1. EEA support to the wider marine assessments in the MSFD: European & regional marine indicator convergence
Eva Royo Gelabert
Project Manager Marine Assessments
European Environment Agency (EEA)
MSFD CIS WG DIKE, 17 June 2009
Agenda item 4

2. Content
What is the EEA role in the MSFD wider marine assessments (Art. 8 & 20 as opposed to 9 & 10)?
What are the ‘indicator convergence’ and the Indicator Comparison processes? and What has happened so far?
PROPOSAL for consideration of WG DIKE: What could happen in the future with these processes in the context of the MSFD CIS?
NOTE: No detailed results from the work above will be shown at this stage  Presentation is about the content, the processes and the ‘need’ for the continuation of this work (building on the document provided for meeting)

3. EEA & European marine assessments (1/2)
EEA mandate: ‘To help the Community and member countries make informed decisions about improving the environment, integrating environmental considerations into economic policies and moving towards sustainability’  Main tool: 5-yearly state of the environment (SoE) assessments evaluating EU policy effectiveness, including for the marine environment
Indicator-based assessments (partially or fully. Indicators updated yearly), where the European picture is made up by the 4 regional sea pictures individually (data providing)
Status of fish stocks and catches per major sea area

4. EEA & European marine assessments (2/2)
MSFD Article 19.3: (…). ‘No later than six months after the data and information resulting from the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8 and from the monitoring programmes established pursuant to Article 11 have become available, such information and data shall also be made available to the European Environment Agency, for the performance of its tasks’  25 December 2012 & 15 January 2015
MSFD Article 20: Community-level assessment of the status of the marine environment to be carried out by the European Commission in coordination with the EEA and the relevant regional marine and fisheries organisations and conventions 

5. European and regional marine assessments and the MSFD in 2006
Substantial divergence in the way the same underlying data was used to produce information and provide answers to equivalent questions at European and regional levels
Existing indicators are not equivalent/comparable  Difficult to put together a coherent European picture of marine status => Problem for EEA assessments and MSFD Art. 20
EEA assessments:
Could better reflect regional sea data, information, indicators and assessments
Fell short the MSFD wider marine assessment needs as they did not cover enough relevant issues (limited number of indicators at that moment) (also a problem for Art. 20)
We have been improving since towards the SoE Report due in 2010
Regional assessments also tended to fall short the MSFD wider marine assessment ‘needs’  Did not cover enough relevant issues either

6. ‘Indicator convergence’ process (1/2)
EMMA: 2006 agreement to develop a limited, common European set of marine indicators to assess issues of European relevance, which should also be able to reflect regional specificities (at the regional level)
Way of addressing the shortcomings at both levels, and ensure that the European picture is ‘compatible’ with and can build on the regional pictures
Indicators would be used by the EEA and the regions to develop new or improve their existing indicators to better match the MSFD assessment ‘needs’  The process to do so has been called ‘indicator convergence’

7. ‘Indicator convergence’ process (2/2)
Common European set of marine indicators
Partly based on existing regional sea and EEA indicators for the determinands in MSFD Annex III  Taken as a guideline for the MSFD wider marine assessments
For existing indicators  Arriving at indicator specifications that could function at the European level based on the shared elements between the current European and the regional ones
Partly made up of ‘new’ European indicator specifications for MSFD Annex III determinands for which there are none or not enough existing regional sea and EEA indicators

8. Step 1 to ‘convergence’: Identification of indicator ‘commonalities’
work: Testing a ‘bottom up’ approach on the basis of what existed already without asking for standardisation of monitoring etc.
QUESTION: Are existing, forthcoming and/or planned indicators* across all/most regional seas and the European level:
‘Common’ (look the same)?
Meeting MSFD wider assessment and EEA SoE ‘needs’?
Could be the case for 23/44 MSFD ‘Initial assessment’ determinands (aka indicator ‘commonalities’)
How ‘common’?  How much ‘harmonisation’ across them is needed? => Would they allow development of shared (fields in) European indicator specifications building on the existing European ones?
Need for Indicator Comparison over to evaluate that  PRIORITY SETTING (Box 1 from Executive Summary)

9. Step 2 to ‘convergence’: Indicator Comparison (phase 1, 2008-9)
Indicator Comparison (IC) work has only considered 4 out of 8 ‘priority 1’ MSFD determinands:
Hazardous substances in biota
Chlorophyll-a
Nutrients in seawater
Selective extraction of commercial fish species
Using ongoing pan-European data/processes for the other 4 MSFD determinands (for which indicators are less well established) could ensure that the new European indicator is equivalent to regional ones from inception  The EEA is developing relevant indicators using pan-European data sources directly => Temperature: GMES products (e.g. SST)

10. Indicator Comparison: Meaning?
Comparison of indicator components  Looking at the apparent ‘commonalities’ across indicator specifications and determining what is really:
Equivalent?
Comparable?
Different?
‘Harmonisation’ of indicator components (suggestions)
Not needed for equivalent components
Some needed to find a common input from the comparable components towards the European indicator specification
Components that are different: Discussion and agreement needed on a common approach to deliver common input towards the European indicator specification

11. Indicator Comparison: Process?
Support from an expert subgroup of EMMA (EEA, DG ENV & JRC, regional sea convention secretariats, several Member States & ETC/WTR)  Agreed ‘concept’ for the work
Template for the comparison:
Developed on the basis of the broken down indicator specifications  Only the most important fields/components of the specifications included
Filled with information from regional sea (thanks to conventions!) and European indicators  ‘Table’ per each MSFD Annex III determinand with the information and its analysis/comparison. Confirmed by expert subgroup
Discussion of partial outcomes only at an expert subgroup workshop (November 2008)
Produced a Progress Report with outcomes including ‘next steps’. Also reviewed by expert subgroup

12. Indicator Comparison: A glimpse
Determinand
Hazardous substances in biota
Chlorophyll-a
Nutrients in seawater
Selective extraction of commercial fish
(Category) Data supporting the indicator
Be based on monitoring programmes that measure the state, temporal trend and spatial distribution
Require use of accredited international methods, preferably QUASIMEME, as QA scheme for monitoring and sampling analysis
‘Harmonisation’:
Suggestions on how to breach 2 ‘differences’
across European & regional indicators
with regards ‘Data support’
‘Harmonisation’:
Recommendations based on 2
‘commonalities’ across European & regional
indicators with regards ‘Data support’
Monitoring stations coverage
Extend geographical coverage to account for all MSFD sub-regions and/or Convention sub-divisions as relevant to meet the objectives of MSFD Article 8 ‘Initial assessment’
Establish an appropriate number of monitoring stations in coastal and ‘marine’ locations is needed to ensure that the objectives of Article 8 of the MSFD are met and that EEA can be more ‘marine’

13. Indicator Comparison: Results?
Scope for ‘harmonisation’ of European and regional indicator components – based on real ‘commonalities’ or differences between them seen so far - leading to a common European indicator specifications:
Best for hazardous substances in biota
Some possibilities for chlorophyll-a and nutrients to overcome the differences between indicators but these need further in depth discussion
No need in the case of indicators on the selective extraction of commercial fish if the approach used on the existing European (EEA) indicator is applied at the regional sea level
Still, process is not concluded  Follow-up work would be needed in order to arrive at the actual European indicator specifications

14. Indicator Comparison: Proposed next steps
November 2008 Workshop mainly focussed on the MAIN ‘differences’ between the components of the existing EEA and regional indicators
Many had to do with the gathering of the data to populate the indicators  In particular the geographical distribution, numbers, type and/or representativeness of coastal/marine waters of monitoring stations that should be included in a European indicator
Rest of the process would (proposal) need to:
Confirm assumptions made so far (e.g. ‘equivalents’)
Finalise discussions on breaching ‘differences’
Collect some additional information (e.g. monitoring stations)
Check whether ensuing European indicator specifications are ‘robust’
Clarify the tasks to be undertake by:
EEA (e.g. production of the basic indicator specifications),
Member States (e.g. issues relating to monitoring)
Regional sea Conventions (e.g. adapting their own indicators)

15. ‘Indicator convergence’: Proposed next steps
Complete work carried out so far and arrive at 4 European indicator specifications on Hazardous substances in biota, Chlorophyll-a, Nutrients and Selective extraction of commercial fish species
Develop additional European indicator specifications for other MSFD Annex III determinands for which there is European and/or regional work (‘priority 2’ as identified in 2007)  HOW?
Fill the indicator ‘gaps’ towards the MSFD Annex III (as identified in 2007)  For 21/44 MSFD determinands there was no or insufficient existing, forthcoming and/or planned indicators across all/most regional seas and European level, e.g. marine litter  HOW?

16. ‘Indicator convergence’ & other MSFD actions
HOW?
WG GES: Work on conceptual frameworks used to describe environmental status for the GES descriptors  Could inform the further steps of the ‘indicator convergence’ process (prioritisation, ‘gap’ filling)  Elements from these frameworks could later on be generalised and upscaled into European indicators, e.g. marine litter
To avoid overlaps and duplication  Wait for the results of WG GES work before developing additional European indicator specifications
Still, scope to complete the EEA & ETC/WTR work  Conceptual frameworks for the 4 MSFD determinands are fairly developed and the indicators being compared are well established

17. ‘Indicator convergence’ and MSFD CIS WG DIKE
PROPOSAL for consideration (or alternatives?)
WG DIKE would follow-up the ‘indicator convergence’ process as a way of jointly developing EU-level indicators by the regions and the EEA
Action to be carried out:
By a Task Group to be established in autumn EEA would co-lead  1st meeting early in 2010: Information and discussion of the process so far and establishing a workplan
Gradually over:
2010  Developing European indicator specifications for the 4 MSFD determinands considered so far, which could inform the ‘Initial assessment’ (and WISE-Marine development)
 Developing additional European indicator specifications on other ‘priority’ MSFD determinands or to cover ‘gaps’ on the basis of outcomes from WG GES, which could inform the development of monitoring programmes

18. Questions To me for clarification? What do you think of the proposal?
Could you come up with an alternative way of jointly developing EU-level indicators?

19. More information
Report on the identification of European and regional indicator ‘commonalities’ = [ ]
Annex showing indicators tables per each MSFD Annex III determinands = [
Concept for the Indicator Comparison = [
Final Progress Report for the Indicator Comparison = [
Annex showing tables comparing the existing European and regional indicators per each of the 4 MSFD Annex III determinands considered = [