Working document Project; task; subtask
1.8.4.3: Analysis of pressures integration into ecosystem assessment
Partners involved
UMA, UAB and Geoville
Date
20/07/14
Prepare d by:
Ana I. MarĂn (UMA), Raquel Ubach (UAB), Dania Abdul Malak (UMA)
Coastal and marine ecosystem
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION Marine and coastal ecosystems are usually considered together in EEA’s assessments, as both are highly interrelated. The coastal environment is a heterogeneous ecosystem, hosting a wide variety of different habitats associated both to water and land. Coast is defined by the EEA as a mixed area distinguished by the coming together of land and sea, delimited by the strip of land 10 km inland from the coastline plus the first 10 km seaward (EEA, 2006). For the current assessment, and in accordance to the ecosystems-related tasks within the ETC-SIA framework, the EUNIS classification is the reference for ecosystems definitions and typologies. At the same time, this work is also original
1/37
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
intended to give support to the general EU Biodiversity strategy 2020 framework (Target 2 - Action 5). For this reason, the proposed ecosystem typology defined by MAES working group has also been considered in the present approach, where the broad marine ecosystem is divided into two environments: coastal and marine. Here, ‘Coastal environment’ considers those terrestrial habitats that always occur along the coast including marshes, sea cliffs, intertidal habitats and coastal dunes; and also some aquatic habitats effectively occurring adjacent to the coast, such as marine inlets and transitional waters. Coastal ecosystems can be defined and spatially delineated using the following EUNIS habitat classes (Figure ): • terrestrial coast comprising coastal dunes and sandy shores (B1), coastal shingle (B2), and rock cliffs, ledges and shores (B3), and • aquatic coast including estuaries (X1) and saline and brackish coastal lagoons (X2-X3). This represents a different approach to the MAES definition of ‘coastal areas’ which refers to coastal, shallow, marine systems that experience significant landbased influences, with diurnal fluctuations in temperature, salinity and turbidity, and also affected by wave disturbance (MAES, 2013). This is why we slightly modified the name to 'coastal littoral', so a clear differentiation is made with the terrestrial stripe of coast, widely used in other assessments, e.g. like the SOER. On the other hand, 'Marine environment' is characterised by marine waters, and composed of habitats directly connected to the oceans below the high tide limit (as defined by EUNIS). Marine ecosystems are a complex of habitats defined by the wide range of physical, chemical, and geological variations that are found in the sea. Habitats range from highly productive near-shore regions to the deep sea floor inhabited only by highly specialised organisms (EEA, 2010 1). Marine ecosystems can be divided into the following EUNIS classes found in the ‘coastal littoral’, ‘shelf’ and ‘open ocean’ (Figure ): • Littoral rock and other hard substrata (A1) • Littoral sediment (A2) • Infralittoral rock and other hard substrata (A3) • Circalittoral rock and other hard substrata (A4) • Sublittoral sediment (A5) • Deep seabed (A6) • Pelagic water column (A7) • Ice-associated marine habitats (A8)
1 EU 2010 biodiversity baseline original
2/37
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
Figure . Marine ecosystem typology approach classifications (MAES in red and EUNIS in orange).
linking
different
2. GOALS The marine area under the jurisdiction of EU Member States covers a wide extension, much larger than the total European land. There is still a variety of challenges to build and improve current knowledge base related to the marine environment. In this line, the Blue Growth long term strategy is presented to support sustainable growth in the marine and maritime sectors. Seas and oceans are expected to gain importance as drivers to spur European economy and have great potential for innovation and growth. This is expected to contribute to the major frame of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Nowadays, European marine ecosystems support multiple industries such as shipping, fishing, offshore wind energy, tourism, and different resources extraction such as oil, gas and minerals (EEA, 2010), among others. European industries operating in the marine environment are already making an important contribution to the European economy. Fishing activities are probably one of the original
3/37
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
oldest ways of marine resources exploitation and have traditionally been part of the human social fabric, evolving together. But the appearance of new activities using marine resources has brought together their derived pressures. Fortunately, these different activities and pressures have appeared at different historical moments (Figure ) being ecosystems capable to, at a certain level, recover their prior condition. However, it has to be accounted that now these different pressures can occur at the same time. And also, it has to be considered that pressures derived from maritime activities are combined with those resulting from land-based activities. The cumulative effect of all these pressures can compromise ecosystem’s resilience and where thresholds are exceeded the result is the damage of ecosystems integrity and the loss of ecosystems services.
Figure Simplified illustration of maritime uses and pressures on the marine and coastal environment. Source: Adapted from Jackson et al., 2001 (EEA, 2012)
Therefore, the assessment of pressures in Coastal and Marine ecosystems is essential to build current knowledge to achieve a sustainable use of resources. In this sense, first it is required to analyse the state of more relevant and available datasets, followed by the strategic select of the most adequate ones to map the variety of combined factors pressuring ecosystems’ biodiversity in these ecosystems as defined in figure 1.
original
4/37
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis
The task aims at defining a comprehensive methodology to match the source of coastal and marine data related to anthropogenic pressures as listed in table 1. For each driver of change, it develops indicators for the major pressures based on data relevance and availability of and then produces datasets (provided separately on the EEA ftp) and maps that are included in this report. The steps followed are: • Check the availability and evaluate the coverage and suitability of data compiled in 2013 report, • Analyse their relevance to assess coastal and marine pressures, • Select the input datasets, in order to simplify the proposal, according to their feasibility and weight on coastal and marine assessment, • Provide a workflow on assessing coastal and marine pressures with the selected input data.
3. MAJOR
PRESSURES
In order to propose a final selection of the input datasets to be included in the analysis, a pre-selection of the major pressures to focus the study on was done building on the major drivers and pressures identified in ETC-SIA´s 2013 report Towards a Pan-European Ecosystem Assessment Methodology (task 222_5_2) and the MAES 2nd technical report. For each European Sea, a bibliographical search was done and the main pressures were listed (Annex 1) and then linked to the main drivers of change as shown in table 1. Major pressures summary Sea Region Driver of pressure
Pressure
BAL
Habitat change
Physical damage: Siltation
x
Habitat change
Physical damage: Abrasion
x
Habitat change
Coastal degradation
Habitat change* / Pollution
Intensive shipping
x
Habitat change / Pollution
Underwater noise
x
Habitat change / Pollution
Offshore activities (oil, gas and wind farming)
Habitat change / Pollution
Marine litter
original
NEA
MED BLS
x
x
x
x x
x
x x
5/37
x
European Topic Centre Spatial Information and Analysis Nutrient and organic matter x enrichment Contamination by hazardous Pollution and nutrient enrichment x substances Pollution and nutrient enrichment
Climate change
Ocean acidification
Climate change
Ocean warming
Exploitation
Fisheries
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x
x
x
x
* colisions (e.g. between whales and ships, birds and wind turbines, or the blocking effect of bridges on birds)
Table . links the major pressures identified under each driver of change in each European Sea.
4. INPUT
DATASETS
The tables below provide the link between inputs datasets, the indicator to develop and the relevance of the indicator based on the reliability of coverage of input datasets to be used.
original
6/37
4.1 Terrestrial coast
Reference year (for the assessment)
Note
2006
Ecosystem/ delimitation
Land cover flows (LCF) –EEA-
2000-2006
Applying a buffer around the terrestrial –coats ecosystem
Port dataset -Eurostat - GISCO -
2012
Weighted according to the total annual cargo volume
Coastal and
Drivers
Use
Pressure
Indicator
Datasets available
-
-
Ecosystem size
Surface – delimitation of ecosystem
Pan-European ecosystem map (EEA, ETCSIA)
Habitat change
Pressure
Sealing
Land take
Habitat change
Pressure
Sealing/fragmentation
Harbours
Habitat change
Trends in Pressure
Pollution
Pressure
Introduction of pollutant compounds
Bathing sites, beaches and beach replenishment
Bathing Water Directive –EEA
HR
2012
Pollution
Pressure
Introduction of pollutant compounds
Waste treatment plant
Urban waste water treatment database – EEA-
HR
2011
Pollution
Trends in Pressure
Introduction of pollutant compounds
Changes in state of bathing water
State of bathing water
HR
2008-2013
Invasive species
Pressure
Invasive species
Invasive species
Invasive alien species in Europe (SEBI 010)
Invasive species
Pressure
Invasive species
Climate change
Exploitation
Level of invasion by alien plants Alien species
Pressure
Pressure
High Reliability (HR)
habitats
Coastal erosion trends
Invasive species
Pressure
Marine
Climate change
Tourism
Change in exposure to coastal storm surge events Potential impact of changes in inundation heights of a sea level rise Number of beds per square kilometer
<1900-2008
1
Terrestrial Alien Species in Europe EASIN -JRC
See
Gaps in input datasets making its use inadequate
1
Finally not used as inputs. Data not homogeneous for European countries. Low reliability.
HR
ESPON-Climate ESPON-Climate Number bed-places by NUTS 3 regions
2011
1 Chytrý M., Pyšek P, Wild J, Pino J, Maskell LC and Vilà M (2009) European map of alien plant invasions based on the quantitative assessment across habitats; Diversity and Distributions, 15: 98-107 DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00515.x
Table lists the main pressures (and trends whenever possible) threatening terrestrial coast ecosystems caused by the main drivers of change and the measures used to assess their effects
4.2 Marine Inlets and transitional waters
Drivers
Use
Pressure
Indicator
Datasets available
Coastal and Marine
Reference year (for the assessment)
Note
-
-
Ecosystem size
Surface – delimitation of ecosystem
Pan-European ecosystem map (EEA, ETCSIA)
HR
2006
Ecosystem/ delimitation
Habitat change
Pressure
Environment degradation
Population density
Population density disaggregated with Corine land cover 2000 –EEA-
HR
2000
Habitat change
Pressure
Environment degradation
Decreasing of natural land use
Land cover flows
HR
2000-2006
Waste treatment plant
Urban waste water treatment database – EEA-
HR
2011
Hazardous / nutrient content
Transitional, coastal and marine waters – Waterbase-
1978-2012
2004
Habitat change
Pressure
Eutrophication
Habitat change
Trend in pressure
Coastal erosion trends
Coastline dynamics
Geomorphology, Geology, Erosion trends and Coastal defence works –EEA-
Pollution
Pressure
Introduction of pollutant compounds
Bathing sites, beaches and beach replenishment
Bathing Water Directive –EEA
HR
2012
Pollution
Pressure
Introduction of pollutant compounds
Waste treatment plant
Urban waste water treatment database – EEA-
HR
2011
Pollution
Pressure
Introduction of pollutant compounds
Hazardous / nutrient content
Transitional, coastal and marine waters – Waterbase-
Invasive species
Pressure
Climate change
Change in exposure to coastal storm surge events Potential impact of changes in inundation heights of a sea level rise
Climate change
Exploitation
Exploitation
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Tourism Population
/
public
1978-2012
ESPON-Climate ESPON-Climate
Number of beds per square kilometer
Number bed-places by NUTS 3 regions
Population density
Population density disaggregated with Corine land cover 2000 –EEA-
2011 HR
2000
habitats
Relevant dataset for future assessment. Gaps. Complex database requiring detailed analysis
Relevant dataset for future assessment. Gaps in input dataset (v11). Complex database requiring detailed analysis
Table lists the main pressures (and trends whenever possible) threatening marine inlets and transitional waters ecosystems caused by the main drivers of change and the measures used to assess their effects
4.3 Marine environment
Drivers
Use
Pressure
Indicator
Datasets available
Coastal and Marine
Reference year (for the assessment)
Note
-
-
Ecosystem size
Surface – delimitation of ecosystem
Pan-European ecosystem map (EEA, ETCSIA)
HR
2006
Ecosystem/ delimitation
Habitat change
Pressure
Abrasion
Trawler fishing
Demersal marine fish captures -FAO-
2010, 2011 and 2012
Relevant dataset for future assessment. Complex database requiring detailed analysis
Dredging
Dredging and aggregate activities –EMODNET-
Dredge spoil dumping
Dredge spoil dumping –EMODNET-
Coastal urbanisation and defence structures
Imperviousness
Thermal power plants (fossil-fuel and nuclear)
EnergyPlants400MW.mdb Street Map
Accident density
Accident density –EMSA-
Intensity of marine use
Intensity of marine use. Shipping lanes -NCEAS
Harbours
Port dataset -Eurostat - GISCO -
Habitat change
Pressure
Pressure
Sealing
Habitat change
Trends in pressure
Change regime
Pressure
Gaps in Celtic Sea, North sea, Eastern Mediterranean sea and Black sea. Currently not publicly available
Change in siltation
Habitat change
Pollution
extraction
in
thermal
Introduction of pollutant/synthetic compounds
and
HR
2009
HR
2009
HR
2012
Open
Transitional, coastal and marine waters – Waterbase-
1978-2012
E-PRTR reporting of 2007 data
2007
Hazardous substance Pollution
Pressure
Introduction of hazardous compounds
habitats
European Pollutant Release and Transfer
Weighted according to the total annual cargo volume Relevant dataset for future assessment. Gaps in input dataset (v11). Complex database requiring detailed analysis Relevant dataset for future assessment. Complex database requiring detailed analysis
Table lists the main pressures (and trends whenever possible) threatening marine ecosystems caused by the main drivers of change and the measures used to assess their effects
5. INDICATOR
DEVELOPMENT
The indicators identified previously build on the input datasets that have quantitative or qualitative origins. The ranges of each input dataset are defined through the use of a reference or proxy (whenever reference is not available) to identify the threshold and based on which to set the ranges of data to develop individual pressure ranges (for an overview on the methodology, please refer to report 1). Based on these ranges, individual qualitative pressure indicators are normalised to a common range from very low to very high pressures (1ď&#x192; 5). 5.1 Coastal environment In a compromise between output quality and present resources, it was decided to give priority to the elaboration of pressure indicators on the marine environment and to leave the development of pressure indicators on terrestrial coast ecosystem and on the marine inlets and transitional waters for the coming exercises, when findings and directions set out in the present document can be followed. 5.2 Marine environment Using the proposed approach, the rationale of the assessment should be focused on applying the knowledge available to address those drivers of pressures producing changes in biodiversity within ecosystems, causing loss of species and biological diversity, and affecting the wellbeing of ecosystemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s health. The main direct drivers of ecosystem change causing major pressures on ecosystems as set by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment are habitat change, climate change, pollution and nutrient enrichment, invasive species, and resource exploitation (MA, 2005). 5.2.1 Habitat change Habitat change is a driver of change that produces habitat loss or degradation. It is considered the result of many direct and indirect pressures leading to total or partial destruction or removal of a habitat and its replacement by another habitat type. Physical loss includes smothering and sealing of ecosystems (e.g. by man-made structures, permanent constructions or disposal of dredge spoil), while physical damage is due to changes in siltation, abrasion and selective extraction of non-living resources. Other physical disturbances can be done by underwater noise, or by inference with hydrological processes (changes in thermal and salinity regimes). For all these, habitat change is one of the major causes of biodiversity loss. Here it is proposed a composite indicator: -
Indicator 1 - trawling: Trawler fishing damages the seabed by abrasion. In particular, bottom trawling targeted to demersal fishing
can cause large-scale destruction on the ocean seabed by damaging habitats, removing seaweed and shattering coral reefs. Although seabed trawling is the most destructive pressure for the benthic communities (Zisenis et al., 2013), there is currently no spatial data available for the whole extent of EU sea regions for this activity. Therefore, a proxy is proposed to estimate the pressure of trawler fishing. Data from FAO Fishery statistical collection (mean capture production in tonnes accounting 2010, 2011 and 2012) has been disaggregated by country according national Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and summed by production area (sea regions). -
Indicator 2 – soil sealing: The construction of new structures produces soil sealing. This information is derived from imperviousness data for 2009. The mean percentage of soil sealed has been computed for each 1km2 by aggregation, showing the degree of urbanisation, and consequently, the degree of pressure from habitat change by urban structures (including ports, coastal defence and offshore constructions, among others).
-
Indicator 3 - thermal change: Change in thermal regime – from outfalls of thermal power plants, including both fossil-fuel power stations and nuclear power plants. The main power plants and stations, those producing more than 400MW per year, were geolocated and referenced by UAB within a task for the EEA (ETCSIA IP2011). This dataset has been updated and enriched with data from Open Street Map project (OSM). A spatial selection of those plants located within a distance of 1500 m landward from the coastline is applied to power plants from EEA internal database. The pressure is computed according to the distance to the source up to a threshold of 10 km (as defined by HELCOM (Andersen and Stock, 2012)). Therefore, a major pressure is produced closer to the power plant.
The habitat change pressure is calculated based on the combination of three sub-indicators: [trawling], [ss] and [thermal]. The values of each sub-indicator are normalised into 1 to 5 (check table below, the break values for pressure classes need further expertise consultation). The subindicators are weighted and summed to combine the accumulated pressure related to habitat change (this decision needs further expertise consultation). Higher weighting values have been set for trawling and soil sealing due to the irreversible or highly destructive nature of their impacts. HCh=0,4∗[ trawling ] + 0,4∗ [ ss ] +0,2∗[thermal ] The resulting assessment ranges between values from 0 to 4,4 (see next table), which are distributed into five pressure classes (classified by jenks natural breaks), from very low to very high, as a proxy to assess the pressure on a Pan-European scale.
Trawler fishing* (tonnes/year)
Soil sealing (%)
1-1025 1026-3730 3731-11194 11195-32302 32303-102241
1-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100
Distance to thermal sources (km) 8-10 6-8 4-6 2-4 0-2
Normalised values
HCh** values
Pressure classes
1 2 3 4 5
0 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0,59 0,59 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1,59 1,59-1,98 1,98-2,59 2,59-4,4
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
* Classification by quantiles ** Classification by natural breaks
Table Normalisation of the indicators for trawling, soil sealing and thermal and the calculation of the HCh indicator on the level of pressure on marine ecosystems from Habitat change.
Figure HCh indicator showing the potential level of pressure of habitat change on marine ecosystems due to trawling, soil sealing and thermal regime changes. On the right, zoom to highlight pressures due to thermal change (top) and soil sealing (bottom). 5.2.2 Climate Change Climate change produces variations in the life cycles of many biota groups. Climatic warming has proven to push them to move to different
biogeographic regions and uphill, among main these effects are altering frog and fish spawning, birds nesting, the arrival of migrant species and earlier spring phytoplankton blooms. The effects of climate change on oceans are relevant altering the temperature, sea level and acidification. The main consequences of atmospheric warming would be the warming of oceans and shift in habitat ranges which lead to changes in algae, plankton and fish abundance in high latitude oceans (IPCC, 2007). The pressure on Marine ecosystems due to climate change was determined by a composite indicator from two single sub-indicators of effects in the seas: -
Indicator 1: Change in sea surface temperature (SST) from NCEAS measure as the frequency of temperature anomalies, where the temperature exceeds a threshold value like the long-term mean (differences in anomaly frequency between 2000-2005 and 19851990). The relevance of this indicator lies in the SST influence in the marine ecological processes at different latitudes. This dataset cover completely work extension.
-
Indicator 2: sea level rise (SLR) along the European Coast. This data, created within the framework of Eurosion project, shows the sea level rise in mm/year using a point shapefile. The data location is situated 50 to 100 km away from the shoreline with a distance between then of, approximately, 100 km. By GIS tools, the point measures were extrapolated to work extension in order to cover the Barents and Norwegians seas (being aware the data errors by extrapolation techniques in area with gaps or without close data).
The climate change pressure is calculated based on the combination of indicators [SST] and [SLR]. The values of each indicator are transformed into 1 to 5 (check table below, the break values for pressure classes need further expertise consultation). The indicators are summed (no weighted mean was set to combine both indicators - this decision needs further expertise consultation). The resulting assessment ranges between 1 and 55 (next table) that are distributed in five pressure classes (from very low to very high) as proxy to assess the pressure level on Pan-European. SST changes < 0.2 (0.2 – 0.4]
SST index 1 2
SLR index 10 20
CCh value 1,11 12, 21, 22
Pressure classes Very low Low
3 4
SLR* < -4.86 (-4.86 – -0.73] (-0.73 – 1,12] (1.12 – 1,79]
(0.4 – 0.6] (0.6 – 0.8]
30 40
Moderate High
5
> 173
50
13,23,31,32,33 34, 41, 42, 43, 44 45, 51
> 0.8
* Classification by natural breaks method
Very high
Table Normalisation of the indicators SST and SLR and the calculation of the CCh indicator on the level of pressure on marine ecosystems from Climate change.
Figure shows the CCh indicator showing the potential level of pressure of climate change on marine ecosystems due to sea surface temperature changes and sea level rise 5.2.3 Pollution Pollution and nutrient enrichment occur when excessive harmful components are introduced into an ecosystem exceeding the capacity of ecosystems to maintain their natural balance, deriving in different threatens to the life cycles and the biodiversity they contain. This driver entails the contamination by hazardous substances and the nutrient and organic matter enrichment. The first one entails the introduction of synthetic compounds through the atmospheric deposition of dioxins, oil spills and slicks; introduction of non-synthetic substances and compounds to the ecosystem (input of heavy metals both by waterborne or atmospheric deposition); and introduction of radionuclides by discharges of radioactive substances. While the second includes the input of nutrients and organic enrichment due to fertilizers from aquaculture, agriculture runoff, atmospheric deposition and waterborne inputs. The pollution
pressures into this first approach for marine pressure assessment have been derived by two main factors: the introduction of synthetic compounds and the introduction of nutrient. Shipping and port are essential to EU economy with, on the other hand, relevant effects on marine and coastal environment. The introduction of non-synthetic and synthetic compounds is one of major pressures derived from shipping and port activities, among other (Boteler et al., 2014). A special point is the hazardous substances with the introduction of pollution synthetic compounds which has to be included into the assessment as relevant point. A proxy to pollution pressure could be done based on the assessment of seven substances: the metals cadmium, lead and mercury, the pesticides DDT and lindane, and other two synthetics - HCB and PCBs (as MAR 001 indicator1) in the monitoring station and the environmental quality standards (EQSs) for priority substances (PSs) of EU-wide relevance known as (EQSD2). Due to complexity of data sources (see table 1) and time restraint and unavailable resources, this has not been included for the current year´s activities. Indicator1 –SyC-: Introduction of pollutant/synthetic compounds The proxy to assess the pressure on marine ecosystem due to the introduction of synthetic compounds could be done considering three factors: the accident density, harbours and the intensity of marine uses by shipping lanes. A composite index has been developed taking into these three variables. 1. The accident density –AD- map shows an overview of accident in the seas around the European Union based on EMSA 3 data. The database gives three levels of density from low to high. In cases where there was no information the small value was given. 2. The harbours –H- are hot-spots regarding the introduction on pollutant compounds. The dataset, from GISCO-Eurostat, shows the port location. The pressure was modelled (using 5km as pressure distance -Andersen and Stock, 2012-) as function of the gross weight of goods handled in 2012 (thousands of tonnes/Maritime transport statistics for Eurostat). In cases where there was no quantitative information on the cargo turnover, the site was given a small value (1000 t) 3. Shipping Lanes –ShL- from NCEAS dataset shows an estimation of the occurrence of ships at a particular location, and therefore an estimate of the amount of pollution they produce (via fuel leaks, oil discharge, waste disposal, etc.) 1 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/hazardous-substances-in-marine-organisms/ 2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/pri_substances.htm#prop_2011 3 http://www.emsa.europa.eu/
The synthetics compounds indicator is calculated based on the combination of three sub-indicators. The values of each sub-indicator are transformed into 1 to 5 (check table below). The indicators, “AD”, “H” and “ShL” are then joined to develop the pressure indicator. No weighing was set to combine both sub-indicators as this decision needs further expertise consultation. The resulting assessment ranges between 1 and 5 (Table ) that are distributed in five pressure classes (from very low to very high) as proxy to assess the pressure level on Pan-European marine ecosystems. AD + H +ShL SyC = 3 Accident AD density index
Harbour s effects*
H index
Shippin g lanes*
ShL index
Composi te value
Pressur e classes
1
1
0
1
1
(1 – 3091) (3091 – 9273] (9273 – 26271] > 4173
2
(0 – 4.53] (4.53 – 9.05] (9,08 -18,1] > 18.1
2
(1 – 2]
Very low Low
3
(2 – 3]
4
(3 – 4]
5
(4 – 5]
-thousands of tonnes-
Low
2
Moderat e High
3 4
3 4 5
Modera te High Very high
* Classification by quantile method
Table Normalisation of the indicators AD, H and ShL and the calculation of the –SyC- indicator on the level of pressure on marine ecosystems from Pollution.
Figure Syc indicator showing the potential level of pollution pressure on marine ecosystems due to introduction of synthetic compounds Indicator 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Nut: Introduction of nutrients The emissions of nutrients is one of the main cause of the sea eutrophication that even has been defined by European Union as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the enrichment of water by nutrients, especially nitrogen and/or phosphorus, causing an accelerated growth of algae and higher forms of plant life to produce an undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms present in the water and to the quality of water concernedâ&#x20AC;? (Anon, 1991). So, the introduction of nutrients into sea water is a relevant factor to be taken into account during pollution pressure assessment in marine environment. The pressure on Marine ecosystems due to introduction of nutrient was determined by a composite indicator from two datasets: 1. Nutrient enrichment from coastal waste water which allows having a proxy of nutrient introduction due to urban activities. It is the urban indicator [UN]The pressure effects have been modelled using the urban waste water treatment database (EEA) and the 10 km as
pressure distance (Andersen and Stock, 2012). In cases where there was no information the small value was given. 2. Nutrient input data from NCEAS which is based on fertilizers data from FAO. In this case the agricultural activities as contamination driver has been taking into account. It is the fertilizers indicator [FN]. In cases where there was no information the small value was given.
Nut =
UN + FN 2
Nutrients UN UWWTP index -m≤ 3850 1 (3850 - 2 5850) (58503 7850) (7885 - 4 8875) > 8875 5
Nutrient inputs from fertilizers* 1 (1 – 3)
FN Composite Pressure index value classes 1 2
1 (1 – 2]
Very low Low
(3 – 8]
3
(2 – 3]
Moderate
(8 – 22]
4
(3 – 4]
High
> 22
5
(4 – 5]
Very high
* Classification by quantile method
Table Normalisation of the indicators UN and FN and the calculation of the Nut indicator on the level of pressure on marine ecosystems from Pollution.
Figure Nut indicator showing the potential level of pollution pressure on marine ecosystems due to introduction of nutrients Composite index: Pollution The Pollution indicator [Po_ind] is the result of the combination of the introduction of synthetic compounds [SynC] and introduction of nutrient [Nut] indexes. The composite index is calculated based on the combination of indicators, transforming the resulting values as the next table indicates: SyC score 1 (1 – 2] (2 – 3] (3 – 4] (4 – 5]
SyC index 10 20 30 40 50
Nut score 1 (1 – 2] (2 – 3] (3 – 4] (4 – 5]
Nut index
Pollution index
Pressure classes
1
1,11
Very low
2
12, 21, 22
Low
3
13,23,31,32,33
Moderate
4
34, 41, 42, 43, 44
High
5
45, 51
Very high
* Classification by natural breaks method
Table Normalisation of the indicators SyC and Nut and the calculation of the Po indicator on the level of pressure on marine ecosystems from Pollution.
Figure shows the Pollution indicator showing the potential level of pressure of pollution on marine ecosystems due to the introduction of synthetic compounds and the introduction of nutrients 5.2.4 Invasive species Invasive species compete against indigenous species for the same niche causing exclusion, displacement or hybridisation with native species and, consequently, changing the ecosystem structure and biodiversity. Therefore, alien invasions may result in extensive changes in the structure, composition and global distribution of biota, leading ultimately to the homogenisation of fauna and flora and the loss of biodiversity. It can also be caused by the introduction of microbial pathogens derived from aquaculture, shellfish farms, coastal water treatment plants or passenger ships. The EEA is currently developing two indicators on Marine Alien Species (MAS): 1. trends in MAS (showing decadal cumulative numbers of species per MSFD region, since the 1950´s until 2012) and
2. trends in pathways of MAS (showing total number of species per major pathway of primary introduction, since the 1950´s to 2012). The data comes from an extensive review of all the available online databases, as well expert judgement based on these findings. The indicators have not yet been published although are expected by 2014 (EEA, personal communication). It is to note that for future work on pressures resulting from invasive species, the exploration of MAS indicators is recommended In order to assess the pressures resulting from the presence of invasive species on marine ecosystems with alternative dataset, two available and accessible data sources were analyzed (Table ). The European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) facilitates the exploration of marine alien species information, working as a repository from different sources in Europe. It is based on inventory of the species in Europe. The EASIN expert group is working on reviewing the data included for the quality assurance, but, at the moment, not harmonized information to be used in our work. The NCEAS dataset shows the global incidence of invasive species. It is not based on inventories data (as EASIN dataset) but was modelled as a function of the amount of cargo traffic at a port (Halpern et al. 2008). We used this dataset as input in the assessment because is a final product which data access is easy and direct. It has been used in others project such as ESaTDOR - European Seas and Territorial Development, Opportunities and Risks1-. However, note that for future work the others two option, mainly MAS indicator, would be better source data. The proxy to assess the invasive pressure has been done ranking the number of invasive species by 1km2 in 5 pressure classes (from very low to very high) according to the ranges selected in ESaTDOR project for the composite environmental map (ESaTDOR, 2013; see next table). Invasive Species ≤ 60 (60 – 120] (120 – 180] (180 – 240] > 240
Invasive index 1 2 3 4 5
species Pressure classes Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Table Calculation of the indicator on the level of pressure on marine ecosystems from invasive species.
1 http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Projects/Menu_AppliedResearch/ESaTDOR.html
Figure Invasive species indicator showing the potential level of this pressure on marine ecosystems at Pan-European scale 5.2.5 Exploitation From one side, land-based activities have a direct or indirect impact in some marine and coastal ecosystems. Besides, several management practises taking place in the sea may entail a negative effect on ecosystems and, in some cases, end being a pressure due to overexploitation of natural resources. Unsustainable exploitation of resources deals with the selective extraction of species by different: commercial and recreational fisheries, by-catches, aquaculture, shellfish farms, hunting of different species (birds, mammals, or reptiles), illegal egg trade, poaching, etc. Other ways of marine resources exploitation deal with energy production, resource extraction, and transport among others. Fishing pressures in most of Europe's seas exceed sustainable levels and safe biological limits (SBL); 30 % of Europe's commercial fish stocks are being fished beyond SBL (EEA, 2010). It is urgent to reduce the capacity of European fishing fleets to meet a balance with available fish resources. In accordance, sustainable exploitation of fish stocks is a target of EU policies, and in particular of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which
aims for sustainable fishing through appropriate management of fisheries within a healthy ecosystem. The pressure on Marine ecosystems due to exploitation was determined by a composite indicator of four single sub-indicators: -
Indicator 1 – fishing: Total catches are derived from different sources: Fisheries data (FAO), International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) and General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM). This data is regularly compiled in the CSI 032 indicator on Status of marine fish stocks. Here, a reference year (2008) is taken to spatially compare the pressure of fishing at the pan-European scale. This dataset presents some spatial gaps and some methodological uncertainty due to data collection differences. Catch and effort statistics are not considered to be fully reliable and much effort is directed at estimation of corrective factors (Papaconstantinou & Farrugio, 2000).
-
Indicator 2 – aquaculture: On the recent years, aquaculture production is gaining importance in Europe as it is rapidly increasing due to the expansion of marine production (CSI 033). But European aquaculture is unevenly distributed, mainly located in few countries, which are led by Norway (producing nearly 40% of the total European production), and followed by Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. For this reason, marine aquaculture production relative to coastline length is a better indicator of the pressure produced by this activity. Total production statistics (in tonnes) are gathered at country level, from FAO Fishstat plus 2010 and Eurostat database. Then the indicator is computed by characterising production (in 2008) relative to each country coastline length (in km) provided by the World Resources Institute. This indicator is computed by CSI 033 – Aquaculture production. In a final step, the aquaculture production per coastal length is assigned to the corresponding country Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The resulting values are finally normalised.
-
Indicator 3 – energy: The main power plants and stations, those producing more than 400MW per year, were geo-located and referenced by UAB within a task for the EEA (ETCSIA IP2011). This dataset has been updated and enriched with data from Open Street Map project (OSM). In particular, data from wind power plants has been included. In general terms, pressure from energy production is very much localised. The threshold for offshore wind farms pressure is set to 1km for the calculation of North Sea Pressure Index (Andersen and Stock, 2013). Considering this threshold together with the spatial resolution of the final pressure map, a threshold of 2km is set up. The Euclidean distance has been computed from power plants (fuelled by considered sources: nuclear, thermal or wind) up to 2km. The pressure is inversely proportional to the
distance; therefore, a reclassify has been applied accordingly (see following table). There are some data gaps as statistics are not available for the whole extent of analysis. -
Indicator 4 – shipping lanes: Transport intensity by commercial shipping lanes has been computed by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). This indicator is based on the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Voluntary Observing Ships Scheme (http://www.vos.noaa.gov/vos_scheme.shtml) compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Due to the voluntary character of the program, the estimates are expected to be biased to locations captured only from ships engaged in the program (Halpern et al., 2008).
The exploitation pressure is calculated based on the combination of four sub-indicators: [fishing], [aquaculture], [energy] and [shipping]. The values of each sub-indicator are normalised into 1 to 5 (check table below, the break values for pressure classes need further expertise consultation). The sub-indicators are weighted and summed to combine the accumulated pressure related to exploitation (this decision needs further expertise consultation). The mean value between fishing and aquaculture has been combined to perform the sub-indicator for fisheries. fishing +aquaculture +energy + shipping ( ) 2 Expl = 3
The resulting assessment ranges between values from 0,5 to 4,66 (see next table), which are distributed into five pressure classes (classified by jenks natural breaks), from very low to very high, as a proxy to assess the pressure on a Pan-European scale. Fishing (k tonnes) 22-237
Aquaculture (t/km) 0-1
Energy (m)
237-435
1-5
1000-2000
435-737
5-11
737-1405
11-20
1405-2482
20-31
0-1000
Shipping
0 0 – 4.53 4.53 – 9.05 9,08 -18,1 > 18.1
Normalised values 1
Expl values 0,5 – 0,99
Pressure classes Very low
2
0,99 – 1,5
Low
3
1,5 – 1,82
Moderate
4
1,82 2,33
–
High
5
2,33 4,67
–
Very high
* Classification by natural breaks
Table Normalisation of the indicators for fishing, aquaculture, energy production and shipping transport and the calculation of the Expl indicator on the level of pressure on marine ecosystems from Exploitation.
Figure Expl indicator showing the potential level of pressure of exploitation on marine ecosystems due to fisheries, energy production and shipping transport. On the right, zoom to highlight resulting pressures on the North Sea (top) and the Mediterranean Sea (bottom).
6. MAIN
OUTCOMES AND OUTLOOK
It has to be highlighted among the strengths of the proposed methodology that it is applicable to a wide scale like the study area, in this case the pan-European scale. Moreover, it is scalable as it has been previously applied to different regional scales (e.g. the Baltic and North Sea by HELCOM). This exercise has been build over a selection of the three or four more relevant pressures on the marine environment or those with a wider and more accurate data availability, but it can be reproduced including a
wider number of single pressures present in the study area as inputs for the composite indicator. In this sense, the quality and availability of data is a key issue. In the present exercise, some datasets contain spatial gaps for certain regions (e.g. statistics for aquaculture was not available for all countries). No-data was considered as no pressure; therefore, the result is underestimating that particular pressure in those places. To avoid this, gap-filling can be done using ancillary data or even alternative data sets. There are several datasets that could be used for this purpose, as already compiled in the input datasets tables (see chapter 4). However, some constraints made it impossible to use them here: need of deeper analysis and dataset unavailability. In some cases, some datasets seemed promising but a deeper analysis is required to extract, analyse and synthesize the information and to make sure that it can be used to derive the pressure indicator. This is the case of Waterbase data from WFD containing information of pressures on transitional and coastal water among other, highly valuable for this sort of exercise, in particular for pollution data. The same occurs with Fisheries and aquaculture production data from FAO. Therefore, to use this datasets more resources are required. On the other hand, some data sources contain data on pressures that could be used on this sort of analysis but they are publicly unavailable right now. This is particularly interesting for some EMODNET datasets that were not downloadable at the moment of computing the pressure indicators. In this instance, EMODNET project could be contacted and data petitioned if, again, more resources were available to make the contacts and a wider timeframe would be set. In any case, the EMODNET repository should be considered in future updates of the present exercise. A major weakness of the present methodology is current computing local incidence pressures together with pressures estimated and assigned to a wide region. This is the case, for instance, of trawling estimated through demersal fisheries statistics, which are disaggregated and assigned to a country EEZ. There is a need to better refine the allocation of those pressures over the territory. For instance, by considering the potential distribution of a certain activity by means of suitability maps, or eliminating of the assigned areas those places were the activity cannot take place by means of map algebra; both based on multi-criteria analysis. Moreover, there is a need of further research on the relation between activities and pressures and on the assignment of weighting values. Here only negative impacts of pressures have been considered, but some of them could bring positive impacts for the environment or its wildlife, e. g. the presence of wind farms brings the exclusion of fishing boats on that area (Bergstrรถm et al., 2014).
Finally, it would be highly interesting to analyse the results of the different pressures for each sea region or at a local scale, as the current working scale results in maps were details are hidden, in particular for those pressures that take place locally like ports, power plants or water treatment plants.
7. REFERENCES Andersen, J.H., P. Axe, H. Backer, J. Carstensen, U. Claussen, V. FlemingLehtinen, M. Järvinen, H. Kaartokallio, S. Knuuttila, S. Korpinen, M. Laamanen, E. Lysiak-Pastuszak, G. Martin, F. Møhlenberg, C. Murray, G. Nausch, A. Norkko, & A. Villnäs. 2010. Getting the measure of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: towards improved assessment principles and methods .Biogeochemistry. DOI: 10.1007/s10533-010-9508-4. Andersen, J.H. & Stock, A. (eds.), Mannerla, M., Heinänen, S. & M. 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 Anon. (1991a): Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC). Official Journal L 135 Anon. (2000) Directive 200/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327/1 Bergström, L., Kautsky, L., Malm, T., Rosenberg, R., Wahlberg, M., Åstrand Capetillo, N., Wilhelmsson, D., 2014. Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife—a generalized impact assessment. Environmental Research Letters 9, 034012. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034012 Boteler, B., Grüning, M., Lago, M., Iglesias-Campos, A., Reker, J., Meiner, A. (2014) European maritime transport and port activities: identifying policy gaps towards reducing environmental impacts of socio-economic activities. Ecologic http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/presentation/2014/european-maritimetransport-and-port-activities_0.pdf EEA. 2010. The European Environment State and Outlook 2010: marine and coastal environment EEA. 2012. Environmental indicator report. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-indicator-report2012 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: 948– 952.
ESaTDOR (2013) European Seas and Territorial Development, Opportunities and Risks, Scientific Report, ESPON 2013 Programme. http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedRes earch/ESaTDOR/FR_160413/20130417_annexes/ESaTDOR_FR_Scientific_ Report.pdf HELCOM. 2009. Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea—an integrated thematic assessment of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea region. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 115B. Helsinki Commission, 148 pp IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007 Jackson, J., Kirby, M, Berger, W., Bjorndal, K., Botsford, L., Bourque, B., Bradbury, R., Cooke, R., Eriandson, J., Estes, J., Hughes, T., Kidwell, S., Lange, C., Lenihan, H., Pandolfi, J., Peterson, C., Steneck, R., Tegner, M. and Warner, R. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, 293(5530): 629–637 MA. 2005. Ecosystems Assessment.
and
Human
Well-being:
A
Framework
Papaconstantinou, C., and Farrugio, H. 2000. Fisheries Mediterranean. Mediterranean Marine Science, 1:15-18
in
for the
Zisenis, M., Mikos, V., Delbaere, B., den Herder, M., Fernández Bautista, P., Cools, J., Campling, P., Gobin, A. 2013. European ecosystems: knowledge on their state and functioning. Interpreting environmental data for assessing ecosystem state and functioning externalities
ANNEX 1. MAJOR Sea Region
PRESSURES IDENTIFIED FOR EACH SEA REGION
Major pressures
References
Extraction of species Andersen et al., 2010 / Korpinen et al., 2012 Contamination with nutrients and organic matter (eutrophication) Andersen et al., 2010 / Korpinen et al., 2012 Baltic Sea
NorthEast Atlantic
Contamination with hazardous substances
Andersen et al., 2010 / Korpinen et al., 2012
Siltation
Andersen et al., 2010
Underwater noise
Andersen et al., 2010
Abrasion of seabed by trawling
Andersen et al., 2010 / Korpinen et al., 2012
High impact of human activities Andersen et al., 2010 Exploitation of many fish stocks beyond sustainable Moffat et al., 2010 / Andersen and Stock, levels 2013** Moffat et al., 2010 / Andersen and Stock, Large fish discards and bycatch 2013** Abrasion and severe seabed destruction by bottom Moffat et al., 2010 trawling
Intensive shipping Moffat et al., 2010 Intensive off-shore activities (oil and gas exploration and wind farming) Moffat et al., 2010 Nutrient enrichment
Andersen and Stock, 2013**
Hazardous substances
Andersen and Stock, 2013**
Coastal degradation
Fabres, 2012
Fertilizer run-off and resulting hypoxia Micheli et al., 2013 Overfishing and destructive fishing, including bottom trawling Fabres, 2012
Mediterranean
Demersal fisheries Micheli et al., 2013 Disturbance and pollution caused by fisheries, shipping emissions (oil spills, antifoulants) Fabres, 2012 Ship traffic
Micheli et al., 2013
Ocean acidification
Morriseau, 2014
Ocean warming
Morriseau, 2014
Riverine input and atmospheric deposition of nutrientsMorriseau, 2014
Black Sea
Marine litter
Morriseau, 2014
Demersal fisheries
Micheli et al., 2013
Ship traffic Micheli et al., 2013 Severe eutrophication and seabed hypoxia and algal blooms Oguz, 2008 / Micheli et al., 2013 Fish stocks and commercially valuable species suffer from illegal fishing such as sturgeon and turbot Oguz, 2008 Hazardous substances in sediments and biota
Oguz, 2008
Oil spills
Oguz, 2008
* Adapted from Zisenis et al., 2013. European ecosystems: knowledge on their state and functioning externalities ** For the Easern North Sea, from Human uses, pressures and impacts in the North Sea