Overview of OSPAR actual process for habitat assessment Pelagic Habitat indicators : Co-lead: Abigail McQuatters-Gollop, SAFHOS, UK Marie Johansen, Swedish Meteo. & Hydro. Institute, SE Isabelle Rombouts, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, FR Benthic Habitat indicators : Co-lead: Laurent Guérin, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, FR Cristina Herbon, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Alberto Serrano, Instituto Españole de Oceanografia, ES Nina Schroeder, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, DE MNHN HELCOM, CORESET II meeting Gdynia, 10-12/02, 2015
Biodiversity assessment: OSPAR process Biodiversity = conservation (HD): OSPAR, 2010. Quality Status Report • List of T&D Habitat/Species http://qsr2010.ospar.org/ • MPA ICG- COBAM, 2011. “OSPAR’s MSFD advice manual on biodiversity. Approaches to determining good environmental status, setting of environmental targets and selecting indicators for MSFD descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6”. Version du 05/03/2012. 114p. + annexes. ICG- COBAM, 2013. “Report by ICG -COBAM on the development of an OSPAR common set of biodiversity indicators.”. Version 18/02/2013. 196p. Biodiversity = sustainable use (MSFD): OSPAR, 2021. Quality Status Report. “In prep.” • All habitats vs (almost) all pressures ! 2017 Joint Assessment & Monitor. Prg. • Ecosystem-based approach Adoption of OSPAR common set of indicators • Risk-based approach • * by OSPAR june 2015 Activities management * by BDC 2-6/03/2015 ! ICG- COBAM, 2015. “Report by ICG -COBAM on the testing of OSPAR common set of biodiversity indicators.”
Regional Sea Conv.: link for MSFD OSPAR-HELCOM: an ancient link e.g. convenors Ingo Narberhaus (DE), Ulla Li Zweifel (SE), Andrea Belgrano (SE) actual: Marie Johansen (SE), Nina Schroeder (DE), Mats Blomqwist (SE), etc. COREBAM (Göteborg, 1 Oct. 2014) OSPAR/COBAM-HELCOM/CORESET OSPAR-Barcelona: more recent link e.g. Sagrario Arieta (ES), Laurent Guérin (FR), Alberto Serano (ES), Anaïs Aubert (FR), etc.
OSPAR requirement Key tasks for developing priority “indicators” include: • to ensure scientific underpinning; • to update technical specifications (parameters, etc.); • To review each project plan (& evaluate participation); • Where possible, to agree on assessment criteria and procedures (including where appropriate GES boundary setting methods); • to analyze the existing monitoring and identified gaps; • to give estimates on resources/cost implications and practicability. • To test indicators in 2014 to prepare them implementation : Contracting Parties engaged for common assessment JAMP 2017 => OSPAR QSR 2021
OSPAR Pelagic Habitats BDC 2-6/03/15 Code Indicator proposal PH1 = FW5 Plankton life form index Core R 3-4 -> Wide PH2 Plankton biomass and/or abundance Core R 2 -> Wide PH3 Plankton diversity index Core R 4 -> Wide - Ratio of diatoms and dinoflagellates / PH1=FW5 - Zooplankton mean size and total HELCOM synergies Pelagic Habitats biomass/abundance-/ PH2 - Phytoplankton taxonomic diversity / PH3 Barcelona similarities No indicators yet! Workshop planned … Pelagic Habitats
OSPAR Benthic Habitats BDC 2-6/03/15 Code Indicator proposal BH1 Typical species composition Candidate BH2 Condition of benthic habitat defining communities (MMI) Core Wide BH3 Physical damage of predominant and special habitats Candidate -> Core W? BH4 Area of habitat loss Candidate BH5 Size-frequency distribution of bivalve or other species Candidate - State of soft Bottom / BH2 HELCOM synergies - Cumulative effects / BH3 Benthic Habitats - Population size structure / BH5 Barcelona similarities Condition of habitat defining communities & species Benthic Habitats
Further possible inputs for subgroups: DEMO Assessment sheet for OSPAR pelagic indicators
Further works (project plan) e.g. for BH2 (MMI) Basecamp tool / benthic habitats expert group e-mail alerts for milestones (e.g. meetings, workshops and review of drafts docs) Cooperation (Information, shared tasks?) with Benthoval, FP7 JMP-NS/CS, DEVOTES, ICES
OSPAR & EcApRHA project approach for benthic habitat Assessment scales: 1=predominant habitats (EUNIS 3)= BH3+4 Ecological stakes: Application of selection criteria Sensitivity/vulnerability matrices including risk-based approach Pres A Pres B Pres C Pres X through Hab 1 BH3/4 and Hab 2 NA BH1 for Hab N biological characteristics Ex: BH1/3 common habitat MSR II ( Macoma balthica sandy shallow habitat) Ground-truthing (state <-> pressure) versus physical pressure (sub-type= abrasion ; activity = fishing bottom trawling) = BH3 =BH2 Sorry, no VMS yet available at relevant resolution in France. Many thanks to UK for this theoritical illustration of a case study
Thanks for your attention! Questions ?
Recommend
More recommend
