Main summary agreed CCL Day 1-2 Benthic Habitats: Scales: Biogeographic Issue: To use subdivision of (sub)region based on biogeographic characteristics (e.g. Salinity gradient for Baltic, “Dinter” for OSPAR, …) Then risk-based approach: According to each pressure type, assess inside these subdivision, according to each relevant scale (e.g. waterbodies for WFD: not supposed to be further agregated for reporting at EU or Regional sea scale Assessment should be made for each pressure type. No integration/aggregation between pressure types at criteria level agreed actually (cumulative pressures). A minimal common Spatial resolution should be set depending on assessment/reporting area (EU, Regional Sea, national), but finer spatial resolution could be used if common at this scale (e.g. national area, MPA). Assessment scale to be set, depending on reporting scale (EU, RSC, National, MPA, …) but also spatial resolution AND data quality (confidence in extent AND groundtruthing (sampling effort: amount of data available to model AND to validate the model of habitat)

Main summary agreed CCL Day 1-2 Benthic Habitats: Habitats to be assessed: common assessment unit= habitat types (broad types AND representative sub-types) List of broad habitat type: select representative (cf. criteria report ofJRC D1 workshop, Ispra 09/15 and draft GES COM Dec V2015/02) subtypes (e. g. community level) where there are significant risks (exposed to pressure(s)) Assessment of each habitat type should be made according to a “risk-based approach (footnote: define risk-based approach)” on all the relevant pressure types (which may vary between each (sub)region). If no significant pressure on habitat type, no need to monitor and assume GES The best available evidence should be used, in coherence with common scale and spatial resolution required for reporting And then assess (both extent and condition) according to a risk based approach representative sub-type of habitats: 1/ to represent broad habitat type 2/ for themselves (including need to report on special habitats) For some issues (e.g. abrasion by bottom-trawling), the extent (but not condition) could be assessed at broad habitat type level. But, the method to define sensitivity need to be further discussed and agreed (OOAO on sensitivity of most sensitive sub-type? Average? Split broad habitat type on sub-types according to sensitivity ranges?)

Other points CCL Day 1-2 Benthic Habitats: CCL: Further discussion is needed to distinguish loss and damaged, probably based on sensitivity matrices used for assessment methods per habitat and pressure types (used both in HELCOM and OSPAR assessment approaches): some clue in minutes of the discussion in this workshop. CCL: Agreement on need to have assessment against each main relevant pressure type to report on state of benthic habitat (similar approaches in HELCOM and OSPAR). No need to have an assessment against each type of pressure: to be prioritized, depending on occurrence and scale of the problem. But further discussion needed (no agreement) on relevance and need to report state against ALL pressures (cumulative?) for D1C5 (+definition/limit of “lost”) and D1C6… Report of previous GES COM DEC to be added in references, and relevant text/schematics to be added in text of guidance Art.8 on benthic habitats: Review D6: ICES, Copenhaggen February 2015 Review D1: JRC, Ispra September 2015 Idem for recent and ongoing output of Regional Seas and Research programmes works….

Broad habitat types – equated to EUNIS 2015/16 17/01/2019   Hard Hard/soft Soft Other Level 2 Rock* Biogenic habitat (flora/ fauna) Coarse Mixed Sand Mud e.g. non-oxygen-based habitats Photic Littoral Infralittoral Circalittoral Aphotic Bathyal Abyssal The proposed set of seabed (benthic habitats) are directly linked to the EUNIS level 2 classification (2015 proposal, due to be adopted 2016 version) Some EUNIS level 2 classes are aggregated to reduce the overall number of classes to be assessed for MSFD purposes (red boxes) – most attention (finer resolution of habitat types) is focused on the subtidal shelf (0-200m) where most human activities and thus pressures on seabed habitats occur Proposed Broad Habitat Types *Includes soft rock, marls, clays, artificial hard substrata Cf. JRC report of D1 review workshop 2015/09, Ispra Cf. Draft GES COM DEC under review (V2015/02)

Biogeographic areas Illustration of a proposal for Greater North Sea 17/01/2019 Biogeographic areas Illustration of a proposal for Greater North Sea OSPAR area =cf. « Dinter ») D C E Suitable 'subdivisions' for the North Sea were proposed by ICG-COBAM (OSPAR) in 2010 - ???? UPDATE ON SCALES B A

Cf. JRC report of D1 review workshop 2015/09, Ispra

17/01/2019 Benthic broad habitat (e.g. circalittoral sand) AND/OR selected sub-habitat itself Benthic habitats D1D6 Both criteria to achieve threshold values Criterion D1C5 – habitat extent (proportion lost) Criterion D1C6 – habitat condition (proportion impacted) Threshold values for extent of loss and impact To be done when relevant for each pressure type: D5, D2, … Extent of physical loss – from D6C3 (loss) Extent of physical damage – from D6C2 (damage) Extent of other impacts (e.g. D5 - eutrophication, D8 - contaminants) This diagram shows the envisaged aggregation process, including use of assessments from other descriptors. Sub-habitats selected to be assessed (condition AND extent): cf Ispra criteria Sub-habitat 1 Sub-habitat 2 Benthic condition D1C6 Threshold values for condition of sub-type Extent/distribution D1C5 Benthic condition D1C6 Benthic condition D1C6

17/01/2019 Benthic broad habitat (e.g. circalittoral sand) AND/OR selected sub-habitat itself Benthic habitats D1D6 Both criteria to achieve threshold values Criterion D1C5 – habitat extent (proportion lost) Criterion D1C6 – habitat condition (proportion impacted) Threshold values for extent of loss and impact ? Further discussion and work required for relevance… Extent of physical loss – from D6C3 (loss) Extent of physical damage – from D6C2 (damage) Extent of other impacts (e.g. D5 - eutrophication, D8 - contaminants) This diagram shows the envisaged aggregation process, including use of assessments from other descriptors. Threshold values for condition Extent/distribution D1C5 Benthic condition D1C6

Main summary agreed CCL Day 1-2 Pelagic Habitats: Broad pelagic habitat type to be defined (actually too coarse in EUNIS), based on: 1/ (estuarine), coastal, shelf, oceanic (actual EUNIS), then 2/ split categories according to physico-chemical properties (salinity (main for Baltic?), 1% light penetration (main for Mediterranean Sea?), temperature, wave penetration, depth range, …) 3/ Vertical split where relevant? Could Ecohydrodynamic regions boundaries may be different of benthic biogeographic areas? Conceptually, according to parameters considered, it should be similar or nested… Some similarities could then be investigated in the way to assess specific representative pelagic communities against pressure types through an ecosystem-based AND a risk-based approach ecohydrodynamic region versus broad benthic habitat type): EUNIS update condition benthic ground-truthing versus stational plankton time series) Particular importance of trophic aspects (indicators) for pelagic habitat assessment Guidance to be further developed: Thanks Norbert! For being volunteer

Starting point for discussion (schematic from OSPAR BH2 Technical specification:)

Further workssss and discussionssss required for detailed guidance on integrated assessment of benthic and pelagic habitats… …but planned and work in progress! BalticBOOST EcApRHA ActionMED MysticSEAS

Thanks, Merci, Tak, Danke, Gracias, Efkharisto, … !