The overall goal of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020. To attain this goal, the international community agreed in 2010 on 20 biodiversity-related goals, the ‘Aichi Targets’. However, mid-term assessments of the progress towards these global targets suggest that, despite the acceleration of policies and management responses to the biodiversity crisis, these efforts are unlikely to improve negative trends in the state of biodiversity or protection coverage targets by 2020 (Tittensor et al. 2014, Butchart et al. 2015). The European and contiguous seas, consisting of the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea and the North-Eastern Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 1), are threatened by pressures deriving from multiple human activities in a highly populated and complex socio-economic and political region. It is also widely acknowledged that the negative impacts of anthropogenic drivers on biodiversity and ecosystem services are further amplified by their interaction with the impacts of global environmental change (Coll et al. 2012, Korpinen et al. 2012).

Figure 1.

European and contiguous seas. The distribution of population in European and adjacent coastal areas is shown as well as the existing Marine Protected Areas (including the Natura-2000 sites; based on the September 2015 version of the World Database on Protected Areas) and the terrestrial and marine borders (not all shown EEZs have been ratified – in the case of non-agreed marine borders the median line is shown in the map).

This paper introduces a new European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action, ‘Advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas’ (MarCons). Funded through the European Union (EU) ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme for research and innovation, this action brings together researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders to address the threats to marine biodiversity in the European and contiguous seas.

This paper briefly summarizes the main regulatory framework for marine conservation in this region, outlines the need for maritime (or marine) spatial planning (MSP) and identifies the role of marine protected areas (MPAs). In addition, the key scientific requirements for successful marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas are outlined and the innovations and expected contributions of the action are highlighted. Finally, the issues facing this region and the importance of strong stakeholder networking to help meet international commitments to the conservation of marine ecosystems are summarized.

Efforts to coordinate and advance marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas are conducted under four United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) regional seas conventions covering the North-Eastern Atlantic (OSPAR), the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention) and the Black Sea (Bucharest Convention) (Kirkman and Mackelworth 2016). While all of these instruments vary in structure, they all consist of protocols to protect the marine environment from pollution and include the potential for the establishment of networks of MPAs for biodiversity conservation. Effective implementation of these protocols requires close transboundary and inter-regional cooperation and coordination with other international legal instruments.

These four conventions have historically been important for marine conservation efforts. However, the role of the EU has evolved in recent years and its Directives and Policies have changed the focus of conservation in the European and contiguous seas, particularly for EU Member States and acceding countries. Among the significant Directives and Policies that apply are, the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), the Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning (2014/89/EU) and the Common Fisheries Policy (Regulation 508/2014).

Over recent years there has been a move towards a more holistic approach to the management of the marine environment endorsing the ecosystem-based management approach. This is exemplified by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which requires Member States to achieve ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) within their seas by 2020. This is in direct coordination with the Aichi Targets. While the goal of achieving GES in EU waters by 2020 is assisted by the definition of 11 descriptors produced by the European Commission, it is complicated by the fact that Member States express different interpretations of what GES means in practice. The absence of effective regional and local marine strategies, supported by sound conservation science, coordinated monitoring and meaningful stakeholder engagement, undermines the potential for consistent conservation within EU waters. Bearing in mind that marine resource management is a politically and culturally driven process this is even more challenging in a region of diverse worldviews, socio-economic development and political systems (Mee et al. 2008, Levine et al. 2015).

The European and contiguous seas are becoming ever more crowded, and marine resources previously considered difficult to exploit are now becoming available through the advancement of new technologies (Kark et al. 2015b, Mackelworth 2016, Portman 2016). The expansion of human activities into deeper and more distant areas has been actively promoted by the European Commission through its ‘Blue Growth’ strategy, which champions the concept of ‘offshore economy’. Given the rate of ‘Blue Growth’ and development, it is likely that coastal and marine areas will be under further pressure and there will be few, if any, areas in the European and contiguous seas that can still be considered technologically off-limits. Trade-offs between sectors and between marine biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services delivery are becoming both more acute and more widely distributed.

The requirement for the application of some form of order in an otherwise chaotic system is apparent. Maritime (or Marine) Spatial Planning (MSP), which incorporates environmental features and human uses into a coherent and integrated decision-supporting framework, has become a necessity (Katsanevakis et al. 2011, Tidd et al. 2015). In the past decade, the concepts of MSP and ecosystem-based management have been well developed and widely accepted as essential for ensuring the protection of biodiversity and the sustainability of ecosystem service uses (Douvere 2008). The implementation of comprehensive MSP, in which biodiversity conservation is a major stakeholder, requires strategies to coordinate research activities and expertise from multiple geographic locations and disciplines to provide sound science to underpin the policy decision-making process. Despite important advances in MSP, such efforts have rarely been translated into coordinated conservation actions. It is important that while conservation planning is only one aspect of the development of equitable MSP frameworks, the marine ecosystem provides the basis for all development and it is an important factor for long-term sustainability.

Conservation planning and impact-mitigation strategies could greatly benefit from cumulative impact assessments (Coll et al. 2012, Stelzenmüller et al. 2010, Micheli et al. 2013). This has been a challenging task in the absence of a well-defined methodology and a frequent lack of data. Recent efforts have resulted in a number of methodologies and techniques aimed at integrating different human impacts with the purpose of performing an integrated assessment of the status of the sea and of its biodiversity (Borja et al. 2016, Halpern et al. 2015, Korpinen and Andersen 2016). However, cumulative impact assessments have not yet been effectively integrated into conservation planning and conservation action prioritization (Korpinen and Andersen 2016, Giakoumi et al. 2015b).

The impact of climate change is likely increasing (e.g., Marbà et al. 2015) and may change the way human activities impact marine ecosystems, compounding the understanding of how marine ecosystems will evolve and respond to human pressures in the near future. Processes and events that occur over long timescales, and are not easily identifiable, may significantly constrain management of marine ecosystems. These include current and future impacts of past human activities, so called ‘legacy effects’, and social or politically problematic activities related to ‘committed behaviours’ which may affect the environment in the short to medium term (O'Higgins et al. 2014). In addition, climate change, results in geographical shifts in species distribution, temporal changes in biological events, changes in abundance and behaviour, biological invasions, and local extinctions (Jordà et al. 2012, Verges et al. 2014, Katsanevakis et al. 2014a, Blanfuné et al. 2016), which are major challenges for conservationists and policy makers. Given that spatial conservation measures such as MPAs are a static tool proposed as a solution to a dynamic world, a critical question arises whether current networks of MPAs could safeguard the coherence of marine ecosystems and their resilience to these threats.

Rapid globalization and increasing trends of trade, travel, and transport in recent decades have accelerated the rates of marine biological invasions (Hulme 2009), increasing the risk for endangered species and habitats, and hampering conservation efforts (Rilov and Crooks 2009, Katsanevakis et al. 2014b). In some areas, such as the south-eastern Mediterranean, alien species can completely restructure ecological communities, which can lead to drastic changes in resources like fisheries (Edelist et al. 2013). The understanding of biological invasion processes and their impacts on native marine biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as the quantification and mapping of the impacts of invasive alien species, are considered as prerequisites for the prioritization of conservation management actions (Blackburn et al. 2011, Katsanevakis et al. 2016). Biological invasions are being widely disregarded when planning for conservation in the marine environment, although their explicit consideration can significantly alter spatial conservation priorities (Giakoumi et al. 2016). Additional management actions aimed at prevention as well as the mitigation of the impact of invasive species are required at all levels.

A holistic approach to conservation also requires integrated land-sea planning (Stoms et al. 2005). Traditional conservation planning has traditionally overlooked or indirectly considered the strong connections between different environments (Álvarez-Romero et al. 2011, Mateos-Molina et al. 2015). Yet, transitional and freshwater ecosystems are also an integral part of the land-sea connection. Very few studies have incorporated aspects of integrated conservation planning across these environments (e.g. Klein et al. 2012), with none, to our knowledge, having been conducted in the European and contiguous seas to date.

The formulation of solutions for managing marine ecosystems and species should involve collaboration between jurisdictions and across boundaries (Mackelworth 2012). Most international borders were demarked with little consideration for ecosystems, biodiversity or local community integrity, their primary role was to protect the sovereignty of land, sea, natural resources and people; this inherently conflicts with the principle of connectivity. In recent years, however, there has been a rise in the role of the region and the macro-region, with the EU at the forefront of developing transboundary cooperation. The adoption of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region in 2009 explicitly aimed at reinforcing cooperation at a regional level, including non-member states. The growing role of the marine macro-region, now including the Adriatic-Ionian Strategy, provides an opportunity to integrate marine conservation policy into marine resource development policy. Coordinating marine management at macro-regional level provides the opportunity for adjacent states to resolve issues based on the protection of shared resources.

The spatial manifestation of conservation planning is invariably protected areas. While MPAs are considered a valuable tool to protect biodiversity in European waters, especially the Natura 2000 networks of the Habitats and Birds Directives, recent figures from the European Environment Agency indicate that the majority of them are ineffective in achieving their biodiversity conservation objectives (Jones et al. 2016). Investment in the effective governance of MPAs needs to be supported. Improving the effectiveness of MPAs in these areas, moving from single protected areas to protected areas networks and establishing of open sea and cross-border reserves, is likely to become a policy priority.

The MarCons COST action will consolidate a network of scientists involved in marine conservation and in the promotion of the sustainable use of marine ecosystem services. MarCons expands on previous related efforts (Giakoumi et al. 2012), whilst seeking to forge new opportunities for cooperation. It aims to promote collaboration that will reduce redundancy by enhancing communication and exchange of knowledge and experience, and by assembling, integrating, and advancing the most promising tools and methods into a comprehensive and efficient research framework.

MarCons will provide support to decision makers for the development of appropriate European policies for the improvement of marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas. The connective nature of the marine environment requires that European seas are considered together with their contiguous water bodies. Hence, the network established by the MarCons consortium stretches beyond the European territories. This will provide real opportunities for deriving new experience for knowledge sharing and capacity building with the involvement of countries from North Africa, the Middle East as well as North America, and Australia.

The main aim of MarCons is to bridge the gap between science, management and policy, and substantially contribute to the challenge of halting biodiversity loss in the European and contiguous seas by 2020. Hence, MarCons comes at a critical time to inform marine managers and policy makers of Europe and neighbouring countries on the development of marine strategies and marine spatial plans that will effectively contribute to the 2020 objectives.

5.1 Methodological approach of MarCons

MarCons will revolve around six main themes (Fig. 2) that cover major gaps in European marine conservation. While each of the themes has a specific focus, they will be conducted in parallel, with coordination and collaboration. As such, the initiative facilitates a type of integration often lacking in ecosystem-based management and MSP (Portman 2011). The thematic working groups will capitalize upon existing knowledge, adapt and evolve conservation planning tools implemented in other regions of the world, and develop new methodological and computational tools, databases and background information to support the decision-making process for marine policies in the region. Adopting a multidimensional and flexible methodological context, MarCons will employ an approach, which is:

Figure 2.

Schematic representation of the six main themes of MarCons.

1. trans-disciplinary, combining knowledge from the fields of conservation biology, biogeography, fisheries science, invasions biology, marine ecology, historical ecology, conservation paleo-biology, computational science and modelling, integrated and political geography, spatial planning, environmental sociology, economics, international relations, social-ecological systems and natural resource governance;
2. trans-boundary, spanning three continents (Europe, Asia, Africa), many countries and various jurisdictions; and,
3. trans-realm, considering in the conservation planning also terrestrial and freshwater environments, in order to ensure a holistic and inclusive approach to address the challenge.

5.2 MarCons themes and expected outcomes

Marine conservation in Europe is challenged by knowledge gaps, methodological limitations and heterogeneity in the geographical extent of available data and collaborations. The increasing pressures on marine biodiversity and the drivers behind these pressures cannot be effectively managed with the current ad hoc reactive approach. In the dynamic context of marine ecosystems and their communities, the effectiveness of any future conservation initiative depends on an understanding of ecosystem functionality and resilience across various temporal and spatial scales within coupled social-ecological systems. Scientific advances will only support the necessary conservation action if they are made in tandem with policy needs.

In addition, clearly articulating the social aspects of biodiversity conservation by making explicit the human value systems and worldviews underpinning management strategies and conservation targets would contribute towards transparent and collaborative decision-making (Mee et al. 2008). It would also help scientists and policy-makers to understand the origins of stakeholder resistance to conservation measures. Making marine conservation truly interdisciplinary, through engagement with economists, anthropologists and other social scientists is critically needed, but challenging to achieve (Pooley et al. 2014).

Given the short time available there is a need for a holistic approach that will capitalize on previous work, combine ongoing studies, catalyse new understanding and therefore impact marine policy development. MarCons aims to bridge the gap between conservation science and policy makers, thereby substantially contributing to the challenge of halting biodiversity loss in the European and contiguous seas by 2020.

This article is based upon work from COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action 15121 ‘Advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas (MarCons) - supported by the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation.

COST Action 15121 ‘Advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas' (MarCons) - http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/ca/CA15121