DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry 05.12.2018 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive Summary of Descriptor 3+ workshop Brussels, April 9-10th, 2013 European Commission DG Environment, D2 Marine and Water Industry Unit

D3+ workshop 9-10 April, 2013 ToR State of play Follow-up of previous meeting ICES developments Further developments on D3 Other associated Descriptors (D1, D4, D6) Links to EU Biodiversity Strategy

Preliminary analysis of Descriptor 3 Criteria &indicators as defined in COM decision Some MS have not determined the Descriptor but have gone directly to the criteria and indicators. Some countries have specified the COM indicators in the Targets (art. 10) we did not look at the targets from all countries but this is also the wrong procedure.

Use of COM decision per Marine region Black sea is missing because only Romania was available. At first sight it seems that the (4) MED countries have used the criteria and indicators for 3.1 and 3.2 most often. However any real judgment on the adequacy of the GES determinations will have to wait until we have the results from the art. 12 assessment.

Percentage of MS which have set F and SSB at MSY levels for all stocks Belgium states that for stocks where Fmsy is not know the GES will be set at Fpa. Which is incorrect. This explains why in this graph less than 50% France is excluded because it states that Fmsy is only for assessed stocks “- Criterion 3.1: The good ecological status is achieved when the following conditions are cumulatively met: - All assessed stocks must have a fishing mortality less than or equal to the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield with a probability of 50%. In the absence of estimating the probability of achieving the target, and when an interval around the target value is set, the value of the estimated fishing mortality for stock must be within this range. The value of F must be less than or equal to FPA which determines the safety area of the biological stock; All other stocks have a relationship between catch and biomass index showing a stable or decreasing trend;” With the following GES I am not sure whether I can state that all stocks are at MSY because both Cyprus and Italy report the following: • no stock is exploited beyond safe biological limits; if Fmsy (or its proxy, which F0.1) is unknown, the ratio between the capture / biomass index will be evaluated; This does not explicitly state that stocks will be at MSY. Therefore this has been put in the grey section SSB changes similar to those for Fmsy Cyprus “The spawning stock biomass (SSB) is at a level capable of providing MSY or higher; If SSB is not known and will be assessed the biomass index from trawl survey;” Germany “For stocks, for which an analytical stock assessment to determine SSB is missing, a biomass indicator is proposed as a secondary indicator. The missing reference values for the biomass index are currently being developed.” What my problem here is that for biomass indices the commission decision states “it can be used if such indices can be obtained for the fraction of the population that is sexually mature. In such cases such indices need to be used when scientific judgement is able to determine through detailed analysis of the historical trends of the indicators combined with other information on the historical performance of the fishery that there is a high probability that the stock will be able to replenish it self under the prevailing exploitation conditions. To me this sounds like PA and not MSY.

D3+ Workshop April 9-10th 2013 During the workshop a range of scientific presentations were given : ICES developments (Han Lindeboom) Latest developments on Descriptor 3 (WKLIFE II, C.O’Brien) D3. Population age and size distribution indicative of a healthy stock (WGECO, G. Piet) Maintaining Biodiversity (D1): choosing what you need from an overly-diverse indicator menu (WGBIO, S. Greenstreet) Developing the Food Web descriptor (D4) – From principles to practice (WGECO & WGSAM, S. Rogers)

D3+ Workshop Technical presentations (suite) Providing the solution to D4 food webs; (WGECO & WGSAM, S. Rogers) D6 Sea Floor Integrity and Fisheries under MSFD – ICES achievements in analysing fisheries data (WGSFD, H. Fock) D6 Sea Floor Integrity – Habitat mapping (WGMHM, P. Buhl-Mortensen) Links to EU Biodiversity Strategy (Target 4) – Risk-based approach (WKLIFE II, C. O’Brien) Integrated assessment and ecosystem overviews (WKCOVER, L. Dransfeld)

Workshop Conclusions Overall Develop recommendations for assessment of D3 (building on work of ICES) , including, where appropriate, the application of the precautionary principle– to be presented to MSCG in 2014 Prepare for the possibility that ICES advices the Commission directly or on behalf of the MS on the current state of GES D3 in the marine (sub-)regions NEA and Baltic. Contribution of ICES to WG GES on discussion / assessment of other descriptors Discuss these elements at the next D3+ workshop in 2014 before they are presented to WG GES and MSCG COM intends to incorporate these developments into the 2014 work programme document

Detailed D1. Aim for a common set of biodiversity indicators across all Regional Seas Conventions Review COM Decision indicators that have undeveloped reference points, or where RPs are difficult to find. D3 Commercial species. In the event that primary indicators F and Biomass cannot be determined, we need guidance on definition of ‘health’ to support fish size targets & thresholds. D4 Food Web. Apply existing protocol of LFI across regional seas including Biscay, Black Sea and Med, (and the Baltic Sea if survey data available) (N Sea and Celtic well developed). D6 Sea floor integrity. State indicators are still undeveloped. So need to calculate pressure indicators by habitat, using specific VMS indicators incorporating methodological issues (scale/interpolation/uncertainty/habitat recovery).

Detailed (suite) Need to prepare standardised operational methods that allow regional coordination when indicators are prepared by MS and or RSC (e.g. by ICES or similar body) Look for opportunities to integrate indicator development across descriptors. Aim for an optimised set of indicators, especially across D1, D3, D4 and D6, that allow indicators to contribute to multiple descriptors. A risk based approach to the integration of D3+D1, D4 and D6 should be explored. E.g. SICA (Scale Intensity and Consequence Analysis) provides a prioritisation system Risk Definitions (low, moderate, high), need to be agreed based on date availability.

DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry 05.12.2018 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine Thank you for your attention!