·More than 80 non-indigenous species correspond to invasive alien species. Their impacts may be scored and mapped, their impacts are obvious in coastal areas but not offshore. The total area of Europe’s marine and coastal ecosystems impacted by invasive alien species is 7%. However, this is most likely an underestimation due to the knowledge gaps regarding their actual distribution and impacts.

·New refined baseline inventories of non-indigenous species per Member State show discrepancies with the initial assessments reported under the MSFD. Italy, France, Spain and Greece had the largest numbers of non-indigenous species back in 2011 (more than 150 species each). These baselines provide an improved basis for reporting new introductions and for establishing of monitoring systems.

·Some non-indigenous species already introduced have significantly expanded their distribution range in some areas. However, it is difficult to assess the proportion of marine species and habitats that have been adversely affected.

·The vast majority of the European marine non-indigenous species have their native distribution in the Western and Central Indo Pacific. However, there are various patterns of the dominating native distributions of the introduced species in Europe, depending on the European marine subregions where they have been initially introduced.

·The main pathways for introductions of alien species in Europe´s seas seem to be shipping (49%) and marine and inland corridors (33 %).

·There are over 1200 marine non-indigenous species in Europe’s seas. The cumulative number of non-indigenous species is still increasing, since they are still introduced into Europe’s seas. However, the rate of new introductions seems to be decelerating.

·The implementation of current global and EU legislative instruments and policies, such as the MSFD, the Invasive Alien Species Regulation, and the Ballast Water Management Convention, should be monitored in terms of their efficiency in decreasing the risk of new introductions of alien species.

·Measures would need to better address the main pathways of introduction in order to minimise new introductions, and would, thus, differ from region to region. In terms of preventing the impacts from such introductions, measures would need to focus on increasing the resilience of Europe’s seas ecosystems and minimising the conditions that can promote non-indigenous species to become invasive. Such conditions include the existence of ‘empty niches’ in the food web because of the reductions of certain native species resulting from human activities, such as the loss of top predators caused by fisheries, or climate change impacts reflected in an increased sea surface temperature.

·There is a need to investigate the impacts of non-indigenous species on the native communities, ecosystems and the services they provide.

·As already recommended in previous Commission reports under the MSFD, joint monitoring approaches spanning whole EU marine regions could close knowledge gaps in terms of new introductions of non-indigenous species.

The cumulative impact of invasive alien species in the European seas is maximum in a restricted coastal area. The total area of Europe’s marine and coastal ecosystems invaded by invasive alien species is 8%. Out of this, the total area impacted by invasive alien is slightly lower, at 7%, which corresponds to approximately 421 231 km2 (ETC/ICM, 2019b). However, these numbers should be considered with caution in the absence of related information regarding the impact of numerous marine non-indigenous species and due to the knowledge gaps on the species distribution, especially when it comes to the offshore areas.

Introductions of non-indigenous species are widely perceived as one of the main threats to biological diversity. Of particular importance are the invasive alien species, namely those non-indigenous species that, once established, spread rapidly and impact the native biological diversity in various ways. Their impacts can range from reduced genetic variation, eroded gene pools, through to altered habitats and ecosystems functioning, to the extinction of endemic species (Katsanevakis et al., 2014). Some examples of marine invasive alien species include the alien comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Black and Caspian seas (Dumont et al., 2004) and the Lessepsian fish Siganus luridus in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea (Azzurro et al., 2016) ( Figure 15 ).

In a recent work led by the Joint Research Centre, refined baseline inventories of non-indigenous species were set per Member State in the context of the MSFD Descriptor 2 (Tsiamis et al., 2019). The inventories were based on the initial assessment of the MSFD of 2012 and the updated data of the European Alien Species Information Network (EASIN), in collaboration with experts appointed by the Member States. The analysis revealed that a large number of non-indigenous species was omitted from the initial assessments. Moreover, several species initially listed are currently considered as native in Europe or were proven to be historical misreporting. The refined baseline inventories constitute a milestone for the MSFD Descriptor 2 implementation, providing an improved basis for reporting new introductions of non-indigenous species by the Member States ( Figure 14 ). In addition, the inventories can help Member States in the establishment of monitoring systems of targeted species, and foster cooperation on monitoring alien species across or within shared marine subregions.

According to an ICES evaluation of the period 2012-2017, at the national level, the number of non-indigenous species introduced via human activity has been reduced to zero in the marine waters of Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and United Kingdom (ICES, 2018a). However, this could be related to the insufficiency of monitoring programmes; thus, these data should be considered with caution.

When considering the four EU marine regions altogether as well as each individual region, there is a decreasing trend of new introductions observed during the last decade ( Figure 13 ), and this is most significant in the Black Sea, Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas. However, the abrupt increase in monitoring efforts during the 1990s and 2000s could have given an inflated increased peak for newly introduced species during that period, resulting in the subsequent “decreasing trend” observed during the 2010s.

The number of newly introduced non-indigenous species shows both temporal and spatial variation when looking across Europe’s seas since the early fifties. Available data show that around 1 223 non-indigenous species are present in the Europe’s seas, of which almost 81% (1 039) were recorded in the period 1949-2017 (EEA, 2019c).

The vast majority of the European marine non-indigenous species originate in the Western and Central Indo Pacific, being mostly associated with introductions into the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal (Tsiamis et al., 2018). However, a more detailed analysis reveals various patterns of the dominating native distributions introduced in Europe, depending on the European marine subregions where they have been initially introduced ( Figure 12 ).

The main pathways for introductions of marine non-indigenous species in Europe´s seas ( Figure 11 ) are shipping (49%) and marine and inland corridors (33 %, notably the Suez Canal). However, the contribution of these two pathways is widely different across the EU marine regions. Shipping contribution ranges from 45% in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea to approximately 82 % in the Black Sea. Among the marine alien species transferred by shipping, most species have been possibly transferred in ballast water (346 species), while the introduction of 287 species is tentatively attributed to boat hull fouling (EEA, 2019b). Marine and inland corridors are main pathways of introductions in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea (>46% of all marine introductions are via the Suez Canal) and in the Baltic Sea (15 % via inland canals). Additionally, important pathways of introduction are the unintentional movement of live organisms (11%) (i.e. by aquaculture activities), and escapes from aquaria and aquaculture (5%). Aquaculture (directly related to oyster culture) is responsible for more than 30% of marine introductions in the North-east Atlantic (Celtic, Iberian, Icelandic and North seas) (EEA, 2019b). Intentional releases in nature account for around 2%.

Increased trade and tourism and the related maritime transport as well as the development of aquaculture and fisheries have provided pathways for the introduction and spread of marine alien species across Europe’s seas. In addition, many non-indigenous species already introduced in the marine waters of a country have significantly expanded their distribution range (ETC/ICM, 2019b). Full eradication is no longer a suitable solution for management once an alien species has established a viable population, although controlling species population might be achieved, for instance capturing the species and commercialising them as seafood. There is a wide international consensus that pathways-based preventive management is of absolute priority in effectively combating marine alien species (Ojaveer et al., 2018).

A large proportion of assessments of the criteria about the number of newly introduced non-indigenous species (D2C1) and the adverse effects of those species on other ecosystem components (D2C3) are reported in ‘not good’ status. The majority of asse The abundance and distribution of established non-indigenous species (D2C2) is mostly ‘not assessed’ or used for other criterion/element.

A number of assessments have been reported on the established non-indigenous species, where in almost 40% have either achieved GES or will achieve it by 2020. 3 assessments have been reported as ‘not relevant’, therefore not concluding on the status of those species.

The analysis of newly introduced non-indigenous species conclude that GES has been achieved only in 6 assessments (around 25% of the cases), while other 6 assessments have concluded that it will be achieved by 2020. More than 50% of the results have been reported as ‘GES expected to be achieved later than 2020 and where no Article 14 exception has been reported’.

Non-indigenous, or alien, species refers to any live specimen of a species, subspecies or lower taxon of animals, plants, algae, fungi or micro-organisms introduced outside its natural range. It includes any part (e.g. gametes, seeds, eggs or propagules) of such species as well as any hybrids, varieties or breeds that might survive and subsequently reproduce (modified from the EU Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species).

Proportion of the species group or spatial extent of the broad habitat type which is adversely altered due to non-indigenous species, particularly invasive non-indigenous species.

Abundance and spatial distribution of established non-indigenous species, particularly of invasive species, contributing significantly to adverse effects on particular species groups or broad habitat types.

The number of non-indigenous marine species which are newly introduced into a given EU marine region via human activities is minimised and, where possible, reduced to zero.

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

·We can therefore conclude that biodiversity loss was not halted in Europe’s seas during the first MSFD cycle. Overall, marine life is still under threat across Europe’s seas with multiple pressures affecting individual species and habitats. Of particular concern are the hotspots of biodiversity, places where endemism is high and/or rare species are present in significant numbers. These tend to be in areas already under significant human pressure or where the monitoring or management measures are still being developed such as the Mediterranean Sea or Macaronesia.

·Despite these examples, halting marine biodiversity loss remains a challenge. Some marine populations and groups of species are still at threat, including some seal populations (e.g. monk seals, harbour seals and ringed seals), some seabirds, commercially exploited fish in Mediterranean and Black seas, reptiles, sharks and rays, and killer whales.

·There are relatively few cases with unambiguous improvements in trends of populations, species or groups of species. These include commercially exploited fish in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea, grey seals in general, harbour seals in the Kattegat, monk seal in the Mediterranean, white-tailed eagle in Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean bluefin tuna. These positive effects are normally the result of joint efforts that managed to reduce selected pressures in the regional seas during the last one or two decades.

oCephalopods and reptiles are too poorly monitored (e.g. 33% of the reports on marine turtles under the Habitats Directive were in unfavourable conservation status and 67% unknown).

oElasmobranchs comprise most of the classified threatened species (both in continental and regional Red Lists), although most of them are very poorly monitored. For example, in the Mediterranean Sea 40% of sharks, skates and rays are facing a declining population trend.

oAssessments for marine birds in the Baltic Sea and the North-east Atlantic show a diverse assessment status. Over 20% in seabird populations have declined in the last 25 years for more than a quarter of the species assessed in the North-east Atlantic. In the Baltic Sea, 31% of breeding water bird populations have declined, while in general surface and pelagic feeders have a good status. The level of harmonisation in the assessments’ methods among regions should improve.

oMarine mammals, being the top mobile predator, are exposed to multiple pressures across their distributional range and not well monitored. Existing measures have contributed to stable or increasing abundance for some species of seals (e.g. some populations of grey and harbour seals in the Baltic Sea and in the North Sea) and joint regional programmes have been launched recently. The population status and trends of cetaceans are mostly unknow or, with the only possible exception of the North-east Atlantic Ocean, in slight decline.

·Assessment of the status is inadequate for most assessed species and habitats. Still, the available information point to the following conclusions:

·Thanks to the MSFD, progress has been made on understanding biodiversity elements and the relative intensity of human pressures. This knowledge aims at underpinning management measures and policy objectives.

Some contrasting conclusions coming from different assessments of species and habitats must be due to the use of different threshold values and classification criteria. The harmonisation of the methods and criteria to set threshold values for the status assessment of species and habitats under the MSFD will greatly facilitate the management and policy decision-making process.

Europe’s biological ocean observation capability needs to be more integrated (across different countries and purposes), harmonised and strengthened. Support is needed in taxonomic expertise and in the use of new emerging technologies, data science and management. Supporting technological innovation can bring cost-effective automated monitoring of biological variables; and supporting ‘citizen science’ can improve observation capacity, increase public confidence in science and the public’s emotional connectedness with the marine environment (from EMB, 2018).

The MSFD, Habitats Directive and other scientific assessment and monitoring programmes have helped understanding the ranges, distribution and condition of individual ecosystem components. Still, many habitats and species groups are not systematically monitored and high mobile species are not well covered. Also, the understanding of how whole ecosystems functions is still very low. This means that it is not always possible to clearly state if trends are indicative of improving or worsening levels of human pressure, as changes in other biological components may also be an influential factor.

In the case of elasmobranchs, catches of sharks in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea have declined at least for the larger species as a result of increased fishing pressure especially since the 1960’s (FAO, 2012). Similar findings were found in the North Sea (Sguotti et al., 2016) where two species, common skate and angelshark became locally extirpated. However, changes in overall distribution, particularly of smaller non-commercial elasmobranch species, could also be linked to climate change and habitat degradation as well as fishing pressure (Sguotti et al., 2016). The HELCOM Red List assessment found the common skate (Dipturus batis) to be already regionally extinct in the Baltic Sea.

Overall, the abundance of marine bird species in the OSPAR area seems to have decreased during the last 15 years. See also Table 5 .

With the only possible exception of the North-east Atlantic Ocean, there are very few examples of an improving situation for cetaceans in European waters. The percentage of unknown trends is very high.

Several seal populations in Europe start showing positive trends, although their evolution is still unmonitored or endangered in many cases.

There are not consistent metrics of trends to evaluate marine biodiversity as a whole, but the following tables and figures show some examples of specific regional-scale studies.

In the OSPAR region, local and large-scale changes in phytoplankton biomass and zooplankton abundance were observed from 1958 to 2002. Since 2004, plankton communities experienced significant changes in relative abundance, indicating alterations to key aspects of ecosystem functioning. The inference is that those changes are linked to prevailing environmental conditions such as climate change, nutrient enrichment or other factors (OSPAR, 2017e).

Using indicators for phytoplankton and zooplankton, HELCOM reported good status for pelagic habitats is achieved in the Kattegat, but not in any other open sea sub-basin during 2011-2016. 20% of the coastal areas achieve good integrated status.

At present, knowledge on sea turtle abundance and demography is patchy at best for each component and that effort needs to be placed on filling existing gaps in order to predict with any certainty the future viability of sea turtle populations in the Mediterranean (UNEP-MAP, 2018)

Overall, the conservation status of marine reptiles was unknown in 67% of the reports, with 33% in unfavourable status. However, for the marine Mediterranean region, 60% of the reports were unfavourable, compared to 40% unknown (EEA, 2013a) ( Figure 7 ).

The Habitats Directive Annex IV includes the following species: Caretta caretta, Chelonia mydas, Dermochelys coriacea, Eretmochelys imbricate, Lepidochelys kempii. However, only the two first species are assessed in the Mediterranean and the North-east Atlantic. There are no data or established populations for the other species.

In the North-east Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, both OSPAR and the Barcelona Convention list the loggerhead and leatherback turtles as threatened and/or declining species (OSPAR, 2019a; UNEP-MAP, 2018). Marine turtles are very rare visitors in the Black Sea, while they have not been observed in the Baltic Sea. The Mediterranean poses the highest average threats to marine turtles out of all global ocean basins (Wallace et al., 2011).

HELCOM’s Red List assessment also included two shark species (porbeagle and spurdog) that have suffered dramatic reduction in populations.

OSPAR has included 11 chondrichthyan species on the OSPAR list of Threatened and Declining species, covering species at most risk (OSPAR, 2019a). Long-term trend assessment indicated population decline particularly in larger species (spurdog and common skate) where commercial fisheries existed (Sguotti et al., 2016). Catches has been highly variable and declining until 2010.

In the Mediterranean Sea, sharks, skates and rays are particularly threatened with almost 40% of species facing a declining population trend (FAO, 2012; Nieto et al., 2015). The increased extinction risk of many of these species can be linked fishing practices in the Mediterranean Sea, where their status has worsened (Cavanagh and Gibson, 2007; Nieto et al., 2015).

Sharks, rays and skates cover two thirds (56 species) of all the threatened species. Many of these chondrichthyans are poorly known and of the 204 Data Deficient species many were benthic sharks.

Cartilaginous fish (sharks, skates and rays) is less fished in Europe than in previous times, but by-catch is still a significant problem, both for demersal and pelagic species (European Commission, 2016).

Around 85% of the analysed stocks in the Mediterranean and the Black sea have been overfished. The situation is particularly alarming for demersal fish that experience higher mortality rates than the target. For example, hake, a charismatic and economically important species in the Mediterranean, shows the highest fishing mortality with a rate that is on average 5 times higher than the target and reaches up to 12 times higher for some stocks. On the other hand, small pelagic fish show moderate fishing mortality rates close to the target or even below the target for some specific species. Data expressed through Spawning Stock Biomass indicates that up to 42% of the stocks assessed in the Mediterranean show a low biomass (UNEP-MAP, 2018).

HELCOM has two indicators for the species that can be allocated under Descriptor 1: (1) abundance of key coastal fish species, and (2) abundance of coastal fish key functional groups (HELCOM, 2018a). For the first indicator, good status is achieved in 13 out of the 21 coastal HELCOM assessment units that were assessed. Generally, good status is more often reached in the Northern and Eastern parts of the Baltic Sea where perch is the key species, while in the Western and Southern areas, where flounder is the key species, the status is more often not good. For the second indicator, good status is achieved in 13 coastal HELCOM assessment units out of the 16 that were evaluated for piscivores, and in 7 of the 16 evaluated assessment units for cyprinids/mesopredators.

The OSPAR assessment showed that there has been an improvement in the proportion of large demersal fish at least in the Greater North Sea, leading to recovery by 2022 but only if current trends continue (OSPAR, 2017d). More sensitive demersal species have shown a recovery in the Celtic Seas at least and typical lengths are increasing, suggesting higher proportion of mature individuals since 2010 in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas. The pelagic fish assemblage shows no long-term change in much of the OSPAR maritime area (OSPAR, 2017d).

Among the bony fish, only <3 % of the species are classified threatened, but with the uncertainties related to the smaller species this share may theoretically extend up to 23 % if all data deficient species were threatened.

85 fish species (7 % of the total of European marine fish species) and 11 of the endemic species are either Threatened or Near Threatened under the IUCN Red List classification.

There are over 1200 fish species in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea (Nieto et al., 2015), which includes both commercial and non-marketable species. 15% of these are endemic to the region. The areas with the highest diversity of fish species are the coast of Portugal, the archipelagos in Macaronesia and the western Mediterranean Sea which are also the areas with the highest number of threatened species (Nieto et al., 2015; EEA, 2019a). While fish populations appear to be recovering in the North-east Atlantic Ocean, populations in the Black and Mediterranean seas are under continuing downward pressures. This conclusion refers to commercial fish species and to fisheries subjected to several management measures, especially in the North-east Atlantic.

Status of birds from the Mediterranean Sea is unclear with most of the data coming from North-western areas. Trends in the critically endangered Balearic shearwater suggest marked declines (UNEP-MAP, 2018) primarily from predation by introduced land carnivores and from fisheries by-catch (IUCN and BirdLife International, 2014). Of the 16 bird species regarded as Endangered or Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List assessment, all are marine species (IUCN and BirdLife International, 2014).

A similar pattern of decline is suggested in the Baltic Sea where open sea species are considered to have strongly declining trends, though the formal assessment covered primarily coastal-dwelling species. Here, 31% of waterbirds in the breeding season have declined, compared to 18% of over-wintering species. The pattern of status for feeding groups differs in the HELCOM assessment from the OSPAR region, as in the Baltic Sea, surface and pelagic feeders have a good status (HELCOM, 2018a).

Since the mid-2000s, the breeding abundance of more than a quarter of the marine bird species which breed in the OSPAR Maritime Area has been below the 1992 baseline, indicating that the populations are not healthy ( Figure 8 ) (OSPAR, 2017c). A similar pattern was found in the non-breeding abundance of species that visit the Arctic Waters and Celtic Seas during migration and/or during winter. In contrast, non-breeding populations in the Greater North Sea are doing much better, and with 75% or more of species meeting assessment values in every year since 1993 are considered healthy (OSPAR, 2017c). Within the breeding birds, populations of water column feeders (e.g. gannets) were healthier than those in feeding at the surface, indicating changes in availability of small surface dwelling fish. This was also reflected in widespread breeding failure in surface-feeding species (OSPAR, 2017c).

Birds associated with marine habitats in Europe have a relatively high proportion of threatened species (20%), which reflect the prevalence of human pressures such as habitat disturbance, bycatch and pollution, but also predation at colony sites often by invasive species (IUCN and BirdLife International, 2014) This is the case for the Critically Endangered Balearic Shearwater.

There are around 150-200 species of birds in Europe that, at some point in their annual life cycle, are reliant on coastal and/or offshore marine areas (IUCN and BirdLife International, 2014). These include waders and waterbirds, such as ducks, geese, swans, divers and grebes; as well as birds that are usually referred to as seabirds: petrels, shearwaters, gannets, cormorants, skuas, gulls, terns and auks. The assessments below were based on monitoring data from breeding populations and/or non-breeding populations during migration or over the winter, depending on the species, primarily for the OSPAR and HELCOM areas. Similar long-term trend data within the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions are rare.

In the Mediterranean Sea, there is some evidence of declining numbers of fin whales and common dolphins (UNEP-MAP, 2018). Fin whale abundance in the Western Mediterranean was estimated as 3,500 in the mid-1990s (Forcada, 2011), but more recent estimates in 2017 suggested 460 individuals. The first estimate, however, includes individuals entering the Mediterranean from the Atlantic Ocean, while the second estimate refers only to the Mediterranean residents.

A particular concern is the local population of harbour porpoise in the Baltic Proper, with a population size recently estimated at around 500 animals (HELCOM, 2018a).

An assessment of killer whales, another top predator in the North-east Atlantic Ocean, could only be performed as a pilot exercise due to lack of data. However, the potential impacts from accumulation of pollutants were noted as these could have led to a reduction in numbers due to reproductive failure (OSPAR, 2017b). Recent scientific studies of populations of killer whales show adverse effects of PCB on their reproduction, threatening >50% of the global population. This may cause the disappearance of killer whales from the most contaminated areas within 50 years despite PCB having been banned for 30 years. These waters include areas around the UK and around the Strait of Gibraltar (Desforges et al., 2018).

In the OSPAR region, there is no evidence of changes in abundance for white-beaked dolphin, minke whale and harbour porpoise since 1994 (OSPAR, 2017a). There is insufficient evidence for other species except for some coastal bottlenose dolphin populations which have remained low but stable.

In the 2013 reporting of the Habitats Directive for cetaceans in Annexes I, III and IV, the status was generally reported as ‘unknown’ (73% at European level, with 18% ‘unfavourable’ and 9% ‘favourable’). These proportions differed in the Black Sea (67% ‘unfavourable’, 3 cetaceans) and the Baltic Sea (100% ‘unfavourable’, 1 species Phocoena phocoena).

Of the 20 cetacean species present in European waters (excluding those with marginal occurrences), 60% were assessed as data deficient. 3 species were regarded as threatened (Atlantic right whale, Sei whale and Blue whale) while 2 species, harbour porpoises and sperm whales, were regarded as Near Threatened (Temple and Terry, 2007).

The distribution of monk seal in the Mediterranean remains stable or expanding though it is still endangered and systematic monitoring is needed to assess overall status (UNEP-MAP, 2018)

In the Baltic Sea, grey seal populations are increasing but their nutritional and reproductive states are not good. Harbour seals are only in a good state in one sub-region and the state of the ringed seal population is critical with less than 100 animals (HELCOM, 2018a).

In the non-Arctic OSPAR region grey seal populations are generally stable or increasing in most assessed areas although some harbour seal populations are declining (OSPAR, 2017a).

Only the monk seal populations in the Mediterranean and Macaronesia regions were reported in 2013 under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive where four member states reported unfavourable status, and one reported the status as unknown (EEA, 2013a).

While the Habitats Directive includes seven seals in its Annexes, three of them are vagrant in the EU waters and only four can be assessed: grey seal, Mediterranean monk seal, ringed seal and common or harbour seal.

In Red List assessments of status and trends in European seal populations, most species are of Least Concern, except for the Mediterranean monk seal (Temple and Terry, 2007). Still, many trends are unknown (see Table 10 ).

The abundance and condition of marine mammals, as top predators, can help indicate whether a marine ecosystem is in a good state or not. Seals and cetaceans (whales and dolphins) are assessed separately because they have different life histories and ecological requirements. Seals are also much easier to study and count because they come onto land to rest and to breed. Cetaceans range widely across Europe’s seas, and are therefore more difficult to monitor and there are generally not enough long synoptic time series to accurately assess the status of their populations. During the first MSFD cycle, the Regional Sea Conventions have greatly aligned their assessment methodologies with the MSFD requirements. In many cases, the Regional Sea Conventions play a leading role in the development and implementation of harmonised methods to assess the status of species and habitats. On the contrary, the IUCN criteria are not well aligned with the MSFD criteria, as they have been developed to determine the extinction risk of species, rather than their population status. Table 3 summarises all available assessments.

The general EU picture is worrying, with many knowledge gaps and an overall status that ranges from bad to moderate.

The information presented in this section aims to shed light on the MSFD criteria and to contribute to the overall goal of Descriptor 1, i.e. to know whether species groups and habitat types are reaching a ‘good environmental status’. The status categories used here (see Table 2 ) however do not refer to any established MSFD methodology, given the Directive only speaks of good environmental status. In the absence of most MSFD reporting under the second implementation cycle, the main sources of information are the quality status reports from the Regional Seas Conventions, additional knowledge from Red List assessments about special or threatened species and habitats, and information from the previous reporting of the Habitats Directive (i.e. the 2007-2012 period) ( Table 2 ). Most of this information comes from ETC/ICM (2019a).

The pelagic habitats do not seem to be in good shape. The habitat condition (D1C6) has only achieved the ‘good’ status in 14 cases, while 64 assessments have been reported as ‘not good’.

GES is achieved in very few cases for the pelagic habitats (only 6 assessments), and is expected to be achieved by 2020 in very few cases as well. Most Member States have not reported exceptions under Article 14 when GES is expected to be achieved later than 2020. A significant number of assessments have been reported as ‘not assessed’ or ‘not relevant’. The status of benthic habitats (although also linked to Descriptor 1) will be discussed under Descriptor 6.

To date, there has been almost no reports on cephalopods and reptiles. Hence, the corresponding figures have not been added to the present summary.

The majority of criteria assessments have been reported as ‘not assessed’, except for population abundance (D1C2), which has been assessed in almost 30% of the cases. For the abundance, 53 assessments have been reported as in ‘good’ status, while 62 conclude that the status of this criterion is ‘not good’. In the case of the demographic characteristics (D1C3) and the habitats condition for the species (D1C5), only one assessment has been reported as ‘good’. For the by-catch (D1C1) and the population distribution (D1C4) only 3 and 8 assessments respectively have been reported as ‘good’.

The reports show that Member States expect to achieve GES by 2020 in some cases. Member States have not reported exceptions under Article 14 when GES is expected to be achieved later than 2020.

Except one report that was done for all fish, the rest of the assessments have been reported per species groups. GES is achieved in very few cases for coastal fish (in 2 assessments) and pelagic shelf fish (in 1 assessment), and no cases of GES achieved have been reported for demersal shelf fish nor for deep-sea fish (where only 1 assessment has been reported and is ‘unknown’). It is worth noting that for coastal fish a significant number of assessments have been reported as ‘not relevant’, and a lot of cases in all the species groups have been reported as ‘not assessed’ or as ‘unknown’.

The most frequently assessed criteria are the population abundance (D1C2) and the demographic characteristics (D1C3). In the first case, the status has been reported as ‘good’ in 230 assessments, and as ‘not good’ in 180 assessments. In the second case, there are 59 cases reported as ‘not assessed’, and 37 assessments resulting in ‘not good’, 33 in ‘good’ and 17 in ‘good, based on low risk’.

For the criterion on by-catch (D1C1), 16 assessments conclude that the status is ‘good, based on low risk’, while 68 cases have been reported as ‘not assessed’. Similarly, both the population distribution (D1C4) and the habitats condition for the species (D1C5) have been reported as ‘not assessed’ or ‘unknown’ at a great extent.

On the other hand, the benthic-feeding birds and the wading birds seem not to be in good shape (in both cases there are only 2 assessments where GES is achieved). However, the reports show for these groups that Member States expect to achieve GES by 2020 at a great extent. Member States have not reported exceptions under Article 14 when GES is expected to be achieved later than 2020.

Except one report that has been done for all birds, the rest of the assessments have been reported per species groups. The status of the species groups is very diverse, the best one being the grazing birds (where almost 60% of assessments achieved GES), followed by the pelagic-feeding birds (where almost 50% of cases achieved GES) and the surface-feeding birds (around 30%).

Most of the criteria of Descriptor 1 for mammals have been assessed and reported. For the population abundance (D1C2), the population distribution (D1C4) and the habitats condition for the species (D1C5), they have achieved the ‘good’ status in 30 , 41 and 13 assessments respectively, although also a big number of assessments result in the criteria being ‘not good’ (25, 19 and 18 respectively). On the other hand, only 5 assessments on by-catch (D1C1) and 4 assessments on the demographic characteristics (D1C3) have been reported as ‘good’ while 5 and 23 respectively are ‘not good’.

Most of the assessments of marine mammals refer to seals and small toothed cetaceans. For seals, GES is achieved only in 3 assessments, but 15 assessments report that GES will be achieved by 2020. However, the situation of the small toothed cetaceans is more concerning. None of the reported assessments has resulted in an achievement of the GES, and, in almost 70% of the cases, GES will be achieved only later than 2020 without any exception having been reported under Article 14. In the case of baleen whales and deep-diving toothed cetaceans, in 3 out of the 4 assessments that have been reported for each group, GES will be achieved only later than 2020 without any exception having been reported under Article 14.

The condition of the habitat type, including its biotic and abiotic structure and its functions is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures

The habitat for the species has the necessary extent and condition to support the different stages in the life history of the species

The species distributional range and, where relevant, pattern is in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions

The population demographic characteristics of the species are indicative of a natural population which is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures

The population abundance of the species is not adversely affected due to anthropogenic pressures, such that its long-term viability is ensured

The mortality rate per species from incidental by-catch is below levels which threaten the species

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

This Staff Working Document presents evidences or proxies of the status of EU marine ecosystems and the pressures acting on them through the 11 MSFD descriptors. The criteria are briefly introduced for each descriptor, allowing for a comparison between those used for the 2010 (reviewed and repealed by the following) and 2017 Commission Decision, respectively. This is followed by an overview of the (still incomplete) update of the status of marine waters by Member States, a scientific assessment of the available information (on status and/or pressures), an analysis of trends and impacts (if feasible), technical observations (regarding methodologies or knowledge gaps), and key messages (conclusions). Although understanding the consequences of cumulative impacts is intrinsic to the MSFD, the lack of systematic information prevents this review to tackle this important issue yet.

Given the lack of MSFD-reported information that could give a broad (geographical and temporal) overview of the status of the EU marine environment, this Staff Working Document complements the official data reported by Member States with assessments coming from a variety of non-MSFD sources, such as the most recent quality status reports coming from the Regional Sea Conventions or independent studies. The European Environmental Agency and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre compiled the available information about the European marine regions and framed it to feed this report. Over time, MSFD-reported information is expected to be readily available and increasingly delivered according to defined methods and standards.

By October 2018, Member States had to update their initial assessments (as well as their determinations of good environmental status and their targets), as required by Article 17 of the MSFD. By October 2019, one year after the deadline, only 14 Member States had reported in paper format, of which only 10 had reported through the agreed electronic sheets. The aggregated information coming from those 10 electronic reports is shown at the beginning of each chapter of this Staff Working Document. Table 1 shows the legend code used to illustrate the status assessments. For more updated information, see the online dashboards on the WISE-Marine website.

The first assessment of EU marine waters was reported by Member States in 2012-13 under Article 8(1). Decision 2010/477/EU provided for methodological standards and criteria for determining good environmental status. From that first reporting, it was not possible to build a coherent marine knowledge base across Europe due to, among other reasons, inconsistency on indicators reported per criterion, high heterogeneity of methodological approaches, inconsistencies and gaps in the reported information, and lack of data or adequate time-series to assess all MSFD criteria. The number of unknown or not assessed areas largely outnumbered the assessed ones (Figures 1 and 2). To improve that situation, the Commission adopted in 2017 the new Decision 2017/848/EU, repealing the abovementioned 2010 Decision, setting out a detailed framework of criteria and methodological standards as well as methodologies for monitoring and assessment. Member States are required to work at regional or EU wide level to set threshold values to determine the extent to which good environmental status is achieved across the various descriptors of the Directive.

The first cycle of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) – with its holistic and integrative approach, large implementation area and knowledge requirements – demonstrated to be challenging. The first ‘marine strategies’ developed by Member States are just finalised and the evidence base to evaluate their effectiveness is still scarce.

Descriptor 11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment

Descriptor 10: Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment

Descriptor 9: Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Union legislation or other relevant standards

3.Impacts: Effects of contaminants on the health of species and the condition of habitats

Descriptor 6: Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected

Descriptor 5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters

Descriptor 4: 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

Descriptor 3: 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

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

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

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

Review of the status of the marine environment in the European Union Towards clean, healthy and productive oceans and seas

·There is a lack of consistent approaches to assess the state of food webs across European seas. There are many instances where assessments are incomplete, thus associated with high uncertainty, or are simply impossible due to lack of suitable data.

·The productivity of some trophic guilds is impacted, although the exact reasons are unclear.

·There are also signs of changes in the size structure/distribution of species or communities (indicative of a trophic level) due to anthropogenic pressures, e.g., phytoplankton in the Baltic Sea and zooplankton (copepods) species in parts of the North-east Atlantic Ocean.

·Yet, few examples of recovery for key species or groups of species are observed in EU marine regions. This might be the direct response to on-going measures to manage the human activities, such as fisheries, contaminants or nutrients.

·There are examples of communities and possible entire trophic guilds that do not occur at the proper abundance to retain their full productive capacity, as observed for many commercial fish and shellfish stocks in the Mediterranean and Black seas, which are below their sustainable levels due to overfishing.

·While the overall state of marine food webs across all European seas cannot be fully assessed, there are many examples of trophic guilds showing deteriorating trends over time, being affected by anthropogenic pressures. This especially concerns the reductions in abundance of several top predators, such as birds, sharks and marine mammals.

·Harmonised monitoring programmes are required to generate proper assessments for trophic levels (and marine regions), to support potential management measures. These programmes should in turn be used to strengthen assessment baselines and targets for existing indicators. ICES (2015) and Tam et al. (2017) provide a wide performance analysis for potential indicators that better fit to the requirements of Descriptor 4. Such indicators could then be linked to human activities and their pressures. Long-term data series and cross-regional cooperation will further facilitate improved and consistent assessments.

·Theoretical and empirical models may help to identify potential impacts and elucidate key properties that should be monitored, thereby promoting the development of more effective and comprehensive operational food web indicators. The complementary use of empirical and modelling approaches to derive population, community and ecosystem indicators is key to the development operational food web indicators for ecosystem-based management in the marine environment.

·Size-based approaches may be inappropriate for assessing processes in benthic communities, since both size dependent (e.g. predation) and size independent interactions (e.g. consumption of amorphous detritus) can co-occur, suggesting that the energy available to species of a particular size is not solely derived from smaller species in the food web.

·Some of the best data available come from commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks for which extensive monitoring programmes exist and from zooplankton communities through the Continuous Plankton Recorder, although this is the case only for the Atlantic Ocean. Other aspects of the food-web appear to be under-sampled in comparison. Satellite remote sensing of ocean colour (chlorophyll-a content and productive fronts) appears to be, in the last two decades, a synoptic source of data for monitoring changes of plankton (phyto- and zoo-) distribution at community level after effect of climate variability and eutrophication, disentangling the impact of fishing on food-web productivity.

In conclusion, multiple anthropogenic pressures are affecting: 1) the species or communities’ diversity within a trophic guild; 2) the balance of the total abundance of species or species groups between trophic guilds; 3) the distribution of individual species within a trophic guild; and 4) primary production. The lack of wide scale assessments for Descriptor 4 and the delay in viewing the response of existing measures (e.g. fisheries management) will hamper achieving GES for Descriptor 4. Harmonized monitoring programmes and methods for the assessment of the D4 criteria are required to generate informative assessments at relevant geographical scales for trophic guilds.

These type of biomass indicators in association with trophic levels indices have been also used to assess and overview the health status of several North and South European marine ecosystems ( Figure 27 , Coll et al., 2016). A combined analysis of predatory fish, total biomass and the distribution of trophic levels, showed an overall degradation of food webs and ecosystems in most of the European sub-basins ( Figure 27 ).

Other food web indicators used to assess the health status of European seas refer to those based on abundance and biomass of selected functional groups and/or species that can inform on the structural/functional properties of food webs. In the Mediterranean Sea, for example, these indicators have highlighted that fishing pressure and changes in environmental conditions caused the decline of forage fish (European sardine and anchovies) and demersal fish (European hake, Mullidae) biomasses and consequently the increase in invertebrates groups (crustaceans, benthos) (Piroddi et al., 2017). Sharks, rays and skates biomass, on the other hand, declined in the Western and Adriatic Sea but not in the Ionian and Eastern sub-areas. Overall, this analysis revealed the Mediterranean Sea to be a degraded ecosystem that has lost 41% of its top predators (e.g. marine mammals) and 34% of the total fish population over the past 50 years.

Several food web indicators have been also used to assess Black Sea ecosystems and their regime shift. In particular, the keystone index evidenced a top-down control system, dominated by dolphins, in the 1960-1969 period and a bottom-up control system between 1988-1994 dominated by jellyfish (Mnemiopsis) ( Figure 26 ). One other interesting outcome of the keystone analysis was the lack of recovery of dolphins, even though the dolphin fishery was banned after 1966 in the USSR, Bulgaria, Romania and 1983 in Turkey. This was supported by the study of energy transfer efficiency between trophic levels (Akoglu et al., 2014) that highlighted intensive eutrophication, which did not propagate up the food web because of the interference of the gelatinous population. As shown in Figure 26 , in 1988–1994, Mnemiopsis was the second most significant keystone species after the zooplankton group.

Casini et al. (2009) showed quantitative evidence of a shift in the functioning of the central Baltic Sea ecosystem during the last 3 decades. In particular, until the end of 1980, the system had a cod-dominated configuration, characterised by low sprat abundance and a marked independence between zooplankton and sprat variations. From the beginning of 1990, the system shifted to a sprat-dominated configuration, characterised by low cod biomass and zooplankton strongly controlled by sprat predation ( Figure 25 ). In the latter configuration, the sprat control on zooplankton biomass was substantially higher compared to the whole period investigated, suggesting a shift in the strength of sprat predation pressure on zooplankton. In the cod-dominated configuration, on the other hand, sprat and zooplankton were clearly uncoupled likely because sprat abundance was not high enough to regulate the zooplankton resource.

In the Baltic Sea, fish body condition and weight-at-age of sprat and young herring correlate positively with copepod abundance/biomass. Consequently, indicators based on biomass of zooplankton and zooplankton/phytoplankton ratios have been used to assess environmentally driven changes in the food web, and the possible impact of eutrophication (HELCOM, 2012). The underlying principle of the zooplankton/phytoplankton ratio is that higher grazing efficiency implies fewer losses in the food web, less energy and nutrients passing through the microbial loop, and, consequently, more energy transferred to the higher trophic levels such as fish.

Long-term changes in zooplankton composition, observed in the North-east Atlantic Ocean through the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey, have been used to assess shifts in ecosystem function and dynamics. In particular, the copepod community of the Celtic and the Greater North Seas over 1960s to 2000s changed from a cold-water species Calanus finmarchicus to a warm water species Calanus helgolandicus. C. finmarchicus has a higher energy content than C. helgolandicus, and is considered to be a key element for the larval survival of some commercial fish species (EEA, 2015; 2019a). In fact, this shift in copepod community composition has been observed impacting the growth, recruitment and survival of other trophic levels such as seabirds (Wanless et al., 2005) and fish (Beaugrand et al., 2008). Since the 1970, there has also been a northward shift in fish species in the same area. Despite the observed warming of the surface ocean, the overall productivity level from oceanic features continues to sustain mesozooplankton and appears to be stable in the North Atlantic although with regional disparities (Druon et al., 2019).

Another indicator, primary production of phytoplankton from the OSPAR pilot assessment, showed site-specific changes, but it was not possible to arrive at OSPAR-wide conclusions. For example, in the North Sea and Skagerrak, long-term primary production decreased from the mid-1980s to 2013, although the reasons for such a reduction have not been identified. In other areas, like Liverpool Bay, no long-term trend in the primary production of phytoplankton was identified (OSPAR, 2017e).

This indicator has been widely used to assess demersal stocks impacted by fisheries in the North and Celtic seas. In fact, in the North Sea, LFI showed a continuous declined until 2001 followed by a recovery in 2008. Yet, analyses of longer-term groundfish survey data suggest that, even reducing fishing pressure to early 20th century levels, LFI would unlikely rise to initial conditions ( Figure 24 a). In the Celtic Sea, the decline in LFI was consistent throughout the survey period (19 years) reflecting high exploitation rates ( Figure 24 b).

Among these indicators, size-based indicators have been widely used to demonstrate the effects of fishing on fish community structure, and the Large Fish Indicator (LFI), in particular, has been specifically developed to support the OSPAR ecosystem approach to marine management (Greenstreet et al., 2011; Shephard et al., 2013). The LFI describes the proportion of fish biomass contributed by large individuals in the demersal fish community and is defined as the ratio between the biomass of demersal fish above a length threshold over the total fish biomass.

Different trends in marine ecosystems, mostly degrading but with some positive trends

Different multiannual trends, mostly degrading with some positive trends in the North sea

The various examples of food web indicators come from national assessments or models. They show as major trends either (1) signs of long-term impact on a range of biodiversity features pointing towards a deteriorating state of food webs, or (2) food web recovery, which can be attributed to the implementation of key EU and other policies.

Due to the complexity to analyse the state of marine food webs and, in most cases, the lack of data/knowledge of cause-effect relationships in Europe’s seas, this section aims at showing few examples of food web degradation or recovery through the use of food web indicators, rather than a comprehensive assessment (Tam et al., 2017) that reflect all pressure-state relations within food webs.

Also, while an ecosystem-based approach is increasingly used in fisheries management to study ecosystem responses to fishing pressure and to assure sustainable use of resources, similar holistic approaches to evaluate the combined influences of other anthropogenic stressors on food webs has received less attention to date.

Despite these difficulties, different approaches are currently used to investigate food web properties. For example, whilst data-based approaches are applied to reveal natural processes, modelling techniques are used to provide a more integrative image of the structure, functioning and dynamics of systems under different environmental and human pressures (Schewe et al., 2019, Liquete et al., 2016). Unfortunately, the application of food web models to derive indicators and assess ecosystem status, in general, is often constrained by the extensive data requirements needed to perform the analysis (Piroddi et al., 2015).

The relationships between food webs and anthropogenic pressures, though, are highly complex and mostly indirect. In fact, given the complexity of marine food webs and the numerous interactions between marine ecosystems and human activities, it is difficult to clearly link visible signs of degradation of trophic guilds with specific anthropogenic causes (ICES, 2015).

Regime shifts are particularly undesirable notably because they may be very costly or impossible to reverse and often have considerable impacts on the economy and society (Biggs et al., 2009). This is because they affect the flow of marine ecosystem services and associated benefits to people (Rocha et al., 2014). Nevertheless, even without such extremes, existing food web impacts have already economic and management implications such as for fisheries management and viability. For example, the relatively small pelagic fish (e.g. sprat, anchovy and horse mackerel) have increased in recent decades in the Greater North Sea due to seawater warming as a result of climate change; whereas the larger species cod and plaice have decreased at their southern distribution limit (Perry, 2005). This change may have important socio‑economic consequences as the stocks moving out tend to have a higher value than the stocks moving in (EEA, 2019a). Other implications of such distributional changes include the greater distances that must be travelled by fishing boats to reach certain target species increasing fuel cost and time at sea (Rijnsdorp et al., 2010).

Human activities cause direct, indirect, diffuse and emergent changes in food webs (Layman et al., 2005). Overexploitation, pollution, eutrophication, habitat destruction, species invasions and climate change, all pose potential threats to the structure and dynamics of food webs, acting at variable spatial scales and affecting food webs in different ways (Moloney et al., 2010). Nutrient enrichment, for example, can drive bottom-up effects propagating up food webs from lower trophic levels (Davis et al., 2010), whereas the removal of top-predators (e.g. overfishing) can initiate top-down cascade effects through to basal trophic levels (Cury et al., 2003). All these changes can lead to abrupt, large and long-lasting reorganisations of the food web. These reorganisations, often referred to as ecological regime shifts, can bring forward undesirable effects on both the wider marine ecosystem and people (EEA, 2015).

Food chains describe biological communities in terms of their predator-prey relationships and are often referred to in terms of their structure (e.g. diversity, trophic levels), dynamics (e.g. robustness, resilience) and function (e.g. physicochemical and biological processes) (Rooney and McCann, 2012). Food chains are pathways that transfer energy and matter between feeding levels or trophic levels (i.e. guilds) and their natural interconnections form complex networks called food webs.

Descriptor 4 of the MSFD represents one of the most complex and unknown aspects of marine ecosystems. There are still very few assessments and reports under the Directive, and they are hardly comparable. The Regional Sea Conventions are also struggling with making assessments of food webs.

The criteria on trophic guild species diversity (D4C1), trophic guild size distribution (D4C3) and trophic guild productivity (D4C4) have a similar distribution. A few assessments result in ‘good’ status (or ‘good, based on low risk’), a larger number of assessments are in ‘not good’ status, and more than half of the assessments do not reach any conclusion.

The most reported criterion on the assessment of the status of food webs is the abundance across trophic guilds (D4C2), for which 14 assessments result in ‘good’, 10 in ‘not good’, and 10 and 12 have been reported as ‘not assessed’ or ‘unknown’ respectively.

Under Descriptor 4, there is only available information for coastal and shelf ecosystems. For the coastal ecosystems, GES is achieved in 1 case, and 3 assessments conclude that GES will be achieved later than 2020 and where no Article 14 exception has been reported. In more than 60% of the cases, the coastal ecosystem are ‘not assessed’. For the shelf ecosystems, 2 assessments conclude that GES will be achieved later than 2020 and where no Article 14 exception has been reported, while the rest of assessments (almost 90%) are either ‘not assessed’ or ‘unknown’.

Is the balance of total abundance between the trophic guilds adversely affected by anthropogenic pressures?

Descriptor 4: 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

The figures indicate that further concerted efforts are required to achieve the 2020 objective of having healthy commercial fish and shellfish populations. Success will depend on the availability and quality of information and the commitment to implement the scientific advice and adequate uptake of management measures. Many stocks remain overfished and/or outside safe biological limits and it is clear that efforts by all actors will need to be intensified to meet CFP and MSFD objectives, considering in particular that 2020 is the first year when all stocks with an Fmsy assessment should be managed at Fmsy.

In contrast, in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea the situation remains worrying with 87% of the assessed stocks overfished (based on the analysis of half of the total commercial fish/shellfish stocks in the area) and insufficient information about reproductive capacity to estimate safe biological limits. Both the trends in fishing mortality and the biomass trend in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas show no statistically significant change since 2003.

Although further improvements are still necessary, the trend analysis shows important signs of improvement in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea. Since the early 2000s, better management measures have contributed to a decrease in fishing pressure on commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks in these two regional seas, and signs of recovery in their reproductive capacity have started to appear. Currently, 41% of the assessed fish and shellfish stocks in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea regions are within safe biological limits; although the assessed stocks cover around one third of the total commercial fish/shellfish stocks in the area. The spawning stock biomass has increased in these areas and it is now 36% higher than in 2003 and the number of assessed stocks inside safe biological limits has almost doubled from 2003 to 2017. If management and implementation efforts are sustained, fishing pressure and reproductive capacity should continue to improve in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea, although the progress is not enough to meet the relevant common fisheries policy objectives yet.

It is urgent to improve data collection and perform regular and more stock assessments in particular in the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and Macaronesia. It is particularly important to develop and implement management arrangements for bringing the operation of fishing fleets in line with MSY parameters.

Since 2010, an increasing proportion of EU Total Allowable Catches have been set in line with MSY advice, climbing from 6% in 2005 to 71% in 2018 and 79% in 2020. Still, strong management decisions and transparent decision-making processes continue to be required if Total Allowable Catches are to be brought fully in line with scientific advice.

Similarly to the Fmsy trend, the biomass trend in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas shows no statistically significant change since 2003. The average biomass has slightly increased in the last 2 years, which has been driven by the increase in spawning stock biomass in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The ecoregions exhibit a large variation in trends and in number of stocks, which makes it difficult to make any assertions ( Figure 22 ).

The spawning stock biomass has slightly increased since 2003. The biggest relative increase is observed in the stocks of the Bay of Biscay and the North-east Atlantic Ocean. The trend over the recent years is upwards in most ecoregions. Trends in recruitment have started to increase after a decline (compared to 2003) that lasted from 2003 until 2014 in some areas. An exception to the average trend is the Celtic Sea region, which has seen no consistent decline in that period ( Figure 21 ).

Trends in spawning stock biomass with respect to the spawning stock biomass in 2003, fitted using a generalised linear model. This indicator corresponds to indicator 3.8 of the Common Fisheries Policy report (Annex 1, STECF, 2019). A value greater than 1 (B > B2003) means that spawning stock biomass is above the 2003 levels indicating that the reproductive capacity of stocks is improving.

Despite recent improvements in the North-east Atlantic Ocean region, Nimmo and Cappell (2017) considered that a major step change was required to reduce both the proportion of Total Allowable Catches set above scientific recommendations and the number of Total Allowable Catches set without scientific recommendations, since this contravenes opportunities for earlier stock recovery.

Although only the trend analysis since 2003 is consistent in methods and the suite of assessed stocks, longer-term indicators have been estimated for the period 1947-2017. Such indicators show that fishing mortality in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea increased over time from approximately sustainable levels (F = 1) in the 1950s to a maximum of more than twice the sustainable level, reached in the late 1990s. This was followed by a constant decline towards sustainable levels, and reached F<FMSY in 2017. Some of these trends may have been caused by newly assessed stocks being introduced into the analysis. As not all stocks are assessed every year, spurious trends can be introduced by chance in years when more heavily-fished stocks or more lightly-fished stocks may be chosen for assessment.

The fishing mortality in the Mediterranean and Black Sea has remained virtually unchanged since 2003. It remains extremely high, indicating that most selected stocks are severely overfished. In recent years, a small decrease in average fishing mortality is encouraging, but not enough to fulfil the Common Fisheries Policy requirement to fish at Fmsy levels by 2020. Regional trends mirror the overall trend with the exception of the Eastern Mediterranean, where a severe drop in fishing mortality has been observed. This drop can be explained in part through the low number of stocks in this region used by this analysis and its persistence into the future cannot be taken for granted ( Figure 20 ).

In the Atlantic waters (covering the MSFD North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea regions), the average fishing mortality has decreased since 2003 towards the Fmsy reference point. All Atlantic sub-regions (or ‘ecoregions’ as referred to in the Common Fisheries Policy) mirror this trend with the exception of the Baltic Sea where the average fishing mortality has slightly increased over the past few years. The other ecoregions have an average fishing mortality that is below or very close to the average Fmsy ( Figure 19 ). In order fulfil the Common Fisheries Policy requirements completely, the management-by- Fmsy-coverage of the stocks needs to increase to all stocks.

Trends in F with respect to the Fmsy reference point corresponds to indicator 3.7 of the Common Fisheries Policy report (Annex 1 of STECF, 2019). A value greater than 1 (F > Fmsy) indicates exploitation exceeds the level that would produce the maximum yield, and is likely less sustainable in the long term.

As a reflection of data availability and quality, Figure 18 shows commercial European fish landings by MSFD regions in 2017 (EEA, 2019d). Within this figure, fish landings are divided into three categories, namely (1) landings for assessed stocks for which adequate information is available to determine fishing pressure and reproductive capacity (covering MSFD criteria D3C1 and D3C2), (2) landings for assessed stocks for which insufficient information is available to determine one of those criteria, and (3) landings for assessed stocks for which information on both criteria is insufficient to determine GES. While the information base continues to improve, knowledge gaps remain. For the EU waters, about a third of the landings (34%) are from stocks for which their status could be assessed against at least one GES criterion. However, there are distinct regional differences. Figure 18 shows that an assessment of status is only possible for 6.5% of total landings from the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, compared with 36% of those from the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea. Therefore, the EU still faces the need to assess more stocks to obtain better information to inform GES assessments specially for many of the smaller and less commercially stocks which often lack information upon which to base an assessment of GES.

Currently, 41% of the assessed fish and shellfish stocks in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea regions are within safe biological limits. The situation is worst in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions where only 13% of the stocks considered in this analysis are not overfished and 87% are overfished. The Central Mediterranean Sea is the worst performing ecoregion in terms of percentage of overfishing. Given this context, the 2020 objective of having healthy commercial fish and shellfish populations seems unlikely to be met in all Europe´s seas and further collective action is required.

None of these assessments include the third MSFD D3 criterion on age and size structure of the populations as this cannot be assessed at present. Hence, an overall conclusion about the ‘good environmental status’ of fish/shellfish stocks cannot be reached at the moment according to the MSFD standards.

The number of stocks inside/outside biological limits ( Figure 17 ) corresponds to indicators 3.3 and 3.4 of the annual Common Fisheries Policy monitoring report (Annex 1 of STECF, 2019). The safe biological limit (SBL) is defined as the fishing mortality (F) being below the precautionary reference exploitation level (Fpa) and the spawning stock biomass being above the precautionary biomass level (Bpa). However, as data from the Mediterranean or Black Sea stocks are not enough to perform the analysis adequately (i.e. having available estimates for fishing mortality, biomass, and point for both), it was decided to use only the fishing mortality estimates and comparing them to the fishing mortality that produces the maximum sustainable yield (Fmsy) as a reference point. A similar analysis is presented in EEA (2019d).

The capture fisheries or wild fisheries in the EU are usually classified into two areas under the Common Fisheries Policy: the Atlantic waters (including the MSFD North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea regions) and the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea regions together. The present assessment is based on the same selection of stocks that are used by the Common Fisheries Policy monitoring report: stocks in the North-east Atlantic Ocean are included if they are managed by total allowable catches, whereas the advisory committee (STECF) decided on a list of stocks in for the Mediterranean area (STECF, 2019). Still, it must be noted that such analysis may cover less than half of the commercially exploited fish/shellfish stocks landed across Europe’s seas (EEA, 2019g - table 4.1). The results presented in this chapter (see the selection criteria in the next paragraph) seem to cover over one third of the commercial fish/shellfish stocks in the North-east Atlantic Ocean and Baltic Sea regions and around half of the stocks in the Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea regions (based on EEA, 2019d and STECF, 2019).

The most reported criteria for fish stocks assessments are the fishing mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2). For fishing mortality, around 35% of the assessments are reported in ‘good’ status and another 35% as ‘not good’. For spawning stock biomass, 50% of the assessments conclude that the status of the stocks is ‘good’. There are still a number of assessments without conclusion in these two criteria, but the proportion of ‘not assessed’ is much higher (over 95%) for the criterion related to the population age/size distribution (D3C3). The few reported assessment of this criterion resulted in ‘not good’.

Only in 2 of the reported assessments for commercially exploited fish and shellfish GES is achieved, while in 8 cases GES will be achieved by 2020 and in 8 it will be achieved only later than 2020 and no Article 14 exception has been reported. Almost 50% of the assessments have been reported with no conclusion.

The tools available under the Common Fisheries Policy for achieving sustainability include Total Allowable Catches, effort control and access restrictions. These measures can be packaged in multi-annual plans in order to allow some stability of the industry, whilst continuing to ensure the sustainability of the fisheries. Furthermore, the EU introduced an obligation for all catches of species subject to a catch limit to be landed, as well as all catches subject to a minimum catching size in the Mediterranean Sea. Implemented this obligation is expected to lead to a decreased fisheries pressure on juveniles, as fish previously banned from being landed now have to be landed and are counted towards the Total Allowable Catches. The vast majority of Member States reported some of these fisheries management measures as part of their MSFD programme of measures.

The EU has an exclusive competence in the area of the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (Article 3 of Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, TFEU) for capture fisheries in EU waters and for fisheries outside EU waters conducted by EU vessels. Under the MSFD, measures relating to fisheries management can be taken in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy. Under the Common Fisheries Policy, the fishing pressure on stocks concerned should be aligned as soon as possible, and by 2020 at the latest, to the objective of restoring and maintaining stocks to levels that can produce MSY. Exploiting fish stocks at or below the exploitation levels which is associated with MSY allows them to be maintained or allows them to recover to healthy levels, and providing food for consumers while contributing to important ecosystem and marine food web functions. Achieving this objective will also contribute to achieving good environmental status in European seas by 2020, as required by the MSFD, and to reducing the negative impact of fishing activities on marine ecosystems.

Descriptor 3 deals with the state of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. Commercially exploited populations applies to all marine biological resources targeted for economic profit, including the bony fish (teleosts), sharks and rays (elasmobranchs), crustaceans such as lobsters and shrimps, and molluscs (including bivalves and cephalopods). The scope of the MSFD concerning Descriptor 3 is particularly broad. It encompasses the precautionary principle, the ecosystem approach and exploitation levels that correspond to the maximum sustainable yield (MSY).

The age and size distribution of individuals in the populations of commercially-exploited species is indicative of a healthy population. This shall include a high proportion of old/large individuals and limited adverse effects of exploitation on genetic diversity.

The Spawning Stock Biomass of populations of commercially-exploited species are above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. Appropriate scientific bodies shall be consulted in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

The Fishing mortality rate of populations of commercially-exploited species is at or below levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Appropriate scientific bodies shall be consulted in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Descriptor 3: 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

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

Review of the status of the marine environment in the European Union Towards clean, healthy and productive oceans and seas

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.6.2020 SWD(2020) 61 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Review of the status of the marine environment in the European Union



Towards clean, healthy and productive oceans and seas Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) {COM(2020) 259 final} - {SWD(2020) 60 final} - {SWD(2020) 62 final}



Descriptor 5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters 1.MSFD framework COM DEC 2017/848/EU COM DEC 2010/477/EU D5 Eutrophication D5C1 Nutrient concentrations in the water column Nutrient concentrations are not at levels that indicate adverse eutrophication effects. 5.1 Nutrients level 5.1.1 Nutrient concentration D5C2 Chlorophyll-a concentration Chlorophyll a concentrations are not at levels that indicate adverse effects of nutrient enrichment. 5.2.1 Chlorophyll concentration D5C3 Harmful algal blooms The number, spatial extent and duration of harmful algal bloom events are not at levels that indicate adverse effects of nutrient enrichment. 5.2.4 Shift in floristic species composition D5C4 Photic limit The photic limit (transparency) of the water column is not reduced, due to increases in suspended algae, to a level that indicates adverse effects of nutrient enrichment. 5.2.2 Water transparency D5C5 Dissolved oxygen concentration in the bottom of the water column The concentration of dissolved oxygen is not reduced, due to nutrient enrichment, to levels that indicate adverse effects on benthic habitats (including on associated biota and mobile species) or other eutrophication effects. 5.3.2 Dissolved oxygen D5C6 Opportunistic macroalgae of benthic habitats The abundance of opportunistic macroalgae is not at levels that indicate adverse effects of nutrient enrichment. 5.2.3 Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae D5C7 Macrophyte communities of benthic habitats The species composition and relative abundance or depth distribution of macrophyte communities achieve values that indicate there is no adverse effect due to nutrient enrichment including via a decrease in water transparency. 5.3.1 Abundance of seaweeds and seagrasses D5C8 Macrofaunal communities of benthic habitats The species composition and relative abundance of macrofaunal communities, achieve values that indicate that there is no adverse effect due to nutrient and organic enrichment. 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios 5.2 Direct effects 5.3 Indirect effects The criteria elements and threshold values of all D5 criteria shall be selected in accordance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for coastal waters and consistent with those values for areas beyond coastal waters (if relevant). The adverse effects of nutrient inputs, especially nitrogen and phosphorus, and organic matter, has been a problem in Europe’s marine waters for decades. EU water legislation addresses this problem, especially in relation to reductions of inputs and the desired quality of the aquatic environment. Important EU directives in the context of eutrophication include the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (Council Directive 91/271/EEC), the Nitrates Directives (Council Directive 91/676/EEC), WFD and MSFD. Descriptor 5 focuses on minimising the adverse effects of human-induced eutrophication since it can lead to changes in the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems, which could adversely affect ecosystem health and services (Andersen et al., 2006). The MSFD addresses both pressures, which are indirectly measured by elevated concentrations of nutrients/organic matter caused by discharges, losses and deposition from human activities, and the direct and indirect effects of eutrophication. Direct effects relate to the accelerated growth of primary producers (e.g. decrease in water clarity, increased biomass of phytoplankton, harmful algal blooms and growth of opportunistic macroalgal species); whilst indirect effects relate to the consequences of such accelerated growth. These include reduced oxygen concentration in bottom waters with potential effects on benthic habitats, as well as changes in the structure (composition and relative abundance) of benthic communities (macrophytes and fauna). 2.Eutrophication and its consequences in EU marine waters 2.1.Ongoing reporting under the MSFD For eutrophication, GES is achieved only in 8 assessments (less than 5%), while in 34 reports GES will be achieved by 2020. Around 50% of the assessments conclude that GES will be achieved only later than 2020, cases where Article 14 exceptions have been reported, but still around 10% of the cases where GES will be achieved later than 2020 have been reported with no related Article 14 exceptions. All the criteria have been extensively used, especially the nutrient concentrations (D5C1), the chlorophyll a concentration (D5C2), the photic limit (D5C4), the dissolved oxygen concentration (D5C5) and the macrofaunal communities of benthic habitats (D5C8). The criterion that has resulted in the highest proportion of assessments in ‘good’ status is the dissolved oxygen (more than 60%), followed by the benthic macrofauna (more than 30%), the macrophytes communities (D5C7) and the opportunistic macroalgae (D5C6). On the other hand, the criterion that has the smallest proportion of assessments in ‘good’ status (around 10%) is the harmful algal blooms (D5C3), followed by the photic limit, the chlorophyll a concentration, and the nutrient concentrations. The proportion of assessment in ‘not good’ status is significantly high in all the criteria. 2.2.Member States’ assessments under the MSFD A recent questionnaire run among the Member States’ network of experts on Descriptor 5 allowed anticipating the content of the ongoing reporting under MSFD Art.17 for most Member States, thus enlarging the data availability and detail with respect to the previous section. The analysis of that questionnaire (Araújo et al., 2019) shows that most of the criteria are assessed by the majority of Member States, both for coastal waters and open sea. The exceptions are D5C3 (harmful algal blooms in the water column) that was assessed only by 50% of the Member States for open sea and less than 50% for coastal waters; and D5C6 and D5C7 (macroalgae from benthic habitats) that were mainly assessed in coastal waters because benthic macroalgae are not commonly found in open sea. Primary criteria (D5C1-nutrients in the water column, D5C2-Chlorophyl-a and D5C5-Dissolved oxygen) are assessed by most of the Member States ( Figure 29 ). Although Member States are assessing most of the eutrophication criteria, the degree of harmonization of methodological approaches is very low for some criteria such as Chlorophyl a, harmful algal blooms or dissolved oxygen ( Figure 30 providing an example for open sea of the number of regions using different methods detailed per eutrophication criteria). The reasons for this heterogeneity and the implications for the quality of the assessment framework at the EU level need still to be explored.

2.3.Assessment of coastal waters under the Water Framework Directive The WFD River Basin Management Plans include an assessment of the status of surface waters, among which there are coastal waters. Some biological quality elements (e.g. phyplankton) and chemical and physico-chemical ones (e.g. nutrients, oxygenation, transparency) reflect eutrophication. Based on the analysis of the second River Basin Management Plans, phytoplankton assessment methods used by Member States include several parameters; where most Member States used phytoplankton biomass (total biomass and chlorophyll a), 10 Member States used abundance/frequency and intensity of algal blooms, and 4 Member States used the taxonomic composition of phytoplankton (Höglander et al., 2013). Threshold values, as needed to judge distance to good ecological status, were difficult to define especially in the areas with high variability of salinity (transitional waters as well in coastal waters under seasonal high influence of freshwater input). According to WFD reporting, the proportion of coastal waters’ area in less than good status in relation to phytoplankton conditions is 27%. The Black Sea is the marine region with the highest proportion of coastal waters in less than good status in relation to phytoplankton conditions (85%), followed by Baltic Sea (76%). The MSFD and all Regional Sea Conventions have considered phytoplankton (e.g. phytoplankton biomass, community composition, abundance, frequency and intensity of blooms) as a key element for integrated assessments. Still, Chlorophyll a remains the most widely used indicator mostly thanks to its time saving, cost-effective and reproducible analytical methods that provide easily comparable datasets (Varkitzi et al., 2018). Nutrient conditions are also assessed under WFD. Almost half (46%) of coastal waters were not assessed for nutrients conditions. The proportion of coastal waters bodies (by area) in less than good status in relation to nutrient conditions is 20% ( Figure 31 ). The Baltic Sea is the marine region with the highest proportion of CW in less than good status (58%), followed by Black Sea (29%). There are more knowledge or reporting gaps on the WFD quality elements dealing with oxygenation (60% of unknown coastal area) and transparency conditions (70% of unknown coastal area). 2.4.Other assessments The EEA (EEA, 2019e) just published an integrated pan-European eutrophication assessment based on existing monitoring data, agreed assessment criteria, and the application of HEAT+, which is a multi-metric indicator-based tool. The assessment outcomes are summarized below ( Figure 32 ). Of the 2949 assessment units (grid cells) across Europe’s seas, 1749 (59 %) are classified as ‘non-problem areas’ and 1200 (41 %) as ‘problem areas’. Overall, offshore ‘problem areas’ are only found in the Baltic Sea, in the south-eastern parts of the North Sea, and in some western parts of the Black Sea. In the Mediterranean Sea, problem areas are identified locally in coastal areas, mainly in the vicinity of riverine outflows. The major challenges for this kind of assessment is the availability of long time series and bring together local data at large scale. Based on the work underpinning this assessment, a single study looking at the past, present and future eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea based on modelled data has now been produced (see Murray et al., 2019). Baltic Sea recovery from eutrophication has already started but the ultimate effects in terms of achieving good status will only be seen many years from now (HELCOM, 2018b; Murray et al. 2019). The Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea lack good quality data, so the confidence of the assessment of eutrophication in those areas is low. There is also a need to increase the harmonization of approaches across regions. 3.Observed trends in eutrophication From the compilation of data to develop the assessment described above (EEA, 2019e), the following trends can be inferred: ·Over 1990 to 2017, no significant trends in nutrient concentrations were detected for most (74%) monitoring stations (with sufficient data) across EU marine regions; increasing trends were observed in 7% of monitoring stations and decreasing trends (i.e. an improvement in status) in 18% of monitoring stations. ·Over 2013-2017, no overall trend in oxygen concentrations was detected in the 88% of monitoring stations across EU marine regions (stable); increasing trends (i.e. an improvement in state) in only 1% of sites and decreasing trends in 10% of sites.

·The largest observed oxygen depletion occurs in the Baltic Sea followed by the Black Sea. Over 1990-2017, 11% of the monitoring stations in the Baltic Sea showed a decrease in oxygen concentrations in the water layer near the seafloor; where reduced oxygen concentrations were also observed at some monitoring stations in the coastal waters of the Black Sea. 4.Technical observations ·Data/information issues include poor data availability for the Mediterranean and Black seas as well as lack of availability of long time series covering multiple decades across all EU marine regions. ·Multi-metric indicator-based eutrophication assessment tools are currently not used on a Europe-wide scale and regionally it is only used by HELCOM. Some Regional Sea Conventions lack harmonized frameworks to assess eutrophication. ·Climate change forecasts should be integrated in future updates of European nutrient management strategies. This is to account for seawater warming, which would make it more difficult to reduce eutrophication. 5.Key messages ·Eutrophication occurs mainly in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, in the southern parts of the North Sea and along the North-western coast of France within the North-east Atlantic Ocean. Eutrophication is still present along coastal areas mainly in vicinity of riverine outflows within the Mediterranean Sea. ·Eutrophication remains an issue in the coastal waters all most EU marine regions. WFD ecological status assessments show that 46% of the coastal water area of Europe’s seas are in less than good ecological status in terms of eutrophication. However, some countries have registered a decreasing trend on the extent of affected areas. ·The Baltic Sea is the marine region with the highest proportion of coastal waters in less than good nutrients conditions (58%), while the Black Sea is the region with the highest proportion of coastal waters in less than good phytoplankton conditions (85%). ·MSFD primary criteria (nutrients, chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen) are assessed for the majority of Member States both for coastal and open sea waters. Methods for assessment are harmonized for most of the criteria (primary and secondary) except for Chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen to which a high degree of variation occurs. An assessment of the need for EU level harmonization of monitoring methods for these criteria should be done in the future. ·Threshold setting methods are defined for most of the Member States and assessed criteria. ·High level of harmonization at national and regional level occurs for some regions (e.g. Baltic countries) but is less evident in some other regions. ·The results from measures to reduce nutrient inputs to transitional, coastal and marine waters and, thereby, lessen their adverse effects (i.e. eutrophication) are starting to be seen – even if there can be a time lag in terms of actual, or full, reductions of these effects. Nutrient inputs from point sources have significantly decreased; although inputs from diffuse sources, i.e. losses from agricultural activities, are still too high.



Descriptor 6: Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected 1.MSFD framework COM DEC 2017/848/EU COM DEC 2010/477/EU D6 Sea-floor integrity / D1 Biodiversity - benthic habitats D6C1 Physical loss of the seabed Spatial extent and distribution of physical loss (permanent change) of the natural seabed. 6.1 Physical damage D6C2 Physical disturbance to the seabed Spatial extent and distribution of physical disturbance pressures on the seabed. 6.1 Physical damage D6C3 Adverse effects from physical disturbance Spatial extent of each habitat type which is adversely affected, through change in its biotic and abiotic structure and its functions (e.g. through changes in species composition and their relative abundance, absence of particularly sensitive or fragile species or species providing a key function, size structure of species), by physical disturbance. 6.1.2 Extent of seabed affected D6C4 Benthic habitat extent The extent of loss of the habitat type, resulting from anthropogenic pressures, does not exceed a specified proportion of the natural extent of the habitat type in the assessment area. 1.5 Habitat extent 1.5.1 Habitat area 6.1.1 Biogenic substrata D6C5 Benthic habitat condition The extent of adverse effects from anthropogenic pressures on the condition of the habitat type, including alteration to its biotic and abiotic structure and its functions does not exceed a specified proportion of the natural extent of the habitat type in the assessment area. 1.6 Habitat condition 1.6.1 Condition typical species 1.6.2 Relative abundance 1.6.3 Habitat condition 6.2 Condition of benthic community 6.2.1 Presence of sensitive species 6.2.2 Benthic multi-metric indexes 6.2.3 Size of individuals 6.2.4 Size spectrum of benthic community 1.4 Habitat distribution 1.4.1 Distributional range 1.4.2 Distributional pattern 1.5.2 Habitat volume 2.Observed integrity of the sea-floor in EU marine waters 2.1.Ongoing reporting under the MSFD

This section collects all the information related to the seabed, normally split between Descriptors 1 and 6. GES is achieved in few cases for the status of benthic habitats (only 5 assessments on benthic broad habitats and 1 assessment on other benthic habitats), and is expected to be achieved by 2020 in very few cases as well. Most Member States have not reported exceptions under Article 14 when GES is expected to be achieved later than 2020. Regarding the overall status of seafloor integrity, both the reported assessments on physical disturbance to the seabed and on physical loss of the seabed conclude that GES is achieved in more than 45% of the cases, while only one assessment for both features has concluded that GES will only be achieved later than 2020 and where no Article 14 has been reported. In all these cases, a significant number of assessments (sometimes more than 50%) have been reported as ‘not assessed’, ‘not relevant’ or ‘unknown’. Even if the reported overall status of both the physical disturbance to the seabed and the physical loss is very similar in the overall assessments, the reports per criteria show a higher proportion of assessments in the physical loss (D6C1) being in ‘good’ status (around 50%), while for the physical disturbance (D6C2) there is a smaller proportion of assessments reported as ‘good’ (around 35%). The physical disturbance has more reports ‘not assessed’ or ‘unknown’ than the physical loss. The most used criterion to report the status of benthic habitats is the habitat condition (D6C5), with only 10 assessments labelled as ‘good’, 38 as ‘good, based on low risk’ and 81 as ‘not good’. The adverse effects from physical disturbance (D6C3) and the habitat extent (D6C4) show 19 and 5 assessments respectively in ‘good’ status. Nevertheless, these two criteria have been reported as ‘not assessed’ or ‘unknown’ in the vast majority of the cases. 2.2.Previous MSFD reporting In the initial assessment reported during the first cycle of MSFD implementation (in 2012), most Member States recognised the problem of physical loss, although the assessments were generally not performed consistently over the EU marine regions. 23% of EU waters were reported under low level of pressure from physical loss. The level of pressure and impact was not reported for 75% of EU waters and most EU waters were not assessed with relevant criteria ( Figure 34 ). Data were particularly poor in the Mediterranean and Black Seas (ETC/ICM, 2015). The main activities causing physical loss of seabed habitats at EU level were land claim and flood defence, port construction, solid waste disposal, renewable energy production and aquaculture. Features impacted by physical loss were mainly the predominant habitats, physical/chemical elements (transparency, current velocity, nutrient and oxygen levels) and fish. Both the total area per habitat type and the proportion of the habitat area impacted were mostly unknown ( Figure 35 ) (ETC/ICM, 2015). The reporting on physical damage was highly different between Member States. Also, the proportion of area where the pressures occur and causes impacts differed considerably between regions ( Figure 34 ). The habitats mostly affected at EU level were the shallow sandy and muddy habitats, but this only reflects how often these habitats were reported. Again, both the total area per habitat type and the proportion of the habitat area impacted were mostly unknown ( Figure 35 ) (ETC/ICM, 2015). In all regions, fisheries was identified as the main human activity causing physical damage, except in the Black Sea where this was dredging (ETC/ICM, 2015). a)EU level b)Physical damage by regional seas 2.3.Other assessments 2.3.1.Status of benthic habitats The following table summarises the assessments of benthic habitats done by Regional Sea Conventions, the Habitats Directive and IUCN. It complements the biodiversity analysis under Descriptor 1 and contributes to the overall assessment of status of marine ecosystems. Negative trends or low status IUCN European seabed habitats have undergone a red list assessment where 257 benthic marine habitat types (EUNIS 4) were included: 61 in the Baltic Sea, 86 in the North-east Atlantic Ocean, 47 in the Mediterranean Sea, and 63 in the Black Sea. About one fifth of the habitats were classified as threatened and an additional 11% were Near Threatened (Gubbay et al., 2016). More than half of the habitat types were data deficient, and no classification was possible to make. The highest proportion of threatened habitats was found in the Mediterranean Sea (32%), followed by the North-east Atlantic (23%), the Black Sea (13%) and then the Baltic Sea (8%). Majority of the assessed seagr