Search | OPac - the Publications Office online public access catalogue

1.

Deforestation and forest degradation in the Amazon [er] : status and trends up to year 2020. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The Amazon forest is the largest tropical rainforest in the world, which houses about 10% of the Earth’s biodiversity and 16% of the world’s total river discharge into the oceans. However, the Amazon forest has already lost up to 20% of its original area since the 1970s and is under constant threat of ongoing deforestation and forest degradation. Disturbances in the forest cover lead to carbon emissions, endanger the livelihoods of indigenous people, and threaten biodiversity in the Amazon. Deforestation and forest degradation causes and effects are interrelated; selectively logged forest or forest affected by edge effects propagate the susceptibility of forest fires, while heavily burned forests are vulnerable to storms and highly susceptible for deforestation. New roads built into the forest are also a driver for these processes. An increase in forest fragmentation makes the contact between animals and humans more probable and thus leads to a higher risk of animal-to-human spillover of infectious diseases. After very high annual deforestation rates in the Brazilian Legal Amazon (BLA) at the beginning of the 2000s (reaching 27,772 km2 in 2004), Brazil had successfully curbed deforestation from the mid-2000s onwards. The lowest deforestation rate since the start of the Amazon deforestation monitoring programme (PRODES) in 1988, reported by the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (INPE), was reached in 2012 (4,571 km2). This reduction was related to new forest protection laws and an increased effort by the Brazilian Government to enforce the law by effectively combating illegal deforestation. However, since 2012, INPE-PRODES reports for the BLA a progressive and systematic increase in annual deforestation areas; for the period 2019 to 2020 the increase is at 9.5%, from 10,129 km2 in 2019 to 11,088 km2 in 2020. The JRC dataset on Tropical Moist Forest (TMF) shows that the annual area of forest disturbances (deforestation and forest degradation together) has increased by 18% in the Pan-Amazon region from 2019 to 2020 (from 26,605 km2 to 31,418 km2); in the BLA the increase amounts to 24% (from 17,303 km2 to 21,379 km2). Some Pan-Amazon countries show an increase in forest disturbances from 2019 to 2020, ranging from 11% (Ecuador) to 52% (Bolivia). Other countries or regions like Venezuela or the Guiana Shield (Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana) show a decrease in forest disturbances of 5% and 54%, respectively, from 2019 to 2020. Colombia showed almost the same area of forest disturbances of ca. 3,660 km2 for both years.

Add To Cart

2.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of EU Member States’ 2018 reports : Descriptor 6, Sea-floor integrity and Descriptor 1, Benthic habitats : Assessment (Art.8), Good Environmental Status (Art. 9) and Targets (Art. 10). European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Add To Cart

3.

Arctic knowledge [er] : echoes from the North : conversations with Arctic indigenous people and others concerned. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The work presented in this report aims at making a practical contribution to the study of local and traditional knowledge, exploring how ‘indigenous’ ways of observing, monitoring and governing the Arctic environment bear adaptive strategies in a changing Arctic. The report describes ongoing impacts on Arctic livelihoods through the voices of Arctic residents. It represents a contribution to a broader call for mobilising all relevant knowledge about Arctic environmental change and resilience, which impact not only Arctic inhabitants but also all populations on the planet. Based on 30 in-depth interviews with Arctic residents, along with a number of academics, EU policymakers and members of civil society organisations, the report offers valuable accounts of the participants’ (situated) knowledge, practical experience, ways of knowing and not least the world view and values Arctic residents live by. Furthermore, the report explores the interplay of traditional knowledge with scientific research practices, highlighting the key essential conditions found in successful cases of collaboration between traditional knowledge-holders and scientists. It concludes with recommendations for further action, suggesting that not seeking systematic respectful collaborations between scientists and traditional Arctic knowledgeholders is more serious than a ‘missed opportunity’; it is damaging to the broader political and ethical aspirations to resilient and sustainable governance of climate and other environmental changes

Add To Cart

4.

Arctic knowledge : echoes from the North : conversations with Arctic indigenous people and others concerned. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The work presented in this report aims at making a practical contribution to the study of local and traditional knowledge, exploring how ‘indigenous’ ways of observing, monitoring and governing the Arctic environment bear adaptive strategies in a changing Arctic. The report describes ongoing impacts on Arctic livelihoods through the voices of Arctic residents. It represents a contribution to a broader call for mobilising all relevant knowledge about Arctic environmental change and resilience, which impact not only Arctic inhabitants but also all populations on the planet. Based on 30 in-depth interviews with Arctic residents, along with a number of academics, EU policymakers and members of civil society organisations, the report offers valuable accounts of the participants’ (situated) knowledge, practical experience, ways of knowing and not least the world view and values Arctic residents live by. Furthermore, the report explores the interplay of traditional knowledge with scientific research practices, highlighting the key essential conditions found in successful cases of collaboration between traditional knowledge-holders and scientists. It concludes with recommendations for further action, suggesting that not seeking systematic respectful collaborations between scientists and traditional Arctic knowledgeholders is more serious than a ‘missed opportunity’; it is damaging to the broader political and ethical aspirations to resilient and sustainable governance of climate and other environmental changes

Add To Cart

5.

The LUISA base map 2018 [er] : a geospatial data fusion approach to increase the detail of European land use/land cover data. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The LUISA Base Map 2018 is a land use/land cover map of Europe compatible with the CORINE Land Cover nomenclature, but offering a considerable higher spatial and thematic detail. It was produced by employing an automated, reproducible and structured geographical data fusion approach, integrating land use data from diverse, trusted, off-the-shelf geospatial data sources. It is a key input to the European Commission Joint Research Centre LUISA territorial model. Because it is publicly available, it can be used in many other applications requiring fine spatial and/or thematic detail of land use/land cover consistently for Europe. This technical report describes the background and specifications of the LUISA Base Map 2018, documents the materials and methods employed in its production, and discussed its main strengths and limitations.

Add To Cart

6.

Marine Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of EU Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 5 : eutrophication, assessment (Art.8) and good environmental status (Art. 9). European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

EU Member States (MS) have reported under Article 17 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) last 6-year reporting cycle (2012-2018) for Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the. This report analyses the information on MSFD Descriptor 5 (Human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters). Information was retrieved from 21 MS on the methodological approaches followed for the assessment of the eutrophication status. This information was analysed regarding the parameters considered, monitoring methods, agreement in relation to threshold values, integration methods for overall eutrophication status and achievement of good environmental status. The gaps, limitations and need for improvement in current assessments, are highlighted and recommendations provided for improvement in the next MSFD reporting cycle.

Add To Cart

7.

Pelagic habitats under the MSFD D1 [er] : scientific advice of policy relevance : recommendations to frame problems and solutions for the pelagic habitats’ assessment. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

Pelagic habitats are a policy priority below Descriptor 1 (Biodiversity) of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). They are addressed under the D1C6 criterion, stating “the condition of the habitat type, including its biotic and abiotic structure and its functions…, is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures”. The evaluation of pelagic habitats status is challenged by the functional and structural characteristics of pelagic habitat diversity and processes. To date, pelagic habitats assessments are lacking in common criteria and methodologies that characterize the habitat while accounting for the effects of anthropogenic pressures to achieve the Good Environmental Status (GES). It is therefore necessary to prioritise communication between scientific and policy communities and frame pelagic research to agree on common methods and approaches at regional or EU scale. This is key for achieving harmonised and comparable pelagic assessments for the MSFD. This report summarizes the outcomes on the assessment workflow of pelagic habitats of the JRC “MSFD pelagic habitats” workshop (9th and 10th March 2021), and the need for coordinated evaluations of the scientific challenges of policy relevance. Recommendations on the MSFD implementation of D1C6, that were generated from the experts during the workshop, will be communicated to the MSFD policy groups and the EU Member States competent authorities to support future harmonised assessment of pelagic habitats.

Add To Cart

8.

Mapping and assessment of primary and old-growth forests in Europe [er]. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

This report presents an assessment of the knowledge and documented spatial data on primary and old-growth forests in the EU, as well as in some neighbouring countries. The EU’s biodiversity strategy to 2030 recognises the value of primary and old-growth forests, and calls for their strict protection. This report provides a knowledge base contributing to the process of developing guidelines for the definition, mapping, monitoring and strictly protecting all the EU’s remaining primary and old-growth forests. This process is coordinated by the Working Group on Forest and Nature (sub-group of the Coordination Group on Biodiversity and Nature), which brings together representatives of the forestry and nature conservation national authorities and relevant stakeholders.

Add To Cart

9.

Mapping and assessment of primary and old-growth forests in Europe. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

This report presents an assessment of the knowledge and documented spatial data on primary and old-growth forests in the EU, as well as in some neighbouring countries. The EU’s biodiversity strategy to 2030 recognises the value of primary and old-growth forests, and calls for their strict protection. This report provides a knowledge base contributing to the process of developing guidelines for the definition, mapping, monitoring and strictly protecting all the EU’s remaining primary and old-growth forests. This process is coordinated by the Working Group on Forest and Nature (sub-group of the Coordination Group on Biodiversity and Nature), which brings together representatives of the forestry and nature conservation national authorities and relevant stakeholders.

Add To Cart

10.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 3 : commercial species. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Descriptor 3 (D3) – populations of commercial species - of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 MS reported on D3 in electronic format. Concerning Article 8, all reporting MS assessed the primary criterion D3C2 and 19 of them assessed the primary criterion D3C1 for at least a single element (i.e. population of a commercial species). However, only a few MS assessed the primary criterion D3C3. Nevertheless, even the more advanced criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were not assessed for the majority of reported elements indicating a significant knowledge gap. Coverage in terms of reported taxa was adequate for most MS, but improved coverage is needed by some MS, particularly in the western Mediterranean Sea. There was a gradient between MS reporting a low number of elements with most information completed, and MS reporting a large number of elements with most information missing. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be rectified to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period varying significantly, gaps in reporting threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends, and inconsistent integration rule types. There was also a general lack of consistency in the reporting terminology. With regards to Article 9, only half of the MS provided information on Good Environmental Status (GES) description at the Descriptor level and slightly more reported at the level of criteria. A general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. In most cases, GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed in the way the MS have set their targets, while many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to D3. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D3 criteria, GES determination and on Article 10 targets.

Add To Cart

11.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 4 : food webs. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Theme – ecosystem, including food webs, relating to Descriptor 1 and 4 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8 (GES assessment), 9 (GES determination) and 10 (targets) of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 Member States reported on D4 in electronic format. Regarding Article 8, all the Member States that were evaluated reported for the primary criteria D4C1 (trophic guild species diversity) and D4C2 (total abundance between trophic guilds), but only 58% of the MS reported D4C3 and 40% reported D4C4. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be harmonized to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period. Moreover, the current gaps in threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends did not allow to get an overview of the GES status across Europe for food webs. Evidently, the gaps of data could not support to test potential common integration rules for criteria and to select harmonised trophic guilds at regional or subdivision level. With regards to Article 9, a general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed on how the MS have set their targets for each component and for the level assigned (descriptor, criterion, parameter). Many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to food webs. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds, pressures and measures. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D4 criteria, GES determination and target setting for food webs.

Add To Cart

12.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 4 : food webs. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The current report analyses the information provided by the European Union Member States (MS) on Theme – ecosystem, including food webs, relating to Descriptor 1 and 4 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the Article 17 requirements of the MSFD for updating Articles 8 (GES assessment), 9 (GES determination) and 10 (targets) of the Directive, for the last 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 Member States reported on D4 in electronic format. Regarding Article 8, all the Member States that were evaluated reported for the primary criteria D4C1 (trophic guild species diversity) and D4C2 (total abundance between trophic guilds), but only 58% of the MS reported D4C3 and 40% reported D4C4. Additionally, we detected several issues that need to be harmonized to achieve comparable assessments across MS, such as the assessment period. Moreover, the current gaps in threshold values, threshold value sources, reported values and trends did not allow to get an overview of the GES status across Europe for food webs. Evidently, the gaps of data could not support to test potential common integration rules for criteria and to select harmonised trophic guilds at regional or subdivision level. With regards to Article 9, a general lack of harmonization in the GES determination was detected. GES was not specified in a quantitative manner or in terms of threshold values. With regards to Article 10, inconsistencies were observed on how the MS have set their targets for each component and for the level assigned (descriptor, criterion, parameter). Many of the targets reported were not directly relevant to food webs. Targets were largely not harmonised across MS and they were rarely quantitative and/or associated with specific thresholds, pressures and measures. The present report provides recommendations for the application of D4 criteria, GES determination and target setting for food webs.

Add To Cart

13.

Review and analysis of EU Member States’ 2018 reports [er] : descriptor 1 : pelagic habitats : assessment (Art. 8), good environmental status (Art. 9) and targets (Art. 10). European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

This report builds on the 6-year reporting cycle of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). It presents the main results of the European Union Member States’ (MS) reports on the Descriptor 1, criterion D1C6 – Pelagic habitats - of the MSFD. As such, it serves as reference for the progress on the pelagic habitats as for the assessment (Article 8), determination of good environmental status (Article 9), and establishment of environmental targets (Article 10). The scope of this report is to analyse and evaluate the MS reports from a technical and scientific perspective, to assess good practices and prioritise the gaps. Moreover, the recommendations address key players for improving the implementation of reporting on these articles for pelagic habitats. The findings show that environmental indicators are often used in place of criterion elements (i.e. habitat types), while also being characterized by same source but different thresholds values across marine regions. In a few reporting areas, Good Environmental Status (GES) was declared as achieved but information was lacking on how to discriminate good from not good status. To this end, environmental targets were too qualitative to suitably inform on the state to achieve GES, and to consider relevant pressures quantitatively. In order to improve the MSFD assessments for pelagic habitats, this report underscores the need to: i) cooperate between MS to harmonise the GES definition, ii) establish a coherent set of pelagic habitat types, agreed for each region and preferably across EU (equivalent to the MSFD benthic habitat types in GES Decision Table 2 and linked to EUNIS) that suitably reflect the GES of the pelagic habitat across their spatial and temporal variations, iii) set common agreed indicators to assess the state and pressures of the pelagic habitats at (sub)-region scale, and iv) develop quantitative threshold values for each indicator to allow assessment of progress towards GES.

Add To Cart

14.

Guidance on potential exclusion of certain WFD priority substances from MSFD monitoring beyond coastal and territorial waters [er] : a pragmatic and qualitative approach for the open sea. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

According to Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), EU Member States (MS) shall consider, in their Descriptor 8 primary criterion (D8C1) assessments, the WFD Priority Substances (PS) and River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSP) within coastal and territorial waters and also beyond territorial waters if these still may give rise to pollution effects. Some WFD PS might not be relevant for the marine environment in the open sea and, consequently, might be excluded from MSFD monitoring beyond the territorial waters. MS have expressed the need for a framework for the deselection of WFD PS from monitoring under the MSFD, in order to save resources. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), collaborating within the MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, has developed a pragmatic approach to identify the WFD PS that can be excluded from MSFD monitoring in the open sea beyond territorial waters without reducing protection of European Seas. This should preempt the need for individual MS to provide rationales for such exclusions, support comparable monitoring and assessments across national boundaries, and enable MS to focus their monitoring efforts on other (including emerging) substances that require attention.

Add To Cart

15.

Marine Strategy Framework Directive [er] : review and analysis of Member States’ 2018 reports : descriptor 1 : species biological diversity. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The report analyses the information provided by the European Union’s Member States (MS) for the species theme of Descriptor 1 (D1) – species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods (relating to Descriptor 1) – of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The reported information by the MS follows the MSFD Article 17 requirement to update Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Directive, for the current 6-year MSFD reporting cycle. By September 2020, 20 MS reported on D1 in electronic format. The MS made a huge and respectable effort to fulfil the demanding requirements of an environmentally ambitious Directive like the MSFD. The second reporting obligation for Art. 8, 9 and 10 was remarkably improved compared to the 2012 reporting, especially regarding the regional coordination, the consistency in the reporting (which can be further improved) and good understanding of the reporting and assessing requirements.

Add To Cart

16.

Forest reference levels under Regulation (EU) 2018/841 for the period 2021–2025 [er] : overview and main findings of the technical assessment. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

Regulation (EU) 2018/841 (‘LULUCF regulation’) sets the accounting rules for the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in the EU for 2021–2030, i.e. how the emissions and removals of greenhouse gases from LULUCF will be counted towards the climate targets. The LULUCF regulation is part of the EU’s commitment to reduce overall emissions by at least 40% by 2030 under the Climate and Energy framework. Every Member State must balance its accounted greenhouse gas emissions on the LULUCF sector by an equal amount of accounted greenhouse gas removals. Possible surplus removals, under certain conditions and up to an overall total of 280 Mt CO2e, may be used to compensate emissions from the sectors covered by the Effort Sharing Regulation4. The technically most complex part of the LULUCF regulation is the set of accounting rules for managed forest land, which are based on a projected Forest Reference Level (FRL), estimated nationally by each EU Member State. The FRL is a benchmark level against which future net emissions from forests are accounted for. In its essence, the FRL is a projection of the net emissions from managed forest land in 2021—2030 (divided into two compliance periods, 2021—2025 and 2026—2030), assuming that the forest management practices had continued similar to the practices in the reference period 2000—2009. This way, the FRL provides a means to account for the impact of policy changes on the emissions and removals from forests, while factoring out the impact of age-related dynamics in the forests. The FRLs for the 2021—2025 period are reported as a part of National Forestry Accounting Plans (NFAPs). After a thorough assessment by the European Commission and a dedicated Expert Group in 2019 and 2020, these FRLs are due to be laid down in a delegated act adopted by the Commission by the end of October 2020. This report outlines the main technical findings of the assessment of the Member States’ proposed FRLs, and complements the Commission Staff Working Document (2020) 236 accompanying the delegated act. The assessment found that the Member States had generally followed the principles and criteria laid out in the LULUCF regulation. The NFAPs provide a wealth of information on the forests and forest management practices in the Member States – some of which has not been available for the international community before – and in general include the elements required by the LULUCF regulation. All Member States projected the development of the forest net emissions for 2021—2025 as a continuation of the historical management practices, therefore excluding assumptions on policy development. While the submissions by the Member States were in general detailed and carefully prepared, the assessment identified in several cases minor issues that will need to be amended before the compliance check. The most common issues are related to methodological inconsistencies between carbon pools, greenhouse gases or forest area included in the FRL and those reported in the national greenhouse gas inventories. Some of these mismatches have already been amended by the Member States through Addenda or Corrigenda to the NFAPs. The remaining inconsistencies will be addressed through technical corrections to the FRLs at the end of the compliance period and therefore do not impair the reliability of the FRL as an accounting baseline. For five Member States, the assessment resulted in a recalculation of the Member State-proposed FRL by the Commission. In numerical terms, the sum of the Member States’ FRLs (incl. the United Kingdom) in the delegated act is a projected sink of -337 Mt CO2 y-1 [5] for the period 2021–2025. This projection is about 18% lower than the sink of -413 Mt CO2 y-1 reported by the EU 2019 greenhouse gas inventory on managed forest land for the period 2000—2009 (EEA 2019). The FRL projection is associated with a projected increase of harvest by about 16% over the same period, due to age-related effects. It is noteworthy that the FRLs project sustainable forest management practices as documented in the period 2000–2009, taking into account dynamic age-related forest characteristics, and do not represent an expected sink or expected harvest levels. Instead, the FRLs laid out in the delegated act provide a robust and trustworthy counterfactual for accounting the impact of mitigation actions on emissions and removals from managed forest land in the first compliance period 2021—2025.

Add To Cart

17.

Joint list of litter categories for marine macro-litter monitoring [er] : manual for the application of the classification system. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The monitoring of marine macrolitter requires an unambiguous identification of its identity, enabled through an agreed list of litter categories. The Joint List of Litter Categories for Macrolitter Monitoring was prepared by the MSFD Technical Group on Marine Litter (MSFD TG ML), in close collaboration with EU Member States and the Regional Sea Conventions. The list was adopted by the MSFD Coordination Group (November 2019). It provides a comprehensive list of litter types, which occur in the coastal and marine environment. This comprehensive list can be used to enable comparable monitoring of marine litter across the European Seas and beyond, as well as across different compartments of the marine environment.

Add To Cart

18.

Establishment of sustainable data ecosystems [er] : recommendations for the evolution of spatial data infrastructures. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse a set of successful data ecosystems and to address recommendations in support of the evolution of contemporary spatial data infrastructures that can act as a catalyst of data-driven innovation in line with the recently published European data strategy. The recommendations provided here cover insights into the approaches that can be undertaken in order to ensure the evolution of contemporary spatial data infrastructures into self-sustainable data ecosystems.

Add To Cart

19.

Pelagic habitats under MSFD D1 [er] : current approaches and priorities : an overview of approaches towards D1C6 assessment. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

This report reviews the current situation as regards to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Descriptor 1 (Biodiversity) for pelagic habitats and serves as a basis for a workshop with Member States experts and scientists that will be held on March 9-10 2021. Recommendations are in the concluding section. Pelagic habitats cover the 71% of Earth’s surface and play an essential role in regulating temperature on land, producing oxygen and food. They are also a management challenge where the alterations of their physical, chemical and biological characteristics negatively impact their ecosystem functioning and services (e.g. provisioning services). To address these challenges, the MSFD has required the assessment of pelagic habitats against environmental targets to reach Good Environmental Status (GES). A key step in the pelagic habitat assessment is a thorough understanding of its physical, chemical and biological processes and the drivers that underlie the spatiotemporal variability in its ecologically relevant ecosystem components. However, pelagic assessments to date have not sufficiently addressed the functional and structural characteristics of pelagic habitats processes, which is limiting our ability to inform on their environmental status and to disentangle the anthropogenic drivers. This report evaluates previously published work on pelagic habitats assessments considering the actions and targets to meet the MSFD requirements. To do this, the report (i) summarises the main drivers of variation in pelagic habitat characterization; (ii) reviews the common empirical approaches used to assess pelagic habitats, the advantages, and challenges; and finally (iii) exposes a set of recommendations for characterising pelagic habitats in EU waters. Since the pelagic habitats are made of a highly dynamic fluid, appropriate spatiotemporal scales regarding data and methods must be considered to assess their GES. This applies in particular to the selected indicators to propose the effective and quantifiable GES targets that need to be reached

Add To Cart

20.

Screening and selecting climate change impact parameters as potential drivers of migration : focusing over the time period : 1975 to 2015. European Commission. Joint Research Centre.

Publication

Luxembourg : Publications Office, 2021.

Summary

The current report is focused on a technical screening and selecting exercise of climate/weather parameters and indices to be used in a bigger JRC Project on Climate Change Induced Migration (CLICIM). The main aim of the current exercise is to select among several tenths of variables and data sets, the ones that could be potentially influence directly or indirectly drivers of migration. Besides the mainstream climate change impact parameters such as temperature, wind, humidity, clouds and precipitation, we consider an extensive set of climate/weather extreme indices that could shed light on the possible relationships between environmental degradation parameters and induced migration. In total we examine closely ninety five parameters and indices assessing their temporal and geographical coverage and relevance on the basis of the most recent climate change and migration literature before proceeding to the final selection of thirty seven meteorological parameters and extreme climate/weather indices. The report describes the data availability for each parameter and index, limitations and capabilities in terms of coverage and spatial and temporal detail and provides references on the use of the variable mainly in the context of migration studies. Such empirical evidence has been considered as the primary criterion for selecting parameters and indices potentially influencing drivers of migration. Other criteria guiding our selection have been the technical suitability in respect of the main population and net migration data already assembled during the initial phase of the CLICIM Project. This report will be followed by a similar screening exercise focusing on agriculture and water scarcity indices. In the final steps of CLICIM, the full set of the indices documented in these two screening reports will be put in relation with population and net migration data at high spatial resolution and utilised in statistical models exploring potential links between climate change impacts and induced migration.

Add To Cart

Contact information

Personal data protection

Treatment of your data

How do we treat e-mails you send us?

Copyright notice