D 1 Species Conclusions D 1 Species conclusions

D 1 Species Conclusions

D 1 – Species conclusions �Are the assessment process and the degree of integration for the descriptor agreeable? � The integration should continue to ecosystem component level – good for communicating the result of the assessment. (but method, sequence tbc) � Species approach to integration � � � One size fits all may not be appropriate across all ecosystem components Would work for marine mammals and reptiles Fish not appropriate Birds likely not appropriate No conclusion on cephalopods

Fish & Birds �Fish � Species approach not helpful. � Primary criteria availability for each spp will limit number of spp you use. Large number of species that will go into the fish assessment. Community indicators cannot be used under spp approach (developed extensively for fish). � Group prefers criteria approach. Both RSCs that have done most work on fish have used criteria approach. �Birds � Criteria approach also preferred by majority of the group, but dependent on integration methods the whole group could agree � Both RSCs that have done most work on birds have used/explored criteria approach (indicators more appropriate for criteria approach)

Integration methods �Are the integration methods appropriate, taking into account consistency with other EU legislation and any regional assessment frameworks? �Proportional approach when integrating indicators? � Used by 2 RSCs for birds and fish �One method does not fit all integration levels (or ecosystem components)

Missing criteria �What integration rules, if any, should apply in cases, in which information is missing for one or more indicators (forming a judgement on one criterion) or for one or more criteria? �Shouldn’t exclude spp from assessments which do not have information on all (primary) criteria �Within criteria approach for fish and birds removes this issue

Assessment scales �Are the assessment scales appropriate? Can assessments across all elements and criteria for a Descriptor (e. g. for all species in a species group for D 1) be done using the same assessment areas? �Agreed that each species group can be assessed at common spatial scale, using aggregation across spatial areas using weighted averaging or other conditional rules to determine if a unit passes or not. Weighted averaging may be based on population abundance, or size of assessment area, or other appropriate method…

Assessment scales �Are there any additional scaling issues that need to be addressed in the guidance (e. g. where different scales are used for different elements and criteria with a Descriptor)? �How to address widely-distributed species – use bestavailable evidence to assess that species, give consideration to applying a single result across all regions, but this may not be appropriate for all spp �Spp that are relevant at small spatial scales – not fully discussed, but is an important issue

Other questions �What is the recommended approach for linking additional national indicators to regional assessments? �Didn’t discuss this �What is the recommended option for a high level presentation of the assessment output? �Agreement that options such as % species helpful

Other issues �Discussion on sequence of assessment flow (select criteria, spatial scales, species) �When choosing species for D 1, these should reflect response to pressures (reflected in scientific criteria) �Group did not agree with primary / secondary criteria distinction – not always helpful for assessment process �Unclear how D 3 should be used in D 1 assessments. Some spp may have D 1 indicators/thresholds that are different from D 3 �Group agreed that commercial species are included in D 1 (guidance integration figure shows this, make more explicit in the text)