Marine Strategy Framework Directive Descriptor 3 Case studies Report at http://www.ices.dk/reports/ACOM/2012/WKMSFD-D3/MSFD%20D3%20Report.pdf

Approach taken: Theoretical concepts, criteria, methodologies for: Selection of commercial species Stocks with analytical assessments Species/stocks with info from monitoring programmes Case Studies: Bay of Biscay/Iberia Baltic Sea North Sea Celtic Seas Mediterranean Synthesis: Different interpretations of GES Assessment of current status against GES

Baltic Sea Finland

Baltic Sea ICES (sub-)divisions HELCOM sub-basins

Need for collaboration: Stocks outside international cooperation but distributed across two or more national fishing zones

Selection of commercial fish dependent on period chosen

Mediterranean Sea Italy

Match GFCM - MSFD Match GFCM – MSFD areas in Italian waters Western Mediterranean: GSA 9 (Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Sea), GSA 10 (South Tyrrhenian Sea), GSA 11 (Sardinia); Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean: GSA 16 (South of Sicily), GSA 19 (Western Ionian Sea); Adriatic Sea: GSA 17 (Northern Adriatic), GSA 18 (Southern Adriatic Sea). Match GFCM – MSFD areas in Italian waters

Species selection: Central Mediterranean

Status assessed stocks in Italian waters

% species covered per MSFD sub-region

% landings covered per MSFD sub-region

Bay of Biscay Spain

Spanish MSFD subdivisions

Spanish North-Atlantic subdivision Match to ICES divisions: Entire ICES Division VIIIc part of ICES Divisions VIIIb, VIIId, VIIIe, IXa and IXb.  

Species selection criteria Landings ≥ 1%. Regularly assessed by ICES: these species are, or have been, commercially important, either because of high catch levels or due to their socio-economic value. “New ICES species”: species for which ICES gave advice for the first time in 2011 and for which there is a higher chance that assessments may be developed in the not too distant future. WFD: species that were selected for this area under the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). This introduces coherence with related European legislation.

Assessment of GES at the stock level

Status assessment relative to GES

North Sea Netherlands

Species selection: effect threshold

Data Quality: Species with analytical assessments

Assessment current status against GES Criteria 3.1 (F and HR) and 3.2 (SSB and CPUE) Example: North Sea

Quality assurance

Celtic Sea Ireland

Celtic Sea and West of Scotland ICES ecoregion MSFD Celtic Seas subregion

Data quality % Species % Landings A: Full analytical assessment TR: Analytical assessments but qualitative evaluation only T: Analytical assessment providing F and SSB without reference levels S: Assessments based on abundance or biomass trends from monitoring programs N: Stocks/species that are not assessed or with no information % Species % Landings

GES assessment

Time series of F and SSB averaged per functional group in relation to MSY reference levels

Summary/Conclusions Considerable differences between case studies in terms of data quality (specifically in terms of availability of analytical stock assessments) Quality of the analytical assessments varied considerably within as well as between case studies Several methods were developed/applied for non-assessed stocks. These were not evaluated but generally were less strict than for stocks with reference levels In case of one out - all out aggregation rule, i.e. assessment by worst case, none of the case studies currently achieved GES. Independent of GES interpretation.