Marine monitoring related work in the JRC

1. Marine monitoring related work in the JRC Nikolaos ZAMPOUKAS Heliana TEIXEIRA

2. Contents of the presentation • Development of an MSFD monitoring guidance – process and preliminary messages • Monitoring related work in DEVOTES FP7 project

3. Drafting the MSFD monitoring guidance • Core drafting group led by JRC and including DG ENV, DG MARE and some MS and RSCs • Extended drafting group: HELCOM, BSC, OSPAR, UNEP/MAP, ICES, EE, FR, FI, DE, GR, IT, PL, PT, RO, NL, UK • Links with and input from DEVOTES and STAGES

4. MSFD monitoring guidance • Currently a draft is being commented by the drafting group. • It will be sent on the 30 September to the WG GES for comments and discussion in the next GES meeting.

5. Monitoring principles • There are agreed key principles that monitoring programmes should consider related to adequacy, coordination, coherence, interoperability, adaptivity, linkage with assessment and considerations on risk and precaution as well as on differences in scientific understanding for different descriptors.

6. RSCs • HELCOM is advanced in agreeing common indicators and associated monitoring and OSPAR is building on the JAMP and EcoQOexperience to further cover MSFD requirements. • In the Southern European Seas monitoring mainly covers physicochemical elements. In the Black Sea some biological features are monitored while in the Mediterranean there are efforts and plans for biological monitoring in the near future.

7. RSCs • Although there are important ecological differences between regional seas, interactions and knowledge transfer between RSCs are possible and valuable but, currently, very limited.

8. Biodiversity (D1, 2, 4 & 6) • Data for listed species and habitats are already been collected for the HD and the BD. Abundance is the most common parameter measured for species. • Size and age measurements as well as reproduction and mortality rates are monitored for some species in some areas.

9. Biodiversity (D1, 2, 4 & 6) • For alien species, food webs and sea-floor integrity, related data are already been collected by other monitoring activities that need to be adapted to explicitly and fully cover these descriptors

10. Biodiversity (D1, 2, 4 & 6) • Monitoring in MPAs is important for determining reference conditions, defining GES and assessing the effectiveness of measures. However, at least in the Mediterranean, monitoring of habitats and species does not seem to be common practice.

11. Biodiversity (D1, 2, 4 & 6) • There are several operational models (input from DEVOTES) useful in complementing scarce datasets, determining past baseline conditions, predicting the effectiveness of measures and selecting species to monitor. Data availability is critical for the development of models and for the quality and reliability of their outputs.

12. Hydrographical alterations (D7) • Focuses on permanent alterations and although there are discussions that permanent should be understood as irreversible and lasting more than ten years a fully agreed definition of permanency does not exist. • It is understood that it concerns mainly future activities with potential large scale hydrological impact.

13. Hydrographical alterations (D7) • Hydrographical monitoring should cover both the data to assess D7 indicators as well as basic hydrographical data reflecting long-term changes in ecosystems for interpreting indicators’ results. • The MSFD hydrographical data requirements include the WFD requirements as well as some additional ones and there is considerable potential for data collection with remote sensing, autonomous devices and models.

14. Commercial (shell)fish D3 • Monitoring for commercial fish and shellfish is already done for the DCF that specifies 238 stocks in the N.E. Atlantic and the Baltic Sea and 97 stocks in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. In the Atlantic and the Baltic Sea management advice is provided by ICES while in the Mediterranean and Black Seas by the STECF and GFCM.

15. Commercial (shell)fish D3 • No Member State is currently fully compliant with the DCF but data availability and quality is considerable higher in the Northern European Seas. There is huge potential to combine the EU subsidized DCF monitoring with monitoring for practically all the other MSFD descriptors that currently has not been fully developed.

16. Eutrophication D5 • Possible information sources include existing data, models, expert judgment and new data collection. Data requirements should be defined with respect to frequency, spatial resolution, reliability, accuracy and accessibility and there are several related RSCs’ guidelines (particularly in the Northern European Seas).

17. Eutrophication D5 • Although eutrophication monitoring is considered relatively simple in terms of design and has a long tradition of international cooperation the development of joint monitoring programmes is slow and there is potential for more integration across Member States.

18. Noise D11 • Extensively addressed by a dedicated technical sub-group. • For impulsive sounds, monitoring will be in the form of a register of activities generating such sounds. • Monitoring of trends in ambient sound requires the establishment of a network of hydrophones.

19. Pressures • Only a limited number of parameters in the national monitoring programmesmonitor directly anthropogenic pressures (e.g. input of nutrients, organic matter and contaminants) while many pressures are followed by proxies related to the underlying human activities. • Many existing sources of pressure information (e.g. permitting and inspection authorities & stakeholders) and Member States should aim to compile them into a single dataset.

20. Good practices • the approaches of HELCOM to agree on common core indicators requiring coordinated monitoring and the steps towards a joint coordinated monitoring system in the Baltic Sea • the use of citizens’ observations to complement monitoring data • the German North Sea Summer Surveys

21. Socioeconomic monitoring • Guidance is provided by the WG ESA. • There is considerable tradition and know-how in collecting and reporting social and economic data for the CFP. • Potential sources of socieoeconomic data include DG MARE, EEA, EUROSTAT, national account and input-output tables, IMO and RSCs.

22. Research needs • Research programmes have already delivered several outputs (e.g. monitoring indicators and tools) and demonstrated the feasibility of innovative monitoring approaches but there are still important knowledge deficits and gaps that should be prioritized in future research projects (input from STAGES).

23. WP1: ’Human pressures and climate change’. WP2: ‘Socio-economic implications of GES’. WP3: ‘Indicator testing and development’. Improve our understanding of the impact of human activities and climate change on marine biodiversity. Identify barriers and bottlenecksthat prevent Good Environmental Status (GES) from being achieved. Test indicators and develop new,innovative ones to assess biodiversity in a harmonized way throughout the 4 regional seas. Develop, test and validate innovative integrative modelling and monitoring toolsto improve our understanding of ecosystem and biodiversity changes, for integration into a unique and holistic assessment. Propose and disseminate strategiesand measures for ecosystems’ adaptive management, including the active role of industry and relevant stakeholders. Monitoring related activities: developments on WPs 1 & 5 WP4: ‘Innovative modelling tools’. WP5:’Innovative monitoring techniques WP6: ‘Integrative assessment’ WP7: ‘Outreach, stakeholder engagement and product dissemination’.

24. Relevant output: Catalogue of monitoring networks WP1 Human pressuresand climate change LEVEL 3 - Monitoring Program level Includes several fields describing the general features of each monitoring program, grouped into eight main categories: 1. Monitoring Program general information; 2. Scope of monitoring; 3. Relation to GES descriptors (D) D1/D2/D4/D6 (EU COM Dec 2010); 4. Availability of supporting physico-chemical data; 5. Correspondence with biodiversity components; 6. Correspondence with habitat types; 7. Relation with specific pressures; 8. Geographical range/scale of coverage;

25. Catalogue of monitoring networks WP1 Human pressuresand climate change LEVEL 3 - Monitoring Program level

26. Catalogue of monitoring networks WP1 Human pressuresand climate change LEVEL 2 - Monitoring Networks level Includes fields relating to collaborations between countries: 1. Does the programme form part of a monitoring network? 2. Network name 3. Which other countries are involved (here you can list the countries or simply state that they are e.g. OSPAR contracting parties). 4. Provide the weblink. LEVEL 1 - WebPlatforms level Includes details of data provision. Does the monitoring programme provide data and if so, to whom? As an example, the CSEMP programme provides data to OSPAR and the data are accessible through their website (link).

27. Contributions to the survey: Focused initially on Member States MSFD CA and the Regional Sea Conventions through DEVOTES partners WP1 Human pressuresand climate change Catalogue of monitoring networks UK (UHULL) Spain (AZTI) Bulgaria (IO-BAS) Ukraine(MHI-NASU) Greece (HCMR)

28. The approach using innovative instrumental tools will include: earth observation and ecosystem model output, automated ship-board instruments and underwater analysis or automatic collection devices The approach using innovative methodologies will be based on: the selection and application of the latest developments in molecular biology (second generation sequencing, high-throughput approaches) to identify species (from microorganisms to large invertebrates) or to detect genes indicating, for instance, the presence of toxins WP5 Innovative monitoring techniques Objective: Development, testing and validation of innovative monitoring techniques for parameters, which ultimately may be used as indicators of GES This will fill the gaps identified in WP1 rearding current monitoring systems in the Regional Seas and MS. WP5 will also compare the performance of these innovative techniques against those currently utilized in monitoring (including those catalogued in WP1 and analysed for their cost-effectiveness in WP2).

29. WP5 Innovative monitoring techniques • Some tasks: • Applying remote sensing to assess marine biodiversity: (a) ferrybox, plankton, algorithms, zooscan, etc., (b) benthic habitat mapping (multibeam), (c) ROV, cameras; (d) acoustic, (d) non-invasive biosensors; • Assessing the value of utility of molecular approaches for biodiversity quantification in monitoring systems and validation of metagenetic approaches; • Applying and validating innovative tools to gather information on the diversity of potentially-dangerous algae for human health. Some methods will be ready for CEN standardization.

30. WP5 Innovative monitoring techniques soft bottom One day Traditional analysis Several months Genomic analysis Several days-weeks

31. WP5 Innovative monitoring techniques hard bottom ARMS:Autonomous Reef Monitoring Structure ASU: Artificial Substrate Unit http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/cred/arms.php Provide a systematic, consistent, and comparable method to monitor cryptic reef diversity.

32. The standardized procedure ensures a high level of consistency between data points across Europe and beyond. WP5 Innovative monitoring techniques pelagic Ocean Sampling Day(OSD) is a project of the Micro B3 consortium, an EU funded project working at the intersection of marine microbial biodiversity, bioinformatics and biotechnology. www.oceansamplingday.org Pilot-OSD studies help establish: • the co-ordination (creation of the OSD sites network), • logistics (sampling, shipping and processing), • bioinformatics (metadata capture, standards, storage, analysis and data exchange) and • policies (data policy for OSD, ABS/MTA/DTA) required to run the main OSD event.

33. DEVOTES strategic impact

34. Monitoring related activities: developments on WPs 1 & 5 • Contacts: • Project coordinator: Angel Borja (AZTI; aborja@azti.es) • WP 1 leader:Mike Elliott (University of Hull; Mike.Elliott@hull.ac.uk) • WP 5 leaders: Roberto Danovaro (CONISMa; r.danovaro@univpm.it) & Sabine Cochrane (APN; Sabine.Cochrane@akvaplan.niva.no) • JRC/DEVOTES: Heliana Teixeira (heliana.teixeira@jrc.ec.europa.eu) & Nikolaos Zampoukas (nikolaos.zampoukas@jrc.ec.europa.eu) • Further reading DEVOTES outputs related to monitoring techniques and activities: • http://www.devotes-project.eu/publications/