GES_13-2015-02

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

13th meeting of the

Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)22-23 April 2015

Conference Centre Albert Borschette (Room 2/C), Rue Froissart 36, 1040, Brussels

PRINTING IN COLOUR IS RECOMMENDED

Agenda Item: 5b

Document: GES_13-2015-02

Title: Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III – cross-cutting issues (version 4)

Prepared by: DG Environment

Date prepared: 14/04/2015

Background This document has been prepared as a result of discussions within WG GES since 2012, including at the cross-cutting workshop at the EEA, Copenhagen in January 2015 where many relevant issues were raised. 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). In particular, it also further develops the guidance expressed in Annex IV of that report.The document contributes to the 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. This should, in particular, address cross-cutting issues of relevance to the technical reviews for each GES Descriptor being led by JRC and ICES.The document draws upon the CSWP of 2012 and on the existing (2011) Common Understanding (CU) guidance on MSFD Art, 8, 9 and 10, including the recent work of a GES Drafting Group to update it. It should contribute to the further development and finalisation of a revised CU guidance, via a process to be discussed and agreed by WG GES.In the meantime, it is envisaged to further develop and finalise this document as a technical background document that provides an informal perspective for the purposes of the current GES review process and the further implementation of the MSFD. The final status of the document will only be decided as part of the outcome of the GES Decision review process.This version 4 has been updated to take account of comments received on:

Version 1 after the WG GES meeting in October 2014 from DK, FR, PT, RO, UK,

1

GES_13-2015-02

HELCOM and CCB; To reflect the material presented to the GES cross-cutting workshop in January

2015 (EEA, Copenhagen) and to take account of comments and conclusions of the workshop.

Versions 2 and 3 released for internal review.Next steps:Following its discussion at the WG GES in April 2015, the Commission (DG ENV), in conjunction with the MSFD Core Team, will finalise this document under its responsibility and make it available as a background document.At the same time, a discussion and agreement should be reached on whether and how to use this document in the further development of the CU guidance. It would then be in the context of the CU guidance that MS and other members of WG GES should comment on and further develop the issues raised here, so that a common view can be established through a revised CU guidance. This process and timetable will be proposed by DE as lead of the CU guidance.

The WG GES is invited to:

a. Note this draft version 4 of the cross-cutting document;

a. Comment on the technical review and initial proposals for a revised MSFD Annex III (in Annex 3 of this paper), bearing in mind its links to a revised GES Decision, as outlined in the cross-cutting paper;

b. Give guidance on further considerations for work on the review of MSFD Annex III.

b. Agree on a forward process and timetable to develop a second version of the Common Understanding guidance on MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10, taking into account this cross-cutting document.

2

GES_13-2015-02

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

(Version 4.0: 13/04/2015)

Contents1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................5

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

3. The MSFD implementation cycle....................................................................................................7

4. Good environmental status (Article 9)...........................................................................................8

4.1. The determination of GES is central to MSFD implementation..............................................8

4.2. Provisions of the Directive......................................................................................................8

4.3. The definitions of environmental status and good environmental status in Article 3............9

4.4. The GES descriptors of Annex I.............................................................................................10

4.5. The characteristics, pressures and impacts of Annex III.......................................................11

4.6. Consistency between Member States in the determination of GES.....................................12

4.7. An integrated approach to determining and assessing GES.................................................12

4.8. The nature of a GES determination – state, impact and pressure........................................15

4.9. Providing clarity on whether GES has been achieved...........................................................16

4.10. Challenges in delimiting a GES boundary..........................................................................17

4.11. Follow-up actions depend on the environmental status ‘class’........................................18

4.12. GES and climate change....................................................................................................19

5. Criteria and methodological standards........................................................................................19

5.1. Elements for assessment......................................................................................................20

5.2. Criteria for assessment of the elements...............................................................................24

5.3. Use of reference levels in determining GES..........................................................................25

5.4. Aggregation rules..................................................................................................................26

5.5. Scales of assessment............................................................................................................29

5.6. Time period for assessment..................................................................................................32

5.7. Specifications and standardised methods............................................................................32

5.8. Review of Part A of Decision 2010/477/EU..........................................................................33

6. Revision of MSFD Annex III...........................................................................................................33

7. Links to other policies...................................................................................................................33

7.1. Links to EU legislation...........................................................................................................33

7.2. Links to other policies for biodiversity..................................................................................35

8. Assessments (Article 8).................................................................................................................37

3

GES_13-2015-02

8.1. Integrated approaches for assessments: state-based and pressure-based descriptors.......37

8.2. Presentation of assessment results......................................................................................42

8.3. The HOPE indicators.............................................................................................................44

9. Environmental targets (Article 10)...............................................................................................45

9.1. Relationship between the determination of GES (Art. 9) and the setting of environmental targets (Art. 10)................................................................................................................................45

9.2. The nature of environmental targets....................................................................................45

9.3. Indicators..............................................................................................................................46

9.4. Reference points...................................................................................................................47

10. Link to reporting and information management (incl. Art. 19.3)..............................................47

11. Products from the Review........................................................................................................47

12. Annex 1: Glossary of terms.......................................................................................................48

13. Annex 2: On the use of certain terms in the MSFD...................................................................57

13.1. Introduction......................................................................................................................57

13.2. Elements, components, features, factors, properties, characteristics..............................57

13.2.1. Terms without specific definitions................................................................................57

13.2.2. Elements.......................................................................................................................57

13.2.3. Components, features..................................................................................................57

13.2.4. Features (GES criteria)..................................................................................................58

13.2.5. Factors, properties........................................................................................................58

13.2.6. Characteristics..............................................................................................................58

13.2.7. Summary schema of these terms.................................................................................59

13.3. Pressure, impact, state and status....................................................................................60

13.3.1. Interpretation in MSFD – Pressure...............................................................................61

13.3.2. Interpretation in MSFD – Impact..................................................................................61

13.3.3. Interpretation in MSFD – Environmental status (good, current)..................................61

13.3.4. Interpretation in MSFD – State.....................................................................................62

13.3.5. Application of the terms in DPSIR.................................................................................62

13.3.6. Separating use of the terms pressure and state...........................................................64

13.4. Appendix...........................................................................................................................65

14. Annex 3: Analysis of MSFD Annex III and proposals for its revision..........................................66

1. INTRODUCTION

The review and possible revision of the Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (Decision 2010/477/EU 1) and of Annex III

1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF

4

GES_13-2015-02

to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, Directive 2008/56/EC2) was discussed at the MSFD Committee meetings in February and November 2013 and a mandate for the review was agreed (see documents Committee-6-2013-3.doc and Committee-07_2013_3rev). Since then the technical phase of the review has been organised by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and discussed with the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) in March 2014 and with the Marine Strategy Coordination Group (MSCG) in May 2014. A template for a "manual" was prepared to structure the review of each descriptor in a similar, consistent and coherent way (GES_11-2014-04 with revisions). Progress with these technical reviews was considered by WG GES (October 2014) and MSCG (November 2014), leading to an updated mandate for the review from the MSFD Committee in November 2014.

The technical work of the review has raised a number of generic or cross-cutting issues which are relevant to the technical work on individual descriptors, as well as how they are considered together, some of which have been partially addressed in the Common Understanding (CU) guidance on Art. 8-9-10 (2011) and the subsequent updating of it. However, since then, the Commission presented its Article3 12 assessment of the first implementation of Article 8, 9 and 10 (COM(2014)974) in which it clearly expressed that a better common understanding and a more coherent approach for implementing these provisions is needed. In particular, Annex IV of this COM report sets out some principles which are essential in the further implementation. This cross-cutting document aims at further developing and substantiating these principles and also takes account of expert discussions since then.

This present document has also been prepared to address relevant cross-cutting issues so as to assist in the coherence and consistency of the ongoing Decision review process. Version 1 5 was presented to WG GES in October 2014. The present version 4 has been prepared to take account of comments received from WG GES and from the cross-cutting workshop, held at the European Environment Agency in January 2015, in order to inform further technical work on the individual descriptors and further updating of the CU guidance.

To assist in understanding the 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 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 prepare for the next cycle of reporting in 2018.

The purpose and objectives of the review were set out at the beginning of the exercise:2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF3 All references to particular articles in this paper are to the MSFD (Directive 2008/56/EC), unless specifically indicated otherwise.4 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2014/EN/1-2014-97-EN-F1-1.Pdf5 GES_12-2014-03_GESDecisionReview_Cross-cuttingIssues_v1.doc

5

GES_13-2015-02

“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 on 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 exist);

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

The review process is currently developing a package of documents, comprising:

a. Technical reviews of the 2010 Decision (one per descriptor), with proposals for how the current Decision could be revised (prepared by JRC and ICES);

b. Technical review of MSFD Annex III with proposals for its revision, including how it links to Annex I and a revised Decision (Annex 3 of this document, prepared by the Commission);

c. Background / Guidance document on cross-cutting issues relevant to the review of the Decision and MSFD Annex III and to forward implementation of Art. 8, 9 and 10 (this document; prepared by the Commission in collaboration with the MSFD Core Team);

d. An updated CU guidance for Art. 8, 9 and 10 (preparation led by Germany, as co-chair of WG GES).

A revised Decision and MSFD Annex III should also be based on a clearer common understanding on the implementation of, in particular, Articles 8, 9 and 10. This requires close coordination of this exercise with the discussions on the revision of the Common Understanding (CU) guidance document for Articles 8, 9 and 10 which is being discussed by the WG GES. Without prejudice to the further discussions and agreements on this CU document, DG Environment proposes to base the current descriptor-level reviews of the GES Decision on the definitions and understandings of particular terms in the Directive presented in this document. This should allow for a validation and broader discussion with the various experts and a feedback from the expert discussions to the WG GES on how these definitions work in different circumstances (e.g. across the eleven descriptors).

6

GES_13-2015-02

3. THE MSFD IMPLEMENTATION CYCLE

Whilst the review process is primarily focused on Article 9 (determination of GES) and associated assessments of environmental status under Article 8, it necessarily links strongly with the 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.

Figure 1: The MSFD implementation process, encompassing the main stages in the six-year implementation cycle including the delivery dates of the first cycle.

4. GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS (ARTICLE 9)

4.1. 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 6. All operational provisions are in one way or another linked to GES, which is the central feature allowing the measurement of progress and success in implementation of the MSFD:

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

7

GES_13-2015-02

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 or maintain GES;

c. These targets, in turn, determine what measures are needed under Art. 13 to achieve 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 there is significant risk to the marine environment in the application of Art. 14 on exceptions, including Art. 14(4).

It is therefore paramount that Member States can determine GES, and monitor and assess whether it has been achieved (ideally in a quantitative way)7. The associated implementation of related articles depends on having clarity in this determination to enable adequate decision-making in implementation of the Directive.

4.2. 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 MSFD 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 Article 9 is additionally guided by the indicative list of elements provided in MSFD Annex III.

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 1. 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 4.6.

Table 1: Relationship of MSFD provisions for determining GES. The specificity of what constitutes GES increases from Art. 3(5) through to Art. 9(1) MSFD. The generic role outlined in the central column (see subsequent text sections for explanation) is applied and worked through with an example for Descriptor 1 and the element “Mammals” in the right-hand column.

7 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0049

8

GES_13-2015-02

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 (currently being addressed in the technical descriptor reviews led by JRC and ICES) and by Member States (working together in each (sub)region). These two processes should lead to a more explicit 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.

4.3. 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:

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. Protection8 of marine species and habitats;

8 Art. 2(1ª) also refers to restoration of marine ecosystems, where practicable, in areas where they have been adversely affected.

9

GES_13-2015-02

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 marine ecosystems have the capacity to respond to human-induced changes and enable sustainable use of marine goods and services.

4.4. 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 2). These provide more specific objectives for GES than is provided in the Art. 3(5) definition.

Table 2: Qualitative descriptors for determining GES (from MSFD Annex I).

No. Short name Annex I text

D1 Biodiversity Biological 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 webs All 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 Eutrophication Human-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 integrity Sea-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.

10

GES_13-2015-02

No. Short name Annex I text

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 can be broadly characterised as:

a. State -based descriptors , which provide objectives for particular aspects of the marine environment: D1 (biodiversity), D3 (commercial fish and shellfish), D4 (food webs) and D6 (sea-floor integrity);

b. Pressure-based descriptors , which provide objectives for aspects of the marine environment in relation to specific pressures from human activities: D2 (non-indigenous species), D5 (eutrophication), D7 (alteration of hydrographical conditions); 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.

4.5. The characteristics, pressures and impacts of Annex III

Annex III provides indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts. In relation to GES, these provide the basis (together with the 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

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

The relationship between Annex I and Annex III is not explicit in the Directive and consequently led to a Commission Staff Working Paper9 which aimed to clarify the relationship, taking into account the criteria and indicators of the 2010 GES Decision. The present review of the 2010 Decision is being accompanied by a review of Annex III (see section 6), with a view to further clarifying the relationships between Annex I, Annex III and the (revised) Decision, following the approach outlined in Table 1.

9 SEC(2011)1255 http://www.cc.cec/sg/vista/home?documentDetails&DocRef=SEC/2011/1255

11

GES_13-2015-02

4.6. Consistency between Member States in the determination of GES

From the overview given in Table 1 it can be seen that some aspects of GES determinations are laid down in the Directive and in the Decision, whereas further specifications may still be needed and are determined 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). The provisions of the Directive thus provide for levels of consistency in the determination of GES, partly at EU level and partly at (sub)regional10

level. This is important to ensure a ‘level playing field’ for Member States in the different stages of the MSFD implementation process, such as achieving particular environmental quality goals and opportunities for economic development. 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.

Ecosystem differences may 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 always 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.

4.7. An integrated approach to determining and assessing GES

The eleven GES descriptors and their separate treatment in the 2010 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). However, some parts of the MSFD implementation process have recognised the benefits of such integration: for example, this is reflected in approaches to the determination of GES for the state-based descriptors by some Member States in 2012 and in the structure adopted for Article 11 monitoring programmes where the state-based descriptors were treated in a more integrated manner.

The current review of the Decision is an opportunity to further strengthen such integration in support of an ecosystem-based approach to MSFD implementation. This integration can be 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. Central to this approach is an orientation towards the main components of the ecosystem, within which the descriptors are associated. This is illustrated in Figure 2 which shows the main elements of marine ecosystems from MSFD Annex III (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, seabed and water column habitats), which can provide a focus for determining GES, and which together comprise the whole ecosystem (as currently reflected by structure and function aspects of D1 and D4). The pressure-based descriptors affect one or more of these main elements and thus need to contribute to assessments of the status of each main element (see section 8 for further detail).

10 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.

12

GES_13-2015-02

Figure 2: 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 (pressure-based descriptors, satellite circles). Note that descriptors D2, D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9 and D10 include both a pressure criterion and an impact criterion in the 2010 Decision; the impact criteria should be closely linked to the state-based assessments.

This approach has the benefit of bringing structure and function aspects of ecosystem health together at an appropriate resolution (i.e. within each main ecosystem element rather than only at the whole ecosystem level), relating more readily to practical monitoring and assessment processes (e.g. monitoring of birds, mammals and fish is typically undertaken separately using different techniques) and linking more effectively to management needs (as pressures can affect both structure and function). The focus on these main ecosystem elements also facilitates assessment of cumulative effects from multiple pressures on the ecosystem.

This focus on the main elements (including sub-types – functional groups and predominant habitat types – see section 5.1) provides a way of dividing the complex ecosystems of each (sub)region into 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 function, including food webs.

It is proposed that achievement of the overall goal of the Directive would entail achievement of GES for each of the components in Figure 2 (where these are relevant to the marine (sub)region and/or MS marine waters), as follows:

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

b. Assessment of each functional group (for birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods) and predominant habitat type (for water column and seabed habitats);

13

GES_13-2015-02

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 two 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 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.

Each assessment is expected to need the use of a number of criteria and scientific indicators which are brought together in a structured manner in order to judge whether GES has been achieved. In the case of functional groups and predominant habitat types, there is likely to be a set of component species and habitats. Further details on how such assessments could be undertaken are given in subsequent sections, particularly section 5.1, 8.1.

The orientation of Art. 8 is towards state-based assessments (Art. 8.1a) and pressure-based assessments (Art. 8.1b)11. However the state-based assessments need to reflect the impacts upon the state elements from multiple pressures, whilst the pressure-based assessments need to assess impacts on ecosystem state. This inter-linkage is shown in Table 312. This leads to 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). Initial outline examples of such integrated assessments are provided in section 8.1; further practical guidance is needed depending on the specificities of assessments in each (sub)region.

11 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.12 This is a simplified and modified version of Annex 3 of CSWP (2011)

14

GES_13-2015-02

Table 3: Relationship of broad ecosystem elements to main pressures, indicating which criteria from the 2010 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 2010 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 2010 Decision for details about the criteria.

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 on non-commercial species would need to be separated into at least the main species groups (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish) and preferably at the finer level of functional group (see section 5.1).

4.8. 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 Annex I, which either express a particular state (ecosystem elements in Figure 2) which is to be achieved or a particular state to be achieved in relation to a specific pressure (pressures and impacts in Figure 2).

Because the environment can be degraded (impacted) by pressures from human activities, GES can also be expressed in relation to such impacts. This can provide a more specific way to express the desired state; 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. Generally GES determination will be easier for primary effects (e.g. chl-a) compared to secondary effects (e.g. oxygen).

15

GES_13-2015-02

Whilst determining GES is about defining the desired state of the environment, the maximum acceptable levels of pressures in the marine environment can be used to provide a proxy GES determination. This is relevant for each of the pressure-based descriptors, such that the 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. 913. Further pressures, that are not specified in one of the descriptors, can also be included in a GES determination.

The use of ‘acceptable pressure levels’ in the marine environment as a GES proxy is particularly feasible where there is a known causal relationship between the level of the pressure and its effects (impacts) on marine 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 elements. Where the pressure-impact relationship is not yet fully understood, the setting of such pressure levels in the marine environment needs to be on a more precautionary basis. Precautionary levels should be used 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.

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 precautionary pressure levels may be the only feasible option at present.

The establishment of a direct causal relationship between a pressure and impacts (i.e. where an acceptable level of impact can be determined in relation to a specified pressure level) is not well developed for all pressures, and thus needs further work in some areas. The assessment of impact from multiple pressures is a further desirable goal, but one which remains technically challenging when the individual pressure-impact relationships are themselves not yet sufficiently understood.

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 source, which are needed to achieve GES, should be defined as environmental targets under Art. 10 and not as part of a GES determination (see section 9.1).

4.9. 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 (see section 4.1). 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, because MSFD Annex I descriptors provide a set of broad objectives which together reflect key aspects of the definition of GES in Art. 3(5), but do not provide the specific elements which need to be assessed in order to know if GES has been achieved, it needs to relate to particular:

a. elements, functions and processes of the marine ecosystems (Art. 8.1a), or

13 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. This is particularly appropriate when the pressure is effectively an alteration in a natural characteristic, such as nutrient levels, certain hazardous substances and hydrographical conditions.

16

GES_13-2015-02

b. pressures and their impacts (Art. 8.1b).

This more specific approach is both more practical (as it relates to specific qualities of the marine environment that can be measured) and more relevant (as it relates more specifically to pressures and human activities which can be managed in specified areas in order to achieve a desired outcome). It follows from this that there is a need to:

a. Specify the ‘resolution’ of the assessment elements (ecosystem and pressure/impact) (i.e. whether the element is coarsely defined or finely defined) (see section 5.1);

b. Define how data (from monitoring) are processed and aggregated, via indicators and criteria, in order to conclude on whether the element has achieved GES or not (see section 5.4);

c. Define the assessment scales and geographical areas for assessment (see section 5.5).

4.10. Challenges in delimiting a GES boundary

The current degree of scientific knowledge and understanding varies across the descriptors, affecting considerably the ability to define clear quantitative GES boundaries for all elements and in all regions (Figure 3). In cases where there is insufficient knowledge to define a GES boundary (the grey areas in Figure 3), a precautionary approach is needed (see section 4.11), including the assumption that GES has not been achieved until sufficient evidence indicates otherwise. In such cases, a basis for progressing can be to set GES as ‘no further deterioration from the current state’ and to set an environmental target (under Art. 10) to improve the state towards a more natural condition, with a clear indication that the GES determination needs to be reviewed as further knowledge becomes available. Increased scientific knowledge and understanding should lead to progressively more quantifiable determinations of the GES boundary for all descriptors.

Figure 3: The current ability to define what is GES (green) and what is not GES (red) varies by descriptor, leading to a gradation from fully quantitative approaches to more qualitative approaches at present. The orange represents a more broadly-determined GES boundary, whilst the grey indicates that a boundary cannot be set at present; refer also to the text regarding the specificity of GES within each descriptor, as this diagram is intended to be a broad illustration only and allocation of

17

GES_13-2015-02

descriptors to each column could be judged differently for some aspects and regions (from presentation 2a to 9th meeting of WG GES, 5-6 March 2013, Brussels).

Lastly, but importantly, 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 (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 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.

4.11. Follow-up actions depend on the environmental status ‘class’

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, as illustrated in Figure 3, classification of environmental status can be considered to have three possibilities:

a. In GES – for which monitoring is needed to check status does not deteriorate;

b. Not in GES – for which targets and measures are needed which should lead to GES being achieved and maintained, coupled with monitoring to assess progress in status and against the targets and measures;

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 (orange and grey zones in Figure 3). Where, based on the current best available knowledge, interim boundaries or proxies can be determined for the orange zone, the environmental state within this zone should be classed as 'not in GES'. Where interim boundaries or proxies cannot be determined (grey zone), classification needs to rely on qualitative (normative) description and expert judgement. According to the precautionary principle14, uncertainty of classification must not be used for postponing action. Resulting actions will depend on the shortcomings in the individual case. Actions include at least those to address the shortcomings, e.g. through development of improved assessment methods, more monitoring, complementary research, as well as proportionate measures (e.g. “no regret” measures where improving status is considered necessary even though what constitutes ‘good status’ remains to be fully defined).

Where 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).14 EU Commission Communication COM(2000)1final

18

GES_13-2015-02

4.12. GES and climate change

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).

It is relevant to determine GES in a way which takes account of changes in species composition and range due to the dynamics of the marine ecosystems, some of which may be affected by climate-induced effects (section 4.10).

Monitoring the effects of climate change-induced pressures is important. 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 are the most practical to address within the context of the MSFD.

5. CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGICAL STANDARDS

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 good environmental status is being achieved.

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 (unimpacted state and GES boundary values) 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 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 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 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.

Table 1 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.

In the review of the Decision, the following topics are considered to need specification and could be reflected in a revised Decision, a revised MSFD Annex III or in associated guidance documentation:

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

b. Criteria for assessment of the elements

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

19

GES_13-2015-02

d. Aggregation rules across criteria for an element and for multiple elements (e.g. for a functional group)

e. Assessment scale

f. Time period for assessment

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

h. Aggregation methods for data (spatial, temporal)

5.1. Elements for assessment

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.

Because the Directive uses several similar terms (elements, components, features (see Annex 2), a single term 'element' is proposed here in order to provide consistency in the terminology used for this aspect of the GES determination and assessment processes.

Element is an umbrella term which refers to the ecosystem components, functions and processes and the pressures from human activities acting upon them, which are to be used in determinations of GES under Art. 9 and consequently used to assess current environmental status under Art. 8, thus providing a clear link between the elements in the determinations and in the assessments. The term can also be used for the different uses (human activities) of marine waters under Art. 8(1c).

Section 4.2 and Table 1 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.

The review of MSFD Annex III alongside the review of the Decision provides an opportunity to ensure the two are fully harmonised in their contents. The analysis of the role and contents of MSFD Annex III in GES_12-2014-04 sets out an initial perspective in how elements in MSFD Annex III, the Decision and the Art. 9(1) determination could be linked in a hierarchical manner. This is further elaborated below.

Elements for ecosystem components, functions and processes: structural elements of marine ecosystems are provided in MSFD Annex III Table 1; the habitat features and biodiversity features are further specified as a set of predominant habitat types and functional groups (of highly mobile species) in CSWP (2011). 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. Specific species and habitats to represent each functional group/predominant habitat can be defined under Art. 9(1) to reflect the differing ecological characteristics of each (sub)region; this may include species and habitats listed for protection under other policies (see below), but it may be more appropriate to select other species and habitats for this purpose (e.g. to reflect key pressures). 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). The specification of these functions and processes is under consideration in the reviews for D4 and D6. Table 4 outlines the proposed approach and Table 5 provides a worked example.

Table 4: Outline of ecosystem elements for GES determination and assessment, indicating where they are or would be specified.

20

GES_13-2015-02

Annex I Annex III Art. 9(3) Decision Art. 9(1) (sub)regional GES

Descriptors Element theme Generic elements Specific elements (EU-wide) Specific elements

(subregion-specific)

D1, D3, D4 Highly mobile species

Birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, cephalopodsListed species: in Birds and Habitats Directives and on international agreements

List of functional groups (2011 CSWP list, modified if necessary)Listed species: international agreements to be included and current lists (i.e. those in place at time Decision is adopted)Commercial fish: method for selection and 'current' list

To be specified per (sub)region to adequately represent the broader groups and the main pressures upon them, based on appropriate selection criteria (e.g. as agreed by RSC for common indicators) or for use under D3.Listed species and habitats: may be part of list selected above. TO BE DECIDED – inclusion of all other listed species and habitats

D1, D4Water column habitats

Predominant habitats of the water column and seabedListed ('special') habitats: in Habitats Directive and on international agreements

List of predominant habitats (2011 CSWP list modified to align with 2015 EUNIS marine classification)Listed habitats: international agreements to be included and current listsCommercial shellfish: method for selection and 'current' list

D1, D3, D6 Seabed habitats

D1, D4, D6 Ecosystem

Natural physical and chemical elements (T, S, etc) – for monitoringFunctions and processes

Types of functions and processes (to be developed)

Specific functions and processes per (sub)region

Table 5: Elements for GES determination and assessment: worked example for species group – mammals. The example shows species which are relevant for three of the four regions (based on currently proposed common indicators of HELCOM, OSPAR and UNEP/MAP (species in blue are proposed as optional)).

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

(BSC)

MAMMALS

Toothed whales

Harbour porpoiseBottlenose dolphinAll species (V)

Harbour porpoise

Harbour porpoiseBottlenose dolphinWhite-beaked dolphinShort‐beaked common dolphinStriped dolphin

Common dolphinBottlenose dolphinSperm whaleStriped dolphinRisso's dolphinLong-finned pilot whaleCuvier's beaked whale

TBD

Baleen whales

All species (V) ? Minke whale Fin whale

Balaenoptera spp. TBD

Seals Grey sealMonk sealRinged

Grey sealRinged seal

Grey sealHarbour seal

Monk seal TBD

21

GES_13-2015-02

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

(BSC)

sealHarbour seal

Harbour seal

Ice-associated mammals

Consider removing this functional group (more relevant for Arctic)

The inclusion of species and habitats on other policy instruments, including the Habitats and Birds Directives and those on international agreements, is typically as a consequence of their being in poor status15 and thus in need of specific conservation measures. In principal this would suggest that each was not in GES when listed. Their assessment under MSFD can thus be seen as a contribution to assessing if GES has been achieved for biodiversity, and actions to improve their status seen as part of achieving GES. Many of these 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. In such cases, consideration of risk is important16, such that focus is on criteria that are considered most at risk from anthropogenic pressures (e.g. focus on incidental catches from fisheries, whilst giving more limited consideration to other criteria where it is considered there is no or limited risk to them failing the criteria). Such approaches are necessary to support ongoing assessments within the above framework. It should also be noted that rarity might be a relatively natural status for certain populations of species and that they have been included on lists in other Directives due to this characteristic which makes them more vulnerable to localized pressures; in these cases the species might not be suitable as ‘indicator-species’ of the broader functional group.

Elements for pressures: a set of pressures on the marine environment is provided in MSFD Annex III Table 2. Whilst this is also subject to review, the analysis undertaken in GES_12-2014-04, including a review of anthropogenic pressure types used under WFD, Habitats Directive and by the RSCs, suggests that the current list is broadly suitable and may need only minor modification in a revised MSFD Annex III. Table 6 outlines the proposed approach.

Table 6: Outline of pressure elements for GES determination and assessment, indicating where they are or would be specified. Refer to review of MSFD Annex III regarding relevance of this list to coastal (WFD) and offshore (MSFD) relevance. NEEDS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT – review Art 9.3/Art.9.1

15 Some can be included due to their rarity and associated vulnerability to pressures.16 MSCG_15-2015-3b - paper by Portugal on risk

22

GES_13-2015-02

Annex I Annex III Art. 9(3) Decision Art. 9(1) (sub)regional GES

Descriptors Element theme Generic elements Specific elements

(EU-wide)Specific elements

(subregion-specific)

D6, D7 Physical

Change of seabed substrate or morphologyDisturbance or damage to seabedExtraction of seabed or subsoil (e.g. sand, gravel, rock, oil, gas)

D7 Hydrological

Input of waterChanges to hydrological conditionsExtraction of water

D11 Energy

Input of sound Impulsive sound, continuous sound

Input of electromagnetic & seismic wavesChange in water temperatureInput of light

D5

Chemicals and other pollutants

Input of nutrients and organic matter N, P, organics

D8, D9

Input of contaminants (synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, acute events

WFD Priority Substances list, additional RSC or MS lists (e.g. WFD river basin-specific pollutants)

Criteria for inclusion or exclusion

?D8 Input of CO2 [and other greenhouse gases]

D10 Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)

Litter types (e.g. 10 main categories)

(sub)regional specific lists

D3

Biological

Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, species (targeted, non-targeted)

Commercial fish and shellfish – lists as per Descriptor 3

D1 Disturbance of speciesTranslocation of (native) species

D1 Introduction of genetically modified species

D2 Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species

IAS Regulation listed species

(sub)regional specific lists

?D8 Introduction of microbial pathogensCultivation/artificialisation of natural habitat

5.2. Criteria for assessment of the elements

The criteria provided in the 2010 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 which are not associated with particular pressures and their impacts (Table 3). These three types are considered necessary to adequately address the nature of the 11 Descriptors; however, the review of

23

GES_13-2015-02

the Decision provides an opportunity to consider them again in order to meet the objectives of the review. This should in particular focus on:

a. The possible need for additional criteria to reflect important gaps, such as incidental catches of birds, mammals, reptiles or non-commercial fish, and the impacts of underwater noise;

b. The potential to combine or associate state and impact criteria which are addressing the same ecosystem elements (see examples in Table 7);

c. The need to clearly focus each criterion on either 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 during the assessment phase. Note that D5 is the only descriptor to include separate direct and indirect impact criteria; this distinction seems unnecessary, as it is the nature of the impact which is most important to reflect.

The opportunity to merge some of the 2010 Decision criteria which deal with state and impact arises because state and impact are in effect assessing the same thing, only the latter is typically oriented towards a particular pressure (i.e. the parameters of state which are affected by the pressure). Table 7 provides an indication of which criteria could be considered for merger in a revised Decision. Such mergers would reduce the numbers of criteria needed and ensure their use is integrated and not duplicated.

Table 7: 2010 Decision criteria which potentially could be merged or linked in a revised Decision.

Descriptor Elements where common lists could be used

Criteria for possible merger

D1 (species), D3 (commercial fish) Species, functional groups 1.2 + 3.2; 1.3 + 3.3

D1 (seabed habitats), D6 (sea-floor integrity)

Special habitats, predominant habitats

1.6 + 6.2

D1 (ecosystem scale), D3 (commercial fish), D4 (food webs)

Functional groups, ecosystems 1.7 + 3.3.2 + 4.1-3 for structure and function

D8 (contaminants), D9 (contaminants in seafood)

Substances 8.1 + 9.1

The criteria in the 2010 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 points and methodological standards); it remains to be decided how these might be presented in a revised Decision (e.g. as a more detailed 'criterion'); the 'common indicators' under development in several RSCs may serve this purpose or could be used as expressions of GES under Art. 9(1).

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 (main) elements of the ecosystem affected by the pressure.

The state/impact criteria should reflect aspects of ecosystem structure, function and processes; wherever possible (and particularly 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

24

GES_13-2015-02

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.

5.3. 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 points 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 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 the CSWD accompanying the Art. 12 report 17

provided the following guidance:

It is common practice in EU Directives and in regional assessment methodologies to define environmental objectives (i.e. the target18 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 points 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 to 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.

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.

17 SWD(2014) 49 section 9.5 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014SC0049.18 Note that in this document, 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.

25

GES_13-2015-02

Further guidance on defining baselines is given in European Commission (2012)19:

Baselines are typically defined according to one of the following approaches:

a. Reference condition or state (sometimes referred to as background levels): 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 target threshold value to be achieved (i.e. the GES boundary). Reference state can be defined using a variety of methods, including:

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

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

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

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

b. A specified/known state (of the environment, or the pressures and impacts acting upon it) usually implying, 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:

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

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

iii. Current state.

This type of baseline is only appropriate for use in the MSFD under certain circumstances, such as when a GES boundary cannot yet be defined. In such cases, there should be no further deterioration in environmental quality (caused by increases in the levels of pressures and their impacts) and environmental targets should be set to improve the environmental quality towards GES.

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.

5.4. 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 may be status assessments for broad ecosystem elements for an entire (sub)region, 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; there may be multiple elements to be aggregated to give a broader perspective and multiple assessment areas.

Decisions on a 'boundary' between ‘in GES’ and ‘not in GES’ are needed at various steps (levels) in this process:

a. Determine appropriate threshold values for each criterion20 used to assess the elements, enabling a clear distinction between when GES for that criterion has been achieved and

19 MSFD 2012 reporting guidance_incl_database_v1.0.doc; section 6.2.3.6.

26

GES_13-2015-02

when it has not been achieved. This can usefully be referred to as a 'GES boundary’, a term introduced here in the context of determining GES in a quantified way. 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, 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 5.3 concerning general approaches to setting these reference levels).

b. Where several criteria are used per element, a specified method of aggregation across the criteria21 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. 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) rather than as a whole; this allows for a more step-wise approach to assessments and for a means to communicate that GES has been achieved for certain elements but not yet for others.

c. For multiple elements (e.g. multiple species or contaminants) in a broader functional 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 and then used for assessment of that group. In these cases, all the listed elements within the group should achieve the specified quality levels in order to say the broader group has achieved GES. Progress towards GES for the group could be expressed as the proportion (%) of the minimum list of elements which have achieved GES.

Figure 4 illustrates these ‘decision’ levels, based upon an agreed set of functional groups, predominant habitat types and pressures to be assessed (see section 5.1). Figure 9 provides an example (for Descriptor 3) of how the overall outcomes of assessments can be aggregated and presented.

20 A criterion may be assessed using scientific indicators (e.g. the RSC 'common' or 'core' indicators).21 In some cases several indicators could be used per criterion, necessitating aggregation rules up to criterion level also.

27

GES_13-2015-02

Figure 4: Illustration of the possible steps in assessments which need a decision regarding status (upper = state element, lower = pressure element). 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 element levels leading to a presentation of the overall status of each functional group, predominant habitat type or pressure/impacts. Each functional group, predominant habitat

28

GES_13-2015-02

and pressure/impact should achieve GES, based on the component elements used for their assessment. NEEDS WORKED EXAMPLES TO REFINE PROPOSAL

For transparency and repeatability, each of the steps illustrated in generic terms in Figure 4 needs to be clearly defined. The recent report by Deltares22 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 to make a number of arrangements at EU level to ensure a minimum level of consistency and coherence in the assessment approaches. Such minimum requirements could be introduced into a revised the GES Decision, in particular on the basis of Article 11(4).

5.5. Scales of assessment

It has long been clear that the assessment of GES will require choices as regards scales for assessments. Some progress on these issues has been made by Member States and in the regions for the 2012 reporting round, but the Commission's Article 12 assessment found that the approaches, if they were clearly mentioned, are very different between countries and therefore lead to a marked lack of coherence in the implementation. The report by Deltares, mentioned in section 5.4, addresses scale issues.

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

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).

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. 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. Consequently, 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).

As a starting point, a "nested approach" to defining assessment areas should be introduced to all marine regions (Figure 5). HELCOM has developed a suitable operation scheme (Figure 10).

22 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.

29

GES_13-2015-02

Figure 5: 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. '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.

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, by:

a. 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 8, noting that this needs further discussion and adaptation to suit each region;

b. defining suitable boundaries for the areas to be used for each scale within the region; a set of boundaries for marine regions and subregions23 has been developed by the EEA in cooperation with MS; additionally the national boundaries are fixed and the boundaries of WFD coastal waters are established. 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.

c. 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).

23 The proposal is at an advanced stage, with few issues remaining to be finalised.

30

GES_13-2015-02

Table 8: 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

Species groups (D1)

Large cetaceans, deep-sea fish

Offshore birds, small cetaceans, turtles, pelagic & demersal fish

Coastal birds, seals, coastal fish

Water column and seabed habitats (D1, 6)

Water column habitats, seabed habitats beyond 1nm

Seabed habitats from WFD

Ecosystems/food webs (D1.7/D4)

Ecosystems

Pressure elements

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

Linked to seabed habitats

D7 from WFD

UW noise (D11) Linked to large cetaceans

Linked to small cetaceans

Nutrients (D5) X From WFD

Contaminants (D8, 9)

X From WFD

Litter (D10) X

Removal of species (D3)

As fish groups As fish groups As fish groups

Non-indigenous species (D2)

NIS

A key benefit of such an agreed approach is in being able to visualise the outcomes of assessments in mapping form at national, regional and European scales (Figure 10).

In addition, it would still need an agreement on the smallest entity for each assessment. This may well vary between and within descriptors but pragmatic approaches are needed which allow assessment and management at all relevant levels. It is probably best to start developing these questions on the basis of concrete examples. For eutrophication, the results of the GES assessment can be represented as X% of the assessment area which is affected by eutrophication (i.e. not meeting GES for D5). However, the assessment is typically based on discreet monitoring data (from specific monitoring stations) which are taken at different levels of density across countries. Modelling could play a role in order to extrapolate the data. Also expert assumptions could be derived when extrapolating the monitoring data. In any case, a clear specification for the aggregation rules of the monitoring data for a particular criterion are needed (see Prins et al. 2014). Furthermore, it is clear that if, for example, a waste-water discharge introduces nutrients to the marine environment, assessment rules should be laid down that allow the effects of nutrient and organic matter

31

GES_13-2015-02

enrichment on the environmental status to be evaluated at specified scales (e.g. a given assessment area or grid cell, similar to WFD approach).

The descriptor-level reviews should address these types of questions and come forward with proposals which are feasible to be implemented for that particular descriptor. These, however, should lead to an integrated approach across the descriptors which accommodates state, pressure and measure-based aspects in an ecologically relevant but pragmatic system. This would entail a strong spatial element, thus further supporting an ecosystem-based approach to management of human activities in the marine environment.

5.6. 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 all data used in the assessment at least once in the six-year period;

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 and targets.

5.7. Specifications and standardised methods

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

32

GES_13-2015-02

assessment area.

5.8. Review of Part A of Decision 2010/477/EU

[to be completed]

6. REVISION OF MSFD ANNEX III

The revision of MSFD Annex III is needed to complement a revision of the GES Decision. MSFD Annex III forms a key part of the implementation of Art. 8, 9 and 10, where it provides indicative lists of elements of the marine environment and of pressures and impacts upon it. However, its relationship to the Annex I descriptors and to the GES criteria was not made explicit in the Directive or in the 2010 GES Decision. The 2011 CSWP24, however, established relationships between the three elements, but could provide only a partial answer due to their inherent content.

The present review offers an opportunity to further clarify these relationships and thus support future implementation. The role of MSFD Annex III is proposed as follows:

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

c. To provide an indicative list of uses and activities to be considered under MSFD Art. 8.1c assessments.

Further analysis of MSFD Annex III and proposals for its revision are given in Annex 3.

7. LINKS TO OTHER POLICIES

7.1. Links to EU legislation

When developing recommendations for a revised Decision it will be important to ensure specifically how the determination and assessment of GES is linked with assessments under other EU legislation. For this purpose, it will be necessary to distinguish between different 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 D8, also territorial waters). The assessment of GES will have to take this into account (in particular bearing in mind that Art. 3(1b) lays down that the WFD assessments take precedent).

There is a need to clarify which aspects of environmental status are addressed under WFD and thus do not need to be addressed under MSFD in coastal waters (Art. 3(1b). An initial proposal is presented in Table 9.

The overarching principle should be that assessments already undertaken under other EU legislation (such as WFD, Habitats and Birds Directives or CFP) should be used as much as possible in the Art. 8 assessments under the MSFD, and that standards agreed for these other EU legislations should be adopted for the overlapping areas and, where appropriate, for the remaining MSFD waters. Additional criteria would then be defined to complement these assessments only when necessary and if justified because the area of protection is not covered by the other piece of legislation. This approach should, however, consider whether assessment methods and standards in other legislation

24 SEC(2011)1255.pdf

33

GES_13-2015-02

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 policies, including those of the Regional Sea Conventions. This will achieve both coherence between policies (through not having different assessment outcomes for the same topic) and reduce administrative burden (by assessing once, use for several policy needs). Ensuring the same minimum level of ambition to be achieved through the various policy instruments is important.

Table 9 sets out an initial proposal on how assessments under other EU legislation could be used. It needs to be further developed and validated in the discussions on the Decision review. Each descriptor review should look specifically into these questions and make recommendations that take account of the overall principle set out above.

Table 9: Initial overview of how other existing legislation could be used when determining and assessing GES (differentiated between different parts of 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. NEEDS FURTHER DISCUSSION, INCLUDING ALLOCATION OF BIODIVERSITY ELEMENTS TO WFD ASSESSMENTS (e.g. infralittoral/circalittoral relationship to 1nm boundary).

Coastal waters(0-1nm)

Territorial waters(1-12nm)

EEZ(12-200nm)

Continental shelf(beyond EEZ25)

Biodiversity (D1) – mobile species groups

GES = Birds and Habitats Directives listed species (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish) all in FCS at the (sub)region level + specified list of species per functional group to achieve GES in each marine (sub)regionGES and FCS assessment methods and threshold boundaries aligned, where appropriate

Biodiversity (D1) – water column habitats

GES = phytoplankton quality element of WFD in GEcS + zooplankton in GES

Predominant water column habitats in GES Not relevant

Biodiversity (D1) – seabed habitats

GES = Predominant habitats of littoral and infralittoral zones = macrophyte + angiosperm + macrobenthos quality elements of WFD in GEcS + relevant listed habitats of Habitats Directive in FCS

Elements: predominant and listed habitats of circalittoral and deeper zones ('Reefs' of Habitats Directive = rock and biogenic reef habitats of each main zone)GES habitat condition criterion = WFD GEcS for macrobenthos, but adapted to offshore benthic communities and pressures.GES habitat extent and distribution criteria = FCS but adapted to suit all habitat types and with EU/regional consistency.

Non-indigenous species (D2)

GES = list of marine species in IAS Regulation 1143/201426 + identification of additional list of species per marine region

Commercial fish and shellfish (D3)

GES includes FMSY (Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield) + Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) of CFP for all commercial species

Food webs (D4) No existing EU standardsEutrophication (D5) GES = nutrients +

phytoplankton + macroalgae + angiosperm quality elements of WFD in GEcS)

Seafloor integrity Same as D1 seabed Same as D1 seabed habitats.

25 Or beyond Territorial Waters, if no EEZ or similar designation is in place for the water column.26 REGULATION (EU) No 1143/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 October 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

34

GES_13-2015-02

Coastal waters(0-1nm)

Territorial waters(1-12nm)

EEZ(12-200nm)

Continental shelf(beyond EEZ)

(D6) habitatsHydrographical 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

GES = WFD GChS + other relevant regional and national substances

GES = WFD GChS + other relevant regional and national substances in seabed

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

7.2. Links to other policies for biodiversity

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 exasperated 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), a more harmonised approach is advocated, as each policy is aiming to ensure the biodiversity is protected.

Tables 10 (species) and 11 (habitats) set out an initial 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 10: Correlation of criteria used for assessment of species under various policies, with an initial indication of which could be used in any revised GES Decision (1=primary use, 2=secondary use). TABLE TO BE COMPLETED

MSFD (D1, 3)Birds &

Habitats Directives27

HELCOM28 (IUCN 2008 criteria)

OSPAR Texel-Faial criteria29

UNEP/MAP EcAp

?? also species listing criteria

IUCN Red List

Future MSFD use

Distribution (1.1) Range

Geographic range size and fragmentation

Decline (occurrence in area/extent)

Species distributional range

Range (EOO, AOO)

Distribution (2)

27 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0de47902-0a08-41dd-943c-520066a3c52928 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

29 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_13-2015-02

MSFD (D1, 3)Birds &

Habitats Directives

HELCOM (IUCN 2008 criteria)

OSPAR Texel-Faial criteria

UNEP/MAP EcAp

?? also species listing criteria

IUCN Red List

Future MSFD use

Population size (1.2); reproductive capacity (3.2)

Population

Declining population, small or very small population size

Decline (numbers)

Population abundance

Population sizeSmall population

Population size (1) – no./ biomass

Population condition (1.3); age & size distribution (3.3)

Decline (quality) Population demographic characteristics Mature

individuals incl. above

Population condition (1)

Habitat for species

Habitat quality incl. 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 11: Correlation of criteria used for assessment of habitats under various policies, with an initial indication of which could be used in any revised GES Decision (1=primary use, 2=secondary use). TABLE TO BE COMPLETED

36

GES_13-2015-02

MSFD (D1, 6) Habitats Directive30

HELCOM31

(IUCN criteria)

OSPAR Texel-Faial criteria32

UNEP/MAP EcAp

EU Red List (IUCN

approach)

Future MSFD use

Distribution (1.4) Range

Declining distribution (quantity) Decline

(extent)

Habitat distributional range [extent]

Distribution (2)

Extent (1.5) Area covered

Restricted distribution Extent (1)

Condition (1.6, 6.2, 7.2)

Structures & functions

Qualitative degradation

Decline (quality)

Condition of habitat's typical species and communities

Condition (1)

Future prospects

Included above -

Global proportionRegional importanceRaritySensitivityEcological significance

-

8. ASSESSMENTS (ARTICLE 8)

8.1. Integrated approaches for assessments: state-based and pressure-based descriptors

Section 4.7 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) More explicitly relating the outcomes of the pressure-based assessments to the state-based assessments, recognising that the overall status of a state element should reflect the multiple pressures and impacts upon it;

b) combining the state-based descriptors to assess the ecosystem elements in a more integrated manner; this would overcome some of the current problems of overlap between descriptors (e.g. seabed 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).

The conceptual approach to integration is shown in Table 12 and illustrated in Figures 2, 6 and 7. As outlined in section 4.7, it is important that assessments of impacts from the pressures are compatible with the state elements being assessed, such that the outcomes of the pressure-based assessments contribute to the state-based assessments.

30 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0de47902-0a08-41dd-943c-520066a3c52931 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

32 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

37

GES_13-2015-02

Table 12: Illustration of how assessments between pressure-based descriptors and state-based descriptors can be integrated via the impact assessments (based on Table 3). The pressure-based assessments (table columns – example highlighted for nutrient enrichment) provide impact assessments to feed into the state-based assessments (table rows – example for seabed habitats).

This integration of pressure-based assessments with state-based assessments is illustrated in Figure 6 for a habitat and Figure 7 for a species. In essence, state-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 6), but rather the use of the impact assessments for each relevant pressure as a contribution to the assessment of a habitat or species.

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 state of the marine environment.

38

GES_13-2015-02

Figure 6: Schema 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 pressure-based descriptors (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 2012 33) Refer to Table 13 for a worked example.

33 OSPAR's MSFD advice manual on biodiversity

39

GES_13-2015-02

Figure 7: Schema to illustrate how different pressures from human activities can affect the status of a species. This example illustrates the main pressures upon turtles and how their assessment could contribute to assessment of the criteria for species status (species distribution/range is a further relevant criterion). Refer to Table 14 for a worked example.

Tables 13 and 14 provide illustrative assessments for specific elements, 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.

40

GES_13-2015-02

Table 13: Illustrative assessment of a predominant habitat type (example: shelf sand) for a specified assessment scale and area (e.g. a sub-division 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 predominant habitat type has used the one-out-all-out method at criterion level.

Table 14: Illustrative assessment of a species (example: seal); see caption for Table 13 for explanation.

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 in order to assess each criterion; this also has the benefit of focusing the

41

GES_13-2015-02

assessments on specific pressures relevant to the species or habitat (helpful where GES 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 scientific indicators, such as those being developed by the RSCs (or reflected in a revised Decision).

In order to make best use of this integrated approach, the following logical sequence of assessments is recommended (following the outline in Table 12):

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 measures34;

b. Assess the pressures – spatial distribution and intensity (and temporal aspects, where necessary) of each pressure;

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

d. Assess the state – bringing together the relevant impact assessments from (b) and leading to an overall assessment of status using a specified assessment methodological standard.

The sequence above needs to take into account the necessary aggregation rules (section 5.4) and assessment scales (section 5.5) which form part of the methodological standards.

8.2. 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.

See Figure 8 for an example of how to present aggregated assessment outcomes for multiple species at (sub)regional level and Figure 9 for an example presentation of an area-based assessment (e.g. for a pressure-based descriptor).

34 A precursor, or proxy, to mapping pressures is the mapping of activities, which 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_13-2015-02

Figure 8: 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 criteria35 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).

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

43

GES_13-2015-02

Figure 9: 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.

8.3. 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 36 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 or further develop existing EEA indicators and indicators 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 2. A first candidate for such an indicator set is the indicator on the status of commercial fish

36 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.

44

GES_13-2015-02

stocks, shown in Figure 8. These indicators will be underpinned by data flows established in the context of Art. 19(3), which should also include RSC data delivery mechanisms. Regular updates on feasibility and progress of this development will be given to WG-DIKE and/or WG-GES.

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 report37. The use of multi-metric indicator-based tools for assessing status and a spatial approach for assessing cumulative pressures and impacts, as practiced by some Regional Sea Conventions, will also be explored.

9. ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ARTICLE 10)

9.1. Relationship between the determination of GES (Art. 9) and the setting of environmental targets (Art. 10)

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 environment quality 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). In contrast, 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 quality objective role of Art. 9. This distinction is further 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 adaptive management of human activities and for actions which should lead to improvements in the status of marine waters and ultimately to GES.

ADD TABLE FROM JDE ON COMPARISON OF ART 9 AND 10 ROLES

9.2. 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 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

37 Add ref.

45

GES_13-2015-02

water treatment, fertilizer use, detergent compounds). A regional example of an environment target is the MAI/CART38 target of HELCOM to address nutrient enrichment.

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. State-based 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 ones which define desired species composition and abundance that cannot be directly achieved by management actions, but which may be achieved via natural recovery processes once relevant pressures are reduced or removed.

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).

9.3. 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. An indicator 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 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards 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 the implementation of the MSFD. This is especially needed if a revision of the Decision is not pursued.

Under Art. 9(1), the determination of GES can be achieved by reference to 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 fulfils 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 ‘response indicators’ used specifically for monitoring and assessing progress on and effectiveness of measures under Art. 13 are needed39.

38 Maximum Allowable Inputs/Country Allocated Reduction Targets – http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/nutrient-reduction-scheme/targets.39 GD10 - MSFD recommendations on measures and exceptions - final.pdf

46

GES_13-2015-02

9.4. 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.

10. LINK TO REPORTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (INCL. ART. 19.3)

[to be completed]

11. PRODUCTS FROM THE REVIEW

The review of the 2010 Decision, the MSFD Annex III and the 2011 Common Understanding should lead to a coherent set of products, as follows:

Product Sign off

Proposal for a revised Commission Decision MSFD Committee

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

Technical reports on the review process, describing the work done per descriptor and technical and scientific reasoning for the proposals

MSCG

47

GES_13-2015-02

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

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 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.

Components

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'.

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

48

GES_13-2015-02

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)) refers to the efforts/costs needed to reduce environmental impacts to a level which achieves GES or to the welfare foregone, reflecting the reduction in the value of the ecosystem services provided compared to another state.

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) framework40, 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-based (approach to) management41

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 benefits 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.

40 Add ref. EEA41 European Environment Agency. (2014). Marine messages – our seas, our future – moving towards a new understanding. Copenhagen

49

GES_13-2015-02

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 services*

Ecosystem services are defined as goods and services (benefits) that the ecosystem provides to human beings42. Ecosystem services contribute to economic welfare in two ways: firstly, through contributions to the generation of income and well-being, and secondly through the prevention of damages that inflict costs on society. The latter is characteristic of certain ecosystem services that provide insurance, regulation and resilience functions.

Ecosystem services can be separated into intermediate and final services:

Intermediate marine ecosystem services: Intermediate services are those that, in a supporting or regulating way, enable the final services and thereby influence human well-being indirectly, such as habitats and mitigation of eutrophication.

Final marine ecosystem services: Final services are those that directly generate a benefit to humans, such as fish-stocks for fishing and food provision, clean water for bathing.

Element

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

Feature

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

Functional group of species

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

42 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html.

50

GES_13-2015-02

Within a habitat (seabed or water column), the term is also useful in the context of assessing community condition through assessment of the range of functional groups present (e.g. filter feeders, deposit feeders, grazers).

For MSFD purposes, the term is 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 is provided in CSWP (2011) in order to provide consistency in the assessments of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and pelagic cephalopods.

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 in this document to provide an expression for the deviation from the baseline (e.g. the reference condition) which marks the difference between a state that is acceptable (in GES) and a state that is not acceptable (not in GES).

Habitat (types of)

The term habitat has two distinct uses:

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 seabed and water column marine habitat types habitats 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 report43;

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.

43 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.

51

GES_13-2015-02

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

Impact in the MSFD mostly refers to adverse environmental effects. 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 and services, resulting from a degraded (impacted) environment, with its consequences for human welfare and for use of the marine environment.

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. 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*

52

GES_13-2015-02

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 features*

Listed features are species or habitat types which are listed under Community legislation (e.g. Birds and Habitats Directive) or international conventions (e.g. OSPAR and Barcelona Conventions). Table 1 of MSFD Annex III 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:

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

Pressure, in the sense of the DPSIR framework and MSFD, is an input, alteration or extraction of physical, chemical or biological elements or properties which results directly from human activities.

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).

53

GES_13-2015-02

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.

Reference condition (or Reference state)

For assessment purposes, it is often necessary to define a reference 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 (sub-GES).

Reference levels

For the purposes of MSFD, reference levels are the baselines and GES boundaries used in the determination of GES. Other equivalent terms (to baselines and GES boundary) 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 reference levels 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 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.

54

GES_13-2015-02

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.

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.

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.

Use (of marine waters)*

55

GES_13-2015-02

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.

56

GES_13-2015-02

13. ANNEX 2: ON THE USE OF CERTAIN TERMS IN THE MSFD

13.1. Introduction

In addition to the terms for which the Directive provides a definition (in Art. 3), there is frequent use of other terms in the Directive which refer to important aspects of the implementation process, particularly the determination of good environmental status (GES) and its assessment, but for which there is no definition provided.

An analysis of these terms has been undertaken so as to arrive at an understanding of their use across the Directive and thus to a proposed interpretation of their intended meaning. This should assist ongoing implementation of the Directive, particularly through consistent use and understanding of the different words.

13.2. Elements, components, features, factors, properties, characteristics

13.2.1. Terms without specific definitions

Some terms used in relation to determining and assessing GES are not given definitions in the Directive. These include the terms elements, components, features, factors, properties and characteristics. Additionally, these terms are used inconsistently and sometimes interchangeably throughout the Directive. A detailed analysis of their use in the Directive is provided in the next sections, based on the English version of the Directive; other language versions do not always use the same terms or translate the terms consistently, potentially leading to further differences in how they are interpreted by different Member States.

13.2.2. Elements

The term ‘elements’ is used 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).

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.

13.2.3. Components, features

These terms are used as follows:

57

GES_13-2015-02

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).

'Features' and 'components' can be considered more or less synonymous, and 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).

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.

13.2.4. Features (GES criteria)

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.

13.2.5. Factors, properties

‘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.

13.2.6. 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;

58

GES_13-2015-02

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

The use of the term as a header for Annex III Table 1 is somewhat confusing in relation to Art. 8(1) as it refers to the features as well as their specific attributes.

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)).

13.2.7. Summary schema of these terms

Table A2.1 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).

Table A2.1: 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

59

GES_13-2015-02

Elements Features, components Characteristics, factors, properties

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

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.

The common indicators of the RSCs typically include specified elements and associated parameters.

60

GES_13-2015-02

13.3. Pressure, impact, state and status

The terms pressure, impact, state and status are in common use in environmental protection, 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.

13.3.1. Interpretation in MSFD – 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 Table 2 of MSFD Annex III 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.

13.3.2. Interpretation in MSFD – 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 environmental effects. 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.

In Art. 13(3) 'impacts' refer to the effects (positive or negative) of measures taken and thus refers to social and economic issues. 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 avoid this confusion and to be clear whether the reference is to environmental impacts or socio-economic impacts. It is also important to be clear on whether the impacts are negative or positive effects or both.

13.3.3. Interpretation in MSFD – Environmental status (good, current)

The following considerations are focused on the relationship of status to pressures and impacts, as needed for this paper (and do not address the many aspects of how environmental status is determined and assessed).

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).

61

GES_13-2015-02

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.

13.3.4. Interpretation in MSFD – 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.

13.3.5. Application of the terms in DPSIR

The terms are commonly applied in the DPSIR model (Drivers-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) for environmental management44. This model can be closely associated with the different main steps or elements of MSFD implementation: 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 Art. 13 the Directive calls for a programme of measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status (~Response).

In the examples above for MSFD, it can be seen that Impacts in DPSIR is reflected twice (impacts on uses/activities and impacts on the environment); additionally, the term drivers is conceptually broader/different to the ‘uses and activities’ of MSFD, and the concept of ‘marine good and services’ (in Art. 1(3), 3(8), and more widely termed ecosystem goods and services) is not embraced by the DPSIR model. For these reasons, an adaptation of the model to overcome these drawbacks has been developed (MSCG 11/2013/16, Annex 2).

Because of the close links between the Directive's implementation process and the DPSIR model, the assessment and reporting system developed for MSFD has been based on this model, as outlined in Figure A2.1 (EC 201245, 201446), and has been extended for future reporting on the programmes of measures.

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 A.1, which additionally shows the links to the three main elements of initial assessment required in Art. 8(1) (EC, 2012).

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

45 European Commission. 2012. Approach to reporting for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive . DG Environment, Brussels. pp26.

46 European Commission. 2014. Reporting on monitoring programmes for MSFD Article 11. DG Environment, Brussels. pp49.

62

GES_13-2015-02

Figure A2.1: 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 main elements 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 serve as an important step in the application of the terms for MSFD purposes and the links to wider application of these terms. Because the prime focus of the Directive is the achievement of GES, requiring assessments of environmental status and progress towards achievement of GES, the use of these terms needs to be in this context. Table A2.3 provides illustrated examples of each term to help demonstrate their application, differences and relationships. Because the use of these terms across policies and countries is quite variable, a key issue for MSFD purposes is to settle upon an agreed use which can be followed by everyone.

Table A2.3: Examples of the terms activity, pressure, impact and state, as relevant to different MSFD descriptors.

Activity Pressure Pressure at sea Environmental impact (effect) State

D5 Agriculture

Introduction of nutrients through rivers and streams, direct introduction of nutrients from land

Raised nutrient levels in sea

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

Altered condition of plankton and benthos, hypoxia/anoxia

D10 Tourists drinking from cans

Input of litter – discard of can on beach

Litter on seabed Smothering of seabed, injury to animals

Altered habitat condition, reduced reproductive capacity

63

GES_13-2015-02

Activity Pressure Pressure at sea Environmental impact (effect) State

D11 Pier-piling for wind farm Noise from piling Noise level in sea Disturbs cetaceans,

move awayChanged species distribution

D3 Fishing Removal of fishMortality of fish, reduction in population size

Reduced population size

D6 Fishing Disturbance of seabedChanges sediment structure, damages and kills species

Altered habitat condition

D6 Infrastructure developments

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

Loss of natural habitat, altered water flows

Habitat loss, altered hydrological conditions

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 (see MSFD Annex III review for a revised list of MSFD pressures), the following definition of a pressure is proposed:

Definition:

Anthropogenic pressure = an input, alteration or extraction of physical, chemical or biological elements or properties which results directly from human activities.

13.3.6. Separating use of the terms pressure and state

Pressures, and pressure indicators, need to be directly linked to human activities that can be managed. For management purposes, the measures have to be specifically focused on the activities which generate the pressures. However, because the activities may occur on land or at sea (or even in the air, such as aviation), the source of the pressure can differ.

For example, nutrients from agricultural fertilizers drain into rivers and lead to a higher input load of nutrients from rivers into the sea; measurement of this load is typically referred to as the level of the pressure (on the marine environment). When these same nutrients are measured in the marine environment (in the water column) this is sometimes referred to as a ‘state' (particularly if the objective of the assessment is water quality/nutrient status). The same change in terminology (from pressure to state) is sometimes also applied to hazardous substances, even though some of them are not a natural part of the environment..

For pressure arising from sea-based sources the pressure can originate at a point source and spread away from the source (e.g. noise from a ship or pier piling operation, organic matter and drugs from aquaculture and contamination from oil production facilities). In other cases the pressure does not significantly spread from its source (e.g. physical disturbance through selective extraction).

The measurement of pressure and its effects on state can still be separated: for example, the extraction of non-living resources represents the pressure, whereas the change in seabed integrity represents changes in state.

When assessing the state of the marine environment, causal links between different elements need to be considered. Causalities are often indirect and complex, and can be seen as a network of interactions between different environmental elements. The importance of causal linkages depends on the element being scrutinized and the perspective of the assessment. The causal link from a pressure to a specific state element can be either direct or indirect, the same pressure can also affect several different state elements, some directly and others indirectly, and furthermore there are causalities between the state elements. For example, the pressure ‘nutrient input to the sea’ has a

64

GES_13-2015-02

direct causal link on ‘nutrient concentrations in the water column (DIN/DIP)’ and simultaneously an indirect causal link on ‘phytoplankton abundance/chl-a’ and further on ‘water transparency/secchi depth’, and the pressure has even further indirect causal links to state elements such as ‘oxygen concentration’, ‘macrophyte community condition’ and these state elements also have internal linkages. If however, ‘macrophyte community condition’ is considered from a biodiversity (D1/D4/D6) perspective then other causal linkages as well as other relevant pressures will need to be identified as important for that evaluation.

These examples serve to illustrate that the adverse effects of human activities can be measured at/close to their source or at a distance from their source ‘in the environment’. The practice of whether to call both these measurements ‘pressure’ or to call one pressure and one state is varied amongst practitioners.

In the context of the DPSIR model and for MSFD application, the term pressure is used specifically in relation to the impacts they have on environmental state, and in this sense is clearly meant to be distinguished from state (see definition in previous section). In effect, it means measuring the level of nutrients or hazardous substances in the sea (as state) and assessing their effects (impacts) on the biodiversity and ecosystem (also state). As such, it is therefore proposed that:

1. In the use of the DPSIR model for MSFD purposes, the overall objective is to assess environmental state (status), and that this encompasses impacts from anthropogenic pressures;

2. An anthropogenic pressure is an input (emission), alteration or extraction of physical, chemical or biological elements or properties which results directly or indirectly from human activities;

3. The term ‘pressure’ is applied to all places in which it occurs (i.e. whether close to its source activity or at a distance from the activity (i.e. as measured in any part of the environment – land, freshwater, air, sea);

4. The term ‘state’ is applied to measurements and assessments of the natural [marine] environment; these can include specific impacts from pressures, but may also be more non-specific measurements and assessments of natural components, processes and functions; it can also include naturally occurring substances (e.g. nutrients, hazardous substances) for which raised levels due to anthropogenic inputs would be termed a pressure;

5. This protocol is for use of the terms for MSFD purposes and in the context of the DPSIR model, in order to avoid confusion in the use of the terms pressure and state.

6. In this context, the desired/acceptable levels of non-indigenous species, nutrients, contaminants, litter and noise in the marine environment should be determined as part of the process for defining Good Environmental Status for the descriptors D2, D5, D8, D9, D10, D11.

13.4. Appendix

The full analysis of the terms described here is given in the embedded spreadsheet.

65

GES_13-2015-02

14. ANNEX 3: ANALYSIS OF MSFD ANNEX III AND PROPOSALS FOR ITS REVISION

[Insert revised Annex III paper]

66