Background The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; EC, 2008) is an ambitious European policy instrument that aims to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in the 5,720,000 km2 of European seas by 2020, using an Ecosystem Approach. GES is to be assessed using 11 descriptors and up to 56 indicators (European Commission, 2010), and the goal is for clean, healthy and productive seas that are the basis for marine-based development, known as Blue-Growth. The MSFD is one of many policy instruments, such as the Water Framework Directive, the Common Fisheries Policy and the Habitats Directive that, together, should result in "Healthy Oceans and Productive Ecosystems – HOPE". Re- searchers working together with stakeholders such as the Member States environmental agencies, the European Environmental Agency, and the Regional Sea Conventions, are to provide the scientific knowledge basis for the implementation of the MSFD. This represents both a fascinating challenge and a stimulating opportunity.
Abstract Despite the important role of ecosystem services, their study and associated monetary value is limited mostly to terrestrial, estuarine and coastal systems, with few studies undertaken in open marine waters and deep water systems. In addition, human activities are degrading marine ecosystems and the services they provide. To reverse this situation, various legislations have been implemented worldwide. Within this context, conservation activities (i.e. protection, prevention and restoration) are strongly encouraged. Hence, this Chapter: (i) reviews the marine goods and services provided by marine ecosystems; (ii) reviews conservation activities (as a means to maintain and improve goods and services), paying special attention to the effects of restoration on ecosystem services; and (iii) determines the gaps to be covered and the ways to move forward, in relation to conservation of marine goods and services.
Several initiatives have been taken worldwide to promote international coordination and integrated approach in marine management. At the European level, ten years after the adoption of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Member State strategies still present some ecological, economic and social challenges. This review identifies the minor, intermediate and major impediments (respectively defined as 'bottlenecks, showstoppers and train-wrecks') to marine management, resulting from a 4-year analysis of national, regional and European reports. Most of the problems are linked to the resistance of countries to collaborate and to the inability to integrate the work already carried out under other pieces of legislation. The European countries will need to better integrate and coordinate their actions in marine management in the second cycle of the MSFD, in order to achieve its final goal of Good Environmental Status as well as the objectives of other environmental policies.
The European Union has embarked on a policy which aims to achieve good ecological status in all surface waters (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). In theory, ecological status assessment methods should address the effects of all relevant human pressures. In this study, we analyze the degree to which methods European countries use to assess ecological status tackle various pressures affecting European waters. Nutrient pollution is by far the best-covered pressure for all four water categories. Out of total of 423 assessment methods, 370 assess eutrophication and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for 212 of these. "General degradation" is addressed by 238 methods, mostly validated by relationships to combined pressure indices. Other major pressures have received significantly less effort: hydromorphological degradation is assessed by 160 methods and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just 40 of these. Hydromorphological pressures are addressed (at least by one BQE) only by 25% countries for coastal waters and 70–80% for lakes and transitional waters. Specific diagnostic tools (i.e. single-pressure relationships) for hydromorphology have only been developed by a few countries: only 20% countries have such methods for lakes, coastal and transitional waters and less than half for rivers. Toxic contamination is addressed by 90 methods; however, pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just eight of these. Only two countries have demonstrated pressure-specific acidification methods for rivers, and three for lakes. In summary, methods currently in use mostly address eutrophication and/or general degradation, but there is not much evidence that they reliably pick up the effects of other significant pressures such as hydromorphology or toxic contamination. Therefore, we recommend that countries re-examine: (1) those pressures which affect different water categories in the country; (2) relevant assessment methods to tackle those pressures; ...
Abstract The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires that Good Environmental Status (GEnS), is achieved for European seas by 2020. These may deviate from GEnS, its 11 Descriptors, targets and baselines, due to endogenic managed pressures (from activities within an area) and externally due to exogenic unmanaged pressures (e.g. climate change). Conceptual models detail the likely or perceived changes expected on marine biodiversity and GEnS Descriptors in the light of climate change. We emphasise that marine management has to accommodate 'shifting baselines' caused by climate change particularly during GEnS monitoring, assessment and management and 'unbounded boundaries' given the migration and dispersal of highly-mobile species. We suggest climate change may prevent GEnS being met, but Member States may rebut legal challenges by claiming that this is outside its control, force majeure or due to 'natural causes' (Article 14 of the MSFD). The analysis is relevant to management of other global seas.
Highlights: • A simple quantitative method for choosing ecological indicators and target ranges is proposed. • Sustainable use of ecosystems requires freedom of usage choice for each generation. • Sustainability so limits any state indicator to the range from which timely recovery is feasible. • Relevant state indicators are those that anthropogenic pressure might drive out of this range. • The method extends to pressure- and auxiliary indicators, and suites of indicators. Abstract: Wide-ranging, indicator-based assessments of large, complex ecosystems are playing an increasing role in guiding environmental policy and management. An example is the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which requires Member States to take measures to reach "good environmental status" (GES) in European marine waters. However, formulation of indicator targets consistent with the Directive's high-level policy goal of sustainable use has proven challenging. We develop a specific, quantitative interpretation of the concepts of GES and sustainable use in terms of indicators and associated targets, by sharply distinguishing between current uses to satisfy current societal needs and preferences, and unknown future uses. We argue that consistent targets to safeguard future uses derive from a requirement that any environmental state indicator should recover within a defined time (e.g. 30 years) to its pressure-free range of variation when all pressures are hypothetically removed. Within these constraints, specific targets for current uses should be set. Routes to implementation of this proposal for indicators of fish-community size structure, population size of selected species, eutrophication, impacts of non-indigenous species, and genetic diversity are discussed. Important policy implications are that (a) indicator target ranges, which may be wider than natural ranges, systematically and rationally derive from our proposal; (b) because relevant state indicators tend to respond slowly, corresponding pressures should also be monitored and assessed; (c) support of current uses and safeguarding of future uses are distinct management goals, they require different types of targets, decision processes, and management philosophies.
The need for sustainability transitions is widely recognised, along with a concurrent need for the evolution of knowledge systems to inform more effective policy action. Although there are many new policy targets relating to net zero emissions and other sustainability challenges, cities, regional and national governments are struggling to rapidly develop transformational policies to achieve them. As academics and practitioners who work at the science-policy interface, we identify specific knowledge and competency needs for governing sustainability transitions related to the interlinked phases of envisioning, implementing and evaluating. In short, coordinated reforms of both policy and knowledge systems are urgently needed to address the speed and scale of sustainability challenges. These include embedding systems thinking literacy, mainstreaming participatory policy making, expanding the capacity to undertake transdisciplinary research, more adaptive governance and continuous organisational learning. These processes must guide further knowledge development, uptake and use as part of an iterative and holistic process. Such deep-seated change in policy-knowledge systems will be disruptive and presents challenges for traditional organisational models of knowledge delivery, but is essential for successful sustainability transformations.
The need for sustainability transitions is widely recognised, along with a concurrent need for the evolution of knowledge systems to inform more effective policy action. Although there are many new policy targets relating to net zero emissions and other sustainability challenges, cities, regional and national governments are struggling to rapidly develop transformational policies to achieve them. As academics and practitioners who work at the science-policy interface, we identify specific knowledge and competency needs for governing sustainability transitions related to the interlinked phases of envisioning, implementing and evaluating. In short, coordinated reforms of both policy and knowledge systems are urgently needed to address the speed and scale of sustainability challenges. These include embedding systems thinking literacy, mainstreaming participatory policy making, expanding the capacity to undertake transdisciplinary research, more adaptive governance and continuous organisational learning. These processes must guide further knowledge development, uptake and use as part of an iterative and holistic process. Such deep-seated change in policy-knowledge systems will be disruptive and presents challenges for traditional organisational models of knowledge delivery, but is essential for successful sustainability transformations. ; publishedVersion
The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires EU Member States (MS) to achieve Good Environmental Status (GEnS) of their seas by 2020. We address the question of what GEnS entails especially with regard to the level at which targets are set (descriptors, criteria, indicators), to scales for assessments (regional, sub-divisions, site-specific), and to difficulties in putting into practice the GEnS concept. We propose a refined and operational definition of GEnS, indicating the data and information needed to all parts of that definition. We indicate the options for determining when GEnS has been met, acknowledge the data and information needs for each option, and recommend a combination of existing quantitative targets and expert judgement. We think that the MSFD implementation needs to be less complex than shown for other similar directives, can be based largely on existing data and can be centred on the activities of the Regional Seas Conventions. ; This manuscript has resulted from the DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing Good Environmental Status) project funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, 'The Ocean of Tomorrow' Theme (Grant Agreement No. 308392), www.devotesproject. eu. This paper is contribution number 654 from AZTITecnalia (Marine Research Division).
In a world of declining biodiversity, monitoring is becoming crucial. Molecular methods, such as metabarcoding, have the potential to rapidly expand our knowledge of biodiversity, supporting assessment, management, and conservation. In the marine environment, where hard substrata are more difficult to access than soft bottoms for quantitative ecological studies, Artificial Substrate Units (ASUs) allow for standardized sampling. We deployed ASUs within five regional seas (Baltic Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, and Red Sea) for 12–26 months to measure the diversity and community composition of macroinvertebrates. We identified invertebrates using a traditional approach based on morphological characters, and by metabarcoding of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) gene. We compared community composition and diversity metrics obtained using the two methods. Diversity was significantly correlated between data types. Metabarcoding of ASUs allowed for robust comparisons of community composition and diversity, but not all groups were successfully sequenced. All locations were significantly different in taxonomic composition as measured with both kinds of data. We recovered previously known regional biogeographical patterns in both datasets (e.g., low species diversity in the Black and Baltic Seas, affinity between the Bay of Biscay and the Mediterranean). We conclude that the two approaches provide complementary information and that metabarcoding shows great promise for marine monitoring. However, until its pitfalls are addressed, the use of metabarcoding in monitoring of rocky benthic assemblages should be used in addition to classical approaches rather than instead of them. ; This manuscript is a result of the DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project, funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, "The Ocean of Tomorrow" Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), www.devotes-project.eu. S Carvalho and JK Pearman were funded through the Saudi Aramco—KAUST Center for Marine Environmental Observations (SAKMEO). MC Uyarra was partially funded through the Spanish programme for Talent and Employability in R+D+I "Torres Quevedo." Funding for publication was provided to AEC by Albion College. We thank the ICM-Brain and Spine Institute in Paris, France (especially Y Marie and D Bouteiller) for sequencing, U Langner for Figure 1, and everyone who helped with the deployment and recovery of the ASUs and initial laboratory processing. We thank the editor and reviewers for their revisions, which improved earlier versions of the manuscript.
By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. It is emphasized that while many of the recommendations given here require better; more extensive and perhaps more costly monitoring, this is required to avoid any legal ...
This viewpoint paper explores the potential of genomics technology to provide accurate, rapid, and cost efficient observations of the marine environment. The use of such approaches in next generation marine monitoring programs will help achieve the goals of marine legislation implemented world-wide. Genomic methods can yield faster results from monitoring, easier and more reliable taxonomic identification, as well as quicker and better assessment of the environmental status of marine waters. A summary of genomic methods that are ready or show high potential for integration into existing monitoring programs is provided (e.g. qPCR, SNP based methods, DNA barcoding, microarrays, metagenetics, metagenomics, transcriptomics). These approaches are mapped to existing indicators and descriptors and a series of case studies is presented to assess the cost and added value of these molecular techniques in comparison with traditional monitoring systems. Finally, guidelines and recommendations are suggested for how such methods can enter marine monitoring programs in a standardized manner.
