1. Proposal for MSFD risk-based approach project in OSPAR region
19th WG GES meeting

2. Background
ICG-MSFD Forward Work Plan 2017–2020, one of the main working areas for this period is the “Coherent determination of GES” namely through the development of a risk based approach and work on regional coordination;
At ICG-MSFD(1)2017, March 2017, Portugal, France, Ireland and the Netherlands, presented a proposal for developing a risk-based approach in OSPAR for the MSFD.
A more detailed project proposal was presented, in november 2017, by Portugal, on behalf of itself, France and Ireland. It was decided that Portugal would lead on further elaborating the project proposal, with France and Ireland, in time for the next EC call for proposals, in 2018.

3. Objectives of the project
Develop a risk-based approach for supporting OSPAR countries in the implementation of MSFD in a (sub)regional context, in order to deliver a cost-efficient, repeatable, transparent and standardised environmental management decision support system .
The risk approach will be focused on:
Assessing the scale of the pressures and their impacts on biological relevant aspects of the (sub)region marine environment;
Determine what is “significant” to the marine region environment;
Providing adequate management responses (monitoring / measures) given the results from risk assessment.

4. The process ACTIONS RISK CYCLE MSFD CYCLE Risk identification
Identify:
Ecossystem components
Main human activities
Risk scenarios:
source  pathway  target
MSFD CYCLE
ACTIONS
Define risk criteria and significance levels, supported in:
Commission Decision criteria
OSPAR indicators
Integration methods
Expert judgment
(…)
Article 8(a) (b) (c) assessment
data
Mandatory steps for significant risk to the marine environment.
MS action for risk treatment.
Optional steps for other cases - actions for MS to decide.
Risk identification
Risk analysis
Risk evaluation
RISK CYCLE
Risk management
Analyze:
what can go wrong?
what are the consequences?
how likely are the consequences?
Article 10 – Targets definition
Article 11 – Monitoring
Article 13 – Measures
Article 9
GES determination

5. The process Support contracting-parties in:
Framing the question: the ‘risk of what to whom, where and when’  choose parameters for assessment of the criteria.
Risk identification: Developing the risk conceptual model (DPSIR, bow-tie, others)  define the priority to assess the distribution and intensity of the predominant pressures in each region and sub-region (using first a mapping of human activities, if appropriate), together with their associated impacts (article 8).
Risk analysis: Planning the assessment and the data requirements for risk assessment  (de)select the criteria and criteria elements and define scales of assessment.
Risk evaluation: Screening and prioritizing the risks  select risk criteria based on COM Decision, OSPAR common indicators, aggregation rules, expert judgement.
Risk management  environmental targets, monitoring and measures should focus on actions which will directly or indirectly reduce the pressures and their impacts identified as contributing most to preventing the achievement or maintenance of GES. Monitoring should focus on priority areas.

6. Project main activities
Workpackage 1 – MSFD risk-based approach for OSPAR seas – conceptual framework
Develop the conceptual framework for MSFD (sub)regional risk approach that will support the implementation of MSFD at a (sub)regional level, to apply the new GES Decision requirements and to overcome the management difficulties resulting from scientific uncertainties.
Workpackage 2 – Risk identification in OSPAR marine waters
Collect information at a (sub)regional level, regarding: the pressures / human activities that may impact the ecosystem; the relevant elements of the ecosystem, and the ecological characteristics associated.
Workpackage 3 – (Sub)regional risk
Based on best available science and expert judgment develop a risk matrix (intensity vs pressure) to be applied to OSPAR marine waters.
Workpackage 4 – Risk assessment and evaluation: case study on D2
Assesse the risk of not being in GES or to come out of GES