No abstract

No abstract

The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires EU Member States (MS) to achieve Good Environmental Status (GEnS) of their seas by 2020. We address the question of what GEnS entails especially with regard to the level at which targets are set (descriptors, criteria, indicators), to scales for assessments (regional, sub-divisions, site-specific), and to difficulties in putting into practice the GEnS concept. We propose a refined and operational definition of GEnS, indicating the data and information needed to all parts of that definition. We indicate the options for determining when GEnS has been met, acknowledge the data and information needs for each option, and recommend a combination of existing quantitative targets and expert judgement. We think that the MSFD implementation needs to be less complex than shown for other similar directives, can be based largely on existing data and can be centred on the activities of the Regional Seas Conventions.

a b s t r a c tBiodiversity is globally recognised as a cornerstone of healthy ecosystems, and biodiversity conservation is increasingly becoming one of the important aims of environmental management. Evaluating the tradeoffs of alternative management strategies requires quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits of their outcomes, including the value of biodiversity lost or preserved. This paper takes a decision-analytic standpoint, and reviews and discusses the alternative aspects of biodiversity valuation by dividing them into three categories: socio-cultural, economic, and ecological indicator approaches. We discuss the interplay between these three perspectives and suggest integrating them into an ecosystem-based management (EBM) framework, which permits us to acknowledge ecological systems as a rich mixture of interactive elements along with their social and economic aspects. In this holistic framework, socio-cultural preferences can serve as a tool to identify the ecosystem services most relevant to society, whereas monetary valuation offers more globally comparative and understandable values. Biodiversity indicators provide clear quantitative measures and information about the role of biodiversity in the functioning and health of ecosystems. In the multi-objective EBM approach proposed in the paper, biodiversity indicators serve to define threshold values (i.e., the minimum level required to maintain a healthy environment). An appropriate set of decision-making criteria and the best method for conducting the decision analysis depend on the context and the management problem in question. Therefore, we propose a sequence of steps to follow when quantitatively evaluating environmental management against biodiversity.

This overview article for the special series, "Bayesian Networks in Environmental and Resource Management," reviews 7 case study articles with the aim to compare Bayesian network (BN) applications to different environmental and resource management problems from around the world. The article discusses advances in the last decade in the use of BNs as applied to environmental and resource management. We highlight progress in computational methods, best-practices for model design and model communication. We review several research challenges to the use of BNs in environmental and resource management that we think may find a solution in the near future with further research attention.

This article is part of the special series "Applications of Bayesian Networks for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management" and was generated from a session on the use of Bayesian networks (BNs) in environmental modeling and assessment in 1 of 3 recent conferences: SETAC North America 2018 (Sacramento), SETAC Europe 2019 (Helsinki), and European Geosciences Union 2019 (Vienna). The 3 sessions aimed at showing the state-of-the art and new directions in the use of BN models in environmental assessment, focusing on ecotoxicology and water quality modeling. This series aims at reflecting the broad applicability of BN methodology in environmental assessment across a range of ecosystem types and scales, and discusses the relevance for environmental management.

Assessing the environmental status of marine ecosystems is useful when communicating key messages to policymakers or the society, reducing the complex information of the multiple ecosystem and biodiversity components and their important spatial and temporal variability into manageable units. Taking into account the ecosystem components to be addressed (e.g., biological, chemical, physical), the numerous biodiversity elements to be assessed (e.g., from microbes to sea mammals), the different indicators needed to be studied (e.g., in Europe, 56 indicators of status have been selected), and the different assessment scales to be undertaken (e.g., from local to regional sea scale), some criteria to define spatial scales and some guidance on aggregating and integrating information is needed. We have reviewed, from ecological and management perspectives, the approaches for aggregating and integrating currently available for marine status assessment in Europe and other regions of the world. Advantages and shortcomings of the different alternatives are highlighted. We provide some guidance on the steps toward defining rules for aggregation and integration of information at multiple levels of ecosystem organization, providing recommendations on when using specific rules in the assessment. A main conclusion is that any integration principle used should be ecologically-relevant, transparent and well documented, in order to make it comparable across different geographic regions.

The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive aims at good environmental status (GES) in marine waters, following an ecosystem-based approach, focused on 11 descriptors related to ecosystem features, human drivers and pressures. Furthermore, 29 subordinate criteria and 56 attributes are detailed in an EU Commission Decision. The analysis of the Decision and the associated operational indicators revealed ambiguity in the use of terms, such as indicator, impact and habitat and considerable overlap of indicators assigned to various descriptors and criteria. We suggest re-arrangement and elimination of redundant criteria and attributes avoiding double counting in the subsequent indicator synthesis, a clear distinction between pressure and state descriptors and addition of criteria on ecosystem services and functioning. Moreover, we suggest the precautionary principle should be followed for the management of pressures and an evidence-based approach for monitoring state as well as reaching and maintaining GES.