1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. Integrated assessments

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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
D2 NIS
2.1
2.2
D3 Commercial fish/shellfish
3.1
3.2, 3.3
D4 Food webs
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.

10. 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,
Birds
8.2
10.2 ?
2.2
Mammals
Reptiles
Fish
3.2, 3.3
Water
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).

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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%

15. Integration of descriptors/criteria

16. Integration of descriptors/criteria
State-based descriptors
D1 Biodiversity
D3 Commercial fish and shellfish (criteria )
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

17. 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)

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

19. 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

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)?

21. 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 and , 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?

22. Quality levels for state, impact and pressure

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

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?