Taking forward the common understanding of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD Uli Claussen Federal Environment Agency Germany WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

“Common Understanding” Endorsed by MD in December 2012 as MSFD CIS Guidance No. 1 Finding a common ground for the interpretations of the MSFD concepts and their implementation relating to Art. 8 – assessments Art. 9 – good environmental status Art. 10 – environmental targets WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

Art. 12 MSFD assessment Commission Staff Working Document (2014) Diversity in interpretation of Art. 9 and 10 MSFD and their application – see Annex 4 of CSWD for Commission services‘ interpretation GES definitions mostly not measurable and enforcable – lack of common philosophy (‚reference levels‘ and ‚acceptable deviation‘) for defining a common ambition Variety of nature and contents of GES means lack of coherence and comparability „pick-and-choose“ approach of MS in relation to RSC work and other EU standards WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

Mandate WG GES and DG GES MSFD CIS Work Programme 2014-2020: Package of actions to overcome shortcomings Review/revision of COM Decision 2010/477/EU to introduce minimum requirements Review/revision of Annex III MSFD to provide framework for future assessments Further development of a common understanding of Art. 9 and 10 MSFD and approaches to the implementation of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

What clarifications should be added? Why evolving the document? WG GES 10/2013 MSFD concepts, in particular of GES and environmental targets Role of indicators under MSFD Clarifiction of MSFD terminology Precautionary principle Risk-based approach GES and MPAs Geographic scales for assessments, GES and targets Assessment philosophy Aggregation issues WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

State of play – DG GES January 2014 Why evolving the document? WG GES 10/2013 MSFD concepts, in particular of GES and environmental targets Role of indicators under MSFD Clarification of MSFD terminology Precautionary principle Risk-based approach GES and MPAs Geographic scales for assessments, GES and targets Assessment philosophy Aggregation issues WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

Why evolving the document? Architecture of MSFD GES is e.g. starting and end point of MSFD reference point for the other MSFD provisions determined at the level of marine (sub)regions specified by common criteria and methodological standards legally time bound (2020) and subject to legally defined exceptions where this is not feasible Conclusion: GES needs to be quantified/ quantifiable to allow determining the distance of the current state from GES and for defining targets to guide progress towards GES. WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

Distinct roles of Art. 9 and Art. 10 MSFD GES ultimate quality objective links to the state features of Table 1 of Annex III quality status specified by criteria and methodological standards Boundaries for state within GES and outside GES Targets management objectives link to the pressures of Table 2 where set as quality objective: interim targets targets guide progress towards achieving GES monitored through indicators Reference points

Assessing environmental status / GES Why evolving the document? „Overall state“ Art. 3(5) (a) MSFD: the structure, functions and processes of the constituent marine ecosystems, together with the associated physiographic, geographic, geological and climatic factors, allow those ecosystems to function fully and to maintain their resilience to human-induced environmental change. Marine species and habitats are protected, human-induced decline of biodiversity is prevented and diverse biological components function in balance; Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 State of characteristics / features Art. 3(5) (b) MSFD hydro-morphological, physical and chemical properties of the ecosystems, including those properties which result from human activities in the area concerned, support the ecosystems as described above. Anthropogenic inputs of substances and energy, including noise, into the marine environment do not cause pollution effects; Descriptors 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Pressure related characteristics WG GES 11/2014 17/18 March 2014

Why evolving the document? How to take this forward? Terminology - 1 Why evolving the document? How to take this forward? Terms used and defined by MSFD – CU will offer common interpretation Environmental status Good environmental status Environmental targets Criteria: scientific specification of the characteristics of Table 1 Annex III or their components as the basis for determining GES and assessing marine environmental status. Relates to the characteristic / representative features which can be used to indicate the state (e.g. list substances, species, habitats) the attributes of the features (e.g. species distribution, population size, condition, concentrations of contaminants) Terms not used by MSFD but useful for implementation – CU will offer common language Boundary

Why evolving the document? How to take this forward? Terminology - 2 Why evolving the document? How to take this forward? Terms used but not defined by MSFD – CU will offer common definition – examples: Methodological standards: established and agreed scientific methods for quantifying GES and assessing and classifying environmental status in relation to GES. This can include scientific indicators, quantified boundaries or methods for quantifying boundaries between GES and not GES, assessment methods and aggregation rules to assess the status in relation to criteria Indicators: a scientific tool by which the assessment of one or several parameters represents a certain state, impact or pressure. For legal MSFD purposes, „indicator“ relates only to environmental targets. For GES purposes, scientific indicators are „methodological standards“ Reference points Characteristics (components, features, factors, properties) Specifications Standardised methods

Why evolving the document? Terminology - 3 „ Indicators “ in the context of GES and targets ( examples ) Environmental status Environmental targets Art. 9(1) and Characteristics / features Table 1 Annex III MSFD ( Mammals ) Representative characteristics Pressures/ impacts Table 2 Annex (List of mammal species ) III MSFD ( Contamin - ( Microplastic ( Bycatch ) ants ) ) Attributes Criteria Targets (Population (Distribution) size ) ( Condition ) ( Reduce (Limit to ( Reduce by b y xxx ) xxx ) xxx ) Art. 9(3) Art. 10(1) MSFD Scientific indicators , GES Methodological Indicators standards boundaries , aggregation rules ( Reproduction (Size balance at capacity at xxx ( By - catch (Rate of (Items found Art. 11(4) xxx ) rate) reproduction in stomachs / level ) disorder ) excrements ) Specification Specification and standar - Monitoring and standar - dised methods dised methods

Possible issues following from the schema Why evolving the document? How to take this forward? What is the relationship of assessing Art. 10 „target indicators“ to Art. 9 „scientific indicators“? Whilst Art 10 indicators need to guide progress on the target (in a sense independent of GES), they also need to contribute to the 'state' assessment of Art 9 (not be seen as unconnected, e.g. as one assessment serving both purposes) May need to modify the schema to reflect this relationship Test the schema with several state (species / habitat) components and pressure-based des-criptors for general applicability

How to take this forward? Why evolving the document? Staged process of revising the CU to build on Art. 12 MSFD assessment results Scales project GES Drafting Group 17-18 June 2014 – Brussels 15 -16 September 2014 – Berlin 27- 28 January 2015 – Brussels

Discussion points – next work of the DG Why evolving the document? How to take this forward? To guide next steps of the DG: Are there specific comments on the main aspects? (focus on slides 7 – 13): MSFD Architecture Distinct Roles of MSFD Articles 9 & 10 Terminology, inter alia Criteria Methodological Standards Indicators