David Connor European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry Seabed habitat assessments HELCOM workshop on EU Red List of habitats 2-3 June 2015, Helsinki

Outline 1.EU Red List project – aims and uses 2.EUNIS marine typology a.2015 restructuring, including HELCOM HUB b.Consultation 3.Assessment of seabed habitats a.Classification of status – MSFD, WFD, HD, Red List (IUCN) b.Criteria for assessment 4.Habitat resolution for assessments a.MSFD, EU Red List, HELCOM HUB 5.Practicalities a.Principles – links to activities and pressures b.Available data – habitat and physical maps, pressures/impacts 6.Conclusions

EU Red List project – aims, uses Objective:  To produce an assessment of the status of all natural and semi-natural habitat types according to the criteria recommended in the feasibility study at European and EU28-level (28 Member States) levels.  The information needed for the red list assessment plus additional information needed for policy purposes needs to be collected for each habitat type and be documented in the form of fact-sheets.  The Red List shall be based on the EUNIS habitats classification. Purpose: a.Provide an overview on and better understanding of the status of habitat types in Europe b.Help to assess the need for a potential revision of Annex I of the Habitats Directive (Habitats Directive types are only a selection, on a quite uneven classification ‘level’ - needed to check the validity of this selection today) c.The Red list data will be freely available for further analysis and use of researchers, institutes, etc. d.Contribute to the work on the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) as well as the restoration agenda under Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy; e.Provide background for proposals/initiatives targeted at coordinated European conservation action (e.g. future action or conservation plans); f.Improve the general understanding among policy makers, the interested parties and general public for the need of European conservation action. g.Support MSFD assessments

EUNIS – pan European classification 2015 revision of marine section Based on conclusions of MESH Atlantic workshop (San Sebastian 2012) (Galparsoro et al 2012) Main changes: Consistency – across types (rock, sediment), levels (role of levels defined) Restructuring of existing types Biogeography – five regions for Europe New regional typologies (Baltic HUB, NE Atlantic deep sea) Consultation: and-information/library/consultations/eunis-marine-habitats-review and-information/library/consultations/eunis-marine-habitats-review

EUNIS marine Level 1RealmMarine Level 2 Biological zone & substrate Circalittoral rock Level 3BioregionBaltic circalittoral rock Level 4Functional habitat Epifaunal turf communities on Baltic circalittoral rock Level 5Biotope Baltic aphotic rock and boulders dominated by stone corals Level 6Sub-biotope Baltic aphotic mixed substrate dominated by stone corals

EUNIS 2015 – level 2 HardHard/softSoftOther Level 2Rock* Biogenic habitat (flora/ fauna) CoarseMixedSandMud e.g. non- oxygen- based habitats Photic Littoral Infralittoral Circalittoral Aphotic Bathyal Abyssal *Includes soft rock, marls, clays, artificial hard substrata

Status classifications HighGoodModeratePoorBad Good Ecological Status WFD Sub GEcS Favourable Sub FCS Unfavourable - inadequateUnfavourable -bad HD Favourable Conservation Status MSFD Unimpacted state Unacceptable degree of impact Destroyed/ irrecoverable Sub GEnSGood Environmental Status Deviation from unimpacted state Modified from Cochran et al. (2010) Note: boundaries of status classes may not be fully equivalent Lower limit of quality to be achieved per Directive Least concern NTENCR Not Red Listed IUCN Red List VU

Integration across policies – aligning criteria of MSFD, HBD and RSCs MSFD (D1, 3, 4, 6, 7) Habitats Directive HELCOM (IUCN Red List) OSPAR (Texel- Faial criteria) -> Use Habitats Distribution (1.4) Range Quantity (extent of occurrence; area of occupancy) Decline (extent) Distribution (2) Extent (1.5)Area covered Extent (1) Condition (1.6, 6.2, 7.2) Structures & functions Quality (biotic, abiotic) Decline (quality)Condition (1) Future prospects Included above - Global proportion Regional importance Rarity Sensitivity Ecological significance -

Habitat resolution for assessments Level 1RealmMarine Level 2Major habitatCircalittoral rock Level 3BiogeographyBaltic circalittoral rock Level 4Functional habitat Epifaunal turf communities on Baltic circalittoral rock Level 5Biotope Baltic aphotic rock and boulders dominated by stone corals Level 6Sub-biotope Baltic aphotic mixed substrate dominated by stone corals MSFD EU Red List HELCOM HUB

Quality - sensitive to different pressures ->scientific indicators State with negligible impact Unacceptable degree of change - impacted Destroyed/ irrecoverable Sub-GESGood Environmental Status Acceptable degree of change Quantitative threshold for GES Types of pressure Reference condition – for habitat, community and area Few non- indigenous spp. in low density Many non-indigenous spp. in high density Non-indigenous spp. dominant Minor changes to spp. Dense green algae Community switched Minor spp. & physical changes Loss of sensitive spp.; opportunist spp. increasing Habitat and/or community destroyed D2 Non- indigenous spp. D5 Nutrient enrichment (Eutrophication) D6 Physical disturbance (sea- floor integrity) Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD

Assessment scenario – cumulative impacts Hydrological changes – minor effects Occasional disturbances - minor effects Physical damage (bottom trawling) - impacts Greens – acceptable state Orange, red – unacceptable state Contaminants - minor effects Hydrological changes – impacts Nutrient enrichment – minor effects Contamination - impacts Hydrological changes - impacts Nutrient enrichment - eutrophication Cumulative pressures - impact D5 D8 Non- indigenous species D2 D6 D7 Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD Physical loss (offshore infrastructure) D7 Physical loss (coastal infrastructure) Quantity – affected by multiple pressures -> cumulative impact assessments

‘Building’ a habitat assessment State criterion Threshold Pressures Impact Assess ment values Criterion assessm ent Over all Predominant habitat: shelf sand Habitat distribution (1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2) <[10]% loss in range cw reference condition None: broadscale physical habitat not affected by physical pressures Habitat loss (6.1.1) 0%GES Below GES Habitat extent (1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 6.1.1) <[10]% loss in extent cw reference condition PhysicalChange of sea-floor substrate (infrastructure) Habitat loss (6.1.1) 5%GES Habitat condition (1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4)) <[30]% damage cw reference condition (including any habitat loss) PhysicalDisturbance/damage to sea-floor Habitat damage (6.1.2) 65% Below GES (75% impacted or lost) BiologicalRemoval of species (targeted, non-targeted) Physical Extraction of sea-floor and subsoil minerals (e.g. sand, gravel, rock, oil, gas) HydrologicalWater movement changes (from infrastructure) Habitat structure changes, community changes (7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2) 5% Chemicals and other pollutants Nutrient enrichment (N, P, organic matter) Oxygen depletion, community changes (5.2.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2) 0% BiologicalIntroduction or spread of non-indigenous species Community alteration (2.2.1) Not assessed From a common set of pressures (Annex III) From indicator- based assessments (e.g. RSC common indicators) From (revised) Decision

Assessment and reporting areas: HELCOM nested system

EMODnet – physical habitats (EUSeaMap) New modelled map for Baltic 1.Based on EUNIS New data layers 3.Draft Aug-Sept BathymetryWater clarity - KDpar

Spatial distributions of bottom hypoxia and anoxia over time. Estimated bottom oxygen concentrations <2 mg·L−1 are shown in red, and concentrations <0 mg·L−1 are shown in black for 1906 (A), 1931 (B), 1955 (C), 1974 (D), 1993 (E), and 2012 (F). The spatial distributions represent means across all months (January to December). Carstensen et al. (2014) D5: Eutrophication - oxygen levels (5.3)

Fishing intensity (surface + subsurface) for OT, TBB, and DRB gears (see Annex for codes) combined for the years 2009–2012. The colour in each 0.05 × 0.05 degree grid cell corresponds to the swept-area ratio (average number of times fished per year). Note that the caveats outlined apply. ICES 2014 OSPAR request on mapping of bottom fishing intensity using VMS data. Special request, Advice September 2014 Version 2, D1: Biodiversity – habitat condition (1.6) D6: Seafloor integrity - physical damage (6.1), benthic condition (6.2)

Conclusions 1.EUNIS 2015 a.Includes all lowest HUB classes b.Aggregates HUB to fewer Level 4 types for consistency in L4 resolution/fewer hierarchical levels c.Retains hydrolittoral and lower circalittoral zones in Baltic (below pycnocline) d.HELCOM comments welcome 2.EU Red List typology a.EUNIS level 4 (functional habitat) b.Coarser than HELCOM HUB 3.Assessments a.Compatibility needed between HUB, EU Red List and MSFD assessments – all reflect state of seabed habitats b.Similar criteria/methods c.Same data?! d.Future – harmonise assessments and timing