Suchergebnisse

Whereas previous AORA discussions have focused on mandate challenges that may be inhibiting the implementation of the EBM, this mandates Task Group workshop led to the insight that while there were some legislative gaps in governance that contrib-uted to the implementation challenges, it was the implementation structure of those mandates that was a significant locus for EBM challenges. This observation resulted from applying the policy-stages heuristic to the overall workshop discussion and de-marcating those aspects that were specific to governance and those that related to im-plementation. In this analysis, it was concluded that there were sufficient legislative mandates to support the decision making to proceed with an EBM approach. Some of the gaps that remained included mechanisms to empower cross jurisdictional or inter-departmental decision making. The majority of identified challenges to the successful implementation of EBM were specific to the implementation process itself, such as overcoming political and administrative boundaries.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) necessarily requires a degree of coordination across countries that share ocean ecosystems, and among national agencies and departments that have responsibilities relating to ocean health and marine resource utilization. This requires political direction, legal input, stakeholder consultation and engagement, and complex negotiations. Currently there is a common perception that within and across national jurisdictions there is excessive legislative complexity, a relatively low level of policy coherence or alignment with regards to ocean and coastal EBM, and that more aligned legislation is needed to accelerate EBM adoption. Our Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance (AORA) task group was comprised of a small, focused and interdisciplinary mix of lawyers, social scientists, and natural scientists from Canada, the USA, and the EU. We characterized, compared, and synthesized the mandates that govern marine activities and ocean stressors relative to facilitating EBM in national and international waters of the North Atlantic, and identified formal mandates across jurisdictions and, where possible, policy and other non-regulatory mandates. We found that irrespective of the detailed requirements of legislation or policy across AORA jurisdictions, or the efficacy of their actual implementation, most of the major ocean pressures and uses posing threats to ocean sustainability have some form of coverage by national or regional legislation. The coverage is, in fact, rather comprehensive. Still, numerous impediments to effective EBM implementation arise, potentially relating to the lack of integration between agencies and departments, a lack of adequate policy alignment, and a variety of other socio-political factors. We note with concern that if challenges regarding EBM implementation exist in the North Atlantic, we can expect that in less developed regions where financial and governance capacity may be lower, that implementation of EBM could be even more challenging.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) necessarily requires a degree of coordination across countries that share ocean ecosystems, and among national agencies and departments that have responsibilities relating to ocean health and marine resource utilization. This requires political direction, legal input, stakeholder consultation and engagement, and complex negotiations. Currently there is a common perception that within and across national jurisdictions there is excessive legislative complexity, a relatively low level of policy coherence or alignment with regards to ocean and coastal EBM, and that more aligned legislation is needed to accelerate EBM adoption. Our Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance (AORA) task group was comprised of a small, focused and interdisciplinary mix of lawyers, social scientists, and natural scientists from Canada, the USA, and the EU. We characterized, compared, and synthesized the mandates that govern marine activities and ocean stressors relative to facilitating EBM in national and international waters of the North Atlantic, and identified formal mandates across jurisdictions and, where possible, policy and other non-regulatory mandates. We found that irrespective of the detailed requirements of legislation or policy across AORA jurisdictions, or the efficacy of their actual implementation, most of the major ocean pressures and uses posing threats to ocean sustainability have some form of coverage by national or regional legislation. The coverage is, in fact, rather comprehensive. Still, numerous impediments to effective EBM implementation arise, potentially relating to the lack of integration between agencies and departments, a lack of adequate policy alignment, and a variety of other socio-political factors. We note with concern that if challenges regarding EBM implementation exist in the North Atlantic, we can expect that in less developed regions where financial and governance capacity may be lower, that implementation of EBM could be even more challenging.

Marine environmental legislation is increasingly expressing a need to consider the quality of pelagic habitats. This paper uses the European Union marine strategy framework to explore the concept of good environmental status (GES) of pelagic habitat with the aim to build a wider understanding of the issue. Pelagic ecosystems have static, persistent and ephemeral features, with manageable human activities primarily impacting the persistent features. The paper explores defining the meaning of "good", setting boundaries to assess pelagic habitat and the challenges of considering habitat biodiversity in a moving medium. It concludes that for pelagic habitats to be in GES and able to provide goods and services to humans, three conditions should be met: (i) all species present under current environmental conditions should be able to find the pelagic habitats essential to close their life cycles; (ii) biogeochemical regulation is maintained at normal levels; (iii) critical physical dynamics and movements of biota and water masses at multiple scales are not obstructed. Reference points for acceptable levels of each condition and how these may change over time in line with prevailing oceanographic conditions, should be discussed by knowledge brokers, managers and stakeholders. Managers should think about a habitat hydrography rather than a habitat geography. Setting the bounds of the habitats requires a consideration of dimension, scale and gradients. It is likely that to deal with the challenges caused by a dynamic environment and the relevance of differing spatial and temporal scales, we will need to integrate multidisciplinary empirical data sets with spatial and temporal models to assess and monitor progress towards, or displacement from GES of the pelagic habitat.

Marine environmental legislation is increasingly expressing a need to consider the quality of pelagic habitats. This paper uses the European Union marine strategy framework to explore the concept of good environmental status (GES) of pelagic habitat with the aim to build a wider understanding of the issue. Pelagic ecosystems have static, persistent and ephemeral features, with manageable human activities primarily impacting the persistent features. The paper explores defining the meaning of "good", setting boundaries to assess pelagic habitat and the challenges of considering habitat biodiversity in a moving medium. It concludes that for pelagic habitats to be in GES and able to provide goods and services to humans, three conditions should be met: (i) all species present under current environmental conditions should be able to find the pelagic habitats essential to close their life cycles; (ii) biogeochemical regulation is maintained at normal levels; (iii) critical physical dynamics and movements of biota and water masses at multiple scales are not obstructed. Reference points for acceptable levels of each condition and how these may change over time in line with prevailing oceanographic conditions, should be discussed by knowledge brokers, managers and stakeholders. Managers should think about a habitat hydrography rather than a habitat geography. Setting the bounds of the habitats requires a consideration of dimension, scale and gradients. It is likely that to deal with the challenges caused by a dynamic environment and the relevance of differing spatial and temporal scales, we will need to integrate multidisciplinary empirical data sets with spatial and temporal models to assess and monitor progress towards, or displacement from GES of the pelagic habitat.

In recent decades, scientists and practitioners have increasingly focused on identifying and codifying the best ways to manage activities in marine systems, leading to the development and implementation of concepts such as the social-ecological systems approach, ecosystem-based management, integrated management, marine spatial planning, participatory co-management, and the precautionary approach. To date, these concepts appear as separate entities: they have parallel literature streams; have been applied most often individually in attempts to improve governance and management; and in many ways, seem to be competing for attention. This patchwork of approaches may be hindering effective ocean governance. We propose that desirable features from these frameworks could be woven together to form the basis of more effective and equitable ocean governance arrangements across contexts, sectors, and scales. This article synthesizes the efforts of an IMBeR (Integrated Marine Biosphere Research Project) conference session and working group, that brought together experts in these diverse concepts with the objective of producing a synthesis of how they could be more effectively integrated for improved ocean sustainability outcomes. We reviewed and compared the concepts in terms of (a) the need to achieve a comprehensive suite of sustainability objectives, (b) similarities and differences in their scope, and (c) their place in practical management, policy and regulation. Achieving greater cross-sectoral integration, or a more holistic perspective on management for sustainability is at the core of each concept. All deal with aspects of governance and most, with improved participation in governance. The major differences in the origin and historical application of each concept are reflected in the degree of implicit or explicit focus given to different objectives of sustainability. Overall, the concepts are especially strong for ecological and institutional or governance considerations, moderately strong for economic aspects, and weakest for the social-cultural pillar of full spectrum sustainability. There is no panacea, and no emergent hierarchy among concepts. Some concepts fit better with top-down legislation-based efforts, others with more bottom-up stakeholder driven efforts. The selection of the core concepts for a situation will depend in a large part on which concepts are specified, or demand focus, in the legal and policy context of the situation (or area) of interest. No matter how influential or dominant a single concept might be, pragmatically, different concepts will be used in different areas, and there may always be the need for a combination of concepts and objectives woven together to achieve a cohesive quilt of sustainability. ; Peer reviewed

The overarching focus of Working Group on Maritime Systems (WGMARS) has been on understanding the conceptualisation and implementation of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs) in ICES and more broadly. From 2017-2019, the Working Group reviewed academic literature and ICES documents, interviewed the chairs of the ICES Regional Seas Working Groups (which are charged with conducting IEAs), and heard member reports on the relationships among IEAs, Ecosystem-Based Management, and Marine Spatial Planning in various European nations, the EU, and the US. We have also examined how IEAs are used in management and attempted to use behavioural economics to think about the types of regulations that might be most effective in specific situations. WGMARS also highlighted the importance of having multiple disciplines from the natural and social science, and the humanities (e.g. history), contributing to conceptualisation and implementation of IEA, as well as stakeholders who are likely to be impacted by changes in regulations (e.g. industries, communities, and local, regional, and national government bodies other than those implementing the regulations in question). To foster this type of multidisciplinary (i.e. involving natural and social science, as well as the humanities) and transdisciplinary (i.e. involving stakeholders) work, we have held workshops with other ICES Working Groups and with government officials from the US (the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Councils) and the Netherlands (officials of Rijkswaterstaat, the Dutch national body responsible for roads, waterways, and water systems and part of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management). Our findings suggest that the research work on and for IEAs is still very much a work in progress with strong variance in the way IEA work is approached. Different Regional Seas Working Groups, for instance, are at very different points in moving toward full IEA, especially regarding their inclusion of social sciences and humanities and their inclusion of and types of collaboration with stakeholders. Moreover, structural conditions to create a demand and underlying science varies significantly between different regional seas regions.