Figure 1 - uploaded by Angel Borja
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proposed rules for integrating criteria to assess the status of species according to OOAO (One-Out-All-Out).
Source publication
Abstract
This report reviews the integration methods for MSFD biodiversity assessments under Descriptor 1 for species that are not covered by the Habitats Directive and are not commercial fish assessed under Descriptor 3 and used in Descriptor 1 assessments. It was carried out by experts from the MSFD Biodiversity expert network, which is coordina...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... easy-to-understand conditional rule OOAO means that all indicators have to be "good" for treating a species as being in good status (Figure 1). Any poor rating is visible at higher levels and can be directly traced back to one or more poor indicators. ...
Context 2
... integration at the level of the ecosystem component is desired for communication purposes, use One-out-all-out when integrating from species groups to ecosystem component, because a failing species group cannot be replaced by another one. Figure 1. Proposed rules for integrating criteria to assess the status of species according to OOAO (One-OutAll-Out Figure 3. JWGBIRD proposed rules for integrating criteria to assess the status of a marine bird species (ICES 2018d); Variant B (see also Figure 4. WKDIVAGG proposed rules for integrating criteria to assess the status of a marine bird species (ICES 2018a); Variant C (see also Figure 5. WKDIVAGG proposed rules for integrating criteria to assess the status of a marine bird species (ICES 2018a); Variant D (see also Table 10). ...
Citations
... They may also arise in cases where threshold values have been set high (i.e., providing an over-precautionary target). On-going work on the harmonisation of methods to set threshold values (Palialexis et al., 2019), and to develop agreed integration rules for the GES Criteria (ICES, 2016;Dierschke et al., 2021), aims to reduce such Type I errors. ...
... • the selection of GES Criteria (European Commission, 2017) for each species according to data availability and thresholds to be address, and • the implementation of the agreed integration rules for the Criteria for each species and for the species withing each species group (e.g. integration rules for birds and fish in Dierschke et al., 2021). ...
... The decision whether or not to use secondary Criteria should be taken by Member States, based on the perceived need to complement a primary Criterion or in situations where, for a particular Criterion, the marine environment is at risk of not achieving and maintaining GES (European Commission, 2017). However, as shown in Dierschke et al. (2021) for birds and fish the secondary Criterion D1C3 can be more ecologically relevant than D1C4 and as such the integration of criteria per species should be based on an agreed method (at EU level) to achieve the required level of consistency and comparability of GES across regions and subregions. ...
The EU's MSFD introduced a holistic approach to the management of anthropogenic activities that impact the marine environment. The ecosystem approach to management is based on 11 qualitative and interconnected Descriptors for the Good Environmental Status of the marine environment. The implementation of the MSFD generated a dynamic across the European seas where significant resources (experts and funds) were invested to develop new methodological standards, exploit current knowledge, and increase regional coordination for monitoring, assessing, and managing the marine environment. The EU Member States produced and compiled a vast amount of knowledge and information, which boosted the use of sophisticated conceptual tools, such as the risk-based approach to management. The risk-based approach to management can contribute to efficient economic environmental monitoring and assessment, a necessity considering the wide spatial implementation of the MSFD across European seas. However, the implementation of such tools from numerous authorities and institutions creates the need for harmonized, transparent, and consistent applications. To this end, we developed a conceptual framework and a proof-of-concept tool, in line with the MSFD requirements, to apply the risk-based approach for the MSFD biodiversity Descriptor. The conceptual framework secures a consistent and transparent selection of marine environment status components (species) according to a set of scientific and practical criteria.
... Integration methods for MSFD assessments have been developed and proposed at the EU level for fish and seabird GES criteria and indicators (Dierschke et al., 2021). Unlike other components of Descriptor 1, D1-Reptiles is composed of a single species group. ...
Environmental policies, including the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), generally rely on the measurement of indicators to assess the good environmental status (GES) and ensure the protection of marine ecosystems. However, depending on available scientific knowledge and monitoring programs in place, quantitative GES assessments are not always feasible. This is specifically the case for marine turtle species, which are listed under the Biodiversity Descriptor of the MSFD. Relying on an expert consultation, the goal of this study was to develop indicators and a common assessment approach to be employed by European Union Member States to evaluate the status of marine turtle populations in the frame of the MSFD. A dedicated international expert group was created to explore and test potential assessment approaches, in coherence with other environmental policies (i.e. Habitats Directive, OSPAR and Barcelona Conventions). Following a series of workshops, the group provided recommendations for the GES assessment of marine turtles. In particular, indicators and assessment methods were defined, setting a solid basis for future MSFD assessments. Although knowledge gaps remain, data requirements identified in this study will guide future data collection initiatives and inform monitoring programs implemented by EU Member States. Overall this study highlights the value of international collaboration for the conservation of vulnerable species, such as marine turtles.
... Marine birds qualify as good indicators of changes in marine ecosystems (Paleczny et al., 2015) because they play an important role in marine food webs, often as top predators. However, thematic assessments of sea birds in Europe have largely been restricted to their abundance, distribution, and/or demography (OSPAR, 2017;UNEP-MAP, 2017; State of the Baltic Sea, 2018), despite MSFD and status assessments of the Regional Sea Conventions aiming to build assessments on a broader basis (Dierschke et al., 2021). For example, in addition to the above criteria, the MSFD suggests that seabird assessments should also address bycatch mortality and habitat quality (Commission Decision (EU), 2017); however, indicators for these criteria are currently not available or are still under development (ICES, 2018(ICES, , 2020. ...
We present an integrative statistical approach for estimating the current conditions of marine-bird habitats affected by human activities. We first estimated the influence of multiple human offshore activities on the species of interest using integrative regression techniques. We then used these models to predict the distribution and abundance of the species throughout the study area, in both the current situation, with human activities, and in a hypothetical situation without the effects of the studied human activities. We finally developed different measures related to the comparison between these two scenarios. The presented approach allows the integration of bird-count data from different sources and sampling schemes, thus maximizing the underlying database. It also provides a local metric highlighting critical regions where locally high abundance is co-localized with large declines in abundance due to human activities, as well as a global metric quantifying the overall condition of the marine-bird habitat in the study area in relation to human disturbance. This approach allows us to assess the cumulative influence of several anthropogenic pressures. We exemplarily applied the above approach to four different species and two different sea regions, namely European herring gulls and long-tailed ducks in the German section of the Baltic Sea, and European herring gulls, red-throated loons, and common murres in the German–Dutch–Belgian part of the North Sea. The considered activities were offshore wind farms, bottom-trawling fishery, and ship traffic. The results confirmed the avoidance of and attraction to human activities by marine bird species found in previous studies. These results show that the methods developed here can be used to provide indicators for inclusion in bird assessments under OSPAR and HELCOM conventions, and MSFD Article 8, criterion D1C5 (habitat for the species). The resulting indicator can be used to inform programmes of measures under MSFD Article 13.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires that Good Environmental Status (GES) should be achieved in EU marine waters as described by eleven environmental Descriptors, each of them assessed by several GES Criteria. At the core of the GES assessment lies the need for threshold values (TVs) which enable a quantitative assessment of environmental status for the indicators and elements used for each GES Criterion. In this report, we review the availability of agreed threshold-setting approaches/methods and TVs for all Criteria of the eleven MSFD Descriptors. We showcase the progress made with regards to the establishment of thresholds, discuss the relevant ongoing developments, and highlight the remaining gaps in both threshold setting methods and TVs. We also suggest ways forward to improve the availability of thresholds for the MSFD Criteria.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC128344
Chapter 1.1: Purpose and scope
The purpose of this Document is to guide Member States in the review and update of the assessment of their marine waters in respect of each marine region or subregion, according to Article 17(2)(a) in conjunction with Articles 8(1) and 9(1) MSFD, which is due for reporting by 15 October 2024 and in subsequent reporting rounds. The aim is that Member States‘ assessments under Article 8 MSFD are comparable at EU-level, coherent within marine regions, consistent with Union legislation and with agreements in marine regions (e.g. Regional Sea Conventions), transparent and repeatable. The ultimate goal is that Member States‘ outputs from assessments are compatible. Compatibility is needed as a basis for a regionally coherent management of Member States’ waters. It is also needed to allow an EU-scale evaluation under Article 20(3)(b) MSFD of the extent to which good environmental status (GES) is achieved or maintained across EU Member States’ marine waters, and a coherent communication of the status of the marine environment to managers and the public.
A l’occasion d’un audit de la Commission européenne sur l’évaluation coordonnée des espèces et habitats marins dans le cadre des Directives Oiseaux (DO), Habitats-Faune-Flore (DHFF) et de la Directive-Cadre Stratégie pour le Milieu Marin (DCSMM), une étude approfondie a été réalisée sur le niveau d’intégration de la surveillance et de l’évaluation entre ces Directives et la Directive-Cadre sur l’Eau (DCE). Les analyses se limitent aux dispositifs de surveillance et aux flux de données associés qui alimentent les évaluations des Directives marines dont la responsabilité a été confiée à l’OFB et l’UMS PatriNat : habitats benthiques, oiseaux, tortues et mammifères marins et « poissons côtiers sur fonds rocheux, herbiers et coralligène, espèces rares et amphihalins ».
Nous constatons qu’un travail important de mise en cohérence de la surveillance a déjà été entrepris, notamment sur les mammifères marins mais que les marges de progrès demeurent importantes. Un certain nombre de dispositifs de surveillance sont à modifier ou compléter pour répondre aux besoins de plusieurs Directives : la révision des programmes de surveillance DCE et DCSMM est une occasion à saisir pour intégrer les besoins de l’ensemble des Directives marines et aboutir à une surveillance mutualisée du milieu marin.
L’objectif à atteindre est d’utiliser les mêmes jeux de données pour les évaluations au titre des directives ou des Listes Rouge UICN. Pour progresser en ce sens, nous proposons quelques recommandations sur l’organisation et la gouvernance de l’appui scientifique et technique.
