Marine monitoring in the European Union: How to fulfill the requirements for the marine strategy framework directive in an efficient and integrated way

Zampoukas, Nikolaos; Henna, Piha; Bigagli, Emanuele; Nicolas, Hoepffner; Hanke, Georg; Cardoso, Ana Cristina

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.004

Cited by 38 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Monitoring programs are to be compatible within marine regions or sub-regions and monitoring methods are to be consistent so as to facilitate comparability of monitoring results (Karydis and Kitsiou, 2013). The MSFD further specifies that standardized methods for monitoring and assessment be adopted (Zampoukas et al, 2013) thus putting the onus on the activities of the EU Member States, through coordination by the Regional Sea Conventions and even between RSC. Although there is some detail as to the descriptors or types of biological and other components that should be monitored, given that the MSFD is a Framework Directive, then the method of monitoring is left to the EU Member State level.…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendations To Overcome The Identified Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The northern RSC (HELCOM and OSPAR) have a much longer experience of coordinated monitoring than the southern ones (UNEP/MAP, Black Sea Commission) and the western Member States have a longer history of compliance with EU environmental Directives than the eastern states. Hence, as all Member States have to implement and comply with the Directives then the intent of the MSFD needs to be reinforced to provide a much stronger level of clear coordination and standardization in the southerly Regional Seas (Zampoukas et al, 2013).…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendations To Overcome The Identified Imentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Recommendations To Overcome The Identified Imentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conclusion and Recommendations To Overcome The Identified Imentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also Intercalibration Common Metrics representing basic, robust ''off-the-shelf'' solutions with agreed boundaries may be adopted in countries lacking methods or intending to improve their existing methods . Taking into account the massive monitoring and assessment efforts required by the WFD, the related environmental legislation such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC, 2008b), the Data Collection Framework for the Common Fisheries Policy (EC, 2008c), and the important budget restrictions in several countries, finding pragmatic and cost effective approaches is paramount (Zampoukas et al, 2013). (vi) Insufficient attention has been paid to the ecological meaning of assessment methods.…”

Section: Lessons Learned and The Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intercalibration of aquatic ecological assessment methods in the European Union: Lessons learned and way forward

Poikāne

Zampoukas

Borja

et al. 2014

Environmental Science & Policy

Self Cite

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At the European Union (EU) level, the Marine Framework Strategy Directive (hereafter MSFD, 2008/56/EC) ratified in 2008 aims to achieve the ''Good Environmental Status'' (GES) by 2020. GES would be restored or maintained when 11 qualitative descriptors do not deviate from the undisturbed condition (Fletcher, 2007;Zampoukas et al, 2013;Freire-Gibb et al, 2014;Maier, 2014). Progress toward GES objectives is measured by ecological monitoring programs established in 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Progress toward GES objectives is measured by ecological monitoring programs established in 2014. These monitoring programs are encouraged to be maximized with existing regional agreements (Borja, 2006;Zampoukas et al, 2013). Agreements concerning top predators include among others OSPAR, HELCOM, ICES, ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine megavertebrates adrift: A framework for the interpretation of stranding data in perspective of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other regional agreements

Peltier

Ridoux

2015

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine monitoring in the European Union: How to fulfill the requirements for the marine strategy framework directive in an efficient and integrated way

Cited by 38 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

Intercalibration of aquatic ecological assessment methods in the European Union: Lessons learned and way forward

Marine megavertebrates adrift: A framework for the interpretation of stranding data in perspective of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other regional agreements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About