WP 1 Deliverable 1.5 JRC – JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE, EUROPEAN COMMISSION AUTHORS LEAD CONTRACTOR Joana Patrício (JRC), Heliana Teixeira (JRC), Angel Borja (AZTI), Mike Elliott (UHULL), Torsten Berg (MariLim), Nadia Papadopoulou (HCMR), Chris Smith (HCMR), Tiziana Luisetti (Cefas), Laura Uusitalo (SYKE), Christian Wilson (OceanDTM), Krysia Mazik (UHULL), Nathalie Niquil (CNRS), Sabine Cochrane (APN), Jesper H. Andersen (NIVA Denmark Water Research), Sue Boyes (UHULL), Daryl Burdon (UHULL), Laura Carugati (CONISMA), Roberto Danovaro (CONISMA), Nicolas Hoepffner (JRC) SUBMISSION DATE 14 | October | 2014 Dissemination level PUBLIC DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(HCMR), Chris Smith (HCMR), Tiziana Luisetti (Cefas), Laura Uusitalo (SYKE), Christian Wilson (OceanDTM), Krysia Mazik (UHULL),
Nathalie Niquil (CNRS), Sabine Cochrane (APN), Jesper H. Andersen (NIVA Denmark Water Research), Sue Boyes (UHULL), Daryl
Burdon (UHULL), Laura Carugati (CONISMA), Roberto Danovaro (CONISMA), Nicolas Hoepffner (JRC)
SUBMISSION DATE
14 | October | 2014
Dissemination level
PUBLIC
DEVOTES recommendations
for the implementat ion of the
Marine Strategy Framework Direct ive
Disclaimer:
This publication is a Scientific and Technical Report by the DEVOTES project. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the
implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may
not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.
Citation
Patrício J, Teixeira H, Borja A, Elliott M, Berg T, Papadopoulou N, Smith C, Luisetti T, Uusitalo L, Wilson C, Mazik K, Niquil N, Cochrane
S, Andersen JH, Boyes S, Burdon D, Carugati L, Danovaro R, Hoepffner N. 2014. DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation of
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1.5, 71 pp. DEVOTES project. JRC92131
Contents
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................ i
2. Summary of the first phase of implementation of the MSFD ......................................................2
3. Identification of shortcomings and needs for improvement – a scientific and technical analysis
of the legal texts ........................................................................................................................................3
3.1. MSFD Annex III on indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts ........................................ 4
3.1.1. Characteristics (Table 1 of Annex III) ..................................................................................................... 4
3.1.2. Pressures and impacts (Table 2 of Annex III) ....................................................................................... 12
3.2. Commission Decision 2010/477/EU - a detailed analysis .................................................................... 21
3.2.1. General conditions of application of the criteria for good environmental status (Part A) .................. 21
3.2.2. Criteria for Good Environmental Status relevant to the descriptors of Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC
(Part B) 30
4. Scientific and technical issues needing clarification ................................................................. 43
4.1. The need for clear terms and definitions............................................................................................. 43
4.2. The need for a rigorous conceptual risk assessment and risk management framework linked to marine
considered in some of the Decision criteria (e.g. of indicators reported in the catalogue
‘Abundance of functional groups’, ‘Number of biocenosis/facies’ or ‘Rate of new introduction of
non-indigenous species (per defined period)’).
The DEVOTES Catalogue of Indicators can increase knowledge transfer across countries and
marine regions. It can be used, for example, to identify operational indicators within neighbouring
countries that focus on the same biodiversity components, enhancing comparability and broader
scale assessments of relevant species or groups of species within marine regions. It can also
highlight indicators that could be potentially adapted to other areas or applied at a higher EU
scale, for example, by identifying relevant species or groups of species widely surveyed by all MS.
However, this catalogue cannot replace or overcome the lack of clear and agreed guidance on
how to select biological features.
b) The DEVOTES Catalogue of Keystone species and associated report is a review of potential
keystones species in European marine habitats (Smith et al. 2014b). The catalogue has 844
individual entries, which includes 210 distinct species and 19 groups classified by major habitat in
the EU Regional Seas and the Norwegian Sea. The catalogue and the report cite 164 and 204
sources respectively. The keystones in the catalogue are identified from limited published work,
expert opinion and models (high ‘keystoneness index’ values in Ecopath with Ecosim models). The
keystone species originate from a wide range of faunal/floral groups and trophic levels and many
are invasive species. Gaps exist partially from a lack of expertise in specific areas (for certain
groups or certain habitats), but also from the very limited information available on keystone
species in general.
The scientific community is aware that important difficulties remain in the definition of keystone
species (Smith et al. 2014b), for example, at what point does a species become keystone?, are
keystone species promoters or reducers (through primary or secondary impacts)?, can a prey
species be a keystone?, can a keystone species be a species group (e.g. a genus, a family),
functional group or even a habitat? and what is the scale (primarily spatial but also temporal) that
the keystone works over? Many of these species are already considered to some extent (as
key/important species) and DEVOTES noted an overlap between species included in the indicator
and keystone catalogues. Also a number of keystone species are included in the MS Initial
Assessments. Specifically for keystone habitat species, many operational indicators already exist
(Teixeira et al. 2014) and have long been applied in the context of environmental assessment and
conservation initiatives such that these species can be tracked as indicators for GES. These
indicators are, however, mostly structural indicators that provide little information on the
interaction or the role of the species in the ecosystem.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
12
DEVOTES discussed the possibility of using keystone species as indicators in monitoring
programmes and suggested that keystone can provide relevant information for the future
consequences of environmental changes in the entire ecosystem (Smith et al. 2014b). In
supporting the MSFD functional approach, the Catalogue of Keystone Species promotes keystone
functional groups where a group of species/taxa may have a keystone function, for example, rich
coralligenous communities or mixed coral and sponge fields. This catalogue can be used to help
select relevant biological features for assessment.
- Shortcoming 2- The lack of minimum requirements while assessing biological features for GES
As shown by Palialexis et al. (2014), MS differ greatly not only in terms of effort to cover all relevant
biodiversity components but also with regard to their assessment strategies, by adopting for example an
untargeted overall GES assessment, including all biodiversity components for which data were available,
in contrast to those MS who selected specific biological features based on question-driven approaches.
Due to the different approaches MS can adopt, it would be desirable that minimum requirements or a
common approach would be defined to avoid uneven assessments that would furthermore compromise
an evaluation of the environmental status at broader scales.
Other features:
Several aspects mentioned within this topic are better covered elsewhere. For example, ‘chemicals,
including chemicals giving rise to concern, sediment contamination’ are addressed in Table 2 of the Annex
(see also next section 3.1.2); while ‘hotspots’ are addressed in Table 1, under ‘Habitat Types’ (above).
Furthermore, ‘Health issues and contamination of biota’ are aspects related to the descriptors 8 and 9
(Annex I MSFD).
Overall, under ‘Other features’, it is not clear why particular attention is given to certain topics, and not
to others. However, if the aim is to offer the MS the possibility to include any specificities of their regions,
then ‘Other features’ could include only the second and last sentence already therein, i.e. ‘a description
of any other features or characteristics typical of or specific to the marine region or subregion’.
3.1.2. Pressures and impacts (Table 2 of Annex III)
This section aims to clarify the terminology used in Table 2 of MSFD Annex III (Figure 4), especially
ambiguities that have introduced confusion in the first implementation phase. Moreover, for the next
steps of the MSFD implementation, i.e. Article 11 (Monitoring programmes) and Article 13 (Programmes
13
of measures) of the Directive, data from Article 8 (a) and (b), improved by the results of Article 11, should
be used to implement Article 13. The implementation of new measures, as identified by the programmes
of measures, should be informed by cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (Article 13) prior to their introduction. For
the CBA, the use of the guidance in Table 2 of Annex III in the Directive is also necessary.
Those involved in marine assessment and management, as embodied in the MSFD, are undertaking risk
assessment and risk management as adopted by ICES (Cormier et al. 2013). This requires considering the
hazards and risks in the marine environment, the links between having indicators to detect state changes
(on the natural system) and impacts (on human uses of the marine system) due to pressures and the use
of measures based on activities to tackle those state changes and impacts. In other words, this exercise
requires a clear understanding of the source of problems, their detection and measures to tackle them.
The MSFD has an extensive literature but, as found in the DEVOTES project, its implementation
experiences confusion in the use of the above terms and definitions.
There are many Hazards in the marine environment each of which create a Risk for natural aspects valued
by society (Elliott et al. 2014a) therefore requiring Risk Assessment and Risk Management (Cormier et al.
2013). The DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State change-Impact-Response) framework (EEA 1999; Smith et al.
2014a) is often used as the underlying concept for Risk Assessment and Risk Management (Cormier et al.
2013). However, there is some general confusion of these terms as Pressure is commonly used
interchangeably with Activity or Driving force (Robinson et al. 2008). Koss et al. (2011) then further
complicated the framework by separating Activities into Sectors (e.g. aquaculture) and Activities (e.g. fin-
fish aquaculture). The Sectors could be classed as either Drivers or as Activities. Furthermore, State and
Impact have often been confounded (Smith et al. 2014a) hence Atkins et al. (2011) recommend the term
State change for the effects on the natural esystem and Impact (which could be positive or negative) for
effects on the human system whereas Cooper (2013) further recommends the use of Welfare instead of
Impact to avoid ambiguity. Because of this, Elliott et al. (2014a) recently recommended the use of
DAPSI(W)R in that a Driver is the main demand by society (e.g. for food, transport, etc.), which requires a
set of Activities. Smith et al. (2014a) also defined Drivers as the overarching economic and social policies
of governments, and economic goals of society or industry. It is recognised that any activity may cause
multiple pressures, a Pressure may arise from different activities and may cause several State changes in
the natural system. If unchecked these create Impacts (on human Welfare), which need addressing
through Responses involving economic, technological, legal etc. approaches.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
14
Figure 4. Pressures and impacts in marine waters to be taken into account for the implementation of the MSFD, according to its Annex III (source: MSFD).
15
Table 2 of Annex III introduces ambiguity because it presents ‘pressures’ and ‘impacts’ together, whereas
pressures (P - pressures in the DPSIR framework) should be distinguished from ‘activities’, and pressures
should be distinguished from impacts (sensu adverse effects on the natural system, equivalent to S - state
changes in the DPSIR framework). In order to accurately guide the MSFD implementation, the use of terms
must be consistent. This section aims to define and list hazards, activities and pressures that could be
included in the revised version of the legal documents. We also advocate alternative tables which list
hazards, activities and pressures (based on Elliott et al. 2014b)
(a) Marine & Coastal Hazard & Risk
Hazards are any cause of potential adverse environmental effects (damage, harm) derived from natural
or anthropogenic events and factors (Elliott et al. 2014a). Many hazards occur in coastal and coastal
wetland areas, all of which have causes and consequences (Kennish and Elliott 2011). Hazard is the cause
leading to risk which is the probability of effect causing, or likely to cause, consequences for society and
its values. Hence a hazard only becomes a risk when human assets or well-being is likely to be adversely
affected. The severity of the risk is proportional to the number of people or the value of the assets affected
and so the concept of disaster is the interaction between social and natural systems. Although natural
hazards often cannot be avoided (e.g. tsunamis), society does respond by prevention or mitigation of
consequences. Natural risk can be defined as the damage expected from an actual or hypothetical
scenario triggered by natural phenomena or events. The responses to hazards and the willingness to act
depend on the perception and evidence of risk. Elliott et al. (2014a, b) propose a typology of hazards
(Table 4) and suggest fitting anthropogenic hazards within the DPSIR/DAPSI(W)R framework by linking
them to the drivers, activities and pressures, whereas natural hazards would link only to state changes
and impacts on human welfare.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
16
Table 4. Activities contributing to pressures (modified extensively from Koss et al. 2011).
Anthropogenic extractive technological hazards Anthropogenic Removal of space, removal of biological populations (fish, shellfish, etc.), seabed extraction and oil/gas/coal extraction leading to subsidence
Anthropogenic acute chemical hazards Anthropogenic Pollution from one-off spillages, oil spills
Anthropogenic chronic chemical hazards Anthropogenic Diffuse pollution, litter/garbage, nutrients from land run-off, constant land-based discharges, aerial inputs
Surface physiographic removal by human actions - chronic/long-term
Anthropogenic Land claim, removal of wetlands for urban and agricultural area
Surface physiographic removal - acute/short-term Natural Cliff failure, undercutting of hard cliffs
Surface hydrological hazards Natural but exacerbated by human activities High tide flooding, spring tide and equinoctial flooding; flash flooding, ENSO/NAO patterns
Surface physiographic removal by natural processes - chronic/long-term
Natural but exacerbated by human activities Erosion of soft cliffs by slumping
Climatological hazards - acute/short-term Natural but exacerbated by human activities Storm surges, cyclones, tropical storms, hurricanes, offshore surges, fluvial and pluvial flooding
Climatological hazards - chronic/long term Natural but exacerbated by human activities Ocean acidification, sea level rise, storminess, ingress of seawater/saline intrusion
17
(b) Activities causing Pressures
Koss et al. (2011) identified and listed marine and coastal sectors and activities for the ODEMM project
(http://www.liv.ac.uk/odemm/). These have been refined (and inconsistencies removed) here (Table 5).
To avoid unnecessary duplication with either Driver or Activity, the term ‘sector’ is considered
unnecessary, meaning that only an activity is required to produce pressures. It is emphasised here that a
consistent list of possible and/or existing activities is needed from which a subset can be extracted which
may contribute to a greater number and/or more detrimental pressures for risk assessment and risk
management. For example, assessing the footprint and severity of abrasion requires the identification of
all sources of this pressure and the activities that cause them. Smith et al. (2014a) identified 13 sectors
and 42 activities giving rise to the pressure ‘abrasion’, and approximately 20 sectors and over 100 activities
were defined by other recent EU projects (ODEMM, VECTORS and COEXIST) as associated to that pressure.
A hierarchical structure describing all relevant activities and their spatial and temporal dimension may be
required to ensure clarity and consistency in assessments and comparisons and to give more management
possibilities. However, we advocate the use of the DEVOTES core set of activities against which pressures
can be determined.
(c) Pressures
Mazik et al. (2013) highlighted some confusion regarding the term pressures and concluded that many of
the marine pressures identified by the World Resources Institute (2009) relate to activities according to
the approach adopted by Robinson et al. (2008) and OSPAR. Hence, DEVOTES has adopted the definition
of pressure from Robinson et al. (2008) as: ‘the mechanism through which an activity has an effect on any
part of an ecosystem’.
The MSFD provides a list of pressures which identifies eight pressure themes with 18 individual pressures
or mechanisms. Robinson et al. (2008) listed further pressures, which were later updated by Koss et al.
(2011). With the exception of pressures from climate change, pressures predominantly relate to
anthropogenic activity, also referred to as endogenic managed pressures (Atkins et al. 2011; Elliott 2011)
where endogenic implies being within the system to be managed. An area then needs to be managed in
the context of exogenic (outside the system) unmanaged pressures such as climate change,
isostatic/eustatic change, or seismic activity. Elliott (2011) emphasises that whereas the causes and
consequences of endogenic managed pressures can fall within a management scheme for a marine area,
only the consequences (as opposed to the causes) of exogenic unmanaged pressures can be addressed at
management scales; for example, the consequences of climate change can be addressed locally whereas
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
18
Table 5. Activities contributing to Pressures (modified extensively from Koss et al. 2011).
ACTIVITY Examples and
concerns from the activity leading to pressures
Production of living resources
Aquaculture: fin-fish set-up and operations, macro-algae set-up and operation, shellfish set-up and operations, predator control, disease control, stock enhancement methods
Extraction of living resources
Benthic trawling, scallop dredging, fishery wastes, netting (e.g. fixed nets, seine netting), pelagic trawling, potting/creeling, suction hydraulic dredging, bait digging, seaweed and saltmarsh vegetation harvesting, bird eggs and shellfish hand collecting, peels, curios, recreational fishing, extraction of genetic resources
Transport Litter and debris (unauthorised dumping), mooring/beaching/ launching, shipping, steaming, shipping wastes, passenger ferries, transport of goods, navigation, dredged material disposal
Renewable energy generation
Renewable (tide/wave/wind) power station construction and operations
Non-renewable energy generation
Fossil fuel (coal, oil & gas) power stations, thermal discharge (cooling water), water abstraction, marine fracking, nuclear power, radioactive discharge and storage
Extraction of non-living resources
Inorganic mine and particulate waste, non-living maerl, rock/minerals (coastal quarrying), sand/gravel (aggregates), water for desalination, salt, navigational dredging, marine hydrocarbon extraction, capital dredging, maintenance dredging, substratum removal
Coastal and marine structure and Infrastructure
Artificial reefs, barrages, beach replenishment, communication infrastructure (cables), constructions, culverting lagoons, dock/port facilities, groynes, land claim, marinas, pipelines, removal of space and substrata, bathymetric/ topographic change, sea walls/breakwaters, urban buildings, cables/pipelines/ gas storage/carbon capture, cultural sites such as wrecks, foundations, sculptures
Land-based Industry Industrial effluent treatment and discharge, industrial/urban emissions (air), particulate waste, desalination effluent, sewage and thermal discharge, power plant discharges
Tourism/ recreation Angling, boating/yachting, diving/dive site, litter, littering/dumping, debris, bathing, public beach, tourist resort, water sports
Defence and national security
Military activities, hazardous material disposal areas, infrastructure (naval bases, ports, airports, degaussing stations), vessels, vehicles, sonars and munitions testing and use at sea, mooring/anchoring/beaching, dumping
Research and conservation Animal sanctuaries, marine archaeology, marine research, physical sampling, physico-chemical and biological sample removal
The MSFD only refers to an incomplete list of endogenic pressures. The DEVOTES pressures list was
produced as a revision from the MSFD and Koss et al. (2011) with the addition of managed (Table 6) and
unmanaged pressures (Table 7), thus allowing climate change to be considered as it has been omitted in
MSFD implementation despite the wording of the Directive (Elliott et al. submitted).
Table 6. Endogenic Managed Pressures.
PRESSURE Description In MSFD
Annex 3- T2
Smothering (physical damage) By man-made structures/ disposal at sea
Substratum loss (physical damage)
Sealing by permanent construction (coastal defences/wind turbines), change in substratum due to loss of key physical/biological features, replacement of natural substratum by another type (e.g. sand/gravel to mud)
Changes in siltation and light regime (physical damage)
Change in concentration of suspended solids in the water column (turbidity), deposition/accretion (dredging/run-off)
Abrasion (physical damage) Physical interaction of human activities with the sea-floor/seabed flora and fauna causing physical damage (e.g. trawling)
Selective extraction of non-living resources
Aggregate extraction/removal of surface substrata, habitat removal
Change in natural sea level (mean, variation, range) due to man-made structures (local)
x
Water flow rate changes (local hydrological change)
Change in currents (speed, direction, variability) due to man-made structures (local)
x
pH changes (local hydrological change)
Change in pH (mean, variation, range) due to run-off/change in freshwater flow, etc (local)
x
Electromagnetic changes Change in the amount and/or distribution and/or periodicity of electromagnetic energy from electrical sources (e.g. underwater cables)
x
Change in wave exposure (local hydrological change)
Change in size, number, distribution and/or periodicity of waves along a coast due to man-made structures (local) or climate change (large scale)
x
Table 7. Exogenic Unmanaged Pressures (widespread hydrological and geomorphological changes).
PRESSURE Description In MSFD
Annex
3- T2
Thermal regime change Temperature change (average, range, variability) due to climate change (large scale)
x
Salinity regime change Salinity change (average, range, variability) due to climatological events (large scale)
x
Emergence regime change Change in natural sea level (mean, variation, range) due to climate change (large scale) and isostatic rebound
x
Water flow rate changes Change in currents (speed, direction, variability) due to climate change (large scale)
x
pH changes Change in pH (mean, variation, range) due climate change (large scale), volcanic activity (local)
x
Change in wave exposure Change in size, number, distribution and/or periodicity of waves along a coast due to climate change (large scale)
x
Geomorphological changes Changes in seabed and coastline changes due to tectonic events x
21
3.2. Commission Decision 2010/477/EU - a detailed
analysis
The Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters is
structured in two main parts: Part A on the general conditions of applying the criteria that MS should use
to assess the extent to which GES is being achieved and Part B specifically on the criteria for GES relevant
to each of the 11 descriptors of MSFD Annex I.
Here we present DEVOTES findings that are relevant for the review process of the Decision, regarding
both the general aspects of its application (Part A) and four of the 11 descriptors set out in the Directive,
3.2.1. General conditions of application of the criteria
for good environmental status (Part A)
Hereafter, each paragraph of Part A of the Decision is discussed regarding issues needing further
clarification or guidance.
Paragraph 1
This initial paragraph sets the context for Part A, which specifies the general conditions of application of
criteria and related indicators laid out in Part B.
The initial sentence states what the criteria in Part B are being used for, namely to assess the
environmental status. From this perspective, the title of the Annex of the Decision (General conditions of
application of the criteria for good environmental status) is misleading since the criteria are not describing
‘good’ status, but merely the level of the environmental status. Hence, we recommend changing this
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
22
accordingly, by replacing ‘good’ with ‘assessing’ in the title of Part A. The same argument would apply, for
accuracy, to the Decision title.
The statement that the purpose of the indicators accompanying the criteria is to make the criteria
operational, suggests that the indicators are taken to be operational. This is, however, not generally the
case. Most of the indicators in Part B are just further specifications of the criteria, describing what is to be
understood by a criterion. As an example, criterion 1.4 (Habitat distribution) is further specified as
consisting of ‘range’ (indicator 1.4.1) and ‘pattern‘ (indicator 1.4.2). To be operational (i.e. fit-for-
purpose), the indicator would need well-agreed methods to measure range and pattern in terms of spatial
and temporal resolution, and how to aggregate the two measures to the level of the criterion. Only very
few criteria, such as 3.2 (Reproductive capacity of the stock) are sufficiently specific to be classified as
operational. Hence, we recommend rephrasing this statement, avoiding the term ‘indicator‘ altogether in
the Decision and to use terms such as ‘attribute’or ‘specification’ instead and explicitly stating that these
typically need to be developed into an indicator sensu Gabrielsen and Bosch (2003). (See also section 4.1
on ‘The need for clear terms and definitions’.)
The statement that criteria in Part B are accompanied with references to methodological standards is not
clear. This questions what differentiates these standards from the listed indicators and whether the
reader can see what is referred to by the methodological standards. It could be that this refers to the
introductory text after the headings of the descriptors and criteria. Hence, we recommend to clearly mark
which text is regarded as a methodological standard and which text is just further explanatory text. In
addition, it would be helpful if this information, in Part B, was presented in a similar way and level of detail
across all Descriptors.
Paragraph 2
This paragraph indicates that links with the other relevant Directives should be considered. However, the
text does not provide guidance on how to deal with the possible overlap and/or complementarity
identified by the DEVOTES output Boyes and Elliott (2014). For example, in areas where the MSFD, WFD
and Habitats Directive overlap, such as in Natura sites within 1 nm of the coast, there is no indication of
overlap and/or precedence between ‘Good Environmental Status’, ‘Good Ecological Status’ and
‘Favourable Conservation Status’. In addition, by not separating acronyms (e.g. using GEnS and GEcS
23
respectively for Good Environmental and Ecological Status rather than GES for both) then confusion has
been created amongst the water management community. There is also the need to inform which aspects
of the WFD and Habitats Directive are implicitly or explicitly included in the MSFD.
Furthermore, the paragraph advocates taking into account the Task Group reports coordinated by JRC
and ICES, as well as information/approaches gained in the frame of Regional Sea Conventions. There is,
however, the need for a rigorous investigation on the possible overlap/complementarity between these
sources of information, highlighting any potential discrepancies and anomalies. Some attempts have been
made to gather information on methods developed and agreed in the framework of European or
international conventions (Piha and Zampoukas 2011). This could be used as a starting point to discuss
potential conflicts while adopting standardised practices already in place (Piha and Zampoukas 2011).
Some of these aspects have also been addressed in DEVOTES tasks dealing with governance challenges
(see section 4.8 on ‘The need to consider legal barriers to achieve GES’).
Paragraph 3
This paragraph covers the MS broad needs to follow the MSFD and the requirement to reach GES. The
wording of the second sentence regarding attaining GES reads ‘The application of criteria for good
environmental status needs to be carried out…’ should read ‘The criteria for assessing environmental
status need to be applied…’.
In the final sentence it is noted that it is ‘important that assessment considers the main cumulative and
synergetic effects of impacts’. The wording here is imprecise since ‘cumulative’ includes ‘synergistic’,
‘antagonistic’, ‘additive’, ‘multiplicative’, ‘comparative’ and other effects. The cited categories
‘cumulative’ and ‘synergistic’ are not synonymous (Crain et al. 2008). It is unlikely that a complete
cumulative consideration can be made in any assessment especially as there is little information on the
exact nature and type of relevant cumulative impacts considering multiple pressures or stressors in
European marine waters (Smith et al. 2014a). Studies either have been controlled experiments with single
or limited combinations of variables or are largely component and stressor dependent. In a few cases, the
studies are area-based in which the net sum of pressures will be assessed without apportioning impact to
the individual stressors. Two options for the assessment of multiple pressures either use additive
weighted primary impacts of common mechanistic effects identified from different pressures, or use
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
24
expert assessment of the cumulative impacts. Secondary impacts might be elucidated further through a
simulation/modeling approach (e.g. ecosystem or Bayesian modelling). Further guidance is required on
the means of incorporating multiple pressures and cumulative impacts in future assessments, through
examples and the standardised use of the DPSIR conceptual framework (see section 4.2 on ‘The need for
a rigorous conceptual risk assessment and risk management framework linked to marine management’).
Paragraphs 4 and 5
These paragraphs convey the need to approach the problem of determining GES flexibly when it comes
to spatial and temporal variability and aggregation. However, this allows (mis)interpretation, and these
paragraphs could be made more explicit by giving some further explanations (see below) and
guidelines/examples of when one method may be preferable to another.
In paragraph 4 we suggest removing ‘In a number of cases, and in particular…’ and to rephrase it as:
‘Taking into account the relation between information needs and the geographical scope of the marine
waters concerned, it may be appropriate to apply as a first step some selected criteria and related
indicators for an overall screening of the environmental state at a broader scale. As an additional second
step of a top-down approach a finer assessment involving all relevant indicators related to criteria, might
be required in specific areas, having regard to the importance of impacts and threats in view of the
environmental characteristics and/or human pressures as arising from the initial broad or risk
assessments.’
In paragraph 5 we suggest also to rephrase some of the terms:
- add the word ‘attributes’;
- replace the word ‘characteristics’ with the word ‘properties’;
- replace the word ‘start’ with the words ‘be applied’; to this:
25
‘The temporal and spatial scale of impacts varies considerably depending on the type of pressure and the
attributes and sensitivity of the ecosystem components affected. Because of their intrinsic properties,
some criteria and indicators may require applying various timescales for capturing a range of different
processes. When the assessment needs to be applied at a relatively small spatial scale to be ecologically
meaningful (for instance because pressures are localised), it could be necessary to scale up assessments
at broader scales, such as at the levels of subdivisions, sub-regions and regions.’
It would be beneficial for this first broad step (paragraph 4) to define a minimum set of requirements
together with methods/standards to help perform this overall screening that should be representative of
the whole assessment area. Similarly, for paragraph 5, scaling-up should be meaningful and
representative of the larger assessment area- further guidance should be provided with examples on how
a question or problem driven smaller scale assessment can be executed (set minimum requirements) and
translated/be made relevant for wider areas/scales. Assessment scales used in both top-down and
bottom-up assessments should be nested within a hierarchical framework that ensures flow of
information and minimises loss of information (e.g. Borja et al. in press).
The paragraph should also state clearly whether all criteira and associated indicators, currently given in
Part B, are mandatory or if, instead, a few indicators would be sufficient, selected on an ad-hoc basis
within any of the approaches mentioned above. This is important for harmonising between approaches,
and especially to ensure equivalent effort levels among MS.
In addition, concepts in paragraphs 4 and 5 such as ‘stepwise’, ‘scales’, ‘pressures’, ‘impacts’, ‘threats’ and
‘screening’ seem to indicate that MS should frame and sustain their GES assessment approach in a
systematically structured way following a DPSIR Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework (e.g.
Cormier et al. 2013). It would be beneficial if this is clearly stated in the Decision along with further
guidance including good practices and worked examples (e.g. see the ‘abrasion’ example from D6 in Smith
et al. 2014a). (See also section 4.2 on ‘The need for a rigorous conceptual risk assessment and risk
management framework linked to marine management’).
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
26
Paragraph 6
The paragraph summarises the MSFD process and indicates all the aspects that should be taken into
consideration but it does not give guidance on what may or must be done to undertake this enormous
task. Therefore, the purpose of this paragraph is unclear even thought it describes an integrated, spatially
explicit system that could be used for simultaneously mapping the pressures, ecosystem components and
functions, and their interactions. The system would enable spatially explicit risk assessment and support
designing an optimal indicator set and related sampling strategy, and by definition their relationship to
the GES endpoint. It links the holistic assessment of all pressures to important ecosystem features to
indicate problem areas and, subsequently, management measures (such as Maritime Spatial Planning)
which need to be taken in order to re-establish GES. The integrated assessment tool that DEVOTES is
developing will help achieve this goal by including, customisable for each region, a conceptual model, the
prevalent pressures and their own footprint of impact, and the indicators with their links to the ecosystem
components and the pressures, on using different spatial scales. Once fully developed, this tool will be
publically available on the DEVOTES website.
The paragraph as also important terminology issues (see also section 4.1 on ‘The need for clear terms and
definitions’):
the term ‘effects’ is used rather than ‘impacts’ – this requires consistency between paragraphs
especially as effects can be positive as well as negative; it is suggested that this is changed to
‘cumulative impacts’ (‘impact’ implies both ‘state change’ and ‘impact’ under the DPSIR
framework);
also ‘actual or potential impacts’ is not clear. Does ‘potential impacts’ refer to predicted but
unproven impacts, possible future impacts, or probable impact? It could indicate that while an
actual impact (on the natural and human system) is easily detected, a potential impact is only a
pressure (which by definition may not necessarily become a state change or impact if mitigated).
It should be clarified that ‘potential impact’ is being used in the context of ‘risk-based
considerations’.
27
Paragraphs 7 and 8
These paragraphs acknowledge the variability across marine regions and so ‘diversity’ in paragraph 7
should be removed and the first sentence merely state that ‘environmental conditions and human
activities differ with marine regions, subregions and subdivisions’.
In essence, paragraph 7 should be merged with paragraph 8, which is a more general statement than
paragraph 7, but with similar meanings. As with paragraphs 4 and 5, paragraph 8 also points to flexibility,
after the initial assessment, in the selection, justification and use of subsets of indicators from Part B of
the Decision. We suggest therefore to revise paragraph 8 with a clear statement that it is not mandatory
to use all 56 indicators, but only those relevant/appropriate to the region, subregion, subdivision for which
the assessment is being done and only for those pressures andbiodiversity components present and
occuring in this context. As this has not been clear to all MS, we advocate a further specification of the
acceptable means of justifying indicator preference.
The last part of paragraph 8, stating the obligation of the MS to cooperate/coordinate, can be omitted as
it does not add additional information since this is already stated in the Articles 5 and 6 of the MSFD.
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9 refers to Article 8 of the Directive and identifying the essential features, etc. Article 8 refers
to the assessment and requires an analysis of: (a) the essential features and characteristics, and current
environmental status of marine territorial waters; (b) the predominant pressures and impacts, including
human activity, and (c) an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of
degradation of the marine environment.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
28
The text of the Directive should be consistent and so paragraph 9 should use ‘analysing’ instead of
‘identifying’ to prevent confusion. Identifying would only require listing or mentioning the features and
characteristics, the pressure and impacts, and the use of marine waters and the cost of degradation of
the marine environment. Analysing goes beyond that, as it implies carrying out an assessment and
interpreting the observed patterns.
The first sentence of paragraph 9 ‘It is important that the application of the criteria takes into account the
results of the initial assessment, required under Article 8 and Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC’ should
specify that it refers only to Article 8 (a) and (b), and not the economic analysis (c). In order to carry out
the economic analysis in Article 8, GES and clear GES targets should be set out first. This paragraph also
should reflect the post-initial assessment phase of implementation.
The final part of paragraph 9 conflicts with two major criticisms found in the CSWD (2014):
- ‘taking account of existing data where available’: the CSWD (2014) criticised MS for having used
‘only’ available data and not have undertaken new research to gather new data; however, it is
acknowledged that the European Commission aimed that the MSFD should be based on existing
data where possible but we emphasise that this should not be to the exclusion of gathering new
information whenever possible;
- ‘some criteria and related indicators are acknowledged as being still under development during
this initial period’: MS were criticised for not having presented a clear definition of GES and
targets. However, if that was already recognised by the Commission decision document, it should
have not led to criticism; if the criteria and related indicators that were still under development
were already known, then that should have had made clear.
We emphasise that there is the need for a clear definition of GES and related GES targets either by each
MS or preferably harmonised between MS. Only in this way can a coherent socio-economic analysis be
carried out, as the basic necessary biophysical data will be provided. This implies that the appropriate
sequence of the first phase of the MSFD implementation should have been: Article 9 and Article 10
developed after Article 8 (a) and (b). Once GES and GES targets were defined, Article 8 (c) should have
been carried out. However, as Article 5 (2) actions are still to occur (e.g. 2015 and 2016), there is still scope
to clarify what is needed for a full implementation of the MSFD and in which order.
29
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10 indicates, albeit ambiguously, that attaining GES and the necessary adaptive management
have to accommodate changes in the marine environment apart from those caused by pressures
occurring within the management area. It is implicit rather than explicit in the paragraph that the
management measures have to respond to exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic management
pressures (see above, section 3.1.2). It was emphasised by the DEVOTES product of Elliott et al.
(submitted) that climate change will have a major impact on attaining GES for all of the Descriptors and
especially that any targets set for indicators may not be met or even detectable because of those
externally-driven changes and the moving baselines due to climate change. The detection of a signal of
change due to the pressures previously listed in the Directive will be difficult given the increasing inherent
variability (‘noise’) caused by wider global change (see section 4.7 on ‘The need to incorporate climate
change considerations’)
It is recommended that the paragraph be reworded as:
‘Management measures to restore the environment and achieve good environmental status will have to
be carried out against a background of global change and thus accommodate moving baselines in target
conditions. Climate change is already having an impact on the marine environment, including on
ecosystem processes and functions, and so it has to be accommodated by the marine strategies and
adopted measures. Member States will need to separate the effects of pressures within their management
area, and hence the measures required to address them, from the effects of wider global change. The
ecosystem-based approach applied in the assessment of the environmental status and the marine
strategies developed by MS will require adaptive management and sound science including detailed
spatial and temporal monitoring.’
Final remarks on Part A
Part A on general conditions of application of criteria detailed in Part B, has to provide a clear conceptual
framework to contextualise the assessment of Good Environmental Status and set the minimum
obligations that the MS have to fulfil. Part A needs also to be clearly in line with the corresponding articles
in the MSFD and with its annexes and the Directive and the Decision should be totally aligned and
complementary. In the present text of the Decision, this is not always the case. For example, the use of
the indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts (presented in Annex III of the MSFD for the
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
30
determination of GES, which is deemed mandatory by Article 9) is mainly disregarded in the general
conditions of application of the criteria present in the Decision.
Moreover, the analysis of Part A of the Decision (paragraphs 1 to 10) shows the importance of having
clear and unambiguous definitions of the key terms used in the Directive. A common understanding of
such terms, and their implications, is essential for a harmonised and successful implementation of the
MSFD. Many tasks within DEVOTES are detailing some of the above aspects, especially attempting to
clarify definitions and terms in order to produce coherent scientific outputs for policy and management;
see section 4.1 ‘The need for clear terms and definitions’, for a compilation of MSFD related terms and
definitions in urgent need of agreement.
3.2.2. Criteria for Good Environmental Status relevant
to the descriptors of Annex I to Directive 2008/56/EC
(Part B)
Several issues concerning Part B of the Decision are discussed below, both overarching topics and
Descriptor related ones.
Good Environmental Status definition
The criteria and methodological standards adopted in the current Decision should have supported a
consistent and comparable determination of GES ‘between marine regions or subregions of the extent of
which good environmental status is being achieved’ (Article 9 MSFD).
In practice, during the first phase of implementation, there were many different methodological
approaches by the MS (Palialexis et al. 2014). The starting point was the exact definition of GES, which
differed considerably, even between neighbouring MS. GES has been defined at different levels (i.e.
descriptor, criteria or indicators), often qualitatively but sometimes quantitatively; with a variable
adoption of the Decision, ranging from comprehensive to partial use of the criteria and associated
indicators in the assessments, and with an inadequate and inconsistent use of Annex III supporting
features (Palialexis et al. 2014).
Although data availability and regional specificities were important in the selection of the indicators used
by the MS (Palialexis et al. 2014), we believe that a lack of guidance (see previous section 3.2.1) and
inconsistent degree of specification across the 56 indicators outlined in the Decision (Berg et al. in prep;
31
Palialexis et al. 2014) also influenced greatly the number and discrepancy between methodologies
reported by MS. Vague definitions of certain criteria and indicators of the Decision, thus enabling
differences in interpretation, resulted in more methods reported with an obvious increase in the potential
for non-harmonised approaches to GES determination.
In addition, there is little understanding of what to consider as a meaningful quantitative definition of GES
for a marine area, despite the stipulation in the MSFD that GES is an expression of the desired condition
of the environment (Borja et al. 2013). A definition of GES along with the challenges for deriving and using
it are presented in Borja et al. (2013):
‘GES is achieved when physico-chemical (including contaminants, litter and noise) and hydrographical
conditions are maintained at a level where the structuring components of the ecosystem are present and
functioning, enabling the system to be resistant (ability to withstand stress) and resilient (ability to recover
after a stressor) to harmful effects of human pressures/activities/impacts, where they maintain and
provide the ecosystem services that deliver societal benefits in a sustainable way (i.e. that pressures
associated with uses cumulatively do not hinder the ecosystem components in order to retain their natural
diversity, productivity and dynamic ecological processes, and where recovery is rapid and sustained if a
use ceases)’.
Hence we highlight the need to specify what shall needs covered by such an operational definition of GES.
For example:
- Which elements must be included in GES definition?
o A clear link of GES requirements with the corresponding articles in the MSFD, including
guidance on how to address those requirements in practice.
o The Decision acknowledges that applying criteria and identifying indicators should take
into account the essential features and characteristics, pressures and impacts identified
by MS during the initial marine waters assessment (MSFD Article 8, Article 9, Annex III)
(see previous section 3.2.1). We question whether all elements included in the lists of
Annex III have to be covered in the assessments or whether the tables only a selected
site-specific subset should be used.
- How to apply the Decision criteria and indicators within the context mentioned above and with a
harmonised approach across MS?
o There seems to be flexibility for MS to select those criteria and associated indicators that
address the most important impacts and threats to a particular marine ecosystem, and
also to use limited criteria/indicators across a wide marine area, leaving the application
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
32
of additional criteria/indicators to specific subareas (see previous section 3.2.1).
However, there is the need to ensure that MS follow comparable approaches.
o Borja et al. (2013) proposed eight options for considering Decision criteria and indicators
while determining GES in a regional sea context and presented the different steps,
options, advantages and disadvantages for selecting criteria/indicators and the proposal
of minimum common approaches.
- To what extent is GES a qualitative or quantitative expression or both, and if so at which point or
level should the quantitative specification take place?
o The setting of boundaries and environmental targets to determine GES needs to be
further explained.
o We emphasise that the central task for implementing the MSFD is to determine how the
many different criteria/indicators should be combined into an integrative assessment
framework. The existing approaches for integrating assessment results, from the
indicator level up to the level of GES of a marine area are discussed by Borja et al. (2013)
(see also section 4.5 on ‘The need to aggregate at the level of indicator/descriptors’).
- What is the spatial scale at which GES is to be defined and hence reported?
o A hierarchically nested design of assessment scales, in combination with a pragmatic
optimisation of the scaling, keeps the number of assessment areas at a manageable level,
using the following steps (Prins et al. 2013):
define scales for state indicators and descriptors, using ecosystem characteristics as
a basis, and taking into account the pressures on those states (hydrological,
oceanographic, biogeographic features);
define scales for pressure indicators and descriptors (where necessary at smaller
scales for local pressures);
consider assessment scales used in the framework of other policies (e.g. WFD,
Habitats Directive, Common Fisheries Policy and the recently adopted Maritime
Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU), and
combine assessment areas into one, nested, system consisting of a number of
different levels of spatial scales.
o See sections 4.4 on ‘The need to consider geographic scales’.
Finally, the MSFD Working groups need to indicate clearly for which of the abovementioned points does
further guidance need to be developed and agreed to support a harmonised assessment of GES.
33
Environmental Targets
Article 10 on the establishment of environmental targets posed some challenges to MS with respect to its
interpretation. It was evident from the assessment of the Commission on the first phase of the MSFD
implementation that coherence across MS was missing regarding target setting (CSWD 2014).
Environmental Targets have been defined and set at different levels, from descriptor to indicator level.
Moreover, one of the criticisms in the IDA (Palialexis et al. 2014) was that indicators reported for D1, D4
and D6 are state indicators and as such could not be directly linked with the pressures reported in the
initial assessment. Also, few MS have provided pressure-based targets. Most of the targets (and GES) were
state or impact based. The analysis of the targets showed a wide variety of perspectives regarding their
nature, number and link with specific and measurable methods.
For the assessments required under this Directive, state and pressure indicators are used to assess
differences between actual state and desired state (GES) (Andersen et al. 2013; Berg et al. in prep). MS
did not provide more pressure indicators because essentially they were not clearly asked to do that. Their
initial assessments essentially reflect what is requested in the Decision, and for descriptors 1, 4 and 6,
most of the criteria and indicators refer to state assessments. In other words, it was not perceived the
need to select specific and extra indicators for the pressures (linked to environmental targets), apart from
those already included in the Decision. Annex IV of the MSFD provides a list of characteristics to be taken
into account for setting ‘environmental targets’. Borja et al. (2013) recognised that the link between the
description of GES and the establishment of environmental targets (under Articles 9 and 10 of the MSFD,
respectively) needs further clarification. Our analysis suggests that to interpret and link coherently the
outcomes from Articles 9 and 10 of the MSFD it is essential to have a solid conceptual framework (e.g.
DPSIR or any derivative, Smith et al. 2014a). (See section 4.2 on ‘The need for a rigorous conceptual risk
assessment and risk management framework linked to marine management’).
The scientific community is finding it a challenge to clarify the link between Articles 9 and 10, to support
MS implementation. For example, Andersen et al. (2013) interpreted that the indicators associated with
environmental targets to be developed under Article 10 may be identical to the indicators of the Decision.
However, Andersen et al. (2013) also refer that the development of additional indicators, in particular
pressure indicators, may be necessary to assess if targets have been met and to determine whether
management measures have been successful.
Ultimately, MS need to understand if they are obliged to select additional indicators to assess whether or
not targets have been met. If so, how are they going to select them? Detailed guidance is needed to
explain exactly how environmental targets should be set.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
34
Descriptors
Sections below highlight risks for GES assessment based on the analysis of the current Decision criteria
and indicators, for descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6. We provide suggestions on how to clarify the current proposal
and how to overcome identified problems. We also refer to specific DEVOTES research outputs that could
fulfil gaps identified for the descriptors and contribute to the adoption of methodological standards in
support of the MSFD implementation.
Pressure and state descriptors
Using the DPSIR framework, MSFD descriptors and their subordinate criteria and indicators can be
assigned to pressure (P) and state (S). This can be done in different ways. For example, Borja et al. (2013)
regard D3 and D6 as state descriptors as the descriptor level itself reflects state that arises from pressures.
The definition of D3 describes state in terms of ‘populations […] within safe biological limits’. The
definition of D6 describes the integrity of the sea-floor in terms of state, ensuring ‘that the structure and
functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded’. Another viewpoint is taken in Claussen et al. (2011): Besides
categorising D1 and D4 as sole state descriptors, these authors view D3 and D6 as mixed descriptors and
the remaining ones as pressure descriptors. This interpretation does not only look at descriptor level but
also at the GES criteria level. For D3, GES criterion 3.1 is specifying the pressure ‘Level of pressure of the
fishing activity’. The remaining GES criteria within this descriptor are interpreted as state criteria (3.2
‘Reproductive capacity of the stock’; 3.3 ‘Population age and size distribution’). In descriptor D6, the
situation is similar: GES criterion 6.1 ‘Physical damage, having regard to substrate characteristics’ can be
regarded as a pressure criterion showing the ‘extent of the seabed significantly affected by human
activities’ (GES indicator 6.1.2) in terms of the pressures from these human activities. The remaining GES
criterion 6.2 ‘Condition of benthic community’ is interpreted as a state criterion.
This shows that different interpretations of the MSFD descriptors and their content are possible, leading
to potentially differently designed assessment systems between MS when operationalizing indicators and
synthesizing them into an overall assessment. A common synthesis method is the (numerical)
combination of indicators to GES criteria, to MSFD descriptors, to final assessment value (Cardoso et al.
2010). Having descriptors containing both pressure and state criteria would then lead to (numerically)
merging pressure and state indicators at criteria level although, from a general perspective, the descriptor
level suggests that only environmental states (for D3 and D6) are aggregated. The outcome may then
become difficult to interpret and a subsequent society response might end up being inappropriate or even
failing to meet the original aim. It is therefore generally not recommended to mix pressure and state
indicators in ecosystem-based management (Gabrielsen and Bosch 2003). This is in contrast to the design
35
of the MSFD where pressure, state and impact indicators are located within the same descriptor (CSWP
2011) on purpose (Table 8).
Table 8. MSFD descriptors split according to the presence of pressure and/or state criteria and indicators using DPSIR (adapted from Berg et al. in prep).
State descriptors Pressure descriptors Pressure/State descriptors
D1 Biological diversity D5 Human induced eutrophication D2 Non-indigenous species
D4 Food webs D7 Hydrographical conditions D3 Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
D8 Concentration of contaminants D6 Sea-floor integrity
D9 Contaminants in fish and other seafood
D10 Marine Litter
D11 Energy, including underwater noise
This does, however, not mean that no synthesis should be done. While a single number cannot capture
the complexity involved in environmental state (Borja et al. 2014; Derous et al. 2007; Purvis and Hector
2000), it is still a useful means of communication (Gabrielsen and Bosch 2003). There are two possibilities
to overcome this potential problem. One option is to define descriptors D2, D3 and D6 as pressure
descriptor only, incorporating all state-related aspects (including information both on structure and
function) into descriptor D1, since also state indicators from other descriptors describe features of the
biological diversity of species, habitats and biotopes. This would give due emphasis to the pressures as
descriptors of their own. The other option, not changing the way the GES criteria and indicators are
arranged, is to include a statement into Part A of the Decision clarifying that the hierarchical structure of
the GES criteria and indicators does not imply the procedural method to aggregate indicators to criteria,
to descriptors when merging them into an overall assessment.
Apart from this, it is recommended to clearly state in the Decision which MSFD descriptors, GES criteria
and indicators are assigned to pressure, state and even impact (in the DPSIR sense) in order avoid the
possibility of differing interpretations by MS.
Indicator overlap
The indicator inventory of the DEVOTES project (the DEVOTool Catalogue of Indicators) found significant
overlap in descriptors D1, D4, and D6: most indicators addressing these descriptors was, simultaneously,
addressing one or several other descriptors (Berg et al. in prep; Teixeira et al. 2014). There are cases in
which one MS uses one indicator to address two criteria simultaneously [such as Sweden addressing
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
36
criteria 1.3 ‘Population condition’ and 4.1 ‘Productivity (production per unit biomass) of key species or
trophic groups’ with the same indicators], and there are cases in which the same operational indicator is
allocated to different descriptors in different MS (such as chlorophyll a concentration being classified as
addressing criteria 1.6 ‘Habitat condition’ or 4.3 ‘Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups’ by
different data providers). Although DEVOTES is focussing on descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6, the potential of
overlap exists also with other descriptors, especially descriptors 3, 5 and 7.
Risks for GES assessment identified across descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6 are further explored in Berg et al. (in
prep) and Teixeira et al. (2014). Overall we highlight the need to:
- define and clarify the scope of these descriptors and further specify the aspects to be covered by
each of them;
- give clear guidance about whether it would be advisable or not to use the same indicators to
address several descriptors simultaneously.
It is of note that indicators overlap will inevitably lead to double counting of indicators when aggregating
within and eventually across descriptors for an overall assessment of GES (Berg et al. in prep). Double
counting is an undesirable feature within an assessment framework as we might unintentionally give more
weight to a particular feature (Nardo et al. 2008). In a framework with at least 56 indicators, such as the
one proposed in the current Decision, the probability of overlapping is considerable, especially if they are
poorly specified and coherence within the full framework is not ensured across descriptors. This becomes
a large problem if GES for a regional sea is reported as the aggregation of all Descriptors whereas if GES is
reported separately for each Descriptor, as is proposed by some MS, then it is a lesser problem but still of
concern.
Methodological standards
Methodological standards (Article 9 (3)) per se are not defined in the MSFD, nor are they clearly specified
for any of the descriptors in the Decisison. Piha and Zampoukas (2011) define methodological standards
in general terms given the desirability of having methods developed and agreed in the framework of
European or international conventions.
DEVOTES has developed specific work on this topic, necessary to support the choice of methodological
standards in the scope of the MSFD. Indicators and indices potentially valuable for the implementation of
the four descriptors, can be found in the DEVOTool Catalogue of Indicators and in the Catalogue of Model-
derived Indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014 and Piroddi et al. submitted, respectively). The DEVOTool software
allows navigating a database of existing indicators of marine biodiversity, within all European Regional
37
Seas. These scientific indicators are potential tools that can be used to assess the environmental status of
European seas within the MSFD. The catalogue contains information on metadata ranging from indicator
descriptions, data requirements, developmental status, reference values to geographical coverage and
applicable habitats, biodiversity components and related human pressures. Apart from these databases,
new indicators have also been developed which are mentioned in the sections below for the specific
descriptors.
Descriptor 1 Biological Diversity
- Risks and gaps for GES assessment identified within D1
The risk of double counting (i.e. the accounting of the same ecosystem feature in different contexts) has
been identified for D1. DEVOTES has identified the criteria and associated indicators implied in the
Decision (Teixeira et al. 2014). Details and clear recomendations on how to deal with them are further
discussed by Berg et al. (in prep). However, we suggest reviewing criteira and propose indicators
specifically to avoid overlap and reinforce the need to clearly define terms and use them consistently.
Ecosystem level
Descriptor 1 is organised in three levels: species, habitat and ecosystem. Unlike the first two levels, the
context and scope of the Ecosystem level criteria is not defined in the current Decision. This lack of
definition contrasts with the other two levels considered within this descriptor.
Since ecosystem is a higher hierarchical level, it would also be valuable to add explicit instructions on how
the assessment of Decision criterion 1.7 ‘Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components’
should differ from just a sum of the parts of the subordinate levels (i.e. species and habitat). Otherwise,
as observed by Teixeira et al. (2014), the risk of redundant assessments under this level is high. DEVOTES
showed that modelling approaches often consider many ecosystem components from abiotic factors to
biotic interactions and processes (Piroddi et al. submitted). Because of their capabilty of integrating
ecosystem components in a more efficient and meaningful way, models and their derived indicators can
be an option for ecosystem level assessments.
The Catalogue of Model-derived Indicators (Piroddi et al. submitted) shows the potential of ecological
models to address ecosystem fundamental properties such as interactions between structural
components, moving beyond purely structural assessments at the ecosystem level. These aspects, despite
being clearly mentioned in the Decision, were not part of the criteria and indicators set, most probably
due to the difficulty in defining them through specific indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014). Nevertheless, the
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
38
majority of the model‐derived indicators included in this catalogue have the potential to inform on these
complex, integrative ecosystem dimensions.
Ecosystem services
A current limitation of the MSFD set of indicators is that it does not clearly require the assessment of
ecosystems services (ES), despite the fact that in 2011, as a party of the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), the European Union (EU) adopted a new strategy (the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020), which
integrates ES as key elements for the conservation approach to biodiversity (Maes et al. 2012).
A clear linkage needs to be established between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and the diversity
and complexity of the benefits they provide, i.e. the ecosystems services (be it provisioning, regulating or
cultural), in order to allow the development of operational indicators. Especially since ES are part of the
definition of GES (Article 3) (Piroddi et al. submitted; Teixeira et al. 2014).
On the other hand, it is recognised that the indicators available are not yet comprehensive and are often
inadequate to characterise ES; data are often either insufficient or the linkages are poorly understood to
support the use of these indicators (Liquete et al. 2013). And, although the Catalogue of Model-derived
Indicators (Piroddi et al. submitted) showed the potential of models to address ES, the survey performed
cannot inform adequately on the capacity of the indicators to support policy-maker use of these ES
concepts. Meanwhile, further guidance would be needed on how to incorporate and address ES within
GES assessment, recognising the current knowlegde gaps.
- Methodological standards for D1
For D1, a search in the DEVOTool Catalogue of Indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014) showed that except for
indicator 1.3.2 ‘Population genetic structure’, all other criteria and associated indicators could be
addressed by at least 30 operational indicators.
The Catalogue of Model-derived Indicators (Piroddi et al. submitted) also revelead that, except for
indicator 1.3.2 ‘Population genetic structure’, all D1 Decision criteria and associated indicators could
potentially be addressed by modelling approaches availabe.
DEVOTES has also developed work towards a new index that could potentially be used to address criteria
and indicators currently outlined in the Decision for D1 and D6 (e.g. indicator 1.6.1 ‘Condition of the typical
species and communities’ and indicators under criterion 6.2 ‘Condition of benthic community’). The new
index is the genetics based marine biotic index (gAMBI) for environmental status assessment using DNA
39
metabarcoding (Aylagas et al. 2014). It is based on the AZTI's Marine Biotic Index (AMBI), which consists
of using macroinvertebrate diversity as indicator of ecosystem health, and is used worldwide for this
purpose. AMBI requires taxonomic assignment of specimens, which typically involves a time and resource
consuming visual identification of each sample whereas. DNA barcoding or metabarcoding are potentially
harmonised, more rapid and cheaper alternatives for species identification, although the suitability of
these methods for easing the implementation of the AMBI is yet to be evaluated. We have analysed the
requirements for the implementation of a genetics-based AMBI (gAMBI), and show, using available
sequence data, that information about presence/absence of the most frequently occurring species
provides accurate AMBI values. Our results set the basics for the implementation of the gAMBI, which has
direct implications for a faster and cheaper marine monitoring and health status assessment.
Descriptor 2 Non-indigenous species
- Risks and gaps for GES assessment identified within D2
The two D2 criteria are regarded as representing the pressure and state assessment, requiring the
development of criteria-specific indicators. This division is confusing since non-indigenous species (NIS)
are a pressure for D1, D4 or D6. In this sense, D2 could instead be treated as a pure pressure descriptor
with subordinate criteria and indicators addressing the ‘magnitude of pressure’ that NIS species might
pose (Berg et al. in prep; Teixeira et al. 2014).
DEVOTES has suggested alternatives to restructure D2 criteria and indicators to better reflect
introduction, establishment and impact/alteration stages and assess this descriptor accordingly. This is
following the guidance given in the interpretation manual for D2 (Olenin et al. 2010) and the details are
presented in Berg et al. (in prep) and Teixeira et al. (2014).
Recently, DEVOTES has contributed to the development of a new indicator, the Cumulative impact index
by Katsanevakis et al. (in prep). This will fill an important gap on indicators capable of addressing the
‘Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species’ (criterion 2.2) required under D2 Non-
indigenous species (Berg et al. in prep). This new indicator proposes a framework for mapping cumulative
impacts of invasive alien species on marine ecosystems, using the Mediterranean Sea as a case study. It
allows the identification of hotspots of highly impacted areas, and prioritisation of sites, pathways, and
species for management actions.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
40
- Methodological standards for D2
Some methods, indicators and indices potentially useful for the implementation of D2, can be found in
the DEVOTool Catalogue of Indicators and Catalogue of Model-derived Indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014;
Piroddi et al. submitted). For example, for D2, a search on the DEVOTool catalogue retrieved
approximately 24 potential indicators, seven of which reported as operational.
The new indicator Cumulative impact index (Katsanevakis et al. in prep) for mapping cumulative impacts
of invasive alien species on marine ecosystems has been developed by DEVOTES.
Finally, we suggest that the review of the MSFD legal texts should be in line with the recently approved
EU Regulation on prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species
(PE-CONS 70/14, 13266/14 ADD 1). We also recommend that the terminology between both legal texts
should be harmonised, for example, the term ‘alien species’ would replace the MSFD term ‘non-
indigenous species’ although it is of note that United States environmental legislation has dropped the
former in favour of the latter (see Glossary in Annex).
Descriptor 4 Food Webs
- Risks and gaps for GES assessment identified within D4
There is too much focus on top predator indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014) (assumptions that top predators
reflect lower trophic level are not always true). The highly mobile top predators are not always good
indicators as they may cross boundaries between regional seas or the food web could be more controlled
by the basis (phytoplankton, zooplankton) which is often observable in coastal areas. In that case, the
changes in low levels may not be visible looking at top predators. Indicators should cover all trophic levels
(low, middle, top) and benthic + pelagic living components. The DEVOTES Catalogue of Indicators shows,
however, that the lower trophic levels are not adequately covered by existing indicators (Teixeira et al.
2014). On the other hand, the Catalogue of Model-derived Indicators (Piroddi et al. submitted) shows that
modelling approaches could better address this aspect, due to the traditional focus of marine ecosystem
modelling, driven mainly by the wide-spread use of low trophic level models related to the bottom-up
forcing of production.
Functional aspects of the food webs are currently overlooked, we suggest therefore to increase the
balance between structure and function, when reviewing D4 criteria and associated indicators. Whenever
possible, processes should be assessed (e.g. primary productivity, fish productivity) besides the stock
description or, if stocks are considered, should be as a proxy for processes (e.g. size spectra can be a proxy
for energy transfers between trophic levels). The DEVOTES output by Strong et al. (in prep) details the
seabirds and marine mammal) considering that many of the biological components that potentially
contribute the most to functional delivery have received the least amount of attention. Further work is
also required to understand the influence of biotic and abiotic on ecosystem functions and the interaction
between functions (facilitation, mutual inducement and spill-over), in order to possibly generalise them
for operational purposes. Detailed work is also required to understand both the functional form of BEF
relationships over realistic gradients of biodiversity as well as the impact of scale.
The DEVOTES output indicates the need for a new approach to biodiversity assessment based on
functioning as well as structure instead of merely relying on structural indicators such as diversity and
species richness. This approach should be holistic, encompassing all seabed types rather than just a select
set of habitats. New assessments may indicate that structural indicators are satisfactory proxies of
functioning but these need to be tested, as in future DEVOTES work tasks. Similarly, this monitoring and
the use of indicators is required to test the logic indicated in Borja et al. (2011) that if the biodiversity
descriptor is fulfilled then by definition GES for all other descriptors must be fulfilled, and conversely if
GES for the other descriptors is not met then by definition neither with it for Descriptor 1. Furthermore,
the DEVOTES output indicates that the biodiversity – ecosystem functioning relationship provides the
fundamental link between descriptors, especially the several Biodiversity Descriptors (D1, 2, 4 and 6), and
hence the implementation of the ecosystem approach.
4.4. The need to consider geographic scales
Meaningful assessments should imply an adequate choice of the scale at which the assessments are done.
Based on recent work from Prins et al. (2013) and Borja et al. (in press) and discussions within DEVOTES,
47
we highlight here some criteria that can be considered for defining scales for pressure or pressure/state
descriptors:
The intensity and distribution of pressures especially along the coastal zone in relation to
hydrodynamic characteristics (D5, D8, D9, D10), for example, currents, transport patterns, and
mixing, in conjunction with the morphology of the coastal area, may control the spatial extent
and intensity of eutrophication events (D5) as well as the dispersal and concentration level of
contaminants in water (D8) and biota (D9) and the amount of litter (D10). Assessments of
eutrophication or contaminants must clearly delineate the areas potentially subject to
detrimental effects. Such areal delineation should be based on oceanographic characteristics.
A central challenge in the implementation of the MSFD and determining GES for a sea region
relates to the impact footprint of the pressures. Each marine area is subject to many pressures
and each of these has an impact footprint (Duarte et al. 2013). An impact footprint has both
spatial and temporal dimensions, respectively extent and duration, and a major challenge is
defining these dimensions for each activity, pressure, state change and impact.
The vulnerability of biodiversity components. The spatial scale or extent of habitats should be
taken into account in defining spatial scales for contaminant descriptors (D8, D9). Another case
of a biodiversity component that may be specifically vulnerable to pressure descriptors, such as
D2 or D5, D8, D9, is the presence of particularly sensitive habitats. The presence of endangered
or protected populations, such as sea turtles or cetaceans, constitutes vulnerable ecosystem
components in relation to pressure descriptors like D10 or D11.
Managerial issues, in particular for large-scale pressures; a compromise needs to be established
between monitoring effort and capability of detecting the impacts.
The management measures for rectifying any GES deviations should be made according to the
management of the activity rather than the management of the impact. Therefore it will be
necessary to define the footprints of each activity, the nature of the relevant pressures and hence
the magnitude of the impacts from those pressures. To overcome the difficulty of over- or under-
estimating the status of a sea-region, the real GES of an area should take into account the relative
proportions (e.g. area) of impact footprint and non-impact area, possibly weighted for the
severity of the respective impacts. We are concerned that this aspect is not yet being considered
by MS in aiming to define the GES of a large sea region.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
48
Cumulative impacts: Biodiversity components may be exposed to a range of pressures at the
same time but not necessarily with the same effect, causing simple additive or complex
cumulative state changes. While the various pressures operate at different spatial scales, the
appropriate scale for assessment could be the scale at which the cumulative impact occurs.
Trans-boundary effects: This may be particularly relevant for descriptors D5, D8, D10. If a water
mass, defined by hydrological and oceanographic characteristics, covers an area that falls under
the jurisdiction of several MS but is exposed to a similar pressure, the spatial scale should take
into account the trans-boundary effects of this pressure.
Ecological and biogeographic characteristics (for introduced and impacted species, habitats): this
criterion applies mostly for D2, for which dispersal, vectors of introduction, pathways etc., are
important factors that need to be assessed at a local or regional scale, depending on the species
introduction area and distribution.
4.5. The need to aggregate at the level of
indicator/descriptors
Assuming that meeting GES implies that all descriptors have to be fulfilled, then there has to be an
aggregation rule or at least some way of expressing them in combination. However, given that some MS
appear to be taking the view that each descriptor will be considered separately, then for a given sea area
there will be 11 indications of GES. Presently, there is no clear or consistent guidance on this issue, nor
signs of any preferential approach or indications whether one approach is contrary to the spirit or letter
of the Directive. Similarly, there is no guidance on the means of assigning indicators for individual
descriptors or their components, again either treating these singly or in combination to assess if GES is
met. Because of this, Borja et al. (2013; in press) gave some considerations and recommendations when
combining values (e.g. at indicators level) (see Table 9).
49
Table 9. Aggregation approaches and when could them be used (in accordance with Borja et al. in press).
Aggregation
‘approach’ When could it be used? Remarks
‘One out, all out’
• When legal criteria are involved (e.g. contaminants exceeding legal quality standards, etc.). • When there is an impact or risk on a future impact.
• Often, not all indicators are in the same state of development, or are scientifically sound and fully tested. In those cases an aggregation rule such as OOAO should not be applied.
• When the precautionary principle is applied.
• It cannot be used in cases where indicators show a high level of uncertainty, when various indicators are sensitive to the same pressure, etc.
‘Two out, all out’
• In cases where several methods are combined in one assessment (e.g. when several matrices are used in pollutants to give a broader view of the status).
Averaging • When combined variables or indicators are of equal importance or sensitive to the same pressure.
‘Scoring or Decision tree’
• When methods to assess the status of the different indicators/descriptors are in different levels of development or when it is important to be able to track the different steps involved in the assessment.
• Consider different weights for individual indicators/descriptors taking into account the relationship with the pressures within the assessment (sub)region.
Probabilistic
• When several indicators are aggregated, each of the indicator results are uncertain. Some indicators are bound to include more uncertainty that others, due to differences in the amount of data used, the extent of scientific understanding regarding the issue, and the amplitude of natural variation. If these uncertainties can be approximated, this gives rise to the possibility of taking this information into account when integrating the indicators. The more uncertain indicators will get less weight in the integrated assessment, while the more certain ones will be more reliable and hence get more weight. The calculus of the integrated assessment can be based on Bayesian statistics, giving transparent and coherent rules by which the final score is calculated.
• Consider carefully the uncertainties related to all of the various parts of the problem; be sure not to overestimate the well-known uncertainties.
• Consider using expert knowledge in evaluating the various uncertainties, but being sure that the weigthing is based on the relative importance of the indicators, not on the perceived uncertainty; otherwise you will end up double counting the effect of uncertainty in the final evaluation.
Multimetric and multivariate methods
• When integrating several indicators of species composition or several indicators.
• When using multivariate methods it is advisable to verify that stakeholders and managers can understand the interpretation of the results.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
50
4.6. The need for coordinated and fit-for-purpose
monitoring programmes
According to Article 11, on the basis of the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1), ‘Member
States have to establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing assessment
of the environmental status of their marine waters’ on the basis of the indicatives lists of elements set out
in Annex III and the list set out in Annex V, and by reference to the environmental targets established
pursuant to Article 10. MS had to establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes by 15
July 2014 and notify the Commission of their monitoring programmes by 15 October 2014 so that the
Commission can assess whether the elements notified constitute an appropriate framework to meet
requirements of the Directive.
All reports (i.e. data files) should be uploaded to ReportNet (http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/) (Central Data
Repository). By the 30th of September 2014 only one MS has uploaded its report. According to a process
fostered by the Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE), in 2013, the
CIS Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) adopted recommendations for implementing and
reporting under the MSFD. In February 2014, the European Commission prepared further guidance for
reporting on monitoring programmes for MSFD Article 11 (European Commission 2014b). If Annex III of
the Directive and the accompanying Decision is revised, the monitoring guidance and reporting package
will need to be revised accordingly.
DEVOTES has produced an in-depth analysis of marine monitoring networks in Europe aiming to assess
the status of marine biodiversity monitoring, which has focused on MSFD Descriptors 1 (Biological
diversity), 2 (Non-indigenous species), 4 (Food webs) and 6 (Sea-floor integrity). The Catalogue of the
Monitoring Networks currently used in European Seas provides an initial overview of the potential for
effective implementation of the MSFD and assessment of GES. A recent version of this catalogue (June
2014) is publically available in DEVOTES website.
The catalogue includes over 285 monitoring programmes reported by 15 EU MS and 14 countries that
share European Regional Sea boundaries. This exercise has allowed us 1) to critically evaluate the
European marine monitoring activities related to biodiversity (i.e. what monitoring is being currently
performed, why it is being performed, which biodiversity descriptors, biological components and habitats
are addressed and to what pressures it is linked); 2) to identify potential gaps in monitoring based in the
information compiled; 3) to identify needs for further development for marine biodiversity monitoring to
improve and optimise the MSFD implementation, and 4) to promote or foster harmonisation among
countries sharing marine regions for joint GES assessments.
The Catalogue of Monitoring Networks has details at the European, regional and subregional sea level of
each monitoring activity, as well as the four descriptors, 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats (18
seabed and 5 water column) and the 37 pressures addressed (both local manageable and widespread
unmanageable). Patrício et al. (2014) analysed the gaps in monitoring related to pressures and assessed
the fit-for-purpose of the monitoring by Regional Sea (i.e. North Eastern Atlantic, Baltic Sea,
Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea) (Table 10).
Importantly, the Catalogue includes details on key contacts, data sources and timescales for data
collection associated with each monitoring activity. This information should enable MS to optimise their
sampling scheme by collating details on the spatial coverage, measured parameters and sampling
frequency associated with other monitoring programmes, thus producing an optimal sampling design to
complement (rather than duplicate) existing monitoring efforts. Potentially this could also help MS,
through the Regional Sea Conventions, to coordinate their monitoring in terms of timing of their sampling,
the parameters/data being collected and the geographical location, resulting in large, coordinated
datasets for the (sub)regions of each Regional Sea.
According to Patrício et al. (2014), the most obvious significant threat to monitoring is budgetary
constrains within EU MS. Borja and Elliott (2013) alert that the consequence of the choices made now,
during times of economic crisis, mainly focusing on a selection of structure elements (and reducing them
to high taxonomic levels), with only an indirect link to functioning and with the perceived aim of reducing
as much as possible the cost of the monitoring programme (as stated also by De Jonge et al, 2006), is that
the European countries will not produce useful information for management (e.g. data on ecosystem
functioning).
As identified in Table 10, improving the current and future monitoring of marine biodiversity in all regional
seas is essential to implement the MSFD and achieve GES. In addition to enhancing regional cooperation,
there is the need to further develop innovative and cost/effective monitoring methods and to incorporate
state-of-the-art technological developments into current monitoring practices.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
52
Table 10. Summary of the main findings coming out from the analysis of the DEVOTES Catalogue of Monitoring Networks (June 2014 version) (from Patrício et al. 2014 - oral presentation at IMBER OSC 2014, available online here).
TOPICS Main overall findings
MSFD DESCRIPTORS
Number of monitoring programmes: D1>D4>D6>D2, although in several subregions the monitoring programmes for D2 are more numerous than for D4 (e.g. Eastern Mediterranean);
Most monitoring programmes simultaneously address more than one descriptor.
BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS
In most regional seas, the 11 components are monitored and several are monitored simultaneously but there is room for improvement (e.g. increase of components monitored);
In all regional seas, there is a lack of monitoring associated with Microbes in the context of MSFD. There is an opportunity to expand and adapt this monitoring;
Monitoring programmes addressing higher trophic levels (i.e. Mammals, Reptiles, Birds) biodiversity components are lacking or limited in all marine regions. As these groups include several endangered/threatened/protected species there is opportunity to address gaps/join forces (RSC, HD, MSFD);
Most programmes reported have no or no reported Quality Assurance protocols associated with the monitoring biological components. Opportunity for defining and/or implementing common QA protocols versus Risk for poor comparability between datasets where quality assurance is not standardised or not included.
HABITAT TYPES
Most monitoring programmes address more than one seabed and water column habitat simultaneously. All five water column habitats are covered at the marine region level;
Shallow waters are better represented while monitoring for bathyal and abyssal habitats (e.g. sediment rock and biogenic reef) is limited or lacking in all regional seas in which they occur (NEA, Mediterranean and Black Seas);
Some rare and protected habitats have limited or no regular monitoring (e.g. Black Sea).
PRESSURES
Most monitoring programmes address more than one pressure. Some monitoring activities assess 18-20 pressures (e.g. Celtic Sea), demonstrating the potential for more efficient and integrated monitoring;
Nutrients and organic matter enrichment are the main pressures covered;
There is limited or no monitoring for the pressures ‘introduction of radionuclide’, ‘electromagnetic changes’ and ‘marine litter’ in most marine subregions.
GENERAL
Most EU countries are using their existing monitoring programmes as a starting point for the establishment of MSFD monitoring activities. There is the concern that some of these programmes might not be fit-for-purpose;
In some regional seas (e.g. NEA and Baltic Sea) current monitoring practices are built on a strong foundation of scientific knowledge through a long history of national and international networks and policies (e.g. OSPAR Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme 2010-2014, HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy);
There is a clear need for collaborative work between EU and non-EU countries to improve and/or develop monitoring programmes to achieve GES, particularly in the Mediterranean and Black seas;
There is a good basis on which to build on although several countries will not be able to comprehensively assess the environmental status of their marine areas unless the monitoring intensity and coverage of the areas is increased;
Most programmes provide data to international platforms (e.g. EMODnet, MyOcean2, SeaDataNet, CEDar, DCR, DATRAS, JellyWatch) but the data collected are not easily available;
The information gathered enhances opportunities for data collation and sharing, coordination and harmonisation of monitoring between MS.
Within the DEVOTES project, the current status of development of new monitoring methods has been
documented (Danovaro et al. 2013, DEVOTES Deliverable 5.1; Berg et al. 2014, DEVOTES Milestone 11).
The compilation includes the general description of the methods, the biodiversity component targeted,
the link with the MSFD descriptor, the method properties and some preliminary results of their
application. MS and water managers will hopefully benefit from the following innovative tools:
1. Non-invasive bio-sensors – ‘Talking clams’;
2. New Earth observation monitoring methods to classify harmful algal blooms (HABs);
3. Autonomous Reef Monitoring System (ARMS) and Artificial Substrate Unit (ASU) to compare
‘species diversity’ and ‘intra-specific’ diversity;
4. Metabarcoding approach for biodiversity surveys and NIS detection;
5. Species-specific molecular markers for NIS detection;
6. Quantification of plankton functional types (PFTs) for ecosystem health monitoring;
7. Testing remote sensing and CHEMTAX for phytoplankton identification;
8. Remote measurement of benthic biodiversity using multibeam echosounders;
9. Visual imaging by ROV systems used in petroleum monitoring;
10. The application of innovative acoustic monitoring to allow in situ detection and assessment of
plankton communities;
11. Passive acoustic methods to monitor sea mammals;
12. Eukaryotic extracellular DNA analysis;
13. Genetics-based AMBI (gAMBI);
14. Use of metagenetic analysis to assess the biodiversity of marine nematodes;
15. Microarrays applied to the identification of HABs;
16. Microbiological contamination: a comparative analysis of classical protocols versus advanced
molecular techniques;
17. High-throughput sequencing to determine and quantify bacterio-, pico- and nano-plankton
diversity in contrasting marine ecosystems;
18. Dynamics of microbial diversity profiles in waters of different qualities.
4.7. The need to incorporate climate change
considerations
Climate change will affect the structure, function and processes of ecosystems and, as such, will result in
shifting baselines, and hence changes in previously defined targets for the different indicators, within each
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
54
descriptor. An analysis of the impact of climate change on the implementation of the MSFD (Elliott et al.
submitted) focused on eight main repercussions and effects in the marine system (Table 11).
Table 11. Main Topics relating to the marine consequences of climate change and the way in which they influence the Good Environmental Status of Descriptors D1-D11 (from Elliott et al. submitted).
Topics D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11
Altered temperature regime - species redistribution
Metabarcoding, metagenetic analysis, molecular markers for NIS detection, etc.), new indicators
and new models.
5) Scientific publications: all outputs available at http://www.devotes-project.eu/publications/
6) DEVOTES Spatial Data Platform (Figure 6): All of the MSFD and the descriptors are inherently
spatial or related to area-based management. Even those descriptors not explicitly related to the
location of species/ecosystems such as marine litter (D10) benefit from the ability to display
spatial distributions. As a result of the need to represent our data spatially many of the outputs
and diagrams in the DEVOTES project are produced and stored using GIS software. In order to
allow such data to be more easily viewed and accessed internally and externally the DEVOTES
spatial data reporting platform has been created.
The key benefits of using a platform such as this are: 1) a rapid overview of the spatial extent and
distribution of outputs from the DEVOTES project (including relevant assembled information such
as assessment areas and background data); 2) the data are searchable by both geographic area
and keywords/topics; 3) report outputs can be associated with the spatial data so that more in-
depth information can be accessed immediately; 4) data layers can be downloaded directly in GIS
compatible formats both as raster and vector layers and all Devotes public outputs can be made
available this way; 5) data layers can be combined on-line and unique maps created which can
then downloaded as images, shared as a link or embedded in a website, and 6) it is also possible
for registered users to upload their own data and control viewing and access permissions.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
62
Figure 6. Devotes spatial data portal available at maps.devotes.eu.
63
Table 13. Topics related with the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) studied by the DEVOTES project. Published results and their linkage to the topics are identified. WP: work package, M: Milestone, Del.: deliverable, D: descriptor.
Note: all tools, deliverables and milestones available at: http://www.devotes-project.eu/deliverables-and-milestones/.
TOPICS Outputs from DEVOTES
(with links) Observations
Operational definition of GES; Methods for aggregation & integration of assessments within and across descriptor - a review.
Borja et al. (2013); Borja et al. (in press);
Barriers and bottlenecks (socio-economic and legislative) that prevent GES of being achieved; Review on current marine legislation – International law, European directives & national implementation.
Luisetti et al. (in prep) Boyes & Elliott (2014) Elliott (2014)
Upcoming: Del. 2.2 (due 30 April 2015) Report on available models for biodiversity and needs for development
Conceptual frameworks and Pressure-State changes links. Smith et al. (2014a)
Del. 1.1 Report detailing conceptual models for pressure / impacts; Upcoming: Del. 1.2 (due January 2015) will present matrices and an accompanying report detailing generic and regional sea-specific pressure-impact relationships.
The effect of climate changes on biodiversity; the effects of climate change on attaining GES; how these aspects are related to existing and proposed criteria for defining GES; Description of conceptual models of the effect of climate change on the biodiversity-related descriptors (1, 2, 4, 6) and the effect on our ability to assess and achieve GES.
Elliott et al. (submitted)
Marine monitoring networks across Europe, fitness for purpose assessment, highlight gaps, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; Overview on available biological data across marine regions in Europe for assessments under MSFD; New monitoring methods and indicators from those tested and validated; Marine monitoring during an economic crisis.
Patrício et al. (2014) Catalogue of monitoring networks Berg et al. (2014) – not publically available Danovaro et al. (2013) – not publically available Borja & Elliott 2013
Del. 1.4 Report on SWOT analysis of monitoring + Del.1.4 Annex 1 M.11 New monitoring methods and indicators Del. 5.1 Report on the set up of the field and experimental activities
Reviewed and updated list of hazards, activities and pressures. Smith et al. (2014a) Patrício et al. (2014) Elliott et al. (2014)
Catalogue of existing marine biodiversity related indicators; Potential of the existing indicators to address MSFD requirements; Scientists’ interpretation of the MSFD requirements; Potential issues concerning GES assessments arising from the current COM Decision; Selection and ranking of promising indicators.
Teixeira et al. (2014) DEVOTool Catalogue of indicators Berg et al. (in prep)
Del. 3.1 Existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species , food webs and sea-floor integrity GES indicators; DEVOTool software
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
64
TOPICS Outputs from DEVOTES
(with links) Observations
Catalogue of model-derived indicators for marine biodiversity; Potential of the existing modelling approaches to address MSFD requirements; Scientists’ interpretation of the MSFD requirements; Ecosystem models: toward a better process of evaluation.
Piroddi et al. (2013) – not publically available Piroddi et al. (submitted) Lassalle et al. (2014 a, b)
Del. 4.1 Report on available models for biodiversity and needs for development;
Keystones species – are we ‘protecting’ what needs to be protected and does the DEVOTES knowledge about keystone species allows improving the indicators, e.g. creating surrogate measures? Catalogue of keystone species.
Smith et al. (2014b) Catalogue of keystone species
Del. 6.1 Report on keystone species and processes across regional seas; Del. 6.1 Annex 2
Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships: prevalence, delivery and potential value for monitoring.
Strong et al. (in prep)
Spatial data management; Mapping ecosystem services provided by benthic habitats.
DEVOTES Spatial Data-platform (initially hosting data from DEVOTES but capable of storing and serving multiple types of data and reports linked to spatial datasets ) Galparsoro et al. (2014)
http://maps.devotes.eu/
Methodological standards associated with D1, D2, D4, D6. …
Teixeira et al. (2014)
Del. 3.1 Existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species , food webs and sea-floor integrity GES indicators;
Cardoso AC, Cochrane S, Doerner H, Ferreira JG, F Galgani, Hagebro C, Hanke G, Hoepffner N, Keizer PD, Law R, Olenin S, Piet GJ, Rice J, Rogers SI, Swartenbroux F, Tasker ML, van de Bund W (2010) Scientific support to the European Commission on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Management Group Report. EUR 24336 EN Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/13626/1/management%20group%20report_final_vii.pdf
Claussen U, Connor D, Vrees L De, Leppänen J-M, Percelay J, Kapari, M, Mihail O, Ejdung G, Rendell J (2011) Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) & Establishment of Environmental Targets (Art.s 8, 9 & 10 MSFD). Version 6 - 22 November 2011. Available here
Cochrane SKJ, Connor DW, Nilsson P, Mitchell I, Reker J, Franco J, Valavanis V, Moncheva S, Ekebom J, Nygaard K, Serrão Santos R, Narberhaus I, Packeiser T, van de Bund W, Cardoso AC (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 1 Report Biological diversity. EUR 24337 EN Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/13642/1/tg1final.pdf
CSWD (2014) Annex Accompanying the document Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament. The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The European Commission's assessment and guidance. Brussels, 20.2.2014 COM(2014) 97 final
CSWP (2011) Commission Staff Working Paper – Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status. European Commission, Brussels, 14.10.2011. SEC(2011) 1255 final
CSWP (2012) Commission Staff Working Paper – Guidance for 2012 reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, using the MSFD database tool. Version 1.0. European Commission DG Environment, Brussels, 164pp
DIKE (2011) Approach to reporting for the MSFD. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Extraction (WGDIKE). DIKE 4/2011/02
EU Commission Decision 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’
EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU)
EU Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L164
European Commission (2014a) Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament. The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The European Commission's assessment and guidance. Brussels, 20.2.2014 COM(2014) 97 final
European Commission (2014b) Reporting on monitoring programmes for MSFD Article 11. DG Environment, Brussels, 49pp
Olenin S, Alemany F, Cardoso AC, Gollasch S, Goulletquer P, Lehtiniemi M, McCollin T, Minchin D, Miossec L, Occhipinti Ambrogi A, Ojaveer H, Rose Jensen K, Stankiewicz M, Wallentinus I, Aleksandrov B (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 2 Report Non‐indigenous species. EUR 24342 EN Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/13628/1/tg2%20report_final_vii.pdf
Palialexis A, Tornero V, Barbone E, Gonzalez D, Hanke G, Cardoso AC, Hoepffner N, Katsanevakis S, Somma F, Zampoukas N (2014) In-depth assessment of the EU Member States’ submissions for the Marine Framework Strategy Framework Directive under articles 8, 9 and 10 JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/30749/1/lbna26473enn.pdf
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
66
Piha H, Zampoukas N (2011) Review of Methodological Standards Related to the MSFD Criteria on GES.
European Commission EUR 24743 EN. JRC63584 Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/16069/1/lbna24743enn.pdf
Rogers S, Casini M, Cury P, Heath M, Irigoien X, Kuosa H, Scheidat M, Skov H, Stergiou K, Trenkel V, Wikner J, Yunev O (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 4 Food webs EUR 24343 EN Available at: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/13627/1/tg4%20report_final_vii.pdf
Working Group On Economic And Social Assessment (WG ESA) (2010) Economic And Social Analysis For The Initial Assessment For The Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A Guidance Document - A Non-Legally Binding Document - 21 December 2010
Scientific literature
(All publications from DEVOTES are marked with )
Atkins JP, Banks E, Burdon D, Greenhill L, Hastings E, Potts T (2013) An analysis of methodologies for defining ecosystem services in the marine environment. JNCC Report 491 (Contract number: C12-0170-0612)
Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliott M, Gregory AJ (2011) Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Mar Pollut Bull 62:215–26
Aylagas E, Borja A, Rodríguez-Ezpeleta N (2014) Environmental status assessment using DNA metabarcoding:
towards a genetics based marine biotic index (gAMBI). PLoS One 9:e90529
Balmford A, Fisher B, Green RE, Naidoo R, Strassburg B, Kerry Turner R, Rodrigues ASL (2011) Bringing Ecosystem Services into the Real World: An Operational Framework for Assessing the Economic Consequences of Losing Wild Nature. Environ Resour Econ 48:161–175
Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K (2011) Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments. Environ Resour Econ 48:177–218
Berg T, Ardura A, Berzano M, Camp J, Carugati L, Carvalho S, Churilova T, Cochrane S, Corinaldesi C, Danovaro R, Ferrera I, Flo E, Garces E, Gasol JM, Irigoien X, Kryvenko O, Massana R, Chenuil Maurel A, Miller P, Moncheva S, Pearman K, Ramsvatn S, Rene A, Rodriguez--‐Ezpeleta N, Suslin V, Zaiko A (2014) New monitoring methods and indicators from those tested and validated. Milestone 11. DEVOTES FP7 Project. Available at:
http://www.devotes-project.eu/deliverables-and-milestones/ - Restricted to other programme participants)
Berg T, Fürhaupter K et al. (in prep) The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the ecosystem approach - pitfalls
and solutions.
Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. 1:13-20
Borja A, Elliott M (2013) Marine monitoring during an economic crisis; the cure is worse than the disease. Mar Pollut
Bull 68:1-3
Borja A, Elliott M, Andersen J, Cardoso AC, Carstensen J, Ferreira JG, Heiskanen A-S, Marques JC, Neto J, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L, Uyarra MC, Zampoukas N (2013) Good environmental Status of marine ecosystems: what is it
and how we know we have attained it? Mar Pollut Bull 76:16-27
Borja A, Elliott M, Carstensen J, Heiskanen A-S, van de Bund W (2010) Marine management - Towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework and the Water Framework Directives. Mar Pollut Bull 60:2175-2186
Borja A, Prins T, Simboura N, Andersen JH, Berg T, Marques JC, Neto JM, Papadopoulou N, Reker J, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L (in press) Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine ecosystem components when
Boudouresque CF, Bernard G, Bonhomme P, Charbonnel E, Diviacco G, Meinesz A, Pergent G, Pergent-Martini C, Ruitton S, Tunesi L (2012) Protection and conservation of Posidonia oceanica meadows. RAMOGE and RAC/SPA publ., Tunis: 1-202. ISBN 2-905540-31-1, RAC/SPA and Gis Posidonie publ., Marseille
Bowen RE, Riley C (2003) Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast Manag 46:299-312
Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626
Boyd P, Hutchins D (2012) Understanding the responses of ocean biota to a complex matrix of cumulative anthropogenic change. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 470:125–135
Boyes SJ, Elliott M (2014) Marine legislation - The ultimate ‘horrendogram’: International law, European directives
& national implementation. Mar Pollut Bull 86:39–47
Breen P, Robinson L a., Rogers SI, Knights a. M, Piet G, Churilova T, Margonski P, Papadopoulou N, Akoglu E, Eriksson a., Finenko Z, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Galil B, Goodsir F, Goren M, Kryvenko O, Leppanen JM, Markantonatou V, Moncheva S, Oguz T, Paltriguera L, Stefanova K, Timofte F, Thomsen F (2012) An environmental assessment of risk in achieving good environmental status to support regional prioritisation of management in Europe. Mar Policy 36:1033–1043
CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations. Available at: www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml
Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D'Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecol Appl 6:665-691
Cooper P (2013) Socio-ecological accounting: DPSWR, a modified DPSIR framework, and its application to marine ecosystems. Ecol Econ 94:106–115
Cormier R, Kannen A, Elliott M, Hall P, Davies IM (eds) (2013) Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-based Risk Management Handbook. ICES Cooperative Research Report, No. 317, March 2013, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, 60pp, ISBN 978-87-7472-115-1
Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol Lett 11:1304–15
Cury P, Shannon L, Shin, YJ (2003) The functioning of marine ecosystems: a fisheries perspective. In: Sinclair M, Valdimarsson G (eds) Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, 103–123pp FAO/CAB International, Rome, Italy/Wallingford, UK
Daily G (ed) (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA
Danovaro R, Gambi C, Dell’Anno A, Corinaldesi C, Fraschetti S, Vanreusel A, Vincx M, Gooday AJ (2008) Exponential decline of deep-sea ecosystem functioning linked to benthic biodiversity loss. Curr Biol 18:1–8
Derous S, Agardy T, Hillewaert H, Hostens K, Jamieson G, Lieberknecht L, Mees J, Moulaert I, Olenin S, Paelinckx D, Rabaut M, Rachor E, Roff J, Stienen EWM, Wal JT, Lancker V. van, Verfaillie E, Vincx M, Weslawski JM, Degraer S (2007) A concept for biological valuation in the marine environment. Oceanologia 49: 99–128
Duarte CM, Borja, A, Carstensen, J, Elliott, M, Krause-Jensen, D, Marbà, N (2013) Paradigms in the Recovery of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts, in press doi 10.1007/s12237-013-9750-9
EASAC (2009) Ecosystem services and biodiversity in Europe. EASAC Policy Report 09, 79pp
Eastwood PD, Mills CM, Aldridge JN, Houghton C a., Rogers SI (2007) Human activities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of direct, physical pressure on the seabed. ICES J Mar Sci 64:453–463
EEA (1999) Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical report No. 25. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen
Elliott M (2011) Marine science and management means tackling exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic managed pressures--a numbered guide. Mar Pollut Bull 62:651–655
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
68
Elliott M (2014) Integrated marine science and management: Wading through the morass. Mar Pollut Bull 86:1–4
Elliott M, Borja A, McQuatters-Gollop A, Mazik K, Birchenough S, Andersen JH, Painting S, Peck M (submitted) Climate change will affect our ability to achieve Good Environmental Status for marine biodiversity. Aquat Conserv
Mar Freshw Ecosyst
Elliott M, Cutts ND, Trono A (2014) A typology of marine and estuarine hazards and risks as vectors of change: A
review for vulnerable coasts and their management. Ocean Coast Manag 93:88–99
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643-653
Freire-Gibb LC, Koss R, Margonski P, Papadopoulou N (2014) Governance strengths and weaknesses to implement the marine strategy framework directive in European waters. Mar Policy 44:172–178
Gabrielsen P, Bosch P (2003) Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting. EEA internal working paper, August 2003, 20pp
Galparsoro I, Borja Á, Kostylev VE, Rodríguez JG, Pascual M, Muxika I (2013) A process-driven sedimentary habitat modelling approach, explaining sea-floor integrity and biodiversity assessment within the European Marine
Galparsoro I, Borja A, Uyarra MC (2014) Mapping ecosystem services provided by benthic habitats in the European
North Atlantic Ocean. Front Mar Sci 1:23 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2014.00023
Galparsoro I, Connor DW, Borja A, Aish A, Amorim P, Bajjouk T, Chambers C, Coggan R, Dirberg G, Ellwood H, Evans D, Goodin KL, Grehan A, Haldin J, Howell K, Jenkins C, Michez N, Mo G, Buhl-Mortensen P, Pearce B, Populus J, Salomidi M, Sánchez F, Serrano A, Shumchenia E, Tempera F, Vasquez M (2012) Using EUNIS habitat classification for benthic mapping in European seas: present concerns and future needs. Mar Pollut Bull 64:2630–2638
Galparsoro I, Rodríguez JG, Menchaca I, Quincoces I, Garmendia JM, Borja A (accepted) Benthic habitat mapping on the Basque continental shelf (SE Bay of Biscay) and its application to the European Marine Strategy
Framework Directive. J Sea Res
Hering D, Borja Á, Carstensen J, Carvalho L, Elliott M, Feld CK, Heiskanen A-S, Johnson RK, Moe J, Pont D, Solheim AL, Bund W Van de (2010) The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Sci Total Environ 408:4007–4019
Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setälä H, Symstad AJ, Vendermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35
Howell KL (2010) A benthic classification system to aid in the implementation of marine protected area networks in the deep/high seas of the NE Atlantic. Biol Conserv 143:1041–1056
ICES (2013) Report of the Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea (WGINOSE), 11–15 February 2013, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2013/SSGRSP:04. 76pp
Katsanevakis S, Tempera F, Teixeira H (in prep) Mapping the impact of alien species on marine ecosystems: the
Mediterranean Sea case study.
Kennish MJ, Elliott M (eds) (2011) Human-induced problems (uses and abuses) in Estuaries and Coasts. Volume 8. In: E Wolanski & McLusky, DS (eds) Treatise on Estuarine & Coastal Science, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 315pp
Knights AM, Koss RS, Papadopoulou N, Cooper LH, Robinson LA (2011) Sustainable use of European regional seas and the role of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1, EC FP7 Project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-63-6, 165pp
69
Koss RS, Knights AM, Eriksson A, Robinson LA (2011) ODEMM Linkage Framework Userguide. ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.1. EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, ISBN:978-0-906370-66-7
Lassalle G, Chouvelon T, Bustamante P, Niquil N (2014a) An assessment of the trophic structure of the Bay of Biscay continental shelf food web: Comparing estimates derived from an ecosystem model and isotopic data. Prog
Oceanogr 120:205–215
Lassalle G, Nelva Pasqual J-S, Boët P, Rochet M-J, Trenkel VM, Niquil (2014b) Combining quantitative and qualitative models to identify functional groups for monitoring changes in the Bay of Biscay continental shelf exploited
foodweb. ICES J Mar Sci 71:105–117
Leth JO (ed) (2008) Baltic Sea marine landscapes and habitats: Mapping and modelling. BALANCE Technical Summary Report, part 2/4
Lindeman RL (1942) The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399−418
Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L, Katsanevakis S, Charef A, Egoh B (2013) Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: a systematic review. PloS One 8:e67737
Long R (2011) Strategy Framework Directive: A New European Approach to the Regulation of the Marine Environment, Marine Natural Resources and Marine Ecological Services. J Energy Nat Resour L 29:1–44
Luisetti T, Boyes S, Burdon D, et al. (in prep) The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: barriers to its
implementation. To be submitted in Mar Pollut Bull
Luiten H (1999) A legislative view on science and predictive models. Environ Pollut 100:5-11
Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte A La, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Luisa Paracchini M, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39
Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos F, Paracchini ML, Keune H, Wittmer H, Hauck J, Fiala I, Verburg PH, Condé S, Schägner JP, San Miguel J, Estreguil C, Ostermann O, Barredo JI, Pereira HM, Stott A, Laporte V, Meiner A, Olah B, Royo Gelabert E, Spyropoulou R, Petersen JE, Maguire C, Zal N, Achilleos E, Rubin A, Ledoux L, Brown C, Raes C, Jacobs S, Vandewalle M, Connor D, Bidoglio G (2013) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 57pp
Mouillot D, Bellwood DR, Baraloto C, Chave J, Galzin R, Harmelin-Vivien M, Kulbicki M, Lavergne S, Lavorel S, Mouquet N, Paine CET, Renaud J, Thuiller W (2013) Rare species support vulnerable functions in high-diversity ecosystems. PLoS Biol 11:e1001569
Nardo M, Saisana M, Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Hoffmann A, Giovannini E (2008) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing. JRC47008
O’Higgins TG, Gilbert AJ (2014) Embedding ecosystem services into the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Illustrated by eutrophication in the North Sea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 140:146–152
OECD (1993) OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment. OECD, Paris, 35pp
Olenin S, Minchin D, Daunys D (2007) Assessment of biopollution in aquatic ecosystems. Mar Pollut Bull 55:379–394
OSPAR (2009) Trend analysis of maritime human activities and their collective impact on the OSPAR maritime area. OSPAR Biodiversity series, 51pp
OSPAR (2011a) Intersessional Correspondence Group on Cumulative Effects –Pressure list and descriptions. EIHA 11/5/3 Add.2-E, 14pp http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/20110328_ICG-C_Pressures_list_v4.pdf
OSPAR (2011b) ICG-COBAM Summary Record 11/4/1-E. OSPAR Commission
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
70
Oxford Dictionary (1990) The concise Oxford dictionary of current English. Oxford University Press
Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Na 103:91–93
Patricio J, Little S, Mazik K, Thomson S, Zampoukas N, Teixeira H, Solaun O, Uyarra MC, Papadopoulou N, Kaboglu G, Bucas M, Churilova T, Kryvenko O, Moncheva S, Stefanova K, Borja A, Alvarez M, Zenetos A, Smith C, Zaiko A, Danovaro R, Carugati L, Elliott M (2014) Report on SWOT analysis of monitoring. Deliverable 1.4 100pp + 4 Annexes. DEVOTES FP7 Project. JRC89561 Available at: http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-
Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol Evol 10: 430
Piraino S, Fanelli G, Boero F (2002) Variability of species' roles in marine communities: Change of paradigms for conservation priorities. Mar Biol 140:1067–1074
Piroddi C, Lynam C, Teixeira H, Smith C, Alvarez A, Mazik K, Andonegi E, Churilova T, Tedesco L, Chifflet M, Chust G, Galparsoro I, Garcia AC, Kämäri M, Kryvenko O, Lassalle G, Neville S, Niquil N, Papadopoulou N, Rossberg A, Suslin S, Uyarra MC (2013) Available models for biodiversity and needs for development. Deliverable 4.1 36pp + 4 Annexes. DEVOTES FP7 Project. JRC90428 Available at: http://www.devotes-project.eu/deliverables-
and-milestones/ - Restricted to other programme participants)
Piroddi C, Teixeira H, Lynam C, Smith C, Alvarez M, Mazik K, Andonegi E, Churilova T, Tedesco L, Chifflet M, Chust G, Galparsoro I, Garcia AC, Kämäri M, Kryvenko O, Lassalle G, Neville S, Niquil N, Papadopoulou N, Rossberg A, Suslin S, Uyarra MC (submitted) Using ecological models to assess biodiversity indicators in support of the
EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ecol Indic
Power, ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, Menge BA, Bond WJ, Mills S, Daily G, Castilla JC, Lubchenco J, Paine RT (1996) Challenges in the quest for keystones. BioScience 46:609–620
Prins T, Meulen M van der, Boon MA, Simboura N, Tsangaris C, Borja A, Menchaca I (2013) Coherent geographic scales and aggregation rules in assessment and monitoring of Good Environmental Status - Analysis and conceptual phase. Deltares – The Netherlands November 2013 Analytical report under Framework contract No NV.D2/FRA/2012/0019 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/publications/
Purvis A, Hector A (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405:212–219
Rätz H, Dörner H, Scott R, Barbas T (2010) Complementary roles of European and national institutions under the Common Fisheries Policy and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Mar Policy 34:1028-1035
Robinson LA, Rogers S, Frid CLJ (2008) A marine assessment and monitoring framework for application by UKMMAS and OSPAR – Assessment of Pressures and Impacts. Phase II: Application for regional assessments. Joint Nature Conservation Committee contract No. C-08-0007-0027
Salomidi M, Katsanevakis S, Borja A, Braeckman U, Damalas D, Galparsoro I, Mifsud R, Mirto S, Pascual M, Pipitone C, Rabaut M, Todorova V, Vassilopoulou V, Vega Fernandez T (2012) Assessment of goods and services, vulnerability, and conservation status of European seabed biotopes: a stepping stone towards ecosystem-based marine spatial management. Mediterr Mar Sci 13: 49-88
Salomon M (2006) The European Commission proposal for a Marine Strategy: Lacking substance. Mar Pollut Bull 52:1328-1329
Sekovski I, Newton A, Dennison WC (2012) Megacities in the coastal zone: Using a driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework to address complex environmental problems. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 96:48-59
Smith C, Papadopoulou N, Barnard S, Mazik K, Patrício J, Elliott M, Solaun S, Little S, Borja A, Bhatia N, Moncheva S, Robele S, Bizsel KC, Eronat AH (2014a) Conceptual models for the effects of marine pressures on biodiversity. Deliverable 1.1 82pp DEVOTES FP7 Project. JRC90864 Available at: http://www.devotes-
Smith C, Papadopoulou N, Sevastou K, Franco A, Teixeira H, Piroddi C, Katsanevakis S, Furhaupter K, Beauchard O, Cochrane S, Ramsvatn S, Feral J, Chenuil A, David R, Kiriakopoulou N, Zaiko A, Moncheva S, Stefanova K, Churilova T, Kryvenko O (2014b) Report on the identification of keystone species and processes across regional seas. Deliverable 6.1 105pp + 1 Annex. Devotes FP7 Project. JRC91370 Available at:
Soberón J (2007) Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol Lett 10:1115-1123
Solé RV, Montoya M (2001) Complexity and fragility in ecological networks. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 268:2039–2045
Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi JP (2009) Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris http://www.stiglitzsen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm
Strong JA, Andonegi E, Bizsel KC, Corinaldesi C, Danovaro R, Dell'Anno A, Elliott M, Franco A, Gamb C, Garces E, Little S, Mazik K, Moncheva S, Papadopoulou N, Patrício J, Pusceddu A, Queiros A, Smith C, Stefanova K, Solaun O (in prep) Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships: prevalence, delivery and potential
value for monitoring. To be submitted in Estuar Coast Shelf Sci
Teixeira H, Berg T, Fürhaupter K, Uusitalo L, Papadopoulou N, Bizsel KC, Cochrane S, Churilova T, Heiskanen A-S, Uyarra M, Zampoukas N, Borja A, Akcali B, Andersen JH, Beauchard O, Berzano M, Bizsel N, Bucas M, Camp J, Carvalho S, Flo E, Garces E, Herman P, Katsanevakis S, Kavcioglu R, Krause-Jensen D, Kryvenko O, Lynam C, Mazik K, Moncheva S, Neville S, Ozaydinli M, Pantazi M, Patrício J, Piroddi C, Queirós AM, Ramsvatn S, Rodriguez JG, Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N, Smith C, Stefanova K, Tempera F, Vassilopoulou V, Verissimo H, Yilmaz EC, Zaiko A, Zenetos, A (2014) Existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species, food-web and sea-floor integrity GES indicators. Deliverable 3.1 198pp + 2 Annexes. DEVOTES FP7 Project. JRC89170 Available at: http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Deliverable-1.3-Monitoring_networks-31-oct-2013.pdf
Tett P, Gowen R, Painting S, Elliott M, Forster R, Mills D, Bresnan E, Capuzzo E, Fernandes T, Foden J, Geider R, Gilpin L, Huxham M, McQuatters-Gollop A, Malcolm S, Saux-Picart S, Platt T, Racault M, Sathyendranath S, Molen J van der, Wilkinson M (2013) Framework for understanding marine ecosystem health. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 494:1–27
Thiel A (2013) Scalar reorganisation of marine governance in Europe? The implementation of the marine strategy framework directive in Spain, Portugal and Germany. Mar Policy 39:322–332
Turner K, Schaafsma M, Elliott M, Burdon D, Atkins J, Jickells T, Tett P, Mee L, van Leeuwen S, Barnard S, Luisetti T, Paltriguera L, Palmieri G, Andrews J (2014) UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on. Work Package Report 4: Coastal and marine ecosystem services: principles and practice. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK
UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on (2014) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on: Synthesis of the key findings. UNEP-WCMC, LWEC, UK
UNU-IHDP and UNEP (2012) Inclusive Wealth Report 2012. Measuring progress toward sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
van Hoof L, van Leeuwen J, van Tatenhove J (2012) All at sea; regionalisation and integration of marine policy in Europe. Marit Stud 11:9
van Leeuwen J, Raakjaer J, van Hoof L, van Tatenhove J, Long R, Ounanian K (2014) Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A policy perspective on regulatory, institutional and stakeholder impediments to effective implementation. Mar Policy 50:325–330
World Resources Institute (2009) Ecosystem service indicators database. Available at: http://www.esindicators.org/indicators_overview
Table A1. MSFD terms and definitions compiled, created and/or modified by DEVOTES.
TERM DEFINITION
Activity
A specific anthropogenic action or pursuit aimed at fulfilling the societal drivers (e.g. the need for food, space, transport) which ultimately have the potential to create the pressures leading to changes in both the natural state and human welfare; examples include fishing, aquaculture, and renewable energy generation.
Aggregation
The suite of methods available to produce a synthesis of the ecosystem complexity and assess the environmental status, when there are different scales of classification needing to be combined. Scales range from geographical (from a single water body, a regional sea or pan-European), temporal (depending on sampling frequency, ranging from minutes to years) or assessment type (entire ecosystem to selected biodiversity components; addressing MSFD descriptors, criteria or indicators).
Alien species
Any live specimens of species, subspecies or lower taxon of animals, plants, fungi or micro-organisms introduced outside its natural past or present distribution; it includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species, as well as any hybrids, varieties or breeds that might survive and subsequently reproduce.
Assemblage A group of different species that occur together at a given location without the presupposition of any functional relationships between those species.
Baseline
The value of state at a specific time against which subsequent values of state are compared. Baselines act as yardstick against which thresholds or trends for GES can be set. Baselines can be derived from i) reference state/conditions, ii) a known state in the past, such as the beginning of a time series (e.g. the Large Fish Indicator used 1983 as a first valid data point in the time series) or iii) as a present state. A baseline can be considered a type of ‘reference point’ (as referred to in Annex IV of the Directive), though the term ‘reference point’ should not be confused with ‘reference state or reference conditions’ as defined above (OSPAR 2011b).
Biodiversity component
Any biotic group as part of the marine ecosystem and the biodiversity pool of an area. A list of standardised higher taxonomic groups, spanning all size classes and trophic levels, is required for biodiversity assessments under the MSFD and to monitor state and departure or progress towards GES. The DEVOTES list includes 11 biodiversity components: microbes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, angiosperms, macroalgae, benthic invertebrates, fish, cephalopods, marine mammals, birds and reptiles. The term biological component (mentioned in Article 3: ‘diverse biological components function in balance’) is synonymous with biodiversity component.
Biological Diversity (biodiversity)
The variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alia, [terrestrial], marine [and other aquatic ecosystems] and the ecological complexes of which they are part; cf. ‘includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’ (Article 2, Convention on Biological Diversity 1992: www.cbd.int/convention/text/default.shtml)
Biological information
Description of the biological communities including species composition, abundance, biomass and annual/seasonal variability, age/size structure of the populations, natural and actual range and status of species, required under MSFD for each biodiversity component is listed in Annex III, Table 1 under Biological features.
Biome A distinctive combination of plants and animals in a fully developed or climax community ... characterised by a uniform life form of vegetation ... [and including] developmental stages (Smith 1992), extended to refer to the combination expected under particular ecohydrodynamic conditions.
Biotope
A biotope is defined as the combination of an abiotic habitat and its associated community of species. With the abiotic habitat being the physical environment according to geographical location, physiographic features and chemical environment. Community is then the associated, distinctive, assemblage of species, described as ‘a group of organisms occurring in a particular environment, presumably interacting with each other and with the environment, and identifiable by means of ecological survey from other groups’. The determination of a biotope is therefore subjective being dependant on scale of analysis, survey methodology, survey effort, methodology for classifying the abiotic environment and methodology for determining the make up of the biological community.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
- 2 -
TERM DEFINITION
CEN standards
The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN, Comité Européen de Normalisation; http://www.cen.eu/Pages/default.aspx) aims to develop, maintain and distribute sets of standards and specifications for methods of production or analysis. Once adopted by CEN these are then adopted by the national standard institute of each Member State (e.g. the UK BSI British Standards Institute). Relevant CEN standards are mentioned in annexes to EU Directives as being mandatory for use in implementing the Directive. Current standards in preparation include those for assessing the hydromorphological conditions of transitional and coastal waters. As an example of an adopted standard: BS EN ISO 5667-19:2004. Water quality - Part 19: Guidance on sampling in marine sediments. 26pp.
Characteristics
In the context of the MSFD, characteristics are the different features of marine waters that should be considered for the assessment. There are four groups of characteristics: physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features, other features (e.g. sediment contamination or health issues), listed in Annex III, Table 1 of the Directive. In a more general context, characteristics include ecosystem features.
Community
An assemblage of species (i.e. a group of different species that occur together at a given location), between which there is considered be a degree of interdependance, and so constitute an organised system; through which energy, nutrients, and water are cycled (MESH 2008). When a community is thought to be associated with a particular habitat type, the two components together are termed a biotope.
Criteria
The MSFD defines criteria as ‘criteria means distinctive technical features that are closely linked to qualitative descriptors’. The eleven descriptors for describing GES have been further developed through the identification of 29 criteria in Part B of the annex to the September 2010 Commission Decision document. For instance Descriptor 1 on ‘Biological diversity’ consists of seven criteria further divided into 14 indicators. To avoid confusion between the use of the term ‘criteria’ in this specific context and its use in other respects (such as the criteria used to guide indicator selection), it is recommended that these specific criteria be referred to as ‘GES criteria’. In this context, ‘GES criteria’ refer to particular aspects of biodiversity (just considering Descriptor 1 for the purposes of this document), that require their status to be assessed, through the application of appropriate indicators, to determine whether each aspect meets good environmental status or not. Thus the population size of a particular species or functional group of species is a criterion by which to judge whether that aspect of biodiversity in a particular region meets good environmental status or not. Similarly, the habitat extent is a criterion to judge whether the habitat in a specified region meets GES or not (OSPAR 2011b).
Cumulative effects
Single activities can have multiple pressures and the marine ecosystem usually supports multiple activities. Consequently multiple pressures will often affect ecosystem components. The multiple pressures will rarely be equal and will lead to cumulative (the sum total of the effects) and in-combination effects and such combinations may be synergistic, in which the sum of the effects is increased, or antagonistic, in which effects may cancel each other.
DPSIR
Acronym for Driver (societal requirements)-Pressure-State change (on natural features)-Impact (on human features)-Response (by society) paradigm, originally by Luiten (1999), after Atkins et al. (2011), Smith et al. (2014a) reviewed the framework, its application in research projects and publications dealing with coastal and marine habitats and listed all DPSIR-derivatives (e.g. BPSIR, DPCER, DPSEA, EBM-DPSER, DPSWR), the most recent one being the DAPSI(W)R by Elliot (2014) that includes Activities and the Impact on human welfare.
Driver or Driving force
Smith et al. 2014a have defined Drivers at the highest level, as the ‘Driving Forces’ i.e. the overaching economic and social policies of governments, and economic and social goals of those involved in industry. At a mid-level they may be considered to be Sectors in industry (e.g. recreation/tourism,) and at a lower level, specific Activities (e.g. diving, golfing, boating). However as the Sectors could be classed as either Drivers or Activities (and activities can be aggregated as required) it is best to define Driver as a main demand by society (e.g. for food, transport, culture etc), which requires a set of Activities. A detailed description of the relevant activities at the scale of the assessments is necessary as a starting point of recording potential pressures in the system assessed.
- 3 -
TERM DEFINITION
Ecosystem
The system composed of the physical-chemical-biological processes active within a space-time unit of any magnitude, i.e. the biotic community plus its abiotic environment’ (Lindeman 1942, p. 400). The collection of all living (biotic; organisms) and non-living (abiotic; environment) components in a particular area where the organisms live in the environment and are engaged in relationships (flows of matter and energy) with other components of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem benefits/goods
This definition refers to a range of human welfare benefits derived from the flow of final services provided by an ecosystem (i.e. the outcomes from the functioning of ecosystems), which have been generically labelled ‘goods’ (Turner et al. 2014; Balmford et al. 2011; Bateman et al. 2011; UK NEA 2011). Note that depending on the situation ecosystem goods coincide with final ecosystem services. The concept of ‘ecosystem goods and services’ is synonymous of ‘ecosystem services’ in The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) definition of ecosystem services (http://www.teebweb.org/resources/glossary-of-terms/). Atkins et al. (2011) noted that the term 'ecosystem benefits' confounds the two different terms 'ecosystem services' and 'societal benefits'.
Ecosystem component
The term ecosystem component (mentioned in Annex VI: ‘measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an ecosystem component’ and ‘tools which guide human activities to restore damaged components of marine ecosystems’) includes both biota and habitats as parts of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem function(ing)
This relates to rate processes at the ecosystem level, cf. ecosystem structure which is the magnitude of ecosystem components at one time (see ‘Structure and function’ entry); all levels of biological organisation from the cell to the ecosystem have structural and functional properties whereas ecosystem functioning only relates to the highest level.
Ecosystem properties
Various pools and fluxes, includes both sizes of compartments (e.g. pools of materials such as carbon or organic matter) and rates of processes (e.g. fluxes of materials and energy among compartments) (Hooper et al. 2005).
Ecosystem services
Are properties of ecosystems that either directly or indirectly benefit human endeavors, such as maintaining hydrological cycles, regulating climate, cleansing air and water, maintaining atmospheric composition, pollination, soil genesis, and storing and cycling of nutrients (Christensen et al. 1996, Daily 1997). Ecosystem services can be produced by the ecosystem but then complementary assets or human capital (energy, time, money, skills) are required to obtain societal benefits. From an economic perspective (e.g. economic valuation) Fisher and Turner (2008) define ecosystem services as the aspects of ecosystems utilised (actively or passively) to produce human wellbeing; the key feature of this definition (Fisher et al. 2009) is the separation of ecosystem processes and functioning (intermediate services), which influence human well-being indirectly, and ecosystem outcomes (final services), which contribute directly to human well-being, with the final services yielding welfare (societal) benefits. Similarly (e.g. accounting), Boyd & Banzhaf (2007) define final ecosystem services as components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being.
Endogenic pressure
A pressure generated by an activity within the system (waterbody, region, etc.) being managed and in which management can and should address both the causes and consequences of the pressure (e.g. fishing or offshore windfarms within a sea area) (Elliott 2011).
Environmental status
The overall state of the environment in marine waters, taking into account the structure, function and processes of the constituent marine ecosystems together with natural physiographic, geographic, biological, geological and climatic factors, as well as physical, acoustic and chemical conditions, including those resulting from human activities inside or outside the area concerned (Directive 2008/56/EC).
Environmental target
A qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components of, and pressures and impacts on, marine waters in respect of each marine region or subregion. Environmental targets are established in accordance with the MSFD Article 10 (Directive 2008/56/EC).
Exogenic pressure
A pressure generated from outside the system (waterbody, region, etc) being managed and in which the management can only address the consequences of the pressure rather than the causes (e.g. climate change effects globally or nutrient inputs to the catchment of a coastal area being managed) (Elliott 2011).
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
- 4 -
TERM DEFINITION
Food webs
Networks of feeding interactions between consumers and their food. The species composition of food webs varies according to habitat and region, but the principles of energy transfer from sunlight and plants through successive trophic levels are the same. This descriptor addresses the functional aspects of marine food webs, especially the rates of energy transfer within the system and levels of productivity in key components (Rodgers et al. 2010). A series of interacting (intersecting and overlapping) food chains.
Functional group An ecologically relevant set of species. Each functional group represents a predominant ecological role (e.g. burrowing megafauna, offshore surface-feeding birds, and demersal fish) within the species group or even between phyla (e.g. benthic scavengers).
GES boundary
The boundary between the good and less than good environmental status. Typically, the boundary is a point on the scale of an assessment system (scientific index). When the (possibly numerical) value resulting from the assessment is higher than the GES boundary value, the good environmental status is achieved. The GES boundary can be set on the level of indicators, but also on higher levels within the assessment system (criteria, descriptors).
Good Environmental Status, GES
Good Environmental Status as defined in Article 3 (5) of the MSFD, which includes the requirement that ‘the structure, functions and processes of the constituent marine ecosystems ... allow those ecosystems to function fully and to maintain their resilience to human-induced environmental change’. The environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations, i.e.: (a) the structure, functions and processes of the constituent marine ecosystems, together with the associated physiographic, geographic, geological and climatic factors, allow those ecosystems to function fully and to maintain their resilience to human-induced environmental change. Marine species and habitats are protected, human-induced decline of biodiversity is prevented and diverse biological components function in balance; (b) hydro-morphological, physical and chemical properties of the eco-systems, including those properties which result from human activities in the area concerned, support the ecosystems as described above. Anthropogenic inputs of substances and energy, including noise, into the marine environment do not cause pollution effects. GES shall be determined at the level of the marine region or subregion as referred to in Article 4, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors in Annex I. Adaptive management on the basis of the ecosystem approach shall be applied with the aim of attaining GES (Directive 2008/56/EC). In this sense Borja et al. (2013) has proposed the following operational definiton of GES: ‘GES is achieved when physico-chemical (including contaminants, litter and noise) and hydrographical conditions are maintained at a level where the structuring components of the ecosystem are present and functioning, enabling the system to be resistant (ability to withstand stress) and resilient (ability to recover after a stressor) to harmful effects of human pressures/activities/impacts, where they maintain and provide the ecosystem services that deliver societal benefits in a sustainable way (i.e. that pressures associated with uses cumulatively do not hinder the ecosystem components in order to retain their natural diversity, productivity and dynamic ecological processes, and where recovery is rapid and sustained if a use ceases)’.
Habitat
The term habitat has several meanings in common usage linked to the biotic and abiotic environment. It is often used in reference to the combination of specific abiotic and biotic environmental conditions, however that definition is covered by the term ‘biotope’ so habitat should not be used in that sense. For the purposes of the MSFD a habitat must characterise a significant element of a well-defined and coherent environmental niche space so that adequate measures can be taken to monitor species, populations and biological communities for the purposes of reaching GES. In this case abiotic (scenopoetic, sensu Soberón 2007) variables such as physiographic features, seabed geology, oceanography and chemical environment, provide a useful framework to identify these habitats spatially.
Habitat type The categorical, rather than spatial, aggregation of habitats having equivalent structure and function. Habitat types vary between classifications systems (EUNIS, other international, national or regional systems) and applications for specific assessment purposes (e.g. Habitats Directive).
Hazard Any cause of potential adverse environmental effects (damage, harm) and these may be derived from natural or anthropogenic events and factors.
- 5 -
TERM DEFINITION
Impact
Consequences of changes in physical, biological and chemical conditions of the ecosystem (state change of an ecosystem) due to pressures. They are thus the consequences for the ecosystem state in terms of changes in some ecosystem features. However, impacts can be environmental (i.e. on ecosystems such as altered biodiversity) or they can be on the human system (e.g. reduced resource availability, human health, economy) (Sekovski et al. 2012). In the strict (DPSIR) definition impacts are only those parameters that directly reflect changes in environmental use functions by humans (Gabrielsen & Bosch 2003), i.e. the effect of the changed ecosystem on human societies (Tett et al. 2013). Another way of putting this: Impacts are the discrete measured changes in social benefit values linked to environmental condition (e.g. cost of marine-vectored disease, loss of recreational bathing beach value, losses to commercial fishing value due contaminant burdens) (Bowen & Riley 2003). In DPSIR the consequences of ecosystem state change on services to human societies.
Indicator or Index
An 'indicator' or 'index' is an observed value representative of a phenomenon of study, i.e. it simplifies information that can help to reveal complex phenomena (Gabrielsen & Bosch 2003). Indicators quantify and synthesise information, often by aggregating different and multiple data. In practice, an indicator or index represents the simple or aggregated measurement, or calculated derivative of several different ‘parameters’. In ecology, indices are frequently used to inform on environmental variety in any given area or point in time. The degree of variety can be assessed on various levels, e.g. at the level of species, genes or habitats. For example, the Shannon-Wiener Index, representing species diversity, is calculated using the following 'parameters': species abundance for all species in any given sample and total of all individuals included in the sample. Throughout this report we use 'Indicator' as defined here, except in the cases where 'indicator' is explicitely referring to the legal texts (see 'Indicator sensu MSFD' and 'Indicator sensu Decision').
Indicator sensu Decision 2010/477/EU
(Part A, paragraph 1) indicators are referred to as being the operationalisation of the criteria for assessing if GES is achieved in relation to the 11 descriptors of the MSFD. Such criteria and related indicators are presented in Part B of the Decision.
Indicator sensu MSFD (Directive 2008/56/2008)
According to Art. 10 (Establishment of environmental targets), indicators associated to environmental targets are to be established to reflect progress in achieving good environmental status. It is not clear (nor in Annex IV) whether such indicators would correspond to the ones later specified sensu Commission Decision 2010/477/EU or are instead pressure indicators taking into account Annex III list of pressures (Art. 10 (1)).
Invasive alien species
An alien species whose introduction or spread has been found, through risk assessment, to threaten biodiversity and ecosystem services, and that may also have a negative impact on human health or the economy
Keystone species
A species that has a disproportionately large effect on its ‘environment’ relative to its abundance (or biomass, or productivity). Keystone species can have their ‘keystoneness’ in different aspects: keystone predator, keystone habitat-forming species, keystone engineer, keystone biodiversity promoter, keystone processes (e.g. bioturbation). A review and a European list of potential keystone species and groups are given by Smith et al. (2014b) along with inclusion criteria and associated issues (context dependency, functional redundancy, predator/prey equivalence, species distributions, spatial and temporal scale) as a keystone species may be keystone in one geographical area or habitat and not in another.
Marine landscape (Baltic) (BALANCE derived)
Collection of process-related marine habitats that are interlinked and form a higher-level categorisation on a larger geographical scale, i.e. coastal physiographic marine features such as fjords and estuaries, seabed features such as the seabed of open sea areas and pelagic marine features such as mixed water bodies or frontal systems. (Sometimes also referred to as ‘Seascapes’).
Methodological standards
Methodological standards per se are not defined in the MSFD or in the Decision, nor are methodological standards clearly specified for any of the descriptors in the Decision. The aim of the requirement for the use of methodological standards is however related to the need for comparability of approaches in determining GES and environmental goals within and among marine regions. Piha & Zampoukas (2011) define methodological standards in general terms as all methods developed and agreed in the framework of European or international conventions. Once agreed, CEN Standards (see ‘CEN Standards’ entry above) will be adopted as methodological standards for use in implementing the Directive as with other Directives.
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
- 6 -
TERM DEFINITION
Metric An individual, quantifiable parameter within a scientific index. For example, abundance or biomass of species are both metrics in the context of an index that uses them to indicate some environmental feature. Another example could be water temperature.
Non-indigenous species
(See ‘Invasive alien species’ entry). The term ‘invasive alien species’ should replace the MSFD ‘non-indigenous species’ in the new legal text to be in accordance with the Regulation adopted by the European Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (PE-CONS 70/14, 13266/14 ADD 1).
Parameter See ‘Metric’
Predominant habitat type
The Directive lists 24 predominant habitat types (Table 1 of Annex III) consisting of 18 benthic, 5 pelagic and 1 ice-associated habitats. These must be used when reporting but are not considered to be exhaustive and must be composed of more ecologically meaningful subdivisions as necessary.
Pressure
The mechanism (physical, chemical or biological) through which a human activity has a direct or indirect adverse effect on any part of the ecosystem, e.g. physical disturbance to the seabed (OSPAR 2011a, Robinson et al. 2008). (1) a link in the DPSIR chain (Luiten 1999), referring to external (anthropogenic) pressure on an ecosystem; (2) the human-altered influxes, outflows and disturbances acting on an ecosystem; in either case, dimensionally undefined. The pressure transports (some of the) outcome of a (DPSIR) driver from the human system to the natural ecosystem (environmental space) in the form of matter (e.g. waste, nutrients) or energy (e.g. noise, electricity). This can either be input to the natural system or extraction from it. A pressure emanates from an activity in the environment.
Pressure Descriptor
A descriptor characterised by consisting only of GES criteria and indicators that reflect pressures. For example, Descriptor 11 (Introduction of energy) is a pressure descriptor because it reflects the magnitude of pressure onto the ecosystem from energy. The complement of a pressure descriptor is a state descriptor. (See ‘State descriptor’)
Pressure footprint
The impact of each pressure in the marine environment can be assessed according to its extent (spatial dimension), duration (temporal dimension) and frequency of occurrence.Taken together these give the footprint of the pressure which therefore needs to be addressed using a programme of measures. Resilience (recovery potential) of the component and the persistence of the pressure (beyond cessation of the activity causing it) might also play a role in determing the size of the pressure effect (Knights et al. 2011).
Pressure indicator
Describes developments in release of substances (emissions), physical and biological agents, the use of resources and the use of area by human activities. The pressures exerted by society are transported and transformed in a variety of natural processes to manifest themselves in changes in environmental conditions. Examples of pressure indicators are CO2- emissions per sector, the use of rock, gravel and sand for construction and the amount of land/sea-floor used for constructions (Gabrielsen & Bosch 2003).
Programme of measures
Acording with Article 13 (MSFD), Member States have to identify the measures (actions by society which may include merely stopping doing something) which need to be taken in order to achieve or maintain good environmental status in their marine waters. Those measures shall be devised on the basis of the initial assessment (Article 8), by reference to the environmental targets (Article 10) and taking into consideration the types of measures listed in Annex VI (i.e. input and output controls, spatial and temporal distribution controls, management coordination measures, measures to improve the traceability of marine pollution, economic incentives, mitigation and remediation tools and communication, stakeholder involvment and raising public awareness). Member States shall integrate the measures into a programme of measures.
Reference point Point on a scale defining reference state (see ‘Reference State’ entry).
Reference state
The value or range of values of state at which impacts from anthropogenic pressures are absent or negligible. Values used to define the reference state should be directly linked to the GES criteria used for assessment. They will vary in relation to prevailing physiographic and geographic conditions and may vary over time in relation to changing climatic conditions (OSPAR 2011b).
- 7 -
TERM DEFINITION
Region (marine)
A sea region which is identified under Article 4 (MSFD). Marine regions and their subregions are designated for the purpose of facilitating implementation of the MSFD directive and are determined taking into account hydrological, oceanographic and bio-geographic features. Member States can also designate subdivisions within marine regions and subregions (Directive 2008/56/EC).
Sea-floor integrity
Sea-floor‖ is interpreted as including both the physical and chemical parameters of seabed - bathymetry, roughness (rugosity), substratum type, oxygen supply etc; and biotic composition of the benthic community. ―Integrity‖ is interpreted as both covering spatial connectedness, so that the habitats are not unnaturally fragmented, and having the natural ecosystem processes functioning in characteristic ways. Areas of high integrity on both of these standards are resilient to perturbations, so human activities can cause some degree of perturbation without widespread and lasting harms to the ecosystems. ―Structure and functions of ecosystems‖ is a commonly used concept in ecology (see ‘Structure and function’ entry). ―Not adversely affected‖ is interpreted as meaning that impacts may be occurring, but all impacts are sustainable such that natural levels of diversity, productivity, and ecosystem processes are not degraded.
Shifting baselines
A shift in perception recognised by a group that observe some ecosystem property, taking something as being normal because they have no means of comparing to what was normal (e.g. a generation ago). An example is that each generation of fisheries scientists tends to accept as baseline the stock size and species composition that occurred at the beginning of their careers, and uses this to evaluate changes (Pauly 1995).
SMART That objectives, indicators, indices, etc. should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bounded.
Socio-ecological system
A linked system of people and nature (Berkes & Folke 1998); a spatially-bounded region containing an ecosystem and a social system interacting with each other (Tett et al. 2013).
Special habitat type
The category of special habitat types is directed to those habitats listed under existing regulatory frameworks, such as EU legislation (the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive) or international conventions, as being of special scientific or biodiversity interest. Cochrane et al. 2010 recommends that a set of relevant ‘Listed’ (special) habitat types should be drawn up for each region/subregion, referring to the indicative list of policies.
Specifications (method)
A detailed description of how something should be done and made. An exact statement of the particular needs to be satisfied, or essential characteristics (e.g. in a method, process or work) to be met and delivered. Specifications are written usually in a manner that enables assessing the degree of conformance (from dictionary.cambridge.org and businessdictionary.com).
Standardised method
Is a methodological approach that allows the repeatability and comparability of any action at field (i.e. sampling), laboratory (i.e. experiment, analysis) or desk (i.e. calculation) ensuring the quality of the results in a research. (See ‘CEN Standards’ entry).
State (DPSIR)
The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework, a derivation of the PSI framework first created by the OECD, originally had confusing explanations depending on whether it was used by the natural or social sciences. In the social sciences, the state refers to the characteristics of the natural system changed by a pressure whereas Impact refers to the impact on the human system. In contrast, the natural scientists used S as the state of the system and I as the impact on the natural and social system. Because of this confusion, S was eventually changed to mean state change (see ´State-change´ entry).
State descriptor
A descriptor characterised by consisting only of GES criteria and indicators that reflect state (in the DPSIR sense), i.e. a description of the features of an ecosystem. These features are outlined in the MSFD as ‘characteristics’ (see ‘Characteristics’ entry). For example, Descriptor 1 (Biological diversity) is a state descriptor because its criteria and indicators describe the features of biological diversity in terms of, for example, species abundance, habitat distribution or population size. The complement of a state descriptor is a pressure descriptor (see ‘Pressure descriptor’ entry).
State indicator Gives a description of the quantity and quality of physical phenomena (such as temperature), biological phenomena (such as fish stocks) and chemical phenomena (such as CO2-concentrations) in a certain area (Gabrielsen & Bosch 2003).
D e l i v e r a b l e 1 . 5 . D E V O T E S r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e M S F D
- 8 -
TERM DEFINITION
State-change
Following the confusion in state under the DPSIR framework (see ‘State(DPSIR)’ entry) and in a bid to harmonise the use of the framework between the natural and social sciences, S in DPSIR is now taken to mean state change (in the natural system) whereas I is taken to mean Impact on the Human system (Atkins et al. 2011). To avoid confusion Cooper (2012) replaced I for Impact with W for Welfare and Elliot (2014) proposed using I (W) as Impact on Welfare.
Stressor An environmental change that decreases organismal fitness (Boyd & Hutchins 2012).
Structure and Function
In ecological terms, structure refers to the characteristics of any part of the system at any one time, for example the number of species, diversity, species composition, species distribution/range, abundance age/size structure, amount of chlorophyll, etc. In contrast, function and functioning refers to rate processes, i.e. the change in the structural component over time. For example, this includes population dynamics, productivity, species turnover, nutrient uptake, functional diversity, fecundity, survival, mortality, bioturbation, predator-prey processes, energy flows, etc. (See ‘Ecosystem function(ning)’ entry)
Sub-division (marine)
See ‘Region’.
Subregion (marine)
See ‘Region’.
Threshold Quantitative point on scale determining when an action is triggered.
Well-being
The Oxford dictionary (1990) defines well-being as the state of being well, healthy, contented. Well-being has to do with both economic resources, such as income, and with non-economic aspects of peoples’ lives (what they do and what they can do, how they feel, and the natural environment they live in), including sustainability issues (UNU-IHDP and UNEP 2012; Stiglitz et al. 2009). The Stiglitz et al. (2009) report suggests that the multidimensional characteristic of well-being requires a multi dimensional definition (the following key dimensions, as recommended by the Commission, should be considered simultaneously): i. Material living standards (income, consumption and wealth); ii. Health; iii. Education; iv. Personal activities including work; v. Political voice and governance; vi. Social connections and relationships; vii. Environment (present and future conditions); viii. Insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature.
