the consequences of global climate change for complying ... · foodchain (d1,4) change in ecosystem...

The consequences of global climate

change for complying with MSFD

Indicators Mike Elliott,

Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of

Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK. With acknowledgements to Ángel Borja, Jesper Andersen, Krysia Mazik, Abigail McQuatters-Gollop, Silvana Birchenough, Suzanne Painting & Myron Peck

Contents: •  Global climate change is an exogenic unmanaged pressure where

management of any estuarine or marine area has to respond to the consequences rather than the causes of that change.

•  Risk assessment and risk management (RA&RM) for any individual effect or for cumulative effects is required.

•  We can summarise our understanding as a set of evidence-based conceptual models (‘horrendograms’) to inform future research in both the natural and social sciences (i.e. indicating what we do and don’t know).

•  The analysis allows us to present managers with the sequence of responses by the natural and human systems, and hence indicate impediments to the implementation of legislation such as European Directives.

Hazard leading to Risk (depending on assets) A) Surface hydrological hazards B) Surface physiographic removal by natural processes - chronic/long-term C) Surface physiographic removal by human actions - chronic/long-term D) Surface physiographic removal - acute/short-term E) Climatological hazards - acute/short term F) Climatological hazards - chronic/long term G) Tectonic hazards - acute/short term H) Tectonic hazards - chronic/ long term I) Anthropogenic microbial biohazards J) Anthropogenic macrobial biohazards K) Anthropogenic introduced technological hazards L) Anthropogenic extractive technological hazards M) Anthropogenic acute chemical hazards N) Anthropogenic chronic chemical hazards

Hazard & Risk Typology:

Drivers (societal basic needs)

Ac1vi1es (of society)

Pressures (resul1ng from

ac1vi1es) State change (on the natural system)

Impacts (on human Welfare)

(changes affec1ng wealth crea1on, quality

of life)

Responses (economic, legal, etc) (Measures)

DAPSI(W)R(M) framework (Also * DPSIR, DPSWR, DPSEEAC, etc.!)

* Drivers Pressures State change Impact Response; Drivers Pressures State change Welfare/Impact Response; Drivers Pressures State change Exposure Effects Ac1on Context

(for each EnMP cf. ExUP)

P

S

R

PS

DI(W)

R

P

S

D

I(W)

R

PS

D

I(W) R

A D

I(W)

Outside Management Plan Area

Boundary

Management Plan Area

Natural Change

Natural Change

Natural Change

Natural Change

ExUP

ExUP

ExUP

EnMP

A

A

A

ExUP

...N II

I

III

Vision of Management

Plan

Catchment linked nested-DAPSI(W)R models

1. Biodiversity 3. Fishing

4. Foodwebs 6. Seafloor integrity 7. Hydrography

9. Seafood contaminants

10. Litter

The Marine Strategy Framework Direc1ve

5. Eutrophication

11. Energy 8. Contaminants

2. NIS

11 Qualitative Descriptors

Figure 2 Primary drivers and consequences of marine global climate change (cross-referring to other figures)

Increased atmospheric CO2

Altered temperature regime

Physico-chemical water changes

Loss of polar ice-cover (Fig. 10)

Increase in relative sea level

Physiographic changes (Fig.

5)

Physiological responses

(Fig. 4) Changes to coastal

hydrodynamics (Fig. 6)

Ocean acidification

(Fig. 9)

Species re-distribution (Fig.

3)

Changes to climate patterns

Changes to estuarine

hydrodynamics (Fig. 8)

Changes to NAO/EAO and rainfall run-off

(Fig. 7)

Figure 3 Species re-distribution and community response due to altered temperature regime (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)


Species distribution change (D1, 4)

Northern species decrease in area (D1,

3, 4)

Southern species increase in area (D1, 3, 4)

Change in community structure & functioning (D1, 4, 6)

Fisheries repercussions (D3)

Increase of ‘rare’ / ’fragile’ species (D1)

Conservation management repercussions (D1, 6)

Decrease of ‘rare’ / ’fragile’ species (D1)

Species distribution change (D1, 4)

Increased susceptibility to alien & invasive

species (D1, 2, 4)

Figure 4 Physiological and phonological responses due to an altered temperature regime leading to ecosystem effects (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)


Disruption of breeding cycle

Northern species reproduction delayed (D3)

Southern species reproduction enhanced

(D2)

Competitive disadvantage

Competitive advantage

Change in community structure & functioning (D1, 3, 4, 6)

Fisheries repercussions (D3, 4)

Conservation management repercussions (D1, 4)

Increased growing season and growth rates (D1, 4)

Higher & longer productivity (D1, 4, 5)

changes to nutrient budgets

(D4, 5)

Symptoms of eutrophication (HAB, etc)

(D4, 5)

Increased relative sea levels

Set-back/ managed

retreat

Wetland/habitat creation (D1, 6)

Increase in refugia

Fisheries support (D3, 4)

“Coastal squeeze” (D6, 7)

Tidal area reduction (D6, 7)

Loss of prey/ feeding area (D1, 3, 4)

Reduction in intertidal carrying capacity (D1, 4)

Fisheries repercussions (D3)

Increase in subtidal area

Increased of prey/ feeding area & time (D1, 3, 4)

Increase in subtidal carrying capacity (D1, 4)

Figure 5 Physiographic changes due to increased relative sea level leading to ecosystem effects (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)

Coastal adjustment (D6, 7)

Changes to community structure & functioning (D1, 4, 6, 7)

Decreased resilience Increased sediment delivery

Increased coastal & estuarine flooding (D6, 7)

Tidal area reduction (D6, 7)

Increased coastal

protection

Less natural functioning (D1, 4, 6)

Increased climate variability

Increased storminess (D7)

More frequent storm surges Loss of habitat

(D1, 4)

Change in prey

availability (D1, 4)

Increased coastal erosion

(D6, 7)

Figure 6 Coastal hydrodynamic changes due to increased climate variability leading to ecosystem effects (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)

Coastal adjustment

(D6, 7)

Changes to community structure & functioning (D1, 4, 6)

Increased need for refugia

Increased frequency of rare and extreme

events (D7)

Increase wave height &

frequency (D7)

Changes to contaminant

inputs (D7, 8, 9) Potential

eutrophication signs &

symptoms (D5, 7)

Changes to NAO & EA oscillation/rainfall run-off patterns

Changes to nutrient delivery (D7)

Changing hydrodynamic patterns

(D7)

Materials delivery (D7)

Estuarine & nearshore

salinity changes

(D7)

Sediment & turbidity changes

(D6, 7)

Bathymetric & substratum change

(D6, 7)

Efflux of non-tolerant species

(D1, 3, 4)

Influx of tolerant species

(D1, 2, 4)

Figure 7 Land-based discharges and run-off due to regional climate perturbations leading to ecosystem effects (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)

Changes to community structure & functioning (D1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9)

Changes to contaminant delivery

(D7, 8)

Changes to contaminant bioaccumulation (D7, 8, 9)

Changes to contaminant mobilisation (D7, 8, 9)

Increased relative sea levels

Increased sediment delivery (D6,7)

Marine incursion in estuaries (D7)

Salinity alteration (D7)

Community displacement/ changes (D1,

4)

Migration of brackish species

(D1, 4)

Figure 8 Estuarine hydrodynamic changes due to increased relative sea levels leading to ecosystem effects (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)

Changes to community structure & functioning (D1, 4, 6)

Changes to erosion & deposition cycles

(D6, 7)

Sediment deposition alteration (D6,7)

Depth alteration (D6,7) Altered

estuarine connectivity

(D6,7)

Reduced system resilience (D1, 4)

Figure 9 Physico-chemical water changes due to decreased pH and increased CO2 levels leading to ecosystem effects (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)

Decreased pH and increased CO2 levels in surface waters

Dissolution of calcareous structures (D1)

Loss of micro-plankton (D1) Changes to pelagic

primary & secondary production (D1, 4)

Effects on plankton

foodchain (D1,4)

Change in ecosystem structure & functioning (D1, 3, 4, 6)

Fisheries repercussions (D3, 4) Conservation management repercussions (D1, 4, 6)

Slower growth of

calcareous macrofauna & macroalgae

Potential effects on fertilisation

Changes to blood chemistry

& O2 uptake (D9)

Changes to population

dynamics (D1, 3, 4, 6)

Reduction in reproduction

Impaired health (D9)

Changes to water & sediment

biogeochemistry (D8)

Changes to contaminant

bioaccumulation (D8, 9)

Loss of polar ice cover

Noise increases

(D11) Increases in alien & invasive species

(D2) Potential for HAB (D2, 5)

Increased ballast water transmission

(D2, 7)

Increased species mobility

Figure 10 Global transport repercussions due to loss of polar ice-cover leading to ecosystem effects (MSFD Descriptor denoted in brackets, see text)

Increased shipping routes

Changes to community structure & functioning (D1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Changes to current patterns (D7)

Litter increases

(D10)

Influx of tolerant species (D1, 2, 4, 5)

‘Aesthetic pollution’ (D

10, 11)

Topics Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I Altered temperature regime – species re-distribution and community response

ü ü ü ü ü

II Altered temperature regime – individual physiological/phenological response

ü ü ü ü ü ü

III Increased relative sea-level rise - physiographic changes

ü ü ü ü ü

IV Increased climate variability effects on coastal hydrodynamics

ü ü ü ü

V Changes to large scale climatic patterns due to land run-off

ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

VI Increased relative sea-level rise changing estuarine hydrodynamics

ü ü ü ü

VII Increased ocean acidification and seawater physico-chemical changes

ü ü ü ü ü ü

VIII Loss of polar ice cover and global transport repercussions

ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü

Sum categories 8 3 6 8 3 7 5 2 2 1 1

Summary: Marine consequences of climate change and their influence on the GEnS descriptors

Indicator Abbreviated name D1 Mammals

Distribution of cetaceans X Population growth rates, abundance and distribution of marine mammals

X

Abundance of seals Nutritional status of seals Abundance of cetaceans X Seal pup production Pregnancy rates of other (non-seal) marine mammals Mammals bycatch (number of drowned mammals in fishing gears) X

D1 Birds Abundance marine birds Abundance of overwintering waterbirds Abundance of breeding waterbirds X Distribution of marine birds XX Number of waterbirds being oiled annually X Breeding success of a dominant piscivorous seabird X Breeding success of seabirds Seabird bycatch (number of drowned waterbirds in fishing gears) X

Generic core indicators for Marine Biodiversity descriptors (based on OSPAR and HELCOM core-indicators and MEDPOL indications) (1)

Grey Seal Breeding Success: Annual and Monthly data at Donna Nook

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Num

bers of seal pup

s

Year

Maximum number of seal pups at Donna Nook

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

26th Octob

er

29th Octob

er

1st N

ovem

ber

4th Novem

ber

9th Novem

ber

12th Novem

ber

15th Novem

ber

20th Novem

ber

23rd Novem

ber

26th Novem

ber

29th Novem

ber

3rd De

cembe

r

7th De

cembe

r

10th Decem

ber

13th Decem

ber

16th Decem

ber

20thDe

cembe

r

Num

ber o

f seals

Date of the count

Number of seals counted at Donna Nook in 2014

Pups

Cows

Bulls

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Month/Year

Cor

mor

ant N

umbe

rs (a

vera

ge p

er m

onth

) Cormorant Numbers(average/month)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Month

Cor

mor

ant N

umbe

rs (a

vera

ge/m

onth

)

1984 19851986 19871988 1989

Cormorant numbers – upper (Forth) estuary

piscivores (in Elliott et 2002)

(Not Scottish cormorants!)

Indicator Abbreviated name D1 Fish Ceph

Abundance of all fish Abundance of key fish species XX Proportion of large fish in the community Abundance of fish key functional groups X Distribution of fish XXX Abundance of dominant spawning diadromous species XXX Mean maximum length of teleosts and elasmobranchs

D1/6 BenHab

State of soft-bottom macrofauna communities, based on multi-metric index Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species X Red-listed benthic biotopes Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species Patterns in macroalgae cover Cumulative impact on benthic habitats X Extent and distribution of benthic biotopes X Typical benthic species composition XX Physical damage to habitats Area of habitat loss X


Latit

ude

(°N

)

NE Atlantic Species Distribution centroid

(Pranovi and Cecino, unpublished; CEMAS University of Venice); based on distributions of 10 species (26544 records from GBIF and IOBIS) on the NW Atlantic coast)

Intra- and inter-annual

variability in estuarine

(juvenile) cod and whiting

densities (1981-1989)

(Elliott et al 1990)

Indicator Abbreviated name D1 PelHab

Plankton functional types XXX Plankton biomass/ abundance Zooplankton mean size and total abundance Changes in plankton biodiversity XX

D4 FoodWeb

Size composition of fish Change of plankton functional types XX Trophic level of marine predators Functional groups biomass and abundance Biomass Trophic Spectrum Ecological Network Analysis

D2 NIS

Rate and trends of new introductions of NIS XXX Management pathways for NIS XXX


Organism Rate of change Reference Phytoplankton 469.9 (±115.3) km

dec-1 Poloczanska et al. (2013)

Bony fish 277.5 (±76.9) km dec-1 Poloczanska et al. (2013)

Invertebrate zooplankton

142.1 (±27.8) km dec-1 Poloczanska et al. (2013)

Plaice (North Sea) -3.96 m dec -1

(1980-2004) 142 km NE (1913-2007)

Dulvy et al. (2008) Engelhard et al. (2011)

Sole (North Sea) +7.64 m dec -1

(1980-2004) 93 km SE (1913-2007)

Dulvy et al. (2008) Engelhard et al. (2011)

Intertidal biota 50 km dec-1 Helmuth et al. (2006)

Rate of change in latitudinal location of certain groups

15. Prevent deterioration (R)

1. Vision/aim (to achieve GEnS) (D)

16. Re-vision/revision

14. Perform management (R)

4. Activities (A)

6. Pressures (Annex III) (P)

12. Determine the effect on society (I(W))

13. Programme of cost-effective measures (R)

3. 11 Descriptors (Annex I)

10. Monitoring programme (to detect change against a target) (R)

11. Assess current status cf. GEnS (S)

5. 29 Criteria

7. Decide pressure & state indicators (as an aspiration)

8. Define index/metric /method (SMART) to assess status/impact

9. Identify appropriate target/ baseline/reference (to be reached) for indicators and methods

But CC is mentioned very little

Need to account for moving baselines, to include inherent and increasing variability; hence signal:noise are more difficult to detect

See text

MSFD is related to EnMP and ExUP of inputs (e.g. nutrients) but excludes the ExUP of CC

For targets for knowledge, pressure, state change & impact; need to ensure they can change/be adapted if required re. response to CC

But are these realistic/achievable if there are shifting baselines?

But there could be exemptions if an indicator is not responsive or is masked by CC

See text

But the system is changing because of CC

As box below but also need feedback loop to revise measures if not successful

To control cause & consequence of EnMP but only consequences of ExUP

But there is the problem of assessing status and GEnS against shifting baselines due to CC

Caution because of climate change (CC) Step in MSFD

implementation including DAPSI(W)R

2. Characteristics & Initial Assessment (Art. 8; Annex I)

But the characteristics are changing constantly although there are few long-term datasets

Figure 1: A conceptual model of the implementation of the MSFD (inner blue circle) together with the areas for caution as the result of global climate change (red boxes) (see text).

MSFD Wording:

In the proposed MSFD (CEC 2005), the highly variable nature of marine ecosystems and the changes over time in human activities and pressures, were cited as the reasons for having an adaptive, flexible and dynamic definition of GEnS.

The wording had then changed in the final Directive to: ‘In view of the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems and their natural variability, and given that the pressures and impacts on them may vary with the evolvement of different patterns of human activity and the impact of climate change, it is essential to recognise that the determination of good environmental status may have to be adapted over time.’

2012 Assessment

report baseline

2012 status with increased variability

Moving Baselines?

Fixed baseline 2012 Extended baseline

Moving baseline?

2020 status

2032 status

2026 status

2038 status

2044 status

2050 status

2056 status

2062 status

2068 status

2068 status

‘Bottlenecks, Showstoppers & Trainwrecks’:

BoNlenecks Showstoppers Trainwrecks Lack of clear objec1ves No stakeholder forum Poor scien1fic understanding Poor advice Confusing planning system Manageable hazards Poor communica1on

Complex regula1on Poor knowledge Poor training Overlapping designa1on Conflic1ng designa1on Sectoral management Poor administra1on Economic preroga1ve Lack of technologies Lack of tools Increasing governance Slow planning system Non-‐integrated planning system Manageable hazards

Intransigence Lack of funding Legal challenges Poli1cal will Unwillingness to adopt joint aims/vision Inflexible planning system Unmanageable hazards Lack of permissions Cultural conflicts Iconic ecology Ethically immoral

(but does climate change become the biggest ‘get-out’ clause?!)

Article 14 of the MSFD - the following special cases for not meeting environmental targets or attaining GEnS: :

a)  action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not responsible,

b)  natural causes,

c)  force majeure,

d) modifications or alterations to the physical characteristics of marine waters brought about by actions taken for reasons of overriding public interest which outweigh the negative impact on the environment, including any transboundary impact,

e)  natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the marine waters concerned.

Force majeure:

“Force majeure is literally translated as ‘superior forces’. In contractual terms, it is recognised as the occurrence of an unexpected event / events beyond the control of either contracting party which disrupts the operation of the contract such that the contracting parties are excused from their liabilities and/or obligations under the contract.

It is however not intended to excuse any negligence or malfeasance. It can also suspend the performance of an obligation or extend the time to perform the same.

This would include an "Act of God" / "forces of nature" event but can also extend to extraneous human intervention events.”

(Legal Dictionary)

(1) Good conceptual science-base but poor precise links between changes in biota and climate features (e.g. how abiotic factors control the vital processes; what mechanistic, cause-and-effect understanding is needed; what changes at the population level, what species-level responses to habitat change caused by multiple, interacting stressors, what ecosystem-level projections).

(2) Climate change produces ‘shifting baselines’ which need to be accommodated in monitoring, what about ‘unbounded boundaries’ given the ecology and climate change-induced migrations and dispersal of highly-mobile, nekton and plankton species; where are long-term and spatially large datasets for signal-noise separation in indicators, what baseline against which to interpret future changes (cf MSFD uses the current conditions as the baseline).

Conclusions #1 – Impediments to implementing MSFD and achieving GEnS as result of climate change:

(3) More cost-effective spatial and temporal monitoring is required at the ecohydrodynamic rather than geographic scale. But monitoring budgets are being reduced and lack of empirical data will increase the use of modelling and the error limits on the models may be large, increase because of climate change, or even be unknown, thus giving poor predictability.

(4) ‘Wicked problem’ - determine GEnS on a Descriptor-by-Descriptor basis or by 2020 consider aggregating to give GEnS for a regional or sub-regional area; interactions amongst Descriptors and their changes due to climate change need addressing; is the science adequate to judge changes in health due to climate change, is the system ‘unhealthy’ (‘deteriorated’ à la MSFD) or just different.


(5) Challenges for marine monitoring and management by climate change superimposed on local activities; climate change may either exacerbate, mask anthropogenic changes or cause failure to achieve the Descriptors; detecting change against a greater inherent variability will increase monitoring costs.

(6) Need to determine potential geographic disparity to achieving GEnS; hence, baselines need revising on a site-specific basis although the evidence needs to be extrapolated to show the short, medium and long-term effects and the speed of environmental response; modelling to assess adaptation (or the lack of it) overs 10s to 100s of generation times for marine organisms.



(7) Society will place emphasis on the repercussions of non-achieving GEnS for the Ecosystem Services and Societal Benefits; their loss due to managed pressures but also climate change has to be determined and emphasised to environmental managers and policy-makers.

(8) Failure to meet GEnS because of climate change has wide-ranging legal repercussions and could lead to a Member State being placed in infraction proceedings; legal challenge not because of Endogenic managed activities but because of Exogenic unmanaged pressures; the legal defence, that the failure was the result of third-party actions, natural causes or force majeure, needs supporting by robust science.

(9) The 45 marine biodiversity core generic indicators produced from and common to the Regional Seas Conventions all will show the effects of climate change (but first they need to be made SMART). (10) These lessons are relevant and applicable to European seas and the implementation of the MSFD (and WFD, EIA and Habitats Directives), the Canada Oceans Act and the US Oceans Act 2000 – none mention climate change in detail nor focus on separating climate change from other anthropogenic pressures.


[email protected]

A premise – “changing systems are not a problem for the ecology as it will adjust to any new situation and create a new equilibrium, they are only a problem for society, i.e. we might not be able to obtain the societal benefits from ecosystem services that we wish to and we may not like the new ecology but eventually we will have to accept it” Discuss!

the consequences of global climate change for complying ... · foodchain (d1,4) change in ecosystem...

Documents