m@rble ELectronic conference on MARine Biodiversity in Europe

summaries theme 3

Summaries of theme 3, as they are posted here, are compiled by the session's chairman, Ricardo Santos.

the future of marine biodiversity research

Topic 1 - Disseminating information beyond the scientific community

Marine biodiversity research can and should be interesting and attractive to the public and thus to politicians. Dissemination, education, interpretation for the general public and the media was a major issue for the participants on the forum. Quality and intelligibility of the information was of foremost concern.

It was discussed how deep the scientists should be involved in dissemination in contrast to leave these tasks to specialised organisations. Who should lead the process? Either one way or the other it was unanimously recognised that dissemination and education should be part of any research project dealing with marine biodiversity, and it was probably better that the projects associated organisations particularly devoted to these matters. There was a general agreement that good dissemination may help funding good science. Thus education, dissemination, extension of science for a wider public, but principally for school children, should be included for funding when projects are submitted, either at European or national levels. This should be considered part of science as well. Research on marine biodiversity needs special organizations that help with the translation of science to a broader public and to the science policy (and thus the politicians). Scientists can collaborate with these organizations. If a research project is EU funded, scientists may claim for a budged for such activities. Proposers may include professional science communicators as partners within the project, who do more than just produce web pages (which is not "disseminating" results).

The historical role of the museums and aquaria was recognised. The importance of high standard TV series, like The Blue Planet was referred as enabling the creation of very favourable momentums that may help raise the interest of the public in relation to marine biodiversity, including research. Some programs and/ or institutions were identified as good examples to follow.

Topic 2 - Marine biodiversity and the EU and ESF

Marine biodiversity has good visibility in the Marine Science Plan of the European Science Foundation. This now requires translation into the mechanisms that the EU and ESF are developing for supporting marine research in the EU in the coming new framework programme.

The role of the ESF and the diverse programs running, like Diversitas, seem to be lacking of funding to launch effective research. It was referred that there is needed to find where the funding for marine biodiversity research can be found.

Participants were aware of the importance and favour trans-European efforts of integration of marine biodiversity research. The PEET USA program was referred.

It was recognised that the main source of funding is still through central Government (National, EU, ESF etc). The trouble is that these are political and tend to take a short-term attitude to funding. Research on marine biodiversity needs long-term programmes.

The other area of funding that has to be tapped is industry. Industry is after all one of the causes of loss of biodiversity and habitat degradation. Participants have recognised that, in general, getting funds out of industry is hard work and often not very rewarding, but it should be a goal to reach. Industry is a user of natural resources. Industry should be constrained to fund monitoring and research of the same subjects (genes, species, ecosystems, etc.) they make use. Any activity that, directly or indirectly, has impact on the natural world should have associated specific economic instruments (i.e. specific funds) applied to scientific research. Any utilisation of natural resources should have associated economic instruments to fund the monitoring and research towards conservation and sustainability.

The prime objective should be to create a system in which the best science is funded. Marine biodiversity research should not simply be aimed at supporting something like the Habitats Directive but at actually finding out what "biodiversity" means in terms of the way the marine system operates - going all the way back to Odum's paradigm if necessary.

Finally, several participants at the forum have raised the question that scientists are spending (= loosing) to many hours preparing paper documents (e.g. statements, proposals, reports) without an equivalent effect on funding.

Topic 3 - Integration beyond Europe

Should Marine Biodiversity Research in European focus on European seas only, or should this research be more ambitious and global? What should be the strategic investments? What should be the strategic links to be created in view to develop marine biodiversity research in Europe and beyond Europe?

Participants favoured enhanced contact between existing networks of biodiversity. It was also found that it is important to integrate research at all levels. Networks should involved deep sea, pelagic and coastal marine biodiversity.

At another level, PEET (Partnership for the Enhancement of Expertise in Taxonomy) was again referred. Europe should strength links with PEET, thus developing a global network.

At the same time it was considered to be a fatal mistake to invest now on making something totally new like big European biodiversity institute. This could bring to most of the money being wasted to build up new infrastructure with an obvious danger that the new positions being filled not with scientist producing new data on basic biodiversity (= taxonomy) but with bio-politicians and bureaucrats “filling new containers with old wine”.

A question was put forward: European biodiversity research should be solely confined to Europe? Countries and their scientific resources have a responsibility for studying and conserving biodiversity all over the globe. Most European countries have polar research projects, but why not a concentrated European initiative on tropical biodiversity? There are few developed countries in the tropics and we need data and studies on critical areas such as Indonesia and not least S. America. What are the patterns of biodiversity there? Europe should be engaged in global marine biodiversity research as the US is.

Topic 4 - Restoration, preservation, discovery and strategic hotspots for marine biodiversity research

What is left of marine biodiversity in Europe? Will be the future of research more dedicated to restoration of habitats and of lost biodiversity or to the preservation of pristine habitats and associated biodiversity? What should be the balance for research?

Monitoring biodiversity in all levels and identifying long-term succession series of species is an important topic in the follow-up of restoration and preservation of ecosystems. Marine scientists have to be aware in the first place that restoration and/or preservation of marine biodiversity will be the result of a very complex set-up of marine management for sustainable development. Marine scientists should put priorities about conservation aims. The value of nature should be above the economic status of our planet. Conservation of pristine environments (in Europe as well as in other parts of the world) has to be a major concern where people should be prepared to spend some time and energy for. It has a lot to do with respect for nature, environment, heredity, and other moral values. People have to be aware that destroying nature (i.e. not preserving the biodiversity of our planet) is destroying themselves. Pristineness should not be the only criterion in selecting sites of particular interest. Monitoring and experimental approaches on those systems which have shown important recent changes may indeed provide valuable information regarding consequences of changes in biodiversity.

On the taxing of the economic value of the environment, including the marine environment, important scientific progress has been made. To deal with nature in this way, represents definitely a language understood by administrators, managers, politicians, economists, lawyers and the like.

The sorts of wealth protection that business people might understand are the value of nature dealing with sewage effluent, discharges of contaminants, coastal defences etc. The value of undiscovered drugs and genetic material is of course high and is already appreciated. People also do value undisturbed nature. So it is possible to start getting a handle on biodiversity not at the level of species level but rather at the habitat level. So perhaps there is a need to focus on habitats and their value.