GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

17th Meeting of the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG)Thursday 05 November 2015 10.30– 18:00

European Commission, Conference Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB)

Rue Froissart 36, B-1040 Brussels, Room 2A

Agenda item: 5B

Document: MSCG_17-2015-06

Title: Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III – cross-cutting issues (version 5)

Prepared by: European Commission

Date prepared: 21/10/2015

Background The attached paper was presented to WG GES on 5-6 October 2015.

Members of WG GES were invited to provide comments on the paper until 31 October 2015.

The Members of the MSCG are invited to:

Take note of this paper in relation to the proposal for the further development of the Common Understanding guidance on MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10 (see paper MSFD_17-2015-05) and the proposal for development of technical guidance on Art. 8 assessments (see paper MSCG_17-2015-07).

1

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

14th meeting of the

Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)05-06 October 2015

Conference Centre Albert Borschette (Room 5/B), Rue Froissart 36, 1040, Brussels

PRINTING IN COLOUR IS RECOMMENDED

Agenda Item: 5

Document: GES_14-2015-07

Title: Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III – cross-cutting issues (version 5)

Prepared by: DG Environment

Date prepared: 01/10/2015

Background

This technical background paper has been prepared as a result of discussions within WG GES since 2012, including at the cross-cutting issues workshop in January 2015. These discussions were triggered by the experiences in the first stages of MSFD implementation, in particular regarding Art. 8, 9 and 10, as identified in the first Commission report COM(2014)97. It further develops the guidance expressed in Annex IV of the accompanying Staff Working Document SWD/2014/049.The paper draws upon the Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011)1255 and on the 2011 Common Understanding (CU) guidance on MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10, including the recent work of a GES Drafting Group to update it.This paper provides an informal perspective for the purposes of the current review of Commission Decision 2010/477EU on criteria and methodological standards on GES and of MSFD Annex III, with the aim of leading to a more coherent and integrated result of this process and the further implementation of the MSFD.This version 5 has been updated to take account of comments received on version 4 (GES_13-2015-02) at the meeting of WG GES on 22-23 April 2015 and subsequently from the following: DE, DK, ES, FR, MT, NL, PT, RO, UK, Oceana, EEA, JRC and ICES.The Commission (DG ENV), in conjunction with the MSFD Core Team, will finalise this paper under its responsibility and make it available, as a background document, to the MSFD CIS process. The final status of this paper will only be decided as part of the outcome of the GES Decision review process.

The WG GES is invited to:

a. Comment on this draft version 5 of the cross-cutting issues paper;

a. Consider the forward use of the paper in the light the proposed further development of the Common Understanding guidance on MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10 (see paper GES_14-2015-08).

2

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III - cross-cutting issues

(Version 5.0: 01/10/2015)

Contents

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................5

2. Objectives and outputs of the review.............................................................................................5

3. General perspectives......................................................................................................................6

3.1. The MSFD 6-year implementation cycle.................................................................................6

3.2. Geographic scope and regional implementation....................................................................7

3.3. Use of the DPSIR framework and the terms pressure, impact and state..............................10

3.4. The determination of GES is central to MSFD implementation............................................13

3.5. Links to other EU legislation.................................................................................................13

3.6. Priorities for MSFD implementation and use of risk-based approaches...............................15

4. Good environmental status (Article 9).........................................................................................17

4.1. Provisions of the Directive....................................................................................................17

4.2. The definitions of environmental status and good environmental status in Article 3..........18

4.3. The GES descriptors of Annex I.............................................................................................19

4.4. The characteristics, pressures and impacts of MSFD Annex III.............................................20

4.5. The nature of a GES determination – state, impact and pressure........................................20

4.6. Criteria and methodological standards (Article 9(3))............................................................22

4.7. Specifications and standardised methods under Article 11(4).............................................22

4.8. Consistency between Member States in the determination of GES.....................................23

4.9. GES in relation to ecosystem characteristics, dynamics and climate change.......................23

5. An integrated ecosystem-based approach to determining and assessing GES.............................24

5.1. Articles 8 and 9 and the eleven descriptors of GES are intricately linked.............................24

5.2. Providing clarity on whether GES has been achieved...........................................................26

5.3. Elements for assessment of progress towards GES..............................................................27

5.4. Scales of assessment............................................................................................................29

5.5. Criteria for assessment of the elements...............................................................................32

5.6. Criteria for biodiversity and links to other policies...............................................................34

5.7. Use of reference levels in determining GES..........................................................................36

5.8. Delimiting a 'GES boundary'..................................................................................................37

5.9. Links to quality standards of other policies..........................................................................39

5.10. Follow-up actions depend on the environmental status..................................................40

6. Assessments (Article 8).................................................................................................................41

3

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

6.1. Integrated approaches for assessments: pressure-based and state-based assessments.....41

6.2. Time period for assessment..................................................................................................43

6.3. Aggregation rules..................................................................................................................43

6.4. Pressure-based assessments................................................................................................44

6.5. State-based assessments – the ecosystem and its components..........................................47

6.6. State-based assessments – selection of representative species and habitats......................48

6.7. State-based assessments – for species groups.....................................................................49

6.8. State-based assessments – for habitat groups.....................................................................52

6.9. Assessments at ecosystem level...........................................................................................55

6.10. Presentation of assessment results..................................................................................55

6.11. The HOPE indicators.........................................................................................................57

7. Environmental targets (Article 10)...............................................................................................58

7.1. Relationship between GES (Art. 9) and environmental targets (Art. 10)..............................58

7.2. The nature of environmental targets....................................................................................58

7.3. Indicators..............................................................................................................................59

7.4. Reference points...................................................................................................................60

7.5. Links to measures (Article 13)...............................................................................................60

8. Research needs............................................................................................................................60

9. Products from the Review............................................................................................................61

10. Annex 1: Glossary of terms.......................................................................................................62

10.1. Summary schema of MSFD terms elements, features, components, characteristics.......73

4

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

1. INTRODUCTION

The MSFD Regulatory Committee gave a mandate in 2013 for the review and possible revision of the Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (Decision 2010/477/EU1) and of Annex III to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC)2. Since then the technical phase of the review of each MSFD Descriptor has been organised by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and of MSFD Annex III by the European Commission, leading to the preparation of a set of technical review documents. This first phase of the review led to the second consultation phase of the review from May-July 2015. The outcomes of the consultation are being processed.

The 2011 Common Understanding (CU) guidance on Articles 8, 9 and 10 addressed a range of cross-cutting issues to support the first implementation of these articles in 2012. However, the Commission’s Article3 12 assessment (COM(2014)97) of this first implementation step found a considerable divergence in approaches amongst the Member States and across the regions. The revision of the Decision and MSFD Annex III is intended to be a key mechanism to help overcome this lack of coherence. Since then, the technical work of the review has raised further generic or cross-cutting issues, particularly the inter-relationships of the descriptors and the use of the Decision in assessments, which are relevant to the next implementation of Articles 8, 9 and 10, due to be reported in 2018. Annex IV of Staff Working Document (SWD/2014/049), which accompanied the Commission's Article 12 report, sets out some principles which are considered essential in the further implementation. This cross-cutting issues document aims to further develop and substantiate these principles, also taking into account expert discussions since then.

To assist in understanding the present document, key recommendations and issues have been shown in bold green text. Definitions of key terms are provided in Annex 1 and shown in italic bold red text at their first mention.

2. OBJECTIVES AND OUTPUTS OF THE REVIEW

Findings of the Commission's Article 12 assessment indicated that Member States had implemented the provisions of Article 9 “Determination of good environmental status” in a very different way in their 2012 reports and that one of the overriding objectives of the MSFD, namely the comparability and coherence of the determination and assessment of GES, had not been achieved. This consequently does not lead to an effective and coherent approach to achieving the objectives of the Directive. Furthermore, the 2010 Decision on GES criteria does not make communication of what is GES an easy task. Lastly, there have been significant developments and advances in methods and approaches for certain GES descriptors since the Decision was adopted in 2010. All these factors have led to the need for a review of the 2010 Decision, as was already envisaged when the Decision was adopted (preamble 4 of Decision), and the linked MSFD Annex III, in order to help overcome the shortcomings identified and provide a foundation for the next cycle of reporting starting in 2018.

The purpose and objectives of the review were set out at the beginning of the exercise ( Committee-07_2013_3rev):

1 Hereafter, all references to 'Decision' in this paper refer to Decision 2010/477/EU, unless specifically indicated otherwise.2 Committee-6-2013-3.doc, Committee-07_2013_3rev3 Hereafter, all references in this paper to 'Directive' and to particular Articles refer to the MSFD (Directive 2008/56/EC), unless specifically indicated otherwise.

5

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

“The review and possible revision of the GES Decision shall aim at a clearer, simpler, more concise, more coherent and comparable set of GES criteria and methodological standards. The review shall propose, in accordance with Article 3(5), an EU-wide and, where relevant for certain descriptors, a marine region-specific set of criteria and methodological standards, incorporating the available work of the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) where appropriate. It shall also propose options to clarify and harmonise terminology and, by amending, if necessary, MSFD Annex III, aim to ensure greater consistency between MSFD Annex I and Annex III as well as propose elements of methods for assessment and monitoring (and methodological standards) which, in accordance with Article 11(4), are not yet covered and can help improve coherence and comparability. Finally, it shall ensure that existing criteria set out in relevant EU legislation are incorporated and, where appropriate, rules or guidance for monitoring and assessment are proposed in order to further improve consistency and streamlining between different pieces of EU legislation, including the Water Framework Directive, Birds and Habitats Directives and Common Fisheries Policy. All of this shall be based on4 the latest available science and, where a scientific foundation is not fully available, the precautionary principle. Finally, it shall aim at being the basis for the revision of the national/regional GES determinations and environmental targets and the assessment of current environmental status in 2018.”

In operational terms, this means that a revised GES Decision, together with a revised MSFD Annex III, should be:

Simpler;

Clearer;

Introducing minimum requirements (to be enhanced by regions and MS, if necessary);

Self-explanatory;

Coherent with other EU legislation;

Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU methods do not exist5);

Including a clear and minimum list of elements and/or parameters per descriptor (e.g. specified lists of contaminants, species, litter types, etc.).

3. GENERAL PERSPECTIVES

3.1. The MSFD 6-year implementation cycle

Member States implement the MSFD via the preparation of a 'marine strategy' for each of their marine regions and subregions (section 3.2). These are prepared in stages and reported at specified times, starting in 2012 (Art. 5(2)). This paper is primarily focused on the first stage of the cycle and its implementation for the second cycle, due to be reported in 2018.

The paper focuses on Article 9 (determination of GES) and associated assessments of environmental status under Article 8, but also addresses relationships to Article 10 (setting of environmental targets) and to Article 11 (monitoring programmes which collect the data needed to monitor progress towards achieving GES and the environmental targets). The outcomes of the assessments under Article 8 inform the need for the environmental targets and consequently lead to the measures which are established to achieve (or maintain) GES. Progress and updates of these individual steps are undertaken on a six-year cycle, enabling adaptive management and new understanding to be accommodated into the MSFD implementation process. These linkages and the overall cyclical process of the MSFD are illustrated in Figure 1.4 A Member State has recommended to insert ‘an ecosystem-based approach and’ into the original agreed text.5 The need for harmonisation of methods between regions, where EU methods are not available, should depend upon whether sufficient coherence in the outcomes of those assessments is achieved.

6

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Figure 1: The MSFD implementation process encompassing the main stages in the six-year implementation cycle. The delivery dates of the first cycle are shown, but the Article 8 assessment is put logically after the Article 9 determination of GES for subsequent implementation cycles.

In the 2012 step of the first implementation cycle, the determination of GES needed to take account of the initial assessment and could thus be considered to come after the Art. 8 assessment. However, in subsequent cycles (Article 17(2a)) it is logical to address the updating of the GES determination before the updating of the assessment, as the latter must be clearly based on an updated determination of GES and not on the 2012 determination.

3.2. Geographic scope and regional implementation

The Directive applies to the ‘marine waters’ of Member States, as defined in Art. 3(1), which is defined as:

(a) ‘waters, the seabed and subsoil on the seaward side of the baseline from which the extent of territorial waters is measured extending to the outmost reach of the area where a Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights, in accordance with the Unclos6’. This is understood to include territorial waters (0-12nm7), contiguous zones (12-24nm), exclusive economic zones (out to 200nm or median lines with neighbouring states) and other types of jurisdictional designation; additionally where a Member State has declared a Continental Shelf area which extends beyond these zones, the directive applies also to the seabed and subsoil of these areas.

6 with the exception of waters adjacent to the countries and territories mentioned in Annex II to the Treaty and the French Overseas Departments and Collectivities.7 In some states the territorial waters extend to 3nm or 6nm.

7

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

(b) ‘coastal waters as defined by Directive 2000/60/EC8, their seabed and their subsoil9’. This is understood to mean that waters designated as Transitional Waters under the WFD are excluded from the geographic scope of the MSFD.

In support of an ecosystem-based approach to delivery of the directive, Art. 4 identifies that Member State waters form an integral part of four marine regions of Europe, two of which (North-East Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea) are each divided into four subregions. It requires implementation by Member States to be coherent and coordinated across each region or subregion, delivered by common approaches (Art. 5(2)) and through existing regional institutional cooperation structures, including the Regional Sea Conventions (Art. 6).

This regional/subregional perspective of the directive provides a vital structuring mechanism in the delivery of the directive, including the determination and assessment of GES (Art. 9 and 8). Art. 4 further provides for subdivision of each region or subregion, providing an important tool for delivery of an ecosystem-based approach below the scale of (sub)region (see Section 5.4). The MSFD regions and subregions are illustrated in Figure 2. The map is indicative as none of the boundaries shown are formally agreed.

8 Coastal water means surface water on the landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the outer limit of transitional waters (Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), article 2(7)).9 in so far as particular aspects of the environmental status of the marine environment are not already addressed through that Directive or other Community legislation.

8

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Figure 2: Representation of the marine regions and subregions of MSFD Article 4 including extended continental shelf claims in the North-east Atlantic Ocean. Note: Within the North-East Atlantic Ocean region, the four subregions listed in the Directive are shown, without addressing the remaining parts of the region (e.g. waters in the Iceland Sea, Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea). For the purposes of this map, the outer boundaries of these subregions are defined by the extent of marine waters of the relevant Member States in accordance with MSFD Art. 3(1), i.e. extending to the outmost reach of the area where the Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights, in accordance with the UNCLOS. The areas shown follow the boundaries of marine waters, including Continental Shelf areas beyond the EEZs, as reported by Member States as part of their 2012 reporting under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the MSFD. The Continental Shelf area of Portugal has not yet been allocated to a particular subregion of the NE Atlantic Ocean region (from Jensen, H.M., Panagiotidis, P. & Reker, R. 2015. Delineation of the MSFD Article 4 marine regions and subregions. EEA Draft report 07/07/2015).

9

This map serves for information purposes

only and should not be considered as an official

map representing marine borders in accordance with international law

Draft May 2015

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

3.3. Use of the DPSIR framework and the terms pressure, impact and state

The MSFD requires an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, whereby the collective pressure of these activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of GES (Art. 1(3)). This relationship between human activities, their pressures and the consequent state of the environment is encompassed within the well-established DPSIR (Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) framework10 for environmental management.

Figure 3 shows a DPSIR framework with links to relevant MSFD articles. The framework has been modified to address ambiguities in use of the terms ‘driver’ and ‘impact’ and to accommodate the concept of ecosystem services more explicitly. Further explanation for this modified DPSIR framework is provided in MSCG_11-2013-16, whilst a more detailed reflection is provided in the State of Europe's seas (EEA, 2015, Figure I.1).

Figure 3: Modified DPSIR framework, showing links to relevant MSFD articles. CIS=Common Implementation Strategy, RSC=Regional Sea Convention, RFMO=Regional Fisheries Management Organisation; MS-CA=Member State Competent Authority (based on MSCG_11-2013-16).

This model can be closely associated with the different main steps of MSFD implementation and thus follow much of the established understanding of how to improve environmental quality. The Directive requires an assessment of uses and activities of the marine waters and of the costs of degradation (Art. 8(1c) (~Drivers, Impacts), pressures and impacts (Art. 8(1b) (~Pressures, Impacts), and current environmental status (Art. 8(1a)) (~State). In Article 13 the Directive calls for a programme of measures to achieve or maintain GES (~Response).

10 See for example http://www.integrated-assessment.eu/guidebook/dpsir_framework

10

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

An assessment of current environmental status is, in effect, an assessment of the state of the environment that reflects the range of environmental impacts (effects), including cumulative impacts/effects, acting upon it. As these impacts are in turn caused by the pressures exerted on the environment by human activities, the three elements of the initial assessment can be considered to be intricately linked. These multiple relationships are illustrated in Figure 4, which additionally shows the links to the three parts of the initial assessment required in Art. 8(1).

Figure 4: Conceptual relationship between human activities, the pressures they exert on the environment and the consequent state of the environment, taking account of the impacts (adverse effects) from the pressures. Each is indicated with illustrative examples. The links to the three parts of Article 8(1) and the associated Tables in Annex III of the MSFD are also shown. Modified from European Commission (2012).

These links to the DPSIR model are important regarding the application of the terms pressure, impact and state (status) as used in the directive. Because the prime focus of the Directive is the achievement of GES, requiring assessments of environmental status and progress towards achievement of GES, these terms need to be used in this context11. Table 1 provides illustrated examples of each term to help demonstrate their application, differences and relationships.

Table 1: Examples of the terms activity, pressure, impact and state, as relevant to different MSFD descriptors.

Descriptor Activity Pressure (at source)

Pressure at sea

Environmental impact (effect) State (status)

D2 Ship/boat transport

Introductions of non-indigenous

Populations of NIS established in

Changed composition of native marine

Altered condition of pelagic and benthic

11 In other situations, the terms are used in different ways, such as referring to the levels of contaminants in water as a 'state' measurement.

11

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Descriptor Activity Pressure (at source)

Pressure at sea

Environmental impact (effect) State (status)

species via ship hulls and ballast water

marine waterscommunities, displacement of native species

communities, and bird, mammal and fish communities.

D3 Fishing Removal of commercial fish and other (non-commercial) species

Mortality of fish and other species

Reduced population size, altered age/size structure of population

D5 Agriculture

Introduction of nutrients through rivers or directly from land

Raised nutrient levels (enrichment) in sea

Increased algal productivity, oxygen depletion, benthic mortality, fish mortality

Altered condition of plankton and benthic communities, hypoxia/anoxia

D6Fishing (demersal/ benthic)

Disturbance of seabedChanges in sediment structure, injury and mortality of species

Altered benthic community and habitat condition

D6/D7 Infrastructure developments

Change in seabed substrate (e.g. to concrete, metal)

Loss of natural habitat, altered hydrological conditions (D7)

Habitat loss, altered habitat condition (hydrological conditions and community)

D8/D9 Industry (emissions)

Contaminants in atmosphere

Contaminants in water, sediment and biota

Effects of contaminants on life history aspects of species; accumulation of contaminants in seafood and human health effects

Altered condition of species (e.g. reproductive ability)

D10 TourismInput of litter – discarded on beach

Litter on seabed

Smothering of benthic habitats, injury to animals

Altered habitat condition, affected condition of species

D11 Pier-piling for wind farm Noise from piling Noise level in

sea

Disturbs cetaceans, moving away from noise

Altered species distribution

Because the use of these terms across policies and countries is quite variable, it is important for MSFD purposes to apply them in a consistent manner. Based on the application of the term ‘pressure’ in the MSFD and upon a review of the types of pressures in use under other Directives and Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) (GES_13-2015-02), the following definition of a pressure is used in this paper:

Definition of anthropogenic pressure:

An input, alteration or extraction, in relation to natural conditions, of physical, chemical or biological elements or properties which results directly from human activities. The pressure can be measured at its source (i.e. close to the activity generating it) or away from its source in the different parts of the environment (land, air, water, sea). When the pressure is sufficiently intense, widespread or frequent it can lead to adverse environmental impacts on particular aspects of natural ecosystems.

This consequently means that levels of nutrients, contaminants, litter and noise in the sea are referred to as the level of the pressure in the marine environment and are needed to assess their impacts12 on state elements (species, habitats or wider ecosystem) of the marine environment13.

12 For 'analysis of predominant pressures and impacts' for Art. 8(1b) assessments.13 The rationale behind this pressure/impact/state terminology is further explored in GES_13-2015-02 Annex 2.

12

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

In order to determine what good environmental status (GES) means in practice, it follows that there is a need to understand how the levels of pressure affect the state of the environment (i.e. what impacts they have) and to define what state constitutes ‘good environmental status’ and what level of pressure, where these relationships are known, is compatible with GES (section 4.5).

3.4. The determination of GES is central to MSFD implementation

Good environmental status (GES) is the core concept of what has to be achieved by the MSFD 14. All operational provisions of the Directive are in one way or another linked to GES, which is the central objective allowing the measurement of progress and success in its implementation:

a. It is needed as the benchmark against which to assess current environmental status (Art. 8, particularly Art. 8(1a, b));

b. It determines whether and what environmental targets are needed under Art. 10 in order to achieve GES;

c. These targets, in turn, determine what measures are needed under Art. 13 to achieve and/or maintain GES;

d. It guides the monitoring needed under Art. 11 which provides the data and information needed to assess whether GES has been achieved or is being maintained, and to assess progress in delivery of the environmental targets and for assessing the effectiveness of measures.

e. It provides the benchmark for assessing if an exception can be identified under Article 14(1) and, read in conjunction with the precautionary principle, for assessing if there is significant risk to the marine environment which could warrant the application of Art. 14(4).

Therefore, in the absence of a clearly defined GES, it is not always possible to define by how much the pressures which are causing impacts on or risks to the marine environment, human health and legitimate uses of the sea, should be reduced, giving uncertain implications to both policy makers and users of the sea.

It is therefore paramount that Member States can determine GES, and monitor and assess whether it has been achieved (ideally in a quantitative way)15. The associated implementation of related articles depends on having clarity in this determination to enable adequate decision-making in implementation of the Directive.

3.5. Links to other EU legislation

Art. 1(4) states “This Directive shall contribute to coherence between, and aim to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into, the different policies, agreements and legislative measures which have an impact on the marine environment.” The directive explicitly mentions the following Community legislation:

a. Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC

b. Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC

c. Birds Directive 2009/147/EC

d. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC

e. Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC

f. Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC

14 SWD/2014/049 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014SC004915 SWD/2014/049 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0049

13

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

g. INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC

The directive refers also to the need to encompass International and regional agreements (e.g. regarding protected species and habitats, and marine protected areas) and, due to the topics addressed by the Directive, needs to engage in further policies, such as the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agriculture Policy and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, in order to achieve its goals effectively.

And lastly, the directive requires Member States to cooperate within and across Europe’s regional seas, including via the RSCs16, in order to achieve the objectives of the directive in a consistent and coordinated manner.

This need for linkages with other policies is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Illustration of the WFD and MSFD’s framework nature through association with various other policies and international conventions (selected policies only shown: UWWTD-Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive; BWD-Bathing Water Directive; Habitats-Habitats Directive; Birds-Birds Directive; CFP-Common Fisheries Policy; EQSD-Environmental Quality Standards Directive 2008/105/EC; Nitrates- Nitrates Directive).

When developing recommendations for a revision of the Decision it will be important to ensure specifically how the determination and assessment of GES is linked with assessments and standards under other EU legislation (as well as linking to corresponding work under the RSCs and other international agreements). For this purpose, it will be necessary to identify the particular parts of the marine waters where different pieces of legislation may apply. For example, the WFD is relevant for coastal waters (and as regards chemical status, relevant for Descriptor 8, also territorial waters). The assessment of GES will have to take this into account especially because Art. 3(1b) lays down that the WFD assessments take precedent. An initial proposal on use of WFD is presented in section 5.9.

The overarching principle should be that other EU legislation (such as WFD, Habitats and Birds Directives or CFP) should be used as much as possible in the Art. 9 determinations and Art. 8 assessments of the Directive, and that standards agreed for these other EU legislations are adopted for the overlapping geographic areas and, where appropriate, extended to the remaining MSFD marine waters. This approach should, however, consider whether assessment methods and

16 Baltic Sea – Helsinki Convention; North-east Atlantic Ocean – OSPAR Convention; Mediterranean Sea – Barcelona Convention; Black Sea – Bucharest Convention

14

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

standards in other legislation need any adaptation to ensure overall compatibility with MSFD and GES, for instance to ensure they are 'marine relevant', can be applied offshore or to facilitate integration with other MSFD descriptor assessments. For a given assessment (for a descriptor) and a given assessment area, the ultimate aim should be to undertake a single assessment that will meet the needs of all relevant EU policies and international agreements. This will achieve both coherence between policies (through not having different assessment outcomes for the same topic) and reduce administrative burden (by assessing once, using for several policy needs). Ensuring the same minimum level of ambition to be achieved through the various policy instruments is important.

3.6. Priorities for MSFD implementation and use of risk-based approaches

The broad subject matter and wide geographic scope of the Directive present significant challenges in its implementation, to ensure it can deliver satisfactorily according to its objectives in an effective and efficient manner. The complex and very broad scope of its biodiversity objectives and the offshore areas of Europe’s marine waters, sometimes extending up to 350nm and to depths of 5000m, present particularly challenging aspects. There remain many scientific uncertainties, especially to fully understand the relationships between anthropogenic pressures and their impacts on the marine environment, and on how the ecosystems will respond to particular management actions. In addition, there are many aspects where data and monitoring systems are not well developed or lack sufficient time series, giving uncertainties in how best to implement the directive.

Member States may wish to focus implementation, in the short term, towards those aspects which will contribute most to improving the status of the marine environment and to reaching the overall goal of GES by 2020. The use of risk-based approaches can consequently play an important part in the delivery of the directive.

The overall goal of the directive, good environmental status, is expressed in high-level terms in the Art. 3(5) definition and through the eleven descriptors of MSFD Annex I. These provide for a potentially very wide need for monitoring and assessment, particularly concerning biodiversity, food webs and sea-floor integrity (descriptors 1, 4 and 6) and especially for those Member States where the marine waters are very extensive. At the same time, the mechanisms for Member States to achieve GES lie primarily in the control of the anthropogenic pressures which are causing adverse effects on the marine environment and hence preventing the achievement of GES. The alternative management mechanism, that of direct intervention to improve the status of the marine environment (such as restoration of species, habitats and areas), is unlikely to be possible or cost-efficient in other than a minority of situations. Either of these approaches is delivered via the programmes of measures (Art. 13) which must act primarily to manage human activities and behaviour.

With this reasoning, the implementation of the directive can be most efficient when it is clearly focused on the anthropogenic pressures which are considered to be adversely affecting environmental status, assessed at specified spatial scales, and on assessing the nature and scale of associated environmental impacts. With this approach, attention is drawn towards assessing the scale of the pressures and their impacts on particular aspects of the marine environment, rather than attempting to monitor and assess every possible aspect of the environment in all areas of marine waters. Such an approach can allow the majority of resources in Member States to be focused on those issues which can make the biggest difference, with lesser resources focused on wider surveillance of the marine environment. The latter is however important in the role of monitoring ‘unimpacted’ areas and wider ecosystem changes, which help in assessing monitoring results which are focused on specific pressures and impacted features and areas.

The following provides a generalised approach to a prioritised implementation of the directive:

a. Assess the distribution and intensity of human activities which are generating pressures on the marine environment;

15

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

b. Assess the distribution and intensity of the resulting pressures, identifying those which are of greatest concern;

c. Identify those aspects of the marine environment most (likely to be) affected by these pressures;

d. Focus monitoring and assessment on those aspects (e.g. species, habitats, areas) considered to be most at risk of impact, in order to determine whether GES has been achieved or not. Monitoring can be focused on the ‘boundary’ between ‘good status’ and ‘not good status’, with reduced efforts in areas where status is known to be good or known to be poor. This more limited monitoring in areas of good status however provides important reference data with which to compare the impacted areas and their change in status over time.

e. Direct management responses (measures) towards those pressures and areas which are shown to be causing the greatest adverse effects (in terms of intensity and/or extent) and contributing most to failing to achieve GES.

The approach outlined above can be related to different aspects of the directive as follows:

a. Art. 8 – The assessments should yield a clear indication of the scale and distribution of the different predominant pressures (using first a mapping of human activities, if appropriate) and how each is affecting the status of the different ecosystem elements to be assessed, leading to clear conclusions on which pressures are most preventing the achievement of GES;

b. Art. 9 – The determination of GES should focus on expressing the desired state of the environment in relation to aspects which are (potentially) impacted by anthropogenic pressures. This can be done by identifying the elements (e.g. species and habitats) and parameters (e.g. population size, species composition, biomass) which will most effectively indicate environmental status in relation to specific pressures (e.g. chlorophyll-a and oxygenation levels in relation to nutrient enrichment; mortality rates in relation to fishing).

c. Art. 10 – environmental targets should focus on the predominant pressures identified on the basis of the initial assessment made under Article 8, identifying the reductions in their intensity, frequency or extent that are needed to achieve GES;

d. Art. 11 – Monitoring should focus on priority areas affected by the predominant pressures, with particular attention on the boundary between good status and poor status (particular areas and ecosystem elements selected to assess this status boundary), as well as quantifying the pressure. This is likely to also focus on gathering data regarding pressure-impact relationships to improve confidence in assessments. Monitoring in areas considered to be unimpacted by the pressure is needed as reference sites, but could be undertaken at lower intensity.

e. Art. 13 – measures should focus on actions which will directly reduce the pressures identified as contributing most to poor status.

4. GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS (ARTICLE 9)

4.1. Provisions of the Directive

GES is defined in Art. 3(5) and further elaborated by the descriptors in MSFD Annex I. GES is further determined through the provisions of Art. 9. This is based firstly on EU-level criteria and methodological standards which are set out in Decision 2010/477/EU (and any subsequent revision), adopted under the provisions of Art. 9(3), and secondly by Member States when determining the characteristics of GES in accordance with Art. 9(1). The determination of GES under Art. 9 is additionally guided by the indicative list of elements provided in MSFD Annex III.

16

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table 2: Relationship of MSFD provisions for determining GES. The specificity of what constitutes GES increases from Art. 3(5) through to Art. 9(1). The generic role outlined in the central column is applied and worked through with an example for Descriptor 1 and the element “Mammals” in the right-hand column. Note that MSFD Annex III has additional roles.

The determination of GES is thus progressively refined from its high-level definition in Art. 3(5) via the Descriptors of Annex I, the elements of Annex III and the criteria and methodological standards of Art. 9(3) through to the more specific determinations of Art. 9(1). This is illustrated, with a worked example, in Table 2. In this context, the term 'determination' is taken to mean a more precise definition of GES than is provided in the Directive or the Decision, and which allows for an assessment of whether GES has been achieved or not.

Determination of GES is required to be at the level of the marine (sub)region (Art. 3(5)), necessitating coherence and coordination in its preparation amongst the Member States in each (sub)region (Art. 5(2)). To help achieve this coordination, existing regional cooperation structures, including the Regional Sea Conventions, should be used wherever possible (Art. 6) (see also section 4.8). As the responsibility for MSFD implementation ultimately lies with Member States, they establish national processes for its implementation; it is therefore important that they ensure coherence between their national processes and those developed regionally.

Table 2 presents an architecture for how the Decision under Art. 9(3) relates to the other provisions of the Directive associated to the determination of GES. This has been developed to ensure the role and contents of each element are fully compatible and avoid overlap. This overall structure has arisen from the ongoing experiences in implementation of the Directive at EU, regional and national levels and is aimed at promoting greater coherence in the determination and assessment of GES in the next implementation cycles, including through the common use of particular terminology.

17

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

This paper aims to outline the main issues and framework for determining GES. The actual updated determinations of GES are to be achieved via the (revised) GES Decision and by Member States (working together in each (sub)region). These two processes should lead to a more explicit, and where possible quantifiable, determination of GES by 2018 (under Art. 9(1)), together with an assessment of current environmental status (under Art. 8) in relation to this determination of GES.

4.2. The definitions of environmental status and good environmental status in Article 3

The definition of environmental status in Art. 3(4) provides a holistic perspective on what needs to be considered in determining GES; it includes aspects related to:

a. The structure, functions and processes of marine ecosystems;

b. Natural physiographic, geographic, biological, geological and climatic factors;

c. Physical, acoustic and chemical conditions, including those arising from human activities.

The definition of good environmental status (GES) in Art. 3(5) further elaborates on this by setting the high-level goal of the Directive, i.e. what is 'good', by requiring the need to achieve or maintain17:

a. Ecologically diverse and dynamic seas which are clean, healthy and productive;

b. Use of the marine environment which is at a level that is sustainable;

c. Ecosystems which function fully and maintain their resilience to human-induced environmental change;

d. Protection18 of marine species and habitats;

e. Prevention of human-induced decline in biodiversity;

f. Diverse biological components which function in balance;

g. Hydro-morphological, physical and chemical properties of the ecosystems, including those properties which result from human activities, which support the ecosystems;

h. Anthropogenic inputs of substances and energy, including underwater noise, do not cause pollution effects.

The definition of environmental status can be considered as neutral, in that it requires no judgement on whether the status is acceptable or not. This is in contrast to the definition of GES, where a judgement is necessary.

These definitions support Art. 1(3) which seeks an ecosystem-based approach to management of human activities, ensuring the collective pressure of such activities is at levels compatible with the achievement of GES, and that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes is not compromised, whilst enabling sustainable use of marine goods and services by present and future generations.

4.3. The GES descriptors of Annex I

MSFD Annex I provides a set of eleven qualitative Descriptors for use in the determination of GES under Article 9 (Table 3). These provide more specific objectives for GES than is provided in the Art. 3(5) definition.

Table 3: Qualitative descriptors for determining GES (from MSFD Annex I).

17 The Directive also indicates the need to prevent deterioration (Art. 1(2a), 14(4)).18 Art. 1(2a) also refers to restoration of marine ecosystems, where practicable, in areas where they have been adversely affected.

18

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

No. Short name Annex I text

D1 BiodiversityBiological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

D2 Non-indigenous species (NIS)

Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems.

D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

D4 Food websAll elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.

D5 EutrophicationHuman-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

D6 Sea-floor integritySea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

D7 Hydrographical conditions

Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems.

D8 Contaminants Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.

D9 Contaminants in seafood

Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards.

D10 Litter Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

D11 Energy, including underwater noise

Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.

The GES descriptors provide objectives on the status of the marine environment to be acheived and can be broadly characterised as relating to:

a. particular aspects of marine ecosystem state (potentially subject to any or multiple pressures): D1 (biodiversity), D3 (commercial fish and shellfish), D4 (food webs), D6 (sea-floor integrity) and D7 (hydrographical conditions);

b. particular anthropogenic pressures (potentially affecting any aspect of marine ecosystems) : D2 (non-indigenous species), D5 (eutrophication); D8 (contaminants), D9 (contaminants in seafood), D10 (litter) and D11 (introduction of energy, including underwater noise).

It should be noted that this state and pressure categorisation at Descriptor level is not maintained at the criteria and indicator levels in the 2010 Decision, where a more mixed pressure/impact/state approach per descriptor was introduced, and where impact is, in effect, a particular reflection of state.

4.4. The characteristics, pressures and impacts of MSFD Annex III

MSFD Annex III provides indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts. In relation to GES, these provide the basis (together with the MSFD Annex I descriptors) for defining criteria and methodological standards under Art. 9(3) and are to be taken into account when GES is determined under Art. 9(1). These indicative lists comprise:

a. physical, chemical, habitat, biological and other types of features of marine ecosystems (MSFD Annex III, Table 1), and

19

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

b. pressures and impacts which can affect the state of the marine ecosystems and its features (MSFD Annex III, Table 2).

Whilst the descriptors of MSFD Annex I can be considered as environmental quality objectives of GES which are to be achieved, the lists of MSFD Annex III can be considered as providing an indicative set of broadly-defined elements to be used for determining GES for these quality objectives and consequently for assessments of whether GES has been achieved. These broadly-defined elements should be further specified at EU level in a revision of the Decision and at (sub)region level by Member States under Art. 9(1) in order to provide clarity and consistency in how GES is determined and assessed (Table 2).

The relationship between Annex I and Annex III in the Directive is not explicit and consequently led to a Commission Staff Working Paper SEC(2011)1255 which aimed to clarify the relationship, taking into account the criteria and indicators of the Decision. The present review of the Decision is being accompanied by a review of MSFD Annex III, with a view to further clarifying the relationships between Annex I, Annex III and the (revised) Decision, following the approach outlined in Table 2. The role of MSFD Annex III is proposed as follows:

a. To provide an indicative list of elements and parameters for assessment of state, pressure and impacts under Art. 8(1a and 1b), linked explicitly to the descriptors, as outlined in Table 2. There should preferably be a 1:1 relationship between Art. 8 and Art. 9 elements; but MSFD Annex III could include additional pressures which are not explicitly referred to in a descriptor but that should be considered under Art. 8(1b) assessments;

b. To provide an additional indicative list of elements for monitoring which may be needed to support environmental assessments (e.g. hydrological and physical parameters);

c. To provide a new indicative list of uses and activities to be considered under MSFD Art. 8(1b and 1c) assessments.

Further analysis of MSFD Annex III and proposals for its revision are given in GES_14-2015-05 and GES_14-2015-06.

4.5. The nature of a GES determination – state, impact and pressure

The determination of GES concerns the desired state of the marine environment, including the structure, functions and processes of its constituent marine ecosystems. This is reflected in the state-based definition of GES in Art. 3(5) and in the general theme of the descriptors in MSFD Annex I, which either express a particular state which is to be achieved or a particular state to be achieved in relation to a specific pressure.

Because the environment can be degraded (impacted) by pressures from human activities, GES can also be expressed in relation to such environmental impacts. This can provide a more specific way to express the desired state which relates directly to the particular anthropogenic pressures; for example, nutrient enrichment can lead to changes in plankton biomass (chlorophyll-a concentrations) and to oxygen depletion, and thus provide a focus for how to determine GES for Descriptor 5 on eutrophication.

Whilst determining GES is about defining the desired state of the environment, this can include defining the desired or acceptable levels of pressures in the marine environment. This is because:

a. the ‘pressures’ may be elevated levels of natural conditions (e.g. nutrients, certain contaminants, underwater noise, hydrographical conditions) and thus can also be considered state elements19;

19 This is in line with SWD(2014) 49 Annex IV, as determining and assessing levels of pressures in the marine environment can also be expressed as 'state' measurements.

20

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

b. there can be a known causal relationship between the level of the pressure and its effects (impacts) on marine ecosystem elements, enabling a level of pressure to be determined which will ensure acceptable levels of impact on ecosystem elements. For example, the levels of nutrient enrichment and hazardous substances in the sea (for Descriptors 5 and 8) which are considered to ‘equate’ to GES, can be determined based on established effects (impacts) on particular ecosystem elements20;

c. an ‘acceptable pressure level’ in the marine environment is needed for situations where the pressure-impact relationship is not yet fully understood. This follows the precautionary principle, by using precautionary levels of the pressure until the knowledge gaps for determining the pressure-impact relationship are closed, allowing for refinement of the ‘acceptable pressure level’ over time, based on improved understanding.

This approach is relevant for each of the pressure-based descriptors, such that the desired levels in the marine environment of non-indigenous species (D2), fishing mortality (D3), enriched nutrients and organic matter (D5), physical damage (D6), physical loss and associated hydrographical changes (D6, D7), contaminants (D8, D9), litter (D10) and inputs of energy, including underwater noise (D11) should be determined under Art. 9. It can also be relevant where the pressure is easier to measure than the associated/affected ecosystem elements. Further pressures, that are not specified in one of the descriptors, can also be included in a GES determination.

It is common practice to determine both the acceptable pressure level and the associated state characteristics which are considered to be good status (e.g. for D5 eutrophication, for D3 commercial fish). It seems likely that both aspects will continue to be needed in the forward implementation process, enabling responses to measures to be assessed (via reductions in the level of pressure in the sea) and consequent improvements in environmental status to be seen (via reductions in impacts and recovery of the ecosystem). For contaminants in the marine environment (D8) and in seafood (D9) the pressure levels are typically set through laboratory-based tests on biota. For litter (D10) and underwater noise (D11), scientific understanding of impacts on the environment is more limited and so setting even precautionary pressure levels may be difficult at present.

Defining pressure levels which clearly equate to acceptable levels of environmental impact on state elements is needed for a number of marine pressures. A key priority for future research, should be to further our understanding of these pressure-state (impact) relationships in the marine environment.

4.6. Criteria and methodological standards (Article 9(3))

The Commission has delegated powers under Art. 9(3), and in accordance with the provisions of Art. 25, to lay down criteria and methodological standards to be used by Member States to ensure consistency and to allow for comparison between marine regions or subregions of the extent to which GES is being achieved. The first use of Art. 9(3) led to the 2010 Decision which guided, in particular, the 2012 stage of implementation and the 2014 monitoring programmes. The application of this Decision has revealed that it provides insufficient detail and clarity to support the determination of GES, which has consequently led to its review ahead of the updating of Art. 9(1) due in 2018.

Art. 3(6) defines ‘criteria’ as 'distinctive technical features that are closely linked to qualitative descriptors'. To fulfil their role these criteria need to include quality elements, parameters and associated reference levels or quality standards (unimpacted state and GES boundary values21) to be used to assess whether the individual elements and aggregated assessments for each descriptor are in GES or not. Therefore, criteria cannot be less distinctive than the descriptors given in MSFD Annex

20 For contaminants, the levels set for application under WFD (EQS values) relate to an effect level shown in laboratory testing of certain animal species rather than effects detected in the marine environment itself.21 Specific values will often need to be set at (sub)regional level.

21

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

I and they should enable assessment of the status of the elements in MSFD Annex III. Monitoring and assessment in relation to these criteria should follow the specifications and standardized methods set in accordance with Art. 11(4).

‘Methodological standards’ are understood as being agreed scientific or technical methods for assessing and classifying environmental status.

In the review of the Decision, the following topics are considered to need specification and could be reflected, as appropriate, in a revision of the Decision, a revised MSFD Annex III or in associated guidance documentation (see following sections for details):

a. Elements for assessment (of whether GES has been achieved)

b. Criteria for assessment of the elements

c. Assessment scales

d. Reference levels for assessing quality and trends (baseline, boundary between GES and not in GES)

e. Aggregation rules across criteria for an element and for multiple elements (e.g. for a species group) as well as across criteria for a descriptor

f. Time period for assessment

g. Data needs (parameters) for ‘indicators’ used in assessment

h. Aggregation methods for data (spatial, temporal)

4.7. Specifications and standardised methods under Article 11(4)

The Commission has delegated powers under Art. 11(4), and in accordance with the provisions of Art. 25, to adopt 'specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment which …. ensure comparability between monitoring and assessment results'. ‘Specifications‘ are understood to relate to minimum requirements for the design of monitoring (e.g. minimum frequency, spatial resolution, taking into account natural differences). ‘Standardised methods‘ are understood to relate to:

a. methods for monitoring which aim at ensuring comparability of monitoring results, including for the collection of data needed for assessments, data quality requirements and suitable ways of taking these measurements or samples. This includes agreed international standards (e.g. CEN/ISO standards) for monitoring, laboratory analysis, including quality assurance and control, statistical uncertainties and agreed use of Quality Control mechanisms (e.g. QUASIMEME, BEQUALM).

b. methods for assessment, which aim at ensuring comparability of assessment results, including agreed rules for spatial and temporal aggregation of monitoring data within an assessment area.

4.8. Consistency between Member States in the determination of GES

From the overview given in Table 2 it can be seen that some aspects of GES determinations are laid down in the Directive and in the Decision, whereas further quantitative specifications are determined, where needed and possible, at regional, subregional and national level via Art. 9(1). This latter task is the responsibility of Member States and should be undertaken in collaboration with other Member States, as required under Art. 5(2), in order to ensure GES is determined at the level of the marine region or subregion in accordance with Art. 3(5). Where available and applicable already agreed regional or subregional aspects of the determination of GES should be used by Member States to supplement EU level determinations in the (revised) Decision. The provisions of

22

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

the Directive thus provide for levels of consistency in the determination of GES, partly at EU level and partly at (sub)regional22 level. This EU and regional consistency is important to ensure a ‘level playing field’ across Member States in the different stages of the MSFD implementation process, whereby all Member States are aiming to achieve the same environmental objectives under the Directive. The criteria and methodological standards under Art. 9(3) and specifications and standardised methods under Art. 11(4) provide EU-wide minimum requirements for the determination and assessment of GES.

4.9. GES in relation to ecosystem characteristics, dynamics and climate change

Differences in the characteristics of ecosystems will likely lead to GES determinations being different between regions and subregions to reflect, for example, the differing ranges of species present and different environmental conditions, such as water clarity and sea temperature. There may also be instances where such ecosystem differences warrant adjustments to the determination of GES at national level but such cases should be within the overall level of consistency determined at (sub)regional level, such as via selection of specific species and habitats to be assessed per (sub)region. In contrast, there is not the same reasoning for determining acceptable levels of pressures upon the environment in different ways according to the (sub)region, as the levels to be reached in order to achieve GES should be consistent across all Member States.

Climate change is influencing the characteristics of the marine environment and can be expected to affect hydrological conditions (e.g. sea level, wave action from increased storminess, water temperature, water circulation patterns), water chemistry (increased acidification) and biodiversity (e.g. species range changes due to sea temperature changes).

Assessing the effects of climate change is not a specific objective of the MSFD. However, it is important to be able to distinguish wider climate-change effects (e.g. temperature, acidification, biodiversity) from more local effects caused by other anthropogenic pressures, as these latter cases can and should be addressed within the context of the MSFD. It is therefore important to monitor wider changes in the ecosystem in order to understand how these are changing and use this to help interpret monitoring data which is focused on assessment of GES. For efficiency, this wider monitoring can be coupled with monitoring of reference sites used for descriptor-specific monitoring.

The setting of a GES boundary needs to respect the dynamic nature of ecosystems and their components, which can change in space and time through climatic variation, predator-prey interactions and other factors, and should thus be set in a way which accommodates these dynamics. For example, determining good status for a benthic or pelagic community could focus on the functional components and trophic guilds (e.g. filter feeders, deposit feeders) which are typical of the community in (near) unimpacted state, rather than specifying the precise species composition which is more prone to fluctuation. The presence of sensitive/fragile/long-lived species can be good indicators of unimpacted state, but if lost from a community due to anthropogenic pressures, the community may not recover to the same species composition but could still be judged to have recovered to GES if the community has all the functional components and similar diversity of a (near) unimpacted state.

The determination of GES should consequently be done in a way that takes account of ongoing changes in species composition and distribution due to the dynamics of the marine ecosystems, some of which may be affected by climate-induced effects.

22 Art. 4 defines four regions for MSFD implementation, two of which (North-East Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea) are further divided into four subregions each. The expression ‘(sub)region’ is used to indicate application at either regional or subregional scale.

23

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

The six-year updating cycle for the determination of GES, provided in MSFD Art. 17, is one mechanism to adjust these GES boundaries to accommodate increased scientific understanding and reflect any long-term ecosystem changes, if appropriate.

5. AN INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM-BASED APPROACH TO DETERMINING AND ASSESSING GES

5.1. Articles 8 and 9 and the eleven descriptors of GES are intricately linked

The eleven GES descriptors and their separate treatment in the Decision have, until now, fostered processes for MSFD implementation which typically maintain the descriptors in ‘silos’ without a strong integration that reflects their inter-connectedness and the ecosystem-based approach which is sought in Art. 1(3).

The MSFD Annex I descriptors provide a set of broad objectives which together reflect key aspects of the definition of GES in Art. 3(5). They do not, however, provide the specific elements which need to be assessed in order to judge if GES has been achieved.

The determination of GES (Art. 9) and the assessment (Art. 8) need to be intricately linked, in order to ensure environmental status can be effectively assessed against the quality objectives set out under Art. 9(1). This indicates a need for structuring both assessment and determination in a mutually compatible way. Assessments need to be on specified topics (elements) and each needs a clear means to assess whether GES has been achieved. This structuring is shaped by MSFD Annex I (i.e. the descriptors) and the requirements of Art. 8(1) (particularly Art. 8(1a) and (1b)), and supported by MSFD Annex III and the Decision.

The assessment (Art. 8(1)) and the descriptors (section 4.3) fall into two broad themes23, 24:

a. Assessment of pressures and their impacts - Art. 8(1b) and descriptors 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11;

b. Assessment of ecosystem state – Art. 8(1a) and descriptors 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

Figure 6 illustrates how these two broad themes and a more integrated approach to their assessment can be organised. Art. 8(1b) is undertaken as a set of pressure-impact assessments, with the outcomes concerning impacts being used to feed into assessments of a specified set of ecosystem elements for Art. 8(1a).

23 This division is made less distinct in Annex III and the Decision where the pressures of physical loss and damage are linked to D6 and removal/mortality of fish (criterion 3.1, as a pressure) is coupled with state assessments (criteria 3.2 and 3.3) in the Decision.24 There is additionally an economic and social analysis of the use of marine waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment (Art. 8(1c)). The uses are relevant as they can generate pressures, whilst the costs of degradation can relate to costs for recovery from impacts and of reducing pressures, where needed.

24

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Figure 6: An ecosystem-based approach to determination and assessment of GES follows the main elements of the ecosystem (state-based descriptors, centre) and is closely linked to the effects of pressures from human activities via their impacts (pressure-based descriptors, satellite circles, in which pink depicts pressure and orange the impact). Note that descriptors D2, D3, D5, D6, D8 and D10 include both a pressure criterion and an impact criterion in Decision 2010/477/EU. For D11, no impact criterion was introduced. For D9 the 'impact' is built into the 'pressure' via the setting of the EQS (environmental quality standard) levels for the contaminants and is not assessed separately.

The pressure-impact assessments ('satellites') address the pressure-based descriptors (D2, D5, D8, D9, D10, D11) and the additional pressures of MSFD Annex III Table 2: physical loss (criterion D6.1) and associated hydrographical changes under D7), physical damage (also criterion D6.1) and the extraction of species, partly reflected25 in D3.1, and their impact (D3.2 and D3.3). Note that these pressure/impact criteria sit within the descriptors D3 and D6 which are expressed as 'state-based' objectives. Additionally, all three of these pressure/impact assessments should contribute to the broader assessments required for benthic habitats and fish under D1 and D6.

The main elements of marine ecosystems from MSFD Annex III (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, pelagic and benthic habitats, including their biological communities) structure the state-based assessments ('pizza slices'). They provide a means to better integrate the state-based descriptors. These elements are complimented by the whole ecosystem perspective, reflected by structure and functional aspects of D1.7 and D4. This approach has the following benefits:

a. It brings structure and functional aspects of ecosystems together at an appropriate resolution (i.e. within each main ecosystem element rather than only at the whole ecosystem level);

b. It relates more readily to practical monitoring and assessment processes (e.g. monitoring of birds, mammals and fish is typically undertaken separately using different techniques);

c. It links more effectively to management needs, relating more specifically to pressures and human activities which can be managed in specified areas in order to achieve a desired outcome;

d. It facilitates assessment of cumulative effects of multiple pressures on the ecosystem, whereby the impacts assessed under individual pressures (Art. 8(1b)) can be considered collectively for the assessments of each element under Art. 8(1a) (see Section 6 for elaboration).

This focus on a specific set of main elements thereby provides a way of dividing the complexity of marine ecosystems of each (sub)region into a set of more manageable units for monitoring, assessment, target setting and measures. Whilst it has these practical advantages, this compartmentalisation may mask some elements of an ecosystem-based approach; these should be addressed by more holistic assessments of ecosystem structure and functions (including food webs). Further, it is not possible in many cases to relate anthropogenic pressures such as contamination, litter and underwater noise to changes in ecosystem functioning.

5.2. Providing clarity on whether GES has been achieved

A number of steps in the Directive’s implementation process require knowledge of whether GES has been achieved or not (section 3.4). Such assessments need not be in relation to some overall notion of GES, as encompassed in the high-level definition of Art. 3(5) or as collectively expressed through a combined assessment of all eleven descriptors. Rather, it is proposed to use the structure outlined in section 5.1 and Figure 6 (for assessments) as the level at which to assess whether GES has been achieved or not.

25 It does not include incidental bycatch on non-commercial species.

25

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

The achievement of the overall goal of the Directive would therefore entail achievement of GES for each of the components in Figure 6 (where these are relevant to the marine (sub)region and/or Member State marine waters), as follows:

a. Assessment of each (main) pressure and its impacts26;

b. Assessment of each species group (for birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods) and habitat group (for pelagic and benthic habitats), taking account of the collective impacts from anthropogenic pressures to which each is subject;

c. Assessment at an appropriate ecosystem level.

With this overall approach, the achievement of the goals of the directive is not encompassed within a single overall assessment, but spread over a number of defined components. This has three key advantages:

a. It ensures that achieving GES is not seen as a single 'huge' goal which will likely be very difficult to achieve;

b. It allows for checking progress towards achieving GES in relation to descriptors and associated pressures;

c. It enables the elements which are not yet in GES to be more easily communicated within the implementation process and for efforts to bring each one to GES to be more focused and tangible.

From this specification of the ‘resolution’ of the assessment elements (ecosystem and pressure/impact) to be used to assess progress towards achieving GES, it is necessary to:

a. Define how data (from monitoring) are processed and aggregated, via a number of criteria and scientific indicators, in a structured manner in order to judge whether GES has been achieved. These are expressed partly via the (revised) Decision and partly via Art. 9(1). In the case of species groups, habitat groups, commercial fish/shellfish and contaminants, the assessments typically comprise a set of component species, habitats or substances. Further details on how such assessments could be undertaken are given in section 6.

b. Define the assessment scales and geographical areas for assessment (see section 5.4).

5.3. Elements for assessment of progress towards GES

Section 4.1 and Table 2 outline that these elements are progressively defined from the broad topics provided in MSFD Annex III to finer topics in Art. 9(1), via the elements which are specified in the (revised) Decision. This hierarchical approach provides both consistency and flexibility, accommodating the need for coherent approaches at EU and regional levels whilst also reflecting the differences in characteristics at sub-regional and national levels.

Elements for Art. 8.1b assessments (pressures and impacts)

A set of pressures on the marine environment is provided in MSFD Annex III Table 2, which is also subject to the current review. The analysis undertaken in GES_14-2015-06 includes a review of anthropogenic pressure types used under WFD, Habitats Directive and by the RSCs and suggests that the current list of pressures in MSFD Annex III Table 2 includes an appropriate set of pressures relevant to the marine environment. The proposed revision of MSFD Annex III Table 2 (GES_14-2015-05) includes only minor modifications to the list or terminology used.

26 Except assessments of physical loss, physical damage and ‘other pressures’. These should be factored into assessments of the state components (e.g. seabed habitats, which should include the assessments of physical loss and damage, together with impacts from other pressures, in their assessments).

26

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

From this has emerged the set of pressure/impact assessments presented in Figure 6 which aim to address each of the pressure-based descriptors and other key pressures (physical loss, physical damage, extraction of fish/other species). An 'other pressures' category is included to accommodate other possible pressures (listed in the proposed Annex III Table 2), which should be assessed if relevant in each region or subregion.

Elements for ecosystem components, functions and processes

The proposed set of assessment elements given in Figure 6 is based on the structural elements of marine ecosystems provided in MSFD Annex III Table 1 and taking into account the use of functional groups and predominant habitat types of the CSWD 2011, the latter including their pelagic and benthic communities. The use of these two lists is widely considered to provide a sound basis for covering the range of main components of marine ecosystems, thus addressing the needs of Descriptors 1 and 6. However, their practical application and increased scientific understanding since 2011 has led to the review of the lists during the JRC D1 workshop (Sep. 2015). It is proposed to reduce the lists (species groups from 24 to 16, habitats from 25 to 22) and to fully aline the habitat types with the level 2 classes of EUNIS27 (Tables 4 and 5):

Table 4: Proposed set of species groups (for species which are not associated to specific habitat types, which should be encompassed with the habitat groups of Table 5) to be used for determination and assessment of GES (revisiting the set of functional groups of SEC(2011)1255).

Ecosystem component Species groups

Birds

Grazing birdsWading birdsSurface-feeding birdsPelagic-feeding birdsBenthic-feeding birds

MammalsSmall toothed cetaceansDeep-diving toothed cetaceansBaleen whalesSeals

Reptiles Turtles

FishCoastal fishPelagic shelf fishDemersal shelf fishDeep-sea fish

Cephalopods Coastal/shelf cephalopodsDeep-sea cephalopods

Table 5: Proposed set of habitat groups to be used for determination and assessment of GES (revisiting the set of predominant habitat types of SEC(2011)1255).

Ecosystem component Habitat groups

Benthic (formerly seabed) habitats

Littoral rock and biogenic reefLittoral sedimentInfralittoral rock and biogenic reefInfralittoral coarse sedimentInfralittoral sandInfralittoral mudInfralittoral mixed sediment

27 The EUNIS habitat classification is a pan-European habitat typology developed by the EEA; the marine section of the classification is expected to be restructured by 2015/2016 following a review and consultation process..

27

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Ecosystem component Habitat groups

Circalittoral rock and biogenic reefCircalittoral coarse sedimentCircalittoral sandCircalittoral mudCircalittoral mixed sedimentUpper bathyal rock and biogenic reefUpper bathyal sedimentLower bathyal rock and biogenic reefLower bathyal sedimentAbyssal rock and biogenic reefAbyssal sediment

Pelagic (formerly water column) habitats

Variable salinity28

CoastalShelfOceanic

The definition of GES refers also to ecosystem functions and processes, with these also addressed by Descriptor 4 (food webs) and Descriptor 6 (sea-floor integrity); these functions and processes need further specification.

5.4. Scales of assessment

It is clear from the Directive that GES must be determined at a (sub)regional scale (Art. 3(5)). However, this does not imply that GES must be assessed at this scale, where ecosystem characteristics, links to pressures and their management, and the practicalities of implementation (e.g. administrative boundaries) can lead to a variety of scales to be used for assessments. This also means that whilst determination of GES under Art. 9(1) needs to be consistent across the (sub)region, the assessments can show that some areas are in GES whilst other areas are not. The Directive refers to 'restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected' (Art. 1(1a)); this acknowledges that environmental status can vary across a (sub)region; and that areas that are not in GES at present should be restored to GES.

Some principle requirements need to be outlined and further developed, in particular:

a. Defining scales and areas for assessment of environmental status – regions, subregions, subdivisions and finer scales if needed (required for the different assessment elements – species, habitats, pressures); need to reflect ecosystem-based scales and practical assessment and management needs; need to relate these scales/areas to monitoring data with rules for aggregation of samples);

b. The scaling and aggregation rules must not hide where there are areas of environmental degradation (i.e. that an area of high degradation is not averaged against an area of low degradation to hide the degradation).

c. Linking the scales of assessment to management issues (the management of pressures via measures, the assessment of cumulative impacts on ecosystem components and its links to decision-making processes for licencing new developments).

d. Developing suitable mapping/dissemination tools to show the environmental status of the different descriptors across EU waters (use of nested scale systems, such as HELCOM’s, for the different descriptors, accommodating state and pressure aspects to provide a reference

28 Retained for situations where estuarine plumes extend beyond waters designated as WFD Transitional Waters

28

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

layer for information management at EU level; display of assessment outcomes via a grid-based approach to accommodate different scales for different descriptors);

As a starting point, a "nested approach" to defining assessment areas should be introduced to all marine regions (Figure 7). HELCOM has developed a suitable operational scheme (Figure 8).

Figure 7: Schematic representation of a nested set of assessment scales which could be used to cover all assessment needs for MSFD. Region, sub-region and subdivision are provisions of Art. 4 29. 'National part of a sub-division' would be delineated using national boundaries of marine waters. 'Coastal part' refers to the coastal waters defined under WFD (MSFD Art. 3(1b)) extending to 1nm for ecological status and 12nm for chemical status.

29 Stock assessments under CFP use specified areas based on ICES/GFCM assessment areas which can be broadly related to the above scales. This generic scheme needs adaptation to regional needs; for example the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation subdivides coastal waters in respect to certain aspects (elements/groups).

29

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Figure 8: HELCOM system of nested assessment areas30. Turquoise lines show the subdivisions of the region. The 'national part of a subdivision' is delineated using national boundaries of marine waters (dark pink lines)31. WFD Coastal Waters extending to 1nm from baselines are shown (green lines).

A nested system provides a flexible approach to defining scales for assessment (for the different GES descriptors) in a way which also provides consistency and clarity on the scales/areas to be used for assessment. It enables a linkage between state-based and pressure-based assessments, which facilitates linkages to measures. Whilst an outline approach to defining and using such a nested system is presented here, it would be necessary for Member States, working together in each region, to develop this into an operational mechanism, as has or is being done by HELCOM and OSPAR, by:

a. Taking account of existing scales for assessment (e.g. for WFD);

b. assigning the elements to be assessed to the most appropriate scale, taking account of the most appropriate ecological scales for state-based elements and relating these to appropriate scales for pressure-based assessments; an initial generic proposal for this is given in Table 6, noting that this needs further discussion and adaptation to suit each region;

c. defining suitable boundaries for the areas to be used for each scale within the region; a set of boundaries for marine regions and subregions32 has been developed by the EEA in cooperation with MS (Figure 2); additionally the national boundaries are fixed and the boundaries of WFD coastal waters are already established under WFD reporting systems. This leaves the main consideration as to whether there is need to subdivide each (sub)region into a suitable (low) number of sub-divisions. This has already been finalised by HELCOM and work is underway within OSPAR. Art. 3(2) provides criteria which are relevant for defining subdivisions of (sub)regions.

30 HELCOM Monitoring and assessment strategy; assessment areas system under development by OSPAR Convention.31 This national división of subdivisions is not formally part of HELCOM’s system.32 The proposal is at an advanced stage, with few issues remaining to be finalised.

30

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

d. adjusting the proposal to accommodate practical implementation issues (e.g. the occurrence of national boundaries, the foreseen assessment process, balancing the number of areas for assessment with implementation needs such as links to measures and management).

Table 6: Initial proposal for assignment to appropriate scales of elements to be assessed (as a basis for discussion and further development in each region).

Elements for assessment Region Subregion Subdivision National part of

subdivision Coastal waters (WFD)

State elements

Mobile species groups (D1, D3)

Large cetaceans, deep-sea fish, grey seal

Bird groups (which??), small cetaceans, turtles, pelagic & demersal fish33

Bird groups (which??), harbour seal, coastal fish

Pelagic and benthic habitats (D1, 6, 7)

Pelagic habitats, benthic habitats

Ecosystems/food webs (D1.7/D4) Ecosystems Aspects of food-

webs?

Pressure elements

Physical loss and damage, hydrological changes (D6, 7)

Linked to benthic habitats D7 from WFD

Removal of species (D3)

Same as D1/3 fish groups

Same as D1/3 fish groups

Same as D1/3 fish groups

Non-indigenous species (D2) NIS

Nutrient enrichment (D5) X From WFD

Contaminants (D8, 9) X From WFD (to 12nm)

Litter (D10) X

Underwater noise (D11)

Linked to large cetaceans

Linked to small cetaceans

A key benefit of such an approach is in being able to visualise the outcomes of assessments in mapping form at national, regional and European scales (Figure 15).

5.5. Criteria for assessment of the elements

The current review of the Decision is an opportunity to further strengthen the integration between the descriptors in support of an ecosystem-based approach to MSFD implementation, as well as to enhance links to other EU policies. This integration can be partly achieved through an integration of the GES criteria for the state-based descriptors, and by explicitly relating the pressure-based descriptors (via their impacts on the ecosystem elements) to the state-based descriptors.

The criteria provided in the current Decision can be broadly categorised as a) relating to a pressure in the marine environment, b) relating to its environmental impacts and c) relating to state aspects

33 Stock assessments for CFP are undertaken at specified scales.

31

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

which are not associated with particular pressures and their impacts. These three types are considered necessary to adequately address the nature of the 11 Descriptors. Their inter-linkages are shown in Table 734.

The framework presented in Table 7 follows the structure of the main elements for assessment shown in Figure 6; the pressure/impact satellites equate to the table columns, whilst the central ecosystem elements of the figure equate to the rows in the table. Refer to section 6 regarding use of this framework for assessments.

The review of the Decision provides an opportunity to consider the criteria again in order to meet the objectives of the review and forward use in assessments. This should in particular consider:

a. The criteria (and associated indicators) of the 2010 Decision may not adequately reflect all needs for the assessments under Art. 8(1a, 1b). For example, there is no by-catch criterion for non-commercial species, no impact criterion for underwater noise (but this is not currently feasible to define) and the impact criteria for non-indigenous species, contaminants and litter in practice do not address all the state elements shown.

b. Criterion 6.1 is split in two because physical loss and physical damage are typically derived from different types of activity, have differing scales of impact (non-recoverable, recoverable) and link directly to different state criteria (habitat extent, habitat condition).

c. Criteria 7.1 and 7.2 are shown as impacts because changes in hydrographical conditions are closely associated to infrastructure developments and are thus the impact (consequence) of another pressure.

d. The potential to combine or associate state and impact criteria which are addressing the same ecosystem element, because state and impact are in effect assessing the same thing, only the latter is oriented towards a particular pressure (i.e. the parameters of state which are affected by the pressure);

e. The need to clearly focus each criterion either on a pressure or on state/impact (i.e. to not mix these two aspects as is currently done in 6.1.2 and 8.2.2). The interaction of pressure and state/impact should be addressed as a subsequent step in the assessment.

34 This is a simplified and modified version of Annex 3 of SEC(2011)1255.

32

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table 7: Relationship of broad ecosystem elements to main pressures, indicating which criteria from the Decision are relevant to each state (S) and pressure (P) element, and which are associated to impacts from pressures upon particular state components (orange cells). The boxes with a ? indicate most likely gaps in impact criteria compared with the 2010 Decision. The blank boxes have no impact criteria in the Decision but impacts may still occur (e.g. physical loss and/or damage leading to loss of breeding grounds for birds, reptiles and fish). Refer to Decision for details about each criterion.

The criteria in the Decision are accompanied by ‘indicators’ which provided a further level of detail; both however are mostly lacking sufficient detail so as to provide a clear means to determine whether GES has been achieved or not. Consequently the review process should aim to provide such specification (in combination with associated reference levels and methodological standards); it remains to be decided how these might be presented in a revision of the Decision (e.g. as a more detailed 'criterion').

As a general approach, the pressure criteria should enable the level of the pressure in the marine environment to be determined: this should normally encompass its intensity and how this varies in space and time. This should be measured in a way which is relevant to the state of the (main) elements of the ecosystem affected by the pressure.

The state criteria should reflect aspects of ecosystem structure, function [and processes]; wherever possible (and particularly for impact criteria associated to particular pressures) they should be focused on aspects of state which are known to be affected by the pressures. Structural aspects of ecosystem elements can encompass issues about the characteristics of the elements (e.g. species composition, age/size structure, abiotic attributes of habitats), their quantity (e.g. population abundance, habitat extent) and their distribution. Aspects related to functions and processes are less-well defined at present and consideration should be given as to how well achieving a good status on structural aspects would adequately address the key functional aspects.

33

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

5.6. Criteria for biodiversity and links to other policies

Assessment of the status of biodiversity (species and habitats) is undertaken in a number of fora, via both formal and informal mechanisms. Whilst the criteria used for these assessments are often similar, the precise methodology adopted (e.g. threshold values, assessment scales, aggregation rules, timing) often differs, leading to inconsistencies in the outcomes of the assessments. This is further exacerbated when the same species and habitat types are listed for protection (and hence assessment) in several policies, leading to multiple assessments of the same species or habitat, sometimes with differing outcomes.

To ensure equivalent outcomes from assessments (i.e. whether the species and habitat is in good status or not) and to reduce administrative burden (multiple assessments of the same species or habitat), further harmonisation of different approaches within and across each region is advocated, as each policy is overall aiming to ensure the biodiversity is protected.

Tables 8 (species) and 9 (habitats) set out a correlation of criteria used for assessment under relevant policies, with an indication of which could be considered for future MSFD use. Whilst these considerations should ultimately be reflected in a revised GES Decision, further detailed discussion is needed with the other policies to work towards a closer harmonisation of assessment methods.

Table 8: Correlation of criteria used for assessment of species in the Decision (first column) and under other relevant policies, with an initial indication (last column) of which could be used in a revised GES Decision (1=primary use, 2=secondary use).

MSFD(D1, 3)

Habitats Directive35 Birds Directive HELCOM36 (IUCN

2008 criteria)OSPAR Texel-Faial criteria37

UNEP/MAP EcAp

IUCN Red List

Future MSFD use

Distribution (1.1) Range

Breeding distribution map and range

Geographic range size and fragmentation

Decline (occurrence in area/ extent)

Species distributional range

Range (EOO, AOO)

Distribution (2)

Population size (1.2); reproductive capacity (3.2)

PopulationPopulation size

Declining population, small or very small population size

Decline (numbers)

Population abundance

Population sizeSmall population

Population size (1)

Population condition (1.3); age & size

Decline (quality)

Population demographic characteristics

Mature individuals incl. above

Population condition (1)

35 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0de47902-0a08-41dd-943c-520066a3c52936 HELCOM, 2013 HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 140. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP140.pdf

37 OSPAR. 2003. Criteria for the Identification of Species and Habitats in need of Protection and their Method of Application (The Texel-Faial Criteria). Reference no. 2003-13

34

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

MSFD(D1, 3)

Habitats Directive Birds Directive HELCOM (IUCN

2008 criteria)OSPAR Texel-Faial criteria

UNEP/MAP EcAp

IUCN Red List

Future MSFD use

distribution (3.3)

Habitat for species

Habitat quality included in Range

Habitat for species (2)

Future prospects Included above Included

above Included above -

Quantitative analysis of extinction risk (e.g. population viability analysis)

Global proportionRegional importanceRaritySensitivityKeystone species

Table 9: Correlation of criteria used for assessment of habitats in the Decision (first column) and under other relevant policies, with an initial indication (last column) of which could be used in a revised GES Decision (1=primary use, 2=secondary use).

MSFD(D1, 6, 7)

Habitats Directive38

HELCOM39

(IUCN criteria)OSPAR Texel-Faial criteria40

UNEP/MAP EcAp

EU Red List (IUCN approach)

Future MSFD use

Distribution (1.4) RangeDeclining distribution (quantity)

Decline (extent)Habitat distributional range [extent]

Quantity, restricted distribution (Extent Of Occurrence)

-

Extent (1.5) Area covered Restricted distribution

Quantity, restricted distribution (Area Of Occurrence)

Extent (1)

Condition (1.6, 6.2, 7.2)

Structures & functions

Qualitative degradation Decline (quality)

Condition of habitat's typical species and communities

Quality (abiotic, biotic) Condition (1)

Future prospects Included above

Historic & future trends included above

-

Global proportionRegional importance

Probability of collapse -

38 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0de47902-0a08-41dd-943c-520066a3c52939 HELCOM 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 138. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP138.pdf

40 OSPAR. 2003. Criteria for the Identification of Species and Habitats in need of Protection and their Method of Application (The Texel-Faial Criteria). Reference no. 2003-13.

35

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

MSFD(D1, 6, 7)

Habitats Directive

HELCOM (IUCN criteria)

OSPAR Texel-Faial criteria

UNEP/MAP EcAp

EU Red List (IUCN approach)

Future MSFD use

RaritySensitivityEcological significance

5.7. Use of reference levels in determining GES

The Commission’s Art. 12 assessment revealed that there was considerable variation in the approaches used by Member States to defining reference levels for GES, relating both to baseline and GES boundary values. This can significantly affect the basis for defining GES and hence substantially alter the quality levels (GES boundaries) to be achieved by each Member State and for each topic (Descriptor). This consequently leads to the lack of a 'level playing field' and associated socio-economic consequences.

In addition, the terminology applied for the different values is quite varied and the same terms can be applied with different meanings. This results in the lack of a common language on these issues leading to confusion in the dialogue between competent authorities and with stakeholders (see definition in Annex 1).

This lack of consistency in approach and terminology is therefore a key drawback for ongoing implementation of the Directive. In recognition of this SWD(2014) 49 (section 9.5), accompanying the Art. 12 report, provided the following guidance:

It is common practice in EU Directives and in regional assessment methodologies to define environmental objectives (i.e. the target41 quality, such as GES, to be achieved) in relation to a reference level. For example, target quality levels for contaminants and eutrophication are typically set in relation to 'background' or 'natural' levels in the environment, with target levels set as a specified deviation from these conditions. This philosophy is typical for setting objectives for other pressures, such as litter and noise. For assessing the environmental status of biodiversity components, a similar approach is also used in the WFD and Habitats and Birds Directives, whereby target values are set in relation to natural characteristics, such as the distributional range of a species, the extent of a habitat or the condition of its biological community. This overall philosophy for setting environmental objectives is often termed the 'reference condition and acceptable deviation' approach. This 'deviation' is important, particularly to allow for sustainable uses of the marine environment whereby some level of pressures and their impacts can be accommodated, provided the overall quality of the environment is maintained.

In the reports provided by Member States for Articles 8, 9 and 10, the approach to using reference points42 and setting target GES values was very varied, both across the different descriptors and across Member States for the same descriptor. In some cases, the current state in the 2012 assessment was used as the reference point (from which a particular quality is to be maintained), without fully assessing whether that state was adequate to begin with. In many cases, the reference points to be used for the determinations of GES and environmental targets were not documented.

41 Note that in this paper, the phrases 'target quality level' and 'target GES values' have been replaced by 'GES boundary' in order to reduce confusion in use of the word 'target' with its use under Art. 10.42 Note that in this paper, the phrase 'reference point' has been replaced by 'reference condition' in order to reduce confusion with use of the term under Art. 10.

36

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

This degree of variation and lack of clarity can be expected to lead to substantial problems in subsequent implementation phases, as differences in approach lead to conflicts between descriptors (e.g. between state and pressure assessments) and the lack of a common understanding of what constitutes GES. It is there recommended that a common approach, based on the reference condition plus acceptable deviation philosophy, be used across descriptors to achieve a suitable level of consistency in future implementation phases.

Further guidance on defining baselines is given in the 2012 MSFD reporting guidance section 6.2.3.6:

The baseline from which to set GES boundary values should be the reference condition or reference state (sometimes referred to as background levels) and can be determined using the following approach:

A state of the environment considered largely free from the adverse effects of anthropogenic activities (i.e. negligible impacts from pressures). This can be defined in relation to aspects of environment state (physical, chemical and/or biological characteristics), or to levels of pressure or impact (e.g. an absence of contaminants or certain impacts). This type of baseline is typically used to allow an acceptable deviation in state to be defined which acts as the quality threshold value to be achieved (i.e. the GES boundary). Reference condition can be defined using a variety of methods, including:

a. Historic conditions, based on various evidence about conditions before there was significant anthropogenic activity;

b. Past date/period, based on time-series datasets in which a time that is considered to best equate to ‘reference state’, is selected;

c. Current conditions, in areas considered substantively free from anthropogenic pressures;

d. Modelling, to predict current state in the absence of pressures.

The use of baselines which are a specified/known state (of the environment, or the pressures and impacts acting upon it) is appropriate in setting environmental targets, where it can be used to set the baseline from which to assess progress, but is not appropriate for a determination of GES. This is because it usually implies, due to the methods used to derive it, that it is not a reference state. This specified state can be defined using a variety of methods, including:

a. Past state, at a specified time (e.g. when a policy or programme was adopted);

b. Past state, based on time-series data, but where the data are known to reflect certain levels of impact;

c. Current state.

In all these approaches, there is often a need to use expert judgement, but this should be used in a well documented and transparent manner.

5.8. Delimiting a 'GES boundary'

Section 5.2 sets out proposals for the suite of elements to be used for assessing whether GES has been achieved or not. This section provides some overarching considerations in defining boundaries between when these elements are in GES and when not in GES:

a. The directive sets overall goals to be achieved in its objectives to restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected (Art. 1(2a)), to phase out pollution (Art. 1(2b)), in its definition of GES (Art. 3(5)) and in the objectives expressed in the Annex I descriptors. The GES determinations of Art. 9(1) translate this overall level of ambition into

37

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

operational quality objectives to be achieved; the quality levels set need to respect this overall ambition of the directive;

b. At the same time GES needs to accommodate sustainable use of marine goods and services by present and future generations (Art. 1(3)). This could mean a need to accommodate a certain level of disturbance or degradation, provided the overall capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes is not compromised. This is captured within the overall approach discussed in section 5.7 for determining GES through use of 'reference condition plus acceptable deviation';

c. Achieving GES is directly linked to the scale of assessment, where accommodating sustainable uses may mean that GES quality levels are not necessarily achieved in all parts of the marine waters. Some parts could be degraded or disturbed due to these sustainable uses, whilst other parts achieve the quality levels set for particular descriptors. In such circumstances, the proportion of the assessment area which needs to achieve such quality levels needs to be specified. This aspect of GES is particularly relevant for the spatially-defined assessments (pressure-based assessments, habitats). It may be appropriate to set minimum values for the extent of each (sub)region or assessment area that should achieve the quality levels set;

d. Due to the multiple steps in making assessments across the different descriptors, the notion of what is GES and what is not GES (a so-called 'GES boundary') can typically not be expressed as a simple single value, but comprises a number of decisions; this does, however, not preclude that the achievement of GES cannot be presented in simple easy-to-communicate ways (see section 6.10);

e. All determinations of GES should, as far as possible, be quantitative, recognising that scientific understanding is not yet adequate for setting quantitative GES boundaries for all descriptors; this is particularly the case for descriptor 10 (litter) and 11 (energy including underwater noise);

f. The setting of GES boundaries may include different degrees of uncertainty or confidence; increased scientific understanding should progressively lead to reducing such uncertainties;

g. Assessment of the pressure-based descriptors includes an assessment of the level of the pressure and of the impacts on ecosystem state43; the quality levels set for these two aspects should correlate, such that both criteria fail or pass GES at the same time; in situations where one passes and the other fails, it suggests the two aspects are not sufficiently correlated and may need adjustment of the quality values set;

h. For some aspects of GES, particularly assessments at ecosystem level including food-webs (D1, D4), it is not currently possible to make quantitative judgements on GES. Scientific understanding is such that anthropogenic pressure is often difficult to distinguish from the environmentally-influenced variability. It is either not possible (through lack of evidence) to define limits based on knowledge of the system or where the link to anthropogenic pressures is weak or unclear, so direct management actions cannot be prescribed. In the absence of strong indicators reflecting pressure–state relationships, the scientific indicators used can be treated as 'surveillance indicators' (e.g. for monitoring change in state of aspects of the structure or function of the food web).

Further guidance on this topic is needed.

Each assessment entails the use of a number of component elements (e.g. contaminants, nutrients, species and habitats), criteria, scientific indicators and monitoring data. These

43 Excepting D8 and D9 where EQS values for the pressure (contaminant) are set under laboratory conditions and do not necessarily relate to impacts apparent in the environment.

38

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

need to be interpreted and aggregated in specified ways in order to reach conclusions on whether GES has been achieved for each assessment. Section 6 provides further details on how this can be achieved as part of a structured assessment process. The ways in which data are processed and aggregated, and the threshold values and aggregation rules adopted, have important implications for the ultimate outcomes of the assessments. For transparency and repeatability, these processes need to be documented, when not already defined in other EU policies or provided in a revision of the Decision. The methods also need to be consistent across Member States to ensure the outcomes of the assessments are compatible.

5.9. Links to quality standards of other policies

Table 10 sets out an initial proposal on how standards and assessments under other EU legislation could be used for MSFD purposes. These proposals will be further developed as part of the Decision revision process and, where appropriate, should lead to incorporation in a revision of the Decision. This requires discussions with the implementation processes for the relevant policies and, in some cases, further technical specifications of how these links should be implemented.

Table 10: Initial overview of how other existing legislation could be used when determining and assessing GES (differentiated between different parts of MSFD marine waters). FCS=Favourable Conservation Status of Habitats Directive; GEcS=Good Ecological Status of Water Framework Directive; GChS=Good Chemical Status of WFD; CFP=Common Fisheries Policy.

Coastal waters(0-1nm)

Territorial waters(1-12nm)

EEZ(12-200nm)

Continental shelf(beyond EEZ44)

Biodiversity (D1) – mobile species groups

Species of birds, mammals, reptiles and fish from Birds and Habitats Directives may contribute to the set of representative species to be used for assessment of each MSFD species group. Assessments of these species (criteria used, quality thresholds, scales) at individual species level should be fully compatible between HBD and MSFD)

Not relevant

Biodiversity (D1) – pelagic habitats

WFD quality elements (phytoplankton and zooplankton) to be checked for potential contribution to the D1 habitat assessments

Not relevant

Biodiversity (D1) – benthic habitats

WFD quality elements (macrophytes, angiosperms, macrobenthos) and listed habitats from Habitat Directive may contribute to the set of representative habitats to be used for assessment of each MSFD habitat group

Listed habitats from Habitat Directive may contribute to the set of representative habitats to be used for assessment of each MSFD habitat group. Assessments of these habitats (criteria used, quality thresholds, scales) at individual habitat level should be fully compatible between HBD and MSFD)

Non-indigenous species (D2)

GES = list of marine species in IAS Regulation 1143/201445 + identification of additional list of species per marine (sub)region

Commercial fish and shellfish (D3)

GES includes FMSY (Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield) + Spawning Stock Biomass above SSBMSY of CFP (and proxies for stocks with limited knowledge base) + Criterion 3.3 for all commercial species

Food webs (D4) No existing EU standardsEutrophication (D5) GES = all relevant quality

elements (incl. nutrients, phytoplankton, macroalgae, angiosperms) of WFD in GEcS)

44 Or beyond Territorial Waters, if no EEZ or similar designation is in place for the water column.45 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R1143&from=EN

39

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Coastal waters(0-1nm)

Territorial waters(1-12nm)

EEZ(12-200nm)

Continental shelf(beyond EEZ)

Sea-floor integrity (D6) Same as D1 benthic habitats

Hydrographical changes (D7)

GES = WFD GEcS (Hydromorphological conditions)

Contaminants (D8)GES = WFD GChS for priority substances + WFD GEcS for river-basin-specific pollutants

GES = WFD GChS + other relevant regional and national substances

Contaminants in seafood (D9) GES = standards of Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 and amendments

Litter (D10) No existing EU standardsEnergy, including underwater noise (D11)

No existing EU standards

Once links to EU legislation standards have been addressed, it is helpful to then accommodate standards set by the RSCs and in other international agreements; this is happening in practise through the processes being established by the RSCs to support implementation of the Directive (e.g. development of common or core indicators). Where such standards are not specified at EU level (in a revision of the Decision), they should be accommodated within Member State’s determinations of GES under Art. 9(1).

5.10. Follow-up actions depend on the environmental status

Whilst uncertainties in determining quantitative GES boundaries need to be progressively resolved it is also necessary to deal in a practical way, as part of ongoing implementation processes, with what is currently possible. In this case classification of environmental status can be considered to have three possibilities:

a. In GES – for which monitoring is needed to check pressures do not increase to a point where impacts become unacceptable and status begins to deteriorate; this should be coupled with targets and measures to maintain GES.

b. Not in GES – If GES has not been achieved, the follow-up action should focus primarily on managing and reducing the anthropogenic pressures which are considered to be causing this failure. In the marine environment, the option to take direct management action on the environment itself (e.g. to restore a species or habitat) is typically less appropriate and usually more costly. The MSFD provides Art. 10 (targets) and Art. 13 (measures) as the mechanisms to be used to achieve GES. It follows that assessing whether GES has been achieved should place a strong emphasis on whether anthropogenic pressures are affecting the status of species, habitats or the wider ecosystem. This approach also acts as a helpful guide in assessing status and in monitoring (focusing efforts towards the most likely problems).

c. Unknown status (potentially not in GES) - it will not be possible in all cases to identify a status which is clearly within or clearly outside GES. According to the precautionary principle 46, uncertainty of classification must not be used for postponing action. Resulting actions will depend on the shortcomings in the individual case. Actions should include at least those to address the shortcomings, e.g. through development of improved assessment methods, more monitoring or complementary research. Under the precautionary principle proportionate measures should be undertaken to reduce pressures which are considered to be causing impacts on or risks to the marine environment, human health and legitimate uses of the sea, and to prevent further deterioration (Art. 1(2a, b) and Art. 14(4)). However, in the

46 EU Commission Communication COM(2000)1final

40

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

absence of a clearly defined GES, it is not always possible to define by how much such pressures should be reduced, giving uncertain implications to both policy makers and users of the sea.

6. ASSESSMENTS (ARTICLE 8)

6.1. Integrated approaches for assessments: pressure-based and state-based assessments

Section 5.1 and Figure 6 outlined the need for a more integrated approach to the determination of GES and consequently to assessments of whether GES has been achieved. This is focused on:

a) Undertaking a set of pressure-impact assessments to fulfil the requirements of Art. 8(1b) and the pressure-based descriptors. These pressure-based assessments need to assess impacts in a way which relates directly to the ecosystem state elements being assessed under Art. 8(1a), because the overall status of a state element should reflect the collective pressures and impacts upon it;

b) combining the state-based descriptors to assess a set of ecosystem elements in a more integrated manner; this would overcome some of the current problems of overlap between descriptors (e.g. benthic habitats under D1 and sea-floor integrity under D6), whilst noting that it may not be possible to eliminate all overlaps (e.g. between D5 and D1/6). These state-based assessments need to reflect the impacts upon each state element from all the (main) pressures to which each is subject. For example, assessment of a benthic habitat should encompass the impact assessments from the pressures: physical loss, physical damage, non-indigenous species, eutrophication, removal of species and, if appropriate, other pressures.

The conceptual approach to integration is shown in Table 11 and illustrated in Figures 6, 10 and 13.

From this analysis, it follows that the pressure-based assessments need to provide outcomes from their impact assessments which are directly useful for the state-based assessments. This in turn implies that the determination of GES also needs to be expressed with this in mind. For example, the impacts of fishing activity on non-commercial species are covered by by-catch of non-target species (D1, Criterion 1.3) or physical damage to benthic habitats (D1. 6, D6). For the assessment of impact on non-commercial species, by-catch needs to be separated into at least the specified species groups of birds, mammals, reptiles and fish and preferably at species level, in order to feed into species-level assessments.

In addition there is a clear need to ensure the state and pressure-based assessments are compatible, in terms of scales of assessment and resolution of the ecosystem elements which are assessed under state (Art. 8.1a) and as impacts (Art. 8.1b). Table 6 sets out proposed scales for assessments in which particular pressures are linked to the state elements for which they are most relevant (e.g. removal of fish and fish assessments, physical damage and benthic habitats, underwater noise and cetaceans).

41

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table 11: Illustration of how assessments between pressure-based descriptors and state-based descriptors can be integrated via the assessments of impact (based on Table 7). The pressure-based assessments (table columns – example highlighted in red for nutrient enrichment) provide impact assessments to feed into the state-based assessments (table rows – example highlighted in blue for benthic habitats).

In order to make best use of this integrated approach, the following logical sequence of assessments is recommended (following the outline in Table 11):

a. Map the distribution and intensity of human uses and activities (identifies main areas of activity, potential for use as proxy pressure assessment, supports later identification of measures47); This approach is most relevant for sea-based activities, especially those on or affecting the seabed, but is also relevant for fishing and shipping activities (with regard to fishing and underwater noise pressures).

b. Assess the pressures – spatial distribution and intensity (and temporal aspects, where necessary) of each pressure; this may be somewhat less relevant for assessments of mobile species such as birds, seals and cetaceans, as these can be wide-ranging and thus more difficult to know where and when they are exposed to particular pressures.

c. Assess the environmental impacts – extent of impacts in relation to the elements to be used for the state-based assessments.

47 The mapping of activities can also be a contribution to the assessments under Art. 8(1c) and support the ecosystem-based approach to management of activities in order to achieve GES.

42

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

d. Assess the state – bringing together the relevant assessments of impacts from (c) and leading to an overall assessment of status using a specified assessment methodological standards and aggregation rules.

The sequence above needs to take into account the necessary aggregation rules (section 6.3) and assessment scales (section 5.4) which form part of the methodological standards.

6.2. Time period for assessment

MSFD has a six-year cycle, with reporting for each part of the marine strategy set at intervals within each six-year period (Figure 1). The determination and assessment of GES under Art. 9 and 8 respectively (together with the setting of targets under Art. 10) effectively marks the start of each cycle (2012, 2018, 2014, etc). It is necessary to update the assessments of environmental status at least once every six years, in order to assess current status in relation to the determination of GES and to show progress achieved since the last report (against targets set and measures established). This does not preclude the updating of assessments at more frequent intervals, where this is feasible and desirable. This situation could arise, for example, where monitoring is undertaken on an annual or more frequent timescale and processing of the data has become routine. Annual assessments are, for example, undertaken for commercial fish stocks under CFP.

When undertaking assessments there is a need to:

a. Consider data over as long a period as possible, so as to help understand changes in the data, including natural variability as well as anthropogenic influences. This can be particularly relevant for setting baseline values;

b. Use the latest available data from monitoring programmes in the assessment to ensure the assessments reflect the most recent situation;

c. Update the data to be used at least once in the six-year period, so that the status and trend assessments are based on the latest available data;

d. Use, as far as possible, data from the same time period when considering combinations of data (e.g. pressure and state/impact data, background oceanographic data);

e. Compare the most recent six-year assessment period with the previous six-year assessment period in order to report progress in achieving GES (trends) and targets.

6.3. Aggregation rules

The process of using data (from monitoring programmes) in an assessment and concluding on the current environmental status involves a number of assessment steps. Given that the starting point is often fine-scale data (individual samples) and the end point is the status assessments for the main pressures and broad ecosystem elements (section 5.2), it is necessary to define the way in which the data are processed (spatial and temporal aggregation) and how they are interpreted for an indicator and criterion and across multiple elements:

a. Determine appropriate threshold values for each criterion48 used to assess the elements, enabling a clear distinction between when GES for that criterion has been achieved and when it has not been achieved (a 'GES boundary’). For a given parameter/ metric which is used for a particular criterion (e.g. to define the desired concentrations of a nutrient in the water), the threshold boundary could be a value that must not be exceeded (such as for contaminant levels), as a value that must be reached or exceeded for GES to be achieved (such as for habitat extent), or as a range with upper and lower values that must not be exceeded (such as population size). For each of these there can be a margin of variance,

48 A criterion may be assessed using scientific indicators (e.g. the RSC 'common' or 'core' indicators). Determining suitable threshold values often needs long-term data.

43

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

depending on the parameter concerned, natural variability and other factors. These GES boundaries should, wherever possible, be set in relation to a baseline which represents unimpacted natural conditions (referred to as 'reference condition', or sometimes as ‘background levels’ for contaminants). The GES boundary can thus be set as an ‘acceptable deviation’ from such natural conditions which can consequently accommodate sustainable uses of the marine environment (see section 5.7 concerning general approaches to setting these reference levels).

b. Where several criteria are used per element, a specified method of aggregation across the criteria49 is needed in order to arrive at an assessment of whether the element has achieved GES or not, i. e. agreed rules for how the three criteria to assess a commercial fish species, or the pressure and impact criteria of a pressure-based descriptor, will be aggregated to assess if GES has been achieved. These rules could include the one-out-all-out principle or other specified approaches, such as weighted averaging. In this sense GES can be defined as having been achieved for specified elements of the marine environment (e.g. related to specific descriptors or biodiversity elements).

c. For multiple elements (e.g. multiple species or contaminants) in a broader group (e.g. demersal fish, heavy metals), a way to express overall status of the broader group is needed. In this situation, a minimum list of elements which ‘represent’ the broader group should be specified (according to specified crietria) and then used for assessment of that group. Again, aggregation rules to this broader group level are needed. One approach to presenting progress towards GES for the group could be expressed as the proportion (%) of the minimum list of elements which have achieved GES.

For transparency and repeatability, each of the steps illustrated in generic terms in Figure 9 needs to be clearly defined. A recent study50 has given a useful overview of the key questions that need to be addressed, provided examples and gives advantages and disadvantages for the different approaches. It is now possible to take this work, and the work at regional and national levels and in recent scientific literature, to make a number of arrangements at EU level to ensure a minimum level of consistency and coherence in the assessment approaches.

Independently of which aggregation rules(s) are adopted and at which level, the precautionary principle should always be observed in the absence of more robust knowledge.

6.4. Pressure-based assessments

From Figure 6 (satellites) and Table 11 (columns), there are a set of pressure-impact assessments needed under Art. 8(1b), as outlined in Table 12.

49 In some cases several indicators could be used per criterion, necessitating aggregation rules up to criterion level also.50 Prins, T.C., Borja, A., Simboura, N., Tsanagaris, C., Van der Meulen, M.D., Boon, A.R., Menchaca, I., & Gilbert, A.J. 2014 in prep. Coherent scales and aggregation rules for environmental status assessment with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Towards a draft guidance. Deltares/AZTI/HCMR, Report 1207879-000-ZKS-0014 to the European Commission, Delft, 47pp.

44

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table 12: Outline of main pressure-impact assessments for Art. 8(1b), showing the relevant criteria of the 2010 Decision and which state-based assessments are most relevant for use of the assessment outcomes (in terms of impacts).

Pressure Pressure level in sea

Impact of pressure Relevant state assessments

Non-indigenous species 2.1 2.2 D1

Removal of species (commercial, non-commercial) 3.1 3.2, 3.3 D3, D1 fish + other groups, D4,

D6

Nutrient & organic enrichment 5.1 5.2, 5.3 D1 pelagic + benthic habitats

Physical loss + hydrological changes 6.1 7.1, 7.2 D1 pelagic + benthic habitats, D6

Physical damage 6.1 6.2 D1 benthic habitats, D6

Contaminants 8.1 8.2 D1

Contaminants in seafood 9.1 - D3

Litter 10.1 10.2 D1

Noise, other energy 11.1, 11.2 - D1 mammals, fish

Other (e.g. disturbance of species, genetically modified species, translocations) - - D1

Only a generic approach to these pressure-impact assessments is introduced here: each assessment will benefit from more specific guidance.

The criteria of the current Decision are oriented towards assessing either the pressure level in the marine environment or its impact on the environment, each of which may be divided into one or more aspects (defined as 'indicators' in the Decision) which are assessed using data from the monitoring programmes. A generalised structure for how these different aspects could be brought together is shown in Figure 9, indicating a need to specify aggregation rules at a number of steps in the assessment process in order to conclude on whether the pressure and its impacts are at an acceptable level (i.e. GES is achieved) in each assessment area (according to the quality levels set in the determinations of GES).

45

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Figure 9: Illustration of the possible steps in pressure-based assessments (with example for D5 eutrophication, not showing all indicators of the current Decision). The starting point is data (from monitoring programmes) which are typically processed into indicators for which a GES boundary in the data needs to be defined. There can then be subsequent rules for aggregation of the assessments at indicator and criteria levels leading to a conclusion on the overall status for each pressure/impact assessment in the assessment area.

From this generalised approach, it should be noted that:

a. The outcomes of each assessment (in terms of impacts on the marine environment) should, wherever possible, feed into the relevant state-based assessments (the main ones are indicated in Table 12); this implies that the assessments are undertaken in a way which is compatible with such use, especially in terms of assessment scales and resolution of the impact assessments. For example, the assessments could produce a footprint of impact (for habitats) or the impacts could be expressed per species group or per species (for mobile species).

b. Assessment of the effects of removal of species (by fishing activities) has different aspects:

i. Assessment in relation to commercial species, for which the D3 criteria are directly usable and the outcomes effectively give a state-based assessment for D3;

ii. Assessment in relation to non-commercial species, for which there are currently no specific criteria;

iii. Assessment of impacts on the sea-floor, which are incorporated into the assessment of physical damage under D6.

c. Physical loss and associated hydrological changes – the criteria under D7 are associated to the assessment of physical loss (due to restructuring of coastlines and infrastructure developments) because such hydrological changes are invariably linked to these physical changes to the seabed (i.e. they are the consequence of the structural change and hence an impact);

46

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

d. The assessments of physical loss and damage are addressed by the current criteria of D6, but the assessment of D6 itself need not be confined to these two pressures (for example, impacts of nutrient enrichment can contribute significantly);

e. Assessment of contaminants under D8 and D9 are based on defining the maximum concentrations of each contaminant in a specified matrix (water, sediment or biota/seafood), termed the EQS values. These values are set under laboratory conditions and mean that the 'pressure' criterion in effect incorporates the impacts via the EQS value. The impact criterion D8.2 is used to assess other effects of contaminants and effects of acute pollution;

f. Criterion D10.1 is focused on assessing the levels of litter, but the impact criterion D10.2 is at present not well developed to directly act in response to the levels of the pressure. For D11, there are only criteria to assess the level of underwater noise (the pressure) as it is not currently feasible to assess impact levels. These weak/non-existent links between pressures and impacts for D10 and D11 suggest that these assessments will have more relevance in relation to environmental targets due to the current limitations in determining GES in a precise way.

6.5. State-based assessments – the ecosystem and its components

Figure 6 presents the overall structure envisaged for the Art. 8(1b) and 8(1a) assessments, presenting a simple perspective on the ecosystem state elements. Figure 10 expands on this aspect to illustrate these elements as part of an ecosystem, linking to the relevant descriptors. The following sections expand on how assessments of each element could be undertaken.

Figure 10: A stylised representation of a marine ecosystem, showing the component species groups and habitat groups to be assessments and their link to the different state-based descriptors. A whole ecosystem assessment is represented by the blue dashed box and D4 (from GES_14-2015-02).

47

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

6.6. State-based assessments – selection of representative species and habitats

From Figure 6 (pizza slices) and Table 11 (rows), there are a set of state assessments needed under Art. 8(1a) for the elements given in Table 4 (species groups) and Table 5 (habitat groups) which are based on the proposals from the Descriptor 1 Biodiversity workshop (September 2015) (GES_14-2015-02).

For each species group, a set of species are to be selected to represent the ecological characteristics of the group and reflect the main pressures upon the group, taking into account the practicalities of monitoring to provide suitable data (Table 13). Similarly, for each habitat group, a set of representative habitats (sub-types) need to be selected, but the assessment process differs somewhat (section 6.8).

Table 13: Recommended criteria for selection of species and habitats to be used for each assessment of a species group or habitat group (from D1 Biodiversity workshop, Sep. 2015 (GES_14-2015-02).

Primary scientific criteria – ecological relevance

Representativeness of an ecosystem component (species or habitat group): i.e. relevance for assessment of state/impact and/or relevance for assessment of pressure/activitySpecies/ habitats vulnerable (=exposed) to a pressure, to which it is sensitiveKey functional role of species/habitats (e.g. high or specific biodiversity, productivity, trophic link, specific resource or service, etc.)Sufficiently present across (sub)region: high proportion (extent or occurrence) of species/ habitat occurs within the specific region or sub-region (i.e. ‘commonness’)Present in sufficient numbers: to be able to construct the indicator

Secondary practical criteria - which should not override the primary criteria

Monitoring/technical feasibility

Monitoring costs

Reliable time series

The species and habitats selected may be drawn from those already being assessed under other policies (Birds Directive for Birds, Habitats Directive for mammals, reptiles, fish, benthic habitats, RSC lists, CFP for fish) for which suitable monitoring data are or can be collected. This may include species and habitats listed for protection under other policies (see Table 14), but it may be more appropriate to select other species and habitats for this purpose (e.g. to reflect key pressures). The latter situation is particularly pertinent for the fish groups, for which many species are commercially fished, and for benthic habitats, for which coverage by protected lists is often limited. The ongoing work to develop common/core indicators for biodiversity has already identified suitable species and habitats for this purpose in several regions as illustrated in Table 14.

48

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table 14: Worked example of species selected to represent the mammal species groups, showing species which are selected for each marine region (based on currently proposed common/core indicators of HELCOM, OSPAR, UNEP/MAP and advice from Romania).

EU level Regional Level

Generic element (MSFD

Annex III)

Functional groups (CSWP 2011)

Habitats Directive

Baltic Sea (HELCOM)

NE Atlantic Ocean (OSPAR)

Mediterranean Sea (UNEP/MAP) Black Sea

MAMMALS

Toothed whales51

Harbour porpoiseBottle-nosed dolphinAll species (IV)

Harbour porpoise

Short‐beaked common dolphinWhite-beaked dolphinStriped dolphin Harbour porpoiseBottle-nosed dolphin

Short‐beaked common dolphinLong-finned pilot whaleRisso's dolphinSperm whaleStriped dolphinBottle-nosed dolphinCuvier's beaked whale

Short‐beaked common dolphinHarbour porpoiseBottle-nosed dolphin

Baleen whales

All species (IV) None occur Minke whale Fin whale None occur

Seals

Grey sealMonk sealRinged sealHarbour seal

Grey sealRinged sealHarbour seal

Grey sealHarbour seal Monk seal None occur

The purpose of the selection process is to identify a suitable number of component species and habitats for each broader group, for which data can be reliably collected for assessment purposes (via regional or national indicators). Increased confidence in the higher level assessment can be expected from inclusion of more species and habitats. Due to the nature of monitoring for some species groups (e.g. birds, cetaceans), it is typical to record all species present (sighted), so including a great number of species is not necessarily an extra monitoring cost.

It is not expected that every species and habitat included on Community legislation or international agreements52 be included in such selections. Many of these listed species and habitats are rare and data concerning their status can be scarce; in this context, full application of the assessment criteria may be challenging, especially where their scarcity means monitoring is not fully practical. The listed species and habitats which are not selected for MSFD assessments will, of course, continue to be protected (and assessed) under the policy in which they are listed. Additionally, listed species may contribute to the proposed diversity criterion D1.4 (section 6.7).

The specific species and habitats selected to represent each species group/habitat group need to be defined under Art. 9(1) to reflect the differing ecological characteristics of each (sub)region and the main pressures acting upon each group. The species and habitats listed may need to be updated each implementation cycle, for example to reflect changing ecosystem characteristics or improved scientific understanding of their usefulness in the assessments.

6.7. State-based assessments – for species groups

To assess the status of each species group, it is proposed to:

a. Assess the status of each species selected to represent the group, using the species level criteria (see Table 8); these criterion-level assessments should be aligned with those under

51 JRC D1 workshop (Sept. 2015) advocated this group be spit in two.52 As included in the MSFD Annex III Table 1.

49

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Birds and Habitats Directives, or CFP for fish assessments, using the same data, to ensure compatibility with assessments from other policies;

b. Assess the biodiversity of the species group as a whole, using suitable indices (proposed new criterion D1.453);

c. Aggregate the species-level assessments, according to agreed aggregation rules (to be developed), and combine with the diversity assessment, to assess the overall status of the species group.

The assessment of a species group, based on component species, assessment criteria and underlying data used for scientific indicators is illustrated in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Illustration of the possible steps in assessments of a species group. The starting point is data (from monitoring programmes) which are typically processed into indicators for which a GES boundary in the data needs to be defined. There can then be subsequent rules for aggregation of the assessments at indicator, criteria and species levels leading to a conclusion on the overall status of each species group. Each species group should achieve GES, based on the component elements used for their assessment, and the proposed diversity criterion in the assessment area.

The assessment of the status of individual species is based on the criteria in the Decision, noting that Table 8 makes a correlation of these with those used under Birds and Habitats Directives (as well as other policies) in order to enable reuse of assessments across the policies. The criterion 'habitat for the species' from Habitats Directive is being considered for inclusion in a revision of the Decision because, for some highly mobile species (e.g. turtles, seals), habitat degradation can be an important factor contributing to the good or poor status of a species. Equally, for many mobile species, such degradation is not an issue, leading to the notion that the criteria could be used flexibly depending on the needs of individual species assessments. In Table 8 this is expressed as primary and secondary use of the criteria, similar to the indicators for D3 in the 2010 Decision.

53 GES_14-2015-02

50

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

The aim of the species level assessment is to assess the overall status of the species at a specified assessment scale (i.e. for a specified geographic area). The criteria provide key aspects to consider (e.g. population size, condition) and hence drive data collection and processing in particular ways (as indicators) to help reach conclusions for each criterion. The ongoing development of indicators tends to focus on those criteria considered most relevant (particularly in relation to pressures), potentially leaving criteria which are not addressed. In cases where these criteria are not considered 'at risk' (from known pressures), it could be judged that the collection of data and its assessment adds little to the overall assessment of the status of the species. However there may be other cases where a criterion is being affected by a pressure but for which data are not currently being collected; this would represent a significant gap in the assessment process which should be closed for subsequent assessment cycles. In this sense, the assessments of status need to balance risk of failing particular criteria with practicalities of collecting suitable data for assessment, reflecting in all cases the main pressures that are or may be affecting the status.

Table 14 provides a 'worksheet' structure for a species assessment, to reflect how conclusions of species status can be derived from indicator assessments, linking to pressures and the criteria. The table illustrates the potential relationship between the criteria for assessment (including the threshold values chosen for each criterion) and their assessment linked to different pressures. The table includes the pressures which are considered most relevant to the status of this example species, drawn from the list of pressures in MSFD Annex III Table 2. The impact (and assessment value) of these pressures on the species (criteria) is derived in some cases from the pressure-based assessments (Art. 8(1b)), or directly via indicators developed for the state-based assessment. Not all relevant pressures will have such data, perhaps representing a significant gap in the assessment data, perhaps a more minor gap that will have limited affect on the overall outcome of the assessment. Where there is a lack of data/indicator, use of expert judgement may be appropriate, at least in the short term.

51

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table 14: Illustrative assessment of a species (example: seal) for a specified assessment scale and area (e.g. a subdivision of a subregion), showing the assessment criteria and threshold (GES boundary) values for each (illustrative values given). Each criterion is assessed using scientific indicators (e.g. defined at regional or national level) which provide data on the extent of impact for particular pressures. The overall assessment per criterion is the cumulative impact against the threshold (GES boundary) value; the overall assessment of the species has used the one-out-all-out method at criterion level.

The approach illustrated above for state-based assessments is similar to the framework for assessing Favourable Conservation Status under the Habitats Directive (i.e. criteria used, specified threshold values, aggregation rules for criteria to yield the overall assessment of whether GES has been achieved or not). The key modification for MSFD purposes is to make specific links to and use of the pressure-based assessments (from Art. 8(1b) in order to assess each criterion; this also has the benefit of focusing the assessments on specific pressures relevant to the species or habitat (helpful where FCS is not achieved and measures are needed), thus reflecting a risk-based approach. The assessments of impact from each pressure are likely to be made using specified operational scientifically-based indicators, such as those being developed by the RSCs (or reflected in a revision of the Decision).

6.8. State-based assessments – for habitat groups

Each habitat group is likely to cover an extensive area of seabed, particularly if assessed at the subdivision scale of a (sub)region, as recommended. The assessment needs the following:

a. The spatial footprint (extent) of habitat loss, due to infrastructure or restructuring of the coastline/seabed;

b. The spatial footprint of physical disturbance pressures from relevant human activities (often derived by mapping human activities as a proxy);

c. Selected sampling at specific points to check if the quality of the habitat in areas subject to physical disturbances are below a specified quality threshold (i.e. impacted) due to the pressure(s) upon it. This sampling needs to be of specified sub-

52

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

habitats (e.g. EUNIS level 4 or 5 types, listed habitats) to ensure the results can be adequately interpreted. The sampling is at community level to check the species composition and abundance (e.g. via multi-metric indices); this point sampling verifies the predicted impacts from physical disturbance;

d. Spatial footprints of impact, as assessed for the pressure-based descriptors under Art. 8(1b) (e.g. from NIS, nutrient enrichment).

Figure 12 shows the different aspects of the assessment and the stages where aggregation rules are needed.

Figure 12: Illustration of the possible steps in assessment for a habitat group The starting point is data (from monitoring programmes) which are typically processed into indicators for which a GES boundary in the data needs to be defined. There can then be subsequent rules for aggregation of the assessments at indicator, criteria and sub-habitat levels leading to a conclusion on the overall status of each habitat group. Each habitat group should achieve GES, based on the component elements used for their assessment and the overall level of habitat loss and damage (impact). The assessments of impact are expected to draw from physical damage assessments, but for some habitat groups other types of impact (especially eutrophication and invasive non-indigenous species) may make a significant contribution to the overall impact on the habitat.

This integration of pressure-based assessments with status-based assessments is illustrated in Figure 13. In essence, status-based assessments should be a cumulative assessment of all the impacts upon them from the various pressures to which they are subjected. The approach does not require cumulative impact indicators (unless this is attempted for the one area shown as 'cumulative pressure' in Figure 13), but rather the use of the impact assessments for each relevant pressure as a contribution to the assessment of a habitat.

Bringing together these two aspects of the assessments into an integrated assessment is important to ensure both state and pressure-based assessments are fully inter-related and thus can lead to targets and measures that will address the main pressures affecting the status of the marine environment.

53

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Figure 13: Stylised schema (map) to show how assessment of a single habitat type in an assessment area (represented by the whole green rectangle) needs to consider the effects (impacts) of multiple pressures (showing a worst case scenario in terms of the numbers of pressures affecting a habitat). The assessments from the relevant pressure (D2, D5, D6/D7, D8) should contribute to the overall assessment of the habitat. These can be derived from mapping the relevant activities as a basis, together with appropriate monitoring, to derive the footprints of the different pressures. The different activities and their pressures lead to areas of habitat loss (criteria 1.4, 1.5 - red), areas of poor habitat condition (criterion 1.6 - orange) and areas with limited (‘acceptable’) levels of impact (pale green). The darker green areas represent unimpacted reference condition. The total extent of habitat loss and habitat in poor condition (impacted) provides a means to assess overall habitat status in the area, via threshold values set for GES for these criteria (modified from OSPAR 201254) Refer to Table 15 for a worked example.

Tables 15 provides an illustrative assessment for a specific habitat group, showing how impact assessments from the pressure-based descriptors can contribute to the state-based assessments. The latter are essentially a 'cumulative impact' assessment of all the pressures acting upon the state element. In the examples the impact information for each pressure should be derived from suitable indicators. The number of relevant pressures will vary by (sub)region, depending on the range of activities and their pressures in each (sub)region.

54 OSPAR's MSFD advice manual on biodiversity

54

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table 15: Illustrative assessment of a habitat group (example: circalittoral sand) for a specified assessment scale and area (e.g. a subdivision of a subregion), showing the assessment criteria and threshold values (GES boundary) for each (illustrative values given). Each criterion is assessed using scientific indicators (e.g. defined at regional or national level) which provide data on the extent of impact for particular pressures. The overall assessment per criterion is the cumulative impact against the threshold value (GES boundary); the overall assessment of the habitat group has used the one-out-all-out method at criterion level.

State criterion Threshold Pressures Impact Assessment

valuesCriterion

assessment Overall

Habi

tat g

roup

: circ

alitt

oral

sand

Habitat extent (1.5,

1.5.1, 1.5.2, 6.1.1)

<[10]% loss in extent

compared with

reference condition

Physical Change of sea-floor substrate (infrastructure)

Habitat loss (6.1.1) 5% GES

Below GES

Habitat condition

(1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2,

1.6.3, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4)

<[30]% damage

compared with

reference condition (including

any habitat loss)

Physical Disturbance/damage to sea-floor

Habitat damage (6.1.2) 45%

Below GES (55%

impacted or lost)

Biological Removal of species (targeted, non-targeted)

PhysicalExtraction of sea-floor and subsoil minerals (e.g. sand, gravel, rock, oil, gas)

Hydrological Water movement changes (from infrastructure)

Habitat structure changes, community changes (7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2)

5%

Chemicals and other pollutants

Nutrient enrichment (N, P, organic matter)

Oxygen depletion, community changes (5.2.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2)

0%

BiologicalIntroduction or spread of

non-indigenous species

Community

alteration (2.2.1)Not assessed

6.9. Assessments at ecosystem level

The proposals under D4 on food webs for structure and function-oriented assessments offer a way forward for assessment at ecosystem-level. The most effective ways to achieve this are still under development and will improve over time. They will also greatly benefit from getting the assessments of the different species groups and habitat groups firmly established in each region; these can form an important contribution to ecosystem level assessments, noting that the indicators used may be different but typically draw upon the same underlying data.

6.10. Presentation of assessment results

There are multiple options for presenting the outcomes of assessments for the different elements and descriptors; the most appropriate will depend on the intended purpose of the communication. For certain purposes highly aggregated assessments may be appropriate, bearing in mind that increasing aggregation of results tends to hide important details about the specific elements, pressures or areas assessed.

55

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

See Figure 14 for an example of how to present aggregated assessment outcomes for multiple species at (sub)regional level and Figure 15 for an example presentation of an area-based assessment (e.g. for a pressure-based descriptor).

Figure 14: Example of how the outcomes of assessments could be aggregated and presented to illustrate the progress towards achieving GES per MSFD subregion; the example is for Descriptor 3 on commercial fish, showing proportion of assessed species achieving GES for both criteria55 and single criteria (from EEA marine baseline report, draft version November 2014, EEA indicator CSI 032: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/status-of-marine-fish-stocks-2/assessment).

55 Note – assessments for the third GES criterion (3.3) are not yet available.

56

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Figure 15: Mock-up presentation of assessment outcomes for a single area-based assessed at sub-division scale (green= in GES, red=not in GES; up arrow=improving status, side arrow=stable status, down arrow = deteriorating status). NOTE THIS IS ENTIRELY FICTICIOUS AND IN NO WAY REPRESENTS THE STATUS OF THE BALTIC SEA REGION, but does use the HELCOM sub-division (sub-basin) areas for illustrative purposes.

6.11. The HOPE indicators

At the EU conference "Healthy Oceans and Productive Ecosystems" (HOPE), held in Brussels in March 2014, the suggestion to develop a HOPE index emerged, responding to the need for communicating the status of the marine environment and progress towards achieving GES to policy makers and the public.

In order to specifically target EU-level communication of progress towards achieving GES to a broader audience, the European Environment Agency (EEA) will analyse the feasibility of developing a concept and a time table for a set of MSFD policy-relevant HOPE indicators 56 to communicate on status and trends of the marine environment and the pressures acting on it., The HOPE-indicators will, to the extent possible, build on MSFD assessments, including those prepared by the Regional Sea Conventions, aligned where possible to the revised GES criteria. They would thus be expected to be a subset of the indicators used to assess the elements illustrated in Figure 6. A first candidate for such an indicator set is the indicator on the status of commercial fish stocks, shown in Figure 14.

56 Presenting the HOPE indicators separately, rather than as a single 'index' value, will probably serve communication needs better, as this can show status and trends in relation to the different parts of the marine environment and the pressures acting upon it.

57

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

These indicators will be underpinned by data flows established in the context of Art. 19(3), which should also include RSC data delivery mechanisms.

Following 2018, the HOPE indicators could be developed and published on a regular basis by the European Environment Agency (EEA). Also the feasibility of publishing the HOPE-indicators in 2019/2020 as part of the next state-of-Europe’s seas report which the EEA (together with the relevant regional marine and fisheries organisations and conventions) is mandated to do as part of the Art. 20(3b) report will be considered. In addition to including the HOPE indicators, the future assessment will be built on the DPSIR/MSFD-inspired analytical framework embedded in the 2015 state of Europe’s seas report57.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ARTICLE 10)

7.1. Relationship between GES (Art. 9) and environmental targets (Art. 10)

If environmental status is assessed as being below GES, it is necessary to identify the pressure or pressures which are causing the failure in environmental quality; where this is not possible, further investigative action is necessary to better understand the reasons for not achieving GES.

Pressures arise from specific human activities and can be controlled, reduced or eliminated through management of the associated activities. The necessary levels of reduction in each pressure at its sources, which are needed to achieve GES, should be defined as environmental targets under Art. 10 and not as part of a GES determination.

Art. 9 and Art. 10 have distinct roles in the MSFD implementation process, each with different legal obligations which are not interchangeable. The main purpose of Art. 9 is to determine the environmental objectives of the Directive (i.e. what is GES) in sufficient detail to be able to know whether they have been achieved or not for the different descriptors and in accordance with the overall definition in Art. 3(5). The main purpose of Art. 10 is to define a set of environmental targets to guide progress towards achieving these objectives (GES). This indicates a more action-oriented role for Art. 10, compared with the more objective lead role of Art. 9. This distinction is emphasised through Art. 13(1) in which measures shall be devised by reference to the environmental targets and on the basis of the initial assessment. Targets thus provide an operational tool, used in conjunction with the programme of measures adopted under Art. 13, for the management of human activities and for actions which should lead to improvements in the status of marine waters and ultimately to GES.

7.2. The nature of environmental targets

Art. 3(7) defines ‘environmental target’ as 'a qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components of, and pressures and impacts on, marine waters in respect of each marine region or subregion. Environmental targets are established in accordance with Article 10'. Art. 10(1) states that Member States shall establish 'a comprehensive set (…) so as to guide progress towards achieving good environmental status in the marine environment, taking into account the indicative list of pressures and impacts set out in Table 2 of Annex III, and of characteristics set out in Annex IV'.

The Directive’s definition of targets and indicative set of characteristics of targets indicates a wide scope for the type of targets that can be defined. However, the purpose of targets and their relationship to measures suggests that they should primarily focus on reducing pressures from human activities (i.e. at their source or entering the marine environment), as such actions are the primary management tool to achieve improvements in environmental quality. Targets can include setting levels for the inputs of nutrients and pollutants into the marine environment via riverine or

57 Add ref.

58

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

atmospheric sources. Generalised targets per pressure (e.g. nutrient input levels to the sea) can then lead to specific actions as Art. 13 measures towards one or more human activities/sectors (e.g. waste water treatment, fertilizer use, detergent compounds). A regional example of an environment target is the MAI/CART58 target of HELCOM to address nutrient enrichment. Another example is the setting fish catch levels (under CFP) in relation to Descriptor 3 in order to manage the quantity of fish stocks removed.

There should be a particular focus on defining targets which will lead to a reduction in the spatial extent, intensity or frequency of anthropogenic pressures in the marine environment which have been identified in the initial assessment as preventing the achievement of GES and which equate to GES proxy levels where these have been determined.

According to Art. 3(7), targets can also be an expression of the desired condition of the different components of marine waters, indicating a more state-based focus. Such state-based targets may be appropriate as interim targets (for example, defining a target for oxygen levels in relation to eutrophication which are below the levels considered to equate to GES but which may be achievable in a realistic timescale) and for restoration targets where these are deemed necessary and feasible. Targets should not be used as an alternative to determining GES under Art. 9, as in legal terms the two articles have different functions. Examples would be targets which define a desired species composition and/or abundance that cannot be directly achieved by management actions.

The MSFD leaves considerable flexibility for Member States in setting environmental targets; however, in order to make them fully operational in relation to their specified role in their Directive, targets need to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound (SMART).

Environmental targets can be defined in situations where it is not yet possible to determine GES. For example, it is possible to set targets for reductions in pressures (e.g. for litter) in the absence of a defined GES boundary. In such cases, the current state (or a specified/known state in the past) can be used as the baseline from which to measure progress with the environmental target.

7.3. Indicators

The term ‘indicator‘ is an established term which is used in different ways. In general, ‘indicators‘ are understood as a scientific or technical assessment tool which aims to represent a certain situation or aspect and to simplify a more complex reality. The following text is meant to clarify the different uses and meanings but not to change the established uses of the term.

For MSFD legal purposes, the term ‘indicator‘ refers only to their use in association with environmental targets (Art. 10), where they are used to monitor progress and guide management decisions with a view to achieving these targets (MSFD Annex IV(7)).

For the purposes of assessing environmental status in relation to GES, the Decision refers to ‘indicators’ which further specify the criteria and support their assessment. This use of the term ‘indicator‘ has proved to cause confusion with its use under Art. 10. Such confusion should be avoided in any revision of the Decision.

Under Art. 9(1), the determination of GES can be achieved by reference to operational scientifically-based indicators which provide a means to assess whether GES has been achieved or not (e.g. referring to quality elements and parameters which are specific to a (sub)region). The development of common or core indicators by the Regional Sea Conventions can fulfil this role.

Within the DPSIR framework, there is a need for ‘pressure indicators‘ in the meaning of Art. 10, for scientific ‘state indicators‘ in the meaning of criteria and methodological standards according to Art. 9(3) (EU-wide) or as determined under Art. 9(1) ((sub)regionally or nationally specific) and for

58 Maximum Allowable Inputs/Country Allocated Reduction Targets – http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/nutrient-reduction-scheme/targets

59

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

‘response indicators’ used specifically for monitoring and assessing progress on and effectiveness of measures under Art. 13 are needed59.

7.4. Reference points

In the indicative list of characteristics to be taken into account for setting environmental targets, MSFD Annex IV(8) refers to, where appropriate, specification of reference points (target and limit reference points). This relates to setting values, which are to be achieved or not exceeded respectively, in order to bring a pressure to a level that achieves the environmental target.

7.5. Links to measures (Article 13)

The delivery of the environmental targets set under Article 10 is via the Programmes of Measures defined under Article 13. Where the targets are focused on the main pressures and could be rather generic (e.g. reduce litter or physical disturbance), it would follow that the measures should address the uses and activities which are generating the pressure and, in this sense, be oriented to particular sectors (e.g. tourism and urban waste management for litter; aggregate dredging and bottom trawling for physical disturbance) and be more specific than the associated environmental tartget.

8. RESEARCH NEEDS

The implementation of the Directive raises a range of questions which require increased scientific knowledge and understanding and/or further survey and monitoring data. An initial set of topics is given here:

a. establish direct causal relationships between pressure(s) and state(s) for marine ecosystem elements;

b. develop more quantifiable determinations of GES, based on specific scientific indicators, and more quantitative reference conditions, particularly for benthic habitats;

c. identify long-term ecosystem changes that may make it necessary to adjust GES boundaries accordingly;

d. distinguish wider climate-change effects (e.g. temperature, acidification, biodiversity) from more local effects caused by other anthropogenic pressures, as these latter cases are the most practical to address within the context of the MSFD.

Whilst continued research and survey is needed and should lead to improved understanding of how best to implement the directive, it is important to acknowledge that a considerable wealth of scientific knowledge already exists and should be used to effectively support implementation and decision-making processes for the directive. The lack of scientific understanding should not be used as an excuse for inaction where there are risks to the marine environment or evidence of deterioration in environmental quality.

9. PRODUCTS FROM THE REVIEW

The review of Commission Decision 2010/477, the MSFD Annex III and the 2011 Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination Good Environmental Status (GES) and Establishment of Environmental Targets (art.8, 9 and 10 of MSFD) should lead to a coherent set of products, as follows:

Possible products Sign off

Proposal for a revised Commission Decision MSFD Committee

59 GD10 - MSFD recommendations on measures and exceptions - final.pdf

60

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Proposal for a revised MSFD Annex III MSFD Committee

Commission guidance on the application of the Decision and Annex III and on cross-cutting issues Commission via a CSWP

Revised common understanding (guidance) on MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 MSCG

61

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

10. ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS

This section provides a glossary of the terms used in this document, together with some additional MSFD-relevant terms (indicated with an asterisk - *) that are relevant for the implementation of Art. 8, 9 and 10.

The definitions provided here are based on

a. 30 September 2014 version of the 2011 CU document glossary, with all track changes presented in paper GES_12-2014-06 accepted;

b. An analysis of the use of certain terms in the Directive (Annex 2 of GES_13-2015-02):

i. Terms without specific definitions in the Directive (Elements, components, features, factors, properties, characteristics) which are used inconsistently and sometimes interchangeably throughout the Directive;

ii. The terms pressure, impact, state and status which are in common use in environmental protection (such as in the DPSIR model), but are often used in different ways, sometimes interchangeably by different users for the same purpose or policy. It is thus very important, in the context of MSFD implementation, to develop a clear and common understanding of their meaning and differences.

Assessment

For the purposes of the MSFD, an assessment is a process and a product. As a process, an assessment is a procedure by which information is collected and evaluated following agreed methods, rules and guidance. It is carried out from time to time to determine the level of available knowledge and to evaluate the environmental status. As a product, an assessment is a report which synthesizes and documents this information, presenting the findings of the assessment process, typically according to a defined methodology, and leading to a classification of environmental status in relation to the determination of GES. Art. 8 sets out what needs to be analyzed in the MSFD assessment, whilst the Commission GES Decision provides the criteria and methodological standards for assessment.

Baseline

From an assessment perspective, a baseline is a specified environmental state against which subsequent values of state are compared. It can equally refer to a specified level of an impact or a pressure. Baselines act as the benchmark against which GES boundaries can be set or trends in Environmental Status can be assessed. Baselines can be set as (i) an unimpacted environmental state (often termed the reference condition), (ii) a known state in the past, such as the beginning of a data time series, (iii) the current state or (iv) the potential (future) state (a predicted/modelled state in the absence of pressures).

The most appropriate type of baseline to use depends on the purpose (e.g. for determining a GES boundary, or for setting an environmental target).

Characteristics

The term ‘characteristics’ is used is a number of places in the Directive, relating to different topics:

a. ‘Characteristics' in Art. 8(1) is distinguished from 'features' and can be understood to refer to particular/specific attributes of the marine waters;

b. 'Characteristics' in Art. 14(1) refers to particular/specific attributes of the physical features of marine waters;

c. Annex III Table 1 provides a list of 'characteristics' of marine waters and appears to refer collectively to the ‘features’ (‘components’) of the marine ecosystem and their 'properties'

62

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

plus any particular/specific attributes of an area/(sub)region. In this sense, it confuses matters by encompassing features (whilst Art. 8(1) separates features and characteristics).

d. ‘Characteristic(s)' is also associated to elements of Annex III Table 1, referring to something that is particular/specific about a habitat type, an area or a (sub)region.

e. 'Characteristics' in Art. 9(1) and Annex I refers to something that is particular/specific about the determination of GES (including specifically about the Annex I descriptors) in the marine waters [of a MS] of a (sub)region.

f. 'Characteristics' in Art. 10(1) and Annex IV refers to the range of possible attributes of an environmental target.

The term 'characteristics' is thus used in different contexts in the MSFD, but overall refers to defining further specific or typical details/attributes for features/components (Art. 8), for GES/descriptors (Art. 9), and for targets (Art. 10), particularly in the context of (sub)regional or Member State/area-specific differences.

For Art. 9(1), the characteristics are further defining GES in relation to the specific MS/(sub)region, based on what is defined in the Decision (Art. 9(3)).

Components and features

The terms components and features are used in the Directive as follows:

a. 'Components' is used in Art. 3(5), 3(7), Annex VI.2 and Annex VI.7 to refer to the constituent elements of an ecosystem, particularly its biological elements (species, habitats and their communities), or of marine waters.

b. 'Features' (physical, hydrological, oceanographic, chemical, biological, biogeographic, habitat types, other, transboundary) refers to abiotic and biotic elements of the marine regions or marine waters (i.e. species, habitats, physical structures, physical and chemical elements) and are used in Art. 3(2), 8(1), 8(3), 9(1), 10(1), 11(2) and Annex III Table 1. Annex III Table 1 also refers more specifically to physical and chemical features of habitat types. The reference to 'transboundary' implies that features (referred to elsewhere) can occur across national boundaries and thus are a physical entity (can include species).

In MSFD, components are the constituent parts (elements) of a marine ecosystem, region or MS’s marine waters (i.e. its species/species groups, habitats/communities and physical, hydrological and chemical elements). 'Components' can be considered more or less synonymous with the MSFD term 'Features'.

Each of these can be further characterised by their 'properties' (e.g. the population size of a species, the concentration or distribution of a nutrient) which are often termed parameters in a monitoring context.

Criterion (plural criteria) (for GES)

Art. 9(3) provides for a regulatory process to lay down EU criteria and methodological standards as EU-wide minimum requirements for assessing GES.

Art. 3(6) defines ‘criteria’ as 'distinctive technical features that are closely linked to qualitative descriptors'. To fulfill their role, the criteria to be set up under Art. 9(3) need to include the quality elements, parameters and associated reference levels (for baselines and GES boundaries) that are to be used to assess whether the environmental status is ‘good’ or not. Therefore, criteria cannot be less distinctive than the descriptors defined in Annex I and they should enable assessment the status of the elements in Annex III. The criteria to be set up under Art. 9(3) provide the EU-wide minimum

63

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

requirements for assessing GES. Monitoring and assessment in relation to criteria should follow the specifications and standardized methods set in accordance with Art. 11(4).

To avoid confusion between the use of the term ‘criteria’ in this specific context and its use in other respects (such as criteria used to guide indicator selection), it is recommended that these specific criteria be referred to as ‘GES criteria’.

Cost of degradation

The cost of degradation (as per Art. 8(1c)) can be reflected in two ways: i) the reduction in the value of the ecosystem services provided compared to another state; and ii) the efforts/costs needed to restore the quality of the marine environment to a level which achieves GES. .

Degradation

Degradation is the reduction in the quality status of the marine environment, or any part of it, or in the provision of ecosystem services compared to a more healthy environmental status.

Descriptor (of GES)

MSFD Annex I provides a list of eleven qualitative 'descriptors' which provide a further refinement of aspects of the definition of GES in Art. 3(5). These descriptors are substantiated and further specified through the criteria and methodological standards laid down under Art. 9(3) and the (sub)region-specific characteristics determined by Member States in accordance with Art. 9(1).

Determination (of GES)

The term 'determination' of GES, as per Art. 9(1), is taken to mean a more precise definition of GES than is provided in the Directive (Art. 3(5), MSFD Annex I) and the GES Decision 2010/477/EU (and any updates of it), and which allows for an assessment of whether GES has been achieved or not.

Drivers

Drivers, as per the Driver-Pressure-Impact-State-Response (DPSIR) framework, are aspects of human society which lead to uses of and activities in the (marine) environment, and consequently to pressures upon the natural environment. Drivers include social and economic goals of society (e.g. for human health and well-being, for wealth and for food provision) as well as policies and governance systems (such as subsidies and regulation which may subsequently change an aspect of the ecosystem).

The DPSIR framework does not clearly distinguish the societal issues, as expressed above, from the uses and activities which result from them; however the MSFD specifically requires an analysis of the uses and activities under Art. 8(1c); it is therefore helpful to distinguish them, not least because uses and activities are more readily quantified and closer to the pressures, which also need to be assessed and managed under the MSFD (see MSCG-11_2013_16 for further details).

Ecosystem

For the purposes of assessments of environmental status, the term ‘ecosystem’ is considered to mean all the component species groups, pelagic and benthic habitats within a suitably-define and ecologically-relevant area; such ‘ecosystems’ could be at the scale of a (sub)region or suitable subdivision; it may be appropriate to consider assessment of coastal, shelf and open ocean/deep sea ecosystems as these comprise quite different suites of species and habitats and are subject to different ranges of pressures.

The use of the term ecosystem in scientific research is often much wider, being applied at a wider range of ecological and spatial scales.

64

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Ecosystem-based (approach to) management60

Ecosystem-based management is an integrated approach to management of human activities that considers the entire ecosystem including humans. The goal is to maintain ecosystems in a healthy, clean, productive and resilient condition, so that they can provide humans with the services and goods upon which we depend. It is a) a spatial approach that builds around, b) acknowledging connections, c) cumulative impacts and d) multiple objectives. In this way, it differs from traditional approaches that address single concerns e.g. species, sectors or activities.

A comprehensive integrated management of human activities, based on best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, can lead to the identification and action on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity.

Ecosystem services61

Ecosystem services are the final outputs or products from ecosystems that are directly consumed, used (actively or passively) or enjoyed by people.

The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is the 'EU reference' typology for all ecosystem services. CICES considers that the generation of ecosystem services must involve living organisms; therefore, abiotic environmental outputs (e.g. sea salt) are not services under this typology.

CICES separates ecosystem services (e.g. fish biomass) from the benefits they can provide to people (e.g. the nutritional value of the fish biomass). Marine ecosystem services include provisioning services (such as food from fish); regulation and maintenance services (such as the sea's ability to absorb greenhouse gases, thus regulating the climate); and cultural services (such as the availability of charismatic marine species to observe or to research). We get many benefits from these services such as nutrition, reductions in anthropogenic CO2, and recreation.

Element

The term ‘elements’ is used in the Directive in the following ways:

a. 'Elements of the marine strategies' are listed in Art. 5(2) as the initial assessment, determination of GES, setting of environmental targets, establishment of monitoring programmes and programmes of measures, and referred to again Art. 12, 14(4), 17(2) and 19(2).

b. ‘Elements regarding coastal, transitional and territorial waters covered by relevant provisions of existing Community legislation' in Art. 8(2) refer to aspects of other assessments, for example the Water Framework Directive.

c. An 'indicative list of elements' are the characteristics, pressures and impacts listed in Annex III Tables 1 and 2, with further references in Art. 8(1), 9(1), 11(1), Annex IV.1, Annex IV.3 and Annex V.12.

d. 'Elements of the marine food webs' from descriptor 4 in Annex I refers to the different components of food webs (e.g. producers, consumers, decomposers).

e. 'Non-essential elements of the Directive’ is used in Art. 9(3) and 11(4).

60 European Environment Agency. (2014). Marine messages – our seas, our future – moving towards a new understanding. Copenhagen and http://ia2dec.pbe.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc10118261 EEA (2015) State of Europe's Seas. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-europes-seas

65

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

From the above, it can be concluded that the term ‘element’ is used simply to refer to the different parts or topics of the marine strategies, of Annex III (to be used for assessments), of the Directive or other assessments, and of food webs.

Element (assessment)

(Assessment) elements is a collective term for the ecosystem components/features and pressures to be used in assessments under Art. 8 and determination of GES under Art. 9. Indicative lists of elements are provided in MSFD Annex III. Elements can be defined broadly (as in MSFD Annex III) or more finely (via Art. 9(1)).

More generally, the MSFD uses the term ‘element’ to refer to the different parts or topics of the marine strategies, of Annex III, of the Directive or other assessments, and of food webs.

Environmental state

The Directive makes only one reference to the term state (in Art. 3(4)) where the term is used to qualify the term 'environmental status', by indicating it comprises a number of elements, processes and properties of marine ecosystems.

Environmental status (good, current)

Environmental status is defined in Art. 3(4) and further mentioned in Art. 3(1b). The definition indicates that a number of elements need to be considered. This includes physical, acoustic and chemical conditions which result from human activities, indicating that these types of pressures, when measured in the marine environment, are also to be considered when assessing environmental status.

Current environmental status is mentioned in Art. 5(2), 8(1), 8(2), 11(1), 19(3), 20(3) and in MSFD Annex III. Assessment of the 'current' environmental status, undertaken by Member States (and by the EEA in 2019), comprises a number of components (indicative list in Table 1 of MSFD Annex III) and is based on data from monitoring programmes and from other assessments (e.g. WFD, by RSCs).

The assessment of current status is accompanied by an assessment of the effects of pressures and impacts from human activities on the status (Art. 5(2i), 8(1b)), implying that these are somewhat distinct from the assessment of environmental status (but are needed in order to assess environmental status).

Good environmental status is defined in Art. 3(5) and further referenced in Art.5(2), 5(3), 9(1), 9(3), 10(1), 13(1), 14(1), 14(2), 14(4), 15(1), 17(2), 19(2), Annex I, Annex IV.2, IV.3, IV.10, IV.12, Annex V.1, V.4 and Annex VI.6.

The Directive provides a definition of Good Environmental Status, and makes provision for further refinement of the definition (via a Decision on criteria in Art. 9(3) and via Member States’ 'determinations' in Art. 9(1)). Achieving GES is the overarching objective of the Directive.

Various articles then give provisions on how to achieve and maintain GES.

Environmental target

Art. 3(7) defines ‘environmental target’ as a 'qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components of, and pressures and impacts on, marine waters in respect of each marine region or subregion. Environmental targets are established in accordance with Article 10'. MSFD Annex IV contains a list of characteristics to be considered when establishing environmental targets.

The main purpose of environmental targets is to guide progress towards achieving or maintaining GES. Targets can be of different nature, relating to desired conditions for state, impact and pressure and being operational for the implementation of specific measures. They support the achievement of GES but are not a replacement for the determination of GES. The aim should be to set targets in

66

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

relation to all relevant pressures so that it could be assumed that by reaching all targets GES would be achieved.

Factor

‘Factors’ is used in Art. 3(4) and 3(5) as a technical term concerning the physiographic, geographic, biological, geological and climatic properties/characteristics of marine ecosystems.

'Properties' (Art. 3(5)), Annex I.10, Annex IV.3) refers to specific aspects of physical, hydrological, chemical or biological features or of litter - these can typically be measured and hence monitored to show how these features change.

'Factors' and 'properties' are similar in essence, relating to technical/scientific attributes of marine ecosystems or their components/features which can generally be measured/monitored to characterise them or to assess change in space and time (e.g. the speed of water flows, the clarity of water, the concentration of nutrients) as a means to assess environmental status.

Feature

The term 'feature', as used in the Art. 3(6) definition of criteria, seems to be used in a different sense to all other places in the Directive (e.g. MSFD Annex III Table 1 features) as it is qualified by 'distinctive technical' and applied in relation to descriptors and criteria.

These 'features' provide further 'distinctive technical' definition to the GES Descriptors that will enable the assessment of whether GES has been met or not. They could thus refer to 'features' and their 'properties', and to pressures and impacts (as provided in MSFD Annex III), as the elements of each descriptor that will enable their assessment. To 'allow for comparison between marine regions or subregions of the extent to which GES is being achieved', the criteria should where possible provide a quantified GES boundary.

The term 'feature', as used in the MSFD, can be considered more or less synonymous with the term 'component'.

Functional group

Within a habitat (benthic or pelagic), the term is used in the context of assessing community condition through assessment of the range of functional groups present (e.g. filter feeders, deposit feeders, grazers).

The term was also applied in the first implementation cycle to groups of highly mobile or widely dispersed birds, mammals, reptiles and fish. It is replaced by the term 'species group'.

Good environmental status (GES)

GES is defined in Art. 3(5) and further elaborated by the descriptors of MSFD Annex I. GES relates to determining the desired status of the environment and its elements. GES is determined based on criteria and methodological standards set out in accordance with Art. 9(3) and their (sub)regional specification in accordance with Art. 9(1) ('characteristics of GES‘).

GES boundary

‘GES boundary’ is a term used to mark the difference between a state that is acceptable (in GES) and a state that is not acceptable (not in GES). Because the assessment of GES involves use of scientific indicators, the term can be applied to the threshold value adopted for the criterion. It is also applicable at higher levels of aggregation in the assessment of GES.

Habitat (types of)

The term habitat has two distinct uses:

67

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

a. firstly, to refer to the environment used and occupied by a single species; in this case, the nature and scale of the habitat can vary markedly according to the particular needs of the species across all stages of its life history (e.g. a seal or bird may need breeding, resting, feeding and migratory areas which are very different in nature and location);

b. secondly, to refer to particular areas which are characterized by specific communities of species (i.e. a multi-species concept of habitat); in this case the habitat comprises particular biotic and abiotic characteristics (often referred to as a biotope) which make it distinguishable from surrounding habitat types. In contrast to the habitat of a single species, this use of the term habitat refers to something that is more uniform in its character, leading to the definition and classification of habitat types and the ability to produce maps of habitats. The EEA's EUNIS habitat classification provides a Europe-wide classification of marine (and terrestrial) habitats in a 6-level hierarchical system. The Habitats Directive and several international conventions (e.g. HELCOM, OSPAR) have developed lists of habitat types which require protection.

MSFD Annex III refers to predominant and special habitats (in the second meaning of habitat above):

a. Predominant habitats: these are a set of broadly-defined habitat types which together cover all benthic and pelagic habitat types of EU marine waters. A list of predominant habitat types is provided in CSWP (2011); their equivalence to EUNIS classes is given in the TG1 report 62; in this paper and a revision of the Decision, it is proposed to rename these as 'habitat groups'.

b. Special habitats: this refers to habitat types which are listed for protection under the Habitats Directive and international conventions; their typologies are often not easily related to those in EUNIS. Special habitats are encompassed within the broader habitat groups, although due to their definitions they may not always sit within a single habitat group.

Hydrographical conditions

Hydrographical conditions refer to the depth, tidal, current and wave characteristics of marine waters, including the topography and morphology of the seabed.

Hydrological processes

Hydrological processes refer to the movement, distribution and quality of water. Interference with hydrological processes can encompass changes in the thermal or salinity regime, in the tidal regime, in sediment and freshwater transport, in current or wave action and in turbidity. Hydrographical conditions can be influenced by (changing) hydrological processes.

Impact

There are many references to impact in the Directive, with most referring to environmental impact (Art. 1(2), 1(4), 3(7), 5(2), 8(1b), 8(3), 9(1), 10(1), 11(2), 13(5), 13(8), 14(1), 15(1), Annex III Table 2). 'Impact' here is referring to adverse effects on the environment. These are caused by pressures from human activities (i.e. resulting from these pressures) and by implication can be measured as change in environmental state.

Environmental impact is an alteration, whether permanent or temporary, in a physical, chemical or biological aspect of the environment that is considered undesirable.

Impact is used in Art. 13(3) to refer to the social and economic effects (positive or negative) of measures taken. These socio-economic impacts could include the degradation of ecosystem goods

62 Cochrane, S.K.J., Connor, D.W., Nilsson, P., Mitchell, I., Reker, J., Franco, J., Valavanis, V., Moncheva, S., Ekebom, J., Nygaard, K., Serrão Santos, R., Naberhaus, I., Packeiser, T., van de Bund, W. & Cardoso, A.C. 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Task Group 1 report Biological diversity. ICES, Copenhagen & JRC, Ispra.

68

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

and services, resulting from a degraded (impacted) environment, with its consequences for human welfare and for use of the marine environment. Also in Art. 13(3), as well as in Annex V.3, the use of ‘impact’ seems to refer to both environmental and socio-economic impacts.

The term impacts is thus used in two different ways in the Directive; firstly in relation to the adverse effects of anthropogenic pressures on environmental state (and which thus might affect reaching or maintaining GES), and secondly in relation to effects (positive or negative) on socio-economic issues.

When referring to impacts it is thus important to be clear whether the reference is to environmental impacts or to socio-economic impacts; it is also important to be clear whether the impacts are negative or positive effects or both.

In the DPSIR framework, the term impact is used in this dual way (environmental, socio-economic), leading to considerable confusion in its use. This document has focused on its use as environmental impact, whilst socio-economic impact can alternatively be referred to as loss or degradation in ecosystem services (see MSCG-11_2013_16 for further details).

Indicator

The term ‘indicator’ is used in different contexts:

For the legal purposes of the MSFD, the term ‘indicator‘ refers only to environmental targets (Art. 10), where they are used to monitor progress and guide management decisions with a view to achieving these targets (MSFD Annex IV (7)).

For the purposes of assessing environmental status, the EU Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards refers to ‘indicators’ to specify the criteria and support their assessment. This use of the term ‘indicator‘ has proven to cause confusion with its use under Art. 10. Such confusion should be avoided in any revision of the EU Commission Decision.

For other purposes, ‘indicators‘ are understood in general as a scientific or technical assessment tool that needs to be operational. An indicator consists of one or several parameters chosen to represent (‘indicate’) a certain situation or aspect and to simplify a complex reality. Such understanding of ‘indicator‘ is used for example in Regional Sea Conventions, also to support the determination of GES and assessment of the environmental status of the marine environment.

Indicators are defined by the EEA as a parameter or a value derived from observations that describe state and trends of the environment.

Index*

An index is a statistic, which represents the aggregated measurement, or calculated derivative of several different ‘parameters’, usually determined across different biodiversity components. In ecology, indices are frequently used to inform on biological variety in any given area or point in time. The degree of variety can be assessed on various levels, e.g. at the level of genes, species, communities/habitats.

Listed species and habitats (features)*

Listed features are species or habitat types which are listed under Community legislation (e.g. Birds and Habitats Directive) and/or international conventions (e.g. OSPAR and Barcelona Conventions). MSFD Annex III Table 1 refers to these habitat types as ‘special’.

Marine waters

For the purposes of the MSFD, marine waters are those defined in Art. 3(1) as:

69

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

a. waters, the seabed and subsoil on the seaward side of the baseline from which the extent of territorial waters is measured extending to the outmost reach of the area where a Member State has and/or exercises jurisdictional rights, in accordance with the UNCLOS, with the exception of waters adjacent to the countries and territories mentioned in Annex II to the Treaty and the French Overseas Departments and Collectivities; and

b. coastal waters as defined by Directive 2000/60/EC, their seabed and their subsoil, in so far as particular aspects of the environmental status of the marine environment are not already addressed through that Directive or other Community legislation.

Methodological standard

Art. 9(3) provides for a regulatory process to lay down criteria and methodological standards as EU-wide minimum requirements for assessing GES. Methodological standards are understood as being the agreed and established scientific or technical methods for assessing and classifying environmental status. Methodological standards can include, for example, assessment tools or methods for aggregation / integration across assessment parameters, assessment elements (e.g. across contaminants, species, habitats), criteria or even descriptors, and methods or approaches to defining assessment scales. Examples of such assessment methods could be the HEAT (HELCOM) and COMP (OSPAR) tools/assessment methods for eutrophication, and the methodology for integrating Favourable Conservation Status criteria under the Habitats Directive.

Metric

Metric relates to the unit in which a parameter is measured (e.g. number of individuals, biomass in g/dry weight, mg/l nutrients in water). Parameters and metrics for assessment of GES are part of the criteria and methodological standards to be defined under Art. 9(3).

Parameter

Parameters are the specific properties or attributes of an element (e.g. population size, biomass, concentration) which can be measured/evaluated and thus used in an assessment of environmental status.

Pressure

From references in the Directive (Art. 1(3), 3(7), 8(1b), 9(1), 10(1), Annex III) it is clear that 'pressures' arise from human activities and can have an adverse effect on the marine environment. One can deduce that 'impacts' (‘effects’) on the environment arise from these pressures and consequently can be measured through changes in its state.

The Directive does not define what a pressure is. However, one can deduce from MSFD Annex III Table 2 that they are concerning the topics in the table (e.g. physical damage, nutrient inputs, biological disturbance). The term pressure is thus used in the sense of direct physical, chemical and biological consequences of human activities which can lead to adverse environmental impacts.

Pressure, in the sense of the DPSIR framework and MSFD, is an input, alteration or extraction, in relation to natural conditions, of physical, chemical or biological elements or properties which results directly from human activities. The pressure can be measured at its source (i.e. close to the activity generating it) or away from its source in the different parts of the environment (land, air, water, sea). When the pressure is sufficiently intense, widespread or frequent it can lead to adverse environmental impacts on particular aspects of natural ecosystems.

A pressure acts directly or via pathways on physical, chemical or biological elements of the marine ecosystem, or on its natural functions and processes, e.g. inputs to the sea (e.g. substances, litter, energy, non-indigenous species), extractions from the sea (catch of target and non-target species, extraction of sand and gravel) and interferences or changes to the elements of the ecosystem (e.g. mechanical disturbances from trawling, alterations of water flows).

70

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

A pressure, at particular levels of intensity, has the potential to have a direct or indirect impact on part of the ecosystem. For example, the introduction of non-indigenous species as a consequence of human activities (such as via shipping or aquaculture) provides a pressure on the native biodiversity through the displacement of and competition with the native species. When such species become abundant within habitats, they can alter the structure and functioning of the habitat and its native biodiversity and thus be considered to be causing an impact.

A pressure can be a natural characteristic of the environment which is altered by anthropogenic activity or refer to the input of anthropogenically generated substances which are not natural.

Reference condition (or Reference state)

For assessment purposes, it is often necessary to define a baseline against which current and future state is compared. Reference state/condition is one type of baseline. It plays a central role in the concept of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and other environmental assessment tools (e.g. HELCOM's HEAT system). Reference conditions describe the state of the environment (or a component) in which there is considered to be no, or very minor, disturbance from the pressures of human activities. It is common in such assessment systems to then define an 'acceptable deviation' from this reference state to allow for a specified level of disturbance from the pressure(s) and hence to define the boundary between an acceptable state (GES) and an unacceptable state.

For the purposes of MSFD, the reference condition and GES boundaries are used in the determination of GES. Other equivalent terms are adopted in other policies. The term reference point is avoided in the context of Art. 9, as it is used under Art. 10. Table A1.1 provides the preferred terms for reference levels for MSFD use, with equivalents used in other policies.

Table A1.1: Preferred terms for use in GES determinations for use in MSFD and their equivalents in other policies (TO BE COMPLETED)

Policy Term for baseline (unimpacted state)

Term for level at which the quality objective for the policy is met (i.e. GES or equivalent)

MSFD Reference condition GES boundary

WFD Reference condition Boundary between moderate and good status for GEcS elements and GChS boundary

Habitats Directive Favourable reference area, favourable reference range

Boundary between Favourable Conservation Status and Unfavourable-inadequate status

CFP

Bucharest Convention

Barcelona Convention

Helsinki Convention

OSPAR Convention Background levels (hazardous substances)

Reference points

In the indicative list of characteristics at MSFD Annex IV to be taken into account for setting environmental targets, point (8) refers to, where appropriate, specification of reference points (target and limit reference points). This relates to values, which must be achieved or not exceeded respectively, in order to bring a pressure or impact to a level that achieves the environmental target and consequently allows the marine waters concerned to recover towards GES.

71

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Resilience

From an ecological perspective, resilience means the ability of an ecosystem to return to its original state after being disturbed.

Scale

The spatial (and temporal) resolution at which GES is determined and assessed for the different ecosystem and pressure elements.

Scenarios*

Scenarios are projections of future states of society and the environment, based on specific assumptions about key drivers, such as human population size, economic growth, technological change and environmental policy regimes.

Socio-economic analysis*

A socio-economic analysis (for Art. 8(1c)) aims to identify the impact on human welfare of a given policy. This includes economic as well as social aspects, and may include consideration of the distribution of these impacts across stakeholders. In light of this definition, an explicit distinction between economic and social analysis is not necessary.

Species group (formerly functional group of species)

As a way of simplifying and categorizing biodiversity, species can be assigned to groups. Such groups comprise species with similar structural, functional or taxonomic characteristics, such as their mode of feeding or their habitat. Each group represents an ecological role (e.g. surface-feeding birds , demersal fish) within the marine ecosystem.

For MSFD purposes, the term 'functional group' was specifically applied to groups of bird, mammal, reptile, fish and cephalopod species to provide a set of groups for the assessment of status of these often highly mobile or widely-dispersed species groups. A working list of functional groups was provided in CSWP (2011) in order to provide consistency in the assessments of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and pelagic cephalopods in the first implementation cycle. Because the term is also used in a more specific manner (e.g. within habitats – see definition), it has been replaced by the more neutral term 'species group'.

Special habitats

See ‘listed habitats’

Specifications and standardised methods

Art. 11(4) provides for a regulatory process to adopt specifications and standardised methods as EU-wide minimum requirements for monitoring and assessment performed under the MSFD.

‘Specifications‘ are understood to relate to minimum requirements for the design of monitoring (e.g. minimum spatial and temporal frequency resolution).

‘Standardised methods‘ are understood to relate to:

methods for monitoring (e.g. for sampling, analysis, quality assurance). This includes agreed international standards (e.g. CEN/ISO standards) for monitoring, laboratory analysis, including quality assurance and control, statistical uncertainties and agreed use of quality control mechanisms (e.g. QUASIMEME, BEQUALM).

methods for assessment, including agreed rules for the spatial and temporal aggregation of monitoring data.

72

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

State/status

The term ‘state’, in the context of the DPSIR framework and MSFD, refers to the quality/condition of specific elements, processes and properties of marine ecosystems. This can be determined through measurements in the environment of relevant parameters for such elements; such measurements, by definition, will reflect any impacts (individual and cumulative) to which the element has been subjected.

The word ‘status’, as used in the context of Environmental Status (Art. 3(4)), draws together assessments of the ‘state’ of individual ecosystem elements, through use of particular criteria and methodological standards, to assess the overall 'status' of the marine environment. This status can be classified as 'good' (in GES) or 'not good' (not in GES) according to the determination of GES under Art. 9(1). For WFD five classes are used, for Habitats Directive three classes are used. ‘Status’ can either be applied to the overall quality/condition of the marine environment, at the level of the individual descriptors of GES (for pressure-based descriptors) or at the level of individual functional groups, habitats, species or populations.

(Sub)region

Art. 4 defines four regions for MSFD implementation, two of which (North-East Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea) are further divided into four subregions each. The expression ‘(sub)region’ is used to indicate application of the Directive at either regional or subregional scale.

Use (of marine waters)

The use of marine waters, as per Art. 8(1c)), is defined as any human activity using or influencing the marine environment and/or influencing ecosystem goods and services provided by marine waters.

Use value and Non-use value*

The use value, both direct and indirect, captures the direct link between ecosystem services and human welfare. Direct use value includes the profits of fishers and the oil and gas industry etc. (“economic” value) and wider benefits that are more difficult to measure (for example recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, scuba diving etc., as well as the importance to citizens of maintaining their marine heritage (“social” value). Indirect use value includes the benefits we derive from the environment’s provision of ecosystem services such as waste decomposition and carbon sequestration. The non-use value includes 'bequest' and 'existence' values. It entails, for example, the importance people attach to knowing that a healthy sea surrounds them and that this resource may be passed on to future generations.

10.1. Summary schema of MSFD terms elements, features, components, characteristics

Table A1.2 below provides an overview of the terms and their use in different sections of the Directive. It is laid out in a way which shows a possible way to associate their use to three main aspects of the Directive (the marine strategies, the marine regions/waters/ecosystems and the parts of the Directive). The terms used are thus general (elements), related to specific entities (components, features) or related to attributes of these entities (factors, properties, characteristics).

73

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Table A1.2: Summary of the current mixed use of the terms elements, features, components, characteristics, factors and properties in the MSFD (note: italicised text is additional interpretation).

Elements Features, components Characteristics, factors, properties

Relating to parts of the

marine strategies

Elements of marine strategies (Art. 5(2), 12, 14(4), 17(2), 19(2))- initial assessment

- determination of GES

Distinctive technical features (criteria) (Art. 3(6))- closely linked to quantitative descriptors

Characteristics for GES (Art. 9(1), Annex I)- in respect of each marine region or subregion- on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex I

- setting of environmental targets

Characteristics of targets (Art. 10(1), Annex IV)- indicative list of characteristics (Annex IV)

- establishment of monitoring programmes

- establishment of programmes of measures

Elements of other assessments (Art. 8(2))- e.g. WFD

Relating to marine regions,

waters and ecosystems

Features of marine regions (Art. 3(2))- hydrological, oceanographic, biogeographic features

Factors of marine ecosystems (Art. 3(4), 3(5))- physiographic, geographic, biological, geological, climatic

Components of ecosystems (Art. 3(5), Annex VI.2, Annex VI.7)- biological (i.e. species, habitats)

Properties of ecosystems (Art. 3(5))- hydro-morphological, physical, chemical, including those which result from human activities

Elements of food webs (Annex I.4) Properties of marine litter

(Annex I.10)

Elements of Annex III, Table 1 (Art. 8(1), 9(1), 11(1), Annex IV.1, Annex IV.3, Annex V.12)- characteristics

Features of marine waters (Art. 8(1), 8(3), 9(1), 10(1), 11(2), Annex III, Table 1)- Physical, chemical, habitat types, biological, hydro-morphology, other, transboundary features

Properties of elements of marine waters (Annex IV.3)- measurable

Components of marine waters (Art. 3(7))

Characteristics of marine waters (Art. 8(1), 14(1), Annex III, Table 1)- physical (e.g. mixing characteristics)- of areas- typical of or specific to the marine region or subregion

Physical and chemical features of habitat types (Annex III, Table 1)Depth, water temperature regime, currents and other water movements, salinity, structure and substrate composition of the seabed

Characteristic features (Annex III, Table 1)- typical of or specific to each habitat type-biological features

74

GES cross-cutting issues v5 - MSCG_17-2015-06

Elements Features, components Characteristics, factors, properties

Elements of Annex III, Table 2 (Art. 8(1), 11(1), Annex V.12)- pressures and impacts

Relating to parts of the Directive

Non-essential elements of the Directive (Art. 9(3), 11(4))

For practical implementation purposes, it is proposed to use the following terms and definitions in relation to determining GES and associated assessments:

a. Elements – these are the ecosystem components/features and pressures to be used in assessments under Art. 8 and determinations of GES under Art. 9. Indicative lists of elements are provided in MSFD Annex III.

b. Parameters – these are specific properties or attributes of an element which can be measured/evaluated and thus used in an assessment of environmental status.

75