Suchergebnisse

Authors Oinonen, Börger, Luisetti and Heiskanen would also like to acknowledge DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for under-standing marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Program, 'The Ocean for Tomorrow' Theme (grant agreement no. 308392, ww.devotes-project.eu). ; The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving 'good environmental status' (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for 'an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment'. The MSFD is 'informed' by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving 'good environmental status' (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for 'an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment'. The MSFD is 'informed' by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD.

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving 'good environmental status' (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for 'an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment'. The MSFD is 'informed' by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD.

The Mediterranean region is of fundamental importance to Europe given its strategic position. The responsibility for its overall ecosystem integrity is shared by European Union Member States (EU-MS) and other Mediterranean countries. A juxtaposition of overlapping governance instruments occurred recently in the region, with the implementation of both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for EU-MS and the Ecosystem Approach Strategy (ECAP) for all Mediterranean countries, including EU-MS. Both MSFD and ECAP are structured around vision-driven processes to achieve Good Environmental Status and a Healthy Environment, respectively. These processes have clear ecosystem-based, integrated policy objectives to guarantee the preservation and integrity of Mediterranean marine ecosystem goods and services. However, adoption of these instruments, especially those related to the new EUMS directives on marine policy, could result in a governance gap in addition to the well-known economic gap between the EU and the non-EU political blocs. We identify two complementary requirements for effective implementation of both MSFD and ECAP that could work together to reduce this gap, to ensure a better alignment between MSFD and ECAP and better planning for stakeholder engagement. These are key issues for the future success of these instruments in a Mediterranean region where discrepancies between societal and ecological objectives may pose a challenge to these processes.

This manuscript is a result of 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. María C. Uyarra is partially funded through the Spanish programme for Talent and Employability in R + D + I "Torres Quevedo". Melanie Austen and Stefanie Broszeit are partially funded by the Marine Ecosystems Research Programme, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (grant number NE/L003279/1). ; The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires Member States to assess the costs and benefits of Programmes of Measures (PoMs) put in place to ensure that European marine waters achieve Good Environmental Status by 2020. An interdisciplinary approach is needed to carry out such an assessment whereby economic analysis is used to evaluate the outputs from ecological analysis that determines the expected effects of such management measures. This paper applies and tests an existing six-step approach to assess costs and benefits of management measures with potential to support the overall goal of the MSFD and discusses a range of ecological and economic analytical tools applicable to this task. Environmental cost-benefit analyses are considered for selected PoMs in three European case studies: Baltic Sea (Finland), East Coast Marine Plan area (UK) and the Bay of Biscay (Spain). These contrasting case studies are used to investigate the application of environmental cost-benefit analysis including the challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt from using this approach. This paper demonstrates that there are opportunities in applying the six-step environmental cost-benefit analysis framework presented to assess the impact of PoMs. However, given demonstrated limitations of knowledge and data availability, application of other economic techniques should also be considered (although not applied here) to complement the more formal environmental cost-benefit analysis approach. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed

The Mediterranean region is of fundamental importance to Europe given its strategic position. The responsibility for its overall ecosystem integrity is shared by European Union Member States (EU-MS) and other Mediterranean countries. A juxtaposition of overlapping governance instruments occurred recently in the region, with the implementation of both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for EU-MS and the Ecosystem Approach Strategy (ECAP) for all Mediterranean countries, including EU-MS. Both MSFD and ECAP are structured around vision-driven processes to achieve Good Environmental Status and a Healthy Environment, respectively. These processes have clear ecosystem-based, integrated policy objectives to guarantee the preservation and integrity of Mediterranean marine ecosystem goods and services. However, adoption of these instruments, especially those related to the new EU-MS directives on marine policy, could result in a governance gap in addition to the well-known economic gap between the EU and the non-EU political blocs. We identify two complementary requirements for effective implementation of both MSFD and ECAP that could work together to reduce this gap, to ensure a better alignment between MSFD and ECAP and better planning for stakeholder engagement. These are key issues for the future success of these instruments in a Mediterranean region where discrepancies between societal and ecological objectives may pose a challenge to these processes.

12 páginas, 4 figuras, 4 tablas ; The Mediterranean region is of fundamental importance to Europe given its strategic position. The responsibility for its overall ecosystem integrity is shared by European Union Member States (EU-MS) and other Mediterranean countries. A juxtaposition of overlapping governance instruments occurred recently in the region, with the implementation of both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for EU-MS and the Ecosystem Approach Strategy (ECAP) for all Mediterranean countries, including EU-MS. Both MSFD and ECAP are structured around vision-driven processes to achieve Good Environmental Status and a Healthy Environment, respectively. These processes have clear ecosystem-based, integrated policy objectives to guarantee the preservation and integrity of Mediterranean marine ecosystem goods and services. However, adoption of these instruments, especially those related to the new EUMS directives on marine policy, could result in a governance gap in addition to the well-known economic gap between the EU and the non-EU political blocs. We identify two complementary requirements for effective implementation of both MSFD and ECAP that could work together to reduce this gap, to ensure a better alignment between MSFD and ECAP and better planning for stakeholder engagement. These are key issues for the future success of these instruments in a Mediterranean region where discrepancies between societal and ecological objectives may pose a challenge to these processes. ; We acknowledge the KnowSeas project (grant number 226675) for supporting this work, the KnowSeas internal reviewers for improving the paper, and those anonymous referees for their meaningful comments. Special thanks to Michael Angelids for his invaluable comments on the earliest draft manuscript concerning the United Nations Environment Programme Mediterranean Action Plan vision. ; Peer reviewed

The term Blue Carbon (BC) was first coined a decade ago to describe the disproportionately large contribution of coastal vegetated ecosystems to global carbon sequestration. The role of BC in climate change mitigation and adaptation has now reached international prominence. To help prioritise future research, we assembled leading experts in the field to agree upon the top-ten pending questions in BC science. Understanding how climate change affects carbon accumulation in mature BC ecosystems and during their restoration was a high priority. Controversial questions included the role of carbonate and macroalgae in BC cycling, and the degree to which greenhouse gases are released following disturbance of BC ecosystems. Scientists seek improved precision of the extent of BC ecosystems; techniques to determine BC provenance; understanding of the factors that influence sequestration in BC ecosystems, with the corresponding value of BC; and the management actions that are effective in enhancing this value. Overall this overview provides a comprehensive road map for the coming decades on future research in BC science. ; P.I.M. and C.E.L. were supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP160100242). C.M.D. was supported by baseline funding from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. T.K. and K.W. were supported by JSPS KAKENHI (18H04156) and the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-14) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. B.D.E. was supported by Australian Research Council grants DP160100248 and LP150100519. D.A.S. was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NE/K008439/1), and D.K.J. was supported by the CARMA project (8021-00222B), funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Funding was provided to P.M. by the Generalitat de Catalunya (MERS, 2017SGR 1588) and an Australian Research Council LIEF Project (LE170100219). This work is contributing to the ICTA 'Unit of Excellence' (MinECo, MDM2015-0552). O.S. was supported by an ARC DECRA (DE170101524). N.M. was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (MedShift project). N.B. was supported by the UK Research Councils under Natural Environment Research Council award NE/N013573/1. J.W.F. was supported by the US National Science Foundation through the Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research program under Grant No. DEB-1237517. R.S. had the support of FCT, project FCT UID/MAR/00350/2018. I.E.H. was supported by Ramon y Cajal Fellowship RYC2014-14970, co-funded by the Conselleria d'Innovació, Recerca i Turisme of the Balearic Government and the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish charity, no. 015096. J.P.M. was supported by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation Long-Term Research in Environmental Biology Program (DEB-0950080, DEB-1457100, DEB-1557009).

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper. ; P.I.M. and C.E.L. were supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage Project (LP160100242). C.M.D. was supported by baseline funding from King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. T.K. and K.W. were supported by JSPS KAKENHI (18H04156) and the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-14) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. B.D.E. was supported by Australian Research Council grants DP160100248 and LP150100519. D.A.S. was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NE/K008439/1), and D.K.J. was supported by the CARMA project (8021-00222B), funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark. Funding was provided to P.M. by the Generalitat de Catalunya (MERS, 2017SGR 1588) and an Australian Research Council LIEF Project (LE170100219). This work is contributing to the ICTA 'Unit of Excellence' (MinECo, MDM2015-0552). O.S. was supported by an ARC DECRA (DE170101524). N.M. was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (MedShift project). N.B. was supported by the UK Research Councils under Natural Environment Research Council award NE/N013573/1. J.W.F. was supported by the US National Science Foundation through the Florida Coastal Everglades Long-Term Ecological Research program under Grant No. DEB-1237517. R.S. had the support of FCT, project FCT UID/MAR/00350/2018. I.E.H. was supported by Ramon y Cajal Fellowship RYC2014-14970, co-funded by the Conselleria d'Innovació, Recerca i Turisme of the Balearic Government and the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. The University of Dundee is a registered Scottish charity, no. 015096. J.P.M. was supported by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation Long-Term Research in Environmental Biology Program (DEB-0950080, DEB-1457100, DEB-1557009).