MSFD Com Dec 2010/477/EU review Recommendations for D5; Outcomes of the D5 workshop 14th meeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) 5th-6th October 2015 Francesca Somma - JRC

D5 eutrophication STATE OF PLAY Since the 7th of April the final version of the review manual is available on CIRCABC Outstanding issues addressed at a workshop held on the 29-30 September 2015 Workshop report available soon

Workshop’s main achievements Recommendations on criteria and indicators for D5 Agreement on a common hierarchical approach for the eutrophication assessment Agreement on the use of WFD assessments for eutrophication Agreed approach for the GES boundaries definition Agreed approach for the definition of the eutrophication assessment and reporting scales Aggregation rules for eutrophication Agreed on the role of RSCs to coordinate D5 implementation with respect to the assessment, GES determination and boundaries setting

Hierarchical assessment for eutrophication D5: Eutrophication Aggregation rule for criteria Criterion 5.1 Criteria 5.2 Criteria 5.3 Aggregation rule if several indicators used Core indicators* GES boundary defined per criterion or indicator 5.1.1 (N, P) 5.2.1 5.3.2 DIN TN DIP TP Chl a oxygen profile Additional indicators** 5.1.2 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.3.1 5.3.3 Nutrient ratios Water clarity opportunistic macroalgae nuisance/toxic bloom events pelagic phyto. shift perennial seaweeds, seagrasses benthic invertebrates * Core indicators are EU-wide mandatory to assess D5; ** Additional indicators reflect regional specificities as prescribed by RSCs

5.2.5 Pelagic phytoplankton species shift criteria indicator as in Com. Dec. 2010) proposal as core indicator proposal additional indicator comments 5.1 Nutrient enrichment 5.1.1 nutrient concentration in the water column supporting indicator in WFD 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (Si, N, P) where appropriate 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (Si, N, P) 5.2 Direct effects 5.2.1 Chlorophyll concentration in the water column WFD Phytoplankton BQE 5.2.2 water transparency related to increase in suspended algae, where relevant 5.2.2 water transparency related to increase in suspended algae 5.2.3 Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae WFD Aquatic flora BQE 5.2.4 species shift in floristic composition such as….. 5.2.4 bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused by human activities WFD Phytoplankton (and Aquatic flora) BQE requiring focus and better knowledge on relationship with nutrient enrichment; more research is needed on the second 5.2.5 Pelagic phytoplankton species shift 5.3 Indirect effects 5.3.1 Abundance perennial seaweeds, seagrasses (..) adversely impacted by decrease in water transparency 5.3.2 Dissolved oxygen due to increased organic matter decomposition Supporting indicator in WFD 5.3.3 Changes in abundance or composition of benthic invertebrates due to increased organic matter decomposition WFD benthic fauna BQE 5.2.4 not clear enough, art 12 assessment included 3 different and not comparable assessment, so 1 eliminated (benthic to pelagic)) and the other 2 split explicitly

Justification for additional ‘regionally-agreed’ indicators benthic invertebrates (5.3.3) adding a zoobenthic indicator to D5 would: increase the coherence between WFD (ecological status indicators) and MSFD (D5 indicators) increase harmonization between the assessments of coastal and open sea areas increase robustness of the assessment at the level of 5.3 criterion facilitate assessment in the open waters providing: additional information to what is provided by the dissolved oxygen indicator information reflecting the sediment conditions nuisance/toxic bloom events (5.2.4) and pelagic phytoplankton shifts (5.2.5) Splitting former 5.2.4 as defined in the Com. Dec. 2010 to enables: better focus on specific biological features that may regionally be directly link to eutrophication. benthic invertebrates (5.3.3) -          adding a zoobenthic indicator to D5 would increase the coherence between WFD (ecological status indicators) and MSFD (D5 indicators) and thus increase harmonization between the assessments of coastal and open sea areas -          in the present proposal, there is only one indicator (oxygen) assigned into Criterion 5.3, which in practice would cause oxygen to potentially dominate the overall assessment, especially if OOAO is assigned between criteria -          developing an oxygen indicator in open waters has shown to be complicated, benthic invertebrates could support the assessment, and provide information on eutrophication in the open sea benthic habitat where macrophytes do not for natural reasons -          a macro-invertebrate indicator, when developed specifically to respond (indirectly) to increase in nutrient enrichment, will in some cases provide additional information to what is provided by the dissolved oxygen indicator, providing information on the impacts of occasional oxygen deficiency, or on whether the area has recovered from oxygen deficiency -          in soft bottom habitats (e.g. open Baltic Sea), dissolved oxygen provides information from the bottom water column, whereas benthic invertebrates also reflect the sediment conditions – in some cases the former might show good status, while the latter still proves that the area suffers from impacts of eutrophication nuisance/toxic bloom events (5.2.4) and pelagic phytoplankton shifts (5.2.5) Splitting the indicator 5.2.4 as defined in the Com. Dec. 2010 enables better focus of the indicator on specific biological features that may regionally be directly link to eutrophication. (Note that the relationships between those 2 indicators and nutrient enrichment require further investigation)

Assessment in coastal waters (WFD MSFD overlapping waters) Two different ways to consider WFD for the MSFD D5 assessments for the coastal water Direct reuse of WFD assessment for eutrophication in the context of MSFD Use of WFD data/indicators/good-moderate boundaries to complement the MSFD indicators, but different aggregation rules to assess criteria and Descriptor (i.e. re-assessment for MSFD) 1. Justification for using directly WFD assessment: Avoids assessing coastal waters twice Builds consistency, but only where WFD assessed status is clearly related to nutrient Responds to WFD CIS Guidance No 23 2. Justification for not using directly WFD assessment: WFD assessments may relate to other pressures than nutrients; MSFD D5 indicators better address pressures and eutrophication development (direct, indirect) The Ecological State assessment does not assess all relevant aspects of eutrophication (e.g. high nutrient concentration without direct or indirect effects) Important for the revised Com. Dec. text in case of re-assessment in the context of MSFD: requires alignment with WFD level of ambition. There are two different ways to consider WFD for the MSFD D5 assessments for the coastal water Direct reuse of WFD assessment for eutrophication in the context of MSFD Use of WFD data/indicators/good-moderate boundaries to complement the MSFD indicators, but different aggregation rules to assess criteria and Descriptor (i.e. re- assessment for MSFD) Justification for using directly WFD assessment: Avoids assessing coastal waters twice Builds consistency, but only where WFD assessed status is clearly related to nutrient Responds to WFD CIS Guidance No 23 Justification for not using directly WFD assessment: WFD assessments may relate to other pressures than nutrients; MSFD D5 indicators better address pressures and eutrophication development (direct, indirect) The Ecological State assessment does not assess all relevant aspects of eutrophication (e.g. high nutrient concentration without direct or indirect effects) [ Important for the revised Com. Dec. text in case of re-assessment in the context of MSFD: requires alignment with WFD level of ambition.]

GES Boundaries Two options for the MSs to set GES boundaries: define and extrapolate GES boundaries according to the good/moderate boundaries for the WFD biological quality elements and their physico-chemical parameters (2013 Decision) use of RSCs defined GES boundaries Justification for not applying 1st option: gradient in the impact of pressures (inputs) from coastal to open waters spatial (hydrographic) variability may affect GES boundary setting Important for the revised Com. Dec. text: Coordination under RSCs need to ensure consistent level of ambition between WFD and RSCs’ GES boundaries to achieve coherent and comparable assessments. Encourage MSs to define and extrapolate (along salinity gradients) GES boundaries according to the good/moderate boundaries for the WFD biological quality elements and their physico-chemical parameters via the intercalibration processes (2013 Decision) Use of RSCs defined GES boundaries Justification for not applying WFD quality standards for open waters (i.e. applying RSCs-defined boundaries) gradient in the impact of pressures (inputs) from coastal to open waters spatial (hydrographic) variability may affect GES boundary setting Important for the revised Com. Dec. text: RSC GES boundaries (where have been established) can directly be implemented to achieve coherent and comparable assessments under RSC coordination, as long as ensuring consistent level of ambition with WFD. * Note that OSPAR CPs use “Assessment thresholds” and not “boundaries”

Scales: Defined set of (nested) areas The generic approach (nested) of the cross-cutting document is suitable for D5 Hydrographical conditions can define homogenous assessment units Consideration of RSCs scales definition for eutrophication Small-scale assessment units are of particular importance in coastal waters to identify eutrophication hotspots and help to define measures 1 Define GES (sub)Region 2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment (sub)Region (EU) 3 Collect the data (monitoring) National (coastal - WFD, offshore - MSFD) 4 Process the data for use in indicator assessment National (WFD water body, MSFD) 5 Aggregate the data and assess indicator Sub(Regional) ('national' sub-basins) Region Sub-region Sub-division National part of sub-division Coastal part (WFD)

Aggregation rules for the impact: Common aggregations rules are fundamental for a coherent and comparable assessment Two levels of aggregation for D5 (i.e. within indicators and between criteria) Not necessarily follow the same aggregation rule Not an agreement for a common Pan-European approach Different aggregation rules for each level between RSCs Initial screening procedure (risk-based management approach) to identify non-problem areas Important aspect in the D5 assessment Other legislations should be considered to support the initial screening (e.g. Nitrate Directive, WFD). Screening process needs to be regularly repeated Aggregation rules for the impact: Common aggregations rules are fundamental for a coherent and comparable assessment of D5 The two levels of aggregation for D5 (i.e. within indicators and between criteria) shall not necessarily follow the same aggregation rule Presently, there are different aggregation rules for each level between RSCs. Aggregation between criteria may reflect the degree of precaution and ambition in the eutrophication assessment. Clarity is needed to ensure that eutrophication status is diagnosed with certainty to ensure appropriate actions may be taken.

way forward Further discussion on aggregation rules (in particular between criteria) research required for the development of methodological tools to better assess some of the proposed indicators Further discussion on links between D5 and other descriptors criteria, focusing on indicators assessing similar ecosystem processes (e.g. links between 5.3 and 6.2; AMBI) Helcom and Ospar do have those aggregation rules, but not alligned, at the second level, and having different ambition levels, not comparable.