Editorial: Bridging the gap between policy and science in assessing the health status of marine ecosystems

Editoria

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

From Science to Policy and Society: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Communication

Abstract Dissemination is now acknowledged as an important component of the research process, in particular for European Union (EU) funded research projects. This article builds on the authors' experience during the EU project DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) and aims to assist other scientists to develop a successful dissemination strategy to communicate project achievements. We provide a critical review of the different tools used for outreach to our target audiences, from the academia to the policy makers, and the general public, and try to assess their impact. An effective dissemination strategy and plan should have a clear objective, be designed before the start of the project, identify the target groups and define the methods or tools to be used according to target groups and objectives. The DEVOTES dissemination strategy included two complementary approaches of communication with stakeholders: (i) traditional (e.g., peer reviewed publications, stakeholders workshops, and participation in scientific conferences), and (ii) new (e.g., social networks, smartphone applications) media tools. For each dissemination approach, we defined production targets (e.g., number of articles to be published, individual visitors on the website, etc.) to be achieved by the end of the project, and impact measurements (e.g., citation indices for peer reviewed articles) to monitor the successful implementation of DEVOTES Dissemination. This allowed us to identify which tools had been more (e.g., website) or less useful and relevant (e.g., Facebook) during the project. We conclude that impact measurements cannot be easily identified for all dissemination actions. However, for those that were possible, the DEVOTES dissemination targets were successfully achieved. Overall, the use of the tools and activities outlined in this article, combined with the constant evaluation of the dissemination goals throughout the project duration and the assessment of the effectiveness of the different tools, is essential for the achievement of an effective and timely communication of research results

Measuring the contribution of higher education to innovation capacity in the EU. Executive Summary

There has been a massive expansion of higher education in recent decades as part of attempts to create workforces with the skills to be able to compete successfully in the context of the knowledge based economy. This emerging context demands new kinds of skills and approaches from workers to feed into industries that are evolving rapidly. Economic strength in the knowledge-based economy is driven by innovation, taking existing resources and assets and using them to do new things better and increase overall welfare levels. Whilst innovation is necessary across government, business, and civil society, universities are at the heart of attempts to improve the overall knowledge capital endowments that provide the feedstock for innovation as well as a proving ground for future innovators. At the same time, there is widespread unrest that universities are failing to respond to these new demands and are continuing to act as ‘ivory towers’ outside of rather than driving forward society (Galan-Muros, 2016). Particular concern lies on perceptions that universities have tended to expand their existing activities rather than to create new courses, pedagogies, and learning environments that best meet these needs. Where universities contribute effectively to innovation, then they can create whole new industries and sectors, and transform the fortunes of particular places. But at the moment, these conflicting narratives make it hard for policy-makers to determine whether universities (and indeed, which kinds of universities) are a boost to or a drag upon innovation capacities. A key challenge for European policy-makers is therefore distinguishing the extent to which universities are realising their potential to contribute to the emergence of the knowledge-based economy. By distinguishing which institutions are and are not realising this potential, policy-makers can developed a more nuanced set of engagement stimuli that can help to maximise this contribution and optimise the returns that European societies receive for their substantial public investments in higher education. This means that are providing the necessary education and knowledge base to deliver the ambitions of Europe 2020 and support Europe’s transition towards a successful, just and sustainable economy. This requires dealing with the uncertainty of the extent to which universities’ contribute to supporting the development of the emerging knowledge economy. Here we define ‘innovation’ as the result of the set of activities by which different kinds of knowledge are combined to create solutions and interventions to solve problems, ultimately making society a better place (a form of Schumpeterian perspective). Those societal improvements may be through: (a) raising competitiveness and creating new markets and sectors, (b) improving the delivery of public services, particularly to vulnerable social groups, or (c) reducing our environmental impacts. We seek to understand the extent to which universities are supporting ‘innovation’ as here defined to distinguish between good and bad performances, as the first step in a process by which policy-makers actively intervene to improve the performance of universities overall

Assessing costs and benefits of measures to achieve good environmental status in European regional seas: challenges, opportunities, and lessons learnt

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires Member States to assess the costs and benefits of Programmes of Measures (PoMs) put in place to ensure that European marine waters achieve Good Environmental Status by 2020. An interdisciplinary approach is needed to carry out such an assessment whereby economic analysis is used to evaluate the outputs from ecological analysis that determines the expected effects of such management measures. This paper applies and tests an existing six-step approach to assess costs and benefits of management measures with potential to support the overall goal of the MSFD and discusses a range of ecological and economic analytical tools applicable to this task. Environmental cost-benefit analyses are considered for selected PoMs in three European case studies: Baltic Sea (Finland), East Coast Marine Plan area (UK), and the Bay of Biscay (Spain). These contrasting case studies are used to investigate the application of environmental cost-benefit analysis (CBA) including the challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt from using this approach. This paper demonstrates that there are opportunities in applying the six-step environmental CBA framework presented to assess the impact of PoMs. However, given demonstrated limitations of knowledge and data availability, application of other economic techniques should also be considered (although not applied here) to complement the more formal environmental CBA approach

Biodiversity in Marine Ecosystems—European Developments toward Robust Assessments

Sustainability of marine ecosystems and their services are dependent on marine biodiversity, which is threatened worldwide. Biodiversity protection is a major target of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, requiring assessment of the status of biodiversity on the level of species, habitats, and ecosystems including genetic diversity and the role of biodiversity in food web functioning and structure. This paper provides a summary of the development of new indicators and refinement of existing ones in order to address some of the observed gaps in indicator availability for marine biodiversity assessments considering genetic, species, habitat, and ecosystem levels. Promising new indicators are available addressing genetic diversity of microbial and benthic communities. Novel indicators to assess biodiversity and food webs associated with habitats formed by keystone species (such as macroalgae) as well as to map benthic habitats (such as biogenic reefs) using high resolution habitat characterization were developed. We also discuss the advances made on indicators for detecting impacts of non-native invasive species and assessing the structure and functioning of marine food-webs. The latter are based on indicators showing the effects of fishing on trophic level and size distribution of fish and elasmobranch communities well as phytoplankton and zooplankton community structure as food web indicators. New and refined indicators are ranked based on quality criteria). Their applicability for various EU and global biodiversity assessments and the need for further development of new indicators and refinement of the existing ones is discussed

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

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

An integrated assessment of the Good Environmental Status of Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas

Este artículo contiene 11 páginas, 2 figuras, 2 tablas.Local, regional and global targets have been set to halt marine biodiversity loss. Europe has set its own policy targets to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of marine ecosystems by implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) across member states. We combined an extensive dataset across five Mediterranean ecoregions including 26 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), their reference unprotected areas, and a no-trawl case study. Our aim was to assess if MPAs reach GES, if their effects are local or can be detected at ecoregion level or up to a Mediterranean scale, and which are the ecosystem components driving GES achievement. This was undertaken by using the analytical tool NEAT (Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool), which allows an integrated assessment of the status of marine systems. We adopted an ecosystem approach by integrating data from several ecosystem components: the seagrass Posidonia oceanica, macroalgae, sea urchins and fish. Thresholds to define the GES were set by dedicated workshops and literature review. In the Western Mediterranean, most MPAs are in good/high status, with P. oceanica and fish driving this result within MPAs. However, GES is achieved only at a local level, and the Mediterranean Sea, as a whole, results in a moderate environmental status. Macroalgal forests are overall in bad condition, confirming their status at risk. The results are significantly affected by the assumption that discrete observations over small spatial scales are representative of the total extension investigated. This calls for large-scale, dedicated assessments to realistically detect environmental status changes under different conditions. Understanding MPAs effectiveness in reaching GES is crucial to assess their role as sentinel observatories of marine systems. MPAs and trawling bans can locally contribute to the attainment of GES and to the fulfillment of the MSFD objectives. Building confidence in setting thresholds between GES and non-GES, investing in long-term monitoring, increasing the spatial extent of sampling areas, rethinking and broadening the scope of complementary tools of protection (e.g., Natura 2000 Sites), are indicated as solutions to ameliorate the status of the basin.This article was undertaken within the COST Action 15121 MarCons (http://www.marcons-cost.eu, European Cooperation in Science and Technology), the Interreg MED AMAre Plus (Ref: 8022) and the project PO FEAMP 2014-2020 Innovazione, sviluppo e sostenibilita ` nel settore della pesca e dell’acquacoltura per la Regione Campania (ISSPA 2.51). M.C.U., A.B. have been funded by the project MEDREGION (European Commission DG ENV/MSFD, 2018 call, Grant Agreement 110661/ 2018/794286/SUB/ENV.C2). Aegean Sea data were retrieved from the project PROTOMEDEA (www.protomedea.eu), funded by DG for Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the EC, under Grant Agreement SI2.721917. JB acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Juan de la Cierva fellowship FJC 2018-035566-I).With the institutional support of the ‘Severo Ochoa Centre of Excellence’ accreditation (CEX2019-000928-S).Peer reviewe