ECOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND BIOSPHERE RESERVES TO HELP NATURE CONSERVATION PRACTITIONERS AND SOCIETY TO SET PRIORITIES IN COASTAL & MARINE AREAS:

A meeting of

UNESCO-MAB, the European MARS Network & the EU NoE MARBEF

to strengthen Pan-European cooperation

Venice, 12-14 May 2005

Introductory Presentation

by Pierre Lasserre Université Pierre & Marie Curie – Paris VI

UNESCO-ROSTE, Palazzo Zorzi, Venice, Italy

1

1. BACKGROUND:

There is, today, a widespread realisation that coastal and marine environment is strongly influenced by accelerating changes, largely derived from human activity, directly stemming from local pressure or indirectly from climate change. This awareness is fostering plans to conserve and protect marine biodiversity and to establish protected areas integrated into larger land and sea spatial planning. Even though some significant improvements in the quality status of European seas have been achieved, many problems have yet to be fully addressed and major threats still persist.

Most societies living along the coastal zone have strong cultural relations with their environments. Each coastal society has its own particular nature, which is a projection of its structures and its values. Thus, understanding of traditional, popular, and specialized knowledge enables us better to understand the links that humans have forged with their environments and the resources that they use.

Many human activities have an impact on marine and coastal and marine ecosystems but there is very limited knowledge on their real impact. Classical plans established for marine systems protection, are often oriented towards local measures of biodiversity conservation, in terms of species and habitats, with little tangible effort being directed to large scale inventories and monitoring of marine species and ecosystems. Quantified estimates of the role of biodiversity in sustaining ecosystem goods and services is often used as a justification for conservation, however, little is known about the circumstances under which the two approaches actually contribute to each other.

Schematic diagram showing important natural processes and human pressures that affect European coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.

It must be clear that a greater understanding of the functional role which biodiversity plays in highly diverse marine systems is a requirement for their proper conservation and sound management. The fact that conservation measures of marine species, species complexes

2 and ecosystems can cover, at best, only a rather small part of European coastal and areas, clearly shows the need for a broader strategy for the management of biodiversity. Furthermore, the relationships between marine biodiversity and ecosystem functions are still largely descriptive and unquantified.

Therefore, greatly expanded basic research on coastal and marine ecosystems and their biodiversity, applied to solving specific problems, is essential to determine what resources are present, how to protect and manage them properly, and how to detect change over time. In order to comprehend how biodiversity affects ecological functions we need to understand the natural dynamics and processes of populations and ecosystems in theory and practice. Marine biodiversity should rise from relative obscurity to become an important issue in European policy and science. In addition, managers and decision- makers must work hand-in-hand with scientists and better make known their needs, thus making research in phase with the demands of society.

1.1 - The UNESCO-MAB Programme and coastal and marine biosphere reserves.

The degradation of the environment, conflict over space and resources, demographic issues, the overall poor conditions of water basins, adverse effects of global change, etc. – all these phenomena and factors have led to the need to establish management measures based on a equitable partnership between human beings and nature. This also applies to coastal and marine areas.

• There are clear provisions on the need to establish marine and coastal protected areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, and several other multilateral environmental agreements and processes. On several occasions, the International Co-ordinating Council of MAB (ICC) has reiterated the importance to enhance the number and quality of coastal & marine biosphere reserves (Batisse 1990; Lasserre et al. 1994). The definition of “coastal and marine” refers in a pragmatic sense to biosphere reserves on the coast and which have a special interest to address the above mentioned provisions, at the interface between the land and the sea. This also applies to coastal and marine areas, where 49 coastal and marine biosphere reserves have been established world wide, of which 39 are located in the European region.

• In the specific geographic context of Europe, the 2002 Conference of EuroMAB (Rome) underlined the need to develop a marine agenda for EuroMAB marine and coastal biosphere reserves. This workshop focussing on coastal and marine biosphere reserves (c&m BRs) took place in Finland, 22-25 October 2003.

• Furthermore, the International Coordinating Council for MAB, at its 18th Session (UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 25-29 October 2004) “strongly supported the development of a marine research agenda for MAB, welcomed cooperation with MARS and stressed that this could constitute a model activity to be replicated in other MAB regions” (SC-04/CONF.204/14, Final Report, item 6).

3

1. 2 - The Council of Europe and UNEP Dubrovnik declaration on marine and coastal biodiversity and protected areas.

• Almost simultaneously, the Council of Europe and UNEP organized a symposium on marine and coastal biodiversity and protected areas in Dubrovnik (16-17 October 2003), at which a declaration was produced, to which UNESCO subscribed. This declaration calls upon regional and subregional cooperative measures to be implemented, a platform for promoting dialogue to be convened regularly, and a mechanism for exchanging relevant information and for promoting cooperation among governments and relevant international organizations and regional conventions to be set up.

• Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe took note (5 May 2004) of the Final Recommendations of the Dubrovnik symposium, for its transmission to the Council of Europe member States so that they may apply tem as appropriate in their national policies and practice. The Recommendation underlines, inter alia:

o “European coastal and marine ecological network needs to be established as a conceptual and scientific framework” [and] “should be developed through existing mechanisms and institutions, including in particular the sites designated under global instruments such as […] the UNESCO MAB Programme (biosphere reserves)”.

o “many human activities have an impact on marine and coastal ecosystems but very limited knowledge on their real impact is available. Therefore, it is recommended that research networks be encouraged, such as the European Union’s Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (MARBEF) Network of Excellence, which aim to integrate the most reliable scientific knowledge into policy-making and management decisions”.

1. 3 - Scientists to help conservation practitioners and society to set priorities: MARS and its EU Networks of Excellence (MARBEF and Marine Genomics).

• In light of the importance of scientific research and monitoring for the proper management of coastal marine ecosystems (including the need for specific methodological approaches due to the specificity of the marine environment), it is necessary that UNESCO-MAB enters into key partnerships so as to carry out effective and innovative research and monitoring activities in coastal marine biosphere reserves, with the aim of applying their findings for a better management of individual biosphere reserves, and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves as a whole.

• One concrete opportunity to this end was provided by the offers of the President of the European MARS Network and the Coordinator of the EU-Network of Excellence “Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning” (MARBEF), to explore cooperative modalities with UNESCO.

4

• The European network of Marine Research Stations (MARS) was established at the initiative of leading coastal-marine laboratories and institutions to stimulate research and promote education and advanced training in marine biology, and to develop long- term monitoring and indicators of the variability of marine biodiversity and ecosystem function. A 1st meeting held at UNESCO, Paris, in 1994, resulted in an enlarged membership of 80 coastal-marine stations from all over Europe (i.e. Western and Central Eastern Europe, and the Balkans).

• The 2nd MARS Conference held in Venice (2000), at the invitation of UNESCO-ROSTE (sponsored by the European Union DG Research) was followed by the 3rd MARS Conference held in Amsterdam (November 2003), and gave rise to the European concerted action MARS/BIOMARE. The contributions of BIOMARE include:

(1) the identification and description of 100 European marine biodiversity research sites1, that provide the geographical skeleton for the implementation of long-term and large-scale research (Warwick et al., 2003);

(2) a critical review of European marine biodiversity indicators and monitoring (the challenge being to construct a scientifically solid system that still is useful to the interested scientist, the CZM manager and the public alike (Féral et al. 2003).

• MARS hosts the two recently launched Networks of Excellence (NoE), funded under EU/DG Research, FP6:

(1) NoE on “Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning”(MARBEF) with 56 participating institutes, with 18 marine research stations, 4 marine fisheries institutes, 7 natural history Museums,15 research groups on taxonomy, systematics, population dynamics, modelling and socio-economy, and,

(2) NoE on “Marine Genomics” with more than 40 research institutions, including marine laboratories and specialized institutions in molecular biology, biotechnology, genetics, toxicology.

2. APPROACH AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 - The melding of science and society: options for a concrete collaboration on coastal and marine areas.

Policy-makers and managers require practical, defensible recommendations. They are usually forced to proposing quick partial solutions, often based on very local scientific observations. Nevertheless, through appropriate melding of science and society, the

1 These MARS/MARBEF sites comprise “Reference (pristine) Sites” and “Focal Sites”, which are impacted to varying degrees and by varying factors. Among the sites belonging to both categories, there are ‘All taxon Biodiversity Inventory’ sites, where taxonomic inventories are largely available and which will are used for calibration of indicators, and Long-Term Biodiversity Research sites.

5 presence of human activity in coastal and marine areas is not necessarily incompatible with the maintenance of rich biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.

There is a need for scientists to respond to questions about the consequences of losing particular species or a segment of biodiversity or ecosystem integrity, and to elaborate innovative environmental indicators and modelling. It is indeed the responsibility of scientists into how research can inform society about the choice it must make regarding ecosystem conservation and management.

In the evolution of the UNESCO-MAB Programme, launched in 1971, it was unquestioned excellence of participating scientists which elevated conservation research to its proper status. Furthermore, the Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves, adopted by UNESCO in 1995, has underlined the importance of scientific cooperation in the development of innovative concepts and tools problems related to human impacts on conservation and management of our biosphere.

During the 1990s, ecological science increasingly turned its attention to environmental problems and the challenge of protecting and managing biodiversity (DIVERSITAS, 1996, Heywood, 1995). The sustainable biosphere initiative laid out a research programme aiming at providing answers to critical questions regarding environmental management (Lubchenco et al. 1991). Another significant action refers to the capacity to provide sound guidance on biodiversity knowledge and conservation priorities in coastal and marine areas (Grassle et al. 1991; Lasserre, 1992; 1995; Lasserre et al. 1994; Heip and Hummel, 1998; Heip et al., 2000; Heip et al. 2003;).

For the scientific community, the scale of the research effort needed to obtain adequate knowledge to understand, conserve or restore coastal and marine systems demands regional and broad range collaboration. Furthermore, scientists typically work to the rhythm of multi-annual funding and project cycles. They model and monitor complex phenomena whose changes may sometimes be confirmed only after many years or even decades of study.

Therefore, scientists being asked for advice by managers and policy-makers are confronted by the following dilemma: should they respond by providing the “best practices” scenario? Or should they reply that they cannot provide advice in the absence of data or reliable records? Possible answers are: 1. to encourage long-term research and an intensification of scientific effort, along with other appropriate actions, 2. to integrate the human dimension, 3. to build on regional networks of excellence, 4. to encourage the participation of local stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Achieving these ambitious goals requires a diversity of skills, expertise, resource and networks of researchers and sites. Once attained, this should significantly boost appropriate basic scientific studies and applied measures for appropriate conservation and regional development of the land-coastal-sea continuum.

6

This can be done by: 1) Producing communication tools for scientists and managers involved in the research plan within and outside their region (e.g. electronic conferences, newsletters and discussion lists); 2) Developing strong training programmes; 3) Creating data banks of primary data and metadata, through the web by participants and beyond; 4) Producing high-impact scientific publications, and promoting public information; 5) Promoting submission of collaborative proposals for joint research by natural and socio- economic scientists.

In this context, in Europe, the scientist today has more than ever the responsibility of entering into the “social demand” arena, of probing into how decisions regarding nature conservation and regional development are made, and who they affect. Therefore, there are now strong reasons for reinforcing cooperative initiatives between existing networks with complementary conceptual targets and geographical distribution.

This cooperation should be particularly encouraged, at the Pan-European level, between:

- the UNESCO-MAB World Network of Biosphere Reserves, and its regional EuroMAB coastal and marine biosphere reserves, and - the EU-Network of Excellence “Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning” (MARBEF) initiated by the European Marine Research Station network (MARS).

2. 2 - UNESCO-MAB coastal and marine biosphere reserves.

The need to pay more attention on the application of the traditional knowledge and management of marine coastal systems has been underlined by the IUBS/UNESCO- COMAR working group. Biosphere reserve concept to coastal marine areas was stated in 1989 when MAB, together with the UNESCO-MAB and IUCN organized a workshop in San Francisco (Price and Humphey, 1993; Batisse, 1990). The potential functionality of a network of coastal and marine biosphere reserves as biodiversity observatories was later recognized (Lasserre et al. 1994).

During the last few years, in line with the recommendations of UNESCO-MAB Seville Strategy (1995), the EuroMAB network meeting in Rome (2002) had a special workgroup for coastal and marine biosphere reserves. To follow the recommendations of this workgroup, the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve hosted a working group meeting in Nagu, Finland (22-25 October, 2003) on coastal and marine biosphere reserves in the EuroMAB region (report available on: http//:wwwi.ymparisto.fi/biosfaar/).

Biosphere reserves offer privileged arenas for melding science and society. Multi-purpose management can be achieved through the use of zoning (with core, buffer and transition areas), with different requirements for protection, scientific research and human use. Recent successful examples of coastal and marine biosphere reserves in Europe have shown that the principles and guidelines for biosphere reserves are indeed adaptable to the coastal-marine area. People living permanently or occasionally in biosphere reserves cannot be separated from studies on community and ecosystem dynamics. In islands, the loss of species can greatly alter patterns of human settlement, employment, agriculture, fisheries, tourism.

7 Attaining such cooperation will require a significant increase in cohesion, interaction and reciprocal understanding amongst the diverse members of this wide community. The future challenge lies in combining the pressing need for environmental monitoring with the needs for basic research and predictive modelling. At the same time, improving public participation, and re-orienting regional planning toward observation and sustainable use of biodiversity is required. This understanding must relate directly to the changes brought about by evolving human societies and their resource uses, perceptions, and values.

2. 3 - The European MARS/BIOMARE research sites and NoE MARBEF.

Of a total of 100 European marine biodiversity research sites, identified by the MARS/BIOMARE Project, 8 insular “Reference sites” and 21 “Focal sites” have been selected for intensive and comparative research activities (see Warwick et al., 2003; Féral et al., 2003; (www.marsnetwork.org).

Knowledge and expertise on marine biodiversity in Europe is still fragmented within and between disciplines: • The marine research community has so far been unable to overcome its fragmentation by habitat: pelagic versus benthic, deep sea versus shallow/coastal, and by disciplines: ecology versus taxonomy versus physiology versus genomics; • The approach to understand the effects of increased anthropogenic pressure on marine biodiversity has hitherto been ad hoc and local; • To understand how marine ecosystems will adapt to climate change, we need addressing especially the long-term and large-scale changes in marine biodiversity.

In this context, it was considered that there is now a need to scale up integration in research and monitoring and take it to the next level. The Network of Excellence “Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning” (MARBEF) recently established (2004-2009) by the European Union under FP6, sub-priority 1.1.6.3 (Global change and ecosystems, section III Biodiversity and Ecosystems), will address the above cited problem of fragmentation and create a pan-European centre of excellence.

The main objective of NoE MARBEF is to both forge new links and to strengthen existing links between researchers involved in all aspects of marine ecology and taxonomy, biological oceanography and fisheries and conservation science. Europe needs the synergy between ecosystem modellers, taxonomists and field ecologists, and experimental ecosystem manipulators, that will allow for a better understanding of the societal factors accounting for the unsustainable exploitation of almost all marine resources and landscapes.

The MARBEF Programme strategy is to reach this goal through research centered around three themes:

1. Global pattern of marine biodiversity. How marine biodiversity varies across spatial and temporal scales, and between levels of biological organization. Develop methods to detect significant change.

8

2. Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning. Generate theory, models and tests of the relationship between marine biodiversity (assessed at different levels of organization: genes, species, and functional groups) and ecosystem function through the integration of theoretical and modeling exercises, comparative analyses and carefully-designed experimental tests..

3. Socio-Economic Importance of Marine Biodiversity. Understand the economic, social and cultural value of marine biodiversity and develop the research base required to support the sustainable management of marine biodiversity, including for example, the monitoring of the health of marine ecosystems, the management of aquaculture, the conservation of marine biodiversity, the history of marine resource exploitation, and the leisure use of marine ecosystems.

3. DESCRIPTION OF MEETING FORMAT AND AGENDA. The Seminar will gather marine scientists, managers and conservationists, experts in coastal and marine areas having experience in the implementation of the MAB Biosphere reserve concept applied to coastal and marine areas and of complementary scientific sites selected within the NoE MARBEF as observatories for Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and other sites selected through other programmes/projects and marine protected areas. The challenge lies in combining the pressing need for monitoring with the requirement for basic research while improving public participation, and in re-orienting regional planning towards observation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This understanding must relate directly to the change brought about by evolving human societies and their resource uses, perceptions, and values. In this context, the need to assess change in biodiversity using biosphere reserves wherever possible should profit of a cooperative venture between existing European networks.

The joint EuroMAB and MARS/MARBEF networks and their similar marine and coastal biodiversity and protected areas are in a strategic position to boost Pan- European research and advanced training, and to spread excellence.

Two big challenges in this quest are (1) identifying parameters that can serve as appropriate indicators of ecosystems functioning and (2) taking long-range spatial (regional) and temporal views that could include evolutionary capacity and global climate shifts.

Given the complexity of these challenges, there is an urgent need for the scientific community to help conservation practitioners, managers, decisions-makers and society to take appropriate measures that go beyond the obvious impulse to protect economically valuable species and ecosystems providing services, or aesthetically appealing ones.

The meeting will inter alia:

9 1. identify the “big issue” themes covering a range of scientific and societal issues; 2. elaborate innovative tools for better integration of scientific and managerial approaches of marine and coastal ecosystems; 3. identify common grounds for cooperation using existing EuroMAB coastal and marine biosphere reserves and the MARS/BIOMARE research sites; 4. expand the biosphere reserve concept and encourage the launching of new biosphere reserves, all over European coastal and marine habitats.

4. EXPECTED RESULTS AND PERSPECTIVES

The challenge lies in combining the pressing need for monitoring with the requirement for basic research while improving economic and social considerations, and in re-orienting regional planning towards observation and sustainable use of biodiversity. This understanding must relate directly to the change brought about by evolving human societies and their resource uses, perceptions, and values.

Marine biodiversity should rise from relative obscurity to become an important issue in European policy and science and as an essential tool of conservation of marine life and its habitats. In addition, managers and decisions makers must work hand-in-hand with scientists and better make known their needs, thus making research in phase with the demand of society.

The World Summit on sustainable development (Johannesburg, 2002) identified the target date of 2012 for the establishment of representative global networks of marine and coastal protected areas. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation invites states to “strengthen regional cooperation and coordination between the relevant regional organizations and programmes, the regional seas programmes, regional fisheries management organizations and other regional science, health and development organizations”. It is now recognized that marine protected areas need to be integrated into the management of the wider marine and coastal environment and that marine spatial planning may provide a useful tool for this.

In this context, the need to assess scientifically, economically and socially, change in biodiversity and ecosystem functioning should profit of a reinforced cooperation, at a Pan- European scale, between UNESCO-MAB Coastal and marine biosphere reserves, and the scientific networks MARS, MARBEF and other Networks of Excellence such as Marine Genomics, Census of Marine Life, as well as other ecological networks and observatories within GOOS, GTOS, Census of Marine Life, and the Council of Europe/UNEP platform on marine biodiversity and protected areas, etc., as well as a broad range of national initiatives.

10 EXPECTED RESULTS

1. Identify a list of joint and complementary reference sites for coastal and marine for long-term and large-scale research and monitoring in Europe, based on the MARBEF/MARS marine biodiversity research sites and on the UNESCO- EuroMAB coastal and marine biosphere reserves and other marine protected areas in Europe. 2. Address the effects of global change on biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics over a nested array of relevant scales, both in terms of spatial (local to regional) and of ecological and societal levels of organization and needs.

3. Urgently recognize strategies and protocols to be validated and widely-adopted for data collection, modelling, and observation of marine and coastal biodiversity, to understand how marine ecosystems will adapt to climate change. 4. Producing communication tools to link scientists involved in marine biodiversity research within and outside European Union. These communication tools will take the form of electronic conference and workshops, newsletters and discussion lists. 5. Developing a strong training programme designed to spread excellence outside of the network and outside of the EU Member States (the South Eastern European countries and beyond). 6. Consider mechanisms for exchanging relevant information and for promoting cooperation in relevant thematic issues and interdisciplinary approaches in a range of similar or related sites (e.g. marine protected areas and biosphere reserves). 7. Producing high-impact publications describing the progress and achievements for their use by scientists, policy-makers and managers, and the wider public.

PERSPECTIVES

8. Address the effects of global change on biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics over a nested array of relevant scales, both in terms of spatial (local to regional) and of ecological and societal levels of organization and needs. 9. Reinforce the scientific, social and cultural status of the MAB Programme, in coastal and marine through participation of established networks. 10. Urgently recognize strategies and protocols to be validated and widely-adopted for data collection, modelling, and observation of marine and coastal biodiversity, to understand how marine ecosystems will adapt to climate change. 11. Reinforce knowledge on short term and long term human impact on marine and coastal ecosystems, through proper integration of the most reliable research tools and expertise into policy-making and management decisions. 12. Consider the role of the Census of Marine Life (including EuroCoML and Ocean Biogeographic Information System OBIS). 13. Consider the role of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and of the Global Earth Observing system (including GOOS and GTOS). 14. Participate in the setting-up of a Pan-European platform of dialogue, in the form encouraged by the Council of Europe (Dubrovnik Symposium 2003), and a liaison mechanism for the regular exchange of information, and in order to

11 strengthen cooperation and synergies between the above-mentioned expert networks, and all other interested parties (as noted by the the Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe (5 May 2004). 15. Explore the appropriateness of establishing an Open Ended Task Force for promoting dialogue and common/complementary grounds for cooperation amongst the various institutions and programmes concerned. The UNESCO- ROSTE Venice could be charged to implement the task force.

12

CITED REFERENCES

Batisse, M., 1990. Development and implementation of the biosphere reserve concept and its applicability to coastal regions. Environmental Conservation, 17: 111-116.

Council of Europe and UNEP, 2003. 4th International Symposium of the Pan-European Ecological Network “Marine and coastal biodiversity and protected areas”, Dubrovnik, 16-17 October 2003. Final Declaration. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

DIVERSITAS, 1996. An International Programme of Biodiversity Science. Operational Plan. 1996. UNESCO-IUBS-SCOPE-ICSU, (edited by UNESCO-MAB, Paris).

EuroMAB 2002. Proceedings and recommendations of the Conference (7-11 October 2002), Rome, Italy

EuroMAB, 2004. Proceedings of the meeting for coastal and marine biosphere reserves in the EuroMAB region. Nagu, 22-25 October 2003, Finland. (wwwi.ymparisto.fi/biosfaar/)

Féral, J.P.; Fourt, M.; Perez, T.; Warwick, R.M.; Emblow, C.; Heip, C.; van Avesaath, P.; and Hummel, H., 2003. European Marine Biodiversity Indicators. BIOMARE Implementation and networking of large-scale long-term marine biodiversity in Europe. EU, NIOEO-CEME, Netherlands.

Grassle J.F., Lasserre P., A.D. McIntyre & G.C. Ray. 1991. Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Biology International, IUBS, Sp. Issue n° 23, 19 pp.

Heip, C. et al. (eds), 1998. An inventory of marine biodiversity research projects in the EU/EEA member states. CEC/MAST and EERO, publ. MARS, NIOO, Yerseke.

Heip C. & Hummel H. (ed.), 2000. Etablishing a framework for the implementation of marine biodiversity research in Europe. EC-DG Research / ESF Marine Board / MARS Network / UNESCO Venice Office. ESF Marine Board Report, Strasbourg, 48 pp.

Heywood, V.H. ed., 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge Univ. Press.

Johannes R., P. Lasserre, S.W. Nixon, K. Ruddle & J. Pliya. 1983. Traditional knowledge and management of marine coastal systems. Biology International, IUBS vol. 4, 18 pp.

Lasserre P. 1992. The Role of Biodiversity in Marine Ecosystems. pp. 105-130. In: Biodiversity and Global Change (ed. Solbrig, van Emden & van Oordt). IUBS Press.

Lasserre P., 1995. Coastal and marine biodiversity. Building a resource base for assessment. IMS/IOC Newsletter, UNESCO, 75/76: 5-7.

Lasserre P., A.D. McIntyre, J.C. Ogden, G.C. Ray & J.F Grassle, 1994. Marine Laboratory Networks for the Study of the Biodiversity, Function and Management of Marine Ecosystems. Biology International, IUBS, Sp. Issue n°31, 33 pp.

Lubchenco, J. et al., 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda. Ecology: 72: 371-412.

UNESCO-MAB 2004. Final Report of the ICC 18th Session (25-29 October 2004). UNESCO Headquarters, Paris.

13 Price A. & S. Humphrey (ed.), 1993. Application of the Biosphere Reserve Concept to Coastal Marine Areas. IUCN.

Warwick R.M., Emblow C., Féral J.P., Hummel H., van Avesaath P., Heip C. 2003. European Marine Biodiversity Research Sites. BIOMARE Implementation and networking of large-scale long-term marine biodiversity in Europe. EU, NIOEO-CEME, Netherlands.

14 Comparative table of Biosphere reserves and MARS/BIOMARE sites

Country MAB/Biosphere Reserve MARS/BIOMARE sites Ref. http://www.unesco.org/mab Ref. European Marine Biodiversity Research sites. MARS/BIOMARE, EU-NIOO, 2003 Denmark * North-East Greenland

Estonia * West Estonian Archipelago * Parnu Bay, Gulf of Riga, Baltic Sea (72)

Finland * Archipelago Sea Area * N. Baltic Archipelago: Aland islands & Tvarminne (41)

* Port Cros Islands (13) France * Archipel de la Guadeloupe * Ushant (Ouessant)-Molene Archipelago (15) * Atoll de Taiaro * Natural Reserve of Scandola, Corsica (27) * Camargue * Bassin d’Arcachon, Bay of Biscay (42) * Iroise Archipelago * Bay of Banyuls (43) * Vallée du Fango * Bay of Brest (44) * Calanques coast, Marseille (45) * Carry le Rouet (46) * Glenan Archipelago (47) * La Ciotat 3 PP cave (48) * Riou archipelago, Marseille (49) * Roscoff (Bay of Morlaix) (50) * Rade de Villefranche (51) * Gravelines (73) * Les Ridens (74) * Mont Saint Michel bay (75) * Ophiotrix fragilis beds of the Dover Strait (76) * Estuaries and rias of southern Brittany

* Helgoland Island, North Sea (52) Germany * Waddensea of Hamburg * Mecklenburg Bight, south-western Baltic Sea (53) * Wadensea of Lower Saxony * Island of Sylt, North Sea (54) * Biosphärenreservaat Schalsee * Dars-Zingst Boden chain, Southern Baltic Sea (77) * Waddensea of Schlesvig-Holstein * Biosphärenreservaat Sudost-Rugen

* National Marine Park of Alonnisos, N. Sporades (29) Greece * Gorge of Samaria * Gulf of Heraklion, Crete (55)

Iceland * Breidafjordur (56)

Ireland * North Bull Island * Lough Hyne and Environs, co. Cork 31 * Outer Reykjanes 78 * Clare island, co. Mayo 79 * Dublin Bay, co. Dublin 80 * Kenmare river, co. Cork/Kerry 81 * Kilkieran Bay, co. Galway 82 * Killary harbour, co. Galway 83 * Mulroy Bay, co. Donegal 84 * Saltee islands and their environs, co. Wexford 85

15

Israel Shiqmona vermetid reef 86

Italy * Cilento and Vallo di Diano * Tuscany archipelago (33) * Circeo * Phlegrean islands, Bay of Naples (57) * Tuscan islands * Otranto - S. Maria di Leuca, Apulia 87 * Miramare * Porto Cesareo, Apulia 88 * Ustica island, Sicily 89

Latvia * North Vidzeme

Lithuania * Curonian lagoon, south-eastern Baltic Sea (90)

Malta * Rdum Majjiesa (91)

Netherlands * Waddensea Area * Balgzand (58) * Frisian Front (59) * Oosterchelde (92)

Norway * Balsfjord / Malangen, Tromsø 35 * Bømlo-Sotra archipelago 60 * Inner Oslofjord 93 * Kongsfjorden, Spitsbergen island, Svalbard archipelago 94 *Lista coast 95 * North Norwegian reference stations 96 * Northern North Sea / Norwegian Sea 97 * Norwegian Skagerrak coast, south Norway 98 * South-cape to North cape transect, Svalbard to mainland Norway 99 * Svalbard fjords 100 * Trondheimsfjord 101 * Fjords in western Norway 102 Poland * Slowinski * Bay of Puck, Southern Baltic Sea (72) * Vistula lagoon, Southern Baltic Sea (103) Portugal * Arrabida marine park (37) * Cabras and Fradinhos, Terceira island, Azores 104 * Corvo island, Azores 105 * Litoral Norte 106 * Costa Vicentina 107 * D. João de Castro bank, Azores 108: * Formigas bank, Azores 109 * Lages, Pico island, Azores 110 * NE coast of Flores island, Azores 111 * NE coast of São Jorge island, Azores 112 * Restinga, Graciosa island, Azores 113 * Ria Formosa lagoon 114 * S. coast and reefs of Santa Maria island, Azores 115 * Vila Franca islet, São Miguel, Azores 116

16

Romania Danube Delta (with Ukraine)

Russian * Commander Islands Federation * Far East Marine * Kronoskiy * Astrakhanskiy

Slovenia Strunjan and cape Madona, Gulf of Trieste (117)

Spain * Cabo de Gata-Nijar * Cabrera archipelago, Balearic Islands (21) * Donana * Cabo de Gata, Almeria 118 * Isla de El Hierro * Parc natural de les Salines d’Eivissa I Formentera, * * Lanzarote Balearic islands 119 * La Palma * Punta de la Rasca, Tenerife, Canary islands 120 * Marismas del Odiel * Menorca * Urdaibai

Turkey * Erdemli (offshore) 121 * Sinop peninsula, southern Black Sea 122

United * Braunton Burrows * Isles of Scilly (23) Kingdom * Dyfi * Flamborough Head 63 * Loch Druidibeg * Plymouth Sound and estuaries 64 * North Norfolk Coast * The Farne islands 123 * Taynish * Filey Brigg and Filey Bay 124 * Robin Hood’s Bay 125 * Esk estuary 132 Ukraine * Chernomorskiy * Danube Delta (with Romania)

17