circabc.europa.eu St… · Web viewIn May 2015, the technical and scientific review of the...

GES_14-2015-04

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)

Common Implementation Strategy

14th meeting of the Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)

5 October 2015, 14.00-18:00

6 October 2015, 9.00-17:00

Conference Centre Albert Borschette, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels (Room 5/B)

Agenda Item: 5c

Document: GES_14-2015-04

Title: Consultation answers. Summary Report

Prepared by: Milieu

Date prepared: 23/09/2015

Background:

In May 2015, the technical and scientific review of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and of MSFD Annex III (phase 1 of the Decision review process) was finalised. The MSFD Regulatory Committee agreed on 5 May 2015 that the review process should move to the second phase, which involves a formal consultation and discussion of the results of the technical and scientific review. This was the opportunity for Member States and stakeholders of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy to provide their consolidated opinions on the documents.

This report prepared by Milieu Ltd (consultant) presents a summary of the comments received during the consultation phase.

WG GES is invited to:

a. Take note of the document.

1Draft 2 – September 2015

GES_14-2015-04

Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and MSFD Annex III

Consultation on Descriptor Manuals and Annex III

Consultation answers

Summary Report

September 2015


GES_14-2015-04

Contents1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................4

2. Horizontal aspects..........................................................................................................................5

3. Descriptor 1..................................................................................................................................10

4. Descriptor 2..................................................................................................................................12

5. Descriptor 3..................................................................................................................................13

6. Descriptor 4..................................................................................................................................14

7. Descriptor 5..................................................................................................................................16

8. Descriptor 6..................................................................................................................................18

9. Descriptor 7..................................................................................................................................20

10. Descriptor 8..............................................................................................................................22

11. Descriptor 9..............................................................................................................................24

12. Descriptor 10............................................................................................................................26

13. Descriptor 11............................................................................................................................27

14. Annex III comments..................................................................................................................29

Annex 1................................................................................................................................................30


GES_14-2015-04

1. Introduction

In May 2015, the technical and scientific review of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and of MSFD Annex III (phase 1 of the Decision review process) was finalised. This was undertaken with the help of experts coming from the respective Common Implementation Strategy or Regional Sea Conventions groups under the coordination of JRC and ICES, and has resulted in technical review documents (11 Descriptor manuals and an MSFD Annex III document) which include recommendations for revision of the Decision and Annex III.

The MSFD Regulatory Committee agreed on 5 May 2015 that the review process should move to the second phase which involves a formal consultation and discussion of the results of the technical and scientific review. This was the opportunity for Member States and stakeholders of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy to provide their consolidated opinions on the documents.

The aim of this consultation was to highlight which elements of these Descriptor manuals and Annex III document would Member States recommend to be considered in the short term when reviewing the Commission Decision and MSFD Annex III (subject to Commission's internal decision making process) and which elements would need further work in the medium as well as longer-term. Part I of the Descriptor manuals mainly compiles background information and was not the focus of the consultation exercise. Member States were asked to focus their comments on Part II of the documents that refer to Conclusions and Recommendations.

The consultation was open for comments until 31 July 2015. Member States and the other approved stakeholders of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy were invited to provide a consolidated opinion (i.e. one set of comments per country/stakeholder) on the consulted documents.

The sections that follow present the answers received in a summarised manner by highlighting common themes that have emerged from the feedback received. The report first covers horizontal comments, then comments per descriptor manual, and finally provides an overview of the comments received on the Annex III document. Furthermore, the complete list of all the comments submitted by Member States and stakeholders of the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy have been compiled into one document which can be consulted in the excel spreadsheet attached in Annex 1 of this document.


GES_14-2015-04

2. Horizontal aspects

Several respondents provided comments on horizontal aspects and overarching issues, highlighting points relating to the review process and suggestions for future work. The comments have been grouped based on recurrent themes which have emerged based on the feedback provided.

Prioritisation of issues

- One respondent stated that it supports the ambition of the work building a common understanding and coordination of monitoring and methodological standards between Member States, yet considering costs and burden on public administrations, there is the need to focus and prioritise issues to tackle to ensure that they are solved within the given implementation timelines. The respondent added that it is important for Member States to have the ability to prioritise specific national environmental issues so resources can be used as efficiently as possible.

- Another respondent echoed the above-mentioned point, by stating that there is the need to bring more focus to the implementation of the MSFD by concentrating on the most important shortcomings in current policy by being selective and effective. Examples of issues to focus on are (micro)-plastic, underwater noise and fisheries.

- Another respondent suggested shifting attention to the most urgent measures to minimise the most important risks and to best practises for sustainable use instead of focussing on finding the limits for GES. It added that GES is the direction in which Member States should be heading, and for that purpose society needs to also be mobilised. By doing so, there will be a stronger link with human activities and sectors which are prerequisites for blue growth (thus enabling a shift from an environmental policy to a sustainable use policy).

Better coordination between relevant European Directives

- Several respondents highlighted the need for better coordination between relevant EU Directives. Specifically, coordination between the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the MSFD is needed and it should be further clarified at the EU level and Member State level.

- Another respondent stated it supports further alignment of the assessment methods between the MSFD and the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive. It added that it considers that this would be especially beneficial in the case of marine mammals and sea birds. In case of habitats, the MSFD’s “predominant habitats” and the Habitats Directive’s “special habitats” are quite different and alignment may hence be difficult. Furthermore, there are considerable coordination challenges within the marine regions to start such a work because of differences in assessment methods and reference values for Habitats Directive species and habitats across different Member States. Nevertheless, MSFD-compliant core indicators have been already developed internationally for seals and sea birds; therefore, the respondent proposed that this harmonization to be a long-term objective and not yet included in the Commission Decision review.


GES_14-2015-04

- The Priority Substance Directive provides Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for WFD chemical status assessments covering territorial waters (12nm). Therefore, substantial marine areas are assessed (for D8) by the EQS and using other standards would not be welcomed. However, the EQS are considered pre-mature and their further development should be a high priority before Member States are required to use them in the 2018 assessment.

European and regional approaches to consider

- Several respondents commented on the importance of the work of the Regional Sea Conventions (RSCs). Contracting parties to the RSC’s within a region should cooperate and prioritise their budgets towards actions, which are more effective when implemented in a coordinated manner. One respondent added that even though it is necessary to consider the work done by RSCs, the approaches developed by them should not automatically constitute future decisions at the European level. Thus, the future MSFD indicators should not be limited or reduced to indicators from the RSCs, and should be relevant at MSFD sub-regional scales.

- One respondent highlighted that in regards to descriptors D3, D4 and D6, they would like to stress the importance of ICES advice and recommendations for the review documents.

- Another respondent urged to adopt a similar approach to the work of the Working Group on Economic and Social Analysis, which has undertaken its work with the European Commission and the Member States working together, thus creating ownership of the results.

- Additional points made included: o The role and linkages with the MSFD Competence Centre should be indicatedo Opportunities to better align the MSFD implementation with European

Environmental Specimen Banks as part of an environmental monitoring network should be analysed

o Considerations of the potential links between EU's Blue Growth Strategy and the MSFD should be made (i.e. the balance between 'uses / activities' of the sea and achieving the objective of 'good environmental status' by 2020)

Risk based approaches

- Considering the effort in this technical and scientific review of the Commission Decision and Annex III of MSFD, one respondent stated that it would have been important for the different descriptor specific criteria to be developed in line with the concept of “significant risk to the marine environment” (Article 14(4) MSFD). The respondent added that it considers that a risk-based approach as the methodology which will allow Member States to implement the Directive at the (sub)regional level, through the establishment of a common and coordinated strategy, and apply the necessary actions (under Articles 11 and 13) to maintain or achieve GES for each descriptor, in their national waters.

- Another respondent proposed to take a more practical approach to the implementation of the Directive focussing on key issues and risks. The respondent added that much time and resources has been spent on trying to address "process" issues such as agreeing on more precise common understandings and approaches that are not supported by currently


GES_14-2015-04

available evidence. Going forward, efforts should be focused on ensuring the sustainable use of the marine environment. To do this, a risk-based approach should be adopted and focus should be placed on understanding those pressures that pose the greatest risk and to filling gaps where knowledge remains incomplete.

- Another respondent added that a common understanding on the application of the risk-based approach will create a more common language. Furthermore, there is the need to move away from working on more precise descriptions of GES and indicators (which is time and resource intensive) to an approach of knowing enough to take the necessary actions.

- Finally, it was also stressed that an important tool in the implementation of the MSFD is the risk-based approach and assessment at proper scales of ecosystems (thus, not every local problem should be made into an EU-problem).

Descriptor specific points

- A respondent stressed the significance of the relationships between different descriptors e.g. D1 - D6, D1 - D3, D1 - D4, and D1 - D5, and these should be reflected in the manuals. On the other hand another respondent stated that, there is a tendency among the manuals to assess same issues under different descriptors, and overlaps should be avoided.

- Another respondent highlighted that work in the medium and longer-term period would be needed at the first place for D1, D4 and D6 (that will partiality depend on monitoring results obtained under the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive during the 2019), as well as for D10 and D11 for which there are still data and knowledge gaps.

- Concerning the different Descriptor manuals and the Annex III document, one respondent commented that they share the opinion that for the short-term period, when reviewing the Commission Decision and MSFD Annex III, D5 and D8 should be considered especially in terms of elements that are referring to state.

- A respondent also commented that most experts groups have concluded that minimum requirement for the assessment of GES is not possible and that they believe that this would be undesirable. Nevertheless, minimum requirements for methods are good to enhance comparability between monitoring data.

Consistency and overlapping issues

- A respondent stressed that overlaps need to be avoided by providing the example of benthos: the state of the benthos is directly included in D1, D4 and D6, potentially in D5, D7, D8 and D10. The D5 manual correctly states that benthos will not be included in criteria or methodological standards; the D7 manual does not state this, but the criterion 7.2 could potentially include benthos. The criteria 8.2 (impacts of contamination) and 10.2 (impacts of litter) will definitely include state of mussels. The respondent stated that it is worried that the overall Article 8 assessment may have over-lapping 'indicators' because of this tendency. As a practical consequence, there will not be enough benthic indicators for each descriptor, as double counting would try to be avoided. These points would need to be addressed through the Commission Decision review process.

- Another point relates to state descriptors (D1, D3, D4, D6) and to descriptors where species and habitats data are included. Overlaps in monitoring and assessment identical species


GES_14-2015-04

need to be addressed. If all criteria are to be assessed by all functional groups and predominant habitats, there will be an unrealistically high number of “indicators” and the risk of double counting of data.

- The relationship between functional groups in D1 and trophic guilds in D4 needs to be clarified in the guidance document. The guidance document could use the indicative table of the manual for the trophic guilds in order to ensure consistency in Member State assessments.

- One respondent proposed that the Commission Decision includes a reference to the guidance document where a practical solution to reduce overlaps is presented. A possible solution could be to make an matrix where the criteria and methodological standards are compared against the functional groups and predominant habitats and only meaningful combinations are selected for monitoring and assessment.

Timing and implementation

- One respondent requested a clarification from the Commission if there will there be any opportunity to amend this work in light of the results of the first round of assessments in 2018, if necessary.

- Furthermore, the D1, D2 and D5 workshops in the Autumn 2015 are considered a short-term priority and a clarification is needed on how the outputs of these will be discussed by Member States and incorporated into revised manuals.

- Another respondent commented on the timeline of the process of transitioning the technical reviews into a set of policy outputs by Member States that can be implemented. Member States are tasked with implementing the MSFD using the CIS and national processes at all times. The review process (as pointed out by several Member States at the meeting of November 2013) disrupts this. The process of development for Phase 1 (i.e. the review manuals) does not demonstrate that there is an understanding of the challenges facing Member States in the implementation phase.

- Another respondent stated that it is important to have “opt out” possibilities, for example in regards to specific elements of monitoring programs to fit national priorities. There are RSC mechanisms (e.g. in OSPAR) for “opt out” on the basis of scientific evidence. These “opt out” possibilities could be evaluated for use in MSFD assessments.

Terminology suggestions and clarifications

- One respondent commented that all manuals have different styles and would have benefitted from editorial and stylistic review before being sent out for consultation. The respondent added that D1 is particularly under developed and confusing. As it stands, for all Descriptors it is not immediately clear why the changes are being proposed and how they link with the overall text.

- Another comment relates to the use the term “GES threshold values or GES boundaries” in the manuals for indicators and this leads to the assumption that if the threshold or boundary is exceeded or not reached, then GES is not achieved. The comment then asserts that this is not correct, as the Directive clearly states that “Good Environmental Status shall be determined at the level of the marine region or subregion as referred to in Article 4, on the


GES_14-2015-04

basis of the qualitative descriptors in Annex I”. For example, if one indicator fails its threshold value, this does not necessarily mean that GES has not been achieved for the relevant descriptor. It is thus preferable that this particular form of wording is not used in any revision of the Commission Decision. It would be more accurate to use the term “threshold values” and make it clear, perhaps in a context-setting paragraph that threshold values are used in assessment methodologies to enable Member States and RSC’s to evaluate whether targets they have set have been achieved, and based on this whether progress has been made towards achieving GES. It is worth noting that the word "threshold" does not occur at all in the current Commission Decision.

- The use of the terms “aggregation” and “integration” in the descriptor manuals is not appropriate.

The following proposal is made by the respondent:

(1) Aggregation is done when data for a particular parameter is compiled from a specific time period or from a specific spatial unit in order to come up with a numerical value (mean, median, etc). Aggregation could also be used to describe when combining spatial scales, e.g. several assessment units to a single big one (cf. HELCOM nested system).

(2) Integration is done when several parameters, indicators or criteria are combined to produce an integrated value (e.g. status).

The Common Understanding document has worked on a glossary of terms in MSFD and the implementation work. The glossary does not, however, include the terms 'aggregation' and 'integration' which should thus be inserted.

- Several terms are not used consistently through the reviews. This issue concerns the use of the terms: indicator, methodological standards, targets, boundaries, etc. These inconsistencies should be addressed in all documents.

- Finally, in several of the documents there are texts referring to work within HELCOM. Some of the information needs updating to reflect latest developments within the RSC.

-


GES_14-2015-04

3. Descriptor 1

Overall aspects

While the work on the D1 manual is welcomed and the main approach supported, most respondents consider that the manual needs further work until they are able to agree to it. Overarching comments received on the D1 manual state that the text is long and lacks clarity on the proposals being put forth. One respondent stated that they will comment on the manual after a revised version is issued. Several points are highlighted by respondents, which include but are not limited to the following. For the complete list of comments, please refer to the excel spreadsheet attached in Annex 1 of this document.

- While clarifying and considering coherence issues between the implementation of the MSFD, the Water Framework Directive, and the Birds and Habitats Directives is welcomed, some respondents highlighted that the proposed text fails to clarify the implementation aspects between different Directives and introduces confusion. The link between the MSFD’s GES, Habitat Directive’s FCS and Water Framework Directive’s GEcS and the fact that these do not equate to each other has not been discussed in a satisfactory manner, taking into account that it’s possible to do a single assessment and express the outcome in which ever terms each directive requires, but not necessarily move the goals for these initiatives.

- Integration within Regional Sea Conventions (RSC) is also welcomed, and respondents acknowledged that an active involvement of Member States in RSC’s is required, they also stated that RSC’s may not always address some Member State specific issues, as such this needs to be accounted for as well.

- The document fails to take into account the issues of indicator redundancy.

Specific comments

- Common group of species is welcomed by several respondents, but it was also highlighted that the lists of species need to be adaptive (regionally, as well as in light of future needs). Furthermore, sets of species should be defined and coherent at (sub-) regional scale. Consequently, Member States in several (sub-) regions may have different lists of species for the same functional group.

- The use of EU-wide lists, such as EUNIS for habitats classification, and SWD 2011/1255 for functional groups classification would facilitate a coherent and comparable assessment. The EUNIS approach doesn't fit for the complex HD-habitats (e. g. 1160), as such an "extended definition" is required.

- Overall, the logic of group definitions must be refined.- There are issues which relate to clarity of spatial scales: at regional/sub-regional spatial

scales population abundance and distribution are likely to vary, and the proposed text fails to make any suggestions on how to address this.

- The document fails to take into account differences of scale between MSFD and other relevant Directives. In the case of the MSFD and the WFD: tools development under WFD are


GES_14-2015-04

being adapted for MSFD purpose to ensure that there are applicable at regional scale, but not all, as some WFD tools are designed to detect impact from local sources e.g. sewage discharges that cannot be used to measure6 impacts at regional scale.”

- The methodological standards suggested for 1.3 - Population condition are ill-defined.- The habitat level indicators still only consider the benthic infaunal communities associated

with each physical habitat, so the issue of species level communities (e.g. seabird communities, fish communities), is still not explicitly addressed in these proposed Decision revisions.

- GES boundaries for mobile species should be defined at a coherent scale. Distribution and abundance should be evaluated at (sub)-regional scale rather than for each Member State. Stocks or management units should be preliminary defined before GES evaluation.

- The proposed manual document does not actually stipulate what the key points of interest are with respect to species geographic distribution. It suggests several aspects, but does not assign priorities.

- One respondent agrees with the suggestion to delete criterion 1.7 – ecosystem structure – because of the large overlap with descriptors 4 and 6.

- One respondent strongly supports the adoption of a risk based approach and a selection of representative habitats affected by specific pressures.

Aspects that need further discussion

- Overall discussion on the proposed text in relation to the points raised above. - In-depth discussion of Chapters 3, 6 and 9 of D1 manual (suggestion to hold this discussion

at the planned JRC workshop in September 2015).


- Terminology needs to be reviewed in view of making it simpler and clearer, with the use of specific terms (e.g. "pelagic habitats" and not "water column").

- In addition, several respondents pointed out that there are mistakes in the use of terminologies, which need to be addressed. As an example the report wrongly uses the following terms interchangeably “productivity” and “breeding success”. Another comment relates to “habitat types” and “habitats”, and a clarification is needed in terms of what the differences are.

- Overall, a thorough check needs to be made, to ensure consistency and accuracy of terms used.


GES_14-2015-04

4. Descriptor 2

Overall aspects

No major issues are identified by respondents, and most of the proposed text in the D2 manual is considered well developed. Several comments are submitted, which mainly relate to the proposed criteria and indicators.

Specific comments

- Most respondents welcome the proposed modifications for criterion 2.1.- There are diverging opinions about criterion 2.2, as some respondents want it removed,

while others want it maintained. The argumentation provided for the removal relates to 2.2 being already covered to a certain extent by criterion 2.1. Another opinion is that criterion 2.2 may be kept, if it does not affect the determination of GES, because it is almost always impossible to remove established NIS. Nevertheless, complete removal may not be desired, as it may be difficult to re-introduce it in the future if needed.

- Diverging opinions are submitted regarding the removal of the ratio indicator (2.2.1). One respondent commented that removing the ratio indicator may result into an insufficient description of initial signs that may lead to major ecosystem impacts. Effective and efficient monitoring of (non) indigenous species may be done through the use of the Joint and Harmonised Sampling Protocol developed by the Joint HELCOM/OSPAR Task Group for Ballast Water exemptions, and as such it should be kept. Other respondents support the removal of the ratio indicator (argumentation not provided sufficiently).


Several respondents requested further discussions on the following points:- Guidance on rules for a common NIS monitoring strategy. Suggestion for them to be

discussed during the integration of the regional Trend Indicators.- In-depth discussion of chapter 3 to 6 of D2 manual (suggestion to hold this discussion at the

planned JRC workshop in September 2015).


- Several submissions raised the issue of terminology. Different suggestions included: to refer to NIS as “non-indigenous species introduced by human activities” or shorter “introduced NIS”; to change the term to “alien species”, or to "NIS, in particular invasive species", because often the "invasiveness" of NIS changes in time and space and is often impossible to foresee. Following a precautionary approach, new NIS should always be considered as potentially invasive.

- A consistency check was also requested to ensure that the same agreed terminology is used throughout the document.

- Logical flow of certain sections and sentences needs to be revisited. 12

Draft 2 – September 2015

GES_14-2015-04

5. Descriptor 3

Overall aspects

Most respondents commented that the proposed text should be better aligned with the CFP. In addition, specific comments that mainly relate to criterion 3.3 of the manual have been submitted.

Specific comments

- Several respondents urged the working group to check for consistency with the CFP and not develop new indicators which may bring forth controversial results. The same definitions as in the CFP should be used to avoid confusion. The current text is confusing in that regard (e.g. first commercially exploited fish are described as all stocks targeted for economic reasons then in another section it is stated all DCF stocks).

- Another comment that relates to consistency with the CFP is that efforts need to be made for D3 to be aligned with new developments under the CFP and account for depleted stocks and nationally important commercial species. It is also important that locally exploited stocks and depleted stocks (e.g. elasmobranches) should either be evaluated under D3 or D1. Stocks depleted by fisheries and not considered commercial anymore may otherwise be ignored.

- Another respondent stated that it agrees with the proposals for D3 but has reservations as to whether criterion 3.3 is viable for the current round of assessments.

- One respondent commented on the proposal for the development of three candidate indicators for criterion 3.3. The respondent stated that while they do not object to the proposed approach they would like to ask the Commission to confirm that this will be done in the second implementation cycle of MSFD given time and resource constraints that limit the ability to operationalise a new criterion 3.3 for the current round of assessment.

- Another respondent commented that regarding criterion 3.3, it agrees that further methodological indicator development is necessary. The respondent added that the recommendation for the development of concrete indicators for criterion 3.3 should be followed and indicators should be selected for each of the three as relevant identified properties (size distribution, selectivity patterns and genetic effects). Furthermore, the varying selectivity patterns to extend the assessment of the length structure from a purely state based assessment to an assessment based on state and pressures alike, need to be considered.

- Another respondent stressed the importance of considering past fishing pressures and past fish communities in order to allow for restoration of severely affected stocks, again either under D3 or D1. As such, coordination of the species lists between D1 and D3 is important.


- One respondent commented that further guidance is needed for the use of secondary indicators, otherwise there is the risk of using them only as "surveillance indicators".



GES_14-2015-04

- One respondent asked for clarification on how to address the risk that different Member States might assess different stocks of the same species in the same area.

6. Descriptor 4

Overall aspects

Respondents have not identified major issues and most of the proposed text in the D4 manual is considered well developed and acceptable. Several comments are submitted that mainly relate to the proposed criteria and indicators. There is a broad agreement with the proposed restructuring of the three existing criteria into the two new criteria, as well as the emphasis on trophic guilds. Furthermore, the two new criteria (“structure” and “function”) is welcomed as a simplification and clarification, making the new proposal closely linked to scientific knowledge.

Specific comments

- Several respondents welcomed the new proposed criteria. One respondent stated that while it welcomed the proposal, it also asked the Commission to confirm that Member States would still be able to use existing indicators such as those agreed by OSPAR, for example the FoodWeb1 indicator (reproductive success of birds) and FoodWeb3 indicator (Size composition fish). It was also suggested that the manual would be strengthened by a clearer signposted analysis of reasoning behind the merger of the criteria and explanation of what the benefits of this are. Another respondent added that they see the two new criteria as an improvement, which gives a clear structure and will thus enhance comparability and regional coherence.

- One respondent added that in order to avoid a rigid interpretation, the text should be changed to “Criterion 4.1 “Food web structure” – for example abundance/biomass of, and size distribution within trophic guilds” and “Criterion 4.2 “Food web function” – for example productivity of trophic guilds.”

- One respondent stated that trophic guilds seems to be the most appropriate way to address D4 and should be introduced as suggested. Similarly, surveillance indicators are an important new addition, which will be required to ensure that D4 measures what is important even where this does not correspond directly to pressures. The suggested methodological standards are welcomed.

- Another respondent stated that they also support the proposal to have surveillance indicators for D4 as this is a practical first step before more quantitative indicators can be developed.

- Suggestion to re-evaluate current conditions once in the six-yearly MSFD cycle was welcomed.



GES_14-2015-04

- The guidance document should also clarify or give examples of how the productivity is to be measured - this would also increase comparability between Member States and regional seas.

- The definition of "GES boundaries" is very unclear in this document and needs to be consistent with the other doucuments. The term "desirable state" (mentioned in the definition of "limit") needs to be clarified in terms of if it can be considered to reflect GES or not.

- Regarding the term "guilds"; there needs to be an explicit clarification on how to handle the fact that many benthic species change guilds during the life cycles or from habitat to habitat.


- The guidance document should clarify whether the trophic guilds selected for criteria 4.1 and 4.2 should be the same.


GES_14-2015-04

7. Descriptor 5

Overall aspects

While the work on the D5 manual is welcomed and the main approach supported, respondents have submitted a number of comments for D5. Comments relate to the proposed changes for the D5 indicators, as well as to addressing inconsistencies of terms and definitions in the manual.

Specific comments

- Several respondents welcomed the changes proposed in the document. One respondent stated that they consider that the review group’s main conclusion that there are no basic reasons to modify the overall structure of Descriptor 5 on eutrophication appears sound. Another respondent considers that the manual needs further work until they are able to agree to it in the current state.

- Several respondents welcomed the point raised by the manual that the development of additional guidance is required on the compatibility and consistency between MSFD good environmental status and WFD good ecological status where these two Directives overlap, particularly in relation to the no deterioration clause (e.g. if a WFD water body deteriorates from high to good can it still be considered to be at GES under the MSFD).

- Harmonization of the WFD assessment of ecological status and assessment under D5 remains a challenge since full agreement cannot be achieved. Nevertheless, using the boundaries of the WFD in the assessment of D5 should lead to comparable assessment results. In this context, it is also important to allow for the assessment of macrozoobenthos under criterion 5.3 at least in the coastal zones, because WFD uses this biological quality element; an exclusion of macrozoobenthos hampers comparability between WFD assessments and the assessment of D5 under the MSFD.

- One respondent stated that it supports the proposal of having a core set of indicators to be commonly used at EU level (pan-European approach) for the operational assessment, but it would be necessary to have further guidance in the revised Decision about this.

- One respondent stated that the recommendation for coordination among Member States on methodological standards (used methods and methods to be developed) and associated indicators is welcomed, although Member States should still have a conclusive role.

- Regarding indicator 5.2.1, one respondent clarified that it is important to consider the appropriate method regarding the recommended sampling frequency. The respondent added that existing standards, if available, should be recommended.

- One respondent objected to the removal of indicator 5.2.4 by suggesting that the relationship between eutrophication and floral composition needs to be better studied.

- Another respondent added that water transparency should be retained as an optional indicator where appropriate, as it is useful in some regions. For Secchi depth no standardized method exists, therefore results will be affected from many influences, at least the personal ability of the observer. Standardisation of the existing method is needed (e.g. different disk diameters are in use right now).


GES_14-2015-04


None mentioned.


- The revised Commission Decision should give definitions of important terms such as criteria, indicators, elements, methodological standards. It would be desirable to be as consistent as possible with terms already in use under the WFD and/or the RSC’s.

- The term "pan-European approach" should be clarified as it may be geographically speaking too broad: MSFD is only for Member States with a coastline and in an indirect way for those that can influence seawater quality via watersheds transfers.

- Chlorophyll-a/Chlorophyll are often used interchangeably in the manual, however they are not the same. Chlorophyll-a is one of the pigments in the group of Chlorophylls. Assessments are not the same across different Member States. Chlorophyll-a is more accurate, but also a little bit more expensive to analyse, 'Chlorophyll' is less accurate, less expensive and has an added advantage that it can also be measured using Remote Sensing. Experts have come to different conclusions about which one is best for describing eutrophication status. The Commission is asked to investigate this and, if necessary, consult experts to provide advice in order to harmonise assessments.

- Another respondent added that it appears that there is confusion between the notions of “primary production” and “biomass” to monitor sensitive areas. Most of the data available are Chlorophyll-a concentrations, or fluorescence assessments, which constitute a proxy of the phytoplankton biomass.

- One respondent commented that the term “level of nutrient” is ambiguous asking if it is a reference to concentrations or ratios. The term needs to be clarified and consistently used in the entire manual. If the indicator 5.1.2 is removed then the title of the criteria 5.1 should be modified, using the term “concentrations”.


GES_14-2015-04

8. Descriptor 6

Overall aspects

Respondents have not identified major issues and most of the proposed text in the D6 manual is considered well developed and acceptable. Several comments are submitted that mainly relate to the proposed criteria and indicators. There is a broad agreement with the proposed changes to the criteria text with respondents stating that it improves clarity. Furthermore, respondents also agree that indicators still need to be developed.

Specific comments

- One respondent agrees with the pressure-based approach of criteria 6.1. Other respondents state that while they do agree with the proposal they would also like to see some modifications in the wording of the proposed criteria and indicators:

o 6.1.: "Physical" damage should be kepto 6.2: The word "condition" is not needed and can be misinterpreted as just assessing

condition of benthic communities, instead of assessing the structure and function of the benthic communities – suggestion to remove it

o 6.2.2: the recommended amendment is appropriate but sensitive species should be kept, as they can be used as an indicator for disturbance

- Other respondents also support the proposed criteria and methodological standards, yet specify that there seems to be a slight overlap between 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 (both dealing with size spectrum). The respondent proposes to combine them (the former is a natural component of the latter) or describe the difference in the text.

- One respondent raised the question whether it is necessary to restrict the indicators to macrobenthos or could it include all benthos.

- One respondent stated that the sentence for the GES definition "Any disturbance (intensity, frequency, and spatial extent) should not exceed a level that significantly and permanently jeopardises recovery" can be misunderstood as saying that all sea floor areas could be below a good status as long as they can in principle recover in a not defined future – this is highlighted as something that was not agreed during the Descriptor workshop.


- A point regarding 6.2.1 ‘species providing a key function’ is made by one respondent stating that key species are difficult to define; in OSPAR experts have not reached conclusions about which species these are. With this indicator there is the risk that every Member State uses its own definition and comes to different set of key species thus hindering the comparability the revision of the Commission Decision strives to achieve. On the other hand, conceptually, the concept of key species is something that is welcomed as it is informative about the function of the habitat. Furthermore, there are overlaps with D4. These points need to be further considered.


GES_14-2015-04


- Suggestion to remove the word “patchy” from text and replace it with “heterogeneous”.


GES_14-2015-04

9. Descriptor 7

Overall aspects

Several respondents stated that the descriptor needs a clear purpose and that it could be described more specifically.

Specific comments

- One respondent commented that further coordination with WFD in the context of D7 is very important. Another respondent commented that wanting to get clear boundaries between WFD and MSFD waters may not be the issue. The focus should be if there are any hydrographic conditions where a MSFD assessment is needed in WFD waters and if so, are these a significant risk to GES.

- One respondent noted a contradiction with the suggested inclusion of chemical features (page 8, chapter 1.3) and item (f), which states not to include acidification under D7 (page 19, chapter 4). The respondent also added that chemical features are to be considered under D7 because large-scale hydrographical and biogeochemical conditions are understood as a prerequisite for D7 and the MSFD as a whole. Two other respondents are of an opposing opinion, stating that their understanding is that chemical parameters are not part of D7. All parameters covered by other descriptors, especially D8 (e.g. anti-fouling), should be omitted and be addressed in other more applicable descriptors.

- Another comment raised by one respondent is that criterion 7.2 would be assessed together with the other status-related descriptors and criteria. Especially 7.2.2 is very similar to any assessment of the state of habitats. This would also mean that 7.2 would be part of the state descriptors/criteria in the cross-cutting biodiversity assessment and the guidance document could better describe which habitats would be applicable to this criterion in order to reduce overlaps in the assessment. This comment was also echoed by another respondent stating that it is important to question whether or not to include D7 impacts as part of assessment of GES under D1, D4, D5, D6. This is a shared task across descriptors and therefore should be treated as a joint assessment.

- Regarding activities and pressures, one respondent stated that there is the need to clarify the concept of permanent alteration, scales and processes in order to distinguish which land-based pressures should be consider under this descriptor, and the boundary for considering coastal waters under the WFD and MSFD.

- One respondent raised the issue of timing stating that the proposed tight timeline for the way forward may not be achievable and questioned if D7 is a priority issue in the framework of the MSFD implementation.

- One respondent stated that cumulative impact and aggregation rules cannot be defined until there is sufficient understanding of all the issues (inter alia through monitoring which in turn will be informed by decisions on spatial and temporal scales). Furthermore, the respondent does not agree that it is possible (or indeed prudent) to set methodological standards for assessment without first defining spatial and temporal scales.


GES_14-2015-04

- One respondent provided several comments on the scales of assessment stating that it is difficult to assess the significance of the effect on a regional or sub-regional basis. The additional comments which relate to scales can be found in the excel sheet attached in Annex 1 of this report.


- Some guidelines are needed for the consideration of cumulative impacts.


None mentioned.


GES_14-2015-04

10. Descriptor 8

Overall aspects

Most respondents commented that guidance on criteria of selection/exclusion of substances needs to be clarified but kept simple. Furthermore, the information presented about relevant contaminants/matrices to monitor needs to be clarified. A “reference list” would be useful but should not be mandatory and not take the form of “minimum criteria”. Multiple respondents highlighted the need to take RSC mechanisms into consideration in a better manner and also allow for marine region/sub-region/sub-division level considerations in the selection of contaminants/matrices to cover.

Specific comments

- One respondent stated that they would only support the establishment of an EU wide‐ minimum list of elements and/or parameters for assessing GES if it is made very clear in the text (as suggested earlier in the D8 manual) that not every substance on this minimum list has to be monitored, and that the principle of risk assessment, as allowed for in the WFD, would apply. This qualification should be in writing if the Recommendation is included in any revision of the Commission Decision text, and to call it a “reference list”, rather than a “minimum list”.

- One respondent highlighted that the criteria to select or de-select the substances should not only consider water analysis (EQS), because many hydrophobic pollutants could be present in the environment in sediments and/or biota but not detected in water. Specific EQS for these matrices should be developed.

- In relation to the point above, another respondent stated that in respect to recommendation 9 on methods for monitoring, water is only a relevant matrix in the coastal areas, close to pollution sources, showing a lower spatial and temporary representative than biota and sediment at certain distance to the coastline. In fact, water is not included in the Regional Sea Conventions monitoring programs for the majority of pollutants.

- Another respondent stated that guidance on how to choose relevant matrices for trends analysis, and how comparability to Directive 2000/60/EC can be ensured is missing.

- One respondent clarified that the monitoring of a large number of substances is not relevant for the MSFD implementation; as such the criteria of selection/exclusion of substances should be clarified and kept simple.

- In relation to recommendation 7 – for some respondents the number of beached and with oil polluted birds are welcomed as a useful indicator, yet it is also acknowledged that for other Member States with extended parts of desolated coastlines this may be more difficult to apply.

- One respondent highlighted that Council Regulation (EURATOM) no. 3954/87 of 22 December 1987 lays down standards for radioactive substances, but it is solely following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency. This should be included in the text as it is misleading to be considered otherwise. From a more routine assessment


GES_14-2015-04

perspective, it might be helpful to include in the same paragraph that there are standards laid down on levels of exposure to radioactivity added to the environment from industry in term of doses incurred by people (Directive 2013/59/EURATOM).

- One respondent highlighted the need to link the proposed text to regional initiatives better. Specific proposal to rephrase indicator 8.1.1 to read "...in a way that ensures comparability across the marine regions/sub-regions and with the assessments under Directive", as well rephrase recommendation 8 to “Member States should select, and agree at the marine region/sub-region/sub-division level, the appropriate matrix…".


- One respondent stated that guidance on aggregation rules is needed.- Guidance is also required on what to do when EQS values for naturally occurring substances

are below / close to natural background values.- The biota guidance highlights a knowledge gap for species-specific conversion factors to

convert between tissue-specific and whole organism concentrations which should be addressed.


- Under explanation for recommendation 5, last sentence: “minor frequent spills” should be replaced by: ”frequent minor spills” in order to avoid misinterpretation of the text

- The wording should be changed "concentrations of contaminants and their trends, measured in…” should be : "concentrations of contaminants and their trends, determined in…”

- The term "significant risks to the marine environment" needs to be defined.

- Language and spelling mistakes need to be reviewed.


GES_14-2015-04

11. Descriptor 9

Overall aspects

Respondents identified some issues but most of the proposed text in the D9 manual is considered well developed and the tentative revised Commission Decision text is mostly welcomed. Reservations remain by some respondents, mainly relating to clarifications that should state that the WFD EQS for biota are not used as human health standards, and objections raised to the proposal which relates to determining the geographical areas in which contaminations is present.

Specific comments

- Two respondents object to the proposal which relates to determining the geographical areas in which contaminations is present, which link to GES. One respondent states that D9 is not about geographical areas, but whether seafood put on the market meets food legislation standards; while another responded suggested to delete the sentence "that also provide information on the state of the environment".

- Specifically, one respondent objected to recommendation 8 stating that it should be rephrased to “The level of compliance of the concentration of contaminants in seafood, and associated aggregation rules needed to establish whether GES has been achieved needs further consideration and discussion".

- Opinions are conflicting regarding indicators: One respondent states that indicator 9.1.2 should be kept because it characterises the potential issues related to the consumption of fishery products - if the frequency of exceedance is high, the human safety could not be reached; while another respondent added that they strongly support the removal of the current indicators 9.1.1 and 9.1.2. Another respondent added that the indicator on frequency could be retained, but it should not form the basis of a target as the observed frequency of any exceedences will depend very heavily on the design of the sampling programme (e.g. targeted versus random)

- Respondents support the principle of a risk-based approach to monitoring and assessment under D9. Another respondent also mentioned that risk communication is crucial (in relation to biota EQS/GES limits, which have been produced within WFD community, but not approved by the European Food Safety Agency for example.

- One respondent stated that keeping microbiological contamination under the D9 is important, in view of the health issues that are linked to this type of contamination. Considering the existing directives, the respondent proposed to add the pathogens as a new criterion of D9 or as part of criterion 9.2. Another respondent on the other hand stated that it is not clear in what context pathogens are being discussed here. The mention of pathogens in Annex III of the MSFD is in relation to diseases of wildlife, rather than as indicators of sewage inputs.

- Several respondents agreed with the proposed way forward for identified issues.



GES_14-2015-04

- The issue of how to deal with limit values from different legislations for some substances was highlighted.


- Clarifications relating to pathogens in the context of D9.


GES_14-2015-04

12. Descriptor 10

Overall aspects

Some respondents agree with the proposed text while other do not. Specifically, several respondents highlighted that they do not agree with the inclusion of micro-litter along with the other types of litter (i.e. microlitter causes specific effects and has specific sources, a separate indicator makes it easier to link it to specific primary sources and effects). Furthermore, this might lead to a monitoring requirement in all the mentioned matrices, which is not welcomed.

Specific comments

- One respondent supports the removal of the water column as a matrix for monitoring and assessment because of likely only low relevance and practical difficulties for monitoring. Focus should be on the surface and the sea floor.

- One respondent highlighted that the proposed amendments to the wording in relation to source determination must be considered in light of the on-going work on this subject by the Technical Group on Marine Litter (TG-ML). The level of determination on source (and pathways) beyond the most basic levels of land-based or sea-based pollution need to be considered pragmatically (i.e. what is economically and technically feasible). It is acknowledged that the "tentative text" on page 15 tries to address this issue, yet this should be clarified throughout the document.

- One respondent stated that future work should also include support of international databases to host all relevant D10 indicators - and not only data from beach litter or sea floor litter monitoring.


None mentioned.


- Clarification of the term pathway – suggestion redraft text to state “source and pathway of entry into the marine environment” is requested.

- Clarification of the term “at different levels of integration” is requested.- Support to replace "where possible" with "where feasible" throughout the text.- Revise sentences to make them clearer and shorter. The language needs to be edited.


GES_14-2015-04

13. Descriptor 11

Overall aspects

The work of the Technical Group on Noise was welcomed and highlighted as the key driving force behind the development of this manual. Some respondents have not identified any major issues and agree with most of the proposed text for D11. Others have certain objections which relate to the use of the precautionary principle, the choice of frequency bands to monitor, and specific comments which relate to proposed indicators 11.1.1 and 11.2.1.

Specific comments

- The precautionary principle is welcomed by one respondent; while another states that for noise it is unclear how precautionary levels can be set, as it is entirely unknown to what degree current levels of noise affect the ecosystems. This highlights the need for monitoring and even more the need for impact studies, where the link between noise and effects on marine life can be established.

- One respondent provided a recommendation to keep the frequency bands as stated in the Commission Decision (63Hz and 125Hz). Other frequency bands may be monitored, if regional approaches are developed/agreed upon, but should not be mandatory to all regions.

- Regarding indicator 11.1.1: One respondent agrees that a definition of "exceeds a value that is likely to entail significant impact on marine animals" is required to remove ambiguity, yet this still needs to be done. Another respondent highlighted that the current way the indicator is defined is biased such that repetitive sound emissions are weighted less than single emissions when it comes to impact. There is no easy solution to this problem, yet it is suggested that it should at least be acknowledged. One respondent strongly disagrees with the statement: "… the present impulsive noise indicator (11.1.1) can be used to determine impact…". True impact must be based on effects on population parameters (reproductive success and survival), yet no one has so far been able to establish such links for any marine organism.

- Regarding indicator 11.2.1: several respondents requested that clarifications in line with TG Noise recommendations on the term “average” should be taken into account. One respondent stated that “mean, median or mode” could be applied.

- Some respondents objected to the proposal stating "exceeds a value that is likely to entail significant impact on marine animals", stating that frequencies to be monitored should be representative of activities in question (i.e. shipping) and not the hearing characteristic of marine life. It was also stated that in the BIAS project the choice of frequency based on 'hearing of sensitive species' is not in line with the concept of indicator 11.2.1 which is a pressure indicator. It was stated that the indicator is designed to provide an adequate 'footprint' of shipping intensity in an area. This confusion between 'pressure' and 'receiver' (i.e. the sensitive species) needs to be addressed.

- One respondent commented that climate change needs to also be discussed in the context of D11, something that it is currently missing from the manual.


GES_14-2015-04


- Further work is needed to either define an impact indicator or determine whether one is required.

- One respondent commented that a lot is already being applied via regulation of industry (with corresponding resource implications) in some Member States under Article 12 of the Habitats Directive to avoid introducing levels of sound to areas that are likely to have adverse effects on marine mammals. It was suggested that some consistency between the said Directives might be a constructive step and address one of the key objectives of this exercise (namely coherence with other EU legislation).

- An agreement on the term “spatial distribution” providing a specific shape and area for the grid in order to visualize the indicator of impulsive noise with the aim to facilitate the coordination between different marine regions, and the comparability of data is needed.


- Definition or clarification of the sentence “that do not adversely affect the marine environment” is needed.

- Clarification of language in the text of the manual is needed.


GES_14-2015-04

14. Annex III comments

Overall aspects

Some respondents questioned the purpose of amending the Annex III, with one commenting that they do not support it, as they do not see the benefit. One respondent commented that amending the Directive (as opposed to the Commission Decision) would open up a whole new piece of work and they are not convinced that the suggested benefits are sufficient to warrant engaging in what will inevitably be a long and bureaucratic process. The belief is that the existing Annex III is sufficiently clear and flexible to allow Member States to implement the Directive effectively and the issues raised in this review could simply be addressed through the provision of guidance and/or processes carried out at the Regional Seas level. Another respondent, questioned the reason behind any amendments to the Annex III, and commented that adequate justification should be established before proceeding with such work.

Specific comments

- Coherence between the terminology used in the Annex III document and terminology used in the revision of the Commission Decision is needed. For example, in table A.3.2 (page 9, chapter 4.2) the term used is “Changes to hydrological conditions”, while in the D7 document this appears as “hydrographical conditions”. Consistency is needed because terms often have different meanings.

- The Table 3 in Annex III (Activities) is a novel addition to the Annex. There are concerns that the table may not yet be sufficiently developed for inclusion in the Directive Annex in the short term. The activity categories are partly overlapping, it is not always clear what pressures or impact the activities cause and how. Understanding of the linkage between pressures and state is even less clear. Although for some aspects of the ecosystem there is good understanding of these linkages (DPSIR), this is not the case for all and for this reason we would like to be cautious with what will be included in the requirements, and even indications, for assessments, including Annex III.

- Very detailed clarifications and amendments on the content of the tables in the Annex III document were requested by almost all respondents. As these are detailed and should be read along with the Annex III document at hand, they can be consulted in the attached excel document in Annex 1 of this report.


GES_14-2015-04

Annex 1

To consult the complete list of comments received on the technical review documents (11 Descriptor manuals and MSFD Annex III document) which include recommendations for revision of the Decision and Annex III, please click on the item below.


circabc.europa.eu St… · Web viewIn May 2015, the technical and scientific review of the...

Documents

Transcript of circabc.europa.eu St… · Web viewIn May 2015, the technical and scientific review of the...