REPORT on the status of the technical review of Decision 2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine water
Version / Date / File name / Authors / Description1.0 / 09/10/2014 / Review_manual_v1.doc / Milieu Consortium / Summary note of the review process carried between February-October 2014
Preamble
The following note aims to give an overview and to describe the relevant phases of the exercise carried out between January and October 2014 and to outline the next steps for the drafting of a manual for the possible revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (the Commission Decision).[1]
1 Why a review
The review of the Commission Decision aims to define more precisely criteria for Good Environmental Status (GES), including setting quantifiable boundaries for GES criteria whenever possible, methodological standards and specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment.
The aim of the current review is to lead to a new GES Decision which is:
· Simpler
· Clearer
· Introducing minimum requirements (to be enhanced by regions and MS, if necessary)
· Self-explanatory
· Coherent with other EU legislation
· Coherent with regional assessment methods (where EU does not exist)
· Have a clear and minimum list of criteria and methodological standards and related characteristics (Table 1, Annex III)
· Ensure that criteria and methodological standards are adequately addressing the Descriptors are covered by the proposed criteria, to lead to complete assessments
· Coherent with the MSFD terminology
The review of the Decision is one element of a package, together with the technical clarifications on the application of the Decision and the further development of the Common Understanding document, to overcome the shortcomings identified by the Commission's Art. 12 assessment and prepare for the next cycle of reporting in 2018.
2 Roadmap to the preparation of the manuals
In March 2013, the MSFD Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES) discussed a work plan for the review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU, following the request made by the MSFD Regulatory Committee during its sixth meeting in February 2013.
A Drafting Group within WG GES was then asked to prepare, for the next Committee meeting in November 2013, a roadmap for the revision of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU (see Committee/07/2013/03rev for details). Based on this roadmap, endorsed by the Committee as a basis for starting the review process, the outline of a “manual” for the technical phase of the review of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU was developed between November 2013 and March 2014.
The aim of the manual (Annex II) is to guide the preparatory process and discussions and contribute to the overall review exercise. The structure of the manual was decided and agreed by WG GES in March 2014 and the approach agreed to was to prepare one manual per descriptor (GES_11-2014-04 (Decision review manual)). The manual structure is common for all Descriptors to ensure coherence in the review exercise.
3 Approach
The initial approach was to use and compile information already available to complete Part I of the manual followed by the review and input by experts into Part II to develop concrete proposals for the revision of the Decision (in particular Part B of the Decision).
During Spring-Summer 2014, the Commission (DG ENV, JRC), in collaboration with ICES and with the support of the Milieu Consortium, facilitated the work of the relevant experts groups.
The three steps below summarise the process:
· Part I pre-filling: Based on the information from the Art. 12 assessment reports (COM(2014)97 final) and the JRC in-depth assessments (Palialexis et al., 2014), Part I of the template was pre-filled by the Milieu Consortium for DG ENV for each descriptor. This work was undertaken in May-June 2014.
· Part II pre-filling: JRC and ICES experts have completed part II of the manual for each descriptor. JRC and ICES have prepared the specific parts on Art 9(3), 11(4), rational and technical background for proposed revision and other related products, according to their expertise. They have analysed the current shortcomings, proposed ways forward, e.g. needs for further guidance and development, but also proposals to review Decision 2010/477/EU, based on scientific knowledge and experience in the implementation process. This work started in July 2014 and is ongoing.
· Workshops: Several workshops have been organised either by the JRC (on D8 and D9) or by ICES (on D3, D4 and D6[2]), bringing together experts from the relevant ICES and JRC expert networks including MS and RSC experts, to review the pre-filled manuals in light of the Decision (2010/477/EU) and suggest ways to improve the scientific guidance to help achieve GES.
· Conclusion from the pre-filling exercise: To facilitate the discussion and the work of WG GES, each Descriptor leader in consultation with experts or as a follow up to the ad-hoc workshops (listed in Section 4), has prepared an overview of the main conclusions as well as key issues for further discussion after the WG GES meeting for each of the descriptors. A complete overview is provided per descriptor in Annex I.
4 Current status of the manuals and workshops
· Parts I and II of the manuals for D1, D2, D3, D4, D6, D7 and D11 have been completed.
· Part II of the manuals for D5, D8, D9 and D10 are in the process of being completed by the JRC experts.
· All manuals will be uploaded on CIRCABC on 13 October 2014.
The table below provides an overview of the work undertaken to produce the Manuals.
Descriptor / Part II (led by) / Part II completed (Y/N) / Workshop (dates)D1. Biodiversity / JRC / Yes / -
D2. Non-indigenous species / JRC / Yes / -
D3. Commercial fish and shellfish / ICES / Yes / 4-5 Sept 2014
D4. Food webs / ICES / Yes / 26-27 Aug 2014
D5. Eutrophication / JRC / Ongoing / -
D6. Sea-floor integrity / ICES / Yes / 2-3 Sept 2014
D7. Hydrographical changes / JRC / Yes / -
D8. Contaminants / JRC / Ongoing / 2-4 July 2014
D9. Contaminants in seafood / JRC / Ongoing / 2-4 July 2014
D10. Marine litter / JRC / Ongoing / -
D11. Energy, including underwater noise / ICES / Yes / -
5 Document tracker
The document history and the current review status are visible in Annex III, whereas the submitted documents are available on CIRCABC.
Annex I – Key outcomes and issues for further discussion per descriptor
This annex presents the key outcomes and conclusions as well as the issues for further discussion per descriptor as put forth by the experts during the manual development exercise. For some of the descriptors, a workshop has been held, while for the others the approach was direct expert consultation. More information about the background of the work is provided in Section 3.
The complete version of the Manuals can be accessed on CIRCABC.
Navigation
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 1
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 2
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 3
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 4
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 5
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 6
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 7
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 8
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 9
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 10
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 11
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 1Approach / Expert consultations on draft Manual
Leader / JRC
KEY CONCLUSIONS AND ISSUES FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
· GES definition on a Criterion or Descriptor level (quantitative definition of GES and aggregation methods)
o Should be clarified the level at which GES should be defined (descriptor, criterion). If GES is defined by quantitative criteria, then every criterion needs to be in GES to achieve GES for D1.
o On the other hand, the current scientific knowledge and understanding of the features related with biodiversity cannot always support quantitative criteria. Each level of assessment should be linked with certain aggregation rules.
· More effort is needed to conclude to common agreed methodological standards and GES boundaries (wherever feasible)
o The lack of specific methodological standards in the current COM DEC allowed room for different interpretations and implementations in the first phase that concluded with low coherence and comparability across Member States.
o Methodological standards of how GES should be assessed include, inter alia: spatial aggregation within indicators, and aggregation between different indicators, criteria and descriptors.
o Some of these issues are part of the cross-cutting issues that would be discussed later in the review process, but the identification of common methods for these assessments as soon as possible will critically affect the type of criteria/indicators/methods that could be included under D1. This regards both the principles used to determine reference values, and methods to set (boundary values) GES.
o Common agreed and comparable methodological standards and relevant boundaries on a regional scale should be established. The most frequently used methods in the first phase of the MSFD implementation could be the starting point for defining a coherent list of standardized methodological approaches. Specifications laid down by other directives or RSCs should also be considered to reach a common agreed assessment framework for D1.
· Timing of the review and monitoring programmes
o The timing of the review is also questioned by several MS: It seems to take part relatively early in the implementation of such a challenging Directive and given our current state of knowledge and the extensive R&D currently underway.
o Monitoring programmes should be taken into account, especially for the identification of those parameters that can commonly be assessed on regional scale. Before doing so, monitoring programmes should be evaluated similarly to the MSFD Art. 12 assessment.
· Clarification of MSFD and biodiversity terminology and links across Articles towards a common understanding
o MSFD glossary needs to be clarified and commonly interpreted starting from overarching terms e.g. methodological standards to D1 specific terms e.g. predominant habitats. Then we can achieve a reduction of heterogeneity in the definition of GES both at European level and at regional level.
o According to the MSFD, GES should be defined on a criterion level and criteria should be quantifiable and linked with specific methodological standards and boundaries to provide measurable, comparable and operational GES definitions. These should be in accordance with the Art. 8-initial assessments, Art. 10-targets and Art. 11-monitoring programmes.
· Specify the added value/content of the ecosystem criterion and clarify links with other “state” descriptors
o The vague content of the ecosystem criterion (1.7) and possible overlaps with Descriptors 4 and 6 consist a source of misinterpretation in D1 implementation. D1 experts group could agree and define the need and/or content of the ecosystem criterion, but it would more appropriate to also consider the thoughts of the other groups.
· Specification of common characteristics (at least regionally or sub-regionally) and potential revision of Table1 of Annex III of the MSFD
o A coherent, comparable and compatible assessment of biodiversity that would also consider existing relevant legislations and agreements should be based on common characteristics (see table 1 of Annex III of the MSFD) specified regionally or sub-regionally, covering species, habitats, functional groups and ecosystems. To this end, the group might need to review of Table 1, Annex III of the MSFD in parallel with the review of criteria and methodological standards.
o Work that has been done under the RSCs and on-going projects also needs to be considered for the generation or adoption of common lists of characteristics. These lists should be highly adaptive and to deal with increasing biodiversity pressures and climate change.
· Guidance for taking into account biodiversity assessments under other EU legislations
o The link between the MSFD’s GES, HD’s FCS and WFD’s GEcS is not clear and should be better clarified to take into account for the MSFD’s needs for assessments. The aim should be to perform a single assessment of biodiversity features for all EU relevant legislations and RSCs.
COVER NOTE - DESCRIPTOR 2Approach / Expert consultations on draft Manual
Leader / JRC
KEY CONCLUSIONS
· Needs for clarification of scientific and technical terminology in view of enhancing comparability of existing approaches
o Translation of the legal text in the national languages needs to be followed by scientific experts to ensure the proper translation of technical terms.
o Agree definitions of specific descriptor terms, e.g. vectors, pathways, impact, risk.
o Clarification and common interpretation of terms, e.g. methodological standards, indicator and criteria. This exercise should take into consideration the relationships between the related management and scientific terminologies to reduce the level of discrepancies between scientist, ecosystem mangers and the policy makers in the EUMSs.
· Quantification of GES
These opinions below need to be considered in the context of feedback provided in relation to the COM Dec criteria and indicators.
o D2 constitutes pressure to marine ecosystems and should be evaluated through pressure indicators.
o This requires the development of specific and independent criteria and indicators and hence monitoring systems to evaluate pressure in relation to the introduction and spreading pathways.
o It is possible to determine quantitatively the status of non-indigenous species in a given ecosystem, and a specific level of non-indigenous species abundance could be arbitrarily chosen as threshold to define the GES.
o It is almost impossible to define proper and widely accepted definitions of GES in relation to non-indigenous species by fixing a unique and common non-indigenous species abundance threshold.
o GES will depend ultimately of the direct impacts of non-indigenous species on local biota, which is not necessarily related, at least linearly, with their abundance.
o More complex indicators, as BPI would be hence more adequate than single thresholds.
o Taking into account the irreversibility of most of marine bio-invasions, a more dynamic and operative approach for GES definition could be adopted. Thus, any increasing trend in the presence and abundance of non-indigenous species in a given ecosystem, independently of their real impact, could be qualified as negative, whereas negative trends or stable situations, even if the environmental status cannot be defined as positive, could be considered at least acceptable.