Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
introducing the general approach
Irene del Barrio (EEA) December 7, 2016 13th meeting of WG DIKE, Brussels MSFD 2018 reporting: introducing the general approach
2
Lessons learnt from 2012 The article 12 assessment showed that the submitted information was: Frequently not comparable within the regions (partially because of the reporting templates, which included a lot of descriptive fields, and partially because the assessments were done with pre-MSFD information, which wasn’t fit for purpose) Missing elements such as connections with the information submitted under other relevant Directives or policies (mainly WFD, HBD and CFP, as well as the assessments developed by the RSCs) There was generally a lack of agreed assessment methods for many descriptors, yielding a wide range of outputs Regional coordination was insufficient to ensure consistent approaches to these articles.
3
Proposals of improvements for 2018 reporting
Main elements for improvement: Reporting with more quantitative information where possible (relevant for setting baselines, and avoiding ambiguity in interpretation of the information) Easing the reporting process for MS (fewer fields, automation as far as possible, code lists for the main variables) Possibility to link to the assessment reports performed under other relevant instruments (e.g. WFD) Possibility to link to the regional assessments reports and indicators performed under the RSCs Reflecting the requirements of the revised GES Decision and MSFD Annex III
4
2018 MSFD reporting package
Art 9 and 10 (and very resumed information on Art 8) to be captured via xml and linked to indicator assessments/supporting data.
5
Main elements of 2018 reporting
To be reported an update of: Article 8: assessments Article 9: criteria & thresholds Article 10: targets APPROACH Indicator- based Integration rules* Reporting units Information prefilled: 2012 submissions of art. 9 & 10 Regional indicators WFD 2016 assessments Simplification of reporting: Reduction of tables Possibility of providing URIs/URLs *Integration has become a key element for MSFD assessments (see Draft Art. 8 MSFD assessment guidance)
6
Article 9: criteria & thresholds
P/S D2C1 - Introduction of NIS P D2C2 - Quantification of NIS S D2C3 - Adverse effects of NIS D3C1 - Fishing mortality rate (F) D3C2 - Spawning stock biomass (SSB) D3C3 - Age/size distribution D5C1 - Nutrient concentrations D5C2 - Chlorophyll a biomass D5C3 - Harmful algal blooms D5C4 - Photic limit D5C5 - Dissolved oxygen D5C6 - Opportunistic macroalgae D5C7 - Macrophyte communities D5C8 - Macrofaunal benthic communities D6C1 - Physical loss of the seabed D6C2 - Physical disturbance of the seabed D6C3 - Physical disturbance per habitat type D7C1 - Hydrographical changes D7C2 - Hydrographical changes per habitat type D8C1 - Contaminant concentrations D8C2 - Effects of contaminants on biota D8C3 - Acute pollution events D8C4 - Effect on biota of acute pollution D9C1 - Level of contaminants in seafood D10C1 - Litter (excluding micro-litter) D10C2 - Micro-litter D10C3 - Ingestion of litter D10C4 - Effects of marine litter in biota D11C1 - Impulsive sound D11C2 - Continuous low-frequency sound D1C1 - By-catch D1C2 - Abundance D1C3 - Population demographic characteristics D1C4 - Species distributional range and pattern D1C5 - Extent and condition of habitat for the species D1C6 - Condition of the habitat type D6C4 - Extent of habitat loss D6C5 - Condition of the habitat type D4C1 - Species composition and relative abundance D4C2 - Abundance across trophic guilds D4C3 - Size distribution of individuals accross relevant species D4C4 - Productivity of the trophic guild Update of 2012 GES determinations Use of new GES Decision criteria Parameter Distribution of species Abundance of species Biomass of species Size and age structure of species Sex structure of species Mortality rate of species Extent of habitat Composition of species Relative abundance of species Chlorophyll a concentration Frequencies of plankton blooms Extent of plankton blooms Transparency of the water Nutrients concentration Dissolved oxygen concentration Productivity of the ecosystem Incidence of NIS Hazardous substances concentration Extent of acute pollution events Composition of marine litter Relative abundance of marine litter Amount of litter ingested by marine animals Spatial distribution of anthropogenic sound in water Temporal extent of anthropogenic sound in water Levels of anthropogenic sound in water 2012 MarineUnitID ReportingFeature DescriptionGES ThresholdValue ThresholdValueUnit ReferencePointType Baseline Proportion AssessmentMethod DevelopmentStatus 2018 MarineUnitID ReportingFeature Criteria Criteria parameter DescriptionGES Threshold source ThresholdValue ThresholdValueUnit ReferencePointType Baseline Proportion AssessmentMethod DevelopmentStatus Related indicators New GES Decision Non-exhaustive list of related parameters European/Regional/Subregional/ National/Directional trends/Pressure-based Indicators that use this criteria and thresholds
7
Article 10: targets Update of 2012 targets
Need of reporting progress: indicators submitted in 2012 to be used 2018 MarineUnitID ReportingFeature Topic (Target or RelatedIndicator) UpdateInfo Description ThresholdValue ReferencePointType Baseline Proportion AssessmentMethod DevelopmentStatus TypeTargetIndicator TimeScale InterimGESTarget CompatibilityExistingTargets RelatedToFailureGES RelatedToMeasure 2012 MarineUnitID ReportingFeature Topic Description ThresholdValue ReferencePointType Baseline Proportion AssessmentMethod DevelopmentStatus TypeTargetIndicator TimeScale InterimGESTarget CompatibilityExistingTargets For indicators and targets The indicators table/s can be used for reporting progress in relation to the targets. A new table will ask for the resume of the indicators assessments against each target. To be discussed and agreed how best to report progress in achieving the target Whether the target reported in 2018 is as per 2012, modified (when), deleted, new… Link to non-achievement of GES and to measures
8
assessment of pressures assessment of activities Descriptor assessment
Article 8: assessments Ecosystem component Reporting unit/s Criteria and thresholds defined under art.9 to be used Art.8.1a: assessment of status Feature (Annex III Table 1) Criterion assessed Indicators used Integration rule GES achieved? Art.8.1b: assessment of pressures Feature (Annex III Table 2a) Criterion assessed Indicators used Integration rule GES achieved? Art.8.1c: assessment of activities Feature (Annex III Table 2b) Costs of degradation tbd in WG POMESA risk-based approach Link to measures Descriptor assessment Integration rule Extent to which GES is achieved
9
Pressures affecting seals
Article 8: example D1- Mammals in the Baltic HELCOM indicator assessment (prefilled) To be reported D1 Mammals BAL Pressures affecting seals Fishing, inputs of litter, noise… Indicators used: X, Y, Z Integration rule As for seals Small-toothed cetaceans Seals selection of areas to be assessed D1C1 Number of drowned mammals & waterbirds in fishing gear D1C2 Population trends & abundance of seals Distribution of Baltic seals D1C4 Extent & condition of habitat for the grey seal D1C5 Grey seal Ringed seal Harbour seal As for Grey seal Integration rule for the criteria per species (same as Habitats Directive for mammals) Integration rule for the species & Extent to which GES is achieved for the species group (seals) (e.g. proportion of species in GES)
10
Article 8: example D5 in coastal waters
# D5C2 would be prefilled for those countries that only use Chla for the Phytoplankton assessment in WFD To be reported (WFD thresholds to be applied) Assessment reported under the WFD (prefilled) *Primary criteria D5 D5C1* D5C2* D5C3 D5C5* D5C7 D5C8 N conditions P conditions Dissolved oxygen Chla# Blooms Angiosperms Macroalgae Macroinver. cwb GES WaterBody1 Y WaterBody2 N WaterBody3 WaterBody4 WaterBody5 cwb GES WaterBody1 Y WaterBody2 N WaterBody3 WaterBody4 WaterBody5 cwb GES WaterBody1 Y WaterBody2 N WaterBody3 WaterBody4 WaterBody5 cwb GES WaterBody1 Y WaterBody2 N WaterBody3 WaterBody4 WaterBody5 cwb GES WaterBody1 Y WaterBody2 N WaterBody3 WaterBody4 WaterBody5 cwb GES WaterBody1 Y WaterBody2 N WaterBody3 WaterBody4 WaterBody5 cwb GES WaterBody1 Y WaterBody2 N WaterBody3 WaterBody4 WaterBody5 Integration rule for criterion per coastal water body (to be applied as per WFD guidance to indicate whether the water body is eutrophic or not) Extent to which GES is achieved for Eutrophication in coastal waters
11
Pressures producing eutrophication
Article 8: example D5 beyond coastal waters Regional indicator assessment (prefilled). E.g. HELCOM To be reported (national level) *Primary criteria Pressures producing eutrophication Input of nutrients,… Indicators used: X, Y, Z Integration rule D5 D5C1* D5C2* D5C3 D5C4 D5C5* D5C8 DIN Chla Harmful algal blooms Photic limit O2 Macro- invertebrates DIP Integration rule per reporting unit Extent to which GES is achieved for Eutrophication beyond coastal waters
12
Indicators- use of the common structure (cs)
Indicators assessments to be published following the common structure (Guidance Document 13, adopted at MSCG in Feb 2016 Indicators can cover all the DPSIR framework, among which the elements of the GES criteria Unique reference to the publication: key element to be reported ID Label Category Description Content type Recommendation 1 Conditions applying to access and use Access and Use i.e. Copyright, data policy text or URL Required 2 Key assessment Assessment Findings Longer description of assessment results by assessment/reporting units text 3 Key messages Short descriptions of indicator outcome, e.g. trends, outcome against assessment threshold 4 Results and Status Textual description of assessment results, could include graphics text and figures 5 Trend Textual description of assessment trend, could include graphics Optional 6 Indicator Definition Assessment methods Short description of indicator aimed at general audience 7 Methodology for indicator calculation Text and tabular information on the process of aggregation and selection etc 8 Methodology for monitoring Short textual description of monitoring requirements/method 9 Indicator units Units used for indicator 10 Concept and target setting method Text describing concept used and target method 11 Indicator purpose Assessment Purpose Justification for indicator selection and relevance 12 Policy relevance Text relating indicator to policy 13 Relevant publications (policy, scientific etc) Citable URLs to policy documents related to indicator 14 Policy Targets Description of policy target 15 Contributing countries Contact and Responsibility List of contributing countries (ISO 2-letter country code) 16 Citation Full citation 17 Point of contact Organisational contact 18 Data sources Data inputs and outputs Underlying datasets text and/or URL 19 Assessment dataset Snapshot dataset that was derived from underlying data URL 20 Assessment result Summary results dataset/table/figure File or web service 21 Assessment result- map GIS version of assessment result i.e. Shape file or WFS 22 Assessment/Reporting unit Geographical scope Nested assessment unit (if available) 23 Countries Countries that the indicator covers 24 Other geographical unit Alternate source of geographical reference for indicator i.e. ICES areas 37 Assessment area (context) Gives a description of the area where the assessment is made 25 DPSIR Labelling and Classification Assessment framework linkage 26 MSFD criteria Criteria coding as listed in Annex III tables 1 and 2 and 3 27 Indicator title Full title of indicator as published 28 INSPIRE topics Keyword topics 29 Data confidence Quality Aspects Adequateness of spatial and temporal coverage, quality of data collection etc. 30 Indicator methodology confidence Knowledge gaps and uncertainty in methods/knowledge 31 GES - confidence Confidence of target, descriptive text 32 Temporal Coverage Temporal scope Assessment period expressed as year start -year end date range 33 Last modified date Version control Date of last modification date time 34 Published date Publish date of indicator 35 Unique reference Citable reference unique to resource i.e. URI, DOI 36 version linkage Link to other versions of assessment
13
Reporting on indicators
Unique reference + few fields from the indicators assessments will be requested The information of RSC indicators will be prefilled, so MS would have to fill in only the information related to the national indicators Example: GENERAL INFORMATION cs ID Indicator title Abundance of key coastal fish species 27 Code BAL-D1C2-KeyCoastalFish Point of contact HELCOM 17 Countries DE; PL; LV; LT;… 23 Assessment/Reporting unit BAL-L3-18; BAL-L3-27; BAL-L3-33;… 22 Feature Coastal fish MSFD criteria D1C2 - Abundance 26 Related target (if applicable) - DPSIR State 25 Published date 31/12/2017 34 Unique reference 35 ASSESSMENT GES/Target achieved YES Trend Increasing 5 Confidence High 31 Datasets used [metadataID1];[metadataID2] 18 Code to be given to facilitate data-management (further guidelines must be developed on that) Label against features listed for MSFD reporting to facilitate data analysis Link to art.19.3 (to be discussed in TG DATA)
14
Simplification of reporting
Objective: to reduce the amount of information requested in 2012 N of tables resulting from reporting (for 2018 only estimated N)
15
Development of the reporting system: calendar
Phase Due-date Draft reporting sheets Mar-17 Draft guidance documents Agreed reporting sheets Apr-17 Agreed guidance documents Data specifications in UML Aug-17 Draft schemas Codelists and vocabularies Oct-17 Reference assessment units layer Reporting tool ready for test Jan-18 Prefilling (2012 submissions, RSC & WFD information) QC specifications to be run in CDR Feb-18 Routines for data harvesting in place (CDR to test database) QC specifications to be run in database Test-phase (starting in Mar-18) Apr-18 Correction of errors/modification of the data-model and QA/QC May-18 Final schemas Jun-18 Final guidance documents Helpdesk website Reporting tool ready for reporting Reporting start-date Jul-18 ColoursCode Data-model development Reporting documentation Implementation in ReportNet Data management Reporting testing To be discussed in a DIKE drafting group meeting (1st-2nd March) To be agreed in WG DIKE (1st week of April) Test-phase: March-April 2018 Reporting period: July-October 2018
16
To be agreed by WG DIKE Agreement on the general approach proposed for MSFD 2018 reporting: Overall structure of reports (mixture of xml, indicator assessments, text reports) Link to indicators developed at national, regional or European level Prefilling of the xml reporting system with: Information submitted in 2012 by Member States under articles 9 & 10 Information from regional indicators to be published by different Regional Sea Conventions in 2017 Information from 2016 WFD assessments CFP assessments(?) Forthcoming meetings: March 2017: Drafting Group of DIKE (for reporting sheets and guidance) April 2017: DIKE meeting (reporting sheets and guidance to be agreed) Early 2017: TG DATA (art.19.3 implementation)
Similar presentations
