Transcript GES cross-cutting issues

MSFD GES Decision review cross-cutting issues – sessions 2+3
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
Session 2
COHERENCE WITH
EXISTING EU AND RSC
STANDARDS & METHODS
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
ELEMENTS FOR
ASSESSMENT
Elements for assessment
We have:
a.
b.
c.
d.
EU agreed lists
International Convention agreed lists
RSC 'common lists' (for indicators)
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?
Elements for assessment – draft lists
• D1, 3, 4, 6 - biodiversity
a. EU - Habitats and Birds Directive lists
b. International Convention lists
i.
ii.
RSCs – OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona, Bucharest(?) Conventions
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, O2 levels
b. Plankton, macrophytes, macrobenthos?
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
Elements: biodiversity
Main
components
EU
Baltic
NE Atlantic
Mediterranean
Black
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??
Core indicators
Common indicators
EcAp list
BSC
list??
HELCOM Red List
Core indicators
OSPAR List
Common indicators
Barcelona SPA/Bio list
EcAp list
BSC
list??
Water column
(pelagic
habitats)
Seabed
(benthic
habitats)
Habitats
Directive
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
Biodiversity – top-down meets bottom up?
High level Components
Birds
Intermediate level - Functional
elements
Inshore
Offshore
Provides coverage Etc
of main ecosystem components
Fine level - species and
habitats
Gannet
Cormorant
etc
Cetaceans
Harbour porpoise
Bottlenose dolphin
etc
Seals
Grey seal
Harbour seal
etc
Reptiles
Turtles
Loggerhead turtle
Green turtle
etc
Fish
Coastal
Pelagic
Demersal
etc
Water column habitats
etc
Seabed habitats
Littoral (intertidal)
Infralittoral (shallow)
Circalittoral (shelf)
Deep sea
Mammals
Data ->indicator/criteria assessments per species/habitat
Aggregation rules to functional level e.g. % of species at GES
Mussel bed
Seagrass bed
Posidonia bed
etc
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?
CRITERIA BIODIVERSITY
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)?
Session 3
AGGREGATION AND
SCALES
AGGREGATION RULES
Possible aggregation rules – species
(similar for habitats)
Elements
Criteria
assessed
Distribution
Population size
Species A
Population condition
Habitat for species
Overall GES
for a single
species
GES for
species
‘functional
group’
At GES
Proposal: 75%
(3 out of 4) of
Based on use of assessed
‘one-out all-out’ species in
method, as for
functional group
FCS?
are at GES
Species B
As above
At GES
Species C
As above
Below GES
Species D
As above
At GES
Alternative:
threshold is
75%, therefore
whole group is
‘at GES’
Example presentation of GES:
commercial fish (from CFP)
(from Nov. 2014 draft
EEA marine baseline
report)
Possible aggregation rules – species
(similar for habitats)
Elements
Criteria
assessed
Distribution
Population size
Species A
Population condition
Habitat for species
Overall GES
for a single
species
GES for
species
‘functional
group’
At GES
Proposal: 75%
(3 out of 4) of
Based on use of assessed
‘one-out all-out’ species in
method, as for
functional group
FCS?
are at GES
Species B
As above
At GES
Species C
As above
Below GES
Species D
As above
At GES
Alternative:
threshold is
75%, therefore
whole group is
‘at GES’
Example presentation of GES:
mammals (from HD)
(from Nov. 2014 draft
EEA marine baseline
report)
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]
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?
ASSESSMENT SCALES
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
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
Defined set of (nested) areas
Region
Sub-region
Sub-division
National part of
sub-division
Coastal part
(WFD)
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
C. Assessment and
reporting areas (Art.
8) –> needs
development:
HELCOM nested
system is a good
model
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
Example: commercial fish (D3)
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
(sub)Region/EU
(sub)Region or EU
National (DCF)
National (ICES rectangles)
Sub-basin (stock
assessment areas)
Example: eutrophication (D5)
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
(sub)Region
(sub)Region (EU)
National (coastal - WFD,
offshore - MSFD)
National (WFD water
body, MSFD)
Sub(Regional) ('national'
sub-basins)
Example: sea-floor damage (D6)
1 Define GES
2 Define ‘indicators’ for assessment
3 Collect the data (monitoring)
(sub)Region
(sub)Region (EU)
National (MSFD)
4 Process the data for use in indicator
assessment
National ('national' subbasins)
5 Aggregate the data and assess
indicator
National ('national' subbasins)
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?