Alien species and the EU Water Framework Directive: a comparative assessment of European approaches

被引:0
|
作者
Philip J. Boon
Stacey A. Clarke
Gordon H. Copp
机构
[1] The Ferry Landing,The Freshwater Biological Association
[2] Far Sawrey,Department of Life and Environmental Sciences
[3] Centre for Environment,Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection
[4] Fisheries and Aquaculture Science,undefined
[5] Bournemouth University,undefined
[6] University of Łódź,undefined
来源
Biological Invasions | 2020年 / 22卷
关键词
Non-native; Locally absent; Non-indigenous; Alien species regulation; Policy and legislation; Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD);
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1497 / 1512
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European Water Framework Directive: results of an intercalibration exercise
    Kelly, Martyn
    Bennett, Cathy
    Coste, Michel
    Delgado, Cristina
    Delmas, Francois
    Denys, Luc
    Ector, Luc
    Fauville, Claude
    Ferreol, Martial
    Golub, Malgorzata
    Jarlman, Amelie
    Kahlert, Maria
    Lucey, John
    Ni Chathain, Bernadette
    Pardo, Isabel
    Pfister, Peter
    Picinska-Faltynowicz, Joanna
    Rosebery, Juliette
    Schranz, Christine
    Schaumburg, Jochen
    van Dam, Herman
    Vilbaste, Sirje
    HYDROBIOLOGIA, 2009, 621 : 169 - 182
  • [32] A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European Water Framework Directive: results of an intercalibration exercise
    Martyn Kelly
    Cathy Bennett
    Michel Coste
    Cristina Delgado
    François Delmas
    Luc Denys
    Luc Ector
    Claude Fauville
    Martial Ferréol
    Malgorzata Golub
    Amelie Jarlman
    Maria Kahlert
    John Lucey
    Bernadette Ní Chatháin
    Isabel Pardo
    Peter Pfister
    Joanna Picinska-Faltynowicz
    Juliette Rosebery
    Christine Schranz
    Jochen Schaumburg
    Herman van Dam
    Sirje Vilbaste
    Hydrobiologia, 2009, 621 : 169 - 182
  • [33] European Water Framework Directive and its impact on water transport in the European Union
    Sturm, J
    INLAD WATERWAYS; PORTS AND CHANNELS; AND THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT, 2005, (1909): : 74 - 81
  • [34] Exemptions of the EU Water Framework Directive Deterioration Ban: Comparing Implementation Approaches in Lower Saxony and The Netherlands
    Starke, Jan R.
    Van Rijswick, Helena F. M. W.
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (02) : 1 - 22
  • [35] EU water framework directive : measurement tools and water status evaluation
    Porcher, Jean-Pierre
    HOUILLE BLANCHE-REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE L EAU, 2009, (03): : 41 - 45
  • [36] Background metal levels determination in bivalves - quality assessment of the European Water Framework Directive
    Solaun, O.
    Rodriguez, J. G.
    Borja, A.
    Franco, J.
    Larreta, J.
    Valencia, V.
    CHEMISTRY AND ECOLOGY, 2013, 29 (01) : 11 - 27
  • [37] Implementation of the water framework directive in European marine waters
    Devlin, Michelle
    Best, Mike
    Haynes, David
    MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN, 2007, 55 (1-6) : 1 - 2
  • [38] Research needs for the implementation of the water European Framework Directive
    Roche, PA
    Billen, G
    Bravard, JP
    Décamps, H
    Pennequin, D
    Vindimian, E
    Wasson, JG
    COMPTES RENDUS GEOSCIENCE, 2005, 337 (1-2) : 243 - 267
  • [39] Eelgrass as a Bioindicator Under the European Water Framework Directive
    Dorte Krause-Jensen
    Tina Maria Greve
    Kurt Nielsen
    Water Resources Management, 2005, 19 : 63 - 75
  • [40] European Water Framework Directive Reflected by the Romanian Legislation
    Andrei, M.
    Ristoiu, D.
    PROCESSES IN ISOTOPES AND MOLECULES (PIM 2013), 2013, 1565 : 278 - 281