FN Archimer Export Format PT J TI A generic framework to assess the representation and protection of benthic ecosystems in European marine protected areas BT AF Greathead, Clare Magni, Paolo Vanaverbeke, Jan Buhl‐Mortensen, Lene Janas, Urszula Blomqvist, Mats Craeymeersch, Johan A. Dannheim, Jennifer Darr, Alexander Degraer, Steven Desroy, Nicolas Donnay, Annick Griffiths, Yessica Guala, Ivan Guerin, Laurent Hinchen, Hayley Labrune, Celine Reiss, Henning Van Hoey, Gert Birchenough, Silvana N.R. AS 1:1;2:2;3:3;4:4;5:5;6:6;7:7;8:8,9;9:10;10:3;11:11;12:12;13:13;14:14;15:15;16:13;17:16;18:17;19:18;20:19; FF 1:;2:;3:;4:;5:;6:;7:;8:;9:;10:;11:PDG-ODE-LITTORAL-LERBN;12:;13:;14:;15:;16:;17:;18:;19:;20:; C1 Marine Scotland Science, Planning and Environmental Advice, Ecology and Conservation Group Aberdeen, UK National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Anthropic Impact and Sustainability in Marine Environment (CNR‐IAS) Torregrande‐Oristano, Italy Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Operational Directorate Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management Brussels ,Belgium Institute of Marine Research Bergen, Norway Institute of Oceanography University of Gdansk Gdynia, Poland Hafok AB Stenhamra ,Sweden Wageningen Marine Research Wageningen University Yerseke ,the Netherlands Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research Bremerhaven, Germany Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity Oldenburg ,Germany Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research, Department of Biological Oceanography Rostock ,Germany Ifremer, Laboratoire Environnement et Ressource Bretagne nord Dinard,France Station de Recherches Sous‐Marines et Océanographiques Calvi ,France Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Marine Monitoring and Evidence Team Peterborough ,UK Foundation International Marine Centre (IMC) Torregrande‐Oristano, Italy Office Français de la Biodiversité, Patrimoine Naturel joint unit Dinard ,France Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Laboratoire d’Ecogéochimie des Environnements Benthiques, LECOB, 66650 Banyuls‐sur‐Mer ,France Nord University, Faculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, Ecology Division Bodø ,Norway The Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Animal Science Department Oostende ,Belgium The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Lowestoft, UK C2 MARINE SCOTLAND SCI, UK CNR IAS, ITALY ROYAL BELGIAN INST NAT SCI, BELGIUM IMR (BERGEN), NORWAY UNIV GDANSK, POLAND HAFOK AB, SWEDEN UNIV WAGENINGEN, NETHERLANDS INST A WEGENER, GERMANY HELMHOLTZ INST FUNCT MARINE BIODIVERS, GERMANY LEIBNIZ INST BALT SEA RES (IOW), GERMANY IFREMER, FRANCE STARESO, FRANCE JNCC, UK FND INT MARINE CENTRE (IMC), ITALY OFB, FRANCE UNIV SORBONNE, FRANCE UNIV NORD, NORWAY ILVO, BELGIUM CEFAS, UK SI DINARD SE PDG-ODE-LITTORAL-LERBN IN WOS Ifremer UPR copubli-france copubli-europe copubli-univ-france IF 2.771 TC 8 UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00641/75264/75469.pdf https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00641/75264/75470.xlsx https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00641/75264/75471.xlsx https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00641/75264/75472.xlsx https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00641/75264/75473.docx LA English DT Article DE ;benthos;coastal;conservation evaluation;marine protected area;monitoring;ocean AB There is concern across the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) region that a consideration of vulnerable components and the wider support mechanisms underpinning benthic marine ecosystems may be lacking from the process of marine protected area (MPA) designation, management and monitoring. In this study, MPAs across six European ecoregions were assessed from a benthic ecology perspective. The study included 102 MPAs, designated by 10 countries, and focused on three aspects regarding the role of the benthos in: (i) the designation of MPAs; (ii) the management measures used in MPAs; and (iii) the monitoring and assessment of MPAs. Qualitative entries to a questionnaire based on an existing framework (EU project ‘Monitoring Evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas’, (MESMA) were collected by 19 benthic experts of the ICES Benthic Ecology Working Group. A pedigree matrix was used to apply a numerical scale (score) to these entries. The results showed clear differences in scores between ecoregions and between criteria. The designation‐phase criteria generally achieved higher scores than the implementation‐phase criteria. Poor designation‐phase scores were generally reiterated in the implementation‐phase scores, such as scores for assessment and monitoring. Over 70% of the MPA case studies were found to consider the benthos to some extent during selection and designation; however, this was not followed up with appropriate management measures and good practice during the implementation phase. Poor spatial and temporal coverage of monitoring and ineffective indicators is unlikely to pick up changes caused by management measures in the MPA. There is concern that without adequate monitoring and adaptive management frameworks, the MPAs will be compromised. Also, there could be an increased likelihood that, with regard to the benthos, they will fail to meet their conservation objectives. This assessment was successful in highlighting issues related to the representation and protection of the benthos in MPAs and where changes need to be made, such as expanding the characterization and monitoring of benthic species or habitats of interest. These issues could be attributable to an ongoing process and/or an indication that some MPAs only have ‘paper protection’. PY 2020 PD JUN SO Aquatic Conservation-marine And Freshwater Ecosystems SN 1052-7613 PU Wiley VL 30 IS 7 UT 000545272000001 BP 1253 EP 1275 DI 10.1002/aqc.3401 ID 75264 ER EF