Carlo Heip(1), Mark Costello(2), Herman Hummel(1), Pim van Avesaath(1), Christos
Arvanitidis(3) and Anastasios Eleftheriou(3).

(1) Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology, PO Box 140 - 4400 AC Yerseke - The Netherlands.
(2) The Huntsman Marine Science Centre,1 Lower Campus Road, St Andrews, New Brunswick, E5B 2L7, Canada.
(3) Institute of Marine Biology of Crete (IMBC), Heraklion, Crete,71003, Greece.

Extended abstract

Introduction

It is commonly accepted by many scientists and politicians that Biodiversity has been one of the overriding global environmental concerns during the last decade and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. The importance and the urgent need for action on biodiversity has been recognized at the international level, with ecosystem destruction and species extinction recognized on a global, epic scale.

Biodiversity, which may be defined as the variety of life and the interactions between life and the environment, encompasses all species of plants, animals and micro-organisms found in the ecosystems, as exemplified in the USA-NRC definition: collections of genomes, species and ecosystems. Although various levels of biological organization can be recognized (molecules, cells, individuals, populations, species, communities and ecosystems) diversity has been traditionally studied at the following three levels: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. Oceans have fewer species but greater phylogenetic diversity than land faunas and floras. There are 28 phyla in the marine environment, out of which 13 are endemic, in comparison to the 11 terrestrial phyla, of which only one is considered to be endemic.

There are many benefits which derive from Marine Biodiversity Conservation because of its provision of goods and services to the human population of the planet: fisheries, aquaculture, ecosystem functioning, amenities and tourism, education, and stewardship, to be mentioned among others. Our major disquiet concerning marine biodiversity at the present time comes from the following well-attested fact: although human beings have affected the local environment for millennia, increased pressure from over-fishing and harvesting, species introductions, widespread pollution, etc. has had a global effect during the last hundred years.

EU initiatives

Various activities and initiatives in Europe started immediately after the CBD (Convention of Biological Diversity) adoption, including Euro-Conferences, Workshops, inventories, networking, development of European Action Plans and scientific documents, and training courses. A long catalogue of all these events is already in place. The EU has implemented marine biodiversity in previous RTD Framework Programmes: ERMS (European Register of Marine Species) was the only project funded under the 4th FP while BIOMARE, marine biodiversity in the EPBRS (European Platform for Biodiversity Research Strategy), MARBLE, MARBENA and several other Projects (including BIOCOMBE) have been funded under the EU 5th FP. To all these activities one has to add the various Science Plan documents and EuroConferences and Meetings on marine biodiversity, funded by the European Science Foundation (ESF). All of the above activities have created a solid basis of scientific potential, which has to be more closely linked in order to establish and make suggestions for the implementation of a long-term European policy on marine biodiversity. This may appear under the proposed MARBEF (MARine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning) Network of Excellence, in the context of the EU 6th FP.

The scientific questions posed and results obtained by the main EU funded Projects focusing exclusively on marine biodiversity are presented below.

ERMS (European Register of Marine Species)

ERMS (www.erms.biol.soton.ac.uk)was based on the observation that globally accessible species registers can: i) help to minimise nomenclatural confusion; ii) save experts’ time in describing new species; iii) repatriate data to developing countries; iv) provide a low cost and rapid alternative medium of publication of data and syntheses. A number of innovative elements have appeared in the methodology such as: a) the data management plan; b) the Intellectual Property Rights Agreement; c) the awareness actions; d) the willingness to invite comments by potential end-users; e) maximization of synergy of effort and minimisation of overlapping; f) stimulating related activities; g) fostering collaboration; h) promoting the use of results. The analysis of the species discovery rate curves gave two striking results: that we know least about most species rich taxa (such as molluscs) and that many new species remain to be discovered. Among the most useful deliverables furnished by ERMS one can cite the website, the gap analysis in identification expertise and guides, knowledge of species groups, and marine species collections and the establishment of a new scientific society for the long-term management of biodiversity data.

BIOMARE

There were two fundamental observations, which led to the development of the BIOMARE (www.biomareweb.org) Concerted Action:
1. That many research questions cannot be addressed on a local scale and require cooperation and the establishment of a committed network of scientists and institutes; 2. That no agreed common methodology for many aspects of biodiversity is available. The main objective of BIOMARE was to achieve European consensus on: a) a network of Reference Sites for marine biodiversity research as the basis for long-term and large-scale research in Europe; b) a set of standardised indicators for biodiversityc) facilities for capacity building, dissemination and networking.

These formed the basis of the three workpackages of the project. A consensus was achieved on the first workpackage and the concept of the EMBRs (European Marine Biodiversity Research sites) was established. A total of 148 Focal sites, of which 38 are Reference sites were accepted by the Consortium after evaluation of a much larger number of proposed Sites.

The ultimate result of the second workpackage was provided in a Table format with the recommended assessment methods for biodiversity research at specific organization level and scale. Both scientists’ and managers’ major concerns have been taken into account for the development of these recommendations.

The development of a tool to help both scientists and managers was undertaken under the third workpackage. The tool can provide lists of indicators, datasets and experts for biodiversity research on any scale (spatial or time) of observation, level of biological organization and key-issue (pollution, eutrophication etc).

MARBLE

The first theme of discussion during the MARBLE e-Conference concerned the main issues in marine biodiversity research, such as large scale patterns, biogeochemical cycles and ecosystem functioning, taxonomy and functional biodiversity, species redundancy, life cycles, and ecosystem engineers and key species.The second round of discussions was on the implementation and application of biodiversity research in management, conservation and science and the third was on the future of marine biodiversity research in Europe.

MARBENA

MARBENA (www.vliz.be/marbena)is an ongoing Thematic Network, which operates through a series of e-Conferences and workshops. The objectives of the project are: i) to create the infrastructure for marine biodiversity research in Europe; ii) to create awareness on the issues at stake and enlarge the visibility of marine biodiversity research in Europe

The results of the conferences are being communicated to the EPBRS meetings, along with those of the BIOPLATFORM (the terrestrial counterpart of MARBENA). The last MARBENA e-Conference was on the marine biodiversity in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The ultimate outcome of the discussions was to identify a clear need for an umbrella Project, which would serve both networking and monitoring activities, as well as offering a viable interface with socio-economic systems.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the study of the afore-mentioned activities, initiatives and projects. The general conclusion is that we need a science of marine biodiversity, for a variety of reasons:
1. We cannot just borrow from terrestrial ecology. Marine biodiversity does not necessarily comply with terrestrial paradigms.
2. The lack of scientific interest and effort until recently was a consequence of the general feeling that marine biodiversity is far less threatened than terrestrial biodiversity.
3. The sustainable exploitation of the seas requires development of a sound theoretical framework for marine biodiversity.
4. Developing a sound theoretical framework underpinning the management of marine resources requires scientific networking and cooperation beyond the classical ways.

The essential issues are the basic facts, which can be translated into questions such as what biodiversity is where, and when; the development of concepts, theories, models, which can help us to understand the facts; and finally the development of tools (inventories, observation, experimentation, modelling).

Future challenges

The future challenges are: a) to synthesise the available knowledge in a meaningful way, make it available to the policy makers and the public; b) to enhance the economic argument, which is not yet very strong and the survival of species depends on public perception and attitudes beyond the economic; c) to communicate the sense of discovery and wonder about the mystery and beauty of the seas to the new generation.