DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation ... - Devotes Project

WP 1

Deliverable 1.5

WP 1

Deliverable 1.5

D E V O T E S r e c o mm e n d a t io n s f o r t h e i m p l e m en t a t i o n o f t h e M a r i n e S t r a t e g y F r a m e w o r k D i r ec t i v e Dissemination level PUBLIC

LEAD CONTRACTOR JRC – JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE, EUROPEAN COMMISSION

AUTHORS 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

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

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.

Contents Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................i 1.

Scope ............................................................................................................................................1

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

management .......................................................................................................................................................44

5.

4.3.

The need to include function as well as structure ...............................................................................45

4.4.

The need to consider geographic scales ..............................................................................................46

4.5.

The need to aggregate at the level of indicator/descriptors ...............................................................48

4.6.

The need for coordinated and fit-for-purpose monitoring programmes ............................................50

4.7.

The need to incorporate climate change considerations ....................................................................53

4.8.

The need to consider legal barriers to achieve GES .............................................................................55

The outputs from DEVOTES in a nutshell .................................................................................. 59

References .................................................................................................................................................. 65 ANNEX – Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... - 1 -

Executive summary The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; Directive 2008/56/EC, hereafter ‘Directive‘) is a major step forward for European and indeed global marine environmental management and is an ambitious piece of legislation which extends environmental control out to the 200nm limit. It is globally-leading as no other areas have similar legislation and will allow the integration of other holistic and framework directives such as the Water Framework Directive, Natura 2000 and now Maritime Spatial Planning Directive and the Integrated Coastal Zone Management recommendation. The MSFD has all the right aims, in linking the causes of marine changes, the human activities and pressures to their consequences and the means of controlling and managing those causes and consequences. If applied properly, the Directive will ensure the protection of the natural system while also allowing the seas to produce ecosystem services and deliver societal benefits. Hence it is a major step forward from previous Directives by allowing the focus of the assessment and monitoring on the functioning of marine ecosystems rather than just the structure. Finally, it will enforce a regional approach by emphasising that marine management, monitoring and assessment has to be transnational and so it will build on (or be centred on) the Regional Sea Conventions and their four decades of work. Because of all of this, it is inevitable that the Directive and its implementation have many challenges. The outcomes of the first phase of implementation of the MSFD reinforce the role of R&D projects in supporting the Directive. The DEVOTES FP7 project, funded by the European Commission, was set up to contribute to address those challenges and to support the implementation of the MSFD from a scientific perspective. Two years of applied research allows the DEVOTES project to provide scientific recommendations helping to clarify uncertainties and fulfil several gaps highlighted after the assessment of Article 12 (Notifications and Commission’s assessment). The present report provides indications and recommendations for the Directive and any criticisms are meant to be constructive and supportive of the successful implementation of the MSFD. Our results are based on a considerable experience in implementing this and previous Directives by the participants. This report summarises the main lessons learned from DEVOTES tasks that aim to be valuable for supporting the second cycle of the implementation of the Directive and define Good Environmental Status (GES). The report covers overarching issues and provides specific comments and recommendations on some of the MSFD biodiversity descriptors: D1 – Biological diversity, D2 – Non-indigenous species, D4 – Food webs and D6 – Sea-floor integrity. This document aims to support Member States and MSFD

i

Deliverable 1.5. DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation of the MSFD

Common Implementation Strategy groups, facilitating the transfer of knowledge from Science to Policy. Hence: Firstly, we briefly summarise the main results of the first phase of implementation of the MSFD for D1, D2, D4 and D6 based on two official documents (European Commission 2014 and Palialexis et al. 2014). Secondly, we analyse the text of the MSFD Annex III and the Decision, identifying shortcomings and inconsistencies and highlighting scientific and technical developments that may clarify issues and overcome problems found by Member States during the first phase of implementation. We discuss ambiguities in the Annex III tables, analysing the adequacy of the current lists and suggesting changes based on results from DEVOTES. Methodological standards are indicated when available or can be suggested. A detailed analysis of Part A and Part B of the Decision is used to indicate and discuss those topics needing further clarification or guidance. Thirdly, we identify overarching scientific and technical issues needing clarification in the next phases of MSFD implementation. Whenever possible, we give clear recommendations to overcome the shortcomings identified. Finally, we summarise the DEVOTES outputs relevant to support the next phases of the MSFD implementation (including the review of the Decision, the review of MSFD Annex III and material to be included in future guidance documents). Our analysis identified the following main shortcomings and needs for improvement:  Table 1 of Annex III – Characteristics: Habitat types: there is: 1) an unclear terminology; 2) an inadequacy of the current habitat categories to represent all European marine habitats; 3) a lack of guidance for using and selecting categories; 4) an absence of minimum requirements regarding the habitats to be assessed (and the categories within these), and 5) a shortage of clear indication on the methods of collating geospatial data and creating maps. Biological features: there is 1) an absence of precise guidance on how to select species and functional groups; 2) a lack of minimum requirements while assessing biological features for GES, and 3) a lack of coherence between the Directive, the Decision and supporting guidance (e.g. CSWP 2012).  Table 2 of Annex III – Pressure and impacts: there is 1) confusion in the use of the terms and definitions of ‘hazards’, ‘risk’, ‘activities’, ‘driver’, ‘sector’, ‘pressures’, ‘impacts’ and ‘state-change’;

ii

2) an incomplete list of pressures which can be created in a management area (endogenic pressures), and 3) pressures related with climate change are not listed in the table. 

Part A of the Decision: there is 1) a lack of a clear conceptual framework to contextualise the assessment of GES; 2) ambiguous definitions of the key terms used in the Directive; 3) a lack of minimum requirements regarding the criteria and associated indicators that the Member States have to fulfil, and 4) the content of Part A is not always in line with the corresponding articles in the MSFD and its annexes.



Part B of the Decision: there is 1) an absence of a meaningful, operational and quantitative definition of GES for marine waters; 2) a lack of guidance and inconsistent degree of specification across the 56 indicators outlined in the Decision; 3) vague definitions of certain criteria and indicators; 4) an unclear link between the description of GES and the establishment of environmental targets; 5) a shortage of guidance on exactly how environmental targets should be set; 6) a high risk for double counting of indicators when aggregating within and across descriptors for an overall assessment of GES; 7) a lack of an unequivocal definition of methodological standards and a shortage of specifications to choose them. Descriptor 1 Biological Biodiversity: there is 1) the risk of double counting (i.e accounting of the same ecosystem feature in different contexts); 2) the context and scope of the Ecosystem level criteria not being defined in the current Decision, contrasting with the species and habitat levels; 3) a lack of guidance on how to incorporate and address ecosystem services within GES assessment. Descriptor 2 Non-indigenous species: 1) the D2 criteria are regarded as representing both the ‘pressure’ and ‘state’ assessment, requiring the development of criteria-specific indicators, a situation that causes confusion; 2) the terminology used in the MSFD and Decision should be reviewed for harmonisation with the recently approved EU Regulation on prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive species. Descriptor 4 Food webs: 1) there is too much focus on top predators; 2) the functional aspects of food webs are currently overlooked; 3) risk of double counting with other descriptors exists since the Decision indicators promote overlap with D1 and D6 requirements. Descriptor 6 Sea-floor integrity: 1) high risk of double counting with D1 requirements, since the status of benthic species, communities or habitats is to be assessed in both, but also with D4; 2) D6 is currently regarded as a combined pressure and state descriptor and the mixture of subordinate status and pressure indicators under pressure criteria is confusing; 3) the functional aspects of the sea-floor integrity are overlooked in the Decision; 4) there is an unclear distinction between the terms ‘habitat-defining groups/species (listed in D4) and ‘biogenic substrate’ (listed in D6). iii


In addition, we identified the following overarching scientific and technical issues needing clarification in the next phases of the implementation of the Directive: 1. The need for clear terms and definitions: to guide Member States when implementing the Directive and to help ensure coherence and consistent approach at the Regional Sea or pan-European level, there is a basic and fundamental requirement to have from the outset a clear, correct and agreed terminology. We selected a list of potentially problematical terms for which there is an urgent need to be clearly defined. Building on previous work, as scientists we provide a glossary of terms and our recommend definitions, based on robust scientific background such as to ensure consistency across all terms selected. We are conscious that there are legal constrains regarding changes in terminology used in the Directive but we believe that our contribution can be used as qualified guidance to produce a correct and defendable terminology. 2. The need for a rigorous risk assessment and risk management framework linked to marine management: the first step in assessment and management requires simple visualising and summarising linkages between processes and components of complex environments. The DriverPressure-State change-Impact-Response (DPSIR) conceptual framework provides an accepted framework for addressing complex issue. DEVOTES reviewed concepts currently available and indicated the complexity of interactions within the context of the MSFD for one activity (i.e. demersal trawling), considering multiple pressures exerted by the activity, acting on multiple habitats, multiple environmental characteristics, multiple species groups and their multiple structural and functional characteristics. The MS would benefit from using DPSIR or a derivative of this conceptual framework in future assessments as it clearly brings a well-defined stepwise approach and standardised methodology for traceability, replicability and accountability. 3. The need to include function as well as structure: the maintenance of ecosystem functioning and its relationship with biodiversity is central to attaining GES especially for the biodiversity descriptors. Our review reveals that the consistency of the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (BEF) relationships has been limited by the use of different approaches, variables and scales, and there is no confident application within marine BEF-based monitoring. While more studies are available for the benthic component, there is a significant gap of knowledge for microbial, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, cephalopod, seabird and marine mammal assemblages, due mostly to methodological constraints. Although evidence is significantly lacking for interaction strengths and reliable biodiversity measurement units, the potential value of monitoring approaches based on BEF relationships is promising. DEVOTES outputs indicate 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 or species richness. iv

4. The need to consider geographic scales: meaningful assessments should adequately cover the appropriate scales and hence scales for pressure or pressure/state descriptors need defining according to: 1) the intensity and distribution of pressures – the impact footprints of the pressures and the detection of status inside and outside those footprints; 2) the vulnerability of biodiversity components; 3) managerial issues – the management measure for rectifying any GES deviation should be made according to the management of the activity rather than the management of the impact; 4) cumulative impacts and trans-boundary effects, and 5) ecological and biogeographic characteristics. 5. The need to aggregate at the level of indicators/descriptors: the means of treating GES descriptors individually or in combination needs addressing; assuming that meeting GES implies that all descriptors have to be fulfilled, then there has to be an aggregation rule or at least a combination rule. Presently, there is no clear or consistent guidance on these issues. Similarly, there is no clear guidance on the means of assigning indicators for individual descriptors or their components. In the report, we give recommendations and their use regarding several aggregation approaches (e.g. ‘one out, all out’; ‘two out, all out’, ‘averaging’, ‘scoring or decision tree’, ‘probabilistic’ and ‘multimetric and multivariate methods’). 6. The need for coordinated and fit-for-purpose monitoring programmes: Member States had to establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes by July 2014 and notify the Commission of their monitoring programmes by October 2014. DEVOTES has produced an in-depth analysis of marine monitoring networks in Europe aiming to assess the status of marine biodiversity monitoring for D1, D2, D4 and D6. The Catalogue of Monitoring Networks provides an initial overview of the potential for effective implementation of the MSFD assessment of GES. The catalogue includes 285 monitoring programmes reported by 15 EU Member States and 14 countries that share European Regional Sea boundaries. There are details at the European, regional and subregional sea levels, as well as the four-biodiversity descriptors, 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 pressures addressed. DEVOTES outputs analysed the gaps in monitoring and assessed the fitness-for-purpose of the monitoring by Regional Sea. In addition to enhancing regional cooperation, there is the need to develop innovative and cost-effective monitoring methods including state-of-the-art. We document some innovative tools tested and compiled by DEVOTES and advocate their use by MS and water managers. 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 descriptor. DEVOTES analysed the marine impact of climate change on the implementation of the MSFD focusing on eight main repercussions and effects (e.g. altered temperature regime-species redistribution; coastal v


hydrodynamics – increased relative sea-level rise). The analysis indicates that all descriptors will be affected especially as baselines will move due to climate change. This increases the difficulty of detecting recovery of managed ecosystems (their trajectories of change), assessing the environmental status and achieving GES. We emphasise that further work in needed to set climate change-adapted baselines for GES and trajectories of change, for different descriptors, as an integral part of GES assessment. This work requires the development of numerical models to understand and predict changes in MSFD descriptors of GES. 8. The need to consider legal barriers to achieve GES: A DEVOTES literature review has revealed ambiguity in the text of the Directive, the expected role of the Regional Sea Conventions and in the application of an ecosystem-based approach. We identified the following ambiguities: 1) the Directive does clearly define what is meant by ‘marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities…’ and how it should be applied by individual Member States; 2) the definition of GES under Article 3(5) is lacking in legal precision, leading to different interpretations by MS, creating uncertainty, and different levels of conformity and governance complications; 3) Article 10 does no clearly define or exactly prescribe the difference between GES and targets or how they relate to each other; 4) MSFD does not provide any specific direction on how to organise the regional coordination and integration, other than referring to the Regional Sea Conventions; 5) as yet, there is no socio-economic guidance documents for the cost-benefit analysis required by Article 14 even though programmes of measures are required by 2015 at the latest. To overcome these shortcomings requires: 1) greater involvement by academics skilled in the theory of the application of an ecosystem approach as well as an ecosystem services framework; 2) costbenefit analyses to use an ecosystem services framework to value the impact of any new measure on marine goods/benefits, and 3) a shared and harmonised socio-economic protocol that could provide support. Scientific and innovative tools, developed in this first biennium of DEVOTES and publicly released, are highlighted at the end of this report (e.g. software databases with catalogues of marine biodiversity indicators and model-derived indicators; new monitoring technique; new indicators; etc.). All tools and publications are available on the DEVOTES website (http://www.devotes-project.eu). DEVOTES will continue to follow the MSFD implementation activities and contribute with publicly-available scientific developments relevant for the process. All outputs will be publically available on the website.

vi

1. Scope DEVOTES is one of the R&D projects, funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme, that provides scientific support for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; EU Directive 2008/56/EC). This DEVOTES report summarises two years of research to support the implementation process. The main lessons learned by DEVOTES that might be valuable in this specific context are thus compiled and discussed with clear recommendations for supporting the MSFD implementation and help defining Good Environmental Status (GES). The report covers overarching issues and provides specific comments on some of the MSFD biodiversity descriptors: as D1 – Biological diversity, D2 – Non-indigenous species, D4 – Food webs and D6 – Sea-floor integrity. The MSFD and the accompanying EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EU) on criteria and methodological standards on Good Environmental Status of marine waters are currently being reviewed in a process required by the Directorate-General for the Environment (DG Environment) with the approval of the Member States in the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) groups. The need for the planned revision of the Decision (paragraph 4 of the Preamble) is clear after analysing the outcomes and difficulties found by the Member States in the first phase of implementation of the MSFD (Palialexis et al. 2014; European Comission 2014a; CSWD 2014). The review will essentially focus on the Decision (hereafter referred to in the text as the Decision) but also on Annex III of the MSFD (in accordance with Article 24 of the EU Directive 2008/56/EC). This review phase is a scientific and technical process and its outcomes will advise and support a potential legal revision of the official documents. This report aims is to facilitate the transfer of knowledge from Science to Policy, by ensuring that the DEVOTES main scientific results are available to inform the second cycle of the implementation of the Directive, as included in the general objectives of the project. This report will be sent to the relevant MSFD-CIS working groups.

1


2. Summary of the first phase of implementation of the MSFD This section gives the context for the current review process, summarising briefly the main results of the first phase of implementation of the MSFD for D1, D2, D4 and D6. This review is based on two official documents; not in DEVOTES’ findings.

The Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament on the first phase of implementation of the MSFD (European Commission 2014a) and the accompanying document (CSWD 2014) were recently published. The documents contain a detailed analysis of Member States (MS) reporting on the Directive’s set of 11 qualitative descriptors of the marine environment. The European Commission has applied a set of principles to assess whether the information reported by the MS was a complete, adequate and coherent framework as required under Articles 8 (Initial assessment), 9 (Determination of good environmental status) and 10 (Environmental targets) of the Directive. In early 2014, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) produced an in-depth assessment (IDA) of more technical aspects of the MS reporting for Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the MSFD (Palialexis et al. 2014). This analysis was undertaken at the request of DG Environment, as a follow up of the MSFD Article 12 assessment. The main aims of this report are to: 1) identify the level of integration between the MSFD implementation and other legislative assessment requirements and agreed standards; 2) evaluate coherence of methods across MS and within Regional Sea Conventions, and 3) provide recommendations for improved implementation in the second MSFD cycle. Although the Commission Report (European Commission 2014) with the CSWD (2014) and the JRC IDA (Palialexis et al. 2014) together cover all MSFD descriptors, in this section we summarise issues related specifically to D1, D2, D4 and D6 – which are the descriptors addressed by the DEVOTES project.

General findings regarding MS methodological approaches in the 1 st phase: Palialexis et al. (2014) identified several general key issues related to the methodological approaches followed by the MS. For example:

2

-

MS reports varied greatly in GES definition, even between neighbouring MS.

-

MS did not cover all the indicators listed in the Decision;

-

MS have reported GES at different levels (i.e. descriptor, criteria, indicators);

-

MS reports presented a high heterogeneity in the number and type of methodological approaches, in the proposed thresholds and limits;

-

Data availability constrained the selection of the indicators that have been used by the MS;

-

There was inconsistency on indicators reported per criterion (i.e. MS selected the indicators they found more suitable for their geographical context);

-

There was high variability in the definition of indicators provided by the Decision: generic indicators (e.g. 1.2.1 ‘Population abundance and/or biomass, as appropriate’) versus specific indicators (e.g. 6.2.4 ‘Parameters describing the characteristics of the size spectrum of the benthic community’). The number of methodologies reported by MS was clearly influenced by the level of detail of the indicator description. This created a large variety of methods for each indicator especially for indicators with a generic description;

-

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;

-

Few MS provided pressure-based targets. Most of the targets (and GES) were state or impact based. The analysis of the targets showed a wide variety in the nature, number and link with specific and measurable methods.

3. Identification of shortcomings and needs for improvement – a scientific and technical analysis of the legal texts This section analyses the text of the MSFD Annex III and the Commission Decision of 1st September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU).

Here we identify shortcomings and inconsistencies in the current MSFD proposals and highlight scientific and technical developments that can contribute to clarify identified issues and overcome problems. Our aim is to support the technical and scientific review of these documents and contribute to the next phases of the MSFD implementation.

3


3.1. MSFD Annex III on indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts The MSFD Annex III shows the indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts that are referred to in Articles 8(1), 9(1), 9(3), 10(1) and 11(1) of the Directive, regarding assessment, determination of good environmental status, establishment of environmental targets and monitoring programmes. Article 24 points out that methodological standards may be adopted for the application of Tables 1 and 2 of the MSFD Annex III (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Here we discuss problems associated with the content of Annex III tables, analysing the adequacy of the current lists and, suggesting changes, based on results from DEVOTES. Whenever methodological standards are available or can be suggested, in relation to the use/application of the lists of Tables 1 and 2, they are also indicated.

3.1.1.

Characteristics (Table 1 of Annex III)

During the first phase of implementation of the MSFD, the assessment (Article 8 (a) and (b)), the determination of GES (Article 9) and the establishment of environmental targets (Article 10) should take into account the physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and other features listed in Table 1 of Annex III of the Directive (Figure 3). The output should then be used for the economic and social analysis of the use of the waters and of the cost of marine environment degradation, required by Article 8 (c). On the basis of the initial assessment relevant to Article 8(1), MS should establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing assessment of the environmental status of their marine waters (Article 11) also on the basis of the indicative lists of elements set out in Annex III (Table 1 and 2). With the information gathered, MS will have to establish and implement Programmes of Measures (Article 13). The above indicates the role of Table 1 in the implementation process. As MS manage different marine regions, not only in the size of the relative area to monitor and assess but also their physical and biogeographical features, and also have varied monitoring capabilities and programmes in place (Patrício et al., 2014), it is emphasised here that clear recommendations would help MS to implement the MSFD more coherently. In this section, we analyse the main topics included in Table 1 Characteristics (Figure 3): physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and other features, which essentially set the background information MS required to characterise their marine regions. We suggest some improvements for its eventual review. 4

Figure 3. Characteristics to be taken into account for the implementation of the MSFD, according to its Annex III Table 1 (source: MSFD).

5


Physical and chemical features: In general, the physical and chemical features presented in Table 1 are comprehensive (Figure 3). However, for ‘Topography and bathymetry of the seabed’ specific requirements for this feature are lacking. Similarly, for some of the other physical and chemical features, where ‘characterisation’, ‘spatial distribution’ and ‘profiles’ are clearly mentioned, mapping needs should also be explicitly stated for the topography and bathymetry of the seabed. The relevance of this is evident throughout Table 1, in relation to ‘habitats spatial distribution’, ‘hotspots’, etc. By referring to it clearly, better guidance would be provided to MS, producing a more harmonised way of addressing this aspect. In essence, GES assessment concerning D1, D2 or D6, as defined in the current Decision, implies habitat mapping. This is also important information for the evaluation of ecosystem services and related societal benefits (Luisetti et al. in prep). Mapping issues are further addressed in the topic below – Habitat types.

Habitats types: According to Table 1 of Annex III, GES assessment should consider ‘predominant’, ‘special’ and habitats meriting ‘particular reference’. In addition, categories have been later adopted for classifying such habitat types, considering both the Decision and EU Commission Staff Working Papers (CSWP 2011; 2012). These categories were proposed to ensure that the ‘Use of these types provides a direct link between the habitats assessed under Descriptor 1 and the substrate types to be assessed for Descriptor 6 (indicator 6.1.2 different substrate types affected by physical damage) and the European EUNIS habitat classification scheme’ (CSWP 2011). -

Shortcoming 1 - Inadequacy of the current habitat categories to represent all marine habitat types

The applicability of these habitat categories was tested in three DEVOTES surveys to support building the Catalogues of Indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014), of Monitoring Networks (Patrício et al. 2014) and of Keystone Species in the European seas (Smith et al. 2014b). These revealed the inadequacy of the current proposal to support a correct and coherent identification of habitats in all regional seas. Below we highlight several of these inadequacies, based on DEVOTES outputs. 1. A major problem with the existing system and list (as in CSWP 2011) is that the habitats are defined at the top level by depth zone categories without specifying depth boundaries of the zones (e.g. circalittoral, sublittoral, bathyal). The partial reason for this is that the depth boundaries of the shallower zones vary according to geographical area and factors such as tidal activity or light penetration. Information on the extent of certain sediment habitats or biotopes

6

or water column habitats should also be presented at a distance from shore (e.g. coastal, shelf and oceanic), or depth scale; then this should be made explicit and possible for all classification systems. Smith et al. (2014b) propose depth limits for each of the 24 MSFD seabed habitat types based on Cochrane et al. (2010), DIKE (2011) and Howell (2010). The species ranges may drift across the borders of habitat zones even though they could be predominant only in one. It should also be possible, when using any classification scheme, to indicate whether the habitat of a biological component is restricted to coastal environments or spans coastal and shelf environments, for both marine and reduced salinity waters. For example, the categories suggested in the CSWP (2011) failed to represent correctly the full extent of characteristics of Baltic waters, with the guidelines provided in that document being insufficient to support fully coherent habitat categorisations (Teixeira et al. 2014). As an alternative, Baltic MS are adopting a more

suitable

regional

system

(HELCOM

HUB

classification,

http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP139.pdf) instead of using the MSFD categories, potentially

compromising full coherence between regional seas. A hierarchical and nested habitats system and a clear and concise definition of terms is necessary. 2. Predominant habitats in the MSFD are not identical to habitats in the EUNIS habitat classification scheme. There is no standard European scheme for mapping pelagic habitats or for combined pelagic/benthic systems (Galparsoro et al. 2012). The use of EUNIS habitats in the MSFD is limited because existing data are of poor quality and/or of high spatial and geographical variability (or even absent for large areas). This then leads to poor results when looking at traits/spatial patterns and distributions linking environment to species. In addition the methodology itself is poor as: a) the classes are not the best representation of biologically relevant niches-space, for example there is a large step in detail from EUNIS levels 3-4 in terms of breadth of aggregation of disparate classes, a less-stepped way to aggregate up into broader categories would be better, and b) the levels are not consistent - biological data are included in some level 4 classes but not in others. Several challenges (e.g. data gaps, weakness in the classification system) for the future development of EUNIS have been identified, with proposals aiming for its modification, and to devise a process to further develop the marine component of the EUNIS habitat classification (http://eunis.eea.europa.eu) and increase its use and applicability (Galparsoro et al. 2012).

7


-

Shortcomming 2– Unclear terminology

In the MSFD terminology, habitats are considered as more abiotic than biotic (Table 1 of Annex III in Figure 3 above). However, in the Decision (Part B, Descriptor 1), habitat addresses both abiotic characteristics and associated biological communities, treating both elements together as biotope. This discrepancy in terms and definition of terms has been highlighted by some DEVOTES papers (e.g. Berg et al. in prep; Galparsoro et al. accepted). We therefore emphasise the importance of clarifying the terminology used, and of having a comprehensive habitat list, together with guidance to describe predominant habitat types, essential to guarantee consistency in their use. See also Glossary in Annex. -

Shortcomming 3 – Lack of guidance for using and selecting categories

In the absence of data for common predominant habitat types, several MS have used information on key or priority habitats. A priority habitat under the Habitats Directive (that could be a EUNIS-5 level habitat, e.g. a seagrass meadow) could be used to represent certain parts of predominant habitats (at EUNIS-3 level). For example Posidonia is used as a bioindicator of water quality of shallow sublittoral habitats and coastal waters (Boudouresque et al. 2012). We recommend that, if certain key or priority habitats can be used (instead of predominant), then guidance on when (criteria) it is justified to use priority habitats and what is defined as key (criteria to choose these and when to apply) should be provided. Moreover, we reinforce the need to clarify whether it is possible, and allowed under certain criteria and circumstances/rationale, to use a similar approach for other larger habitats by concentrating on the more vulnerable parts (e.g. deep sea coral areas and VMEs in the upper bathyal sea habitats) while ignoring the rest of plain muddy habitats. A revised Table 1 and further guidance should clarify this. -

Shortcomming 4 – Lack of minimum requirements

The need for minimum requirements should also be discussed. These could be useful to address aspects of representativeness and coverage, as well as to ensure similar assessment efforts across MS, whenever meaningful and possible. Also, within marine regions, a minimum list of habitats to be assessed (and categories within these) could also be agreed to allow comparisons at minimum acceptable information levels, while safeguarding larger scale assessments of specific habitats. All these considerations and options should be further developed and explained in a guidance document. The Regional Sea Conventions are the adequate level at which these topics should be discussed. -

Shortcomming 5 – Mapping

It is not clear whether the extent of ‘predominant habitats’ (as the living habitat of biological components, the habitat where pressures are acting upon, and as the space where components and pressures overlap) 8

is to be assessed. If it is required, then a reference to mapping these habitats should be made, instead of merely describing characteristic features (e.g. ‘description of … substrata composition’) as currently expressed in Table 1 (Figure 3). In the MSFD Annex III, the requirement for mapping is currently limited to the ‘identification and mapping of special habitat types, especially those recognised or identified under Community legislation (the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive)’. While the Decision (Part B, Descriptor 1, criterion 1.3) mentions the need for ‘coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by adequate mapping’, and also highlights the importance and sensitivity to physical disturbance of biogenic substrata (Part B, Descriptor 6, criterion 6.1). However, regarding the later, for several habitats (such as maerl beds, EUNIS level 4 habitat) there is a lack of geospatial data and maps in several regions (Salomidi et al. 2012). It is recognised that currently there is no adequate information for entire EU geographic coverage, for example, for most areas we do not have accurate representations of the seabed (i.e. they are incorrect in terms of class, distribution and even relative proportions of constituent classes). Despite this, below we highlight a few habitat mapping schemes that could support the use of mapping tools in the MSFD context. One existing habitat scheme used is EUSeaMap1 (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/euseamap). It is a broad-scale seabed habitat map based on predictive modelling with variable data quality and partial validation and it consequently contains uncertainties. Its spatial and geographical scale is limited, with large parts of areas missing (e.g. eastern Mediterranean). EUSeaMap2 (2013-2016) aims to extend the coverage to all European seas and to improve the existing maps. Other habitat map options are available at the regional level, for example substratum maps through EMODnet and benthic marine landscape mapping for the Baltic Sea produced within the BALANCE project (http://www.balance-eu.org/). The same occurs for the Atlantic Ocean with MESHAtlantic project (www.meshatlantic.eu). A recently developed resource intended for use at large or regional scales is the open access Global Seafloor Geomorphic Features Map (www.bluehabitats.org), even though resolution at sub-regional or local scale is presently suboptimal for some habitat types. Ongoing work within DEVOTES is focused on assessing the importance of improving the resolution and classification methodology for habitat maps. This should provide a better understanding of the areas which need the most urgent attention in terms of improving the efficiency and accuracy with which we assess GES.

Biological features: Currently, the MSFD specifies that biological features should be considered down to species level, for the different taxonomical groups mentioned in Table 1 of Annex III (Figure 3), and indicates in some cases the type of parameters to be measured, which are essentially structural features. This list does not reflect

9


adequately the progress made since the adoption of the Decision on the development of criteria to evaluate MSFD descriptors. Thus, in practice, Table 1 is currently of little support for the implementation of the Directive. To facilitate the use of Table 1 in the next MSFD cycle, it is important to ensure coherence between: -

the categories listed for biological features, in Table 1 of Annex III of the MSFD;

-

the criteria adopted to evaluate MSFD descriptors, in the Decision (adjusting to any eventual changes in the current set of criteria and associated indicators, in view of the ongoing review process), and

-

the categories for biodiversity components suggested in supporting guidance (e.g. CSWP 2012).

In addition to the lack of content coherence between the different documents, the current list of biological features has two important gaps that need to be overcome. Below we identify, discuss and make suggestions to deal with these shortcomings. -

Shortcoming 1- The lack of clear guidance on how to select species or functional groups

Amongst the suite of criteria or indicator groups required for state metrics, species indicators are central to descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6. Full guidance is lacking on how these indicators can be selected at the level of species, species groups or functional groups. These indicators may be selected on the basis of prominence, or representability of known important species. Two DEVOTES outputs have collated species/species groups which may be useful to support further indicator selection: Teixeira et al. (2014) lists the existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species, food webs and sea-floor integrity GES indicator species, and Smith et al. (2014b) lists potential European Keystone Species. These catalogues can support MS during the implementation process. a) The DEVOTES Catalogue of Indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014; freely available as software DEVOTool) includes 557 indicator entries with respective metadata information, including the biodiversity components (sensu CSWD 2011) to which the indicators apply or focus on. This catalogue together with that on model-derived indicators (Piroddi et al. 2013), provide a good insight into the most relevant biological features usually considered in marine biodiversity assessments and identify important gaps of knowledge, taking into account regional specificities. The catalogues show that most of the indicators have been developed specifically for assessing state change of biodiversity components, subcomponents or specific taxa (using categories for biological features as indicated in Table 1 of Annex III and CSWP 2011). However, some indicators have defined groups independently of biodiversity components, such as functional groups, keystone species or non-indigenous species. The later categories reflect more closely those

10

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. 11


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 12

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. finfish 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.

13


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).

14

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.

15


Table 4. Activities contributing to pressures (modified extensively from Koss et al. 2011).

HAZARD

Type

Example

Anthropogenic microbial biohazards

Anthropogenic

Sewage pathogens

Anthropogenic macrobial biohazards

Anthropogenic

Non-indigenous, introduced and invasive species, GMOs, bloomforming species

Anthropogenic introduced technological hazards

Anthropogenic

Infrastructure, coastal defences

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

Tectonic hazards - acute/short-term

Natural

Tsunamis, seismic slippages,

Tectonic hazards - chronic/ long-term

Natural

Isostatic rebound

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


Erosion of soft cliffs by slumping

Climatological hazards - acute/short-term


Storm surges, cyclones, tropical storms, hurricanes, offshore surges, fluvial and pluvial flooding

Climatological hazards - chronic/long term


Ocean acidification, sea level rise, storminess, ingress of seawater/saline intrusion

16

(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 the causes require global action. 17


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

Agriculture

Agricultural wastes, coastal farming, coastal forestry, land/waterfront run-off

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

Carbon Sequestration

Storage, exploration, construction, operational

18

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. In MSFD Annex 3- T2

PRESSURE

Description

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 seafloor/seabed flora and fauna causing physical damage (e.g. trawling)



Selective extraction of non-living resources

Aggregate extraction/removal of surface substrata, habitat removal



Noise (other physical pressures)

Underwater noise - Shipping, acoustic surveys; surface noise (including aesthetic disturbance)



Thermal regime change

Temperature change (average, range, variability) due to thermal discharge (local)



Salinity regime change

Freshwater – seawater balance, seabed seepage



Introduction of synthetic compounds (contamination)

Pesticides, antifoulants, litter (plastics), pharmaceuticals, organohalogens



Introduction of non-synthetic compounds (contamination)

Heavy metals, hydrocarbons, PAH, organometals, litter



Introduction of radionuclides (contamination)

Radioactivity contamination



Introduction of other substances (contamination)

Solids, liquids or gases not classed as synthetic/non-synthetic compounds or radionuclides, litter



Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment (contamination)

Input of nitrogen and phosphorus (e.g. fertiliser, sewage)



Litter

Diffuse introduction of solid wastes, garbage (also see other relevant entries)



Input of organic matter

Input of organic matter (e.g. industrial/sewage effluent, agricultural run-off, aquaculture, discards, etc.)



Introduction of microbial pathogens (biological contaminant)

Introduction of microbial pathogens



Introduction of non-indigenous species and translocations (biological contaminant)

Through fishing activity/netting, aquaculture, shipping, waterways, loss of ice cover, genetic modification



19


In MSFD Annex 3- T2

PRESSURE

Description

Selective extraction of species

Removal and mortality of target (e.g. fishing) and non target (e.g. by catch, cooling water intake) species



Aesthetic pollution

Visual disturbance, litter, noise and odour nuisance

x

Death or injury by collision (other physical pressures)

Caused by impact with moving parts of a human activity (ships, propellers, wind turbines)

x

Barrier to species movement (other physical pressures)

Obstructions preventing natural movement of mobile species, weirs, barrages, causeways, wind turbines, etc. along migration routes

x

Emergence regime change (local hydrological change)

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 manmade 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). In MSFD Annex 3- T2

PRESSURE

Description

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

20

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, namely Descriptor 1 - Biological diversity, Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species, Descriptor 4 – Food webs and Descriptor 6 – Sea-floor integrity (Part B).

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

21


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-forpurpose), 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 22

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 23


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:

24

-

add the word ‘attributes’;

-

replace the word ‘characteristics’ with the word ‘properties’;

-

replace the word ‘start’ with the words ‘be applied’; to this:

‘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’).

25


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’.

26

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. 27


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.

28

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

29


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;

30

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

31


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): 

o

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. 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.

32

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.

33


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

34

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 35


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 Modelderived 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 36

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

37


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

38

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 -


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 Nonindigenous 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.

39


-


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 ‘nonindigenous 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 -


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 40

relationship between biodiversity and ecological functioning and the potential for the latter to provide indicators for GES determination. The risk of double counting with other descriptors exists since the current Decision indicators for D4 promote overlap with D1 and D6 requirements. Further arguments and details, together with real case examples, can be found in Teixeira et al. (2014) and Berg et al. (in prep).

-


Some models, indicators and indices potentially useful for the implementation of D4, 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 D4, a search on the DEVOTool catalogue retrieved approximately 168 potential indicators, half of which reported as operational. Also the 42 models reviewed by DEVOTES (Piroddi et al. submitted) could provide operational indicators to address D4, namely three indicators for 4.1.1 ‘Performance of key predator species determined from their productivity’, 18 indicators for 4.2.1 ‘Large fish (by weight)’ and 100 indicators for 4.3.1 ‘Abundance trends of functionally important selected groups/species’.

Descriptor 6 Sea-floor Integrity -


The risk of double counting within D6 is high. DEVOTES has identified the implicated criteria and associated indicators considering the current Decision (Teixeira et al. 2014). D6 set of indicators in the Decision also promotes overlap with D1 requirements (i.e. double counting across descriptors), since the status of benthic species, communities or habitats is to be assessed in both, but also with D4. It is advised to review criteria and propose indicators specifically with avoiding overlap in mind (Berg et al. in prep). D6 is currently a combined pressure and status descriptor. This mixture of subordinate status and pressure indicators under pressure criteria is confuse. If D6 remains as a mix descriptor, then pressure and status criteria must be divided clearly and subordinate indicators should refer to either only pressure or only status within one individual criterion (Teixeira et al. 2014). Otherwise D6 could be redefined to be a full pressure descriptor. These alternatives are further discussed by Berg et al. (in prep).

41


Functional aspects of the sea-floor integrity are overlooked in the Decision. If D6 is to remain a state descriptor (as well as a pressure one), then further criteria and associated indicators in the Decision should be developed in that sense. We also reinforce the need to clearly define terms and use them consistently. For example, the terms habitat-defining groups/species (listed in D4 Food web) and biogenic substrate (listed in D6) require either an adjustment or clear distinction between them.

-


Some methods, indicators and indices potentially useful for the implementation of D6, can be found in the DEVOTool Catalogue of Indicators (Teixeira et al. 2014). For example, a search on the DEVOTool catalogue retrieved approximately 183 potential indicators for D6, almost 60% of which reported as operational. Also within DEVOTES, Piroddi et al. (submitted) showed that modelling approaches can be useful to assess sea-floor integrity. For example, Galparsoro et al. (2013) mapped the major environmental factors influencing soft-bottom macrobenthic community structure and the life-history traits of species. This process-driven benthic sedimentary habitat model was able to detect structure anomalies due to human pressures in benthic community. DEVOTES is also contributing to the development of some of the HELCOM core indicators to be adopted by the Baltic Sea MS. In particular, an indicator towards assessment of criterion 6.1 ‘Physical damage, having regard to substrate characteristics’ is being developed. The indicator is called Cumulative impacts on benthic habitats and mainly targets the assessment of physical impacts on sea-floor habitats from, for example, bottom trawling, dredging, etc. It will be an improvement from similar previous approaches where VMS (vessel tracking) data are used for quantifying pressure from fisheries (instead of amounts of landings per unit area) and converted from magnitudes of pressures to impacts by using habitat maps and defining habitat sensitivity towards each of the assessed activities. This should allow a spatial assessment on different scales.

42

4. Scientific and technical issues needing clarification This section identifies and discusses those scientific and technical issues, not detailed in the previous sections of this report, but which need further clarification in the next phases of the implementation of the Directive. Whenever possible, clear recommendations to overcome the shortcomings identified are given.

4.1.

The need for clear terms and definitions

The first phase of implementation of the MSFD clearly showed that there are critical issues and shortcomings related to the use of specific terms and their definitions. To guide MS when implementing the Directive and to help ensure a coherent and consistent approach at the Regional Sea or pan-European level, there is a basic and fundamental requirement that is to have from the outset a clear, correct and agreed terminology. DEVOTES is familiar with the many attempts to standardise the terminology in the scope of the MSFD. In 2009, the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) agreed as a priority to develop a common understanding of the main normative concepts of the MSFD (Articles 8, 9 and 10) as a basis to assist MS in applying MSFD in a comparable and consistent way. WG-GES co-led by Germany and a drafting group involving the European Commission and several EU MS initiated the development of a common understanding. Since then, the Common Understanding of (initial) Assessment, determination of Good Environmental Status and establishment of environmental targets (Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD) (Claussen et al. 2011 ), as a living document, was revisited and revised and the latest draft versions of the document have a glossary of terms as an Annex. To date (September 2014), the Common Understanding has not yet been recommended to Marine Directors for endorsement and it is being further discussed to achieve future agreements. In the meantime, building on the previous work of the Task Groups for D1, D2, D4 and D6 (Cochrane et al. 2010; Olenin et al. 2010; Rogers et al. 2010 and Rice et al. 2010, respectively) and the ‘Glossary of terms commonly used in the MSFD’ compiled by Andersen et al. (2013), DEVOTES selected a list of potentially problematical terms for which there is an immediate need to be clearly defined. In Annex (see Table A1. Glossary) we provide a list of terms and our recommended definitions, based on robust scientific background such as to ensure consistency across all terms selected. These definitions are related to the implementation of the MSFD rather than being all-embracing scientifically. We are conscious that there are legal constraints regarding changes in terminology used in the Directive but we believe that our contribution can be used as qualified guidance to produce a correct and defendable terminology. 43


4.2. The need for a rigorous conceptual risk assessment and risk management framework linked to marine management Determining the source and nature of problems in the marine environment and then addressing them is essentially a Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework (Cormier et al. 2013). The first step in assessment and management (for example, risk) requires simple visualising and summarising linkages between processes and components in complex environments. The Driver-Pressure-State change-ImpactResponse (DPSIR) conceptual framework provides an accepted conceptual framework for addressing complex issues. DPSIR now has widespread use in international organisations for addressing a wide range of individual issues or ecosystem pressures (OECD, EPA, EEA, UNEP, etc.). The concept can be applied simply using single cycle DPSIR chains or multiple driver chains including both endogenic managed pressures and exogenic unmanaged pressures (e.g. Atkins et al. 2011; Elliott 2011). To date within the MSFD, the DPSIR approach has only been used in the Initial Assessments by two MS. The MS would benefit from using this conceptual framework in future assessments because of the clarity it could bring through a well defined stepwise approach and standardised methodology for traceability, replicability and accountability. A DEVOTES project review (Smith et al. 2014a) concentrating on concepts currently in use, gives a comprehensive review of the DPSIR framework and its ‘derivatives’ (23 research projects and 125 reports/publications, focussing on coastal and marine habitats). The review also deals with moving from concepts to assessments and the techniques available for analyses. These include the most common source of assessment using simple matrix approaches, but also ecosystem modelling and Bayesian Networks. Smith et al. (2014a) give a major example of the complexity of interactions within the context of the MSFD for just one activity (demersal trawling) and all its relevant pressures. The example considers the multiple pressures exerted by the activity, acting on multiple habitats, multiple environmental characteristics, multiple species groups, and their multiple structural and functional characteristics. Understanding Pressure-State change linkages (the heart of risk assessment) is highly dependent on clear definition and understanding of component issues of pressures and states. Smith et al. (2014a) clarify the linkage through relevant examples, producing a model that considers the state change trajectory from the pressure and where the state change refers to the natural system; this is in contrast to the impact on the human system and especially welfare (Elliott 2014). The state change and impact on welfare part of the conceptual model are put into the context of risk assessment.

44

Cumulative effects (including synergistic and antagonistic) are considered an important topic of debate (e.g. OSPAR 2009 and 2011a by OSPAR Intersessional Correspondence Group on Cumulative Effects, ICES 2013 by ICES Working Group on Integrated Assessments of the North Sea). The DEVOTES review (Smith et al. 2014a) also investigated the challenges in moving from a conceptual framework to a data-based or expert judgement-based analysis. These challenges imply identifying all activities, pressures and ecological components and their linkages, indicators availability and their quality or thresholds, the equality of data from different areas, assessment scales and scaling up assessments, and finally confidence in the assessments. The review will be of value to the MS to understand DPSIR and its application to the MSFD, the means of identifying/describing issues and components to assess, and options towards their assessment.

4.3.

The need to include function as well as structure

Some directives (e.g. WFD and Habitats Directive) have focussed on the structure of the ecosystem and its components (such as species richness, abundance, percentage cover) rather than the functioning (such as rate processes, primary production, and population dynamics) (Hering et al. 2010). Despite this, the maintenance of ecosystem functioning and its relationship with biodiversity is central to a healthy ecosystem and hence to attaining GES especially for the biodiversity descriptors (Danovaro et al. 2008; Tett et al. 2013). Therefore, in Strong et al. (in prep), DEVOTES addresses the question of incorporating functioning into status classification and its relationship with biodiversity. We identified five important criteria for the practical application of BEF (Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning) relationships although the information required does not yet exist for immediate implementation of BEF relationships within marine operational monitoring. Our review reveals that the consistency of the BEF relationships was limited by the use of different approaches, variables and scales, and a confident application within marine BEF-based monitoring is still not finalised. Equally, some functions associated with ecosystem metabolism have received little or no investigation. While more studies are available for the benthic component (i.e. meiofauna and macrofauna), there is a significant gap of knowledge dealing with BEF relationships within microbial, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, cephalopod, seabird and marine mammal assemblages, due mostly to methodological constraints. Although there are significant limitations in evidence availability, interaction strengths and reliable biodiversity measurement units, the potential value of monitoring approaches based on BEF relationships is promising. They represent the ability to examine ecosystem functions via the functional traits of the species and assemblages of the ecosystems. Furthermore, as long as the appropriate biological 45


components are sampled, biodiversity data integrated with simultaneousmeasures of multiple functions can provide important information on the ecosystem health and vulnerability to biodiversity loss. A methodology using ecosystem functions coupled with biodiversity based estimates is likely to be costeffective and complementary to other forms of monitoring as biodiversity information is routinely collected for several purposes. It also provides a predictive framework for combining existing information on the sensitivity of species so that predictions of ecosystem functioning can be generated from realistic scenarios of species loss. In addition, it can provide evidence of the impact of alien species in an ecosystem, where the number of species may increase but the levels of ecosystem functioning could decrease due to non-positive interactions among species. Future work should aim toward detailed BEF relationships from several ecosystem functions including under-reported biological components (e.g. microbes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, cephalopods, 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, 46

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 underestimating 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.

47




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 indicator/descriptors

at

the

level

of

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).

48

Table 9. Aggregation approaches and when could them be used (in accordance with Borja et al. in press).

Aggregation ‘approach’

‘One out, all out’

When could it be used?

Remarks

• 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.

• Consider carefully the uncertainties related to all of the various parts of the problem; be sure not to overestimate the well-known uncertainties.

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. • 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.

Multimetric and multivariate methods

• 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.

49


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.

50

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.

51


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  

 BIOLOGICAL COMPONENTS







HABITAT TYPES



  PRESSURES

  



 GENERAL 





52

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. 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. 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). 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. 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 considerations

to

incorporate

climate

change

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

53


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

        





Altered temperature regime - physiological

        





Physiographic - increased relative sea-level rise

        





Coastal hydrodynamics - increased climate variability

        





Land-based discharges and run-off - changes to climatic/rainfall run-off patterns Estuarine hydrodynamics - increased relative sea-level rise

         



        





Seawater physico-chemical changes - ocean acidification

         



Global transport repercussions - loss of polar ice cover

          

SUM CATEGORIES

8

3

6

8

3

6

5

2

2

1

1

The analysis indicates that all descriptors will be affected, particularly the ability to set and meet targets against baselines which may be moving because of climate change. Any numerical thresholds which are set for the GES Descriptors and their associated indicators, will need to be revised against a background of climate change. This will make it difficult to detect the recovery of managed ecosystems (their trajectories of change), to assess the changes to environmental status and to achieve GES. This has particular relevance as climate change is regarded as an exogenic unmanaged pressure, i.e. operating outside the control of management measures employed in a regional sea and where the management measures can only address the consequences rather than the cause. Hence, although change against a descriptor may be detected (such as Non-indigenous species) there are no regional sea-specific measures which can be taken to address it. Elliott et al. (submitted) concluded that shifting baselines, resulting from climate change, would need to be accommodated during monitoring, GES assessment and in management actions (i.e. programmes of measures). The spatial and temporal variation in the response of the various biological components to climate change needs to be understood, as well as their ability (or lack of it) to adapt and reach equilibrium. Hence, baselines may need to be revised on a site-specific basis and at regular intervals. Elliott et al. (submitted) questioned whether our knowledge is adequate to assess changes in marine health due

54

to climate change and whether any resulting system is identified as ‘unhealthy’ or just different. Finally, there may have to be the acceptance that changes in GES cannot be conclusively proven because of the confounding effects of climate change. Climate change may also exacerbate other pressures, for example the movement of non-indigenous species by increased shipping, and therefore exacerbate changes in the descriptors, but these effects may be inseparable from those arising from other anthropogenic activities. Long-term, spatially extensive data sets will be needed to identify changes in ecological indicators. Although such data sets are not widely available for all pressures, some efforts have been made to solve this gap. For example, for nonindigenous species, several databases hosting and sharing such information have been gathered in the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN, http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/). In essence, DEVOTES output summarised by Elliott et al. (submitted) emphasises that further work is needed for the setting of climate change-adapted baselines for GES and trajectories of change, for different descriptors, as an integral part of GES assessment. Such work may require the development of numerical models to understand and predict changes in MSFD Descriptors of GES.

4.8.

The need to consider legal barriers to achieve GES

A DEVOTES literature review has revealed ambiguity in: 1) the text of the Directive; 2) the expected role of the Regional Seas Conventions, and 3) in the application of an ecosystem-based approach (Luisetti et al. in prep). The review also identified knowledge and socio-economic barriers in agreement with conclusions from the CSWD (2014). The Commission report (European Commission 2014a; CSWD 2014) assessed the reports submitted by MS for the first phase of implementation of the MSFD based on: ‘adequacy’ (i.e. adequacy of the reported information to the objectives of the Directive and the technical requirements of Articles 8, 9 and 101); ‘consistency’ (i.e. consistence in the logical flow of reporting of one MS for the different Articles), and ‘coherence’ (i.e. coherence of reporting between marine regions). The overall level of adequacy, as well as the level of coherence within each region, was assessed by the Commission as being moderate to low. Conceptual consistency between Article 9 (GES), Article 8 (Assessment), and Article 10 (GES targets) was also considered to be inadequate (European Commission 2014b). The ambiguity in the text of the MSFD has been criticised, for example, by Thiel (2013) for its imprecise and unclear wording which may have led to a sense of ‘disorientation’ by some MS. Examples are provided in Table 12.

55


Table 12. Examples of ambiguity in the Directive text (from Luisetti et al. in prep). Examples

Criticism

Article 1(3), the MSFD states “Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities…..”

However the Directive does not provide a clear definition of what is meant by this term and how it should be applied by individual MS.

Definition of GES under Article 3(5) “Good environmental status 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.”

This definition is regarded as woolly and lacking in legal precision (Long, 2011; Breen et al. , 2012). However as all Member States are left to determine their own targets, this has led to over 20 different GES determinants across the Member States (European Commission, 2014a) leading to no commonality between Member States.

Article 6(1) “Member States shall, where practical and appropriate, use existing regional institutional cooperation structures, including those under Regional Sea Conventions….”

Terminology which allows Member States to only go as far as they care to in order to meet the aims of the directive.

Article 6(2) “shall, within each marine region or subregion, make every effort…to coordinate their actions with third countries….” Article 9 “determine, for the marine waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex I.”

Provides an explanation of GES but without giving any descriptions of quantifiable metrics that could or should be used.

Article 10 “…establish a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters…”

Provides no clear definition or exact prescription of the difference between GES and targets or how they relate to each other.

The definition of GES in the Directive has led to a different interpretation by MS, creating uncertainty, and different levels of conformity and governance complications (Salomon 2006; van Hoof 2010; Ratz et al. 2010; van Leeuwen et al. 2014). As a result, most MS did not go beyond the basic GES delineation as set out in the Directive (European Commission 2014a). For example, although most MS set ambitious benchmarks in their definition of GES, they failed to provide a specific measure of GES. The European Commission (European Commission 2014a) reports that there are over 20 different GES determinations across the EU, resulting in no comparable goals. A precise definition of GES is therefore still missing for most MS, and environmental targets are considered to be vague. For this reason, the CSWD (2014) dedicates most of their recommendations to improve adequacy and coherence of GES and GES targets. As per the regional coordination and integration, van Hoof et al. (2012) highlight that the MSFD does not provide any specific direction on how to organise this regional coordination and integration other than referring to the existing regional fora such as the Regional Seas Conventions (RSC). A specific challenge for regional cooperation in the frame of MSFD is the need to obtain the support and commitments from non-EU nations who are not required to ratify the MSFD (Freire-Gibb et al. 2014). For example, whilst most EU MS are contracting parties to OSPAR, Norway is not.

56

Under Article 1(3), the MSFD uses the term ‘ecosystem-based approach’. However the Directive does not provide a clear definition of this expression and how it should be applied by individual MS. Atkins et al. (2013) state that the success of implementing an ecosystem approach under the MSFD will largely depend on political drive and the resources committed by the individual MS to ensure that the approach is effectively applied at the Regional level and takes into account transboundary issues between MS. The Commission report (European Commission 2014a) considers the role of the RSC in harmonising the definition of GES and the GES targets especially important. In the socio-economic analysis (MSFD, Article 8 (c)) challenges included the mismatch in timescales between the short time between the year in which the MSFD was transposed into national law and the initial assessment deadline (e.g. about four years) and the longer timescale often needed to gather the required biophysical data on the current state of the environment and the appropriate socio-economic data for its assessment. This is particularly important if the use of an ecosystem services framework has been chosen (WG ESA 2010). Although the ecosystem services framework may be considered as the most appropriate approach to socio-economic assessments given the direct links between the ecosystembased approach and the role of the ecosystem services in providing welfare benefits to society (UK NEA 2011; UK NEA 2014; O’Higgins and Gilbert 2014; EU Commission Decision 1386/2013/EU), as reported by the WG ESA (2010), its application requires however a higher level of ambition. Most MS used the Marine Water Accounts (MWA) for the assessment of the use of marine waters, and only two MS (Latvia and the United Kingdom) attempted to apply an ecosystem services framework (CSWD 2014). For the analysis of the cost of degradation, half of the MS used a cost-based approach, and only five MS (Ireland, Latvia, Sweden, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom) used an ecosystem services framework (CSWD 2014). Ramifications of the financial crisis may have had an impact for instance on the delayed transposition of the Directive into national law by most MS (Long 2011). Legislation oriented towards economic growth and employment creation might have been preferred over the implementation of effective environmental policy measures as required by the MSFD to reach GES (Freire-Gibb et al. 2014). In addition, post-crisis austerity measures might threaten appropriate stakeholder engagement and support in achieving GES, as adequate stakeholder engagement may require new funding (Freire-Gibb et al. 2014). The results of the first phase of the MSFD implementation are considered ‘disappointing’ by the Commission because the reports consisted of ‘an incomplete patchwork’ of existing information and assessments (CSWD 2014). Although recognising the limitations due to budget constraints and resource reductions at the EU, regional and national level, the Commission assessment (CSWD 2014) does not address how this budget limitation has had an influence on the crucial problem of the time mismatch between gathering new appropriate biophysical and socio-economic data and the MSFD deadlines. Although the importance of the socio-economic analysis is recognised in the Commission report especially 57


for the second phase of the MSFD implementation and the adoption of a programme of measures, results were not included in the reporting on a descriptor by descriptor basis as per Articles 9 and 10. The socioeconomic analysis was reported separately in a short section providing only a description of the most commonly described marine uses and of the approaches used by MS for the assessment of the cost of degradation. The Commission report does not question the stakeholder involvement process and whether it was adequate, either in terms of timing or quality results of this public engagement. The Commission report only assessed whether public consultation was undertaken before the reporting deadline (e.g. in the first half of 2012). The Commission report (European Commission 2014a; CSWD 2014) confirms that although significant commitments had been made by all RSC to implement the ecosystem approach and support MSFD implementation, the use of the results by MS of regional cooperation within their marine strategies varied. This has resulted in a lack of coherence within the EU, and also within the same marine region or sub-region (required by Article 3(5)b and 5(2) MSFD). The experience of the implementation of the first phase of the MSFD may help candidate MS (for example Turkey) to be prepared for the assessment and valuation of their marine environment and the services it provides to society. The analytical examination of EU legislation (the so-called screening process) undertaken by candidate MS must include conformity of national legislations to environmental directives. This includes, for example, the MSFD and achieving GES for Turkish coastal waters in which in December 2009, the Environment Chapter was opened within the scope of the accession negotiations. At present (2014) legislation conformity has not yet been established for the MSFD in Turkey. Furthermore, the text of the Directive mentions the need to maintain the capacity of marine ecosystems to support the provision of goods and services and the need for a sustainable use of marine ecosystem services. However, these are not defined within a specific framework neither in the Directive nor in the Decision 2010/477/EU or other specific guidance documents for the implementation of Article 13 (some definition is provided in the WG ESA (2010) for Article 8 (c) within the first phase of the MSFD implementation). Currently, no socio-economic guidance documents (e.g. similar to that produced by WG ESA for the first phase of the MSFD implementation) for the cost-benefit analysis required by Article 13 have been produced/released. Nevertheless, programmes of measures are required by 2015 at the latest (Article 5 (2)). The EU Biodiversity Strategy, also concerned with marine areas, mentions its link with the implementation of the MSFD, and provides some guidance for the valuation of the ecosystem goods and benefits that should be identified and assessed as part of its implementation in an accompanying document to the Strategy (Maes et al. 2013). It would be beneficial to have a similar document

58

accompanying the MSFD implementation of Article 13 to guide MS in the implementation of the second phase of the MSFD. It would also be valuable to consider: b) greater involvement by academics that may have knowledge in respect to the theory of the application of an ecosystem approach as well as an ecosystem services framework; c) recognising within MS the convenience of a more consistent use of the results of MSFD dedicated EU-funded projects; d) given the explicit request by the MSFD text of implementing an ecosystem-based approach it would be preferable, whenever possible, for the cost-benefit analyses to make use of an ecosystem services framework to value the impact of any new measure on the goods/ benefits provided by the marine environment; e) a shared socio-economic protocol that could provide the required support and also enable harmonisation. The proposed shared protocol might be somewhat similar to the document already provided to MS to accompany the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy (EU 2013).

5. The outputs from DEVOTES in a nutshell This section briefly summarises the outputs of DEVOTES that are relevant to support the implementation of the next phases of the MSFD. These outputs were all mentioned in the main text body of this report.

The outcomes of the first phase of implementation of the MSFD reinforce the role of R&D projects in supporting the Directive. After two years of applied research the DEVOTES project is now capable of providing scientific recommendations to clarify inconsistencies and fulfil gaps highlighted after the assessment of Article 12. This section summarises the results of the project that are relevant to support the next phases of the MSFD implementation (including the review of the Decision, the review of MSFD Annex III and material to be included in future guidance documents). Table 13 helps the readers to quickly identify which output produced by the project relates to a certain MSFD topic. The products include:

59


1) Conceptual frameworks for integrated assessment of biodiversity (e.g. Conceptual Models for pressure/impacts; Conceptual models for the influence of climate change on GES; Assessment Tool conceptual framework) 2) Operational catalogues, including software tools and databases (e.g. Catalogue of Biodiversity Marine Monitoring Networks, Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators + DEVOTool software (Figure 5), Catalogue of Models and Model-derived Indicators, Catalogue of Keystones species).

Figure 5. The DEVOTool Catalogue of Indicators software, when the database is opened and an indicator is selected.

All these catalogues are publically available and will be periodically updated. The most recently available versions can be found at the links provided in Table 13. The Catalogue of Models and Model-derived Marine Biodiversity Indicators will be incorporated into DEVOTool software in a near future. 60

3) Scientific reviews (e.g. reviews about DPSIR, Monitoring Networks, Biodiversity Indicators, Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning, Marine hazards and risks, Keystones species, Models and Model-derived indicators, etc.) 4) Novel monitoring and assessment tools: DEVOTES is currently testing and developing new methods and technologies (e.g. satellite imaging, remote measuring using multibeam echosounders, visual imaging by ROV systems, acoustic monitoring, bio/sensors, ARMS, ASUs, 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 indepth 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.

61


Figure 6. Devotes spatial data portal available at maps.devotes.eu.

62

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)

Operational definition of GES; Methods for aggregation & integration of assessments within and across descriptor - a review. Barriers and bottlenecks (socio-economic and legislative) that prevent GES of being achieved; Review on current marine legislation – International law, European directives & national implementation.

Borja et al. (2013); Borja et al. (in press); Luisetti et al. (in prep) Boyes & Elliott (2014) Elliott (2014)

Conceptual frameworks and Pressure-State changes links.

Smith et al. (2014a)

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. 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.

Elliott et al. (submitted)

Reviewed and updated list of hazards, activities and pressures.

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.

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 Smith et al. (2014a) Patrício et al. (2014) Elliott et al. (2014) Teixeira et al. (2014) DEVOTool Catalogue of indicators Berg et al. (in prep)

Observations

Upcoming: Del. 2.2 (due 30 April 2015) Report on available models for biodiversity and needs for development 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.

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

Del. 3.1 Existing biodiversity, nonindigenous species , food webs and seafloor integrity GES indicators; DEVOTool software 63


TOPICS 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. 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. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships: prevalence, delivery and potential value for monitoring. Spatial data management;

Mapping ecosystem services provided by benthic habitats. Methodological standards associated with D1, D2, D4, D6. …

64

Outputs from DEVOTES (with links)

Observations

Piroddi et al. (2013) – not publically available Piroddi et al. (submitted) Lassalle et al. (2014 a, b) Smith et al. (2014b)

Del. 4.1 Report on available models for biodiversity and needs for development;

Catalogue of keystone species Strong et al. (in prep)

Del. 6.1 Annex 2

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) Teixeira et al. (2014)

http://maps.devotes.eu/

Del. 6.1 Report on keystone species and processes across regional seas;

Del. 3.1 Existing biodiversity, nonindigenous species , food webs and seafloor integrity GES indicators;

References MSFD related legal and implementation documents 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 65


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 assessing the environmental status. Front Mar Sci 66

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 www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml

Diversity,

United

Nations.

Available

at:

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

67


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 (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol Conserv 141:1167-1169 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 Strategy Framework Directive. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 131:194–205 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

68

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 MESH 2008 Glossary. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough (MESH Project). Available at: www.searchmesh.net/default.aspx?page=1898 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 highdiversity 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 69


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 Patrício 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/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/DEVOTES_D1-4_Report-on-SWOT-analysis-of-monitoring.pdf

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/deliverablesand-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 ecosystembased 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-impactresponse 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.devotesproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DEVOTES-D1-1-ConceptualModels.pdf

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: http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DEVOTES-D6-1-Keystones.pdf 70

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 http://www.esindicators.org/indicators_overview

service

indicators

database.

Available

at:

71

ANNEX – Glossary

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. -1-


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 incombination 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.

-2-

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).

-3-


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.

An ecologically relevant set of species. Each functional group represents a predominant ecological role Functional group (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 humaninduced environmental change. Marine species and habitats are protected, human-induced decline of biodiversity is prevented and diverse biological components function in balance; (b) hydromorphological, 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. -4-

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

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 Keystone species 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. -5-


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 ‘nonindigenous 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 CO 2- 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).

-6-

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.

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 Shifting baselines 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 Timebounded.

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 CO 2-concentrations) in a certain area (Gabrielsen & Bosch 2003).

-7-


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. Wellbeing 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.

-8-

DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation ... - Devotes Project

DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation ... - Devotes Project

Suggest Documents

DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation ... - Devotes Project

DEVOTES4HealthyOceans - Devotes Project

Conceptual models for the effects of marine ... - Devotes Project

Conceptual models for the effects of marine ... - Devotes Project

Conceptual models for the effects of marine ... - Devotes Project

Report cataloging the Monitoring Networks used ... - Devotes Project

Report cataloging the Monitoring Networks used ... - Devotes Project

Report on identification of keystone species and ... - Devotes Project

Key Barriers of Achieving Good Environmental ... - Devotes Project

Report on SWOT analysis of monitoring - Devotes Project

Report on SWOT analysis of monitoring - Devotes Project

Key Barriers of Achieving Good Environmental ... - Devotes Project

Recommendations for the implementation of the ...

Recommendations for the implementation of the

Practical recommendations for the implementation of health ...

Recommendations for the Implementation of Joint Commission ...

Recommendations for Australia's Implementation of the ... - Core

Recommendations for Fusion Centers - The Constitution Project

Implementation of recommendations from the

Implementation of recommendations from the

Recommendations for Fusion Centers - The Constitution Project

Implementation of government recommendations for immunising ...

Recommendations for the implementation of the exemptions to the ...

Implementation Strategy Recommendations - Montana Mussel ...