MARLISCO

GENERAL DESCRIPTION the consequences of societal behaviour in relation to waste production and management on marine socio-ecological systems, to promote co-responsibility among the different actors, to define a more sustainable collective vision, and to facilitate grounds for concerted actions through the successful implementation of the MMLAP (Mobilisation and Mutual Learning Action Plans on societal challenges). The main focus was to provide and evaluate mechanisms to enable society to perceive the impact of litter on the marine environment, to identify the land-based activities that are involved and collectively arrive at solutions to reduce that impact – in particular solutions that can be implemented locally but have a regional effect. MARLISCO’ s overarching goal was to raise public awareness, facilitate dialogue and promote co-responsibility among the different actors towards a joint vision for the sustainable management of marine litter across all European seas. MARLICO activities took place in the four European Regional Seas: North-East Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea, by a consortium with members located in 15 coastal countries. RRI FOCUS In terms of RRI, what were the main challenges addressed, and to what extent were those challenges met by the project? Challenge 1 description How can the public and stakeholders be engaged on a complex, multidisciplinary and wide-ranging topic such as Ocean ecosystem services, in a way which consults them on their views and mobilises them to take action at national and European level? How Challenge 1 was addressed Sea for Society conducted the biggest ever consultation of citizens, young people and stakeholders on humans' relationship with the Ocean across 9 regions of Europe, and mobilised the general public and stakeholders en masse in order to work towards the concept of a Blue Society. What is the Best Practice for this Challenge? Sea for Society developed a unique consultation methodology using ‘Collective Intelligence’ – a collaborative process to help groups in dealing effectively with complex issues such as the barriers and opportunities associated with sustainable marine ecosystems. Document: Consultation Methodology Name at least one Lesson Learned from this Challenge? One of the main outcomes of the consultation was that attitudes and awareness are the main barriers to achieving a Blue Society, and in order to change these attitudes and increase awareness, citizens and stakeholders must come together in mobilisation actions. Document: Consultation Outcomes Ranking of the most relevant RRI dimensions, where 6 is the most relevant to the project Public Engagement Gender Equality Science Education Open Access Ethics Governance PROJECT OUTCOMES RELATED TO RRI Which are the most relevant project outcomes (roadmaps, guidelines, documents, reports, articles, videos etc) in terms of RRI? Outcome 1: Sea for Society Consultation Outcomes URL: Sea for Society Outcome 1 Description: The Sea for Society Consultation showed that the Barrier Theme ‘Attitudes and Awareness’ (defined as ‘unfounded attitudes and lack of awareness of marine issues’) is perceived as the single biggest obstacle to a sustainable marine ecosystem, both for the EU as a whole and across different EU regions... The second most influential Barrier Themes identified by stakeholders are ‘Governance and Strategy’ (defined as ‘responsible institutional framework strategies, policy and research for marine ecosystems’) and ‘Knowledge’ (defined as ‘inadequate scientific and general public knowledge’). The overall result is a ‘hierarchy of Barrier Themes’ which allowed the project to identify the ‘Cross Cutting Challenge’ – that is, the effort required to overcome the most influential Barrier Theme in the most effective way and, in turn, help to overcome all the Barriers below it in the hierarchy. Therefore the most important ‘Blue Society Challenge’ for the Sea for Society Project was to ‘Change Attitudes’ and ‘Improve Awareness’ around the issue of marine ecosystem services. Other key outcomes include specific stakeholder recommendations and issue reports by country. Exploitable by researchers: These outcomes provide direct recommendations for lines of research to be taken, and indicate the ways in which researchers can address barriers to a Blue Society directly. Exploitable by policymakers: These outcomes provide direct recommendations for research and governance, and indicate the ways in which policymakers can address barriers to a Blue Society directly. Exploitable by other stakeholders: The outcomes can be used by all stakeholders involved in Ocean issues as a guideline of how to work better together in order to address barriers to a Blue Society. Outcome 2 Title Sea for Society Consultation Methodology URL Sea for Society Outcome 2 Description A Consultation Process was designed and undertaken to engage stakeholders (those directly and indirectly dependent upon the sea for their livelihoods) and Citizen-Youth (private citizens between the ages of 18 – 25 whose livelihoods did not depend on the Sea). This consultation employed the methodology of ‘Collective Intelligence’ – a collaborative process to help groups in dealing effectively with complex issues such as the barriers and opportunities associated with sustainable marine ecosystems. The scale of the Sea for Society consultation process was ground-breaking, engaging 537 individuals face-to-face in lengthy consultations in 9 countries in Europe – never before had stakeholders and citizens been engaged in dialogue on Ocean topics across Europe in this way. The outcomes of the consultations were unique and innovative because they presented, for the first time, a comprehensive and complex picture of the challenges for a Blue Society. Exploitable by researchers Researchers can use the consultation methodology for engaging and informing the public and policy makers about the effects of their science on marine environments. Exploitable by policymakers The consultation methodology defines a way that multi-stakeholder dialogue can inform policy at national and European level, from research policy to marine governance. Exploitable by general public This methodology enables the general public to have their say alongside stakeholders in issues related to Ocean topics. Exploitable by other stakeholders public Social scientists and institutions for informal education in particular can benefit from the methodology as a way to open up the dialogue for RRI to take place. LESSONS LEARNED What unexpected RRI-related difficulties did this project encounter, and how were these overcome? The major unexpected challenge of Sea for Society was the wealth of data that the Consultation produced. By entering into dialogue with citizens and stakeholders, we produced extremely valuable content well beyond what we anticipated. The data not only provided solutions to barriers but also gave insight into policy recommendations and many interesting conclusions were drawn by comparing outcomes across geographical areas. As such, the project timeline had to be adapted to make time for additional analysis. Link to more info on the unexpected difficulties SFS Final Report (to be uploaded) How can the outcomes of this project support work towards improved marine status? This project defined the Blue Society concept in a collaborative, multi-stakeholder way, building on the work done at European level by other projects and sparking partnerships and working relationships which continue to be exploited. Link to more info on the outcomes Sea for Society Outcomes POLICY RELATED LESSONS LEARNED Were policy makers involved in the project and to what extent? Sea for Society has obtained buy-in from stakeholders and decision-makers at local, national and European level. This has been evidenced through the scale of the attendance at the Blue Society Launch event, the project presence at COP21 and the IUCN World Congress and the synergies achieved with subsequent Horizon 2020 projects such as Sea Change, Columbus and Marina. In terms of European decision- makers, the Maritime Resources and Bioeconomy units of the European Commission’s DG Research have both engaged with the project, as has the DG for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and DG MARE’s unit for Maritime policy Atlantic, outermost regions and Arctic. Did any barrier for their engagement emerge? The main barriers to engaging policymakers were to link national and EU level. Partners have good contacts at national level, and the project worked hard to mobilise the EU level, but linking the two was a challenge. The project addressed this by inviting national policymakers to EU-level events such as the Blue Society Launch. Which was (if any) the project message to policy makers and did project outcomes allow mobilizing actions from policy makers? Sea for Society Summary Report Main policy briefs produced by the project and related URL Policy brief 1 Blue Society Policy Brief Policy brief 2 Blue Society Summary Document Policy brief 3 European Youth Parliament Declaration Policy brief 4 Blue Society Stakeholders Commitment Policy brief 5 Blue Society Citizen's Promise

MARLISCO Duration 2012-2015 Project coordinator patrizia.grifoni@irpps.cnr.it Fundings framework FP7 Website http://www.marlisco.eu EU Member State Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK Non EU-states Norway Marine Region Focus Baltic Sea, Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast, Celtic Sea, Greater North Sea including Kattegat and English Channel, Mediterranean Sea, North-East Atlantic Sea, Norwegian Sea Marine Related Issues Sea Transportation, Marine Change caused by Climate, Blue energy [Renewable Energy (wave, wind, tidal)], Maritime, coastal and cruise tourism, Coastal Urbanisation, Fishing and Aquaculture, Pollution caused by human, land and sea pressures, Blue Growth Sectors Waste management,Education and Research,Marine Protected Areas Themes Marine litter Stakeholders Involved • Citizen and Civil Society • Policy Makers and Implementers • Scientists and Research Organization • Educational Organizations and Students • Industries and SMEs • Local Administrations and Municipalities • Media Keyword(s) marlisco; marine litter; education; consultation; awareness; co-responsability RRI