Biodiversity monitoring for the MSFD: Requirements and Options

1. Biodiversity monitoring for the MSFD: Requirements and Options • Nikolaos ZAMPOUKAS European Commission - DG JRC Institute for Environment & Sustainability Water Resources Unit

2. Contents of the presentation • Legislative background • Short overview of existing EU and RCSs approaches • Concepts and examples of integrated monitoring • Large scale and less applied monitoring approaches

3. What is monitoring? The systematic measurement of biotic and abiotic parameters of the marine environment, with predefined spatial and temporal schedule, in order to produce datasets that can be used for application of assessment methods and derive credible conclusions on whether the desired stateis achieved or not for the marine area concerned as well as for the trend of the change

4. What is included in monitoring? • Choice of the parameters to measure • Location of sampling sites • Periodicity of sampling • Processing of the samples • Measurement of the parameter value Calculation of metrics and classification not included (but related) – several open issues expected from IA

5. In a nutshell…. Monitoring should provide the data to allow assessment methods to classify a marine area as reaching or failing to reach the desired status

6. What monitoring is needed for the MSFD? “…coordinated monitoring programmes should be established and implemented by 15 July 2014 in order to assess the environmental status of marine waters. Such programmes should include the indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts of the Directive’s Annex III, follow the specifications of Annex V and be able to assess the achievement of environmental targets that should be established in accordance with Article 10 by 15 July 2012.”

7. Annex III biodiversity related characteristics Phytoplankton & zooplankton (species composition) Angiosperms,macroalgae&zoobenthos(biomass & species composition) Fish(abundance, distribution age / size structure) Reptiles, seabirds, marine mammals & other protected species(range, population dynamics, status) Genetically distinct forms of native species (occurrence, distribution, abundance) • Introduction of non-indigenous species (occurrence, distribution, abundance, transolcations) Habitats (predominant, special, protected and endangered)

8. What monitoring is needed for the MSFD? COM DEC; 2010/477/EU lists 14 criteria and 26 indicators to assess GES for descriptors 1, 2, 4 & 6 Ideally, data on Annex III parameters should allow for the calculation of the 26 indicators related to these 4 Descriptors

9. Marine biodiversity related monitoring also needed for: • the Water Framework Directive (WFD) • the Habitats Directive (HD) • the Birds Directive (BD) • the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) • the Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs)

10. D1: Biodiversity 1.1.1: Species distributional range 1.1.2: Species distribution pattern 1.1.3: Area covered by the species 1.2.1: Population abundance and/or biomass 1.4.1: Distributional range of habitat 1.4.2: Distributional pattern of habitat 1.5.1: Habitat area 1.6.3: Physical, hydrological and chemical conditions 1.7.1: Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components Some habitats, species, populations and communities should already be monitored for the HD, the BD and the WFD

11. D1: Biodiversity 1.3.1: Population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates) Monitoring required for the CFP-DCF for some fish and shellfish 1.3.2: Population genetic structure 1.5.2: Habitat volume 1.6.1: Condition of typical species and communities • NO MONITORING REQUIREMENT PREVIOUS TO THE MSFD

12. D2: Alien species 2.1.1: Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution • NO MONITORING REQUIREMENT PREVIOUS TO THE MSFD • SOME EXISTING DATABASES 2.2.1: Ratio between alien and native species 2.2.2: Impacts of alien species HELCOM: Biopollution Level -only Baltic, needs further development.

13. D4: Food Webs • 4.1.1: Performance of key predator species using their production per unit biomass (productivity) OSPAR EcoQO: pup production of grey seals 4.2.1 Large fish (by weight) OSPAR EcoQO: % of fish by weight greater than 40cm in length • 4.3.1: Abundance trends of functionally important selected groups/species • WFD coastal methods for phytoplankton and macrobenthos

14. D6: Sea floor integrity • 6.1.1 Type, abundance, biomass and areal extent of relevant biogenic substrate • 6.2.1 Presence of particularly sensitive and/or tolerantspecies • 6.2.2 Multi-metric indexes assessing benthic community condition and functionality, such as species diversity and richness, proportion of opportunistic to sensitive species WFD monitoring for zoobenthos and macrophytes

15. D6: Sea floor integrity • 6.1.2 Extent of the seabed significantly affected by human activities • 6.2.3 Proportion of biomass or number of individuals in the macrobenthos above some specified length/size • 6.2.4 Parameters describing the characteristics (shape, slope and intercept) of the size spectrum of the benthic community • NO MONITORING REQUIREMENT PREVIOUS TO THE MSFD

16. Differences in spatial requirements • WFD: coastal waters (up to 1 nm) • HD & BD: where listed species and habitats occur • CFP: where fish stocks and fishing activities take place • MSFD: all marine waters under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of Member States (including coastal, territorial waters, EEZ and, in some cases, continental shelf)

17. Considerations of frequency • WFD: 3 years for macrobenthos • HD: at least every 6 years • BD: at least every 3 years • CFP: yearly or every 3 years • MSFD: not defined but the MSFD cycle has a 6 years periodicity • Frequency should be parameter specific

18. Also importantly… • not all indicators operational • monitoring requirements not always clear

19. What is integrated monitoring? A monitoring programme providing data: • For different MSFD descriptors and indicators • For different pieces of legislation • For more than one Member State • Collected in a comparable way Cost efficiency

20. Integration across descriptors & indicators E.g. data on fish stocks could also be used for biodiversity, alien species and food chain descriptors & data on benthic flora both for biodiversity and eutrophication

21. Integration across pieces of legislation Existing marine monitoring programmes to be amended to also cover MSFD requirements

22. Integration across Member States • What about joint cruises and use of same instrumentation? • Joint research projects • Joint development of assessment methods (e.g. OSPAR EcoQOs)

23. Collection of data in a comparable way • Some agreed methodologies exist but not for all indicators and marine regions • Mostly for coastal waters • Few existing ISO & CEN standards: • phytoplankton • hard-substrate benthic communities

24. Large scale and other less applied monitoring approaches • Continuous Plankton Recorder • Underwater video & imagery • Underwater acoustics • Autonomous underwater vehicles and gliders • Ships of opportunity

25. Continuous Plankton Recorder • Plankton sampling instrument designed to be towed from ships at approximately 10 m • Water passes through the CPR and plankton is filtered onto a slow-moving band of silk http://www.sahfos.ac.uk

26. Continuous Plankton Recorder • CPR can sample larger areas than other phytoplankton and zooplankton devices such as bottles and nets • Data on biomass that are needed for many indicators can easily be taken while taxonomic identification needed for other indicators needs the same skills and human power as with any other sampling method • CPR has also been used to monitor microlitter in the water column. However the CPR samples at approximately 10m depth and so will not sample floating debris

27. Underwater video & imagery • Information on: • structure of the sea-bed • composition and abundance of macroscopic benthic and pelagic biota • non-living items, such as litter http:noaa.gov

28. Underwater acoustics • Sonars for: • detection of animal and plant populations • information on their abundance, size, behavior and distribution • habitat mapping (depth, bottom roughness and hardness reflecting differences in sub-stratum types) • 3D images possible • Need for validation with other devices (e.g. cameras) Source: http:noaa.gov

29. Underwater acoustics Recording of sounds produced by marine animals (mainly mammals) could possibly provide info on their population abundance, their movements and location of their habitats. A related project is: http://listentothedeep.com/ Photograph by Brian J. Skerry- national geographic

30. Autonomous underwater vehicles AUVs are free-swimming torpedo-shaped devices remotely operated from the surface, most often powered by rechargeable batteries and/or buoyancy-based techniques (gliders) Can cover large distance (ca. 10 miles) at various depths to provide a 3D view of the water column http://www.ego-network.org

31. Autonomous underwater vehicles • Physical and bio-optical instruments: • Nutrients • Contaminants • Phytoplankton biomass • Temperature • Oxygen • Conductivity • Video-cameras: • Organisms (mostly pelagic) • Debris • Detectors of passive acoustic signals: • Mammals http://www.ego-network.org

32. Ships of opportunity Use of volunteer ferries, cruise ships and merchant vessels to gather oceanographic data Various instrumentations to collect data related to physical, chemical and biological characteristics

33. In conclusion Marine monitoring: • is needed for several pieces of EU and other legislation - MSFD requires some additional one • should be integrated in order to also be cost effective • could be facilitated by large scale approaches

34. Thank you for your attention