Embedding science into ICZM – example of FP6 SPICOSA

1. Embedding science into ICZM – example of FP6 SPICOSA Josianne G. Støttrup, Grete E. Dinesen, Karen Timmermann, Stiig Markager, Eva Roth and Lars Ravn-Jonsen DTU Aqua, Section for Coastal Ecology National Environmental Research Institute, Aarhus University University of Southern Denmark

3. SPICOSA project structure Policy & Socio-economy SAF: System Design Formulation Appraisal Output Model support Data handling Strategy develop. Dissimination 18 study sites Education & guidelines ICZM & scientific support

5. System Design (spring 2008) NO FISH EUTRO-PHICATION HYPOXIA Policy issues:1) regulation of nutrient effluents to reduce eutrophication; 2) potential closure of the mussel fishery due to national implementation of international directives; 3) potential resource conflicts between mussel fishers and mussel farmers.

6. System Design Musselfishery – entire Limfjord Line musselculture – central Limfjord Virtual system - Model

7. Conceptual flow diagram of the ESE-model Line mussels Nutrientloading Temperature Line effort Ingestion Empirical relation Line harvest Primaryproduction Mortality + respiration Phytoplanktonbiomass Mussel bank harvest Faecalproduction Detruitus Ingestion Fishingeffort Tempfisheryclosure (HAB) shallowmussels Small size Medium size Harvestable size Cost-benefitanalysis Min. biomass No.licences Benthicmussels Quotas Hypoxia

8. Formulation Step The formulas Structure of the EcologicalcomponentusingExtend Software

9. Formulation Step Simulation scenarioussuggested by stakeholders 1) reductions of Total N and P 2) closure of the wild mussel fishery 3) introduction of line-mussel culture

10. Appraisal Step Hindcast – phytoplanktongrowth Model simulation of phytoplankton growth (---) is calibrated close to the values measured in the real system (---).

11. OUTPUT step

12. Output Step

13. Phosphorloading Nitrogen loading Output Step

14. RESULTS of Scenario 1. Reductions of total N and P loadings Reductions in N alone to WFD target (47% level) showed: Minordecrease in phytoplanktonbiomass Decrease(~25%) of shallow and deep water mussel biomass Decrease (~50%) of mussel fishery profit

15. RESULTS of Scenario 1. Reductions of total N and P loadings Reductions in N alone to WFD target (47% level) showed: Minordecrease in phytoplanktonbiomass Decrease(~25%) of shallow and deep water mussel biomass Decrease (~50%) of mussel fishery profit Reductions in N and P to the 47% levelwouldresult in: Minordecrease in phytoplanktonbiomass(~20%) Decrease(~50%) of shallow and deep water mussel biomass Almost collapse of mussel fishery

16. RESULTS of Scenario 2. Closure of wildmusselfishery a >10 fold increase in hitherto fishable mussel biomass a >10 fold decrease in shallow-water and medium-sized deep-water mussel biomass an annual profit loss of ~€6.2 million

17. RESULTS Scenario 3. Introduction of line musselculture had little impact on wild mussel fishery had little impact on shallow-water mussel biomass Number of mussel farms

18. Stakeholders • Scenario simulation results provided • both recognizable and unexpected results, which stimulated discussion among stakeholders • credible overview of the ecosystem they were familiar with • cognition of a higher ecosystem complexity than hitherto understood • changes in stakeholder perceptions • The SAF seems well qualified for developing a common understanding of the needs and consequences of change as part of the public consultation process and merging public and scientific information.