Technical guidance for assessment under Article 8 MSFD Experiences in using the guidance and way forward WG GES co-lead Germany

Background Commission Decision 2017/848/EU WG GES 17-2017-02: Draft Guidance – testversion (Feb. 2017) WG GES 17-2017-03: Planning of work to follow up COM Dec WG GES 17: Priorities for follow-up work Ongoing work (agenda item 5a): List of elements as nomenclature for reporting, JRC proposals for work on D5 and D8, request for ICES advice on seafloor integrity, D1/D6 assessments Questionnaire on experiences of Member States with Draft Guidance

Questionnaire: Use of Draft Guidance Did you use the guidance in the preparation of your national assessment? Did you use the guidance in relation to all or any of the descriptors or parts of them? Based on your experiences of the latest assessment, in which descriptors are you most interested in the future development of the guidance? How useful was the guidance for your national assessment and review of GES? Did you find the guidance easy to read and understand? Where do you see need for improvement of the guidance in terms of contents and presentation? What are your top 3 priorities (topics) for further developing the guidance? Responses from 8 MS: BE, DE, DK, FR, NL, PL, RO, SE Did you use the Guidance?

Use and interest in the guidance by Descriptor Responses from 6 MS: Overall good use Responses depend on relevance of assessment and on maturity of assessment systems Greatest interest in guidance development (4 MS each): Fish Birds Food webs Seafloor integrity Hydrographical changes Underwater noise Followed by (3 MS each): Benthic habitats Eutrophication Contaminants Marine Litter

Usefulness of the guidance by Descriptor Responses from 6 MS: Overall positive feedback on usefulness Responses dependent on relevance of assessment and maturity of assessment systems Share of the 69 votes relating to guidance per Descriptor: 62% of votes: „useful“ or better 22% of votes: „not so useful“ 16% of votes: „irrelevant Greatest number of very/useful (4 MS each): Marine mammals Pelagic habitats Non-indigenous species Contaminants (D8)

Readability and understandability Responses from 7 MS: Overall good reception Guidance useful to structure assessments

Suggestions for improvements and priorities Suggestions for priorities: In general (examples): Balance between common methods and flexibility Derive common view on integration and internationally agreed methods Operationalise guidance: specific and clear recommendations Refocus on practical approaches in line with data and knowledge availability Include science-based references Update guidance in light of progress Specific issues (examples): Assessment of benthic habitats Using pressure criteria in biodiversity assessments Clarify ecosystem-based assessment Food webs Mixed messages / levels of detail (examples): Biodiversity topics: benthic habitats, species, food webs Use of pressure criteria in biodiversity assessments Combination of assessment results with habitat maps Guidance on assessment of marine litter and underwater noise Thresholds/integrations rules; resolving question in issues boxes; address linking activites and pressures with impacts and status in an ecosystem-based assessment Data sources especially non-national data (RSCs, ICES, EMODnet) Harmonisation with assessment results from other EU legislation including aggregation methodologies fit for MSFD

Proposal for way forward DG GES to prepare a proposal for WG GES 20 on organising the follow-up work on COM Dec based on the clarification with JRC, ICES, MS represented in DG GES and EU Commission on ongoing EU-level work identified technical and overarching issues so far not addressed issues that may arise from the latest assessment experiences Aim: Provide management tool for WG GES to coordinate EU-level work and priorities: who is doing what by when Provide strategic and longer term planning with a view to 2024 (3rd reporting round on Art. 8 MSFD) Provide suggestions for developing guidance on overarching assessment issues (e.g. risk-based approach, linking activities/pressures and impacts/status, ecosystem-based assessment). One option could be a WG GES Workshop in 2019

Thank you for your attention!