MSFD monitoring guidance WG GES proposed amendments and

MSFD monitoring guidance WG GES proposed amendments and way forward Nikolaos ZAMPOUKAS Andreas PALIALEXIS Georg HANKE

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 2

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

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 4

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…… 5

Controversial proposals DE: proposal to eliminate text on DNA-based monitoring Marine organisms are often hard to count. However, they consistently shed DNA in various ways (plant parts, decay, fish slime and scales, etc. ) which can be sampled, purified and easily amplified by a PCR. Downstream analysis can either be species specific, through cheap PCR or hybridisation techniques, or open ended, with high throughput sequencing. Machine time and analyses are rapidly becoming cheaper. Taking samples is relatively straightforward and protocols can be developed for opportunistic sampling. Sampling, processing and relating to actual occurrence of the organism are investigated in many projects, in most cases in fresh water. There is an ever increasing information resource available on the internet. There is no restriction on the type of organism studied and it is relatively easy and cheap to develop a species specific DNA marker, as long as their DNA occurs in the water column and a pure sample can be obtained for validation of probes. However, due to the vast number of marine species, particularly for components such as phytoplankton, the development of markers for all species of the community is of questionable feasibility. The method is particularly useful to determine the absence or presence, since the DNA concentration depends on currents, rate of decay, size of the water body, characteristics of the species (e. g. much higher DNA concentrations during spawning periods), etc. The collected DNA may therefore not adequately reflect the abundance of the species. The method is therefore good to determine species composition and occurrence of rare and invasive species. Well-designed sampling schemes taking into account characteristics of the water body already generate 6 semi -quantitative data and experts predict that it can generate sufficiently reliable quantitative

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 subregions 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. 7

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 D 2, by using the WFD monitoring. Indeed, the vectors analysis, the spatial scale required for D 2, the riskbased 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 D 2, and thus a new monitoring scheme has to be created for that purpose 8

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. 9

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 10