1

EUNIS marine habitat classification: policy requirements, progress and way forward The EUNIS habitat classification, governance and future developments European Environment Agency 3-4 October 2011, Copenhagen David Connor DG Environment, Marine Environment Unit 2

Outline Policy requirements Application in environmental assessment Research needs identified Recent/ongoing developments Top-down modelling Bottom-up mapping and analysis Issues arising for EUNIS At biotope level (levels 5/6) Higher EUNIS structure

Policy requirements to protect the marine environment Ongoing: Habitats & Birds Directives, WFD, SEA and EIA New: Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008) - Achieve Good Environmental Status by 2020, including maintenance and restoration of: Biodiversity, including habitats (Descriptor 1) Seafloor integrity (Descriptor 6) Need to: Characterise and assess predominant habitat types Map and assess special habitats (listed by EC Directives and Conventions) Assess pressures and impacts from human activities

MSFD assessments Article 8 – initial assessment, due 2012 “Member States shall make an initial assessment of their marine waters, taking account of existing data where available and comprising … an analysis of the essential features and characteristics … covering the physical and chemical features, the habitat types, the biological features and the hydro-morphology” Annex III – habitat elements of assessments “the predominant seabed and water column habitat type(s) with a description of the characteristic physical and chemical features, such as depth, water temperature regime, currents and other water movements, salinity, structure and substrata composition of the seabed” “identification and mapping of special habitat types, especially those recognised or identified under Community legislation (the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive) or international conventions as being of special scientific or biodiversity interest”

MSFD – GES and targets Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) Establishment of environmental targets Status assessment criteria: MSFD Habitats Directive HELCOM Red List review Habitat distribution Range Habitat quantity Habitat extent Area covered within range Habitat condition Specific structures and functions, incl. typical species Habitat quality (as trends in status) Future prospects

Application MSFD assessment – define GES boundary for the criteria HELCOM development of an indicator for cumulative impact on seabed EUSeaMap (raster, cell size/resolution 276m) Relevant anthropogenic (physical) pressure data from prior projects (HELCOM HOLAS) were selected: Dredging, Dumping, Windfarms, Oil rigs, cables and pipelines, coastal defense structures, bridges and dams, bathing sites, coastal shipping <15m water depth, nuclear power plants, bottom trawling, municipal waste water treatment plants MWWTPs Geographical coverage: All regions of the Baltic Sea, whereas the data quality varies among data regions and data layers. Temporal coverage: The pressure data is from period 2003-2008, biased towards 2006-2007. Exact years are available in pressure metadata

HELCOM preliminary estimate of cumulative impacts (Sep. 2011)

Research priorities EurOcean (October 2010) Invest in new surveys for industry and for environmental management purposes; Improve standards of data collection and interpretation; Gain a greater understanding of relationships between biology and physical environments; Coordinate efforts better at both the European and national level. A European Centre for Seabed Mapping would provide significant impetus for progress. MSFD Commission Staff Working Paper (2011), based on ICES/JRC Task Group on Biological Diversity (2010) Broad-scale mapping, especially eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea Fine-scale mapping Pelagic habitat mapping EUNIS development – Baltic, southern NE Atlantic, offshore and deep-water Linking community types to physical/hydrological characteristics

Seabed mapping – broad-scale Contribute to quality assessments Regional conventions e.g. HELCOM Status Reporting EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive Support Marine Protected Area designation EC Habitats, Birds & Marine Strategy Framework Directives Regional conventions e.g. OSPAR MPAs National programmes Contribute to Marine Spatial Planning EU Integrated Maritime Policy National initiatives

Extent of habitat mapping coverage in 2008 www.searchMESH.net

Broad-scale seabed habitat maps of European regions EUSeaMap Broad-scale seabed habitat maps of European regions www.jncc.gov.uk/EUSeaMap

MESH EUNIS model 2008 MESH Atlantic 2010-2013 www.jncc.gov.uk/EUSeaMap BALANCE habitat model 2007 MESH EUNIS model 2008 MESH Atlantic 2010-2013 www.jncc.gov.uk/EUSeaMap

Modelling approach Biologically relevant? Represented in EUNIS? e.g. Depth Seabed salinity Sediment type Biologically relevant? Represented in EUNIS? This is a schematic example with 3 physical data layers – let’s say depth, seabed salinity and sediment type. Different combinations of these variables (and others) will drive the distribution of habitats, as shown here by combination A and B. Our job is to identify the combinations which occur, through combining layers in GIS, and to work out which of these combinations are biologically relevant. In some areas, the EUNIS classification scheme is well developed, and combinations of physical variables are well reflected in the structure of EUNIS. In other areas (e.g. Mediterranean, Baltic) the EUNIS scheme is at an earlier stage, and we may find combinations which are not in EUNIS but which (if biologically validated) should present a more sensible set of higher classes – as well as producing seabed habitat maps, this project is an opportunity to test and, where necessary, recommend updates to EUNIS. Combination A Combination B Other parameters: Energy at seabed (waves, currents) Light penetration Seabed temperature Oxygen levels Stratification

EMODnet substratum

EMODnet bathymetry

Light penetration data MERIS satellite data 1km  250m resolution This is the MERIS 1km data – we have been working on the algorithm behind these data, and the resolution is much better than previously (1km cf 9km). Note the data covers some of the Kattegat, allowing comparison with Secchi disc data.

Lower limit of Posidonia Range of 0.84 – 1.08% surface light reaching the seabed to describe infralittoral zone

Modeled seabed habitats

Baltic Sea predominant habitat types

Celtic and North Seas predominant habitat types

West Mediterranean Sea predominant habitat types Western Mediterranean Sea predominant habitat types

EUSeaMap- EUNIS issues Baltic EUNIS-compatible habitat classes mapped EUNIS level 2-4 – new structure/classes Atlantic Deep sea followed zonation of Howell (2010) – 5 zones (200-5000m depth) Separate Arctic and Atlantic bioregions Mediterranean New habitat types predicted (sediment type/depth combinations)

European marine biogeography Arctic Marine ‰ <0 ºC bottom European marine biogeography Baltic 0-18‰ Cool ºC Black: 18‰ 8-14ºC Atlantic 33-35 ‰ <4 ºC bottom Mediterranean: 38‰ 14-27ºC

Bottom-up classification work HELCOM Red List revision for Baltic Development of detailed biotope classification (L5-6) Linked to EUSeaMap classes (L2-4) Howell (2010) Atlantic deep sea Proposed five new zones Based on analysis of video data Arctic and Atlantic bioregions OSPAR & Plymouth Uni. workshops on classifications Many national and local mapping studies

Needs for EUNIS marine (1) Facilitate new proposals Mainly at levels L5-6 Defined standards for descriptions of each new habitat (MESH proforma) Need for supporting data and maps? Review process Ensure adequacy of proposals Avoid duplication/overlap with existing types Maintain consistency in degree of differentiation at each level in classification Converge on use of functional habitats, expressing biological variation within as variations (e.g. smaller-scale biogeographical variations, impacted communities)

Needs for EUNIS marine (2) Review overall structure Benefit from recent broad-scale modelling Baltic – salinity regimes Atlantic – deep sea zones, biogeography European-level biogeography Consider high-level split into five regions Consistency with terrestrial (at level 1) Rigid ‘hierarchy’ Consider benefits and constraints (e.g. MSFD Predominant Habitats have aggregated/disaggregated classes for application in status assessments) Flexible solutions?

Biology – complexes, biotopes, sub-biotopes Marine Terrestrial Freshwater 1 Cold, saline (Arctic) Cool temperate, saline (Atlantic) Cool temperate, brackish (Baltic) Warm, saline (Mediterranean) Warm, brackish (Black) 2 Rock & biogenic reef Mixed sediment Coarse sediment Sand Mud Littoral Infralittoral Circalittoral - shallow Circalittoral – deep Bathyal – upper Bathyal – lower Abyssal 3 Possible option to restructure EUNIS to accommodate parity between marine and terrestrial systems and broad scale biogeographic variation in marine. 4-5 Variations within regions (salinity, temperature), energy exposure (waves, currents), and other key parameters 5-7 Biology – complexes, biotopes, sub-biotopes

Thank you for your attention !