1. European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry MSFD GES Decision review - cross-cutting issues – sessions 2+3 MSFD cross-cutting workshop for GES Decision review 21-22 January 2015, Copenhagen

2. COHERENCE WITH EXISTING EU AND RSC STANDARDS & METHODS Session 2

3. Integration and streamlining a.EU policies, RSCs and other international agreements already address many MSFD-relevant issues b.These often set standards and define methodologies which can be adopted or adapted to MSFD needs c.Integration of these into the Decision and ongoing MSFD implementation could streamline the work needed – do once, use several times d.Follows overall goals expressed by EU Directors (Nature, Biodiversity, Water and Marine) + joint workshop December 2014 e.Sometimes technical detail of existing approaches needs adaptation to suit MSFD – e.g. extend geographic or topic scope, adapt to holistic MSFD needs

4. ELEMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT

5. Elements for assessment We have: a.EU agreed lists b.International Convention agreed lists c.RSC 'common lists' (for indicators) d.Additional national elements, as specified by MS Should we develop: a.Common EU lists to ensure consistency in determination of GES and its assessment? b.Regionally-specific lists (especially to reflect ecosystem variation)? Do we need: a.Possibility to de-select, based on agreed guidelines e.g. element not present in MS waters, minimal risk from element to ecosystem?

6. Elements for assessment – draft lists D1, 3, 4, 6 - biodiversity a.EU - Habitats and Birds Directive lists b.International Convention lists i.RSCs – OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona, Bucharest(?) Conventions ii.Others - ASCOBANS, ACCOBAMS, CMS, others? c.Commercial fish (CFP) – ICES selection methodology d.Functional species groups & predominant habitat types (CSWD 2011) e.Regional - RSC 'common indicator' species and habitats D2 – Non-indigenous species a.EU - IAS Regulation list ( to be developed) b.Regional - additional species per region?? D5 – eutrophication a.EU - N, P, Chl a, water clarity, O 2 levels b.Plankton, macrophytes, macrobenthos?

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

8. Elements: biodiversity Main components EUBalticNE AtlanticMediterraneanBlack Birds Birds Directive HELCOM Red List Core indicators OSPAR List Common indicators Barcelona SPA/Bio list EcAp list BSC list?? Mammals Habitats Directive HELCOM Red List Core indicators OSPAR List Common indicators Barcelona SPA/Bio list EcAp list BSC list?? Reptiles Habitats Directive OSPAR List Common indicators Barcelona SPA/Bio list EcAp list BSC list?? Fish Habitats Directive CFP (DCF) HELCOM Red List Core indicators OSPAR List Common indicators Barcelona SPA/Bio list EcAp list BSC list?? Water column (pelagic habitats) Core indicatorsCommon indicatorsEcAp list BSC list?? Seabed (benthic habitats) Habitats Directive HELCOM Red List Core indicators OSPAR List Common indicators Barcelona SPA/Bio list EcAp list BSC list??

9. Biodiversity elements Issue: a.Listed types were not selected to ‘represent’ biodiversity and ecosystems b.They may not be good indicators of impacts from pressures c.If rare, they may be difficult to monitor - > poor data sets for assessments

10. 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 etc Seals Grey seal Harbour seal etc ReptilesTurtles Loggerhead turtle Green turtle etc Fish Coastal Pelagic Demersal etc Water column habitatsetc Seabed habitats Littoral (intertidal) Infralittoral (shallow) Circalittoral (shelf) Deep sea Mussel bed Seagrass bed Posidonia bed etc Data ->indicator/criteria assessments per species/habitat Aggregation rules to functional level e.g. % of species at GES Provides coverage of main ecosystem components

11. Discussion – elements for assessment To discuss/conclude: a.Do we need a common list of elements at the EU level and/or at the regional level? Based on agreed EU and regional lists? b.Can we represent biodiversity via a set of functional groups and predominant habitat types – and assess via specified species and habitats (from a ‘common’ list?) c.Do we need a de-selection option? Based on what principles?

12. CRITERIA - BIODIVERSITY

13. Criteria – aligning MSFD and HBD MSFD (D1, 3, 4, 6)BHDIUCN 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 prospectsIncluded above- Habitats Distribution (1.4)Range Quantity (extent of occurrence; area of occupancy) Distribution (2) Extent (1.5)Area covered Extent (1) Condition (1.6, 6.2) Structures & functions Quality (biotic, abiotic) Condition (1) Future prospectsIncluded above- 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??

14. Issues for biodiversity criteria Feasible to align MSFD and BHD criteria (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), based on risk? Discussion: a.How could we harmonise between MSFD and HBD, e.g. via criteria, GES/FCS boundaries, assessment scales, timing? b.Should differing importance/risk of criteria be accommodated in their application (primary, secondary)?

15. AGGREGATION AND SCALES Session 3

16. AGGREGATION RULES

17. Aggregation across D1, 3, 4, 6 Species/habitatsFunctional ‘groups’Main componentsEcosystem 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 waterWater column (D1) Seagrass beds Coastal sand Seabed (D1, 6) Sandbanks Seapens & burrowing megafauna Shelf mud Listed S&H, commercial spp., common indicators Aggregation rules for GES assessment, e.g. proportion of assessed species in GES for each group & proportion of each predominant habitat Ecosystem health ‘signals’

18. Possible aggregation rules – species (similar for habitats) Elements assessed Criteria 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? Proposal: 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 BAs aboveAt GES Species CAs aboveBelow GES Species DAs aboveAt GES

19. Example presentation of GES: commercial fish (from CFP) (from Nov. 2014 draft EEA marine baseline report)

20. Possible aggregation rules – species (similar for habitats) Elements assessed Criteria 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? Proposal: 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 BAs aboveAt GES Species CAs aboveBelow GES Species DAs aboveAt GES

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

22. Aggregation rules – pressure-based descriptors Descriptors 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 currently have: a.‘Pressure level in sea’ criterion b.‘Impact of pressure’ criterion [Descriptors 9 and 11 only have a ‘pressure-level’ criterion at present]

23. Discussion: aggregation rules To discuss/conclude: Biodiversity/ecosystems a.Is the OOAO method appropriate between criteria for an individual species or habitat? b.Should we aim to express achievement of GES for biodiversity by proportion of species/habitat that 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? Pressures/impacts a.What aggregation method should be used for the pressure- based descriptors (pressure + impact criteria)? b.Should we expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based descriptors?

24. ASSESSMENT SCALES

25. Assessment scales and areas 1.MSFD provides broad architecture: Regions Subregions Subdivisions 2.MS approaches in 2012 reporting Principle: all assessments linked to a specified area Reporting allowed for multiple possibilities – whole MS marine waters, larger areas, smaller areas, different areas per topic 3.'Scales' project Technical analysis – what was done, key issues to consider Initial guidance – broad approaches, lacks specific guidance on ‘how to do it’, how to provide options to ensure some coherence across MS

26. Way forward? 1.Need defined scale for each ‘quality element’ Basis for determining GES and undertaking assessments Both can vary with scale Links to coherence in delivery of marine strategies – measures, exceptions, plans & projects Agreed system for presentation of MSFD status at regional and EU levels 2.Needs to be operationally practical Provide clarity and certainty in MSFD implementation (WFD and HD provide defined scales of assessment) Links to MS jurisdictions Relates monitoring/data to assessments Not overly complex – avoid multiple scales across topics? Appropriate scales for ecosystem, pressures and measures

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

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

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

30. Define scale at each stage of process 1 Define GES 2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment 3 Collect the data (monitoring) 4 Process the data for use in indicator assessment 5 Aggregate the data and assess indicator

31. Example: commercial fish (D3) 1Define GES(sub)Region/EU 2Define ‘indicators’ for assessment(sub)Region or EU 3Collect the data (monitoring)National (DCF) 4Process the data for use in indicator assessment National (ICES rectangles) 5Aggregate the data and assess indicator Sub-basin (stock assessment areas)

32. Example: eutrophication (D5) 1 Define GES (sub)Region 2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment (sub)Region (EU) 3 Collect the data (monitoring) National (coastal - WFD, offshore - MSFD) 4 Process the data for use in indicator assessment National (WFD water body, MSFD) 5 Aggregate the data and assess indicator Sub(Regional) ('national' sub-basins)

33. Example: sea-floor damage (D6) 1Define GES(sub)Region 2Define ‘indicators’ for assessment(sub)Region (EU) 3Collect the data (monitoring)National (MSFD) 4Process the data for use in indicator assessment National ('national' sub- basins) 5Aggregate the data and assess indicator National ('national' sub- basins)

34. Discussion: assessment scales To discuss: a.How should scales for pressure-based assessments relate to state-based assessment scales? b.Could state and pressure elements be broadly 'assigned' to suitable scales (as per suggestion)? c.How do we develop a more coherent system to enable an EU- level assessment for 2018? Develop an initial proposal?