Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Map shows the outcomes of the BEAT+ assessments for all marine mammals combined. The indicators are mainly focused on coastal and relatively stable inshore populations of seals, dolphins and porpoises. </SPAN></P><P /><P><SPAN>The BEAT+ tool integrates data from normalised indicators to identify worst case status measures for different biodiversity components. The results are then linked to a standard gridE based Spatial Assessment Unit (SAU) which is used both for biodiversity and for pressures assessments (Andersen et al., 2014). </SPAN></P><P /><P><SPAN>These grid-based SAUs not only allow alignment of indicators for biodiversity and for pressures but provide a means for combining large assessment areas (e.g. for wide‐ranging species) with point data collected from biological surveys e.g. WFD monitoring. </SPAN></P><P /><P><SPAN>BEAT+ tool works by calculating a Biological Quality Ratio (BQR) which is an aggregated score of indicator outcomes within a grid square. To allow objective comparison, the indicator outcomes are normalised to a scale of 0 to 1, with five status classes at equal intervals on that scale (from Bad starting at 0, Poor at 0.2, Medium at 0.4, Good at 0.6 and High at 0.8). By this means, indicators based on different biological criteria can be aggregated in a consistent way. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report reference: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/products/biodiversity-in-europes-seas</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Map shows the status of seabirds and wading birds per assessment grid cell in European marine regions. The worst areas are in the Norwegian Sea. The Baltic area shows an overall good status overall for waterbirds, which is the same as in the North Sea, though there are spatial differences in indicator outcomes when different trophic groups are considered.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The BEAT+ tool integrates data from normalised indicators to identify worst case status measures for different biodiversity components. The results are then linked to a standard gridE based Spatial Assessment Unit (SAU) which is used both for biodiversity and for pressures assessments (Andersen et al., 2014). </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>These grid-based SAUs not only allow alignment of indicators for biodiversity and for pressures but provide a means for combining large assessment areas (e.g. for wide‐ranging species) with point data collected from biological surveys e.g. WFD monitoring. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>BEAT+ tool works by calculating a Biological Quality Ratio (BQR) which is an aggregated score of indicator outcomes within a grid square. To allow objective comparison, the indicator outcomes are normalised to a scale of 0 to 1, with five status classes at equal intervals on that scale (from Bad starting at 0, Poor at 0.2, Medium at 0.4, Good at 0.6 and High at 0.8). By this means, indicators based on different biological criteria can be aggregated in a consistent way. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report reference: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/products/biodiversity-in-europes-seas</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>The BEAT+ tool combines indicators from all four European marine regions, where available, by normalising all indicators to a standard scale. The outcome for fish indicators is shown in the map.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The analysis is primarily based on commercial fish as these have agreed targets defined on biomass and fishing mortality. These broadly reflect the Regional Sea Convention assessments of relatively good status in NE Atlantic, but not offshore in the Baltic and low status in the Western Mediterranean. The BEAT+ tool integrates data from normalised indicators to identify worst case status measures for different biodiversity components. The results are then linked to a standard gridE based Spatial Assessment Unit (SAU) which is used both for biodiversity and for pressures assessments (Andersen et al., 2014). These grid-based SAUs not only allow alignment of indicators for biodiversity and for pressures but provide a means for combining large assessment areas (e.g. for wide‐ranging species) with point data collected from biological surveys e.g. WFD monitoring.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>BEAT+ tool works by calculating a Biological Quality Ratio (BQR) which is an aggregated score of indicator outcomes within a grid square. To allow objective comparison, the indicator outcomes are normalised to a scale of 0 to 1, with five status classes at equal intervals on that scale (from Bad starting at 0, Poor at 0.2, Medium at 0.4, Good at 0.6 and High at 0.8). By this means, indicators based on different biological criteria can be aggregated in a consistent way.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report reference: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/products/biodiversity-in-europes-seas</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>The map shows that where eutrophication is a problem (especially Baltic Sea, North Sea and Adriatic Sea), the state of pelagic habitats is either poor or at best medium. Other areas generally show good or even high state. This is mainly based on direct effects indicators for eutrophication with a few localised plankton diversity indicators. Other phytoplankton indices are in development by OSPAR e.g. life-form pairs (abundance and distribution of key trophic planktonic groups) but thresholds have yet to be agreed. HELCOM is also trialing similar indicators with a diatom/dinoflagellate index. More of these are needed however for wider seas coverage.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The BEAT+ tool integrates data from normalised indicators to identify worst case status measures for different biodiversity components. The results are then linked to a standard gridE based Spatial Assessment Unit (SAU) which is used both for biodiversity and for pressures assessments (Andersen et al., 2014).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>These grid-based SAUs not only allow alignment of indicators for biodiversity and for pressures but provide a means for combining large assessment areas (e.g. for wide‐ranging species) with point data collected from biological surveys e.g. WFD monitoring.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>BEAT+ tool works by calculating a Biological Quality Ratio (BQR) which is an aggregated score of indicator outcomes within a grid square. To allow objective comparison, the indicator outcomes are normalised to a scale of 0 to 1, with five status classes at equal intervals on that scale (from Bad starting at 0, Poor at 0.2, Medium at 0.4, Good at 0.6 and High at 0.8). By this means, indicators based on different biological criteria can be aggregated in a consistent way.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report reference: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/products/biodiversity-in-europes-seas</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Map of integrated BEAT+ assessment of Europe’s benthic habitats suggests that 58 % of the total shallow water seabed area is not in good status. The respective score varied among the sea regions: 63 %, 100 %, 98 % and 44 % of the areas assessed in the Baltic, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the NE Atlantic. The assessed area excludes areas where the seabed is more than 2 km below the surface as data for these areas, such as from commercial fishing, are sparse.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The BEAT+ tool integrates data from normalised indicators to identify worst case status measures for different biodiversity components. The results are then linked to a standard gridE based Spatial Assessment Unit (SAU) which is used both for biodiversity and for pressures assessments (Andersen et al., 2014).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>These grid-based SAUs not only allow alignment of indicators for biodiversity and for pressures but provide a means for combining large assessment areas (e.g. for wide‐ranging species) with point data collected from biological surveys e.g. WFD monitoring.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>BEAT+ tool works by calculating a Biological Quality Ratio (BQR) which is an aggregated score of indicator outcomes within a grid square. To allow objective comparison, the indicator outcomes are normalised to a scale of 0 to 1, with five status classes at equal intervals on that scale (from Bad starting at 0, Poor at 0.2, Medium at 0.4, Good at 0.6 and High at 0.8). By this means, indicators based on different biological criteria can be aggregated in a consistent way.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report reference: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/products/biodiversity-in-europes-seas</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>This map brings together the BEAT+ aggregations to provide an overall synthesis of the Biological Quality Ratios (BQR) values. The map shows which are the worst (lowest) BQR values in each assessment grid cell. The ‘worst’ value is used here to identify the biological group most at risk, rather than averaging over all groups to avoid over-emphasis on groups with more intensive monitoring. There are biodiversity components Bad or Poor state along the Bay of Biscay coast and in the in the Southern North Sea. This is primarily due to specific indicators of fish (Biscay) and phytoplankton or benthic data (Southern North Sea). The Celtic Seas, Norwegian Sea Northern North Sea and northern Baltic all have a worst case of Medium, although it should be emphasised that the thresholds for use in offshore waters in these regions are still under development. The Western Mediterranean, southern Ionian Sea and Central Adriatic are also showing Poor BQRs (mainly from commercial fish status measures). Other areas generally have indicators which show good or high BQR values, notably parts of the Celtic Seas, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast plus areas in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Black Sea data is showing a Medium response though the assessment area is limited to Bulgarian coast. There are not sufficient indicators to assess the worst case across open waters Macaronesia sub-‐regions, most of the Eastern Mediterranean or the Black Sea.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The BEAT+ tool integrates data from normalised indicators to identify worst case status measures for different biodiversity components. The results are then linked to a standard gridE based Spatial Assessment Unit (SAU) which is used both for biodiversity and for pressures assessments (Andersen et al., 2014).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>These grid-based SAUs not only allow alignment of indicators for biodiversity and for pressures but provide a means for combining large assessment areas (e.g. for wide‐ranging species) with point data collected from biological surveys e.g. WFD monitoring. BEAT+ tool works by calculating a Biological Quality Ratio (BQR) which is an aggregated score of indicator outcomes within a grid square. To allow objective comparison, the indicator outcomes are normalised to a scale of 0 to 1, with five status classes at equal intervals on that scale (from Bad starting at 0, Poor at 0.2, Medium at 0.4, Good at 0.6 and High at 0.8). By this means, indicators based on different biological criteria can be aggregated in a consistent way.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report reference: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/products/biodiversity-in-europes-seas</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Map shows the overall outcomes based on data collated from BEAT+ assessment which helps to identify which of the assessed biological groups is performing worst in any particular area, which is potentially valuable as a management tool. The map shows that across Europe’s seas, the areas most at risk are pelagic habitats in areas nearer the coasts and in the shallower shelf seas, such as the Baltic and North seas. Away from the shallower seas but nearer the coasts, benthic habitats are the worst performing whereas offshore the worst performing tend to be fish or seabird indicators.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Report reference: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-icm/products/biodiversity-in-europes-seas</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>