A global ocean observing system framework for sustainable development

Sustainable development depends on maintaining ecosystem services which are concentrated in coastal marine and estuarine ecosystems. Analyses of the science needed to manage human uses of ecosystem services have concentrated on terrestrial ecosystems. Our focus is on the provision of multidisciplinary data needed to inform adaptive, ecosystem-based approaches (EBAs) for maintaining coastal ecosystem services based on comparative ecosystem analyses. Key indicators of pressures on coastal ecosystems, ecosystem states and the impacts of changes in states on services are identified for monitoring and analysis at a global coastal network of sentinel sites nested in the ocean-climate observing system. Biodiversity is targeted as the “master” indicator because of its importance to a broad spectrum of services. Ultimately, successful implementation of EBAs will depend on establishing integrated, holistic approaches to ocean governance that oversee the development of integrated, operational ocean observing systems based on the data and information requirements specified by a broad spectrum of stakeholders for sustainable development. Sustained engagement of such a spectrum of stakeholders on a global scale is not feasible. The global coastal network will need to be customized locally and regionally based on priorities established by stakeholders in their respective regions. The E.U. Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the U.S. Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force are important examples of emerging regional scale approaches. The effectiveness of these policies will depend on the co-evolution of ocean policy and the observing system under the auspices of integrated ocean governance.

Why is it so hard to set MSFD indicators and targets? Messages from the plankton

Unprecedented basin-scale ecological changes are occurring in our seas. As temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations increase, the extent of sea ice is decreasing, stratification and nutrient regimes are changing, and pH is decreasing. These unparalleled changes present new challenges for managing our seas as we are only just beginning to understand the ecological manifestations of these climate alterations. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires all European Member States to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in their seas by 2020; this means management toward GES will take place against a background of climate-driven macroecological change. Each Member State must set environmental targets to achieve GES; however, in order to do so an understanding of large-scale ecological change in the marine ecosystem is necessary. Much of our knowledge of macroecological change in the North Atlantic is a result of research using data gathered by the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) survey, a near-surface plankton monitoring program which has been sampling in the North Atlantic since 1931. CPR data indicate that North Atlantic and North Sea plankton dynamics are responding to both climate and human-induced changes, presenting challenges to the development of pelagic targets for achievement of GES in European seas. Thus the continuation of long-term ecological time-series such as the CPR is crucial for informing and supporting the sustainable management of European seas through policy mechanisms.

Impacts of Climate Change on European Marine Ecosystems: Observations, Expectations and Indicators

The Northern Hemisphere has been warmer since 1980 than at any other time during the last 2000 years. The observed increase in temperature has been generally higher in northern than in southern European seas, and higher in enclosed than in open seas. Although European marine ecosystems are influenced by many other factors, such as nutrient enrichment and overfishing, every region has shown at least some changes that were most likely attributable to recent climate change. It is expected that within open systems there will generally be (further) northward movement of species, leading to a switch from polar to more temperate species in the northern seas such as the Arctic, Barents Sea and the Nordic Seas, and subtropical species moving northward to temperate regions such as the Iberian upwelling margin. For seas that are highly influenced by river runoff, such as the Baltic Sea, an increase in freshwater due to enhanced rainfall will lead to a shift from marine to more brackish and even freshwater species. If semi-enclosed systems such as the Mediterranean and the Black Sea lose their endemic species, the associated niches will probably be filled by species originating from adjacent waters and, possibly, with species transported from one region to another via ballast water and the Suez Canal. A better understanding of potential climate change impacts (scenarios) at both regional and local levels, the development of improved methods to quantify the uncertainty of climate change projections, the construction of usable climate change indicators, and an improvement of the interface between science and policy formulation in terms of risk assessment will be essential to formulate and inform better adaptive strategies to address the inevitable consequences of climate change.

A comparison of the degree of implementation of marine biodiversity indicators by European countries in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful.

The potential use of mapped extent and distribution of habitats as indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES)

The Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG) has been tasked with providing the technical advice for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with respect to descriptors linked to biodiversity. A workshop was held in London to address one of the Research and Development (R&D) proposals entitled: ‘Mapping the extent and distribution of habitats using acoustic and remote techniques, relevant to indicators for area/extent/habitat loss.’ The aim of the workshop was to identify, define and assess the feasibility of potential indicators of benthic habitat distribution and extent, and identify the R&D work which could be required to fully develop these indicators. The main points that came out of the workshop were: (i) There are many technical aspects of marine habitat mapping that still need to be resolved if cost-effective spatial indicators are to be developed. Many of the technical aspects that need addressing surround issues of consistency, confidence and repeatability. These areas should be tackled by the JNCC Habitat Mapping and Classification Working Group and the HBDSEG Seabed Mapping Working Group. (ii) There is a need for benthic ecologists (through the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup and the JNCC Marine Indicators Group) to finalise the list of habitats for which extent and/or distribution indicators should be considered for development, building upon the recommendations from this report. When reviewing the list of indicators, benthic habitats could also be distinguished into those habitats that are defined/determined primarily by physical parameters (although including biological assemblages) (e.g. subtidal shallow sand) and those defined primarily by their biological assemblage (e.g. seagrass beds). This distinction is important as some anthropogenic pressures may influence the biological component of the ecosystem despite not having a quantifiable effect on the physical habitat distribution/extent. (iii) The scale and variety of UK benthic habitats makes any attempt to undertake comprehensive direct mapping exercises prohibitively expensive (especially where there is a need for repeat surveys for assessment). There is a clear need therefore to develop a risk-based approach that uses indirect indicators (e.g. modelling), such as habitats at risk from pressures caused by current human activities, to develop priorities for information gathering. The next steps that came out of the workshop were: (i) A combined approach should be developed by the JNCC Marine Indicators Group together with the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup, which will compile and ultimately synthesise all the criteria used by the three different groups from the workshop. The agreed combined approach will be used to undertake a final review of the habitats considered during the workshop, and to evaluate any remaining habitats in order to produce a list of habitats for indicator development for which extent and/or distribution indicators could be appropriate. (ii) The points of advice raised at this workshop, alongside the combined approach aforementioned, and the final list of habitats for extent and/or distribution indicator development will be used to develop a prioritised list of actions to inform the next round of R&D proposals for benthic habitat indicator development in 2014. This will be done through technical discussions within JNCC and the relevant HBDSEG Subgroups. The preparation of recommendations by these groups should take into account existing work programmes, and consider the limited resources available to undertake any further R&D work.

Projections of change in key ecosystem indicators for planning and management of marine protected areas: An example study for European seas

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely used as tools to maintain biodiversity, protect habitats and ensure that development is sustainable. If MPAs are to maintain their role into the future it is important for managers to understand how conditions at these sites may change as a result of climate change and other drivers, and this understanding needs to extend beyond temperature to a range of key ecosystem indicators. This case study demonstrates how spatially-aggregated model results for multiple variables can provide useful projections for MPA planners and managers. Conditions in European MPAs have been projected for the 2040s using unmitigated and globally managed scenarios of climate change and river management, and hence high and low emissions of greenhouse gases and riverborne nutrients. The results highlight the vulnerability of potential refuge sites in the north-west Mediterranean and the need for careful monitoring at MPAs to the north and west of the British Isles, which may be affected by changes in Atlantic circulation patterns. The projections also support the need for more MPAs in the eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic Sea, and can inform the selection of sites.

Projections of change in key ecosystem indicators for planning and management of marine protected areas: An example study for European seas

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely used as tools to maintain biodiversity, protect habitats and ensure that development is sustainable. If MPAs are to maintain their role into the future it is important for managers to understand how conditions at these sites may change as a result of climate change and other drivers, and this understanding needs to extend beyond temperature to a range of key ecosystem indicators. This case study demonstrates how spatially-aggregated model results for multiple variables can provide useful projections for MPA planners and managers. Conditions in European MPAs have been projected for the 2040s using unmitigated and globally managed scenarios of climate change and river management, and hence high and low emissions of greenhouse gases and riverborne nutrients. The results highlight the vulnerability of potential refuge sites in the north-west Mediterranean and the need for careful monitoring at MPAs to the north and west of the British Isles, which may be affected by changes in Atlantic circulation patterns. The projections also support the need for more MPAs in the eastern Mediterranean and Adriatic Sea, and can inform the selection of sites.

An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.

An Objective Framework to Test the Quality of Candidate Indicators of Good Environmental Status

Large efforts are on-going within the EU to prepare the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’s (MSFD) assessment of the environmental status of the European seas. This assessment will only be as good as the indicators chosen to monitor the eleven descriptors of good environmental status (GEnS). An objective and transparent framework to determine whether chosen indicators actually support the aims of this policy is, however, not yet in place. Such frameworks are needed to ensure that the limited resources available to this assessment optimize the likelihood of achieving GEnS within collaborating states. Here, we developed a hypothesis-based protocol to evaluate whether candidate indicators meet quality criteria explicit to the MSFD, which the assessment community aspires to. Eight quality criteria are distilled from existing initiatives, and a testing and scoring protocol for each of them is presented. We exemplify its application in three worked examples, covering indicators for three GEnS descriptors (1, 5 and 6), various habitat components (seaweeds, seagrasses, benthic macrofauna and plankton), and assessment regions (Danish, Lithuanian and UK waters). We argue that this framework provides a necessary, transparent and standardized structure to support the comparison of candidate indicators, and the decision-making process leading to indicator selection. Its application could help identify potential limitations in currently available candidate metrics and, in such cases, help focus the development of more adequate indicators. Use of such standardized approaches will facilitate the sharing of knowledge gained across the MSFD parties despite context-specificity across assessment regions, and support the evidence-based management of European seas.