, 2007) and we have to determine the ecological significance of change. With regard to nutrients and organic matter discharged into the sea, our main aim has to be to prevent the formation

of undesirable consequences – what we term eutrophication. This involves not creating the ‘symptoms of ecosystem pathology’ such as harmful and toxic algal blooms, harmful algal mats, fish kills through low oxygen levels and a benthic community of opportunistic and pollution tolerant organisms (de Jonge and Elliott, 2002). Our marine management will only be successful and sustainable if we have the funding to prevent environmental damage and, when it happens, to recover or restore areas. We work on the basis of the ‘polluter-pays-principle’ – that those responsible for causing environmental damage have to bear the costs for solving, preventing or monitoring the problems. We may need economic compensation, Z-VAD-FMK cell line i.e. funding those adversely affected, and need to pay for mitigation costs of schemes. Of course, society relies on maintaining

wealth creation and demands benefits such as employment (or at least our environmental actions should not be detrimental to these). We can summarise these aspects as the economic carrying capacity, i.e. will the marine system still be able to deliver our economic needs. The economic aspects also include the costs of monitoring the actual and potential adverse effects although such monitoring is Selleckchem ABT 888 in jeopardy due to the current economic climate (Borja and Elliott, 2013). In the case of eutrophication, the economic considerations include the cost of removing nutrients and organic matter in discharges, such as using secondary or tertiary sewage treatment. It may include preventative measures such as not applying fertilisers in the first place or PAK5 creating buffer zones around agricultural areas to prevent catchment run-off, although this would reduce agricultural production. Hence there are both economic

costs and benefits to be considered (Atkins and Burdon, 2006, Atkins et al., 2007 and Pascual et al., 2012). This requires us to have the right technologies to prevent environmental damage or remediate it once it has occurred. For example, having the equipment for defending coastal areas from flooding and erosion, for having the Best Available Technologies (or even those not entailing excessive costs – described as BATNEEC or even less kindly ‘CATNIP’ – the cheapest available technologies not inviting prosecution!) and even in having the best designed fishing gear to protect stocks. This tenet also includes technologies for mitigation and habitat/resource compensation schemes (Elliott et al., 2007) and the scientific technologies and methodologies for monitoring.