ICES led Reviews of D3, D4, D6 & D11 Claus Hagebro

ICES – Process D3, D4, D6- Create core expert team to generate ideas Hold open workshops to address the issues Use input from both to write the review Agreed by ICES Advisory Committee D11 – use existing Task Group and feed into the ICES system EU wide process

D3 - Conclusion Criterion 3.3 should be revised and indicators selected in relation to three properties: Size distribution of species, Selectivity pattern of the fishery exploiting the species Genetic effects of exploitation on the species.  

D3 - Discussion The present Criterion 3.3 is challenging because there is uncertainty about interpretation & implementation. There is a scientific debate on relevant indicators and reference points. Instead of deleting Criterion 3.3, a new approach is suggested focusing on three properties. Validation is needed for existing indicators and a few new proposed indicators. One or two dedicated workshops are needed to select at least one validated indicator per property.

D4 - Conclusion Criterion 4 should be simplified to 4.1 Foodweb structure - biomass and size structure 4.2 Foodweb function It should be applied to minimum 3 trophic guilds per region  

D4 - Discussion Surveillance Indicators? Anthropogenic pressure is difficult to distinguish from the environmentally influenced variability in foodwebs. What would potential indicators of D4 represent? How do we determine GES bounds? Methodological standards for defining GES should describe a state within prescribed bounds, movement beyond those bounds should be seen as leaving GES. Propose a workshop to address these issues

D6 - Conclusion The present criteria 6.1 and 6.2 should be changed to: 6.1 Functionality 6.2 Recoverability More closely related to resilience and recovery potential of the seafloor.   This simplification may not require any additional monitoring than already planned.

D6 - Discussion How do we prioritize functions to be assessed under the criterion? How do we determine GES boundaries for seafloor integrity? Much existing scientific knowledge can serve as the basis for guidance. A further workshop can make rapid progress.

D11 - Conclusion Tightening of technical definitions will help ensure that Member States (MS) carry out comparable actions. Not all MS applied the indicators provided and have followed the approach recommended by TG on Noise. Coherence of actions is more inhibited by MS doing something different than is required, than by not fully carrying out agreed common action.

D11 - Discussion Does a way exist to provide assessment of GES for underwater noise using indicators relating to sensitive species? Need to define the phrase (11.1.1) “…likely to entail significant impact on marine animals”. Further research needed on the link between “pressure” from underwater noise and ecosystem state. TG Noise should continue this work