1 / 17

HELCOM core set of indicators and GES boundaries for biodiversity

HELCOM core set of indicators and GES boundaries for biodiversity. Ulla Li Zweifel, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (ex-chair of HELCOM CORESET BD). MSFD GES Working Group 7 February 2012, Brussels, Belgium. HELCOM CORESET project 2010-2013.

teresaryan
Download Presentation

HELCOM core set of indicators and GES boundaries for biodiversity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HELCOM core set of indicators and GES boundaries for biodiversity Ulla Li Zweifel, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (ex-chair of HELCOM CORESET BD) MSFD GES Working Group 7 February 2012, Brussels, Belgium

  2. HELCOM CORESET project 2010-2013 • Task: to produce indicators with targets (GES boundaries) for the follow-up of the Baltic Sea Action Plan implementation and MSFD purposes • Focus: biodiversity and hazardous substances (eutrophication core indicators largely in place) • Time-table: • Descriptions of indicators and proposals for GES boundaries by the end of 2011 (document GES 8/2012/7b) • Finalisation of draft core indicator reports, including status assessments utilising GES boundaries, aimed for by September 2012 • Decision on the core set in autumn 2012 • Presentation of the full core indicator-based reporting system to HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2013

  3. HELCOM CORESET project 2010-2013 • Interim report accepted for publishing: • Part A. Selection process. • Part B. Description of indicators.

  4. Working process CORESET BD Task: related to the biodiversity segment of the BSAP and MSFD descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6. HELCOM CORESET Biodiversity meetings: structured the working process, agreed on principles, discussed joint issues (e.g. What is GES?) Six expert groups: working intersessional to propose and develop indicators for: • Birds (D1, D4) • Mammals (D1, D4) • Fish (D1, D4) • Seabed habitats + associated communities (D1, D4, D6) • Pelagic habitats + associated communities (D1, D4) • Non-indigenous species (D2)

  5. Common principles and selection criteria A set of principles for indicators, GES and indicator integration adopted at an early stage, e.g: • State indicators should reflect anthropogenic pressures • Possible to apply Baltic-wide • Have supporting monitoring • A quantitative level, reflecting the lowest boundary of GES, should be set for each indicator • Be agreed by all CPs.

  6. Common principles and selection criteria Selection process was based on the common principles (adopted in HELCOM HOD), the EC decision document (2010/477/EU) and outcomes from Task Groups 1, 2, 4 and 6, and the below aspects: • Baltic Sea functional groups based on Task Group 1 outcome’s adaptation to the Baltic Sea, • Predominant habitats based on EUSeaMap (+HELCOM RED LIST), and • List of Baltic Sea key species identified by biodiversity experts, • Anthropogenic pressures (cf. also Baltic Sea Pressure/Impact Index), • Monitoring, whether existing or needed

  7. Setting GES boundaries • Suggestions for qualitative GES descriptions and boundaries for each criterion • Scrutiny of different approaches for setting quantitative boundaries, e.g: • Acceptable deviation from: • reference condition • fixed reference point/period • potential state • Physiological, ecotoxicological or population related limitations • Temporal trend targets • OK (and necessary) to use different approaches for different indicators

  8. Setting GES boundaries Important to take into account in setting GES boundaries: • No conflict between boundaries and existing policy goals, e.g. HD FCS or BSAP nutrient reduction targets vs. lower depth distribution of macrophytes • Interlinkages between proposed core indicators should be considered • Impacts of regime shifts • Natural fluctuations • Re-evalution and the possibility to make adjustments is needed.

  9. Proposed core indicators for biodiversity (D1, 2, 4 and 6) • Interim report, Part B: Descriptions of indicators: • Tests and documentations, • Approach for the GES boundary, • Availability of monitoring • In addition, candidate indicators that are promising but not yet tested or developed further, and • Supplementatry indicators, e.g., HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets with no GES specification

  10. 15 proposed core indicators

  11. Core indicators – D1... • Marine mammals • Blubber thickness grey seal: GES is based on what is considered to represent healthy populations (lower 95% Cl of reference period 1999-2004) • Pregnancy rates grey seal: GES is based on what is considered to represent healthy populations (lower 95% Cl of reference period 2008-2009) • Growth rates: GES set for 1) Non-carrying capacity conditions and 2) Carrying capacity conditions: • 1) 4% for harbour porpoises, 10% for grey and ringed seals and 12% for harbour seals • 2) decrease less than 10% over 10 yrs

  12. Core indicators – D1 continued... • Birds • White-tailed eagle productivity: GES based on pre-1950s data • Abundance and distribution of wintering seabird populations: GES based on a deviation from 1992-1993 reference period • Multimetric macrozoobenthic indices: GES based on WFD good-moderate boundary • Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species: GES based on WFD good-moderate boundary

  13. Core indicators – D1 continued... Fish • Proportion of large fish in the community • Metric mean length of key fish species • Coastal fish – Species abundance Index • Costal fish – Species Demographic Index • Coastal fish – Community Size Index • Coastal fish Community Diversity Index • Coastal fish Community Abundance Index • Coastal fish – Community Trophic Index Coastal fish: GES is set site-specifically either as a value, deviation or trend. Offshore fish: GES will be based on MSY concept,long-term data and trends, depending on a stock.

  14. Core indicators – D2, 4 and 6 • D2: Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species. • D4: No food-web specific indicator has been proposed, to be covered with D1 indicators • D6: So far, to be covered by D1 indicators • Critical gaps: • No proposal related to habitat distribution • No proposed core indicators for zooplankton and phytoplankton • No proposal related to pressures on biodiversity (although some pressures are covered by other CORESET worksing groups) • Candidate indicators should be developed further to strenthen the coverage of D2, D4 and D6 and pressures on biodiversity

  15. Candidate indicators

  16. What next? Team work (birds, mammals, fishes, etc.) Development of the proposed core indicators into draft reports by September 2012 HELCOM MONAS 17/2012 in September to agree on the first set of core indicators Full-fledged core indicators with textual background reports to be placed on the HELCOM web site by 2013 From 2013 work to continue (CORESET II?), e.g., operationalisation of indicators, further strengthening of the GES boundaries, testing of candidates, monitoring revision, etc.

  17. Thank you! www.helcom.fi

More Related