Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Good Environmental Status (GES) Working Group
Technical Report of the Workshop on Biodiversity theme
(Descriptors 1, 2, 4 & 6)
Brussels, 7-8 November 2012
Table of Contents
- Introduction & Objectives...... 3
- First day – 7 November...... 3
2.1. Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda ...... 3
2.2. Introduction by DG ENV...... 3
2.3. JRC on Biodiversity monitoring for the MSFD: Requirements and Options...... 4
2.4. Presentations by Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) on their monitoring activities...... 5
2.4.1. Biodiversity monitoring coordination under OSPAR...... 5
2.4.2. Monitoring and assessments of biodiversity in the Baltic Sea - HELCOM...... 6
2.5. Presentation by Member States on their monitoring activities and plans (UK, DE, FR, ES)..6
2.6. Separate groups discussion questions...... 8
2.6.1. Question 1: How are the overlaps between MSFD and other EU and RSCs requirements going to be considered and coordinated? 9
2.6.2. Question 2: How could initial assessment, GES definition and targets setting inform the establishment of the monitoring? 10
2.6.3. Question 3: What are key gaps in biodiversity coverage and available methodologies?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11
- Second day – 8 November...... 12
3.1. European Environmental Agency and biodiversity indicators...... 12
3.2. ICES ecosystem overviews 2010-2012...... 13
3.3. Presentations by research projects coordinators on their monitoring and assessment activities 14
3.3.1. Marine Ecosystem Evolution in a Changing Environment (MEECE)...... 14
3.3.2. GES-REG project...... 14
3.3.3. Marine Genomics for Users (MG4U)...... 15
3.3.2. DEVOTES project...... 15
3.4. Presentations by selected stakeholders on their monitoring and assessment activities...15
3.4.1. BirdLife International - Seabird monitoring in Europe ...... 15
3.4.2. EWEA – Monitoring activities of the wind industry...... 16
3.5. Separate groups discussion questions...... 17
3.5.1. Question 4: How are the overlaps between MSFD and other EU and RSCs requirements going to be considered and coordinated? 17
3.5.2. Question 5: How could initial assessment, GES definition and targets setting inform the establishment of the monitoring? 18
3.5.3. Question 6: What are key gaps in biodiversity coverage and available methodologies? 19
- Summary and Conclusions ...... 20
Appendix I – Attendance list ...... 22
Appendix II – Final agenda ...... 24
- Introduction & Objectives
The Joint Research Centre(JRC) organized a thematic workshop on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Biodiversity descriptors (D1 biodiversity, D2 non-indigenous species, D4 food-webs and D6 sea-floor integrity) on 7-8 November 2012 in Brussels, Belgium. Participants were delegates from Member States, European Commission DGs and the European Environmental Agency (EEA), as well as coordinators of selected research projectsand also other invited stakeholders (representatives from industry and NGOs) (see Appendix I for attendance list).
The workshop’s aims were to establish common understanding of the monitoring requirements needed to assess whether Good Environmental Status (GES) for the MSFD has/is being met, to identify open questions and missing components and to plan the way forward for further implementation of the MSFD.
- First day – 7 November
- Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda
The meeting was opened by JRC who welcomed participants to Brussels. A brief summary of the work done to date, namely on the previous workshops undertaken already in the WG GES, was presented.
The agenda was presented with several changes to the one circulated previously, namely dividing the group into three discussion subgroups: D 1 & D 4, D 2, and D 6. However, the group felt that there were insufficient number of experts for all three subgroups (particularly non-indigenous species) and it was agreed that two subgroups were divided according to: group 1 - highly mobile species in relation to D1 andD4 ; and group 2 –benthic species and habitats in relation to D1 andD6; while D2 was integrated in both discussion subgroups. The agenda was then adopted as in Appendix II, followed by a brief introduction of each participant.
2.2.Introduction by DG ENV to Marine Strategy Framework Directive:biodiversity monitoring and assessment
Objective of the workshop is to start discussions on biodiversity and perhaps reach a common understanding on monitoring and its associated issues, i.e. start of the next phase of the Directive implementation work. A brief presentation of key points of MSFD was given: Art 11 on establishing and implementing monitoring programmes, Annex V – MSFD required tasks regarding monitoring, Art 19 regarding access to data and information by the EC and EEA. There are obvious overlaps between Water Framework Directive (WFD), Habitat and Birds Directives(HBD) and MSFD.
Biodiversity monitoring is often the poor cousin of marine environmental monitoring programmes.Traditionally it identifies and counts species and usually gives less precise results on status and linking to pressures compared to monitoring for other descriptors. Future work needed to include broader perspectives (regions), clear and precise definition of GES, develop specific assessment methods which lead to clear determinations of status and links with pressures (for links to measures where needed).
How to address all aspects of biodiversity? Use indicators of species, habitats and functions; use specific aspects in each previous group (such as known concerns and areas at risk, focusing at pressure and impacts which are the ones we can manage). Focus on functional groups (fish, birds, marine mammals, etc.) and predominant habitats types already identified.
What’s the purpose of monitoring? There is a need to assess the gap between current state and GES, and to identify which pressures and impacts need to be reduced in order to achieve GES. Monitoring has to answer to the following questions: has GES been achieved? Have we made progress? Are the measures taken effective?
Challenges of monitoring:
- What sampling strategy to adopt? Risk-based focused on areas of concern and perhaps reducing monitoring effort? Or random?
- What is the appropriate technique? Is it sensitive to pressures and theirs impacts? Indicators need to be in tune with what is needed to monitor (pressure).
Are there monitoring links to other policies? There should be links with WFD, HBD, CFP, Regional Sea Convention programmes; these interlinkages are important for ecosystem management, costreduction and increase in understanding and effectiveness.
What type of monitoringis needed? What state, which species and habitats, what coverage, etc. should be monitored?Where is the data coming from? From other policies, but also from new programmes or modified programmes, models and maps, other European, regional or national programmes (e.g. EMODnet), industry (impact assessments and ongoing monitoring).
Issues still open: unclear definitions of GES, need to reach consistency when indicators are not yet harmonised in regions, need to optimise resources and to use monitoring/assessments for other descriptors.
Objectives of workshops: initial discussion of monitoring issues and reaching some level of common understanding and agreement, identify issues per descriptor and propose way forward to work. Following the present workshop, the results will be discussed in the WG GESin March 2013. There will also be drafting of a common implementation strategy of MSFD/WFD/HBD, to be agreed in June 2013 by Water and Marine Directors.
2.3.Presentation of JRC on biodiversity monitoring for the MSFD: requirements and options
The presentation was based on a related JRC report.[1]
How could monitoring be defined? “The systematic measurement of biotic and abiotic parameters of the marine environment, with predefined spatial and temporal schedule, in order to produce datasets that can be used for application of assessment methods and derive credible conclusions on whether the desired state is achieved or not for the marine area concerned as well as for the trend of the change”.
Monitoring needs to choose the parameters to measure, the location of sampling sites, periodicity of sampling, etc. Monitoring should provide data to enable assessments to classify a marine area as reaching or failing to reach the desired status. MFSD Annex III has a list of biodiversity-related characteristics. Commission Decision 2010/477/EU established 14 criteria and 26 indicators for Descriptors 1,2,4 and 6. Marine biodiversity-related monitoring is also needed for different Directives and Regulations, but these have different spatial requirements, sometimes overlapping, and different sampling frequencies. MSFD has a six-year cycle and monitoring frequency should be element specific, depending on how dynamic the measured parameter is. Monitoring should beintegrated across indicators and descriptors, across legislation, across Member States and should provide data collected in a comparable way. Large scale and other less applied monitoring approaches should be considered (e.g. continuous plankton recording, underwater video and imagery, underwater acoustics, autonomous underwater vehicles,ships of opportunity). In conclusion, marine monitoring is needed for several pieces of EU and other legislation (MSFD requires some additional ones); should be integrated in order to also be cost effective and could be facilitated by large-scale approaches.
2.4.Presentation by Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) on their monitoring activities:
2.4.1.Biodiversitymonitoring coordination under OSPAR
RSC were asked to reply to four questions: are there biodiversity monitoring requirements for contracting parties? If so, does existing monitoring cover MFSD needs? Does existing or planned efforts collect data for more than one country? and do they ensure interoperability of collected data?
OSPAR convention has 16 contracting parties, five regions and a vision of clean healthy biologically diverse NE Atlantic ecosystem sustainably used. It has several thematic strategies, including one on biodiversity. It has a Biodiversity Committee (BDC) and other structures for biodiversity work.
Are there agreed biodiversity monitoring requirements for contracting parties? Yes, for certain aspects, but it is a recent development in OSPAR driven by MSFD although there is existing biodiversity monitoring for region II (North Sea), and to some extent for region III (Celtic Seas): Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs), list of threatened and declining species and habitats. EcoQOs for breading seabirds for region II have been established and is an indicator that can also be used for MSFD. To what extend does existing RSC monitoring covers MSFD requirements? Several EcoQOs on marine mammals, fish, birds address some MSFD needs but do not cover all.
Are there existing or planned efforts to monitoring activities that collect data for more than one country? There are no common OSPAR surveys, however multilateral surveys exist: fisheries research, targeted single surveys, the Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Wadden Sea (TMAP). Theseare not OSPAR-led surveys but surveys across multiple OSPAR countries.
Are there existing or planned efforts for ensuring interoperability of collected data? Yes, the Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) for EcoQOs,but not yet across borders to collect this data; on broad level also for OSPAR listed threatened and declining species and habitats. OSPAR's biodiversity assessment and monitoring group (ICG-COBAM)reviewed the methodology to define GES boundaries and develop draft MSFD indicators. The coordination results are collected in an OSPAR Advice Manual on biodiversity aspects of the MSFD. Expert teams have been established working by correspondence, workshops and meetings. A set of common biodiversity indicators is under development and contains indicators on marine mammals, birds, fish, benthic and pelagic habitats, non-indigenous species and food webs. The objective is to agree on a first set of common biodiversity indicators in the beginning of 2013. There will be a phased, iterative approach within countries to adopt the indicators, and a process to develop an OSPAR monitoring framework to help contracting parties coordinate monitoring efforts for MSFD.
2.4.2.Monitoring and assessments of biodiversity in the Baltic Sea- HELCOM
A set of HELCOM biodiversity core indicators have been agreed in principle. There are 4 core indicators for marine mammals, 5 for seabirds, 5 for non-commercial fish, 1 for zooplankton, 5 for benthic biotopes and communities, 1 fornon-indigenous species, 3 related to effects of contamination (fish diseases, reproductive disorders and imposex in snails). A follow-up system for a Baltic state of the environment assessment has been envisaged. The HELCOM core indicators cover most MSFD GES criteria in descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6; but there are gaps (mainly in ecosystem structure and impacts of non-indigenous species).
What is the status of HELCOM monitoring? Monitoring hastraditionally focused on contamination and eutrophication, but some biological indicators have been monitored as well.It is noted that improved coordination between HELCOM-ICES can support the monitoring of biological parameters and some new surveys need to be established.It was particularly noted that better coordination among Member States with fishery-related monitoring would support the environmental assessments in the region.
There is at the moment a review process of the monitoring strategy, but should support core indicators for monitoring (perhaps new parameters), cost-efficiency, and have thematic assessments and tools. This will lead to revised monitoring guidelines. The strategy should be ready in mid-2013.
HELCOM assessment tools for biodiversity have not yet been fully developed, but a Biodiversity Assessment Tool (BEAT) was used in the initial holistic assessment in 2010. HELCOM has also used some modelling approaches in benthic and nutrients assessments.
2.5.Presentation by Member States on their monitoring activities and plans (UK, DE, FR, ES)
UK presentation–Biodiversity monitoring in the UK – now and looking to the future. Presentation was given on a holistic view of the descriptors and not on specific descriptors (holistic approach to biodiversity monitoring) and has focused on the indicators that the UK is doing. Monitoring is organised by a Marine Science Committee that receives reporting from Marine Assessment and Reporting Group (MARG). In turn MARG receives reporting from HBDSEG delivering biodiversity descriptors and ends in five expert groups. JNCC has established a Marine Biodiversity R&D monitoring programme that is holistic, covers all biodiversity, is a partnership between organizations, is efficient, integrated and cost effective and is across all obligations (laws) and has an international dimension.
Where areobservations taking place? The UK Directory of Marine Observing System (UKDMOS) was established to know where monitoring is occurring, to streamline or change monitoring and identify gaps. Where is the UK in MSFD criteria, is the existing sampling covering MSFD criteria? Fish and cephalopodsare covered, for seabirds there is a large gap of monitoring at sea, SCANs for marine mammals have to be repeated. Offshore monitoring of seabirds, cetaceans and fish increased by using shared platforms (IBTS, fisheries surveys). Pelagic habitats have new targets but work is being done by continuous plankton recorder, while benthic habitats are a challenge as they also have new targets. So there is a lot of work to do although there is some monitoring already done.
UK faces big challenges such as having a large sea area, high biodiversity, and different water areas;thus new technologies are used to respond to these challenges. Modelled seabed habitat maps have many uses, but how reliable is the data (data assumptions are good)? How much can we integrate? Different vessels have different needs and perhaps there is limitation in integration but there is always the need to reduce costs. Can we use a risk approach to measure pressures and habitats? Combination of pressure and sensitivity information gives a level of risk and targeting high-risk areas seems a way forward, but the challenge is to understand the links between pressure and impacts and agree how much information is needed.How to define risk thresholds with limited data? How to score risks? How to deal with pressures that move?
Discussion: Perhaps the focus should be on good/bad areas and defining the boundaries between these. However, these area boundaries are not very clear and need research, particularly in benthic habitats in trawled areas but may prioritise research.
DE presentation– Monitoring marine biodiversity in Germany. Organizational structure for MSFD is under development but already has a working group on marine biodiversity monitoring. All EC Directive requirements apply to DE, jointly from OSPAR and HELCOM and also from national laws.
Current benthic monitoring is mainly driven by the Habitats Directive in offshore areas, but also in coastal areas in DE Baltic Sea and North Sea. Nevertheless, DE is going to further develop the habitat monitoring programme to include OSPAR and HELCOM requirements (special habitat types). DE has started an extensive habitat mapping programme focusing initially on protected areas. Additionally, DE is monitoring macrobenthic species but these are integrated intothe habitat monitoring. Potential gaps are selected predominant habitats, measure-related monitoring, monitoring special habitats in coastal sublittoral areas, damage assessments, integration of WFD monitoring and reference areas. Marine mammals monitoring is based on visual and acoustic (harbour porpoise) monitoring in the Baltic Sea and in coastal areas there is a visual monitoring of seal populations, aerial surveys of seal recruitment and seal health monitoring in North Sea.Potential gaps are by-catch monitoring and health. Seabird monitoring is based on volunteers counting for coastal species; offshore seabirds have aerial and ship surveys in both Baltic and North Sea but gaps are present in by-catch and perhaps health aspects. Fish monitoring is based on species of the Habitat Directive in many fisheries surveys but there are monitoring gaps in rare and declining species or species not listed in the Habitats Directive.
Agreement for MSFD Art 11 implementation of monitoring programmeshas been achieved in a conceptual approach in late 2012; however the framework of monitoring and assessment needs discussion and the national monitoring handbook has to be reviewed. Gaps in indicators and GES boundaries should be filled by the revision of the handbook which is planned for March 2013 and to be finally available online in July 2014. Several steps are planned to achieve regional coordination. Balance between consistency and flexibility of monitoring programmes needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
FR presentation – Elaboration of national MSFD monitoring regarding biodiversity in France. Biodiversity monitoring in FR has two data acquisition goals: monitoring and knowledge. FR needs geographical coherence within the country in its four sub-regions and between countries in order to share the burden of monitoring. Work is organised in eleven themes, in four main work packages: 1 identifying monitoring needs, 2 optimization of sampling strategies, 3 data management and 4 drafting monitoring programme (end 2013 and adoption in 2014). Biodiversity monitoring work is organised by ecosystem components and has focused on state parameters (not pressure) and is in close relationship with HBD and MPAs. Data collection on benthic habitats has been achieved for Natura 2000, regarding the need of mapping seabed habitats. Inventory of existing monitoring has highlighted D1 gaps in high seas, D2 in local monitoring, D4 in trophic webs, while D6 was covered in D1.FR is currently identifying relevant parameters for each descriptor. Integrated monitoring should use existing fisheries surveys and new tools such as aerial surveys of bluefin tuna and seabirds and marine mammal data collection programme (PACOMM). PACOMM uses telemetry on seabirds, aerial surveys for marine mammals but also turtles, sharks and skates, vessels, marine litter etc.using SAMMmethodology. Challenges for FR are its large area for monitoring, combined with the fact that the existing monitoring programmes are local, so the challenge is how to extend these programmes, find the right balance between state and pressure monitoring, combine various data sources and, finally, it still needs further thoughts on GES and indicators to clarify monitoring needs.