JRC workshop on MSFD biodiversity theme (Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6) Marine Strategy Framework Directive: biodiversity monitoring and assessment David Connor European Commission DG Environment Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit JRC workshop on MSFD biodiversity theme (Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6) 7-8 November 2012, Brussels

Monitoring requirements of the MSFD Art. 11 (1) – establish and implement monitoring programmes by 15 July 2014 On basis of initial assessment (Art. 8(1)) For ongoing assessment of environmental status of MS marine waters On basis of elements in Annex III and list in Annex V By reference to environmental targets (Art. 10) Be compatible within marine regions/subregions Build upon and be compatible with assessment and monitoring in Community legislation, including Habitats and Birds Directives, and under international agreements

Monitoring requirements of the MSFD Art. 11 (2) – MS sharing a marine region/ subregion, for coherence and coordination, ensure that: Monitoring methods are consistent across the region/subregion so as to facilitate comparability of monitoring results Relevant transboundary impacts and features are taken into account Art. 11 (4) Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment shall be adopted (by Art. 25 Committee) Take into account existing commitments Ensure comparability between monitoring and assessment results

Requirements of the MSFD Annex V: Purpose/ use of information 1. to assess environmental status, estimate distance from and progress towards GES 12. evaluate trends to achieving targets 2. enable identification of indicators for targets 3. allow assessment of impact of measures 11. an assessment of major changes (from IA) and new/emerging issues

Requirements of the MSFD Annex V: type of information 4. activities to identify cause of change and possible corrective measures 6. activities to confirm corrective measures deliver desired changes 5. Chemical contaminants in seafood from commercial fishing areas 12. Address elements in Annex III, including their natural variability

Requirements of the MSFD Annex V: requirements of the information 7. Aggregate information to regions/subregions 8. Comparability of assessment approaches and methods within/between regions/subregions 9. Technical specifications and standardised methods at Community level 10. Ensure, where possible, compatibility with existing programmes (fostering consistency, avoiding duplication) Art. 19(3) Provide the Commission and EEA with access and use rights in respect of data and information resulting from the monitoring programmes

Geographic scope MSFD MSFD WFD Marine waters: Inc. EEZs Continental Shelf areas Coastal waters (of WFD) For marine: Transitional Waters Coastal Waters (to 1nm) Habitats & Birds Directives WFD 1nm

Biodiversity monitoring Annex I biodiversity/ecosystem 'state' descriptors D1: biodiversity D2: non-indigenous species D3: commercial fish & shellfish – not this workshop D4: food webs D6: seafloor integrity Pressure/impact descriptors – affect biodiversity D5: eutrophication D7: hydrographical changes D8: contaminants [D9 seafood] D10: litter D11: Energy, incl. underwater noise

Biodiversity monitoring? Where are we now? - traditional focus: Identify species & count individuals (single species approach or local sampling sites) Show change/trends (populations, communities) Limited whole area assessments (except HBD) Poor at determining status, poor at linking to pressures Does this need to change? Focus on broader perspective (whole region/subregion) – new methods/approaches Clear/precise definition of GES Specific assessment methods – lead to a status class Link to pressures/impacts – link to measures

Do we have to monitor everything? Directive points to covering elements in Annex III Table 1 - for biodiversity: birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, water column and seabed habitats To achieve GES: also encompass aspects of ecosystem functioning (e.g. food webs) Options: Use of 'indicator' species, habitats, functions Use of 'indicator' parameters (for certain criteria, particularly if at 'risk') Focus on pressures and impacts of known concern Focus on areas of known concern, with reference areas

Do we have to monitor everything? Birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, water column and seabed habitats Considerations: The functional groups and predominant habitat types are a way to categorise the wide variety of biodiversity They are intended therefore as assessment elements/units How well do they fulfil this role? Are there suitable indicator species/biotopes for monitoring to represent these broad types? How well does their monitoring address ecosystem function assessment (e.g. food webs)

Functional groups Species group Functional group Birds Intertidal benthic-feeding birds Inshore surface-feeding birds Inshore pelagic-feeding birds Inshore benthic-feeding birds Inshore herbivorous-feeding birds Offshore surface-feeding birds Offshore pelagic-feeding birds Ice-associated birds Mammals Toothed whales Baleen whales Seals Ice-associated mammals Reptiles Turtles Species group Functional group Fish Diadromous fish Coastal fish Pelagic fish Pelagic elasmobranchs Demersal fish Demersal elasmobranchs Deep-sea fish Deep-sea elasmobranchs Ice-associated fish Cephalopods Coastal/shelf pelagic cephalopods Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods

Predominant habitat types Substrate Rock Sediment Zone inc. mixed hard substrata, biogenic reefs Coarse Sand Mud Mixed sediment Littoral   Sublittoral - shallow Sublittoral - shelf Bathyal – upper Bathyal - lower Abyssal Water column Reduced Variable Marine – coastal Marine – shelf Marine - oceanic Zone boundary (approx. m) 50 200 1100 2700 Provisional set proposed by TG1 13

Modeled seabed habitats MESH Atlantic 2010-2013 EMODnet 2013-2015

Purpose of monitoring Increasing quality Reference condition Good Environmental Status GES boundary Has GES been achieved? Improvement needed – targets to reduce pressures and impacts Increasing quality Has progress with targets been made? Current situation Have measures to reduce pressure/impacts been effective? Increasing proportion (quantity)

Sampling strategy? 16

Sampling strategy - risk-based? Eutrophication Occasional disturbances - minor effects Moderate trawling - impacts Intense trawling Greens – acceptable state Orange, red – unacceptable state 17

Monitoring techniques - sensitive to pressures and their impacts State with negligible impact Unacceptable degree of change - impacted Destroyed/ irrecoverable Sub-GEnS Good Environmental Status Acceptable degree of change Pressure Reference condition – for habitat, community and area Few non-indigenous spp. in low density Many non-indigenous spp. in high density Non-indigenous spp. dominant Minor changes to spp. Dense green algae Community switched Minor spp. & physical changes Loss of sensitive spp.; opportunist spp. increasing Habitat and/or community destroyed D2 Non-indigenous spp. D5 Nutrient enrichment (Eutrophication) D6 Physical disturbance (sea-floor integrity) Lower limit of GES quality

Links to other policies? Need for integration? WFD HBD CFP RSC Why bother? Ecosystem approach – mutual benefits Efficiency – reuse of data Enhanced results – benefit from wider perspective, synergies in policy delivery Cost savings – joint/integrated survey programmes

What types of monitoring are needed? Monitoring of state? Monitoring against impacts? Monitoring of pressures? Monitoring of activities/measures? What should be the balance of effort? What periodicity of monitoring is needed? What spatial coverage and intensity? What role for ‘supporting’ information (e.g. one-off surveys)?

Where can the data come from? Monitoring for other policies WFD, HBD, CFP, RSC etc New and modified 'MSFD' monitoring Modelling and mapping Broad-scale mapping Mapping of activities/pressures to predict impact European, regional and national programmes: EMODnet GMES Industry? Impact assessments and REAs/SEAs Ongoing environmental monitoring

Some open issues How to progress with monitoring if GES is poorly defined? How to achieve consistent monitoring across region when indicators are not yet harmonised? How to optimise use of [limited] resources How to make best use of monitoring/assessments for other descriptors

Expectations for workshop Discuss principles Identify open issues per descriptor, as regards improving coherence of GES assessment preparation of monitoring programmes Propose way forward (further work at EU, RSC, national level)

Next steps (after workshop) Present results to and discuss at next meetings of WG GES Prepare joint (MSFD/WFD/HBD) work programme for Common Implementation Strategy to be agreed by Water and Marine Directors in June 2013 Take also account outcome of Art. 12 assessment

Thank you for your attention! http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine Thank you for your attention!