Joint ICES/EUROMARINE: Workshop on common conceptual mapping methodologies (WKCCMM; Outputs from 2021 meeting)

The Joint ICES/EUROMARINE Workshop on Common Conceptual Mapping Methodologies (WKCCMM) aimed to advance approaches to support inter- and transdisciplinary science via qualitative conceptual models to inform Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) throughout Eu-ropean seas and beyond. The workshop focused on developing a common understanding of conceptual mapping meth-odologies, their key uses and limitations, and processes for effective conceptual modelling with stakeholders for a variety of applications (e.g. developing food-webs, socio-ecological modelling, scoping exercises, rapid/initial management action and/or impact evaluations). Discussion in-volved presentation and discussion of a range of conceptual modelling approaches and contexts through the examination of case studies. These case studies gave rise to a suite of recommenda-tions, including the development of a workflow for IEA, and more generic guidelines and best practice advice for the use of conceptual modelling approaches with stakeholders. Although stakeholders were not able to be included in this workshop, they were very much at the heart of discussions, with the challenges and good practices of stakeholder inclusion addressed. WKCCMM also investigated how the methodologies can be best used to contribute to IEA, and may otherwise be applied throughout the ICES community, including identifying opportunities for cross-collaboration and knowledge transfer within the network.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Three faces of HELCOM - institution, organization, policy producer

Despite early initiatives during the 1960s and 1970s, and continuing efforts ever since, the Baltic Sea remains in poor condition. The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) is the governing body tasked with protecting the marine environment from further deterioration through intergovernmental collaboration between the Baltic Sea states and the EU. In 2007, HELCOM launched a new tool – the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), of which the so-called ecosystem approach is a cornerstone. However, how and why the BSAP reform was launched, and also what consequences such management reforms can have for transboundary resource management, is unknown. By using institutional theory, organizational theory and the advocacy coalition framework, in combination with content analysis of official documents derived from HELCOM, this thesis argues that the BSAP is the end result of a gradual process of change within institutional structures and actor beliefs. This thesis also shows that HELCOM's capacity to detect, process, and react in response to changes in its regulatory objective has not changed as a consequence of the BSAP. In contrast to earlier research, it seems HELCOM responds better to slow and opaque changes than to quick and visible ones. Finally, by comparing HELCOM with two other similar cases, the thesis shows that HELCOM's adaptive capacity could be improved in line with the recommendations of the ecosystem approach. This thesis illustrates the importance of studying the emergence of new tools for governing transboundary resources from several theoretical perspectives. The thesis uses an innovative quantitative content analysis and concludes that new methods might be required to enable such studies. The different perspectives used here give various explanations concerning the causes and consequences of the BSAP. In a future Baltic Sea, where environmental changes are likely to be abrupt, a multitude of understandings regarding the governance of the Baltic Sea will be crucial.At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Submitted. Paper 3: Submitted. Paper 4: In press.</p

Adaptive governance of the Baltic Sea - lessons from elsewhere

Governance of marine resources is increasingly characterized by integrated, cross sectoral and ecosystem based approaches. Such approaches require that existing governing bodies have an ability to adapt to ecosystem dynamics, while also providing transparent and legitimate outcomes. Here, we investigate how the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), the international governing body for the Baltic Sea, could improve its prospects for working with the ecosystem approach, drawing from the literature on adaptive governance. We construct an ideal type of adaptive governance to which we compare the way in which HELCOM is operating and relate these dynamics to two other international marine environment governance organizations, the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security (CTI-CFF) and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). We conclude that HELCOM deviates from an ideal type of adaptive governance in several ways but also that the other two case studies provide empirical support for potential ways in which HELCOM could improve its adaptive capacity. Key aspects where HELCOM could improve include increasing stakeholder participation – both in information sharing and decision making. Further, HELCOM need to develop evaluation mechanisms, secure compliance to improve adaptive capacity and organizational effectiveness, which entails the development of structures for conflict resolution. Finally, HELCOM need to increase communication and harmonization between different levels of authority

Ekosystemansatsen – praktiska erfarenheter från svensk havs- och vattenförvaltning

Rapporten sammanfattar resultaten från forskningsprojektet ”Ekosystemansatsen – praktiska erfarenheter och nästa steg”. Projektet har undersökt erfarenheter av det praktiska införandet av ekosystembaserad havs-, vatten och fiskförvaltning i Sverige, utifrån publicerad litteratur och intervjuer med nyckelpersoner i Sverige, Tyskland, Norge och USA. Sammanställningen visar att Sverige tagit flera steg mot en mer ekosystembaserad förvaltning, men pekar också på svårigheter. En viktig erfarenhet är att ekosystembaserad förvaltning ställer höga krav på samverkan och kommunikation mellan aktörer och att en stabil och tillräcklig finansiering är en viktig förutsättning. Det finns behov av en tydligare styrning och uppföljning från centrala myndigheter, en mer långsiktig finansiering och tydligare processer för kunskapsutbyte mellan olika aktörer. Det finns även ett behov av att kartlägga bristande överensstämmelse mellan olika sektorslagstiftningar och olika samhällsmål och att diskutera målkonflikter på nationell nivå. Implementeringen av åtgärdsprogram och planer behöver stärkas genom att berörda aktörer ges ett tydligt ansvar för att förvaltningsmål uppfylls och för en ambitiös uppföljning av framsteg mot målen. Det vore också önskvärt att vidareutveckla indikatorer för ekosystembaserad förvaltning som kvantitativt mäter framstegen mot dess principer

Past and future challenges in managing European seas

Marine environments have undergone large-scale changes in recent decades as a result of multiple anthropogenic pressures, such as overfishing, eutrophication, habitat fragmentation, etc., causing often nonlinear ecosystem responses. At the same time, management institutions lack the appropriate measures to address these abrupt transformations. We focus on existing examples from social–ecological systems of European seas that can be used to inform and advise future management. Examples from the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea on long-term ecosystem changes caused by eutrophication and fisheries, as well as changes in management institutions, illustrate nonlinear dynamics in social–ecological systems. Furthermore, we present two major future challenges, i.e., climate change and energy intensification, that could further increase the potential for nonlinear changes in the near future. Practical tools to address these challenges are presented, such as ensuring learning, flexibility, and networking in decision-making processes across sectors and scales. A combination of risk analysis with a scenario-planning approach might help to identify the risks of ecosystem changes early on and may frame societal changes to inform decision-making structures to proactively prevent drastic surprises in European seas

Deliverable 7.3 Marine Strategies for the Baltic Sea : First steps in the implementation of MSFD in Denmark, Poland, Finland and Sweden

In 2008, the European Commission adopted its first legislative instrument for comprehensive protection of the marine environment, the Marine Strategy Framework  Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2012, the first concrete steps have been taken in the implementation of the directive, including its transposition into national legislations and the preparation of the first phase of the national marine strategies, i.e. Initial Assessment (IA) (Art.8), Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) (Art.9), and Setting Environmental Targets and Indicators (Art.10). These steps aim at national marine strategies that will further include a Monitoring Programme and a Programme of Measures. The aim of this report is to describe and compare the different preparation processes the MSFD enacted in Denmark, Poland, Sweden and Finland. Throughout the Baltic Sea region, the preparation process has been supported by informal EU level working groups as well as by HELCOM working groups and projects. While the former WGs have concentrated on creating common understanding and providing guidelines for the process, the contribution of the latter ones has been mainly on providing relevant information (i.e. assessments and indicators) for the Baltic Sea region. This study was conducted between June and October 2012 and therefore the observations presented in this report reflect to the processes that took place up to October 2012.  The MSFD had been transposed into national legislation in all of the case countries apart from Poland in which the transposition is expected to be finalised by the end of 2012. The delay in the transposition process has significant consequences to the preparation process of Polish national marine strategy. However, all of the four countries failed to finalise the first phase of the national marine strategies (i.e. articles 8, 9 and 10 of the directive) by July 15th 2012, as was required by the directive. Furthermore, the directive stipulated that the first phases of the national marine strategies are reported to the Commission by October 15th 2012, but Denmark was the only country able to report the complete first phase of its national marine strategy to the Commission by the established deadline.  The preparation processes and the modes of operation varied regarding, for example, the division of responsibilities in the preparation process. In Denmark and Sweden the responsibility for implementing the MSFD was given to a single agency, whereas in Poland and Finland the responsibility was shared between three ministries and their respective administrative sectors. In Denmark and Poland, the preparation of articles 8, 9 and 10 were outsourced through tendering to national research institutes, universities and a consultancy company (in Denmark), whereas in Finland and Sweden, the related authorities (government agencies and institutes) have carried out the preparatory work as a part of their official duties.  In all of the four countries, relevant administrative sectors participated in the preparation process, however, wider stakeholder participation was organised only through the hearing procedures. The hearing procedure was organised in Finland and Sweden in the spring of 2012 and in Denmark over the summer of 2012. The procedure will be organised in Poland after the transposition of the MSFD has been finalised. Despite of the short – only 4 weeks long – hearing procedures over a hundred comments were received in Finland and over seventy in Sweden. In Denmark, the process lasted for 12 weeks and 28 comments were received.KnowSeas - Knowledge-based Sustainable Management of Europe's Sea

Coping with persistent environmental problems - Systemic delays in reducing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea.

Acknowledgments: The research leading to this paper has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement number 226675 "Knowledge-based Sustainable Management for Europe’s Seas." The research was funded also by grants from the Swedish Research Council Formas Project “Regime Shifts in the Baltic Sea Ecosystem” and the strategic program at Stockholm University “Baltic Ecosystem Adaptive Management Program.” Research presented in this paper contributes to the Nordic Centre for Research on Marine Ecosystems and Resources under Climate Change (NorMER), which is funded by the Norden Top-level Research Initiative subprogram "Effect Studies and Adaptation to Climate Change." The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers whose critical comments helped to improve the paper substantially.Peer reviewedPublisher PD