Table of Contents

1............ Introduction. 2

2............ The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Common Implementation Strategy. 3

3............ The state of Europe's marine waters. 5

4............ Legal transposition and competent authorities. 8

4.1......... Legal transposition (Article 26) 8

4.2......... Administrative arrangements and competent authorities (Articles 6 and 7) 9

5............ Reporting process and approach to the Article 12 assessment 10

5.1......... Reporting process. 10

5.2......... Assessment method. 11

5.3......... General remarks on the assessment process. 12

6............ Implementation by Member States of good environment status (Article 9), initial assessment (Article 8) and environmental targets (Article 10) per descriptor 13

6.1......... Biodiversity (Descriptor 1) 13

6.2......... Non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2) 21

6.3......... Commercially exploited fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) 24

6.4......... Food webs (Descriptor 4) 29

6.5......... Eutrophication (Descriptor 5) 33

6.6......... Sea-floor integrity (Descriptor 6) 36

6.7......... Hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) 41

6.8......... Contaminants (Descriptor 8) 45

6.9......... Contaminants in fish and other seafood (Descriptor 9) 50

6.10....... Marine litter (Descriptor 10) 54

6.11....... Energy including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) 58

7............ Socio-economic analysis. 61

8............ Regional cooperation. 63

9............ Cross cutting issues. 64

9.1......... Public consultation and status of the reports. 64

9.2......... Statutory nature of GES and targets. 64

9.3......... Delimitation of 'marine waters' 64

9.4......... Scales for assessment 66

9.5......... Use of reference levels for GES and targets. 67

10.......... Conclusions and way forward. 67

10.1....... Overall assessment of the Member States and the marine regions. 68

10.2....... Good Environmental Status (Article 9) 69

10.3....... Initial Assessment (Article 8) 71

10.4....... Environmental targets (Article 10) 73

10.5....... Cross-cutting issues. 74

10.6....... Preparation of monitoring programmes (Article 11) and programme of measures (Article 13) 75

10.7....... Final remarks. 77

Appendix 1: Overview of criteria used for assessing adequacy per descriptor 79

Appendix 2: Summary findings and recommendations for Member States. 88

Appendix 3: Summary findings for each marine region. 165

Appendix 4: Understanding of MSFD Articles 9 and 10 and their relationship used in the methodology to assess Member States' report 173

Appendix 5. Overview of coordinating Competent Authorities for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 173

The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European Commission's assessment and guidance

1. Introduction

The marine environment is a precious heritage that must be protected, conserved and, where practicable, restored with the ultimate aim of maintaining biodiversity and providing diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive. Maintaining and achieving such conditions is essential to support sustainable use of the marine environment for this and future generations. These aims were laid down in Article 1 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD - 2008/56/EC) and the Member States are required to develop marine strategies in accordance with Article 5 to achieve these aims. By 15 July 2012, Member States had to prepare the first elements of these strategies, namely the initial assessment (Article 8), the determination of good environmental status (GES - Article 9) and the establishment of environmental targets and associated indicators (Article 10) and to report them to the Commission by 15 October 2012[1]. Based on these reports, the Commission had to "assess whether, in the case of each Member State, the elements notified constitute an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of this Directive…" (Article 12). The same Article provided for the Commission to "consider the coherence of frameworks within the different marine regions or subregions and across the Community." As a result, the Commission is required to inform the Member States whether "the elements notified are consistent with this Directive" and to provide "guidance on any modifications it considers necessary". This Commission Staff Working Document is part of the Commission’s assessment in accordance with Article 12. Moreover, this document also includes information on the transposition of the Directive (Article 26) and on the designation of competent authorities (Article 7). Both administrative steps had to be completed before the preparation of the marine strategies.

This Commission Staff Working Document (CSWD) summarises the key aspects of the results of the assessment of Member States' information and provides an overview of the status of implementation of the MSFD across the EU and in the different marine regions. The results are provided per descriptor and consider their adequacy, consistency and coherence, based on an assessment template (see Appendix 1 for the criteria used[2]). In addition, factsheets summarise the findings of the assessment per Member State (Appendix 2) and per marine region (Appendix 3). Appendix 4 provides clarifications on the differences of the obligations laid down in Articles 9 and 10. Finally, Appendix 5 provides an overview of competent authorities designated by the Member States.

In addition to the Report and CSWD prepared by the Commission Services, the Commission has published the detailed technical assessment reports underpinning the assessment[3].

Furthermore, the Member States' reports are being used by the European Environment Agency as an input to an update of the "State of the Marine Environment" assessment which will reflect the state of Europe's marine ecosystems at the start of the MSFD implementation process ("baseline report"). Moreover, the Commission's Joint Research Centre is reviewing the national submissions for selected descriptors in relation to their technical and scientific basis. The results of the work of these two organisations will be published later in 2014.

2. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Common Implementation Strategy

The key objective of the MSFD is to achieve "good environmental status" (GES) for all marine waters by 2020 (Article 1(1)). GES is laid down only in general terms in the Directive (Appendix 1) by making reference to 11 descriptors. More specific criteria are set out in Decision 2010/477/EU[4]. In accordance with Article 9, it is ultimately for Member States to determine the characteristics of GES and therefore define the precise specifications of this central MSFD objective.

The next step is particularly important because it includes an analysis of the essential features and characteristics of the marine waters, an assessment of the current environmental status and the predominant pressures and impacts, together with an economic and social analysis of the uses of the marine environment and the resulting costs of degradation. This comprehensive initial assessment is provided for in Article 8 and specified in Appendix III. It is based on the Member States' GES determination and provides the evidence base for all other elements of the Directive. Finally, Member States should identify environmental targets and their associated indicators which are operational tools to lay down the basis for the preparation of the programmes on monitoring and measures.

The key tool for the achievement of the MSFD goals is the Programme of Measures (PoMs) (Article 13) which must be established by 2015 following two preparatory steps: firstly, the elements described above (initial assessment, GES and targets) and secondly the preparation of monitoring programmes (Article 11). All these elements form part of the marine strategies (Article 5). As a result, MSFD implementation is a step-by-step process in which each step builds upon the previous one.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in order to ensure a consistent approach

The implementation of the MSFD is challenging and requires cooperation within and between the marine regions. Therefore, the Commission and the EU Member States agreed to establish an informal co-operation under a so-called "Common Implementation Strategy" (CIS) since 2008. Other countries (EEA and Candidate countries), international organisations including the Regional Sea Conventions and relevant stakeholders and NGOs participate in this process. The CIS has successfully delivered guidance documents and policy papers and has been a valuable platform for exchange of experiences and best practices which support implementation by Member States[5]. In December 2013, a new CIS Work Programme[6] for 2014 and beyond has been agreed which already taking account of early lessons from this first stage of implementation.

3. The state of Europe's marine waters

The regional seas surrounding Europe cover the vastness of the open oceans as well as almost entirely land-locked seas (Table 1). In summary, 23 out of 28 EU Member States have a coastline, in 2011, 41% of the population, or 206 million people, lived in the 378 EU coastal regions, and Europe’s Seas cover approximately 11 220 000 km2 or more than the land territory of Europe. Each sea is shared by millions of people, their cultures and activities. They are also home for thousands of species of animals and plants.

The Baltic Sea is semi enclosed with low salinity due to restricted water exchange with the North East Atlantic Ocean and large river run-off. These conditions make the sea particularly vulnerable to nutrient pollution and hypoxia (oxygen depletion). The Black Sea is also semi enclosed; it is the world's largest inland marine basin and has restricted water exchange with the Mediterranean. Its waters are anoxic at depths below 150–200 meters. Surface water salinities of the Black Sea are within an intermediate range. Most of the Black Sea is believed to host oil and gas reserves, and oil and gas exploration is beginning in the area. The Mediterranean Sea is also a semi enclosed sea with high salinity due to high evaporation rates and low river run off. It has restricted water exchange with the Atlantic Ocean and Black Sea. It is the most biologically diverse sea in Europe. The North East Atlantic Ocean covers a range of seas and a large climatic gradient. It is a highly productive area that hosts the most valuable fishing areas of Europe and many unique habitats and ecosystems. It is also home to Europe's largest oil and gas reserves.

Table 1: Regional Seas surrounding Europe– selected geographic characteristics

Regional seas surrounding Europe || Member States (in the marine region) || Regional sea surface area (km2) || EU MS share of sea surface area of regional sea (km2)and (%) || % of EU MS sea surface area reported under the MSFD IA || Area of catchment (km2 )

Baltic Sea || SE, FI, EE, LT, LV, PL, DE, DK || 394 000 || 370 000 (93.9) || 92 || 1 653 000

North East Atlantic Ocean (including Barents Norwegian, Icelandic Seas) || UK, DK, DE, NL, BE, SE, IE, FR, PT, ES || 7 835 000 || 4 076 000 (52.0)) || 58 || 2 721 000

Mediterranean || ES, FR, IT, SI, MT, HR, EL, CY || 2 517 000 || 1 210 000 (48.1) || 86 || 1 121 000

Black Sea || BG, RO || 474 000 || 64 000 (13.5) || 46 || 2 414 000

Total || --- || 11 220 000 || 5 720 000 (51.0) || 66 || 7 909 000

Human activities impacting the sea are increasing, and so are both the severity and scale of impacts on the marine environment. This includes impacts from fisheries, pollution, seafloor destruction (sometimes resulting in habitat loss), non-indigenous species and climate change. Acting together, these impacts decrease the ability of marine ecosystems to deliver vital services and benefits such as fish and recreational quality to European communities. They are driven by growing human activities including agriculture; fisheries and aquaculture; industry; shipping; urbanisation; tourism; space demand for ports and off shore structures; and oil, gas and other mineral extraction as well as renewable energy. Many impacts are expected to be exacerbated by increased sea temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification that are the consequences of global warming and increased CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. While many of the activities that harm the environment are a consequence of immediate human needs, they impact species and habitats that have evolved over thousands if not millions of years, sometimes irreversibly.

As all regional seas are shared by more than one country, solutions to the environmental problems that they face calls for international legislation which today is provided by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. With the reporting of the initial assessments that took place in 2012, the European Environment Agency (EEA) has reviewed the information base provided. Based upon, also earlier, EEA work, some key messages appear on the state of the marine environment:

Biodiversity and marine ecosystems (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6). Marine ecosystems, their habitats and species throughout Europe continue to be under significant threat from cumulative impacts from human activities no matter what ecosystem features we look at. Only 10% of the assessment of marine habitats and 3% of the assessments of marine species protected under Natura 2000 are considered favourable. Similarly, once abundant fish species are increasingly at risk. The current stock biomass in Kattegat is at approximately 5.6% compared to levels in 1971 and the current recruitment levels of European eel are at 1-7% of 1960-1979 levels. Sea grasses such as Posidonia oceanica experience 5% decline in distribution per year, while Zostera marina is covering much smaller areas when compared to historical data. Combined such information on biodiversity indicates that European marine ecosystems and their resilience are under significant threat from human activities.

Fisheries, pollution (eutrophication; hazardous substances) and non-indigenous species are some of the main pressures on biodiversity with the effects of climate change threatening to further exacerbate existing impacts. Together these pressures add to the cumulative impact on the marine ecosystem resulting in the continued degradation and often unexpected ecological tipping points towards an undesired new steady state.

Non-indigenous species (Descriptor2) that find adequate conditions to establish themselves in a new ecosystem may become invasive and threaten local biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in various ways. Impacts range from reducing genetic variation and eroding gene pools, potential extinction of endemic species, and by altering habitat and ecosystem resilience. The impacts of marine invasions are widespread and irreversible. In Europe, more than 1350 marine species have been introduced in European Seas since the 1950´s. New species continue to be introduced at unprecedented rates, with almost 300 new species reported since 2000. Most introductions have occurred in the Aegean-Levantine sub-region in the Mediterranean Sea, since the opening of the Suez Canal in 1949. Introductions are also occurring in all other seas, but at a lower rate. Introductions occur with handling of ballast water, and through aquaculture and the aquarium trade.

Fisheries (Descriptor 3) is one of the most important pressures in the marine environment as it reduces biodiversity by direct mortality of fish populations and non-target species, and modifies ecosystem structure and functioning. Cumulative fishing levels have led to an alarming state of European fish stocks, where currently 39% in the North East Atlantic Ocean and 88 % in the Mediterranean and Black Seas are overfished threatening their future reproductive capacity. Furthermore, the continuous use of bottom trawling and other high-impact fishing gear, has destroyed seafloor habitats and compromised its biodiversity. Seabirds are of particular concern, where recent estimates report by-catch by the EU fishing fleet at c.a. 200,000 seabirds annually in EU waters.

Eutrophication (Descriptor 5) of marine waters is associated with excessive use of the fertilizers nitrogen and phosphorous. It is the accelerated, enhanced growth of phytoplankton and an undesirable disturbance of the balance of organisms in the water. It can also cause extensive hypoxia. Most pollution comes from land-based activities, through inland waterways, such as the application of agricultural fertilizers and animal farming, the discharge of poorly or untreated wastewater, or as airborne pollution. The need to reduce nutrient concentrations across Europe is widely accepted, but difficult to achieve. EEA indicators show that between 1985 and 2010, overall nutrient concentrations have been either unchanging (84%) or decreasing in reported stations and that between 1985 and 2010 concentrations at 87% of stations remained unchanged.

Chemical pollution (Descriptor 8). Hazardous substances are widespread in the marine environment. Some are found at low concentrations in the earth's crust and occur naturally in seawater, but synthetic hazardous substances are not found naturally in the environment. The main sources are generally from waste/disposal burning of fossil fuels and industrial activities, including mining and production. The EEA indicator addresses concentrations and trends of seven hazardous substances: mercury, lead, cadmium, lindane, HCB, PCB and DDT[7]. All substances have been banned from use, but are still found in the environment. The indicator shows that concentrations of HCB and lindane are generally Low or Moderate, concentrations of cadmium, mercury and lead Moderate, and Moderate or High for PCB and DDT. Between 1998-2010, a general downward trend was found in the Northeast Atlantic Ocean for lead, lindane, PCB and DDT. In the Mediterranean Sea, more than a third of stations show of high concentrations of lead, lindane, DDT and PCB. Furthermore, a general upward trend was found for mercury and lead.

Marine litter (Descriptor 10) is found on beaches, on the seafloor and floating in the water, in all oceans and it is both a European and a global concern. Many marine species ingest marine litter or become entangled in debris. For some species a considerable proportion of the population is affected due to damage caused to their body condition, ability to forage and reproduce. Litter, when visible to humans, creates a considerable reduction in recreational, aesthetic or educational values of an area, and sometimes it is also a health concern. To date systematic monitoring has not taken place across Europe, this is only now being established with the MSFD.

Introduction of energy (Descriptor 11), with particular emphasis on noise is the subject of MSFD Descriptor 11. Introduction of energy into the marine environment can be in the form of heat, light, electromagnetic emissions and underwater sound. Thus, the information on effects of the former three is very limited, and the focus of this descriptor is on underwater sound.

Behavioural effects of marine species to underwater sound have been documented for a wide variety of sources. As sound can reach far underwater, impact ranges for behavioural response can be very large as well. High amplitude, low- and mid-frequency impulsive sounds such as those emitted during seismic surveys, impact pile driving or by military sonar have the greatest potential to affect marine mammals and fish over considerable distances. There is also evidence that ambient sound has increased in some marine areas due to the increase in ship traffic. Wide ranging behavioural changes could lead to gaps in distribution of marine life which in turn could lead to consequences on a population level if important life functions such as mating or migration are affected. Since the issue of underwater sound impacts is a relatively recent one, there has been little work on the exact distribution of sources of sound in EU waters and at present systematic monitoring has not been conducted to clarify the impact of sound on marine species.

Climate Change is not explicitly covered by the MSFD, but is having will continue to have a major influence on marine habitats and species because most organisms in the sea respond to temperature. Therefore, it will become an important factor when assessing biodiversity. As temperature of the sea is increasing, marine organisms will change their distribution. Sea surface temperature increases are observed in all Europe’s Seas. Also ocean acidification (also mentioned in Annex III MSFD) is of increased concern. As atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase, the ocean uptake of CO2 increases, which reduces ocean pH. Surface-ocean pH has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 over the industrial era, corresponding to a 26 % change in oceanic acidity. Ocean acidification may affect many marine organisms within the next 20 years and has the potential of fundamentally altering conditions for all life in the sea.

Lessons learned from Article 8 assessments. While the EEA has reviewed the material provided by Member States in relation to their initial assessments, it has not been possible to use the assessments as a coherent knowledge base, and the reports contain a large amount of unknown, or not assessed information. However, they have supported and underpinned the overall findings mentioned above. In addition, the need became evident to develop much more coherent assessment approaches on regional scale and an agreed strategy for reporting of monitoring and data towards agreed indicators at regional if not European scale. These processes are expected to greatly support the development of a marine knowledge base and will be fundamental to in the future be able to address good environmental status in a coherent fashion.

4. Legal transposition and competent authorities

4.1. Legal transposition (Article 26)

All Member States have transposed the MSFD into their national legislation, although PL only completed this in early 2013 following legal action from the European Commission (C-245/12 - Commission / Poland). After receipt of the national legislation, the Commission undertakes a conformity check for each Member State, excluding landlocked Member States who are not concerned by this exercise (AT, CZ, HU, LU, SK). By November 2013, thirteen conformity studies had been undertaken (for BE, BG, DK, ES, IT, LV, LT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, and UK); conformity studies for the remaining countries are underway.

Transposition has been assessed as adequate for BE, ES, NL, PT, RO and SI. SE is committed to making the necessary legislative changes, and Letters of Formal Notice have been sent to DK, IT, LV and SE. For PL and UK, an EU Pilot has been launched to address questions identified by the conformity studies.

4.2. Administrative arrangements and competent authorities (Articles 6 and 7)

According to MSFD Article 7, Member States needed to designate the authority or authorities competent for the implementation of this Directive with respect to their marine waters and for cooperation and coordination in the catchment area of each marine region or subregion together with the information listed in Annex II of the Directive.

Member States within the catchment area of each marine region or subregion (landlocked countries) were also required to designate authorities competent for cooperation and coordination as referred to in Article 6. Member States were due to notify the Commission of their designated competent authorities by 15 January 2011.

In total, 26 Member States designated their Competent Authority or Authorities for the MSFD on time. The Czech Republic and the new Member State Croatia have not yet reported this information to the Commission. At the due notification date, Poland had not yet transposed the Directive into national law, which prevented it from designating its competent authority (see section 4.1).

Following the notifications, the Commission assessed the reports. In general, the level of information provided by Member States varied greatly in terms of its volume and content. The description of competent authorities responsible for implementation and cooperation between Member States was generally well reported, but not all Member States distinguished which competent authority was responsible for each main part of their marine strategy (i.e. assessment, monitoring, measures). Clear information was also provided describing the legal status of the body acting as competent authority.

Fields in the reports where information was less complete were: coordination mechanisms between Member States, and to a lesser extent, legal status, role and responsibilities, coordination amongst competent authorities. For the cases where information was lacking or insufficient, the Commission sent a letter to the Member State requesting clarification. The Commission has now received these clarifications; no major outstanding issues have been identified.

A list of the designated competent authorities is provided in Appendix 5.

5. Reporting process and approach to the Article 12 assessment

5.1. Reporting process

In accordance with Articles 9(2) and 10(2), Member States were required to send notifications to the Commission within three months of the completion of the elements required under Articles 8, 9 and 10, i.e. by 15th October 2012. As the directive does not specify a format for these reports, Member States were free to submit their reports in any format. However, in order to allow for a more systematic and comparable analysis of the Member States' reports, the Commission developed and agreed informally with Member States a set of reporting sheets[8], as well as associated reporting tools and guidance[9].

Due to technical difficulties, these reporting tools were only finalised in July 2012.

Member States were asked to submit their reporting sheets, in addition to their national reports and any other supporting documentation, to the ReportNet system of the European Environment Agency (EEA) by the above deadline[10]. The Commission prepared an MSFD Scoreboard[11] to inform the wider public about the state of submission of reports for the different articles.

By 15 October 2012, eight Member States had submitted their national reports (BE, CY, EL, ES, DK, NL, RO, SE), and DE, EL, ES, IT, RO and SE had submitted at least a proportion of the expected reporting sheets. By February 2013, a preliminary completeness assessment (see section 5.2) was made by the Commission on the reporting sheets of eleven Member States that had been submitted by that time (DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, IT, LV, NL, RO, SE, UK). These Member States were requested to check this initial assessment and provide the Commission with missing information by 30 April 2013 latest. The remaining MS, who did not (or only partly) report by means of reporting sheets by February 2013, were informed that 30th April would be the last day that their submissions would be considered within the assessment procedure. By the end of April 2013, 18 Member States had provided reporting sheets, some of them significantly amending and updating the reports that they had previously provided. Following some later submissions, the Commission was able to consider contributions (both in reporting sheets and other reports submitted) from 20 of the 23 coastal Member States (Poland, Malta and Croatia being the exceptions). The analysed reports for Portugal and the UK were incomplete because the parts for the Azores and Madeira (PT) and Gibraltar (UK) were missing. The report from Bulgaria arrived before the finalisation of the assessment; due to the shortness of time, it was assessed only in relation to Article 9 (GES) and 10 (targets). All reports received after July 2013 (which includes submissions from Croatia, Malta and UK (Gibraltar)) have not been included in this assessment. Poland is the only Member State which has not reported to date and for which the Commission has started procedures to enforce this requirement. For those Member States not included (or not fully included) in this report, the Commission will consider how to communicate its assessment once the complete reports are available and the assessment has been carried out. A summary of what was assessed is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of the extent of assessments undertaken for this report and outstanding gaps.

Extent of assessment || Countries

Full assessment (i.e. of all three articles and for all marine waters of the MS) || BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, RO, SE, SI

Partial assessment (i.e. not addressing all articles or all marine waters) || BG (for Art. 9 and 10), PT (all waters except Azores and Madeira), UK (all waters except Gibraltar)

To be assessed (reports arrived too late for inclusion in this report) || BG (for Art. 8), HR, MT, UK (Gibraltar)

To be assessed (reports not yet received) || PL, PT (for Azores and Madeira)

5.2. Assessment method

The Commission prepared the concept for the technical assessment in consultation with the Member States[12]. The detailed technical checking and assessment of Member States’ reports and submissions was carried out by external consultants, thereby providing the detailed background information to the Commission for this report and for any follow-up actions and communications with Member States. The technical assessment was carried out in four steps, namely checking completeness, adequacy, consistency and coherence.

The first step was the assessment of completeness of Member States’ electronic reports. This involved checking whether all requested information has been provided in the Member States’ reports. This first assessment allowed the identification of important gaps, e.g. missing information for a particular GES descriptor or for key elements of the initial assessment, and supports the Commission in its assessment of whether additional information was required from the Member State.

As a second step, the reports were subject to a technical assessment with their contents checked for adequacy (i.e. assessing whether the reported information met the objectives of the Directive and the technical requirements of Articles 8, 9 and 10[13]), consistency (i.e. assessing the logical flow of reporting of one Member State for the different Articles, including the identification of missing links, conflicts and gaps) and coherence (i.e. assessing the relationships between the reports of the Member States, firstly within one marine region or sub-region and secondly across the EU, i.e. between the marine regions).

The technical assessment was made on the basis of a questionnaire developed for each GES descriptor[14]. This questionnaire used criteria to assess the adequacy, consistency and coherence of the answers found in the MS submissions (these criteria are provided in Appendix 1). The questionnaire was not necessarily exhaustive because it focussed on the most important aspects of the Directive (Articles 9 and 10 and certain elements of Article 8). It may also not necessarily reflect the formal opinion of the Commission as regards which elements are considered, as a minimum, compliant with the MSFD because it is mainly based on technical considerations.

The detailed technical results of the assessment, based on the questionnaires, including a section on cross-cutting issues, a summary of the assessment and general conclusions, are published separately per Member State[15]. Based on these technical reports, the Commission services produced factsheets per Member State summarising the key elements of the assessment (Appendix 2). In addition, there are technical background documents available per marine region which consider particularly the coherence aspect of the MS reports. These regional assessments are summarised in Appendix 3.

Due to the time constraints, these assessments have not always addressed all aspects of the Member States' reports in detail. The Commission services may analyse some elements in more detail, e.g. as part of the in-depth assessment carried out by the Commission's Joint Research Centre.

5.3. General remarks on the assessment process

The reporting obligations, and consequently its assessment, were complex: they needed to cover a very wide range on environmental topics in detail both in the context of Articles 8, 9 and 10 and across the eleven different GES descriptors. Significant delays in some Member States' reporting, as well as the diversity of the information that they provided, made their assessment in the relatively short time available[16] a particular challenge for the Commission. For example, the reported documents by MS were often comprehensive, consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information, published in all national languages.

To allow for a systematic and comparable approach, the assessment was based solely on the information reported by Member States, consisting of the submitted national reports, the electronic reporting sheets in predefined formats and any additional background documents that the Member States considered relevant and uploaded to EEA's ReportNet. A hierarchy was established between these documents (generally assessing the Reporting Sheet information first, then the national report, and lastly any associated documents). Where necessary, any inconsistency between these documents was highlighted.

To facilitate the presentation of the assessment, the Commission used simple categories such as "adequate", "partially adequate" and "inadequate". However, such classification does not necessarily mean that a Member State which is assessed as "adequate" is fully compliant with the provisions of the Directive. Also the category "partially adequate" typically covers a board range of the assessment quality and often includes aspects which are of high quality even if overall they fall short of what is considered adequate.

Note that the adequacy and coherence results do not necessarily equate to compliance with the MSFD because the assessment was made against a set of non-exhaustive questions (see questionnaire template on the website and summary of criteria in Appendix 1) which was used only for the purpose of this comparative analysis.

When reference is made to 'all Member States' in this report, it refers to those 20 Member States which were assessed as part of this exercise (see Table 2), unless otherwise specified.

The finalisation of the Commission's assessment took longer than expected and the level of detail and accuracy that the Commission was able to assess varied. The quality of the Commission assessments relies very much upon the quality of the Member States' reports. Poor or incomplete reporting may have led to incorrect and/or incomplete assessments.

The Commission recognises that Member States made a very significant reporting effort, in particular to complete the electronic reporting via the reporting sheets. There are examples of very good, high quality reporting. However, there are also cases where reporting contains many gaps or contradictions.

Finally, during the preparation of the technical reports, the Commission and its external technical support did not maintain contact with the Member States and therefore did not ask for validation of its findings, other than at the first completeness check phase. However the final technical summary reports have been shared with Member States for information.

6. Implementation by Member States of good environment status (Article 9), initial assessment (Article 8) and environmental targets (Article 10) per descriptor

Annex I of the MSFD sets out eleven qualitative descriptors upon which the determination and assessment of GES should be based. Consequently, the analysis of the Member States' reports is provided below per descriptor and addresses all assessment criteria, i.e. completeness, adequacy, consistency and coherence (see Section 5.2 above). When assessing the environmental targets, the Commission assessed whether they were SMART, i.e. whether the targets were Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound.

6.1. Biodiversity (Descriptor 1)

Biodiversity is a broad topic which encompasses the variability amongst living organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. Its status can be assessed at different organisational levels (genetic, species, habitat and ecosystem), of which the species and habitat levels traditionally receive most attention. For the MSFD, assessments of status are focused on the following groups of highly mobile marine species: birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods, and on predominant habitat types of the water column and seabed together with their associated biological communities. In addition to these broad categories, attention is directed also to specific species and habitat types which are listed for protection under the Birds and Habitats Directives and under international agreements. Genetic- and ecosystem-level aspects are also important but typically more difficult to assess. Assessments at ecosystem level can be considered to have links to the assessment of food webs (Descriptor 4). The assessment of seabed habitats has links to Descriptor 6 on seafloor integrity. The status of commercial fish and shellfish under Descriptor 3 has linkages to the status of fish and seabed habitats under this descriptor.

The range of threats to biodiversity varies considerably in nature and severity across the different regions of Europe. The degree of impact varies from sub-lethal effects on individuals or populations (e.g. from hazardous substances, underwater noise), to lethal effects on individuals or populations (e.g. from fishing, microbial pathogens), community-level effects (e.g. from nutrient enrichment, introduction of non-indigenous species (NIS)) and habitat-level effects (e.g. damage from physical disturbances to the seabed; loss from land claim and placement of structures on the seabed). In extreme cases, these effects can alter the entire ecosystem (e.g.over-fishing). In addition, climate change and greenhouse gas emissions can lead to changes in sea temperature and sea level and to ocean acidification, all of which can have a more widespread impact on biodiversity. Due to this range of threats, Descriptor 1 has links to all the pressure-related descriptors (i.e. Descriptors 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11).

According to Annex I of the Directive, GES for Descriptor 1 is achieved when: "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”.

6.1.1. GES definition (Art. 9)

All Member States who have reported have defined GES for Descriptor 1. Generally the definition applied to their entire marine waters, but for ES and IT some distinctions were made in the GES definitions between their regions or sub-regions.

The GES definitions were formulated at descriptor level by all Member States except DK, ES, LV and RO. Some Member States provided information only at descriptor level (CY, DE, IE, NL, PT, UK), with CY, NL and PT reproducing the definition in Annex I verbatim or with wording very close to it. The UK qualified its definition at descriptor level by referring to its targets under Article 10, where additional specification was provided.

Twelve Member States provided additional detail at criterion level (BE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, FI, IE, IT, LV, SE, SI), often with a close relationship to the Decision 2010/477/EC criteria although every Decision criterion was not always used.

Eleven Member States provided additional detail at indicator level (BG, DK, EE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, RO, SE), again often with a close relationship to the Decision indicators although every Decision indicator was not always used.

The definitions varied enormously in their content and level of detail; most were qualitative and many were rather vague, lacking definitions of key terms used or specificity as to which elements of biodiversity were addressed.

A general summary of the biodiversity elements addressed is given in Table 3. This indicates where the Member State has specifically referred to each of the main elements of biodiversity, where only specified species or habitats are mentioned and where significant gaps are present. The table does not address how well each element is addressed (i.e. its adequacy).

Table 3: Summary of biodiversity elements addressed in Member States' GES definitions (Y=yes, N=no, specific=specified species or habitats only).

MS || Birds || Mammals/Reptiles || Fish || Seabed habitats || Water column habitats

BE || Y || Y || Y || Y || Y

BG || N || Y || Y || Y || Y

CY || Biodiversity, species, habitats (Annex I definition only)

DK || N || Specific (Harbour porpoise) || N || Y || Y

EE || Specific (Smew - a duck, swan) || Specific (Grey seal, ringed seal) || Y || Specific || N

FI || Biodiversity, species, habitats, ecosystems

FR || Biodiversity, species, habitats, ecosystems

DE || Listed species and habitats (Directives and international agreements)

EL || N || Specific (Monk seal, Loggerhead turtle) || N || Specific || Y

IE || Biodiversity, key and listed species and habitats, ecosystems

IT || Y || Specific (3spp of cetacean, Loggerhead turtle) || Specific || Specific + Pinna (fan shell) || Y

LV || N || N || N || Y || Y

LT || Specific || N || Y || N || N

NL || Biodiversity, species, habitats (Annex I definition only)

PT || Biodiversity, species, habitats (Annex I definition only)

RO || N || Specific (Harbour porpoise) || N || Specific || Y

SI || Species, habitats, ecosystems

ES || Y || Y || Y || Y || Y

SE || Y || Y || Y || Y || N

UK || Biodiversity, species, habitats, ecosystems

In summary, one Member State (ES) was judged to have an adequate definition of GES. Eleven Member States were found to have a partially adequate definition (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, IT, SE, SI, UK) whilst eight were found to be inadequate (CY, DE, IE, LT, LV, NL, PT, RO).

Due to the wide variance in approaches to the definition of GES for Descriptor 1, the level of coherence within each of the four regional seas is considered to be low.

6.1.2. Initial assessment (Art. 8)

All Member States who have reported have undertaken initial assessments for this descriptor. As Bulgaria's report was submitted late, it has not been included in this particular part of the assessment.

All MS have reported on species/groups and habitat levels of biodiversity, whilst eight also reported at the ecosystem level (CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, LT, LV, NL).

Highly mobile species groups (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, cephalopods)

Approaches to reporting on the highly mobile species groups (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods) was very varied, with some MS addressing these at the species group level (i.e. addressing the state of the entire group) (CY, FI, NL, SE), some at the finer resolution of functional groups as recommended in the Reporting Sheets (EE, IT, PT, LT, SI) and some at individual species level (IE). The rest of the Member States reported on a mixture of these levels. Where specific individual species were assessed, it was not always clear whether these were intended to be representative of the broader species/functional groups of which they were a part. Further, the coverage of these species groups varied: some MS did not report on all groups (e.g. IE only fish, IT excluded birds, while LT and PT excluded mammals). Furthermore, cephalopods and turtles were the least-often reported groups, which for turtles was due in part to their more southerly distribution in Europe. Often the justifications for any omissions were lacking.

In addition to addressing these wider species groups, according to MSFD Annex III, the initial assessment should, have included assessments of species listed under EU Directives and international agreements; however, for species in the Birds and Habitats Directives, special arrangements were made with MS to defer their reporting in view of similar reporting required for these two directives in 2013. Despite this arrangement, some MS (e.g. CY, ES) chose to also report directly under the MSFD on these species. Regarding species covered under international agreements, one MS (FI) reported on species listed under the Helsinki Convention, four MS (DE, DK, ES, IE) on species listed under the OSPAR Convention, three MS (EL, IT, SI) on species listed under the Barcelona Convention while one MS (RO) reported on species listed under the Bucharest Convention, leaving a significant number of MS who have not addressed this obligation.

The information available for assessment appeared to be most readily available at species level, and in particular for species specifically listed for protection, or commercially exploited species. For these, information on species abundance and condition was generally reported and most MS were reported a qualitative/descriptive judgement on the current status of the species groups.

The most frequently reported pressures on these species groups in the Baltic were extraction of species and physical loss of habitat. In the North East Atlantic and Mediterranean, it was extraction of species and biological disturbance.

Seabed and water column habitats

Approaches to reporting on the seabed and water column habitats and their associated communities were also varied, with some MS addressing these at the predominant habitat level, as recommended in the Reporting Sheets (CY, DE, DK, ES, IE, FI, FR, LV, SI), some (BE, NL) using alternate broad habitat classes (typically based on the EUNIS habitat classification) and one only at more specific habitat level (RO). Some MS reported on a mixture of these. Where specific individual habitats were assessed, it was not always clear whether these were intended to be representative of the broader predominant habitats of which they are a part.

Further, the coverage of these habitat types varied. Reporting on water column habitats was often missing or poorly addressed, whilst the range of predominant seabed habitat types (or equivalents) addressed was often only a proportion of all those present in the MS waters.

In addition to addressing these broad habitat types, according to MSFD Annex III, the initial assessment should have included assessments of habitats listed under EU Directives and international agreements. However, as with the assessment of highly mobile species groups (see above), for habitats covered by the Habitats Directive, special arrangements were made with MS to defer their reporting in view of similar reporting being required for this Directive in 2013. Despite this additional time period only the following coastal MS reported under the Habitats Directive on schedule (i.e. by 30 June 2013): BE, EE, ES, FI, IE, LV, PT, SE. Additionally, despite this arrangement, some Member States (e.g. BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, RO, SI) chose to also report directly under MSFD on these habitats. Regarding habitats covered under international agreements, two MS (DE, FI) reported on habitats listed under the Helsinki Convention, four MS (DE, DK, ES, IE) reported on habitats listed under the OSPAR Convention, and three MS (ES, IT, SI) reported on habitats listed under the Barcelona Convention, leaving a significant number of MS who have not addressed this obligation.

In general qualitative assessments of the distribution, extent and condition of habitats were provided. Most MS reported a qualitative/descriptive judgement on the current status for certain habitats or for certain assessment criteria. Some Member States provided conclusive assessments on current status (CY, EE, FI, LT, LV, PT, SE, SI, UK), although not always for all assessed habitats.

Ecosystems

Eight Member States reported at the ecosystem level (CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, LT, LV, NL). In many cases, these assessments were understandably limited and qualitative, due mainly to a lack of assessment techniques at this level. Often the assessments were limited to specific species or functional groups and did not provide an integrated assessment across all species and habitats in each ecosystem.

The main pressures on habitats and ecosystems reported in the Baltic were nutrient enrichment, physical loss and physical damage. In the North East Atlantic, physical loss, physical damage and fisheries (extraction of species) were the main pressures reported, whilst some Member States also cited hydrographical changes, non-indigenous species, nutrient enrichment, litter and noise. In the Mediterranean, physical loss and physical damage were again the main pressures reported, whilst some MS also cited extraction of fish and shellfish and the introduction of non-indigenous species. In addition, a few Member States also reported hazardous substances and nutrient enrichment (EL, FR) as being important and, the introduction of non-indigenous species, litter and the extraction of species (FR) as being relevant pressures.

In summary, of the 19 Member States assessed, four were judged to have an adequate initial assessment for Descriptor 1 (ES, NL, PT, UK), thirteen Member States were found to be partially adequate (BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, SE, SI), whilst the remaining two were found to be inadequate (EL, RO).

The level of coherence for the features was considered to be low in the Mediterranean, North-East Atlantic and Baltic regions. Given Bulgaria’s late submission, coherence for the Black Sea was not assessed. At a sub-regional level, coherence was considered to also be low for all sub-regions excepting the Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast and the Western Mediterranean where coherence was considered to be moderate.

6.1.3. Environmental targets (Art. 10)

All Member States except IE and PT have defined environmental targets and associated indicators for all their marine waters, most not distinguishing between sub-regions. An exception is FR which has separate targets for its Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. A number of Member States have provided targets which jointly addressed Descriptors 1 and 4 (SE), Descriptors 1 and 6 (BG, CY) or, more commonly, Descriptors 1, 4 and 6 (BE, DE, ES, FRMED, LT, NL, UK). In these latter cases, the targets were typically grouped against the main biodiversity components (i.e. birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, seabed habitats, water column habitats, ecosystems). The number of targets varied significantly, between 1 (LT, PT) and 77 (BG), although many of Bulgaria’s targets are simply repeated for each habitat type addressed.

All Member States, who set targets, with the exception of IT, have established state-based targets. In some cases (e.g. NL, UK), the lack of detail expressed in their definition of GES was somewhat compensated for by provision of a detailed set of state-based targets. The majority of these state-based targets would be better considered as expressions of GES. The number of specific pressure and impact targets overall was relatively low. Some exceptions include the Mediterranean targets for France, which address a wide range of specific pressures and impacts, or the targets for Italy which are focused on the management and control of fishing practices. Spain additionally provides a number of targets which aim at filling knowledge gaps including through monitoring. This general paucity of pressure- and impact-based targets indicates there is likely to be insufficient focus on addressing key pressures on biodiversity in order to achieve GES for this descriptor; this is particularly the case in the ten countries which have set only state-based targets (CY, EE, FRAtlantic, EL, LT, LV, RO, SE, SI).

The level of detail given for the targets also varied greatly from one Member State to another. The targets have generally not been assessed as fully SMART, often because they are not measurable or lack specification.

The associated indicators also varied significantly in detail and number. A number of Member States have not set associated indicators (ES, FRAtlantic, RO). At the other extreme, Bulgaria has set 180 indicators.

In summary, for Descriptor 1, three Member States were judged to have adequate targets (BE, BG, UK). Eight Member States were found to be partially adequate (DE, DK, ES, FI, FRMED, NL, RO, SI), while eight were found to be inadequate (CY, EE, EL, FRAtlantic, IT, LT, LV, SE). IE and PT have not defined targets for Descriptor 1[17].

The level of coherence in the environmental targets and associated indicators is low across the North-East Atlantic region and the Mediterranean while in the Baltic it is judged to be moderate. It is judged to be low to moderate in the Black Sea. At sub-regional level, coherence is also judged to be low.

6.1.4. Consistency between GES, Initial Assessment and targets

Considering the complexity of this descriptor, there was a reasonable level of consistency between GES, initial assessments and targets in the MS reports. However the general lack of accepted quality standards and assessment techniques meant that in many cases assessments of the current status of biodiversity relied upon existing assessments undertaken to various standards; these were mainly qualitative in nature. Very few MS used their determinations of GES under Article 9 to assess current status under Article 8.

There was generally greater consistency between GES and targets, with targets defined in a complimentary manner and often providing specific detail to the more generalised texts of the GES definitions. In relation to Article 8, however, the targets often lacked specific links to particular pressures and impacts which may in part be due to imprecise or inadequate assessments of current status. Gaps in knowledge and data form part of the problem and it was encouraging that most Member Steps acknowledged this. However, most did not adequately outline how they plan to address these gaps.

6.1.5. Conclusions

The overall level of adequacy for Descriptor 1 of the 20 Member States which were assessed is given in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Summary of the assessments of adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 1 on biodiversity. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.

The overall level of coherence for Descriptor 1 per marine region is given in Figure 3. It includes assessments for Member States which are part of each region, which means that some Member States are counted twice as they are part of two regions. The figure is based on a simple scoring where low coherence was attributed one point and high coherence three points.

Figure 3: Summary of the assessments of coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 1 on biodiversity. The bars indicate whether the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence within each region.

In many cases, the level of detail in the GES definitions was inadequate with little effort to go beyond what is in MSFD Annex I or Commission Decision 2010/477/EU or definitions which lack sufficient specificity to enable environmental status to be assessed. The environmental targets proposed were, however, often more comprehensive and in some cases measurable. However, the majority of targets were state-based and better considered as refined expressions of GES. There were fewer targets aimed specifically at pressures and their impacts on biodiversity, suggesting an insufficient focus in many countries on the key aspects to be addressed (in measures) in order to achieve GES for this descriptor.

To improve adequacy and coherence, the general recommendations given in this report apply (see section 10). In addition, specifically for Descriptor 1, Member States should use the relevant specifications in EU legislation more systematically for assessing status and determining GES. In particular, the specifications laid down by the Habitats and Birds Directives should be applied not only for species and habitats listed thereunder, but could also be adapted where necessary for use with other species and habitats, thereby providing a consistent standard for assessments across the biodiversity components. The standards used for assessing habitat conditions under the Water Framework Directive may also be relevant in this context. A common concept for defining GES threshold values, which accommodates sustainable use, should be applied, which should follow the 'acceptable deviation from reference conditions' approach already encompassed within the standards for the WFD and the nature Directives. The definition of GES should clearly address all biodiversity components (each highly mobile species group and the predominant seabed and water column habitats), although its assessment can be based on specified indicator species and habitats. The specific elements to be addressed should reflect the differing biodiversity characteristics of each region, but should be selected in such a way as to maintain consistency within (sub-)regions. Regarding predominant seabed habitats, the determination of GES and its assessment should be fully aligned with that required for Descriptor 6 (with reference to the different substrates of the seabed). For ecosystem-level assessments, the approaches should be aligned with that required under Descriptor 4 on food webs, aiming to address the overall balance of components in the ecosystem and their functioning.

Regarding future assessments of biodiversity, attention should focus on the development of more systematic methods for assessment, with clear threshold values for GES and ways of integrating across indicators and criteria. Where appropriate, methods for scaling up assessments from small to larger areas (or populations) should be developed, aiming to assess species, habitats and ecosystems at an appropriate ecological scale within each (sub-)region, and including joint or aggregated assessments across relevant Member States. In view of the large spatial areas to be assessed and the need to associate biodiversity assessments more closely to pressures and their management, the spatial extent and intensity of pressures should be mapped according to commonly agreed methods and used more systematically in relation to biodiversity assessments (i.e. links to impacts) and monitoring strategies (i.e. risk-based approaches).

In relation to the setting of environmental targets, further effort is needed to more clearly define the types of pressures and their impacts which need to be reduced in order to achieve GES. This is urgently needed to better inform the preparation of Programmes of Measures for 2015 and in view of the generally poor identification of targets for key pressures on biodiversity in the 2012 reports.

As there are still challenges to adequately implement a more holistic assessment of biodiversity, opportunities to transfer best practices from one region to another should be sought. Finally, the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to introduce specific minimum requirements based on the approaches developed within the EU and the Regional Sea Conventions.

6.2. Non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2)

Non-indigenous species (NIS) are species introduced outside their natural past or present environment, and which may survive and subsequently reproduce. These species are introduced in situations where exchange of people or goods takes place between countries and continents. In the marine context, introduction frequently takes place when ships’ ballast water originating in one environment is subsequently released into another environment. NIS can threaten the balance of a local or regional ecosystem, rapidly expanding and outcompeting indigenous species for food, space and other resources, or even preying on them. They can also introduce new diseases to an ecosystem, to which indigenous species are not resistant. Non-indigenous species are referred to as ‘invasive species’ if they expand dramatically and cause widespread harm. The Commission has recently adopted a proposal[18] to address this problem, including in the marine environment.

According to Annex I of the Directive, GES for Descriptor 2 is achieved when "non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems".

6.2.1. GES definition (Art. 9)

All Member States have defined GES for Descriptor 2. No distinction was made at sub-regional level, either in the Mediterranean or in the North-East Atlantic. The GES definition was generally formulated at descriptor level only (CY, DE, DK, EL, IE, NL, PT, UK), although some Member States also provided detail at criteria (BE, FI, SE) and even indicator levels (ES, FR). The remaining Member States provided information only at criteria (IT, RO, SI) or indicator (BG, EE, LT, LV) levels.

Most of the definitions were quite vague, with many Member States reproducing the definition in Annex I verbatim (EL, NL, PT) or with wording very close to it (DE, DK, FI). Those that have defined GES at lower levels have frequently drawn heavily on Commission Decision 2010/477/EU (e.g. FR, SI), and generally for criterion 2.1 (abundance and state characteristics). One MS (EE) defined GES through indicators, targeting specific species groups and including thresholds. However, the same indicators were used by EE for Article 10, which raises some doubts as to what exactly is their GES definition.

Between the Member States, there were significant differences in relation to the level of detail and focus. Several Member States (EL, IE, IT, UK and to a lesser extent ES) explicitly adopted a risk-based approach, primarily addressing vectors and pathways for introductions of NIS. Many Member States (BE, CY, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, SE, SI) referred to impacts of non-indigenous species. GES definitions either addressed NIS in general (BE, DE, IE, FI, NL, PT, SI), only invasive NIS (DK, IT) or both (EE, EL, ES, FR, LT, LV, SE, UK). Spain provided a more detailed definition addressing both the risk of introduction and spreading of invasive NIS as well as the prevention of deterioration in environmental quality from invasive species which were already present.

In summary, no Member State is judged to have an adequate definition of GES. Eleven Member States (BE, BG, DE, ES, EE, IE, IT, LT, LV, SE, UK) were found to have a partially adequate definition of GES while nine (CY, DK, EL, FI, FR, NL, PT, RO, SI) were found to be inadequate.

The level of coherence in the definition of GES for Descriptor 2 within each of the four regional seas is considered to be low. That said, there are exceptions at sub-regional level, with a moderate level of coherence between the three Member States in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Coherence in the Celtic Seas is also assessed as moderate.

6.2.2. Initial assessment (Art. 8)

All Member States have undertaken initial assessments. However, as Bulgaria was late with its submission, its initial assessment is not considered in the analysis below.

Generally, the initial assessments for Descriptor 2 were mostly based on existing literature, supplemented in some instances by expert judgement. All MS provided an inventory of NIS present, and generally the main vectors and pathways were described. Overall, the assessment of impacts was quite limited, and when the level of pressure was reported, it was qualitative in nature. One Member State (SI) undertook additional studies for the initial assessment of Descriptor 2.

The number of NIS reported by each Member State varied considerably between the sub-regions. For example, reporting in the Mediterranean region ranges from 126-193 in the Aegean-Levantine Sea sub-region to 22-47 in the Adriatic Sea sub-region, while in the North-East Atlantic region it varies between 20-70 in the Celtic Seas sub-region and 38-129 in the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast sub-region. In the Baltic Sea it varied between 13-38. In the Black Sea, Romania reported 15 species (as outlined above, Bulgaria’s report is not included in this assessment).

Eight Member States (BE, CY, DE, EL, IT, LT, PT, SI) have indicated a trend in the level of the pressure from NIS (albeit in a very general manner), but only six (CY, EE, LT, PT, RO, SI) have made a judgement on the pressure in relation to GES. Where made, these judgements were generally with a low level of confidence.

Mediterranean and North East Atlantic Member States on the whole described knowledge and data gaps in some detail and in some cases even (limited) plans to address them. This was not the case in the Baltic where only two MS (DE, DK) analysed knowledge gaps in any detail.

In the initial assessment, some Member States (DE, EE, LT) referred to the HELCOM bio-pollution index but DE considered that it was not applicable for the MSFD assessment in its present form.

In summary, six Member States (DE, FRATLANTIC, IE, LT, PT, UK) were judged to have an adequate initial assessment. Thirteen Member States (BE, CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FRMED, IT, NL, RO, SE, SI) were found to be partially adequate, while only one (LV) was found to be inadequate. Bulgaria’s assessment was not taken into account.

The level of coherence in the Mediterranean, North-East Atlantic and Baltic regions was considered to be high, with the exception of the number of NIS reported which varied greatly per Member State. Given Bulgaria’s late submission, coherence was not assessed for the Black Sea.

6.2.3. Environmental targets (Art. 10)

Seventeen Member States (all except CY, PT, RO) have defined environmental targets and associated indicators for Descriptor 2, with these addressing all their marine waters without distinguishing between sub-regions.

The number of targets varied between one and four. A few countries have also set interim targets. Member States have generally set pressure/impact targets, though some surveillance-type targets were established relating to monitoring (SI), inventory (EL) or an early warning system (IT), while one MS (ES) has set a target in relation to research. The level of detail also varied greatly from one Member State to another, and the targets have generally not been assessed as fully SMART, often because they were not measurable or lack specification.

Thirteen Member States (BE, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FRMED, IE, LT, NL, SE, SI, UK) have set targets relating to the reduction of new introductions or changes in their abundance, some of whom also addressed the spreading of NIS (ES, FR, IE, SI, UK). However, with some exceptions (DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, SE), the targets rarely mentioned specific vectors and pathways or specific NIS (except EE, ES, FI). One MS (DK) has set targets focusing on prevention of NIS transported by shipping and aquaculture. In addition to the presence of NIS, relatively few Member States (e.g. FR, UK) addressed the reduction of impacts from NIS. However, their target was formulated in a very general way. In the Baltic, three Member States (EE, FI, LT) referred to the HELCOM bio-pollution index.

The associated indicators also varied significantly. A number of Member States have not set associated indicators (BE, FRATLANTIC, LV, SI) or have indicators which were very similar to the targets themselves (IE). At the other extreme, one MS (FI) has set eight indicators.

In summary, no Member States were judged to have adequate environmental targets. Five Member States (ES, FI, IE, SE, SI) were found to be partially adequate, while twelve (BE, BG, DE, DK, EE, EL, FR, IT, LT, LV, NL, UK) were found to be inadequate. Three Member States (CY, PT, RO) did not defined environmental targets for D2.

The level of coherence is low across the Mediterranean and North-East Atlantic regions in terms of environmental targets and associated indicators, while in the Baltic it is judged to be moderate. As Romania has not set environmental targets, coherence is not addressed for the Black Sea.

6.2.4. Consistency between GES, Initial Assessment and targets

Consistency between GES, initial assessments and targets was moderate. Six Member States have analysed current NIS trends in relation to GES as part of their initial assessments. The qualitative nature of most of the targets made it impractical to directly measure them against attainment of GES. Gaps in knowledge and data formed part of the problem and it was encouraging that most Member Steps acknowledged this. However, most did not adequately outline how they plan to address these gaps.

6.2.5. Conclusions

The overall level of adequacy for Descriptor 2 of the Member States assessed is given In Figure 4.

Figure 4: Summary of the assessments of adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 2 on non-indigenous species. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.

The overall level of coherence for Descriptor 2 per marine region is given in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Summary of the assessments of coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 2 on non-indigenous species. The bars indicate whether the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence within each region.

To improve adequacy and coherence, the general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor 2, a much greater level of coherence is required in relation to the species to be addressed. Member States should establish common lists of species, on a (sub-)regional basis. The establishment of such lists should be done through appropriate coordination with the relevant Regional Sea Convention, and should build on any “list of invasive alien species of Union concern” which may be adopted in the context of the recent Commission proposal on the prevention and management of invasive alien species[19]. The revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to introduce specific minimum provisions based on the approaches developed within the EU and the Regional Sea Conventions. However, Member States should remain free to go beyond any Union-wide list to target species on a sub-regional basis, and to beyond (sub-)regional lists to tackle species specific to their marine waters.

6.3. Commercially exploited fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3)

Fisheries activities represent one of the most important human pressures on the marine environment; their impact is significant, particularly on its biodiversity components. The Descriptor is strongly linked to the Common Fisheries Policy, which has recently seen a revision which will steer future EU fishing management decisions up to 2020 and most probably beyond. Amongst the most important features of the reformed policy are the need to attain sustainable fishing levels through use of the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) management criteria, to adjust the fleet capacity accordingly, to improve fleet performance with respect to their impact on the marine environment and the obligation to land all catches. The new Basic Regulation[20] which entered into force recently, embedded the overall objectives of the MSFD within the new Policy, where measures should be implemented gradually to reach MSY levels, by 2015 where possible but not later than 2020.

According to Annex I of the Directive, GES for Descriptor 3 is achieved when "populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock".

6.3.1. GES definition (Art. 9)

All Member States have defined GES for Descriptor 3. However, several Member States (DK, IE, NL, PT) have defined GES only at the descriptor level.

Although GES definitions were not directly comparable between MS, none have been defined it in a way that significantly deviates from those provided in the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU, except for one Member State (RO) which defined GES only for a single stock.

Most Member States have applied criteria 3.1 and 3.2 and nine (BG, CY, DE, FI, FR, IT, LT, SE, SI) have also applied criterion 3.3 from the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU.

With regards to criterion 3.1, all Member States have used fishing mortality (F) as the primary indicator and each of those have used the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yields (FMSY) in their GES definition except one Member State (IT) which uses a proxy for FMSY (F0.1).

Two Member States (DE, FI) have clearly stated that all fish and shellfish should be exploited at or below levels of FMSY while another (SE) has clearly set this threshold but only for all commercially exploited fish species. The remaining countries have GES definitions which do not require either explicitly or implicitly all stocks to be exploited at or below FMSY. Two Member States (ES, FR) have used FMSY as an environmental target value rather than limits or boundaries for GES.

For those stocks for which F could not be determined, a number of Member States (BE, CY, DE, FR, IT, SE, SI) have applied the secondary indicator 3.1.2 on the catch/biomass ratio. One Member State (BE) has also provided a third indicator using Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE).

Moreover, three Member States (EL, IT, SI) have included the “exploitation rate” indicator and set a threshold level (E=0.4) which is appropriate for small pelagic species.

For criterion 3.2, most Member States have used the primary indicator, i.e. Stock Spawning Biomass (SSBMSY), but using different reference points for the indicator such as SSBmsy (BE, BG, CY, ES, IT, SI), SSBpa (BE, DE, LV), BMSY-trigger (DE, FR, SE) and in some cases referring to more than one type of reference point in their GES definition (BE, DE). Other Member States (IE, NL, UK) implicitly applied Precautionary Approach levels by stating that stocks needed to be within safe biological limits. Two Member States have clearly deviated from the others (ES, FR) when defining the threshold for the Biomass (B)[21] of all assessed stocks. Several Member States also applied the secondary indicator 3.2.2 on biomass indices (CY, EE, FR, IT, SE, SI) and one proposes to use it in their GES definition (DE). One Member State proposes an alternative secondary indicator (BE), based on trends of survey abundance.

Criterion 3.3 is the least developed criterion of Descriptor 3, as it needs further methodological development. Nine Member States (BG, CY, DE, FI, FR, IT, LT, SE, SI) have defined criterion 3.3 to some extent. Indicator 3.3.1 of the Commission Decision has been applied by five Member states (DE, EE, FR, IT, SI), 3.3.2 by one Member State (DE), 3.3.3 by five Member States (DE, EE, FR, LT, SI) and 3.3.4 by two Member States (DE, EE).

In summary, two Member States were judged to have adequate GES definitions (DE, FI). Nine Member States were judged to have partially adequate (BE, BG, CY, IE, IT, LV, SE, SI, UK) determinations of GES. Nine were judged to have inadequate GES definitions (DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, LT, NL, PT, RO.

Overall the coherence for the definition of GES for Descriptor 3 in the Atlantic and the Baltic maritime region was moderate and in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions was low.

6.3.2. Initial Assessment (Art. 8)

All Member States have undertaken an initial assessment for Descriptor 3 although the initial assessment by one country has not been assessed (BG).

Most of the North-East Atlantic countries, two Mediterranean countries, three Baltic countries and one Black Sea country (DE, DK, EL, ES, FR, IE, LV, PT, RO, SE, UK) have assessed stocks in relation to FMSY. One Member State (IT) used another fishing mortality indicator as a proxy (F0.1). One Member State (CY) applied Fpa and another (SI) used trends of species abundance within the ecosystem. Sometimes, there were discrepancies in the types of stocks assessed, such as in the case of the Mediterranean where one Member State (FR) only assessed large pelagic species and another (CY) focussed only on demersal stocks.

Four Member States (CY, FR, LV, UK) assessed the spawning stock biomass in relation to SSBpa reference points, whilst one (BE) implicitly did so by using the OSPAR ecological quality objective (EcoQO) which requires stocks to be above SSBpa. Another two (DE, DK) used the biomass at MSY-level (BMSY-trigger) as a reference point to assess stocks, whilst two others (ES, SE) assessed stocks in relation to the SSBMSY points. One Member State (PT) used both SSBMSY and BMSY-trigger reference points. Finally one member state (FR) used BMSY.

In terms of impacts on seabed habitats, eleven Member States (CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, IT, LT, NL, RO, SI, UK) provided a quantification of the extent of the seabed affected by the fishing pressure. This figure, however, varied widely amongst Member States.

In terms of the level of the pressure caused by fishing fleets, a few Member States have assessed the extent of their assessment areas subjected to the pressure from various fleet categories. The assessments were very diverse even within Member States (depending on the fleet category) and were difficult to summarise and compare.

In summary, six Member States (EL, ES, IE, FR, NL, SE) were judged to have an adequate Initial Assessment, ten Member States (BE, CY, DE, DK, IT, LV, PT, RO, SI, UK) were judged partially adequate and three (EE, FI, LT) were judged as inadequate.

In general, the level of coherence of the initial assessments undertaken by Member States in the North-East Atlantic region and the Baltic Sea region was considered to be moderate. In the Mediterranean it was assessed as low.

6.3.3. Environmental targets (Art. 10)

All Member States have defined environmental targets and associated indicators for Descriptor 3 for all their marine waters.

Four Member States (BE, DE, DK, IE) have set overall targets to manage all stocks according to MSY principles, although it is not always clear whether the target requires all stocks to be exploited at or below Fmsy. Three Member States have set targets to manage stocks according to the provisions of relevant EU legislation including the newly reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CY, EL, IT).

Two Member States (NL, UK) have clearly-defined targets that state that all stocks should be exploited at or below FMSY for those with sufficient information to allow reference points to be calculated; for one Member State (SE) has a similar target but left it unclear whether this applies to all stocks. Others (BG, FI, LV, PT) have set FMSY as a limit for selected stocks.

The targets for several Member States in Mediterranean region (ES, FR) remain unspecific with little explanation provided.

Two Member States (BE, UK) have set a target for all stocks to be at SSBpa. Five Member States (BG, DK, LV, NL, SE) have set targets for SSB for at least one stock. The thresholds used are BPA (DK), BMSY-trigger (DK, SE) or a quantitative reference point developed by ICES[22] (LV) ) and in one case specific biomass levels for specific stocks in tons (BG). Only one Member State (BE) has set BMSY as a target for all stocks, although this target is not always consistent with the other targets provided.

Twelve Member States (BE, BG, CY, DE, EE, FI, IE, LV, NL, SE, SI, PT) have set a target related to the size and structure of fish populations (criterion 3.3). In the case of five Member States (BE, CY, LV, PT, SE), this is because their target includes a verbatim or approximate copy of Descriptor 3 as provided in Annex I of the MSFD.

In the North East Atlantic region, four out of 10 Member States (DE, IE, NL, SE) have also defined associated indicators for the target(s) related to criterion 3.3 in some cases applying verbatim copies (IE, NL) of the indicators as provided in Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and in other instances close approximations (DE, SE). None of these indicators have defined thresholds and OSPAR EcoQOs were not used.

In the Baltic, Commission Decision 2010/477/EU indicators were applied by two Member State (DE, SE) in general and in the case of one Member State for a specific species (EE), the perch (perca fluviatilis). The indicators of one Baltic state (FI) deviated from those provided in Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and one (LV) did not provide any indicators for criterion 3.3.

In the Mediterranean none of the Member States used Commission Decision 2010/477/EU indicators for criterion 3.3.

In the Black Sea one Member State (BG) applied the indicators for criterion 3.3, with specific thresholds for two specific species, the Black Sea Turbot (Scophthalmus maeoticus) and the sprat (Sprattus sprattus).

Finally, two Member States (EE, FI) have also set targets related to the spawning of salmon. Three member states (DE, IT, RO) have set targets related to illegal fishing, with one of them (DE) making a link to the potential effects on other descriptors. In addition, one Member State (RO) has also set a number of targets relating to the general improvement of fisheries in the Black Sea.

In summary, for three MS the environmental targets were judged to be adequate (LT, NL, UK). For seven MS (BG, ES, FI, IE, LV, PT, SE) the targets were judged to be partially adequate and the remaining ten were assessed as inadequate (BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FR, IT, RO, SI).

Overall, the level of coherence in the setting of targets for Descriptor 3 across the North-East Atlantic and Mediterranean regions was low. The level of coherence in the Baltic Sea region was considered to be moderate and in the Black Sea region between low and moderate.

6.3.4. Consistency between GES, Initial Assessment and targets

Consistency level among the three relevant articles of the Directive was rather low because a stronger link between the baselines stated within the initial assessments and the targets to achieve GES was not made. In most cases, either the current state or the GES were not appropriately covered so the logical link was missing or appeared to be vague. Other Member States have set their targets in an imprecise way, preventing better coherence between countries.

6.3.5. Conclusions

The overall level of adequacy for Descriptor 3 of the Member States assessed is given in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Summary of the assessments of adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 3 on commercial fish and shellfish. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.

The overall level of coherence for Descriptor 3 per marine region is given in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Summary of the assessments of coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 3 on commercial fish and shellfish. The bars indicate whether the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence within each region.

To improve adequacy and coherence, the general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor 3, further scientific advice should be sought and developed at EU level so as to provide clear guidelines on a stock-by-stock basis and better indicators for this proposed criterion 3.3 as well as development of further fisheries management plans considering mixed fisheries, prey-predator relationships, etc. Agreement is needed for each (sub-)region as to which species fall within this descriptor. Furthermore, MS should take full account of the information available through the Common Fisheries Policy since annual scientific assessments of commercial stocks are available in all areas, in the context of agreements on fishing opportunities (Total allowable catches - TACs and quotas and effort levels). In addition, MS should systematically develop GES and targets concerning coastal species and shellfish, effects of fishing activities on other ecosystem components, and the reduction of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing. Moreover, Member States should better coordinate their work on GES and target-setting through the regional organisations (e.g. by collaboration between Regional Sea Conventions and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations) and use the scientific advice from international organisations such as ICES more systematically. If necessary, the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to introduce clarifications and minimum requirements which would then be brought into line with the recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy[23].

6.4. Food webs (Descriptor 4)

Food webs are networks of feeding interactions between consuming species and their food (i.e. predators and prey). This descriptor addresses functional aspects of marine ecosystems, especially the rates of energy transfer within the ecosystem and the levels of productivity in each of its key components (often termed trophic levels). The topic of food webs is a complex one which encompasses the entire range of living organisms in each ecosystem, ranging from tiny microbes and plankton (as primary producers) up to top predators such as birds, mammals and fish. Whilst the proper functioning of marine food webs is an essential feature of a healthy ecosystem, the techniques for measuring and assessing their status are very poorly developed.

The assessment of food webs has close links to the assessment at ecosystem level of Descriptor 1, as it encompasses functional aspects to complement the more structural aspects addressed in Descriptor 1.

Perhaps the most important pressure on food webs is from fishing, either through over-fishing or the selective extraction of larger individuals of fish. This can impact the normal predator-prey balances in food webs and sometimes lead to dramatic effects when particular species are removed from the food chain. In addition, climate change can alter primary productivity or lead to changes in species distribution with consequent effects on food webs. Extensive alteration to the sea-floor (through physical disturbance or deoxygenation), the introduction of invasive non-indigenous species and pollution by chemical substances can also lead to marked changes in ecosystem structure. Due to this range of threats, Descriptor 4 has links to the pressure-related descriptors, particularly Descriptors 2, 5 and 8.

According to Annex I of the Directive, GES for Descriptor 4 is achieved when "all elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity”.

6.4.1. GES definition (Art. 9)

All Member States who have reported have defined GES for Descriptor 4, with the exception of BG, CY, LV and RO. The definitions provided applied to their entire marine waters; only ES provided minor differences between its sub-regions.

The GES definitions were formulated at descriptor level by most Member States (except DK, IT, LT). Twelve Member States provided additional detail at criterion level (BE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, SE, SI), often with a close relationship to Commission Decision 2010/477/EU criteria, although not always every Decision criterion was used. Four of these Member States (EE, FR, IT, SE) provided additional detail at indicator level. One Member State (NL) reproduced the definition in Annex I verbatim. One Member State (DE) coupled its definition with that for Descriptors 1 and 6 but has very little direct relevance to Descriptor 4. One Member State (PT) provided a definition at a high, general, level. Another (UK) qualified its definition at descriptor level by referring to its targets under Article 10, where additional specification was provided. Finally, one Member State (LT) defined GES for Descriptor 4 only at indicator level, not covering all indicators and criteria of the Commission Decision.

The definitions varied enormously in their content and level of detail. Most were qualitative and many were rather vague, lacking definitions of key terms used or specificity as to which elements of food-webs were addressed.

Some Member States (BE, EL, ES, FR, FI, NL, PT, SE) have defined GES in such a way as to cover all food-web components indiscriminately (i.e. from plankton to higher trophic levels), whether because the GES definition is very general (NL, PT) or because it includes a general statement which addresses all food webs in a holistic manner (BE, EL, ES, FR, FI, SE).

Most Member States have referred to specific food web components in their GES definition, sometimes in addition to defining it for all food web components. In the Baltic region, most Member States have put an emphasis on fish communities. Most Member States (BE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, SE, UK) refer to ‘key’ species or functional groups and/or to top predators or species at the top of the food web.

Few Member States included in their GES definition specific species (DK, SE) or habitats (IT) as indicators of change. Indicator species include the harbour porpoise and the harbour seal and indicator habitats include Posidonia meadows. Only three Member States (EL, ES, UK) have included a reference to the pressures on food web components, in particular fisheries.

In summary, two Member States (FR, SE) were judged to have an adequate definition of GES. Six Member States (BE, DK, EL, FI, IE, UK[24]) were found to have a partially adequate definition whilst eight were found to be inadequate (DE, EE, ES, IT, LT, NL, PT, SI). BG, CY, LV and RO have not defined GES for this descriptor.

Due to the very wide variance in approaches, the level of coherence within each of the regional seas was considered to be low.

6.4.2. Initial assessment (Art. 8)

The initial assessments for this Descriptor were considered together with Descriptor 1 under 'ecosystems' (see section 6.1.2).

6.4.3. Environmental targets (Art. 10)

Most Member States, with the exception of BG, CY, IE, LV, PT, RO, have defined environmental targets and associated indicators for all their marine waters, with most not distinguishing between sub-regions. France was an exception, having separate targets for its Atlantic sub-regions and Mediterranean region. A number of Member States provided targets which jointly addressed Descriptors 1 and 4 (SE) or, more commonly, Descriptors 1, 4 and 6 (BE, DE, ES, FRMED, LT, NL, UK). In these latter cases, the targets were typically grouped against the main biodiversity species or habitats groups (i.e. under ecosystems in relation to Descriptor 4).

The number of targets varied greatly, between one (EL, FRATLANTIC, IT, LT) and 37 (UK), the latter due largely to having combined targets with Descriptors 1 and 6.

All Member States with targets have set state-based targets; many of these would be better considered as expressions of GES. In some cases (e.g. NL, UK), the lack of detail expressed in their definition of GES was compensated by provision of a detailed set of state-based targets. These state targets typically addressed specific ecosystem components or even individual species which were considered as representative of certain trophic groups (e.g. top-predators). Several Member States have specifically addressed the full range of main ecosystem components (e.g. FI, UK). Some Member States provided more holistic ecosystem targets (e.g. EE, FRATLANTIC, IT, LT, NL), but these were typically rather general and more expressions of GES.

In addition, specific pressure- and impact-based targets have been reported, again directed towards particular ecosystem components. They most frequently addressed seabed damage and accidental killing of species (e.g. through fishing by-catch and ship collisions). Some Member States (DE, ES, FRMED) provided measure-based targets and two MS (ES, SI) added knowledge-based targets.

The level of detail given for the targets varies greatly from one Member State to another; the targets have generally not been assessed as fully SMART, often because they are not measurable or lack specification.

In summary, bearing in mind those Member States that have presented combined targets for several descriptors, one Member State was judged to have adequate targets for Descriptor 4 (UK). Eight Member States (BE, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FRMED, NL) were found to be partially adequate, while six were found to be inadequate (EL, FRATLANTIC , IT, LT, SE, SI). Six Member States (BG, CY, IE, LV, PT, RO) have not defined targets for Descriptor 4.

The level of coherence in the environmental targets and associated indicators within each region was judged to be low except for the Baltic sea region where it is found moderate.

6.4.4. Consistency between GES, initial assessment and targets

Considering the complexity and general lack of knowledge on this descriptor, there was a reasonable level of consistency between GES, initial assessments and targets in the MS reports. However the general lack of accepted assessment techniques meant that in many cases, assessments of the current status of food webs were addressed in a mainly qualitative manner or not at all. Very few MS used their determinations of GES under Article 9 to assess current status under Article 8.

There was generally greater consistency between GES and targets, with targets defined in a complementary manner and often providing specific detail to the more generalised texts of the GES definitions. In relation to Article 8, however, the targets often lack specific links to particular pressures and impacts which may in part be due to imprecise or inadequate assessments of current status. Gaps in knowledge and data formed part of the problem and it was encouraging that most Member States acknowledged this. However, most did not adequately outline how they plan to address these gaps.

6.4.5. Conclusions

The overall level of adequacy for Descriptor 4 of the Member States assessed is given in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Summary of the assessments of adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 4 on food webs. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.

The overall level of coherence for Descriptor 4 per marine region is given in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Summary of the assessments of coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor 4 on food webs. The bars indicate whether the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence within each region.

To improve adequacy and coherence, the general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor 4, further scientific and methodological developments should take place at EU and regional level to improve the possibilities for setting GES and targets. Such developments should also consider a more holistic setting of GES, through integrating Descriptor 4 with other descriptors particularly Descriptors 1 and 6. It should focus on assessments across the range of biodiversity components, at appropriate ecological scales, rather than on individual components as these are addressed under Descriptors 1 and 6. If necessary, this approach should be introduced in the the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU and minimum requirements should be set.

6.5. Eutrophication (Descriptor 5)

The main cause of human-induced (anthropogenic) eutrophication is nutrient enrichment. This can have a severe negative effect on marine ecosystems and is, therefore, a key threat to achieving GES in some parts of EU marine waters. The main nutrients concerned are nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) which are naturally present in our seas, but additional and excessive inputs of N and P come from drained inland diffuse and point sources, such as agriculture and waste water and, to a lesser extent, from precipitation caused by ammonia emissions, mainly from agriculture but also from industry.

The assessment of eutrophication starts with a description of the levels of nutrients present in the marine environment (assessment of state), and then by addressing separately nutrient enrichment (input loads) and its (direct and indirect) impacts.

According to Annex I of the Directive, GES for Descriptor 5 is achieved when "human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae bloom and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters".

6.5.1. Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)

All Member States defined GES for Descriptor 5 and most (except CY, LT, NL, PT) covered all three criteria of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU in their GES specifications in a clear way. Only one Member State (CY) made no reference to these criteria. However, with the exception of one MS (EL), none of the definitions could be considered adequate. The main deficiencies relate to incomplete coverage of indicators, a lack of specifity and threshold or reference values, a lack of clarity on links with the Water Framework Directive and a lack of clarity on the relationship between Good Ecological Status (GEcS) under the WFD and GES under the MSFD GES.

There was a large degree of variation in the approach to establishing indicators. Only one Member State (FR) clearly covered all the indicators, although most Member States covered most of them. Nutrient ratios and silicate concentrations were the indicators most often excluded, while nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations, together with water transparency were covered by the majority of Member States.

Two Member States (ES, FR) stated that GES can be achieved even if nutrient levels are higher than thresholds values, provided there are no direct or indirect impacts, but this was not the predominant view.

Most Member States referred to the appropriate normative definitions of good ecological status (GEcS) classifications of the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) for coastal waters but the relationship between the MSFD GES and the WFD GEcS was not always clear (e.g. for CY, DK, EL, FI), and some Member States did not or only partially referred to the WFD definition. Some Member States were specific about using WFD thresholds for good/high status to define MSFD GES in coastal water bodies.

References to assessment methods under Regional Sea Conventions were made by most Member States either in their GES definition or in the accompanying text. For the Baltic Sea region, reference was made to the HELCOM eutrophication assessment tool (HEAT) all Baltic Member States except DK and LT. For the North East Atlantic region, nearly all Member States made reference to the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure. Certain Member States have defined GES in terms of achieving OSPAR's 'eutrophication non-problem' status (DE, IE, UK) and most countries appear to have adopted the OSPAR nutrient baseline/threshold levels, at least for offshore waters (exceptions include DK, NL and PT). For the Mediterranean region, only one Member State (ES) mentioned explicitly the MEDPOL approach, while the OSPAR approach appears to have been followed by two Member States (FR, IT). Romania and Bulgaria did not refer to the Black Sea Convention, since the Convention has not developed a regional assessm