Gaps in current Baltic Sea environmental monitoring – Science versus management perspectives. (November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kahlert, Maria; Eilola, Kari; Mack, Leoni; Meissner, Kristian; Sandin, Leonard; Strömberg, Helena; Uusitalo, Laura; Viktorsson, Lena; Liess, Antonia
• Is Part Of: Marine pollution bulletin. Volume 160(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-11
• Subjects: Biology -- Marine management -- Literature review -- Holistic gap analysis -- Stakeholder survey; Marine pollution -- Periodicals; Marine Biology -- Periodicals; Water Pollution -- Periodicals; Mer -- Pollution -- Périodiques; Publications périodiques; Pollution des mers; Lutte antipollution; Electronic journals; 363.7394
• DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111669
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-326X

Abstract

Abstract: Legislations and commitments regulate Baltic Sea status assessments and monitoring. These assessments suffer from monitoring gaps that need prioritization. We used three sources of information; scientific articles, project reports and a stakeholder survey to identify gaps in relation to requirements set by the HELCOM's Baltic Sea Action Plan, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The most frequently mentioned gap was that key requirements are not sufficiently monitored in space and time. Biodiversity monitoring was the category containing most gaps. However, whereas more than half of the gaps in reports related to biodiversity, scientific articles pointed out many gaps in the monitoring of pollution and water quality. An important finding was that the three sources differed notably with respect to which gaps were mentioned most often. Thus, conclusions about gap prioritization for management should be drawn after carefully considering the different viewpoints of scientists and stakeholders. Highlights: Baltic Sea monitoring is insufficient with respect to the regulatory requirements. Biodiversity monitoring is the category containing most gaps. We compared scientific articles, project reports and a stakeholder survey. These three sources differed notably in which gaps were mentioned most often.