1. JRC thematic workshop on biodiversity descriptors (1, 2, 4, & 6) Brussels, 7-8.11.2012 MAIN OUTCOMES

2. Partcipants - presentations
Aims of the workshop
to establish common understanding of the monitoring requirements needed to assess whether GES has/is being met
to identify open questions and missing components
to plan the way forward for further implementation of the MSFD
Partcipants - presentations
COM (DG ENV & JRC)
MSs and RSCs experts
Stakeholders (EEA, ICES, industry, NGOs)
Research projects

3. Q1: How are the overlaps between MSFD and other EU and RSCs requirements going to be considered and coordinated?
Different policies dealt by separated “communities”
Existing coordination efforts in some MSs
Interregional cooperation in pilot projects
Transfer of knowledge from North to South
Harmonisation of methods important for consistency, data quality assurance and sharing
Sampling intensity may be different between directives but needs (and can use) the same sampling technique
Different time lines between organisations, which may cause duplication of work between national work and RCS- need to align time lines between organisations

4. Q2: How could initial assessment, GES definition and targets setting inform the establishment of the monitoring?
Identify data sources (e.g. for alien species)
Identify gaps and the level of coordination needed
Prioritize pressure layers and understanding where monitoring is actually taking place
Identify aggregation issues between different spatial and temporal scales
Consider the role of MPAs (e.g. in defining GES and setting targets) and their different types (no take, no entry versus reduced fishing)

5. Question 3: What are key gaps in biodiversity coverage and available methodologies?
Rocky bottoms
Off-shore areas
Microbes
Non commercial fish species
Non indigenous species
Where to prioritize monitoring:
Where there is a general lack of knowledge
Habitats with high pressure
Where there is the possibility of combined efforts/programmes and
Where mitigation measures have been applied

6. Q4: How are currently available marine biodiversity models and new technological and analytical approaches (including molecular ones) used by MSs and RSCs for their monitoring and assessment and what are the further needs and possibilities?
Modeling already used/considered by half of participants. Lack in biological data and pelagic habitats
Molecular techniques very useful, particularly for D2 – cost considerations
Sound detectors for harbor porpoises are very expensive, and only with some amount of luck you can detect one, so molecular techniques can be the solution.
Huge potential for public involvement (e.g. phone applications)

7. Q5: Are stakeholders’ data used in national biodiversity assessment
Q5: Are stakeholders’ data used in national biodiversity assessment? Are there more possibilities?
Data already in use in some MSs particularly NGOs for birds and recreational fisheries and oil industry
Wind farming highlighted as a very collaborative industry
Shipping industry to be considered for providing data at port level
Issues of confidentiality (e.g. VMS data) and data quality were identified
Monitoring manuals are needed (particularly with fishing industry)

8. Q6: What role does the mapping/modelling of activities and their pressures have in biodiversity monitoring and assessments? What is needed to fully implement these approaches?
Fundamental to know the spatial scale that impacts have and to make predictions.
there should be more consistency in how mapping/modelling is done and issues with data access need to be resolved