Search

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EG) and the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; 2008/56/EC) were umbrella legislations for fresh and marine waters. It is a challenge for the scientific community to translate the principles of these directives into realistic and accurate approaches. Both directives have common principles, which were tackled differently. For the WFD, this was executed during the last decade, and many results of it were already published. This process delivered valuable knowledge on which the implementation of the MSFD can be founded. Therefore, the ICES Benthos Ecology Working Group aimed at compiling the lessons-learnt from the application of benthic indicators in the WFD to be implemented within the MSFD through the description of (1) how the principles are theoretically filled in by both directives, (2) how the process is tackled in the WFD process and (3) what these insights might mean for the implementation of the MSFD. A first main principle is the realization of the ecosystem approach. Secondly, the comparability of benthic indicators, class boundary settings and the relationships between indicators and anthropogenic pressures are highlighted. Thirdly, some aspects related to the monitoring requirements of both directives, are discussed. We conclude that testing and integration of the different approaches was facilitated during the WFD process and lead to further insights and improvements. This facilitate the selection of the most accurate approach for each purpose (principle, region, water type, etc...). Expert involvement in the entire process proved to be of vital importance.

Within the framework of LIFE, one of the larger nature restoration projects in Flanders was realized on the right bank of the estuarine part of the Yser. General aim of the initiative was to restore or create beach-dune-salt marsh ecotones with salt-fresh, dynamic-stable, wet-dry and mud-sand ecotones. In order to reach this goal, several large buildings and roads were broken down, an entire tidal dock was restructured and some 500,000m³ of dredging material was removed to restore or create intertidal and coastal dune habitats and their connecting ecotones. Measures were taken to avoid abrupt topographical transitions along potential ecological gradients. It was decided to begin monitoring (2001-2004) from the very start of the restoration process (1999-2003). Monitoring was multidisciplinary and realized in a partnership between several scientific institutes (Ghent University, Catholic University of Louvain, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences and Institute of Nature Conservation with facility support of VLIZ). Monitoring included the most relevant abiotic conditions such as sedimentation and erosion, topography and ground water fluctuations, and biological response variables, i.e. flora and vegetation, terrestrial arthropods, benthic macrofauna and birds. It was decided to include two monitoring levels, an area-covering monitoring of the entire nature reserve (ca. 128ha) and a detailed monitoring of changes along transects perpendicular to the main ecological gradients. In this paper we present some results of the first three years of monitoring.

Marine biological valuation provides a comprehensive concept for assessing the intrinsic value of subzones within a study area. This paper gives an update on the concept of marine biological valuation as described by Derous et al. (2007). This concept was based on a literature review of existing ecological valuation criteria and the consensus reached by a discussion group of experts during an international workshop in December 2004. The concept was discussed during an ENCORA-MARBEF workshop in December 2006, which resulted in the fine-tuning of the concept of marine biological valuation, especially with respect to its applicability to marine areas.