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

2. “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/ /18 March 2014

3. 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/ /18 March 2014

4. Mandate WG GES and DG GES
MSFD CIS Work Programme :
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/ /18 March 2014

5. 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/ /18 March 2014

6. 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/ /18 March 2014

7. 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/ /18 March 2014

8. 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

9. 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/ /18 March 2014

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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
September 2014 – Berlin
January 2015 – Brussels

15. 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