guidance for assessments under article 8 of the · web viewguidance for assessments under...

Guidance for Assessments under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [Draft]Part I — Integration of Assessment Results

DG EnvironmentApril 2016

Page intentionally left blank

Guidance for Assessments under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [Draft]Part I — Integration of Assessment Results

April 2016

Guidance for Assessments under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [Draft] DG Environment

Document InformationDocument History and AuthorisationTitle Guidance for Assessments under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive [Draft]Part I — Integration of Assessment Results

Commissioned by DG EnvironmentIssue date April 2016Document ref [Type Rpt No e.g. R.#### v#Project no "[Type Prj No e.g. R/####/#]" Date Version Revision Details11.04.2016 0.9 Draft version for Workshop on 20-21 April 2016

Prepared (PM) Approved (QM) Authorised (PD)S.F.Walmsley N.J.Frost S.C.Hull"[Signature Placement]" "[Signature Placement]" "[Signature Placement]"

Suggested Citationxxxxx, (2016). Guidance for Assessments under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive [Draft], Part I — Integration of Assessment Results. A report produced for DG Environment, April 2016.

Contributing Authors"[Type or Remove if not required]"

Acknowledgements"[Type or Remove if not required]"

ABPmer, April 2016, [Rpt No] | i

NoticeABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd ("ABPmer") has prepared this report in accordance with the client’s instructions, for the client’s sole purpose and use. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of ABPmer. ABPmer does not accept liability to any person other than the client. If the client discloses this report to a third party, it shall make them aware that ABPmer shall not be liable to them in relation to this report. The client shall indemnify ABPmer in the event that ABPmer suffers any loss or damage as a result of the client’s failure to comply with this requirement.

Sections of this report may rely on information supplied by or drawn from third party sources. Unless otherwise expressly stated in this report, ABPmer has not independently checked or verified such information. ABPmer does not accept liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person, including the client, as a result of any error or inaccuracy in any third party information or for any conclusions drawn by ABPmer which are based on such information.

All content in this report should be considered provisional and should not be relied upon until a final version marked ‘issued for client use’ is issued.

All images copyright ABPmer apart from front cover (wave, anemone, bird: www.oceansedgephotography).

ABP Marine Environmental Research LtdQuayside Suite, Medina Chambers, Town Quay, Southampton SO14 2AQT: +44 (0) 2380 711844 W: http://www.abpmer.co.uk/

http://www.abpmer.co.uk/

http://www.oceansedgephotography/


Contents1 Introduction.......................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Scope......................................................................................11.2 Policy context..............................................................................................21.3 Links between Article 8 and Articles 9, 10, 11 and 13.................................21.4 Overview of Art. 8 MSFD assessment components......................................21.5 About this Guidance....................................................................................21.6 Terminology................................................................................................3

2 Over-Arching Principles and Approaches...........................................32.1 Approach to Assessments...........................................................................42.2 Main Elements for Assessment....................................................................52.3 Geographic Scale of Assessment.................................................................82.4 Regional Assessments.................................................................................8

2.4.1 OSPAR.........................................................................................................................92.4.2 HELCOM......................................................................................................................92.4.3 UNEP-MAP/BarCon.......................................................................................................92.4.4 BSC.............................................................................................................................9

2.5 Relationship between Regional and National Assessments.......................102.6 Research Projects......................................................................................10

3 Pressure-Related Descriptor Assessments......................................113.1 Descriptor 2: Non-Indigenous Species.......................................................113.2 Descriptor 3: Commercially-Exploited Fish and Shellfish...........................11

3.2.1 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................133.2.2 Visualising assessment results for Descriptor 3........................................................153.2.3 Worked examples.....................................................................................................16

3.3 Descriptor 5: Eutrophication......................................................................173.3.1 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................193.3.2 Worked examples.....................................................................................................21

3.4 Physical damage (D6)...............................................................................213.5 Physical loss (D6) and hydrographical changes (D7).................................213.6 Descriptor 8: Contaminants.......................................................................22

3.6.1 Chronic contaminant pollution (D8C1 and D8C2)......................................................223.6.2 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................253.6.3 Acute pollution events (D8C3 and D8C4)..................................................................273.6.4 Visualising assessment results for Descriptor 8........................................................283.6.5 Worked examples.....................................................................................................28

3.7 Descriptor 9: Contaminants in Seafood.....................................................283.8 Descriptor 10: Marine Litter......................................................................29

3.8.1 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................313.8.2 Visualising assessment results for Descriptor 10......................................................323.8.3 Worked examples.....................................................................................................33

3.9 Descriptor 11: Underwater Noise..............................................................334 State-Related (Biodiversity) Descriptor Assessments......................34

4.1 Species (Descriptor 1)...............................................................................344.1.1 Selecting species to assess.......................................................................................364.1.2 Integration sequence – spatial scales........................................................................36

Birds ..................................................................................................................374.1.3 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................384.1.4 Visualising assessment results for birds....................................................................394.1.5 Worked examples.....................................................................................................40

Mammals..............................................................................................................414.1.6 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................424.1.7 Visualising assessment results for mammals............................................................444.1.8 Worked examples.....................................................................................................44

Reptiles......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................454.1.9 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................454.1.10 Visualising assessment results for reptiles................................................................46

ABPmer, April 2016, [Rpt No] | ii


4.1.11 Worked examples.....................................................................................................47Fish ..................................................................................................................48

4.1.12 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................484.1.13 Visualising assessment results for fish......................................................................504.1.14 Worked examples.....................................................................................................50

Cephalopods.........................................................................................................514.1.15 Levels and methods of integration............................................................................514.1.16 Visualising assessment results for cephalopods.......................................................524.1.17 Worked examples.....................................................................................................53

4.2 Habitats (Descriptors 1 and 6)....................................................................14.2.1 Selecting habitats to assess........................................................................................24.2.2 Integration sequence – spatial scales..........................................................................2

Benthic habitats (D1, D6).......................................................................................3Pelagic (D1)............................................................................................................3

4.2.3 Worked examples.......................................................................................................34.3 Ecosystems, including food webs (Descriptor 4).........................................4

4.3.1 Levels and methods of integration..............................................................................64.3.2 Worked examples.......................................................................................................6

5 References.........................................................................................76 Abbreviations.....................................................................................8A Mapping of RSC Indicators against Revised Commission

Decision...........................................................................................10

AppendicesA Mapping of RSC Indicators against Revised Commission

Decision...........................................................................................10

TablesTable 1 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 3........................................11Table 2 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 5........................................17Table 3 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 8........................................23Table 4 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 10......................................30Table 5 Example of a table to record information on indicators (element-

matrix-scale-relationships)........................................................................32Table 6 Ecosystem components and their species groups, for consideration

under the ‘species’ aspects of Descriptor 1...............................................35Table 7 Primary and secondary criteria for Birds under Descriptor 1.....................38Table 8 Primary and secondary criteria for Mammals under Descriptor 1..............42Table 9 Primary and secondary criteria for Fish under Descriptor 1.......................49Table 10 Primary and secondary criteria for Cephalopods under Descriptor 1.........52Table 11 Ecosystem components and their broad habitat types, for

consideration under the ‘habitats’ aspects of Descriptors 1 and 6 (and 7)........................................................................................................1

Table 12 Primary and secondary criteria for Habitats................................................2Table 13 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 4..........................................4Table 14 Example of a division of trophic guilds, and the main taxonomic

groups that may contribute to each guild...................................................5

FiguresFigure 1 Approach to assessments...........................................................................5Figure 2 Integrated scheme for presenting assessment results................................6Figure 3 Example of assessment outputs [figure to be reviewed/revised]................7Figure 4 Assessment flow for Descriptor 3..............................................................12

ABPmer, April 2016, [Rpt No] | iii


Figure 5 Levels and methods of integration for Descriptor 3...................................14Figure 6 Presentation of assessment output for Descriptor 3..................................15Figure 7 Assessment flow for Descriptor 5..............................................................18Figure 8 Levels and methods of integration for Descriptor 5...................................20Figure 9 Presentation of assessment output for Descriptor 5..................................21Figure 10 Assessment flow for D8C1 and D8C2........................................................24Figure 11 Levels and methods of integration for Descriptor 8, Criteria 1 and 2........27Figure 12 Presentation of assessment output for Descriptor 8..................................29Figure 12 Assessment flow for D10...........................................................................31Figure 13 Levels and methods of integration for Descriptor 10.................................33Figure 14 Assessment flow for species ecosystem components. See sections on

each ecosystem component for details.....................................................36Figure 15 Levels and methods of integration for birds under Descriptor 1................40Figure 17 Presenting assessment output for birds (D1)............................................41Figure 16 Levels and methods of integration for mammals under Descriptor 1........44Figure 18 Presenting assessment output for mammals (D1).....................................45Figure 17 Levels and methods of integration for reptiles under Descriptor 1............47Figure 21 Presenting assessment output for reptiles (D1)........................................48Figure 18 Levels and methods of integration for fish under Descriptor 1..................50Figure 23 Presenting assessment output for fish (D1)..............................................51Figure 19 Levels and methods of integration for cephalopods under Descriptor

1................................................................................................................53Figure 17 Presenting assessment output for cephalopods (D1)................................54Figure 20 Assessment flow for ecosystems.................................................................6Figure 21 Levels and methods of integration for Descriptor 4.....................................6Figure 22 Indicators potentially available for the assessment of good

environmental status within HOLAS II, including the first set of HELCOM core indicators............................................................................10

ABPmer, April 2016, [Rpt No] | iv


1 Introduction1.1 Purpose and Scope The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires an ecosystem assessment and status classification of marine waters. The criteria and methodological standards, laid down by the EU Commission in accordance with Art. 9 (3) and Art. 25 (3) MSFD, specify this requirement. As the status of a Member State’s marine waters determines the need for measures to achieve or maintain their good environmental status (GES), it is important that assessments and status classifications are consistent, comparable, reliable and transparent across Member States.

The EU Commission document on cross-cutting issues (‘cross-cutting issues document’, MSCG-17-2015-06) sets out conceptual approaches to a suite of assessments required under Art. 8 MSFD, including a concept for an integrated presentation of the extent to which GES is achieved. To operationalise these concepts, the present guidance provides a set of key principles and practical technical approaches for use by Member States and Regional Sea Conventions in developing consistent assessment and classification systems. The guidance is intended as a manual guiding implementers step-by-step through the assessment process and includes illustrative worked examples.

The guidance is developed in two phases in order to take account of existing timelines Member States and Regional Sea Conventions are already engaged in, noting that the assessment processes for the 2018 update of the Art. 8 MSFD assessments have already started. A phased approach also recognises that the 2018 update of Art. 8 MSFD assessments will be a transitional step towards more consistent and regionally-coherent future assessments. This is due to the revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards for environmental status, Annex III MSFD and electronic reporting requirements, but also due to remaining gaps in assessment tools (cf. development of scientific indicators in support of GES assessment).

The phased approach is as follows:

In the first phase (Part I) (up to July 2016), this guidance document summarises the rules for integrating assessment results across scientific indicators and criteria for use by Member States and Regional Seas Conventions in the 2018 update of Art. 8 MSFD assessment in order to present in a consistent way the overall extent to which good environmental status is being achieved. Formal approval of Part I of the guidance is planned for WGGES/MSCG in autumn 2016.

In the second phase (from 2017 onwards), this document will be developed to give technical guidance on the individual assessments of activities, pressures, impact and status and how they link up in future assessments (Part II), building inter alia on the latest experiences of Member States and Regional Sea Conventions gained in the 2018 update of the Art. 8 MSFD assessments.

The introduction section will be developed by DGGES as a contribution of Member States to a common understanding of the Art. 8 MSFD assessment. Possibly to reflect:

1.2 Policy contextSection to cover:

Brief summary of the development of an assessment framework (Art. 12 MSFD assessment of 2012 reports, Common Understanding document, Cross-cutting

ABPmer, April 2016, [Rpt No] | 1


issues paper, revision of Annex III and the Commission Decision, ICES and JRC technical work.

Drive for EU and regional consistency.

1.3 Links between Article 8 and Articles 9, 10, 11 and 13

Approach to determining and assessing GES [See MSCG_17-2015-05, p7-8.] Art 8 assessment has direct link with Art 9 descriptors

o Art. 8(1)(a) – State descriptors/criteria;o Art. 8(1)(b) – Pressures and Impacts descriptors/criteria;

Approach to assessing whether GES has been achieved, based on criteria in the COM Decision and the set of characteristics determined by MS according to Art 9(1);

See also Fig 2 in MSCG_17-2015-06.

1.4 Overview of Art. 8 MSFD assessment components Overview of the individual assessments to be undertaken under Art. 8(1)(a) and

(b) and Art. 9 MSFD and a structured approach on how to bring together different aspects of the initial assessment:

o Assess the distribution and intensity of human activities;o Assess the distribution and intensity of pressures resulting from human

activities;o Assess the impacts of the pressures on the ecosystem elements;o Assess the status of ecosystem elements;

Integrated presentation of assessment results as a tool to communicate the extent to which GES is being achieved;

Assessing change, i.e. in moving towards GES and environmental targets (including the relevance of trend assessments);

Guidance will address Art. 8.1a and 1b, but not Art. 8.1c.

1.5 About this GuidanceThis draft of the guidance is intended to inform the workshop to be held on 20-21 April 2016. It is based on the 2016 draft proposal for a revision of Decision 2010/477/EU (version CTTE_12-2016-03 draft v2 15/02/2016). Because this proposal is subject to change, the present guidance may need to be adjusted to ensure it is fully compatible with the final proposal. It is also informed, where appropriate, by the workshop outputs from the technical review process that contributed to the proposed revision of the Commission Decision, and further technical work by ICES on Descriptors 1 and 3.

The purpose of this guidance (Part I) is to support the production of compatible outputs from assessments so that they:

can contribute to regional and EU-scale compilations of information, presenting the extent to which GES is achieved;

facilitate communication of the environmental status of the marine environment to managers and the public.

It is recognised that the underlying data and methods of the assessments will vary. Member States will be at varying stages in the development of scientific indicators (national, regional and Europe-wide), based on the monitoring data available, and assessment processes within two Regional Sea Conventions are well advanced. Therefore it is likely that Member States and the Regional Sea Conventions will have differing abilities to produce assessments against each criterion of the Revised Commission



Decision for 2018 and, where appropriate, integration of these within Descriptors to indicate the extent to which GES has been achieved.

Any references to specific articles refer to Directive 2008/56/EC unless otherwise specified.

Text in italics and highlighted in grey indicate that sections are draft and are to be further developed.

Text highlighted in grey and placed in boxes provide specific questions for the workshop on 20-21 April to consider.

1.6 TerminologyThe terms ‘integration’ and ‘aggregation’ are sometimes used interchangeably (e.g. Prins et al., 20141), and clarity is needed on their meaning. The Cross-Cutting Issues document discusses an ‘integrated approach to assessing GES’, and the COM Dec speaks about application rules and spatial and temporal aggregation of data in relation to assessments. The DGGES Common Understanding process defined aggregation as the combination in space and time, and integration as the combination across indicators and criteria.

This guidance uses the following definitions:

Integration — the combining of information from different (scientific) indicators into one higher-level indicator or to criterion-level, or the combining of information from two or more criteria to descriptor level or to an alternative grouping of criteria (e.g. for an ecosystem component, or for a grouping of criteria below descriptor level).

Aggregation — the combining of information on the same scientific indicator (or higher-level indicator, or species group, or criterion etc.) from different geographical areas.

2 Over-Arching Principles and Approaches

This section sets out general principles to provide step-wise guidance on the assessments to be undertaken for Art. 8(1)(a) and (1)(b), based on application of the GES Decision criteria and methodological standards and Member State determinations of GES under Art. 9(1), which lead to a consistent presentation of assessment results across marine regions and Member States.

The assessments under Art. 8(1)(a) and (1)(b) should be undertaken in relation to the determinations of GES under Art. 9(1) and using the criteria and methodological standards set by the Commission in accordance with Art. 9(3).

This section will be further developed and reviewed after the individual descriptor sections (in sections 3 and 4) have been further developed, to better identify generic issues. Topics in addition to those already listed include:

1 Prins, T.C., Borja, A., Simboura, N., Tsangaris, C., Van der Meulen, M.D., Boon, A.R., Menchaca, I., Gilbert, A.J. (2014). Coherent geographic scales and aggregation rules in assessment and monitoring of Good Environmental Status – analysis and conceptual phase. Towards a Guidance document. Deltares/AZTI/HCMR, report 1207879-000-ZKS-0014 to the European Commission, Delft, 47 pages..



Linking indicators with criteria: avoiding assessing a single aspect more than once, e.g. benthic indicators (cumulative impact) and pressure indicators;

How to integrate different geographic scales in the assessment?Some indicators operate at small assessment scales (e.g. WFD water bodies) while others operate at larger scales. This requires scaling down and up from an agreed regional assessment area. This means that the same assessment result for a big area (e.g. region) is applied to various small assessment units (e.g. basins). Results for smaller areas may need to be aggregated together, or assessment results could be provided as a percentage of areas achieving good status.

How to deal with gaps in the integration process: In cases where assessment results for individual scientific indicators or criteria (or components thereof) are not available, should integration across indicators/criteria take place?

How to integrate status and trend-based criteria and scientific indicators? Any other common problems and solutions identified in sections 3 and 4. Compatible presentations.

2.1 Approach to AssessmentsThe cross-cutting issues document sets out a two-step process for assessments under Art. 8(1)(a) and (1)(b):

Step 1: assess the predominant pressures and their impacts on the marine environment (to fulfil Art. 8(1)(b) requirements); this can be informed, where appropriate, by a mapping of the uses and activities in the marine environment;

Step 2: assess the environmental status of marine ecosystems (including species and habitats), informed by the pressure and impact assessments under step 1 (to fulfil Art. (8(1)(a) requirements).

These two steps allow for an assessment of the extent to which GES has been achieved, addressing all eleven GES descriptors of MSFD Annex I. The assessments under Art. 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) should be undertaken in relation to the determinations of GES under Art. 9(1) and using the criteria and methodological standards set by the Commission in accordance with Art. 9(3).

The basic steps in the assessment under Art. 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) are illustrated in Figure1:

Step 1: Determine the elements for assessment, i.e. the features and pressures under Art. 8 and the corresponding characteristics of GES under Art. 9(1) (e.g. substances, species, habitats). Where the Commission Decision refers to lists of elements established by existing EU legislation, these elements are set as the EU minimum requirement for assessment at the prescribed scale. An element can be excluded from the assessment through deselection from the existing list, based on the procedures of the EU legislation under which the list has been established. Where elements are not determined by existing EU legislation or where regional coordination goes beyond existing EU legislation, the regionally-agreed elements should be applied for assessment. A regionally-agreed element can be excluded from the assessment through deselection from the existing list, based on the agreements under which the list has been established. Member States may choose to select additional elements for assessment which are specific for GES in their national waters.

Step 2: Determine the scales of assessment and areas for assessment. Determine the areas for which the elements should be assessed based on the specification of scales of the revised Commission Decision and within the regionally-agreed spatial scales (‘nested approach’). For principles on determining areas of assessment see section 2.3. Where possible, elements to be integrated should be assessed at the same spatial scale and assessment areas. Where the



selected elements are assessed at different geographic scales, up- or down-scaling of results may be necessary before integrating results.

Step 3: Determine the criteria for assessment. Primary criteria are EU minimum requirements for assessment at the prescribed scale except where the revised Commission Decision allows under specified conditions that such a criterion is replaced by a specific secondary criterion. Establish whether such conditions are met, necessitating and/or justifying the use of a secondary criterion. Other secondary criteria should be used in addition to primary criteria. Establish for each secondary criterion whether the revised Commission Decision specifies circumstances under which the criterion should be applied and whether those conditions are met.

Step 4: Assign indicators to criteria. Establish which regionally-agreed indicators address each criterion. Establish whether the indicator covers the elements and scales determined in step 1 and 2. In case of gaps in the coverage of elements or scales determine the need for complementary national assessment. For principles on relating such national assessments with regional assessments see section 2.5.

Figure to be developed, showing generic step-wise approach to assessments; specific issues for individual descriptors to be highlighted in descriptor-specific sections (see section 3)Figure 1 Approach to assessments

2.2 Main Elements for AssessmentThe extent to which GES is achieved for a specific geographic area needs to be clearly communicated. This involves the aggregation and integration across the many individual assessments and data sets relating to the eleven descriptors in order to reach a conclusion on whether GES has been achieved or not. Aggregation and integration need to take into consideration and be balanced with appropriate details and scales for identifying and implementing any necessary management actions via national Programmes of Measures.

The cross-cutting issues document has set out a conceptual scheme for organising and presenting the assessment relating to pressure/impacts and to the state of ecosystem components with a view to providing a conclusion on the overall state of the marine environment (Figure 2). It encompasses the eleven descriptors and shows how these relate to the different aspects of Art. 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b). While GES is only met if all descriptors are in good status, the scheme suggests that integration stops at the level of pressure-related descriptors and at the level of the individual ecosystem components. This approach allows the identification of the main pressures/impacts and the main ecosystem components which are responsible for a specific area failing GES. Integration is not anticipated across descriptors or across biological elements (broad species groups or habitats).



Figure 2 Integrated scheme for presenting assessment results

This guidance document (Part I) specifies aggregation and integration to achieve consistent conclusions on the extent to which GES is achieved for each of the different topics set out in Figure 2. To this end, the guidance describes for each topic:

the envisaged level of integration of indicators, criteria and elements; the flow/sequence of assessment and integration steps; the nodes of integration and the associated integration rules; the assessment outputs for presenting the extent to which GES is achieved.

The integrated scheme (Figure 2) is the top-level assessment output summarising the state of the marine environmental at a high level. Comparable outputs should be agreed to be delivered as part of the assessment process in Regional Sea Conventions. Figure 3 illustrates how a hierarchy of output products could look in order to serve the different national, EU and regional purposes. Additional assessment outputs of individual elements and at different scales are likely to be needed for purposes of the management of pressures in national waters.



Figure 3 Example of assessment outputs [figure to be reviewed/revised]

Assessments will typically start with the assessment of a single element (e.g. species, habitat, contaminant) for which there is a dataset for the assessment area in the assessment period; this could, for example include multiple stations and repeated sampling within or across years for a nutrient or contaminant. These will then go through several steps in an assessment process. The sequence of those steps is specific to each descriptor/element and dependent on the scientific indicators used which may act at different levels of integration — some scientific indicators correspond directly to COM Dec criteria, whereas others are one of a number of scientific indicators that contribute to a criterion and therefore require integration to criterion level. The sequence of those steps may include integration across indicators, criteria and elements.

Because the data that will be used for any given assessment may vary considerably between regions and Member States, this guidance does not address the first steps in each assessment process which lead to a ‘scientific indicator’ assessment. Instead it focuses on the later steps of integration across scientific indicators, criteria and elements which lead to conclusions on the overall status of the main components of Figure 2. This aims to ensure consistent application of the COM Dec criteria, and the production of assessment outputs (i.e. the extent to which GES has been achieved) that can be presented in a common way across Member States and regions.

The assessment outputs for presenting the extent to which GES is achieved can take different forms depending on the purpose of the presentation and communication. The current draft guidance sets out for each descriptor and ecosystem component the preferred common assessment output for comparing status classification across the EU.

Additional assessment outputs still need to be discussed and agreed depending on communication purposes. These options include:

To combine all assessment results in an integrated scheme for presenting assessment results (Figure 2) which provides a concise communication of the status of GES in relation to all descriptors and ecosystem components at the relevant geographic scales. The underlying rule for combination is one out all out (see section 3).



To provide detail on the assessment results which are relevant for management. Need and options are specific for the descriptor and criteria. In general, possible approaches include:

o number or percentage of assessed elements failing/meeting threshold values/good status;

o distinction between elements accessible to management and those that are not (e.g. banned legacy contaminants vs contaminants in use);

o distinction between matrices where this helps addressing management. To express distance to the threshold value / good status in order to provide

insight into the magnitude of the problem and into progress i.e. changes in status between MSFD cycles. Options are specific for the descriptor and criteria. In general, possible approaches include:

o bar chart presentations of the assessment values against threshold, possibly normalised on a scale 0 – 1; differentiated classification on both sides of the boundary good/not good.

2.3 Geographic Scale of AssessmentGeneral principles:

The Article 8 assessments need to address the whole of a Member State’s marine waters within each marine region or subregion2, although individual assessments may need to cover only a part of this area;

Assessments of the elements can be undertaken at different geographical scales, using appropriate scales for each element (e.g. assessment at the regional or subregional scale, or suitable subdivisions of these); generic scales for assessment are given in the proposed GES Decision;

A combination of the element to be assessed and the appropriate scale for its assessment allows for the identification of the specific areas to be used for assessment within each region and subregion; the ‘nested assessment areas’ being used or developed by HELCOM and OSPAR provide schemes for integrated assessments of a region or subregion;

Scales for state-based assessments should be ecologically relevant, reflecting the different characteristics of species, habitats and ecosystems within each region or subregion;

Scales for pressure-based assessments need to be compatible with those used in state-based assessments, to allow for the linkage of assessment of impacts, but also consider management needs (as pressures may need to be addressed via programmes of measures);

The outcomes of Article 8 assessments can thus be considered as assessments for a given element in a given area; this lends itself to presentation of the outcomes on maps to help illustrate the extent to which GES has been achieved;

Sections 3 and 4 of this Guidance illustrate the practical application of these principles per descriptor.

2.4 Regional Assessments This section will provide background on the regional assessment processes and regional indicators:

Individual section for each RSC on their approach (see example for HELCOM); Regional assessments should be used where they exist, supplemented by national

indicators where required; Mapping of RSC indicators into new structure of the Commission Decision on

criteria and methodological standards provided in Appendix A.

2 The MSFD marine regions and subregions are listed in MSFD Art. 4



2.4.1 OSPARThe OSPAR Intermediate Assessment 2017 will feed in to 2018 assessments for MSFD. OSPAR is preparing a range of indicators, but will not combine these to criterion level, or to descriptor level (see OSPAR Document: Structure and content of IA2017). More detail to be developed.

2.4.2 HELCOMThe HELCOM Second Holistic Assessment of the Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea (2014–2018) (HOLAS II) aims to provide an update on the overall state of ecosystem health in the Baltic Sea. The results of the assessment will support reporting under the MSFD by Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention that are also EU Member States. HELCOM is anticipating potential changes in requirements for reporting for the 2018 Article 8 MSFD assessment for Member States, and therefore the assessment tools are being developed to give a variety of options for the level at which outputs are provided (e.g. for biodiversity assessment, at the level of biological elements, criteria and descriptors)3.

HELCOM regionally-agreed core indicators form the basis for the assessment of environmental status. HOLAS II is developing assessment tools to provide integrated regional-scale assessments. HELCOM is currently (March 2016) discussing whether and how to incorporate additional national indicators within the assessment processes, such as by neighbouring countries agreeing on the use of certain indicators for a sub-basin.

HELCOM has a history of using integrated assessment tools, having previously developed:

BEAT – Biodiversity assessment tool; HEAT – Eutrophication assessment tool; CHASE – Hazardous substances assessment tool.

HELCOM’s core indicators, and their relation to the MSFD descriptors, are shown in Appendix A.

2.4.3 UNEP-MAP/BarConDetail to be developed.

2.4.4 BSCDetail to be developed.

2.5 Relationship between Regional and National Assessments

Member States are expected to deliver the assessment of the environmental status of the four marine regions through regional cooperation and common regional assessment frameworks. It is recognised that for various reasons, Member States may assess complementary elements:

Regional indicators are not ready for assessment but national assessments are available (e.g. under the Habitats Directive) which partly address the issue;

3 HELCOM (2016). Document 1 - Overview of the HOLAS II Biodiversity assessment with timeline. HELCOM BalticBOOST Workshop on the HOLAS II Biodiversity assessment tool. Copenhagen, Denmark, 11-12 February 2016.



There is no plan for a regional indicator on the element because there is no political agreement;

An element is only of national relevance.

This raises the question how the assessment of complementary elements is taken into account when presenting the overall extent to which good environmental status is being achieved.

For Workshop discussion — Options could include for example that: the national indicator is incorporated into the assessment for each regional

assessment unit. This means e.g. that national indicators are no longer visible and regional assessment become very heterogeneous (i.e. no common assessment basis)

the national indicator is presented separate next to the regional assessment result. This means e.g. the national assessment results are visible. Clear and transparent methods for an overall conclusion on the extent to which GES is achieved are necessary and need to be followed. This is achievable where OOAO applies but is difficult in more complex integration rules.

For discussion at the workshop: What are the options for combing national indicators and regional assessments? Can a generalised approach be agreed for combining national indicators and

regional assessments or does this need a case-by-case decision for each indicator or criterion?

2.6 Research ProjectsA number of research projects have developed options for integration and aggregation of indicators for GES assessments under MSFD:

The Life+ Marmoni project developed a biodiversity tool that is aligned with the existing MSFD descriptor requirements (2010 ComDec), focusing on descriptor 1 (Biodiversity)4.

The EU 7th framework project DEVOTES is developing a flexible, hierarchical and modular tool for assessment of ‘biodiversity status’, including some additional structures, such as flexible aggregation principles, several weighting principles and confidence assessments.

Further detail to be developed on research projects, and consideration of how their outputs can contribute to integration process and methods.

4 www.sea.ee/marmoni/index.php



3 Pressure-Related Descriptor Assessments

This section provides guidance for assessments for each pressure-related descriptor. Section 4 provides guidance for assessments of state-related descriptors (1, 4 and 6).

Pressure-related assessments need to assess impacts in a way which relates directly to the ecosystem state elements being assessed under Art. 8(1)(a). Some of these outcomes need to be directly useful for the state-based assessments. This relates to

clearly understanding the state assessment elements (species groups/broad habitat types) and the scales at which they are being assessed that will be informed by the pressure/impact assessments; and

considering the needs for targets and measures – where is the impact, over what spatial extent, is it a big enough issue to lead to a need for targets and measures?

3.1 Descriptor 2: Non-Indigenous SpeciesDescriptor 2: Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems.

Detail to be developed for this descriptor.

3.2 Descriptor 3: Commercially-Exploited Fish and Shellfish

Descriptor 3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

The primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 3, and their relationship to the indicators of 2010/477/EU are shown in Table 1. There are three aspects to Descriptor 5:

Pressure : D3C1 relates to the level of fishing pressure on fish stocks, and D3C4 relates to the level of pressure of mortality on bycatch species;

Status : D3C2 and D3C3 relate to the status of fish stocks.

Table 1 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 3Primary criteria relating to:

Secondary criteria relating to:

2010/477/EU criteria and indicators

Pres

sur

e

D3C1 Fishing mortality (F)

3.1.1

D3C4 Mortality of by-catch species

–

Stat

us

D3C2 Spawning stock biomass (SSB)

3.2.1

D3C3 Age and size distribution

3.3



Level of integration

Criteria C1, C2 and C3 should be within threshold values. C4 does not have any threshold values defined but should contribute to the assessments of the relevant species under Descriptor 1. The envisaged level of integration across criteria is as follows:

Commercially-exploited stocks: C1, C2 and C3 are primary and are integrated for each stock;

By-catch (species of birds, mammals, reptiles and non-commercially-exploited species of fish and cephalopods): C4 (primary).

Assessment flow

The assessment flow for Descriptor 3 is shown in Figure 4. Further detail on these steps is provided below.

Figure 4 Assessment flow for Descriptor 3

Step 1 – Determine elements for assessment

The commercially-exploited species that should be included in the assessment include all those that are managed under the CFP (Reg (EU) No 1380/2013), and Reg (EC) No 1967/2006 for the Mediterranean, and nationally-important stocks. ICES (2014a) recommended that the list covers a very high proportion of the landings (e.g. >90%) in weight (or commercial value), and should be based on the longest-available time-series.


Commercially-exploited fish and shellfish:All stocks that are managed under the CFP (Reg No 1380/2013) and Reg No 1967/2006 for the MediterraneanNationally-important stocksNon-commercially-exploited bycatch species:Lists to be established for the region or subregion

Select elements

Commercially-exploited species:Ecologically-relevant scales for stocks within each region or sub-region, based on specified aggregations of ICES Areas and GFCM geographical sub-areas, to be established by appropriate scientific bodies in accordance with Article 26 of Reg No 1380/2013Non-commercially-exploited bycatch species:Assessment areas used under Descriptor 1 for the corresponding species

Determine spatial scales for

assessment

All criteria are primaryDetermine the

criteria

Use stock assessment outputs from commercially-exploited speciesUse DCF monitoring of bycatch speciesMap complementary national indicators or stock assessment outputs

Assign indicators


The by-catch species that should be monitored for levels of mortality should be established for the region or subregion in accordance with Article 25(5) of Reg (EU) 1380/2013. STECF notes that it should be up to the Regional Coordination Groups (RCGs) to identify and prioritise the fishery/species combinations that need to be monitored and sampled for bycatch of non-target species including protected, endangered and threatened species (PETS) under the revised DCF (STECF, 2014).

Step 2 – Determine scales and areas for assessment

The revised COMDec indicates the following spatial scales for assessment:

C1–C3: Populations (stocks) of each species are assessed at ecologically-relevant scales within each region or subregion, as established by appropriate scientific bodies in accordance with Article 26 of Reg (EU)1380/2013, based on specified aggregations of ICES Areas and GFCM geographical sub-areas;

C4: As used for assessment of the corresponding species under Descriptor 1.

ICES WKGESFish noted the need to determine how to address widely-distributed stocks (that fall within several subregions or regions) (ICES, in prep).

Step 3 – Determine criteria to address

All criteria are primary and should be addressed.

Step 4 – Assign indicators

The available information on stock assessment and advice compiled by ICES, STECF, GFCM, ICCAT, and the Black Sea Commission should be used, supplemented by national stock assessments and monitoring where appropriate, for gaps (i.e. nationally-important species that are not assessed through international mechanisms). Mapping of RSC indicators against the revised COMDec criteria is provided in Appendix A.

3.2.1 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 5 shows the levels of integration and different integration methods that are appropriate for Descriptor 3. The figure is representative of a single assessment area, for which the results of GES/not GES can be presented.



Figure 5 Levels and methods of integration for Descriptor 3

The integration rules of Figure 5 are:

Level 1: measurements of individual elements — for example, catches of different species by different Member States, over time, length distribution of catches and discard rates — are combined through stock assessments to produce information on fishing mortality, stock status and age/size distribution (here named ‘indicators’). This level of integration requires detailed technical consideration and is not addressed in these guidelines.

Level 2: The indicators are integrated to each criterion for each stock. The integration method is OOAO. In practice, there is likely to be only one indicator per stock per criterion, therefore the result for the indicator will be the result for the criterion. Some indicators might be ‘primary’ (informed by quantitative stock assessments with threshold values); other indicators might be ‘secondary’ (proxies or trend-based indicators, which may or may not have threshold values associated with them).

Level 3: criteria are brought together for each stock. The integration method is OOAO (whether primary or secondary indicators are used). This means that if one of the indicators fails the threshold values’, the criterion is also ‘not good’. For the stock to be in good status, all relevant indicators/criteria must be within threshold values.

Level 4: The species are integrated to form a judgement on Descriptor 3. The integration method is one-out-all-out (OOAO). Good environmental status is achieved when all criteria and stocks are ‘good’. Species can also first be integrated into species groups (e.g. coastal fish, pelagic shelf fish, demersal shelf fish, deep-sea fish) prior to integrating to descriptor level, if required. This may facilitate assessments under D1.



Criterion D3C4 is not integrated with the other three criteria, and is considered separately. There is unlikely to be a need for integration methods, as D3C4 would involve summing bycatch estimates for different species from different métiers in different areas.

Existing assessment frameworks include:

Framework Integration approachC1 – Fishing mortalityCFP Estimated per stock. Not integrated with SSB. Only primary indicators

with threshold values used.ICES Estimated per stock. Not integrated with SSB.HELCOMBlack SeaGFCMC2 – Spawning stock biomass (SSB)CFP Estimated per stock. Not integrated with F. Only primary indicators with

threshold values used.ICES Estimated per stock. Not integrated with SSB.HELCOMBlack SeaGFCMC3 – Age/size structureCFP Estimated per stock. Not integrated with F or SSB.ICES Estimated per stock. Not integrated with F or SSB.HELCOMBlack SeaGFCMC4 – By-catchCFP Revised DCF likely to require recording of by-catch by species (for

selected species) and by metier (STECF,2014).ICESHELCOMBlack SeaGFCM

3.2.2 Visualising assessment results for Descriptor 3The assessment output for Descriptor 3 is presented for status of stocks [and by-catch?], as shown in Figure 6, which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’).



Figure 6 Presentation of assessment output for Descriptor 3

In addition to the visualisation of results for Descriptor 3 as a whole, further detail can be provided on the number of stocks that are in GES for one or two criteria, but not all three, to provide additional information on progress towards achieving GES. This may help express where management has been implemented as necessary (F<FMSY) but stock biomass has yet to recover due to time lags (SSB<SSBMSY). For example:

‘Satellite’ showing proportion of stocks in GES for Descriptor 3 (below left). Pie chart showing number of stocks for which F and SSB are in GES, only F in GES,

or only SSB in GES, or neither (e.g. as shown in EEA, 2015). Does not integrate age/size structure. This could also show the number of stocks represented, and/or the landings of those stocks as a proportion of the total landings from the region (below right).

GES

SSB>SSBmsy

F<Fmsy

Not GES

3.2.3 Worked examplesTo be developed. See Workshop presentations.


65% assessed stocks not

GES

45% assessed

stocks GES


3.3 Descriptor 5: EutrophicationDescriptor 5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

The primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 5, and their relationship to the indicators of 2010/477/EU are shown in Table 2. There are three aspects to Descriptor 5:

Pressure : D5C1 relates to the level of the pressure (nutrients) in the marine environment;

Impacts on pelagic habitats : D5C2–5 address the effects of eutrophication on pelagic habitats (water column);

Impacts on benthic habitats : D5C6–9 address the effects of eutrophication on benthic (seabed) habitats.

Table 2 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 5

Primary criteria relating to:



Comments

Pres

sure

D5C1 Nutrient concentrations

5.1

Pres

sure

5.1.1

Impa

cts o

n pe

lagi

c ha

bita

ts

D5C2 Chlorophyll a

5.2

Dire

ct im

pact

s

5.2.1

D5C3 Water clarity 5.2.2D5C4 Nuisance or toxic algal blooms

5.2.4

D5C5 Phytoplankton composition

5.2.4

D5C6 (coastal waters) Macroalgae

D5C6 (beyond coastal waters) Macroalgae

5.2.3

Impa

cts o

n be

nthi

c ha

bita

ts

D5C7 (coastal waters) Seaweeds and seagrasses

D5C7 (beyond coastal waters) Seaweeds and seagrasses

5.3

Indi

rect

impa

cts

5.3.1 May be relevant beyond coastal waters

D5C8 Dissolved oxygen

D5C9 macrozoobenthos composition (substituting D5C8)

5.3.2 D5C9 may substitute D5C8.

D5C9 (coastal waters) macrozoobenthos composition

D5C9 (beyond coastal waters) macrozoobenthos composition

-- May be relevant beyond coastal waters


Each assessed criterion should be within threshold values. The envisaged level of integration across criteria is as follows:



Pressure: C1 (primary) – no integration; Impacts on pelagic habitats: C2 (primary), C3, C4, C5 (secondary) – integrated; Impacts on benthic habitats: C6 and C7 (primary in coastal waters), C8 (primary,

but may be substituted by) C9 (primary in coastal waters) – integrated.

Assessment flow

The assessment flow for Descriptor 5 is shown in Figure 10. Further detail on these steps is provided below.

Figure 7 Assessment flow for Descriptor 5


The revised Commission Decisions defines the elements for assessment through:

a list of elements for nutrient concentrations (D5C1); and the criteria which refer to established indicators under the Water Framework

Directive in coastal waters and the Regional Sea Conventions.

For the application of WFD indicators beyond 1 nm, elements may be excluded or substituted if they do not exist in those waters. Member States should agree those elements at regional or subregional level.

The elements for assessment differ within and beyond 1nm, as some criteria are primary only within 1nm (D5C6, D5C7, D5C9). The differentiation ensures consistency of the eutrophication assessment with the assessment of ecological status under the WFD.

The use of secondary criteria should be agreed at regional or subregional level.


For C1: DIN, TN, DIP, TPFor other criteria: see 'determine the criteria'Select elements

<1nm - WFD coastal water bodies>1nm - subdivisions of the region or subregion, divided where needed by national boundaries


assessment

Pressure: C1 is primaryImpacts on pelagic habitats:Primary: C2Secondary: C3, C4, C5 can complement C2Impacts on benthic habitats:Primary: C8 (can be substituted by C9), (and C6, C7 and C9 are primary in coastal waters)Secondary: C6, C7, C9 (beyond coastal waters)

Determine the criteria

Map regional indicators for eutrophication and its effects to the criteriaMap complementary national indicators

Assign indicators




Within 1nm, the coastal water bodies used under Directive 2000/60/EC. This will facilitate the reuse of information from WFD;

Beyond 1nm, subdivisions of the region or subregion, divided where needed by national boundaries. Salinity gradients should be considered when determining the subdivisions.

It is recommended to use the same assessment areas across all criteria (rather than considering different criteria at different scales).


See step 1 above.


Relevant regional indicators that are available should be identified and allocated, to the relevant criteria and assessment areas. Any remaining gaps should be identified. Additional or complementary national indicators can also be incorporated and allocated to the relevant criteria and assessment areas. These need to have a threshold value, and should follow the agreed structure for reporting indicators5. Mapping of RSC indicators against the revised COMDec criteria is provided in Appendix A.

Step 5 – Determine if threshold values are achieved

The threshold values for assessment are:

values set in Decision 2013/480/EU for WFD indicators in coastal waters; regionally or subregionally agreed threshold values for indicators consistent with

WFD requirements and for secondary criteria agreed at (sub)regional level.

3.3.1 Levels and methods of integrationExisting assessment frameworks include:

Framework Integration approachEutrophicationWFD OOAOOSPAR Common Procedure: OOAO except for nutrients and with the possibility

of an overall appraisal of the final assessment resultHELCOM HEAT: Averaging or weighted averaging of indicators of direct effects of

nutrient enrichment and those of indirect effects. OOAO between nutrients, direct effects and indirect effects.

Black SeaMediterranean

Figure 8 shows levels of integration and associated integration methods for Descriptor 5. The figure is representative of a single assessment area, for which the assessment results in relation to threshold values can be presented for each group of criteria. There is no need to integrate/aggregate across spatial areas.

5 MSCG_17-2015-04





Level 1: Measurements of individual elements — for example, of concentration of chlorophyll-a, different forms of nitrogen or phosphorus, at different sample stations, in different time periods) — are combined into a single indicator, such as DIN, DIP etc. Integration at this level currently follows established rules under WFD and Regional Sea Conventions. Comparability of this level of integration requires technical consideration and is not addressed in Part I of the guidance.

Level 2: The results for various indicators are integrated to form a judgement of the status for each criterion. The integration method is OOAO. This means that if one of the indicators fails its threshold values, the criterion is also ’not good’. For the criterion to be ’good’, all relevant indicators must meet their threshold values. It is noted that in some cases the indicator equals the criterion, i.e. there is no distinction between level 2 and 3.

Level 3: Criteria are brought together into criteria groups reflecting pressure, impacts on pelagic habitats and impacts on benthic habitats. According to the revised COMDec within each group, the integration method is OOAO for the criteria that are addressed (primary and secondary).The OOAO approach is not fully consistent with some RSC assessment frameworks which use (weighted) averaging across indicators/criteria within each group (pressure, impacts on pelagic habitats, impacts on benthic habitats).

Level 4: Good environmental status for Descriptor 5 is achieved when each criteria group (pressure, impact on pelagic habitats, impact on benthic habitats) is ‘good’ (OOAO).Visualising assessment results for Descriptor 5

The assessment output for Descriptor 5 is presented along the criteria group results, as shown in Figure 9, which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’).



Pressure

Impacts on pelagic habitats

Im-pacts on ben-thic habitats


Additional common presentations of assessment outputs to be developed. See options under 2.2 for discussion.


3.4 Physical damage (D6)Descriptor 6: 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.

Detail to be developed for this descriptor. See also Habitats (D1 & D6).

3.5 Physical loss (D6) and hydrographical changes (D7)Descriptor 7: Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems.




3.6 Descriptor 8: ContaminantsDescriptor 8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.

The primary and secondary criteria, and their relation to the 2010/477/EU indicators, are shown in Table 3. The assessments for D8 address two distinct aspects:

Chronic contamination :o D8C1 relates to the levels of chronic contamination in the marine

environment; o D8C2 addresses the effects (impacts) of these contaminants on species

populations and biological communities; Acute pollution events :

o D8C3 addresses the levels of acute pollution events;o D8C4 relates to the level of impacts from acute pollution events on species

and habitats.Table 3 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 8




Comments

Chro

nic

pollu

tion

Pres

sure D8C1 Contaminant

concentrations in the relevant matrix

8.1.1

Impa

ct

D8C2 Effects of contaminants on health of species populations and biological communities

8.2.1

Acut

e po

llutio

nPr

essu

re D8C3 Acute pollution events

8.2.2 8.2.2 was expressed with both pressure and impact components. These have been separated in the revised COMDec

Impa

ct

D8C4 Impacts of pollution events on species populations and habitat conditions

8.2.2

3.6.1 Chronic contaminant pollution (D8C1 and D8C2)Level of integration

Each assessed criterion should be within threshold values. The envisaged level of integration across criteria is as follows:

C1 (primary) – no integration C2 (secondary) – no integration



Assessment flow

The assessment flow for Descriptor 8 C1 and C2 is shown in Figure 10. Further detail on these steps is provided below.

Figure 10 Assessment flow for D8C1 and D8C2

Step 1 – Determine elements for assessment (e.g. substances)

For D8C1, Member States should first draw up a list of contaminants for assessment. The contaminants for assessment may differ within 12 nm and beyond 12 nm. The differentiation ensures consistency of the chemical assessment with the WFD assessment of ecological and chemical status. A suggested format for listing the contaminants and their associated assessment scales is shown in the table below. The specification of the criterion indicates that this includes:

Within 12 nmo The chemicals considered for good chemical status (GCS) assessments

under the WFD (i.e. the list of Priority Substances (Annex X of WFD, and Annex I of Directive 2008/105/EC); and

o The River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs)6 that have been identified under the WFD for individual river basins within 1nm; and

o Any additional contaminants that pose a risk to or via the marine environment in the marine region or subregion. Member States should establish a list of such contaminants at (sub)regional level. Such additional contaminants can relate for example to offshore sources and atmospheric deposition.

6 River Basin Specific Pollutants are considered as part of ecological status under the WFD. They are substances of national or local concern that are selected by Member States for control at the relevant level (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/). Identified as ‘Pollution by other substances identified as being discharged in significant quantities into the body of water’ under ‘Chemical and physico-chemical elements’ of ecological status in Annex V of the WFD.


WFD Priority Substances River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs)RSC substances

Select elements (substances)

D8C1 and D8C2<12nm - WFD water bodies>12nm - subdivision of the region or subregion divided where needed by national boundaries


assessment

Primary:D8C1: Contaminant concentrationsSecondary:D8C2: Biological effects - may be used to complement D8C1


Map regional indicators for (groups of) substances (e.g. PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs, PFOA, lead, mercury)Map complementary national indicators (e.g. an additional single substance or group of substances)

Assign indicators

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-dangersub/


Beyond 12 nm:o The same list as for within 12 nm, but contaminants can be removed from

this list, if they no longer pose a risk to or via the marine environment beyond 12nm (risk-based approach). Member States are required to submit scientific justification that no such risk exists. The risk should be periodically reviewed.

Contaminant

<12nm >12nmRBSPs (Annex V WFD) (within 1nm)Priority Substances (Annex X of WFD and Annex I of EQS Directive)Others identified at (sub)regional levelOther relevant national substances

Threshold value

Same as within 12nm, but risk-based approach may be used to exclude some contaminants on the basis that they do not pose a risk to the marine environment

Threshold value

Contaminant 1 W,S,B BContaminant 2 W,S -Contaminant 3 S,B SEtc.…Key: W = Water; S = Sediment; B = Biota

For D8C2, Member States should establish the species, tissues and (benthic) habitats for assessment at regional or subregional level. This selection should be done by reference to the contaminants used under D8C1.



Within 12nm, the coastal water bodies used under Directive 2000/60/EC (for Chemical Status assessment). This will facilitate reuse of WFD assessments. Under WFD, RBSPs are considered within 1nm at water body level. Beyond 1nm assessment areas under MSFD should be consistent with the WFD coastal water bodies and/or the subdivisions of the region or subregion;

Beyond 12nm, subdivisions of the region or subregion, divided where needed by national boundaries.

The following are recommended:

D8C1: Use the same assessment scales across all contaminants (rather than considering different contaminants at different scales);

D8C2: Use the same assessment scales as for D8C1.


Criterion D8C1 is the only primary criterion and must be addressed as an EU minimum requirement, in terms of an assessment of whether levels of the specified contaminants are above or below the set threshold values.

Criterion D8C2 is a secondary criterion and can be used to complement the assessment of D8C1 in terms of the biological effects. However, because the link between levels of contaminants in the marine environment and their effects on marine biota is not clear, this criterion is optional and its result will not be integrated with D8C1.




Relevant regional indicators that are available should be identified and allocated, to the relevant contaminants and assessment areas. Any remaining gaps should be identified. Additional or complementary national indicators can also be incorporated and allocated to the relevant contaminants and assessment areas. These need to have a threshold value, and should follow the agreed structure for reporting indicators7. Mapping of RSC indicators against the revised COMDec criteria is provided in Appendix A.

Step 5 – Determine if threshold values are achieved

In relation to levels set in legislation, at regional level etc. ‘achieved’ means that the level of the contaminant is below the set threshold value. The threshold values for assessment are:

the ecological quality standard for WFD priority chemicals established by WFD and Directive 2008/105/EC;

regionally or subregionally agreed threshold values for WFD priority chemicals and river basin specific pollutants measured in a matrix for which no environmental quality standards are provided under Directive 2008/105/EC;

regionally or subregionally agreed threshold values for additional contaminants listed at (sub)regional level.

3.6.2 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 11Error: Reference source not found shows the levels of integration and associated integration methods for Descriptor 8. It builds on the assessment of single substances which are aggregated and integrated to an indicator of (groups of) substances in the assessment area. The figure is representative of a single assessment area, for which the results of GES/not GES can be presented. There is no need to integrate/aggregate across spatial areas.

7 MSCG_17-2015-04



Figure 11 Levels and methods of integration for Descriptor 8, Criteria 1 and 2


Level 1: Measurements of individual elements — for example, of individual chemical congeners, at different sample stations, in different time periods, and potentially in different matrices (e.g. sediment, water, biota) — are combined into a single indicator, such as for PAHs, PCDBs, etc. Integration at this level currently follows established rules under WFD and Regional Sea Conventions. Comparability of this level of integration requires technical consideration and is not addressed in Part I of the guidance.

Level 2: the results for various indicators (respectively for contaminants under D8C1, and for biological effects of chemicals under D8C2) are integrated to form a judgement of the status for each criterion. The integration method is OOAO. This means that if one of the indicators fails its threshold values, the criterion is also ‘not good’. For the criterion to be ‘good’, all relevant indicators must meet their threshold values.

Level 3: Good environmental status for Descriptor 8 is achieved when D8C1 and D8C2 are ‘good’ (OOAO). The two criteria are not integrated but their assessment results stand side-by-side.

Existing assessment frameworks include:

Framework Integration approachC1 Concentration of contaminantsWFD OOAO: All substances must achieve Environmental Quality Standards

(EQS)OSPAR CEMP: If two substances of a group fail the threshold value, the group

(indicator) fails good status (two out all out)HELCOM CHASE: Averaging across substances (sum of substances multiplied with



root of number of substances).Black SeaMediterraneanC2 Biological effects of contaminantsOSPARHELCOM Averaging across assessment techniquesBlack SeaMediterranean

3.6.3 Acute pollution events (D8C3 and D8C4)Level of integration

Criteria D8C3 and D8C4 should be assessed and reported on in the event of an acute pollution event occurring. The envisaged level of integration across criteria is as follows:

C3 & C4 (secondary) – integrated for overall judgement

D8C3 and D8C4 do not contribute to the judgement on achievement of GES for Descriptor 8. D8C3 is recommended to be used as environmental target under Art. 10 MSFD. There is no threshold value for assessing GES in relation to D8C3. D8C4 should contribute, where appropriate, to the assessment under Descriptors 1 and 6.

Assessment flow

Member States should ensure regular monitoring to detect significant acute pollution events. In the event of significant acute pollution, Member States should undertake event monitor involving:

the spatial and temporal extent of the polluting element, including concentrations of the relevant contaminants (D8C1). The elements for assessment include polluting substances, as defined in Art 2(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, including crude oil and similar compounds.

effects of the pollution on marine species and habitats (D8C4) (e.g. number of birds killed or oiled).

Assessment scales

Relevant spatial scales are:

D8C3: Region or subregion; D8C4: The same assessment scales as used for the species groups under D1.

3.6.4 Visualising assessment results for Descriptor 8The assessment output for Descriptor 8 is presented along the criteria group results which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’) as shown in Figure 12.



D8C2

D8C3 & D8C4

D8C1


The results for D8C1 should be complemented by an expression of the number of assessed substances meeting/failing the threshold values. This provides a means to express distance from GES and change in status/progress.

Additional common presentations of assessment outputs to be developed. See options under 2.2 for discussion. For descriptor 8 this could include considerations of separating out ‘legacy’ contaminants, which are banned from use and are no longer accessible to management actions, from other contaminants for which managements measures can be established

3.6.5 Worked examplesTo be developed. See Workshop presentation.

3.7 Descriptor 9: Contaminants in SeafoodDescriptor 9: Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards.

Guidance still to be developed for this descriptor.



3.7.1 Descriptor 10: Marine LitterDescriptor 10: Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

The primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 10, and their relationship to the indicators of 2010/477/EU are shown in Table 4. There are two aspects to Descriptor 10:

Pressure : D10C1 and D10C2 relate to the level of the pressure (litter and micro-litter) in the marine environment (coastline, surface layer of the water column, sea-floor and sea-floor sediment, as appropriate);

Impacts on biota : D10C3 address some of the impacts of litter on biota.Table 4 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 10




Comments

Pres

sure

D10C1 Litter 10.1.110.1.2

CoastlineWater column and seabed

D10C2 Microlitter

10.1.3

Impa

cts

D10C3 Effects on biota

10.2.1


Criteria D10C1 and D10C2 should be within threshold values. The envisaged level of integration across criteria is as follows:

Pressure: C1 (primary) – no integration; Pressure: C2 (primary) – no integration; Impacts on biota: C3 (primary) – no integration.

Assessment flow

The assessment flow for D10 is shown in Figure 13; further detail is provided below.



Figure 13 Assessment flow for D10


The revised ComDec lists elements and the matrices for assessment for D10C1 and D10C2. These are

elements: artificial polymer materials, rubber, cloth and textiles, paper and cardboard, processed and worked wood, metal, glass and ceramics, and other;

matrices: coastline, surface layer of the water column, and sea-floor.

For D10C3, Member States should establish the species for impact assessment at regional or subregional level. The species may encompass any of the ecosystem components birds, mammals, reptiles or fish.


The assessment scales are for:

D10C1 and D10C2: the national part of subdivisions of each region or subregion. The same assessment areas should be used for both criteria within the set assessment scale;

D10C3: the scales used for the corresponding species under Descriptor 1. This assumes a link between the assessment of the impact of litter on a species and the assessment of a species’ health condition.


Primary:D10C1: LitterD10C2: MicrolitterD10C3: Impact on biota (entanglement and other injury/mortality)All criteria are required


For D10C1 & D10C2, select matrices to monitor:Coastline, surface layer of the water column, sea-floor and/or sea-floor sedimentFor D10C3, parameters should reflect:Entanglement or injury/mortality of relevant species of birds, mammals, reptiles and fish (species list to be established at regional or subregional level based on risk from marine litter).

Select matrices and species

D10C1 & D10C2National part of subdivisions of each region or subregionD10C3As for corresponding species under D1


assessment

Map regional indicators and complementary national indicators for litter to the criteria according to:Subcategories of litter defined in the Revised ComDec (e.g. artificial polymer materials, rubber, cloth and textiles, etc)Particle size (particles between 20µm and 5mm (microlitter), and particles >5mm)

Assign indicators



All criteria are primary criteria and therefore all must be applied.


Identify the regional and national indicators that can contribute to the assessment in relation to the types of litter and matrices. See Table 5 for an example of how this can be set out. The table includes two size categories for ‘artificial polymer materials’ and ‘other’ categories; the 20 µm–5mm category relates to D10C2 on microlitter. Mapping of RSC indicators against the revised COMDec criteria is provided in Appendix A.

Table 5 Example of a table to record information on indicators (element-matrix-scale-relationships)

Type of litter (criteria elements)

Coastline Surface layer of water column

Sea-floor (sea-floor sediments for micro-

plastics)

RSC

indi

cato

r

Natio

nal

indi

cato

r

Notes on assessmen

t area coverage

RSC

indi

cato

r

Natio

nal

indi

cato

r Notes on assessmen

t area coverage

RSC

indi

cato

r

Natio

nal

indi

cato

r Notes on assessmen

t area coverage

Artificial polymer materials (>5mm)

Artificial polymer materials (20 µm–5mm)

Rubber

Cloth and textiles

Paper and cardboard

Processed and worked wood

Metal

Glass and ceramics

Other (>5mm)

Other (20 µm–5mm)

Step 5 – Determine if threshold value are achieved

The threshold values for assessment are not yet available. They should be established:

for D10C1 and D10C2 jointly by Member States and the Commission at EU level. for D10C3 by Member States at regional or subregional level in relation to

(sub)regionally relevant species.

The assessment of D10C3 should also inform the assessment of the corresponding species under Descriptor 1.

3.7.2 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 14 shows the levels of integration and associated integration methods for Descriptor 10. The figure is representative of a single assessment area (areas may differ across criteria and within criterion D10C3), for which the results of good status can be presented. The guidance does not address the issue of aggregating across spatial areas.





Level 1: Measurements of individual elements — for example, of the quantity of litter of different subcategories in the different matrices in different time periods — are combined into individual indicators. Integration at this level currently follows rules under development by Regional Sea Conventions and the EU. Comparability of this level of integration requires technical consideration and is not addressed in Part I of the guidance.

Level 2: The results for various indicators relating to the criteria D10C1 (litter), D10C2 (microliter) and D10C3 (impacts) are integrated to form a judgement for each criterion.

Level 3: Good environmental status for Descriptor 10 is achieved if all criteria meet their threshold values are ‘good’ (OOAO). D10C3 can also inform assessments under Descriptor 1.

3.7.3 Visualising assessment results for Descriptor 10The assessment output for Descriptor 10 is presented along the criteria results as shown in Figure 15 which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’).



D10C2

D10C3

D10C1

Figure 15 Presentation of assessment outputs for Descriptor 10

Additional common presentations of assessment outputs to be developed. See options under 2.2 for discussion. For descriptor 10 this could include considerations of presenting:

C1 Litter: Amount of litter as density/weight per unit area; C2 Microlitter: Amount of micro-litter in items per cubic metre (surface layer), per

millilitre (sediment) and per gram of intestine (for biota).; 3-part pie on matrices (coastline, surface layers of water column, sea-floor)

showing green/red for each criterion Bar graph showing amount of litter or density of microlitter for each assessed

matrix against threshold value (scale to proportion, with threshold value = 1). Such presentation assumes that assessments can be normalised to fit a scale between 0 and 1.

For greater detail, three bar charts could be presented (one for each matrix), showing the amount of litter by subcategory (possibly scaled to 1.0 as the threshold value).


3.8 Descriptor 11: Underwater NoiseDescriptor 11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.




4 State-Related (Biodiversity) Descriptor Assessments

State-related assessments should reflect the impacts upon each state element from all the (main) pressures to which the state elements are subject. They should therefore take into account the outcomes of the relevant pressure-related assessments. State-based descriptors (1, 4 and 6) have been combined to assess ecosystem elements in a more integrated manner, by ecosystem component (birds, mammals, fish, benthic habitats etc).

Biodiversity assessments to address the needs of descriptors 1, 4 and 6 should be made for the related following ecosystem components:

Species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, cephalopods (addressing aspects of Descriptor 1) (section 4.1);

Broad habitat types (addressing Descriptor 6 and aspects of Descriptor 1) (section 4.2);

Ecosystems and food webs (addressing Descriptor 4 and wider aspects of Descriptor 1) (section 4.2.3).

It is not anticipated that these ecosystem components will be integrated further to provide an overall assessment for ‘biodiversity’ — the integration stops at species group level.

4.1 Species (Descriptor 1)Descriptor 1 (Species): 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.

There are two aspects to Descriptor 1:

State of species in the marine environment: D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3; State of the supporting habitats for species: D1C4.

Aspects of biodiversity (species) are considered in relation to five ‘ecosystem components’ and their ‘species groups’ (Table 6). Each species group is to be assessed using a set of representative species, each of which is assessed using one or more criteria. These criteria will be integrated within an individual species, and species will be aggregated to species groups. The details of the integration steps and methods are addressed in the sections for each species ecosystem component.

Different criteria under Descriptor 1 are relevant for the various ecosystem components, depending on the species type (linked to assessment approaches under Birds Directive, Habitats Directive and CFP) and therefore the integration rules are also different. Each ecosystem component is therefore considered separately here. However, the general flow of assessment for species is common to all the species groups, and is presented in Figure 16 below.



Table 6 Ecosystem components and their species groups, for consideration under the ‘species’ aspects of Descriptor 1

Ecosystem component Species groupBirds Grazing birds

Wading birdsSurface-feeding birdsPelagic-feeding birdsBenthic-feeding birds

Mammals Small-toothed cetaceansDeep-diving toothed cetaceansBaleen whalesSeals

Reptiles TurtlesFish (and elasmobranchs) Coastal fish

Pelagic shelf fishDemersal shelf fishDeep-sea fish

Cephalopods Coastal/shelf cephalopodsDeep-sea cephalopods

Figure 16 Assessment flow for species ecosystem components. See sections on each ecosystem component for details


For each species group:Select species to assess (to be established at regional or subregional level

Select species

Select relevant parameters (criteria) for the species, for primary and (where relevant) secondary criteriaPrimary and secondary criteria differ between species ecosystem components, and between species depending on which legislation they are listed inSee individual sections for detail


Appropriate spatial scales differ according to the ecosystem component, see individual sections for detailsIndicator results may need to be aggregated across spatial areas, or down-scaled to smaller spatial areas, to allow for integration of indicators and criteria across on a harmonised spatial scale


assessment

Draw on assessments carried out under other legislation for the species selectedMap regional indicators to the criteria for the species Map complementary national indicators to the criteria for the species

Assign indicators


4.1.1 Selecting species to assessFor the step ‘select species and parameters’ in the assessment flow (Figure 16), the revised COMDec sets out a number of ‘main scientific criteria (ecological relevance)’ for identifying species for each species group. They are:

Representative of the ecosystem component (species group or broad habitat type), being relevant for assessment of state/impacts, such as having a key functional role within the component (e.g. high or specific biodiversity, productivity, trophic link, specific resource or service);

Relevant for assessment of a key anthropogenic pressure to which the ecosystem component is exposed, being sensitive to the pressure and exposed to it (vulnerable) in the assessment area;

Sufficiently present across the (sub)region: high proportion (extent or occurrence) of the species/ habitat occurs within the assessment area;

Present in sufficient numbers or extent in the assessment area to be able to construct a suitable indicator for assessment;

The set of species or habitats selected should cover, as far as possible, the full range of ecological functions of the ecosystem component.

Additional practical criteria for selecting species (which shall not override the main scientific criteria) are monitoring/technical feasibility, monitoring costs, and existence of a reliable time series.

In practice, many of the species selected are likely to be those already assessed under Birds, Habitats or CFP as these often fulfil the scientific criteria above and have established monitoring and assessment processes. [Add information from spreadsheet used for the D1 workshop in September 2015.]

4.1.2 Integration sequence – spatial scalesThe integration methods presented for each ecosystem component are representative of a single assessment area, for which the results of the species group assessments can be presented. Where indicators and species are assessed at different spatial scales, there is a need to harmonise the spatial scales (i.e. assessment units) of all indicators and species within each ecosystem component. The two options are:

Aggregate across spatial areas to region or sub-region:o Each indicator for each species is aggregated across spatial areas to

provide an overall assessment for the region or sub-region. o The integration across indicators, species and species groups then takes

place at the level of the (sub)region. Down-scale indicator assessments to smaller spatial areas:

o The value or outcome of each indicator is applied to each of the smaller spatial areas within the wider area over which it is relevant.

o Where there are smaller spatial assessment units that are not relevant for the indicator or species (e.g. the species’ range does not extend into that assessment area), no value should be applied to these areas, and the indicator should be excluded from the integration process in that area.

o The integration across indicators, species and species groups takes place at the level of the smaller individual assessment areas. There may be differing numbers of indicators and species within different assessment areas.

o If required, the integrated results for each ecosystem component for the individual assessment areas can be aggregated up to the level of the (sub)region if appropriate.



Is it possible to select a single scale per ecosystem component (or species group) to avoid this complexity? Member States are invited to discuss this in relation to the different ecosystem components.

BirdsThe primary and secondary criteria for birds for Descriptor 1, and their relationship to the indicators of 2010/477/EU, are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Primary and secondary criteria for Birds under Descriptor 1




Comments

Stat

e

D1C1 Distributional range and pattern

1.1.11.1.2

D1C2 Population size

1.2.1

D1C3 Population demographic characteristics

1.3.1

Supp

ortin

g ha

bita

t

D1C4 Habitat for the species

– Supporting habitat for species was mentioned in the D1 chapeau text in 2010/477/EU but not specifically included as an indicator

Level of Integration

For Descriptor 1, all species assessed within the bird species groups need to achieve the threshold values set for the relevant criteria. Criteria should be integrated within species, before species are integrated to species group.

Assessment flow

The assessment flow for birds under D1 is shown in Figure 16. Further detail on these steps is provided below.

Step 1 – Select species

Member States should first draw up a list of the bird species that need to be considered for each bird species group, at regional or subregional level. The main scientific criteria for selecting species should be taken into account (see section 4.1.1). These species may be drawn from:

Directive 2009/147/EC (the Birds Directive); Regional Sea Conventions; Other sources.



Step 2 – Determine the criteria

Criteria D1C1 and D1C2 are primary criteria for birds. Criteria D1C3 and D1C4 are secondary and ‘should be used where there is a possibility the species are at risk in relation to these criteria due to anthropogenic pressures’.

Step 3 – Determine spatial scales for assessment

Member States should determine the appropriate scale of assessment and assessment areas for each bird species group. The following are provided in the revised ComDec:

Baltic – region; Black Sea – region; North-East Atlantic – subregions; Mediterranean Sea – subregions.


Relevant regional indicators that are available should be identified and allocated, to the relevant species and criteria. Any remaining gaps should be identified. Additional or complementary national indicators can also be incorporated and allocated to the relevant species and criteria. These need to have a threshold value, and should follow the agreed structure for reporting indicators8. Assessments carried out under the Birds Directive can be drawn on.

Indicators relating to the individual criteria should be integrated for an individual species, before species are brought together into species groups, this enables information from the Birds Directive to be used directly in the assessments:

D1C1 corresponds to ‘breeding distribution map and range’ under the Birds Directive;

D1C2 corresponds to ‘population size’ under the Birds Directive.

4.1.3 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 17 shows the levels of integration and different integration methods for birds under Descriptor 1 and is representative of a single assessment area.

Existing assessment frameworks include:Framework Integration approachBirdsBirds DirectiveOSPAR 75% of species achieve threshold values.HELCOMBlack SeaMediterranean

8 MSCG_17-2015-04



Figure 17 Levels and methods of integration for birds under Descriptor 1


Level 1: Measurements of individual parameters — for example of seabird breeding success, abundance of individual species at different times of year in different locations etc. — are combined into a single indicator, such as ‘breeding status of marine birds’. Integration at this level currently follows rules under development by Regional Sea Conventions Comparability of this level of integration requires technical consideration and is not addressed in Part I of the guidance.

Level 2: Where there is more than one indicator for a species for a particular criterion, the indicators are combined to form a judgement on the status of each criterion, if necessary based on OOAO

Level 3: The relevant criteria for each species are integrated to form a judgement on the status of each species. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO. Different species may be represented by different numbers of criteria.

Level 4: The results for each species are brought together to the species group. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO.

Level 5: The ecosystem component under D1 is in good environmental status if each species group is in good status (OOAO). The results for each species group are not integrated.

4.1.4 Visualising assessment results for birdsThe assessment output for Descriptor 1 component ‘mammals’ is presented along the species group results, as shown in Figure 18, which are classed green (‘good’) and red



(‘not good’). For a consistent presentation, the assessment output includes all species groups; groups not relevant in a region and therefore not assessed are blanked.

Grazing bird

s

Wading bird

s

Surface-feeding birds

Pelagic-feeding

birds

Ben-thic-feeding

birds

Figure 18 Presenting assessment output for birds (D1)


The birds ecosystem component forms one ‘slice’ of the pizza in the pizza-satellite scheme. The integration process and methods provided above will result in outcomes of assessments for each bird species group. This cannot be represented in the ‘pizza’ slice, but alternative options may be available.




MammalsAll marine mammal species are listed in Annex II, IV or V of Directive 92/43/EEC, [correction to be made to Revised COMDec] therefore the primary and secondary criteria for mammals under Descriptor 1 are shown in Table 8. Table 8 Primary and secondary criteria for Mammals under Descriptor 1




Comments

Stat

e

D1C1 Distributional range and pattern (1)

D1C1 Distributional range and pattern (2)(3)

1.1.11.1.2

D1C2 Population size (1)(2)(3)

1.2.1

D1C3 Population demographic characteristics (1)(2)

D1C3 Population demographic characteristics (3)

1.3.1

Supp

ortin

g ha

bita

t

D1C4 Habitat for the species (1)

D1C4 Habitat for the species (2)(3)


(1) Fish species listed in Annex II, VI or V of Directive 92/43/EEC(2) Commercially-exploited fish species not listed in Annex II, IV or V of Directive 92/43/EEC(3) Non-commercially-exploited fish species not listed in Annex II, IV or V of Directive 92/43/EEC


For Descriptor 1, all species assessed within the mammals ecosystem component should achieve the threshold values set for the relevant criteria. Criteria should be integrated within species, before species are integrated to species group.

Assessment flow

The assessment flow for mammals under D1 is shown in Figure 16. Further detail on these steps is provided below.

Step 1 – Select species

Member States should first draw up a list of the mammal species that need to be considered for each mammal species group, at regional or subregional level. The main scientific criteria for selecting species should be taken into account (see section 4.1.1). These species may be drawn from:

Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive); Regional Sea Conventions; Other sources.



Step 2 – Determine the criteria

Criterion D1C1, D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 are primary criteria for mammals, reflecting their use under Habitats Directive.

Step 3 – Determine spatial scales for assessment

Member States should determine the appropriate scale of assessment and assessment areas for each mammal species group. The following are provided in the revised COMDec:

For deep-diving toothed cetaceans and baleen whales:o Region;

For small-toothed cetaceans and seals:o Baltic – region;o Black Sea – region;o North-East Atlantic – subregions; o Mediterranean Sea – subregions.

Are smaller spatial scales appropriate for some groups e.g. seals?


Relevant regional indicators that are available should be identified and allocated to the relevant species and criteria. Any remaining gaps should be identified. Additional or complementary national indicators can also be incorporated and allocated to the relevant species and criteria. These need to have a threshold value, and should follow the agreed structure for reporting indicators9. Assessments carried out under the Habitats Directive can be drawn on.

Indicators relating to the individual criteria should be integrated for an individual species, before species are brought together into species groups, this enables information from the Habitats Directive to be used directly in the assessments:

D1C1 corresponds to the ‘range’ under the Habitats Directive; D1C2 and D1C3 correspond to ‘population’ under the Habitats Directive; D1C4 corresponds to the ‘habitat for the species’ under the Habitats Directive.

4.1.6 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 19 shows the levels of integration and different integration methods for mammals under Descriptor 1 and is representative of a single assessment area.

9 MSCG_17-2015-04



Figure 19 Levels and methods of integration for mammals under Descriptor 1


Level 1: measurements of individual parameters — for example of distributional range, pup production, abundance of individual species at different times of year in different locations etc. — are combined into a single indicator, such as ‘abundance of grey and harbour seal at breeding and haul-out sites, respectively’. This level of integration is not addressed in these guidelines.

Level 2: where there is more than one indicator for a species for a particular criterion, the indicators are combined to form a judgement of the status for each criterion, if necessary. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO.

Level 3: the relevant criteria for each species are integrated to form a judgement on the status for each species. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO. Different species may be represented by different numbers of criteria.

Level 4: the results for each species are brought together to the species group. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO.

Level 5: the component “mammals” are in good status when each species group is in good status (OOAO). The assessment results are presented at species group level.



Existing assessment frameworks include:Framework Integration approachMammalsHabitats Directive

Integration of criteria within species, using OOAO. There must be information on at least two parameters to provide a judgement on favourable conservation status for a species.

OSPARHELCOMBlack SeaMediterranean

Where regional indicators group species together for a single criterion, how can/should these be integrated into the assessment? Should the indicators be disaggregated to the individual species, or can they be incorporated into the assessment in another way?

4.1.7 Visualising assessment results for mammalsThe assessment output for Descriptor 1 component ‘mammals’ is presented along the species group results, as shown in Figure 20, which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’). For a consistent presentation, the assessment output includes all species groups; groups not relevant in a region and therefore not assessed are blanked.

Small-toothe

d cetace

ans

Deep-diving toothe

d cetace

ans

Baleen whale

s

Seals

Figure 20 Presenting assessment output for mammals (D1)





ReptilesAll marine reptile species are listed in Annex II, IV or V of Directive 92/43/EEC, [correction to be made to Revised COMDec] therefore the primary and secondary criteria for reptiles under Descriptor 1 are the same as for mammals and are shown in Table 8.


For Descriptor 1, GES is achieved if all species assessed within the reptiles ecosystem component achieve the threshold values set for the relevant criteria.

Assessment flow

The assessment flow is the same as for mammals. See section on mammals. For ‘Step 3 – Determine spatial scales for assessment’, Member States should determine the appropriate scale of assessment and assessment areas for the marine reptile species group. The following are provided in the revised COMDec:

Baltic – region; Black Sea – region; North-East Atlantic – subregions; Mediterranean Sea – subregions.

4.1.9 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 21 shows the levels of integration and different integration methods for reptiles under Descriptor 1 and is representative of a single assessment area.


Level 1: measurements of individual parameters — for example of distributional range, abundance of individual species at different times of year in different locations etc. — are combined into a single indicator. This level of integration is not addressed in these guidelines.

Level 2: where there is more than one indicator for a species for a particular criterion, the indicators are combined to form a judgement of GES for each criterion, if necessary. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO.

Level 3: the relevant criteria for each species are integrated to form a judgement on GES for each species. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO. Different species may be represented by different numbers of criteria.

Level 4: the results for each species are brought together to the species group. The integration method as specified in the Revised ComDec is OOAO. In many cases, reptiles may be represented by a single species of turtle, in which case there is no integration.

Level 5: there is only one species group for reptiles, and therefore no integration.



Figure 21 Levels and methods of integration for reptiles under Descriptor 1

4.1.10 Visualising assessment results for reptilesThe assessment output for Descriptor 1 component ‘reptiles’ is presented along the species group results, as shown in Figure 18, which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’). For a consistent presentation, the assessment output includes all species groups; groups not relevant in a region and therefore not assessed are blanked.

Turtles

Figure 22 Presenting assessment output for reptiles (D1)



FishThe primary and secondary criteria for fish under Descriptor 1 depend on whether the species is listed in Annex II, IV or V of Directive 92/43/EEC, [correction to be made to Revised COMDec] or is a commercial species that is also assessed under Descriptor 3 (Table 9).

Table 9 Primary and secondary criteria for Fish under Descriptor 1




Comments

Stat

e

D1C1 Distributional range and pattern

1.1.11.1.2

D1C2 Population size

1.2.1

D1C3 Population demographic characteristics

1.3.1

Supp

ortin

g ha

bita

t

D1C4 Habitat for the species



For Descriptor 1, all species assessed within the fish ecosystem component should achieve the threshold values set for the relevant criteria. Criteria should be integrated within species, before species are integrated to species group.

4.1.12 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 23 shows the levels of integration and different integration methods for fish and is representative of a single assessment area.



Figure 23 Levels and methods of integration for fish under Descriptor 1


Level 1: measurements of individual parameters — for example of distributional range, spawning stock biomass, length distribution etc. — are combined into a single indicator. This level of integration is not addressed in these guidelines.




Level 5: the results for each species group are not integrated.



For discussion: Assessments under the CFP are carried out for individual stock units. Should these

be considered in relation to the stock level only, or should they be aggregated to species level, and if so, how?

How can assessments for commercial fish and for non-commercial species be brought together? ICES Working Group on 3.3 indicators (WKIND3.3) recommended not using the 3.3 criterion (age and size distribution) for the assessment of commercially-exploited species, because no operational or appropriate indicators were identified. Is it appropriate, therefore, to include D1C3 as a primary indicator for commercial species?

WKGESFish recommended the integration framework of ‘stocks within criteria’ for D3 assessments of commercial species (not combining stocks to species level, and keeping the assessment of pressure under 3.1 separate from the assessment of state under 3.2). Bringing together such an assessment for commercial stocks, together with species-specific assessments of non-commercial stocks, may require alternative integration processes. How can this be achieved?

4.1.13 Visualising assessment results for fishThe assessment output for Descriptor 1 component ‘fish’ is presented along the species group results, as shown in Figure 24, which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’). For a consistent presentation, the assessment output includes all species groups; groups not relevant in a region and therefore not assessed are blanked.

Coastal fish

Pelagic

shelf fish

De-mer-sal

shelf fish

Deep-sea fish

Figure 24 Presenting assessment output for fish (D1)





CephalopodsNo cephalopod species are listed in Directive 92/43/EEC, therefore for commercially-exploited cephalopod species there are two primary and two secondary criteria (Table10).

Table 10 Primary and secondary criteria for Cephalopods under Descriptor 1




Comments

Stat

e

D1C1 Distributional range and pattern (1)(2)

1.1.11.1.2

D1C2 Population size (1)(2)

1.2.1



1.3.1

Supp

ortin

g ha

bita

t

D1C4 Habitat for the species (1)(2)


(1) Commercially-exploited cephalopod species(2) Non-commercially-exploited cephalopod species


For Descriptor 1, all species assessed within the cephalopod ecosystem component should achieve the threshold values set for the relevant criteria. Criteria should be integrated within species, before species are integrated to species group.

4.1.15 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 25 shows the levels of integration and different integration methods for cephalopods and is representative of a single assessment area.



Figure 25 Levels and methods of integration for cephalopods under Descriptor 1


Level 1: measurements of individual parameters — for example of distributional range, abundance etc. — are combined into a single indicator. This level of integration is not addressed in these guidelines.




Level 5: the results for each species group are not integrated.

4.1.16 Visualising assessment results for cephalopodsThe assessment output for Descriptor 1 component ‘cephalopods’ is presented along the species group results, as shown in Figure 18, which are classed green (‘good’) and red (‘not good’). For a consistent presentation, the assessment output includes all species groups; groups not relevant in a region and therefore not assessed are blanked.



Coastal/ shel

f cephalopod

s

Deep-sea cephalopod

s

Figure 26 Presenting assessment output for cephalopods (D1)





4.2 Habitats (Descriptors 1 and 6)Further detail to be developed for habitats.

There are two Descriptors that are relevant to habitats:

Descriptor 1 (Habitats): 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: 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.

Habitats aspects of biodiversity are considered in relation to two ‘ecosystem components’ and their ‘broad habitat types’ (Table 11). Different criteria are relevant for the two ecosystem components, and therefore the integration rules are also different. Each ecosystem component is therefore considered separately.

Table 11 Ecosystem components and their broad habitat types, for consideration under the ‘habitats’ aspects of Descriptors 1 and 6 (and 7)

Ecosystem component Broad habitat typeBenthic habitats Littoral rock and biogenic reef

Littoral sedimentInfralittoral rock and biogenic reefInfralittoral coarse sedimentInfralittoral sandInfralittoral mudInfralittoral mixed sedimentCircalittoral rock and biogenic reefCircalittoral coarse sedimentCircalittoral sandCircalittoral mudCircalittoral mixed sedimentUpper bathyal rock and biogenic reefUpper bathyal sedimentLower bathyal rock and biogenic reefLower bathyal sedimentAbyssal rock and biogenic reefAbyssal sediment

Pelagic habitats Variable salinityCoastalShelfOceanic

The primary and secondary criteria for habitats, and their relation to the 2010/477/EU indicators, are shown in Table 12.



Table 12 Primary and secondary criteria for Habitats




Comments

D1C5 Habitat extent (proportion lost) (benthic and pelagic)

1.5.16.1.1 Biogenic habitat

types (6.1.1) now included within habitat categories for D1

D1C6 Habitat condition (proportion impacted) (benthic only)

1.6.11.6.21.6.36.1.2

Aspects relating to the condition of the benthic community (6.2) are considered under D1C6.

D6C1 Physical damage (spatial extent) (benthic only)

6.1.2 Several criteria correspond to 6.1.2 (extent of seabed significantly affected by human activities)

D6C2 Change in structure and function (spatial extent) (benthic only)

6.1.27.2.2

D6C3 Physical loss (benthic only)

7.2.1

Assessment flow

Assessment flow figure here

4.2.1 Selecting habitats to assessThe revised ComDec sets out a number of ‘main scientific criteria (ecological relevance)’ for identifying habitats to assess under broad habitat types. They are:

Representative of the ecosystem component (species group or broad habitat type), being relevant for assessment of state/impacts, such as having a key functional role within the component (e.g. high or specific biodiversity, productivity, trophic link, specific resource or service);

Relevant for assessment of a key anthropogenic pressure to which the ecosystem component is exposed, being sensitive to the pressure and exposed to it (vulnerable) in the assessment area;

Sufficiently present across the (sub)region: high proportion (extent or occurrence) of the species/ habitat occurs within the assessment area;

Present in sufficient numbers or extent in the assessment area to be able to construct a suitable indicator for assessment;

The set of species or habitats selected should cover, as far as possible, the full range of ecological functions of the ecosystem component.

4.2.2 Integration sequence – spatial scalesTo be developed



Benthic habitats (D1, D6)Includes D6 (physical loss/damage) in assessment of stateFor benthic habitats, there are two primary criteria for Descriptor 1:

Primary:o 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.

o D1C6: The spatial extent of impacts from anthropogenic pressure 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.

Correspond to ‘range/area covered by habitat type within range’ and ‘specific structure and functions’ criteria of Directive 92/43/EEC.D1C5 should use the assessment made under D6C3.

For benthic habitats, the assessment should take into account the assessments underD2C3, D3C2, D3C3, D5C6, D5C7, D5C8, D5C9, D6C2, D7C2, D8C2 and D8C4.

Pelagic (D1)For pelagic habitats, there is one primary criterion for Descriptor 1:

Primary:o D1C6: The spatial extent of impacts from anthropogenic pressure 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.

For pelagic habitats, the assessment should take into account the assessments under D2C3, D5C2, D5C3, D5C4, D5C5, D8C2, D8C4.




4.3 Ecosystems, including food webs (Descriptor 4)Descriptor 4: All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.

Descriptor 4 requires Member States to establish, at regional or subregional level, at least three trophic guilds to assess under the ‘ecosystems, including food webs’ (two of which shall be non-fish trophic guilds). The ecosystems aspect may incorporate community indicators of species groups that reflect trophic guilds.

The primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 4, and their relationship to the indicators of 2010/477/EU, are shown in Table 13. Table 13 Primary and secondary criteria for Descriptor 4




Comments

Stat

e (b

iolo

gica

l)

D4C1 Abundance or biomass

4.3.1

D4C2 Size distribution

4.2.1

D4C3 Species composition

1.7.1 1.7.1 (composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components) may relate to D4C3 (species composition and their relative abundance within trophic guilds)

Stat

e (fu

nctio

nal) D4C4 Productivity 4.1.1 Functional aspects of

the state of marine food webs in terms of their productivity (European Commission, 2016)

Note: The revised criteria for Descriptor 4 and the trophic guild approach expand the Descriptor from its previous focus on fish, to cover wider ecosystem aspects such as phytoplankton, benthos and non-fish top predators.

Descriptor 4 addresses functional aspects of ecosystems whereas Descriptor 1 addresses the group’s ‘position’ within ecosystem structure. It addresses ecosystem aspects through food webs by dividing the structure and function of food webs into compartments which share common features, i.e. ‘trophic guilds’ (ICES, 2014). Trophic guilds can refer to important prey groups (defined by who eats them) as well as predators (a group that eats the same thing) (ICES, 2015). Examples of trophic guilds include fish benthivores, fish planktivores, filter-feeding benthos, or omnivorous zooplankton (see Table 14 showing indicative trophic guilds and their composition).



Table 14 Example of a division of trophic guilds, and the main taxonomic groups that may contribute to each guild

Guild/ taxonomic group

Phyto-plankton

Zoo-plankton Benthos

Nekton excl.

warm-blooded

Seabirds Marine mammals

Primary producers XSecondary producers X

Filter-feeders XDeposit-feeders XPlanktivores X X X XSub-apex pelagic predators X X XSub-apex demersal predators

X X X X

Apex predators X X XNote: X denotes where the taxonomic groups contribute significantly to each guild. Nekton includes bony fish, elasmobranchs and squids, amongst others. In shallower waters, macrophytes may also be important primary producers in addition to phytoplankton.

Source: ICES, 2014.


For Descriptor 4, threshold values should be set, but the criteria are not expected to provide a judgement on GES; rather, they are to be used for ‘surveillance’ to monitor changes in the foodweb, rather than responding tightly to manageable pressures (ICES, 2014).

ICES (2014) concludes that traditional methods to integrate indicators to a common GES of D4 such as ‘one out all out’ leads to risks that the combined indicator will not lead to management actions in the appropriate cases. The Revised ComDec does not indicate any application rules to determine what integration methods or level of integration is required. Is any integration required for D4?

Assessment flow

The assessment flow for D4 is shown in Figure 27. Further detail on these steps are provided below.



Figure 27 Assessment flow for ecosystems

4.3.1 Levels and methods of integrationFigure 28 shows the levels of integration and different integration methods that are appropriate for Descriptor 4. The figure is representative of a single assessment area.

Insert figure (two options? Integration within criteria and integration within trophic guild?)Level 3: the results for each criterion for each trophic guild are integrated to form a judgement about each [trophic guild] OR [criterion] (depending on which integration option is appropriate). Level 2: the results for various indicators are integrated to form a judgement for each criterion for each trophic guild.Level 1: measurements of individual parameters — for example, of abundance and diversity of different species within trophic guilds, at different sampling stations and at different times, for an assessment area — are combined into a single indicator. This level of integration requires detailed technical consideration and is not addressed in these guidelines.




Select minimum of three trophic guilds (Member States to agree at regional or subregional level)Two of the three shall be non-fish trophic guildsConsider list of trophic guilds from ICES (see Table above)

Select trophic guilds

Primary: D4C1 and D4C3Secondary: D4C2and D4C4


Appropriate spatial scales from Revised COMDec:Baltic - regionBlack Sea - regionNorth-East Atlantic - subregionMediterranean - subregionCoastal, shelf and oceanic/deep-sea ecosystems should be distinguished, as appropriate


assessment

Map regional indicators to the criteriaMap complementary national indicators to the criteria

Assign indicators


5 ReferencesEuropean Commission (2016). Main aims of a revised Decision & Annex III for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 14 January 2016. Supporting document to the draft revised Commission Decision and draft revision for Annex III. Can this be cited?

ICES (2014a). EU request on draft recommendations for the assessment of MSFD Descriptor 3. Special request, Advice March 2014. Section 1.6.2.1.

ICES (2014). Report of the Workshop to review the 2010 Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status (GES) of marine waters; Descriptor 4 Foodwebs, 26–27 August 2014, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2014\ACOM:60. 23 pp. Available online at http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/WKGMSFDD4/WKGMSFDD4%20Final%20Report%202014.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2016.

ICES (2015). ICES Special Request Advice. Section 1.6.2.1 EU request on revisions to Marine Strategy Framework Directive manuals for Descriptors 3, 4 and 6. Published 20 March 2015. Available online at http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/Special_Requests/EU_Revisions_to_MSFD_manuals_for_Descriptors_346.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2016.

ICES, in prep. Workshop on guidance on the practical methodology for delivering an MSFD GES assessment on D3 for an MSFD region/subregion (WKGESFish).

STECF (2014). DCF Revision - part 4 (STECF-14-07). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 26612 EN, JRC 89788, 77 pp. Available online at https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/674708/2014-04_STECF+14-07+-+Review+of+DCF+part+4_JRC89788.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2016.


https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/674708/2014-04_STECF+14-07+-+Review+of+DCF+part+4_JRC89788.pdf

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/43805/674708/2014-04_STECF+14-07+-+Review+of+DCF+part+4_JRC89788.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/Special_Requests/EU_Revisions_to_MSFD_manuals_for_Descriptors_346.pdf.%20Accessed%202%20April%202016

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2015/Special_Requests/EU_Revisions_to_MSFD_manuals_for_Descriptors_346.pdf.%20Accessed%202%20April%202016

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/WKGMSFDD4/WKGMSFDD4%20Final%20Report%202014.pdf

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Expert%20Group%20Report/acom/2014/WKGMSFDD4/WKGMSFDD4%20Final%20Report%202014.pdf


6 AbbreviationsTo be completed for final

ABPmer ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd

Cardinal points/directions are used unless otherwise stated.

SI units are used unless otherwise stated.


Appendices


A Mapping of RSC Indicators against Revised Commission Decision

Date: xx.xx.2016Mapping against ComDec criteria

Figure 29 Indicators potentially available for the assessment of good environmental status within HOLAS II, including the first set of HELCOM core indicators.

Note: Indicators marked ‘C-GES’ have a quantitative definition of GES and could be applied directly provided data are available. Indicators marked ‘C’ still need a quantitative definition of GES. Indicators marked ‘PC’ are pre-core indicators and would need further development within 2016 in order to be included in HOLAS II.



COM Dec criteriaP: primary criterionS: secondary criterion

OSPARC: common indicators (sub-region)Ca: candidate indicators (sub-region)

HELCOMC: core indicatorsPC: pre-core indicators

Black Sea Mediterranean Sea

Descriptor 8 – Contaminants in the marine environmentC1 Contaminant

concentrations (P)

Metals (C)PAH (C)HBCDD (C)PBDE (C)PFOS (C)PCB, dioxins, furans (C)TBT (C)ACI (PC)Diclofenac (PC)Estrogens (PC)Radionuclides (C)

C2 Biological effects of contaminants (S)

Eagle reproduction (C)TBT imposex (C)LMS (PC)

C3 Acute pollution events (S)

C4 Impacts of acute pollution events (S)



The regional indicators relevant to Descriptor 5 are as follows:

To be addedRevised ComDec Criteria

Geographical area

HELCOM Indicators OSPAR Indicators UNEP-MAP Indicators BSC Indicators

D5C1 <12nm>12nm

<12nm >12nm



The regional indicators relevant to Descriptor 8 are as follows:

Revised ComDec Criteria

Geographical area

WFD HELCOM Indicators OSPAR Indicators UNEP-MAP Indicators BSC Indicators

D8C1 >1nm Good chemical status assessment

Monitoring of RBSPs under Ecological Status requirements

1-12nm (or<12nm?)

Good chemical status assessment

TBT Metals (Cd, Hg, Pb) (in

sediment and water) PAH and metabolites (in

sediment and water) PCB, dioxins, furans (in

sediment and water) HBCD (in sediment and

water) PFOS (in sediment and

water) PBDE (in sediment and

water) Radioactive – Caesium

137 (fish and water) (also D9)

Metal concentration (Hg, Cd, Pb) (biota and sediment)

Organotin concentration (sediment)

PAH concentration (biota (not fish) and sediment)

PDBE concentration (biota and sediment)

PCB biota (biota and sediment)

E09 Concentration of key contaminants in the relevant matrix (biota/sediment/water)

To be added

>12nm TBT and Imposex? Metals (Cd, Hg, Pb) (in

sediment and water) PAH and metabolites (in

sediment and water) PCB, dioxins, furans (in

sediment and water) HBCD (in sediment and

water) PFOS (in sediment and

water) PBDE (in sediment and

water)Radioactive – Caesium 137 (fish and water) (also D9)

Metal concentration (Hg, Cd, Pb) (biota and sediment)

Organotin concentration (sediment)

PAH concentration (biota (not fish) and sediment)

PDBE concentration (biota and sediment)

PCB biota (biota and sediment)

E09 Concentration of key contaminants in the relevant matrix (biota/sediment/water)?

D8C2 >1nm 1-12nm (or<12nm?)

TBT Imposex TBT Imposex 9.2.1 Level of pollution events

>12nm D8C3 9.3.1 Acute pollution



events, occurrence, source, extent

D8C4



The regional indicators relevant to Descriptor 10 are as follows:Revised ComDec Criteria

Matrix HELCOM Indicators OSPAR Indicators UNEP-MAP Indicators BSC Indicators

D10C1 Coastline Beach litter Beach litter 10.1.1 Trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or deposited on coastlines, including analysis of its composition, spatial distribution and, where possible, source[NB only specifies trends, not amount]

Surface water 10.1.2 Trends in amounts of litter in the water column, including micro-plastics, and on the seafloor[NB only specifies trends, not amount]

Sea-floor Litter on the seafloor Litter on the seafloor 10.1.2 Trends in amounts of litter in the water column, including micro-plastics, and on the seafloor[NB only specifies trends, not amount]

D10C2 Coastline Microplastics [Not specified in which matrix]

Surface water Microlitter in the watercolumn Microplastics [Not specified in which matrix]

10.1.2 Trends in amounts of litter in the water column, including micro-plastics, and on the seafloor

Sea-floor sediment

Microplastics [Not specified in which matrix]

10.1.2 Trends in amounts of litter in the water column, including micro-plastics, and on the seafloor [NB check whether micro-plastics considered in sea-floor sediment]

D10C3 Entanglement 10.2.1 Trends in the amount of litter ingested by or entangling marine organisms, especially mammals, marine birds and turtles

Other injury/mortality

Fulmar litter ingestion (impact and floating litter)

10.2.1 Trends in the amount of litter ingested by or entangling marine organisms, especially mammals, marine



birds and turtles



The regional indicators relevant to species under Descriptor 1 are as follows:

Revised ComDec

Criteria HELCOM Indicators OSPAR Indicators UNEP-MAP Indicators BSC Indicators

Birds D1C1 1.1.1 Distributional range (birds) (common, under development

D1C2 Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season (core, pending adoption)

Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season (core, pending adoption)

B-1: Marine bird abundance (common, partly operational)

1.2.1 Population abundance (birds) (common, under development)

D1C3 B-3: Breeding status of marine birds (common, partly operational)

1.3.1 Population demographic characteristics – birds (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates) (common, under development)

D1C4 Mammals D1C1 Distribution of Baltic seals

(core) M-3: Seal abundance and

distribution (priority candidate) M-4: Cetacean abundance and

distribution (common, under development)

1.1.1 Distributional range (Monk Seal) (common, under development

D1C2 Population trends and abundance of seals (core)

1.2.1 Population abundance (mammals, IUCN) (common, under development)

D1C3 Nutritional status of seals (core) M-5: Grey seal pup production (common, under development)

1.3.1 Population demographic characteristics – cetaceans (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates) (common, under development)

1.3.1 Population demographic characteristics – Monk Seals (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates) (common, under development)

D1C4 ?

Reptiles D1C1 1.1.1 Distributional range (reptiles) (common, under development)

D1C2 1.2.1 Population size (reptiles) (common, under development)

D1C3 1.3.1 Population demographic characteristics – marine reptiles



(e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates) (common, under development)

D1C4 Fish D1C1

D1C2 Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt (core, pending adoption)

Abundance of sea trout spawners and parr (core, pending adoption)

Abundance of key coastal fish species (core, pending adoption)

Abundance of (coastal) fish key functional groups (core, pending adoption) (see also D4)

FC-1: Fish abundance (common)

D1C3 FC-3: Maximum length of demersal fish and elasmobranchs (candidate)

FC-2: OSPAR EcoQO for proportion of large fish (LFI) (see also D4)

D1C4 Cephalopods

D1C1 D1C2 D1C3 D1C4

Ecosystems

D4 Proportion of large fish in the community (offshore) (core, under development) [here, or in fish D1C3?]

Abundance of (coastal) fish key functional groups (core, pending adoption) (see also D1C2)

FC-1: Population abundance/biomass of a suite of selected species (fish & cephalopods) (common) [here, or in fish and cephalopods D1C2?]

FC-2: OSPAR EcoQO for proportion of large fish (LFI) (see also D1C3 fish)


guidance for assessments under article 8 of the · web viewguidance for assessments under...

Documents