Download D1 Species Conclusions

D1 – Species conclusions
 Are the assessment process and the degree of integration
for the descriptor agreeable?
 The integration should continue to ecosystem component level –
good for communicating the result of the assessment. (but method,
sequence tbc)
 Species approach to integration





One size fits all may not be appropriate across all ecosystem components
Would work for marine mammals and reptiles
Fish not appropriate
Birds likely not appropriate
No conclusion on cephalopods
Fish & Birds
 Fish
 Species approach not helpful.

Primary criteria availability for each spp will limit number of spp you
use. Large number of species that will go into the fish assessment.
Community indicators cannot be used under spp approach (developed
extensively for fish).
 Group prefers criteria approach. Both RSCs that have done most
work on fish have used criteria approach.
 Birds
 Criteria approach also preferred by majority of the group, but
dependent on integration methods the whole group could agree
 Both RSCs that have done most work on birds have used/explored
criteria approach (indicators more appropriate for criteria
approach)
Integration methods
 Are the integration methods appropriate, taking into
account consistency with other EU legislation and any
regional assessment frameworks?
 Proportional approach when integrating indicators?

Used by 2 RSCs for birds and fish
 One method does not fit all integration levels (or
ecosystem components)
Missing criteria
 What integration rules, if any, should apply in cases, in
which information is missing for one or more
indicators (forming a judgement on one criterion) or
for one or more criteria?
 Shouldn’t exclude spp from assessments which do not
have information on all (primary) criteria
 Within criteria approach for fish and birds removes this
issue
Assessment scales
 Are the assessment scales appropriate? Can
assessments across all elements and criteria for a
Descriptor (e.g. for all species in a species group for
D1) be done using the same assessment areas?
 Agreed that each species group can be assessed at
common spatial scale, using aggregation across spatial
areas using weighted averaging or other conditional
rules to determine if a unit passes or not. Weighted
averaging may be based on population abundance, or
size of assessment area, or other appropriate method…
Assessment scales
 Are there any additional scaling issues that need to be
addressed in the guidance (e.g. where different scales
are used for different elements and criteria with a
Descriptor)?
 How to address widely-distributed species – use best-
available evidence to assess that species, give
consideration to applying a single result across all
regions, but this may not be appropriate for all spp
 Spp that are relevant at small spatial scales – not fully
discussed, but is an important issue
Other questions
 What is the recommended approach for linking
additional national indicators to regional
assessments?
 Didn’t discuss this
 What is the recommended option for a high level
presentation of the assessment output?
 Agreement that options such as % species helpful
Other issues
 Discussion on sequence of assessment flow (select criteria,
spatial scales, species)
 When choosing species for D1, these should reflect
response to pressures (reflected in scientific criteria)
 Group did not agree with primary / secondary criteria
distinction – not always helpful for assessment process
 Unclear how D3 should be used in D1 assessments.
Some spp may have D1 indicators/thresholds that are
different from D3
 Group agreed that commercial species are included in D1
(guidance integration figure shows this, make more explicit in
the text)