Integrating D1 indicators to ecosystem component level Conclusions from WKD1Agg Anna Rindorf, DTU Aqua

Workshop approach Species integration The workshop brought together 24 experts from 12 countries, specialising in fish, seabird and mammal 3 approaches were considered: Species integration Criteria integration within ecosystem component Integration of species within criteria

Why not just pick the ‘best’ one? Species approach had the advantage of directly reflecting the Habitats directive Criteria approach had the advantage of encompassing integrated indicators and allowing similar approaches in e.g. D4 Both approaches can use the same indicators, though the species approach then loses the direct link to the Habitats Directive

Methods for integration and worked examples One out, all out (OOAO) Proportional/probabilistic Averages Weighted averages Examples OSPAR- fish, birds, mammals HELCOM- fish, birds, mammals Black Sea- fish Med - mammals

Integration within criteria Species Group GES Criteria Indicators Species

Integration within species Species Group Species GES Criteria Indicators

HELCOM

OSPAR

Mediterranean

HELCOM

Why not always use OOAO? If there are many indicators, some will be outside GES due to e.g. sampling uncertainty or natural variability If using a OOAO, we will alwyas get ‘out’ at ecosystem component level Using other methods reduces the influence of e.g. sampling uncertainty and natural variation

When is OOAO the right thing? Some indicators and levels are percieved as being of high importance These can be included using OOAO OOAO increases compatability with the Habitat Directive When there are few species, proportion and probabilistic methods all converge to OOAO