Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Review of Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III cross-cutting issues European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry WG GES 22-23 April 2015, Brussels Aims of the paper a. To provide an informal perspective on the interpretation of MSFD Art. 9 and 10 (building upon the 2011 CU document and subsequent discussions) b. To set out an overall architecture for the provisions of the directive in relation to the determination of GES (Art. 3.5, Annex I and III, Decision and Art. 9.1) c. To propose a ‘level’ at which GES should be assessed (i.e. the resolution of elements and geographic scales used to conclude if GES has been met or not) d. To further develop approaches to assessments under Art. 8, drawing from the cross-cutting workshop (EEA, January 2015) Further development of the paper • Further internal discussions on integration with other policies • Discussions with core team, e.g. on integration across descriptors to inform drafting of Decision • Consider comments received from WG GES (by end June) on current version • Prepare final version for WG GES in October • Content of paper can contribute to further development of Common Understanding document and other review documentation. Cross-cutting workshop – broad conclusions Workshop participants agreed, in broad terms, on: i. Need for integration of the ‘biodiversity’ descriptors ii. Need to use pressure-based assessments to inform the ecosystem status assessments iii. ‘Pizza and the satellites’ approach iv. Need for a level of commonality in elements to be assessed at EU or regional level – with criteria for selection and deselection, where appropriate (clear rules) v. Use of functional groups (for birds, mammals, reptiles, fish) and predominant habitat types, but with (sub)regional specificity vi. Need for clearer links to assessments in other policies vii. Need for more coherent scales of assessment (e.g. nested approach) BUT …. There is need for more clarity on how these concepts could fit together … and on the specific detail Cross-cutting paper aims to present these overall approaches and give this ‘detail’: a. b. c. d. e. f. In generic terms, but with practical examples It sets out a framework for determining GES, but does not determine GES – this is for MS, working within the (sub)region It presents a common framework for assessment, within which regional and national assessments could fit (i.e. how common/core indicators would fit with Decision criteria (operational use of pizza and satellites). The approaches proposed can help focus ongoing debates on what is GES and how to assess it (e.g. whether at criterion level, descriptor level; need for an overarching GES or an ‘ecosystem descriptors’ GES) It contains new proposals (e.g. equating GES to other policies, esp. WFD and harmonisation of biodiversity assessments) – needing further discussion The paper is ‘work in progress’ and provides an input to ongoing discussions in CU context and at regional and national levels. Review of Annex III a. Integral part of the review 'package' b. Needs to clearly link to MSFD Annex I, Decision (Art. 9(3)), and Art. 9(1) c. Initial perspective on the 'content' and role of Tables 1 and 2 d. Proposal for a new Table 3 on uses and activities (builds on 2012 list for reporting) e. These 'indicative lists' are based on reviews of elements used in other directives and RSCs – read across spreadsheet on elements used in each policy f. Paper is input to a proposed Annex III, but depends on formulation of Decision Relationships to WFD (MSFD Art. 3.1b) – initial proposal MSFD Descriptor WFD (Coastal waters, 0-1nm, except 0-12nm for D8) D1 – water column habitats GES = phytoplankton quality element of WFD in GEcS + zooplankton in GES D1 – seabed habitats GES for Predominant habitats of littoral and infralittoral zones = macrophyte + angiosperm + macrobenthos quality elements of WFD in GEcS D5 - Eutrophication GES = nutrients + phytoplankton + macroalgae + angiosperm quality elements of WFD in GEcS D6 - Seafloor integrity Same as D1 seabed habitats D7 - Hydrographical changes GES = WFD GEcS (Hydromorphological conditions) D8 - Contaminants GES = WFD GChS for priority substances + WFD GEcS for river-basin-specific pollutants Framework for information system economic Art. 8(1c) Socio-economic Drivers CIS RSCs MS -CAs Human Activities Management (Policies & Governance) Ecosystem Services Art. 8(1c) Measures Monitoring Art. 8(1a) Art. 8(1b) Pressures Art. 13+14 State of Environment Art. 11 Activity Activity A Oil & gas Pressure Y Contamination Activity C Shipping Activity D Fishing Economic & social analysis Art 8.1c Element A Cetaceans Pressure X Underwater noise Pressure Z Physical disturbance Assessment of pressures Art 8.1b Table 2 IMPACTS Activity B Sand & gravel extraction State Pressure Element B Fish Element C Seabirds Element D Pelagic habitat Element E Seabed habitat Assessment of state Art 8.1a Table 1 Assessment of specific pressures and their impacts on ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b) Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a) D5 D7 D2 D6.1 D3.1 Water column (D1) Seabed (D1, D6) Fish (D1, D3.2/3) Birds (D1) Mammals (D1) Reptiles (D1) Other pressures D8 D9 D11 D10 Integration: pressure-impact-state Assessments of pressures for Article 8(1b) Physical loss Physical damage Energy, incl. UW noise Nutrients Contaminants Litter Fishing/ by-catch NIS S P 6.1 6.1 11.1, 11.2 5.1 8.1, 9.1 10.1 3.1 2.1 Ecosystem 1.7, 4.1-4.3 Assessments of state for Article 8(1a) Birds 1.11.3 Mammals 1.11.3 ? Reptiles 1.11.3 ? Fish 1.11.3 Water 1.41.6 7.1 Seabed 1.41.6 7.2 ? ? 10.2 ? 8.2 3.2, 3.3 ? 6.2 5.2, 5.3 ? 3.2 2.2 All pressure assessments to achieve GES Pressure and its impacts (D2, D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11) Aggregation rule for criteria, e.g. one-out-all-out Criterion A pressure Criterion B – impact Aggregation rule if several indicators used Data set A Data set B Data set C Data set D Data set E GES boundary defined per criterion or scientific indicator All pressure assessments to achieve GES Pressure and its impacts (D2, D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11) D5: Eutrophication Aggregation rule for criteria, e.g. one-out-all-out Criterion A pressure Criterion B – impact Aggregation rule if several indicators used Data set A DIN Data set B DIP Data set C Data set D Chl a Water clarity Data set E Bottom oxygen GES boundary defined per criterion or scientific indicator Mock-up presentation of an area-based assessment: status and trends Integration: pressure-impact-state Assessments of pressures for Article 8(1b) Physical loss Physical damage Energy, incl. UW noise Nutrients Contaminants Litter Fishing/ by-catch NIS S P 6.1 6.1 11.1, 11.2 5.1 8.1, 9.1 10.1 3.1 2.1 Ecosystem 1.7, 4.1-4.3 Assessments of state for Article 8(1a) Birds 1.11.3 Mammals 1.11.3 ? Reptiles 1.11.3 ? Fish 1.11.3 Water 1.41.6 7.1 Seabed 1.41.6 7.2 ? ? 10.2 ? 8.2 3.2, 3.3 ? 6.2 5.2, 5.3 ? 3.2 2.2 Assessment scenario – cumulative impacts Physical loss (coastal infrastructure) Hydrological changes – impacts D7 D2 Hydrological changes – minor effects D5 D6 Physical damage (bottom trawling) impacts Physical loss (offshore infrastructure) D7 Hydrological changes impacts Occasional disturbances - minor effects Greens – acceptable state Orange, red – unacceptable state D8 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 Functional groups and representative species – example Mammals Generic element (MSFD Annex III) EU level Functional groups (CSWP 2011) Toothed whales MAMMALS Baleen whales Seals Iceassociated mammals Regional Level Habitats Directive Harbour porpoise Bottlenose dolphin All species (V) All species (V) Grey seal Monk seal Ringed seal Harbour seal Baltic Sea (HELCOM) NE Atlantic Ocean (OSPAR) Harbour porpoise Harbour porpoise Bottlenose dolphin White-beaked dolphin Short‐beaked common dolphin Striped dolphin ? Minke whale Grey seal Ringed seal Harbour seal Grey seal Harbour seal Mediterranean Sea (UNEP/MAP) Common dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Sperm whale Striped dolphin Risso's dolphin Long-finned pilot whale Cuvier's beaked whale Fin whale Balaenoptera spp. Monk seal Black Sea (BSC) Common dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Harbour porpoise N/A N/A Consider removing this functional group (more relevant for Arctic) Habitat for species: loss of breeding sites (D6) Population size: entanglement by litter (D10) Population condition: disturbances during breeding Species can be affected by multiple pressures – affect different assessment criteria Example: turtle Population size: incidental catch from fisheries (D3) Population condition: Bioaccumulation of contaminants (D8) Many species assessments rely on one or two indicators – focus on main criterion/threat Functional group or predominant habitat Species or habitat A Species or habitat B Overall environmental status is expressed as % of assessed component species/habitats that are in GES Species or habitat C Aggregation rule for criteria, e.g. one-out-all-out Criterion A distribution Criterion B – population size/ habitat extent Criterion C – population/habitat condition GES boundary defined per criterion or scientific indicator Data set A Data set B Data set C 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 Clear outcomes of assessments: status and trends: Example: commercial fish (from CFP)