* 100% = 15 Member States.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Goals and Challenges
Advertisements

The EU Water Framework Directive and Sediments The Water Framework Directive was transposed into law in EU Member States at the end of Nearly two.
Should we integrate assessments of the state-based descriptors? YES – Considering that the MSFD is underpinned by ecosystem management approach, it is.
IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
EMODnet Chemistry 3 Kick-off Meeting May 2017
Marine Strategy Framework Directive State of play and follow up
Main aims Reporting Data Agree overall approach/framework to reporting
Methodology for the assessment of Member States’ reporting on Programme of Measures (Article 16) MSCG Sarine Barsoumian 7 April /09/2018.
H070 Topic Title H470 Topic Title.
Principles and Key Issues
1.
MSFD integrated reporting
Marine Strategy Framework Directive:
D5 EUTROPHICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Reporting on socio-economic aspects in regard to socio-economic assessment & environmental targets under MSFD Lydia MARTIN-ROUMEGAS DG Environment -
Draft examples of possible GES Decision criteria Descriptor 8
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: an introduction
D2 NIS REVIEW PROCESS March 2014: Draft Manual endorsed by WG GES
D8 and D9 REVIEW PROCESS April-June 2014: February 2015:
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Regional and EU level data streams for D5 and D8
Reporting on socio-economic aspects in regard to socio-economic assessment & environmental targets under MSFD Lydia MARTIN-ROUMEGAS DG Environment -
Taking forward the common understanding of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD
In-Depth Assessment (IDA) of MS submissions for MSFD article 8, 9 & 10 compiled and presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas based on material provided by V.
Annex III Annex I Qualitative descriptors Characteristics
Results of breakout group
MSFD Com Dec 2010/477/EU review Recommendations for D5; Outcomes of the D5 workshop 14th meeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status.
D1 BIODIVERSITY REVIEW PROCESS
Technical review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU concerning MSFD criteria for assessing GES Work flow and progress 20/21 October th WG GES.
Reporting for MSFD Article 13 and 14 –
Taking forward the common understanding of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD
WG GES Workshop Art. 8 MSFD Assessment
Proposal for MSFD risk-based approach project in OSPAR region
Reporting Synergies: MSFD & BHD Miraine Rizzo, Matthew Grima Connell & Luke Tabone Biodiversity & Water Unit Environment & Resources Authority - Malta.
Conclusions: Parallel session 2, Group 2
Draft examples of possible GES Decision criteria Descriptor 9
Meeting of WG DIS, October 2015, Brussels
MSFD Com Dec 2010/ 477/ EU review Recommendations for D2
Revision of MSFD Decision 2010/477/EU - overview
D1 Species Conclusions.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC
Mark Tasker Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK EU TG Noise
Conclusions Group 3 Parallel sessions 2 and 3
Mario Carere, Ann-Sofie Wernersson, Teresa Lettieri, Robert Kase
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
1.
Revision of Decision 2010/477/EU Overview of main changes
WG GES: Decision review progress
Marine Strategy Framework Directive State of play and follow up
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Marine Strategy Framework Directive Contaminants Implementation of descriptors Coordination MSFD – WFD , WFD WG chemicals, Bruxelles,
Questionnaire on Elaboration of the MSFD Initial Assessment
1.
Reporting for MSFD Article 13 and 14 –
OSPAR progress on use of the decentralised option for reporting on monitoring programmes required under Article 11 of the MSFD.
Revision of Decision 2010/477/EU
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
WG GES Drafting Group June 2013 Berlin
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Options for revising the reporting of pressures and threats
Assessment scales and aggregation
Marine Environment and Water Industry
Marine Strategy Coordination Group 14 November 2011, Brussels
Article 8 Guidance – Integration levels and methods
Interpretation of Descriptor 8
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Good groundwater chemical status
Uli Claussen Co-lead ECOSTAT
Presentation transcript:

* 100% = 15 Member States

A majority of MS used a different Descriptor definition from Annex 1 MSFD or the same definition but with different criteria from COM Decision, resulting in many variations across MS. This is particularly true when policies are well-developed (e.g. D8). A minority of MS have made an exact or similar copy of the definitions in Annex 1 and the criteria of the COM Decision.

D8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects. Example 1: Concentrations of contaminants in water, sediment, or biota are kept within agreed levels (national/EU/RSC level) and are not increasing; The effects of contaminants on selected biological processes and taxonomic groups, where a cause/effect relationship has been established, are kept within agreed levels (national/EU/RSC levels)   Example 2: Contaminants concentration levels do not cause pollution, meaning in practice that less than 10% of the area under evaluation is subjected to impacts and threats to the ecosystems, i.e. positive deviations to the reference conditions established. Example 3: Set of GES conditions: Concentrations of contaminants for which a threshold is available (WFD and OSPAR) do not exceed these thresholds; Concentrations in biota do not increase over time; Concentrations in top predators do not increase over time; The effects of contaminants are assessed as insignificant. UK: for both concentration and effects = broad reference to national, EU, international (RSC) standards but without details – would point to WFD, OSPAR and any additional national standards. Use criteria and partial use of indicators. Portugal: simple reproduction of GES definition, no reference to any standard, no use of criteria and indicators. France: use criteria and partially indicators, reference to WFD and OSPAR

Key conclusions D8: Significant differences between GES definitions in terms of level of detail, reference to appropriate legislation or standards and use of criteria and indicators In particular, the criterion ‘effect of contaminants’ when used remains poorly specified

Results Initial Assessment

Key conclusions (taking into account uncertainties): Only a small proportion of MS have used their GES determination to make a judgment on the level of impact of the relevant pressures in their initial assessment. For D10 and D8, a larger group of MS has used other standards to make this judgement (e.g. RSC standards) For D7, the relatively broad definition of GES can explain why GES determination is more frequently used in the IA.