Key Barriers of Achieving Good Environmental ... - Devotes Project

WP 2

Deliverable 2.2

K e y B a r ri e r s o f Ac h i e v i n g G o o d E n v i r o nm e n t a l St a t u s ( GE S ) Deliverable 2.2 Part 1: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES Part 2: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES Dissemination level

Public

LEAD CONTRACTOR UNIVERSITY OF HULL, UK

AUTHORS Part A - Sue Boyes (UHULL), Arantza Murillas-Maza (AZTI-Tecnalia), Maria C. Uyarra (AZTI-Tecnalia), Husnu Eronat (DEU), Kemal C. Bizsel (DEU), Gokhan Kaboglu (DEU), Nadia Papadopoulou (HCMR), Nicolas Hoepffner (JRC), Joana Patrício (JRC), Olga Kryvenko (MHI NASU), Tanya Churilova (MHI NASU), Alice Newton (NILU), Soile Oinonen (SKYE) Part B – Jonathan P. Atkins (UHULL) & Amanda J. Gregory (UHULL)

SUBMISSION DATE 30 | April | 2015

(Left intentionally blank)

Executive Summary The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC) was approved in 2008, by the European Parliament and the European Council, for "establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy” (European Commission, 2008). The MSFD requires Member States to ‘take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest’ (OJ L 164/19, Chapter I, Article 1.1; 2008). This document forms deliverable 2.2 of the DEVOTES project, reporting on the key barriers to achieving Good Environmental Status (GES). 

Part A comprises a comprehensive review of the documented concerns related to the legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES;



Part B develops and applies a systemic modelling approach to further understand and explore ways of achieving GES.

Part A - Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES Despite a common obligation to implement the MSFD, there are numerous potential conflicting objectives between government departments within and between Member States sharing a regional sea. The legal status and tight time-lines associated with the directive place an immense burden on scientists and on decision makers to put in practice a multidisciplinary approach, and will test the abilities of existing institutions to collaborate on delivering multi-sectoral objectives. Part A of this review looks at some of the documented concerns which highlight the legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES by the given deadline. These include: Ambiguities in the MSFD text The MSFD is a ‘framework directive’ allowing EU Member States the flexibility to interpret GES, defining targets and measures for its descriptor indicators in their own way. Therefore, the achievement of GES of marine waters relies heavily on the interpretation, harmonisation and implementation of the MSFD by the different EU Member States. The ambiguity in the Directives text has led to different interpretations by Member States, creating uncertainty, discrepancies and different levels of conformity and governance difficulties. Examples include: GES: the definition of GES under Article 3(5) is vague and lacks legal precision, leading to over 20 different GES determinants across the Member States with Article 10 not clearly defining or exactly prescribing the difference between GES and targets or how they relate to each other;

i

Ecosystem-based approach: no legal definition of the ecosystem-based approach is provided (Article 1(3)) with a further caveat to ignore this approach in certain circumstances within the text are contradictory (Article 13(3)); Regional Seas Conventions: the directive does not provide any specific direction of how to organise this regional coordination or any specific legal framework/governance structures to ensure policy coordination and integration within a marine region (Article 6), and Exceptions: The unrestricted nature of the exceptions in Article 14 (for example: reasons of overriding public interest, disproportionate costs, force majeure or significant risk to the marine environment) may weaken the overall spirit of the MSFD and the effectiveness of MS to achieve GES by 2020. Reliance and Integration of Existing Policies to Achieve GES Even though the MSFD seems to be the most encompassing directive when dealing with the marine environment, its effectiveness of achieving GES is directly related to the success of other existing EU legislation such as the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSP), Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Habitats and Species Directive (H&SD); Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) and Data Collection Framework (DCF). Ambiguity exists about the role and contribution of each individual piece of legislation in the light of achieving GES. The effectiveness of the MSFD in achieving GES is directly influenced by the reformed CFP. Queries have been raised regarding which policy (e.g. CFP, MSFD, IMP) will take the lead when it comes to weighting environmental impacts of fisheries versus the social and economic effects of fisheries. Resolving the issue of mixed competencies and the question of primacy between the CFP and the environmental directives will be crucial with regards to ensuring the efficient and effective implementation of either strategy and ultimately, achieving GES. The MSFD requires the application of the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities and elements of the MSP directive could contribute to the application of the MSFD and vice versa. Concerns have been raised however over the exact contribution the MSP Directive could make towards achieving GES. The efficient planning of infrastructure in an integrated manner between Member States and crossborder assessments of cumulative impacts is neglected or omitted in the MSP Directive. A barrier to achieving GES can be seen from how different directives use different boundaries and timescales to achieve their aim. A number of spatial considerations and anomalies in EU legislation including the problems created by the overlap in geographical extent of the MSFD with the WFD, Habitats Directive, CFP and the MSP Directive. These spatial anomalies may cause marine areas to fail at achieving

ii

GES and yet still be given the status as Special Areas for Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives respectively. While the Habitats and Species and Wild Birds Directives and WFD will have an important role in achieving GES, it will not be possible to reach GES based on these Directives alone. As they only concentrate on a limited number of species and features and only focus on a small part of the marine environment, some additional measures may be needed to achieve GES targets in relation to those species, habitats and features not covered. Other directives such as the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive will also be relied on to achieve GES for pressures such as contaminants (Descriptor 8) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5), and the application of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. There are a number of EC policy instruments which can contribute to the achievement of GES, in line with the provisions of the MSFD, however more joint effort is required among the Directives in terms of establishing common definitions, targets and a common data collection framework. Activities not governed by the MSFD Two important International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Conventions which will assist in achieving GES are the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM), 2004, and The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto and by the Protocol of 1997 (MARPOL). For GES to be achieved, shipping activities will have to be managed in a complementary way, with International Conventions and Agreements assisting in the task of achieving GES. Current and developing policies (e.g. Blue Growth initiatives) that aim to develop social and economic growth within European seas and European targets for renewable energy may go in direct conflict with the objectives of the MSFD. The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive set a target for the EU Member States to source 20% of its overall share of energy from renewable sources by 2020. Meeting this target requires a substantial expansion in offshore renewable activity which will cause pressure on the ecological characteristics of predominant habitats, increasing the risk of failing to achieve GES for (D6) Seafloor Integrity. Member State implementation With no exact prescription of environmental targets and measures, the MSFD requires the adoption of a programme of measures at the national level instead of the European level leaving Member States to define their own targets. Some common challenges have been encountered by the four Member States analysed in this review (Finland, Greece, Spain and the UK) when attempting to implement the ecosystembased approach.

iii

Efforts were made by some Member States to define GES and its associated targets and indicators in line with other Directives and existing targets already adopted by the Member State at the regional level. However, for most of the Member States reviewed there was a lack of coordination between the Directive requirements (e.g. between WFD, MSFD and CFP) as well as limited national coordination between the relevant administrative bodies, which made the process complex. The Commission Staff Working Document (CSWD) reports that almost all Member States did not establish any baseline and distance to target; the methodologies applied for the assessments were neither coherent nor comparable; and the socio-economic analysis highlighted many gaps in the availability of information. Uncertainties concerning the expected role of the Regional Sea Conventions The MSFD does not provide any specific direction on how to organise the regional coordination and integration, other than referring to the RSC. The directive requires EU Member States and the EU to use the regional institutional structures under the four RS treaties to help deliver some of the key policy objectives of the Directive. However the MSFD does not provide any specific direction of how to organise this regional coordination and integration or the expected role of the RSCs. Non-Member States A further issue lies in the fact that non-EU Member States need not cooperate or adhere to any management measures introduced to achieve GES, and particularly in some cases, there is little incentive to change the Conventions to adopt the ethos of the MSFD, due to the large numbers of non-EU contracted parties. The examples of Turkey, Norway and the Ukraine are discussed. Stakeholder Consultation In most of the Member States reviewed, the public and stakeholder consultation was open for only one or two months and NGO involvement was only achieved near the end of the reporting deadline or process. It is, therefore, not surprising that review of post consultation documents reveals limited integration of feedback provided by stakeholders and suggests they were dissatisfied, particularly NGOs, at their lack of involvement in the MSFD process. This was the case even for Member States where the consultation period was open for a longer period. Some stakeholders also found the reports and reporting sheets to be complex and the amount and type of legislation confusing and potentially contradictory. Recommendations and Potential Solutions The report provides recommendations and potential solutions to overcome the barriers discussed above. These are either currently in place to address the gap or should be considered to help the achievement of GES in marine waters. These include:

iv



The continued clarification and harmonisation of definitions and methodologies within and between Member States and the RSC regional seas. This should be carried out through the use of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) to ensure EU coordination and facilitate the implementation of the MSFD by Member States. The CIS needs to be continually adapted to cope with new challenges through consultation with Member States, RSCs and other relevant actors. The CSWD which dedicates most of its recommendations to improve adequacy and coherence of defining GES and its targets should also be widely used.



The aims of other directives should be utilised as a starting point for GES, with time lags between directives themselves or proposed directives minimised. Clear mention should be made to existing directives in future/upcoming directives, and when necessary to amend existing ones. Member States should be encouraged to systematically use standards already used within other EU legislation (e.g. CFP, WFD, Habitats Directive) as minimum requirements.



To use the MSP Directive to provide a strong tool for achieving the goals of the MSFD, while balancing this with development objectives, for example, renewable targets and shipping routes.



For Regional Seas Conventions to encourage parties to use the CIS and to use the findings of EU funded projects (e.g. STAGES, PERSEUS, EcAP-Med, DEVOTES) and pilot projects (involving both non-EU countries and Member States) to improve regional coordination and encourage the implementation of the MSFD in regional sea areas like the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea.



The continuous cooperation between EU-Member States and non-EU Member States is crucial for protecting regional sea areas and achieving GES. Non-EU Member States and countries outside Europe should where possible continue to develop and integrate the requirements of EU directives and especially the MSFD into national environmental policy to encourage initiatives for integration and assist the achievement of GES in regional seas.



Encourage the joined up development of cross regional targets, objectives and monitoring programmes, to harmonise cross-border targets to achieve GES. Good practice should be taken from the implementation of the WFD to implement the MSFD and setting of compatible GES across Regional Seas.



To encourage good stakeholder engagement in the MSFD process, and in future cycles, to increase the success of the directive.

Highlights of the key policy barriers from this report have been included and reported in: 

Patrício, J., Teixeira, H., Borja, A., Elliott, M., Berg, T., Papadopoulou, N., Smith, C., Luisetti, T., Uusitalo, L., Wilson, C., Mazik, K., Niquil, N., Cochrane, S., Andersen, J.H., Boyes, S., Burdon, D., Carugati, L., Danovaro, R. & Hoepffner, N. 2015. DEVOTES recommendations for the

v

implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1.5, 71 pp. DEVOTES project. JRC92131 

Luisetti, T., Boyes, S.J., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Atkins, J.P., Bizsel, K.C., Börger, T., Carugati, L., Danovaro, R., Eronat, A.H., Kaboglu, G., Murillas, A., Oinonen, S., Paltriguera, L., Papadopoulou, K.N., Petani, B., Pusceddu, A., Saggiomo, V., Scardi, M., Smith, C.J., Vassilopoulou, V., Uyarra, M.C. and Austen, M.C. (submitted) The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: barriers to its implementation. Global Environmental Change.

Part B – Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES Part B of this document reports on DEVOTES WP2 on social-economic implications for achieving GES, Task 2.3.2 Systematic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES. The purpose of the Task was to develop a systemic approach to further our understanding and, thereby, contribute to the achievement of GES under the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Attempts at being systematic compel us to consider the various stakeholder knowledge and value claims, and be critical about defining boundaries of engagement. The systemic approach was built on the integration of two complementary modelling approaches: DPSIR (Drivers – Pressures – State Changes – Impacts – Responses) framework and the Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) process. The approach developed serves to enable the: representation of causal mechanisms driving behaviours in the complex marine system, including factors that prevent or facilitate the achievement of GES; and identification of potential points of leverage for changing behavioural patterns to bring the system towards GES. The development of the model was informed by DEVOTES Task 2.3.1 (reported in ‘Part A’ of this document) and others in WP 2, other DEVOTES Work Packages, and the MSFD 2012 reporting exercise. The modelling approach developed was applied and evaluated in design and stakeholder workshops for a specific case site. The case site was UK’s East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plan Area as defined by Marine Management Organisation (2014 - https://www.gov.uk/eastinshore-and-east-offshore-marine-plan-areas). Along with Descriptor 1 on Biodiversity, the DEVOTES research consortium consider two other specific descriptors as being particularly important for achieving GES, namely food webs (D4) and sea-floor Integrity (D6) and these are also the focus of ‘Part b’ of this report, along with Non-indigenous species (D2) which provides an insight into a further dimension of GES. In Section 2 of Part B, the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to achieving GES and the challenges associated with seeking to realise this in practice are explored. The achievement of GES requires us to recognize the innate complexity of the marine environment which involves stakeholders, who glean an array of benefits by way of ecosystem services. This can be illustrated by using the DPSIR (DriversPressures- States-Impacts-Responses) framework to help frame thinking about the achievement of GES and allows the marine environment to be conceptualised in a systemic way. Work on ecosystem services highlights the claims (economic, social, etc.) of multiple stakeholders and challenges the role of scientists in vi

setting the environmental agenda. However, although the participation of multiple stakeholders may be advantageous, it should also be seen to be potentially problematic. Thus, in recognition of the complexity of the marine system, the existence of multiple stakeholders, imperfect and impartial knowledge, and resource constraints, this task was focused on developing an approach that served to engage and surface different perspectives, share different perspectives, and develop models of the system under consideration that are seen to be valid and useful aids to decision making. To this end, instruction was drawn from systems practice and the problem structuring branch of operational research. Section 3 of Part B seeks to address the challenges identified in Section 2 by providing a methodological review of problem structuring methods and culminating in the design of a multi-stakeholder workshop based modelling approach focused on causal loop diagrams (CLD) to describe and understand the case site. This approach addressed two key considerations: managing diversity and knowledge claims associated with multi-stakeholder participation and boundary critique; and moving from individual cognitive models to shared CLDs and from describing and understanding the system to identifying how to affect the system. A laddering technique is discussed as a way of developing conceptual maps, and the complementary nature of this technique to the DPSIR framework is explored. An exploratory design workshop and the stakeholder workshop are discussed in Sections 4 and 5 respectively. In Section 4, an overview is provided of the process that was undertaken to design the stakeholder workshop. Different techniques were trialled, technology requirements were identified in the form of Banxia’s Decision Explorer® software, and a need for facilitators was recognised for the purpose of model building. Appendix 1 provides supporting output from the design workshop. Section 5 describes the actual stakeholder workshop including the process by which participants were determined, the programme for the day, and the presentation of the outputs associated with models built around three GES descriptors; namely, Food webs, Non-indigenous species and Biological diversity. The underlying premise to participation was that ‘all stakeholders participate in the workshop so that as holistic an understanding of the case site as possible was captured’. A set of 12 critical questions was worked through to inform participation, and an initial list of stakeholder organisations was identified. Initial recipients of invitations were asked to indicate who might else participate allowing the workshop to be rolled out to others. There were 24 participants, including three facilitators, from 11 stakeholder organisations at the workshop. The workshop was designed to offer: an expert view on the current status of the implementation of MFSD; an opportunity to engage in a discussion with and better understand different stakeholders viewpoints on GES; a focus on four key descriptors; an introduction to and experience of building and analysing CLDs using Decision Explorer software; and understanding of opportunities for and barriers to the achievement of GES. Much of the one-day workshop was spent with stakeholder participants working in one of three subgroups modelling and analysing CLDs for individual GES descriptors, with plenary feedback from subgroup vii

exercises. Summary accounts of the development and analyses of the diagrams are presented in the report, developed from notes provided by the subgroup facilitators, the presentations of the diagrams in the plenary sessions at the workshop and subsequent discussions with some of the participants. The models are discussed with reference to the laddering procedure, loops and analysis, and identification of leverage points. Different aspects of the approach are illustrated and emphasised in the accounts provided to demonstrate its potential utility and flexibility in use according to different participant interests. In the case of the food web model, some attention is given to laddering up, laddering down and the loop analysis, and leverage points within the system-in-focus are identified. In the case of the model of non-indigenous species, a post-workshop re-interpretation is presented of the CLD in terms of DPSIR (specifically a recent variant, DAPSI(W)R where A denotes activities and I(W) makes explicit that impacts relate to human welfare). In the case of the biological diversity model, there is focus on dominant concepts. Further development of the models is possible as the model building was constrained by time. It is recognised that stakeholder time is a precious resource and here the one-day workshop is a test on how much could be achieved. The accounts have been validated by the facilitators. While evaluation of any facilitated intervention, in this case a modelling workshop, is problematic, Section 6 presents the post-workshop evaluation by model facilitators and stakeholder participants. The evaluation of the multi-stakeholder modelling approach, including the use of software, does provide evidence that this is an effective approach to engaging stakeholders in understanding a complex environment, in this case associated with GES and the barriers and opportunities for its achievement. Section 7 explores the potential for developing the model and cascading the approach, and includes a set of guidelines, developed during the Task, to promote the transfer and use of the approach to other sites, and concludes with final reflections. Hence, we have developed, applied, and provided a critique of a multi-stakeholder systemic approach built on DPSIR and CLDs, to further our understanding and, thereby, contribute to the achievement of GES. The approach enables an identification of the barriers (social, economic and legislative, together with other aspects of governance including administrative bodies and policies) that can hinder the achievement of GES. It does this through engagement with stakeholders in model building. The models facilitate the identification of causal mechanisms and potential points of leverage for changing behavioural patterns to bring the system towards GES. Thus, Part B represents an alternative and complementary approach to the work on reviewing the current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES presented in Part A of the report. Its focus on specific descriptors and a particular UK case site, also complements the work undertaken in other WP2 tasks as well as other DEVOTES work packages.

viii

Contents Executive Summary

i

Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

1

1. Introduction to Part A

1

1.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Review Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 2

2. The MSFD – Inherent Barriers to Achieving GES

4

3. Reliance and Integration of Existing Policies to Achieve GES

8

3.1 Reformed Directives: Common Fisheries Policy ................................................................................................ 8 3.2 Maritime Spatial Planning Directive ................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 Spatial Considerations across the MSFD and WFD .......................................................................................... 11 3.4 MSFD Descriptors: consistency problems with WFD, Habitats and Species Directive, Wild Birds Directive and others

................................................................................................................................................................. 12

3.5 Data Collection: Systematic and Coordination Problems across DCF, IMP and other tools ............................ 13 3.6 Human activities, pressures and impacts: MSP and IMP ................................................................................. 14 3.7 Lag Problems across Directives ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.8 Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

4. Other Challenges for Achieving GES

17

4.1 Shipping ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1.1 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM) (2004)

............................................................................................................................................................. 18

4.1.2 MARPOL Convention ................................................................................................................................ 18 4.1.3 Other Shipping Issues ............................................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Offshore Renewables ....................................................................................................................................... 20

5. Implementation of MSFD: Member States, Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) and non-EU Countries

22

5.1 Member States Implementation (national barriers to achieving GES) ............................................................ 22

i

5.1.1 Finland ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.1.2 Greece....................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.1.3 Spain ......................................................................................................................................................... 25 5.1.4 UK ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 5.2 Uncertainties Concerning the Expected Role of the Regional Sea Conventions ............................................... 30 5.2.1 HELCOM - Baltic ........................................................................................................................................ 32 5.2.2 OSPAR - North-East Atlantic (including the North Sea) ............................................................................ 33 5.2.3 Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) / Barcelona Convention & Protocols - Mediterranean Sea ............... 34 5.2.4 Bucharest Convention - Black Sea ............................................................................................................ 36 5.3 Influence of Non-Member States to Achieving GES ......................................................................................... 37 5.3.1 Turkey (Black Sea & Mediterranean Sea) ................................................................................................. 39 5.3.2 Norway (North East Atlantic) .................................................................................................................... 42 5.3.3 Ukraine (Black Sea) ................................................................................................................................... 43

6. Regional Cooperation to Achieve GES

45

7. Stakeholder Engagement (Policy & Governance)

47

8. Conclusions

49

References

57

Appendix 1. Common issues across the different policies

73

Appendix 2. Gaps across different EU policies & potential barriers to achieving GES

79

Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

82

1. Introduction to Part B

83

2. Achieving GES in a Multi-Stakeholder Environment

86

3. Problem Structuring Methods and the Modelling Approach

89

3.1 Problem Structuring Methods .......................................................................................................................... 89 3.2 The Modelling Approach ................................................................................................................................... 90 3.2.1 Managing diversity and knowledge claims: participation and boundary critique ..................................... 91

Part A: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

3.2.2 Moving from individual cognitive models to shared causal loop diagrams and from describing and understanding the system to identifying how to affect the system .................................................................. 93

4. The Design Workshop

102

4.1 Participation – Who Involved and Why .......................................................................................................... 102 4.2 Choice of Approach and Focus ....................................................................................................................... 102 4.3 Use of Technology to Support Modelling ....................................................................................................... 103 4.4 Facilitators and Facilitation ............................................................................................................................. 104

5. The Stakeholder Workshop

105

5.1 Participation in the Stakeholder Workshop .................................................................................................... 105 5.2 Stakeholder Workshop Programme ............................................................................................................... 109 5.3 Model development and analysis ................................................................................................................... 110 5.4 Workshop outputs .......................................................................................................................................... 111 5.4.1 Subgroup: Food webs .............................................................................................................................. 112 5.4.2 Subgroup: Non-indigenous species ......................................................................................................... 117 5.4.3 Subgroup: Biological diversity ................................................................................................................. 121 5.4.4 A composite model.................................................................................................................................. 126

6. Post Workshop Evaluation

128

7. Developing the Model and Cascading the Approach

134

7.1 Developing the model ..................................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 Summary guidelines on the approach ............................................................................................................ 135 7.3 Concluding reflections .................................................................................................................................... 137

References

139

Appendix 1 Images of the maps developed in the design workshop

144

Appendix 2 Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing

146

iii

Deliverable 2.2 Report on the Key Barriers of Achieving GES




1. Introduction to Part A The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC) was approved in 2008, by the European Parliament and the European Council, for "establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy” (European Commission, 2008). EU Member States are required to join together in their commitment to protect, preserve and, where practicable, restore the quality of the marine environment across Europe. The MSFD requires Member States to ‘take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest’ (OJ L 164/19, Chapter I, Article 1.1; 2008). The MSFD builds upon a range of mechanisms already implemented within estuarine, coastal and offshore systems across Europe. These mechanisms include the Regional Sea Conventions (RSC), the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC). Like the MSFD, the main objectives for all of these mechanisms is to achieve and maintain a good status for marine waters, habitats and resources, using an integrated ecosystem-based approach (Browman et al., 2004; Nicholson and Jennings, 2004; Rudd, 2004, Foster et al., 2005; Jennings, 2005; Apitz et al., 2006). The MSFD was developed in response to concerns that although existing legislation aim to protect the sea from some specific impacts, they are often sectoral, fragmented and spatially limited (Boyes & Elliott, 2014). The MSFD is the most encompassing directive when dealing with the protection of the marine environment across Europe. The MSFD seeks to establish an integrated framework for the management of marine spaces, and enshrines in a legislative framework the ecosystem based approach (EBA) for the management of human activities having an impact on the marine environment, integrating the concepts of environmental protection and sustainable use (Ounanian et al., 2012). Hence, the MSFD is a unique directive and is the first piece of legislation applied across European regional seas that requires assessing the range of issues that should encompass overall marine environmental sustainability (EC, 2008; Long, 2011; van Leeuwen et al., 2015). Despite a common obligation to implement the MSFD, there are numerous potential conflicting objectives between government departments within a Member States and also between Member States sharing a regional sea. Furthermore, the MSFD, as the title indicates, provides a framework and differences are reported in the implementation by different Member States. The legal status and tight time-lines associated with the directive place demands on scientists and on decision makers to put in practice a multidisciplinary approach, and will test the abilities of existing institutions to collaborate on delivering multi-sectoral objectives. This report looks at some of the


1

concerns that have been documented which highlight the legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES by the given deadline.

1.1 Objective Task 2.3.1 of the DEVOTES project has identified barriers and bottlenecks (policy, regulatory and legislative) that may prevent GES from being achieved through undertaking an extensive review of relevant literature. This has included identifying any inherent problems in the wording of the MSFD and considers the regulatory context within which the ongoing efforts to achieve GES are taking place. The review specifically focuses on Descriptors 1 (Biological diversity), 4 (Food webs) and 6 (Sea-floor integrity) (see details below) but where appropriate, other descriptors have been used to exemplify barriers to achieving GES e.g. Descriptor 2 on invasive alien species. Qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status (Annex I of the MSFD): (D1) Biological diversity: Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions. (D4) Food webs: All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity. (D6) Sea-floor integrity: Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected. This review considers the control mechanisms that might have an adverse consequence on achieving GES with consideration given to potential difficulties in either adopting new regulations or implementing existing ones. The barriers to achieving GES derived from the literature review are summarised in Chapter 8. This chapter also includes some tentative solutions that could contribute to the achievement of GES in marine waters by 2020.

1.2 Review Methodology Two sources of data were utilised for this report. The first used peer reviewed scientific literature which discusses the possible problems associated with the implementation of the MSFD, and particularly the legislative, policy and regulatory barriers affecting Member States implementation of the MSFD. The second data source consists of policy documents and position papers from the European Commission and Member States. These documents provide information on the views of



stakeholders and their perceptions on whether they believe GES could be achieved by each Member State. Searches for relevant literature were undertaken using the following online sources: 

online databases and catalogues (e.g. Scopus and ScienceDirect);



searching organisations and professional networks;



searching the internet; and



a follow up of relevant references found in bibliographies of articles.

The search terms included “barriers, threats, failures, bottlenecks, impediments, competency to implement, risk of failure, adversely affect, problems, governance, achieving GES, Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD”.


3

2. The MSFD – Inherent Barriers to Achieving GES The EU began the MSFD development process in 2002 with negotiations continuing for almost six years. Although a political agreement among Member States was reached in July 2007, critical points of disagreement developed between the European Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the text of the directive. Mee et al. (2008) and Frazão Santos et al. (2012) report on what many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the European Parliament perceive as a progressive ‘watering down’ of the directive’s text. The Parliament wanted Member States to produce joint marine strategies, while the European Council insisted on national ones and that Member States do not need to jointly develop marine strategies (Frazão Santos et al., 2012). As a ‘framework directive’, the MSFD specifies an action plan, providing guidelines and recommendations. Under the principle of subsidiarity, which requires legal competence in the governing mechanisms at the Member State level, Member States can interpret GES and define targets and measures for its descriptor indicators on a national level (Long, 2012; van Leeuwen et al., 2014). Therefore, the achievement of GES of marine waters is very reliant on the interpretation of the MSFD text (especially Article 9 and 10) and its terms by the different Member States. Although allowing flexibility of implementation, this can also produce uncertainty whereby the provision of MSFD responsibilities to Member States creates governance complications and different levels of conformity (Salomon, 2006; van Hoof, 2010; Ratz et al., 2010; van Leeuwen et al., 2014). The lack of common interpretations can cause confusion and conflict between Member States, adversely affecting users of the marine waters (Breen et al., 2012; Morris et al., 2011; Ounanian et al., 2012). Criticism has been levelled at the definitions of key concepts within the Directive, particularly the definition of GES which is vague, lacking legal precision for MS to follow and may ultimately not achieve a binding commitment. The ambiguity in the text of the MSFD has also been criticised for its imprecise and unclear wording which may have led to a sense of ‘disorientation’ by some Member States (Thiel, 2013; Long, 2011, 2012). Examples are provided in Table 1. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines The Ecosystem Approach as ‘a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way’ (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004). Although the concept of the ecosystem approach occurs in many research, management and policy documents, (OSPAR & HELCOM, 2003; FAO, 2003; ICES, 2005; COMPASS, 2005; Österblom et al., 2010; Atkins et al., 2013; Luisetti et al., submitted), the MSFD is the first of the European directives to be based upon this concept, which is related to the ecological integrity of an aquatic system (Borja et al. 2011;



Farmer et al., 2012; Ounanian et al., 2012; Breen et al., 2012). In the context of the MSFD, Article 1(3) provides Table 1 Examples of ambiguity in the Directive text (text underlined).

Examples

Criticism

Ecosystem-based approach Article 1(3), the MSFD states ‘Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities….’

While reference to the UNEP definition is implicit, the Directive does not provide a clear definition of what is meant by this term and how it should be applied by individual MS.

As per Article 13.3 MS are only required to give ‘due consideration’ to sustainable development especially when the cost of implementation ‘would be disproportionate taking account of the risks to the marine environment’.

Since the ecosystem approach advocates sustainable development, caveats such as Article 13.3 can be contradictory as it seems that sustainable development, and therefore an ecosystem approach as well, is not such a fundamental requirement within the MSFD. Furthermore, when environmental costs are incurred, the MSFD does not indicate where responsibility for covering such costs lies (Atkins et al., 2013).

Good Environmental Status Article 1 of the MSFD states that marine strategies shall be developed and implemented with the aim of achieving or maintaining GES.

Considering this is such an aspirational statement, there has been criticism that the ‘aim’ for GES does not achieve a binding commitment.

Under Article 3(5) ‘Good environmental status shall be determined at the level of the marine region or subregion as referred to in Article 4, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors in Annex I.’

This definition is regarded as vague and lacking in legal precision (Long, 2011; Breen et al., 2012). As all Member States are left to determine their own targets, this has led to over 20 different GES determinants across the Member States (European Commission, 2014a) leading to no commonality between Member States. Most notably, there has not even been a commonly-agreed map of the marine regions or sub-regions.

As per Article 9, Member States are required to ‘determine, for the marine waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex I.’

The Directive provides an explanation of GES but without giving any description of quantifiable metrics that could or should be used. The implementation needs to acknowledge that the understanding of these characteristics is good qualitatively but less so quantitatively. Breen et al (2012) state that in many cases the definition fails to provide sufficient detail to determine whether or not GES is likely to be achieved. Strangely, while a lot of work has been carried out within the WFD about the similar ‘good ecological status’ and the way it can be assessed, the MSFD did not take advantage of it.

Article 10 requires Member States to ‘...establish a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters…’

Provides no clear definition or exact prescription of the difference between GES and targets or how they relate to each other. Furthermore, targets are to be defined by MS, which may lead to incongruences.

Regional Seas Conventions Article 6(1) ‘Member States shall, where practical and appropriate, use existing regional institutional cooperation structures, including those under Regional Sea Conventions….”

This terminology allows MS to only go as far as they care to in order to meet the aims of the directive. There is the need to explain what the structures available for use under the Regional Seas Conventions (RSC) are. van Hoof et al. (2012) highlight that the MSFD does not provide any specific


5

Examples Article 6(2) ‘shall, within each marine region or subregion, make every effort…to coordinate their actions with third countries….’

Criticism direction of how to organise this regional coordination and integration other than referring to the existing regional fora such as the RSC. Given its framework nature, the Directive does not give any specific legal framework nor specify governance structures to ensure policy coordination and integration within a marine region. This is left to the Member States through their Letters of Compliance.

Cross-cutting Issues Article 8 Member States should consider the indicative list of characteristics, pressures and impacts listed in Annex III in order to provide an initial assessment for a marine region or subregion.

However they are not explicitly asked to classify their marine waters as GES/sub-GES (Zampoukas pers. comm., 2013). Therein lies a conceptual consistency between Article 8 (Assessment), Article 9 (GES) and Article 10 (GES targets) was also considered to be inadequate (European Commission 2014b).

Under Article 14, the Directive accepts that there may be some exceptional circumstances where a MS might fail to meet their environmental targets or achieve GES either within the given timeframe or due to a number of legitimate exceptions.

Long (2011) states that the unrestricted nature of the exceptions in Article 14 (for example: reasons of overriding public interest, disproportionate costs, force majeure or significant risk to the marine environment) may weaken the overall spirit of the MSFD and the effectiveness of MS to achieve GES by 2020. Climate change may prevent GES being met, with Member States rebutting legal challenges by claiming this is outside its control (Elliott et al., in press). However this clause was strongly defended by a number of Member States where the costs of taking action relative to the benefits could be seen to be minimal (RSPB & BirdLife International, 2008). This provision has created a significant potential loophole in the Directive, but at the same time, some safeguards were put in place to ensure the limited use of this article. For Member States to exploit the loophole, they must provide the Commission with the necessary justification to substantiate their decision and must avoid permanently compromising the achievement of GES.

Annex 1 ‘Qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status’

In many cases the definition fails to provide sufficient detail to determine if GES is likely to be achieved (Breen et al., 2012). No guidance or protocols are given on how data needs to be collected to measure the defined criteria/indicators. In practice, several Member States have just copied the Annex I definitions into their Article 9 reports (Zampoukas pers. comm., 2013). A more detailed definition is required against which to assess the extent of departure from the current ecosystem status, and thus the risk of failing to achieve GES.

the legal foundation for placing the EBA at the heart of Member States obligations under the MSFD (Farmer et al., 2012). As shown by Boyes and Elliott (2014, 2015), marine management is sectoral by both the administration and the legislation, which in itself does not engender the EBA. However the Directive fails to explain precisely what the EBA means and requires (Table 1). For example, deciding when an anthropogenic impact threatens the ability of an ecosystem to function is not made clear Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


(Brennan et al., 2014). Although it is difficult to define what it means in practice, Article 1(3) does allude to an integrated approach to managing the various maritime sectors, as well as a reduction of the pressures on marine resources to ensure the continued delivery of ecosystem goods and services for current and future generations. The EBA will require considerable understanding of the ecosystem, including knowledge of cause and effect (such as how pressures contribute to ecosystem change) (Mee et al., 2008; Morris et al., 2011), which is not yet available on a regional scale. The Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 (COM DEC; 2010/477/EU) lists criteria and indicators to assess GES for each descriptor of the MSFD Annex I, based, in particular, on the scientific and technical assessment prepared by the Task Groups set by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council on the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) (European Commission, 2010a; Cardoso, 2010). Although some additional clarification was provided on the criteria and methodological standards in the Decision, very few standards were included. This Decision dealt mainly with criteria and indicators, and although some indicators are operational and well understood (e.g. fishing mortality), others are more abstract (e.g. condition of typical species) and leave space for different interpretations (Zampoukas et al., 2012). There are no guarantees that the criteria and methodology for determining GES pursuant to this Decision are fair, transparent or effective. These issues are further discussed in Berg et al. (2015) and Patricio et al. (2015). A precise definition of GES is still missing for most Member States, and environmental targets are considered to be vague (European Commission, 2014a).


7

3. Reliance and Integration of Existing Policies to Achieve GES The European Commission has adopted ambitious policy initiatives relevant to the management of the oceans, seas and coasts, to be implemented within the next 10 to 20 years. This includes the Data Collection Framework, Water Framework Directive, The Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP), the Birds and Habitats Directives to mention but a few. The linkages and overlaps between these policy initiatives are numerous, but for the purpose of this review, the focus is on the overlaps, gaps and integration of the different policies with regards to the MSFD, and their contribution to achieving the GES of marine waters. Ambiguity exists about the role and contribution of each individual piece of legislation in the light of achieving GES. Even though the MSFD seems to be the most encompassing directive when dealing with the marine environment, its effectiveness of achieving GES is directly related to the success of other existing EU legislation (van Leeuwen et. al 2012; Ounanian et al., 2012) such as the reformed CFP, MSP Directive, WFD, the Habitats and Species Directive; IMP, Data Collection Framework, etc. Although the overlaps, gaps and integration of existing directives are analysed in detail in the following section it is important to highlight how these different directives have the potential to enhance the environmental status of marine waters, without this being their final objective, but also to pose barriers to ultimately achieving GES under the MSFD.

3.1 Reformed Directives: Common Fisheries Policy The reform of the Common Fishery Policy (CFP) started in 2011 and an agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission was reached on 30 th May 2013. This resulted in a new regulation under the CFP (COM (2014) 1380/2013 of 11th December of 2013), which came into force on the 1st January 2014. Jones et al (2013) and Qui & Jones (2013) summarise the new regulation which introduces several changes: 

A legally binding target to achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for all harvested stocks by 2015. Achieving MSY by a later date can be allowed if this would have a serious social and economic impact on the fishing fleets involved. However, the target must be achieved by 2020 in all circumstances.



Discards of unwanted or over-quota fish will be phased out according to a specified timeline (progressively between 2015 and 2019). Fishermen have a legal obligation to land 95% of all edible fish.





As part of a coherent network, biologically sensitive protected areas shall be established, in which fishing activities may be restricted or prohibited in order to contribute to the conservation of marine resources and ecosystems.



Fishing activities shall be conducted in such a way as to alleviate the impacts of fishing within Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Restriction should be suggested at both the Member State and European Commission level.

The effectiveness of the MSFD in achieving GES is directly influenced by the new CFP. Fishing represents one of the most important pressures on the marine environment, and therefore, the CFP and the MSFD are strongly related. The fisheries management measures adopted within the CFP will be of special relevance to achieve the GES targets within Descriptor 3 (Commercial fisheries), but also within Descriptor 1 (Biological diversity), Descriptor 4 (Food webs) and Descriptor 6 (Sea floor integrity). That is, the CFP influence is not restricted to the fisheries descriptor. As already mentioned, one of the key pillars of the CFP is the adoption of the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for fish stocks. This will contribute to the MSFD aim of achieving GES by ensuring the sustainable exploitation of a species/stock consistent with high long-term yields. However, the CFP does not define clear operative targets to reach the MSY. The European Commission only states that ‘by 2015, stocks must be exploited at sustainable levels that produce the maximum sustainable yield’. These difficulties to define and estimate the MSY could hinder the success of this management measure and therefore, limit the CFP contribution to the GES objective. Appropriate fisheries management measures adopted within the CFP will be of special relevance to reach the GES target within already mentioned descriptors. In particular, the reform of the CFP does not provide fishing management measures to reach the Habitats Directive objective of avoiding the deterioration of natural habitats (taking into account that fishing may impact in natural habitats through the use of different gears). The lack of integration between the CFP and the Habitats and Birds Directives, in relation to the fishing impacts on habitats, limits the contribution of this policy to reach the GES. Aanesen et al (2012) believe that the new environmentally focussed policies and directives are a reflection of the environmental concern in international and European politics and the increasing pressure from environmental interests on fisheries. van Hoof & van Tatenhove (2009) also query which policy (CFP, MSFD or IMP) will take the lead when it comes to weighting environmental impacts of fisheries versus the social and economic effects of fisheries. Resolving this issue of mixed competencies and the question of primacy between the CFP and the environmental directives will


9

be crucial with regards to ensuring the efficient and effective implementation of either strategy and ultimately achieving GES (Sissenwine & Symes, 2007; Aanesen et al., 2012). Qui & Jones (2013) conclude that better integration of environmental concerns into the CFP is needed to strengthen the link between environmental legislation and fisheries regulations. Although the reform came into law from January 2014, it will be quite a few years before the full scale of measures will be fully implemented (Anderson, 2013). Some of these measures will involve the negotiation of further regulations which will then have to be transposed into national law. There is a huge amount of detail to be worked through before the implications of the reforms can be fully understood and whether they go any way to achieving GES. The current CFP, including any future reforms, should take into account the environmental impacts of fishing and the objectives of the MSFD for GES to be met.

3.2 Maritime Spatial Planning Directive To address the competition for maritime space and provide greater coherence to planning in the marine environment (Douvere, 2008; European Commission, 2013a), the EU has recently adopted the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSP) (2014/89/EU) (European Commission, 2014c). This directive will manage and give greater coherence to all activities and uses and users, aimed at reducing the existing over-regulation and administrative complexity within the marine environment (European Commission, 2013a). Its aim is to ensure a coordinated approach to MSP throughout Europe, to enable the efficient and smooth application of MSP in cross-border marine areas, to favour the development of maritime activities and the protection of the marine environment based on a common framework, all under the umbrella of similar legislative implications (European Commission, 2011a; 2011b). The European Commission’s position is that MSP would also be developed in full coordination with, and in support of, current and future policies and initiatives within the field of maritime policy. Any further action on MSP at EU level must include in particular the implementation of the MSFD. Article 13 (4) of the MSFD requires Member States to establish ‘coherent and representative networks of marine protected areas (MPAs)’ by 2016, which include marine Natura 2000 sites, and MPAs designated under national legislation or agreements. Establishing coherent and representative networks of MPAs is the only required measure that is explicitly mentioned in Article 13 of the MSFD (Programme of Measures), therefore it is a core element in delivering the ecosystem-based approach envisaged in the MSFD. The MSFD requires the application of the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities and it is felt that elements of MSP can contribute to the



application of the MSFD and vice versa (European Commission, 2011a). The European Commission believes this new Directive can be an important tool for Member States to support certain aspects of MSFD implementation, including the context of cross-border coordination of marine strategies. However, research carried out by Jones et al. (2013) indicates that some significant tensions exist in the EU policy framework for MSP, particularly between the MSP directive and the MSFD. The MSFD suggests the ecosystem-based approach as a means for achieving GES and requires different sectoral activities to be managed adequately so GES can be achieved (Suárez de Vivero & Rodríguez Mateos, 2012). However in contrast, the MSP Directive envisages the MSP as the main instrument for crosssectoral management, in addition to implementing the ecosystem-based approach, which can provide predictability for future investments (Qiu & Jones, 2013). Jones et al. (2013) compare the ‘soft sustainability’ of the MSP directive where the needs of different maritime sectors are balanced, with the ‘hard’ sustainability of the MSFD in which ecosystem conservation is the foundation of the ecosystem-based approach. Qiu & Jones (2013) believe that the MSP Directive is likely to increase ‘tensions and conflicts in an already crowded and fractured European policy landscape’, where blue growth seems to be prioritised over the framework nature of the MSFD and achieving GES. Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have recently argued that it must be ensured that the ‘Blue Growth’ strategy that implements the Integrated Maritime Policy is consistent with the requirements of the MSFD and thereby be ecosystem-based (ESEC, 2012). Jones et al. (2014) feel the contribution that the MSP Directive could make towards achieving GES under MSFD, such as cross-border assessments of cumulative impacts and the efficient planning of infrastructure in an integrated manner between Member States is neglected or omitted.

3.3 Spatial Considerations across the MSFD and WFD A barrier to achieving GES can be seen from the little effort of the different Directives to use the same boundaries for the different marine regions or subregions. Borja et al. (2013) report a number of spatial considerations and anomalies in EU legislation including the problems created by the overlap in geographical extent of the MSFD with the WFD, Habitats Directive, CFP and the MSP Directive. Consideration needs to be given as to which piece of legislation takes precedence. This lack of consistency to define the marine regions and subregions is critical to contribute to the GES due to the trans-boundary character of the sea in terms of its use, protection, impacts and effects of management measures. These spatial anomalies may cause marine areas to fail under GES and yet still be given the status as SPAs under Wild Birds Directive and SACs under the Habitats and Species Directive. These spatial scales also determine the assessment criteria of the MSFD and the WFD with Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

11

the former requiring GES to be achieved at the relevant subregions (e.g. the Greater North Sea) whereas the latter requires chemical and ecological status at the individual coastal water body. The differences and overlaps of the MSFD and the WFD have been highlighted by a number of reviews (Borja et al., 2010; Altvater et al., 2011; HM Government, 2012a). The MSFD covers all ‘marine waters’ defined as the water, seabed and subsoil from the baseline out to 200nm. In comparison, the WFD has a spatial coverage to include surface waters throughout a ‘river basin’ from rivers, lakes and groundwaters through to estuaries (transitional) and coastal waters to 1 nautical miles out to sea (3nm in Scotland). This gives a spatial overlap of 1nm between the two directives. Article 3(1) of the MSFD states that, GES should be applied to all marine waters except where the environmental status of the marine environment is already addressed through the WFD. Therefore out to 1nm, achieving good ecological status of the waters under the parameters of the WFD has precedence over the MSFD, although the MSFD must be also applied for particular aspects of the environmental status that are not addressed through the WFD (for instance noise and litter). The WFD assessment tools may also be used in relation to contaminants, eutrophication and the assessment of certain seafloor habitats, and applied more widely to the marine environment where appropriate (Defra, 2012a).

3.4

MSFD Descriptors: consistency problems with WFD, Habitats

and Species Directive, Wild Birds Directive and others Whilst some of the MSFD descriptors are consistent with the WFD quality elements (e.g. Descriptor 5 Human-induced eutrophication; Descriptor 8 Concentrations of contaminants), the key difference between the Directives is that the scope of GES under the MSFD is broader, covering a greater range of biological diversity components and pressures which are not included for coastal water bodies under the WFD. Several descriptors included in the MSFD are not considered by any of the quality elements of the WFD (e.g. noise, litter, most commercial fish species and some other biological diversity components such as marine birds, mammals or reptiles) and therefore the MSFD takes a more integrative approach and these elements are included in the definition of GES (Borja et al., 2010; Altvater et al., 2011). In some ways it is still unclear how at the European level existing overlaps are being addressed. Due to the strong links made between MSFD and the Habitats and Bird Directives, it is likely that the management measures to achieve the objectives of the Habitats and Birds Directives will play a significant role in achieving the GES targets for Descriptors 1 (Biological diversity), 4 (food webs) and 6 (sea-floor integrity).



Member States will still depend on other directives such as the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive to achieve GES for pressures such as contaminants (Descriptor 8) and eutrophication (Descriptor 5).

3.5

Data Collection: Systematic and Coordination Problems

across DCF, IMP and other tools A key pillar of the CFP is the ambitious data collection framework (DCF) 1, established in the context of the last CFP, which helps with the implementation of the MSFD, especially in relation to Descriptors 1 (biodiversity), 3 (commercial fish) and 4 (food-webs). However, the implementation of the DCF required huge financial support and several countries lacked in compliance, which hindrance achieving the established target within the MSFD. One of the reasons to why the EU has been failing to deliver on the ecosystem approach to fisheries management is the lack of systematic and coordinated data collection on the impacts of fisheries on marine ecosystems, across different directives. All of them indicate that Member States shall organise the collection of the best available data and exchange information necessary for maritime spatial plans. An integrated data program is promoted within EU policies, in particular, the European Commission promoted the implementation of a Data Collection Regulation (DCR), which provides data to estimate some MSFD indicators, mainly related to the Descriptor 3 about commercially exploited fish and shellfish. This initiative meshed with others; for instance, the IMP is based on the so-called European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) tool. The implementation of EMODnet is a challenge and will be extremely useful, but issues, such as the share of data by Member States and technical difficulties to obtain data from the database, can limit its use (EMODnet Impact Assessment SEC (2010) 998 final). Habitats and Bird Directives also contain data requirements but, no coordination with the DCR and the CFP seems to exist. EU policies fail to provide measures/tools to improve problems surrounding the EU integrated and coordinated data strategy, which represent an important gap and the most

1

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:060:0001:0012:EN:PDF The Data Collection Framework establishes rules on (a) the collection and management, in the framework of multiannual programmes, of biological, technical, environmental and socio-economic data concerning the fisheries sector; (b) the use of data concerning the fisheries sector in the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (hereinafter referred to as the CFP), for the purpose of scientific analysis. Furthermore, it also lays down provisions for the improvement of the scientific advice needed for the implementation of the CFP. Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

13

important barrier to provide provisions from different Directives to achieve the GES objective of the MSFD. In 2014, the European Commission released a report about the first phase of the implementation of the MSFD (European Commission, 2014a; 2014b). In this report, the European Commission has identified several shortcomings that Member States should, as soon as possible and by 2018 at the latest, significantly improve to ensure that the second round of MSFD implementation yields greater benefits. In particular, the European Commission states the implementation of a modern and effective data and information sharing system between the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the Regional Seas Conventions (RSC). Taking full advantage of the ongoing developments to improve accessibility and interoperability of marine data through the ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ initiative is essential.

3.6 Human activities, pressures and impacts: MSP and IMP A potential weakness to achieving GES is also identified when looking at the different degree of maritime activities covered within the Directives. The MSP Directive specifies that Member States shall identify the spatial and temporal distribution of relevant existing and future activities and uses in their marine waters (Article 8), with relevant activities including for example oil and gas extractions, maritime transport, submarine cable and pipeline routes, fishing and aquaculture, natural conservation sites, etc. The IMP also specifies that it is necessary to address the challenges that emerge from the growing competing uses of the sea, ranging from maritime transport, fishing, aquaculture, leisure activities, off-shore energy production and other forms of seabed use. However, the MSFD does not specify which maritime activities have to be considered, but the pressures and impacts that should be assessed (Annex III of the MSFD). Suggestions on how the MSFD should consider maritime activities are provided in Patricio et al. (2015). This is of special relevance in the context of developing the initial assessment of the pressures and impacts including human activities, established by the MSFD (Art. 8).

3.7 Lag Problems across Directives Lag problems could also pose difficulties in supporting the achievement of GES. For instance, it is worth mentioning that the large number of future proposals in which the IMP is based could hinder the development of the MSFD due to a lag problem. In general, links among Directives, especially between the MSFD and the rest of the Directives should be explicitly supported by operative tools which make easier and practical the implementation the Directives by the countries. Lag problem in these tool application or developments could represent an important barrier, which affects both the Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


implementation of future directives as well as existing implemented ones, which may be difficult to amend and update procedures (e.g. the EMODnet tool applications).

3.8 Summary The previous subsections provide good evidence of how the different EC policy instruments can contribute to the achievement of GES, in line with the provisions of the MSFD. However, more joint effort is required among the Directives in terms of establishing common definitions, targets, a common data collection framework, a common list of maritime activities which impact on the habitats, among other issues. For example the Wild Birds and Habitats and Species Directives promote the protection of certain marine species and habitats, which ultimately will positively affect their status providing further benefits to associated ecosystems linked to the Biological diversity and seafloor integrity descriptors (D1 and D6, MSFD). The CFP encourages the sustainable use of fish stocks (fish stocks should be exploited at the Maximum Sustainable Yield), which is compatible with Descriptor 3, which states that ‘populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock’. These two examples provide good evidence of how these EC policy instruments can contribute to the achievement of GES, in line with the provisions of the MSFD. Better coordination between the MSFD and the WFD, but also the Habitats and Birds Directives (HBD) and the reformed CFP is needed since they are clearly interrelated, and particular concepts can be mutually supportive. In addition to the above, the MSP Directive that will require Member States to replace their fragmented, sector-based system of maritime decision making with an integrated approach, should facilitate the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities at sea, and it should assist the MSFD in achieving GES by 2020 in a framework of sustainable use of marine space and resources. However, it should be pointed out that although NGOs in their Joint Position Paper (ANON, 2013) have supported MSP as a good tool to deliver further goals, notably GES under the MSFD, they consider that the MSFD provides the framework for the sustainable use of Europe’s seas and oceans, including a specific requirement for the use of spatial measures, that ecosystem considerations are at the heart of all sector-based planning decisions. Taking into account the above issues with the reliance and integration with other EU Directives and policies, Appendix 1 focuses on five key aspects of the MSFD which have strong links with other directives. Text has been extracted directly from the different directives with the purpose of having clear references to where the overlaps, gaps and integration occur. Appendix 2 then summarise the


15

legal text into the main outcomes of this analysis in terms of the main common issues and main gaps and barriers across the different policies.



4. Other Challenges for Achieving GES 4.1 Shipping The EU is highly dependent on maritime transport and seaports for both its internal and external trade and shipping is an important contributor to the European economy and the quality of life of European citizens (HPCEU, 2014). Under the blue growth initiative this sector (particularly yachting and the cruise industry) is expected to further grow, exploiting the untapped job potential of Europe's oceans, seas and coasts. The ‘Motorways of the Sea’ initiative (European Commission, 2004a&b) is also looking at further developing intermodal more sustainable and efficient maritimebased logistics chains in Europe. While curbing mobility is not an option and lifting barriers to short sea shipping is discussed, it is also recognised that the transport sector must reduce its negative impact on the environment and key assets like water, land and ecosystems (European Commission, 2011c). Environmental pressures from shipping are however likely to grow as the sector is expected to continue to grow even under high oil price scenarios (Boteler et al. 2014). The shipping sector is facing significant challenges in relation to strengthened environmental requirements both at sea and in air, as its diverse activities cause numerous multiple pressures on the marine environment (Knights et al., 2011). Major pressures related to shipping include the introduction of alien species, marine noise, introduction of pathogens, abrasion, marine litter, death or injury by collision, and the introduction of synthetic and non-synthetic compounds. Multiple levels of governance are required and used to regulate the sector, its activities and pressures and to take action/inform on/enforce management measures. Shipping is regulated by a combination of standard setting at the international level by the IMO, a United Nations body established in 1948 for improving safety and security of shipping and for preventing marine pollution from ships, and through national implementation of shipping legislation through flag states. IMO Conventions become binding upon governments who have ratified them and enforcement depends upon the governments of Member Parties. These conventions regulating commercial shipping will be influential to achieving GES (Salomon & Dross, 2013). Two important IMO Conventions which will assist in achieving GES are the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM), 2004, and The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto and by the Protocol of 1997 (MARPOL).


17

4.1.1

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships'

Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM) (2004) The BWM Convention was adopted in 2004, but has not yet entered into force (as of April 2015). Although the minimum number of Contracting States/Parties has been reached (43), the required percentage of world tonnage is still short (32.54% of the 35% required) to activate the agreement. The BWM Convention is relevant to Descriptor 2 (Non-indigenous species) and Descriptors 1 (Biological diversity) and 6 (Sea-floor integrity) and to prevent new introductions, proper management of the pathways of introduction of alien species is urgently needed, such as the entry into force of the BWM Convention (Katsanevakis et al., 2014). Recognising the risks associated with further alien introductions and the need for preventive measures, until the BWM is in force, voluntary interim ballast water management regulations have been agreed by various countries (e.g. IMO BWM.2/Circ 35: Harmonised voluntary arrangements for ballast water management in the Mediterranean region) and General Guidance has been compiled on the Voluntary Interim Application of the D1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard by vessels operating between the Mediterranean Sea and the North- East Atlantic and/or the Baltic Sea (OSPAR, 2010a). This Guidance does not replace the requirements of the BWM Convention, but provide the part of interim Ballast Water Regional Management Strategies for the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the NorthEast Atlantic, being developed under Article 13 (3) of the BWM Convention by the contracting parties to either the OSPAR Convention, the Helsinki Convention or the Barcelona Convention (see for example UNEP/MAP, 2011). It is worth noting that ballast water exchange is only seen as an interim solution or part of the solution due to its limited effectiveness and the water depth and distance from shore requirements under the BWM (David & Gollasch, 2008). On the other hand, ballast water treatment systems, while aiming at a reduction of aquatic species invasions and their negative impacts on ecosystems and resources, bring about new challenges for environmental and public health protection through the treatment methods used. Hazards include long-term toxicity of disinfection by-products, induction of genetic damage to biota, and environmental and occupational (ship crew, port) and nonoccupational human exposure (Werschkun et al., 2014). Finally, the gains from BWM contribute significantly to halting new alien introductions while to achieve GES, all species introduced by human activities should be at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems, i.e. GES includes existing introductions and subsequent spread.

4.1.2 MARPOL Convention



The MARPOL Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimising pollution from ships - both accidental pollution and from routine operations - and currently includes six technical Annexes. These concern various forms of pollution, including sewage and garbage, and their measures are primarily relevant to eutrophication (D5), litter (D10) and contaminants (D8 & D9) descriptors. Annex V of MARPOL totally prohibits the disposal of plastics anywhere into the sea, expressly mentioning synthetic fishing nets inter alia, and severely restricts discharges of other garbage (food, domestic and operational wastes excluding fresh fish) from ships into coastal waters and "Special Areas". There are numerous very large special areas established under the Annex including the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea Area, the Black Sea Area and the North Sea. Despite best intentions and high standards, enforcement and compliance is suboptimal, as evidenced from numerous seabed and floating litter studies recording both plastic garbage and discarded fishing nets (Pham et al. 2014) while regulations themselves might apply under certain conditions such as vessel size. For example, requirements for waste management plans and garbage record books might exclude certain segments such as smaller fishing vessels (Healthy Seas, 2013). Litter is a multifaceted problem touching upon biodiversity issues. This includes species entanglement in derelict and ghost fishing nets, ingestion of plastics (Katsanevakis, 2008; Galgani et al., 2013) and even facilitating further spread of alien species (Barnes, 2002). There are numerous examples of entangled fish, seabirds and cetaceans (Strand et al., 2014) and findings demonstrating ingestion of plastic bags by turtles and smaller plastics by even deep-sea fish (Anastasopoulou et al., 2013) with recent and on-going research looking at microplastics ingestion. Enforcing the MARPOL prohibitions will contribute to reducing the litter amounts found in the marine environment and towards GES. However, a lot more is required to achieving GES and any sizable reduction targets. Multiple regional efforts (e.g. DeFISHGear Adriatic Mega Region IPA Adriatic Project and MARLISCO project Marine Litter in European Seas - Social Awareness and Co-Responsibility), frameworks and initiatives (e.g. Regional Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Mediterranean Sea (UNEP/MAP, 2014), Regional Action Plan (RAP) for Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR, 2014) are additionally underway and building actions in synergy (e.g. EEA’s Marine LitterWatch app empowering communities) to tackle the marine litter problem as its importance is now widely recognized (JRC, 2011; Strand et al., 2014). Although plastic waste, representing the majority of marine litter, is not specifically addressed by EU legislation yet, the Commission is working on closing this gap as well (see European Commission, 2013b). The EU has increasingly operated as a driving force behind the adoption of stringent IMO standards and by generating compliance with standards copied into a binding Directive and using the Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

19

infringement procedure (van Leeuwen & Kern, 2013). EU shipping policies affect both ships registered in the EU and all ships that carry goods to and from EU ports. The Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO on the other hand, can work with coastal states and flag states to identify and establish Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) in territorial waters, international waters and in straits (see http://pssa.imo.org/#/pssas). Upon designation of a PSSA, an Associated Protective Measure is adopted by IMO to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the threat or identified vulnerability, and these can include ship routing and ship reporting. The PSSA instrument (among others e.g. SACs, SPAMI Sanctuaries) and ship re-routing and speed reduction measures can be important tools in reducing risks to marine mammals through reduced chance for collisions (Abdulla & Linden, 2008).

4.1.3 Other Shipping Issues Despite synergies and advances in environmental policies, a number of gaps related to biodiversity, food webs and sea-floor integrity conservation still do exist, namely concerning selection of fishing gears, underwater noise, abrasion and shading (Boteler et al., 2014). Various types of shipping have been, for example, linked to physical adverse effects to marine habitats through vessel grounding, hull abrasion, propeller scarring, repeated port anchoring and leisure boat mooring (Abdulla & Linden, 2008; Boudouresque et al., 2012). For GES to be achieved, shipping activities will have to be managed in a complementary way, with International Conventions and Agreements assisting in the task of achieving GES.

4.2 Offshore Renewables Current policies that aim to develop social and economic growth within European seas e.g. offshore renewable energy (European Commission, 2004a) and particularly activities promoted under the Blue Growth Agenda such as large-scale offshore aquaculture, seabed mining and blue biotechnology, have been highlighted as rapidly developing sectors for which there is currently limited regulation and little is known about the ecosystems in which the activities take place (Boyes & Elliott, 2014). These developing marine sectors may also require additional governance if amendments to existing legislation are unfeasible and may be in direct opposition to the environmental targets required to be met under the MSFD. European targets for renewable energy may be a hindrance to the objectives of the MSFD and increase the likely risk of failure to meet GES. For example, in requiring to protect sea floor integrity under Descriptor 6, a conflict of interest may arise due to obligations under other EU policy drivers the development of renewable energy. The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) set a



target for the EU Member States to source 20% of its overall share of energy from renewable sources by 2020. Across Europe, national targets have been set in support of the EU goals (European Commission, 2010b; ECCC, 2011). Meeting this target requires a substantial expansion in activities, with offshore renewables playing an important role in EU policy (DECC, 2011; Knights et al, 2011). The KNOWSEAS EU FP7 project concluded that the renewables sector provides an interesting dichotomy between the need to meet policy for sustainable development, for example the requirements of international conventions like the World Summit on Sustainable Development (UN, 2002), but also for environmental protection and meeting environmental targets set through EU environmental legislation. Knights et al. (2011) state ‘there is a direct conflict in needing to achieve GES for Seafloor Integrity (D6) and meeting international directives and regional policies for producing energy in a sustainable manner’. Long (2013) concludes that while MSFD provides Member States a valuable and much needed opportunity to consider offshore wind farms in their overall assessment of the pressure and impacts on the marine environment, much remains to be done to streamline licensing, to resolve regulatory uncertainty concerning matters such as risk assessment and the adoption of site-specific contingency plans and to minimise the long-term impacts of the wind industry on the natural environment.


21

5.

Implementation

of

MSFD:

Member

States,

Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) and non-EU Countries 5.1 Member States Implementation (national barriers to achieving GES) Framework directives are the principal means of regulatory intervention under the EU’s environmental policy and allow Member States a degree of control and considerable discretion as to how the policy is transposed into national legislation (van Leeuwen et al., 2012). With no exact prescription of environmental targets and measures, the MSFD requires the adoption of a programme of measures at the national level instead of the European level leaving Member States to define their own targets (Long, 2012; van Leeuwen et al., 2012). It is also hoped that in designating their own marine measures, Member States will also work together with other neighbouring Member States (Ounanian et al., 2012). Long (2012) highlights one obvious weakness with a framework directive approach in which a number of EU Member States have tardy records when it comes to meeting their requirements under EU directives, and consequently this type of instrument would not appear to be the most appropriate for the task at hand. For those Member States with a poor record of implementing EU Directives, the long timeframe over which GES has to be achieved may lead to an even more delayed response (Mee et al., 2008). Long (2011) argues that the failure of most MS to meet the initial transposition deadline does not give confidence for the long-term success of the Directive. Paragraph 29(4) of the Directive preamble (EU, 2008) recognises that achieving GES may not be possible for all ecosystem components by 2020, and that Member States are not required to take steps to mitigate threats when there is no significant risk to the marine environment (Paragraph 11 (4)). However ‘failure’ to meet the Directive’s requirements only occurs when management measures are not implemented to address an identified threat (Article 11 (4)). Breen et al. (2012) believe that the need to rationalise resource use may lead to the prioritisation of issues by Member States of management measures most likely to have a beneficial effect. Both Long (2011) and Bainbridge et al. (2011) state that most of the burden associated with the implementation of the MSFD is firmly placed on the shoulders of the national bodies and regulatory agencies in the Member States. Therefore the long-term success of the MSFD as a regulatory Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


instrument is very much dependent on the resources (finances and expertise) that are made available for achieving the objectives of the instrument in the Member States (Long, 2011; Thiel, 2013). In contrast, the Commission has a supervisory role regarding the definition of GES, the adoption of environmental targets and indicators, as well as the implementation of the monitoring programme and the programme of measures for achieving or maintaining GES by 2020. The MSFD requires Member States to: 

carry out an initial assessment of the current status of their seas (Article 8), determine specific characteristics of GES for their marine waters (Article 9) and set out specific environmental targets and indicators (Article 10);



put in place monitoring programmes to measure progress towards GES (Article 11); and



develop and implement management measures to achieve GES by 2020 (Article 13).

In 2014, the European Commission published its analysis of the first phase of the implementation of the MSFD by Member States. The European Commission expressed significant reservations about Member States’ achievements to date and concluded that much more progress needs to be made to ‘avoid an insufficient, inefficient, piecemeal and unnecessarily costly approach to the protection of the marine environment’ (European Commission, 2014b). The initial assessment of Member States’ reports gives rise to concern that their ‘definition of good environmental status and the path they set out to achieve it shows overall limited ambition, often fails to take into account existing obligations and standards and lacks coherence across the Union, even between neighbouring countries within the same marine region’. Member States have also taken different approaches to reporting, making the comparability between Member States low and making a coordinated action and analysis difficult. The Commission concludes that it will therefore ‘be challenging not only to achieve Good Environmental Status by 2020, but even to know how far we are from meeting the objective’. Understanding the governance structures relevant to implementation in each Member State will indicate the governance impediments. Given the ambitious objectives of the MSFD, some challenges for this first phase of implementation were anticipated by the Commission in the text of the Directive and the documents produced by the working groups; others are reported in the literature (Bigagli, 2015; Freire-Gibb et al., 2014; Hendriksen et al., 2014; van Leeuwen et al., 2014). The following sections detail the status of the implementation process of a selection of Member States and any legislative or administrative issues they have experienced.


23

5.1.1 Finland In Finland the MSFD has been transposed into legislation by updating the existing law that implemented the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD). The Law on Water Resources and Marine Environment Management (272/2011) has been further supplemented with an Act on Marine Environment Management (980/2011). The Ministry of Environment prepares the national marine strategy in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Transport and Communication. The strategy covers Finnish territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone in the Baltic Sea. The Initial Assessment was conducted by the Ministry of Environment, Finnish Environment Institute and the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY Centres). In addition, experts and researchers from sectorial research institutes provided their expertise and data. The schedule for the Initial Assessment was considered tight. Due to time limitations the assessment was based on existing data and no new data analyses were conducted. The Initial Assessment of the environmental status is based on coastal water classifications under the WFD, Birds and Habitat directives and the several assessments carried out in the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM). The Law on Water Resources and Marine Environment Management requires an impact assessment of the marine strategy. In the first phase, the impact assessment was limited only in assessing environmental effects. In the third phase, when the program of measures will be set, the impact assessment will be extended to social and economic effects as well. The public hearing of the Initial Assessment included both the Initial Assessment and the impact assessment. The public hearing was rather short lasting only one month from 16th April to 15th May 2012. A public hearing will also be organised during the second and the third implementation phase of the MSFD.

5.1.2 Greece The MSFD was transposed into the Greek national legislation in June 2011 with the Law No. 3983/2011 ‘National strategy for the protection and management of the marine environment – Harmonization with Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 of European Parliament and Council and other provisions’. To fulfil the MSFD aims, the Law 3983/2011 establishes a framework for taking the necessary steps and measures to achieve or maintain GES in the marine environment of Greece by 2020 at the latest. The framework includes development and implementation of ‘marine strategies’ that are bound to timelines and six-year cycles of re-assessment and update. The MSFD is being implemented at the country level in the marine waters of Greece, which are under the sovereignty



of the Greek Republic or within which, it exercises sovereign rights or jurisdiction, an integral part of the marine area of the Mediterranean. A review was undertaken by Laroche et al. (2013) of the methodological elements reported by the European Mediterranean and Black Sea countries in their draft Initial Assessments and GES reports. This review highlighted gaps for the majority of MSFD descriptors, and the Greek Initial Assessment (IA) was no exception. Indeed, lack of data, which in many cases were sporadic and fragmented, and knowledge, especially concerning the relation between the pressures and their impacts, was a common fault in many of the reports. Data and knowledge/methodological gaps constitute barriers constraining the implementation of the MSFD (noted also in the Greek IA (ANON, 2013)) and the realization of cost efficient monitoring programs, considering also joining efforts with WFD and CFP/DCF activities, will definitely contribute towards this direction. The Directive requires Member States to coordinate their implementation of the MFSD through the Regional Sea Conventions (RSC), which for Greece is through the Mediterranean UNEP/MAP. However, there was practically no integration between activities conducted by UNEP/MAP and approaches followed in the 2012 Greek Initial Assessment, a barrier underlined in the In-Depth Assessment of the EU Member States’ Submissions for the MSFD (Palialexis et al., 2014). Greece, as stated in the Greek Initial Assessment Report (ANON, 2012) considered regional cooperation as part of the next phase of implementation i.e. the development of marine strategies and not this first (national) facts finding stage. The Commission feedback (Milieu 2014a, 2014b) acknowledges the efforts made by Greece to assess data coming from neighbouring countries (as stated in the IA) and for bilateral agreements signed (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development between Greece and Cyprus) and further trilateral coordination meetings planned between Italy, Malta and Greece (but not with Cyprus despite the MoU including a provision on the implementation of the MSFD). NGO feedback on the IA also highlight some of the challenges of MSFD implementation in Greece (MSFDopengov.org site, ESEC, 2012). Although the consultation period was considered adequate (3 months) the reporting sheets were complex and only available towards the end of the consultation period (ESEC, 2012). NGOs point out that credible and reliable assessments of status cannot be based on data gaps and substandard or incomplete data collection cannot be used for setting targets.

5.1.3 Spain


25

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA) led the transposition of the MSFD into the Spainish legislation via the Law 41/2010 of the 29th of December on the Protection of the Marine Environment (Ley de Protección del Medio Marino2). This law incorporates all the contents of the MSFD and integrates aspects related to the protection of the marine environment that were not previously covered by other Spanish legislation: Marine Protected Areas Network and discharges into the sea. The MSFD is being implemented in a coordinated manner across the different Spanish Administrations that are involved in the development of marine-related tasks. In particular, Article 22 of Law 41/2010, on coordination and cooperation, states that an Interministerial Committee on marine strategies will be created for coordinating the development, implementation and monitoring of the marine environment. This Commission is currently regulated by Royal Decree 715/2012 of the 20th of April3. Ministerial departments will be involved in this Commission through sectorial conferences on the marine environment. The Spanish Marine Strategy has been developed at the scale of five marine demarcations (i.e. Northern Atlantic, Southern Atlantic, Strait and Alborán, Levantine-Balearic and Canaries). In this sense, the Law 41/2010 also states that for each demarcation, a Monitoring Committee for the Marine Strategy, comprising representatives of state and regional authorities, will be constituted to take responsibility for the implementation of such strategy. Thiel (2013) provides a description of this scalar organization of marine governance in Spain as a result of the MSFD in relation to the one established in Portugal and Germany. This author states that in Spain and Germany, the MSFD led to a formal clariﬁcation of competencies with regard to the marine environment and their re-organisation. Since the entry into force of Law 41/2010, different tasks have been developed under the coordination of the MAGRAMA. In particular, the following tasks have been carried out to cover the MSFD Art. 8 related to the initial assessment: (i) the Spanish initial assessment of the environmental status of the marine environment, which was based on the evaluation of the eleven descriptors of the MSFD, (ii) the analysis of the pressures and impacts of human activities on the marine environment at each demarcation, and (iii) the socio-economic analysis of the use of the marine environment, including the analysis of the economic cost of deterioration of the marine environment. In addition, MAGRAMA also has addressed the definition of the GES (Art. 9, MSFD) and

2 Ley de Protección del Medio Marino: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2010/12/30/pdfs/BOE-A-2010-20050.pdf 3 Royal Decree 715/2012 of the 20th of April: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2012/05/11/pdfs/BOE-A-2012-6263.pdf Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


the establishment of environmental targets (Art. 10, MSFD). MAGRAMA participates in European groups and international conventions to better coordinate the application of these technical tasks among Member States. In this sense, MAGRAMA have participated in some group meetings organized by the European Commission and international conventions. The information compiled through the different tasks was collated into the document that included the initial assessment of the MSFD implementation, the definition of the GES and the establishment of environmental targets. MAGRAMA (2012) opened the document to public consultation from June 2012 till 15th of July 2012 to obtain the views of different stakeholders (e.g. citizens, research centres, governments, NGOs) on its contents. This public consultation is not free of critics. Firstly, the time provided to stakeholders for the consultation was very short, which may have hindrance the participation of stakeholders and the level of detail in their contributions. Furthermore, this consultation was conducted at the very late stage of the process (submission of the document to the EC was due in July 2012), which left short time to MAGRAMA to take into consideration and also to integrate the views of stakeholders. Secondly, MAGRAMA noted the lack of information for some descriptors, when in fact much of this information was kept by some institutions that work locally at different areas of Spanish waters. Therefore, some of these institutions consider that the MAGRAMA coordination effort at the national level should better integrate regional research institute’s expert knowledge (among others). The initial assessment, in relation to the definition of targets and indicators for GES, represents an important key point. Although the intensive work and research carried out by Spain in preparing the initial assessment is recognised, it is worth mentioning that for most of the descriptors (except for Descriptor 7), the environmental targets have not been assessed. Targets are qualitatively described (extensively) and not quantified, or thresholds are missing (European Commission, 2014a). Therefore, it seems difficult to determine whether environmental objectives are suitable to achieve the GES by 2020. In general, data and knowledge gaps represent the most important barriers to adequately complete the initial assessment of some descriptors, such as the Descriptors 2, 5 and 7 (European Commission, 2014a). Concerning the economic and social analysis, MAGRAMA applies the Marine Water Accounts approach following the guidance (non-legally binding) of the European Commission Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment (European Commission, 2010d). In the mentioned document, it is stated that the ecosystem services approach has a higher ambition level, when it comes to capturing the different uses of the marine waters in relation to the Marine Water Accounts approach. However, a high ambition level requires more time and resources to acquire the necessary information. Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

27

5.1.4 UK The MSFD has been transposed into UK legislation through the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 which apply to the whole of the UK, including the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Directive is being implemented in a coordinated way across the UK Administrations, with the UK Initial Assessment; characteristics of GES and associated targets and indicators being developed at this scale, in coordination with other countries in the North East Atlantic Region (Defra, 2012b). The Devolved Administrations have led the development of GES monitoring programmes and programmes of measures for their own marine waters, working in coordination with one another. The Government and the Devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have also implemented national legislation in the form of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) in England and Wales, the Marine (Scotland) Act (2010) and the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) (2013). The UK Marine Policy Statement (March 2011) is the framework for marine planning, bringing together UK marine policies and reflecting European and international commitments and recommendations applying to the UK across the devolved governments. Marine plans, as part of their objective of sustainable development, will help to implement measures for GES and will be aligned with GES monitoring requirements, where appropriate. Considerable effort has been made to coordinate the UK approach with that of other countries in the North East Atlantic and the OSPAR Regional Sea Convention has been the key forum for the coordination process. However, at the time the UK proposals were being developed, limited information on other countries proposals for monitoring programmes was available which made the process of coordination challenging (Defra, 2014). Although good progress has now been made within OSPAR, due to the tight timescales of implementation, further efforts to improve coordination were considered necessary to align GES characteristics, targets and indicators across OSPAR and the wider EU (Defra, 2012b). Discussions on regional coordination are continuing and OSPAR is working to develop a series of common indicators and, where appropriate, will establish coordinated monitoring to support those indicators. In addition to the coordination through OSPAR, the UK has also carried out a series of bilateral meetings with other countries for the purposes of improving regional coordination, including meetings with France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. In March 2012, a joint consultation between Defra, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government (Defra, 2012c) was held to gain the views of stakeholders to the UK’s initial stages of implementation of the MSFD and included: a draft initial assessment of



the state of the UK’s seas; proposals for UK characteristics of GES; proposals for detailed UK targets and indicators of GES; and an impact assessment setting out potential implications of the proposed GES targets and indicators. In December 2012, the Marine Strategy Part 1 was published. A number of respondents commented on the need to ensure consistency with other Government policies. It was felt that the amount and type of marine legislation is confusing and has the potential to be contradictory (Defra, 2012c). A review by Bainbridge et al. (2011) looked at the complexity of the UK legislative system for implementing the MSFD, with in excess of 90 acts, regulations, orders and forms of guidance identified that correspond to the delivery of the MSFD. The diversity of policy instruments highlight the complexity in administering a policy that cuts across the breadth of maritime sectors and draws upon a range of management tools from sectors as diverse as pollution control, biodiversity protection, fisheries and planning (Boyes & Elliott, 2014; 2015). Instruments such as the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 have laid the foundations for marine planning and objective setting across multiple sectors and will likely mesh with MSFD objectives into planning efforts. The challenge to policy communities at the UK and devolved scales is to ensure a joined up approach within and between governments and the plethora of national legislation demonstrates the emerging complexity at an early stage of transposition at the UK scale. In January 2014, a second consultation document was launched setting out proposals for the UK‘s implementation of the second stage of the MSFD. This document covers the proposals for the UKs marine monitoring programmes to monitor progress towards GES (Defra, 2014). The proposals have been jointly developed with the Devolved Administrations, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), the environment agencies, other Government Departments and relevant UK experts. In February 2014, Article 12 assessments were made available by the European Commission outlining Member States obligations made by 2012 to the MSFD implementation process (COM(2014) 97 final). To minimise the overburden of monitoring and targets, the UK are relying on existing targets and standards to meet GES under the MSFD. The UK definition of GES does not directly refer to the definitions for Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) under the Habitats Directive and for Good Ecological Status (GEcS) under the WFD. However, the mention of ‘habitats and species requiring protection under existing legislation and the requirement that they will be conserved effectively through appropriate mechanisms’ is understood to include the Habitats and Birds Directives and the WFD (Dupont et al., 2014). In addition, both the Habitats Directive and the WFD are mentioned in the targets, which the UK has set in close connection to their GES definition, Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

29

and in the explanatory text on the setting of the biodiversity targets in the paper report. Where the UK cannot rely on existing legislative targets and measures in national, EU and regional (OSPAR) legislation, then new environmental targets are being developed, for example Descriptor 11 on Introduction of Energy (noise). To successfully achieve GES in the UK, it is felt additional management measures are likely to be needed including: fisheries management measures; litter reduction; the development of a noise registry; and further work on additional measures to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of non-indigenous species in UK marine areas (HM Government, 2012b). These four issues are now being addressed through government research and development projects. Defra currently have a third document on the ‘Development of Programme of Measures’ out for consultation, with feedback due by the end of April 2015. The results from this will form Part 3 of the UK Marine Strategy, adhering to the timeline of MSFD implementation.

5.2 Uncertainties Concerning the Expected Role of the Regional Sea Conventions To advance regional cooperation and coordination, the MSFD specifically calls on and encourages Member States to use existing regional institutions and organisations, including those established under the relevant Regional Seas Conventions (RSC) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to jointly develop marine strategies for marine regions or subregions. European regional seas are subject to international conventions including the OSPAR Convention for the North Eastern Atlantic, the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) for the Baltic Sea, the Barcelona Convention and associated Protocols for the Mediterranean Sea and the Bucharest Convention for the Black Sea. Ministerial Declarations are formal expressions of intent by the contracting parties involved, aiming to achieve the goals of the conventions. These RSCs, established in the 1970s, have now been directly brought into European policy practice to bring the MSFD into effect (Borja et al., 2010; Long, 2011; van Leeuwen et al., 2012). The MSFD requires the Member States and the EU to use these existing regional institutions and organisations to jointly deliver some of the key policy objectives of the Directive (Long, 2011). Legal requirements in the context of the MSFD require increased trans-national cooperation, both within and between regional seas on environmental effects induced by marine uses to achieve GES by 2020 (European Commission, 2008; European Commission, 2010a; Borja et al., 2010; Busch et al., 2013). The Directive states that Member States sharing a marine region or subregion shall cooperate in developing their national marine strategies to ensure coherence and coordination (Article 5.2). The



MSFD also requires Member States to take into account trans-boundary effects of measures in the same marine region or subregion (Article 2.1; also Articles 8.3(b), 14.1(d) & 13.8). The MSFD requests that specific and standardised criteria and methods should be developed to ensure consistency of monitoring and assessment, allowing comparability of GES between regional seas (Article 8). Thus while each Member State is responsible for developing a strategy specific to its own marine waters, each national strategy is to reflect the broader perspective of the marine region for which it is part, and should contribute to GES at the subregional, regional and national levels (Juda, 2010; Claussen et al., 2011; Bertram & Rehdaz, 2013). A recent report states that the RSCs can support the implementation of the MSFD in at least three main ways: by improving regional and cross-regional coherence of national implementation; by making the RSCs’ long-standing experience and established structures for cooperation available to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of national implementation; and by offering practical opportunities for the mobilisation and coordination of relevant third countries’ activities (Milieu Ltd, 2014b). However, van Hoof et al. (2012) raise the issue that the MSFD does not provide any specific direction of how to organise this regional coordination and integration other than the MSFD referring to the existing regional forums such as the RSCs. The MSFD does not give any specific legal framework nor specifies governing structures to ensure policy coordination and integration within a marine region. van Leeuwen et al. (2012) raise the question of how similar the marine environmental quality definitions as defined by the RSCs compare with the definition of GES established by Member States for the MSFD. The approach and definitions may differ. During interviews conducted by Thiel (2013), several Member States expressed concern about how the MSFD process would relate to the more informal and less binding processes taking place as part of the RSCs, which are considered important as part of European marine protection. In the case of regional seas, the institutional rules of the EU, the RSCs, EU Member States and other bordering states all have some influence in policy making, and van Tatenhove (2013) believes this gives rise to uncertainty and confusion about the rules of policy making and participation. As there are generally no accepted rules and norms in the overlapping zones of these institutional settings, any of these parties around a regional sea has the opportunity to negotiate, alter and develop new governance arrangements (van Leeuwen et al., 2012). To remove the barriers to achieve GES, the level of uncertainty that exists between all the different players around a Regional Sea should be addressed (van Tatenhove, 2013). Although a number of these RSCs have made excellent contributions to marine protection, these Conventions only have limited enforcement powers and this can compromise their effectiveness in achieving agreed goals (Borja, 2006). The policy and institutional barriers within the RSCs hinders the potential of achieving GES. Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

31

Although significant commitments have been made by all RSCs to implement the ecosystem approach and support MSFD implementation, the use of the results by Member States of regional cooperation within their marine strategies varied (European Commission, 2014a & b). This has resulted in a lack of coherence within the EU, and also within the same marine region or subregion (required by Article 4 and 5(2) MSFD). While coherence varies widely across the EU and is high in some regions and for some descriptors, overall levels are moderate to low. Member States in the North East Atlantic showed the highest level of coherence (but still with significant room for improvement), while coherence was lowest in the Mediterranean and in particular the Black Sea (although the latter could only be partially assessed). This has resulted in little shared understanding of GES at the EU level, or even at a (sub-) regional level. There are over 20 different GES determinations across the EU, and therefore no common or comparable goals. Research by van Leeuwen et al. (2012) has looked at the different levels of institutional ambiguity in the way in which the MSFD has been implemented in the four regional seas and assessed whether GES will ultimately be achieved. They reported a mismatch between the good marine environmental quality as defined by some of the RSCs and the challenge of Member States to implement the MSFD and define GES for their own waters. This is further discussed below.

5.2.1 HELCOM - Baltic The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) adopted in Poland in November 2007, is a multilateral Ministerial Declaration in which the HELCOM contracting parties (nine coastal country Governments and the European Commission) commit themselves to carry out specific actions for achieving the agreed Ecological Objectives, and eventually a Baltic Sea in Good Environmental Status by 2021 (HELCOM, 2007a). The aims of the BSAP to quantitatively define a desirable and measurable ‘good status’ for the Baltic were further strengthened by ongoing parallel International and European law. The aims of the WFD and MSFD requiring similar definitions for coastal and marine areas were incorporated in the BSAP, and therefore the relationship between the BSAP and the MSFD is considered a strong one (Borja, 2006; European Commission, 2008; Wenzel, 2009; Backer et al., 2010). The only difference between the two actions is that GES needs to be achieved by 2020 for the MSFD and by 2021 for the BSAP, resulting from a final round of amendments to the directive which was not reflected in the BSAP (Borja, 2006). Due to complementarities with the MSFD, the BSAP has been regarded as a pilot project for the implementation of the MSFD in the Baltic (HELCOM, 2007b). The Baltic EU Member countries have taken a proactive approach to implementing the MSFD, and by adopting the BSAP in 2007, an identical set of steps as those required for the MSFD have been completed eight years ahead of the Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


2015 deadline required by the MSFD (Backer et al., 2010). The only Baltic coastal country not a member of the EU is the Russian Federation. However it still plays an important role in meeting the aims of the BSAP. In 2010, the HELCOM initial holistic assessment (HELCOM, 2010) was produced providing a regional contribution to the initial assessment according to the MSFD for those HELCOM Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States. This included taking into account the role of other organisations, and establishing, for those HELCOM Contracting States being also EU-Member States, the role of HELCOM as the coordinating platform for the regional implementation of the MSFD in the Baltic Sea. It is hoped this will lead to harmonised national marine strategies for achieving GES according to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan and the MSFD with full cooperation of the HELCOM Contracting Parties. Interviews carried out by van Leeuwen et al. (2012) with civil servants of the Baltic States show the institutional setting of HELCOM was not questioned and although some changes had to be made to facilitate the work of the MSFD (e.g. changes to work priorities), the fundamental work ethos of HELCOM has not changed. However, some concerns have been expressed over the definitions of GES emerging from the MSFD implementation and those definitions adopted regionally within HELCOM (HELCOM, 2010).

5.2.2 OSPAR - North-East Atlantic (including the North Sea) The key forum for regional coordination for the North East Atlantic is the OSPAR Regional Sea Convention. Contracting parties of the OSPAR Convention adopted the North-East Atlantic Environmental Strategy in 2010 (OSPAR, 2010b) in which the MSFD is specifically mentioned, and within which the two pieces of policy have compatible aims. The OSPAR Commission’s role as facilitator for the regional coordination of the implementation of the MSFD was emphasised by OSPAR Ministers at their meeting in September 2010 and is written into the 2010 Ministerial Declaration, the 2010 North-East Atlantic Environmental Strategy and the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme for 2010-2014 (which is directed to the establishment of monitoring programmes in support of the MSFD) (OSPAR, 2010b). This has led to the restructuring of the OSPAR Commission, resulting in the establishment of a coordination process through the Coordination Group (CoG) and an Intersessional Correspondence Group for the MSFD (ICG-MSFD). It is through this group that EU Member States and Third Countries (in particular Norway and Iceland) work together on the implementation of the MSFD. All relevant OSPAR groups contribute to the coordination process in their fields of expertise. To assist the coordinated approach and to agree a common set of GES targets and indicators in this regional sea, OSPAR has developed advice documents for each of the 11 GES Descriptors, held a series of workshops and events to allow the


33

exchange of information between countries and published the report Finding Common Ground: Towards regional coherence in implementing the MSFD in the North East Atlantic region through the work of the OSPAR Commission (OSPAR, 2012). van Leeuwen et al. (2012) carried out interviews with governmental officials from Member States, European Commission officials (DG Environment and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) and the secretariat of the Mediterranean Action Plan. Low expectations were reported that the OSPAR Commission would be effective at taking decisions in relation to the MSFD. Although cooperation and coordination is perceived as important, Member States set different targets related to the most urgent problems on the national level, the different financial budgets they have available for marine conservation and different monitoring programs they use. It was also felt that some descriptors used to achieve GES e.g. marine food webs might get lost within OSPAR because different working groups deal with different descriptors. Considerable efforts have been made to coordinate some Member States’ approach with that of other countries in the North East Atlantic. However, at the time Member States proposals were being developed, limited information on other countries proposals for monitoring programmes was available. This has made the process of coordination challenging (Defra, 2014). van Leeuwen et al. (2012) suggest their exists an uncertainty about whether OSPAR can fulfil its coordinating role in implementing the MSFD and for GES to be effectively achieved through this channel.

5.2.3 Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) / Barcelona Convention & Protocols Mediterranean Sea The Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention) and its seven Protocols, represent a political and legally binding framework for the protection of the marine environment and the coastal areas of the Mediterranean region. The Convention addresses specific aspects of environmental protection in the Mediterranean Sea and completes the UNEP/MAP legal framework, providing a critical basis for setting environmental standards and targets in the region, which are agreed to by all parties, as well as for sharing important natural resource management information. In 2008 the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention agreed at COP15 in Almeria, Spain (Decision IG17/6) on a seven-step roadmap to achieve GES in the Mediterranean by 2020 and endorsed the use of the Ecosystem Approach (EcAp) as a management tool. An EU funded project



EcAp-MED4, is specifically assisting the Barcelona Convention Secretariat in achieving the seven-step roadmap and to incorporate the ecosystem approach in full synergy and coherence with the implementation of the MSFD. It was felt that the implementation of the EcAp-MED by all Mediterranean countries will assist those contracting parties, who are also members of the EU, in the implementation of the MSFD, by providing a platform for harmonisation of national marine strategies of all countries on a regional scale (Claussen et al., 2011; UNEP/MAP, 2012). In 2011, the UNEP/MAP Secretariat prepared the report entitled ‘The Mediterranean Action Plan/Barcelona Convention and the Implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ which was presented to the meeting of EU Marine Directors in May 2011. The document gives an overview of the achievements by the Barcelona Convention which are relevant to achieving the MSFD aims and discusses UNEP/MAP-Barcelona Convention contributions to the achievement of the MSFD in particular through the gradual application of the Ecosystem Approach in the Mediterranean. In September 2013, in line with the ecosystem roadmap and based on gap-analysis, the MAP Secretariat prepared a draft decision on the EcoAp including adopting definitions of GES and targets (UNEP/MAP, 2013). These were in line with the relevant articles of the Barcelona Convention and its related Protocols and the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy’s Regional Seas Conventions related process (European Commission, 2010c). This draft decision uses the list of GES descriptors and targets, and provides the assessment process of how to achieve an Integrated Mediterranean Monitoring and Assessment Programme by 2015, next to a more detailed timeline with steps to achieve GES by 2020. This draft decision provides continued support to the Contracting Parties in their efforts to implement the other steps of the Ecosystem roadmap according to the agreed timeline and enhance cooperation with partners and stakeholders and other global and regional process in particular with the EU common MSFD implementation strategy. The Contracting Parties decisions reflect the wish to strengthen cooperation and seek synergies with EU initiatives such as the WFD and the MSFD to achieve a shared vision of ‘a healthy Mediterranean with marine and biological ecosystems that are productive and biologically diverse for the benefit of present and

4

Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach (EcAp) in the Mediterranean by the Contracting parties

in the context of the Barcelona Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal region of the Mediterranean and its Protocols. April 2012


35

future generations’. The implementation of the programme of work on the EcoAp has been supported by EU through DG Environment, and falls under the Project of the ENRTP Strategic Cooperation Agreement (SCA) between UNEP and EU. A meeting in 2014 of the EcAp Coordination Group recommended that the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and the Agreement on the Conservation of the cetaceans in the Black Sea (ACCOBAMS) Secretariats should continue working closely together, to further elaborate the proposals on common indicators in relation to fisheries and marine noise respectively, looking specifically into synergies and complementarities with the ongoing work under the MSFD (UNEP/MAP, 2014) However, despite vision alignment between EcAp/ Barcelona Convention and MSFD, there are no formal operational links and there is the added complexity of the number of non-EU countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and inconsistencies in national priorities, regional governance and institutional structures (van Leeuwen et al., 2012; van Hoof et al., 2012; Freire-Gibb et al. 2014; Cinnirella et al., 2014). Discrepancies in protection of the marine environment between European and non-European countries further highlights the difficulties for adopting coordinated measures to achieve GES.

5.2.4 Bucharest Convention - Black Sea The Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (the Black Sea Commission) via its Permanent Secretariat is the intergovernmental body established to implement of the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution 1992 (Bucharest Convention), its Protocols and the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea. The Black Sea SAP 2009 contains an ecosystem approach and envisages itself as a framework for regional coordination, seeking coherence with the MSFD (Black Sea Commission, 2009). Although SAP 2009 does not contain specific references to the MSFD, the latter has been taken into consideration in the elaboration of the updated version of the Black Sea Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program (BSIMAP-2015-2020) currently under discussion among the 6 contracting parties to the Commission. In 2010, a ‘Diagnostic Report’ (Black Sea Commission, 2010) identified the achievements and gaps in the existing Black Sea Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program (BSIMAP) and Black Sea Information System (BSIS). The data were checked for compliance against relevant national and international legislation and agreements. The most relevant in terms of monitoring the Black Sea and reporting are considered to be not only the SAP for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea 2009 (adopted in April 2009), but attempts have also being made to harmonise Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


approaches and principles with the WFD and MSFD which are obligatory for Romania and Bulgaria, and seriously taken into consideration by Turkey in the accession process. Recently a number of pilot projects specifically aimed to assist with the harmonisation process between Black Sea MS and nonMS for the implementation of MSFD were funded:



The pilot project “Support to the Black Sea Commission for the Implementation of the Marine Strategy” 2009-2012 has the aim of assisting in the harmonisation of methodologies for monitoring, the definition of relevant indictors and targets for achieving GES, and addressing key environmental issues in the Black Sea marine region. However a specialised working group for harmonisation with MSFD was not established under this grant agreement (Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution & European Commission, 2013).



A project on guiding improvements in the Black Sea for the MSFD entitled Integrated Monitoring System (MISIS). The MISIS project was an integral part of the overall ongoing process of harmonization of Black Sea region policy, in compliance to relevant European policy in the field of marine environment protection and covered Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. As a member of the project, the Black Sea Commission actively guided the process of project activities and outcomes. Under MISIS a number of publically available outputs were produced such as the Diagnostic Report II, The State of Environment Report based on WFD/MSFD related indicators, and reports from the intercalibration excercises (European Commission - DG Environment, 2014d).



A mirror project to MISIS, EMBLAS 1 and EMBLAS 2 ‘Improving Environmental Monitoring in the Black Sea” was funded by UNDP5 aimed to strengthen capacities of Georgia, Russian Federation and Ukraine for biological and chemical monitoring of water quality in the Black Sea, in line with EU water related legislation, performing exactly the same activities, following the same concept and methodology as MISIS , in order to come up with a Black Sea regional harmonised vision for GES and harmonised targets and elaboration of commonly agreed regional updated BSIMAP. The BS Commission is a partner of EMBLAS and is coordinating successfully the cooperation between all these initiatives through the Advisory groups.

The Pilot Projects reviewed above are steps in the right direction to the coordinating role of the Bucharest Convention in the aim of achieving GES in the Black Sea regional sea.

5.3 Influence of Non-Member States to Achieving GES

5

(http://emblasproject.org/ ),


37

Unlike EU Directives, the RSCs comprise marine regions as a whole including those of non-EUMember States. Table 2 shows the Contracting Parties to the four RSCs. While most EU Member States are contracting parties to OSPAR, Norway is not. Similarly, all of the Baltic HELCOM states are EU members except the Russian Federation. The Black Sea is surrounded by two EU Member States and four non-Member States, whilst the situation around the Mediterranean Sea is even more complex as there are only eight EU Member States and 13 non-Member States. Therefore, only a few countries bordering these two regional seas are Member States and thus bound by the MSFD (Breen et al., 2012; Freire-

Table 2 Contracting Parties to the Regional Seas Conventions. Non-EU and EU Member States

NonMember States

EUMember States

European Union TOTAL

OSPAR (NE Atlantic (inc. North Sea)) Norway Iceland Switzerland

HELCOM CONVENTION (Baltic Sea) Russian Federation

BUCHAREST CONVENTION (Black Sea) Turkey Georgia Russian Federation Ukraine

France Belgium Denmark Finland Germany Ireland Netherlands

Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Latvia

Bulgaria Romania

Portugal Spain Sweden Luxembourg UK

Lithuania Poland Sweden

BARCELONA CONVENTION (Mediterranean Sea) Albania Libya Algeria Monaco BosniaMontenegro Herzegovina Morocco Egypt Syria Israel Tunisia Lebanon Turkey Croatia Malta Cyprus Slovenia France Spain Greece Italy

Yes - Contracting Party


Observer status only and is not a contracting party


16

10

6 (+1 observer)

22

Gibb et al., 2014). The EU itself is a Contracting Party to the OSPAR, HELCOM and Barcelona Conventions and has observer status for the Bucharest Convention, thus making it difficult for the EU to have any influence over the objectives of this latter Convention. Non-Member States need not cooperate or adhere to any management measures introduced to achieve GES, and particularly with regards to the Mediterranean and Black Sea RSCs, there is little incentive to change the Conventions to adopt the ethos of the MSFD due to the large numbers of non-EU contracted parties (van Leeuwen et al., 2012). For GES to be achieved, support is required from all Contracting Parties to the RSC and their activities in the framework of marine conventions (Freire-Gibb et al., 2014) and continuous cooperation required between EU-Member States and EU-non-Member States (Wenzel, 2009; Juda, Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


2010). Claussen et al. (2011) stresses that for GES to be achieved in these regional seas, a document on the common understanding of (initial) assessments, the determination of GES and the establishment of environmental targets providing guidance on the coordination and communication with Third Countries is essential. Without such coordination, Member States run the risk that their attempts to achieve or maintain GES will be inadvertently countered by Third Country activities. This is also recognised in the MSFD which encourages EU Member States to coordinate their actions with relevant non-Member States. Three case studies below discuss how Turkey, Norway and the Ukraine as non-EU Member countries can affect the achievement of GES in Member States:

5.3.1 Turkey (Black Sea & Mediterranean Sea) The experience of the implementation of the first phase of the MSFD is not only a guide for the candidate countries (CCs) like Turkey, but also an improvement opportunity for reviewing and revising ongoing assessment tools applied to the marine environment and relevant services to society. Turkey as a non-EU Member State is not obliged to implement the MFSD, however as a CC for EU membership, they are in the process of bringing their national legislation in line with European policy. The formal accession negotiations (which started on October 3rd, 2005 for Turkey) requires candidate countries to bring national legislation into compliance with 35 chapters of EU law, known as the ‘acquis’, before they are eligible to become a full member. Each candidate has to open the negotiation chapters, harmonize their legislation and its implementation to acquis with the help of EU financial assistance and apply for the closing of the related chapter(s). Negotiation chapters are provisionally closed if the candidate country's adoption of the acquis and its degree of implementation are seen as sufficient. An analytical examination of EU legislation (the so-called screening process) is undertaken by CCs as they are required to include conformity of national legislation to EC’s environmental directives. This is the case of the MSFD and attaining GES for Turkish coastal waters. Within the scope of the EU membership process, the Chapter on Environment, which includes the MSFD, was opened to accession negotiations at the Intergovernmental Conference, held in Brussels on 21 December 2009. Accordingly, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (MoEU) had a comprehensive research project designed and carried out by Marmara Research Center of Turkish Science and Technology Council (TUBITAK-MRC) between 2011 and 2013. The ‘Marine and Coastal Waters Quality Determination and Classification’ project (DeKoS), which was a baseline project for MSFD requirements in Turkey, was specifically designed to target the determination and classification of marine water status relevant to both WFD and MSFD. The MSFD related aim of the project was to


39

define national GES objectives, focusing on the determination of data, monitoring and evaluation requirements (TUBITAK-MRC & MoEU-GDEM, 2014). Major outputs of the DeKoS project for the MSFD can be summarised as follows: 

‘Integrated Marine Monitoring and Assessment Programme (IMMAP)’ was developed, which takes account of the requirements of RSCs, in addition to EU Directives (e.g. MSFD and WFD), establishing its principles, sets of criteria and inputs for institutional arrangements, guidelines and legal arrangements for national marine monitoring. This is now in action by increased station and parameter numbers, representing all defined water bodies.



Establishment of a national ‘marine database’, which is coherent with international databases, pressure/pollution/ecosystem quality GIS maps and development and/or adaptation of ‘assessment tools’ for coastal waters such as indexes, indicators, ecological quality classification measures, etc.



Preliminary analysis of GES for Turkish marine environments within the frame of the 11 GES descriptors and recommendations for national GES objectives



Determination of 15 national MSFD sub-regions on the bases of hydromorphology, pressure and state assessments (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The 15 MSFD sub-regions of Turkey for national assessment (Source: TUBITAK-MRC & MoEU-GDEM, 2014) In addition, the project promotes the inclusion of new parameters such as micro-plastics and radioactivity; the spatial coverage of marine monitoring system now comprises all 75 water bodies which was only 57 until 2014 (Kaboglu et al., 2014). During DeKoS project lifetime, several expert groups increased their knowledge on EU directives, specifically concerning scientific requirements of GES descriptors and Turkish status quo on these descriptors.



Other projects have been planned under the Environment Chapter of EU membership negotiations, which are directly or indirectly related with MSFD. One project entitled ‘Capacity building on Marine Strategy Framework Directive in Turkey’ is directly related to MSFD and aims to develop administrative and technical capacity building for the adaptation to and implementation of the MSFD. One of the major aims of the project is the assessment of legislative and administrative state in Turkey for the MSFD, and preparation of guidelines for the implementation of the MSFD in two pilot areas, the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. In spite of these progressive efforts and achievements, the problems related with the ambiguities within the text of the MSFD as experienced among Member States have inevitably had profound influences on their overall content. At the time of writing (April 2015), the relevant legislation conformity has not yet been established for the MSFD in Turkey, with legislative, administrative and institutional arrangements/adjustments being within their initial stages. Some country-specific barriers for the implementation of MSFD and its assessment of the descriptors in Turkey, primarily concern the barriers related with the governance. The Ministry of Environment and Urbanization is the national authority for the implementation of the MSFD, whereas the Ministry for EU Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are responsible for international coordination. Although the Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs deals specifically with WFD, it also has partial authority on the implementation of MSFD related issues, especially in the geographically intersection areas (coastal waters). Additionally, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock is responsible for fisheries and aquaculture and the Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications is the authority for shipping and other maritime activities. All these authorities have their own perspectives for the ecosystem goods and services, and thus for ecosystem based approach. Unlike WFD coastal water definition, Turkish coastal waters are determined as to include bays or gulfs, where appropriate, in order to represent various water masses (Besiktepe & Kaboglu, 2014). This has increased the intersection area between MSFD and WFD jurisdiction areas, which in turn ends up with an increased spatial overlap where they compete for their authorization and responsibilities. The barriers in the knowledge area are due mainly to the deficiency of available baseline data in Turkey for the GES descriptors. This has been reported and highlighted in several national expert meetings, and TUBITAK-MRC & MoEU-GDEM (2014) had reported that although there is considerable expertise and institutional capacity, Turkey needs to develop its research activities in more efficient and systematic programmes to overcome data gaps for the 11 GES descriptors. This is somehow related to the socio-economic limitations. Turkey has to allocate a respectable amount of budget to fill the baseline data gaps for its marine environments, as well as to monitor them. Such a substantial amount of budget with a large set of duties and responsibilities is another complicated Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

41

and challenging administrative issue for the competing authorities who have consistently proposed conditional approaches rather than integrated ones. Having a coastline of more than 8000 kilometres, being a party to two RSCs (the Barcelona and Bucharest Conventions), a geographical coverage with highly diverse ecological resources and diverse human activities set highly complicated challenges for the governance, competence and socio-economy as the intrinsic barriers of Turkey for the MSFD. Furthermore, Turkey’s longstanding political approach against the United Nations Convention on Law of Seas (UNCLOS), which influences greatly on the unresolved political issues over the sovereignty and jurisdictional rights of the neighbouring marine waters (Siousiouras & Chrysochou, 2014; MFA-TR, 2014) stands alone as the very first and major barrier to be challenged during relevant phases of the accession negotiations.

5.3.2 Norway (North East Atlantic) Norway is not an EU Member State but is a contracting party to the OSPAR Commission, which includes reporting on the state of the environment, environmental monitoring and implementation of the MSFD by the EU countries in their sectors of the North Sea and Skagerrak (Norwegian Environment Agency, 2013). A comparison of the map of the OSPAR regions (Figure 2) and the Norwegian EEZ and fishery protection zones (Figure 3) shows that Norway administers a very large area of the North East Atlantic. These areas include the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.

Figure 2: Map of OSPAR regions of North East Atlantic.

Figure 3: Map of Norway EEZ and fishery protection zones.

Although Norway has adopted the Water Framework Directive, which includes coastal waters, it has not adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This could potentially hinder the process of achieving GES.



Norway has already taken action at national level and has regulated sectors and industries that put pressure on the marine environment. This has had positive effects, but there is still much to be done in certain areas (Norwegian Environment Agency, 2013). To improve the situation further, the Norwegian Government has adopted an integrated ecosystem-based management of all Norway’s sea areas. Norway already has in place a set of ecosystem-based management plans for the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea and recently the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. An integrated management plan for the Barents Sea-Lofoten area was developed (2002-2006) and approved by the Norwegian Parliament in 2006. It covers about 1.4 million km² of marine waters, as well as the fishery protection zone around the Svalbard archipelago. It does not include the Russian part of the Barents Sea (Ministry of the Environment, 2011). An integrated ecosystem-based management plan was also developed for the Norwegian Sea from 2007-2009, modelled after the Barents Sea plan, and approved by the Parliament in May 2009 (Ministry of the Environment, 2009). The plan covers almost 1.2 million km2. It intends to create value to the Norwegian economy and maintain the high environmental value of the area. An integrated management plan for Norway’s part of the North Sea and Skagerrak has recently been completed, based on the same pattern as the management plans for the Barents Sea–Lofoten area and the Norwegian Sea. An expert group with representatives of 14 different government agencies and research institutions finalised the scientific basis for the management plan in spring 2012 (KLIF, 2012), with the management plan published in 2013 (Ministry of the Environment, 2013). Work on the management plans was coordinated as closely as possible with international processes related to relevant EU directives, including the MFSD and the WFD. The implementation of the MSFD is expected to result in more focus on environmental efforts in the North Sea and Skagerrak. It is felt these will have a positive influence on the implementation of GES in the regional sea and demonstrates Norway is actively helping to achieve the implementation of the MSFD and GES.

5.3.3 Ukraine (Black Sea) The Ukraine is actively involved in the regional cooperation processes aimed to ensure sustainable marine management of the Black Sea. The legislative framework of the regional cooperation as outlined in the Bucharest Convention sets out the overall objectives and obligations of the Black Sea States in which the Ukraine participates. The Ukraine as a non-EU Member State is not obliged to implement the MFSD, however the Ukraine has started to develop its environmental policies with greater compliance to EU requirements (EPCSF, 2011). In 2011, a National Action Plan for Environmental Protection for 2011-2015 (Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of May 25, 2011 № 577-p) was adopted. The action plan aims to implement the Law of Ukraine ‘On the


43

Basic Principles (Strategy), of the State Ecological Policy of Ukraine for the period until 2020’ (UNECE, 2011). The development of a regular monitoring network will provide accurate and comprehensive information on the state of the key ecological characteristics of most value for Ukrainian marine policy. This newly prepared strategy contains elements which are mainly in line with EU environmental policy and specifically the MSFD and the remote-sensing monitoring undertaken as part of this strategy will provide vital information to assist in the development of indicators which mirror the MSFDs eleven descriptors. However some major gaps have been identified in the Ukrainian monitoring system: a) it is not integrated; b) coordination between responsible organisations is weak; c) financial assistance is unstable; d) it is not properly designed/organised to utilise the integrated monitoring available and correspondingly the reporting to the Black Sea Commission (Black Sea Commission, 2010). Transboundary problems may also arise with neighbouring countries who are not members of the EU. An example for this would be in the Black Sea region, where countries like the Ukraine who currently have no efficient system of environment impact assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This situation not only has a direct impact on the implementation by the Ukraine of its obligations in accordance with the Espoo Convention, in particular the assessment of environmental impacts in a transboundary context including public participation and awareness (EPCSF, 2011), but may also pose a barrier to the achievement of GES in the Black Sea for the EU Member States of Romania and Bulgaria. Countries like the Ukraine need to ensure some compliance with SEA procedures in national legislation by the introduction of the European EIA model into national legislation.



6. Regional Cooperation to Achieve GES The trans-boundary nature of marine waters can hinder the success of the MSFD implementation. A number of papers have commented that one obstacle to reaching a comprehensive and integrationoriented approach to protection is in relation to the trans-boundary character. This relates to sectoral uses of the sea and their associated policies, and also their vertical governance from the national to international levels (van Leeuwen et al., 2012; Salomon & Dross, 2013). Borja et al. (2012) advise that for GES to be achieved, joined-up cross regional work on the development of objectives, targets, monitoring programmes and management should be undertaken. However with the lack of clarity in some of the definitions given for indicators and descriptors to achieve GES, cross-border harmonisation is needed to ensure that environmental status does not change abruptly at the maritime boundary of two states (Borja et al., 2013). Whilst ecosystem status assessment reports are useful in the context in which they were developed, there is no easy intercomparability across regional seas (Breen et al., 2012). Differing regional interests and the wide range of goals and objectives for each assessment means that the information may not cover all of the issues highlighted in the 11 descriptors of the MSFD. Furthermore Breen et al. (2012) state that even if the same issues are covered, the objectives and baselines of the assessments may differ. According to van Hoof et al. (2012), regional cooperation at this stage appears to be: ‘let’s first define our own action plan and then talk to the neighbours how to cooperate’. Examples of regional cooperation are introduced into the realm of marine policy under the WFD and Habitats Directive, but the main question remains to be answered is how to define a (geographical, ecosystem, political, administrative, policy) region and how to define cooperation and integration. Data and assessments carried out by the RSCs (discussed in Chapter 5) generally provide consistent approaches (OSPAR, 2009; Topcu et al., 2009; Backer et al., 2010; HELCOM, 2010) but the consistency and comparability across the European Seas remains to be guaranteed as a part of the MSFD implementation. Borja et al. (2010) believe lessons can be learned from the implementation of the WFD (Hering et al., 2010) and can benefit the implementation of the MSFD and the setting of compatible GES across the regional seas. Varying experiences and legislative differences between neighbouring states of a common Regional Sea are likely to generate opposing priorities, goals, measurements and consequently assessments. For example, the general legislative conservation approaches and objectives for Natura2000 sites and species can differ considerably between neighbouring countries (Borja et al., 2013; Busch et al.,


45

2013). Prins et al. (2008) reports the different conservation objectives adopted by the Dutch and German governments. The Dutch government have established quantitative conservation objectives such as the number of individuals (non-breeding species) for individual Natura2000 sites, whereas in contrast, Germany follows qualitative conservation objectives (BSH, 2005). This indicates the difficulties arising from the requirements imposed by the MSFD to assess cumulative impacts of offshore wind farms at Regional Sea scale (Busch et al., 2013). At the same time it demonstrates the urgent need for harmonisation and cooperation among riparian states of transnational ‘management units’ like the North Sea. Busch et al. (2013) also highlight that harmonisation always comprises a risk of losing individual ambitious, hard-fought targets or environmental standards by restructuring and trading-off commonly agreed approaches, as has been recently demonstrated by the EU Common Fisheries Policy. The development of offshore wind farms and their associated impacts have to be assessed in the light of transboundary impacts. One standard set in one country with the impacts having limited effect, may in fact have a significantly more adverse effect in neighbouring EEZs. The study by Busch et al. (2013) clearly indicates a need for increased trans-national cooperation and regionally specific but collaboratively developed and agreed cross-border targets in order to achieve GES. The failure to consider the impacts at a regional sea scale, for example bird population levels impacted by offshore developments like wind farms, will compromise the achievement of GES (Descriptor 1: Biological diversity) under the MSFD.



7. Stakeholder Engagement (Policy & Governance) Public participation is an important feature of the MSFD, and Article 19 states there is a requirement for Member States to provide ‘early and effective opportunities to participate’ in the implementation of the Directive. If the MSFD is to be implemented using the EBA and embrace the holistic functional approach it sets out to achieve, then Bainbridge et al. (2011) suggests that a high level of stakeholder engagement, in and across all policy domains, would be necessary from early in the policy transposition and implementation process and during the development of the GES indicators. As the MSFD covers such a large geographical area, its implementation must accommodate the needs and wants of a greater number and dispersed set of stakeholders (Bainbridge et al., 2011). Ősterblom et al. (2010) report the economic and environmental research challenges involved in delivering GES are significant and will require extensive stakeholder consultation, engagement and participation, as well as necessitating a high level of change and development of institutional structures and policy networks. Bainbridge et al. (2011) believe the future environmental status of European seas (and the success or failure of the directive) is therefore highly dependent on governance structures and policy networks. In most of the Member States reviewed, the public and stakeholder consultation was open for only one or two months and NGO involvement was only achieved near the end of the reporting deadline or process (ESEC 2012; MAGRAMA 2012). It is therefore, not surprising that review of post consultation documents reveals limited integration of feedback provided by stakeholders and suggests they were dissatisfied, particularly NGOs, at their lack of involvement in the MSFD process. This was the case even for Member States where the consultation period was open for a longer period (HM Government, 2012a). Some stakeholders also found the reports and reporting sheets to be complex (ESEC, 2012) and the amount and type of legislation confusing and potentially contradictory (Boyes & Elliott, 2014; Kraan et al., 2014). van Hoof & van Tatenhove (2009) assert that the manner in which the MSFD was introduced was top-down and technocratic, ignoring stakeholder claims. According to Fletcher (2007), the MSFD does not specify which groups are legitimate ‘stakeholders’ or ‘interested parties’; it provides no guidance about what ‘early’ and ‘effective’ opportunities to participate mean; there is no procedure for evaluating whether stakeholder participation has been adequate; and ‘there is an imbalance between the significant emphasis placed on scientific inputs to the policy-making process and the comparatively limited emphasis placed on stakeholder inputs, particularly with respect to the development of marine strategies’. This criticism is linked to the charge that MSFD lacks a level playing field among interested sectors. Some sectors have more influence and power than others, Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

47

and this threatens to hijack decisions in favour of the strongest parties (Brennan et al., 2014). Ounanian et al. (2012) reported that the shipping, oil, gas and windfarm industries were much more actively engaged in MSFD consultation exercises and working groups than were the fishing and tourism industries. Selected groups of stakeholders were invited to participate on the technical working groups established to discuss issues relating to GES and other aspects of the MSFDs implementation. These included port authorities, Bird Life, the oil industry and shipping. The fisheries sector was also invited to meetings but attended once (DG Environment of the European Commission, 2010). Bainbridge et al. (2011) also conclude that there has been ‘no evidence of significant inter-actor engagement in, and between, policy domains, or of the engagement of sufficient sub-national stakeholders in policy transposition, implementation, planning or development of GES descriptors’. Ensuring adequate stakeholder engagement with users who depend on natural marine resources has proved to be a difficult task for Member States (Freire-Gibb et al., 2014) and should be considered an important aspect in Member States ultimately achieving GES. However, Bainbridge et al. (2011) postulate that given the tight deadlines for implementation, the imposed pressure to establish measureable GES parameters by scientists and politicians has shortcut meaningful stakeholder engagement. In the UK, the Defra led consultation on the MSFD has highlighted that there is a need for early and continued engagement with stakeholders in future phases of the implementation process, particularly the development of MSFD Programmes of Measures (Defra, 2012c).



8. Conclusions The literature has highlighted a number of barriers to achieving GES which can be separated under two types of barriers: 1. Governance barriers to implementing the directive due to ambiguity in the text of the directive and administrative confusions. 2. Secondly, a failure of the measures (currently being defined by Member States) to achieve the aims of the MSFD and meeting GES. Governance barriers Ambiguities in the MSFD text The MSFD is a ‘framework directive’ specifying an Action Plan which provides freedom and power in the governing mechanisms at the Member State level thus allowing Member States the flexibility to interpret GES, defining targets and measures for its descriptor indicators in their own way. The achievement of GES of marine waters relies heavily on the interpretation, harmonisation and implementation of the MSFD by the different EU Member States which can create governance complications and different levels of conformity. These tasks are very ambitious, unclearly defined and without a clear methodology to apply, which requires a major harmonisation across the different EU seas to check possible approaches. Examples include: -

GES: the definition of GES under Article 3(5) is vague and lacks legal precision, leading to over 20 different GES determinants across the Member States with Article 10 not clearly defining or exactly prescribing the difference between GES and targets or how they relate to each other;

-

Ecosystem-based approach: no legal definition of the ecosystem-based approach is provided (Article 1(3)) with a further caveat to ignore this approach in certain circumstances within the text are contradictory (Article 13(3)); and

-

Exceptions: The unrestricted nature of the exceptions in Article 14 (for example: reasons of overriding public interest, disproportionate costs, force majeure or significant risk to the marine environment) may weaken the overall spirit of the MSFD and the effectiveness of MS to achieve GES by 2020.

Uncertainties concerning the expected role of the Regional Sea Conventions The MSFD requires the Member States and the EU to use the regional institutional structures under the four Regional Seas Conventions treaties to help deliver some of the key policy objectives of the


49

Directive but the MSFD does not provide any specific direction of how to organise this regional coordination or any specific legal framework/governance structures to ensure policy coordination and integration within a marine region (Article 6). In fact, non-EU Member States need not cooperate or adhere to any management measures introduced to achieve GES, and particularly in some cases, there is little incentive to change the Conventions to adopt the ethos of the MSFD due to the large numbers of non-EU contracted parties. Non-Member States A further issue lies in the fact that non-EU Member States need not cooperate or adhere to any management measures introduced to achieve GES, and particularly in some cases, there is little incentive to change the Conventions to adopt the ethos of the MSFD, due to the large numbers of non-EU contracted parties. Failure of the Measures Member State implementation With no exact prescription of environmental targets and measures, the MSFD requires the adoption of a programme of measures at the national level instead of the European level leaving Member States to define their own targets. Some common challenges have been encountered by the four Member States analysed in this review (Finland, Greece, Spain and the UK) when attempting to implement the ecosystem-based approach. Efforts were made by some Member States to define GES and its associated targets and indicators in line with other Directives and existing targets already adopted by the Member State at the regional level. However, for most of the Member States reviewed there was a lack of coordination between the Directive requirements (e.g. between WFD, MSFD and CFP) as well as limited national coordination between the relevant administrative bodies, which made the process complex. The Commission Staff Working Document (CSWD) reports that almost all Member States did not establish any baseline and distance to target; the methodologies applied for the assessments were neither coherent nor comparable; and the socio-economic analysis highlighted many gaps in the availability of information. Reliance and Integration of Existing Policies to Achieve GES Even though the MSFD seems to be the most encompassing directive when dealing with the marine environment, its effectiveness of achieving GES is directly related to the success of other existing EU legislation. The European Commission has adopted ambitious policy initiatives relevant to the management of the oceans, seas and coasts which includes the DFC, WFD, IMP, MSP, Habitats Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


Directive and Birds Directive among others and the interaction between existing policies has to be further developed not only at the EU and regional level, but at the Member State level as well in order to achieve GES. The gaps and lack of integration issues are numerous with respect to the MSFD. Ambiguity exists about the role and contribution of each individual piece of legislation in the light of achieving GES which could prevent to achieve it in the future. There are a number of EC policy instruments which can contribute to the achievement of GES, in line with the provisions of the MSFD, however more joint effort is required among the Directives in terms of establishing common definitions, targets and a common data collection framework. Activities not governed by the MSFD Two important IMO Conventions which will assist in achieving GES are the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM), 2004, and The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto and by the Protocol of 1997 (MARPOL). For GES to be achieved, shipping activities will have to be managed in a complementary way, with International Conventions and Agreements assisting in the task of achieving GES. Current and developing policies (e.g. Blue Growth initiatives) that aim to develop social and economic growth within European seas and European targets for renewable energy may go in direct conflict with the objectives of the MSFD. The 2009 Renewable Energy Directive set a target for the EU Member States to source 20% of its overall share of energy from renewable sources by 2020. Meeting this target requires a substantial expansion in offshore renewable activity which will cause pressure on the ecological characteristics of predominant habitats, increasing the risk of failing to achieve GES for (D6) Seafloor Integrity. Following this extensive review, Table 3 summarises some of the legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES discussed in the current literature. This table highlights the specific barriers to achieving GES, identifies the gaps, lists current initiatives and provides recommendations.


51

Table 3 Summary table of barriers to achieving GES as discussed in the published literature cited in this report Topic

Specific Barrier

Gaps / Issues

Current Initiatives (CI) & Recommendations (Rec)

Weaknesses in the Directive

It is a ‘framework’ directive.

 Allows different interpretations of the text by Member States

A ‘watering down’ of the directive’s text.

     

CI: The Common Implementation Structure (CIS) has been developed to ensure EU coordination and facilitate the implementation of the MSFD by Member States (however see below).

Com Decision 2010/477/EU provides little clarification.

 Very few standards included  Some indicators still left open to interpretation by Member States  Criteria and methodology for determining GES unclear

Coordination of the MSFD

 Little direction is given to Member States on how coordination will be achieved and how to implement the MSFD nationally.

Common Implementation Strategy (CIS)

‘Aim’ – provides no binding commitment ‘GES’ – not well defined and no quantitative description provided No clear definition between GES and targets Give ‘due consideration’ to sustainable development Legitimate get out clauses for not achieving GES e.g. IROPI Economically unfeasible

Rec: To continue the clarification and harmonisation of concepts within and between Member States and regional seas. Rec: Terms need to be clearly and unambiguously defined and subsequently used consistently throughout the EU Commission Decision (Berg et al., 2015) Rec: To use the proposed GES definition and recommendations for clarifying the text of the MSFD (Borja et al. 2015; Patricio et al. 2015) Rec: To continue the coordination through the Regional Sea Conventions CI: The CIS has been adapted to new challenges and a new work programme for implementing the MSFD has been developed for 2014-2018, jointly with Member States, RSCs and other relevant actors. Rec: To ensure greater transparency of future coordination for Member States.


52

Deliverable 2.2 Report on the Key Barriers of Achieving GES Topic

Specific Barrier

Gaps / Issues


Reliance and Integration of current policies to achieve GES

Failure to achieve GES if MSFD is not consolidated with other directives

 Need to ensure the indicators of GES are compatible with the indicators suggested in other directives e.g. FCS in the Habitats and GEcS in the WFD  There is little or no reference in the MSFD text to the CFP, particularly in relation to Descriptor 3.  The Data Collection Framework Directive contributes to get the objectives of the MSFD. However, little/no references in the MSFD text to the DCF are found.  There is little joint effort stated between MSFD, WFD, and CFP with respect to the definition of the indicators, targets, etc., which are needed to evaluate the GES.  There is no joint effort between the MSFD, WFD, DCF, MSP, IMP and the Habitats Directive in relation to the data collection process.  Lag problem between Directives targets represents an additional barrier, which affects both the implementation of future directives as well existing implemented ones, which may be difficult to amend and update procedures.  Habitats Directive is an older Directive and although not strongly linked to the MSFD, some aspects are considered, which are of interest to the MSFD: Nevertheless, there is no direct mention of the criteria the Habitats Directive establishes, within the MSFD.

Rec: Ensure the aims of other directives are utilised as a starting point for GES Rec: To emphasise coordination across stakeholders involved in the implementation of the different Directives within/between countries. Rec: To establish a minimum implementation program feasible in bio-economic terms and according the Action Plans (MSFD, IMP). This implies, the necessity of harmonising concepts and methods across Member States and Regional Seas. Rec: To try to cover lags between directives themselves or proposed directives. Rec: To ensure existing Directives are included in future/upcoming directives, and when necessary to amend existing ones. Rec: To encourage Member States to systematically use standards already used within other EU legislation (e.g. the CFP, the WFD, the Habitats Directive) as minimum requirements.

Reliance and Integration of current policies to achieve GES

How to ensure seamless integration with other directives

 Spatial considerations and anomalies in EU legislation including the problems created by the overlap in space of the WFD, MSFD, Habitats Directive and the MSP Directive, as well as the CFP.  Consideration of which piece of legislation takes precedence in an area and so whether the definitions of ‘Good Status’, GES (MSFD), GEcS (WFD) or FCS (Hab Dir), are in agreement.  Spatial anomalies in the proposed system whereby marine areas may fail under GES and yet still be given the status as SPAs and SACs under the Habitats and Wild Birds Directives.

Rec: Suggest that the WFD takes precedence over the MSFD in the near-shore area and the Habitats Directive in designated areas of conservation.

Sectoral activities

Shipping

 IMO is the only responsible authority, although EU leadership is

CI: International Conventions and Agreements can assist


53

Topic

Specific Barrier

Gaps / Issues


not legislated under MSFD

Governance

increasing. EU shipping initiatives have led to complex interactions.  The EU has started to develop its own legislation, creating considerable overlap and co-governance between the EU and IMO, in an area in which the IMO used to have a monopoly.

in the task of achieving GES – e.g. International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments; the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships; and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Rec: For the EU to continue to strengthen its position in the promotion of international shipping policies

Offshore Renewables

 How to reconcile the expansion of the offshore renewable energy sector with the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities in the marine environment & achieving the legally binding obligations set down by MSFD.  Using the MSFD as the main framework for reviewing planning activities is reported as a barrier to economic development and, in particular, offshore renewable energy.  Barrier to further growth of renewables sector: plethora of uncertainties about technology and impacts on the natural environment and existing uses to GES.

Rec: For international and regional bodies to provide guidance and leadership on how best to avoid and resolve such conflicts if they are truly committed to ecosystem-based management. Rec: To improve guidance in a trans-national context and promote a coherent and stable regulatory framework at both the global and regional levels. Rec: To use the MSP Directive to provide a strong tool for achieving the goals of the MSFD, while balancing this with development objectives e.g. renewable targets.

Implementation of MSFD: Member States, Regional Seas Conventions (RSC) and NonEU Countries

Member States implementation

 The tardy implementation records of some Member States will continue with the long timeframe for the MSFD

Rec: To establish a more realistic timeframe for implementation. Also to provide financial support orientated towards the implementation of the MSFD

Effectiveness of the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs)

Implementation of MSFD: Case Studies from Member States,

General:

 Limited enforcement powers of the RSCs compromises their effectiveness in achieving agreed goals.  The policy and institutional barriers within the RSCs hinders the potential of achieving GES under the MSFD.  For GES to be achieved, support is required from all Contracting Parties to the RSC and their activities in the framework of marine conventions.

CI: Additional support for implementation has been made available to Member States, through tailor-made and hands-on projects funded under the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy and FP7. Examples include projects to improving the directive's implementation e.g. STAGES, PERSEUS, EcAP-Med, DEVOTES

 Concerns expressed over the definitions of GES emerging from the MSFD implementation and those definitions adopted regionally within HELCOM.

CI: The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) has been developed to ensure EU coordination and facilitate the implementation of the MSFD by Member States.

HELCOM:


54

Deliverable 2.2 Report on the Key Barriers of Achieving GES Topic Regional Seas Conventions (RSC) and NonEU Countries

Specific Barrier OSPAR:

(cont…)

UNEP/MAP:

BUCHAREST:

Gaps / Issues


 Interactions between descriptors is not effectively taken into account at the OSPAR regional sea level.  Although cooperation and coordination is perceived as important, Member States set different targets related to the most urgent problems on the national level, the different financial budgets they have available for marine conservation and different monitoring programs they use.  Some descriptors used to achieve GES e.g. marine food webs might get lost within OSPAR because different working groups deal with different descriptors.

Rec: To continue the clarification and harmonisation of concepts within and between Member States and regional seas.

 Highest number of non-Member States  The shared sense of responsibility and commitment for uptake of the concepts and best practices by the convened parties, including the non-EU Member States of which there are many.  The lack of fit-for-purpose agreed governance scheme for better regional and administrative co-ordination (Tatenhove et al., 2014).  High percentage of non-Member States  The Black Sea SAP does not yet contain specific references to the MSFD.

Rec: To continue the coordination through the Regional Sea Conventions Rec: To continue the application of EU funded projects (e.g. EcAp-Mediterranean, DEVOTES, STAGES) to assist with the implementation of the MSFD descriptors and targets into RSC. Rec: To promote the use of pilot projects involving both non-EU countries and Member States from the region to cooperate to implement the MSFD. Rec: To emphasise the importance of trans-boundary collaboration between Member States and coordination through a competent organisation. Rec: To refer to the practical definition of GES as provided in DEVOTES (Borja et al. 2015)

 Non-member states need not cooperate or adhere to any management measures introduced as a means to achieve GES, thereby compromising GES of Member States.  The numbers of non- Member States surrounding the Mediterranean and Black Seas.

CI: Continuous cooperation between Member States and EU-non-Member States through the RSC is crucial for protecting marine areas and achieving GES.

Case Study: TURKEY

 Turkey is currently a non-EU Member State and therefore not obliged to implement the MFSD  As a candidate country for EU membership, they are in the process of bringing their national legislation in line with European policy, however current legislation conformity has not been established for the MSFD in Turkey.

Rec: To accelerate the accession process to ensure the Environment Chapter is in compliance with EU conforming national legislation to environmental directives including the MSFD and attaining GES for Turkish coastal waters.

Case Study:

 The Ukraine is a non-EU Member State with no plans for joining the

Rec: To continue to develop national environmental

Co-operation of non-EU countries


Rec: To continue the coordination of non-Member States through the Regional Sea Conventions

55

Topic

Specific Barrier UKRAINE

Case Study: NORWAY

Transnational/regional cooperation on environmental effects to achieve GES

Engaging stakeholders through policy

Transboundary nature of marine waters

Ensuring stakeholders have been consulted throughout the MSFD process

Gaps / Issues


EU in the near future.  Non integrated policy with lack of coordination between responsible bodies and reporting.

policy more in line with EU directives.

 Norway is a non-EU Member State but is a contracting party to OSPAR.  Although adopting the Water Framework Directive, it has not adopted the MSFD.

Rec: To continue to integrate the requirements of EU directives and especially the MSFD into national plans.

 The complexity of achieving GES at a regional scale should not be underestimated and may limit potential collaboration.  Taking account of trans-boundary effects requires international cooperation which increases the challenges posed by MSFD and of ultimately achieving GES.  GES compromised by neighbouring countries setting different targets for GES e.g. less ambitious. Could lead to GES abruptly changing at a maritime boundary between two states.  Varying legislative differences between neighbouring states of a Regional Sea are likely to generate opposing priorities, goals and ultimately assessments e.g. a species conservation target.  Impacts of transboundary problems between neighbouring Member and Non-Member States compromising GES.

Rec: Joined up cross regional work on the development of targets, objectives and monitoring programmes should be undertaken.

 The MSFD does not specify which groups are legitimate ‘stakeholders’ or ‘interested parties’ and provides no guidance about what ‘early’ and ‘effective’ opportunities to participate means.  The demands of private sector stakeholders and society who depend on marine natural resources for profit and health and wellbeing respectively, should not be underestimated and may hinder Member States in ultimately achieving GES.

Rec: To continue to improve the MSFD consultation process by engaging and consulting in a timely manner and with all stakeholder groups.


Rec: To continue to adopt ecosystem based management into national initiatives.

Rec: To promote cross-border harmonisation of targets for all directives between Member States Rec: Use lessons learned from the implementation of the WFD to implement the MSFD and setting of compatible GES across Regional Seas. Rec: To promote some compliance with SEA procedures into Non-Member States national legislation.

56


References Aanesen, M., Armstrong, C.W. & van Hoof, L. 2012. The changing environment of fisheries policy in Europe. Marine Policy 36: 1172–1177. Abdulla, A. & Linden, O. 2008. Maritime traffic effects on biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea: Review of impacts, priority areas and mitigation measures. Malaga, Spain: IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation. 184 pp. Altvater, S., McGlade, K., Stuke, F., von Sperber, E. & Grünig, M. 2011. Gutachten “Erarbeitung einer Zusammenstellung

und

Bewertung

internationaler

Konzepte

Gesamtbewertung mariner Ökosysteme”. FKZ 363 01 331

zur

integrierten

Forschungsvorhaben des

Umweltbundesamts Referenznummer: 2348 Anastasopoulou, A., Mytilineou, Ch., Smith, C.J. & Papadopoulou, K-N. 2013. Plastic debris ingested by deep-water fish of the Ionian Sea (Eastern Mediterranean) Deep Sea Research I. 74: 11-13 Anderson, R. 2013. An update on marine policy. August 2013. Personal observations. Author is an advisor to the North Sea Marine Cluster and an associate at Marine Planning Consultants. ANON, 2013. Joint NGO position on: The EU Proposal for Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management (MSP-ICM Directive). May 2013. 6 pp. Apitz, S.E., Elliott, M., Fountain, M. & Galloway, T.S. 2006. European Environmental Management: Moving to an Ecosystem Approach. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2: 80-85. Atkins, J.P., Banks, E., Burdon, D., Greenhill, L., Hastings, E. & Potts, T. 2013. An analysis of methodologies for defining ecosystem services in the marine environment. JNCC Report 491 Backer, H., Leppänen, J-M., Brusendorff, A.C., Forsius, K., Stankiewicz, M., Mehtonen, J., Pyhälä, M., Laamanen, M., Paulomäki, H. Vlasov, N. & Haaranen, T. 2010. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan – A regional programme of measures for the marine environment based on the Ecosystem Approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60: 642–649 Bainbridge, J.M, Potts, T. & O’Higgins, T.G. 2011. Rapid Policy Network Mapping: A New Method for Understanding Governance Structures for Implementation of Marine Environmental Policy. PLoS ONE 6(10): e26149. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026149 Barnes, D.K.A., 2002. Biodiversity – Invasions by marine life on plastic debris. Nature 416, 808–809.


Berg, T., Fürhaupter, K., Teixeira, H., Uusitalo, L. & Zampoukas, N. 2015. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the ecosystem-based approach - pitfalls and solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin (Submitted) doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.050 Bertram, C. & Rehdanz, K. 2013. On the environmental effectiveness of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine Policy. Besiktepe, S. T. & Kaboglu, G. 2014. Typology and Classification of Turkish Coastal and Transitional Waters. Report No: DBTE-208 (Final Report), January 2014, Izmir: DEU-IMST & TUBITAKMRC. Bigagli, E. 2015. The EU legal framework for the management of marine complex social–ecological systems. Marine Policy 54, 44-51 Black Sea Commission, 2009. Activities of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution to Facilitate the Regional Coordination for Identification of the Good Ecological Status (GES) of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and Related Policy Development. Bucharest: Black Sea Commission; 2009 Black Sea Commission, 2010. Final ¨Diagnostic Report¨ to guide improvements to the regular reporting process on the state of the Black Sea environment, August 2010 Borja, Á., 2006. The new European Marine Strategy Directive: Difficulties, opportunities, and challenges. Editorial. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52: 239-242. Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Carstensen, J., Heiskanen, A.-S. & van de Bund, W. 2010. Marine management Towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework and the Water Framework Directives. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60: 2175-2186. Borja, Á., Galparsoro, I., Irigoien, X., Iriondo, A., Menchaca, I., Muxika, I., Pascual, M., Quincoces, I., Revilla, M., Rodríguez, J.G., Santurtún, M., Solaun, O., Uriarte, A., Valencia, V., Zorita, I. 2011. Viewpoint. Implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A methodological approach for the assessment of environmental status, from the Basque Country (Bay of Biscay). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62: 889–904 Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Henriksen, P. & Marba, N. 2012. Water bodies in Europe. Review Paper. Transitional and coastal waters ecological status assessment: advances and challenges resulting from implementing the European Water Framework Directive. Hydrobiologia DOI 10.1007/s10750-012-1276-9



Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Andersen, J.H., Cardoso, A.C., Carstensen, J., Ferreira, J.G., Heiskanen, A-S., Marques, J.C., Neto, J., Teixeira, H., Uusitalo, L., Uyarra, M.C. & Zampoukas, N. 2013. Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: What is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 76: 16-27 Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Andersen, J.H., Cardoso, A.C., Carstensen, J., Ferreira, J.G., Heiskanen, A-S,, Marques, J,C., Neto, J.M., Teixeira, H., Uusitalom L., Uyarra, M.C., Zampoukas, N., Prins, T., Simboura, N., Berg, T., Papadopoulou, N., Reker, J. & Menchaca, I. 2015. Report on potential Definition of Good Environmental Status Deliverable 6.2, DEVOTES Project. 62pp Boteler, B., Grüning, M., Lago, M., Iglesias-Campos, A., Reker, J. & Meiner, A. 2014. European maritime transport and port activities: identifying policy gaps towards reducing environmental

impacts

of

socio-economic

activities.

Ecologic

http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/presentation/2014/european-maritime-transport-andport-activities_0.pdf Boudouresque, C.F., Bernard, G., Bonhomme, P., Charbonnel, E., Diviacco, G., Meinesz, A., Pergent, G., Pergent-Martini, C., Ruitton, S. & Tunesi, L. 2012. Protection and conservation of Posidonia oceanica meadows. RAMOGE and RAC/SPA publ., Tunis: 1-202. ISBN 2-905540-311, RAC/SPA and Gis Posidonie publ., Marseille. Boyes, S.J. & Elliott, M., 2014. Marine legislation –the ultimate ‘horrendogram’: International Law, European Directives & National Implementation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86, pp. 39-47. Boyes, S.J. & Elliott, M., 2015. The excessive complexity of national marine governance systems - has this decreased in England since the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009? Marine Policy, 51, pp. 57-65. Breen, P., L.A. Robinson, S.I. Rogers, A.M. Knights, G. Piet, T. Churilova,

P. Margonski, N.

Papadopoulou, E. Akoglu, A. Eriksson, Z. Finenko, V. Fleming-Lehtinen, B. Galil, F. Goodsir, M. Goren, O. Kryvenko, J.M. Leppanen, V. Markantonatou, S. Moncheva, T. Oguz, L. Paltriguera, K. Stefanova, F. Timofte, & F. Thomsen. 2012. An environmental assessment of risk in achieving good environmental status to support regional prioritisation of management in Europe. Marine Policy, 36: 1033-1043. Brennan, J., Fitzsimmons, C., Gray, T & Raggatt, L. 2014. EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): Which is the more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK? Marine Policy, 43:359-366


Browman, H.I., Cury, P.M., Hilborn, R., Jennings, S., Lotze, H.K., Mace, P.M., Murawski, S., Pauly, D., Sissenwine, M., Stergiou, K.I., and Zeller, D. 2004.

Perspectives on ecosystem-based

approaches to the management of marine resources. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 274: 269–303. BSH (Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency), 2005. Genehmigungsbescheid Nördlicher Grund. Available at: http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresnutzung/Wirtschaft/Windparks/Genehmigungsbescheid_Noe rdlicher_Grund.pdf (Accessed: 08.01.2012) Busch, M., Kannen, A., Garthe, S. & Jessopp, M. 2013. Consequences of a cumulative perspective on marine environmental impacts: offshore wind farming and seabirds at North Sea scale in context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ocean and Coastal Management, 71: 213-224 Cardoso, A.C., Cochrane, S., Doemer, H., Ferreira, J.G., Galgani, F., Hagebro, C., Hanke, G., Hoepffner, G., Keizer, P.D., Law, R., Olenin, S., Piet, G.J., Rice, J., Rogers, S.I., Swartenbroux, F., Tasker, M.L. & van de Bund, W. 2010. Scientific support to the European Commission on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Management Group Report. EUR 24336 EN – Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: 57 pp. Cinnirella, S., R. Sardà, J. Suárez de Vivero, R. Brennan, A. Barausse, J. Icely, T. Luisetti, D. March, C. Murciano, A. Newton, T. O'Higgins, L. Palmeri, M. Palmieri, P. Raux, S. Rees, J. Albaigés, N. Pirrone, and K. Turner. 2014. Steps toward a shared governance response for achieving Good Environmental Status in the Mediterranean Sea. Ecology and Society 19(4): 47. http://dx.doi. org/10.5751/ES-07065-190447 Claussen, U., Connor, D., de Vrees, L., Leppänen, J-M., Percelay, J., Kapari, M., Mihail, O., Ejdung, G. & Rendell, J. 2011. Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) and Establishment of Environmental Targets (Art. 8, 9 & 10 MSFD). Status: Version 6 – 22 November 2011 Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution & European Commission, 2013. Support to the Black Sea Commission for the Implementation of the Marine Strategy. Final Report. Grant Agreement No 21.0401/2008/517948/SUB/D2 COMPASS. 2005. COMPASS Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem‐Based Management. 21 March 2005.



David, M. & Gollasch, S. 2008. EU shipping in the dawn of managing the ballast water issue. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 1966–1972. DECC, 2009. The UK renewable energy strategy. Available from: 〈 http://www.officialdocuments.gov.uk/document/cm76/7686/7686.pdf〉 ; 2009 [accessed 13.01.15]. Defra, 2012a.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation.

UK Initial Assessment and

Proposals for Good Environmental Status. HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, The Scottish Government and Welsh Government. March 2012 Defra, 2012b. Marine Strategy Part One: UK Initial Assessment and Good Environmental Status. HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, The Scottish Government and Welsh Government. December 2012. Defra, 2012c.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation.

UK Initial Assessment and

Proposals for Good Environmental Status. Summary of Responses.

HM Government,

Northern Ireland Executive, The Scottish Government and Welsh Government. December 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/86574/ms fd-consult-sumresp-20121220.pdf Defra, 2014. Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation.

UK Marine Monitoring

Programmes. HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, The Scottish Government and Welsh Government. January 2014. DG Environment of the European Commission. Interview. 2010. Reported in van Leeuwen et al 2012. Douvere, F., 2008. MSP in ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 32, 762–771. Dupont, C., Belin, A., Moreira, G. & Vermonden, B. 2014. Article 12 Technical Assessment of the MSFD 2012 obligations - The United Kingdom. Final version. Report provided under Contract No 070307/2012/634823/SER/D2 – Task F. ECCC, 2011. House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee: a European super grid. Seventh report of session 2010–2012,vol.1: HC1040; 2011. Energy and Climate Change Committee (ECCC). Elliott, M., Borja, A., McQuatters-Gollop, A., Mazik, K., Birchenough, S., Anderson, J., Painting, S. & Peck, M. in press. Force majeure: Will climate change affect our ability to attain Good


Environmental Status for marine biodiversity? Marine Pollution Bulletin (2015) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.03.015 EPCSF, 2011. Assessment of Environmental Performance According to the Priorities of the Eastern Partnership Flagship Initiative on Environmental Governance. Towards Good Environmental Governance in the Eastern Partnership Countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EPCSF). MAMA-86 National Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation, Kyiv 2011 ESEC, 2012.

Limits to Blue Growth. Joint NGO position paper. European Seas Environmental

Cooperation.

October

2012.

http://www.seas-at-

risk.org/1mages/Limits%20to%20Blue%20Growth%20%20joint%20NGO%20position%20paper%20-%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 30/01/14) European Commission, 2004a. Motorways of the Sea. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/motorways_sea/ European Commission, 2004b. Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. Official Journal of the European Union L167:1-38. European Commission, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L164: 19-40. European Commission, 2010a. Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (notified under document C(2010) 5956)(2010/477/EU). Official Journal of the European Union L232: 12-24 European Commission, 2010b. EC renewable energy national action plans and forecasts. Available from: 〈 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/action_plan_en.htm〉 ; 2010 [accessed 13.01.15]. European Commission, 2010c. Common Implementation Strategy of MSFD: Work programme 2011. Brussels: European Commission; 2010.



European Commission, 2010d. Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment. Economic And Social Analysis For The Initial Assessment For The Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A Guidance Document A Non-Legally Binding Document. European Commission, 2011a. Maritime spatial planning in the EU - Achievements and future development. (ECCOM(2010)771). EC, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/publications/documents/com_2010_7 71_brochure_en.pdf (accessed 29.01.14). European Commission, 2011b. Study on the Economic Effects of MSP. European Commission, Luxembourg. European Commission, 2011c. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. COM(2011)144 final. European Commission, 2013a. MEMO – Questions and Answers on proposed Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management. Brussels, 13 March 2013. European Commission, 2013b. GREEN PAPER On a European Strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment. COM(2013) 123 final. European Commission, 2014a. Commission Staff Working Document. Annex Accompanying the document. Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament. The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European Commission's assessment and guidance {COM(2014) 97 final} European Commission, 2014b. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The European Commission's assessment and guidance. Brussels, 20.2.2014 COM(2014) 97 final European Commission, 2014c. Commission welcomes Council’s agreement to improve how seas and coastal areas are used. (accessed 31.07.14) . European Commission - DG Environment, 2014d. Programme ‘Preparatory action – Environmental monitoring of the Black Sea Basin and a common European framework programme for development of the Black Sea region/Black Sea and Mediterranean 2011, 2012-2014’ http://www.misisproject.eu/index.php?task=documents_deliverables Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

FAO, 2003. Technical guidelines for an ecosystem approach to responsible fishing. FAO, Rome Farmer, A., Mee, L., Langmead, O., Cooper, P., Kannen, A. & Kershaw, P. 2012. The ecosystem approach

in

marine

management.

EU

FP7

KNOWSEAS

Project.

0-9529089-5-6; 2012 Fletcher, S. (2007). "Converting science to policy through stakeholder involvement: An analysis of the European Marine Strategy Directive." Marine Pollution Bulletin 54(12): 1881-1886. Foster, E., Haward, M. & Coffen-Smout, S. 2005. Implementing integrated oceans management: Australia's south east regional marine plan (SERMP) and Canada's eastern Scotian shelf integrated management (ESSIM) initiative. Marine Policy, 29: 391-405. Frazão Santos, C.F., Teixeira, Z.G., Janeiro, J., Goncalves, R.S., Bjorkland, R. & Orbach, M. 2012. The European Marine Strategy: Contribution and challenges from a Portuguese perspective. Marine Policy, 36: 963–968 Freire-Gibb, L.C., Koss, R., Margonski, P. & Papadopoulou, N. 2014. Governance strengths and weaknesses to implement the marine strategy framework directive in European waters. Marine Policy 44: 172-178. Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Thompson R.C., Van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., Scoullos, M., Mira Veiga, J., Palatinus, A., Matiddi, M., Maes, T., Korpinen, S., Budziak, A., Leslie, H., Gago, J., Liebezeit, G. 2013. Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (TSG-ML). http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC83985/lb-na-26113en-n.pdf Healthy

Seas,

2013.

The

Healthy

Seas

Initiative:

Legal

and

Policy

Framework

http://healthyseas.org/assets/uploads/2014/03/The-Healthy-Seas-Legal-and-PolicyFramework.pdf HELCOM, 2007a. HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (adopted by the HELCOM Ministerial meeting, Krakow, Poland 15th November 2007). HELCOM, 2007b. Annex 5: Statement by Mr. Peter Gammeltoft, European Commission. Minutes of the Ministerial Meeting of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM Ministerial 2007). In: Ministerial Meeting Krakow, Poland, 15 November 2007.



HELCOM, 2010. Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings 122, 68. Hendriksen, A., Jouanneau, C., Koss, R. & Raakjaer, J. 2014. Fishing for opinions: Stakeholder views on MSFD implementation in European Seas. Marine Policy, 50(Part B), p353–363 HPCEU, 2014. Athens Declaration - “Mid-Term Review of the EU’s Maritime Transport Policy until 2018 and Outlook to 2020”. Hellenic Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 2014. Athens,

7th

May

2014.

http://gr2014.eu/sites/default/files/ATHENS%20DECLARATION_FINAL.pdf Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C.K., Heiskanen, A.S., Johnson, R.K., Moe, J., Pont, D., Solheim, A.L. & van de Bund, W., 2010. The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Science of the Total Environment 408, 4007–4019. HM Government, 2012a. Links between the Marine Strategy Framework and Water Framework Directives. Fact Sheet 1, December 2012. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/legislation/msfd-factsheet1waterdirective.pdf HM Government, 2012b. Links between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other legislation.

Factsheet

2,

December

2012.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/legislation/msfd-factsheet2otherlegislations.pdf ICES, 2005. Guidance on the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Management of Human Activities in the European Marine Environment. ICES Cooperative Research Report, No. 273, 22pp.Juda, L. 2010. The European Union and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Continuing the Development of European Ocean Use Management. Ocean Development & International Law, 41: 34-54 Jennings, S. 2005. Indicators to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6: 212-232. Jones, P.J.S., Lieberknecht, L.M. & Qiu, W. 2014. Marine Spatial Planning in Reality. Outline of and key points from governance research under the MESMA project. Monitoring and Evaluation of Spatially Managed Marine Areas. http://www.mesma.org/


Jones, P.J.S., Qiu, W.& Lieberknecht, L.M. 2013. Typology of Conflicts in MESMA case studies. MESMA Work Package 6 (Governance). Deliverable 6.1. University College London. http://www.mesma.org/ JRC, 2011. Marine Litter – Technical Recommendations for the Implementation of MSFD Requirements, EUR 25009 EN, Luxemburg 2011. Juda, L. 2010. The European Union and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Continuing the Development of European Ocean Use Management. Ocean Development & International Law, 41:1, 34-54 Kaboglu, G., Beken, Ç. P., Tan, I., Tutak, B. and Besiktepe, S. T. 2014. Monitoring of Turkish coastal waters: An assessment scaled to water bodies and typology. Paper presented at the 3rd International Symposium on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Antalya, Turkey. Katsanevakis, S. 2008. Marine debris, a growing problem: Sources, distribution, composition, and impacts. In: Hofer TN (ed) Marine Pollution: New Research. Nova Science Publishers, New York. pp. 53–100. Katsanevakis, S., Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Ben Rais Lasram, F., Zenetos, A. & Cardoso, A.C. 2014. Invading the Mediterranean Sea: biodiversity patterns shaped by human activities. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2014; 1 DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2014.00032 KLIF, 2012. Scientific basis for an integrated management plan for the North Sea and Skagerrak. Summary analysis of population, economic activity and ecosystem services. KLIF (Editors). http://www.miljodirektoratet.no/old/klif/publikasjoner/2931/ta2931.pdf

(accessed

29/01/14). Knights, A.M., Koss, R.S., Papadopoulou, K.N., Cooper, L.H. & Robinson, L.A. 2011. Sustainable use of European regional seas and the role of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1, EC FP7 Project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-63-6: 165 pp. Kraan, M.L., Hendriksen, A., Hoof, L.J.W. van, Leeuwen, J. van, Jouanneau, C. 2014. How to dance? The tango of stakeholder involvement in marine governance research. Marine Policy, 50, 347352 Laroche S, Andral B, Cadiou J-F, Pantazi M, Gonzalez Fernandez D, Vasile D, Vassilopoulou V et al, 2013. Identified gaps on MSFD assessment elements. Perseus Deliverable D.5.2. PERSEUS Project. ISBN 978-960-9798-01-3 Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


Long, R. 2011.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A new European approach to the

regulation of the marine environment, marine natural resources and marine ecological services. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, 29 (1): 1-44 Long, R. 2012. Regulating marine scientific research in the European Union: it takes more than two to tango. In: M. Nordquist, J. Norton Moore, F. Soons, and H. Kim (Eds.). The Law of the Sea Convention: U.S. Accession and Globalisation. Leiden/Boston : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Long, R., 2013. Offshore wind energy development and ecosystem-based marine management in the EU: are the regulatory answers really blowing in the wind? In: M. Nordquist, A. Chircop, R. Long, J. Norton Moore (ed.), The regulation of continental shelf development: rethinking international standards, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Luisetti, T., Boyes, S.J., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Atkins, J.P., Bizsel, K.C., Börger, T., Carugati, L., Danovaro, R., Eronat, A.H., Kaboglu, G., Murillas, A., Oinonen, S., Paltriguera, L., Papadopoulou, K.N., Petani, B., Pusceddu, A., Saggiomo, V., Scardi, M., Smith, C.J., Vassilopoulou, V., Uyarra, M.C. and Austen, M.C. (submitted) The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: barriers to its implementation. Global Environmental Change. MAGRAMA, 2012. Estrategias Marinas. Documento Marco. Evaluación Inicial, Buen Estado Ambiental

Y

Objetivos Ambientales.

Ministerio

de

Agricultura,

Alimentación

y

Medioambiente, Spain Mee, L.D., Jefferson, R.L., d. A. Laffoley, D, & Elliott, M. 2008. How good is good? Human values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 187-204. MFA-TR 2014. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/baslica-ege-denizi-sorunlari.tr.mfa Milieu Ltd 2014a, Article 12 Technical Assessment of the MSFD 2012 obligations, Greece, 7 February 2014. Milieu Ltd 2014b, Article 12 Technical Assessment of the MSFD 2012 obligations, Mediterranean, 7 February 2014. Ministry of the Environment, 2009. Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Norwegian Sea. Report No. 37 to the Storting (2008-2009). (White paper from the Stoltenberg

II

Government).

www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/md/documents-and-publications/government-propositions-


and-reports-/reports-to-the-storting-white-papers-2/2008-2009/report-no-37-2008-2009to-the-storting.html?id=577875 (accessed 29/01/14) Ministry of the Environment, 2011. First update of the Integrated Management Plan for the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea–Lofoten Area. Meld. St. 10 (2010–2011) Report to the Storting

(white

paper).

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kld/dok/regpubl/stmeld/2010-2011/meld-st-1020102011.html?id=682050 (accessed 29/01/14) Ministry of the Environment, 2013. Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the North Sea and Skagerrak. Report No. 37 to the Storting (2012-2013). (White paper from the Stoltenberg

II

Government).

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kld/dok/regpubl/stmeld/2012-2013/meld-st-3720122013.html?id=724746 (accessed 29/01/14) Morris, D., O'Brien, C. & Larcombe, P. 2011. Actually achieving marine sustainability demands a radical re-think in approach, not 'more of the same. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(5): 10531057. Nicholson, M.D. & Jennings, S. 2004. Testing candidate indicators to support ecosystem-based management: the power of monitoring surveys to detect temporal trends in fish community metrics. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 35-42. Norwegian Environment Agency, 2013. The North Sea and Skagerrak. Published by Norwegian Environment Agency 20.03.2013.

http://www.environment.no/Topics/Marine-areas/The-

North-Sea/ (accessed 29/01/14) OSPAR, 2009. Evaluation of the OSPAR System of Ecological Quality Objectives for the North Sea. Biodiversity Series, p. 102. OSPAR, 2010a. General Guidance on the Voluntary Interim Application of the D1 Ballast Water Exchange Standard by vessels operating between the Mediterranean Sea and the North-East Atlantic and/or the Baltic Sea. and/or the Baltic Sea. Adopted: Bergen 2010. Agreement 2010-07 http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/ballast_water_guidance.pdf OSPAR, 2010b. The North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy; Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic 2010-2020 (OSPAR Agreement 2010-3). London, OSPAR Commission.



OSPAR, 2012. Finding common ground. Towards regional coherence in implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the North-East Atlantic region through the work of the OSPAR Commission. OSPAR Commission. http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00578/p00578_msfd%20report.pdf OSPAR, 2014. Regional Action Plan for Prevention and Management of Marine Litter in the NorthEast Atlantic, OSPAR Agreement 2014-1. OSPAR & HELCOM. 2003. Statement on the Ecosystem Approach to the management of human activities. Towards an Ecosystem Approach to the Management of Human Activities. Ősterblom H, Gardmark A, Bergstrom L, Muller-Karulis B, Folke C, et al. 2010. Making the ecosystem approach operational – Can regime shifts in ecological- and governance systems facilitate the transition? Marine Policy 34(6): 1290–1299. Ounanian, K., Delaney, A., Raakjær, J., & Ramirez-Monsalve, P. 2012.

On unequal footing:

Stakeholder perspectives on the marine strategy framework directive as a mechanism of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management. Marine Policy, 36: p658–666 Patrício, J., Teixeira, H., Borja, A., Elliott, M., Berg, T., Papadopoulou, N., Smith, C., Luisetti, T., Uusitalo, L., Wilson, C., Mazik, K., Niquil, N., Cochrane, S., Andersen, J.H., Boyes, S., Burdon, D., Carugati, L., Danovaro, R. & Hoepffner, N. 2015. DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1.5, 71 pp. DEVOTES project. JRC92131. Palialexis A, Tornero V, Barbone E, Gonzalez D, Hanke G, Cardoso AC, Hoepffner N, Katsanevakis S, Somma F, Zampoukas N, 2014. In-depth assessment of the EU Member States’ submissions for the Marine Framework Strategy Framework Directive under articles 8, 9 and 10 JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/30749/1/lbna26473e nn.pdf Pham, C.K., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Alt, C.H.S., Amaro, T., Bergmann, M. et al. 2014. Marine Litter Distribution and Density in European Seas, from the Shelves to Deep Basins. PLoS ONE 9(4): e95839. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0095839 Prins, T.C., Twisk, F., van den Heuvel-Greve, M.J., Troost, T.A. & van Beek, J.K.L. 2008. Development of a framework for Appropriate Assessments of Dutch offshore wind farms. Deltares, Delft.


Qiu, W. & Jones, P.J.S. 2013. The emerging policy landscape for marine spatial planning in Europe. Marine Policy, 39: 182–190 Rätz, H., Dörner, H., Scott, R. & Barbas, T. 2010. Complementary roles of European and national institutions under the Common Fisheries Policy and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine Policy 34(5): 1028-1035. RSPB & BirdLife International, 2008. EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. RSPB and BirdLife International. Briefing, July 2008. Rudd, M.A., 2004. An institutional framework for designing and monitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments. Ecological Economics, 48: 109-124. Salomon M. 2006. The European Commission proposal for a Marine Strategy: Lacking substance. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52(11): 1328-9. Salomon, M. & Dross, M. 2013. Challenges in cross-sectoral marine protection in Europe. Marine Policy, 42: 142–149 Siousiouras, P & Chrysochou, G. 2014. The Aegean Dispute in the Context of Contemporary Judicial Decisions on Maritime Delimitation. Laws 2014, 3, 12–49; doi:10.3390/laws3010012. Sissenwine, M. & Symes, D. 2007. Reflections of the Common Fisheries Policy. Report to the General Directorate for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. 2007. Strand, J., Tairova, Z., Danielsen, J., Würgler Hansen, J., Magnusson, K., Lars-Johan Naustvoll, L-J. & Kirk Sørensen, T. 2014. Marine Litter in Nordic waters. Draft TemaNord Report - October 2014, 65 pp. Suárez de Vivero, J. L. & J. C. Rodríguez Mateos. 2012. The Spanish approach to marine spatial planning. Marine Strategy Framework Directive vs. EU Integrated Maritime Policy. Marine Policy, 36:18. Tallis, H., Levin, S.P., Ruckelshaus, M., Lester, S.E., McLeod, K.L., Fluharty, D.L. & Halpern, B.S. 2010. The many faces of ecosystem-based management: Making the process work in real places. Marine Policy 34: 340–348. Thiel, A. 2013. Scalar reorganisation of marine governance in Europe? The implementation of the marine strategy framework directive in Spain, Portugal and Germany. Marine Policy, 39: 322–332 Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES


Topcu, D., Brockmann, U. & Claussen, U., 2009. Relationship between eutrophication reference conditions and boundary settings considering OSPAR recommendations and the Water Framework Directive – examples from the German Bight. Hydrobiologia, 629: 91–106. TUBITAK-MRC & MoEU-GDEM 2014. Marine and Coastal Waters Quality Determination and Classification Project (DeKoS). ÇTÜE 5118703, Report No: ÇTÜE.13.155 (Final Report), February 2014, Gebze-Kocaeli, Turkey. UNECE, 2011. Informal Country Report Ukraine. Summary record on the progress of Ukraine in implementing the UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development. http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/8thMeetSC/Ukraine.pdf UNEP/MAP, 2011. Draft decision on the Regional strategy addressing ship’s ballast water management

and

invasive

species,

UNEP(DEPI)/MED

WG

363/14,

http://195.97.36.231/dbases/MAPmeetingDocs/11WG363_14_eng.pdf UNEP/MAP, 2013. Draft decision on the Ecosystems Approach including adopting definitions of Good Environmental Status (GES) and targets. UNEP (DEPI) / MED WG.387/CRP.1.Rev1, endorsed and agreed to be forwarded to COP18 by the UNEP MAP Focal Points at their Meeting in September 2013. Athens 2013. UNEP/MAP, 2014. Regional Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Mediterranean to prevent and eliminate pollution enters into force. http://www.unepmap.org/index.php?module=news&action=detail&id=158 van Hoof, L. 2010. Who rules the waves? Governance and New Institutional Arrangements in Dutch Fisheries Management in the Context of the European Common Fisheries Policy. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, NL. ISBN 978-90-8585-625-2 van Hoof, L. & van Tatenhove, J. 2009. EU marine policy on the move: the tension between fisheries and marine policy. Marine Policy, 33: 726-732. van Hoof, L., van Leeuwen, J. & van Tatenhove, J. 2012. All at sea; regionalisation and integration of marine policy in Europe. Maritime Studies, 11:9 doi:10.1186/2212-9790-11-9 van Leeuwen, J., van Hoof, L., & van Tatenhove, J. 2012. Institutional ambiguity in implementing the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine Policy, 36: 636–643


van Leeuwen, J. & Kern, K. 2013. The external dimension of European Union marine governance: institutional interplay between the EU and the EU and the International maritime Organization. Global Environmental Politics 31:1, 69-87. van Leeuwen, J., Raakjaer, J., van Hoof, L., van Tatenhove, J., Long, R. & Ounanian, K. 2014. Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A policy perspective on regulatory, institutional and stakeholder impediments to effective implementation. Marine Policy, 50 (Part B), 325–330. van Tatenhove, J.P.M. 2013. How to turn the tide: Developing legitimate marine governance arrangements at the level of the regional seas. Ocean & Coastal Management 71: 296-304 Wenzel, C. 2009. Implementation of the EU-Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the North Sea and Baltic Sea; Role of the Marine Conventions. HELCOM and OSPAR. Helsinki Commission. Werschkun, B., Banerji, S., Basurko, O.C., David, M., Fuhr, F., Gollasch, S., Grummt, T., Haarich, M., Jha, A.N., Kacan, S., Kehrer, A., Linders, J., Mesbahi, E., Pughiuc, D., Richardson, S.D., Schwarz-Schulz, B., Shah, A., Theobald, N., von Gunten, U., Wieck, S. & Höfer, T. 2014. Emerging risks from ballast water treatment: the run-up to the International Ballast Water Management

Convention.

Chemosphere.

112:256-66.

doi:

10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.135. Epub 2014 May 16. Wildlife and Countryside Link, Scottish Environment LINK, Wales Environment Link and the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force, 2012. Marine Strategy Framework Directive consultation: UK Initial Assessment and Proposals for Good Environmental Status. A joint response. June 2012 Zampoukas, N. 2013. Personal communication. European Commission, DG JRC, Water Resources Unit, Ispra, Italy. Zampoukas, N., Piha, H., Bigagli, E., Hoepffner, N., Hanke, G. & Cardoso, A.C. 2012. Monitoring for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Requirements and options. JRC Scientific and Technical

Reports:

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/23169/1/lbna25187e nn.pdf


Appendix 1. Common issues across the different policies Policy

EBA

Good Environmental Status

Data, Assessment and Impacts

Cost of Degradation

Programme of Measures

MSFD

Yes

Qualitative 11 descriptors for determining good environmental status are identified in Annex I, referred to in Articles 3(5), 9(1) and 24. In particular, the following descriptors (selected for their relation with other directives) are defined as follows: D1 - Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions. D2 Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystem. D3 - Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock. D4 - Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

Art. 8. Member states should develop (a) an analysis of the essential features and characteristics, and current environmental status of the waters covering the physical and chemical features, the habitat types, the biological features and the hydromorphology;

The cost of degradation assessment should also be included within the initial assessment according to Art. 8(c)

Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or subregion concerned, identify the measures which need to be taken in order to achieve or maintain good environmental status, as determined pursuant to Article 9(1), in their marine waters. The list of programmes of measures is presented in Annex VI which are related to Art. 13(1) and Art. 24: (1) Input controls (2) Output controls (3) Spatial and temporal distribution controls (4) Management coordination measures (5) Measures to improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution. (6) Economic incentives (7) Mitigation and remediation tools (8) Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness

(b) an analysis of the predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity, on the environmental status of those waters which: Finally, (c) an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment.

Source: Azti Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

73


Appendix 1 Continued Policy

EBA



CFP

Yes (*)

Fish stocks should be brought up to healthy levels and be maintained in healthy conditions. They should be exploited at maximum sustainable yield levels. These levels can be defined as the highest catch that can be safely taken year after year and which maintains the fish population size at maximum productivity. CFP package of new measures: among then conservation and sustainability measures are proposed, such as, the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) as conservation target with deadline (2015). This objective (MSY) would also enable the reformed CFP to make a better contribution to achieving GES in the marine environment, in line with the provisions of the MSFD

Data and Science. Obligation for Member States to collect and provide data, and to prepare (regional) multiannual data collection programmes. National fisheries research programmes with regional coordination among Member States. Focusing the work of STECF on essentials.

(*) The Commission will take action to ensure that the CFP reflects the ecosystembased approach.

Cost of Degradation

Programme of Measures New measures package of the CFP: Access to resource & fleet capacity; Transferable fishing concessions mandatory for large-scale fleets — with transferability at national level. Governance; Expand the role of Advisory Councils in the implementation of the CFP at regional level. New approach to stakeholder involvement on horizontal issues not covered by the Advisory Councils.

Source: Azti


74


EBA

DCF

No



Cost of Degradation


Data collected for the purposes of scientific evaluation should include information on fleets and their activities, biological data covering catches, including discards, survey information on fish stocks and the environmental impact that may be caused by fisheries on the marine ecosystem. It should also include data explaining price formation and other data which may facilitate an assessment of the economic situation of fishing enterprises, aquaculture and the processing industry, and of employment trends in these sectors. The socioeconomic evaluation of the fish, aquaculture and processing maritime sectors are part of the broader maritime activities. Chapters III, IV and V of the DCF are devoted to this objective. DCF establishes not only the indicators to cover but also precision levels. In addition, the fishing sector impact on the marine ecosystem is evaluated according to a list of indicators listed under the Appendix XIII of the DCF

Source: Azti


75



EBA



MSP

Yes Maritime spatial plans and integrated coastal management strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to facilitate the co-existence and prevent conflicts between competing sector activities in marine waters and coastal zones.

“… maritime spatial planning should apply an ecosystem-based approach as referred to in Article 1(3) of Directive 2008/56/EC with the aim of ensuring that the collective pressure of all activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of good environmental status and that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes is not compromised, while contributing to the sustainable use of marine goods and services by present and future generations.”

Point 4. “… it is essential that Member States make use of the best available data and information by encouraging the relevant stakeholders to share information and by making use of existing instruments and tools for data collection, such those developed in the context of the Marine Knowledge 2020 initiative and Directive 2007/2/EC” (INSPIRE). Art. 10. Data use and sharing. “Member States shall organize the use of the best available data, and decide how to organise the sharing of information, necessary for maritime spatial plans.” Art. 8. Setting-up of marine spatial plans When establishing and implementing maritime spatial planning, Member States shall take into consideration relevant interactions of activities and uses, such as: aquaculture areas; fishing areas; installations and infrastructures for the exploration, exploitation and extraction of oil, of gas, and other energy resources, of minerals and aggregates, and for the production of energy from renewal sources; maritime transport routes and traffic flows; military training; nature and species conservation sites and protected areas; raw material extraction areas; scientific research; submarine cable and pipeline routes; tourism and underwater cultural heritage. When organizing the collection of data, Member States should make use of instruments and tools developed under the IMP and other relevant Union policies (e.g. Directive 2007/2/EC). There is no reference to the cost of degradation.

Cost of Degradation

Programme Measures

In order to achieve the objectives of this Directive, Member States should prepare an inventory of these measures and analyse the need for additional actions.

Source: Azti


of

76


EBA

IMP

Yes IMP covers the following cross-cutting policies: - Blue growth - Marine Data and Knowledge - Maritime Spatial Planning - Integrated Maritime Surveillance - Sea Basin Strategies And it seeks to coordinate, not replace policies on specific maritime sectors.



Cost of Degradation


The establishment of an appropriate marine data and information infrastructure is of utmost importance. Availability and easy access to a wide range of natural and humanactivity data on oceans is the basis of the strategic decision-making on maritime policy. The Commission has promoted the data-base on socio-economic issues: the European Marine Observation and Data Network. http://www.emodnet.eu/

An Integrated Maritime Policy will enhance Europe's capacity to face the challenges of globalisation and competitiveness, climate change, degradation of the marine environment, among others. However, this Policy does not consider the cost of degradation Coastal development may affect the sea and vice-versa. We must address the challenges that emerge from the growing competing uses of the sea, ranging from maritime transport, fishing, aquaculture, leisure activities, off-shore energy production and other forms of sea bed exploitation.

All stakeholders should participate in the governance process and are invited to continue to bring to the Commission’s attention any EU legislation that in their view is counterproductive in achieving the aims of an Integrated Maritime Policy. The following Programmes of work are of special interest (Point 1, IMP) – A European Maritime Transport Space without barriers – A European Strategy for Marine Research – National integrated maritime policies to be developed by Member States – An European network for maritime surveillance – A Roadmap towards maritime spatial planning by Member States – A Strategy to mitigate the effects of Climate Change on coastal regions – Reduction of CO2 emissions and pollution by shipping – Elimination of pirate fishing and destructive high seas bottom trawling – An European network of maritime clusters – A review of EU labour law exemptions for the shipping and fishing sectors

Source: AZTI Tecnalia, 2015 Part A: Current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES

77



EBA

GES


Habitats and Species Directive

This directive does not take an ecosystem-based approach, but some sections laterally considers this concept: Art. 3. 1. A coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation shall be set up under the title Natura 2000. 3. Where they consider it necessary, Member States shall endeavour to improve the ecological coherence of Natura 2000 by maintaining, and where appropriate developing, features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora, as referred to in Article 10. Annex III. Stage 2. The assessment of the Community importance of other sites on Member States' lists will take account of the following criteria: (b) geographical situation of the site in relation to migration routes of species in Annex II and whether it belongs to a continuous ecosystem situated on both sides of one or more internal Community frontiers.

This directive focuses on the Biological diversity descriptor (D1): Art. 2. 1. The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.

Data: Annex III of this directive defines the “criteria for selecting sites eligible for identification as sites of community importance and designation as special areas of conservation. Some if these criteria have high similarities with those established in the MSFD for D1. e.g: Habitats Directive Annex III: B. Site assessment criteria for a given species in Annex II (a) Size and density of the population of the species present on the site in relation to the populations present within national territory. MSFD D1. Criteria 1. Species distribution Indicators: 1.1.1. Distributional range; 1.1.2. Distributional pattern within the latter where appropriate 1.1.3. Area covered by the species (for sessile/benthic species) Assessment and Impacts: Art. 6 2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, …, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive. 3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. Art. 12-16 regarding the protection of species, this directive invites MS to define a system of strict protection that ensures that certain activities are prohibited.


Cost of Degradation

Programme of Measures Art. 2. 2. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. 3. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.

78

Appendix 2. Gaps across different EU policies & potential barriers to achieving GES Legislation

Linkages with other policies

Specific barrier

MSFD

CFP and DCF, MSP, WFD, IMP, Habitat and Birds Directives

-

-

-

WFD

MSFD

-

-

Reform CFP

DCF, MSFD

-

-

A framework Directive. This Directive only defines a plan of action, but unclear operative implementation. Little joint efforts with other Directives (CFP, DCF, MSP, IMP, WFD) with respect to spatial issues, data collection, definition of common indicators, targets or, definition of maritime activities, among others. Ambiguity about the role and contribution of each Directive. Institutional ambiguity (across sectorial policies, across several hierarchical levels, …) Problems due to overlap in space of the MSFD with WFD, Habitats Directive, and CFP.

Little joint efforts between Directives (MSFD, WFD, DCF) to define the marine regions or subregions, to collect data, to define indicators and targets, … Overlap in space with the MSFD

Little joint efforts between Directives (MSFD, CFP) to define operative objectives, to collect data, to define the same marine regions, …. Lag problems (due to Directives appearing at different times and old-ones not being adapted


Gaps: Notes

-

-

-

Difficulties in developing the plan of action (preparation and programme of measures including, among others, the initial assessment according to the Art. 8). The Directive requests the plan of action but gives no direction of how to do it. This contributes to the differences in implementation found across Member States. Lack of consistency with WFD of some descriptors included in the MSFD The MSFD establishes the obligation of developing an initial assessment of the economic activities without specifying a list of them. The MSP establishes a minimum number of economic activities to take into account. The IMP also mentions a list of maritime activities. Little joint effort has been made to list a common set of economic activities across these directives. No specific links are made to the CFP in relation to Descriptor 3 (Population of commercial fish/shellfish). There is no specific link to achieving an effective data collection process mentioned in any of the European policies (CFP, DCF, IMP…). Lack of consistency with other Directives to define marine regions and subregions (e.g. WFD, CFP). No joint effort to define the classification values for the quality elements of ecological status for each surface water category. Some descriptors are included in the MSFD that are not consistent with any WFD quality element which produce a consistency weakness. Spatial overlap with the MSFD Little joint effort in relation to the data collection process (CFP, DCF, IMP…) Reform of the CFP contributes to achieving the objectives of the MSFD. However very few or very general references to the CFP are found in the MSFD text. The CFP also contributes to the MSFD by means of the adopted MSY for fish stock, but difficulties in estimating the MSY may form a barrier to successfully contributing to the MSFD objectives. Few successful results from the management measures under the current CFP.

79


Legislation


Specific barrier

-

immediately) Few successful results from the current CFP

Gaps: Notes

-

DCF

Reform CFP, MSFD

-

-

MSP

MSFD, Reform CFP, IMP

-

Little joint efforts between Directives (MSFD, DCF) in relation to the data collection common framework. Very ambitious framework given the financial help Lack of compliance with the DCF by some countries

Lag barrier Little joint efforts between Directives in relation to the identification of maritime activities.

-

-

-

IMP

MSP, MSFD

CFP,

-

Lag barrier between the Directives proposals. Very general text with few already developed tools. Text mainly based on proposals.


-

No integration with the Habitats and Birds Directives in relation to the fishing impacts on the natural habitats. No integration with other Directives to reach common integrated data. Lack of consistency to define the same marine regions and subregions as the MSFD. Lag problems. The DCF contributes to get the objectives of the MSFD. However, no references in the MSFD text to the DCF are found (only little references to the CFP). No joint efforts in relation to the data collection process (DCF with other Directives, IMP, …). Economically unfeasible to get the DCF objectives. DCF very ambitious with respect to the data collection given the available financial help. Lack of compliance in the case of some countries which difficult its global implementation. Lack of consistency to define the same marine regions and subregions that the MSFD MSP uses the IMP tools which facilitates the implementation of the MSFD, and the CFP. However, operational problems could appear due to the huge amount of proposals to develop in the future. Assembling a coherent picture of the data needed represents an important problem. That is, a lot of barriers can be identified to obtain the data required when using the IMP proposed tool (the European Marine Observation and Data Network). MSP specifies a minimum number of maritime activities, however other directives do not list these (e.g. MSFD). Probably different degree of maritime activities coverage across Directives. The main text contains a lot of proposals and initiatives the Commission will promote to get the IMP objectives. In some cases, these proposals are not completely operatives on the date of implementation of the linked Directives. Thus, this lag could represent an important barrier to get the objective of the IMP to contribute to the CFP, MSP etc.

80

Legislation


Specific barrier

Habitats Directive

MSFD, MSP

-

Lag barrier between the Directives proposals. Evolution of concepts, which are only integrated in most recent policies (e.g. Ecosystem-based approach)

Gaps: Notes

-

-

Although the Habitats Directive is not strongly linked to the MSFD, some aspects are considered, which are of interest to the MSFD: Nevertheless, not direct mention is made to the Habitats Directive, nor to the criteria that it establishes, within the MSFD. Lack of integration with the reform of the CFP with respect to the impact of fishing on natural habitats. The Habitats Directive is rather old (1992), and therefore, the time lag with the MSFD primarily affects to the changes that have been produced in terms of approaches to managing the environments and seas. Most work has been carried out on land, but former works in the marine environments have focused on complaining with this policy without consideration of most recent approaches and policies.

Source:


Azti

81



Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the participants of the Design Workshop held at the University of Hull, UK on 27 August 2014, and the facilitators and stakeholders who participated in the Stakeholder Workshop held at the University of Hull, UK on 27 November 2014. The authors are grateful to Professor Mike Elliott for delivering an expert presentation on Good Environmental Status at the Stakeholder Workshop, and to Professor Mel Austen and partners in DEVOTES Work Package 2 for their advice and guidance. Without all their support this research would not have been possible.

1. Introduction to Part B This report concerns Good Environmental Status (GES), “The environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive” (Article 3), and its achievement under the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) (EC, 2008). The report is associated with DEVOTES Work Package 2 on social-

economic implications for achieving GES and, specifically, with Objective 2.3. (Identify social, economic, and legislative barriers to achieve GES), Task 3.2.2 Development of a systematic modelling approach . The stated aim of Objective 3.2 is to: “Identify the barriers (social, economic and legislative, together with other aspects of governance including administrative bodies and policies) that can hinder the achievement of GES, related to biodiversity and other important descriptors (i.e. food webs and sea-floor integrity).” The MSFD sets out, in Annex I, eleven qualitative descriptors to be used to determine the GES of marine waters at the level of region or sub-region. The eleven descriptors are listed below: 

Descriptor 1. Biodiversity is maintained.



Descriptor 2. Non-indigenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystem.



Descriptor 3. The population of commercial fish species is healthy.



Descriptor 4. Elements of food webs ensure long-term abundance and reproduction.



Descriptor 5. Eutrophication is minimised.



Descriptor 6. The sea-floor integrity ensures functioning of the ecosystem.



Descriptor 7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect the ecosystem.



Descriptor 8. Concentrations of contaminants give no effects.



Descriptor 9. Contaminants in seafood are below safe levels.



Descriptor 10. Marine litter does not cause harm.



Descriptor 11. Introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not adversely affect the ecosystem.

Along with Descriptor 1 on Biological Diversity (D1), the DEVOTES research consortium consider two other specific descriptors as being particularly important for achieving GES, namely Food Webs (D4) and Sea-floor Integrity (D6)(DEVOTES Part B - Technical Annex, 2012). This is based on the literature which points to a hierarchy in the descriptors with the biodiversity descriptors being the most important (Borja et al., 2010; Elliott et al., 2015). D2 Non-indigenous species is also considered as to


83


do so provides insight into a further dimension of biodiversity and GES, and was suggested by participants in the Task planning meetings. These four descriptors provided a focus to the systemic modelling effort. According to the Description of Work (the following is taken directly from the Technical Annex hence the change in tense), the purpose of Task 3.2.2 is to develop a systemic approach to further our understanding and, thereby, contribute to the achievement of GES. The systemic approach is built on the integration of two complementary modelling approaches: 

DPSIR (Drivers – Pressures – State Changes – Impacts – Responses) framework; and



System Dynamics (SD) approaches, such as the Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) process.

The approach developed will serve to enable the: 

Representation of causal mechanisms driving behaviours in the complex marine system, including factors that prevent or facilitate the achievement of GES; and



Identification of potential points of leverage for changing behavioural patterns to bring the system towards GES.

DEVOTES Task 2.3.1 and others within WP2, and other DEVOTES WPs, and the MSFD 2012 reporting exercise will inform the development of the model. The modelling approach developed will be applied and evaluated in stakeholder workshops to promote understanding of a case site. For the UK, the choice of a suitable case site followed a process of consultation within the DEVOTES project and agreed by DEVOTES WP2 participants, as the selected case site would also be adopted for other tasks across the work package. The case site selected was UK’s East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plan Area as defined by Marine Management Organisation (2014 https://www.gov.uk/east-inshore-and-east-offshore-marine-plan-areas). The following report is structured into the following sections: 

Section 2: Achieving GES in a multi-stakeholder environment. This section explores the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to achieving GES and the challenges associated with seeking to realise this in practice.



Section 3: Problem structuring methods and the modelling approach. It seeks to address these challenges in providing a methodological review of problem structuring methods, culminating in the design of a multi-stakeholder workshop based modelling approach focused on causal loop diagrams to describe and understand the case site.



Section 4: Design of the workshop. This section provides an overview of the process that was undertaken to design the stakeholder workshop, including techniques trialled.




Section 5: The stakeholder workshop. It describes the actual stakeholder workshop including the process by which participants were determined, the programme for the day, and the presentation of the outputs associated with models built around three GES descriptors.



Section 6: Post-workshop evaluation. It presents the post-workshop evaluation by model facilitators and stakeholder participants.



Section 7: Developing the model and cascading the approach: It explores the potential for developing the model and cascading the approach, and includes a set of guidelines to promote the transfer and use of the approach to other sites, and concludes with final reflections.


85


2.

Achieving

GES

in

a

Multi-Stakeholder

Environment The achievement of GES requires us to recognize the innate complexity of the marine environment which involves stakeholders, who glean an array of benefits by way of ecosystem services (Atkins et al., 2011a & b), with ecological, social, and economic knowledge claims and concerns. This can be illustrated by using the DPSIR model to help frame our thinking about the achievement of GES: the ’state change’ (S) of the natural environment, associated with the 11 GES descriptors, takes place within the context of ‘pressures’ (P) generated by marine environment user communities (e.g. commercial and recreational fishing; renewable energy; oil and gas exploration and production; marine aggregate extraction; ports and shipping; coastal protection; emissions and waste management; recreational sailing, pleasure craft and diving; tourism; and nature conservation) and others; the pressure (P) will itself create ‘state changes’ leading to ‘impacts’ (I) on human activity and welfare; such impacts (I) generate ‘responses’ (R), often calling upon stakeholders involved in policy-making, planning, management, regulation and science, which will affect local, regional, national and/or international stakeholder communities. The DPSIR framework is presented in Figure 2.1.

Drivers (D): The human Responses

Pressures (P):

(R):

The causes of

Syste State Changes

Impacts (I):

(S):

The impacts

Bound

Figure 2.1 The DPSIR framework (Atkins, et al. 2011).


Environm

Sterman (2012) illustrates well the power of conceptualising the management of the marine environment in such a systemic way: “One of the challenges in building a more sustainable world is helping us to see ourselves as part of a larger system in which our actions feedback to shape the world in ways large and small, desired and undesired. The greater challenge is to do so in a way that empowers us to take action instead of reinforcing the belief that we are the helpless victims of systems we can neither comprehend nor change, mere leaves tossed about by storm systems of inscrutable complexity and scope.” (p.28). The above examples of what a systemic view of GES can add both imply the need to engage multiple stakeholders; clearly, the achievement and sustenance of GES will require significant resource, going beyond the knowledge and efforts of scientists alone, and this is where the engagement of other stakeholders comes in. As Stave (2002) notes, with reference to William Ruckelshaus’s discussion (in Baden and Noonan 1998: xi–xii), persistent problems in managing salmon fisheries are not due to a lack of knowledge about salmon or its habitat requirements, but rather to lack of attention to the stakeholders in the system: “The problem isn’t so much with managing fish as it is with managing people having different needs, values, laws, institutions, and accessibility to the fish and the resources upon which they depend…Solutions will require broader public education, involvement and participation in the decision-making process.” Work on ecosystem services highlights the claims (economic, social, etc.) of multiple stakeholders and challenges the role of scientists in setting the environmental agenda. The multi-stakeholder view emphasizes not only ‘rights’ but also the wealth of resource and knowledge (for example, through community based monitoring, Conrad & Hilchey, 2011) that can be accessed through wider engagement. It is recognised that some of these issues are already recognised in Citizen Science (CS) (see for example, Irwin, 1995; Bäckstrand, 2003; Conrad & Hilchey, 2011; Toerpe, 2013; Bodilis et al., 2014) which seeks to develop ‘tools and methodologies for use by communities, regardless of their level of literacy, in the belief that the greatest impact of science can be gained when participants use scientific tools to improve their environment locally and share the knowledge globally’ (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/excites/home-columns/full-what-is-extreme-citizen-science).

Such

an

approach is strongly complementary to the field of ecopsychology, which is based on the premise that, through a connection with nature, interpersonal relationships and emotional wellbeing can be improved.


87


However, although the participation of multiple stakeholders may be advantageous, it should also be seen to be potentially problematic (Gregory et al., 2013). For example, ‘ideal speech situation’ conditions (Habermas, 1974) cannot be taken for granted and the need to design the situation to ensure that participants are able to contribute and engage in an appropriate way needs to be ensured. Whilst the onus is on each and every participant to ensure that their contribution is understood, it may necessitate working to the lowest common denominator which may negatively impact on the contribution of other stakeholders. For example, can it really be said that a lay person’s view of eutrophication (the adverse consequences of excessive nutrients, Elliott & de Jonge, 2002) can be held equal to that of a marine scientist? To deny or limit the expression of expertise is surely to impose an unnecessary cost and/or burden on some stakeholders. It is also possible that agreement on a lowest common denominator, entails focusing on less-controversial options with more contentious and confrontational issues being ignored. Furthermore, there is a boundary problem in that the view of a local community is likely to be restricted: geographically (e.g. they may be experiencing the symptoms of a problem but root causes may lie outside of the immediate location), temporally (e.g. long-term changes such as climate change may not have immediate impacts that would be picked up by local communities or the indicators they design) and politically (e.g. a local community may not have the power or resources to tackle a multi-national business disposing of its waste products in their locale). Hence, in some circumstances, it may be regarded as appropriate for some stakeholders’ views and positions to be considered over others and that this is happening and the consequence of this appropriately acknowledged. Such an approach, though, demands not only that where boundaries of engagement of stakeholders are being drawn but also that the issue of non-scientists engagement in, what has previously been defined by some as a scientific matters, be addressed. It was with an awareness of these potential problems that the multi-stakeholders workshop to discuss GES was designed. Indeed, a prime concern was for managing participation and issues surrounding the various knowledge claims associated with different roles that come about through working in such a multi-stakeholder environment. In the light of the above, the modelling approach developed for this task was not designed to merely capture expert knowledge of the marine system. Rather, in recognition of the complexity of the marine system, the existence of multiple stakeholders, imperfect and impartial knowledge, and resource constraints, this task was focused on developing an approach that served to engage and surface different perspectives, share different perspectives, and develop models of the system under consideration that are seen to be valid and useful aids to decision making. To this end, instruction was drawn from systems practice and the problem structuring branch of operational research.


3. Problem Structuring Methods and the Modelling Approach 3.1 Problem Structuring Methods Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) are a collection of methods that offer “decision support when confronted by unstructured problem situations by enabling the situation to be represented in a model or models that enable participants to clarify their predicament, converge on a potentially actionable mutual problem or issue within it, and agree commitments that will at least partially resolve it” (Mingers & Rosenhead, 2004). Largely founded on interpretivist or social constructivist epistemologies, well-known examples of PSMs are soft systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1981; Checkland & Poulter, 2006), strategic choice approach (Friend & Hickling, 1987; Friend, 2001), and strategic options development and analysis (Ackermann & Eden, 2005). Rouwette (2011) also includes a couple of methods that also use models and facilitation in structuring complex problematic situations, strategic assumptions surfacing and testing (Mason & Mitroff, 1981) and group model building (Vennix, 1996; Andersen et al., 2007). PSMs should (Mingers & Rosenhead, 2004): 

enable alternative perspectives to be brought into conjunction;



be cognitively accessible to participants from a range of backgrounds and without specialist training, so that the developing representation can inform a participative process of problem structuring (hence the value of conceptual and illustrative models);



operate iteratively through the problem representation being adjusted to reflect the state and stage of discussion among the participants, and vice versa; and



allow partial or local improvements rather than requiring a global solution, which would imply a merging of the various interests.

Choice of the appropriate approach to model building in a given situation is largely the facilitator’s and influenced by their assumptions about the abilities and experience of participants. White (2006) recognises that ‘‘most proponents of PSMs assume that participants are similar in their ability to articulate problems and have an effect’’ (p. 851) but such situations are the ideal rather than reality and Shaw and Blundell (2008) acknowledge the difficulty ‘‘in turning expert knowledge about a situation into a structured model which is theoretically and contextually valid’’ (p. 233). Given this difficulty, as has already been mentioned, a range of engagement strategies are evident in order to make the model building stage ‘work’ and as a consequence, decisions about the transparency of Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

89


the model and extent of stakeholders engagement in the model building process, need to be made explicit. Despite a long history of use in a wide range of contexts, Bell and Morse (2007) argue that ‘‘PSMs...are seen and experienced less often in areas of wide ranging and highly complex human activity – specifically those relating to sustainability, environment, democracy and conflict (or SEDC)’’. There are, though, some recent applications (see for example, Potts et al., 2015, who use SSM) and Paucar-Caceres and Espinosa (2011) comment that interest in systemic approaches to environmental management is relatively new. Further, Espinosa et al. (2008), cite Patterson and Theobald (1999) and Young (1998), who regard this area to be ‘characterised by a lack of autonomy at the local level and the absence of cross-disciplinary support and decision-making processes to ensure effective follow-through’. It would seem that, although models are widely used in sustainability and environmental research, their use has not extended much beyond the scientific domain. As Sterman (1994) points out: ‘scientists may develop understanding through an iterative, interactive learning process of experimentation in both the real world and the virtual world of simulations but, all too often, they are ignored when results are communicated to policymakers, students and the public. Excluding stakeholders from the process of discovery means that they are unable to assess the evidence on their own, and/or are presented with conclusions that conflict with their mental models renders them detached from scientific endeavour’. As such the problem is not one of creating models that capture the best scientific understanding but rather building such models in a domain that includes stakeholders in the model development process. In the light of the above, it would certainly seem that the achievement of GES in the marine environment is a prime candidate for the employment of PSMs.

3.2 The Modelling Approach The modelling approach was designed around two key considerations: 

Managing diversity and knowledge claims: multi-stakeholder participation and boundary critique; and



Moving from individual cognitive models to shared CLDs and from describing and understanding the system to identifying how to affect the system.


3.2.1 Managing diversity and knowledge claims: participation and boundary critique PSMs are largely grounded in the interpretivist and social constructivist paradigms and, as a consequence, assume that engaging with stakeholders is unproblematic and participation occurs within ‘ideal speech’ (Habermas, 1974) type situations. Ackermann (2012) though, highlights how different PSMs ‘ensure the socio-political requirements are attended to’ and that this requires ‘consideration of not only who to involve but also who to manage when considering outcomes’. Shaw et al. (2006) focus on participation in computer based PSM workshops which leads them to reflect on, among others, issues of participant validation of models developed, the agreement of achievable actions, anonymity, equality and dominance. Despite this awareness of the participatory imperative, PSM researchers do not go as far as some systems researchers in explicating the implications of this; see for example, Ulrich’s (1983) ground-breaking work on Critical System Heuristics (CSH) and Midgley’s (2000) complementary work on boundary critique. From a systems perspective, who is involved and how is a matter of where the boundary is placed and different boundary judgments affect who is involved and what values are privileged in defining ‘good’ decision-making. One of Churchman’s (1968, 1971) greatest contributions to systems thinking was establishing the idea that the drawing of system boundaries is crucial for determining how improvement is to be defined and what action should be taken. He also saw it as the system designer’s responsibility to redraw boundaries to ’sweep in’ stakeholder views to ensure that the system comes to serve the interests of more than just the powerful. Midgley (2000) reflects on this in suggesting that you have to deal with power explicitly up-front because if you do not then its use may be hidden by the powerful in manipulating the definition of system boundaries to ensure that their interests are best served. Ulrich (1983), however, did not believe that this important task should just be left to the system designer but rather the question of determining where to draw the system’s boundaries should be established through a dialogue between those involved and those affected by a system’s design (referred to as the process of boundary critique). Another notion that Ulrich draws from Churchman is the need for systems design to take on the whole system because localized action based on partial understanding can lead to unexpected consequences for the wider system (this draws to light a tension with the interpretivist underpinning of PSMs). Of course, to attempt to understand the whole system is an impossible task. What is important, therefore, is to accept an


91


inevitable lack of comprehensiveness in our designs and planning but to make this transparent so that we can reflect critically on their limitations and the likely implications of boundary decisions. Boundary critique is a process for making decisions more robust by ensuring that the ‘right’ knowledge is brought to bear on them. The basic idea of boundary critique is whenever a decision is taken a prior decision is made, often implicitly rather than explicitly, about what information is needed and hence who needs to be involved. Hence, boundary critique is an essential part of CSH which encourages reflection upon: 

how decisions are made;



who makes the decisions; and



the possible consequences of decisions.

CSH distinguishes between those involved in decision-making, usually those regarded as having some formal position or expertise, and those who are affected, who have experiential knowledge of the impact of decisions. The aim of CSH is to achieve a decision-making process which generates robust decisions by encouraging a comparison between the current situation (as it is) and how the situation ought to be (defined through debate between the involved and the affected). In summary, CSH and boundary critique: 

Emphasise the concept of 'boundary';



Provides support for leaders to question whose values are being respected and interests served and whose ought to be;



Demands that attention be given to those affected but not involved; and



Undermines the notion of expertise and promotes participation.

Normally, there are four groups of people that need to be considered: 

The client: Who benefits from the decision?;



The decision maker: Who has control over the decision?;



The expert: Whose knowledge is relevant to the decision?; and



The affected: Who is affected by the decision and how?

By considering these four groups of stakeholders, workshop designers should be able to work out the purpose of the decision, resources for decision-making, knowledge basis, and the potential response to the decision. A checklist of twelve questions can be used to interrogate the basis for the decision-making process (see Table 2.2). These twelve questions posed in the two modes should generate information to enable the redesign of the decision making process to ensure the development of robust decisions.


In the light of the above it is likely that the need to involve a range of ‘affected’ stakeholders that might have been regarded as not being important to include will be revealed and this, of course, poses another challenge: how to engage parties who may not share cultural norms, accepted ways of behaviour, values etc.? The work of Taket and White (2000) provide practical instruction in this regard as their work emphasises multiple interpretations of the world, being tolerant of difference and the importance of being responsive to what is achievable at the local level. It is long recognised that participation does not of itself guarantee a broad discussion and a wider social engagement and judgement (Arnstein, 1969) and Becker (1997), reflecting on cases included in Irwin (1995), argues that “lay knowledge is more likely to be down-graded than empowered. The ‘top-down’ model of the ‘enlightenment view’ seems to have been institutionalized in these projects so that public participation was not aimed at policy change but purely to legitimate the procedures adopted.” (p. 152). According to Howick et al. (2008) focussing the modelling effort on the capture and structuring of different viewpoints emphasises the use of natural language and the capture of rich descriptions. Such a process may create ‘insightful moments’ when participants viewing the whole picture realize that the system of concern is more complex than they thought. This realization supports a sense of openness and comprehensiveness (Ackermann & Eden, 2005).

3.2.2 Moving from individual cognitive models to shared causal loop diagrams and from describing and understanding the system to identifying how to affect the system Following Maani and Cavana (2007), a ‘four levels of thinking’ model (Figure 2.2) informed the design of the workshop.

Figure 2.2 Four levels of thinking. Events – This is the shallowest yet most visible level of reality. Despite events representing only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ most decision and interventions take place at this level as they are seen to Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

93


demand immediate action. Unfortunately, this means actions take place without a good understanding of how deeper level structures generate surface level events. A good understanding of events and the behaviours which created them can lead to the identification of leverage points places within a complex system ‘where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything...leverage points are points of power’ (Meadows, 1999). Leverage points exist in all systems but they are often not intuitive and they are often not easy to identify (Meadows, 1999). However, once a representative model of a system is constructed and validated, the root causes and leverage points of complex problems and persistent issues become more apparent, and appropriate intervention strategies can be devised to address these (Maani & Cavana, 2007). Patterns of Behaviour - The second level of thinking represents patterns of events over time. The importance of Behaviour over Time (BOT) graphs does not relate to the numerical value of the event or variable but rather the overall directions and variations. Therefore, BOT graphs are usually drawn in a rough sense without exact numerical values attached (Maani & Cavana, 2007). Although no exact figures are used, the overall directions of the key variables are well supported by experiential knowledge and verified by data and information that may be obtained from detailed discussions with local stakeholders. Systemic Structures - This level of the systemic framework represents the interaction and connections between different factors that bring about the observed outcomes. These factors could be economic, social, political or natural. This level explains how different patterns of the concerned factors or variables relate to each other or affect one another. CLD modelling (Maani & Cavana, 2007) illustrates the dynamics (the interrelationships and interdependencies) amongst the key components of the system. Mental Models – Mental models reflect the beliefs, values and assumptions that we personally hold, and they underlie our reasons for doing things the way we do (Maani & Cavana, 2007). They are so powerful in affecting what we do because they affect what we see, and they shape our perceptions (Senge, 1990). Mental models are the filters through which we interpret our experiences, evaluate plans and choose among possible courses of action. In designing the workshop, it was considered that all four levels should be addressed to not only identify some of the most binding constraints and biggest risks to the achievement of GES but also to release the creativity needed to challenge such constraints and risks. As Sterman (2012) states, “Creating an effective science of sustainability and building the public understanding required for action requires us to develop the skill to recognize the boundaries of our mental models and then expand them so that we become aware of and take responsibility for the feedbacks created by our


decisions.” (p.26). Whilst Maani and Cavana’s (2007), four levels of thinking model, was instructive in helping structure the project, it was felt that further guidance was required to provide a bridge between individual mental models and the shared articulation of these in group model building; such guidance was found in the work of Eden and associates. According to di Gregorio (2000), Eden’s approach is based on three corollaries: the individuality, the sociality, and the commonality. In summary, people have different experiences and therefore, construe events in different ways (the individuality corollary); to the extent that we are able to construe other people’s constructions we can communicate with them - take part in a social process (the sociality corollary); and finally, to the extent that we have had experiences similar to other peoples’, our personal constructs tend to be similar to the construction of those people (the commonality corollary). Furthermore, for problem solving, the construction corollary, the anticipation of future events according to our interpretations of recurrent themes, is important. Hence, the approach adopted in the workshop was informed by the work of the work of Maani and Cavana, and Eden and associates, and Table 2.1 shows the link between levels of thinking and the planned methods of investigation, activities and outputs. Table 2.1 The links between levels of thinking and planned methods of investigation, activities and outputs. Level

Method of investigation

Output

Events

Workshop based activities (analysis and discussion)

Analysis of models leading to identification of feedback loops and points of leverage

Patterns

Workshop based activities (analysis)

Behaviour Over Time Charts Causal Loop Diagrams

Systemic structures

Workshop based activities (idea sharing)

Conceptual Maps

Mental models

Workshop based activities (idea sharing)

Cognitive Maps

The mapping and modelling approaches will now be described in more detail. 3.2.2.1 Cognitive and conceptual mapping The approach to facilitated modelling adopted in the workshop was informed by the work of Eden (1992) whose work on cognitive mapping originates from the ideas of Tolman (1948). According to Eden (1992), who has done ground-breaking work in this field, ‘the method of elicitation of cognition’ is significant because:


95


“if we take seriously Karl Weick’s aphorism that we do not know what we think until we hear what we say, then the process of articulation is a significant influence on present and future cognition. If articulation and thinking interact, then an elicitation of cognition that depends upon articulation is always out of step with cognition before, during, and after the elicitation process. Indeed it is this process of reflective mapping that often gives mapping its utility (Eden et al., 1979). The elicitation process is designed to be a cathartic experience which provides ‘added value’ because it changes thinking...” (Eden, 1992, p.261). Whilst Eden’s comments are supportive of the use of maps and models, he goes on to add that the only reasonable claim that can be made of cognitive maps as an artefact is that they may: 

represent subjective data more meaningfully than other models and so have utility for researchers interested in subjective knowledge; and



act as a tool to facilitate decision-making, problem-solving, and negotiation within the context of an intervention.

In summary, a cognitive map can be seen as a picture or visual aid in comprehending the mappers’ understanding of particular, and selective, elements of the thoughts (rather than thinking) of an individual. They may also be seen as a representation that is amenable to analysis by both the mapper and others. The second outcome facilitates increased transparency, by allowing checking of the analytical basis of conclusions developed by a researcher or interventionist. The first is an alternative to other methods of communicating and suggests that cognitive mapping is simply a device for displaying, through the use of a map-like diagram, a collection of items that are taken as elements of thinking at a given time. Another important issue in facilitated modelling is the extent to which maps go beyond data about an individual and here the earlier discussion about who is involved and the demands this places on the facilitator to support the participation of all parties is important. Clearly cognitive maps were originally focussed at the level of the individual but using this technique as a PSM demands that we go beyond this to consider the demands of its use in a multi-stakeholder environment. Whilst there are examples of maps being developed by various means in the literature (for example, aggregating from individuals, Eden, 1980), it is here argued that the need for transparency and understanding compel us to build a map directly with a group (participation in the model building process also has important implications for the validation of the model – see Section 3.2.1). Eden has also done important work in this regard in developing the SODA (Eden and Ackermann, 2001) and JOURNEY Making approaches (Eden and Ackermann, 1998; Shaw, Ackermann and Eden, 2003). For the sake of clarity and consistency in the use of terminology, in this report, where a map is developed by an Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

individual then it is referred to as a ‘cognitive map’ and where a map is built by a group then it is referred to as a ‘conceptual map’ (these provided the basis for the development of CLDs in the workshop).Conceptual maps are directed graphs characterized by a hierarchical structure which is most often in the form of a means/ends graph. Eden (1988) suggests a laddering technique when eliciting concepts. You can ‘ladder upwards’ to determine the consequences of the construct and also ‘ladder downwards’ to determine the explanatory constructs or belief system that supports a construct. Alternatively, the laddering technique can be related to a series of simple questions: 

to move up the ladder to find out the consequences of a construct, you can ask a series of Why? questions (why is this important to you or why do you want to achieve this?)



to move down the ladder to determine the belief system or explanation of a construct, you ask a series of How? questions (how was that caused or how was that achieved or how else could that be achieved?).

Figure 2.3 provides a simple pictorial representation of the laddering technique. The numbers in the boxes denote specific concepts identified through the approach.

Figure 2.3 The laddering technique for developing conceptual maps. By using the laddering technique, the map can help elicit a more complete representation of how stakeholders view the problematic situation under consideration. The map can act as a basis for helping stakeholders share knowledge, clarify assumptions, identify gaps in knowledge, and even change their views. An alternative or complementary approach to laddering is to use the structure provided by the DPSIR framework, adopted by the European Environment Agency and others (Atkins, et al., 2011a; Gregory, et al., 2013; Smith, et al., 2014). There are a number of variants of the framework with DAPSI(W)R being a recent example, with ‘A’ denoting activity and ‘I(W)’ making explicit that an Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

97


impact is associated with changes in human welfare (Cooper, 2012; Smyth, 2015). Figure 2.4 shows DPSIR and the laddering technique for developing conceptual maps.

Figure 2.4 DPSIR and the laddering technique for developing conceptual maps. Where DPSIR is used, a State change of the system (e.g. deterioration of the benthos or the water column) may be the focus of our concern (the ‘What’) and we can ‘ladder up’ to consider ‘Why’ this is important and likely effects in terms of Impacts on society (e.g. degraded habitats, removal of species, loss of biodiversity, etc.), which through its links with human welfare can have positive and/or negative implications (the actual implications is, in part, dependent on whether we are viewing this from the perspective of society as a whole or from that of specific stakeholders). In addition, there is a need to identify the societal Responses to these changes in the marine system. We may then ‘ladder down’ to consider ‘How’ such a State change has come about through, considering likely Drivers and Pressures. In the context of the marine environment, the over-arching Drivers are the need for food, recreation, space for living, and other basic human needs (Gray & Elliott, 2009) which create Pressures on the system, such as the exploitation of fisheries, extraction of the seabed, demands for the conservation of coastal amenity and marine biodiversity, and the discharge of contaminated waters which are delivered through fisheries, recreational sites, bioremediation of waste, and so forth. Whilst we can imagine a single DPSIR being used as a framework to structure analysis of a particular marine sector; for example, wild fisheries, it is acknowledged that (a) one activity will impact on others, for example a reduction in wild fisheries could have a knock-on effect to aquaculture, and (b) the marine environment is composed of many sectors each interacting and demanding a share of


the available resources. As a consequence of this, while one might attempt to model, for example, management of a fishery using a single DPSIR cycle which is narrowly or discretely bounded for that particular sector, to be consistent with The Ecosystem Approach, such a ‘marine fishery’s DPSIR cycle’ is nested within a set of DPSIR cycles that encompasses many sectors (e.g. marine aggregates, energy generation, and aquaculture), with complex and non-linear linkages and feedback loops between parts of the whole. Most notably, the Responses to one set of Drivers and Pressures can affect others. For example, Responses to over-fishing, by curtailing fisheries, will influence the aquaculture DPSIR cycle. In essence, individual elements of the DPSIR approach must be considered to have multiple interactions. Figure 2.5 illustrates a set of interactions where forward linkages are featured most prominently but it is emphasised that there are feedback loops between the elements.

Figure 2.5 An illustration of the multiple interactions within the DPSIR framework (Atkins, et al. 2011). The decision as regards the choice of approach to the development of the conceptual map, through either the laddering technique or the structure provided by the DPSIR framework, should be based on a number of factors including the knowledge and experience of the workshop participants, amount of time available, etc. In the project workshop it was decided that the laddering technique would be used as part of the workshop and not DPSIR as it could not be guaranteed that all


99


participants had prior knowledge of DPSIR and, given time constraints, it was felt that there was a need to prioritise which approaches it was essential to introduce in the workshop and which not. 3.2.2.2 Causal loop diagramming As is demonstrated in Figure 2.5, the strict hierarchical form of a map is often destroyed by circularity in which a chain of means and ends loops back on itself; indeed circularity is often regarded as the fundamental structural characteristic of a map (Bougon et al., 1990 cited in Eden et al., 1992) and recognising this provides an important bridge in moving from conceptual maps to CLDs. Indeed, capturing circularity or feedback essentially relates to endogenous change within the system. Conceptualising such behaviours is not easy though. Sterman (2012) provides a summary of the issues relating to the conceptualisation of dynamic behaviour in systems: 

research on mental models shows that few incorporate any feedback loops;



people tend to think in single-strand causal series and have difficulty in systems with side effects and multiple causal pathways;



people tend to assume each effect has a single cause and often cease their search for explanations when the first sufficient cause is found; and



people do not understand the behaviour of even the simplest feedback systems.

In order to assist us express our understanding of the dynamic, interconnected nature of our world, a useful tool is causal loop diagramming, an approach which sits in the family of SD which was specifically developed to support the study of dynamic behaviour in complex systems (Forrester, 1961). With the help of a CLD, complex processes can easily be visually present and system behaviour analysed. The behaviour of a system arises from the interplay of two types of feedback loop: positive and negative (see Section 7.2 for further guidance on developing CLDs). When the loop contains an odd number of negative links then the loop is depicting negative feedback or self-control. Alternatively, an even number of negative links or all positive links suggests positive feedback which creates exponential growth or decline. In simple systems containing few nodes and links, the implications of dominant loops may be well known to individuals involved in and observers of the system. In other cases a system may contain a large number of nodes with many links and it may be difficult to discern dominant loops. In such situations, the identification of feedback loops can become a significant focus of effort, particularly if there is common support to shift from a cycle of behaviours that is perceived to be vicious to one that is virtuous. The popular use of cause maps to depict and explore the cognitive structures was highlighted in Huff (1990) and Lane (2008) refers to the ‘conceptualization mode’ use of CLDs which aims to Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

operationalize Forrester’s vision of drawing problem owners into the modelling process (Forrester, 1961). Further, according to Stave (2002), Meadows advanced the notion that such modelling ‘has the potential to improve public participation in environmental decisions by providing a framework for structured deliberation when stakeholders are involved in making decisions and a more transparent and participatory educational framework to persuade stakeholders to help implement decisions’. According to Eden et al. (1992), one of the most notable differences that exist across different sorts of cause maps stems from their relative complexity: most maps show a small number of nodes and links (6-20 nodes), whereas others elicit large maps (30-120 nodes). When a map is relatively large and/or complex, then consideration needs to be given to laying the map out in the best way to prevent links crossing and to ease ‘reading’ of the map. Structured in this way, the layout will provide information about the emerging shape or characteristic of the map.


101


4. The Design Workshop An exploratory trial workshop to help inform the design of the workshop was undertaken on Wednesday 27th August 2014. The venue was the Management Learning Laboratory at the Hull University Business School, a suite offering accommodation for three facilitated subgroups in separate rooms with flexible seating and all with requisite and comparable IT facilities (specifically computers, digital projectors, internet capability and IT technical support).

4.1 Participation – Who Involved and Why As the DEVOTES WP2 partners selected a UK case study site for the purpose of developing the approach to systemic modelling, the potential participants were drawn from the UK DEVOTES partners. In practice, difficulties with availability meant that participants were drawn from University of Hull (Hull University Business School and the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies). The trial workshop comprised six people, including: an economist, a management systems practitioner, a marine planning specialist, a coastal geographer and marine policy researcher, an ecological economist, and a benthic ecologist.

4.2 Choice of Approach and Focus The aim of the trial workshop was to determine what was thought to be the most productive way to get to a CLD as the basis for understanding and affecting behaviours that might impact on GES. Relevant guidance from the literature, see Section 3.2, suggested that there would be several steps involved in achieving such a model with a multi-stakeholder group in the context of a single day’s workshop. Hence it was envisaged that there would be a need to make the process as simple as possible and that there might be several approaches which short-circuit the process whilst still achieving such an end, ensuring that the approach was transparent and enabling the approach to be passed on to participants. Three different approaches were trialled at the workshop: 1. Indicators, influences and linkages; 2. What, how and why interrogation (laddering); and 3. Causal loop diagramming. The trial started with an indicator based approach on the assumption that indicators would be focussed on key variables and there was a link to previous work that had been undertaken for DEVOTES WP3 on Indicator testing and development and the DEVOTES Catalogue of indicators


(DEVOtool) (http://www.devotes-project.eu/devotool/). It was also assumed that the knowledge gained through the monitoring of key indicators would enable the drawing of behaviour over time charts. This approach, however, did not work well because of the sheer number of potential indicators and the complexity of factors that potentially impact on them. It was suggested at the workshop, that this was an example of knowledge about detail complexity inhibiting overall understanding of systemic complexity. The second approach was based on the laddering approach involving a structured interrogation of a descriptor addressing the following trigger questions: ‘What do we want to do or achieve? Why is this important? How would we do this?’ and ‘What is the counter factual? How would we do this? Why is it important?’. The third approach was based on going straight into developing a CLD specific to each descriptor based on a summary description of the approach. Although it is recognised that as we worked through the approaches participants cumulative knowledge of the modelling techniques developed, it was generally felt that approach 2 offered the most potential in terms of ease of understanding and the number of variables and links generated with approach 3 a close second (see Appendix 1 for images of the models developed through the different approaches). This was a surprising finding as it was believed that the indicators approach (1) would lead to engagement because the scientists/ecologists involved were used to working with indicators.

4.3 Use of Technology to Support Modelling In the trial workshop, the models were drawn on whiteboards and the question was put to participants of whether this was appropriate. As it was anticipated that the use of software would enable more complex models to be generated and analysed, it was decided to use software to support modelling in the workshop. Given the need to ensure the software was of a type that would be accessible, in terms of ease of use, to the stakeholder workshop participants but at the same time could be used to capture the complexity of the marine system, Decision Explorer® software was suggested. Decision Explorer, offered and supported by Banxia Software, was originally designed by Eden and his colleagues first at the University of Bath and later at Strathclyde University. It has become a proven tool for portraying and manipulating the qualitative information that surrounds complex and/or uncertain situations. An introduction to Decision Explorer is available at: http://www.banxia.com/pdf/de/DEIntro1.pdf.


103


4.4 Facilitators and Facilitation As well as looking to minimise any difficulties in engaging stakeholders in the modelling approach, there was also an ambition to ‘hand-over’ the approach so that it could be replicated by interested workshop participants. To this end, facilitators for the subgroup sessions were selected with different interests and levels of prior knowledge in the use of the software so that any issues regarding the cascading of the approach might be revealed. Three facilitators were selected: 1. an ecological economist with no prior knowledge of causal loop diagramming or use of Decision Explorer (henceforth referred to as Facilitator 1 and he worked with the subgroup that focussed on food webs); 2. a PhD student with good workshop facilitation skills but little knowledge of causal loop diagramming, no prior use of Decision Explorer and little ecological knowledge (henceforth referred to as Facilitator 2 and she worked with the subgroup that focussed on nonindigenous species); and 3. a Systems Dynamics/CLD expert modeller with substantial experience in the use of Decision Explorer but little ecological knowledge (henceforth referred to as Facilitator 3 and he worked with the subgroup that focussed on biological diversity). The ecological economist and the PhD student were each provided with a brief introduction to Decision Explorer and were able to familiarise themselves with it over a couple of days.


5. The Stakeholder Workshop The one-day participatory stakeholder workshop was held on Thursday 27th November 2014 at the Management Learning Laboratory at the Hull University Business School (the same venue as for the prior design workshop). A description of the process undertaken for establishing participation in the multi-stakeholder workshop together with details of the plan for the workshop and the workshop’s outcomes are provided below. Whilst it had been originally intended that the workshop should be voice and video-recorded, at the request of an attendee wishing to ensure confidentiality, this did not take place and anonymity was guaranteed so no attendee names are made available in this report.

5.1 Participation in the Stakeholder Workshop As discussed in Section 2 whilst, in order to capture as holistic an understanding of the case site as possible, it was desirable that ‘all’ stakeholders participate in the workshop, that this is an ideal was recognised and, rather, the need to work out who ‘ought’ be involved in a rigorous way was required. To this end, a version of Ulrich’s 12 critical questions (Ulrich, 1983) was worked through to inform not only participation in the workshop but also knowledge claims and evaluation criteria (see Table 2.2). Table 2.2 Use of the 12 critical questions to inform workshop design Questions relating to the client Q1

Who is the client or beneficiary of the workshop?

EU DEVOTES research consortium DEVOTES WP 2 research group Facilitators Participants

Q2

What is the purpose of this workshop?

Delivery of:  An expert view on the current status of the implementation of MSFD  An opportunity to engage in a discussion with and better understand different stakeholders viewpoints on GES  A better understanding of three key GES descriptors: biological diversity, food webs and non-invasive species  An introduction to and experience of building and analysing causal loop diagrams using Banxia’s ‘Decision Explorer’ software  Understanding of opportunities for and barriers


105


to the achievement of GES. Q3

How will the client judge the success/failure of the workshop?

Number of participants Usefulness of the modelling approach and models created (how usefulness be defined) Learning about facilitation and participation

Questions relating to the decision maker Q4

Who decides about the form and content of the workshop?

DEVOTES WP 2 research group Workshop facilitators

Q5

What is actually controlled by the decision maker?

Design and organisation of the workshop Timing

Q6

What is outside of the decision maker’s control?

Who will accept invitation to participate Resources Reactions of participants Level of engagement

Questions relating to the expert Q7

Who is involved in an expert role in this decision-making process?

Modellers Facilitators Scientists Users Policy makers Locally engaged groups

Q8

What knowledge is to be drawn in to the decision making process and how is it being used?

Modelling Scientific expertise Policy expertise Knowledge of users

Q9

On what basis will the success of the workshop be measured?

Communication Insight Consensus Commitment (see Section 6)

Questions relating to the affected Q10

Who represents the concerns of the affected?

User group representation

Q11

To what extent are the ‘the affected’ given the chance to challenge the assumptions of ‘the involved’ and the decision making process?

Assumption of a speech situation in which opinions and knowledge are interrogated and investigated.

Q12

What assumptions and perspectives are dominating the workshop process?

Confidentiality Openness Ability to capture complexity in modelling format Ideal speech – lay knowledge and scientific. Communication challenge. Ability to bring participants together and share knowledge No defensive routines and willingness to admit to uncertain knowledge.

In the light of this exercise, an initial list of stakeholder organisations (see Table 2.3) was identified by two members of the DEVOTES research team, informed by advice received from the DEVOTES Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

WP2 research group. They were chosen so that there would be representation from four broad organisational categories: conservation interests/advisory; planning, licensing and management; marine resource users; and science and academia. Emailed invitations to participate in the workshop were sent to named individuals in senior positions within the identified nominated organisations. In the event that the person to whom the invitation was sent to was not willing or able to attend, they were invited to nominate another participant from that same organisation: “We would welcome your participation in the workshop and would be grateful if you could confirm your interest, by return if possible. If you are unable to attend, we would welcome a nomination for an alternative representative from your organisation to attend in your place.” Table 2.3 The initial list of stakeholder organisations. Organisational Category

Organisation Name

Conservation interests/advisory

Joint Nature Conservation Committee Royal Society for Protection of Birds The Wildlife Trusts

Planning, licensing and management

Marine Management Organisation The Crown Estate

Marine resource users

Seafish (government-sponsored Seafish Industry Authority) The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations Seabed User & Developer Group British Marine Aggregates Producers’ Association Oil and Gas UK Offshore renewable energy sector

Science and academia

Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquatic Science Plymouth Marine Laboratory

In addition, the email contained the full list of other organisations (though not names of individuals) that were being emailed and an accompanying statement (bold in original email) and the invitations provided the basis for cascading out further invitations: “The event will take place at the University of Hull and will bring together approximately fifteen stakeholders and academic researchers representing a range of regulatory, planning or participatory interests (see below [for list of organisations]). If you believe there are other organisations that should be involved in the workshop then please let us know.” In all cases, recommendations for widening participation to include representation from other organisations or recommendations to invite an alternative individual from an organisation were followed up. No offer to participate in the workshop received was refused by the workshop Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

107


organisers, so that in a number of cases this resulted in more than one representative attending from a given organisation. Although there was a concern that this could imbalance interests represented at the workshop, it was believed that, in this instance, it was more important that the modelling approach be tested with a group of a significant size. The limited budget available to support the workshop meant that expenses could not be paid to all those attending the workshop. However, to prevent finance restricting participation, an offer of financial support for travel was made in the invitation email: “It is possible that we may have funding to cover travel expenses; please advise us if your attendance will be contingent on the availability of such funds.” In two cases, participants were only able to attend with this financial support. Not all those invited chose to or were able to attend. Marine resource users were a group where numbers participating appear relatively low despite strong interest previously expressed in participating. Excluding two late cancellations, the stakeholder workshop’s final participants list comprised a total of 24 representatives from the following 12 organisations (see Table 2.4). Table 2.4 The final list of stakeholder organisations (n=24). Organisational Category

Organisation Name

Conservation interests/advisory

Joint Nature Conservation Committee Royal Society for Protection of Birds Yorkshire Wildlife Trust North East Inland Fisheries and Conservation Authorities

1 1 1 1

Planning, licensing and management

Environment Agency Marine Management Organisation The Crown Estate

2 4 0

Marine resource users

Seafish (government-sponsored Seafish Industry Authority) The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations Seabed User & Developer Group British Marine Aggregates Producers’ Association Oil and Gas UK Offshore renewable energy sector

1

Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquatic Science Plymouth Marine Laboratory Hull University Business School University of York

6 1 0 4 1

Science and academia


Number of Participants

1 0 0 0 0

5.2 Stakeholder Workshop Programme Table 2.5 provides the programme for the workshop. The workshop commenced with welcomes and a brief introduction to the day, which included specification of the following ‘take-aways’: 

An expert view on the current status of the implementation of MFSD;



An opportunity to engage in a discussion with and better understand different stakeholders viewpoints on GES;



A focus on four key descriptors;



An introduction to and experience of building and analysing CLDs using Banxia’s ‘Decision Explorer’ software; and



Understanding of opportunities for and barriers to the achievement of GES.

The extent to which the ‘take-aways’ were achieved by the workshop was assessed in the evaluation. The introduction was followed by three plenary sessions: an expert delivered an overview of GES and the MSFD; an introduction to the case study area (UK’s East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plan Area); and an introduction to the modelling process. The time after the plenary was largely spent by participants working in one of three subgroups, each assigned a specific descriptor for which they were tasked as a subgroup to build their own CLD with the support of a facilitator. Each participant had been allocated to a group so that each of the subgroups comprised a range of stakeholders. However, movement between subgroups was permitted. Plenary sessions, to enable feedback to the whole group, were scheduled at regular intervals in the day. Table 2.5 Programme for the one-day stakeholder participatory systemic modelling workshop. Time

Activity

10.15 – 10.30

Welcome, introduction and housekeeping

10.30 - 11.00

Overview of GES and MSFD (by Professor Mike Elliott, Director, IECS)

11.00 - 11.05

Introduction to the case-site – East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plan Area

11.05 - 12.15

Exploring GES – modelling and analysis exercise (1) on Biological Diversity (D1)

12.15 - 12.45

Lunch

12.45 - 13.45

Exploring GES – a subgroup modelling exercise  Group 1 – Sea-floor integrity (D6)  Group 2 – Food webs (D4)  Group 3 – Non-indigenous species (D2)

13.45 - 14.15

Plenary feedback from subgroup exercises

14.15 - 15.00

Model analysis (same subgroups)

15.00 - 15.15

Break

15.15 - 15.45

Plenary feedback from subgroup exercise

15.45 - 16.00

Opportunities for and barriers to the achievement of GES

16.00

End


109


The approach to adherence to the proposed programme was characterised by flexibility and responsiveness to participant recommendations. Two significant adjustments to the schedule were made during the day in response to participant input. First, the overview of GES and MSFD was extended beyond 30 minutes as, at this early stage in the day, many participants were keenly interested in learning more about the current status of the implementation of the MSFD in the UK. Secondly, the exploration (modelling and analysis) of Descriptor 1 (Biological diversity) which commenced in the plenary session, was developed further by Group 2 in place of the prescribed Descriptor 6 (Sea-floor integrity) in the afternoon sessions as Group 2 argued that the two descriptors were very closely aligned. Hence, only three descriptors were modelled in the workshop.

5.3 Model development and analysis As described in Section 4.3, use of Decision Explorer was suggested at the design workshop. Importantly, the software not only supported the drawing and representation of the models but also provided quick and simple analysis functions that could be used by participants in the workshops. A summary of these functions is provided here:  Heads/tails and endogenous change The concept of endogenous change is fundamental to CLD and it suggest that the causes of change are contained within the structure of the system itself which compels us to take seriously where we draw the boundary of what we are considering to be a system of concern (how far out do we ladder up and down). By implication, the boundary also defines exogenous disturbances which, at most, are regarded as environmental disturbances, which might trigger responses by the system. Practically, this means that we need to look carefully at the ‘head’ and ‘tails’ in the model (concepts at the top or end of the ladders or lines of argument) to see if we can link them in by showing their relationship to other nodes or variables (the start of this process could be seen in Figure 2.5 in relation to interlinked DPSIR models). This ‘linking in’ process provides the basis for the transformation from conceptual mapping to causal loop diagramming. The Decision Explorer software provides useful list commands to ensure that this analysis is done in rigorous way with all head and tails being identified for consideration.  Loops As has already been stated, the determination of causal loops in diagrams is essential to any discussion of system behaviour. Whilst some loops may be easy to identify by eye, other may be more difficult to identify. The Decision Explorer software provides a useful loop commands to ensure that this analysis is done in rigorous way.  Domain/centrality analyses and leverage


The identification of key nodes or concepts is somewhat problematic in large and/or complex diagrams. Decision Explorer incorporates commands that enable the identification of those nodes with the highest number of links in and links out (domain analysis). The identification of these nodes may be important as the node with the most links in may be interpreted as being sensitive/vulnerable since it has a relatively large number of influences; conversely a node with a large number of links out may be seen as being relatively influential/impactful and, in situations where it is important to influence a system in a resource economic way, it may be important to use the potential for leverage that these nodes offer by focussing efforts and resources on them as changes in these nodes may be cascaded through the system. It is also possible to extend this analysis by exploring the impact of adding successive layers of domain. Each successive layer of concepts is given a diminishing weight - a distance decay function (see Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6 Centrality and layers of domain.

5.4 Workshop outputs In the following sections, summary accounts of the development and analyses of the diagrams are presented. These accounts were developed from notes provided by the subgroup facilitators, the presentations of the diagrams in the plenary sessions at the workshop and subsequent discussions with some of the participants. The models presented here are those developed during the workshop, with a combined model based only on the three separate descriptor models; no attempt was made to make any additions to the models after the workshop. Along with general accounts of the model building and analysis, different aspects of the approach are illustrated and emphasised in the account provided to demonstrate its potential utility and flexibility in use according to different participant interests. In the case of the food web model, some attention is given to laddering up, laddering down and the loop analysis. In the case of the model of non-indigenous species, a post-


111


workshop re-interpretation of the CLD in terms of DPSIR/DAPSI(W)R is presented. In the case of the biological diversity model, there is focus on dominant concepts. The accounts have been validated by the facilitators.

5.4.1 Subgroup: Food webs The focus of the group’s model building was the descriptor ‘Food Webs’ (D4) with the trigger concept defined in accordance to its definition as 1 The abundance and diversity of food webs. There were some notable points in building and analysing the model which, though limited by development time, comprised 29 concepts by the end of the workshop, with zero heads and three tails, and is reproduced in Figure 2.7. On laddering up: 

On the scope of the model, the group included estuaries as, although not covered by the MSFD, they are within the focus of the east coast marine plans through their influence on coastal and marine waters.



Concept 5 Abundance was separated from concept 6 diversity for analytical clarity in the trigger concept once the laddering up exercise had commenced; the ‘and’ being found to be problematic in the trigger concept.



‘Ecosystem structure’ and ecosystem services in four constituent parts (namely, provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural) were identified as highly inter-related consequences on the construct. Later there was debate about further disaggregation of the ecosystem service concepts.



Debate followed also through searching for clarity of definition and distinctions between concepts e.g. ‘ecological resistance’ as the ability to withstand change and ‘ecological resilience’ as the ability to recover from change as distinct consequences.

On laddering down: 

Laddering down in search of causes, the group believed extraction of target and non-target species may have the biggest influence on food webs, in so doing identifying a potential for policy intervention/leverage point.



Added primary productivity as a concept to the model but decided the model would become too complicated if all trophic production levels were listed.



Given time limitations the group decided to include concept 28 Anthropogenic activity rather than individual activities (fishing, recreation, aggregate extraction, etc.) though later recognising that this should be disaggregated into individual pressures to allow for management influences.


 What were identified as main pressures were added individually (e.g. concept 22 Shallow abrasion and 24 Noise, death/injury to species), concept 18 Natural physic-chemical factors was added to


113


Figure 2.7 Food webs causal loop diagram.


114

reflect things that can’t be changed, and concept 27 Non-indigenous species as a variable which would then link up with one of the other models. While concept 29 Climate change was introduced as a pressure, time prevented its full integration into the model. On the analysis of the model: 

The target concept, 1 The abundance and diversity of food webs, and concept 11 Ecosystem functions had the most linkages.



It was recognised that to close more loops required some of the concepts to be split e.g. 28 anthropogenic activities.



The Centrality score analysis found concept 28 Anthropogenic activities had a score of 17 from 27 concepts and concept 15 Extraction of target species had a Centrality score of 15 from 28 concepts. This high level of integration suggests that both concepts offer potential leverage points to bring out GES in this particular descriptor.



The group discussed the findings of the first three loops (see Figures 2.8-2.10) although the loop analysis was stopped once it reached 2,000 loops.



A review of loop 1 (see Figure 2.8) identified the need for a link between concept 14 Ecological resistance and concept 11 Ecosystem functions in recognition of a causal relationship which previously had gone unidentified.

Figure 2.8 Food webs causal loop diagram - Loop 1.


115


Figure 2.9 Food webs causal loop diagram - Loop 2.

Figure 2.10 Food webs causal loop diagram - Loop 3. On discussing the management relevance: 

The group discussed whether the technique could be applied to their roles where this involved managing marine systems.



Breakup of concept 28 Anthropogenic activities into constituent elements would inform the management of these pressures.



The need to explore the scale and intensity of the causality loops was discussed. This might be informed by greater evidence, which would improve certainty within the model and may allow for quantification of relationships.




The model identifies issues which may not necessarily have been anticipated.



An incomplete model would introduces bias e.g. concept 29 Climate change was introduced only late in the modelling and, with few linkages identified and contrary to expectations, the analysis did not raise this as a dominant concept.



At present the group thought there were too many ‘ifs’ or caveats unresolved in the model to use it directly for policy purposes, but it is already useful tool for identifying key factors.



The group recognised that the makeup of the subgroup will influence the direction of model development.

5.4.2 Subgroup: Non-indigenous species The trigger concept was 1 Abundance/presence of invasive/non-native species. The model building commenced by thinking about examples of actual invasive species/non-indigenous species and potential such species that might enter the region in question. Model building also benefitted from the number of examples, the level of interest generated in these species and the range of stakeholders present in the subgroup. This group was facilitated by Facilitator 2. See Figure 2.11 for the CLD produced by this subgroup. On laddering up: 

Concept 2 Spread of disease linked to concept 3 Size of the fishing industry and concept 6 Number of native species, concept 4 Recreational activity, concept 5 Competing/predating native species (-) where identified early on as why it is important.



On reflection, concept 6 Number of native species depended on concept 8 Sensitivity of native species.



Concept 9 Policies was recognised as being especially influential for this descriptor e.g. the ballast water regulations, in part reflecting concept 19 Legal obligations.



Concept 21 Public perceptions of the problem identified as a point of leverage through its link with concept 9 Policies and concept 22 Funding for research and thereby the generation of concept 20 Science based evidence.

On laddering down: 

There were some well-known and documented causes of invasive species: concept 11 Aquaculture, concept 12 Shipping, concept 13 Changes in water temperature, concept 14 Currents, concept 15 Aquarium trade, concept 16 Ballast water, and concept 17 Movement of oil


117


Figure 2.11 Non-indigenous species causal loop diagram.


118



and gas infrastructure. Aquaculture and aquarium trade included although less important in Plan Area in focus. Further development of the model might have involved, for example, widening arrows to indicate those which are more important.



Concept 13 Changes in water temperature not only caused invasive species but also impacted on concept 6 Number of native species through concept 8 Sensitivity of native species.



Concepts 26 Climate change and 27 Economic growth were identified as very important influences on the causes of the abundance/presence of invasive/non-native species. Economic growth received quite a lot of attention by the group.

On the analysis of the model: 

Concept 9 Policies was recognised as being especially influential for this descriptor with a number of policies, regulations and management responses already in place or pending. It was recognised that, for example, the new ballast water regulations would be costly to implement as they require high levels of water treatment, and will impact on economic growth by raising shipping costs.



Some attention was given to Loop 1 (see Figure 2.12) depicting the influence of concept 1 Abundance/presence of invasive/non-native species on concept 26 Food supplies which impacts on concept 3 Size of the fishing industry which in turn impacts on concept 1 Abundance/presence of invasive/non-native species. Again, the opportunity for 9 Policies to influence this loop was noted.



Concept 21 Public perception of the problem was identified as a point of leverage (see Figure 2.13) over concept 9 Policies, with concept 23 Destruction of man-made infrastructure (e.g. Chinese Mitten Crab undermining flood defences, and jelly fish blocking power station water intakes) also influencing perceptions. The group debated whether public perceptions led to science or science led to public perceptions.



The Centrality scores analysis reinforces these findings as it shows a relatively large number of concepts having high scores. Concept 9 Policies has a Centrality score of 15 with a total number of concepts traversed of 23, concept 21 Public perception of the problem has a Centrality score of 13 from 23 concepts, concept 4 Recreational activity has a Centrality score of 13 from 23 concepts, concept 3 Size of the fishing industry has a centrality score of 13 from 23 concepts, 23 Destruction of man-made infrastructure has a Centrality score of 12 from 23 concepts and concept 16 Ballast water has a centrality score of 12 from 23 concepts. This high level of integration in the system of these concepts suggests potential for a number of policy intervention points to change the behaviour of the system.



Figure 2.12 Non-indigenous species causal loop diagram - Loop 1.

Figure 2.13 Non-indigenous species causal loop diagram - Loop 2. On the management relevance: 

The development of the model was constrained by the availability of time. If more time had been available then further nodes and links would have been identified e.g. a link between 23 Destruction of man-made infrastructure and 27 Economic growth e.g. due to blockage of power station water intakes. Additional time would also have provided the opportunity to review variable definitions.



Composition of group meant that there was little development of fisheries within the model.



The model might be developed by establishing the underlying evidence base for the suggested links and reflecting this in the way the nodes and arrows are presented.

Post-workshop re-interpretation of a CLD in terms of DPSIR/DAPSI(W)R: Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

Of the three models developed in the stakeholder workshop, the link between the DPSIR framework, and the CLD can be seen most clearly with reference to the non-indigenous species descriptor model. Table 2.6 presents one possible way of interpreting the model’s concepts according to categorises of the DPSIR framework, or more strictly here the DAPSI(W)R framework, and this was undertaken after the workshop. To confirm this interpretation and as a means to develop the model, for example by reviewing the specification of existing concepts and using the DAPSI(W)R framework to identify where there may be a need for additional concepts, a further iteration of the model involving the stakeholder group would be appropriate. Issues such as the number of driver concepts, activity concepts being linked directly to state change concepts, and activity concepts also being impact concepts might need to be considered. To assist with this process, the concept nodes in the model might be colour coded accordingly. Table 2.6 A categorisation of Non-indigenous species (D2) model concepts according to the DAPSI(W)R framework. Drivers

Activities

Pressures

State changes

Impacts

Responses

27 Economic growth;

4 Recreational activity; 11 Aquaculture; 12 Shipping; 15 Aquarium trade; 17 Movement of oil and gas infrastructure;

2 Spread of diseases; 16 Ballast water; 26 Climate change;

1 Abundance/ presence of invasive/ nonnative species; 5 Competing/ predating native species; 6 Number of native species; 8 Sensitivity of native species; 13 Changes in water temperature; 14 Currents; 18 Availability of food (foraging);

3 Size of the fishing industry; 21 Public perception of the problem; 23 Destruction of man-made infrastructure; 26 Food supplies;

9 Policies; 19 Legal obligations; 20 Science based evidence; 22 Funding for research; 24 Deliberate introductions;

5.4.3 Subgroup: Biological diversity The approach to model building adopted by the subgroup that focused on descriptor D1 Biological Diversity contrasts with the approaches adopted by the subgroups investigating descriptor D2 nonindigenous species and descriptor D4 food webs, in recognition of the central importance of this particular descriptor to achieving GES. Thus, concepts were generally defined at a relatively high level of aggregation while the trigger concept was represented in its constituent elements in the original model (it appears in its aggregate form only in the simplified model). Also, specific to this



subgroup was the way concepts were presented in a way to structure the model, with different categories of concepts identified by colour coding the nodes. Thus, 

Yellow square nodes depict the constituent elements of the trigger concept, that is, it comprises concepts 2 Diversity of community, 3 Diversity within each population, 4 Functional Diversity and 5 Genetic Diversity.



Orange square nodes depict concepts with close association with other specific descriptors. These concepts were 8 Removal of substrate (descriptor 6), 9 Adding waste/pollution (descriptor 5, 8, 9, 10), 11 Concentration of chemical contaminants (descriptors 8, 9), 12 Introduction of invasive species (descriptor 2), 13 Concentration of physical contaminants (descriptor 7, 10, 11), 14 Concentration of biological contaminants (descriptors 2, 9), and 16 Healthy food webs (descriptor 4).



Clear nodes depict concepts associated with human interventions in the system, that is 6 Extracting biomass, 7 Putting energy into system, 10 Seabed extraction, 15 Input of pathogens, 23 Governance, and 22 extractable biomass. Concepts to capture ecosystem services are also incorporated into the model assuming a high level of aggregation, that is 18 Provisioning services, 19 Cultural services, 20 Regulating services, and 21 Supporting services. Note that concept 7 Putting energy into system is closely associated with Descriptor 11 Introduction of energy which is not otherwise recognised in the model.



A yellow oval node identifies only concept 17 Ecosystem engineers which is used to capture natural organisms (e.g. tube worms) that modify the ecological structures and processes that underpins the marine natural system.

The original and simplified models are presented as Figures 2.14 and 2.15; the simplified model was created by the facilitator, an expert model builder, working alone after the original model was created. Once the trigger concept had been broken down into its constituent components, the concepts associated with the other descriptors, along with 17 Ecosystem engineers, were identified through the laddering down process as causes of D1 Biological diversity. The laddering up process was used to identify human uses of the marine environment, including the abiotic elements of the marine environment, along with the ecosystem service concepts, as these are indicative of the key importance of D1 Biological diversity to human well-being. Note, a distinction is drawn between stock and flow variables, for example both 22 Extractable biomass and 6 Extracting biomass are included in the model, with the former having an arrow to the latter. Turning to the analysis of the model, Centrality scores are inevitably highest for concepts of the constituent elements of D1 Biological diversity (the highest scoring of which were 4 Functional


Diversity, 2 Diversity of community and 3 Diversity within each population), concepts linked to other descriptors (the highest scoring of which were 14 Concentration of biological contaminants, 13 Concentration of physical contaminants and 11 Concentration of chemical contaminants), and ecosystem services (in particular 21 Supporting service). However, concept 6 Extracting biomass has a Centrality score of 13 with a total number of concepts traversed of 21. With such a high level of integration with other concepts, this result suggests that this concept has potential leverage when it comes to influencing the behaviour of the system to achieve GES with the descriptor D1 Biological diversity. This result is quite intuitive, and the link between concept 6 Extracting biomass and concept 23 Governance in the model was already recognised during the model building suggesting an important leverage point for management. Concept 23 Governance also has a relatively high Centrality score of 12 with a total number of concepts traversed of 21.



Figure 2.14 Biological diversity causal loop diagram (Original version of model).


124

Figure 2.15 Biological diversity causal loop diagram (Simplified version of model).


125


5.4.4 A composite model After the workshop, the three diagrams were joined together through nodes that were common in more than one diagram providing a link point in the creation of a composite diagram. This diagram is shown in Figure 2.16 and, although the size of the model makes it difficult to present, it is possible to appreciate the overall ‘shape’ of the diagram, the potential for its further development and simplification to make the underlying structure of the system make explicit, analysis to reveal further feedback loops that drive system behaviour, and the potential for the identification of additional points of leverage for changing behaviours. It is worth noting that the development of the composite model would require another workshop-based iteration to ensure that this was not merely a simple mechanistic joining of the models but rather a development which took understanding to another level based on participants’ shared understanding of concepts.


Figure 2.16 The composite causal loop diagram. Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

127


6. Post Workshop Evaluation It is recognised that the evaluation of any facilitated intervention, such as a modelling workshop, is problematic. Rouwette reflects that research by Nisbett and Wilson (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Wilson, 2002) shows that people have little insight into whether they have learned, and if so, what were the causes. Further, Eden sees serious shortcomings in using questionnaires to assess outcomes, observing that participants are unwilling to participate in answering questions (Eden, 1995). Despite these concerns, there is still a need to look to learn from such interventions and Eden (1995) maintains that any evaluation of facilitated modelling interventions should be based on a clear theoretical framework. Rouwette takes up the challenge of developing such a theoretical framework and recognises that although the particulars of each intervention may be unique, facilitated modelling in general is used in supporting the resolution of complex issues mainly because it is expected to improve communication between decision makers, foster consensus and create commitment (Morton et al., 2003; Rouwette et al., 2009, Rouwette, 2011). Hence by measuring both the outcomes and the degree to which (hypothesized) triggers for creation of outcomes were present, we are better able to test expectations on how methods bring about expected changes. Tables 2.7 and 2.8 show the evaluation questionnaire results, from both participants and the three facilitators, based on questions developed from Rouwette’s outcomes framework. The evaluation finding and comments from participants during the workshop suggest that further time was required for the analysis of the CLDs for a more complete understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to the achievement of GES to be established. However, it is important to note that the evaluation does not include consideration of:  the perceived correctness and development of the CLDs, in terms of the modelling approach;  the completeness of the CLDs; and  certainty of knowledge upon which the CLDs are based. These are now considered in turn as all of these issues were discussed during the course of the final plenary session of the workshop. Modelling approach: It is worth noting that the Decision Explorer software does provide tools to support comment on the complexity of diagrams. As discussed by Eden et al. (1992), a simplistic evaluation of the diagrams may be to simply count the nodes in each as it may be assumed that the more nodes in a diagram then the more complex it is. An alternative analysis is to determine the ratio of links to nodes a higher ratio indicates a more densely connected diagram and, supposedly, a


higher level of complexity. Eden et al. (1992) argue that the robustness of the analysis is dependent upon the



Table 2.7 Evaluation results – participants (n=7). OUTCOME

FOCUSSING ON THE MODEL-BUILDING BREAK-OUT SESSIONS, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

(a) there was a good exchange of ideas and viewpoints between participants; (b) all participants contributed to the discussion;

Communication

(c) a shared language was being used; (d) some participants dominated discussions which prevented some other participants from contributing;

Consensus

Commitment

1

2

3

Strongly Agree

3

4

4

2

4

2

Neither Agree nor Disagree

1

2

(e) participants were focussed on developing the content of the model.

3

(a) participants’ opinions converged as they exchanged arguments for their respective positions;

4

3

(b) participants shared in the consensus;

6

1

(c) participants did not reach agreement on the contents of the model;

4

5

2

(d) the modelling approach helped participants communicate their ideas to others.

6

(a) there was a strong belief and acceptance of the goals and values of the model building exercise;

4

3

2

3

(b) participants’ level of engagement with the model building and analysis exercises was low;

4

FOCUSSING ON THE WORKSHOP IN ITS ENTIRETY, TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE SPECIFIED ‘TAKE-AWAYS’ FROM THE WORKSHOP DELIVERED:

1

3

(c) there was a strong desire to achieve a model which was both correct and complete through the exercise.

Take-aways and Insights

Agree

2

Fully

Partially

(a) An expert view on the current status of the implementation of MSFD;

3

3

1

(b) An opportunity to engage in a discussion with and better understand different stakeholders viewpoints on GES;

3

3

1

(c) A better understanding of three key GES descriptors: biological diversity, food webs and noninvasive species;

1

6

(d) An introduction to and experience of building and analysing causal loop models using Banxia’s ‘Decision Explorer’ software;

5

2

(e) Understanding of opportunities for and barriers to the achievement of GES.

1

4


Not at all

Not sure

2

130

Table 2.8 evaluation results – facilitators (n=3). OUTCOME

Communication

FOCUSSING ON THE MODEL-BUILDING BREAK-OUT SESSIONS, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Agree

(a) there was a good exchange of ideas and viewpoints between participants;

3

(b) all participants contributed to the discussion;

3

(c) a shared language was being used; (d) some participants dominated discussions which prevented some other participants from contributing ;

1 1

Commitment

3 3

(b) participants shared in the consensus;

2

1

(d) the modelling approach helped participants communicate their ideas to others.

1

2

(a) there was a strong belief and acceptance of the goals and values of the model building exercise;

2

1

(b) participants’ level of engagement with the model building and analysis exercises was low;

1

2

2

1

(c) there was a strong desire to achieve a model which was both correct and complete through the exercise.

Take-aways and Insights

2

(a) participants’ opinions converged as they exchanged arguments for their respective positions;

(c) participants did not reach agreement on the contents of the model;

FOCUSSING ON THE WORKSHOP IN ITS ENTIRETY, TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE SPECIFIED ‘TAKE-AWAYS’ FROM THE WORKSHOP DELIVERED:

3

Fully

(a) An expert view on the current status of the implementation of MSFD;

Partially

3

(c) A better understanding of three key GES descriptors: biological diversity, food webs and noninvasive species;

2

1

(d) An introduction to and experience of building and analysing causal loop models using Banxia’s ‘Decision Explorer’ software;

1

2


Not at all

Not sure

3

(b) An opportunity to engage in a discussion with and better understand different stakeholders viewpoints on GES;

(e) Understanding of opportunities for and barriers to the achievement of GES.

Neither Agree nor Disagree

2

(e) participants were focussed on developing the content of the model.

Consensus

Strongly Agree

3

131


coding skills of the mapper and suggest that inexperienced mappers tend to generate a smaller number of constructs than those identified by an experienced mapper and in addition they generate more links. Eden et al. report typical ratios of 1.15-1.20 for maps elicited from interviews following their form of construct theory mapping. However, it is worth noting that in the case of the workshop, the expert facilitator (Facilitator 3) looked to simplify the causal loop diagram in an effort to remove surface level variables in order to make the deep structures that drive behaviour more apparent. Expertise in the multi-stakeholder environment: Working in a multi-stakeholder environment brings to light conflicts between different, sometimes conflicting, knowledge claims and disciplinary expertise. Such conflicts can lead to challenges that create an insurmountable stalemate and halt progression as participants engage in defensive routines. As Irwin (1995) recognises “although scientific knowledge suffers from severe uncertainties and ambiguities, scientists, in advising policy decision makers, act as if their advice is based on concrete knowledge. This results in a janus-faced public image of science – a source of knowledge and understanding, on the one hand, and a source of uncertainty and, particularly in connection with technology, of environmental threat, on the other.” (pp. 150-151). Irwin’s comment did not hold true in the workshops and this, perhaps, reflects Franco’s (2013) argument for the conceptualisation of models as potential boundary objects “Boundary objects help resolve the tensions that exist when different stakeholders attempt to cooperate...By identifying ‘lowest common denominators,’ critical points of agreement, or shared surface referents, boundary objects provide a sufficient platform for cooperative action – but they do so without requiring the individuals involved to abandon the distinctive perspectives, positions, and practices of their ‘base’ social world.” (Winter & Butler, 2011, p.103). Franco goes on to articulate a range of potential model effects (Franco, p722): 

A shared language is developed that is sufficient to specify differences and dependencies, and generate a way forward regarding the problem;



Shared meanings are created that are sufficient to specify and learn about differences and dependencies, and generate a way forward regarding the problem; and

 Common interests are developed that are sufficient to resolve the anticipated implications of differences and dependencies, and generate new knowledge and a way forward regarding the problem. Certainty of knowledge: Several workshop participants expressed concern during the workshop about the level of confidence in the knowledge on which the CLDs were based. It was generally agreed that there was a need to capture expressed uncertainties when developing CLDs and to use this as the basis for seeking more knowledge in order to give greater certainty to and confidence in the models. Such reassurance is important for, as Mingers and Rosenhead (2004), state ‘‘The model representations are Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

used to provide enough structure that those who must take responsibility for the consequences of the choices which are made, do so on a coherent basis and with sufficient confidence to make the necessary commitments.’’ (p. 1). Indeed, notion of coherence and confidence is important particularly if we accept that, in dealing with complex and unstructured problem situations, there will be an inevitable lack of comprehensiveness in our designs and decision making. In order to address this issue, reference may be made to an alternative systems based approach, Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST), which is commonly used for a similar purpose in strategy work. A summary of the key features of SAST is included in Appendix 2. Given the above, it may be argued that, if the ‘value’ of group modelling cannot be based on the correctness or completeness of the outcome, all we can focus on is the correctness and completeness of the process. This is a particularly pertinent point when considering a complex system which we can never fully understand but, through CSH/boundary critique, we can critically reflect in a rigorous way on how holistic we are being in who we engage with and which stakeholders are regarded as having relevant knowledge and give justification for whose interests we are marginalising. Where there are recognised gaps in knowledge about the system, best that they be explicitly acknowledged and the likely implications of such gaps be acknowledged. Back-ending the modelling approach with SAST adds a further critically reflective element to the process which might contribute to the level of confidence that participants can have in any decision-making based on the model.



7.

Developing

the

Model

and

Cascading

the

Approach 7.1 Developing the model The potential for developing the composite model into a quantitative simulation model was summarily discussed in the workshop. Howick et al. (2008) outline such a process which is designed to “enable multiple audiences, particularly non-experts, to appreciate the validity of the models being built and their outcomes.” (p.1068). The process is focussed around a cascade of 4 stages: 

Stage 1: Qualitative cognitive (individual) and cause (group) maps;



Stage 2: Cause map to causal loop model;



Stage 3: Causal loop model to SD influence diagram; and



Stage 4: The SD simulation model.

Although the quantification of the model requires the input of an expert modeller, there are checks in the process to ensure that it has the confidence of stakeholders. In summary: “The cascade process provides a structured, auditable/transparent, formalized process from ‘‘real world’’ interviews to a qualitative model to a quantitative model...The models produced at each of these stages reinforce the same argument to the modelling audience. However, each stage presents the material in a different format, whether that is through a representation of the semantically rich story given in the first stage cognitive and cause map or through the more formal structure of a simulation model. By repetitively presenting the same arguments about the behaviour of the system in different formats, each of the models supports and tests the other and therefore makes each of the representations more believable and trustworthy.” (Howick et al., 2008, pp. 1069-1070). Howick et al. (2008) recognise that the process of quantifying SD model variables can be a challenge, particularly as it is difficult to justify subjective estimates of higher-level concepts but suggest “quantification at a level that is appropriate to the data-collection opportunities available.” (p. 1077). Such a suggestion draws in relevant expertise from stakeholders and also suggests tests of such knowledge through SAST to ensure the robustness of the model. It is worth noting that one workshop participant commented that the data needed to populate the CLDs should already be available given the significant resource devoted to indicator development and monitoring. Further, it was suggested that this represented a significant test of whether indicators were


being developed that measured what was actually important, as revealed through the modelling exercise, or merely what it is expedient to measure and monitor.

7.2 Summary guidelines on the approach On stakeholder participation  GES is a product of the management of the marine environment as a complex system from which an array of ecosystem services are derived which benefit multiple stakeholders with ecological, social, and economic knowledge claims and concerns.  Complex systems defy simple conceptualisation and to gain a holistic perspective requires the engagement of multiple stakeholders and the explication of the knowledge that they each hold.  A holistic perspective is an unachievable ideal. Consequently, the best we can do is to be explicit in where we are drawing the systems boundary and to justify this in terms of what knowledge is being valued and included and what is not; consideration can thus be given to the likely consequences of marginalising some stakeholders and their associated knowledge and value claims.  Engaging multiple stakeholders, in the pursuit of a more holistic understanding, introduces the potential for knowledge and value claims to be contested.  Engagement of multiple stakeholders promotes understanding of the complexity and dynamics of the marine environment and of the uncertainty of our knowledge, including factors that may facilitate and/or undermine the achievement of GES, which may serve to reduce stakeholder obstruction to initiatives to promote GES and further gather resources for their implementation.  The process of boundary critique is useful in making decisions about who ought to be engaged and associated issues such as how ‘success’ is judged and by whom. On the workshops and modelling  Facilitated modelling can support the explication of individual internal mental models and the creation of an external, jointly owned causal map which provides the basis for a causal loop diagram capturing stakeholders’ shared understanding of deep structures that drive the behavior of the system under consideration.  Models built in a facilitated workshop environment can be regarded as ‘boundary objects’ which support different disciplinary connections, the resolution of competing knowledge claims and negotiating areas of uncertainty whilst promoting stakeholder engagement.  Where technology is involved, it needs to be simple to use, intuitive and form an unobtrusive part of the facilitation.



 Use of Decision Explorer software with minimal support from facilitators enabled workshop participants to build and analyse their own CLDs relevant to GES rather than working through expert modellers.  Decision Explorer incorporates simple, useful tools for drawing and analysing maps.  Developing a computer-based model enabled models to be developed, clarified, corrected and analysed by participants themselves during the course of the workshop.  Conceptual maps enable a rich amount of information about the dynamics of complex systems to be captured and structured.  An initial ‘trigger’ concept can help provide initial focus to a modelling group but, as time goes on, the focus of effort is more influenced by the group’s composition and this point relates back to the need to front-end the modelling effort with a process of boundary critique to ensure a variety of knowledge and value claims are taken into consideration.  Development of a causal map can be supported through either a laddering technique or by reference to the DPSIR framework.  Decision Explorer software enabled facilitators and participants to move easily from conceptual modelling to CLM by focusing on closing loops.  Focus on closing loops naturally introduced an emphasis on endogenous not exogenous change and critical reflection on what was in the system of concern and what was beyond the boundary.  Language matters and has to be negotiated between stakeholder participants which makes problematic what ‘in their own words’ actually means but this is an important aspect of group model building which can significantly impact on stakeholder ownership of the model(s) developed.  The models developed represented the knowledge, interests and beliefs of workshop participants about GES and what drives the system’s behaviour.  The output of conceptual modelling and CLM should be treated carefully. They do not represent the ‘truth’ and participants may wish to test the veracity of their models by participants employing an appropriate method, such as SAST (see Appendix 2), rather than subjecting them to the judgment of ‘experts’.  Sufficient time is required to build models to identify points of leverage. This is often difficult to attain in a multi-stakeholder environment but commitment to the group effort and learning together serves to deliver gains at both the group and individual levels.  CLD are useful for structuring knowledge and unearthing feedback loops and points of leverage that are not immediately obvious (including counterintuitive feedback loops).  Subgroup CLDs could be joined together, through common concepts, to form a broader view. On drawing causal loop diagrams


 Variables need to be named carefully with names that imply directionality avoided. Generally, variables should be nouns rather than verbs.  Arrows represent a cause-effect link between two variables, not a flow of material or energy.  Points of arrows should be labelled with ‘+’ or ‘-‘ sign to indicate positive or negative effect (NB in the models from the workshops, where there is no sign then a positive relationship is assumed). Hence, a ‘+’ means that change in the variable at the tail of the arrow leads to change in the same direction in the variable at the point of the arrow.  The overall sign of a feedback loop can be determined by counting the total number of ‘-‘ signs within the complete loop: a positive feedback loop has no or an even number of ‘-‘ signs. The loop is a negative feedback if there is an odd number of ‘-‘ signs.  A positive loop is one in which a series of interactions build on one another and ‘snowball’. If the result is desirable it is known as a ‘virtuous circle’; alternatively where an undesirable effect occurs it is known as a ‘vicious circle’.  Both positive and negative loops are typically embedded within large dynamic systems.

7.3 Concluding reflections From the outset, the task and workshop were to develop a systemic approach to enable i) the representation of causal mechanisms driving behaviours in the complex marine system, including factors that prevent or facilitate the achievement of GES and ii) the Identification of potential points of leverage for changing behavioural patterns to bring the system towards GES. To this end, the task and the workshop were to be systemic in engaging multiple stakeholders rather than being based on expert modelling techniques and facilitation. Such engagement can promote understanding of the dynamics of complex systems and of the uncertainty of our knowledge, including factors that facilitate and/or prevent the achievement of GES. Furthermore, it was important to make the approach as simple as possible so that it could be transferred to other contexts and used by non-experts. Taking these concerns seriously led to the modelling effort being front-ended with a systemic method for looking critically at participation, boundary critique, and also suggestion that the modelling should be backended with SAST to question participants’ certainty about knowledge assertions and assumptions. Enhancing the model process in this way represents an innovative use of systemic methods. Also respecting the multi-stakeholder focus of the work, suggested a critical approach to the evaluation of the multi-stakeholder workshop around which the project was based. In the light of the above, it is argued that participation is not merely about offering an opportunity to be involved but rather demands appropriate attention be given to the selection of approaches to ensure that participation is both appropriate and meaningful: Taket and White’s work (2000) was a forerunner Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES


in highlighting the requirement to embrace diversity in a diversity of forms. To be clear, the argument here is for approaches that explicitly take consideration of diversity when operating in the multistakeholder environment and the consequent need to design knowledge elicitation and structuring processes accordingly. Furthermore, such approaches compel us to reconsider role expectations. Waltner-Toews et al. (2004) recognise this need in suggesting that in such environments, ‘‘The role of the scientist in decision making shifts from inferring what will happen – that is, making predictions which are the basis of decisions – to providing the decision makers and the community with an appreciation, through narrative descriptions, of how the future self-organisation of the socio-ecological systems might unfold.’’ (p. 330). Participation of a wide range of stakeholders will enhance the social capital and knowledge capital and create an expectation of active citizenship, essential for civil society, that may not only be passed on to future generations but also support the achievement and sustenance of GES. Hence, through Task 2.3.2 reported here, we have developed, applied, and provided a critique of a multi-stakeholder systemic approach built on DPSIR and CLDs, to further our understanding and, thereby, contribute to the achievement of GES. The approach enables an identification of the barriers (social, economic and legislative, together with other aspects of governance including administrative bodies and policies) that can hinder the achievement of GES. It does this through engagement with stakeholders in model building. The models facilitate the identification of causal mechanisms and potential points of leverage for changing behavioural patterns to bring the system towards GES. Thus, Part B represents an alternative and complementary approach to the work on reviewing the current evidence concerning legislative, policy and regulatory barriers to achieving GES presented in Part A of the report. Its focus on specific descriptors and a particular UK case site, also complements the work undertaken in other WP2 tasks as well as other DEVOTES work packages.


References Ackermann, F. (2012) Problem structuring methods "in the dock": Arguing the case for soft OR, European Journal of Operational Research, 219 (3): 653-658. Ackermann, F., and Eden, C., with Brown, I. (2005) The Practice of Making Strategy: A Step-by-Step Guide, Sage Publications Ltd London, UK. Andersen, D.F., Vennix, J.A.M., Richardson, G.P. and Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (2007) Group model building: Problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58: 691–694. Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35 (4), 216–224. Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D. Elliott M. and Gregory, A.J. (2011a) Management of the Marine Environment: Integrating Ecosystem Services and Societal Benefits with the DPSIR Framework in a Systems Approach, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62:215-226. Atkins, J.P. Gregory, A.J. Burdon, D. and Elliott, M. (2011b) Managing the Marine Environment: Is the DPSIR Framework Holistic Enough? Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(5): 497–508. Bäckstrand, K. (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance; Global Environmental Politics, 3(4): 24-41. Becker, A. (1997) Citizen science. A study of people, expertise and sustainable development – book review, Organization Studies, 18 (1): 149-154. Bell, S., and Morse, S. (2007) Problem structuring methods: theorizing the benefits of deconstructing sustainable development projects, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 576–587. Borja, A., Elliott, M., Carstensen, J., Heiskanen, A.S., and van de Bund, W. (2010) Marine management– towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework and the Water Framework Directives, Marine Pollution Bulletin 60 (12), 2175-2186. Bodilis, P., Louisy, P., Draman, M., Areco, H.O., and Francour, P. (2014) Can citizen science survey nonindigenous fish species in the eastern Mediterranean sea?, Environmental Management, 53: 172180. Checkland, P.B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley: Chichester, UK.



Checkland, P. and Poulter, J. (2006) Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its Use, for Practitioners, Teachers and Students, John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK. Churchman, C.W. (1968) The Systems Approach (Reprinted 1979). Delta Books, New York. Churchman, C.W. (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, New York. Conrad, C.C. and Hilchey, K.G. (2011) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities, Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 176: 273-291. Cooper, P. (2012) The DPSWR social ecological accounting framework: notes on its definition and application. Policy Brief No 3. EU FP7 KNOWSEAS Project. ISBN 0-9529089-5-6. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998) Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management, Sage, London. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (2001) SODA – the principles. In: Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (eds) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 21-42. Eden, C., Ackermann, F. and Cropper, S. (1992) The analysis of cause maps, Journal of Management Studies, 29(3): 309-324. Eden, C. (1980). Modelling cognition in complex decision problems, Journal of Interdisciplinarity Modelling and Simulation, 3, I 19-44. Eden, C. (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review, European Journal of Operational Research, 36, 1- 13. Eden, C. (1992) On the nature of cognitive maps, Journal of Management Studies, 29(3):261-265. Eden C. (1995) On evaluating the performance of ‘wide-band’ GDSS’s, European Journal of Operational Research, 81: 302–311. Elliott, M., and de Jonge, V.N. (2002) The management of nutrients and potential eutrophication in estuaries and other restricted water bodies, Hydrobiologia (475/476), 513–524. Elliott, M., Borja, A., McQuatters-Gollop, A., Mazik, K., Birchenough, S., JAndersen, J.H., Painting, S., and Peck, M. (2015) Force majeure: Will climate change affect our ability to attain Good Environmental Status for marine biodiversity? Marine Pollution Bulletin (In press). Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., and Walker, J. (2008) A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research,187: 636–651. EC. (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L164: 19-40. Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES

Forrester, J.W. (1961) Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Forrester, J.W. (1971) World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press: Cambridge, MA. Franco, L.A. (2013) Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects, European Journal of Operational Research, 231(3): 720–733. Friend, J. (2001) The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Wiley: Chichester, UK pp 115–149. Friend, J. and Hickling, A. (1987) Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach, Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK. di

Gregorio,

S.

(2000)

Decision

Explorer

and

Cognitive

Mapping,

available

at:

http://www.sdgassociates.com/downloads/taster_explanation.pdf, accessed: 20/04/2015. Gray, J.S. and Elliott, M. (2009) Ecology of Marine Sediments – From Science to Management, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Gregory, A.J., Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D. and Elliott, M. (2013) A Problem Structuring Method for Ecosystem-Based Management: The DPSIR Modelling Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 227(3): 409-584. Habermas, J. (1974) Theory and Practice, J. Viertel (trans), Heinemann 1974. Howick, S., Eden, C, Ackermann, F and Williams T. (2008) Building Confidence in Models for Multiple Audiences: the Modelling Cascade, European Journal of Operational Research, 186:1068-1083 Huff, A.S. (1990) Mapping Strategic Thought, Wiley, Chichester, UK. Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, Routledge, London, UK. Lane, D.C. (2008) The Emergence and Use of Diagramming in System Dynamics: A Critical Account, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25:3-23. Maani, K.E., and Cavana, R.Y. (2007) Systems Thinking and Modelling: Understanding Change and Complexity, Prentice Hall, New Zealand. Mason, R.O., and Mitroff, I.I. (1981) Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK. Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J.H., and O’Connor, M. (2009) An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework, Ecological Economics, 69: 12–23. Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES


Meadows, D. (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system, Sustainability Institute Report, available

at:

http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf,

accessed 20/04/1015. Midgley, G. (2000) Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, Methodology, and Practice, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, London. Mingers, J., and Rosenhead, J. (2004) Problem structuring methods in action, European Journal of Operational Research, 152: 530–554. Morton, A., Ackermann, F. and Belton, V. (2003) Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support: Focus, research philosophy, and key concepts, European Journal of Information Systems, 12:110–126. Paucar-Caceres, A., and Espinosa, A. (2011) Management science methodologies in environmental management and sustainability: discourses and applications, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62: 1601–1620. Pidd, M. (2010) Why modelling and model use matter, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61:14–24. Potts, T., O'Higgins, T., Brennan, R., Cinnirella, S. Brandt U.S., de Vivero, J.L.S., van Beusekom, J., Troost, T.A., Paltriguera L., and Hosgor, A.G. (2015) Detecting critical choke points for achieving Good Environmental Status in European seas, Ecology and Society, 20(1): 29. Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Vennix, J.A.M. and Felling, A.J.A. (2009) On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: An attempt at formulating a conceptual model, Group Decision and Negotiation, 18: 567–587. Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (2011) Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62: 879–887. Senge, P.M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Century Business: London, UK. Shaw, D., Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2003) Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54: 936-948. Shaw, D., Edwards, J.S., and Collier, P.M. (2006) Quid pro quo: reflections on the value of problem structuring group workshops, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57: S939–949.


Shaw, D., and Blundell, N. (2008) WASOP, a qualitative methodology for waste minimization: systems thinking, HAZOP principles and nuclear waste, International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 2(2), 231–251. Simon, H. (1972) Theories of bounded rationality. In: McGuire, C.B., Radner, R. (Eds.), Decision and Organization,North Holland Publishing Company. Smith, C., Papadopoulou, N., Barnard, S., Mazik, K., Patríci, J., Elliott, M., Solaun, O., Little, S., Borja, A., Bhatia, N., Moncheva, S., Robele, S., Bizsel, K.C., and Eronat, A.H. (2014) Conceptual models for the effects of marine pressures on biodiversity, Deliverable 1.1., EU FP7 DEVOTES Project, 23 June 2014. Smyth, K., Christie, N., Burdon, D., Atkins, J.P., Barnes, R., and Elliott M. (2015) Renewables to Reefs? Decommissioning options for the offshore wind power industry, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol.90, pp. 247–258. Stave, K. A. (2002) Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environmental decisions, System Dynamics Review, 18:139–167. Sterman, J. D. (1994) Learning in and about complex systems, System Dynamics Review, 10: 291–330. Sterman, J.D. (2012) Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science in a Fragmented Academy and Polarized World, in: M.P. Weinstein and R.E. Turner (eds.), Sustainability Science: The Emerging Paradigm and the Urban Environment, pp. 21-57 Springer Science and Business Media. Taket, A. and White, L. (2000) Partnership and Participation, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Toerpe, K. (2013) The rise of citizen science, The Futurist, July-August: 25-30. Ulrich, W. (1983) Critical Heuristics of Social Planning, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Vennix, J. (1996) Group Model Building: Facilitating team Learning Using System Dynamics, Wiley, Chichester, UK. Waltner-Toews, D., Kay, J., Murray, T.P., and Neudoerffer, C. (2004) Adaptive methodology for ecosystem sustainability and health (AMESH): an introduction. In: Midgley, G., Ochoa-Arias, A.E. (Eds.), Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, London. White, L. (2006) Evaluating problem–structuring methods: developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 842–855. Winter, S. and Butler, B. (2011) Creating bigger problems: grand challenges as boundary objects and the legitimacy of the information systems field, Journal of Information Technology, 26(2): 99-108. Part B: Development of a systemic modelling approach to understanding and achieving GES


Appendix 1 Images of the maps developed in the design workshop

Figure 2.17 Map developed using approach 1.






Appendix 2 Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) (Mason & Mitroff, 1981) is a process which aims to reveal the underlying assumptions on which the success of a decision or plan rests. By making assumptions explicit decision-makers can make judgements about how certain they are about any assumption and how important it is in affecting the success or otherwise of the decision or plan. Through this structured process of reflection decision-makers can ensure that their decision-making and planning has a solid basis and any weaknesses are known about before it is exposed to others or implemented in practice. While SAST is a fully developed methodology involving several stages, in the context of testing the veracity and knowledge claims relating to a model building exercise, it offers one method that is of particular value: the assumption rating grid. Model building should list the key assumptions and knowledge claims upon which their model depends and number each assumption. The numbered assumptions and claims can then be plotted on a chart (see Figure 2.20), noting importance in terms of: 

Success or failure (most important to least important)



Degree of certainty with which assumption is held (most certain to least certain

Assumptions that are both important and certain become the pivotal or "bedrock" assumptions for the model. Assumptions that are important but uncertain provide the basis for a data search and further discussion such that the assumption can be subjected to informed debate and moved to another quadrant. If, following this process, there are still significant assumptions remaining in this problematic quadrant then it needs to be recognised that high risk decision making, in terms of the quality of information on which it is based, is being entered into and efforts to attain necessary data may be redoubled. Assumptions in the other two quadrants may well be dropped. Where two or more groups are engaged in building a model with a common or similar focus, it may be useful to test the different assumptions upon which the models are based: 

Are there stakeholders who have not been taken into account?



Do certain stakeholders have greater prominence in one model than other and, if so, has this been explained?



Are all the assumptions surfaced?



Are similar assumptions rated differently?



Should some assumptions have been allocated to the problematic planning region?


Figure 2.20 Plotting and weighing assumptions Having questioned and assessed the alternative models, and their underpinning assumptions, the strongest model may become evident to the whole group or an attempt may be made to synthesise the two opposing positions based on the increased understanding of the system of concern.
