Elena Gissi

Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Ionian region

Maritime spatial planning (MSP) is envisaged as a tool to apply an ecosystem-based approach to the marine and coastal realms, aiming at ensuring that the collective pressure of human activities is kept within acceptable limits. Cumulative impacts (CI) assessment can support science-based MSP, in order to understand the existing and potential impacts of human uses on the marine environment. A CI assessment includes several sources of uncertainty that can hinder the correct interpretation of its results if not explicitly incorporated in the decision-making process. This study proposes a three-level methodology to perform a general uncertainty analysis integrated with the CI assessment for MSP, applied to the Adriatic and Ionian Region (AIR). We describe the nature and level of uncertainty with the help of expert judgement and elicitation to include all of the possible sources of uncertainty related to the CI model with assumptions and gaps related to the case-based MSP process in the AIR. Next, we use the results to tailor the global uncertainty analysis to spatially describe the uncertainty distribution and variations of the CI scores dependent on the CI model factors. The results show the variability of the uncertainty in the AIR, with only limited portions robustly identified as the most or the least impacted areas under multiple model factors hypothesis. The results are discussed for the level and type of reliable information and insights they provide to decision-making. The most significant uncertainty factors are identified to facilitate the adaptive MSP process and to establish research priorities to fill knowledge gaps for subsequent planning cycles. The method aims to depict the potential CI effects, as well as the extent and spatial variation of the data and scientific uncertainty; therefore, this method constitutes a suitable tool to inform the potential establishment of the precautionary principle in MSP.

Multi-objective spatial tools to inform maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic Sea

This research presents a set of multi-objective spatial tools for sea planning and environmental management in the Adriatic Sea Basin. The tools address four objectives: 1) assessment of cumulative impacts from anthropogenic sea uses on environmental components of marine areas; 2) analysis of sea use conflicts; 3) 3-D hydrodynamic modelling of nutrient dispersion (nitrogen and phosphorus) from riverine sources in the Adriatic Sea Basin and 4) marine ecosystem services capacity assessment from seabed habitats based on an ES matrix approach. Geospatial modelling results were illustrated, analysed and compared on country level and for three biogeographic subdivisions, Northern-Central-Southern Adriatic Sea. The paper discusses model results for their spatial implications, relevance for sea planning, limitations and concludes with an outlook towards the need for more integrated, multi-functional tools development for sea planning.

Ecosystem services: building informed policies to orient landscape dynamics

In reaction to traditional environmental management approaches grounded on the paradigm ‘control change in systems’ (Quay 2010), ecosystem services (ES) have emerged as a novel way of understanding ecosystem and landscape dynamics, including landscape change, and interactions and flows between human and natural systems. ES have recently been redefined as the ‘contributions of ecosystem structure and function – in combination with other inputs – to human well-being’ (Burkhard et al. 2012, p. 2). This new notion of ‘other inputs’ refers to the significant, mainly anthropogenic, modifications of ecosystem functions in form of, for example, inputs of energy, fertilizers, labor, knowledge or other forms of material or information. Other definitions refer to ES as benefits for societies deriving from some ecosystem functions (HainesYoung & Potschin 2010). This definition puts in evidence that not all ecosystem functions are identified or constitute benefits for human societies, but are instead subjected to a process of selection and recognition by the beneficiaries of the final ES (Wolff et al. 2015). The central role of humans in the concept of ES is seen as an advantage to assist decision-making processes, where decision-makers, stakeholders, scientists and practitioners reflect and contribute on ES toward a specific policy goal. The focus of this Special Issue is on ES as a tool to support and inform decisions in landscape-related policies and planning. The Issue considers methodologies for the identification of ES beneficiaries and providers, investigating interrelationships between landscape structures, ecosystem functions, ES and human benefits. At the same time, ES potentials and flows are addressed in the context of landscape dynamics and change as well as social dynamics.

Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies

ABSTRACT We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine ecosystems. EDITED BY Sebastian Villasante

Non-Market Ecosystem Services of Agricultural Land and Priorities Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture in Italy

Ecosystems provide a range of services, commonly called Ecosystem Services (ESs), which are of fundamental importance to human well-being, health, livelihoods, and survival. One of the largest and most productiveecosystems is agricultural land. Agro-Ecosystems provide a range of services directly linked to the market (e.g. food and raw materials production) but also many others of high ecological value, which have an indirect economical contribution in the GDP (non-market ESs). These non-market services are not usually taken into account in the development of agricultural management strategies while their contribution is reduced due to non-sustainable agricultural practices. The aim of the study is to assess the potential economic contribution of the non-market services at national, regional, and provincial level in Italy and to propose a simplified index-based method for setting priorities at different scales of administration units for the implementation of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs). The results of the study showed that the potential non-market value of agro-ecosystem services (AESs) in Italy can reach ~46.2 billion USD

Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization

2007. This estimate shows that non-market AESs can play an important role in the national GDP if SAPs are followed. Finally, a priority ranking scheme for the implementation of SAPs was proposed at regional and provincial level which can be a valuable decision support tool for promoting sustainable agriculture policies.

Promoting ancillary conservation through marine spatial planning

The Adriatic and Ionian Region is an important area for both strategic maritime development and biodiversity conservation in the European Union (EU). However, given that both EU and non-EU countries border the sea, multiple legal and regulatory frameworks operate at different scales, which can hinder the coordinated long-term sustainable development of the region. Transboundary marine spatial planning can help overcome these challenges by building consensus on planning objectives and making the trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and its influence on economically important sectors more explicit. We address this challenge by developing and testing 4 spatial prioritization strategies with the decision-support tool Marxan, which meets targets for biodiversity conservation while minimizing impacts to users. We evaluated these strategies in terms of how priority areas shift under different scales of target setting (e.g., regional vs. country level). We also examined the trade-off between cost-efficiency and how equally solutions represent countries and maritime industries (n = 14) operating in the region with the protection-equality metric. We found negligible differences in where priority conservation areas were located when we set targets for biodiversity at the regional versus country scale. Conversely, the prospective impacts on industries, when considered as costs to be minimized, were highly divergent across scenarios and biased the placement of protection toward industries located in isolation or where there were few other industries. We recommend underpinning future marine spatial planning efforts in the region through identification of areas of national significance, transboundary areas requiring cooperation between countries, and areas where impacts on maritime industries require careful consideration of the trade-off between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic objectives.

A toolkit to study seabird–fishery interactions

The term Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) refers to areas which are not protected areas and yet significantly contribute to conservation; they were recently defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Efforts to address the designation of OECMs include further definition of the term and the development of typologies of OECMs and of screening tools which can be applied to identify potential OECMs. While the designation process of OECMs is still unclear, especially in the marine environment, we suggest a decision process which can be used by planners to identify and designate specific types of OECMs as part of the marine spatial planning (MSP) process. These OECMs are areas where marine communities benefit from access restrictions established due to safety or security concerns. We applied the suggested process on two case studies of the Italian Northern Adriatic and the Israeli Mediterranean seas. When consideration of OECMs comes at the expense of designating marine protected areas, OECMs can become controversial. However, OECM designation can promote achievement of marine conservation goals and of ecosystem-based management of uses. Therefore, we suggest that while spatial targets for conservation should focus mainly on areas dedicated for marine reserves, OECMs, especially of the type for ancillary conservation discussed in this paper, can be achieved through MSP. Using MSP for the designation of recognized OECMs may significantly promote marine conservation goals in unexpected ways and may ¬help realize ecosystem-based management.

Sustainable energy potential from biomass through ecosystem services trade-off analysis: The case of the Province of Rovigo (Northern Italy)

A toolkit to study seabird–fishery interactions Tangi Le Bot*, Amélie Lescroël, and David Grémillet Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175, CNRS—Université de Montpellier—Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier EPHE, Montpellier, France Point Blue Conservation Science, 3820 Cypress Drive, Suite 11, Petaluma, CA 94954, USA Percy FitzPatrick Institute and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence at the University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa *Corresponding author: tel: þ33 (0) 467 613 309; e-mail: tangi.lebot@cefe.cnrs.fr. Le Bot, T., Lescroël, A., and Grémillet, D. A toolkit to study seabird–fishery interactions. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75: 1513– 1525.