MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review

MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review
23/02/2019 MSFD GES Decision review - cross-cutting issues 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

Notes on presentation THE SLIDES INCLUDED HERE WILL FORM THE BASIS FOR PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION AT THE WORKSHOP This presentation will be split into three for the discussion sessions (each with some background material and the proposed discussion topics) THE FINAL PRESENTATIONS/DISCUSSION TOPICS WILL BE REFINED TO A PRIORITY SET OF TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION (too much material here)

GES Decision review – main aims
Simpler Clearer Introducing minimum standards (to be enhanced by regions and MS, if necessary) Self-explanatory Coherent with other EU legislation Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU methods do not exist) Include a clear and minimum list of elements and/or parameters per descriptor

GES Decision review – progress
JRC and ICES leading technical reviews of Decision per Descriptor – started in spring 2014, supported by expert networks and/or expert workshops Draft 'templates' presented to WG GES (October 2014) – review of current use of Decision, initial proposals for revision of Decision and criteria (variable level of maturity) MS comments on draft templates to end November 2014 JRC and ICES starting to consider comments and identify outstanding issues Identification of cross-cutting issues

Cross-cutting issues Integration of descriptors, especially biodiversity Alignment with EU and RSC standards Aggregation of assessments (within/across descriptors) Scales for assessment Others?????????? These issues provide main topics for workshop Discuss in three sessions by 2 or 3 subgroups Each subgroup to discuss same issues Aim to draw (broad) conclusions to give direction to next phase of technical review Discussion may identify further issues needing more detailed work Workshop is NOT about making decisions, but opportunity to discuss and give direction, based on current state of Decision technical review and practical experience of implementation to date

Integration of descriptors

Integration – why? State-based descriptors – D1, 3, 4, 6
Dealing with (some of) same species and habitats They collectively represent marine ecosystems and overall GES Pressure-based descriptors - D2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 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 species/habitat/ecosystem

Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4)
23/02/2019 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 Physical loss D11 Physical damage D10 D3.1 8

Integration: 2010 Decision criteria
23/02/2019 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.

Integration: pressure-impact-state
23/02/2019 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).

23/02/2019 Integration – how? Via criteria and methods for assessment (>Decision)? Through approach to assessments (>Common understanding)? At what level of detail (Descriptors, elements for assessment, criteria, assessment methods)?

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

Integration of state-based descriptors
23/02/2019 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) Single set of assessments to cover all 4 descriptors Common methodology for assessments 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)

Integration – descriptors 8 and 9
23/02/2019 Integration – descriptors 8 and 9 Common pressure (contaminants) Links source of contamination in seafood (D9) with its assessment at sea under D8 Easier to communicate (present any differences within a common framework) Contaminants in biota (D8) and in seafood (D9) are/could be same, also same 'matrix' Synergies of sampling programmes and assessment methods? Purpose of D9 (added value compared with food safety standards)? – links to contaminants at sea (D8) and measures to improve quality D9 JRC review raises many questions about purpose/scope of D9 and its implementation – it seems much is in place through existing food safety standards (but not perfect) and a key issue is what added value does MSFD bring. Here the benefits could be in linking the contamination back to particular marine areas and hence to D8 (and thus to measures to reduce the contamination). There seems to be possibilities to improve synergies between D8 and D9, but current practices may need adjustment to achieve this fully.

Integration – what? 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 To discuss/conclude: Should we, in principle, aim to harmonise GES and streamline the assessments for these descriptors (e.g. based on common elements, criteria, etc)? Are there specific issues for the individual Descriptors to be recognised/addressed?

Criteria and methodological standards

23/02/2019 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

23/02/2019 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

Elements for assessment

Elements for assessment
23/02/2019 Elements for assessment Principles: Need for common EU lists to ensure consistency in determination of GES and its assessment Need to reflect regional specificity (especially biogeographic variation across regions) EU agreed lists International Convention agreed lists RSC 'common lists' (for indicators) Additional national elements, as specified by MS Possibility to de-select, based on agreed guidelines e.g. element not present in MS waters, minimal risk from element to ecosystem

Elements for assessment – draft lists
23/02/2019 Elements for assessment – draft lists D1, 3, 4, 6 - biodiversity EU - Habitats and Birds Directive lists International Convention lists RSCs – OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona, Bucharest Conventions Others – e.g. ASCOBANS, ACCOBAMS, which others? Commercial fish (CFP) – ICES selection methodology Functional species groups & predominant habitat types Regional - RSC 'common indicator' species and habitats - representative of biodiversity and pressures D2 – Non-indigenous species EU - IAS Regulation list (to be developed) Regional - additional species per region?? D5 – eutrophication EU - N, P, Chl a, water clarity, O2 levels Plankton, macrophytes, macrobenthos? Biodiversity – need additional focus on assessing range of functional groups and predominant habitat types

Elements for assessment – draft lists
D7 – hydrographical changes EU – WFD? D8 – contaminants EU - WFD/Priority substances Regional - Additional RSC substances? D9 – contaminants in seafood EU – Food standards Reg. 1881/2006 D10 – litter EU - top 10 categories? Regional – additional RSC categories? D11 – energy, incl. underwater noise ??

Discussion – elements for assessment
To discuss/conclude: Should we aim to define 'minimum lists of elements for assessment' for each Descriptor in Annex III and/or Decision (perhaps expressed generically), based on these principles? For specific Descriptors, can we define which lists to include (especially biodiversity)? For biodiversity, lists focus on threatened, often rare, types. Is there a need to also represent the ecosystem via functional groups and predominant habitats? Do we need a de-selection option? Based on what principles?

Elements for assessment - Biodiversity

Biodiversity elements
23/02/2019 Biodiversity elements Issue: specific lists versus biodiversity coverage – balance and relationship High level: covers all Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, cephalopods Seabed habitats, water column habitats Intermediate level: covers all Functional groups (CSWD 2011) Predominant (broad) habitat types (CSWD 2011) Fine level: selected types (representative/listed) Individual species Individual habitats (e.g. listed types) How to address biodiversity in an adequate way: from single species to whole ecosystem? Use of listed species and habitats provides: limited coverage, often very rare types, not representative of wider environment Use of broad categories (from Annex III Table 1) is too broad and can cover too many pressures ->misleading/difficult to assess. CSWD (2011) introduced specific functional groups and predominant habitat types – to provide full coverage, but in a more ecologically-relevant manner. Their use and the types defined warrant review, as does their relationship to finer types (e.g. listed species and habitats).

Biodiversity – top-down meets bottom up?
High level - Components Intermediate level - Functional elements Fine level - species and habitats Birds Inshore Offshore Etc Gannet Cormorant etc Mammals Cetaceans Harbour porpoise Bottlenose dolphin Seals Grey seal Harbour seal Reptiles Turtles Loggerhead turtle Green turtle Fish Coastal Pelagic Demersal Water column habitats Seabed habitats Littoral (intertidal) Infralittoral (shallow) Circalittoral (shelf) Deep sea Mussel bed Seagrass bed Posidonia bed Provides coverage of main ecosystem components Data ->indicator/criteria assessments per species/habitat Aggregation rules to functional level e.g. % of species at GES

Elements: biodiversity
Eco-system Comp-onents Functional elements EU Baltic NE Atlantic Mediterr-anean Black Sub-region (or sub-division) – structure and function (food webs) Birds Inshore Offshore Etc Birds Directive HELCOM Red List Core indicators OSPAR List Common indicators Barcelona Con. EcAp list BSC list?? Mammals Cetaceans Seals Habitats Directive Reptiles Turtles Fish Diadromous Coastal Pelagic Demersal Elasmobranchs Deep sea CFP (DCF) Water column (pelagic habitats) Shelf Oceanic Seabed (benthic habitats) Barcelona Con.??

Elements and ecosystems
23/02/2019 Elements and ecosystems 'ecosystems' for D1.7/D4 Water column Estuarine (WFD TWs) Coastal Shelf Oceanic Birds Intertidal benthic-feeding Subtidal benthic-feeding Inshore pelagic-feeding Inshore surface-feeding Offshore surface-feeding Offshore pelagic-feeding Mammals - seals Seals Reptiles Turtles Mammals - cetaceans Toothed whales Baleen whales Cephalopods Coastal/shelf pelagic cephalopods Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods Fish Diadromous fish Coastal fish Diadromous fish Pelagic fish, Pelagic elasmobranchs Demersal fish, Demersal elasmobranchs Deep-sea fish Deep-sea elasmobranchs Seabed Littoral, infralittoral, circalittoral Littoral Infralittoral (shallow, photic) Circalittoral (shelf, aphotic) Bathyal Abyssal CSWD (2011) Predom-inant habitat - seabed Littoral rock and biogenic reef Littoral sediment Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef Shallow sublittoral sediment Rock and biogenic reef Shallow (below infralittoral) + Shelf sublittoral sediment Bathyal rock and biogenic reef Bathyal sediment Abyssal rock and biogenic reef Abyssal sediment Coarse sediment Mixed sediment Sand Mud Upper bathyal Lower bathyal EUNIS (2015) level 2 Rock Biogenic (faunal) Biogenic (saltmarsh) Biogenic habitat Mixed sediments Coastal 'ecosystem' Shelf 'ecosystem' Oceanic/deep sea 'ecosystem' Slide attempts to broadly relate the functional groups and predominant habitat types to each other and to three broad ‘ecosystems’ (which are the same as in MAES, plus estuaries (=WFD Transitional Waters)/marine inlets. As well as representing three markedly different ecosystems, they can also be broadly related to the main areas of human activity/pressure, i.e. these three ‘zones’ are both ecologically relevant and pressure/activity relevant.

Issues – 'minimum list' of species
Listed/threatened Representative Assume listed features are generally not in GES Species of RSC common indicators Often scarce, lacking specific monitoring –> incidental data Represent different functional groups Difficult to assess systematically (even HD species!) More focused towards pressures A few are more common and hence targeted for monitoring Supported by monitoring programmes

Discussion: biodiversity elements
To discuss/conclude: Confirm need to include intermediate level elements for assessment to address range of main biodiversity components (high level are too coarse, affected by too diverse a range of pressures; individual species/habitats do not adequately represent biodiversity and ecosystems) Need to review CSWD (2011) lists of Functional groups and Predominant habitats? What is relationship of fine types to intermediate level – e.g. representative of the higher group, useful to assess threats to the group from main pressures? With a minimum list of species/habitats, how could GES of each broader group be expressed (e.g. % of component species/habitats at GES)? Provide general guidance for ICES/JRC to consider

Criteria - Biodiversity

Criteria – aligning MSFD and HBD
23/02/2019 Criteria – aligning MSFD and HBD MSFD (D1, 3, 4, 6) BHD IUCN Red List -> Use Species Distribution (1.1) Range Range (EOO, AOO) Distribution (2) Population size (1.2); reproductive capacity (3.2) Population Population size Small population Population size (1) – no./biomass Population condition (1.3); age & size distribution (3.3) Mature individuals incl. above Population condition (1) Habitat for species Habitat quality incl. in Range Habitat for species (2) Future prospects Included above - Habitats Distribution (1.4) Quantity (extent of occurrence; area of occupancy) Extent (1.5) Area covered Extent (1) Condition (1.6, 6.2) Structures & functions Quality (biotic, abiotic) Condition (1) Ecosystems Structure (1.7); productivity (4.1); prop. of top predators (4.2); Abund./ distribution (4.3) Aggregation rules to Functional group & predom. habitat) D4 structure & function?? Criteria for species and habitats for MSFD and HBD are very similar and offer good opportunity for harmonisation of assessments ( i.e. the consequent methods/thresholds used, based on common criteria). The criteria provide a ‘framework’ – each is important but not all are equally ‘at risk’ in the marine environment or to particular species groups/habitat types -> potential to have primary (1) and secondary (2) criteria and provide some flexibility on use based on relevance to the species/habitat/area (e.g. habitat extent and range are important for biologically-defined habitats, but do not change for physically-defined habitats – so can assume these criteria are ‘at GES’)

Issues for biodiversity criteria
OK to align MSFD and BHD (and IUCN) Similarities to D3 criteria Use of all criteria? often limitations on data for one or more criteria (even for 'data rich' commercial species) Threats are often on specific criteria (e.g. distributional range is affected only for some species, rarely for habitats) Potential to prioritise criteria – primary and secondary (as done for D3) Discussion: Should we aim to harmonise criteria between MSFD and HBD? Should differing importance of criteria (primary, secondary) be accommodated in their application? What issues arise from linking MSFD and HBD criteria?

Reference points

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

Reference points Reference condition GES boundary
General basis for defining GES values for pressures at sea (nutrients, contaminants etc) (=Background levels) Challenging to define for state (biodiversity) due to lack of historical data or undisturbed state Needs pragmatic approaches (e.g. proxies) based on the principle – see 2012 reporting guidance GES boundary Population size: inconsistent philosophies across groups (mammals, fish etc) – SSB, carrying capacity, averages per time period Population condition: age/size structure – important, but data mostly for commercial species Habitat extent – a policy choice (e.g. <10%, <15% loss) Habitat condition – in principle straightforward – in practice, everyone struggles Habitat condition (extent in good condition) – policy choice (e.g. <25% impacted)

Discussion: reference points
To discuss/conclude: Can the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’ concept be used as the basis for defining reference points for all descriptors? Does the GES boundary for state in principle equate to the ‘impact boundary’ for pressure-based descriptors (i.e. both are aiming to define an acceptable level of impact/change from natural state)? The acceptable level of the pressure in the sea (nutrients, contaminants, fish mortality, litter, noise, etc) needs to be defined and can be part of the expression of GES – as a ‘proxy GES boundary’. The GES ‘impact boundary’ and ‘proxy pressure boundary’ should be equivalent, where known (i.e. need for a direct pressure-impact relationship) Identify key issues to consider (e.g. practicalities for defining reference condition, experiences from WFD)

Aggregation rules

Example presentation of GES: commercial fish (from CFP)
(from Nov draft EEA marine baseline report)

(from Nov. 2014 draft EEA marine baseline report)
Example presentation of GES: mammals (from HD) (from Nov draft EEA marine baseline report)

Possible aggregation rules – species (similar for habitats)
Elements assessed Criterion Overall GES for a single species GES for species ‘functional group’ Species A Distribution At GES Based on use of ‘one-out all-out’ method, as for FCS? 75% (3 out of 4) of assessed species in functional group are at GES Alternative: threshold is 75%, therefore whole group is ‘at GES’ Population size Population condition Habitat for species Species B As above Species C Below GES Species D

Aggregation across D1, 3, 4, 6 Species Functional ‘groups’
Main components Ecosystem Harbour porpoise Cetaceans Mammals (D1) Structure & function (D4) Bottlenose dolphin Grey seal Seals Common seal Herring Pelagic fish Fish (D1, 3) Mackeral Skate spp Elasmobranchs Ray spp Plankton comm. Coastal water Water column (D1) Seagrass beds Coastal sand Seabed (D1, 6) Sandbanks Seapens & burrowing megafauna Shelf mud Aggregation rules for GES assessment, e.g. proportion of assessed species in GES for each group & proportion of each predominant habitat Listed S&H, commercial spp., common indicators Ecosystem health ‘signals’

Aggregation rules – pressure-based descriptors
Descriptors 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 currently have: Pressure level in sea criterion Impact of pressure criterion [Descriptors 9 and 11 only have a pressure criterion at present] Is the one-out all-out principle appropriate? Given uncertainties in the pressure-impact relationship, should an alternative approach be used? How should D9 and D11 be approached? [D9 levels are set based on risk to health, D11 is not yet mature enough to set impact levels]

Discussion: aggregation rules
To discuss/conclude: Should the OOAO method be used for individual species and habitats? Should we aim to express achievement of GES for biodiversity by proportion of species/habitat which are in GES per broader group (e.g. Y% of demersal fish are in GES, Z% of shelf habitats are in GES) or consider other approaches? What approach should be used for the pressure-based descriptors? Should we expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based descriptors?

Integrated assessments

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 component) 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)

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)) <[40]% 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 (revised) Decision From a common set of pressures (Annex III)

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) <[40]% loss/damage cw reference condition Physical Alteration of sea-floor/water body morphology Loss of haul-out sites 20%

Discussion: integrated assessments
To discuss/conclude: Assessments of state and pressure are closely linked via impacts Assessments from pressure-based descriptors should contribute to state-based assessments Assessments of impacts from pressures need to be compatible with requirements for state-based assessments (resolution of ecosystem elements and geographic areas/scales of assessment)

ASSESSMENT SCALES

Assessment scales - principles
23/02/2019 Assessment scales - principles Need for a defined (nested) system of areas for assessment and reporting, e.g. Regions Sub-regions Sub-divisions National part of sub-divisions Need to defined scale for each assessment topic, e.g. Region – large cetaceans Sub-region – small cetaceans, offshore birds, seals, turtles, most fish, noise, NIS? Sub-division – habitats, physical loss/damage National part – eutrophication, litter, contaminants Need to link scales for state and pressures

Defined set of (nested) areas
Region Sub-region Sub-division National part of sub-division Coastal (WFD) part

Elements associated to appropriate scale for assessment: suggestion
Large cetaceans, deep sea fish Small cetaceans, pelagic & demersal fish, offshore birds, NIS, noise For discussion!! Seabed habitats, seals, physical loss/damage (D6, 7) Inshore birds, D8, litter Sub-division Region Sub-Region National part D5 (WFD/ offshore)

C. Assessment and reporting areas (Art. 8) –> needs development:
HELCOM nested system is a good model

Discussion: assessment scales
To discuss/conclude: How do we develop a more coherent system for 2018 reporting (e.g. scales between countries more compatible than 2012 reporting)? Should the scales for pressure-based assessments have a relationship to state-based assessments? Could state and pressure elements be broadly 'assigned' to suitable scales (as per suggestion)? What would be helpful to further develop?

Time period MSFD reporting is every 6 years (2012, 2018)
Expect assessments updated at least this frequently Data used for assessments will lag behind – e.g. preferably use 2016 data for 2018 reporting (>processed, aggregated and used in 2017 regional assessments >pubic consultation>finalise Art 8 assessment>report in October 2018) Potential for interim updates (e.g. annual, tri-annual) – not good Depends on frequency of monitoring Monitoring periodicity varies according to elements – links to degree of change per year (can vary for pressures, state) Highly dependent on costs/practicalities/other legal requirements Processing time should improve as methods become established

Data and processing methods
Data needs (parameters) Aggregation methods for data (spatial, temporal) ->defined for ‘indicators’ used for each criterion ->common EU or regional methods (e.g. RSC core/common indicators)

MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback