1. JRC workshop on MSFD biodiversity theme (Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6)
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: biodiversity monitoring and assessment
David Connor
European Commission
DG Environment
Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit
JRC workshop on MSFD biodiversity theme (Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6)
7-8 November 2012, Brussels

2. Monitoring requirements of the MSFD
Art. 11 (1) – establish and implement monitoring programmes by 15 July 2014
On basis of initial assessment (Art. 8(1))
For ongoing assessment of environmental status of MS marine waters
On basis of elements in Annex III and list in Annex V
By reference to environmental targets (Art. 10)
Be compatible within marine regions/subregions
Build upon and be compatible with assessment and monitoring in Community legislation, including Habitats and Birds Directives, and under international agreements

3. Monitoring requirements of the MSFD
Art. 11 (2) – MS sharing a marine region/ subregion, for coherence and coordination, ensure that:
Monitoring methods are consistent across the region/subregion so as to facilitate comparability of monitoring results
Relevant transboundary impacts and features are taken into account
Art. 11 (4)
Specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment shall be adopted (by Art. 25 Committee)
Take into account existing commitments
Ensure comparability between monitoring and assessment results

4. Requirements of the MSFD
Annex V: Purpose/ use of information
1. to assess environmental status, estimate distance from and progress towards GES
12. evaluate trends to achieving targets
2. enable identification of indicators for targets
3. allow assessment of impact of measures
11. an assessment of major changes (from IA) and new/emerging issues

5. Requirements of the MSFD
Annex V: type of information
4. activities to identify cause of change and possible corrective measures
6. activities to confirm corrective measures deliver desired changes
5. Chemical contaminants in seafood from commercial fishing areas
12. Address elements in Annex III, including their natural variability

6. Requirements of the MSFD
Annex V: requirements of the information
7. Aggregate information to regions/subregions
8. Comparability of assessment approaches and methods within/between regions/subregions
9. Technical specifications and standardised methods at Community level
10. Ensure, where possible, compatibility with existing programmes (fostering consistency, avoiding duplication)
Art. 19(3)
Provide the Commission and EEA with access and use rights in respect of data and information resulting from the monitoring programmes

7. Geographic scope MSFD MSFD WFD Marine waters: Inc. EEZs
Continental Shelf areas
Coastal waters (of WFD)
For marine:
Transitional Waters
Coastal Waters (to 1nm)
Habitats & Birds Directives
WFD
1nm

8. Biodiversity monitoring
Annex I biodiversity/ecosystem 'state' descriptors
D1: biodiversity
D2: non-indigenous species
D3: commercial fish & shellfish – not this workshop
D4: food webs
D6: seafloor integrity
Pressure/impact descriptors – affect biodiversity
D5: eutrophication
D7: hydrographical changes
D8: contaminants [D9 seafood]
D10: litter
D11: Energy, incl. underwater noise

9. Biodiversity monitoring?
Where are we now? - traditional focus:
Identify species & count individuals (single species approach or local sampling sites)
Show change/trends (populations, communities)
Limited whole area assessments (except HBD)
Poor at determining status, poor at linking to pressures
Does this need to change?
Focus on broader perspective (whole region/subregion) – new methods/approaches
Clear/precise definition of GES
Specific assessment methods – lead to a status class
Link to pressures/impacts – link to measures

10. Do we have to monitor everything?
Directive points to covering elements in Annex III Table 1 - for biodiversity: birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, water column and seabed habitats
To achieve GES: also encompass aspects of ecosystem functioning (e.g. food webs)
Options:
Use of 'indicator' species, habitats, functions
Use of 'indicator' parameters (for certain criteria, particularly if at 'risk')
Focus on pressures and impacts of known concern
Focus on areas of known concern, with reference areas

11. Do we have to monitor everything?
Birds, fish, mammals, reptiles, water column and seabed habitats
Considerations:
The functional groups and predominant habitat types are a way to categorise the wide variety of biodiversity
They are intended therefore as assessment elements/units
How well do they fulfil this role?
Are there suitable indicator species/biotopes for monitoring to represent these broad types?
How well does their monitoring address ecosystem function assessment (e.g. food webs)

12. Functional groups Species group Functional group Birds
Intertidal benthic-feeding birds
Inshore surface-feeding birds
Inshore pelagic-feeding birds
Inshore benthic-feeding birds
Inshore herbivorous-feeding birds
Offshore surface-feeding birds
Offshore pelagic-feeding birds
Ice-associated birds
Mammals
Toothed whales
Baleen whales
Seals
Ice-associated mammals
Reptiles
Turtles
Species group
Functional group
Fish
Diadromous fish
Coastal fish
Pelagic fish
Pelagic elasmobranchs
Demersal fish
Demersal elasmobranchs
Deep-sea fish
Deep-sea elasmobranchs
Ice-associated fish
Cephalopods
Coastal/shelf pelagic cephalopods
Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods

13. Predominant habitat types
Substrate
Rock
Sediment
Zone
inc. mixed hard substrata, biogenic reefs
Coarse
Sand
Mud
Mixed sediment
Littoral
Sublittoral - shallow
Sublittoral - shelf
Bathyal – upper
Bathyal - lower
Abyssal
Water column
Reduced
Variable
Marine – coastal
Marine – shelf
Marine - oceanic
Zone boundary (approx. m) 50
200
1100
2700
Provisional set proposed by TG1 13

14. Modeled seabed habitats
MESH Atlantic
EMODnet

15. Purpose of monitoring Increasing quality Reference condition
Good Environmental Status
GES boundary
Has GES been achieved?
Improvement needed – targets to reduce pressures and impacts
Increasing quality
Has progress with targets been made?
Current situation
Have measures to reduce pressure/impacts been effective?
Increasing proportion (quantity)

16. Sampling strategy? 16

17. Sampling strategy - risk-based?
Eutrophication
Occasional disturbances
- minor effects
Moderate trawling - impacts
Intense trawling
Greens – acceptable state
Orange, red – unacceptable state 17

18. Monitoring techniques - sensitive to pressures and their impacts
State with negligible impact
Unacceptable degree of change - impacted
Destroyed/ irrecoverable
Sub-GEnS
Good Environmental Status
Acceptable degree of change
Pressure
Reference condition – for habitat, community and area
Few non-indigenous spp. in low density
Many non-indigenous spp. in high density
Non-indigenous spp. dominant
Minor changes to spp.
Dense green algae
Community switched
Minor spp. & physical changes
Loss of sensitive spp.; opportunist spp. increasing
Habitat and/or community destroyed
D2 Non-indigenous spp.
D5 Nutrient enrichment (Eutrophication)
D6 Physical disturbance (sea-floor integrity)
Lower limit of GES quality

19. Links to other policies?
Need for integration?
WFD
HBD
CFP
RSC
Why bother?
Ecosystem approach – mutual benefits
Efficiency – reuse of data
Enhanced results – benefit from wider perspective, synergies in policy delivery
Cost savings – joint/integrated survey programmes

20. What types of monitoring are needed?
Monitoring of state?
Monitoring against impacts?
Monitoring of pressures?
Monitoring of activities/measures?
What should be the balance of effort?
What periodicity of monitoring is needed?
What spatial coverage and intensity?
What role for ‘supporting’ information (e.g. one-off surveys)?

21. Where can the data come from?
Monitoring for other policies
WFD, HBD, CFP, RSC etc
New and modified 'MSFD' monitoring
Modelling and mapping
Broad-scale mapping
Mapping of activities/pressures to predict impact
European, regional and national programmes:
EMODnet
GMES
Industry?
Impact assessments and REAs/SEAs
Ongoing environmental monitoring

22. Some open issues
How to progress with monitoring if GES is poorly defined?
How to achieve consistent monitoring across region when indicators are not yet harmonised?
How to optimise use of [limited] resources
How to make best use of monitoring/assessments for other descriptors

23. Expectations for workshop
Discuss principles
Identify open issues per descriptor, as regards
improving coherence of GES assessment
preparation of monitoring programmes
Propose way forward (further work at EU, RSC, national level)

24. Next steps (after workshop)
Present results to and discuss at next meetings of WG GES
Prepare joint (MSFD/WFD/HBD) work programme for Common Implementation Strategy to be agreed by Water and Marine Directors in June 2013
Take also account outcome of Art. 12 assessment

25. Thank you for your attention!
Thank you for your attention!