Should we integrate assessments of the state-based descriptors? YES – Considering that the MSFD is underpinned by ecosystem management approach, it is useful to consider the state base descriptors in an integrated manner – Aggregate common elements/ criteria within specific relevant descriptor thus eliminating potential overlap – Integration across descriptors has also an ecological fundament, certain elements are now artificially separated in different descriptor – No arguments against integrating within and across descriptor. – Integration depends on how results will be used (e.g.)Overall ecosystem assessements of HELCOM very popular Confusion of terms integration (assessments of different descriptors) and aggregation –Agreement and disagreement with integration of assessments How are elements going to be integrated towards assessment? – Definition of aggregation rules is essential. – OSPAR method integrating information across species – multimetric indexes – HELCOM also developing index. It could be useful to make a biodiversity integrated assessment. Is one talking also about descriptor specific assessments. – Assessing GES for a number of building blocks to be than aggregated to descriptor level – Hierarchical system as proposed from overall assessment to elements and potential smaller status components and their inter-linkages with pressures is need

Status should be able to measure change achieved after measures implementation. Measures are targeting pressures and not directly related to status. Current knowledge determine decision on species and habitats; how do we make sure of overall biodiversity representativeness? Need to associate uncertainty to assessments. Useful to indicate elements of reporting Important to know were the boundary of good environment status is important in holistic approach Communication of how overall GES is assessed is useful Other pressures? An assessment for each pressure descriptor aggregated through rule for a cumulative pressure assessment.

Where EU standards exist Fish exploited species – boundary is to be associated with a range rather than absolute points In principle, if standards exist they should be applied but it is not possible to just copy in MSFD Standards developed in a different legal/ other context What about the WFD standards application to the MSFD? Extending standards beyond the area of WFD applicability may not be relevant to open waters. Direct translation not possible in all cases e.g. WFD related benthic standards not immediately applicable Application of HD standards? – The integration of standards that otherwise are considered individually it may lead to miss match/ confusion between assessments. – Quantification of boundaries mat be taken in consideration regionally. These are not absolute but flexible Boundary certainty – range Need to consider standards developed under RSCs – HELCOM developed open sea targets involving validation of indicators boundaries determined through intercalibration. Approach is different in the open sea – does not look into deviation from reference conditions. There is no full harmonisation between the coastal and open sea assessments. D8 – some substances may have not been considered in the WFD

Challenge is not on being quantitative but regional coherence OSPAR ECOQ - not all quantitative HELCOM working towards quantitative boundaries but there are no such boundaries for all indicators. HD status assessment made in relation to reference normative definitions Interim boundaries under precautionary approach Use a pressure proxy Highly theoretical – to use pressure as proxy of state/ impact boundary Reference conditions could be used as basis for reference points for all descriptors. Different definitions of reference