Deliverable 2.1 Technical report on the initial stakeholder analysis based on qualitative workshops and interviews in the demonstration sites

Deliverable 2.1 Technical report on the initial stakeholder analysis based on qualitative workshops and interviews in the demonstration sites. Ref. Ares(2023)8101505 - 28/11/2023 2 Project number: 101093865 Project duration: 1 Dec 2022 – 30 Nov 2025 Project coordinator: Ida Beathe Øverjordet, SINTEF Ocean Web site: www.climarest.eu Deliverable ID: D2.1 Due month: M12 Preparation date: 2023-11-27 Title: D.2.1 Technical report on the initial stakeholder analysis based on qualitative workshops and interviews in the demonstration sites Lead beneficiary: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research and The Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre - The Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation Prepared by: Yennie K. Bredin and Paola Parretti Abstract Dissemination level PU Public X CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission services) CI Classified information as referred to in Commission Decision 2001/844/EC) Deliverable type R Document, report X DEM Demonstrator, pilot, prototype DEC Websites, patent filings, videos, etc. OTHER Software, technical diagram, etc. Authorship information Lead authors Yennie K. Bredin and Paola Parretti Editors John D. C. Linnell (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research), Marc Bouchoucha (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea), Marta Pujol (SINTEF Ocean AS), and Thea Lurås Oftebro (SINTEF Ocean AS) 3 Contributing authors África Núñez (Universty of Malaga), Ana Dinis (The Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre - The Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation), Anatoly O. Sinitsyn (SINTEF AS), Francisco Silva (The Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre - The Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation), Hanne Kvitsand (SINTEF AS), Ida Beathe Øverjordet (SINTEF Ocean AS), João Canning Clode (The Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre - The Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation), João Monteiro (The Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre - The Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation), Juan Lugilde Yáñez (University of Galway), Laura Leyva Díaz (University of Alicante), Liam Morrison (University of Galway), Marko Radeta (MARE-ARDITI), Marisa Gouvea (The Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre - The Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation), Martin Perrot (SEABOOST), Pablo Sanchez-Jerez (University of Alicante), Paula Daban Losada (University of Vigo), Ricardo Bermejo (Universty of Malaga), Stéphane Pouvreau (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea), and Susanne Shäfer (The Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre - The Regional Agency for the Development of Research, Technology and Innovation) Version history Version number Date Description of changes 1 17th November 2023 First draft sent to demonstration teams for review. 2 21st of November 2023 Changes suggested by the demonstration teams were incorporated in a second draft and reviewed by the editors. 3 22nd of November 2023 Suggestions from the editors, including the addition of a section on the methods used to identify stakeholders and a systematisation of commonalities among key stakeholders across the demonstration sites, were integrated into the text. 4 23rd of November 2023 Final version sent to the project coordinator for approval. 5 27th of November 2023 Comments from the project coordinator were incorporated into the final approved version. 4 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Arctic fjord ecosystems – Svalbard, Norway .......................................................................................... 9 Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances ............................................................................. 9 Restoration actions and benefits ................................................................................................... 9 Nature based coastal protection to reduce erosion in permafrost shorelines. .............................. 10 Local actors and key stakeholders ............................................................................................... 10 Workshops and interviews ........................................................................................................... 11 Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities ........... 12 Improve Arctic wastewater management for ecosystem protection. ............................................. 15 Local actors and key stakeholders ............................................................................................... 16 Workshops and interviews ........................................................................................................... 16 Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities ........... 17 Seagrass ecosystems – Galway Bay and Tralee Bay, Ireland ............................................................... 18 Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances ........................................................................... 18 Restoration actions and benefits ................................................................................................. 19 Local actors and key stakeholders ............................................................................................... 20 Workshops and interviews ........................................................................................................... 21 Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities ........... 21 Oyster reef ecosystems – Brittany, France .......................................................................................... 26 Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances ........................................................................... 26 Restoration actions and benefits ................................................................................................. 27 Local actors and key stakeholders ............................................................................................... 29 Workshops and interviews ........................................................................................................... 30 Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities ........... 30 Sedimentary soft bed ecosystems – Vigo, Spain .................................................................................. 35 Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances ........................................................................... 35 Restoration actions and benefits ................................................................................................. 36 Local actors and key stakeholders ............................................................................................... 37 Workshops and interviews ........................................................................................................... 38 Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities ........... 38 Rocky subtidal ecosystems – Madeira, Portugal .................................................................................. 40 Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances ........................................................................... 40 Restoration actions and benefits ................................................................................................. 40 Local actors and key stakeholders ............................................................................................... 42 5 Workshops and interviews ........................................................................................................... 42 Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities ........... 43 Initial interactions with stakeholders across the demonstration sites ................................................ 45 Concluding remarks .............................................................................................................................. 47 References ............................................................................................................................................ 48 6 Introduction European Union Missions are innovation missions designed to tackle critical and specific challenges for Europe to achieve large-scale and long-term change. Mission Ocean is arranged in Lighthouses with focus on specific topics to achieve a healthy and restored ocean by 2030. The Missions are intended to demonstrate the way for follow-up projects that work along the entire value chain for smart solutions and a sustainable future. As such the CLIMAREST Mission Ocean project aims to guide nature-based innovations and the restoration of degraded marine coastal ecosystems to provide sustainable solutions for healthy and resilient coastal communities and ecosystems. The 55,000 km long coastline of Europe hosts over 40% of its population and includes the Arctic and Atlantic basins. In these areas, heterogeneous human communities see marine and coastal environments as being strongly interconnected. However, the same areas and their ecosystems are also strongly affected by the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. These affect the resilience of coastal and marine socio-ecological systems. In fact, European citizens already face increased climate instability, a rise in natural disasters such as landslides, floods, fires, heatwaves, hurricanes, and droughts, and a loss of biodiversity and socio-ecological resilience. There is therefore an urgent need to protect and restore ecosystem resilience and the biodiversity that these ecosystems depend upon, c.f. the United Nations’ declaration of the years 2021-2030 as the “Decade on Ecosystem Restoration”. Ecosystem restoration is an integrated and interdisciplinary action that requires a combination of disciplines such as biology, geology, engineering, sociology, and economics to grasp the complexity of the socio-ecological system and its responses to both disturbances and mitigation efforts. Ecosystem restoration is also embedded within the United Nations’ World Health Organization’s "One Health"- approach, in its recognition of the interconnectedness of human health and wellbeing with ecosystem integrity and biodiversity health. Given the urgency of the twin crises, however, and the fast-approaching deadline of 2030 for not only the Decade initiative, but also the Sustainable Development Goals, the European Union Biodiversity Strategy, and the Post-2020 biodiversity targets, there is an urgent need to develop and test new innovations in selected coastal ecosystems where restoration actions will secure the highest impact and provide joint solutions for restoring marine and coastal ecosystems and increasing socio-ecological resilience. Restoring marine and coastal ecosystems and increasing socio-ecological resilience require an integration of both human and institutional components. The effectiveness of restoration projects thus depends on appropriate restoration protocols, monitoring, and stakeholder engagement. Similarly, the success of a restoration operation depends on stakeholders' commitment to its objectives. Real collaboration with local citizens is therefore key in defining restoration objectives, achieving lasting restoration goals, ensuring responsible data collection, and allowing for respectful, creative, and efficient use of local knowledge. In this context, Deliverable 2.1 presents the first steps toward a holistic approach that is mindful of local socio-ecological conditions and the perspectives of relevant actors in developing methodological approaches to deploying technological, logistical, social, 7 and economic innovations in the restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems from Svalbard in the High-Arctic (79°N) to Madeira in the North Atlantic (33°N). In the following sections we describe each of the five focal ecosystems of the CLIMAREST project. These include Arctic wild and urban coastal areas in Svalbard, Norway, seagrass meadows in Ireland, European native oyster reefs in Brittany, France, soft bed benthic habitats in Vigo, Spain, and shallow water rocky bottoms in Madeira, Portugal. We briefly describe the coastal contexts in which each demonstration site exists, the sensitivity of these ecosystems to disturbances, including the historical and current pressures that have either caused the ecological degradation or inhibit ecosystem recovery, and the role that the restored ecosystems could play as major drivers of habitat complexity and foundations of oceanic biodiversity. Because effective conservation and successful ecosystem restoration on meaningful scales will depend on societal support and on a broad stakeholder and citizen engagement in the restoration process, the emphasis of this report is on the different social actors and key stakeholders in each of the areas. A critical aspect in stakeholder engagement is to identify relevant stakeholders and audit their general and specific concerns. Similarly, citizen participation is generally dependent on the communication strategies and engagement mechanisms used. Based on qualitative workshops and interviews in the demonstration sites and online, this report provides an initial stakeholder analysis outlining who the relevant actors are in each demonstration site, and the mechanisms by which these actors may either be affected or affect the success of restoration activities. To identify relevant stakeholders in each of the demonstration sites, we began by distributing an online survey to the demonstration teams (Linnell et al., 2023). In this survey we asked the teams about the sites, the historical and current pressures on the focal systems and species, who the people that lived and operated in the area were and about their different activities. We asked the demonstration teams to outline the managerial and legal environments of their sites to know who has tenure rights or other stakes in the area. We asked how the planned restoration activities would affect the current and future use of the areas and resources. This approach allowed us to construct a comprehensive understanding of the socio-ecological landscapes, delineating the diverse actors and communities involved in each demonstration site (c.f. König et al., 2021; Reed et al., 2009; Reed & Curzon, 2015). Going further with the initial lists of actors we asked the demonstration teams about the potential interest and influence of the different actors. By placing the actors within an interest-influence matrix we were able to prioritise among them and identify stakeholders that would be key to involve in different ways and at different stages of the project (c.f. König et al., 2021; Reed et al., 2009; Reed & Curzon, 2015). This initial exercise resulted in the identification of 41 stakeholder groups across three categories in the five demonstration sites. The three categories were i) regulation, administration, management, enforcement or harvesting of resources in the study area, ii) commercial/professional users, and iii) recreational users. Following this first round of stakeholder mapping, further examinations, and initial contacts with stakeholders in the demonstration sites lead to the expansion of our list of stakeholders and the addition of a fourth stakeholder category: iv) education, schools, research, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The results of this stakeholder analysis, including the links between different stakeholders and the restoration actions is presented in this report. 8 To ensure that stakeholders and citizens (continue to) take part in the different steps of the restoration efforts demonstrated within CLIMAREST (i.e., diagnosis, setting restoration goals and in restoration activities), this initial stakeholder analysis will be followed by intensive fieldwork within each demonstration site. Through this subsequent fieldwork we will explore the usefulness of different methods in reaching and engaging with diverse stakeholder groups across the socioecological settings of the demonstration sites. 9 Arctic fjord ecosystems – Svalbard, Norway Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances Arctic marine ecosystems face several challenges due to global warming and local anthropogenic disturbances. Due to the location of Arctic fjords at the interface between land and ocean, the polar climate and high seasonality (e.g., no light for 4-5 moths), Arctic fjord ecosystems and permafrost coastlines are vulnerable to external stressors like global warming, pollution, fishing, and the establishment of new species. In the Arctic, erosion is the main process that shape permafrost coastlines (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2008). Climate change intensifies coastal erosion in polar regions. This is due to increased storminess and wave heights, raising air and sea surface temperatures that prolong the open-water period, and the thawing of permafrost landscapes (Sinitsyn et al., 2020). Consequently, observations in the last decades show that rates of erosion have increased with between 80% and 160% in most monitoring sites (Lantuit et al., 2012). Future climate projections for the 21st century point to higher environmental stresses and hence possible further increase in land losses due to heightened erosion along permafrost coastlines. This would in turn lead to increased release of particulate matter and pollutants from eroding coastlines as well as other negative impacts for flora, fauna, human activities, and built infrastructure (Farquharson et al., 2018). Adding to the negative impacts of increased coastal erosion, Arctic fjord ecosystems also experience increased pressure from anthropogenic activities. Several studies have demonstrated a decline in species diversity and abundance in Arctic fjord systems, in particular due to wastewater pollution during recent decades. There is thus an urgent need to implement both climate change and pollution discharge mitigation measures to protect Arctic marine ecosystems, and to support climate resilient human infrastructure in the High-Arctic, where the impacts of climate changes are already felt and where they are predicted to accelerate much faster than at lower latitudes. Restoration actions and benefits Reducing pressures on Arctic marine ecosystems will facilitate their resilience against ongoing climate change. Preventing deterioration of the marine ecosystem and promoting sustainable industry will improve future climate resilience in the Arctic society. Solutions for coastal protection will increase the climate resilience of coastal communities. Svalbard has logistical advantages as an Arctic test site, simplifying the conduct of research and development of innovation actions. The restoration of coastal sites after coal mine closure is completed at the Svea mine and is under discussion for mines closer to the regional capital, Longyearbyen. Ecological restoration in Svalbard may thus benefit from ongoing experiences with stakeholders, the development of monitoring methods for the coastal terrestrial environment, and potential erosion control measures on the road to/from the Svalbard airport, in coastal areas withing the town boundaries, and of historical buildings and constructions. Moreover, implementation of different wastewater treatment strategies in the two largest settlements in Svalbard and ongoing work to improve water quality, makes for a golden opportunity to join forces with the local authorities to reduce discharge impacts on the fjord ecosystem. 16 Figure 3. Location of the wastewater mitigation sites in Svalbard. A) Ny-Ålesund, B) Longyearbyen. Local actors and key stakeholders Based on the stakeholder mapping, the relevant governance stakeholders are Longyearbyen Community Council and the Governor of Svalbard. Relevant commercial stakeholders are Visit Svalbard, Svalbard Museum, the Svalbard Airport, Coop (the local supermarket), plumbers, commercial fisheries, and the association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO). Relevant research and educational stakeholders are research cruises, researchers and students at The University Centre in Svalbard, and children in kindergartens and schools. In addition, year-round residents, and tourists are important. Workshops and interviews The case coordinator has been in contact with the Longyearbyen Community Council and with plumbers. Primary contact has been through Teams meetings, physical meetings in Longyearbyen and through emails. There has also been contact with the University Centre in Svalbard, related to conducting field data sampling campaigns during the summer of 2023. Follow up one-on-one meetings are planned for with Longyearbyen Community Council to develop the social campaigns, as the Community Council is the owner and operator of the wastewater system, with the plumbers and with the University Centre in Svalbard. Contact with other stakeholders are ongoing, and the development of social campaigns against sewage pollution has been initiated. These will be implemented during the spring of 2024. 17 Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities Figure 4. Stakeholders diagram about sewage remedy in Svalbard, Norway. Pressures on the fiord ecosystem are represented within the red rectangle. Restoration actions (black lines and rectangles) consist in 1) developing a social campaign and 2) monitoring the effect of the social campaign. Stakeholders are classified in four categories and are illustrated in blue boxes following an increasing colour gradient from lighter blue to darker blue: Category i) represents the regulation, administration, management, enforcement or harvesting of resources within the study site. Category ii) includes commercial/professional users. Category iii) represents recreational users. Category iv) includes education, schools, research, and NGOs. Stars indicate priority stakeholders. Arrows are coded as: black connects restoration actions to the environment; grey indicates that the action (or the stakeholder) is influencing a stakeholder (or an action); dotted grey represent possible influence; green specifies that the link is beneficial, and red indicates a negative effect. The involvement of the Longyearbyen Community Council is essential and will be beneficial in the development and implementation of a social campaign and in monitoring its effect. Longyearbyen Community Council is the owner of the wastewater system and responsible for the wastewater discharge to the fjord. They are thus a key stakeholder (middle, figure 4). The Community Council has an allowance of discharge of wastewater to the fjord stated by the Governor at Svalbard in 2007 (right, figure 4). According to the allowance, the municipality must survey the ecological and chemical status of the fjord every three years and evaluate impacts from wastewater and pollution on the local ecosystem. The Longyearbyen Community Council uses the company Assemblin for plumbing work. The Community Council will therefore have economic benefit from improved wastewater management 18 by means of improved operation of the systems through less waste in the sewage. The plumbers will benefit directly from improved wastewater management and reduced waste as this will reduce the frequency of the messy, uncomfortable, and potentially hazardous (particularly during winter) operations needed to clean the system from waste plugging the pumps and pipes. The plumbers of Longyearbyen will thus be a key stakeholder group for monitoring the effects of the social campaign (middle, figure 4). Longyearbyen Community Council will benefit economically from the reduced need of cleaning operations by the plumbers. At the same time as less waste down the toilets mean less pollution into the fjord, it also means that the waste needs to be dealt with in some other way. The Longyearbyen Community Council is responsible for the garbage management, and they already ship the approximately 80 kg of waste trapped by the sieve every week to Tromsø. This is more expensive than letting the waste into the fjord, but the ecological benefits outweigh the economic cost. Other stakeholders like Coop, schools, Visit Svalbard, and the Airport will contribute to spreading information about the sewage system in Svalbard. Their active involvement may positively influence the restoration action (left side, figure 4). Commercial fisheries in connecting fjords (right, figure 4) are interested in the results from the project but will not take part in monitoring or deployment of the social campaign themselves. The young citizens of Longyearbyen are one of the main targets of the social campaign (left side, figure 4). They will benefit from increased knowledge and awareness about the impacts of human activities on the Arctic fjord Adventfjorden, including increased knowledge about the local sewage system and how wastewater is (not) treated. The aim is that children and students will share the acquired information at home, involving their families in this action. We will also conduct an ocean literacy campaign at the school in Longyearbyen, aiming to increase the ocean literacy among the school children. There are approximately 150 000 tourists visiting Longyearbyen annually, with an average length of stay of approximately 2 days (Hovelsrud et al., 2023). Tourists are thus a key target group of the social campaign, in addition to the young citizens of Longyearbyen. Tourists will be indirectly involved in the social campaign. Their collaboration depends on the active involvement of Visit Svalbard, the Airport, and the Port of Longyearbyen (lower middle, figure 4). The Port of Longyearbyen and all related activities (i.e., fishers and cruises) may only marginally affect the result of the social campaign when ship crews come ashore (lower middle, figure 4). Seagrass ecosystems – Galway Bay and Tralee Bay, Ireland Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances Seagrass refers to various genera of plants, such as Zostera, Halodule, Cymodocea, Posidonia. Seagrass meadows are sediment bottoms densely colonized by seagrasses and are considered as some of the most valuable systems on earth in terms of ecosystem service provisioning, including the sequestration of carbon and nutrients (Costanza et al., 1997; Hemminga & Duarte, 2000; Lavery et al., 2013). Unfortunately, a variety of human pressures led to an accelerated loss of seagrass 19 meadows, globally, in the 20th century (Waycott et al., 2009). Eutrophication associated with the intensification of agriculture, habitat destruction, and waste effluent from urban areas have affected seagrass meadows negatively. With the implementation of the European Union water framework directive, environmental conditions have improved in recent decades, in Europe (de los Santos et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the recovery of seagrass meadows remains slow. Therefore, active restoration actions emerge as a critical nature-based solution and management tool for climate adaptation and resilience by enhancing ecosystem services, recovering ecological functions, and mitigating for seagrass habitat loss and degradation. Restoration actions and benefits Seagrass meadows can reduce the impact of coastal erosion by reducing wave energy and acting as a sediment trap, provide habitat for several marine organisms, buffer biogeochemical cycles (enhancement of denitrification, nutrient sequestration, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus), and play a key role in global climate regulation through the sequestration of carbon. Furthermore, seagrasses are recognised ecosystem engineers by forming meadows that harbour an important number of species. That makes seagrass meadows key for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In Ireland, the expected increase in the number of estuaries affected by nutrient over-enrichment because of intensified agriculture may pose a challenge for seagrass restoration (gov.ie, 2023). Since 2016, two projects funded by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (SEAMAT and MACROMAN; Bermejo et al., n.d., 2019) identified seagrass restoration as a critical tool for the recovery of ecological functioning and services provided by Irish estuaries. Their recovery may also limit the occurrence of opportunistic macroalgal blooms linked to coastal eutrophication. This is relevant and applicable across all European coastal and transitional waters. Currently CLIMAREST provides the only ongoing seagrass meadow restoration actions in the bay of Galway and Tralee Bay, Ireland (figure 5). Developing successful restoration methods for seagrass recovery in these areas, by focusing on planting methods (e.g., site selection, transplants, seed germination) will allow us to develop protocols and methodologies applicable beyond the demonstration sites at larger scales. By assessing seagrass connectivity using molecular tools we will avoid disturbing genetic population structure of natural sites because of seagrass restoration actions. And, importantly, by promoting stakeholder engagement, we hope to create positive interest among recreational users (e.g., windsurfers, dog walkers, horse riders) and commercial fishermen in the experimental field sites for seagrass restoration. 20 Figure 5. Map showing the demonstrations sites of A) Galway Bay and B) Tralee Bay. Local actors and key stakeholders The main stakeholders for the two restoration sites in the bay of Galway and Tralee Bay are partly overlapping. For both Galway Bay and Tralee Bay government stakeholders include the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the National Park and Wildlife Service, the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Sustainable Water Network. In addition, the Local Authority Water Programme is relevant for the site in Tralee Bay. Among the commercial stakeholders there is less overlap, although for both areas farmers in the coastal zone and adjacent watersheds are important. In Galway commercial stakeholders are farmers, wastewater managers, a wind surfing school, and a horse-riding school. In Tralee Bay we find scallop and oyster fishermen, the Tralee Oyster Fishery Society, the Maharees Seagrass Hatchery, Seaweed Harvesters, farmers, and the Tralee Bay Sea Angling Club. Recreational stakeholders also differ between Galway Bay and Tralee Bay. In Galway Bay recreational stakeholders are beach users, horseback riders, surfers, the Galway Atlantaquaria (the national aquarium of Ireland), and the Friends of Barna woods and Rusheen Bay. In Tralee Bay we also find beach users, the Dingle Oceanworld Aquarium, the Fenit Coast Conservation Group, and Maharees Conservation Association. Among educational stakeholders and NGOs there is again some overlap between Galway Bay and Tralee Bay. In both areas we find the Irish Marine institute, the University of Galway, and Coast Watch Ireland. In addition, Seasearch Ireland (a project for divers and snorkelers) is relevant for Galway Bay 21 (and potentially secondary schools). In Tralee Bay, the Munster Technological University, Tralee and the Irish Elasmobranch Group are additional relevant educational stakeholders. Workshops and interviews Most of the relevant stakeholders for both Galway Bay and Tralee Bay have been contacted, either through a formal letter, email, or over the phone. Only four non-priority stakeholders have not yet been contacted. One-on-one meetings have been held with approximately half of the stakeholders. The other half of the stakeholders have attended workshops arranged either with representatives from different stakeholder groups or with representatives from the same stakeholder group. For the most part, the purpose of these meetings and workshops has been to inform the stakeholders about the CLIMAREST activities. With three of the governance stakeholders the purpose was to get their permission to conduct restoration activities. However, with some of the stakeholders the hope is to get them involved in the restoration activities, either directly through the planting of seagrass or the monitoring, or indirectly by helping with the dissemination activities. Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities Figure 6. Stakeholder diagram about seagrass meadow restoration in Galway Bay, Ireland. Pressures on the seagrass are represented within the red rectangle. Restoration actions (black lines and rectangles) consist in 1) monitoring the water quality, 2) planting seagrass, 3) monitoring the recovery of seagrass meadows, and 4) outreach activities to inform the Irish public and share results and experiences with other potential seagrass meadow restoration sites. Stakeholders are classified in four categories and are illustrated in blue boxes following an increasing colour gradient from lighter blue to darker blue: Category i) represents the regulation, administration, management, enforcement or harvesting of resources within the study site. Category ii) includes commercial/professional users. Category iii) represents recreational users. Category iv) includes education, schools, research, and NGOs. Stars indicate priority stakeholders. Arrows are coded as: black connects restoration actions to the environment; grey indicates that the action (or the stakeholder) is influencing a stakeholder (or an action); green specifies that the link is beneficial, and red indicates a negative effect. 22 The Galway Bay demonstration site is small, and the bay stretches approximately 1 km across. There used to be seagrass meadows here, but for unclear reasons the seagrass meadows were degraded and disappeared from the bay. The exact time for this is unclear. Current threats to the reestablishment of seagrass meadows in the Galway Bay that cannot be affected within the project period include eutrophication from the agricultural sector, global warming of sea temperatures, increased frequency of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and the arrival and spread of invasive species such as the red seaweed Gracilaria vermiculophylla (Ohmi) Papenfuss that arrived with the oyster farming and now competes with seagrasses for space (top left, figure 6). Threats to the reestablishment of a seagrass meadow in the Galway Bay that can be affected within the project period include sufficient treatment of local wastewater (there is an outlet in the Galway Bay), avoidance of trampling of seagrass by recreational users, and increased tolerance of seagrass beds to local anoxic events (top right, figure 6). Ensuring sufficient water quality in the bay will aid the re-establishment of the seagrass meadow in Galway Bay. The Wastewater Management in Galway is responsible for treating local sewage before discharging the wastewater into the bay. Some years ago, the treatment of the wastewater was improved. By involving the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, the Irish Marine Institute and the Sustainable Water Network in monitoring the water quality of the bay, the demonstration team hopes to ensure sufficient water quality also in the future (left side, figure 6). The Environmental Protection Agency (left side, figure 6), as a government stakeholder, also provides valuable information regarding the locations and mapping of Irish seagrass meadows. They could benefit from the data collected in CLIMAREST to expand protection to new areas, focus on additional areas requiring monitoring, and potentially develop new programs to assist more local communities in finding and conserving new seagrass meadows. Because of the improved water quality in the Galway Bay, the water should now be clean enough for the seagrass to recolonise its historical habitat. So far, however, this has not happened. Potentially this could be because of a lack of seagrass sources in the area to provide sufficient seeds for recolonisation. To test this hypothesis, plants are now being brought from source populations in protected areas in Connemara to see if the seagrass will re-establish. For these activities, the National Park and Wildlife Services is a key stakeholder and have given their permission for the collection of seagrass seeds in Connemara and Tralee Bay (lower right, figure 6).The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage are also key stakeholders for these activities as they had to give their permission for the University of Galway to plant the seagrass seeds in the Galway Bay (lower right, figure 6). Another hypothesis is that the invasive red algae Gracilaria vermiculophylla and other species that have colonised the habitat that became available when the seagrass disappeared from Galway Bay may have enriched the sediments and made them unsuitable for the seagrass. This may inhibit seagrass recolonization to its former habitat. To test this hypothesis a trial is set up with the University of Malaga to test the suitability of the sediments for the seagrass. At low tide the upper parts of the seagrass meadows in the bay becomes exposed. It is therefore popular with recreational beach users that use the area for horseback-riding and walking, in addition to the activities in shallow water like windsurfing and kayaking. Such recreational activities are a 23 potential threat to the re-establishment of the seagrass meadows as people may trample the establishing seagrass or remove the technical infrastructure associated with the experimental reintroductions of seagrass. To avoid potential conflicts with recreational users of the Galway Bay and potentially negative effects on the restoration efforts, horse riding schools, windsurfing schools, Friends of Barna woods and Rusheen Bay, Galway Atlantaquaria, Seasearch Ireland, and Coast Watch Ireland (which has very big network in Ireland) could help spread awareness and information about the restoration activities. Secondary schools and the University of Galway may also help with the outreach activities (bottom, figure 6). Furthermore, Galway Atlantaquaria and Friends of Barna woods and Rusheen Bay may help the University of Galway to monitor the seagrass recolonization progress (bottom right, figure 6). Because the Galway Atlantaquaria has broad contact with different stakeholder groups including the wider public, they are a key stakeholder to partner with for monitoring seagrass meadow recovery, informing the public about the restoration activities and fostering broad societal acceptance. Similarly, because of their broad networks with several stakeholder groups the Friends of Barna woods and Rusheen Bay are key stakeholders that could help to both foster a broad acceptance for the restoration activities and push for necessary behavioural / policy changes. Perhaps in the future the Friends of Barna woods and Rusheen Bay may contribute to planting seagrass. Increased planting and protection of seagrass by multiple actors may help get the seagrass population above the critical threshold needed for the seagrass beds to withstand periodic anoxic events and for the seagrass meadows to re-establish. Not only will the restoration activities greatly benefit from the collaboration of these stakeholders, but educational stakeholders like Coast Watch Ireland and Seasearch Ireland also stand to benefit by acquiring new, crucial information aligned with their interests, and by involving more citizens in their programs. Involvement in CLIMAREST, as stakeholders, will also provide them with additional feedback for their surveys, enhancing their scientific perspectives. Institutions such as the Irish Marine Institute and other departments at the University of Galway would further establish new partnerships and gain access to more valuable data for their own studies. 24 Figure 7. Stakeholder diagram about seagrass meadow restoration in Tralee Bay, Ireland. Pressures on the seagrass are represented within the red rectangle. Restoration actions (black lines and rectangles) consist in 1) monitoring the water quality, 2) planting seagrass, 3) monitoring the recovery of seagrass meadows, and 4) outreach activities to inform the Irish public and share results and experiences with other potential seagrass meadow restoration sites. Stakeholders are classified in four categories and are illustrated in blue boxes following an increasing colour gradient from lighter blue to darker blue: Category i) represents the regulation, administration, management, enforcement or harvesting of resources within the study site. Category ii) includes commercial/professional users. Category iii) represents recreational users. Category iv) includes education, schools, research, and NGOs. Stars indicate priority stakeholders. Arrows are coded as: black connects restoration actions to the environment; grey indicates that the action (or the stakeholder) is influencing a stakeholder (or an action); green specifies that the link is beneficial, and red indicates a negative effect. The demonstration site at Tralee Bay is 16 km across (figure 5). Some of the coastal parts of the bay are included in Natura 2000 sites (Tralee Bay Complex SPA IE0004188). At this site there used to be seagrass meadows that have been degraded and disappeared. The timing and cause of this is uncertain. Current threats that inhibit the re-establishment of seagrass meadows in the area may be divided into two groups, those that cannot be affected within the project timeframe and those that can be affected within the project timeframe. Threats that cannot be affected within the project timeframe include eutrophication from the agricultural sector, global warming of sea temperatures, increased frequency of extreme weather events, sea level rise, the arrival of invasive species that may compete with the seagrass for space, erosion (possibly related to sea level rise and / or the disappearance of the seagrass meadows), and potentially unsustainable harvest rates of seagrass flowers by the local seagrass hatchery (top left and very top right, figure 7). Threats that can be affected within the project timeframe include proper treatment of local wastewater, scallop and oyster trawling, and the trampling of seagrass (lower top right, figure 7). 25 As in Galway Bay, good water quality is a prerequisite for seagrass re-establishment in Tralee Bay. By involving the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, the Irish Marine Institute and the Sustainable Water Network in monitoring the water quality of Tralee Bay, the demonstration team hopes to ensure sufficient water quality for seagrass re-establishment (left side, figure 7). The National Park and Wildlife Services and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage are once again key stakeholders for the restoration activities to take place as their permissions are needed for the University of Galway to plant seagrass in Tralee Bay (right, figure 7). In Tralee Bay, shellfish trawling is still ongoing. Because trawling could seriously impede any restoration efforts the Tralee Oyster Fishery Society is a key stakeholder (lower left, figure 7). Through them an agreement has been made with the commercial stakeholders, such as the scallop and oyster fishery (top middle, figure 7) and the Tralee Bay Sea Angling Club (lower left, figure 7), to respect the areas where seagrass meadows exist. They have agreed to cease dredging activities for their mutual benefit, as the seagrass meadows serve as nurseries for fish and oyster larvae upon which their activities depend. This action aims to prevent potential impacts on the fish and oyster stocks in the future. The seagrass hatchery’s operations could have negative consequences on the seagrass meadows if they harvest plants excessively for seed use. However, they also have the potential to positively impact the restoration process by exploring new techniques for seed restoration and sustainable seed extraction (top, figure 7). Because the beach around Tralee Bay becomes exposed at low tide, the beach area is popular with recreational users. These recreational users may trample the upper seagrass zone or remove the experimental setups. In addition, it is common for people to drive cars cross parts of the beach during low tide (top, figure 7). In local sand dune restoration projects where similar phenomena have been observed, specific paths have been designated for people to drive or walk. Something similar could be done in the Tralee Bay. To avoid potential conflicts with residents and recreational users, specific areas could be designated for the seagrass meadow restoration or driving, walking and horseback riding. To facilitate such an agreement the Tralee Oyster Fishery Society, the Tralee Bay Sea Angling Club, the Maharees Seagrass Hatchery, Coastal Watch Ireland, the Dingle Oceanworld Aquarium, the Fenit Coast Conservation Group, the Maharees Conservation Association, the Munster Technological University, Tralee and the Irish Elasmobranch Group, and the University of Galway could help spread awareness and information about the restoration activities (bottom left and middle, figure 7). Moreover, Coastal Watch Ireland, the Dingle Oceanworld Aquarium, the Fenit Coast Conservation Group, and the Maharees Conservation Association may help the University of Galway to monitor the seagrass bed recovery (bottom right, figure 7). In addition to aiding the restoration work through the monitoring and outreach activities, local stakeholders also stand to benefit positively from restoration activities at some point in the future if the restoration succeeds and can be up-scaled. The stabilization of sediment resulting from these efforts may help prevent coastal erosion caused by rising sea levels and more powerful storms in these sensitive flood-prone areas. Healthier seagrass meadows can reduce water eutrophication, 32 Figure 10. Stakeholder diagram about oyster reef restoration in Quiberon Bay, France. Pressures on the oyster populations are represented within the red rectangle. Restoration actions (black lines and rectangles) consist of 1) deploying artificial reef structures, and 2) outreach activities to inform the Franch public and share results and experiences with other potential oyster reef restoration sites. Stakeholders are classified in four categories and are illustrated in blue boxes following an increasing colour gradient from lighter blue to darker blue: Category i) represents the regulation, administration, management, enforcement or harvesting of resources within the study site. Category ii) includes commercial/professional users. Category iii) represents recreational users. Category iv) includes education, schools, research, and NGOs. Stars indicate priority stakeholders. Arrows are coded as: black connects restoration actions to the environment; grey indicates that the action (or the stakeholder) is influencing a stakeholder (or an action); green specifies that the link is beneficial, red indicates a negative effect, and orange indicates a potential conflict. Both sites, in the bays of Brest (figure 9) and Quiberon (figure 10), are embedded in complex stakeholder environments, composed of public institutions, private economic actors, leisure practitioners and scientific and technical organisations. For the bay of Brest, CLIMAREST restoration actions are carried out on the “banc du Roz”, for which French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea already has authorizations to carry out experimental work, in the framework of a wider partnership with the French biodiversity agency (left, figure 9). For Quiberon Bay, SEABOOST established a specific partnership agreement with the regional shellfish farmers representation committee of southern Bretagne to carry out restoration actions on the “banc de Penthièvre”, which is a marine plot under their management for wild oyster conservation purposes (middle, figure 10). In both sites, the restoration actions must be consistent with local regulations and policies regarding i) deployment of structures on the seabed, and ii) restoration of marine habitats. Permits must be obtained from the directorates of marine affaires and agreed upon with local Natura 2000 management institutions. These institutions are therefore key stakeholders (left, figure 9; left and right, figure 10). The French Biodiversity Agency is also involved to approve the general approach of actively restoring the European oyster. As this institution defines the ecosystem restoration policy throughout the country it is a key stakeholder (figure 9; figure 10). For both sites, implementing active 33 restoration has been found relevant since several years of observations have demonstrated that the species is incapable of spontaneous reef formation (Pouvreau et al., 2020). One-on-one meetings were carried out with all government stakeholders in the first months of CLIMAREST (January to April 2023) to inform them about the demonstration sites’ objectives, determine the specific conditions in which restoration operations could be undertaken, and obtain the necessary approvals prior to field operations that were already initiated in May 2023 for the bay of Brest and June 2023 for Quiberon Bay. The government stakeholders will be further informed on the results of the restoration activities. They will also be involved in workshops to determine local roadmaps for upscaling (grey and green arrows between the application of artificial reef structures and these stakeholders, figure 9; figure 10). In both sites, it is the responsibility of local municipalities to treat urban wastewater and provide solutions for coastal defence. As such, these stakeholders could have a direct interest in some of the ecosystem services provided by restored oyster reefs, especially in water filtration and mitigation of coastal erosion. They are therefore interested in the results of CLIMAREST on these subjects and will be mobilized in the definition of upscaling roadmaps as possible direct beneficiaries of restoration as a nature-based solution (left, figure 9; left, figure 10). They are very influential politically, and they could significantly contribute to upscaling in a follow-up project to CLIMAREST. Oyster farmers and their representation committees are key stakeholders in both sites and were involved early in the restoration processes (middle, figure 9; left and middle, figure 10). Their economic activities are highly dependent on restoring healthy wild stocks to guarantee a stable and plentiful spatfall. They have been the major contributor to the species’ conservation during the past decades through self-imposed restrictions on their production activities. Furthermore, their technical experience with oyster production is directly mimicked in the restoration activities. As such, their engagement for future restoration operations is critical to guarantee technical, political, and possibly financial support toward upscaling. These stakeholders were involved in one-on-one meetings and workshops in the Quiberon Bay area. The workshops for this first period of CLIMAREST had the objective of getting their feedback on technical aspects of structure design, deployment feasibility and restoration planning. They were also involved in field operations for the deployment of artificial settlement substrates and providing vessels for the June 2023 operation. They will be further involved in CLIMAREST for upcoming substrate deployment campaigns, studies on the contribution of their production systems to the support of wild oyster populations, as well as to participate in determining upscaling roadmaps, in collaboration with other stakeholders. Their engagement for nature conservation purposes is a sensitive issue as their relationships with nature conservation institutions can be conflictual. They have been a driving force for maintaining the species present in the past, but this has been done mainly from a shellfish production perspective and mostly on their own terms. Introducing nature conservation and other ecosystem services objectives changes both their autonomy in managing the resource and associated management practices. Efficient communication on common benefits of oyster reef restoration and the importance of restorative aquaculture models will be key for upcoming workshops involving a wider range of stakeholders. Producers of oyster farming equipment have been contacted for purchase of their goods and services for the development and deployment of reef enhancing structures. These specialised stores / service providers would benefit from upscaling restoration efforts through increase in demand for their materials (left, figure 10). 34 Although professional fishermen are not very active in the area where the restoration takes place in the Quiberon Bay, they interact a little more with the restoration process in the bay of Brest. Restoration efforts and upscaling strategies must be consistent with pressures that still occur on the seabed, and dredging activity is still an important pressure in some areas of the bay of Brest. Professional fishermen could however benefit from the contribution of large-scale oyster reef restoration to certain fish and shellfish stocks (upper left, figure 9). Recreational users have not yet been very involved. In Quiberon Bay, although they are not impacted (or at least not significantly) by the CLIMAREST actions themselves, they could be significantly impacted by future upscaling. Regenerating shallows and reefs is likely to affect water sports both negatively (restricted areas due to navigation hazards) and positively (fight against coastal erosion and protection of coastal infrastructures; bottom, figure 10) whereas boosting biodiversity will be beneficial to professional and recreational fisheries (left and middle, figure 9). So far, local sailing clubs and kite surfing schools have been informed of the CLIMAREST operations as part of a navigation hazard awareness campaign based on informal one-on-one meetings to let them know where the structures are deployed and how they are marked at the surface. The targeted benefits of upscaling were communicated to them. Recreational users will be involved later in the restoration process as contributors in upscaling roadmaps workshops. More generally, both residents and tourists have a shared interest in the condition of the environment (middle, figure 9; left, figure 10). Recreational fishermen and shellfish gatherers are an example of a subgroup of citizen stakeholders that would directly benefit from oyster reef restoration and associated effects on biodiversity and stocks (middle, figure 9). The contribution of restored reefs to the environmental quality could be a positive driver for upscaling and local political lobbying. Tourists can be a significant source of income for small oyster farmers. Although there is not yet a high demand for European flat oysters (as compared to the more commercially widespread Pacific oyster), some flat oyster farmers are working to increase consumer interest in the future. Revaluing the species in local consumer circles could also create economic/political incentives for upscaling restoration. Citizens will be involved later in the restoration process through various actions including dedicated school interventions to promote ocean literacy and public awareness of coastal habitat conservation and restoration. The national program for ocean literacy in French schools supports an increase in ocean literacy for marine biodiversity by taking children out to nearby coastal sites and involving them in small management actions. Two schools involved in this program are close to the two demo sites (one for each area), and specific outreach actions will be undertaken (right, figure 9; right, figure 10). CLIMAREST actions and more general marine restoration will also be promoted within a master’s program at the university of Brest. Finally, there are several scientific and technical stakeholders that are involved in the development and evaluation of these restoration initiatives. SEABOOST and French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea are part of these, alongside local universities and consultancies providing various services for the monitoring of the marine environment (middle and right, figure 9; right, figure 10). Local aquariums (Oceanopolis in Brest) or museums (Ostreapolis near Quiberon) contribute to outreach about the species by hosting for example events or exhibitions. These institutions will be mobilized for specific outreach activities in CLIMAREST. In the Quiberon Bay area, a recently formed NGO (“Action pour la Régénération en Plongée des Récifs d’Ostrea Edulis”), wishes to promote oyster 35 restoration in neighbouring areas and is currently developing a project off the nearby island of Houat. CLIMAREST will support this initiative by providing expert advice and good practice guidelines. Sedimentary soft bed ecosystems – Vigo, Spain Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances In Vigo there is a type of estuary, commonly known as rias. The term originates from the Galician word "ría," which itself is derived from "río" (river). Rias are found along the entire Galician coast in Spain. Initially, the term was specifically used to describe submerged river valleys that were formed parallel to the geological structure of the surrounding rock and ran perpendicular to the coastline. Over time, the definition of ria was broadened to include other flooded river valleys, regardless of the geological structure of the surrounding rock. Naturally the rias are sedimentary soft bed ecosystems with mudflats and sandbanks. The presence of extensive mudflats and sandbanks provides important habitats for various invertebrates, crustaceans, and migratory birds. Seagrass meadows are common in the shallower areas of rias. These habitats serve as nurseries for many fish species and provide shelter for various marine organisms. The rocky shores along the ria offer attachment points for algae, barnacles, and other sessile organisms. These areas contribute to the overall biodiversity of the ecosystem. This ecosystem is also influenced by the northern part of the Canary Current upwelling. Because of these upwellings the rias of Galicia have one of the highest primary production levels along the European coasts, making it one of the regions with the highest shellfish production in the world, and host to the largest mussel aquaculture industry in Europe. This activity affects the local communities in various ways. Mussel production, with rafts locally called “bateas”, can have various effects on the sea bottom and surrounding environment. Mussel rafts can contribute to increased sedimentation in the areas where they are deployed. Organic matter, such as mussel faeces, can accumulate on the seabed beneath the rafts. This organic enrichment and deposition of organic material from mussel rafts can influence benthic communities. Increased nutrients may lead to changes in the composition of sedimentdwelling organisms, potentially favouring species that thrive in nutrient-rich conditions. Also, mussel production can produce habitat modification due to the accumulation of dead mussels that fall onto the bottom underneath the mussel rafts over years of production. While mussel rafts can contribute to organic enrichment, they also play a role in nutrient cycling. Mussels filter-feed on particulate matter, including phytoplankton. This activity can enhance water clarity and influence nutrient dynamics in the surrounding water column. The economy of the region is strongly dependent on its coastal communities. Because Galicia is one of the most important fishing regions in the European Union, Galicia is also the region with the highest employment and dependence on income from the fishing sector. There is additional high fishing pressure in the area from both artisanal and commercial fishers with around 3873 small scale or artisanal vessels and 518 coastal vessels, fishing a broad range of fish, crustaceans, and molluscs (Galparsoro et al., 2009; Surís-Regueiro & Santiago, 2014). In addition, mussel aquaculture, which is deeply embedded in local traditions, holds significant cultural and economic importance. In 2022, 219 698 tons were produced, with a value of 150 894 euros (https://www.pescadegalicia.gal). For these reasons, removing mussel rafts, a key component of sedimentary bottoms modification, is not a 36 feasible or desirable option. Additionally, we acknowledge the changing nature of habitats in the region, influenced by various anthropogenic activities and environmental factors, including climate change. Our approach is therefore to adapt to these evolving conditions and find sustainable solutions that balance ecological considerations with economic and cultural realities. While not restoring the sedimentary bottoms under mussel farms to their original state, modifying them serves as a form of ecological mitigation and an opportunity to enhance the overall ecosystem health while aiding the overfished populations of European lobster (Homarus gammarus) to recover. Restoration actions and benefits Developing nature-based solutions in the form of artificial structures that are deployed below mussel farms in Vigo (figure 11) will help mitigate the impact of mussel farming on the benthic ecosystems and favour secondary production and recirculation of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus to higher trophic levels. This will increase the resilience of the benthic communities by improving the complexity and heterogeneity of the benthic habitats. Increased and improved habitat complexity will also favour invertebrate and fish populations of commercial interest. Introductions of the European lobster in the systems affected by mussel farms will help the lobster population recover from overfishing and increase the capacity for biomitigation of organic matter through the feeding of lobsters on fallen mussels that accumulate under the mussel farms. It will thus open for possible integrated multitrophic aquaculture culture development. Integrated multitrophic aquaculture is a sustainable aquaculture practice that combines different species in a way that allows the by-products (wastes) of one species to be used as inputs for others. In the context of mussel farms, integrated multitrophic aquaculture can help reduce the environmental impact of mussel farms as it will allow for species at higher trophic levels (e.g., lobsters) to utilize the nutrients that become available through the mussel farming, preventing nutrient buildup, and generate economic benefits. Integrated multitrophic aquaculture thus allows for the simultaneous cultivation of multiple valuable species. This diversification can provide economic benefits by creating additional revenue streams for aquaculture operators. For example, while mussels may be the primary product, the cultivation of lobsters can also generate income. Promoting the recovery of lobsters below mussel farming could be essential for various reasons, not only economic, but also from the point of view of population conservation. European lobsters, particularly those in the early benthic phase (i.e., a post pelagic-larval juvenile state when lobsters settle on the seafloor), exhibit a preference for substrates with pre-existing shelter, like mussel shell interstitial spaces. These areas provide optimal conditions for lobster recruitment, development, and survival (Linnane et al., 2000). Adult lobsters are often associated with habitats at the boundary between sedimentaryand rocky-bottoms, coincident with seafloor depressions featuring a steep slope. Such locations, which are characterized by medium to high wave energy conditions, are suitable for lobster settlement (Galparsoro et al., 2009). The rias of Vigo, despite having limited lobster populations, thus offer an opportunity for population recovery. Creating suitable habitats beneath mussel farms could provide an environment for lobsters to thrive and exhibit natural behaviours. Deploying artificial reefs provides a mix of soft and rocky bottoms, resembling natural lobster habitat, which can significantly contribute to the conservation and enhancement of lobster populations in the region. Creating more habitat heterogeneity under mussel farms may also increase the resilience of other commercial species, improve benthic 37 community structure by increasing biodiversity, and making the community more resilient to adverse conditions that may result from climate change. Figure 11. Map showing the demonstration site in Vigo, Spain. Local actors and key stakeholders Government and administration stakeholders are the Port of Vigo, the Ministry of the Sea (“Consellería do MarXunta de Galicia”), which provides permits, and the management authorities of the National Park of the Atlantic Islands of Galicia (“Parque Nacional Islas Atlánticas de Galicia”). Commercial and professional stakeholders are professional and recreational fishermen organisations including the Cangas fishermen association (“Cofradía de Pescadores de Cangas”), the San Martín de Moaña fishermen’s association (“Cofradía de Pescadores de San Martín de Moaña”), the San Juan de Redondela fishermen’s association (“Confradía de Pescadores de San Juan de Redondela”), the Presidency of the fishermen’s associations (“Fundación para la Pesca y el Marisqueo”), artisanal and recreational fishermen, mussel farmers, the Galician Mussel Regulatory Board (“Consello Regulador do Mexillón de Galicia”), mussel producers’s associations including the Producers’ organization of Mussel from Galicia (“Organización de productores de Mejillón de Galicia”) and the Galician cooperative society of mussel producers (“Sociedad Cooperativa Galega Mexilloneiros de Galicia”), the wholesale business “Mejilloneras Cons de Udra”, which deals with wholesales of fish and aquaculture products, BlueStructures (a private company that provides artificial structures for benthic habitat restoration), the Galician Federation of Underwater Activities (“Federación Gallega de Actividades Subacuáticas”), SCUBA diving centres, the professional association of tourist guides of Galicia (“Asociación Profesional de Guías de Turismo de Galicia”), and the Nautical Cluster of the Ria of Vigo (“Clúster Náutico Ría de Vigo”). Recreational users are recreational fishermen, and SCUBA 38 divers. Relevant NGOs, research and educational stakeholders are the Association for Ecological Protection of Galicia (“Asociacíon para a Defensa Ecolóxica de Galicia”), Ecologists in action (“Ecoloxistas en accíon”), the University of Vigo ("Universidad de Vigo”), the University of Alicante (“Universidad de Alicante”), the Platform for Protection of the Ria of Vigo (“Plataforma Defensa Ría de Vigo”), the Galician Institute of Aquaculture Training (“Instituto Gallego de Formación en Acuicultura”), the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, and the Institute for Marine Research (“Institudo de Investigaciones Marinas”). The latter two provide sensors and the receivers for lobster tagging. Workshops and interviews After an initial identification of the main stakeholders, government agencies, environmental organizations, local communities, researchers, industry representatives, and other interested parties were invited to several one-on-one meetings. In these meetings the objectives of CLIMAREST were outlined and the benefits of the collaboration for the different participants and for society. Stakeholders were first approached in person or through telephone interviews which were arranged mainly with the production sector, which requires personalisation of the planned interactions. Mechanisms by which stakeholders may affect or be affected by restoration activities Figure 12. Stakeholder diagram over lobster recovery and habitat melioration of the rias of Vigo, Spain. Pressures on the sedimentary soft bed ecosystem and lobster populations are represented within the red rectangle. Mitigation and rehabilitation actions (black lines and rectangles) consist of 1) deploying artificial reef structures, 2) tag and release juveniles of European lobsters (Homarus gammarus) and 3) outreach activities to inform the Spanish public. Stakeholders are classified in four categories and are illustrated in blue boxes following an increasing colour gradient from lighter blue to darker blue: Category i) represents the regulation, administration, management, enforcement or harvesting of resources within the study site. Category ii) includes commercial/professional users. Category iii) represents recreational users. Category iv) includes education, schools, research, and 39 NGOs. Stars indicate priority stakeholders. Arrows are coded as: black connects restoration actions to the environment; grey indicates that the action (or the stakeholder) is influencing a stakeholder (or an action); green specifies that the link is beneficial, and red indicates a negative effect. The demonstration site in Vigo (figure 11) consists of a 500 m2 area beneath a mussel farm raft where an artificial concrete structure (1.2 x 0.7 x 0.6 m) has been deployed, and a 1000 m2 reference area inside the marine protected area of the National Park of the Atlantic Islands of Galicia. For any activities to be possible in these areas permits and permission from the management authorities of the marine protected area and mussel farmers have been necessary. These are thus marked as key stakeholders (upper left, figure 12). In addition to the two areas in the marine protected area and under the mussel farm, two types of Thelma Biotel receivers (fastened to a bouy) have been installed: 13 receivers of TBR 800 and 6 of TBR 700L for tracking the movement of lobsters introduced to, or from, the area. The primary concern of this demonstration case is the recovery of European lobster populations and the enhancement of the sedimentary soft bed ecosystem in the rias of Vigo. Pressures on the benthic ecosystem and the lobster populations are outlined within the red rectangle (top, figure 12). These include pollution, overfishing, and habitat degradation. To improve the benthic habitat, artificial reefs from BlueStructures (middle, figure 12) have been installed under a mussel raft to provide shelter for organisms that can make use of the waste and mussels that fall from the mussel raft (black box in the middle of figure 12). To help the recovery of lobster stocks, tagged juvenile lobsters are released in proximity to the artificial reefs (black box to the left, figure 12). This work is carried out with the collaboration of local institutions with experience in the field, such as the Institute for Marine Research or other project partners such as the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (left side, figure 12). Both the Institute for Marine Research and the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research provide telemetry receivers for the preliminary examination of habitat use by adult lobsters or nearly adult juveniles in the areas beneath mussel rafts and close to the artificial reefs. Another actor that contributes positively to the monitoring activities is the Galician Institute of Aquaculture Training (lower middle, figure 12). The Galician Institute of Aquaculture Training both provides reared lobsters for the reintroductions, and it will have a key role in project outreach activities. It is therefore a key stakeholder. In addition, professional and recreational fishers are key stakeholders as they may provide bycatch of wild lobsters for tagging and tracking (top left, figure 12). Besides contributing positively to the recruitment of tagged lobsters for the monitoring activities, which is key for evaluating the effect of the artificial reefs on lobster recruitment and population recovery, professional fishers could affect monitoring activities negatively by unintentionally removing or causing the telemetry receivers to move while fishing (top left, figure 12). Then again, they could also affect monitoring positively by reporting and giving receivers from captured lobster back to the researchers. This would allow for the recovery of important data (top left, figure 12). The benefits of the restoration actions can be disseminated to environmental associations that are concerned about the quality of the marine environment and promote the sustainable use of resources in a scenario of global climate change (right side, figure 12). There is also the possibility of developing citizen science in partnership with diving collectives and associations (left side, figure 12), 40 and students from the universities of Vigo and Alicante (bottom, figure 12). Such actors could for example report on lobster observations in an App, thus contributing monitoring data. Rocky subtidal ecosystems – Madeira, Portugal Coastal context and sensitivity to disturbances Macroalgae-dominated marine habitats are thriving ecosystems often found in shallow coastal areas comprising communities of diverse seaweeds. Macroalgae provide critical ecosystem functions by offering shelter and sustenance to a multitude of marine species. They create complex habitats for fish, invertebrates, and other organisms, contributing to overall biodiversity. Beyond their ecological significance, algae help maintain water quality by absorbing nutrients and providing oxygen through photosynthesis. These "marine forests” are essential for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, supporting marine life and serving as crucial indicators of ecosystem health and resilience. In the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic, a wide range of different macroalgae genera like Cystoseira, Stypopodium, Dictyota, Ericaria, Gongolaria, and Sargassum are critical elements of benthic habitats. Situated in the northeast Atlantic, the Madeira archipelago is heavily dependent on tourism and ocean-related industries, encompassing fisheries as well as maritime enterprises. Shallow marine ecosystems around the island are rocky reef habitats dominated by large habitat-forming multispecific canopy stands formed by the brown seaweeds Sargassum, Cystoseira and Gongolaria. However, over the last decades, large parts of the island have undergone a phase shift towards barrens dominated by sea urchins (Bernal-Ibáñez et al., 2021; Gizzi et al., 2021). This decline of marcoalgae-dominated habitats marks a major ecological loss for the island's coastal ecosystem, impacting many animal species relying on these marine forests. Such phase shifts often occur with increased sea urchin grazing intensity as their feeding activity can play a significant role in these ecosystems' stability, biodiversity, production, and functioning. With several natural factors influencing the intensity of sea urchin grazing (e.g., population density, food availability, and predation pressure), anthropogenic pressures such as overfishing (and consequent reduction in sea urchin predators), coastal development (e.g., increased sedimentation, habitat destruction), pollution (e.g., marine litter, agricultural runoff), non-indigenous species and climate change can also favour the proliferation of sea urchins and the spread of barren grounds. Previous studies have shown that sea urchin barrens and macroalgae-dominated habitats exist in a delicate balance with the possibility of shifts and reversal between both states (Gizzi et al., 2021). Around Madeira Island, the presence of the long-spined sea urchin, Diadema africanum, has been linked to the extensive existence of sea urchin barrens. Sea urchin barrens are characterized by an overabundance of sea urchins and a scarcity of macroalgae resulting in a less diverse and productive community with reduced biodiversity and biomass. Previous studies have shown that around Madeira Island, shallow subtidal communities reverse from sea urchin barrens to being macroalgaedominated when D. africanum densities are below a threshold of about 0.5 sea urchins/m² (Gizzi et al., 2021). Restoration actions and benefits Macroalgae-dominated habitats play a crucial role in maintaining marine ecosystems, supporting biodiversity, and benefiting nearby communities. These habitats, dominated by various genera like 41 Sargassum, Gongolaria, and Cystoseira, provide numerous ecological advantages. Their importance goes beyond supporting biodiversity. They impact nutrient cycling, coastal protection, and even human well-being (e.g., for scuba divers and recreational fishers). Marine forests, rich in biodiversity, enhance the resilience and stability of ecosystems by offering complex habitats, shelter, and nursery grounds. This, in turn, supports commercial fisheries by influencing the recruitment and abundance of valuable species. Additionally, macroalgae contribute to oxygen production, improving water quality and stabilizing sediments to prevent erosion, maintaining seabed stability. Restoring degraded marine forests and promoting a phase shift from sea urchin barrens towards macroalgae-dominated habitats is crucial for the sustainability of marine ecosystems and the well-being of coastal communities in Madeira. In Madeira, restoration activity focuses on two genera of native macroalgae that have recently undergone great declines in their biomass: Sargassum and Cystoseira. Active restoration activities will be conducted in four locations: 2 inside and 2 outside a marine protected area (Figure 13). Planned restoration actions in Madeira are three-fold: (1) promoting macroalgae, (2) grazing control and (3) monitoring. A comprehensive strategy is being developed to actively promote the proliferation of macroalgae by testing a series of different methods and setups. In the laboratory, recruitment and cultivation will be tailored to the specific needs of both algae species. For example, various substrates (e.g., ceramic, natural rock, terracotta) will be tested under controlled laboratory conditions to identify optimal conditions for macroalgae recruitment, attachment, and growth. Subsequently, the lab-cultivated algae will be transplanted to the restoration sites. This phase of the restoration process includes exploring modular artificial structures of various sizes, including the deployment of small units, larger panels, and/or the inclusion in living sea walls, to assess the efficacy of each approach. These realworld tests aim to ascertain the most efficient and environmentally sustainable transplantation methods, marking a crucial step towards successfully promoting and restoring macroalgae in natural habitats. The long-spined sea urchin, Diadema africanum, has been identified as a key predator regulating macroalgae around the Madeira Island. Therefore, its presence will be monitored, and once the critical threshold of 0.5 individuals/m² is surpassed, grazing control methods will be tested (i.e., sea urchin removal). Finally, it is paramount to have a periodic and reliable monitoring program to assess the effect of the restoration action on the local biodiversity. Algae and sea urchin diversity and abundance will be seasonally monitored at all restoration sites to accompany the progress of restoration actions and evaluate the necessity of grazing control methods. A full community survey was conducted in the beginning of CLIMAREST to establish a baseline and will be repeated yearly to assess the overall progress and changes in communities. Additionally, to aid the monitoring program, a mobile app has been developed that allow the monitoring of 24 species of ecological importance. The application is being used as part of a citizen science program which was established with the help of 10 diving centres in the island of Madeira and three in Porto Santo. The dive guides use the app during the debriefing with the dive clients and provide critical information on the abundance of the selected 24 species at their dive sites (Cebrian et al., 2021). 48 References Aktiv i friluft. (2023). Active in the outdoors. https://aktivifriluft.no/ Bermejo, R., Golden, N., Haro, S., Mac Monagail, M., García-Poza, S., Navarrete-Fernández, T., Brunner, B., Kneeler, K., Healy, Fenton, O., Mellander, P.-E., & Morrison, L. (n.d.). Macroalgal Blooms in Transitional and Coastal Waters; Management – Pressures, Policy and Solutions (MACRO-MAN). Bermejo, R., Heesch, S., Donnell, M. O., Golden, N., Edwards, M., Curley, E., Fenton, O., Daly, E., & Morrison, L. (2019). Report No . 285 Nutrient Dynamics and Ecophysiology of Opportunistic Macroalgal Blooms in Irish Estuaries (Issue 285). https://www.epa.ie/publications/research/water/Research_Report_285.pdf Bernal-Ibáñez, A., Gestoso, I., Wirtz, P., Kaufmann, M., Serrão, E. A., Canning-Clode, J., & Cacabelos, E. (2021). The collapse of marine forests: drastic reduction in populations of the family Sargassaceae in Madeira Island (NE Atlantic). Regional Environmental Change, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01801-2 Cebrian, E., Tamburello, L., Verdura, J., Guarnieri, G., Medrano, A., Linares, C., Hereu, B., Garrabou, J., Cerrano, C., Galobart, C., & Fraschetti, S. (2021). A Roadmap for the Restoration of Mediterranean Macroalgal Forests. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8(October), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.709219 Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V, Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 de los Santos, C. B., Krause-Jensen, D., Alcoverro, T., Marbà, N., Duarte, C. M., van Katwijk, M. M., Pérez, M., Romero, J., Sánchez-Lizaso, J. L., Roca, G., Jankowska, E., Pérez-Lloréns, J. L., Fournier, J., Montefalcone, M., Pergent, G., Ruiz, J. M., Cabaço, S., Cook, K., Wilkes, R. J., … Santos, R. (2019). Recent trend reversal for declining European seagrass meadows. Nature Communications, 10(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11340-4 Farquharson, L. M., Mann, D. H., Swanson, D. K., Jones, B. M., Buzard, R. M., & Jordan, J. W. (2018). Temporal and spatial variability in coastline response to declining sea-ice in northwest Alaska. Marine Geology, 404(July), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2018.07.007 Frantzen, B., & Bakken, V. (2017). Kyststien i Longyearbyen - kortreiste opplevelser i natur og kultur. NIBIO - Norsk Institutt for bioøkonomi. Galparsoro, I., Borja, Á., Bald, J., Liria, P., & Chust, G. (2009). Predicting suitable habitat for the European lobster (Homarus gammarus), on the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay), using Ecological-Niche Factor Analysis. Ecological Modelling, 220(4), 556–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.11.003 Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F., Echeverría, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., & Dixon, K. W. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology, 27(S1), S1–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035 Gizzi, F., Monteiro, J. G., Silva, R., Schäfer, S., Castro, N., Almeida, S., Chebaane, S., Bernal-Ibáñez, A., Henriques, F., Gestoso, I., & Canning-Clode, J. (2021). Disease Outbreak in a Keystone Grazer Population Brings Hope to the Recovery of Macroalgal Forests in a Barren Dominated Island. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8(June), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.645578 49 gov.ie. (2023). Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/2025strategy/ Hemminga, M. A., & Duarte, C. M. (2000). Seagrass Ecology. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511525551 Hovelsrud, G. K., Olsen, J., Nilsson, A. E., Kaltenborn, B., & Lebel, J. (2023). Managing Svalbard Tourism: Inconsistencies and Conflicts of Interest. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 14, 86– 106. https://doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v14.5113 König, H. J., Ceaușu, S., Reed, M., Kendall, H., Hemminger, K., Reinke, H., Ostermann-Miyashita, E. F., Wenz, E., Eufemia, L., Hermanns, T., Klose, M., Spyra, M., Kuemmerle, T., & Ford, A. T. (2021). Integrated framework for stakeholder participation: Methods and tools for identifying and addressing human–wildlife conflicts. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.399 Lantuit, H., Overduin, P. P., Couture, N., Wetterich, S., Aré, F., Atkinson, D., Brown, J., Cherkashov, G., Drozdov, D., Donald Forbes, L., Graves-Gaylord, A., Grigoriev, M., Hubberten, H. W., Jordan, J., Jorgenson, T., Ødegård, R. S., Ogorodov, S., Pollard, W. H., Rachold, V., … Vasiliev, A. (2012). The Arctic Coastal Dynamics Database: A New Classification Scheme and Statistics on Arctic Permafrost Coastlines. Estuaries and Coasts, 35(2), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237010-9362-6 Lavery, P. S., Mateo, M. Á., Serrano, O., & Rozaimi, M. (2013). Variability in the Carbon Storage of Seagrass Habitats and Its Implications for Global Estimates of Blue Carbon Ecosystem Service. PLoS ONE, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073748 Linnane, A., Mazzoni, D., & Mercer, J. P. (2000). A long-term mesocosm study on the settlement and survival of juvenile European lobster Homarus gammarus L. in four natural sub strata. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 249(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00220981(00)00190-8 Linnell, J. D. C., Bredin, Y. K., Kaltenborn, B., Parretti, P., Dinis, A., Pujol, M., Gaspers, A., Silva, F., & Radeta, M. (2023). CLIMAREST: Stakeholder survey. https://wavelabs.org/studies?study=climarest Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Public Security. (2016). Civil protection, rescue and emergency preparedness. Report to the Storting (White Paper): Svalbard_Meld.St.32 (2015-2016), 32, 1– 119. Pogoda, B., Brown, J., Hancock, B., Preston, J., Pouvreau, S., Kamermans, P., Sanderson, W., & Nordheim, H. Von. (2019). The Native Oyster Restoration Alliance (NORA) and the Berlin Oyster Recommendation: Bringing back a key ecosystem engineer by developing and supporting best practice in Europe. Aquatic Living Resources, 32(December). https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2019012 Pouvreau, S., Cochet, H., Gachelin, S., Chaudemanche, S., & Fabien, A. (2018). Inventaire , diagnostic écologique et restauration des principaux bancs d ’ huitres plates en Bretagne : le projet FOREVER. 1–59. Pouvreau, S., Lapègue, S., Arzul, I., & Boudry, P. (2023). Fifty years of research to counter the decline of the European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis): A review of French achievements and prospects for the restoration of remaining beds and revival of aquaculture production. Aquatic Living Resources, 36. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2023006 Preston, J., Gamble, C., Debney, A., Helmer, L., Hancock, B., & zu Ermgassen, P. (2020). European Native Oyster Habitat Restoration Handbook (Issue November). Reed, M. S., & Curzon, R. (2015). Stakeholder mapping for the governance of biosecurity: a 50 literature review. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 12(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2014.975723 Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001 Sinitsyn, A. O., Guegan, E., Shabanova, N., Kokin, O., & Ogorodov, S. (2020). Fifty four years of coastal erosion and hydrometeorological parameters in the Varandey region, Barents Sea. Coastal Engineering, 157(November 2019), 103610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2019.103610 Statistics Norway. (2023). Befolkningen på Svalbard. Befolkningen På Svalbard. https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/folketall/statistikk/befolkningen-pa-svalbard Surís-Regueiro, J. C., & Santiago, J. L. (2014). Characterization of fisheries dependence in Galicia (Spain). Marine Policy, 47, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.006 Svalbard Turn. (1930). Svalbard Turn. https://svalbardturn.no/ Svalbard Turn. (2023). Svalbard Skimaraton. https://svalbardskimaraton.no/loypekart/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2008). USACE, Coastal Engineering Manual. https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACE-Publications/EngineerManuals/u43544q/636F617374616C20656E67696E656572696E67206D616E75616C/ Waycott, M., Duarte, C. M., Carruthers, T. J. B., Orth, R. J., Dennison, W. C., Olyarnik, S., Calladine, A., Fourqurean, J. W., Heck, K. L., Hughes, A. R., Kendrick, G. A., Kenworthy, W. J., Short, F. T., & Williams, S. L. (2009). Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(30), 12377–12381. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905620106