DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology
ENV.D.2 - Marine /
WG GES meeting, 22 October 2010, Brussels
DOC 3
Agenda Item 2 / Revised Minutes of Third Meeting
Document number: / 2
Date: / No information
Submitted by: / EC DG ENV
Revised Minutes of Third meeting
Revised version of the meeting minutes for the previous WG GES meeting (01-02 February 2010).
/ EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology
ENV.D.2 - Marine /
Document WG GES, March 25, 2010
Doc 2
Marine Strategy Framework Directive – Good Environmental Status (GES) Working Group
Brussels, February 1-2 (Monday 09.00– 18:00; Tuesday 9.00 – 17.30),
Venue: Conference Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB) Room AB/2A, Brussels
DRAFT MINUTES
Monday FEBRUARY 1
Opening of the meeting
The Head of the Marine Unit opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. He underlined that the meeting would be distinct in two parts: first day dedicated to "Discussion on the Task Group Reports" with the TG chairs attending the meeting; on the second day the Commission will update on the work carried out after the Marine Directors meeting in Malmo (Dec 1), and present and discuss with the WG members the possible elements (criteria/indicators) proposed by the scientific Reports that could be used for the Commission Decision on criteria for GES.
1. Adoption of the Agenda
The Commission suggested to change the order of the Descriptors' discussion in the morning of first day, i.e. starting with TG 1 (biodiversity), TG 4 (food webs) and TG 6 (seafloor integrity), because of linkages among these descriptors and as requested by some participants.
2. Approval of the draft minutes of Nov 16 WG GES 2nd meeting
The meeting adopted the minutes
3. Overview/update of the WG GES proceedings and future time-table
The Commission introduced the work to be carried out.
To enable the most effective interaction between the WG GES and the TGs experts, the Commission decided to invite the TGs leaders, as it was also requested at the previous GES meeting. This will allow having an effective and clear communication with the experts that are providing the scientific background for the development of the Commission Decision.
In November, the target was to have a short document from each TG by 11 January and the final reports by the end of January. There were comments that the full reports would have been preferable for the WG GES. The TGs managed to provide their draft Final report, most of which included also an executive summary, during the week of 11-18 January, with a few exceptions which were sent just a few days later. They were uploaded in CIRCA as they arrived, to enable an effective discussion. The Commission was very grateful to TG experts for their further efforts.
In addition, based on these Reports, draft summary Tables were produced as informal "aide-mémoire" from the TGs Reports, by COM in collaboration with colleagues from Germany (co-leading WG GES). They have been revised by the TGs leaders before being distributed, on Friday 29, to WG GES participants by mail (and also uploaded in CIRCA). These tables should just help to have a summary overview to structure the discussion, although for each item the specific content should be as described in detail in the respective report. As during the 2 days discussion some inconsistencies between the TG Reports and the Tables were identified by MSs a thorough check with TG chairs was suggested and Tables will be revised/updated for the final TG Reports.
4. Discussion on the descriptors Reports
NOTE: to provide a more structured vision of the meeting outputs, in terms of the Discussion on the different Descriptors, the contents of the 2 days discussion have been gathered for each Descriptor as reported below.
Monday 1
Introduction by each TG leader, followed by discussion on technical questions on the Reports contents, addressed by MSs and stakeholders to the TGs chairs.
Tuesday 2
At the beginning of the meeting the Commission updated the WG on the work carried out after the Marine Directors at Malmo (Dec 1, 2009) (see details at the end of this minutes, under "5. Update on the work carried out after Marine Directors"
Then the Commission, based on the draft summary Tables distributed (described before), provided some comments and indications for the Commission decision, analysing the specific suggestions provided by the TGs Reports. Discussion with MSs and stakeholders then followed
TG 1 Biodiversity
Monday February 1
Presentation by TG chair: Sabine Cochrane (presentation uploaded in CIRCA)
The TG chair highlighted the main points:
Biodiversity is a too broad topic to list all possible indicators and in any case not all indicators can be applied everywhere. The TG adopted a risk-based prioritisation on how to apply indicators, following 6 phases:
1) Where to assess,
based on mapping of pressures, resources, ecological zones, data availability etc.
2) What to assess,
prioritization of ecosystem components, based on knowledge of pressure-impact relationships
3) Which indicators to use,
relevant attributes and criteria for above ecosystem components
4) Monitoring and assessment
5) Programme of measures
6) Adaptive management
Synergy with ongoing monitoring and existing data is highly recommended, with attention to the right question that needs to be answered
An example for a high-pressure offshore shelf area was shown
Questions regarded:
- clarification on methodologies, assessment scale and approach between habitats and species
- it was noted that most indicators are state indicators and more indicators on pressures would be desirable
- the criteria on genetics (within species) were seen as too ambitious
- climate change issue were raised; reference to specific situations, such as non indigenous species in Eastern Mediterranean, were required to be mentioned in the Report (ref. will be provided by Greece)
- missing of the functional aspects of biodiversity was highlighted
Answers
- TG chair underlined that the TG work is not finished yet, and thus it was not possible to address all issues
- genetic criteria were provided to be used in specific cases, e.g. some endangered species that need recovery
- relation between pressure and state is taken in consideration. However the descriptors for assessing the progress towards GES are focused on measuring the state. Pressure are primarily related to Article 10.1.
- The Directive itself addresses this issue in the Descriptor definition: "in line with"; "natural" does not mean pristine but sustainable in terms of some human activities.
Tuesday February 2
The Commission highlighted the close link of this descriptor with the others, in particular with descriptor 6(seafloor integrity) and 4(food web). Biodiversity can be seen as an overarching descriptor for which most of the components can be found in Annex III, Table 1. At this stage the indicators proposed by the TG are quite general, addressing toward the use of more specific indicators on a case by case assessment. The use of genetic indicators (intra-species) would be suggested only when ecologically relevant or relevant for the overall status of a species.
Questions regarded:
- which species to be included
- resolution scale, need of coherent habitat mapping
- lack of indications on habitat functionality
-use of indicators that indicate direction of changes, need to measure distance from GES (progress toward undisturbance e.g. MPAs equivalent/reference conditions)
- clarification on the linkages with TG 6 and TG4
- need for more guidance on which habitat and species to consider
- species richness seen as difficult, suggestion to look at functional groups instead (as in WFD)
Answers
The overall aim with all descriptors is to be able to assess a progress towards GES, and as the sea regions are very different it is necessary to monitor different habitats/communities/species in different regions. It should, however, also be possible to compare the status between the different regions/sub regions, thus, when developing the final indicators, a discussion between-regions is needed, in order to facilitate comparisons.
The scales of different habitats differs substantially in the different regions, and this has to be taken into account when designing monitoring (like in the WFD)
In some areas it could be a good idea to use MPAs representing GES, (depending on the specific MPA), and to assess the progress towards that level. It has to be decided on a case by case.
The most apparent linkages between the descriptors 1, 4 and 6 (and also to some degree 2) is the use of similar monitoring data for the analyses.
Regarding guidance for which habitats / communities / species to look at, it is the intention to build on existing approaches developed in e.g. HELCOM, OSPAR and Western Mediterranean. Unfortunately, the Habitat Directive is not very well developed for the marine environment and many habitats are missing.
Using functional groups to assess biodiversity has not been considered so far for this descriptor.
TG 4 Food web
Monday February 1
Presentation by Stuart Rogers (presentation uploaded in CIRCA)
TG chair highlighted a few important points:
The characteristics of marine food web include many different predator prey interaction and energy transferred along the chain. Key species varies in different regions
For structure: size and abundance are very important to establish the state and impacts due to human activities. Absolute values of predators do not indicate the flow
For management purpose a careful selection of indicators should be made
Questions regarded
- mostly focused on fishery pressure, but in the Baltic it is not the primary pressure
- report not so much practical for applicability; it is difficult to see which indicators could be operational
- lack of primary production indicators
- any indication on values for ratios? For some regions EQOs are already existing
- lots of fishery data but missing criteria for hard bottom habitats
- not enough information for the Mediterranean region
- definition of GES for food web
- difficulties in monitor ratios, what about modelling?
- possible future use of remote sampling tools
- application of Marine Trophic Index (MTI) (e.g. in EEA status report)
Answers:
- the choice of looking primarily to fishing pressure was due to the fact that other descriptors would have looked at other pressures (e.g. Euthrophication)
- for hard bottom habitats refer to TG 6 (sea floor integrity)
- Marine Trophic Indicator is used but could be further developed
- for the Mediterranean region: case studies could be used, not to exclude what is available
- models could be useful for testing different scenarios; indicators based on models are not strong enough, in any case sampling is needed
Tuesday February 2
The Commission suggested that the indicators proposed by the TG could be used, taking into account the regional specificities (i.e. key species selection), also in terms of how many (e.g. ratio for Indicator 1) would be ecologically relevant to assess GES. The Trophic Levels indicator still needs some work and it has not been recommended by the TG, as it could not be applied operationally throughout EU seas.
Questions regarded
- energy flow missing primary production
- examples used for indicator 2 (predator performance) and 4 (proportion of large fish)
- indicator 1 should not focused only on fishing
- requirement of guidance for MSs on how to use these indicators and how to measure production (indicator 1)
- the need to restore prey depletion should be addressed
- reference points and direction, according to the existing data
- by-catch/discards
Answers
The issue of missing primary production will be taken it into account.
The examples used for some indicators (e.g. OSPAR EcoQO) were indicative of a useful methodology that could be applied elsewhere, focusing on regional key species. As MSFD is a framework at EU level, the decision will not guide into regional specific application; work within the regional seas will be continuing.
The suggestion to consider prey depletion is taken up.
The Commission acknowledged that discards should be taken into consideration when dealing with this indicator (discards, i.e. throwing away caught fish for any reason may be considered a waste of resources). The main issue would be here the availability of reliable information; it is known that, in this field, data may be hidden, or faked. Thus it would be worthy to explore the use of information that incorporates already some kind of "correction" to take account of the lack of quality of the declared data. These "guestimates" are at present used by ICES in some cases to provide advice for fisheries.
Moreover, the new fisheries control regulation will make more difficult to declare incorrect landings contributing, in this way, to have better quality data.
TG 6 Sea floor integrity
Monday February 1
Presentation by Cristos Arvanitidis (in substitution of TG chair) (presentation uploaded in CIRCA)
Points that were highlighted:
- difficulties in establishing what GES is;
- "sustainability" is very much an anthropogenic addressed term, other values could be used
The approach used is:
i) using the available information, identify the ecological structures and functions of importance to a given ecosystem and
ii) the pressures due to the human activities likely to occur in the area;
iii) identify candidate indicators for the ecosystem components and pressures of greatest importance for the particular area
Many attributes for seafloor integrity are proposed, with close links with the other Descriptors
Risk-based approaches to monitoring and assessment are proposed to deal with the local patchiness of seafloor
Questions
- biological aspects have been more developed than abiotic/physical aspects, more links to physical aspects
- needs of distinction from coastal to deeper sea
- use of pressure indicators
- lacking of pressures such bottom trawling
- more general assessment needed than the scale according to risk-based approach
- too many attributes and scientific details, selection needed, prioritization
- relationships with other descriptors, such as Biodiversity, need more consideration
- costs consideration
- not enough consideration of the work done within the WFD on indicators (indexes)