Quantitative criteria for choosing targets and indicators for sustainable use of ecosystems
Creators
- 1. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Pakefield Road, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, UK and School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, 327 Mile End Rd, London E1, UK
- 2. Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE). Mechelininkatu 34a, P.O. Box 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland
- 3. MariLim Aquatic Research GmbH, Heinrich-Wöhlk-Straße 14, 24232 Schönkirchen, Germany
- 4. Marine Science and Technology Center, Klaipeda University, H. Manto 84, LT 92294, Klaipeda, Lithuania
- 5. Aix-Marseille Univ, Univ Avignon, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, Marseille, France
- 6. AZTI-Tecnalia, Herrera Kaia, Portualdea s/n, 20100 Pasaia, Spain
- 7. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Pakefield Road, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, UK
Description
Abstract
Wide-ranging, indicator-based assessments of large, complex ecosystems are playing an increasing role in guiding environmental policy and management. An example is the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which requires Member States to take measures to reach “good environmental status” (GES) in European marine waters. However, formulation of indicator targets consistent with the Directive’s high-level policy goal of sustainable use has proven challenging. We develop a specific, quantitative interpretation of the concepts of GES and sustainable use in terms of indicators and associated targets, by sharply distinguishing between current uses to satisfy current societal needs and preferences, and unknown future uses. We argue that consistent targets to safeguard future uses derive from a requirement that any environmental state indicator should recover within a defined time (e.g. 30 years) to its pressure-free range of variation when all pressures are hypothetically removed. Within these constraints, specific targets for current uses should be set. Routes to implementation of this proposal for indicators of fish-community size structure, population size of selected species, eutrophication, impacts of non-indigenous species, and genetic diversity are discussed. Important policy implications are that (a) indicator target ranges, which may be wider than natural ranges, systematically and rationally derive from our proposal; (b) because relevant state indicators tend to respond slowly, corresponding pressures should also be monitored and assessed; (c) support of current uses and safeguarding of future uses are distinct management goals, they require different types of targets, decision processes, and management philosophies.
Files
149.pdf
Files
(884.5 kB)
Name | Size | Download all |
---|---|---|
md5:f6ef46571d95881263cf5288a9d12b81
|
884.5 kB | Preview Download |