Transcript 2015 cross-cutting issues workshop

Workshop on cross cutting issues in
relation to the review of the GES
Decision and Annex III of MSFD:
Summary & Conclusions
Copenhagen, 21-22/01/2015
European Commission
DG Environment
Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit
GES Decision review – main aims
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Simpler
Clearer
Introducing minimum standards (to be enhanced by
regions and MS, if necessary)
Self-explanatory
Coherent with other EU legislation
Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU
methods do not exist)
Include a clear and minimum list of elements and/or
parameters per descriptor
GES Decision review – progress
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
JRC and ICES leading technical reviews of Decision per
Descriptor – started in spring 2014, supported by expert
networks and/or expert workshops
Draft 'manuals' presented to WG GES (October 2014) –
review of current use of Decision, initial proposals for
revision of Decision and criteria (variable level of
maturity)
MS comments on draft templates to end November 2014
JRC and ICES starting to consider comments and identify
outstanding issues
Identification of cross-cutting issues
Expectations from cross cutting
workshop
 Clarify level of detail to be included in descriptor manuals;
 Receive input, clarifications and direction on certain issues;
 Discuss link to RSC work, other EU legislation and how
things fit together;
 Streamlining & harmonisation;
 Get data right for Wise-marine;
 Buy into an assessment approach;
 Discuss the issue of aggregation and scales;
 Discuss the impact-state relationship;
 Start defining work programme 2016-2018
Session themes
1.
2.
3.
Integrating descriptors and other cross-cutting issues
Consistency with existing legislation and RSC
methodologies
Scales and aggregation
a. Issues discussed in three sessions by 2 or 3 subgroups
b. Each subgroup discussed same issues
c. Aim was to draw (broad) conclusions to give direction to next phase of technical
review
d. Also identify further issues needing more detailed work
e. Workshop was NOT about making decisions, but opportunity to discuss and give
direction, based on current state of Decision technical review and practical
experience of implementation to date
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)?
Pizza & the satellites
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
Should we integrate assessments of the state-based descriptors?
For birds, mammals, fish, reptiles
For water column and seabed habitats
For ecosystem/food webs
a. Considering that the MSFD is underpinned by an ecosystem-based
management approach, it is useful to consider the state-base descriptors
in an integrated manner
b. Integration across descriptors also has an ecological basis, as certain
ecosystem elements are now artificially separated in different descriptors
c. No overall disagreement about integrating across descriptors
d. Need to remove overlapping criteria between descriptors (e.g. 1.7/4.3)
and bring together ecosystem elements into a common list
e. Need to select the most appropriate criteria for the assessment of the
ecosystem elements
f. Integration depends on how results will be used (e.g.) Overall ecosystem
assessments of HELCOM very popular
g. OSPAR/HELCOM experience can be used to inspire a realistic approach
How are elements going to be integrated towards assessment?
Definition of aggregation rules is essential
The question of integration also needs to be tackled from a very pragmatic
point of view looking at the indicators/criteria that are available
Assessment of finer ecosystem elements with inter-linkages to pressure
assessments is needed
Assess GES for a number of such building blocks (ecosystem elements,
e.g. functional groups) which can then be aggregated to higher levels
A hierarchical system of ecosystem elements (e.g. Fishpelagic/demersal/deep sea fish/ species species per group) could be useful
OSPAR have method for integrating across species, e.g. bird index
HELCOM is also developing indices for integrated biodiversity assessment.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Status assessments should be able to measure change (improvements)
achieved after implementation of measures
Measures should target pressures and not be directly related to status
Current knowledge determines decision on which species and habitats to
focus assessments on; how do we make sure of overall biodiversity
representativeness? -> use of rational set of ecosystem components
(functional groups and predominant habitat types)
Need to provide uncertainty value to assessments
Need to define elements for assessment/reporting
Important to know the boundary between good environment status and
not GES
Communication on overall progress with achieving GES is essential
How should the pressure-based assessments contribute to
state-based assessments?
•
•
•
It is sometimes difficult to explicitly link pressures to impacts on
ecosystem state
Assessments for each pressure-based descriptor should provide impact
assessments on ecosystem elements which can be aggregated to provide
the total impact on each element and thus contribute to the status
assessment
Need to define assessment frequency as it could be different between
assessment of ecosystem elements and pressures
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)?
•
Covered in the scales session
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
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?
At what level of detail should we streamline descriptors?:
i. elements for assessment
ii. criteria
iii. assessment methods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elements
Strong need to understand links with HD, BD, CFP in order to streamline
descriptors
Indicative lists of elements for reporting and lists of elements using
specified selection criteria
Criteria
Agree to eliminate overlaps
Assessment methods
Not discussed at such detailed level
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?
Reference
GES – 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
What are key challenges in defining GES boundaries:
i. Where EU standards exist
ii. Where there are no EU standards
•
•
•
•
GES boundary setting needs further guidance
Defining GES boundaries seems to be a descriptor-specific discussion but
there is need for compatibility of boundaries between descriptors
Where EU standards exist:
In principle, if standards exist they should be applied, but it is not
possible to just copy these into MSFD, as standards are sometimes
developed in a different legal/ other context
•
•
•
Fish exploited species – boundary could be associated with a range
rather than absolute points
WFD standards application to the MSFD: WFD standards may not be
relevant beyond the area of WFD applicability (e.g. WFD-related benthic
standards are not immediately applicable in open waters)
D8 – some substances may have not been considered in the WFD
•
Application of HD standards?
• HD standards are set nationally within a broad EU framework for
assessing FCS; more consistency could be achieved by using regional
standards under MSFD (e.g. as defined by RSCs)
• The integration of standards that are otherwise used for individual
species and habitats may lead to miss match/ confusion between
assessments.
• Quantification of boundaries could be developed regionally. At present,
they are not absolute but flexible under HD
• Boundary certainty – ranges may be better
•
•
Where there are no EU standards
Need to consider standards developed under RSCs
• HELCOM is developing open sea standards involving validation of
indicator boundaries. The approach does not define a deviation from
reference conditions. There is not full harmonisation between the
coastal and open sea assessments for eutrophication.
• OSPAR has held two workshops (GES4BIO) on challenges of setting
targets and reference conditions for biodiversity indicators
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?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Challenge is not so much on being quantitative but on achieving regional
coherence
OSPAR ECOQs - not all are quantitative
HELCOM working towards quantitative boundaries but there are not yet
boundaries for all indicators
HD status assessment are made in relation to reference normative
definitions
In OSPAR interim boundaries based on precautionary approach have been
used
Trends (for improvement in status, for reductions in pressures) can be
used as targets e.g. for litter reduction
To use pressure as a proxy for a state/ impact boundary can be highly
theoretical for some descriptors
Can the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’
concept be used as the basis for defining reference points
for all descriptors?
•
•
•
Reference conditions could in principle be used as basis for reference
points for all descriptors, but there are often many challenges in defining
an unimpacted state.
Reference area with deviation is being looked at by the D4 review group
There are different definitions of reference points and other terminology –
need to know which are synonomous (e.g. reference condition,
background concentration) and settle on preferred terms
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?
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?
•
•
•
•
.
Lists are needed for coherence, especially to enable common reporting at
EU level, but these can be broad groups, with differences at regional level
More importantly, a common approach to the creation of regional lists is
needed: importance of selection criteria for the lists and regional
indicators
The approach should also be able to create EU wide assessments
Common lists:
- A hierarchical approach:
• A common list at a high level  e.g. at the EU level define
functional groups of birds, mammals, etc
• Specific criteria would be applied to define (sub)regional lists
within these broader categories
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?)
You can represent biodiversity via a set of functional groups and broad
(predominant) habitat types. It is this functionality (ecosystem
approach) that is an important component of the MSFD
Support idea of functional parts of ecosystem – can then identify
representative species and habitats for each for assessment of the
broader group
The MSFD is seen as oriented towards managing the pressures on the
ecosystem, rather than aimed solely at the conservation of species and
habitats. This results in a need to further develop the links between the
HBD and the MSFD in a manner that addresses the slant of the MSFD in
its assessment of GES and informing on pressures. As an example –
there is a difference between red lists (all in poor status) and lists to
assess main ecosystem components
Linked to this, it is not clear at the moment how the HBD reporting
should contribute to the MSFD reporting. Don’t assume that HBD will
automatically meet the MSFD needs
Do we need a de-selection option? Based on what principles?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discussion is needed on selection criteria for species/habitats to represent
higher groups. As such, higher level lists would be indicative. Need to
have very clear selection criteria to develop regional level lists
Existing classification systems should be the basis (e.g. EUNIS for
habitats, EASIN for NIS)
Importance of regional indicators
Need option of an opt-out process from an agree regional list (e.g.
because species does not occur in an MS waters), but it has to be a
transparent agreed process
Need a review process for the lists to allow periodic adjustment (e.g. to
reflect improvement knowledge of indicator performance), but aim for
stability where possible
Develop criteria for agreeing lists, e.g. to cover main functional types and
pressures -> RSCs have developed approaches
Relevance to the ecosystem should be taken into the criteria. Risk is
important to consider when drawing up lists in relation to pressures, but
there are many challenges associated with this approach.
Criteria – aligning MSFD and HBD
MSFD (D1, 3, 4, 6)
BHD
IUCN Red List
-> Use
Distribution (1.1)
Range
Range (EOO,
AOO)
Distribution (2)
Population size
Small population
Population size (1) –
no./biomass
Mature individuals
incl. above
Population condition
(1)
Habitat for species
Habitat quality
incl. in Range
Habitat for species
(2)
Future prospects
Included above
-
Distribution (1.4)
Range
Distribution (2)
Extent (1.5)
Area covered
Quantity (extent
of occurrence;
area of
occupancy)
Condition (1.6, 6.2)
Structures &
functions
Quality (biotic,
abiotic)
Condition (1)
Future prospects
Included above
-
Population size (1.2);
reproductive capacity (3.2)
Species
Population condition
(1.3); age & size
distribution (3.3)
Habitats
Ecosystems
Structure (1.7);
productivity (4.1); prop. of
top predators (4.2);
Abund./ distribution (4.3)
Population
Extent (1)
Aggregation rules to
Functional group &
predom. habitat)
D4 structure &
function??
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)?
How could we harmonise between MSFD and HBD, e.g. via
criteria, GES/FCS boundaries, assessment scales, timing?
•
•
•
•
•
Overall, in favour of linking assessment methods for GES and FCS work
is needed to define gaps and overlaps, to ensure that a single assessment
can cover the objectives of both directives. Defining GES boundaries
(=FCS boundaries) is important.
Differentiate the “conservation” objectives of the BHD and “sustainable
use” objectives of the MSFD ensure most vulnerable species and
habitats are not jeopardised under MSFD
Added value of MSFD is the ecosystem-based approach
Important: many marine habitats and species are not covered by the HBD.
A layered approach may be a solution
Utilise and build on the RSC work in place. Harmonisation work on
indicators has already taken place regionally for OSPAR and HELCOM. No
indicator-based approach fully in place for Mediterranean and the Black
Sea yet
Should differing importance/risk of criteria be
accommodated in their application (primary, secondary)?
•
Not discussed
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 pressurebased descriptors (pressure + impact criteria)?
b.Should we expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based
descriptors?
Possible aggregation rules –
species (similar for habitats)
Elements
Criteria
assessed
Overall GES
for a single
species
GES for
species
‘functional
group’
Species B
As above
Proposal: 75%
(3 out of 4) of
Based on use of assessed
‘one-out all-out’ species in
method, as for
functional
FCS?
group are at
GES
At GES
Species C
As above
Below GES
Species D
As above
At GES
Distribution
Population size
Species A
Population condition
Habitat for species
At GES
Alternative:
threshold is
75%, therefore
whole group is
Example presentation of GES:
commercial fish (from CFP)
(from Nov. 2014 draft
EEA marine baseline
report)
Is the OOAO method appropriate between criteria for an
individual species or habitat?
•
•
Use of OOAO it is not straight forward, needs further thought
Before any aggregation, there is a need to consider the purpose and the
level of aggregation and how it links to state-pressures-measures
• OOAO was considered appropriate for aggregating across the pressure
descriptors, but not across their criteria where guidance is needed on
aggregating within each pressure-based descriptor
• Purpose of aggregation  for assessment (of a single species)  for
information and need to communicate progress (for a species group)  for
management actions (links to measures)
• The creation of integrated indicators, or multi-metric indicators, challenges
the operation of OOAO
 OOAO can be relevant at higher levels of aggregation of state/biodiversity
criteria, but not necessarily at species or fine habitat level
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
•
•
•
Some thought achieving GES for biodiversity should be expressed at a
higher level (community level assessment or functional groups) rather
than for each species or habitat. Others thought use of proportion in GES
was useful.
RSCs have already developed indicators (e.g for birds) to assess a certain
community
Support for the expression of GES for biodiversity as a percentage of
elements assessed within a functional group/broad habitat type
What aggregation method should be used for the pressurebased descriptors (pressure + impact criteria)?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Need to be clear on the relationship between pressure and impact
How to aggregate pressure-based descriptors should be defined per
descriptor
Ideally pressure and impact criteria give same answer (in GES or not in
GES) when relationship is well established.
The aim of the assessment defines the pressures to be aggregated.
Considering pressures as different layers with specified spatial extent,
aggregation should be applied on the overlapped areas
Aggregation of pressures should not only be considered on a spatial scale
but also on a functional one e.g. multi-pressure effects or synergistic
pressures
Consideration of societal impacts – environmental and economic aspects
what level of pressure is acceptable?
Should we expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based
descriptors?
•
•
•
•
•
We should expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based descriptors
If there is a pressure-based descriptor that has not been achieved, then
GES as a whole has not been achieved (one out all out), but this does not
always work Consideration: time lag between reduction of pressure
and effects on state
Whilst overall OOAO is supported for the assessment of GES for pressure
descriptors, there was no agreement on whether OOAO is appropriate on
the pressure and impact criteria associated with those descriptors
Approaches for aggregating criteria for each pressure-based descriptor
need to be the same across regions
Conclusion: for ecosystem elements use proportion in group of species,
habitat, functional groups at GES, whilst aim for all pressure-based
descriptors to be at GES
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 EUlevel assessment for 2018? Develop an initial proposal?
Elements associated to appropriate
scale for assessment: suggestion
Large cetaceans, deep sea fish
National
part
Seabed habitats, seals,
physical loss/damage
(D6, 7)
Inshore birds, D8,
litter
D5 (WFD/
offshore)
Subdivision
SubRegion
Region
Small cetaceans, pelagic &
demersal fish, offshore
birds, NIS, noise
How should scales for pressure-based assessments relate
to state-based assessment scales?
•
Not discussed
Could state and pressure elements be broadly 'assigned' to
suitable scales (as per suggestion)?
For elements: in some cases, multiple scales would need to be selected to
ensure complementarity of data being collected
Data quality and methodology of data collection between sub-regions also
affects the assessment scales
One scale does not fit for all indicators -> need system that addresses
different scales
Need to consider ecological, administrative and pressure/measure issues to
define suitable scales
How do we develop a more coherent system to enable an
EU-level assessment for 2018? Develop an initial proposal?
•
•
Assessment scales for reporting
Reporting is formally done by MS, but can be for assessments done at
subregional or subdivision levels (e.g. by RSCs of a sea basin).
• The elements associated to appropriate scale for assessment: should not
be prescriptive but a guidance
 The hierarchical scales can be set, but Member States wanted flexibility
•
•
•
Assessment and reporting areas
A HELCOM-like nested system is helpful
OSPAR is also reflecting on the HELCOM approach for their work
Follow up: issues to further develop
• Cross cutting issues/papers
•
•
•
•
•
•
Integrated assessment of state-based descriptors
Relationship to pressure assessments
Level of detail to be decided
Scales
For D1: link to HBD assessments
Aggregation rules at descriptor level
• GES Descriptor manuals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Boundaries (quantitative where possible, also others)
Reference conditions: challenging issue, indicator specific
Proposal on available lists (EU and RSCs) and their potential use in assessments
Simplification and streamlining: defining overlaps in criteria and indicators across
descriptors and proposing methodological standards for streamlining descriptors
Aggregation rules below descriptor level (e.g. weighting, OOAO)
Recommendations on: i) input for possible revision of Commission Decision, ii)
input for 2016-2018 Work Programme
• Common Understanding document
•
Issue of terminology
Follow up on Descriptors
• ICES workshops D3, D4, D6
Focused workshops on specific challenges that arose during the 2014
scientific review of the MSFD descriptors:
D3: 10–12 February
D6: 16–19 February
D4: 24–25 February
All at ICES HQ, Copenhagen
• JRC workshops/correspondence
D8/9: working meeting of MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants:
23-24 February 2015, Ispra, Italy
D10: phone/Skype meetings, ad-hoc meeting of MSFD TG Marine
litter (to be decided)
Other descriptors: exchange via email
GES Decision review - next steps
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
21-22 January 2015: cross cutting workshop
February-March 2015: consultation of revised manuals
per descriptor and possible meetings of expert working
groups to address outstanding technical issues identified
25 March-7 April 2015: all draft documents to be
circulated to WG GES
22-23 April 2015: WG GES to discuss finalisation of the
technical phase and prepare progress report with
recommendations for the way forward for the Committee
or identify specific issues for further technical work
5 May 2015 (tbc): Committee to review progress and
discuss way forward (MSCG will be consulted as well)