1. Group 2

2. Tables F
For the physical damage aspects there are very few indicators in the regions.
A suitable European indicator may be based on the areal distribution and loss of habitat, combined with the ecological significance of the loss, based on the vulnerability of the habitat – i.e. an impact indicator.

3. Abrasion
The data collection regulation for fisheries (CFP) being revised, this should include more information on the pressures and impacts of fishing.
There was some scepticism that spatially disaggregated fishing data will become available though it is very important

4. G1: Noise
Noise: Little information on how to express this element though some effects are known. No measures taken to collect information on this.
The lack of knowledge should be subject of research projects

5. G2: Visual disturbance
Litter now added in latest version of MSD as considered to be important.
An indicator based on particles of plastic in seabird stomachs being developed in OSPAR
There is scope for an indicator as monitoring is undertaken widely.

6. I1: Nutrient enrichment:
Loads in water should be combined with source apportionment. EEA will be developing this indicator next year.
There is scope for improving/streamlining international indicator(s) and for a more efficient way of using information generated at national level as many initiatives seem to be underway

7. I1: Nutrient enrichment
Gap in emissions of N from shipping – not part of regular process of data collection at the moment.
The EMEP assessments do not cover this aspect in sufficient detail at present.

8. I1: Nutrient enrichment:
There is scope for a more refined indicator taking into account type specific reference conditions and concentrations relating to ecological classifications (WFD process),
and also type specific differences in seas for example in shallow seas such as the Wadden sea, annual average concentration would be more appropriate than winter averages..

9. J1: Introduction of microbial pathogens
no actual data available at European level, pass/fail available for 2 directives,
little scope for improvement

10. J2: Non-native species:
Being considered by Ecostat in terms of assessment of ecological status for the WFD – based on presence/absence and significance/impact of alien species. Generic for all water categories.
IMO convention will require monitoring of measures not necessarily state or impact.

11. J3: Abundance of fish: Red list of species of stocks?
IUCN has a red list of endangered species which is significantly different from ICES assessments of status of stock of commercial species.
An indicator should take into account both aspects.
Scope for harmonisation EEA indicator and OSPAR EcoQO.

12. J3 Abundance of fish
ICES also has fish community survey data that could be used in a diversity type indicator (state) or an indicator of rare species.
There are also national data sets though there are some doubt about the reliability of long time series because of methodological problems, which have now been solved

13. J3: Marine Trophic Index
Some disagreement about the appropriate scale for this indicator.
Some say only ocean/LME level, others say applicable at sub regional level, e.g. Celtic Sea, with some modification
Also is the title correct?

14. J3: Accidental by-catch:
UK undertakes monitoring on fishing boats, used for enforcement not sure how representative it is.
There is some reluctance by MSs to release data to public domain, and as a result there is no international data.
Ecological significance of by-catch not known.
Maybe become part of data collection regulation – compliance and environmental aspects.

15. B5: Habitat typology: same as used for WFD typology,
transfer of methodology to marine areas should be possible.

16. B6: Habitat maps:
Lot of work underway on this, European overview should be possible in near future

17. B7: Other special areas:
Not suitable for pan-European indicator in foreseeable future

18. C10 - Fish
More simple measures on fish community structure would be available and better,
Indicators do not need to be complicated as e.g. trophic level.

19. C11 Mammals and C12 Seabird
Should have a diverse range of indicators relevant to different pressures – streamlining not necessary, relate indicators to management issues.
Should be good international datasets on seabird populations

20. WFD intercalibration and eutrophication guidance initiatives will help to streamline assessments.
Time frame not clear and whether they will be available for initial assessment.
Indicators will be more sophisticated with time.