Challenges for implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in a climate of macroecological change

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 towards 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 programme that 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 survey is crucial for informing and supporting the sustainable management of European seas through policy mechanisms.

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 role of economics in ecosystem based management: The case of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, First lessons learnt and way forward

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

The role of economics in ecosystem based management: The case of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, First lessons learnt and way forward

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

A review of climate change and the implementation of marine biodiversity legislation in the United Kingdom

1. Marine legislation, the key means by which the conservation of marine biodiversity is achieved, has been developing since the 1960s. In recent decades, an increasing focus on ‘holistic’ policy development is evident, compared with earlier ‘piecemeal’ sectoral approaches. Important marine legislative tools being used in the United Kingdom, and internationally, include the designation of marine protected areas and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with its aim of meeting ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) for European seas by 2020. 2. There is growing evidence of climate change impacts on marine biodiversity, which may compromise the effectiveness of any legislation intended to promote sustainable marine resource management. 3. A review of key marine biodiversity legislation relevant to the UK shows climate change was not considered in the drafting of much early legislation. Despite the huge increase in knowledge of climate change impacts in recent decades, legislation is still limited in how it takes these impacts into account. There is scope, however, to account for climate change in implementing much of the legislation through (a) existing references to environmental variability; (b) review cycles; and (c) secondary legislation and complementary policy development. 4. For legislation relating to marine protected areas (e.g. the EC Habitats and Birds Directives), climate change has generally not been considered in the site-designation process, or for ongoing management, with the exception of the Marine (Scotland) Act. Given that changing environmental conditions (e.g. rising temperatures and ocean acidification) directly affect the habitats and species that sites are designated for, how this legislation is used to protect marine biodiversity in a changing climate requires further consideration. 5. Accounting for climate change impacts on marine biodiversity in the development and implementation of legislation is vital to enable timely, adaptive management responses. Marine modelling can play an important role in informing management decisions.

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.

How well do ecosystem indicators communicate the effects of anthropogenic eutrophication?

Anthropogenic eutrophication affects the Mediterranean, Black, North and Baltic Seas to various extents. Responses to nutrient loading and methods of monitoring relevant indicators vary regionally, hindering interpretation of ecosystem state changes and preventing a straightforward pan-European assessment of eutrophication symptoms. Here we summarize responses to nutrient enrichment in Europe's seas, comparing existing time-series of selected pelagic (phytoplankton biomass and community composition, turbidity, N:P ratio) and benthic (macro flora and faunal communities, bottom oxygen condition) indicators based on their effectiveness in assessing eutrophication effects. Our results suggest that the Black Sea and Northern Adriatic appear to be recovering from eutrophication due to economic reorganization in the Black Sea catchment and nutrient abatement measures in the case of the Northern Adriatic. The Baltic is most strongly impacted by eutrophication due to its limited exchange and the prevalence of nutrient recycling. Eutrophication in the North Sea is primarily a coastal problem, but may be exacerbated by climatic changes. Indicator interpretation is strongly dependent on sea-specific knowledge of ecosystem characteristics, and no single indicator can be employed to adequately compare eutrophication state between European seas. Communicating eutrophication-related information to policy-makers could be facilitated through the use of consistent indicator selection and monitoring methodologies across European seas. This work is discussed in the context of the European Commission's recently published Marine Strategy Directive.

What can ecosystem models tell us about the risk of eutrophication in the North Sea?

Eutrophication is a process resulting from an increase in anthropogenic nutrient inputs from rivers and other sources, the consequences of which can include enhanced algal biomass, changes in plankton community composition and oxygen depletion near the seabed. Within the context of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, indicators (and associated threshold) have been identified to assess the eutrophication status of an ecosystem. Large databases of observations (in situ) are required to properly assess the eutrophication status. Marine hydrodynamic/ecosystem models provide continuous fields of a wide range of ecosystem characteristics. Using such models in this context could help to overcome the lack of in situ data, and provide a powerful tool for ecosystem-based management and policy makers. Here we demonstrate a methodology that uses a combination of model outputs and in situ data to assess the risk of eutrophication in the coastal domain of the North Sea. The risk of eutrophication is computed for the past and present time as well as for different future scenarios. This allows us to assess both the current risk and its sensitivity to anthropogenic pressure and climate change. Model sensitivity studies suggest that the coastal waters of the North Sea may be more sensitive to anthropogenic rivers loads than climate change in the near future (to 2040).

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.