Download GES cross-cutting issues

MSFD Article 8 Assessment of habitats
David Connor
European Commission, DG Environment
Brussels
Laurent Guerin
Museum National d‘Histoire Naturelle
Dinard, France
MSFD Article 8 guidance workshop
20-21 April 2016, Brussels
Relevant Descriptors:
• Descriptor 1: Biodiversity
• Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and
occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance
of species are in line with prevailing physiographic,
geographic and climatic conditions.
• Descriptor 6: Seafloor integrity
• Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the
structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded
and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely
affected.
• Worked example: NE Atlantic (OSPAR)
Assessment
framework
Assessment of specific pressures and their impacts on
ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b)
D2
D3
fishing
D5
Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a)
Bird
groups
(D1)
Benthic
broad
habitats
(D1, 6)
D6
D7
loss
D6
damage
Pelagic
broad
habitats
(D1)
Reptiles
(turtles)
(D1)
Mammal
groups
(D1)
Fish
groups
(D1, 3)
D8
D9
D10
D11
Other
pressures
Criteria for habitats in Decision
proposal v2
• D1C5:
The loss of extent of the habitat type, resulting from anthropogenic
pressures, does not exceed 5% of the natural extent of the habitat in the
assessment area. In cases where the loss exceeded this value in the reference
year used for the Initial Assessment in 2012, there shall be no further loss of the
habitat type.
• D1C6:
The spatial extent of impacts from anthropogenic pressures on the
condition of the habitat, including its biotic (typical species composition and their
relative abundance) and abiotic structure, and its functions, does not exceed
30% of its natural extent in the assessment area.
Other relevant criteria:
•
•
•
•
•
•
D2C3 (non-indigenous species)
D3C1/2/3/4 (commercial fish)
D5C6/7/8/9 (eutrophication)
D6C2/3 (physical disturbance and loss)
D7C2 (hydrographical changes)
D8C2/4 (contaminants)
Assessments of pressures for Article 8(1b)
D6,
D7
-
Physical
damage
Physical
loss
Other
D2C1
D3C1
D6C1
D6C1
D2C2
Assessments of state for Article
8(1a)
D1C1
D1
D3
Species
groups
D1
Pelagic
broad
habitats
D1C6
D1
D3
D6
Benthic
broad
habitats
D1C5
D1C6
D1
D4
Ecosystems
D1C2
D1C3
D1C4
D5C2
D5C3
D5C4
D5C5
D5C6
D5C7
D5C8
D6
Fishing/
by-catch
D11C1
D11C2
D3
NIS
D9C1
D10C1
D10C2
D2
D8C3
D11
D8C1
Sound,
other
energy
D5C1
Litter
S
P
D10
Secondary criterion
Contaminants
Nutrients
Primary criterion
D8,
D9
D5
Decision outline
D7C1
D3C2
D3C3
D3C4
D8C2
D8C4
D10C3
D8C2
D8C4
?
D2C3
D8C2
D8C4
?
D2C3
D3C2
D3C3
D6C2
D7C2
?
?
?
?
?
D2C3
?
?
D5C9
D4C1
D4C2
D4C3
D4C4
D5C3
D5C8
D5C2
?
• Assessment flow and
methods of integration
•D1/D6
•Benthic broad
habitat types
Broad habitat types – equated to EUNIS 2015/16
Hard Hard/soft
Level 2
Biogenic
Rock* habitat Coarse Mixed
(flora/ fauna)
Photic
Soft
Sand
Other
Mud
e.g. nonoxygenbased
habitats
Littoral
Infralittoral
Aphotic
Circalittoral
Bathyal
Abyssal
*Includes soft rock, marls, clays, artificial hard substrata
Proposed Broad Habitat Types
•Scales/areas of
assessment
Defined set of (nested) areas
Region
Sub-region
Sub-division
National part of
sub-division
Coastal part
(WFD)
Habitat assessment areas
– Greater North Sea
D
C
E
B
A
Assessment scenario
- for a specified habitat and assessment area
– multiple impacts
- draw from other assessments
Physical loss
D6C3 loss
(coastal infrastructure)
Hydrological changes
– impacts
D7C2
D2C3
Hydrological changes
– minor effects
D5C8/9
D6C2 damage
Physical damage
(bottom trawling) impacts
D7C2
Physical loss
(offshore
D6C3 loss
infrastructure)
Hydrological changes impacts
Occasional disturbances
- minor effects
Greens – acceptable state
Orange, red – unacceptable state
D8C2
Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for
MSFD
Benthic broad habitat (e.g. circalittoral sand)
Both criteria to
achieve threshold
values
Criterion D1C5 –
habitat extent
(proportion lost)
Extent of physical
loss – from D6C3
(loss)
Criterion D1C6 –
habitat condition
(proportion impacted)
Extent of physical
damage – from
D6C2 (damage)
Subhabitat 1
Extent/distribution
D1C5
Benthic condition
D1C6
Threshold values
for extent of loss
and impact
Extent of other
impacts (e.g. D5 eutrophication, D8 contaminants)
Subhabitat 2
Sub-habitats
selected to assess
condition
Benthic condition
D1C6
Threshold values
for condition of
sub-type
Visualising the
assessment results
Possible ways
to express
extent to which
GES is
achieved:
Proportion of
habitats in
GES/not in GES
(total for
assessment
area)
Possible ways
to express
extent to which
GES is
achieved:
Proportion of
habitats
assessed in
GES/not in GES
for assessment
area
Worked example: OSPAR
•D1
•Pelagic broad
habitat types
Broad Habitat Types
Ecosystem component
Benthic (formerly seabed)
habitats
Pelagic (formerly water
column) habitats
Habitat groups
Littoral rock and biogenic reef
Littoral sediment
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef
Infralittoral coarse sediment
Infralittoral sand
Infralittoral mud
Infralittoral mixed sediment
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef
Circalittoral coarse sediment
Circalittoral sand
Circalittoral mud
Circalittoral mixed sediment
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef
Upper bathyal sediment
Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef
Lower bathyal sediment
Abyssal rock and biogenic reef
Abyssal sediment
Variable salinity
Coastal
Shelf
Oceanic
D4
Bird group 1
Coastal
Mammal
group 1
Bird group 2
Bird group 3
Bird group 4
Shelf
Ocean/deep sea
Mammal
group 2
Mammal
group 3
D1
D1
D1
Pelagic habitats
Turtles
Fish group 1
Cephalopod
group 1
Fish group 2
Fish group 3
Benthic habitats
Cephalopod
group 2
D1
Fish group 4
D1,
D3
D1, 6
Key challenges and opportunities
• Understanding current approaches between
regions and countries
• Making use of assessments from other descriptors
(e.g. D5 eutrophication)
• Agreeing appropriate scales of assessment (e.g. in
Mediterranean and Black Sea)
• Understanding level of detail needed for
assessment and management purposes (degree of
confidence)
Concluding remarks and areas for
further work
• We are moving rapidly from conceptual to operational
• Significant developments in past few years to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Map and model the seabed habitat types over all regions of
Europe
Map the different human activities and their (potential)
pressures on the seabed
Assess the distribution and extent of pressure per habitat type
Use sensitivity assessments (generic) and ground-truth
sampling (specific) to validate the outcomes of
pressure/habitat overlays
There is still need for discussion to reach consensus on a
common approach, particularly integration of
pressure/impact results with ‘state’ assessments and scales
of assessment
Plenty to discuss during the workshop!