1. Full set of draft reporting sheets for 2012 reporting under MSFD
Presentation to the Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE), Brussels, 7 November 2011
This paper has been prepared as a background document for WG DIKE to report to Member States on the development of the full set of draft reporting sheets for Articles 8, 9 and 10 for 2012 reporting requirements.
It has been prepared under contract to DG Environment by MRAG Ltd, UNEP-WCMC and URS Scott-Wilson, who are providing support to the Commission to develop the details of what will be reported and how, for the MSFD reporting requirements due in 2012.
The paper provides a summary of the feedback received from Member States subsequent to the last WG DIKE meeting on 5-6 September 2011, a summary of how the feedback has been addressed and further improvements made to the sheets, and embedded copies of the draft reporting sheets.
S.F.Walmsley
Prepared under contract for DG Environment by MRAG Ltd, UNEP-WCMC, URS/Scott-Wilson

2. Objectives
Summarise the latest edits to the existing reporting sheets (Species, Habitats, Nutrients, Physical loss & damage, GES, Targets, Regional Coordination).
Present the new draft reporting sheets.
Raise specific questions to be considered by WG-DIKE.
Present draft ‘Guidance’ examples.
Run through objectives of talk
This presentation will briefly introduce the pilot sheets and summarise the feedback received. It will go into greater depth on the revisions made as a result of the feedback received, and the revised structure and content of the reporting sheets.

3. Draft reporting sheets
3 levels/types of information – descriptive, summary information (1 & 2), and detailed information and data
Consideration of draft reporting sheets should focus on the descriptive and summary information
Specification and agreement on detailed information and data will be taken forward separately
Reporting sheets propose that detailed information and data be based on GIS maps and data on the GES indicators
Use of 3 levels of information aimed to enable Member States with less data available to report something (e.g. Descriptive text) but in a structured way, so that similar types of information is entered by Member States, whilst also capturing more detailed and quantitative information from Member States where it is available.

4. Summary of full set of sheets
Art 8a: Characteristics
Art 8b: Pressures & impacts
Art 8c: Economic and Social
C1: Physical features
C2: Chemical features
C3: Habitats
C4: Functional groups
C5: Species
C6: Ecosystems
C7: Other features
P1: Physical loss
P2: Physical damage
P3: Underwater noise
P4: Marine litter
P5: Hydrology
P6: Contaminants
P7: Nutrient and organic matter enrichment
P8: Microbial pathogens
P9: Non-indigenous spp
P10: Selective extraction
ESA
- Approach
- Activities
- Ecosystem services
- Cost of degradation
Art 9: GES
Art 10: Targets
Art 5/6
G1: GES
T1: Targets & Indicators
Regional Cooperation

5. Summary of changes - overall
Clarified wording, specified word limits
Simplified some fields – Summary information only requests categorical info, not quantitative
Trends
Recent trends – timescale specified by MS on case-by-case basis
Future trends – 12 year period requested where appropriate, but scope to report different time period
Identification of future pressures added
Status – ‘other’ category and descriptive text field added; added description for ‘no assessment’

6. GES – summary of changes
Possibility to report at indicator level added
GES can be linked to relevant ecosystem components
Rows can be repeated as many times as necessary (e.g. for different ecosystem components, different threshold values in different assessment areas)
Added column so area at which GES is determined, and area for which GES will be assessed, can both be reported

7. Targets – summary of changes
Some aspects may be relevant at target level or at indicator level, depending on MS. Some columns repeated to reflect this (only complete as appropriate)
Multiple indicators can be reported for each target
Wording clarified (e.g. target & limit ref points = threshold values)
Type of target – specify whether the target represents achieving GES, or an interim target to guide progress
Type of target – ‘Other’ option

8. Regional Cooperation
Field added for details of where there are problems with regional cooperation (not in circulated sheets; added subsequently)

9. Phys loss, damage, nutrients
Pressure characteristics and impact characteristics brought onto one sheet
Pressure status and impact status brought onto one sheet
Reduction of information requested about activities causing the pressure (name, (rank), description, proportion of pressure caused by activity)
Status sheet elements reordered and updated to reflect similar fields to GES sheet
Reporting on chemical features (nutrients) (Table 1) would be subsumed into the P&I reporting sheet
Content / structure –
Split between physical loss / physical damage maintained
Nutrients
feedback indicated reporting per nutrient (N, P, organic matter) appropriate;
status by water column/seabed appropriate
activities causing nutrient enrichment maintained as overall for N,P,organic matter (not separately)
No other major changes made to content/structure

10. Habitats and Species
Reporting of pressures simplified (name, (rank), impacts, proportion of feature impacted)
Status sheet elements reordered and updated to reflect similar fields to GES sheet
Habitats
Reporting of associated phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophyte, angiosperm and invertebrates more explicit
Reporting of predominant habitats, or special habitat types
NB – offer to cut ‘rank’ if ‘proportion of feature impacted’ is provided)

11. New reporting sheets

12. P&I – Hydrology Structured according to Descriptor 7
Impacts on water column, seabed, functional groups
Status according to
Pressure (extent of permanent alterations) (7.1)
Impacts (7.2) on
Water column
Seabed
Functional groups

13. P&I – Underwater Noise & Marine Litter
Sheets sent to Marine Litter expert group inc. rep. of Noise group. Comments received but not incorporated in current versions
Noise - Structured according to D11
Loud, low and mid-frequency impulsive sounds (11.1)
Continuous low frequency sounds (11.2)
Impacts – by functional group (no GES criterion)
Questions
Proportion of area with impacts – appropriate?
Status of impacts – potential impacts per season/month/year?
Comments from Stephanie Warner
Assessment area for impulsive sounds vs continuous sounds
Could be very fine-scaled – TG recommended 15’x15’ rectangles [I would expect this could be the frame in which data (gridded) are reported – would not expect a separate report to be provided for each rectangle]
Input vs Output levels [output =/ received levels. Input = impulsive, loud, low and mid-freq sounds; Output = ambient (continuous) sounds ]
Proportion of area with impacts – worthless. Need to know different level of impact on species of concern in assessment area (and cumulative impacts). Needs noise (propagation) mapping / modelling – [this would come into level 3 data. What simple summary data would you suggest for level 2?]
Impact status – may be better as potential impact, time-sensitive (month/season/year). Needs modelling. [not sure best way forward]

14. P&I – Marine Litter Litter – Structured according to D10 Questions:
Characteristics of litter (10.1)
Impacts (10.2) by
Water column / plankton
Seabed
Functional groups
Questions:
Breakdown of impacts on water column/seabed/functional group appropriate? (water col/seabed not in GES criteria – include?)
Litter working group considering
Litter washed ashore
Litter on the water surface
Litter ingested by marine animals

15. P&I – Contaminants - Group
Structured according to D8 & D9
2 options:
Reporting by contaminant group
Reporting for all contaminants together
By group:
Inputs(no GES criterion)
Of contaminants inc significant pollution events and systematic and intentional release of gases/liquids/solids
Concentrations in environment (8.1) (in water , sediment, biota)
Impacts (8.2) on functional groups and predominant habitats, and contaminants in seafood (9.1)
Status – concentration; impacts; and contaminants in fish and shellfish

16. P&I – Contaminants - All
All together
Inputs(no GES criterion)
Of contaminants inc significant pollution events
Systematic and intentional release of gases/liquids/solids
Concentrations in environment (8.1)
Water / Sediment / Biota
Impacts inc. contaminants in seafood (9.1)
Status
Concentration by water, sediment, biota
Impacts
By water, sediment, biota
Contaminants in fish and shellfish

17. P&I – Contaminants - questions
Reporting overall or by contaminant group?
Proposed groupings suggested in reporting sheet for reporting by contaminant group
Need reflection and finalisation

18. P&I – Microbial pathogens
No GES Descriptor/Criteria
Structured by
Characteristics/distribution
Impacts (functional group/habitat), should include D9 indicators
Status by
Pressure (water / biota)
Impacts

19. P&I – Non-indigenous species
Structured according to D2
Characteristics/distribution of NIS (2.1)
Impacts of NIS (2.2) on habitats, functional groups
Status (can be reported for indiv NIS, or groups of NIS)
Pressure (2.1)
Impacts (2.2)
Proposal for ‘inventory’ of NIS (Annex III Table 1)
Questions
Map for each NIS, or overall extent of all NIS?
Inventory necessary? Correct fields?

20. P&I – Selective extraction
2 sets of sheets:
Fishing (structured according to D3)
Other extraction activities (e.g. Coral, maerl, kelp) (impacts according to D1)
Extent of extraction (fishing pressure, 3.1)
Impacts on
target species (commercially exploited fish stocks – D3)
non-target species (D1)
Status: of pressure / impact on target species / impact on non-target species
Question: Complete ‘fishing’ RS once, or separately for different types of fishing/stocks?

21. Characteristics – Functional groups
Structured according to habitats D1.6
Main species included in the functional group, and main associated habitats
Condition of the functional group (1.6.1)
Relative abundance (1.6.2)
Status – Condition / Abundance / Overall
Questions:
Relative abundance – report abundance/diversity/% of species near/below natural abundance level?
Report whether size distribution of species is in line with natural conditions?

22. Characteristics - Ecosystems
Structured around Criterion 1.7 and Descriptor 3 (food webs)
Ecosystem structure (1.7) for habitats / functional groups
Characteristics according to D4
Productivity of key sp/trophic groups (4.1) / Proportion of species at top of food webs (4.2) / Abundance of key sp/trophic groups (4.3) (individual indicators)
Status – Ecosystem structure (1.7) / Productivity (4.1) / Proportion of sp (4.2) / Abundance of key sp (4.3)

23. Characteristics – Physical Other
No pressures or status fields
Physical
Descriptive information, GIS, and some summary information for parameters specified in Annex III Table 1
Other features
Contamination, hotspots etc should be reported under P&I Contaminants sheet
Only description and summary of ‘features or characteristics typical to the region or subregion’
Questions:
Include identification of pressures in ‘Other features’ sheet?

24. Characteristics – Chemical
Marine acidification only (nutrients covered in P&I)
Spatial distribution; Impacts on predominant habitats (water column / seabed)
Status – of pressure; impacts on water column; impacts on seabed
Questions:
Develop categories for acidity (e.g. Alkaline, neutral, acidic, highly acidic)?
Pressure causing - short/long-term change in acidity? Widespread/localised change in acidity?

25. ESA Presented to WG ESA in October
Background to ESA (form, location in IA, approach for ESA and cost of degradation)
Use of marine waters (activities) – by sector/activity
Sector / characteristics / importance (value, VA, employment, other)
Pressures caused by the activity
Ecosystem and other approaches – by ecosystem service/theme
Cost of degradation – description; cost-based approach by sector/activity; ecosystem services approach by service; thematic/other approach by theme

26. ESA
Questions:
List of sectors/activities – correspondence with NACE? Include non-market activities, or report under ‘Other’?
NACE codes do not guarantee comparability of the data as geographical scales and methods of disaggregating between onshore and offshore activities has not yet been agreed.
MS should detail what spatial scale they have reported on, and what method they have used to disaggregate the data between onshore and offshore activities;
There are several ongoing initiatives to agree on these methods. WG DIKE should engage with Eurostat and IMP discussions on marine data to ensure that it will fulfil the requirements of MSFD.

27. Draft Guidance
An outline of a Guidance paper, which would support the reporting process, has been developed
Example guidance has been prepared:
ESA (broader overview, explanation of which parts to complete)
Species (very detailed, field-by-field)
Which type of guidance would be most useful? Need for both?

28. General guidance example
Background information
This allows Member States to report on which approaches they have used ...
Economic and Social Analysis of the use of marine waters – sector approach
These fields should be completed by all Member States regardless of what method has been used ... It allows for key comparative data on ...
Economic sector
The table should be repeated for each sector (marine activity) that is relevant ...
Ecosystem services approach
These fields provide an opportunity for MS to report on the economic and social analysis of the use of marine waters using the ecosystem services approach (or other approaches). Rows can be inserted for each ecosystem service or theme ...

29. Detailed guidance example
Ref
Information requested
Priority
Description/details
D4-5
Population distribution and trends – description (level 1) L
Description of spatial distribution of the species within the assessment area, including range and pattern, and description of trends in population spatial distribution. Max no words: 500. E4
Population distribution - summary (level 2a) H
Range as a % of the assessment area occupied; Distributional pattern: (Select one): Homogenous; Heterogenous; Clumped; Patchy; Seasonal; Other. F4
Population distribution – summary (level 2b) M
Confidence in range figure from E3. If range is calculated on a quantitative basis, use +/– 90% Confidence Interval. Otherwise use Low, Medium, High (Low: based on very incomplete data or expert judgement; Medium: based on partial data with some extrapolation; High: based on extensive surveys) G4
Population distribution – detailed (level 3)
GIS map/data showing current distribution of the species in the assessment area.

30. Outstanding issues Geographical boundaries sheet to be finalised
Reference list for functional groups and habitats (add phytoplankton, zooplankton etc?)
e.g. Impact of contaminants on different biota – specify ‘water column’ or ‘zooplankton’; ‘shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef’ or ‘benthic invertebrates’?
GES and targets – referring to relevant ecosystem components
Any major omissions/repetitions?
Reference list for functional groups and habitats – can phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytes, angiosperms, invertebrates be cross-referenced/referred to in relation to the predominant habitats in which they are found? (e.g. Impact of contaminants on different biota – specify ‘water column’ or ‘zooplankton’; ‘shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef’ or ‘benthic invertebrates’?)

31. Next steps Comments on reporting sheets by 16 Nov
Identify issues/sheets for further consideration
Agree process to present RS to MSCG on 14 Nov for approval
Agree process to follow-up technical issues after Marine Directors meeting (detailed info/data)
Revised reporting sheets by 24 Nov for Marine Directors meeting

32. Thank you
Suzannah Walmsley
MRAG Ltd