Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas A generic … · The project Monitoring and...

Marine Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

http://d

n Corr

E-m

Pleasimpl

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas: A generic frameworkfor implementation of ecosystem based marine management andits application

Vanessa Stelzenmuller a,n, Patricia Breen b, Tammy Stamford b, Frank Thomsen b, Fabio Badalamenti c,Angel Borja d, Lene Buhl-Mortensen e, Julia Carlstom f, Giovanni D’Anna c, Norbert Dankers g,Steven Degraer h, Mike Dujin i, Fabio Fiorentino c, Ibon Galparsoro d, Sylvaine Giakoumi l,Michele Gristina c, Kate Johnson j, Peter J.S. Jones k, Stelios Katsanevakis l, Leyla Knittweis m,Zacharoula Kyriazi n, Carlo Pipitone c, Joanna Piwowarczyk o, Marijn Rabaut n, Thomas K. Sørensen p,Jan van Dalfsen q, Vassiliki Vassilopoulou l, Tomas Vega Fernandez c, Magda Vincx n, Sandra Voge r,Anke Weber s, Nicklas Wijkmark f, Robbert Jak g, Wanfei Qiu k, Remment ter Hofstede g

a vTI Institute of Sea Fisheries, Palmaille 9, 22767 Hamburg, Germanyb Cefas, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UKc CNR — IAMC, Via G. da Verrazzano 17, 91014 – Castellammare del Golfo (TP), Italyd AZTI-Tecnalia, Marine Research Division, Herrera Kaia, Portualdea s/n, 20110 Pasaia, Spaine Institute of Marine Research, PB 1870 Nordnes, N-5817 Bergen, Norwayf AquaBiota Water Research, Svante Arrhenius vag 21A, SE-114 18 Stockholm, Swedeng Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies (IMARES), P.O. Box 68, 1970 AB, IJmuiden, The Netherlandsh Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Management Unit of the Mathematical Model of the North Sea (MUMM), Marine Ecosystem Management Section,

Gulledelle 100, B-1200 Brussels, Belgiumi TNO, Bouw en Ondergrond, Van Mourik Broekmanweg 6, Postbus 49, 2600 AA Delft, The Netherlandsj International Centre for Island Technology, Heriot-Watt University, Old Academy, Stromness, Orkney KW16 3AW, UKk Department of Geography, UCL, Pearson Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UKl Center for Marine Research (HCMR), 46.7 km Athens-Sounio, 19013 Anavyssos, Greecem Capture Fisheries Section, Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs (MRRA), Fort San Lucjan, Marsaxlokk BBG 1283, Maltan Marine Biology Section, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, Campus Sterre — S8, B-9000 Ghent, Belgiumo Institute of Oceanology Polish Academy of Sciences, Powstancow Warszawy 55, PL-81712 Sopot, Polandp AquaTechnical University of Denmark, National Institute of Aquatic Resources (DTU AQUA), Charlottenlund Castle, 2920 Charlottenlund, Denmarkq Deltares, Marine and Coastal Systems Unit, P.O. Box 177, 2600 MH Delft, The Netherlandsr Senckenberg Institute, Department for Marine Research, Sudstrand 40, 26382 Wilhelmshaven, Germanys Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), P.O. Box 1266 Pirsenteret, 7462 Trondheim, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 22 July 2011

Received in revised form

24 February 2012

Accepted 12 April 2012

Keywords:

Adaptive management

Marine spatial planning

Management effectiveness

Risk analysis

Spatially explicit tools

Operational objectives

7X/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. A

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.012

esponding author. Tel.: þ49 40 38905 236; fa

ail address: [email protected].

e cite this article as: Stelzenmullerementation of ecosystem based mar

a b s t r a c t

This study introduces a framework for the monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas

(SMAs), which is currently being tested by nine European case studies. The framework provides

guidance on the selection, mapping, and assessment of ecosystem components and human pressures,

the evaluation of management effectiveness and potential adaptations to management. Moreover, it

provides a structured approach with advice on spatially explicit tools for practical tasks like the

assessment of cumulative impacts of human pressures or pressure-state relationships. The case studies

revealed emerging challenges, such as the lack of operational objectives within SMAs, particularly for

transnational cases, data access, and stakeholder involvement. Furthermore, the emerging challenges of

integrating the framework assessment using scientific information with a structured governance

research analysis based mainly on qualitative information are addressed. The lessons learned will

provide a better insight into the full range of methods and approaches required to support the

implementation of the ecosystem approach to marine spatial management in Europe and elsewhere.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ll rights reserved.

x: þ49 40 38905 263.

de (V. Stelzenmuller).

V, et al. Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas: A generic framework forine management and.... Mar. Policy (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.012

www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.012



mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





V. Stelzenmuller et al. / Marine Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]2

1. Introduction

Across the globe increasing human pressures on coastal andoffshore waters have resulted in complex conflicts between differenthuman activities (which are often competing for space) and inter-actions between human activities and the marine environment [1].Hence, system specific management options are required, whichsatisfy current and future sectoral needs. They must thereforeintegrate multiple objectives, including those concerned withmarine conservation. Such an integrated management approach isinherent in the widely accepted concept of ecosystem basedmanagement (EBM). EBM embodies adaptive and flexible govern-ance and management systems that require suitable and effectiveinformation-providing mechanisms which rely on appropriate mon-itoring programs and integrated assessments. More precisely, EBMaims to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive and resilientcondition so that it can continue to provide the services humanswant and need [2]. A number of policies at the global scale (e.g.,Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; Food and AgricultureOrganisation (FAO), Code of Conduct for Fisheries, 1995) or regionalscale (e.g., Marine Strategy Framework Directive; MSFD [3] orHabitats Directive; HD [4]), recognise the need to consider humanpressures in the marine environment through EBM [5]. To date,rendering EBM effective has been hampered by a number of factors,including the lack of governance structures, complexity of biologicaland socioeconomic processes, lack of knowledge on the dynamicsand resilience of marine ecosystems, implementation costs and theneed for practical tools [6,7].

The concept of EBM is closely linked to monitoring, evaluation,reporting and adaptive management, which are the essentialcomponents for effective marine management [8]. The funda-mental principles for monitoring include identifying the objec-tives, monitoring options, scale, costs and benefits. In recentyears, the formulation of operational objectives and operationaldeliveries has been proposed in the wider context of an ecosys-tem based approach to marine management. A recent study [9]presented a hierarchical monitoring framework that incorporatesobjectives and delivery statements of ecological, social andeconomic sectors. Another example is a GOIS (Goal–Objective–Indicator–Success Criteria) framework, which was used to assessthe management performance of marine protected areas (MPAs)[10]. Ultimately, the monitoring and evaluation of managementperformance should (i) demonstrate the extent to which theobjectives have been achieved; (ii) provide evidence-based feed-back about what’s working and what’s not; and (iii) revealinteractions between ecological components, human pressuresand management efforts.

Tools facilitating the implementation and assessment of EBMin marine ecosystems are the Organization for Economic Coop-eration and Development’s (OECD), Pressure–State–Response(PSR) framework (OECD, 1993), and the Drivers-, Pressures–State–Impact–Response (DPSIR) framework adopted by theEuropean Environment Agency in 1995 (EEA, 1995) (see also [11]).Integrated ecosystem assessments (IEA) (see [12] and referencestherein) are promoted as they do not only incorporate biotic andabiotic components, but also socio-economic factors as well as ananalysis of how these factors interact. A recent example of an IEAframework [13] encompassed five key steps that enhance thelikelihood of a successful implementation of EBM: scoping, indicatordevelopment, risk analysis, assessment of ecosystem status relativeto EBM goals, and management strategy evaluation. This IEA waslater extended to seven steps, together with more practical guidanceon methods and strategies to promote an inclusive and transparentprocess [14].

Operationalisation of EBM needs a spatially explicit managementstrategy to cope with fragmented decision-making processes across

Please cite this article as: Stelzenmuller V, et al. Monitoring and eimplementation of ecosystem based marine management and.... Ma

different economic sectors and ecosystem components [15]. Thus,place-based or spatial management approaches, such as marinespatial planning (MSP), facilitate the implementation of EBM [16].MSP is a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial andtemporal distribution of human activities to achieve ecological,economic, and social objectives that usually have been specifiedthrough a political process [17,18]. The UNESCO has recentlylaunched step by step guidance on how to operationalise MSP,based on examples of MSP at different stages of development fromall around the world [19]. Further the European Commissionpublished some guiding principles for MSP [20], recognising thatthe sustainable management of marine regions depends on thecondition of the respective ecosystems. EBM is thus the overarchingprinciple for an ecosystem based MSP which is defined as anintegrated planning framework that informs the spatial distributionof activities in and on the ocean in order to support current as wellas future uses of ocean ecosystems [21]. Hence, an ecosystem basedMSP aims to maintain the delivery of valuable ecosystem servicesfor future generations in a way that meets ecological, economic andsocial objectives.

There is an increasing demand for practical and interdisciplin-ary approaches, accounting for the overarching principles of EBM,to monitor, evaluate and implement Spatially Managed Areas(SMAs) in coastal and offshore waters [14,21,22]. The projectMonitoring and Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas (MESMA;www.mesma.org) addresses this demand by developing an inte-grated management tool box for SMAs. SMAs are defined asdiscrete spatial entities with different spatial extensions wherea spatial management framework such as MSP is in place, underdevelopment, or considered. The tool box is developed and testedwith the help of nine MESMA case studies, at different stages ofMSP implementation, spanning the various geographical regionsof the European marine waters (North Sea, Orkney Islands,Barents Sea, Celtic Sea, Basque Country, Strait of Sicily, IonianArchipelago, Baltic Sea and Black Sea), and having a range ofhuman pressures and representative habitats. The central tooldeveloped by MESMA is a generic and flexible framework which,through a framework manual, gives guidance on the assessmentof SMA effectiveness by means of structured practical tasks andassociated methods and analysis. This framework builds on thelessons learned [23] and proposes an iterative process comprisingthe key elements of scoping, performance measures, assessment,evaluation and adjustment. Methods and technical tools, includ-ing a geodata portal, are being developed to support the imple-mentation of the framework. A parallel governance analysis isconducted in the different case studies. Thus the ultimate aim ofthe MESMA tool box is to facilitate an integrated and transparentprocess to support the implementation of an ecosystem basedspatial management.

This paper provides a comprehensive report on the proposedframework steps, together with state-of-the-art methods andtools for its practical application. Methods relate to the mappingof human activities and the assessment of their cumulativeimpacts on sensitive ecosystem components. Furthermore, thedifficulties identified in the first implementation of the frame-work in each of the nine case studies are synthesized. Finally, theemerging challenges for the practical integration of the assess-ment framework with the governance research analysis aredescribed.

2. Requirements for a SMA assessment

The key requirement for practical guidance on the monitoringand evaluation of SMAs is to be generally applicable at any spatialscale, independent from the major natural and socioeconomic

valuation of spatially managed areas: A generic framework forr. Policy (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.012

www.mesma.org

www.mesma.org

www.mesma.org

www.mesma.org




Fig. 1. Conceptual flow diagram which relates the context of a spatially managed area (SMA) together with the available data to expected SMA assessment outcomes.

V. Stelzenmuller et al. / Marine Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

factors. In practice, SMAs can have different stages in the devel-opment of spatial management plans and consequently, theapplication of a standardised assessment framework will lead todifferent types of assessment outputs. These outputs can fluctuatefrom a performance assessment of an implemented marinespatial plan or an assessment of the process used to develop aspatial management plan, to an IEA leading to a set of qualitativerecommendations to support EBM within an SMA context. A firstcharacterisation of the SMAs and a relative positioning of theexpected assessment outcomes can be conducted with the con-ceptual flow diagram presented in Fig. 1. The expected outcomescan vary from detailed quantitative assessments to qualitativerecommendations, depending not only on the stage of the spatialmanagement in place but also on the data available for theassessment. Therefore, an assessment of a SMA with an imple-mented MSP can also result in a purely qualitative description ofissues and recommendations when data are absent. This high-lights the need for an SMA assessment to include a data-drivenelement in order to produce a set of quantitative results.

3. A generic framework to monitor and evaluate SMAs

Building on the experience of existing frameworks andapproaches, it can be concluded that practical steps to monitorand evaluate SMAs should reflect the principles of an adaptiveenvironmental management cycle [8,23]. Moreover, to supportthe implementation of an ecosystem based marine spatial man-agement, a framework for monitoring and evaluating SMAs mustexplicitly consider interactions between ecosystem components,management sectors, institutions and key actors, as well as thecumulative impacts of human activities. The presented frame-work accounts for those components and describes seven keysteps to evaluate and monitor SMAs (Fig. 2(a)). The steps involvethe definition of desired outcomes and management objectives,mapping of relevant ecosystem components, identification ofperformance indicators, monitoring and risk analysis, assessmentof findings in relation to objectives, and evaluation of currentmanagement and recommendations for adaption. This stepwiseprocess can be conducted iteratively and therefore it can becompleted for any SMA with different sets of defined objectives.Furthermore, the feasibility of any newly proposed managementmeasures can subsequently be assessed by a further iteration ofthe framework.

As previously described, the output of any practical assess-ment using the proposed framework depends on both thecharacterisation of the SMA (as described in Fig. 1) and the data


availability. In turn, data availability is further linked to therequirements for specific analyses or the use of certain tools suchas GIS. The framework reflects a structured analysis of mostlyscientific information which is closely linked to an in depthgovernance analysis to provide a comprehensive SMA assessment(Fig. 2(b)). In MESMA a key focus of the governance research is toexplore how different governance approaches and incentives canbe combined to achieve strategic objectives in an effective andequitable manner, including opportunities for stakeholder parti-cipation (see Table 1). Thus a ‘two-stream’ and interdisciplinaryapproach is currently tested in the case studies, where a struc-tured governance analysis is conducted in parallel to the assess-ment framework (Fig. 3). Whilst the application of the frameworkwill assess the management effectiveness of a SMA through aprescribed and generic scientific process, the governance streamwill focus on the complex institutional and geo-political reality,within which the SMA is embedded. Such an interdisciplinaryapproach enables the combination of the strengths of both socialand natural sciences in a comprehensive and robust assessmentof SMAs. However, a detailed description of the governanceanalysis is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, this discussionfocuses on the step by step guidance, the links between theassessment of scientific data and the detailed governance analysisas well as the challenges in integrating the two streams ofresearch.

4. Step by step guidance on the implementation of theframework

4.1. Step 1 — Context setting

The aim of step 1 is to set the spatial and temporal context forthe evaluation (step 1a) and to define the goals and operationalobjectives (1b). Both steps should be carried out in conjunctionand together they should set the context for the physical areainvolved as well as the overarching aims of the SMA.

Temporal and spatial boundaries for the SMA assessment (1a)— In cases where a spatial management plan is in place or inpreparation, the boundaries are defined in the management plan.In other cases, potential administrative, ecological, economic orsocial boundaries should be considered. This step includes iden-tification and mapping of boundaries and timeframes in existingmanagement plans, spatial management initiatives, other SMAactivities and the institutional landscape. This step is importantbecause the application of the SMA evaluation process (andtherefore outcomes of the assessment) relate to the defined





Assessment &Evaluation

Adjustment

Performancemeasures

Existing information,collation and mapping

Scoping

1b. Goals andoperational objec-

tives for SMA

1a.Temporal andspatial boundariesfor SMA assessment

6. Evaluation ofmanagementeffectiveness

7.Adaptation tocurrent

management

5. Assessment offindings against

operationalobjectives

4. Risk analysisand state

assessment3. Indicators

2b. Pressures andimpacts

2c. Managementmeasures

2a. Ecosystemcomponents

Context setting

Assessment &Evaluation

Adjustment

Performancemeasures

Existing information,collation and mapping

Scoping

1b. Goals andoperational objec-

tives for SMA

1a. Temporal andspatial boundaries

for SMA assessment

6. Evaluation ofmanagementeffectiveness

7. Adaptation tocurrent

management

5. Assessment offindings against

operationalobjectives

4. Risk analysisand state

assessment3. Indicators

2b. Pressures andimpacts

2c. Managementmeasures

2a. Ecosystemcomponents

Governanceresearch analysisstarting point

Key policy andlegal provisionsKey managementmeasuresKey conflictsKey stakeholders

Feedback andintegration

Governance research analysis on different perspectives amongst differentstakeholders

Effectiveness of existing management measures and governance approachesValidity of proposed management measures and governance approachesEquity, knowledges, power, top-down/bottom-up balance

Context setting

Fig. 2. (a) The flowchart shows proposed framework to monitor and evaluate spatially managed areas (SMAs) through seven key steps; step1: definition of the spatial and

temporal boundaries (step 1a). In relation to those boundaries the high level goals and operational objectives are delineated for the respective run through the process

(step 1b); step2: identification, collation and mapping of existing information; step 2a: mapping of ecosystem components relevant to the set of objectives; step 2b:

mapping of pressures and impacts; step 2c: summary of existing or proposed management measures; step 3: definition of performance measures or indicators together

with their reference points will be defined; step 4: risk analysis or state assessment; step 5: summary of assessment results against operational objectives; step 6:

evaluation of management effectiveness; step 7: summary of assessment results and formulation of recommendations (e.g., alternative management scenarios); (b) The

flowchart shows proposed framework steps and the links to the governance research elements.


boundary and timeframe initially set up in this step. However, insubsequent applications of the framework, other boundaries maybe tested.

Goals and operational objectives for SMA (1b) — Any spatialplanning or management process is driven either implicitly orexplicitly by goals. Goals are high-level outcomes that a planningprocess or management aims to achieve through the implemen-tation of measures. High-level goals are based on societal orcultural values, whilst the associated criteria, attributes andindicators are developed in the scientific domain and decidedupon in the political domain [24]. High-level goals need to be


translated into operational objectives to allow the elaboration ofspecific targets, limits and measures. In general, operationalobjectives are defined as those for which specific, measureable,achievable, realistic and time limited (SMART) targets can be set,such that management measures can be fitted and performancecan be evaluated. Thus developing a set of operational objectivesalso includes the identification of the minimum necessary set ofenvironmental objectives that require explicit consideration bymanagers.

For a SMA with an existing or already proposed spatial planhigh-level goals and related operational objectives should have





Table 1Structured and systematic guidelines for governance research comprising seven sections that have been developed for implementation in each case study.

Section Contents

I Context: description of the socio-economic and political context, and the regional policy framework (e.g., regional sea management plans)

II Objectives and management measures: identification of a priority objective and secondary objectives for the evaluation of governance approaches, and the

associated legal and policy framework.

III Conflicts: description of conflicts between environmental conservation and resources use, as well as between sectors or resource users

IV Governance approach and effectiveness: description of the main governance approach employed (top-down, decentralised, bottom-up, or market-based), and

its effectiveness in achieving the priority objective and addressing related conflicts

V Incentives: description of the incentives implemented to encourage behavioural changes to fulfil the priority objective and to address related conflicts, as well

as a discussion of the incentives needed to improve governance

VI Cross-cutting themes: discussion of five cross-cutting themes representing wider-scale institutional or structural issues that may underpin the effectiveness

of individual incentives and/or the overall governance approach; (a) combining top-down role of state and bottom-up participative approaches; (b) cross-

border issues between different countries; (c) environmental and social justice issues and related rights of appeal; (d) Influence of different knowledges and

of uncertainty in decision-making

VII Conclusion

Fig. 3. An interdisciplinary approach that combines the strengths of social and natural sciences in assessing the management effectiveness of a SMA.

Fig. 4. An example of a state indicator is presented from the Barents Sea case

study showing population trends (apparently occupied nest sites) of Atlantic

Puffins at Hernyken (Røst archipelago, Nordland), Anda (Vesteralen, Nordland),

Gjesvær, (Finnmark), and Hornøy (Finnmark) as percentages of the mean for all

years. The y-axis is logarithmic. The mean is defined as 100% such that 2 represents

a population twice the mean, 3 a population three times the mean, 0.5 half of the

mean etc. [60].

Fig. 5. An example of a pressure indicator is presented from the Inner Ionian

Archipelago–Patraikos and Korinthiakos Gulfs case study showing the relationship

between hake MSY, estimated by the Schaefer model (red line), and the relative

landings hake per year (2003–2008). (For interpretation of the references to color

in this figure legend, the reader is reffered to the web version of this article.)


Please cite this article as: Stelzenmuller V, et al. Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas: A generic framework forimplementation of ecosystem based marine management and.... Mar. Policy (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.012




Fig. 6. (a) and (b) For illustration a quantitative scenario is presented from the Inner Ionian Archipelago–Patraikos and Korinthiakos Gulfs case study sowing examples of

predicted priority areas, for scenario 1a (a) and scenario 1b (b) reflecting different conservation targets.


been defined early in the design process to improve communica-tion and to standardise expectations of stakeholder groups [25].In general, a ‘bottom up’ approach to management would entailthe development of objectives by a wide range of stakeholders.In practice this requires the establishment of focusedguidelines regarding process and goals to underpin productiveconsultations [26].

Where there are no predefined goals and operational objec-tives, numerous marine policies may apply from the internationalto the local level. The high-level goals can be taken from thesepolicies and operational objectives can then be derived. Forinstance, in Europe any SMA assessment has overarching regionalobjectives such as those defined by the MSFD or the CommonFisheries Policy (CFP; [27]). Hence, in the absence of predefinedSMA objectives, a suite of MSFD operational objectives may beused instead; guidance on their practical assessment is available[28,29]. As an example, listed in Table 2 are a number of policies


at global and regional scale together with their high-level goalsand operational objectives. Given that existing overarching policygoals are in place, step (1b) can be conducted in a first instancewithout formal stakeholder consultation. However, the validity ofhigh-level policy goals, the assessment results and proposedmanagement recommendations, derived from the application ofthe framework, should be communicated to and evaluated bydifferent stakeholders throughout the governance analysis. Theresults from the governance research will feed into the process insteps 6 and 7 to allow an inter-disciplinary assessment of themanagement effectiveness of a SMA and the feasibility of imple-menting recommended management measures (see Fig. 2(b)).

4.2. Step 2—Existing information, collation and mapping

Information on relevant ecosystem components needs to begathered and mapped in order to assess potential spatial overlaps





Fig. 7. Location of the nine SMA case studies testing the framework: (1) southern North Sea, (2) Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters, (3) Barents Sea area, (4) Celtic Sea,

(5) Basque country continental shelf (SE Bay of Biscay), (6) Strait of Sicily, (7) Inner Ionian Archipelago and adjacent gulfs, (8) Black Sea, and (9) Baltic Sea with showing

different levels spatial management plan implementations (yes, no, and in progress).

Table 2Examples of conventions and directives that apply in the study area, with their high-level and operational objectives.

Convention/Directive High-level objectives Operational objective

International Convention on BiologicalDiversity text of the CBD(1992). http://www.

cbd.int/convention/text/ Accessed online 18/

01/2011

To conserve biodiversity, promote the sustainable use of

the components of biodiversity, and the fair and equitable

use of genetic resources.

To achieve by 2010, a significant reduction on the

current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional

and local scale.

European Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective European Council, (2008),

Criteria and methodological standards on

good environmental status of marine waters,

(EU COM 2010)

To protect, conserve and, where possible, restore the

marine environment in order to maintain biodiversity and

provide diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are

clean, healthy and productive

To achieve ‘good environmental status’ in Europe’s

regional seas by 2020, according to a set of 11

descriptors and a relevant list of indicators.

European Habitats DirectiveEuropean Council, (1992)

‘To promote the maintenance of biodiversity’, and to

contribute to the general objective of sustainable

development.

To maintain or restore the natural habitats and the

populations of species of wild flora and fauna at a

favourable conservation status, according to a specific

set of criteria.

To set up a coherent European ecological network of

special areas of conservation, under the title of Natura

2000.

European Common Fisheries Policy The protection of fish stocks in European waters against

overfishing; a guaranteed income for fishermen; a steady

supply at reasonable prices for consumers and the

processing sector; and the sustainable biological,

environmental, and economic exploitation of living

aquatic resources.

Integrating environmental concerns into fisheries

management to ensure the sustainability of fisheries,

and using the principle of maximum sustainable yield

(MSY) for stock management.

European Commission, (2009)

Increasing stakeholder involvement and compliance

through the establishment of Regional Advisory

Councils.

European Water Framework Directive The protection and enhancement of aquatic systems; the

promotion sustainable water use; the progressive

reduction and full elimination of discharges and emissions

of harmful substances and pollution into aquatic

resources; and the mitigation of the effects of floods and

droughts.

To achieve by 2015 ‘Good ecological and chemical status’

in all surface and groundwater bodies.European Council, (2000)

European Birds Directive To conserve and protect birds which naturally occur in the

Union and their habitats.

Maintain the population levels of bird species which

correspond to ecological, scientific and cultural

requirements.

European Council, (2009)

The establishment of a coherent network of Special

Protection Areas comprising all relevant and suitable

territories of bird species which naturally occur in the

Union.



http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/

http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/





and impacts. In this framework, ecosystem components comprisenatural and socio-economic features. Natural ecosystem compo-nents encompass, for example, the occurrence of species groups,functions or processes describing the ecosystem. In contrast,socio-economic components comprise different (existing andpotential) human uses and sectors.

4.2.1. Ecosystem components (2a)

An important part of the scoping process is the definition ofecosystem components which correspond to the defined set ofoperational objectives. Under step 2a GIS should be used to allowfor the collation, visualisation and analysis of spatial information.The scale at which the components are mapped depends on boththe scale of the operational objectives and the availability of datain the SMA. For instance, some human activities such as fishing orshipping require larger spatial mapping, whilst geodata on habi-tats may be only available at the local scale. Moreover, ifinformation on ecosystem characteristics is available at therelevant scales more detailed maps can be produced in the formof marine landscapes or seascapes (see e.g., [30–35]). In contrast,where data availability is poor in relation to the spatial scale andthe operational objectives of the SMA, the relevant ecosystemcomponents may be mapped on a very broad scale using descrip-tive variables or interpretations based on expert judgement (e.g.,www.finding-sanctuary.org and [36]). Further, the spatial claimsof future human uses can be described by their specific require-ments and restrictions for instance, by minimum or maximumwater depth, grain-size, density of target organisms or wavedynamics.

4.2.2. Pressures and impacts (2b)

This step requires analysis of the spatial and temporal overlapof the distribution pattern of the identified natural ecosystemcomponents and current and future human activities (includingthe spatial overlap of human activities). This implies the identi-fication of existing or potential conflicts between different users,or between users and natural ecosystem components. A usefultool to assess interactions between human activities is an inter-action matrix indicating the potential conflicts and compatibil-ities between human activities (see e.g., www.plancoast.eu/files/handbook_web.pdf). Such an interaction matrix can be combinedwith a GIS to map areas of potential conflicts and prioritise spatialmanagement requirements within a SMA.

Where a spatial and/or temporal overlap between current andfuture human activities and ecosystem components can beidentified, a detailed analysis on the pressures exerted by thoseactivities and their combined impacts on ecosystem componentsshould be performed. In general, the assessment of an impact of ahuman activity on an ecosystem component requires both amethod for translating human activities into ecosystem specificpressures, and a measure of sensitivity of ecosystem componentsto those pressures [37]. Thus after having defined the relevantactivities, these should be classified into generic pressure andimpact categories.

As an example, Annex III of the MSFD contains a list of humanpressures and impacts which could serve as a basis to definepressures and impact categories relevant for SMA assessment.Accordingly, several initiatives have categorised human activitiesby the type of generic pressure and impact (e.g., abrasion,extraction or smothering) [38,39]. Another example is providedby the MarLIN initiative (http://www.marlin.ac.uk/maritimeactivitiesmatrix.php) where a matrix relates human activities toenvironmental factors to assess the possible effects of thoseactivities.


Subsequently, pressure and impact maps should be producedat relevant spatial scales. When spatial data on human activitiesare aggregated in maps of human pressures the footprint andintensity of respective human activities should be considered[39,40]. Further, the impact of a human pressure on an ecosystemcomponent can be assessed as a function of the likelihood of theoccurrence of a generic pressure, and a measure of the degree ofecosystem sensitivity [41]. In general, a measure of sensitivityshould consider both intolerance (resistance) and recoverability(resilience) [42]. Once the relationship between a single pressureand its impact is assessed cumulative impacts or combined effectsof human activities should be described and mapped [37,43].Cumulative impacts are defined as the combined impact ofmultiple pressures over space and time [44]. In practice, this isstill a challenging task; however, there is an increasing body ofliterature on the practical assessment of cumulative impacts[37,39,45,46]. Common limitations to most studies are the lackof experimentally assessed information on the sensitivity ofecosystem components and a more comprehensive knowledgeon the interactions with human activities. In other words,detailed information on the impact of certain levels of specifichuman pressures experienced by different parts of the ecosystemis often very limited. Once robust sensitivity measures of ecosys-tem components to certain pressures become available, thecurrent models can be developed further to better assess the riskof cumulative impacts.

4.2.3. Management measures (2c)

Management measures range from national laws and interna-tional policies to codes of conduct, which guide the activities ofparticular users in the SMA. Alongside the list of goals andobjectives, the management measures implemented within thespatial and temporal boundaries of the SMA should be listed inrelation to the sectors identified. Such management measuresmay relate to the defined objectives and could comprise spatialmeasures such as a closure for fisheries or any other regulationsin relation to human uses. Also potential management measuresmay be listed here in an iterative use of the framework, whichwill be subjected to further assessment of management scenarioswithin a detailed governance analysis.

4.3. Step 3 — Indicators

Indicators are required to measure the status of attributes ofthe ecosystem components and criteria related to the operationalobjectives, for example the abundance of a certain species, ameasure of diversity or the surface area covered by a certainhabitat. Indicators are measures to quantify and simplify informa-tion and together with carefully chosen thresholds they can beused to assess the achievement of management objectives or todefine decision rules for adaptive management strategies torespond to impacts [47,48]. Moreover, indicators should alsoreflect aspects of concern to stakeholders, therefore the meaningof indicators should be understood by as wide a range ofstakeholders as possible [49].

The selection of sets of indicators, reflecting a wide range ofecosystem processes, relevant functional groups and structures,should follow a structured and objective process [47]. Thus afterhaving selected the candidate indicators a viability analysisshould be carried out for each indicator using a set of criteria[50]. Indicators should be viable from both a scientific and amanagement perspective [50–52]. Scientifically they should beeasy to measure, interpretable, grounded on scientific theory,sensitive and response specific. From a management perspectivethey should be cost effective, concrete, relevant to the objectives,


www.finding-sanctuary.org




www.plancoast.eu/files/handbook_web.pdf





http://www.marlin.ac.uk/maritimeactivitiesmatrix.php

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/maritimeactivitiesmatrix.php





linked to the outcome being monitored, developed inclusivelyand part of the management process [50]. However, the multi-dimensionality and complexity of natural ecosystems and humanimpacts indicates that all environmental variables cannot bemonitored and incorporated, with several indicators needed todelineate relationships with each management objective [53].

Another important part of step 3 is the definition of thresholdsor reference points against which the status of the indicators canbe assessed in step 4. Thresholds or reference points shouldideally reflect high level goals, such as sustainable use or devel-opment [54]. There is a large body of literature on methods andapproaches to set reference points for ecological indicators [55].For instance, for exploited species, many science advisory andmanagement agencies such as the International Council ofExploration of the Sea (ICES) use limit and precautionary or bufferreference points as core tools [56]. Further examples described aquantitative method to define thresholds for the level of humanpressure for ecosystem components [57] and reviewed themethods to define reference points [58]. However, in some caseswhere a threshold cannot be established the assessment ofreference directions, that is, desirable or undesirable trends inindicators, may be sufficient [14].

4.4. Step 4 — State assessment or risk analysis

State assessment evaluates whether or not the managementgoals and operational objectives of an already implementedmanagement plan have been met. Risk analysis in contrastestimates the probability of not meeting defined managementobjectives, based on the predicted result of suggested manage-ment measures (i.e., management plan existing, not yet imple-mented). In other words, the state assessment evaluates theperformance of a current management through monitoring andauditing, while a risk analysis evaluates the predicted effective-ness of proposed management scenarios. Whether a state assess-ment or risk analysis is carried out will depend on thecharacteristics of a given SMA (i.e., spatial management planimplemented or in planning phase).

Where a spatial management plan is already in place, the stateassessment will assess if the selected indicators are in anundesirable state in relation to the defined thresholds, takinginto account different levels of uncertainty. In this context, theframework specifies the appraisal of the relationship betweenstate and pressure indicators. This comprises also a quantitativeor qualitative assessment on how state indicators are generallyaffected by human pressures or natural processes. Ideally, stateindicators have been clearly defined in the monitoring and auditprocess of an existing spatial management plan. In practice,however, there are cases where the monitoring (including thestate indicators) is not specified. If this is the case, the assessmentshould be based on state and pressure indicators which are in linewith both the SMA objectives and implemented management

Table 3Population trends in Norwegian Puffin colonies in the Barents Sea Management area. Th

for the estimated trend (Monte Carlo simulations, nnn¼po0.01, nn

¼po0.05, n¼po0.1,

marked with grey are under the threshold (pers. com. Svein-Hakon Lorentsen).

Locality Time period Years of data Change per year(%) Trend

Hernyken1979–2010 32 �3.4 –

2000–2010 11 �0.7 0(�)

Anda1981–2010 10 �0.5 (�)

2000–2010 8 �3.2 (�

Gjesvær 1997–2010 14 �1.8 (�)

Hornøy1980–2010 28 2.2 þ

2000–2010 10 �0.5 0(�)


measures. Ultimately, this step allows for an evaluation of exist-ing management measures implemented in the SMA.

In cases where no spatial management is implemented, a firstapplication of the iterative framework will only require a riskanalysis. Such a risk analysis should comprise a sensitivityanalysis of suggested management measures, which correspondsto a formal management strategy evaluation (MSE). More pre-cisely, this requires a comprehensive assessment of how a set ofproposed management measures or management scenarios arelikely to affect the performance of chosen indicators. There are afew tools, such as the ecosystem model Atlantis (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/research/mse/atlantis.htm), which allow assessingmanagement options in the course of a risk analysis (see review oftools in [14]). Another promising approach is the use of Bayesianbelief Networks (BNs) together with GIS to enable the spatiallyexplicit assessment of risks for certain ecosystem componentsunder different spatial management scenarios [61].

4.5. Step 5 — Assessment of findings against operational objectives

This step reflects a technical summary of the risk analysis orstate assessment. It comprises an interpretation of these results interms of the extent to which the operational objectives have beenachieved or have failed. For each operational objective defined instep 1b, the results for the indicator assessment should besummarised. This summary may contain a table with objec-tives-indicators matrices or a description of the findings. Forinstance the traffic light method facilitates decision-makingthrough integration of several criteria [62]. At this stage lessonslearned and gaps identified, in relation to the selection of theoperational objectives and associated indicators, should beextracted and transferred in a structured way to the next frame-work steps (Table 3).

4.6. Step 6 — Evaluation of management effectiveness

At first, the management effectiveness in achieving the opera-tional objectives of a SMA should be evaluated, accounting for thekey pressures from particular human activities. Under step 6, asynthesis of the findings should identify any mismatch in man-agement measures, i.e., why something does or does not work.Here the sources of uncertainty in the assessment results shouldbe reflected and a description of how those uncertainties accu-mulated in the overall assessment should be provided [63–65].This also includes some guidance on how to deal with uncertaintyor unforeseen consequences in time and space. A comprehensivesynthesis should also link to both a description of the level ofstakeholder satisfaction and acceptance, and an assessment of theoverall balance between high-level policy objectives and localobjectives. A detailed governance research analysis will comple-ment such an evaluation. This is because it provides an under-standing of the social and political context, the effectiveness of

e table shows population trends per year (%), trend (þ/0/�) and significance level

n.s.¼not significant. Trends over last 5 years and breeding success last three years

Significance Trend over last 5 years Breeding success last 3 years

nnn

�7 0.0n.s.nn

�8 0.4n.s.

n.s. �23 0.1nnn

�21 0.7n.s.


http://www.cmar.csiro.au/research/mse/atlantis.htm

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/research/mse/atlantis.htm




Box 1–Examples of state and pressure indicators

Barents Sea case study

The puffin population size is a ‘‘state’’ indicator for several ofthe objectives in the Barents Sea Management Plan such asthe preservation of ecosystem state and productivity, pre-servation of viable levels of threatened and vulnerablespecies, and existence of viable populations of naturallyoccurring species where genetic diversity is maintained [59].The reference level for the puffin indicator is based on themean for the last 10 years and on historical data. Thethreshold is defined as a viable population based onsimulations of population parameters and population size,20% decline in population over more than 5 years, orunsuccessful breeding three years in a row. As an example,the threshold of 20% decline is reached if the populationshows a decrease in the last 5 years from 1 to 0.8. (Fig. 4) [60].

Inner Ionian Archipelago case study

Hake (Merluccius merluccius) landings are used as a ‘‘pres-sure’’ indicator to evaluate the achievement of the operationalobjective of a sustainable exploitation of the resource in theInner Ionian Archipelago. Hake landings (kg) were comparedwith the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). The latterthreshold value was estimated using the Schaefer Model,with fishery dependent data from the period 2003–2008.Results showed that landings were generally below MSY forthe studied years, which possibly indicates sustainableharvesting of the hake stock in the case study area (Fig. 5).

Box 2–Examples of qualitative and quantitative scenarios.

Southern North Sea case study

An example for scenarios based on qualitative stories is thedevelopment of renewable energy in the southern North Sea.General scenarios for Europe’s development were describedby two key uncertainties (CPB, 2003); a strong role for thepublic sector versus private responsibility, and successfulinternational cooperation versus an emphasis on nationalsovereignty. It seems that realisation of the ambitions of theoffshore wind energy industry mainly depend on interna-tional agreements, societal demands and oil prices. The levelsof subsidies by (national) authorities highly influence invest-ments in, and therefore the spatial demand of, wind farms atsea. The way in which (planned) wind farms are combinedwith other activities differs between countries. For example,in UK waters they may have an overlap with Natura 2000


existing governance approaches and incentives in achieving goalsand objectives as well as related issues such as equity, justice andthe balance between top-down and bottom-up governanceapproaches.

4.7. Step 7 — Adaptations to current management

The results of the assessments in steps 5 and 6 will be used todecide if adjustments to the current spatial management of thearea should be recommended. If this is the case, the recommen-dations should comprise alternative sets of operational objectives,management measures or even an evaluation of the appropriate-ness of the geographical delimitation of the SMA. Ideally, costsand benefits of alternative management scenarios should bedescribed in monetary terms [66]. If this is not possible aqualitative description should be provided as a minimum. Anyalternative scenarios should be realistic (i.e., based on maindrivers for change [43]) and linked to the respective policydrivers.

Scenarios are collections of quantitative data and qualitativestories (lines of reasoning) that hypothesize alternative futuresthat an eco-social system might face in the near future. Data andstories represent the drivers for change and therefore an assess-ment of the potential impacts of these drivers on both theecosystem and the social system (spatial functions) calls foralternative policy objectives and measures to preserve or improvethe current state of affairs. Potential costs and benefits of alter-native scenarios can be qualitatively assessed in collaborationwith key stakeholders. Through assessing the data and storiesthat hypotheses alternative policies from different perspectives,their feasibility as well as the robust components can be eval-uated. If key stakeholders identify similar components (objec-tives, measures) as feasible and desirable, then these can beaccepted as baseline for the alternative policy scenario. Further-more, any alternative set of objectives may require recommenda-tions on the monitoring programs to allow for the performanceassessment of the respective indicators. The defined alternativeset of operational objectives can be used for a new application ofthe framework. Finally, a general evaluation of the level ofimplementation of the EBM in the area of concern should beprovided. This can be done by relating the objectives to thecriteria of EBM [6]. Potential restrictions on particular humanactivities, which lead to pressures that are undermining achieve-ment of goals and objectives, are recommended from a scientificperspective through the application of the framework and canrange from informal arrangements to temporal and spatialrestrictions and complete bans. In this step the synthesis of theassessment results should be aligned with the results of thedetailed governance analyses in order to evaluate thevalidity and feasibility of alternative objectives and measures(Boxes 1 and 2).

sites, whereas they are excluded in other North Sea countries.It is, therefore, not clear how wind farms are to be combinedwith other activities, such as Natura 2000 sites, in the future.Hence scenarios for adaptations to current management mayinclude the support or discouragement of the development(rate) of offshore wind farms and facilitation or obstruction oftheir spatial combination with other activities.

Inner Ionian Archipelago case study

Here a quantitative scenario is presented identifying candi-date areas for a network of coastal and off-shore MPAs in theInner Ionian Archipelago This network aims to expand thealready existing Natura 2000 network for the conservation of

5. Selection and challenges of MESMA case studies

With the help of standardised criteria, the SMA test cases wereselected which (i) range in scale from a local to a transnationalapproach (ii) do not have strictly sectoral interests; (iii) cover theEuropean encompassing regions of the North East Atlantic,Mediterranean, Baltic Sea and Black Sea; and (iv) allow for acomparison between case studies. In total, nine case studies wereselected showing different stages of the development of spatialmanagement plans (Table 4; Fig. 7). Currently, these SMA casestudies are testing the assessment framework, supported by adetailed ‘‘user manual’’ that provides practical guidance on itsimplementation. Below is a brief description of each case study





specific habitat types and species, according to the require-ments of the EU Habitat Directive. The final selection ofpriority areas was based on minimizing the conflicts witheconomic activities such as fishing and tourism. The ultimategoal was to communicate the site selection approach to keystakeholders, and in cases when consensus was reached,sites were proposed as MPAs. The GIS based decisionsupport tool Marxan was used to identify conservationpriority areas by integrating socioeconomic and biophysicaldata. In Marxan, the user sets a target for the conservationfeatures of interest, which in this case was expressed as thepercentage of the feature’s spatial extent [24]. Conservationfeatures were subjected into the categories ‘‘high priority’’,encompassing e.g., seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica),Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus), loggerheadturtle (Caretta caretta), and ‘‘low priority’’, including otherimportant components of the case study area such as marinemammals, nursery areas for European hake (Merlucciusmer-luccius) or migratory seabirds (Phalacrocorax aristotelis,Calonectris diomedea). For all species and habitats, pre-sence-absence data were used, with the exception of seagrass meadows, where values on percentage coverage wereavailable. EU directives, expert judgment, and currentliterature were used to define three scenarios with low,medium and high conservation expectations. The followingtargets for high and low priority features were used: (a) 60%and 20%, (b) 70% and 40%, (c) 80% and 60% [67]. Thesocioeconomic factors incorporated in the analysis werefishing (trawlers, purse seiners and small-scale coastal fish-eries with nets or longlines) and tourism. Existing ordeveloping areas of tourism were implemented in Marxanas the cost metric based on the General Framework Plan forSustainable Tourism Spatial Planning in Greece (YPEKA,2009). The underlying rationale was that massive tourism hasconflicts with conservation plans whereas alternative ‘‘green’’tourism is environmental friendly. Biodiversity hotspots wereidentified by compiling the available spatial distribution data ofthe conservation features. For illustration purposes the low(60% and 20%) and medium target (70 and 40%) scenarios arepresented herein. For the low target scenario the best solutionaccounted for 32% (4879 km2) of the study region (Fig. 6(a)),whereas for the medium target scenario the best solutionaccounted for 44.5% (6835 km2) of the total study area (Fig.6(b)).A full description of the approach is provided in [68].


with some reflection on the respective challenges and obstacleseach case study faced whilst testing the framework.

5.1. Southern North Sea (SNS)

The SNS case study is transnational and shows a high level ofcomplexity due to the great variation of habitats, species, pro-cesses, human activities, regulations and governance arrange-ments. There is no overarching spatial management plan for thewhole region, but numerous sectoral and geographically definedplans exist, including the Wadden Sea Plan 2010 (CWSS 2010),the sea use management in the Belgian part of the North Sea andthe maritime spatial plans of the German and Dutch EconomicExclusive Zones (EEZs). Thus the assessment framework is testedand evaluated at different spatial scales, nested within the higherhierarchical scale of the SNS. This allows to determine howpriorities change when shifting scale, how the transition fromone level to another works and what the implications are formarine spatial management. A first challenge at the SNS scale wasthe definition of common operational objectives which are relatedto the objectives of the existing spatial management plans. In theNorth Sea, there have been initiatives to assess multiple manage-ment objectives for conservation areas [69] but the SNS case


study has made the first attempt to assess multiple objectives onthis larger spatial scale. By contrast, the governance analysis isconducted in a ‘bottom-up’ manner, starting from smaller-scalespatial management initiatives with clear objectives and con-flicts; these will form the basis for discussions of regional-scalegovernance issues.

5.2. Pentland Firth and Orkney Waters (PFOW)

This case study covers a compact and busy coastal area in thefar north of Scotland, where the deployment of large scale marineenergy and the associated construction operations and infrastruc-ture have started. An intense effort by the Scottish governmentand others to complete a non-statutory pilot marine spatial plan(PFOW MSP) for the area is in progress in advance of a laterstatutory plan to be developed under new legislation [Marine(Scotland) Act 2010]. Objectives for the plan are listed in Table 4.The framework is being used to assess the emerging process forthe PFOW MSP in a rapidly changing situation as wave and tidalenergy devices are tested and deployed in what has become theleading area internationally for wet renewables development.Very little is known so far about the interactions of these deviceswith the environment and other marine activities; the govern-ment has adopted a policy of ‘deploy and monitor’ because of theurgency attached to the activity for reasons of energy demand,the economy and climate change. Two stakeholder workshopshave been held to research attitudes first to environmentalmonitoring and second to the new governance arrangementswhich are encompassed in legislation but not yet implemented.The first run of the framework in the PFOW area endorses theneed for MSP and exposes key issues of governance to whichsolutions are sought such as (i) defining ‘material interference’with public rights in marine space and dealing with the con-sequences; (ii) building an accountable planning regime with anegotiating platform and right of appeal; (iii) researching inter-actions and setting baselines and (iv) deciding how to share thewealth created from the marine commons. Future work under theMESMA program will complete a governance analysis for thePFOW area and develop alternative governance scenarios to thecentralised arrangements currently set out in legislation.

5.3. Barents Sea

This case study concerns a heavily used area with a manage-ment plan in place; the ‘‘Barents Sea Management Plan’’ (BSMP;see details on its objectives in Table 4). Following internationalguidelines for EBM, the plan provides an overall framework formanaging all human activities (oil and gas industry, fishing, andshipping) in the area, to ensure the continued health, production,and function of the Barents Sea ecosystem. Extensive informationon seabed conditions, habitats and biodiversity was provided byMAREANO (Marine Areal Database for the Norwegian Coastal andOcean Areas) program during the plan’s development (and revi-sion). One focus of this case study is to compare the proposedassessment framework to the BSMP process and assess itsusefulness for a sustainability appraisal or audit of the BSMP.The framework was used both to scrutinize the process related tothe Barents Sea management plan (development, implementationand revision) and at the same time test the usefulness of theframework in the particular setting of the Barents Sea. Therevision of the management plan in 2010/11 was based on astate assessment that included new information gained in theperiod 2005–2009 and delivered in reports from the involvedmanagement forums. First results revealed, not surprisingly, thatthe process leading up to the Barents Sea Management Plan, itsimplementation, and revision did not follow exactly the same





Table 4Main characteristics of the SMA case studies comprising the stage of the spatial management plan development, the definition of spatial management objectives, related

monitoring activities and the existing audit processes.

No.of

SMA Spatial management plan Predefined spatial management objectives and sectoralinterests

Monitoringis in place

Assessment/Plan audit

1 Southern North Sea For sub areas developed, Wadden Sea Plan

2010; German, Dutch, Belgium spatial plans,

Danish Natura 2000 site in Skagerrak

Cross-boundary objectives not developed; shipping, fishing,

oil and gas industry, conservation, wind energy development,

gravel extraction and tourism

For sub

areas

No

2 Pentland Firth and

Orkney Waters

In progress Give greater clarity to decision making; reduce uncertainty

for marine developers; encourage economic investment; help

protect the natural environment

For sub

areas

For sub

areas

3 The Barents Sea

Integrated

Management Plan

Implemented The plan aims at sustainable use of the ecosystem, within

acceptable levels of pollution, with reduced risk of accidental

oil spills, with sufficient capacity and readiness to deal with

accidents, and seafood that is safe for consumption, while

safeguarding biodiversity [22]. Sectorial interests are:

shipping, fishing, oil and gas industry.

Yes 2010–2011

4 Celtic Sea Partly under development Objectives not defined; wind energy development, nature

conservation and fisheries

For sub

areas

No

5 The Basque country

(SE Bay of Biscay)

continental shelf

For subarea; Territorial Sectoral Plan for the

Protection and Ordination of the of the

Basque country littoral zone

Objectives not defined; wave energy development, habitat

conservation and seaweed extraction

For sub area No

6 Strait of Sicily Considered but not planned Cross-boundary objectives not developed; fishing,

aquaculture, conservation, shipping and tourism

For sub

areas

No

7 Inner Ionian

Archipelago–

Patraikos and

Korinthiakos Gulfs

For sub areas under development Objectives not defined; fishing, urbanization heavy industry,

conservation, shipping and tourism

For sub

areas

No

8 Black Sea Under development Objectives not defined; fishing, industrial activities,

conservation, oil development, and transport

For sub

areas

No

9 Baltic Sea For sub areas developed; HELCOM Baltic Sea

Action Plan (BSAP); Ostergotland County

management plan

Objectives partly defined; fishing, conservation, and tourism For sub

areas

No


scheme as the MESMA framework, and that important lessons canbe learned from this. In particular, the need for a close connectionbetween operational objectives and indicators, highlighted by theframework, was often not in place. Many useful indicators weredeveloped during the first four year period, which was not initiallypart of state assessment. The analysis of pressure and impact ofhuman activities required both sound estimates of the areasimpacted by different human activities and a detailed understandingof the effects these activities would have on the different ecosystemcomponents. Even though this analysis is an important part of areabased management, the detailed analysis of impact (includingcumulative impact) presupposes scientific knowledge that is pre-sently lacking. It does, however, point towards a very important fieldwhere more knowledge is urgently needed. First insights from theparallel governance research analysis showed that three govern-ment groups were set up to implement and follow up the BSMP on ayearly basis: the management forum, the monitoring group, and therisk forum, where government institutions and agencies partici-pated. Further key issues could be identified such as (i) theimportance of stakeholder power in decision-making, which isparticularly relevant for the Barents Sea case where the interestsof strong sectors and stakeholders such as fisheries and oil and gasindustry are involved, (ii) the cross-border cooperation betweenNorway and Russia, which is a particularly timely topic due to anewly agreed upon border between the two nations in the BarentsSea, and (iii) the use of scientific knowledge and issues relating toscientific uncertainty in the mapping and implementation of valu-able and vulnerable areas identified in the BSMP.

5.4. Celtic Sea

The Celtic Sea case study is a transnational area that hasseveral management plans under development. There has beenincreasing competition for ocean space in the Celtic Sea due to the


designation of MPAs (Marine Conservation Zones and EuropeanMarine Sites) and the planned development of wind farms as partof the UK government’s commitment to install 25 GW of offshorewind capacity by 2020. Preliminary observations at workshopsand meetings indicate that there is a feeling amongst fishermenthat they are increasingly being displaced from fishing grounds inthe Celtic Sea, due to the allocation of ocean space for natureconservation and offshore renewable energy development. Thereare, therefore, growing conflicts between the different sectorsthat use the Celtic Sea. Thus the assessment framework is used toobserve the ongoing process. More specifically, the case studyfollows a nested approach and looks at several on-going initia-tives in the case study area, together with the conflicts, challengesand good practices of MSP that emerged from these initiatives.

5.5. Basque Country (SE Bay of Biscay)

Human pressures on the Basque continental shelf are intenseand diverse including some specific economic activities such asred seaweed extraction [70]. Currently, there is no spatial plan ormanagement implemented. There are only scattered spatialmanagement initiatives in place such as the ‘‘Territorial SectoralPlan for the Protection and Ordination of the Basque countrylittoral zone’’, expanding 500 m from the inner edge of theseashore [71]. The main goal of the plan is to achieve greaterenvironmental and ecological protection of the natural heritageby managing the human activities causing adverse effects. It alsoaims to optimise the coordination of coastal and terrestrialplanning actions between governments, so as to guarantee themaximum efficiency for environmental protection and restora-tion. New activities are foreseen to be developed such as a waveenergy converter which may involve conflicting interests [72].Therefore, there is a need for integrative analysis approaches toselect the most suitable locations for those activities. The






framework is being used to assess the current management andto develop a spatial management plan, on the basis of the MSFDand the preservation of ecosystem functions and services [73,74].The structured governance analysis will be used to observe theongoing process on the implementation of renewable energyplatform building, including interest conflicts between stake-holders and the management measures taken to resolve them.

5.6. Strait of Sicily

This is a transnational case study including Italian and Maltesewaters as well as international waters (high seas). There is nooverarching management plan for the whole region, but there aresectoral and geographically defined plans. The most importanthuman uses are fishing, aquaculture, conservation, shipping, gaspipelines and tourism. Other important uses for which onlylimited information exists are oil drilling and extraction, deploy-ment of gas pipelines and communication cables, construction ofwind-mill farms. Although information is often limited to themere presence, or the location of planned future developmentzones for such facilities, they are of strategic importance and mayimpact other activities in the relevant areas. The framework isbeing used to assess the potential for the implementation of aspatial management plan in the Strait of Sicily in order tominimise conflicts between users. For the assessment high-levelobjectives such as maintaining ecosystem health, which are inline with the MSFD goals, are used. The first challenges for theapplication of the framework to this case study, related toaccessing relevant data and stakeholder engagement.

5.7. Inner Ionian Archipelago and Adjacent Gulfs

The case study area, including the Inner Ionian Archipelagos andthe Patraikos and Korinthiakos gulfs, has no MSP for the whole region.There are, however, sectoral and geographically scattered spatialmanagement plans in place or under development, such as thematicnational (Greek) management plans for touristic and urban develop-ment or master plans for fisheries and aquaculture. In the coastalzone the main human activities include fisheries, urbanization, heavyindustry, tourism, aquaculture, and shipping, whilst in offshorewaters the main pressures come from fisheries and shipping. Grow-ing conflicts exist among human uses like commercial fisheries andtourism, but also between human uses and nature conservation. Thearea is also susceptible to different types of geohazards. For theapplication of the framework high-level objectives comprise theprotection of biodiversity, sustainable management, and the goals ofthe MSFD, the Habitats and Bird’s Directives, and the Water Frame-work Directive (WFD; [75]). The framework is being used to evaluateexisting sectoral plans, identify data and knowledge gaps andrecommend appropriate initiatives (for the development of relevantand meaningful MSP scenarios) to be presented to key stakeholders,whose involvement was foreseen while setting up the governanceanalysis. As yet, results showed that the whole process, althoughthere is a high uncertainty in certain outcomes due to data gaps, israther informative for both scientists and managers and could providepotential guidelines and recommendations for adaptation to supportan ecosystem based management.

5.8. Black Sea

This is a transnational case study with EU and non-EUcountries. The Black Sea region is increasingly becoming a priorityin the international agenda [76]. Regional spatial management isunder development, as the actors involved understand thatcommon problems need to be addressed jointly in order to findeffective solutions. The political set up is, however, different in EU


and non-EU countries [77] and national legislations are alsovariable, e.g., until 2007 Turkey did not have any legal provisionsfor establishing MPAs. The latest Strategic Action Plan for theBlack Sea [78] recommends only the increase of the number andsurface area of MPAs. Common interest, cross boarder issues andpotential conflicts are all present in the Black Sea region betweenthe major sectors (see Table 4). The framework is applied with afocus on the implementation of marine conservation areas (Nat-ura 2000 areas) in Bulgaria, supporting the development of thenational marine strategy, followed by a governance analysis forthe entire Black Sea region. The main challenges identified for theapplication of the framework are the complexity of the organiza-tion of responsibilities for environmental monitoring and protec-tion in Bulgaria, which is divided between different ministries andintra-ministerial organizations, and the data acquisition for thelarger geographical scale.

5.9. Baltic Sea

The case study is nested in relation to spatial scale and theframework is applied to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan(BSAP) at the Baltic Sea level, Ostergotland County in Sweden,and Puck Bay in Poland. The BSAP has clearly defined goals, initialoperational objectives with associated indicators and hasinvolved stakeholders. At the sub-case study level, OstergotlandCounty has several parallel spatial management plans by variousmanagement bodies, for various geographical scales, at variousstages of development. Stakeholder conflicts exist among tradi-tional users of the archipelago, developing industries and natureconservation. In contrast, in Puck Bay there is no spatial manage-ment plan and conflicts occur between fisheries, nature conserva-tion and tourism. Thus a pilot plan and a Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment (SEA) have been developed. The plan has neither beenimplemented nor includes clearly defined operational objectivesand indicators. The framework is being used to evaluate strengthsand weaknesses of the BSAP, to compare and evaluate the currentsituation and existing management measures in the two sub-casestudies, and develop recommendations for adaptations of themanagements. The challenge for the Baltic Sea case study hasbeen to compile and evaluate the large amount of informationavailable as a result of the development and implementation ofthe BSAP. For Ostergotland County, the first challenge was toselect a primary management plan and investigate how thatinteracts with the others; for Puck Bay, the challenges were toinvolve stakeholders and to select suitable operational objectives.

6. Challenges in integrating the assessment framework andgovernance analysis

There are some important differences between the applica-tions of the above introduced assessment framework and astructured governance analysis; the former relies mainly onquantitative methods and the latter on qualitative methods (seeFig. 3). It was, therefore, decided that a ‘two-stream’ and inter-disciplinary approach would be followed in the MESMA casestudy research, in which the two streams of research run inparallel and complement each other in the evaluation of SMAs.However, the alignment of a generic framework using primarilyscientific information with a specific and in-depth governanceanalysis raises important challenges, which are examined below:

6.1. Mismatch in scope

The generic framework was designed for the monitoringand evaluation of SMAs as well as to provide guidance on the






development of management scenarios and initiatives (e.g., theStrait of Sicily). In contrast, the governance analysis in all casestudies is focused on evaluating real initiatives, which can be anoverarching management plan or a sectoral plan with spatialelements, if there is no overarching management plan in place.Though, it is not possible to conduct an in-depth governanceanalysis on management scenarios without a reality base.

6.2. Mismatch in scale

A number of case studies applied the assessment framework toassess multiple objectives and indicators at a regional scale, encom-passing different countries (e.g., southern North Sea, Strait of Sicily,Baltic Sea and Black Sea). It is difficult to conduct a detailedgovernance analysis at such a geographical scale, due to theheterogeneous policy and legal frameworks that exist at regional,national and local levels. Consequently there are different priorities,objectives and complex interactions between actors representingthe interests of different countries and sectors. Hence in these cases,the governance analysis should follow a nested approach, in whichthe regional policy frameworks and governance settings are brieflyexamined as part of the context, whilst the focus is maintained onspecific examples of spatial planning and management at a muchsmaller scale (e.g., networks of MPAs).

6.3. Difficulties in selecting a common objective

Due to the mismatches in terms of scope and scale a few casestudies found it difficult to identify a common objective fromwhich to begin application of the framework or governanceanalysis. Preliminary findings from governance research inMESMA case studies indicated that decisions relating to objec-tives and priorities in real MSP initiatives are primarily shaped bypolitical and economic factors, which are context specific andoften do not follow scientific rationale. In the case studies, thegovernance analysis should focus on a single priority objective, asit is very difficult to assess the balance between differentobjectives and priorities through any generic guidance (seeTable 1). In practice, the integration of the framework andgovernance analysis is facilitated by focusing on an objective thatis shared by both approaches and appropriate to the specificcontext of a case study. The governance analysis subsequentlyaddresses the conflicts between this priority objective and otherobjectives.

7. Conclusions

Here a standardised and generic framework for the monitoringand evaluation of SMAs is proposed, together with practicalguidance on its application. The suggested stepwise process isbased on existing concepts of adaptive management and con-siders a number of practical examples [14]. Although the testingof the framework in the SMA case studies is at an early stage,some challenges could already be summarised. Due to the defini-tion of SMAs, the case studies represent very different situationswhere spatial management plans are implemented or are inprogress. Therefore, a first evaluation of the potential use of theframework and the expected output has shown to be a very usefulexercise.

Thus in cases where SMAs comprise spatial management plansfor subareas, the harmonisation and definition of overarchingobjectives and related operational objectives was challenging.Another obstacle found was the access and availability of infor-mation and data, especially in transnational cases. One of theinitial hurdles of applying the framework was related to the


difficulty in identifying common operational objectives. This wasparticularly evident in transnational case studies as differencesbetween countries had to be taken into consideration whendefining a specific operational objective that is applicable to allcountries that have jurisdiction in the SMA. In some case studiesthe stakeholder engagement process was aligned to the step-wiseassessment process and could therefore provide input for theobjective setting. In MESMA the stakeholder engagement processis part of the structured governance research analysis which istreated as a parallel activity when following the step-wiseprocess. On the practical side, the alignment of the frameworkassessment using primarily scientific information with a govern-ance analysis proved to be demanding. Hence a number of keyissues and challenges have been already derived from the casestudy experiences with respect to integration of the two streamsof research comprising the (i) divergence of the assessment andresearch scope, (ii) mismatch in scale and (iii) difficulties inselecting a common objective. It can be concluded that theintegration of the framework and governance analysis can onlybe facilitated by focusing on one carefully selected priorityobjective, appropriate to the specific context of a case study.Most case studies did not yet fully implement the assessment ofmultiple objectives and/or the interdisciplinary ‘two-stream’assessment approach. Hence final conclusions on a successfulintegration can only be drawn after completed tests by the casestudies.

Some more general challenges for the framework applicationcan be derived from the literature. On the one hand, the spatialscale defined for the SMA and its assessment is important;ecological processes and functions are scale dependent and anyboundaries defined may be arbitrary making the detection ofresponse and changes difficult [13]. On the other hand, thetemporal scale is an important factor influencing assessmentoutputs. An example might include the response of indicators toimplemented management measures [51]. Moreover, informationis not always available at the relevant spatial or temporal scale formanagement. This mismatch of scales makes it difficult formanagers to account for the coupled human-natural systems oftomorrow and to incorporate those into their planning processes[79]. In addition, spatial management measures need to bealigned in such a way that they address objectives from local toregional scales. At a regional scale, a successful example of suchamalgamation is the Great Barrier Reef marine park where MPAsare integrated in a wider spatial zoning plan [80].

In summary, there are many challenges in the monitoring andevaluation of SMAs and a standardised framework with detailedpractical guidance has been lacking. Ultimately, MESMA aims tointegrate the framework with its ‘‘user manual’’, the structuredgovernance analysis guidance together with technical tools and ageodata infrastructure, into a tool box which will drive thepractical guidance on spatial management forward. In the futurethe comparison of the lessons learned across case studies willprovide further insight into the suite of methods and approachesrequired to support the implementation of the ecosystemapproach to marine spatial management.

Acknowledgement

This work is part of the on-going research within the EU FP7program ‘‘Monitoring and Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas’’(MESMA; grant number: 226661; www.mesma.org). We wouldlike to thank all participants of the MESMA workshop held on the26th of May 2010 at the University of Ghent for the productiveand fruitful discussion. Further we would like to thank Oscar Bosfor helping with the art work for this publication.


www.mesma.org

www.mesma.org

www.mesma.org

www.mesma.org





References

[1] Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, et al. Aglobal map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 2008;319:948–952.

[2] Rosenberg AA, McLeod KL. Implementing ecosystem-based approaches tomanagement for the conservation of ecosystem services. Mar Ecol Progr Ser2005;300:270–274.

[3] European Council. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community actionin the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective). Off J Eur Communities 2008.

[4] European Council. Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservationof natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 1992; Official Journal of theEuropean Communities.

[5] Borja A, Bricker SB, Dauer DM, Demetriades NT, Ferreira JG, Forbes AT, et al.Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity inestuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar Pollut Bull 2008;56:1519–1537.

[6] Arkema KK, Abramson SC, Dewsbury BM. Marine ecosystem-based manage-ment: from characterization to implementation. Front Ecol Environ 2006;4:525–532.

[7] Rice J, de Fatima Borges M, Grehan A, Kenny A, Loeng H, Maynou F. et al.Science dimensions of an ecosystem approach to management of biotic oceanresources (SEAMBOR). Marine Board-ESF/ICES/EFARO Position Paper 14, 86 p.2010.

[8] Day J. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marineplanning and management-lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Policy2008;32:823–831.

[9] Rogers SI, Tasker ML, Earll R, Gubbay S. Ecosystem objectives to support theUK vision for the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2007;54:128–144.

[10] Pomeroy RS, Watson LM, Parks JE, Cid GA. How is your MPA doing? Amethodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine pro-tected areas Ocean Coast Manage 2005;48:485–502.

[11] Curtin R, Prellezo R. Understanding marine ecosystem based management: aliterature review. Mar Policy 2010;34:821–830.

[12] Foden J, Rogers SI, Jones AP. A critical review of approaches to aquaticenvironmental assessment. Mar Pollut Bull 2008;56:1825–1833.

[13] Levin PS, Fogarty MJ, Murawski SA, Fluharty D. Integrated ecosystemassessments: developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based manage-ment of the ocean. PLoS Biol 2009:7.

[14] Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M, Lester SE, McLeod KL, Fluharty DL, et al.The many faces of ecosystem-based management: making the process worktoday in real places. Mar Policy 2010;34:340–348.

[15] Young OR, Osherenko G, Ekstrom J, Crowder LB, Ogden J, Wilson JA, et al.Solving the crisis in ocean governance place-based management of marineecosystems. Environment 2007;49:20–32.

[16] Lackey RT. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and UrbanPlann 1998;40:21–30.

[17] Douvere F. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosys-tem-based sea use management. Mar Policy 2008;32:762–771.

[18] Douvere F, Maes F, Vanhulle A, Schrijvers J. The role of marine spatialplanning in sea use management: the Belgian case. Mar Policy 2007;31:182–191.

[19] Ehler C, Douvere F. Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach towardecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commis-sion and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53,ICAM Dossier No. 6 Paris: UNESCO, 2009. (Downloadable from www.unesco-iocmarinesp.be). 2009.

[20] European Commission. Roadmap for maritime spatial planning: achievingcommon principles in the EU. Commun from the Commission 2008:791.

[21] Foley MM, Halpern BS, Micheli F, Armsby MH, Caldwell MR, Crain CM, et al.Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Mar Policy2010;34:955–966.

[22] Olsen E, Kleiven AR, Skjoldal HR, von Quillfeldt CH. Place-based managementat different spatial scales. J Coastal Conserv 2011;15:257–269.

[23] Katsanevakis S, Stelzenmuller V, South A, Sørensen TK, Jones PJS, Kerr S, et al.Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: review of concepts, policies,tools, and critical issues. Ocean Coast Manage 2011;54:807–820.

[24] Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP. Spatial Conservation Prioritization.New York: Oxford University Press; 2009 p. 304.

[25] Lundquist CJ, Granek EF. Strategies for successful marine conservation:integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conserv Biol2005;19:1771–1778.

[26] Foster E, Haward M, Coffen-Smout S. Implementing integrated oceansmanagement: Australia’s south east regional marine plan (SERMP) andCanada’s eastern Scotian shelf integrated management (ESSIM) initiative.Mar Policy 2005;29:391–405.

[27] European Commission. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. EuropeanCommission Green Paper, COM. 2009;163.

[28] Cardoso A.C., Cochrane, S., Doerner, H., Ferreira, J.G., Galgani, F., Hagebro, C.,Hanke, G., Hoepffner, N., Keizer, P.D., Law, R., Olenin, S., Piet, G.J., Rice, J.,Rogers, S.I., Swartenbroux, F., Tasker, M.L., van de Bund, W. Scientific supportto the European Commission on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive:management group report. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg ISBN 978-92-79-15649-6 57 2010.


[29] Borja A, Elliott M, Carstensen J, Heiskanen AS, van de Bund W. Marinemanagement - towards an integrated implementation of the Europeanmarine strategy framework and the water framework directives. Mar PollutBull 2010;60:2175–2186.

[30] Brinkman AG, Dankers N, van Stralen M. An analysis of mussel bed habitatsin the Dutch Wadden Sea. Helgoland Mar Res 2002;56:59–75.

[31] Buhl-Mortensen P, Dolan M, Buhl-Mortensen L. Prediction of benthic bio-topes on a Norwegian offshore bank using a combination of multivariateanalysis and GIS classification. ICES J Mar Sci 2009;66:2026–2032.

[32] Dankers N, Brinkman AG, Meijboom A, Dijkman E. Recovery of intertidalmusselbeds in the Waddensea: use of habitat maps in the management offishery. Hydrobiologia 2001;465:21–30.

[33] Dankers N, Cremer J, Dijkman E, Brasseur S, Dijkema K, Fey F. et al.Ecologische atlas Waddenzee IMARES atlas. 32 pgs. 2007.

[34] Galparsoro I, Borja A, Legorburu I, Hernandez C, Chust G, Liria P, et al.Morphological characteristics of the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay,northern Spain); their implications for integrated coastal zone management.Geomorphology 2010;118:314–329.

[35] Urbanski JA, Szymelfenig M. GIS-based mapping of benthic habitats. Estuar-ine Coastal Shelf Sci. 2003;56:99–109.

[36] Ozesmi U, Ozesmi SL. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: amulti-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol Modell 2004;176:43–64.

[37] Halpern BS, McLeod KL, Rosenberg AA, Crowder LB. Managing for cumulativeimpacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning. OceanCoast Manage 2008;51:203–211.

[38] Eastwood PD, Mills CM, Aldridge JN, Houghton CA, Rogers SI. Humanactivities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of direct, physical pressureon the seabed. ICES J Mar Sci 2007;64:453–463.

[39] Stelzenmuller V, Lee J, South A, Rogers SI. Quantifying cumulative impacts ofhuman pressures on the marine environment: a geospatial modelling frame-work. Mar. Ecol Progr Ser. 2010;398:19–32.

[40] Stelzenmuller V, Rogers SI, Mills CM. Spatio-temporal patterns of fishingpressure on UK marine landscapes, and their implications for spatial plan-ning and management. ICES J Mar Sci 2008;65:1081–1091.

[41] Zacharias MA, Gregr EJ. Sensitivity and vulnerability in marine environ-ments: an approach to identifying vulnerable marine areas. Conserv Biol2005;19:86–97.

[42] Tyler-Walters H, Hiscock K, Lear D, Jackson A. Identifying species andecosystem sensitivities. In: Final Report to the Department for EnvironmentFaRATMBA, MarLIN, Plymouth. 84 pp.þAnnexes., editor. 2001.

[43] Evans KE, Klinger T. Obstacles to bottom-up implementation of marineecosystem management. Conserv Biol 2008;22:1135–1143.

[44] McDonald LL, Bilby R, Bisson PA, Coutant CC, Epifanio JM, Goodman D, et al.Research, monitoring, and evaluation of fish and wildlife restoration projectsin the Columbia River Basin: lessons learned and suggestions for large-scalemonitoring programs. Fisheries 2007;32:582–590.

[45] Ban NC, Alidina HM, Ardron JA. Cumulative impact mapping: advances,relevance and limitations to marine management and conservation, usingCanada’s Pacific waters as a case study. Mar Policy 2010;34:876–886.

[46] Foden J, Rogers SI, Jones AP. Recovery of UK seabed habitats from benthicfishing and aggregate extraction — towards a cumulative impact assessment.Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2010;411:259–270.

[47] Fulton EA, Smith ADM, Punt AE. Which ecological indicators can robustlydetect effects of fishing? ICES J Mar Sci 2005;62:540–551.

[48] Sainsbury KJ, Punt AE, Smith ADM. Design of operational managementstrategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES J Mar Sci2000;57:731–741.

[49] Douvere F, Ehler CN. The importance of monitoring and evaluation inadaptive maritime spatial planning. J Coast Conserv 2010 Online First.

[50] Diedrich A, Tintore J, Navines F. Balancing science and society throughestablishing indicators for integrated coastal zone management in theBalearic Islands. Mar Policy 2010;34:772–781.

[51] Rice JC, Rochet MJ. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheriesmanagement. ICES J Mar Sci 2005;62:516–527.

[52] Rochet MJ, Rice JC. Do explicit criteria help in selecting indicators forecosystem-based fisheries management? ICES J Mar Sci 2005;62:528–539.

[53] Rice J. From science to advice — how to find ecosystem metrics to supportmanagement. CM 2001/ T: 12,15.. 2001.

[54] Rice JC. A generalization of the three-stage model for advice using theprecautionary approach in fisheries, to apply broadly to ecosystem propertiesand pressures. ICES J Mar Sci 2009;66:433–444.

[55] Groffman PM, Baron JS, Blett T, Gold AJ, Goodman I, Gunderson LH, et al.Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or animportant concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 2006;9:1–13.

[56] Rice JC. Environmental health indicators. Ocean Coast Manage 2003;46:235–259.

[57] Samhouri JF, Levin PS, Ainsworth CH. Identifying thresholds for ecosystem-based management. PLoS ONE 2010:5.

[58] Samhouri J.F., Levin P.S., Andrew James C., Kershner J., Williams G. Usingexisting scientific capacity to set targets for ecosystem-based management: aPuget sound case study. Mar Policy. 2011.

[59] Anker-Nilssen T, Barrett RT, Bustnes JO, Christensen-Dalsgaard S, Erikstad KE,Fauchald P, et al. SEAPOP studies in the Barents and Norwegian Seas in 2007.NINA Report 363 2008:92.

[60] Lorentsen S.-H, Anker-Nilssen T, og Strøm H. Bestandsutvikling hos sjøfugl.In: Sunnana K, Fossheim M, og Olseng CD, (Eds.) Forvaltningsplan






Barentshavet – Rapport fra Overvakingsgruppen 2010: Fisken og havet,særnr. 1b–2010; 2010.

[61] Stelzenmuller V, Lee J, Garnacho E, Rogers SI. Assessment of a Bayesian BeliefNetwork-GIS framework as a practical tool to support marine planning. MarPollut Bull 2010;60:1743–1754.

[62] Caddy JF. Limit reference points, traffic lights, and holistic approaches tofisheries management with minimal stock assessment input. Fish Res2002;56:133–137.

[63] Ascough Ii JC, Maier HR, Ravalico JK, Strudley MW. Future research challengesfor incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecol Modell 2008;219:383–399.

[64] Halpern BS, Regan HM, Possingham HP, McCarthy MA. Accounting foruncertainty in marine reserve design. Ecol Lett 2006;9:2–11.

[65] Turley MC, Ford ED. Definition and calculation of uncertainty in ecologicalprocess models. Ecol Model 2009;220:1968–1983.

[66] van Schie N. Co-Valuation of Water. An institutional perspective on valuationof in spatial water management. PhD Thesis. 2010; p. 236.

[67] Maiorano L, Flacucci A, Garton EO, Boitani L. Contribution of the Natura 2000network to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conserv Biol 2007;21:1433–1444.

[68] Giakoumi S., Katsanevakis S., Vassilopoulou V., Panayotidis P., Kavadas S.,Issaris Y., et al. Proposing a network of marine protected areas in the CentralIonian Archipelagos and the Korinthiakos Gulf. 10th Hellenic Symposium ofOceanography and Fisheries, Athens 7-11 May 2012. 2012.

[69] Pedersen SA, Fock H, Krause J, Pusch C, Sell AL, Bottcher U, et al. Natura 2000sites and fisheries in German offshore waters. ICES J Mar Sci 2009;66:155–169.

[70] Borja A, Galparsoro I, Solaun O, Muxika I, Tello EM, Uriarte A, et al. TheEuropean Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodologicalapproach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status.Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci 2006;66:84–96.

[71] Barragan Munoz JM. Coastal management and public policy in Spain. OceanCoast Manage 2010; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.006.


[72] Galparsoro I, Liria P, Legorburu I, Bald J, Chust G, Ruiz-Minguela P, et al. Amarine spatial planning approach to select suitable areas for installing waveenergy converters on the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay). CoastManage J 2012;40:1–19.

[73] Borja A, Galparsoro I, Irigoien X, Iriondo A, Menchaca I, Muxika I, et al.Implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: amethodological approach for the assessment of environmental status, fromthe Basque Country (Bay of Biscay). Mar Pollut Bull 2011;62:889–904.

[74] Pascual M, Borja A, Eede SV, Deneudt K, Vincx M, Galparsoro I, et al. Marinebiological valuation mapping of the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay),within the context of marine spatial planning. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci2011;95:186–198.

[75] European Council. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and ofthe Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Communityaction in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Communities 2000.

[76] Declaration of the Ministers in Charge of Water Management of theContracting Parties tot the Danube River Protection Convention and theConvention for Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution on the Enhance-ment of Cooperation. 2007.

[77] Declaration of the Ministers of Environment of the Contracting Parties to theConvention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution on Strength-ening the Cooperation for the Rehabilitation of the Black Sea Environment.2009.

[78] Strategic Action Plan for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation ofthe Black Sea. Adopted in Sofia B, 2009) (Online: /http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_bssap2009.aspS).

[79] Lubchenco J, Petes LE. The interconnected biosphere: science at the ocean’stipping points. Oceanography 2010;23:115–129.

[80] Jennings S. The role of marine protected areas in marine environmentalmanagement. ICES J Mar Sci 2009;66:16–21.


dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.006



http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_bssap2009.asp

http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_bssap2009.asp




Date post:	10-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas A generic … · The project Monitoring and...

Documents