Transcript Weight score - HELCOM Meeting Portal

Natural science
base of the ESA
Samuli Korpinen
Finnish Environment Institute, Marine Rese
30 September 2015
The MSFD cycle:
what elements do we need to measure?
Art 8.1.b
Number and
intensity of
human actions
Intensity of single
and cumulative
pressures
Cumulative effects
assessment
Integrated
status of
eutrophication
PoM (art.
13),
- effects of
measures
COST-BENEFIT
& Cost of
degradation
(art. 8.1.c)
Integrated
biodiversity status
Integrated
status of
contamination
Art 8.1.a, Art 9.
Human activities and pressures:
Do we have all the data?
● There are an increasing number of studies where activities
and pressures are linked.
●  the challenge is to find common categories!
●  not all categories are relevant for the Baltic Sea!
● Availability of spatial data is improving.
● The data is not always up-to-date.
Is the data in balance? Or is it biased to a sector?
● Data rich sectors may dominate an assessment.
●  data aggregation may be needed
●  sector-specific assessments may give more detailed
information.
Knights et al. 2013, 2015
3
Science base of pressure
and impact assessments
● Pressure and impact assessments have been made in all
the European marine regions.
● A review of the methods shows that there is very little
variation in the approaches (Korpinen 2014, EEA/ETC in
progress).
● Despite caveats (Halpern & Fujita 2013), the method seems
to provide reasonably reliable outcomes (Andersen et al.
2015).
● The pressure impacts are estimated for ’ecosystem
components’ by a variety of methods  expert judgement is
a common approach.
● Greatest limitations are in the quality of spatial data
resolution (pressure data + ecosystem data; Meski 2013).
Halpern et al. 2008, Korpinen et al. 2012, 2013, Andersen & Stock 2013
4
Science base of pressure and impact
assessments
● The BSPI and BSII use raw data of the distribution of
pressure intensity and presence (or probability) or species
and habitats.
Weight
score
● A software can be used to reshuffle the results:
 impacts per activity / sector
 impacts on specific marine elements
(Andersen & Stock 2013)
5
Linkages between pressure impacts
and the state of biodiversity
Time lags between pressures and the environmental responses
are variable and often unknown.
 species life cycles affect the responses and recovery rate,
 pressures may accumulate and do not (necessarily)
decrease after cessation of an activity.
Dependency of the biodiversity state was shown on cumulative
pressure impacts (Andersen et al. 2015).
The form of response is (most often) not known
(Hunsicker et al. 2015)  linearity is assumed.
Synergistic and antagonistic effects have been
shown as important (Crain et al. 2008, Griffith et
al. 2012)
 additivity is assumed.
Andersen et al. 2015
6
Integrated state of marine
biodiversity
● HELCOM made an integrated
assessment by the BEAT tool
in 2009 (HELCOM 2009,
2010).
● Same tool was applied to the
North Sea in 2012 (Andersen
et al. 2014).
● BEAT gives a score in
relation to GES (i.e. distance
to GES).
● GES is defined for indicators,
the integrated status is
derived from those.
● HOLAS II makes new
development for a tool 
ready in autumn 2016.
7
Integrated state of marine
biodiversity
The HELCOM biodiversity assessment
tool will be built on core indicators
(http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-seatrends/biodiversity/indicators/).
The benefits of this approach:
○ Cross-border comparability,
○ HELCOM wide expert groups to
develop them,
○ Aspects of Baltic marine
biodiversity covered,
○ GES boundaries agreed by
Contracting Parties,
○ Similar indicator concepts  can
be used in a common tool.
8
HELCOM core indicators:
What indicators we still miss!
BIRDS:
Abundance of wintering birds
Abundance of breeding birds
MAMMALS:
Abundance of seals
Distribution of seals
Reproductive status of seals
Nutritional status of seals
FISH:
Eight indicators
(coastal fish, salmon, sea
trout, big fish, etc.)
SEABED:
Vegetation depth limits
Distribution of habitats (~some)
State of fauna (2 indicators)
WATER COLUMN:
Zooplankton community
condition
Phytoplankton community (2
indicators)
GAPS:
- biotopes/habitats
-  functional habitats
-  keystone habitats
9
Restoration of a
system
Reversing a trend after a regime
shift is not simple (actually, it can be
very unpredictable)!
Successful restoration cases exist
but are not common.
Hysteresis: ” the existence of
different stable states under the
same variables or parameters.”
”environmental factor which
triggered the change has to be set
back to much lower levels than that
of the threshold for the "forward
journey“.
Jax 2015, Johnson 2013, Scheffer &
Carpenter 2003, Andersen et al. 2009
References
Andersen JH, Halpern BS, Korpinen S, Murray C & Reker J (2015) Cumulative impacts predict biodiversity status in space and
time in the Baltic Sea: implications for ecosystem-based management. ECSS
Andersen JH & Stock A (eds.), Mannerla M, Heinänen S & Vinther M (2013). Human uses, pressures and impacts in the eastern
North Sea. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy. 136 pp. Technical Report from DCE –
Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 18. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/TR18.pdf
Griffith GP, Fulton EA, Gorton R, Richardson A (2012) Predicting Interactions among Fishing, Ocean Warming, and Ocean
Acidification in a Marine System with Whole-Ecosystem Models. Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.15231739.2012.01937.x
Halpern BS & Fujita R (2013) Assumptions, challenges, and future directions in cumulative impact analysis. Ecosphere 4:art131.
Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Bruno JF, Casey KS, Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R,
Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER, Spalding M, Steneck R & Watson R (2008) A Global Map of
Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. - Science 319(5865): 948-952.
Hunsicker ME, Kappel CV, Selkoe KA, Halpern BS, Scarborough C, Mease L, Armhein A (2015) Characterizing driver-response
relationships in marine pelagic ecosystems for improved ocean management. Ecological Applications.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-2200.1
Jax K (2015) Thresholds, tipping points and limits. OPENNES synthesis report.
Knights, A. M., Piet, G. J., Jongbloed, R. H., Tamis, J. E., White, L., Akoglu, E., Boicenco, L., Churilova, T., Kryvenko, O.,
Fleming-Lehtinen, V., LeppanenJuha-Markku, Galil, B. S., Goodsir, F., Goren, M., Margonski, P., Moncheva, S., Oguz, T.,
Papadopoulou, K.N., Seta¨la¨, O., Smith, C. J., Stefanova, K., Timofte, F., and Robinson, L. A. An exposure-effect approach
for evaluating ecosystemwide risks from human activities. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu245.
Knights AM, Koss RS & Robinson LA (2013) Identifying common pressure pathways from a complex network of human activities
to support ecosystem-based management. Ecological Applications 23: 755-765.
Korpinen, S., Meski, L., Andersen, J.H. & Laamanen, M. 2012: Human pressures and their potential impact on the Baltic Sea
ecosystem. Ecological Indicators 15: 105-114.
Meski, L., 2012, Linking human activities to impacts in the marine ecosystem - evaluating a tool created for assessment of human
impacts in the Baltic Sea. Master’s Thesis, Åbo Akademi University, Department of Biosciences, Environmental and Marine
Biology.
Andersen, T.; Carstensen, J.; Hernández-García, E. and Duarte, C. M. (2009): Ecological thresholds and regime shifts:
approaches to identification. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 49-57.
Johnson, C. J. (2013): Identifying ecological thresholds for regulating human activity: Effective conservation or wishful thinking?
Biological Conservation 168: 57-65.
Scheffer, M. and Carpenter, S. R. (2003): Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends in
11
Ecology and Evolution 18: 648-656.