European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry MSFD GES Decision review - cross-cutting issues – sessions 2+3 MSFD cross-cutting

European CommissionDG Environment Unit C.2

Marine Environment and Water Industry

MSFD GES Decision review -cross-cutting issues – sessions 2+3

MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review

21-22 January 2015, Copenhagen

COHERENCE WITH EXISTING EU AND RSC STANDARDS & METHODS

Session 2

Integration and streamlininga. EU policies, RSCs and other international agreements already

address many MSFD-relevant issuesb. These often set standards and define methodologies which can

be adopted or adapted to MSFD needsc. Integration of these into the Decision and ongoing MSFD

implementation could streamline the work needed – do once, use several times

d. Follows overall goals expressed by EU Directors (Nature, Biodiversity, Water and Marine) + joint workshop December 2014

e. Sometimes technical detail of existing approaches needs adaptation to suit MSFD – e.g. extend geographic or topic scope, adapt to holistic MSFD needs

ELEMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT

Elements for assessmentWe have:a.EU agreed listsb.International Convention agreed listsc.RSC 'common lists' (for indicators)d.Additional national elements, as specified by MS

• Should we develop:a.Common EU lists to ensure consistency in determination of GES and its assessment?b.Regionally-specific lists (especially to reflect ecosystem variation)?

Do we need:a.Possibility to de-select, based on agreed guidelines e.g. element not present in MS waters, minimal risk from element to ecosystem?

Elements for assessment – draft lists• D1, 3, 4, 6 - biodiversity

a. EU - Habitats and Birds Directive listsb. International Convention lists

i. RSCs – OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona, Bucharest(?) Conventionsii. Others - ASCOBANS, ACCOBAMS, CMS, others?

c. Commercial fish (CFP) – ICES selection methodology

d. Functional species groups & predominant habitat types (CSWD 2011)

e. Regional - RSC 'common indicator' species and habitats

• D2 – Non-indigenous speciesa. EU - IAS Regulation list (to be developed)

b. Regional - additional species per region??

D5 – eutrophicationa. EU - N, P, Chl a, water clarity, O2 levels

b. Plankton, macrophytes, macrobenthos?

Elements for assessment – draft lists• D7 – hydrographical changes

a. EU – WFD?

• D8 – contaminantsa. EU - WFD/Priority substancesb. Regional - Additional RSC substances?

D9 – contaminants in seafooda. EU – Food standards Reg. 1881/2006

D10 – littera. EU - top 10 categories?b. Regional – additional RSC categories?

D11 – energy, incl. underwater noise• Acute noise, chronic noise

Elements: biodiversityMain components

EU Baltic NE Atlantic Mediterranean Black

BirdsBirds Directive

HELCOM Red ListCore indicators

OSPAR ListCommon indicators

Barcelona SPA/Bio listEcAp list

BSC list??

MammalsHabitats Directive




BSC list??

ReptilesHabitats Directive



BSC list??

FishHabitats DirectiveCFP (DCF)




BSC list??

Water column (pelagic habitats)

Core indicators Common indicators EcAp listBSC list??

Seabed (benthic habitats)

Habitats Directive




BSC list??

Biodiversity elementsIssue:

a. Listed types were not selected to ‘represent’ biodiversity and ecosystems

b. They may not be good indicators of impacts from pressures

c. If rare, they may be difficult to monitor - > poor data sets for assessments

Biodiversity – top-down meets bottom up?High level - Components

Intermediate level - Functional elements

Fine level - species and habitats

BirdsInshoreOffshoreEtc

GannetCormorantetc

Mammals

CetaceansHarbour porpoiseBottlenose dolphinetc

SealsGrey sealHarbour sealetc

Reptiles TurtlesLoggerhead turtleGreen turtleetc

Fish

CoastalPelagicDemersaletc

Water column habitats etc

Seabed habitats

Littoral (intertidal)Infralittoral (shallow)Circalittoral (shelf)Deep sea

Mussel bedSeagrass bedPosidonia bedetc

Data ->indicator/criteria assessments per species/habitatAggregation rules to functional level e.g. % of species at GES

Provides coverage of main ecosystem components

Discussion – elements for assessment

To discuss/conclude:

a.Do we need a common list of elements at the EU level and/or at the regional level? Based on agreed EU and regional lists?

b.Can we represent biodiversity via a set of functional groups and predominant habitat types – and assess via specified species and habitats (from a ‘common’ list?)

c.Do we need a de-selection option? Based on what principles?

CRITERIA - BIODIVERSITY

Criteria – aligning MSFD and HBDMSFD (D1, 3, 4, 6) BHD IUCN Red List -> Use

Species

Distribution (1.1) RangeRange (EOO, AOO)

Distribution (2)

Population size (1.2); reproductive capacity (3.2)

Population

Population sizeSmall population

Population size (1) – no./biomass

Population condition (1.3); age & size distribution (3.3)

Mature individuals incl. above

Population condition (1)

Habitat for species

Habitat quality incl. in Range

Habitat for species (2)

Future prospects Included above -

Habitats

Distribution (1.4) Range Quantity (extent of occurrence; area of occupancy)

Distribution (2)

Extent (1.5) Area covered Extent (1)

Condition (1.6, 6.2)Structures & functions

Quality (biotic, abiotic)

Condition (1)

Future prospects Included above -

Ecosystems

Structure (1.7); productivity (4.1); prop. of top predators (4.2);Abund./ distribution (4.3)

Aggregation rules to Functional group & predom. habitat)D4 structure & function??

Issues for biodiversity criteria• Feasible to align MSFD and BHD criteria (and IUCN)• Similarities to D3 criteria• Use of all criteria?

often limitations on data for one or more criteria (even for 'data rich' commercial species)

Threats are often on specific criteria (e.g. distributional range is affected only for some species, rarely for habitats)

Potential to prioritise criteria – primary and secondary (as done for D3), based on risk?

Discussion:

a.How could we harmonise between MSFD and HBD, e.g. via criteria, GES/FCS boundaries, assessment scales, timing?

b.Should differing importance/risk of criteria be accommodated in their application (primary, secondary)?

AGGREGATION AND SCALES

Session 3

AGGREGATION RULES

Possible aggregation rules – species (similar for habitats)

Elements assessed

CriteriaOverall GES for a single species

GES for species ‘functional group’

Species A

Distribution At GES

Based on use of ‘one-out all-out’ method, as for FCS?

Proposal: 75% (3 out of 4) of assessed species in functional group are at GES

Alternative: threshold is 75%, therefore whole group is ‘at GES’

Population size

Population condition

Habitat for species

Species B As above At GES

Species C As above Below GES

Species D As above At GES

Example presentation of GES: commercial fish (from CFP)

(from Nov. 2014 draft EEA marine baseline

report)

Possible aggregation rules – species (similar for habitats)

Elements assessed

CriteriaOverall GES for a single species

GES for species ‘functional group’

Species A

Distribution At GES

Based on use of ‘one-out all-out’ method, as for FCS?

Proposal: 75% (3 out of 4) of assessed species in functional group are at GES

Alternative: threshold is 75%, therefore whole group is ‘at GES’

Population size

Population condition

Habitat for species

Species B As above At GES

Species C As above Below GES

Species D As above At GES

(from Nov. 2014 draft EEA marine baseline

report)

Example presentation of GES: mammals (from HD)

Aggregation rules – pressure-based descriptors

• Descriptors 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 currently have:a. ‘Pressure level in sea’ criterionb. ‘Impact of pressure’ criterion

[Descriptors 9 and 11 only have a ‘pressure-level’ criterion at present]

Discussion: aggregation rules

To discuss/conclude:

Biodiversity/ecosystemsa.Is the OOAO method appropriate between criteria for an individual species or habitat?

b.Should we aim to express achievement of GES for biodiversity by proportion of species/habitat that are in GES per broader group (e.g. Y% of demersal fish are in GES, Z% of shelf habitats are in GES) or consider other approaches?

Pressures/impactsa.What aggregation method should be used for the pressure-based descriptors (pressure + impact criteria)?

b.Should we expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based descriptors?

ASSESSMENT SCALES

Assessment scales and areas1. MSFD provides broad architecture:

• Regions• Subregions• Subdivisions

2. MS approaches in 2012 reporting• Principle: all assessments linked to a specified area• Reporting allowed for multiple possibilities – whole MS

marine waters, larger areas, smaller areas, different areas per topic

3. 'Scales' project• Technical analysis – what was done, key issues to consider• Initial guidance – broad approaches, lacks specific

guidance on ‘how to do it’, how to provide options to ensure some coherence across MS

Way forward?1. Need defined scale for each ‘quality element’

• Basis for determining GES and undertaking assessments• Both can vary with scale• Links to coherence in delivery of marine strategies –

measures, exceptions, plans & projects• Agreed system for presentation of MSFD status at regional

and EU levels

2. Needs to be operationally practical• Provide clarity and certainty in MSFD implementation

(WFD and HD provide defined scales of assessment)• Links to MS jurisdictions• Relates monitoring/data to assessments • Not overly complex – avoid multiple scales across topics?• Appropriate scales for ecosystem, pressures and measures

Defined set of (nested) areas

Region

Sub-region

Sub-division

National part of sub-division

Coastal part (WFD)

Large cetaceans, deep sea fish

Reg

ion

Small cetaceans, pelagic & demersal fish, offshore birds, NIS, noise

Su

b-

Reg

ion

Seabed habitats, seals, physical loss/damage (D6, 7)

Su

b-

div

isio

n

Inshore birds, D8, litter

Nati

on

al

part

Elements associated to appropriate scale for assessment: suggestion

D5 (WFD/ offshore)

For disc

ussion!!

C. Assessment and reporting areas (Art.

8) –> needs development:

HELCOM nested system is a good

model

Define scale at each stage of process1 Define GES

2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment

3 Collect the data (monitoring)

4 Process the data for use in indicator assessment

5 Aggregate the data and assess indicator

Example: commercial fish (D3)1 Define GES (sub)Region/EU

2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment (sub)Region or EU

3 Collect the data (monitoring) National (DCF)


National (ICES rectangles)


Sub-basin (stock assessment areas)

Example: eutrophication (D5)1 Define GES (sub)Region

2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment (sub)Region (EU)

3 Collect the data (monitoring) National (coastal - WFD, offshore - MSFD)


National (WFD water body, MSFD)


Sub(Regional) ('national' sub-basins)

Example: sea-floor damage (D6)1 Define GES (sub)Region

2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment (sub)Region (EU)

3 Collect the data (monitoring) National (MSFD)


National ('national' sub-basins)


National ('national' sub-basins)

Discussion: assessment scales

To discuss:

a.How should scales for pressure-based assessments relate to state-based assessment scales? b.Could state and pressure elements be broadly 'assigned' to suitable scales (as per suggestion)?

c.How do we develop a more coherent system to enable an EU-level assessment for 2018? Develop an initial proposal?

Documents

European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry MSFD GES Decision review - cross-cutting issues – sessions 2+3 MSFD cross-cutting