EEA–EMMA Workshop 20-21 November 2006 How can we meet the EMS/MSD and the EEA “needs” on terms of marine/coastal biological and ecological monitoring and assessment? Report from the HELCOM/UNEP-MAP breakout session, D1

Participants Number of participants: 13 Chair: Eva Gelabert Notes: Trine Christiansen & Raina Spyropoulou Rapporteur: Jesper Andersen

Summary of discussions (1) Table B5 (habitat characterisation) Ongoing activities (Baltic Sea, North Sea, EUNIS) Habitats include biology, consequently Marine Landscapes (MLS) should always be supplemented with biology in order to identify predominant habitat types Some RC are dealing with true habitats (Med), others are not yet Table B6 (mapping of habitat types) UNEP/MAP: Mapping of seagrasses in Med (also Greece, France, Italy, Spain) HELCOM: habitat building species (Fucus, Zostera, Mytilus) National mapping activities mentioned NB: Up-date of definition of marine habitat types

Summary of discussions (1) Table B7 (special areas) About MPAs other than Natura 2000 areas? No – it’s about all areas! (species) Other than N2A: Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs), SPAs (in the Med), nationally protected areas, closed areas, other areas? Table C8 (phytoplankton) EEA phytoplankton indicator is about HAB! HELCOM COMBINE includes PrimProd UNEP/MAP: Tot. abund., HAB Problem: Microphytobenthic layer? (sedimentation of live phytoplankton) National monitoring programmes ► dead end?

Summary of discussions (2) Tab C8 (chlorophyll-a …) Chl-a ≠ phytoplankton! (Suite of indicators is needed) WFD is missing in the table HELCOM: PrimProd (C14) Problem: Sub-surface maximum! Problem: Microphytobenthic layer? (biomass/PrimProd) Tab C8 (zooplankton) Not included in WFD BSC, HELCOM COMBINE CPR: Includes ZP OSPAR JAMP: No mandatory ZP activities UNEP/MAP: No mandatory ZP activities National activities mentioned (e.g. Croatia, Italy, Spain, Norway?)

Summary of discussions (3) Table C9 (Invertebrate benthic fauna) Problem: We need to distinguish between hard bottom and soft bottom IBF (incl. meiofauna)! Currently, methods exist for SB IBF monitoring OSPAR COMPP/JAMP: IBF should appear in both activities (currently only in COMPP) Whatever IBF indicators taken on board, please see to that there is a clear link to pressures! Biomass (and production/growth): gaps in table! (biomass is done by HELCOM and some MS (e.g. Italy) Annual/seasonal sampling: very expensive! (relevance?) UNEP/MAP: In general, no mandatory IBF activities but some are being considered Submerged aquatic vegetation needs a similar table!

Summary of discussions (4) We did not pay attention to Tables C10 (fish), C11 (mammals), C12 (birds) and C13 (reptiles) Table C14 (“xenobiotic organisms”) Lingo! (aliens, indigenous, invasive, exotic, introduced etc.) BSC: New invaders – ongoing activity HELCOM: Ongoing activities (and database) (by CORPI) If monitoring of biological quality elements (PP, ZP, SAV, IBF, fish, birds, mammals) are designed appropriately, information on “xenobiotic organisms” will be a spin-off or a by-product XO are an important subject for assessments!

Summary of discussions (5) Table D1 (eutrophication) Coordination with the pan-European Eutrophication Activity (draft guidance report) is needed in terms of structure Bullet point 5 ►primary (direct) effects sensu p-E EA A) Phytoplankton B) Submerged aquatic vegetation C) Microphytobenthic layer Bullet point 6 ►secondary (indirect) effects sensu p-E EA A) Zooplankton B) IBF C) Oxygen D) Fish (growth/kills) E) Others Linking eutrophication and fish might be difficult in terms of indicators

Summary of discussions (6) Table D1 (consequences) Primary production: Phytoplankton: Major gaps, only within HELCOM COMBINE (C14) Submerged aquatic vegetation: Macroalgae: Major gaps! Seagrasses: Methods exist, but not widely used Microphytobenthic layer: Nothing – but methods are under development (relevant for shallow waters, e.g. the Wadden Sea) Nutrient cycling: Major gaps! Table I1 (pressures and impacts) Repetition (~ causative factors cf. Tab. D1) We keep I1 (and move the part focusing on inputs in D1 to I1) Temporal trends? Outfalls = point sources! The parts on “nutrient enrichment” (= concentrations) should appear in D1

Summary of discussions (7) Table I2 (organic matter) HELCOM PLC: OK OSPAR RID: OK UNEP/MAP: Proposed activities BSC: ? EEA aquaculture production indicator – an indirect proxy I3, I4 and I5 were not discussed

General conclusions (1) We have done (1) a preliminary gap identification and filling the gaps mostly with data sets and (2) a verification of indicators and data sets on table. We have not looked at all the components of the quality elements Geographical gaps (in convention areas) are in generally being closed, but not all quality elements are not monitored/assessed on a pan-European level Tables have to be reviewed in order to fill gaps with info provided at the workshop Tables have to be commented by WS participants before consideration by EMMA It is unclear if we have enough information and can get into “detailed comparison”

General conclusions (2) MSD annex II mixes characteristics and pressures and impacts – this need to be sorted out in the process of the adoption of the directive MSD mixes catchment activities (inputs, ND, UWWTD), coastal issues (≈ WFD) and truly marine issues (= MSD) Catchment activities and coastal issues should should be taken care of via revelant process (ND, UWWTD, WFD) but the result should never be decoupled from marine risk assessments and state of the marine environment assessments activities (= ecosystem approach to management of human activities) We foresee a close dialogue with the regional conventions – these institutions are already coordinating “input issues”, “coastal issues” and truly “marine issues”

A Danish cartoon