1. 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)

2. 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?)

3. 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….

4. 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)

5. 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 ???? UPDATE ON SCALES B A

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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

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