After Adoption of the Commission Decision on Criteria to Be Used by the Member States (MS)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology ENV.D.2 - Marine

WG GES meeting, 5 April 2011, Brussels DOC 6

Agenda Item 4.1 - a Development of a common understanding to approaches for defining GES and development of targets and indicators, and of a common terminology Document number: 6 Date: 30/03/2011 Submitted by: Co-lead Germany on behalf of the drafting group

1st draft on Common Understanding of MSFD articles 8, 9 & 10 and other relevant aspects Due to time constraints this draft has not been agreed within the small working group but we wanted to inform you on the progress achieved. The draft has been circulated in that group and several comments have been made. We are aiming at initial discussions at WG GES on 5th April. Within due time after the meeting we will provide a consolidated revised 2nd draft to WG GES member for commenting by written procedure with the aim to arrive at a 3rd draft. A more detailed roadmap should be discussed at the WG GES meeting. The 1st draft comprises four main parts: · PART A: Common understanding of MSFD articles 8, 9 & 10; · PART B: Selected examples illustrating the common understanding · PART C: Common terminology of relevant terms · PART D: Assessment scales under the MSFD. The original agreed proposal from the co-lead Germany at the last GES meeting was to focus on art. 9 + 10. During drafting and due to national work on the respective MSFD articles 8, 9 & 10 and with a possible aim to inform on and prepare for the 2 nd application of the MSFD cycle from 2018 onwards, it turned out that it makes sense to already in this version include a chapter on common understanding of art. 8. PART D on MSFD assessment scales is still under development. We tried a synopsis from documents available to me (in particular the 10 ICES/JRC TG reports on the descriptors) in tabular form. From that it seems to be challenging to forward one approach fitting all aspects of the MSFD. This part needs further development but will be included in the 2nd draft.

Character of the document Page 1 of 65 The document should be seen as living document which can be updated due to new findings and/or experiences after 1st implementation of art. 8-10, or for certain details even before. Please consider the option to draft an additional short policy summary at a later stage as we did with several WFD CIS guidance documents. Please note that it is intend to provide this document also to the OSPAR ICG MSFD with the aim to use it by OSPAR as well in order to avoid double work and gain synergies. The same could be feasible for other regional conventions.

Uli Claussen on behalf of the small drafting group

of 65 Draft Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) & Establishment of Environmental Targets (Articles 8, 9 & 10 MSFD)

Proposal by co-lead U. Claussen & a drafting group (FIN, FR, GR, RO, SE & UK) (Status 21.03.2011)

This is a living document which could be revisited and revised due to increased knowledge and/or experiences with the MSFD implementation.

of 65 Draft Common Understanding of (Initial) Assessment, Determination of Good Environmental Status (GES) & Establishment of Environmental Targets (Articles 8, 9 & 10 MSFD)

Table of Contents

Objective

Foreword

1. Introduction

 Background

2. MSFD aims at GES using an ecosystem approach

3. MSFD management cycle

Part A Common understanding of MSFD articles 8, 9 & 10

4. Common Approaches to implementation of status assessment, determination of GES and establishment of environmental targets

5. Common Understanding of Article 8 – (Initial) Assessment

 General aspects

 Elements of the Assessment

6. Towards an assessment philosophy

 Amount of classes for assessment

 Initial Assessment

 Future assessments 7. Common Understanding of Article 9 - Determining Good Environmental Status  MSFD Requirements

 Qualitative and quantitative fashion Page 4 of 65  Definition of boundaries and thresholds

 Use of existing information for GES determination until 2012

 Use of trends for GES determination

 Coordination of GES determination

 Determination of GES is not definite

 Elements of GES description

 Future determination of GES

8. Common Understanding of Article 10 - Establishment of Environmental Targets

 Important aspects for target establishment

 Focus on pressure targets – state targets as safety net

 Indicators for target evaluation

 Compatibility of environmental targets with other agreements and consistency of targets

 First and subsequent establishment of environmental targets

Part B Selected examples illustrating the common understanding of articles 8 (assessment), 9 (determination of GES) and 10 (establishment of environmental targets

9. Example 1: Harbour porpoise (Baltic Sea) referred to as one component of the ecosystem to be assessed under descriptor 1 (biodiversity)

 Initial assessment 2012 (Report according to article 8)

 Good Environmental Status (Report according to article 9)

 Environmental Targets (Report according to article 10)

 Programmes of Measures 2015 (Article 13)

of 65 10.Example 2: Spiny dogfish (North Sea) referred to as one component of the ecosystem to be assessed under descriptor 1 (biodiversity)  Initial assessment 2012 (Report according to article 8)

 Determination of GES 2012 (Report according to article 9)

 Establishment of Environmental targets 2012 (Report according to article 10)

11.Example 3: Eutrophication (descriptor 5)  Initial assessment 2012 (Report according to article 8)

12.Example 4: Marine Litter (descriptor 10)

 Initial assessment 2012 (Report according to article 8)

 Beach Litter

 Offshore litter

Targets in Practice

Part C Common understanding of relevant terms under MSFD articles 8-10

13.Objective

14.Common understanding of relevant terms

 Deskriptor

 Criterion

 Good environmental status (GES)

of 65  Environmental target

 Indicator

 ‘Parameter’ / ‘Metric’

 ‘Reference state’ / ‘Reference conditions’

 ‘Baseline’

 ‘Pressure’  ‘Ecosystem component’

 ‘Functional groups of species’

 ‘Predominant habitat type’

 ‘Listed features’

 ‘Special habitat types’

Part D

Assessment scales under MSFD

To be developed

ANNEX Text of the MSFD Articles 8, 9 & 10  MSFD Article 8 Assessment  MSFD Article 9 Determination of good environmental status  MSFD Article 10 Establishment of environmental targets

of 65 Objective At the WG GES meeting of 22 October 2010 the need to have a consistent and comparable approach across all marine regions and subregions to determine GES, set environmental targets to achieve or maintain it and to assess GES, was highlighted. In this view it is essential to develop a common understanding of important aspects of the MSFD implementation comprising Article 8 (Assessment), Article 9 (Determination of Good Environmental Status) and Article 10 (Establishment of Environmental Targets). Consequently, this task was included in the WG GES mandate endorsed by the MD meeting in December 2010 in Spa. This activity aims at ensuring a consistent and comparable approach across all marine regions/subregions on MSs application of Art. 8 Assessment on the basis of Art. 9 Determination of Good Environmental Status on the basis of Annexes I and III, and Art. 10 Establishment of environmental targets, taking into account pressures and impacts set out in Table 2 of Annex III and characteristics listed in Annex IV. To arrive at a common understanding a proposal for drafting documents, accompanied by descriptive examples, to provide guidance to MSs application the Directive was launched by the co-lead Germany, including a common terminology for relevant terms under Articles 8, 9 and 10 and consideration of appropriate scales in time and space. This work took advantage of the discussion and development already ongoing within Regional Sea Conventions and at national levels, to support the needed consistency at EU level. This common understanding could serve as consistent interpretation of terms and coherent approach implementing articles 8 (assessment), 9 (determination of GES) and 10 (establishment of environmental targets). It may guide MSs for their reporting on the respective articles and provides a pragmatic approach in the implementation of these duties. It describes the important steps in a structured and transparent way illustrated by selected examples. This document of common understanding is applicable to all marine (sub) regions.

of 65 Foreword Oceans and seas are huge ecosystems. The marine environment is a precious heritage to be protected and preserved. They are used since centuries but during the last decades a significant increase in human uses could be observed. It is evident that pressure on natural marine ecosystems and resources and the demand for marine ecological services ar often too high. There is a need to reduce pressures and impact on marine waters and to acknowledge the need for further protection of the seas. There is a requirement to on the one hand facilitate human uses in a sustainable way and on the other hand protect the natural resources of the seas. Existing national, regional and EU environmental policies of the last three decades have focused on assessing significant or acute adverse and undesirable changes in our ecosystems resulting from human activities and combating them with respective management. New and modern policy tools such as the WFD and MSFD could be seen as an instrument of environmental control aiming at an environment in a good shape. This can be described as good ecological or environmental status as laid down in both regimes. To arrive at his challenging goal an integrated ecosystem approach and respective adaptative management could be the way forward. By this, adverse and undesirable effects no longer occur and the (marine) ecosystem is in a desired status. Human uses and activities are carried out in a sustainable manner. This change in environmental policy is an important paradigm shift.

1. Introduction In July 2008, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; 2008/56/EC) came into force. This directive aims at a balance between uses of the European seas and their protection. The implementation of the MSFD shall facilitate to reduce pressures and impacts due to human uses and activities. This should arrive at levels not impairing the ability of marine ecosystems to counteract human induced changes and at the same time enabling sustainable use of goods (e.g. fish & seafood) as well as services of the seas (e.g degradation of organic material) for existing and future generations.

of 65 2. The MSFD aims at GES using an ecosystem approach The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC, MSFD) aims for achieving or maintaining Good Environmental Status in the marine environment by 2020 at the latest. The implementation includes application of an ecosystem- based approach including the precautionary principle. Coherence should be achieved between existing EU policies and the work under the regional seas conventions. To arrive at the overall goal of the MSFD, national marine strategies shall be developed and implemented, to protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected. Furthermore, inputs into the marine environment have to be prevented and reduced, with a view to phasing out pollution, so as to ensure that there are no significant impacts on or risks to marine biodiversity, marine ecosystems, human health or legitimate uses of the sea (Article 1 (2)).

3. MSFD management cycle

Article 5 MSFD specifies the national marine strategy for each marine (sub)region to be developed. The MSFD follows a complete management cycle, starting with an assessment of the status of the European Seas (see fig. 1). Based on the assessment, a description of the Good Environmental Status (GES) is required. Achievement or maintainance of GES is the overall aim of the directive. In cases, GES is not achieved, establishment of environmental targets is necessary and required to move towards GES. The MSFD requires different types of environmental targets as further described in chapter 6. They form the base for formulation of respective programmes of measures to move the actual status of the seas towards GES. Monitoring the marine environment is important to achieve the information required for assessing the status of the marine environment in accordance with the MSFD and to control the effectiveness of the programmes of measures installed. The monitoring data and observations are informing the next assessment of the status of the marine environment. By this step, the management cycle is completed. The cycle can be repeated as appropriate. The activities described here have to be undertaken by cooperation

of 65 of MS sharing a marine (sub)region to ensure that within the region concerned, the measures required are coherent and coordinated across the region.

2012 Definition of Environmental Targets (Art. 10)

2012 Description of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9) 2014 Start of Monitoring Programmes (Art.11) First Cycle

2012 Initial Assessment 2015 (Art. 8) Generation of Programmes of Measures (Art. 13) 2016 Implementation of Programmes of Measures (Art. 13)

Review of Good Review of Environmental Status Environmental Targets (Art. 9) (Art. 10)

Assessment Continuation of (Art. 8) Following Monitoring Cycles Programmes (Art.11)

Development of Programmes of Measures (Art. 13)

Fig. 1: MSFD management cycle starting with the initial assessment (art. 8) and determination of GES (art. 9). If GES is not achieved, establishment of environmental targets is the next step.These targets have to be backed with respective programmes of measures aiming at GES achievement. The next assessment in 2018 is the first opportunity investigating in suitability and effectiveness of the measures implemented. By this step, the second execution of the management cycle started.

of 65 4. Common Approaches to implementation of status assessment, determination of GES and establishment of environmental targets The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires Member States to take measures to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) in their marine waters by 2020. It specifically requires Member States to develop Marine Strategies for their seas which must include an (initial) assessment, a characterisation/determination of GES and establishment of appropriate environmental targets and associated indicators by 2012 to act as a guide towards achieving GES. These steps are followed by establishment and implementation of a monitoring programme and development and implementation of a programme of measures designed to achieve GES.

Member States have to ensure in preparing assessments consistent methodologies across the marine region/subregion and transboundary impacts and features are taken into account.

The Directive leaves it to Member States to develop that what GES means at both a national and regional level through the development of appropriate targets and indicators. In coordination with other Member States in their marine region and Member States must do this based on the EU Commission Decision on Criteria and Methodological Standards of Good Environmental Status from 01 September 2010.

The achievement of the MSFD aim has to be approved by MSs. They shall ensure that for each marine (subregion, marine strategies are kept up to date (art. 17). That means that the management cycle starting with an assessment and resulting in programmes of measures guiding towards achievement of GES will be repeated every years after the initial establishment.

of 65 5. Common Understanding of Article 8 – (Initial) Assessment

General aspects

The task according Article 8 is a description and analysis of the present state of the marine environment, including its characteristics, pressures and impacts as well as an analysis of economic and social aspects including costs of degradation. The first assessment under the MSFD umbrella ('initial assessment', IA) has to be delivered by 15 July 2012. The assessment of Member States' marine waters has to be repeated during the further implementation process on a 6-year cycle (Art. 17 associated with Art. 8). Consequently, the next assessment is required by 2018, also serving as first check for the set up of programmes of measures to be implemented by 2016 in order to guide to the achievement of GES.

Elements of the Assessment

The (initial) assessment should, according to the Directive, consist of three parts. (1) The first part comprises a description of the physical, chemical and biological features and habitat types and characteristics as specified in the indicative lists of elements set out in MSFD Annex III Table 1. (2) The second part consists of a description of the predominant pressures and impacts including human activities and discernible trends (based on the indicative lists of elements in MSFD Annex III Table 2) covering the main cumulative and synergetic effects. (3) The third part represents a social and economic analysis of the benefits of marine resources and costs of degradation (see Fig. 2).

of 65 Physical, chemical & biological Pressures & Impacts Economic & social analysis features (Annex III, Table 1) (Annex III; Table 2) (costs of degradation)

Traffic Industries Agriculture

GES NON-GES Muuhh

Waste water

Tourism Eutrophication Shipping Traffic Sustainable Use Industrials Agriculture Exploration Eutrophication Shipping Over-Fishing Marine Protection Oil spils Over - Fishing Area

Fig. 2: The three main elements of the (Initial) Assessment according Art. 8.

At least for OSPAR and HELCOM assessment reports it can be started that aggregation of data and information is mostly on a higher level than national information. In consequence, it might be a challenge to track national information back from these reports.

Generally, even with all data and information from these sources the picture will be incomplete, in particular for the more offshore areas but also for certain aspects of coastal and near coastal areas.

6. Towards a common assessment philosophy

According to the definitions in Article 3 (4) and (5) on ‘environmental status’ and ‘Good Environmental Status’, Member States have to address the overall state of the marine waters in their assessments, across all relevant descriptors, criteria and indicators. This overall assessment might require an aggregation procedure, on the basis of the actual state analyses of single components (Fig. 3) illustrates options for steps of aggregation which are in principle possible on the level of indicators, criteria and descriptors.

For each indicator there might be the need defining class boundaries on specific assessment scales. For an integrative overall assessment of the environmental state, an aggregation of criteria and for indicator-assessments under the eleven descriptors and an aggregation of the descriptor assessments themselves could be considered. In particular descriptors D 1, D 4 and D 6 which could be attributed to ecological state could be aggregated to express the condition or Page 14 of 65 health of the marine environment. For this process, it should be considered whether application of a principle taking into account the worst result for one of the three descriptors could be applied. Within most descriptors such principle seems not to be applicable due to the often large amount of single “internal” assessments and the possible consequence of never arriving at GES due to the high potential that at least one assessment results under a descriptor remains at “Non-GES” level for a long period or forever. The principle could be applicable within certain pressure orientated descriptors such as D 5 eutrophication and D 8 & 9 on contaminants as accepted for eutrophication assessment within OSPAR and for chemical status under WFD).

Fig. 3: Possible aggregation levels for integrated assessments

Generally, it should be noted that such overall assessment does not stand alone. It is illustrating the status of the marine environment from the ecological perspective. It has to be complemented by specific assessments of the relevant descriptors

of 65 addressing human activities or impacts on the marine environment (e.g. D 2 invasive species, D 3 commercial stocks of fish and shellfish, D 5 eutrophication, D 8 & 9 contaminants, D 10 marine litter and D 11 energy including noise) (Fig. 4). Those “single” assessments build the basis for the development of environmental targets as to guide progress towards achieving GES in the marine environment. Based on these targets, programmes of measures have to be formulated. In consequence the pressure and impact related descriptors act as adjusting screw to move towards GES.

At this stage there is a possible conceptual concept available to group the eleven descriptors into two cluster (state descriptors and pressure descriptors). Within the state cluster aggregation could take place on descriptor level in reducing obvious redundancies and undeveloped between D 1, 4 and 6. In the pressure cluster aggregation on a highest level might not be a solution but possibly on criteria and for indicator levels. In any case, this conceptual outline has further to be developed to possibly assist future assessments.

For any integrated assessment aggregating assessment levels there is a need developing adequate tools.

Towards GES… Proposal for an Assessment Philosophy 17 Characteristics D1 Biodiversity (Annex III, Table 1) 3 Descriptors GES • Nutrients D 4 Food Webs • Oxygen for Ecological • Contaminants D 6 Seafloor Integrity Quality • Phytoplankton • Zooplankton • Marine Mammals • Birds • Fish D 2 Non-indigenous Species • etc. D 3 Fisheries & 8 Descriptors of D 5 Eutrophication Anthropogenic 18 Pressures / D 7 Hydrographic Conditions Pressures - Impacts (Annex III, ‚Adjusting Screws‘ Table 2) D 8 Contaminants to obtain GES • Fisheries • Nutrient Input D 9 Contaminants in Seafood • Noise • Litter D 10 Litter • Physical Damage D 11 Noise • etc.

Fig. 4: An overall assessment illustrates the ecological status of the marine environment. It has to be complemented by specific assessments of the relevant descriptors addressing human activities or impacts on the marine environment. Those “single” assessments build Page 16 of 65 the basis for the development of environmental targets as to guide progress towards achieving GES in the marine environment. Based on these targets, programmes of measures have to be formulated. In consequence the pressure and impact related descriptors act as adjusting screw to move towards GES.

Amount of classes for assessment

An important issue for illustrating assessment results is the amount of many classes. The MSFD is not very precise in this respect, but addresses at least two classes, i.e. GES achieved and GES not achieved. Other important and related EU regulations are the WFD and HD. The WFD comprises two different assessments with different amounts of classes: The ecological status is illustrated by five classes, the chemical status by two. The HD works with three classes and a fourth addressing unknown status.

Exclusively working with two classes creates a black and white picture. It can be expected that for certain if not many marine areas GES might not be achieved after the first run through the described management cycle. That implies that in 2018 the second assessment still might show larger areas where GES is not achieved. For several marine areas it is imaginable that there was a significant improvement but GES is still failed. From experiences with the OSPAR and HELCOM eutrophication assessments such obstacles are well known. Any better dissolution would assist in showing progress to the public, politicians and managers. Furthermore, an improved dissolution helps aligning MSFD classification with existing regulations such as WFD and HD especially in the overlapping areas.

Therefore, it is recommended, to consider examination of options to increase the amount of classes aiming at a better illustration of trends particularly of improvement. The system can be kept rather simple: More than two classes (max. five) for descriptors dealing with ecological state (D 1, 4 & 6) and less classes (e.g. two or max. three) for descriptors on impacts and pressures (D 2, 3, 5, 7 - 11). It is not necessary to spend large effort in establishing additional class boundaries. That could be done in an easy linear way (e.g. divide the whole “GES not achieved” class by three for boundary setting). In the case, the EU Commission would insist on reporting by two classes, it is easy for MS to

of 65 aggregate the x classes of insufficient condition to one but at least for national purpose the more differentiated view could be used.

Initial Assessment

The initial assessments of MSs will most probably not cover a complete picture with regard to an assessment of all relevant characteristics, pressures and impacts for the 11 descriptors. This is caused by the incomplete data due to existing monitoring programmes which are not yet fit for MSFD purposes. Furthermore, there is a certain deficit in assessment tools for the MSFD. Some existing tools can be used, others have to be adapted and several have to be developed to cover all relevant MSFD aspects. Initial assessments will for the majority of descriptors comprise of information from existing information elaborated under other regimes on European, regional and national level. The use of data and information from the following reporting can be expected:

 Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC)

 Habitats Directive (HD, 92/43/ECC)

 Birds Directive (BD, 79/409/ECC)

 ICES analysis of commercial fish stocks

 Regional conventions such as OSPAR, HELCOM, BARCELONA and BUCHAREST

 Subregional cooperations such as the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation (TWC)

Further information can be gained reporting on relevant EC Directives such as

 Nitrates Directive (ND, 91/676/ECC)

 Dangerous Substances Directive (former 76/464/EWG)

 Directive on the quality required for shellfish waters (2006/113/EC)

of 65  Directive concerning the management of bathing water quality and repealing (2006/7/EC)

In addition, research projects and results due to maritime planning and Environmental Impact Assessments (e.g. on offshore windmills) might provide relevant information.

Within the regional conventions for the protection of certain European marine regions, the following assessment reports have been published recently or are under preparation:  Holistic Assessment of the Baltic marine environment, including a thematic assessment of hazardous substances ( HELCOM HOLAS)  Quality Status Report (OSPAR QSR)  Wadden Sea Quality Status Report 2009 (Wadden Sea QSR)  Assessment of the Mediterranean Sea In case of assessments published by OSPAR, HELCOM, BARCELONA and Black Sea Conventions and the Trilateral Cooperation for the Protection of the Wadden Sea it should be noted that their focus mostly if not always is on the convention waters or certain subregions there of but not so much on waters under national jurisdiction (e.g Greater North Sea, Baltic Sea basins, please add examples for MED and Black Seas). This aggregation of national information on a “higher” level makes it difficult to track respective assessment results back to Member States scale.

Future assessments

Any subsequent assessment and respective refinements should respond increasingly to the MSFD requirements. More precisely, any future assessment should consider the set of criteria and indicators laid down in the ‘EU COM Decision on Criteria and Methodological Standards from 1 September 2010’.

7. Common Understanding of Article 9 – Determination of Good Environmental Status

MSFD Requirements

The MSFD requires under Article 9 that ‘Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or sub-region concerned, determine, for the marine waters, a set Page 19 of 65 of characteristics for good environmental status, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex 1’.This determination of characteristics for GES should be referenced to the initial assessment.

Figure 5 illustrates the components to be considered in the process of determining GES:

COM – A B

Initial t Descision t r r a a

Assessment P 2010/477/EU P Criteria & Indicators

D1 D2 D3 D4

D10 GES D6 D9 D7

MSFD MSFD Annex III, Table 1 Annex III, Table 1 Characteristics Pressures & Impacts

Fig 5: Determination of GES is based on the eleven descriptors in Annex I MSFD and referenced to the outcome of the (initial) assessment. GES can be described in a qualitative and a quantitative fashion, ensuring appropriate coverage of Annex III characteristics (table 1), pressures and impacts (table 2) of human activities using the criteria indicators and characteristics described in the EU COM decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards on good ecological status of marine waters.

of 65 The eleven descriptors (Ocean eleven ) are not arranged systematically but as a common set describe the ecosystem state corresponding to the aim of the directive, in particular by referring to the ecological/environmental state (marine biodiversity (D 1), food webs (D 4) and sea floor integrity (D 6)) as well as to the most important or relevant anthropogenic pressures (contaminants (D 8 & 9), nutrient enrichment (D 5), invasive species (D 2), marine litter (D 10)and noise (D 11)). It is worth to note that the list of descriptors is not definite but open. This means, that other issues of relevance for the description and determination of the status of the marine area concerned should be addressed.

Qualitative and quantitative fashion

The requirement laid down in Article 9 (1) could be interpreted to mean that GES could be described in a qualitative and a quantitative fashion, ensuring appropriate coverage of Annex III characteristics (table 1), pressures and impacts (table 2) of human activities using the criteria indicators and characteristics described in the EU COM decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good ecological status of marine waters.

In the EU COM decision 2010/477/EU 29 criteria and 56 indicators have been laid down and partly explained. Part A of the Commission Decision describes the general conditions of application of the GES criteria. Part A 1 of the decision outlines that “The criteria for assessing the extent to which GES is being achieved are specified and numbered in Part B in relation to each of the eleven descriptors of GES... The criteria are accompanied by a list of related indicators to make such criteria operational...”. This could be interpreted that Part B of the Commission Decision should be used for a more specific definition of the 11 state and pressure descriptors (Fig. 6). In order to have a useful and operational basis for the next necessary task to establish environmental targets, Member States should consider determining Good Environmental Status for those criteria and indicators which are applicable and operational. As the EU COM decision declares in Part A 1 the need for a number of criteria and related indicators for

of 65 further development and additional information, several criteria and especially indicators are yet not ready for operational use.

Fig. 6: Components for the determination of Good Environmental Status (GES)

According to Article 9, it is reflecting 11 descriptors (Annex I), as well as 29 criteria and 56 indicators (specified in the EU COM Decision 2010/477/EU). In particular for the state descriptors D1, D4 and D6, several assessments for each indicator might have to be developed as different ecosystem components have to be considered. Therefore, numbers of GES values and associated operational indicators will most probably be higher than 56 (indicated by + X).

Definition of boundaries and thresholds

For the criteria and indicators in the COM Decision GES should be determined, i.e. respective boundaries or thresholds have to be defined to be able to decide

of 65 whether a current data or information is meaning GES or not. It should also be an option to determine a positive (increasing) or negative (decreasing) trend as yardstick whether GES is achieved. Increasing trends could be of help for certain aspects of D 1 marine biodiversity (e.g. positive trend of harbour porpoise) while decreasing trends might work for pressures and impacts such as alien species, marine litter and noise.

In particular for the state descriptors D 1, D 4 and D 6 an association of representative ecosystem components to the individual indicators such as population abundance or boundaries is a prerequisite for further work.

Consequently, a certain sequence in working with MSFD article 9 can be foreseen (1) as a first step operational criteria and respective indicators relevant for the marine region concerned have to be identified. (2) Secondly, at a certain stage, for the set of identified operational criteria and indicators setting of boundaries between sufficient state (GES) and insufficient state (GES not achieved) have to be developed. In doing so, thresholds in relation to a reference (level) or baseline have to be defined to delineate GES from what is considered below GES (e.g. ‘subGES’). For definition of reference levels, in principle, it is suggested to follow a hierarchical approach as well established in the implementation of the WFD using the subsequent methodologies in the following order: i) consideration of (existing) reference values from undisturbed areas or a site with only minor disturbance, ii) consideration of (existing) reference values from historical data and information, iii) consideration of model results (e.g. hindcasting to periods or situations mentioned under i) & ii) or predicting models), iv) expert judgement and v) directional or trend based GES

In specific cases use of trends could be applicable as already described.

of 65 MSs should during this work take into consideration inter alia respective work with regional conventions such as species distributional range, area covered (for sessile/ benthic species). Ecological Quality Objectives developed within OPAR and HELCOM. For the time being in the process of setting references or baselines or trends, objective elements will often be combined with expert judgement. The latter should be avoided to the extent possible because it is difficult to achieve appropriate independency and transparency in using expert judgement. Expert judgement could be the ultimate solution if the other methods mentioned under i) – iii) and v) fail. The aim of the MSFD implementation should be developing and using tools which are independent of such elements and are reproducible. If expert judgement has to be used at most transparency and reproducibility/repeatability should be ensured.

(3) During a third step, criteria and indicators which are of relevance for GES determination but according to the first step above do not meet the requirement to be operational have to be made operational. This could be undertaken by gathering appropriate information via research and subsequent further development. This activity together with the first two steps is aiming at achieving an adequate set of criteria and indicators for determination of GES for coastal and marine waters.

Generally, it can be concluded that determination of GES for a selected set of operational criteria and indicators includes qualitative and quantitative aspects of state, impacts and pressures.

Use of existing information for GES determination until 2012

Determination of GES, as specified by the MSFD and the EU COM decision will during the first round of application up to 2012 mainly if not exclusively be based on existing assessments and information according to relevant EU regulation and respective work under the regional conventions for protection of European Seas. Relevant EC directives on the first hand are WFD, HD and BD. Existing approaches such as 'Favourable Conservation Status' according to the Habitats Directive and 'Good Ecological Status' according to the Water Framework Directive may already cover certain segments of GES. In a first step, this existing information should therefore be attributed to the criteria and indicators Page 24 of 65 of the EU COM decision, allowing for an identification of aspects already covered or partially covered and identifying existing gaps in methods and data.

Use of trends for GES determination

Marine ecosystems are characterised by high natural variability in many of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics attributed to a description GES. This is also of relevance for GES with regard to habitats and species. It is recommended that for habitats and species GES can also be determined by trends (e.g. trend in area coverage (positive i.e. increasing trend in the distribution and coverage of sea grass meadows), trend in species abundance (increasing trend in abundance of common seals) rather than by specified numbers.

GES for certain pressures (e.g. extent of areas for sand extraction) may be defined more easily. For certain pressures the use of negative i.e. decreasing trend might be appropriate. This could for the better case e.g. for the introduction of invasive species via their pathways (e.g. ballast water), for the extent of areas for sand and gravel extraction, as well as for the introduction of marine litter and noise may be defined more easy.

Coordination of GES determination Member States determinations of GES need to be coordinated at a regional and subregional level. Therefore it will be necessary to agree a relevant core-set of characteristics (according MSFD Annex III table 1) and pressures or impacts of human activities (according MSFD Annex III table 2) of GES on pan-European level and within the Regional Seas Conventions. In order to illustrate achievement or maintenance of GES it is necessary to also develop a relevant core set of indicators mirroring the core sets mentioned. The aim of such activities should be to achieve common core sets to be addressed in a coordinated way. This is not to say that individual Member States determinations should necessarily be the same, since there will be differences in the characteristics of different marine waters and the types of pressure affecting them but the general underlying approach is the same.

of 65 Determination of GES is not definite

It is also important to note that any determination of what GES actually looks like will remain fluid and will need to be modified over time. This will ensure it encapsulates not only wider background changes in the environment arising from pressures such as climate change but also changes and enhancement in scientific knowledge and understanding.

Elements of GES description

In considering the above it is envisaged that the determination of GES should, for each Descriptor;

 Be a relatively high level, qualitative and quantitative description of the desired condition of the environment within a framework of sustainable use.  Describe both the desired state and acceptable levels of pressure (if appropriate and preferably providing the evidence base supports linkages between pressure and state).  Be compatible with other existing national, EU or international objectives such as Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Birds Directive, Convention on Biological Diversity.  Recognise any links and interdependencies between Descriptors.  Go at least as far as the current knowledge base allows, ensuring transparency about areas of uncertainty. With regard to the Precautionary Principle aspects can and should be addressed even if current knowledge is insufficient but impacts might occur which should be avoided.  Be described at a scale appropriate for each Descriptor e.g. nationally, (sub)regionally and coordinated with other countries in the marine (sub)region concerned to ensure comparability and no conflicts.

Future determination of GES

of 65 Art. 17 MSFD requires updating of national marine strategies which inter alia include determination of GES. The first determination mainly or exclusively uses existing information, data and methodologies.

Any existing and remaining deficiencies in GES reports for 2012 should be compensated during the following cycle by 2018 developing new methods and gathering additional data where necessary.

of 65 8. Common Understanding of Article 10 - Establishment of Environmental Targets On the basis of the initial assessment, Member States under Art. 10 shall 'establish a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters so as to guide progress towards achieving good environmental status in the marine environment'.

Within the Directive in article 3 (7) an environmental target is defined as, ‘a qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components of, and pressures and impacts on, marine waters in respect of each marine region or subregion’. The establishment of targets and indicators as required under Article 10 can therefore be seen as the, most detailed level in the process for establishing the framework for achieving GES.

Management of human activities is the option for improving the ecological state of marine ecosystems. Therefore, environmental targets describe the necessary changes in pressures and impacts resulting from human activities. These changes have to be addressed by adequate programmes of measures in order to finally achieve and maintain GES. Establishment of environmental targets has to take into account the indicative lists of pressures and impacts (MSFD Annex III table 2) and characteristics set out in Annex IV. This means in praxis that for the development of such targets a comparison between GES and the result of outcome of the (intial) assessments forms the basis. The possible difference between GES for any indicator and the respective assessment result has to be addressed by an environmental target.

Annex IV (10) and (12) asks for an examination of the set of environmental targets, associated indicators and limit/ target reference points developed in order to assess whether they are appropriate for the achievement of the overall aim of the MSFD to achieve or maintain GES in the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest (art 1(1)).

of 65 Important aspects for target establishment

Environmental targets are hence specific requirements to be fulfilled on the way to achieving the overall aim, GES. Figure 7 provides an overview on the characteristics relevant for establishing environmental targets.

Comparison of Adequate coverage targets (Annex IV) ofthe elements & objectives characterizing under Articel 1 marine waters concerned Compatibility of Annex IV (12) targets with Target seting regional & inter- Annex national agreements IV (1) Annex IV (2) Annex IV (11)

Examination of targets Specification of and their achievements GES to the resulting evironmental Environmental Annex IV (3) status Annex IV (10) Targets Checklist for Consideration of Constistency of social & economic characteristics targets + No concerns in target conflicts setting (Annex IV) Annex IV (9) Annex IV (4)

Specification of Specification of resources needed reference points for targets & Annex IV (5) limits Specification Annex IV (8) of indicators Formulation of to monitor interimtargets progress and timescales

Annex IV (7) Annex IV (6)

Fig. 7: Characteristics for Environmental Targets according Annex IV MSFD under Art. 10.

Considering the above and in conjunction with Annex IV of the Directive it is recommended that the targets underpinning the determination of GES should:

a. Be sufficient to achieve GES when considered as a whole.

b. Be both qualitative and quantitative in nature.

c. Include state, pressure and, where relevant, impact targets as laid out under Annex III of the Directive. Page 29 of 65 d. Be developed for each of the criteria and (where appropriate) indicators in the Commission Decision.

e. Be measurable and have associated indicators.

f. Include existing targets already in place at a national, Community or international level as appropriate.

g. Consider the social and economic implications.

h. Be internally consistent with no conflicts existing between them.

i. Be developed at an appropriate scale, bearing in mind that GES is to be assessed at the level of the regions and sub-regions in the Directive.

j. Include timescales for achievement and include interim targets if appropriate.

They should according to MSFD Annex IV comprise a set of targets consisting at least three types: (1) Firstly, targets establishing desired conditions based on the GES definitions possibly in a qualitative manner. (2) Secondly, measurable targets and their indicators allowing for monitoring and assessment have to be set. (3) Thirdly, operational targets relating to concrete implementation measures to support their achievement are needed (see also fig. 8).

Annex IV (4) furthermore states, the set of targets has to be consistent and without conflicts within them. The formulation of targets should be accompanied with a timescale for their achievement and they may include interim targets.

For the sake of monitoring progress towards achievement of the set of targets, selection and specification of indicators is needed to allow for appropriate management decisions (Annex IV (7). There is the option to specify and use reference points if necessary (Annex IV (8).

Finally, Annex IV (9) asks for due consideration of social and economic concerns in the process of target setting. In addition, article 14 (Exceptions) 4. states that MS are not required to take specific steps where the costs would be disproportionate taking into account of the risks to the marine environment. By this, these aspects would be considered twice. To avoid this duplication, it is

of 65 recommended to focus when addressing social and economic concerns, respective considerations to article 14 MSFD which describes options for exceptions in a broad manner. By doing so, the MSFD implementation would be in line with that of the WFD. Otherwise, there might occur obstacles in implementing both regimes in coastal waters which has according to MSFD Annex IV (11) to be avoided.

POM-Programm of Measures

Environmental Targets Target X Possible 2019 interim targets, Target … 2018 with a Target D Target E 2017 time- 2015 scale Target A Target B Target C 2012 Operational targets related to measures (Annex IV (2) c)

Measurable targets + associated Targets establishing desired conditions indicators for monitoring & assessment based on GES (Annex IV (2) a) (Annex IV (2) b)

Algal blooms NON-GES

Release of

N, P & H2S

of 65 Fig. 8: The MSFD requires different main types of environmental targets.

Annex IV (2) describes three main target categories, i.e. targets establishing desired conditions (based on GES), measurable targets with associated indicators (for monitoring and assessment) and operational targets leading to programmes of measures to arrive at GES.

Focus on pressure targets – state targets as safety net

Basis for the development of environmental targets is the determination of GES according to Art. 9 and in comparison to the actual state as described in the assessments according to Art. 8 (Fig. 9). In compliance with Art 10, environmental targets are established on the basis of Table 2 of Annex III and the indicative list of criteria of Annex IV to the directive.

In the process of achieving GES by appropriate environmental targets it seems to be the easiest to in the first place describe the necessary changes in anthropogenic pressures to achieve GES for the relevant criteria and indicators. Primary focus on pressure targets assures a practical approach with a clear link and perspective towards the tasks under Art. 17 (Programmes of Measures). In doing so, it should be acknowledged that particularly, the achievement of a sufficient state (GES) for the ecological elements of the directive (D1, 4 & 6) might hardly be addressed directly by e.g. providing specific figures on abundance or biomass for certain species. A way forward is the formulation of appropriate reduction of pressures pressure targets). Such specific pressure targets, referring to manageable human activities and taking into account direct and indirect impacts of pressures on biodiversity, could serve as transparent and manageable way to achieve GES of the marine environment. State related targets would allow for the opportunity to underpin pressure targets as a safety net controlling the capability and effectiveness of the measures taken.

For a defined area recent assessment results can be used to select the most sensitive parameter affected by a certain pressure. The more levels exist between source and effect (e.g. nutrient emissions and inputs – phytoplankton – organic matter – oxygen) the more complicated a translation of targets to reduction measures will be, due to interactions in the ecosystem and natural

of 65 variability. Furthermore, establishment of targets will become more difficult with increasing distance to the sources due to inter alia dilution.

Indicators for target evaluation

The MSFD (Art. 10) requires an evaluation of achieving the environmental targets by means of indicators. Generally, these indicators required under Art. 10 will be largely based on the indicators outlined within the Commission Decision, some of which need further development in order to be operationalised in particular those for the descriptors addressing the state (D1, 4 & 6). The pressure indicators used for determining GES (also derived from the EU COM Decision) can directly be resumed for this evaluation. However, several additional indicators might have to be developed and applied as not all relevant pressures are covered by the EU COM Decision (e.g. bycatch of non target species, vectors and introduction pathways of non-indigenous species).

Fig. 9: Establishment of environmental targets according to Article 10

Targets result from comparison between GES and the assessment of the actual state in consideration of the relevant anthropogenic pressures (Table 2 of Annex III to the directive). Single environmental targets could be relevant for several descriptors and GES

of 65 determinations. The number of environmental targets will therefore probably be significantly lower than the number of GES determinations.

Compatibility of environmental targets with other agreements and consistency of targets

At a certain point of environmental targets establishment it has to be checked whether the targets for each descriptor are compatible with existing regional and international targets. The environmental targets e.g. with regard to nutrient enrichment seem to be in line with existing regimes because they are mostly used in the same way (see also the respective example). This MSFD requirement seems to be fine as long as they enable GES achievement. If GES will be failed, it has to be made transparent and additional targets might to have established going beyond existing ones.

Finally, a check is necessary whether all MSFD related environmental targets are consistent. If not, this has to be solved. For e.g. nutrient enrichment this seems to be the case due to the fact that the criteria and indicator used are underpinned by values reflecting naturally good conditions (see also respective example). In consequence, this means GES for nutrient enrichment reflects also GES for the respective components addressed under D 1, 4 and 6.

First and subsequent establishment of environmental targets

As the above described reports according to Articles 8 and 9 will in their first submission to the EU COM mainly if not solely build upon existing data and assessment results, the report for Art. 10 will probably not comprise detailed targets for all anthropogenic pressures e.g. on biodiversity. However, as most of the pressures and their effects on the marine ecosystem are broadly known. In addition, it is for certain pressures obvious that the impact is too high although a sufficient assessment tool is not available now. In at least some of these cases an establishment of respective environmental targets should be available at least as first estimate (e.g. reduction of marine litter inputs into certain marine (sub) regions or areas until ((2018) by (X) %). In the following years, these preliminary targets have to be consolidated, specified and possibly revised based on improved assessments. In conclusion targets can already be outlined

of 65 at least on a general descriptive level in order to serve as a basis for the development of programmes of measures.

In the updates of the MSFD strategies from 2018 onwards, the environmental targets are to be further developed and specified. This could be underpinned, in particular in conjunction with interim targets (see Annex IV MSFD) aiming at the programmes of measures.

of 65 Part B

Selected examples illustrating the common understanding of articles 8 (assessment), 9 (determination of GES) and 10 (establishment of environmental targets

The following examples on:

 occurrence of harbour porpoises in the German Baltic Sea;

 the spiny dogfish in the North Sea and

 nutrient enrichment (eutrophication) of North and Baltic Seas shall illustrate the content of the three reports regarding MSFD. They shall not serve to set targets but be exemplary to show how existing assessment methods could be applied. The illustrations (fig. 9 and 10) furthermore present the structure of these assessment methods as well as the interaction of the tasks according to articles 8 to 10.

Example 1: Harbour porpoise (Baltic Sea) referred to as one component of the ecosystem to be assessed under descriptor 1 (biodiversity)

By means of criteria and methodological standards, the Commission Decision differentiates under descriptor 1 between three levels: species, habitat/biotope types and ecosystem. Pursuant to other directives and conventions, especially pursuant to the Habitats Directive many species and biotope types are already assessed. Assessments in the context of the MSFD should make use thereof (cf. Commission Decision, part B).

Initial assessment 2012 (Report according to article 8)

Description of regional and seasonal occurrence; population densities and trends (monitoring under the Habitats Directive); documentation of known, for the marine region specific pressures as e.g. by-catch rates, dead animals and reports on diseases (among others due to noise and contaminants).

Good Environmental Status (Report according to article 9)

Determination of favourable distribution areas (Habitats Directive); determination of population trends (indicator for good environmental status). Page 36 of 65 Environmental Targets (Report according to article 10)

Maximum limits for by-catch rates (percentage of the population); maximum concentrations of contaminants; maximum noise pollution; ensured food resources.

Programmes of Measures 2015 (Article 13)

Establishment of marine protected areas needed since habitat types and population densities of harbour porpoises vary on a spatial and seasonal level. In these areas, fishing gear with high bycatch rates are to be excluded. Determination of maximum limits (threshold values) for noise and contaminants; regulation of TAC and quota for prey fish.

of 65 Environmental Indicators GES-Definition Assessment Measures targets Distributional range (1.1.1) FFH: favourable distribution GES achieved Ensure, maintaining of distributional range  area Distributional pattern within the latter, where appropriate X (not applicable) (1.1.2) Area covered by the species  Exclusion of fishing gear with (for sessile/ benthic species) Xhigh by-catch(not applicable) rates from (1.1.3) sensible areas Population abundance and/or FFH: favourable population GES not biomass as appropriate trend achieved (1.2.1)   Determination of upper Population demographic limits for underwater noise characteristics (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex (not applicable) ratio, fecundityReducing rates, by-catch X Regulation of TAC and survival/ mortalityReducing rates) exposure of underwaterstricter quota for prey fish (1.3.1) noise (e.g. sandeel) Reducing exposure to contaminants Population genetic structure, GES not Ensuring food resources Major eastern population where appropriate (1.3.2)  achieved  etc. Figure 10: Harbour porpoise in the Baltic sea serving as example for the illustration of the implementation of articles 8, 9, 10 and 13: Indicators according to Commission Decision; use of existing definitions for GES (i.a. Habitats Directive „Favourable conservation status“); existing assessments (conservation status

of 65 pursuant to the Habitats Directive; R&D-projects); conclusion of environmental targets for the reduction of pressures; measures based thereon. Environmental targets and measures have possibly to be indicated on a quantitative level.

of 65 Example 2: Spiny dogfish (North Sea) referred to as one component of the ecosystem to be assessed under descriptor 1 (biodiversity)

Description of regional and seasonal occurrence; population densities and trends; documentation of known, for the marine region specific pressures as e.g. by-catch rates, imbalance of sex ratio due to taking bigger female individuals; pollution by noise and contaminants.

Determination of GES 2012 (Report according to article 9)

Determination of population trends (indicator for GES); limits for by-catch rates (indicator for GES); balanced sex ratio.

Establishment of Environmental targets 2012 (Report according to article 10)

Size of regions to be established that are limited in time and undisturbed (if possible); maximum limits of by-catch rates (percentage of population); maximum pollutant concentrations (organic mercury compounds): maximum pressures by noise.

Establishment of marine protected areas needed since habitat types and population densities of spiny dogfishes vary on a spatial and seasonal level (if necessary); immediate imperative discard of by-catches; maximum sizes of female individuals; determination of maximum limits (threshold values) for noise and contaminants .

Page - 40- of 65 Example 3: Eutrophication (descriptor 5)

Description of the eutrophication status of the marine (sub)region concerned based on the existing assessments under:

 Regional conventions

o OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure (2nd application (Integrated OSPAR report 2008 and QSR 2010);

o Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation (TWC, Wadden Sea QSR 2009);

o HELCOM HEAT (HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool, report 2009/2010))

o BARCELONA Convention (Trophical Index for Marine Waters; TRIX) – please add relevant information

o BUCHAREST Convention – please add relevant information

 EU legislation

o WFD for coastal waters (River Basin Management Plans 2010)

The description of Good Environmental Status with regard to eutrophication in qualitative ways could use the wording related to descriptor 5 (Annex 1 MSFD):

“Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.”

This overall goal has to be made operational. This could be achieved by taking into account the criteria and related indicators laid down in the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU). The Commission Decision requires assessments of eutrophication Page - 41- of 65 in marine waters to combine information on nutrient levels and on a range of those primary effects and of secondary effects which are ecologically relevant. The Decision sets out three criteria and eight related indicators.

For descriptor 5, GES can also be quantitatively described by using existing region- specific quantitative assessment criteria for nutrient enrichment under the regimes mentioned above: The OSPAR Common Procedure, the eutrophication assessment under TWC, HEAT and eutrophication assessment under the WFD are based on the same conceptual framework. There are some minor specific adaptations for e.g. the Baltic Sea but there is a common agreed concept to describe and assess eutrophication. This holistic scheme of assessment criteria combines aspects of nutrient enrichment with aspects of direct, indirect and other adverse effects of excessive nutrient enrichment on water quality and ecosystem components. It sets out at least three categories: I. Nutrient enrichment, II. Direct effects and III. Indirect effects selecting qualitative criteria for harmonised use (nutrient concentrations, nutrient ratio, chlorophyll-a concentration, transparency (e.g. Secchi depth), abundance of phytoplankton-indicator species, abundance of opportunistic macroalgae, shifts in phytoplankton composition (e.g. diatoms – flagellates), changes in abundance of perannual algae (e.g. brown algae), seagras and macrozoobenthos, oxygen contents with focus on depletion and respective kills in benthos and fish). They are made operational by quantification through measurable parameters with associated area-specific assessment levels (‘thresholds’). Those assessment parameters act as indicators for the qualitative criteria. In combination, the assessment parameter provide an integrated means for judging the eutrophication status of marine waters. The criteria and associated parameter (‘indicators’) covered by the Common Procedure, HEAT and WFD go slightly beyond the list of criteria listed by Commission Decision 2010/477/EU, include adverse effects on fauna (benthic

Page - 42- of 65 species and fish) and cover the characteristics listed in MSFD Annex III, Table 1 (biological features): “information on angiosperms, macroalgae and invertebrate bottom fauna, including species composition, biomass and annual/seasonal variability.) For bridging to an establishment of respective environmental targets, inputs of nutrients through the relevant pathways (e.g. rivers, atmosphere and transboundary from other maritime areas) should also be addressed.

The strategies of OSPAR and HELCOM aim at convention waters where anthropogenic eutrophication does not occur. For HELCOM this is also laid down in the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). This is in line with respective goals under TWC and WFD.

According MSFD article 3 (7) an environmental target is defined as, ‘a qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components of, and pressures and impacts on, marine waters in respect of each marine region or subregion’. The qualitative statement in this context could be the MSFD aim for nutrient enrichment as laid down in Annex I for descriptor 5:

“Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.”

For marine areas with eutrophication problems environmental targets should be established aiming at the relevant causes and pathways for nutrient inputs such as agriculture, combustion including traffic, industries entering the seas via rivers, atmosphere and transboundary transports from adjacent and remote sea areas.

In the BSAP, national reduction figures for nutrient inputs have been agreed in 2007. These maximal allowable loads have been derived using a Baltic Sea wide model (MARE). These loads are deducted from an ecologic situation in the Baltic without eutrophication which could be seen as GES for nutrient enrichment. Within OSPAR, a similar activity has been started. OSPAR Contracting Parties are invited to define for each eutrophication problem area the distance to target. Target in this Page - 43- of 65 sense mean, a convention area without eutrophication. From determination of the distance to target, specific reduction targets for nutrient inputs will be derived.

For a defined area recent assessment results can be used to select the most sensitive parameter affected by a certain pressure. It should be considered that the more levels are involved between source and effect (e.g. nutrient emissions and inputs – phytoplankton – organic matter – oxygen) the more complicated a translation of targets to reduction measures will be, due to interactions in the ecosystem and (hydrodynamic) variability. Furthermore, establishment of targets will become more difficult with increasing distance to the sources due to dilution, variability of transport processes, contribution from different sources and possibly biogeochemical turnover. Calculation of annual means could assist in solving this problem.

At a certain point of the establishment of environmental targets it has to be checked whether the targets for one descriptor are compatible with existing regional and international targets. The environmental targets with regard to nutrient enrichment seem to be in line with existing regimes because they are mostly used in the same way. This condition is fine as long as they enable to achieve GES. If not, it has to be made transparent and additional targets might to have established going beyond existing ones.

Finally, a check is necessary whether all MSFD related environmental targets are consistent. For nutrient enrichment it seems to be clear that this should be the case because the criteria and indicator used are underpinned by values reflecting naturally good conditions. In consequence, this means GES for nutrient enrichment reflects also GES for the respective components addressed under D 1, 4 and 6.

To arrive at GES, the environmental targets established under article 10 have to be translated into programmes of measures under OSPAR, TWC, HELCOM, WFD and MSFD. It is not necessary to do this in parallel in all these regimes. It could be sufficient to focus e.g. for waterborne nutrient inputs on the River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) under the WFD. It can be assumed that they cover a

Page - 44- of 65 significant part of the measures required. Further EU legislation such as the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) are possibly contributing to GES achievement. The IPPC Directive (96/61/EC) should also be mentioned in this context.

Agriculture contributes most or at least significantly to nutrient enrichment. Therefore, the MSFD requirements for GES and the need for programmes of measures should also address the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and ask for enforcement of its environmental pillar.

For atmospheric inputs it is necessary to introduce the WFD and MSFD requirements for GES in the current revisions of the EC NEC Directive and the UN ECE CLRTAP. HELCOM agreed on a respective requirement in the BSAP and approached UN ECE CLRTAP with a common HELCOM letter to raise their awareness for the significant airborne nitrogen input to the Baltic Sea and subsequent deposition. OSPAR initiated information exchange with the same organisation. Nitrogen emissions form shipping is regulated under the IMO. Establishment of special areas for nitrogen in the North and Baltic Seas (NECA – Nitrogen Oxide Emission Controlled Area) with stricter limits for nitrogen from shipping is a step into the right direction.

Page - 45- of 65 Indicators GES-Definition Assessment Environmental Programmes of Targets Measures Nutrient levels  GES achieved Ensure maintenance  Nutrient concentration in the water column (5.1.1)  Area-/region- Maintenance  Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus) specific quantitative where appropriate (5.1.2) svalues from WFD, OSPAR, HELCOM, GES not TWC achieved Direct effects of nutrient enrichment

Area-/region-  Chlorophyll concentration in the water column specificImplementaion quantitative of (5.2.1) values fromrespective WFD, GES achieved  Water transparency related to increase in Establishment of reduction targets OSPAR,programmes HELCOM, of  suspended algae, where relevant (5.2.2) TWC measures in the  Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae (5.2.3)for nutrient inputs for each respective  Species shift in floristic composition such as diatom eutrophication catchment of the to flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic shifts, as well as problem area eutrophication bloom envents of nuisance /toxic algal blooms (e.g. GES not problem area achieved cyanobacteria) caused by human activities (5.2.4) concerned

Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment  Abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses  (e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune grass) Area-/region- GES achieved adversely impacted by decrease in water specific quantitative transparency (5.3.1) values from WFD, Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to increased OSPAR, HELCOM, GES not organic matter decomposition and size of the area TWC achieved concerned (5.3.2) Figure 11: Nutrient enrichment in North and Baltic Seas serving as example for the illustration of the implementation of articles 8, 9, 10 and 13: Indicators according to Commission Decision; use of existing definitions for GES (i.e. WFD „Ecological high/good status“); existing assessments pursuant to OSPAR, HELCOM and TWC; conclusion of environmental targets for the reduction of pressures; measures based thereon. Environmental targets and measures are to be indicated on a quantitative level.

of 65 Example 4: Marine Litter (descriptor 10)

The UK Initial Assessment (Charting progress 2) provides an assessment of beach litter and offshore litter on the basis of observed trends and expert judgement. A summary of the assessment is included below.

Beach Litter

Beach litter in the UK was assigned an overall status of ‘orange’ (some problems) with no overall change in status observed since Charting Progress (2005).The assessment covers sources, environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and trends in types and amounts of litter. The available data indicates that, in general, quantities of litter on UK beaches have shown no appreciable decrease over the period 2003 to 2007. Average litter densities on UK beaches remain high, at over 2000 litter items/km surveyed, compared to around 1000 items/km surveyed when monitoring began in 1994. The number of plastic items present on surveyed beaches has also shown an increase from 800 items/km in 1994 to 1200 items/km in 2007.

With respect to confidence in the assessment, data are collected by volunteers on behalf of the Marine Conservation Society using methodologies comparable with those adopted by OSPAR and recently published UNEP/IOC guidelines. Despite the limitations associated with voluntary surveys they are carried out each year in a consistent manner therefore results are considered comparable year on year.

Offshore litter

Offshore litter in the UK was not assigned an overall status since data are currently too sparse to provide a meaningful assessment of changes in quantities of litter either regionally or over time.

Some qualitative and quantitative data has been included in the assessment, providing an insight into the amounts and types of litter found on the seabed in specific coastal and offshore locations. The results indicate that litter is ubiquitous

of 65 in UK waters, but at generally low levels. However, some areas have significantly higher densities of litter suggesting they may act as areas of accumulation i.e. litter sinks.

Article 9 - Determining Good Environmental StatusGES for marine litter in UK waters will be achieved when:

i). Litter and its degradation products currently present in, and entering into, UK waters is reduced over time and does not pose a significant risk to marine life at the population level, either as a result of direct mortality or by way of indirect impacts such as reduced fecundity and bioaccumulation within food chains.

ii). Litter currently present in, and entering into, UK waters does not pose a direct or indirect unacceptable risk to human welfare and does not lead to significant detrimental economic impacts for industry and coastal communities. n.b. It is envisaged this initial determination will be further expanded upon in order that it refers qualitatively both to what the state of the marine environment in the specific region/sub region looks like when GES has been achieved, and to the acceptable levels of key pressures in that region/sub region when GES has been achieved.

The extent of our knowledge and understanding will determine how specific and quantitative it is possible to be. The ultimate goal should be to develop, quantitative, numerical targets and associated indicators. However where the knowledge base is not robust enough it will be necessary to adopt more qualitative targets such as those referring to desired trends of a particular indicator rather than the precise outcome we are aiming to achieve.

of 65 For example, it might currently be difficult to set an overall specific litter reduction target such as a ‘40% reduction in levels of litter in the water column by 2020’ because of gaps in our understanding of the links between quantities and types of litter and harm at a population level. Despite this fact, it is obvious that for certain marine areas or (sub)regions the litter level is too high. In this case it may be appropriate to agree a more qualitative target such as, ‘A measurable decrease in litter levels in the water column by 2020’ which could be refined as our understanding improves through targeted research.

of 65 Establishment of Environmental targets 2012 (Report according to article 10) UK proposals for potential targets for achieving GES are listed in the below table. Note these require further development to determine specific levels at which harmful effects will be seen.

Criteria Commission GES will be achieved Possible Environmental Indicator when (GES Targets and associated characteristics); Indicators 10.1 Trends in the – The – Overall reduction Characteristics amount of litter properties and quantities [x%] in the [volume/weight] of of litter in the washed ashore of litter on coastlines and litter on coastlines from 2010 marine and and/or deposited on in the water column do not levels by 2020. coastal coastlines, including present an unacceptable environment analysis of its risk to human health and – [x%] reduction in composition, spatial safety or result in [volume/weight/number] of distribution and, significant social and plastic/fishing/sanitary litter where possible, economic impacts to items on coastlines from 2010 source (10.1.1) coastal communities. levels by 2020. Trends in the – The – Trend analysis amount of litter in properties and quantities shows a measurable reduction the water column of litter on coastlines and in the [volume/weight/number] (including floating at in the water column do not of litter items on the the surface) and result in population level seafloor/water column by 2020. deposited on the impacts on marine life. sea-floor, including – [x%] reduction in analysis of its – The sources the number of sewage related composition, spatial of litter are addressed in a viruses on coastlines from 2010 distribution and, way which ensures the levels by 2020. where possible, types and amounts of litter source (10.1.2) present on coastlines are environmentally and socially acceptable.

Trends in the – Levels of – Decrease/ No amount, distribution microplastics in the increase [slow rate of increase] and, where environment are in micro-plastics by 2020. possible, maintained at levels where composition of the risks to human health micro-particles (in and safety and impacts at particular micro- a population level for plastics) (10.1.3) marine life are minimised.

10.2 Impacts of Trends in the – The – Less than 10% of litter on marine amount and amounts and types of litter northern fulmars (Fulmarus life composition of litter ingested by marine life is glacialis) having more than 0.1g ingested by marine not at a level which would plastic particles in their animals (e.g. result in population level stomach1. stomach analysis) impacts. (10.2.1). – A reduction [no increase] in the amount of (species) population with litter ‘obstacles/entanglement’ or scarring.

1 OSPAR EcoQO Page 50 of 65 Establishment of Environmental targets 2012 (Report according to article 10)

Targets in practice

A range of different types of target will be necessary, dependant on the robustness of the evidence base and the nature of the Descriptor in question. These types of target and indicator could include:

 State-based targets

These provide an indication as to the physical, chemical or biological state of the environment or the state of habitat types that would be observed when GES is achieved for in particular descriptors D1, D4 and D6.

An example of an existing state-based target is the OSPAR grey seal pup EcoQO - ‘taking into account natural population dynamics and trends, there should be no decline in pup production of grey seals of greater than 10%’.

 Pressure-based targets

These provide an indication of the acceptable level of a particular pressure on the marine environment which would not prevent the achievement of GES. Such targets are attractive as they can be related closely to management measures and are often easier and more cost effective to monitor than state-based targets. They should, however, only be used where a clear understanding of the relationship between pressure, state and impact exists, and where cumulative effects can be accounted for.

An example of an existing pressure-based target is the OSPAR EcoQO on minimising harbour porpoise by-catch - ‘Annual by-catch levels of harbour porpoise should be reduced to levels below 1.7% of the best population estimate’.

 Impact-based targets

These provide an indication of the acceptable level of impact on the marine environment arising from a particular pressure or range of pressures. It is important to ensure such targets genuinely reflect levels of impact which would have a negative impact at an ecosystem level.

of 65 An example of an existing impact-based target is the OSPAR EcoQO on decreasing the impact of TBT containing antifouling paints - ‘The average level of imposex in dog whelks (Nucella lapillus) should be consistent with exposure to TBT concentrations below the environmental assessment criterion for TBT’.

The extent of our knowledge and understanding will determine how specific and quantitative it is possible to be. The ultimate goal should be to develop, quantitative, numerical targets and associated indicators. However where the knowledge base is not robust enough it will be necessary to adopt more qualitative targets such as those referring to desired trends of a particular indicator rather than the precise outcome we are aiming to achieve.

For example, it might currently be difficult to set an overall specific litter reduction target such as a ‘40% reduction in levels of litter in the water column by 2020’ because of gaps in our understanding of the links between quantities and types of litter and harm at a population level. Despite this fact, it is obvious that for certain marine areas or (sub)regions the litter level is too high. In this case it may be appropriate to agree a more qualitative target such as, ‘A measurable decrease in litter levels in the water column by 2020’ which could be refined as our understanding improves through targeted research.

of 65 PART C Common understanding of relevant terms under MSFD articles 8-10

Objective

The terminology in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), in the EU Commission’s Decision (2010/477/EU) on ‘criteria and methodological standards’ of 1 September 2010 and in relevant literature (e.g. ICES/ JRC Task group reports) needs common understanding. Therefore, in this annex a common interpretation is recommended for relevant terminology according MSFD articles 8 (assessment), 9 (determination of GES) and 10 (establishment of environmental targets). The common interpretation is based on MSFD article 3 (definition).

Common understanding of relevant terms

Deskriptor

For determination of the good environmental status (GES) MSFD Annex I provides a list of 11 qualitative descriptors. They build the basis for the description and determination of GES. MS identify the descriptors relevant for the marine (sub)region concerned. These descriptors have to be substantiated and specified with the help of the Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards using a relevant set from the 29 criteria and 56 indicators listed. Certain criteria and indicator need further development and operationalisation.

Criterion/criteria

According to the definitions in article 3 MSFD, ““criteria” means distinctive technical features that are closely linked to qualitative descriptors”. Specific criteria are listed for each GES Descriptor in Part B of Annex 2 in the COM Decision 2010/477/EU from 01.09.2010. The following examples shall assist in common understanding. For instance “Species Distribution” of a relevant species or species functional group is criterion 1.1 for Descriptor 1 “Biological Diversity is

of 65 maintained…”. A criterion representative for a pressure related descriptor is 5.2 “Direct Effects of Nutrient Enrichment” for D 5 “Eutrophication”.

To avoid confusion between the use of the term “criteria” in this specific context and its use in other respects (such as the criteria used to guide indicator selection), it is recommended these specific criteria be referred to as “GES criteria”.

In this context, GES ‘criteria’ refer to aspects of all descriptors. They require to be assessed, through the application of appropriate indicators, to determine whether each aspect meets good environmental status. Thus population size of a particular species or functional group of species is another criterion (1.2 in the COM Decision) by which to judge whether that aspect of biodiversity in a particular region meets good environmental status or not. Similarly, the habitat extent (criterion 1.5) is a criterion to judge whether the habitat in a specified region meets GES or not. With regard to eutrophication, the criteria 5.1 nutrient levels, 5.2 direct of nutrient enrichment and 5.3 indirect of nutrient enrichment would serve the same task.

Good Environmental Status (GES)

GES is defined under article 3 MSFD and describes the desired status of the marine environment and its components. The determination is based on the indefinite list of eleven descriptors laid down in Annex I MSFD and on the criteria and associated indicators in the COM decision 2010/477/EU.

Environmental Target

Environmental targets are defined in article 3 MSFD as qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the marine ecosystem and its components and the pressures and impacts on them. They are inter alia a specific requirement, to describe progress towards GES. Annex IV MSFD contains a list of characteristics to be considered if environmental targets are established and distinguishes four categories of environmental targets such as establishing desired conditions, being measurable with associated indicators allowing for monitoring

of 65 and assessment and being operational relating to concrete implementation of measures to support their achievement and move towards GES.

Indicator

Indicators are for this purpose considered to be specific attributes of each GES criterion. They can either be qualitatively or quantitatively described determining whether each criterion meets good environmental status, or to illustrate how far each criterion departs from GES.

Given the complexity of the descriptors , both in their range of characteristics and number of aspects contributing to an assessment , it is common practice to use a set of indicators to assist in monitoring programmes and assessment assisting in simplification. Generally, there is a variety of different types of indicators available for the aspects state, pressure and response. These help limit the number of parameters to be monitored to a set most effectively representing wider functional and structural aspects of the marine ecosystem. State indicator could serve as safety net to assess and illustrate whether the reduction of pressures and impacts for areas with NON-GES status is adequate, effective and successful. Where possible, state indicators should closely respond (in space and time) to a particular anthropogenic pressure (by responding to the impact of the pressure) and hence be linked to associated environmental targets and management requirements.

The assessment of environmental state provided by one or more indicators should allow inferences to be made on the wider state of biodiversity components in that ecosystem. State means the actual (measured or otherwise assessed) environmental condition (e.g. of a species, species functional group, community or habitat) in a given geographical area. The assessment of state can be derived by taking direct measurements of the particular biodiversity component (‘state indicators’) or indirectly by measuring the prevailing anthropogenic pressures (‘pressure indicators’). In this latter case, impacts of these pressures on biodiversity must be known. For assessments of ecosystem state simple indicators (e.g. the size of a bird population) or more complex indicators (e.g. the ratio of multiple phytoplankton taxa) can be applied.

of 65 In addition to the indicators under the COM decision 2010/477/EU development and use of certain additional indicators could be required for pressures and impacts currently not covered such as by-catch of non-target species and pathways for invasive species.

‘Parameter’ / ‘Metric’

A parameter or metric is a measureable single characteristic. It might comprise a species or habitat (e.g. number of individuals, biomass in g/dry weight, sediment particle size diameter in mm). Parameters of this nature can be used as simple indicators, and indeed several such metrics are included in the list of indicators provided in the EU COM decision document (e.g. indicator 1.2.1, population biomass).

‘Reference state’ / ‘Reference conditions’

For assessment purposes it can be essential to define a reference against which a current situation or state is compared. Reference conditions are the anchor of many assessment tools. They play a central role in the concept of the EC Water Framework Directive (WFD). In that context reference conditions are a description of a state with no, or very minor disturbance from human activities. That means that human pressure is allowed as long as there are no or only very minor ecological effects.

The WFD and its relevant CIS guidance documents describe a clear hierarchy for defining reference conditions using the following approaches in the subsequent order: (1) existing undisturbed or nearly undisturbed sites, (2) historical data or information, (3) models (hindcasting or predictive). Where it is not possible to use these methods or combinations, MS may (4) use expert judgement in a transparent and documented way.

Values used to define a reference state should be directly linked to the GES criteria and respective indicators used for assessment. They might vary in relation

of 65 to prevailing physiographic and geographic conditions and may vary over time in relation to changing climatic conditions and should therefore be site, area or region specific.

It is recommended that MS deciding to use reference conditions use those defined under the WFD in particular for the coastal waters under both regimes.

‘Baseline’

A baseline is a description of state at a specific point against which subsequent values of state are compared. Baselines act as yardstick against which thresholds or trends for GES can be set. Baselines can be derived from (i) reference state/conditions, (ii) a known state in the past, such as the beginning of a time series (e.g. the Large Fish Indicator used 1983 as a first valid data point in the time series) or (iii) a present state. A Baseline can be considered a type of 'reference point' (as referred to in Annex IV of the Directive), though the term ‘reference point’ should not be confused with ‘reference state or reference conditions’ as defined above.

‘Pressure’

The mechanism (physical, chemical or biological) through which a human activity has a direct or indirect adverse effect on any part of the ecosystem, e.g. physical disturbance to the seabed, (in)direct effects of nutrient enrichment and impacts of litter on marine life.

‘Ecosystem component’

Ecosystem components comprise abiotic and biotic components. Abiotic components include non-living physico-chemical factors. Biotic components represent elements such as producers, consumers, decomposers and habitats. This could be a specific biological entity (e.g. a species, species group, population,

of 65 community or habitat type/biotope). A standardised set of components (e.g. functional groups of species and predominant habitats types) is recommended for use to assess the aspects under descriptors 1, 4 and 6.

‘Functional groups of species’

Biodiversity and foodwebs are often complex. For simplification, species could be merged to a functional group. Such groups comprise species with similar structural and functional characteristics. Important functional groups incorporate aspects of diet such as filter feeder. Ecological guilds (often used for fish species) comprise a group of species that exploit the same resources in a similar way therefore sharing a similar ecological niche. They are classified according to how they acquire their nutrients, their state of mobility and their mode of feeding. It is an ecologically relevant set of species, applied e.g. to phyto- and zooplankton and mobile species groups: birds, reptiles, marine mammals, fish and cephalopods. Each functional group represents a predominant ecological role (e.g. offshore surface-feeding birds, demersal fish) within the species community.

‘Predominant habitat type’

Habitat category referred to in Table 1 of Annex III to the Directive. Widely occurring and broadly defined habitat types (e.g. shelf sublittoral sand or mud) that are typically not covered by other legislation (see ‘special habitat types’).

‘Listed features’

Species or habitat types which are listed under Community legislation (e.g. Birds and Habitats Directive) or regional conventions (e.g. OSPAR & HELCOM). Table 1 of Annex III to the Directive refers to these habitat types as ‘special’. For descriptors and criteria assessing biodiversity state (in particular Descriptor 1), listed features shall be linked to specific indicators.

of 65 ‘Special habitat types’

Referred to in Table 1 of Annex III to the Directive as types identified under other Community legislation or regional conventions (“as being of special scientific or biodiversity interest”, see ‘listed features’).

of 65 PART D Assessment Scales under the MSFD

To be developed

of 65 ANNEX Text of MSFD Articles 8, 9 & 10

MSFD Article 8 Assessment 1. In respect of each marine region or subregion, Member States shall make an initial assessment of their marine waters, taking account of existing data where available and comprising the following: (a) an analysis of the essential features and characteristics, and current environmental status of those waters, based on the indicative lists of elements set out in Table 1 of Annex III, and covering the physical and chemical features, the habitat types, the biological features and the hydro-morphology; (b) an analysis of the predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity, on the environmental status of those waters which: (i) is based on the indicative lists of elements set out in Table 2 of Annex III, and covers the qualitative and quantitative mix of the various pressures, as well as discernible trends; (ii) covers the main cumulative and synergetic effects; and (iii) takes account of the relevant assessments which have been made pursuant to existing Community legislation; (c) an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment. 2. The analyses referred to in paragraph 1 shall take into account elements regarding coastal, transitional and territorial waters covered by relevant provisions of existing Community legislation, in particular Directive 2000/60/EC. They shall also take into account, or use as their basis, other relevant assessments such as those carried out jointly in the context of Regional Sea Conventions, so as to produce a comprehensive assessment of the status of the marine environment. 3. In preparing assessments pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall, by means of the coordination established pursuant to Articles 5 and 6, make every effort to ensure that: (a) assessment methodologies are consistent across the marine region or subregion; 25.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 164/27

of 65 (b) transboundary impacts and transboundary features are taken into account.

of 65 MSFD Article 9 Determination of good environmental status 1. By reference to the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or subregion concerned, determine, for the marine waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status, on the basis of the qualitative descriptors listed in Annex I. Member States shall take into account the indicative lists of elements set out in Table 1 of Annex III and, in particular, physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and hydro-morphology. Member States shall also take into account the pressures or impacts of human activities in each marine region or subregion, having regard to the indicative lists set out in Table 2 of Annex III. 2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1) and of the determination made pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article within three months of completion of the latter. 3. 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. Before proposing such criteria and standards the Commission shall consult all interested parties, including Regional Sea Conventions.

of 65 MSFD Article 10 Establishment of environmental targets 1. On the basis of the initial assessment made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall, in respect of each marine region or subregion, establish a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators for their  marine waters so as to guide progress towards achieving good environmental  Festlegun status in the marine environment, taking into account the indicative lists of g der Festlegun entsprech g der pressures and impacts set out in Table 2 of Annex III, and of characteristics set  enden out in Annex IV. When devising those targets and indicators, Member States shall take into account the continuing application of relevant existing environmental targets laid down at national, Community or international level in respect of the same waters, ensuring that these targets are mutually compatible and that relevant transboundary impacts and transboundary features are also taken into account, to the extent possible.

2. Member States shall notify the Commission of the environmental targets within three months of their establishment.

of 65 Adequate coverage of Target setting the elements Annex IV (2) characterizing marine Specification of GES Annex IV (3) waters concerned Annex IV (1)

Comparison of targets (Annex IV) & Constistency of objectives under targets + No conflicts Articel 1 Annex IV (4) Annex IV (12)

Environmental Compatibility of targets with regional Targets Specification of & international Checklist for resources needed agreements characteristics Annex IV (5) Annex IV (11) (Annex IV)

Examination of targets and their Formulation of interim achievements targets and to the resulting timescales evironmental status Annex IV (6) Annex IV (10)

Consideration of Specification of social & economic Specification of indicators to monitor concerns in target reference points for progress setting targets & limits Annex IV (7) Annex IV (9) Annex IV (8)

Fig. 12: Characteristics for Environmental Targets according Annex IV MSFD which should be taken into account during setting of environmental targets according to Art. 10

Alternative for figure 7