COASTAL FISH CORE INDICATORS - HELCOM II 2-2014... · GES APPROACH GES decision tree Higher values are be er (key species, piscivores) V alues within boundary desirable (cyprinids)

COASTAL FISH CORE INDICATORS

Abundance of coastal key fish species AND

Abundance of coastal fish key functional groups Jens Olsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)

CORESET II meeting, 29-30th September , Gothenburg

CONCEPT

• Fish are key components of coastal ecosystems – indicators of ecosystem status

• Coastal fish species are influenced by a wide range of impacting factors including climate, eutrophication, fishing, exploitation of key habitats , predation, food-web interactions and hazardous substances

• Coastal fish are of high socio-economic value

CONCEPT Abundance of coastal key fish species

or

Perch Flounder Cod

The indicator is based on CPUE estimates (realtive abundance) in gill-net/fyke net monitoring, coastal trawl surveys, recreational fishermen surveys, and commercial catch statistics

or

CONCEPT Abundance of coastal fish key functional groups

and

Piscivores Cyprinids Mesopredators

The indicator is based on CPUE estimates (realtive abundance) in gill-net/fyke net monitoring, coastal trawl surveys, recreational fishermen surveys, and commercial catch statistics

or

STATE OF THE INDICATOR Abundance of coastal key fish species

Stage of development Indicator type

Core State

STATE OF THE INDICATOR

Stage of development Indicator type

Core State

Abundance of coastal fish key functional groups

STATE OF PLAY

Concept/ design

Coordinated monitoring Assessment

Research needs for operationalization

(in relation to needs stated under the

coordinated monitoring and

assessment columns)

Data arrangements

(CPs) Task Managers (in

lead and/or assisting)

A - TM offered, B - No TM but Assist

offered, C - no TM or Assist offered

State of play A ) on time

B) some problems C) despair

Spell out the

problem if B) or C)

Monitoring strategy (method, frequency, spatial resolution) in relation to relevant indicator parameters Technical guidelines Geographic scale Assessment method

GES / assessment criteria (currently all GES are provisional)

A ) in place B) under development C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) monitoring in place B ) monitoring needs revision C ) monitoring not available, what needs - action level?

A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

HELCOM assessment units: A ) identified B) Identified not described C) not identified, what needs - action level?

A ) available and described B ) available not described C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) proposed and described B ) proposed but needs more supporting data C ) not available, what needs - action level?

A ) in place B ) needs revision, what needs doing C ) not available, what needs - action level?

To b

e d

on

e A B - gillnet monitoring coordinated by HELCOM FISH-PRO monitoring stations with time series identified, in southern BS results are not included because of too short time series in the monitoring - task manager/HELCOM. SE: In some areas, data from commercial catch statistics should be used for assessments. The indicator could be exanded to the pelagic as monitoring is available.

A B - clarify sub-regions where cyprinids and piscivores should be assessed - task manager. SE: Do not recognise what is written here. Assessment units have been defined - within one survey area, but an aggregation on a sub basin level is possible; Developmental work is in progress.

B - due to local appearance of coastal fish communities (structure and response) a lack of data requires alternative data sources and more detailed assessment methods.

C - static boundaries needed, now assessed based on trends. SE: Should now be upgraded to "B" or even "A". FISH PRO has an agreement on how GES should be defined and set. We would propose not a static limit, but one based on time series data from the specific area, i.e. 1) baseline (data > 15 years), 2) trend direction (data < 15 years). This will be added for the next update of the Core indicators.

results from Germany, Estonia and Latvia missing. SE: Only data from Germany, Poland and Denmark are missing. data from Latvia and Estonia are available but have not been used because of a lack of national financing. This is also the case for Sweden. To reach this data is important.

B - HELCOM FISH PRO meets annually and can gather and analyze data, no official agreement

A - SE: Jens Olsson (TM) - FI: Antti Lappalainen (?)

A

Stat

us

CO

RES

ET

II/2

A A - there are still spatial gaps

A A A B - boundaries not static across assessment units

More exploration of GES approach and assessment across indicators

B - no agreed data arrangement. HELCOM FISH PRO II could serve as this

A A

GES APPROACH

• One assessment per assessment unit with unit-specific quantitative GES boundaries

• Based on a time-series approach: - For data covering more than 15 years: deviation from base-line

approach - For data covering less than 15 years: trend-based approach

• Base-line data could represent GES or subGES conditions

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

NCYPR

NCYPR

GES APPROACH

Base line data

Assessment period

GES boundary Current state

Base line data represents current climatic and hydrographic conditions, and indicate a level of sustainable use in the indicator (no directional development)

GES boundary

GES APPROACH

GES decision tree

Highervaluesarebe er(keyspecies,piscivores)

Valueswithinboundarydesirable(cyprinids)

Baselineavailable(data>15years)andnotrendduringbaseline Baselinenotavialable(data<15years),and/ortrendduringbaseline

Baseline=GES

Massperiod>5th

percMdistrbaseline

Toolowvalues

Isthereabaseline?Isthereatrendinthebaseline?

Baselineapproach

Currentstate=GES

Baseline=subGES Baseline=subGES Baseline=GES

Massperiod>98th

percMdistrbaseline

Toohighvalues

Massperiod<5th

percMdistrbaseline

Massperiod>5th

percMdistrbaselineand<95th

percMdistrbaseline

Trendbasedapproach

Highervaluesarebe er(keyspecies,piscivores)

Valueswithinboundarydesirable(cyprinids)

Currentstate=subGES

Currentstate=GES

Currentstate=subGES

Kwholeperiod≥0 Kwholeperiod>0 Kwholeperiodnochange

KwholeperiodtowardsGES

Alfalevelofpis0.1

GES APPROACH

Working example

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

198719901993199619992002200520082011

NPISC

NPISC

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

AbundanceofPiscivores

NPISC

SUBGES

GES

Full data set (Kvädöfjärden, Baltic Proper, Sweden)

Assessment

Base line Assessment period

GES APPROACH

Working example Full data set (Kvädöfjärden, Baltic Proper, Sweden)

Assessment

Base line Assessment period

HELCOM ASSESSMENT UNIT

• HELCOM Assessment Unit Level: 3

• The indicator is applicable in all coastal areas around the Baltic Sea

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT Coastal fish monitoring Coverage coastal fish monitoring Coverage GES assessments

35 of 42 units 23 of 42 units

CURRENT ASSESSMENT Abundance of coastal key fish species

GES

subGES

GES

subGES

CURRENT ASSESSMENT Abundance of coastal fish key functional groups

GES

subGES

Piscivores Cyprinids

STILL TO DO List of issues that still need

to be solved for the

indicator

Describe what is hindering solving the issue

State-pressure relationship. More

efforts need to be spend on the role

of various pressure variables for the

response of the indicator

Allocation of time and resources. Active involvement of experts outside Sweden. Will be

carried out in research projects

Aggregation principles. How to

aggregate status assessments across

indicators and assessment units

Allocation of time and resources. Active involvement of experts outside Sweden. . Will be

carried out in research projects

Data arrangements. There is no

common storage of coastal fish CORE

indicators

Lack of coordination for data storage principles and funding such systems

Spatial gaps i monitoring and

assessments

Allocation of time and resources. In some CPs there monitoring is not carried out due to

lack of national financial support. In some CPs there are no financial support for experts

to participate in HELCOM expert groups and for carrying out assessments.

Short time coverage in some areas –

lowered confidence of assessments

Recently started monitoring programs/lack of monitoring programs