1. 1

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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”

6. 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

7. 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 , biased towards Exact years are available in pressure metadata

8. HELCOM preliminary estimate of cumulative impacts (Sep. 2011)

9. 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

10. 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

11. Extent of habitat mapping coverage in 2008

12. Broad-scale seabed habitat maps of European regions
EUSeaMap
Broad-scale seabed habitat maps of European regions

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

14. 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

15. EMODnet substratum

16. EMODnet bathymetry

17. 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.

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

19. Modeled seabed habitats

20. Baltic Sea predominant habitat types

21. Celtic and North Seas predominant habitat types

22. West Mediterranean Sea predominant habitat types
Western Mediterranean Sea predominant habitat types

23. 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 ( m depth)
Separate Arctic and Atlantic bioregions
Mediterranean
New habitat types predicted (sediment type/depth combinations)

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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)

27. 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?

28. 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

29. Thank you for your attention !