Evaluating conservation and fisheries management strategies by linking spatial prioritization software and ecosystem and fisheries modelling tools

Well-designed marine protected area (MPA) networks can deliver a range of ecological, economic and social benefits, and so a great deal of research has focused on developing spatial conservation prioritization tools to help identify important areas. However, whilst these software tools are designed to identify MPA networks that both represent biodiversity and minimize impacts on stakeholders, they do not consider complex ecological processes. Thus, it is difficult to determine the impacts that proposed MPAs could have on marine ecosystem health, fisheries and fisheries sustainability. Using the eastern English Channel as a case study, this paper explores an approach to address these issues by identifying a series of MPA networks using the Marxan and Marxan with Zones conservation planning software and linking them with a spatially explicit ecosystem model developed in Ecopath with Ecosim. We then use these to investigate potential trade-offs associated with adopting different MPA management strategies. Limited-take MPAs, which restrict the use of some fishing gears, could have positive benefits for conservation and fisheries in the eastern English Channel, even though they generally receive far less attention in research on MPA network design. Our findings, however, also clearly indicate that no-take MPAs should form an integral component of proposed MPA networks in the eastern English Channel, as they not only result in substantial increases in ecosystem biomass, fisheries catches and the biomass of commercially valuable target species, but are fundamental to maintaining the sustainability of the fisheries. Synthesis and applications. Using the existing software tools Marxan with Zones and Ecopath with Ecosim in combination provides a powerful policy-screening approach. This could help inform marine spatial planning by identifying potential conflicts and by designing new regulations that better balance conservation objectives and stakeholder interests. In addition, it highlights that appropriate combinations of no-take and limited-take marine protected areas might be the most effective when making trade-offs between long-term ecological benefits and short-term political acceptability.

Determination of thresholds in marine molluscs as an alternative to the Environmental Quality Standards in marine water defined in the Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) establishes Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) in marine water for 34 priority substances. Among these substances, 25 are hydrophobic and bioaccumulable (2 metals and 23 organic compounds). For these 25 substances, monitoring in water matrix is not appropriate and an alternative matrix should be developed. Bivalve mollusks, particularly mussels (Mytilus edulis, Mytilus galloprovincialis), are used by Ifremer as a quantitative biological indicator since 1979 in France, to assess the marine water quality. This study has been carried out in order to determine thresholds in mussels at least as protective as EQS in marine water laid down by the WFD. Three steps are defined: - Provide an overview of knowledges about the relations between the concentrations of contaminants in the marine water and mussels through bioaccumulation factor (BAF) and bioconcentration factor (BCF). This allows to examine how a BCF or a BAF can be determined: BCF can be determined experimentally (according to US EPA or ASTM standards), or by Quantitative Activity-Structure Relationship models (QSAR): four equations can be used for mussels. BAF can be determined by field experiment; but none standards exists. It could be determined by using QSAR but this method is considered as invalid for mussels, or by using existing model: Dynamic Budget Model, but this is complex to use. - Collect concentrations data in marine water (Cwater) in bibliography for those 25 substances; and compare them with concentration in mussels (Cmussels) obtained through French monitoring network of chemicals contaminants (ROCCH) and biological integrator network RINBIO. According to available data, this leads to determine the BAF or the BCF (Cmussels /Cwater) with field data. - Compare BAF and BCF values (when available) obtained with various methods for these substances: BCF (stemming from the bibliography, using experimental process), BCF calculated by QSAR and BAF determined using field data. This study points out that experimental BCF data are available for 3 substances (Chlorpyrifos, HCH, Pentachlorobenzene). BCF by QSAR can be calculated for 20 substances. The use of field data allows to evaluate 4 BAF for organic compounds and 2 BAF for metals. Using these BAF or BCF value, thresholds in shellfish can be determined as an alternative to EQS in marine water.

The joint European Research Infrastructure Network for Coastal Observatories: Achievements and Strategy for the Future

This document is summarizing a major part of the work performed by the FP7-JERICO consortium, including 27 partner institutions, during 4 years (2011-2015). Its objective is to propose a strategy for the European coastal observation and monitoring. To do so we give an overview of the main achievements of the FP7-JERICO project. From this overview, gaps are analysed to draw some recommendations for the future. Overview, gaps and recommendation are addressed at both Hardware and Software levels of the JERICO Research Infrastructure. The main part of the document is built upon this analysis to outcome a general strategy for the future, giving priorities to be targeted and some possible funding mechanisms, but also upon discussions held in dedicated JERICO strategy workshops. This document was initiated in 2014 by the coordination team but considering the fact that an overview of the entire project and its achievement were needed to feed this strategy deliverable it couldn’t ended before the end of FP7-JERICO, April 2015. The preparation of the JERICO-NEXT proposal in summer 2014 to answer an H2020 call for proposals pushed the consortium ahead, fed deep thoughts about this strategy but the intention was to not propose a strategy only bounded by the JERICO-NEXT answer. Authors are conscious that writing JERICO-NEXT is even drawing a bias in the thoughts and they tried to be opened. Nevertheless, comments are always welcome to go farther ahead. Structure of the document The Chapter 3 introduces the need of sustained coastal observatories, from different point of view including a short description of the FP7-JERICO project. In Chapter 4, an analysis of the JERICO coastal observatory Hardware (platforms and sensors) in terms of Status at the end of JERICO, identified gaps and recommendations for further development is provided region by region. The main challenges that remain to be overcome is also summarized. Chapter 5 is dedicated the JERICO infrastructure Software (calibration, operation, quality assessment, data management) and the progress made through JERICO on harmonization of procedures and definition of best practices. Chapter 6 provides elements of a strategy towards sustainable and integrated coastal observations for Europe, drawing a roadmap for cost-effective scientific-based consolidation of the present infrastructure while maximizing the potential arising from JERICO in terms of innovation, wealth-creation, and business development. After reading the chapter 3, for who doesn’t know JERICO, any chapter can be read independently. More details are available in the JERICO final reports and its intermediate reports; all are available on the JERICO web site (www.jerico-FP7.eu) as well as any deliverable. Each chapter will list referring JERICO documents. A small bibliographic list is available at the end of this deliverable.