Report cataloging the Monitoring Networks used ... - Devotes Project

WP 1

Deliverable 1.3

Report cataloging the Monitoring Networks used within EU Member States Deliverable 1.3

Dissemination level

Public

LEAD CONTRACTOR JRC- JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE, EUROPEAN COMMISSION

AUTHORS Joana Patrício (JRC), Heliana Teixeira (JRC), Krysia Mazik (UHULL), Sally Little (UHULL), Mike Elliott (UHULL), Nikolaos Zampoukas (JRC), Tanya Churilova (MHI-NASU), Olga Kryvenko (MHI-NASU), Snejana Moncheva (IO-BAS), Nadia Papadopoulou (HCMR), Oihana Solaun (AZTI), Maria Uyarra (AZTI), Christian Wilson (Ocean DTM), Argyro Zenetos (HCMR)

SUBMISSION DATE 31 | October | 2013

Contents

1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.

Catalogue structure .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

Monitoring Networks Catalogue Table ...................................................................................................... 3 Parameters Table ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Geographical Locations (Maps) .................................................................................................................. 7

3.

Potential uses of the catalogue and value to end users ..................................................................... 11

4.

Preliminary considerations on the reported networks ...................................................................... 12 4.1. Preliminary GAP analysis .......................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1. Spatial Coverage .................................................................................................................................. 13 4.1.2. Analysis of monitoring distribution ..................................................................................................... 14 4.1.3. Analysis of monitoring frequency ....................................................................................................... 16 4.1.4. Analysis of monitoring duration .......................................................................................................... 17 4.1.5. Difficulty with analysis of the table ..................................................................................................... 18 4.2. How will the catalogue feed into the SWOT analysis .............................................................................. 18

5.

Limitations of the catalogue ............................................................................................................... 21

6.

References .......................................................................................................................................... 23

7.

List of annexes .................................................................................................................................... 24

1. Introduction This report results from DEVOTES Task 1.2.1 and aims to catalogue monitoring networks currently used in the European seas, as reported by Regional Seas Conventions and EU Member States, providing the basis for assessing the status of marine biodiversity. It focuses on MSFD descriptors 1 (biological diversity), 2 (nonindigenous species), 4 (food-webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity) and gathers information on what monitoring is being currently performed, why it is being performed, whether it is fulfilling its objectives (if set) and what pressures it is linked to. The catalogue will provide information on the geographical location and extent of monitoring in relation to the above descriptors and will allow identification of gaps and overlaps in monitoring effort and opportunities for harmonisation of monitoring between agencies or Member States within Regional Seas. It also provides links to monitoring programmes and key contacts so that publicly available data may be accessed directly. The catalogue will be a valuable source of information for policy makers, conservation and regulatory bodies, academic researchers and the general public. Given changes in policy requirements, monitoring requirements and budgets over time, the catalogue will need regular updating to maintain its value. This report forms the first of two deliverables relating to monitoring activities within European Regional Seas. The objectives are to:

a. produce a catalogue containing details of monitoring programmes and networks and provide a description of the catalogue structure (section 1); b. highlight the potential uses, users and limitations of the catalogue; c. provide an approach to the gap and SWOT analysis which will be presented in DEVOTES Deliverable 1.4; d. highlight the value of such a catalogue to end users and identify who those end users will be.

1

Deliverable 1.3 Report cataloging the monitoring networks used within EU Member States

BOX 1. D E F I N I T I O N O F T E R M S ________________________________________________________ Monitoring Programme – carried out by an individual agency but can include the monitoring of several ecosystem components. Monitoring Network – a group of monitoring programmes reporting to the Regional Sea Conventions (such as OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona Convention and the Bucharest Convention). Web-platform and databases level – makes the distinction between data sets which are collated in widely accessible formats (i.e. a website) and those that are collated and stored by individual agencies. These may or may not be accessible by request. Types of monitoring – Condition monitoring specifically relates to the conservation objectives and favourable conservation status. In contrast, surveillance monitoring can be any ‘look-see’ process. Pressure – the mechanism through which an activity has an effect on any part of an ecosystem (Robinson et al., 2008). Local and manageable pressure – pressures that occur as a result of human activities taking place on a localised scale (i.e. a discharge, a specific dredge disposal or aggregate extraction site). These pressures can be managed through permits/consents and monitoring. They are referred to as ENDOGENIC MANAGED PRESSURES where the causes are managed as well as the consequences (Elliott, 2011). Widespread and unmanageable pressures – are those that are beyond the control of management that are occurring at regional scales. For example, temperature and hydrological changes associated with climate change, pH change due to volcanic activity (may be local but is not manageable). This is referred to as EXOGENIC UNMANAGED PRESSURES where the consequences are managed rather than the causes.

2. Catalogue structure The catalogue is presented as an excel file containing (besides instructions to help fill in some fields, specific terms definitions and marine regions and sub-divisions or ecological assessment areas) two main tables: the catalogue itself “WP1 – MONITORnetworks catalogue” and the parameters table “Param & physico-chemical data”.

The Guidelines to fill DEVOTES Catalogue of Monitoring Networks are given in Annex 1 and the most up to date version of the Catalogue (31th of October 2013) is presented in Annex 2 (and Milestone 1) and is available online at DEVOTES official website (http://www.devotes-project.eu/).

2

2.1. Monitoring Networks Catalogue Table The Monitoring Networks Catalogue table is structured in three levels: monitoring programme level; monitoring networks level; and web-platforms level.

Level 3 – Monitoring Programme Level (description of columns A to CW) The Monitoring Programme Level (Level 3) of the catalogue consists of 101 columns (A to CW of the excel catalogue) and describes the general features of each monitoring programme. This level is subdivided into eight main categories.

Category 1 provides general information on the selected monitoring programme over nine columns (A to I of the excel catalogue). Column A indicates the identity of the institution and the initials of the data analyst who has completed the catalogue. Column B shows the unique catalogue code assigned to each monitoring programme (as a consecutive integer). Where the same monitoring programme is relevant to a number of member states within a regional sea, an individual code applies to each member state. In the UK, responsibility for monitoring lies with the devolved administrations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, for the purpose of this catalogue, these programmes have been treated individually for each of the four nations. Columns C, D and E denote the name of the monitoring programme/network, the website link (where available) and the programme source (i.e. organisation/institution). Column F differentiates between the type of monitoring undertaken within each programme. Option 1 is surveillance monitoring, which is defined as a ‘look-see’ approach which begins without deciding what are the end-points followed by a post-hoc detection (a posteriori) of trends and suggested management action (Elliott, 2011). Selection 2 is condition monitoring, which is defined as monitoring used by nature conservation bodies to determine the present status of an area, which could be linked to biological valuation (e.g. Derous et al., 2007). Elliott (2011) describe ten different types of monitoring but many of these relate to specific, localised pressures associated with licensed activities where the industry itself is responsible for the monitoring. These monitoring types include: a. operational monitoring b. compliance monitoring c. self-monitoring d. check monitoring e. toxicity testing f. feedback monitoring

3


In each case, monitoring is tightly linked to an activity and its associated pressures, is localised and is the direct responsibility of the licensed body and the regulatory authorities. Given that the MSFD operates at a regional sea level, these localised monitoring programmes were not considered relevant. Furthermore, a large number of monitoring programmes fall into these categories and the information is not centrally collated. Furthermore, toxicity testing is a stage of the licensing process and is not considered to be relevant in this context. Monitoring programmes for the purposes of research (investigative and diagnostic monitoring which aim to establish cause and effect) are often isolated and do not necessarily follow the standardised protocols associated with policy-related monitoring. Therefore, these programmes were also excluded. Columns G, H and I specify the monitoring frequency, available time series (years for which data are available) and the name and email address of the programme contact.

Category 2 provides information on the scope of the monitoring programme over five columns (J to N). These columns depict broader programmes within which the monitoring programme may be undertaken or used. These include International Conventions (column J), Regional Sea Conventions (column K), EU Directives (column L), National Monitoring (column M) and Research Programmes (column N). The relevant programmes are listed in the appropriate columns.

Category 3 lists the relation of the monitoring programme to the GEnS MSFD descriptors D1 biological diversity (column O), D2 non-indigenous species (column P), D4 food-webs (column Q), and D6 seafloor integrity (column R). The monitoring programmes suitable to address these descriptors are marked by a 1.

Category 4 concerns the availability of supporting physico-chemical data (column S). If supporting physicochemical data are collected, these parameters will be listed in the separate supporting parameters & physicochemical data table. This table lists the parameters and/or physico-chemical data measured, provides the measurement units and lists the associated biodiversity component/s. Each input is associated with the ID and monitoring programme code link/reference to the main monitoring networks catalogue. Inclusion of these parameters provides a broad indication of the level of detail and quality of a monitoring programme, providing information of the nature of the explanatory variables which may be linked to changes in environmental status.

Category 5 (columns T to AZ) indicates the link between the selected monitoring programmes and the biodiversity components. This category denotes the biodiversity component covered by the monitoring programme, including whether there is any quality assurance (QA) associated with the programme and 4

whether any supporting physico-chemical data are collected in association with the programme. The biodiversity components include Microbes (columns T to V), Phytoplankton (columns W to Y), Zooplankton (columns Z to AB), Angiosperms (columns AC to AE), Macroalgae (AF to AG) and Benthic Invertebrates (AI to AK). The biodiversity components Fish (columns AL to AN), Cephalopods (columns AO to AQ), Marine Mammals (columns AR to AT), Reptiles (columns AU to AW) and Birds (columns AX to AZ) are further divided into family or functional groups, which is broadly linked to differences in the associated sampling techniques. This allows differentiation, for example, between programmes which monitor demersal fish or pelagic fish, or both. This is consistent with the DEVOTES Catalogue of indicators and the DEVOTES Catalogue on modelderived indicators produced under work packages 3 and 4, respectively (soon available through the DEVOTES project website).

Category 6 indicates the habitat types which are targeted under each monitoring programme (three columns; BA to BC). The habitats include Seabed (column BA), Water column (column BB) and Ice habitat (column BC). The categories adopted for habitat types followed EU Commission Decision (2010) and EU Commission Staff Working Papers (CSWP, 2011; 2012) where it was agreed that the “use of these types provides a direct link between habitats assessed under Descriptor 1 and the substratum types to be assessed for Descriptor 6 (indicator 6.1.2 – different substratum types affected by physical damage) and to the European EUNIS habitat classification scheme” (CSWP, 2011, page 18).

Category 7 concerns the relationship between each monitoring programme and specific pressures (columns BD to CO). Pressures relating to both anthropogenic activities (e.g. effluent discharge, fisheries) and nonhuman pressures (e.g. related to climate) are considered within these columns. This makes the distinction between localised pressures with associated monitoring programmes which can be managed and those (such as pressures associated with climate change) acting at a wider scale where management is not possible and adaptation is necessary. The pressures include Substratum loss, Smothering, Abrasion, Selective extraction of non-living resources, Underwater noise, Marine Litter, Changes in siltation, Thermal regime change (local/manageable or widespread/unmanageable), Salinity regime change (local/manageable or widespread/unmanageable), Emergence regime change (local/manageable or widespread/unmanageable), Water flow rates changes (local/manageable or widespread/unmanageable), Changes in wave exposure (local/manageable or widespread/unmanageable), Electromagnetic changes, Introduction of synthetic compounds, Introduction of non-synthetic substances & compounds, Introduction of radio-nuclides, Introduction of substances – other, Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment, Organic matter enrichment, Introduction of microbial pathogens, Introduction of non-indigenous species and translocations, Selective extraction of living resources (active removal of target and non-target species), pH changes 5


(local/manageable or widespread/unmanageable), Barrier to species movement, Death or injury by collision and Others. Column CO, provides sources of information on pressures indicated – references. This pressure list is consistent with that proposed by Koss et al. (2011).

Category 8 indicates the geographical range/scale of coverage of each monitoring programme over eight columns (CP to CW). The table includes information on the Marine Regions [(1) Baltic sea; (2) North-East Atlantic Ocean; (3) Mediterranean Sea; (4) Black Sea; (5) non-EU regional seas], the Marine sub-regions according to the MSFD [(1) Greater North Sea, including the Kattegat, and the English Channel; (2) Celtic Seas; (3) Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast; (4) Macaronesian biogeographic region (Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands); (5) Western Mediterranean Sea; (6) Adriatic Sea; (7) Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea; (8) Aegean-Levantine Sea; (9) non-EU], the Marine sub-divisions or ecological assessment areas (supporting maps are provided in the Marine sub-divisions MAP spreadsheets) and the EU Member State official subdivisions, in case official subdivisions have been defined at the Member State level. This survey has adopted well-established international criteria for smaller scale subdivisions or ecological assessment areas, in order to increase the detail on the information collected. However, concerning the MSFD, these are not binding divisions. Columns CT, CU, CV and CW specify the name of the country, if there is GIS data available, the link to GIS data and the contact details of person responsible for GIS data.

Level 2 – Monitoring Networks Level and Level 1 – WebPlatforms Level The Monitoring Networks Level (Level 2) of the catalogue consists of four columns (CX to DA) and includes fields relating to collaborations between countries. This level aims to answer questions such as: are the monitoring programmes undertaken within a monitoring network of institutions? (column CX). If so, what is the monitoring network name? (column CY) and which other countries are involved in that monitoring network? (column CZ). Column DA provides the link for monitoring network website.

The Monitoring WebPlatforms Level (Level 1) of the catalogue consists of three columns (DB to DD) and includes details of data provision. That is, does the monitoring programme provide or take data from any international web platform? If so, to or from whom? Column DD provides the link to platform website.

The rationale behind gathering information at Levels 2 and 1 is to be able to infer if and how Member States are optimising their monitoring plans and efforts. In a latter phase of DEVOTES project, this cross- information

6

exercise will hopefully allow us to identify gaps, deficiencies, strengths and opportunities in the monitoring systems across the European Regional Seas.

2.2. Parameters Table The Parameters table provides information on the type of parameters collected, and supporting physicochemical data, within specific monitoring programmes indicated in the Monitoring Networks Catalogue table. Column A indicates the identity of the institution and name of the data analyst whilst column B shows the unique catalogue code for each monitoring programme (as a consecutive integer). The subsequent columns indicate the list of parameters and supporting physico-chemical data (column C), the units (column D) and the biodiversity components associated with the parameters (i.e. 1. Microbes, 2. Phytoplankton, 3. Zooplankton, 4. Angiosperms, 5. Macroalgae, 6. Benthic invertebrates, 7. Fish, 8. Cephalopods, 9. Marine mammals, 10. Reptiles, 11. Birds and 12. Other). This table essentially links the information in the three DEVOTES catalogues (WP1 - DEVOTES Monitoring Networks Catalogue, WP3 – DEVOTES Catalogue of Indicators and WP4 – DEVOTES Catalogue of Modelderived Indicators). Comparison of the data requirements necessary to calculate the indicators listed in both WP3 and WP4 catalogues with the parameters and supporting physico-chemical data provided by WP1 Monitoring Networks Catalogue will allow identification of situations where, for example, a particular metric is selected as a good indicator but the monitoring programmes used within EU Member States are not designed to collect the data necessary to calculate that indicator.

2.3. Geographical Locations (Maps) Supporting maps per region are provided in the marine subdivisions spreadsheets (i.e. “Baltic subdivisions MAP”, “Medit&BlackS subdivisions MAP” and “NEA subdivision MAP” ) to help to locate the marine subdivisions or ecological assessment areas within the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean and Black Sea and North East Atlantic (Figures 1 to 3).

7


Figure 1. Baltic Sea sub-divisions. A 1.1.1 Bothnian Bay, B 1.1.2 The Quark, C 1.1.3 Bothnian Sea, D 1.1.4 Åland Sea, E 1.1.5 Archipelago Sea, F 1.2 Gulf of Finland, G 1.3 Gulf of Riga, H 1.4.1 Northern Baltic Proper, 1.4.2.1 Western Gotland Basin I, G 1.3 Gulf of Riga, H 1.4.1 Northern Baltic Proper, I 1.4.2.1 Western Gotland Basin, J 1.4.2.2 Eastern Gotland Basin, K 1.4.3 Southern Baltic Proper, K 1.4.3 Southern Baltic Proper, K 1.4.3 Southern Baltic Proper, K 1.4.3 Southern Baltic Proper, L 1.4.3.1 Gulf of Gdansk, M 2.1 Bay of Mecklenburg, N 2.2 Kiel Bay, O 2.3 Little Belt, P 2.4 Great Belt and Q 3. The Sound. (source: http://www.helcom.fi/environment2/nature/en_GB/facts/).

8

Figure 2. Mediterranean and Black Sea geographical sub-areas (FAO area 37). 1 Northern Alboran Sea, 2 Alboran Island, 3 Southern Alboran Sea, 4 Algeria, 5 Balearic Island, 6 Northern Spain, 7 Gulf of Lions, 8 Corsica Island, 9 Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Sea, 10 South Tyrrhenian Sea, 11.1 Sardinia (west), 11.2 Sardinia (east), 12 Northern Tunisia, 13 Gulf of Hammamet, 14 Gulf of Gabes, 14 Gulf of Gabes, 15 Malta Island, 16 South of Sicily, 17 Northern Adriatic, 18 Southern Adriatic Sea, 19 Western Ionian Sea, 20 Eastern Ionian Sea, 21 Southern Ionian Sea, 22 Aegean Sea, 23 Crete Island, 24 North Levant, 25 Cyprus Island, 26 South Levant, 27 Levant, 28 Marmara Sea, 29 Black Sea and 30 Azov Sea. (source: http://www.gfcm.org/gfcm/topic/16162/en).

9


Figure 3. North-East Atlantic sub-divisions. Ib; IIa Norwegian Sea; IIb Spitzbergen and Bear Island; IIIa Kattegat and Skagerrak; IIIb Sound; IIIc Belt Sea; IIId Baltic Sea; IIISA6 Kattegat, SA6; IV32 Norwegian Deeps (FU 32); IV5 Botney Gut Silver Pit FU5; IVa Northern North Sea; IVb Central North Sea; IVc Southern North Sea; IVnotFU Area outside the FU zones in sub-area IV; IVSA1 North Sea; Dogger Bank, SA1; IVSA2 Southeast North Sea, SA2; IVSA3 Centraleast North Sea, SA3; IVSA4 Centralwest North Sea, SA4; IVSA5 North Sea; Viking and Bergen Bank, SA5; IVSA7 North Sea; Shetland Area, SA7; IXa Portuguese Waters – East; IXb Portuguese Waters – West; Va Iceland Grounds; Vb Faroes Grounds; VIa NW coast of Scotland & N. Ireland; VIb Rockall; VII16 Porcupine Bank (FU 16); VII19 South and South West ireland (FU 19); VII2021 Celtic Sea (FU 20-21); VIIa Irish Sea; VIIb West of Ireland; VIIc Porcupine Bank; VIId Eastern English Channel; VIIe Western English Channel; VIIf Bristol Channel; VIIg Celtic Sea North; VIIh Celtic Sea South; VIII2324 Bay of Biscay (FU 23-24); VIIIa Bay of Biscay – North; VIIIb Bay of Biscay – Central; VIIIc Bay of Biscay – South; VIIId Bay of Biscay – Offshore; VIIIe West of Bay of Biscay; VIIj South-west of Ireland – East; VIIk South-west of Ireland – West; VIInotFU Area outside the FU zones in sub-area VII; Xa Azores Grounds; Xb Northeast Atlantic South; XIIa Southern mid-Atlantic Ridge (Southern Reykjanes; Ridge south to Charlie-Gibbs Fracture Zone); XIIb Part of North of Azores; XIIc Central Northeast Atlantic – South; XIVa North-east Greenland and XIVb South-east Greenland. (source: http://www.ices.dk/marinedata/maps/Pages/default.aspx)

10

3. Potential uses of the catalogue and value to end users The catalogue will provide an overall perspective to Member States on on-going monitoring programmes and networks that can be used to assess the response of specific biodiversity components to managed and unmanaged pressures in all Regional Seas at a range of spatial scales (sub-region to sub-division to ecological assessment area). It will provide an essential resource to competent authorities in Member States and nonEU countries for identifying ongoing monitoring, research and data-sets for species and/or habitats of increasing conservation priority. Through this approach, the catalogue will be of value in the development of comprehensive and coordinated monitoring networks throughout Europe. It will therefore be of potential use policy makers, government agencies and the regulatory bodies ultimately responsible for implementing the MSFD and ensuring that GEnS is achieved. The catalogue will provide a basis for communication, coordination and cooperation of the work carried out in the regional seas through International Conventions, Regional Sea Conventions, EU Directives, National Monitoring and Research Programmes. It will enhance opportunities for data collation and sharing, coordination and harmonisation of monitoring programmes between Member States. Importantly, details of key contacts, data sources and timescales for data collection associated with each monitoring programme are contained within the catalogue. This will enable Member States to optimise their sampling by collating details of the spatial distribution, parameters and sampling frequency associated with existing monitoring, thus enabling optimal sampling design to complement (rather than replicate) existing monitoring efforts. Potentially, this could help to prevent duplication of sampling effort between nations and help Member States to coordinate their monitoring in terms of timing of their sampling, the parameters /data being collected and the geographical location, resulting in large, coordinated data sets for the sub-divisions of each regional sea. This coordinated approach could provide important information for Member States when establishing or recommending pressure—related monitoring strategies in their own waters (e.g. for the MSFD), by assessing whether the existing monitoring is fit for purpose, providing remedies to deficiencies, highlighting monitoring gaps, identifying elements that should be added to existing programmes and making recommendations for future monitoring. Ultimately, this will provide a better indication of whether or not GEnS has been achieved at the Regional Sea level than assessment of isolated data sets alone.

11


4. Preliminary considerations on the reported networks This is the first catalogue to provide a combined list of marine monitoring programmes and networks undertaken by a selection of Member States in Regional Seas that are related to marine biodiversity. The catalogue considers the depth and breadth of marine monitoring amongst a selection of Member States by providing information on what monitoring is now being performed, why is it being performed and what managed and unmanaged pressures it is linked to. Specifically, the metadata of this catalogue provides information on the general features of each monitoring programme, monitoring networks (collaborations between countries) and details of data provision and acquisition. Noted features include scope of the monitoring, relation to GEnS descriptors, availability of supporting physico-chemical data, correspondence with biodiversity components, correspondence with habitat types, relation with specific pressures, the geographical range/scale of coverage and links to sources of information. The catalogue can be used to provide information on the programmes and networks that address particular managed and unmanaged pressures on marine biodiversity components and habitat types within EU marine sub-regions, sub-divisions and/or ecological assessment areas The catalogue will form the basis of a full gap analysis (D1.4) which, in the first instance, will aim to identify regions where monitoring is completely lacking. This will include marine regions where GEnS descriptors (D1, 2, 4 and 6), biodiversity components, habitat types and managed and un-managed pressures are not addressed through any on-going monitoring programmes. At a more refined level, gaps in Quality Assurance, the simultaneous collection of supporting physico-chemical data (as means of explaining the biological data) and the temporal and spatial frequency of sampling will be identified. Identification of gaps in monitoring associated with pressures will provide an indication of gaps in the current knowledge of pressure-impact relationships.

4.1. Preliminary GAP analysis Preliminary gap analyses were carried out during the development of this catalogue and are presented, as an approach which will be followed during the production of DEVOTES D1.4 (to be finalised in January 2014). It is emphasised that the full gap and SWOT analysis form a separated deliverable (D1.4) and that the results presented here represent the outputs of a preliminary analysis conducted as a proposed approach to the full analysis in the next phase of the work. The catalogue of monitoring networks carried out for the DEVOTES project is deliberately broad in scope and includes a very diverse set of programmes. The current version of the catalogue includes over 700 monitoring

12

activities, covering an area of more than 1.6 million square kilometres (about 40% of the total land area of EU28).

4.1.1. Spatial Coverage Preliminary analysis of the countries where the recorded monitoring programmes are based has revealed significant gaps in the geographic distribution of monitoring activities (Table 1 and Figure 4). It is emphasised that the gap analysis in this report is preliminary and was carried out during the development of the catalogue. Presentation of these results is simply to demonstrate our approach to the analysis of the information in the catalogue. Therefore, at this stage, gaps in the monitoring should be interpreted as ‘missing data’ rather than actual gaps.

Figure 4. Total monitored attributes over all the programmes shown based on country where monitoring programme is based.

13


Table 1. Summary of number monitoring activities grouped by source country entry.

Country

Number of monitoring activities

Bulgaria

5

France

225

Greece

20

Ireland

4

Spain

25

Spain around de world

1

UK

310

Ukraine

6

Don’t know / NA

85

Sum

676/729

4.1.2. Analysis of monitoring distribution The actual distribution of monitoring activity is not best represented by plotting the country carrying out the monitoring activity. To assess the spatial distribution of the monitoring activities the identified ICES and FAO regions were used (Figure 5). A concerted effort was made to use the MSFD sub-regions classes as well however, it seems as though not all of the boundaries have been finalised or that there is no authoritative compilation of the various boundaries submitted by the member states as yet so this was not possible. It is apparent that there is a considerable degree of variation in intensity of monitoring as represented in the catalogue (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Spatial distribution of monitoring activity using recorded ICES/FAO areas showing uneven distribution of effort across the MSFD area of interest.

14

Figure 6. Number of monitoring programmes per ICES/FAO region showing the uneven distribution of monitoring activity with many regions having only a few monitoring programmes operating within them whilst a smaller number have more than 64.

This may be an accurate reflection of actual bias in monitoring (for example biased towards areas with more fishing or other socio-economically important activities) or it may be that the catalogue is not sufficiently representative. For comparison we have plotted the total number of ICES sample data points per area (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Total number of ices data entries per region plotted by way of comparison to show that whilst there are large differences in amount of information between regions that the pattern is different to the one shown by the monitoring activities.

15


The quality or magnitude of monitoring programmes is not captured by these analyses and such metrics should be included to enable a proper weighting to be made of each monitoring activity. It may also be necessary to resolve the monitoring activity at a finer spatial scale (Power et al., 2008) as we are not capturing the true distribution of monitoring activities when grouping them into such broad areas making it difficult to carry out a true “gap-analysis”.

4.1.3. Analysis of monitoring frequency In order to detect a signal it must be separated from the background variability. The sampling frequency will thus determine how long it will take to establish a trend (for example at least four repetitions are required to identify seasonal variability) and thus how quickly it will be possible to detect a change from the predicted or acceptable levels. Perhaps unsurprisingly the most common monitoring frequency was annual (Figure 8) with an average of 2.23 years (although this value is fairly meaningless as the distribution is polymodal) (Other monitoring frequency summary statistics - Median: 1; Mode: 1; Standard Deviation: 2.25; Sample variance: 5.073; Kurtosis=-0.22; Skewness: 0.85 and Count: 656/729).

Figure 8. Monitoring frequency plotted against number of monitoring programmes showing a strong bias towards annual surveys. (There is another peak at 5 years and this is a function of many programmes being described as semi-decadal which was then classed numerically as 5 years although the true frequencies will be a broader range).

16

4.1.4. Analysis of monitoring duration As 97% of the monitoring activities appear to be ongoing (Table 2) the duration is strongly related to the year of commencement (Figure 9; Statistics for year of commencement of all monitoring programmes in catalogue – Mean: 1987, Median: 1993 and Mode: 2000).

Table 2. List of all years where monitoring activities are recorded as having stopped as well as total number of ongoing programmes.

Year of programme termination

Number of monitoring activities stopped

1995

2

2006

2

2008

5

2009

1

2010

1

2011

2

2012

6

Ongoing

667

Figure 9. Histogram of decades when monitoring activities were started.

17


4.1.5. Difficulty with analysis of the table Some columns have multiple values for the same parameter such as frequency (e.g. “Ranges from a max freq of hour to sub-day to min freq year to sub-decade”) this makes it difficult to assess and for the purposes of the analyses carried out here we used the longest interval. Another issue (as demonstrated with the above example) is that the temporal and spatial distribution are given as text without pre-defined categories. This leads to both imprecision (what range is included in semi-decadal? or “as required”) and error in user input - incorrect values or mis-spelling. For the temporal frequency analyses we converted the text to numerical values semi-manually (identifying direct text to value conversions such as “decada=10” automatically and then reviewing the more complex classifications). For the calculation of duration of monitoring again there were multiple values for a single programme [e.g. “1999-present. 1980-present (Benthic and Sediment Contaminant Background Monitoring Sites)] and thus inconsistent descriptions between programmes. Again start and end dates were extracted semiautomatically. For the sake of consistency monitoring programmes that were forecast to end in the future were considered to be continuous up to the present (i.e. 2013).

4.2. How will the catalogue feed into the SWOT analysis Where monitoring in different geographic regions does address GEnS descriptors, biodiversity components and pressures, a SWOT analysis will be carried out to assess the overall benefits of those monitoring programmes for which access to detailed information is available. This will address, for example, the number of biodiversity components or pressures (managed and/or unmanaged) simultaneously targeted by each programme, together with the geographical scale. The programmes where data are collected in such a way that pressure-impact links can be established, with standardised data collection over wide geographic areas, will be considered the strongest in terms of their ability to enable assessment of GEnS. The temporal and spatial frequency of data collection will be assessed for each programme as an indication of the potential for identifying trends/changes/impacts from the associated data. At a fundamental level monitoring activity can be defined thus: “Monitoring is considered to be effectively repeated surveillance and needs especially strict protocols to separate real change from the artefacts of sampling” (Brandt, 2002). This definition recognises the implicit challenge of attempting to “measure nature” which by definition is a complex system where even fully determined phenomena can remain unpredictable (Moskovitz, 2010). In addition the monitoring activity exists within a social and political framework (Gallopín et al. 2001) that determines the nature and scope of the work in a way that may be completely unrelated to the scientific needs (for example the level of funding or restrictions based on political boundaries). These

18

limitations cannot be quickly or simply overcome but we can at least recognise them and understand the monitoring activities recorded in their appropriate context. According to the classification of Lindenmayer and Likens (2010) it is possible to assign monitoring activities to three distinct groups: a. “Passive monitoring, which is devoid of speciﬁed questions or underlying study design and has limited rationale other than curiosity. b. Mandated monitoring where environmental data are gathered as a stipulated requirement of government legislation or a political directive. The focus is usually to identify trends. c. Question-driven monitoring, which is guided by a conceptual model and by a rigorous design that will typically result in a priori predictions that can be tested.”

Whilst some may view this list as progressing in value and rigour from 1-3 this is not necessarily the case. In DEVOTES, we focus on activities that may be of relevance in identifying indicators for MSFD descriptors: 1 (biological diversity), 2 (non-indigenous species), 4 (food- webs), and 6 (seafloor integrity) within the MSFD Regions (Figure 10). The monitoring programmes catalogued will have been started for a variety of reasons, the vast majority well before any requirements to meet GEnS. As a result their suitability for this task might not be immediately apparent and may require the combination of a set of monitoring programmes or the use of data in ways not envisaged when the monitoring was initiated. However, for this task we are concerned with the assessment of the reported monitoring networks contained in the catalogue (Annex 2) rather than the final use of them in the DEVOTES project. When making an initial assessment of a monitoring network, in this context, there are two simple criteria which we can use. Firstly how effective is the programme at monitoring the criteria it is meant to and secondly, how well do those criteria meet the stated purpose for which they were collected. Whilst both these are essential to a successful monitoring network it requires a thorough understanding of the parameter being monitored, the methodologies employed and the execution of the work in the field (for example appropriate sampling strategies, collection and analyses of the data). The success of the first criteria is largely determined by following the correct methodology whilst the second criteria depends on the accuracy of the theoretical rather than the methodological basis for the monitoring. So for example the goal of the monitoring network may be to monitor for environmental degradation. The method employed is the measure of abundance of a “keystone” species. This may be undertaken with appropriate rigor and understanding of uncertainty, however if the theoretical underpinning is weak (i.e. the “keystone” species is not a useful proxy for broader environmental degradation) then the monitoring programme is deficient within its own frame of reference. However, this does not preclude it of being of use to DEVOTES as the data may be used for a different purpose successfully (in this case it may still prove useful for the development of indicators). 19


Figure 10. Preliminary distribution of MSFD marine regions and sub-regions.

There is then a third criteria which arises because we have a pre-determined interest, which the monitoring may not have been designed to address, and that is; how suitable is the monitoring for our purposes (i.e. the development of biodiversity indicators to permit the assessment of GEnS). Again, to judge the suitability of outputs from a particular monitoring programme for use in developing indicators requires a thorough understanding of that monitoring activity, the suitability of its use as a GEnS indicator and the relevance of such an indicator to GEnS (Figure 11). However, before such detailed and specific assessments of suitability are made we provide a more general overview of the monitoring activities contained in the catalogue.

20

Figure 11. Assessment matrix showing the different considerations that need to be made according to the category of monitoring

5. Limitations of the catalogue The DEVOTES Catalogue on Monitoring Networks has the potential to form the basis of a useful tool to optimise efforts and costs of monitoring at the marine region or subregion level (identified under Article 4 of EC/2008, MSFD). Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the catalogue is as complete as possible, it should be noted that the catalogue is based on (meta) data reported by DEVOTES partners and the Member States Competent Authorities that responded. It should not be considered as a complete inventory of EU marine biodiversity monitoring networks. In particular, it does not currently account for monitoring carried out by non-EU nations or Member States which are not involved and have therefore not participated in this

21


specific task of the DEVOTES project. However, individuals within both EU and non-EU Member States have been contacted and some contributed with information (e.g. Ukraine, Turkey, and Norway). Therefore the catalogue may continue to develop as a catalogue (with further inputs) after the deadline for this report. Additionally, in the process of further development of the catalogue, information from Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) affecting the European seas should also be integrated. RSC are being contacted and information regarding their monitoring plans will complement the catalogue. The catalogue presents details of the geographical distribution of monitoring programmes and, in some cases, the temporal scale/frequency of data collection. However, there are no details of survey design (e.g. number of stations, replicates, statistical robustness) or the appropriateness and standardisation of the sampling techniques. Furthermore, these factors will vary between nations. Some programmes have associated formal Quality Assurance schemes but these do not necessarily apply to all descriptors, biodiversity components or regions and there are no details of the effectiveness of the QA programme (e.g. in the UK, the National Marine Biological Analytical Quality Control (NMBAQC) scheme is a national programme whereby members of the scheme are annually assessed; other QA schemes, may only apply to a single laboratory). Furthermore, and despite direct access to the specific monitoring networks available in the catalogue, such links do not always provide the specificities of each programme. Other limitations of the catalogue relate to the use of terms within the catalogue itself. Most terms were defined prior to the completion of the catalogue; however, the analyst completing the catalogue may have misinterpreted certain terms, if details were missing. For example, it was not determined a priori the period for which the monitoring programmes should have been on-going in order to be included in the catalogue. As a result, monitoring programmes for which duration has been short (e.g. three years) or continuity is not assured have been included (or excluded) in the catalogue according to the analyst criteria. Furthermore, the number of research institutions/countries required to be considered as a “network” was not taken into account. Another example of subjective interpretation of the catalogue may be that of the definitions of monitoring types (i.e. surveillance or condition), which are not necessarily exclusive. Completion of this information has been left to the interpretation of the analyst. The subjectivity which analysts may have incurred while completing the catalogue could translate to end-users, who can also differently interpret terms if these are not clearly defined. Further development of the catalogue in this respect is to be performed prior to the SWOT analysis. It should be noted that in the process of completion of the catalogue, several cells of the monitoring networks were left blank by the different analysts. The meaning of blank cells can vary having the different possibilities: a) not apply to the specific monitoring network; b) apply but information is not available; c) unknown. This

22

can severely affect the GAP/SWOT analysis, and for this matter, continuous discussions are needed prior to continuing this work. The critical analysis of this catalogue (to be undertaken through GAP/SWOT analysis) is unlikely to be able to assess the adequacy of the monitoring programmes and networks in addressing pressures on biodiversity components, GEnS indicators and the programmes specific objectives, as the catalogue does not provide specific details of methodological procedures (i.e. sampling design, frequency, temporal and spatial scales, standardised procedures between Member States). Additionally it will be difficult to assess the quality of the monitoring programmes/networks, as most validated external QA (as identified in the catalogue) are only available in schemes for particular techniques and species (i.e. NMBACQ, etc.). Member States which share marine regions with non-EU countries may fail to meet MSFD pressure related monitoring criteria if regional cooperation is not achieved/agreed. In particular, the Black Sea is surrounded by six nations (Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Turkey), not all are members of the EU. The current version of the catalogue only contains information from Bulgaria and the Ukraine. Within the Ukraine, much of the monitoring effort is focused on pressures and impacts associated with chemical pollution, eutrophication and hypoxia in coastal and inshore waters. Whilst sampling of the benthos is carried out, the majority of the sampling focuses on macroalgae, seagrasses and phytoplankton. Other limitations, which do not specifically relate to the catalogue, in this region include limited power to detect GEnS because of limitations in the number of ecosystem components being monitored, monitoring has not necessarily been design to address specific pressures, biodiversity indicators are still under development, monitoring is not standardised in terms of methods of sampling design, policy and use of the available data require optimisation and there is currently insufficient information to adequately address pressure-impact relationships. Finally, another limitation of the catalogue is that it does not include monitoring initiatives such as “citizen science”. Take for e.g. the case of “Jelly watch” in the Mediterranean, Black sea, Irish sea and British Isles, which have a high value for raising public awareness and general public involvement.

6. References Brandt, J. J. E., Bunce, R. G. H., Howard, D. C., & Petit, S. 2002. General principles of monitoring land cover change based on two case studies in Britain and Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(1), 37-51. Elliott, M. 2011. Marine Science and management means tackling exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic managed pressures – a numbered guide. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62: 651-655. EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU).

23


European Commission (2012) Commission Staff Working Paper – Guidance for 2012 reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, using the MSFD database tool. Version 1.0. DG Environment, Brussels. pp164. European Commission (2011) Commission Staff Working Paper – Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status. Brussels, 14.10.2011. SEC(2011) 1255 final.Derous S, Agardy T, Hillewaert H, Hostens K, Jamieson G, Lieberknecht L, Mees J, Moulaert I, Olenin S, Paelinckx D, Rabaut M, Rachor E, Roff J, Stienen EWM, Van der Wal JT, Van Lancker V, Verfaillie E, Vincx M, Weslawski JM, Degraer S. 2007. A concept for biological valuation in the marine environment. Oceanologia 49 (1): 99-128 Gallopín, G. C., Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M., & Ravetz, J. 2001. Science for the Twenty‐First Century: From Social Contract to the Scientific Core. International Social Science Journal, 53(168), 219-229. Koss, R.S., Knights, A.M., Eriksson, A. and L.A. Robinson. 2011. ODEMM Linkage Framework Userguide. ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.1. EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, ISBN: 978-0-906370-66-7. Lindenmayer, D. B., & Likens, G. E. 2010. The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation, 143(6), 1317-1328. Moskovitz, P. A. 2010. Randomness Does Not Occur in Nature: Philosophical Assumptions at the Boundary of Knowledge and Certainty. cal, 10, 12. Power M.E., Parker M.S., Dietrich W.E. 2008. Seasonal reassembly of a river food web: Floods, droughts, and impacts of fish. Ecological Monographs 78: 263–282. Robinson, L.A., Rogers, S. & Frid, C.L.J. 2008. A marine assessment and monitoring framework for application by UKMMAS and OSPAR – Assessment of Pressures and Impacts. Phase II: Application for regional assessments. Joint Nature Conservation Committee contract No. C-08-0007-0027.

7. List of annexes Annex 1 - D1.3 Annex1_DEVOTEScatalogue_instructions (.pdf) Annex 2 – D1.3 Annex2_DEVOTESmonitoring_networks_catalogue (.xls)

24