ࡱ > @ q bjbjPP : : : g _ n n n T $/ $/ $/ / 2 f (5 j > @ > > > B L N p G I I I I I I $ . R J m n b\ A @ B b\ b\ m > > t t t b\ > n > G t b\ G t t : ,
n > 5 _ $/ m
0 > ro h d & d n OP \ S f t V W e OP OP OP m m D d t
DEVELOPMENT OF THE METHODOLOGY AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
TRANSBOUNDARY WATERS ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (TWAP)
METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSMENT OF LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
PRELIMINARY DRAFT 1.0
Work in progress
To be discussed at second TWAP LME meeting, 23-25 June 2010 GRID-Arendal, Norway
14 June 2010
Contributors
TWAP LMEs WORKING GROUP & OTHERS
(list of names to be included on inside front cover)
CONTENTS
TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629121" 1. INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc264629121 \h 4
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629122" The TWAP Project PAGEREF _Toc264629122 \h 4
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629123" Large Marine Ecosystems PAGEREF _Toc264629123 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629124" Existing Approach to Assessment and Management of LMEs PAGEREF _Toc264629124 \h 5
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629125" Related global and regional assessments and programmes PAGEREF _Toc264629125 \h 6
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629126" 2. GUIDELINES AND APPROACH PAGEREF _Toc264629126 \h 8
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629127" Guidelines for development of the methodology PAGEREF _Toc264629127 \h 8
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629128" Approach PAGEREF _Toc264629128 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629129" Steps in Methodology for Assessment of LMEs PAGEREF _Toc264629129 \h 9
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629130" 3. GENERAL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK PAGEREF _Toc264629130 \h 11
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629131" 4. SCOPING: IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY AND EMERGING ISSUES PAGEREF _Toc264629131 \h 15
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629132" 5. SCALING AND ASSESSMENT UNITS PAGEREF _Toc264629132 \h 21
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629133" 6. IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS PAGEREF _Toc264629133 \h 22
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629134" 6.1 PRODUCTIVITY PAGEREF _Toc264629134 \h 26
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629135" Primary productivity PAGEREF _Toc264629135 \h 26
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629136" Sea Surface Temperature PAGEREF _Toc264629136 \h 26
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629137" Ocean front maps PAGEREF _Toc264629137 \h 26
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629138" Vulnerability to climate change the effects of warming on fisheries yields PAGEREF _Toc264629138 \h 27
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629139" 6.2 FISH AND FISHERIES PAGEREF _Toc264629139 \h 27
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629140" Reported landings by species PAGEREF _Toc264629140 \h 28
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629141" Value of reported landings by major commercial groups PAGEREF _Toc264629141 \h 28
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629142" Fishing Effort PAGEREF _Toc264629142 \h 28
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629143" Primary production required to sustain fisheries within LMEs PAGEREF _Toc264629143 \h 28
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629144" Marine Trophic Index and Fishing in Balance Index PAGEREF _Toc264629144 \h 29
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629145" Stock-Catch Status Plots PAGEREF _Toc264629145 \h 29
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629146" Catch graphs for Arctic LMEs PAGEREF _Toc264629146 \h 30
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629147" Fish and Fisheries Global Carrying Capacity PAGEREF _Toc264629147 \h 30
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629148" 6.3 POLLUTION AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH PAGEREF _Toc264629148 \h 30
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629149" Land-based Nutrient Loading to LMEs PAGEREF _Toc264629149 \h 30
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629150" Freshwater discharge PAGEREF _Toc264629150 \h 31
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629151" Ocean Acidification PAGEREF _Toc264629151 \h 31
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629152" Multiple Marine Ecological Disturbances PAGEREF _Toc264629152 \h 31
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629153" Extent of warm water coral habitat PAGEREF _Toc264629153 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629154" Extent of mangrove habitat PAGEREF _Toc264629154 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629155" Extent of seagrass habitat PAGEREF _Toc264629155 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629156" Number of Ramsar sites with estuarine waters, tidal/mud flats, lagoons, and kelp beds, recorded PAGEREF _Toc264629156 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629157" Number of observations of cold water coral habitat PAGEREF _Toc264629157 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629158" Number of observations of cold seep and hydrothermal vent habitat PAGEREF _Toc264629158 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629159" Number of seamount observations PAGEREF _Toc264629159 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629160" Number of large seamount areas PAGEREF _Toc264629160 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629161" Percentage habitat covered by Protected Area PAGEREF _Toc264629161 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629162" 6.4 SOCIOECONOMICS PAGEREF _Toc264629162 \h 32
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629163" 6.5 GOVERNANCE PAGEREF _Toc264629163 \h 33
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629164" Assessing flow of information about natural system to governance arrangement PAGEREF _Toc264629164 \h 33
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629165" Assessing social aspects of the governance arrangements PAGEREF _Toc264629165 \h 33
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629166" 7. INTERLINKAGES WITH OTHER WATER SYSTEMS PAGEREF _Toc264629166 \h 35
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629167" 8. TOOLS FOR MAPPING AND INTEGRATION PAGEREF _Toc264629167 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629168" Mapping of Human Impacts PAGEREF _Toc264629168 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629169" IIASA framework, analyses and integrated ecosystem assessments PAGEREF _Toc264629169 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629170" 9. TWAP LME ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: LEVEL 2 PAGEREF _Toc264629170 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629171" 10. DATA, INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGY GAPS PAGEREF _Toc264629171 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629172" 11. PART TWO: IMPLEMENTING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE FSP PAGEREF _Toc264629172 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629173" Partnerships and institutional arrangements PAGEREF _Toc264629173 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629174" End users PAGEREF _Toc264629174 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629175" Best practices PAGEREF _Toc264629175 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629176" Data management PAGEREF _Toc264629176 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629177" Assessment products and disemmination PAGEREF _Toc264629177 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629178" Capacity building needs PAGEREF _Toc264629178 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629179" ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAGEREF _Toc264629179 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629180" ANNEXES PAGEREF _Toc264629180 \h 38
HYPERLINK \l "_Toc264629181" (to include indicator templates, results of validation exercise, etc) PAGEREF _Toc264629181 \h 38
INTRODUCTION
The TWAP Project
The methodology herein presented for assessment of Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) was developed under the Global Environment Facility (GEF) medium size project (MSP) Development of the Methodology and Arrangements for the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme (TWAP). The MSP was executed by the United Nations Environment Programme Division of Early Warning and Assessment (UNEP DEWA) together with a number of partners. Methodologies were developed for five types of transboundary water systems: (i) Groundwater, (ii) Lakes, (iii) Rivers, (iv) LMEs, and (v) Open Ocean. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO executed the LMEs component between September 2009 and November 2010.
The project arose out of the need for a systematic and scientifically-robust methodology and institutional arrangements for assessing the changing conditions of transboundary water systems resulting from human and natural causes, which would allow the GEF, policy makers, and international organizations to set science-based priorities for financial resource allocation. Such a methodology would also facilitate identification and assessment of positive changes in the environmental and resources situations in the transboundary water systems resulting from interventions by national authorities and international/regional communities. Currently there is no global programme focusing on transboundary water assessment in the world. Except for a very limited number of transboundary water bodies, there is no regular monitoring or assessment programme, and baselines for the health of these water bodies or trend in changes in them have not been established. Therefore, there is a need to develop a methodology to establish the baseline as well as track changes over time.
The main objective of the project is to develop:
The methodology for assessment/results tracking for each of the five categories of transboundary water systems (groundwater; lakes/reservoirs; river basins; LMEs; and Open Ocean areas);
A partnership among organizations; and
The arrangements needed to conduct a baseline transboundary waters assessment that may be conducted following completion of the MSP.
The two main expected products are:
A methodology for each of the five individual water systems (i.e. five methodologies), not an integrated global assessment; and
Partnerships for actually undertaking the assessment, unit by unit. This will include potential partners, with estimates of capability, existing information and gaps.
This report describes the TWAP methodology for assessment of Large Marine Ecosystems, which was developed by a Working Group (WG) of experts and Institutional partners (Annex I). The WG was coordinated by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO.
Large Marine Ecosystems
Large Marine Ecosystems are natural regions of ocean space encompassing coastal waters from river basins and estuaries to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the outer margins of coastal currents. They are relatively large regions of 200,000 km2 or greater, the natural boundaries of which are based on four ecological criteria: bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophically related populations (Sherman 1994). Sixty-four LMEs have been designated in the coastal areas around the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Figure 1: map to be inserted). Annually, these waters contribute $12.6 billion to the world economy (Costanza et al. 1997). About 80% of the annual global marine fisheries catch comes LMEs (Sherman et al. 2009). LMEs and their contributing freshwater basins are transboundary in nature by virtue of interconnected currents, pollution, and movement and migration of living resources. Human expansion around the globe has led to suboptimal utilization of LME goods and services resulting in depletion of fish and fisheries, perturbations to primary productivity, habitat degradation, increasing coastal pollution, introductions of non-indigenous species, nutrient over-enrichment, loss of biodiversity, and increases in climate warming and acidification.
In 1995, the GEF Council issued its Operational Strategy on the use of GEF funding (GEF 1995). For coasts and oceans, the Strategy uses LMEs as the unit of assessment and management (Duda 2005). The GEF-supported LME projects are piloting and testing ways to implement integrated management of oceans, coasts, estuaries, and freshwater basins through an ecosystem-based approach. Since 1995, the GEF has provided substantial funding to support country-driven projects for introducing multi-sector, ecosystem-based assessment and management practices for LMEs. At present, 110 developing countries and 16 industrialized countries are partnering in GEF Council approved LME projects.
Existing Approach to Assessment and Management of LMEs
The five LME modules
The LME approach to the assessment and management of marine resources is based on the operationalization of five modules, with suites of indicators for monitoring and assessing changing conditions in ecosystems: i) Productivity, ii) Fish and Fisheries, iii) Pollution and Ecosystem Health, iv) Socioeconomics, and v) Governance (Figure 2: to be inserted). The first three modules are relatively well developed compared to the Socioeconomics and Governance modules. Taken together, these modules provide indicators and metrics used to determine the changing states of LMEs and support actions for the recovery, sustainability, and management of marine resources and their habitats. The approach is part of an emerging effort to relate the scale of place-based ecosystem research and assessment to improved ecosystem-based management of ocean resources within the natural boundaries of LMEs. Several suites of indicators are used to measure the changing states of LMEs in relation to a driver pressure state impact response (DPSIR) system in support of adaptive management actions. The DPSIR process contributes to the bottom-up, country-driven preparation of the GEF supported transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) and strategic action plan required for all GEF supported LME projects.
In 2008, UNEP, in collaboration with GEF, IOC, NOAA and UNDP, published the first global assessment of changing conditions in LMEs based on the five modules (Sherman and Hempel 2008). This report originated with the results of the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) for GIWA subregions that coincided with LMEs, and was subsequently expanded to include other data and information.
Related global and regional assessments and programmes
Global International Waters Assessment
GIWA was a worldwide assessment executed in 66 subregions, 46 of which included LMEs. The project was funded by the GEF and other major donors, and implemented by UNEP. The overall objective of GIWA was to develop a comprehensive strategic assessment of the environmental conditions and problems in international waters (marine, coastal and freshwater areas, and surface waters as well as groundwaters) that may be used by GEF and its partners to identify priorities for remedial and mitigatory actions in international waters, designed to achieve significant environmental benefits at national, regional and global levels. GIWA focused on five major problem areas (freshwater shortage, pollution, overfishing and habitat modification, and global change), which included 23 specific environmental and socio-economic problems. A methodology was developed for the GIWA assessment and included causal chain analysis to identify and better understand the links between perceived problems and their societal root causes. The GIWA methodology and reports will be valuable for the TWAP LME methodology and global assessment, and are available at http://www.unep.org/dewa/giwa/.
GIWA lessons learned.
The UN Regular Process
At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, States agreed in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, to establish by 2004 a regular process under the UN for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects, both current and foreseeable, building on existing regional assessments (the Regular Process). In November 2005, the UN General Assembly launched the start-up phase to the Regular Process, called the assessment of assessments (AoA), which was led by UNEP and IOC. The modalities for the implementation of the Regular Process are being developed. It is expected that close links will be established between TWAP marine components (LMEs and Open Ocean) and the Regular Process.
UNEP Regional Seas Programmes
The UNEP Regional Seas Programme (RSP), an alliance between the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs), constitutes a unique approach to the protection of the coastal and marine environment, mandated by the Governing bodies of the individual RSCAPs. The RSP is UNEPs central mechanism for the implementation of activities relevant to Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 referring to the Protection of the Oceans and Seas. The RSP also provides an important platform for co-ordinated regional implementation of the GPA, among other global initiatives, programmes and Multilateral Environment Agreements. The RSP covers 18 world regions, making it one of the most globally comprehensive initiatives for the protection of marine and coastal environments. RSP fosters regional cooperation in the marine and coastal environment, which it accomplishes by stimulating the creation of 'Action Plans' for each region. These include a series of regional Conventions - unique legal instruments designed to protect shared environmental interests. In the UNEP LME report (Sherman and Hempel 2008), the LMEs are organized according to the Regional Seas Areas in which they occur.
GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
A Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) is a scientific and technical assessment of an international waters area that identifies and quantifies the priority environmental issues and problems and establishes their immediate, intermediate and fundamental (root) causes. The analysis involves the identification of a disturbance and/or threats, and the scale and distribution of the impacts at national, regional and global levels, in environmental and predominantly in socio-economic terms. After the main transboundary issues have been identified and prioritized, the next stage in the TDA process aims to identify the appropriate management interventions to address these transboundary issues. This is usually achieved through a Causal Chain Analysis (CCA), which traces the cause-effect pathways from the environmental impacts and socio-economic consequences back to their intermediate causes and sectoral influence through to the underlying root causes.
In GEF LME projects, the overarching strategic framework for developing the TDAs and Strategic Action Programmes (SAPs) is guided by the geographic area of the LMEs and the application of the 5 modules. The first four modules are intended to support the TDA process while the Governance module is associated with the SAP, which sets out reforms and interventions needed for sustainable management of the LME.
A large number of other global and regional programmes and initiatives exist that could potentially contribute to TWAP. They are included in the list of potential partners.
GUIDELINES AND APPROACH
Guidelines for development of the methodology
The Project Secretariat (UNEP) provided guidelines for development of the methodology, which included some common elements for consideration by all the WGs:
Indicators: The methodology should be indicator based. Indicators should include environmental state, stress or pressure, socioeconomic and governance/response indicators, with overarching impairment of ecosystems goods and services. The WGs should consider a common approach for the scoring of the indicators taking into consideration the following presentation approaches: numeric values; direction arrows; stop lights; and maps. Data and information for indicators should be obtained from other organizations and existing programmes and databases. (The methodology will be used in the first instance for a comparative baseline assessment of the condition of the worlds LMEs to enable GEF to identify and prioritize those in need of urgent intervention. Subsequent assessments will help GEF and others to track changes over time in the condition of LMEs.)
Priority and emerging issues and hot spots: The priority transboundary issues, emerging issues and hot spots should be identified. The hot spots should be those with a transboundary impact. The purpose is to identify the big transboundary concerns of interest to GEF, not all the hot spots and environmental issues.
Levels of assessment: The methodology for each water system should include the following two levels of assessment:
Level 1: This will be a baseline assessment and include biophysical, socio-economics and governance issues, indicators, inventory of the systems and assessment framework. This might be the same for all assessment units and consist of a baseline assessment and description; and
Level 2: This would include a transboundary diagnostic analysis and other more advanced assessments after the first baseline assessment. This level might be possible in only a few LMEs where the required information is available.
Interlinkages among water systems: Interlinkages among the five transboundary water systems are crucial for the assessment. The interlinkages concept should function in the manner that the hydrological, geo-chemical, ecological, governance and socioeconomic linkages between the water bodies can be sufficiently incorporated into the work of each of the WGs. A list of issues pertaining to interlinkages should be prepared for each working group. Interlinkages could also be captured by an appropriate assessment conceptual framework, which should be decided by each group. The focus should be on the key transboundary concerns, and could be described by simple input/output analysis based on key indicators.
Cross-cutting issues: Quantity of water, vulnerability to climate change, nutrients, biological productivity and mercury as a pollutant should be used as cross-cutting issues that capture interlinkages across multiple systems and could be used to build a holistic picture of the interlinkages across the five water systems.
Validation of methodologies: The methodologies need to be validated (accepted) by the stakeholders within this Project. Each working group will have ways to come up with a validation strategy, including for validity, scientific credibility, quality assurance, etc. Consideration should be given to how to engage countries and on-the-ground participation.
Approach
A Working Group (WG) of experts and institutional partners (Annex 1) was established and coordinated by the IOC to develop the methodology for assessment of LMEs. Two WG meetings were held (February and June 2010), outside of which interaction among members and with other WGs and the Secretariat occurred through electronic means. Following the first WG meeting in February, task teams were set up within the WG to develop particular aspects of the methodology (following the five LME modules).
Steps in Methodology for Assessment of LMEs
(to be discussed and finalized at second meeting. To be shown also as a graphic)
The main components of the LME methodology could include:
A conceptual framework for the LME assessment that incorporates the five LME modules and other requirements (interlinkages, human vulnerability, impairment of ecosystem services);
Level 1 Assessment:
Scoping: Identification of priority and emerging issues, including key interlinkages with other transboundary water systems;
Scaling: Identification of the geographic scale of the issues of concern and assessment units (to include critical habitats and hotspots);
Selection of indicators: Based on the issues and conceptual framework, and arranged according to the five modules. These include stress or pressure (anthropogenic and natural), environmental state, socioeconomics, and governance/response indicators;
Parameterization and scoring of indicators: Empirical data, modeling, presentation of results;
Application of the indicators in integrated frameworks and tools for comparative assessment of the condition of LMEs;
Level 2 Assessment: TDA/CCA; forecasting; etc
Requirements for the conduct of the assessment in the full size project, including best practices (AoA), and identification of partnerships and roles and institutional arrangements.
Validation of the methodology to be described when completed.
GENERAL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
At the first TWAP LME meeting in February 2010, members of the WG felt that a conceptual framework was required that more explicitly showed the links between human and natural stressors, ecosystem services and consequences for humans (with governance as an overarching concept). Such a framework would also incorporate the five LME modules as well as aspects required by UNEP in the guidelines provided to the WGs for development of the methodology (interlinkages among water systems, impairment of ecosystem services, human vulnerability). A conceptual framework was subsequently developed by experts (led by Ben Halpern) of the LME WG (Figure 3), and was circulated for comments to other LME experts and TWAP WGs.
A number of ecosystem assessment efforts have focused on the idea of causal chains, including GEF LME projects. In short, human activities have associated stressors that in turn impact systems and this in turn affects the delivery (and value) of ecosystem services to people. The Millennium Assessment identified 4 types of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting). We want to know how human activities (and natural causes) affect these services and ultimately how people are affected. These ultimate responses, however, may not have easy indicators to develop and may take time, and there is value in having rapid early indicator metrics that are earlier in the causal chain. Understanding and modeling this causal chain allows one to assess the relationship between indicators earlier in the causal chain and the ultimate goal. This framework in the longer term could be valuable in the TWAP Level 2 assessment.
The framework depicted here tries to merge several existing conceptual frameworks: the DPSIR framework, the 5 LME modules, indicator science, an emerging focus on ecosystem services, and cumulative impact modeling, all with a strong focus on governance and socio-economics. The $$ symbols indicate where socio-economic factors are likely to play a strong role in connecting the boxes. Governance factors influence each other across scales, including through to personal behavior, and determine, for example, which people benefit from the delivery of ecosystem service values (i.e. equity) and what kinds of activities people engage in (regulations, social norms, etc.). One could reasonably and conceivably have indicators for any of these boxes, but the ideal indicators would connect directly to Consequence for people (box 6).
The top half of the diagram is the human system; the bottom half of the diagram is the natural system. The framework has no details, so many of the specifics and details would need to be fleshed out (e.g. exactly which items we care about in each box, the models/functions that connect the boxes and the associated assumptions behind these models, etc.).
Effective governance is not a long-term goal in itself, but it is fundamental to achieving healthy ecosystems (inclusive of people). Governance affects what activities people pursue and with what intensity, and if or how value derived from natural systems reaches human communities and is or is not distributed equitably among community members, thus the two direction arrows from this box.
While this conceptual framework identifies the protection of ecosystem services as the main pathway to mitigate consequences for people, under some other internationally-recognized value systems for management (protection of biodiversity, endangered species, natural heritage sites), changes in natural system state due to human-induced stress are the key consequence for people (direct line from box 4 to 6), and the goal of management is not focused on sustaining ecosystem services but on directly conserving ecosystem state.
The way that indicator science fits into this framework is via the need to select indicators that actually indicate what you care about. So we ultimately care about consequences for people, such that long-term indicators should focus on this box. But all of the preceding boxes can give us insight into likely outcomes for people, and often respond on much shorter time frames. We should therefore clearly articulate our management goals and the reasons for wanting to track particular information, and then design indicators that meet those goals. For example, we might want to track the amount of area set aside in MPAs (the human activity of protection) because it gives us an easy-to-measure indicator of changes in stressors (fishing pressure) that we assume improves the status of ecosystems, and this has been shown to provide benefits to humans. The indicator is indirectly connected to the thing we care about (benefit to people) through a number of assumptions. Making clear all of these assumptions and how directly or indirectly an indicator connects to our ultimate goal is critical so that we can 1) give a sense of the amount of uncertainty in how well our indicator tracks what we ultimately care about and 2) clearly articulate exactly what the indicator is tracking within the broader framework.
Two issues mentioned above merit explicit and expanded attention. First, the framework allows and is useful for assessing the potential consequences of different management scenarios within a context of changing human activities and associated stressors (through the addition of new stressors and the changing intensity of existing stressors). This is represented in the diagram by the dashed boxes and arrows that circle the outside of the diagram. A given management decision (or change in the intensity of a stressor due to other reasons) will lead to a changing suite of human activities and stressor intensities, which will in turn alter the attributes of the following boxes in the framework. These changes can be predicted, and then monitored to test the validity of predictions. Second, there is an implicit temporal component to this framework, in that it takes time to move from box to box, and the time it takes will vary depending on which human activity and which ecosystem service is of interest. For political and practical reasons, we may need to focus primarily on attributes within this framework that respond more quickly, but it is important to keep the longer timeframe and relevant consequences in mind.
Figure 3. General Conceptual Framework (updated figure to be inserted)
SCOPING: IDENTIFICATION OF PRIORITY AND EMERGING ISSUES
Approach
Scoping involves identifying, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, those issues or impacts within LMEs that should be prioritized for further examination in subsequent stages of the assessment (GIWA). The GIWA methodology included a scoping stage in which the issues were assessed and scored in terms of the severity of environmental and socioeconomic impacts using predetermined criteria, and resultant scores used to identify issues for further detailed assessment.
For TWAP, the scoping exercise involved identification of priority and emerging issues during development of the methodology, so that associated indicators could be identified. These issues reflect anthropogenic and natural pressures and impacts on environmental state and ecosystem services as well as socioeconomic impacts. No attempts were made to assign a score to the issues during development of the TWAP methodology (as done in GIWA). This will be done in the Level 1 assessment using the relevant indicators.
Previous work has identified a number of issues of concern in LMEs and driven the development of the five LME modules and associated indicators (e.g. Sherman and Hempel 2008). In addition, TDAs developed in GEF LME projects have also identified priority issues, which may or may not have been captured by the previous UNEP global LME assessment. In order to select indicators for the TWAP assessment, priority and emerging issues were identified through a comprehensive review of GEF TDAs and SAPs (Annex II). To date GEF has supported the implementation of the LME approach in 21 of the 64 LMEs and two regions not recognized as LMEs. These GEF supported LME projects provide a potentially valuable source of information for the development of the TWAP methodology and for conduct of the global assessment. The TDAs, CCAs and SAPs produced under GEF International Waters Projects were reviewed to:
Identify the priority and emerging issues and indicators included in the TDAs/CCAs and SAPs, which could be relevant for the TWAP methodology for assessment of LMEs;
Identify any interlinkages with other TWAP water systems described in these documents (including hydrological, socio-economic, and governance aspects).
Only those projects for which completed (or part completed) TDAs and or SAPs were available were selected for inclusion in the review.
The review captured a wide range of priority transboundary issues (Table 1). The allocation of the issues amongst the LME modules was challenging. While some of the issues were easily assigned to one of the 5 modules, others cut across two or more modules. All of the TDAs identified one or more priority transboundary concerns associated with Fish and Fisheries with the exception of the WIO-LaB project (which is understandable given that this is not the focus of this project). Only two of the TDAs identified a priority transboundary issue associated with Productivity, although there were other cross-cutting issues that were of relevance to this module. The majority of issues identified in the TDA / SAP process fell within the Pollution and Ecosystem Health module. Notably, only one of the TDAs identified a socio-economic issue as a transboundary concern (BCLME TDA Inadequate human and infrastructure capacity to assess the health of the ecosystem as a whole (resources and environment, and variability thereof). Similarly, only one of the TDAs directly identified Governance (and awareness) as a transboundary issue (WIO-LaB TDA 2009). Several of the transboundary issues identified could be considered as both socio-economic or governance related, and these were subjectively assigned to these categories.
Table 1: The Major Threats or Major Perceived Problems and Issues identified in the TDAs.
LMENo. of IssuesPriority Transboundary Issue StatementsCaspian Sea TDA 20028The Caspian Sea TDA identified 8 MPPI as follows:
Decline in certain commercial fish stocks, including sturgeon
Degradation of coastal landscapes and damage to coastal habitats
Threats to biodiversity
Overall decline in environmental quality
Decline in human health
Damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities
Introduced species
Contamination from offshore oil and gas activitiesWestern Indian Ocean TDA 20094The WioLAB TDA identified the 4 main problem areas, with sub-categories:
Water and sediment quality degeneration due to pollution; (5 sub-categories Microbial contamination; High suspended solids; Chemical pollution; Marine litter/solid waste; Eutrophication)
Physical alteration and destruction of habitats (5 subcategories: Degradation of mangrove forests; Degradation of seagrass beds; Degradation of coral reefs; Degradation of coastal forests; Shoreline changes)
Alteration in freshwater flows and sediment loads from river basins (sub-categories: Alteration of river flows and water quality; Alteration of sediment loads)
Governance / AwarenessCaribbean LME TDA 20073The Caribbean LME has only recently completed 3 sub-regional TDAs and a preliminary overview TDA, which identifies 3 priority transboundary issues:
Habitat and community modification
Pollution
Unsustainable exploitation of fish and other living resources.Mediterranean LME TDA 20054The Mediterranean LME TDA identified 4 MPPIs:
Decline of Biodiversity
Decline in Fisheries
Decline of Seawater Quality
Human Health RisksGuinea Current LME TDA 20054The GCLME TDA identified 4 MPPIs, based on 12 specific problems and 7 transboundary impacts, 5 environment impacts, 7 socio-economic impacts:
Decline in GCLME fish stocks and unsustainable harvesting of living resources;
Loss of ecosystem integrity (changes in community composition, vulnerable species and of alien species) and yields in a highly variable environment including effects of global climate change;
Deterioration in water quality (chronic and catastrophic) from land and sea-based activities, eutrophication and harmful algal blooms;
Habitat destruction and alteration including inter-alia modification of seabed and coastal zone, degradation of coastscapes, coastline erosion."Bengula Current LME TDA 19997The BCLME TDA identified 7 MPPIs as follows:
Decline in BCLME commercial fish stocks and non-optimal harvesting of living resources.
Uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields in a highly variable environment.
Deterioration in water quality - chronic and catastrophic.
Habitat destruction and alteration, including inter alia modification of seabed and coastal zone and degradation of coastscapes.
Loss of biotic integrity (changes in community composition, species and diversity, introduction of alien species, etc.) and threat to biodiversity/endangered and vulnerable species
Inadequate human and infrastructure capacity to assess the health of the ecosystem as a whole (resources and environment, and variability thereof)
Harmful algal blooms (HABs).
LMENo. of IssuesPriority Transboundary Issue StatementsYellow Sea LME TDA 20077 / 4The initial Yellow Sea LME TDA 2000 identified the following major perceived water-related environmental issues and problems:
Decline of commercial fisheries
Degradation of biodiversity, loss of coastal habitats, loss or imminent loss of endangered species and their genomes
Water Quality deterioration
Unsustainable mariculture.
Poor or unsatisfactory human health quality, unsanitary conditions in many beaches and bathing waters, contaminated fish and sea products
Harmful algal blooms (emerging disease).
Inadequate capacity to assess ecosystem.
The issues were revised in the 2007 version of the TDA and the following 4 Regional Environmental Problem categories and 18 impact sub-categories were listed as follows:
Biodiversity
Habitat loss and degradation
Pollution
Changes in river discharge
Overexploitation of marine and coastal living resources
Introduction of xenobiotic (alien species)
Decline of endemic species
Pollution
Eutrophication (Nitrogen (N) enrichment; Phosphorus (P) enrichment; Silicate (Si) depletion; Changed Si:N:P ratios; Oxygen depletion; Phytoplankton blooms including red tides)
Contamination (Faecal; Heavy metals; POPs; PAHs; Marine litter)
Increased risks to human health (seafood contamination, contaminated water)
Ecosystem (primary and secondary production and benthos)
Increase in frequency of harmful algal blooms (HABs)
Change in species composition
Change in biomass or abundance
Loss of benthic habitat in coastal areas
Fisheries
Decline in landings of many traditional commercially-important species and increased landing of low value species (including changes in dominant species).
Unsustainable maricultural practices.Black Sea LME TDA 20074The Black Sea LME TDA identified 4 problems:
Nutrient over-enrichment/eutrophication
Decline in natural resources (e.g. fisheries)
Chemical pollution
Habitat and biodiversity changes - including alien species introductionSouth China Sea TDA 2000.4The South China Sea TDA identified 4 MPPI and transboundary issues associated with these:
Freshwater concerns.
Modification of habitats
Destruction of mangroves,
Destruction of coral reefs,
Destruction of seagrasses
Overexploitation (marine, freshwater)
Pollution (sewage, freshwater contamination, agricultural loading, industrial waste, sedimentation, solid waste, hydrocarbon, ship-based sources, atmospheric)
The priority issues identified in the review are summarized according to the five LME modules, as follows:
Productivity Issues
Loss of ecosystem integrity (changes in community composition, vulnerable species and of alien species) and yields in a highly variable environment including effects of global climate change.
Uncertainty regarding ecosystem status and yields in a highly variable environment.
Ecosystem (primary and secondary production and benthos)
Increase in frequency of harmful algal blooms (HABs)
Change in species composition
Change in biomass or abundance
Loss of benthic habitat in coastal areas
Fish and Fisheries Issues
Decline in commercial marine capture fisheries due to over-fishing.
Loss of key commercial fish species due to over-exploitation and stock collapse.
Shift in species dominating commercial marine capture fisheries.
Change in catch composition from high to low value species (fishing down of foodweb).
Increased by-catch due to use of non-selective gears.
Change in the use of destructive fishing methods to compensate for declining catches.
Decline of large pelagic game species due to increase in recreational fishing.
Conversion of natural habitats for use in mariculture.
Conflicts over resources between artisanal and industrial fisheries.
Conflicts over resources between fisheries and marine mammals.
Biodiversity Issues
The TDAs reviewed generally identified transboundary concerns relating to marine biodiversity including issues associated with the general decline in species richness, threats to endemics, and invasive and alien species. Although biodiversity is not explicitly identified as one of the five LME modules, it could be placed under the Pollution and Ecosystem Health module or Fish and Fisheries module. The TDAs often specifically identified the following issues associated with biodiversity:
Loss / decline of native species due to loss of habitat or overexploitation.
Loss / decline of endemic species due to loss of habitat or overexploitation.
Loss / decline of flagship species due to loss of habitat or overexploitation.
Loss / decline of globally endangered species due to loss of habitat or overexploitation.
Loss / decline of native species through competition with invasive / alien species.
Increase in alien / invasive / nuisance species.
Loss of economic potential due to nuisance species.
Increased incidence of marine diseases due to pathogens introduced from non-native species.
Habitat Issues
The transboundary habitat issues identified in the TDAs variously included:
Degradation of coastal landscapes and damage to coastal habitats.
Physical alteration and destruction of habitats (PADH) (5 sub categories: Degradation of mangrove forests; Degradation of seagrass beds; Degradation of coral reefs; Degradation of coastal forests; Shoreline changes).
Habitat and community modification.
Habitat destruction and alteration including inter-alia modification of seabed and coastal zone, degradation of coastscapes, coastline erosion.
Habitat destruction and alteration, including inter alia modification of seabed and coastal zone and degradation of coastscapes.
Habitat and biodiversity changes - including alien species introduction.
Modification of habitats
Destruction of mangroves,
Destruction of coral reefs,
Destruction of seagrasses
Widespread Habitat Destruction: Unplanned coastal development; Extensive dredging and filling; Destruction of coral reefs; Destruction of mangroves; Destruction of seagrass beds.
Pollution Issues
Contamination from offshore oil and gas activities.
Contamination from urban sources.
Contamination from ship-based sources.
Contamination from agricultural sources.
Contamination from industrial sources.
Contamination from atmospheric sources.
Contamination with faecal matter from land or ship-based sources.
Change in nutrient balance / over-enrichment / eutrophication / depletion.
Oxygen depletion.
Cooling water discharge.
Sedimentation.
Ship discharge of solid waste.
Ship discharge of sewage.
Oil spills from exploration, production, and transport.
Sedimentation from agriculture and grazing in some locations.
Socioeconomics: to be developed
Governance: to be developed
Priority and Emerging Issues
Fish and fisheries issues identified in the TDAs were mostly related to over-fishing due to over-capacity, which is manifestly evident in the declines in traditionally-landed commercial stocks, decreasing catch per unit effort. The TDAs commonly identified a shift in the dominant species caught in almost all of the LMEs. The shifts reported are typically from higher value often predatory fish towards lower value fish, lower down the food trophic chain, such as anchovy and spratt. While these flips could be due to the phenomenon known as fishing down the food-web, wherein fishing fleets actively and increasingly target species low in the food web, due to declines in other target species, it could be due to other factors associated with gear types.
Although the influence of foreign fleets was mentioned within some of the TDAs, concerns relating to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing were not as broadly mentioned as would be expected, given that it is recognized as a serious global problem, and one of the main impediments to the achievement of sustainable fisheries. Another fishery related issue, was recreational big game fishing, which appears to be an as yet unquantified negative influence, particularly in areas where tourism has developed. Mariculture is clearly better developed in some regions than others, and these regions have an additional suite of issues associated with the practice (habitat conversion, introduction of species, marine pathogens, nutrient enrichment).
In the TDAs and SAPs reviewed, although there were references made to nutrient enrichment and eutrophication, there was little mention of issues of anoxia, and no mention of dead zones. Reference was made to the natural occurrence of this phenomenon in the Benguela Current region, where the advection of low-oxygen water and the subsequent Benguela Nio of 1995, severely affected the Namibian sardine population, and its major predators (particularly seals), and mortality of juvenile hake, and resulted in a halving of the population of Namibian fur seals.
The BCLME TDA also identified another issue associated with the conflicts between humans and other species for fish and other marine resources. The BCLME TDA stated that the international policy on seal harvesting, and conservation pressure on national governments prevented the utilization of seals, and contributed to the increase in seal populations, with implications for other components of the ecosystem.
Global climate change and climate variability were identified as transboundary issues, but not as frequently as might be expected.
SCALING AND ASSESSMENT UNITS
In preparation by GRID-Arendal: a proposal for discussion at second LME meeting
LME scale: Fisheries, nutrients, global changes such as primary productivity, SST (LME scale has been used in the UNEP LME Report).
Country scale: Indicators could be applied at country scales (EEZ). A number of parameters are measured at the country level and aggregated at LME scale
Subnational scales: Including for socio-economics and governance
Critical habitats: e.g. mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds, deltas, estuaries
Hotspots: To be identified
Small Island Developing States:
Note: Transboundary deltas and estuaries are a major issue, especially regarding interlinkages between LMEs and terrestrial systems.
IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS
A preliminary list of indicators based on key publications was compiled under the five LME modules during the first TWAP LMEs WG meeting in February 2010. It should be noted that some topics do not lend themselves to evaluation by simple quantitative measures or indicators. Among the criteria used were relevance and availability of global datasets (including from modeling current state and future from forecasting).
Indicators were also identified in the review of TDAs/SAPs (Annex II); review of habitats data and indicators by UNEP-WCMC (Annex III); contribution by Sherman and others (Annex IV); Z. Chen, S. Seitzinger & H. Kremer (Annex V); McManus (socioeconomics to come); GESAMP (pollution- to come); Responses (to come).
At the first TWAP LME meeting, experts stressed the need for concrete and tractable indicators. Further, the TWAP assessment should have desired quantitative or qualitative targets or states against which the indicator could be compared to help guide interventions and measure progress. Experts also expressed that the indicator should be expressed as change over time in the parameter being measured. As the first TWAP assessment is expected to be a baseline assessment, expression as change over time will not be possible in the first assessment for those indicators for which historical time series of datasets are not available. The UNEP LME report presents time series for a number of primary productivity and fisheries indicators, which could be expressed as change over time.
The OECD distinguishes three broad categories of indicators:
Performance indicators linked to quantitative objectives (targets, commitments)
Examples of such indicators include e.g. air emission trends relating to national or international targets, urban air quality relating to national standards;
Performance indicators linked to qualitative objectives (aims, goals)
These indicators generally address the concept of performance in two ways:
with respect to the eco-efficiency of human activities, linked to the notions of de-coupling, elasticities: e.g. emissions per unit of GDP, relative trends of waste generation and GDP growth; and
with respect to the sustainability of natural resource use: e.g. intensity of the use of forest resources, intensity of the use of water resources;
Descriptive indicators
These indicators are not linked to explicit objectives; they describe major conditions and trends and are close to the concept of state of the environment reporting: e.g. population connected to waste water treatment plants, river quality, share of threatened species.
Targets would vary between LMEs (and countries) and are usually determined in the formulation of the SAPs. For the first TWAP assessment, indicators might need to be treated in a descriptive manner to allow a comparative assessment of the state of LMEs that would enable them to be ranked in terms of overall health or threats. (Further discussion on targets at the second LME meeting).
BOX 1: Criteria for selection and rating of indicators as described in UNESCO 2006. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management. IOC Manuals and Guides, 46. Paris, UNESCOCriteriaExplanationRelevance Does the indicator measure, and is sensitive to, socioeconomic, governance, cultural and human health phenomena and trends that are directly or indirectly related to the state of the coast as measures of a healthy or unhealthy state, impacting pressures and behaviours, and policy responses to achieve sustainable coastal development?Data readiness and feasibilityIs the indicator based on readily available and routinely collected data, or data collectable at a reasonable cost-benefit ratio and in a timely manner, with sufficient spatial and time coverage and quality?Conceptual and
methodological soundnessIs the indicator conceptually and methodologically well-founded, representative of established approaches and standards by the scientific community, international and regional organizations and national and local practices?Management responsivenessIs the indicator responsive to management interventions related to key policy goals and objectives for the coastal area, and could it be measured in relation to progress towards agreed targets and timetables?Transparency and
understandabilityCan the indicator be readily communicated to policy-makers, eventually as an early warning signal, and understood by the stakeholders and the public in a non-scientific form and express an unambiguous message about the progress of ICOM and the state of the coast?
The following is the list of indicators compiled at the first TWAP LME meeting: (List could be placed as an annex)
Productivity
Water-column structure
Photosynthetically active radiation
Transparency
Chlorophyll a
Primary production change globally available from remote sensing
Sea surface temperature climate change
Salinity
Sigma T
Oceanographic variability (water masses; fronts).
It was noted that zooplankton data are fragmentary, and might not be suitable for a global assessment.
Fish and Fisheries
Marine Trophic Index MTI (Trophic Level of catch)
Fishing in Balance (FIB) index
Footprint of fisheries (by country)
Trend in fishing effort
Marine mammal/fisheries overlap
Fisheries production/mariculture ratio
Trend in pelagic/demersal fish catch ratio
Catch value
Subsidies in fishing sector
The following may or may not be available in time for the first TWAP assessment:
Predicted catch potential
Catch relative to potential catch (carrying capacity) - in progress
Jobs in the fishing sector Global ocean economic study
#species reviewed by IUCN Red List/#species (for consideration. Change in status of threatened species)
Pollution and Ecosystem Health (includes habitat and biodiversity-related indicators)
Trophic transfer of contaminants (mercury in selected fish species mercury a cross-cutting issue in TWAP). No global database- this is a gap in all 5 TWAP systems
Frequency and effect of harmful algal blooms (regional HAB SE Asia; IOC global database)
Multiple marine ecological disturbances diseases of organisms and effects on humans
Habitats - coral, seagrass, mangroves
Percentage habitat extent change in key habitats (define key habitats); Change in coverage/time
N:P:Si ratios (available globally)
N, P, C,Si (by form) and particulates loads Global NEWS model, available globally
Dissolved oxygen, no comprehensive global coverage
Percentage of the worlds sea mounts (Other habitats to be added)
Percentage of the LME designated as Marine Protected Areas - data available for 163 countries and could be amalgamated. (IUCN target 10% EEZ; MPAs need other qualifiers to be useful indicator, e.g. of effectiveness)
Environmental Performance Index - associated indexes
Other: pH (acidification)
Socioeconomics
Human Development index (HDI)
Fishery and aquaculture index
Tourism index (marine tourism vs other?)
Ship and oil index (oil industry OSPAR, GRID-A)
Marine industry activity index
Marine recreational activities- income and jobs- Global economics study
Importance of smallscale fisheries to be considered
Cultural heritage?
Impact of overfishing on fishing households (small scale, artisanal): a gap
Others: Population in coastal zone, losses from climate related disasters (IOC Handbook)
Management response indicators (presented in Alder et al. 2009)
Biodiversity-related indicators
Marine protected area coverage
Investment to marine protected areas
Change in EEZ area trawled
Ecological components of mariculture sustainability index
Seabird protection index
Marine mammal protection index
Value-related indicators
Landed value relative to GDP
Fishmeal consumption by mariculture
Compliance with the FAO code of conduct
Context-adjusted fisheries statistics indicator
Good to Good & Bad subsidies ratio
Job-related indicators
Catch relative to fuel consumption
Subsides relative to landed value
Socioeconomic components of mariculture sustainability index
Also mentioned: WorldBank governance indicators
Sources
GEF International Waters Indicators for Developing a Global Benefits Index of Changing States of Large Marine Ecosystems. K. Sherman et al. 2008
Indicators of Changing States of Large Marine Ecosystems. K. Sherman et al. 2009
Filling Gaps in LME Nitrogen Loadings Forecast for 64 LMEs. S. Seitzinger et al. 2008
Models of the Worlds Large Marine Ecosystems. V. Christensen et al. (eds). 2008
Fisheries in Large Marine Ecosystems: Descriptions and Diagnoses. D. Pauly et al. 2008
Accounting for Marine Economic Activities in Large Marine Ecosystems. P. Hoagland & Di Jin 2008
Aggregate performance in managing marine ecosystems of 53 maritime countries. J. Alder et al. 2009, Marine Policy
Indicator descriptions are given in a separate file
The following is based on contribution from UNEP-WCMC (Annex III), Sherman and others (Annex IV), Chen and others (Annex V), Mahon and others (2010).
Other indicators and descriptions to be included as they become available from experts
WG to discuss and decide on the information to be included in the following:
6.1 PRODUCTIVITY
Primary productivity can be related to the carrying capacity of an ecosystem for supporting fish resources ADDIN EN.CITE Pauly199540140140117Pauly, D.V. ChristensenPrimary production required to sustain global fisheriesNatureNature255-2573741995(Pauly and Christensen 1995). It has been reported that the maximum global level of primary productivity for supporting the average annual world catch of fisheries has been reached and that further large-scale increases in biomass yields from marine ecosystems are likely to be at trophic levels below fish in the marine food web ADDIN EN.CITE Beddington199534234234217Beddington, J.R.The primary requirementsNatureNature213-2143741995(Beddington 1995). Measurements of ecosystem productivity can be useful indicators of the growing problem of coastal eutrophication. In several LMEs, excessive nutrient loadings of coastal waters have been related to harmful algal blooms implicated in mass mortalities of living resources, emergence of pathogens (e.g., cholera, vibrios, red tides, and paralytic shellfish toxins), and explosive growth of non-indigenous species ADDIN EN.CITE Epstein199337037037017Epstein, P.R.Algal blooms and public healthWorld Resource Review190-206521993Epstein200042942942917Epstein, P.R.Algal blooms and public healthWorld Resource Review, 1993: The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Rome 2000190-206. 142p522000(Epstein 1993; Epstein 2000).
The ecosystem parameters measured and used as indicators of changing conditions in the productivity module are zooplankton biodiversity and species composition; zooplankton biomass; sea surface temperature; water-column temperature, density and salinity structure; photosynthetically active radiation, transparency, chlorophyll a, nitrate, and primary production.
Primary productivity
The LME productivity descriptions to be applied in the FSP are from J. OReilly, K. Hyde, and T. Ducas. They include primary productivity estimates derived from satellite borne data of NOAAs Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Narragansett Laboratory. These estimates originate from SeaWiFS (satellite-derived chlorophyll estimates from the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor), Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS), a large archive of in situ near-surface chlorophyll data, and satellite sea surface temperature (SST) measurements to quantify spatial and seasonal variability of near-surface chlorophyll and SST in the LMEs of the world. The chlorophyll and primary productivity values for the worlds LMEs were initially published by UNEP in 2008 ADDIN EN.CITE Sherman200810371037103727Sherman, K.Hempel, Gotthilf, eds.The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world's Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182
8722008Nairobi, KenyaUNEPReport(Sherman and Hempel 2008).
Sea Surface Temperature
An SST time series for the worlds LMEs has previously been reported by UNEP ADDIN EN.CITE Sherman200810371037103727Sherman, K.Hempel, Gotthilf, eds.The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world's Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182
8722008Nairobi, KenyaUNEPReport(Sherman and Hempel 2008). The SSTs have been calculated by Igor Belkin (University of Rhode Island) from the U.K. meteorological Office Hadley Centre SST climatology data ADDIN EN.CITE Belkin200912891289128917Belkin, I.Rapid warming of Large Marine EcosystemsProgress in OceanographyProgress in Oceanography207-213811-42009(Belkin 2009). The U.K. Meteorological Office Hadley Center SST climatology data was selected for its superior resolution (1 degree latitude by 1 degree longitude globally), for the historic reach of the data, and for its high quality. A highly detailed, research-level description of this data set has been published by Rayner et al. ADDIN EN.CITE Rayner200310921092109217Rayner, N.A.D.E. ParkerE.B. HortonC.K. FollandL.V. AlexanderD.P. RowellE.C. KentA. KaplanGlobal analyses of SST, sea ice and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth centuryJ. Geophys. Res.108doi:10.1029/2002JD002670,20032003(2003). The Hadley data set consists of monthly SSTs calculated for each 1 x 1 rectangular cell (spherical trapezoid, to be exact) between 90N-90S, 180W-180E. To calculate and visualize annual SSTs for each LME, the annual SST for each 1 x 1 cell was calculated and the area-averaged annual 1 x 1 SSTs within each LME.
Ocean front maps
Earlier descriptions and maps of LME oceanographic fronts for each of the 64 LMEs are presented in ADDIN EN.CITE ADDIN EN.CITE.DATA Sherman and Hempel 2008. An oceanographic front is a relatively narrow zone of enhanced horizontal gradients of physical, chemical and biological properties (e.g. temperature, salinity, nutrients). Fronts occur on a variety of scales, from several hundred meters up to many thousand kilometers. Some of them are short-lived, but most are quasi stationary and seasonally persistent: they emerge and disappear at the same locations during the same season, year after year. Fronts are crucial in various processes that evolve in the ocean and at the ocean interfaces with the atmosphere, sea ice and sea bottom. Fronts are important for climate change monitoring and prediction, the fishing industry, pollution control, waste disposal and hazards mitigation, marine transportation, marine mining, including the oil and gas industry, submarine navigation and integrated coastal management.
Vulnerability to climate change the effects of warming on fisheries yields
The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is an international non-governmental research organization located in Austria that conducts interdisciplinary scientific studies on environmental, economic, technological and social issues in the context of human dimensions of global change. IIASAs mission is "to provide insights and guidance to policymakers worldwide by finding solutions to global and universal problems through applied systems analysis in order to improve human and social wellbeing and to protect the environment." IIASA has a long experience in modeling complex systems linking science and society. The work is based on original state-of-the-art methodology and analytical approaches.
6.2 FISH AND FISHERIES
The Sea Around Us Project of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Centre was specifically established to assess the impacts of fisheries at an ecosystem level. It developed tools and concepts to present available fisheries data via degree lat.-long. spatial cells, allowing consideration of various spatial scales, such as LMEs. It is this place-based, rather than sector-based approach which allows documentation of fisheries impacts at the scale of LMEs. The project has also derived a standard set of indicators and graphical representations, presented on a global scale (i.e., for all currently defined LMEs combined). They are presented in LME-specific format in the various chapters the UNEP LME report and the project website (www.seaaroundus.org).
The five types of graphs presented allow comprehensive overviews of the general status of fisheries and ecosystem of each LME, as they account for the characteristics of fisheries, biology and ecology of the exploited species and ecosystem. Catch and catch values indicate status and trends of the fisheries, e.g., through changes in species composition and catches. These relate strongly to the status of stocks in the LME, as indicated by the Stock-Catch Status Plots developed here. Changes in fisheries and stock status have direct impacts on the ecosystem which can be indicated by the MTI and FiB. These also determine the footprint of fisheries an indicator of sustainability, as shown here through the Primary Production Required by fisheries within LMEs.
The following is based on methodologies developed by the Sea Around Us Project. Time series (1950 2005) of these indicators (except fishing effort) by LMEs are published in UNEP LME Report (Sherman and Hempel 2008).
Reported landings by species
Figures to be included omitted here to reduce file size
The term Reported landings usually refers only to that part of the catch that is both landed and reported. Fishing fleets catch fish, but do not retain all they catch. Some are discarded before the vessels return to port. Landings do not include the fish and invertebrates discarded at sea. Moreover, some of the landed catch may remain unrecorded (especially when it is caught illegally). Thus the precise term is reported landings.The method used by the Sea Around Us Project to map catches onto degree lat.-long. spatial cells has been described by Watson et al. (2003, 2004, 2005) in some detail. Reported landings (by LME) can be expressed by species; functional groups; commercial species; total reported landings by LMEs; gears.
Value of reported landings by major commercial groups
This is the ex-vessel value of reported landings by LME, based on real 2000 prices, i.e., deflated prices (Sumaila et al. 2007). Fishing is an economic operation and the ex-vessel value of the landings has to cover all fixed and variable costs of fishing and still generate a profit, except when fisheries are subsidized (Sumaila & Pauly 2006). To be able to evaluate the ex-vessel value of fisheries worldwide, a database of ex-vessel fish price data was constructed, based on 1) observed prices in different countries at different times for different species; and 2) inferred prices, based on observed prices and an averaging algorithm which took taxonomic affinity, adjacency of countries and time into account (Sumaila et al. 2007).
The year-, species- and time-specific prices in the database were then adjusted for inflation to year 2000 real prices in US$, using consumer price index (CPI) data from the World Bank, and multiplied by the spatially allocated landings for the corresponding years and species (groups). This yielded time series of the value of fisheries landings in year 2000 inflation adjusted prices, which can be compared in time and space (Sumaila et al. 2007), and which, in the aggregate, match, for example, estimates of the ex-vessel values of fisheries catches produced by the OECD.
Fishing Effort
(under development by UBC Sea Around Us project)
Primary production required to sustain fisheries within LMEs
Application of the ecological footprint concept to LMEs, the footprint of fisheries is an indicator of sustainability, as shown through the Primary Production Required (PPR) by fisheries within LMEs. PPR, when related to observed primary production, provides another index for assessing the impact of the countries fishing in LMEs. PPR is a function of the trophic level of the fishes that are caught. Thus, far more primary production is required to produce one tonne of a high-level trophic fish, for example tuna, than a tonne of a low level- trophic fish, for example sardine. This is because the transfer efficiency between trophic levels in the ocean is relatively low, estimated at 10 % on the average (Pauly & Christensen 1995). The landings data used to estimate footprints are those presented above. PPR is calculated separately for each species (or group of species) for the fleets of all countries operating in the LME in question, expressed in terms of the primary production in that LME. The combined footprint of different countries fishing in a given LME area can thus be assessed. To facilitate comparisons between LMEs, the maximum fraction (of PPR, in terms of primary production in each LME) is also shown. It is computed as the mean of values for the five years with the highest PPR value.
Marine Trophic Index and Fishing in Balance Index
The MTI is the Convention on Biological Diversitys (CBD) name for the mean trophic level (TL) of fisheries landings. When a fishery begins in a given area, it usually targets the largest among the accessible fish, which are also intrinsically most vulnerable to fishing (Cheung et al. 2007). Once these are depleted, the fisheries then turn to less desirable, smaller fish. With a trophic level assigned to each of the species in the FAO landings data set, Pauly et al (1998) were able to identify a worldwide decline in the trophic level of fish landings. This phenomenon is now widely known as fishing down marine food webs. The CBD has adopted the mean trophic level of fisheries catch, which it renamed Marine Trophic Index (MTI) as one of eight biodiversity indicators for immediate testing (CBD 2004, Pauly & Watson 2005).
Diagnosing fishing down the food web from the mean trophic level of landings is problematic, however. Landings reflect abundances only crudely. Also, a fishery that has overexploited its resource base, e.g., on the inner shelf, will tend to move to the outer shelf and beyond (Morato et al. 2006). There, it accesses hitherto unexploited stocks of demersal or pelagic fish, and the MTI calculated for the whole shelf, which may have declined at first, increases again, especially if the new landings are high. Thus, at the scale of an LME, a trend reversal of the MTI may occur when the fisheries expand geographically. This is the reason why the diagnosis as to whether fishing down occurs or not, performed for many of the LMEs in this volume, generally depends on the species composition of the landings, which may indicate whether a geographic expansion of the fishery has taken place.
To facilitate this evaluation, a time series of the Fishing-in-Balance (FiB) index is also presented for each LME. Pauly et al. (2000) defined the FiB index such that its value remains the same when a downward trend in mean trophic level is compensated for by an increase in the volume of catch, as should happen given the pyramidal nature of ecosystems and the transfer efficiency of about 10% between trophic levels alluded to above. The FIB index will decline, obviously, when both the MTI and landings decline, as now happens, unfortunately, in many LMEs. On the other hand, the FIB index will increase if landings increases more than compensate for a declining MTI. In such cases (and obviously also in the case when landings increases and the MTI is stable or increases), the FiB index increases indicate that a geographic expansion of the fishery has taken place, i.e., that another part of an ecosystem is being exploited (Bhathal & Pauly in press). Note that the absolute value of the FiB index can be applied to assess the change of the FiB index from any baseline we like. It is here standardized to have a value of zero in 1950.
Stock-Catch Status Plots
A newly proposed type of paired Stock-Catch-Status Plots (Percentage of stocks of a given status and Percentage of catches extracted from stocks of a given status), wherein the status of stocks, i.e., species with a time series of landings in an LME, is assessed, based on Froese & Kesner-Reyes (2002), using the following criteria (all referring to the maximum catch in the series): Developing (catches < 50 %); Fully exploited (catches >= 50%); Overexploited (catches between 50% and 10%); Collapsed (catches < 10%). A catch by status plot, is proposed and defined such that it documents, for a series of years, the fraction of the reported landings biomass that is derived from stocks in various phases of development (as opposed to the number of such stocks). Plots are: Percentage of stocks of a given status, by year and Percentage of catches extracted from stocks of a given status, by year.
Catch graphs for Arctic LMEs
Fish and Fisheries Global Carrying Capacity
A new methodology for database-driven ecosystem model generation applied to the worlds 66 currently defined LMEs. The method relies on a large number of spatial and temporal databases, including FishBase, SeaLifeBase, as well as several other databases developed notably as part of the Sea Around Us project. The models are formulated using the freely available Ecopath with Ecosim modeling approach and software. The 66 LME models are used to obtain a first estimate of the total biomass in 1950 of fishes in the worlds LMEs.
6.3 POLLUTION AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Indicators included in this module are those of pollution (nutrients and others), critical habitats, biodiversity, freshwater discharge, sediment loads...
POLLUTION
Pollution issues and indicators being developed by GESAMP (to also include mercury)
Land-based Nutrient Loading to LMEs
In order to provide regional and global perspectives on changing nutrient transport to coastal systems throughout the world, an international workgroup (Global NEWS Nutrient Export from WaterSheds; HYPERLINK "http://www.marine.rutgers"http://www.marine.rutgers. edu/globalnews) has developed a spatially explicit global watershed model that relates human activities and natural processes in watersheds to nutrient inputs to coastal systems throughout the world (Beusen et al. 2005; Dumont et al. 2005; Harrison et al. 2005a and b; Seitzinger et al. 2005). Global NEWS is an interdisciplinary workgroup of UNESCOs Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) focused on understanding the relationship between human activity and coastal nutrient enrichment. In addition to current predictions, the NEWS model is also being used to hindcast and forecast changes in nutrient, carbon and water inputs to coastal systems under a range of scenarios.
The NEWS model is used to relate human activities and natural processes in watersheds to nutrient inputs to LMEs, with a focus on nitrogen (Seitzinger and Lee 2008). The model is a multi-element, multi-form, spatially explicit global model of nutrient (N, P, and C) export from watersheds by rivers. The model output is the annual export at the mouth of the river (essentially zero salinity). The NEWS model is calibrated and validated with measured export near the river mouth from rivers representing a broad range of basins sizes, climates, and land-uses.Over 5000 watersheds are included in the model with the river network and water discharge defined by STN-30 (Fekete et al. 2000; Vrsmarty et al. 2000a and b). The model can be used to predict magnitudes and sources of multiple bio-active elements (C, N, and P) and forms (dissolved/particulate,organic/inorganic). As a first step in bridging the gap between land-based activities and LME waters, the relative magnitudes and distribution of DIN loading from watersheds to LMEs globally was examined. The focus was on N because it is often the most limiting nutrient in coastal waters and thus important in controlling coastal eutrophication. DIN is often the most abundant and bioavilable form of nitrogen, and therefore contributes significantly to coastal eutrophication.
Watershed DIN export to rivers predicted by the NEWS model was compiled for each of the 64 LMEs (2002 delineation; Duda & Sherman 2002) except for the Antarctic (LME 61) where database information was limited. Total DIN load to each LME was aggregated from all watersheds with coastlines along that LME for point sources and only those watersheds with discharge to that LME for diffuse sources. This work was part of the GEF Medium-Sized Project: Promoting Ecosystem-based Approaches to Fisheries Conservation and LMEs (Component 3: Seitzinger and Lee 2007).
Freshwater discharge
To be developed
Ocean Acidification
(from Carol Turley, Open Ocean group)
Multiple Marine Ecological Disturbances
Past anomalies can be used as a diagnostic tool for evaluating multiple marine ecological disturbance (MMED) events. Information technology approaches will include data-mining, data integration, data-modeling and geographic information system outputs. The methodology has been used in the HEED (Health Ecological and Economic Dimensions) study, which reconstructed historic marine disturbance events in the Northwestern Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico LME and the Caribbean Sea LME ADDIN EN.CITE Sherman200113091309130917Benjamin H. ShermanPaul R. EpsteinPast anomalies as a diagnostic tool for evaluating multiple marine ecological disturbance eventsHuman and Ecological Risk AssessmentHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment1493-1517752001(Sherman and Epstein 2001). The study retrospectively derived co-occurring MMEDs, including indices of morbidity, mortality and disease events affecting, for example, humans and marine invertebrates. Correlations between space and time occurrences, event coincidences, and climate and oceanographic forcing were used to better define MMED types. Systematic derivation of these types is part of diagnostic approach that can assist or guide marine ecological risk assessment.
HABITATS
The following indicators on benthic habitats provided by UNEP-WCMC. Please see comprehensive report in Annex III.
The most feasible large-scale indicators for marine habitats in light of data availability are currently extent-based measures, i.e. related to the area covered by a particular habitat. This recommendation is supported by the previous work undertaken by the 2010 Biodiversity Indicator Partnership (2010 BIP) which prioritized the development of an extent of assorted habitats indicator to assess global progress toward the Convention on Biological Diversitys target to reduce biodiversity loss by the year 2010. This indicator is still in development and currently focuses on tropical ecosystems, namely coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds (2010 BIP, 2010).
Spatial datasets are most applicable for assessing changes in habitat extent, facilitating relatively simple overlay analysis using GIS, the results of which can be aggregated at a range of scales, including the level of LMEs, and also enabling the simple visualization of results through maps and graphics. Non-spatial data and more qualitative research can be used to add value to these spatial layers by assisting the interpretation of findings.
See Annex III for descriptions of the following:
Extent of warm water coral habitat
Extent of mangrove habitat
Extent of seagrass habitat
Number of Ramsar sites with estuarine waters, tidal/mud flats, lagoons, and kelp beds, recorded
Number of observations of cold water coral habitat
Number of observations of cold seep and hydrothermal vent habitat
Number of seamount observations
Number of large seamount areas
Percentage habitat covered by Protected Area
6.4 SOCIOECONOMICS
See Annex IV: Contribution from K. Sherman and others
Still to come: Socioeconomic indicators from L. McManus
6.5 GOVERNANCE
See Annex IV: Contribution from K. Sherman and others
See Annex VI: Contribution from R. Mahon and others
Two approaches for assessing governance are proposed (See Annex IV and VI).
In the conceptual framework, governance and its interaction with personal behavior and collective human activities lie at the top (boxes 1a, 1b, 2). This reflects their importance as points of entry for understanding how to manage the human relationship with the natural systems.
Mahon et al. (2010) propose a policy cycle for assessing governance of LMEs (Annex VI). Effective governance that achieves societal goals while sustaining the state of the natural system and the services it provides requires complete policy cycles. This would include:
data and information (from both natural and social science),
analysis and advice (where natural science, social science, and politics will meet),
decision-making,
implementation, and
review and evaluation.
For LMEs, arrangements for joint management of transboundary issues include joint arrangements among the bordering countries such as LME Commissions. But the highest level of governance arrangements that have effective enforcement mechanisms are national, and many interactions between personal behavior and governance occur at smaller scales. Therefore policy cycles are needed at multiple levels, and ultimately many different scales of governance arrangements will need to be assessed.
Assessing governance arrangements starts with a simple identification of the arrangements that are in place, including the relevant regional, national and local governance mechanisms that are in place to address the transboundary issues of concern.
Assessing flow of information about natural system to governance arrangement
A baseline assessment would ask whether each governance arrangement had a full and functional policy cycle in place. Two objective and simple (yes/no) indicators could be:
Does a monitoring program exist to give sustained data on the natural system the governance arrangement seeks to manage?
Does the governance arrangement include a regular assessment of the status or quality of the natural system (what the EU MSFD calls 'Good Environmental Status')?
A further indicator could seek to qualify the quality of these arrangements. A natural science expert team could judge these indicators. This covers the 'data and information' and 'analysis and advice' parts of the policy cycle described above.
Assessing social aspects of the governance arrangements
Further indicators could seek to identify whether the rest of the policy cycle is being implemented and judge it for effectiveness and social justice questions. The governance arrangements should be assessed for the following criteria:
administrative: efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness
appropriateness, accountability and transparency
social justice: inclusivity, representativeness, legitimacy, equitability
These are value-based judgments that will be interpreted through the prism of politics and culture. They will have to be made by judgment by a panel of governance experts, realizing that at the global level this will have to reflect the political and cultural differences of the many different constituencies at national and local levels, and their differing societal goals. Simple global indicators for these types of criteria do not exist, and there is likely a need for further work in this area.
This type of extended assessment is difficult, but is needed to improve governance related to the combination of human and natural systems. This assessment might help increase the effectiveness of GEF interventions by identifying features of management leading to good governance.
INTERLINKAGES WITH OTHER WATER SYSTEMS
The review of the LME TDAs and SAPs attempted to capture references to these interlinkages between LMEs and surface water or groundwater systems. Eleven of the TDAs reviewed included statements that are of relevance to either surface or ground waters. The WIO-LaB TDA clearly identifies the interactions between ground-water and surface water sources and the coastal and marine environment, and particularly the river basins, as key areas for concern. The WIO-Lab TDA (2009) recognized that significant amount of the pollution load to the sea emanates from land-based activities, such as municipal and industrial discharges, contaminated surface and sub-surface run-off, agricultural returned flows and atmospheric emissions. The TDA identified Water and sediment quality degeneration due to pollution from land-based sources as one of the four key problem areas, with 5 sub-categories:
Microbial contamination
High suspended solids
Chemical pollution
Marine litter (including debris)
Eutrophication (harmful/nuisance algal blooms)
Two key problem areas related to river-coast interaction were distinguished in the WIO-Lab TDA as
Alteration of river flow and degradation of water quality; and
Alteration of river sediment load.
Indicators related to interlinkages between LMEs and other TWAP water systems are shown in Table 2 (see also Annex V: Paper by Chen, Seitzinger and Kremer). To be developed further with other WGs.
Table 2. Issues (including the 5 cross-cutting) and indicators linking TWAP water systems (focus on Rivers and LMEs; others TBD). Note: All WGs asked to consider interlinkages in terms of input/output between water systems, socioeconomics and governance.
IssueRiversLMEsOpen OceanGroundwaterLakesWater quantity
(Alteration of natural freshwater discharge to coastal areas)Average discharge (modelled)
Impoundment density
Irrigation water withdrawalAverage discharge (volume/year) to LME or delta
(Global NEWS)
Nutrients/
EutrophicationFertilizer consumption (t/ha/year)
Soil balance indicator (P:N)Nutrients (N, P, Si, C) inputs to LMEs (t/year)
Focus on DIN?
(Global NEWS)
Primary productivity; Ch a; HABs (hotspots)
Biological Productivity
(related to nutrients)Vulnerability to climate change Standard Precipitation Index
Average discharge (volume/year) to LME or delta
Sea level rise (SLR)
Acidification
SST
Population in vulnerable areas (coastal)
Annual losses from extreme climatic events
SLRSalinity (saline intrusion to coastal aquifers from SLR)MercuryIndustrial effluent?Mercury conc. in water and animal tissue (GESAMP)Sediment loadsSoil erosion vulnerabilitySediment flux (load) to LME or delta
Water qualityWater quality index (Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Electrical Conductivity (EC), pH, Total Phosphorus (P) (or Ortho Phosphorus), Total Nitrogen (N) (or Dissolved inorganic Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrite, Ammonia)
Industrial effluent: Proportion of industrial effluent produced compared to total basin discharge
Municipal effluent: Combination of population (number), sanitation coverage (percentage), and likely level of effluent treatment (Water Quality Index (WQI) score)
Nutrient (N, P, Si, C) inputs to LMEs (t/year)
Other landbased pollutants (TBD)Salinity (saline intrusion)SocioeconomicsLandbased human activities that impact on LMEs (e.g. coastal urbanization/ population in coastal zone, agriculture, industrial activities).
ResponseAdoption/implementation of frameworks and monitoring programmes to address interaction between terrestrial and coastal areas, such as IWCAM, ICZM, and GPA in countries bordering LMEs; Pesticide regulation index
TOOLS FOR MAPPING AND INTEGRATION
Mapping of Human Impacts
(see Annex VII for proposal for mapping cumulative human impacts)
IIASA framework, analyses and integrated ecosystem assessments
(see Annex IV. Description to come)
To be developed:
TWAP LME ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY: LEVEL 2
10. DATA, INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGY GAPS
11. PART TWO: IMPLEMENTING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE FSP
Partnerships and institutional arrangements
End users
Best practices
Data management
Assessment products and disemmination
Capacity building needs
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ANNEXES
(to include indicator templates, results of validation exercise, etc)
While issues identified in the TDAs are often referred to as Major Perceived Problems and Issues (MPPI), in these reports they were also variously referred to as Regional Environmental Concerns, and Problem areas / pressures, and it is this collection of issue statements that is shown in Table 2.
OECD 2003: OECD Environmental Indicators: Development, measurement and use. OECD Reference Paper.
PAGE
PAGE 3
TWAP LMEs Methodology 14 June 2010 draft 1.0
PAGE
PAGE 38
H W IJo^P^G> hW` 5CJ aJ h/, 5CJ aJ hfG CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hi hfG CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ #hfG hfG 6CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ h+D hfG CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ #hk hfG 5CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hfG CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ #h+D hfG 5CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hk hfG CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hD CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hfG 5CJ aJ %j hD 5CJ UaJ mH nH u
C ` H I J $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ $ $ $ $ $h^ha$gdfG $h^ha$gdD h^hgdD o {q q q J K X Y Z h C
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s $ s 6
$
5 $h^ha$gdfG
!
"
#
=
>
?
@
A
B
C
D
E
a
b
c
d
t
u
v
ȿȥȿȚzֿȿ`N #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j} hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH uh#H) hxku 0J mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u hW` 5CJ aJ j hW` 5CJ UaJ v
G H I ¹«n¹«T 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u jq hxku UmH nH u #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH u jw hxku UmH nH u hxku mH nH u I c d e f g h i j k ¹«n¹«T« 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u je hxku UmH nH u #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH u jk hxku UmH nH u hxku mH nH u
i ? h
I c j T - t 0 l 8
$
5 6
$
9 : ; < = > ? @ A ] ^ _ ` ¹«n¹«T 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u jY hxku UmH nH u #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u j_ hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u
F
G
H
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
¹«n¹«T« 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u jM hxku UmH nH u #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u jS hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u
& ' ( B C D F G H I J K g h i j l m ݽΪ萪Ϊe 2j
h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u jA
hxku UmH nH u 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u $j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u jG hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u '
- . / 0 e 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j5 hxku UmH nH u 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u j; hxku UmH nH u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u 0 @ A B \ ] ^ ` a b c d e ӯ~mӯS 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j) hxku UmH nH u 2j
h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u j/
hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u 4 5 6 7 G H I c d e g h i j k l ׳׳e 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j hxku UmH nH u 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u j# hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH u $ 1 2 3 M N O Q R S T U V r s t u ¹«n¹«T« 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j hxku UmH nH u #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH u
& ' ( * + , - . / K L M N \ ] ^ x y ¹««Հ¹«f«U j hxku UmH nH u 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j hxku UmH nH u 2j h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH u!y z | } ~ Q R S m n o q r s t u v һɻһһɻvһeһ j hxku UmH nH u 2jv h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j hxku UmH nH u 2j| h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u 'v
) * + - . / 0 1 2 N O λ谡v谡e j hxku UmH nH u 2jj h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u $j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u 2jp h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH uhxku mH nH u "O P Q | } ~ # $ źӑőweTӑő j hxku UmH nH u #h#H) hxku 0J OJ QJ mH nH u2j^ h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u 2jd h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u $ % & I J K e f g i j k l m n źӑőwgVӑő j hxku UmH nH u h#H) hxku 0J PJ mH nH u2jR h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u 2jX h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u 9 : ; < c d e źӑőwźfӑő j hxku UmH nH u 2jF h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u 2jL h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u J K F { # . _ P 9 G ! ^! ! 5 6
$
8
$
' ( ) C D E G H I J K L h i źӑőwźfӑő j hxku UmH nH u 2j: h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH u j hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u 2j@ h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u i j k ( ) * D E F H I J K L M i j źӑőwźfӑő j" hxku UmH nH u 2j." h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH u j! hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u 2j4! h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u j k l # $ % ? @ A C D E F G H d e źӑőwźfӑő j$ hxku UmH nH u 2j"$ h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u hxku mH nH u j# hxku UmH nH u j hxku UmH nH uhxku mH nH u h#H) hxku 0J mH nH u$j h#H) hxku 0J UmH nH u 2j(# h#H) hxku >*B*UmH nH ph u e f g
) * źӑőwźfӑő j&