DPSIR-Two decades of trying to develop a unifying framework for marine environmental management?

© 2016 Patrício, Elliott, Mazik, Papadopoulou and Smith. Determining and assessing the links between human pressures and state-changes in marine and coastal ecosystems remains a challenge. Although there are several conceptual frameworks for describing these links, the Drivers-Pressures-State change-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework has been widely adopted. Two possible reasons for this are: either the framework fulfills a major role, resulting from convergent evolution, or the framework is used often merely because it is used often, albeit uncritically. This comprehensive review, with lessons learned after two decades of use, shows that the approach is needed and there has been a convergent evolution in approach for coastal and marine ecosystem management. There are now 25 derivative schemes and a widespread and increasing usage of the DPSIR-type conceptual framework as a means of structuring and analyzing information in management and decision-making across ecosystems. However, there is less use of DPSIR in fully marine ecosystems and even this was mainly restricted to European literature. Around half of the studies are explicitly conceptual, not illustrating a solid case study. Despite its popularity since the early 1990s among the scientific community and the recommendation of several international institutions (e.g., OECD, EU, EPA, EEA) for its application, the framework has notable weaknesses to be addressed. These primarily relate to the long standing variation in interpretation (mainly between natural and social scientists) of the different components (particularly P, S, and I) and to over-simplification of environmental problems such that cause-effect relationships cannot be adequately understood by treating the different DPSIR components as being mutually exclusive. More complex, nested, conceptual models and models with improved clarity are required to assess pressure-state change links in marine and coastal ecosystems. Our analysis shows that, because of its complexity, marine assessment and management constitutes

Is existing legislation fit-for-purpose to achieve Good Environmental Status in European seas?

Recent additions to marine environmental legislation are usually designed to fill gaps in protection and management, build on existing practices or correct deficiencies in previous instruments. Article 13 of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires Member States to develop a Programme of Measures (PoM) by 2015, to meet the objective of Good Environmental Status (GES) for their waters by 2020. This review explores key maritime-related policies with the aim to identify the opportunities and threats that they pose for the achievement of GES. It specifically examines how Member States have relied on and will integrate existing legislation and policies to implement their PoM and the potential opportunities and difficulties associated with this. Using case studies of three Member States, other external impediments to achieving GES are discussed including uses and users of the marine environment who are not governed by the MSFD, and gives recommendations for overcoming barriers

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 11 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

Impacts on biodiversity from codend and fisher selection in bottom trawl fishing

Fisheries have important impacts on marine biodiversity. In this work, combined information on the abundance, species richness, diversity indices, species composition, trophic level and vulnerability index were examined for the first-time to detect differences in five units related to trawl fishing: the fish assemblage entering the trawl codend, and the escaping, retained, discarded and landed fractions, derived by the gear and fisher selection practices. The work was based on a case study conducted in the Mediterranean Sea, using three different meshes in the trawl codend (40mm-40D and 50mm-50D diamond meshes, and 40 mm-40S square meshes) and a cover of the codends with small mesh size. In general, trawl fishing produces an escaping fraction that was always lower in abundance, richness, and vulnerability index, similar in diversity indices and trophic level, and different in species composition compared to the fish assemblage entering the codend. In almost all cases, fishers selected as landings a fraction that was the lowest in diversity indices, and the highest in trophic level. In contrast, fishers discarded a fraction that was the highest in diversity and vulnerability index, and the lowest in trophic level. Although the three codends did not differ significantly in the fraction of escapees in terms of diversity indices, trophic level, and vulnerability index, the 40S codend showed a significantly higher percentage in the escaping number of species and individuals, and less differences in the species composition; in addition, lower percentage in abundance of discards and higher of landings in the retained catch (0.6:1) than did the other two codends (0.9:1). It was suggested that an urgent modification of the trawl for the elimination of the discarded highly vulnerable species (e.g. Elasmobranchs) is needed, and that trawl species-selectivity should be improved by allowing escape or avoiding catch of the discarded fraction to minimize biodiversity losses.publishedVersio

European marine biodiversity monitoring networks: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

© 2016 Patrício, Little, Mazik, Papadopoulou, Smith, Teixeira, Hoffmann, Uyarra, Solaun, Zenetos, Kaboglu, Kryvenko, Churilova, Moncheva, Bucas, Borja, Hoepffner and Elliott. By 2020, European Union Member States should achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) for 11 environmental quality descriptors for their marine waters to fulfill the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). By the end of 2015, in coordination with the Regional Seas Conventions, each EU Member State was required to develop a marine strategy for their waters, together with other countries within the same marine region or sub-region. Coherent monitoring programs, submitted in 2014, form a key component of this strategy, which then aimed to lead to a Program of Measures (submitted in 2015). The European DEVOTES FP7 project has produced and interrogated a catalog of EU marine monitoring related to MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 [non-indigenous species (NIS)], 4 (food webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity). Here we detail the monitoring activity at the regional and sub-regional level for these descriptors, as well as for 11 biodiversity components, 22 habitats and the 37 anthropogenic pressures addressed. The metadata collated for existing European monitoring networks were subject to a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. This interrogation has indicated case studies to address the following questions: (a) what are the types of monitoring currently in place? (b) who does what and how? (c) is the monitoring fit-for-purpose for addressing the MSFD requirements? and (d) what are the impediments to better monitoring (e.g., costs, shared responsibilities between countries, overlaps, co-ordination, etc.)? We recommend the future means to overcome the identified impediments and develop more robust monitoring strategies. As such the results are especially relevant to implementing comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe, for marine policy makers, government agencies and regulatory bodies. It is emphasized that while many of the recommendations given here require better, more extensive and perhaps more costly monitoring, this is required to avoid any legal challenges to the assessments or to bodies and industries accused of causing a deterioration in marine quality. More importantly the monitoring is required to demonstrate the efficacy of management measures employed. Furthermore, given the similarity in marine management approaches in other developed systems, we consider that the recommendations are also of relevance to other regimes worldwide

Using ecological models to assess ecosystem status in support of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. The European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) seeks to achieve, for all European seas, "Good Environmental Status" (GEnS), by 2020. Ecological models are currently one of the strongest approaches used to predicting and understanding the consequences of anthropogenic and climate-driven changes in the natural environment. We assess the most commonly used capabilities of the modelling community to provide information about indicators outlined in the MSFD, particularly on biodiversity, food webs, non-indigenous species and seafloor integrity descriptors. We built a catalogue of models and their derived indicators to assess which models were able to demonstrate: (1) the linkages between indicators and ecosystem structure and function and (2) the impact of pressures on ecosystem state through indicators. Our survey identified 44 ecological models being implemented in Europe, with a high prevalence of those that focus on links between hydrodynamics and biogeochemistry, followed by end-to-end, species distribution/habitat suitability, bio-opt ical (remote sensing) and multispecies models. Approximately 200 indicators could be derived from these models, the majority of which were biomass and physical/hydrological/chemical indicators. Biodiversity and food webs descriptors, with ∼49% and ∼43% respectively, were better addressed in the reviewed modelling approaches than the non-indigenous species (0.3%) and sea floor integrity (∼8%) descriptors. Out of 12 criteria and 21 MSFD indicators relevant to the abovementioned descriptors, currently only three indicators were not addressed by the 44 models reviewed. Modelling approaches showed also the potential to inform on the complex, integrative ecosystem dimensions while addressing ecosystem fundamental properties, such as interactions between structural components and ecosystems services provided, despite the fact that they are not part of the MSFD indicators set. The cataloguing of models and their derived indicators presented in this study, aim at helping the planning and integration of policies like the MSFD which require the assessment of all European Seas in relation to their ecosystem status and pressures associated and the establishment of environmental targets (through the use of indicators) to achieve GEnS by 2020

A catalogue of marine biodiversity indicators

© 2016 Teixeira, Berg, Uusitalo, Fürhaupter, Heiskanen, Mazik, Lynam, Neville, Rodriguez, Papadopoulou, Moncheva, Churilova, Kryvenko, Krause-Jensen, Zaiko, Veríssimo, Pantazi, Carvalho, Patrício, Uyarra and Borja. A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators was developed with the aim of providing the basis for assessing the environmental status of the marine ecosystems. Useful for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), this catalogue allows the navigation of a database of indicators mostly related to biological diversity, non-indigenous species, food webs, and seafloor integrity. Over 600 indicators were compiled, which were developed and used in the framework of different initiatives (e.g., EU policies, research projects) and in national and international contexts (e.g., Regional Seas Conventions, and assessments in non-European seas). The catalogue reflects the current scientific capability to address environmental assessment needs by providing a broad coverage of the most relevant indicators for marine biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. The available indicators are reviewed according to their typology, data requirements, development status, geographical coverage, relevance to habitats or biodiversity components, and related human pressures. Through this comprehensive overview, we discuss the potential of the current set of indicators in a wide range of contexts, from large-scale to local environmental programs, and we also address shortcomings in light of current needs. Developed by the DEVOTES Project, the catalogue is freely available through the DEVOTool software application, which provides browsing and query options for the associated metadata. The tool allows extraction of ranked indicator lists best fulfilling selected criteria, enabling users to search for suitable indicators to address a particular biodiversity component, ecosystem feature, habitat, or pressure in a marine area of interest. This tool is useful for EU Member States, Regional Sea Conventions, the European Commission, non-governmental organizations, managers, scientists, and any person interested in marine environmental assessment. It allows users to build, complement or adjust monitoring programs and has the potential to improve comparability and foster transfer of knowledge across marine regions

Active ecological restoration of cold-water corals: techniques, challenges, costs and future directions

Cold-water coral (CWC) habitats dwell on continental shelves, slopes, seamounts, and ridge systems around the world's oceans from 50 to 4000 m depth, providing heterogeneous habitats which support a myriad of associated fauna. These highly diverse ecosystems are threatened by human stressors such as fishing activities, gas and oil exploitation, and climate change. Since their life-history traits such as long lifespan and slow growth rates make CWCs very vulnerable to potential threats, it is a foremost challenge to explore the viability of restoration actions to enhance and speed up their recovery. In contrast to terrestrial and shallow-water marine ecosystems, ecological restoration in deep marine environments has received minimal attention. This review, by means of a systematic literature search, aims to identify CWC restoration challenges, assess the most suitable techniques to restore them, and discuss future perspectives. Outcomes from the few restoration actions performed to date on CWCs, which have lasted between 1 to 4 years, provide evidence of the feasibility of coral transplantation and artificial reef deployments. Scientific efforts should focus on testing novel and creative restoration techniques, especially to scale up to the spatial and temporal scales of impacts. There is still a general lack of knowledge about the biological, ecological and habitat characteristics of CWC species exploration of which would aid the development of effective restoration measures. To ensure the long-term viability and success of any restoration action it is essential to include holistic and long-term monitoring programs, and to ideally combine active restoration with natural spontaneous regeneration (i.e., passive restoration) strategies such as the implementation of deep-sea marine protected areas (MPAs). We conclude that a combination of passive and active restoration approaches with involvement of local society would be the best optimal option to achieve and ensure CWC restoration success

Habitat features and their influence on the restoration potential of marine habitats in Europe

To understand the restoration potential of degraded habitats, it is important to know the key processes and habitat features that allow for recovery after disturbance. As part of the EU (Horizon 2020) funded MERCES project, a group of European experts compiled and assessed current knowledge, from both past and ongoing restoration efforts, within the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the North-East Atlantic Ocean. The aim was to provide an expert judgment of how different habitat features could impact restoration success and enhance the recovery of marine habitats. A set of biological and ecological features (i.e., life-history traits, population connectivity, spatial distribution, structural complexity, and the potential for regime shifts) were identified and scored according to their contribution to the successful accomplishment of habitat restoration for five habitats: seagrass meadows, kelp forests, Cystoseira macroalgal beds, coralligenous assemblages and cold-water coral habitats. The expert group concluded that most of the kelp forests features facilitate successful restoration, while the features for the coralligenous assemblages and the cold-water coral habitat did not promote successful restoration. For the other habitats the conclusions were much more variable. The lack of knowledge on the relationship between acting pressures and resulting changes in the ecological state of habitats is a major challenge for implementing restoration actions. This paper provides an overview of essential features that can affect restoration success in marine habitats of key importance for valuable ecosystem services