Natural science base of the ESA

Samuli Korpinen

Finnish Environment Institute, Marine Research Centre

30 September 2015

Number and intensity of

human actions

Intensity of single and cumulative

pressures

Cumulative effects

assessment

Integrated biodiversity status

Integrated status of

eutrophication

Integrated status of

contamination

COST-BENEFIT& Cost of

degradation(art. 8.1.c)

PoM (art. 13),

- effects of measures

Art 8.1.b

Art 8.1.a, Art 9.

The MSFD cycle: what elements do we need to measure?

3

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

4

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

5

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)

6

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.

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.

Dependency of the biodiversity state was shown on cumulative pressure impacts (Andersen et al. 2015).

7

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.

8

The HELCOM biodiversity assessment tool will be built on core indicators (http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/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.

Integrated state of marine biodiversity

HELCOM core indicators:What indicators we still miss!

BIRDS:

Abundance of wintering birds

Abundance of breeding birds

9

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

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.

Jax 2015, Johnson 2013, Scheffer & Carpenter 2003, Andersen et al. 2009

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“.

11

ReferencesAndersen 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.1523-1739.2012.01937.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 Ecology and Evolution 18: 648-656.