A transnational marine ecological observatory in the Adriatic Sea to harmonize a fragmented approach to monitoring and conservation

The Adriatic-Ionian region (ADRION Region) shows strong development in terms of urban expansion in coastal and inland areas as well as increasing maritime traffic and offshore hydrocarbon extraction activities. A serious risk of pollution arises from hazardous substances requiring reliable and coherent monitoring and assessment programs. EU Directives (WFD – Water Framework Directive, MSFD – Marine Strategy Framework Directive) and Barcelona Convention protocols, aim to assess the level of pollution with the objective to implement measures to prevent and/or mitigate impacts on the marine environment. This high level integration process has to be based on common and agreed protocols for monitoring of contaminants. Aiming to share best practices to encourage a harmonized implementation of monitoring and assessment of contaminants, an extensive review of monitoring and analytical protocols adopted by six EU and non-EU countries along the Adriatic and Ionian seas was carried out in the framework of the Interreg Adrion project HarmoNIA (Interreg V-B Adriatic-Ionian (ADRION), 2018–2020). This paper presents a methodological proposal to define a common protocol for the evaluation of the metal contamination of seawater, sediment and biota. Contaminants have been chosen following preliminary consultations among countries of the ADRION area, considering objectives of WFD and MSFD, as well as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures for offshore platforms. Information was gathered relative to matrix characteristics and quality assurance/quality control of the analytical performance (sample preservation, analytical methodology, reference materials, limit of detection, and limit of quantification, accuracy, reproducibility, etc.). The comparison of information provided by laboratories of nine institutions highlighted the request for harmonization in terms of sampling procedures, matrix characterization, preservation procedures, analytical methods and LOQ values. Although appropriate environmental quality standards for biota and sediment matrices should be established at national level and also through regional and sub-regional cooperation, as required by the WFD and MSFD, the proposed LOQ values, even if challenging, represent a benchmark and a stimulus to optimize analytical performance, to ensure the best level of protection to the coastal and offshore environment in the ADRION Region.

Environmental quality status of the Portuguese coast regarding TBT pollution – Recommendations for considering imposex monitoring within the scope of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

AMBI and Bentix are widely used benthic indices for guiding remediation decisions under two major pieces of environmental legislation in Europe — the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). These indices usually incorporate all marine benthic invertebrates in a sample. Some recent studies, however, have applied these benthic indices to only mollusk species due to the ease of identifying only one taxonomic group to the species level and because death assemblages (accumulated dead mollusk shells in sediments) may be valuable sources of data for assessing baseline conditions. Although they found that ecological status differences can be detected by applying AMBI and Bentix to mollusks, these studies did not test whether mollusk-only index values, and the ecological statuses indicated by them, are equivalent to those calculated from the whole benthic community. To test this assumption, we performed a meta-analysis of data from 12 European benthic community studies comparing mollusk-only index values with whole-community values. Using five mollusk-only data sets, we also assessed whether application of AMBI and Bentix to molluscan death assemblages can be used to detect changes in ecological status over time. We show that the application of AMBI and Bentix to only the molluscan taxa in benthic communities is a viable method for determining the ecological status of water bodies. Our results also suggest that the application of benthic indices to molluscan death assemblages has great potential to 1) establish baseline conditions for assessing ecological status under the WFD and 2) estimate the natural range of variation of ecosystem attributes for defining sustainability thresholds under the MSFD. We outline three recommendations for the future use of mollusk-only AMBI and Bentix based on our results: 1) mollusk-only index values should be adjusted to facilitate comparisons with whole-community studies; 2) local ecological group assignments should be used if possible; and 3) we encourage collaboration between paleoecologists and benthic ecologists to facilitate interpretations of index values from death assemblages. We conclude that mollusk-only benthic index assessments of molluscan death assemblages have the potential to be a powerful tool for guiding management decisions under the WFD and MSFD.

Institutional ambiguity in implementing the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive

The chapter briefly describes the evolution of EU environmental policy, before primarily focusing on the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive (i.e. the Nature Directives), in particular their objectives and key measures for habitats and species. These comprise two key pillars of measures: 1) general species protection; 2) the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas as well as their protection from developments (through appropriate assessments) and the establishment of their necessary conservation measures. The main sources of funding for the Nature Directive and broader nature conservation are identified. Other supporting EU environmental policies and legislation are outlined, including in relation to environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments, the Environmental Liability Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other maritime policy instruments, air pollution, the Invasive Alien Species Regulation, and the Common Agricultural Policy. A summary is provided of the EU Biodiversity Strategies of 1998, and for 2010, 2020 (with a list of the targets and related actions) and 2030.

Increased integration between innovative ocean energy and the EU habitats, species and water protection rules through Maritime Spatial Planning

Global policy frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) as well as numerous EU policies related to species and habitat conservation (e.g. Nature Restoration Law, Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive), ecosystem services (e.g. Pollinators Initiative, Land Use Land Use Cover and Forestry Regulation, proposed Forest Monitoring Regulation) and the sustainable management of natural resources (e.g. Common Fisheries Policy, Common Agricultural Policy) highlight the urgent need to monitor changes in biodiversity, ecosystems and the natural environment. However, tracking progress towards the ambitious policy goals is challenging and requires a minimum set of measurements that are consistent across scales and regions for deriving indicators that capture the major dimensions of change. Delivering such information is supported by the development of essential variables for climate (ECVs), oceans (EOVs), biodiversity (EBVs) and geodiversity (EGVs) which can be used to characterize and monitor changes on our planet. This can advance science and inform policy. Our knowledge, management and governance of the Earth system ultimately depends on diverse measuring tools and multiple data types, including remote sensing and in-situ data collection with field samples and experiments. For monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystems, EBVs can provide consistent knowledge about multiple dimensions of biodiversity change across space and time. For such variables, diverse data types are required, including structured in-situ observations, citizen science data, and time-series data collected through cutting-edge methods. These cutting-edge methods span DNA-based techniques like eDNA metabarcoding; digital sensors such as cameras, acoustic devices, and GPS tags; and remote sensing technologies, including satellites, drones, airplanes, and weather radars. In the era of “big data”, the vast and often unstructured datasets cannot easily be downloaded or analyzed without advanced, high-throughput processing pipelines. Transforming such data into actionable insights therefore involves applying FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles, integrating heterogeneous data from multiple sensors, testing the robustness and transferability of models and metric calculations, developing automated and transparent processing workflows, leveraging parallel or distributed computing, and employing cloud-based virtual research environments to streamline the analyses. These processed and standardized biodiversity data can be utilized for a variety of applications, including the construction of data cubes for spatiotemporal analysis, the building of models and tools for biodiversity and ecosystem change analysis, and simulations and scenarios using Digital Twins and other forecasting tools. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning, has emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing big and complex datasets, such as imagery from satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), wildlife and insect camera images, acoustic recordings, and LiDAR point clouds. The integration of remote sensing and in situ observations, harmonized data and models, and the use of automatic recorders with AI algorithms will substantially advance biodiversity and ecosystem monitoring. This can provide improved support for species and habitat conservation policies and land use management, and enable science-driven strategies to address global environmental challenges.

The chapter briefly describes the evolution of EU environmental policy, before primarily focusing on the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive (i.e. the Nature Directives), in particular their objectives and key measures for habitats and species. These comprise two key pillars of measures: 1) general species protection; 2) the creation of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas as well as their protection from developments (through appropriate assessments) and the establishment of their necessary conservation measures. The main sources of funding for the Nature Directives and broader nature conservation are identified. Other supporting EU environmental policies and legislation are outlined, including in relation to environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments, the Environmental Liability Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other maritime policy instruments, air pollution, the Invasive Alien Species Regulation, and the Common Agricultural Policy. A summary is provided of the EU Biodiversity Strategies of 1998, and for 2010, 2020 (with a list of the targets and related actions) and 2030.

The way we see ourselves and understand the world we live in guides and determines the types of solutions we are designing and implementing to deal with our global change problems. System thinking is helping us to recognize humanity as complex, self-organized, multi-level, and highly integrated socio-bio-physical entities that we refer to as socioecosystems. This new ontological paradigm requires new epistemological tools, and transdisciplinary research is inducing changes in different aspects of our scientific endeavor, including: the philosophical approach we use to observe our world; the level of commitment we put in our scientific work; the extent and scope we envision in our research goals; the geographical scale and context in which we focus our case-studies; the type of collaboration we engage in with other scientists; and the institutional arrangements we construct to accomplish our research efforts. The International Long Term Ecological Research Network (ILTER) includes national-level networks of scientists engaged and committed to conducting long-term and site-based ecological and socio-economic research and monitoring, with a strong interest in capacity building. ILTER members have expertise in the collection, management, and analysis of long-term environmental data and, together, they are responsible for creating and maintaining a large number of unique long-term datasets. ILTER has been a natural partner for global initiatives dealing with environmental issues, and many members of its community have been participating in these international programs. We should not underestimate the urgency, nor the level of commitment, required to foster worldwide socioecosystem research with a transdisciplinary approach, which are essential for the success of the sustainable Earth Stewardship initiative.KeywordsCapacity buildingCoupled socio-ecological systemsEpistemological paradigmLong-term ecological researchSocioecosystemsTransdisciplinary research

The use of biomarkers as integrative tools for transitional water bodies monitoring in the Water Framework Directive context — A holistic approach in Minho river transitional waters

MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 566:31-48 (2017) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12002 Spatial persistence of megazoobenthic assemblages in the Adriatic Sea A. Santelli1,*, I. Cvitković2, M. Despalatović2, G. Fabi1, F. Grati1, B. Marčeta3, E. Punzo1, S. Raicevich1,4, P. Strafella1, A. Spagnolo1, A. N. Tassetti1, G. Scarcella1 1ISMAR-CNR - Institute of Marine Sciences, National Research Council, 60125 Ancona, Italy 2IOF - Institut za Oceanografiju i Ribarstvo, 21000 Split, Croatia 3FRIS - Fisheries Research Institute of Slovenia, 1211 Ljubljana-Šmartno, Slovenia 4ISPRA - Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, 30015 Chioggia, Italy *Corresponding author: angela.santelli@an.ismar.cnr.it ABSTRACT: The Adriatic Sea plays a central role in the economies of both European and non-European countries. As such, it is subject to impacts from a large number of human activities, including fishing. In a basin characterized by high biodiversity and complex ecosystem processes, such as the Adriatic Sea, habitat conservation and protection measures rely on detailed information on the composition and structure of benthic assemblages. The present study describes the composition, spatial distribution and persistence of invertebrate megazoobenthic assemblages in the Adriatic Sea. Samples were collected during rapido trawl surveys performed from 2007 to 2012. A total of 4 main megazoobenthic assemblages were identified and were designated as A, B, C and D. Group A assemblages were detected in the northern and central offshore area, Group B assemblages occupied the northernmost part of the basin, Group C assemblages were predominantly found along the western coast and Group D assemblages were detected in the deepest parts of the northern and central basin. A degree of spatial overlap in the northern Adriatic was probably due to the physical and chemical characteristics of the area, which is characterized by strong river runoff, hence by changes in sediment composition from sandy mud to muddy sand. The present findings may help to devise integrated management strategies of fishing activities, especially trawling, in view of the implementation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management, and may help to define some descriptors of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. KEY WORDS: Megafauna · Adriatic Sea · Persistence · Distribution · Fisheries management · Fish ecology · Marine Strategy Framework Directive · Habitat Full text in pdf format PreviousNextCite this article as: Santelli A, Cvitković I, Despalatović M, Fabi G and others (2017) Spatial persistence of megazoobenthic assemblages in the Adriatic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 566:31-48. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12002 Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 566. Online publication date: February 27, 2017 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2017 Inter-Research.

Assessment of the eutrophication status at Mediterranean sub-basin scale, within the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Long-term ecological monitoring on forest ecosystems in Indian Himalayan Region: Criteria and indicator approach

Although the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) does not refer explicitly to alien species (AS), it is clear that invasive AS (IAS) are considered a pressure on WFD water bodies. This article discusses the results of a questionnaire sent to all EU Member States, demonstrating considerable variability in the way that AS data are used in implementing the WFD. Responses were received from 18 countries.Most countries define AS in a similar way, but there are discrepancies, for example, in the use of historical dates to determine whether or not a species is considered non-native biogeographically. All countries have developed lists of AS, but those specific for WFD assessments are only used at present in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.Few countries monitor AS specifically for the WFD, or assess the risk that IAS are likely to cause water bodies to fail to achieve Good Ecological Status. This article discusses the results of a questionnaire sent to all EU Member States, demonstrating considerable variability in the way that AS data are used in implementing the WFD. Perhaps the most important difference among countries is in the use of AS data in WFD classification; many countries assume that classification methods take account of the impacts of AS, whereas separate ‘downgrading’ procedures that modify classification based on the presence and impact of IAS are used more rarely. New approaches merit further consideration, such as the application of ‘biopollution indices’ to highlight the impact of AS without affecting WFD classification. Alien species feature to some extent in river basin management plans, but more emphasis on action is needed. In addition, closer links with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and with the 2014 EU Regulation on alien species are required to improve the control of aquatic AS.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a management tool used to respond to human‐derived threats in marine ecosystems. Historically, MPAs have been established on an individual ad hoc basis, rather than through a systematic, planned process. However, high levels of functional and spatial connectivity within marine ecosystems have led to the suggestion that networks of MPAs provide greater ecological benefits than individual MPAs. Consequently, international policy has developed to consider broader spatial requirements for marine conservation, resulting in a number of international and regional agreements that require the establishment of ecologically coherent MPA networks. Existing MPAs are now being considered, retrospectively, alongside new designations, as networks of MPAs across regions, both nationally and internationally. Under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), France, the Republic of Ireland, and the UK (including Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man) are required to work together to ensure coordinated development of marine strategies for the Celtic Seas subregion. Accordingly, MPAs have been identified as crucial components of the programme of measures to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) under the MSFD. Here, we provide the first ecological coherence assessment of an MPA network spanning an MSFD subregion. A network of 533 MPAs, or parts thereof, across the Celtic Seas subregion was assessed using five criteria and two methodologies, with a focus on broadscale habitats. While the Celtic Seas MPA network as a whole is not ecologically coherent (according to accepted thresholds), progress toward a number of global targets has been achieved, for example, protection of 10% of marine and coastal areas under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Further, all MSFD predominant habitat types assessed are adequately represented and replicated within the network. However, a number of gaps were identified, including a lack of MPAs in offshore and deeper areas, and inadequate proportions of predominant habitat types within MPAs. Addressing these gaps to enable the MPA network to fulfill its critical role in the delivery of GES under the MSFD will require both national progress toward designation of adequate and viable MPAs and transboundary agreements and coordination of MPA designation processes at the European level.