Interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

176 7. Use of the indicator in previous assessments – 8. Link to anthropogenic pressures Introduction of synthetic compounds (due to oils spill, ship accidents) causes a habitat loss – direct impact Sealing (due to harbours, coastal defence structures, bridges and coastal dams, wind farms) causes a loss of habitat area (but blue mussels accept artifi cial solid substrates quite well!) Selective extraction (due to dredging and sand/gravel/boulder extraction) causes habitat loss – direct impact Physical damage (due to abrasion, smothering or change in siltation) causes habitat loss - direct impact 9. Pressure(s) that the indicator refl ect Introduction of synthetic compounds, Sealing, Smothering, Abrasion, Selective extraction 10. Spatial considerations from Kattegat to Bothnian Sea (to mean bottom salinity of 6 psu) 11. Temporal considerations The cover should be measured at the time of yearly maximum (if applicable). Regular monitoring, but not necessarily annually. 12. Current monitoring Currently not monitored, but datasets are available. 13. Proposed or perceived target setting approach with a short justifi cation. Diffi cult defi nition of reference values, as historical data are more or less only partly available. GES boundary could be based on long-term means and expert judgement. Also trend-based GES boundary could be used. High natural variability especially at shallow sites due to varying reproduction success and high predator pressure (ducks, sea stars) 4.16. Cumulative impact on benthic habitats 1. Working team: Authors: Manuel Meidinger and Samuli Korpinen Acknowledged persons: David Connor, Maria Laamanen, Hans Nilsson and Johnny Reker 2. Name of candidate indicator: Cumulative impact on benthic habitats 3. Unit of the candidate indicator Percentage 4. Description of proposed indicator The indicator measures the proportion of a benthic habitat being signifi cantly impacted by a cumulative impact of anthropogenic disturbances. The indicator gives a result for each habitat type. The habitat data is based on the recent benthic habitat model of the EUSeaMap project and data sets on anthropogenic impacts are from the HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment. The indicator relies on reliable habitat and pressure data, but also on estimates of the weights of each pressure in the cumulative impact score, defi nition of a signifi cant cumulative impact, and acceptable proportion of a habitat type being signifi cantly disturbed. 5. Functional group or habitat type: All predominant benthic habitats, defi ned by depth zones and substrate type 6. Policy relevance MSFD Descriptor 1 (Biodiversity), Criterion 1.6 Habitat condition MSFD Descriptor 6 (Seafl oor integrity), Criterion 6.1 Extent of habitats being impacted. BSAP Ecological Objective: Natural marine landscapes.
7. Use of the indicator in previous assessments None 8. Link to anthropogenic pressures Directly impacted by physical disturbance pressures on the seabed. 9. Pressure(s) that the indicator refl ect Directly impacted by bottom trawling, dredging, extraction of sand and gravel (etc), disposal of dredged material (etc), shipping in shallow water, installation of wind farms, piers, platforms, bridges, dams, cables and pipelines, coastal erosion defence structures and replenishment of beaches. Also large salinity and temperature changes caused by waste water treatment plants and nuclear power plants (and other industry) disturb the seabed habitats. 10. Spatial considerations The index is Baltic wide, but can be calculated to smaller areas, e.g. sub-basins. The tool has no spatial limits, but the limitations arise from the data reliability. 11. Temporal considerations Human activities being slowly changing in larger spatial scales, the indicator can be updated every three years. 12. Current monitoring The data on pressures is compiled from different sources. 13. Proposed or perceived target setting approach with a short justifi cation. Under the EU Habitats Directive a threshold of 25% is being used to classify a habitat type to ‘Bad conservation status’. Using this threshold as a basis, a threshold of 15% or less is being proposed for this indicator. Policy relevance of the indicator The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) both require an assessment of the state of the habitats and the intensity and distribution of anthropogenic pressures impacting them. Particularly, the MSFD calls for an improved understanding and management of pressures and impacts arising from human activities and ultimately aims at reducing them. This should lead to improved state of the ecosystem and hence enhanced resilience of marine ecosystems to counteract natural and human induced changes whilst ensuring the sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services. The MSFD requires Member States to put in place measures to achieve or maintain ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) in the marine environment by 2020 at the latest. To reach this overall goal Member States must develop and implement marine strategies. The marine strategies must include an assessment of pressures and impacts and develop environmental targets and associated indicators. These environmental targets and associated indicators should help to guide the progress towards achieving and maintaining GES. The BSAP ecological objectives, relevant for benthic habitats, state that the distribution and extent of marine landscapes must be “natural” and species communities must be “thriving” and “balanced”. Although the BSAP does not mention habitats or biotopes separately, the landscape and community-level objectives together set the standard for GES of marine habitats. In the MSFD, the GES of the benthic habitats is particularly assessed with the qualitative descriptor 6 “Seafl oor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected”. The objective of the descriptor is that human pressures on the seabed do not hinder the ecosystem components to retain their natural diversity, productivity and dynamic ecological processes, having regard to ecosystem resilience. The descriptor and particularly its criterion 6.1 require an assessment of the extent of signifi cant impacts on benthic habitats. 177
Page 1:
Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings
Page 4 and 5:
2 Helsinki Commission Katajanokanla
Page 6 and 7:
4 4.16. Cumulative impact on benthi
Page 8 and 9:
6 descriptions of the indicators. T
Page 10 and 11:
8 The CORESET expert group on biodi
Page 12 and 13:
10 fi sh stocks and change in diet,
Page 14 and 15:
12 Figure 2.3. The prevalence of pr
Page 16 and 17:
14 Seasonal changes in blubber thic
Page 18 and 19:
16 Blubber thickness suggestions Bl
Page 20 and 21:
18 Weaknesses/gaps Monitoring of th
Page 22 and 23:
20 2.3. Population growth rate of m
Page 24 and 25:
22 Annual adult survival 1 0,95 0,9
Page 26 and 27:
24 Existing monitoring data Informa
Page 28 and 29:
26 References Bäcklin, B. M. 2011.
Page 30 and 31:
28 Reproduction in the Baltic eagle
Page 32 and 33:
30 Breeding success The proportion
Page 34 and 35:
32 of the real number of nestlings
Page 36 and 37:
34 Gaps and weaknesses Minimum dete
Page 38 and 39:
36 2.5. Abundance of wintering popu
Page 40 and 41:
38 Table 2.10. Pressures affecting
Page 42 and 43:
40 Refrences Skov et al. (2000) Bir
Page 44 and 45:
42 termined by application of the 7
Page 46 and 47:
44 Approach for defi ning GES All s
Page 48 and 49:
46 Sampling It is suggested to incl
Page 50 and 51:
48 2.7. Fish population abundance 2
Page 52 and 53:
50 Coastal Fish - Community Abundan
Page 54 and 55:
52 When a reference data set cannot
Page 56 and 57:
54 well, but were not included in t
Page 58 and 59:
56 Weighting For Nordic Costal mult
Page 60 and 61:
58 12. Current monitoring Monitored
Page 62 and 63:
60 Błeńska M., Osowiecki A., Kra
Page 64 and 65:
62 10. Spatial considerations Fucus
Page 66 and 67:
64 2.15. Trend in the arrival of ne
Page 68 and 69:
66 jectives is to reach “No intro
Page 70 and 71:
68 Sweden Figure 2.23 shows the rat
Page 72 and 73:
70 Strengths and weaknesses of data
Page 74 and 75:
72 need to be revisited in light of
Page 76 and 77:
74 Considering the data set availab
Page 78 and 79:
76 In Denmark, the highest contamin
Page 80 and 81:
78 Status of a compound on internat
Page 82 and 83:
80 A temporal analysis (EU-RAR 2006
Page 84 and 85:
82 Pathways of PFOS to the Baltic e
Page 86 and 87:
84 In regions less affected by anth
Page 88 and 89:
86 3.4. Polychlorinated biphenyls a
Page 90 and 91:
88 actions related to the environme
Page 92 and 93:
90 The CORESET expert group decided
Page 94 and 95:
92 pheric deposition pattern (lowes
Page 96 and 97:
94 3.5. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (
Page 98 and 99:
96 GES boundaries and matrix Existi
Page 100 and 101:
98 Quality Assurance of PAH metabol
Page 102 and 103:
100 Ariese F, Burgers I, Oudhoff K,
Page 104 and 105:
102 GES boundaries and matrices Exi
Page 106 and 107:
104 3.7. Cesium-137 Authors: Jürge
Page 108 and 109:
106 Figure 3.5. Average surface lev
Page 110 and 111:
108 Temporal trends in concentratio
Page 112 and 113:
110 Other important sources are glo
Page 114 and 115:
112 Conceptual model of the sources
Page 116 and 117:
114 3.8 Tributyltin (TBT) and the i
Page 118 and 119:
116 GES boundaries and matrix Exist
Page 120 and 121:
118 Monitoring the compound Status
Page 122 and 123:
120 Recommendation TBT measurements
Page 124 and 125:
122 3. Frogs have been shown to app
Page 126 and 127:
124 not fi sh (Köhler et al. 2002;
Page 128 and 129: 126 The use of different fi sh spec
Page 130 and 131: 128 Kirchin, M.A. Moore, M.N. Dean,
Page 132 and 133: 130 3.11. Fish Disease Index: Exter
Page 134 and 135: 132 Confounding factors The multifa
Page 136 and 137: 134 analyses ICES data from various
Page 138 and 139: 136 An EAC is the threshold beyond
Page 140 and 141: 138 3.12. Micronucleus test Authors
Page 142 and 143: 140 main nuclei were not counted as
Page 144 and 145: 142 ing national data sets. Note: t
Page 146 and 147: 144 Baršienė J. Rybakovas A. 2006
Page 148 and 149: 146 3.13 A. Reproductive disorders
Page 150 and 151: 148 dead larvae can be induced by s
Page 152 and 153: 150 Strand, J, Dahllöf, I. (2005).
Page 154 and 155: 152 of contaminants in sediments wi
Page 156 and 157: 154 Eriksson Wiklund, A-K., and Sun
Page 158 and 159: 156 4. Candidate indicators for bio
Page 160 and 161: 158 Zooplankton-phytoplankton bioma
Page 162 and 163: 160 4.2. By-catch of marine mammals
Page 164 and 165: 162 4.3. Impacts of anthropogenic u
Page 166 and 167: 164 4.4. Fatty-acid composition of
Page 168 and 169: 166 7. Use of the indicator in prev
Page 170 and 171: 168 10. Spatial considerations Balt
Page 172 and 173: 170 4.10. Large fi sh individuals f
Page 174 and 175: 172 11. Temporal considerations Sam
Page 176 and 177: 174 7. Use of the indicator in prev
Page 180 and 181: 178 A proposal for an approach to a
Page 182 and 183: 180 Technical data Metadata This is
Page 184 and 185: 182 F igure 4.1. Map showing the cu
Page 186 and 187: 184 4.17. Biomass of copepods 1. Wo
Page 188 and 189: 186 4.19. Zooplankton species diver
Page 190 and 191: 188 indirectly impacted by eutrophi
Page 192 and 193: 190 Notes for the GES boundary The
Page 194 and 195: 192 Step 3: Prepare a list of speci
Page 196 and 197: 194 4.22. Phytoplankton diversity 1
Page 198 and 199: 196 4. Policy relevance Nonylphenol
Page 200 and 201: 198 among different studies/measure
Page 202 and 203: 200 4.27. EROD/CYP1A induction The
Page 204 and 205: 202 5.1. Summary of all supplementa
Page 206 and 207: 204 Table 5.1. (continues) Suppleme
Page 208 and 209: 206 5.5. Biopollution level index 1
Page 210 and 211: 208 NIS for aquaculture purposes. O
Page 212 and 213: 210 Balanus improvisus Baltic Katte
Page 214 and 215: 212 Figure 5.3. The scheme for asse
Page 216 and 217: 214 5.6. Organochlorine compounds G
Page 218 and 219: 216 EU Directive 2008/105/ EC Daugh
Page 220 and 221: 218 Table 5.4. Monitoring of HCB, H
Page 222: www.helcom.fi
show all

Interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?