Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
SharePoint

Skip Navigation Links2016 Ecosystem Approach & ocean stressors AORA
A survey of participants who will participate in the AORA Ecosystem Approach Workshop January 2016

1. What organization/s do you represent?

 NSERC Canadian Healthy Oceans Network
 1 (2%) 
 
 CEFAS
 1 (2%) 
 
 University of Aberdeen
 1 (2%) 
 
 Future Earth Coasts (formerly LOICZ)
 1 (2%) 
 
 European Environment Agency
 1 (2%) 
 
 Baltic Sea Centere at Stockholm University
 1 (2%) 
 
 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
 1 (2%) 
 
 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
 1 (2%) 
 
 NUI Galway and the H2020 BG1 2015 project 'ATLAS'
 1 (2%) 
 
 Innovative Fisheries Management - an Aalborg University Research Centre
 1 (2%) 
 
 Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management
 2 (4%) 
 
 University of Cape Town
 2 (4%) 
 
 DTU Aqua
 1 (2%) 
 
 Kiel Marine Science
 1 (2%) 
 
 Dalhousie University
 1 (2%) 
 
 The Fisheries Secretariat
 1 (2%) 
 
 Institute of Marine Research
 1 (2%) 
 
 OSPAR
 2 (4%) 
 
 AZTI
 2 (4%) 
 
 WWF/PelAC
 1 (2%) 
 
 University of Bergen
 1 (2%) 
 
 NOAA
 3 (6%) 
 
 Instituto Español de Oceanografía
 1 (2%) 
 
 NOAA National Ocean Service
 2 (4%) 
 
 Celtic Seas Partnership, WWF-UK
 1 (2%) 
 
 Jan De Nul
 1 (2%) 
 
 European Commission DG ENV
 1 (2%) 
 
 Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in the Department of Interior
 3 (6%) 
 
 ClientEarth
 1 (2%) 
 
 Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)
 1 (2%) 
 
 Marine Science Unit, Faculty of Science, Uruguay
 1 (2%) 
 
 Coastal research at Helmholtz-Zentrum-Geesthacht, Germany
 1 (2%) 
 
 CSIRO
 1 (2%) 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 1 (2%) 
 
 HELCOM Holistic Assessment of the Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea (HOLAS II)
 1 (2%) 
 
 IMR
 2 (4%) 
 
 Plymouth Marine Laboratory
 1 (2%) 
 
 Pelagic Advisory Council
 1 (2%) 
 
 wedish Agency for Marine and Water Management
 1 (2%) 
 
 PelAC
 1 (2%) 
 
Total: 50

2. What is your role?

 Manager/policy
 13 (26%) 
 
 Industrial sector/commercial
 2 (4%) 
 
 Researcher
 29 (58%) 
 
 NGO/campaigner
 4 (8%) 
 
 Other
 2 (4%) 
 
Total: 50

3. What marine sector do you mostly work in?

 oil & gas
 3 (6%) 
 
 shipping & ports
 0 (0%)  
 conservation
 10 (20%) 
 
 fisheries
 26 (53%) 
 
 renewable energy
 1 (2%) 
 
 tourism
 0 (0%)  
 aquaculture
 0 (0%)  
 aggregates
 0 (0%)  
 other
 9 (18%) 
 
Total: 49

4. The next set of questions relate to case studies.

Do you work within a specific ecosystem approach project and/or are you presenting a case study at the workshop?

 Yes
 35 (70%) 
 
 No
 15 (30%) 
 
Total: 50

5. Please enter the case study name and geographic scope.

 part of the EU FP7 project Co-creating Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management Solutions (MareFrame).
 1 (5%) 
 
 Guadalquivir Estuary – Gulf of Cadiz (GE-GoC) (ICES IXa)
 1 (5%) 
 
 Application of Marine Resource Planning and Assessment to Ecosystem Based Management of the NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FLKNMS). The FLKNMS encompasses 9,933 sq. km and spans a shallow water interface between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Application of MPA design by stakeholder engagement for the USA Grays Reef National Marine Sanctuary located 32 km of the USA Georgia coastline. The rectangular Sanctuary is 6.5 km X 9 km.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Applying the ecosystem approach in the North-East Atlantic Initial steps and the challenges of reality. This covers the North East Atlantic to the midline of the Ocean, starting in the south level with the bottom of Spain all the way up to the North Pole .
 1 (5%) 
 
 Northeast Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Program: Support to the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Bodies in Developing Integrated Ocean Management Plans
 1 (5%) 
 
 Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Services Trade-off Analysis for EBM
 1 (5%) 
 
 Project: BOEM Marine Minerals Case Study Location: U.S. Atlantic Coast
 1 (5%) 
 
 Project: Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) Location: U.S. Atlantic Coast
 1 (5%) 
 
 Project: Massachusetts Wind Energy Area Location: Off the coast of Massachusetts, USA
 1 (5%) 
 
 Study case: NAFO Roadmap for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Geographic scope: Northwest Atlantic, mostly focused on (but not limited to) international waters beyond EEZs.
 1 (5%) 
 
 I am involved in marine planning initiatives and cumulative effect assessments and policy research in the Great Lakes and Gulf of St Lawrence in Canada and the Baltic Sea (Baltspace) in Europe.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Several examples of approaches taken in Australia
 1 (5%) 
 
 Choptank River Complex Habitat Focus Area within the Chesapeake Bay which includes the Choptank and Little Choptank Rivers, is located on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. The Choptank River is the longest river on the Delmarva Peninsula. This area is a treasured part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, representing critical habitat for spawning striped bass and river herring, and historically abundant oysters. Residents of the watershed were traditionally employed in agriculture or commercial fishing.
 1 (5%) 
 
 HELCOM Holistic Assessment of the Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea (HOLAS II) The project will give an update on the overall state of ecosystem health in the Baltic Sea. The assessment will follow up on the goals of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. It will be developed so that the results will support reporting under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) by those Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention that are also EU member states. The first assessment results will be released by mid-2017. The report will be finalized by mid-2018. The project develops common concepts and methods for status assessment and performs assessments at regional scale. HELCOM core indicators form the basis for the assessment of environmental status. Aggregated results are produced using assessment tools, which are developed and tested as part of HOLAS II and supporting projects. The main building blocks are: 1) Distribution of human activities and pressures in the Baltic Sea. Cumulative impacts are assessed using the Baltic Sea Pressure and Impact Index 2) Integrated assessments of Biodiversity, Eutrophication and Hazardous substances. Maritime Activities will also be addressed, being the fourth core segment of the Baltic Sea Action Plan 3) Economic and social analyses to support regional assessments of the use of marine waters and cost of degradation, focusing on the ecosystem services approach 4) In addition, measures to reach good environmental status are addressed
 1 (5%) 
 
 Barents Sea (Boreal - arctic ecosystem)
 2 (10%) 
 
 I work in several projects related to the implementation of the ecosystem approach: EAF: Process integration into multispecies and ecosystem models for realistic evaluation of ecological, economic and social tradeoffs – the Bay of Biscay Case Study EBFM: Potential effects of the Landing Obligation in the ecosystem of the Bay of Biscay EBM: I am involved and leading two initiatives: a) Towards an integrative framework for a spatial management of the Basque Coastal ecosystem b) The OHI of the Basque Coastal ecosystem
 1 (5%) 
 
 MareFrame, North Sea, but also have support of MareFrame scientist for pelagic fisheries in the North East Atlantic
 1 (5%) 
 
 Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem, with emphasis on the southern Benguela social-ecological subsystem (along South Africa’s west and south coasts)
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 20

6. Please describe your role in relation to the case study.

 Part of the WPs that aim to: - Assess the present institutional structures for providing EAF advice in the EU - Identify the current science-policy-society interface in the implementation of the EAF in the EU - Assisting Pelagic AC and North Sea AC in their processes of moving towards an EAFM
 1 (5%) 
 
 scientist / integrated ecosystem assessment The Guadalquivir Estuary provides a regulating service to the Gulf of Cadiz fisheries, as some commercially important species (anchovy) use the ecosystem as a nursery ground. The Estuary is affected by a number of human activities such as river navigation/communication to the city of Seville (cruises, shipping) and agriculture (rice fields). These sectors’ pressures (dredging, freshwater diversion, turbidity) have a detrimental effect on the nursery service as they affect habitat extent and quality. The water management (dam regulation) stands out as a key node where many of these trade-offs converge. My role as scientist is to come up with a quantitative model able to relate, and ideally evaluate, these trade-offs and, if significantly important, incorporate these dynamics in the management of the anchovy stock.
 1 (5%) 
 
 We provide bio-physical data, maps, and geospatial assessments to support updates to Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and the Efficacy of MPA Zoning. Work is done as partnership with various research and management agencies. Contact: Sean.Morton@noaa.gov, FLKNMS Superintendent.
 1 (5%) 
 
 We led a cross sector working group to decide on options to develop a research area only zone within the Grays Reef National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS). We developed the technical approach to a define potential research area based on bio-physical characteristics and used geospatial tools based on a sliding windows approach (aka spatial options) to evaluate closure alternatives.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Secretariat to the OSPAR Commission
 1 (5%) 
 
 Lead for NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) program in the US Northeast region; we provide science and technical support, input and products to support the “case study” example for regional planning bodies (RPBs) and ocean councils in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the US.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Principal Investigator leading the implementation of the science necessary to do the ecosystem services trade-off analysis
 1 (5%) 
 
 Chief of Environmental Studies at BOEM; Directed studies which examined potential impacts and areas of conflict due to multiple use issues.
 3 (15%) 
 
 NAFO as an organization is structured around two main bodies, the Fisheries Commission (FC), which is the body that makes management decisions and regulations, and the Scientific Council (SC), which is the body in charge of providing the science advice for FC to consider when making decisions. FC and SC are supported by a series of Standing Committees and Working Groups that respond to their parent bodies; in special cases, joint FC-SC working groups have also been created. I am a member for Canada to the NAFO Scientific Council (SC), co-chair of the NAFO SC Working Group on Ecosystem Science and Assessment (WGESA) (this WG supports SC on ecosystem-related issues), as well as advisor to the Canadian delegation to the Annual General Meeting (where FC has its main meeting), and to the joint FC-SC Working Group on the Ecosystem Approach Framework to Fisheries Management (WGEAFFM) (this WG advices both FC and SC on the implementation of the EAF).
 1 (5%) 
 
 Ecosystem approach to managing risks within a regulatory and policy development perspective in coastal and oceans management and environmental assessments.
 1 (5%) 
 
 My group in CSIRO has had a significant role in providing science supporting a number of initiatives. Personally, engaged with State and Commonwealth managers.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Member of the Leadership Team implementing the NOAA Habitat Focus Area
 1 (5%) 
 
 Project coordinator, responsible for organizing the planning and carrying out of the assessment and for coordinating the contributions from the Contracting Parties, associated projects and expert groups.
 1 (5%) 
 
 -Providing scientific basis for developing the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea - Following up the plan while in place - Contributing to the 2010 revision of the plan (scientific basis and cross-sectoral discussions)
 1 (5%) 
 
 Providing scientific basis for developing the Integrated Management Plan for the Barents Sea - Following up the plan while in place - Contributing to the 2010 revision of the plan (scientific basis and cross-sectoral discussions
 1 (5%) 
 
 In all the previous cases, I am leading the case study, co-leaded by other French partner in the case of the EAF project.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Stakeholder: PelAC Focus Group Chair and NGO representative This next set of questions relates to the background and description of the institutional arrangements in place for EBM for your case study.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Research into operationalising an ecosystem approach, research group leader, preparation of management advice through governmental and non-governmental fora
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 20

7. This next set of questions relates to the background and description of the institutional arrangements in place for EBM for your case study.
Please describe the process that led to setting up the given multi-sectoral institutional arrangement (e.g. commission, committee).

 Not sue if I could say that there is a "multi-sectoral" arrangement when talking about EAFM in the EU...so far what I perceive is that there is "barely" an integration of the environmental "sector" into fisheries aspects (and not sure if that would qualify under the concepts of an EA), and in very few cases, maybe interaction of the fisheries sector with other sectors (i.e a punctual workshop where members of the PelAC sat down with representatives from the gravel extraction industry in order to map herring spawning grounds in the North Sea)
 1 (5%) 
 
 There is not a formal EBM institutional arrangement in place. There is an advisory board of the ‘Guadalquivir River Mouth Marine Protected Area (MPA)’ and the advisory board of the ‘Guadalquivir River Basin’. Both advisory boards (or a combination) could potentially work as an EBM institutional arrangement.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The FLKNMS management plan is updated every 5-10 years through a public process that engages stakeholders. The plan addresses ongoing monitoring, adaptive management measures, and agency coordination to ensure marine resources are protected while balancing use of marine resources in space and time.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The GRNMS management plan is updated every 5-10 years through a public process that engages stakeholders. The plan addresses ongoing monitoring, adaptive management measures, and agency coordination to ensure marine resources are protected while balancing use of marine resources in space and time. Public comments during the 1999/2000 management plan review for GRNMS requested that a Research Area only be considered to evaluate the impact of stressors on the Sanctuary.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The OSPAR convention has been in existence since the 1970s and has evolved to cover biodiversity issues and integrate ecosystem based approaches into its methodology. It is an intergovernmental organisation with 16 contracting parties including the European Union. As such it covers all the impacts of human activity in the marine environment given these fall under the regulation of the national governments.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Bodies and associated Ocean Councils (http://midatlanticocean.org/ ; http://northeastoceancouncil.org/ and http://neoceanplanning.org/) were formed in response to a Presidential Executive Order that established a National Ocean Policy for the US. The RPBs and Ocean Councils were a key recommendation in the US National Ocean Policy.
 1 (5%) 
 
 In this area there is no formal multi-sectoral governance, but we have developed a network of place-based resource managers in the southwest Florida shelf through this science project and we hold meetings with all participants.
 1 (5%) 
 
 • Stakeholder input identified a potential area of conflict with BOEM’s marine mineral extraction activities and recreational fishing in the Atlantic. BOEM funded a study which established a baseline assessment of the environmental impacts of offshore dredging on commercial and recreational fisheries. The study also explored mitigation measures to resolve potential spatial conflicts between the commercial and recreational fishing industries and the development of OCS sites as long-term sand borrow areas. • A major outcome of the study was the need for communication among stakeholders. • Information was used by BOEM’s Marine Mineral Program to determine sand borrow and placement areas on the Atlantic coast. • There are several successful beach renourishment projects and part of their success is the informed decisions about where and how to extract mineral minerals in the offshore while limiting impacts to the other uses of the OCS.
 1 (5%) 
 
 • Conventional energy is still at the early stages of development. However, BOEM has focused several studies on determining the potential impacts of oil and gas exploration on the Atlantic coast. One such study is the Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) to estimate abundance and habitat use of marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds. Objectives include: – Ship and aerial surveys – Animal tagging – Developing models and tools • Achieving these objectives will provide enhanced data to BOEM by addressing data gaps that are essential to supporting conservation initiatives mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA). • BOEM is also conducting other studies focused on understanding sensitive species and habitats of the Atlantic. Some examples include exploration and characterization of the Atlantic submarine canyons, mapping paleocultural heritage sites, and determining the impacts of noise on marine mammals and sea turtles.
 1 (5%) 
 
 BOEM performed several studies to inform the development of the offshore lease areas for wind farms in Massachusetts. A collaborative study with USGS, BOEM, and the College of Staten Island found that about 30% of the north American breeding population of long-tailed ducks winter near Nantucket, Island, Massachusetts. A portion of the potential wind energy lease areas was a major feeding ground for these ducks. They fly from Nantucket to feed on the amphipods that aggregate on the shoals. The outcome of the seaduck study helped shape the final area that was offered for lease. This foraging hotspot was eliminated from the lease area. BOEM also used information from other studies and stakeholder outreach to eliminate other potential conflicts such as vessel traffic patterns, essential fish habitat areas, military training grounds, and marine mammal migration patterns.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The process setting up the organization to deliver an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) is still ongoing. Its origin can be traced back to the requests by the international community (e.g. World Summit on sustainable Development, UNGA resolutions for the protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems -VMEs-) to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) to protect high seas ecosystems from the impacts of fishing. Within NAFO these international commitments and pressures triggered multiple actions, including the amendment of the NAFO Convention, whose text was approved by NAFO in 2007, and where the organization committed to adopt an EAF. As part of this process, SC created an "ecosystem" working group in 2007 (WGESA, originally named WGEAFM –one “F”, do not confuse with FC-SC WGEAFFM). This WGESA started providing support for the identification and delineation on VMEs, but also developed the Roadmap to EAF by 2010, that was endorsed by SC, and later embraced by NAFO as a whole. As part of the development and implementation of the Roadmap multiple working groups have been created and/or refocused (e.g. FC-SC WGEAFFM). The Roadmap has been evolving since it was first drafted, with a major revision in 2013. So far most concrete management measures have been focused on VMEs, but work is ongoing on multiple fronts. Multispecies interactions have been considered within stock assessments, as well as to evaluate more general objectives (e.g. feasibility of multiple stocks within an ecosystem to be at MSY). At the present time, in addition to the SC working group on ecosystems, there are several joint working groups between SC and Fisheries Commission (FC), including FC-SC WGEAFFM which is tasked with developing the management implementation of the Roadmap.
 1 (5%) 
 
 In Canada, EBM operates within the Canada-US Agreement for the Great Lakes and the Regional Committee on Coastal and Oceans Management under the Oceans Act. In Europe, it is basically a research network operating within the context of EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. I am also leading a discussion on EBM and sustainability regulatory standards as a member of the Group of expert for regulatory risk management under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The case studies cover a range of institutional frameworks. From strongly legislated to science push.
 1 (5%) 
 
 With continued widespread loss and deterioration of coastal and marine habitats, the nation is in danger of losing the natural infrastructure critical to protecting our ecosystems and, in turn, the associated ecological services vital to sustaining our communities and their economies. Living marine resources depend on having sufficient quality and quantity of habitat. Threats that can affect marine habitats include water quality and quantity, fisheries activities, invasive species, harmful algal blooms, and habitat fragmentation and loss. Congress has charged the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with restoring and protecting coastal and marine habitat for fish, threatened and endangered species, marine mammals, and other natural resources within the nation’s coastal zone. NOAA fulfills this mission through a “Habitat Blueprint,” a forward-looking framework through which to think and act strategically across programs and with partner organizations to address the growing challenge of coastal and marine habitat loss and degradation. NOAA’s Habitat Focus Areas provide an opportunity to concentrate the most meaningful of these agency investments in places of national significance and at spatial scales that increase the likelihood of achieving ecosystem objectives and translating the services provided by healthy ecosystems for the benefit of local communities. NOAA has designated ten U.S. watersheds as Habitat Focus Areas, including the Choptank River Complex on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next three to five years, NOAA will better align its investments to restore and protect high-priority ecosystems while strengthening partnerships and engaging communities in ways that provide the foundation for long-term sustainability and stewardship.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The project is part of the HELCOM Monitoring and assessment strategy which was agreed on by the Contracting Parties of the Helsinki Convention (= the eight countries bordering the Baltic Sea )
 1 (5%) 
 
 A top-down process led by a ministerial group led by the ministry of environment with government institutions and directorates (e.g. the IMR) providing the science and knowledge foundation for the plan. Cross-sectoral government groups were set up to bring sectors together in a "round-table" setting allowing for frank and open discussion of contended issues like petroleum development and management of king crab (alien species or potential resource). Led to government white-paper that was approved by the See my recent paper: Olsen E., Holen S., Hoel A. H., Buhl-Mortensen L., Røttingen I., 2016. How Integrated Ocean governance in the Barents Sea was created by a drive for increased oil production, Marine Policy, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.005. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15003681 parliament, but enacted through existing legislature.
 2 (10%) 
 
 In most cases it was given by the framework provided by an EU project.
 1 (5%) 
 
 As PelAC we were asked to participate as stakeholder representatives in the MareFrame project as part of the project requirements.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Intergovernmental negotiations -> Benguela Current Commission (practically dysfunctional) Various (partly contradictory) SA ocean use policies: Various government departments (huge capacity problems) with assessment and management working groups — much heavier industry involvement than in Europe Global institutions: MSC (fisheries) Non-Governmental negotiations: Responsible Fisheries Alliance - large fishing industry plus large conservation NGOs (WWF, BirdLife)
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 20

8. Please describe the sectors involved (fisheries, mining, tourism, etc.)

 As mentioned in the previous answer, fisheries and environment (a sector which I see you define as "conservation")
 1 (5%) 
 
 - Commercial and recreational fisheries (GE/GoC) - Shipping and tourism (city of Seville) - Agriculture (water/dam management, irrigators) - Conservation (Doñana National Park, Guadalquivir MPA)
 1 (5%) 
 
 Tourism, Conservation, Recreational Diving and Boating, Fisheries, Governmental and Non-Governmental Natural Resource Agencies.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Conservation, Recreational and Commercial Fishing, Law Enforcement, Education, and Recreational Dive Community.
 1 (5%) 
 
 OSPAR covers impacts of many sectors including: • Fisheries (no OSPAR measures) • Shipping (preference for IMO to take measures) • Dumping and Dredging • Offshore renewable energy • Oil and gas exploration • Coastal defence and other structures • Cables and pipelines • Artificial reefs • Land reclamation • Sand and gravel extraction • Tourism • Mariculture • Marine litter • Underwater noise • Dumped munitions
 1 (5%) 
 
 Commercial Fishing, Recreation and Tourism, Energy, Cultural Resources, Marine Life and Habitat, Maritime Commerce, Aquaculture, Government Coordination
 1 (5%) 
 
 Federal National Parks Service, State Department of Environmental Protection, Fisheries both Federal and State, Water managers, Local Governments
 1 (5%) 
 
 Renewable energy, tourism, fishing, defense, shipping, and environmental groups. There are likely others.
 2 (10%) 
 
 Renewable energy, tourism, fishing, shipping, and environmental groups. There are likely others.
 1 (5%) 
 
 NAFO is an RFMO, so it only manages fisheries, but the impacts of other activities on fisheries resources (e.g. oil and gas) are part of NAFO concerns. There is an ongoing process to develop engagement and information exchange mechanisms with the organizations managing these other activities. Representation around the NAFO table is organized by Contracting Parties (CPs), and within each CP delegation there is representation of government agencies and fisheries stakeholders. Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) attend multiple NAFO meetings as observers. One exception are SC working groups; WGs are not bound by the more strict Rules of Procedure that regulate FC, SC, and their Standing Committees. SC WG participation is typically driven by expertise, so government, academia, industry and/or ENGOs members could participate as full WG members if they bring needed expertise to the table; in these cases participation is by invitation of the WG chair and based on the Terms of Reference that need to be addressed.
 1 (5%) 
 
 It would encompass land-based and marine-based activities.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Fisheries and aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, tourism, port and coastal development, shipping, conservation etc
 1 (5%) 
 
 Commercial fisheries, agriculture, local leaders, Federal, state and local governments, recreational fishing, tourism
 1 (5%) 
 
 The assessment considers all main sectors active in the Baltic Sea, as defined based on the lists of human activities and pressures in Annex III of the MSFD. Sectors of relevance for the Baltic Sea have been identified based by the Core team which steers the work of the project, based on expert input during a preceding workshop The sectors assessed include for example fishing, maritime transportation, off shore energy, tourism & recreation, extraction of non-living resources.
 1 (5%) 
 
 - Petroleum - Fisheries - Shipping
 2 (10%) 
 
 In all cases, fisheries (industrial and artisanal – recreational); but also tourism, shipping, cultural services, biodiversity, etc. when dealing with the EBM.
 1 (5%) 
 
 In the PelAC fisheries industry and environmental NGOs are represented. The MareFrame project is solely about fisheries management and EBM.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The whole set - the BC LME is very heavily utilised
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 20

9. The next set of questions aims to ascertain what kind of processes/arrangements are in place to support EBM in your case study.

Please describe the process/arrangement(s) in place to facilitate the generation of
integrated knowledge/science on the impacts of various activities on marine ecosystems.

 As mentioned earlier there is not an EBM arrangement as such, but there are a number of projects and initiatives that could be used to generate integrated knowledge. - Long-term monitoring programmes (data!) both in the GE and GoC - Contribution of this particular ecosystem to the broader WGEAWESS. - Configuration of a socio-ecological group of scientists to assess these issues from a holistic perspective (since last WGEAWESS meeting in Cadiz).
 1 (6%) 
 
 A formal and structured process is administered by the FLKNMS to engage the public, State of Florida co-Trustee, and the FLKNMS Advisory Council that is comprised of members from various sectoral interests to provide guidance during the management plan update process.
 1 (6%) 
 
 A formal and structured process is administered by the GRNMS to engage the public, and the GRNMS Advisory Council that is comprised of members from various sectoral interests to provide guidance during the management plan update process. Based on the request from the public comments, a consensus-driven and constituent-based working group was formulated.
 1 (6%) 
 
 OSPAR operates through 5 thematic areas, but it also has processes in place, such as the Coordination Group to consider cross cutting issues. OSPAR’s Intermediate Assessment 2017 will start a process of trying to progress more integrated approaches in subsequent OSPAR assessments. A current intersessional group is developing an OSPAR cumulative effects methodology to benefit from the various approaches used by the Contracting Parties. Other workstreams, for instance in the biodiversity theme, are developing new indicators on habitats that build in food web elements to facilitate an ecosystem based approach. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive which most of our Contracting Parties are implementing also follows an EBM approach that is consistent with OSPAR’s approach.
 1 (6%) 
 
 NOAA’s IEA approach provides a framework to enable cross-sectoral assessments. They are the analytical “engine” that provides science-based, comprehensive information on the current and predicted future state of the ecosystem, including analysis of individual and competing human activities and environmental variability. It is currently being implemented in 5 US regional ecosystems, including in the Northeast (the focus of this case study). To support the Regional Planning Bodies and their efforts to develop regional ocean management plans, the NE region IEA is providing products and support in several areas including: 1) developing region specific ecosystem service indicators and metrics; and 2) development of tools and maps assess compatibility of different ocean use patterns and vulnerability of resources to cumulative impacts of stressors.
 1 (6%) 
 
 All of the knowledge and science generated for this process has been funded either through grants, or the NOAA Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Program
 1 (6%) 
 
 BOEM’s environmental study program develops, conducts and oversees world-class scientific research specifically to inform policy decisions regarding development of Outer Continental Shelf energy and mineral resources. Research covers physical oceanography, atmospheric sciences, biology, protected species, social sciences and economics, submerged cultural resources and environmental fates and effects. BOEM is a leading contributor to the growing body of scientific knowledge about the nation’s marine and coastal environment. The Environmental Studies Program (ESP) was initiated in 1973 to support the U.S. Department of the Interior's offshore oil and gas leasing program. Statutory authorization is derived primarily from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Section 20 of the OCSLA authorizes the ESP and establishes three general goals for the program: 1. to establish the information needed for assessment and management of environmental impacts on the human, marine, and coastal environments of the OCS and the potentially affected coastal areas; 2. to predict impacts on the marine biota which may result from chronic, low-level pollution or large spills associated with OCS production, from drilling fluids and cuttings discharges, pipeline emplacement, or onshore facilities; and 3. to monitor human, marine, and coastal environments to provide time series and data trend information for identification of significant changes in the quality and productivity of these environments, and to identify the causes of these changes. In addition to the specific mandates identified, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 added responsibilities for offshore renewable energy projects and alternate use of existing structures. Information collected through the program also addresses other laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Air and Water Act, to name a few.
 3 (18%) 
 
 The science basis for these integrative analyses is generated through research projects and programs supported by NAFO contracting parties, either as part of their regular avenues to fund research, or through collaborative agreements between contracting parties. Science products are reviewed by SC and used for the elaboration of scientific advice. Depending on the topic in question, these results can be further discussed at FC-SC working groups where the science advice is used to discuss alternative management implementations. These joint FC-SC working groups are where aspects beyond the science advice is typically considered. FC-SC working groups report back to both parent bodies. Implementation of the management advice generated by these joint working groups is an FC decision. In many instances, the integrated knowledge does not exist, and priorities for research needs are identified. These NAFO priorities often feed into contracting parties’ internal processes for defining research priorities and funding.
 1 (6%) 
 
 My research is related to the use and adoption of risk management standards such as ISO 31000 as a framework, process and vocabulary to operationalize of EBM
 1 (6%) 
 
 In all cases, past and current there were mechanisms in place to facilitate generation, synthesis and sharing. From OPSAG to science led collaborations.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Providing a strong scientific understanding of the ecological, economic, and societal systems associated with the Choptank River, its tributaries, and its watershed is important to understand the current state and detect and quantify changes in the system over time. To date, much attention has been focused on understanding near-field conditions, although significant gaps remain in terms of basic characterizations, monitoring, and change detection. Improved understanding of the system can better equip decision makers to take appropriate action resulting in more positive outcomes. To better understand key watershed and water column stressors and their associated effects, NOAA will conduct an ecological assessment that synthesizes a suite of biological, chemical, and physical data to characterize the ecological condition of selected areas of the Choptank HFA. Data assimilation and mapping capabilities, using hundreds of GIS data sets, will be combined with a suite of bioindicators to assess the ecological condition of the waters and components of the surrounding watersheds. NOAA will also compile and disseminate findings from a large-scale research project in the Chesapeake Bay and Delmarva Coastal Bays that evaluated the regional living resource impacts of extensive modification of shoreline habitats in conjunction with watershed development. The project, which began in 2009, concludes in 2016 and includes measurements in the Choptank River complex for SAV, benthic and pelagic macrofauna, and shorebirds. These findings can be used by decision makers to better manage resources in the Choptank River system and beyond. In addition to information about the current conditions of the ecosystem, scientists and resource managers need to better understand the interactions and effects of land use on water quality. To this end and to support NOAA’s habitat restoration efforts, NOAA will monitor and quantify the effects of land use on water quality over restored oyster reefs or near other priority habitats. Further, NOAA will use data from satellite monitoring of suspended sediment concentration to assess the effects of land conservation and habitat restoration measures on the Choptank’s water quality. Using this time series, seasonal changes, episodic high-sediment events, and hot-spot regions of persistently high sediment can be characterized and potential causes of sediment variability (e.g. river runoff, tides, winds) will be investigated. In the Choptank watershed—as is the case in communities around the country—community decisions are driven by a complex and everchanging set of considerations, including but not limited to culture, economy, politics, and the environment. In order to effectively factor the environment into these local decisions, constituents must understand the value of key ecosystem services and the socioeconomic benefits derived from restoration and protection of oyster and wetland habitats. However, the value of ecosystem services and the socioeconomic benefits is not currently known for the Choptank River restoration effort. To advance this understanding, NOAA will conduct analyses of the ecosystem services and socioeconomic benefits derived from oyster and wetland habitats and work with partners and local communities to incorporate this information into local decision-making frameworks.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Integrated impacts are mainly assessed using a cumulative impact assessment. The assessment is based on spatial data sets on the distribution of human activities and pressures on the Baltic Sea in combination with information on the impact of each pressure on each ecosystem component. The results are presented by the Baltic Sea index, which describes the combined impact of the pressures on the main ecosystem components of the Baltic Sea, and is visualized as detailed maps on how the cumulative impact is distributed over the region. Human-induced pressures on the Baltic Sea are also assessed using pressure-related indicators of good environmental status as defined by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. These cover fishing, eutrophication, non-indigenous species, impact on seafloor integrity, effects on hydrological processes, hazardous substances, and the introduction of underwater noise. The project will use data from these sectors but the representatives of the sectors are not involved in making the assessment. The sectors have the possibility to follow the work of the project in the role of observers at the relevant meetings.
 1 (6%) 
 
 - Plan has cross-sector integration as main aim - Integration in practice at different levels (government, government agencies) - Round-table meeting places created - Produce common, cross-sectoral reports exploring integrated topics like cumulative impacts, or comparing impacts and risk across sectors.
 1 (6%) 
 
 - Plan has cross-sector integration as main aim - INtegration in practice at different leves (government, government agencies) - Round-table meeting places created - Produce common, cross-sectoral reports exploring integrated topics like cumulative impacts, or comparing impacts and risk across sectors.
 1 (6%) 
 
 In most cases the work is done within multidisciplinary working groups build for these purposes inside our institute. The group works for both, EU and national/regional levels.
 1 (6%) 
 
Total: 17

10. Please describe any process/arrangement in place that facilitates the
generation of knowledge on ecological, social and economic trade-offs of alternative ecosystem use/strategies.

 Nothing in place yet but one could say there is an embryo of such an arrangement. Natural and social scientists have held two workshops to describe trade-offs. Joint analyses of data are planned and project applications have been submitted.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The FLKNMS Management Plan Review Process involves key components of planning, data evaluation, ecosystem characterization and often conducting scenario analyses in space and time on the allocation of marine space to various human use sectors and/or no-take reserves.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The GRNMS Management Plan Review Process involves key components of planning, data evaluation, ecosystem characterization and often conducting scenario analyses in space and time on the allocation of marine space to various human use sectors and/or no-take reserves.
 1 (5%) 
 
 OSPAR has limited formal assessments related to social and economic aspects, although a region wide basic assessment on economic value of marine sectors is currently being done. The trade offs in fact tend to be done as measures are developed either at the OSPAR wide scale (eg litter) or at national scale. These processes inevitably take into account the various costs and benefits and political considerations. However this is not built into any ecological or cumulative effects model yet.
 1 (5%) 
 
 IEAs are a science-based step-wise process implemented with stakeholders and managers to identify priority issues and provide robust decision-support information in an ecosystem context. To guide management decisions, they assess ecosystem status relative to societal and ecological goals and objectives and evaluate the potential outcomes, including trade-offs, of management actions (principally through ecosystem models and management strategy evaluation). While IEAs are designed to enable full EBM, they support needs along the ecosystem management continuum by providing an ecosystem context to traditional single-sector decisions.
 1 (5%) 
 
 We are focused on generating ecosystem service trade-offs analyses in a manner so that place-based resource managers can implement cross-sectoral decision-making.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The process is as above; BOEM conducts studies to collect information to inform decisions about Bureau activities. This information feeds directly into our environmental assessment process including action alternatives and mitigation measures.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The process is as above; BOEM conducts studies to collect information to inform decisions about Bureau activities. This information feeds directly into our environmental assessment process including action alternatives and mitigation measures.
 2 (11%) 
 
 In a general sense, there are no formal process/arrangement that specifically facilitates generation of knowledge on trade-offs. However, as part of the Roadmap, sustainable catch levels are defined through a nested 3-tiered process, where its second stage involves a multispecies assessment. At this stage, ecological trade-offs should be considered. At the present time, Roadmap implementation has yet to reach this stage, but the fact that the framework explicitly asks this type of assessment to takes place, generates a demand for the production of new and better knowledge (and tools) on ecological trade-offs. So far multispecies considerations have been used to support some aspects of single-species stock assessments (e.g. trends in natural mortality), and multispecies models have been used for strategic guidance in relation to multispecies MSY questions. Multispecies models for several of the ecosystems where NAFO is managing stocks are being developed within the context of the Roadmap. In relation to social and economic trade-offs, it can be argued that they are considered as part of the regular negotiations among contracting parties. Unlike management organizations within national boundaries, where different social and economic sectors interact with national/provincial government agencies in a more direct fashion, and it’s up to the national/provincial governments to address socio-economic trade-offs, in NAFO the stakeholders are actually the contracting parties around the table. Each contracting party defines its own goals and objectives within its delegation based on its own interests and needs. This process generates the contracting party’s agenda, and these individual agendas is what drives the conversation, negotiation, and positioning among contracting parties at the FC table. It is common that these negotiations involve the discussion of “packages”, where a series of decisions are linked. These packages, and this style of negotiation, effectively constitute an operational mechanism that generates socio-economic trade-offs. Ideally, once the Roadmap is fully implemented, it will add the ecological trade-offs to this process. In short, because of the international nature of the organization, socio-economic trade-offs within NAFO are addressed in the same way as any other diplomatic negotiation. Although this process does not encourage the generation of open knowledge on socio-economic trade-offs, it certainly does promote a better understanding of these trade-offs, at least within each national jurisdiction. Those contracting parties that do not have a good understanding of their national socio-economic trade-offs, and negotiate “packages” that would reasonably address them, will likely face a harder time domestically when explaining their positions and the overall outcome of NAFO decisions.
 1 (5%) 
 
 ISO risk management process.
 1 (5%) 
 
 As above but in particular through use of end to end ecosystem models and close collaboration with resource managers and industry.
 1 (5%) 
 
 1. Habitat Restoration and Protection. Habitat restoration outcomes include completion of oyster reef habitats in three Choptank River tidal tributaries within a three to five year timeframe to map, implement restoration, and monitor for long-term survival, including the ability of oyster populations to reproduce and become self-sustaining. To date, much of the work by NOAA and partner organizations has been to establish the initial population and monitor their distribution and abundance. Monitoring results at the earliest restoration sites in Harris Creek are encouraging and suggest that innovative strategies for identifying potential restoration sites and seeding reefs have great potential for continued use and success. Habitat protection efforts include improving fish habitat quality in the Choptank River watershed through improved collaboration with state and federal agencies on coastal development and land use activities. 2. Integrating Science to Inform Management. In order to understand changes and progress in the Choptank, we need to better understand human stressors and ecosystem variability—not just within the immediate geography of the restored oyster reefs, but throughout the watershed. We need to investigate baseline conditions and how we expect these conditions to change over time due to changes in climate, land use conversions (including agricultural and urban areas), and competing economic and social priorities. Leading universities, nonprofit organizations, major regional programs, and local governments have been addressing specific pieces in discrete locations within the watershed, primarily associated with water quality and mitigating pollutant source inputs, in response to regulatory requirements. Gaps remain in understanding how these pieces connect to each other. NOAA will examine this broader context through an ecological assessment that synthesizes a suite of biological, chemical, and physical data to characterize the ecological condition of the watershed. We will also more closely examine water column habitat in response to implementation of best management practices to control runoff pollution and evaluate the ecosystem services provided by restoration to appreciate the full value of habitat for fish abundance, nutrient removal, and other social and economic benefits. This work will result in a more comprehensive restoration and conservation strategy for the Choptank that integrates the scientific work of our key partners with NOAA’s work on coastal habitat, water column habitat, and the land-water interface. 3. Community Engagement. In order for our habitat efforts to be successful over the long term, we need an informed and engaged community that will continue efforts, maintain and enhance projects, and ensure our work is valuable in light of societal interests and needs. We will communicate our actions and anticipated benefits associated with habitat restoration and establish forums for communities to participate in defining their vision for this region and the services desired through the restoration efforts. To date, outreach related to oyster restoration has occurred mostly in communities adjacent to the three Choptank tributaries where oyster restoration is under way, while partner efforts in the watershed have connected to specific constituent groups often related to local water-quality objectives. There remains a critical need to expand outreach efforts to include more diverse community groups and to help get out messages that connect healthy ecosystems to benefits of societal and economic importance. At the same time, there is an equally compelling need to listen and to involve community groups more directly to better understand their priorities related to the resources and services of the Choptank. Through a new effort, “Envision the Choptank,” NOAA is working alongside a network of partners and community groups to bring together these disparate and sometimes competing interests in the hopes of defining a shared vision and common agenda to connect the people, resources, and services afforded by habitat restoration across the entirety of the Choptank. Within the timeframe allotted by NOAA’s Habitat Focus Area, the goal is to establish the infrastructure needed to support the visioning process and to begin its implementation.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Evaluation of management scenarios is not included in the project. However, socio-economic tradeoffs between different measures to achieve good environmental status will be approached. The methodology for this is not yet decided on, but is foreseen to be based on the ecosystem services approach.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Future scenarios used in the plan development phase No full formal trade-off analysis in place, but different management options are explored. Trade offs are discussed and decided on at political level as the trade-offs between petroleum, fisheries and conservation has national importance.
 2 (11%) 
 
 Same as above
 1 (5%) 
 
 MareFrame scientists present project results in PelAC meetings. PelAC Focus Group tries to incorporate results and formulate questions regarding EBM implementation for internal reporting only so far. No official arrangements are in place so far.
 1 (5%) 
 
 National Research Foundation - Funding of academic research - particularly through SA Research Chairs at strategic universities Regional (e.g., CEC) and global (e.g.) Belmont Forum academic research inititatives In principle (but not in practice) governmental research funding through the BCC and/or the FAO-Nansen Project SA governmental institutions (some progress despite huge capacity problems), e.g. National Biodiversity Assessments (through SANBI, e.g., Sink et al. 2012), Operation Phakisa Academia-NGO-industry fora.
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 19

11. Please describe the decision-making process at multi-sectoral level that can
take up data and information, formulate advice, implement decisions and review all aspects of the process.

 ‘Guadalquivir River Mouth Marine Protected Area (MPA)’ and ‘Guadalquivir River Basin’ advisory boards are identied.
 1 (5%) 
 
 A formal and structured process is administered by the FLKNMS to engage the public, State of Florida co-Trustee, and the FLKNMS Advisory Council that is comprised of members from various sectoral interests to provide guidance during the management plan update process.
 1 (5%) 
 
 A formal and structured process is administered by the GRNMS to engage the public and the GRNMS Advisory Council that is comprised of members from various sectoral interests to provide guidance during the management plan update process. The working group was comprised of both Federal managers and scientists, some Advisory Council members, and other stakeholders to develop the Research Area.
 1 (5%) 
 
 This is the core activity for OSPAR in that working groups report up to the thematic Committees (eg biodiversity and human impacts Committees) include both technical and policy expertise. Decisions are taken that then progress up through Coordination Group to the policy level of the OSPAR Commission.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Regional Planning Bodies and Ocean Councils are state and federal partnerships that facilitate states, federal agencies, regional organizations, and other regional groups in addressing ocean and coastal issues. They provide a voluntary forum for partners to collaborate and coordinate on regional approaches to support balanced uses and conservation of resources. Key Elements of Regional Ocean Planning • Identify shared regional objectives to focus decision-making. • Develop a suite of products, including a regional ocean assessment of ocean-related human uses, natural resources, and economic and cultural factors to provide a comprehensive context for decision-making. • Engage stakeholders and scientific/technical experts to ensure managers have the best available information for decision making about ocean uses and conservation. • Produce, coordinate, and analyze data across jurisdictions and agencies to provide better understanding of the potential effects of decisions. • Develop and implement coordinated management actions across jurisdictions using existing ocean management efforts and authorities. • Help federal and state agencies and tribes address inconsistencies across policies and other potential areas of conflict.
 1 (5%) 
 
 There are general management plans for the National Parks, National Estuarine Research Reserves, and Florida Aquatic preserves. The general management plans are cross-sectoral management plans to implement the highest priority sustainability, conservation, and science in the management area. The water managers take a cross-sectoral approach to look at trade-offs between agriculture, estuarine habitat, and fisheries when making decisions.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Not sure I can speak to this.
 2 (11%) 
 
 Not sure I can speak to this.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Since NAFO is an RFMO, there are no multi-sectoral levels per se. However, if we consider the difference contracting parties around the FC table as different “sectors”, the advice-decision annual cycle can be summarized as: 1. Annual General Meeting (September). FC receives the scientific advice from SC, and based on that advice discusses, negotiates, and implements management actions, including revisions to regulations and evaluations of their performance. At this meeting FC requests SC the advice to be delivered at the next annual meeting (this requests traditionally involve stock-assessments and advice on catch levels, but ecosystem-related requests have been growing over the last 10 years). 2. SC June meeting (June). This is the main meeting of SC, where the main body of the scientific advice is put together. At this meeting, the science supporting the advice to be provided is peer-reviewed. During this meeting, the work generated by Standing Committees and Working Groups is also presented and reviewed. Based on all this information, the answers to FC requests are developed. The responses to all FC requests are formally delivered to FC by the SC chair in the next Annual General Meeting. In addition to these responses, SC can also deliver advice on its own accord on any topic/issue that SC considers relevant for FC decision-making process. Following UNGA recommendations to RFMOs, NAFO also underwent a Performance Review in 2011, and there are ongoing discussions to schedule the next one. Since 2011 NAFO has been addressing the recommendations issues by the Performance Review Panel in their review. This panel was composed by both internal and external international experts.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Decision-making processes are within a legislative and regulatory context.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Again varies greatly depending on legislative or policy framework.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Engaging with the communities of the Choptank watershed is important to ensure the long-term sustainability of the ongoing protection and restoration effort. NOAA will accomplish this through engagement with key constituent groups, including conservation partners, local leaders, and K-12 education professionals. A key activity is to work with partners to develop a shared vision for conservation in the region. The agency will also work with partners to conduct targeted outreach to local communities about NOAA programs and activities. Foundational to the long-term sustainability of the Choptank HFA restoration efforts is the full engagement of the surrounding communities to support the implementation of the work and to continue to foster stewardship of the resource in perpetuity. To increase community engagement, NOAA will support a “collective impact” effort to ensure the active engagement of coastal communities in the protection and restoration of coastal habitats with emphasis on oysters and climate resiliency. As part of this effort, NOAA will work with local nonprofit groups to serve as a backbone organization. In this capacity, NOAA will provide critical funding and staffing support to work with partners in the region to develop a shared conservation vision that supports a variety of interests, including NOAA’s interests in oyster restoration and climate resiliency. Once established, NOAA will work with partners to develop and track common metrics, and develop a plan for the mutually reinforcing activities of partner groups. To increase knowledge and support for NOAA activities in the region, NOAA will work with partners both within and outside NOAA to use information from the suite of HFA projects to inform a strategy to maintain awareness about how the HFA partners are working in the community. The partners will use traditional and emerging methods to highlight these new and ongoing efforts to targeted audiences throughout the Choptank watershed. This will include intentional collaboration among NOAA, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Oyster Recovery Partnership to ensure all partners are informed of each other’s communications efforts, and to maximize exposure for those efforts.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The project will deliver a status assessment and does hence not aim at formulating advice. The results of the project will be reviewed by the relevant bodies of the Helcom organization, where all countries around the Baltic Sea are involved, for example within expert groups, working groups and by Heads of Delegation as relevant.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The plan builds on existing legislature and existing management processes (e.g. fisheries management), but has introduced mapping of ecologically valuable areas and from these spatial plans for petroleum development and shipping lanes have been defined. In most areas multi-use is the norm, but some areas, like the productive Lofoten archipelago has been closed for petroleum developments.
 2 (11%) 
 
 We are not at this level of implementation yet
 1 (5%) 
 
 n.a. random collection of important questions with regard to EBM are collected - no formalised process
 1 (5%) 
 
 In principle: at central government level (the single departments work in silos), Realistically: ad hoc. Role models through international best practice (hence my participation here). In principle: BCC — in practice dysfunct. International fora, e.g., MSC wrt fisheries, CEC wrt seafood safety standards
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 19

12. Please describe the degree to which the  knowledge generated is used to assess impacts and/or in decision-making.

 Not yet.
 1 (5%) 
 
 A very high level of data, information, and knowledge in generated and used during the FLKNMS management plan review so that all stakeholders have access to information. This information is part of the review process in making spatial management decisions on the allocation and use of natural resources and the protection of cultural resources.
 1 (5%) 
 
 A very high level of data, information, and knowledge was generated and used during the GRNMS assessment to develop a Research Area and all stakeholders had access to the information. Bio-physical and economic information was part of the process to define a preferred alternative for the Research Area. A sliding window approach was used to evaluate location and spatial configuration of the Research Area.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Assessment and review are core to the OSPAR Convention, with all measures requiring such a process. This may be self reporting on implementation as well as monitoring and assessments of impacts. In some areas such as hazardous substances there are established cycles of assessment and review already carried out. In newer areas, such as biodiversity, integrated management through MPAs etc these cycles are only just starting. Integrated management through assessment of cumulative effects, pressure impact relationships beyond single pressure impacts is in its infancy.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The information and products being provided by the NE IEA were specifically requested by the NE and MA regional planning bodies/ ocean councils. As such, the knowledge generated by the IEA will directly inform the ocean management plans that will be applied in decision-making.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The knowledge being generated by the science programs in this area are regularly used to inform cross-sectoral decision making within the place-based management area. Unfortuantely, this means the cross-sectoral decisions and science only inform decision-making within the management area and are not often used by adjacent management bodies, and resource managers concerned more with species management
 1 (5%) 
 
 Similar to the previous answers, BOEM’s environment studies are targeted to address knowledge gaps related to upcoming decisions. For example, if it is unclear how a migrating whale population might be impacted by increased offshore oil and gas activity, BOEM will conduct a study focused on that species’ migration habits and potential overlap with the proposed activity. Science is very much a part of the Bureau’s decision-making.
 2 (11%) 
 
 Similar to the previous answers, BOEM’s environment studies are targeted to address knowledge gaps related to upcoming decisions. For example, if it is unclear how a migrating whale population might be impacted by increased offshore oil and gas activity, BOEM will conduct a study focused on that species’ migration habits and potential overlap with the proposed activity. Science is very much a part of the Bureau’s decision-making.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The advice provided by SC is a fundamental element in NAFO decision-making process. This does not mean that SC recommendations are binding; there are many examples in NAFO history where decision made were contrary to the science advice. However, the science is always one of the central pieces in the management discussion. It is almost a tradition in fisheries management organizations that decisions often push the scientific advice to its limits, and NAFO is certainly no exception. Still, the science advice on ecosystem-related issues, for example on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems, has been the cornerstone to many closures to bottom fishing activities within NAFO regulatory area. There is no denial that, despite all its flaws, science advice is an influential component in NAFO decision-making.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Generally, the knowledge generated by stakeholder engagement and scientific initiatives are not well aligned.
 1 (5%) 
 
 In most case research has had an important role not only in implementation but also formulation.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The science and social value generated through the ecological assessments and the collective impact model will directly inform the conservation and management strategies developed in partnership with local decion-makers/community.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The project will evaluate progress in relation to the goals of the Baltic Sea Action Plan and the results may provide input to identifying further management priorities of the Helcom community. The results from the project will provide a regional roof report for reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive for those contracting parties that are also EU member states. By this, the results will be picked up in decision making regarding measures in environmental management at national level. The results will be reported made publicly available in the form of fact sheets and other assessment products. The technical content of the fact sheets will be formulated based on input from the Contracting parties, who are invited to consider how they foresee that the information will be used.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The plan is knowledge based, and the basis is updated and assessed on a yearly basis, both in relation to the state of the ecosystem, as well as what gaps there area in our current knowledge base.
 1 (5%) 
 
 he plan is knowledge based, and the basis is updated and assessed on a yearly basis, both in relation to the state of the ecosystem, as well as what gaps there area in our current knowledge base.
 1 (5%) 
 
 We are not at this level of implementation yet
 1 (5%) 
 
 N.a.
 1 (5%) 
 
 It is — but largely not driven by various government fora due to their capacity problems. Industry/NGO/academia alliances appear to achieve better progress. Juggling the contradictory policies with a multitude of stakeholders with very conflicting interests is .. well, an art rather than a science.
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 19

13. Describe the role of sector-level management within a multi-sectoral, EBM framework:

 A strong role
 10 (67%) 
 
 A medium role
 4 (27%) 
 
 A low role
 1 (7%) 
 
Total: 15

14. In less than 10 lines please shortly evaluate the level of capacity in science, policy, and management for EBM in your given case study area:

 Depending on the time of the year the dam is operated, it can have different effects on the nursery role of the Guadalquivir Estuary and consequently on some fisheries of the Gulf of Cadiz. The amount of water discharged affects salinity and, most importantly turbidity. These changes are related to the survival of mysids, which are known to be the main prey of juvenile anchovy. There are obvious conflicting interests between agriculture/tourism/shipping and the maintenance of the nursery role. If our hypothesis is correct, a proper management of the dam can be the central issue in an EBM framework.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The level of capacity is high but very complex in the FLKNMS as many state and federal governmental agencies have management authority and must balance the conservation and economic management objectives for the FLKNMS ecosystem.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The level of capacity was high for the GRNMS as state, academia, private sector and federal governmental agencies provided data and information to balance the conservation and economic management objectives for the GRNMS Research Area.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The North East Atlantic remains at a relatively high level of capacity in terms of science, policy and management compared to many regions. However like all regions, the next step in integrating the different disciplines and developing a proper understanding of pressure – state relationships in dynamic complex marine ecosystems is huge challenge. Several Cumulative Effects models being used are a step forward in this. The established policy cycle of assessment measures and review is also of importance. Better understanding of foodwebs and habitats will be essential too. MPAs and marine planning also offer opportunities to test out EBM.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The science capacity in NE NOAA to support ecosystem knowledge needs for policy and management is extensive – not just for RPBs, but other management partners such as fishery management councils, national marine sanctuaries, and other resource management entities. Partners in this work include multiple NOAA labs and programs from NMFS (lead), OAR, and NOS. While there is good science capacity, demands for ecosystem information are growing rapidly, and it may be a struggle to keep up with limited resources. Capacity in policy and management in this region (NE and MA) for multi-sector EBM is perhaps somewhat ahead of other regions that have not yet established regional planning bodies and associated ocean councils. However these are nascent bodies, without precedent, so they are learning as they are going (in addition they are voluntary and non-binding).
 1 (5%) 
 
 The scientific capacity is quite high and growing considerably in the next three-years. We can conduct ecosystem services risk assessments and trade-off analyses. We are now working to examine how these potential trade-offs affect human well-being and community vulnerability. The policy and management or governance capacity is spatially heterogeneous. The place-based managers can make cross-sectoral decisions, but cannot interfere with management of federally managed resources. For areas without place-based management enacted there is essentially no governance capacity to make cross-sectoral decision-making in a consistent manner.
 1 (5%) 
 
 This case study shows how BOEM employs adaptive management to minimize conflicts among the many users and stakeholders on the Atlantic coast. The borrow sites used by BOEM’s Marine Mineral Program were determined using science (to minimize environmental impacts), policy (stakeholder outreach, consultations, and CZMA), and management.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The information BOEM is gaining from AMAPPS and other Atlantic studies is informing the development of the oil and gas program. Some of this information was used in BOEM’s Five Year Oil and Gas Program, a strategic document which outlines oil and gas lease schedule for the next five years. At this stage, the geographic area under consideration is quite large. As BOEM moves through the subsequent decision points following the inclusion of the Atlantic in the Program, the geographic area of interest becomes smaller and smaller. BOEM’s environmental studies help guide this winnowing to ensure that the areas offered for lease will minimize impacts to the natural and human environment. This is a clear intersection of science, policy, and adaptive management.
 1 (5%) 
 
 For the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area example, science, policy, and management were all employed to balance the needs and interests of the multiple sectors involved and to minimize the environmental impacts of wind farm siting.
 1 (5%) 
 
 NAFO is well positioned to deliver EBM, although given its mandate the organizations is constrained to EBFM (without entering into arguments about definitions, we use EBFM and EAF as equivalent terms). Still, the organization is short on science capacity (especially on ecosystem-related expertise; multispecies modelling, benthic ecology, impacts from activities other than fishing), its policies have yet to reflect the full scope of the Roadmap (although significant changes have been made in the NAFO Conservation and Enforcement Measures (NCEM) over the last 10 years), and management measures have to be improved (again, changes are being made; for example, tow-by-tow reporting has been recently put in place; VMS ping frequency has been increase). NAFO is cognizant of these limitations; one key aspect of the Roadmap is its modular structure. As pieces are being completed, they can be implemented without waiting for the full framework to be ready. NOTE: these were 10 lines in MS Word!!!
 1 (5%) 
 
 The capacity in each group is good. It is the lack of relevance to each group operating independently that is the issue. Integration is more than simply generating information, it is about aligning management needs to achieve policy informed by science and not the other way around.
 1 (5%) 
 
 In Australia, policy was in front of the science in both EBM and EBFM. Currently there has been increasing focus on research supporting EBM and in particular coupled socio-economic and biophysical considerations, tools and models. There remain significant research questions.
 1 (5%) 
 
 Capacity is high in each of these areas. A broad coalition of partners is working to define and implement this process, including conservation organizations such as Town Creek Foundation, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, the Nature Conservancy, Midshore Riverkeeper, Chesapeake Conservancy, Maryland Sea Grant, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, as well as partners that represent agribusiness, community planning, local commerce, and other key community interests.
 1 (5%) 
 
 The project is advised by representatives of national marine management authorities, representing the contracting parties of Helcom. These form the project core team and guide the project with respect to policy and management relevance. Scientific expertise is provided via workshops dedicated to particular topics, via support from Helcom expert groups and via supporting scientific projects.
 1 (5%) 
 
 High capacity in all three areas. The limits are set at the ministry and political level who hold on to sectoral power within management of key sectors (e.g. petroleum and fisheries)
 1 (5%) 
 
 High capacity in all three areas. The limits are set at the ministry and political leve who hold on to sectoral power within management of key sectors (e.g. petroleum and fisheries)
 1 (5%) 
 
 Different projects are being developed aiming to implement the EBM in the study area, but though the results obtained could led to better understand our systems and probably provide recommendations for management actions, a proper Ecosystem Based Management and policy developments would never be implemented in the area if we do not open the door to real collaboration between different Member States. We would need to look for a practical framework to make collaborative work a reality and the basis of all our science towards the implementation of the EBM.
 1 (5%) 
 
 currently a very low level of capacity
 1 (5%) 
 
 The policies aren’t so bad, but single policies are contradictory and progress to resolve these contradictions is slow. This creates an unhealthy grey zone to continue with (sectoral) business-as-usual, and the art of ad-hoc conflict resolution. Losers of this situation are the common people on the ground as well as ecosystem goods and services. Natural scientific capacity is quite good. Social sciences are critically underresourced: some good work coming out, but too few people. Understanding of inter-disciplinarily (nat/soc) and trans-disciplinarily in its infancy. Need international network. Management capacity in government is, well, hugely inadequate. MCS are catastrophic.
 1 (5%) 
 
Total: 19

15. The following questions relate to generic understanding of the ecosystem approach.

 In 3 bullet points or less, can you describe the Ecosystem Approach?

 Integration of biological, economic, and human aspects of "ecosystem", Consider response of "ecosystem" to a broad range of pressures covering biological, economic and social aspects. Also consider feedbacks between different parts of system, including the human dimension (e.g. game theory ideas).
 1 (3%) 
 
 1. Integration of land,water (Incl. marine) and resource management for increased resilience and sustainability. 2. An adaptive management strategy. 3. Accounts for human and cultural diversity as an integrated element of ecosystems
 1 (3%) 
 
 1. a holistic, place-based framework for oceans management 2. a systems approach, comprised of natural (bio-physical), social and governing systems 3. transparent, participatory inclusive approach that that seeks to sustain healthy marine ecosystems long term
 1 (3%) 
 
 1. An integrated approach that considers all ecosystem components (e.g. human activities, habitats and species, and physical processes). 2. Consideration of ecosystem functions and resulting ecosystem services. 3. Strong participation of stakeholders.
 1 (3%) 
 
 - conservation and sustainable use - management strategies for the entire system rather than for individual components - illuminate and address trade-offs across multiple objectives
 1 (3%) 
 
 1) incorporation of ecosystem and climate constraints on population dynamics for the development of adaptive strategies sensitive to external forcing for the management of exploited populations 2) harvesting marine resources in a manner that reduces impact on ecosystems, habitats, and non target species 3) What it should be: an approach which balances the benefits and costs of harvesting marine resource on other services e.g. climate controls via modification of the biological carbon pump, biodiversity and ecotourism and marine transport/energy
 1 (3%) 
 
 - It is one that accounts for important regulatory processes or interactions between sectors
 1 (3%) 
 
 *Planning *Data Evaluation and Characterization *Management Applications
 2 (7%) 
 
 Basing management decisions on the interactions between human activities and the pressures they create, their impact on ecosystems and the natural change already ongoing in the system.
 1 (3%) 
 
 The ecosystem approach provides a multisectoral framework for the sustainable delivery of ecosystem services for current and future generations.
 1 (3%) 
 
 The ecosystem approach means that we consider how our sectoral policies would affect the ecosystem as a whole (e.g. if we work on fisheries, we would consider its impact not only on targeted fish stocks, but also on foodwebs, seafloor etc.). If we work with an ecosystem approach in policy making, we will have a holistic approach and factor in cumulative effects from other areas when designing our policies (and we consider the impact of our policies on other fields).
 1 (3%) 
 
 Place-Based Enables science-based cross-sectoral decisions Integrates with human dimensions
 1 (3%) 
 
 • [Ideally, begin with baseline understanding of ecosystem in question. This might include conducting baseline studies in the area or compiling existing information if the area is well-studied. ] • Determine potential impacts of proposed activity in the area. Do this through review process, stakeholder outreach, and consultation. • As necessary, perform targeted studies to determine ways to minimize and mitigate impacts to ecosystem. • Implement protective measures. Monitor and repeat.
 2 (7%) 
 
 • [Ideally, begin with baseline understanding of ecosystem in question. This might include conducting baseline studies in the area or compiling existing information if the area is well-studied. ] • Determine potential impacts of proposed activity in the area. Do this through review process, stakeholder outreach, and consultation. • As necessary, perform targeted studies to determine ways to minimize and mitigate impacts to ecosystem. • Implement protective measures. Monitor and repeat.
 1 (3%) 
 
 • An integrated management strategy that takes into account the whole ecosystem and they way its components - as well as the sectors using its resources - interact, rather than treating them in isolation • Explicitly acknowledges the impact that human activities can have not just on the target resource but also on other elements needed to sustain it; in turn, also considers how human activities and the resources they depend on can be influenced by other factors • Can thus help identify potentially competing interests, coordinate different activities within the same ecosystem, and protect the ecosystem from degradation
 1 (3%) 
 
 1. It is a place-based framework (i.e. operates within a defined functional ecosystem unit) 2. It is objective driven, explicitly addressing trade-offs among sectors. 3. It ensures long-term sustainability, including assessments of cumulative impacts across sectors.
 1 (3%) 
 
 My description of the ecosystem approach has to be a full sentence. 1. Ecosystem approach to research 2. Ecosystem approach to policy development 3 Ecosystem approach to operational implementation of management measures
 1 (3%) 
 
 Many definitions but simply balancing resource use and environmental stewardship in multiple use context. Compare EAF/EBFM - fishery sector specific.
 1 (3%) 
 
 See other USA NOAA answers
 1 (3%) 
 
 An adaptive management approach that considers all relevant ecological and societal aspects of the concerned system, builds on and communicates knowledge at different levels of management and encompasses routines for regular evaluation of management strategies. The 2003 Joint HELCOM and OSPAR Ministerial Statement on the Ecosystem Approach to the Management of Human Activities1 uses the following summary: The ecosystem approach requires the comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable useof ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity. The application of the precautionary principle is equally a central part of the ecosystem approach 1) http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Associated%20documents/Supporting/GEAR%20report%20Reg%20coordination%20adopted%20by%20HOD42.pdf
 1 (3%) 
 
 - to manage all natural resources and human uses in an integrated way - achieving sustainable use and livelihoods - managing within the ecological limits to avoid irreversible and detrimental harm
 1 (3%) 
 
 taking a holistic view of marine management, attempting to take account of the interactions and feedbacks thought the system
 1 (3%) 
 
 - to manage all natural resources and human uses in an integrated way - achieving sustainable use and livelihoods - managing within the ecological limits to avoid irreversibel and detrimental harm
 1 (3%) 
 
 - The ecosystem approach is a strategy for conservation, sustainable use and equitable division of natural resources. - The goal is to secure that the use of the ecosystems takes place without jeopardizing the long term sustainability of their structures, functions and dynamics. - Application of the ecosystem approach requires a comprehensive view, continuous development of knowledge, use of the precautionary approach and an adaptive management, working in a participatory way, integrating different disciplines in all steps of the processes.
 1 (3%) 
 
 1. It is the framework to that allows for a proper assessment of different ecosystem components under changing conditions and management of the human activities occurring in that system 2. A framework that aims to keep the health of marine ecosystems so that they can provide the goods and services expected by the surrounding societies 3. It is a holistic strategy to promote conservation and sustainable use of marine resources
 1 (3%) 
 
 the approach means taking into account interactions within the ecosystem, i.e. between trophic guilds/species/habitats when managing and using resources from it with the goal of limiting negative influences on it
 1 (3%) 
 
 We use the definition by FAO 2003
 1 (3%) 
 
Total: 29

16. Why do you see value to the Ecosystem Approach concept?

 Fisheries or indeed any component should not be considered in isolation from other aspects. Wise decisions concerning management need to at least consider the bigger picture.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Balancing conservation, sustainable use and equitability
 1 (4%) 
 
 It is a broad-based, holistic approach that consider multiple users. multiple stressors, the environment, includes people as users, consumers and managers. It puts individual activities in the context of the bigger picture.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Provides a basis for the application of Maritime Spatial Planning.
 1 (4%) 
 
 - It is simply necessary for a correct management
 1 (4%) 
 
 The Ecosystem Approach is required to enable effective and efficient management of marine resources in space and time.
 2 (7%) 
 
 The natural systems in the marine environment are complex dynamic systems with a multitude of interactions between species and habitats and with their environment. Therefore most of the management decision we make will either have perverse effects or sub-optimal outcomes if the decision and the evidence it is based on does not take into account these interactions.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Without effective coordination and an integrated set of goals and objectives, management approaches aimed at individual ocean use sectors can work at cross purposes, weakening their overall effectiveness. Ecosystem-based Management is inherently a cross-disciplinary endeavor that draws on information on a broad array of elements comprising the social-ecological system.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Ecosystem components are interconnected. In addition, some pressures may have an impact on more than one ecosystem component. It is therefore essential to have a holistic approach when we determine how to manage ecosystems and human pressures on them.
 1 (4%) 
 
 We know that these trade-offs are real and happening inherently in current management paradigms. Illuminating these trade-offs and incorporating our holistic understanding of ecosystem structure and function is thus the most logical approach.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Absolutely. BOEM uses this approach in our studies and planning process to minimize impacts of our regulated actions to the human and marine environment.
 3 (11%) 
 
 All components of an ecosystem are linked in some way or another. By influencing one component we can directly or indirectly affect others, with often unintended or even unforeseen consequences. For example, fishing limits need to account for natural predation within the marine foodweb, and fishing activities need to be carried out in a way that does not degrade the ecosystem that sustains its resources. It is therefore important not to manage individual parts of an ecosystem or the sectors exploiting its resources in isolation, but incorporate ecosystem considerations at all management levels.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Even if it sounds like a platitude, an ecosystem approach is the only way to achieve (or at least to get us closer) to actual long-term sustainability in the use of earth resources. If we consider the growing human population, it is clear that providing for such a large population requires making use of our global resources in the most efficient and sustainable way possible. When levels of exploitation are low (or sometimes even moderate), we can get away with just sectoral-based management because cumulative impacts may not be that serious, and ecological interactions do not yet pose strong enough limitations to make trade-offs an actual bottleneck. As needs for resources (and do not forget ecosystem services) increase, only an ecosystem approach provides the framework to make the best possible use of those resources, in a sustainable way, and (ideally) without leaving anyone behind (or below the poverty line).
 1 (4%) 
 
 Absolutely. The ecosystem approach ensures that ecosystem considerations and vulnerabilities form the basis for decisions to ensure that ecosystem functions are maintained to ensure sustainability of ecosystem services.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Coasts and oceans are becoming increasingly crowded and contested. EBM presents an approach that sustain the blue economy, reduce conflict and maintain ecosystem services.
 1 (4%) 
 
 See other USA NOAA answers
 1 (4%) 
 
 It is as useful concept to ensure that management is conducted in a long term sustainable way.
 1 (4%) 
 
 - Long-term sustainability - Solution to increasingly crowded seas and conflict of uses - balanced trade-off analysis between competing interests and uses
 1 (4%) 
 
 Because it takes account in principle of all aspects of the ecosystem
 1 (4%) 
 
  Long-term sustainability - Solution to increasingly crowded seas and conflict of uses - balanced trade-off analysis between competing interests and uses
 1 (4%) 
 
 We need to integrate fishery management with environmental management, so that both can contribute to the other. A fishery management built on the ecosystem approach has the possibility to give more stable catches while the integrity of the ecosystems is kept.
 1 (4%) 
 
 It would lead to a more sustainable use of the marine resources now and also for the future generations
 1 (4%) 
 
 only when the ecosystem interactions are taken into account a longterm sustainable use of the resource is likely to be possible
 1 (4%) 
 
 Integration….
 1 (4%) 
 
Total: 27

17. What are the main outputs/products/services coming from the sector/s operating in the region in which you work?

 Fisheries yields (catch in £ and tonnage). Secure food supply. Long-term sustainable ecosystem services. Sustainable jobs of sufficient number and quality.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Manuals and guidelines albeit with a distinctive intellectual/academic focus.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Fishing/Aquaculture/Employment/Food/Tourism Oil and Gas/Shipping/
 1 (4%) 
 
 Scientific research Fishing Oil and gas Telecommunications
 1 (4%) 
 
 - Provision services (fish) - Regulatory services (GE nursery role) - Economic revenues from agriculture (rice fields) tourism (cruises) and shipping (port activity in Seville)
 1 (4%) 
 
 Tourism, fisheries, boating, education, and ecosystem restoration.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Marine Research results, fisheries management, boating regulations, and educational opportunities were a result of the process and decision making to make the Research Area.
 1 (4%) 
 
 OSPAR covers a wide region in terms of socio- economy, ecosystems and geography. So most marine and maritime sectors and their products are included in the region.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Food from fisheries, aquaculture; energy from renewable sources (tidal and proposed wind farms); transportation from shipping; recreation;
 1 (4%) 
 
 - fisheries products - tourism and other cultural services - offshore energy
 1 (4%) 
 
 I am not sure entirely what is meant by this question, but the major sectors are tourism, agriculture, fisheries (recreational and commercial), recreation (fishing, diving, golf, etc.), and freshwater
 1 (4%) 
 
 On the Atlantic Coast, the main services are tourism, fishing, and shipping. The offshore energy industry (both renewable and conventional) is still in its infancy on the U.S. Atlantic Coast.
 2 (8%) 
 
 In Massachusetts, the main services are fishing and shipping. The offshore wind energy industry is still in its infancy there and the rest of the US. The area is also very important for marine mammals and sea birds.
 1 (4%) 
 
 I should first clarify which ‘sector’ ClientEarth works in: we are an environmental NGO that brings together law, science and policy to create practical solutions to key environmental challenges. We work on a broad range of environmental issues throughout Europe, but the main focus of the Fisheries team on behalf of which I am participating in this workshop is European fisheries management, particularly the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). So the sector would be conservation and environmental law, with an emphasis on fisheries. Our work consists primarily of advocacy activities with the aim of ensuring that EU decisions are in line with the CFP's requirements and objectives. This includes for example legal briefings, participation in the North Sea and North Western Waters Advisory Councils and a wide range of meetings (e.g. with representatives of the European Commission, fishing industry, other stakeholders, MEPs…).
 1 (4%) 
 
 Food (fishing, aquaculture), energy (offshore oil and gas), Recreation (outdoors and wildlife oriented tourism, whale watching), and transport of goods. Another important sectors in the region, but not operating at sea (although they may have impacts on inland aquatic ecosystems and some nearshore ones) include hydroelectric generation and mining.
 1 (4%) 
 
 It is explicitly to develop standards and guidelines for implementation in an operational context.
 1 (4%) 
 
 See other USA NOAA answers
 1 (4%) 
 
 I don’t have one answer. Fishing, tourism & recreation as well as marine transportation are important.
 1 (4%) 
 
 - ecosystem overviews - single- species advice - habitat/environmental monitoring - impact assessment of fisheries, aquaculture and petroleum industry
 1 (4%) 
 
 marine ecosystem models. modelling tools capable of exploring the response of marine ecosystem to anthropogenic and climate drivers at a range of spatial scales, from local infrastructure to global
 1 (4%) 
 
 - ecosystem overviews - single- species advice - habitat/enviromental monitoring - impact assessment of fisheries, aquaculture and petroleum industry
 1 (4%) 
 
 Fish for consumption. Fish for the industry. Employment in the fishery sector. Living small coastal communities. Recreational values.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Food supply, mainly. But also issues related to cultural services, maritime transport, etc.
 1 (4%) 
 
 fish/work/prosperity
 1 (4%) 
 
 The whole lot — the Benguela is very heavily utilised.
 1 (4%) 
 
Total: 26

18. Within your sector what are the 3 main objectives driving your activities?

 Development of multi-annual plans. Regionalisation of management structures. Integration of multispecies and mixed fisheries issues within formal advice process.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Sustainability, resilience and adaptation
 1 (4%) 
 
 1. strong economic growth in our marine and fisheries sectors 2. innovation through research in expanding sectors such as aquaculture and biotechnology; and 3. clean and healthy environment and sustainable aquatic ecosystems through habitat protection, oceans management, and ecosystems research
 1 (4%) 
 
 Development of habitat suitability models to better predict the location of VMEs Improved data sharing particularly with industry to improve cost effective environmental impact assessment and hence promote 'Blue Growth' Better integration of existing legal and policy instruments
 1 (4%) 
 
 - Good stock management - Good environmental status - Ecosystem services maintenance
 1 (4%) 
 
 Balancing conservation, economic, and ecological services for the benefit of humans and nature.
 2 (8%) 
 
 Our objectives within OSPAR reflect the common objectives of our Contracting Parties to protect the marine environment. This is balanced against the social and economic objectives of the same parties.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Nature conservation and protection Sustainable use of marine ecosystems (based on the principle that healthy ecosystems support sustainable growth)
 1 (4%) 
 
 Sustainable production of ecosystem services Optimize ecosystem health and human well-being while minimizing community vulnerability Meeting societal goals from the ecosystem
 1 (4%) 
 
 • Responsible development of energy and mineral s on the outer continental shelf • Effective environmental stewardship of the outer continental shelf • Balance economic development, energy independence, and environmental protection
 3 (13%) 
 
 Overall, we work to ensure a robust interpretation and effective implementation of the reformed CFP and connected legislation, with the aim of: • Managing fish stocks at sustainable and productive levels, • Moving towards ecosystem-based fisheries management and coherence between fisheries and environmental legislation, and • Improving the transparency of decision-making and available information including fisheries-related data
 1 (4%) 
 
 As a DFO employee, my work should contribute to the three departmental strategic outcomes, which are: • Economically Prosperous Maritime Sectors and Fisheries; • Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems; • Safe and Secure Waters. In that context, and as individual scientist, my three main objectives are: • Understanding dynamics and interactions in exploited marine ecosystems • Use that knowledge to help developing and implementing Ecosystem Approaches • Apply that knowledge to provide science advice for management decisions
 1 (4%) 
 
 Sustainability agenda of the UN Predictable and implementable standards and guidelines Effectiveness and feasibility of management measures
 1 (4%) 
 
 See other USA NOAA answers
 1 (4%) 
 
 Good environmental status for biodiversity, eutrophication and hazardous substances
 1 (4%) 
 
 - National economy demography (jobs in remote areas) - Continued use of renewable resources - Protection of rare and vulnerable ecosystem components - Climate change
 2 (8%) 
 
 Improving the scientific understanding of the function and response of marine ecosystems. Development of forecast capability (ranging from short term through Copernicus to earth system modelling for the IPCC). Application of model to provide evidence to underpin the implementation of an ecosystem based approach.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Conservation, restoration and sustainable use of lakes, watercourses and seas. The sustainability of the aquatic resources. Good environmental status of marine and freshwater environments.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Developing spatial management tools for better management of existing activities Develop tools that allow the implementation of adaptive strategies for a better management of the maritime activities Provide the different actors involved with tools for a certain level of self-regulation of the activities they are developing in the area.
 1 (4%) 
 
 environmental health, sustainability of fishing activity, economic sustainability
 1 (4%) 
 
Total: 24

19. What do you see as the main impediments/challenges for the achievement of the objectives in your sector?

 Lack of government funding. Conservatism of scientists and advisory process members. Political tensions with so many countries and transnational bodies involved.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Application to forward planning rather than reflection on environmental status.
 1 (4%) 
 
 1. Lack of resources 2. Conflict between oceans use and oceans conservation (this has several facets, including ocean use purely as a commercial enterprise, ocean use as a means to making a living, as a way of life, the cultural/social aspects of fishing...... and conservation such as MPAs where no activities are allowed to conservation approaches that include co-design with communities.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Lack of an overarching framework to integrate sectoral management approaches
 1 (4%) 
 
 Lack of knowledge of the interactions between processes. Need of EBM.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Communications and trust take time to build and having high quality and spatially comprehensive economic, biological, and physical data and information to support decisions.
 1 (4%) 
 
 GRNMS is located 32 km off the USA Georgia Coast, thus its relatively far distance from shore made it critical to build trust among work group members since routine visits to proposed Research Area for the entire group was not feasible.
 1 (4%) 
 
 With regard to the EBM approach the challenge remains poor knowledge on the interactions between pressures and impacts in an incredibly complex and dynamic environment. Usable tools to tackle this are required.
 1 (4%) 
 
 The most difficult challenge involves resolving tradeoffs among competing ocean-use sectors. Activities that involve the pre-emptive use of space are particularly difficult to resolve. A major issue is the valuation of ecosystem services that do not have an explicit market value but nonetheless are important in terms of societal preferences.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Lacking knowledge of marine ecosystems which impedes maritime spatial planning Weak sectoral cooperation
 1 (4%) 
 
 Dependent upon true EBM Scientific trade-off tools that are accepted by all sectoral and place-based resource managers Quantitative understanding of management and societal goals for the ecosystem
 1 (4%) 
 
 • One major challenge is the different time scales on which stakeholders operate. For example, some consultations may take years to conduct. Industry works on a faster timeline than government. And often good science takes some time to produce. It can be challenging to align the timing of the decision with the input needed for that decision. • There are limited resources (time, money, etc.) for a large geographic area to manage (the U.S. outer continental shelf). • After the decisions are made, it is important to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the management decisions and adapt as needed.
 3 (12%) 
 
 • Overarching: potential conflicts between environmental and socio-economic concerns • Continued setting of fishing quotas above scientific advice, allowing overfishing while the final deadline for restoring stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield is approaching (2020) • Landing obligation in mixed fisheries: despite efforts to improve selectivity, some unwanted bycatch will be unavoidable; choke species (which will 'choke' a fishery once their quota is exhausted) might become a big issue, causing the fishing industry to delay bringing more species under the landing obligation although the 2020 deadline is looming; moreover, monitoring of compliance is another issue in this context
 1 (4%) 
 
 The impediments/challenges are different within Canada and NAFO. Since the question is focused on my sector, I will focus on fisheries. In Canada, major impediments/challenges include: 1) lack on policies for integration across stock-level management plans and a general lack of integration across fisheries management (resource use) and oceans (conservation, spatial planning) policies, 2) lack of implementation of existing policies (e.g. sensitive benthic areas policy –basically the domestic version of the VMEs protection in NAFO-), 3) limited resources and science capacity given the scope of the issues (and ecosystems) at hand, 4) poor understanding (lack of transparency) on how socio-economic factors are incorporated/use in the decision making process, and 5) poor communication to stakeholder, but even more so, to the general public, about what is being done, and what/how decisions are made, and why. In NAFO major impediments/challenges include: 1) limited implementation of Roadmap components into the policies and management structure, 2) limited resources and science capacity, 3) lack of proper enforcement in some areas, 4) lack of ratification of the amended NAFO Convention, and 5) Resistance to some contracting parties to changes in management practices. In both cases, a major challenge is the coordination of approaches between domestic and international waters. Implementing Ecosystem Approaches, even if they are only for fisheries, requires that all organizations with management responsibilities within an ecosystem develop coherent and complementary practices within their respective spheres. This gets even more complex because regulation of activities on or below the seafloor (e.g. offshore oil and gas) is exerted by the coastal state up to the full extent of the continental shelf, even if that is beyond the EEZ. Overall, a significant impediment is the inherent resistance of large organizations to change, especially from those sectors/areas/stakeholders that will need to undergo significant modifications and/or see their influence/role within the organization modified (often perceived as loss).
 1 (4%) 
 
 In all sectors including science and government, it is the confusion of terminology used such as risk, vulnerability, assessment, management, policy, or even a management measure. It is also a confusion as to who does what, who is responsible, who is accountable and who is a stakeholder.
 1 (4%) 
 
 See other USA NOAA answers
 1 (4%) 
 
 I don’t have one answer. Agreements to minimize impacts from maritime activities, to enhance marine protected areas, and climate change are important.
 1 (4%) 
 
 - Willingness to give up sector-specific power - Willingness to accept complex and far-reaching management@ - Lack of comprehensive trade-off analyses between management strategies - Denial of science
 2 (8%) 
 
 lack of observations and understanding of how the system works and interacts.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Overfishing and destruction of sensitive habitats. The latter both by fishing and different kinds of exploitation of, in particular, shallow coastal areas.
 1 (4%) 
 
 The lack of collaboration at a scientific level, but also the different goals of each Member State exploiting the system, and the low level of involvement of all marine actors (stakeholders) in the processes.
 1 (4%) 
 
 lack of knockledge, lack of ambition, lack of legal framework, also with regard to marine spatial planning
 1 (4%) 
 
 Balancing conflicting objectives in a transparent, repeatable, defensible way manner.
 1 (4%) 
 
Total: 26

20. Please describe any realized or potential conflicts between different marine sectors?

 Tension between fisheries and other sectors such as offshore wind, tourism, aggregate extraction,
 1 (4%) 
 
 Competition for resources and space both within in the marine realm and also in terms of land use planning for infrastructure support
 1 (4%) 
 
 Strong opposition to aquaculture by inshore fisheries sector Fisheries and Oil and Gas Sectors Shipping and Marine Mammals (this has been resolved by moving shipping channels)
 1 (4%) 
 
 More than between marine sectors, the conflicts would be between marine (fisheries) and estuarine/city sectors: rice crops, shipping, tourism.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Competition for use of ocean space and associated resources.
 2 (8%) 
 
 Not answering this as it would be a long essay – you will know the main ones, found in any similar developed country region;
 1 (4%) 
 
 1) Conflicts over space among capture fisheries, aquaculture, and energy installations 2) Competition for market share for capture fisheries and aquaculture 3) Competition for resource species by recreational and commercial fishers 4) Shipping and Commercial fishing activities resulting in injury and mortality of threatened and endangered species (species deemed intrinsically and culturally valuable).
 1 (4%) 
 
 There is a risk to maximise short term benefits at the expense of long term sustainability.
 1 (4%) 
 
 We have had more realized conflicts between the marine environment and terrestrial activities, specifically looking at the trade-off between estuarine health and agriculture production in the upstream watershed
 1 (4%) 
 
 • There are always space use concerns. For example, some state and local governments see offshore wind energy farms as a challenge to their coastal tourism industry. This is mostly due to the perception that these farms are not visually pleasing. Likewise, there may be conflicts between the fishing industry and potential wind farm locations due to both competition for space/fishing grounds and potential disturbance to important fish species.
 3 (12%) 
 
 As there are countless examples of such conflicts, I will focus on examples that are most relevant to our work. These refer primarily to potential conflicts between the fisheries sector and conservation: • Management measures including area closures in MPAs which may conflict with fishing interests (at least in the short term) • Harmful fishing practices which can e.g. damage the seabed and thereby impact upon habitats • Overfishing, causing depletion of stocks (again, part of the potential conflict between environmental and socio-economic concerns) • Incidental bycatch of protected species including marine mammals Overall, any activity aimed at exploiting marine resources has the potential to impact on the marine environment, and thus may conflict with conservation concerns and vice versa. Generally, conflicts can of course arise wherever different sectors compete for the same area and/or resources, or where the respective activities interfere with each other. This includes all potential conflicts in terms of spatial planning, such as fisheries vs. energy (e.g. offshore-wind farms, oil & gas).
 1 (4%) 
 
 Two clear and recent conflicts experienced at NAFO include: 1) The conflict between conservation and access to fishing grounds that arose by the implementation of closures for the protection of VMEs. 2) The interference on the fishing grounds between seismic survey vessels and fishing boats. Two potential impacts include: 1) The impact on fisheries productivity from accidental spills from the offshore oil and gas development 2) The impact on fisheries productivity arising from the destruction of benthic communities by the development of deep sea mining Of course, other current and potential impacts are the changes in ecosystems structure and productivity as a consequence of climate change, which is associate with the "global" sector outside the boundaries of the managed ecosystems.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Potential conflicts between sectors are in terms of encroachment of activities to ensure economic viability and displacement of activities for safety reasons above ecological concerns.
 1 (4%) 
 
 See other USA NOAA answers
 1 (4%) 
 
 Fisheries and wind farms, environmental protection and resource utilization
 1 (4%) 
 
 - Oil vs Fisheries - Fisheries vs. conservation - Oil vs. conservation - Fisheries vs. wind-farms
 2 (8%) 
 
 n/a
 1 (4%) 
 
 Potential conflicts between commercial and recreational fisheries, and between fisheries and environmental concerns. Conflicts between fisheries and conservation of seals and cormorants. Conflicts between coastal exploitation and fish recruitment.
 1 (4%) 
 
 The main conflicts relate to the spatial co-existence of different activities
 1 (4%) 
 
 lack of intersectoral interaction/legal framework to interact; lack of platform for coherent marine spatial planning
 1 (4%) 
 
 The usual ones: fishing vs tourism & recreational use, fishing vs mining, mining vs food security, ship-based pollution vs food security, conservation vs exploitation, …
 1 (4%) 
 
Total: 25

21. The next set of questions concern the way forward.
Based on your experience, please rank where improvements in the ecosystem approach would be most effective:

  
Low
Average
High
(%)071836390
Improved planning of marine areas use
   
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
 12345N/A
(%)011421610
Improved science/knowledge to inform decisions
   
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
 12345N/A
(%)042929390
Improved stakeholder consultation
   
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
 12345N/A
(%)4421362511
Improved legal frameworks
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
12345N/A
Total: 28

22. If necessary, please describe any other improvements that you view as a priority:

 Improved collection of data to support broader ecosystem perspectives and indicators of state. Improved connection between data and modelling.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Moving beyond both an academic treatise and its integration into 'real life' planning processes.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Consideration of the impacts of multiple use/stressors within an area-based approach. Minimally across multiple fisheries, ideally across multiple stressors.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Improved information to the sectors on the benefits they will achieve when implementing an EA (what I perceive is that unfortunatelly, they will not move into an EA unless they see short term economic benefits)
 1 (6%) 
 
 Early and better stakeholder engagement and resources to monitor the results from management actions.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Early and better stakeholder engagement and resources to monitor the results from management actions. Requires large effort to ensure all work group participants can understand and visualize the data they were evaluating to make spatial management decisions on the size and configuration of the Research Area.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Improved intersectoral dialogue, for instance within national administrations.
 1 (6%) 
 
 Making the transition from a voluntary system to a legally mandated and binding system.
 1 (6%) 
 
 More science is always a good thing. But in addition to more science, better coordination among the sectors and stakeholders would help improve management of marine resources.
 3 (18%) 
 
 This may be seen as part of legal frameworks, but the need to develop practical mechanism for supporting Ecosystem Approach implementation in transboundary ecosystems.
 1 (6%) 
 
 - Cross-sectoral power sharing (new EA legislature) - Comprehensive trade-off analyses (focussing on ecosystem services)
 2 (12%) 
 
 n/a
 1 (6%) 
 
 Improved integration between socio-economic and ecosystem analyses, including environmental economics and stock status assessment as parts of the analyses.
 1 (6%) 
 
 N.A.
 1 (6%) 
 
Total: 17

23. Based on your experience, describe the main value in integrating management
 across marine sectors and what you see as the way forward in your region:

 The main benefits will be improved transparency and quality of decision-making, with the trade-offs that already happen being more explicit, better thought though, and having higher legitimacy,
 1 (4%) 
 
 Improved governance of maritime activities
 1 (4%) 
 
 This brings people to the same table and enables discussion and promotes understanding of different perspectives and experiences.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Application of marine spatial planning taking into account the value of ecosystem goods and services provides a means of delivering ecosystem system based management.
 1 (4%) 
 
 As described earlier if we can quantitatively assess the effect of the dam regulation on the recruitment of anchovy we can probably indirectly improve the management of the stock.
 1 (4%) 
 
 To ensure all stakeholders are part of solutions to optimize for sustainable use of marine resources.
 2 (8%) 
 
 More effective and efficient management of differing activities to optimise social, economic and environmental outcomes. The way forward is gradually evolving in our region, OSPAR is trying to do its part in engaging in cross sectoral dialogue, developing more integrated assessment tools, trying to develop more robust decision making and measures to deliver an EBM.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Integrated management will provide a vehicle to address conflicts among ocean use sectors. In contrast, single-sector management can create or exacerbate conflicts. Resolving tradeoffs is the key issue
 1 (4%) 
 
 By integrating the management across marine sectors, including the environment policy would be to achieve sustainable growth. In the EU, MS are required to adopte maritime spatial plans by 2021 which will provide a good opportunity to adopt an integrated management approach. Through the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MS have to consider all significant human pressures on the marine environment and address them collectively.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Allows for us to incorporate the known trade-offs and dependencies between sectors. It is the only way we can get to sustainable management that also optimizes sustained benefits to human communities
 1 (4%) 
 
 Balancing human activities with the protection of marine life is a difficult task. However, BOEM remains steadfastly committed to funding and supporting the science needed to better understand anthropogenic sounds and their impacts on marine life. Making decisions based on sound science, public input, and the best information available is critical to environmentally responsible development of the Nation’s offshore energy resources. BOEM, by using an adaptive management approach, will consider new scientific information as it becomes available during survey-specific environmental reviews.
 3 (12%) 
 
 Activities of marine sectors operating within the same ecosystem and using the same and/or interdependent resources should not be managed in isolation: they all have the potential to impact upon the ecosystem and its components, and can thus directly or indirectly affect each other as well. Appropriate stakeholder consultation and involvement is also important to identify potentially competing interests and effectively resolve conflicts. Environmental NGOs would probably be a lot less successful if they shied away from discussions with representatives of the fishing industry. It is important to acknowledge the different perspectives and motivations involved to find the right arguments that will pave the way for the best possible solution. Moreover, the best rules for environmental protection and sustainable exploitation will fail if they are not complied with. For example, the success of the landing obligation under the reformed CFP in minimising unwanted catches and discards thereof really depends on how it works on the water. Therefore, cross-sectoral collaboration, particularly between those dedicated to fisheries and conservation, is crucial.
 1 (4%) 
 
 The main value is actually two-fold, on one side it allows a full utilization of all resources in a sustainable way, but it also provides a framework that will minimize/moderate conflicts across sectors. On the fisheries side of things, a full implementation of the Roadmap within NAFO and the adoption of compatible and coordinated approaches within Canada would certainly provide a solid platform for building a broader EBM approach. The development of such broader EBM would fall more on Canada than NAFO, given their respective mandates and responsibilities, but an “expanded” NAFO could provide the organizational foundation to integrate open ocean activities (e.g. blue water fishing, deep sea mining). International bodies like the International Seabed Authority can provide knowledge on the activity-specific issues, but regional management organizations like NAFO may be in a better position to regionally integrate the operations of multiple sectors.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Integrating management across marine sectors provides assurance that e sustainable growth of maritime economies, the sustainable development of marine areas and the sustainable use of marine resources as is the aim of the MSP Directive while protecting the environment as is the aim of the MSFD.
 1 (4%) 
 
 Integrated management makes it possible to identify the main management priorities for a given geographic area in relation to the risks they involve for long term sustainability, to weigh the relative effects of different pressures against each other and in relation to benefits, and to consider cumulative, synergistic and antagonistic effects. Higher level policy agreements/directives are critical to facilitate and enforce progress, whereas education of stakeholders, scientists and managers is critical to drive the progress at a long term sustainable level.
 1 (4%) 
 
 - Identifying good compromises of uses of marine space and resources in crowded seas - Long-term sustainability and livelihoods
 2 (8%) 
 
 In principle it ensures robust decisions are made taking account of all the evidence across the board. in practice?
 1 (4%) 
 
 The main value is to optimize the sustainable use of the marine resources, that is, not to waste resources now or for future generations. The way forward in our region is to work out some local examples of how fishery management according to the ecosystem approach can be realised, in order to learn and hopefully achieve some good examples. In order to not waste too much time we will in parallel start to analyse our present fishery management and gradually move towards an ecosystem approach.
 1 (4%) 
 
 It would be the way of avoiding problems that there already related to the spatial co-existence of different maritime activities.
 1 (4%) 
 
 The most important way forward is to increase knowledge about ecosystem interactions. Once this knowledge is available, thourough marine spatial planning should allow for sectors to coexist and prosper within reasonable frame without "overusing"/exploiting/damaging the ecosystem
 1 (4%) 
 
 Current systems lets ecosystem goods and services, as well as the common people on the ground loose. Integrated approach carried out in a transparent, defensible, repeatable manner should improve matters. Need to network with other marine LMEs to achieve leverage through international best practice/international regulations.
 1 (4%) 
 
Total: 25

24. Thank you for completing this survey. Do you have any other thoughts for us?

 We need to consider Governance of the Oceans. Currently, an EA to Oceans management is challenged by the fact that in most (all?) Nations, despite some Oceans Acts, different sectors have different governing bodies, and thus no one Governing Body has the mandate over all activities. This can create problems for reaching multi-sector approaches to, and solutions for Oceans management .
 1 (8%) 
 
 I'm sorry I couldn't complete all of the questions. Some of them are precisely related to topics we are researching in the MareFrame project, and I personally don't feel I have the knowledge to answer them
 1 (8%) 
 
 Marine planning is critical to spatial allocation of marine resources to advance EBM.
 2 (15%) 
 
 A better survey interface!!!
 1 (8%) 
 
 No.
 3 (23%) 
 
 Thank you for organising this workshop, I am looking forward to it!
 1 (8%) 
 
 I hope this does not sound too silly or obvious, but in my own experience there are some simple elements that are important in getting traction for the implementation of an ecosystem approach. The first one is a clear structure of the elements required (flow diagram), but not in too generic terms (e.g. “ecosystem considerations”, or “sectoral integration”), it should depict specific components as they would apply for the concrete case in question (e.g. “multispecies assessment”, or “single species stock assessment”). Such a diagram allows all interested parties and contributors to the framework to see where they fit in the big picture, what they are bringing to the assessment and decision processes, and why their contributions/roles are important for the effective functioning of the overall approach. Ideally, the structure and components of this diagram would provide recognizable existing elements/processes/committees so that is clear that, even if their roles are changing, the building of the ecosystem approach does not throw away what exist today, but builds from and with it, and capitalizes on the cumulated experience of the participant organizations and stakeholders. Everyone has a role to play, even the old guard. The accompanying narrative to this diagram should provide a synoptic and clear description of the expected topics and outcomes from each element in the diagram, but not in terms of methods. It is important, especially in early stages of development that a given step in the process is linked to a clear product and outcome, but the methodological details should not define the step. For example, a multispecies assessment step should ideally contain a diversity of analyses like multispecies models, diets studies, consumption estimates, etc, but exactly which are the best tools and methods to deliver those analyses is for subject matter experts to decide. The box is not defined by the specific model or method used (i.e. it should not be the “EwE” or “Gadget” or “OSMOSE” box, those may be the tools, but they do not define the step, and as models improve, we can change them, but the expected outcome from the step remains: multispecies assessment). Furthermore, in many cases a necessary step can be identified and described as part of the flow process, but there is no knowledge to actually flesh it out. It is critical to keep those steps visible so that as the framework starts to get off the ground, those “empty” steps can be highlighted as gaps that need to be addressed. Furthermore, it is useful that frameworks are designed in a modular fashion, so that modules can be implemented as they are ready, without waiting for the full approach to be ready. This not only allows implementation even if resources are limited (i.e. you build and deploy one piece at a time), but also allows all participants of the process to experience progress more frequently (i.e. keeps them engaged; delayed gratification only works in books and movies). Equally valuable, since implementation is gradual, allows for an easier transition to new practices and procedures, and gives more opportunities for iron out the wrinkles that most definitely will emerge. Finally, it is critical for everyone involved to understand that things will not be perfect the first time, quite likely, far from it. The approach should be construed as iterative, and in the beginning it is more important to achieve consensus, adopt guiding principles, and start implementing “something” early on, than pushing for a fully comprehensive, watertight, and fully detailed structure from the get go; which typically means protracted discussions, delayed implementation, and confusion among participants (it can even generate distrust), because only a selected enlightened few will actually understand the true awesomeness and magnificence of the hyper complex and detailed framework. If we want ecosystem approaches to be more broadly adopted, we have to start simple, down to earth, and going for the low hanging fruit first; that will generate the momentum that will be needed to go over the more difficult bumps that lay in the road ahead.
 1 (8%) 
 
 The ecosystem approach has for a long time been a scientific endeavour based on its origins. We need to move this ecosystem approach to legislative, regulatory, policy and standards development.
 1 (8%) 
 
 no
 1 (8%) 
 
 Where we have most problems to see the way forward, towards the ecosystem approach, is regarding the fishery management according to the CFP. I was using Mozilla Firefox on a PC.
 1 (8%) 
 
Total: 13