MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review 18/02/2019 MSFD GES Decision review - cross-cutting issues – session 1 European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review 21-22 January 2015, Copenhagen

Workshop will contribute to: Further development of Common Understanding on implementation of MSFD Art. 8-9-10 Review of 2010 Decision on criteria and methodological standards for GES

18/02/2019 Criteria & methodological standards - ingredients for a status assessment Elements (for assessment) Criteria Reference points (baseline, GES threshold) Aggregation rules across criteria Assessment scale Time period (for assessment) Data needs (parameters) for 'indicators' Aggregation methods for data (spatial, temporal) Aggregation of assessments (across species, habitats, contaminants and descriptors) Focus for CC workshop on 1-5

18/02/2019 MSFD provision Role/contents Applied example Art. 3 (5) GES definition Goal GES by 2020: “the environmental status of marine waters where … ” Annex I GES descriptor Quality objective D1: “Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of …” Annex III GES elements Assessment elements Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, seabed habitats, water column habitats Art. 9(3) GES criteria and methodological standards EU-wide minimum specifications: Criteria: Assessment elements Assessment parameters Reference points (baseline and GES boundary values) Methodological standards: Assessment tools and procedures Assessment scale (generic) Example: Mammals List of mammal functional groups (e.g. seals, small cetaceans) Distribution, population size, health condition Reference condition and acceptable deviation values (cf FCS target levels of Habitats Directive) FCS aggregation procedures/methods Cetaceans at subregional scale; seals at subdivision scale (nested approach) Art. 9(1) Determination of GES Sub(regional) specification by MS: Further specify criteria and methodological standards (e.g. RSC region/subregion-specific assessment elements, common indicators and assessment tools) Additional characteristics for region/subregion Example: North-East Atlantic Harbour seal, grey seal OSPAR common indicators: M-1 Distribution of seals M-3 Abundance of seals M-5 Seal pup production c. OSPAR-defined subdivisions of subregions (nested approach) Art. 11(4) – Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment: e.g. EU-wide minimum specifications for spatial and temporal resolution of monitoring, monitoring methods (sampling, analysis, QA/QC), scaling, aggregation rules

Integration - assessment, descriptors/criteria, quality levels Session 1 Integration - assessment, descriptors/criteria, quality levels

Integrated assessments

Integration – why? State-based descriptors – D1, 3, 4 and 6 Dealing with (some of) same species and habitats They collectively represent marine ecosystems and overall GES Pressure-based descriptors - D2, 5, [7], 8, 9, 10 and 11 (also criteria 3.1, 6.1) Addressing impacts on ecosystem state from the pressure Need to assess impact for particular ecosystem elements (e.g. plankton, seabed, mammals) Cumulative impacts Need to take account of multiple impacts (from differing pressures) when assessing status of particular species/habitats/ecosystems

Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4) 18/02/2019 Assessment of specific pressures and their impacts on ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b) D8/9 Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a) D5 Birds (D1) Mammals (D1) Reptiles (D1) Fish (D1, D3.2/3) Seabed (D1, D6) Water column (D1) Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4) Other pressures D7 D2 D11 D6.1 D10 D3.1 8

Integration: 2010 Decision criteria 18/02/2019 Integration: 2010 Decision criteria P-I links Descriptor Pressure level in sea Impact of pressure State D1 Biodiversity 1.1-1.7 D2 NIS 2.1 2.2 D3 Commercial fish/shellfish 3.1 3.2, 3.3 D4 Food webs 4.1-4.3 D5 Eutrophication 5.1 5.2, 5.3 D6 Sea-floor integrity 6.1 6.2 D7 Hydrographical changes (7.1) 7.1, 7.2 D8 Contaminants 8.1 8.2 D9 Contaminants in seafood 9.1 D10 Litter 10.1 10.2 D11 Energy, incl. noise 11.1, 11.2 I-S links Throughout Descriptors and criteria, there are inter-linkages: Pressure – impact relationships to assess status of ecosystem elements in relation to a specific pressure Impact – state relationships – whereby status of a specific ecosystem element needs to assessed via the range of impacts upon it (from multiple pressures). Measurements of state (e.g. population size, community composition) in effect already reflect the multiple impacts upon them.

Integration: pressure-impact-state 18/02/2019 Integration: pressure-impact-state Physical damage Hydrol-ogical Energy, incl. UW noise Nutrients Contam-inants Litter Fishing/ by-catch NIS P S 6.1 7.1 11.1, 11.2 5.1 8.1, 9.1 10.1 3.1 2.1 Ecosystem 1.7, 4.1-4.3 Birds 1.1-1.3 8.2 10.2 ? 2.2 Mammals Reptiles Fish 3.2, 3.3 Water 1.4-1.6 5.2, 5.3 Seabed 6.2 7.2 3.2 2010 Decision criteria allocated to MAIN pressures (P), to main state elements (S) and to MAIN impacts between the two. Distinction at criterion level between pressure and state is not so clear as the ‘Descriptor groupings’ suggests (previous slide) – D6 is more pressure/impact, D7 is more an impact descriptor than a pressure descriptor (hydrological changes typically stem from physical infrastructures (i.e. a consequent impact) Assessments of impacts from pressures needs to be clearly related to state components (i.e. at similar resolution to state elements being assessed).

Status is affected by pressures! Ecosystems, and their component species and habitats, are subject to natural dynamics and forces – predator-prey relations, climatic changes We can’t and shouldn’t try to control/manage these effects in the marine environment -> let the ecosystem change according to these natural forces We can, however, manage/control anthropogenic pressures - > seek to reduce them where/when considered necessary (affecting GES of an ecosystem element) Conclude: Achieving GES is primarily about managing (reducing) anthropogenic pressures (via targets and measures) Assessing whether GES has been achieved should place strong emphasis on whether anthropogenic pressures are affecting the state of a species, habitat or ecosystem. This approach acts as a helpful guide in assessing status and in monitoring (focuses efforts towards most likely problems)

Assessment scenario – cumulative impacts Hydrological changes – minor effects Loss of range Habitat loss (coastal infrastructure) D7 Nutrient enrichment – minor effects Eutrophication D5 D2 Invasive species Occasional disturbances - minor effects Total area of a habitat in an assessment area D6 Moderate trawling - impacts Contaminants - minor effects Intense trawling Contamination - impact Habitat loss (infrastructure) Cumulative pressures - impact This slide aims to illustrate the multiple use of an area/habitat type, and the potential for varying degrees of impact from these uses. It should be possible to define GES quality (i.e. determine when a pressure is causing impact – calibrate through monitoring) and then to decide what proportion of the whole habitat in the area should be at this quality level (i.e. the light and dark green areas). This approach accommodates a certain level of activities, including ones which are quite destructive, because of the scale at which the assessment is made. Monitoring by industry – where possible industry should determine the scale/extent of impact it has, according to agreed standards, and provide the evidence to government to contribute to an overall assessment. D8 Greens – acceptable state Orange, red – unacceptable state Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD 12

Integrated assessments (1) State criterion Threshold Pressures Impact Assessment values Criterion assessment Overall Predominant habitat: shelf sand Habitat distribution (1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2) <[10]% loss in range cw reference condition   None: broadscale physical habitat not affected by physical pressures Habitat loss (6.1.1) 0% GES Below GES Habitat extent (1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 6.1.1) <[10]% loss in extent cw reference condition Physical Change of sea-floor substrate (infrastructure) 5% Habitat condition (1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4)) <[30]% damage cw reference condition (including any habitat loss) Disturbance/damage to sea-floor Habitat damage (6.1.2) 65% Below GES (75% impacted or lost) Biological Removal of species (targeted, non-targeted) Extraction of sea-floor and subsoil minerals (e.g. sand, gravel, rock, oil, gas) Hydrological Water movement changes (from infrastructure) Habitat structure changes, community changes (7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2) Chemicals and other pollutants Nutrient enrichment (N, P, organic matter) Oxygen depletion, community changes (5.2.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2) Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species Community alteration (2.2.1) Not assessed From indicator-based assessments (e.g. RSC common indicators) From a common set of pressures (Annex III) From (revised) Decision

Integrated assessments (2) State criterion Threshold Pressures Impact Assessment values Criterion assessment Overall Listed species: Seal Species distribution (1.1.2) <[10]% loss of range, or <[25]% loss of area occupied within range Energy Input of sound Exclusion from areas 15% GES (17% loss of area occupied) GES Biological Disturbance of species Exclusion from areas by ecotourism & other human activities 2% Population size (1.2, 1.2.1) <[50]% change cw reference level Removal of species (targeted, non-targeted) By-catch (3.1) 5% Injury/death to species Hunting Population condition (1.3, 1.3.1) Significant reduction in fecundity/ survival/ reproductive rates; significant change in age/size structure of population Chemicals and other pollutants Input of contaminants (synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, acute events Bioaccumulation (8.2, 8.2.1) Not assessed ??? Habitat for species; Species distribution (1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2) <[30]% loss/damage cw reference condition Physical Alteration of sea-floor/water body morphology Loss of haul-out sites 20%

Integration of descriptors/criteria

Integration of descriptors/criteria State-based descriptors D1 Biodiversity D3 Commercial fish and shellfish (criteria 3.2 + 3.3) D4 Food webs D6 Sea-floor integrity Pressure-based descriptors D2 Non-indigenous species D3 Commercial fish and shellfish (criterion 3.1 F) D5 Eutrophication D7 Hydrographical changes D8 Contaminants D9 Contaminants in seafood D10 Litter D11 Energy, including underwater noise

Integration of state-based descriptors 18/02/2019 Integration of state-based descriptors Simplify assessments Ensure consistency (D1-D3; D1-D6) Easier to communicate Ecosystem-based approach Common elements and criteria for assessment Species (D1, D3) Habitats (D1, D6) Ecosystems (D1.7, D4) Common methodology for assessments Single set of assessments to cover all 4 descriptors Birds (D1) Mammals (D1) Turtles (D1) Water column (D1 habitats) Seabed (D1 habitats, D6 sea-floor integrity) Fish (D1, D3) Ecosystem/food webs (D1.7, D4)

Integration – what in practice? Descriptor Elements –> common lists Criteria -> merge D1, D3 (species groups) Species, Functional groups 1.2 + 3.2.2 1.3 + 3.3 D1, D6 (seabed habitats) Habitats (predominant, special) 1.6 + 6.2 D1, D4 (ecosystem scale) Functional groups, Ecosystems 1.7, 4.1-3 D8, D9 (contaminants) Substances 8.1, 9.1

Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4) 18/02/2019 Assessment of specific pressures and their impacts on ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b) D8/9 Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a) D5 Birds (D1) Mammals (D1) Reptiles (D1) Fish (D1, D3.2/3) Seabed (D1, D6) Water column (D1) Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4) Other pressures D7 D2 D11 D6.1 D10 D3.1 20

Discussion: integrated assessments 18/02/2019 Discussion: integrated assessments To discuss: Should we integrate assessments of the state-based descriptors? For birds, mammals, fish, reptiles For water column and seabed habitats For ecosystem/food webs How should the pressure-based assessments contribute to this? Do assessments of impacts from pressures need to be compatible with requirements for state-based assessments (e.g. resolution of ecosystem elements and geographic areas/ scales of assessment)?

Discussion: integration of descriptors and criteria To discuss/conclude: At what level of detail should we streamline descriptors?: elements for assessment (e.g. common lists of species for D1/D3, functional groups for D1/D4, predominant habitat types for D1/D6, substances for D8/D9)? criteria (eliminate overlapping criteria, e.g. 1.7 and 4.1-4.3, or provide clarifications to avoid potential overlaps)? assessment methods – e.g. indicators and methodological standards between habitat condition (D1.6) and benthic state (D6.2); assessing population size under D1 and D3?

Quality levels for state, impact and pressure

GES – state/pressure relationship Reference points – reference condition plus acceptable deviation (= GES boundary) Natural state Extinct/ destroyed No pressure Intense pressure Good status Level of impact acceptable Level of pressure in sea and impact acceptable GES boundary GES boundary GES boundary (pressure = proxy GES boundary) Not good status Level of impact not acceptable Level of pressure in sea and impact not acceptable State-based descriptors D1, 3, 4, 6 Pressure-based descriptors D2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD GES quality - sensitive to different pressures ->scientific indicators State with negligible impact Unacceptable degree of change - impacted Destroyed/ irrecoverable Sub-GES Good Environmental Status Acceptable degree of change Types of pressure Reference condition – for habitat, community and area Few non-indigenous spp. in low density Many non-indigenous spp. in high density Non-indigenous spp. dominant Minor changes to spp. Dense green algae Community switched Minor spp. & physical changes Loss of sensitive spp.; opportunist spp. increasing Habitat and/or community destroyed D2 Non-indigenous spp. D5 Nutrient enrichment (Eutrophication) D6 Physical disturbance (sea-floor integrity) Quantitative threshold for GES Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD

Possible Relationship between Objectives Lower limit of quality to be achieved per Directive High Good Moderate Poor Bad Good Ecological Status WFD Favourable Sub FCS Unfavourable - inadequate Unfavourable -bad HD MSFD Unimpacted state Unacceptable degree of impact Destroyed/ irrecoverable Sub GEnS Sub GEcS Favourable Conservation Status Good Environmental Status Deviation from unimpacted state From: Cochran et al. (2010) Note: boundaries of status classes may not be equivalent 26

Discussion: GES quality levels 18/02/2019 Discussion: GES quality levels To discuss/conclude: What are key challenges in defining GES boundaries: Where EU standards exist Where there are no EU standards Where such quantitative boundaries cannot (yet) be defined for state/impact, what other approaches could be used: Use of a pressure proxy only? Normative definitions Trends as targets? Can the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’ concept be used as the basis for defining reference points for all descriptors?