Content uploaded by Anneke Paijmans
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anneke Paijmans on Jun 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
University of Liverpool
1
Milestones M6/M7/M8: Identication and management
of the main human activities that compromise the
operational objectives
Options for Delivering
Ecosystem-based
Marine Management
WORK PACKAGE 4 October 2012
1
Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management
Pressure Assessment - Species
ODEMM Work Package 4
Milestones M6/M7/M8.
Identification and management of the main human activities that compromise
the operational objectives
Editors: G.J. Piet, R.H. Jongbloed, A.J. Paijmans
Contributors: L.A. Robinson, A.M. Knights, Nadia Papadopoulou, J.E. Tamis, H. van Overzee, Helen
Bloomfield, Tanya Churilova, Piotr Margoński, Freya Goodsir
This work was supported by the European Commission’s 7th framework project ‘Options for
Delivering Ecosystem-Based Marine Management’ (ODEMM, Theme ENV.2009.2.2.1.1)
Final report October 17, 2012
2
This document presents the results of three tasks of the ODEMM work package 4
“Management Strategies”.
The first task consisted of an Integrated Assessment (IA) aimed at identifying those
human activities most likely to compromise the operational objectives.
In order to develop feasible management strategies to mitigate these activities we
developed in the second task a framework that assists in the selection and development
of these management strategies. The application of this framework together with the IA
resulted in a suite of potential management strategies that can be evaluated in
subsequent MSE work together with other work-packages (i.e. WP5 and WP6).
In addition we explored in the third task which indicators are available and can
potentially be applied to measure the progress towards achieving the operational
objectives. Some of these indicators may then be used in the following MSE work.
In this report we combined the three milestones covering these tasks in order to show
how the combination of the different parts can be used to provide the ODEMM options
for management which involve management measures and indicators required as part of
the decision-making process that aims to achieve the policy objectives.
The IA was based on the methodology developed for the WP1 pressure assessment but
was now applied across all ecosystem components in order to identify the impact chains
(i.e. the chain linking driver-pressure-state that causes the impact) mainly responsible for
failing to achieve the objectives, i.e. the high-threat chains.
The framework intended to provide the options for the selection of appropriate
management measures is based on all the management measures that emerged from a
literature review and a query among the regional partners and from which a method was
developed that allows the construction of measures that can be potentially applied to
reduce the impact of one or more of these impact chains including additional information
that helps for further select what are the most appropriate measures to achieve specific
objectives.
Based on the input form the regional partners a database was developed of the most
appropriate specific regional indicators for each of the MSFD Descriptors including their
operational status. This revealed that few operational indicators exist.
These high-threat chains were used as the basis for a synthesis where we actually
applied the framework focussing on the high-threat chains only in order to identify which
measures are most suitable for implementation to achieve the MSFD objectives.
Should you have any comments or suggestions, or if you require further detail, please
feel free to contact Gerjan Piet (gerjan.piet@wur.nl)
3
Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................. 6
1.1 Background ............................................................................ 7
1.1.1 MSFD (sub)regions ....................................................... 7
1.1.2 DPSIR Framework ........................................................ 8
1.1.3 Marine Strategy Framework Directive ........................... 9
1.2 Approach .............................................................................. 11
2 Integrated assessment .............................................................. 13
2.1 Methods ................................................................................ 13
2.1.1 Pressure Assessment ................................................. 13
2.1.2 High threat combinations ............................................ 14
2.2 Results .................................................................................. 14
2.2.1 Linkage framework ...................................................... 14
2.2.2 Preliminary results and consistency check .................. 15
2.2.3 Final results ................................................................. 22
2.3 Discussion and conclusion ................................................... 32
3 Indicators .................................................................................... 34
3.1 Database .............................................................................. 34
3.2 Extractions from the database .............................................. 35
3.2.1 Status of operational objectives .................................. 35
3.2.2 Case studies ............................................................... 38
3.3 Indicator requirements and selection .................................... 43
3.3.1 Reference levels ......................................................... 44
3.3.2 Selection criteria ......................................................... 44
4 Management measures ............................................................. 47
4.1 Database .............................................................................. 50
4.2 Applications using the database ........................................... 53
5 Synthesis .................................................................................... 56
5.1 Specificity Score ................................................................... 56
5.1 Appropriate measures per driver-pressure combination ....... 58
5.2 Appropriate measures to achieve an objective ..................... 60
6 References .................................................................................. 63
7 Annexes ...................................................................................... 66
4
Glossary
WORD/PHRASE
ACRO
NYM
DEFINITION
[GES]
Descriptor
Descriptors are used to describe or qualify the ecological characteristics
and/or pressure and impacts (associated with human activities), used to
define Good Environmental Status (GES) (e.g. Descriptor 1: Biodiversity
and Descriptor 10: Marine Litter).
Degree of
Impact
DoI
The generic severity of the interaction between a pressure and an
ecological characteristic in terms of its effects on the characteristic [as used
in the ODEMM pressure assessment].
Ecological
Characteristic
EC
Ecologically coherent elements of an ecosystem, that group together more
disparate taxonomic groups into the minimum number of elements, based
on the view that the lower the number of elements, the easier it is to gain a
coherent and integrated assessment across the ecosystem.
Ecosystem
Goods and
Services
ES
The capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and
services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly.
Frequency of
Occurrence (of
a pressure)
The frequency that a pressure associated with a particular sector occurs at,
within a given year, where it overlaps with the ecological characteristic
being assessed [as used in the ODEMM pressure assessment].
Good
Environmental
Status
GES
Environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically
diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and
productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine
environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential
for uses and activities by current and future generations.
High Level
Objectives
HLO
The overall objectives set by a particular policy or directive. For the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) these are the eleven GES
descriptors, whilst for the Habitat’s Directive these are the criteria for
Favourable Conservation Status.
Impact
I
The adverse consequence(s) of pressures on any part of the ecosystem
where the change is beyond that expected under natural variation given
prevailing conditions. According to DPSIR, impact is the changes in the
physical, chemical or biological state of the environment which may have
environmental or economic consequences affecting the functioning of
ecosystems, their lifesupporting abilities, and ultimately human health as
well as the economic and social performance of society.
Pressure
P
The mechanism through which an activity has an effect on any part of the
ecosystem. Pressures can be physical (e.g. abrasion), chemical (e.g.
introduction of synthetic components) or biological (e.g. introduction of
microbial pathogens). The pressures are based on the MSFD Annex III
Resilience
The time required by an ecological characteristic to recover after cessation
of any further activities causing the particular pressure.
Risk
A function of likelihood and consequence, where highest risk is assumed
when a severe consequence is likely.
5
Spatial Extent
The extent and distribution of the pressure from a sector where it over-laps
(in time and space) with a particular ecosystem component.
Sustainable
Development
Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. To be successful, it
requires environmental protection, economic growth and social
development.
Indicator
An indicator is a standard measure (metric) that allows change to be
measured. Indicators may be abiotic (e.g. a chemical concentration) or
biotic (a species or taxon). A reference value is used to indicate the
expected state of an indicator.
Business-as-
Usual
BAU
Business-as-Usual is a description of the current management programmes
in place (or in the process of being implemented but not yet operational)
within a regional sea. BAU is used to describe the current operational
environmental, societal or economic landscape.
BAU+
BAU
+
A measure or suite of measures implemented in addition to Business-as-
Usual that introduce a change or changes in the environmental, societal or
economic landscape from its current state.
Reference
value
A reference value (can also be referred to as a baseline) is the expected
state of an indicator under predefined conditions.
Sector
A business that exploits the same or related product or service provided by
the marine ecosystem (e.g. shipping; coastal infrastructure)
Management
strategy
The strategy adopted by the management authority to reach the operational
objectives. It consists of the full set of management measures applied and
may include several sectors.
Management
measure
Specific controls applied to contribute to achieving the objectives. Several
mechanisms may be applied to apply these controls, including technical ,
social or economic.
Cumulative
impact
The sum total of the impacts caused by separate activities.
Driver
D
According to DPSIR driver or ‘driving force’ is a need. Examples of primary
driving forces for an individual are the need for shelter, food and water,
while examples of secondary driving forces are the need for mobility,
entertainment and culture. Here the driver is defined by the sector and
activity.
State
S
According to DPSIR the ‘state’ of the environment is the quality of the
various environmental compartments (air, water, soil, biota etc.) in relation
to the functions that these compartments fulfill. The ‘state of the
environment’ is thus the combination of the physical, chemical and
biological characteristics (see MSFD Annex III)
Response
R
According to DPSIR a ‘response’ by society or policy makers is the result of
an undesired impact and can affect any part of the impact chain
Impact chain
Chain linking driver-pressure-state that causes the specific impact
6
1 Introduction
The main aim of ODEMM WP4, “Management Strategies” is to:
1. Identify those human activities most likely to compromise the operational objectives
2. Develop a range of realistically feasible management strategies or options for these activities,
using different types of measures and tools, to achieve regional Operational Objectives.
3. Apply a formal evaluation of these management strategies using a Management Strategy
Evaluation (MSE) tool
4. Consider the resources required in terms of infrastructure and governance to enforce the
management strategies evaluated.
In this document we aim to address the first two objectives of this work package and to that end the
results of three separate tasks will be presented in this document. This document combines
Milestones 6, 7 and 8. Milestone 6 is a summary report showing the human activities revealed to be
most likely to compromise the achievement of operational objectives in each region. Milestone 7 is a
report detailing the indicators and management measures selected for each of the major issues
highlighted in each regional sea. Milestone 8 comprises a list of possible management strategies for
each of the selected operational objectives in each region. These milestones are reported together in
this document because the work in these milestones is complementary and the combined reporting
allows an overall synthesis of the work done so far.
This document consists of three separate pieces of work reported in chapters 2, 3 and 4 followed by a
synthesis in chapter 5.
Chapter 2 consist of an Integrated Assessment (IA) of which the final outcome will be the identification
of those human activities most likely to compromise the achievement of operational objectives in each
regional sea thereby fulfilling the first objective. This was done through the development of so-called
impact chains representing the link through which a specific human activity through a specific pressure
causes an impact on a specific ecosystem characteristic.
In our approach to fulfill the second objective we worked from the premise that a management
strategy consists of one or more management measures possibly combined with monitoring activities
and embedded in “good governance”. These management strategies will be evaluated in the next
stage of the project.
Chapter 3 focusses on indicators. These can be used in the evaluation process but also to indicate
where additional monitoring may be required as part of alternative management strategies. Therefore
this chapter presents a database of potential regional indicators that match the components of the
impact chain and can be linked to the operational objectives identified in earlier ODEMM work (WP3).
This is based on the completed, or often still on-going, work in the member states covered by experts
within the ODEMM project to establish operational indicators for the MSFD Descriptors, criteria and
indicators as specified in the MSFD [1]. These indicators can be used to evaluate the management
strategies in the subsequent steps of this work package aimed at addressing the third objective. These
indicators should also drive the development of the monitoring programs that complement the
management strategies developed in this work package.
Chapter 4 addresses the management measures and presents an inventory of measures that can be
used to mitigate the human activities most likely to compromise the operational objectives. The
measures match the list presented in Annex VI of the MSFD but in addition are stored in a database
with additional information that allows linking them to any element in the impact chain including the
pressures as well as the ecosystem characteristics (see Annex III of the MSFD).
Finally chapter 5 present a synthesis where the high-threat impact chains (Chapter 2) are linked to the
appropriate indicators (Chapter 3) and management measures (Chapter 4) through the components
that make up the chain (i.e. sectors, pressures, ecosystem characteristics). The linking of these
components help us to make a first assessment of which measures are most appropriate to mitigate
the effects of specific activities (driver-pressure combinations) and the human activities (i.e. drivers)
that compromise a specific operational objective.
7
1.1 Background
1.1.1 MSFD (sub)regions
The MSFD identified the following marine regions, some consisting of several subregions (see Figure
1): (a) the Baltic Sea;
(b) North-east Atlantic Ocean:
(i) the Greater North Sea, including the Kattegat, and the English Channel;
(ii) the Celtic Seas;
(iii) the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast;
(iv) in the Atlantic Ocean, the Macaronesian biogeographic region, being the waters
surrounding the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands;
(c) Mediterranean Sea:
(i) the Western Mediterranean Sea;
(ii) the Adriatic Sea;
(iii) the Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea;
(iv) the Aegean-Levantine Sea.
(d) the Black Sea.
These regions form the basis of any regional component in the work presented in this document.
Figure 1. Draft map of MSFD regions and subregions (NOTE: this is a “live” map, subject to changes
as MS provide input through MSFD-related processes).
Celtic Seas
Macaronesia
Macaronesia
Black Sea
Baltic Sea
Aegean-Levantine Sea
Western Mediterranean Sea
Bay of Biscay and
the Iberian Coast
Ionian Sea and the
Central Mediterranean Sea
Greater
North Sea
Adriatic Sea
30°E20°E10°E0°10°W20°W30°W
40°N
30°N
20°N
8
1.1.2 DPSIR Framework
The components of the DPSIR framework are defined in the following. Classes of data on the past and
present situations are listed after each definition.
Driver
A ‘driving force’ or driver is a need. Examples of primary driving forces for an individual are the need
for shelter, food and water, while examples of secondary driving forces are the need for mobility,
entertainment and culture. For an industrial sector a driving force could be the need to be profitable
and to produce at low costs, while for a nation a driving force could be the need to keep
unemployment levels low. In a macroeconomic context, production or consumption processes are
structured according to economic sectors (e.g. agriculture, energy, industry, transport, households). -
Population (number, age structure, education levels, political stability) - Transport (persons, goods;
road, water, air, off-road) - Energy use (energy factors per type of activity, fuel types, technology) -
Power plants (types of plants, age structure, fuel types) - Industry (types of plants, age structure,
resource types) - Refineries/Mining (types of plant/minings, age structure) - Agriculture (number of
animals, types of crops, stables, fertilisers) - Landfills (type, age) - Sewage systems (types) - Non-
industrial sectors - Land use
Pressure
Driving forces lead to human activities such as transportation or food production, i.e. result in meeting
a need. These human activities exert 'pressures' on the environment, as a result of production or
consumption processes, which can be divided into three main types: (i) excessive use of
environmental resources, (ii) changes in land use, and (iii) emissions (of chemicals, waste, radiation,
noise) to air, water and soil. - Use of resources - Emissions (per driving force for numerous
compounds) - direct emissions to air, water and soil - indirect emissions to air, water and soil -
Production of waste - Production of noise - Radiation - Vibration - Hazards (risks)
State
As a result of pressures, the ‘state’ of the environment is affected; that is, the quality of the various
environmental compartments (air, water, soil, etc.) in relation to the functions that these compartments
fulfil. The ‘state of the environment’ is thus the combination of the physical, chemical and biological
conditions. - Air quality (national, regional, local, urban, etc.) - Water quality (rivers, lakes, seas,
coastal zones, groundwater) - Soil quality (national, local, natural areas, agricultural areas) -
Ecosystems (biodiversity, vegetation, soil organisms, water organisms) - Humans (health) - Soil use
Impact
The changes in the physical, chemical or biological state of the environment determine the quality of
ecosystems and the welfare of human beings. In other words changes in the state may have
environmental or economic ‘impacts’ on the functioning of ecosystems, their lifesupporting abilities,
and ultimately on human health and on the economic and social performance of society.
Response
A ‘response’ by society or policy makers is the result of an undesired impact and can affect any part of
the chain between driving forces and impacts. An example of a response related to driving forces is a
policy to change mode of transportation, e.g from private (cars) to public (trains), while an example of
a response related to pressures is a regulation concerning permissible SO2 levels in flue gases.
Figure 2 depicts the complete DPSIR framework. In addition to defining the components of DPSIR, it
is useful to describe the various cause-effect relationships (because it is often difficult to attribute
ecosystem changes unambiguously to human pressures). NERI3 has proposed a methodology in
which environmental problems are defined and structured in such a way that a clear relationship to
pressures emerges. This often uses physical or chemical state indicators as the target variable, while
the associated changes in biological state variables are treated as derived effects. A similar argument
can be presented for the causal links between the driving forces (i.e. the basic socio-economic
development of the different sectors of society) and the environmental pressures in terms of
emissions, resource use and land use.
9
Figure 2. DPSIR framework
1.1.3 Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Selected MSFD Pressures, Sectors, Ecosystem characteristics were based on the MSFD annex III but
sometimes slightly modified depending on the application. Pressures, sectors and ecosystem
components were used to create impact chains. In the different databases (IA (Chapter 2), indicator
database (Chapter 3) and management measures database (Chapter 4)) slightly different
configurations of the lists were used (see Table 1 -
10
Table 3).
Table 1 shows the overview of the sectors that were used in the IA and the measures database. In
order to merge the databases, sectors from the measures database were adopted as the basis.
The following differences occur:
‘coastal infrastructure’ was translated to ‘coastal infrastructure (construction)’ as ‘coastal
infrastructure’ was only linked to habitats. We considered the habitat could only be disturbed
in coastal infrastructure construction, not in coastal infrastructure operations.
The same line of thought was followed for the translation of ’non-renewable energy (nuclear)’
into ’non-renewable energy (nuclear) construction’, translation of ’Non-renewable Energy (oil &
gas)’ into ’Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)’, Renewable Energy into Renewable
Energy (wind) – construction, Telecom into Telecommunications construction and Fishing into
Fishing - Benthic.
Table 1. Overview of sectors that are included in the different databases
Sectors (IA database)
Sectors (measures database)
(Hydro) Power Station Construction
(Hydro) Power Station Construction
(Hydro) Power Station Operations
(Hydro) Power Station Operations
Aggregates
Aggregates
Agriculture
Agriculture
Aquaculture
Aquaculture
Carbon sequestration
Carbon sequestration
Coastal Infrastructure
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
Coastal Infrastructure (operations)
Coastal Infrastructure (operations)
Coastal defence
Desalination
Desalination
Fishing
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Harvesting/Collecting
Harvesting/Collecting
Land-based Industry
Land-based Industry
Military
Military
Navigational Dredging
Navigational Dredging
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Construction
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Construction
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Operations
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Operations
Non-renewable Energy (nuclear)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas)
Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy (wind) - construction
Renewable Energy (wind) - construction
Renewable Energy (wind) - operations
Renewable Energy (wind) - operations
Research
Research
Shipping
Shipping
Telecom
Telecommunications construction
Telecommunications construction
Telecommunications operations
Telecommunications operations
Tourism/Recreation
Tourism/Recreation
Waste Water Treatment
Waste Water Treatment
Table 2. Overview of pressures that are included in the different databases
Pressures (both IA database as measures database)
Abrasion
Barrier to species movement
Change in wave exposure
Changes in siltation
Climate Change
Disturbance
11
Emergence regime change
Input of organic matter
Introduction of microbial pathogens
Introduction of NIS and translocations
Introduction of Non-synthetic compounds
Introduction of Synthetic compounds
Marine Litter
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
pH changes
Salinity regime changes
Selective Extraction of Non-living Resources
Selective extraction of species
Smothering
Substrate Loss
Thermal regime changes
Underwater noise
Water flow rate changes
12
Table 3. Overview of ecosystem components (i.e. ecologically coherent elements of an ecosystem that
group together more disparate taxonomic groups into a minimum number of elements (Robinson &
Knights, 2011[2]) that are included in the different databases
Ecological characteristics
(IA database)
Ecosystem components
(indicator database)
Ecosystem components
(measures database)
Seabirds
Seabirds
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Fish Deep sea
Fish
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Fish Deep sea
Marine mammals & reptiles
Marine mammals & reptiles
Marine mammals
Reptiles
Predominant Habitat (Litt
rock)
Habitat
Bottom fauna & flora
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Bathymetry/ topography
Predominant Habitat
(Sublitt rock)
Habitat
Bottom fauna & flora
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Bathymetry/ topography
Predominant Habitat
(Infralitt rock)
Habitat
Bottom fauna & flora
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Bathymetry/ topography
Predominant Habitat
(Circalitt rock)
Habitat
Bottom fauna & flora
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Bathymetry/ topography
Predominant Habitat (Litt
sed)
Habitat
Bottom fauna & flora
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Bathymetry/ topography
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Predominant Habitat
(Sublitt sed)
Habitat
Bottom fauna & flora
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Bathymetry/ topography
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Predominant Habitat (Deep
sea bed)
Habitat
Bottom fauna & flora
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Bathymetry/ topography
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Predominant Habitat
(Pelagic water col)
Habitat
Plankton
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Habitats
Nutrients & oxygen
Chemicals
Plankton
Salinity
Temperature
pH, pCO2
1.2 Approach
For our Integrated Assessment (IA, chapter 3), identification of indicators (chapter 4) and framework
for the development and application of management strategies (chapter 5) we adopted the
terminology as used in the DPSIR framework and the specifics of the state characteristics, pressures
and impacts as they occur in the MSFD annex III. Throughout this document we use the phrase
“Driver” as proposed in the DPSIR framework but instead of only applying to the different sectors we
use the combination of sector and activity to describe the driver. For “Impact” we follow the DPSIR
framework in that it is a change in State caused by human activity through a specific pressure. In order
13
to explicitly define this link we created impact chains for each existing link between specific Drivers,
Pressures and States, thus: Impact chain = D-P-S.
In the IA the importance of each impact chain is assessed using the methodology described in the
ODEMM Linkage framework. The relative importance of a specific impact chain reflects its contribution
to the overall impact that caused the change in state and thus the failure to achieve the policy
objectives. This then can be used to inform management in the choice, development and
implementation of appropriate management strategies. Indicators are then required to show what the
state of the ecosystem is in relation to the objectives and how the management strategies affect this
state towards the achievement of objectives.
14
2 Integrated assessment
Given the multiple (national and international) policy needs for effective monitoring and management
of the marine environment, there is a clear requirement for a tool that could be used to prioritise
resources. Identifying the key pressures on marine ecosystem characteristics will allow management
action to be focused on the most damaging activities and the ecosystem characteristics most
vulnerable to them.
There are many different sectors that exploit and affect the marine environment, each of which exerts
varying degrees of pressure on the ecological characteristics of the ecosystem through their activities.
Here we apply an integrated assessment based on the methodology of Robinson and Knights [3]
which is applied in European regional seas and further developed as part of this work-package.
The aim is to identify those human activities currently causing the key pressures on the regional sea
ecosystems and are thus most likely to compromise the achievement of the targets set under the
operational objectives identified in WP3. This will be based on a qualitative integrated assessment
based on expert judgment but taking existing (regional) information into account. This assessment is
limited to the objectives involving the state of the ecosystem and (i.e. MSFD Descriptors 1, 3, 4 and 6).
In this chapter we focus on the marine species because the marine habitats and their associated
assemblages are assessed and reported separately [4].
2.1 Methods
2.1.1 Pressure Assessment
We used the approach that is developed and described by Robinson and Knights [3]. Here we briefly
introduce the main aspects, for more detail we refer to the original source.
Pressures are defined as “the mechanism through which an activity has an effect on any part of the
ecosystem” [3]. Pressures can be physical (e.g. abrasion), chemical (e.g. introduction of synthetic
components) or biological (e.g. introduction of microbial pathogens) and the same pressure can be
caused by a number of different sectors and/or activities.
The ecological characteristics are ecologically coherent elements of an ecosystem, that group
together more disparate taxonomic groups based on the view that a limited number of characteristics,
would facilitate a coherent and integrated assessment across the ecosystem [3].
The sectors operating in the EU regions, i.e. Baltic Sea (Baltic), Black Sea (Black), Mediterranean Sea
(Med) and Northeast Atlantic Ocean (NEA), were mapped against the pressures they exert which, in
turn, are linked to the characteristics of the ecosystem that they affect (both pressures and
characteristics occur as defined by Annex III of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
[2008/56/EC]). Associated information describing the linkages is presented in the Linkage Framework
Userguide [5] and an accompanying excel linkage table [6] (Annex II). Using the linkage tables, it is
possible to extract all sector/pressure combinations that affect a particular ecological characteristic
(e.g. pelagic fish). Each linked driver-pressure-ecosystem characteristic defines what we call the
“pressure pathway”.
The combinations shown by the linkage tables only describe the potential pressure pathways. In order
to assess the actual relative threat caused by a particular sector/pressure on an ecological
characteristic requires a weighting of the interaction. This, then should allow management to take
appropriate action towards those sectors or sector/pressure combinations that contribute most to the
(cumulative) pressure on that ecological characteristic. Following the approach of Robinson and
Knights [3], for each region expert judgement was used to weigh these interactions in terms of:
(i) the generic sensitivity of an ecological characteristic to any sector/pressure combination, in terms of
the likely degree of impact (DoI) (1) and its resilience (2);
(ii) the actual footprint of the sector/pressure combination in the region being assessed where it
overlaps with the ecological characteristic, in terms of spatial extent (3) and frequency of occurrence
(4);
15
(iii) the likely persistence (5) of the pressure in the environment (i.e., the length of time that the
pressure continues to affect an ecosystem characteristic, after cessation of the activity causing it).
These five individual elements are treated independently in the assessment, e.g. degree of impact is
not determined by the actual extent and/or frequency of the pressure. The categories used for the
weighting of the interactions are shown in Annex I.
Two steps were distinguished in the consistency check : (1) Regional, where the preliminary results of
the pressure were subjected to a consistency check within the region and (2) pan-European where the
complete pressure assessment (preliminary pressure assessment) was subjected to a consistency
check which ensured that regional differences in the results were not caused by regional differences in
interpretations of the pressure assessment methodology. Observed regional differences can be either
correct if a different situation was assessed correctly or false if a similar situation was assessed
differently due to some misinterpretation. If the latter case occurred and one or more expert groups
misinterpreted the situation it was studied in the validation step and reported in the results section of
this report.
The following workshops took place as part of the quality control process:
1. Preliminary assessment by regional teams at workshop at Crete (February/March 2012)
2. Validation by IMARES and ULIV (March – May 2012)
3. Review by regional teams in workshop at Edinburgh (June 2012)
4. Finalisation by IMARES (June , 2012)
This process of consistency checking and validation resulted in the final pressure assessment
presented in this document.
2.1.2 High threat combinations
The complete pressure assessment was then used to extract those sector/pressure combinations that
pose the highest threat to a particular ecosystem characteristic. The following rules were used to
identify these so-called ‘high threat pressure pathways’.
extent = WP or WE, DOI=A or C and persistence=H or C,
extent = WP or WE, DOI=A and frequency=O, C or P,
extent = WP or WE, DOI=C and frequency=P or C.
2.2 Results
2.2.1 Linkage framework
The Linkage Framework Userguide [5] was used to define the sectors, pressures and ecological
characteristics. The 25 pressures as listed in the Userguide were included in the assessment without
adjustments. For the sectors and ecological characteristics some adjustments were made:
Sectors
The list of sectors [5] was used as a starting point for the assessment. The list was reviewed to ensure
that the activities within a sector exert comparable pressures. A few adjustments were made: the
sectors which involve the construction or placement of large structures (i.e. renewable energy, non-
renewable energy (oil & gas), non-renewable energy (nuclear), telecommunications and coastal
infrastructure) were split up into an construction phase and an operational phase because of the
different pressures they exert. For the same reason the sector ‘fishing’ was divided into benthic
trawling, pelagic trawling and fixed nets incl. potting and creeling. Finally, there was one sector that
involved activities that exert different pressures; the sector renewable energy, involving tide, wave and
wind energy. Considering the related pressures, hydro power stations (tide/wave) were grouped
together into hydro power station construction and – operations. Renewable energy wind construction
and –operations were grouped separately. In total, the pressure assessment includes 28 sectors, see
Annex I.
Ecological characteristics
16
The Linkage Framework Userguide [5] provides a list of 17 ecological characteristics based on Annex
III of the MSFD. From this list a selection was made, see Table 4. As mentioned before, the ecological
characteristics within this study are limited to species only, as the habitat characteristics are assessed
and reported separately [3]. A total of 5 groups were selected to represent the marine species: deep
sea fish; benthic fish; pelagic fish; marine mammals and reptiles; seabirds.
Table 4. Selection of Ecological characteristics from the Linkage Framework Userguide [5]
Ecological
characteristics
(Annex III
MSFD)
Selection for the Pressure Assessment
Topography/Bat
hymetry
Omitted because this is not an ecological feature
Temperature
Omitted because this is not an ecological feature
Salinity
Omitted because this is not an ecological feature
Nutrients &
Oxygen
Omitted based on Commission Guidance Doc SEC 2011 1255 (Annex 5). Not relevant
(pressure indicator)
pH, pCO2
Omitted because this is not an ecological feature
Habitat types
Omitted because this is assessed separately
Plankton
Omitted based on the Commission Guidance Doc SEC 2011 1255. Plankton is part of
the habitat pelagic water column
Bottom fauna
and flora
Omitted based on the Commission Guidance Doc SEC 2011 1255. Bottom fauna and
flora is part of the habitat types
Fish
This includes both Teleosts and Elasmobranchs. Because of the different distribution
and hence different overlap with sector/pressures this characteristic is divided into
three groups: deep sea-; demersal-; and pelagic fish
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Marine mammals and reptiles can be combined into one group because of the same
resilience, same general distribution and they are susceptible to the same pressures
Seabirds
Seabirds are included as a group as they are susceptible to the same pressures
Species listed
under
Community
Legislation or
Conventions
(e.g. Habitats
Directive)
Listed and other species of Community legislation & international agreements are not
included as a separate group as they are considered as part of the relevant ecological
characteristic
Non indigenous
species
Omitted based on Commission Guidance Doc SEC 2011 1255 (Annex 5). This is a
pressure and not an ecological characteristic. Once they are established they are
considered as part of the relevant ecological characteristic (e.g. Pacific Oyster as part
of “Bottom fauna and flora“ )
Chemicals
Omitted based on Commission Guidance Doc SEC 2011 1255 (Annex 5). Not relevant
(pressure indicator)
Other notable
features
No other notable features were defined
The sector/pressure and pressure/ecological characteristic combinations (i.e. links) were based on the
ODEMM linkage tables [5]. Some adjustments were necessary because of the changes in ecological
characteristics and sectors as explained above. The resulting combinations shown by the linkage
tables (see Annex II) describe a potential interaction. Next step was to weigh these interactions, see
section ‘preliminary results and consistency check’.
2.2.2 Preliminary results and consistency check
As described in the methodology section, the complete pressure assessment (preliminary pressure
assessment) was subjected to a consistency check. Results that were not consistent within the
assessment were adjusted after agreement of all teams involved. This resulted in the final pressure
assessment (see section final results).
To provide insight into intermediate results, robustness and variation of the different components of
the pressure assessment, the following aspects will be described for each step of the assessment:
Availability of information
17
Interpretation by experts
Consistency of preliminary results
Variation among ecological characteristics, pressures, sectors
Variation among regions
Confidence of the assessment
2.2.2.1 Resilience
The generic resilience of the ecological characteristic is assessed based on its current status in the
regional sea and categorised based on recovery times as follows:
None (no recovery or >100yr) (N);
Low (10 to <100 yr) (L);
Medium (2 to <10 yr) (M);
High (0 to <2 yr) (H).
For all ecological characteristic groups literature was used to derive useful information for the
assessment of resilience [7-13]. Considerable variation in recovery time (i.e. resilience) exists between
species within each ecological characteristic group.
With one exception, all ecological characteristics were determined to have a low recovery potential
(recovery between 10 and 100 years). There is however considerable variation within the groups (e.g.
between species).
Population recovery rates of deep sea fish decrease with increasing depth [10]. For two Atlantic
grenadiers, time to recovery could range from over a decade to over a century [7]. This exceptional
recovery time of more than 100 years was not considered by the experts to be representative for the
group of deep sea fish, therefore a low recovery was chosen for this ecological characteristic.
Finfish stock is known to recover after 3-30 years with demersal fish generally showing longer
recovery times than pelagic fish [9]. Among commercially exploited fish species, Clupeids take 5-10
years to recover stock biomass, whereas gadoids take more than 15 years to recover or show no
recovery as far as could be observed. Some groups of large pelagic fish (e.g. Basking sharks and
Tuna sp.) take more than 10 years to recover. An exception to the low resilience of ecological
characteristics are demersal fish in the Black Sea with a medium recovery potential. This is due to the
strong degradation of the fish community in the Black Sea [14].
Marine mammals like whales, seals and sea turtles show signs of recovery after several decades [9].
Therefore a low recovery (i.e. 10-100 years) is considered to be the appropriate classification for most
marine mammals and turtles.
Many sea bird species required several decades before the first signs of signs of recovery [9],
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/BirdsInEuropeII). In this context the Fulmar is an interesting
sea bird species due to its slow recovery rate and therefore suitable as a worst case (Fisher, 1952).
After stopping the hunt on young Northern Fulmars populations in the North East Atlantic increased
spectacularly within only a few decades [15]. It can therefore be concluded that sea birds have a low
recovery potential (between 10 and 100 years).
As resilience is a species-specific characteristic it should be similar for all ecological characteristic
groups between regions. This was confirmed by our consistency check. However the confidence of
the resilience assessment varies considerably among the regions due to the difference in availability
of knowledge concerning the sensitivity and resilience of the prevailing species (see Annex V).
2.2.2.2 Persistence
The persistence of the pressure should be categorised as:
Continuous (the pressure never leaves the system or >100 yr) (C);
High (10 to <100 yr) (H);
Medium (2 to <10 yr) (M); or
Low (0 to <2 yr) (L).
18
Published information on the persistence of pressure types is only available for part of the pressure
types. The literature used for the assessment of pressure persistence is listed in Annex IV. For most of
the pressures, the assessment of the persistence could be made with a fairly high level of agreement
among the experts. For some pressure types, e.g. introduction of microbial pathogens and substrate
loss, there was initial disagreement between experts.
The results of the preliminary assessment by the regional teams showed marked differences in the
pressure persistence. The 4 most contentious pressure types were: introduction of microbial
pathogens, marine litter, substrate loss, water flow rate change. These are elaborated below.
Microbial pathogens
Information on the survival of microbial pathogens in seawater is very scarce. Some information was
found regarding aquaculture [16]. Experts assume a low survival for most microbial pathogen species,
but with a high level of uncertainty. There is a risk that this is not valid for some microbial pathogen
species. Because few (if any) cases were known to have occurred in practise according to available
evidence the persistence was classified as low.
Marine litter
For marine ltter the classification of persistence differed between high (10 to 100 years) or continuous
(> 100 years). There are differences in the type of litter produced by a particular activity. For example,
plastic fishing nets persist for centuries, whereas aluminium drinks cans 10-100 yr. However, plastics,
for example, are part of nearly all waste generated by the different activities and there is no possibility
to differentiate on basis of type of litter (except for fishing nets). Times for breakdown range from
weeks to hundreds of years, with an average life expectancy between 50 and 100 yr. In order to be
precautionary it was decided to choose a high (10 to 100 years) persistence.
Substrate loss
There was broad agreement among the experts that substrate loss caused by permanent coastal
infrastructure constructions is highly persistent. Substrate loss due to activities other than coastal
infrastructure construction are assessed to have a medium persistence. However there are likely some
sector-habitat combinations where this may be overly precautionary. This also depends on the
environmental conditions. Assuming that the species are affected through a "loss of habitat" as
reported by Aarts et al. (2004) and Turner et al. (1999) [17, 18] then the persistence would be how
long it takes the habitat for that species (e.g. demersal fish) to recover following loss. The recovery of
the majority of habitats used by demersal species is medium.
Water flow rate change
The preliminary assessments for water flow rate change yielded a persistence that could be low,
medium, high or continuous. In the consistency check it was suggested that persistence depends on
the activity, being permanent for coastal infrastructure and low or medium for other activities. Activities
such as aggregates, navigational dredging, beach replenishment are scored as medium (2-10 yr)
because dredged pits will often persist for more than 2 years [19] therefore changes in local water flow
will also be affected. This was accepted by the regional teams.
Thus for the majority of the pressure types all sectors could be combined because of the same
persistence score. The consistency check revealed that the consistency of the persistence scores is
high. The persistence varies greatly among the pressure types but there is very little difference
between the ecological characteristics. The persistence of a specific pressure does not differ between
regions. The confidence of the assessment was usually high.
2.2.2.3 DoI
The degree of impact (DoI) of a driver-pressure on an ecological characteristic describes the generic
severity of the interaction in terms of its effects on the ecological characteristic. Thus to score degree
of impact assessors score the type of response of the ecological characteristic to the pressure type as
either:
• Severe - Acute (A);
• Severe - Chronic (C); or
• Low severity (L).
In general, scoring the DoI was complicated. According to the guidelines for the pressure assessment
[3] an acute DoI is described as “ a high proportion of individuals are killed by the interaction of the
pressure and the characteristic, which can occur after just one event. The DoI is considered to be
chronic in case the interaction will eventually have severe consequences if it occurs often enough
19
and/or at high enough levels. The difference between acute and chronic is thus not based on the
magnitude of impact but only on spatial and temporal scale and the intensity of the pressure.
However, these aspects are only described in the guideline as ‘one event’. The interpretation of ‘one
event’, however, can vary considerably: e.g. in case of shipping this can be considered as one ship
passing or all ships in the region. A Low severity interaction is described as an interaction that,
irrespective of the frequency and magnitude of the event(s), never causes high levels of mortality
within a given population. Without considering intensity, this can also be interpreted differently. The
introduction of contaminants can in theory always cause mortality as toxicity is concentration
dependent. Considering the intensity of the pressure it is however in many cases unlikely that this will
cause mortality. The guidance for assessment of the DoI therefore requires definitions of ‘one event’
and it should describe how to regard intensity. The complexity of the DoI assessment varies among
the pressure types. In the following paragraphs more information is provided for the assessment if DoI
of pathways with five relatively complex pressure types.
DoI is determined by the pressure type and the sensitivity of the species. DoI is treated independently
of frequency and extent so the DoI score should reflect the potential impact. The extent and frequency
will account for whether it is actually likely that an impact occurs. The region does not play an
important role as far as the same or comparable species are found in different regions (see Error!
eference source not found., Figure 3 and section Final results).
For many pressure types there is limited information in the literature about the sensitivity of species to
those pressures. Therefore expert judgement plays a major role in the DoI assessment and was found
to be difficult to reconcile as the interpretation of DoI strongly depends on the pressure type. For 4
pressures differences in DoI among the ecological characteristics are found, namely for barrier to
species movement, death or injury by collision, introduction of microbial pathogens, substrate loss.
Also the DoI of the pressures barrier to species movement and death or injury by collision were not
consistent in the preliminary assessment. These are further discussed below. The variation in DoI
among ecological characteristics is low (see Figure 4 and section Final results).
Introduction of microbial pathogens
Aquaculture is the most profound anthropogenic influence causing the introduction of microbial
pathogens [20]. Other anthropogenic factors are: ballast water in ships, movement of bait by anglers
and unintentional movement in other biotic or abiotic vectors, and offshore oil and gas industry through
the movement of e.g. drilling rigs [20].
For introduction of microbial pathogens the preliminary assessment scored acute and low DoI on fish
(both demersal and pelagic) depending on the activity, where shipping and aquaculture were
assessed as causing an acute DoI. These activities are known to discharge microbes to the
environment at relatively high concentrations and an impact may be caused by one event. Severe
acute effects on demersal and pelagic fish could be possible in worst case situations. Disease can
impact directly on wild populations and the ecosystem by changing host abundance and predator/prey
populations, reducing genetic diversity and causing local extinctions [20]. There is however limited
evidence of impacts on wild populations of fish (e.g. [21, 22]). After further discussions it was
suggested that microbial introductions do not cause instantaneous mortality, as was initially assessed.
Concentrations of microbes "build-up" resulting in mortality once a certain threshold is reached. This
was therefore changed to a chronic DoI for all activities and not low or acute as initially assessed. This
DoI applies to all activities, independent on the level of microbes. Intensity may be relevant to consider
for this type of pressure, but intensity is not considered in the ODEMM approach.
The DoI on marine mammals and sea birds is estimated to be low. Emerging infectious diseases have
been reported in several cetacean species and populations worldwide provoking large-scale die-offs,
affecting reproduction and causing disfiguring skin diseases [23]. For instance there is evidence of
increased infections of marine mammals in waters harbouring intense shrimp farming [23].
Anthropogenic environmental changes (biological and chemical pollution, climate change, fisheries,
noise and heavy boat traffic) may increase the prevalence and severity of infectious illnesses in
dolphins, porpoises and whales worldwide. A high prevalence of traumatic injuries, even minor skin
lacerations by fisheries interactions and by collisions with vessels, combined with a compromised
immune system create chances for opportunistic pathogens [23]. These are, however, indirect effects
and thus the direct impact is assumed to be low.
It was decided to score the DoI on demersal and pelagic fish as chronic for all relevant activities
releasing microbial pathogens. The confidence of this assessment is low.
Introduction of non-indigenous species
In the preliminary assessment a chronic DoI for fish was scored for aquaculture, fishing and shipping
and a low DoI for all other activities. In the consistency check it was proposed to score a chronic DoI
for all activities because a sufficient number of NIS are required to cause a problem. Chronic is a
continuum between low and acute - the severity of the impact is then dictated by the 'intensity' or
20
number of individuals introduced but intensity is not dealt with in ODEMM. If mortality is instant, then
DoI is acute, if mortality will never occur then DoI is low if neither of these applies then DoI is chronic.
The experts agreed to change the DoI scores for fish to chronic for all activities.
According to Ramirez-Llodra et al (2011) [24] introduction of exotic species is possible and once
established they can change the structure and function of deep sea communities. Aquaculture,
shipping and benthic and pelagic trawling are recognised by OSPAR as vectors for initial introduction
of non-indigenous species. In case of species establishment this could lead to severe chronic effects
on demersal and pelagic fish. Aquaculture is seen as the most important vector followed by shipping
[25]. Due to the variation in characteristics of the invasive species and environment being invaded the
probability and severity of effects is difficult to predict. The confidence is therefore low.
Marine litter
The sectors fishing (especially ghost nets), shipping, tourism and land based industry are the main
sources of marine litter [26]. The preliminary assessment produced all possible outcomes for the DoI
of marine litter on all ecological characteristics, depending on the activities. This was based on the
intensity of the litter production. The activities with a low intensity were assigned a low DoI, whereas
the ones with a high intensity were assigned a chronic DoI. An acute DoI was expected from fishing
through the so-called ghost nets. Further discussion among the experts resulted in the scoring of all
fishing to be acute while the other activities give low scores for DoI because it is not expected that any
type of litter causes mortality. However the possible effects of the “plastic soup” on marine organisms
is not completely clarified yet and will be subject of study in the future. Available information found in
the literature shows that:. Many species of demersal and pelagic fish were reported to ingest marine
debris [27]. Studies in the deep sea are practically non-existent and an urgent assessment of the
impact of micro-plastics on deep sea fauna is needed [24].
At least 32 species of cetaceans (43% of existing species worldwide) and all species of marine turtles
were reported to ingest marine debris [27]. Rijnsdorp & Heessen [28] observed a considerable impact
of litter produced by shipping on sea turtles.
More than 111 species of seabirds (or approximately 36% of the world’s seabird species) have been
reported to ingest marine debris [27]. More than 90% of Northern Fulmars found dead on the Dutch
coast have plastics in their stomach and there are no signs of reduction of the plastic in the stomachs
[29].
Selective extraction of species
The preliminary assessment yielded acute and low DoI on all ecological characteristics, depending on
the activities. This outcome was discussed because either species are removed or not therefore either
an acute or no impact applies. Population-level impacts are possible for all activities and the likeliness
of an impact to occur depends on the level of exposure that is determined by extent, frequency and
intensity of the pressure caused by the activity. However intensity assessment is not part of ODEMM.
The experts agreed that an acute DoI should be connected to all activities with possible acute impacts
on individuals irrespective of the level of this impact. Available information found in literature is
reported below:
There is substantial sensitivity of all types of fish (mortal effects) to fishing [28]. Deep sea trawling has
had an impact on fish populations down to 3100 m as well as by-catch species [24]. Overfishing
issues are particularly important for deep sea fish species which are often long lived with slow growth
and delayed maturity making them poorly adapted to sustain heavy fishing pressure. The deep-sea
gillnet fishery in the NEA occurs between 200 and 1800 m and these depths can have severe effects
on certain stocks [30]. Many activities do not occur in the deep sea and therefore deep sea fish are not
exposed to the concomitant pressures. However if exposed the degree of impact is acute. Demersal
fish have a higher sensitivity index for aggregate extraction compared to benthopelagic fish [31]. The
highest sensitivity occurs in coastal regions and where nursery and spawning areas of important
commercial species occur [31]. Plaice and skate are the two fish species most adversely affected by
dredging activity [32]. Many demersal fish species may be affected indirectly through the removal of
benthos which is an important source of food [33]. At the present scale of dredging activity, there is no
evidence of any licensed activity known to have a substantial impact on fish [33] but as this is scale-
dependent an increase of activities may cause severe (chronic) impact . However, since this is an
indirect effect it is not further considered in this assessment. Pelagic trawling is primarily used to
exploit pelagic fish resources. However, as some species are known to have seasonal and diurnal
vertical migrations they may be impacted by both pelagic and bottom trawls.
There is no direct effect of benthic trawling on marine mammals and turtles on the high seas according
to Rijnsdorp & Heessen [28]. However by-catch in coastal seas is not negligible and can have an
acute or low impact. Direct mortal effects of pelagic trawling on marine mammals and turtles is
possible but negligible [28]. We assume that sensitivity for by-catch is low in coastal seas. Sea turtles
are considered to be sensitive to gillnets, purse seine and longlines on high seas according to
21
Rijnsdorp & Heessen [28]. Some marine mammal species are also sensitive and by catch of harbour
porpoise in gill nets is seen as a problem that needs to be solved.
Mortality of diving bird species through by-catch occurs and can be classified as an acute DoI. Gillnets
and especially longline fisheries are a threat to offshore birds [34-36]. Effects of fishery through
depletion of prey were observed for inshore and offshore bird species [35]. A specific example of this
is the sandeel fishery [37]. However these are indirect effects and therefore not included in this
assessment.
Substrate loss
In the preliminary assessment the DoI of substrate loss was assumed to be low for all relevant
activities on fish. However after consultation this was modified as this pressure causes "habitat loss"
which can have severe detrimental effects on deep sea fish, demersal fish and pelagic fish species
[17, 18]. Specifically the loss of gravel beds which are spawning grounds for herring can affect the
recruitment of the species. There is always some degree of mortality i.e. the carrying capacity of the
region is reduced, immediately or certainly very shortly after the habitat is lost. Therefore the DoI on
fish can be regarded as acute. The experts agreed in the preliminary assessment and the consistency
check that the DoI of substrate loss on marine mammals and sea birds is low for all activities.
Barrier to species movement
Barrier to species movement caused by (hydro)power station operations can lead to different DoI,
depending on the pathway, the activity and the ecological characteristic. An acute DoI was estimated
for marine mammals exposed to (hydro)power station operations, whereas a chronic DoI was
expected for demersal and pelagic fish and a low DoI for sea birds. In the case of other activities only
chronic and low DoI were expected. The presence of (hydro)power stations can act as a physical
barrier to sea mammals migrating between the sea and the river. This does apply to part of the marine
mammals, namely harbour porpoise, dolphin, common seal. The different DoI score for marine
mammals on the one hand and migratory demersal and pelagic fish on the other hand is questionable.
The confidence in the assessment is low for these impact chains.
Death or injury by collision
Death or injury by collision was estimated as low for most pressure pathways. An acute DoI was only
expected in the case of shipping, trawling, military and tourisms/recreation (boating) in combination
with marine mammals and in the cases of wind farm operations and oil and gas operations in
connection with sea birds. There is evidence from literature that injuries and mortalities and hence
acute effects occurred through this pressure [38-43].
The confidence of the DoI assessment is low for the majority of the pathways. This is due to a lack of
data and uncertainty in the assumptions of the experts.
2.2.2.4 Extent of overlap
Total spatial extent of each pressure exerted by those sectors was described using 1 of 6 possible
categories (Figure 1b):
• Site (S);
• Locally patchy (LP);)
• Locally even (LE);
• Widespread patchy (WP);
• Widespread even (WE); or
• No Overlap in space and/or time (NO).
The regional teams have collected a lot of information in the distribution of the sectors/human activities
and ecological characteristics on sea for the pressure assessment on habitats (see ODEMM
Deliverable 1 [44]). This information was used for this assessment involving the other ecological
characteristics and complemented with regional expertise and additional literature [25, 40, 45-47].
The extent of overlap between a sector/pressure and an ecological characteristic was assessed by the
regional teams. As, at best, only information on the sector and/or the ecological characteristic is
available this was done in two steps: (1) is the footprint of the pressure equal to that of the sector and
(2) what is the overlap between the pressure and the ecological characteristic.
For the first step two categories of pressures are discriminated: ‘Non-dispersive pressure footprints’
which are equal to the size of the sector activity; and ‘Dispersive pressure footprints’ which are larger
than the activity and thus harder to assess. Subsequently it is checked if the assessment was scored
consistently for a particular pressure within a sector. A complicating factor for this was that there are
22
three factors determining the extent of overlap: sector; pressure; and ecological characteristic. Seven
of the 24 pressure types can be seen as non-dispersive comprising: abrasion, barrier to species
movement, death or injury by collision, electromagnetic changes, selective extraction of non-living
resources and selective extraction of species.
Most pressure types can disperse to an unknown extent into parts of the water column or sediment
beyond where the activity actually takes place. Another complication is that the environmental
behaviour and therefore the dispersal of the pressures (e.g. chemical compounds, radionuclides, litter,
silt, temperature) can be affected by several factors like bathymetry, water flow, temperature. In the
validation of extent, scores were compared by analysing the variation across ecological characteristics
and regions. The preliminary assessment revealed that there were many differences in extent scores
between regions, including the majority of sectors and pressure types and all ecological
characteristics. The regional teams reviewed the issues raised in the consistency check. The issues
comprised proposed adjusted extent scores as well as requested information to decide on the
appropriate extent scores. It is not feasible to provide a complete overview of all issues and
discussions. This information is included in a number of excel files and stored by the work package
leader (IMARES).
The most complicated pressure pathways for the assessment of extent were the following pressure:
introduction of synthetic compounds, introduction of non-synthetic compounds, changes in siltation,
input of organic matter, introduction of microbial pathogens, marine litter and underwater noise. The
most complicated activities were aquaculture, (hydro) power station operations, infrastructure
operations, tourism, fishing (benthic and pelagic trawling). This was based on the number of issues
that was raised and discussed in the preliminary assessment, consistency check and final
assessment. In general the knowledge about the distribution of the ecological characteristics is
sufficient.
The issues were discussed in the workshop held in Edinburgh and followed by a re-assessment of the
pathways suspected to be misinterpreted. It appeared that misinterpretation occurred relatively often.
In most of those cases this led to an overestimation of the extent of overlap. These overestimations
were found most often for some pressure pathways, most dispersive pressure types, including
introduction of synthetic compounds, introduction of non-synthetic compounds, changes in siltation. So
it can be concluded that the assessment of extent is complicated and should be discussed thoroughly
with several experts. After elimination of the misinterpreted scores in the reassessment a considerable
variation in extent overlap among the regions remains. This can be attributed to real differences in the
extent of sectors and pressures among the 4 regional seas. Overall MED and NEA appear to have
more high extent scores than BALTIC and BLACK, see Figure 3.
It is obvious that there is a high level of divergence in extent scores both between sectors and
pressures. Variation among ecological characteristics indicates that most overlap occurs for demersal
fish, followed in descending order by pelagic fish, marine mammals, seabirds and deep sea fish (see
Figure 4).
After the consistency check and the discussion among the experts the extent score was given for with
high confidence for most of the assessed pathways.
2.2.2.5 Frequency of occurrence
The frequency of occurrence was classified as either:
• Rare (R);
• Occasional (O);
• Common (C); or
• Persistent (P)
For each impact chain the frequency of occurrence is assessed together with the extent of overlap.
Often the same literature was used for frequency and extent assessments. The consistency check
revealed less misinterpretation of the frequency compared to the extent of overlap. There is
considerable variation in frequency among sectors and among regions. This is mainly caused by
differences in intensity of the sectors/activities, often being higher on the NEA, MEDITERRANEAN
and BALTIC as compared to the BLACK, see Figure 3. In general, demersal and pelagic fish show
higher frequency scores than marine mammals and seabirds, see Figure 4.
2.2.2.6 Summary
The conclusions from the preliminary assessment and the consistency check are summarised in Table
5. Most difficult steps in the assessment were the DoI and extent, which is reflected by the medium
and low consistency of the preliminary results. This received much attention to eliminate
misinterpretation.
23
Table 5. Overview of experience from the pressure assessment process (optional)
PA component
Availability
information
Consistency
preliminary results
Confidence
Resilience
Medium
High
Medium
Persistence
Medium
High
Mainly high
DoI
Medium
Medium
Mainly low
Extent
Medium
Low
Mainly high
Frequency
Medium
High
Mainly high
2.2.3 Final results
This report describes the main results of the pressure assessment. The complete assessment is
available in an excel file [48] and included in Annex VI of this report. The generic sensitivity of an
ecological characteristic to any sector/pressure combination (i.e. likely degree of impact and
resilience) and the likely persistence of the pressure in the environment are also provided as
background tables (Annexes III, IV and V).
A summary of the final results of the Pressure Assessment is presented in Error! Reference source
ot found.. In total, 4860 potential driver-pressure-ecological characteristic combinations were
assessed. The actual number of combinations where overlap between the pressure and ecological
characteristic occurs is 2092 for all regions together. Most combinations (707) occur in the NEA,
followed by the Baltic (559), the Mediterranean (446) and the Black Sea (380). Some sectors do not
operate in all EU regions. The Baltic region has the largest numbers of sectors (26), whereas only 21
sectors are active in the Black Sea (see Figure 3).
The extent of overlap between pressures and ecological characteristics is mostly Site (47%) or Locally
Patchy (39%). There are very few combinations that are Locally Even or Widespread Even (2% and 0
%, respectively). For the NEA and Mediterranean most extent scores are LP, whereas for the Baltic
and Black Sea most extent scores are Site. The Mediterranean has relatively more WP scores
compared to the other regions. There are no other major differences in extent of overlap between EU
regions.
Overall for the 4 regions, the relative occurrence of the four frequency scores (Rare, Occasional,
Common, Permanent) are comparable. However there are big differences between the four regions.
The NEA has the most pathways with higher frequency scores (Permanent plus Common) and the
Baltic Sea and the Black Sea have more pathways with low frequency (Rare plus Occasional).
Half the number of the total number of assessed pathways contains a pressure with a low persistence.
Continuous or medium persistence is found in low, whereas an important part concerns high
persistence. The variation among the 4 regions is small.
The degree of impact is low in the majority (53%) of the pathways. An acute DoI is assessed in a small
part (13%) and chronic DoI takes the intermediate position (34%). There is relatively little variation
among the four regions.
The resilience is low for each ecological characteristic in each region, except for one combination,
namely demersal fish in the Black Sea.
In general there is very little variation among the ecological characteristics in the case of each of the 5
pressure assessment steps (Figure 4).
The distribution of the results of each assessment step for the pressure types are shown in Figure 5. It
is clear that the pressure types differ in their contribution to the number as well as scores of each
assessment step. The same applies to the sectors (also shown in this Figure).
24
Table 6. Pressure Assessment Summary
EU
Region
Pressure
Assessment
Summary
Extent
of
Overlap
Frequency of
Occurrence
Degree
of
Impact
Resilience
(Recovery
Time)
Persistence
of Pressure
Baltic
559 Pressure
Combinations
(actual) of the
1080 (potential)
evaluated
S (58%)
R (44%)
A (11%)
FDS (L)
L (55%)
Sectors – 26;
LP (31%)
O (19%)
C (31%)
FDEM (L)
M (6%)
Pressure Types -
21
LE (0%)
C (6%)
L (58%)
FPEL (L)
H (34%)
WP
(11%)
P (31%)
MAMMS (L)
C (5%)
WE (0%)
BIRDS (L)
Black
380 Pressure
Combinations
(actual) of the
1080 (potential)
evaluated
S (63%)
R (41%)
A (14%)
FDS (L)
L (43%)
Sectors – 21;
LP (25%)
O (37%)
C (38%)
FDEM (M)
M (8%)
Pressure Types -
20
LE (4%)
C (7%)
L (48%)
FPEL (L)
H (41%)
WP (6%)
P (15%)
MAMMS (L)
C (7%)
WE (1%)
BIRDS (L)
Med
446 Pressure
Combinations
(actual) of the
1350 (potential)
evaluated
S (32%)
R (16%)
A (15%)
FDS (L)
L (46%)
Sectors -23;
LP (44%)
O (20%)
C (37%)
FDEM (L)
M (4%)
Pressure Types -
20
LE (0%)
C (40%)
L (49%)
FPEL (L)
H (45%)
WP
(24%)
P (24%)
MAMMS (L)
C (5%)
WE (0%)
BIRDS (L)
NEA
707 Pressure
Combinations
(actual) of the
1350 (potential)
evaluated
S (39%)
R (11%)
A (12%)
FDS (L)
L (52%)
Sectors - 25;
LP (48%)
O (27%)
C (32%)
FDEM (L)
M (7%)
Pressure Types -
21
LE (2%)
C (33%)
L (56%)
FPEL (L)
H (31%)
WP
(10%)
P (29%)
MAMMS (L)
C (10%)
WE (0%)
BIRDS (L)
All
regions
2081 Pressure
Combinations
(actual) of the
4860 (potential)
evaluated
S (47%)
R (26%)
A (13%)
FDS (L)
L (50%)
25
Sectors – 27;
LP (39%)
O (25%)
C (34
%)
FDEM (L to
M)
M (6%)
Pressure Types -
22
LE (2%)
C (23%)
L (53%)
FPEL (L)
H (37%)
WP
(12%)
P (26%)
MAMMS (L)
C (7%)
WE (0%)
BIRDS (L)
EU Regions: Baltic Sea (Baltic); Black Sea (Black); Mediterranean Sea (Med); Northeast Atlantic Ocean (NEA)
Extent of Overlap: S (Site); LP (Locally Patchy); LE (Locally Even); WP (Widespread Patchy); WE (Widespread Even)
Frequency of Occurrence: R (Rare); O (Occasional); C (Common); P (Persistent)
Degree of Impact: A (Acute); C (Chronic); L (Low)
Resilience: L (Low); M (Medium)
Persistence of Pressure: L (Low); M (Medium); H (High); C (Continuous)
26
Figure 3. Pressure Assessment results (extent, frequency, pressure persistence, degree of impact,
resilience), showing the regional differences
27
Figure 4. Pressure Assessment results (extent, frequency, pressure persistence, degree of impact,
resilience), showing the differences per ecosystem component
28
Figure 5. Extent of pressures
29
Figure 6. Frequency of pressures
30
Figure 7. Persistence of pressures
31
Figure 8. DoI of pressures
32
Figure 9. Resilience of ecological characteristics per pressure type
Figure 10. Number of pressure pathways per sector
33
Figure 11. Number of pressure pathways per pressure type
2.3 Discussion and conclusion
When applying the methodology one issue emerged that needs consideration in any future
assessments: the scoring of DoI. For this we recommend that for an acute score of DoI the impact on
the individual level versus impact at the population level should be distinguished. In the present
guidance document a “high proportion of individuals” is described. Depending on life-history
characteristics an impact on a high proportion of individuals may or may not have an impact at the
population level.
Also it should be noted that in the present guidance document the intensity of a pressure is not
explicitly considered but is implicit in DoI score. This may be (partly) addressed through a proper
definition of ‘one event’ per sector and/or sector–pressure combination, indicating at least the time
scale and the spatial scale but possibly also some measure of intensity.
The DoI is based on the complete impact chain. If adjustments in the assessment are needed every
impact chain has to be assessed separately. This has two disadvantages. The process is very time
consuming and there is a higher chance of inconsistency.
Another issue is that scores of the different aspects that determine risk (e.g. extent, DoI) may be inter-
related in the integrated assessment. One example follows from the lack of threshold values (lower
limit) of the level of a pressure that causes an impact (reflected in the DoI) but also affects the scoring
of the extent of overlap between the pressure and the ecological characteristic. An example of this are
effects of pollution through chemical substances. The impact on a species depends on the
concentration of the chemical substance and ideally the dose–response curve of the substance is
known. Subsequently the lowest effect concentration (LOEC) or highest no effect concentration
(NOEC) can be determined. These values can serve as threshold values for the exposure and
therefore the extent of overlap. The concentrations below the LOEC or NOEC should be excluded in
the determination of the extent of overlap. This problem also applies to other pressures like
underwater noise or siltation. It should be noted that the sensitivity differs among ecological
characteristics and therefore the LOEC or NOEC and thus extent may also differ. If available such
thresholds should be provided and considered in relation to the definition of “event”. One possible
approach is to relate the intensity of the pressure to the sensitivity of an ecological characteristic by
34
application of the species sensitivity distribution [49]. A species sensitivity distribution (SSD) is a
frequency distribution of No Effect Concentrations (NOEC) values for species within an ecosystem.
Smit et al. (2008) and De Vries et al. (2008) [50, 51] determined the SSD for a number of pressure
types which are also relevant for ODEMM, like siltation, sediment coverage (abrasion), and
temperature. The advantage is that intensity can be included improving the quality of the impact
estimation for the regional sea. The disadvantage is that much additional information is required that
may not always be sufficiently available.
35
3 Indicators
Indicators are required within ODEMM WP4 to describe the status of the marine ecosystem
components but also the drivers and pressures that are part of the impact chains (see chapter 2).
These indicators also determine the requirements of any monitoring programme that may become part
of the ODEMM management strategies.
To that end we compiled a database of potential regional indicators for the MSFD Descriptors, criteria
and indicators as specified in MSFD [1]. This was based on the completed or often still on-going work
in the member states covered by experts within the ODEMM project. Where possible we tried to link
these indicators to the drivers/pressures that are part of the impact chains. Based on these links the
indicators database is set up such that it can be merged with the database of impact chains developed
as part of the IA.
3.1 Database
Within ODEMM task 4.2 a database of potential indicators was created. The database is based on the
eleven MSFD descriptors and corresponding attributes and indicators as phrased in the Commission
Decision (Annex 1) [52]. Often these indicators are not sufficiently developed to make them
operational. For example, the indicator “distributional range” does not give any information on how
distributional range can be determined and to which species it should apply. Using regional experts,
the aim of this task was to obtain a database consisting of potential indicators for the different MSFD
descriptors/attributes that can be applied in the different regions including some indication of their
operational status
The regional experts have submitted a dataset for their region consisting of potential indicators for the
MSFD indicators as phrased in the Commission Decision. For each potential indicator it is specified as
clearly as possible what is measured and how it can be calculated, which ecosystem component(s) (
36
Table 3) it applies to, whether it applies to national, regional or European level, and its operational
status (Table 7). The latter provides insight on how advanced an indicator is. The information collected
from the different partners has been collated into one database of potential indicators (see Annex 8).
Table 7. Overview of the different options and corresponding definition that could be selected for the
operational status of the potential indicators (Based on HELCOM).
Operational status
Definition
0
Clear gap, no suggested indicator
1
Indicator needs to be developed, operational* by 2018
2
No data, operational* by 2014 when MSFD monitoring starts
3
Data available now (2012) but no reference level**
4
Operational * now (2012)
* Operational: indicator + reference level**
** Reference level: science-based information that allows the setting of a target: This may be based on
values reflecting (i) pristine condition, (ii) conditions under sustainable exploitation, (iii) start of time
series, (iv) some other period
The next step was to ascertain whether all pathways defined in task 4.1 are also covered by the
database of potential indicators. Therefore, it was assessed whether the key pressures used in the
pressure assessment could be linked to the MSFD descriptors that have been used to set up the
indicator database. Table 8 shows that all key pressures can be linked to a MSFD descriptor. In other
words, the indicator database covers all key pressures that were identified in task 4.1.
Table 8. Overview of key pressures from the pressure assessment (task 4.1) and their direct linkage
with MSFD descriptors
Key pressure (as defined in task 4.1)
Direct linkage MSFD descriptor
Abrasion
6 – Seafloor integrity
Barrier to species movement
1 – Biological diversity
Change in wave exposure
7 – Hydrographic conditions
Changes in siltation
7 – Hydrographic conditions
Death or injury by collision
3 – Commercial fish and shellfish
Electromagnetic changes
11 – Introduction of energy
Emergence regime change
7 – Hydrographic conditions
Input organic matter
5 – Eutrophication
Introduction of microbial pathogens
2 – Non indigenous species
Introduction of NIS
2 – Non indigenous species
Introduction of non-synthetic compounds
5 – Eutrophication
Introduction of radionuclides
8 – Contaminants
Introduction of synthetic compounds
8 – Contaminants
Marine litter
10 – Marine litter
Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment
5 – Eutrophication
pH changes
7 – Hydrographic conditions
Salinity regime changes
7 – Hydrographic conditions
Selective extraction of non-living material
6 – Seafloor integrity
Selective extraction of species
3 – Commercial fish and shellfish
Smothering
6 – Seafloor integrity
Substrate loss
6 – Seafloor integrity
Thermal regime changes
7 – Hydrographic conditions
Underwater noise
11 – Introduction energy
Water flow rate changes
7 – Hydrographic conditions
The database shows that some potential indicators and/or their operational status are quite similar
across regions, while others are not. For example, the proposed potential indicators for “population
demographic characteristics” for the Baltic Sea (i.e. “blubber thickness of marine mammals” and
“pregnancy rate of marine mammals”) differ from the proposed potential indicators for the North Sea
(i.e. “grey seal pup production” and “harbour seal pup production”) (Table 9). For “size at first sexual
maturation”, on the other hand, the different regions propose similar potential indicators (i.e.
“probabilistic maturation reaction norm”) (Table 9) probably because this indicator is part of the Data
Collection Framework (DCF). Furthermore, the database shows that the operational status of potential
indicators may differ between regions. For example, the operational status of the potential indicator for
“water transparency related to increase suspended algae, where relevant” for the Baltic Sea is higher
than for other regions (Table 9). In other words, for this particular indicator the Baltic Sea is most
advanced. Differences in potential indicators and/or their operational status between regions may be
caused by (i) actual regional differences (e.g. choice of “keystone” species, availability of monitoring
37
programmes), (ii) the expertise of the partners that filled in the database (e.g. indicator was not
considered in some regions, not aware of methodological progress) or (iii) mistakes (e.g. not
appropriate for descriptor/criteria).
3.2 Extractions from the database
The database can be applied in order to extract selections of appropriate indicators from different
perspectives:
1. Description of the status of operational objectives: which indicators are most appropriate to
describe the status and progress towards achievement in relation to specific operational objectives
(i.e. based on the MSFD descriptors and criteria)
2. As part of management strategies aimed toward achievement of operational objectives. This also
involves a discussion of the consequences in terms of monitoring depending on the choice of
management strategies. Which indicators need to be measured (as a minimum requirement) as
part of the potential alternative management strategies toward achievement of a specific objective.
These are the indicators relevant for the case studies (i.e. based on the descriptors foodweb and
seafloor integrity) which will be applied elsewhere in WP4 as well as other ODEMM WP’s.
3.2.1 Status of operational objectives
For each MSFD descriptor and its criteria (see Annex 1) we identified the indicators most appropriate
in each of the MSFD regions. As this database is very extensive only an example of the potential
indicators and their corresponding operational status is given in Table 9 for three criteria of
respectively Descriptor 1 (1.3.1), Descriptor 3 (3.3.4) and Descriptor 5 (5.2.2).
38
Table 9. Some examples of potential indicators and corresponding operational status. For a full overview of the database see Annex 9
1.3.1 Population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality)
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Marine mammals & Reptiles
Baltic Sea
Blubber thickness of marine mammals
3
Baltic Sea
Pregnancy rate of marine mammals
3
Black Sea
Seal populations
0
Mediterranean
Seal populations
0
Mediterranean
Turtles, dolphins
0
North Sea
Annual calf production of Scottish east coast and Cardigan Bay area bottlenose dolphin populations
2
North Sea
EcoQO seal populations
4
North Sea
Grey seal pup production
4
North Sea
Harbour seal pup production
2
3.3.4 Size at first sexual maturation, which may reflect the extent of undesirable genetic effects of exploitation
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Fish
Baltic
Probabilistic maturation reaction norm (i.e. the probability of maturing)
3
Black Sea
Probabilistic maturation reaction norm (i.e. the probability of maturing)
0
Mediterranean
Probabilistic maturation reaction norm (i.e. the probability of maturing)
0
Mediterranean
N/A
0
North Sea
Probabilistic maturation reaction norm (i.e. the probability of maturing)
3
5.2.2 Water transparency related to increase in suspended algae, where relevant
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Plankton
Baltic Sea
The summer-time water clarity measured as Secchi depth
4
Black Sea
Coefficient of light attenuation
0 or 3
Black Sea
Frequency of Noctiluca scintillans blooms
1 or 3
Black Sea
Frequency of summer blooms of phytoplankton
1 or 3
Mediterranean
N/A
0
North Sea
N/A
39
3.2.2 Case studies
Table 10 shows the indicators most relevant for the two case studies based on Descriptor 4 Foodweb
and Descriptor 6 Seafloor integrity. Even though each Descriptor is only applied in some regions:
Foodweb in the NEA, Baltic and Black Sea and Seafloor integrity in the NEA and Mediterranean we
present the indicators proposed in all regions as an indicator proposed in one region may sometimes
also be appropriate for another region. What the overview shows is that there are few indicators
operational at present.
40
Table 10. Extraction of the potential indicators and corresponding operational status proposed for the different regions for MSFD descriptor “Food web”
4.1.1 Performance key predator species using their production per unit biomass (productivity)
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Fish
Baltic
N/A
0/1
Black Sea
N/A
0
Mediterranean
Abundance of key prey species
1
Mediterranean
Abundance for few species
1
North Sea
Abundance of sharks and rays, fish species with long negative trends and migrational species
1
Marine mammals & Reptiles
Baltic
Population growth rate
3
Black Sea
Seal populations
0
Mediterranean
Seal populations
0
Mediterranean
N/A
0
North Sea
EcoQO seal populations
4
North Sea
Annual calf production of Scottish east coast and Cardigan Bay area bottlenose dolphin populations
2
North Sea
Harbour seal pup production
2
North Sea
Grey seal pup production
4
Seabirds
Baltic
Productivity
3
Black Sea
Mediterranean
North Sea
Annual breeding success of kittiwakes (no. offspring per pair) at sampled colonies
2
4.2.1 Large fish (by weight)
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Fish
Baltic
Fish community trophic index
3
Baltic
Proportion of piscivorous fish, non-piscivorous fish and cyprinids
3
Baltic
Proportions of large fish
3
Black Sea
N/A
2
Black Sea
Proportion of large fish in the community
1
Mediterranean
EcoQO proportion large fish
1
Mediterranean
Proportions for a few species
1
North Sea
EcoQO proportion large fish
4
North Sea
Large fish indicator
2
41
Table 10. Continued
4.3.1 Abundance of functionally important selected groups/species
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Bottom fauna & flora
Baltic Sea
Black Sea
Morfofunctional index (index or relative macrophyte surface)
1
Mediterranean
North Sea
Fish
Baltic Sea
Black Sea
Mediterranean
Marine trophic index
1
Mediterranean
N/A
1
North Sea
Dietary functional group biomass
1
Habitat
Baltic Sea
Black Sea
Mediterranean
North Sea
Change of plankton functional types (life form) index
2
Marine mammals & Reptiles
Baltic Sea
Black Sea
Mediterranean
By-catch harbour porpoise
0
Mediterranean
Seal populations
0
North Sea
Abundance of harbour seals
4
North Sea
Abundance of three inshore bottle nose dolphin populations
2
North Sea
Abundance of harbour porpoises, white beaked dolphin, short beaked common dolphin, minke
whale, bottle nose dolphin, long finned pilot whale
1
North Sea
Relatively use of haulouts by grey and harbour seals
1
Plankton
Baltic Sea
Biomass of copepods, microphagous mesozooplankton
3
Black Sea
Biomass of Menemiopsis leidyi (threshold defined)
4
Black Sea
Biomass feeder zooplankton
1
Mediterranean
North Sea
Seabirds
Baltic
Black Sea
Mediterranean
North Sea
Species-specific trends in relative breeding annual abundance of breeding birds expressed as a
percentage baseline
2
North Sea
Species-specific trends in relative non-breeding annual abundance of breeding birds expressed as a
percentage baseline
1
42
Table 11. Extraction of the potential indicators and corresponding operational status proposed for the different regions for MSFD descriptor “Seafloor integrity”
6.1.1 Type, abundance, biomass and areal extent of relevant biogenic substrate
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Habitat
Baltic
Blue mussel cover
3
Black Sea
Abundance and extent
0
Mediterranean
Abundance and extent
1
North Sea
Area of sub tidal biogenic structures
2
North Sea
Density of biogenic reef forming species
2
North Sea
Surface area of seabed not impacted by human activity
1
6.1.2 Extent of the seabed significantly affected by human activities for the different substrate types
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Habitat
Baltic
Near bottom oxygen conditions
3
Black Sea
Surface area of seabed not impacted by human activity last year
0
Mediterranean
Surface area of seabed not impacted by human activity last year
1
North Sea
Surface area of seabed not impacted by human activity last year
1
North Sea
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the
surface of the seabed' (Physical damage)
2
North Sea
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the
surface of the seabed' (Physical pressure)
2
North Sea
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and
penetration' (Physical damage)
2
North Sea
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and
penetration' (Physical pressure)
2
North Sea
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features' (Physical
damage)
2
North Sea
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features' (Physical
pressure)
2
6.2.1 Presence of particularly sensitive and/or tolerant species
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Bottom fauna & flora
Baltic
Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species
3
Black Sea
Extent of vulnerable macrophyte species
1
Mediterranean
Vulnerable benthos species
1
North Sea
Abundance/biomass long-living & for bottom disturbance sensitive species and biogenic structures
1
43
Table 11. Continued
6.2.2 Multi-metric indexes assessing benthic community condition and functionality, such as species diversity and richness, proportion of opportunistic to sensitive species
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Bottom fauna & flora
Baltic
Average regional species richness
3
Baltic
Multimetric macrozoobenthos indicators (BQI, MarBIT, DIK, BBI, ZKI, B)
3
Baltic
Ratio perennial and annual macrophytes
3
Black Sea
AMBI and M-AMBI index
1 (4 for WFD)
Black Sea
BEQI
0
Black Sea
Ecological Index (EI) for macrophyes
1 (4 for WFD)
Black Sea
Shannon index for zoobenthos
1 or 3
Mediterranean
Multidimensional biodiversity indices taking both incorporating species richness and evenness, e.g.
Hill’s indices
1
North Sea
Diversity/richness long-living and for bottom disturbance sensitive species and biogenic structures
1
North Sea
Condition long-living and for bottom disturbance sensitive species and biogenic structures
1
Habitat
Baltic
Black Sea
Mediterranean
North Sea
Change in plankton index: ratio between holoplankton & meroplankton
2
6.2.3 Proportion of biomass or number of individuals in the macrobenthos above some specified length/size
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Bottom fauna & flora
Baltic
N/A
0/1
Black Sea
Length-frequency distribution bivalves
0
Mediterranean
Length-frequency distribution bivalves
0
Mediterranean
Length-frequency distribution decapod crustaceans & fish
0
North Sea
Abundance/biomass long-living & for bottom disturbance sensitive species and biogenic structures
1
6.2.4 Parameters describing the characteristics (shape, slope and intercept) of the size spectrum of the benthic community
Ecosystem component
Region
Potential indicator
Operational status
Bottom fauna & flora
Baltic
Size-distribution of long-lived macrozoobenthic species
3
Black Sea
Mediterranean
N/A
0
North Sea
N/A
0
44
3.3 Indicator requirements and selection
At present only few indicators are operational (see Table 12 and Figure 12) making the choice of
which indicators to select a fairly straightforward exercise and it needs to be acknowledged that for
several criteria of descriptors no indicators are available.
If reference levels or at least reference directions become available the scientific basis is established
to set target levels and several more descriptors/criteria can be included in the assessment of
ecosystem status as well as the pressures acting on it in relation to the operational objectives.
For those indicators for which no data are available new monitoring programmes need to be
developed and implemented if it is desired to assess the (progress towards) achievement of the
objectives. An overview of the type of information collected in various existing monitoring programmes
is given in the report of WGECO [53]. Such an overview together with the indicators that require new
monitoring programmes should be the basis to develop monitoring programmes that deliver the
required information most efficient. As more indicators become operational (in some regions several
are already proposed for the same criterion) the process of indicator selection becomes important.
Possible criteria for indicator selection and an approach for their application are presented in chapter
3.3.3.
Table 12. Overview of number of proposed specific indicators with operational status 3 and 4 per
region
Ecosystem components
Status 3
Status 4
Baltic Sea
56
8
Black Sea
40 (partly status 3: 5)
25 (partly status 4: 11)
Mediterranean Sea
7 (partly status 3: 5)
5 (partly status 4: 3)
North East Atlantic
7
32 (partly status 4: 4)
Figure 12. Operational status of indicators as percentages over the total amount of indicators per
regional area. If more than one score for operational status was given we used the most conservative
(i.e. 2-3 becomes 2)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
baltic
black sea
med
north sea
4
3
2
1
0
45
3.3.1 Reference levels
For indicators to support management decision making, the relationship between the current value
and/or trend of the indicator and the value and/or trend of the indicator associated with meeting the
operational objective needs to be known. The value and/or trend associated with meeting the
operational objective can be a limit or target reference point, trajectory or direction. When indicators
are used to guide management of target fish stocks, there is a tradition of setting reference points.
However, in other fields, a reference point may not be specified and a required trajectory or direction
guides decision making. The difference between the value of, or trend in, an indicator and a reference
point, trajectory or direction is a measure of the performance of management (e.g. Sainsbury et al.
(2002) [54]). Achievement of the reference points, trajectories or directions for state will, by definition,
mean that operational objectives are met.
3.3.2 Selection criteria
Ultimately, the database of potential indicators will help to determine a number of selection criteria to
evaluate which indicators are most appropriate to assess the progress and track changes within the
ecosystem. Kershner et al. (2011) [55] recommend a set of 19 criteria that can be used to evaluate the
suitability of ecosystem indicators (Table 13). All indicators can be individually scored according to the
scientific support that is available into three categories (i.e. criteria score):
1 = Indicators with peer-reviewed publications providing consistent and strong findings for its support
0.5 = Indicators with peer-reviewed documents or expert opinion providing limited support
0 = Indicators with no peer-reviewed evidence, evidence against, or conflicting support
Some criteria that have been defined by Kershner et al. (2011) [55] may be more important than
others. Therefore, the criteria have been weighted according to their relative importance into five
different categories (i.e. 1=essential; 0.75=important; 0.5=moderate; 0.25=slightly moderate;
0=negligible). As such a weighting exercise will depend on who will be using the indicators (e.g. public
vs. scientists), two weighting methods have been developed. The first method highlights scientific
concerns, while the second method highlights the public considerations (Table 14).
Each indicator can be scored by multiplying the criteria score with their corresponding criteria weights
(i.e. weighting score scientific concerns or weighting score public considerations) and summing across
all criteria. The scores of all indicators may guide the selection of a set of indicators that are useful and
complementary to each other.
46
Table 13. Nineteen criteria that can be used to evaluate marine species and food web indicators
grouped into categories; primary considerations, data consideration, other considerations and post-
hoc analysis (Based on Table 3 from Kershner et al. (2011) [55])
Primary Considerations
1) Theoretically-sound (TS) – Scientific, peer-reviewed findings should demonstrate that indicators act
as reliable surrogates for ecosystem key attribute(s).
2) Relevant to management concerns (RM) – Indicators should provide information related to
specific management goals and strategies.
3) Responds predictable and is sufficiently sensitive to changes in a specific ecosystem key
attribute(s) (REA) – indicators should respond unambiguously to variation in the ecosystem key
attribute(s) they are intended to measure, in a theoretically- or empirically-expected direction.
4) Responds predictable and is sufficiently sensitive to changes in management action(s) or
pressure(s) (RMAP) – Management actions or other human-induced pressures should cause detectable
changes in the indicators, in a theoretically- or empirically-expected direction, and it should be possible
to distinguish the effects of other factors on the response.
5) Linkable to scientifically-defined reference points and progress targets (LT) – It should be
possible to link indicator values to quantitative or qualitative reference points and target reference
points, which imply positive progress toward ecosystem goals.
Data Considerations
6) Concrete (C) – Indicators should be directly measurable.
7) Historical data or information available (HD) – Indicators should be supported by existing data to
facilitate current status evaluation (relative to historic levels) and interpretation of future trends.
8) Operationally simple (OS) – The methods for sampling, measuring, processing, and analyzing the
indicator data should be technically feasible.
9) Numerical (N) – Quantitative measurements are preferred over qualitative, categorical
measurements, which in turn are preferred over expert opinions and professional judgements.
10) Broad spatial coverage (BSC) – Ideally, data for each indicator should be available throughout its
range.
11) Continuous time series (CTS) – Indicators should have been sampled on multiple occasions,
preferably without substantial time-gaps between sampling.
12) Spatial and temporal variation understood (STV) – Diel, seasonal, annual, and decadal
variability in the indicators should ideally be understood, as should spatial heterogeneity or patchiness in
indicator values.
13) High signal-to-noise ratio (HSN) – It should be possible to estimate measurements and process
uncertainty associated with each indicator, and to ensure that variability in indicator values does not
prevent detection of significant changes.
Other Considerations
14) Understood by the public and policy makers (UP) – Indicators should be simple to interpret,
easy to communicate, and public understanding should be consistent with technical definitions.
15) History of public documenting (HR) – Indicators already should signal changes in ecosystem
attributes before they occur, and ideally with sufficient lead-time to allow for a management response.
16) Cost-effective (CE) – Sampling, measuring, processing, and analyzing the indicator data should
make effective use of limited financial resources.
17) Anticipatory or leading indicator (A) – A subset of indicators should signal changes in ecosystem
attributes before they occur, and ideally with sufficient lead-time to allow for a management response
18) Regionally/nationally/internationally compatible (CM) – indicators should be comparable to
those used in other geographic locations, in order to contextualize ecosystem status and changes in
status.
Post-hoc Analysis
19) Complements existing indicators – This criterion is applicable in the selection of a suite of
indicators, performed after the evaluation of individual indicators in a post-hoc analysis. Sets of
indicators should be selected to avoid redundancy, increase the complementary of the information
provided, and to ensure coverage of key attributes.
47
Table 14. Weighting of criteria according to their relative importance highlighting scientific concerns
and highlighting public considerations (1=essential; 0.75=important; 0.5=moderate; 0.25=slightly
moderate; 0=negligible) (Based on Table 4 from Kershner et al. (2011) [55])
Criteria
Weighting score
(from Table x.8)
Scientific
Public
TS
1
0.5
RM
0.75
1
REA
1
0.5
RMAP
1
0.5
LT
0.75
0.75
C
1
0.75
HD
0.5
1
OS
0.5
1
N
1
1
BSC
0.5
0.5
CTS
0.5
1
STV
0.5
0
HSN
0.5
0
UP
0
1
HR
0
0.5
CE
0
0.5
A
0.5
0
CM
0
0.25
48
4 Management measures
In order to fulfil the second WP4 objective, i.e. “Develop a range of realistically feasible management
strategies or options for these activities, using different types of measures and tools, to achieve
regional Operational Objectives” this section presents an inventory of the existing and possible
measures that can be used to achieve the goals of the MSFD. These measures should satisfy the list
presented in Annex VI of the MSFD (see box below) and should link to the “human activities most
likely to compromise the operational objectives” (First WP4 Objective, Chapter 2) as well as the
pressures through which they impact on the ecosystem characteristics (based on Annex III of the
MSFD, see Chapter 1.1). These measures were then collated in a database and used to develop a
framework allowing the selection of the most appropriate management measures and their evaluation
in a standardized way across regions. To that end we characterized the specific measures in the
database using more generic descriptions of the measures.
Firstly all measures were classified into a hierarchical framework which is essentially a combination of
the Annex VI types of measures (see box) and another, slightly different but comparable, typology
based on ARCADIS (2012) [56] and that distinguishes between physical measures which may be
carried out by any stakeholder and three types of instruments usually created at the governmental
level (slightly modified from original):
Physical measures
Regulatory instruments
Economic instruments
Social instruments
This framework consists of two distinct aspects of a measure and distinguishes between the Annex VI
measures (1)-(8):
a) The primary aim of the measures which influences either the human activity (1) or the ecosystem
component and the degree to which it is perturbed (2).
b) The mechanism through which the aim is achieved. This may involve any of the other types of
Annex VI measures (3)-(8) which are merged with the ARCADIS (2012) [56] typology into a
hierarchy of potential tools that can be used to achieve the step 1 aim.
for which more detail is provided below.
Aim
For the characterisation of the aim of each measure we distinguished the measures based on (1) the
part of the impact chain (Driver-Pressure-State) the measure was supposed to act upon and (2)
whether the focus was on input control or output control. For the former we distinguish between a
ANNEX VI
Programmes of measures
(referred to in Articles 13(1) and 24)
(1) Input controls: management measures that influence the amount of a human activity that is permitted.
(2) Output controls: management measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an ecosystem
component that is permitted.
(3) Spatial and temporal distribution controls: management measures that influence where and when an
activity is allowed to occur.
(4) Management coordination measures: tools to ensure that management is coordinated.
(5) Measures to improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution.
(6) Economic incentives: management measures which make it in the economic interest of those using the
marine ecosystems to act in ways which help to achieve the good environmental status objective.
(7) Mitigation and remediation tools: management tools which guide human activities to restore damaged
components of marine ecosystems.
(8) Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness.
49
focus on the element (i.e. driver, pressure or state) or a combination of two consecutive elements (e.g.
Reduce impact driver x-pressure y). In case of input control the measure acts specifically on the input
of that specific element of the impact chain (e.g. Restrictions on driver x) while output control mitigates
the effects of that specific element down the chain, either generic (e.g. Reduce impact driver x) or
through a specific link (e.g. Reduce impact driver x-pressure y). The intention was to limit the number
of different categories and use standard terms that reflect both the positioning of the measure along
the impact chain and the type of control. These standard terms are introduced below moving from a
focus on the Driver towards a focus on the State.
Restrictions on driver x: These measures put a restriction on the input of the driver without any
consideration of how this driver affects the system, e.g. ”Restrictions on fishing”
Reduce impact driver x: These measures put a restriction on the output of the driver specifically
aimed at reducing the impact it has on the system but involving more than one single pressure,
e.g. ”Reduce impact fishing-seafloor”
Reduce impact driver x-pressure y: These measures put a restriction on the driver specifically
aimed at reducing the impact it has on the system through one single pressure, e.g. ”Reduce
impact shipping-NIS”
Reduce pressure y: These measures aim at reducing the input of a pressure into the system.
This may be caused by several drivers, and may affect several characteristics of state, e.g.
”Reduce noise”
Reduce effects pressure y: These measures aim at reducing the effects of a pressure that is
already in the system, e.g. ”Reduce effects pollution”
Conservation state characteristic c: The measures are specifically aimed at the conservation of
a specific characteristic of state (e.g. ”Conservation habitat”) or without the specification the
ecosystem in general (i.e. ”Conservation”) . It may involve protection and/or restoration.
Mechanism
The mechanism is characterized by a hierarchy based on the merger of typologies from various
sources.
Physical measures
o Remediation
Remediation: cleaning
o Research
o Traceability/Labelling
o Technical
o Infrastructure
o Management coordination
Management coordination: marine spatial planning
Management coordination: monitoring
Management coordination: protocol
Regulatory instruments
o Spatial and temporal distribution controls
Spatial and temporal distribution controls: zoning
o Mitigation: legislation/enforcement
o Mitigation: licences/permits
o Management coordination
Management coordination: ecosystem approach
Management coordination: marine spatial planning
Management coordination: monitoring
Management coordination: protocol
Management coordination: rights-based Management
Economic instruments
o Economic: penalties/enforcement
o Economic: taxes or subsidies
Social instruments
o Social: stakeholder involvement
o Social: education and raising public awareness
o Social: community action
50
Some of which are elaborated below:
Physical measures consist of technical, technological or research oriented measures which have a
direct impact on the environment. These are often implemented as nearly all impacts can be mitigated
by applying best available technologies (BAT). OSPAR often uses BAT as a baseline for reducing
harmful contaminants. Much can be expected from new fishing techniques, new techniques to reduce
underwater noise or the ecological landscaping of mining burrows. The assessment of costs and
effects of physical measures tend to be more straightforward compared to the evaluation of policy
instruments, because there is a more direct link between the action and the result (however still
related to a specific context). It should be clear that there is a link with policy instruments. If there is an
obligation to imply a certain technical measure, it should be regarded as a regulatory instrument. The
implementation of certain technical measures can be encouraged by subsidies, which in turn can be
supported by resources generated by taxes/levies. If an information campaign promotes the
application of the technical measure, it should be regarded as a social instrument. It is sometimes
difficult to categorize a measure as a technical measure or as a regulatory measure, e.g. in situations
where there is no information if the measure is already imposed by authorities or whether private
stakeholders can take it voluntarily. Examples of such measures are:
Detailed location planning (cables, pipelines, drilling)
Delineation of extraction zones
Seabed restoration or aftercare measures
Removal of man-made constructions
Monitoring activities
For the inventory, measures regarding planning or location instruments (first two bullets from the
above listed measures) are considered as regulatory instruments as these are often embedded in
environmental permitting procedures, initiated by authorities. The latter three have been classified as
technical or research oriented measures for the purposes of this inventory. These measures might be
executed by either the polluter or (funded) by the authorities e.g. monitoring activities (post-
operational, seismic surveys, monitoring activities to enhance knowledge – research - on impacts and
required future measures, …) and are as such not necessarily regulatory instruments. It is of note that
authorities often impose these measures and make them mandatory which then turns them into
regulatory instruments. Therefore some of the “Management coordination” measures are considered
both under the Physical measures and the Regulatory measures.
Research can be seen as a separate type of measure. The more we know the more cost-effective
measures can be designed and implemented.
Regulatory instruments including traditional command-and-control (CAC) instruments, have a direct
influence on the behaviour of actors by imposing rules that limit or prescribe the actions of the target
group. Examples of such instruments are regulation (including spatial and temporal controls, zoning),
norms and standards, bans. Spatial controls and/or zoning to less vulnerable areas can be very
effective to mitigate location-specific pressures, such as the physical and biological disturbance of the
sea bottom. Zoning has however limited possibilities for improving water quality, decreasing marine
litter or improving most fish populations.
Often larger interventions are subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and to licensing. There
is still scope to apply this instrument to more interventions and to increase monitoring (see
Management coordination: monitoring). An example is sand mining. The requirement of an EIA is
coupled to the volume and surface area for sand mining but not to its potential ecological effect, which
depends mainly on location-specific conditions. So smaller but potentially harmful sand mining
activities go without adequate assessments of the effects.
These instruments have a legal basis and enforcement and control is a key element in the success of
the instrument.
Economic or market-based instruments are defined by the OECD as tools that ‘affect estimates of
the costs and benefits of alternative actions open to economic agents'. The common underlying
rationale is to modify the behaviour and decisions of actors and individuals to enhance the protection
of the environment, to secure an optimal level of pollution or to achieve optimum rates of resource use
and depletion, e.g. inspired by the polluter-pays principle. Or to put it more simply, if a tool affects the
cost or price in the market, it is a market-based / economic instrument. This definition focuses on the
economic signals and incentives. If it changes the cost or price of a good (e.g. plastic bags), service
51
(e.g. waste collection), activity (e.g. waste dumping), input (e.g. pollution), or output (e.g. materials)
then it is a market-based instrument. Economic instruments have both an incentive-effect and a
revenue-raising effect, with the relative importance depending on the ability of the market to respond
to the “price signal”. Examples of such instruments are fee-based systems, subsidies, liability and
compensation regimes and trading systems. Subsidies are often easy to implement as the (political)
acceptance is high. Subsidies can involve significant use of government finance and their success
relies on the behaviour of the target group. The other risk of subsidies is that they may turn out to be
environmentally harmful – e.g. if subsidies for fishing gear lead to increased fishing effort and depleted
stocks this would be an example of an environmentally harmful subsidy in the marine case.
Social instruments, like economic instruments influence or provoke the desired behaviour indirectly.
A key feature of this type of instruments is the voluntary aspect of actions. Polluters or stakeholders
are stimulated to take actions based upon own motivation, often through information (education,
training) or awareness raising campaigns. Good or bad image building and associated perception from
society (e.g. through communication or certification) can provide important incentives to adapt
behaviour.
4.1 Database
The framework described in the previous chapter was then applied to characterize the existing and
possible specific measures that emerged from the inventory based on various literature sources
reviewed in ARCADIS (2012) and DHV (2011) [56, 57] and expert consultations.
In addition each of these specific measures was linked to one or more elements of the impact chain
(i.e. Driver, Pressure and State). Only those linkages were included in the database where that
specific element (or combination of elements) is targeted by the measure. This may involve more than
one manifestations of the same element (e.g. several drivers like fisheries and shipping) or a
combination of different elements, e.g. pressure (e.g. marine litter) in combination with a driver (e.g.
shipping).
The database is constructed out of two parts; one containing an inventory of specific measures, each
characterized by an aim and a mechanism (see Annex 9). In order to give some idea of the availability
of measures table 15 gives the number of measures per combination of aim and mechanism. The
second part of the database contains the aim linked to one or more elements of the impact chain, i.e.
Driver, Pressure and State (see Annex 10).
52
Table 15: Number of measures per combination of aim and mechanism as they occur in Annex 9.
Aim
Mechanism
economic: penalties/enforcement
economic: taxes or subsidies
infrastructure
management coordination
management coordination: marine spatial planning
management coordination: monitoring
management coordination: protocol
management coordination: rights based management
management coordination:monitoring
mitigation: legislation/enforcement
mitigation: licenses/permits
physical measures
regulatory instruments
remediation
remediation: cleaning
remediation:cleaning
restoration/compensation
social instruments
social: certification
social: community action
social: education and raising public awareness
Social: stakeholder involvement
social:education and raising public awareness
social:stakeholder involvement
spatial and temporal distribution controls:zoning
technical
traceability/labelling
Grand Total
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic:
hydrographical conditions
2
2
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: fish
1
1
1
3
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: habitat
3
3
conservation ecosystem
characteristic: habitat
restoration
1
1
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: marine
mammals
1
1
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: water quality
1
1
Nature conservation
1
1
2
reduce pollution
1
1
2
reduce atmospheric emission
2
1
3
reduce effects litter
4
4
Reduce effects NIS
1
1
1
1
4
reduce effects pollution
1
1
6
8
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging
1
1
2
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging: changes in
siltation
1
1
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging: sea floor
integrity
2
2
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging: seafloor impact
1
1
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging:disturbance
1
1
reduce impact agriculture
1
1
reduce impact
agriculture:eutrophication
1
1
4
6
reduce impact
agriculture:pollution
1
1
Reduce impact aquaculture
1
1
1
3
6
reduce impact
aquaculture:introduction NIS
1
1
Reduce impact fishing
2
3
1
2
1
9
reduce impact fishing
1
1
reduce impact fishing:
bycatch
1
2
3
reduce impact fishing:
seafloor impact
1
2
3
reduce impact fishing:
2
2
53
selective fishing
reduce impact fishing:
selective fishing
1
1
reduce impact fishing:litter
1
1
1
1
1
5
reduce impact human
activities
2
1
4
1
8
reduce impact land based
industry:eutrophication
2
2
reduce impact land based
industry:litter
2
1
1
1
5
reduce impact non-renewable
energy (oil & gas operations):
disturbance
1
1
reduce impact non-renewable
energy (oil & gas operations):
pollution
2
2
reduce impact renewable
energy ( operations):collision
hazard
1
1
reduce impact renewable
energy (construction): noise
1
3
4
reduce impact renewable
energy (operations)
1
1
reduce impact renewable
energy (operations): noise
1
1
reduce impact renewable
energy (operations): thermal
pollution
1
1
Reduce impact shipping
1
1
2
4
reduce impact shipping:
introduction NIS
1
1
2
1
1
6
Reduce impact
shipping:emission
1
1
reduce impact shipping:litter
1
2
3
reduce impact shipping:noise
3
3
reduce impact
shipping:pollution
1
1
1
3
Reduce impact tourism/
recreation
1
1
reduce impact
tourism/recreation: litter
1
1
reduce impact waste water
treatment
2
1
1
1
5
reduce impact waste water
treatment: eutrophication
1
1
reduce impact waste water
treatment:pollution
1
1
reduce introduction NIS
2
1
3
reduce litter
5
1
1
1
8
Reduce noise
1
1
2
4
reduce pollution
3
1
1
5
1
1
12
restriction on non-renewable
Energy (oil & gas
construction)
1
1
restriction on
telecommunications
(construction)
1
1
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
1
1
5
7
restrictions on construction
1
1
Restrictions on fishing
3
2
4
1
10
restrictions on human
activities
3
4
7
restrictions on
tourism/recreation
1
1
1
1
2
Grand Total
3
24
8
3
2
5
4
5
1
23
4
1
2
2
1
7
3
1
4
5
1
2
3
1
27
48
2
192
54
4.2 Applications using the database
In this section we present only those applications that involve the database described in Chapter 4.
Applications that involve combinations of this database with other databases (i.e. described in
Chapters 2 and 3) are presented in the Synthesis (Chapter 5).
Table 156 is a matrix that gives the number of measures per combination of sector and pressure.
55
Table 156. Number of measures per driver-pressure combination
Sector
(Hydro) Power Station Construction
(Hydro) Power Station Operations
Aggregates
Agriculture
Aquaculture
Carbon sequestration
Coastal defense
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
Coastal Infrastructure (operations)
Desalination
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Harvesting/Collecting
Land-based Industry
Military
Navigational Dredging
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Construction
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Operations
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Renewable Energy (wind) - construction
Renewable Energy (wind) - operations
Research
Shipping
Telecommunications construction
Telecommunications operations
Tourism/Recreation
Waste Water Treatment
Grand Total
Pressure
Abrasion
7
6
9
7
7
6
6
7
6
6
9
9
9
6
6
6
9
7
6
8
7
7
7
6
7
8
7
7
6
204
Barrier_to_
species_
movement
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Change_in_
wave_exposure
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Changes_in_
siltation
6
5
8
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
8
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
172
Death_or_
injury_by_
collision
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
7
5
6
7
6
6
5
171
Disturbance
6
5
8
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
8
6
5
7
7
6
6
5
7
7
6
7
5
175
Electromagnetic_
changes
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Emergence_
regime_change
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Input_of_
organic_matter
10
9
11
11
10
9
9
10
9
9
11
11
11
9
9
9
11
10
9
11
11
10
10
9
12
11
10
10
11
292
Introduction of
other substances
10
9
11
11
10
9
9
10
9
9
11
11
11
9
9
9
11
10
9
11
11
10
10
9
12
11
10
10
11
292
56
Introduction_of_
microbial_
pathogens
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Introduction_of_
non_indigenous
_species
8
7
9
8
9
7
7
8
7
7
9
9
9
7
7
7
9
8
7
9
8
8
8
7
9
9
8
8
7
230
Introduction_of_
Non_synthetic_
compounds
10
9
11
11
10
9
9
10
9
9
11
11
11
9
9
9
11
10
9
11
11
10
10
9
12
11
10
10
11
292
Introduction_of_
Radionuclides
9
8
10
9
9
8
8
9
8
8
10
10
10
8
8
8
10
9
8
10
10
9
9
8
11
10
9
9
10
262
Introduction_of_
Synthetic_
compounds
10
9
11
11
10
9
9
10
9
9
11
11
11
9
9
9
11
10
9
11
11
10
10
9
12
11
10
10
11
292
Marine_Litter
8
7
9
8
8
7
7
8
7
7
10
10
10
7
8
7
9
8
7
9
8
8
8
7
9
9
8
10
7
235
Nitrogen_and_
Phosphorus_
enrich
7
6
8
8
7
6
6
7
6
6
8
8
8
6
7
6
8
7
6
8
8
7
7
6
9
8
7
7
9
207
pH_changes
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Salinity_regime_
changes
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Selective_
Extraction_
of_Non_livi
6
5
8
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
8
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
172
Selective_
extraction_
of_species
7
6
8
7
7
6
6
7
6
6
10
10
10
6
6
6
8
7
6
8
7
7
7
6
7
8
7
7
6
205
Smothering
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Substrate_Loss
7
6
9
7
7
6
6
7
6
6
9
9
9
6
6
6
9
7
6
8
7
7
7
6
7
8
7
7
6
204
Thermal_regime_
changes
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
6
7
6
6
7
5
6
7
6
6
5
172
Underwater_
noise
7
6
8
7
7
6
6
7
6
6
8
8
8
6
6
6
8
7
6
8
7
8
8
6
8
8
7
7
6
202
Water_flow_rate_
changes
6
5
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
6
7
6
6
5
170
Grand Total
184
158
215
189
185
158
158
184
158
158
215
215
215
158
160
158
215
184
159
210
191
185
187
158
200
210
184
187
171
5309
57
5 Synthesis
This is where the high-threat impact chains (Chapter 2) are linked to the appropriate indicators
(Chapter 3) and management measures (Chapter 4) through the components that make up the
pathways (i.e. sectors, pressures, ecosystem characteristics). This combination allows a first
assessment of the following research questions:
Management of human activities: which measures are most appropriate to mitigate the effects of
specific activities (i.e. driver-pressure combinations).
Management of human activities with a focus on the achievement of specific operational
objectives: which measures are most appropriate to mitigate those human activities that
compromise a specific operational objective. These are the extractions used for the case studies
applied elsewhere in WP4 as well as other ODEMM WP’s.
5.1 Specificity Score
We calculated a specificity score (SC) per region to reflect how specific the measure is targeted on
one or more impact chains. To that end we used the IA (see Chapter 2) and identified the total number
of linkages (NT) per region. Merging the measures database with the IA allowed us to establish how
many impact chains were affected by the measure (NM). The specificity score is then calculated as:
which results in relatively specific measures with low scores (minimum=0) and relatively generic
measures with high scores (maximum=100). For each aim the SC was based on an average across
the 4 regions. Figure 13 shows the average specificity scores per measures revealing both very
specific as well as generic measures.
58
Figure 13. Averaged specificity score per measure (aim)
59
5.1 Appropriate measures per driver-pressure combination
In order to identify which measures are most appropriate to mitigate the effects of specific human
activities (i.e. driver-pressure combinations) the IA database was merged with the measures database
and the measures linked to the high-threat chains were considered most appropriate. In this section
only the measures relevant for the case studies, i.e. descriptor 4 (Foodweb) and descriptor 6 (Sea
floor integrity), are shown. In the tables below, an overview is given of the number of measures per
driver-pressure combination for the two descriptors. To limit the output, only measures (aim) with an
average SC of below 10 were selected. In Annex 11a and 11b the list of measures per driver-pressure
combination is given for respectively the Foodweb and Seafloor Integrity case studies.
Table 16. Number of measures per driver-pressure combination for descriptor 4 Foodweb (only
measures with mean SC > 10)
Pressure
Driver
Aggregates
Agriculture
Aquaculture
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Land-based Industry
Military
Navigational Dredging
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Research
Shipping
Telecommunications construction
Tourism/Recreation
Waste Water Treatment
Grand Total
Abrasion
4
12
4
2
2
24
Changes_in_siltation
3
2
1
2
8
Death_or_injury_by_collision
4
4
Input_of_organic_matter
6
1
4
1
2
14
Introduction_of_microbial_
Pathogens
1
1
Introduction_of_non_
indigenous_s
8
12
4
4
2
16
46
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_compound
s
2
1
6
8
1
2
12
4
36
Introduction_of_Synthetic_
compounds
6
1
8
2
8
2
12
4
43
Marine_Litter
3
20
5
20
4
10
62
Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_
enrich
4
1
1
1
7
Selective_Extraction_of_
Non_livi
3
3
Selective_extraction_of_
species
2
18
5
20
1
46
Smothering
2
1
4
2
9
Substrate_Loss
2
4
10
4
2
2
24
Thermal_regime_changes
1
1
Underwater_noise
1
1
Water_flow_rate_changes
1
1
Grand Total
12
20
21
4
96
12
60
1
5
6
9
2
3
51
2
16
10
33
0
60
Table 17. Number of measures per driver-pressure combination for descriptor 6 Sea floor integrity
(only measures with mean SC > 10)
Pressure
Driver
Aggregates
Agriculture
Aquaculture
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Land-based Industry
Military
Navigational Dredging
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Research
Shipping
Telecommunications construction
Tourism/Recreation
Waste Water Treatment
Grand Total
Abrasion
4
12
4
2
2
24
Changes_in_siltation
3
2
1
2
8
Input_of_organic_matter
6
1
4
1
2
14
Introduction_of_microbial_pathogens
1
1
Introduction_of_non_indigenous_s
8
12
2
2
16
40
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_compounds
2
2
1
3
2
10
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compounds
6
1
6
2
9
2
26
Marine_Litter
3
20
4
10
37
Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_enrich
4
1
1
1
7
Selective_Extraction_of_Non_livi
3
3
Selective_extraction_of_species
12
12
Smothering
2
1
4
2
9
Substrate_Loss
2
4
8
4
2
2
22
Thermal_regime_changes
1
1
Water_flow_rate_changes
1
1
Grand Total
12
20
18
4
82
1
2
6
9
2
35
2
16
6
215
61
5.2 Appropriate measures to achieve an objective
In this section we approach the selection of appropriate management measures from a different
perspective, i.e. with the aim of achieving a specific objective as reflected by the MSFD descriptors.
Similar to section 5.1 we used the high-threat chains to identify what we considered the appropriate
measures per descriptor. Table 18 was used to link the descriptors to the chains through the
ecosystem components. For the presentation of the results we focused on the descriptors relevant for
the case studies, i.e. Foodweb (D4) and Seafloor integrity (D6).
For descriptor 4 Foodwebs, measures were extracted from the high-threat impact chains using the
following ecosystem components: Plankton, Bottom fauna and flora, Fish (Benthic, Deep sea and
Pelagic) Marine mammals and Reptiles and Seabirds (inshore and offshore) (for results see Table 19).
For descriptor 6, Seafloor integrity, measures were extracted from the high-threat impact chains using
the ecosystem component Habitats (for results see Table 20). The AVG SC in both tables gives the
averaged specificity score (SC, see paragraph 5.1) taken over the 4 different regional areas. The SC
shows relatively specific measures (low scores (minimum=0)) and relatively generic measures (high
scores (maximum=100)).
Table 18. Translation table for ecosystem components to descriptors
COM DEC
Codes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MSFD
Descriptors
Biodive
rsity
Non-
indigen
ous
specie
s
Comme
rcial fish
&
shellfish
Foodw
ebs
Eutrophic
ation
Sea-
floor
integ
rity
Hydrogr
aphic
condition
s
Contami
nants
Fish and
Seafood
Contami
nants
Mari
ne
Litte
r
Energy
introduc
tion
(incl.
noise)
Ecosystem
components
Topography/Bath
ymetry
Temperature
X
Salinity
X
Nutrients &
Oxygen
X
X
pH, pCO2
X
Predominant
Habitat Type
X
X
X
Special Habitat
Types
X
X
Habitat Types
Meriting Special
Reference
X
X
Plankton
X
X
X
X
Bottom fauna and
flora
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fish
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Marine mammals
& Reptiles
X
X
X
X
X
Seabirds
X
X
X
X
X
Species listed
under Community
Legisation or
Conventions
X
X
X
X
Non-
indigenous/exotic
spp.
X
Chemicals
X
X*
62
Table 19. high-threat measures Descriptor 4 Foodwebs
Ecosystem_components
Measures (aim)
AVG SC
Fish Pelagic
conservation ecosystem characteristic: fish
1
Bottom fauna and flora
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
7
Marine mammals
Conservation ecosystem characteristic: marine mammals
12
Bottom fauna and flora
Conservation ecosystem characteristic: water quality
24
Bottom fauna and flora
nature conservation
100
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce atmospheric emission
21
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce effects litter
5
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce effects NIS
4
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce effects pollution
20
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
10
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: changes in siltation
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
2
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact agriculture
4
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
1
Bottom fauna and flora
Reduce impact aquaculture
6
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact aquaculture:introduction NIS
1
Plankton
reduce impact fishing
10
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact fishing: bycatch
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact fishing: seafloor impact
1
Fish Pelagic
reduce impact fishing: selective fishing
0
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact fishing:litter
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact human activities
100
Plankton
reduce impact land based industry:eutrophication
1
Fish Deep sea
reduce impact non-renewable energy (oil & gas operations) : pollution
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact shipping
3
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact shipping: emission
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact shipping: introduction NIS
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact shipping:pollution
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact shipping-litter
1
Bottom fauna and flora
Reduce impact tourism/ recreation
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact tourism/recreation: litter
1
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact waste water treatment
2
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
2
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce introduction NIS
4
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce litter
5
Fish Benthic
reduce noise
4
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce pollution
21
Bottom fauna and flora
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
5
Fish Deep sea
restriction on on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operation)
2
Bottom fauna and flora
restriction on telecommunications (construction )
3
Bottom fauna and flora
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
10
Bottom fauna and flora
restrictions on construction
23
Plankton
restrictions on fishing
10
63
Bottom fauna and flora
restrictions on human activities
100
Bottom fauna and flora
restrictions on tourism/recreation
7
Table 20. high-threat measures Descriptor 6 Seafloor integrity
Ecosystem_components
Measures (aim)
AVG SC
Habitats
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
7
Habitats
Conservation ecosystem characteristic: water quality
24
Habitats
nature conservation
100
Habitats
reduce atmospheric emission
21
Habitats
reduce effects litter
5
Habitats
reduce effects NIS
4
Habitats
reduce effects pollution
20
Habitats
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
10
Habitats
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: changes in siltation
1
Habitats
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
2
Habitats
reduce impact agriculture
4
Habitats
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
1
Habitats
Reduce impact aquaculture
6
Habitats
reduce impact aquaculture:introduction NIS
1
Habitats
reduce impact fishing
10
Habitats
reduce impact fishing: bycatch
1
Habitats
reduce impact fishing: seafloor impact
1
Habitats
reduce impact fishing:litter
1
Habitats
reduce impact human activities
100
Habitats
reduce impact land based industry:eutrophication
1
Habitats
reduce impact shipping
3
Habitats
reduce impact shipping: emission
1
Habitats
reduce impact shipping: introduction NIS
1
Habitats
reduce impact shipping:pollution
1
Habitats
reduce impact shipping-litter
1
Habitats
Reduce impact tourism/ recreation
1
Habitats
reduce impact tourism/recreation: litter
1
Habitats
reduce impact waste water treatment
2
Habitats
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
2
Habitats
reduce introduction NIS
4
Habitats
reduce litter
5
Habitats
reduce pollution
21
Habitats
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
5
Habitats
restriction on telecommunications (construction )
3
Habitats
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
10
Habitats
restrictions on construction
23
Habitats
restrictions on fishing
10
Habitats
restrictions on human activities
100
Habitats
restrictions on tourism/recreation
7
64
6 References
1. EC (2008) Establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental
policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) 2008/56/EC, pp. 40
2. Robinson, L.A., and Knights, A.M. (2011) ODEMM Pressure Assessment Userguide.
ODEMM Guidance Document Series No2 EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering
Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool. pp. 12
3. Robinson, L.A., and Knights, A.M. (2011) ODEMM Pressure Assessment Userguide.
ODEMM Guidance Document Series No2 EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering
Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool.; 2011. p. 12 pp.
4. Robinson, L.A., and Knights, A.M. (2011)
PRESSURE_ASSESSMENT_WorkingRevision_FINAL. . Available from VOCAL: Options for
Delivering Ecosystem-Based Marine Management > Shared Documents > WP01 > Task 1.4 >
Pressure Assessment.
5. Koss, R.S., Knights, A.M., Eriksson, A., and Robinson, L.A. (2011) ODEMM Linkage
Framework Userguide. ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.1. EC FP7 project (244273)
‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. . University of Liverpool,
ISBN:978-0-906370-66-7.
6. Koss, R.S., Knights, A.M., Eriksson, A., and Robinson, L.A. (2011) ODEMM Linkage
Tables(Version 1). EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine
Management’. University of Liverpool.
7. Baker, K.D., Devine, J.A., and Haedrich, R.L. (2009) Deep-sea fishes in Canada's Atlantic:
Population declines and predicted recovery times. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 85 (1), pp.
79-88.
8. Kideys, A.E. (2002) Ecology: Fall and rise of the Black Sea ecosystem. . Science, 297 (5586),
pp. 1482-1484.
9. Lotze, H.K., Coll, M., Magera, A.M., Ward-Paige, C., and Airoldi, L. (2011) Recovery of marine
animal populations and ecosystems. . Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26 (11), pp. 595-605.
10. Simpfendorfer, C.A., and Kyne, P.M. (2009) Limited potential to recover from overfishing
raises concerns for deep-sea sharks, rays and chimaeras. Environmental Conservation, 36
(2), pp. 97-103.
11. Kideys, A.E., and Romanova, Z. (2001) Distribution of gelatinous macrozooplankton in the
southern Black Sea during 1996-1999. . Marine Biology, 139 (3), pp. 535-547
12. Shuskina, E.A., and Musayeva, E.I. (1990) Structure of planktic community of the Black Sea
epipelagic zone and its variation caused by invasion of a new ctenophore species. .
Oceanology, 30(2): 225-228.
13. Birdlife International (2012) Birdlife Data Zone.
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/BirdsInEuropeII
14. Oguz, T., Salihoglu, B., Moncheva, S., and Abaza, V. (2012) Regional peculiarities of
community-wide trophic cascades in strongly degraded Black Sea food web. . Journal of
Plankton Research 34: 338-343
15. Fisher, J. (1952) The Fulmar. Collins, London,
16. Hargrave, B.e. (2005) Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Aquaculture. . Volume 5, Part
1000 . . Birkhäuser, Sep 29, 2005 - 468 pages,
17. Aarts, B.G.W., Van Den Brink, F.W.B., and Nienhuis, P.H. (2004) Habitat loss as the main
cause of the slow recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: The transversal
floodplain gradient. . River Research and Applications, 20 (1), pp. 3-23
18. Turner, S.J., Thrush, S.F., Hewitt, J.E., Cummings, V.J., and Funnell, G. (1999) Fishing
impacts and the degradation or loss of habitat structure. Fisheries Management and Ecology,
6 (5), pp. 401-420.
19. Van Rhijn (1986) Sedimentation of dredged channels by currents and waves. Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, 112: 541-559.
20. Walker, P.J., and Winton, J.R. (2010) Emerging viral diseases of fish and shrimp. Vet. Res. 41
(6) 51 (2010)
21. Blanc, G. (2001) Introduction of pathogens in European aquatic ecosystems: Attemp of
evaluation and realities . . In: A.e. Uriarte and B.e. Basurco (eds) Environmental impact
65
assessment of Mediterranean aquaculture farms . . Zaragoza : CIHEAM-IAMZ, 2001. p. 37-
56.,
22. Gozlan, R.E., Peeler, E.J., Longshaw, M., St-Hilaire, S., and Feist, S.W. (2006) Effect of
microbial pathogens on the diversity of aquatic populations, notably in Europe. . Microbes and
Infection, 8 (5), pp. 1358-1364.
23. Van Bressem, M.-F., Raga, J.A., Di Guardo, G., Jepson, P.D., Duignan, P.J., Siebert, U.,
Barrett, T., De Oliveira Santos, M.C., Moreno, I.B., Siciliano, S., Aguilar, A., and Van
Waerebeek, K. (2009) Emerging infectious diseases in cetaceans worldwide and the possible
role of environmental stressors. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 86 (2), pp. 143-157.
24. Ramirez-Llodra, E., Tyler, P.A., Baker, M.C., Bergstad, O.A., Clark, M.R., Escobar, E., Levin,
L.A., Menot, L., Rowden, A.A., Smith, C.R., and van Dover, C.L. (2011) Man and the last great
wilderness: Human impact on the deep sea. PLoS ONE, 6 (8), art. no. e22588.
25. OSPAR (2010) Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission. London. 176 pp.
26. Derraik, J.G.B. (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris; a review. .
Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852.
27. Galgani, F., Fleet, D., Van Franeker, J., Katsanevakis, S., Maes, T., Mouat, J., Oosterbaan, L.,
Poitou, I., Hanke, G., Thompson, R., Amato, E. , Birkun, A., and Janssen, C. (2010) Marine
Strategy Framework Directive, Task Group 10 Report Marine litter, April 2010. Joint Report,
Prepared under the Administrative Arrangement between JRC and DG ENV (no 31210 -
2009/2010), the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and
ICES managed by DG MARE, and JRC’s own institutional funding, EUR 24340 EN - 2010.
28. Rijnsdorp, A.D., and Heessen , H.J.L.e. (2008) Biodiversity of the high seas. Final report lot 1.
IMARES Report C085/08.
29. Van Franeker, J.A., Meijboom, A., de Jong, M., and Verdaat, H. (2009) Fulmar Litter EcoQO
Monitoring in the Netherlands 1979-2007 in relation to EU Directive 2000/59/EC on Port
reception Facilities. IMARES Report C032/09.
30. OCEANA (2006) Northeast Atlantic Deep-sea Gillnet Fishery Management. Oceana’s
Recommendations for Permanent Measures. December 2006.
31. Stelzenmuller, V., Lee, J., South, A., and Rogers, S.I. (2010) Quantifying cumulative impacts
of human pressures on the marine environment: a geospatial modelling framework. Marine
Ecology-Progress Series 398, pp. 19-32
32. OSPAR (2009) Assessment of the environmental impact of dredging for navigational
purposes. Biodiversity series.
33. Desprez, M. (2000) Physical and biological impact of marine aggregate extraction along the
French coast of the Eastern English Channel: short- and long-term post-dredging restoration. .
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 1428-1438.
34. Lewison, R.L., and Crowder, L.B. (2003) Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a
vulnerable seabird population. Ecological Applications 13: 743-753.
35. Thompson, D.R., and Hamer, K.C. (2000) Stress in seabirds: causes, consequences and
diagnostic value. . Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 7: 91-110.
36. Tuck, G.N., Phillips, R.A., Small, C., Thomson, R.B., Klaer, N.L., Taylor, F., Wanless, R.M.,
and Arrizabalaga, H. (2011) An assessment of seabird-fishery interactions in the Atlantic
Ocean. ICES Journal of marine Science 68: 1628-1637
37. Frederiksen, M., Wanless, S., Harris, m.P., Rothery, P., and Wilson, L.J. (2004) The role of
industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged
kittiwakes. . J. Appl. Ecol. 41; 1129-1139
38. Burger, J., Gordon, V., Lawrence, J., Newman, J., Forcey, G., and Vlietstra, L. (2011) Risk
evaluation for federally listed (roseate tern, piping plover) or candidate (red knot) bird species
in offshore waters: a first step for managing the potential impacts of wind facility development
on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. . Renewable Energy 36: 338-351.
39. Dierschke, V., and Garthe, S. (2005) Review of the literature of ecological studies on seabirds
at offshore wind farms. F+E project "Internationaler Erfahrungsaustausch zur okologischen
begleitforschung von offshore-Windenergieanlagen in Nord- und Ostsee", Final report part B. .
Forschungs- und Technologiezentrum Westkuste, Busum.
40. Drewitt, A.L., and Langston, R.H.W. (2006) Assessing the impact of wind farms on birds. Ibis
148: 29-42.
41. Everaert, J., and Stienen, E.W.M. (2007) Impact of wind turbins on birds in Zeebrugge
(Belgium). Significant effect on breeding tern colony due to collisions. . Biodivers Conserv 16:
3345-3359.
66
42. Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A.C., James Grecian, W., Hodgson, D.J., Mills,
C., Sheehan, E., Votier, S.C., Witt, M.J., and Godley, B.J. (2009) Marine renewable energy:
Potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46
(6), pp. 1145-1153.
43. Larsen, J.K., and Guillemette, M. (2007) Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of
wintering common eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk. . J. Appl. Ecology 44:
516-522.
44. Knights, A.M., Koss, R.S., Papadopoulou, N., Cooper, L.H., and Robinson, L.A. (2011)
Sustainable use of European regional seas and the role of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive. Deliverable 1, EC FP7 Project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based
Marine Management’. U.o.L.I.-.-.-.-. pp.
45. Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Douse, A., and Langston, R.H.W. (2012) Greater impacts
of wind farms on bird populations during construction than subsequent operation: results of a
multi-site and multi-species. . Journal of Applied Ecology 49: 386-394.
46. Wiese, F.K., Montevecchi, W.A., Davoren, G.K., Huettmann, F., Diamond, A.W., and Linke, J.
(2001) Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Mar. Poll. Bull.
42: 1285-1290.
47. Casement, M.B. (1999) Landbirds from ships at sea - The Caspian Sea: observations from
MV Tabriz Khalilbeyli in fixed location 40.0°N 51-4°E, 48nm SSE of Baku, Azerbaijan;
selected oddities. . Sea Swallow 48: 35.
48. Jongbloed, and et al. (2012) Pressure Assessment Ecocomponents Database Version X
49. Aldenberg, T., Jaworska, J.S., and Traas, T.P. (2002) Normal species sensitivity distributions
and probabilistic ecological risk assessment Species Sensitivity Distributions in Ecotoxicology,
pp. 49-102
50. Smit, M., and et al. (2008) Species sensitivity distributions for suspended clays, burial and
grain size change in the marine environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 27, pp. 1006-1012
51. De Vries, P., and et al. (2008) Development and application of a species sensitivity distribution
for temperature-induced mortality in the aquatic environment. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 27, pp. 2591-2598
52. EC (2010) Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on cirteria and methodological
standards on good environmental status of marine waters (notified under document C(2010)
Text with EEA relevance. 2010/477/EU, Brussels
53. WGECO (2011) Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities
(WGECO). ICES. pp. 164
54. Sainsbury, K.J., Punt, A.E., and Smith, A.D.M. (2000) Design of operational management
strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57 (3),
pp. 731-741
55. Kershner, J., Samhouri, J.F., James, C.A., and Levin, P.S. (2011) Selecting Indicator
Portfolios for Marine Species and Food Webs: A Puget Sound Case Study. PLoS ONE, 6 (10)
art. no. e25248
56. ARCADIS (2012) Economic assessment of policy measures for the implementation of the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
57. DHV (2011) Measures for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. First overview of potential
measures, related costs and effects of implementing the Marine strategy.
67
7 Annexes
68
Annex 1: MSFD descriptors, attributes and indicators
MSFD descriptors and corresponding attributes and indicators as phrased in the Commission Decision
(EC, 2010)
1. Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and
abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climate conditions
1.1. Species distribution
1.1.1. Distributional range
1.1.2. Distributional pattern within the latter, where appropriate
1.1.3. Area covered by the species (for sessile/benthic species)
1.2. Population size
1.2.1. Population abundance and/or biomass, as appropriate
1.3. Population condition
1.3.1. Population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio,
fecundity rates, survival/mortality)
1.3.2. Population genetic structure, where appropriate
1.4. Habitat distribution
1.4.1. Distributional range
1.4.2. Distributional pattern
1.5. Habitat extent
1.5.1. Habitat area
1.5.2. Habitat volume, where relevant
1.6. Habitat condition
1.6.1. Condition of typical species and communities
1.6.2. Relative abundance and/or biomass, as appropriate
1.6.3. Physical, hydrological and chemical conditions
1.7. Ecosystem structure
1.7.1. Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components (habitats and species)
2. Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the
ecosystem
2.1. Abundance and state characterisation of non-indigenous species, in particular invasive species
2.1.1. Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of non-
indigenous species, particularly invasive non-indigenous species, notably in risk areas, in
relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreading such species
2.2. Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species
2.2.1. Ratio between invasive non-indigenous species and native species in some well-studied
taxonomic groups (e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs) that may provide a measure of change
in species composition (e.g. further to the displacement of native species)
2.2.2. Impacts of non-indigenous invasive species at the level of species, habitats and
ecosystem, where feasible
3. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting
a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock
3.1. Level of pressure of the fishing activity
3.1.1. Fishing mortality (F)
3.1.2. Ratio between catch and biomass index (hereinafter ‘catch/biomass ratio’)
3.2. Reproductive capacity of the stock
3.2.1. Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB)
3.2.2. Biomass indices
3.3. Population age and size distribution
3.3.1. Proportion of fish larger than the mean size of first sexual maturation
3.3.2. Mean maximum length across all species found in research vessel surveys
3.3.3. 95% percentile of the fish length distribution observed in research vessel surveys
3.3.4. Size at first sexual maturation, which may reflect the extent of undesirable genetic
effects of exploitation
4. All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance
and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the
retention of their full reproductive capacity
4.1. Productivity (production per unit biomass) of key species or trophic groups
4.1.1. Performance key predator species using their production per unit biomass (productivity)
4.2. Proportion of selected species at the top of food webs
4.2.1. Large fish (by weight)
4.3. Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups/species
4.3.1. Abundance of functionally important selected groups/species
69
Annex 1: Continued
5. Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in
biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters
5.1. Nutrient levels
5.1.1. Nutrient concentration in the water column
5.1.2. Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus), where appropriate
5.2. Direct effects of nutrient enrichment
5.2.1. Chlorophyll concentration in the water column
5.2.2. Water transparency related to increase in suspended algae, where relevant
5.2.3. Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae
5.2.4. Species shift in floristic composition such as diatom to flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic
shifts, as well as bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused
by human activities
5.3. Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment
5.3.1. Abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses (e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune
grass) adversely impacted by decrease in water transparency
5.3.2. Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to increased organic matter decomposition and size
of the area concerned
6. Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are
safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected
6.1. Physical damage, having regard to substrate characteristics
6.1.1. Type, abundance, biomass and areal extent of relevant biogenic substrate
6.1.2. Extent of the seabed significantly affected by human activities for the different substrate
types
6.2. Condition of benthic community
6.2.1. Presence of particularly sensitive and/or tolerant species
6.2.2. Multi-metric indexes assessing benthic community condition and functionality, such as
species diversity and richness, proportion of opportunistic to sensitive species
6.2.3. Proportion of biomass or number of individuals in the macrobenthos above some
specified length/size
6.2.4. Parameters describing the characteristics (shape, slope and intercept) of the size
spectrum of the benthic community
7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems
7.1. Spatial characterisation of permanent alterations
7.1.1. Extent of area affected by permanent alterations
7.2. Impact of permanent hydrographical changes
7.2.1. Spatial extent of habitats affected by permanent alteration
7.2.2. Changes in habitats, in particular the functions provided (e.g. spawning, breeding and
feeding areas, and migration routes of fish, birds and mammals), due to altered
hydrographical conditions
8. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects
8.1. Concentration of contaminants
8.1.1. Concentration of the contaminants mentioned above, measured in the relevant matrix
(such as biota, sediment and water) in a way that ensures comparability with the
assessments under Directive 2000/60/EC
8.2. Effects of contaminants
8.2.1. Levels of pollution effects on the ecosystem components concerned, having regard to the
selected biological processes and taxonomic groups where a cause/effect relationship has
been established and needs to be monitored
8.2.2. Occurrence, origin (where possible), extent of significant acute pollution events (e.g.
slicks from oil and oil products) and their impact on biota physically affected by this
pollution
9. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by
Community legislation or other relevant standards
9.1. Levels, number and frequency of contaminants
9.1.1. Actual levels of contaminants that have been detected and number of contaminants
which have exceeded maximum regulatory levels
9.1.2. Frequency of regulatory levels being exceeded
70
Annex 1: Continued
10. Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal marine environment
10.1. Characteristics of litter in the marine and coastal environment
10.1.1. Trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or deposited on coastlines, including
analysis of its composition, spatial distribution and, where possible, source
10.1.2. Trends in the amount of litter in the water column (including floating at the surface) and
deposited on the seafloor, including analysis of its composition, spatial distribution and,
where possible, source
10.1.3. Trends in the amount, distribution and, where possible, compositions of micro-particles
(in particular micro-plastics)
10.2. Impacts of litter on marine life
10.2.1. Trends in the amount and composition of litter ingested by marine animals (e.g. stomach
analysis)
11. Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the
marine environment
11.1. Distribution in time and place of loud, low and mid frequency impulsive sounds
11.1.1. Proportion of days and their distribution within a calendar year over areas of a
determined surface, as well as their spatial distribution, in which anthropogenic sound
sources exceed levels that are likely to entail significant impact on marine animals
measured as Sound Exposure Level (in dB re 1μPa2.s) or as peak sound pressure level (in
dB re 1μPapeak) at one metre, measured over the frequency band 10 Hz to 10 kHz
11.2. Continuous low frequency sound
11.2.1. Trend in the ambient noise level within 1/3 octave bands 63 and 125 Hz (centre
frequency) (re 1μPa RMS; average noise level in these octave bands over a year)
measured by observation stations and/or with the use of models if appropriate
71
Annex 2 Pressure Assessment Categories
Source: Pressure Assessment Guidance Document (Robinson et al., 2011)
1 Spatial Extent:
Site (S);
Locally patchy (LP);
Locally even (LE);
Widespread patchy (WP);
Widespread even (WE); or
No Overlap in space and/or time (NO).
2 Frequency of occurrence:
Rare (R);
Occasional (O);
Common (C); or
Persistent (P)
3 Degree of Impact:
Severe - Acute (A): direct high mortality (one event);
Severe - Chronic (C): high mortality after frequent / continuous pressure; or
Low severity (L): no mortality.
4 Resilience (recovery time):
None (no recovery or >100yr) (N);
Low (10 to <100 yr) (L);
Medium (2 to <10 yr) (M); or
High (0 to <2 yr) (H).
Resilience of an ecological characteristic will not vary between sector/pressures.
5 Pressure Persistence:
Continuous (the pressure never leaves the system or >100 yr) (C);
High (10 to <100 yr) (H);
Medium (2 to <10 yr) (M); or
Low (0 to <2 yr) (L).
Persistence of a pressure should not vary between sectors.
72
Annex 3 Linkage tables for the Pressure Assessment
Sector / pressure combinations
Sectors
Pressures
Abrasion
Barrier_to_species_movement
Change_in_wave_exposure
Changes_in_siltation
Death_or_injury_by_collision
Electromagnetic_changes
Emergence_regime_change
Input_of_organic_matter
Introduction_of_microbial_pathog
Introduction_of_non_indigenous_s
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Introduction_of_Radionuclides
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Marine_Litter
Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_enrichme
pH_changes
Salinity_regime_changes
Selective_Extraction_of_Non_livi
Selective_extraction_of_species
Smothering
Substrate_Loss
Thermal_regime_changes
Underwater_noise
Water_flow_rate_changes
(Hydro) Power
Station
Construction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Hydro) Power
Station Operations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aggregates
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Agriculture
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Aquaculture
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Carbon
sequestration
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coastal
Infrastructure
(construction)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Coastal
Infrastructure
(operations)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Desalination
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fishing - Benthic
trawling
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fishing - Fixed
Nets incl. potting
and creeling
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fishing - Pelagic
trawling
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Harvesting/Collecti
ng
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Land-based
Industry
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Military
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Navigational
Dredging
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-renewable
Energy (Nuclear)
Construction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-renewable
Energy (Nuclear)
Operations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-renewable
Energy (oil & gas
construction)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-renewable
Energy (oil & gas
operations)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
73
Sectors
Pressures
Abrasion
Barrier_to_species_movement
Change_in_wave_exposure
Changes_in_siltation
Death_or_injury_by_collision
Electromagnetic_changes
Emergence_regime_change
Input_of_organic_matter
Introduction_of_microbial_pathog
Introduction_of_non_indigenous_s
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Introduction_of_Radionuclides
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Marine_Litter
Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_enrichme
pH_changes
Salinity_regime_changes
Selective_Extraction_of_Non_livi
Selective_extraction_of_species
Smothering
Substrate_Loss
Thermal_regime_changes
Underwater_noise
Water_flow_rate_changes
Renewable Energy
(wind) -
construction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Renewable Energy
(wind) -
operations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Research
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shipping
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Telecommunicatio
ns construction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Telecommunicatio
ns operations
X
Tourism/Recreatio
n
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Waste Water
Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
74
Pressure / ecological characteristic combinations
Pressures
Ecological characteristics
BIRD
FDEM
FDS
FPEL
MAMMS
Abrasion
Barrier_to_species_movement
X
X
X
X
Change_in_wave_exposure
X
X
X
X
Changes_in_siltation
X
X
X
X
X
Death_or_injury_by_collision
X
X
X
X
X
Electromagnetic_changes
X
X
X
X
Emergence_regime_change
X
X
X
X
Input_of_organic_matter
X
X
X
X
X
Introduction_of_microbial_pathogens
X
X
X
X
Introduction_of_non_indigenous_species
X
X
X
X
X
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_compounds
X
X
X
X
X
Introduction_of_Radionuclides
X
X
X
X
X
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compounds
X
X
X
X
X
Marine_Litter
X
X
X
X
X
Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_enrichment
X
X
X
X
pH_changes
X
X
X
Salinity_regime_changes
X
X
X
X
Selective_Extraction_of_Non_living resources
X
X
X
Selective_extraction_of_species
X
X
X
X
X
Smothering
Substrate_Loss
X
X
X
X
X
Thermal_regime_changes
X
X
X
X
Underwater_noise
X
X
X
X
X
Water_flow_rate_changes
X
X
X
X
75
Sector presence in the EU regions
Sector
Region
Baltic
Sea
Black
Sea
Mediterra-
nean Sea
North East
Atlantic
(Hydro) Power Station Construction
X
X
X
(Hydro) Power Station Operations
X
X
X
Aggregates
X
X
X
X
Agriculture
X
X
X
X
Aquaculture
X
X
X
X
Carbon sequestration
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
X
X
X
X
Coastal Infrastructure (operations)
X
X
X
X
Desalination
X
Fishing - Benthic trawling
X
X
X
X
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
X
X
X
X
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
X
X
X
X
Harvesting/Collecting
X
X
X
X
Land-based Industry
X
X
X
X
Military
X
X
X
X
Navigational Dredging
X
X
X
X
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Construction
X
X
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Operations
X
X
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
X
X
X
X
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
X
X
X
X
Renewable Energy (wind) - construction
X
X
Renewable Energy (wind) - operations
X
X
Research
X
X
X
X
Shipping
X
X
X
X
Telecommunications construction
X
X
X
X
Telecommunications operations
X
X
X
X
Tourism/Recreation
X
X
X
X
Waste Water Treatment
X
X
X
X
Ecological characteristic presence in the EU regions
Ecological characteristic
Region
Baltic
Sea
Black
Sea
Mediterra-
nean Sea
North East
Atlantic
Deep sea fish
X
X
Demersal fish
X
X
X
X
Pelagic fish
X
X
X
X
Marine mammals & reptiles
X
X
X
X
Seabirds
X
X
X
X
76
Annex 4 Background table for the Degree of Impact
Degree of Impact
Pressure
Sector
Deep
sea
fish
Demersal
fish
Pelagic
fish
Marine
mammals
& reptiles
Seabirds
Abrasion
(mortality/change in
physical properties)
All
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Barrier to species
movement
(Hydro) Power Station Operations
NR
C
C
A
NR
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting
and creeling
NR
C
C
L
NR
Military
NR
L
L
L
NR
Renewable Energy (wind) -
operations
NR
NR
NR
L
C
Changes in wave
exposure
All
NR
L
L
L
NR
Changes in siltation
All
L
L
L
L
L
Death or injury by
collision
Fishing - Benthic trawling; Pelagic
trawling
L
L
L
A
L
Military; Shipping,
Tourism/recreation
NR
L
L
A
L
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas
construction); Renewable Energy
(wind) – construction; Research;
Telecommunications construction
NR
L
L
L
L
Renewable Energy (wind) –
operations; Non-renewable
Energy (oil & gas operations)
NR
L
L
L
A
Electromagnetic
changes
All
L
L
L
L
NR
Emergence regime
change
All
NR
L
L
L
L
Input of organic matter
All
L
L
L
NR
NR
Introduction of
microbial pathogens
All
NR
C
C
L
L
Introduction of non-
indigenous spp. and
translocations
All
C
C
C
NR
NR
Introduction of Non-
synthetic compounds
All
C
C
C
C
C
Introduction of other
substances
All
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Introduction of
Radionuclides
All
C
C
C
C
C
Introduction of
Synthetic compounds
All
C
C
C
C
C
Marine litter
Fishing - Benthic trawling; pelagic
trawling; Fixed Nets incl. potting
and creeling
A
A
A
A
A
Other sectors
L
L
L
L
L
Nitrogen and
Phosphorus
enrichment
Agriculture; Tourism/Recreation;
Waste Water Treatment
NR
C/L
C/L
NR
NR
Aquaculture; Fishing - Pelagic
NR
L
L
NR
NR
77
Pressure
Sector
Deep
sea
fish
Demersal
fish
Pelagic
fish
Marine
mammals
& reptiles
Seabirds
trawling; Land-based Industry
pH changes
All
NR
L
L
L
NR
Salinity regime changes
All
NR
L
L
L
NR
Selective Extraction of
Non-living Resources
All
NR
L
L
L
NR
Selective extraction of
species
Fishing – Fixed nets incl. potting
and creeling
A
A
A
A
A
Fishing – Benthic trawling; Fishing
- Pelagic trawling
A
A
A
A
L
Aquaculture; Research;
Tourism/recreation
A
A
A
L
L
Smothering
All
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Substrate Loss
(permanent
construction/sealing)
All
A
A
A
L
L
Thermal regime
changes
All
NR
L
L
L
L
Underwat
er noise
(Hydro) Power Station
Construction; Coastal
infrastructure construction;
Military; Non-renewable Energy
(Nuclear) Construction;
Renewable Energy (wind) -
construction
NR
A
A
A
L
(Hydro) Power Station
Operations; Aggregates;
Aquaculture; Coastal
Infrastructure (operations);
Navigational Dredging;
Renewable Energy (wind) –
operations; Research;
Tourism/Recreation
NR
L
L
L
L
Fishing - Benthic trawling; pelagic
trawling; Fixed Nets incl. potting
and creeling; Non-renewable
Energy (oil & gas operations);
Shipping;
Telecommunications construction
L
L
L
L
L
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas
construction)
A
A
A
A
L
Water flow rate
changes
All
NR
L
L
L
L
A = Acute C = Chronic L = Low NO = no effect,
L
Low
C
Chronic
A
Acute
NR
Not relevant (no overlap)
78
Literature DoI
Aarts, B.G.W., Van Den Brink, F.W.B., Nienhuis, P.H. (2004): Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow
recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: The transversal floodplain gradient. River
Research and Applications, 20 (1), pp. 3-23.
Atkinson, P.W., N.A. Clark, M.C. Bell, P.J. Dare, J.A. Clark & P.L. Ireland (2003): Changes in
commercially fished shellfish stocks and shorebird populations in the Wash, England. Biological
Conservation 114: 127-141.
Blanc G. (2001): Introduction of pathogens in European aquatic ecosystems: Attemp of evaluation and
realities . In Uriarte A. (ed.), Basurco B. (ed.) . Environmental impact assessment of Mediterranean
aquaculture farms . Zaragoza : CIHEAM-IAMZ, 2001. p. 37-56.
Burger, J., V. Gordon, J. Lawrence, J. Newman, G. Forcey & L. Vlietstra (2011): Risk evaluation for
federally listed (roseate tern, piping plover) or candidate (red knot) bird species in offshore waters: a
first step for managing the potential impacts of wind facility development on the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf. Renewable Energy 36: 338-351.
Camphuysen, C.J. & M. Heubeck (2001): Marine oil pollutants and beached bird surveys: the
development of a sensitibe monitoring instrument. Environmental Pollution 112: 443-461.
Derraik, J.G.B. (2002): The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris; a review. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852.
Desprez, M. 2000. Physical and biological impact of marine aggregate extraction along the French coast
of the Eastern English Channel: short- and long-term post-dredging restoration. – ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 57: 1428–1438.
Dierschke, V. & S. Garthe (2005): Review of the literature of ecological studies on seabirds at offshore
wind farms. F+E project "Internationaler Erfahrungsaustausch zur okologischen begleitforschung von
offshore-Windenergieanlagen in Nord- und Ostsee", Final report part B. Forschungs- und
Technologiezentrum Westkuste, Busum.
Drewitt A.L. & Langston R.H.W. 2006. Assessing the impact of wind farms on birds. Ibis 148: 29-42.
Everaert, J. & E.W.M. Stienen (2007): Impact of wind turbins on birds in Zeebrugge (Belgium).
Significant effect on breeding tern colony due to collisions. Biodivers Conserv 16: 3345-3359.
Frederiksen, M., S. Wanless, m.P. Harris, P. Rothery & L.J. Wilson (2004): The role of industrial fisheries
and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. J. Appl. Ecol. 41; 1129-
1139.
Gill, A.B. (2005): Offshore renewable energy: Ecological implications of generating electricity in the
coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42 (4), pp. 605-615.
Gozlan, R.E., Peeler, E.J., Longshaw, M., St-Hilaire, S., Feist, S.W. (2006): Effect of microbial pathogens
on the diversity of aquatic populations, notably in Europe. Microbes and Infection, 8 (5), pp. 1358-1364.
Grecian, W.J., R. Inger, M.J. Attrill, S. Bearhop, B.J. Godley, M.J. Witt & S.C. Votier (2010): Potential
impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations on marine birds. IBIS 152: 683-697.
Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A.C., James Grecian, W., Hodgson, D.J., Mills, C.,
Sheehan, E., Votier, S.C., Witt, M.J., Godley, B.J. (2009): Marine renewable energy: Potential benefits to
biodiversity? An urgent call for research (2009) Journal of Applied Ecology, 46 (6), pp. 1145-1153.
Koss, R.S., Knights, A.M., Eriksson, A. and L.A. Robinson. 2011. ODEMM Linkage Framework Userguide.
ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.1. EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-
based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, ISBN: 978-0-906370-66-7.
79
Koss, R.S., Knights, A.M., Eriksson, A. and Robinson L.A. 2011. ODEMM Linkage Tables(Version 1). EC
FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of
Liverpool.
Langton, R., I.M. Davies & B.E. Scott (2011): Seabird conservation and tidalstream and wave power
generation: Information needs for predicting and managing potential impacts. Marine Policy: 35: 623-
630.
Larsen, J.K. & M. Guillemette (2007): Effects of wind turbines on flight behaviour of wintering common
eiders: implications for habitat use and collision risk. J. Appl. Ecology 44: 516-522.
Leonhard S B and Pedersen J (2006): Benthic communities at Horns Rev before, during and after
Construction of Horns Rev Offshore Wind Farm Vattenfall Report number: Final Report/Annual report
2005, p 134
Leopold, M.F. & M. van Stralen & J. de Vlas (2008): Zee-eenden en schelpdiervisserij in de Voordelta.
Wageningen IMARES rapport C008/08, 50 pages.
Lewison, R.L. & L.B. Crowder (2003): Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabird
population. Ecological Applications 13: 743-753.
Macleod K., Du Fresne S., Mackey B., Faustino C & Boyd I. (2010): Approaches to marine mammal
monitoring at marine renewable energy developments. MERA 0309 TCE, SMRU limited.
Masden, E.A., D.T. Haydon, A.D. Fox & R.W. Furness (2010): Barriers to movement: Modelling energetic
csts of avoiding marine wind farms amongst breeding seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 1085-1091.
Masden, E.A., D.T. Haydon, A.D. Fox, R.W. Furness, R. Bullman & M. Desholm (2009): Barrier to
movement: impacts of wind farms on mitgration birds. ICES Journal of marine Science 66: 746-753.
OCEANA (2006): Northeast Atlantic Deep-sea Gillnet Fishery Management. Oceana’s Recommendations
for Permanent Measures. December 2006.
OSPAR (2010): Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission. London. 176 pp.
OSPAR Commision (2008): OSPAR Guidance on Environmental Considerations for Offshore Wind Farm
Development. OSPAR reference 2008-3.
OSPAR Commision (2009): Assessment of the environmental impact of dredging for navigational
purposes. Biodiversity series
OSPAR Commision (2009): Summary assessment of sand and gravel extraction in the OSPAR maritime
area. Biodiversity series.
Petersen, I.K. (2005): Bird numbers and distribution in the Horns ev oofshore wind farm area. Annual
status report 2004. NERI Report commissioned by esam Engineering A/S.
Petersen, J.K., Malm, T. (2006): Offshore windmill farms: Threats to or possibilities for the marine
environment (2006) Ambio, 35 (2), pp. 75-80.
Ramirez-Llodra, E., Tyler, P.A., Baker, M.C., Bergstad, O.A., Clark, M.R., Escobar, E., Levin, L.A., Menot,
L., Rowden, A.A., Smith, C.R., van Dover, C.L. (2011): Man and the last great wilderness: Human impact
on the deep sea (2011) PLoS ONE, 6 (8), art. no. e22588.
Rattner, B.A. (2009): History of wildlife toxicology. Ecotoxicology 18: 773-783.
Rijnsdorp A.D. & H.J.L. Heessen (eds) (2008): Biodiversity of the high seas. Final report lot 1. IMARES
Report C085/08.
Ross, B. P., Lien, J., and Furness, R. W. 2001. Use of underwater playback to reduce the impact of eiders
on mussel farms. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58: 517–524
80
Schwemmer, P., Adler, S., Guse, N., Markones, N., Garthe, S. (2009): Influence of water flow velocity,
water depth and colony distance on distribution and foraging patterns of terns in the Wadden Sea.
Fisheries Oceanography, 18 (3), pp. 161-172.
Sheavly S. B. & K. M. Register (2007): Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental Concerns, Sources,
Impacts and Solutions. J Polym Environ 15:301–305.
Stelzenmüller V, Lee J, South A, Rogers SI. (2010): Quantifying cumulative impacts of human pressures
on the marine environment: a geospatial modelling framework. Marine Ecology-Progress Series.
2010;398:19-32.
Stewart, G.B., A.S. Pullin & C.F. Coles (2007): Poor evidence-base for assessemnt of windfarm impacts
on birds. Environmental Conservation 34: 1-11.
Thompson, D.R. & K.C. Hamer (2000): Stress in seabirds: causes, consequences and diagnostic value.
Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 7: 91-110.
Tuck, G.N., R.A. Phillips, C. Small, R.B. Thomson, N.L. Klaer, F. Taylor, R.M. Wanless & H. Arrizabalaga
(2011): An assessment of seabird-fishery interactions in the Atlantic Ocean. ICES Journal of marine
Science 68: 1628-1637.
Tuck, G.N., T. Polachek & C.M. Bulman (2003): Spatio-temporal trends of longline fishing effort in the
southern ocean and implecations for seabird bycatch. Biological Conservation 114: 1-27.
Turner, S.J., Thrush, S.F., Hewitt, J.E., Cummings, V.J., Funnell, G. (1999): Fishing impacts and the
degradation or loss of habitat structure. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 6 (5), pp. 401-420.
Van Bressem, M.-F., Raga, J.A., Di Guardo, G., Jepson, P.D., Duignan, P.J., Siebert, U., Barrett, T., De
Oliveira Santos, M.C., Moreno, I.B., Siciliano, S., Aguilar, A., Van Waerebeek, K. (2009): Emerging
infectious diseases in cetaceans worldwide and the possible role of environmental stressors (2009)
Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 86 (2), pp. 143-157.
Van Franeker, J.A., A. Meijboom, M. de Jong & H. Verdaat (2009): Fulmar Litter EcoQO Monitoring in the
Netherlands 1979-2007 in relation to EU Directive 2000/59/EC on Port reception Facilities. IMARES
Report C032/09.
Walker P. J. & J. R. Winton (2010): Emerging viral diseases of fish and shrimp. Vet. Res. 41 (6) 51
(2010).
Zampoukas N. (Editor) (2010): Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Task Group 10 Report Marine
litter, April 2010. Authors: F. Galgani, D. Fleet, J. Van Franeker, S. Katsanevakis, T.Maes, J. Mouat, L.
Oosterbaan, I. Poitou, G. Hanke, R. Thompson, E. Amato, A. Birkun & C. Janssen. Joint Report, Prepared
under the Administrative Arrangement between JRC and DG ENV (no 31210 –2009/2010), the
Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission and ICES managed by DG MARE, and
JRC’s own institutional funding, EUR 24340 EN – 2010.
81
Annex 5 Background table for the Pressure Persistence
Persistence
Pressure
Sector
Deep
sea
fish
Demersal
fish
Pelagic
fish
Marine
mammals &
reptiles
Seabirds
Abrasion
(mortality/change in
physical properties)
All
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Barrier to species
movement
(Hydro)power stations
NR
C
C
C
C
Other sectors
NR
L
L
L
L
Changes in siltation
All
L
L
L
L
L
Changes in wave exposure
Coastal infrastructure
NR
C
C
C
NR
All but coastal
infrastructure
NR
H/M/L
L
L
NR
Death or injury by collision
All
L
L
L
L
L
Electromagnetic changes
All
L
L
L
L
NR
Emergence regime change
Coastal infrastructure,
(hydro)powerstations
NR
C
C
C
C
Renewable energy (wind)
operations
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Input of organic matter
All
M
L
L
NR
NR
Introduction of microbial
pathogens
All
NR
L
L
L
L
Introduction of non-
indigenous spp. and
translocations
All
C
C
C
NR
NR
Introduction of Non-
synthetic compounds
All
H
H
H
H
H
Introduction of other
substances
All
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Introduction of
Radionuclides
All
C
C
C
C
C
Introduction of Synthetic
compounds
All
H
H
H
H
H
Marine Litter
All
H
H
H
H
H
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
enrichment
All
M
H/M/L
H/M/L
H/M/L
H/M/L
pH changes
All
NR
L
L
NR
NR
Salinity regime changes
All
NR
L
L
L
NR
Selective Extraction of
Non-living Resources
All
NR
L
L
NR
NR
Selective extraction of
species
All
L
L
L
L
L
Smothering
All
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Substrate Loss (permanent
construction/sealing)
Coastal infrastructure
(construction)
NR
C
C
C
C
All but coastal
infrastructure
NR
M
M
M
M
Thermal regime changes
All
NR
L
L
L
NR
Underwater noise
All
L
L
L
L
L
82
Pressure
Sector
Deep
sea
fish
Demersal
fish
Pelagic
fish
Marine
mammals &
reptiles
Seabirds
Water flow rate changes
Coastal infrastructure
NR
C
C
C
C
Aggregates, Navigational
dredging
NR
M
M
M
M
Others
NR
L
L
L
L
L
Low (0 to < 2 yr)
M
Medium (2 to < 10 yr)
H
High (10 to <100 yr)
C
Continuous (the pressure never leaves the system or >100 yr)
NR
Not relevant (no overlap)
Literature Persistence
Aarts, B.G.W., Van Den Brink, F.W.B., Nienhuis, P.H. (2004): Habitat loss as the main cause of the slow
recovery of fish faunas of regulated large rivers in Europe: The transversal floodplain gradient. River
Research and Applications, 20 (1), pp. 3-23.
Ahnert A. & C. Borowski (2000): Environmental risk assessment of anthropogenic activity in the deep
sea. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 7: 299–315.
Baptist, M.J., Leopold, M.F. (2010): Prey capture success of sandwich terns sterna sandvicensis varies
non-linearly with water transparency (2010) Ibis, 152 (4), pp. 815-825.
Benn, A.R., Weaver, P.P., Billet, D.S., van den Hove, S., Murdock, A.P., Doneghan, G.B., Le Bas, T.
(2010): Human activities on the deep seafloor in the North East Atlantic: an assessment of spatial
extent. (2010) PloS one, 5 (9).
Beyst, B., Hostens, K., Mees, J. (2001): Factors influencing fish and macrocrustacean communities in the
surf zone of sandy beaches in Belgium: Temporal variation. Journal of Sea Research, 46 (3-4), pp. 281-
294.
Dahlberg, M.D., (1979): A review of survival rates of fish eggs and larvae in relation to impact
assessments. Mar.Fish.Rev., 41(3):1–12.
Derraik, J.G.B. (2002): The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris; a review. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 44: 842-852.
Galkina, L. A. (1971):. Survival of spawn of the Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasii Val.) related to
the abundance of the spawning stock. Rapports et Proces- Verbaux des Reunions Conseil International
pour 1'Exploration de la Mer 160:30-33.
Gill, A.B. (2005): Offshore renewable energy: Ecological implications of generating electricity in the
coastal zone. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42 (4), pp. 605-615.
Glover, A.G., Smith, C.R.(2003): The deep-sea floor ecosystem: Current status and prospects of
anthropogenic change by the year 2025 (2003) Environmental Conservation, 30 (3), pp. 219-241.
Hay, M.E. (2009): Marine chemical ecology: Chemical signals and cues structure marine populations,
communities, and ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science, 1, pp. 193-212.
83
Koss, R.S., Knights, A.M., Eriksson, A. and L.A. Robinson. 2011. ODEMM Linkage Framework Userguide.
ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.1. EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-
based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, ISBN: 978-0-906370-66-7.
Moore, C.H., Harvey, E.S., Van Niel, K.P. (2009): Spatial prediction of demersal fish distributions:
Enhancing our understanding of species-environment relationships. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66
(9), pp. 2068-2075.
Ramirez-Llodra, E., Tyler, P.A., Baker, M.C., Bergstad, O.A., Clark, M.R., Escobar, E., Levin, L.A., Menot,
L., Rowden, A.A., Smith, C.R., van Dover, C.L. (2011): Man and the last great wilderness: Human impact
on the deep sea (2011) PLoS ONE, 6 (8), art. no. e22588.
Richardson, S.L. (2006): Response of epiphytic foraminiferal communities to natural eutrophication in
seagrass habitats off Man O'War Cay, Belize. Marine Ecology, 27 (4), pp. 404-416.
Ross, B. P., Lien, J., and Furness, R. W. 2001. Use of underwater playback to reduce the impact of eiders
on mussel farms. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58: 517–524
Schwemmer, P., Adler, S., Guse, N., Markones, N., Garthe, S. (2009): Influence of water flow velocity,
water depth and colony distance on distribution and foraging patterns of terns in the Wadden Sea.
Fisheries Oceanography, 18 (3), pp. 161-172.
Turner, S.J., Thrush, S.F., Hewitt, J.E., Cummings, V.J., Funnell, G. (1999): Fishing impacts and the
degradation or loss of habitat structure. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 6 (5), pp. 401-420.
Wakeham, S.G., Canuel, E.A. (2006): Degradation and preservation of organic matter in marine
sediments (2006) Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Volume 2: Reactions and Processes, 2 N, pp.
295-321.
Williams, S.L., Grosholz, E.D. (2008): The invasive species challenge in estuarine and coastal
environments: Marrying management and science. (2008) Estuaries and Coasts, 31 (1), pp. 3-20.
Wulff, F., Stigebrandt, A. (1989): A time-dependent budget model for nutrients in the Baltic Sea (1989)
Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 3 (1), pp. 63-78.
Zhao X, Wang WX, Yu KN, Lam PKS (2001): Biomagnification of radiocesium in a marine piscivorous fish.
MEPS 222:227-237
84
Annex 6 Background table for Resilience
Resilience
Region
Deep fish
Demersal fish
Pelagic fish
Marine mammals
Seabirds
NEA
L
L
L
L
L
BALTIC SEA
NR
L
L
L
L
BLACK SEA
NR
M
L
L
L
MEDITERRANEAN
SEA
L
L
L
L
L
L
Low (10 to 100 yr)
M
Medium (2 to 10 yr)
H
High (0 to 2 yr)
NR
Not relevant because the ecocomponent is not found
Literature Resilience
Baker, K.D., Devine, J.A., Haedrich, R.L. (2009): Deep-sea fishes in Canada's Atlantic: Population
declines and predicted recovery times. (2009) Environmental Biology of Fishes, 85 (1), pp. 79-88.
Lotze, H.K., Coll, M., Magera, A.M., Ward-Paige, C., Airoldi, L. (2011): Recovery of marine animal
populations and ecosystems. (2011) Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26 (11), pp. 595-605.
Simpfendorfer, C.A., Kyne, P.M. (2009): Limited potential to recover from overfishing raises concerns for
deep-sea sharks, rays and chimaeras. (2009) Environmental Conservation, 36 (2), pp. 97-103.
Kideys, A.E. (2002): Ecology: Fall and rise of the Black Sea ecosystem. Science, 297 (5586), pp. 1482-
1484.
Kideys, A.E., Romanova, Z. (2001): Distribution of gelatinous macrozooplankton in the southern Black
Sea during 1996-1999. Marine Biology, 139 (3), pp. 535-547.
Shuskina, E.A. and Musayeva, E.I. (1990): Structure of planktic community of the Black Sea epipelagic
zone and its variation caused by invasion of a new ctenophore species. Oceanology, 30(2): 225-228.
Online database: Birdlife Data Zone, Birdlife International,
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/BirdsInEuropeII
Confidence of resilience assessment
Region
Deep sea fish
Demersal fish
Pelagic fish
Marine mammals
Seabirds
NEA
Medium
High
High
High
High
BALTIC SEA
NR
Low
Low
Low
Low
BLACK SEA
NR
Low
Low
Low
High
MEDITERRANEAN
SEA
High
Medium
Medium
High
Low
85
Annex 7 Final Pressure Assessment Results
Small subset showing the sector aggregates for the Baltic region and the sector fishing – benthic
trawling for the North East Atlantic.
Region
Sector
Pressure
Eco char
Ext.
Fr.
DoI
Res.
Persist.
BALTIC
Aggregates
Abrasion
BIRD
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Abrasion
FDEM
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Abrasion
FPEL
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Abrasion
MAMMS
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Changes_in_siltation
BIRD
LP
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Changes_in_siltation
FDEM
LP
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Changes_in_siltation
FPEL
LP
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Changes_in_siltation
MAMMS
LP
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Input_of_organic_matter
BIRD
LP
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Input_of_organic_matter
FDEM
S
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Input_of_organic_matter
FPEL
LP
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Input_of_organic_matter
MAMMS
LP
C
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
BIRD
LP
R
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
FDEM
LP
R
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
FPEL
LP
R
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
MAMMS
LP
R
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Radionuclides
BIRD
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Radionuclides
FDEM
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Radionuclides
FPEL
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Radionuclides
MAMMS
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
BIRD
LP
O
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
FDEM
LP
O
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
FPEL
LP
O
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
MAMMS
LP
O
C
L
H
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._Extraction_of_Non_livi
BIRD
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._Extraction_of_Non_livi
FDEM
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._Extraction_of_Non_livi
FPEL
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._Extraction_of_Non_livi
MAMMS
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._extraction_of_species
BIRD
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._extraction_of_species
FDEM
S
P
A
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._extraction_of_species
FPEL
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Sel._extraction_of_species
MAMMS
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Smothering
BIRD
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Smothering
FDEM
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Smothering
FPEL
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Smothering
MAMMS
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Substrate_Loss
BIRD
LP
C
L
L
M
BALTIC
Aggregates
Substrate_Loss
FDEM
LP
C
A
L
M
BALTIC
Aggregates
Substrate_Loss
FPEL
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Substrate_Loss
MAMMS
LP
C
L
L
M
BALTIC
Aggregates
Underwater_noise
BIRD
LP
P
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Underwater_noise
FDEM
LP
P
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Underwater_noise
FPEL
LP
P
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Underwater_noise
MAMMS
LP
P
L
L
L
BALTIC
Aggregates
Water_flow_rate_changes
BIRD
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Water_flow_rate_changes
FDEM
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Water_flow_rate_changes
FPEL
NO
BALTIC
Aggregates
Water_flow_rate_changes
MAMMS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
BIRD
NO
86
Region
Sector
Pressure
Eco char
Ext.
Fr.
DoI
Res.
Persist.
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
FDEM
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
FDS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
FPEL
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
MAMMS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Changes_in_siltation
BIRD
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Changes_in_siltation
FDEM
WP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Changes_in_siltation
FDS
LP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Changes_in_siltation
FPEL
WP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Changes_in_siltation
MAMMS
LP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Death_or_injury_by_collision
BIRD
S
R
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Death_or_injury_by_collision
FDEM
WP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Death_or_injury_by_collision
FDS
WP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Death_or_injury_by_collision
FPEL
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Death_or_injury_by_collision
MAMMS
LP
O
A
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Input_of_organic_matter
BIRD
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Input_of_organic_matter
FDEM
WP
C
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Input_of_organic_matter
FDS
WP
C
L
L
M
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Input_of_organic_matter
FPEL
WP
C
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Input_of_organic_matter
MAMMS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_microbial_pathog
BIRD
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_microbial_pathog
FDEM
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_microbial_pathog
FDS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_microbial_pathog
FPEL
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_microbial_pathog
MAMMS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_non_indigenous_s
BIRD
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_non_indigenous_s
FDEM
WP
C
C
L
C
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_non_indigenous_s
FDS
LP
O
C
L
C
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_non_indigenous_s
FPEL
WP
C
C
L
C
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_non_indigenous_s
MAMMS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
BIRD
S
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
FDEM
WP
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
FDS
LP
R
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Non_synthetic_co
FPEL
WP
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr_ of_Non_synthetic_co
MAMMS
WP
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
BIRD
S
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
FDEM
WP
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
FDS
LP
O
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
FPEL
WP
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Intr._of_Synthetic_compou
MAMMS
WP
C
C
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Marine_Litter
BIRD
S
C
A
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Marine_Litter
FDEM
WP
C
A
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Marine_Litter
FDS
WP
C
A
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Marine_Litter
FPEL
LP
C
A
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Marine_Litter
MAMMS
LP
C
A
L
H
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Sel._extraction_of_species
BIRD
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Sel._extraction_of_species
FDEM
WP
P
A
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Sel._extraction_of_species
FDS
WP
P
A
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Sel._extraction_of_species
FPEL
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Sel._extraction_of_species
MAMMS
S
P
A
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Smothering
BIRD
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Smothering
FDEM
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Smothering
FDS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Smothering
FPEL
NO
87
Region
Sector
Pressure
Eco char
Ext.
Fr.
DoI
Res.
Persist.
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Smothering
MAMMS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Substrate_Loss
BIRD
LP
P
L
L
M
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Substrate_Loss
FDEM
WP
P
A
L
M
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Substrate_Loss
FDS
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Substrate_Loss
FPEL
WP
P
A
L
M
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Substrate_Loss
MAMMS
S
P
L
L
M
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Underwater_noise
BIRD
NO
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Underwater_noise
FDEM
WP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Underwater_noise
FDS
LP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Underwater_noise
FPEL
WP
P
L
L
L
NEA
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Underwater_noise
MAMMS
WP
P
L
L
L
88
Annex 8 Indicators proposed for each Descriptor-Attribute-Indicator according to the MSFD and ecosystem component
Descriptor
Attribute
Indicator
Ecosystem
component
Proposed specific indicator
1.1.1
Benthic flora
and fauna
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.1
Birds
Distribution of wintering seabird populations
1.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
priority species, vulnerable benthos species, posidonia
1.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos fauna species (AMBI and M-AMBI, Shannon Diversty Index ) ; vulnerable benthos flora species (Ecological
Inex - EEI)
1.1.1
Fish
declining fish species
1.1.1
Fish
Distributional range of Fish (Continental Shelf Seas and Shelf-edge seas)
1.1.1
Fish
Temporal development of Baltic coastal fish communities and key species
1.1.1
Fish
threat indicator for fish
1.1.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
all currently present marine mammals
1.1.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Distribution of harbour porpoise
1.1.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Marine mammals & Reptiles
1.1.1
Marine
mammals and
reptiles
Distributional range of harbour seal, and distributional range of breeding grey seal
1.1.1
Plankton
N/A
1.1.1
Plankton
Phytoplankton and zooplankton diversity
1.1.1
Plankton
Phytoplankton and zooplankton diversity (proposed specific indicators: index of Menhinic and Index of Sheldon, Integrated
89
Biological Index - IBI)
1.1.1
Plankton
Phytoplankton and zooplankton diversity (proposed specific indicators: Microflagellates+Euglenophiceae+Cyanophiceae -
MEC % of total abunance, index of Menhinic and Index of Sheldon, Integrated Biological Index - IBI)
1.1.1
Plankton
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.1
Seabirds
Distributional range of breeding seabirds, coastal breeding waterbirds, non-breeding waterbirds, and non-breeding
shorebirds.
1.1.1
Seabirds
vulnerable bird species
1.1.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos species
1.1.2
Fish
declining fish species
1.1.2
Fish
Distributional range of Fish (Continental Shelf Seas and Shelf-edge seas)
1.1.2
Fish
threat indicator for fish
1.1.2
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
all currently present marine mammals
1.1.2
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Distributional pattern within range of harbour porpoises, bottle nose dolphins, long fin pilot whales, white beaked dolphin,
short beaked common dolphin, minke whales in the summer, harbour seals, and grey seal breeding
1.1.2
Plankton
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.2
Seabirds
Distributional pattern of breeding seabirds, coastal breeding waterbirds, non-breeding waterbirds, seabirds at sea, and non-
breeding shorebirds; Indicator will be further developed
1.1.2
Seabirds
vulnerable bird species
1.1.3
Bottom fauna
and flora
Blue mussel cover
1.1.3
Bottom fauna
and flora
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.3
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos species (Cystseira barbata, Zostera noltii, Mytilus galloprovincialis)
1.1.3
Fish
declining fish species: species X
90
1.1.3
Fish
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.3
Fish
threat indicator for fish
1.1.3
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
all currently present marine mammals
1.1.3
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.3
Seabirds
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.1.3
Seabirds
vulnerable bird species
1.2.1
birds
Abundance of wintering populations of seabirds
1.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Cladophora length
1.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
species abundance and biomass (bottom fauna and flora)
1.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos species
1.2.1
Fish
all stocks
1.2.1
Fish
declining fish species: species X
1.2.1
Fish
declining fish species:sturgeon/demersial
1.2.1
Fish
Fish population abundance
1.2.1
Fish
Offshore fish populations and communities
1.2.1
Fish
Population abundance of fish, and fish population biomass
1.2.1
Fish
Salmon smolt production capacity
1.2.1
Fish
Sea trout parr density, quality of spawning habitats
1.2.1
Fish
threat indicator for fish
1.2.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Abundance of three inshore bottle nose dolphins, harbour porpoises, bottle nose dolphins, long fin pilot whales, white
beaked dolphin, short beaked common dolphin, minke whales in the summer, harbour seals, and grey seal breeding
91
1.2.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
all currently present marine mammals
1.2.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
all marine mammals, i.e. Odontoceti.
1.2.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Population growth rate of marine mammals
1.2.1
Plankton
N/A
1.2.1
Plankton
Refer to indicators in attributes 1.4 and 1.6 (Habitats)
1.2.1
Plankton
species abundance and biomass (phyto-, zooplankton)
1.2.1
Plankton
species abundance and biomass, target developed only for Bac:Din biomass ratio (in spring)
1.2.1
Seabirds
Species-specific trends in relative breeding and non-breeding abundance
1.2.1
Seabirds
vulnerable bird species
1.3.1
Birds
White-tailed eagle productivity
1.3.1
Fish
EcoQO proportion large fish
1.3.1
Fish
Mean metric length of key fish species
1.3.1
Fish
proportion large fish
1.3.1
Fish
Proportion of mature fish
1.3.1
Marine
mammals
Annual calf production of Scottish east coast and Cardigan Bay area bottlenose dolphin populations
1.3.1
Marine
mammals
Grey seal pup production
1.3.1
Marine
mammals
Harbour seal pup production
1.3.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Blubber thickness of marine mammals
1.3.1
Marine
mammals &
EcoQO seal populations
92
Reptiles
1.3.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
Pregnancy rate of marine mammals
1.3.1
Seabirds
Annual breeding success of kittiwakes
1.3.1
Seabirds
Breeding failure of seabird species sensitive to food availability
1.3.1
Seabirds
Seabird adult survival
1.3.2
Fish
probabilistic maturation reaction norm (i.e. the probability of maturing)
1.3.2
Marine
mammals
Harbour seal genetics
1.4.1
Habitat
Based on EUNIS level 3 habitat maps
1.4.1
Pelagic
habitats
Change of plankton functional types (life form) index
1.4.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Distributional range of habitat
1.4.1
Sediment
habitats
Distributional range of habitat
1.4.2
Habitat
Based on EUNIS level 3 habitat maps
1.4.2
Pelagic
habitats
Change of plankton functional types (life form) index
1.4.2
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Distributional pattern of habitat
1.4.2
Sediment
habitats
Distributional pattern of habitat
1.5.1
Habitat
Based on EUNIS level 3 habitat maps
1.5.1
Habitat
Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species
1.5.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Area of subtidal biogenic structures, intertidal rock habitats, subtidal rock habitats, littoral chalk habitats, and sea caves
93
1.5.1
Sediment
habitats
Area of sediment habitat
1.5.2
Habitat
Based on EUNIS level 3 habitat maps
1.6.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species
1.6.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species
1.6.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos species
1.6.1
Fish
Fish community diversity
1.6.1
Fish
Proportion of large fish in the community
1.6.1
Pelagic
habitats
Change of plankton functional types (life form) index
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Abundance of typical species on biogenic reef
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Boulder turning index
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Density of biogenic reef forming species
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Epifaunal indicator species
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed' (Physical
pressure)
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Removal of non-target species' (Biological pressure)
1.6.1
Rock and
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Removal of target species' (Biological pressure)
94
biogenic reef
habitats
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and penetration' (Physical
pressure)
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features' (Physical pressure)
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Intertidal community indicator (MarClim)
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Intertidal species composition & abundance
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Kelp depth and kelp park depth
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Sponge diversity
1.6.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Subtidal species composition & abundance (sponge anthozoan community)
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed' (Physical
damage)
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Removal of non-target species' (Biological pressure)
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Removal of target species' (Biological pressure)
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and penetration' (Physical
damage)
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features' (Physical damage)
95
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Infaunal Quality Index
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Opportunistic macroalgae
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Saltmarsh WFD classification tool
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
Sediment profile imaging
1.6.1
Sediment
habitats
WFD seagrass tool
1.6.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthic species
1.6.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos species
1.6.2
Fish
Abundance of fish key trophic groups
1.6.2
Pelagic
habitats
Phytoplankton biomass
1.6.2
Pelagic
habitats
Zooplankton biomass
1.6.3
All
Hhydrogen sulphide depth
1.6.3
All
Water transparency, Inorganic N, Inorganic P, Si, Chl a
1.6.3
All
Water transparency, Inorganic N, P, Si, Chl a
1.6.3
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos species
1.6.3
Sediment
habitats
Sediment profile imaging
1.6.3
Near bottom oxygen conditions
1.6.3
Water transparency, Inorganic N, Inorganic P, Chl a
1.7.1
All
Ecosystem regime state in the Baltic Proper, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland, and the Bothnian Sea
1.7.1
All
Fish community trophic index
1.7.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Multidimensional biodiversity indices taking both incorporating species richness and evenness, e.g. Hill's indices
96
1.7.1
Fish
Fish relative abundance
1.7.1
Fish
Multidimensional biodiversity indices taking both incorporating species richness and evenness, e.g. Hill's indices
1.7.1
Pelagic
habitats
change in all pelagic indicators for D1, D4, D5.2.4, D6
1.7.1
Plankton
Multidimensional biodiversity indices taking both incorporating species richness and evenness, e.g. Hill's indices
1.7.1
Plankton
N/A
1.7.1
Seabirds
Bird Value
1.7.1
Seabirds
N/A
2.1.1
All
Abundance and distribution of non-indigenous invasive species, focused on M.leidyi and Rapana venosa
2.1.1
All
Trends in arrivals of new non-indigenous species
2.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Abundance and distribution of non-indigenous invasive species
2.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
number of species and abundance
2.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
risk of introduction of NIS
2.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species
2.1.1
Fish
Abundance and distribution of non-indigenous invasive species
2.1.1
Fish
number of species and abundance
2.1.1
Fish
risk of introduction of NIS
2.1.1
Fish
Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species
2.1.1
Plankton
Abundance and distribution of non-indigenous invasive species
2.1.1
Plankton
number of species and abundance
2.1.1
Plankton
risk of introduction of NIS
2.1.1
Plankton
Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species
2.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
between invasive non-indigenous species and native species
2.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Ratio between invasive non-indigenous species and native species
97
2.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
ratio NIS/IS
2.2.1
Fish
ratio NIS/IS
2.2.1
Plankton
ratio NIS/IS
2.2.2
All
Biopollution index
2.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Impacts of NIS
2.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
to be determined, depending on impact
2.2.2
Fish
Impacts of NIS
2.2.2
Fish
to be determined, depending on impact
2.2.2
Plankton
abundance M. Leidyi (4 g m-3 )
2.2.2
Plankton
Biopollution index
2.2.2
Plankton
Impacts of NIS
2.2.2
Plankton
to be determined, depending on impact
3.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Fishing mortality F
3.1.1
Fish
Fishing mortality F (for assessed species only)
3.1.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
catch/biomass ratio
3.1.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
indicator not used
3.1.2
Fish
catch/biomass ratio
3.1.2
Fish
indicator not used
3.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
SSB (for selection of species)
3.2.1
Fish
SSB (for selection of species)
3.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Biomass indices
3.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Spawning stock biomass
98
3.2.2
Fish
Biomass indices
3.2.2
Fish
Spawning stock biomass
3.3.1
Fish
indicator not used
3.3.1
Fish
proportion of fish larger than mean size
3.3.1
Fish
proportion of fish larger than mean size (demersal fish)
3.3.1
Fish
Proportion of fish larger than the mean size of first sexual maturation
3.3.2
Fish
indicator not used
3.3.2
Fish
not a suitable indicator
3.3.3
Fish
95 percentile
3.3.3
Fish
indicator not used
3.3.4
Fish
probabilistic maturation reaction norm (i.e. the probability of maturing)
4.1.1
Birds
Annual breeding success of kittiwakes
4.1.1
Fish
abundance of key prey species
4.1.1
Marine
mammals
Annual calf production of Scottish east coast and Cardigan Bay area bottlenose dolphin populations
4.1.1
Marine
mammals
harbour seal pup and grey seal pup production
4.1.1
Marine
mammals
population growth rate
4.1.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
EcoQO seal populations
4.1.1
White-tailed
eagle
productivity
4.2.1
Fish
EcoQO proprotion of large fish
4.2.1
Fish
Fish community trophic index
4.2.1
Fish
Large fish indicator
4.2.1
Fish
Proportion of piscivorous fish, non-piscivorous fish and cyprinids
4.2.1
Fish
Proportions of large fish
4.3.1
Birds
Species-specific trends in relative breeding and non-breeding abundance
99
4.3.1
Fish
Dietary functional group biomass
4.3.1
Fish
Marine Trophic Index
4.3.1
Macrophytes
Index of relative surface
4.3.1
Marine
mammals
Abundance of harbour seals, three inshore bottle nose dolphin populations, harbour porpoises, white beaked dolphin, short
beaked common dolphin, minke whale, bottle nose dolphin, long finned pilot whale
4.3.1
Marine
mammals
Relative use of haulouts by grey and harbour seals
4.3.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
EcoQO by-catch harbour porpoise
4.3.1
Marine
mammals &
Reptiles
EcoQO seal populations
4.3.1
Phytoplankton
Proportion of Diatoms from the total biomass
4.3.1
Zoobenthos
Proportion of Polychaeta to the total biomass
4.3.1
Zooplankton
Biomass of copepods
4.3.1
Zooplankton
Biomass of fooder zooplankton
4.3.1
Zooplankton
Biomass of microphagous mesozooplankton
5.1.1
Nutrients &
Oxygen
DIN winter - spring means
5.1.1
Nutrients &
Oxygen
DIN winter means
5.1.1
Nutrients &
Oxygen
Nitrate and phosphates concentrations
5.1.1
Nutrients &
Oxygen
TRIX index
5.1.1
Nutrients &
Oxygen
Winter surfacfe concentration of dissolved inorganic nitrogen
5.1.1
Nutrients &
Oxygen
Winter surfacfe concentration of dissolved inorganic phosphorus
5.1.1
Nutrients and
oxygen
dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous concentration
100
5.1.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
DIN/DIP ratio winter means
5.1.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
DIN/DIP ratio winter-spring means
5.1.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
N/P ratio
5.1.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
N/Si and P/Si ratio in spring
5.1.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
OXYRISK index
5.1.2
Nutrients and
oxygen
indicator not used
5.2.1
Nutrients and
oxygen
chlorophyll 90 percentile in the growing season
5.2.1
Plankton
(90percentile growing season)
5.2.1
Plankton
90 percentile summer value
5.2.1
Plankton
90percentile growing season
5.2.1
Plankton
Chlorophyll concentration in the water column
5.2.1
Plankton
Summer phytoplankton, measured by chlorophyll a concentration
5.2.2
Nutrients and
oxygen
indicator not used
5.2.2
Plankton
Frequency of N.scintillans blooms
5.2.2
Plankton
Frequency of summer blooms of phytoplankton
5.2.2
Plankton
not applicable
5.2.2
Plankton
The summer-time water clarity measured as Secchi depth
5.2.2
Plankton
water clarity measured as Secchi depth
5.2.3
Bottom fauna
and flora
Cladophora length
5.2.3
Nutrients and
oxygen
WFD opportunistic macroalgae tool
5.2.3
Plankton
not applicable
101
5.2.4
Nutrients and
oxygen
eutrophication relevant plankton index
5.2.4
Pelagic
habitats
Change of plankton functional types (life form) index
5.2.4
Plankton
Diatom - dinoflagellate ratio during spring bloom
5.2.4
Plankton
Extent of cyanobacterial blooms
5.2.4
Plankton
frequency of bloom/diatom to dinoflagellate ratio
5.2.4
Plankton
frequency of Phaeocystis blooms
5.3.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
abundance of macrophytes and seegrasses (EEI)
5.3.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Biomass of Cystoseira barbata
5.3.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Ecological Inex (EI) for macrophyts
5.3.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species
5.3.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
not applicable
5.3.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
WFD macroalgae and seagrass tools
5.3.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
concentration of oxygen in water
5.3.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
Frequency of hypoxia (oxygenn saturation < 25%)
5.3.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
minimum concentration of oxygen in bottom water
5.3.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
Oxygen (concentrations/5 percentile) in bottom waters
5.3.2
Nutrients &
Oxygen
Volume-specific oxygen dept
6.1.1
Habitat
abundance and extent
6.1.1
Habitat
Blue mussel cover
102
6.1.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Area of subtidal biogenic structures
6.1.1
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Density of biogenic reef forming species
6.1.2
Habitat
Near bottom oxygen conditions
6.1.2
Habitat
surface area of seabed not impacted by human activity last year
6.1.2
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed' (Physical
pressure)
6.1.2
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and penetration' (Physical
pressure)
6.1.2
Rock and
biogenic reef
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features' (Physical pressure)
6.1.2
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Penetration and/or disturbance of the substrate below the surface of the seabed' (Physical
damage)
6.1.2
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Shallow abrasion/penetration: damage to seabed surface and penetration' (Physical
damage)
6.1.2
Sediment
habitats
Impact/Vulnerability of habitat to 'Surface abrasion: damage to seabed surface features' (Physical damage)
6.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species
6.2.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
vulnerable benthos species
6.2.1
indicator not used
6.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
AMBI and M-AMBI, Shannon Index
6.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Average regional species richness
103
6.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
BEQI
6.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Ecological Inex (EI) for macrophyts
6.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Multidimensional biodiversity indices taking both incorporating species richness and evenness, e.g. Hill's indices
6.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Multimetric macrozoobenthos indicators (BQI, MarBIT, DKI, BBI, ZKI, B)
6.2.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Ratio of perennial and annual macrophytes
6.2.2
Pelagic
habitats
Change of plankton functional types (life form) index
6.2.3
Bottom fauna
and flora
length-frequency distribution bivalves
6.2.4
Bottom fauna
and flora
Size-distribution of long-lived macrozoobenthic species
6.2.4
indicator not used
7.1.1
Habitat
surface area
7.2.1
Habitat
surface area
8.1.1
Chemicals
concentraties in water and sediment
8.1.1
Chemicals
concentraties in water, sediment or biota
8.1.1
Chemicals
concentrations of substances in water, sediment or biota
8.1.1
Chemicals
Measurements of contaminants in mussel/bivalve, TBT/imposex index
8.1.1
Chemicals
Measurements of contaminants in sediment: PAHs, (PBDE, HBCDD, PFOS, PCB, Dioxins)
8.1.1
Chemicals
Measurements of contaminants in water: 17-alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2)
8.1.1
Chemicals
Mesurements of contaminants in fish: PBDE, HBCDD, PFOS, PCB, Dioxins, PAHs, metals, cesium-137
8.2.1
Bottom fauna
Antioxidant activity
8.2.1
Chemicals
Biological/ecological effects of contaminants
8.2.1
Chemicals
EcoQO on imposex
8.2.1
Chemicals
selection of bioassays
8.2.1
Chemicals
Use of biological assays: general stress indicator (LMS) for various mussel and fish species, fish disease index as general
104
indicaror, genotoxicity indicator as index for cytogenic damage (bivalves and fish), reproductive disorder indivator for
eelpout.
8.2.2
Chemicals
EcoQO on oiled guillemot
8.2.2
Chemicals
Illegal discharges of oil
8.2.2
Chemicals
Oilspills & oil discharges (satellite)
9.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Acetycoholin-esterase inhibition
9.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
contaminants in fish and seafood
9.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Levels of contaminants in fish and seafood
9.1.1
Bottom fauna
and flora
Measurements of contaminants in mussels (and in some cases crustaceans): PAHs, Hg, Cd, Pd
9.1.1
Fish
contaminants in fish and seafood
9.1.1
Fish
Levels of contaminants in fish and seafood
9.1.1
Fish
Mesurements of contaminants in fish: PBDE, HBCDD, PFOS, PCB, Dioxins, PAHs, metals, cesium-137
9.1.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
frequency of levels being exceeded
9.1.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
Frequency of the measured levels being exceeded
9.1.2
Bottom fauna
and flora
No indicators proposed
9.1.2
Fish
frequency of levels being exceeded
9.1.2
Fish
No indicators proposed
10.1.1
Birds
EcoQO plastic particles in fulmar stomachs
10.1.1
Pressure
amount of litter on beaches/coastline
10.1.1
Pressure
Quanity of visable litter items
10.1.2
Birds
EcoQO plastic particles in fulmar stomachs
10.1.2
Pressure
amount of floating, or sea-floor litter
10.1.2
Pressure
Trend of visable litter items
10.1.3
Pressure
No indicators proposed
105
10.2.1
Birds
EcoQO plastic particles in fulmar stomachs
10.2.1
Birds
Trends in amount of plastic particles in fulmar stomach
11.1.1
Pressure
Impacts of anthropogenic underwater noise on marine mammals *
11.1.1
Pressure
Proportion of days and distruvtion of impulsive sound
11.2.1
Pressure
Trends in ambient noise
106
Annex 9. Specific management measures and their characterization in terms of Aim and Mechanism
Management measure:
Aim
Management measure:
Mechanism
Management measure: Specific
Nature conservation
social:education and raising
public awareness
Attraction of eco-tourism in coastal Natura 2000 areas.
Nature conservation
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Well-defined requirements for contractors of large projects regarding nature
conservation legislations (e.g. environmental control area)
restrictions on construction
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial designation of a non-building zone of 2km (landwards) from the coastline
restrictions on
tourism/recreation
economic: taxes or subsidies
User fees for tourism (e.g. diving , fishing and sailing)
reduce impact renewable
energy (operations):
thermal pollution
technical
Decrease discharge of thermal energy
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic:
hydrographical conditions
technical
Restoring salt water-fresh water transition zones
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic:
hydrographical conditions
technical
Restoring circulation in anoxic lagoons
reduce impact non-
renewable energy (oil & gas
operations) : pollution
management coordination:
monitoring
Control on brine discharges by creation of gas storage facilities
reduce impact renewable
energy (operations)
technical
Limitations on density of wave and tidal energy device arrays
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: fish
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Installation of breakwaters for fish reproduction and growth
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: fish
remediation
Bioremediation or biomanipulation measures, such as release of predatory fish
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: habitat
restoration/compensation
Managed realignment in coastal areas to restore coastal habitats
Conservation ecosystem
restoration/compensation
Habitat creation as compensation for port development (e.g. in Natura 2000 areas)
107
characteristic: habitat
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: habitat
restoration/compensation
Seabed restoration/aftercare measures to speed recovery or improve certainty of
recovery
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: marine
mammals
management coordination:
protocol
Action plan for conservation of marine mammals (e.g. harbour porpoises)
reduce impact human
activities
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal limitations during essential life history stages of protected species for
sectors , e.g. no nourishment during breeding season or near lactating seals
Conservation ecosystem
characteristic: water quality
technical
Installing hard substrate for algae and shellfish as a natural filter to improve the water
quality in the harbour
Reduce effects NIS
remediation
Eradication of invasive, nonindigenous mammals in seabird colonies
reduce impact
agriculture:eutrophication
Social: stakeholder involvement
Establishment of an agricultural forum to address marine eutrophication
reduce impact waste water
treatment: eutrophication
technical
Additional P- and N-reduction Water Treatment Plants
reduce impact land based
industry:eutrophication
technical
Reduction of the amount of phosphates in detergents
reduce effects pollution
remediation:cleaning
Bioremediation of oil spills
reduce effects pollution
remediation:cleaning
Chemical cleaning of oil spills
reduce effects pollution
remediation:cleaning
Mechanical cleaning of oil spills
reduce impact non-
renewable energy (oil & gas
operations) : pollution
management coordination:
monitoring
System for identification of oil spills from offshore installations
Reduce effects pollution
remediation:cleaning
Mechanical remediation of contaminated sediments
Reduce effects pollution
remediation:cleaning
Remediation contaminated sediments by the use of micro-organisms
Reduce effects pollution
remediation:cleaning
Stabilization/solidification of contaminated sediments
Reduce impact aquaculture
social: certification
ASC labeled fish
Reduce impact aquaculture
technical
Integrated aquaculture (INTAQ)
Reduce impact aquaculture
mitigation: licenses/permits
License system for (sustainable) aquaculture (e.g. fin-fish farming)
108
Reduce impact aquaculture
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial regulation of production areas of fish (aquaculture) near areas where wild
migratory fish are present
Reduce impact aquaculture
technical
Higher quality of aquaculture feeds, so that less feed is needed (to reduce waste)
Reduce impact aquaculture
technical
Bioremediation or biomanipulation measures, such as mussel farming or adding bivalves
to fish farms
Reduce impact fishing
social: certification
Ecolabeling for fisheries
Reduce impact fishing
social: certification
MSC labeled fish
Reduce impact fishing
management coordination: rights
based management
Community catch quotas; individual non-transferable or transferable catch quotas
Reduce impact fishing
management coordination: rights
based management
Individual non-transferable or transferable effort quotas,
Reduce impact fishing
management coordination: rights
based management
Apply territorial use rights in fisheries
Reduce impact fishing
technical
Competitions to stimulate innovations for (selective / smart) gear solutions
Reduce impact human
activities
social:education and raising
public awareness
Active dissemination of research findings to the public
Reduce impact human
activities
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial closed areas offshore windparks
Reduce impact human
activities
management coordination:
marine spatial planning
Coastal Area Management Programmas as an integrated sustainable management tool
for planning and development activities
Reduce impact human
activities
management coordination:
marine spatial planning
Integrated approach (not in a sectoral way) for marine spatial planning and
management, ICZM
Reduce impact human
activities
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal zoning of sectorial use in coastal and marine environments
Reduce impact human
activities
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial application of Environmental Impact Zones/buffer zones around the project site
reduce litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Port reception fees
reduce litter
social:education and raising
public awareness
Labelling of products to raise consumer awareness, e.g. \marine litter logo\""
Reduce impact shipping
social:stakeholder involvement
Clean Shipping Index
Reduce impact shipping
spatial and temporal distribution
Spatial designation of no anchor zones on protected shellfish areas
109
controls:zoning
Reduce impact shipping
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial designation of no-mooring zone or inversely special mooring zones (e.g. to
protect eelgrass beds, Posidonia oceanica beds)
Reduce impact
shipping:emission
management coordination: rights
based management
Spatial designation of NOx emission and creation of a control area (under MARPOL,
Annex VI)
Reduce impact shipping
economic: taxes or subsidies
Ship berthing fees
Reduce impact tourism/
recreation
economic: taxes or subsidies
User fees for tourism (e.g. diving , fishing and sailing)
reduce impact waste water
treatment
management coordination
Water management to reduce the discharge of agricultural nutrients and pesticides
reduce impact waste water
treatment
infrastructure
Investment for building, extension or rehabilitation of Waste Water Treatment Plants
reduce impact
agriculture:eutrophication
social instruments
Training/certification for spreading and transporting manure
reduce impact agriculture
management coordination
Improved fertilizer and manure management
reduce impact waste water
treatment
infrastructure
Establishing additional waste water treatment plants
reduce impact waste water
treatment
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Implementing National Programme for Priority Construction of Urban Wastewater
Treatment Plants
reduce impact
agriculture:eutrophication
technical
Limit discharge of agricultural nutrients by soil tillage methods
reduce impact
agriculture:eutrophication
technical
Limit discharge of agricultural nutrients by catch crops
reduce impact
agriculture:eutrophication
technical
Anaerobic digestion of manure (biogas) to reduce N leaching (technical measure), biogas
production from manure
reduce impact
agriculture:eutrophication
technical
Ditch dams and ditch filters to reduce phosphorous leakage from arable land (technical
measure)
reduce impact waste water
treatment
technical
Improving the function, storage and efficiency of combined sewage overflows and
surface water drains
reduce pollution
management coordination
Improved pesticides management
reduce litter
technical
Introduce modern landfill techniques
110
reduce pollution
management coordination:
monitoring
Pollution control of rivers, supported by monitoring system for water quality
reduce litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Award-based incentives for coastal villages with Integrated Waste Management (IWM)
reduce effects litter
social: community action
Voluntary campaign on litter; do it your self beaches
reduce effects litter
social: community action
Voluntary campaign; beach cleanup
reduce effects litter
social: community action
Voluntary campaign on litter; diving against debris
reduce effects litter
social: community action
Collection of fished litter (fishing for litter scheme)
reduce impact
tourism/recreation: litter
infrastructure
Improved facilities for beach litter deposit
Reduce litter
infrastructure
Improved infrastructure for recycling to decrease marine litter
reduce impact
shipping:litter
infrastructure
Provision and use of port reception facilities for wastes generated during operation of
ships
reduce litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Charging for waste services including landfills
economic: taxes or subsidies
Plastic levy to finance beach cleanups
reduce atmospheric
emission
economic: taxes or subsidies
Reduction NOx tax when contributing to NOx fund
reduce impact land based
industry:litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Deposit-refund programmes on plastic and glass bottles
reduce impact land based
industry:litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Subsidies to decrease marine litter by smarter products packing
reduce impact fishing:litter
social: education and raising
public awareness
Awareness programs to mitigate ALDFG (abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing
gear, ghostfishing) impacts
reduce impact fishing:litter
social: community action
Retrieval of lost or abandoned fishing gear
reduce impact fishing:litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Deposits on fishing gear
reduce impact fishing:litter
technical
Biodegradable fishing gear to reduce litter
reduce impact fishing:litter
traceability/labelling
Name tags on fishing gear
reduce impact land based
industry:litter
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Regulation on manufacturing industry to improve recyclability (reduce litter)
reduce impact land based
industry:litter
technical
Smarter products/packing to decrease marine litter
111
reduce impact
shipping:litter
infrastructure
Free waste water service for cruise ships in ports
reduce impact
shipping:litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Financial and technical support for the installation of waste management systems on
board of ships
reduce introduction NIS
social: certification
MAC certification for aquarium organisms
reduce introduction NIS
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Ban on import keeping and sale of known invasive species
reduce introduction NIS
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Prohibit imports, keeping and sale of captivated invasive species
reduce effects NIS
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Regulations on the introduction of hard substrates in soft sediment areas (minimize
stepping stones for NIS)
reduce effects NIS
technical
Installation of migration barriers for invasive species
reduce impact shipping:
introduction NIS
management
coordination:monitoring
Screening of international imports via hulls and ballast water for disease + hitch-hikers
(live+dead)
reduce impact
aquaculture:introduction
NIS
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Ban on aquaculture with (new) non-indigeneous species
reduce effects NIS
remediation:cleaning
Pole and cover stones inspectation and cleaning of NIS
reduce impact shipping:
introduction NIS
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Mandatory hull cleaning large ships
reduce impact shipping:
introduction NIS
technical
Ballast water treatment
reduce impact shipping:
introduction NIS
management coordination:
protocol
Quarantine measures for mammals on vessels visiting important island seabird colonies
reduce impact shipping:
introduction NIS
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal restrictions to the discharge of ballast water
reduce impact shipping:
introduction NIS
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Mandatory use of biosecure treatment facilities in marinas
Reduce noise
regulatory instruments
Reduction of the use of sonar
reduce noise
technical
Ramp-up procedure during construction and other noisy activities
reduce impact renewable
technical
Implementation of silent gear boxes in turbines
112
energy (operations): noise
reduce impact renewable
energy (construction):
noise
economic: taxes or subsidies
Subsidies for alternatives to monopiles to avoid under water sound
reduce impact renewable
energy (construction):
noise
technical
Soft start construction to reduce sound effects on mobile fauna
reduce impact renewable
energy (construction):
noise
technical
Pile sleeves to absorb sound of monopile construction
reduce noise
technical
Bubble curtains to absorb sound from construction sites
reduce impact renewable
energy (construction):
noise
technical
Gravity based foundations instead of monopiles to prevent piling or to decrease sound
production
reduce noise
management coordination:
protocol
Enforcing JNCC marine mammal protocol seismics
reduce impact
shipping:noise
technical
Ship quietening by quiet hull designs
reduce impact
shipping:noise
technical
Ship quietening by diesel-electric propulsion
reduce impact
shipping:noise
technical
Ship quietening by fixed-pitch propellers
reduce impact land based
industry:eutrophication
technical
Development of substitutes for phosporus in detergents
conservation ecosystem
characteristic: fish
technical
Catching non-economically profitable fish species to remove nutrients
reduce impact
agriculture:pollution
Social: stakeholder involvement
Establishment of an agricultural forum to address effects pesticides
reduce impact
shipping:pollution
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Stricter enforcement for the movement off hazardous substances and materials to
prevent marine pollution by vessels
Reduce pollution
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Decrease discharge of sewage water by stricter enforcement of regulations
113
Reduce pollution
economic:
penalties/enforcement
Decrease discharge of sewage water through higher penalties
Reduce pollution
economic:
penalties/enforcement
Higher penalties for polluters
Reduce pollution
economic:
penalties/enforcement
Higher penalties on excessive discharge of sewage water from passenger ships and
ferries
reduce atmospheric
emission
management coordination: rights
based management
Transferable emission quota (within sea basin)
Reduce pollution
physical measures
Prevent aquatic pollution from landfill sites
Reduce pollution
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Extending dumping bans on lipophylic substances
Reduce pollution
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Stricter regulations and higher taxes on the use of highly polluting substances
reduce atmospheric
emission
economic: taxes or subsidies
NOx tax
reduce impact
shipping:pollution
economic: taxes or subsidies
Additional port, fairway and harbour taxes for "polluting" ships
Reduce pollution
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Stricter regulations and higher taxes on the use of highly polluting substances
reduce impact waste water
treatment:pollution
technical
Additional reduction of contaminants other than P and N with Water Treatment Plants
reduce effects pollution
remediation: cleaning
Cleaning pollution by products of offshore drilling operations, e.g. drilling muds and
cuttings
reduce impact land based
industry:litter
regulatory instruments
Restrictions on the use of plastics
traceability/labelling
Improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution
reduce effects pollution
management coordination:
monitoring
Contingency plans for chemicals and oil spills in case of accidents
reduce pollution
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Stricter standards for dumping
reduce pollution
infrastructure
Phasing out improper dumping sites (e.g. for dredged material, sewage sludge and
vessels)
114
reduce pollution
infrastructure
Liquidation of illegal dumping sites
reduce pollution
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial zoning dumping areas
reduce impact
shipping:pollution
technical
Alternatives for anti-fouling paints
reduce litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Subsidize the construction of new modern landfills
reduce litter
economic: taxes or subsidies
Subsidize the improvement of the solid waste management in the coastal zone
reduce impact non-
renewable energy (oil & gas
operations) : light pollution
technical
Using green light on offshore platforms
reduce impact renewable
energy ( operations)
:collision hazard
management coordination:
protocol
Put windmills to a stop during periods of bird migration
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Ban or further regulation of deepwater drilling
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal delineation of extraction zones (planning) to avoid particularly sensitive
features (micro-silting)
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal mega instead of local sand nourishments in the coastal zone
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging:disturbance
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal restrictions, e.g. no nourishment in breeding season or near lactating
seals, or spatial restrictions to nourishment in habitats
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal zoning of shell mining
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
economic: taxes or subsidies
Aggregate taxes / levy (e.g. (Marine) Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (MALSF))
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging: sea floor
integrity
technical
Using deeper sandpits, decreasing the area of excavation
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging: sea floor
integrity
technical
Using sand for nourishment with comparable sediment characteristics as the natural
situation
115
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging
technical
Application of an environmental friendly sand extraction methodology or other
mitigating measures for aggregate extraction
conservation ecosystem
characteristic: habitat
restoration
technical
Optimise shape burrow pits for ecological development
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging: seafloor
impact
technical
Strokenwinning mining the pit in strips the idea is that this will improve colonization.
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Beach instead of underwater nourishment or underwater nourishment instead of beach
nourishment
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging: changes in
siltation
technical
Limiting silt plumes by limiting silt overflow
reduce impact aggregates
and dredging
management coordination:
monitoring
Application of a feedback monitoring system on the effects of dredging activities,
enabling one to intervene rapidly when dangerous levels are exceeded
restrictions on human
activities
mitigation: licenses/permits
Marine Licence scheme
Restrictions on aggregates
and dredging
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Archaeological Exclusion Zones
restrictions on human
activities
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Designation of SACs, SPAs and MCZs
restrictions on human
activities
mitigation: licenses/permits
Environmental impact assessment undertaken with each licence application
restrictions on human
activities
mitigation: licenses/permits
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a basis for licences / permits for constructions
in the marine environment (e.g. offshore wind farms Denmark)
restriction on
telecommunications
(construction)
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal planning of cables to minimize environmental (e.g. avoid sensitive sites)
and technical risk (e.g. avoid wrecks)
restriction on non-
renewable Energy (oil & gas
construction)
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-temporal planning of pipelines to minimize environmental (e.g. avoid sensitive
sites) and technical risk (e.g. avoid wrecks)
restrictions on human
spatial and temporal distribution
Spatial application of Environmental Impact Zones/buffer zones around the project site
116
activities
controls:zoning
restrictions on human
activities
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatio-Temporal restrictions on pile driving
Restrictions on fishing
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Scrapping program to eliminate surplus capacity in fishing fleets, decommissioning
programs
Restrictions on fishing
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Reduce fishing fleet capacity
reduce impact fishing:
selective fishing
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Discard ban on the most commercially important species, ban on high grading
reduce impact fishing:
selective fishing
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Implementation or modification of Min/Max landing sizes
Restrictions on fishing
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial designation of national fishing zones
Restrictions on fishing
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial zoning acces of ships based on engine size and power
Restrictions on fishing
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial zoning acces based on fishing methods
Restrictions on fishing
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Temporal seasonal restrictions of fishing techniques
Restrictions on fishing
economic: taxes or subsidies
Commercial fishing fees
Restrictions on fishing
economic: taxes or subsidies
Get rid of tax free diesel for commercial fisherman
Restrictions on fishing
economic: taxes or subsidies
Subsidies to fisherman to not fish in recovering areas
Restrictions on fishing
technical
Introducing structures to make bottom trawling impossible
reduce impact fishing
technical
Limited use of certain fishing techniques (e.g. gillnets, trawls)
reduce impact fishing
economic: taxes or subsidies
Taxes or fees to discourage certain fishing techniques
reduce impact fishing:
seafloor impact
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Ban on beam trawling
reduce impact fishing:
seafloor impact
technical
Electric pulse fishing
reduce impact fishing:
seafloor impact
technical
SumWing fishing
117
reduce impact fishing
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Mandatory use of new (more selective) fishing techniques
reduce impact fishing
economic: taxes or subsidies
Taxes or fees to discourage certain fishing techniques
reduce impact fishing:
bycatch
economic: taxes or subsidies
Subsidies to encourage certain fishing techniques (e.g. limit bycatch)
reduce impact fishing:
bycatch
technical
Measures to minimise seabird by-catch
reduce impact fishing:
bycatch
technical
Net materials that increase sound reflectivity and hence could reduce the by-catch of
non target species
Reduce impact human
activities
technical
The increased use of pingers to deter marine mammals
reduce impact fishing:
selective fishing
mitigation:
legislation/enforcement
Restrictions on mesh-size fishing gear
restrictions on human
activities
spatial and temporal distribution
controls:zoning
Spatial restriction on cables/pipelines
118
Annex 10 Management measures (aim only see Annex 9) linked to each of the elements of the impact chain.
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
nature conservation
all
all
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
conservation ecosystem characteristic: fish
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Fish Deep sea
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Selective Extraction of Species
Fish Pelagic
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Salinity regime change
Fish Benthic
Waste Water Treatment
Barrier to species movement
Agriculture
(Hydro) Power Station Operations
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
Coastal defense
Abrasion
Habitats
Aggregates
Substrate_Loss
Bottom fauna and flora
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Fish Benthic
Navigational Dredging
Marine mammals
Coastal Infrastructure (operations)
Seabirds inshore
Bathymetry/ topography
Conservation ecosystem characteristic: hydrographical conditions
Waste Water Treatment
Salinity regime change
Habitats
Coastal Infrastructure (operations)
Waterflow rate change
Plankton
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Operations
Bottom fauna and flora
Renewable Energy - operations
Fish Benthic
(Hydro) Power Station Operations
Fish Pelagic
Desalination
Seabirds inshore
Aggregates
Salinity
Nutrients & Oxygen
Conservation ecosystem characteristic: marine mammals
Coastal defense
Disturbance
Marine mammals
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Marine Litter
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Death or injury by collision
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Underwater noise
Military
Barrier to species movement
Navigational Dredging
Selective Extraction of Species
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Construction
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Renewable Energy - construction
Research
Shipping
Renewable Energy - operations
Conservation ecosystem characteristic: water quality
Aggregates
Input of organic matter
Habitats
119
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
Aquaculture
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Plankton
Coastal defense
changes in siltation
Bottom fauna and flora
Navigational Dredging
Fish Benthic
Waste Water Treatment
Fish Pelagic
Agriculture
Seabirds inshore
Nutrients & Oxygen
reduce litter
Shipping
Marine Litter
Bottom fauna and flora
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fish Deep sea
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fish Benthic
Tourism/Recreation
Fish Pelagic
Waste Water Treatment
Marine mammals
Land-based Industry
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce atmospheric emission
all
Introduction of other substances
all
Emergence regime change
Thermal regime change
Salinity regime change
pH changes
reduce introduction NIS
Aquaculture
Introduction of non-indigenous species
Habitats
Land-based Industry
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Seabirds inshore
reduce pollution
Aquaculture
Input of organic matter
Habitats
Shipping
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Bottom fauna and flora
Land-based Industry
Introduction_of_Radionuclides
Fish Deep sea
Waste Water Treatment
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Fish Benthic
Agriculture
Introduction of other substances
Fish Pelagic
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Marine mammals
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Operations
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce noise
Military
Underwater noise
Fish Deep sea
Shipping
Fish Benthic
(Hydro) Power Station Construction
Fish Pelagic
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
Marine mammals
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Construction
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Renewable Energy - construction
Research
Marine Litter
Bottom fauna and flora
reduce effects litter
Shipping
Fish Deep sea
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fish Benthic
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fish Pelagic
120
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
Tourism/Recreation
Marine mammals
Waste Water Treatment
Seabirds inshore
Land-based Industry
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce effects NIS
Aquaculture
Introduction of non-indigenous species
Habitats
Shipping
Bottom fauna and flora
Tourism/Recreation
Fish Deep sea
Coastal Infrastructure (operations)
Fish Benthic
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Fish Pelagic
Renewable Energy - construction
Seabirds inshore
reduce effects pollution
Aquaculture
Input of organic matter
Habitats
Shipping
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Bottom fauna and flora
Land-based Industry
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Fish Deep sea
Waste Water Treatment
Introduction of other substances
Fish Benthic
Agriculture
Fish Pelagic
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact human activities
all
all
all
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
Aggregates
Disturbance
Habitats
Navigational Dredging
Input of organic matter
Plankton
Coastal defense
Smothering
Bottom fauna and flora
Abrasion
Fish Benthic
Underwater noise
Marine mammals
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Seabirds inshore
Selective Extraction of Non-living material
Bathymetry/ topography
changes in siltation
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: changes in siltation
Aggregates
changes in siltation
Habitats
Navigational Dredging
Plankton
Coastal defense
Bottom fauna and flora
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
Coastal defense
Substrate_Loss
Habitats
Aggregates
Abrasion
Bottom fauna and flora
Navigational Dredging
Selective Extraction of Non-living material
Fish Benthic
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Bathymetry/ topography
reduce impact aggregates and dredging:disturbance
Aggregates
Disturbance
Marine mammals
Navigational Dredging
Seabirds inshore
Coastal defense
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact agriculture
Agriculture
Input of organic matter
Plankton
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Bottom fauna and flora
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Fish Deep sea
121
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Nutrients & Oxygen
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact agriculture:eutrophication
Agriculture
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Plankton
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Nutrients & Oxygen
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
Agriculture
Input of organic matter
Habitats
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
Reduce impact aquaculture
Aquaculture
Introduction of non-indigenous species
Habitats
Input of organic matter
Plankton
Introduction of microbial pathogens
Bottom fauna and flora
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Fish Deep sea
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
Nutrients & Oxygen
reduce impact aquaculture:introduction NIS
Aquaculture
Introduction of non-indigenous species
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact fishing
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
Habitats
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Death or injury by collision
Bottom fauna and flora
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Selective Extraction of Species
Fish Deep sea
Substrate_Loss
Fish Pelagic
Marine Litter
Fish Benthic
122
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact fishing: bycatch
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Death or injury by collision
Fish Deep sea
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Selective Extraction of Species
Fish Benthic
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact fishing: seafloor impact
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
Habitats
Substrate_Loss
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Benthic
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact fishing: selective fishing
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Selective Extraction of Species
Fish Deep sea
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Fish Benthic
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fish Pelagic
reduce impact fishing:litter
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Marine Litter
Fish Deep sea
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Fish Benthic
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact land based industry:eutrophication
Land-based Industry
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Plankton
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Nutrients & Oxygen
reduce impact land based industry:litter
Land-based Industry
Marine Litter
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact non-renewable energy (oil & gas operations) : light pollution
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Barrier to species movement
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact non-renewable energy (oil & gas operations) : pollution
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
Input of organic matter
Habitats
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Bottom fauna and flora
Introduction of other substances
Fish Benthic
123
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
Fish Deep sea
Fish Pelagic
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact renewable energy ( operations) :collision hazard
Renewable Energy - operations
Death or injury by collision
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact renewable energy (construction): noise
Renewable Energy - construction
Underwater noise
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
reduce impact renewable energy (operations)
Renewable Energy - operations
Death or injury by collision
Fish Deep sea
Waterflow rate change
Fish Benthic
Emergence regime change
Fish Pelagic
Electromagnetic change
Marine mammals
Thermal regime change
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Habitats
reduce impact renewable energy (operations): noise
Renewable Energy - operations
Underwater noise
Fish Deep sea
Fish Pelagic
Fish Benthic
Marine mammals
reduce impact renewable energy (operations): thermal pollution
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Operations
Thermal regime change
Habitats
Renewable Energy - operations
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Temperature
Nutrients & Oxygen
reduce impact shipping
Shipping
Introduction of non-indigenous species
all
Marine Litter
Underwater noise
Introduction of other substances
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Emergence regime change
Thermal regime change
Salinity regime change
pH changes
Abrasion
reduce impact shipping: introduction NIS
Shipping
Introduction of non-indigenous species
Habitats
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Seabirds inshore
124
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact shipping:pollution
Shipping
Input of organic matter
Habitats
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_co
Bottom fauna and flora
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact shipping: emission
Shipping
Introduction of other substances
all
Emergence regime change
Thermal regime change
Salinity regime change
pH changes
reduce impact shipping:noise
Shipping
Underwater noise
Fish Deep sea
Disturbance
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
reduce impact shipping-litter
Shipping
Marine Litter
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
Reduce impact tourism/ recreation
Tourism/Recreation
Disturbance
Bottom fauna and flora
Marine Litter
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
reduce impact tourism/recreation: litter
Tourism/Recreation
Marine Litter
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
125
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
reduce impact waste water treatment
Waste Water Treatment
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Habitats
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Plankton
Marine Litter
Bottom fauna and flora
Input of organic matter
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
Nutrients & Oxygen
Chemicals
reduce impact waste water treatment: eutrophication
Waste Water Treatment
Nitrogen and Phosphorus enrichment
Plankton
Bottom fauna and flora
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Nutrients & Oxygen
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
Waste Water Treatment
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compou
Habitats
Marine Litter
Bottom fauna and flora
Input of organic matter
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Smothering
Habitats
Abrasion
Bottom fauna and flora
Underwater noise
Fish Deep sea
changes in siltation
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Restrictions on on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operation)
restriction on telecommunications (construction )
Telecommunications operation
Electromagnetic change
Fish Deep sea
Thermal regime change
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
restriction on telecommunications (operation)
Telecommunications construction
Smothering
Bottom fauna and flora
Abrasion
Fish Deep sea
Underwater noise
Fish Benthic
changes in siltation
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
126
Aim
Driver
Pressure
Component
restrictions on construction
(Hydro) Power Station Construction
Disturbance
Bottom fauna and flora
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
Underwater noise
Fish Deep sea
Non-renewable Energy (Nuclear) Construction
Introduction of other substances
Fish Benthic
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Barrier to species movement
Fish Pelagic
Renewable Energy - construction
Abrasion
Marine mammals
Telecommunications construction
Substrate_Loss
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
restrictions on human activities
all
all
all
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Disturbance
Bottom fauna and flora
Marine Litter
Fish Deep sea
Fish Benthic
Fish Pelagic
Marine mammals
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Reptiles
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Aggregates
Disturbance
Habitats
Navigational Dredging
Smothering
Bottom fauna and flora
Coastal defense
Abrasion
Fish Benthic
Substrate_Loss
Marine mammals
changes in siltation
Seabirds inshore
Underwater noise
Seabirds offshore
Selective Extraction of Non-living material
Bathymetry/ topography
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Benthic trawling
Abrasion
Habitats
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
Death or injury by collision
Bottom fauna and flora
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
Selective Extraction of Species
Fish Benthic
Substrate_Loss
Seabirds inshore
Seabirds offshore
Fish Deep sea
Fish Pelagic
127
Annex 11a Measures for the high-threat chains for descriptor 4 (Foodweb) per pressure-sector
combination
The table below gives an overview of the measures (aim) for the high-threat chains for descriptor 4 per
pressure-sector combination. To limit the output only those measures with a relatively narrow focus on
the specific impact chains (i.e. an average SC score < 10) were selected.
The table can be read as following:
Pressure
Sector
Measures (aim)
Abrasion
Aggregates
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Fishing - Benthic trawling
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: seafloor impact
restrictions on fishing
Navigational Dredging
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Shipping
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact shipping
Tourism/Recreation
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Changes_in_siltation
Aggregates
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: changes in siltation
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Death_or_injury_by_collision
Shipping
reduce impact shipping
Input_of_organic_matter
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Tourism/Recreation
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Waste Water Treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
Introduction_of_microbial_pathogens
Shipping
reduce impact shipping
128
Introduction_of_non_indigenous_s
Aquaculture
reduce effects NIS
Reduce impact aquaculture
reduce impact aquaculture:introduction NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce effects NIS
reduce impact fishing
reduce introduction NIS
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
reduce effects NIS
reduce impact fishing
reduce introduction NIS
restrictions on fishing
Military
reduce effects NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Research
reduce effects NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Shipping
reduce effects NIS
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping: introduction NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_compounds
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operations)
reduce impact non-renewable energy (oil & gas operations) :
pollution
restriction on on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas operation)
Shipping
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping: emission
reduce impact shipping:pollution
Waste Water Treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compounds
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
129
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Shipping
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping: emission
reduce impact shipping:pollution
Waste Water Treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
Marine_Litter
Aquaculture
reduce effects litter
Reduce impact aquaculture
reduce litter
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce effects litter
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing:litter
reduce litter
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
reduce effects litter
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing:litter
reduce litter
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
reduce effects litter
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing:litter
reduce litter
restrictions on fishing
Shipping
reduce effects litter
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping-litter
reduce litter
Tourism/Recreation
reduce effects litter
Reduce impact tourism/ recreation
reduce impact tourism/recreation: litter
reduce litter
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_enrich
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Land-based Industry
reduce impact land based industry:eutrophication
Tourism/Recreation
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Selective_Extraction_of_Non_livi
Aggregates
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Selective_extraction_of_species
Aquaculture
conservation ecosystem characteristic: fish
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
conservation ecosystem characteristic: fish
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: bycatch
reduce impact fishing: selective fishing
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Fixed Nets incl. potting and creeling
conservation ecosystem characteristic: fish
130
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: bycatch
reduce impact fishing: selective fishing
restrictions on fishing
Fishing - Pelagic trawling
conservation ecosystem characteristic: fish
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: bycatch
reduce impact fishing: selective fishing
restrictions on fishing
Research
conservation ecosystem characteristic: fish
Smothering
Aggregates
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Navigational Dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Substrate_Loss
Aquaculture
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
Reduce impact aquaculture
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
Fishing - Benthic trawling
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: seafloor impact
restrictions on fishing
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Telecommunications construction
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restriction on telecommunications (construction )
Tourism/Recreation
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Thermal_regime_changes
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Underwater_noise
Military
reduce noise
Water_flow_rate_changes
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
131
Annex 11b Measures for the high-threat chains for descriptor 6 (Sea floor integrity) per
pressure-sector combination
The table below gives an overview of the measures (aim) for the high-threat chains for descriptor 6
Sea floor integrity per pressure-sector combination. To limit the output only those measures with a
relatively narrow focus on the specific impact chains (i.e. an average SC score < 10) were selected.
The table can be read as following:
Pressure
Sector
Measures (aim)
Abrasion
Aggregates
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Fishing - Benthic trawling
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: seafloor impact
restrictions on fishing
Navigational Dredging
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Shipping
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact shipping
Tourism/Recreation
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Changes_in_siltation
Aggregates
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: changes in siltation
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Input_of_organic_matter
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Tourism/Recreation
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Waste Water Treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
Introduction_of_microbial_pathogens
Shipping
reduce impact shipping
Introduction_of_non_indigenous_s
Aquaculture
reduce effects NIS
132
Reduce impact aquaculture
reduce impact aquaculture:introduction NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce effects NIS
reduce impact fishing
reduce introduction NIS
restrictions on fishing
Military
reduce effects NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Research
reduce effects NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Shipping
reduce effects NIS
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping: introduction NIS
reduce introduction NIS
Introduction_of_Non_synthetic_compounds
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Shipping
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping: emission
reduce impact shipping:pollution
Waste Water Treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
Introduction_of_Synthetic_compounds
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
reduce impact agriculture:pollution
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Shipping
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping: emission
reduce impact shipping:pollution
Waste Water Treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment
reduce impact waste water treatment:pollution
Marine_Litter
Aquaculture
reduce effects litter
Reduce impact aquaculture
reduce litter
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce effects litter
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing:litter
reduce litter
restrictions on fishing
Shipping
reduce effects litter
reduce impact shipping
reduce impact shipping-litter
133
reduce litter
Tourism/Recreation
reduce effects litter
Reduce impact tourism/ recreation
reduce impact tourism/recreation: litter
reduce litter
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Nitrogen_and_Phosphorus_enrich
Agriculture
reduce impact agriculture
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Land-based Industry
reduce impact land based industry:eutrophication
Tourism/Recreation
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Selective_Extraction_of_Non_livi
Aggregates
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging: sea floor integrity
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Selective_extraction_of_species
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: bycatch
restrictions on fishing
Smothering
Aggregates
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Aquaculture
Reduce impact aquaculture
Fishing - Benthic trawling
reduce impact fishing
restrictions on fishing
Navigational Dredging
reduce impact aggregates and dredging
restrictions on aggregates and dredging
Substrate_Loss
Aquaculture
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
Reduce impact aquaculture
Coastal Infrastructure (construction)
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
Fishing - Benthic trawling
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
reduce impact fishing
reduce impact fishing: seafloor impact
restrictions on fishing
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Telecommunications construction
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restriction on telecommunications (construction )
Tourism/Recreation
conservation ecosystem characteristic: habitat
restrictions on tourism/recreation
Thermal_regime_changes
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
Water_flow_rate_changes
Non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
restriction on non-renewable Energy (oil & gas construction)
ODEMM is funded by the EC under FP7
ISBN Number: 978-0-906370-75-9
