1. Workshop on cross cutting issues in relation to the review of the GES Decision and Annex III of MSFD: Summary & Conclusions Copenhagen, 21-22/01/2015 European Commission DG Environment Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit

2. GES Decision review – main aims 1.Simpler 2.Clearer 3.Introducing minimum standards (to be enhanced by regions and MS, if necessary) 4.Self-explanatory 5.Coherent with other EU legislation 6.Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU methods do not exist) 7.Include a clear and minimum list of elements and/or parameters per descriptor

3. GES Decision review – progress 1.JRC and ICES leading technical reviews of Decision per Descriptor – started in spring 2014, supported by expert networks and/or expert workshops 2.Draft 'manuals' presented to WG GES (October 2014) – review of current use of Decision, initial proposals for revision of Decision and criteria (variable level of maturity) 3.MS comments on draft templates to end November 2014 4.JRC and ICES starting to consider comments and identify outstanding issues 5.Identification of cross-cutting issues

4. Expectations from cross cutting workshop Clarify level of detail to be included in descriptor manuals; Receive input, clarifications and direction on certain issues; Discuss link to RSC work, other EU legislation and how things fit together; Streamlining & harmonisation; Get data right for Wise-marine; Buy into an assessment approach; Discuss the issue of aggregation and scales; Discuss the impact-state relationship; Start defining work programme 2016-2018

5. Session themes 1.Integrating descriptors and other cross-cutting issues 2.Consistency with existing legislation and RSC methodologies 3.Scales and aggregation a.Issues discussed in three sessions by 2 or 3 subgroups b.Each subgroup discussed same issues c.Aim was to draw (broad) conclusions to give direction to next phase of technical review d.Also identify further issues needing more detailed work e.Workshop was NOT about making decisions, but opportunity to discuss and give direction, based on current state of Decision technical review and practical experience of implementation to date

6. Discussion: integrated assessments To discuss: a.Should we integrate assessments of the state-based descriptors? i.For birds, mammals, fish, reptiles ii.For water column and seabed habitats iii.For ecosystem/food webs b.How should the pressure-based assessments contribute to this? c.Do assessments of impacts from pressures need to be compatible with requirements for state-based assessments (e.g. resolution of ecosystem elements and geographic areas/ scales of assessment)?

7. Pizza & the satellites

8. Birds (D1) Mammals (D1) Reptiles (D1) Fish (D1, D3. 2/3 ) Seabed (D1, D6) Water column (D1) Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a) Assessment of specific pressures and their impacts on ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b) D11 D5 Other pressures D10D8/9 D2D3.1D7 D6.1

9. Should we integrate assessments of the state-based descriptors? For birds, mammals, fish, reptiles For water column and seabed habitats For ecosystem/food webs a.Considering that the MSFD is underpinned by an ecosystem-based management approach, it is useful to consider the state-base descriptors in an integrated manner b.Integration across descriptors also has an ecological basis, as certain ecosystem elements are now artificially separated in different descriptors c.No overall disagreement about integrating across descriptors d.Need to remove overlapping criteria between descriptors (e.g. 1.7/4.3) and bring together ecosystem elements into a common list e.Need to select the most appropriate criteria for the assessment of the ecosystem elements f.Integration depends on how results will be used (e.g.) Overall ecosystem assessments of HELCOM very popular g.OSPAR/HELCOM experience can be used to inspire a realistic approach

10. Definition of aggregation rules is essential The question of integration also needs to be tackled from a very pragmatic point of view looking at the indicators/criteria that are available Assessment of finer ecosystem elements with inter-linkages to pressure assessments is needed Assess GES for a number of such building blocks (ecosystem elements, e.g. functional groups) which can then be aggregated to higher levels A hierarchical system of ecosystem elements (e.g. Fish- pelagic/demersal/deep sea fish/ species species per group) could be useful OSPAR have method for integrating across species, e.g. bird index HELCOM is also developing indices for integrated biodiversity assessment. How are elements going to be integrated towards assessment?

11. Status assessments should be able to measure change (improvements) achieved after implementation of measures Measures should target pressures and not be directly related to status Current knowledge determines decision on which species and habitats to focus assessments on; how do we make sure of overall biodiversity representativeness? -> use of rational set of ecosystem components (functional groups and predominant habitat types) Need to provide uncertainty value to assessments Need to define elements for assessment/reporting Important to know the boundary between good environment status and not GES Communication on overall progress with achieving GES is essential

12. How should the pressure-based assessments contribute to state-based assessments? It is sometimes difficult to explicitly link pressures to impacts on ecosystem state Assessments for each pressure-based descriptor should provide impact assessments on ecosystem elements which can be aggregated to provide the total impact on each element and thus contribute to the status assessment Need to define assessment frequency as it could be different between assessment of ecosystem elements and pressures

13. Do assessments of impacts from pressures need to be compatible with requirements for state-based assessments (e.g. resolution of ecosystem elements and geographic areas/ scales of assessment)? Covered in the scales session

14. Integration – what in practice? DescriptorElements –> common lists Criteria -> merge D1, D3 (species groups) Species, Functional groups 1.2 + 3.2.2 1.3 + 3.3 D1, D6 (seabed habitats) Habitats (predominant, special) 1.6 + 6.2 D1, D4 (ecosystem scale) Functional groups, Ecosystems 1.7, 4.1-3 D8, D9 (contaminants) Substances8.1, 9.1

15. Discussion: integration of descriptors and criteria To discuss/conclude: At what level of detail should we streamline descriptors?: a.elements for assessment (e.g. common lists of species for D1/D3, functional groups for D1/D4, predominant habitat types for D1/D6, substances for D8/D9)? b.criteria (eliminate overlapping criteria, e.g. 1.7 and 4.1-4.3, or provide clarifications to avoid potential overlaps)? c.assessment methods – e.g. indicators and methodological standards between habitat condition (D1.6) and benthic state (D6.2); assessing population size under D1 and D3?

16. At what level of detail should we streamline descriptors?: i. elements for assessment ii. criteria iii. assessment methods Elements Strong need to understand links with HD, BD, CFP in order to streamline descriptors Indicative lists of elements for reporting and lists of elements using specified selection criteria Criteria Agree to eliminate overlaps Assessment methods Not discussed at such detailed level

17. Discussion: GES quality levels To discuss/conclude: a.What are key challenges in defining GES boundaries: i.Where EU standards exist ii.Where there are no EU standards b.Where such quantitative boundaries cannot (yet) be defined for state/impact, what other approaches could be used: i.Use of a pressure proxy only? ii.Normative definitions iii.Trends as targets? c.Can the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’ concept be used as the basis for defining reference points for all descriptors?

18. GES – state/pressure relationship Good status Not good status Natural state Extinct/ destroyed GES boundary Level of pressure in sea and impact acceptable Level of pressure in sea and impact not acceptable GES boundary (pressure = proxy GES boundary) No pressure Intense pressure Level of impact acceptable Level of impact not acceptable GES boundary State-based descriptors D1, 3, 4, 6 State-based descriptors D1, 3, 4, 6 Pressure-based descriptors D2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Pressure-based descriptors D2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Reference points – reference condition plus acceptable deviation (= GES boundary)

19. What are key challenges in defining GES boundaries: i. Where EU standards exist ii. Where there are no EU standards GES boundary setting needs further guidance Defining GES boundaries seems to be a descriptor-specific discussion but there is need for compatibility of boundaries between descriptors Where EU standards exist: In principle, if standards exist they should be applied, but it is not possible to just copy these into MSFD, as standards are sometimes developed in a different legal/ other context Fish exploited species – boundary could be associated with a range rather than absolute points WFD standards application to the MSFD: WFD standards may not be relevant beyond the area of WFD applicability (e.g. WFD-related benthic standards are not immediately applicable in open waters) D8 – some substances may have not been considered in the WFD

20. Application of HD standards? HD standards are set nationally within a broad EU framework for assessing FCS; more consistency could be achieved by using regional standards under MSFD (e.g. as defined by RSCs) The integration of standards that are otherwise used for individual species and habitats may lead to miss match/ confusion between assessments. Quantification of boundaries could be developed regionally. At present, they are not absolute but flexible under HD Boundary certainty – ranges may be better Where there are no EU standards Need to consider standards developed under RSCs HELCOM is developing open sea standards involving validation of indicator boundaries. The approach does not define a deviation from reference conditions. There is not full harmonisation between the coastal and open sea assessments for eutrophication. OSPAR has held two workshops (GES4BIO) on challenges of setting targets and reference conditions for biodiversity indicators

21. Where such quantitative boundaries cannot (yet) be defined for state/impact, what other approaches could be used: i. Use of a pressure proxy only? ii. Normative definitions iii. Trends as targets? Challenge is not so much on being quantitative but on achieving regional coherence OSPAR ECOQs - not all are quantitative HELCOM working towards quantitative boundaries but there are not yet boundaries for all indicators HD status assessment are made in relation to reference normative definitions In OSPAR interim boundaries based on precautionary approach have been used Trends (for improvement in status, for reductions in pressures) can be used as targets e.g. for litter reduction To use pressure as a proxy for a state/ impact boundary can be highly theoretical for some descriptors

22. Can the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’ concept be used as the basis for defining reference points for all descriptors? Reference conditions could in principle be used as basis for reference points for all descriptors, but there are often many challenges in defining an unimpacted state. Reference area with deviation is being looked at by the D4 review group There are different definitions of reference points and other terminology – need to know which are synonomous (e.g. reference condition, background concentration) and settle on preferred terms

23. Discussion: elements for assessment To discuss/conclude: a.Do we need a common list of elements at the EU level and/or at the regional level? Based on agreed EU and regional lists? b.Can we represent biodiversity via a set of functional groups and predominant habitat types – and assess via specified species and habitats (from a ‘common’ list?) c.Do we need a de-selection option? Based on what principles?

24. Do we need a common list of elements at the EU level and/or at the regional level? Based on agreed EU and regional lists? Lists are needed for coherence, especially to enable common reporting at EU level, but these can be broad groups, with differences at regional level More importantly, a common approach to the creation of regional lists is needed: importance of selection criteria for the lists and regional indicators The approach should also be able to create EU wide assessments Common lists: - A hierarchical approach: A common list at a high level  e.g. at the EU level define functional groups of birds, mammals, etc Specific criteria would be applied to define (sub)regional lists within these broader categories.

25. Can we represent biodiversity via a set of functional groups and predominant habitat types – and assess via specified species and habitats (from a ‘common’ list?) You can represent biodiversity via a set of functional groups and broad (predominant) habitat types. It is this functionality (ecosystem approach) that is an important component of the MSFD Support idea of functional parts of ecosystem – can then identify representative species and habitats for each for assessment of the broader group The MSFD is seen as oriented towards managing the pressures on the ecosystem, rather than aimed solely at the conservation of species and habitats. This results in a need to further develop the links between the HBD and the MSFD in a manner that addresses the slant of the MSFD in its assessment of GES and informing on pressures. As an example – there is a difference between red lists (all in poor status) and lists to assess main ecosystem components Linked to this, it is not clear at the moment how the HBD reporting should contribute to the MSFD reporting. Don’t assume that HBD will automatically meet the MSFD needs

26. Do we need a de-selection option? Based on what principles? Discussion is needed on selection criteria for species/habitats to represent higher groups. As such, higher level lists would be indicative. Need to have very clear selection criteria to develop regional level lists Existing classification systems should be the basis (e.g. EUNIS for habitats, EASIN for NIS) Importance of regional indicators Need option of an opt-out process from an agree regional list (e.g. because species does not occur in an MS waters), but it has to be a transparent agreed process Need a review process for the lists to allow periodic adjustment (e.g. to reflect improvement knowledge of indicator performance), but aim for stability where possible Develop criteria for agreeing lists, e.g. to cover main functional types and pressures -> RSCs have developed approaches Relevance to the ecosystem should be taken into the criteria. Risk is important to consider when drawing up lists in relation to pressures, but there are many challenges associated with this approach.

27. Criteria – aligning MSFD and HBD MSFD (D1, 3, 4, 6)BHDIUCN Red List-> Use Species Distribution (1.1)Range Range (EOO, AOO) Distribution (2) Population size (1.2); reproductive capacity (3.2) Population Population size Small population Population size (1) – no./biomass Population condition (1.3); age & size distribution (3.3) Mature individuals incl. above Population condition (1) Habitat for species Habitat quality incl. in Range Habitat for species (2) Future prospectsIncluded above- Habitats Distribution (1.4)Range Quantity (extent of occurrence; area of occupancy) Distribution (2) Extent (1.5)Area covered Extent (1) Condition (1.6, 6.2) Structures & functions Quality (biotic, abiotic) Condition (1) Future prospectsIncluded above- Ecosystems Structure (1.7); productivity (4.1); prop. of top predators (4.2); Abund./ distribution (4.3) Aggregation rules to Functional group & predom. habitat) D4 structure & function??

28. Issues for biodiversity criteria Feasible to align MSFD and BHD criteria (and IUCN) Similarities to D3 criteria Use of all criteria?  often limitations on data for one or more criteria (even for 'data rich' commercial species)  Threats are often on specific criteria (e.g. distributional range is affected only for some species, rarely for habitats)  Potential to prioritise criteria – primary and secondary (as done for D3), based on risk? Discussion: a.How could we harmonise between MSFD and HBD, e.g. via criteria, GES/FCS boundaries, assessment scales, timing? b.Should differing importance/risk of criteria be accommodated in their application (primary, secondary)?

29. How could we harmonise between MSFD and HBD, e.g. via criteria, GES/FCS boundaries, assessment scales, timing? Overall, in favour of linking assessment methods for GES and FCS  work is needed to define gaps and overlaps, to ensure that a single assessment can cover the objectives of both directives. Defining GES boundaries (=FCS boundaries) is important. Differentiate the “conservation” objectives of the BHD and “sustainable use” objectives of the MSFD  ensure most vulnerable species and habitats are not jeopardised under MSFD Added value of MSFD is the ecosystem-based approach Important: many marine habitats and species are not covered by the HBD. A layered approach may be a solution Utilise and build on the RSC work in place. Harmonisation work on indicators has already taken place regionally for OSPAR and HELCOM. No indicator-based approach fully in place for Mediterranean and the Black Sea yet

30. Should differing importance/risk of criteria be accommodated in their application (primary, secondary)? Not discussed

31. Discussion: aggregation rules To discuss/conclude: Biodiversity/ecosystems a.Is the OOAO method appropriate between criteria for an individual species or habitat? b.Should we aim to express achievement of GES for biodiversity by proportion of species/habitat that are in GES per broader group (e.g. Y% of demersal fish are in GES, Z% of shelf habitats are in GES) or consider other approaches? Pressures/impacts a.What aggregation method should be used for the pressure- based descriptors (pressure + impact criteria)? b.Should we expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based descriptors?

32. Possible aggregation rules – species (similar for habitats) Elements assessed Criteria Overall GES for a single species GES for species ‘functional group’ Species A Distribution At GES Based on use of ‘one-out all-out’ method, as for FCS? Proposal: 75% (3 out of 4) of assessed species in functional group are at GES Alternative: threshold is 75%, therefore whole group is ‘at GES’ Population size Population condition Habitat for species Species BAs aboveAt GES Species CAs aboveBelow GES Species DAs aboveAt GES

33. Example presentation of GES: commercial fish (from CFP) (from Nov. 2014 draft EEA marine baseline report)

34. Is the OOAO method appropriate between criteria for an individual species or habitat? Use of OOAO it is not straight forward, needs further thought Before any aggregation, there is a need to consider the purpose and the level of aggregation and how it links to state-pressures-measures OOAO was considered appropriate for aggregating across the pressure descriptors, but not across their criteria where guidance is needed on aggregating within each pressure-based descriptor Purpose of aggregation  for assessment (of a single species)  for information and need to communicate progress (for a species group)  for management actions (links to measures) The creation of integrated indicators, or multi-metric indicators, challenges the operation of OOAO  OOAO can be relevant at higher levels of aggregation of state/biodiversity criteria, but not necessarily at species or fine habitat level

35. Should we aim to express achievement of GES for biodiversity by proportion of species/habitat that are in GES per broader group (e.g. Y% of demersal fish are in GES, Z% of shelf habitats are in GES) or consider other approaches Some thought achieving GES for biodiversity should be expressed at a higher level (community level assessment or functional groups) rather than for each species or habitat. Others thought use of proportion in GES was useful. RSCs have already developed indicators (e.g for birds) to assess a certain community Support for the expression of GES for biodiversity as a percentage of elements assessed within a functional group/broad habitat type

36. What aggregation method should be used for the pressure- based descriptors (pressure + impact criteria)? Need to be clear on the relationship between pressure and impact How to aggregate pressure-based descriptors should be defined per descriptor Ideally pressure and impact criteria give same answer (in GES or not in GES) when relationship is well established. The aim of the assessment defines the pressures to be aggregated. Considering pressures as different layers with specified spatial extent, aggregation should be applied on the overlapped areas Aggregation of pressures should not only be considered on a spatial scale but also on a functional one e.g. multi-pressure effects or synergistic pressures Consideration of societal impacts – environmental and economic aspects  what level of pressure is acceptable?

37. Should we expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based descriptors? We should expect to achieve GES for all pressure-based descriptors If there is a pressure-based descriptor that has not been achieved, then GES as a whole has not been achieved (one out all out), but this does not always work Consideration: time lag between reduction of pressure and effects on state Whilst overall OOAO is supported for the assessment of GES for pressure descriptors, there was no agreement on whether OOAO is appropriate on the pressure and impact criteria associated with those descriptors Approaches for aggregating criteria for each pressure-based descriptor need to be the same across regions Conclusion: for ecosystem elements use proportion in group of species, habitat, functional groups at GES, whilst aim for all pressure-based descriptors to be at GES

38. Discussion: assessment scales To discuss: a.How should scales for pressure-based assessments relate to state-based assessment scales? b.Could state and pressure elements be broadly 'assigned' to suitable scales (as per suggestion)? c.How do we develop a more coherent system to enable an EU- level assessment for 2018? Develop an initial proposal?

39. Large cetaceans, deep sea fish Region Small cetaceans, pelagic & demersal fish, offshore birds, NIS, noise Sub- Region Seabed habitats, seals, physical loss/damage (D6, 7) Sub- division Inshore birds, D8, litter National part Elements associated to appropriate scale for assessment: suggestion D5 (WFD/ offshore) For discussion!!

40. How should scales for pressure-based assessments relate to state-based assessment scales? Not discussed

41. Could state and pressure elements be broadly 'assigned' to suitable scales (as per suggestion)? For elements: in some cases, multiple scales would need to be selected to ensure complementarity of data being collected Data quality and methodology of data collection between sub-regions also affects the assessment scales One scale does not fit for all indicators -> need system that addresses different scales Need to consider ecological, administrative and pressure/measure issues to define suitable scales

42. How do we develop a more coherent system to enable an EU-level assessment for 2018? Develop an initial proposal? Assessment scales for reporting Reporting is formally done by MS, but can be for assessments done at subregional or subdivision levels (e.g. by RSCs of a sea basin). The elements associated to appropriate scale for assessment: should not be prescriptive but a guidance  The hierarchical scales can be set, but Member States wanted flexibility Assessment and reporting areas A HELCOM-like nested system is helpful OSPAR is also reflecting on the HELCOM approach for their work

43. Follow up: issues to further develop Cross cutting issues/papers Integrated assessment of state-based descriptors Relationship to pressure assessments Level of detail to be decided Scales For D1: link to HBD assessments Aggregation rules at descriptor level GES Descriptor manuals Boundaries (quantitative where possible, also others) Reference conditions: challenging issue, indicator specific Proposal on available lists (EU and RSCs) and their potential use in assessments Simplification and streamlining: defining overlaps in criteria and indicators across descriptors and proposing methodological standards for streamlining descriptors Aggregation rules below descriptor level (e.g. weighting, OOAO) Recommendations on: i) input for possible revision of Commission Decision, ii) input for 2016-2018 Work Programme Common Understanding document Issue of terminology

44. Follow up on Descriptors Focused workshops on specific challenges that arose during the 2014 scientific review of the MSFD descriptors: D3: 10–12 February D6: 16–19 February D4: 24–25 February All at ICES HQ, Copenhagen JRC workshops/correspondence D8/9: working meeting of MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants: 23-24 February 2015, Ispra, Italy D10: phone/Skype meetings, ad-hoc meeting of MSFD TG Marine litter (to be decided) Other descriptors: exchange via email ICES workshops D3, D4, D6

45. GES Decision review - next steps 1.21-22 January 2015: cross cutting workshop 2.February-March 2015: consultation of revised manuals per descriptor and possible meetings of expert working groups to address outstanding technical issues identified 3.25 March-7 April 2015: all draft documents to be circulated to WG GES 4.22-23 April 2015: WG GES to discuss finalisation of the technical phase and prepare progress report with recommendations for the way forward for the Committee or identify specific issues for further technical work 5.5 May 2015 (tbc): Committee to review progress and discuss way forward (MSCG will be consulted as well)