1. MSFD Article 8 guidance workshop
02/06/2019
MSFD Article 8 -
Assessment of habitats
David Connor
European Commission, DG Environment
Brussels
Laurent Guerin
Museum National d‘Histoire Naturelle
Dinard, France
MSFD Article 8 guidance workshop
20-21 April 2016, Brussels

2. Relevant Descriptors:
Descriptor 1: Biodiversity
Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.
Descriptor 6: Seafloor integrity
Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.
Worked example: NE Atlantic (OSPAR)

3. Assessment framework

4. Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a)
02/06/2019
Assessment of specific pressures and their impacts on ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b) D2
Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a) D8
Reptiles (turtles) (D1)
Mammal groups (D1)
Fish groups (D1, 3)
Pelagic broad habitats
(D1)
Benthic broad habitats
(D1, 6)
Bird groups (D1)
Ecosystem, food-webs (D1, D4) D3
fishing D9 D5
D10
D6 D7 loss
D11
Two slices of the pizza!!
D6 damage
Other
pressures 4

5. Criteria for habitats in Decision proposal v2
02/06/2019
Criteria for habitats in Decision proposal v2
D1C5: The loss of extent of the habitat type, resulting from anthropogenic pressures, does not exceed 5% of the natural extent of the habitat in the assessment area. In cases where the loss exceeded this value in the reference year used for the Initial Assessment in 2012, there shall be no further loss of the habitat type.
D1C6: The spatial extent of impacts from anthropogenic pressures on the condition of the habitat, including its biotic (typical species composition and their relative abundance) and abiotic structure, and its functions, does not exceed 30% of its natural extent in the assessment area.
Other relevant criteria:
D2C3 (non-indigenous species)
D3C1/2/3/4 (commercial fish)
D5C6/7/8/9 (eutrophication)
D6C2/3 (physical disturbance and loss)
D7C2 (hydrographical changes)
D8C2/4 (contaminants)
Proposed Decision has two criteria: D1C5 (extent of habitat – loss) and D1C6 (condition of habitat)
There are a number of other relevant criteria which can provide information on the extent of impacts from different pressures to which the habitat is subject

6. Decision outline Primary criterion Secondary criterion
Assessments of pressures for Article 8(1b) D5
D8, D9
D10
D11 D2 D3 D6
D6, D7 -
Nutrients
Contam-inants
Litter
Sound, other energy
NIS
Fishing/ by-catch
Physical damage
Physical loss
Other P S
D5C1
D8C1
D8C3
D9C1
D10C1
D10C2
D11C1 D11C2
D2C1
D2C2
D3C1
D6C1
D7C1
Assessments of state for Article 8(1a) D1
Species groups
D1C1
D1C2
D1C3
D1C4
D8C2
D8C4
D10C3 ?
D2C3
D3C2 D3C3 D3C4
Pelagic broad habitats
D1C6
D5C2 D5C3 D5C4
D5C5
Benthic broad habitats
D1C5
D5C6
D5C7
D5C8
D5C9
D3C2 D3C3
D6C2
D7C2 D4
Eco-systems
D4C1
D4C2
D4C3
D4C4
D5C3
D5C2
02/06/2019
See spreadsheet for detail of each criterion. Black numbers = primary criteria, Blue smaller numbers = secondary criteria.
Assessments under Art 8.1b address each pressure and its impacts (columns) on mobile species, pelagic or benthic habitats (which ones depend on nature of the pressure).
Assessments under Art 8.1a address the different ecosystem elements (rows) using the state criteria (green column). These assessments should reflect the collective impacts upon them from all relevant pressures and so can draw upon the outcomes of the pressure-based assessments if the impacts are assessed in a suitable way (i.e. per species/habitat/group).

7. Assessment flow and methods of integration

8. Benthic broad habitat types
D1/D6
Benthic broad habitat types

9. Broad habitat types – equated to EUNIS 2015/16
02/06/2019
Broad habitat types – equated to EUNIS 2015/16
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

10. 02/06/2019
Broadscale maps are now available for ALL European waters from EMODnet – new versions will become available in Autumn These are at finer resolution than needed for MSFD (EUNIS level 3 or 4) but can readiliy be aggregated to MSFD types for assessment purposes

11. Scales/areas of assessment

12. Defined set of (nested) areas
02/06/2019
Defined set of (nested) areas
Region
Sub-region
Sub-division
Whilst the broad habitat types for MSFD assessment are quite coarse, the proposed scale is the subdivision of a region/subregion – this is to ensure the biogeographic variation in community characteristics is addressed, as well as using a scale more suitable to management (measures)
National part of sub-division
Coastal part (WFD)

13. Habitat assessment areas – Greater North Sea
02/06/2019
Habitat assessment areas – Greater North Sea D C E B
Suitable 'subdivisions' for the North Sea were proposed by ICG-COBAM (OSPAR) in ???? UPDATE ON SCALES A

14. Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD
Assessment scenario - for a specified habitat and assessment area – multiple impacts - draw from other assessments
Hydrological changes
– minor effects
Hydrological changes
– impacts
Physical loss
(coastal infrastructure)
D6C3 loss
Nutrient enrichment
- eutrophication
Nutrient enrichment
– minor effects
D7C2
D2C3
Non-indigenous species
D5C8/9
Cumulative pressures - impact
Occasional disturbances
- minor effects
Contaminants - minor effects
D6C2 damage
Hydrological changes - impacts
Physical damage (bottom trawling) - impacts
Physical loss (offshore infrastructure)
Contamination - impacts
D7C2
D6C3 loss
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.
D8C2
Greens – acceptable state
Orange, red – unacceptable state
Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD 14

15. Benthic broad habitat (e.g. circalittoral sand)
02/06/2019
Benthic broad habitat (e.g. circalittoral sand)
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
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-habitat 1
Sub-habitat 2
Sub-habitats selected to assess condition
Threshold values for condition of sub-type
Extent/distribution
D1C5
Benthic condition
D1C6
Benthic condition
D1C6

16. Visualising the assessment results

17. Possible ways to express extent to which GES is achieved:
Proportion of habitats in GES/not in GES (total for assessment area)

18. Possible ways to express extent to which GES is achieved:
Proportion of habitats assessed in GES/not in GES for assessment area

19. Worked example: OSPAR

20. Pelagic broad habitat types

21. Broad Habitat Types Ecosystem component Habitat groups
Benthic (formerly seabed) habitats
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
Littoral sediment
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef
Infralittoral coarse sediment
Infralittoral sand
Infralittoral mud
Infralittoral mixed sediment
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef
Circalittoral coarse sediment
Circalittoral sand
Circalittoral mud
Circalittoral mixed sediment
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef
Upper bathyal sediment
Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef
Lower bathyal sediment
Abyssal rock and biogenic reef
Abyssal sediment
Pelagic (formerly water column) habitats
Variable salinity
Coastal
Shelf
Oceanic

22. D4 D1 D1 D1 D1 D1, D3 D1, 6 02/06/2019 Pelagic habitats Coastal Shelf
Bird group 1
Bird group 2
Bird group 3
Bird group 4 D1
Pelagic habitats D1
Coastal
Shelf
Ocean/deep sea
Mammal group 1
Mammal group 2
Mammal group 3 D1
Turtles
Cephalopod group 1
Cephalopod group 2 D1
The proposed habitat types for the pelagic zone are very broad, reflecting only limited major change in their characteristics, based on distance from coastal influences. The practicalities of pelagic habitat assessment will need further discussion.
Fish group 1
Fish group 2
Fish group 3
Fish group 4
D1, D3
Benthic habitats
D1, 6

23. Key challenges and opportunities
Understanding current approaches between regions and countries
Making use of assessments from other descriptors (e.g. D5 eutrophication)
Agreeing appropriate scales of assessment (e.g. in Mediterranean and Black Sea)
Understanding level of detail needed for assessment and management purposes (degree of confidence)

24. Concluding remarks and areas for further work
We are moving rapidly from conceptual to operational
Significant developments in past few years to:
Map and model the seabed habitat types over all regions of Europe
Map the different human activities and their (potential) pressures on the seabed
Assess the distribution and extent of pressure per habitat type
Use sensitivity assessments (generic) and ground-truth sampling (specific) to validate the outcomes of pressure/habitat overlays
There is still need for discussion to reach consensus on a common approach, particularly integration of pressure/impact results with ‘state’ assessments and scales of assessment
Plenty to discuss during the workshop!