Download GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS IN THE PROPOSED MARINE

GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS IN THE PROPOSED MARINE
STRATEGY DIRECTIVE
Final report for Defra (Ref No. CSA 7061; Project code ME1412)
S I Rogers
CEFAS, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 OHT, UK.
7 June 2006
1
2
Introduction .................................................................................................... 5
An evaluation of Annex II to the draft Directive ........................................... 6
2.1
2.2
2.3
Annex II, Table 1 - Characteristics......................................................................................... 6
Annex II. Table 2 - Pressures and impacts ........................................................................... 9
Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 10
3 The identification and critical evaluation of what a package of generic
qualitative descriptors of GEnS might look like. .............................................. 10
3.1 Generic descriptors of GEnS in sustainably exploited marine environments. ..................... 12
3.1.1
Objectives and indicators in a management framework ............................................. 12
3.1.2
Co-ordinating GEnS with the Habitats and Birds Directives ....................................... 13
3.1.3
Co-ordinating GEnS with the Water Framework Directive .......................................... 13
3.1.4
Descriptors of Good Environmental Status ................................................................. 15
3.2 Learning from national and regional activity ........................................................................ 17
4 An evaluation of the scope of the initial assessment, including benefits,
costs and practicality .......................................................................................... 19
4.1
4.2
5
6
Practicality and benefits ....................................................................................................... 19
Cost ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Annex 1. A possible approach to structuring an initial assessment ...... 26
References .................................................................................................... 28
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
1
Summary
The proposed Marine Strategy Directive (MSD) aims to achieve Good
Environmental Status (GEnS) in the marine environment by 2021. Member States
will be required to assess the status of their marine waters, determine a set of
characteristics for GEnS based on generic qualitative descriptors developed by the
Commission, and establish environmental targets, monitoring programmes and
measures. This paper has been prepared for Defra, UK, and focuses on three
topics:



An evaluation of Annex II to the draft Directive;
The identification and critical evaluation of what a package of generic
qualitative descriptors of GES might look like based on Annex II; and
An evaluation of the scope of the initial assessment of environmental status
that Member States will be required to undertake, including benefits, costs
and practicality.
The geographic scope of the proposed Directive, from baselines to the furthest
extent of jurisdiction, will include the coastal waters defined under the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), and the marine waters in which the Habitats and
Birds Directives apply. The proposed Marine Regions are equivalent to those of
the Regional Seas Conventions (HELCOM, OSPAR, Barcelona Convention), and
much work is already underway in such fora to describe aspects of marine
ecosystems. It would be important when implementing the Directive if a
mechanism be found to integrate activity of the existing Conventions and
international agreements.
Evaluation of Annex II to the draft Directive
The paper reviews the approach taken in Annex II of the proposed Directive to
characterising the environment, and categorising the pressures of human activity.
The following conclusions were reached:





The spatial and temporal scale at which ecosystem processes operate must
be considered in the planning of an initial assessment.
Further clarification should be sought from the Commission on the meaning
of ‘essential characteristics’.
The mixture of ecological components (plankton, seabirds, etc) at species,
population and community levels, together with attributes of ecosystems
such as primary and secondary productivity, is unstructured, and suggests
that an initial assessment based on Annex II could be costly and
unfocussed. This would provide a more comprehensive description than
previous European legislation.
No guidance is provided on the link between the characteristics and
pressures described Annex II and the descriptors of GEnS.
An alternative and more effective approach to structuring the characteristics
of the environment would replace the text-based approach with a simple but
comprehensive list of characteristics of the environment.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
2




This could possibly incorporate the OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives
(EcoQO) for some ecosystem elements if adopted by Contracting Parties,
and also the assessment of Good Ecological Status (GEcS) under the
Water Framework Directive.
It would also allow ecosystem characteristics to be selected carefully and to
be as comprehensive as possible, incorporating all the necessary functional
attributes of populations and communities.
The inclusion of climate change and the effects of ocean acidification are
recommended, as these pressures will become increasingly important in the
marine ecosystem.
The structured approach in Annex II to the evaluation of the effect on the
environment of the pressures caused by human activities is sensible and
can be used as the basis for an initial assessment subject to the evaluation
being at an appropriate scale to ensure cost-effectiveness.
Possible generic qualitative descriptors
An important task of a fully integrated assessment and management process is to
compare the mechanisms through which human activities exert pressure on the
ecosystem, with the list of ecosystem components and attributes. This will focus
the monitoring and assessment activity on threatened parts of the environment and
damaging human pressures. This risk-based prioritisation is used during the
implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives, where relevant authorities
advise on operations that may cause deterioration of habitats or disturbance of
listed species. In principle, there is no reason why ‘limits of acceptable change’
specified by these Directives cannot be incorporated into the MSD. The overall
approach is also consistent with the pressures and impacts analysis undertaken as
part of the WFD implementation. As such:





It would be sensible when implementing the Directive if this risk-based
approach was adopted.
It would also be sensible to incorporate, wherever possible, work already
undertaken by Member States to implement existing Directives, such as the
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.
It would result in a Directive applied at a high level, giving the necessary
freedom within regions to characterise GEnS, and to fill the gap between the
strategic goals and targets identified in the proposed Directive.
A working definition of GEnS applied in this way should be compatible with
sustainable use, and will be achieved when all human pressures are
sustainable at the scale of the management region.
Consistency with existing definitions of, and Governmental commitments to,
adoption of the Ecosystem Approach, and the four Strategic Goals adopted
by the Marine Strategy would be achieved.
The definition of GEnS in the MSD, which should take account of the need for
sustainable use of the environment, appears to differ from the definition of
unimpacted reference levels for Good Ecological Status under the WFD. There
will need to be a working relationship between these two Directives that accounts
for the different definitions of GEnS and Good Ecological Status.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
3
Based on this approach the general (normative) definition of GEnS could be
drafted so that; “The values of the biological quality elements of European
Regional Seas are at levels which are sustainable at the scale of the management
region”.
Scope of the initial assessment of environmental status
Many of the techniques necessary to sample key characteristics and major threats
of human activities are already available to Member States, although some are of
limited regional distribution and duration. Some additional work will be necessary
to measure and standardise:




temperature and salinity gradients in shelf seas,
primary and secondary productivity,
productivity of the invertebrate fauna,
population dynamics of all species of marine mammal and seabird,
Work will also be necessary to agree criteria for producing coherent habitat maps
of Regional Seas.
Further development of coherent international databases and monitoring
standardisation within Europe will be necessary to ensure that trans-boundary
issues can be effectively dealt with.
The costs of an initial assessment of European waters will depend entirely on the
scope and breadth of the parameters chosen to define GEnS and the scale at
which to apply them. In addition to the monitoring and characterisation described
in the Directive there will also need to be resources allocated to data management,
assessment and reporting of data. Costs of this activity are unknown but will be
significant.
A provisional analysis suggests that the current annual costs of marine monitoring
in the UK (excluding all associated marine management activity) are c.£26m, of
which a significant proportion is allocated to fisheries monitoring. The potential
cost of further monitoring to complete an initial assessment on the scale of that
outlined in Annex II of the draft Directive, could be c.£19m.




There is proven ability in the UK to integrate and assess comprehensive
national datasets and report on status, however there is a substantial cost
associated with this activity.
There is insufficient monitoring of the pressures of human activities.
Additional funding will be required to identify links between the pressures of
human activity and trends in the physical and biological environment.
There are insufficient measures of salinity gradients and trends, and other
aspects of water chemistry relevant to likely trends in acidification.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
4
1
Introduction
The European Commission has published a proposal for a Marine Strategy
Directive (MSD) to underpin its Marine Thematic Strategy, which aims to achieve
Good Environmental Status (GEnS) in the marine environment by 2021. As
currently drafted, it requires Member States to assess the status of their marine
waters, and determine a set of characteristics for GEnS based on generic
qualitative descriptors developed by the Commission. The MSD then requires the
establishment of environmental targets and monitoring programmes together with
programmes of measures needed to manage human activity that will lead to GEnS
being achieved.
The MSD is of particular interest to the UK in view of its extensive continental shelf
which is over three times that of the terrestrial environment. The Government
supports action to better protect Europe’s seas, however, there is a wide range of
concerns over what GEnS in the marine environment, as required by the MSD,
might look like in practice. There is currently considerable uncertainty over the
parameters that will define GEnS, what measures will need to be brought forward
to achieve it and the benefits, costs and practicality of achieving GEnS. To
investigate these issues, this paper has focussed on GEnS, and particularly on:

An evaluation of Annex II to the draft Directive which provides a high-level,
non-exhaustive list of elements that constitute GEnS; (section 2)

The identification and critical evaluation of what a package of generic
qualitative descriptors of GES might look like based on Annex II to the draft
Directive; (section 3) and

Based on the above elements, an evaluation of the scope of the initial
assessment of environmental status that Member States will be required to
undertake, including benefits, costs and practicality; (section 4)
This paper has been prepared for Defra, UK, and is based on consultation and
discussion amongst the UK government, Agencies, industry, science and
conservation community, published guidance to support the development of the
Marine Strategy, and a workshop held in London on 24th February 2006.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
5
2
An evaluation of Annex II to the draft Directive
Article 7 of the proposed Directive requires Member States to undertake an initial
assessment of their waters based on their physical and biological status, the
predominant pressures and impacts that might adversely affect the environment,
and a socio-economic analysis of their use and costs of degradation. Annex II and
the tables therein list characteristics, pressures and impacts that should be
considered in such an assessment (EC, 2005).
An important issue in the planning of an initial assessment is the scale at which
ecosystem processes operate and human activities impact the environment.
Whatever process is adopted, it is important to recognise that ecosystem
components can be assessed effectively at multiple scales, and that careful
decisions will need to be made to select the scale most appropriate to the regional
or sub-regional monitoring programmes. One consideration will relate to the
natural or made-made factors that are responsible for structuring the ecosystem.
Although some human activities can have a major local impact, these may be of
low significance at the scale of a regional sea. Monitoring and assessment of such
impacts needs to be proportionate, cost-effective and based on a clear
understanding of their importance.
There are also temporal considerations, particularly in relation to the
frequency and seasonality with which data are collected. It should not be
assumed that the intra and inter-annual variations in ecosystem processes will be
common to all Member States, and will respond consistently to the pressures of
human impacts. The extent and duration of sampling necessary for an initial
assessment will need to be designed with this in mind, and will be a function of the
statistical power of surveys to provide robust data from which conclusions can be
drawn.
This section provides a detailed evaluation of the Tables provided in Annex II,
describing the characteristics of European waters, and the pressures and impacts
to which they are exposed.
2.1
Annex II, Table 1 - Characteristics
Article 7 of the proposed Directive makes it clear that the initial assessment will
comprise an analysis of the ‘essential characteristics and current environmental
status’ of European waters, including the relevant provisions of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD), and based on the non-exhaustive list in Table 1
(Annex II). It is not clear what is meant by ‘essential characteristics and current
environmental status’, and further clarification should be sought from the
Commission. This could be interpreted to mean that Member States should only
collect data from important and representative ‘essential characteristics’ of the
marine environment and use these data in the determination of GEnS. Under
these circumstances it will be important that the selection of characteristics in
Table 1 (Annex II) is appropriate for this task, and considers their importance and
role in the environment, and the practicality of data collection.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
6
The alternative interpretation is that the description of ‘essential characteristics’ is
intended to be a more extensive data collection exercise to form a comprehensive
baseline characterisation of the marine environment. The use of ‘non-exhaustive’
in relation to the already detailed list of elements in Annex II suggests that the
coverage is intended to be thorough. After undertaking this broad description, it
might be sensible if a more limited selection of ecosystem components contributed
to a subsequent assessment of current environmental status. This approach will
have considerably greater implications for monitoring and assessment effort than a
more targeted assessment exercise. In either case, the ‘non-exhaustive’ list of
elements in Table 1 of Annex II must at least be sufficient to report GEnS.
The list of characteristics in Table 1 of Annex II covers the habitat types, biological
components, physico-chemical components and other features. The approach is
consistent with the selection of hydro-morphological and biological elements under
the WFD, although the focus on maintenance of water quality in the WFD requires
monitoring of only macrophytes, macroalgae, phytoplankton, macrobenthos and
fish in transitional waters. Less comprehensive approaches are also taken by the
Habitats and Birds Directives and OSPAR Annex V, which provide lists of species
and habitats as specific items for development of management measures and as
proposals for Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO).
Table 1 (Annex II) is therefore a much more comprehensive description of
the marine environment than has been provided by previous European
legislation. It includes a mixture of ecological components (plankton, seabirds,
etc) at species, population and community levels, together with attributes of
ecosystems such as primary and secondary productivity. However, this approach
is unstructured, and the inclusion of categories for ‘all other species’ and
‘other special areas’, reinforces the impression that an initial assessment
could have a very wide scope. No attempt has been made to justify the contents
of Table 1 as ‘essential characteristics’, and the reference to the list as ‘nonexhaustive’ suggests that further elements will need to be included. The scope of
the characteristics is very broad, and goes well beyond our current monitoring
capability in the marine environment. For example, we currently have insufficient
data to describe in full the following listed characteristics, and the financial
implications of data collection will be substantial (section 4.2):




Typical phytoplankton and zooplankton species, seasonal and geographical
variability and estimates of primary and secondary productivity.
Invertebrate bottom fauna including species composition, biomass,
productivity and annual/seasonal variability.
Structure of fish populations including the abundance, distribution and
age/size structure.
Population dynamics, natural and actual range and status of all species of
marine mammal and seabird.
There is overlap in the contents of the three main subheadings that deal with the
different types of characteristics. For example, although the section ‘physical and
chemical features’ explicitly mentions water depth, temperature and salinity, these
characteristics are also unnecessarily included in the subsequent description of
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
7
‘habitat types’. In all sections of the Table, the criteria for inclusion of routine
physical and biologic measures in assessments should be related to their role in
physical processes and ecosystem function rather than simply the ease of
measurement.
The contents and presentation of the characteristics in Table 1 suggest that the
initial assessment is intended to be a comprehensive baseline characterisation of
marine waters by Member States. It is difficult to see how the status of the
ecosystem can be determined for each of these components. It will, therefore, be
necessary to select ecosystem components from this broad characterisation
for monitoring, assessment, and subsequent determination of GEnS. No
guidance is provided on the link between the contents of Table 1 and the set of
descriptors required in the recognition of GEnS.
In addition to the generic listing of elements of the marine environment, Table 1
also refers to those species, habitats and communities that are already protected
under existing Habitats and Birds Directives legislation. It is difficult to categorise
some of these as, for example, the protection of the bottle-nose dolphin and some
species of birds requires conservation of habitat, so it is recommended that all
such specific obligations are included in a separate part of the Annex.
Habitat assessment can then focus only on representative habitat types, taking
account of their functional role and spatial scale.
In the section ‘habitat types’, the use of the general category ‘other special areas’
may exclude important features that are not necessarily habitats, such as
spawning grounds, fronts or other areas of ecological importance. An alternative
title for this category might be ‘other areas for particular attention’.
In addition to these important structural components of the ecosystem, there are
other attributes of the biological characteristics such as species diversity and
ecosystem processes that are not direct biological properties but are functions of
the entire ecosystem. These attributes are sometimes referred to as emergent
properties. They are important because they provide information about the
functioning (i.e. rate processes) and status of the ecosystem, and have been
widely perceived as additional and potentially useful indicators of environmental
status (de Jonge et al., 2006; Elliott et al., 2006a).
The ecosystem characteristics needed for status assessment should therefore be
selected carefully and be as comprehensive as possible, and incorporate all the
necessary structural and functional attributes of populations and
communities.
In the final section of Table 1 (Annex II) of the proposed Directive ‘Other features’,
the reference to nutrient enrichment inputs and chemical pollution duplicates the
more comprehensive listing of pressures and impacts in the subsequent Table 2.
It also seems unnecessary to highlight such miscellaneous features as dumped
munitions, as a process is already in place to report and manage them, and
additional monitoring is likely to be unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
8
The other important part of an initial assessment programme will be an evaluation
of the consequence of the pressures caused by human activities in the marine
environment. Although most references to pressures are in Table 2 of Annex II,
three of the last four bullets in the section ‘biological elements’ require ‘a
description of the main threats’ to marine mammals, seabirds and all other species.
This seems unnecessary duplication as they are listed fully in Table 2.
2.2
Annex II. Table 2 - Pressures and impacts
In principle the approach adopted in Table 2 to categorise pressures of human
activities is sensible and can be used as the basis for a structured assessment. It
is entirely consistent with the Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response (DPSIR)
approach, which is a convenient way to classify ecosystem components for the
selection of indicators (IIED, 2002). Generic headings for physical / biological
disturbance and toxic / non-toxic contamination will apply to all European waters,
and are a good starting point. More detailed listing of activities against each
pressure will not be helpful as the extent to which they are relevant to all European
Seas will depend on the economic activities that are undertaken in the region.
Some flexibility will be needed to account for region-specific activities. The
consultation of interested parties described in the Directive recognised that climate
change and unsustainable fisheries are two of the most important pressures in the
marine environment, and this is supported by a wide range of recent research and
analysis (Defra, 2005; OSPAR, 2000b).
There are some important omissions and inconsistencies in the Table 2 list:





The apparent inclusion of commercial fishing under Selective Extraction of
Species (biological disturbance), but not under Physical Damage (siltation,
abrasion) is misleading and does not take account of the wider ecosystem
impacts of fishing activity.
There is no mention of climate change and, for example, the effects of
ocean acidification, and these pressures will become increasingly important
for our understanding of future trends observed in the ecosystem.
The addition of marine litter to the category non-toxic contamination would
be sensible.
It is not clear why noise impacts are classified as non-physical disturbances.
It is not clear why visual impacts are required as part of an initial
assessment.
Such effects will only influence stakeholders, not
characteristics of the ecosystem.
Categories of pressure in Annex II correspond closely with those identified in UK
advice to support the Habitats and Birds Directives, and show many similarities
with those identified by OSPAR when undertaking the assessment of human
impacts in the North Sea for the recent Quality Status Report (OSPAR, 2000b).
Article 7 refers to the need to assess the pressures, the extent to which they mix,
and ‘discernable trends’.
An initial assessment of environmental
characteristics will not be sufficient without a historic context on which to
base the assessment of GEnS. This would be a useful product once the initial
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
9
assessment of current environmental status was complete, and would make use of
trend data for the pressures of human activities to identify key threats and assess
whether change to the environmental status was likely, and to plan suitable
mitigation. Corresponding trend data for the biological and physical characteristics
may also be required. However, interpretation of the causes of change in all
datasets will require a detailed understanding of the relative role of natural
processes, and the effects of climate change compared to those of human activity.
2.3
Conclusions
As currently drafted, Annex II of the Directive suggests that an initial assessment of
the marine environment will have a very broad scope, and correspondingly high
cost. It is not apparent whether the initial assessment (based on Annex II) is
intended to be a comprehensive report of the status of European Seas, from which
a smaller number of selected characteristics are used to determine on GEnS, or
whether all components of Annex II are intended to be used both in an initial
assessment and for the determination of GEnS.
UK stakeholders confirmed that it would be sensible for the Directive to build on
existing activity in OSPAR and EU Directives to monitor and characterise the
marine environment, and to focus sampling activity of measurable components that
are already part of current activities.
There is a precedent in existing EU legislation (Habitats and Birds Directives) for
the use of a risk-based approach to selecting key components and attributes
of the ecosystem, and the most significant pressures of human activities on
them. Part of this process would require a logical subdivision of the entire marine
environment, rather than rely on the text-based approach presented in Table 1 of
Annex II. It would be helpful when implementing the Directive if this approach was
incorporated in the initial assessment (further details of such an approach are
described in Annex 1).
3
The identification and critical evaluation of what a package of generic
qualitative descriptors of GEnS might look like.
Article 8 of the proposed Directive states that the Commission will, after the date of
its entry into force and after consultation, lay down generic qualitative descriptors,
detailed criteria and standards for the recognition of GEnS.
Without knowing the parameters or principles that will underpin the definition of
GEnS, and the extent to which it will place additional burdens on Member States, it
may be difficult for them to judge the scale and extent of further assessment and
management measures that will be required to achieve the initial assessment.
This will have major implications for the resources necessary to complete the work
and whether the final proposals are affordable (section 4.2).
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
10
It will be necessary to incorporate, wherever possible, work already
undertaken by Member States to implement the Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) Directive, WFD and Habitats and Birds Directives. The
inshore boundary proposed for the EMS will be the national baselines from which
the extent of territorial waters is measured1, and so will include the coastal waters
defined under the WFD, and the marine waters in which the Habitats and Birds
Directives apply (EC, 2005; EU, 1979; EU, 1992).
Work is already underway in several international fora to describe the status of
specific aspects of marine ecosystems. In addition to HELCOM, OSPAR and the
Barcelona Convention there is activity in other regional organisations such as the
North Atlantic Salmon Commission, the Agreement on Small Cetaceans of the
Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS), and the North Atlantic Marine Mammals
Commission. Although OSPAR has the broadest regional scope, it would be
sensible when implementing the Directive if a mechanism was developed by
the Commission to take account of all current activity on status assessment.
It is crucial to be clear at the earliest opportunity what parameters define GEnS,
and to base them on existing commitments to deliver sustainable
management of human activities in European Seas, taking account of the
Vision and Strategic goals (EC, 2004a; EC, 2004b).
In the absence of a complete understanding of the effects of human activities, the
practical implementation of the Directive will need to make greater use of
adaptive management, where both research science and government contribute
to the development of effective management measures. This will need to
incorporate the needs of offshore industries and be compatible with their sectoral
objectives for sustainable development, removing regulatory uncertainly as far as
possible by providing a clear definition of GEnS. This will be a major challenge as
there is a recognised non-linearity in the link between the magnitude of effort and
the response of the ecosystem, suggesting that the adaptive management process
will need to be flexible and yet provide a degree of certainty.
It is not clear from the draft Directive how GEnS will be defined, or the extent to
which the generic descriptors will be based on existing approaches outlined in, for
example, the WFD and the Habitats and Birds Directives. The context of the draft
makes it clear, however, that it will be based on the principles of the 6 th
Environment Action Programme, and will have the overall aim to promote
sustainable use of the seas and conserve marine ecosystems.
In the absence of a definition of GEnS, this section explores an approach to
defining generic qualitative descriptors, detailed criteria and standards for the
recognition of GEnS, based on the Strategic Goals of the EMS and using
appropriate objectives and indicators, and taking account of current methods
adopted by the WFD and Habitats and Birds Directives.
1
seaward of the Lowest Astronomical Tide and bay closing lines in England and Wales, or seaward
of Mean Low Water Spring Mark and Bay closing lines in Scotland, and other straight lines joining
islands on the west coast.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
11
3.1
Generic descriptors
environments.
of
GEnS
in
sustainably
exploited
marine
The definition of Environmental Status in the European Marine Strategy (Article 1)
is “the overall state of the environment in marine waters, taking into account the
structure, function and processes of the constituent marine ecosystems together
with natural physiographic, geographic and climatic factors, as well as physical and
chemical conditions including those resulting from human activities in the area
concerned” (EC, 2005).
Sustainable human impacts modify marine ecosystems. Identifying a link between
GEnS and sustainable use is consistent with existing definitions of, and
Governmental commitments to, adoption of the Ecosystem Approach (CONSSO,
2002; Defra, 2002; Elliott et al., 2006b; Laffoley et al., 2004; UNEP, 1992). A
working definition of GEnS should therefore be compatible with sustainable
use, in a way that GEnS is achieved when all human pressures are sustainable at
the scale of the management region. At the highest level, the definition of GEnS
should therefore include the physico-chemical features of the environment that are
necessary for sustainable biological communities to develop, allowing free access
to migratory species and limiting the adverse impacts of invasive species on
ecosystem function. There would be merit in developing descriptors of GEnS so
that they are consistent with this definition.
During preparations for the Rotterdam Stakeholder Conference in 2004 a set of
four Strategic Goals were identified for the EMS, each based on the principle of
sustainable management of European Seas and the conservation of marine
ecosystems. Each of these high-level Goals can be unpacked to identify the many
legislative drivers which already exist and are currently in operation. There would
be benefits if these underpinned the definition of GEnS of European seas (EC,
2004b).
3.1.1 Objectives and indicators in a management framework
The management framework to achieve GEnS will be most effective when based
on objectives, indicators, targets and limits. At a high level, goals such as ‘halt
biodiversity decline’ will describe the desired status of the ecosystem. One of the
difficulties of such high-level goals is making them easily interpreted and
expressed in a way that shows they are practical and achievable, as well as
reflecting sustainable ecosystem structure and function. To be effective, the
management framework must make them operational using more specific
and meaningful objectives that are more clearly linked to management of
human activities.
The process of defining generic descriptors should focus on the pressures
caused by the most damaging human activities, and the probability that they
compromise sustainability, rather than focus on the state of the marine
environment. This will require a greater understanding of the links between key
pressures and the state of the marine environment, primarily focussed on the most
damaging activities in European Seas (OSPAR, 2000b). Variability in the natural
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
12
environment and the influence of widespread pressures such as fishing activity,
can mask the subtle changes due to impacts of site-specific pressures, and
complicates the accurate measurement of error.
3.1.2 Co-ordinating GEnS with the Habitats and Birds Directives
Although the goals of the Habitats and Birds Directives are clearly stated, the
Directives do not specify precisely what form the conservation objectives should
take, or what role they should play in site management. In the UK, the
conservation objectives have been interpreted as the target condition of an interest
feature that management should attain. The identification of ‘limits of acceptable
change’ of interest features to support such assessments is complex and has led
to varied interpretation. For some components of the ecosystem such as seabed
habitats, the definition of objectives and selection of indicators is severely limited
by current understanding of the minimum extent of different habitats that are
required to maintain viability and the optimal target that is sufficient to support
sustainable exploitation of, for example, seabed fisheries and mineral extraction.
In principle, there is no reason why limits of acceptable change cannot be
incorporated into the framework of objectives and indicators described
above, and deliver conservation objectives that are consistent with the definition of
GEnS.
3.1.3 Co-ordinating GEnS with the Water Framework Directive
Article 7 of the proposed Directive states that the analysis of European waters
should take account of coastal and transitional water biological elements, water
quality and hydromorphological status required by the WFD.
Good Ecological Status (GEcS) is defined in the WFD in terms of the quality of the
biological community, and the characteristics of the hydrological and chemical
environment. As no absolute standards for biological quality can be set which
apply across the Community because of ecological variability, GEcS is related to,
and allows some departure from, the biological community which would be
expected under conditions of minimal anthropogenic impact. Good chemical status
is defined in terms of compliance with the quality standards established for
chemical substances at European level.
Currently in the UK, the general criteria for achieving GEcS for the biological
elements relates to measures which are slightly outside type-specific reference
levels. The WFD allows several methods of defining reference levels for minimal
anthropogenic impact, using either spatially based data, hindcasting (i.e. a
retrospective assessment) or modelling output, a combination of these methods or
expert judgement. There are difficulties with this approach as type-specific control
areas are difficult to find, predictive models are not yet good enough for decision
making, and hindcasting leads to debate about when would be an appropriate
reference date.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
13
This approach to defining reference levels under the WFD appears to differ from
the definition of GEnS, which takes account of need for sustainable use of the
environment.
There will, therefore, need to be a working relationship between the two
Directives that accounts for the different definitions of GEnS and GEcS. This
could be achieved by acknowledging that the WFD is primarily aimed at improving
and maintaining water quality in inshore waters (generally within 1 nautical mile
(nm)), while the overall aim of the MSD is to achieve good environmental status for
all the waters between the coast and the 200 mile limit (at least). In coastal
waters, the WFD is primarily concerned with water quality and focussed on
rigorous inshore management of the sources of land based pollution. The
monitoring and assessment of macro-algae and macrophytes in coastal waters
should remain within the remit of the WFD as these populations rarely occur
offshore. If the status of phytoplankton and macrobenthos in coastal waters under
the WFD is ‘good’, then limited assessment will be necessary in waters under the
MSD, assuming that the source of pressures affecting these populations is from
land. This approach will be equivalent to that already adopted by OSPAR under
the Comprehensive Procedure. If assessment of phytoplankton and macrobenthos
in coastal waters under the WFD results in moderate or poor status, then further
monitoring under the MSD in the waters beyond 1nm (3nm in Scotland) may be
required.
For all other components of the ecosystem, objectives and supporting indicators
should be identified under the MSD and applied from the baseline to the limits of
national jurisdiction. In these waters, descriptors of GEnS would benefit from
being more strategic than those defining GEcS, and take account of the
principle of sustainable development when selecting reference conditions
against which to compare current status. Targeted use of assessment and
monitoring to reduce both volume of data and excessive detail will enable this to
occur. On a gradient of ecosystem status ranging from irreversibly damaged to
pristine and unimpacted (Figure 3.1.3.1) the location of GEnS must reflect healthy
sustainable ecosystems but will not be the unimpacted state. The location on this
gradient of the current state of European Seas in relation to GEnS is a primary
purpose of the initial assessment process of the MSD.
Current state?
Irreversible
damage
GEnS
Pristine
environment
Fig 3.1.3.1.
An illustration of a hypothetical impact gradient in marine ecosystems from irreversibly
damaged to pristine and unimpacted. The location of GEnS on this gradient should take
account of the principle of sustainable development.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
14
Throughout Europe there is ongoing activity by expert groups to ensure calibration
and standardisation of assessment methods to support the WFD, and these
groups are well placed to share their expertise and experience with the Regional
Seas Conventions in determining GEnS. There is much that can be learnt from
the inter-calibration activity that has already been undertaken and endorsed
by the Commission, and this should be build upon rather than developing new
committees and structures.
3.1.4 Descriptors of Good Environmental Status
In view of the regional variability in environmental characteristics and pressures,
and the benefits of applying a risk-based approach to determining the extent of
regional threats, it is sensible for the Directive to leave determination of GEnS to
each Marine Region and for the Commission to produce generic qualitative
descriptors.
A sensible approach would be for the Commission to provide generic guidance on
the descriptors of GEnS that would apply to the characteristics of the marine
environment across all Regional Seas. This would follow the principle adopted by
the WFD, where generic definitions of condition provided in the Directive are then
interpreted by Member States so that they become regionally relevant. In the WFD
the general (normative) definition of GEcS in coastal waters relates to slight
deviation from undisturbed conditions. “The values of the biological quality
elements for the surface water body type show low levels of distortion resulting
from human activity, but deviate only slightly from those normally associated with
the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions” (EU, 2000). There are
also comparable definitions for hydro-morphological and physico-chemical
conditions.
In the MSD, this definition needs to reflect the importance of sustainable use.
This is consistent with existing definitions of, and Governmental commitments to,
implementation of the Ecosystem Approach, and the four Strategic Goals adopted
by the Marine Strategy.
Based on this approach the general (normative) definition of GEnS could be
drafted along the following lines;
1. “The values of the biological quality elements of European Regional
Seas are at levels which are sustainable at the scale of the
management region”.
For the purposes of ecological classification, a specific description of GEnS applied
to each of the biological characteristics of European Seas (plankton and microorganisms, macrophytes and macro-algae, fish, marine mammals, reptiles,
seabirds) could be;
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
15

“Populations, species and communities that
productive and resilient to environmental change”.
are
diverse,
Other general (normative) definitions of GEnS related to the physical components
of the marine environment will be required. These will ensure that the state of the
physical environment allows the development of sustainable species, populations
and communities. Such definitions could be drafted as follows:
2. “Hydro-morphological conditions are consistent with the achievement
of the values for the biological quality elements specified above”.
3. “Water chemistry is within levels that support the functioning of the
ecosystem and the achievement of the values for the biological quality
elements specified above”.
4. “Concentrations of specific synthetic and non-synthetic pollutants are
not in excess of current standards (e.g. are within Environmental
Quality Standards (EQS))”
In view of the wide diversity of environments within European Seas it is not
possible or necessary to provide more detailed targets and limits in the Directive
itself. It should be the responsibility of the Member States, working co-operatively
at the regional sea level, to provide region-specific reference condition descriptions
for the characteristics of the marine environment. These would describe the
detailed properties of each ecosystem component and attribute that corresponded
with good status, and would be equivalent to the Type Specific Reference
Condition Descriptions provided by Member States under the WFD to describe
GEcS.
Under the WFD, these reference condition descriptions are very specific to the
region for which they are prepared, and are used with site monitoring as part of the
classification process. For example, in the UK the reference conditions for benthic
macro-invertebrates in coastal water type 2 are drafted as follows (TAG, 2004):
‘Fine sands in the shallow sublittoral, may be characterised by the polychaete
Nephtys cirrosa and amphipod Bathyporeia spp. The diversity can be
reduced due to physical disturbance from strong tidal streams or wave action.
In more compacted sands venerid bivalves such as Chamelea gallina may
dominate. The bivalve Fabulina fabula and the polychaete Magelona mirabilis
may also be characteristic.’
Similar Reference Conditions should be provided for each component of the
marine environment at an appropriate scale given the MSD covers out to the 200
mile limit, sub-divided according to a logical and comprehensive listing process.
Although comparison with the WFD is useful in this context, it would not be
appropriate to replicate the level of detail in the WFD throughout European seas.
In principle, such descriptions should ensure that all the necessary
structural and functional attributes of the ecosystem are considered, and
should refer to genetic, trophic and structural aspects of the marine environment.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
16
Check-lists of these attributes, such those described in Table 3.1.4.1, will help to
ensure that descriptions of ecosystem reference conditions are comprehensive.
Table 3.1.4.1.
Possible structural and functional attributes of marine ecosystems that should be
considered when developing descriptions of reference conditions in regional seas.
Modified from (Elliott et al., 2006a).
Attribute
1. spatial extent of biotopes, habitats and/or ecosystems are as expected
and self-sustaining under the natural physico-chemical conditions
2. community diversity and structure, population abundance and
reproduction, and species distribution are as expected under natural
prevailing conditions, and resilient to natural disturbances
S
3. populations of threatened and/or protected species are sustainable
S, F
4. genetic diversity of farmed and wild-caught species is not compromised
S
5. nutrient dynamics are as expected under the prevailing hydrographic
conditions (e.g. residence time) and not greatly modified by anthropogenic
activities
F
6. invasive, alien or introduced species are absent or in low numbers
and have not affected the integrity of other species, the habitat or
ecosystem
3.2
Structural (S)
or
Functional (F)
S, F
S, F
7. community functioning and functional groups, e.g. as shown by the
trophic structure, are as expected and sustainable/stable in the long-term
F
8. there is no physical or chemical disruption in connectivity of migration
routes (i.e. no population fragmentation) within and between ecosystems
S, F
Learning from national and regional activity
The Regional Seas Conventions are well placed to contribute to work on GEnS as
the OSPAR definition of Ecological Quality derived to support the North Sea
EcoQO pilot project (Box 1) is similar to that for Environmental Status given in
Article 1. There are, however, many differences in interpretation which will need to
be overcome to ensure successful integration of the two approaches (OSPAR,
2005). Important amongst these is the more flexible methodology used to define
EcoQO’s, based on a mixture of indicators and descriptors of physical and
biological elements, and a less structured approach to the timescales required to
achieve the aims of the different OSPAR Strategies.
The recent UK report into the state of the marine environment, Charting
Progress, (Defra, 2005) has provided a good example of an assessment process
that targets key pressures on the ecosystem (Table 3.2.1).
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
17
Box 1.
Definition of Environmental Status in the European Marine Strategy (Article 1),
“the overall state of the environment in marine waters, taking into account the structure,
function and processes of the constituent marine ecosystems together with natural
physiographic, geographic and climatic factors, as well as physical and chemical
conditions including those resulting from human activities in the area concerned” (EC,
2005).
The OSPAR definition of Marine Ecological Quality, (OSPAR, 2005)
“An overall expression of the structure and function of the marine ecosystem, taking into
account the biological community and natural physiographic, geographic and chemical
conditions, including those resulting from human activities”
In addition to specific reviews of the physical and biological components in UK
seas, the assessment process evaluated the key interactions with human activities,
described the recent trend in the data, the current status and confidence in the
assessment. This approach could provide the basis for the development of a
generic description on which to base regional sea objectives.
Table 4.2.1.
Ecosystem characteristics and key pressures of human activities used in the recent
assessment of UK seas (Defra, 2005).
Key factors and pressures
Water Quality
Riverine inputs. Direct discharges of specified metals, lindane & PAH from point & diffuse
sources
Radionuclides
Inputs from point and diffuse sources
Oil from accidental spills
Oil from refineries and offshore oil and gas
Sewage discharges and microbiological
Discharges and emissions of nutrients from human activities
Coastal habitats
Coastal development, erosion, sea level rise and climate change
Beach litter and human debris
Benthic communities and Human activities causing physical disturbance
associated sea floor
Chemical contamination
habitat
Fish
Commercial fishing
Industrial activities and contamination
Aquaculture and ecosystem variability
Plankton
Climate change
Nutrients inputs
Marine mammals
Commercial fishing
Other (apart from commercial fishing) anthropogenic activities and climate change
Seabirds
Climate change and food sources
Commercial fishing, pollution and oil spills
Marine Species
(Biodiversity)
Introduction of species from shipping and climate change
General climate change
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
18
4
An evaluation of the scope of the initial assessment, including
benefits, costs and practicality
Article 7 of the MSD requires Member States to make an initial assessment of their
European marine waters, based on the characteristics and current status of those
waters, and the predominant pressures and impacts on the environment. The
scope of such an assessment depends entirely on how GEnS is defined and the
extent of monitoring that is required to support this definition. This section
considers the benefits, costs and practicality of undertaking such an assessment,
and identifies areas where additional assessment and monitoring might need to be
undertaken.
4.1
Practicality and benefits
Many of the techniques necessary to sample key characteristics and major
threats of human activities are already available to Member States and are
often already implemented, although some are of limited regional distribution and
duration. The monitoring required to undertake an initial assessment is therefore
within the scope of European Marine Institutes and Agencies and can be
undertaken provided that it is resourced adequately. Based on the characteristics
listed in Table 1 (Annex II), however, some additional work will be necessary to
agree on the best methods for measuring and standardising:




temperature and salinity gradients in shelf seas,
primary and secondary productivity,
productivity of the invertebrate fauna,
population dynamics of all species of marine mammal and seabird,
Work will also be necessary to agree criteria for producing coherent habitat maps
of Regional Seas.
Work is already underway to coordinate such activity between Member States, and
Working Groups in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
have made particular progress in relation to coherent international databases and
monitoring standardisation. Further development of these approaches will be
necessary to ensure that trans-boundary issues can be effectively dealt with.
Equivalent tasks will be necessary to compile an inventory of human activities in
the marine environment, and of land-based activities which will impact marine
ecosystems. Sufficient information on the effects of these activities will be
necessary so that links can be made with adverse effects on specific
ecosystem components. Compilations and reviews of applied research which
describe the response of marine ecosystems to adverse effects will become
increasingly valuable (Defra, 2006). There will be technical challenges in relation to
collecting information describing the pressures and impacts of noise, and the
introduction of microbial pathogens, non-native species and translocations.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
19
Integrated assessments of the marine environment are an important part of the
process of implementing the ecosystem approach, and have four components
(ICES, 2005):
•
•
•
•
Evaluation of ecosystem status
Compilation of human activities
Evaluation of relevant ecosystem policies
Evaluation of relevant social and economic policies
The emphasis in this paper has been on evaluating ecosystem status using
knowledge of ecosystem structure, function and quality, but in addition it is
necessary to collate inventories of human activities that are regulated by these
policies and that may adversely impact those properties.
In addition to
understanding and listing existing drivers and commitments to conservation action,
it will also be necessary to identify economic and social policies that apply in the
Regional Sea and that describe the uses of European waters that are required by
society. Only by considering current economic, social and ecosystem policies
together will it be possible for all Member States to evaluate their progress towards
implementing the Directive and associated legal obligations and commitments, and
the achievement of sustainable development. A holistic view such as this will allow
Member States to evaluate the success of management in the marine environment
and address any deficiencies in the management process.
In Article 7 (c) it is unclear to what extent an analysis of ‘the cost of degradation of
the marine environment’ will form part of this collation of social and economic
policies, and further clarification should be provided by the Commission to highlight
the additional data that would be required to address this.
4.2
Cost
It has been assumed in this section that the initial assessment will focus only on
those characteristics of European waters that are needed to identify GEnS, and will
continue to be subject to routine monitoring in subsequent years. A more
comprehensive baseline characterisation of all physical and biological components
of the marine environment would be very difficult to cost accurately.
The UK is currently working towards an accessible, comprehensive description of
the scope and costs of all current marine monitoring activity. During the
preparation of these data it will be possible to also identify the potential costs of
more intensive assessment and monitoring that is likely to be required under the
MSD, however, this is not yet complete.
There are two main issues which influence the scale of an initial assessment.

A comprehensive initial assessment of European seas, based on all the
characteristics in Annex II of the draft Directive, will require higher cost than
a more limited assessment programme using a risk-based approach
targeting important threats and key ecosystem characteristics. As already
described, the characteristics listed in Annex II do not form the basis of a
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
20
practical assessment process and it would be more sensible if the MSD
revised the approach.

Costs associated with undertaking a comprehensive initial assessment will
be greater than the subsequent costs of undertaking routine monitoring, due
to additional considerations such as cost of infrastructure, and training and
administration required to implement and report on new monitoring
programmes. In addition to the costs of initial monitoring it will also be
necessary to take account of the cumulative cost of long-term, low level
monitoring programmes.
In view of the many trans-boundary issues which will occur as a result of the
planning and completion of an initial assessment, it is essential that there is
regional cooperation in the assessment and reporting of monitoring data. The
OSPAR Quality Status Report is a good example of this integrated approach,
where comprehensive assessments have been completed for key environmental
characteristics and human pressures (OSPAR, 2000a; OSPAR, 2006). Regional
seas conventions could be encouraged to lead on the planning of initial
assessments under the QSR 2010 which are coordinated with the requirements of
the MSD (OSPAR, 2006). During the development of the QSR 2010 it will be
important to identify the contribution made by national assessments, so that the
practical links between future Regional Seas Convention Reports and the
assessments required under the MSD can also be determined.
While more integrated versions of this approach are currently under development
in ICES and elsewhere, it is not necessary to wait for the completion of the
assessment before taking management action. Immediate action must be taken
on those pressures which are already well described and for which the links with
sensitive characteristics of the environment are already understood. Further
research to determine the precise links between the pressures of human
activities and environmental response will be necessary to support this
assessment.
The UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) has been
developed to coordinate current monitoring activity and evaluate the additional
requirements necessary to achieve UK obligations. Additional monitoring costs
under the EMS will depend entirely on the scope and breadth of the parameters
chosen to define good environmental status. A focus on the somewhat limited
range of parameters currently applied in the OSPAR JAMP and the WFD will
create a smaller extra cost than a more comprehensive approach. In addition to
the monitoring and characterisation described in the Directive there will also need
to be resources allocated to the assessment of data. Costs of this activity are
unknown but will be significant, and form an essential part of the process.
There is considerable uncertainty over the costs of implementing the MSD. A
preliminary assessment has been made of the current costs of marine monitoring
to the UK, based on the characteristics, pressures and impacts described in Annex
II (Table 4.2.1). Activities have only been considered that are necessary to
undertake an initial assessment of the UKCS, and where possible exclude costs of
more general marine management activity. This compilation has therefore
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
21
focussed on the primary costs of data collection, comprising mainly expenditure on
surveys and field sampling, and staff time necessary to complete data collection.
Table 4.2.1
Summary of the total monitoring costs to the UK of the existing and potential future monitoring
programmes. For further details see Table 4.2.2a and b.
Existing UK spend
£26m
New work costs
£19m
The total current monitoring costs of those attributes for which there is relatively
high confidence in their accuracy (£9.7m) (Table 4.2.2a) are dominated by the
costs of marine fisheries monitoring, assessment and data collection. Relatively
high costs are also incurred by routine monitoring of bathing waters and shellfish
waters (£2.3m), and collection of physical data for the water column and seabed.
Additional work for the purposes of an initial assessment under these categories
has been estimated at £5.6m. This includes additional work necessary to meet
obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives for designation of offshore SAC
(£1.5m), a proposal for a comprehensive UK data stewardship system (£1.5m),
and improved monitoring of marine mammals and seabirds in coastal and offshore
waters (Table 4.2.2a). Not included in this category, but of interest to the further
understanding of UK seabed habitats, is a current proposal in preparation by UK
Agencies for a comprehensive remote acoustic mapping programme of the UKCS
beyond 12nm. Costs for such a survey could be as much as £25 million per
annum over a 10-year period.
A second category of monitoring has been identified for which costs are provisional
and require further work to improve confidence in them (Table 4.2.2b). Total
current costs for this ‘low confidence’ category of monitoring (£16.3m) are
dominated by monitoring under the Global Ocean Observing System, and National
Marine Monitoring Programme. Potential additional monitoring costs (£13.4) are
provisional, but likely to include an extended programme of ocean monitoring and
forecasting, a more comprehensive offshore programme for assessing toxic and
non-toxic contaminants, and survey work to monitor the effects of offshore
developments.
It should be emphasised that although some of these data are provisional, they
suggest that current total marine monitoring costs for the UK are c.£26m, of which
a large proportion is allocated to fisheries monitoring. Potential costs of additional
monitoring are approximately £19m, with an additional £37m for a comprehensive
offshore remote acoustic survey of the UKCS, should it be considered necessary.
Further work is required to revise and improve these costs, and consider the extent
to which monitoring of several parameters could be coordinated to improve
efficiency.
This exercise identified four areas where additional investment would be necessary
to undertake an initial assessment of UK seas.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
22




There is proven ability in the UK to integrate and assess comprehensive
national datasets and report on status, however there is a substantial cost
associated with this activity.
There is insufficient monitoring of the pressures of human activities.
Additional funding will be required to identify links between the pressures of
human activity and trends in the physical and biological environment.
There are insufficient measures of salinity gradients and trends, and other
aspects of water chemistry relevant to likely trends in acidification.
Although it has not been possible to estimate the costs of this additional work, it
should be taken into account when considering the implications of an initial
assessment by Member States.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
23
Table 4.2.2a.
Attributes for which there is relatively high confidence in the accuracy of potential costs of additional work necessary to complete an initial assessment in UK
seas based on the characteristics, pressures and impacts described in Annex II of the draft directive.
Attribute
Existing UK
Programme
Existing UK New work needed
spend (£m)
New work Comments
costs (£m)
Habitat types
Identification and mapping of special habitat limited to coastal Natura 0.3
types esp those identified under EU
2000.
legislation (habitats and birds directives) or
international conventions of special scientific
or biodiversity interest
Status of protected areas
1.5
Annual cost of offshore site
identification and monitoring in
UK.
Biological
Elements
population dynamics, natural and actual
range and status of all species of marine
mammal.
JNCC / SMRU (includes 1
2005 SCANS survey )
Estimates of populations
needed and by-catch
0.5
Monitoring is for annual
cetacean relative abundance,
used with decadal 'SCANS'
surveys.
A description of the population dynamics,
natural and actual range and status of all
species of seabirds occurring in the
region/sub-region.
JNCC (Seabirds at Sea
Team)
0.1
Offshore SPA site survey
monitoring and surveillance
0.8
Annual cost of offshore site
identification and monitoring,
but part of a 6 year reporting
cycle.
Other Features
A description of incidences of nutrient
enrichment-inputs, nutrient cycling (currents
and sediment/water interactions), spatial
distribution, consequences;
OSPAR JAMP
0.4
0.4
Transboundary monitoring and
modelling of processes. UK
2007_08 eutrophication
assessment.
Pressures and
Impacts
Noise
none
0
Commercial and recreational fishing
Microbial pathogens
Data Stewardship
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
UKCS noise monitoring
0.2
E, W & S data collection 5.5
minimum & extended
programme
support for environmental
integration in CFP
0.5
costs of UK programme to
monitor ecosystem effects of
fishing (excludes Scotland &
NI)
Bathing waters and Shell 2.3
fish regs
possible addition of flesh
sampling in E&W for
contaminants (as done in S &
NI)
0.2
may be requirement under
Bathing Waters Dir.
MDIP / MEDAG etc
0.1
1.5
9.7
5.6
24
Table 4.2.2b.
Attributes for which there is relatively low confidence in the accuracy of potential costs of additional work necessary to complete an initial assessment in UK
seas based on the characteristics, pressures and impacts described in Annex II of the draft directive. Values in brackets (£ million) refer to specific monitoring
costs.
Physical and
chemical
features.
Biological
Elements
Attribute
Existing UK
Programme
Existing UK New work needed
spend (£m)
- annual and seasonal temperature regime
GOOS / ICES
ARGO 1m
GMES 4m
predominant currents and estimated recycling/
replacement times;
- bathymetric features;
Met. Forecasting.
2
UKHO / BGS
1.5
none
– A description of the biological communities
associated with the predominant habitats.
Phyto and zooplankton
CPR / MECN; 0.5
1
CPR / MECN (0.5)
Other Features
Pressures and
Impacts
Fish populations (see
above)
A description of the general state of chemical
pollution including problem chemicals, sediment
contamination,
hot spots, health issues (contamination of fish
flesh);
Pollution – toxic
General state
non toxic contamination (nutrients)
Physical damage
Windfarms / dumping
FEPA
0.3
further development of WFD
tools to support offshore
assessment?
Primary productivity (0.5)
unknown
2
General state (1.8)
2.4
Effects (0.6)
3
(special surveys)
1.8
1
Litter (MCS)
0.4
0.8
Windfarms / dumping FEPA 0.5; 2
Special surveys £1.5m; Inc
modelling capacity
16.3
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
depends on scale and if
measurements at depth are
required
2
Effects
NNMP
Yes – including additional work on 4.5
modelling and support for GOOS
and GMES
new benthic indicators work (1)
typical phytoplankton and zooplankton communities benthos 0.5
(species), seasonal and geographical variability,
estimates of primary and secondary productivity.
Info on the invertebrate bottom fauna including
species composition, biomass, productivity and
annual/seasonal variability.
Primary productivity £0
Information on the structure of fish populations
including the abundance, distribution and age/size
structure of the populations.
New work Comments
costs (£)
13.4
25
5
Annex 1. A possible approach to structuring an initial a ssessment
This section describes a method of selecting characteristics of the marine
environment and linking them to the pressures and impacts caused by human
activities. It highlights the benefits of a risk-based approach to the assessment
process and the need to understand links between human pressures and their
effects on the marine environment.
An alternative and more effective approach to structuring the characteristics of the
environment would be to replace the text-based approach of Table 1 (Annex II) of
the proposed Directive with a simple but comprehensive list of characteristics of
the marine environment. Although each category would need to be interpreted so
that they are suitable at the regional level, the concept will allow gaps and overlaps
in sampling and assessment to be identified more readily.
A similar less comprehensive approach has been adopted by OSPAR to structure
the preparation of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO), however their
categorisation combines specific themes of the OSPAR strategies (i.e.
eutrophication) with cross-cutting issues such as threatened and declining species,
and an incomplete sub-set of ecosystem characteristics. The WFD also uses a
similar method but it only applies a subset of the full list in coastal waters relating
to structural aspects of the environment (i.e. morphology, physico-chemical
conditions, phytoplankton, macro-algae, macrophytes and macrobenthos).
The most important requirement of a fully integrated assessment and management
process is to link change in the ecosystem to a manageable human activity,
through the pressures which the activities cause (Jennings, 2005). This process
can be used to focus the monitoring and assessment activity on the most important
characteristics and pressures outlined in Annex II of the proposed Directive. This
risk-based approach can be achieved by tabulating lists of mechanisms through
which human activities exert pressure on the ecosystem (Annex II, Table 2),
relative to a list of ecosystem components and attributes.
During the recent comprehensive assessment of UK shelf seas (Defra, 2005), the
characteristics of the marine environment and the key environmental threats were
identified and an action plan developed to address them. This assessment
described all important aspects of the physical characteristics of UK seas,
including weather, marine processes and climate, water circulation and sediment
transport, using existing datasets (Box 2). A broad range of biological components
were included for all habitats, species and including exploited fisheries, and where
possible with reference to historic changes and likely future trends.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
26
Box 2.
Chapter headings used in the recent assessment of UK seas, describing the review of
physical and biological characteristics (Defra 2005). An additional regional assessment
was also provided.
Physical and Biological Characteristics of the Seas
General Weather and Climatic Conditions
Sea Temperature
Waves
Salinity
Circulation
Sea Level
Natural Coastal Changes
Sediment Concentration & Transport
Marine Habitats
Benthos
Plankton
Fish
Seals
Cetaceans
Breeding Seabirds
Human Impacts on Marine Environmental Quality
Climate Change
Capture Fisheries
Aquaculture and Shellfish Harvesting
Hazardous substances
Nutrients
Sewage treatment discharges: (microbiological quality of the coastal environment)
Radioactive discharges
Oil impacts
Construction in the sea and coastal zone
Aggregate extraction and sea bed disturbance
Dredging of harbours and navigation channels and disposal
Litter and waste
Introduction of non-native species
The risk-based approach is currently adopted during the implementation of the
Habitats and Birds Directives, where relevant authorities have a duty to advise on
any operations that may cause deterioration of natural habitats, or disturbance of
species for which the Natura 2000 site has been designated. The purpose of this
advice is to enable relevant authorities to prioritise their work on the management
of activities that pose the greatest threat to the favourable condition of interest
features. The need for targeted monitoring and assessment activity is a well
established principle adopted in the WFD, and, to support the review of impact of
human activity on the status of transitional and coastal waters, Member States are
required to undertake a pressures and impacts analysis. Information on the
significant pressures that surface water and groundwater bodies may be subject to
is used to assess the risk that water bodies will fail to meet the Directive’s
environmental objectives, and also provides information on confidence in the risk
assessment.
The WFD pressures and impacts analysis differentiates between water bodies
which are most likely to need action to address significant risks early in the
planning cycle, from those at low risk for which there may be only a longer-term
need for data collection and assessment.
It would be logical when implementing the Directive if a similar risk-based
approach was adopted, requiring a simplified selection of characteristics of the
ecosystem and lists of the significant pressures of human activity.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
27
6
References
CONSSO. (2002). Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea. The
Bergen Declaration., 50.
de Jonge, V. N., Elliott, M. and Brauer, V. S. (2006). Marine monitoring: Its shortcomings
and mismatch with the EU Water Framework Directive’s objectives. Marine Pollution Bulletin in
press.
Defra. (2002). Safeguarding our Seas. A strategy for the conservation and sustainable
development of our marine environment. London: Defra Publications.
Defra. (2005). Charting Progress: An integrated Assessment of the State of the Seas., pp.
1-120. London, UK: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
EC. (2004a). Guidance on the application of the Ecosystem Approach to Managment of
human activities in the European marine environment. In Stakeholder Conference (Rotterdam 1012 November 2004), (ed. D. D. European Commission. Directorate General Environment), pp. 1-25.
Brussels: EC.
EC. (2004b). Thematic Strategy for the Protection and Conservation of the European
marine Environment. In Stakeholder Conference (Rotterdam 10-12 November 2004), (ed.
Directorate General Environment: Directorate D), pp. 1-44.
EC. (2005). Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a
Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy
Directive) [SEC (2005) 1290]. In COM(2005) 505 Final, pp. 31. Brussels.
Elliott, M., Burdon, D. and Hemingway, K. L. (2006a). Estuarine, Coastal and Marine
Habitat and Ecosystem Restoration: confusing management and science. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science (Submitted).
Elliott, M., Burdon, D. and Hemingway, K. L. (2006b). Marine ecosystem structure,
functioning, health and management and potential approaches to marine ecosystem recovery: a
synthesis of current understanding. In Report to CCW, Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies,
University of Hull, March 2006, Report: YBB092-F-2006.
EU. (1979). Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
Official Journal L 103, 1.
EU. (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal L 206, 0007 - 0050.
EU. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official
Journal L 327, 0001 - 0073.
IIED. (2002). National Strategies for Sustainable Development. the pressure - state response framework. www.nssd.net/Refernces/SDInd/PST.html.
Jennings, S. (2005). Indicators to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Fish and
Fisheries 6, 212-232.
Laffoley, D. d. A., Maltby, E., Vincent, M. A., Mee, L., Dunn, E., Gilliland, P., Hamer, J.,
Mortimer, D. and Pound, D. (2004). The ecosystem approach - coherent actions for marine and
coastal environments. A report to the UK Government, the European Commission and the
Convention on Biological Diversity. In Peterborough, English Nature.
OSPAR. (2000a). Quality Status Report 2000, (ed. O. Commission), pp. 108 pp. London:
OSPAR.
OSPAR. (2000b). Quality Status Report 2000: Region II Greater North Sea, (ed. O.
Commission), pp. 136. London.
OSPAR. (2005). EUROPEAN MARINE STRATEGY - IMPLICATIONS FOR OSPAR. In
MEETING OF THE HEADS OF DELEGATION (HOD); HOD(2) 05/2/3-E, pp. 1-5. LONDON: 14-15
NOVEMBER 2005: OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC.
OSPAR. (2006). Production of the Quality Status Report (QSR) 2010. In OSPAR
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. Meeting of
Heads of Delegation., pp. 1-16: HOD(1) 06/4/1-E.
TAG. (2004). Type Specific Reference Condition Descriptions for
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
28
Transitional and Coastal Waters for the UK. In UK TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP ON THE
WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE, (ed. TAG), pp. 1-40. TAG Work Programme 8a (03)
Reference conditions for Transitional and Coastal Waters.
UNEP. (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Made at the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In Available on the
World Wide Web: http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163.
FINAL report for CSA 7061 & ME1412.
29