1

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) – Developing an overall concept for reporting Working Group on Data, Information & Knowledge Exchange 11 May 2011 European Commission, Brussels David Connor DG Environment, Marine Environment Unit 2

What should MSFD reporting be like? An administrative burden? Time-consuming? Difficult, cumbersome, inflexible? Ill-suited to regional/national characteristics? Adds little value? A repeat of what has already been reported? Of little use to the Member State? Of limited use to others at regional, European and global scales

Or would you rather it be …… Something useful Easy to deliver Simple and quick to complete, flexible Adapted to regional and national characteristics Brings added value Avoids duplication of reporting Effectively linked to other reporting and data systems Good for spatial (GIS) data and presentation Helpful to Member States in their implementation Much used at regional, European and global scales

Important attributes? Track progress towards GES? Could it help Member States: Track progress towards GES? Follow implementation of the Marine Strategy Share information across regions/subregions Could it help show the public and politicians: That environmental policies are working? That action is being taken? That the environment is getter better? The overall state of the environment Be a source of useful information

A framework for reporting Linking elements of the reporting cycle Art 8 Initial Assessment Art 9 Determination of GES Art 10 Targets & indicators Art 11 Monitoring programmes Art 13 – Programmes of measures Follows DPSIR framework Six-year cycle and adaptive management But the detail is needed – WG DIKE to develop!!

Sand & gravel extraction Activity A Oil & gas Activity B Sand & gravel extraction Activity C Shipping Activity D Fishing Activity Pressure Z Habitat disturbance Pressure Pressure Y Contamination Pressure X Underwater noise Component A Cetaceans Component B Fish Component C Seabirds Component D Pelagic habitat Component E Seabed habitat State IMPACTS Links within Art 8 Economic & social analysis Art 8.1c Assessment of pressures Art 8.1b Table 2 Assessment of state Art 8.1a Table 1

Ecosystem goods and services Initial assessment and links to Articles 9, 10 and 13 Ecosystem goods and services D P I S R Activity Pressure Impact State GES/targets D1, 3, 4, 6 Cost of degradation GES & targets All descriptors? Links to other elements of marine strategies are important to consider, esp. Art 9 and 10 where targets may be state, impact or pressure-based. On the basis that most improvements in environmental state are achieved by reducing the pressure (rather than active intervention), the targets on impacts and pressures would lead to measures. Art. 9 & 10 Measures, Art. 13 GES/targets D2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Pressure criteria & indicators State criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 2 Physical Chemical/Pollution Biological Physical loss & damage Hydrological change Other physical: energy Other physical: litter Contam-inants Nutrients, organic enrichment Pathogens Non-indigenous spp. Extraction of species; by-catch Pressure State Pressure criteria & indicators 7.1 Spatial characteristics of permanent alterations 8.1 Conc. of contaminants 8.2 Acute pollution 9.1 Levels, no. of contaminants Annex III, Table 1 Physical & Chemical Physical seabed Hydrology Chemistry Species Functional groups Habitats Predominant, Special Particular areas Ecosystems Other Chemicals Features State criteria & indicators 1.1 Species distribution 1.2 Population size 1.3 Population condition The Initial Assessment is structured around Annex III, tables 1 and 2, providing a set of ecosystem components and pressures to be described/assessed. The COM Decision provides the criteria for the assessment of ecosystem components and pressures. These links are described in the COM Staff Working Document (links Annex I to Annex III via the criteria) – there are some components (e.g. physical features, other features) and pressures (e.g. pathogens) which have no criteria. In 2012, MS will report on the characteristics of GES, plus targets and further/more specific indicators. Targets can be on state, impacts or pressures – these can be associated to each component or pressure and to the relevant criterion. The same state-based targets may cover multiple species/functional groups/habitat types – e.g. a quantitative reflection of GES; however impact and pressure targets may be more specific per species, functional group or habitat type or a given area (region/subregion/or part). 1.4 Habitat distribution 1.5 Habitat extent 1.6 Habitat condition 6.2 Condition of benthos 1.7 Ecosystem structure 4.1 Productivity 4.2 Proportion of species at top of food web 4.3 Abundance of key species/groups

Pressure criteria & indicators State criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 2 Physical Chemical/Pollution Biological Physical loss & damage Hydrological change Other physical: energy Other physical: litter Contam-inants Nutrients, organic enrichment Pathogens Non-indigenous spp. Extraction of species; by-catch Pressure State Pressure criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 1 Physical & Chemical Physical seabed Hydrology Chemistry Species Functional groups Habitats Predominant, Special Particular areas Ecosystems Other Chemicals Features State criteria & indicators 5.2, 5.3 Effects of nutrient enrichment 10.2 Impacts of litter A pressure may affect multiple ecosystem components (e.g. nutrient enrichment affects phytoplankton and seabed communities). Several pressures may affect the same component (e.g. ingesting litter, oil contamination, invasive species and by-catch issues for a seabird). The COM Decision provides a number of ‘impact indicators’ which are mostly linked to a specific pressure. There may be additional indicators proposed by MS in 2012 to address other interactions between pressure and state (e.g. the OSPAR EcoQO on harbour porpoise by-catch). Assessment of an ecosystem component needs to encompass the sum of the impacts upon it (at a given scale, such as the subregion/subdivision, or for a given population) to determine its overall status (in relation to the criteria of GES and the state-based targets). In these cases, the state assessments can draw upon the assessments of impacts from the pressure descriptors (provided they are undertaken at a suitable resolution). 2.2 Impact of invasive species

Pressure criteria & indicators State criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 2 Physical Chemical/Pollution Biological Physical loss & damage Hydrological change Other physical: energy Other physical: litter Contam-inants Nutrients, organic enrichment Pathogens Non-indigenous spp. Extraction of species; by-catch Pressure State Pressure criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 1 Physical & Chemical Physical seabed Hydrology Chemistry Species Functional groups Habitats Predominant, Special Particular areas Ecosystems Other Chemicals Features State criteria & indicators Impact criteria & indicators From the first two slides, the full linkage between Annex III and Annex I via the COM Decision criteria and indicators can be illustrated. The Decision provides for a selection of impact criteria and indicators, but others may be proposed by MS where needed. Several impact indicators may need to be applied to different ecosystem components and therefore need adaptation/further specification to become fully operational.

Pressure criteria & indicators State criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 2 Physical Chemical/Pollution Biological Physical loss & damage Hydrological change Other physical: energy Other physical: litter Contam-inants Nutrients, organic enrichment Pathogens Non-indigenous spp. Extraction of species; by-catch Pressure State Pressure criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 1 Physical & Chemical Physical seabed Hydrology Chemistry Species Functional groups Habitats Predominant, Special Particular areas Ecosystems Other Chemicals Features State criteria & indicators Assessment + 2.2 Impact of invasive species 10.2 Impacts of litter NEW e.g. by-catch EcoQO A pressure may affect multiple ecosystem components (e.g. nutrient enrichment affects phytoplankton and seabed communities). Several pressures may affect the same component (e.g. ingesting litter, oil contamination, invasive species and by-catch issues for a seabird). The COM Decision provides a number of ‘impact indicators’ which are mostly linked to a specific pressure. There may be additional indicators proposed by MS in 2012 to address other interactions between pressure and state (e.g. the OSPAR EcoQO on harbour porpoise by-catch). Assessment of an ecosystem component needs to encompass the sum of the impacts upon it (at a given scale, such as the subregion/subdivision, or for a given population) to determine its overall status (in relation to the criteria of GES and the state-based targets). In these cases, the state assessments can draw upon the assessments of impacts from the pressure descriptors (provided they are undertaken at a suitable resolution).

GES & targets (pressures) Measures GES & targets (pressures) Annex III, Table 2 Physical Chemical/Pollution Biological Physical loss & damage Hydrological change Other physical: energy Other physical: litter Contam-inants Nutrients, organic enrichment Pathogens Non-indigenous spp. Extraction of species; by-catch Pressure State Pressure criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 1 Physical & Chemical Physical seabed Hydrology Chemistry Species Functional groups Habitats Predominant, Special Particular areas Ecosystems Other Chemicals Features State criteria & indicators IA GES & targets (state/impact) The relationship between Art 8, 9 and 10 can be seen in the framework, and ultimately Art 11 (monitoring) and Art 13 (measures). Several pressures may affect the same component (e.g. ingesting litter, oil contamination, invasive species and by-catch issues for a seabird). The COM Decision provides a number of ‘impact indicators’ which are mostly linked to a specific pressure. There may be additional indicators proposed by MS in 2012 to address other interactions between pressure and state (e.g. the OSPAR EcoQO on harbour porpoise by-catch). Assessment of an ecosystem component needs to encompass the sum of the impacts upon it (at a given scale, such as the subregion/subdivision, or for a given population) to determine its overall status (in relation to the criteria of GES and the state-based targets). In these cases, the state assessments can draw upon the assessments of impacts from the pressure descriptors (provided they are undertaken at a suitable resolution).

Pressure criteria & indicators State criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 2 Physical Chemical/Pollution Biological Physical loss & damage Hydrological change Other physical: energy Other physical: litter Contam-inants Nutrients, organic enrichment Pathogens Non-indigenous spp. Extraction of species; by-catch Pressure State Pressure criteria & indicators Annex III, Table 1 Physical & Chemical Physical seabed Hydrology Chemistry Species Functional groups Habitats Predominant, Special Particular areas Ecosystems Other Chemicals Features State criteria & indicators Report on pressure, including impacts Report on state of component, including impacts Each report (component/pressure) could incorporate: Description of component/pressure (from IA) What is GES The targets & indicators (by criterion) Current state (from IA) Baseline (reference point) used For 2012 – basic level information, text from IA For 2018 – more detailed information, less reliance on text Impact criteria & indicators It is proposed to base the overall structure of reporting for the MSFD on the structures provided by the Directive and Decision and illustrated in the matrix: To have ‘reporting sheets’ centred around: the components in Table 1: i.e. for physical, hydrological and chemical characteristics, and for species, functional groups, habitats and ecosystems. Each can incorporate relevant impacts. Chemicals can be dealt with as a pressure. Scope of ‘Particular areas’ and ‘Other features’ needs to be discussed. The pressures in Table 2: i.e. physical loss/damage, hydrological change, introduction of energy, litter, contaminants (?separate for oil spills), nutrient enrichment, pathogens, NIS, extraction of species. Other?? Each can incorporate relevant impacts. The detail of each reporting sheet needs to be developed with MS, to agree what should be incorporated in 2012 and what should be developed later (for subsequent reporting). The overall goal would be to move from a text-heavy process for the 2012 IA to a more categorized type of reporting for 2018. This should be easier for MS to compile and generate more comparable information on the assessments, facilitating interpretation at regional and European scales (e.g. for dissemination via webGIS systems such as WISE viewer and BISE (Habitats Directive). In broad terms, the reporting sheets need to encompass: Characterisation of the component/pressure – spatial and temporal variation, etc What is considered to be GES for this aspect What are the targets and associated indicators (linked to the relevant criteria) What is the current state/situation (from the IA), taking account of the impacts What baseline/reference point has been used. What is the spatial scale of the assessment. Discussion via DIKE needed on what level of detail should be used for 2012 (e.g. all text/some categorised information etc) – acknowledging also that there will be information gaps for some MS and topics – expect a part picture for 2012. To be discussed: potential overlap for reporting on impacts in relation to a component and a pressure – may depend on the issue and assessment scales, etc.

Links Annex I to Annex III Annex 1 Descriptor Annex III Table 1 Annex III Table 2 D1 Biodiversity Species, functional groups, habitat types, ecosystems D2 Non-indigenous species Non-indigenous species D3 Commercial fish and shellfish Species [Extraction of species] D4 Food-webs Ecosystems

Links Annex I to Annex III Annex 1 Descriptor Annex III Table 1 Annex III Table 2 D5 Eutrophication [impacts on pelagic and seabed habitats] Nutrient enrichment & its impacts D6 Sea-floor integrity Habitats [Physical damage] D7 Hydrographical changes [impacts on species, habitats] Hydrological processes D8 Contaminants Contamination by hazardous substances

Links Annex I to Annex III Annex 1 Descriptor Annex III Table 1 Annex III Table 2 D9 Contaminants in seafood [impacts on seafood species] Contamination by hazardous substances D10 Litter [impacts on species, habitats] Physical disturbance: Marine litter D11 Introduction of energy, inc. noise Physical disturbance: underwater noise

Allows linking of Articles 8, 9 and 10 Concluding remarks A framework or overall architecture is proposed Allows linking of Articles 8, 9 and 10 Can incorporate Art 11 and 13 in future Facilitates adaptive management and cyclical reporting The detail needs to be developed by DIKE Short-term goals (2012) Longer-term Gradual process, 2012 is a start

Thank you for your attention !