Final Report Summary - ARCH (Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons)
Executive Summary:
Lagoons and estuaries are located at the interface between land and sea and the transition between fresh and salt water. They represent highly dynamic and productive ecosystems with a very complex structure. The complexity of managing lagoons and estuary systems is increased as a result of multiple pressures originating from urban, industrial, agricultural, and recreational activities as well as influences from climate change.
The ARCH research project “Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons” aims to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with policy makers, local authorities and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons (estuarine coastal areas). A central feature of ARCH is to provide realistic solutions to manage these pressures and establish a better connection (the arch) between science and policy. This is accomplished by facilitating the transition (i) from segregated disciplinary scientific results to well integrated and usable scientific knowledge, (ii) from “government” and sectorial policies towards “governance” and sustainable management; and (iii) from an unaware and uninformed “lagoon community” towards an involved and well-informed community. ARCH worked with 10 case study lagoons and estuaries having a geographical distribution covering all major seas surrounding Europe. A participatory workshop methodology was used at the lagoon sites to develop a decision framework to choose strategies, interventions and measures to manage the existing and future problems in the lagoon. This was accomplished using an integrated planning approach, considering ecosystem services to assess the social, economic and ecological state of the lagoon and linking this to spatial planning methodology. The final products of ARCH are roadmaps for implementation of realistic solutions at the lagoon scale, a management guide for coastal managers and policy makers in Europe and the European Lagoon Management Handbook. The project actively disseminated products and experiences via newsletters, multiplier seminars, a website and a final conference. Legacy of the project is ensured by developing architecture for a roadmap for implementation of an integrative and adaptive management framework with an emphasis on governance based on understanding the vulnerability of lagoons and estuaries.
The central objective of the project is to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with the involved managers, policy makers and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons in Europe. This has generated realistic solutions and provided roadmaps for their implementation at the lagoon scale.
Project Context and Objectives:
Management strategies for lagoons and estuaries should be based upon two solid pillars: science and policy. The challenge for implementing existing science and policy is the lack of integration and interpretation between the two, which is a major hindrance for application by lagoon managers, policy makers and stakeholders at the lagoon scale.
Scientific research has shown that despite extensive monitoring over the past decades a proper description of the natural system dynamics in estuaries is hardly feasible. Predictions of the effects of future changes in pressures and stressors are therefore challenging. Determining a reference state in estuaries to define good ecological status following the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive is confounded by this phenomenon. Lagoons are also sites of high human activity as they formed natural harbours and protection against storms in historic times. Abundance of fish has formed the basis for settlements and economic development. In modern times tourism is a major driving force for its regional development. This has resulted in conflicting interest between the different stakeholders depending on the proper functioning of the lagoon. Balanced ecologic, social, economic and cultural development is required. This forms the basis for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) which requires ecosystem based tools as well as the participation of all involved stakeholders.
The main policies that manage the European coastal zone emphasizes ecological aspects as illustrated and implemented by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFB). ICZM functions as an intermediate link between terrestrial and coastal management as well as between freshwater and marine systems as specified in the WFD and the MSDF. The WFD is a legislative framework that rationalises and updates existing water legislation by setting common objectives for water (inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater) and introduces an integrated and coordinated approach to water management in Europe. The MSDF aims to ensure that the seas and oceans are clean, healthy and productive and that they are managed in a sustainable manner for the benefit of future generations. As with the WFD, the MSFD centres on ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) and that ‘member states shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest.’
The ARCH research project “Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons” aims to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with policy makers, local authorities and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons (estuarine coastal areas). These areas represent ecosystems that are very vulnerable for climate change, increasing urbanisation and industrialisation. A central feature of ARCH is to provide realistic solutions to manage these pressures and establish a better connection (the arch) between science and policy. This is accomplished by facilitating the transition (i) from segregated disciplinary scientific results to well integrated and usable scientific knowledge, (ii) from “government” and sectoral policies towards “governance” and sustainable management; and (iii) from an unaware and uninformed “lagoon community” towards an involved and well-informed community. ARCH has worked with 10 case study lagoons and estuaries having a geographical distribution covering all major seas surrounding Europe.
A set of coastal lagoons has been selected that represent hotspots in their respective regions. The case study sites cover the interface between the land surface of the European Union and the main seas surrounding it including the Baltic Sea in the north east, the Kattegat (the transition to the North Sea), Norwegian Sea/North Sea, Atlantic Coast, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea (Table 1).
Table 1 Overview over the 10 case study sites.
Site Name Region Characteristics
1 Vistula Baltic sea Coastal lagoon and estuary
2 Göta älv Kattegat Estuary
3 Byfjorden Norwegian sea Fjord
4 Elbe North sea Estuary
5 Rhine North sea Estuary
6 Broads North sea Coastal wetlands
7 Òbidos Atlantic ocean Coastal lagoon
8 Lesina Mediteranean sea Coastal lagoon
9 Amvrakikos Mediteranean sea Coastal lagoon
10 Razelm-Sinoe Black sea Lagoon in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
The central objective of the project is to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with the involved managers, policy makers and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons in Europe. This has generated realistic solutions and provided roadmaps for their implementation at the lagoon scale.
In order to address this central research objective, ARCH has
1. Promoted an integrated research approach to minimize the boundaries between the multiple scientific disciplines related to understanding the vulnerabilities of lagoon and estuary systems now and in the future.
2. Integrated existing scientific information in the context of ecosystem services to assess the state of the social, economic and ecological framework for the established lagoon case study sites and link this to a spatial planning methodology.
3. Employed a true participatory process with stakeholders including policy makers, authorities, NGO’s and businesses to describe each lagoon system and prepare “State-of-the-lagoon” reports.
4. Formulated realistic strategies towards sustainable lagoon management, in light of present and future pressures including climatic change, increased urbanisation and industrialisation and develop “Roadmaps for lagoon management.”
5. Ensured legacy of the project by developing architecture for a roadmap for implementation of an integrative and adaptive management framework with an emphasis on governance based on understanding the vulnerability of lagoons and estuaries.
In the initial phase of the project the main focus has been to minimise the boundaries between the multiple scientific disciplines and to integrate existing scientific information in the context of ecosystem services to assess the state of the social, economic and ecological framework for the established lagoon case study sites. An important output of the ARCH project has been the preparation of “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each of the ten case study sites. In order to prepare the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports, a unified methodological approach was developed, the “Integrated framework for analysis of the lagoon system.” The process of creating this framework entailed developing an integrated socio-ecological framework for describing the lagoon system structure and its internal relations as a backbone of the case studies. The framework included the use of both indicators and narratives to describe the lagoon regions as systems composed of two interrelated parts: the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human system’ (composed of the socio-economic and the governance components).
Once the comprehensive structure for the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports was developed with all involved scientists in the project, existing data were collected by each partner at their respective case study sites. The data were integrated and presented in the context of ecosystem services, with an emphasis on minimising the boundaries between the different scientific disciplines, for each “State-of-the-lagoon” report. These reports have been central during the case study site workshops. The design of the ARCH workshop methodology has included a detailed evaluation framework for each case study site: Case study record – Starting point, Evaluations after each workshop (completed by the participants), Case study record – Finishing point, and a final Evaluation of the case study (completed by the case study point of contact). The sequence of workshops at each case study site has focused on i) the current "State-of-the-lagoon," (ii) future challenges to the lagoon considering climate change, and iii) roadmaps for local lagoon management. The experiences gained from the activities at each case study site were central to the key final deliverables of the ARCH project: the European Lagoon Management Handbook and the Guide for the coastal lagoon manager.
In addition to workshops at the case study sites, the ARCH Consortium has held Evaluation and Instruction workshops. This included collaboration with the Advisory Committee consisting of internationally acknowledged scientists, policy makers and stakeholders external to the project. These experts provided their recognized and independent assessment of the research performed over the course of the project and of the practical feasibility and public acceptability of the strategy developed. The Advisory Committee has taken active part in evaluating the experiences from the workshops and has given important input and feedback to the project so far. In addition, collaboration with the European FP7 LAGOONS project as well as the European Sediment Network (SedNet) has continued.
International institutions and organisations such as relevant policy networks, ministries and local governments' associations are important door openers and multipliers for lagoon management. Therefore, two European multiplier seminars convening representatives of such (inter)national organisations that work together with local governments on lagoon management and sustainability issues have been organized to introduce the outputs of the ARCH project and encourage their promotion across Europe.
Project Results:
3 MAIN S&T RESULTS
This chapter briefly describes the outcomes and significant results for each WP.
3.1 WP1: DEVELOPMENT OF A PARTICIPATORY LAGOON MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
The main objective of this work package is to develop the European lagoon management process resulting in a Handbook, with training guide and process design. This WP has run as long as the project lasted and was geared at nourishing the project with sound knowledge management and (policy) process management.
The ARCH Consortium partners represent scientific disciplines from the natural sciences (ecosystems, coastal sedimentology and morphology, chemistry, eco-toxicology, etc.), social sciences (governance, spatial planning, coastal management, etc.) and economics (ecosystem services, regional economic development, etc). An effort has been made to emphasise the advantages of this multi-disciplinary background by focusing on the scientific knowledge integration as a discussion topic as well as incorporating scientific knowledge integration into all consortium meetings that have been held. This has been accomplished by employing participatory activities into each meeting, which captures the connections between the scientific disciplines (Task 1.1).
Discussion topics have also included preparing for the workshops which have been held at each case study site in 2013 and 2014. Workshop methodology topics have included outlining rules for stakeholder involvement, the stakeholder selection process, identifying the policy process at each case study site as well as methods for documenting the outputs from the case workshops (Task 1.2). The experiences from using these methodologies within the Consortium provided important input to deliverable D1.2.
All activities and experiences were synthesized in the final Task 1.3 which produced the European Lagoon Management Handbook (deliverable D1.3).
WP1 tasks throughout the entire project period are listed below and followed by a more detailed summary for those tasks carried out during the project:
• Task 1.1: Scientific knowledge integration for evidence based lagoon management
• Task 1.2: Workshop methodology for integrated lagoon management
• Task 1.3: European Lagoon Management Handbook
Task 1.1 Scientific knowledge integration for evidence based lagoon management
This task was directed towards gathering, managing and integrating the available scientific knowledge in such a way that it became meaningful for management and policy development for lagoons in Europe. This has been accomplished by collecting insights and experiences of the process of preparing the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each case study site (WP2: “State-of-the-Lagoon” reports). The process has focused on the learning that has taken place; identifying new and difficult aspects of preparing the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports, connecting the scientific disciplines as well as overcoming any problems with integrating the scientific knowledge. Consortium discussions have captured these insights which are reported and summarised in deliverable D1.1.
Deliverable D1.1 (Scientific knowledge integration) evaluated the process to connect the various disciplines and the extent to which interdisciplinarity was achieved in ARCH. The aim has been twofold: 1) to analyze the collaborative process to realize interdisciplinarity between the disciplines; 2) to assess the level of interdisciplinarity achieved in the research.
The report concludes that the ARCH-project achieved a sufficiently high degree of interdisciplinarity in producing the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports in the first one and a half years of the project. With regard to the degree of interdisciplinarity the following observations have been made:
• The scope of the ARCH project has a high level of interdisciplinarity: there are eleven different research institutes involved, covering at least eight different disciplines and crossing social and natural sciences.
• When it comes to the degree of interactive research, the level of interdisciplinarity differs. Some research components have been accomplished in a quite interactive way, leading to interdisciplinary results, while other components have been produced in a less interactive manner, leading to less interdisciplinary results.
• The level of interdisciplinary understanding of the empirical phenomena is relatively high, although this counts more for the overall project level than for the individual case study analyses.
• The ARCH project achieved a relatively high level of interdisciplinary learning. All respondents note that they learned quite much of the project so far and note that they now more appreciate the relevance and the value of other disciplinary knowledge.
Further reflection on the interdisciplinarity process focused on factors discussed in literature to realize interdisciplinary research, which appeared to be present and were considered to be important by the project partners with respect to interdisciplinarity in ARCH. These factors include; the open mindedness of the project partners, trust building between the partners, the role of facilitative leadership, the importance of developing a common vocabulary and the role of boundary objects in this respect. What is particularly interesting in the ARCH project is how these different factors were facilitated by the project managers and how these different factors were structured in the process of the ARCH project. Although a blueprint for managing interdisciplinary processes will not work, several important elements for facilitating and reaching interdisciplinarity could be derived from this analysis.
Task 1.2 Workshop methodology for integrated lagoon management
The workshop methodology that has been developed is based on the European Awareness Scenario Workshop methodology (EASW) that was developed for Urban Sustainable Development in the EU. This is a participatory policy making method that involves stakeholders, policy makers, and scientists in a joint process of generating and selecting policy options. Task 1.2 also has included the design for each workshop and the necessary training of the people who facilitated these workshops on the local level.
The methodology consists of a series of three workshops with discussions at the local level between policy makers, scientists and stakeholders. Participants were invited to discuss the current and future state of their lagoon / estuary with respect to the influence of urbanization, industrialization, and climate change impacts.
• Workshop 1 – The present state of the lagoon: The discussion was nourished by the ‘State-of-the-Lagoon’ report. Participants discussed the report which was subsequently revised according to the discussion and in such a way that participants were “owners” of the report. The workshop facilitated improved and shared understanding of the existing social-ecological lagoon system;
• Workshop 2 – The future of the lagoon: In the second workshop, participants were invited to achieve a common vision on the future of the lagoon. The influence of pressures such as climate change, urbanization and industrialization were be discussed to recognize the threats and opportunities for the lagoon system.
• Workshop 3 – Roadmap development: interventions, measures and monitoring: During the third workshop, strategies, measures and interventions were identified in order to achieve the common vision defined during the second workshop. Participants were invited to develop a roadmap to articulate interventions and measures.
Each case study site workshop has been preceded by an instruction session and succeeded by a reflection session to collect the experiences from the partners (shown in Figure 2):
• PT1: Instruction workshop 8-10 October 2012 in Norwich, England
• PT2: Evaluation and Instruction workshop 27-29 May 2013 in Gdansk, Poland
• PT3: Evaluation and Instruction workshop 3-5 November 2013 in Obidos, Portugal
• PT4: Evaluation and Instruction workshop 16-18 June 2014 in Gothenburg, Sweden
Figure 2. Workshop methodology including case study and project team meetings.
The design of the workshop methodology was specified in an evaluation framework that each case study site received. There are four different types of evaluations that have taken place over the last year at each case study site:
• Case study record – Starting point: the goal of this case study record was to present a description of the plan and process for the case study before the beginning of the case study process.
• Evaluation workshops by Participants: the purpose of this evaluation was to provide participants with an opportunity to reflect on their experiences of each workshop in the case study.
• Case study record – Finishing point: the goal of this case study record was to collect detailed information about the experience of the ARCH project team with the workshops at the end of the case study process and to reflect on the plan and process as was described in the case study record ‘starting point’.
• Evaluation case study: the goal of this evaluation was to ask the main contact point of the case study to evaluate the process and results of the case study from the part of the case study partner with whom you cooperated.
A schematic overview of the evaluation framework including all templates for evaluation and how they are connected is provided below (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Workshop evaluation framework
All of the documentation from the case study sites was collected and synthesized in the Workshop methodology report (D1.2).
Task 1.3: European Lagoon Management Handbook
The purpose of this European Lagoon Management Handbook is to inform managers, policymakers and facilitators on a specific participatory approach for management of coastal waters (lagoons, estuaries and fjords) or coastal zones that was developed in the ARCH-project. It gives very specific and detailed information on how to organise such a participatory process. It provides instructions on what to do for all those who would like to start a participatory process. It contains details about how to select and invite stakeholders, how to organise the workshop process, and how to evaluate the process. Furthermore, the handbook contains a “self-training guide”.
This handbook is organised into sections, with the first section providing the context of the ARCH-methodology and elaborating on the two pillars of sustainable lagoon management: policy and science. It is argued that the establishment of a solid integration of these components is crucial. In the second section, the existing European policy frameworks regarding coastal zone management and marine planning are analysed. It is concluded that all policies make a passionate plea for coordination across different governmental levels and the early adoption of stakeholder interests in the process. In the third section, the three basic paradigm shifts on which the ARCH methodology is based are explored. Sections 4 and 5 respectively focus on theoretical foundations behind the policy and knowledge aspects of these paradigm shifts. Section 6 and 7 present how the ideas have been translated into a methodology based on stakeholder participation, sharing of knowledge, and resulting in actionable roadmaps. The final section reflects on the conditions for success as presented in table 2.
Table 2. Conditions for success for the workshop methodology
Condition for success Explanation of how the condition for success can become manifest
Workshop process and facilitation
• Professional facilitation, by for instance an independent facilitator
• Creation of trust between the people who organized the workshops and the stakeholders
• Focus on interaction, creating interaction between stakeholders is often an important step, even if stakeholders disagree this shows what perspectives are at the table
• Take the time to interact and act on what the stakeholders need in the process, sometimes it is necessary to take more time for a certain workshop (not a 1 day event but more days), for instance to open up the minds, to emphasize the systems approach, to get insight in the most important concerns
Problem framing • Clarity on the aims, if the aim of the workshop process is not clear, the outcomes will not be targeted
• Framing problems on a time scale, to frame the problem you need to know what is at stake: short term and long term, what is immediate and apparent
Participation
• Take time for the preparation process, this helps to have a good start with the participation, interviews can help in collecting ideas and wishes, expectations and points of view, it can also convince participants to join in the process
• Good attendance of stakeholders to the workshops
• Make sure there is a good mix of different perspectives at the table, in this way all voices are heard
• Participation for a real cause, that participants understand how their input will be taken up in the process, that they are part of the process
• Focus on values, values among stakeholders can be different, but all views are legitimate and the focus on values gives the possibility to look for commonalities
• Different participants can bring forward different time scales, citizens and businesses think in terms of next year, scientists and academics have a much longer time frame; you need to understand both sides of how people frame the process and their thinking
• Keeping a broad view on possible participants, unusual suspects in the process can put forward new insights that normally wouldn’t be at the table, for instance schoolchildren or teachers
Interdisciplinary science
• A well designed and facilitated process of interaction is needed
• Stimulate open mindedness of researchers and a joint willingness to learn
• Build trust in the process and between people
• Stimulate cross-disciplinary interaction
• Work towards a joint product
• Site visits as joint field experiences
State-of-the-lagoon report
• Broader perspective on issues at stake, often in ongoing processes not all issues at stake are taken up based on the whole lagoon system (the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human system’, the latter is composed of the ‘socio-economic system’ and the governance system)
• Connection between scientific research and real life problems, the usefulness of the state-of-the-lagoon report is in connecting research of scientists (who think about problems in a scientific way) to real life problems (the people in the area connect their problems to practical issues); how do you make a connection to the practical issues of the people and the complexity of the issues behind it
• Using the development process as an educational activity, in order to get common knowledge, sharing the information is needed
Link to policy process
• Connecting to an ongoing policy issue, being able to tie the workshop process to a (ongoing) policy issue
• Creating attention on a higher level and involving a ‘facilitative leader’, sometimes focusing on consequences of making physical changes in an area attracts attention and then also decision-makers become interested
• Flexible process design based on policy process, if you manage to find a connection to the policy process, this does have as a consequence that you don’t start from scratch but connect to a ongoing process and this asks for flexibility in the (workshop) process tailored to the needs of the policy process
Output and results
• Focus on a continuous dialogue, the outcome is not necessarily a roadmap or a plan, the outcome is to have sustainable lagoon system, good quality of life, good quality of environment; the roadmap is a means to achieve that, participants don’t come to a meeting to end up with a document, they want to talk about real issues that matter
• The roadmap is a starting point, getting people to talk together is the bigger success for the long term, so if you have a roadmap the work has only started
• Creating a lasting management plan, success is related to the outcome like a lasting management plan
• Do not focus on one outcome or results, several outcomes can be useful, for instance guidance that people can use in their ongoing process, doing follow-up activities in the area concerning implementation
Timing and location of events
• Timing of meetings, is important in order to have different stakeholders attend meetings (for instance farmers have difficulty attending meetings in the day time)
• Location of events, people are sometimes triggered by facilities offered at the meetings (dinners) or having the meetings in their own area
Availability of resources
• Resources need to be available in order to organize the workshops, to have expertise present, carrying the process further etcetera
The appendices of this handbook provide a detailed methodology manual and self-training guide to facilitate and disseminate the application of the method.
3.2 WP2: “STATE-OF-THE-LAGOON” REPORTS
The main objective of this work package was to deliver the integrated “State-of-the lagoon” reports for each of the ten case studies. A central aspect of this WP was to provide an integrated framework for the description of the lagoon system in a multidisciplinary framework (from a natural, spatial, social, and economic perspective).
In order to prepare the “State-of-the lagoon” reports for each of the case study sites, a unified methodological approach was developed (Task 2.1). This entailed developing an integrated socio-ecological framework for describing the lagoon system structure and its internal relations as a backbone of the aforesaid case studies. The framework included the use of both indicators and narratives to describe the lagoon regions as systems composed of two interrelated parts: the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human system’ (composed of the socio-economic and the governance components).
Once the comprehensive structure for the “State-of-the lagoon” reports was developed with all involved scientists on the project, existing data was collected by each partner at their respective case study sites. The data were integrated and presented in the context of ecosystem services, with an emphasis on minimising the boundaries between the different scientific disciplines, for each “State-of-the lagoon” reports (Task 2.2). An important function of “State-of-the-lagoon” reports was to direct the case study teams towards integrated, problem-oriented analysis. The reports have provided a framework for an integrated methodology for analysing the lagoon or estuary regions.
WP2 tasks are listed below and followed by a brief summary for those tasks carried out during the previous project reporting period:
• Task 2.1: Integrated framework for multidisciplinary analysis of the lagoon system
• Task 2.2: “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each case study
Task 2.1 Integrated framework for multidisciplinary analysis of the lagoon system
An integrated socio-ecological framework for describing the lagoon system structure and its internal relations has been developed in collaboration with all partners, representing their different scientific backgrounds. Each lagoon regions has been described as systems composed of two interrelated parts: the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human’ system (composed of the socio-economic and the governance components) using the structure shown below (Table 3).
Table 3. Integrated framework for multidisciplinary analysis of the lagoon system.
Main elements to be described the natural system, its environmental status, its resilience and main direction of changes the human system and its ability to maintain and develop evolutionary resilience the human-nature relationship and relations between the lagoon system and the outside world
Key points for description
• hydromorphological status (separately for rivers and lagoons)
• biological status
• physico-chemical status
• harm by specific pollutants
• dynamics and the vulnerability of the natural system • the place and its history
• developmental drivers
• the social structure
• governance and the institutional structure
• vulnerabilities
• resources
• adaptive capacities • main pressures and drivers, exposure of the natural system
• forms of nature protection
• ecosystem services provided for the benefit of the ‘human system’
• relations between the lagoon region and the outer world
Task 2.2 “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each case study
The “State-of-the-lagoon” reports have been developed to integrate data and bring together information on the human and natural systems in the context of ecosystem services, with an emphasis on minimizing the boundaries between the different scientific disciplines. Furthermore, pressures on the lagoons and possible long-term developments at the local scale as a result of social, economic and climate change have been addressed.
The “State-of-the-lagoon” report was only a first step in the preparation of the management plans for each lagoon. However, already some lessons have been learned, both with regard to the situation of the European lagoons and estuaries and with regard to the management process considered by ARCH, focusing on the integration of different disciplines and fields of expertise.
The ARCH consortium is multi-disciplinary, bringing together expertise from the social and natural, and economic sciences. However, this applies to the consortium as a whole and not necessarily at each case study level. As far as the individual case studies are concerned, the initial “State-of-the-lagoon” reports were assembled by national teams, some of which do not include the requisite spread of disciplines and thus had limited access to all 'fields of expertise.’ However, this shortcoming has been compensated by intensive dialogues which have taken place in the project workshops and the consortium’s efforts to achieve a better degree of integration among the partners and their knowledge and expertise.
The “State-of-the-lagoon” reports, presented by each case study team, proved that such integration is not an easy task. A balanced description of both natural and human systems, including the socio-economic and governance systems, as well as the interplay between the natural and human systems was challenging at most case sites. This should be treated as strong evidence of the underlying need for changing the nature of EU science policy towards a more interdisciplinary and cohesive approach.
3.3 WP3: CASES: COLLABORATIVE ROADMAPS FOR LOCAL LAGOON MANAGEMENT
The main objective of this work package is to compile the “collaborative roadmaps for local lagoon management” in close interaction with local lagoon managers, policy makers, stakeholders and scientists. This has been accomplished in a sequence of three local workshops (at each case study site). These workshops will each deliver a report that is the result of the collaborative process with local actors and is approved by them:
• Workshop 1: “State-of-the-lagoon” report (WS I);
• Workshop 2: Future challenges to the lagoon considering climate change (WS II);
• Workshop 3: Roadmaps for local lagoon management (WS III).
Preparation and implementation of the ARCH methodology at all of the ten case study sites took place during the second reporting period of the ARCH project.
WP3 tasks throughout the entire project period are listed below and followed by a more detailed summary for those tasks carried out during the project:
• Task 3.1: Approved “State-of-the-lagoon” report
• Task 3.2: Future challenges to the lagoon
• Task 3.3: Roadmaps for local lagoon management
Task 3.1: Approved “State-of-the-lagoon” report
This task focused on the first workshop carried out at each case study site. The aim of Workshop 1 (WS1) buttressed by the “State-of-the-lagoon” report was to gain an understanding of the present situation (environmental and related socio-economic processes) at the ARCH case study sites and to share the knowledge gained with all relevant stakeholders.
All case studies adopted a common template to describe the process undertaken to design, organise and implement the workshop, the results obtained and the lessons learned during the process. The “State-of-the-lagoon” reports have proved to be essential in the adaptation planning process, either as a starting point document to inform stakeholders about the current environmental/management context at the case study site or as a “knowledge reinforcement” resource to help build a common vision across stakeholders.
A number of general conclusions can be drawn from the workshops’ experience. All workshops were successful in reaching their aim of promoting a better understanding of the current environmental state of the case study sites, their key problems and management challenges. Stakeholders provided valuable information, for instance on the environmental conditions of the sites and on the threats to their natural assets (e.g. Vistula lagoon, Göta älv, Byfjorden, Óbidos lagoon). The organisers had also the opportunity to assess the level of knowledge of stakeholders on some specific issues (e.g. climate change issues in the case of the Broads). Stakeholders had the opportunity to share their thoughts on the problems they face and the concerns they have working and living in the case study sites (e.g. Vistula lagoon, Amvrakikos lagoon, Razelm-Sinoe lagoon). This helped the stakeholders to gain a “bigger picture” vision and a better understanding of other stakeholders’ point of view, while the organisers were able to identify management problems, such as stakeholders’ conflicts. Stakeholders gained a better understanding of the management processes underway. While in some case studies sites stakeholders’ involvement processes are standard practice through public consultations (e.g. Göta älv, Byfjorden, Broads), in other sites this kind of processes have been seldom or never developed (e.g. Amvrakikos lagoon, Razelm-Sinoe lagoon). In these cases the workshops have hopefully supported the establishment of a discussion platform, which will facilitate the development of such processes in the future.
The methods used were mostly found to be adequate for the achievement of the workshops’ objectives. Stakeholders were provided with the appropriate level of information and the use of tools, such as lists, maps, and questionnaires was deemed useful to gather feedback from them (e.g. Vistula lagoon, Byfjorden, Óbidos lagoon). However, the trial use of computerised landscape imagery in one of the workshops (i.e. Broads) was not thought to be entirely appropriate for the intended audience, which is already very sensitive to flood risk information and its use in public discussions.
Discussions during the workshops were constructive. This applies to both those which were unstructured (e.g. Vistula Lagoon) and those which followed a more structured approach (e.g. Göta älv, Byfjorden). The success of both approaches may reflect the fact that the choice of approach was the most suitable to the country specific cultural context of the participants. In the workshops where smaller group discussions were held (e.g. Göta älv, Broads), they were deemed useful in ensuring the participation of all attendees. The same consideration applies to the round table discussion format adopted in two workshops (i.e. Amvrakikos lagoon, Razelm-Sinoe lagoon) and to the discussion sessions built around presentations delivered by the participants themselves in another (i.e. Lesina lagoon).
Additional details and specifics from the different case study sites are reported and summarised in deliverable D3.1.
Task 3.2: Future challenges to the lagoon
This task focused on the second workshop carried out at each case study site. The aim of Workshop 2 (WS2) was to develop scenarios as visions of the future (including social, economic and climate change projections) for the ARCH case study sites in collaboration with all involved local actors. The discussion focused on the future pressures on the lagoons, as first presented in the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports.
A number of more generic findings (from Workshop 2) can be highlighted:
• The use of a pro-active organiser and/or a professional meeting facilitator greatly enhanced the chances of a successful outcome;
• Small group discussion arrangements seemed to work well and made the non-technical participants in particular feel more at ease and willing to contribute to the dialogue. Nevertheless, some case studies reported that some participants felt they lacked key scientific/technical knowledge or information. One successful tactic to ameliorate this problem was to place at least one ’technical’ expert in each of the groups to offer’ knowledge support’ if required. Another useful tactic deployed was to allow participants to swap between groups as the dialogue process unfolded;
• The constructed futures scenarios can take a number of forms and the case studies have trialled a number of innovative approaches – from, for example, narrative construction to interactive games and editorial cover story writing;
• The case studies highlighted the importance of encompassing ‘localised’ knowledge in the workshop process; this served to better inform the scientists and also gave other stakeholders a better sense of involvement in the dialogue;
• The form and content of the deliberation process needs to be carefully tailored to suit the national/regional/local culture, socio-economic circumstances and governance regime. A ‘one size fits all’ approach will not succeed;
• Getting feedback from workshop participants after the event has proved problematic;
• Engaging effectively with the private business sector has proved to be a challenge in some case studies, this type of stakeholder is often unwilling to commit the time to workshop type events, which they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be hypothetical and unlikely to lead to actual change;
• Co-production of management plans, although in principle an excellent idea, proved to be challenging in practice, with some official agency participants reticent to give ‘firm’ commitments to act;
• Linking the workshop process to an actual on-going policy process (e.g. Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Broads Adaptation Plans and other regional/local policy initiatives) seemed to provide a good context for stakeholder engagement. However, in some but not all cases this seemed to be part of the reason for some official stakeholders to hold back and not commit themselves fully to the deliberative process.
An example scenario matrix used at WS2 for the The Razelm Sinoe Lagoon System (RSLS) is illustrated below (Figure 4). Round table discussions on three scenarios were held in order to achieve a common vision of the future of the RSLS. Additional details and specifics from the different case study sites are reported and summarised in deliverable D3.2.
Figure 4. Example of scenario matrix
Task 3.3: Roadmaps for local lagoon management
This task focused on the third workshop carried out at each case study site. The aim of Workshop 3 (WS3) was to develop roadmaps for local lagoon management. Input from the descriptions of the system (Task 3.1) and the descriptions of expected future challenges (Task 3.2) were used together with discussions with the local lagoon actors at each caser study site. The workshops included “back casting” exercises where the actors were invited to think of measures that should be undertaken (by them, by authorities, etc.) to reach the desired state of the lagoon in the future. These measures were discussed and prioritised. After this workshop a roadmap for local lagoon management was prepared with suggested measures placed along a timeline. An example roadmap generated from WS3 for the Elbe Estuary is illustrated below.
Figure 5. Example of a roadmap developed for the Elbe estuary
Additional details and specifics from the different case study sites are reported and summarised in deliverable D3.3.
3.4 WP4: ARCHITECTURE AND ROADMAP TO MANGE MULTIPLE PRESSURES ON EUROPEAN LAGOONS
The main objective of this WP is to synthesise the WP2 and WP3 outcomes for conclusions on an EU-level. It aimed at developing general conclusions for managers and policy makers who are involved in sustainable management of European lagoons. WP4 compiled all scientific results of the project. Furthermore, this WP has also been directed towards legacy of the project by external organisations or institutions.
The synthesis of the ARCH project has been completed through Task 4.1 4.2 and 4.3 listed below and followed by a more detailed summary for those tasks carried out during the project:
• Task 4.1: Cross cutting evaluation and synthesis
• Task 4.2: “Guide for the coastal lagoon manager”
• Task 4.3: Legacy of the project
Task 4.1: Cross cutting evaluation and synthesis
The Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshop was held in Venice on October 8th - 9th at UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe, Venice. The aim of the Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshop was to discuss and exchange experiences between all involved case study participants via evaluation of, and reflection on, the past case study activities Therefore, two stakeholders from each case study site were invited to participate in the Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshop.
Presentations, discussions in small groups and participatory activities contributed to the dialogue among case study site stakeholders and ARCH project partners. The different case study sites were compared to extract differences as well as commonalities. One of the largest differences between the sites is the prevailing legislation and level of authority responsible for managing the sites.
Furthermore, different threats are present at the sites, some are more coupled to climate change (storms/ sea level rise), while others face issues with salinity gradients. Other management issues that vary are the interplay and communication between stakeholders and limitations due to institutional boarders.
Figure 6. ARCH stakeholders (cartoon by Jan Ibelings, Karikaturist IBIS, www.karikaturist.nl).
Most stakeholders were satisfied with the applied ARCH methodology and indicated that the workshops and discussions were both fruitful and informative. The actual number of workshops should be adapted to the specific case, especially to avoid stakeholder 'fatigue'. This is an important issue since participatory processes are dependent on attracting and keeping stakeholders engaged.
There was variation between the case study sites with regard to stakeholder fatigue. During the plenary discussion there was some reflection on the source of this variation. It seems that those countries that have a long history of public participation and tradition of public discourse (as England and the Netherlands) struggled more with motivating stakeholders to participate. Thus, perhaps more ‘experienced’ stakeholders (often already organized into social networks) were satisfied with only a couple of workshops. Stakeholders from case study sites in countries with less experience in stakeholder participation were in many instances easier to motivate. In such cases, they were the stakeholders that were more positive to attending three or more workshops.
One of the aims of ARCH has been to connect the methodology to an existing policy process at each case study site. There was overall agreement that this is important. For some case study sites this was possible while for others this connection was not always clear and therefore difficult to establish. Regardless, the workshops provided useful training on how to produce a management strategy or roadmap for the future. Some case study sites are hampered by a lack of existing management plans, resources, or a responsible party. Therefore, the design for this roadmap and implementation needs further development in order to overcome these challenges.
Feedback from the participating stakeholders were positive regarding the impact of the ARCH project at their individual case study sites. The ARCH project has enabled different stakeholders from a variety of disciplines to interact and discuss relevant issues that have helped achieve a more holistic view of the case study site. Another benefit that has been achieved is the appreciation of different perspectives on the complexity of the issues addressed. Many stakeholders agreed that a forum for data gathering, sharing, and discussion has been created.
Although it is most likely too early to notice ARCH's impact on policy at the individual case study sites, the indirect impacts are apparent. The creation of a common ground, changed mind-sets and a widening of views can thus be seen as a start of the process. The discussions that have taken place at the Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshops contribute to synthesizing the results from the local workshops and provide conclusions for management purposes on the EU-level.
Task 4.2: “Guide for the coastal lagoon manager”
The purpose of the "Guide for the coastal lagoon manager" is to illustrate why management of lagoons and estuaries is important, how to identify and evaluate important pressures on the lagoon/estuary, what should be considered when starting up the management process, and what should be included in that process. It emphasizes the importance of stakeholder participation in the management process, and the recommendations given are based on results from the EU research project ARCH. The guide is intended for coastal lagoon and estuary managers including planners and authorities (at a national, regional and local level) as well as the private sector.
The guide illustrates the importance of lagoon/estuary management and gives advice on how to organise the management process. Management is needed to maintain sustainable coastal lagoons and estuaries Coastal lagoons and estuaries are important nursery and feeding grounds for several marine species and are highly productive ecosystems. The many benefits they provide for humans also make them highly attractive for people and activities, which lead to multiple pressures and negative impacts on the lagoons/estuaries.
Suggested steps in the management process:
1. Identify management task: The process starts with identifying the need for management, specifying the management task and identifying the lagoon/estuary area that should be in focus.
2. Connect to policy process or to an identified complex issue: If there is an ongoing policy process, connecting to it may increase the possibility of attracting stakeholders and receiving high stakeholder involvement, 'this will also increase the likelihood of a more sustainable outcome for the future.
3. Develop a ”State of the Lagoon” report: A ”state of the lagoon” report contains a description of the current situation including social, economic and environmental problems for the area in a holistic way. This will be used as a basis for the workshops and gives stakeholders the opportunity to contribute to the report.
4. Plan stakeholder involvement: Stakeholder involvement supports interdisciplinarity, which is needed to solve the complex issues related to the lagoon/estuary. To achieve this, identify stakeholders that are important and necessary to invite to the workshops and that are to be involved in the management process.
5. Conduct workshops with stakeholders: During the workshops, issues affecting the lagoon/estuary should be identified and prioritized; solutions and strategies should be discussed. Moderated discussions constitute the basis for these workshops, but other methods can be added, e.g. role playing games, mental modelling, voting and rating of scenarios as well as sensitivity analysis.
6. Summarize results from workshops and develop a roadmap on how the desired state can be reached: By summarizing the results, the stakeholders and managers get an overview of the progress, making it transparent and possible to keep track of the outcome. The roadmap should describe the timeline, the instruments and measures to that are to be implemented by responsible actors to reach the desired state.
Task 4.3: Legacy of the project
The ARCH website (www.arch-fp7.eu) will continue after the completion of the project such that all public deliverables are available, particularly:
• The Guide for the Coastal Lagoon Manager, and
• The European Lagoon Management Handbook
Furthermore, efforts have been made on producing high quality research that will be published as a special series in a peer reviewed journal. These articles will be searchable in a wide array of article databases, and as such, will provide a lasting legacy of the ARCH project.
Scientific publication have been submitted as a series of ARCH articles to be published as a special issue in the journal "Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM)" that is published quarterly by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Seven manuscripts from the ARCH project and two manuscripts from the EU FP7 LAGOONS project are currently in a pre-review process with the editor for IEAM. An overview of the manuscripts is provided below:
1. ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Breedveld, G.D. and all partners
2. State of the lagoon, what does the story tell? Zaucha, J., Davoudi, S., Slob, A.F.L. Breedveld, G.D. Oen, A.M.P.
3. Stakeholder involvement for management of the coastal zone. Oen, A.M.P. Bouma, G., Botelho, M., Pereira, P., Haeger-Eugensson, M., Conides, A., Klaoudatos, D., Matczak, M., Przedrzymirska, J.; Isaksson, I., Wolf, C., Breedveld, G., Slob, A.
[Challenges in the case studies, thematic issues]
4. Ecological vulnerability of coastal lagoons under climate changes: a comparative study of N:P ratio in five systems in Europe. Vale, C., Botelho, M., Haeger-Eugensson, M., Conides, A., Ballarini, E., Klaoudatos, D., Pereira, P., Vafeidis, N., Matczak, M.
5. Evolutionary resilience and the management of lagoons. Davoudi, S., Zaucha, J., Brooks, E.
6. Mental modelling the risks associated with coastal and artisanal fisheries in Western Greece lagoons. Conides, A., Klaoudatos, D., Heise, S., Palmieri, M.G. Mantas, G., Zacharaki, P. Glamuzina, B.
7. The Socio-Economics of Ecosystem Services and Adaptive Management: A Broads Wetland Case Study. Turner K., Palmieri, M.G. Luisetti T.
[Relation to projects LAGOONS and MAES]
8. Science-Policy-Stakeholder interface towards a pan-European management of coastal lagoons: lessons learnt from the FP7 LAGOONS project. Lillebø, A.I. Stålnacke, P., Gooch, G.D. Krysanova, V., Bielecka, M.
9. Marine Ecosystem services: assessing indicators for European coastal ecosystem services at the land-sea interface and coastal waters. Lillebø, A.I. Somma, F., Noren, K., Gonçalves, J., Alves, M.F. Ballarini, E., Bentes, L., Bielecka, M., Chubarenko, B.V. Conides, A., Heise, S., Khokhlov, V., Lloret, J., Margonski, P., Marín, A., Matczak, M., Oen, A.M.P. Palmieri, M.G. Przedrzymirska,, J., Różyński, G., Sousa, A.I. Sousa, L.P. Tuchkovenko, Y., Zaucha, J.
The IEAM journal is one of the few journals that bridges the science – policy gap and there is ideal for the ARCH project results (www.setac.org):
"IEAM is devoted to bridging the gap between scientific research and the application of science in decision making, policy and regulation, and environmental management. IEAM aims to be the premier scientific journal for presenting new information, promoting dialogue, and fostering new methods for the analysis of ecological, chemical, engineering, physical, and social science research applied to the advancement of environmental management strategies, policy and regulation, and problem solving. IEAM strives to provide a unique position in the peer-reviewed literature, focusing on continually evolving collaborations by offering perspectives from diverse disciplines and a variety of stakeholders."
ARCH has also contributed a chapter to the EU FP7 LAGOONs project which has been published as a book for dissemination: Coastal lagoons in Europe, integrated water resource strategies. Lillebø, Stålnacke and Gooch (eds.) IWA Water Research Series, 2015.
Potential Impact:
The project contained a special work package focussed at communicating and transferring the results of the project to a wide European audience to maximise project impact within the target groups of local lagoon managers, policy makers and stakeholders related to “lagoon management.” The overall ambition within this work package is to design and implement ways for effective knowledge transfer and exchange of information between scientists, policy communities, civil society and other knowledge users.
ARCH represents an interdisciplinary group of scientist and has much to share and learn from one another. Our expectations for the project also reflect this as many partners have similar goals relating to dissemination which in general can be summarized as to:
• Produce excellent interdisciplinary science which is theoretically informed and policy relevant (including academic outputs and high quality publications).
• Build new networks, collaborate and create synergy by connecting people and disciples.
• Learn by exchanging information, knowledge and experience on a wide range of lagoon and estuary systems that can be used for supporting and improving integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning.
• Develop a common methodology and apply tools to manage multiple pressures, provide useful guidance and build a basis for better decision making in the future for these types of ecosystems.
• Continue to extend stakeholder involvement to include local as well as expert knowledge in order to connect science and policy.
• To remain pragmatic; focusing on problem-solving while maintaining intellectual integrity.
Dissemination and communication has been an ongoing task through the ARCH project. Several of the tasks are described in more detail below. Furthermore, the ARCH project has been presented at various national workshops as well as international conferences.
Development of a detailed dissemination strategy
Dissemination of the ARCH project and findings is viewed as both a transfer of research outputs to potential users as well as the transfer of generated knowledge to target groups who are active stakeholders in the project. Thus, dissemination is not an add-on to the project but forms an integral part of its activities.
A detailed dissemination strategy has been completed. Since stakeholder involvement and raising public participation and awareness are key features of the project, the dissemination strategy identifies three types of target groups; scientists, policy-makers and stakeholders. Scientists include the ARCH consortium as well as the greater scientific community who are not involved in any aspect of the delivery of the project but might benefit from its outputs. The project’s intermediate and final results will be disseminated to the relevant audience of local coastal zone policy makers as well as related policy makers on the national and European level. Work on the case study sites will explicitly be accomplished using a participatory process with an evidence-based policy approach. In order to accomplish this, stakeholders will be defined at each case study site.
Establishment of the ARCH website
The ARCH website (www.arch-fp7.eu) describes the project’s goals, objectives, structure, and the consortium. The main elements of the website are the:
• Background and objectives
• Case study sites
• WP1: Methodology
• WP2: Existing data
• WP3: Local management
• WP4: Case experiences
Furthermore, news, links and contact details are also included. Project newsletters are also available for download via the ARCH website.
Project newsletters and leaflets
In the interest of promoting a unified image of the project, all dissemination and communication activities use the ARCH design identity that has been developed, including a logo and general layout templates for printed and electronic material (i.e. website page layout, flyer, reports and presentations).
Two, factsheets (leaflet) that summarise the objectives and results have been prepared following the standard EU template. Additionally, two ARCH brochures in a more popular format have been prepared.
An electronic newsletter has been produced every 6 months, containing information on project activities and other relevant news. In total, eight newsletters have been produced and subsequently disseminated. The newsletters are used to highlight the different case study sites as well as to communicate methodology. Interviews of relevant stakeholders have also been a successful addition to the newsletters as it provides a user perspective to the ARCH research activities. The newsletters are available on the website and are also be distributed to those who have indicated an interest in the project.
European multiplier seminars
International institutions and organisations such as relevant policy networks, ministries and local governments' associations are important door openers and multipliers for lagoon management. Therefore, two European multiplier seminars convening representatives of such (inter)national organisations that work together with local governments on lagoon management and sustainability issues have been organized to introduce the outputs of the ARCH project and encourage their promotion across Europe.
The first Multiplier Seminar was held June 10th, 2015 at GeoEcoMar in Bucharest, Romania. Participants included representatives from local municipalities, research institutes, the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration, the Ministry of the Environment as well as a local fisherman. Challenges with lagoon systems in Europe were presented as well as examples from other case study sites that are relevant for the Razelm Sinoe Lagoon System.
An important objective of the seminar was to discuss the experiences of implementing the participatory methodology at the Razelm-Sinoe case study site. From the perspective of the local authorities, the first impressions were not very encouraging as the goals of ARCH were perceived as ambitious and the thought of involving researchers, local authorities, environmental protection agencies and fishermen together in a participatory process was predicted to result in chaos.
However, over the course of three workshops the stakeholders acknowledged that they were a team of different people starting to work together to share ideas, develop projects and find solutions. More importantly, they have developed a roadmap for the Razelm Sinoe Lagoon. The roadmap takes into account their vision and the stakeholder group would like to see it further developed and implemented.
The second Multiplier Seminar was held August 20th, 2015 at NGI in Oslo, Norway. Participants included representatives from several local municipalities, the Oslo Port Authority, the Norwegian Defence Estates Agency, and the Environment Protection Agency.
A rich discussion ensued after presentations on the co-creation of knowledge using an interactive approach, which was applied at the ARCH case study sites. There was general agreement with regard to the advantages of participatory processes and that they lead to:
• Good dialogue and involvement
• Respect for other opinions
• Consensus on solutions
• Ownership
Although the WHY of such processes is understood, there seems to be a gap with regard to the HOW and the WHEN to apply stakeholder involvement. This lead to a discussion on the weaknesses of initiating participatory processes, which include:
• Resources and time required
• Ensuring that the stakeholder group is representative
• Uncertainty
Despite these challenges, the seminar participants identified methods for overcoming these weaknesses which can offer a starting point for lagoon and estuary managers. It was suggested that small scale processes can be initiated first to illustrate the benefits within the municipality. Furthermore, existing environmental directives can be used as leverage to obtain the necessary resources. Finally, all participants were keen to improve their own communication skills as a necessary step towards increasing knowledge exchange.
Final Conference
The ARCH Final Conference was held June 24th – June 26th 2015 at Newcastle University, Newcastle UK. The final conference brought together academics and practitioners from across Europe to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing those living, working and managing lagoons and other estuarine environments. Presentations explored the complexities involved in the management and governance of socio-ecological systems such as lagoons, particularly addressing the themes:
• Multidisciplinary science in coastal zone management
• Stakeholder participation towards policy implementation
• Ecosystem services in lagoon management
• Case studies to illustrate balancing multiple pressures in lagoon and estuary management
• Bridging the scientific/local knowledge gap
The Final Conference program included several keynote speakers, representing national and international network organisations as well as the European Union.
The third day of the conference was dedicated to a practical, hands-on training. The training was aimed at policy makers, coastal zone managers and related researchers. Participants were introduced to the ARCH methodology and worked with the instruments developed within ARCH.
The ARCH project includes collaboration with an Advisory Committee consisting of internationally acknowledged scientists, policy makers and stakeholders external to the project. These experts provided their recognized and independent assessment of the research performed over the course of the project and of the practical feasibility and public acceptability of the strategy developed.
The central objective of the ARCH project is to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with the involved managers, policy makers and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons and estuaries in Europe. Each consortium meeting was planned at one of the case study sites and local stakeholders are invited to present the issues for the specific case study. After the meeting key stakeholders have been interviewed to give their feedback on the project and summaries are published in the project newsletter.
A detailed overview over dissemination activities is given below:
Presentations
Andersson-Sköld, Y.; Haeger-Eugensson, M. (2015): Norde älv estuary - Challenges and potentials identified in ARCH and EMOVE. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Ballarini, E.; D´Adamo, R.; Pazienza, G.; Zaggia, L.; Vafeidis, A. (2015): Coastal management of Lesina lagoon: a case study of the ARCH project. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Botelho, M.J.; Vale, C.; Ferreira, J.G. (2015): Connectivity of bivalve toxicity episodes between estuarine systems and adjacent coastal areas with toxic algal blooms. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Bouma, G.; Slob, A.; Woestenburg, A. (2015): What are success factors for stakeholder participation in coastal zone management: Overview evaluation ARCH Case Studies. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Breedveld, G.D.; Oen, A.M.P.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A. (2015): Management of lagoon and estuary systems - joint knowledge production to improve communication and cross disciplinary boundaries. Poster presentation at 9th international SedNet conference. Krakow, Poland, September 23-26, 2015.
Brils, J. (2015): Sediment ecosystem services in the soil-stream-sea nexus. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): ARCH: Architecture and Roadmap to Manage Multiple Pressures on Lagoons. Poster presentation at the Newcastle University Marine research conference. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, May 10th 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): Evolutionary Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change in European Coastal Regions. Presented at joint Association of European Schools of Planning and Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference. Dublin, Ireland, July 15 – 19, 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): Evolutionary Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change in European Coastal Regions. Lecture for Module Town and Country Planning 8932, Planning for Climate Change. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, November 29th, 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): Evolutionary resilience and adaptation to climate change in European coastal regions. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2014): Lagoon and estuary management - Employing participative methodologies to engage technical and local experts. Poster presentation at Newcastle University EU Projects Day. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, March 20th, 2014.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2015): Towards Evolutionary Resilience in the Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Cieslak, A. (2015): Implementation of ICM, legal system, Poland. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D. (2012): ICZM in Arabian Gulf. Presented at a workshop for the Saudi-Arabia and Greece extension and consultation services project. May 2-15, 2012.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D. (2014): ARCH experience in roadmap to management: N. Amvrakikos gulf lagoon complex, Greece. Platform presentation at the 1st International Congress of Applied Ichthyology & Aquatic Environment. Volos, Greece, November 13-15, 2014.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D.; Zacharaki, P. (2015): "Bottlenecks" and Dead-Ends" in lagoon fisheries management in Greece. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D.; Zacharaki, P. (2015): Case Study – Amvrakikos. Life cycle analysis and carbon footprinting of lagoon fisheries production in rural Greece. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Davoudi, S. and Cowie, P. (2015): Bridging the scientific – tacit knowledge divide. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Haeger-Eugensson, M.; Göransson, G.; Wolf, C.; Frogner-Kockum, P. (2013): Multiple pressures on the Götariver, Sweden, management by stakeholder involvement. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Heuer, F. (2015): Lagoon management: the policy maker’s perspective. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Isaksson, I (2013): Sea meets land. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Kaminska, I. and Zaucha, J. (2013): Ecosystem services of sediments in marine spatial planning. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Klaoudatos, D.; Conides, A.; Bartulovic, V.; Glamuzina, B.; Dullic, J. (2012): Feeding habits of juvenile thin-clipped orey mullett, liza ramada and leaping grey mullet liza saliens in the Ilereteva River Estuary. Presentation at the 12th International Congress on the zoogeography and ecology of Greece and adjacent regions. June 22nd, 2012.
Lindblad, C.; Haeger-Eugensson, M. (2012): ARCH! Poster presentation at the Sea meets Land conference for the Nordic countries. Hirtshals, Denmark, April 24-26 2012.
Luisetti, T.; Turner, R.K. (2012): The value of European marine and coastal ecosystem services: some British case studies. Key-note speaker at the 51st ECSA (Estuarine & Coastal Sciences Association) Symposium. Klaipeda, Lithuania, September 23-27, 2012.
Luisetti, T. (2015): Evaluation of ecosystem services and good environmental status – an environmental and ecological economics perspective. Presentation within the Breakout group II in Session 1 of the ‘Future Coast – Europe’ Symposium in Berlin, Germany, October 5-7, 2015.
Matczak, M.; Przedrzymirska, J. (2012): ARCH project presentation at the first joint ARCH and LAGOONS stakeholder meeting. Gdansk, Poland, April 23rd, 2012. In Polish and Russian translation.
Matczak, M.; Oen, A.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A.; Breedveld, G. (2014): ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 LAGOONS Final conference - Between the River and the Sea: Integrated Perspectives on Catchment and Coastal Zone Management. Dundee, Scotland, UK, September 16-18, 2014.
Oen, A.M.P. (2012): Involving Stakeholders. Invited speaker to an open lunch presentation at the Directorate for Climate and the Environment. Oslo, Norway, April 10th, 2012. In Norwegian.
Oen, A.M.P. (2012): Sediment and Society – Involving Stakeholders. Invited speaker to Bergen municipality's conference on Vågen and sediments with marine archeological significance during the annual “Climate Week” in Bergen, Norway, May 9th, 2012. In Norwegian.
Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld. G.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A. (2013): Identifying opportunities to enable stakeholders in managing multiple pressures at the coastal zone interface. Platform presentation at the 7th International Conference on remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Dallas, Texas, February 4-7, 2013.
Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld. G.; Slob, A. (2013): Lagoon and estuary management - Employing participative methodologies to engage technical and local experts. Poster presentation and discussion in the Engaging Environments workshop "Analyzing lay knowledge and popular action on nature, the environment and climate change." University of Oslo, Norway, May 22-23, 2013.
Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld. G.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A. (2013): ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Oen, A.M.P.; Slob, A.; Bouma, G.; Breedveld, G.D. (2015): Joint knowledge production to improve scientific communication and cross knowledge boundaries. Platform presentation presented at the 25th SETAC Europe Conference in Barcelona, Spain, 3.-7. May.
Oen, A.M.P.; Bouma, G.; Benni, J.; Botelho, M.; Pereira, P.; Matczak, M.; Slob, A. (2015): Stakeholder involvement for management of the coastal zone. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Palmieri, M.G.; Turner, R.K.; Luisetti, T. (2015): Case Study – Norfolk Broads. Economics of Ecosystem Services and Adaptive Management: A Broads Wetland Case Study. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Przedrzymirska J., Zaucha J., Matczak M., Bielecka M., Różyński G., Reda A. (2014): Stakeholders participation in development of the Vistula Lagoon Management Plan. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 LAGOONS Final conference - Between the River and the Sea: Integrated Perspectives on Catchment and Coastal Zone Management. Dundee, Scotland, UK. September 16-18, 2014.
Przedrzymirska, J.; Bielecka, M. (2015): Case Study – Vistula. Role and engagement of local communities in lagoon’s participatory management process - the Vistula Lagoon case. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Slob, A.; Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld, G.D. (2014): The role of stakeholders in management of social ecological systems, an example for the coastal zone interface. Platform presentation at the Third International Science and Policy Conference on the resilience of social and ecological systems. Montpellier, France, May 4-8, 2014,
Slob, A. (2014): The art of interdisciplinary research. Chair of panel session at the Third International Science and Policy Conference on the resilience of social and ecological systems. Montpellier, France, May 4-8, 2014.
Stanica, A. (2012): presentation of FP7 ARCH and the proposed works at a meeting with coastal managers (topic – to protect or not to protect the coastal strip separating the Razelm – Sinoe Lagoon System from the Black Sea). August, 2012.
Slob, A.; van Meerkerk, I.; Geerdink, T. (2015): The art and science of integrating scientific knowledge for managing multiple pressures on river basins. Platform presentation presented at the 25th SETAC Europe Conference in Barcelona, Spain, 3.-7. May.
Slob, A. and Duijn, M. (2015): The value of local knowledge in Integrated Coastal Zone management. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Slob, A.; van Meerkerk, I. (2015): Interdisciplinary science for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Stanica, A. (2012): Razelm Sinoe Lagoon System as part of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration – pilot site for FP7 ARCH Project. Oral presentation of idea and opportunities – at the workshop on the development of the White Book for the Danube International Centre for River-Delta-Sea systems. Bucharest, November 23-24, 2012.
Stresius, I. and Heise, S. (2013): Stakeholder communication on sediment issues – a waste of time? Experiences from the Elbe Estuary. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Stresius, I. and Heise, S. (2013): Strategies for an integrated Management of the Elbe Estuary - Handling Complexity and Conflicts of Interest. Poster presentation at the Estuaries workshop. Hamburg, Germany, September 4-5, 2014.
Stresius, I. and Heise, S. (2015): Creating an overall concept for an Integrated Management – Future Visions for the Elbe Estuary. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Vale, C.; Botelho, M.J.; Pereira, P. (2012): Management and opportunities for Óbodis Lagoon: the ARCH approach. Presented at a workshop for local stakeholders. Óbodis Lagoon, Portugal, May 25th 2012. In Portuguese.
Vale, C.; Botelho, M.J.; Pereira, P; Ballarini, E.; Vafeidis, A.T. (2013): The relevance of sediments in eutrophic systems: a comparison of two European coastal lagoons (Óbidos and Lesina). Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Vale, C.; Raimundo, J.; Caetano, M. (2015): Methodology for assessing anthropogenic pressures in transitional waters: validation with physico-chemical status in the Minho River estuary, Portugal. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Vale, C.; Botelho, M-J.; Ballarini, E.; Henriques, B.; Pereira, P.; Haeger-Eugensson, M.; Vafeidis, N.; Matczak, M. (2015): Physical and Ecological Vulnerability of Coastal Lagoons: a comparative study of Lesina, Obidos and Vistula. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
van Meerkerk, I. and Slob, A. (2014): Assessing and managing interdisciplinarity: insights from an evaluative study. Platform presentation at the Third International Science and Policy Conference on the resilience of social and ecological systems. Montpellier, France, May 4-8, 2014.
Vollmer, M. (2015): Experiences from the Wadden Sea Forum. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Zaucha, J.; Matczak, M. (2014): Maritime spatial planning in BSR and in Poland: Arch and Vistula Lagoon. Consortium meeting of the Vila Project, Kaliningrad, RF, May 13, 2014.
Zaucha, J.; Matczak, M. (2014): Implementation plan for the Vistula Lagoon. Presentation at the final joint ARCH and LAGOONS stakeholder meeting. Gdansk, Poland. July 9th, 2014. In Polish and Russian translation.
Zaucha, J.; Davoudi, S.; Slob, A.F.L.; Oen, A.M.P. (2015): Cross-disciplinary integration as a result of joint examination of the land-sea interface regions. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Zaucha, J. (2015): Can the ecosystem services concept help arrive at a more adequate development paradigm for land-sea social-ecological systems? Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Publications
Zaucha, J.; Komornicki, T.; Böhme, K.; Świątek, D.; Żuber, P. (2012): Territorial Keys for Bringing Closer the Territorial Agenda of the EU and Europe 2020, European Planning Studies, DOI:10.1080/09654313.2012.722976.
Klaoudatos, S.D. Conides, A. and Karkani, M. (2014). Structures and plans for environmental management: a white paper. Greek Fishing News, 388, 62-71
Breedveld, G.D.; Bouma, G.; Oen, A.M.P.; Slob, A. (2015): ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Chapter in Coastal Lagoons in Europe: Integrated Water Resource Strategies (2015) Lillebø A.I. P Stålnacke and G.D. Gooch (Eds). IWA publishing; International Water Association (IWA), UK, 254pp. ISBN: 9781780406282; eISBN: 9781780406299.
List of Websites:
www.arch-fp7.eu
Gijs D. Breedveld, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway, gbr@ngi.no
Amy Oen, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway, ao@ngi.no
Adriaan Slob, TNO, Netherlands, adriaan.slob@tno.nl
Geiske Bouma, TNO, Netherlands, geiske.bouma@tno.nl
Lagoons and estuaries are located at the interface between land and sea and the transition between fresh and salt water. They represent highly dynamic and productive ecosystems with a very complex structure. The complexity of managing lagoons and estuary systems is increased as a result of multiple pressures originating from urban, industrial, agricultural, and recreational activities as well as influences from climate change.
The ARCH research project “Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons” aims to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with policy makers, local authorities and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons (estuarine coastal areas). A central feature of ARCH is to provide realistic solutions to manage these pressures and establish a better connection (the arch) between science and policy. This is accomplished by facilitating the transition (i) from segregated disciplinary scientific results to well integrated and usable scientific knowledge, (ii) from “government” and sectorial policies towards “governance” and sustainable management; and (iii) from an unaware and uninformed “lagoon community” towards an involved and well-informed community. ARCH worked with 10 case study lagoons and estuaries having a geographical distribution covering all major seas surrounding Europe. A participatory workshop methodology was used at the lagoon sites to develop a decision framework to choose strategies, interventions and measures to manage the existing and future problems in the lagoon. This was accomplished using an integrated planning approach, considering ecosystem services to assess the social, economic and ecological state of the lagoon and linking this to spatial planning methodology. The final products of ARCH are roadmaps for implementation of realistic solutions at the lagoon scale, a management guide for coastal managers and policy makers in Europe and the European Lagoon Management Handbook. The project actively disseminated products and experiences via newsletters, multiplier seminars, a website and a final conference. Legacy of the project is ensured by developing architecture for a roadmap for implementation of an integrative and adaptive management framework with an emphasis on governance based on understanding the vulnerability of lagoons and estuaries.
The central objective of the project is to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with the involved managers, policy makers and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons in Europe. This has generated realistic solutions and provided roadmaps for their implementation at the lagoon scale.
Project Context and Objectives:
Management strategies for lagoons and estuaries should be based upon two solid pillars: science and policy. The challenge for implementing existing science and policy is the lack of integration and interpretation between the two, which is a major hindrance for application by lagoon managers, policy makers and stakeholders at the lagoon scale.
Scientific research has shown that despite extensive monitoring over the past decades a proper description of the natural system dynamics in estuaries is hardly feasible. Predictions of the effects of future changes in pressures and stressors are therefore challenging. Determining a reference state in estuaries to define good ecological status following the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive is confounded by this phenomenon. Lagoons are also sites of high human activity as they formed natural harbours and protection against storms in historic times. Abundance of fish has formed the basis for settlements and economic development. In modern times tourism is a major driving force for its regional development. This has resulted in conflicting interest between the different stakeholders depending on the proper functioning of the lagoon. Balanced ecologic, social, economic and cultural development is required. This forms the basis for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) which requires ecosystem based tools as well as the participation of all involved stakeholders.
The main policies that manage the European coastal zone emphasizes ecological aspects as illustrated and implemented by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFB). ICZM functions as an intermediate link between terrestrial and coastal management as well as between freshwater and marine systems as specified in the WFD and the MSDF. The WFD is a legislative framework that rationalises and updates existing water legislation by setting common objectives for water (inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater) and introduces an integrated and coordinated approach to water management in Europe. The MSDF aims to ensure that the seas and oceans are clean, healthy and productive and that they are managed in a sustainable manner for the benefit of future generations. As with the WFD, the MSFD centres on ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) and that ‘member states shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest.’
The ARCH research project “Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons” aims to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with policy makers, local authorities and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons (estuarine coastal areas). These areas represent ecosystems that are very vulnerable for climate change, increasing urbanisation and industrialisation. A central feature of ARCH is to provide realistic solutions to manage these pressures and establish a better connection (the arch) between science and policy. This is accomplished by facilitating the transition (i) from segregated disciplinary scientific results to well integrated and usable scientific knowledge, (ii) from “government” and sectoral policies towards “governance” and sustainable management; and (iii) from an unaware and uninformed “lagoon community” towards an involved and well-informed community. ARCH has worked with 10 case study lagoons and estuaries having a geographical distribution covering all major seas surrounding Europe.
A set of coastal lagoons has been selected that represent hotspots in their respective regions. The case study sites cover the interface between the land surface of the European Union and the main seas surrounding it including the Baltic Sea in the north east, the Kattegat (the transition to the North Sea), Norwegian Sea/North Sea, Atlantic Coast, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea (Table 1).
Table 1 Overview over the 10 case study sites.
Site Name Region Characteristics
1 Vistula Baltic sea Coastal lagoon and estuary
2 Göta älv Kattegat Estuary
3 Byfjorden Norwegian sea Fjord
4 Elbe North sea Estuary
5 Rhine North sea Estuary
6 Broads North sea Coastal wetlands
7 Òbidos Atlantic ocean Coastal lagoon
8 Lesina Mediteranean sea Coastal lagoon
9 Amvrakikos Mediteranean sea Coastal lagoon
10 Razelm-Sinoe Black sea Lagoon in Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
The central objective of the project is to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with the involved managers, policy makers and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons in Europe. This has generated realistic solutions and provided roadmaps for their implementation at the lagoon scale.
In order to address this central research objective, ARCH has
1. Promoted an integrated research approach to minimize the boundaries between the multiple scientific disciplines related to understanding the vulnerabilities of lagoon and estuary systems now and in the future.
2. Integrated existing scientific information in the context of ecosystem services to assess the state of the social, economic and ecological framework for the established lagoon case study sites and link this to a spatial planning methodology.
3. Employed a true participatory process with stakeholders including policy makers, authorities, NGO’s and businesses to describe each lagoon system and prepare “State-of-the-lagoon” reports.
4. Formulated realistic strategies towards sustainable lagoon management, in light of present and future pressures including climatic change, increased urbanisation and industrialisation and develop “Roadmaps for lagoon management.”
5. Ensured legacy of the project by developing architecture for a roadmap for implementation of an integrative and adaptive management framework with an emphasis on governance based on understanding the vulnerability of lagoons and estuaries.
In the initial phase of the project the main focus has been to minimise the boundaries between the multiple scientific disciplines and to integrate existing scientific information in the context of ecosystem services to assess the state of the social, economic and ecological framework for the established lagoon case study sites. An important output of the ARCH project has been the preparation of “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each of the ten case study sites. In order to prepare the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports, a unified methodological approach was developed, the “Integrated framework for analysis of the lagoon system.” The process of creating this framework entailed developing an integrated socio-ecological framework for describing the lagoon system structure and its internal relations as a backbone of the case studies. The framework included the use of both indicators and narratives to describe the lagoon regions as systems composed of two interrelated parts: the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human system’ (composed of the socio-economic and the governance components).
Once the comprehensive structure for the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports was developed with all involved scientists in the project, existing data were collected by each partner at their respective case study sites. The data were integrated and presented in the context of ecosystem services, with an emphasis on minimising the boundaries between the different scientific disciplines, for each “State-of-the-lagoon” report. These reports have been central during the case study site workshops. The design of the ARCH workshop methodology has included a detailed evaluation framework for each case study site: Case study record – Starting point, Evaluations after each workshop (completed by the participants), Case study record – Finishing point, and a final Evaluation of the case study (completed by the case study point of contact). The sequence of workshops at each case study site has focused on i) the current "State-of-the-lagoon," (ii) future challenges to the lagoon considering climate change, and iii) roadmaps for local lagoon management. The experiences gained from the activities at each case study site were central to the key final deliverables of the ARCH project: the European Lagoon Management Handbook and the Guide for the coastal lagoon manager.
In addition to workshops at the case study sites, the ARCH Consortium has held Evaluation and Instruction workshops. This included collaboration with the Advisory Committee consisting of internationally acknowledged scientists, policy makers and stakeholders external to the project. These experts provided their recognized and independent assessment of the research performed over the course of the project and of the practical feasibility and public acceptability of the strategy developed. The Advisory Committee has taken active part in evaluating the experiences from the workshops and has given important input and feedback to the project so far. In addition, collaboration with the European FP7 LAGOONS project as well as the European Sediment Network (SedNet) has continued.
International institutions and organisations such as relevant policy networks, ministries and local governments' associations are important door openers and multipliers for lagoon management. Therefore, two European multiplier seminars convening representatives of such (inter)national organisations that work together with local governments on lagoon management and sustainability issues have been organized to introduce the outputs of the ARCH project and encourage their promotion across Europe.
Project Results:
3 MAIN S&T RESULTS
This chapter briefly describes the outcomes and significant results for each WP.
3.1 WP1: DEVELOPMENT OF A PARTICIPATORY LAGOON MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
The main objective of this work package is to develop the European lagoon management process resulting in a Handbook, with training guide and process design. This WP has run as long as the project lasted and was geared at nourishing the project with sound knowledge management and (policy) process management.
The ARCH Consortium partners represent scientific disciplines from the natural sciences (ecosystems, coastal sedimentology and morphology, chemistry, eco-toxicology, etc.), social sciences (governance, spatial planning, coastal management, etc.) and economics (ecosystem services, regional economic development, etc). An effort has been made to emphasise the advantages of this multi-disciplinary background by focusing on the scientific knowledge integration as a discussion topic as well as incorporating scientific knowledge integration into all consortium meetings that have been held. This has been accomplished by employing participatory activities into each meeting, which captures the connections between the scientific disciplines (Task 1.1).
Discussion topics have also included preparing for the workshops which have been held at each case study site in 2013 and 2014. Workshop methodology topics have included outlining rules for stakeholder involvement, the stakeholder selection process, identifying the policy process at each case study site as well as methods for documenting the outputs from the case workshops (Task 1.2). The experiences from using these methodologies within the Consortium provided important input to deliverable D1.2.
All activities and experiences were synthesized in the final Task 1.3 which produced the European Lagoon Management Handbook (deliverable D1.3).
WP1 tasks throughout the entire project period are listed below and followed by a more detailed summary for those tasks carried out during the project:
• Task 1.1: Scientific knowledge integration for evidence based lagoon management
• Task 1.2: Workshop methodology for integrated lagoon management
• Task 1.3: European Lagoon Management Handbook
Task 1.1 Scientific knowledge integration for evidence based lagoon management
This task was directed towards gathering, managing and integrating the available scientific knowledge in such a way that it became meaningful for management and policy development for lagoons in Europe. This has been accomplished by collecting insights and experiences of the process of preparing the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each case study site (WP2: “State-of-the-Lagoon” reports). The process has focused on the learning that has taken place; identifying new and difficult aspects of preparing the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports, connecting the scientific disciplines as well as overcoming any problems with integrating the scientific knowledge. Consortium discussions have captured these insights which are reported and summarised in deliverable D1.1.
Deliverable D1.1 (Scientific knowledge integration) evaluated the process to connect the various disciplines and the extent to which interdisciplinarity was achieved in ARCH. The aim has been twofold: 1) to analyze the collaborative process to realize interdisciplinarity between the disciplines; 2) to assess the level of interdisciplinarity achieved in the research.
The report concludes that the ARCH-project achieved a sufficiently high degree of interdisciplinarity in producing the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports in the first one and a half years of the project. With regard to the degree of interdisciplinarity the following observations have been made:
• The scope of the ARCH project has a high level of interdisciplinarity: there are eleven different research institutes involved, covering at least eight different disciplines and crossing social and natural sciences.
• When it comes to the degree of interactive research, the level of interdisciplinarity differs. Some research components have been accomplished in a quite interactive way, leading to interdisciplinary results, while other components have been produced in a less interactive manner, leading to less interdisciplinary results.
• The level of interdisciplinary understanding of the empirical phenomena is relatively high, although this counts more for the overall project level than for the individual case study analyses.
• The ARCH project achieved a relatively high level of interdisciplinary learning. All respondents note that they learned quite much of the project so far and note that they now more appreciate the relevance and the value of other disciplinary knowledge.
Further reflection on the interdisciplinarity process focused on factors discussed in literature to realize interdisciplinary research, which appeared to be present and were considered to be important by the project partners with respect to interdisciplinarity in ARCH. These factors include; the open mindedness of the project partners, trust building between the partners, the role of facilitative leadership, the importance of developing a common vocabulary and the role of boundary objects in this respect. What is particularly interesting in the ARCH project is how these different factors were facilitated by the project managers and how these different factors were structured in the process of the ARCH project. Although a blueprint for managing interdisciplinary processes will not work, several important elements for facilitating and reaching interdisciplinarity could be derived from this analysis.
Task 1.2 Workshop methodology for integrated lagoon management
The workshop methodology that has been developed is based on the European Awareness Scenario Workshop methodology (EASW) that was developed for Urban Sustainable Development in the EU. This is a participatory policy making method that involves stakeholders, policy makers, and scientists in a joint process of generating and selecting policy options. Task 1.2 also has included the design for each workshop and the necessary training of the people who facilitated these workshops on the local level.
The methodology consists of a series of three workshops with discussions at the local level between policy makers, scientists and stakeholders. Participants were invited to discuss the current and future state of their lagoon / estuary with respect to the influence of urbanization, industrialization, and climate change impacts.
• Workshop 1 – The present state of the lagoon: The discussion was nourished by the ‘State-of-the-Lagoon’ report. Participants discussed the report which was subsequently revised according to the discussion and in such a way that participants were “owners” of the report. The workshop facilitated improved and shared understanding of the existing social-ecological lagoon system;
• Workshop 2 – The future of the lagoon: In the second workshop, participants were invited to achieve a common vision on the future of the lagoon. The influence of pressures such as climate change, urbanization and industrialization were be discussed to recognize the threats and opportunities for the lagoon system.
• Workshop 3 – Roadmap development: interventions, measures and monitoring: During the third workshop, strategies, measures and interventions were identified in order to achieve the common vision defined during the second workshop. Participants were invited to develop a roadmap to articulate interventions and measures.
Each case study site workshop has been preceded by an instruction session and succeeded by a reflection session to collect the experiences from the partners (shown in Figure 2):
• PT1: Instruction workshop 8-10 October 2012 in Norwich, England
• PT2: Evaluation and Instruction workshop 27-29 May 2013 in Gdansk, Poland
• PT3: Evaluation and Instruction workshop 3-5 November 2013 in Obidos, Portugal
• PT4: Evaluation and Instruction workshop 16-18 June 2014 in Gothenburg, Sweden
Figure 2. Workshop methodology including case study and project team meetings.
The design of the workshop methodology was specified in an evaluation framework that each case study site received. There are four different types of evaluations that have taken place over the last year at each case study site:
• Case study record – Starting point: the goal of this case study record was to present a description of the plan and process for the case study before the beginning of the case study process.
• Evaluation workshops by Participants: the purpose of this evaluation was to provide participants with an opportunity to reflect on their experiences of each workshop in the case study.
• Case study record – Finishing point: the goal of this case study record was to collect detailed information about the experience of the ARCH project team with the workshops at the end of the case study process and to reflect on the plan and process as was described in the case study record ‘starting point’.
• Evaluation case study: the goal of this evaluation was to ask the main contact point of the case study to evaluate the process and results of the case study from the part of the case study partner with whom you cooperated.
A schematic overview of the evaluation framework including all templates for evaluation and how they are connected is provided below (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Workshop evaluation framework
All of the documentation from the case study sites was collected and synthesized in the Workshop methodology report (D1.2).
Task 1.3: European Lagoon Management Handbook
The purpose of this European Lagoon Management Handbook is to inform managers, policymakers and facilitators on a specific participatory approach for management of coastal waters (lagoons, estuaries and fjords) or coastal zones that was developed in the ARCH-project. It gives very specific and detailed information on how to organise such a participatory process. It provides instructions on what to do for all those who would like to start a participatory process. It contains details about how to select and invite stakeholders, how to organise the workshop process, and how to evaluate the process. Furthermore, the handbook contains a “self-training guide”.
This handbook is organised into sections, with the first section providing the context of the ARCH-methodology and elaborating on the two pillars of sustainable lagoon management: policy and science. It is argued that the establishment of a solid integration of these components is crucial. In the second section, the existing European policy frameworks regarding coastal zone management and marine planning are analysed. It is concluded that all policies make a passionate plea for coordination across different governmental levels and the early adoption of stakeholder interests in the process. In the third section, the three basic paradigm shifts on which the ARCH methodology is based are explored. Sections 4 and 5 respectively focus on theoretical foundations behind the policy and knowledge aspects of these paradigm shifts. Section 6 and 7 present how the ideas have been translated into a methodology based on stakeholder participation, sharing of knowledge, and resulting in actionable roadmaps. The final section reflects on the conditions for success as presented in table 2.
Table 2. Conditions for success for the workshop methodology
Condition for success Explanation of how the condition for success can become manifest
Workshop process and facilitation
• Professional facilitation, by for instance an independent facilitator
• Creation of trust between the people who organized the workshops and the stakeholders
• Focus on interaction, creating interaction between stakeholders is often an important step, even if stakeholders disagree this shows what perspectives are at the table
• Take the time to interact and act on what the stakeholders need in the process, sometimes it is necessary to take more time for a certain workshop (not a 1 day event but more days), for instance to open up the minds, to emphasize the systems approach, to get insight in the most important concerns
Problem framing • Clarity on the aims, if the aim of the workshop process is not clear, the outcomes will not be targeted
• Framing problems on a time scale, to frame the problem you need to know what is at stake: short term and long term, what is immediate and apparent
Participation
• Take time for the preparation process, this helps to have a good start with the participation, interviews can help in collecting ideas and wishes, expectations and points of view, it can also convince participants to join in the process
• Good attendance of stakeholders to the workshops
• Make sure there is a good mix of different perspectives at the table, in this way all voices are heard
• Participation for a real cause, that participants understand how their input will be taken up in the process, that they are part of the process
• Focus on values, values among stakeholders can be different, but all views are legitimate and the focus on values gives the possibility to look for commonalities
• Different participants can bring forward different time scales, citizens and businesses think in terms of next year, scientists and academics have a much longer time frame; you need to understand both sides of how people frame the process and their thinking
• Keeping a broad view on possible participants, unusual suspects in the process can put forward new insights that normally wouldn’t be at the table, for instance schoolchildren or teachers
Interdisciplinary science
• A well designed and facilitated process of interaction is needed
• Stimulate open mindedness of researchers and a joint willingness to learn
• Build trust in the process and between people
• Stimulate cross-disciplinary interaction
• Work towards a joint product
• Site visits as joint field experiences
State-of-the-lagoon report
• Broader perspective on issues at stake, often in ongoing processes not all issues at stake are taken up based on the whole lagoon system (the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human system’, the latter is composed of the ‘socio-economic system’ and the governance system)
• Connection between scientific research and real life problems, the usefulness of the state-of-the-lagoon report is in connecting research of scientists (who think about problems in a scientific way) to real life problems (the people in the area connect their problems to practical issues); how do you make a connection to the practical issues of the people and the complexity of the issues behind it
• Using the development process as an educational activity, in order to get common knowledge, sharing the information is needed
Link to policy process
• Connecting to an ongoing policy issue, being able to tie the workshop process to a (ongoing) policy issue
• Creating attention on a higher level and involving a ‘facilitative leader’, sometimes focusing on consequences of making physical changes in an area attracts attention and then also decision-makers become interested
• Flexible process design based on policy process, if you manage to find a connection to the policy process, this does have as a consequence that you don’t start from scratch but connect to a ongoing process and this asks for flexibility in the (workshop) process tailored to the needs of the policy process
Output and results
• Focus on a continuous dialogue, the outcome is not necessarily a roadmap or a plan, the outcome is to have sustainable lagoon system, good quality of life, good quality of environment; the roadmap is a means to achieve that, participants don’t come to a meeting to end up with a document, they want to talk about real issues that matter
• The roadmap is a starting point, getting people to talk together is the bigger success for the long term, so if you have a roadmap the work has only started
• Creating a lasting management plan, success is related to the outcome like a lasting management plan
• Do not focus on one outcome or results, several outcomes can be useful, for instance guidance that people can use in their ongoing process, doing follow-up activities in the area concerning implementation
Timing and location of events
• Timing of meetings, is important in order to have different stakeholders attend meetings (for instance farmers have difficulty attending meetings in the day time)
• Location of events, people are sometimes triggered by facilities offered at the meetings (dinners) or having the meetings in their own area
Availability of resources
• Resources need to be available in order to organize the workshops, to have expertise present, carrying the process further etcetera
The appendices of this handbook provide a detailed methodology manual and self-training guide to facilitate and disseminate the application of the method.
3.2 WP2: “STATE-OF-THE-LAGOON” REPORTS
The main objective of this work package was to deliver the integrated “State-of-the lagoon” reports for each of the ten case studies. A central aspect of this WP was to provide an integrated framework for the description of the lagoon system in a multidisciplinary framework (from a natural, spatial, social, and economic perspective).
In order to prepare the “State-of-the lagoon” reports for each of the case study sites, a unified methodological approach was developed (Task 2.1). This entailed developing an integrated socio-ecological framework for describing the lagoon system structure and its internal relations as a backbone of the aforesaid case studies. The framework included the use of both indicators and narratives to describe the lagoon regions as systems composed of two interrelated parts: the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human system’ (composed of the socio-economic and the governance components).
Once the comprehensive structure for the “State-of-the lagoon” reports was developed with all involved scientists on the project, existing data was collected by each partner at their respective case study sites. The data were integrated and presented in the context of ecosystem services, with an emphasis on minimising the boundaries between the different scientific disciplines, for each “State-of-the lagoon” reports (Task 2.2). An important function of “State-of-the-lagoon” reports was to direct the case study teams towards integrated, problem-oriented analysis. The reports have provided a framework for an integrated methodology for analysing the lagoon or estuary regions.
WP2 tasks are listed below and followed by a brief summary for those tasks carried out during the previous project reporting period:
• Task 2.1: Integrated framework for multidisciplinary analysis of the lagoon system
• Task 2.2: “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each case study
Task 2.1 Integrated framework for multidisciplinary analysis of the lagoon system
An integrated socio-ecological framework for describing the lagoon system structure and its internal relations has been developed in collaboration with all partners, representing their different scientific backgrounds. Each lagoon regions has been described as systems composed of two interrelated parts: the ‘natural system’ and the ‘human’ system (composed of the socio-economic and the governance components) using the structure shown below (Table 3).
Table 3. Integrated framework for multidisciplinary analysis of the lagoon system.
Main elements to be described the natural system, its environmental status, its resilience and main direction of changes the human system and its ability to maintain and develop evolutionary resilience the human-nature relationship and relations between the lagoon system and the outside world
Key points for description
• hydromorphological status (separately for rivers and lagoons)
• biological status
• physico-chemical status
• harm by specific pollutants
• dynamics and the vulnerability of the natural system • the place and its history
• developmental drivers
• the social structure
• governance and the institutional structure
• vulnerabilities
• resources
• adaptive capacities • main pressures and drivers, exposure of the natural system
• forms of nature protection
• ecosystem services provided for the benefit of the ‘human system’
• relations between the lagoon region and the outer world
Task 2.2 “State-of-the-lagoon” reports for each case study
The “State-of-the-lagoon” reports have been developed to integrate data and bring together information on the human and natural systems in the context of ecosystem services, with an emphasis on minimizing the boundaries between the different scientific disciplines. Furthermore, pressures on the lagoons and possible long-term developments at the local scale as a result of social, economic and climate change have been addressed.
The “State-of-the-lagoon” report was only a first step in the preparation of the management plans for each lagoon. However, already some lessons have been learned, both with regard to the situation of the European lagoons and estuaries and with regard to the management process considered by ARCH, focusing on the integration of different disciplines and fields of expertise.
The ARCH consortium is multi-disciplinary, bringing together expertise from the social and natural, and economic sciences. However, this applies to the consortium as a whole and not necessarily at each case study level. As far as the individual case studies are concerned, the initial “State-of-the-lagoon” reports were assembled by national teams, some of which do not include the requisite spread of disciplines and thus had limited access to all 'fields of expertise.’ However, this shortcoming has been compensated by intensive dialogues which have taken place in the project workshops and the consortium’s efforts to achieve a better degree of integration among the partners and their knowledge and expertise.
The “State-of-the-lagoon” reports, presented by each case study team, proved that such integration is not an easy task. A balanced description of both natural and human systems, including the socio-economic and governance systems, as well as the interplay between the natural and human systems was challenging at most case sites. This should be treated as strong evidence of the underlying need for changing the nature of EU science policy towards a more interdisciplinary and cohesive approach.
3.3 WP3: CASES: COLLABORATIVE ROADMAPS FOR LOCAL LAGOON MANAGEMENT
The main objective of this work package is to compile the “collaborative roadmaps for local lagoon management” in close interaction with local lagoon managers, policy makers, stakeholders and scientists. This has been accomplished in a sequence of three local workshops (at each case study site). These workshops will each deliver a report that is the result of the collaborative process with local actors and is approved by them:
• Workshop 1: “State-of-the-lagoon” report (WS I);
• Workshop 2: Future challenges to the lagoon considering climate change (WS II);
• Workshop 3: Roadmaps for local lagoon management (WS III).
Preparation and implementation of the ARCH methodology at all of the ten case study sites took place during the second reporting period of the ARCH project.
WP3 tasks throughout the entire project period are listed below and followed by a more detailed summary for those tasks carried out during the project:
• Task 3.1: Approved “State-of-the-lagoon” report
• Task 3.2: Future challenges to the lagoon
• Task 3.3: Roadmaps for local lagoon management
Task 3.1: Approved “State-of-the-lagoon” report
This task focused on the first workshop carried out at each case study site. The aim of Workshop 1 (WS1) buttressed by the “State-of-the-lagoon” report was to gain an understanding of the present situation (environmental and related socio-economic processes) at the ARCH case study sites and to share the knowledge gained with all relevant stakeholders.
All case studies adopted a common template to describe the process undertaken to design, organise and implement the workshop, the results obtained and the lessons learned during the process. The “State-of-the-lagoon” reports have proved to be essential in the adaptation planning process, either as a starting point document to inform stakeholders about the current environmental/management context at the case study site or as a “knowledge reinforcement” resource to help build a common vision across stakeholders.
A number of general conclusions can be drawn from the workshops’ experience. All workshops were successful in reaching their aim of promoting a better understanding of the current environmental state of the case study sites, their key problems and management challenges. Stakeholders provided valuable information, for instance on the environmental conditions of the sites and on the threats to their natural assets (e.g. Vistula lagoon, Göta älv, Byfjorden, Óbidos lagoon). The organisers had also the opportunity to assess the level of knowledge of stakeholders on some specific issues (e.g. climate change issues in the case of the Broads). Stakeholders had the opportunity to share their thoughts on the problems they face and the concerns they have working and living in the case study sites (e.g. Vistula lagoon, Amvrakikos lagoon, Razelm-Sinoe lagoon). This helped the stakeholders to gain a “bigger picture” vision and a better understanding of other stakeholders’ point of view, while the organisers were able to identify management problems, such as stakeholders’ conflicts. Stakeholders gained a better understanding of the management processes underway. While in some case studies sites stakeholders’ involvement processes are standard practice through public consultations (e.g. Göta älv, Byfjorden, Broads), in other sites this kind of processes have been seldom or never developed (e.g. Amvrakikos lagoon, Razelm-Sinoe lagoon). In these cases the workshops have hopefully supported the establishment of a discussion platform, which will facilitate the development of such processes in the future.
The methods used were mostly found to be adequate for the achievement of the workshops’ objectives. Stakeholders were provided with the appropriate level of information and the use of tools, such as lists, maps, and questionnaires was deemed useful to gather feedback from them (e.g. Vistula lagoon, Byfjorden, Óbidos lagoon). However, the trial use of computerised landscape imagery in one of the workshops (i.e. Broads) was not thought to be entirely appropriate for the intended audience, which is already very sensitive to flood risk information and its use in public discussions.
Discussions during the workshops were constructive. This applies to both those which were unstructured (e.g. Vistula Lagoon) and those which followed a more structured approach (e.g. Göta älv, Byfjorden). The success of both approaches may reflect the fact that the choice of approach was the most suitable to the country specific cultural context of the participants. In the workshops where smaller group discussions were held (e.g. Göta älv, Broads), they were deemed useful in ensuring the participation of all attendees. The same consideration applies to the round table discussion format adopted in two workshops (i.e. Amvrakikos lagoon, Razelm-Sinoe lagoon) and to the discussion sessions built around presentations delivered by the participants themselves in another (i.e. Lesina lagoon).
Additional details and specifics from the different case study sites are reported and summarised in deliverable D3.1.
Task 3.2: Future challenges to the lagoon
This task focused on the second workshop carried out at each case study site. The aim of Workshop 2 (WS2) was to develop scenarios as visions of the future (including social, economic and climate change projections) for the ARCH case study sites in collaboration with all involved local actors. The discussion focused on the future pressures on the lagoons, as first presented in the “State-of-the-lagoon” reports.
A number of more generic findings (from Workshop 2) can be highlighted:
• The use of a pro-active organiser and/or a professional meeting facilitator greatly enhanced the chances of a successful outcome;
• Small group discussion arrangements seemed to work well and made the non-technical participants in particular feel more at ease and willing to contribute to the dialogue. Nevertheless, some case studies reported that some participants felt they lacked key scientific/technical knowledge or information. One successful tactic to ameliorate this problem was to place at least one ’technical’ expert in each of the groups to offer’ knowledge support’ if required. Another useful tactic deployed was to allow participants to swap between groups as the dialogue process unfolded;
• The constructed futures scenarios can take a number of forms and the case studies have trialled a number of innovative approaches – from, for example, narrative construction to interactive games and editorial cover story writing;
• The case studies highlighted the importance of encompassing ‘localised’ knowledge in the workshop process; this served to better inform the scientists and also gave other stakeholders a better sense of involvement in the dialogue;
• The form and content of the deliberation process needs to be carefully tailored to suit the national/regional/local culture, socio-economic circumstances and governance regime. A ‘one size fits all’ approach will not succeed;
• Getting feedback from workshop participants after the event has proved problematic;
• Engaging effectively with the private business sector has proved to be a challenge in some case studies, this type of stakeholder is often unwilling to commit the time to workshop type events, which they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be hypothetical and unlikely to lead to actual change;
• Co-production of management plans, although in principle an excellent idea, proved to be challenging in practice, with some official agency participants reticent to give ‘firm’ commitments to act;
• Linking the workshop process to an actual on-going policy process (e.g. Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Broads Adaptation Plans and other regional/local policy initiatives) seemed to provide a good context for stakeholder engagement. However, in some but not all cases this seemed to be part of the reason for some official stakeholders to hold back and not commit themselves fully to the deliberative process.
An example scenario matrix used at WS2 for the The Razelm Sinoe Lagoon System (RSLS) is illustrated below (Figure 4). Round table discussions on three scenarios were held in order to achieve a common vision of the future of the RSLS. Additional details and specifics from the different case study sites are reported and summarised in deliverable D3.2.
Figure 4. Example of scenario matrix
Task 3.3: Roadmaps for local lagoon management
This task focused on the third workshop carried out at each case study site. The aim of Workshop 3 (WS3) was to develop roadmaps for local lagoon management. Input from the descriptions of the system (Task 3.1) and the descriptions of expected future challenges (Task 3.2) were used together with discussions with the local lagoon actors at each caser study site. The workshops included “back casting” exercises where the actors were invited to think of measures that should be undertaken (by them, by authorities, etc.) to reach the desired state of the lagoon in the future. These measures were discussed and prioritised. After this workshop a roadmap for local lagoon management was prepared with suggested measures placed along a timeline. An example roadmap generated from WS3 for the Elbe Estuary is illustrated below.
Figure 5. Example of a roadmap developed for the Elbe estuary
Additional details and specifics from the different case study sites are reported and summarised in deliverable D3.3.
3.4 WP4: ARCHITECTURE AND ROADMAP TO MANGE MULTIPLE PRESSURES ON EUROPEAN LAGOONS
The main objective of this WP is to synthesise the WP2 and WP3 outcomes for conclusions on an EU-level. It aimed at developing general conclusions for managers and policy makers who are involved in sustainable management of European lagoons. WP4 compiled all scientific results of the project. Furthermore, this WP has also been directed towards legacy of the project by external organisations or institutions.
The synthesis of the ARCH project has been completed through Task 4.1 4.2 and 4.3 listed below and followed by a more detailed summary for those tasks carried out during the project:
• Task 4.1: Cross cutting evaluation and synthesis
• Task 4.2: “Guide for the coastal lagoon manager”
• Task 4.3: Legacy of the project
Task 4.1: Cross cutting evaluation and synthesis
The Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshop was held in Venice on October 8th - 9th at UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe, Venice. The aim of the Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshop was to discuss and exchange experiences between all involved case study participants via evaluation of, and reflection on, the past case study activities Therefore, two stakeholders from each case study site were invited to participate in the Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshop.
Presentations, discussions in small groups and participatory activities contributed to the dialogue among case study site stakeholders and ARCH project partners. The different case study sites were compared to extract differences as well as commonalities. One of the largest differences between the sites is the prevailing legislation and level of authority responsible for managing the sites.
Furthermore, different threats are present at the sites, some are more coupled to climate change (storms/ sea level rise), while others face issues with salinity gradients. Other management issues that vary are the interplay and communication between stakeholders and limitations due to institutional boarders.
Figure 6. ARCH stakeholders (cartoon by Jan Ibelings, Karikaturist IBIS, www.karikaturist.nl).
Most stakeholders were satisfied with the applied ARCH methodology and indicated that the workshops and discussions were both fruitful and informative. The actual number of workshops should be adapted to the specific case, especially to avoid stakeholder 'fatigue'. This is an important issue since participatory processes are dependent on attracting and keeping stakeholders engaged.
There was variation between the case study sites with regard to stakeholder fatigue. During the plenary discussion there was some reflection on the source of this variation. It seems that those countries that have a long history of public participation and tradition of public discourse (as England and the Netherlands) struggled more with motivating stakeholders to participate. Thus, perhaps more ‘experienced’ stakeholders (often already organized into social networks) were satisfied with only a couple of workshops. Stakeholders from case study sites in countries with less experience in stakeholder participation were in many instances easier to motivate. In such cases, they were the stakeholders that were more positive to attending three or more workshops.
One of the aims of ARCH has been to connect the methodology to an existing policy process at each case study site. There was overall agreement that this is important. For some case study sites this was possible while for others this connection was not always clear and therefore difficult to establish. Regardless, the workshops provided useful training on how to produce a management strategy or roadmap for the future. Some case study sites are hampered by a lack of existing management plans, resources, or a responsible party. Therefore, the design for this roadmap and implementation needs further development in order to overcome these challenges.
Feedback from the participating stakeholders were positive regarding the impact of the ARCH project at their individual case study sites. The ARCH project has enabled different stakeholders from a variety of disciplines to interact and discuss relevant issues that have helped achieve a more holistic view of the case study site. Another benefit that has been achieved is the appreciation of different perspectives on the complexity of the issues addressed. Many stakeholders agreed that a forum for data gathering, sharing, and discussion has been created.
Although it is most likely too early to notice ARCH's impact on policy at the individual case study sites, the indirect impacts are apparent. The creation of a common ground, changed mind-sets and a widening of views can thus be seen as a start of the process. The discussions that have taken place at the Cross Cutting Evaluation Workshops contribute to synthesizing the results from the local workshops and provide conclusions for management purposes on the EU-level.
Task 4.2: “Guide for the coastal lagoon manager”
The purpose of the "Guide for the coastal lagoon manager" is to illustrate why management of lagoons and estuaries is important, how to identify and evaluate important pressures on the lagoon/estuary, what should be considered when starting up the management process, and what should be included in that process. It emphasizes the importance of stakeholder participation in the management process, and the recommendations given are based on results from the EU research project ARCH. The guide is intended for coastal lagoon and estuary managers including planners and authorities (at a national, regional and local level) as well as the private sector.
The guide illustrates the importance of lagoon/estuary management and gives advice on how to organise the management process. Management is needed to maintain sustainable coastal lagoons and estuaries Coastal lagoons and estuaries are important nursery and feeding grounds for several marine species and are highly productive ecosystems. The many benefits they provide for humans also make them highly attractive for people and activities, which lead to multiple pressures and negative impacts on the lagoons/estuaries.
Suggested steps in the management process:
1. Identify management task: The process starts with identifying the need for management, specifying the management task and identifying the lagoon/estuary area that should be in focus.
2. Connect to policy process or to an identified complex issue: If there is an ongoing policy process, connecting to it may increase the possibility of attracting stakeholders and receiving high stakeholder involvement, 'this will also increase the likelihood of a more sustainable outcome for the future.
3. Develop a ”State of the Lagoon” report: A ”state of the lagoon” report contains a description of the current situation including social, economic and environmental problems for the area in a holistic way. This will be used as a basis for the workshops and gives stakeholders the opportunity to contribute to the report.
4. Plan stakeholder involvement: Stakeholder involvement supports interdisciplinarity, which is needed to solve the complex issues related to the lagoon/estuary. To achieve this, identify stakeholders that are important and necessary to invite to the workshops and that are to be involved in the management process.
5. Conduct workshops with stakeholders: During the workshops, issues affecting the lagoon/estuary should be identified and prioritized; solutions and strategies should be discussed. Moderated discussions constitute the basis for these workshops, but other methods can be added, e.g. role playing games, mental modelling, voting and rating of scenarios as well as sensitivity analysis.
6. Summarize results from workshops and develop a roadmap on how the desired state can be reached: By summarizing the results, the stakeholders and managers get an overview of the progress, making it transparent and possible to keep track of the outcome. The roadmap should describe the timeline, the instruments and measures to that are to be implemented by responsible actors to reach the desired state.
Task 4.3: Legacy of the project
The ARCH website (www.arch-fp7.eu) will continue after the completion of the project such that all public deliverables are available, particularly:
• The Guide for the Coastal Lagoon Manager, and
• The European Lagoon Management Handbook
Furthermore, efforts have been made on producing high quality research that will be published as a special series in a peer reviewed journal. These articles will be searchable in a wide array of article databases, and as such, will provide a lasting legacy of the ARCH project.
Scientific publication have been submitted as a series of ARCH articles to be published as a special issue in the journal "Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM)" that is published quarterly by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). Seven manuscripts from the ARCH project and two manuscripts from the EU FP7 LAGOONS project are currently in a pre-review process with the editor for IEAM. An overview of the manuscripts is provided below:
1. ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Breedveld, G.D. and all partners
2. State of the lagoon, what does the story tell? Zaucha, J., Davoudi, S., Slob, A.F.L. Breedveld, G.D. Oen, A.M.P.
3. Stakeholder involvement for management of the coastal zone. Oen, A.M.P. Bouma, G., Botelho, M., Pereira, P., Haeger-Eugensson, M., Conides, A., Klaoudatos, D., Matczak, M., Przedrzymirska, J.; Isaksson, I., Wolf, C., Breedveld, G., Slob, A.
[Challenges in the case studies, thematic issues]
4. Ecological vulnerability of coastal lagoons under climate changes: a comparative study of N:P ratio in five systems in Europe. Vale, C., Botelho, M., Haeger-Eugensson, M., Conides, A., Ballarini, E., Klaoudatos, D., Pereira, P., Vafeidis, N., Matczak, M.
5. Evolutionary resilience and the management of lagoons. Davoudi, S., Zaucha, J., Brooks, E.
6. Mental modelling the risks associated with coastal and artisanal fisheries in Western Greece lagoons. Conides, A., Klaoudatos, D., Heise, S., Palmieri, M.G. Mantas, G., Zacharaki, P. Glamuzina, B.
7. The Socio-Economics of Ecosystem Services and Adaptive Management: A Broads Wetland Case Study. Turner K., Palmieri, M.G. Luisetti T.
[Relation to projects LAGOONS and MAES]
8. Science-Policy-Stakeholder interface towards a pan-European management of coastal lagoons: lessons learnt from the FP7 LAGOONS project. Lillebø, A.I. Stålnacke, P., Gooch, G.D. Krysanova, V., Bielecka, M.
9. Marine Ecosystem services: assessing indicators for European coastal ecosystem services at the land-sea interface and coastal waters. Lillebø, A.I. Somma, F., Noren, K., Gonçalves, J., Alves, M.F. Ballarini, E., Bentes, L., Bielecka, M., Chubarenko, B.V. Conides, A., Heise, S., Khokhlov, V., Lloret, J., Margonski, P., Marín, A., Matczak, M., Oen, A.M.P. Palmieri, M.G. Przedrzymirska,, J., Różyński, G., Sousa, A.I. Sousa, L.P. Tuchkovenko, Y., Zaucha, J.
The IEAM journal is one of the few journals that bridges the science – policy gap and there is ideal for the ARCH project results (www.setac.org):
"IEAM is devoted to bridging the gap between scientific research and the application of science in decision making, policy and regulation, and environmental management. IEAM aims to be the premier scientific journal for presenting new information, promoting dialogue, and fostering new methods for the analysis of ecological, chemical, engineering, physical, and social science research applied to the advancement of environmental management strategies, policy and regulation, and problem solving. IEAM strives to provide a unique position in the peer-reviewed literature, focusing on continually evolving collaborations by offering perspectives from diverse disciplines and a variety of stakeholders."
ARCH has also contributed a chapter to the EU FP7 LAGOONs project which has been published as a book for dissemination: Coastal lagoons in Europe, integrated water resource strategies. Lillebø, Stålnacke and Gooch (eds.) IWA Water Research Series, 2015.
Potential Impact:
The project contained a special work package focussed at communicating and transferring the results of the project to a wide European audience to maximise project impact within the target groups of local lagoon managers, policy makers and stakeholders related to “lagoon management.” The overall ambition within this work package is to design and implement ways for effective knowledge transfer and exchange of information between scientists, policy communities, civil society and other knowledge users.
ARCH represents an interdisciplinary group of scientist and has much to share and learn from one another. Our expectations for the project also reflect this as many partners have similar goals relating to dissemination which in general can be summarized as to:
• Produce excellent interdisciplinary science which is theoretically informed and policy relevant (including academic outputs and high quality publications).
• Build new networks, collaborate and create synergy by connecting people and disciples.
• Learn by exchanging information, knowledge and experience on a wide range of lagoon and estuary systems that can be used for supporting and improving integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning.
• Develop a common methodology and apply tools to manage multiple pressures, provide useful guidance and build a basis for better decision making in the future for these types of ecosystems.
• Continue to extend stakeholder involvement to include local as well as expert knowledge in order to connect science and policy.
• To remain pragmatic; focusing on problem-solving while maintaining intellectual integrity.
Dissemination and communication has been an ongoing task through the ARCH project. Several of the tasks are described in more detail below. Furthermore, the ARCH project has been presented at various national workshops as well as international conferences.
Development of a detailed dissemination strategy
Dissemination of the ARCH project and findings is viewed as both a transfer of research outputs to potential users as well as the transfer of generated knowledge to target groups who are active stakeholders in the project. Thus, dissemination is not an add-on to the project but forms an integral part of its activities.
A detailed dissemination strategy has been completed. Since stakeholder involvement and raising public participation and awareness are key features of the project, the dissemination strategy identifies three types of target groups; scientists, policy-makers and stakeholders. Scientists include the ARCH consortium as well as the greater scientific community who are not involved in any aspect of the delivery of the project but might benefit from its outputs. The project’s intermediate and final results will be disseminated to the relevant audience of local coastal zone policy makers as well as related policy makers on the national and European level. Work on the case study sites will explicitly be accomplished using a participatory process with an evidence-based policy approach. In order to accomplish this, stakeholders will be defined at each case study site.
Establishment of the ARCH website
The ARCH website (www.arch-fp7.eu) describes the project’s goals, objectives, structure, and the consortium. The main elements of the website are the:
• Background and objectives
• Case study sites
• WP1: Methodology
• WP2: Existing data
• WP3: Local management
• WP4: Case experiences
Furthermore, news, links and contact details are also included. Project newsletters are also available for download via the ARCH website.
Project newsletters and leaflets
In the interest of promoting a unified image of the project, all dissemination and communication activities use the ARCH design identity that has been developed, including a logo and general layout templates for printed and electronic material (i.e. website page layout, flyer, reports and presentations).
Two, factsheets (leaflet) that summarise the objectives and results have been prepared following the standard EU template. Additionally, two ARCH brochures in a more popular format have been prepared.
An electronic newsletter has been produced every 6 months, containing information on project activities and other relevant news. In total, eight newsletters have been produced and subsequently disseminated. The newsletters are used to highlight the different case study sites as well as to communicate methodology. Interviews of relevant stakeholders have also been a successful addition to the newsletters as it provides a user perspective to the ARCH research activities. The newsletters are available on the website and are also be distributed to those who have indicated an interest in the project.
European multiplier seminars
International institutions and organisations such as relevant policy networks, ministries and local governments' associations are important door openers and multipliers for lagoon management. Therefore, two European multiplier seminars convening representatives of such (inter)national organisations that work together with local governments on lagoon management and sustainability issues have been organized to introduce the outputs of the ARCH project and encourage their promotion across Europe.
The first Multiplier Seminar was held June 10th, 2015 at GeoEcoMar in Bucharest, Romania. Participants included representatives from local municipalities, research institutes, the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration, the Ministry of the Environment as well as a local fisherman. Challenges with lagoon systems in Europe were presented as well as examples from other case study sites that are relevant for the Razelm Sinoe Lagoon System.
An important objective of the seminar was to discuss the experiences of implementing the participatory methodology at the Razelm-Sinoe case study site. From the perspective of the local authorities, the first impressions were not very encouraging as the goals of ARCH were perceived as ambitious and the thought of involving researchers, local authorities, environmental protection agencies and fishermen together in a participatory process was predicted to result in chaos.
However, over the course of three workshops the stakeholders acknowledged that they were a team of different people starting to work together to share ideas, develop projects and find solutions. More importantly, they have developed a roadmap for the Razelm Sinoe Lagoon. The roadmap takes into account their vision and the stakeholder group would like to see it further developed and implemented.
The second Multiplier Seminar was held August 20th, 2015 at NGI in Oslo, Norway. Participants included representatives from several local municipalities, the Oslo Port Authority, the Norwegian Defence Estates Agency, and the Environment Protection Agency.
A rich discussion ensued after presentations on the co-creation of knowledge using an interactive approach, which was applied at the ARCH case study sites. There was general agreement with regard to the advantages of participatory processes and that they lead to:
• Good dialogue and involvement
• Respect for other opinions
• Consensus on solutions
• Ownership
Although the WHY of such processes is understood, there seems to be a gap with regard to the HOW and the WHEN to apply stakeholder involvement. This lead to a discussion on the weaknesses of initiating participatory processes, which include:
• Resources and time required
• Ensuring that the stakeholder group is representative
• Uncertainty
Despite these challenges, the seminar participants identified methods for overcoming these weaknesses which can offer a starting point for lagoon and estuary managers. It was suggested that small scale processes can be initiated first to illustrate the benefits within the municipality. Furthermore, existing environmental directives can be used as leverage to obtain the necessary resources. Finally, all participants were keen to improve their own communication skills as a necessary step towards increasing knowledge exchange.
Final Conference
The ARCH Final Conference was held June 24th – June 26th 2015 at Newcastle University, Newcastle UK. The final conference brought together academics and practitioners from across Europe to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing those living, working and managing lagoons and other estuarine environments. Presentations explored the complexities involved in the management and governance of socio-ecological systems such as lagoons, particularly addressing the themes:
• Multidisciplinary science in coastal zone management
• Stakeholder participation towards policy implementation
• Ecosystem services in lagoon management
• Case studies to illustrate balancing multiple pressures in lagoon and estuary management
• Bridging the scientific/local knowledge gap
The Final Conference program included several keynote speakers, representing national and international network organisations as well as the European Union.
The third day of the conference was dedicated to a practical, hands-on training. The training was aimed at policy makers, coastal zone managers and related researchers. Participants were introduced to the ARCH methodology and worked with the instruments developed within ARCH.
The ARCH project includes collaboration with an Advisory Committee consisting of internationally acknowledged scientists, policy makers and stakeholders external to the project. These experts provided their recognized and independent assessment of the research performed over the course of the project and of the practical feasibility and public acceptability of the strategy developed.
The central objective of the ARCH project is to develop participative methodologies in collaboration with the involved managers, policy makers and stakeholders to manage the multiple problems affecting lagoons and estuaries in Europe. Each consortium meeting was planned at one of the case study sites and local stakeholders are invited to present the issues for the specific case study. After the meeting key stakeholders have been interviewed to give their feedback on the project and summaries are published in the project newsletter.
A detailed overview over dissemination activities is given below:
Presentations
Andersson-Sköld, Y.; Haeger-Eugensson, M. (2015): Norde älv estuary - Challenges and potentials identified in ARCH and EMOVE. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Ballarini, E.; D´Adamo, R.; Pazienza, G.; Zaggia, L.; Vafeidis, A. (2015): Coastal management of Lesina lagoon: a case study of the ARCH project. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Botelho, M.J.; Vale, C.; Ferreira, J.G. (2015): Connectivity of bivalve toxicity episodes between estuarine systems and adjacent coastal areas with toxic algal blooms. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Bouma, G.; Slob, A.; Woestenburg, A. (2015): What are success factors for stakeholder participation in coastal zone management: Overview evaluation ARCH Case Studies. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Breedveld, G.D.; Oen, A.M.P.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A. (2015): Management of lagoon and estuary systems - joint knowledge production to improve communication and cross disciplinary boundaries. Poster presentation at 9th international SedNet conference. Krakow, Poland, September 23-26, 2015.
Brils, J. (2015): Sediment ecosystem services in the soil-stream-sea nexus. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): ARCH: Architecture and Roadmap to Manage Multiple Pressures on Lagoons. Poster presentation at the Newcastle University Marine research conference. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, May 10th 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): Evolutionary Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change in European Coastal Regions. Presented at joint Association of European Schools of Planning and Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference. Dublin, Ireland, July 15 – 19, 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): Evolutionary Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change in European Coastal Regions. Lecture for Module Town and Country Planning 8932, Planning for Climate Change. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, November 29th, 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2013): Evolutionary resilience and adaptation to climate change in European coastal regions. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2014): Lagoon and estuary management - Employing participative methodologies to engage technical and local experts. Poster presentation at Newcastle University EU Projects Day. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, March 20th, 2014.
Brooks, E. and Davoudi, S. (2015): Towards Evolutionary Resilience in the Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Cieslak, A. (2015): Implementation of ICM, legal system, Poland. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D. (2012): ICZM in Arabian Gulf. Presented at a workshop for the Saudi-Arabia and Greece extension and consultation services project. May 2-15, 2012.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D. (2014): ARCH experience in roadmap to management: N. Amvrakikos gulf lagoon complex, Greece. Platform presentation at the 1st International Congress of Applied Ichthyology & Aquatic Environment. Volos, Greece, November 13-15, 2014.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D.; Zacharaki, P. (2015): "Bottlenecks" and Dead-Ends" in lagoon fisheries management in Greece. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Conides, A.; Klaoudatos, D.; Zacharaki, P. (2015): Case Study – Amvrakikos. Life cycle analysis and carbon footprinting of lagoon fisheries production in rural Greece. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Davoudi, S. and Cowie, P. (2015): Bridging the scientific – tacit knowledge divide. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Haeger-Eugensson, M.; Göransson, G.; Wolf, C.; Frogner-Kockum, P. (2013): Multiple pressures on the Götariver, Sweden, management by stakeholder involvement. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Heuer, F. (2015): Lagoon management: the policy maker’s perspective. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Isaksson, I (2013): Sea meets land. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Kaminska, I. and Zaucha, J. (2013): Ecosystem services of sediments in marine spatial planning. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Klaoudatos, D.; Conides, A.; Bartulovic, V.; Glamuzina, B.; Dullic, J. (2012): Feeding habits of juvenile thin-clipped orey mullett, liza ramada and leaping grey mullet liza saliens in the Ilereteva River Estuary. Presentation at the 12th International Congress on the zoogeography and ecology of Greece and adjacent regions. June 22nd, 2012.
Lindblad, C.; Haeger-Eugensson, M. (2012): ARCH! Poster presentation at the Sea meets Land conference for the Nordic countries. Hirtshals, Denmark, April 24-26 2012.
Luisetti, T.; Turner, R.K. (2012): The value of European marine and coastal ecosystem services: some British case studies. Key-note speaker at the 51st ECSA (Estuarine & Coastal Sciences Association) Symposium. Klaipeda, Lithuania, September 23-27, 2012.
Luisetti, T. (2015): Evaluation of ecosystem services and good environmental status – an environmental and ecological economics perspective. Presentation within the Breakout group II in Session 1 of the ‘Future Coast – Europe’ Symposium in Berlin, Germany, October 5-7, 2015.
Matczak, M.; Przedrzymirska, J. (2012): ARCH project presentation at the first joint ARCH and LAGOONS stakeholder meeting. Gdansk, Poland, April 23rd, 2012. In Polish and Russian translation.
Matczak, M.; Oen, A.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A.; Breedveld, G. (2014): ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 LAGOONS Final conference - Between the River and the Sea: Integrated Perspectives on Catchment and Coastal Zone Management. Dundee, Scotland, UK, September 16-18, 2014.
Oen, A.M.P. (2012): Involving Stakeholders. Invited speaker to an open lunch presentation at the Directorate for Climate and the Environment. Oslo, Norway, April 10th, 2012. In Norwegian.
Oen, A.M.P. (2012): Sediment and Society – Involving Stakeholders. Invited speaker to Bergen municipality's conference on Vågen and sediments with marine archeological significance during the annual “Climate Week” in Bergen, Norway, May 9th, 2012. In Norwegian.
Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld. G.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A. (2013): Identifying opportunities to enable stakeholders in managing multiple pressures at the coastal zone interface. Platform presentation at the 7th International Conference on remediation of Contaminated Sediments. Dallas, Texas, February 4-7, 2013.
Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld. G.; Slob, A. (2013): Lagoon and estuary management - Employing participative methodologies to engage technical and local experts. Poster presentation and discussion in the Engaging Environments workshop "Analyzing lay knowledge and popular action on nature, the environment and climate change." University of Oslo, Norway, May 22-23, 2013.
Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld. G.; Bouma, G.; Slob, A. (2013): ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Oen, A.M.P.; Slob, A.; Bouma, G.; Breedveld, G.D. (2015): Joint knowledge production to improve scientific communication and cross knowledge boundaries. Platform presentation presented at the 25th SETAC Europe Conference in Barcelona, Spain, 3.-7. May.
Oen, A.M.P.; Bouma, G.; Benni, J.; Botelho, M.; Pereira, P.; Matczak, M.; Slob, A. (2015): Stakeholder involvement for management of the coastal zone. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Palmieri, M.G.; Turner, R.K.; Luisetti, T. (2015): Case Study – Norfolk Broads. Economics of Ecosystem Services and Adaptive Management: A Broads Wetland Case Study. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Przedrzymirska J., Zaucha J., Matczak M., Bielecka M., Różyński G., Reda A. (2014): Stakeholders participation in development of the Vistula Lagoon Management Plan. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 LAGOONS Final conference - Between the River and the Sea: Integrated Perspectives on Catchment and Coastal Zone Management. Dundee, Scotland, UK. September 16-18, 2014.
Przedrzymirska, J.; Bielecka, M. (2015): Case Study – Vistula. Role and engagement of local communities in lagoon’s participatory management process - the Vistula Lagoon case. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Slob, A.; Oen, A.M.P.; Breedveld, G.D. (2014): The role of stakeholders in management of social ecological systems, an example for the coastal zone interface. Platform presentation at the Third International Science and Policy Conference on the resilience of social and ecological systems. Montpellier, France, May 4-8, 2014,
Slob, A. (2014): The art of interdisciplinary research. Chair of panel session at the Third International Science and Policy Conference on the resilience of social and ecological systems. Montpellier, France, May 4-8, 2014.
Stanica, A. (2012): presentation of FP7 ARCH and the proposed works at a meeting with coastal managers (topic – to protect or not to protect the coastal strip separating the Razelm – Sinoe Lagoon System from the Black Sea). August, 2012.
Slob, A.; van Meerkerk, I.; Geerdink, T. (2015): The art and science of integrating scientific knowledge for managing multiple pressures on river basins. Platform presentation presented at the 25th SETAC Europe Conference in Barcelona, Spain, 3.-7. May.
Slob, A. and Duijn, M. (2015): The value of local knowledge in Integrated Coastal Zone management. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Slob, A.; van Meerkerk, I. (2015): Interdisciplinary science for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Stanica, A. (2012): Razelm Sinoe Lagoon System as part of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration – pilot site for FP7 ARCH Project. Oral presentation of idea and opportunities – at the workshop on the development of the White Book for the Danube International Centre for River-Delta-Sea systems. Bucharest, November 23-24, 2012.
Stresius, I. and Heise, S. (2013): Stakeholder communication on sediment issues – a waste of time? Experiences from the Elbe Estuary. Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Stresius, I. and Heise, S. (2013): Strategies for an integrated Management of the Elbe Estuary - Handling Complexity and Conflicts of Interest. Poster presentation at the Estuaries workshop. Hamburg, Germany, September 4-5, 2014.
Stresius, I. and Heise, S. (2015): Creating an overall concept for an Integrated Management – Future Visions for the Elbe Estuary. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Vale, C.; Botelho, M.J.; Pereira, P. (2012): Management and opportunities for Óbodis Lagoon: the ARCH approach. Presented at a workshop for local stakeholders. Óbodis Lagoon, Portugal, May 25th 2012. In Portuguese.
Vale, C.; Botelho, M.J.; Pereira, P; Ballarini, E.; Vafeidis, A.T. (2013): The relevance of sediments in eutrophic systems: a comparison of two European coastal lagoons (Óbidos and Lesina). Platform presentation at 8th international SedNet conference. Lisbon, Portugal, November 6-9, 2013.
Vale, C.; Raimundo, J.; Caetano, M. (2015): Methodology for assessing anthropogenic pressures in transitional waters: validation with physico-chemical status in the Minho River estuary, Portugal. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Vale, C.; Botelho, M-J.; Ballarini, E.; Henriques, B.; Pereira, P.; Haeger-Eugensson, M.; Vafeidis, N.; Matczak, M. (2015): Physical and Ecological Vulnerability of Coastal Lagoons: a comparative study of Lesina, Obidos and Vistula. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
van Meerkerk, I. and Slob, A. (2014): Assessing and managing interdisciplinarity: insights from an evaluative study. Platform presentation at the Third International Science and Policy Conference on the resilience of social and ecological systems. Montpellier, France, May 4-8, 2014.
Vollmer, M. (2015): Experiences from the Wadden Sea Forum. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Zaucha, J.; Matczak, M. (2014): Maritime spatial planning in BSR and in Poland: Arch and Vistula Lagoon. Consortium meeting of the Vila Project, Kaliningrad, RF, May 13, 2014.
Zaucha, J.; Matczak, M. (2014): Implementation plan for the Vistula Lagoon. Presentation at the final joint ARCH and LAGOONS stakeholder meeting. Gdansk, Poland. July 9th, 2014. In Polish and Russian translation.
Zaucha, J.; Davoudi, S.; Slob, A.F.L.; Oen, A.M.P. (2015): Cross-disciplinary integration as a result of joint examination of the land-sea interface regions. Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Zaucha, J. (2015): Can the ecosystem services concept help arrive at a more adequate development paradigm for land-sea social-ecological systems? Platform presentation at the EU FP7 ARCH Final conference, Newcastle University, Newcastle UK, June 24 – 26, 2015.
Publications
Zaucha, J.; Komornicki, T.; Böhme, K.; Świątek, D.; Żuber, P. (2012): Territorial Keys for Bringing Closer the Territorial Agenda of the EU and Europe 2020, European Planning Studies, DOI:10.1080/09654313.2012.722976.
Klaoudatos, S.D. Conides, A. and Karkani, M. (2014). Structures and plans for environmental management: a white paper. Greek Fishing News, 388, 62-71
Breedveld, G.D.; Bouma, G.; Oen, A.M.P.; Slob, A. (2015): ARCH: Architecture and roadmap to manage multiple pressures on lagoons. Chapter in Coastal Lagoons in Europe: Integrated Water Resource Strategies (2015) Lillebø A.I. P Stålnacke and G.D. Gooch (Eds). IWA publishing; International Water Association (IWA), UK, 254pp. ISBN: 9781780406282; eISBN: 9781780406299.
List of Websites:
www.arch-fp7.eu
Gijs D. Breedveld, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway, gbr@ngi.no
Amy Oen, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Norway, ao@ngi.no
Adriaan Slob, TNO, Netherlands, adriaan.slob@tno.nl
Geiske Bouma, TNO, Netherlands, geiske.bouma@tno.nl