Search

Marine ecosystems are under high demand for human use, giving concerns about how pressures from human activities may affect their structure, function, and status. In Europe, recent developments in mapping of marine habitats and human activities now enable a coherent spatial evaluation of potential combined effects of human activities. Results indicate that combined effects from multiple human pressures are spread to 96% of the European marine area, and more specifically that combined effects from physical disturbance are spread to 86% of the coastal area and 46% of the shelf area. We compare our approach with corresponding assessments at other spatial scales and validate our results with European-scale status assessments for coastal waters. Uncertainties and development points are identified. Still, the results suggest that Europe’s seas are widely disturbed, indicating potential discrepancy between ambitions for Blue Growth and the objective of achieving good environmental status within the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Claims for ocean space are growing while marine ecosystems suffer from centuries of insufficient care. Human pressures from runoff, atmospheric emissions, marine pollution, fishing, shipping, military operations and other activities wear on habitats and populations. Ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (MSP) has emerged worldwide as a strategic instrument for handling conflicting spatial claims among competing sectors and the environment. The twofold objective of both boosting the blue economy and protecting the environment is challenging in practice and marine planners need decision support. Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) was originally developed to provide an overview of the human imprint on the world's ocean ecosystems. We have now added a scenario component to the CIA model and used it within Swedish ecosystem-based MSP. This has allowed us to project environmental impacts for different planning alternatives throughout the planning process, strengthening the integration of environmental considerations into strategic decision-making. Every MSP decision may entail a local shift of environmental impact, causing positive or negative consequences for ecosystem components. The results from Swedish MSP in the North Sea and Baltic Sea illustrate that MSP certainly has the potential to lower net cumulative environmental impact, both locally and across sea basins, as long as environmental values are rated high and prevailing pressures derive from activities that are part of MSP. By synthesizing innumerous data into comprehensible decision support that informs marine planners of the likely environmental consequences of different options, CIA enables ecosystem-based MSP in practice.

We have analyzed the development of “Broad-Scale Seabed Habitat Maps” (BSHM) and their potential use in a European context with regard to the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation, MPA designation and network assessment as well as other applications of BSHMs. The analyses are anchored in BSHMs developed by a series of interlinked EU projects (e.g. UKSeaMap, BALANCE, MESH, Mesh Atlantic, EUSeaMap 2012, and EUSeaMap 2016) and all maps are based on environmental data. Some EU Member States have used BSHMs as part of their MSFD Initial Assessments published in 2012. However, we conclude that BSHMs are a prerequisite for another key MSFD activity, i.e. mapping of potentially cumulative effects of multiple human stressors. Further, BSHMs seem to play a growing role with regard to evidence-based assessments of MPAs. With the upcoming second round of MSFD Initial Assessments due in 2018, including assessment of potentially cumulative pressures, there seems to be an increasing need for more BSHMs nationally, regionally and on a European scale.

Efforts to attain good environmental status in the marine realm require decisions which cannot be done without knowledge of effects of different management measures. Given the wide diversity of marine ecosystems, multitude of pressures affecting it and the still poor understanding on linkages between those, there are likely no models available to give all the required answers. Hence, several separate approaches can be used in parallel to give support for management measures. We tested three completely different methods – a spatial impact index, a food web model and a Bayesian expert method. We found that a large uncertainty existed regarding the ecosystem response to the management scenarios, and that the three different modelling approaches complemented each other. The models indicated that in order to reach an improved overall state of the ecosystem nutrient reductions are the more effective of the two management variables explored, and that cumulative effects of the management of nutrient inputs and fishing mortality are likely to exist.

BEAT 3.0 is a multi-metric indicator-based tool for integrated assessments of marine biodiversity status implemented in R. It follows the structure and requirements of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive and allows for use of monotonic, unimodal, conditional, trend-based and qualitative indicators. The tool handles tabular data files (.txt format), in which the assessment structure and indicator results are specified. Integration of indicators is primarily based on weighted averaging, where both spatial assessment scale and ecosystem level are considered. Parallel to the biodiversity status assessment, a confidence assessment is also included. BEAT 3.0 uses HELCOM Assessment units and HELCOM core indicators as default but can be customized for use in any geographical region and any set of indicators. Funding Statement: BEAT 3.0 was developed in the HELCOM coordinated EU co-financed project ‘Baltic Sea project to boost regional coherence of marine strategies through improved data flow, assessments, and knowledge base for development of measures (BalticBOOST)’ EU grant number 11.0661/2015/712632/SUB/ENVC.2.

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires that GoodEnvironmentalStatus (GEnS), is achieved for European seas by 2020. These may deviate from GEnS, its 11Descriptors, targets and baselines, due to endogenic managed pressures (from activities withinan area) and externally due to exogenic unmanaged pressures (e.g. climate change). Conceptualmodels detail the likely or perceived changes expected on marine biodiversity and GEnSDescriptors in the light of climate change. We emphasise that marine management has toaccommodate ‘shifting baselines’ caused by climate change particularly during GEnSmonitoring, assessment and management and ‘unbounded boundaries’ given the migration anddispersal of highly-mobile species. We suggest climate change may prevent GEnS being met,but Member States may rebut legal challenges by claiming that this is outside its control, forcemajeure or due to ‘natural causes’ (Article 14 of the MSFD). The analysis is relevant tomanagement of other global seas.

Nutrient enrichment of coastal marine waters caused by losses of nitrate (NO3 −) from agriculture is an increasing global problem. In the European Union, the Nitrates Directive (ND) of 1991 was meant to be a cornerstone in reducing eutrophication effects in coastal waters downstream from intensively farmed catchments. Although reductions in losses of nitrate have been attained, very few Member States have yet been able to reduce eutrophication effects caused by inputs of NO3 − from agriculture. We report trends in concentrations of NO3 − and chlorophyll-a (Chl-a) in Danish coastal and open marine waters during the period from 1996 to 2011 together with an assessment of eutrophication status based on multiple indicators (e.g. nutrient concentrations, Chl-a, submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic macroinvertebrates). Despite decreasing concentrations of both NO3 −and Chl-a, Danish coastal waters are not yet to be classified as ‘unaffected by eutrophication’. In order to improve future pan-European evaluations of the effectiveness of the ND, we argue for the added value of including indicators and assessment principles from other European Directives, i.e. the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Biodiversity' is one of the most common keywords used in environmental sciences, spanning from research to management, nature conservation, and consultancy. Despite this, our understanding of the underlying concepts varies greatly, between and within disciplines as well as among the scientists themselves. Biodiversity can refer to descriptions or assessments of the status and condition of all or selected groups of organisms, from the genetic variability, to the species, populations, communities, and ecosystems. However, a concept of biodiversity also must encompass understanding the interactions and functions on all levels from individuals up to the whole ecosystem, including changes related to natural and anthropogenic environmental pressures. While biodiversity as such is an abstract and relative concept rooted in the spatial domain, it is central to most international, European, and national governance initiatives aimed at protecting the marine environment. These rely on status assessments of biodiversity which typically require numerical targets and specific reference values, to allow comparison in space and/or time, often in association with some external structuring factors such as physical and biogeochemical conditions. Given that our ability to apply and interpret such assessments requires a solid conceptual understanding of marine biodiversity, here we define this and show how the abstract concept can and needs to be interpreted and subsequently applied in biodiversity assessments.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires the environmental status of European marine waters to be assessed using biodiversity as 1 out of 11 descriptors, but the complexity of marine biodiversity and its large span across latitudinal and salinity gradients have been a challenge to the scientific community aiming to produce approaches for integrating information from a broad range of indicators. The Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool (NEAT), developed for the integrated assessment of the status of marine waters, was applied to 10 marine ecosystems to test its applicability and compare biodiversity assessments across the four European regional seas. We evaluate the assessment results as well as the assessment designs of the 10 cases, and how the assessment design, particularly the choices made regarding the area and indicator selection, affected the results. The results show that only 2 out of the 10 case study areas show more than 50% probability of being in good status in respect of biodiversity. No strong pattern among the ecosystem components across the case study areas could be detected, but marine mammals, birds, and benthic vegetation indicators tended to indicate poor status while zooplankton indicators indicated good status when included into the assessment. The analysis shows that the assessment design, including the selection of indicators, their target values, geographical resolution and habitats to be assessed, has potentially a high impact on the result, and the assessment structure needs to be understood in order to make an informed assessment. Moreover, recommendations are provided for the best practice of using NEAT for marine status assessments.

Ever more extensive use of marine space by human activities and greater demands for marine natural resources has led to increases in both duration and spatial extent of pressures on the marine environment. In parallel, the global crisis of decreasing biodiversity and loss of habitats has revitalized scientific research on human impacts and lead to methodological development of cumulative pressure and impact assessments (CPIA). In Europe alone, almost 20 CPIAs have been published in the past 10 years and some more in other sea regions of the world. In this review, we have analyzed 40 recent marine CPIAs and focused on their methodological approaches. We were especially interested in uncovering methodological similarities, identifying best practices and analysing whether the CPIAs have addressed the recent criticism. The review results showed surprisingly similar methodological approaches in half of the studies, raising hopes for finding coherence in international assessment efforts. Although the CPIA methods showed relatively few innovative approaches for addressing the major caveats of previous CPIAs, the most recent studies indicate that improved approaches may be soon found.

Traditional and emerging human activities are increasingly putting pressures on marine ecosystems and impacting their ability to sustain ecological and human communities. To evaluate the health status of marine ecosystems we need a science-based, integrated Ecosystem Approach, that incorporates knowledge of ecosystem function and services provided that can be used to track how management decisions change the health of marine ecosystems. Although many methods have been developed to assess the status of single components of the ecosystem, few exist for assessing multiple ecosystem components in a holistic way. To undertake such an integrative assessment, it is necessary to understand the response of marine systems to human pressures. Hence, innovative monitoring is needed to obtain data to determine the health of large marine areas, and in an holistic way. Here we review five existing methods that address both of these needs (monitoring and assessment): the Ecosystem Health Assessment Tool; a method for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the Bay of Biscay; the Ocean Health Index (OHI); the Marine Biodiversity Assessment Tool, and the Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool. We have highlighted their main characteristics and analyzing their commonalities and differences, in terms of: use of the Ecosystem Approach; inclusion of multiple components in the assessment; use of reference conditions; use of integrative assessments; use of a range of values to capture the status; weighting ecosystem components when integrating; determine the uncertainty; ensure spatial and temporal comparability; use of robust monitoring approaches, and address pressures and impacts. Ultimately, for any ecosystem assessment to be effective it needs to be: transparent and repeatable and, in order to inform marine management, the results should be easy to communicate to wide audiences, including scientists, managers, and policymakers.

We review approaches and tools currently usedin Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway andSweden) for integrated assessment of ‘ecological status’sensu the EU Water Framework Directive as well asassessment of ‘eutrophication status’ in coastal and marinewaters. Integration principles for combining indicatorswithin biological quality elements (BQEs) and combiningBQEs into a final-integrated assessment are discussed.Specific focus has been put on combining different types ofinformation into indices, since several methods arecurrently employed. As a consequence of the variety ofmethods used, comparisons across both BQEs and watercategories (river, lakes and coastal waters) can be difficult.Based on our analyses, we conclude that some principlesand methods for integration can be critical and that aharmonised approach should be developed. Further, weconclude that the integration principles applied withinBQEs are critical and in need of harmonisation if we want abetter understanding of potential transition in ecologicalstatus between surface water types, e.g. when riverinewater enters a downstream lake or coastal water body.

We report the development and application of a prototype tool for integrated assessment of chemical status in aquatic environments based on substance- and matrix-specific environmental assessment criteria (thresholds). The Chemical Status Assessment Tool (CHASE) integrates data on hazardous substances in water, sediments and biota as well as bio-effect indicators and is based on a substance- or bio-effect-specific calculation of a 'contamination ratio' being the ratio between an observed concentration and a threshold value. Values1.0 indicate areas potentially 'unaffected', while values1.0 indicate areas potentially 'affected'. These ratios are combined within matrices, i.e. for water, sediment and biota and for biological effects. The overall assessment used a 'one out, all out principle' with regard to each matrix. The CHASE tool was tested in the Baltic Sea and the North Sea in 376 assessment units. In the former, the chemical status was1.0 in practically all areas indicating that all areas assessed were potentially affected. The North Sea included areas classified as unaffected or affected. The CHASE tool can in combination with temporal trend assessments of individual substances be advantageous for use in remedial action plans and, in particular, for the science-based evaluation of the status and for determining which specific substances are responsible for a status as potentially affected.

Many studies have tried to explain spatial and temporal variations in biodiversity status of marine areas from a single-issue perspective, such as fishing pressure or coastal pollution, yet most continental seas experience a wide range of human pressures. Cumulative impact assessments have been developed to capture the consequences of multiple stressors for biodiversity, but the ability of these assessments to accurately predict biodiversity status has never been tested or ground-truthed. This relationship has similarly been assumed for the Baltic Sea, especially in areas with impaired status, but has also never been documented. Here we provide a first tentative indication that cumulative human impacts relate to ecosystem condition, i.e. biodiversity status, in the Baltic Sea. Thus, cumulative impact assessments offer a promising tool for informed marine spatial planning, designation of marine protected areas and ecosystem-based management, and may prove useful for setting limits on allowable levels of human impact on ecosystems. Many studies have tried to explain spatial and temporal variations in biodiversity status of marine areas from a single-issue perspective, such as fishing pressure or coastal pollution, yet most continental seas experience a wide range of human pressures. Cumulative impact assessments have been developed to capture the consequences of multiple stressors for biodiversity, but the ability of these assessments to accurately predict biodiversity status has never been tested or ground-truthed. This relationship has similarly been assumed for the Baltic Sea, especially in areas with impaired status, but has also never been documented. Here we provide a first tentative indication that cumulative human impacts relate to ecosystem condition, i.e. biodiversity status, in the Baltic Sea. Thus, cumulative impact assessments offer a promising tool for informed marine spatial planning, designation of marine protected areas and ecosystem-based management, and may prove useful for setting limits on allowable levels of human impact on ecosystems.

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.

Integrated assessment of the status of marine biodiversity is and has been problematic compared to, for example, assessments of eutrophication and contamination status, mostly as a consequence of the fact that monitoring of marine habitats, communities and species is expensive, often collected at an incorrect spatial scale and/or poorly integrated with existing marine environmental monitoring efforts. The objective of this Method Paper is to introduce and describe a simple tool for integrated assessment of biodiversity status based on the HELCOM Biodiversity Assessment Tool (BEAT), where interim biodiversity indicators are grouped by themes: broad-scale habitats, communities, and species as well as supporting non-biodiversity indicators. Further, we report the application of an initial indicator-based assessment of biodiversity status of Danish marine waters where we have tentatively classified the biodiversity status of Danish marine waters. The biodiversity status was in no areas classified as “unaffected by human activities.” In all the 22 assessment areas, the status was classified as either “moderately affected by human activities” or “significantly affected by human activities.” Spatial variations in the biodiversity status were in general related to the eutrophication status as well as fishing pressure. &nbsp

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires Member States to estimate the level of human impacts on their marine waters. We report the first attempt to quantify the magnitude and distribution of cumulative impacts of anthropogenic pressures for an entire regional sea, the Baltic Sea. We used a method which takes account of the sensitivity of different ecosystem components and gives scores for potential impacts in 5 km × 5 km areas. Our quantification of impacts was based on data layers of anthropogenic pressures and ecosystem components. The classification of the anthropogenic pressures follows the MSFD and the outcome of the index was targeted to facilitate the implementation of the directive. The study presents the cumulative impacts over the entire sea area and shows that the highest estimated impacts were in the southern and south-western sea areas and in the Gulf of Finland. The lowest index values were found in the Gulf of Bothnia. The results coincide with the population densities of the adjacent catchment areas. Fishing, inputs of nutrients and organic matter and inputs of hazardous substances comprised 25%, 30% and 30%, respectively, of the total cumulative impact. The approach used is transparent and the results are useful in regard to ecosystem-based management, e.g. for area-based management and assessments. Examples of uses are given together with analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach.

Ferreira, João G. ... et al. -- 15 pages, 2 figures, 5 tables, In 2009, following approval of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC), the European Commission (EC) created task groups to develop guidance for eleven quality descriptors that form the basis for evaluating ecosystem function. The objective was to provide European countries with practical guidelines for implementing the MSFD, and to produce a Commission Decision that encapsulated key points of the work in a legal framework. This paper presents a review of work carried out by the eutrophication task group, and reports our main findings to the scientific community. On the basis of an operational, management-oriented definition, we discuss the main methodologies that could be used for coastal and marine eutrophication assessment. Emphasis is placed on integrated approaches that account for physico–chemical and biological components, and combine both pelagic and benthic symptoms of eutrophication, in keeping with the holistic nature of the MSFD. We highlight general features that any marine eutrophication model should possess, rather than making specific recommendations. European seas range from highly eutrophic systems such as the Baltic to nutrient-poor environments such as the Aegean Sea. From a physical perspective, marine waters range from high energy environments of the north east Atlantic to the permanent vertical stratification of the Black Sea. This review aimed to encapsulate that variability, recognizing that meaningful guidance should be flexible enough to accommodate the widely differing characteristics of European seas, and that this information is potentially relevant in marine ecosystems worldwide. Given the spatial extent of the MSFD, innovative approaches are required to allow meaningful monitoring and assessment. Consequently, substantial logistic and financial challenges will drive research in areas such as remote sensing of harmful algal blooms, in situ sensor development, and mathematical models. Our review takes into account related legislation, and in particular the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD – 2000/60/EC), which deals with river basins, including estuaries and a narrow coastal strip, in order to examine these issues within the framework of integrated coastal zone management, The authors are grateful to the European Commission, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and the EU Joint Research Centre for the opportunity to develop this work. We would particularly like to thank Ana Cristina Cardoso (JRC), Carlos Berrozpe-Garcia and Sif Johansson (EC), and Claus Hagebro (ICES). We also wish to thank Mike Elliott for comments on an earlier version of the text

We report the development of a methodology for assessing confidence in ecological status classifications. The method presented here can be considered as a secondary assessment, supporting the primary assessment of eutrophication or ecological status. The confidence assessment is based on scoring the quality of the indicators on which the primary assessment is made. This represents a first step towards linking status classification with information regarding their accuracy and precision. Applied to an existing data set used for assessment of eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea (including the Kattegat and Danish Straits) we demonstrate that confidence in the assessment is Good or High in 149 out of 189 areas assessed (79%). Contrary to our expectations, assessments of the open parts of the Baltic Sea have a higher confidence than assessments of coastal waters. We also find that in open waters of the Baltic Sea, some biological indicators have a higher confidence than indicators representing physical-chemical conditions. In coastal waters, phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation and indicators of physical-chemical conditions have a higher confidence than indicators of the quality of benthic invertebrate communities. Our analyses also show that the perceived weaknesses of eutrophication assessments are due more to Low confidence in reference conditions and acceptable deviations, rather than in the monitoring data.

We report the development of a prototype tool for modeling the risks of spreading of non-indigenous invasive species via ballast water. The tool constitutes of two types of models: a 3D hydrodynamical model calculates the currents in the North Sea and Danish Straits, and an agent-based model estimates the dispersal of selected model organisms with the prevailing currents calculated by the 3D hydrodynamical model. The analysis is concluded by a postprocessing activity, where scenarios of dispersal are combined into an interim estimate of connectivity within the study area. The latter can be used for assessment of potential risk associated with intentional or unintentional discharges of ballast water. We discuss how this prototype tool can be used for ballast water risk management and outline other functions and uses, e.g., in regard to ecosystem-based management and the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.