Determination of relevant Indicators for Environmental monitoring: A Strategy for Europe (DIESE) Final Scientific Report

The DIESE program (Determination of relevant Indicators for Environmental monitoring: A Strategy for Europe) brought together seven French and British research teams, a private company and the agencies responsible for the management of water bodies of the two countries (ONEMA and the Environmental Agency) in a joint effort to document the ecotoxicological effects related to the presence of chemicals in the environment. To contribute to a better understanding and management of the environment, the program has expanded its efforts to (1) use existing knowledge, or new information acquired during the research program, to identify important biological problems affecting the wildlife, (2) increase our understanding of toxicological mechanisms involved and thus be able to identify the causes of the identified dysfunctions and (3) to hone our expertise and vigilance system in order to better monitor changes in the environment and make appropriate diagnoses.

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.

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.

Chapter 11: Human activities and ecosystem service use: impacts and trade-offs

Ecosystem services provided by the marine environment are fundamental to human health and well-being. Despite this, many marine systems are being degraded to an extent that may reduce their capacity to provide these ecosystem services. The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000). Its application to marine management and spatial planning has been proposed as a means of maintaining the economic and social value of the oceans, not only in the present but for generations to come. Characterising the susceptibility of services (and combinations of services) to particular human activities based on knowledge of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (as described in preceding chapters) is a challenge for future management of the oceans. In this chapter, we highlight the existing, but limited knowledge of how ecosystem services may be impacted by different human activities. We discuss how impacts on one service can impact multiple services and explore how the impacts on services can vary both spatially and temporally and according to context. We focus particularly on the effects on ecosystem services of activities whose impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning have already been considered in previous chapters. Some of these activities are associated with poor management of ecosystem benefits, for example, from provisioning services (aquaculture and fisheries), or with excessive input of wastes, fertilisers and contaminants into the system overburdening the waste treatment and assimilation services. Other impacts are associated with the construction of structures or use of space designed to generate benefits from environmental services such as the presence of water as a carrier for shipping, or sources of wind, wave and tidal power. We discuss the trade-offs that are made, consciously or otherwise, between different ecosystem services, which arise from human activities to optimise or manage specific ecosystem services.

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.