Testing BEAT 3.0 Structures, scenarios and results Henrik Nygrd, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Testing BEAT 3.0 Structures, scenarios and results

Henrik Nygård, Vivi Fleming-Lehtinen, Ciarán Murray, Samuli Korpinen BalticBOOST Biodiv WS2 2016, 14-15.9.2016, Copenhagen

• Spatial assessment units

○ Hierarchical structure ○ SAU 4 not fully compatible with SAU 3 (will be corrected)

Areas at SAU 4 have been estimated by eye

2

BEAT 3.0 inputs used

• Ecosystem components

○ Hierarchical structure (4-5 levels) ○ Piscivores and cyprinids at level 4

• Indicator catalogue

○ Indicators assigned to ecosystem components and MSFD criteria

• In the tests we used the 2010 ComDec as the indicators have

been set according to those criteria

3

BEAT 3.0 inputs used

Biodiversity Ecosystem component e.g. Mammals Species groups e.g. Seals Species e.g. Grey seal

• Indicators

○ min-max values and confidence estimates asked from indicator experts ○ Indicator results – most recent available results used

• Conditional indicators:

○ parameters for conditional indicators (e.g. distribution of seals, zooplankton MSTS) were averaged

• Now conditional rule implemented in the tool
• Trend indicators

4

BEAT 3.0 inputs used

5

Proposed approach for trend indicators

• Seal indicators

○ GES is only vagely described ○ E.g. distribution indicators in GES were set to 100% ○ The input values need to be clarified, use similar approach as for trend indicators? ○ Ask the SEAL group to consider this during their meeting in October?

6

Indicators cont.

7

Scenarios

• Alternative structures

8

Scenarios (1)

• Integration approaches

○ Weighted averaging ○ OOAO ○ OOAO only at high level

9

Scenarios (2)

• Spatial representation

○ When using indicator specified assessment units, the assessment results show deviations

• Most evident is the absence of birds when assessing sub-basins

(or lower SAUs)

○ If assessing on ecosystem component level (not integrating between the ecosystem components) could allow for use of the indicators specified assessment units, as they are quite similar within the ecosystem components.

10

Scenarios (3)

• Number of indicators

○ At this point (when many BD Core indicators are still not agreed on), inclusion of Eutro Core and WFD indicators improves the representation of indicators in the pelagic and benthic habitats.

• Suggested Eutro and WFD indicators to be used:

Secchi depth, Oxygen, Chla, Phytoplankton biomass Benthic fauna and flora indices

11

Scenarios (4)

12

Number of indicators

Mammals Birds Fish Benthic Pelagic D1C1 3 D1C2 3 (1) 2 (1) 3 D1C3 2 (1) (1) (2) D1C4 D1C5 (1) D1C6 2 (2) 7 (2) 2 4 D1C7 (1) D3C2 3 D4C1 (1) D4C2 2 (2) D4C3 5 2 2 2 D6C1 (2) D6C2 (2)

• Indicators with multiple criteria

○ The weighted averages per ecosystem component are not affected by addition of criteria to the indicators ○ In the criteria based approach, OOAO will change the assessment result

13

Scenarios (5)

14

Evaluation of the results

15

Evaluation of the results

• Structure

○ The tool allows for using both the species-based and the criteria based approach choice depend on the revised ComDec?

• Integration approaches

○ OOAO at ecosystem component level 2

• Spatial representation

○ Downscaling, allowing weigthing, is recommended to be able to display the results at a finer scale

16

Recommendations from BalticBOOST

• Number of indicators

○ Including eutrophication and WFD indicators will increase the representation of habitat condition indicators

• Indicators with multiple criteria

○ Assigning indicators to several criteria won’t change the weighted averages of ecosystem components, but will affect the criteria based structure. Use once under relevant Descriptors ○ This issue is more about communication, highlight the gaps or fill as many criteria as possible?

17

Recommendations