1 · web vieweutrophication is a well-defined descriptor with clear causative factors. as...

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

12th meeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)

20 October 2014, 11.00-18:00

21 October 2014, 9.00-17:00

Maison des Associations Internationales (MAI), Rue Washington 40, B-1050 Brussels

Agenda Item: 5

Document: GES_12-2014-05

Title:Review of the GES Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Report on the status of the technical review on criteria and methodological standards on GES (Version 2)

Prepared by: DG Environment-Milieu

Date prepared: 15/10/2014

Background

The following note aims to give an overview and to describe the relevant phases of the exercise carried out between January and October 2014 and to outline the next steps for the drafting of a manual for the possible revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (the Commission Decision).1

1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF

October 2014 Summary note on the status of the technical review of Decision 2010/477/EU / 1

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF

PREAMBLE

The following note aims to give an overview and to describe the relevant phases of the exercise carried out between January and October 2014 and to outline the next steps for the drafting of a manual for the possible revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (the Commission Decision).2

1 WHY A REVIEW

The review of the Commission Decision aims to define more precisely criteria for Good Environmental Status (GES), including setting quantifiable boundaries for GES criteria whenever possible, methodological standards and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment.

The aim of the current review is to lead to a new GES Decision which is: Simpler Clearer Introducing minimum requirements (to be enhanced by regions and MS, if necessary) Self-explanatory Coherent with other EU legislation Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU does not exist) Have a clear and minimum list of criteria and methodological standards and related

characteristics (Table 1, Annex III) Ensure that criteria and methodological standards are adequately addressing the Descriptors are

covered by the proposed criteria, to lead to complete assessments Coherent with the MSFD terminology

The review of the Decision is one element of a package, together with the technical clarifications on the application of the Decision and the further development of the Common Understanding document, to overcome the shortcomings identified by the Commission's Art. 12 assessment and prepare for the next cycle of reporting in 2018.

2 ROADMAP TO THE PREPARATION OF THE MANUALS

In March 2013, the MSFD Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) discussed a work plan for the review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU, following the request made by the MSFD Regulatory Committee during its sixth meeting in February 2013.

A Drafting Group within WG GES was then asked to prepare, for the next Committee meeting in November 2013, a roadmap for the revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU (see

2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF

Committee/07/2013/03rev for details). Based on this roadmap, endorsed by the Committee as a basis for starting the review process, the outline of a “manual” for the technical phase of the review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU was developed between November 2013 and March 2014.

The aim of the manual (Annex II) is to guide the preparatory process and discussions and contribute to the overall review exercise. The structure of the manual was decided and agreed by WG GES in March 2014 and the approach agreed to was to prepare one manual per descriptor (GES_11-2014-04 (Decision review manual)). The manual structure is common for all Descriptors to ensure coherence in the review exercise.

3 APPROACH

The initial approach was to use and compile information already available to complete Part I of the manual followed by the review and input by experts into Part II to develop concrete proposals for the revision of the Decision (in particular Part B of the Decision).

During Spring-Summer 2014, the Commission (DG ENV, JRC), in collaboration with ICES and with the support of the Milieu Consortium, facilitated the work of the relevant experts groups.

The three steps below summarise the process:

Part I pre-filling: Based on the information from the Art. 12 assessment reports (COM(2014)97 final) and the JRC in-depth assessments (Palialexis et al., 2014), Part I of the template was pre-filled by the Milieu Consortium for DG ENV for each descriptor. This work was undertaken in May-June 2014.

Part II pre-filling: JRC and ICES experts have completed part II of the manual for each descriptor. JRC and ICES have prepared the specific parts on Art 9(3), 11(4), rational and technical background for proposed revision and other related products, according to their expertise. They have analysed the current shortcomings, proposed ways forward, e.g. needs for further guidance and development, but also proposals to review Decision 2010/477/EU, based on scientific knowledge and experience in the implementation process. This work started in July 2014 and is ongoing.

Workshops: Several workshops have been organised either by the JRC (on D8 and D9) or by ICES (on D3, D4 and D63), bringing together experts from the relevant ICES and JRC expert networks including MS and RSC experts, to review the pre-filled manuals in light of the Decision (2010/477/EU) and suggest ways to improve the scientific guidance to help achieve GES.

Conclusion from the pre-filling exercise: To facilitate the discussion and the work of WG GES, each Descriptor leader in consultation with experts or as a follow up to the ad-hoc workshops (listed in Section 4), has prepared an overview of the main conclusions as well as key issues for further discussion after the WG GES meeting for each of the descriptors. A complete overview is provided per descriptor in Annex I.

3 The reports are available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/35edab25-1e91-474f-aa13-3a2a97501999


https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/8a569dad-3a57-4441-816c-0cb0ace273b9/GES_11-2014-04_DecisionReview-DraftManual.doc

https://circabc.europa.eu/d/a/workspace/SpacesStore/8a569dad-3a57-4441-816c-0cb0ace273b9/GES_11-2014-04_DecisionReview-DraftManual.doc

https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/b6d3221e-17c5-4f70-b867-b208bc3bcafe/Committee-07_2013_3rev%20-%20Decision%20Rev%20final%20after%20meeting.pdf

4 CURRENT STATUS OF THE MANUALS AND WORKSHOPS

All manuals were uploaded on CIRCABC on 13 October 2014 with their correspondent version as reflected in Annex III

The table below provides an overview of the work undertaken to produce the Manuals.

Descriptor Part II (led by) Part II completed (Y/N)

Workshop (dates)

D1. Biodiversity JRC Yes -

D2. Non-indigenous species JRC Yes -

D3. Commercial fish and shellfish ICES Yes 4-5 Sept 2014

D4. Food webs ICES Yes 26-27 Aug 2014

D5. Eutrophication JRC Yes -

D6. Sea-floor integrity ICES Yes 2-3 Sept 2014

D7. Hydrographical changes JRC Yes -

D8. Contaminants JRC Yes 2-4 July 2014

D9. Contaminants in seafood JRC Yes 2-4 July 2014

D10. Marine litter JRC Yes -

D11. Energy, including underwater noise ICES Yes -

5 DOCUMENT TRACKER

The document history and the current review status are visible in Annex III, whereas the submitted documents are available on CIRCABC.


https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/35edab25-1e91-474f-aa13-3a2a97501999

ANNEX I – KEY OUTCOMES AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION PER DESCRIPTOR

This annex presents the key outcomes and conclusions as well as the issues for further discussion per descriptor as put forth by the experts during the manual development exercise. For some of the descriptors, a workshop has been held, while for the others the approach was direct expert consultation. More information about the background of the work is provided in Section 3.

NavigationCOVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 1COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 2COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 3 COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 4COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 5COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 6COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 7COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 8COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 9COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 10COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 11


COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 1

Approach Expert consultations on draft Manual

Leader JRC

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

GES definition on a Criterion or Descriptor level (quantitative definition of GES and aggregation methods)

o Should be clarified the level at which GES should be defined (descriptor, criterion). If GES is defined by quantitative criteria, then every criterion needs to be in GES to achieve GES for D1.

o On the other hand, the current scientific knowledge and understanding of the features related with biodiversity cannot always support quantitative criteria. Each level of assessment should be linked with certain aggregation rules.

More effort is needed to conclude to common agreed methodological standards and GES boundaries (wherever feasible)

o The lack of specific methodological standards in the current COM DEC allowed room for different interpretations and implementations in the first phase that concluded with low coherence and comparability across Member States.

o Methodological standards of how GES should be assessed include, inter alia: spatial aggregation within indicators, and aggregation between different indicators, criteria and descriptors.

o Some of these issues are part of the cross-cutting issues that would be discussed later in the review process, but the identification of common methods for these assessments as soon as possible will critically affect the type of criteria/indicators/methods that could be included under D1. This regards both the principles used to determine reference values, and methods to set (boundary values) GES.

o Common agreed and comparable methodological standards and relevant boundaries on a regional scale should be established. The most frequently used methods in the first phase of the MSFD implementation could be the starting point for defining a coherent list of standardized methodological approaches. Specifications laid down by other directives or RSCs should also be considered to reach a common agreed assessment framework for D1.

Timing of the review and monitoring programmeso The timing of the review is also questioned by several MS: It seems to take part

relatively early in the implementation of such a challenging Directive and given our current state of knowledge and the extensive R&D currently underway.

o Monitoring programmes should be taken into account, especially for the identification of those parameters that can commonly be assessed on regional scale. Before doing so, monitoring programmes should be evaluated similarly to the MSFD Art. 12 assessment.


Clarification of MSFD and biodiversity terminology and links across Articles towards a common understanding

o MSFD glossary needs to be clarified and commonly interpreted starting from overarching terms e.g. methodological standards to D1 specific terms e.g. predominant habitats. Then we can achieve a reduction of heterogeneity in the definition of GES both at European level and at regional level.

o According to the MSFD, GES should be defined on a criterion level and criteria should be quantifiable and linked with specific methodological standards and boundaries to provide measurable, comparable and operational GES definitions. These should be in accordance with the Art. 8-initial assessments, Art. 10-targets and Art. 11-monitoring programmes.

Specify the added value/content of the ecosystem criterion and clarify links with other “state” descriptors

o The vague content of the ecosystem criterion (1.7) and possible overlaps with Descriptors 4 and 6 consist a source of misinterpretation in D1 implementation. D1 experts group could agree and define the need and/or content of the ecosystem criterion, but it would more appropriate to also consider the thoughts of the other groups.

Specification of common characteristics (at least regionally or sub-regionally) and potential revision of Table1 of Annex III of the MSFD

o A coherent, comparable and compatible assessment of biodiversity that would also consider existing relevant legislations and agreements should be based on common characteristics (see table 1 of Annex III of the MSFD) specified regionally or sub-regionally, covering species, habitats, functional groups and ecosystems. To this end, the group might need to review of Table 1, Annex III of the MSFD in parallel with the review of criteria and methodological standards.

o Work that has been done under the RSCs and on-going projects also needs to be considered for the generation or adoption of common lists of characteristics. These lists should be highly adaptive and to deal with increasing biodiversity pressures and climate change.

Guidance for taking into account biodiversity assessments under other EU legislationso The link between the MSFD’s GES, HD’s FCS and WFD’s GEcS is not clear and should

be better clarified to take into account for the MSFD’s needs for assessments. The aim should be to perform a single assessment of biodiversity features for all EU relevant legislations and RSCs.




Leader JRC

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Needs for clarification of scientific and technical terminology in view of enhancing comparability of existing approaches

o Translation of the legal text in the national languages needs to be followed by scientific experts to ensure the proper translation of technical terms.

o Agree definitions of specific descriptor terms, e.g. vectors, pathways, impact, risk.o Clarification and common interpretation of terms, e.g. methodological standards,

indicator and criteria. This exercise should take into consideration the relationships between the related management and scientific terminologies to reduce the level of discrepancies between scientist, ecosystem mangers and the policy makers in the EUMSs.

Quantification of GES

These opinions below need to be considered in the context of feedback provided in relation to the COM Dec criteria and indicators.

o D2 constitutes pressure to marine ecosystems and should be evaluated through pressure indicators.

o This requires the development of specific and independent criteria and indicators and hence monitoring systems to evaluate pressure in relation to the introduction and spreading pathways.

o It is possible to determine quantitatively the status of non-indigenous species in a given ecosystem, and a specific level of non-indigenous species abundance could be arbitrarily chosen as threshold to define the GES.

o It is almost impossible to define proper and widely accepted definitions of GES in relation to non-indigenous species by fixing a unique and common non-indigenous species abundance threshold.

o GES will depend ultimately of the direct impacts of non-indigenous species on local biota, which is not necessarily related, at least linearly, with their abundance.

o More complex indicators, as BPI would be hence more adequate than single thresholds.

o Taking into account the irreversibility of most of marine bio-invasions, a more dynamic and operative approach for GES definition could be adopted. Thus, any increasing trend in the presence and abundance of non-indigenous species in a given ecosystem, independently of their real impact, could be qualified as negative, whereas negative trends or stable situations, even if the environmental status cannot be defined as positive, could be considered at least acceptable.

o An alternative, or complementary, approach would be to put the focus on the impacts, on the effects of the presence of non-indigenous species instead of their


abundance. In this way, to evaluate the GES in relation to non-indigenous species the results of the application of the indicators developed for the “biodiversity” descriptors, 1, 4 and 6, could be used.

o The monitoring and evaluation of NIS impacts should be integrated with those of the biodiversity descriptor to ensure coherent assessments

Analysis of the text of the Decision o The main objective was to identify the aspects in the Decision that would be best

placed in a guidance document and analyse which criteria to retain, which to amend and/ or remove.

o The introductory paragraph in Part B is proposed to be removed as it provides guidance on assessment and monitoring methodologies and it is suggested that after substantial revision it could be considered in a guidance document.

o Several comments were received with recommendation on which criteria to retain, which to amend and or remove. These included:

Retain 2.1.1, once amended as “New introductions, trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species, particularly invasive non-indigenous species, notably in risk areas, in relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreading of such species”. To define the GES in relation to NIS properly it should be necessary to go further and known their real impact on the ecosystems. Thus, the criteria 2.2, amended as “Environmental impact of NIS, particularly invasive NIS, at the level of species, habitats and ecosystem, where feasible”, should be also retained. The indicators 2.2.1 and 2.1.2 could be deleted.

The criteria should be retained, but detailed guidance on harmonized methodologies on how to assess indicators are needed, in particular impacts at ecosystem level. Periodic Rapid Assessment Surveys (RAS) for monitoring should be included in the methodological approaches as they allow early detections, as well as alert systems for transboundary areas where applicable. The OSPAR candidate indicator “Rate of new introductions per defined period” should also be taken into account for inclusion in criterion 2.1.

The impact criteria should be kept and bio-pollution level index proposed as a method or new methods should be developed soon. Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and distribution could be left out as they are all taken into account when calculating the bio-pollution level index.

Criterion 2.1 is to be retained. Criterion 2.2, however, should not be part of the assessment of GES and requires special consideration, so that alien species already introduced do not automatically prevent the achievement of GES.

Suggest to have the following three criteria under D2: Criterion1: Primary invasion of new NIS to MS (as this can be managed through managing invasion vectors/pathways). Secondary invasions not to be considered at all, as in marine environment, these are almost impossible to Criterion 2: State and dynamics of existing NIS (this is basically monitoring of the already existing NIS). The obtained information should be fed into Criterion #3, and


also should be used in management of the marine ecosystems as a whole. Criterion 3: Impacts of NIS (should include environmental, social and economic impacts).

Defining GES threshold values and reference pointso The review template included a suggestion by JRC for an assessment method for D2,

which included quantitative boundaries for indicators of the two descriptor’s criteria.o This has generated substantial discussion that is summarized in the following points:

Disagreement- It is unnecessary to define GES where there are no sensible management options to achieve it once it is not reached. Also, there is the need to account for the regional biodiversity levels and invasion pressure. Thus, D2 should concentrate on the new arrivals of alien species against a baseline.

Very dangerous, considering the high variability of impacts caused by IAS, to establish common and fixed thresholds, since this can lead both to over and underestimations of the negative impacts.

o Establishing a quantified definition of GES and threshold values should only be considered where there is sufficient understanding of the relevant issues. Currently this is considered not possible for D2 due to lack scientific underpinning or possible only in some cases, e.g. for well-studied taxonomic groups.

o The described quantification of GES would only work for criterion 2.2. It would not be suitable for 2.1. A way to proceed would be to consider the information compiled in relation to criteria 2.1 both to carry out direct assessments of impact applying indicators as BPI, if enough data are available, and/or to identify areas with presence of IAS in which their impact could be evaluated through the indicators used in relation to the biodiversity descriptors.

o Rather, a given assessment period should be evaluated against the values obtained during the previous assessment period. For criteria previously suggested: Criterion 1 (Primary invasion of new NIS): target – no new NIS through primary invasion during the assessment period (note: secondary invasions not to be considered) Criterion 2 (State and dynamics of existing NIS): target is the value from the previous assessment period Criterion 3 (Impacts of NIS): Suggest to apply BPL method (Olenin et al 2007) with target BPL level 1.

ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION To resolve issues of terminology efforts should be made to build upon existing glossaries, e.g.

OSPAR glossary. There seems to be some division of opinions on the inclusion of only pressure or impact

criteria or both There is no consensus on which criteria to retain or remove There is consensus on proposed amendments to criteria and indicators Further discussion will be necessary related to how pressures impacts are included in status

descriptors (cross-cutting issue). There is no consensus on definition of GES threshold values and reference points both in

relation to the feasibility and the specific values. Further discussion will be necessary to agree on a common proposal.

October 2014 Summary note on the status of the technical review of Decision 2010/477/EU /10


Approach Workshop

4-5 Sept 2014, Copenhagen

Leader ICES

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Key definitions of terms in the Descriptor have been defined Linkages to EU legislation and Regional Sea Conventions have been considered Climate sensitivity and aggregation methods are discussed The current text of the Decision is commented upon and shortened by a proposal to

move technical/guiding issues to a separate document Methodological standards for assessment are presented as regards: Selection of

species, available information and indicators A detailed presentation of how to assess GES for each Criterion is outlined Criterion 3.3 should be revised and indicators selected in relation to three properties:

1) Size distribution of species, 2) Selectivity pattern of the fishery exploiting the species and 3) Genetic effects of exploitation on the species.

ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

The present Criterion 3.3 presents a challenge because there is uncertainty about how to interpret and implement this aspect and a scientific debate on relevant indicators and reference points are ongoing. Instead of deleting the Criterion a new approach is suggested focusing on three properties (see above)

There is a need to validate some of the existing indicators and a few new proposed indicators. To that end one or two dedicated workshops are needed so at least one validated indicator per property can be selected



Approach Workshop

26-27 August 2014, Copenhagen

Leader ICES

KEY CONCLUSIONS

The decision D4 criteria should be simplified to 4.1 Foodweb structure and 4.2 Foodweb function. The criteria should be applied to trophic guilds, not taxonomic groups. An indicative list of guilds

is provided. The categorisation of foodwebs using taxonomy should be removed from the decision.

Existing monitoring programmes and many of the proposed RSC indicators can already provide the majority of the information required for these new criteria.

The criterion 4.1 Foodweb structure should be subdivided into biomass of guilds over time and size structure within those guilds.

A minimum of three trophic guilds should be monitored, and the choice of guild should be made regionally and reflect regional priorities and ecosystem dynamics.

Of the minimum requirement of three trophic guilds per region, a maximum of one should be an exclusive fish guild.

Examples were given of indicator definition, range setting and monitoring than can be used as guidelines for this process as standard methods.

GES can only be considered if 4.1 and 4.2 are within the GES boundaries.

Discussion points

Usually environmental influence has a high impact on foodweb structure and function. Current scientific understanding is such that anthropogenic pressure is difficult to distinguish from the environmentally influenced variability. In the absence of strong indicators reflecting pressure-state relationships, what would potential indicators of D4 represent? Should the indicators be treated as surveillance indicators (monitoring change in the foodweb across the minimum three guilds)?

How do we determine GES bounds? The workshop suggested that methodological standards for defining GES should describe a state within prescribed bounds based on our known experience of natural variability in that food web’s state. Movement beyond those bounds should be seen as leaving GES, and lead to an investigation into the cause or the change in GES status and, when relevant, trigger more precautionary management. So can we define the approach to set those bounds?




Leader JRC

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Lack of agreed methodological standards and boundaries for GES definitiono The lack of specific methodological standards in the current COM DEC allowed

room for different interpretations and implementations in the first phase that concluded with low coherence and comparability across Member States. Methodological standards of how GES should be assessed include, inter alia: spatial aggregation within indicators, and aggregation between different indicators, criteria and descriptors.

o Some of these issues are part of the cross-cutting issues that would be discussed later in the review process, but the identification of common methods for these assessments as soon as possible will critically affect the type of criteria/indicators/methods that could be included under D5. This regards both the principles used to determine reference values, and methods to set (boundary values) GES.

MSFD-WFD links for assessing eutrophication (as well as other legislations)o The related WFD acquis should be better considered in the MSFD

implementation and this could be facilitated by the intercalibration of WFD biological methods and the implementation of WFD assessments for the MSFD needs, for the overlapping areas.

o A harmonization process between coastal and open sea assessments is also required, as it wouldn’t be desirable to have a break at the 1nm border just because different assessment systems are used.

o The link between WFD’s “good ecological status” and MSFD’s “good environmental status” has to be specified for the assessment of the overlap areas. Harmonisation is not straight forward, because WFD treats the physico-chemical parameters (nutrients, secchi, oxygen) only as supporting parameters while in the MSFD they are indicators that have the same importance than the biological quality elements.

o Another point of caution should be the fact that WFD does not explicitly require the assessment of eutrophication as such, just the assessment of the status of phytoplankton, algae/seagrasses and macrozoobenthos. The status of these ecosystem components is strongly influenced by eutrophication, thus they can also be seen as indicators of eutrophication, but assessment of ecological status sensu WFD also includes river basin specific hazardous substances. If the quality target for one of these substances is not met, the ecological status is worse than “good”. The overall aim should be to find a solution fit for WFD, ND, UWWTD, MSFD and RSC demands on eutrophication assessment.


Common assessment (common methods) vs. regional and sub-regional differences o Considering significant flaws in achieving coherence among MS in D5 assessment

with regard to both EU and RSC legislations, the starting point for a better harmonization would be a consistent and agreed common approach (in a broader sense) for the eutrophication assessment (i.e. core set of parameters at least regionally). This will facilitate the need for coherently assessing sharing water masses (transboundary issue), especially after agreeing and defining reference points and thresholds for quantitative assessments. Numerical adjustments at different spatial (e.g. marine regions/subregions, inshore/offshore, ecosystems) and temporal scales (e.g. seasonality) should be applied (e.g. baseline and threshold) by RSC/MS in order to also reflect the different environmental characteristics.

o The local character of eutrophication, the regional hydromorphological, ecological and knowledge differences are challenging the use of comparable and coherent methodological standards, even on a regional level. The use of standardised methods according to EU legislations and RSCs’ specifications can prevent the possibility of having different assessments of eutrophication in the same or adjacent areas due to small differences in assessment criteria.

Common understanding of eutrophication problemo A common understanding whether we have a eutrophication problem or not,

and if so, which measures are planned for improvement would reduce the flexibility in the interpretation D5 implementation that directed MSs to select different approaches in their initial assessment, the definition of GES and the targets

Clear links between pressures-impact, criteria-methodological standards (including aggregations methods and scales) and MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10

o Clear links should be made between pressures and impacts (Annex III, Table 2 of MSFD), criteria and methodological standards (COM DEC 2010/477/EU) and thereafter between Art. 8, 9 and 10, taking into account the connection with Table 1 in Annex III of MSFD. This should be done in a way that any pressure or impact will be connected to specific methodological standards accompanied by common agreed parameters at least regionally.

Quantifiable GES and use of GES boundaries/thresholdso From a scientific point of view a number conditions should be met before we can

use numerical values for ‘status’ as criteria. These requirements are very similar to those used in the implementation of the WFD, especially the intercalibration part:

absolute numerical criteria shall have procedures to account for confidence limits and errors,

significant and meaningful relationship between quantified metrics and pressures can be demonstrated,

harmonization between MSs can only take place when sufficient correlation between MS’ metrics can be demonstrated,


numerical criteria shall account for (within) regional differences, in this eutrophication case e.g. salinity, depth and background turbidity, top down control.

Links with other Descriptorso D5 is specifically focused on determination of the functional relationship

between anthropogenic nutrient inputs and ecosystem functioning. For this reason, the D5 indicators are structured hierarchically (pressure, direct and indirect effects). The eutrophication assessment requires the analysis of the cause-effect relationships between categories of indicators and relevant methodological standards. Other descriptors (e.g. D1, D4, D5) use indicators similar to those for D5 (e.g. phytoplankton biomass, macrophyte communities), but they are state descriptors.

o Eutrophication is a well-defined descriptor with clear causative factors. As assessment parameters move further away from direct measurement of nutrient loads and concentrations however, interaction with other descriptors becomes significant: food-web changes affect grazing pressures on macrophytes and phytoplankton and may exacerbate blooms. Physical damage may affect benthic indicators. Such links between D5 and other descriptors need to be clarified and assessment/monitoring parameters should be clearly defined to avoid double assessments.


Need to address the lack of common methodological standards and boundaries for GES definition; the identification of common methods for the assessments as soon as possible will critically affect the type of criteria/indicators/methods that could be included under D5. This regards both the principles used to determine reference values, and methods to set (boundary values) GES;

Need to clarify MSFD-WFD links for assessing eutrophication - intercalibration of WFD biological methods and the implementation of WFD assessments for the MSFD needs, for the overlapping areas; harmonization process between coastal and open sea assessments; link between WFD’s “good ecological status” and MSFD’s “good environmental status” has to be specified for the assessment of the overlap areas. Overall aim should be to find a solution fit for WFD, ND, UWWTD, MSFD and RSC demands on eutrophication assessment

Need to address Common assessment (common methods) vs. regional and sub-regional differences with more coherence in mind

Need to clarify links between pressures-impact, criteria-methodological standards (including aggregations methods and scales) and MSFD Art. 8, 9 and 10

Need to quantify GES and use of GES boundaries/thresholds Links between D5 and other descriptors need to be clarified and assessment/monitoring

parameters should be clearly defined to avoid double assessments



Approach Workshop

2-3 Sept 2014, Copenhagen

Leader ICES

KEY CONCLUSIONS

• The Decision 2010/477/EU D6 criteria (6.1 Physical damage, having regard to substrate characteristics and 6.2 Condition of benthic communities) are insufficient and risk compromising our ability to assess seafloor integrity.

• The present criteria should be revised into new criteria 6.1 Functionality and 6.2 Recoverability that are more closely related to resilience and recovery potential of the seafloor. This would simplify the existing Decision and may not require any additional monitoring from Member States.

• To ensure resilience of the seafloor, the reference points of indicators that are selected should best reflect the possible tipping point, i.e. the level of perturbation at which the decline of the system functionality begins to accelerate.

• Recoverability needs to be considered in the spatial context within which a disturbed area is located (i.e. connectivity between impacted and non-impacted sites in the region).

• Both sensitivity and pressures need to be considered together to evaluate overall impact. Pressure indicators alone will result in an incomplete assessment.

• Natural disturbances occur on the seafloor, and this background needs to be considered


• Scientific guidance will be required in prioritizing functions to be assessed under each criteria, as well as choosing indicators and establishing GES boundaries for seafloor integrity (with reference points and targets). This will be required in any potential revisions of Decision 2010/477/EU and in its implementation by Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs) and Member States.

• A substantial body of scientific knowledge that can serve as the basis for this guidance has already been consolidated in the ICES WKMSFD Report 2014 and ICES/JRC 2010 Task Group 6 report. Appropriate experts building on this foundation can make rapid progress on finalizing the necessary guidance.




Leader JRC

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Scope and guidance for D7 is lackingo Descriptor 7 lacks specific guidance document at EU level. In particular

guidance is needed to determine scales and processes;o There is a need to provide clear guidance in the Decision on how to integrate

the existing minimum requirements under existing EU legislation (e.g. WFD, EIA, SEA) in the GES definition, in particular on where other legislation is invoked to identify and mitigate any impacts to avoid double accounting for these types of activities. Some member states focused entirely outside of the WFD domain, but this could be too restrictive in terms of consideration of the whole water column (hydrographic conditions under WFD relate only to the quality of surface waters). Guidance on where the gaps in other legislation should be covered by MSFD is needed.

o It has been suggested that GES for D7 could be included in future EIAs so that the required EIA assessment studies should determine whether MSFD applies. In this case all EIAs in the marine environment would be required to assess the effects regarding GES for D7;

o Guidance on monitoring requirements for D7 is lacking. The pressure impact relation is unclear

o Regarding the Member States reports for Articles 8, 9 and 10, differentiation between ‘pressures’ and ‘impacts’ needs to be improved to avoid confusion. A clearer link between the Directive and the Decision is needed;

o Clarify the concept that D7 is effectively a pressure descriptor whose impacts need to be considered as part of the assessments of GES (habitat types, eutrophication) under D1, D4, D5 and D6 (would make it impossible to define only GES within D7);

o There is a need to clarify which activities/pressures should be included in the context of D7 with a focus on activities resulting in localized impacts (pressures causing impacts at local scale, e.g. piers, harbours). Note that it is not the scales of the activities that is important – it is the scale of the effects;

o A large number of Member States focus only on the impacts of new activities, however existing installations or activities can have resulted in or also result in further alteration or degradation of the current status.

Time and space scales for assessment are not definedo There is a need to clarify the concept of ‘permanent alteration’ (potentially by

defining a simple time scale as “permanent”). o The link between functional groups and hydrographical conditions is still in the

research phase and therefore a challenging aspect of D7. This could be referred


back to D1/D6 to create a joint framework to assess functional impacts on benthic and pelagic habitats;

o Scales need to be defined: local/intermediate vs. large scales and should be linked to scales used for D1/D6 habitat assessments; D7 is referring to GES at the ecosystem level, but the pressure is typically coming from small scale constructions, so there is a large gap in the scales from pressure to impact.

o There needs to be a clarification if the impacts of localised activities should be assessed under consideration of a changing environment (climate change - several MS have done this).

Baseline, parameters and GES are not well definedo Is it a quantitative or qualitative descriptor? How could it be made

quantitative? Modelling could be used to help quantify the effects, however there are still regional scale changes in ecosystem processes that cannot be predicted using ecosystem models at present (e.g, regime changes);

o Thresholds for GES/non GES are almost non-existent;o In the case where the current situation already compromises the

achievement of GES for other descriptors, in particular D1 and D6, additional measures affecting existing activities/ installations might be necessary;

o Only few countries defined explicit baselines. Most of them used the current situation (Initial Assessment 2012) as their baseline and considered D7 at GES; however, this ignores the extent of past hydrographical changes on particular habitat types (which can be significant in some coastal areas). Deciding how far back to set the baseline is a complicating factor and combining this with the cost of removing old constructions explain why most member states considered the IA 2012 as their baseline and only considered new developments;

o There is the need to clarify if descriptor D7 “permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions” should be extended (or not) to include also hydrochemical conditions (like pH, alkalinity, oxygen, nutrients) as already done by some MS;

o Chemical processes are not within the present definition of hydrographical processes; however several member states included acidification. If not modified by infrastructural works, it does not seem appropriate to include parameters such as acidification in the assessment of D7;

o Features, pressures and physico-chemical parameters are neither well defined nor harmonized for comparability.


Due to the lack of common understanding on the scope of this descriptor there are no harmonised approaches. A ‘best practice’ document based on the previous assessment could facilitate convergence of approaches;

Clarification of the pressure impact chain: the constructions are the original pressure and have an impact on the hydrographical conditions (or not), whereas these (when


significantly altered) act then as a pressure on the ecosystem and could impact on that ecosystem (negative or positive).

Time and space scales for assessment need to be defined in accordance to the conclusions reached (as explained above). Should impacts be assessed on habitats or on ecosystems? Presumably the first assessment can be only done at the habitat level, and afterwards a cumulative IA would be needed to arrive at the ecosystem level?

Baseline, parameters and GES are not well defined and need to be clarified in accordance to the conclusions reached (as explained above).



Approach Workshop

2-4 July 2014, Ispra

Leader JRC

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION4

Relationship WFD-MSFDo The conceptual relationships between WFD and MSFD should be clarified

and implemented.o The “comparability with WFD” should be defined, i.e. what needs to be

comparable (matrix, substances, analytical methods, quality control…) and where (territorial waters, open sea…). This “comparability” might be incongruent for sediments and/or biota when there is no EQS.

Substanceso The appropriateness and feasibility of selecting a European core set of

substances to be monitored by all MS and specifying it in the Com. Dec. text have to be decided.

o A list of contaminants for GES assessment should be established based on: Minimum Requirements: core set of substances are the WFD

Priority Substances (+ current and future amendments). A clear and justified mechanism for de-selecting WFD priority

substances if not relevant. Binding provisions for protection against other additional

substances that might be relevant for the marine environment (marine region specific substances, but also national/local/radionuclides).

o The criteria to select or de-select the substances to be monitored have yet to be clarified.

o The role of radionuclides in the MSFD after the initial assessment should be clarified, i.e., whether the status of radionuclides should be assessed, what the threshold values should be based on, and whether the same principles as for priority substances can be applicable.

Matrix

4 The review of MSFD Descriptor 8 is being performed by the MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, lead by JRC. The review process has been kicked-off during the working meeting of the MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants on 2-4.7.2014 in Ispra, Italy. Based on the exchanges there, a discussion document has been prepared and circulated. 25 experts nominated by 11 Member States and another 12 collaborators have provided active contributions. The current state of these discussions is being reflected in this draft template document. Discussions have not been concluded and final recommendations (Part II) will be prepared in the second review phase, planned to be carried out after the GES meeting.


o There is no reason to exclude a priori any applicable matrix to assess the concentration of contaminants: biota, water, sediment. Technical details on the specific matrix where a particular substance should be monitored should be, as far as possible, provided in order to improve harmonisation. Moreover, not only the species but also the organ/tissue analysed and the seasonality of when biota should be sampled should be taken into account in order to minimize natural variability.

o There are uncertainties regarding the species that have to be considered under D8, for example, in the consideration or not of migratory species, mammals, and seabird eggs.

Methodological standardso The appropriate common set of methodological standards for the

assessment of GES should be clarified. It is necessary to decide whether it is appropriate to introduce WFD EQS in the text, and leave open for using others (e.g. OSPAR EAC) when no EQS are available or when EQS were not derived from (marine) environmental toxicity data, or whether it would be possible to define a coherent, ideally single, chemical assessment regime across waters under RSC, WFD and MSFD.

o The relevance of the WFD EQSs for the MSFD and how to deal with substances if not sufficient (marine) toxicological data are available need to be clarified.

Biological effectso There is a clear difference between criterion 8.1 “Concentration of

contaminants” and criterion 8.2 “Effect of contaminants”. The concentration of contaminants provides the information about the presence of a certain contaminant in the marine environment that might cause effects on marine organisms or human health. The effect of contaminants provides information on the bioavailability and impact of contaminants (including mixtures) on marine organisms and can respond to contaminants which are not determined chemically.

o The assessment of the effects of contaminants still needs the establishment of agreed specifications. A core set of biological effects to be monitored at European level (and also their methodologies, thresholds, and the level of QA/QC needed) should be yet further discussed and eventually selected.

Acute pollution eventso Reporting on acute pollution events is practically based only on what has

been done under HELCOM. Beside oil and oil products, other chemicals can be spilled and damage the environment and, therefore, should also be considered.

o The minimum requirements for indicator 8.2.2 would need further clarifications.

o There is no other EU framework for occurrence, origin and extent of acute pollution events, and consequently there are not quantitative GES boundaries available at EU level.


o The consideration or not or “minor spills” under Indicator 8.2.2 should be clarified.

Monitoring trends, sampling strategy, scales and aggregationso Trends must be considered. They could be considered for the assessment of

GES and effectiveness of measures, in-line with WFD provisions. o The monitoring frequency to assess reliable trends should be defined.o Monitoring programmes have been already designed by MS with differing

degree of consultations at regional and EU level, so there could be still lack of consideration of the lessons learnt (In-depth assessment, article 12). An insufficiency in harmonization among MS at regional or EU level might lead to new inconsistencies in the second MSFD reporting cycle.

o Deep/Open Sea areas have been found to be scarcely considered. There is a need of agreed specifications on how to cover these areas in a representative and efficient way, where risk warrants coverage.

o Regional coherence is essential since marine pollution is expected to represent a transboundary problem. Assessments should, therefore, be done at regional/subregional scale and be conducted under RSCs. However, harmonization in the Mediterranean and Black Sea is still an issue.

o The appropriate aggregation rules have to be discussed and clarified. o If there are separate indicators and targets for concentrations and effects,

the eventually use of combined weight of evidence approaches to provide integrated assessments of GES should be discussed.



Approach Workshop

2-4 July 2014, Ispra

Leader JRC

KEY CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

Relationship D8-D9o There is a strong link between Descriptor 8 and Descriptor 9, but they have

different objectives and characteristics and, therefore, they require a separate approach under the MSFD.

o The potential options for cost-effective and coordinated sampling strategies between Descriptors 8 and 9 have to be explored and decided, and information exchange between national food safety and environmental authorities should be encouraged.

Substanceso The appropriateness and feasibility of selecting a European core set of

substances to be monitored by all MS and specifying it in the Com. Dec. text have to be decided.

o A list of contaminants for GES assessment can be established based on: Minimum requirements: Chemical contaminants included in the EU

Regulation 1881/2006 as amended should be included under D9. If there is no threshold but there is a significant risk, the substance

should be monitored. Country specific solutions should be allowed, therefore only a

broader description of prerequisites is needed. o The contemplation of biotoxins as substances to be monitored under D9

have to be clarified. Matrix

o Only the edible tissues, as specified in the legislation, should be considered for descriptor 9.

o The knowledge of certain biological parameters (trophic level of fish, diet, condition, age) should be also monitored in order to improve the interpretation of the data, although they are not presently included in EU foodstuff regulations.

o The introduction of microbial pathogens are not mentioned in the Com. Dec. 2010/477/EU indicators, but it appears as “Biological disturbance” in the Table 2 of Annex III of the MSFD. There is no clear understanding as to under which MSFD descriptor the pathogens should be dealt with.

o The consideration of migratory fish under D9 has to be clarified. o Farmed fish seem no to be appropriate for assessments under DP. However,

the use or not of farmed molluscs should be clarified. The consideration of edible jellyfish should be discussed.


Methodological standardso The appropriate thresholds for the assessment of GES should be clarified. o It is not clear how to deal with limit values from different legislations for

some substances. The application of proposed non-EU legislative thresholds for D9 could lead to some inconsistencies with SANCO food safety assessments (for example for PBDEs) and these issues need to be explored and reconciled.

o It is not clear whether it is necessary to check compliance for substances for which no maximum level in food has been set.

o There are no established thresholds for frequency of (non)compliance (and the similar “number of contaminants in (non)compliance”). The potential combination/elimination of these criteria has to be discussed and clarified.

Monitoring: Traceability, sampling strategy and aggregationo The traceability of the samples is essential for an appropriate assessment of

D9. However, sampling strategy and requirements are not presently specified in EU foodstuff regulations.

o It is necessary to clarify how precise the fishing location has to be known and the minimum level of geographical knowledge that is acceptable.

o The feasibility and relevance of regular monitoring of all chemical contaminants in Regulation 1881/2006 in fish and seafood has to be discussed.

o The appropriate sampling collection (at sea, at retail level, at fishery landing points) must be clarified.

o The basis of the monitoring approach and the accordingly selection of representative number of samples and species are not specified in EU foodstuffs regulations and must be clarified.

o The number of samples needed must be clarified.o Monitoring programmes have been already designed by MS, so there could

be still lack of consideration of the lessons learnt. An insufficiency in harmonization among MS at regional or EU level might lead to new inconsistencies in the second MSFD reporting cycle.

o The appropriate way to treat the data (mean concentration, maximum levels…) should be clarified.




Leader JRC

KEY CONCLUSIONS

The Commission Decision review for D10 should consider the review/revision timescales in comparison to the development of scientific knowledge. This would overall call for a less prescriptive Descriptor text, allowing the evolving of the Descriptor implementation along with the available knowledge.

Regional Action PlansMeasures against marine litter are being developed by EU Member States collaboratively within Regional Action Plans through the Regional Sea Conventions. The MSFD TG ML as a platform at EU level allows exchange and collaboration across regions.

Sources and pathwaysThe issues of litter sources and pathways are important for D10 implementation and for deriving the Regional Action Plans. The MSFD TG Marine Litter has therefore started the drafting of a guidance report on that topic. In a first phase an approach for source attribution will be developed, then modelling approaches will be considered. This activity will be important in order to develop efficient measures and update them regularly depending on their impact.

Riverine LitterThe quantification and identification of riverine litter is of importance as it is expected to be the major source of litter to the marine environment. The development of harmonized monitoring methodologies and their implementation across Europe is needed in order to target measures and identify priority areas.

HarmThe concept of harm has been discussed and is currently being treated in a dedicated document of the TG ML. It will contain considerations for identification and quantification of harm.

Methodological StandardsThere is need to further develop methodological standards and to implement their application for a harmonized monitoring. This should include practical activities for dissemination and training. The MSFD TG Marine Litter has proposed a set of protocols which needs to put into practical application and to be refined based on experience. Some of the protocols are under development.


Microplastic is currently addressed as an indicator of its own. It might be simpler to address Micro Litter in the different matrices as part of the Marine Litter size spectrum including macro, meso and micro litter.


Scales and aggregationSome details on scales of assessments and procedures for data treatment are available but need further discussion and agreement at regional and EU scale.

Impact on wildlifeThe indicator on impact of litter on wildlife should be updated, following the outcome from current research. Therefore a flexible approach rather than a fixed prescription would be preferred. This includes e.g. ingestion by different wildlife species and entanglement.

Minimum operational requirementsEU wide operational parameters should be introduced in order to provide a common harmonised basis and ensure a basic implementation success. This could e.g. be the focus on prioritised litter categories.



Approach Will be submitted for consultation to the ICES Committee as a technical service

Leader ICES

KEY CONCLUSIONS

Some tightening of technical definitions will help ensure that Member States carry out comparable actions.

It is important that accurate translations of these technical definitions are made Not all Member States applied the indicators as provided in the Commission Decision

and not all Member States have followed the approach recommended by the Technical Group on Noise in their final report. Coherence of actions between Member States is inhibited as much by doing something different than is required as by not fully carrying out agreed common action.


Whether a way exists of providing an assessment of GES for underwater noise using an indicator(s) relating to a sensitive species

There remains a need to define the phrase under 11.1.1 “…likely to entail significant impact on marine animals”

Further research particularly on the link between “pressure” from underwater noise and ecosystem state is needed


ANNEX II. MANUAL TEMPLATE

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

The boxes provide the title of each section and within each section, instructions are provided as to what elements should be addressed.

Possible approach to amend Decision 2010/477/EC

Descriptor X

Part I (Pre-filled by Milieu Consortium)

1. Approach

Definition of the Descriptor

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

Linkages with international and RSC norms and standards

Definition of GES

The "climate sensitivity" for D4 (or criteria/indicators)

2. Analysis of the implementation process

Criterion XX

Regional coherence descriptor

MS good practices

Identification of questions arising from the application of the current Decision, including those identified by the Article 12 assessment

3. Analysis of the current text of the Decision

To be kept in the Decision, in accordance with the mandate provided by the Directive

To be taken out of the Decision and included in guidance Outdated

4. The Issues


Part II (Pre-filled by JRC or ICES experts)

5. GES criteria (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

1. Proposal to combine criteria for.

2. GES boundaries defined according to limit values.

3. Proposals for new criteria not yet covered, e.g.

4. Link to possible future EEA indicator.

Illustrative example of review of current GES criteria:

6. GES methodological standards (in accordance with Art. 9.3)

Illustrative example:

7. Standardised methods for monitoring for comparability (in accordance with Art. 11.4)

5. Proposals for specifications which aim at improving comparability of monitoring results on the basis of JRC / ICES / RSCs inventories and Article 12 findings linked to proposed criteria.


8. Standardised methods for assessment for comparability (in accordance with Art. 11.4 GES)

6. Proposals for specifications which aim at improving comparability of assessment results on the basis of general guidance prepared by Deltares taking account of JRC / ICES / RSCs inventories and Article 12 findings linked to proposed criteria.


9. Rational and technical background for proposed revision

7. Justification and technical background justifying the above proposals.

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

10. Reference Documents


ANNEX III. OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENT HISTORIES OF MANUALS PER DESCRIPTOR

This section was updated 14 October 2014 when the latest versions of the documents are uploaded on CIRCABC.

Descriptor 1 Manual

Document history

Version Date File name Authors Description

1.0 15/05/2014 Review_manual_v0.doc

DG Environment, Milieu, JRC, ICES

Draft manual to guide the technical review of the GES decision.


DG ENV Environment, Milieu

Approach and results from the Art.12 assessment filled up.

2.0 21/07/2014 ComDecRev_D1_V2.docx

JRC Further developed and distributed to experts for comments and input.

2.1 13/10/2014 ComDecRev_D1_V2.1.doc

JRC, Member States experts

Comments and input from experts incorporated in the current draft version. To be sent for a 2nd round of consultation after the GES meeting.

Descriptor 2 Manual

Document history



DG Environment, Milieu, JRC, ICES



DG ENV Environment, Milieu


2.0 21/07/2014 ComDecRev_D2_V2.doc

JRC Further developed and distributed to experts for comments and input.

2.1 13/10/2014 ComDecRev_D2_V2.1.doc


Comments and input from experts


incorporated in the current draft version. To be sent for a 2nd round of consultation after the GES meeting.

Descriptor 3 Manual

Document history


1.0 02/05/2014 Review_manual_v1.doc Milieu/Nature Bureau


1.2 30/05/2014 Review_manual_v1.2doc European Commission

Draft manual to guide the technical review of the GES decision commented by the EC

2.0 24/06/2014 Review_manual_v2.doc ICES Further developed and distributed to experts for comments and input.

Descriptor 4 Manual

Document history






2.0 15/08/2014 Review_manual_v2.doc ICES Further developed and distributed to experts for comments and input.

3.0 30/09/2014 Review_manual_v3.doc ICES Further developed and distributed to experts for comments and input after the ad hoc workshop

Descriptor 5 Manual

Document history


0.0 10/03/2014 Review_manual_v0.doc DG Environment, Milieu, JRC, ICES



1.0 24/06/2014 Review_manual_v1.doc DG ENV Environment, Millieu


2.0 21/07/2014 ComDecRev_D5_V2.docx JRC Amended and filled with results from the in-depth assessment. Version sent to expert’s network for comments.

2.1 13/10/2014 ComDecRev_D5_V2.1.doc


Comments and input from experts incorporated in the current draft version. To be sent for a 2nd round of consultation after the GES meeting.

Descriptor 6 Manual

Document history






2.0 29/09/2014 Review_manual_v2.doc ICES Further developed and distributed to experts for comments and input

Descriptor 7 Manual

Document history



1.0 23/05/2014

Annex I D7 manual Milieu.docx

Milieu Approach and results from the Art.12 assessment filled up.

1.1 30/05/2014

AnnexI D7 manual Milieu_DC.docx

DG ENV Comments from DG ENV.

1.2 25/06/2014

ComDecRev_D7_Template_v1.2.docx

MSFD EXPERTS Structure amended

1.3 18/07/2014

ComDecRev_D7_Template_v1.3.docx

MSFD EXPERTS Amended and filled with results from the in-depth assessment + OSPAR Advice Doc. GES D7 + JRC Technical Guidance on Monitoring for the MSFD. Major revision

2.0 24/07/2014

ComDecRev_D7_V2.docx

MSFD EXPERTS Further developed and distributed to experts.

2.1 31/07/2014

ComDecRev_D7_V2.1_DC.docx

DG ENV Comments from DG ENV

2.2 25/09/2014

ComDecRev_D7_v2.2.docx

MSFD EXPERTS Comments from experts and DG ENV merged in one single document.

2.3 25/09/2014


MSFD EXPERTS Comments integrated. Distributed to experts for 2nd round of comments

3.0 10/10/2014


MSFD EXPERTS/JRC Comments integrated. Uploaded to CIRCABC for GES meeting

Descriptor 8 Manual

Document history

Version

Date File name Authors Description

1.0 02/04/2014 Annex I D8 manual Milieu.docx Milieu Approach and results from the Art.12 assessment filled up.

1.1 30/05/2014 Annex I D8 manual Milieu v2_DC.docx

DG ENV Comments.

2.0 11/06/2014 ComDecRev_D8_V2.docx EC JRC Amended and filled with results from the in-depth assessment.

31/07/2014 MSFD Expert Network Contaminants outcome 31_7_2014.doc

MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, EC

Outcome from the working meeting of the MSFD Expert Network


JRC on Contaminants,

Ispra, 2-4.7.2014.

3.0 22/09/2014 ComDecRev_D8_V3.docx MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, EC JRC

Amended after discussion and input from the MSFD expert Network on contaminants.


Amended with comments from the MSFD expert Network on contaminants.

Descriptor 9 Manual

Document history


1.0 28/04/2014 Annex I D9 manual Milieu cleaned.docx

Milieu Approach and results from the Art.12 assessment filled up.

1.1 30/05/2014 Annex I D9 manual Milieu cleaned_DC.docx

DG ENV Comments.

2.0 26/06/2014 ComDecRev_D9_V2.docx EC JRC Amended and filled with results from the in-depth assessment.

31/07/2014 MSFD Expert Network Contaminants outcome 31_7_2014.doc

MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, EC JRC

Outcome from the working meeting of the

MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, Ispra 2-4.7.2014.

3.0 22/09/2014 ComDecRev_D9_V3.docx MSFD Expert Network on Contaminants, Victoria Tornero, Georg Hanke (EC JRC)

Amended after discussion and input from the MSFD expert Network on contaminants.


Amended with comments from


the MSFD expert Network on contaminants.

Descriptor 10 Manual

Document history


1.0 02/05/2014 Annex I DX manual Milieu.docx Milieu Approach and results from the Art.12 assessment filled up.

1.1 30/05/2014 AnnexI D10 Milieu_DC.docx DG ENV Comments.

11.-13/6/2014

Meeting MSFD TG ML Discussion

1.2 25/06/2014 ComDecRev_D10_ v1.2.docx JRC Template structure amended

8/8/2014 JRC Sending of discussion document

22/9/2014 MSFD TG ML Commenting completed

2.0 10/10/2014 D10 review template MSFD TG ML Template amended with outcome from TG ML meeting, D10 discussion paper and a commenting round with TG ML.

13/10/2014 Submitted to GES group

Descriptor 11 Manual

Document history


1.0 23/05/2014 Annex I DX manual Milieu.docx Milieu Approach and results from the Art.12 assessment filled up.

2.0 15/07/2014 Review_manual_v2.doc DG ENV Comments.

3.0 24/07/2014 Review_manual_v3.doc MSFD Expert Network/iCES

Template structure amended


Template structure amended


Template structure amended with comments from Germany, RD,MC, RL
