Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Descriptor 3+ (WKMSFD D3)

• Main Author: ICES
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: 2012
• Subjects: envir; geo; North East Atlantic
• Online Access: https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00099/20981/18605.pdf; https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00099/20981/

This report describes the process undertaken by ICES to provide guidance to support EU Member States (MS) in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive(MSFD) Descriptor 3 (D3), commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The report also describes the potential role of ‘ecosystem’ indicators collected under the DCF to support assessments of other MSFD Descriptors. Five main steps were identified to assess Good Environmental Status GES for D3: • Selection of commercially exploited (shell)fish populations relevant to the MSFD (sub)region, or MS-specific sub-division, being assessed with respect to D3; • Identification of stocks that can be assessed in relation to the primary assessment criteria for D3.1 and D3.2; • Determination of criteria to apply to stocks that can not be assessed in relation to the primary assessment criteria, and identification of stocks that can be assessed according to these secondary criteria; • Interpretation of how to define GES for D3 with respect to combining individual stock assessments at the criteria level, and how to combine criteria level assessments at the descriptor level; • Assessment of current status in relation to GES. Different approaches for conducting these five steps towards assessment were applied in 5 case studies covering most of the MSFD (sub)regions, i.e. the Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, North-east Atlantic Ocean – Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast, North-east Atlantic Ocean – North Sea and North-east Atlantic Ocean – Celtic Seas. For the selection of what can be considered the commercially exploited (shell)fish in a particular (sub)region, the following key issues were identified: (1) Identification of the appropriate area; (2) Match of existing spatial units to that area; (3) Choice of data source; (4) Choice of time period; (5) Selection criteria. While each of these issues was seen to have some consequences for the selection of relevant populations, the overall assessment appeared airly robust against a range of sensible choices. For ...