1. Integrating D1 indicators to ecosystem component level
Conclusions from WKD1Agg
Anna Rindorf, DTU Aqua

2. Workshop approach Species integration
The workshop brought together 24 experts from 12 countries, specialising in fish, seabird and mammal
3 approaches were considered:
Species integration
Criteria integration within ecosystem component
Integration of species within criteria

3. Why not just pick the ‘best’ one?
Species approach had the advantage of directly reflecting the Habitats directive
Criteria approach had the advantage of encompassing integrated indicators and allowing similar approaches in e.g. D4
Both approaches can use the same indicators, though the species approach then loses the direct link to the Habitats Directive

4. Methods for integration and worked examples
One out, all out (OOAO)
Proportional/probabilistic
Averages
Weighted averages
Examples
OSPAR- fish, birds, mammals
HELCOM- fish, birds, mammals
Black Sea- fish
Med - mammals

5. Integration within criteria
Species Group
GES Criteria
Indicators
Species

6. Integration within species
Species Group
Species
GES Criteria
Indicators

7. HELCOM

8. OSPAR

9. Mediterranean

10. HELCOM

11. Why not always use OOAO?
If there are many indicators, some will be outside GES due to e.g. sampling uncertainty or natural variability
If using a OOAO, we will alwyas get ‘out’ at ecosystem component level
Using other methods reduces the influence of e.g. sampling uncertainty and natural variation

12. When is OOAO the right thing?
Some indicators and levels are percieved as being of high importance
These can be included using OOAO
OOAO increases compatability with the Habitat Directive
When there are few species, proportion and probabilistic methods all converge to OOAO