MOF, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 892: Spm. om at supplere bilagene til svar på L 111 spørgsmål 121 med perioden fra regeringsskiftet juni 2015 til dato, til miljø- og fødevareministeren

Cc:

Fra:

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), jochen.krause@bfn-

vilm.de ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] (eberecibar@emepc-

portugal.org), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), elzbieta.lysiak-

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), NST - Vandplaner og havmiljø postkasse

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] (a.kniezaite-

[email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected])

[email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] (Anne-

[email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Søderberg,

Lone Munk ([email protected]), '[email protected]' ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), Annick.DE-

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] (helene.syndique@developpement-

durable.gouv.fr), [email protected] (sebastien.flores@developpement-

durable.gouv.fr), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]),

[email protected] ([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected]

([email protected]), [email protected] ([email protected])

[email protected] ([email protected])

Titel:

Consultation on the outcomes of the technical and scientific review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD

Annex III

Sendt:

12-06-2015 16:10:40

Bilag:

Consultation letter.pdf; ComDecRev_D01.pdf; ComDecRev_D02.pdf; ComDecRev_D03.pdf; ComDecRev_D04.pdf;

ComDecRev_D05.pdf; ComDecRev_D06.pdf; ComDecRev_D07.pdf; ComDecRev_D08.pdf; ComDecRev_D09.pdf;

ComDecRev_D10.pdf; ComDecRev_D11.pdf; ComDecRev_MSFDAnnexIII.doc;

ComDecReview_Consultation_Template_05062015.docx.xlsx; List of relevant chapters per descriptor for the

review.docx;

Dear Members of Marine Strategy Coordination Group,

Please find enclosed a letter by Mr. Matjaž Malgaj, Head of Unit of Marine Environment and Water Industry, DG

Environment, for your consideration.

Kind regards

The marine team

Letter of consultation

Enclosures

1. Review manual for Descriptor

2. Review manual for Descriptor 2

3. Review manual for Descriptor 3

4. Review manual for Descriptor 4

5. Review manual for Descriptor 5

6. Review manual for Descriptor 6

7. Review manual for Descriptor 7

8. Review manual for Descriptor 8

9. Review manual for Descriptor 9

10. Review manual for Descriptor 10

11. Review manual for Descriptor 11

12. MSFD Annex III

13. Feedback form (excel spreadsheet)

14. List of relevant chapters per descriptor on which to focus consultation comments

If you have any questions related to this consultation process, please do not hesitate to

contact me or my colleagues David Connor (+32-2299.0391) or Anna Cheilari (+32-

2296.5348).

Enclosures: Consultation documents: (available for download :

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/46d2b7ba-d2fd-4b3c-9eaf-18c7cb702b53)

1. Review manual for Descriptor 1

2. Review manual for Descriptor 2

3. Review manual for Descriptor 3

4. Review manual for Descriptor 4

5. Review manual for Descriptor 5

6. Review manual for Descriptor 6

7. Review manual for Descriptor 7

8. Review manual for Descriptor 8

9. Review manual for Descriptor 9

10. Review manual for Descriptor 10

11. Review manual for Descriptor 11

12. MSFD Annex III

13. Feedback form (excel spreadsheet)

14. List of relevant chapters per descriptor on which to focus consultation comments

xwvutsronmljihfed

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Water Resources Unit

Review of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU

concerning MSFD criteria for assessing good environmental

status

Descriptor 1

Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and

the distribution and abundance of species are in line with the prevailing

physiographic, geographic and climate conditions.

This report represents the result of the scientific and technical review of Commission Decision

2010/477/EU in relation to Descriptor 1. The review has been carried out by the EC JRC together with

experts nominated by EU Member States, and has considered contributions from the GES Working

Group in accordance with the roadmap set out in the MSFD implementation strategy (agreed on at the

11th CIS MSCG meeting).

The report is one of a series of reports (review manuals) including Descriptor 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 that

conclude phase 1 of the review process and, as agreed within the MSFD Common Implementation

Strategy, are the basis for review phase 2, towards an eventual revision of the Commission Decision

2010/477/EU.

The report presents the state of the technical discussions as of 30 April 2015 (document version 6.0), as

some discussions are on-going, it does not contain agreed conclusions on all issues.

The views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of the European

Commission.

Foreword

The MSFD Committee (Art. 25 of the MSFD) discussed and concluded an approach and an outline for the

review and possible revision of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological

standards on Good Environmental Status (GES) of marine waters and of MSFD Annex III (see

Committee/07/2013/03rev for details). Based on the template in the annex to the mandate of the MSFD

Committee, a more detailed manual for the technical phase relating to the review of Commission

Decision 2010/477/EC has been developed to guide the parallel preparatory process and discussions per

descriptor. The review will aim to define GES criteria more precisely, including setting quantifiable

boundaries for the GES criteria where possible and specifications and standardised methods for GES

assessment in particular as regards temporal and spatial aggregation. The review of Annex III will be

carried out as a parallel process. The review of the Common Understanding Document is also taking

place alongside these two processes. Close coordination between these three processes should be

ensured.

MSFD D1 expert group:

António Teixeira, Georg Martin, Lauri Saks, Laura Uusitalo , Lena Avellan,

Laure t Guéri , Woj ie h Kraś ie ski,

Peter Heslenfeld, Tobias Porsbring, Jochen Krause, Alberto

Serrano, Francisco Velasco, Jane Hawkridge, Simon Greenstreet, Valeria Abaza, Laura Boicenco, Ioannis

Karakassis, Antonina Santos

EC JRC:

Andreas Palialexis, Ana Cristina Cardoso, Heliana Teixeira, Joana Patricio, Fernando Tempera.

Acknowledgments for contributions to:

WG GES

Review (technical phase) of Part B of the Decision (per descriptor)

Contents

Approach

........................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 General guiding principles for the review ....................................................................................... 5

1.2 Overall reflection of the type of descriptor and descriptor criteria (e.g. state/pressure,

quantitative/qualitative) and its relationship with Article 3(5). ........................................................... 7

1.3 Linkages with existing relevant EU legal requirements, standards and limit values, such as the

WFD, and the identification of potential incoherence. ........................................................................ 9

1.4 Linkages with international and RSC norms and standards .......................................................... 12

1.5 Clarification of the relevant scientific, technical and policy terminology in relation to the

descriptor. ........................................................................................................................................... 14

1.6 Descriptor specificities should be highlighted and justified (e.g. if it is recommended to combine

several descriptors together). ............................................................................................................. 15

1.7 An analysis of whether the criteria and/or indicators and/or methodological standards for the

particular descriptor are likely to be common across the EU or need aspects to be specific at region

or other scales..................................................................................................................................... 17

1.8 The "climate sensitivity" for D1 (or criteria/indicators)................................................................ 18

1.9 An indication of whether a quantitative GES definition for the descriptor will be possible or

whether a qualitative/normative definition only should be used (on the basis of Article 3(5)) ........ 19

Analysis of the implementation process

......................................................................................... 20

2.1 Based on the Commission/Milieu Article 12 reports and the JRC in-depth assessments, a

detailed summary of the findings of Article 12 relating to the determination of GES and specifically

the use of the Decision criteria and indicators should be made. ....................................................... 20

2.2 Identification of any questions arising from the application of the current Decision, including

those identified by the Article 12 assessment .................................................................................... 22

2.3 Relevant data from other sources, specific to every descriptor and recent findings from MS

should also be considered. ................................................................................................................. 23

2.4 Good examples and approaches applied by MS, especially if used by multiple Member States,

and shortcomings should be listed systematically. ............................................................................ 28

2.5 Differences and similarities between regions............................................................................... 29

Analysis of the current text of the Decision

.................................................................................... 29

3.1 Analysis of the current text of the Decision, identifying in particular those parts which are best

placed in guidance, those parts which are interpretative or explicative information and those parts

which need to be kept in the Decision in accordance with the mandate provided by the Directive 29

3.2 Identification of needs for guidance ............................................................................................. 31

3.3 An analysis of what to keep should take place, including specification on what may be out dated

or may need to be aligned with other or new legislation, etc. ........................................................... 32

Identification of issues

.................................................................................................................... 33

4.1 Main findings and information that will be used in the next step of the revision process. ......... 33

GES criteria (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

....................................................................................... 35

5.1 Conclude on the use of the existing Decision criteria and indicators, in the light of the "refined"

common understanding, the findings of the Article 12 assessment and relevant international, EU

and RSC legislation and approaches. .................................................................................................. 35

5.2 Recommendation on which criteria to retain, which to amend and any to remove ................... 36

5.3 Proposals for new criteria ............................................................................................................. 46

5.4 Rationale and proposal, where appropriate, for defining GES threshold values and reference

points, based on established and agreed scientific methods for quantifying and applying GES

boundaries, or for a normative definition of GES; .............................................................................. 47

GES methodological standards (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

......................................................... 48

6.1 Proposals for (new) methodological standards to be applied to the criteria in order to assess

whether GES has been achieved for the descriptor (e.g. aggregation/integration methods across the

criteria and across the quality elements, e.g. across contaminants, species, habitats), using JRC /

ICES / RSC protocols, Article 12 findings and guidance from the Scales project, as appropriate....... 48

7. Specifications and standardized methods for monitoring and assessment (in accordance with Art.

11(4))

....................................................................................................................................................... 50

7.1

Proposals for specifications on methods for monitoring (i.e. the collection of data needed

for assessment of each criterion, including parameters, units of measurement and data quality

requirements), which aim at ensuring the comparability of monitoring results, on the basis of

existing survey protocols and relevant European/international standards (e.g. ISO/CEN). .............. 50

7.2 Proposals for specifications on methods for assessment, which aim at ensuring comparability of

assessment results, including aggregation of monitoring data within an assessment area for a

particular criterion and if necessary aggregation across assessment areas up to larger areas (e.g.

(sub) region scales), and based on general guidance prepared on scales and aggregation rules

and

taking account of JRC / ICES / RSC inventories and Article 12 findings. ............................................. 52

Rational and technical background for proposed revision

............................................................. 53

8.1 Justification and technical background justifying the above proposals. ...................................... 53

Other related products (e.g. technical guidance, reference in common understanding document)

9.1 Where aspects are identified which should be usefully laid down but not as part of the decision,

these elements should be specified and a proposal should be made in which way they should be

laid down, e.g. interpretative guide for the application of the future Decision or CU guidance

document or technical background document. ................................................................................. 53

10.

Reference Documents

................................................................................................................. 54

1. Approach

1.1 General guiding principles for the review

The review aims to analyse the results from the first MSFD reporting round on Articles 8, 9, and 10 with

a view to update and simplify the Com Decision 2010/477/EU. Based on the Information in the Art 12

assessment reports (COM(2014)97 final) and the JRC in-depth assessments (Palialexis et al., 2014

) a

template has been prefilled by Milieu for the DG ENV, commented by DG ENV and completed by JRC

which should enable the experts group to analyse current shortcomings, propose ways forward, such as

e.g. needs for further guidance and development, but eventually also to develop proposals for amending

the Decision 2010/477/EU, based on scientific knowledge and experience in the implementation

process.

The current review should lead to a new GES Decision which is:

•

Simpler

•

Clearer

•

Introducing minimum requirements (to be enhanced by regions and MS, if necessary)

•

Self-explanatory

•

Coherent with other EU legislation

•

Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU does not exist)

•

Have a clear and minimum common list of criteria and methodological standards and related

characteristics (Table 1, Annex III), at least at a sub-regional scale

•

Ensure that criteria and methodological standards are adequately addressing the Descriptors are

covered by the proposed criteria, to lead to complete assessments

•

Coherent with the MSFD terminology

Palialexis A., Tornero A. V., Barbone E., Gonzalez D., Hanke G., Cardoso A. C., Hoepffner N., Katsanevakis S., Somma F.,

Zampoukas N., 2014. In-Depth

Assess e t of the EU Me er “tates “u issio s for the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

under articles 8, 9 and 10. EUR

–

Scientific and Technical Research series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European

Union. EUR 26473 EN, 149 pp. doi: 10.2788/64014.

GES needs to ideally be quantified/quantifiable or measurable to allow for determining the distance of

the current state from GES and targets to monitor the progress towards GES

. According to the Com

Decision 2010/477/EU GES Art. 9(1) MS should determine GES at the level of criteria for each assessed

element at a certain scale. This is the lowest quantifiable assessment block, which will be aggregated to

provide the overall GES for the marine ecosystem (see section 6.2 for aggregation rules).

1.2 Overall reflection of the type of descriptor and descriptor criteria (e.g. state/pressure,

quantitative/qualitative) and its relationship with Article 3(5).

According to MSFD Annex I for the biological diversity descriptor D1, GES means the environmental

status of mari

e aters, here

Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of

habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic,

geographic and climate conditions . An ICES/ JRC expert Task Group (TG1) established in 2009 prepared

the scientific basis for developing the Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) and has in this context

addressed the definition/interpretation of key terms included in the descriptor of biodiversity, i.e.

biological diversity and maintained.

The Group adopted for the purpose of the Task the definition of the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD) for

biological diversity’:

the aria ility a o g li i g orga is s fro all sour es i ludi g,

interalia,

[terrestrial,] marine [and other aquatic ecosystems] and the ecological complexes of which

they are part; this i ludes di ersity ithi spe ies, et ee spe ies a d of e osyste s

. Table 1 in

Annex III of the MSFD lists biodiversity related features that should be considered in the

implementation.

The term

aintained’

is key to the quantification of GES for D1 and thus for the elaboration of

recommendations on criteria and methodological standards. The TG1 has associated the condition

ai tai ed to three deter i i g fa tors: a o further loss of the di ersity ithi spe ies, et ee

species and of habitats/ communities and ecosystems at ecologically relevant scales, b) any deteriorated

attributes of biological diversity are restored to and maintained at or above target levels, where intrinsic

conditions allow (cf. Art. 1.2 a) and c) where the use of the marine environment is sustainable .

The ter

habitat’

in this Descriptor addresses both the abiotic characteristics and the associated

biological community, treating both elements together in the sense of the term biotope (Commission

De isio

/EU , hereas uality , o urre e , distri utio , e te t a d a u da e for the

basis of the criteria standards to assess GES.

Fro

ENV s

prese tatio

Mar h s

GE“

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/2e3f1f2f-c1ef-407f-a433-12cf73e9e61b/GES_11-2014-

13_CommonUnderstanding.ppt

… sho s here the defi itio is less rele a t to the

ari e

group:

Task Group 1 Report Biological diversity (2010)

– te t i

environment.

Descriptor 1 has a broad scope, requiring assessment at several ecological levels: species, habitats

(addressing both the abiotic characteristics and the associated biological community, treating both

elements together) and ecosystems. At the species level, GES shall be defined for the full range of

functional and taxonomic groups occurring in the marine environment, including the native

angiosperms, macro-algae and invertebrate bottom fauna, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, mammals,

reptiles, seabirds and cephalopods (Annex III, Table 1 of the MSFD).

The MSFD requires Member States to understand and assess the condition of the typical species

associated with the seabed and the pelagic habitats and the representative species of the functional

groups (MSFD, TG1, CSWD 2011). Special attention is given to the listed species under EU Directives (the

Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive) (MSFD paragraph 6; COM DEC 2010/477/EU paragraph 5) and

international conventions (Helsinki, OSPAR, Barcelona, Bucharest) - also referred to Annex III Table I of

the MSFD.

At the habitat level, determination of GES is required for the predominant habitat types (as defined in

Annex III, Table 1 of the MSFD, in TG1 report and in the SWD 2011/1255) and the special habitat types

listed under EU legislation or international conventions.

The determination of GES for biological diversity at the ecosystem level shall be based on evaluation of

the structure (composition and proportion) and interaction between the ecosystem components, the

processes and functioning, connectivity and resilience of the ecosystem. This would be the level for

biological traits and ecosystem services. Some of the aforementioned ecosystem attributes are also

tackled by other descriptors (e.g. 4 and 6) and these links have to be specified and clarified, consisting

one of the major issues in the review process.

It is recognized that there are strong links between D1 (biodiversity per se), D4 (food webs) and D6 (sea-

floor integrity),

hi h are fre ue tly addressed together as the iodi ersity the e si e re uire e ts

for monitoring and assessment of these descriptors partially overlap (see e.g. Zampoukas et al., 2012

Table 1). Thus, it is necessary to ensure a coherent approach across the descriptors to avoid overlapping,

contradictory and double assessments. Besides, all other descriptors include, more or less explicitly,

effe ts o state of arious iodi ersity o po e ts i

at least one criterion (except actually implicitly

for D .Thus, GE“ of pressure des riptors should e defi ed a d assessed i li e ith the GE“ of

iodi ersity des riptors. This to opti ize:

i) integrated indicators/monitoring standards (across criteria

within and/or between Descriptors), ii) associated monitoring, and iii) efficient guidance for measures

(pressure/state relationships).

Overall, for the MSFD, assessments of status are focused on the following groups of highly mobile

marine species: birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods, and on predominant habitat types of

the water column and seabed together with their associated biological communities (SWD 2014/49). In

Zampoukas N, Piha H, Bigagli E, Hoepffner N, Hanke G, Cardoso AC. 2012. Monitoring for the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive:

Requirements

and

options.

JRC

Scientific

and

Technical

Reports.

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/23169/1/lbna25187enn.pdf

addition to these broad categories, attention is directed also to specific species and habitat types which

are listed for protection under the Birds and Habitats Directives and under international agreements.

Genetic- and ecosystem-level aspects are also important for the status characterization.

1.3 Linkages with existing relevant EU legal requirements, standards and limit values, such

as the WFD, and the identification of potential incoherence.

The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)

The main aim of the Directive is to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of

natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. It requires that EU MS take measures to ensure that the

spe ies a d ha itats of o

u ity i terest

listed in its annexes are protected so as to be in

fa oura le o ser atio status

(FCS).

The Habitats Directive specifically establishes the network of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs),

which together with the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive form the Natura 2000

network of protected areas, including marine areas, as a mean to achieving FCS for the listed species

and habitats. In the network each site contributes to the attainment of FCS, but this objective is to be

attained at the scale of the natural range of species or habitat type. The site level conservation

o je ti es are set upo ide tifi atio of the o tri utio of the parti ular site to the Me er “tates

achievement of FCS for the habitats and species present in the whole area of the Member States.

Site objectives should be established for SACs under the Habitats Directive and also for special protected

areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive. The conservation objectives at the site level must take in

consideration the following elements (COM Note on establishing conservation objectives for the Natura

2000 sites 23/11/2012):



the ecological requirements of the species and habitat types listed in the Natura 2000 Standard

Data Form and whose presence is significant

the local, regional, national conservation status of the habitats and species

the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network

the higher level conservation objectives at national/ biogeographical level and the contribution

of the site to them.



Member States are required to report on the status of the species and habitats including their

distribution within the territory of the Member State and measures taken and their impact on the

conservation status of concerned habitats and species every six years. Assessment of whether a species

or habitat is in FCS is based on specified criteria with principle threshold values

, with failure of any one

criterion giving a below-FCS outcome (one-out-all-out principle). Assessment of FCS is by biogeographic

regions. Where Member State's territories lie in several biogeographic regions, separate assessments

Annex C and E of the following report:

http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/themen/monitoring/Art_17_Reporting_Formats.pdf

are required for their territory within each region. There is then an aggregation of assessments across

the Member States to give the overall status per species and habitat at the biogeographic region level.

The Birds Directive (2009/147/EC)

The Birds Directive (BD) refers to the need for a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for listed bird

species (Annex I of the BD) and migratory species not listed. It requires the establishment of measures

to maintain the populations of these species including the designation of protected areas (Special

Protection Areas)

. These measures should be reported every six years. The establishment of

conservation measures should take into account trends and variations in populations. In 2007 bird

species were assessed for the first time using the same FCS criteria and methodology as under the

Habitats Directive. However, no threshold values had to be submitted in the 2007 report.

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

In the marine environment, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) spatially covers transitional

aters

and coastal waters

, of hi h oastal aters are also o ered y M“FD. The

Directive aims to achieve

good water status,

hi h is assessed at the ater ody s ale.

It considers both the good chemical

status (whose specifications are relevant for other descriptors, but not D1) and the good ecological

status (GEcS), which is defined in terms of the quality of the biological communities, the hydrological

characteristics and the chemical characteristics (WFD, Annex V). The WFD does not explicitly mention

biodiversity. However, taxonomic composition of phytoplankton, macrophytes and zoobenthos and

their abundance/biomass are assessed as quality elements for the classification of ecological status

Specifying linkages across EU legislations

Even if the assessment classifications (FCS and GES) are different, the criteria for species and habitats in

MSFD and HBD are very similar (Table 1) and offer good opportunity for optimization of assessments

(i.e. coherent methods based on common criteria). These

riteria pro ide a fra e ork

where for each

species or habitats only relevant criteria should be allocated (e.g. habitat distributional range is not

suitable for physically-defined habitats).

Table 1.

Pairing MSFD species and habitats criteria with the Nature Directives criteria (from the cross-

utti g orkshop s prese tatio

Special Areas of Conservation (HD) and Special Protection Areas (BD) together comprise the

Natura 2000

network of

protected areas.

JRC, 2014. In-Depth

Assess e t of M“ su issio s for M“FD Art. , 9 &

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/b91483a7-e849-4664-b391-

6bb6a667d39e/1501_GES_CCworkshop_Session%202-3.ppt

MSFD (D1, 3, 4, 6)

Distribution

(1.1)

Population size

(1.2); reproductive

capacity (3.2)

BD & HD

Range

IUCN Red List

Range (EOO, AOO)

Population size

Small population

Population

Species

Population condition

(1.3); age &

size distribution (3.3)

Habitat for

species

Future prospects

Distribution

(1.4)

Range

Quantity (extent of occurrence;

area of occupancy)

Mature individuals incl. above

Habitat quality incl. in Range

Included above

Extent

(1.5)

Habitats

Condition

(1.6, 6.2)

Area covered

Structures &

functions

Future prospects

Quality (biotic, abiotic)

Included above

According to the

Links between MSFD and the Nature Directives

if FCS is not achieved at a

particular level (MS territory/region), and given that FCS and GES objectives are mutually

supportive and assessed at similar scales, it could influence whether GES for biodiversity

components is achieved on the same scale. Consequently it should be acknowledged that

achieving FCS for the relevant marine species and habitats is likely to be a key aspect in

assessing the achievement of GES for the biodiversity component of the MSFD. Equally,

measures taken under the Habitats Directive outside Natura 2000 sites to avoid deterioration of

the features within SACs are likely to contribute to achieving GES. Despite the different set

objectives across these Directives, their assessments on habitats and species are comparable

and MSFD has

to o sider e isti g Co

u ity Legislatio s assess e ts.

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/e67df5e9-21e0-4dbd-9778-

ac4fb08fe1f7/Doc%209%20Links%20MSFD%20HBD%20FAQ.doc

biological diversity: five core indicators cover benthic habitats and communities

, four indicators cover

mammals, five cover birds (one shared with mammals) and five cover fish. The pelagic or planktonic

features have a weaker representation - with only one zooplankton indicator. The 20 biodiversity

indicators relate to three MSFD descriptors, D1, D4 and D6 and not just to D1. As a separate exercise,

HELCOM has recently assessed the status of its species and habitats according to modified IUCN criteria

and leading to Red Lists of species and habitats for the Baltic (HELCOM 2013).

For

OSPAR,

the Intersessional Correspondence Group on the Coordination of Biodiversity Assessment

and Monitoring (ICG-COBAM) is responsible for the coordination of OSPAR's biodiversity assessment and

monitoring work under the guidance of the Biodiversity Committee, and has a particular focus on the

requirements of the MSFD in relation to biodiversity aspects. In march 2015, ICG COBAM has adopted

15 common biodiversity indicators (3 for mammals, 2 for Birds, none for turtles, 2 for fish, 2 for benthic

habitats, 2 for pelagic habitats, 2 for food webs, 1 common to pelagic and food webs, and 1 for non-

indigenous species), all relevant for D1, but some also for D2, D4 or D6. These common indicators have

been tested in the 2014/2015 meeting cycle. Relevant common indicators

ill deli er to O“PA‘ s

Intermediate Assessment in 2017, which will be recommended, to EU Members States, to be integrated

in the 2018 reporting of MSFD Article 8, 9 and, where feasible, article 10. Further, several candidate

biodiversity indicators may be promoted to common indicators in the future. The ICG COBAM continues

the work on improving regional coordination for assessing and monitoring biodiversity descriptors under

OSPAR.

The Ecosystem Approach (EcAp) of the Contracting parties in

Barcelona Convention

will gradually

implement the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities in the Mediterranean,

aiming to

attai A healthy Mediterra ea ith ari e a d oastal e osyste s that are produ ti e a d

biologically diverse for the benefit

of prese t a d future ge eratio s

by May 2015. One of the three

main goals of this approach is focused on the preservation and restoration of marine biodiversity in the

region. Indicators and monitoring programmes to support the 11 Ecological Objectives of EcAp, including

biodiversity objectives similar to those of MSFD, are currently being developed; the process follows a

similar approach to that of HELCOM and OSPAR, notably through the Integrated Correspondence

Groups of GES and Targets (CORGEST) and the Correspondence Group on Monitoring, (CORMON)

Biodiversity and Fisheries. These recent groups work on issues in line with D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6.

Within the

Black Sea

the policy on biodiversity is outlined in two key legally binding documents: the

Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol 2002 (BSBLCP), which entered into force in

2011, and the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BSSAP, 2009) for environmental protection and

rehabilitation of the Black Sea.

The purpose of the B“BLCP is to

aintain the Black Sea ecosystem in

good ecological state and its landscape in favourable conditions, to protect, to preserve and to

sustainably manage the biological and landscape diversity of the Black Sea in order to enrich the

The HELCOM biodiversity CORESET indicators final report, 2013. An updated list of indicators will be found in the HELCOM

Meeting Portal (https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/STATE-CONSERVATION%202-2015-232/default.aspx) by the end of May

2015.

Decision IG.17/6, Spain, 2008.

iologi al resour es . This

Protocol stipulates a number of regional measures that are consistent with D1

iodi ersity is ai tai ed . To ards this goal, i

, the o tra ti g states shall adopt a list of

species of Black Sea importance that may be threatened or important by reason of their role in

e osyste fu tio i g or other sig ifi a e for the regio . The listed spe ies ill e su je t to spe ial

easures . The regio al states shall adopt a list of

important landscapes and habitats of the Black Sea

that may be threatened of destruction, or important by their nature, cultural or historical value, which

constitute the natural, historical and cultural heritage or present other significance for the Black Sea

regio . I additio to B“BLCP pro isio s, the B““AP deter i es the Co ser atio of Bla k “ea

Biodi ersity a d Ha itats as the se o d of four E osyste

uality o je ti es ECOQOs to ards

achieving the overall long-ter

desired e osyste state alled Visio for the Bla k “ea . A ouple of

sub-objectives are formulated with regards to the native biodiversity: EcoQO 2a- Reduce the risk of

extinction of threatened species and EcoQO 2b- Conserve coastal and marine habitats and landscapes.

The management targets defined to achieve the EcoQOs of BSSAP are conceptually equivalent to the

operatio al targets se su M“FD

for GES achievement.

1.5 Clarification of the relevant scientific, technical and policy terminology in relation to

the descriptor.

The revision of the Common Understanding document is taken forward through the drafting group GES

(WG GES 12/2014)

. The re isio i ludes a e se tio o Basi u dersta di gs , hi h ai s at a

common interpretation of MSFD concepts and terminology. Annex 1 of the document is an expanded

glossary of MSFD terms. The TG1 report provides definition of key terms for Descriptor 1 (see also

section 1.2 of this document) and an analytical glossary of relevant terms to biological diversity and

MSFD implementation. An agreed glossary of terms based on existing practices and documents would

definitively be required to enhance common understanding. Biodiversity glossaries for the MSFD and D1

implementation are also included in documents coming from the RSCs (e.g.

the O“PA‘ s M“FD Ad i e

Manual and Background Document on Biodiversity 2012

, annex 8.2 ),)

a d resear h proje ts

deliverables (e.g. DEVOTES r

ecommendations for the implementation of the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive

, annex

; HA‘MONY s glossary of ter s o

Framework Directive

o ly used i the Mari e “trategy

The GES definition for Descriptor 1 is split into three ecological levels in the Commission Decision (2010)

addressing GES at species, habitat and ecosystem levels. The elements to be addressed under these

KnowSeas, Knowledge-

ased “ustai a le Ma age e t for Europe s

Seas, 2013.

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/d0c8db99-676b-4e79-937f-

4bee634e8daf/GES_12_2014_06_Common_Understanding_final.doc

OSPAR (2012). MSFD Advice Manual and Background Document on Biodiversity. London, Publication Number: 581/2012, 141

pp. (available at: http://www.ospar.org/v_publications/download.asp?v1=p00581)

Patricio et al., 2014. DEVOTES recommendations for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/DEVOTES_Deliverable-1-5.pdf

Andersen, J.H., Hansen, J.W., Mannerla, M., Korpinen, S. & Reker, J. 2013: A glossary of terms commonly used in the Marine

Strategy Framework Directive. Aarhus University, DCE

–

Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, 32 pp. Technical Report

from DCE

–

Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 16. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/TR16.pdf,

three levels should take into account Annex III of the MSFD and be coherent with the requirements laid

down in Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC. The indicative lists of characteristics in Annex III of the

MSFD (Table 1) can however be improved to promote consistency in their use by MS (Patricio et al.,

2014

1.6 Descriptor specificities should be highlighted and justified (e.g. if it is recommended to

combine several descriptors together).

Assessments at ecosystem level can be considered to have links to the assessment of food webs

(Descriptor 4). The assessment of seabed habitats has links to Descriptor 6 on sea-floor integrity and

also to Descriptor 7 (criteria on habitats affected by permanent hydrological changes). The status of

commercial fish and shellfish under Descriptor 3, as

part of fish a d e thi o

u ity s iodi ersity

(but only for commercial species), may have input and linkages to the assessment of fish and seabed

habitats under this descriptor (SWD 2014/49). Descriptor 1 has links to all the pressure-related

descriptors (i.e. Descriptors 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11), due to the range of threats related to it. The

selected elements (species, habitats, functional groups) in D1 should where possible be directly linked

with the pressure descriptors, as the pressures and impacts have to be linked with specific ecosystem

elements, to the extent that current knowledge allows.

Attention should be drawn on the fact that a clear separation between state and pressure descriptors is

somewhat artificial, as the current Commission Decision stands. Several descriptors include both criteria

of state and pressure, and there are even examples of criteria mixing both types of indicators, state and

pressure (Berg et al., 2015

Table 2 presents the overlapping/similar state criteria (or state indicators included in pressure criteria)

and the level of the common assessed elements under those criteria. These overlaps have to be

clarified, either by merging or synchronizing the assessments or by simply eliminating the overlapped

attributes. The review process and the directions given after the cross-cutting workshop

in respect of

the integration of assessments are contributing to tackle the aforementioned issues.

Berg T, Fürhaupter K, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L, Zampoukas N. 2015. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the

ecosystem-based approach - pitfalls and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.050

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/9daafb84-fe4f-42ad-864f-

21b338c8269b/CCWorkshop_Summary%20Notes_20022015_Final.docx

Table 2

. Descriptors sharing common assessment elements, criteria and indicators. The review process

needs to avoid overlaps, streamline the, in any case, artificial distinction of the state descriptors towards

an ecosystem-based management to human activities.

Descriptors

Elements

–>

common lists

Overlapping Criteria

1.1, 1.2 + 4.2 & 1.7 + 4.2

D1, D4 (ecosystem scale) Species,

Functional groups, Ecosystems

D1, D6 (seabed habitats)

D1, D3 (species groups)

Habitats (predominant, special) 1.5, 1.6 + 6.1 & 1.7 + 6.2

Species, Functional groups

1.2 + 3.2 (3.2.2)

1.3 + 3.3

D1, D2 (species groups)

D1, D5 (species groups)

D1, D7 (habitats)

Species

Species, Functional groups

2.1+1.2

1.2 + 5.2 (5.2.3), 5.3 (5.3.1)

Habitats (predominant, special) 1.5, 1.6 + 7.2

Not only the overlaps presented in Table 2, but also the links across the Descriptors' criteria should be

clarified to support a holistic assessment based on the ecosystem approach, which is further discussed

in section 6. Annex V of the SEC 2011/1255 provides a comprehensive basis that links pressure-impact

and state indicators of the COM DEC 2010/477/EU with the MSFD's Annex III (Table 1) attributes. This

table has to be updated accordingly to support the review process and to be in-line with the proposed

changes. At the level of criteria Figure 3 allocates the main pressures (P), to main state elements (S)

through the main impacts criteria. Distinction at criterion level between pressure and state is not so

clear e.g. D6 is more pressure/impact, while 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 need to be clearly related to state components (i.e. at similar

resolution to state elements being assessed).

Physical damage

Ecosystem 1.7, 4.1-4.3

Hydrol-ogical

7.1

Energy, incl. UW

noise

Nutrients

Contam-inants

Litter

Fishing/ by-catch

NIS

6.1

11.1, 11.2

5.1

8.1, 9.1

10.1

3.1

2.1

Birds

Mammals

Reptiles

Fish

Water

Seabed

1.1-1.3

8.2

1.1-1.3

2.2

1.1-1.3

1.4-1.6

5.2, 5.3

1.4-1.6

6.2

7.2

8.2

3.2

3.2, 3.3

10.2

Figure 3:

2010/477/EU Decision criteria allocated to main pressures (P) and main state elements (S)

through the main impacts (modified from the cross-cutting workshop presentation

More effort is needed for the identification of particular impacts on the assessed state elements, which

can be better facilitated at a lower that the criteria level, such as through particular methodological

standards that are able to quantify the level of the impact.

1.7 An analysis of whether the criteria and/or indicators and/or methodological standards

for the particular descriptor are likely to be common across the EU or need aspects to be

specific at region or other scales.

The criteria for D1 -also considering MS reports for 2012 reporting (COM(2014)97; Palialexis et al.

2014

)- have and should have an EU-wide implementation, since they are general enough to cover all

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/b91483a7-e849-4664-b391-

6bb6a667d39e/1501_GES_CCworkshop_Session%202-3.ppt.

Palialexis A., Tornero A. V., Barbone E., Gonzalez D., Hanke G., Cardoso A. C., Hoepffner N., Katsanevakis S., Somma F.,

Zampoukas N., 2014. In-Depth

Assess e t of the EU Me er “tates “u issio s for the Mari e “trategy Fra e ork Dire ti e

biodiversity aspects and there are no particular regional specificities that would require an alternative

approach under another criterion. On the other hand, the elements to be assessed (species, functional

groups, habitats, ecosystems) have a strong regional character and their selection should consider the

existing lists on either EU legislations (e.g. CFP, HD, BD) or RSCs. The list of characteristics in Table 1 of

the Annex III of the MSFD should therefore be revised to set the guidelines and regional requirements in

support of a coherent approach to the selection of such elements across MS (Patricio et al., 2014

). The

use of EU-wide lists, such as EUNIS for habitats classification, and SWD 2011/1255 for functional groups

classification would facilitate a coherent and comparable assessment. RSCs have started working on the

implementation of MSFD criteria and methodological standards, optimizing them on their regional

specificities and taking stock of the work they have previously done on their marine waters. Their

experiences will be used on the generation of basic regional lists of the various components, while

existing lists have to be taken into account. Section 2.3 includes existing lists of species, habitat types

and functional groups that should be considered in the selection of assessment elements, e.g.

representative (sub)regional species and habitat community to be assessed for practical issues

(monitoring, indicators), according to relevant and commonly agreed selection criteria. Further work is

required to reach an agreement on selection and de-selection criteria of elements included in those lists,

as well as generating an EU-wide or regional lists of elements that are already assessed under other

assessment frames (EU legislations, RSCs' agreements).

Functional groups and habitats types (predominant/special/particular) should be the level of agreement

and reporting, and lists of representative species/habitat community should be used as living documents

and tools to enhance cooperation and joint monitoring (e.g. through RSC where works on such lists have

been, and are still, in progress).

1.8 The "climate sensitivity" for D1 (or criteria/indicators)

Descriptor 1 has a high sensitivity to climate change; hence the Annex I descriptor text states that the

quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species should be in line with

the prevailing climatic conditions. Due to climatic changes the prevailing conditions will potentially

change, which can also affect the distribution and ranges of habitats and species as well as other

attributes. Therefore, where biological diversity targets have been set that do not take into account

changing prevailing conditions, some biological diversity objectives might not be achievable in the long

term or should be adapted over time to take into account changing conditions. An explicit analysis on

the effects of climate change on GES determination for D1 is included in Elliott et al. (2015)

Consideration should also be given to the combined effects of changing prevailing conditions and the

effects of human pressures. Climate change in its own right is a pressure and will exacerbate the effects

of other pressures, thus it should be considered when GES boundaries and thresholds are established to

avoid "shifting

aseli es . This

has particular relevance as climate change is regarded as an exogenic

under articles 8, 9 and 10. EUR

–

Scientific and Technical Research series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European

Union. EUR 26473 EN, 149 pp. doi: 10.2788/64014.

Elliott M., A. Borja, A. McQuatters-Gollop, K. Mazik, S. Birchenough, J. H. Andersen, S. Paintin, M. Peck, 2015. Force majeure:

Will climate change affect our ability to attain Good Environmental Status for marine biodiversity? Marine Pollution Bulletin,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.03.015

unmanaged pressure, i.e. operating outside the control of management measures employed in a

regional sea and where the management measures can only address the consequences rather than the

causes (for more details see Patrício et al. 2014

). Making the distinction between changes due to

climatic changes and other pressures is likely to pose a challenge in the delimitation of their synergistic

and cumulative effects. Environmental status should therefore be considered at the slightly broader

level of functional groups of species, functional habitats and their relationships, within which a suitable

degree of fluctuation in species composition and relative abundance can be anticipated (O“PA‘

s ICG-

COBAM Advice Manual

A et ork of refere e populatio

e.g. mobile species) and habitats, along biogeographic gradient in

Europe could be good information to comprehend/estimate effects of climate/global change at wide

scale and help interpretation of other changes at more or less finer scale.

1.9 An indication of whether a quantitative GES definition for the descriptor will be

possible or whether a qualitative/normative definition only should be used (on the basis of

Article 3(5))

It is envisaged that a quantitative definition of GES at the criterion level for each assessment element is

feasible, considering the definitions of FCSs - Favourable Reference Values - provided by the HD.

Generally, a quantitative definition of GES for biological diversity seems to be difficult, considering also

the variety of the assessment elements, which cannot be homogenously captured by a single quantity. A

potential conceptual approach for a quantitative GES can be framed in a way that the resilience of the

ecosystem is suited to accommodate the quantified biodiversity, or in other words, it will be accounted

in the determination of the GES boundaries as the

aturally

allowed deviation from the reference

point. Where GES cannot be quantified it could be at a first step qualitatively defined, notably according

to the actual lacks of knowledge for many species or habitats. For example, benthic habitat condition

could be defined qualitatively (based on species composition and proportions) and the GES/no GES

could be a deviation (qualitative or semi-quantitative-range) around this qualitatively defined reference.

Considering the dynamic ecosystems and the naturally varying environmental conditions GES deemed to

be directly quantified for certain scales, species and habitats. To that end, lists of elements and common

classification systems of elements can facilitate a coherent and comparable quantitative determination

of GES, at least regionally. Qualitative definitions of GES may deviate from FCS provided by HD. There

may be species that are not in FCS for (coastal and/or) marine waters, but they are in FCS on a national

level. In this case the Member State is not obligated to undertake action to change the status in marine

waters (e.g. gulls, terns, waders that are breeding in coastal and further inland habitats)

Patrício J, Teixeira H, Borja A, Elliott M, Berg T, Papadopoulou N, Smith C, Luisetti T, Uusitalo L, Wilson C, Mazik K, Niquil N,

Cochrane S, Andersen JH, Boyes S, Burdon D, Carugati L, Danovaro R, Hoepffner N. 2014. DEVOTES recommendations for the

implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1.5,

71 pp.

DEVOTES project.

JRC92131

http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/publications/p00581/p00581_advice%20document%20d1_d2_d4_d6_biodiversity.pd

2. Analysis of the implementation process

2.1 Based on the Commission/Milieu Article 12 reports and the JRC in-depth assessments,

a detailed summary of the findings of Article 12 relating to the determination of GES and

specifically the use of the Decision criteria and indicators should be made.

All MSs of the four marine regions have defined GES for Descriptor 1 but none have defined it in the

same way (or even similarly); the levels of detail vary enormously, GES definitions are not comparable,

not linked with boundaries and the degree to which GES is achieved is not measurable (COM(2014)97 ;

Palialexis et al. 2014). More than half of the MSs defined GES on the basis of criteria often in agreement

with the Commission Decision specifications, although not all the Commission Decision criteria are

always used. The majority of MSs covered species, habitats and ecosystems but at varying levels of

detail. Habitat criteria (1.4-1.6) are reported less often than species criteria and the ecosystem structure

criterion 1.7 is applied the least (Palialexis et al., 2014

The level of integration between MSFD D1 and other EU legislations (i.e. HD, BD, WFD), other

international agreements (e.g. conventions

–

Bern, CITES, Bonn) and RSC agreements was assessed; it is

characterized by a wide variation (Palialexis et al., 2014). The HD was more often taken into account

compared to other legislations, but the general overview of the level of integration is relatively low,

despite the overlap between MSFD and assessed legislations and agreements and the associated data

availability (Palialexis et al., 2014). Regarding the RSC, the MSs have indicated intention to follow the

corresponding agreements, especially in the RSC that are more advanced in assessing biodiversity.

Palialexis et al. (2014) assessed the coherence of the reported characteristics e.g. list of species,

habitats, ecosystems, functional groups within and between the RSC and against the list in SEC

(2011)1255

. The discrepancy across the reported lists and groups did not allow for conclusive

comparison, increasing the incoherence and inability for adequately assessing GES at any spatial level.

An additional element of complexity in the assessment of the reports is the different allocation of

methodological standards either to an indicator, criterion or descriptor. MSs should, ideally, report GES

at the same level (criterion according to MSFD and COM DEC 477/2010/EU) in order to reduce the

heterogeneity in reporting and the different interpretations of the COM DEC 477/2010/EU amongst the

MSs (Palialexis et al., 2014). The inclusion of generic indicators in the COM DEC 477/2010/EU instead of

specific methodological standards gave room for several interpretations of the criteria and a vast

number of non-comparable methodological standards for D1. The lack of a common list of

Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status. Commission

Staff Working Paper. SEC(2011) 1255 final.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/SEC_2011_1255_F_DTS.pdf

characteristics associated with common GES boundaries hindered the goal established by the MSFD for

comparable and coherent assessment of GES.

Three MSs use functional groups, in addition to species groups, in their GES definition. One MS covers

both cephalopods and reptiles in its GES definition and two MS have included shellfish in the scope of

their GES definition. Seven MS have included a specific reference to listed/protected species and

habitats in their GES definitions. These include species covered by the Habitats and Birds Directives and

species protected by the OSPAR Convention, the Barcelona Convention, the IUCN list of endangered

species and the ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS Agreements. Six MS have defined quantitative threshold

values with their GES definition, but often using different thresholds for different biological features. 3

M“ ha e i luded the otio of restoratio of iodi ersity i their GE“ defi itio . T o Me er “tates

have acknowledged natural/climatic variations and ecosystem dynamics and have not sought a rigid

state for particular biodiversity components. Finally one MS has clearly stated that it will tend towards

achieving FCS for all ecosystem features however its achievement is not considered realistic in the

timeframe of the MSFD.

Species (Criteria 1.1 Species distribution, 1.2 Population size, 1.3 Population condition)

There is a large variation in the approaches to defining GES for species. Some MSs have defined GES

using species groups, functional groups, species with specific life history traits (e.g. long-lived slowly

reproducing), and/or individual species, while others apply GES on species with no further specifications.

A few MSs also refer to protected species; these included references to species covered by the Habitats

and Birds Directives, those protected by the OSPAR convention and IUCN lists of endangered species

and those covered by ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS agreements.

Habitat (Criteria 1.4 Habitat distribution, 1.5 Habitat extent, 1.6 Habitat condition)

The approach to defining GES for habitats is heterogeneous and there is little coherence within regions.

Many MSs are not specific in regards to the habitats covered by the definition, which in most cases

implies that all habitats are covered equally. In a few cases it is clear that only benthic habitats are

covered, thus excluding those of the water column. Less than half of the MSs have included a specific

reference to listed/protected habitats. Some of these references specifically referred to those covered

from the Habitats Directive and/or relevant RSC lists while others referred to protected habitats in

general. A few MSs have included specific habitats in their definition of GES, including protected

habitats. For example, in the Mediterranean three MSs refer specifically to

Posidonia oceanica

sea-grass

habitats. Finally a number of countries also use WFD type specific Good Ecological Status boundaries to

assess GES.

Ecosystem (Criterion 1.7 Ecosystem structure)

Only ten MS have defined GES for Criterion 1.7 either in a way that it covers the whole ecosystem

structure or some specific ecosystem aspects such as the fish community.

For Art.9, the wide variance of the reported approaches for GES determination led to low level of

coherence within each of the four regional seas (COM(2014)97 final). For Art. 8 and regarding the highly

mobile species groups (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, cephalopods) MSs

reports aried, from

species

group assessments to single species. MSs had the option to report species assessments under BD and

HD, in fulfilling also their legal obligation for the MSFD reporting, however this option has just increased

the incoherence in assessing D1 and hindered any effort for comparable assessments.

‘“C s lists of

species are considered by some of their contracted parties. The information available for assessment

appeared to be most readily available for species, and in particular for species specifically listed for

protection, or commercially exploited species. MSs also reported the most frequently associated

pressures on these species groups; in the Baltic these were extraction of species and physical loss of

habitat and in the North East Atlantic and Mediterranean the extraction of species and biological

disturbance (COM(2014)97 final).

2.2 Identification of any questions arising from the application of the current Decision,

including those identified by the Article 12 assessment

The main issues pointed out through the COM Article 12 assessment and the JRC in-depth assessment

are the following:

a. many GES characteristics have not been set in a measurable way, in some cases not going

beyond what Annex I and the GES Decision already describes; and in other cases revealing an

apparent confusion between definition of GES and the setting of targets (MSFD Art. 9 and 10

respectively);

b. a large diversity in understanding and approaches amongst Member States reflecting

differences in the interpretation and application of Article 9;

c. MSs have not built adequately upon other EU legislation and have

adopted a pi k-and- hoose

approach from the work undertaken (and agreed) in the RSCs to which they are Parties.

A common and minimum level of determined characteristics (Art, 9(1)) should be established to ensure

an adequate assessment for biodiversity and comparable and coherent implementation of the MSFD, at

least on regional level, while those lists of characteristics that are already included in other legislations

(e.g. List of habitats and species in HD and BD, CSWD (SEC, 2011)1255 final) must be considered,

recognizing that there may be differences in implementing BHD on national level. MSs should be

encouraged to further support the RSC actions for a harmonized biodiversity assessment on a regional

scale, since there is still room for improving the level of integration in this perspective (COM(2014)97 ;

Palialexis et al. 2014).

Adequacy and coherence for D1 can be improved by following the specifications laid down by the

Habitats and Birds Directives (potentially also the WFD) for an agreed list of species and habitats

covering each Directive (and taking into account Annex III MSFD) that would constitute a consistent

standard for assessments across the biodiversity criteria. The RSCs can play an important role in this

process, since the HD and BD do not have a requirement for regional cooperation (COM(2014)97 ;

Palialexis et al. 2014).

A common concept for defining GES boundary values, which accommodates sustainable use, should be

applied, which should follow the 'acceptable deviation from a reference' approach (if possible) already

encompassed within the standards for the WFD and the Nature Directives. In this common concept

should, however, avoided that this will lead to differences between regional defined GES boundaries

and national objectives of the WFD and Natura Directives.

The definition of GES should clearly address

all

biodiversity components, although its assessment can be

based on selected representative species and habitats (COM(2014)97 final). The specific elements to be

addressed should reflect the differing biodiversity characteristics of each region, but should be selected

in such a way as to maintain consistency within (sub)regions. Regarding predominant seabed habitats,

the determination of GES and its assessment should be fully aligned with that required for Descriptor 6

(with reference to the different substrates of the seabed). For ecosystem-level assessments, the

approaches should be aligned with that required under Descriptor 4 on food webs, aiming to address

the overall balance of components in the ecosystem and their functioning (COM(2014)97 final). This

aligning between D1, D4 and D6 should be also guaranteed by making use of the work of RSCs.

2.3 Relevant data from other sources, specific to every descriptor and recent findings from

MS should also be considered.

Sources to provide information and data for the D1 assessment can include other EU legislation and

agreements, but also e.g. research programmes, monitoring programmes or existing databases. Such

sources can guide the adoption of common methodological standards for MSFD purposes, namely

regarding: 1) data and parameters surveyed or sampled across Europe; 2) lists of relevant species or

groups and lists of habitats, compiled for several purposes; and 3) operational indicators available and in

use within and across marine regions. Below we highlight some of the most relevant sources relevant for

D1.

2.3.1 Sources of monitoring data

The main data source for GES assessment is going to be the national/regional monitoring activities that

MS have to implement for the WFD, HD, BD and MSFD. For the time being MSs' monitoring programmes

reported for the MSFD are under evaluation according to the MSFD Art. 12.

Regional Sea Conventions:

Data and parameters for D1 derived from RSCs are comprehensively listed in the report

De elop e t

of a shared data and information system between the EU and the Regional Sea Conventions

(presented in WG DIKE, CIRCABC) which examines the data and information holdings within each of the

four Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) as well as the European Environment Agency (EEA), with the aim

of characterizing the present data and information holdings and flow processes in place across Europe.

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/aff9880d-df5e-44ec-854e-8f098fcff2e5/DIKE_10-2014-

05b_RSCDataReporting_Report.pdf

This report covers methodological standards, parameters that are linked with criteria and monitoring

programmes.

Most of ‘“Cs do t ha e yet a operatio al i for atio syste to o pile data or

compute indicators at regional scales for most of MSFD issues on Biodiversity (D1, D4 and part of D6).

These standards and further developments should be taken into account and included in this section.

Other sources:

DEVOTES FP7 project has produced an in-depth analysis of marine monitoring networks in Europe

aiming to assess the status of marine biodiversity monitoring for D1, D2, D4 and D6 (Patricio et al.,

2014b)

. The

Catalogue of Monitoring Networks

provides an initial overview of the potential for

effective implementation of the MSFD assessment of GES. This DEVOTES survey has allowed 1) to

critically evaluate the European marine monitoring activities related to biodiversity (i.e. what monitoring

is being currently performed, why it is being performed, which biodiversity descriptors, biological

components and habitats are addressed and to what pressures it is linked); 2) to identify potential gaps

in monitoring based in the information compiled; 3) to identify needs for further development for

marine biodiversity monitoring to improve and optimise the MSFD implementation, and 4) to promote

or foster harmonisation among countries sharing marine regions for joint GES assessments.

The catalogue includes 285 monitoring programmes reported by 15 EU Member States and 14 countries

that share European Regional Sea boundaries. There are details at the European, regional and

subregional sea levels, as well as the four-biodiversity descriptors, 11 biodiversity components, 22

habitats and the 37 pressures addressed. A recent version of this catalogue (June 2014) is publically

available in DEVOTES website

Importantly, the catalogue includes details on key contacts, data sources and timescales for data

collection associated with each monitoring activity. This information should enable MS to optimise their

sampling scheme by collating details on the spatial coverage, measured parameters and sampling

frequency associated with other monitoring programmes, thus producing an optimal sampling design to

complement (rather than duplicate) existing monitoring efforts. Potentially this could also help MS,

through the Regional Sea Conventions, to coordinate their monitoring in terms of timing of their

sampling, the parameters/data being collected and the geographical location, resulting in large,

coordinated datasets for the (sub)regions of each Regional Sea. Hereby, it is important that this

contributes to the implementation of the biodiversity indicators of the RSCs.

2.3.2 Sources for species and habitats lists

MSFD supporting documents:

Patr io J, Little “, Mazik K, Tho so “, )a poukas N, Tei eira H, “olau O, Uyarra MC, Papadopoulou N, Ka oglu G, Bu

as M,

Churilova T, Kryvenko O, Moncheva S, Stefanova K, Borja A, Alvarez M, Zenetos A, Smith C, Zaiko A, Danovaro R, Carugati L,

Elliott M (2014b) Report on SWOT analysis of monitoring. Deliverable 1.4 100pp + 4 Annexes. DEVOTES FP7 Project. JRC89561

http://www.devotes-project.eu/report-on-swot-analysis-of-monitoring/

http://www.devotes-project.eu/devotool/

The SWD 2011/1255 includes lists of predominant habitat types and functional groups that should be

considered by the MS. The categories adopted for habitat types

i this Co

issio s do u e t

ere

agreed so that their use could provide "a

direct link between the habitats assessed under Descriptor 1

and the substrate types to be assessed for Descriptor 6 (indicator 6.1.2

–

different substrate types

affected by physical damage) and to the European EUNIS habitat classification scheme

“WD

2011, p

18).

Other EU pieces of legislation:

Species and habitat types compiled in the framework of the

Habitats and Birds Directives

are available

through the European Nature Information System EUNIS

databases - an additional useful tool to be

take i to o sideratio . The M“FD CI“ do u e t o

Links between MSFD and the Nature Directives

identifies lists of:



Marine species for Article 17 reporting of the HD;

Seabirds and waterbird species for which SPAs should be considered under the Birds Directive

(Annex I and migratory species)

;

Potential overlap between MSFD predominant habitats and habitat types listed in Annex 1 of

the HD and considered 'marine' for Article 17 reporting;

The EUNIS pan-European classification system for habitats that could be the basis for a coherent

assessment across MSFD marine regions. Although, adjustments to the current EUNIS classification

scheme might be needed to better fit the needs of the MSFD assessments (Patricio et al. 2014a)

. The

marine section of EUNIS has been restructured and is expected to become available in 2015.

Under the

Common Fishery Policy

and the Community framework for the collection, management and

use of data in the fisheries sector the Commission Decision 2010/93/EC

in Appendix VII provides a list

of Biological variables with species sampling specification that covers widely marine species and

monitoring parameters that can directly be assessed for the MSFD D1 criteria.

http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/about

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/e67df5e9-21e0-4dbd-9778-

ac4fb08fe1f7/Doc%209%20Links%20MSFD%20HBD%20FAQ.doc

Reference: Table 3: Seabirds and waterbird species for which SPAs should be considered. Guidelines for the establishment of

the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives, Appendix 2: Lists of

existing marine Habitat types and Species for different Member States, European Commission 2007,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm

see discussion in Patricio et al. 2014a, pp 4-9

http://datacollection.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=296dffd3-9c81-4759-b691-

9b1654ea66b9&groupId=10213

Non-Indigenous Species (NIS) are part of the ecosystems and habitats and as such have to be considered

and assessed. NIS inventories, such as the

European Alien Species Information Network

(EASIN

) can

be the basis to provide information on the presence/distribution of NIS in particular ecosystems and

habitats.

Other international initiatives:

The

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

is widely recognized as the most comprehensive, objective

global approach for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species and can provides a

source of marine threatened species in the European waters. However, it should be recognized that the

MSFD aims at achieving a GES and is not focused on protection of individual species. In other words,

selected rare species (e.g. Roseate Tern) should in general not be used to indicate the environmental

status. Species protection should be done through the nature directives.

Other databases:

DEVOTES FP7 Project listed the potential European Keystone Species (Smith

et al.,

2014) and listed also

indicator species, taxa or groups frequently included in indicators (Teixeira

et al.,

2014). This information

is available through two catalogues that can support MS during the MSFD implementation process. The

catalogues potential application in the context of supporting the selection of relevant biological features

is explained below. We highlight, however, that these catalogues cannot replace or overcome the lack of

clear and agreed general guidance on how to select biological features by MS.

The

DEVOTES Catalogue of Indicators

(Teixeira et al. 2014

; freely available as software

DEVOTool

)

includes so far 557 indicator entries with respective metadata information, including the biodiversity

components (sensu SWD, 2011) to which the indicators apply or focus on. This catalogue provides a

good insight into the most relevant biological features usually considered in marine biodiversity

assessments. The catalogues show that most of the indicators available have been developed specifically

for assessing state change of biodiversity components, subcomponents or specific taxa (using categories

for biological features as indicated in Table 1 of Annex III MSFD and in SWD 2011). However, some

indicators have defined groups independently of biodiversity components, such as functional groups,

keystone species or non-indigenous species. The later categories reflect more closely those considered

in some of the Commission Decision criteria (e.g. of indicators reported in the catalogue:

A u da e of

fu tio al groups , Nu er of io eonosis/facies or ‘ate of e i trodu tio of o

-indigenous

spe ies per defi ed period .

The information in this catalogue can facilitate knowledge transfer across

countries and marine regions. It can be used e.g. to identify operational indicators within neighbouring

http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Teixeira

et al.,

2014. Existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species, food-web and seafloor integrity GEnS indicators.DEVOTES

FP7 Project; 2014. JRC89170. DEVOTES public Deliverable 3.1 http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2014/02/D3-1_Existing-biodiversity-indicators.pdf

http://www.devotes-project.eu/devotool/

countries that focus on the same biodiversity components, enhancing comparability and broader scale

assessments of relevant species or groups of species within marine regions. It can also highlight

indicators that could be potentially adapted to other areas or applied at a higher EU scale, for example,

by identifying relevant species or groups of species widely surveyed by all MS.

The

DEVOTES Catalogue of Keystone species

and associated report is a review of potential keystones

species in European marine habitats (Smith et al. 2014

). The catalogue includes 210 distinct species

and 19 groups classified by major habitat in the EU Regional Seas and the Norwegian Sea. The keystones

in the catalogue are identified from several sources, such as published work, expert opinion and models

high keysto e ess i de alues i E opath ith E osi

odels . The keysto e spe ies origi ate fro a

wide range of faunal/floral groups and trophic levels and many are invasive species. Gaps exist partially

from a lack of expertise in specific areas (for certain groups or certain habitats), but also from the very

limited information available on keystone species in general.

Although the scientific community is aware that important difficulties remain in the definition of

keystone species (Smith et al. 2014), for example, at what point does a species become keystone?, are

keystone species promoters or reducers (through primary or secondary impacts)?, can a prey species be

a keystone?, can a keystone species be a species group (e.g. a genus, a family), functional group or even

a habitat? and what is the scale (primarily spatial but also temporal) that the keystone works over?;

many of these species are already considered to some extent as key/important species, and DEVOTES

noted an overlap between species included in the indicator and keystone catalogues. Also a number of

keystone species were reported in the MS Initial Assessments. Specifically for keystone habitat species,

many operational indicators already exist (Teixeira et al. 2014) and have long been applied in the

context of environmental assessment and conservation initiatives such that these species can be tracked

as indicators for GES. These indicators are, however, mostly structural indicators that provide little

information on the interaction or the role of the species in the ecosystem. DEVOTES discussed the

possibility of using keystone species as indicators in monitoring programmes and suggested that

keystone can provide relevant information for the future consequences of environmental changes in the

entire ecosystem (Smith et al. 2014). In supporting the MSFD functional approach, the Catalogue of

Keystone Species promotes keystone functional groups where a group of species/taxa may have a

keystone function, for example, rich coralligenous communities or mixed coral and sponge fields. This

catalogue can be used to help select relevant biological features for assessment.

2.3.3 Sources of indicators

Regional Sea Conventions:

Smith C, Papadopoulou N, Sevastou K, Franco A, Teixeira H, Piroddi C, Katsanevakis S, Furhaupter K, Beauchard O, Cochrane

S, Ramsvatn S, Feral J, Chenuil A, David R, Kiriakopoulou N, Zaiko A, Moncheva S, Stefanova K, Churilova T, Kryvenko O (2014)

Report on the identification of keystone species and processes across regional seas. Deliverable 6.1 105pp + 1 Annex. Devotes

FP7 Project. JRC91370 http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DEVOTES-D6-1-Keystones.pdf

Core and candidate indicators for D1 derived from RSCs are comprehensively listed in the report

De elop e t of a shared data a d i for atio syste

et ee the EU a d the ‘egio al “ea

Conventions

prese ted i WG DIKE, CI‘CABC

. Links of these indicators with monitoring frameworks

and technical specifications are also provided.

Other databases:

DEVOTES has compiled two databases as an inventory of existing methods to support the choice of

methodological standards in the scope of the MSFD. These scientific indicators are potential tools that

can be used to assess the environmental status of European seas within the MSFD. The list of available

indicators and indices potentially valuable for the implementation of the four biodiversity related

descriptors, including D1 Biological Diversity, can be found in the

DEVOTES Catalogue of Indicators

(Teixeira et al. 2014; freely available as software

DEVOTool

) and in the

Catalogue of Model-derived

Indicators

(Piroddi et al. in prep). The DEVOTool software allows navigating a database of indicators of

marine biodiversity, within all European Regional Seas but also from other seas. Currently, the catalogue

includes 557 entries (version 6) which have been collected from Member States, Regional Sea

Conventions and scientific literature. One of the aims of the catalogue is to foster transfer of know-how

across countries and marine regions, so that indicators operational in one area could be potentially

adapted to other areas and used in the environmental assessment. The catalogue contains information

on metadata ranging from indicator descriptions, data requirements, developmental status, reference

values and quality thresholds, to geographical coverage and applicable habitats, biodiversity

components and related human pressures.

Specifically for D1, a search in the DEVOTool Catalogue of Indicators showed that, except for indicator

. . Populatio ge eti stru ture , all other riteria a d asso iated i di ators ould e addressed y at

least 30 operational indicators. The Catalogue of Model-derived Indicators (Piroddi et al. in prep) also

revealed that, except also for indicator 1.3.2, all D1 criteria and associated indicators could potentially

be addressed by existing modelling approaches.

2.4 Good examples and approaches applied by MS, especially if used by multiple Member

States, and shortcomings should be listed systematically.

RSCs are developing initiatives towards common monitoring and assessment on a regional scale. For

example, OSPAR ICG COBAM is working on assessments for indicators on a (sub)regional scale. ICG

COBAM has set up seven expert groups on the relevant biodiversity elements (e.g. birds, mammals,

benthic habitats, etc). Over 100 experts in ten Member States are involved in this work. The HELCOM

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/aff9880d-df5e-44ec-854e-8f098fcff2e5/DIKE_10-2014-

05b_RSCDataReporting_Report.pdf

CORESET is also considered as a good example. The ECAP process in the Barcelona convention has also

created and expert group on biodiversity and fisheries, for the development of the monitoring and

assessment guidance, to make operational the biodiversity indicators that were approved in the COP

meeting in Istanbul (2015). Within Member States it is good to gather all national experts concerned

with MSFD in working groups to achieve coherence across ecosystem components, criteria and

descriptors. Expert consultation is critical for policy decisions.

2.5 Differences and similarities between regions.

Flora and fauna change enormously not only due to the latitudinal gradient

but also within areas in the

same latitude. These changes are mainly driven by the different local water mass characteristics and

other factors such as human activities.

3. Analysis of the current text of the Decision

3.1 Analysis of the current text of the Decision, identifying in particular those parts which

are best placed in guidance, those parts which are interpretative or explicative information

and those parts which need to be kept in the Decision in accordance with the mandate

provided by the Directive

In Part B of the Commission Decision, the first paragraph as well as the paragraphs introducing the

criteria and standards for the species and habitats level could be considered for integration within the

criteria and standards as they relate to the definition of the scope of these criteria (in terms of the

biological features to consider for D1). The assessment criteria and methodological standards associated

to the legislative instruments listed in point 2 of Part A, which are relevant for biological diversity,

should also be considered for potential input in the criteria and standards for clarification or instead

include reference to the relevant document where these are established. It should be noted that similar

information about the scope of the criteria has not been included for criterion 1.7.

The paragraphs below in copy from the Commission Decision include a proposal for changes.

Assessment is required at several ecological levels: ecosystems, habitats (including their associated

communities, in the sense of biotopes) and species, which are reflected in the structure of this section,

taking into account point 2 of Part A. For certain aspects of this descriptor, additional scientific and

technical support is required ( 5 ). To address the broad scope of the descriptor, it is necessary, having

Fisher, J., Frank, K. T., and Leggett, W. C. 2010. Global variation in marine fish body size and its role in biodiversity–ecosystem

functioning. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 405: 1–13

regard to Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD), to prioritise among biodiversity features at the level

of species, habitats and ecosystems. This enables the identification of those biological features and

those areas where impacts and threats arise and also supports the identification of appropriate

indicators among the selected criteria, adequate to the areas and the features concerned (6). The

obligation of regional cooperation contained in Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD) is

directly relevant to the process of selection of biological features within regions, sub-regions and

subdivisions, including for the establishment, where appropriate, of reference conditions pursuant to

Annex IV to Directive 2008/56/EC. Modelling using a geographic information system platform may

provide a useful basis for mapping a range of biodiversity features and human activities and their

pressures, provided that any errors involved are properly assessed and described when applying the

results. This type of data is a prerequisite for ecosystem-based management of human activities and for

developing related spatial tools ( 7 ). Assessment methods and standards, to address each criterion

should reflect the actual knowledge, and should evolve according to scientific and technical

improvements.

Species Level

For ea h regio , su

-region or subdivision, taking into account the different species and communities

(e.g. for phyto-plankton and zooplankton) contained in the indicative list in Table 1 of Annex III to

Directive 2008/56/EC, it is necessary to assess all functional groups (SWD 2011) by a selection of

representative sets of species or population to cover actual MSFD requirements, having regard to point

2 of Part A

of the COM De

/EU. The ide tifi atio of the rele a t spe ies should e ased

on harmonized methodology applied to a common agreed list of species or group of species, in

accordance to other EU legislations and RSCs agreements.

The three criteria for the assessment of any

species are species distribution, population size and population condition. As to the later, there are

cases where it also entails an understanding of population health and inter- and intra-specific

relationships. It is also necessary to assess separately subspecies and populations where the initial

assessment, or new information available, identifies impacts and potential threats to the status of some

of them. The assessment of species also requires an integrated understanding of the distribution, extent

and condition of their habitats, coherent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC ( 8 )

and Directive 2009/147/EC, to make sure that there is a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its

population, taking into consideration any threat of deterioration or loss of such habitats. In relation to

biological diversity at the level of species, the three criteria for assessing progress towards good

environmental status, as well as the indicators methodological standards related respectively to them,

are the following:...

Habitat level

Functional groups and rules to select species/populations should be discussed, agreed and described here.

For the purpose of Dire ti e

/ /EC, the ter ha itat addresses oth the a ioti hara teristi s

and the associated biological community, treating both elements together in the sense of the term

biotope.

For each region, sub-region or subdivision, taking into account the different habitats types

contained in the indicative list in Table 1 of Annex III to Directive 2008/56/EC, it is necessary to assess all

habitat types, by a selection of representative habitats, to cover the MSFD requirements. A set of

habitat types needs to be drawn up for each region, sub-region or subdivision, taking into account the

different habitats contained in the indicative list in Table 1 of Annex III and having regard to the

instruments mentioned in point 2 of Part A.

Such instruments also refer to a number of habitat

complexes (which means assessing, where appropriate, the composition, extent and relative

proportions of habitats within such complexes) and to functional habitats (such as spawning, breeding

and feeding areas and migration routes). Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine

habitats, supported by adequate mapping, are essential for assessment at habitat level, taking also into

account variations along the gradient of distance from the coast and depth (e.g. coastal, shelf and deep

sea). The three criteria for the assessment of habitats are their distribution, extent and condition (for

the latter, in particular the condition of typical species and communities), accompanied with the

indicators related respectively to them. The assessment of habitat condition requires an integrated

understanding of the status of associated communities and species, coherent with the requirements laid

down in Directive 92/43/EEC ( 9 ) and Directive 2009/147/EC, including where appropriate an

assessment of their functional traits. In relation to biological diversity at the level of habitats, the criteria

for assessing progress towards good environmental status, as well as the methodological standards

related respe ti ely to the , are the follo i g:

Ecosystem level

[This

level might change after adopting the proposals in chapter 5]

In addition, the interactions between the structural components of the ecosystem are fundamental for

assessing ecosystem processes and functions for the purpose of the overall determination of good

environmental status, having regard, inter alia, to Articles 1, 3(5) and 9(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC.

Other functional aspects addressed through other descriptors of good environmental status (such as

descriptors 4 and 6), as well as connectivity and resilience considerations, are also important for

addressing ecosystem processes and functions.

[Need to be updated after defining and agreeing on the

content of the current 1.7 criterion and on the integration approach amongst the state descriptors].

3.2 Identification of needs for guidance

To summarize the previous conclusions guidelines are needed on the following issues for supporting the

scope of the review process and of the overall MSFD implementation:

Predominant habitats

(e.g. level EUNIS 3-4)

and rules to select habitats (community level,

e.g. level EUNIS 5-6)

should be

discussed, agreed and described here



How the habitat assessment criteria should be related to the species criteria. The Commission

De isio

e tio s, i relatio to the spe ies le el, the eed for

an integrated understanding of

the distri utio , e te t a d o ditio of their ha itats ; ho e er, ha itat assess e t riteria

are

not clearly related to the species criteria. Whilst there is some consideration of species level

within the habitat level (criterion 1.6), the two assessments are likely to be carried out by

different people which may make cross-over problematic. It either needs to be made clearer

that the two needs to be supplementary assessed, or there needs to be some replication to

ensure that habitat types are adequately linked to species, where possible, according to the

MSFD objectives. On the other hand species should be assessed in association with particular

habitats

–essential

species habitats- related with their GES status (spawning, nursery, feeding

grounds).

How the assessment at the ecosystem level should be done, including how to handle the

connections with other descriptors (e.g. D3, D4, D5, D6). The assessments for MSFD

Article 12

showed that Member States used criterion 1.

e osyste stru ture the least. Clarifi atio is

needed as to what is an ecosystem as an assessment unit for the MSFD and what should be the

content of 1.7. To this end the ecosystem approach to management has to be interpreted and

raised at the level of state Descriptors

–including

the current state criteria and indicators from

all Descriptors-that would come through an efficient integration amongst them.

How to adopt existing habitat classification systems for MSFD purposes.

The EEA s EUNI“ ha itat

classification system for the marine environment is currently being revised. It would be sensible

if there is some cross-over between the Commission Decision and EUNIS revisions to allow

comparisons and exchange of data to ensure that MSFD predominant habitat types equate

clearly to EUNIS types. The issue will be to specify the need to use EUNIS and the resolution of

the habitat types to be assessed (i.e. the predominant types).

Need also to e uate the differe t

su strate types of D to D predo i a t ha itats.

3.3 An analysis of what to keep should take place, including specification on what may be

out dated or may need to be aligned with other or new legislation, etc.

The review of the current Commission Decision (and associated methodological standards), which is

foreseen in its paragraph 4, would guarantee the exploitation and adoption of the scientific knowledge,

technical improvements and evolution in environmental management. Examples, criteria and selecting

or deselecting methods of assessment elements (species, habitats, and functional groups) should be

specified to improve the clarity and coherence of the Com Dec 2010/477/EU.

Specifications on the integration of the state descriptors and their links with the impact and pressure

aspects of the others should be included in the decision, aiming to streamline the assessment across the

descriptors. The state-impact-pressure definition of the criteria in the revised COM Decisions can be

linked with the targets to enhance the associations and clarity amongst articles 8, 9 and 10 of the MSFD.

Additionally, guidelines on the exploitation of existing legislations (mostly HD and BD for D1) and

convergence of their status classifications can improve the implementation of the MSFD, avoiding

double assessments and leading to a cost-effective and simpler implementation.

4. Identification of issues

4.1 Main findings and information that will be used in the next step of the revision process.

The recent MSFD assessment carried out in relation to Article 12 concluded the following:



Low integration with the WFD and BD, relatively good integration with the HD.

MSs can exploit

methods, data and characteristics derived from other legislations more efficiently

(see Evans

and Arvela, 2011 for HD

). Besides, MSFD has specific issues. Optimisation in monitoring

(methods and spatial/temporal designs) and data management should be enhanced, but some

aspects are new in MSFD and require additional specific and coherent assessments. This can be

reflected in the GES determination and in the computation of statistical indicators (optimized

common data and additional ones), which can lead to (slightly) different threshold and targets

(and characteristics).

Low/Moderate integration with the RSC. An

active involvement of the MSs on regional level is

required

for the establishment of coherent and comparable approaches to the assessment. This

could be feasible after establishing coherent objectives and assessments between MSFD-RSC-

WFD and other relevant legislations

Assessing biodiversity (from species to ecosystems) should

ensure a coherent list of

characteristics (species, habitats and ecosystems levels)

highlighting characteristic common for

neighbouring MS.

Reduction of the heterogeneity in the definition of GES both at European level and at regional

level.

MSFD terminology should be clarified and commonly interpreted.

GES should be defined

on a criterion level and criteria should be quantifiable and linked with specific methodological

standards and boundaries to provide measurable, comparable and operational GES definitions.

Gap in biodiversity knowledge was reported by most of the MSs. Bilateral and regional

cooperation through RSCs should be encouraged to set a more comprehensive background on

biodiversity, taking into account the environmental similarities. Scientific and pilot projects at

regional and sub-regional level could facilitate this issue.

High heterogeneity in the number and type of methodological approaches, thresholds and limits

in MS reports has been observed.

Common agreed and comparable (pragmatic and fully

operational) methodological standards and relevant boundaries on a regional or EU scale

should be established. The most frequently used methods could be the starting point for

defining a coherent list of methodological approaches. Besides, it should be kept in mind that

most frequently used methods are used for specific issues (and scales). (Sub)regional



Evans D. and M. Arvela (2011): Assessment and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive. Explanatory Notes &

Guidelines for the period 2007-2012. ETC, Paris



specificities may also require adaptation of possible methods (e.g. observation by imagery or

divers depends of water clarity). Finally, some new issues (and/or cost-efficiency) require new

methods or adaptation of existing one, and should take into account (and facilitate) scientific

and technical Research & Developments (e.g. molecular tools for systematic, applied to Non

indigenous species detection).

Specific issues include

the risk of double counting

(Teixeira

et al.

2014

), i.e. the accounting of

the same ecosystem feature in different contexts

within and across descriptors.

This needs to

be considered in a subsequent step of the process.

Ecosystem is ambiguous, as much as criterion 1.7. According to the apparent increasing

biological level, this criterion should assess biodiversity and functional links between previous

levels: (mobile) species and habitats. Function can be trophic but also connectivity (notably

et ee spe ies ha itats

sensus

HD and implied under Decision indicator D7.2.2) or material

flow (e.g. calcareous).

Recommendations (from Berg

et al.

2015

): The Berg

et al.

(2015) manuscript from DEVOTES public

Deliverable 3.1 provides specific evidence that can complement and support many of the findings of the

-depth

Assess e t Paliale is

et al.,

2014)

Clearly defi e ter s a d use the

o siste tly .

An updated Common Understanding

document will highly contribute to that end.

I this ase,

area’

is only meaningful for immobile

components and mainly associated to the habitat level and as such it is covered in the Decision

by parameter 1.5.1 (Habitat area). This would lead resolving the issue of the ambiguous use of

the ter

distri utio ’

et ee spe ies a d ha itat le el ;

Criteria of Des riptor should e spe ified

following an approach to avoid overlaps and

guidelines should be provided along with the criteria. It could be suggested that the

species

level

criteria (1.1-1.3) are used only on mobile species that are wide-ranging and typically not

associated to a single habitat, as already suggested by (Cochrane

et al.,

2010

), and the habitat

level criteria (1.4–1.6) would be used for the (often immobile) components tightly associated to

a si gle or a fe related ha itats .

“i e the ter ha itat is used i the se se of iotope

(Olenin and Ducrotoy, 2006) in

Commission Decision, criteria 1.4–1.6 would assess the combination of the physical habitat and

its associated communities. As such

Ha itat e te t

should relate to the whole community [and

its abiotic characteristics]. Some habitats (e.g. biogenic reefs as seagrasses,

Sabellaria

reefs,

Teixeira

et al.,

2014. Existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species, food-web and seafloor integrity GEnS indicators.DEVOTES

FP7

Project;

2014.

JRC89170.

DEVOTES

public

Deliverable

3.1

http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2014/02/D3-1_Existing-biodiversity-indicators.pdf

Berg T, Fürhaupter K, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L, Zampoukas N. 2015. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the

ecosystem-based approach - pitfalls and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.050

Cochrane S.K.J., D.W. Connor, P. Nilsson, I. Mitchell, J. Reker, J. Franco, V. Valavanis, S. Moncheva, J. Ekebom, K. Nygaard, R.

Serrão Santos, I. Narberhaus, T. Packeiser, W. van de Bund & A.C. Cardoso, 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task

Group 1 Report Biological diversity EUR 24337 EN

–

2010. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/1-Task-group-1-

Report-on-Biological-Diversity.pdf

oyster beds,

Crepidula

a ks, et .

ay re uire a assess e t at this e gi eeri g spe ies

level, as this structures the whole habitat (abiotic and biotic structure). Also, this would result in

re o i g para eter . . o pletely si e it is superfluous u der this defi itio .

d) A clear differentiation is needed on which aspects are assessed within descriptors 1, 4 and 6

respectively in order to avoid

double counting (over-weighting of assessments) across

descriptors.

The riteria/i di ators i other des riptors o tri uti g to a risk of

double

counting

are:



(in relation to D4 Food web)

4.3 Abundance/distribution of key trophic

groups/species / 4.3.1 Abundance trends of functionally important selected

groups/species;

The assess e t of a u da e/area of key trophi groups like ha itat-defining

species may not have a

high i di ator alue for D food e si e it does ot target the pro esses a d li kages ithi a d

between the food webs but is restricted to the state of a particular node of that web, much like the

i di ators already i pla e for Des riptor .



(in relation to D6 Sea floor integrity)

6.2 Condition of benthic community / 6.2.2

Multi-metric indexes assessing benthic community condition and functionality;

There is a high opportunity

that i di ators addressi g riterio . Co ditio of e thi o

u ity

are also used under criterion 1.6 Habitat condition / 1.6.1 Condition of the typical species and

communities of Descriptor 1, because the benthic communities are also regarded as being the biotic

o po e ts of e thi ha itats .

e) It is recommended to integrate all criteria and parameters relating to condition or state of the

benthic communities and species functionally important groups into the habitat level of D1 (this

was a common approach across MSs for the Art. 8 assessments in the first phase of the MSFD

implementation). Alternatively, the scope and aim of each criterion should be re-defined in

order to reflect the specificities in relation to each descriptor.

RSCs have gathered, and are still gathering, various practical experiences in developing, testing,

assessing and implementing biodiversity indicators, e.g. data flows (access to governmental

private owned data), reporting, gap analysis, practical (e.g. division of tasks amongst Member

States, financial consequences), etc. It is recommended to use these practical experiences.

5. GES criteria (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

5.1 Conclude on the use of the existing Decision criteria and indicators, in the light of the

"refined" common understanding, the findings of the Article 12 assessment and relevant

international, EU and RSC legislation and approaches.

Clarification of the GES concept:



D1 covers all biodiversity

–

how to handle this in practice (currently via functional groups and

predominant habitat types) needs to be clearer. The lists of functional groups and predominant

habitats in SWD 2011 aim to cover all biodiversity, but would benefit from review to ensure they

are a suitable practical set. Define which (sets of) species should be assessed to represent each

group (including also threatened/sensitive species or groups).

Key terms and concepts (e.g. links across the state descriptors, aggregation of descriptors to the

overall-ecosystem assessment, etc) used in GES definitions are often insufficiently clear so

guidelines and agreements are needed for the specification of their exact meaning.



Regional coherence:



Guidelines specifying the EU desired level of ambition could be necessary to ensure that

implementation requires a comparable level of GES adequacy while taking into account regional

and sub-regional differences. The aim should be an EU coherence on the assessment criteria,

high level thresholds and baselines, whilst expecting the specific species/habitats/values to be

defined at regional -through RSCs- (or national) level to reflect ecological variation and also the

species and habitats that are most suitable to assess considering the differences in pressures.

Within and across the RSCs (in particular HELCOM and OSPAR), the work to develop and agree

upon a core set of indicators is currently on-going, increasing coherence within these regions,

especially on setting boundaries for GES.

Criteria

–

HBD, RSCs, European Red List assessments (on-going)

–

can be broadly aligned

–

centred on quantity and quality. These criteria for habitats and the Member States obligation to

monitor and report, should be aligned between neighbouring Member States and if possible

standardised to be coherent and comparable. Quantifying attributes for species and habitats

can be costly and technically difficult, this need however to be considered when designing the

protected areas network and monitoring. However patterns can be determined/modelled on

the basis of presence data.



5.2 Recommendation on which criteria to retain, which to amend and any to remove

Species Level

Biodiversity component and species groups to be considered, at species biological level, are listed in

Table 3 (from SEC 2011/1255).

Table 3:

Functional groups of highly mobile and widely dispersed species of marine birds, mammals,

reptiles, fish and cephalopods (Table 3 of SEC(2011)1255).

Biodiversity components Species group

Birds

Intertidal benthic-feeding birds

Inshore surface-feeding birds

Inshore pelagic-feeding birds

Inshore benthic-feeding birds

Inshore herbivorous-feeding birds

Offshore surface-feeding birds

Offshore pelagic-feeding birds

Ice-associated birds

Toothed whales

Baleen whales

Seals

Ice-associated mammals

Turtles

Diadromous fish

Coastal fish

Pelagic fish

Pelagic elasmobranchs

Demersal fish

Demersal elasmobranchs

Deep-sea fish

Deep-sea elasmobranchs

Ice-associated fish

Coastal/shelf pelagic cephalopods

Deep-sea pelagic cephalopods

Mammals

Reptiles

Fish

Cephalopods

These elements should be defined and be in line with all Descriptors and criteria implying assessment of

state or impacts on species (cf. 1.6). These elements have to be updated after the review process and be

harmonised with potential changes in the content of afore-mentioned Descriptors, criteria and

indicators. Standards for inclusion or exclusion of assessment elements for the needs of the MSFD

should be developed in accordance to HD criteria (Appendix III of the HD).

Relevant species allocated to the species groups and functional groups of SWD 2011/1255 Table 3

include,

interalia:

a) species listed under EU Directives and international agreements

;

For an indicative list of elements see:Tables in page 23 of the following LIFE III document:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/appendix_4_life.pdf

& Annexes in the N. Zampoukas, A.

Palialexis, A. Duffek, J. Graveland, G. Giorgi, C. Hagebro, G. Hanke, S. Korpinen, M. Tasker, V. Tornero, V. Abaza, P. Battaglia, M.

Caparis, R. Dekeling, M. Frias Vega, M. Haarich, S. Katsanevakis, H. Klein, W. Krzyminski, M. Laamanen, J.C. Le Gac, J.M.

Leppanen, U. Lips, T. Maes, E. Magaletti, S. Malcolm, J.M. Marques, O. Mihail, R. Moxon, C. O'Brien, P. Panagiotidis, M. Penna,

C. Piroddi, W.N. Probst, S. Raicevich, B. Trabucco, L. Tunesi, S. van der Graaf, A. Weiss, A.S. Wernersson, W. Zevenboom, (2014).

Technical guidance on monitoring for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. EUR

–

Scientific and Technical Research series.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 166pp, doi: 10.2788/70344.

b) Key species (as representatives of key structural components or functions of the ecosystem);

c) commercially exploited species (in relation to Descriptor 3);

d) genetically distinct forms of indigenous species;

e) non-indigenous species, particularly those which are invasive.

The RSCs can play herein an important role by defining the species to be assessed on the level of region

or subregion. Species with populations that are well-characterized by survey data should be highly

considered in this process.

Section 2.3 refers to lists of marine species that are included in other legislations. Their assessments has

to be adapted to the MSFD D1 assessment.

1.1. Species distribution geographic distribution

GES determination: species geographic distribution should be in line with the assessments conducted for

the HD, BD and RSCs agreements and not deteriorated significantly by human activities. For species

distribution where specific thresholds have been set, these should be considered (e.g. a threshold of Y%

of natural range).

GES for the listed species in HD can be assessed based on similar criteria as for the

fa oura le

o ser atio status

assessment defined by the Habitats Directive and discussed in section 1.3

. In

addition to typical and endangered species, GES is required for the commercially-exploited species

addressed by the Common Fisheries Policy (EC 2008b); the criteria and indicators for healthy

commercial stocks are detailed in Descriptor 3.

The methodological standards to support criterion 1.1 could derive (to include) the approach from the

HD, which follows. The conservation status for the species (Directive provisions, Art. 1) will be taken as

'favourable' when (the second bullet is relevant to MSFD criterion 1.1):

•

population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a

long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats, and

the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the

foreseeable future, and

there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations

on a long-term basis;

It should be noted that qualitative definitions of GES may deviate from FSCs provided by HD. There may be species that are

not in FCS for (coastal and/or) marine waters, but they are in FSC on a national level. In this case the Member State is not

obligated to undertake action to change the status in marine waters (e.g. gulls, terns, waders that are breeding in coastal and

further inland habitats). Further, differences have to be avoided between regional defined GES boundaries and national

objectives of the WFD and Natura Directives.

Proposed methodological standards could include:



distributional range

distributional pattern, where relevant

area covered by species, where relevant

species distribution models

…

Depending on the species and the monitoring programmes several types of data can be generated

including occurrence data, presence-absence data and abundance per sampling station. Species

distribution models are able to link species distributions with preferable environmental conditions

bridging this criterion to the habitat condition criterion (1.6), in line also with the HD criterion for natural

habitats and the conservation status of its typical species (Directives provisions, Art.1). RSCs should play

an important role in coordinating these monitoring programmes and modelling.

The most common methodological standards reported for D 1.1 according to Palialexis et al. (2014)

were:



Location and distribution of species or species groups

Distributional range of species or species groups

Area covered by species or species groups

These were reported for specific species or species groups.

Boundaries associated with these methodological standards and links with GES:

GES boundaries for species geographic distribution should be in line with boundaries defined for other

legislations and agreements and in line with the GES determination. Due to the variety of elements-

species only general rules for GES boundaries can be defined according to the Common Understanding

document and the cross-cutting workshop conclusions. Species distribution subjects to natural

processes (e.g. intra-, inter-species competition) that cannot always be distinguished from the effects of

anthropogenic activities hindering any attempt to include deterioration of species distribution into the

general GES definition or into boundaries. Endangered and vulnerable species, though, should be

treated more strictly, if is needed to be included in the assessment, due to their direct threat. A similar

approach should also be applied for relevant habitats. For such elements it is suggested to include the

maintenance of distributional range in their GES assessment. In any case, endangered and vulnerable

species are assessed by the nature Directives.

Distributional range (1.1.1)

Distributional pattern within the latter, where appropriate (1.1.2)

Area covered by the species (for sessile/benthic species) (1.1.3)

1.2. Population size

GES determination: species population abundance and/or biomass should be in line with the

assessments conducted for the HD, BD and RSCs agreements and not be deteriorated significantly by

human activities. Where abundance and/or biomass specific thresholds have been or can be set, these

should be considered.

Methodological standards:

In line with criterion 1.1, the methodological standards to support criterion 1.2 could derive (to include)

the approach from the HD, as is presented above.

Proposed methodological standards could include:

Population abundance and/or biomass, as appropriate

The Data Collection Framework of the Common Fisheries Policy provides data for the assessment of

biomass and abundance for a number of marine species (see also section 2.3).

The most common methodological standards reported for D 1.2 according to Palialexis et al. (2014)

were:



Size (biomass, number, coverage) of the population of individual species or species groups

Boundaries associated with these methodological standards and links with GES:

GES boundaries for population size should be in line with boundaries defined for other legislations and

agreements and in line with the GES determination. Due to the variety of elements-species only general

rules for GES boundaries can be defined according to the Common Understanding document and the

cross-cutting workshop conclusions.

Good practices for GES determination for 1.2: A MS for MSFD Art. 9 determined GES considering existing

assessments: "Good conditions according to the Water Framework Directive (i.e. good ecological status),

Habitats and Birds Directives (i.e. favourable conservation status) and OSPAR (i.e. ecological quality

objectives) are attained. Rare and threatened habitat types and species, included in existing legislation

and conventions, are protected to the level envisaged by that legislation or convention". Another good

practice for a quantitative determination of GES coming from the 2012 reporting includes: "GES is

achieved when values of abundance and biomass in the assessment area of the species X, Y and Z, which

have been selected as suitable indicators for the status of coastal fish communities, are equal to or

exceed the threshold value (quantitatively expressed)".

1.3. Population condition

GES determination: species population condition should be in line with the assessments conducted for

the HD, BD and RSCs agreements and not be significantly and adversely affected by human activities. The

population's structure and health status can safeguard reproduction and genetic variation to such an

extent that the viability of the population can be maintained.

Methodological standards:

—

Population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity

rates, survival/ mortality rates)

—

Population genetic structure, where appropriate

Proposed methodological standards:



Productivity

survival rate,

breeding success

............

The most common methodological standards reported for D 1.2 according to Palialexis et al. (2014)

were:



Productivity

survival rate,

breeding success

genetic structure of the population



Boundaries associated with these methodological standards and links with GES:

GES boundaries for species population conditions should be in line with boundaries defined for other

legislations and agreements and in line with the GES determination. Due to the variety of elements-

species only general rules for GES boundaries can be defined according to the Common Understanding

document and the cross-cutting workshop conclusions.

Good practices for GES determination for 1.3:

A MS determined GES as: "The

population's structure and

health status can safeguard reproduction and genetic variation to such an extent that the viability of the

population can be maintained". Several MS referred to assessments from other EU legislations (BD, HD)

for the particular criterion.

Habitat level

For a consistent and coherent assessment of habitats it is proposed to follow specific classification

schemes. Table 7 of the SWD 2011/1255 lists predominant habitats. The criteria for selecting sites

eligible for identification as sites of community importance and designation as special areas of

conservation (Appendix III of the HD) should be considered to extend the proposed list of habitats.

Additionally, the EUNIS classification system may facilitate a consistent assessment, especially because

of its pan-EU coverage. To that end, direct links between the SWD 2011/1255 predominant habitats and

the 2015 EUNIS classes have to be adjusted. Regional sea specific habitat/biotope classifications based

on EUNIS can further improve a regionally coherent assessment taking into account particular spatial

specificities (see HELCOM HUB as good practice

(scope) A set of habitats needs to be drawn up (based on EUNIS and considering the SWD 2011/1255

predominant habitats) for each region, sub-region or subdivision, taking into account the different

habitats contained in the indicative list in Table 1 of Annex III and having regard to the instruments

mentioned in point 2 of Part A. Such instruments also refer to a number of habitat complexes (which

means assessing, where appropriate, the composition, extent and relative proportions of habitats within

such complexes) and to functional habitats.

1.4. Habitat geographic distribution and extent.

GES determination: Habitat geographic distribution and extent

should be in line with the assessments

conducted for the HD and RSCs agreements and shall not be significantly and adversely affected by

human activities. For habitats distribution and extent where specific thresholds have been set, these

should be considered (e.g. maintain a threshold of Y% of natural range not affected or Y% of natural

range able to provide sustainable services).

Methodological

standards to assess habitats distribution:

The methodological standards to support criteria 1.4 & 1.5 could derive (to include) the approach

from the HD, which follows. In the case of natural habitats, favourable conservation status (ref Article

1(e)) is achieved when:

its natural range and the areas it covers within that range are stable

or increasing

, and

the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance are exist

and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future, and

the conservation status of its typical species is favourable as defined in Article 1(i).

Marine habitat types included in Annex I of the HD should be considered.

http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/biodiversity/helcom-hub

MSFD doesn't require conservation towards achievement of a pristine habitat, but achievement of sustainable use. To that

end, stable is referring to habitats sensitive to human impacts. "Increasing" refers to heavily impacted habitats that are under a

restoration framework, towards natural extent.

According to the MSFD objectives "increasing" refers to heavily impacted habitats that are under a restoration framework,

towards natural extent.

The last two points are more relevant to the MSFD D1 habitat condition criterion.

Proposed Methodological standards

•

Distributional range: Habitat distributional range

is the geographical region where occurrences

of a habitat can be found within the waters of each MS. They should be typically bound by

habitat range limits, defined as the spatial boundaries beyond which there is no occurrence of a

habitat in a Member State. Range is the actual distribution of a habitat and not the potential

distribution delineated by environmental limitations and reflected in the habitat extent.

Distributional pattern:

Habitat distributional pattern is the manner in which a habitat is spatially

arranged. Random, regular/uniform and clumped are the three traditional patterns considered.

The pattern of habitat distribution may not be permanent. Seasons influence environmental

conditions and resource availability (e.g., position of pelagic features), therefore influencing the

location and even existence of certain habitats. They may depend of the scale at which the

pattern is analysed therefore occurrences need to be binned at defined harmonized resolution

to ensure comparability of results between countries and throughout MSFD regions and sub-

regions. The particular methodological standard is more relevant to specific habitats (e.g. coral

reefs), but can potentially indicate fragmented habitats resulting from anthropogenic activities

that can threaten biodiversity.

Habitat extent (area and volume): Habitat extent refers to the area or volume effectively

occupied by the habitat within its range. Typically, accurate habitat extent delimitation results

from the analysis of ground-truth remote sensing images (aerial, satellite or acoustic).

Alternatively, habitat extent may result from validated statistical models. An effort should be

made to report on the current habitat extent as well as on that prior to anthropogenic impacts.

Anthropogenic pressures typically related to major habitat losses or damage include

construction of coastal infrastructures and aggregate dredging. Other pressures affecting both

habitat extent and condition include sediment disposal, non-indigenous species invasions,

opportunistic species development, global warming, ocean acidification and changes in

predator-prey balance. Despite aiming to prevent any further deterioration of the habitat

extent, the two latter approaches provide less scope for recovery of the populations as

deterioration of habitat extent has already occurred (adapted from

WG GES 2011

•

The most common methodological standards reported for D1.4 & D1.5 according to Palialexis et al.

(2014) were:



Distributional range of habitats

Distributional pattern of habitats

Area occupied by habitat

WG GES 2011. Draft Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) and

Establishment of Environmental Targets (Art.s 8, 9 & 10 MSFD). Version 5.



Sites or volume occupied by certain species (e.g.

Posidonia

meadows)

GES boundaries for habitat geographic distribution and extent should be in line with boundaries defined

for other legislations and agreements, while more effort is needed to streamline the existing boundaries

towards consistent ones for all habitats. Due to the variety of elements-habitats only general rules for

GES boundaries can be defined according to the Common Understanding document and the cross-

cutting workshop conclusions. Such rules have been already set by HD, IUCN and RSCs (i.e. OSPAR).

Habitats subject to natural variation that cannot always be distinguished from the effects of

anthropogenic activities hindering any attempt to include maintenance and reduction of habitat areas

into the general GES definition or into boundaries. Threatened and sensitive to pressures habitats,

though should be treated more strictly, due to their direct danger for degradation and when their

sustainability of services is not maintained. A similar approach should also be applied for relevant

habitats. For such elements it is suggested to include the maintenance of distributional extent and range

in their GES assessment.

Good practices for GES determination for 1.4 & 1.5:

A MS determined GES including the followings: GES

is achieved when Good conditions according to the Water Framework Directive (i.e. good ecological

status), Habitats and Birds Directives (i.e. favourable conservation status) and RSC's (i.e. ecological

quality objectives) are attained. Rare and threatened habitat types and species, included in existing

legislation and conventions, are protected to the level envisaged by that legislation or convention".

Another MS determined GES for particular species reporting: "GES is achieved when no significant

reduction of the area occupied by the maerl-type sediments and other coralligenous habitats".

Unfortunately, there was no GES determination for 1.4 & 1.5 to include a quantifiable parameter, other

than the maintenance of the area (trend based quantification).

1.5. Habitat condition

GES determination: Habitat conditions should be in line with the assessments conducted for the HD (in

terms of structure and functions), BD (in terms of quality-biotic & abiotic) and RSCs agreements and not

be significantly and adversely affected by human activities.

Methodological

standards to assess habitats conditions:

Condition means the actual environmental state of a habitat in a given geographical area. The

assessment of state can be derived by taking direct measurements of the particular biodiversity

component, such as a typical species or communities. In practice it is nearly impossible to measure the

condition of all habitats in a given marine region by field sampling and a risk based approach is

suggested including,

interalia,

selection of representative habitats affected by each pressure.

In line with criterion 1.4, the methodological standards to support criterion 1.5 could derive (to include)

the approach from the HD, as is presented above.

Proposed methodological standards:

•

Condition of the typical species and communities

Relative abundance and/or biomass, as appropriate

The most common methodological standards reported for D1.6 according to Palialexis et al. (2014)

were:



Diversity indices (e.g. Shannon-Wiener)



Benthic Quality Index (BQI)



species ratios



Abundance or biomass of species or groups of species



Oxygen saturation (under the "physical, hydrological and chemical conditions)

BQI was also reported under D 5.2. Some MS reported habitat extent (1.4) as an indication of 1.5 habitat

condition. Specific abiotic parameters of the habitats have to be assessed through the pressure

Descriptors reflecting the level of certain pressures to habitats.

GES boundaries for habitat condition should be in line with boundaries defined for other legislations and

agreements, while more effort is needed to streamline the existing boundaries towards consistent ones

for all habitats. Due to the variety of elements-habitats only general rules for GES boundaries can be

defined according to the Common Understanding document and the cross-cutting workshop

conclusions. Habitats subject to natural variation, which cannot always be distinguished from the effects

of anthropogenic activities, hindering any attempt to include maintenance and reduction of habitat

areas into the general GES definition or into boundaries. Threatened and sensitive to pressures habitats,

though should be treated more strictly, due to their direct danger for degradation. A similar approach

should also be applied for relevant habitats. For such elements it is suggested to include condition

maintenance in their GES assessment.

Good practices for GES determination for 1.4 & 1.5: A MS determined GES using a diversity index for

specific group of species providing a quantitative definition for habitats condition.

Typical species and communities should be defined and listed, at least regionally.

1.6. Ecosystem structure

The Ecosystem structure criterion was not reported by all MSs. The lack of specification in its content,

which is also reflected in the lack of an introductory note in the COM DEC 2010/477/EU in contrast to

the other two levels, led to different interpretations and assessments.

[Currently there are two prevailing approaches]:

The ecosystem assessment refers to the ultimate goal of the MSFD and there is no need to be included

in D1. This will be achieved by a global assessment of the state descriptors including the impacts of the

pressure Descriptors, in line with the ecosystem approach dictated by the MSFD (Figure in 6.1). Under

this perspective, it is suggested by some MS to eliminate this level. The fact that some ecosystem's

attributes -e.g. functions and resilience- are assessed under other Descriptors (D4 and D6) enhances the

elimination of the particular criterion for the sake of simplicity and to avoid duplicated assessments. In

addition, difficulties to assess this criterion were obvious

i the J‘C s IDA, ut also i the ‘“Cs ore

i di ator ork see ta le . & . of the De elop e t of a shared data a d i for atio syste

between the EU and the Regional Sea Conventions

where the lack of indicators for 1.7 is highlighted

across the RSCs). Another argument denotes

that e osyste pro esses a d fu tio s

are high-level

consideration of assessment (e.g. under Art. 8), rather than a criterion under D1. This high-level gets

input from a set of descriptors (e.g. D4, D6). Finally, monitoring programmes for biodiversity have not

been designed to adequately cover ecosystem processes and functions.

[The second approach is presented in section 5.3 as a proposal for a criterion to substitute and clarify

criterion 1].

Methodological

standards to assess ecosystem structure:

•

Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components (habitats and species)

The most common methodological standards reported for D1.7 according to Palialexis et al. (2014)

were:



Ecological Evaluation Index (EEI),



BENTIX,



PREI,



species diversity indices (e.g. Hill's N1)

These methods reported also under other Descriptors (4, 6, 5) or under other criteria of D1 (1.6).

5.3 Proposals for new criteria

In an effort to cover aspects related to

Ecosystem processes and functions,

the current EC Decision

2010/477/EU includes the following text:

I additio , the i teractio s etwee the structural co po e ts of the ecosyste are fu da e tal for

assessing ecosystem processes and functions for the purpose of the overall determination of good

environmental status, having regard, inter alia, to Articles 1, 3(5) and 9(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC. Other

functional aspects addressed through other descriptors of good environmental status (such as

descriptors 4 and 6), as well as connectivity and resilience considerations, are also important for

addressi g ecosyste processes a d fu ctio s.

Given the importance of this level and the continued progress in the field, it is possible that presently

more specific criteria can be identified to address these aspects. The proposals presented by the TG1

report (Cochrane et al., 2010

) are following. Operational indicators and methodological standards that

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/aff9880d-df5e-44ec-854e-8f098fcff2e5/DIKE_10-2014-

05b_RSCDataReporting_Report.pdf

Cochrane S.K.J., D.W. Connor, P. Nilsson, I. Mitchell, J. Reker, J. Franco, V. Valavanis, S. Moncheva, J. Ekebom, K. Nygaard, R.

Serrão Santos, I. Narberhaus, T. Packeiser, W. van de Bund & A.C. Cardoso, 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task

address, for instance, the estimation of connectivity, patchiness, fragmentation, integrity and resilience,

between habitat occurrences and species meta-populations at MSFD region and sub-region level could

be included at the ecosystem level. Note that these indicators should be complementary (rather than

overlapping) to ecosystem functioning elements already addressed in descriptors D4 (food webs) and D6

sea‐floor i tegrity

. In addition, these should complement to the indicator work of the RSCs.

1.6. Ecosystem processes and functions

•

Interactions between the structural components of the ecosystem (1.6.1)

Services provided by biological diversity within ecosystems (1.6.2)

Services provided by biological diversity within ecosystems, could be linked with the implementation of

the EU Biodiversity Strategy and more specific with ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU

Biodiversity Strategy by 2020.

A ordi g to this Me er “tates, ith the assista e of the Co

issio ,

will map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess

the economic value of such services, and promote the integration of these values into accounting and

reporti g syste s at EU a d atio al le el y

Proposed Methodological standards



Conservation Status of Species by numbers

Mean Maximum Length of fish community

Large Fish Indicator (LFI)

59,60

……….

5.4 Rationale and proposal, where appropriate, for defining GES threshold values and

reference points, based on established and agreed scientific methods for quantifying and

applying GES boundaries, or for a normative definition of GES;

Experts input on defining reference points (after clarification of quantifying GES): At least for marine

benthos, the high percentile method is standard used in the intercalibration process to estimate

reference values for biotic indicators such as species richness, Shannon index and AMBI. Percentile

values in the range of 95 to 99 percentile of a sufficiently large dataset (>10 years) are used. The 99

percentile seems to be used increasingly, and appears (at least for marine benthos) NOT to overestimate

reference values. Expert judgment remains necessary to evaluate the estimated reference values and

resulting EQR values. For example, it appears that this percentile method gives too low estimates of

Group 1 Report Biological diversity EUR 24337 EN

–

2010. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/1-Task-group-1-

Report-on-Biological-Diversity.pdf

Dulvy, N., Jennings, S., Rogers, S.I., Maxwell, J.D., 2006. Threat and decline in fishes: an indicator of marine biodiversity.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63, 1267

Jennings, S., Greenstreet, S. P. R., and Reynolds, J. D. 1999. Structural change in an exploited fish community: a consequence

of differential fishing effects on species with contrasting life histories. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68: 617-627

Greenstreet, S.P.R., Rogers, S.I., Rice, J.C., Piet, G.J., Guirey, E.J., Fraser, H.M., Fryer, R.J., 2011. Development of the EcoQO for

the North Sea fish community. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 68, 1–11.

Modica, L., Velasco, F., Preciado, I., Soto, M., and Greenstreet, S. P. R. Development of the large fish indicator and associated

target for a Northeast Atlantic fish community.

–

ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu101.

reference values, if a benthic community is a poor or low moderate state. In this case, suitable simple

and pragmatic correction methods of these reference values have to be designed and used.

HELCOM CORESET and HOLAS II are working towards the quantification of indicators, which is strongly

dependent on the type of indicator, while for some types the determination of reference points might

not be feasible.

Agreed and established references and thresholds from other legislations and RSCs should be

considered for the MSFD assessments. D1 elements should be linked with pressure Descriptors and

pressure thresholds that affect GES of the state elements. Annex V of the SEC 2011/1255 can guide such

links between pressure and state criteria, through impacts.

Despite the complexity to provide a general qualitative definition of GES at the level of criterion, due to

the heterogeneity of the elements, it is much easier to determine a quantitative GES for specific

selected species, groups of species and habitats, as shown in the good practices provided in 5.2.

6. GES methodological standards (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

6.1 Proposals for (new) methodological standards to be applied to the criteria in order to

assess whether GES has been achieved for the descriptor (e.g. aggregation/integration

methods across the criteria and across the quality elements, e.g. across contaminants,

species, habitats), using JRC / ICES / RSC protocols, Article 12 findings and guidance from

the Scales project, as appropriate.

On aggregation methods and scales the recent report by Deltares

has given a good overview of the key

questions that need to be addressed, provided examples and gives advantages and disadvantages for

the different approaches. The One-Out-All-Out (OOAO) is not suitable for D1, due to the large number of

assessment elements under each criterion. It could be useful for certain groups of elements (e.g.

endangered species, sensitive habitats, engineering species) either within each relevant criterion or

across the species/habitats criteria. For large group of elements a percentage of elements to be in GES

could be a useful approach to provide quantitative GES and monitor the progress towards its

achievement through the targets and programmes of measures.

The cross-cutting workshop outcome

on assessment scales, in relation to elements, is that multiple

scales would need to be selected so that data being collected ensures appropriate coverage of the

needs and no data gaps are observed. Overall, one scale does not fit all elements, and there is a need for

a system that address the different needs.

Prins, T.C., Borja, A., Simboura, N., Tsanagaris, C., Van der Meulen, M.D., Boon, A.R., Menchaca, I., & Gilbert, A.J. 2014 in

prep. Coherent scales and aggregation rules for environmental status assessment with the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive. Towards a draft guidance. Deltares/AZTI/HCMR, Report 1207879-000-ZKS-0014 to the European Commission, Delft,

47pp.

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/9daafb84-fe4f-42ad-864f-

21b338c8269b/CCWorkshop_Summary%20Notes_20022015_Final.docx

Define scales at each stage of process

Process

1 Define GES

Defi e i di ators for assess e t

3 Collect the data (monitoring)

4 Process the data for use in indicator

assessment

5 Aggregate the data and assess indicator

Scale

(sub)Region

(sub)Region and possibly EU level

National, considering WFD for coastal waters and MSFD

offshore

National, considering WFD for coastal waters and MSFD

offshore

Sub(Regional) ('national' sub-basins)

Scales are an important aspect for the MSFD implementation that should be defined in several

processes. Generally, the assessment elements (species, habitats and ecosystems) embed this attribute

and can potentially direct scales determination for several steps (assessment, monitoring, measures). In

any case, scales have to be representative for all ecosystem elements and to reflect the spatial extent of

the pressures. For the sake of coherence and consistent/comparable implementation a common

approach can be suggested. As a starting point, the "nested approach" (as developed and applied in

HELCOM) should be introduced to all marine regions, being already attempt by OSPAR.

For the D1 the specified elements for assessment (species, habitats) can, generally, define the

assessment scales. For instance, large cetacean should be assessed regionally, pelagic and demersal fish

species on a sub-regional level, seabed habitats on a sub-division level. Following the agreed lists of

elements to be assessed under D1 a corresponding scale assessment can be predefined.

Integration across descriptors and the ecosystem-based approach of MSFD

The artificial distinction of pressures, state and impact attributes to the 11 descriptors led unavoidably

to overlaps across them in terms of assessments. For a holistic state assessment of the ecosystem-in line

with the ecosystem-based approach to management Art. 1(3) the state descriptors and the state criteria

of some pressure descriptors should be bridged. The review process, even if it was organised on a

descriptor level following the structure of the COM DEC 2010/477/EU, provided the floor to also discuss

cross-cutting issues in a workshop held in Copenhagen 21-22 January 2015. The ecosystem-based

approach to MSFD implementation (Fig. 4) can be framed through an integration of the GES criteria for

the state-based descriptors (overall state assessment) where the impact of the pressure-based

descriptors will feed the state assessment. In this process an essential part is the definition of the state

elements to be assessed (internal cycle) and their links, functions and structure (external cycle) that

bridge D4 and D6 with D1.

Figure 4

An ecosystem-based approach to determination and assessment of GES follows the main

elements of the ecosystem (state-based descriptors, centre) and is closely linked to the effects of

pressures from human activities (pressure-based descriptors, satellite circles). Note that descriptors D2,

D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9 and D10 include both a pressure criterion and an impact criterion in the 2010

Decision; the impact criteria should be closely linked to the state-based assessments.

7. Specifications and standardized methods for monitoring and assessment

(in accordance with Art. 11(4))

7.1

Proposals for specifications on methods for monitoring (i.e. the collection of data

needed for assessment of each criterion, including parameters, units of measurement and

data quality requirements), which aim at ensuring the comparability of monitoring results,

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/b391ea98-1dbb-4080-8c4a-

a0e2d661f4ea/CCworkshop_conclusions_final%20revised%2030032015.ppt

on the basis of existing survey protocols and relevant European/international standards

(e.g. ISO/CEN).

The report De elop e t of a shared data a d i for atio syste

between the EU and the Regional

Sea Conventions

prese ted i WG DIKE, CI‘CABC

is examining the data and information holdings

within each of the four Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) as well as the European Environment Agency

(EEA), with the aim of characterizing the present data and information holdings and flow processes in

place across Europe. This is specifically to evaluate how these data could be used to support the

reporting objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and other related EU Directives. Table

3.6 provides a comprehensive list of the parameters used or proposed by the RSCs for assessment of

their biodiversity indicators in relation to the MSFD indicators for D1. This exercise is an important step

for taking stock of the on-going assessments and their parameters and align these parameters with the

MSFD needs.

In 2013, three Pilot-Projects (BALSAM in the Baltic, IRIS-SES in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, JMP

NS/CS in the North Sea) were launched as part of DG ENV initiative for coordination and support action

to support coherent and comparable implementation of MSFD with focus on monitoring programmes.

The objectives are to show benefits and challenges of joint monitoring network and multi-use of existing

platform, increasing efficiency and reducing costs, and promote cooperation among research

institutions within selected regions. A specific objective (e.g. IRIS-SES) is to elaborate guidelines for

sampling across the various disciplines in order to meet MSFD requirements. It is expected that these

projects (ending in May 2015) will provide recommendations for better harmonization and coordination

of monitoring efforts and collection of data to support MSFD needs.

In principle, the set-up of the methodological standards for monitoring and assessment for D1

components should be developed in the following steps, considering also the coordinated work of

Member States through RSCs:

1) Identification of representative, threatened and functional groups for predominant and special

habitats and species according to Table 1 Annex III MSFD (Plankton, macrophytes, invertebrates, fish,

reptiles, mammals, birds and other regional important species groups).

2) Establish distribution and abundance sampling system for

different groups, if necessary and where not

existing.

3) Establish sampling stations to analyze locally the impact of relevant pressures (by-catch, extraction,

toxicities, etc. using Annex III table 2).

4) Develop thresholds or trends for each habitat or species category on the measured local analyses

(assuming that the GES quantification has meanwhile adequately developed).

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/aff9880d-df5e-44ec-854e-8f098fcff2e5/DIKE_10-2014-

05b_RSCDataReporting_Report.pdf

5) Develop models for the effect of important pressures

6) Model distribution of pressure and its effect for the relevant marine regions

7) Define GES or at least describe range for a good and a bad ecological state or trend for each marine

region

8) If appropriate develop areal analysis of the distribution of good and bad ecological states in each

marine region.

These steps are indicative and might be more appropriate adapted to the specific biodiversity elements.

Generally, standardized methods are relevant to monitoring programmes. WFD works on the

standardization of such methods and these should be also considered for MSFD, where relevant. The

use of ISO method 16665 (2005): (Water quality

—

Guidelines for quantitative sampling and sample

processing of marine soft-bottom macrofauna) can be proposed for the MSFD.

For monitoring of phytoplankton, zooplankton, macroalgae, benthic invertebrates and coastal fish joint

guidelines for monitoring exists in the HELCOM COMBINE manual, while MS are currently working

towards joint documentation of the monitoring guidelines for other biological components such as

birds, mammals, non-indigenous species and benthic habitats in the HELCOM Monitoring Manual. The

manual aims to support MSFD Article 11 reporting for those Contracting parties that are also EU

Member States.

7.2 Proposals for specifications on methods for assessment, which aim at ensuring

comparability of assessment results, including aggregation of monitoring data within an

assessment area for a particular criterion and if necessary aggregation across assessment

areas up to larger areas (e.g. (sub) region scales), and based on general guidance prepared

on scales and aggregation rules

and taking account of JRC / ICES / RSC inventories and

Article 12 findings.

In the Baltic Sea, HELCOM assessment units are used to support spatial aggregation dividing the Baltic

Sea into four assessment levels; 1) the whole Baltic Sea 2) 17 sub basins, 3) sub-basins divided into

coastal and offshore areas, 4) further division of coastal areas into WFD water types or water bodies.

Methods for aggregating monitoring data within an assessment unit will be developed as part of the

development of HELCOM core indicators in the CORESET II project. Aggregation of assessment units to

larger areas as well as several different topical assessments towards holistic assessments will be

elaborated under the planned HELCOM HOLAS II project. However, scaling up is in general only

considered as useful when ecologically relevant e.g. for populations that are distributed over larger

areas.

8. Rational and technical background for proposed revision

8.1 Justification and technical background justifying the above proposals.

Covered in previous sections

9. Other related products (e.g. technical guidance, reference in common

understanding document)

9.1 Where aspects are identified which should be usefully laid down but not as part of the

decision, these elements should be specified and a proposal should be made in which way

they should be laid down, e.g. interpretative guide for the application of the future Decision

or CU guidance document or technical background document.

Outstanding issues identified during the review process of D1 in phase I and were not completely

tackled in this document:

1. Changes in criteria and indicators

Issue:

Criterio

e osyste

stru ture to e eli i ated or re-defined

with a clearer content

Issue:

Identification of criteria and indicators overlaps across Descriptors

Expected outcome:

To eliminate overlaps in the assessments by better clarifying the content of "state"

sides of the "pressure" descriptors and D4 and D6. Interaction with experts from other Descriptors will

be required.

2. Common lists of elements for the biodiversity assessments

Issue:

Agreement for the compilation of existing lists from other legislations, MSFD documents and

RSCs. Specification of elements to be assessed under the three levels. Link with monitoring parameters.

Proposal for using EU-wide classifications for Habitats (EUNIS).

3. Habitat/Bird Directives, Common Fisheries Policy and D1

Issues:

Practical use of HBD assessments to MSFD; links of their status classification approaches;

“trea li i g of assess e ts, i di ators a d dire ti es o je ti es

4. Proposal for changes in the COM Decision text regarding D1 implementation

Issue:

Clarification of biodiversity terms, proposal for a common GES determination and GES

boundaries, proposal for common methodological standards under each criterion.

Lists of elements and selection/deselecting criteria to be considered for the generation of lists of

habitats and species, to support a coherent implementation between neighbouring Member

States.

For species (e.g. selection criteria from Texel-Faial):

- Listed elements in Directives and Conventions, etc. & section 2.3 of this document

- Vulnerable species (exposed to pressure which impact (or could impact) them at a level, which could

lead, at short or longer term, to no GES)

- Links to pressure Descriptors, notably D2, D3

- rare, declining, natural heritage value

- functional role: (i) common (= widely occurring, even at low abundances AND/OR high abundances,

even if less widely distributed) Trophic (important link in the food chain) - Link to D4

For habitats:

- listed (Directives, Conventions, etc.) = special habitats

- Vulnerable habitats (exposed to pressure which impact (or could impact) them at a level, which could

lead, at short or lo ger ter , to o GE“ . = „parti ular area ha itats: Li ks to pressure

Descriptors,

notably D2, D5, D6

- rare, declining, natural heritage value

- functional role:

* common (= widely occurring, even at low abundances AND/OR high abundances, even if less widely

distributed)

* Trophic (important link in the food chain). Link to D4

* High biodiversity (e.g. biogenic reefs. Link to D6.)

These issues could be tackled and feed a guidance document, in parallel with phase II of the review

process of the Com DEC 2010/477/EU to further support the implementation of the MSFD.



10.Reference Documents

Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III Approach and outline for the

process, (EC- Committee/07/2013/03rev, 2013);

First steps in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Assessment in

accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2008/56/EC, (CSWD, 2014);

Article 12 Technical Assessment, (Milieu ltd, 2014);

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Descriptor 3, (ICES, 2012);



Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status

(GES) & Establishment of Environmental Targets (Articles 8, 9 & 10 MSFD), (DG GES, 2014);

Coherent geographic scales and aggregation rules in assessment and monitoring of Good

Environmental Status

–

analysis and conceptual phase, (Deltares, 2014);

In-depth

assess e t of the EU Me

10, EUR26473EN (JRC 2014)

er “tates “u

issio s for the M“FD u der arti les ,9 a d

Review of Methodological Standards Related to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Criteria on Good Environmental Status (JRC, 2011)

Guida e / Ter s of ‘efere e for the task groups

the Good E ologi al “tatus GE“ des riptors J‘C,

riteria a d

ethodologi al sta dards for

CSWP (2011) on the Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the

criteria for good environmental status.

OSPAR (2012b). MSFD Advice Manual and Background Document on Biodiversity. London,

Publication

Number:

581/2012,

141

pp.

(available

at:

http://www.ospar.org/v_publications/download.asp?v1=p00581)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE

Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Water Resources Unit

Review of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU

concerning MSFD criteria for assessing good

environmental status

Descriptor 2

Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that

do not adversely alter the ecosystem

This report represents the result of the scientific and technical review of Commission Decision

2010/477/EU in relation to Descriptor 2. The review has been carried out by the EC JRC together

with experts nominated by EU Member States, and has considered contributions from the GES

Working Group in accordance with the roadmap set out in the MSFD implementation strategy

(agreed on at the 11th CIS MSCG meeting).

The report is one of a series of reports (review manuals) including Descriptor 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 that

conclude phase 1 of the review process and, as agreed within the MSFD Common Implementation

Strategy, are the basis for review phase 2, towards an eventual revision of the Commission Decision

2010/477/EU.

The report presents the state of the technical discussions as of 30 April 2015 (document version 6.0),

as some discussions are on-going, it does not contain agreed conclusions on all issues.

The views expressed in the document do not necessarily represent the views of the European

Commission.

Foreword

The MSFD Committee (Art. 25 of the MSFD) discussed and concluded an approach and an outline for

the process of a review and possible revision of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU on GES

criteria and of MSFD Annex III (see Committee/07/2013/03rev for details). Based on the template in

the annex to the mandate of the MSFD Committee, a more detailed manual for the technical phase

relating to the review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EC has been developed to guide the parallel

preparatory process and discussions per descriptor. The review will aim to define GES criteria more

precisely, including setting quantifiable boundaries for the GES criteria where possible and

specifications and standardised methods for GES assessment in particular as regards temporal and

spatial aggregation. The review of Annex III will be carried out as a parallel process. The review of

the Common Understanding Document is also taking place alongside these two processes. Close

coordination between these three processes should be ensured.

MSFD D2 expert group:

João Canning Clode, Henn Ojaveer, Maiju Lehtiniemi, Laurent Guérin, Iwona

Bubak, Saa Kabuta, Sofia Brockmark, Kai Hoppe, Francisco Alemany, Paul Stebbing, Argyro Zenetos,

Ioannis Karakassis, Miriam Guerra

EC JRC:

Ana Cristina Cardoso, Andreas Palialexis, Stelios Katsanevakis, Konstantinos Tsiamis

Acknowledgments for contributions to:

WG GES

Review (technical phase) of Part B of the Decision (per descriptor)

Contents

1. Approach

......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1

General guiding principles for the review ........................................................................... 5

1.2 Overall reflection of the type of descriptor and descriptor criteria and its relationship with

Article 3(5)....................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Linkages with existing relevant EU legal requirements, standards and limit values and

identification of potential incoherence. ......................................................................................... 8

1.4 Linkages with international and RSC norms and standards ...................................................... 9

1.5 Clarification of the relevant scientific, technical and policy terminology in relation to the

descriptor. ..................................................................................................................................... 12

1.6 Descriptor specificities should be highlighted and justified. .................................................. 14

1.7 An analysis of whether the criteria and/or indicators and/or methodological standards for

the particular descriptor are likely to be common across the EU or need aspects to be specific at

region or other scales. .................................................................................................................. 15

1.8 The "climate sensitivity" for D2 .............................................................................................. 16

1.9 An indication of whether a quantitative GES definition for the descriptor will be possible or

whether a qualitative/normative definition only should be used (on the basis of Article 3(5)). . 16

2. Analysis of the implementation process

....................................................................................... 17

. Based o the Co

issio / Milieu Art. reports a d the J‘C i

-depth assessments (IDA),

a detailed summary of Art.12 findings related to the determination of GES and, specifically, the

use of the Decision criteria and indicators, should be made........................................................ 17

2.2 Identification of any questions arising from the application of the current Decision, including

those identified by the Article 12 assessment. ............................................................................. 19

2.3 Relevant data from other sources, specific to every descriptor and recent findings from MS

should also be considered ............................................................................................................ 20

2.4 Good examples and approaches applied by MS, especially if used by multiple Member

States, and shortcomings should be listed systematically............................................................ 21

2.5 Differences and similarities between the regions should be highlighted, where applicable. 21

3. Analysis of the current text of the Decision

.................................................................................. 22

3.1 Analysis of the current text of the Decision, identifying in particular those parts which are

best placed in guidance, those parts which are interpretative or explicative information and

those parts which need to be kept in the Decision in accordance with the mandate provided by

the Directive. ................................................................................................................................. 22

3.2 The analysis should then include an overall identification of needs for guidance. ................ 24

3.3 An analysis of what to keep should take place, including specification on what may be out

dated or may need to be aligned with other or new legislation, etc. .......................................... 24

4. Identification of issues

.................................................................................................................. 24

Main findings and information that will be used in the next step of the revision process. ......... 24

5. GES criteria (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

..................................................................................... 26

5.1 Conclude on the use of the existing Decision criteria and indicators, in the light of the

"refined" common understanding, the findings of the Article 12 assessment and relevant

international, EU and RSC legislation and approaches. ................................................................ 26

5.2 Recommendation on which criteria to retain, which to amend and any to remove; ............ 26

5.3Proposals for new criteria, if needed. ...................................................................................... 26

5.4 Rationale and proposal, where appropriate, for defining GES threshold values and reference

points, based on established and agreed scientific methods for quantifying and applying GES

boundaries, or for a normative definition of GES ......................................................................... 27

6. GES methodological standards (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

....................................................... 27

7. Specifications and standardized methods for monitoring and assessment (in accordance with

Art. 11(4))

.......................................................................................................................................... 27

7.1 Proposals for specifications on methods for monitoring (i.e. the collection of data needed

for assessment of each criterion, including parameters, units of measurement and data quality

requirements), which aim at ensuring the comparability of monitoring results, on the basis of

JRC / ICES / RSC survey protocols, relevant European/international standards (e.g. ISO/CEN) and

Article 12 findings. ........................................................................................................................ 27

7.2 Proposals for specifications on methods for assessment, which aim at ensuring

comparability of assessment results, including aggregation of monitoring data within an

assessment area for a particular criterion and if necessary aggregation across assessment areas

up to larger areas (e.g. (sub) region scales), and based on general guidance prepared on scales

and aggregation rules and taking account of JRC / ICES / RSC inventories and Article 12 findings.

...................................................................................................................................................... 28

8. Rational and technical background for proposed revision............................................................

8.1 Justification and technical background justifying the above proposals. ................................ 28

9. Other related products (e.g. technical guidance, reference in common understanding document)

.......................................................................................................................................................... 28

9.1 Where aspects are identified which should be usefully laid down but not as part of the

decision, these elements should be specified and a proposal should be made in which way they

should be laid down, e.g. interpretative guide for the application of the future Decision or CU

guidance document or technical background document. ............................................................ 29

10. Background Documents

.............................................................................................................. 29

1. Approach

1.1 General guiding principles for the review

The review aims to analyse the results from the first MSFD reporting round on Articles 8, 9 and 10

with a view to update/improve and simplify the Com Decision 2010/477/EU.

Based on the information in the Art 12 assessment reports (COM(2014)97 final) and the JRC in-depth

assessments (JRC, 2014) a template was prefilled by Milieu for DG ENV, commented by DG ENV and

completed by JRC to enable the experts groups to analyse current shortcomings, propose ways

forward, such as e.g. needs for further guidance and development, but eventually also to develop

proposals for amending the Decision 2010/477/EU, based on scientific knowledge and experience

developed through the implementation process.

The current review should lead to a new GES Decision which is:

•

Simpler

Clearer

Introducing minimum requirements (to be enhanced by regions and MS, if necessary)

Self-explanatory

Coherent with other EU legislation

Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU does not exist)

Have a clear and minimum list of criteria and methodological standards and related

characteristics (Table 1, Annex III)

Ensure that criteria and methodological standards are adequately addressing the Descriptors

and these are covered by the proposed criteria, to lead to complete assessments

Coherent with the MSFD terminology

The Figure 1

show an example based on descriptor 2 to test the proposed architecture of the MSFD.

This can be used as guide for the characteristics/ elements to be addressed under Annex III and the

revised Decision and to streamline the discussion to be carried out through the review process.

Modified fro

DG ENV s prese tatio i Ju e s

43d4-93a5-075f82cc1f12

DG GE“ group:

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f3953f48-f965-

1.2 Overall reflection of the type of descriptor and descriptor criteria and its relationship

with Article 3(5).

There are currently over 1 300 non-indigenous marine species in the European seas (Katsanevakis et

al. 2013a

). About 6% of these species have been documented to have high impact on marine

ecosystem services and biodiversity; in many cases non-indigenous marine species impact

keystone/protected species and habitats and substantially modify ecosystem processes or wider

ecosystem functioning (Katsanevakis et al. 2014

Invasive non-indigenous species (IAS) cause adverse effects on environmental quality resulting in

changes in biological, chemical and physical properties of aquatic ecosystems. They can displace

native species, cause the loss of native genotypes, modify habitats, change community structure,

affect food-web properties and ecosystem processes, impede the provision of ecosystem services,

impact human health, and cause substantial economic losses (Grosholz, 2002

; Wallentinus and

Nyberg, 2007

; Molnar et al., 2008

; Vilà et al., 2010

; Katsanevakis et al., 2014a

). The magnitude of

impacts may vary from low to massive and they can be sporadic, short-term, mid-term or

permanent.

According to Art.3 (5) of the MSFD, D2 is referring to the environmental status of marine waters

where non-indigenous species (NIS) introduced by human activities are at levels that do not

adversely alter the ecosystem. Thus, D2 pressure level should be accompanied by measurable

criteria. However, this could be difficult to accomplish due to e.g. lack of linear correlation between

the numbers/ abundance of NIS and their impacts.

Invasive non-indigenous species do

pollute the marine environment in the same way as occurs

with chemical pollution or eutrophication

. The later can be effectively tackled provided that

appropriate measures are taken. For IAS, prevention by identification and risk analysis of different

pathways and vectors for species introductions is by far more cost-effective and environmentally

desirable than post-introduction measures, such as eradication or long-term containment (recital

(15) of IAS Regulation 1143/2014/EU). In the marine environment, prevention seems to be in most

cases the only feasible alternative, as with current understanding eradication is unfeasible with

established species, but there has been some successes in the early stages of introduction (e.g. the

eradication of

Caulerpa taxifolia

in California, Anderson, 2005

, which was a success according to

Final

Caulerpa taxifolia

Eradication Report, May 2006

). The risk of new biological invasions could be

Katsanevakis S, Gatto F, Zenetos A, Cardoso AC, 2013a. How many marine aliens in Europe? Management of Biological

Invasions 4(1): 37–42.

Katsanevakis S, Wallentinus I, Zenetos A, Leppäkoski E, Çinar ME, Oztürk B, Grabowski M, Golani D, Cardoso AC, 2014.

Impacts of marine invasive alien species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: a pan-European critical review. Aquatic

Invasions 9(4): 391–423.

Grosholz, E, 2002. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of coastal invasions.

Trends Ecol. Evol.

17, 22-27.

Wallentinus I, Nyberg CD, 2007. Introduced marine organisms as habitat modifiers.

Mar. Pollut. Bull.

55, 323–332.

Molnar JL,Gamboa RL, Revenga C, Spalding MD, 2008. Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine

biodiversity.

Front. Ecol. Environ.

6, 458–492.

Vilà M, Basnou C, Pysek P, Josefsson M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, et al.,2010. How well do we understand the impacts of

alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, crosstaxa assessment. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8, 135–144.

Task Group 2 Report Non-indigenous species JOINT REPORT, 2010.

A derso LWJ,

. Califor ia s rea tio to

Caulerpa taxifolia:

a model for invasive species rapid response. Biol.

Invasions 7, 1003-1016.

Merkel & Associates. 2006. Final report on eradication of the invasive seaweed

Caulerpa taxifolia

from Agua Hedionda

Lagoon and Huntington Harbour, California. Prepared for Steering Committee of the Southern California

Caulerpa

Team.

effectively minimized by precautionary measures such as the IMO Convention on ballast water

management.

The Descriptor 2 (MSFD, 2008/56/EU) is a pressure descriptor that focuses on assessing the scale of

the pressure and the scale of the impacts of marine non- indigenous species. New introductions of

NIS and increases in the abundance and spatial distribution of established NIS should be prevented.

Descriptor 2 interacts with several other GES pressure Descriptors (D3, 5, 6 7, 8, 9, 10) which have

impact on native biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and seabed habitats as well as commercial

marine resources (seafood). Indeed, perturbations induced by pressure on ecosystem state, may

facilitate installation and/or spread of NIS, which are often opportunistic. In particular, impacts that

result from NIS should be managed, where feasible, so that the achievement of GES for the

biodiversity Descriptors 1, 4 and in part 3 and 6 is not compromised.

1.3 Linkages with existing relevant EU legal requirements, standards and limit values and

identification of potential incoherence.

With the exception of the EU Regulation concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in

aquaculture (EU, 2007

) and its implementing rules (EU, 2008b

), no comprehensive instrument

existed on EU level to tackle alien species until recently. The EC Communication

To ards a EU

“trategy o I asi e “pe ies

published in 2008 addressed the need for coordinated action to

tackle the spread of invasive NIS. In 2013, the European Commission published a proposal for an EU

Regulation

designed to respond to the increasing problems caused by the impacts of IAS on the

environment and the economy and as a follow up an EU regulation has been recently published

(Regulation No 1143/2014/EU

The Regulation No 708/2007/EU establishes a framework for the management of aquaculture

practices in relation to NIS, to assess and minimise their potential impact and that of any associated

non-target species on aquatic habitats. The information collected under this Regulation, e.g.

introduced species, location of aquaculture facility, species risk assessment and monitoring results

should be considered in relation to the MSFD D2. Furthermore, this Regulation could be an

instrument to tackle identified pressure from NIS in relation to the MSFD.

The Regulation No 1143/2014/EU establishes rules to prevent, minimise and mitigate the adverse

impact on biodiversity of the intentional and unintentional introduction and spread within the EU of

IAS. It indicates three types of interventions; prevention, early warning and rapid response, and

management to tackle the problem. It is expected that a list of invasive non-indigenous species of EU

concern will be developed, so as to guide implementation of the Regulation. With this aim, the

Regulation on IAS specifically requests action plans on the main pathways of invasive non-indigenous

EU, 2007. Council Regulation Concerning Use of Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture. Regulation 708/2007, OJ

L 168.

EU, 2008b. Commission Regulation Laying Down Detailed Rules for the Implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No

708/2007 Concerning Use of Alien and Locally Absent Species in Aquaculture. Regulation 535/2008, OJ L 156.

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social

ittee a d the Co

ittee of the ‘egio s To ards a EU “trategy o I asi e “pe ies ,

COM(2008) 789 final.

Proposal for a Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species,

(COM(2013) 620).

Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 OF THE European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention

and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species.

OJ:L317/35/2014

species (Article 13). Member States can also take emergency measures when there is evidence

concerning the presence, or imminent risk of introduction into its territory of an invasive non-

indigenous species, which is not included on the Union list (Art. 10 of IAS Regulation 1143/2014/EU)

but were found during surveillance or monitoring. Furthermore, the Member State has the

obligation to build a surveillance system for IAS of Union concern or include it in their existing

systems (Art. 14 of IAS Regulation 1143/2014/EU), as such systems offer the most appropriate

means for early detection and rapid eradication at an early stage of invasion as is stipulated in

articles 16 and 17 of the IAS Regulation 1143/2014/EU to prevent the spread of IAS into or within

the Union.

It is yet not known which marine species or if marine species will be included in the list of species as

"of Union concern" to be developed by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States. The

list derived by evidence-based risk assessments will be of dynamic nature and will potentially include

species (Art. 4, Regulation 1143/2014 on IAS) across all environments and taxonomic groups. Species

of Union concern will be the ones whose negative impact requires concerted action at Union level.

Also, as with EU Regulation concerning the use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture, the

information collected under the Regulation 1143/2014 e.g. species risk assessment and monitoring

results should be considered in relation to the MSFD D2 for the assessment of non-indigenous

species impacts. Furthermore, the efficient implementation of both the Regulation and the MSFD for

D2 would require the coordination of the respective monitoring programs and programme of

measures.

Other relevant EU legislations are: (i) the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), (ii) the Habitats Directive

(92/43/EC), (iii) the Phytosanitary Directive (2000/29/EC), (iv) the Regulation on wild species trade

(1997/338/EC),(v) the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Directive on animal health

requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof (2006/88/EC). These six legislative

instruments are not focused on NIS but partly cover the issue by requiring their consideration in the

frame of restoration of biodiversity conservation status, ecological conditions and animal health.

In the context of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), EU Member States have developed

pressure-based assessments of the ecological status of their water bodies, including coastal water

bodies. Invasive non-indigenous species are recognised to constitute a major pressure in many

aquatic ecosystems, yet they are not explicitly accounted for by the majority of WFD assessment

methods. Most Member States argue that no explicit assessment of IAS is required, assuming that

significant IAS pressures will affect the WFD biological quality elements (BQEs), and be detected by

generic WFD status assessments. Thus, these are in most cases not specifically targeted in the WFD

monitoring and assessment; no specific ecological quality ratio have been agreed for non-indigenous

species.

1.4 Linkages with international and RSC norms and standards

At the

international level,

the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982

)

explicitly places a general requirement on Parties to take measures

to preve t, reduce a d co trol

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. United Nations Treaty Series.

pollutio of the ari e e viro e t resulti g fro …the i te tio al

or accidental introduction of

species alien or new, to a particular part of the marine environment, which may cause significant and

har ful cha ges thereto

(Article 196). The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife

and Native Habitats (Bern Convention, 1979

) recommends a European strategy on IAS.

Furthermore, the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar Convention, 1994

) and the Bonn Convention

on Migratory Species (1979

) have both adopted resolutions regarding alien species. The

Convention on Biologi

al Di ersity CBD re og ised the eed for the o pilatio a d disse i atio

of information on alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species, to be used in the

o te t of a y pre e tio , i trodu tio a d itigatio a ti ities , a d alls for further resear h o

the i pa t of alie i asi e spe ies o iologi al di ersity CBD

). CBD in its Strategic Plan for

Biodiversity 2011–2020 agreed on a set of targets (Aichi targets), including Target 9 on alien species:

, i asi e alien

species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are

controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their

i trodu tio a d esta lish e t. This Ai hi Target 9 has ee

idely adopted, e.g. y the

EU in its

EU Biodi ersity “trategy

COM (2011) 244 ).

The I

ter atio al Mariti e Orga isatio s IMO I ter atio al

Convention on the Control and

Ma age e t of “hips Ballast Water a d “edi e ts Ballast Water Ma age e t Co e tio –

BWMC, 2004

) aims to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic

organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships' ballast water and

sediments. The Convention will enter into force 12 months after ratification by 30 States,

representing 35 per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. To-date, the Convention is not in

force as the current ratifications do not represent yet 35 per cent of the world merchant shipping

tonnage.

Although the best strategy is to prevent introduction of NIS, this is extremely difficult as ships move

constantly in and out of an area, espe

ially for spe ies i trodu ed through gro th o the ship s hull

(hull fouling or biofouling) that is open to the environment. Recently, voluntary guidelines have been

adopted by the IMO to avoid the introduction of NIS

through the ship s hull for o

er ial a d

recreational ships (IMO Hull Fouling guidelines. MEPC.1/Circ.792 12 November 2012

The

Regional Sea Conventions

have taken various initiatives in relation to NIS.

Convention

the

Conservation

European

Wildlife

and

Natural

Habitats,

1979.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/104.htm

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, 1994. Ramsar, Iran, 2.2.1971 as

amended

the

Protocol

3.12.1982

and

the

amendments

28.5.1987.

http://www.ramsar.org/library/field_date/%5B1971-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z%20TO%201972-01-

01T00%3A00%3A00Z%5D/field_tag_body_event/establishing-the-convention-566

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), 1979. http://www.cms.int/en/node/3916

CBD, 2000. Executive Secretariat to the CBD, Climate Change and Biological Diversity: Cooperation between the

Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/6/11), available at <http://www.biodiv.org>

EU, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social

Committee and the Committee of the regions. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.

COM (2011) 244.

Available at the following link: http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-

Convention-for-the-Control-and-Management-of-Ships%27-Ballast-Water-and-Sediments-%28BWM%29.aspx

IMO Hull Fouling guidelines, 2012. Guidance for minimising the transfer of invasive aquatic species as

biofouling (hull fouling) for recreational craft [MEPC.1/Circ.792 12 November 2012].

HELCOM

parties have agreed to ratify the BWMC following the adoption of a HELCOM Ballast Water

Road Map by the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting (2007) in Krakow. A Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Task

Group on NIS is working to develop a common framework on the specific issue of exemptions for the

BWMC, for both the Baltic Sea and the North-East Atlantic regions (HELCOM, 2013a

). A list of non-

indigenous, cryptogenic and harmful native species in the Baltic Sea was compiled for the needs of

HELCOM Ballast Water Road Map, HELCOM HABITAT and MONAS and is continuously edited and

updated by various HELCOM subsidiary bodies, expert workshops and projects (list of taxa identified

from ports surveyed within HELCOM ALIENS- projects in HELCOM, 2014a

). Since 2008 the list has

been modified by HELCOM HABITAT (11/2009 and 12/2010), HELCOM MONAS (12/2009), the

HELCOM HOLAS project and, most recently, by the HELCOM CORESET project. HELCOM ALIENS

projects focused on NIS (ALIENS 3 was the most recent project that ended in 2013 and aimed to

support the ratification of BWMC by developing NIS monitoring in ports and the risk assessment

methods) (HELCOM, 2014a

, b

). HELCOM CORESET stated that in 2012 there were 118 NIS

reported in the Baltic Sea and 90 of those were considered to be established (Rolke et al., 2013

). In

addition, the HELCOM CORESET project developed a set of core indicators in the Baltic Sea.

Currently, 20 core indicators are established for biodiversity, covering the needs of MSFD including

NIS (HELCOM, 2013b

NIS introductions are identified as a relevant pressure from human activities in the

OSPAR

Maritime

Area (OSPAR, 2009 (draft)

). Recently the OSPAR Intercessional (OSPAR ICG COBAM) has proposed a

D2 indicator which will be likely promoted by the Environmental Impacts of Human Activities

Committee (EIHA) from a candidate to a common indicator for OSPAR Regions II, III, and IV. The

OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR, 2010

) states that over 160 NIS have been identified in the

OSPAR area, acknowledging ships' ballast water as the main vector of introduction. Other main

vectors are aquaculture and fouling on ships. The QSR provides a detailed list of NIS (taxonomic

group, common names, regions affected, vector, first reported and probable impacts) and highlights

the necessity of the OSPAR countries to ratify and implement the IMO BWMC. At the last update

(03/09/2014), there are 38 biodiversity indicators under development by OSPAR, one is dedicated to

NIS or invasive NIS (D2): trends in the arrival of new non-indigenous species (adopted as common

indicator in February 2015).

The

Barcelona Convention’s

Action Plan on Invasive Species deals with the growing number of IAS in

the Mediterranean (2005) and aims at strengthening the capacities of the Mediterranean countries

with regards to the prevention and control of introductions of non-indigenous species into the

HELCOM, 2013a. Joint HELCOM/ OSPAR Guidelines on the granting of exemptions under the International Convention for

the Co trol a d Ma age e t of “hips Ballast Water a d “edi e ts ‘egulatio A-4.

This document is a part of the 2013

HELCOM Ministerial Declaration and was adopted by the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting.

HELCOM, 2014a, HELCOM ALIENS 3

–

Tests of the harmonized approach to ballast water management exemptions in the

Baltic Sea. 56 pp.

HELCOM, 2014b. HELCOM guide to Alien Species and Ballast Water Management in the Baltic Sea.

Rolke M, Michalek M, Werner M, Lehtiniemi M, Strake S, Antsulevich A, Zaiko A, 2013. Trends in arrival of new non-

indigenous

species.

HELCOM

Core

Indicator

Biodiversity.

Online,

viewed

09/03/2015,

http://www.helcom.fi/Core%20Indicators/HELCOM-CoreIndicator-Trends_in_arrival_of_new_non-indigenous_species.pdf

HELCOM, 2013b. HELCOM core indicators: Final report of the HELCOM CORESET project. BALT. Sea Environ Proc. No.

136.

OSPAR, 2009 (draft). Trend analysis of maritime human activities and their collective impact on the OSPAR maritime

area. Prepared by the Intersessional Correspondence Groups for the BA6 Assessment and the Cumulative Effects

Assessment.

OSPAR, 2010. Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission. London. 176 pp.

Mediterranean Sea. About 1000 non-indigenous species have been identified in the Mediterranean

Sea, of which 500 are well established, with a new species being introduced roughly every ten days

(UNEP/ MAP, 2012

). A large portion has been introduced through the Suez Canal (47% according to

UNEP/MAP, 2009

). The Ecosystem Approach (EcAp) in the Mediterranean will gradually implement

such an approach for management and is expected to include an integrated monitoring programme

on non-indigenous species. The process follows a similar approach to that of HELCOM and OSPAR,

notably through the Integrated Correspondence Groups of GES and Targets (CORGEST) and the

Correspondence Group on Monitoring, (CORMON) Biodiversity and Fisheries. These recent groups

work on issues in line with D1, D2, D3, D4 and D6.

The

Black Sea Commission (BSC)

has committed to the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BSSAP, 2009)

adopted in Sofia. The action plan set out four Ecosystem Quality Objectives (ECOQs) in relation to

the MSFD descriptors of Good Environmental Status. The BSSAP ECOQs encompass several MSFD

descriptors: ECOQ 2 covers MSFD descriptors 1, 2, 4, 6 and 11 together. Finally, a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) to increase mutual support between IMO and BSC, was signed (2010) to cover

several environmental aspects of shipping, including ballast water management.

1.5 Clarification of the relevant scientific, technical and policy terminology in relation to

the descriptor.

A discussion on general policy terminology in the frame of the MSFD WG GES is on-going in parallel

to the review exercise.

Regarding D2 terminology, specific definitions can be found in scientific literature, legal documents

and associated reports and in RSC reports.

A ariety of defi itio s of the ter

-i

dige ous spe ies e ists oth i s ie tifi literature e.g.

Leppäkoski et al., 2002 ; Occhipinti Ambrogi and Galil, 2004

; Carlton, 2009

) and

legislative/administrative (e.g. IAS Regulation 1143/2014/ EU) documents.

The following definition of non-indigenous species (NIS)

was proposed by TG2

: No

-indigenous

species (NIS; synonyms: alien, exotic, non-native, allochthonous) are species, subspecies or lower

taxa introduced outside of their natural range (past or present) and outside of their natural dispersal

potential. This includes any part, gamete or propagule of such species that might survive and

UNEP/MAP, 2012. State of the Mediterranean marine and coastal environment, UNEP/ MAP- Barcelona Convention,

Athens, 2012.

UNEP/MAP/BP/RAC, 2009. The State of the Environment and Development in the Mediterranean 2009. United Nations

Environment Programme, Mediterranean Action Plan, Blue Plan Regional Activity Centre, Vallbone.

http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_bssap2009.asp#_Toc222222324

(accessed on 09/03/2015)

Leppäkoski E, Gollasch S, Olenin S, 2002. Introduction: alien species in European waters, in: Leppäkoski E et al. (Ed)

(2002). Invasive aquatic species of Europe: distribution, impacts and management 1-6.

Occhipinti A and Galil B, 2004. A uniform terminology on bioinvasions: a chimera or an operative tool? Marine Pollution

Bulletin 49:688–694.

Carlton JT, 2009. Deep invasion Ecology and the assembly of communities in historical time, in: Rilov G et al. (Ed) (2009).

Biological invasions in marine ecosystems. Ecological, management and geographic perspectives. Ecological studies 204:

13-48

Task Group 2 Report Non-indigenous species JOINT REPORT, 2010

subsequently reproduce. Their presence in the given region is due to intentional or unintentional

introduction resulting from human activities. Natural shifts in distribution ranges (e.g. due to climate

change or dispersal by ocean currents) do not qualify a species as a NIS. However, secondary

introductions of NIS from the area(s) of their first arrival could occur without human involvement

due to spread y atural ea s.

A subset of NIS are

invasive NIS

(synonym

invasive alien species’ (IAS)),

which are defined by TG2

as a su set of esta lished NI“ hi h ha e spread,

are spreading or have demonstrated their

potential to spread elsewhere, and have an adverse effect on biological diversity, ecosystem

functioning, socio-e

o o i alues a d/or hu a health i i aded regio s .

These definitions are equivalent to the co

ept of i asi e o

-i

dige ous spe ies

underlining the

Com Decision 2010/477/EU.

I additio , TG des ri ed the key ter s …levels

that do not adversely alter the ecosystems

the a se e or i i al le el of iologi al pollutio .

Biological pollution

is defined by TG2 as the

impact of IAS at a

level that disturbs environmental quality

by effects on: an individual (internal

biological pollution by parasites or pathogens), a population, a community, a habitat or an

ecosystem. It means that impacts can be observed at different levels, but it does not mean that any

impact is produced directly and exclusively at a given level. Thus, the sum of a given impact at

individual level will result in an impact at population level, which in its turn can produce changes in

the community and finally affect the ecosystem functioning. Conceptually, any impact in the lower

levels would produce, in larger or lesser degree, some change at ecosystem level. Therefore,

biological pollution can be defined by impacts at different levels, but GES according to MSFD could

be considered as not achieved only when the effects are observable at ecosystem level. However, to

be coherent with Descriptor 1 and other relevant policies it is necessary to establish how to define

GES in cases when the impact on ecosystem as a whole apparently is minimal but e.g. there is a

strong impact on e.g a protected species.

In the new IAS Regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of

invasive alien species the following definitions are given:

'alien species' means any live specimens of a species, subspecies or lower taxon of animals, plants,

fungi or micro-organisms introduced outside its natural range; it includes any part, gametes, seeds,

eggs, or propagules of such species, as well as any hybrids, varieties or breeds that might survive and

subsequently reproduce;

'invasive alien species' means an alien species whose introduction or spread has been found to

threaten or adversely impact upon biodiversity and related ecosystem services;

'invasive alien species of Union concern' means an invasive alien species whose adverse impact has

been deemed such as to require concerted action at Union level pursuant to Article 4(3);

'invasive alien species of Member State concern' means an invasive alien species other than an

invasive alien species of Union concern, for which a Member State considers on the basis of scientific

evidence that the adverse impact of its release and spread, even where not fully ascertained, is of

significance for its territory, or part of it, and requires action at the level of that Member State.

'pathways' means the routes and mechanisms of the introduction and spread of invasive alien

species;

The defi itio of alie spe ies gi e i the EU ‘egulatio on

IAS is similar to the one by TG2,

although less complete. Including aspects of intentional/unintentional introduction, natural shifts

and secondary introductions would be useful. Also, it could also be completed by including

genetically modified organisms, according to definition in the Regulation (EC) 708/2007 concerning

use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0708&from=EN).

A defi itio i ludi g these differe t aspe t ould e: alie spe ies

means any live specimens of

species, subspecies or lower taxon of animals, plants, fungi or micro-organisms introduced outside

its natural past or present distribution; it includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of

such species, as well as any genetically modified organisms, hybrids, varieties or breeds that might

survive and subsequently reproduce. Their presence in the given region is due to intentional or

unintentional introduction resulting from human activities. Natural shifts in distribution ranges (e.g.

due to climate change or dispersal by ocean currents) do not qualify a species as a NIS. However,

secondary introductions of NIS from the area(s) of their first arrival could occur without human

involvement due to spread by natural means.

There is the necessity to agree on a single (MSFD) definition per term to avoid confusion. This

requires taking into consideration definitions underlining the Com Decision 2010/477/EU with those

in the IAS Regulation (see above) to ensure expected coherence across the two policies.

Terminology should be carefully taken into account and harmonized across MSs. Among other, this

requires that issues arising from translations to the official languages of the MSs for publication in

the EU Official Journal must be addressed (e.g. the term

i asi e

became invasivo/a, when

translated to Portuguese but it should be invasor/a/es/s). It is recommend that official translations

should be reviewed by scientific experts of every MS.

Also, the relationships between certain management and scientific terminologies are required to

reduce the level of discrepancies between scientists, ecosystem managers and policy makers in the

EU Member States: Some relevant terminologies to be revisited under this vision include: normal

ecosystem quality and functioning, and an impacted ecosystem function and quality.

For definitions not yet covered by policy or the MSFD GES Common Understanding Document,

definitions established in the context of relevant initiatives should be considered, e.g. the

background document produced by OSPAR

including definitions on biodiversity issues.

1.6 Descriptor specificities should be highlighted and justified.

The main specificity of this descriptor, already highlighted in many documents, is that non-

indigenous species constitute a pressure on the ecosystems, which should be evaluated through

OSPAR, 2012. MSFD Advice Manual and Background Document on Biodiversity. London,

Publication Number: 581/2012, 141 pp. (available at:

http://www.ospar.org/v_publications/download.asp?v1=p00581

pressure indicators; but at the same time the non-indigenous species, once established, become a

new element of the bioceonosis of the invaded ecosystems, and their impact on state could

potentially be evaluated with indicators applied for assessing other descriptors, e.g. via multi-metric

indicators for plankton and benthos.

The descriptor requires for development of specific and independent criteria and indicators, and

hence monitoring systems, to evaluate what has

ee defi ed as propagules pressure i relatio

to the diverse introduction and spreading pathways; but the monitoring and evaluation of their

impacts when they are already established should be, to get more sound and reliable conclusions

and also coherent evaluations, integrated with those of the biodiversity descriptors (see table 1).

Table 1.

Relationship of broad ecosystem elements to main pressures, indicating which criteria from

the 2010 Decision are relevant to each state (S) and pressure (P) element, and which are associated

to impacts from pressures upon particular state components (orange cells). The boxes with a ?

indicate most likely gaps in impact criteria compared with the 2010 Decision. The blank boxes have

no impact criteria in the 2010 Decision but impacts may still occur (e.g. physical loss and/or damage

leading to loss of breeding grounds for birds, reptiles and fish). Refer to 2010 Decision for details

about the criteria (from GesDecision Review _Cross-cuttingIssues_V4, can be accessed at the

following

link

https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp?FormPrincipal:_idcl=Fo

rmPrincipal:_id3&FormPrincipal_SUBMIT=1&id=be6cb95f-0d58-401e-a89d-

7dc4b0b19a3d&javax.faces.ViewState=rO0ABXVyABNbTGphdmEubGFuZy5PYmplY3Q7kM5YnxBzKW

wCAAB4cAAAAAN0AAIxMnB0ACsvanNwL2V4dGVuc2lvbi93YWkvbmF2aWdhdGlvbi9jb250YWluZXIua

nNw).

1.7 An analysis of whether the criteria and/or indicators and/or methodological

standards for the particular descriptor are likely to be common across the EU or need

aspects to be specific at region or other scales.

The problem of NIS is a trans-regional one and therefore needs common standards for assessing,

monitoring, prevention and management of targeted species. However, some specific standards

need to reflect specific regional risks associated to exposure to vectors, pathways and sensitivity of

ecosystems to the species introductions, and the ecosystem characteristics, e.g. in the Baltic Sea

with its salinity gradient, these standards need to be adapted to a differing set of freshwater

invaders in the eastern and northern parts.

An analysis of the coherence amongst MS, especially amongst those sharing the same region, was

performed for the needs of the Art. 12 in-depth assessment (IDA, JRC, 2014). This work provides

crucial information for the feasibility of having common criteria and methodological standards

across EU and the identification of areas requiring regional approaches. The results of this analysis

are summarised in a chapter 2 (analysis of the implementation process).

1.8 The "climate sensitivity" for D2

Descriptor 2 has a range of climate sensitivities that can increase the risk of NIS secondary spreading

and the level of this pressure. Changes such as increased sea temperature can make conditions more

suitable for NIS from specific geographic areas resulting in an increased that those NIS can more

easily establish and spread in European waters. Lastly, some native species will naturally migrate

into new areas due to the changing climatic conditions and consequently change their potential

spatial habitats, which might be difficult to differentiate from human-induced introductions.

Thus, efforts are required to develop knowledge needed to distinguish between climate-change

mediated alterations to species distributions and human introduced NIS. The ability to distinguish

these two processes and categories of species enhances the formulation of cost-effective

management measures directed at achieving the desired GES levels.

1.9 An indication of whether a quantitative GES definition for the descriptor will be

possible or whether a qualitative/normative definition only should be used (on the basis

of Article 3(5)).

In theory it should be possible to determine quantitatively the status of NIS in a given ecosystem,

but as indicated above this presents particularly challenges.

Abundance may be difficult to assess quantitatively due to difficulties associated to e.g. account for

species with different life form strategies (e.g. single or colony forming) and low abundances in early

stages of invasion. It must be considered that the GES will depend ultimately of the direct impacts of

NIS on local biota, which is not necessarily related, at least linearly, with their abundance. Because of

that, taking into account the variety of NIS and the variability of their potential impacts in different

ecosystems, it will be difficult to define proper and widely accepted definitions of GES in relation to

NIS presence merely fixing a unique and common abundance threshold.

More accurate and cost-effective is to perform species presence inventories or number of species

encountered in widely spread locations in a subregion, e.g. Port of Rotterdam,, Wadden Sea. These

assessments of species spatial occurrence/ distributions could be considered as surrogates of species

abundance and of the level of invasiveness.

For other indicators, as Biopollution Level index (BPL), qualitative definitions could be easier to

agree, but even so it is difficult to evaluate the GES in relation to NIS, since their mere presence may

represent a potential threat to local biota. However,

The BPL is ot appli a le i so e M“ s aters

(e.g. in France, according to French experts), due to the high level of uncertainty of this index at cost-

effective effort for acquisition of required data. This is limiting its validity to few well studied places,

or to some taxa and, thus it would not have any ecological meaning.

One option could be to use ADR (abundance and distribution range), which is the basis for the BPL

but would be easier to assess as it does not need the impact information.

An alternative, or complement, to this approach would be to put the focus on the impacts, on the

effects of the presence of NIS instead of their abundance. In this way, to evaluate the GES in relation

to NIS results of the application of the indicators developed

for the iodi ersity

descriptors, 1, 4

and 6. This would ensure the coherence of the evaluations from the point of view of the biodiversity

conservation. Thus, any definition of GES referred to descriptor 2 should be linked to the

achievement of the GES in the biodiversity descriptors, in such a way that the environmental status

in relation to NIS would be defined as negative if it is also negative for these other descriptors, and

vice-versa.

GES could be at a first step defined qualitatively, notably according to the actual lacks of knowledge

for many species or habitats. For example, impacts on habitats or broader ecosystems condition and

functions could be defined qualitatively (e.g. based on community structure changes) and the

GES/no GES could be a deviation (qualitative or semi-quantitative=range) around this qualitatively

defined reference. Ideally, this biological pressure (extent, intensity, frequency) should be estimate

at least semi-quantitatively.

In parallel, taking into account the irreversibility of most of marine bio-invasions, a more dynamic

and operative approach for GES definition could be adopted. Thus, any increasing trend in the

presence and abundance of NIS in a given ecosystem, independently of their real impact, should be

qualified as negative, whereas negative trends or stable situations, even if the environmental status

cannot be defined as positive could be considered at least acceptable.

Due to lack of data and a full understanding everywhere of how NIS are introduced, where they

occur, how abundant they are and factors influencing their survival, establishing baseline

information for trend comparisons may be difficult.

2. Analysis of the implementation process

. Based on the Commission / Milieu Art. reports and the

JRC in-depth assessments

(IDA), a detailed summary of Art.12 findings related to the determination of GES and,

specifically, the use of the Decision criteria and indicators, should be made.

All Member States have defined GES for Descriptor 2. Most MS defined GES either at Descriptor

and/or Criterion level. Only six Member States have also defined GES at indicator level, of which four

defined GES only at indicator level. For a large proportion of MS the definitions were vague, with

some MSs reproducing the description provided in Annex I of the MSFD verbatim or very close to it

and did not provide measurable definition of GES and relative thresholds. There were significant

differences on the level of detail and focus of the approach reported by MS, i.e. some focused on

NIS, others on invasive NIS and others on both categories; several adopted a risk-based approach,

and some referred to impacts of NIS.

According to the

issio s

SWD (2014/49), no Member State was judged to have an adequate

definition of GES. Eleven Member States were considered to have a partially adequate definition of

GES, while nine were considered inadequate.

Criterion 2.1

was used more frequently than criterion 2.2. Several Member States explicitly adopted

a risk-based approach, primarily addressing vectors and pathways for introductions of NIS. The MSs

have in most cases indicated that GES could be achieved when the introduction of NIS does not

adversely affect the ecosystem but very few relate this to trends in abundance of NIS introductions

in order to achieve GES.

Criterion 2.2

(Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species). Ten Member States

referred to impacts of NIS. The types of adverse effects are generally not clarified.

The initial assessment (Art. 8) for Descriptor 2 was mostly based on existing literature,

supplemented in some instances by expert judgment. All MS provided an inventory of NIS present,

and generally the main vectors and pathways were described. Great variation was observed in the

number of NIS reported even between neighboring MSs, and across regions (IDA, 2014), reflecting

partly differences in the monitoring systems. Other potential reasons are: 1) variable number of

specific studies on NIS carried out in each country and 2) the resources invested by each country in

compiling information for the initial evaluation, since many information on this issue do not came

from regular monitoring systems carried out by the Administrations, but from sparse scientific, peer

reviewed or grey, literature.

It is suggested that to facilitate and harmonize the D2 implementation, regional and national NIS

inventories should be linked. The European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN,

http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/) could serve for this purpose. EASIN was established with the scope of

facilitating the exploration of existing alien species information in Europe to assist the

implementation of European policies on alien species, including marine species.

Art. 9 implementation assessments concluded that the level of coherence in the definition of GES for

Descriptor 2 within each of the four regional seas is considered to be low. That said there are

exceptions at sub-regional level, with a moderate level of coherence between the three Member

States in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Coherence in the Celtic Seas is also assessed as moderate.

Clear links should be made between Art. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of MSFD. Specific assessment methods

and associated boundaries or thresholds should be reported to facilitate the evaluation of GES

a hie e e t, of targets effi ie y a d the i ple e tatio of M“FD i ge eral

(IDA, 2014). Explicit

guidelines for indicator development should be developed aiming to ensure harmonisation of

assessments. As there has been very little information gathered on marine NIS from many MSs, the

recent established monitoring programmes have gathered for the first time gathered national

information on the current state of NIS. This will form a baseline from which further changes in

relation to GES will be measured.

2.2 Identification of any questions arising from the application of the current Decision,

including those identified by the Article 12 assessment.

Mediterranean and North East Atlantic Member States on the whole described knowledge and data

gaps in some detail and in some cases even (limited) plans to address them. This was not the case in

the Baltic where only two MS analyzed knowledge gaps in any detail (SWD2014/49/EU).

Just three MS provided (or tend to establish) baseline and thresholds in their initial assessment. IDA

(JRC, 2014) highlighted the need to link initial assessment (Art. 8) and definition of GES (Art. 9) with

specific trends, boundaries and thresholds (Table 2).

D2 reports are poor in detailing the methodological approaches applied by the MSs. MSs focused on

listing NIS and addressing the important vectors related to NIS, and less on assessing their impact in

particular ecosystems (IDA, 2014).

Some MSs associated BPL (Olenin, 2007) to GES definition, indicating its applicability in some regions

but also the need for better indicators and methodological standards related to NIS.

Table 2.

MS reported baselines and indicators thresholds for non-indigenous species (JRC, 2014)

Belgium

2.1.1

Introduction of new human induced non-indigenous species of macrofauna and macroflora

(>1 mm) in relation to the 2012 baseline is prevented.

Estonia

2.1.1

80% of cases in time series abundance significantly higher than absolute minimum registered

abundance

2.2.1

no increase in abundance

2.2.2

BPL index < 1

Greece

2.1.1

No increase in proportion of NIS in the abundance or biomass of the respective community

2.2.1

all NIS spp include <5% of biomass or space coverage

No algal blooms due to NIS

2.3 Relevant data from other sources, specific to every descriptor and recent findings

from MS should also be considered

The data gaps and inherent uncertainties existing information from sources prohibit to address all

three existing D2 indicators even partially and this despite the largely availability of existing

information

through ope a ess i for atio syste s su h as the Europea Co

issio s Europea

Alien Species Information System (EASIN;

http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/),

AquaNIS

(http://www.corpi.ku.lt/databases/index.php/aquanis/), DAISIE (http://www.europe-aliens.org/),

MAMIAS (http://www.mamias.org/)

and NOBANIS (http://www.nobanis.org/). These information

systems should be linked or unified to facilitate data access for MSs and properly address D2.

However, their usefulness is strongly dependent on MS data input to regional databases. This should

be highly recommended and

regional organizations like OSPAR or HELCOM can have a major role.

Other issue that should be further discussed and analysed include the inclusion of pathogens in D2.

The comments received express different opinions, but given that non-indigenous pathogens may

strongly impact marine ecosystems the issue should be further discussed to be able to conclude.

2.4 Good examples and approaches applied by MS, especially if used by multiple Member

States, and shortcomings should be listed systematically.

On a regional level, HELCOM is highlighted for good practice in the way the Convention adopted the

MSFD and for the progress achieved in developing relevant indicators

(

HELCOM, 2013b

HELCOM member countries applied the BPL for estimating the magnitude of the non-indigenous

phytoplankton species effects on the native phytoplankton community, pelagic habitat and

ecosystem functioning in the Baltic Sea (Olenina et al., 2009). BPL was reported by most of the

HELCOM member countries (where it is already operational) and from a few non-HELCOM members

that are going to evaluate BPL

utility in other regions. BPL was linked to all reported MSFD Articles

(8, 9 and 10) at least once and to Criteria 2.2 of the COM DEC (2010/477/EC).

Esto

ia s

approach could be considered as a good practice for linking well-defined metrics with

indicators accompanied by specific thresholds. In addition, they presented high level of consistency

in the way they reported for the three MSFD Articles (8, 9 and 10). However, this approach should

be considered with caution, since GES and targets are defined similarly and that raises some doubts

as to what exactly is the GES definition.

The Finish report on Art. 9 could be considered as an example of good practice, since they provided

a variety of GES statements covering pressures, impacts on the basis of number, frequency and ratio

of NIS, as well as species vectors.

The Greek

a d Portuguese s

approaches are considered as a good practice for their implementation

of Art 8. in respect to the NIS reported, because of the detailed information provided including NIS

recorded in national waters, year of the first record, origin of NIS, pathways of introduction,

populatio status e.g. esta lished, o asio al, u k o

a d NI“ taxonomic

groups.

More working relationships are encouraged between MS and also development of new working

relationships between Regional Convections.

2.5 Differences and similarities between the regions should be highlighted, where

applicable.

The regional coherence between the GES definitions is low in all sub-regions (SWD (2014) 47; IDA,

2014).

In respect to the methodologies listed in MS reports, BPL is referred by some HELCOM members but

not all contracting parties accepted to use the indicator. Non-HELCOM MSs reported that careful

studies are required to prove and advise on the applicability of the BPL in their areas of interest.

An OSPAR wide common indicator on NIS is being developed in relation to criterion 2.1.1.

– ‘isk

management of key pathways

a d e tors of i trodu tio of NI“ O“PA‘,

The OSPAR common indicator NIS3, developed by UK and Germany, has been adopted in subregions

II, III and IV and its merging to the HELCOM Trend indicator is at the moment discussed by HELCOM

CORESET II. Collaboration is planned to be opened up to other RSCs and it was proposed to develop

a network of experts to connect the communities in the different convention areas (Back to back

OSPAR, 2013. Report of the EIHA Common indicator Workshop. (Accessed 11/03/2015).

meeting of CORESETII and ICG-COBAM, October 2014

). The HELCOM core indicator is expected to

be adopted in June 2015.

3. Analysis of the current text of the Decision

3.1 Analysis of the current text of the Decision, identifying in particular those parts which

are best placed in guidance, those parts which are interpretative or explicative

information and those parts which need to be kept in the Decision in accordance with the

mandate provided by the Directive.



To be kept in the Decision, in accordance with the mandate provided by the Directive but

revised)

The following part of the Decision forms the core of the criteria and methodological standards.

Revised text appears in Bold. Explanations in parentheses are provided for all suggested changes. In

general, there is agreement on the proposed modifications to criterion 2.1 but there is still some

controversy regarding the criterion 2.2. This will require to be further considered to decide if it is

needed to adequately assess D2 and to agree on the revised version.

COM Decision PART B- Criteria for good environmental status relevant to the descriptors of Annex I

to Directive 2008/56/EC’

Descriptor 2: Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not

adversely alter the ecosystem.

2.1. Abundance

and state

and characterization of

non-indigenous species,

in particular invasive

species

As D is a pressure a d ot a state des riptor, the state i Criterio . is o fusi g a d is

better to be deleted. Other state descriptors by which the environments need to be assessed should

reflect the state with consideration of pressures including alien species pressure).

—

Trends in

new introductions,

abundance, temporal occurrence, and spatial distribution in the wild

non-indigenous species,

notably in risk areas, in relation to the main vectors and pathways (2.1.1).

(Trends in new introductions of alien species by pathway is an indicator closely related to the

management of pathways as requested by the new Regulation

o the pre e tio a d a age e t

of the i trodu tio a d spread of i asi e alie spe ies

; such an indicator can reflect the

effectiveness of measures to manage pathways)

2.2. Environmental impact of [invasive]

non-indigenous species

—

Ratio between [invasive]

non-indigenous species

and native species [in some well-studied

taxonomic groups (e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs)] that may provide a measure of change in species

HELCOM and OSPAR Commissions, 2014. Communication paper resulting from the joint meeting of HELCOM CORESET II

and OSPAR ICG-COBAM. Back to back meeting of CORESET II and ICG-COBAM, 1 October 2014. (Accessed 11/03/2015)

composition (e.g. further to the displacement of native species) (2.2.1)

(If only IAS are included in the

estimation of alien/native ratio then this is not a measure of community change)

—

Impacts of non-indigenous invasive species at the level of species, habitats and ecosystem, where

feasible (2.2.2)

Summary of comments received:

criterion 2.2 could be maintained, stating that GES could be evaluated through other

biodiversity

i di ators. Thus, riteria .

ould o sider pote tial i pa t fro

i ter al

pressure of i trodu ed NI“, taki g i to a ou t prese e a d relati e a u da e of

these

NIS, providing a sort of risk assessment, whereas 2.2 would deal with demonstrated

impacts, measured through state indicators related to other descriptors. However, 2.1, as

mentioned before, deals with already established NIS, when in many cases too late to do

something. A new criteria could be considered,

deali g ith the e ter al pressure

to a

gi e e osyste , it is the propagules pressure.

Remove criterion 2.2 based on the reasoning that the impact of non-indigenous species

should be considered in the status descriptors. The pressure level is measured by criterion

2.1 and should be such as to ensure GES for those descriptors.

Remove the indicator ratio between alien and native species. This will only consider

community changes rather than full ecosystem impact. Also, monitoring for all alien species

will be operationally difficult to achieve and the cost would be disproportionate taking

account that not all present an important risk to the marine environment. Furthermore,

change of species composition is unlikely to be controllable and thus to relate to the

programme of measures.

2.2.1 and 2.2.2 overlap; both measure impact from non-indigenous species. Suggest to

remove 2.2.1.

Cha ge . . to I pa ts of alie spe ies, here feasi le



To be taken out of the Decision and included in guidance

The following part of the Decision provides guidance on assessment and monitoring methodologies

and would be better placed (after substantial revision) in a separate guidance document. In addition,

it should be updated according to the entering into force of the new Regulation 1143/2014 and the

latest research and the progress made at RSC-level and by IMO. Finally, it should also be updated

with the findings from the first initial assessment of the MSFD.

The identification and assessment of pathways and vectors of spreading of non-indigenous species

as a result of human activities is necessary to prioritize actions for the management of pathways and

the prevention of new invasions. The initial assessment has to take into account that some

introductions due to human activities are already regulated at Union level to assess and minimise

their possible impact on aquatic ecosystems and that some non-indigenous species have commonly

been used in aquaculture for a long time and are already subject to specific permit treatment within

the existing Regulations. There is still only limited knowledge about the effects of the non-indigenous

species on the marine environment. Additional scientific and technical development is required for

developing potentially useful indicators especially of impacts of invasive non-indigenous species,

which remain the main concern for achieving good environmental status. The priority in relation to

assessment and monitoring relates to state characterisation, which is a prerequisite for assessment

of the magnitude of impacts but does not determine in itself the achievement of good environmental

status for this descriptor.

However, the amended Decision would need to make reference to the guidance were this

background information would be included.

3.2 The analysis should then include an overall identification of needs for guidance.

Guidance might be needed to clarify and harmonize descriptors definitions, methodological

standards under each criterion and their links.

In particular, detailed guidance for harmonized methodologies on how to assess particular impacts

at ecosystem level is needed.

3.3 An analysis of what to keep should take place, including specification on what may be

out dated or may need to be aligned with other or new legislation, etc.

The following criterion and indicator should be kept with suggested modifications:

2.1. Abundance

and state

and characterization of non-indigenous species.

—

Trends in

new introductions,

abundance, temporal occurrence, and spatial distribution in the wild

of non-indigenous species, notably in risk areas, in relation to the main vectors and pathways of

spreading of such species (2.1.1).

This could be decomposed in two methodological standards (indicators) taking in consideration the

already included NIS metrics.

Criterion 2.2 needs further consideration to agree if needed to enable an adequate assessment of D2

and if needed to agree on revised version (see section 3.1).

4. Identification of issues

Main findings and information that will be used in the next step of the revision process.

There is still lack of information and understanding of NIS impact on marine ecosystems, therefore

its inclusion as a criterion in GES definition is difficult. In fact, types of impacts occurring due to NIS

are hardly specified in the related GES definitions; it could be useful to create a stronger link

between Descriptor 2 and the biodiversity Descriptors (see table 1 and e.g. Katsanevakis et al.

2014

Clarify and review inter-Descriptor links is definitively a task to further progress, notably through

links between Art.8, 9, 10 and 11, and taking

i to a ou t the ross- utti g issues orkshop

23/01/2015, Copenhagen).

The link with D1 and D4 could be made by 2.2 (see table 1 ): Impacts of this biological pressure could

be assessed by assessing D1.7 (impacted ecosystem structure and functions); D1.6 (impacted habitat

condition); D6.2 (for benthic habitats, when IAS become an engineering species sensus Crooks,

2002

, 2009

); D1.3 (Impacted population condition) and D1.1 (distribution ); D4.1 (productivity of

key species impacted by invasive non-indigenous species) and D4.3 (abundance/distribution of key

species, for invasive non-indigenous species which impact trophic webs).

The regional coherence amongst countries when defining GES for D2 is low in regions and sub-

regions; the relatively low level of operational approaches for D2 provides an opportunity to work

for regional coherence through joint development of methodological standards and indicators.

OSPAR and HELCOM (see above) have made initial plans towards a common indicator.

Although the transitional waters are beyond the scope of the MSFD (i.e. under remit of the WFD),

NIS and notably IAS in transitional waters should be assessed as these constitute a potential

biological pressure to surrounding marine waters. Coordination of the MSFD with other relevant

legislations, in particular with the new IAS Regulation is required to avoid duplication of work and

ensure through coordination of activities the achievement of GES and prevention and management

of NIS.

The observed inconsistencies and uncertainties in the NIS lists included in the national reports may

lead to inefficient management and it could be improved by linking regional and national species

inventories. The European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN) is developing towards an

information exchange mechanism to facilitate the EU policy on invasive alien species, thus, it could

play a role linking all EU NIS databases. It is strongly recommended to keep updating national NIS

lists and the regional databases.

The guidance to prepare in association to the Commission Decision should include a table of

synonyms were terms such as NIS should be included.

It should be clarified that the reduction of the existing pressure (distribution and/or abundance of

NIS) is often only possible in a few specific cases. This assertion leads to the following suggestions:

The criteria trend in new introductions per vector should be kept. It allows to show

clearly if the pressure from non-indigenous species has changed and it is also

possible to relate to success/failure of management.

Criterion 2.2 needs further consideration to agree if needed to enable an adequate

assessment of D2 and if needed to agree on revised version (see section 3.1)

More information on ecosystem impacts of IAS, along with economic impacts, should be collected, in

particular if criterion 2.2 is retained.

Crooks JA, 2009. The role of exotic marine ecosystem engineers. In Riloy G, Crooks JA (Eds). Biological Invasions in

Marine Ecosystems: Ecological management, and Geographic Perspectives, Ecological Studies, vol. 204 (XXVI). Springer-

Verlag, pp. 215-238.

5. GES criteria (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

5.1 Conclude on the use of the existing Decision criteria and indicators, in the light of the

"refined" common understanding, the findings of the Article 12 assessment and relevant

international, EU and RSC legislation and approaches.

COM DEC Criteria have to be defined in a way to allow for a direct GES assessment that is related to

the Descriptor (Art. 6). However, for D2 this requirement is currently not achieved. The lack of

guidelines may lead to different interpretations to define GES in different levels (descriptor, criterion

or indicator).

Several Regional Sea Conventions are developing indicators, both in line with criteria 2.1, and

coherent between Regions:

HELCOM: Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species (adopted as core indicator)

OSPAR: Trends in the arrival of new non-indigenous species (adopted as common indicator)

Barcelona: Trends in the abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution of non-indigenous

species, particularly invasive, non-indigenous species, notably in risk areas in relation to the main

vectors and pathways of spreading of such species (adopted as common indicator).

Guidelines and methodological standards associated with these indicators should thus be integrated

on a revised Decision

5.2 Recommendation on which criteria to retain, which to amend and any to remove;

The criteria 2.1, once amended as

“Trends

in new introductions, abundance, temporal occurrence

and spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species notably in risk areas, in relation to the

main vectors and pathways of spreading of such species

should e retai ed,

since it addresses the

minimum information requirements for any risk assessment and rough evaluation of GES in relation

to this descriptor. Criterion 2.2 needs to be further considered to agree if it is needed to enable an

adequate assessment of D2 and if needed to agree on revised version (see section 3.1)

5.3Proposals for new criteria, if needed.

The current criteria address the pressure and impact exerted by the already established IAS.

However, except in cases in which the bio-invasions have been detected in very early phases, little

can be done with this information from the management point of view. As already stated, most of

management actions should be taken in the field of prevention of primary and secondary spreading

of NIS, acting on vectors.

Therefore,

a e

riteria deali g dire tly ith propagules pressure ,

could be considered,

developing indicators and related monitoring systems in relation to the different vectors (fouling,

ballast waters, aquaculture...), which would allow to evaluate the effectiveness of preventive

management measures.

The rate of new introductions can be used as a proxy of this external pressure, but it is not a direct

and reliable measure. Instead

Path ays a age e t easures

, at present an OSPAR candidate

indicator, could possibly be considered as criterion.

5.4 Rationale and proposal, where appropriate, for defining GES threshold values and

reference points, based on established and agreed scientific methods for quantifying and

applying GES boundaries, or for a normative definition of GES

See section 1.9. It will require further discussion.

6. GES methodological standards (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

To further discuss and complete when other paragraphs clarified

Specifications and standardized methods for monitoring and assessment

(in accordance with Art. 11(4))

7.1 Proposals for specifications on methods for monitoring (i.e. the collection of data

needed for assessment of each criterion, including parameters, units of measurement

and data quality requirements), which aim at ensuring the comparability of monitoring

results, on the basis of JRC / ICES / RSC survey protocols, relevant

European/international standards (e.g. ISO/CEN) and Article 12 findings.

It is important to agree on a feasible and cost-effective monitoring standard that will provide results

which are comparable between MS.

Monitoring of everything everywhere is not feasible. Focus dedicated monitoring on selected areas,

habitats or species groups (either taxonomy or trait based) in relation to risk of new introduction

through the various pathways (including, but not limited to ports)

. Use the regular monitoring for

the different biodiversity elements to cover other areas/habitats/species groups. When needed

amended with something like rapid assessment surveys.

Monitoring should use the standard methods for biological monitoring (e.g. HELCOM COMBINE

guidelines for the Baltic Sea). HELCOM and OSPAR monitoring methods, e.g. port sampling protocol

and RAS could be considered for use in other areas than those of their original applicability and in

other European seas.

http://helcom.fi/Documents/Ministerial2013/Ministerial%20declaration/Adopted_endorsed%20doc

uments/Joint%20HELCOM_OSPAR%20Guidelines.pdf#search=Helcom%2DOspar%20guidelines

Lehtiniemi M, Ojaveer H, David M, Galil B, Gollasch S, McKenzie C, Minchin D, Occhipinti-Ambrogi A, Olenin

S, Pederson J 2015: Dose of truth- Monitoring marine non-indigenous species to serve legislative

requirements. Marine Policy, 54: 26–35.

Another bottleneck in NIS monitoring is the lack of taxonomic expertise. New molecular methods are

being developed (e.g. by Cefas in the UK and by Denmark) on the use of molecular tools to get

around this issue.

7.2 Proposals for specifications on methods for assessment, which aim at ensuring

comparability of assessment results, including aggregation of monitoring data within an

assessment area for a particular criterion and if necessary aggregation across

assessment areas up to larger areas (e.g. (sub) region scales), and based on general

guidance prepared on scales and aggregation rules

and taking account of JRC / ICES /

RSC inventories and Article 12 findings.

Links should be established between MSs and EASIN

data ase, hi h is the Co

issio s NI“

inventory and can promote a coherent approach in the reporting of NIS. EASIN (European Alien

Species Information Network;

http://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/)

aims to facilitate the exploration of

existing alien species information in Europe from distributed sources, and to assist the

implementation of European policies on biological invasions. This is planned to be the information

support mechanism in relation to the new regulation on IAS.

Monitoring, methodological standards and assessment methodologies should also be linked with the

specifications of the regulation for alien species (1143/2014). The alien species database should be

fulfilling the following conditions: Be regularly updated by all MS, compatible with early warning and

rapid response tools.

More NIS databases that could contri

ute to har o ize M“ reporti g are listed i the IDA

See also: Ojaveer H, Eero M (2011) Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Environmental Status

of a Marine Ecosystem: Case Study of the Baltic Sea. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19231.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019231

8. Rational and technical background for proposed revision

8.1 Justification and technical background justifying the above proposals.

Covered in previous sections

9. Other related products (e.g. technical guidance, reference in common

understanding document)

Deltares SCALES project is developing guidance for WG GES.

9.1 Where aspects are identified which should be usefully laid down but not as part of the

decision, these elements should be specified and a proposal should be made in which way

they should be laid down, e.g. interpretative guide for the application of the future

Decision or CU guidance document or technical background document.

Outstanding issues identified during the review process of D2 in phase I and were not

completely tackled in this document:

1. Changes in Criterion 2.2

Issue:

Needs to be further considered, i.e. is it needed? If yes, agree on a revised version. This

requires considering links with other descriptors, in particular D1, D4 and D6

2. Exchange of information on indicators/ methodological standards

Issue:

Discuss and evaluate national and regional on-going work to develop indicators for D2

New criteria deali g directly with propagules pressure ?

Issues:

Current criteria address pressure and impact exerted by the already established IAS

4. GES threshold values

Issue:

Proposal for a coherent GES determination and GES threshold values

These issues could be tackled and feed a guidance document, in parallel with phase II of the review

process of the Com DEC 2010/477/EU to further support the implementation of the MSFD.

10. Background Documents



Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III Approach and outline

for the process, (EC- Committee/07/2013/03rev, 2013);

First steps in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive -

Assessment in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2008/56/EC, (CSWD, 2014);

Article 12 Technical Assessment, (Milieu ltd, 2014);

Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Descriptor 3, (ICES, 2012);

Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good

Environmental Status (GES) & Establishment of Environmental Targets (Articles 8, 9

& 10 MSFD), (DG GES, 2014);

Coherent geographic scales and aggregation rules in assessment and monitoring of

Good Environmental Status

–

analysis and conceptual phase, (Deltares, 2014);

In-depth

assess e t of the EU Me er “tates “u

articles 8,9 and 10, EUR26473EN (JRC, 2014)

issio s for the M“FD u der

Review of Methodological Standards Related to the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive Criteria on Good Environmental Status (JRC, 2011)

Guida e / Ter s of ‘efere e for the task groups riteria a d

sta dards for the Good E ologi al “tatus GE“ des riptors J‘C,

ethodologi al



CSWP (2011) on the Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters

and the criteria for good environmental status.

OSPAR (2012b). MSFD Advice Manual and Background Document on Biodiversity.

London,

Publication

Number:

581/2012,

141

pp.

(available

at:

http://www.ospar.org/v_publications/download.asp?v1=p00581)

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

operational with the current evidence base. The manual has therefore been rewritten to update and improve the current

approach of damage to the seafloor and condition of benthic community. In particular, forms of pressure on the seafloor

other than physical damage and functional aspects of the benthic community have been further emphasized.

The work on Descriptor 1 was taken over by JRC and that on Descriptor 11 has been carried out by TG Noise.

Suggestions

Next steps for implementation of the GES Descriptors for the period 2015–2018

In response to requests from EU Member States, and informally from the European Commission, ICES recommends the

following as next steps to aid implementation of Descriptors 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the MSFD.

Cross-cutting work

Gaps and overlaps across descriptors. The challenges when considering state (including biodiversity) and function

need to be considered across Descriptors 1, 3, 4, and 6. The concepts of trophic guild, taxonomic grouping, habitat

type, and fish stock need to be combined in a way that accounts for the functional requirements of the state

descriptors to ensure efficient implementation of the MSFD. This scientific work is needed before the revision of

the Commission decision is finalized; it is therefore relatively urgent. ICES recommends a preparatory project,

followed by a final 4- to 5-day workshop to agree ways to reconcile functionality with conservation objectives in

state descriptors. The outcomes of the workshop should be internationally peer-reviewed.

Aggregation within Descriptors 3, 4, and 6 (including spatial integration). Further guidance is required by EU

Member States (and European bodies) on approaches to aggregate indicators proposed to assess Descriptors 3,

4, and 6. Aggregation of assessments of different indicators should take the varying qualities of each indicator

into account, both in terms of their pressure–state relationships and to the levels of uncertainty in their

estimation. The issue of spatial extent in relation to overall assessment should also be considered. This guidance

is needed for the 2018 reporting round and should be carried out by the Regional Seas Commissions as a

combination of science and management decisions. ICES would be able to help in providing science support and

comparing regional responses.

Descriptor 3

ICES recommends developmental work to underpin the implementation of Criterion 3.3 and proposes a preliminary suite

of candidate indicators (see Annex 1). These indicators capture three relevant properties representing the state of fish

populations and pressure exerted on those populations: i) size distribution of the species (state), ii) selectivity pattern of

the fishery exploiting the species (pressure), and iii) genetic effects of exploitation on the species (state).

The following steps, involving a series of workshops, are required to make these proposals operational before 2017:

Indicator selection and evaluation against ICES criteria (ICES, 2014a, 2014b) using selected representative fish

stocks. The selected stocks should exhibit different characteristics (e.g. long-lived, short-lived, pelagic, demersal,

elasmobranchs) and be selected from a range of regions with the aim to select one validated indicator per

property. The selection of example stocks should consider data availability, the stock dynamics should exhibit

contrast (both in terms of productivity and exploitation). Data will be collated using a formal data call and should

include both catch/landings and age-at-length data, and survey information. Guidelines will be provided on the

type of stocks for which each indicator is relevant. Workshops with scientists with experience in fisheries science

from across Europe will be needed. The properties of underlying data, knowledge base, construction of

operational indicators, and sensitivities to underlying assumptions will be explored.

Evaluation of GES for Criterion 3.3 for selected stocks. Primary indicators will be processed similar to those in

criteria 3.1 and 3.2; where the knowledge on the characteristics of the indicator and its reference level should

enable the identification of the requirements for GES. Secondary indicators will also be considered. Workshops

will be needed and would follow step 1.

Applying methods for Criterion 3.3 to regional evaluations. Taking the methods developed to make an evaluation

of GES using example regions to further test the applicability of the approaches. This may be possible at a

workshop under Step 2 above or could be included as part of the work of ICES integrated ecosystem assessment

groups.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Descriptor 4

ICES recommends further developmental work to underpin the implementation of Descriptor 4 and proposes that the

challenges need to be addressed in the following ways:

Uncertainty and GES. Three major sources of uncertainty affect the ability to determine Descriptor 4 indicator

bounds (and similarly for other descriptors) and the interpretation of change in indicators in relation to GES: i)

statistical uncertainty with respect to measuring indicators, ii) uncertainty reflecting whether the values for

indicators relate to desirable or undesirable states, and iii) how direct and indirect linkages between indicators

and pressures affect Descriptor 4 indicator behaviour. Building upon existing projects, ICES recommends an

international peer-reviewed advisory process to provide methods to address these issues for all recommended

indicators (see Annex 2) in 2016.

Consistent regional and pan-regional interpretations of indicators, limits, and estimation methods. ICES notes the

suggestion to bring together experts to progress consistency in interpretation is important both within and

between regional seas (HELCOM–OSPAR, 2014). If requested, existing ICES working groups could be tasked with

developing agreed international guidelines to ensure consistent interpretations of indicators, limits, and

estimation methods in 2016–2017 in order to feed through to EU-wide assessments.

Further development of Descriptor 4 indicators. This work is required to consider the differing influences of

environmental variability and anthropogenic activity on considerations of GES for Descriptor 4. Indicator

development should specifically investigate the role of lower trophic guilds on the likely assessment of GES for

Descriptor 4, the role of size in foodweb stability, and management strategy evaluations of the sensitivity of

Descriptor 4 indicators to anthropogenic pressures. Much of this work should be carried out through projects,

but a workshop to bring together the outputs of the projects and updating the foodweb advice should be planned

for 2017.

Descriptor 6

ICES recommends further developmental work to underpin the implementation of D6 and proposes the following

actions:

1. Develop and test standards for assessing human pressures on benthic habitats within and between MSFD regions.

ICES in collaboration with the RSCs can provide peer-reviewed guiding principles that ensure alignment between GES

boundaries for seafloor integrity to support regional indicator development and to avoid conflicting results between

regions.

•

Identify where the collection of additional information is needed (ICES working groups are evaluating this for the

OSPAR area; similar processes are needed for other regional seas);

•

Agree the list of key functions to be addressed across and within MSFD regions using the recommended

Descriptor 6 indicators;

•

For each indicator, evaluate the applicability of existing concepts for setting GES boundaries and where possible

identify critical values that could be used for these boundaries. This will need a dedicated workshop in 2017.

2. Habitats and issues of scale. Long-term action is needed to select habitats and address the role of scale and of

connectivity in setting GES boundaries for the sea-floor. This work could take place in one workshop in 2018 and

would include:

•

Agreeing the list of habitats to be assessed;

•

Resolving issues of scale by defining, e.g. at what EUNIS hierarchical level habitats are going to be addressed.

3. Assessment of recoverability of seafloor integrity. No standards or methods exist for this key attribute of marine

ecosystems. Development of such standards could be carried out in a project.

Basis of the advice

The European Commission is in the process of reviewing and potentially revising the Decision on criteria and

methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (EU, 2010).

As part of this process, ICES was tasked in early 2014 with Descriptors 3 (Populations of commercially exploited fish and

shellfish), 4 (Foodwebs), and 6 (Sea-floor integrity). A series of workshops held in autumn 2014 provided guidance

reports with dedicated recommendations (ICES, 2014a, 2014c, 2014e). The results of the workshops were used to update

“templates” provided by the European Commission to form first drafts of Descriptor “manuals” (ICES, 2014b, 2014d,

2014f). Following a meeting of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy Working Group on Good Environmental

Status (WGGES) in October 2014, further work and clarification was requested from ICES in December 2014 (see request

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

below). As a result further workshops were held in Copenhagen in February 2015 (ICES, 2015a, 2015b). The results of

these second workshops have been used in updating the templates (attached as Annexes 1–3).

Sources and references

EU. 2010. Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. Commission

Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF.

HELCOM–OSPAR. 2014. Communication paper resulting from the joint meeting of HELCOM CORESET II and OSPAR ICG-COBAM. 1

October 2014, Gothenburg, Sweden. 33 pp.

ICES. 2014a. Report of the Workshop on guidance for the review of MSFD Decision Descriptor 3 – commercial fish and shellfish

(WKGMSFDD3), 4–5 September 2014, ICES HQ, Denmark. ICES CM 2014\ACOM:59. 47 pp.

ICES. 2014b. EU request to ICES for review of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Descriptor 3 – Commercially exploited fish and

shellfish.

Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 11 (Technical services), Section 11.2.1.3.

ICES. 2014c. Report of the Workshop to review the 2010 Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good

environmental status (GES) of marine waters; Descriptor 4 Foodwebs, 26–27 August 2014, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM

2014\ACOM:60. 23 pp.

ICES. 2014d. EU request to ICES for review of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Descriptor 4 – Foodwebs.

Report of the

ICES Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 11 (Technical services), Section 11.2.1.4.

ICES. 2014e. Report of the Workshop to review the 2010 Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards on good

environmental status (GES) of marine waters; Descriptor 6, 2–3 September 2014, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM

2014/ACOM:61. 37 pp.

ICES. 2014f. EU request to ICES for review of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Descriptor 6 – Seafloor integrity.

Report of

the ICES Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 11 (Technical services), Section 11.2.1.5.

ICES. 2014g. EU request on draft recommendations for the assessment of MSFD Descriptor 3.

Report of the ICES Advisory

Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 1, Section 1.6.2.1.

ICES. 2014h. EU request on proposal on indicators for MSFD Descriptor 4 (foodwebs).

Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2014.

ICES Advice 2014, Book 1, Section 1.6.2.2.

ICES. 2015a. Report of the Workshop on guidance for the review of MSFD decision descriptor 3 – commercial fish and shellfish II

(WKGMSFDD3-II), 10–12 February 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:48. 31 pp.

ICES. 2015b. Report of the Workshop on guidance for the review of MSFD decision descriptor 4 – foodwebs II (WKGMSFDD4-II), 24–

25 February 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:49. 48 pp.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Annex 1

Possible approach to amend Decision 2010/477/EC

Descriptor 3: Commercially exploited fish and shellfish

Author

Milieu

DG Environment

ICES Core group

ICES advice (Annex 1)

Version

Date

2 May 2014

30 May 2014

1 October 2014

20 March 2015

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

Possible approach to amend Decision 2010/477/EC

Descriptor 3: Commercially exploited fish and shellfish

Title of Descriptor

Good environmental status for Descriptor 3 – Commercially exploited fish and shellfish

Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age

and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

1. Approach

Definition of the Descriptor

Descriptor 3 deals specifically with the state of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The descriptor definition

contains a number of specific attributes that require further specification.

Commercially exploited fish and shellfish

are all marine biological resources which are targeted for economic reasons,

including the bony fish (teleosts), sharks and rays (elasmobranchs), crustaceans such as lobsters and shrimps, and

molluscs (including bivalves and cephalopods). Other marine biological resources (e.g. jellyfish and starfish) might be

included in the circumstances of being commercially exploited and managed under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

Population

usually refers to a reproductively isolated biological unit. We propose to use “species” for the wider

population, which may consist of several stocks, i.e. the functional unit for management/assessment purposes, while

recognizing that a stock may consist of several “subpopulations”.

ICES uses “stock” when the methodology to assess the status of Descriptor 3 against good environmental status (GES) is

based specifically on stock assessments; in other cases “species” is used, acknowledging that sometimes higher

taxonomic groupings (e.g. genus) may be used.

The CFP provides a definition for “stock” – “a marine biological resource that occurs in a given management area”.

For the Northeast Atlantic and Baltic region ICES has defined a stock as being part of a fish population, usually with a

particular migration pattern, specific spawning grounds, and subject to a distinct fishery. However, fishery management

units rarely match the scale of populations and research has frequently found that more than one population occurs

within a stock boundary. There has been considerable recent improvement in the understanding of population

structuring and some boundaries for assessed stocks now reflect this understanding.

In the Mediterranean, the limited biological knowledge leads stocks to be defined largely by area and not on the basis

of well-established biological knowledge of population units.

All.

The Descriptor applies to all the species covered by Council Regulation 199/2008 (the Data Collection Framework

(DCF)) within the scope of Directive 2008/56/EC (MSFD), including internationally managed stocks as well as stocks

managed regionally and nationally.

Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008 (DCF) establishes the Community framework for the collection, management, and use

of data in the fisheries sector. Pursuant to the Regulation, the Commission Decision (2010/93/EU) set forth the

multiannual Community programme for the collection, management, and use of data in the fisheries sector. It

determines which stocks are considered under the DCF for the period covered by the Decision (2011–2013). The species

listed by region in Annex VII of 2010/93/EU are therefore the commercial species of fish and shellfish that, as a minimum,

should be considered under Descriptor 3.

In addition to this, EU Member States can include other commercially exploited species such as inshore species not

covered by the CFP or DCF, as well as other species. Because it is impossible to include every species that has occurred

in the catches at some point in time (or are otherwise deemed to be of commercial interest), a pragmatic interpretation

of “all” needs to result in a “selection” (i.e. in line with the phrase “selected commercially exploited fish and shellfish”

in the Barcelona Convention (UNEP/MAP) objective related to fisheries) which needs to be agreed upon at a

(sub)regional level. This selection should include all species for which exploitation is considered to have significant social

or economic importance for the (sub)region.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Safe biological limits.

European Parliament and Council Regulation 1380/2013 (CFP) defines a “stock within safe

biological limits” as “a stock with a high probability that its estimated spawning biomass at the end of the previous year

is higher than the limit biomass reference point (B

lim

) and its estimated fishing mortality rate for the previous year is less

than the limit fishing mortality rate reference point (F

lim

)” (Article 4(18)).

Following the precautionary approach the two attributes that have been used by ICES and GCFM to assess stocks against

safe biological limits specify that stocks should:

1 ) be exploited sustainably (e.g. F ≤ F

or F ≤ F

0.1

)

and

2 ) have full reproductive capacity (B ≥ B

In order to align with CFP aiming “to restore and maintain populations of harvested species above levels which can

produce maximum sustainable yield”, the first attribute of GES, i.e. exploited sustainably, was extended into “be

exploited sustainably with high long-term yield” and

including the requirement F ≤ F

MSY

With respect to reproductive capacity of the stock, ICES (2014a) advised that:

Even when a stock is fished at a constant F value, the SSB will fluctuate due to natural factors. For most data-rich stocks,

assessed with analytical methods, information on the lower bound of SSB fluctuations around B

MSY

(e.g. MSY B

trigger

for

ICES stocks) is available to be used as a reference level for Criterion 3.2. ICES considers a stock fulfils the criterion (“green

status”) if the spawning-stock biomass is above MSY B

trigger

. An appropriate choice of B

MSY

requires contemporary data

with fishing at F to experience the normal range of fluctuations in SSB. Until this experience is gained, B

has, for the

time being, been adopted for many of the stocks assessed by ICES as MSY B

trigger

even though B

and MSY B

trigger

correspond to different concepts. Therefore, MSY B

trigger

marks the lowest boundary associated with

SSB

MSY

, and in

practice this is set as the border of safe biological limits (B

While ICES initially adopted B

as a proxy for MSY B

trigger

, a process is now underway to update the value of MSY B

trigger

so that it corresponds with the lower boundary in the range of SSB

MSY

. For example, MSY B

trigger

has for some stocks been

defined as “the lower 95% confidence limits (of SSB) with exploitation at F

MSY

from long-term simulations”.

Hence, concerning stocks for which ICES advice is used as the basis for the assessment of GES, and to fulfil the GES

Criterion 3.2, ICES recommends

that SSB ≥ MSY B

trigger

, where MSY B

trigger

marks the lowest boundary associated with

SSB

MSY

Updated estimates of reference levels for criteria 3.1 and 3.2 will be reviewed periodically and adopted by ICES, GFCM,

ICCAT, and STECF, as relevant.

Exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock

introduces a requirement to

manage the demographics of fish stocks. At present there is uncertainty about how to interpret and implement this

aspect and a scientific debate is ongoing on relevant indicators and reference points. While several criteria have been

put forward that characterize a “healthy stock”, i.e. high resistance and/or high resilience, the Commission Decision

2010/477/EU states that “Healthy stocks are characterized by a high proportion of old, large individuals”.

Linkages with existing relevant EU legal requirements

European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 1380/2013. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is closely linked to the

MSFD and the achievement of GES for Descriptor 3 relies on the measures taken under the CFP. When the MSFD was

adopted the CFP was still in the reform process. The new CFP includes specific links to the MSFD; Article 11(1) in

particular creates a direct link from the CFP to the MSFD.

Council Regulation (EC) 199/2008 establishes the Community framework for the collection, management, and use of

data in the fisheries sector (Data Collection Framework (DCF)). Pursuant to the Regulation, the Commission Decision

(2010/93/EU) set forth the multiannual Community programme for the collection, management, and use of data in the

fisheries sector. It determines which stocks are considered under the DCF for the period covered by the Decision (2011–

2013). Descriptor 3 applies at least to all DCF stocks as laid out in the multiannual Community programmes for the

relevant time period, but also to regionally important stocks currently not listed under the DCF.

Linkages with international and RSC norms and standards

The Regional Seas Conventions (RSCs) vary in their approach to fisheries.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

OSPAR had an ecological quality objective (EcoQO) that aims to maintain the spawning-stock biomass above

precautionary reference points for commercial fish stocks where those were agreed by the competent authority for

fisheries management. This EcoQO is strongly linked to the requirement of Descriptor 3 for stocks to remain within safe

biological limits, and to Indicator 3.2.1 of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU.

HELCOM adopted the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in 2007, which urges the “competent fisheries authorities to take all

the necessary measures to ensure that, by 2021, populations of all commercially exploited fish species are within safe

biological limits, reach maximum sustainable yield (MSY), are distributed through their natural range, and contain full

size/age range.” The BSAP text was clarified during the Ministerial Declaration in 2013: “populations of all commercially

exploited fish and shellfish should be within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution

indicative of a healthy stock and that Maximum Sustainable Yield shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and on a

progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks”. The updated text shows consistency between the

BSAP and the MSFD D3 in that it requires all species to be within safe biological limits, fish populations should reach

MSY and exhibit a population that is indicative of a healthy stock.

In the Mediterranean, 11 ecological objectives are set by the Barcelona Convention (UNEP/MAP, 2012) and one

objective applies to fisheries: Populations of selected commercially exploited fish and shellfish that are within

biologically safe limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock. The text is

almost the same as that for Descriptor 3. The only difference is that instead of applying it to all commercially exploited

stocks it applies only to selected stocks.

For the Black Sea the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) aims to preserve commercial marine living resources. The relevant

EcoQO is split into two generic components:

•

EcoQO 1a: Sustainable use of commercial fish stocks and other marine living resources;

EcoQO 1b: Restore/rehabilitate stocks of commercial marine living resources.

The "climate sensitivity"

Fish stocks have a high level of climate and subsequent environmentally driven sensitivity. Short- and long-term trends

in weight and maturity are frequently observed across a range of species, especially in recent years. The difficulty in

predicting the trends in future climate-driven effects means that reference points should be based on recent

productivity. Brunel

et al.

(2010) have shown how environmental Harvest Control Rules (eHCRs) can be developed with

MSY

varying according to environmental conditions. They tested such eHCRs and found that the benefits were the

greatest for stocks with the strongest environment–recruitment relationship.

Distribution has been shifting northwards for many fish stocks. This may be linked to changes in sea temperature,

although the trend is not uniform across stocks (ICES, 2013). Furthermore, in areas where species cannot shift their range

further, it is possible that some species will be lost. The Mediterranean, for example, might become a more homogenous

tropical-like ecosystem with likely loss of cold-water species (MARBEF, 2013). Regular updates of assessments and

management reference points ensures that such variation is taken into account.

Definition of GES

Aggregation method(s) considered

In relation to GES, aggregation criteria have not been considered previously. A recent study by Borja

et al.

(2014)

discusses the various aggregation issues. For the MSFD in general and Descriptor 3 in particular, these issues may apply

to the following:

•

Across stocks per indicator;

Across indicators within criteria;

Across criteria within descriptors;

Across descript ors.

•

Several relevant examples of aggregation in the context of Descriptor 3 exist (e.g. Probst

et al.,

2013; ICES, 2014a,

2014b).

Prioritization of criteria (e.g. 3.1 vs. 3.2 or 3.3) can be considered for simplicity, communicability and cost-efficiency in

analysis and monitoring. However, this should not compromise comprehensiveness (state indicators) or integration of

cumulative effects (pressure indicators).

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Reporting

The methodological standards to report on the status of Descriptor 3 against GES contain guidance on:

The selection of a pragmatic suite of species that represent “all commercially exploited fish and shellfish” for

each MSFD (sub)region. It is important to note that for stocks that straddle national boundaries there should

not be a national selection of species alone;

The recording of all relevant sources of information that provide information for the assessment of status

against three criteria of GES;

The reporting of the status against GES for each of these criteria separately.

Article 9(3) of the MSFD states:

“Criteria and methodological standards to be used by the Member States, which are

designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be laid down, on the basis of

Annexes I and III, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 25(3) by 15 July 2010

in such a way as to ensure consistency and to allow for comparison between marine regions or subregions of the extent

to which good environmental status is being achieved.”

The proposed reporting fulfils the requirements of the methodological standards in that it (1) ensures consistency, (2)

allows comparison between marine regions or subregions, and (3) reports the extent to which good environmental

status is being achieved over time.

Reporting of each criterion separately also has the advantage of avoiding the need to take arbitrary decisions on the

preferred aggregation method. Each aggregation method will deliver a different outcome and there is no scientific basis

to favour one method over another.

Moreover, from a transparency point of view and also as a guide to management, aggregation across criteria may

obscure or hide the reasons for failing to reach GES. Applying the proposed reporting approach for each criterion

separately therefore seems the best solution. Examples of this kind of reporting can be found in ICES advice on

Descriptor 3 (ICES, 2014a).

2. Results of the Article 12 assessment (including in-depth assessment)

Descriptor

All EU Member States defined GES for Descriptor 3; however, only four did so at the descriptor level. Although GES

definitions were not directly comparable between EU Member States, none were defined in a way that significantly

deviated from those provided in the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. Most EU Member States applied criteria 3.1

and 3.2 and a more limited, but still noticeable, number applied Criterion 3.3.

Criterion 3.1 – Level of pressure of the fishing activity

All EU Member States applied Indicator 3.1.1 “Fishing mortality (F)” and each of these used the fishing mortality at

maximum sustainable yields (F

MSY

) in their GES definition, except one Member State that used a proxy for F

MSY

0.1

Most countries have GES definitions which do not require either explicitly or implicitly that all stocks are exploited at or

below F

MSY

. Two EU Member States used F

MSY

as an environmental target value rather than as a limit or boundary for

GES. For those stocks for which F could not be determined seven EU Member States applied the secondary Indicator

3.1.2 “Catch/biomass ratio”. One Member State also provided a third indicator, “Catch per unit effort (cpue)”. Moreover,

three EU Member States included the “exploitation rate” indicator and set a threshold level of E = 0.4, which is

appropriate for small pelagic species.This approach is followed for the GFCM assessed stocks.

Criterion 3.2 – Reproductive capacity of the stock

For Criterion 3.2, most EU Member States have covered the primary Indicator 3.2.1 “Stock-spawning biomass SSB”, but

using different reference points: SSB

MSY

, SSB

, or MSY B

trigger

. Other EU Member States implicitly applied precautionary

approach levels by stating that stocks need to be within safe biological limits. Six EU Member States also applied the

secondary Indicator 3.2.2 “Biomass indices”. One Member State proposed an alternative secondary indicator based on

trends of survey abundance.

Criterion 3.3 – Population age and size distribution

Criterion 3.3 is the least developed criterion for Descriptor 3 and still needs further methodological development.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

Regional coherence for Descriptor 3

There are few specific regional differences to highlight. Only Mediterranean EU Member States applied the indicator

exploitation rate (E) for small pelagic species. Criterion 3.3 was proportionally used least in the Northeast Atlantic; the

Mediterranean and Baltic Member Countries applied this criterion more often.

3. Analysis of the current text of the Decision

Taking into account that the Decision text should be simplified and contain legal text only it is recommended that some

sections providing background information or technical explanations should be deleted and moved to a guidance

document (e.g. Staff Working Paper) where they can be further developed.

Such text is marked with strike-through

text below. Amendments have been made both in the strike-through text sections and in the remaining text.

Furthermore, a major revision of Criterion 3.3 is proposed based on three properties of the “population age and size

distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock” and at least three (primary) indicators for these properties. Each of the

initial indicators for 3.3 (except 3.3.2) are potential candidates, while at least one new indicator describing the

“Selectivity pattern of the fishery exploiting the species” (pressure indicator) should be selected. The Indicator 3.3.2

“Mean maximum length across all species found in research vessel surveys” was considered not appropriate to

Descriptor 3 and possibly more relevant to describe biodiversity of the wider fish community (i.e. beyond the

commercial fish species) addressed in Descriptor 1 (ref. Section 4.2.1).

With these comments the present Decision text could be amended as follows:

Descriptor 3:

Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a

population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

This section applies for all the stocks covered by Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008 (within the geographical scope

of Directive 2008/56/EC) and similar obligations under the common fisheries policy. For these and for other stocks, its

application depends on the data available (taking the data collection provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 199/2008

into account), which will determine whether it is appropriate to use primary or secondary indicators. For Descriptor 3,

the three criteria for assessing progress towards good environmental status, as well as the indicators related respectively

to them, are mentioned below.

Criterion 3.1 – Level of pressure of the fishing activity

Primary indicator.

The primary indicator for the level of pressure of the fishing activity is the following:

— Fishing mortality (F) (Indicator 3.1.1).

Achieving or maintaining good environmental status requires that F values for stocks are equal to or lower than F

MSY

the level capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY). In mixed fisheries and where ecosystem interactions

are important, long-term management plans may result in exploiting some stocks more lightly than at F

MSY

levels in

order not to prejudice the exploitation at F

MSY

of other species (EU, 2006).

F and F

MSY

need to be estimated using standardized procedures (e.g. analysis of catch-at-age or at length) and ancillary

information. Where the knowledge of the population dynamics of the stock do not allow such assessments to be carried

out, scientific judgement of F and (proxy of) F

MSY

values associated to the yield-per-recruit curve (Y/R), combined with

other information on the historical performance of the fishery or on the population dynamics of similar stocks, may be

used. All stocks for which a value of F and an agreed value for F

MSY

is available can be included in the assessment against

GES, using this indicator.

Secondary indicators

(if analytical quantitative assessments yielding values for F are not available):

— Ratio between catch and biomass index (hereinafter “catch/biomass ratio”) (Indicator 3.1.2).

This is a typical secondary indicator for which there is a limited scientific basis to set any reference points. For assessment

purposes an appropriate method for trend analysis can be adopted (e.g. the current value can be compared against the

long-term historical average).

Criterion 3.2 – Reproductive capacity of the stock

Primary indicator.

The primary indicator for the reproductive capacity of the stock is:

— Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) (Indicator 3.2.1).

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Achieving or maintaining good environmental status requires that SSB values are equal to or above SSB

MSY

, the level

capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY).

SSB and SSB

MSY

need to be estimated using standardized procedures (e.g. analysis of catch-at-age or at length) and

ancillary information. Where the knowledge of the population dynamics of the stock do not allow such assessments to

be carried out, scientific judgement of SSB and (proxy of) SSB

MSY

values associated to the yield-per-recruit curve (Y/R),

combined with other information on the historical performance of the fishery or on the population dynamics of similar

stocks, may be used.

Further research is needed to address the fact that the values of SSB corresponding to MSY, estimated for each stock in

isolation, may not be achieved for all stocks simultaneously due to possible interactions between them.

Where current knowledge does not allow for estimation of a reliable value for SSB

MSY

, an alternative reference point at

which there is a high probability that the stock is able to replenish itself under the prevailing exploitation conditions may

be set by the international scientific bodies, to be used for the purpose of this criterion in the assessment against GES

with this indicator.

Only stocks for which a recent value of SSB and an agreed value for SSB

MSY

is available can be included in the assessment

against GES, using this primary indicator.

Secondary indicators

(if quantitative assessments yielding values for SSB are not available):

— Biomass indices (Indicator 3.2.2).

This is a typical secondary indicator for which there is as yet limited scientific basis to set any reference points. For

assessment purposes an appropriate method for trend analysis needs to be adopted (e.g. the current value can be

compared against the long-term historical average).

Alternative indices may be obtained for the fraction of the population that is sexually mature.

Criterion 3.3 – Population age and size distribution

This criterion should reflect that healthy stocks of many species are characterized by a high proportion of old, large

individuals. The current four indicators are difficult to use at present to assess GES; however, they do provide a way of

assessing change. Data collection for these indicators should be maintained for the time being, but the indicators should

not be used in evaluating GES.

Specifically, new indicators for Criterion 3.3 are needed to take account of varying selectivity patterns in commercial

catches. This new suite of indicators should aim to capture three relevant properties that describe or are directly linked

to this criterion.

Size distribution of the species (state)

•

Proport ion of fish larger t han t he m ean size of first sexual m at urat ion ( form er I ndicat or 3.3.1) .

95t h percent ile of t he fish lengt h dist ribut ion observed in research vessel surveys ( form er I ndicat or

3.3.3) .

Selectivity pattern of the fishery exploiting the species (pressure)

•

Lengt h ( or age depending on dat a availabilit y) at first capt ure ( lengt h/ age at which 50% of fish are

vulnerable t o/ ret ained by t he gear) .

Proport ion of fish in t he cat ch larger t han size at which 50% is m at ure.

Mean lengt h in t he cat ch.

Genetic effects of exploitation on the species (state)

•

Size at first sexual m at urat ion ( form er I ndicat or 3.3.4) .

Length at which half of the (female) population are mature (50% of total length – TL50).

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

4. Methodological standards for monitoring and assessment in relation to GES

Different aspects of the methodological standards required for the assessment of Descriptor 3 in relation to GES are

considered in each of the sections below. The assessment should be based on a common four-step approach:

1 ) Prepare a list of commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks in the relevant marine region, to be used for the

assessment of Descriptor 3, and provide the rationale for the selection of species/stocks.

2 ) Catalogue and document the available information for each of the species/stocks selected for the Descriptor 3

assessment.

3 ) Evaluate the stock status against the three GES criteria mentioned in EC Decision 2010/477/EU (EU, 2010), i.e.

Criterion 3.1 (level of pressure of the fishing activity), Criterion 3.2 (reproductive capacity of the stock), and Criterion

3.3 (population age and size distribution) by stock and/or species-functional group (i.e. pelagic, demersal/benthic,

shellfish, elasmobranch, deep water).

4 ) Determine the overall status and identify issues, problems, gaps, and links to other MSFD descriptors (e.g. D1 –

Biodiversity and D4 – Food webs), together with any additional monitoring needs.

Selection of commercially exploited fish and shellfish

It is important to adopt a practical and common sense approach based on the commercial species monitored under the

DCF, potentially involving three spatial scales:

•

Local species relevant at a national level;

(Sub)regional species with a distribution area that maps entirely or sufficiently to that region;

Straddling or highly migratory species occur in several subregions and may be exploited by fisheries based in

remote MSs (outside the subregion). Because of their often high landings compared to the (sub)regional species

inclusion of these species may severely affect the outcome of the assessment.

This should result in the selection of a suite of species for which exploitation is considered to have significant importance

for the (sub)region.

The ICES FishStat and/or FAO annual statistics can be used as an aid to determine the importance of each species based

on their relative contribution to the landings. To that end a minimum threshold (e.g. >1% or >0.1%) over the landings in

the last five (or more) years can be applied. Species that do not meet this threshold but are considered important (e.g.

salmon in the Baltic Sea) can still be included. With the full introduction of the landings obligations, the process used to

support the determination of the importance of each species should be reviewed to ensure that proper quantities in

terms of catches are being used.

Finally, consideration could be made as to whether a species that presently occurs at a low level (e.g. due to

overexploitation) but with historically high landings, should be included in the suite of species.

Available information

For each of the species in the selected suite of species, the available sources of information need to be recorded (Table

1).

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Table 1. Methodological standards for commercially exploited fish and shellfish. I: Assessment of the status of the

marine environment, II: monitoring, and III: environmental targets.

RITERIA

VAILABLE

STANDARDS FOR

OURCE

EFERENCE

EGIONAL COVERAGE

OMMENTS

EU/Quantitative stock

assessments are not

available for all stocks and

considerable differences in

data availability exist

between (sub)regions. Data

deficiencies often result in

the use of agreed

approximations of F

MSY

rather than F

MSY

EU/Stock production-based

assessments are not

available for all stocks.

Fishing mortality (F) (3.1.1).

F values are equal to or lower than

MSY,

the level capable of producing

maximum sustainable yield (MSY).

I, II, III

CFP

Quantitative stock

assessment done by

ICES, GFCM, STECF,

and ICCAT on data

collected under DCF

(EU, 2008a)

Ratio between catch and biomass

index (hereinafter catch/biomass

ratio) (3.1.2).

The catch/biomass ratio yielding MSY

can be taken as an indicative

reference.

Spawning-stock biomass (3.2.1).

Any observed SSB value equal to or

greater than SSB

MSY

is considered to

meet this criterion. Where it is not

possible to determine a reliable

value for SSB

MSY

, an appropriate

reference point (identical for all

regions) needs to be identified by

the authoritative institutions. ICES

has selected MSY B

trigger

for this

purpose.

Biomass indices (3.2.2).

For assessment purposes an

appropriate method for trend analysis

needs to be adopted (e.g. the current

value can be compared against the

long-term historical average).

CFP

Data collected

under DCF

(EU, 2008a)

I, II, III

CFP

Quantitative stock

assessment done by

ICES, GFCM, STECF,

and ICCAT on data

collected under DCF

(EU, 2008a)

EU/Quantitative stock

assessments are not

available for all stocks and

considerable differences in

data availability exist

between (sub)regions.

CFP

National and

international data

collection and

monitoring

programmes under

DCF (EU, 2008a)

There is limited scientific

basis to set reference points

for GES assessment. Time-

series of indicators are not

available for all stocks.

At present there is no boundary in terms of the proportion of species and/or landings that needs to be met for any of

the criteria to meet a quality standard. However, each EU Member State should report for each MSFD (sub)region these

metrics of quality together with the indicators for each of the criteria.

Further development of indicators

Criteria 3.1 and 3.2

The indicators listed under criteria 3.1 and 3.2 are operational and can be implemented.

•

Fishing mortality (F) (Indicator 3.1.1);

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

•

Criterion 3.3

Catch/biomass ratio (Indicator 3.1.2);

Spawning-stock biomass (SSB) (Indicator 3.2.1);

Biomass indices (Indicator 3.2.2).

The current four indicators are difficult to use at present to assess GES, but do provide a way of assessing change. Data

collection for these indicators should be maintained for the time being but not used in evaluating GES.

Any new indicators should capture three relevant properties that describe or are directly linked to this criterion:

•

Size distribution of the species

(state);

Selectivity pattern of the fishery exploiting the species

(pressure);

Genetic effects of exploitation on the species

(state).

The indicators proposed in the initial Commission decision are related to the newly proposed properties of Criterion 3.3

as described above. One “best indicator” needs to be selected for each property based on appropriate criteria. This may

be a new and better indicator or one of the previous indicators.

These three properties of the “population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock” and the

provisional suggestions for indicators from the workshop (ICES, 2014c) should be the basis for a process involving one

or more further workshops aimed to select at least one “best” indicator for each property. If problems are expected in

terms of data availability to calculate these preferred (primary) indicators for enough species/stocks to be

representative for the (sub)region, an additional (secondary) indicator should be proposed similar to the approach for

criteria 3.1 and 3.2.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Reference points

For the primary indicators (i.e. F and SSB) the appropriate reference points are adopted from international scientific

bodies (i.e. ICES, GFCM, STECF, and ICCAT) for internationally managed stocks.

5. GES methodological standards (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

There are several issues to consider when assessing Descriptor 3 against GES and reporting on the status for as many as

possible of the species identified, based on the best available information. The main issues involve (1) the selection of

species/stocks to be included in the analysis, (2) the assessment against GES based on the proposed indicators and their

reference points, and (3) the aggregation method(s) used. The first two issues are addressed in the tables below.

Table 2. Selection of indicators.

CRITERIA

CRITERION 3.1

LEVEL OF PRESSURE OF THE

FISHING ACTIVITY

CRITERION 3.2

REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THE

STOCK

CRITERION 3.3

POPULATION AGE AND SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Primary indicators

The GES boundary should be defined for each primary

indicator (see below), based on the selected reference

points. The nature of this reference point (e.g. target or

limit) and thus the setting of the GES boundary is directly

related to the proportion of the stocks that should meet

this boundary. The current lack of guidance on regional

GES boundaries makes it difficult for EU Member States to

assess GES.

INDICATORS

The process of selecting (new) indicators

(i.e. for Criterion 3.3) is ongoing. For some

of these potential indicators it is possible to

determine reference points. This needs to

be considered in the selection process.

F≤ F

MSY

SSB >MSY B

trigger

Secondary indicators

If the status of a species is already reported based on the

primary indicator, no secondary indicator is required for

that criterion.

For the secondary indicators there are currently no known

reference points.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

Table 3a. Recommendations for proposed status and quality of reporting (Criterion 3.1).

RITERION

3.1 P

RIMARY INDICATOR

Selection of stocks

GES boundary

All stocks for which a recent

value of F and an agreed

value for F

MSY

is available.

A species/stock should be exploited sustainably, consistent with high long-term yields. For the

primary indicator this implies F≤ F

MSY

Aggregated to: Proportion of stocks (%) that meet GES.

Aggregated to: Annual mean value of F/F

MSY

across all stocks.

Quality reporting

Aggregated to: Proportion of species

assessed against GES in relation to a suite of “All”

commercial species.

Aggregated to: Proportion of landings assessed against GES in relation to total landings.

Preferably these should be annual values, but if this is not possible there needs to be an agreed

species-specific threshold lag

of what can still be considered “recent”.

Status reporting

Agreed by the relevant international scientific institution. In the case of regional or widely distributed stocks this authority is

ICES/GFCM/ICCAT, in the case of national stocks this is the EU Member State.

If only one stock of a species consisting of several stocks is assessed against GES, this species is considered assessed.

RITERION

3.1 S

ECONDARY INDICATOR

Selection of stocks

All species for which a reliable

value of the indicator (i.e. catch/biomass ratio) can be

calculated.

The mean of the most recent three years should be below the long-term historical average

Aggregated to: Proportion of species (%) that meet GES.

Aggregated to: Annual mean of the indicator value/long-term mean indicator value across

species.

Quality reporting

Aggregated to: Proportion of species

assessed against GES in relation to a suite of “All”

commercial species.

Aggregated to: Proportion of landings assessed against GES in relation to total landings.

GES boundary

Status reporting

This requires an appropriate monitoring programme covering a large enough extent of the (sub)region in order to be

representative, and with a catchability that allows an accurate estimation of species abundance. What can be considered

“appropriate” needs to be determined by the relevant international scientific body. In the case of regional or widely distributed

stocks this is ICES/GFCM/ICCAT.

Appropriate period depending on the monitoring programme.

If only one stock of a species consisting of several stocks is assessed against GES, this species is considered assessed.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

Table 3b. Recommendations for proposed status and quality of reporting (Criterion 3.2).

RITERION

3.2 P

RIMARY INDICATOR

Selection of stocks

GES boundary

Status reporting

All stocks for which a recent

value of SSB and an agreed

value for SSB

MSY

is available.

A species/stock should have an SSB >MSY B

trigger3

Aggregated to: Proportion of stocks (%) that meet GES.

Aggregated to Annual mean value of SSB/MSY B

trigger

across all stocks.

Quality reporting

Aggregated to: Proportion of species

assessed against GES in relation to a suite of “All”

commercial species.

Aggregated to Proportion of landings assessed against GES in relation to total landings.

Preferably these should be annual values, but if this is not possible there needs to be an agreed

species-specific threshold lag

of what can still be considered “recent”.

Agreed by the relevant international scientific body (ICES/GFCM/ICCAT).

Other reference points (>MSY B

trigger

) can also be applied. In that case, however, it is not realistic to require ALL stocks to meet

this reference point. The proposed “Reporting” indicators can still be calculated, albeit resulting in different values.

If only one stock of a species consisting of several stocks is assessed against GES, this species is considered assessed.

RITERION

3.2 S

ECONDARY INDICATOR

Selection of stocks

GES boundary

Status reporting

All species for which a reliable

value of the indicator (i.e. biomass index) can be calculated.

The mean of the most recent three years should be above the long-term historical average

Aggregated to: Proportion of species (%) that meet GES.

Aggregated to: Annual mean of the indicator value/long-term mean indicator value across

species.

Quality reporting

Aggregated to: Proportion of species

assessed against GES in relation to a suite of “All”

commercial species.

Aggregated to: Proportion of landings assessed against GES in relation to total landings.

This requires an appropriate monitoring programme covering a large enough extent of the (sub)region to be representative,

and with a catchability that allows an accurate estimation of species abundance. What can be considered “appropriate” needs to be

determined by the relevant international scientific body (ICES/GFCM/ICCAT).

Appropriate period depending on the monitoring programme.

If only one stock of a species consisting of several stocks is assessed against GES, this species is considered assessed.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

Published 20 March 2015

ICES Special Request Advice

Table 3c. Recommendations for proposed status and quality of reporting (Criterion 3.3).

RITERION

3.3

INDICATORS

Selection of stocks

GES boundary

Status reporting

Quality reporting

All species for which a reliable

value of each of the indicators can be calculated.

GES boundaries cannot be set for these indicators at present.

Monitoring should be maintained.

Not applicable at present.

This requires an appropriate monitoring programme covering a large enough extent of the (sub)region to be representative,

and with a catchability that allows an accurate estimation of species abundance. What can be considered “appropriate” needs to

be determined by the relevant international scientific body (ICES/GFCM/ICCAT).

6. Standardized methods for monitoring for comparability (in accordance with Art. 11.4)

Addressed above.

7. Standardized methods for assessment for comparability (in accordance with Art. 11.4 GES)

Addressed above.

8. Rationale and technical background for proposed revision

Core group and Workshop discussions.

9. Other related products (e.g. technical guidance, reference in common understanding document)

Common Understanding Document, draft 22 September 2014.

ICES. 2014. Advice basis, May 2014.

Report of the ICES Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 1,

Section 1.2.

http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2014/2014/1.2_Advice_basis_2014.pdf.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1

ICES Special Request Advice

Published 20 March 2015

10. Reference documents

Borja, A., Prins, T., Simboura, N., Andersen, J. H., Berg, T., Marques, J. C.,

et al.

2014. Tales from a thousand and one

ways to integrate marine ecosystem components when assessing the environmental status. Frontiers in Marine

Science, 1:22. doi:10.3389/fmars.2014.00022.

Brunel, T., Piet, G. J., van Hal, R., and Rockmann, C. 2010. Performance of harvest control rules in a variable

environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 1051–1062.

EU. 1992. Council Directive 92 /43 /EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna

and flora (92/43/EEC).

EU. 2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Implementing

sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable yield. COM(2006) 360 final. Brussels, 2006.

EU. 2008a. Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community

framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice

regarding the Common Fisheries Policy.

EU. 2008b. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a

framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive

– MSFD).

EU. 2009a. Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the

conservation of wild birds (2009/147/EC).

EU. 2009b. Commission Decision of 18 December 2009 adopting a multiannual Community programme for the

collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector for the period 2011–2013 (2010/93/EU).

EU. 2010. Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good

environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU).

EU. 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on

the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and

repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC.

ICES. 2012. Marine Strategy Framework Directive – Descriptor 3+. ICES MSFD D3 report 2012. ICES CM

2012/ACOM:62.

ICES. 2013. Interim Report of the Working Group on the History of Fish and Fisheries (WGHIST), 7–11 October 2013,

Panicale, Italy. ICES CM 2013/SSGSUE:08. 44 pp.

ICES. 2014a. EU request on draft recommendations for the assessment of MSFD Descriptor 3.

Report of ICES

Advisory Committee, 2014. ICES Advice 2014, Book 1, Section 1.6.2.1.

ICES. 2014b. Report of the Workshop to draft recommendations for the assessment of Descriptor D3 (WKD3R). 13–

17 January 2014. ICES CM 2014/ACOM: 50.

ICES. 2014c. Report of the Workshop on guidance to review the 2010 Commission Decision on Criteria and

Methodological Standards on good environmental status (GES) of marine waters – Descriptor 3 – commercial fish

and shellfish, 4–5 September 2014, ICES HQ, Denmark. ICES CM 2014/ACOM:59.

ICES. 2015. Report of the Workshop on guidance for the review of MSFD decision descriptor 3 – commercial fish and

shellfish II (WKGMSFDD3-II), 10–12 February 2015, ICES Headquarters, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:48. 31 pp.

MarBEF. 2013. Predicted biodiversity changes in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine biodiversity and ecosystem

functioning. Available from:

http://www.vliz.be/wiki/Predicted_biodiversity_changes_in_the_Mediterranean_Sea.

Probst, W. N., Kloppmann, M., and Kraus, G. 2013. Indicator-based status assessment of commercial fish species in

the North Sea according to the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). ICES Journal of Marine Science,

70: 694–706.

United Nations. 2012. Note on the Ecosystem Approach Process in 2012–2013 Biennium UNEP/MAP. Mediterranean

Action Plan, United Nations Environment Programme. Athens, 2012.

ICES Advice 2015, Book 1