Transcript GES cross-cutting issues

MSFD GES Decision review cross-cutting issues – session 1
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
• Workshop will contribute to:
Further development of Common
Understanding on implementation of
MSFD Art. 8-9-10
Review of 2010 Decision on criteria
and methodological standards for
GES
Criteria & methodological standards ingredients for a status assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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)
9.
Aggregation of assessments (across species,
habitats, contaminants and descriptors)
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
Art. 9(1)
Determination of
GES
EU-wide minimum specifications:
Criteria:
a. Assessment elements
b. Assessment parameters
c. Reference points (baseline and GES
boundary values)
Methodological standards:
d. Assessment tools and procedures
e. Assessment scale (generic)
Example: Mammals
a.
List of mammal functional groups
(e.g. seals, small cetaceans)
b.
Distribution, population size, health
condition
c.
Reference condition and acceptable
deviation values (cf FCS target levels
of Habitats Directive)
d. FCS aggregation procedures/methods
e. Cetaceans at subregional scale; seals
at subdivision scale (nested approach)
Sub(regional) specification by MS:
Example: North-East Atlantic
a. Further specify criteria and
methodological standards (e.g. RSC
region/subregion-specific assessment
elements, common indicators and
assessment tools)
b. Additional characteristics for
region/subregion
a. Harbour seal, grey seal
b. 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
Session 1
INTEGRATION -
ASSESSMENT,
DESCRIPTORS/CRITERIA, QUALITY LEVELS
INTEGRATED
ASSESSMENTS
Integration – why?
• State-based descriptors – D1, 3, 4 and 6
• Dealing with (some of) same species and habitats
• They collectively represent marine ecosystems
and overall GES
• Pressure-based descriptors - D2, 5, [7], 8, 9, 10
and 11 (also criteria 3.1, 6.1)
• 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
particular species/habitats/ecosystems
Assessment of specific pressures
and their impacts on ecosystem
elements (Art. 8.1b)
Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a)
D8/9
D5
D7
D2
D6.1
D3.1
Water
column
(D1)
Seabed
(D1, D6)
Fish (D1,
D3.2/3)
Birds
(D1)
Mammals
(D1)
Other
pressures
D11
Reptiles
(D1)
D10
Integration: 2010 Decision criteria
Descriptor
P-I links
Pressure
level in sea
Impact of
pressure
I-S links
D1 Biodiversity
1.1-1.7
D2 NIS
2.1
D3 Commercial fish/shellfish
3.1
2.2
3.2, 3.3
D4 Food webs
4.1-4.3
D5 Eutrophication
5.1
D6 Sea-floor integrity
6.1
D7 Hydrographical changes
5.2, 5.3
6.2
(7.1)
7.1, 7.2
D8 Contaminants
8.1
8.2
D9 Contaminants in seafood
9.1
D10 Litter
D11 Energy, incl. noise
State
10.1
11.1, 11.2
10.2
Integration: pressure-impact-state
Physical
damage
Hydrological
Energy,
incl. UW
noise
Nutrients
Contaminants
Litter
Fishing/
by-catch
NIS
S
P
6.1
7.1
11.1,
11.2
5.1
8.1,
9.1
10.1
3.1
2.1
Ecosystem 1.7, 4.1-4.3
Birds
1.11.3
Mammals
1.11.3
?
Reptiles
1.11.3
?
Fish
1.11.3
?
Water
1.41.6
Seabed
1.41.6
?
?
8.2
6.2
7.2
10.2
?
3.2,
3.3
5.2,
5.3
?
8.2
?
3.2
2.2
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 element)
• Conclude:
a.
b.
c.
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)
Assessment scenario – cumulative impacts
Habitat loss
(coastal
infrastructure)
Hydrological changes
– minor effects
D7
D5
D2
Total area of a habitat in an assessment area
D6
Moderate trawling impacts
Occasional disturbances
- minor effects
Greens – acceptable state
Orange, red – unacceptable state
Habitat loss
(infrastructure)
Contamination impact
D8
Contaminants
- minor effects
Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity
guidance for MSFD
Integrated assessments (1)
Predominant habitat: shelf sand
State
criterion
Habitat
distribution
(1.4, 1.4.1,
1.4.2)
Habitat
extent (1.5,
1.5.1, 1.5.2,
6.1.1)
Pressures
Threshold
<[10]% loss
in range cw
reference
condition
<[10]% loss
in extent cw
Physical
reference
condition
Physical
Biological
Physical
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))
<[30]%
damage cw
Hydrological
reference
condition
(including
any habitat
loss)
Chemicals and
other pollutants
Biological
Impact
Assess Criterion
Over
ment assessm
all
values
ent
None: broadscale physical habitat not affected by
physical pressures
Habitat loss
(6.1.1)
0%
GES
Change of sea-floor substrate (infrastructure)
Habitat loss
(6.1.1)
5%
GES
Disturbance/damage to sea-floor
Removal of species (targeted, non-targeted)
Extraction of sea-floor and subsoil minerals (e.g.
sand, gravel, rock, oil, gas)
Habitat damage
(6.1.2)
65%
Water movement changes (from infrastructure)
Nutrient enrichment (N, P, organic matter)
Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species
Below
Habitat structure
GES
changes,
Below
community
5%
GES
changes (7.2,
(75%
7.2.1, 7.2.2)
impacted
Oxygen
or lost)
depletion,
community
0%
changes (5.2.3,
5.3.1, 5.3.2)
Community
Not
alteration (2.2.1) assessed
Integrated assessments (2)
State
criterion
Pressures
Threshold
Listed species: Seal
<[10]% loss Energy
of range, or
Species
<[25]% loss
distribution
of area
(1.1.2)
occupied
within range Biological
Population
size (1.2,
1.2.1)
Population
condition
(1.3, 1.3.1)
<[50]%
change cw
reference
level
Significant
reduction in
fecundity/
survival/
reproductive
rates;
significant
change in
age/size
structure of
population
Input of sound
Disturbance of species
Biological
Removal of species (targeted, non-targeted)
Biological
Injury/death to species
Impact
Exclusion from
areas
Exclusion from
areas by
ecotourism &
other human
activities
By-catch (3.1)
Hunting
Assessm Criterion
Overa
ent
assessm
ll
values
ent
15%
2%
5%
GES
(17% loss
of area
occupied)
GES
GES
Chemicals and
other pollutants
Habitat for
species;
<[30]%
Species loss/damage
Physical
distribution cw reference
(1.1, 1.1.1,
condition
1.1.2)
Input of contaminants (synthetic substances, nonsynthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources,
point sources, acute events
Alteration of sea-floor/water body morphology
Bioaccumulation
Not
(8.2, 8.2.1)
assessed
Loss of haul-out
sites
20%
???
GES
INTEGRATION OF
DESCRIPTORS/CRITERIA
Integration of descriptors/criteria
1.
2.
State-based descriptors

D1 Biodiversity

D3 Commercial fish and shellfish (criteria 3.2 + 3.3)

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
a.
b.
c.
d.
Simplify assessments
Ensure consistency (D1-D3; D1-D6)
Easier to communicate
Birds
Ecosystem-based approach
(D1)
Mammals
(D1)
Turtles
(D1)
Fish (D1, D3)
Seabed
(D1 habitats, D6 sea-floor integrity)

Common elements and criteria for assessment
a.
b.
c.


Ecosystem/
food webs
(D1.7, D4)
Water column
(D1 habitats)
Species (D1, D3)
Habitats (D1, D6)
Ecosystems (D1.7, D4)
Common methodology for assessments
Single set of assessments to cover all 4 descriptors
Integration – what in practice?
Descriptor
Elements –>
common lists
Criteria -> merge
D1, D3 (species
groups)
Species, Functional
groups
1.2 + 3.2.2
1.3 + 3.3
D1, D6 (seabed
habitats)
Habitats
(predominant,
special)
1.6 + 6.2
D1, D4 (ecosystem
scale)
Functional groups,
Ecosystems
1.7, 4.1-3
D8, D9
(contaminants)
Substances
8.1, 9.1
Assessment of specific pressures
and their impacts on ecosystem
elements (Art. 8.1b)
Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a)
D8/9
D5
D7
D2
D6.1
D3.1
Water
column
(D1)
Seabed
(D1, D6)
Fish (D1,
D3.2/3)
Birds
(D1)
Mammals
(D1)
Other
pressures
D11
Reptiles
(D1)
D10
Discussion: integrated assessments
To discuss:
a.Should we integrate assessments of the state-based
descriptors?
i. For birds, mammals, fish, reptiles
ii. For water column and seabed habitats
iii. For ecosystem/food webs
b.How should the pressure-based assessments contribute to
this?
c. Do assessments of impacts from pressures need to be
compatible with requirements for state-based assessments
(e.g. resolution of ecosystem elements and geographic areas/
scales of assessment)?
Discussion: integration of descriptors
and criteria
To discuss/conclude:
At what level of detail should we streamline descriptors?:
a. elements for assessment (e.g. common lists of
species for D1/D3, functional groups for D1/D4,
predominant habitat types for D1/D6, substances for
D8/D9)?
b. criteria (eliminate overlapping criteria, e.g.
1.7 and
4.1-4.3, or provide clarifications to avoid potential
overlaps)?
c. assessment methods – e.g. indicators and
methodological standards between habitat condition
(D1.6) and benthic state (D6.2); assessing population
size under D1 and D3?
QUALITY LEVELS FOR
STATE, IMPACT AND
PRESSURE
GES
Reference
– state/pressure
points – reference
relationship
condition plus
acceptable deviation (= GES boundary)
Natural
state
No
pressure
Level of
impact
acceptable
Good
status
GES boundary
GES boundary
Not good
status
Extinct/
destroyed
Intense
pressure
Level of
pressure in
sea and
impact
acceptable
GES boundary
(pressure = proxy
GES boundary)
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
GES quality - sensitive to different
pressures ->scientific indicators
Good Environmental Status
State with
negligible impact
Reference
condition – for
habitat,
community and
area
Sub-GES
Acceptable
degree of change
Unacceptable degree
of change - impacted
Destroyed/
irrecoverable
Few nonindigenous spp. in
low density
Many non-indigenous spp. in
high density
Non-indigenous spp.
dominant
D2 Nonindigenous spp.
Minor changes to
spp.
Dense green algae
Community switched
D5 Nutrient
enrichment
(Eutrophication)
Minor spp. &
physical changes
Loss of sensitive spp.;
opportunist spp. increasing
Habitat and/or
community destroyed
D6 Physical
disturbance (seafloor integrity)
Quantitative threshold for GES
Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity
guidance for MSFD
Types of pressure
Possible Relationship between Objectives
Good Environmental Status
Unimpacted
state
Deviation from
unimpacted state
Sub GEnS
Unacceptable degree
of impact
Good Ecological Status
Destroyed/
irrecoverable
MSFD
Sub GEcS
WFD
High
Good
Moderate
Favourable Conservation Status
Poor
Bad
Sub FCS
HD
Favourable
Unfavourable - inadequate
Lower limit of quality to
be achieved per Directive
Unfavourable -bad
From: Cochran et al. (2010)
Note: boundaries of status classes may not be equivalent
Discussion: GES quality levels
To discuss/conclude:
a.What are key challenges in defining GES boundaries:
i. Where EU standards exist
ii. Where there are no EU standards
b.Where such quantitative boundaries cannot (yet) be defined
for state/impact, what other approaches could be used:
i. Use of a pressure proxy only?
ii. Normative definitions
iii. Trends as targets?
c. Can the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’
concept be used as the basis for defining reference points for
all descriptors?