Pilot testing of reporting sheets for 2012 reporting under MSFD

1. Pilot testing of reporting sheets for 2012 reporting under MSFD S.F.Walmsley Prepared under contract for DG Environment by MRAG Ltd, UNEP-WCMC, URS/Scott-Wilson Presentation to the Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE), Brussels, 5 September 2011

2. Objectives • Introduce the pilot reporting sheets developed • Summarise the pilot process and feedback received from Member States • Present the revised reporting sheets and discuss the changes made • Raise specific questions to be considered by WG-DIKE for the further development of the sheets.

3. Outline of pilot process 11 May 2011 May-June 2011 August 2011 5-6 Sept 2011 • Paper presented to WG DIKE on reporting options • Preparation of draft reporting sheets • Review of Member State feedback • Revision of reporting sheets • Presentation of revised reporting sheets to WG DIKE • Discussion on forward process Feedback July 2011 • Pilot testing of sheets by Member States

4. Pilot reporting sheets • Developed in Excel for • Article 9 and 10 reporting(GES and environmental targets and indicators) included in each (separate worksheet) for relevant descriptors/criteria • Aimed to include 3 levels of information – simple (descriptive), summary information, and detailed (e.g. GIS maps)

5. Pilot sheets Physical damage & loss • Article 9 & 10 • Determination of GES • Against descriptors and/or criteria (qualitative & quantitative options) • Environmental targets & indicators • Against GES descriptors and criteria, specifying relevant GES indicators Metadata Nutrients Habitats Species • Article 8 – Pressures & Impacts • The pressure • Analysis of the pressure • Current status of the pressure • It’s impacts • Analysis of impacts • Current status of impacts • Article 8 – Characteristics • Analysis of essential features and characteristics • Assessment of current status

6. Feedback received

7. Summary of feedback • Pleased to have opportunity to contribute • Sheets comprehensive • Complex and too detailed, need to reprocess data? • Need to consider the use of the information • Unsure about sections on ‘assessment of status’ for Article 8, especially pressures and impacts • Good/not good status? • Concern over reporting GES and T&I linked to descriptors

8. Summary of feedback • Different approaches to assessing pressures, cumulative impacts vs ranking • Links to data reported under other directives • Use of confidence categories for expert judgement-based results • Descriptive information (level 1) could be completed, but need to constrain length, and be clear about its use • Further consideration/specification of GIS requirements • Clearer indication of required and optional fields

9. General changes made • Simplified sheets, removed some fields, combined others (e.g. Physical loss and damage, ‘input’ levels and trends fields removed; descriptive text fields combined for state and trends; top pressures reduced from 5 to 3) • Changed overall structure – Article 8, 9 and 10 clearly separated • Greater flexibility introduced (‘other’ categories) • Colour coding added to indicate prioritisation of fields (high-medium-low)

10. Issues for discussion • Further specification of information requirements, particularly levels 2 and 3 • What time period should be used for reporting on trends? • Relevance of ‘input’ and ‘output’ levels for different pressures • Links between MSFD reporting and data and information reported under other Directives

12. Nutrients and organic matter enrichment • Summary of feedback: • Quite comprehensively completed – reflects state of development of methodologies at regional level • Need to clarify terminology (input/output) • Current status of pressure could be completed, at the level of N, P and organic matter (from HELCOM) • Analysis of impacts and current status of impacts difficult – although eutrophication assessments already do this

13. Nutrients and organic matter enrichment

14. Key questions • What level of aggregation for reporting is appropriate (inputs & outputs)? Should each nutrient be reported separately (N, P, organic matter), or all combined? • Precise data requirements for level 2 and 3 information? • Should activities be specified overall for ‘nutrient and organic matter enrichment’, or should they be per nutrient (N, P, organic matter)? • Pressure status – per nutrient and overall? Impact status quite coarse (seabed/water column) – sufficient? • Impact status allows selection of appropriate GES criteria and indicators. Should it also allow selection of functional groups and predominant habitats?

16. Determination of GES • Summary of feedback • Different approaches to defining GES (at descriptor/criterion/indicator level, quantitatively/qualitatively) • Options provided, only report what is relevant • ‘Proportion of feature’ and ‘threshold’ fields not clear • Feedback on appropriate reporting of quantitative determination of GES would be welcomed • Reporting sheets did not follow Descriptor structure (6.2 missing from physical loss/damage) • Revised structure now clearly follows 11 Descriptors

17. Determination of GES

18. Key questions • Potential for GES reporting at indicator level? • Feedback on appropriate reporting of quantitative determinations of GES would be welcomed, e.g. Proportion of feature and threshold • Relevant features – should this include just the lists of predominant habitats, functional groups, and pressures and impacts? Or should it also include physical, chemical and hydrological characteristics, and/or human activities?

20. Targets and indicators • Summary of feedback: • Linking targets to GES descriptors/criteria/indicators is appropriate but not all MS have approached it in this way • Option for linking targets to ‘other’ if they do not relate to specific descriptors etc. • Targets might relate to multiple descriptors • Structure altered so targets are reported, then appropriate descriptors etc specified • Additional fields for linking targets to pressures and impacts, and to specify relevant geographical area

21. Targets and indicators

22. Key questions • Should the list of ‘relevant features’ include any other options (e.g. Physical/hydrological/chemical aspects)? • Are both target and limit reference points appropriate? In different situations? Both for one target?

24. Habitats • Summary of feedback • One sheet per habitat, or one sheet overall specifying habitats assessed under an overarching indicator? • Reporting should follow predominant habitat types • Added field to specify which habitats/species are associated with the predominant habitat type • Can report on specific habitat types (metadata field) – need clarity on whether this will be a full report/how it will link with Habitats Directive • Reporting on pressures (ranking) may not be possible • Reduced from top 5 to top 3 pressures, ranking not required

25. Habitats

26. Key questions • Specific data requirements for level 2 and 3 information • Should there be a field to capture expected future pressures? • Reporting by predominant habitat type according to list is appropriate

28. Physical loss and damage • Summary of feedback: • ‘Input’ and ‘Output’ confusing • Only ‘Output’ levels used • Level of aggregation – reporting on smothering, sealing etc., or just physical loss and physical damage? • Changed from smothering/sealing etc to loss/damage – but is this right? • Status of pressure and status of impacts may not be undertaken • This may be done in the future, an ‘overall’ assessment field has been added • Field on ‘limitations of data’ added

29. Physical loss

30. Physical damage

31. Key questions • Should there be the opportunity to report on finer-scale details, i.e. Smothering, sealing, changes in siltation, abrasion, selective extraction? • Suggestions for level 3 detail for activities?

33. Species • Summary of feedback • Assessments not carried out at species level • Species-level reporting is provided as an option, but most reporting expected to be at functional group level. • Should allow reference to reports submitted in relation to Habitats and Birds Directives

34. Species

35. Key questions • Further specification of level 3 data requirements

37. Summary of reporting sheets

39. Thank you Suzannah Walmsley MRAG Ltd Email: s.walmsley@mrag.co.uk

40. Summary of reporting sheets