Use of WFD methods in MSFD initial assessment, GES definition and target setting Preliminary results of in-depth analysis focusing on eutrophication Nikos Zampoukas Enrico Barbone Andreas Palialexis Brussels, 22 October 2013

In-depth assessment Aims of IDA JRC performs the in depth assessment (IDA) of the MSs reports for Article 8, 9, and 10, on the request of DG ENV as a follow up of the MSFD Art 12 assessment. Aims of IDA To evaluate comparability and coherence of methods and in particular their relation to the assessments under other frames (WFD, HD, BD, RSCs etc.) and the latest scientific evidence. To provide recommendations for improved implementation in the second MSFD cycle To support the possible revision of the COM Decision on criteria and methodological standards 22 October 2013

Material For 16 Member States, reporting spreadsheets & reports prepared by the consultant Difficulties in extrapolating information from the reporting sheets due to: heterogeneity (similar information in different cells, level of information not comparable, for some MS qualitative for others quantitative, differences between paper report and sheets) important information missing or not adequately referenced (i.e. gray literature, national legislations, RSC documents, etc.). 22 October 2013

Descriptor 5 Human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters. 22 October 2013

COMMISSION DECISION of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters criteria indicator 5.1 Nutrients levels 5.1.1 Nutrients concentration in the water column 5.1.2 Nutrients ratio (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus), where appropriate 5.2 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment 5.2.1 Chlorophyll concentration in the water column 5.2.2 Water transparency related to increase in suspended algae, where relevant 5.2.3 Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae 5.2.4 Species shift in floristic composition 5.3 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment 5.3.1 Abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses adversely impacted by decrease in water transparency 5.3.2 Dissolved oxygen, changes due to increased organic matter decomposition and size of the area concerned Assessment point 2: examine the degree of coherence between the reported information and (i) any related EU legislation -WFD, ND, HD, BD…-, (ii) Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) and (iii) Recent scientific developments Complications: Several types of heterogeneity among MSs in the spreadsheets compilation (similar information in different cells, level of information not comparable, either qualitative or quantitative, incompatibility between paper report and sheets, etc… ) The extrapolation of information needed for the analysis is time consuming, caused mostly by the spreadsheets heterogeneity. Crucial information for the evaluation of the MSFD implementation is missing or not adequately referenced in the reporting sheets (i.e. gray literature, national legislations, RSC documents, etc.). Expected outcomes: Identify the gaps in the implementation of the MSFD requirements and in the reporting process. Evaluation of these in relation to available scientific knowledge. Assess the degree of integration of MSFD reports with other EU and international policies in view of looking for best harmonization potential. Highlight best practices Evaluate the number of descriptors/criteria/indicators reported and the targets set to identify the level of ambition and the risks in achieving GES 22 October 2013

Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (COM Dec; 2010/477/EU) states that for most criteria, the assessment methodologies required need to take into account and, where appropriate, be based on those applicable under existing Community legislation Monitoring parameters of WFD and indicators (COM DEC 2010/477/EU) relevant for descriptor 5 WFD Parameter Relevant Eutrophication MSFD indicator Angiosperms Abundance 5.3.1 Angiosperms Composition 5.2.4 Macro‐algae Abundance 5.2.3; 5.3.1 Phytoplankton 1) Abundance 2) Biomass 5.2.1 Phytoplankton Bloom Frequency/Intensity Phytoplankton 1) Composition 2) Diversity Ammonium 5.1.1; 5.1.2 Nitrates Nutrient Conditions Oxygenation 5.3.2; 1.6.3 Transparency 5.2.2 22 October 2013 Modified from Zampoukas et al., 2012

Eutrophication metrics WFD Parameter Metrics reported for D5 indicators Angiosperms abundance PREI; Covered surface, density, species composition Nutrients conditions DIN; DIP; NO3; PO4; TN, TP, Silicate Macro-algae Abundance EEI; Opportunistic macroalgae, Perennial macroalgae Transparency Water transparency Oxygenation DO; BOD Phytoplankton Abundance/ Biomass Chl-a; Biovolume Phytoplankton Bloom Frequency/Intensity Blooms of Phytoplankton, Cyanobacteria, Dinoflagellates blooms; Phytoplankton Composition/Diversity Eutrophication plankton index 22 October 2013

Methodology We classified 4 levels of WFD-MSFD integration in the MS electronic reporting to score the methods 1-No mention to WFD 2-WFD is only mentioned (no method information) 1 3-WFD methodology is provided (without threshold and baseline) 2 4-WFD methodology (with threshold or baseline) 3 The highest score among methods defines the MS level of integration (WFD-MSFD) 22 October 2013

1 2 3 Methodological example If a MS X declared Declaration Score 1. The impact is causing changes in the following: benthic fauna and flora shifts and organic enrichment and changes in dissolved oxygen levels. 2. Human induced eutrophication is minimised and nutrient levels do not cause…….etc. Water Framework Directive: Threshold values based on deviation from reference condition set for high/good and good/moderate …etc 1 3. The phytoplankton biomass expressed as the concentration of chlorophyll-a in open marine waters corresponds to the level established in the Water Framework Directive for coastal waters 2 4. For WFD defined coastal water bodies, to be at good status the value of the chlorophyll should be ≤ 10.0 (90%ile) µg/l 3 Than the whole MS X received the Score 3 = WFD methodology (with threshold or baseline) 22 October 2013

Article 8 Assessment MS=16 22 October 2013

Article 8 Assessment No of MSs 22 October 2013

Article 9 Determination of good environmental status MS=16 22 October 2013

Article 9 Determination of good environmental status No of MSs 22 October 2013

Article 10 Establishment of environmental targets MS=16 22 October 2013

Article 10 Establishment of environmental targets No of MSs 22 October 2013

Integration with WFD among Marine Regions Article 8 – MS level 22 October 2013

Integration with WFD among Marine Regions Article 9 – MS level 22 October 2013

Integration with WFD among Marine Regions Article 10 – MS level 22 October 2013

Chlorophyll-a limits: level of consistency among MSFD art Chlorophyll-a limits: level of consistency among MSFD art. 8/9/10 and WFD intercalibration exercise (CD 2013/480/EU) 22 October 2013

Conclusion MS did not fully used the WFD relevant parameters, methods and data for MSFD reporting Gaps in development and comparison of WFD methods may have prevented the wide use of WFD methods into the MSFD implementation Gaps and failures in the reporting of MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10 may lead to underestimation of the actual level of integration 22 October 2013

Timeline December 2013: draft in depth assessment March 2014: presentation of results at the Marine Conference May 2014: finalization and publication 22 October 2013