JRC thematic workshops on: Descriptors 5,8,9 Descriptors 1, 2, 4 & 6 SELECTED DRAFT OUTCOMES

Partcipants - presentations Aims of the workshops to establish common understanding of the monitoring requirements needed to assess whether GES has/is being met to identify open questions and missing components to plan the way forward for further implementation of the MSFD Partcipants - presentations COM (DG ENV & JRC) MSs and RSCs experts Stakeholders (EEA, ICES, industry, NGOs) Research projects

WORKSHOP ON CONTAMINANTS & EUTROPHICATION Ispra, 23.-24.10.2012 2 May 2019

Ensuring coherence MSFD - WFD for marine chemical monitoring Substance prioritization and EQS setting issues regarding the coherence of approaches between MSFD and WFD for chemical pollutants should be discussed under WFD WG E MS should consider WFD Priority Substances (12 nm) , WFD River Basin Specific Pollutants (1 nm) and Marine Specific Pollutants Within MSFD CIS a forum for discussion and planning of cost effective chemical monitoring in synergy with other MSFD Descriptors is needed

Monitoring Strategy for Open Sea Open and deep sea are currently much less covered by monitoring than coastal areas. Need to cover also these areas in a representative and efficient way. Discussion and planning in MSFD CIS Joint efforts by Member States/RSCs in multi annual cruises Derive harmonized strategies Acute pollution events (oil slicks) Need to review relevant activities and gaps in spatial and time coverage Discussion and harmonization within MSFD CIS needed

Descriptor 8 – 9 linkage Lack of geographical source info for seafood. Different methodologies/concentrations in use. Opportunities for synergies? Identify and create synergies on biota sampling/analysis between MSFD/WFD and seafood legislation approaches Reflect on creating synergies with seafood monitoring, where possible Monitoring of top predators as indicator species Establish information exchange channels between MSFD/WFD and food authorities

D5 Eutrophication Assessment questions MSFD - WFD For northern EU seas, some WFD elements are already taken into account. E.g. chl a and eelgrass depth limit (DK) in Baltic Sea. For NEA also most attention to phytoplankton, whereas other biological aspects still less well established. For southern EU seas, links with WFD procedure are less established At MSFD scales, transboundary issues may be intensified and need to be addressed

Descriptor 5 monitoring issues An extension of the WFD monitoring scheme is not useful and realistic, as the scales that have to be addressed are different Feasibility study has been made on the use of ferry boxes as cost efficient alternative Satellite imaginary: have to be validated with in situ data

Assessment scales and areas Important to work out typology at regional sea level to sort out assessment units Member States are free to consider specific assessment areas. Discussion needed at sub-regional level, and regional coherence needs to be ensured as well.

Data aggregation: Usefulness of aggregation for final assessment reporting is really put in question and guidance is needed when it would be necessary for keeping reporting effort within limits. Recommendation: bring this issue in the GES group and find appropriate arrangement for further development of this aggregation guidance.

WORKSHOP ON BIODIVERSITY DESCRIPTORS Brussels, 7.-8.11.2012 2 May 2019

Q1: How are the overlaps between MSFD and other EU and RSCs requirements going to be considered and coordinated? Different policies dealt by separated “communities” Existing coordination efforts in some MSs Interregional cooperation in pilot projects Transfer of knowledge from North to South Harmonisation of methods important for consistency, data quality assurance and sharing Sampling intensity may be different between directives but needs (and can use) the same sampling technique Different time lines between organisations, which may cause duplication of work between national work and RCS- need to align time lines between organisations

Q2: How could initial assessment, GES definition and targets setting inform the establishment of the monitoring? Identify data sources (e.g. for alien species) Identify gaps and the level of coordination needed Prioritize pressure layers and understanding where monitoring is actually taking place Identify aggregation issues between different spatial and temporal scales Consider the role of MPAs (e.g. in defining GES and setting targets) and their different types (no take, no entry versus reduced fishing)

Question 3: What are key gaps in biodiversity coverage and available methodologies? Rocky bottoms Off-shore areas Microbes Non commercial fish species Non indigenous species Where to prioritize monitoring: Where there is a general lack of knowledge Habitats with high pressure Where there is the possibility of combined efforts/programmes and Where mitigation measures have been applied

Q4: How are currently available marine biodiversity models and new technological and analytical approaches (including molecular ones) used by MSs and RSCs for their monitoring and assessment and what are the further needs and possibilities? Modeling already used/considered by half of participants. Lack in biological data and pelagic habitats Molecular techniques very useful, particularly for D2 – cost considerations Sound detectors for harbor porpoises are very expensive, and only with some amount of luck you can detect one, so molecular techniques can be the solution. Huge potential for public involvement (e.g. phone applications)

Q5: Are stakeholders’ data used in national biodiversity assessment Q5: Are stakeholders’ data used in national biodiversity assessment? Are there more possibilities? Data already in use in some MSs particularly NGOs for birds and recreational fisheries and oil industry Wind farming highlighted as a very collaborative industry Shipping industry to be considered for providing data at port level Issues of confidentiality (e.g. VMS data) and data quality were identified Monitoring manuals are needed (particularly with fishing industry)

Q6: What role does the mapping/modelling of activities and their pressures have in biodiversity monitoring and assessments? What is needed to fully implement these approaches? Fundamental to know the spatial scale that impacts have and to make predictions. there should be more consistency in how mapping/modelling is done and issues with data access need to be resolved