SLIDE 1
Paper accompanying the OSPAR presentation to the NOWPAP Workshop on - - PDF document
Paper accompanying the OSPAR presentation to the NOWPAP Workshop on - - PDF document
Paper accompanying the OSPAR presentation to the NOWPAP Workshop on EcoQOs Gert Verreet, Deputy Secretary OSPAR Commission, London, 21 July 2014 Contents Some key drivers for ecological quality objectives in European (/North-East Atlantic)
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
3 "a comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the health of the marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity." This description also placed humans as part of natural ecosystems, and stressed that human activities [emphasis added] in these ecosystems must be managed so that they do not compromise ecosystem components that contribute to the structural and functional integrity of the ecosystem. (ICES, 2005) The late 1990s was a period in which European water policy was also changed dramatically with the negotiation of the Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000). Taking account of the slow progress of earlier approaches (by substance, by sector, ...) and with the gradual geographic expansion of the European Communities / European Union to ever more Member States, the fundamental environmental legislation became 'framework' legislation, taking up the main previous commitments. This new approach also required that water managers would make plans with specific objectives and targets for specific water bodies (rivers, lakes, groundwater, coastal waters), within a common methodological framework. This directive was a 'template' for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see below). In 2002, the European Community agreed that, within its 6th Environmental Action Programme, a thematic strategy for the marine environment should be developed ("a thematic strategy for the protection and conservation of the marine environment taking into account, inter alia, the terms and implementation
- bligations of marine Conventions, and the need to reduce emissions and impacts of sea transport and
- ther sea and land-based activities" (EC, 2002)). As a result of a process of discussion with Member States,
international organisations and stakeholders, the European Commission decided in 2005 to propose a new legislative instrument which became the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008 (EC, 2008). This Directive is now providing an important legal framework for marine environmental protection action by the EU Member States. It can be considered to be, within the EU legal
- rder, a 'legal
embodiment' of the ecosystem approach, as illustrated in Table 1 (from Verreet, 2009). The Step 4 (& 5) is a pivotal step between preparation and management - and measures, i.e. they guide policy. This scheme corresponds strongly to that of the NOWPAP workshop's working document § 13.
SLIDE 4
4
First experience with EcoQOs in OSPAR 2002 - 2010
In the period 1997-2002 the 'Ecological Quality' (EcoQ) and 'Ecological Quality Objective' (EcoQO) discussion in OSPAR remained fairly academic. The 2002 Bergen Declaration of the North Sea Conferences gave a big push forward. They agreed on a first list of issues for which EcoQOs would be developed (Table A, next page) and a first set of EcoQOs, for which they invited ICES and OSPAR to develop them further through a pilot study for the North Sea (Table B, next page). The work to test and implement the EcoQOs was undertaken by several groups of experts reporting to the thematic OSPAR Committees that were responsible for the subject matter, so, for example, the 'Biodiversity Committee' would take responsibility for the biodiversity-related EcoQOs. The conclusions of the work were reported to the OSPAR Commission
- meetings. Monitoring, data collection and assessment were established using already existing initiatives
and processes. The EcoQOs were then developed and used for the monitoring and assessment of the North Sea, with a revised EcoQO Manual published in 2009. In that process, wording of the 'objective' became more detailed and specific (see Annex 1). Key reporting stages in the decade 2000 - 2010 include (see References - 2):
- further stakeholder engagement in the wake of the North Sea Conference - see OSPAR, 2005;
- technical documentation and an overall 'handbook' (2005, 2009, 2011, 2012);
- reports on overall system testing and implementation (OSPAR, 2006 and 2009).
The 'learning experience' of the North Sea pilot project was documented in an evaluation report (OSPAR, 2009). Some of the findings include: Strengths
- 1. Accelerated by North Sea Conferences and EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Ecosystem
Approach becomes leading principle for North Sea management
- 2. Much knowledge available
- 3. Quality control by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES - an independent
and scientific international advisory body)
- 4. Tested in practice
- 5. Communication tools to inform stakeholders and politicians
Weaknesses
- 6. Slow start, scientific and operational difficulties
- 7. Lack of coordination amongst the many organisations involved
- 8. No success in the short term
- 9. Lack of commitment
The practice of the use of EcoQOs remained mostly limited to the North Sea area where they had first been
- developed. The assessment criteria of some EcoQOs could successfully be expanded to other areas,
through adaptation. e.g. the EcoQO on imposex was expanded to other target species. In general it can be said that the EcoQOs at the level of features of biological populations at higher trophic levels (e.g. bycatch level of marine mammals, bird population status, ...) were the more difficult to make
- perational. A crucial requirement is that the monitoring can be undertaken on a sustainable basis.
SLIDE 5
5
SLIDE 6
6 The testing and application resulted in the use of the EcoQOs in the overall assessment of the state of the environment in the North-East Atlantic: see Quality Status Report 2010 (OSPAR, 2010) and Figure 2. Figure 2 - Overview of EcoQO assessment in the OSPAR Quality Status Report 2010
SLIDE 7
7 An example of a national use of an EcoQO in this context is the EcoQO on oiled Guillemots as operated by The Netherlands (see Figure 3 from Camphuysen, 2013). This particular EcoQO has been monitored already for a very long time and clearly corroborates (albeit with a slightly different trend line) the assessment of decreasing oil pollution of the North Sea, as observed through routine aerial surveillance (by ship pollution control services) of marine oil pollution (see Figure 4 from Bonn Agreement, 2013). When a specific phenomenon (here: sea surface oil pollution) is monitored with different indicators, countries can choose which parameter is most useful to support an EcoQO or operational objective. In this particular case e.g. three North Sea countries have used the beached bird indicator for an MSFD target and
- ne North Sea country is using the aerial surveillance indicator for a national target.
Figure 4 - Total numbers of oil slicks and hours of aerial
- bservation: The ratio
between all flight hours and all observed slicks 1986 – 2012 steadily decreases over time (Bonn Agreement, 2013)
SLIDE 8
8 Some final remarks on the 2002-2010 phase of work are:
- Uptake in regular monitoring and assessment - Not all the EcoQOs have been taken up into regular OSPAR
monitoring and assessment, i.e. they have not all become part of the 'routine' of OSPAR work. The 'oiled birds' EcoQO is an example of that: where countries continue to undertake monitoring of birds beached in winter (three North Sea countries do this) they will also record the percentage of birds that are tainted with
- il. Those countries then have an easy option to continue this EcoQO / indicator. These countries continue
to make use of this EcoQO also in relation to the MSFD (see below). Where countries do not monitor birds beached during Winter, they can use another indicator to formulate a target.
- The tension between ecosystemic relevance and communication value - Communication with
stakeholders and policy makers tended to raise the importance of the 'communication value' of the EcoQOs: "..., especially for communicating with the public, the emphasis needs to be on simple, easily understood indicators with an immediate impact on public understanding – and, in particular, on direct cause/effect relationships with identifiable human activities that are subject to regulation." (OSPAR, 2005). This is not necessarily possible for all main important dimensions of ecosystem quality.
- Relevance for the 'good environmental status' (GES) concept of the MSFD - The 2009 evaluation stated "
At present, there are still major gaps and we are not able yet to assess to what extent OSPAR has delivered the main aims. The development of the MSFD has raised questions on the usefulness of the original EcoQO system in the further development of EcoQOs. Alternatively, GES and its generic qualitative descriptors could be accepted as a leading framework." Nevertheless, the EcoQO experience equipped OSPAR Contracting Parties to address some of the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This European legislation requires EU Member States to coordinate their action to protect the marine environment in a (sub-)regional context, using the regional sea conventions as a platform (for the North- East Atlantic this is OSPAR).
Mainstreaming the EcoQOs within the 'Good Environmental Status' concept of the MSFD
The political momentum for marine environmental protection within the European Union can be said at present to be completely taken over by the requirements of the EU's 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC, 2008). The objective (and legally binding concept, that is bringing all countries to the same level) is to achieve or maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by 2020 at the latest. While the EU's integrated maritime policy emphasises the 'blue growth' agenda, the MSFD is seen as the 'environmental pillar' of that policy and that it defines the environmental constraints (and opportunities) for further development of uses of the marine environment. The MSFD sets out management steps to be taken with their timing. The first implementation cycle is from 2010-2018: Figure 5. The requirements of articles 9 (determination of good environmental status, 'GES') and 10 (establishment of a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators to guide progress towards achieving GES) are the main drivers with respect to the EcoQO issue. In the context of those two MSFD articles, OSPAR Contracting Parties coordinated among themselves to some degree (see OSPAR, 2012). However, it proved difficult to have very harmonised expressions of GES across the entire OSPAR maritime area. Contracting Parties used the OSPAR EcoQOs where they found them relevant, especially in the context of the Article 10 'targets and indicators'. Some of the difficulties arose because of the ambiguity of the level of commitment on 'indicators' (see next section 'A dilemma ...').
SLIDE 9
9 To move forward toward more operational coherence across the entire OSPAR monitoring and assessment work, OSPAR 2013 agreed on a set of 'common indicators' expressing the intention to organise as much as possible joint work in the sphere of 'monitoring and assessment'. The work on 'common indicators' is now the action focus of OSPAR groups, aiming to deliver assessment results that can also be used in time for the the next MSFD cycle 2018 onwards (see below).
Figure 5 - Marine Strategy Framework Directive main steps in management cycle
A dilemma: scientific maturity of EcoQOs and the 'normative' use of objectives to create a level playing field
Natural variability and the degree of understanding between 'cause and effect' in relation to impacts of human pressures on the marine environment are two fundamental constraints on the ability to set marine environmental objectives. Where 'cause and effect' have been well documented and understood, including the effect of natural variations in drivers (control variables), it is generally considered feasible to formulate such objectives. Objectives allow the determination of 'distance to target' to guide (and quantify) management action required.
SLIDE 10
10 A current problem is that limitations in scientific knowledge and/or 'testing experience' have to be
- vercome quickly. An understanding of the natural dynamics and ability to influence environmental status
by changes in pressures is also a necessity to formulate useful objectives, especially where countries want them to be part of a 'legally binding' commitment as is the case in the MSFD GES concept. When EcoQO development and testing is still required, international cooperation is easier to organise with 'aspirational objectives and targets'.
Updating OSPAR monitoring and assessment for the next period: 'common indicators'
OSPAR is coordinating marine environmental monitoring (see OSPAR, 2014) and assessment (thematic assessments, integrated 'quality status reports'). For the MSFD, OSPAR provides a coordination platform to those Contracting Parties that are bound by that Directive. In 2012 it was decided that the preparation of monitoring programmes (MSFD: by 2014) was an
- pportunity for the identification of 'common indicators' across the whole thematic spectrum covered by
the MSFD GES Descriptors, with a view to their incorporation in a renewed OSPAR Joint Monitoring and Assessment Programme (JAMP), which is OSPAR's umbrella programme for such activities. The development and testing phase of the new OSPAR common indicators has to be kept to a minimum to allow completion of a more comprehensive set in time for the next steps in implementation of the MSFD, e.g. for the first revision of the MSFD initial assessment, GES and 'indicators & targets' by 2018. It is then very important that countries have a good understanding of the factors that affect indicators and also have the ability to assess environmental indicators and the degree to which objectives have been reached. In the OSPAR process on common indicators, the issue of responsiveness to management actions is an important selection criterion. The following set of criteria was used for the selection of common biodiversity indicators:
Sensitive to significant and specific pressures: Specific refers to the response of an indicator to a single pressure. This enables the use of state indicators to identify pressures and aids the identification of appropriate management measures. Significant refers to selecting indicators that respond to pressures with known or potential threat to the functional group or habitat in questions. This is to direct monitoring efforts towards detecting impacts of predominate threats. Relevant for development of management measures: An indicator relevant for management informs on the pressure and supports the development of management measures. Another aspect of relevance is the response time i.e. the elapse between measures taken and response of an indicator. Practicable: The consideration of practicability includes methodological aspects of the measurement and assessment, costs of monitoring, whether the indicators can be based on existing monitoring, and whether one and the same monitoring effort can be used as a basis for several different indicators. Applicable across the region/sub-region: Common indicators should be applicable across the OSPAR area, acknowledging that in some cases regional specification of relevant species and habitat will be necessary to fill the indicator with relevant parameters. Representative: As a set the indicators should respond to the MSFD requirements (criteria and indicators of 2010/477/EU) and enable a representative state assessment of all important ecosystem components. Degree of consensus among Contracting Parties. Degree of consensus among Contracting Parties refers to whether the indicator is already being applied by Contracting Parties (results from the inventory of the Amsterdam OSPAR workshop). This criterion should be used as a complementary criterion. High consensus supports the inclusion of an indicator as a common indicator. Low consensus should on the other hand not be used as an exclusive argument for excluding an indicator if it fits the other criteria.
SLIDE 11
11 After intensive work by a range of specialist groups, OSPAR was able to adopt in 2013 a set of 'common indicators' and 'candidate indicators' (see Annex 2, version updated in June 2014). The OSPAR Commission adopted in June 2014 its Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme 2014-2021 which takes up the work to make the common indicators operational. Much development and testing work is still on-going, especially for the 'biodiversity' issues and pressures that are being considered in more depth than previously, such as marine litter and underwater noise. A number of previously agreed EcoQOs have been taken up (sometimes in a modified form) in the set of common indicators (see indicators with * in Annex 2).
Practical considerations that should inform the selection of EcoQOs, operational
- bjectives and indicators & targets
Technical capabilities are very important ... The choice of ecological quality objectives, and especially the more operational objectives and targets, requires a number of practical considerations. Monitoring has to be practical (technically feasible, cost effective, ...). One has to be able to collect data of sufficient quality. The monitoring data have to lend themselves to assessment: a useful 'signal' should be able to be 'assessed' with appropriate assessment
- criteria. The assessment criteria have to be meaningful: they should allow a useful judgement on the state
- f the environment, changes in pressures and impacts, .... At each step of the chain there are a number of
important factors that can determine whether the overall activity is meaningful and delivers the information that is expected. In OSPAR, the existing expertise of Contracting Parties in marine monitoring is the basis for setting up monitoring and assessment arrangements. Scientific advice (ICES, ...) is sought whenever required. Key joint activities target perceived common weaknesses, such as arrangements for quality assurance, development
- f assessment criteria etc. Training opportunities may be necessary whenever novel techniques are
- introduced. External funding from international (EU, Nordic Council of Ministers, ...) research or innovation
project funding lines can be tapped into for new developments. In one case, a project-based quality assurance scheme was succesfully continued on a self-funding basis, and it still continues to provide services for marine monitoring quality assurance (QUASIMEME, http://www.quasimeme.org/). Joint or coordinated assessment of the EcoQOs / indicators / targets also implies due care for the data management process. For a number of monitoring data sets, OSPAR uses a centralised reporting system. For some indicators, Contracting Parties' expert centres act as common data centre. For some indicators, assessment is done at national level with national data and assessment results are shared. In the discussion of indicator assessments, it is important to determine how 'aggregated' the information should be for particular user communities. In the EU context, the scheme like that of Figure 6 has been used to illustrate this.
SLIDE 12
12
Figure 6 - data to information with reduction of detail
... but they alone will not suffice for a successful implementation of the Ecosystem Approach! The international work to agree on EcoQOs, operational objectives and indicators/targets can be undertaken with success if the set-up is such that it leads to 'win-win' situations for the participating countries and institutions. In principle, all participating institutions should be able to gain from the
- collaboration. Starting with a clear political commitment, momentum can be developed only if there is a
continued 'political reality check' so that: (1) the real concerns of the countries are addressed; (2) the countries are able to build on, retain and - ideally also develop further - the competence of their national centres of science and monitoring (i.e. that the existing capabilities are taken up in the process); (3) the cost-effectiveness of the entire set-up, aiming to deliver the best value information to inform the
- verall policy process;
(4) countries also understand individually and collectively the policy implications of a particular indicator (and of the set of indicators) and are able to address it in their national situation. The overall regional process should remain well-balanced and focused on the main environmental issues of the sea area. One should avoid that the process is perceived to single out a particular sector or issue, as the ambition of the ecosystem approach is really to make progress over the whole line in dialogue with those responsible, i.e. include also the stakeholders. While scientific knowledge and capabilities are of great importance (as demonstrted above), they alone will not be able to reach the intended results.
SLIDE 13
13
References - 1: relevant publications (accessible via internet search)
Bonn Agreement, 2013. Bonn Agreement Aerial Surveillance Programme, Annual report on aerial surveillance for 2012. see www.bonnagreement.org Camphuysen C.J. (2013). Monitoring and assessment of the proportion of oiled Common Guillemots from beached bird surveys in The Netherlands: update winter 2012/13. NIOZ Internal Report, June 2013. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Texel.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicaties.minienm.nl%2Fdownload
- bijlage%2F23411%2Fcamphuysen-oiledguillemotsnl-final-
10june2013.pdf&ei=zLK_U6SSH8PROYWagPgO&usg=AFQjCNGgnmMzlcfG2uUuYbecke3hixyLdA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.ZGU
EC, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 EC, 2002. Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002D1600&from=EN EC, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF
- ICES. 2005. Guidance on the Application of the Ecosystem Approach to Management of Human Activities in
the European Marine Environment, ICES Cooperative Research Report, No. 273. 22 pp OSPAR, 2012. Finding Common Ground. Towards regional coherence in implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the North-East Atlantic region through the work of the OSPAR Commission. OSPAR Commission, London 35 pp http://ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00578/p00578_msfd%20report.pdf OSPAR, 2014. OSPAR Coordinates Monitoring in the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR Commission, London 17 pp http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00622/p00622_ospar_monitoring_coordination_r eport.pdf Verreet, G. 2009. Good environmental status: from dream to reality at last? ICES Insight. Issue 46 September 2009. http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/ICES%20Insight/ICES%20Insight%202009-web.pdf
References - 2: OSPAR Publications on Ecological Quality Objectives
www.ospar.org - publications OSPAR, 2005. Ecological Quality Objectives for the Greater North Sea with Regard to Nutrients and Eutrophication Effects OSPAR Publication No. 229 ISBN 1-904426-71-9 OSPAR, 2005. Synergies between the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure, the integrated set of OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for eutrophication and the EC Water Framework Directive OSPAR Publication No. 231 ISBN 1-904426-73-5 OSPAR, 2005. North Sea Pilot Project on Ecological Quality Objectives - Background Document on the Ecological Quality Objective for Spawning Stock Biomass of Commercial Species in the North Sea OSPAR Publication No. 242 ISBN 1-904426-81-6
SLIDE 14
14 OSPAR, 2005. OSPAR Stakeholder Workshop Towards Finalisation of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea OSPAR Publication No. 243 ISBN 1-904426-82-4 OSPAR, 2005. North Sea Pilot Project on Ecological Quality Objectives - Background Document on the Ecological Quality Objective on Bycatch of Harbour Porpoises in the North Sea OSPAR Publication No. 244 ISBN 1-904426-83-2 OSPAR, 2005. North Sea Pilot Project on Ecological Quality Objectives - Background Document on the Ecological Quality Objective for Seal Population Trends in the North Sea OSPAR Publication No. 245 ISBN 1-904426-84-0 OSPAR, 2005. North Sea Pilot Project on Ecological Quality Objectives - Background Document on the Ecological Quality Objective on imposex in dog whelks OSPAR Publication No. 247 ISBN 1-904426-86-7 OSPAR, 2005. North Sea Pilot Project on Ecological Quality Objectives - Background Document on the Ecological Quality Objective on Oiled Guillemots OSPAR Publication No. 252 ISBN 1-904426-91-3 OSPAR, 2006. Report on North Sea Pilot Project on Ecological Quality Objectives OSPAR Publication No. 239 ISBN 1-904426-80-8 OSPAR, 2007. Ecological Quality Objectives: Working towards a healthy North Sea OSPAR Publication No. 318 ISBN 978-1-905859-57-3 OSPAR, 2009. EcoQO Handbook - Handbook for the application of Ecological Quality Objectives in the North Sea - 2nd edition OSPAR Publication No. 307 ISBN 978-1-905859-46-7 OSPAR, 2009. The OSPAR system of Ecological Quality Objectives for the North Sea, a contribution to OSPAR’s Quality Status Report 2010 OSPAR Publication No. 404 ISBN 978-1-906840-44-0 OSPAR, 2009. Evaluation of the OSPAR system of Ecological Quality Objectives for the North Sea OSPAR Publication No. 406 ISBN 978-1-906840-46-4 OSPAR, 2011. Background document on Ecological Quality Objectives for threatened and/or declining habitats OSPAR Publication No. 555 ISBN 978-1-907390-96-8 OSPAR, 2012. Background document on the Ecological Quality Objective (EcoQO) on Seabird Population Trends OSPAR Publication No. 576 ISBN 978-1-909159-10-5
SLIDE 15
15
Annex 1 Overview table of the EcoQO system for the North Sea (OSPAR, 2009)
Ecological quality Issue Ecological quality element and related ecological quality objective (EcoQO)
- 1. Commercial fish
species 1.1 Spawning stock biomass of commercial fish species in the North Sea Above precautionary reference points for commercial fish species where those have been agreed by the competent authority for fisheries management
- 2. Marine mammals
2.1 Seal population trends in the North Sea
- a. Harbour seal population size: Taking into account natural population dynamics and trends, there
should be no decline in harbour seal population size (as measured by numbers hauled out) of ≥10% as represented in a five-year running mean or point estimates (separated by up to five years) within any of eleven sub-units of the North Sea. These sub-units are: Shetland; Orkney; North and East Scotland; South-East Scotland; the Greater Wash/Scroby Sands; the Netherlands Delta area; the Wadden Sea; Heligoland; Limfjord; the Kattegat, the Skagerrak and the Oslofjord; the west coast of Norway south of 62oN.
- b. Grey seal pup production: Taking into account natural population dynamics and trends, there should
be no decline in pup production of grey seals of ≥10% as represented in a five-year running mean or point estimates (separated by up to five years), within any of nine sub-units of the North Sea. These sub- units are: Orkney; Firth of Forth; the Farne Islands; the Greater Wash; the French North Sea and Channel coasts; the Netherlands coast; the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea; Heligoland; Kjørholmane (Rogaland). 2.2 By-catch of harbour porpoises Annual by-catch levels should be reduced to below 1.7% of the best population estimate
- 3. Seabirds
3.1 Proportion of oiled common guillemots among those found dead or dying on beaches The average proportion of oiled Common Guillemots in all winter months (November to April) should be 20% or less by 2020 and 10% or less by 2030 of the total found dead or dying in each of 15 areas of the North Sea over a period of at least 5 years. 3.2 Mercury and organohalogen concentrations in seabird eggs a. Mercury: The average concentrations
- f mercury in the fresh mass of ten eggs from separate clutches of common tern (Sterna hirundo) and
Eurasian oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) breeding adjacent to the estuaries of the Rivers Elbe, Weser, Ems, Rhine/Scheldt, Thames, Humber, Tees, and Forth, should not significantly exceed concentrations in the fresh mass of ten eggs from separate clutches of the same species breeding in similar (but not industrial) habitats in south-western Norway and in the Moray Firth b. Organohalogens: For each site, the average concentrations in fresh mass of the eggs of common tern (Sterna hirundo) and Eurasian oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) should not exceed: 20 ng g−1 of PCBs; 10 ng g−1 of DDT and metabolites; and 2 ng g−1 of HCB and of HCH. Sampling should be of ten eggs of each species from separate clutches of birds breeding adjacent to the estuaries of the Rivers Elbe, Weser, Ems, Rhine/Scheldt, Thames, Humber, Tees, and Forth, and in similar (but not industrial) habitats in south- western Norway and in the Moray Firth 3.3 Plastic particles in stomachs of seabirds There should be less than 10% of northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) having more than 0.1g plastic particles in the stomach in samples of 50 to 100 beach-washed fulmars from each of 4 to 5 areas of the North Sea over a period of at least five years 3.4 Local sand eel availability to black-legged kittiwakes (under development) Breeding success of the black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) should exceed (as a three-year running mean) 0.6 chicks per nest per year in each of the following coastal segments: Shetland, north Scotland, east Scotland, and east England 3.5 Seabird population trends as an index of seabird community health (under development)
- 4. Fish communities
4.1 Changes in the proportion of large fish and hence the average weight and average maximum length of the fish community Over 30% of fish (by weight) should be greater than 40 cm in length
- 5. Benthic
communities 5.1 Imposex in dog whelks (Nucella lapillus) or other selected gastropods The average level of imposex in a sample of not less than 10 female dog whelks (Nucella lapillus) should be consistent with exposure to TBT concentrations below the environmental assessment criterion (EAC) for TBT – that is, < 2.0, as measured by the Vas deferens Sequence Index, Where Nucella does not occur naturally, or where it has become extinct, the red whelk (Neptunea antiqua), the whelk (Buccinum undatum) or the netted dog whelk (Nassarius reticulatus) should be used, with exposure criteria on the same index of <2.0, <0.3 and <0.3, respectively. 5.2 Density of sensitive (e.g., fragile) species (under development) 9.1.5 Kills in zoobenthos in relation to eutrophication This EcoQO is part of the integrated subset of EcoQOs for eutrophication under issue 9.
SLIDE 16
16
- 6. Plankton
communities 9.1.2 Phytoplankton chlorophyll a This EcoQO is part of the integrated subset of EcoQOs for eutrophication under issue 9. 9.1.3 Phytoplankton indicator species for eutrophication This EcoQO is part of the integrated subset of EcoQOs for eutrophication under issue 9.
- 7. Threatened and/or
declining species 7.1 Presence and extent of threatened and/or declining species in the North Sea, as shown on the Initial OSPAR List (under development)
- 8. Threatened and/or
declining Habitats 8.1 Restore and/or maintain the quality and extent of threatened and/or declining habitats in the North Sea, as shown on the Initial OSPAR List (under development)
- 9. Eutrophication
9.1 Eutrophication status of the North Sea Overarching EcoQO-eutro: All parts of the North Sea should have by 2010 the status of non-problem areas with regard to eutrophication, as assessed under the OSPAR Common Procedure for the Identification of the Eutrophication Status of the OSPAR Maritime Area (which consists of the (one-off) Screening Procedure and the (iterative) Comprehensive Procedure) Supporting EcoQOs-eutro: 9.1.1 Winter nutrient (DIN and DIP) concentrations Winter DIN and DIP (that is, concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved inorganic phosphate) should remain below a justified salinity- related and/or area-specific % deviation from background not exceeding 50%. 9.1.2 Phytoplankton chlorophyll a Maximum and mean chlorophyll a concentrations during the growing season should remain below a justified area-specific % deviation from background not exceeding 50%. 9.1.3 Phytoplankton indicator species for eutrophication Area-specific phytoplankton eutrophication indicator species should remain below respective nuisance and/or toxic elevated levels (and there should be no increase in the average duration of blooms 9.1.4 Oxygen Oxygen concentration, decreased as an indirect effect of nutrient enrichment, should remain above area-specific oxygen assessment levels, ranging from 4 – 6 mg oxygen per litre 9.1.5 Kills in zoobenthos in relation to eutrophication There should be no kills in benthic animal species as a result of oxygen deficiency and/or toxic phytoplankton species
SLIDE 17
17
Annex 2
OSPAR Common Indicators (and Candidate Indicators): 2014 update
OSPAR-wide (Regions II, III and IV) common indicator 2014 Common Indicator in one or more indicated OSPAR Regions 2014 Candidate indicator Priority candidate indicators (in Regions other than where it is already Common)
D: refers to the eleven MSFD Annex 1 'descriptors of Good Environmental Status', see endnotes after table. * indicates that the indicator is related to an earlier North Sea EcoQO
Indicator Explanation / title OSPAR Region IV Bay of Biscay Iberian coast OSPAR Region III Celtic Seas OSPAR Region II Greater North Sea D1 Mammals 1 Distribution seals * D1 Mammals 3 Abundance seals D1 Mammals 4 Abundance cetaceans D1 Mammals 5 Seal pup production D1 Mammals 6 Mammals bycatch * D1 Birds 1 Abundance marine birds D1 Birds 2 Breeding success of kittiwake * D1 Birds 3 Breeding status of marine birds D1 Birds 4 Non-native/invasive mammal presence on island seabird colonies D1 Birds 5 Marine bird bycatch D1 Birds 6 Distributional marine birds D1 Fish Ceph 1 Abundance fish * D1 Fish Ceph 2 OSPAR EcoQO proportion of large fish (LFI) D1 Fish Ceph 3 Mean maximum length of demersal fish and elasmobranchs D1 Fish Ceph 4 By-catch rates of Chondrichthyes D1 Fish Ceph 5 Conservation status of elasmobranch and demersal bony-fish species (IUCN) D1 Fish Ceph 6 Proportion of mature fish D1 Fish Ceph 7 Distributional range D1 Fish Ceph 8 Distributional pattern fish D1/6 BentHab1 Typical species composition * D1/6 BentHab2 Multi-metric indices D1/6 BentHab3 Physical damage of predominant and special habitats D1/6 BentHab4 Area of habitat loss D1/6 BentHab5 Size-frequency distribution of bivalve or other sensitive/indicator species * D1 PelHab 1 Changes of plankton functional types (life form) index Ratio D1 PelHab 2 Plankton biomass and/or abundance D1 PelHab 3 Changes in biodiversity index (s) D2 NIS 1 Pathways management measures D2 NIS 2 Rate of new introductions of NIS (per defined period)
SLIDE 18
18
Indicator Explanation / title OSPAR Region IV Bay of Biscay Iberian coast OSPAR Region III Celtic Seas OSPAR Region II Greater North Sea D4 FoodWeb 1 Reproductive success of marine birds in relation to food availability D4 FoodWeb 2 Production of phytoplankton * D4 FoodWeb 3 Size composition in fish communities (LFI) D4 FoodWeb 4 Changes in average trophic level of marine predators (cf MTI) D4 FoodWeb 5 Change of plankton functional types D4 FoodWeb 6 Biomass, species composition and spatial distribution of zooplankton D4 FoodWeb 7 Fish biomass and abundance of dietary functional groups D4 FoodWeb 8 Biomass trophic Spectrum D4 FoodWeb 9 Ecological Network Analysis diversity) D5 input water Waterborne nutrient inputs D5 input air Atmospheric nutrient inputs * D5 nutr conc Winter nutrient concentrations * D5 chlorophyl Chlorophyll concentration * D5 Phaeocystis Species shift/indicator species: Nuisance species Phaeocystis * D5 oxygen Oxygen D7 area affect Extent of area affected – physical D7 habit affect Spatial extent of habitats affected D7 habit functi Changes in habitat functions D8 input metal Inputs of Hg, Cd and Pb via water and air D8 metals (biota) Metal (Hg, Cd, Pb) concentrations in biota D8 metals (sedim) Metal (Hg, Cd, Pb) concentrations in sediment D8 PCBs (biota) PCB concentrations in biota D8 PCBs (sedim) PCB concentrations in sediments D8 PAHs (biota excluding fish) PAHs concentrations in biota D8 PAHs (sedim) PAHs concentrations in sediments D8 Organotin (biota) Organotin concentrations in biota D8 Organotin (sedim) Organotin concentrations in sediments D8 PBDE (biota) PBDE concentrations in biota D8 PBDE (sedim.) PBDE concentrations in sediments D8 HCB (biota) HCB (hexachlorobenzene) concentrations in biota D8 HCBD (biota) HCBD (hexachlorobutadiene) concentrations in biota D8 HCBD (sedim) HCBD (hexachlorobutadiene) concentrations in
sediments
D8 oiled birds Oiled birds (EcoQO) * D8 imposex Imposex/intersex D8 fish disease Externally visible fish diseases D8 LMS Lysosomal stability (LMS) D8 bile metab Bile metabolites (of PAHs) D8 micronuclei Micronuclei (MN) D8 EROD EROD D10 on beach Beach litter D10 on seabed Litter on the sea floor * D10 in Fulmar Fulmar litter ingestion (impact and floating
SLIDE 19