Deliverable 3.6 zoning plan of case studies : evaluation of spatial management options for the case studies

Within MESMA, nine case studies (CS) represent discrete marine European spatial entities, at different spatial scales, where a spatial marine management framework is in place, under development or considered. These CS (described in more details below) are chosen in such a way (MESMA D. 3.1 ) that they encompass the complexity of accommodating the various user functions of the marine landscape in various regions of the European marine waters. While human activities at sea are competing for space, there is also growing awareness of the possible negative effects of these human activities on the marine ecosystem. As such, system specific management options are required, satisfying current and future sectoral needs, while safeguarding the marine ecosystem from further detoriation. This integrated management approach is embedded in the concept of ecosystem based management (EBM). The goal of marine EBM is to maintain marine ecosystems in a healthy, productive and resilient condition, making it possible that they sustain human use and provide the goods and services required by society (McLeod et al. 2005). Therefore EBM is an environmental mangagement approach that recognises the interactions within a marine ecosystem, including humans. Hence, EBM does not consider single issues, species or ecosystems good and services in isolation. Operationalisation of EBM can be done through place-based or spatial management approaches (Lackey 1998), such as marine spatial planning (MSP). MSP is a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities aiming at achieving ecological, economic and social objectives. These objectives are usually formulated through political processes (Douvere et al. 2007, Douvere 2008). Within MESMA, a spatially managed area (SMA) is then defined as “a geographical area within which marine spatial planning initiatives exist in the real world”. Marine spatial planning initiatives refer to existing management measures actually in place within a defined area, or in any stage of a process of putting management in place, e.g. plans or recommendations for a particular area. Management can include management for marine protection (e.g. in MPAs), or management for sectoral objectives (e.g. building a wind farm to meet renewable energy objectives). Within MESMA, SMAs can have different spatial scales. A SMA can be a small, specific area that is managed/planned to be managed for one specific purpose, but it can also be a larger area within which lots of plans or ‘usage zones’ exist. This definition is different from the definition mentioned in the DoW (page 60). The original definition was adapted during a CS leader workshop (2-4 May 2012 in Gent, Belgium) and formally accepted by the MESMA ExB during the ExB meeting in Cork (29-30 May 2012). MSP should result in a marine spatial management plan that will produce the desired future trough explicit decisions about the location and timing of human activities. Ehler & Douvere (2009) consider this spatial management as a beginning toward the the implementation of desired goals and objectives. They describe the spatial management plan as a comprehensive, strategic document that provides the framework and direction for marine spatial management decisions. The plan should identify when, where and how goals and objectives will be met. Zoning (the development of zoning plans) is often an important management measure to implement spatial management plans. The purpose of a zoning plan (Ehler & Douvere 2009) is: To provide protection for biologically and ecologically important habitats, ecosystems, and ecological processes. To seperate conflicting human activities, or to combine compatible activities. To protect the natural values of the marine management area (in MESMA terminology: the SMA) while allowing reasonable human uses of the area. To allocate areas for reasonable human uses while minimising the effects of these human uses on each other, and nature. To preserve some areas of the SMA in their natural state undisturbed by humans except for scientific and educational purposes.peer-reviewe

Commonness and rarity in the marine biosphere

Explaining patterns of commonness and rarity is fundamental for understanding and managing biodiversity. Consequently, a key test of biodiversity theory has been how well ecological models reproduce empirical distributions of species abundances. However, ecological models with very different assumptions can predict similar species abundance distributions, whereas models with similar assumptions may generate very different predictions. This complicates inferring processes driving community structure from model fits to data. Here, we use an approximation that captures common features of “neutral” biodiversity models—which assume ecological equivalence of species—to test whether neutrality is consistent with patterns of commonness and rarity in the marine biosphere. We do this by analyzing 1,185 species abundance distributions from 14 marine ecosystems ranging from intertidal habitats to abyssal depths, and from the tropics to polar regions. Neutrality performs substantially worse than a classical nonneutral alternative: empirical data consistently show greater heterogeneity of species abundances than expected under neutrality. Poor performance of neutral theory is driven by its consistent inability to capture the dominance of the communities’ most-abundant species. Previous tests showing poor performance of a neutral model for a particular system often have been followed by controversy about whether an alternative formulation of neutral theory could explain the data after all. However, our approach focuses on common features of neutral models, revealing discrepancies with a broad range of empirical abundance distributions. These findings highlight the need for biodiversity theory in which ecological differences among species, such as niche differences and demographic trade-offs, play a central role

The ICES North Sea Benthos Project 2000: aims, outcomes and recommendations

The ICES Study Group on the North Sea Benthos Project 2000 undertook to integrate recent (1999–2002) macrobenthic infaunal and environmental data from various national sources. The main aim was to compare the outcome with that of the ICES North Sea Benthos Survey conducted in 1986, to identify any significant changes and their likely causes. In the process, the exercise yielded valuable lessons for the conduct of international collaborative programmes, as well as insights into the utility of a range of interpretational tools. These are timely in view of increasing requirements for periodic sea-wide assessments of quality status to meet international obligations, such as those under OSPAR, ICES, HELCOM, and EU auspices for European waters. This paper provides an overview of the work which, in contrast to the 1986 survey, was more reliant on the opportunistic gathering of existing data from various sources. This presented special challenges for locating willing contributors, and then for combining and managing the sources effectively, a task which was greatly facilitated by dedicated data management support. The range of interpretational approaches aimed at evaluating spatial patterns and changes over time are summarised and the overall conclusions are presented. North Sea benthic communities appear to exhibit traits both of resilience and adaptability over different scales but continue to be structured by predominantly natural forces. Finally, lessons learnt from the ICES NSBP 2000 initiative are reviewed, and recommendations are made for the conduct of future surveys on comparable scales in the North Sea and elsewhere