European Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Networks: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Abstract

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 Patrício et al.European Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Networks 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.

Drivers and pressures – Untangling the terms commonly used in marine science and policy

“…Some authors (Atkins et al, 2011;Borja et al, 2010;Elliot, 2011) distinguish pressures based on their scale and manageability: (i) local (inside the system) and manageable -endogenic managed pressures and (ii) those arising outside of the system, widespread and unmanageableexogenic unmanaged pressures, which can only be regarded in management strategies. Within the marine scientific community there seems to be no complete agreement whether global phenomena such as climate change or ocean acidification should be treated as an exogenic unmanaged pressure (Elliott et al, 2015), or left beyond the pressures concepts and considered separately (Patricio et al, 2014b).…”

Uses of Innovative Modeling Tools within the Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

“…that are explicitly listed in the directive (European Commission, 2008). Monitoring programs must be designed to provide data for indicator assessments (ICES, 2016a;Patrício et al, 2016). This is a fundamental step in measuring progress toward targets and evaluating the FIGURE 1 | Assessments of Good Environmental Status are made as part of an adaptive management approach with 6-yearly cycle and require modeling support at each step (key aims of the modeling required are presented in the white bubbles within the structure of the MSFD).…”

Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Science in Assessing the Health Status of Marine Ecosystems

“…DEVOTES brought together different pieces of legislation, identified gaps and overlaps and provided advice on future needs for the satisfactory implementation of the MSFD for the new Commission Decision expected in the coming months ; (ii) Although monitoring increased after enacting the WFD and should continue to improve during the MSFD implementation Patrício et al, 2016b), it remains insufficient. DEVOTES contributed by identifying, testing and validating multiple innovative tools for monitoring and modeling large areas; (iii) Independent scientific input into international conferences provided a means to organize multiple stakeholder meetings and offer training courses and sessions at international conferences aimed at disseminating and making project findings operational; (iv) Incorporating scientific advice into regulations requires political compromise and we contributed by developing tools to assess environmental status (NEAT) that we hope will be incorporated into the implementation of the environmental quality directives (e.g., MSFD and WFD).…”