Tools for MSP (FAQ 2)

This message was posted by: Sheila Heymans
Dear EBM Tool Listserver

I have compiled all some responses to this question based on Ecopath with Ecosim. The answers to the questions where EwE is useful for MSP is given in red below.

Tool Frequently-Asked Question #2: Are there tools that can help withmarine spatial planning?
 
 
Ecopath with Ecosim as a tool for MSP:
EwE is freeware that can be freely downloaded from www.ecopath.org. The tool has been widely used by over 6000 users.
 
Steps in the MSP process and needed tool functionality:
 
1)    Identify Need and Establish Authority
·         Map ocean governance (relevant authorities, laws, regulations, etc.)
 EwE is not usually used for this step, however, it can point to areas where MSP would be useful and where governance would be more important than others.
 
2)    Obtain Financial Support
 
3)    Organize the Process through Pre-Planning
·         Define ecosystem boundaries
EwE is very useful in defining and modelling the boundaries of the ecosystem, in a spatial sense through Ecospace, but also in the sense of what the boundaries to development and resilience of the ecosystem is (Heymans et al., 2007). It has been used for looking at different spatial scales and the effect it has on the management of different species (Preikshot, 2007). The Ecopath routine of EwE might be also useful to identify the area for which there is energetic balance in the food web and thus it has been used to identify ecosystem boundaries (Ciannelli et al. (2004).
·         Support development of social, economic, and ecological goals and objectives for process
EwE has a policy exploration routine that can be used to look at the best outcomes for social, economic and ecological goals, as well as the trade-offs between these (Christensen et al., 2004). In addition, the ability to include the economic value chain has recently been added. EwE models can evaluate revenue and cost of fish products from landings through processing, distribution, marketing and onto the consumer (Christensen et al. ms).
 
4)    Organize Stakeholder Participation
·         Engage stakeholders in process
Stakeholder involvement can be included in building the model, by having stakeholder workshops where the data on perceived changes in species can be included in the models (Ainsworth, 2006; Ainsworth et al., 2008). Another innovative way to engage stakeholder in decision-support methodologies is through visualization technologies that combine underlying scientific models with 3D gaming technology and simple decision-support interfaces. This will be described in detail at the “25 years of Ecopath” conference in August 2009 (http://conference.ecopath.org/)
 
5)    Define and Analyze Existing Conditions
·         Map important biological and ecological areas
·         Map oceanographic and other physical features (e.g. bathymetry, currents, sediments) if comprehensive biological data is not available
·         Map current human uses
·         Assess conflicts and compatibilities among human uses
·         Determine cumulative impacts of human uses on ecosystem health
·         Assess conflicts and compatibilities between human uses and ecosystem health
·         Manage project data
Ecospace is used to map the changes in the ecosystem over time as fishing and other drivers change. It is therefore useful to map important ecological areas, current human use, to look at conflicts and compatibilities among human uses, to look at cumulative impacts of human use on ecosystem health, and to assess the conflicts and compatibilities between human uses and ecosystem health. In general it is useful for looking at MPAs the changes in the ecological structure of the ecosystem over time. (Le Quesne et al., 2007).
 
6)    Define and Analyze Future Conditions
·         Predict future human demands for ocean use and potential impacts on ecosystem health
·         Create and visualize alternative spatial use scenarios for the planning area
·         Analyze tradeoffs between alternative spatial use scenarios
·         Select a preferred spatial use scenario
EwE will not necessarily predict future human demand, but it will look at the impacts of these demands on ecosystem health. Ecospace is very useful to visualize alternative spatial use scenarios for the planning area. Walters (2000) used Ecospace to look at how large MPAs need to be for dispersal, trophic responses and spatial fishing-effort responses and found that Ecospace can be used to demonstrate ecological consequences of alternative design strategies. This was also shown in Zucchetta et al., (2003) and Piroddi (2008). “Spatial optimization”, a new plug in of EwE6, assigns MPAs using two different procedures. The first one selects seeds in the spatial map and pick the ones that maximize certain objectivity functions (ecological, social, and economical criteria). The second procedure uses a Monte Carloapproach and is based on the likelihood of finding areas where selected objectivity functions (ecological, social, and economical criteria) are
maximized. These approaches become essential for evaluating MPAs sizing and placement (Christensen et al. submitted).
 
7)    Prepare and Approve the Spatial Management Plan
·         Evaluate effectiveness of possible management measures (e.g. marine protected areas, fishing gear regulations)
·         Develop alternative zoning plans with appropriate permitting, usage rules, and monitoring for each zone
·         Evaluate the degree to which zoning plans meet definite objectives
·         Select a preferred zoning plan
EwE is well placed to evaluate the effectiveness of possible management measures such as MPAs etc. This is specifically what Ecospace and the new “spatial optimization” tools are made to do.
 
8)    Implement and Enforce the Spatial Management Plan
·         Monitor user compliance with spatial management plan
 
9)    Monitor and Evaluate Performance
·         Develop monitoring indicators to determine spatial management plan success at meeting defined objectives
·         Develop monitoring system to track indicators
·         Report on outcomes
 
10)Adapt the Spatial Management Process
 
References:
Ainsworth, C.. H. 2006. Strategic marine ecosystem restoration in Northern British Columbia. PhD. Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver.
 
Ainsworth, C..H., Pitcher, T., and Rotinsulu, C., 2008.  Evidence of fishery depletions and shifting cognitive baselines in Eastern Indonesia.  Biological Conservation, 141: 848:859.
 
Christensen, V., Steenbeek, J., and Failler, P., MS. A combined ecosystem and value chain modeling approach for evaluating societal cost and benefit of fishing.
 
Christensen, V. and C. J. Walters. 2004. Trade-offs in Ecosystem-scale Optimization of Fisheries Management Policies. Bulletin of Marine Science 74:549-562.
 
Christensen, V., Ferdaña, Z., Steenbeek, J. Spatial optimization of protected area placement incorporating ecological, social and economical criteria. (Submitted) Ecological Modelling, Dec. 2008.
 
Ciannelli et al. 2004. Ecological Applications, 14(3): 942–953.
 
Heymans, J. J., S. Guenette, and V. Christensen. 2007. Evaluating network analysis indicators of ecosystem status in the Gulf of Alaska. Ecosystems 10:488-502.
 
Le Quesne, W. J. F., F. Arreguín-Sánchez, and J. J. Heymans. 2007. INCOFISH Ecosystem models: Transitting from Ecopath to Ecospace. Fisheries Centre Research Report 15(6), Fisheries Centre.
 
Piroddi, C., 2008. An ecosystem-based approach to study two dolphin populations around the Islandof Kalamos, Ionian Sea, Greece. M.Sc. thesis. Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver.
 
Preikshot, D. 2007. The influence of geographic scale, climate and trophic dynamics upon North Pacific oceanic ecosystem models. PhD. Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver.
 
Walters C.J., 2000. Impacts of dispersal, ecological interactions, and fishing effort dynamics on efficacy of marine protected areas: how large should protected areas be? Bulletin of Marine Science, 66: 745-757.
 
Zucchetta M., Libralato S., Granzotto A., Pranovi F., Raicevich S., Torricelli P., 2003. Modelling approach for the evaluation of the efficacy of MPA in the Northern Adriatic Sea. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environment, MEDCOAST 03, E. Özhan (Editor), 7-11 October 2003, Ravenna, Italy: 433-443.
 
 
Best regards
Sheila JJ Heymans 
Scottish Association for Marine Science
Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory
Dunbeg
Oban
PA37 1QA
Scotland