Combined effects of human pressures on Europe’s marine ecosystems

Marine ecosystems are under high demand for human use, giving concerns about how pressures from human activities may affect their structure, function, and status. In Europe, recent developments in mapping of marine habitats and human activities now enable a coherent spatial evaluation of potential combined effects of human activities. Results indicate that combined effects from multiple human pressures are spread to 96% of the European marine area, and more specifically that combined effects from physical disturbance are spread to 86% of the coastal area and 46% of the shelf area. We compare our approach with corresponding assessments at other spatial scales and validate our results with European-scale status assessments for coastal waters. Uncertainties and development points are identified. Still, the results suggest that Europe’s seas are widely disturbed, indicating potential discrepancy between ambitions for Blue Growth and the objective of achieving good environmental status within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Descriptor 2, Non-Indigenous Species, Delivering solid recommendations for setting threshold values for non-indigenous species pressure on European seas

Marine Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) are animals and plants introduced accidently or deliberately into the European seas, originating from other seas of the globe. About 800 marine non-indigenous species (NIS) currently occur in the European Union national marine waters, several of which have negative impacts on marine ecosystem services and biodiversity. Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Descriptor 2 (D2), EU Member States (MSs) need to consider NIS in their marine management strategies. The Descriptor D2 includes one primary criterion (D2C1: new NIS introductions), and two secondary criteria (D2C2 and D2C3). The D2 implementation is characterized by a number of issues and uncertainties which can be applicable to the Descriptor level (e.g. geographical unit of assessment, assessment period, phytoplanktonic, parasitic, oligohaline NIS, etc.), to the primary criterion D2C1 level (e.g. threshold values, cryptogenic, questionable species, etc), and to the secondary criteria D2C2 and D2C3. The current report tackles these issues and provides practical recommendations aiming at a smoother and more efficient implementation of D2 and its criteria at EU level. They constitute a solid operational output which can result in more comparable D2 assessments among MSs and MSFD regions/subregions. When it comes to the policy-side, the current report calls for a number of different categories of NIS to be reported in D2 assessments, pointing the need for the species to be labelled/categorised appropriately in the MSFD reporting by the MSs. These suggestions are proposed to be communicated to the MSFD Working Group of Good Environmental Status (GES) and subsequently to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) of MSFD. Moreover, they can serve as an input for revising the Art. 8 Guidelines

INFORMATION IN AN EIA PROCESS AND THE INFLUENCE THEREOF ON PUBLIC OPINION

Environmental issues can only be solved by coherent action at local, national and international levels, therefore understanding of the factors that influence the information exchange process is very important. The subject of investigation in this research is the influence of environmental information provided in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process on the level of knowledge concerning environmental issues in the local community. A survey of public opinion of the environmental impacts of the Port of Koper in Slovenia was performed.Results show that respondents did not find the EIA presentations effective and received more information from TV, newspapers and radio. The EIA process did not fulfil its' potential, since respondents express the highest trust in expert information, but the effectiveness of the expert part of the presentation is considered to be low, not reaching the media. By improving the presentations effectiveness in the EIA process, further efforts in informing public and employees could theoretically bring the opinions of both groups to a similar level of understanding.Environmental impact assessment, public participation, environmental perception, sustainable development

Comparison of conventional and hippocampus-sparing radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: In silico study and systematic review

Background and purpose: Radiation-induced damage to the hippocampi can cause cognitive decline. International recommendations for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) radiotherapy (RT) lack specific guidelines for protecting the hippocampi. Our study evaluates if hippocampi-sparing (HS) RT in NPC ensures target coverage and meets recommended dose limits for other at-risk organs. Materials and methods: In a systematic literature review, we compared hippocampal D40% in conventional and HS RT plans. In an in silico dosimetric study, conventional and HS-VMAT plans were created for each patient, following international recommendations for OAR delineation, dose prioritization and acceptance criteria. We assessed the impact on neurocognitive function using a previously published normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) model. Results: In four previous studies (n = 79), researchers reduced D40% hippocampal radiation doses in HS plans compared to conventional RT on average from 24.9 Gy to 12.6 Gy.Among 12 NPC patients included in this in silico study, statistically significant differences between HS and conventional VMAT plans were observed in hippocampal EQD2 Dmax (23.8 vs. 46.4 Gy), Dmin (3.8 vs. 4.6 Gy), Dmean (8.1 vs. 15.1 Gy), and D40% (8.3 vs. 15.8 Gy). PTV coverage and OAR doses were similar, with less homogeneous PTV coverage in HS plans (p = 0.038). This translated to a lower probability of memory decline in HS plans (interquartile range 15.8–29.6 %) compared to conventional plans (33.8–81.1 %) based on the NTCP model (p = 0.002). Conclusion: Sparing the hippocampus in NPC RT is safe and feasible. Given the life expectancy of many NPC patients, their cognitive well-being must be paramount in radiotherapy planning

Marine strategy framework directive

Marine Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) are animals and plants introduced accidently or deliberately into the European seas, originating from other seas of the globe. About 800 marine non-indigenous species (NIS) currently occur in the European Union national marine waters, several of which have negative impacts on marine ecosystem services and biodiversity. Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Descriptor 2 (D2), EU Member States (MSs) need to consider NIS in their marine management strategies. The Descriptor D2 includes one primary criterion (D2C1: new NIS introductions), and two secondary criteria (D2C2 and D2C3). The D2 implementation is characterized by a number of issues and uncertainties which can be applicable to the Descriptor level (e.g. geographical unit of assessment, assessment period, phytoplanktonic, parasitic, oligohaline NIS, etc.), to the primary criterion D2C1 level (e.g. threshold values, cryptogenic, questionable species, etc), and to the secondary criteria D2C2 and D2C3. The current report tackles these issues and provides practical recommendations aiming at a smoother and more efficient implementation of D2 and its criteria at EU level. They constitute a solid operational output which can result in more comparable D2 assessments among MSs and MSFD regions/subregions. When it comes to the policy-side, the current report calls for a number of different categories of NIS to be reported in D2 assessments, pointing the need for the species to be labelled/categorised appropriately in the MSFD reporting by the MSs. These suggestions are proposed to be communicated to the MSFD Working Group of Good Environmental Status (GES) and subsequently to the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) of MSFD. Moreover, they can serve as an input for revising the Art. 8 Guidelines

Combined effects of human pressures on Europe’s marine ecosystems

Marine ecosystems are under high demand for human use, giving concerns about how pressures from human activities may affect their structure, function, and status. In Europe, recent developments in mapping of marine habitats and human activities now enable a coherent spatial evaluation of potential combined effects of human activities. Results indicate that combined effects from multiple human pressures are spread to 96% of the European marine area, and more specifically that combined effects from physical disturbance are spread to 86% of the coastal area and 46% of the shelf area. We compare our approach with corresponding assessments at other spatial scales and validate our results with European-scale status assessments for coastal waters. Uncertainties and development points are identified. Still, the results suggest that Europe’s seas are widely disturbed, indicating potential discrepancy between ambitions for Blue Growth and the objective of achieving good environmental status within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Multiple pressures and their combined effects in Europe's seas

This report presents for the first time in Europe an overview of anthropogenic pressures and their combined effects in Europe’s seas. The assessment covers the period of 2011-2016 but also presents how human activities and pressures at sea have changed over a longer time horizon. Practically the entire European marine area is under multiple pressures – such as hazardous substances, fish stock exploitation, climate change, underwater noise, non-indigenous species, seafloor damage, marine litter and nutrient enrichment. Shelf areas and coastal zone are affected by physical disturbance of seabed, eutrophication and non-indigenous species. The highest potential combined effects are found along coastal areas of the North Sea, Southern Baltic Sea, Adriatic and Western Mediterranean. The good news from this assessment is that many of the dangerous trends seem to have reversed. We have shown that the nutrient levels, hazardous substances, northern fish stocks and tuna stocks in the open seas show improvement. However, extensive pressures from several human activities still threaten the marine ecosystem, such as disturbance of seabed, and no trend reversal was seen in this assessment