Common Implementation Strategy
17th meeting of the
Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)
10 March 2017
Conference Centre Albert Borschette, Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Brussels (Room 2/B)
Agenda Item: / 5c
Document: / GES_17-2017-04
Title: / Article 8 guidance – comments received on version GES_16-2016-02
Prepared by: / ABPmer
Date prepared: / 28.02.2017
Background / WG GES 16 reviewed a draft version of guidance on MSFD Art. 8 assessments (GES-16-2016-02); Member States and stakeholders were invited to submit written comments on the document after the meeting, using a standard response template.
The comments received have been compiled into the attached document, adding an indication of how each comment has been dealt with, either through revision of the guidance (GES-17-2017-02) or assignment of the issue to follow-up work (GES-17-2017-03), which is also summarized in GES_17-2017-02.
The WG GES is invited to:
a.Note the compilation of comments attached and how they have been considered.
Comments on Article 8 Guidance Document
Deadline for comments: 13.01.2017
BE (received 13.01.17)
DE (received 16.01.17)
DK (received 13.01.17)
ES (received 19.01.17)
FI (received 16.01.17, updated 17.01.17)
FR (received 13.01.17)
HELCOM (Received 18.01.17)
IT (received 31.01.17)
NAVI (received 13.01.17)
NGOs (received 16.01.17) (Seas At Risk, CCB, Birdlife)
NL (received 18.01.17)
OSPAR (received 10.01.17)
PL (received 16.01.17)
PT (received 23.01.17)
SE (received 13.01.17, updated)
UK (received 06.12.16)
JRC (only editorial comments included here)
Colour code of how comments have been addressed:
Comment addressed
No action required, or comment partially addressed
For follow-up process
Not addressed
Comment received >2 week after deadline; not addressed, unless already addressed through others’ comments
No longer relevant, but should be considered in development of reporting requirements
Note: the page numbers in the table refer to the version of the Guidance document of November 2016 which was subject to commenting
General
Member State/ RSC etc / Section / Page no / Comment / Response(for consultants to complete)
GENERAL (including sections 1 & 2)
DE / 1.5 / 4 / In practice it will be often difficult, if not impossible, to properly differentiate between the human activities, the pressures that are resulting from these activities, the impact they have on the ecosystem elements and the state of the environment. In many cases the human activities already are the pressures, and the impact of these pressures is measured as state of the environment/indicator/ecosystem element. So the proposed differentiation is a purely artificial and theoretical one, making assessments and reporting only more complicated and time-consuming in cases where such differentiation is difficult or impossible.
Please add a sentence clarifying that this differentiation should be followed as far as possible, but that there will be cases where this differentiation is not appropriate and needs to be simplified. / Added bullet: ‘The differentiation between activities, pressures and impacts on the ecosystem should be followed as far as possible, but there may be situations where a strict delineation is not possible.’
DE / 2 / 5 / Grey box of proposed topics: please add a bullet “how to deal with spatially required assessment information” (e.g. extent/proportion of pelagial or seabed subject to eutrophication). Spatial information requires high-density monitoring within the assessment unit which is far from reality. How to cope with that problem? Straight-forward solutions need to be described on how to estimate the extent/areal information . / Added ‘How to deal with spatially-explicit assessment requirements.‘
DE / 2 / 5 / Grey box of proposed topics: please add a bullet “need of translation table of broad habitat types and information of their occurrence in the different sea regions”. The new COM decision states the broad habitat types and their alignment with EUNIS types, but what is also needed is a) alignment with Natura 2000 types (German: e.g. Lebensraumtypen), b) alignment with HELCOM HUB types, and c) indication of marine regions where those types occur (for example, quite a number of broad habitat types does probably not occur in the Baltic and Black Sea, at least not if the EUNIS 2004 description of types is used). / Suggest this is better addressed within the D1/6 Benthic Habitats follow-on work. Added to outstanding issues box in that section.
Follow-on work on D1/6 Benthic Habitats
DE / 2.1 / 7 / Under “Assign indicators to criteria”, 2nd bullet: perhaps there is need for a regional coordination of assessments under the Habitats directive, but please note that WFD assessments are not individual “national assessments” but instead are intercalibrated (though – admittedly - not successfully for all coastal water ecosystem components) and thus binding on EU-wide level. WFD assessments are part of MSFD assessments, so please differentiate between WFD assessments and “other” national assessments which are not made on EU-level but on national level only (e.g. indicators developed for national purposes without being official WFD indicators). / Edited.
Existing assessments may be used where appropriate, such as under EU legislation such as WFD, Habitats Directive, and assessments developed for national purposes.
It is likely that WFD assessments would be included in the regional assessments, as alignment and agreement is straightforward, having already been done under WFD. But there is no requirement for the regionally-coordinated MSFD assessments to incorporate the WFD assessments, and if they do not, then they should be incorportated at the national level (recognising that the intercalibration has already been performed).
DE / 2.1 / 7 / Under “Assign indicators to criteria”, last bullet: Please add red marked text as follows: “If, after assigning all relevant regional, EU- (e.g. WFD) and national indicators to the revised COM Dec criteria ...” / Added
DE / 2.2 / 8+9 / The approach and the corresponding figure are well working and useful for presenting the results,
but some main pressures/impacts are missing because they are not fully reflected under the pressure descriptors. It will be important to add them under “Other pressures” / That is the reason for including ‘other pressures’. No action.
DE / 2.3 / 12 / 2nd bullet: Please add red marked text as follows after “Scales for state-based assessments should be ecologically relevant, reflecting the different characteristics of species, habitats and ecosystems within each region or subregion; this includes the WFD water bodies and water body types which usually have been derived based on ecologically relevant characteristics (e.g. salinity) / Not added. Existing text already specifies ecologically relevant.
DE / 2.4 / 12 / Grey text box, 2nd bullet: please add red marked text as follows: “Regional or subregional assessments should be used where they exist, including assessments made under relevant EU-legislation (Water Framework and Habitats Directive) and supplemented by additional national indicators where required” / Added as separate bullet.
DE / 2.5 / 14 / Please add red marked text and change sentence as follows: “Regional assessments though making proper use of assessments under existing EU-legislation (Water Framework, Habitats, Bird Directives) are not ready but additional national assessments are available (e.g. under the Habitats Directivesupplementary indicators or Red Lists) which partly address the issue;” / Partially addressed. added ‘Regional assessments are not ready but additional national assessments are available (e.g. under the Habitats Directive, supplementary indicators, or Red Lists)
Habitats Directive assessments are required under EU legislation but are reported nationally and for national portions of waters – they are not necessarily brought together in the RSC’s regional assessments, and therefore may still be appropriate to incorporate as ‘national’ assessments.
DE / 2.5 / 14 / Grey text box, under further development section, please add bullet “clearly state the need to include assessment results derived under existing EU-legislation (WFD, HD, BD) into the Regional Assessment and include statement on difference between EU-relevant indicators and assessment results and “national” (= other, supplementary) indicators”. WFD and HD results are not merely “national” results but based on EU requirements and standards. / Added
DK / 4 / Please notice that the document should not yet be considered as a guidance document but a document for inspiration, since it has not yet been endorsed by Member States through the procedures under the Common Implementation Strategy.
Therefore, DK cannot support the title of the document. DK therefore recommends that the title is changed into: ”Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive”. / Statement that guidance is not legally binding already included in section 1.2. No action.
DK / General / Where “guidance” is mentioned through the paper, it should be changed to “draft guidance”. / Edited
DK / 1.2 / 12 / Please, make it very clear in section 1.2 that this document is not endorsed by any of the working groups or MSCG under the CIS and should therefore only be seen as a document for inspiration, when MS are carrying out their article 8 assessments. It should not yet be seen as a guidance document, prepared under the CIS.
DK proposes the text in section 1.2 changed into the following: “This draft guidance document is not yet to be seen as a guidance document, since it has not yet been endorsed by Member States through the procedures under the Common Implementation Strategy. Therefore, it should only be considered as a document for inspiration, when Member States carry out their Article 8 assessments. The document is not legally binding but seeks to improve the coherence of Article 8 assessments across Member States within and across subregions and regions by providing recommended approaches to integration of indicators and criteria, and examples for presenting assessment results. The aim is that assessments are coherent, transparent and repeatable.” / Disclaimer box added under chapter 1.
DK / 1.2 / 13 / Grey box:
The text below indicates that only grey boxes are outstanding issues. We must emphasise that the document as such is not endorsed by MS.
“Text highlighted in grey and placed in boxes summarises outstanding issues. This includes issues where it has not been possible to reach agreement on approaches among Member States, and where possible a recommended interim approach is provided.” / Added - see above
DK / General / Denmark is in general cautious about using the OOAO approach for integration under the art 8 assessment. We acknowledge that in some cases it might be the best solution, but especially in context of descriptor integration at regional level, we consider OOAO an unsubtle method. We suggest that for each assessment there need to be a separate consideration to define weather the OOAO is a workable integration solution. / Addressed through the individual descriptors. There is no intention to integrate across descriptors.
ES / several / several / All the tables expressing the “visualising assessment results” in each of the descriptor, have a lack of proposal to the situation when no TV is proposed yet. Since this is going to be the case for many criteria in 2018, the guidance should provide some orientations on how to express in this table, or in any other manner the following situation: there are data, the assessment is done, but we cannot say if TV is achieved or not.
If we don´t find this alternative, we will end up with a situation where many of the assessments of a criteria or an element where the TV is not established yet, may appear as “not assessed”. / Visualising assessment results sections removed from guidance. Comment to be considered in development of reporting requirements. E.g. add something for 2018 – ‘TVID’ (threshold values in development’?
UK / “The purpose of this guidance is to support Member States, working together in each region or subregion including through the Regional Sea Conventions where appropriate, in the production of compatible outputs from assessments so that they:
- can contribute to regional and EU-scale compilations of information, presenting the extent to which GES is achieved;
- facilitate communication of the environmental status of the marine environment to managers and the public.
It is recognised that the underlying data and methods of the assessments will vary. Member States will be at varying stages in the development of scientific indicators (national, regional and Europe-wide), based on the monitoring data available, and assessment processes within two Regional Sea Conventions are well advanced. Therefore it is likely that Member States and the Regional Sea Conventions will have differing abilities to produce assessments against each criterion of the revised Commission Decision for 2018 and, where appropriate, integration of these within Descriptors to indicate the extent to which GES has been achieved.
Furthermore, the integration and aggregation of indicators and criteria is technically complex, and the science is still at an early stage with no clear consensus yet about how best to do it. It is therefore recognised that when Member States carry out their Article 8 assessments, the practical experience gained on integration, both nationally and at regional level may result in the use of modified or different versions of the suggested integration methods. These should be reported, and fed into the refinement of this guidance at a later stage.
This Guidance document is not legally binding but seeks to improve the coherence of Article 8 assessments across Member States within and across subregions and regions by providing recommended approaches to integration of indicators and criteria, and examples of presenting assessment results”. / Added
FI / - / - / The guidance could also mention ‘end-of-pipe pressures’ such as inputs of nutrient, organic matter or contaminants. As the COM DEC seems to consider the pressure-related descriptors as a sufficient assessment of art 8.1.b, there is no guidance how these other pressures should be assessed under art 8 (see Annex III lists). HELCOM usually considers inputs of nutrients as a pressure (which one can manage) and concentrations of nutrients as a state of water quality. / The Guidance is following the text of the revised Commission Decision. End-of-pipe pressures could be considered by Member States in their assessment of human activities
FR / 1.2 / 3 / “visualising assessment results” and not “presenting assessment results” / Edited
FR / 1.5 / 4 / Replace “Assess the distribution and intensity of human activities” by “assess the spatial extent, intensity and frequency of human activities”
Replace “Assess the distribution and intensity of pressures resulting from human activities” by “assess the spatial extent, intensity and frequency of pressures resulting from human activities” / Edited
FR / 2 / 5 / A guidance for the agregation (assessment scale issues) and the reporting scale would be appreciated as well. / This is something that should be taken forward in future processes, specific to each descriptor. Reporting scale noted in box in section 2.2. Need for further guidance on spatial aggregation noted in section 2.1.
FR / 2.1 / 6 / Replace “ the distribution and intensity of human activities” by “ the spatial extent, intensity and frequency of human activities”
Replace “ the distribution and intensity of pressures resulting from human activities” by “ the spatial extent, intensity and frequency of pressures resulting from human activities” / Edited to spatial distribution, intensity and frequency.
FR / 2,2 / 9 / Figure 1. Avoid red and green colors (or has it a meaning in relatino with the status of each descriptor?) / Colours relate to the colours used in the Commission preparatory work for the revised Decision, in relation to pressures and biodiversity/state criteria. Toned down the red colour and added different coloured border.
FR / 2,2 / 9 / Figure 1: Reptiles are missing / Reptiles added
IT / General Comment:
The application of the OOAO principle can be acceptable only when it has been already laid down by existing EU legislation or it has been established through regional or subregional cooperation and taking into account the RSCs and the proper degree of scientific evidence. Italy also stresses the importance of having a guidance for the GES assessment which takes account of a "set of characteristics (Art. 6 Revised Decision GES)" and do not therefore consider thresholds as the only parameter to assess the extent to which GES has been achieved. Threshold must be considered only as an element "for an assessment of the quality level achieved for a particular criterion, thereby contributing to the assessment of the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved."
IT / 1.1 / 1 / To operationalise these concepts, the present guidance provides a set of key principles and practical technical approaches useful for orienting and supportingfor use by Member States and Regional Sea Conventions in developing consistent assessment and status classification systems. The guidance is intended to support theas a manual guiding implementers step-by-step through the assessment process and includes illustrative worked examples.
IT / 1.2 / 2 / This Guidance document is not legally binding but seeks to improve the coherence of Article 8 assessments across Member States within and across subregions and regions by providing indicativerecommended approaches to integration of indicators and criteria, and examples for presenting assessment results. The aim is that assessments are coherent, transparent and repeatable.
IT / 1.6 / 4 / Predominant pressures are the pressures identified, that have proven to generate a significant direct impact on the environmental status or of which it is possible to identify a significant cumulative impact, resulting in the simultaneous presence of other pressures. It is therefore necessary to carry out a preliminary analysis of the PSI (Pressure-State-Impact) relations for identifying the predominant pressures. When the identification of the predominant pressures is not achievable quantitatively it is possible to define it qualitatively, for example through expert judgment.
IT / 2.1 / 6 / The basic steps in the assessment of each Descriptor under Article 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) are described below. This provides the generic approach; specific details for each Descriptor are provided in Sections 3 and 4.
The integration methods for assessment, should be determined on the basis of a set of ecosystems characteristics and should take into account, as far as possible, of the temporal and spatial scale, in order to consider the trend of the GES. It is possible to provide standardized methods of integration, only when the ecosystems characteristics are mutually comparable, bearing in mind that the methodological standardization is a sensitive element in a complex system such as the marine environment. It is recommended in any case, to consolidate the integration levels and methods, in order to verify and validate if they work in a suitable and representative way.