Marine Strategy Framework Directive – descriptors and criteria

1. Marine Strategy Framework Directive– descriptors and criteria Johnny Reker Agency for Spatial and Environmental Planning

2. Introduction • Background • CIS process / organisation • Descriptors • Criteria • Role for habitat mapping in MSFD? • Questions? 2/28

3. Background EU’s 6. Environment Action Programme 2002 – marine strategy Directive 2008 - operational marine strategies 2016 Good Environmental Status by 2020 (?) Environmental pillar in EU’s maritime policy Integrated maritime management Road map for maritime spatial planning Revision of EU’s Common Fishery Policy Strong linkage to EU´s structural funds Linkage to Regional Sea Conventions and bilateralt Baltic Sea Action Plan (2007) 3/28

4. Aim of the Directive Art. 1.1 …Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment… Art. 1.2 Marine strategies shall be developed and implemented in order to: a) Protect and preserve the marine environment, prevents its deterioration or restore marine ecosystmens… Art. 1.3 Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, ensuring the collective pressure of such activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of GES… … enabling the sustainable use og marine goods and services… 4/28

5. The 5 elements of the marine strategies • Description of Good Environmental Status – 2010 • Initial Assessment (status, pressures, socio-economic analysis) - 2012 • Environmental targets – 2012 • Monitoring Programme – 2014 • Programme of Measures – 2015-16 Alle elements requires scientific information incl. on habitats 5/28

6. Transposition (Art 26.1) + informing the Commission Programme of Measures (Art 5.2b(i) Sub-divisions of marine regions identified (Art 4.2) Coherent and representative networks of MPAs (Art 13. 4-6) Initial assessment Art5.2a(i) and Art 8) Programme of Measures entry into force (Art. 5 stk2b(ii) Criteria and methodological standards (Art 9.3) for assessment of Good Environmental Status Responsible authorities identified (Art 7) GES achieved (Art 1) Monitoring Programme (Art5 stk2a(iv) og Art 11) Entry into force (Art 27) + 2 år = 15. July2010 15. July 2008 + 2½ år = 15. january 2011 + 4 år = 15. July2012 Senest i 2013 + 6 år = 15. July 2014 Senest i 2015 Senest I 2016 Senest i 2020 Timeframe for implementation Task or event Descritption of GES (Art5.2a(ii) and Art 9) Information on Annex II (art 7) Identification of targets and indikators (Art 5 stk.2a(iii) og art 10) Deadlines of the Directive

7. WG ? Initial Assessment WG ? Monitoring WG ? Integrated GES assessment HAV DIR Policy Guidance HAV DIR Policy Guidance Maritime Policy Experts, focal point Interessenter e.g. NATUR DIR Maritime Policy Experts, focal point Interessenter e.g. NATUR DIR Strategic Coordination Group Komité MS only Strategic Coordination Group Komité MS only WG A Good Environmental Status WG B Information exchange WG C Monitoring & assessment WG GES Good Environmental Status WG DIKE Information exchange WG ESA Socio-economy COMMISSION MS COMMISSION MS Steering group Steering group CIS Organisation 2009- 2010 Management group Management group Deskriptor 1 Deskriptor 2 Deskriptor 3 Deskriptor 1 Deskriptor 2 Deskriptor 3

8. Definition of GES - deskriptors Art. 9 …Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or subregion concerned, determine, for the marine waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex 1. 8/28

9. Annex I – Qualitative descriptors (referred to in Articles 3(5), 9(1), 9(3) and 24) 9/28

10. Description of GES - characteristics Art. 9 • …Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or subregion concerned, determine, for the marine waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex 1. • Member States shall take into account the indicative lists of elements set out in Table 1 of the Annex III, and in particular, physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and hydro-morphology 10/28

11. Annex III, Table 1 17 characteristics for GES 11/28

12. Beskrivelse af god miljøtilstand - påvirkninger Art. 9 • …Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or subregion concerned, determine, for the marine waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex 1. • Member States shall take into account the indicative lists of elements set out in Table 1 of the Annex III, and in particular, physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and hydro-morphology • Member States shall also take into account the pressures or impacts of human activities in each marine region or subregion, in regard to the indicative lists set out in Table 2, Annex III 12/28

13. Annex III, Table 2 18 types of pressures and impacts Too much pressure… 13/28

14. Definition of GES - criteria • The European Commission commissioned the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to facilitate the preparation ofthe scientific basis for the development of criteria and methodological standards in relation to 8 of the 11 Good Environmental Status (GES) descriptorsin the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) during the course of 2009. • With this purpose, theJRC and ICES were requested to establish Task Groups (TGs)for each of these 8 descriptors. 14/28

15. Definition of GES - deskriptors The aim of the work of the TGs is to put forward a comparable and consistent interpretation of the concept of GES. The task is to get from very general definitions of the descriptors (Article 3 and Annex I of the Directive) to a common understanding of what GES is, and how status of ecosystems relative to it should be quantified. The task is notto prescribe boundaries between good and bad. 15/28

16. Criteria - status 10 reports describing the descriptors (700 p.) App. 80 criteria identified in the draft Commission Decision (17 p.) The criteria needs to be made operational for all European Seas Being negotiated until 12 of May 2010 Hearing in Parliament Possible adoption by a Commission Decision 9th of July 2010 Supported by a Commission Staff Working Paper 16/28

17. Criteria with relevance to habitat mapping D1 Biodiversity: Species distribution: Distributional range (1.1), distributional pattern (1.2) and area covered by the species (for sessile/attached species) (1.3) Habitat distribution, extent and condition:Habitat distributional range (1.10; 1.14), Habitat distributional pattern (1.11;1.15), Habitat extent (1.12). Habitat extent: Area of habitat (1.16) and habitat volume (1.17) Habitat condition: The habitat condition relates to the physical (structure and associated physical characteristics, including structuring species), hydrological and chemical conditions (1.18). Community condition: species composition (1.19), relative abundance (1.20) and community biomass (1.21) functional traits (1.22). Ecosystem structure: Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components (habitats and species) (1.26) Ecosystem processes and functions: Interactions between the structural components of the ecosystem (1.27).

18. Criteria with relevance to habitat mapping D4 Marine food webs: Indicators describe abundance trends(4.6) to identify changes in population status potentially affecting food web status. (ii) groups/species that are targeted by human activities; (iii) habitat-defining groups/species (e.g. benthic fauna); D5 Eutrophication: Where appropriate; macroalgae cover, macro algae depth limit, increase of opportunistic macroalgae (e.g. can form blankets over the natural flora and suffocate benthic animals) (5.5). If relevant decrease in perennial seaweeds and seagrasses (e.g. fucoids and wracks, eelgrass and Neptune grass, that are adversely impacted by decrease in water transparency. If relevant annual to multi-year changes from fucoid/kelp to opportunistic green/brown algae (5.8). 18/28

19. Criteria with relevance to habitat mapping D6 Sea-floor integrity: Type, abundance, biomass and areal extent of relevant biogenic substrate (6.1) Extent of the seabed affected by human activities (such as dredging, trawling or other alterations which may influence the substrate) for the different substrate types (6.2) Diversity and richness indices, based on species number and relative abundance in the benthic community (6.3) Presence of particularly sensitive or tolerant species (6.4) Presence of benthic communities associated with low oxygen conditions (6.10) 19/28

20. Criteria with relevance to habitat mapping D7 Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions: Spatial extent of benthic habitat affected by the permanent alteration ( 7.2) Changes in habitat functions due to altered hydrographical conditions (e.g. spawning areas, breeding and feeding areas and migration routes of fish, birds and mammals) (7.8). All in all, app. 25-27 out of app. 80+ criteria can be informed by habitat mapping or modelling. 20/28

21. Benthic broad scale habitats Examples: 60 benthic landscapes identified Coarse, but coherent habitat map Spans an entire marine region Builds upon Annex III, table 1 requirements Possible to “zoom in” and operate at higher resolution adding new layers of information/mapping – link to other Annex III elements 21/28

22. Link to human activities when possible Biogeographic boundaries/ ecological relevant managment units Benthic broad scale habitats Examples: Link with indicator/key habitats / habitat forming species / essential fish habitats 22/28

23. Criteria - cross-cutting challenges I/III Key Message I: Achieve a common and harmonised approach across legal obligations Harmonise across Community legislation (Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive) Regional Sea Conventions (BSAP) EU´s Common Fisheries Policy (essential fish habitats?) EU´s Maritime Policy (European Atlas of the Seas) 23/28

24. Criteria - cross-cutting challenges II/III Key Message II: Common and harmonised approach to methodology Share information across boundaries Harmonisation of basic mapping input (e.g. sediment) Hierarchical classification system (use EUNIS classes?) Do we need several mapping approaches and why? Merge sectoral efforts e.g how to merge mapping of ”nature” habitats with essential fish habitats? Leave no part of the marine ecosystem unmapped! Better to have coherent maps with full spatial coverage rather than many partial unharmonised efforts… 24/28

25. 68 sites for aggregate extraction (~187km2) 13 sites for off-shore windfarms (~366km2) Environmental pressures e.g. oxygen depletion 68% of these human activities are in areas with no oxygen depletion Application – Inform multiple uses An example from the Danish EEZ: Targetting specific landscapes e.g. >50% of ”Non-photic sand at 7,5-11psu” Inform management efforts e.g. MSP 25/28

26. Criteria - cross-cutting challenges III/III Key Message III: Demonstrate the potential uses of habitat maps in a multiple use context Identify the amount / distribution of a habitat within a sub-division, sub-region and marine region Identify the amount of pressures occuring on it Identify its sensitivity to the pressure(s) = priority habitats Identify the confidence of the map to help future prioritisation of efforts Help identify environmental targets and indicators based on habitat maps Demonstrate the application and meet official deadlines (description of GES, current and future status)! Habitat maps enable a direct comparison with those human activities / pressures, which have a spatial influence! 26/28

27. Coorperation and common understanding… DK SE NO HSD VRD HD DHI DMU BLST DTU 27/28

28. Thank you… 28/28

29. Conclusion • Opnå ensartet forståelse - definere terminologi • Definition og identifikation af indikatorer ved at anvende rammen fastsat af direktivet • Indikatorerne bør være informative om miljøtilstand og gerne omkostningseffektive • Gerne en kobling til belastning(-erne) • Målfastsættelse i forhold til en given påvirkning på en given økosystemet komponent (fx eutrofiering på invertebrater): • definere den acceptable påvirkning indenfor en marine region, eventuelt et delområde • Kobling og harmonisering til eksisterende mål (hvor muligt)

30. Deskriptorerne - generelt • Opnå ensartet forståelse - definere terminologi • Definition og identifikation af indikatorer ved at anvende rammen fastsat af direktivet • Indikatorerne bør være informative om miljøtilstand og gerne omkostningseffektive • Gerne en kobling til belastning(-erne) • Målfastsættelse i forhold til en given påvirkning på en given økosystemet komponent (fx eutrofiering på invertebrater): • definere den acceptable påvirkning indenfor en marine region, eventuelt et delområde • Kobling og harmonisering til eksisterende mål (hvor muligt)

31. Elementer i en status evaluering… D1 Biodiversitet D4 Food webs D6 Seafloor integrity 3 descriptors of ecological quality GES 17 characteristics • Nutrients • Oxygen • Contaminants • Phytoplankton • Zooplankton • Marine mammals • Birds • Fish • etc. 18 Pressures & Impacts • Fisheries • Nutrient input • Noise • Litter • Physical damage • Etc. D2 Non-indigenous species D3 Fisheries D5 Eutrophication D7 Hydrographic Conditions D8 Contaminants D9 Contaminants in seafood D10 Litter D11 Energy 8 descriptors of anthropogenic pressures ”Screws” to obtain GES

32. MSFD – a playground for R&D 11 descriptors and 80+ criteria to be handled in regard to: • Definition of Good Environmental Status • Can the deskriptors be prioritised and how? • How can the descriptors and their criteria be merged into a holistic assessment of the marine ecosystem? • Pressures and impacts • How does different pressures impact on various environmental components? • How to handle? • Målfastsættelse • How do we make the targets concrete? • How do we harmonise different or even conflicting targets?

33. Overvågning, tilstandsvurdering & nyudvikling 11 deskriptorer og ukendt antal miljøbelastninger som skal håndteres i forhold til: • Overvågning • Respect the needs of the user (deadlines and legal framework) • Demonstrate your understanding! • Status evaluering • Forvaltningsredskaber • Eksisterende vs. ny indsats? • Forskning • Nyudvikling (EU forskningsfonde) • Kan BLST og DMU hjælpe hinanden?