1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Article 8 Assessment
MS=16
22 October 2013

11. Article 8 Assessment
No of MSs
22 October 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

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