Elsevier

Marine Pollution Bulletin

Volume 60, Issue 10, October 2010, Pages 1647-1651
Marine Pollution Bulletin

Viewpoint
Using biological effects tools to define Good Environmental Status under the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.06.005Get rights and content

Abstract

The use of biological effects tools offer enormous potential to meet the challenges outlined by the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) whereby Member States are required to develop a robust set of tools for defining 11 qualitative descriptors of Good Environmental Status (GES), such as demonstrating that “Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects” (GES Descriptor 8). This paper discusses the combined approach of monitoring chemical contaminant levels, along side biological effect measurements relating to the effect of pollutants, for undertaking assessments of GES across European marine regions. We outline the minimum standards that biological effects tools should meet if they are to be used for defining GES in relation to Descriptor 8 and describe the current international initiatives underway to develop assessment criteria for these biological effects techniques.

Introduction

The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is a wide-ranging framework directive (2008/56/EC) with the overall objective of achieving or maintaining Good Environmental Status (GES) in Europe’s seas by 2020 (MSFD, 2008). Eleven high level qualitative Descriptors of GES have been defined in Annex I of the MSFD (see Table 1). Determining the detail of what these mean for European marine waters is a crucial step in the implementation of the directive. The MSFD will be one of the key policy drivers shaping the future marine monitoring and assessment requirements across European Union Member States. It will also provide the framework for determining the management measures required by individual Member States. One of the main aspects of work in the first phase of the implementation of the MSFD is the development of common criteria and methodological standards, which will ensure consistency and comparability in the determination of GES across Europe. The European Commission is set to agree these by July 2010. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) were commissioned to facilitate the preparation of scientific bases for such criteria and to propose methodological standards in relation to eight of the GES descriptors during the course of 2009. This included the development of the specific criteria and methodological standards for MSFD Descriptor 8, “Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects” (Table 1). With regard to Descriptor 8, the ecosystem-based approach, as proposed by both the ICES, and the MSFD, denotes that pollution effects ought to be considered at various biological levels of organisation, taking into account interaction effects of contaminants with both abiotic and biotic factors (Thain et al., 2008). It is envisaged that the specific criteria and methodological standards for Descriptor 8 will wherever possible rely on the existing approaches developed in the Regional Seas Conventions and within Member States, including the chemical and biological effects monitoring programmes currently conducted under the guidance of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention).

The assessment of chemical status under the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) is undertaken in fresh, transitional and coastal waters using Environmental Quality Standards (EQS), which are derived from toxicological information and used to set acceptable limits for individual priority contaminants (COM, 2006). It is possible that this approach could also be applied to offshore waters under the MSFD. Indeed, a similar approach has been developed by OSPAR whereby Environmental Assessment Criteria (EACs) have been developed over a number of years (OSPAR, 2004a). Priority substance specific EACs are defined as a level of chemical contamination in the environment below which it is unlikely that unexpected or unacceptable biological effects will occur in marine species. EACs are being developed for use in assessing contaminant concentrations in sediment and biota and therefore can be considered analogous to the EQSs applied to concentrations of contaminants in water. There is an ongoing debate as to the values proposed for some chemicals and work is in progress to develop EACs for a range of contaminants of interest to OSPAR. However, an approach using a combination of EQSs and EACs has inherent limitations, including the relatively small range of substances for which EQSs or EACs have been defined, and a lack of use of direct measurements of pollutant related biological effects in the field.

A biological effect is generally defined as the response of an organism, a population, or a community to changes in its environment. The usefulness of any biological-effect method will obviously depend on how well it is able to separate anthropogenic stressors from the influence of environmental or host-related processes. For example, certain biomarkers such as hepatic EROD activity in fish are known to be influenced by a number of non-contaminant related factors including ambient water temperature and stage of sexual development (Kammann et al., 2005). However, for most of the widely used methods there is sufficient knowledge of these factors to allow for appropriate controls to be put into place. The use of biological effects techniques (bioassays and biomarkers) offer the required tools to help define Descriptor 8 of GES, specifically in relation to monitoring the actual pollution effects of anthropogenic chemicals in the marine environment. One of the clear advantages of using biological effect techniques is that they indicate links between contaminant exposure and ecological endpoints, as well as detecting the impact of substances (or combination of substances) that may not be analysed as part of routine chemical monitoring programmes (van der Oost et al., 2003, Thain et al., 2008). There have been clear examples in the aquatic environment where biological effects techniques have been used to identify problems and subsequently to monitor the efficacy of management interventions. The most notable of these in recent years has been the impact of tri-butyl tin (TBT) contamination on gastropod molluscs (Gibbs et al., 1987, Birchenough et al., 2002, Rodríguez et al., 2009) and endocrine disrupters on fish (Allen et al., 1999, Matthiessen et al., 2002).

The MSFD states that it should also contribute to the fulfilment of commitments of the European Union and of specific Member States to existing international agreements, relating to the protection of the marine environment from hazardous substances (specifically monitoring programmes run under the auspices of the Regional Conventions, such as the OSPAR Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme, and parallels under the Barcelona Convention (MEDPOL), and the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM)). It is therefore essential that a unified science-based strategy for application of biological effect tools, capable of delivering a cost effect programme for both the MSFD and the existing monitoring programmes run under the Regional Conventions is developed.

Section snippets

Requirements to be met before a biological-effect method can be considered suitable for use within the MSFD for assessing GES

Annex V of the MSFD lists a number of key points which need to be met before any criterion or methodological standard can be used to define and assess GES. These are:

  • (1)

    Provision needs to be made for the development of methodological standards for the assessment of status of the marine environment, monitoring and environmental targets, along with the adoption of technical formats for the transmission and processing of data.

  • (2)

    Assessment methodologies should be consistent across marine regions or sub

A strategy for the development of assessment criteria for biological effects tools

In order to monitor for GES across marine regions there needs to be consensus among Member States as to the set of biological effects tools that will be used within MSFD monitoring programmes. Whilst acknowledging that the priority contaminants of concern and the biological species available for monitoring will vary between marine regions, monitoring and assessment should be harmonised to the greatest possible degree. The maintenance of international quality control schemes for chemical and

Conclusions

It is envisaged that the assessment of GES under MSFD Descriptor 8 “Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects” will be based upon a combined approach using concentrations of chemical contaminants and biological measurements relating to the effects of pollutants on marine organisms. Monitoring programmes should include the assessment of concentrations of priority contaminants in environmental matrices (water, sediment, and the tissues of biota). The data

References (27)

  • B. Beliaeff et al.

    Integrated biomarker response: a useful tool for ecological risk assessment

    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

    (2002)
  • J.P. Bignell et al.

    Mussel histopathology: effects of season, disease and species

    Aquatic Biology

    (2008)
  • COM, 2006. 397 Final 2006/0129 (COD). Brussels,...
  • Cited by (118)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text