Testing a Potential Marine Species Trend Indicator
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Biodiversity Trends and Threats in Europe: Testing a potential marine species trend indicator Submitted to: Submitted by: Author: Ed McManus 1 Contents 1. Foreword 4 2. Introduction 5 3. Monitoring Biodiversity and Ecosystem Changes 7 4. Methods: marine component 9 4.1 Geographical scope and classification of the study area 9 4.2 Locating, mobilising and compiling data 13 4.3 Calculation and aggregation 14 5. Results 16 5.1 Evaluation of the available data 16 5.2 A first trial of the indicator 19 5.2.1 Taxonomic groups 19 5.2.2 Regions 21 5.2.3 Pan-European Indices 23 5.2.4 Baselines and long-term data 24 6. Discussion and recommendations 27 6.1 Data mobilisation 27 6.2 Habitats and ecoregionalisation 28 6.3 Composition and aggregation 29 6.4 Species selection and frequency of reporting 30 6.5 Reliability and sensitivity 30 6.6 Relation between the indicator and biodiversity loss 32 6.7 Potential for use at the national and supra-national scales 32 6.8 Towards a European marine biodiversity monitoring framework 32 6.9 Recommendations and next steps 33 Acknowledgements 35 References 36 Annex 1. Potential marine related EU indicators defined at Malahide. 39 Annex 2. The number of species and time series (lines of data) in the pilot indicator per LME. 40 2 Annex 3. Species list 42 Annex 4. Potential for European Biodiversity Monitoring: Marine Data networks 45 Annex 5. Causes of change 47 Annex 6. LME ‘Response’ indicator. 52 Cover shows the Large Marine Ecosystems within European waters. The numbers refer to North Sea (22), Baltic Sea (23), Celtic-Biscay Shelf (24), Mediterranean Sea (26), Black Sea (62) and the Arctic Ocean (64) Disclaimer The contents of this volume do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WCMC, contributory organizations, or editors. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP-WCMC or contributory organizations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or the designation of its name or allegiances. Contact information: Edmund McManus Senior Programme Officer Marine Assessment and Policy UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 1223 277314 Fax: +44 1223 277136 Web site: http://www.unep-wcmc.org 3 1. Foreword This report complements the main report of the project, Biodiversity Trends and Threats in Europe, completed by Mireille de Heer (de Heer, M., Kapos, V., and ten Brink, B. J. E., 2005) by providing a marine component to the work. Much of the rationale of the marine component is similar to that of the main project, as is some of the methodology, but there are also substantive differences between the two parts of the project. Therefore, this report is linked to the main report but can also serve as a stand-alone document. It is structured along similar lines to the main project report and includes some of the same introductory material. The major difference between the marine component and the main project are in the analytical method, which is described in detail in this report. The rationale for this and other differences are explained in the relevant sections. Summary This report is essentially a methodological review and not intended to be a ‘State of the Environment Report’. It presents a trial of a species population trend indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2010 biodiversity target in Europe, using existing data. The indicator integrates trends on different species (groups), and can be aggregated across habitats and countries. Thus, the indicator can deliver both headline messages for high-level decision-making and detailed information for in-depth analysis, using data from different sources, collected with different methods. Data was mobilised on over 480 historical trends of populations of fish, marine mammals and reptiles, for a total of 109 species. The vast majority of the trends were for fish and birds. These data were aggregated by biogeographical region and then combined to generate a pilot Pan-European scale indicator. From the data collected for this trial, the indicator suggests a decline of commercial fish populations, but an increase in seabird populations between 1970 and 2000. It was found that the indicator is potentially useful for monitoring progress towards 2010 biodiversity targets. However, the constraints include the limited sensitivity of the historical data, which may lead to inaccurate estimates of species decline; a potential danger of ambiguity because increases in opportunistic species can mask the loss of other species; and bias with regard to the current dataset. We recommend mobilising additional existing data (particularly for under represented taxa and regions, and for non target species) from national and regional bodies, and elaborating further the criteria for compiling representative sets of species. Based on the approach detailed here, it is recommended that an analysis is conducted culminating in a ‘State of European Marine Biodiversity’ report. For a frequent, reliable update of the indicator, sound, sensitive and harmonised biodiversity monitoring programmes are needed across Pan-Europe. 4 2. Introduction In response to global concern over the rapid loss of the world’s biodiversity, the 6th Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a global target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 (CBD 2002). This target, which was later endorsed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (United Nations 2002), has also been adopted by a number of regional scale policies and processes. The European Union Sustainable Development Strategy (EC 2001a) and various other European Union policies (EC 1998, 2001 b, c) set similar or even more ambitious biodiversity goals. The Pan-European Ministerial ‘Environment for Europe’ process adopted a resolution on halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 (UN/ECE 2003). This widespread adoption of targets for reducing the rate of biodiversity loss has highlighted a need for indicators that will allow policy makers to track progress towards these ambitious goals. Recognising this need, the CoP of the CBD identified a series of biodiversity indicators for immediate testing (UNEP 2004, CBD 2004). Such indicators are needed at national, regional and global levels. In June 2004 the Environment Council of the EU adopted a set of 15 headline indicators for biodiversity to evaluate progress towards the 2010 target (Council of the European Union 2004). This set was recommended by the EU Biodiversity Expert Group and its Ad Hoc Working Group on Indicators, Monitoring and Assessment, and the Malahide stakeholder conference (Anonymous 2004). Both the CBD decision and the European documents recommend, among other indicators for immediate testing, indicators of trends in abundance and distribution of selected species. Species trend indicators are considered a sensitive measure of biodiversity change (Balmford et al. 2003; Ten Brink et al. 1991; Ten Brink 2000), and one such approach, composite species trend indicators, has been increasingly widely applied. In addition to the global-scale Living Planet Index (Loh 2002) there are several instances of the successful implementation of such indicators, principally at national scales (Jenkins et al. 2004). The UK Headline indicator of wild bird populations (Gregory et al. 2003a) is one example. The European Bird Census Council (EBCC) has used a similar approach to develop the Pan-European Common Bird Index for farmland and forest birds (Gregory et al. 2003b). The marine environment requires biodiversity indicators as much as the terrestrial one and many similar approaches have been proposed. (For a list of proposed marine related EU biodiversity headline indicators see Annex 1.) However, in the marine realm the players and interests of different parties are different, and in many senses, the boundaries are non-existent. To address the need for regional scale biodiversity indicators for marine ecosystems in (Pan-) Europe, this study set out to identify suitable data and build upon existing methods to develop an appropriate indicator of trends in marine species 5 abundance for use at the Pan-European1 scale. The indicator is intended to inform high- level decision-making on the environment and biodiversity-related sectoral activities by policy makers at the Pan-European and national levels. The indicator should also be suitable for informing the general public on biodiversity trends. In accordance with the set of requirements listed by the CBD (UNEP 2003), such an indicator needs to be, among other characteristics: policy and biodiversity relevant; scientifically sound; broadly accepted; affordable to produce and update; sensitive; representative; flexible and amenable to aggregation. In this paper, we present a trial of an indicator to evaluate progress towards the 2010 target for marine biodiversity in Europe, an evaluation of the existing data available for the purpose and our experience of mobilising them, and recommendations as to how the data and the method can be improved based upon this pilot experience. 1 Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,