1. Review of Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III -
01/05/2019
Review of Decision 2010/477/EU
and MSFD Annex III -
cross-cutting issues
European Commission
DG Environment Unit C.2
Marine Environment and Water Industry
WG GES
22-23 April 2015, Brussels

2. Aims of the paper
To provide an informal perspective on the interpretation of MSFD Art. 9 and 10 (building upon the 2011 CU document and subsequent discussions)
To set out an overall architecture for the provisions of the directive in relation to the determination of GES (Art. 3.5, Annex I and III, Decision and Art. 9.1)
To propose a ‘level’ at which GES should be assessed (i.e. the resolution of elements and geographic scales used to conclude if GES has been met or not)
To further develop approaches to assessments under Art. 8, drawing from the cross-cutting workshop (EEA, January 2015)

3. Further development of the paper
01/05/2019
Further development of the paper
Further internal discussions on integration with other policies
Discussions with core team, e.g. on integration across descriptors to inform drafting of Decision
Consider comments received from WG GES (by end June) on current version
Prepare final version for WG GES in October
Content of paper can contribute to further development of Common Understanding document and other review documentation.

4. Cross-cutting workshop – broad conclusions
Workshop participants agreed, in broad terms, on:
Need for integration of the ‘biodiversity’ descriptors
Need to use pressure-based assessments to inform the ecosystem status assessments
‘Pizza and the satellites’ approach
Need for a level of commonality in elements to be assessed at EU or regional level – with criteria for selection and deselection, where appropriate (clear rules)
Use of functional groups (for birds, mammals, reptiles, fish) and predominant habitat types, but with (sub)regional specificity
Need for clearer links to assessments in other policies
Need for more coherent scales of assessment (e.g. nested approach)

5. BUT ….
There is need for more clarity on how these concepts could fit together … and on the specific detail
Cross-cutting paper aims to present these overall approaches and give this ‘detail’:
In generic terms, but with practical examples
It sets out a framework for determining GES, but does not determine GES – this is for MS, working within the (sub)region
It presents a common framework for assessment, within which regional and national assessments could fit (i.e. how common/core indicators would fit with Decision criteria (operational use of pizza and satellites).
The approaches proposed can help focus ongoing debates on what is GES and how to assess it (e.g. whether at criterion level, descriptor level; need for an overarching GES or an ‘ecosystem descriptors’ GES)
It contains new proposals (e.g. equating GES to other policies, esp. WFD and harmonisation of biodiversity assessments) – needing further discussion
The paper is ‘work in progress’ and provides an input to ongoing discussions in CU context and at regional and national levels.

6. Review of Annex III Integral part of the review 'package'
Needs to clearly link to MSFD Annex I, Decision (Art. 9(3)), and Art. 9(1)
Initial perspective on the 'content' and role of Tables 1 and 2
Proposal for a new Table 3 on uses and activities (builds on 2012 list for reporting)
These 'indicative lists' are based on reviews of elements used in other directives and RSCs – read across spreadsheet on elements used in each policy
Paper is input to a proposed Annex III, but depends on formulation of Decision

7. Relationships to WFD (MSFD Art. 3.1b) – initial proposal
01/05/2019
Relationships to WFD (MSFD Art. 3.1b) – initial proposal
 MSFD Descriptor
WFD (Coastal waters, 0-1nm, except 0-12nm for D8)
D1 – water column habitats
GES = phytoplankton quality element of WFD in GEcS + zooplankton in GES
D1 – seabed habitats
GES for Predominant habitats of littoral and infralittoral zones = macrophyte + angiosperm + macrobenthos quality elements of WFD in GEcS
D5 - Eutrophication
GES = nutrients + phytoplankton + macroalgae + angiosperm quality elements of WFD in GEcS
D6 - Seafloor integrity
Same as D1 seabed habitats
D7 - Hydrographical changes
GES = WFD GEcS (Hydromorphological conditions)
D8 - Contaminants
GES = WFD GChS for priority substances + WFD GEcS for river-basin-specific pollutants

8. Framework for information system
Human Activities
Pressures
State of Environment
Ecosystem Services
Socio-economic Drivers
economic
Socio-
benefits
Art. 8(1c)
CIS
RSCs
MS -CAs
Management (Policies &
Governance)
Measures
Monitoring
Art. 8(1b)
Framework for information system
Art. 8(1a)
Ecosystem
Art. 8(1c)
Art
Environmental impacts
service
Art. 11
benefits

9. Sand & gravel extraction
Element A
Cetaceans
Element B
Fish
Element C
Seabirds
Element D
Pelagic habitat
Element E
Seabed habitat
State
Activity A
Oil & gas
Activity B
Sand & gravel extraction
Activity C
Shipping
Activity D
Fishing
Activity
Pressure Z
Physical disturbance
Pressure
Pressure Y
Contamination
Pressure X
Underwater noise
IMPACTS
Links within Art 8
Economic & social analysis
Art 8.1c
Assessment of pressures
Art 8.1b Table 2
Assessment of state
Art 8.1a
Table 1

10. Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4)
01/05/2019
Assessment of specific pressures
and their impacts on ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1b) D5
Assessment of ecosystem elements (Art. 8.1a)
Other
pressures
Birds (D1)
Mammals (D1)
Reptiles (D1)
Fish (D1, D3.2/3)
Seabed (D1, D6)
Water column (D1)
Ecosystem, food-webs (D1.7, D4) D7 D8 D2 D9
D6.1
D11
D3.1
D10 10

11. Integration: pressure-impact-state
01/05/2019
Integration: pressure-impact-state
Assessments of pressures for Article 8(1b)
Physical loss
Physical damage
Energy, incl. UW noise
Nutrients
Contam-inants
Litter
Fishing/ by-catch
NIS P S
6.1
11.1, 11.2
5.1
8.1, 9.1
10.1
3.1
2.1
Assessments of state for Article 8(1a)
Ecosystem 1.7,
Birds
8.2
10.2 ?
2.2
Mammals
Reptiles
Fish
3.2, 3.3
Water
7.1
5.2, 5.3
Seabed
7.2
6.2
3.2
2010 Decision criteria allocated to MAIN pressures (P), to main state elements (S) and to MAIN impacts between the two.
Distinction at criterion level between pressure and state is not so clear as the ‘Descriptor groupings’ suggests (previous slide) – D6 is more pressure/impact, D7 is more an impact descriptor than a pressure descriptor (hydrological changes typically stem from physical infrastructures (i.e. a consequent impact)
Assessments of impacts from pressures needs to be clearly related to state components (i.e. at similar resolution to state elements being assessed).

12. Pressure and its impacts (D2, D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11)
All pressure assessments to achieve GES
Aggregation rule for criteria, e.g. one-out-all-out
Criterion A - pressure
Criterion B – impact
Aggregation rule if several indicators used
GES boundary defined per criterion or scientific indicator
Data set A
Data set B
Data set C
Data set D
Data set E

13. D5: Eutrophication Water clarity Bottom oxygen DIN DIP Chl a
Pressure and its impacts
(D2, D5, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11)
All pressure assessments to achieve GES
D5: Eutrophication
Aggregation rule for criteria, e.g. one-out-all-out
Criterion A - pressure
Criterion B – impact
Aggregation rule if several indicators used
GES boundary defined per criterion or scientific indicator
Data set A
Data set B
Data set C
Data set D
Data set E
Water clarity
Bottom oxygen
DIN
DIP
Chl a

14. Mock-up presentation of an area-based assessment: status and trends
01/05/2019
Mock-up presentation of an area-based assessment: status and trends

15. Integration: pressure-impact-state
01/05/2019
Integration: pressure-impact-state
Assessments of pressures for Article 8(1b)
Physical loss
Physical damage
Energy, incl. UW noise
Nutrients
Contam-inants
Litter
Fishing/ by-catch
NIS P S
6.1
11.1, 11.2
5.1
8.1, 9.1
10.1
3.1
2.1
Assessments of state for Article 8(1a)
Ecosystem 1.7,
Birds
8.2
10.2 ?
2.2
Mammals
Reptiles
Fish
3.2, 3.3
Water
7.1
5.2, 5.3
Seabed
7.2
6.2
3.2
2010 Decision criteria allocated to MAIN pressures (P), to main state elements (S) and to MAIN impacts between the two.
Distinction at criterion level between pressure and state is not so clear as the ‘Descriptor groupings’ suggests (previous slide) – D6 is more pressure/impact, D7 is more an impact descriptor than a pressure descriptor (hydrological changes typically stem from physical infrastructures (i.e. a consequent impact)
Assessments of impacts from pressures needs to be clearly related to state components (i.e. at similar resolution to state elements being assessed).

16. Assessment scenario – cumulative impacts
Hydrological changes
– minor effects
Hydrological changes
– impacts
Physical loss
(coastal infrastructure)
Nutrient enrichment
- eutrophication
Nutrient enrichment
– minor effects D7 D2
Non-indigenous species D5
Cumulative pressures - impact
Occasional disturbances
- minor effects
Contaminants - minor effects D6
Hydrological changes - impacts
Physical damage (bottom trawling) - impacts
Physical loss (offshore infrastructure) D7
Contamination - impacts
This slide aims to illustrate the multiple use of an area/habitat type, and the potential for varying degrees of impact from these uses. It should be possible to define GES quality (i.e. determine when a pressure is causing impact – calibrate through monitoring) and then to decide what proportion of the whole habitat in the area should be at this quality level (i.e. the light and dark green areas). This approach accommodates a certain level of activities, including ones which are quite destructive, because of the scale at which the assessment is made.
Monitoring by industry – where possible industry should determine the scale/extent of impact it has, according to agreed standards, and provide the evidence to government to contribute to an overall assessment. D8
Greens – acceptable state
Orange, red – unacceptable state
Adapted from OSPAR Biodiversity guidance for MSFD 16

17. Integrated assessments (1)
State criterion
Threshold
Pressures
Impact
Assessment values
Criterion assessment
Overall
Predominant habitat: shelf sand
Habitat distribution (1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.2)
<[10]% loss in range cw reference condition
None: broadscale physical habitat not affected by physical pressures
Habitat loss (6.1.1) 0%
GES
Below GES
Habitat extent (1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 6.1.1)
<[10]% loss in extent cw reference condition
Physical
Change of sea-floor substrate (infrastructure) 5%
Habitat condition (1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.3, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4))
<[30]% damage cw reference condition (including any habitat loss)
Disturbance/damage to sea-floor
Habitat damage (6.1.2)
65%
Below GES (75% impacted or lost)
Biological
Removal of species (targeted, non-targeted)
Extraction of sea-floor and subsoil minerals (e.g. sand, gravel, rock, oil, gas)
Hydrological
Water movement changes (from infrastructure)
Habitat structure changes, community changes (7.2, 7.2.1, 7.2.2)
Chemicals and other pollutants
Nutrient enrichment (N, P, organic matter)
Oxygen depletion, community changes (5.2.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2)
Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species
Community alteration (2.2.1)
Not assessed
From indicator-based assessments (e.g. RSC common indicators)
From a common set of pressures (Annex III)
From (revised) Decision

18. Functional groups and representative species – example Mammals
EU level
Regional Level
Generic element (MSFD Annex III)
Functional groups (CSWP 2011)
Habitats Directive
Baltic Sea (HELCOM)
NE Atlantic Ocean (OSPAR)
Mediterranean Sea (UNEP/MAP)
Black Sea (BSC)
MAMMALS
Toothed whales
Harbour porpoise
Bottlenose dolphin
All species (V)
White-beaked dolphin
Short‐beaked common dolphin
Striped dolphin
Common dolphin
Sperm whale
Risso's dolphin
Long-finned pilot whale
Cuvier's beaked whale
Baleen whales ?
Minke whale
Fin whale Balaenoptera spp.
N/A
Seals
Grey seal
Monk seal
Ringed seal
Harbour seal
Ice-associated mammals
Consider removing this functional group (more relevant for Arctic)

19. Population size: entanglement by litter (D10)
01/05/2019
Population size: entanglement by litter (D10)
Population size: incidental catch from fisheries (D3)
Population condition: Bioaccumulation of contaminants (D8)
Population condition: disturbances during breeding
Habitat for species:
loss of breeding sites (D6)
Species can be affected by multiple pressures – affect different assessment criteria
Example: turtle
Many species assessments rely on one or two indicators – focus on main criterion/threat 19

20. Functional group or predominant habitat
Overall environmental status is expressed as % of assessed component species/habitats that are in GES
Functional group or predominant habitat
Species or habitat A
Species or habitat B
Species or habitat C
Aggregation rule for criteria, e.g. one-out-all-out
Criterion A - distribution
Criterion B – population size/ habitat extent
Criterion C – population/habitat condition
GES boundary defined per criterion or scientific indicator
Data set A
Data set B
Data set C

21. Integrated assessments (2)
State criterion
Threshold
Pressures
Impact
Assessment values
Criterion assessment
Overall
Listed species: Seal
Species distribution (1.1.2)
<[10]% loss of range, or <[25]% loss of area occupied within range
Energy
Input of sound
Exclusion from areas
15%
GES (17% loss of area occupied)
GES
Biological
Disturbance of species
Exclusion from areas by ecotourism & other human activities 2%
Population size (1.2, 1.2.1)
<[50]% change cw reference level
Removal of species (targeted, non-targeted)
By-catch (3.1) 5%
Injury/death to species
Hunting
Population condition (1.3, 1.3.1)
Significant reduction in fecundity/ survival/ reproductive rates; significant change in age/size structure of population
Chemicals and other pollutants
Input of contaminants (synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, acute events
Bioaccumulation (8.2, 8.2.1)
Not assessed
???
Habitat for species; Species distribution (1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2)
<[30]% loss/damage cw reference condition
Physical
Alteration of sea-floor/water body morphology
Loss of haul-out sites
20%

22. Clear outcomes of assessments: status and trends: Example: commercial fish (from CFP)