/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT /
Brussels, 18 March 2010

Initial German Comments
on

Elements for the Commission decision on criteria on good environmental status
under Article 9(3) MSFD

ENEN

/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT /
Brussels, 18 March 2010

Initial German Comments
on

Elements for the Commission decision on criteria on good environmental status
under Article 9(3) MSFD

1.General considerationsguidance

(1)The application of criteria will be carried out keeping in mind the need to structure prioritise assessment and prioritise action in relation to the risks to marine ecosystems. To support efficient management, the application of criteria is to be targeted at the most serious significant environmental concerns.

(2)There is a diversity of environmental conditions and human activities and it may not always be ecologically relevant to apply all criteria in all places. Diversity exists across regions and even within marine regions and sub-regions. In addition, in a number of cases, it will be appropriate to apply as a first step selected criteria for an overall assessment of the environmental situation from a broader perspective and then identify instances and specific areas where, having regard to environmental characteristics and/or human pressures, a finer assessment and monitoring is necessary. Where descriptors are particularly relevant at a local scale, criteria are only to be applied where ecologically relevant.

(2)Environmental conditions and human activities differ regionally and it may be necessary to adapt indicators to local or regional conditions. Starting point should beA a risk based approach which needs to provide for
i) an overall assessment (screening) of the environmental status using a wider set of criteria and indicators and
ii) the subsequent identification of areas of significant threat and the application of selected indicators leading to a more detailed assessment of these areas.

(3)Existing methods as well as guidance on marine/coastal indicators such as the specifications of the Habitats Committee for the implementation of the Habitats Directive, the CIS guidance for the WFD and guidance of the regional marine conventions should be used in the monitoring and assessment under the MSFD, if necessary after adaptation to MSFD requirements.

(3)(4)Assessments of the environmental status may be carried out at two levels:
i) at indicator level and
ii) at the level of each individual descriptor.
For the assessment of descriptors an aggregation of the respective indicator assessments is necessary. Here selected core indicators may be attributed with more weight than others. Aggregation of descriptors for the assessment may also be considered.

(5)Wherever a Member State identifies instances where it is not appropriate to use one or more of the criteria, the reason for any adjustments introduced is to be contained in marine strategies the assessment reports. Possible reasons include the absence of a particular characteristic due to natural conditions or the verified absence of a human pressure.

(4)(6)Since the temporal and spatial scale of impacts varies considerably according to the type of pressure, at least as a starting point, different scales may be applied to different descriptors are in principle better applied on certain scales, at least as a starting point. For instance, descriptors 3, 4 and 9 are better assessed at larger spatial scales, while descriptors 6 and 7 apply in many respects at local scales. For descriptors 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 and 11, the relevant criteria may need to be applied at a variety of scales ranging from local to regional.For Sseveral descriptors and related criteria it will be necessary need to consider different timescales.

(5)(7)An assessment of the scale of the pressures in relation to the extent of the different ecosystem components offers a useful basis for determining priority components, pressures and therefore locations for further assessment. This requires starting by identifying where pressures are exerted (including spatial distribution and area of impact) and what ecosystem features are more vulnerable, including where possible the mapping of features and pressures. Such a process allows for the determination of the priority geographical areas but also selecting the most appropriate indicators for assessment and monitoring progress. This combined information provides a basis for assessing environmental status from either of two directions, from specific pressures of particular concern or from particularly vulnerable ecosystem components, starting with the areas of highest concern. It also facilitates the development of specific tools that can support an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities as required by the Directive, such as maritime marine spatial planning (MSP) on the basis of the ecosystem approach. When the terms of a descriptor imply that the assessment must start at a relatively small scale to be ecologically meaningful, this prioritised approach will also enable to development of general assessments at larger scales, while keeping monitoring requirements feasible and facilitating the identification of actions needed.

(6)(8)A pragmatic approach in terms of costs and benefits is therefore to be followed, using resources efficiently and maximising the information available and to be gathered. Action must be based on an informed decision on what to assess and where to monitor, to ensure that the sites and the suite of indicators applied at each site is selected further to a thorough understanding of the existing components of the ecosystem present and the pressures from human activities.

(9)All of the above highlights the direct relationship between the criteria on good environmental status and the initial assessments including the initial assessment, required under Article 8 of the Directive and Annex III. For instance, information gathered on the relative abundance of marine species or chemical characteristics of the environment will beare relevant to the criteria for several descriptors. The initial All assessments and the monitoring programmes should therefore aim at applying multiple criteria, as well as contributing to their further development, as a practical means to address the direct relationships identified between the different descriptors. apply the indicators identified and at the same time fully reflect the characteristics and pressures of Annex III (Tables 1 and 2) in all regions where applicable.

(7)(10)The criteria for assessing the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved or maintained are detailed for each descriptor (in bold), accompanied by indicators (in italics and numbered for each descriptor) to make criteria operational.

(11)The criteria and indicators are to be specified according to regional conditions. As indicated in Article 5 (2) and Article 6 of the Directive such specification is to be achieved in a harmonised manner using the existing cooperations under the Regional Sea Conventions. These cooperations should also be used to develop and harmonise regional reference values.

EN1EN

2.Criteria relevant to the descriptors of MSFD Annex I

Descriptor 1: Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

Progress towards GES for this descriptor must address four ecological levels: ecosystem, landscape, habitat/community and species. For assessment at the levels of habitat/community and species, it is not required to use all criteria for each species and habitat/community type to be assessed. Subsequent to a first screening[1], and Tto support a holistic and adaptive management of human activities based on the ecosystem approach, a risk-based selection prioritisation is to be applied, to ensure that the assessment and monitoring required is effective and efficient. If not covered by other descriptors also specific pressures should directly be addressed under the given criteria of Descriptor 1, e.g. by-catch/discard of non target species. Further specification will be carried out in the framework of Article 9(1) and 10(1) of the Directive.

During the preparatory phases of the assessment and monitoring process, it is necessary to characterise the region or sub- region in terms of its biodiversity features and the human activities and associated pressures. The biodiversity components and locations which are potentially at risk must be identified, including those assessed as being at risk of not meeting targets for GES. For these, it is necessary to carry out a selection of specific indicators for each of the relevant criteria, appropriate to the assessment area concerned, on the basis of the classes of indicators listed below. For reasons of practicability the status of several criteria can also be inferred from an assessment of pressures. Certain criteria (e.g. population, community and habitat condition) can be applied to assess the local state of a species, habitat/community or landscape type, whilst other criteria (e.g. habitat distribution, habitat extent) are applied at the scale of the assessment area. Modelling using a GIS platform can be used for mapping biodiversity features, as long as the errors involved are properly assessed and acknowledged when applying the results. This type of data can be considered a prerequisite for ecosystem based management and directly relevant tools such as maritime spatial planning.[A1]

At species level

Taking into account Annex III, a set of relevant species and functional groups types are to be drawn up for each region/sub-region. This set includes the species and functional groups already to be assessed according to the Habitats and Birds Directives, the Water Framework Directive and according to Regional Sea Conventions (e.g. threatened species lists by OSPAR and HELCOM). For the remaining groups ecologically representative species are to be selected, e.g. using established scientific criteria. Sub-species and populations are to be assessed separately where the initial assessment identifies them as being at risk of not meeting targets for GES.

- Species distribution: Distributional range (1.1), distributional pattern (1.2) and area covered by the species (for sessile/attached species) (1.3)

- Population size: Population biomass (1.4) and Population abundance (1.5)

- Population condition: Population demography (e.g. body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates) (1.6), population genetic structure (1.7), population health (1.8.), inter and intra-specific relationships (1.9)

- Habitat distribution, extent and condition:Habitat distributional range (1.10), Habitat distributional pattern (1.11), Habitat extent (1.12). The habitat condition relates to the physical, hydrological and chemical conditions (1.13).

At habitatsbiotopes/communities level

This level ensures the organisation of complex associations of species or functional groups (in benthic and plankton pelagic communities) into more manageable units. As a general rule, the habitat and its associated community are to be treated together. Taking into account Annex III, a set of relevant habitat types are to be drawn up for each region/sub-region. This set includes the habitats/biotopes already to be assessed according to the Habitats Directive and to Regional Sea Conventions (e.g. threatened biotope lists by OSPARCOM and HELCOM). For the groups, ecological functions and structures not covered, ecologically representative biotopes are to be selected, e.g. using established scientific criteria.

- Habitat Biotope distribution: Distributional range (1.14) and distributional pattern (1.15)

- Habitat Biotope extent: Areal extent of habitat (area covered) (1.16) and habitat volume (1.17)

- Habitat Biotope condition: The habitat condition relates to the physical (structure and associated physical characteristics, including structuring species), hydrological and chemical conditions (1.18).

- Community condition: species composition (1.19), relative abundance (1.20) and community relative biomass (1.21) functional traits (1.22).

Landscape level

Certain criteria are also relevant for assessment at landscape level wherever this is required, taken into account that a number of marine landscape features are listed for protection as ‘habitats’ in the Habitats Directive and certain Conventions. The condition of the habitats and species in the landscape may change. For species, especially those which are mobile (associated with multiple habitats) and of functional importance (e.g. pelagic-benthic coupling, structuring) are to be considered in particular.

- Landscape distribution and extent: Distributional range and areal extent (1.23)

- Landscape structure: Habitat composition, cover and relative proportions (1.24)

- Landscape condition: As for habitat condition and community condition, as appropriate (1.25).[A2]

Ecosystem level

Assessment at the level of species, and habitat/community and landscape state provide the basis for assessment at the level of the ecosystem, in particular the ecosystem structure and ecosystem processes and functions. The regions and sub-regions, or appropriate subdivisions, provide suitable scales for this assessment. Certain aspects of ecosystem functioning and processes are provided by other descriptors (such as 4 and 6).

- Ecosystem structure: Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components (habitats and species) (1.26)

- Ecosystem processes and functions: Interactions between the structural components of the ecosystem (1.27).

EN1EN

Descriptor 2: Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that not adversely alter the ecosystem.

The identification of pathways and vectors is a prerequisite to effectively avoid that non indigenous species introduced as a result of human activities reach levels that adversely affect the ecosystems and to mitigate the impacts. This needs to be done in the initial assessment (Annex II, Table 2), bearing in mind that the presence of some non indigenous species may be the result of the introduction through human activities which are subject to regulation to assess and minimise their possible impact on aquatic ecosystems. This identification has also to be addressed in the establishment of environmental targets (Article 10), as the basis for management action in the programme of measures (Article 13). The appraisal of existing vectors also contributes to identifying important areas for prioritised monitoring.

Pathways and introduction rates of non-indigenous species

- Availability of pathways and vectors for non-indigenous species (2.1). Here mechanisms for preventing introductions at the level of pathways and vectors should be assessed such as regulations under the ballast water convention or analogues.

- Rate of introduction of non-indigenous species (2.2), in particular in areas with high introduction risks such as harbours, channel mouths (e.g. Suez canal), major shipping routes and mariculture areas.[A3]

Abundance and spreading of non-indigenous species, in particular invasive species

- Abundance and distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species and, in particular, invasive non indigenous species (2.13).

- Spreading of non- indigenous species including, where appropriate and feasible, maps of colonies distinguishing a s a result of primary introduction and secondary spread (2.24).[A4]

Environmental impact of non-indigenous invasive species

- Ratio between non-indigenous invasive species and native species in some well studied taxonomic groups, e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs (2.35)

- Magnitude of the impacts of non-indigenous invasive species, in particular invasive species, on native communities, habitats and ecosystem (2.46). [A5]If sufficient information is available, where appropriately developed, the Biopollution Level (BPL) index (2.5) can be used to assess the environmental impact. [A6]

EN1EN

Descriptor 3

Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish[A7] are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

Level of pressure of the fishing activity

The primary indicator for this criterion is Fishing mortality (F)(3.1). Achieving or maintaining good environmental status requires that F values are equal to or [A8]lower than the level capable of producing Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY[A9]) over the long term (FMSY).

F is estimated from appropriate analytical assessments based on the analysis of catch (to be taken as all removals from the stock, including discards and unaccounted catch) at age or at length and ancillary information. As regards the estimation of FMSY, simulation models should ideally be used to give the values of F that, with a high probability, would maximize the yield over a long period of time without undermining the stock structure and hence future yields under similar exploitation strategies. Where the knowledge of the population dynamics of the stock do not allow to carry out simulations, scientific judgement of F values associated to the yield-per-recruit curve (Y/R), combined with other information on the historical performance of the fishery or on the population dynamics of similar stocks, may indicate which values satisfy the MSY criterion.

Secondary indicators: If analytical assessments yielding values for F are not available, then a possible secondary indicator is the ratio between catch and a biomass index (hereinafter catch/biomass ratio) (3.2), where the biomass index is ideally taken from sources independent from the commercial fishing activity (e.g. catch rates from bottom trawl surveys, biomass estimates from acoustic surveys, biomass estimates from egg-surveys).

The value for the indicator that reflects MSY is to be determined by scientific judgement following analysis of the observed historical trends of the indicator combined with other information on the historical performance of the fishery. Where stock production-based assessments are available, the catch/biomass ratio yielding Maximum Sustainable Yield (FMSY) can be taken as indicative reference. Any observed value for catch/biomass ratio equal to or lower than the level reflecting MSY is considered to meet this criterion.

Alternatively to the catch/biomass ratio, secondary indicators may be developed on the basis of any other appropriate proxy for fishing mortality, adequately justified.

Reproductive capacity of the stock

The primary indicator is the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB)(3.3). SSB is estimated from appropriate analytical assessments based on the analysis of catch at age or at length and ancillary information.

Where an analytical assessment allows the estimation of SSB, the reference value reflecting full reproductive capacity is SSBMSY, i.e., the spawning stock biomass that would achieve MSY [A10]under a fishing mortality equal to FMSY. Any observed SSB values equal to or greater than SSBMSY is considered to meet this criterion.

Where simulation models do not allow the estimation of a reliable value for SSBMSY, then the reference to be used for the purpose of this criterion is SSBpa = 0.34 SSBMSY. Thus, if SSBMSY is unknown, then 3 SSBPA is a proxy for SSBMSY.

, which is the minimum SSB value for which there is a high probability that the stock is able to replenish itself under the prevailing exploitation conditions. Any observed SSB values are to be equal to or greater than SSBpa.