1. Taking forward the common understanding of Art. 8, 9 and 10 MSFD
Uli Claussen
On behalf of the
Drafting Group GES

2. Common Understanding review
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

3. WG GES
urgent need to define and communicate an agreed terminology
define in particular terms of the Directive which are not defined yet
define conceptual presentation examples (figures, etc.)
revised version of the Common Understanding document for WG GES 12 in October 2014
GES Drafting Group meetings:
17-18 June 2014 (Brussels)
15-16 September 2014 (Berlin) (cancelled)

4. Progress since WG GES 11 DG GES meeting on 17-18 June: Follow-up:
Development of definitions of key terms („less is more“)
Development of conceptual presentations (figures)
Follow-up:
Legal concerns about definitions of key terms – broader discussion in WG GES
Principle difference of views regarding Art. 9 and Art. 10 MSFD
Wish to refocus effort: move to practical issues, i.e. start tackling matters of detail independent of a common understanding on Art. 9 / 10 MSFD
Revised version of CU available for DG GES with revised glossary and „Recommendation“ boxes as basis for the further CU development
Report to WG GES
CU not tabled to avoid confusion with presentation in document WG GES – EU cross cutting document
Focus on „Recommendations“ and revised glossary to focus discussion and provide guidance to DG GES on the further drafting process

5. Recommendation 1
Art. 10
Targets
Art. 8
Assess-ment
GES is the centerpiece of the MSFD and as such the starting and end point of the MSFD. All operational MSFD provisions link to GES.
Art.1
Art. 9
GES
Art. 11
Moni-toring
Art. 13
Mea-sures
Art. 14
Excep-tion

6. Recommendation 2
Art. 3 (5)
GES definition
The high-level definition of GES in Art. 3(5) is progressively refined through the descriptors of Annex I, the elements of Annex III, the criteria and methodological standards (Art. 9(3)) and the (sub)region- specific characteristics (Art. 9(1)).
Annex I
GES descriptor
Annex III
GES elements
Art. 9 (3)
GES criteria and methodological standards
Art. 9 (1)
Determination of GES characteristics

7. Recommendation 3
Criteria
quality elements, parameters and associated reference state (for baselines and GES boundaries) that are to be used to assess whether the environmental status is ‘good’ or not
Methodological standards
agreed and established scientific or technical methods for assessing and classifying environmental status.
Examples: 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
The criteria and methodological standards under Art. 9(3) MSFD and specifications and standardised methodologies under Art. 11(4) MSFD provide the EU-wide minimum requirements for assessing environmental status.
Specifications
Minimum requirements for the design of monitoring (e.g. minimum frequency, spatial resolution) and assessment
Standardised methods
- methods for monitoring (e.g. for sampling, analysis, quality assurance), including international standards (e.g. CEN/ISO standards)
- methods for assessment, including agreed rules for the spatial and temporal aggregation of monitoring data.

8. Recommendation 4
Ecosystem elements
(Annex III, Table 1)
Examples:
Physical: e.g. salinity, currents
Chemical: nu-trient and contaminant concentrations
Biological: fish, mammals, birds, reptiles
Habitats: pelagic, benthic
Impacts
(Annex III, Table 2)
Pressure at source
(Annex III, Table 2)
Examples:
Inputs/introduction of: e.g. nutrients, contaminants, litter, energy and noise, non-indigenous species
Physical pressures: smothering, sealing, extraction of species
GES is determined by reference to the state of biotic and abiotic elements of the marine ecosystem and not to pressures at source.

9. Recommendation 5
GES is to be determined in a manner that allows a conclusion on whether GES is being achieved/maintained or not. Ideally, GES is defined in a quantified/quantifiable way. The use of proxies can bridge the time needed to close the knowledge gaps in relation to the ability to define in a quantified/quantifiable way the point at which the state is considered as being in good status.

10. Recommendation 6
Art. 9 on GES and Art on environmental targets have distinct roles under the MSFD with different legal implications. They are not interchangeable. Whilst GES defines the legal objective of the Directive in terms of environmental quality, the main purpose of environmental targets is to guide progress towards achieving/maintaining GES.

11. Recommendation 7
Environmental targets can be of different nature. The aim should be to set targets in relation to all relevant pressures from activities and uses which are preventing GES being achieved or maintained in national waters within a (sub)region.

12. Recommendation 8
Examples
Target:
Reduce nutrient inputs to the sea by xx kt by 20xx.
Indicators:
- Nutrient concentrations at the limnic-marine transition point of rivers
N emissions and atmospheric deposition
The MSFD leaves considerable flexibility to Member States for setting environmental targets. Targets must, however, be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound (SMART).
Target:
Reduce litter inputs by xx% by 20xx.
Indicators:
Litter items found on the beach

13. Linking GES and targets

14. Discussion Revised glossary of CU Draft recommendations of CU
Next steps
Guidance from WG GES based on glossary and recommendations
Further CU text development based on WG GES guidance
First revised CU (terminology, concepts) for next WG GES
Proposal for WG GES to take forward assessment philosophy and associated aggregation discussion