stakeholders about what is feasible in the future and how this relates to the maintenance of ecosystem services. The EBMS can only be effective if it is easily understood by regulated parties and the public, so it becomes necessary to delineate a comprehensive framework that clearly defines the appropriate roles for different levels of government, the private sector and citizens promoting effective partnerships for managing the marine ecosystem services, and strategic tools for policy implementation.

A specific tool will be developed for enhancing communication with stakeholders and to service needs for capacity building. In addition the guidelines series discussed earlier will service the needs of all those engaged in policy making and policy implementation:
* Enhancing Stakeholder CApacity (ESCA tool)
* EBMS Guidelines series

THEME 4: CASE STUDIES

KnowSeas includes a set of specific case studies that provide platforms for demonstrating and critically assessing the theoretical approaches and analyses developed in the KnowSeas project.

Work Package 7 - Baltic Sea EEZs

The analysis of the Baltic Sea will be carried out at two scales, Baltic wide and for the EEZ in the Gulf of Finland. Special focus will be put on issues of large scale eutrophication and fisheries for migratory salmonids. The Gulf of Finland represents an area where key challenges faced by the governance are found in concentrated form, including poor ecological status, transboundary issues with non-EU states, intensive shipping and private financial commitment to improve the ecological status.

There is a wealth of data available on different aspects of the Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland, and several different modelling approaches have been used to analyse its state and possible futures. The modelling work that the Baltic Nest Institute has carried out for the HELCOM will be used and refined further. It will be linked to the detailed modelling that has been carried out for the Gulf of Finland combining information on biodiversity. The knowledge base allows the exploration of scenarios that will be used as starting point for the governance studies and social factors affecting the governance (link with WP2, WP5 and WP6).

The following information is needed to support coherent marine and maritime policies and strategies in the Baltic Sea:

a) an understanding of the potential for change, especially in the face of external drivers such as climate change and internal dynamics of the sea ecosystem itself (from WP3)

b) a deeper understanding of the costs and effects of the different measures that can be taken in aiming for the stated goals (from WP4)

c) analyses of the possibilities and consequences of new kinds of policy instruments in order to appreciate how the effectiveness and the cost efficiency of the measures used in a context of multi-level governance can be optimized while avoiding unwanted side-effects (combining WP2, WP5 and WP6)

The analysis will be based on contrasting the approaches used and developed in KnowSeas with those of past analyses. At the ecosystem level the main challenge lies in determining the overall "health" of the system and in being able to track changes in the health in the face of external changes and shifting baselines caused by, for example, climate change. At the governance level the main challenges lie in creating conditions for social learning and adaptive approaches that are capable of dealing adequately with the changing socio-ecological conditions.

Work Package 8 - Black Sea EEZs

Since the 1970s the Black Sea has been heavily impacted by anthropogenic pressures. Eutrophication, overfishing and climatic variation have led to regime shifts and collapse of the pelagic and benthic ecosystems during the 1980s and 1990s. The presence of invasive alien species has further modified the pelagic food web and led to the establishment of a new type of ecosystem that may never revert back to 1960s ‘pristine’ ecological conditions. Recovery during the last 15 years has been non-linear, and the system is characterized by ecological instability, manifested in, for example, sustained significant stock decline of the large pelagic fishes. Regulation of anthropogenic Pressures by national governments has been inadequate; although eutrophication and pollution have been partially remediated, overfishing and invasive species remain problems in the Black Sea. However, the addition of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU offers an opportunity for environmental improvement.

KnowSeas WP8 will conduct a regional case study to investigate the major dynamics of the changing Black Sea ecosystem, identify how these impact ecosystem goods and services and describe the resulting trade-offs that will have to be dealt with by management and policy. Considering the dramatic shifts in the Black Sea ecosystem and the unlikelihood of returning to a ‘pristine state’, it is presently unclear what Good Environmental Status will mean for the Black Sea. This will be explored through the assimilation of new datasets and information as well as the application of innovative modelling techniques. KnowSeas WP8 will assess the Drivers and resulting Pressures identified during ELME and their temporal and spatial scale of influence in the Black Sea.

Benefits of environmental goods and services, in particular fishing and general ecosystem health, and costs of ecosystem degradation due to eutrophication, living resource depletion, biodiversity/habitat loss, and introduction of alien species will be evaluated. Examination of costs and benefits of various management strategies and tools – including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) with which there is hitherto very little experience in the Black Sea - will take into consideration regional governance profiles, including the role of the Black Sea Commission and the application of the Common Fisheries Policy, as well as the distinct differences in management approaches between Black Sea states.

KnowSeas WP8 will conduct an in-depth case study of the effects and management dilemmasassociated with the establishment of invasive alien gastropod Rapana vernosa in the Bulgarian and Turkish EEZs. Rapana is a voracious predator of bivalves and its success threatens native biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Since the 1980s Rapana has become a valuable fisheries resource. However, current management addresses inadequately both the mitigation of the invasive impact and the sustainability of Rapana as a valuable living resource. Climate forcing and eutrophication will also be explored in relation to Rapana as well as the potential for increased establishment of future invasive species.

Work Package 9 - Mediterranean EEZs

The Mediterranean Sea is extensively impacted by anthropogenic activities. Chemical pollution, increasing maritime transport and climate change are key Pressures causing environmental degradation of marine systems at both regional sea and local scales. Throughout the Mediterranean, extensive coastal development as a result of increasing urbanisation and tourism has resulted in habitat loss and decreased biodiversity. Apex predators have been overfished basin-wide, contributing to trophic changes, while expanding mariculture and intensive fish farming have been associated with the introduction of invasive species and pathogens, localised habitat loss and eutrophication. As in other European seas, climate change is an emerging issue in the Mediterranean which requires further investigation.

Political responses to these issues are complex as social trends, lifestyles and governance vary regionally throughout Mediterranean countries. However, these states are aware of their responsibility to preserve and develop the region in a sustainable way, and recognise the aforementioned threats to the marine environment. Several political actions have been launched to that effect including the Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Mediterranean Basin (MAP), the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (the “Barcelona Convention”) and the Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-based Sources. There is also a variety of EU Directives which address protection and conservation, such as the EU Birds Directive (70/409/EU) and the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EU).

Within KnowSeas, the Mediterranean case study will focus on:

i) the characterisation of temporal and spatial variations of Pressures on Mediterranean ecosystems driving changes in environmental State and associated costs in terms of human welfare and quality of ecosystems (in conjunction with WP3);

ii) prioritization of Pressures, with particular reference to climate change, maritime transportation and chemical pollution;

iii) the assessment of the spatial distribution of chemical contaminants entering the sea with changing scenarios of climate change and chemical pollution as well as different degree of maritime transportation use;

iv) the identification of possible solutions to EEZ definition in the Mediterranean, through the evaluation of scale mismatches that could constrain effective implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Integrated Maritime Policy (e.g. transboundary pollution, migratory species), and

v) the assessment of the quality of environmental media, with a focus on water quality and water-atmosphere interactions (i.e. atmospheric deposition of contaminants to sea-surface).

An in-depth assessment of the effects of shipping, chemical pollution and climate change will be performed on the Gulf of Lions, a data-rich subregion affected by these key Pressures.

Work Package 10 - North Sea/North East Atlantic EEZs

The North Sea / North East (NE) Atlantic region hosts a range of economic sectors, including fisheries, shipping, energy production, and tourism. Some can be managed within EEZs, but for other issues a regional, Ecosystem Approach is required (e.g. fisheries, shipping, invasive species, transport of chemical pollutants and nutrients). Fisheries exert direct human Pressure throughout much of the NE Atlantic, from coastal waters to the ocean margins. Complex natural population dynamics, linked to species interactions and climate variability, combined with changes in management regimes under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), increase the difficulty in understanding, modelling and communicating the probable effects of alternative management schemes or scenarios and in defining Good Environmental Status.

A case study will focus on expanding deep-water fisheries and the impact of trawling on cold-water biogenic reefs (e.g. Lophilia pertusa) within the UK EEZ. WP10 will consider the societal Response to this phenomenon and examine how this influences policy development in areas such as sustainable fisheries, habitat loss and preservation of biodiversity.

A regional study of the North Sea will focus on the application of the Ecosystem Approach to fisheries, transboundary transfer of nutrients and climate change. The issues are complex and closely related: for example, increasing surface temperatures (SST) in the North Sea over the past two decades have been linked to increased phytoplankton production and the northwards migration of zooplankton species and fish stocks; ocean acidification is also expected to have a profound impact at decadal scales.

A subregional case study will address the Ecosystem Approach to wind farm development in the southern North Sea. The development of offshore wind farms within North Sea EEZs will be examined and analyzed in the context of transboundary regional development and environmental management as well as in the context of the EU Maritime Policy and multilevel marine governance structures.

Sections

KnowSeas

Personal tools