1. ICES led Reviews of D3, D4, D6 & D11
Claus Hagebro

2. ICES – Process D3, D4, D6- Create core expert team to generate ideas
Hold open workshops to address the issues
Use input from both to write the review
Agreed by ICES Advisory Committee
D11 – use existing Task Group and feed into the ICES system
EU wide process

3. D3 - Conclusion
Criterion 3.3 should be revised and indicators selected in relation to three properties:
Size distribution of species,
Selectivity pattern of the fishery exploiting the species
Genetic effects of exploitation on the species.

4. D3 - Discussion
The present Criterion 3.3 is challenging because there is uncertainty about interpretation & implementation. There is a scientific debate on relevant indicators and reference points.
Instead of deleting Criterion 3.3, a new approach is suggested focusing on three properties.
Validation is needed for existing indicators and a few new proposed indicators.
One or two dedicated workshops are needed to select at least one validated indicator per property.

5. D4 - Conclusion Criterion 4 should be simplified to
4.1 Foodweb structure - biomass and size structure
4.2 Foodweb function
It should be applied to minimum 3 trophic guilds per region

6. D4 - Discussion
Surveillance Indicators? Anthropogenic pressure is difficult to distinguish from the environmentally influenced variability in foodwebs. What would potential indicators of D4 represent?
How do we determine GES bounds? Methodological standards for defining GES should describe a state within prescribed bounds, movement beyond those bounds should be seen as leaving GES.
Propose a workshop to address these issues

7. D6 - Conclusion The present criteria 6.1 and 6.2 should be changed to:
6.1 Functionality
6.2 Recoverability
More closely related to resilience and recovery potential of the seafloor.  
This simplification may not require any additional monitoring than already planned.

8. D6 - Discussion
How do we prioritize functions to be assessed under the criterion?
How do we determine GES boundaries for seafloor integrity?
Much existing scientific knowledge can serve as the basis for guidance. A further workshop can make rapid progress.

9. D11 - Conclusion
Tightening of technical definitions will help ensure that Member States (MS) carry out comparable actions.
Not all MS applied the indicators provided and have followed the approach recommended by TG on Noise.
Coherence of actions is more inhibited by MS doing something different than is required, than by not fully carrying out agreed common action.

10. D11 - Discussion
Does a way exist to provide assessment of GES for underwater noise using indicators relating to sensitive species?
Need to define the phrase (11.1.1) “…likely to entail significant impact on marine animals”.
Further research needed on the link between “pressure” from underwater noise and ecosystem state.
TG Noise should continue this work