Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

A comparison of the degree of implementation of marine biodiversity indicators by European countries in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

  • Herman Hummel (a1), Matt Frost (a2), José A. Juanes (a3), Judith Kochmann (a4), Carlos F. Castellanos Perez Bolde (a5), Fernando Aneiros (a6), François Vandenbosch (a7) (a8), João N. Franco (a9), Beatriz Echavarri (a3), Xabier Guinda (a3), Araceli Puente (a3), Camino Fernández (a3), Cristina Galván (a3), Maria Merino (a3), Elvira Ramos (a3), Paloma Fernández (a3), Valentina Pitacco (a10), Madara Alberte (a11), Dagmara Wojcik (a12), Monika Grabowska (a13), Marlene Jahnke (a14), Fabio Crocetta (a14), Laura Carugati (a15), Simonetta Scorrano (a16), Simonetta Fraschetti (a16), Patricia Pérez García (a17), José Antonio Sanabria Fernández (a17) (a18), Artem Poromov (a19), Anna Iurchenko (a19), Artem Isachenko (a19), Alexandra Chava (a19), Christina Pavloudi (a20), François Bordeyne (a7) (a8), Simone Fie Andersen (a21), Elizabeth Grace Tunka Eronat (a22), Taylan Cakmak (a23), Paraskevi Louizidou (a24), José Rico (a25), Stela Ruci (a26), David Corta Diego (a27), Sara Mendez (a28), Maria Rousou (a29), Laurence de Clippele (a30), Annukka Eriksson (a31), Winnie van Zanten (a32), Anna Diamant (a33) and Valentina Kirienko Fernandes de Matos (a34)...

The degree of development and operability of the indicators for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) using Descriptor 1 (D1) Biological Diversity was assessed. To this end, an overview of the relevance and degree of operability of the underlying parameters across 20 European countries was compiled by analysing national directives, legislation, regulations, and publicly available reports. Marked differences were found between countries in the degree of ecological relevance as well as in the degree of implementation and operability of the parameters chosen to indicate biological diversity. The best scoring EU countries were France, Germany, Greece and Spain, while the worst scoring countries were Italy and Slovenia. No country achieved maximum scores for the implementation of MSFD D1. The non-EU countries Norway and Turkey score as highly as the top-scoring EU countries. On the positive side, the chosen parameters for D1 indicators were generally identified as being an ecologically relevant reflection of Biological Diversity. On the negative side however, less than half of the chosen parameters are currently operational. It appears that at a pan-European level, no consistent and harmonized approach currently exists for the description and assessment of marine biological diversity. The implementation of the MSFD Descriptor 1 for Europe as a whole can therefore at best be marked as moderately successful.

Corresponding author
Correspondence should be addressed to: H. Hummel, Monitor Taskforce, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), Yerseke, the Netherlands email:
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

I. Aslaksen , E. Framstad , P.A. Garnåsjordet , S. Nybø and O. Skarpaas (2012) Knowledge gathering and communication on biodiversity: developing the Norwegian Nature Index. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 66, 300308.

I. Aslaksen and P.A. Garnåsjordet (2012) The Norwegian Nature Index. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 66, 239240.

Á. Borja , I. Galparsoro , X. Irigoien , A. Iriondo , I. Menchaca , I. Muxika , M. Pascual , I. Quincoces , M. Revilla , J.G. Rodríguez , M. Santurtún , O. Solaun , A. Uriarte , V. Valencia and I. Zorita (2011) Implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a methodological approach for the assessment of environmental status, from the Basque Country (Bay of Biscay). Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 889904.

G. Certain , O. Skarpaas , J.W. Bjerke , E. Framstad and M. Lindholm (2011) The Nature Index: a general framework for synthesizing knowledge on the state of biodiversity. PLoS ONE 6, e18930.

F. Cima and L. Ballarin (2013) A proposed integrated bioindex for the macrofouling biocoenosis of hard substrata in the lagoon of Venice. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 130, 190201.

C. Munari and M. Mistri (2010). Towards the application of the Water Framework Directive in Italy: assessing the potential of benthic tools in Adriatic coastal transitional ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 10401050.

S. Nybø , G. Certain and O. Skarpaas (2012) The Norwegian Nature Index – state and trends of biodiversity in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 66, 241249.

C. Şekeroğlu , S. Anderson , E. Akçay , R. Bilgin , Ö.E. Can , G. Semiz , Ç. Tavşanoğlu , M. B. Yokeş , A. Soyumert , K. İpekdali , İ.K. Sağlam , M. Yücel and N. Dalfesm (2011) Turkey's globally important biodiversity in crisis. Biological Conservation 144, 27522769.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom
  • ISSN: 0025-3154
  • EISSN: 1469-7769
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-the-marine-biological-association-of-the-united-kingdom
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 14 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 260 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 28th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.