1 / 10

MSFD monitoring guidance WG GES proposed amendments and way forward

This document outlines the proposed amendments and next steps for the MSFD monitoring guidance, including controversial proposals and accepted amendments. It discusses issues such as monitoring of genetic structure, alien species monitoring, and monitoring of biological effects of contaminants.

vlabrie
Télécharger la présentation

MSFD monitoring guidance WG GES proposed amendments and way forward

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MSFD monitoring guidanceWG GES proposed amendments and way forward Nikolaos ZAMPOUKAS Andreas PALIALEXIS Georg HANKE

  2. 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: RSCs, ICES, EE, FR, FI, DE, GR, IT, PL, PT, RO, NL, UK

  3. WG GES proposals for amendment • DK, DE, ES, SE, FR • 231 proposed amendments • Vast majority accepted/ accommodated • Very few not accepted • Some controversial

  4. Not accepted proposals • Incorrect ones/ misunderstandings • Asking for passages on additional subjects that are not feasible in terms of time and resources • Proposing changes to text that was originated from or based on documents of the RSCs • Adding text to the summary not corresponding to the content of the respective chapter • Reflections not proposing a change

  5. Controversial proposals • HELCOM CORESET as a good practice for monitoring • DK proposal: • The approach of HELCOM on developing a core set of biodiversity indicators could be highlighted as a good practice aiming to form the basis of an indicator-based follow up system for measuring progress towards achieving good environmental status with a full set of operational core indicators. monitoring of these indicators by all contracting parties and consequently to a coherent monitoring approach in the Baltic Sea. • The CORESET project developed the set of core indicators for biodiversity with the aims that the core indicators will be monitored by all Contracting Parties, cover the entire convention area, reflect or directly measure anthropogenic pressures, be scientifically sound, be……

  6. Controversial proposals • DE: proposal to eliminate text on DNA-based monitoring

  7. Controversial proposals • DE: strong objection against monitoring of genetic structure and proposal to eliminate following text: • Genetic diversity is the basis of all biological diversity, as cited by the CBD, which puts it explicitly in its objectives and at the centre of the Nagoya Protocol . The definition of a GES on the genetic structure of populations (indicator 1.3.2) offers some advantages such as to provide information directly to the adaptive potential of a species and to infer such information from a relatively small number of samples. The species should be selected on the basis of their ecological importance in the sub-regions and the information that may be deducted from their genetic structure. For the evaluation of GES in the different sub-regions should be implemented indices resulting from the combination of some genetic parameters, chosen according to the nature of the genetic marker used, the size and consistency of the datasets analysed and taking into account the biological characteristics of the selected species.

  8. Controversial proposals • Should we start from scratch for alien species monitoring? • “Existing monitoring programmes (e.g. for the WFD) should be adapted to explicitly record non-indigenous species…” • ES: It seems not easy to obtain all the data needed in relation to D2, by using the WFD monitoring. Indeed, the vectors analysis, the spatial scale required for D2, the risk-based approach, etc, are issues that are not easy to be fit in the WFD to monitoring scheme, which is focused on the assessment of the quality of water bodies. We think it would be rather better to assume that existing monitoring programs do not properly cover D2, and thus a new monitoring scheme has to be created for that purpose.

  9. Issue to be considered by an expert group • Monitoring of biological effect 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 • Biological effect based methods are important, but difficult to use for legally defendable compliance checking.

  10. Next steps • GES is requested to forward this guidance to the MSCG • By 29 October the MSCG will receive: • The proposed amendments of DK, DE, ES, SE, FR together with the JRC response • An updated version including the accepted amendments • A request for additional proposed amendments on remaining outstanding issues

More Related