COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annex Accompanying the document Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European Commission's assessment and guidance
Date: 2014-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, coastal protection, environmental statistics, marine ecosystem, marine environment, marine pollution, prevention of pollution, water protection













EUR-Lex - 52014SC0049 - EN











|



52014SC0049

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annex Accompanying the document Commission Report to the Council and the European Parliament The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) - The European Commission's assessment and guidance /* SWD/2014/049 final */









Table of Contents
1............ Introduction. 2
2............ The
Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Common Implementation Strategy. 3
3............ The
state of Europe's marine waters. 5
4............ Legal transposition and competent authorities. 8
4.1......... Legal transposition (Article 26) 8
4.2......... Administrative arrangements and competent authorities (Articles 6
and 7) 9
5............ Reporting
process and approach to the Article 12 assessment 10
5.1......... Reporting process. 10
5.2......... Assessment method. 11
5.3......... General remarks on the
assessment process. 12
6............ Implementation by Member States of good environment status (Article
9), initial assessment (Article 8) and environmental targets (Article 10) per
descriptor 13
6.1......... Biodiversity (Descriptor 1) 13
6.2......... Non-indigenous species
(Descriptor 2) 21
6.3......... Commercially exploited fish and shellfish (Descriptor 3) 24
6.4......... Food webs (Descriptor 4) 29
6.5......... Eutrophication (Descriptor 5) 33
6.6......... Sea-floor integrity
(Descriptor 6) 36
6.7......... Hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7) 41
6.8......... Contaminants (Descriptor 8) 45
6.9......... Contaminants in fish and other seafood (Descriptor 9) 50
6.10....... Marine litter (Descriptor 10) 54
6.11....... Energy including underwater noise (Descriptor 11) 58
7............ Socio-economic analysis. 61
8............ Regional cooperation. 63
9............ Cross cutting issues. 64
9.1......... Public consultation and status of the reports. 64
9.2......... Statutory nature of GES and targets. 64
9.3......... Delimitation of 'marine
waters' 64
9.4......... Scales for assessment 66
9.5......... Use of reference levels for GES and targets. 67
10.......... Conclusions
and way forward. 67
10.1....... Overall assessment of the
Member States and the marine regions. 68
10.2....... Good Environmental Status
(Article 9) 69
10.3....... Initial Assessment (Article
8) 71
10.4....... Environmental targets
(Article 10) 73
10.5....... Cross-cutting issues. 74
10.6....... Preparation of monitoring
programmes (Article 11) and programme of measures (Article 13) 75
10.7....... Final remarks. 77
Appendix 1: Overview of criteria used for assessing
adequacy per descriptor 79
Appendix 2: Summary findings and recommendations for
Member States. 88
Appendix 3: Summary findings for each marine region. 165
Appendix 4: Understanding of MSFD Articles 9 and 10 and
their relationship used in the methodology to assess Member States' report 173
Appendix 5. Overview of coordinating Competent
Authorities for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive  173
The first phase of implementation of
the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)
 - The European Commission's assessment and guidance
1.           Introduction
The marine environment is a precious
heritage that must be protected, conserved and, where practicable, restored
with the ultimate aim of maintaining biodiversity and providing diverse and
dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive. Maintaining
and achieving such conditions is essential to support sustainable use of the
marine environment for this and future generations. These aims were laid down
in Article 1 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD - 2008/56/EC) and
the Member States are required to develop marine strategies in accordance with
Article 5 to achieve these aims. By 15 July 2012, Member States had to prepare
the first elements of these strategies, namely the initial assessment (Article
8), the determination of good environmental status (GES - Article 9) and the
establishment of environmental targets and associated indicators (Article 10)
and to report them to the Commission by 15 October 2012[1]. Based on these
reports, the Commission had to "assess whether, in the case of each
Member State, the elements notified constitute an appropriate framework to meet
the requirements of this Directive…" (Article 12). The same Article
provided for the Commission to "consider the coherence of frameworks
within the different marine regions or subregions and across the
Community." As a result, the Commission is required to inform the Member
States whether "the elements notified are consistent with this
Directive" and to provide "guidance on any modifications it
considers necessary". This Commission Staff Working Document is part
of the Commission’s assessment in accordance with Article 12. Moreover, this
document also includes information on the transposition of the Directive
(Article 26) and on the designation of competent authorities (Article 7). Both
administrative steps had to be completed before the preparation of the marine
strategies.
This Commission Staff Working Document
(CSWD) summarises the key aspects of the results of the assessment of Member
States' information and provides an overview of the status of implementation of
the MSFD across the EU and in the different marine regions. The results are
provided per descriptor and consider their adequacy, consistency and coherence,
based on an assessment template (see Appendix 1 for the criteria used[2]). In addition,
factsheets summarise the findings of the assessment per Member State (Appendix
2) and per marine region (Appendix 3). Appendix 4 provides clarifications
on the differences of the obligations laid down in Articles 9 and 10. Finally, Appendix
5 provides an overview of competent authorities designated by the Member
States.
In addition to the Report and CSWD prepared
by the Commission Services, the Commission has published the detailed technical
assessment reports underpinning the assessment[3].
Furthermore, the Member States' reports are
being used by the European Environment Agency as an input to an update of the
"State of the Marine Environment" assessment which will reflect the
state of Europe's marine ecosystems at the start of the MSFD implementation
process ("baseline report"). Moreover, the Commission's Joint
Research Centre is reviewing the national submissions for selected descriptors
in relation to their technical and scientific basis. The results of the work of
these two organisations will be published later in 2014.
2.           The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Common
Implementation Strategy
The key objective of the MSFD is to achieve
"good environmental status" (GES) for all marine waters by 2020
(Article 1(1)). GES is laid down only in general terms in the Directive (Appendix
1) by making reference to 11 descriptors. More specific criteria are set out in
Decision 2010/477/EU[4].
In accordance with Article 9, it is ultimately for Member States to determine
the characteristics of GES and therefore define the precise specifications of
this central MSFD objective. 
The next step is particularly important
because it includes an analysis of the essential features and characteristics
of the marine waters, an assessment of the current environmental status and the
predominant pressures and impacts, together with an economic and social
analysis of the uses of the marine environment and the resulting costs of
degradation. This comprehensive initial assessment is provided for in Article 8
and specified in Appendix III. It is based on the Member States' GES
determination and provides the evidence base for all other elements of the
Directive. Finally, Member States should identify environmental targets and
their associated indicators which are operational tools to lay down the basis
for the preparation of the programmes on monitoring and measures.
The key tool for the achievement of the
MSFD goals is the Programme of Measures (PoMs) (Article 13) which must be
established by 2015 following two preparatory steps: firstly, the elements
described above (initial assessment, GES and targets) and secondly the
preparation of monitoring programmes (Article 11). All these elements form part
of the marine strategies (Article 5). As a result, MSFD implementation is a
step-by-step process in which each step builds upon the previous one.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the
implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in order to ensure a
consistent approach
The implementation of the MSFD is
challenging and requires cooperation within and between the marine regions.
Therefore, the Commission and the EU Member States agreed to establish an
informal co-operation under a so-called "Common Implementation
Strategy" (CIS) since 2008. Other countries (EEA and Candidate countries),
international organisations including the Regional Sea Conventions and relevant
stakeholders and NGOs participate in this process. The CIS has successfully
delivered guidance documents and policy papers and has been a valuable platform
for exchange of experiences and best practices which support implementation by
Member States[5].
In December 2013, a new CIS Work Programme[6]
for 2014 and beyond has been agreed which already taking account of early
lessons from this first stage of implementation. 
3.           The state of Europe's marine waters
The regional seas surrounding Europe cover
the vastness of the open oceans as well as almost entirely land-locked seas
(Table 1). In summary, 23 out of 28 EU Member States have a coastline, in 2011,
41% of the population, or 206 million people, lived in the 378 EU coastal
regions, and Europe’s Seas cover approximately 11 220 000 km2 or more than the
land territory of Europe. Each sea is shared by millions of people, their
cultures and activities. They are also home for thousands of species of animals
and plants. 

 The Baltic Sea is semi enclosed with low
     salinity due to restricted water exchange with the North East Atlantic
     Ocean and large river run-off. These conditions make the sea particularly
     vulnerable to nutrient pollution and hypoxia (oxygen depletion). 
 The Black Sea is also semi enclosed; it
     is the world's largest inland marine basin and has restricted water
     exchange with the Mediterranean. Its waters are anoxic at depths below
     150–200 meters. Surface water salinities of the Black Sea are within an
     intermediate range. Most of the Black Sea is believed to host oil and gas
     reserves, and oil and gas exploration is beginning in the area. 
 The Mediterranean Sea is also a semi
     enclosed sea with high salinity due to high evaporation rates and low river
     run off. It has restricted water exchange with the Atlantic Ocean and
     Black Sea. It is the most biologically diverse sea in Europe. 
 The North East Atlantic Ocean covers a
     range of seas and a large climatic gradient. It is a highly productive
     area that hosts the most valuable fishing areas of Europe and many unique
     habitats and ecosystems. It is also home to Europe's largest oil and gas
     reserves.

Table 1: Regional Seas surrounding
Europe– selected geographic characteristics 
 Regional seas surrounding Europe || Member States (in the marine region) || Regional sea surface area (km2) || EU MS share of sea surface area of regional sea (km2)and (%) || % of EU MS sea surface area reported under the MSFD IA || Area of catchment (km2 ) 
 Baltic Sea || SE, FI, EE, LT, LV, PL, DE, DK || 394 000 || 370 000 (93.9) || 92 || 1 653 000 
 North East Atlantic Ocean (including Barents Norwegian, Icelandic Seas) || UK, DK, DE, NL, BE, SE, IE, FR, PT, ES || 7 835 000 || 4 076 000 (52.0)) || 58 || 2 721 000 
 Mediterranean || ES, FR, IT, SI, MT, HR, EL, CY || 2 517 000 || 1 210 000 (48.1) || 86 || 1 121 000 
 Black Sea || BG, RO || 474 000 || 64 000 (13.5) || 46 || 2 414 000 
 Total || --- || 11 220 000 || 5 720 000 (51.0) || 66 || 7 909 000 
Human activities impacting the sea are
increasing, and so are both the severity and scale of impacts on the marine
environment. This includes impacts from fisheries, pollution, seafloor
destruction (sometimes resulting in habitat loss), non-indigenous species and
climate change. Acting together, these impacts decrease the ability of marine
ecosystems to deliver vital services and benefits such as fish and recreational
quality to European communities. They are driven by growing human activities
including agriculture; fisheries and aquaculture; industry; shipping;
urbanisation; tourism; space demand for ports and off shore structures; and
oil, gas and other mineral extraction as well as renewable energy. Many impacts
are expected to be exacerbated by increased sea temperatures, rising sea
levels, and ocean acidification that are the consequences of global warming and
increased CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. While many of the
activities that harm the environment are a consequence of immediate human
needs, they impact species and habitats that have evolved over thousands if not
millions of years, sometimes irreversibly.
As all regional seas are shared by more
than one country, solutions to the environmental problems that they face calls
for international legislation which today is provided by the EU Marine Strategy
Framework Directive. With the reporting of the initial assessments that took
place in 2012, the European Environment Agency (EEA) has reviewed the
information base provided. Based upon, also earlier, EEA work, some key
messages appear on the state of the marine environment: 
Biodiversity and marine ecosystems
(Descriptors 1, 4 and 6). Marine ecosystems, their
habitats and species throughout Europe continue to be under significant threat
from cumulative impacts from human activities no matter what ecosystem features
we look at. Only 10% of the assessment of marine habitats and 3% of the
assessments of marine species protected under Natura 2000 are considered
favourable. Similarly, once abundant fish species are increasingly at risk. The
current stock biomass in Kattegat is at approximately 5.6% compared to levels
in 1971 and the current recruitment levels of European eel are at 1-7% of
1960-1979 levels. Sea grasses such as Posidonia oceanica experience 5% decline
in distribution per year, while Zostera marina is covering much smaller areas
when compared to historical data. Combined such information on biodiversity indicates
that European marine ecosystems and their resilience are under significant
threat from human activities. 
Fisheries, pollution (eutrophication;
hazardous substances) and non-indigenous species are some of the main pressures
on biodiversity with the effects of climate change threatening to further
exacerbate existing impacts. Together these pressures add to the cumulative
impact on the marine ecosystem resulting in the continued degradation and often
unexpected ecological tipping points towards an undesired new steady state.
Non-indigenous species (Descriptor2) that find adequate conditions to establish
themselves in a new ecosystem may become invasive and threaten local
biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in various ways. Impacts range from reducing
genetic variation and eroding gene pools, potential extinction of endemic
species, and by altering habitat and ecosystem resilience. The impacts of
marine invasions are widespread and irreversible. In Europe, more than 1350
marine species have been introduced in European Seas since the 1950´s. New
species continue to be introduced at unprecedented rates, with almost 300 new
species reported since 2000. Most introductions have occurred in the
Aegean-Levantine sub-region in the Mediterranean Sea, since the opening of the
Suez Canal in 1949. Introductions are also occurring in all other seas, but at
a lower rate. Introductions occur with handling of ballast water, and through
aquaculture and the aquarium trade.
Fisheries (Descriptor 3) is one of the most important pressures in the marine environment as
it reduces biodiversity by direct mortality of fish populations and non-target
species, and modifies ecosystem structure and functioning. Cumulative fishing
levels have led to an alarming state of European fish stocks, where currently
39% in the North East Atlantic Ocean and 88 % in the Mediterranean and Black
Seas are overfished threatening their future reproductive capacity.
Furthermore, the continuous use of bottom trawling and other high-impact
fishing gear, has destroyed seafloor habitats and compromised its biodiversity.
Seabirds are of particular concern, where recent estimates report by-catch by
the EU fishing fleet at c.a. 200,000 seabirds annually in EU waters.
Eutrophication (Descriptor 5) of marine waters is associated with excessive use of the
fertilizers nitrogen and phosphorous. It is the accelerated, enhanced growth of
phytoplankton and an undesirable disturbance of the balance of organisms in the
water. It can also cause extensive hypoxia. Most pollution comes from
land-based activities, through inland waterways, such as the application of
agricultural fertilizers and animal farming, the discharge of poorly or
untreated wastewater, or as airborne pollution. The need to reduce nutrient
concentrations across Europe is widely accepted, but difficult to achieve. EEA
indicators show that between 1985 and 2010, overall nutrient concentrations
have been either unchanging (84%) or decreasing in reported stations and that
between 1985 and 2010 concentrations at 87% of stations remained unchanged.
Chemical pollution (Descriptor 8). Hazardous substances are widespread in the marine environment.
Some are found at low concentrations in the earth's crust and occur naturally
in seawater, but synthetic hazardous substances are not found naturally in the
environment. The main sources are generally from waste/disposal burning of
fossil fuels and industrial activities, including mining and production. The
EEA indicator addresses concentrations and trends of seven hazardous
substances: mercury, lead, cadmium, lindane, HCB, PCB and DDT[7]. All substances have
been banned from use, but are still found in the environment. The indicator
shows that concentrations of HCB and lindane are generally Low or Moderate,
concentrations of cadmium, mercury and lead Moderate, and Moderate or High for
PCB and DDT. Between 1998-2010, a general downward trend was found in the
Northeast Atlantic Ocean for lead, lindane, PCB and DDT. In the Mediterranean
Sea, more than a third of stations show of high concentrations of lead,
lindane, DDT and PCB. Furthermore, a general upward trend was found for mercury
and lead.
Marine litter (Descriptor 10) is found on beaches, on the seafloor and floating in the water, in
all oceans and it is both a European and a global concern. Many marine species
ingest marine litter or become entangled in debris. For some species a
considerable proportion of the population is affected due to damage caused to
their body condition, ability to forage and reproduce. Litter, when visible to
humans, creates a considerable reduction in recreational, aesthetic or
educational values of an area, and sometimes it is also a health concern. To
date systematic monitoring has not taken place across Europe, this is only now
being established with the MSFD. 
Introduction of energy (Descriptor 11), with particular emphasis on noise is the subject of MSFD
Descriptor 11. Introduction of energy into the marine environment can be in the
form of heat, light, electromagnetic emissions and underwater sound. Thus, the
information on effects of the former three is very limited, and the focus of
this descriptor is on underwater sound.
Behavioural effects of marine species to
underwater sound have been documented for a wide variety of sources. As sound
can reach far underwater, impact ranges for behavioural response can be very
large as well. High amplitude, low- and mid-frequency impulsive sounds such as
those emitted during seismic surveys, impact pile driving or by military sonar
have the greatest potential to affect marine mammals and fish over considerable
distances. There is also evidence that ambient sound has increased in some
marine areas due to the increase in ship traffic. Wide ranging behavioural
changes could lead to gaps in distribution of marine life which in turn could
lead to consequences on a population level if important life functions such as
mating or migration are affected. Since the issue of underwater sound impacts
is a relatively recent one, there has been little work on the exact distribution
of sources of sound in EU waters and at present systematic monitoring has not
been conducted to clarify the impact of sound on marine species.
Climate Change is not explicitly covered by the MSFD, but is having will continue
to have a major influence on marine habitats and species because most organisms
in the sea respond to temperature. Therefore, it will become an important
factor when assessing biodiversity. As temperature of the sea is increasing,
marine organisms will change their distribution. Sea surface temperature
increases are observed in all Europe’s Seas. Also ocean acidification (also
mentioned in Annex III MSFD) is of increased concern. As atmospheric CO2
concentrations increase, the ocean uptake of CO2 increases, which
reduces ocean pH. Surface-ocean pH has declined from 8.2 to 8.1 over the
industrial era, corresponding to a 26 % change in oceanic acidity. Ocean
acidification may affect many marine organisms within the next 20 years and has
the potential of fundamentally altering conditions for all life in the sea. 
Lessons learned from Article 8
assessments. While the EEA has reviewed the
material provided by Member States in relation to their initial assessments, it
has not been possible to use the assessments as a coherent knowledge base, and
the reports contain a large amount of unknown, or not assessed information.
However, they have supported and underpinned the overall findings mentioned
above. In addition, the need became evident to develop much more coherent
assessment approaches on regional scale and an agreed strategy for reporting of
monitoring and data towards agreed indicators at regional if not European
scale. These processes are expected to greatly support the development of a
marine knowledge base and will be fundamental to in the future be able to
address good environmental status in a coherent fashion.
4.           Legal transposition and
competent authorities
4.1.        Legal transposition (Article
26)
All Member States have transposed the MSFD
into their national legislation, although PL only completed this in early 2013
following legal action from the European Commission (C-245/12 - Commission /
Poland). After receipt of the national legislation, the Commission undertakes a
conformity check for each Member State, excluding landlocked Member States who
are not concerned by this exercise (AT, CZ, HU, LU, SK). By November 2013, thirteen
conformity studies had been undertaken (for BE, BG, DK, ES, IT, LV, LT, NL, PL,
PT, RO, SI, SE, and UK); conformity studies for the remaining countries are underway.
Transposition has been assessed as adequate
for BE, ES, NL, PT, RO and SI. SE is committed to making the necessary
legislative changes, and Letters of Formal Notice have been sent to DK, IT, LV
and SE. For PL and UK, an EU Pilot has been launched to address questions
identified by the conformity studies.
4.2.        Administrative arrangements
and competent authorities (Articles 6 and 7)
According to MSFD Article 7, Member States needed
to designate the authority or authorities competent for the implementation of
this Directive with respect to their marine waters and for cooperation and
coordination in the catchment area of each marine region or subregion together
with the information listed in Annex II of the Directive.
Member States within the catchment area of
each marine region or subregion (landlocked countries) were also required to
designate authorities competent for cooperation and coordination as referred to
in Article 6. Member States were due to notify the Commission of their
designated competent authorities by 15 January 2011.
In total, 26 Member States designated their
Competent Authority or Authorities for the MSFD on time. The Czech Republic and
the new Member State Croatia have not yet reported this information to the
Commission. At the due notification date, Poland had not yet transposed the
Directive into national law, which prevented it from designating its competent
authority (see section 4.1).
Following the notifications, the Commission
assessed the reports. In general, the level of information provided by Member
States varied greatly in terms of its volume and content. The description of
competent authorities responsible for implementation and cooperation between
Member States was generally well reported, but not all Member States distinguished
which competent authority was responsible for each main part of their marine
strategy (i.e. assessment, monitoring, measures). Clear information was also
provided describing the legal status of the body acting as competent authority.
Fields in the reports where information was
less complete were: coordination mechanisms between Member States, and to a
lesser extent, legal status, role and responsibilities, coordination amongst
competent authorities. For the cases where information was lacking or
insufficient, the Commission sent a letter to the Member State requesting
clarification. The Commission has now received these clarifications; no major
outstanding issues have been identified.
A list of the designated competent
authorities is provided in Appendix 5.
5.           Reporting process and approach to the Article 12 assessment
5.1.        Reporting process
In accordance with Articles 9(2) and 10(2),
Member States were required to send notifications to the Commission within
three months of the completion of the elements required under Articles 8, 9 and
10, i.e. by 15th October 2012. As the directive does not specify a
format for these reports, Member States were free to submit their reports in
any format. However, in order to allow for a more systematic and comparable
analysis of the Member States' reports, the Commission developed and agreed
informally with Member States a set of reporting sheets[8], as
well as associated reporting tools and guidance[9].

Due to technical difficulties, these
reporting tools were only finalised in July 2012.
Member States were asked to submit their
reporting sheets, in addition to their national reports and any other
supporting documentation, to the ReportNet system of the European Environment
Agency (EEA) by the above deadline[10].
The Commission prepared an MSFD Scoreboard[11]
to inform the wider public about the state of submission of reports for the
different articles.
By 15 October 2012, eight Member States had
submitted their national reports (BE, CY, EL, ES, DK, NL, RO, SE), and DE, EL,
ES, IT, RO and SE had submitted at least a proportion of the expected reporting
sheets. By February 2013, a preliminary completeness assessment (see section
5.2) was made by the Commission on the reporting sheets of eleven Member States
that had been submitted by that time (DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, IT, LV, NL, RO, SE,
UK). These Member States were requested to check this initial assessment and
provide the Commission with missing information by 30 April 2013 latest. The
remaining MS, who did not (or only partly) report by means of reporting sheets
by February 2013, were informed that 30th April would be the last
day that their submissions would be considered within the assessment procedure.
By the end of April 2013, 18 Member States had provided reporting sheets, some
of them significantly amending and updating the reports that they had
previously provided. Following some later submissions, the Commission was able
to consider contributions (both in reporting sheets and other reports
submitted) from 20 of the 23 coastal Member States (Poland, Malta and Croatia
being the exceptions). The analysed reports for Portugal and the UK were
incomplete because the parts for the Azores and Madeira (PT) and Gibraltar (UK)
were missing. The report from Bulgaria arrived before the finalisation of the
assessment; due to the shortness of time, it was assessed only in relation to
Article 9 (GES) and 10 (targets). All reports received after July 2013 (which
includes submissions from Croatia, Malta and UK (Gibraltar)) have not been included
in this assessment. Poland is the only Member State which has not reported to
date and for which the Commission has started procedures to enforce this
requirement. For those Member States not included (or not fully included) in
this report, the Commission will consider how to communicate its assessment
once the complete reports are available and the assessment has been carried
out. A summary of what was assessed is given in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of the extent of
assessments undertaken for this report and outstanding gaps.
 Extent of assessment || Countries 
 Full assessment (i.e. of all three articles and for all marine waters of the MS) || BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, NL, RO, SE, SI 
 Partial assessment (i.e. not addressing all articles or all marine waters) || BG (for Art. 9 and 10), PT (all waters except Azores and Madeira), UK (all waters except Gibraltar) 
 To be assessed (reports arrived too late for inclusion in this report) || BG (for Art. 8), HR, MT, UK (Gibraltar) 
 To be assessed (reports not yet received) || PL, PT (for Azores and Madeira) 
5.2.        Assessment method
The Commission prepared the concept for the
technical assessment in consultation with the Member States[12].
The detailed technical checking and assessment of Member States’ reports and
submissions was carried out by external consultants, thereby providing the
detailed background information to the Commission for this report and for any
follow-up actions and communications with Member States. The technical
assessment was carried out in four steps, namely checking completeness,
adequacy, consistency and coherence.
The first step was the assessment of completeness
of Member States’ electronic reports. This involved checking whether all
requested information has been provided in the Member States’ reports. This
first assessment allowed the identification of important gaps, e.g. missing
information for a particular GES descriptor or for key elements of the initial
assessment, and supports the Commission in its assessment of whether additional
information was required from the Member State.
As a second step, the reports were subject
to a technical assessment with their contents checked for adequacy (i.e.
assessing whether the reported information met the objectives of the Directive
and the technical requirements of Articles 8, 9 and 10[13]), consistency (i.e.
assessing the logical flow of reporting of one Member State for the different
Articles, including the identification of missing links, conflicts and gaps)
and coherence (i.e. assessing the relationships between the reports of
the Member States, firstly within one marine region or sub-region and secondly
across the EU, i.e. between the marine regions).
The technical assessment was made on the
basis of a questionnaire developed for each GES descriptor[14]. This questionnaire
used criteria to assess the adequacy, consistency and coherence of the answers
found in the MS submissions (these criteria are provided in Appendix 1).
The questionnaire was not necessarily exhaustive because it focussed on the
most important aspects of the Directive (Articles 9 and 10 and certain elements
of Article 8). It may also not necessarily reflect the formal opinion of the
Commission as regards which elements are considered, as a minimum, compliant
with the MSFD because it is mainly based on technical considerations.
The detailed technical results of the
assessment, based on the questionnaires, including a section on cross-cutting
issues, a summary of the assessment and general conclusions, are published
separately per Member State[15].
Based on these technical reports, the Commission services produced factsheets
per Member State summarising the key elements of the assessment (Appendix 2).
In addition, there are technical background documents available per marine
region which consider particularly the coherence aspect of the MS reports.
These regional assessments are summarised in Appendix 3.
Due to the time constraints, these
assessments have not always addressed all aspects of the Member States' reports
in detail. The Commission services may analyse some elements in more detail,
e.g. as part of the in-depth assessment carried out by the Commission's Joint
Research Centre.
5.3.        General remarks on the assessment process
The reporting obligations, and consequently
its assessment, were complex: they needed to cover a very wide range on
environmental topics in detail both in the context of Articles 8, 9 and 10 and
across the eleven different GES descriptors. Significant delays in some Member
States' reporting, as well as the diversity of the information that they
provided, made their assessment in the relatively short time available[16] a particular challenge
for the Commission. For example, the reported documents by MS were often
comprehensive, consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information,
published in all national languages.
To allow for a systematic and comparable
approach, the assessment was based solely on the information reported by Member
States, consisting of the submitted national reports, the electronic reporting
sheets in predefined formats and any additional background documents that the
Member States considered relevant and uploaded to EEA's ReportNet. A hierarchy
was established between these documents (generally assessing the Reporting
Sheet information first, then the national report, and lastly any associated
documents). Where necessary, any inconsistency between these documents was
highlighted.
To facilitate the presentation of the
assessment, the Commission used simple categories such as "adequate",
"partially adequate" and "inadequate". However, such
classification does not necessarily mean that a Member State which is assessed
as "adequate" is fully compliant with the provisions of the
Directive. Also the category "partially adequate" typically covers a
board range of the assessment quality and often includes aspects which are of
high quality even if overall they fall short of what is considered adequate.
Note that the adequacy and coherence
results do not necessarily equate to compliance with the MSFD because the
assessment was made against a set of non-exhaustive questions (see
questionnaire template on the website and summary of criteria in Appendix 1)
which was used only for the purpose of this comparative analysis.
When reference is made to 'all Member
States' in this report, it refers to those 20 Member States which were assessed
as part of this exercise (see Table 2), unless otherwise specified.
The finalisation of the Commission's
assessment took longer than expected and the level of detail and accuracy that
the Commission was able to assess varied. The quality of the Commission
assessments relies very much upon the quality of the Member States' reports.
Poor or incomplete reporting may have led to incorrect and/or incomplete
assessments.
The Commission recognises that Member
States made a very significant reporting effort, in particular to complete the
electronic reporting via the reporting sheets. There are examples of very good,
high quality reporting. However, there are also cases where reporting contains
many gaps or contradictions.
Finally, during the preparation of the
technical reports, the Commission and its external technical support did not
maintain contact with the Member States and therefore did not ask for
validation of its findings, other than at the first completeness check phase. However
the final technical summary reports have been shared with Member States for
information. 
6.           Implementation by Member
States of good environment status (Article 9), initial assessment (Article 8) and
environmental targets (Article 10) per descriptor
Annex I of the MSFD sets out eleven
qualitative descriptors upon which the determination and assessment of GES
should be based. Consequently, the analysis of the Member States' reports is
provided below per descriptor and addresses all assessment criteria, i.e.
completeness, adequacy, consistency and coherence (see Section 5.2 above). When
assessing the environmental targets, the Commission assessed whether they were SMART, i.e. whether the targets were Specific, Measurable,
Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound.
6.1.        Biodiversity (Descriptor 1)
Biodiversity is a broad topic which
encompasses the variability amongst living organisms
and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity
within species, between species and of ecosystems. Its status can be assessed
at different organisational levels (genetic, species, habitat and ecosystem),
of which the species and habitat levels traditionally receive most attention.
For the MSFD, assessments of status are focused on the following groups of
highly mobile marine species: birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods,
and on predominant habitat types of the water column and seabed together with
their associated biological communities. In addition to these broad categories,
attention is directed also to specific species and habitat types which are
listed for protection under the Birds and Habitats Directives and under
international agreements. Genetic- and ecosystem-level aspects are also important
but typically more difficult to assess. Assessments at ecosystem level can be
considered to have links to the assessment of food webs (Descriptor 4). The
assessment of seabed habitats has links to Descriptor 6 on seafloor integrity.
The status of commercial fish and shellfish under Descriptor 3 has linkages to
the status of fish and seabed habitats under this descriptor.
The range of threats to biodiversity varies
considerably in nature and severity across the different regions of Europe. The
degree of impact varies from sub-lethal effects on individuals or populations
(e.g. from hazardous substances, underwater noise), to lethal effects on
individuals or populations (e.g. from fishing, microbial pathogens),
community-level effects (e.g. from nutrient enrichment, introduction of
non-indigenous species (NIS)) and habitat-level effects (e.g. damage from
physical disturbances to the seabed; loss from land claim and placement of
structures on the seabed). In extreme cases, these effects can alter the entire
ecosystem (e.g.over-fishing). In addition, climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions can lead to changes in sea temperature and sea level and to ocean
acidification, all of which can have a more widespread impact on biodiversity.
Due to this range of threats, Descriptor 1 has links to all the
pressure-related descriptors (i.e. Descriptors 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11).
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 1 is achieved when: "biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of
habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with
prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions”.
6.1.1.     GES definition (Art. 9)
All Member States who have reported have
defined GES for Descriptor 1. Generally the definition applied to their entire
marine waters, but for ES and IT some distinctions were made in the GES
definitions between their regions or sub-regions.
The GES definitions were formulated at
descriptor level by all Member States except DK, ES, LV and RO. Some Member
States provided information only at descriptor level (CY, DE, IE, NL, PT, UK),
with CY, NL and PT reproducing the definition in Annex I verbatim or with
wording very close to it. The UK qualified its definition at descriptor level
by referring to its targets under Article 10, where additional specification
was provided.
Twelve Member States provided additional
detail at criterion level (BE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, FI, IE, IT, LV, SE, SI),
often with a close relationship to the Decision 2010/477/EC criteria although
every Decision criterion was not always used.
Eleven Member States provided additional
detail at indicator level (BG, DK, EE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LT, LV, RO, SE), again
often with a close relationship to the Decision indicators although every
Decision indicator was not always used.
The definitions varied enormously in their
content and level of detail; most were qualitative and many were rather vague,
lacking definitions of key terms used or specificity as to which elements of
biodiversity were addressed.
A general summary of the biodiversity
elements addressed is given in Table 3. This indicates where the Member State
has specifically referred to each of the main elements of biodiversity, where
only specified species or habitats are mentioned and where significant gaps are
present. The table does not address how well each element is addressed (i.e.
its adequacy).
Table 3: Summary of biodiversity
elements addressed in Member States' GES definitions (Y=yes, N=no,
specific=specified species or habitats only).
 MS || Birds || Mammals/Reptiles || Fish || Seabed habitats || Water column habitats 
 BE || Y || Y || Y || Y || Y 
 BG || N || Y || Y || Y || Y 
 CY || Biodiversity, species, habitats (Annex I definition only) 
 DK || N || Specific (Harbour porpoise) || N || Y || Y 
 EE || Specific (Smew - a duck, swan) || Specific (Grey seal, ringed seal) || Y || Specific || N 
 FI || Biodiversity, species, habitats, ecosystems 
 FR || Biodiversity, species, habitats, ecosystems 
 DE || Listed species and habitats (Directives and international agreements) 
 EL || N || Specific (Monk seal, Loggerhead turtle) || N || Specific || Y 
 IE || Biodiversity, key and listed species and habitats, ecosystems 
 IT || Y || Specific (3spp of cetacean, Loggerhead turtle) || Specific || Specific + Pinna (fan shell) || Y 
 LV || N || N || N || Y || Y 
 LT || Specific || N || Y || N || N 
 NL || Biodiversity, species, habitats (Annex I definition only) 
 PT || Biodiversity, species, habitats (Annex I definition only) 
 RO || N || Specific (Harbour porpoise) || N || Specific || Y 
 SI || Species, habitats, ecosystems 
 ES || Y || Y || Y || Y || Y 
 SE || Y || Y || Y || Y || N 
 UK || Biodiversity, species, habitats, ecosystems 
In summary, one Member State (ES) was
judged to have an adequate definition of GES. Eleven
Member States were found to have a partially adequate definition (BE, BG,
DK, EE, EL, FI, FR, IT, SE, SI, UK) whilst eight were found to be inadequate
(CY, DE, IE, LT, LV, NL, PT, RO).
Due to the wide variance in approaches
to the definition of GES for Descriptor 1, the level of coherence within each
of the four regional seas is considered to be low.
6.1.2.     Initial
assessment (Art. 8)
All Member States who
have reported have undertaken initial assessments for
this descriptor. As Bulgaria's report was submitted late, it has not been
included in this particular part of the assessment.
All MS have reported on species/groups and
habitat levels of biodiversity, whilst eight also reported at the ecosystem
level (CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, LT, LV, NL).
Highly mobile species groups (birds,
mammals, reptiles, fish, cephalopods)
Approaches to reporting on the highly
mobile species groups (birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods) was very
varied, with some MS addressing these at the species group level (i.e.
addressing the state of the entire group) (CY, FI, NL, SE), some at the finer
resolution of functional groups as recommended in the Reporting Sheets (EE, IT,
PT, LT, SI) and some at individual species level (IE). The rest of the Member
States reported on a mixture of these levels. Where specific individual species
were assessed, it was not always clear whether these were intended to be
representative of the broader species/functional groups of which they were a
part. Further, the coverage of these species groups varied: some MS did not
report on all groups (e.g. IE only fish, IT excluded birds, while LT and PT excluded
mammals). Furthermore, cephalopods and turtles were the least-often reported
groups, which for turtles was due in part to their more southerly distribution
in Europe. Often the justifications for any omissions were lacking.
In addition to addressing these wider
species groups, according to MSFD Annex III, the initial assessment should, have
included assessments of species listed under EU Directives and international
agreements; however, for species in the Birds and Habitats Directives, special
arrangements were made with MS to defer their reporting in view of similar
reporting required for these two directives in 2013. Despite this arrangement,
some MS (e.g. CY, ES) chose to also report directly under the MSFD on these
species. Regarding species covered under international agreements, one MS (FI)
reported on species listed under the Helsinki Convention, four MS (DE, DK, ES,
IE) on species listed under the OSPAR Convention, three MS (EL, IT, SI) on
species listed under the Barcelona Convention while one MS (RO) reported on
species listed under the Bucharest Convention, leaving a significant number of
MS who have not addressed this obligation.
The information available for assessment
appeared to be most readily available at species level, and in particular for
species specifically listed for protection, or commercially exploited species.
For these, information on species abundance and condition was generally
reported and most MS were reported a qualitative/descriptive judgement on the
current status of the species groups.
The most frequently reported pressures on these
species groups in the Baltic were extraction of species and physical
loss of habitat. In the North East Atlantic and Mediterranean, it
was extraction of species and biological disturbance.
Seabed and water column habitats
Approaches to reporting on the seabed and
water column habitats and their associated communities were also varied, with some
MS addressing these at the predominant habitat level, as recommended in the
Reporting Sheets (CY, DE, DK, ES, IE, FI, FR, LV, SI), some (BE, NL) using
alternate broad habitat classes (typically based on the EUNIS habitat
classification) and one only at more specific habitat level (RO). Some MS
reported on a mixture of these. Where specific individual habitats were
assessed, it was not always clear whether these were intended to be representative
of the broader predominant habitats of which they are a part.
Further, the coverage of these habitat
types varied. Reporting on water column habitats was often missing or poorly
addressed, whilst the range of predominant seabed habitat types (or equivalents)
addressed was often only a proportion of all those present in the MS waters.
In addition to addressing these broad
habitat types, according to MSFD Annex III, the initial assessment should have included
assessments of habitats listed under EU Directives and international agreements.
However, as with the assessment of highly mobile species groups (see above), for
habitats covered by the Habitats Directive, special arrangements were made with
MS to defer their reporting in view of similar reporting being required for
this Directive in 2013. Despite this additional time period only the following coastal
MS reported under the Habitats Directive on schedule (i.e. by 30 June 2013): BE,
EE, ES, FI, IE, LV, PT, SE. Additionally, despite this arrangement, some Member
States (e.g. BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, RO, SI) chose to also report directly
under MSFD on these habitats. Regarding habitats covered under international
agreements, two MS (DE, FI) reported on habitats listed under the Helsinki
Convention, four MS (DE, DK, ES, IE) reported on habitats listed under the
OSPAR Convention, and three MS (ES, IT, SI) reported on habitats listed under
the Barcelona Convention, leaving a significant number of MS who have not
addressed this obligation.
In general qualitative assessments of the
distribution, extent and condition of habitats were provided. Most MS reported
a qualitative/descriptive judgement on the current status for certain habitats
or for certain assessment criteria. Some Member States provided conclusive
assessments on current status (CY, EE, FI, LT, LV, PT, SE, SI, UK), although
not always for all assessed habitats.
Ecosystems
Eight Member States reported at the
ecosystem level (CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, LT, LV, NL). In many cases, these
assessments were understandably limited and qualitative, due mainly to a lack
of assessment techniques at this level. Often the assessments were limited to
specific species or functional groups and did not provide an integrated
assessment across all species and habitats in each ecosystem.
The main pressures on habitats and
ecosystems reported in the Baltic were nutrient enrichment, physical
loss and physical damage. In the North East Atlantic, physical loss,
physical damage and fisheries (extraction of species) were the main pressures
reported, whilst some Member States also cited hydrographical changes,
non-indigenous species, nutrient enrichment, litter and noise. In the Mediterranean,
physical loss and physical damage were again the main pressures reported,
whilst some MS also cited extraction of fish and shellfish and the introduction
of non-indigenous species. In addition, a few Member States also reported
hazardous substances and nutrient enrichment (EL, FR) as being important and,
the introduction of non-indigenous species, litter and the extraction of
species (FR) as being relevant pressures.
In summary, of the 19 Member States
assessed, four were judged to have an adequate initial assessment for  Descriptor 1 (ES, NL, PT, UK), thirteen
Member States were found to be partially adequate (BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, FI, FR,
IE, IT, LT, LV, SE, SI), whilst the remaining two were found to be inadequate
(EL, RO).
The level of coherence for the features
was considered to be low in the Mediterranean, North-East Atlantic and Baltic
regions. Given Bulgaria’s late submission, coherence for the Black Sea was not
assessed. At a sub-regional level, coherence was considered to also be low for
all sub-regions excepting the Celtic Seas, Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast and
the Western Mediterranean where coherence was considered to be moderate.
6.1.3.     Environmental targets (Art.
10)
All Member States except IE and PT have
defined environmental targets and associated indicators for all their marine
waters, most not distinguishing between sub-regions. An exception is FR which
has separate targets for its Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. A number of
Member States have provided targets which jointly addressed Descriptors 1 and 4
(SE), Descriptors 1 and 6 (BG, CY) or, more commonly, Descriptors 1, 4 and 6
(BE, DE, ES, FRMED, LT, NL, UK). In these latter cases, the targets
were typically grouped against the main biodiversity components (i.e. birds,
mammals, reptiles, fish, seabed habitats, water column habitats, ecosystems). The
number of targets varied significantly, between 1 (LT, PT) and 77 (BG),
although many of Bulgaria’s targets are simply repeated for each habitat type
addressed.
All
Member States, who set targets, with the exception of IT, have established state-based
targets. In some cases (e.g. NL, UK), the lack of detail expressed in their
definition of GES was somewhat compensated for by provision of a detailed set
of state-based targets. The majority of these state-based targets would be
better considered as expressions of GES. The number of specific pressure and impact
targets overall was relatively low. Some exceptions include the Mediterranean
targets for France, which address a wide range of specific pressures and
impacts, or the targets for Italy which are focused on the
management and control of fishing practices. Spain
additionally provides a number of targets which aim at filling knowledge gaps
including through monitoring. This general paucity of pressure- and
impact-based targets indicates there is likely to be insufficient focus on addressing
key pressures on biodiversity in order to achieve GES for this descriptor; this
is particularly the case in the ten countries which have set only state-based
targets (CY, EE, FRAtlantic, EL, LT, LV, RO, SE, SI).
The level of detail given for the targets
also varied greatly from one Member State to another. The targets have
generally not been assessed as fully SMART, often because they are not
measurable or lack specification.
The associated indicators also varied
significantly in detail and number. A number of Member States have not set
associated indicators (ES, FRAtlantic, RO). At the other extreme,
Bulgaria has set 180 indicators.
In summary, for Descriptor 1, three
Member States were judged to have adequate targets (BE, BG, UK). Eight Member
States were found to be partially adequate (DE, DK, ES, FI, FRMED,
NL, RO, SI), while eight were found to be inadequate (CY, EE, EL, FRAtlantic,
IT, LT, LV, SE). IE and PT have not defined targets for Descriptor 1[17].
The level of coherence in the
environmental targets and associated indicators is low across the North-East
Atlantic region and the Mediterranean while in the Baltic it is judged to be
moderate. It is judged to be low to moderate in the Black Sea. At sub-regional
level, coherence is also judged to be low.
6.1.4.     Consistency between GES,
Initial Assessment and targets
Considering the complexity of this
descriptor, there was a reasonable level of consistency between GES, initial
assessments and targets in the MS reports. However the general lack of accepted
quality standards and assessment techniques meant that in many cases assessments
of the current status of biodiversity relied upon existing assessments
undertaken to various standards; these were mainly qualitative in nature. Very
few MS used their determinations of GES under Article 9 to assess current
status under Article 8.
There was generally greater consistency
between GES and targets, with targets defined in a complimentary manner and
often providing specific detail to the more generalised texts of the GES
definitions. In relation to Article 8, however, the targets often lacked
specific links to particular pressures and impacts which may in part be due to
imprecise or inadequate assessments of current status. Gaps in knowledge and
data form part of the problem and it was encouraging that most Member Steps
acknowledged this. However, most did not adequately outline how they plan to
address these gaps. 
6.1.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 1 of the 20 Member States which were assessed is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
1 on biodiversity. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were
assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 1 per marine region is given in Figure 3. It includes assessments
for Member States which are part of each region, which means that some Member
States are counted twice as they are part of two regions. The figure is based
on a simple scoring where low coherence was attributed one point and high
coherence three points.
Figure 3: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 1 on biodiversity. The bars indicate whether the reports
were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence within each
region.
In many cases, the level of detail in the
GES definitions was inadequate with little effort to go beyond what is in MSFD
Annex I or Commission Decision 2010/477/EU or definitions which lack sufficient
specificity to enable environmental status to be assessed. The environmental
targets proposed were, however, often more comprehensive and in some cases
measurable. However, the majority of targets were state-based and better
considered as refined expressions of GES. There were fewer targets aimed
specifically at pressures and their impacts on biodiversity, suggesting an
insufficient focus in many countries on the key aspects to be addressed (in
measures) in order to achieve GES for this descriptor.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations given in this report apply (see section 10). In
addition, specifically for Descriptor 1, Member States should use the relevant
specifications in EU legislation more systematically for assessing status and
determining GES. In particular, the specifications laid down by the Habitats and
Birds Directives should be applied not only for species and habitats listed
thereunder, but could also be adapted where necessary for use with other
species and habitats, thereby providing a consistent standard for assessments
across the biodiversity components. The standards used for assessing habitat
conditions under the Water Framework Directive may also be relevant in this
context. A common concept for defining GES threshold values, which accommodates
sustainable use, should be applied, which should follow the 'acceptable
deviation from reference conditions' approach already encompassed within the
standards for the WFD and the nature Directives. The definition of GES should
clearly address all biodiversity components (each highly mobile species
group and the predominant seabed and water column habitats), although its
assessment can be based on specified indicator species and habitats. The
specific elements to be addressed should reflect the differing biodiversity
characteristics of each region, but should be selected in such a way as to
maintain consistency within (sub-)regions. Regarding predominant seabed
habitats, the determination of GES and its assessment should be fully aligned
with that required for Descriptor 6 (with reference to the different substrates
of the seabed). For ecosystem-level assessments, the approaches should be
aligned with that required under Descriptor 4 on food webs, aiming to address
the overall balance of components in the ecosystem and their functioning.
Regarding future assessments of
biodiversity, attention should focus on the development of more systematic
methods for assessment, with clear threshold values for GES and ways of
integrating across indicators and criteria. Where appropriate, methods for
scaling up assessments from small to larger areas (or populations) should be
developed, aiming to assess species, habitats and ecosystems at an appropriate
ecological scale within each (sub-)region, and including joint or aggregated
assessments across relevant Member States. In view of the large spatial areas
to be assessed and the need to associate biodiversity assessments more closely
to pressures and their management, the spatial extent and intensity of
pressures should be mapped according to commonly agreed methods and used more
systematically in relation to biodiversity assessments (i.e. links to impacts)
and monitoring strategies (i.e. risk-based approaches).
In relation to the setting of environmental
targets, further effort is needed to more clearly define the types of pressures
and their impacts which need to be reduced in order to achieve GES. This is
urgently needed to better inform the preparation of Programmes of Measures for 2015 and in view of the generally poor
identification of targets for key pressures on biodiversity in the 2012
reports.
As there are still challenges to adequately
implement a more holistic assessment of biodiversity, opportunities to transfer
best practices from one region to another should be sought. Finally, the
revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to introduce specific minimum
requirements based on the approaches developed within the EU and the Regional
Sea Conventions.
6.2.        Non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2)
Non-indigenous species (NIS) are species
introduced outside their natural past or present environment, and which may
survive and subsequently reproduce. These species are introduced in situations
where exchange of people or goods takes place between countries and continents.
In the marine context, introduction frequently takes place when ships’ ballast
water originating in one environment is subsequently released into another
environment. NIS can threaten the balance of a local or regional ecosystem,
rapidly expanding and outcompeting indigenous species for food, space and other
resources, or even preying on them. They can also introduce new diseases to an
ecosystem, to which indigenous species are not resistant. Non-indigenous
species are referred to as ‘invasive species’ if they expand dramatically and
cause widespread harm. The Commission has recently adopted a proposal[18] to address this
problem, including in the marine environment.
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 2 is achieved when "non-indigenous species
introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the
ecosystems".
6.2.1.     GES definition (Art. 9)
All Member States have defined GES for
Descriptor 2. No distinction was made at sub-regional level, either in the
Mediterranean or in the North-East Atlantic. The GES definition was generally
formulated at descriptor level only (CY, DE, DK, EL, IE, NL, PT, UK), although
some Member States also provided detail at criteria (BE, FI, SE) and even
indicator levels (ES, FR). The remaining Member States provided information
only at criteria (IT, RO, SI) or indicator (BG, EE, LT, LV) levels.
Most of the definitions were quite vague,
with many Member States reproducing the definition in Annex I verbatim (EL, NL,
PT) or with wording very close to it (DE, DK, FI). Those that have defined GES
at lower levels have frequently drawn heavily on Commission Decision
2010/477/EU (e.g. FR, SI), and generally for criterion
2.1 (abundance and state characteristics). One MS (EE) defined GES through indicators, targeting specific species groups
and including thresholds. However, the same indicators were used by EE for
Article 10, which raises some doubts as to what exactly is their GES
definition.
Between the Member States, there were
significant differences in relation to the level of detail and focus. Several
Member States (EL, IE, IT, UK and to a lesser extent ES) explicitly adopted a
risk-based approach, primarily addressing vectors and pathways for
introductions of NIS. Many Member States (BE, CY, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, SE,
SI) referred to impacts of non-indigenous species. GES definitions either addressed
NIS in general (BE, DE, IE, FI, NL, PT, SI), only invasive NIS (DK, IT) or both
(EE, EL, ES, FR, LT, LV, SE, UK). Spain provided a more detailed definition
addressing both the risk of introduction and spreading of invasive NIS as well
as the prevention of deterioration in environmental quality from invasive
species which were already present.
In summary, no Member State is judged to
have an adequate definition of GES. Eleven Member States (BE, BG, DE, ES, EE,
IE, IT, LT, LV, SE, UK) were found to have a partially adequate definition of
GES while nine (CY, DK, EL, FI, FR, NL, PT, RO, SI) were found to be
inadequate.
The level of coherence in the definition
of GES for Descriptor 2 within each of the four regional seas is considered to
be low. That said, there are exceptions at sub-regional level, with a moderate
level of coherence between the three Member States in the Western Mediterranean
Sea. Coherence in the Celtic Seas is also assessed as moderate.
6.2.2.     Initial assessment (Art. 8)
All Member States have undertaken initial
assessments. However, as Bulgaria was late with its submission, its initial
assessment is not considered in the analysis below.
Generally, the initial assessments for Descriptor
2 were mostly based on existing literature, supplemented in some instances by
expert judgement. All MS provided an inventory of NIS present, and generally
the main vectors and pathways were described. Overall, the assessment of
impacts was quite limited, and when the level of pressure was reported, it was
qualitative in nature. One Member State (SI) undertook additional studies for the
initial assessment of Descriptor 2.
The number of NIS reported by each Member
State varied considerably between the sub-regions. For example, reporting in
the Mediterranean region ranges from 126-193 in the Aegean-Levantine Sea
sub-region to 22-47 in the Adriatic Sea sub-region, while in the North-East
Atlantic region it varies between 20-70 in the Celtic Seas sub-region and
38-129 in the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast sub-region. In the Baltic Sea
it varied between 13-38. In the Black Sea, Romania reported 15 species
(as outlined above, Bulgaria’s report is not included in this assessment).
Eight Member States (BE, CY, DE, EL, IT, LT,
PT, SI) have indicated a trend in the level of the pressure from NIS (albeit in
a very general manner), but only six (CY, EE, LT, PT, RO, SI) have made a
judgement on the pressure in relation to GES. Where made, these judgements were
generally with a low level of confidence.
Mediterranean and North East Atlantic
Member States on the whole described knowledge and data gaps in some detail and
in some cases even (limited) plans to address them. This was not the case in
the Baltic where only two MS (DE, DK) analysed knowledge gaps in any detail.
In the initial assessment, some Member
States (DE, EE, LT) referred to the HELCOM bio-pollution index but DE considered
that it was not applicable for the MSFD assessment in its present form.
In summary, six Member States (DE, FRATLANTIC, IE, LT, PT, UK) were judged to have an
adequate initial assessment. Thirteen Member States (BE, CY, DK, EE, EL, ES,
FI, FRMED, IT, NL, RO, SE, SI) were found to be partially adequate,
while only one (LV) was found to be inadequate. Bulgaria’s assessment was not
taken into account. 
The level of coherence in the
Mediterranean, North-East Atlantic and Baltic regions was considered to be
high, with the exception of the number of NIS reported which varied greatly per
Member State. Given Bulgaria’s late submission, coherence was not assessed for
the Black Sea.
6.2.3.     Environmental targets (Art.
10)
Seventeen Member States (all except CY, PT,
RO) have defined environmental targets and associated indicators for Descriptor
2, with these addressing all their marine waters without distinguishing between
sub-regions.
The number of targets varied between one
and four. A few countries have also set interim targets. Member States have
generally set pressure/impact targets, though some surveillance-type targets were
established relating to monitoring (SI), inventory (EL) or an early warning
system (IT), while one MS (ES) has set a target in relation to research. The
level of detail also varied greatly from one Member State to another, and the
targets have generally not been assessed as fully SMART, often because they were
not measurable or lack specification.
Thirteen Member States (BE, DE, DK, EE, ES,
FI, FRMED, IE, LT, NL, SE, SI, UK) have set targets relating to the
reduction of new introductions or changes in their abundance, some of whom also
addressed the spreading of NIS (ES, FR, IE, SI, UK). However, with some
exceptions (DK, ES, FI, FR, IE, SE), the targets rarely mentioned specific
vectors and pathways or specific NIS (except EE, ES, FI). One MS (DK) has set
targets focusing on prevention of NIS transported by shipping and aquaculture.
In addition to the presence of NIS, relatively few Member States (e.g. FR, UK)
addressed the reduction of impacts from NIS. However, their target was
formulated in a very general way. In the Baltic, three Member States (EE, FI,
LT) referred to the HELCOM bio-pollution index.
The associated indicators also varied
significantly. A number of Member States have not set associated indicators
(BE, FRATLANTIC, LV, SI) or have indicators which were very similar
to the targets themselves (IE). At the other extreme, one MS (FI) has set eight
indicators.
In summary, no Member States were judged
to have adequate environmental targets. Five Member States (ES, FI, IE, SE, SI)
were found to be partially adequate, while twelve (BE, BG, DE, DK, EE, EL, FR,
IT, LT, LV, NL, UK) were found to be inadequate. Three Member States (CY, PT, RO) did not defined environmental
targets for D2.
The level of coherence is low across the
Mediterranean and North-East Atlantic regions in terms of environmental targets
and associated indicators, while in the Baltic it is judged to be moderate. As
Romania has not set environmental targets, coherence is not addressed for the
Black Sea.
6.2.4.     Consistency between GES,
Initial Assessment and targets
Consistency between GES, initial
assessments and targets was moderate. Six Member States have analysed current
NIS trends in relation to GES as part of their initial assessments. The
qualitative nature of most of the targets made it impractical to directly
measure them against attainment of GES. Gaps in knowledge and data formed part
of the problem and it was encouraging that most Member Steps acknowledged this.
However, most did not adequately outline how they plan to address these gaps.
6.2.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 2 of the Member States assessed is given In Figure 4.
Figure 4: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
2 on non-indigenous species. The bars indicate the number of Member States
which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 2 per marine region is given in Figure 5. 
Figure 5: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 2 on non-indigenous species. The bars indicate whether
the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence
within each region.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor
2, a much greater level of coherence is required in relation to the species to
be addressed. Member States should establish common lists of species, on a
(sub-)regional basis. The establishment of such lists should be done through
appropriate coordination with the relevant Regional Sea Convention, and should
build on any “list of invasive alien species of Union concern” which may be
adopted in the context of the recent Commission
proposal on the prevention and management of invasive alien species[19]. The revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to introduce
specific minimum provisions based on the approaches developed within the EU and
the Regional Sea Conventions. However, Member States
should remain free to go beyond any Union-wide list to target species on a
sub-regional basis, and to beyond (sub-)regional lists to tackle species specific to their marine waters.
6.3.        Commercially exploited fish
and shellfish (Descriptor 3)
Fisheries activities represent one of the
most important human pressures on the marine environment; their impact is
significant, particularly on its biodiversity components. The Descriptor is
strongly linked to the Common Fisheries Policy, which has recently seen a
revision which will steer future EU fishing management decisions up to 2020 and
most probably beyond. Amongst the most important features of the reformed
policy are the need to attain sustainable fishing levels through use of the maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) management criteria, to adjust the fleet capacity
accordingly, to improve fleet performance with respect to their impact on the
marine environment and the obligation to land all catches. The new Basic
Regulation[20]
which entered into force recently, embedded the overall objectives of the MSFD within
the new Policy, where measures should be implemented gradually to reach MSY
levels, by 2015 where possible but not later than 2020.
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 3 is achieved when "populations
of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological
limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of
a healthy stock".
6.3.1.     GES definition (Art. 9)
All Member States have defined GES for
Descriptor 3. However, several Member States (DK, IE, NL, PT) have defined GES
only at the descriptor level.
Although GES definitions were not directly
comparable between MS, none have been defined it in a way that significantly
deviates from those provided in the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU, except for
one Member State (RO) which defined GES only for a single stock.
Most Member States have applied criteria
3.1 and 3.2 and nine (BG, CY, DE, FI, FR, IT, LT, SE, SI) have also applied
criterion 3.3 from the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU.
With regards to criterion 3.1, all Member
States have used fishing mortality (F) as the primary indicator and each of
those have used the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yields (FMSY)
in their GES definition except one Member State (IT) which uses a proxy for FMSY
(F0.1).
Two Member States (DE, FI) have clearly
stated that all fish and shellfish should be exploited at or below levels of FMSY
while another (SE) has clearly set this threshold but only for all commercially
exploited fish species. The remaining countries have GES definitions which do
not require either explicitly or implicitly all stocks to be exploited at or
below FMSY. Two Member States (ES, FR) have used FMSY as an
environmental target value rather than limits or boundaries for GES.
For those stocks for which F could not be
determined, a number of Member States (BE, CY, DE, FR, IT, SE, SI) have applied
the secondary indicator 3.1.2 on the catch/biomass ratio. One Member State (BE)
has also provided a third indicator using Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE).
Moreover, three Member States (EL, IT, SI)
have included the “exploitation rate” indicator and set a threshold level (E=0.4)
which is appropriate for small pelagic species.
For criterion 3.2, most Member States have
used the primary indicator, i.e. Stock Spawning Biomass (SSBMSY), but
using different reference points for the indicator such as SSBmsy
(BE, BG, CY, ES, IT, SI), SSBpa (BE, DE, LV),  BMSY-trigger  (DE,
FR, SE) and in some cases referring to more than one type of reference point in
their GES definition (BE, DE). Other Member States (IE, NL, UK) implicitly applied
Precautionary Approach levels by stating that stocks needed to be within safe
biological limits. Two Member States have clearly deviated from the others (ES,
FR) when defining the threshold for the Biomass (B)[21] of all assessed
stocks. Several Member States also applied the secondary indicator 3.2.2 on
biomass indices (CY, EE, FR, IT, SE, SI) and one proposes to use it in their GES definition (DE). One
Member State proposes an alternative secondary indicator (BE), based on trends
of survey abundance.
Criterion 3.3 is the least developed
criterion of Descriptor 3, as it needs further methodological development. Nine
Member States (BG, CY, DE, FI, FR, IT, LT, SE, SI) have defined criterion 3.3
to some extent. Indicator 3.3.1 of the Commission Decision has been applied by
five Member states (DE, EE, FR, IT, SI), 3.3.2 by one Member State (DE), 3.3.3
by five Member States (DE, EE, FR, LT, SI) and 3.3.4 by two Member States (DE,
EE).
In summary, two Member States were
judged to have adequate GES definitions (DE, FI). Nine Member States were
judged to have partially adequate (BE, BG, CY, IE, IT, LV, SE, SI, UK)
determinations of GES. Nine were judged to have inadequate GES definitions (DK,
EE, EL, ES, FR, LT, NL, PT, RO.
Overall the coherence for the definition
of GES for Descriptor 3 in the Atlantic and the Baltic maritime region was
moderate and in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions was low.
6.3.2.     Initial Assessment (Art. 8)
All Member States have undertaken an
initial assessment for Descriptor 3 although the initial assessment by one
country has not been assessed (BG).
Most of the North-East Atlantic countries,
two Mediterranean countries, three Baltic countries and one Black Sea country (DE,
DK, EL, ES, FR, IE, LV, PT, RO, SE, UK) have assessed stocks in relation to FMSY.
One Member State (IT) used another fishing mortality indicator as a proxy (F0.1).
One Member State (CY) applied Fpa and another (SI) used trends of
species abundance within the ecosystem. Sometimes, there were discrepancies in
the types of stocks assessed, such as in the case of the Mediterranean where one
Member State (FR) only assessed large pelagic species and another (CY) focussed
only on demersal stocks.
Four Member States (CY, FR, LV, UK) assessed
the spawning stock biomass in relation to SSBpa reference points, whilst
one (BE) implicitly did so by using the OSPAR ecological quality objective (EcoQO)
which requires stocks to be above SSBpa. Another two (DE, DK) used
the biomass at MSY-level (BMSY-trigger) as a reference point to assess
stocks, whilst two others (ES, SE) assessed stocks in relation to the SSBMSY
points. One Member State (PT) used both SSBMSY and BMSY-trigger
reference points. Finally one member state (FR) used BMSY.
In terms of impacts on seabed habitats, eleven
Member States (CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, IT, LT, NL, RO, SI, UK) provided a
quantification of the extent of the seabed affected by the fishing pressure.
This figure, however, varied widely amongst Member States.
In terms of the level of the pressure
caused by fishing fleets, a few Member States have assessed the extent of their
assessment areas subjected to the pressure from various fleet categories. The
assessments were very diverse even within Member States (depending on the fleet
category) and were difficult to summarise and compare.
In summary, six Member States (EL, ES, IE,
FR, NL, SE) were judged to have an adequate Initial Assessment, ten Member
States (BE, CY, DE, DK, IT, LV, PT, RO, SI, UK) were judged partially adequate
and three (EE, FI, LT) were judged as inadequate.
In general, the level of coherence of
the initial assessments undertaken by Member States in the North-East Atlantic
region and the Baltic Sea region was considered to be moderate. In the
Mediterranean it was assessed as low.
6.3.3.     Environmental targets (Art.
10)
All Member States have defined
environmental targets and associated indicators for Descriptor 3 for all their
marine waters.
Four Member States (BE, DE, DK, IE) have
set overall targets to manage all stocks according to MSY principles, although
it is not always clear whether the target requires all stocks to be exploited
at or below Fmsy. Three Member States have set targets to manage
stocks according to the provisions of relevant EU legislation including the
newly reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CY, EL, IT). 
Two Member States (NL, UK) have clearly-defined targets that state that all stocks
should be exploited at or below FMSY for those with sufficient
information to allow reference points to be calculated; for one Member State
(SE) has a similar target but left it unclear whether this applies to all
stocks. Others (BG, FI, LV, PT) have set FMSY as a limit for
selected stocks.
The targets for several Member States in Mediterranean region (ES,
FR) remain unspecific with little explanation provided. 
Two Member States (BE, UK) have set a
target for all stocks to be at SSBpa. Five Member States (BG, DK,
LV, NL, SE) have set targets for SSB for at least one stock. The thresholds
used are BPA (DK), BMSY-trigger (DK, SE) or a
quantitative reference point developed by ICES[22]
(LV) ) and in one case specific biomass levels for specific stocks in tons (BG).
Only one Member State (BE) has set BMSY as a target for all stocks,
although this target is not always consistent with the other targets provided.
Twelve Member States (BE, BG, CY, DE, EE,
FI, IE, LV, NL, SE, SI, PT) have set a target related to the size and structure
of fish populations (criterion 3.3). In the case of five Member States (BE, CY,
LV, PT, SE), this is because their target includes a verbatim or approximate
copy of Descriptor 3 as provided in Annex I of the MSFD. 
In the North East Atlantic region,
four out of 10 Member States (DE, IE, NL, SE) have also defined associated
indicators for the target(s) related to criterion 3.3 in some cases applying
verbatim copies (IE, NL) of the indicators as provided in Commission Decision
2010/477/EU and in other instances close approximations (DE, SE). None of these
indicators have defined thresholds and OSPAR EcoQOs were not used. 
In the Baltic, Commission Decision
2010/477/EU indicators were applied by two Member State (DE, SE) in general and
in the case of one Member State for a specific species (EE), the perch (perca
fluviatilis). The indicators of one Baltic state (FI) deviated from those
provided in Commission Decision 2010/477/EU and one (LV) did not provide any
indicators for criterion 3.3. 
In the Mediterranean none of the Member
States used Commission Decision 2010/477/EU indicators for criterion 3.3. 
In the Black Sea one Member State (BG)
applied the indicators for criterion 3.3, with specific thresholds for two
specific species, the Black Sea Turbot (Scophthalmus maeoticus) and the
sprat (Sprattus sprattus).
Finally, two Member States (EE, FI) have
also set targets related to the spawning of salmon. Three member states (DE,
IT, RO) have set targets related to illegal fishing, with one of them (DE)
making a link to the potential effects on other descriptors. In addition, one
Member State (RO) has also set a number of targets relating to the general
improvement of fisheries in the Black Sea.
In summary, for three MS the
environmental targets were judged to be adequate (LT, NL, UK). For seven MS (BG,
ES, FI, IE, LV, PT, SE) the targets were judged to be partially adequate and
the remaining ten were assessed as inadequate (BE, CY, DE, DK, EE, EL, FR, IT,
RO, SI).
Overall, the level of coherence in the
setting of targets for Descriptor 3 across the North-East Atlantic and
Mediterranean regions was low. The level of coherence in the Baltic Sea region was
considered to be moderate and in the Black Sea
region between low and moderate.
6.3.4.     Consistency between GES,
Initial Assessment and targets
Consistency level among the three relevant
articles of the Directive was rather low because a stronger link between the
baselines stated within the initial assessments and the targets to achieve GES
was not made. In most cases, either the current state or the GES were not
appropriately covered so the logical link was missing or appeared to be vague.
Other Member States have set their targets in an imprecise way, preventing
better coherence between countries.
6.3.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 3 of the Member States assessed is given in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
3 on commercial fish and shellfish. The bars indicate the number of Member
States which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 3 per marine region is given in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 3 on commercial fish and shellfish. The bars indicate
whether the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of
coherence within each region.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor
3, further scientific advice should be sought and developed at EU level so as
to provide clear guidelines on a stock-by-stock basis and better indicators for
this proposed criterion 3.3 as well as development of further fisheries
management plans considering mixed fisheries, prey-predator relationships, etc.
Agreement is needed for each (sub-)region as to which species fall within this
descriptor. Furthermore, MS should take full account of the information
available through the Common Fisheries Policy since annual scientific
assessments of commercial stocks are available in all areas, in the context of agreements
on fishing opportunities (Total allowable catches - TACs and quotas and effort
levels). In addition, MS should systematically develop GES and targets concerning
coastal species and shellfish, effects of fishing activities on other ecosystem
components, and the reduction of illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU)
fishing. Moreover, Member States should better coordinate their work on GES and
target-setting through the regional organisations (e.g. by collaboration between Regional Sea Conventions and
Regional Fisheries Management Organisations) and use the scientific advice from international organisations such as ICES more
systematically. If necessary, the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be
used to introduce clarifications and minimum requirements which would then be
brought into line with the recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy[23].
6.4.        Food webs (Descriptor 4)
Food webs are networks of feeding
interactions between consuming species and their food (i.e. predators and
prey). This descriptor addresses functional aspects of marine ecosystems,
especially the rates of energy transfer within the ecosystem and the levels of
productivity in each of its key components (often termed trophic levels). The topic of food webs is a complex one which
encompasses the entire range of living organisms in
each ecosystem, ranging from tiny microbes and plankton (as primary producers)
up to top predators such as birds, mammals and fish. Whilst the proper
functioning of marine food webs is an essential feature of a healthy ecosystem,
the techniques for measuring and assessing their status are very poorly
developed.
The assessment of food webs has close links
to the assessment at ecosystem level of Descriptor 1, as it encompasses
functional aspects to complement the more structural aspects addressed in
Descriptor 1.
Perhaps the most important pressure on food
webs is from fishing, either through over-fishing or the selective extraction
of larger individuals of fish. This can impact the normal predator-prey
balances in food webs and sometimes lead to dramatic effects when particular
species are removed from the food chain. In addition, climate change can alter
primary productivity or lead to changes in species distribution with consequent
effects on food webs. Extensive alteration to the sea-floor (through physical
disturbance or deoxygenation), the introduction of invasive non-indigenous
species and pollution by chemical substances can also lead to marked changes in
ecosystem structure. Due to this range of threats, Descriptor 4 has links
to the pressure-related descriptors, particularly Descriptors 2, 5 and 8.
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 4 is achieved when "all
elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at
normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term
abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity”.
6.4.1.     GES definition (Art. 9)
All Member States who have reported have
defined GES for Descriptor 4, with the exception of  BG, CY, LV and RO. The
definitions provided applied to their entire marine waters; only ES provided
minor differences between its sub-regions.
The GES definitions were formulated at
descriptor level by most Member States (except DK, IT, LT). Twelve Member
States provided additional detail at criterion level (BE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI,
FR, IE, IT, SE, SI), often with a close relationship to Commission Decision
2010/477/EU criteria, although not always every Decision criterion was used.
Four of these Member States (EE, FR, IT, SE) provided additional detail at
indicator level. One Member State (NL) reproduced the definition in
Annex I verbatim. One Member State (DE) coupled its definition with that
for Descriptors 1 and 6 but has very little direct relevance to Descriptor 4. One
Member State (PT) provided a definition at a high, general, level. Another (UK)
qualified its definition at descriptor level by referring to its targets under
Article 10, where additional specification was provided. Finally, one Member
State (LT) defined GES for Descriptor 4 only at indicator level, not covering
all indicators and criteria of the Commission Decision.
The definitions varied enormously in their
content and level of detail. Most were qualitative and many were rather vague,
lacking definitions of key terms used or specificity as to which elements of
food-webs were addressed.
Some Member States (BE, EL, ES, FR, FI, NL,
PT, SE) have defined GES in such a way as to cover all food-web components indiscriminately
(i.e. from plankton to higher trophic levels), whether because the GES
definition is very general (NL, PT) or because it includes a general statement
which addresses all food webs in a holistic manner (BE, EL, ES, FR, FI, SE). 
Most Member States have referred to
specific food web components in their GES definition, sometimes in addition to
defining it for all food web components. In the Baltic region, most
Member States have put an emphasis on fish communities. Most Member States (BE,
DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, SE, UK) refer to ‘key’ species or functional groups
and/or to top predators or species at the top of the food web. 
Few Member States included in their GES
definition specific species (DK, SE) or habitats (IT) as indicators of change.
Indicator species include the harbour porpoise and the harbour seal and
indicator habitats include Posidonia meadows. Only three Member States
(EL, ES, UK) have included a reference to the pressures on food web components,
in particular fisheries. 
In summary, two Member States (FR, SE)
were judged to have an adequate definition of GES. Six Member States (BE, DK,
EL, FI, IE, UK[24])
were found to have a partially adequate definition whilst eight were found to
be inadequate (DE, EE, ES, IT, LT, NL, PT, SI). BG,
CY, LV and RO have not defined GES for this
descriptor.
Due to the very wide variance in
approaches, the level of coherence within each of the regional seas was
considered to be low.
6.4.2.     Initial assessment (Art. 8)
The initial assessments for this Descriptor
were considered together with Descriptor 1 under 'ecosystems' (see section 6.1.2).
6.4.3.     Environmental targets (Art.
10)
Most Member States, with the exception of BG,
CY, IE, LV, PT, RO, have defined environmental targets and associated
indicators for all their marine waters, with most not distinguishing between
sub-regions. France was an exception, having separate targets for its Atlantic
sub-regions and Mediterranean region. A number of Member States provided
targets which jointly addressed Descriptors 1 and 4 (SE) or, more commonly, Descriptors
1, 4 and 6 (BE, DE, ES, FRMED, LT, NL, UK). In these latter cases,
the targets were typically grouped against the main biodiversity species or
habitats groups (i.e. under ecosystems in relation to Descriptor 4).
The number of targets varied greatly,
between one (EL, FRATLANTIC, IT, LT) and 37 (UK), the latter due
largely to having combined targets with Descriptors 1 and 6.
All Member States with targets have set
state-based targets; many of these would be better considered as expressions of
GES. In some cases (e.g. NL, UK), the lack of detail expressed in their
definition of GES was compensated by provision of a detailed set of state-based
targets. These state targets typically addressed specific ecosystem components
or even individual species which were considered as representative of certain
trophic groups (e.g. top-predators). Several Member States have specifically
addressed the full range of main ecosystem components (e.g. FI, UK). Some
Member States provided more holistic ecosystem targets (e.g. EE, FRATLANTIC,
IT, LT, NL), but these were typically rather general and more expressions of
GES.
In addition, specific pressure- and impact-based
targets have been reported, again directed towards particular ecosystem
components. They most frequently addressed seabed damage and accidental killing
of species (e.g. through fishing by-catch and ship collisions). Some Member
States (DE, ES, FRMED) provided measure-based targets and two MS
(ES, SI) added knowledge-based targets.
The level of detail given for the targets
varies greatly from one Member State to another; the targets have generally not
been assessed as fully SMART, often because they are not measurable or lack
specification.
In summary, bearing in mind those Member
States that have presented combined targets for several descriptors, one Member
State was judged to have adequate targets for Descriptor 4 (UK). Eight Member
States (BE, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FRMED, NL) were found to be
partially adequate, while six were found to be inadequate (EL, FRATLANTIC
, IT, LT, SE, SI). Six Member States (BG, CY, IE, LV, PT, RO) have not defined
targets for Descriptor 4.
The level of coherence in the
environmental targets and associated indicators within each region was judged
to be low except for the Baltic sea region where it is found moderate.
6.4.4.     Consistency between GES, initial
assessment and targets
Considering the complexity and general lack
of knowledge on this descriptor, there was a reasonable level of consistency
between GES, initial assessments and targets in the MS reports. However the
general lack of accepted assessment techniques meant that in many cases,
assessments of the current status of food webs were addressed in a mainly
qualitative manner or not at all. Very few MS used their determinations of GES
under Article 9 to assess current status under Article 8.
There was generally greater consistency
between GES and targets, with targets defined in a complementary manner and
often providing specific detail to the more generalised texts of the GES
definitions. In relation to Article 8, however, the targets often lack specific
links to particular pressures and impacts which may in part be due to imprecise
or inadequate assessments of current status. Gaps in knowledge and data formed
part of the problem and it was encouraging that most Member States acknowledged
this. However, most did not adequately outline how they plan to address these
gaps.
6.4.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 4 of the Member States assessed is given in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
4 on food webs. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were
assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 4 per marine region is given in Figure 9. 
Figure 9: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 4 on food webs. The bars indicate whether the reports
were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence within each
region.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor
4, further scientific and methodological developments should take place at EU
and regional level to improve the possibilities for setting GES and targets.
Such developments should also consider a more holistic setting of GES, through
integrating Descriptor 4 with other descriptors particularly Descriptors 1 and
6. It should focus on assessments across the range of biodiversity components,
at appropriate ecological scales, rather than on individual components as these
are addressed under Descriptors 1 and 6. If necessary, this approach should be
introduced in the the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU and minimum requirements
should be set.
6.5.        Eutrophication (Descriptor
5)
The main cause
of human-induced (anthropogenic) eutrophication is nutrient enrichment. This can
have a severe negative effect on marine ecosystems and is, therefore, a key
threat to achieving GES in some parts of EU marine waters. The main nutrients
concerned are nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) which are naturally present in
our seas, but additional and excessive inputs of N and P come from drained
inland diffuse and point sources, such as agriculture and waste water and, to a
lesser extent, from precipitation caused by ammonia emissions, mainly from
agriculture but also from industry.
The assessment
of eutrophication starts with a description of the levels of nutrients present
in the marine environment (assessment of state), and then by addressing
separately nutrient enrichment (input loads) and its (direct and indirect)
impacts.
According to
Annex I of the Directive, GES for Descriptor 5 is achieved when "human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially
adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation,
harmful algae bloom and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters".
6.5.1.     Good
Environmental Status (Art. 9)
All Member
States defined GES for Descriptor 5 and most (except CY, LT, NL, PT) covered
all three criteria of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU in their GES
specifications in a clear way. Only one Member State (CY) made no reference to
these criteria. However, with the exception of one MS (EL), none of the
definitions could be considered adequate. The main deficiencies relate to
incomplete coverage of indicators, a lack of specifity and threshold or
reference values, a lack of clarity on links with the Water Framework Directive
and a lack of clarity on the relationship between Good Ecological Status (GEcS)
under the WFD and GES under the MSFD GES.
There was a
large degree of variation in the approach to establishing indicators. Only one
Member State (FR) clearly covered all the indicators, although most Member
States covered most of them. Nutrient ratios and silicate concentrations were
the indicators most often excluded, while nutrient and chlorophyll a
concentrations, together with water transparency were covered by the majority
of Member States.
Two Member States (ES, FR) stated that GES
can be achieved even if nutrient levels are higher than thresholds values,
provided there are no direct or indirect impacts, but this was not the
predominant view.
Most Member
States referred to the appropriate normative definitions of good ecological
status (GEcS) classifications of the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC)
for coastal waters but the relationship between the MSFD GES and the WFD GEcS was
not always clear (e.g. for CY, DK, EL, FI), and some Member States did not or
only partially referred to the WFD definition. Some Member States  were
specific about using WFD thresholds for good/high status to define MSFD GES in
coastal water bodies.
References to
assessment methods under Regional Sea Conventions were made by most Member
States either in their GES definition or in the accompanying text. For the Baltic
Sea region, reference was made to the HELCOM eutrophication assessment tool
(HEAT) all Baltic Member States except DK and LT. For the North East
Atlantic region, nearly all Member States made reference to the
OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure. Certain Member States have defined GES in terms
of achieving OSPAR's 'eutrophication non-problem' status (DE, IE, UK) and most
countries appear to have adopted the OSPAR nutrient baseline/threshold levels,
at least for offshore waters (exceptions include DK, NL and PT). For the Mediterranean
region, only one Member State (ES) mentioned explicitly the MEDPOL approach,
while the OSPAR approach appears to have been followed by two Member States
(FR, IT). Romania and Bulgaria did not refer to the Black Sea
Convention, since the Convention has not developed a regional assessment approach
to eutrophication assessment.
Only seven Member States (EL, ES, IE, LT,
LV, SE, SI) incorporated quantitative thresholds into their definition of GES
and therefore in the majority of cases it is impossible to know when GES is
actually achieved.
In summary, for one Member State (EL),
GES for Descriptor 5 was judged to be adequate whereas for six Member States (CY,
DK, NL, LT, PT, RO) it was judged to be inadequate. For the remaining 13 Member
States it was judged to be partially adequate.
Overall, the level of coherence for Descriptor
5 was relatively high in the Baltic and North East Atlantic regions and
moderate in the Black Sea and Mediterranean regions, although differences at
sub-region level were noted.
6.5.2.     Initial Assessment (Art. 8)
All Member States have undertaken an
initial assessment for Descriptor 5.
All Member States
have provided nutrient input loads and environmental concentrations
for the relevant nutrients – nitrogen and phosphorus. However, eight Member
States (BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, LV, LT, UK), have not provided much information on
organic matter inputs, and some Member States (FI, FR) provided estimates that
are more than 10 years old.
There was a significant degree of variation
in the level of detail of reporting on source origin of pressures as well as
the level of knowledge of nutrient source apportionment (i.e. the amount coming
from different sources or activities) across the different regions and
differences. While most Member States appeared to have a sound understanding of
where the nutrients/organic matter originates (agriculture, forestry, urban
discharges, aquaculture, atmospheric deposition etc.), reports varied in the level
of detail on quantification of these sources, for instance on the relative
contributions of point versus diffuse sources to riverine input loads and on
loads from atmospheric deposition.
The information provided on impacts was
usually less complete than for pressures. For the Baltic Sea and the
North-East Atlantic regions, all Member States have presented a judgement
on the level of pressure and most Member States also included trends for these
pressures, even if they did not always do so with reference to their GES
definition (e.g. for FR, UK). In the Baltic region all countries assessed
impacts, but most of the timein an incomplete manner. Where made, judgements
often appear to be sound, based on the information provided, and indicate in
most cases that GES has not been achieved. The majority of Member States in the
Baltic refer to the relevant WFD (DE, DK, EE, FI) and/or HELCOM work (DE, EE,
FI, LT, SE) in their initial assessments. For the Mediterranean region, most
Member States (except ES, IT) have assessed impacts on both seabed and pelagic
habitats and all Member States (except IT) have assessed the trend of the
pressure and/or impact. Where made, judgements on both pressures and impacts
often appeared to be sound, based on the information provided.
In summary, the initial assessment was judged
to be adequate for seven Member States (CY, DK, EL, ES, IE, SE, SI), and
partially adequate for the remaining 12 Member States.
Overall, the level of coherence in the
initial assessment of eutrophication is high in the Baltic and North-East
Atlantic regions and moderate in the Mediterranean region.
6.5.3.     Environmental targets (Art.
10)
All Member States except PT have defined
environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters. For
the North East Atlantic and Mediterranean regions, generally no
distinction was made between sub-regions (except in FR and IT).
Most Member States (BE, CY, DK, EE, IE, LT,
LV, NL, SE, SI) have established state/impact-based targets, effectively
representing the achievement of GES. Some Member States (BG, DE, EL, FR, IT, RO)
provided only less ambitious pressure-based targets, while FI and ES provided
targets based on both pressures and impacts. The UK established a risk-and
state/impact-based approach to target setting.
Most targets set by Member States were
considered specific and measurable. For those Member States that have set clear
thresholds, the targets seemed achievable (e.g. BE, BG, IE, NL, SI, UK). Other
Member States did not always set clear thresholds for all targets, which makes
it difficult to assess if they were achievable and realistic (e.g. DE, FR, RO,
SE). In some cases, targets were more expressions of GES than real targets
defined to help achieve GES (e.g. EE, LT).
In
summary, the setting of targets was assessed as being adequate for five Member
States (BG, FI, IE, SI, UK), partially adequate for ten Member States (BE, CY,
DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, LV, NL, SE) and inadequate for four Member States (FR, IT,
LT, RO).
Overall,
the level of coherence in the setting of environmental targets across the
different regions is moderate, although differences exist at sub-regional
level. For instance, the level of coherence is considered low in the North East
Atlantic and Adriatic Sea (sub-)regions and high in the Celtic Seas, Ionian Sea
and Central Mediterranean Sea sub-regions.
6.5.4.     Consistency between GES,
initial assessment and targets
Overall the consistency between the three
relevant articles of the Directive was relatively good. Most Member States have
undertaken their initial assessments in line with the established GES
definitions and the targets set corresponded to the criteria and indicators
referred to in the GES definitions.
This relatively good consistency can be
explained by the fact that a majority of Member States based their approaches
on established methodologies of Regional Sea Conventions. The main difficulty
related not as much in the application of consistent approaches across the
three articles but to the quantification of defined criteria and indicators and
quantitative assessment of pressures and impacts, which made it difficult for
many Member States to set realistic targets that were SMART and also
sufficiently ambitious to tackle eutrophication.
6.5.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 5 for the Member States assessed is given in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
5 on eutrophication. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were
assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 5 per marine region is given in Figure 11. 
Figure 11: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 5 on eutrophication. The bars indicate whether the
reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence
within each region.
To improve adequacy and coherence the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for
Descriptor 5, Member States should create better linkages with WFD assessment
methods, clarify and better justify the choice and prioritisation of indicators
and reinforce cooperation under the RSC’s and MSFD working groups to ensure
coherence of approaches within and between regions. This cooperation should
also provide for an equal level of ambition to protect all European waters. The
development of guidance documents based on best practices on specific aspects
such as monitoring of indicators, aggregation of data, and assessment scales
will contribute to the application of coherent approaches. If necessary, this approach should be introduced in the revision of
Decision 2010/477/EU and minimum requirements should be set based on the
requirements of the Water Framework Directive and considering the available and
adequate assessment approaches in the marine regions.
6.6.        Sea-floor integrity (Descriptor 6)
Sea-floor integrity is a relatively new
concept, at least in the way it is expressed in the Directive, but is one which
encompasses aspects of structure and function in seabed habitats and their
communities which have a long history of scientific study and environmental
assessment, e.g. in the WFD and Habitats Directives. The assessment of sea-floor
integrity has strong links to Descriptor 1 on seabed habitats, where assessment
of the physical nature of the seabed and the quality of the associated
communities, are essentially similar for the two descriptors. The GES Decision
criteria and indicators address similar aspects of the quality of seabed
habitats to those used under Descriptor 1, although expressed in different
ways.
The range of threats to sea-floor integrity
varies in nature and severity across the different regions of Europe. The
degree of impact varies from sub-lethal effects on individuals or populations
(e.g. from hazardous substances), to lethal effects on individuals or
populations (e.g. from fishing), community-level effects (e.g. from nutrient
enrichment, introduction of non-indigenous species) and habitat-level effects
(e.g. damage from physical disturbances to the seabed; loss from land claim and
placement of structures on the seabed). In addition, climate change and
greenhouse gas emissions can lead to changes in sea temperature and sea level as
well as to ocean acidification, all of which can have an effect on sea-floor
integrity. Due to this range of threats, Descriptor 6 has links to all the
pressure-related descriptors (D2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10), excepting underwater
noise (Descriptor 11) where effects on seabed species have yet to be adequately
considered.
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 6 is achieved when "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”.
6.6.1.     GES definition (Art. 9)
All Member States who have reported have
defined GES for Descriptor 6 except RO, with definitions applying to their
entire marine waters. BG, DE and LV have provided a joint definition with
Descriptor 1; however DE’s definition had only a tenuous link to Descriptor 6.
The GES definitions were formulated at
descriptor level by most Member States (except DK, ES, LT, SI) and thirteen
Member States (BE, CY, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LV, SE, SI) provided
additional detail at criterion level, often with a close relationship to the
Commission Decision 2010/477/EU criteria. However, some of these MS (EE, IE,
IT, LV) have not used both criteria mentioned in the Decision. Seven (CY, EE,
ES, FR, IT, LT, SE) provided additional details at indicator level, again often
with a close relationship to the Commission Decision indicators although not
always every Decision indicator was used.
Some Member States (BG, PT, UK) provided
information only at descriptor level, sometimes incorporating elements of the
Decision criteria into their definition. One Member State (NL) has reproduced
the definition in Annex I verbatim.
The definitions varied considerably in
their content and level of detail. Most were qualitative and many were rather
vague, lacking definitions of key terms used or specificity of the seabed types
to be addressed.
A majority of Member States (CY, DK, EL, ES,
FI, FR, IT, NL, PT, SE, SI) refer to the reduction of physical pressures from
human activities on the seabed, either directly or indirectly (through
reference to impacts), but none provide information about which specific
activities may cause pressure to the seafloor.
Only four Member States (FR, IT, LT, SI) have
included an indicator on the percentage of area occupied by biogenic substrate
acted upon by human pressures but have not specified a threshold value. Only in
one case (IT) has a threshold value been set; in the other cases, it is under
development. Three out of these four Member States (FR, IT, SI) also have quantified indicators for non-biogenic
habitat impacted by human pressures but none of them have set a threshold yet.
Across the Member States, the coverage of
Criterion 6.2 on the condition of the benthic community is rather limited. In
the North East Atlantic marine region, only one Member State (SE) has
included a quantitative indicator in their GES definition, the Benthic Quality
Index (BQI), in relation to indicator 6.2.2. In the Baltic region,
several Member States (EE, LT, LV, SE) have used quantitative indicators in
their GES definition, and in particular the BQI. In the Mediterranean,
two Member States (CY, EL) have indicated that the assessment of GES will be
based on multi-metric indices, one of whom (CY) specifically referring to the
WFD and good ecological status. 
The definitions for 6.2 of the other fourteen
Member States are generally vague despite the fact that the condition of the
benthic community is one of the most studied and well-documented aspects of
biodiversity across most of Europe, and for which a number of WFD indicators
could have been used. Out of these fourteen Member States, only two (BE, DE)
refer to the WFD good ecological status.
No Member State was judged to have an
adequate definition of GES for Descriptor 6. Seven Member States are found to
have a partially adequate definition (BE, ES, EE, FI, FR, IT, SE) whilst twelve
are found to be inadequate (BG, CY, DE, DK, EL, IE, LT, LV, NL, PT, SI, UK); RO
has not reported a determination of GES.
Due to the wide variance in approaches
to the definition of GES for Descriptor 6, the level of coherence within each
of the three regions is considered to be low. Coherence in the Black Sea has
not been assessed as RO has not reported a determination of GES for this
descriptor.
6.6.2.     Initial assessment (Art. 8)
All Member States have undertaken initial
assessments for Descriptor 6. As Bulgaria's report was submitted late, it has
not been included in this assessment.
Assessment of reporting on the initial
assessment for this Descriptor is presented under Descriptor 1 (see Section
6.1.2 on seabed habitats).
Physical loss and damage
Given the close association to Descriptor 6
of the pressures physical loss and physical damage, these two pressures are
addressed here.
Most Member States were able to assess both
pressures. However, LV did not report on physical damage and RO did not report
on physical loss, whilst BE restricted its physical loss assessment to two
activities (port infrastructure and wind farms).
The main causes of physical loss reported
were: construction and maintenance of ports and other coastal developments,
land claim, tourism, beach regeneration, wind farms, oil and gas installations,
cables and pipelines, aquaculture and artificial reefs.
The main causes of physical damage reported
were: bottom-trawling fisheries, aggregate extraction, waste dumping, coastal
defence, ports and navigational dredging, construction works, mussel dredging,
hydraulic activities and shipping. Bottom trawling is often cited as causing
the most extensive damage.
Assessments of loss and damage were often
primarily in a qualitative manner. Many MS were, however, able to estimate the
extent of physical loss and damage in their waters. The proportion of the total
area of marine waters reported as being subject to physical loss was typically
<5%; however, estimates of the extent of physical damage varied greatly and
was reported as being particularly high in the Greater North Sea sub-region and
some other areas.
Few Member States draw firm conclusions on
whether the current scales of physical loss and damage are acceptable (CY, DK,
LT). Further, the assessments of impact on the different seabed habitat types
were often reported only qualitatively, if at all, meaning that the assessments
were not fully able to contribute to assessments of each habitat type for
Descriptors 1 and 6. Despite this, reductions in physical damage are the most
often mentioned target for seabed habitats, from which it can be deduced that
the current state of this pressure in many countries is not considered good
enough.
Regarding the assessment of physical
loss and damage, four Member States (CY, DK, ES, PT), were judged to have an
adequate initial assessment. Twelve Member States (BE, DE, EL, FI, FR, IE, IT,
LT, NL, SE, SI, UK) were found to be partially adequate, whilst the remaining
three (EE, LV, RO) were found to be inadequate.
The level of coherence of assessments of
the pressures in the Mediterranean and North-East Atlantic regions was
considered to be relatively high, whilst in the Baltic Sea region it was
considered to be moderate. Given Bulgaria’s late submission, coherence for the
Black Sea region was not assessed.
6.6.3.     Environmental targets (Art.
10)
All Member States except IE, PT and RO have
defined environmental targets and associated indicators for all their marine
waters, most not distinguishing between sub-regions. FR is an exception, as it has
separate targets for its Atlantic and Mediterranean regions. A number of Member
States have provided targets which jointly address Descriptors 1 and 6 (BG, CY)
or, more commonly, Descriptors 1, 4 and 6 (BE, DE, ES, FRMED, LT,
NL, UK). The number of targets varies greatly, between 1 (LT, LV) and 58 (BG),
although many of Bulgaria’s targets are simply repeated for each habitat type
addressed.
All Member States, except IT (and IE, PT
and RO who have not set targets), have set state-based targets; the majority of
these would be better considered as expressions of GES. In some cases (e.g. NL,
UK), the lack of detail expressed in their definition of GES is compensated by
provision of more detailed state-based targets. The number of specific pressure-
and impact-based targets overall is relatively low. Some exceptions include the
Mediterranean targets for France, which address a wide range of specific
pressures and impacts, but also a number of measures as well as Italy, which
has defined targets focusing on the pressure on the seafloor from harmful
fishing practices. Greece, Slovenia and Spain additionally provide a number of
monitoring or knowledge-filling targets. Some impact-based targets are very
generalised (DK, EE, FRATLANTIC, NL, SI, SE), with the remainder
mostly relating to physical disturbance of the seabed. The pressure-based
targets most frequently refer to fishing (bottom trawling), but aggregate
extraction, infrastructure construction and dredging also feature in a few Member
States. A number of MS provide measure-based targets (DE, ES, FI, FRMED,
IT, SI); here spatial measures (e.g. protected areas, licencing) and fishing
controls are most frequently cited. Whilst nearly all MS provide targets
related to the condition (quality) of the seabed, many also refer in some way
to the extent (proportion) of seabed that should be in good condition/free from
pressures and impacts. However, these proportion targets are often only vaguely
formulated or have a low level of ambition (e.g. to have 10% of seabed free
from disturbance). This lack of precision or ambition in pressure and impact
targets may thus be insufficient to address key pressures on sea-floor
integrity in order to achieve GES for this descriptor; this may particularly be
the case in those countries which have set only state-based targets (CY, EL,
LT, LV) or no targets at all (IE, PT, RO). However, it is noted that the scale
of pressures on the seafloor is already limited in certain countries due, for
example, to bans on bottom trawling (e.g. CY, ES-Canaries).
The level of detail given for the targets
varies greatly from one Member State to another; the targets have generally not
been assessed as fully SMART, often because they are not measurable or lack
specification.
The associated indicators also vary
significantly in detail and number. A number of Member States have not set
associated indicators (ES, FRATLANTIC, IT, LV). At the other
extreme, Bulgaria has set 125 indicators and the UK 58 indicators.
Two Member States are judged to have
adequate targets (BE, UK). Eight Member States are found to be partially
adequate (BG, DE, DK, ES, FI, FRMED, NL, SE), while eight are found
to be inadequate (CY, EE, EL, FRATLANTIC, IT, LT, LV, SI). IE, PT
and RO have not defined targets for Descriptor 6.
The level of coherence in the
environmental targets and associated indicators is low across the North-East
Atlantic region and Mediterranean regions while in the Baltic it is judged to
be moderate. Coherence for Descriptor 6 has not been assessed in the Black Sea,
as RO did not report any targets.
6.6.4.     Consistency between GES,
Initial Assessment and targets
There was a reasonable level of consistency
between GES, initial assessments and targets in the MS reports. A majority of Member
States were able to estimate the extent of physical loss and damage to the
seabed, albeit rather coarsely and often with low confidence. A number of MS
appear to have undertaken specific new studies to map and quantify the
distribution and extent of pressures; however this was rarely assessed in
relation to each type of seabed habitat. Very few MS used their determinations
of GES under Article 9 to assess current status under Article 8.
There was generally greater consistency
between GES and targets, with targets defined in a complimentary manner and
often providing specific detail to the more generalised texts of the GES
definitions. Gaps in knowledge and data form part of the problem and it is
encouraging that most Member Steps acknowledge this. However, most do not
adequately outline how they plan to address these gaps.
6.6.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for Descriptor
6 of the Member States assessed is given in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
6 on sea-floor integrity. The bars indicate the number of Member States which
were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 6 per marine region is given in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 6 on sea-floor integrity. The bars indicate whether the
reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence
within each region.
To improve adequacy and coherence the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for
Descriptor 6, Member States should define GES and targets in more detail. If necessary, this approach should be introduced in the revision of
Decision 2010/477/EU and minimum requirements should be set. Given the close
association of this descriptor with seabed habitats under Descriptor 1, it is
recommended that the two are addressed together in relation to each article;
this should be achieved, for example, through equating the predominant habitat
types of Descriptor 1 with the differing substrate types of Descriptor 6. This
should improve the overall efficiency of implementation for these two
descriptors, as already recognized by some Member States.
6.7.        Hydrographical changes
(Descriptor 7)
Permanent hydrographical changes can occur
due to changes in the thermal or salinity regimes, changes in the tidal regime,
sediment and freshwater transport, current or wave action and changes in
turbidity. The degree of change and the period over which such change occurs
varies considerably, depending on the type of modification. Assessment of the
degree of change can be related to both the water column and the sea-floor, and
consequently to their biological communities. These types of change are
normally triggered by building activities, such as extensions or alterations to
the coast, or the building of artificial islands and other infrastructural
works in the marine environment (such as outfalls from power stations, bridges
and causeways to islands, offshore installations).
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 7 is achieved when "permanent
alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine
ecosystems".
6.7.1.     GES definition (Art. 9)
Sixteen Member States have defined GES for this
descriptor, while froun (EE, LT, LV, RO) have not. All
16 MS used the same baseline (the present time) and most of them considered
that their waters were at GES for Descriptor 7 (but often based on a lack of
knowledge rather than on their Initial Assessment).
Most countries have determined GES at a general
level (only at descriptor level, or including criteria but without specifying
scale, indicators, habitats, species and ecosystems). Beyond this general
determination, which is usually close to the MSFD Annex I definition of GES,
only a few countries have specified the environment components to be taken into
account and given a list of relevant parameters (FR) or activities (IE).
Only two Member States (DE, IT) have
established a clear link to Water Framework Directive (WFD) normative
definitions of ecological status classifications for coastal waters (linked to
the WFD parameters on hydro-morphology). The fact that none of the other Member
States have done this is not coherent with the reality that most pressures
related to Descriptor 7 occur in coastal zones. However, some Member States (FR,
IE, NL, UK) referred to other existing regulatory regimes to be complied with
(e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment, Strategic Environment Assessment,
Habitats and Birds Directives).
The Member States in the North East
Atlantic region have used the OSPAR advice only partially and usually in
its restrictive considerations: the focus is on new activities only (this is
clearly the case for FR and NL).
Some Member States (FR, IE, SE, SI, UK)
clearly referred to the list of potentially impacted environment components
(such as specific seabed habitats, oxygen levels or current velocity), linking
this descriptor to the biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4 and 6). Few Member
States (e.g. FR) explicitly referred to plans in order to improve their
Descriptor 7 GES definition, or even referred to the actions already proposed
in the OSPAR advice.
None of the Member States except for IT
incorporate clear quantitative thresholds in their definition of GES.
In summary, only one MS (FR) was
assessed as being adequate for its determination of GES. Eight MS (BE, BG, CY,
DE, ES, IE, IT, UK) were assessed as partially adequate and seven MS (DK, EL,
FI, NL, PT, SE, SI) as inadequate.
Overall, the level of coherence in the
definitions of GES for Descriptor 7 across the Baltic Sea region was low but
across the North East Atlantic region it was high. For the Mediterranean Sea
region the coherence was moderate.
6.7.2.     Initial Assessment (Art. 8)
All Member States but one (LV) have undertaken
an initial assessment for Descriptor 7. Some countries have produced less
detailed reports, and in some cases (CY, DE, DK, EE, FR, IT, SE) focusing only
on a few selected parameters (usually temperature and salinity and sometimes
currents). Some MS also focused only on some areas (coastal) and with missing
elements such as impacts on specific environment components (BE, CY, ES, IE,
UK). This was often based on the hypothesis that present status was considered
to be at GES, which is assumed but not clearly demonstrated. Only three Member
States (FR, IT, NL) explicitly referred to WFD reports while on the other hand
nearly all of them (except EL) focused on the coastal zones. A number of
countries (e.g. FR, NL) referred to the OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR) 2010.

Plans to address the existing knowledge gap
were provided by seven Member States (DE, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, UK).
Seven Member States (CY, DK, EE, ES, NL,
SE, UK) reported that less than 1% of their assessment area of seabed habitats
and water column was affected by changes in hydrological processes. Some MS
reported that the impact was much larger: Slovenia it was 5-25% (due to changes
at the city of Koper), while in Lithuania it was 25-50% for seabed impacts and
75-100% for water column impacts (though it is unclear why this is the case).
Greece reported a (potential) impact of 75-100% due to changes in water
temperatures (as a result of climate change) and salinity which can trigger
changes in nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations and potential impact on
the survival of invasive species.
Marine acidification was expressly
mentioned (if only briefly in some cases), by most Member States (CY, DE, FI,
FR, IE, IT, LT, NL, SI, UK). In the reporting sheets, some of those states
mention that 75-100 % of their assessment area is affected by marine
acidification.
In summary, the initial assessments of
three Member States were assessed as being adequate (FR, IT, NL). Seven Member
States (BE, DE, EL, ES, IE, PT, UK) were considered partially adequate and the
remaining eight (CY, DK, EE, FI, LT, RO, SE, SI) were considered inadequate.
The level of coherence of the initial
assessments on hydrological processes across the Baltic Sea region is low. The
level of coherence in the North East Atlantic region was moderate, despite the
recent work done at OSPAR level for nearly all subregions (QSR 2010). Coherence
was high in the Celtic Seas and Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast subregions. The
level of coherence across the Mediterranean region was moderate but high in the
Western Mediterranean and Ionian Sea and Central Mediterranean Sea subregions.
6.7.3.     Environmental targets (Art.
10)
Thirteen Member States have defined
environmental targets and associated indicators, which cover all their marine
waters. Seven (CY, DK, IT, LT, LV, PT and RO) have not set environmental
targets.
Most of the Member States in the North
East Atlantic and Mediterranean regions assumed that their waters were
at GES already and so most of the environmental targets in the North-East
Atlantic defined (when applicable) focus on Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) – and thus related impacts –
for new projects (BE, ES, IE, NL, UK). Other countries have defined general
environmental targets which were more suitable as the GES definition than as
operational targets for Descriptor 7 (e.g. DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, SE). One Member
State (PT) has reported only one generic target on monitoring and was reported
as applicable to Descriptor 7. The target presented was very broad and not
specific to hydrographical conditions.
No Member State has made a clear link to
the WFD objectives or or to assessments for Descriptors 1, 4 and 6 or defined
clear thresholds.
In summary, the assessment of the
setting of targets was considered adequate for four Member States (BE, ES, NL, UK).
The assessment was partially adequate for one MS (IE) and inadequate for eight
(BG, DE, EE, EL, FI, FR, SE, SI).
Overall, the level of coherence in the
setting of environmental targets for Descriptor 7 across the Mediterranean
regions was low and moderate in the Baltic region. Overall, the level of
coherence across the North East Atlantic region was high.
6.7.4.     Consistency between GES,
Initial Assessment and targets
Most Member States reported that the GES
for permanent hydrographical changes referred only to new projects and that the
present situation was considered as being at GES. This consequently took no
account of the past levels of hydrological changes which, in some coastal areas
in particular, has been significant. By incorporating the assessment of impacts
from new projects into their targets, any significant future
degradation would be prevented to enable GES to be
maintained. This was considered as a consistent approach. In the initial
assessment those potential pressures and impacts were identified only by some
Member States.
6.7.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for Descriptor
7 of the Member States assessed is given in Figure 14.
Figure 14: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
7 on hydrographical changes. The bars indicate the number of Member States
which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 7 per marine region is given in Figure 15.
Figure 15: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 7 on hydrographical changes. The bars indicate whether
the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence
within each region.
To improve adequacy and coherence the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for
Descriptor 7, a discussion on the reference point should take place because most
Member States use the present situation with regard to hydrographical
conditions, including all its dynamic aspects, as the baseline. 
However, starting from the perspective of
the ecosystem, such as assessing the status of particular sea-floor habitats,
the hydrographical changes from past construction works could be one of the
pressures, in addition to e.g. physical disturbance or pollution from
contaminants or nutrient enrichment, which need to be taken into account. This
would then also require assessment of the extent of past changes in
hydrographical conditions.
If the approach of most Member States is
maintained, the descriptor would aim at safeguarding the present situation with
regard to hydrographical changes. However, the Member States should assess new
construction works (which may change the hydrographical conditions) prior to any
decision on granting a building permit. In such an assessment, all relevant
aspects should be considered (including temperature, salinity, currents,
sediment transport, clarity/transparency, etc). Furthermore, a common
understanding of the aspects to be considered and how to assess their possible
change due to construction works should be developed. If
necessary, this approach should be introduced in the revision of Decision
2010/477/EU and minimum requirements should be set.
6.8.        Contaminants (Descriptor 8)
Contaminants or chemical substances (other
than nutrients) are well-known causes of pollution which can affect the health
of the marine ecosystems. A large number of different contaminants such as
heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons and others reach the marine environment
and some of them can be at levels which cause impacts to marine species. They
pollute the water or the sediment or can accumulate in the food chain, from
algae to fish to mammals and birds (biota). As we consume seafood, they can
also reach the human food chain. All these aspects are addressed through
Descriptors 8 (contaminants) and 9 (contaminants in seafood) (see next
section).
These aspects have a long history of being
addressed through EU legislation and actions at the level of the Regional Sea
Conventions. In particular, the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and its
related Directives on Environmental Quality Standards (2008/105/EC as amended
by 2013/39/EU) play an
important role also for the MSFD implementation and provide a reference point
for the assessment of adequacy of implementation and facilitate coherence.
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 8 is achieved when “concentrations
of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects””.
6.8.1.     GES definition (Article 9)
The level of completeness for Descriptor 8
was high. Nearly all assessed Member States (except LV) have defined GES for
contaminants.
However, the level of detail and the
specific elements used by the Member States varied considerably.
Most Member States covered some or all
criteria set out in Decision 2010/477/EU. Only for four Member States (CY, DK,
NL and PT) is the definition rather general and largely repeating the
descriptor definition in MSFD Annex 1.
The other Member States covered, at least,
criterion 8.1. and indicator 8.1.1 in relation to the concentrations of
contaminants. BG and RO only covered this aspect, stating that it was not
possible to set GES for the other criterion set out in the 2010 Decision.
Regarding the effects of contaminants
(criterion 8.2), many Member States (BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, SE,
SI, UK) defined pollution effects (8.2.1) but in different ways; some of them
used OSPAR's Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) or Ecological Assessment
Criteria (EACs) as a reference for defining specific pollution effects. One
Member State (EE) addressed the issue only from the perspective of
concentration levels in biota (living organisms such as algae, mussels, fish,
etc.).
Fewer Member States (DE, FI, FR, LT, SE)
addressed acute pollution (indicator 8.2.2), again in a variety of different
ways.
Four Member States (CY, ES, FR, SI) also
introduced a “no deterioration” clause as part of their GES definition (i.e.
concentration of contaminants should not increase over time).
The substances and matrices covered largely
rely on relevant EU legislation and regional work but it was not always clear,
explicit and sufficient.
Most Member States directly or indirectly
mentioned the list of WFD priority substances (in Directive 2008/105/EC). However,
some of them not covering all substances on the list. Only one Member State
(UK) referred to the amended list of priority substances finally adopted in
2013 (Directive 2013/39/EU). Some Member States have not used that WFD list as
a starting point (BG, CY, DK and ES) and, except in the case of France, no reference was made to the lists
established in the Regional Sea Conventions which in some cases differs from
the EU priority substances list. The relationship between the different lists was,
in most cases, unclear.
Only three Member States (DE, EL, IT)
defined GES for radioactive substances and another Member State (FR) mentioned
other additional substances covered.
These substances can be monitored and
assessed in three different matrices, namely water, sediment and biota. Most
Member States mentioned that all three matrices were considered whereas some
Member States (EE, ES, FI, IT and LT) only referred to two out of the three in
different combinations and for different reasons. Other
Member States (BG, DK, NL, PT) have not referred to any matrices.
As regards the boundaries or thresholds for
assessing GES Descriptor 8, compliance with the Environmental Quality Standards
(EQS) set out in Directive 2008/105/EC was mentioned by most Member States (except
BG, CY, DK, ES and FI).
In addition, the standards developed in the
Regional Sea Conventions were used by many Member States. However, in most
cases, Member States have not clarified whether the approach was compatible
with EU legislation and how they were related in cases where the same substances
were addressed. Six Member States out of ten in the North East Atlantic
region (BE, DE, ES, FR, IE, UK) have included a direct or indirect reference to
the OSPAR Environmental Assessment Criteria (EACs) and also Member States in
other marine regions have used them (namely EL, ES, FR, SI in the Mediterranean
and RO in the Black Sea). Only one Member State (ES) has referred to the reference
levels developed in the context of the Barcelona Convention, whilst three
Member States (DE, EE and LT) have referred directly to reference levels
developed in the context of HELCOM.
Finally, only a few Member States (EE, ES, IT,
PT) have defined aggregation rules and one additional Member State (FR) states
that they should be defined later.
In summary, the definition of GES for
Descriptor 8 is assessed as adequate for only one Member State (FR). 11 Member
States are assessed as partially adequate (BE, DE, EE, EL, ES, IE, IT, LT, SE,
SI, UK) and seven are assessed as inadequate (BG, CY, DK, FI, NL, PT, RO). 
The level of coherence in the
definitions of GES for contaminants is low in the Black Sea regions, high in
the North East Atlantic region and moderate in the Mediterranean and Baltic
region.
6.8.2.     Initial assessment (Article
8)
In general, the level of completeness was
very high with all Member States (which were assessed) having undertaken an
initial assessment for Descriptor 8 and most of them being able to provide a
detailed, quantitative or trend-based assessment of the level of contamination
except for six MS (CY, EL, IT, NL RO, SI).
Most Member States (except IT, SI) have
also provided a list of contaminants assessed; however, the list of substances
varied considerably. The most common contaminants which were assessed were
heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium), pesticides (e.g. DDT, HCH)[25] and other synthetic
pollutants (PAHs, TBT, HCB, PBDEs)[26].
These substances were also covered by Directive 2008/105/EC and have been
assessed at regional level for a long time. However, no systematic information
is available why other substances listed in EU legislation (including the
recently amended list in Directive 2013/39/EU) have not been assessed and
whether they are relevant for the marine environment. Most Member States made
an assessment of contamination by radionuclides, mostly stating that
concentrations were low and unlikely to have effects on ecosystem components.
Two countries reported that the levels were a number of times higher than
before the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
The methodologies and data used by the
Member States sharing the North-East Atlantic and Baltic regions were
mostly based on the available assessments in OSPAR (Quality Status Report) and
HELCOM (Holistic Assessment, HOLAS), respectively, although more recent work
and other sources have not been used systematically. In the Mediterranean,
only two Member States (CY, ES) made use of the MEDPOL assessments. The WFD
methodology was mentioned by most North-East Atlantic Member States but in
other regions only by few Member States (CY, EE, ES, FR, LT, RO).
Many Member States (except RO, SE) referred
to all the main sources of contamination (land-, sea- and air-based), with
generally more details provided for land-based pollution. The common sea-based
sources of contamination included shipping, dredging and offshore oil and gas
activities; the air-based sources of contamination were often industrial and
commercial combustion processes.
Most Member States (except FR, IT, LV) have
made a judgement on the current level of contamination in their marine waters,
but only a few of them have made an assessment in relation to their GES
definition (IE, LT, PT).
The most common assessment criteria
mentioned were the EU EQS, OSPAR's EAC and HELCOM criteria.
Most Member States have made an assessment
of impacts of contamination on species but only a few on seabed habitats or
other ecosystem components. The biological effects most often reported on
include imposex, fish disease, lysosomal membrane stability or the biomarker ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase
(EROD).  Some Member States (DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, LT) have made judgements
on the current levels of impacts in relation to GES on functional groups, on
seabed habitats or on other ecosystem components.
Most Member States (except EE, IT, PT, RO)
have made an assessment of contamination by acute pollution events but to a
varying degree of detail. Only a few MS  assessed the impact of this acute
pollution on marine organisms.
In terms of data and knowledge gaps, few
Member States (DE, EL, ES, SE) reported substantially on this and some included
information on how to close these gaps. The information gaps mentioned
concerned the need to develop assessment criteria to assess the impacts on
ecosystem components and the difficulties to aggregate the different
assessments to make a judgement in relation to GES. Gaps were also noted in
terms of methodologies to make common assessments of radioactive contamination
and contamination by oil pollution.
In summary, the initial assessments of six
Member States (DE, DK, ES, IE, FI, UK) were judged to be adequate and
inadequate for two Member States (IT, SI). The remaining eleven Member States’
assessments were partially adequate (BE, CY, EE, EL, FR, LT, LV, NL, PT, RO, SE.
The level of coherence in the Baltic and
the North-East Atlantic regions was high due to the systematic reliance of the
assessments of the Regional Sea Conventions. In the Mediterranean region, the
level of coherence was low and in the Black Sea region it was not assessed due
to the late arrival of the BG report.
6.8.3.     Environmental targets
Most Member States (except LV) have set
environmental targets and/or related indicators for Descriptor 8. The number of
targets (not counting the indicators) varied from 1 (CY, EL, FRATLANTIC) to 13 (FRMED)
as did the level of detail. Most Member States have set measurable targets
because these were defined against specific reference levels (e.g. EQS, EAC)
but no Member State has set threshold values and baselines for all its targets
(although BE comes very close. Most targets were considered SMART as they were
measurable, specific and for the most part time-bound and realistic. However,
targets set were often an expression of GES – requiring achievement of the same
reference levels as defined in GES – rather than targets defined to help
achieve these reference levels and ultimately GES.
Member States have set different types of
targets, based varyingly on state, pressures or impacts (effects).
Several Member States have defined
pressure-based targets which often were reduction targets linked to all or
specific sources. Several Member States (BG, DE, ES, FI, FR, SE) have defined
pressure-based targets, which are geared towards reducing input of contaminants
to the sea from land-, sea- and/or air-based sources.
Many Member States (except BG, CY, EE, EL,
FR, LT, PT, RO) have defined targets on biological effects of contaminants with
the most common being effects on imposex and oiled guillemots.
Some other approaches have also been used.
Two countries (IE, NL) have set a target for levels of contaminants to decrease
(in addition to being below the reference levels) but without specifying which
pressure should be acted upon for this to happen. One Member State (ES) has
used a mixed approach, defining both pressure- and state-based targets. Another
(EL) has defined only a monitoring target, which requires the investigation and
determination of concentration levels. Two Member States (FI, SI) have defined
targets for radionuclides. Finally, two Member States (ES, SI) have defined
monitoring/knowledge-based targets in addition to pressure- or state-based
targets, which are geared towards collecting more information on a certain
number of gaps, in particular biological effects/biomarkers.
Many Member States (except CY, EE, EL, IT,
LT, PT, RO, SI) have set a target on acute pollution events, mostly targeting
illegal discharges and oil spills.
In summary, one Member State (BE) is
assessed as adequate, eleven Member States are partially adequate (DE, DK, ES,
FI, FRMED, IE, NL, RO, SE, SI, UK) and eight (BG, CY, EE, EL, FRATLANTIC,
IT, LT, PT) are considered to be inadequate. Latvia did not define targets for
Descriptor 8.
The level of coherence in the North East
Atlantic region is relatively high, in the Baltic Sea region it is moderate. A
low level of coherence in the setting of targets for Descriptor 8 is found in
the Mediterranean and the Black Sea regions. 
6.8.4.     Consistency between GES,
Initial Assessment and targets
Overall, the consistency between the three
relevant articles of the Directive was relatively good for those pollutants
which have been dealt with for quite some time. However, due to the differing
lists of contaminants covered and the variety of approaches in the initial
assessment and target-setting, the overall conceptual relationship between the
different provisions of the Directive was not always clearly explained.
Given the large number of emerging
pollutants and the methodological and data deficiencies that still exist in
this area, it was surprising that only a few Member States recognised and
identified these knowledge gaps. 
6.8.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 8 of the 19 Member States which were assessed is given in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
8 on contaninants. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were
assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 8 per marine region is given in Figure 17. 
Figure 17: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 8 on contaminants. The bars indicate whether the reports
were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence within each
region.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor
8, Member States should more systematically use the latest relevant EU
legislation (in particular 2008/105/EC as amended by 2013/39/EU). To ensure consistency, it would be useful to define a minimum level
of ambition including a list of contaminants (at EU and regional level) to be
assessed systematically as regards their relevance. Consequently, GES and
targets would have to be set for the same list of substances.
In addition, for those aspects which are
not explicitly covered by EU legislation, the wealth of approaches developed
within the Regional Sea Conventions should be used, provided the relationship with
the EU approach is clear and complementary. It also appears possible to
transfer best practices from one region to another because the specificity of
the ecosystem is not as relevant for this descriptor as it is for others. Finally,
the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to introduce specific
minimum requirements based on the approaches developed within the EU and the
Regional Sea Conventions.
6.9.        Contaminants in fish and
other seafood (Descriptor 9)
As we consume seafood, contaminants which
accumulated in the marine ecosystem can reach the human food chain. In order to
protect public health, it is essential to keep consumer intake of contaminants
in food at levels which are toxicologically acceptable. Member States need to
monitor and assess the possible presence of substances for which maximum levels
are established at European level for products meant for human consumption, in
particular through Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as last amended by Regulation
(EU) No. 219/2012. This framework provides also the basis for setting good
environmental status for this descriptor.
According to Annex I of the Directive,
GES for Descriptor 9 is achieved when “contaminants
in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels
established by Community legislation or other relevant standards”.
6.9.1.     GES definition (Article 9)
Nearly all Member States which were
assessed (except BG and RO) have defined GES for Descriptor 9. Two Member
States (BG, DK) have not defined GES in a clear and detailed way which would
allow it to be measurable. RO justified the lack of GES definition by stating
that there was not enough data to develop indicators for this descriptor.
Some Member States (ES, FR, SE) have
defined GES using the entirety of criterion 9.1 of the Commission Decision,
i.e. including a criterion on the maximum frequency of regulatory levels being
exceeded. The other Member States have defined GES only for the first part of
criterion 9.1 on the concentration levels of contaminants.
Limit values were used to define the
boundary or thresholds for GES. Most Member States  referred to compliance with
EU Regulation No. 1881/2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in
foodstuffs and some Member States also referred to its amendments. Most Member
States made direct reference to the legislation implying that the limit values
therein applied. However, this aspect should be clarified. Others have instead
set fixed limit values in their definition, which are consistent with the
current EU foodstuffs limit values. In such cases, these limit values would
have to be amended in case the EU legislation was changed.
Some Member States (EE, EL, LT, LV, NL, SE)
included details about the specific substances that were covered in their GES
definition. For all other Member States which set GES, the lack of
specification seemed to indicate that all relevant substances for fish and
seafood in EU Regulation No. 1881/2006 were covered. Only three Member State
(BE, DE, FR) covered microbial pathogens in their GES definition (by referring
to compliance to Directive 2006/113/EC in its accompanying text).
The information provided regarding the
specific species and type of sample (e.g. fish muscles) which were covered in
the GES definition varies considerably in detail and clarity. These aspects
should be assessed in more detail.
Only three Member States (ES, IT, PT) have
defined aggregation rules while three Member States (EL, IT, SI) have added a
specification regarding the origin of the fish/seafood covered by the GES
definition.
In summary, the definition of GES for
Descriptor 9 is found to be adequate for two Member States (ES, FR), while for two
others it is assessed as inadequate (DK, IE). The other Member States (BE, CY,
DE, EE, EL, IT, FI, LT, LV, NL, PT, SE, SI, UK) are assessed as partially
adequate.
The level of coherence in the
definitions of GES for Descriptor 9 in the North East Atlantic and
Mediterranean regions is high and moderate in the Baltic region.
6.9.2.     Initial assessment (Article
8)
Most Member States have undertaken an
initial assessment for Descriptor 9. For BG, the initial assessment was not
assessed yet.
Most assessments relating to fish and
seafood were done in conjunction with the assessment of contamination of the
environment and ecosystem components by hazardous substances (see previous
section on Descriptor 8). One Member State (SE) mentioned the discrepancy
between regulatory levels for contaminants in the environment and for
contaminants in foodstuffs (i.e. the latter being less strict).
The substances assessed were generally the
same as those assessed under Descriptor 8, except less numerous (as not all are
relevant for human consumption). Often information was provided regarding the
species assessed but the level of detail varied.
Most Member States (except BE) have made a
quantitative assessment of the current concentration levels of contaminants in
these various species, most of them against the levels specified in EU
Regulation No. 1881/2006. The level of detail provided on the exceedances and a
clear aggregated judgement on the current situation in relation to GES varied
considerably.
All  Member States but one (LV) have made
an assessment of  contamination by microbial pathogens in their shellfish and/or
bathing waters, using as threshold values the standards of Directives
2006/113/EC (Shellfish Water Directive) and 2006/7/EC (Bathing Water
Directive).
Finally, in terms of good practices, some
Member States (EL, IE, LT, NL, UK) have assessed the current levels of
radioactive substances in fish and seafood for human consumption.
In summary, four Member States were assessed
as adequate (EE, ES, LT, NL), three as inadequate (BE, CY, IE) and the
remaining ten as partially adequate (DE, DK, EL, FR, FI, LV, PT, SE, SI, UK).
IT and RO did not make an initial assessment for Descriptor 9.
There was a relatively high level of coherence
across the Baltic and North East Atlantic regions and a moderate level of
coherence across the Mediterranean region in the approaches used to assess the
level of contamination of fish and seafood.
6.9.3.     Environmental targets
(Article 10)
Most Member States (except IT, RO) have set
environmental targets for Descriptor 9, some of them specifying that their
targets for Descriptor 8 cover also Descriptor 9. The number of targets varied
from one (CY, EL) to four (ES).
Most countries that have set specific
environmental targets for Descriptor 9 have all defined the same type of
target, requiring concentration levels of substances to be below EU foodstuffs
limit values. Because of the systematic reference to the EU standards, all of
these targets were considered to be measurable even when they were not detailed
(i.e. there is no need to define specific threshold values and baselines).
Some Member States (DE, ES, FR, NL, SE)
have defined targets or indicators that related to the reduction of a pressure
but actually these targets have been defined for Descriptor 8 and applied to this
descriptor. A few Member States (BE, DE, FR) have also included compliance with
Directive 2006/113/EC on the quality of shellfish water to deal with microbial
pathogens. One Member State (SI) has defined a target related to the number of
inspections of landed catch by fishing vessels. Only one Member State (NL) has
defined an indicator relating to indicator 9.1.2 on the frequency of regulatory
levels being exceeded.
Only the Baltic Member States (DK, EE, FI,
LT, LV) provided a detailed list of the substances covered by their
environmental targets, while another (NL) gives details in the accompanying
text. The lack of specification by the other Member States suggested that the
substances covered were those of EU Regulation No. 1881/2006 which are relevant
for fish.
None of the Member States provided details
of the specific species to be used for measurements, except one (NL) in the
accompanying text and one (IE) which excludes a number of species, in line with
its GES definition. Only a few Member States (ES, IE) have included the issue
of the origin of the samples in their environmental target.
In summary, no Member States were
assessed as adequate, six were assessed as inadequate (BG, CY, EE, LT, PT, SE)
and the remaining twelve were partially adequate (BE, DE, DK, EL, ES, FR, FI,
IE, LV, NL, SI, UK). IT and RO did not define targets for Descriptor 9.
The level of coherence in the setting of
environmental targets for Descriptor 9 across the Baltic, the Mediterranean and
the North East Atlantic regions was high.
6.9.4.     Consistency between GES,
Initial Assessment and targets
Overall the consistency between the three
relevant articles of the Directive was relatively good. However, due to the differing
lists of contaminants covered and the variety of approaches in the initial
assessment and target-setting, the overall conceptual relationship between the
different provisions of the Directive was not always clear or clearly
explained. 
6.9.5.     Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 9 of the 19 Member States which were assessed is given in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
9 on contaninant in seafoods. The bars indicate the number of Member States
which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 9 per marine region is given in Figure 19. 
Figure 19: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 9 on contaminants in seafood. The bars indicate whether
the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence
within each region.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor
9, Member States should improve the specification and traceability on the
origin of fish/seafood in order to use these data for the assessment of
environmental status and help prepare targeted measures. This aspect should be
addressed by Member States in the preparation of their monitoring programmes.
Finally, the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to introduce
specific minimum requirements based on the approaches developed within the EU
and the Regional Sea Conventions.
6.10.      Marine litter (Descriptor 10)
Marine litter is increasingly
recognised as a significant source of pollution. Litter washed ashore is the
most obvious symptom of marine litter. Litter is also found floating in the
water column, and on the sea floor of both shallow and deep waters. Litter has
numerous sources and consists of many different materials: plastics, wood,
metal, glass, rubber, or clothing. Plastics are the most common type of litter
found on all of the beaches surveyed.
According to Annex I of the Directive, Descriptor
10 is at GES when "properties and
quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine
environment".
6.10.1.   GES definition (Article 9)
Five Member States (BG, EE, LT, LV, RO)
have not defined GES for marine litter. The GES definition in most of the other
Member States followed the descriptor definition but not with definitions of
criteria or indicators laid down in the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. Only
one Member State (FR) reported a GES definition up to the indicator level and
provided details on how progress can be measured. Nine of the 15 Member States
who defined GES, included in their definitions that a reduction of marine
litter was required. The other six MS have formulated GES in more general
terms, although five of these incorporated a reduction of marine litter into
their environmental targets (DE, DK, FI, NL, PT). Only one Member State (CY)
did not set any reduction aim.
Despite the lack of detail, some Member
States provided additional elements for the GES definition that are not covered
by Decision 2010/477/EU. Three Member States (DE, DK, FR) referred to marine
litter as a pathway for the proliferation of invasive non-indigenous species. Five
Member States (DE, DK, FI, FR, SI) reported that marine litter should not have
adverse economic consequences for the maritime economic sectors (including
shipping and fisheries) and coastal communities. Two Member States (DE, FR)
further specified that marine litter should not pose a risk for human health. Furthermore,
two Member State (EL, SE) reported that in the long term, the marine environment
should be free of litter.
In summary, only one Member State was
assessed to have an adequate GES definition (FR). Six Member States (DK, FI, IE,
SE, SI, UK) were assessed as partially adequate and eight Member States as
inadequate (BE, CY, DE, EL, ES, IT, NL, PT).
Overall, the level of coherence in the
definitions of GES for marine litter was high in the North East Atlantic
region, moderate in the Mediterranean region and low in the Baltic Sea region.
6.10.2.   Initial Assessment (Article
8)
Most Member States reported on the lack of
an agreed methodology for assessing the state of marine litter and stated that,
up to the reporting date, monitoring of marine litter was not systematically
done. This is reflected in the different units used for reporting on the amount
of litter (e.g. kg/km, number per km2, items/100 m).
Most information was related to litter at
the coast. In the Mediterranean this data originated often as a by-product
of beach cleaning actions. Within the North East Atlantic, the OSPAR
methodology for beach litter monitoring was used.
Little information was reported on litter
in the water column, including floating macro-litter and micro-particles. Data
from ‘Fishing for litter’[27]
projects in the North Sea were reported by three Member States (BE, NL, UK). 
Substantial data were reported on seabed
litter in the Mediterranean Sea by most Member States in the region (except
CY, SI), detailing mostly the geographical distribution, densities, types of
marine litter and in some cases also seasonal differences.
The impact of marine litter on biota was
reported by four Member States in the Mediterranean Sea (ES, FR, IT, SI).
Two Member States of the Adriatic Sea subregion (IT, SI) focused on the
loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta as the indicator species, while two
Member States of the Western Mediterranean subregion (ES, FR) analysed various
species, including sea turtles, whales and dolphins. The North Sea Member
States reported on the analysis of plastics in the stomach of Northern Fulmars,
a sea-bird which occurs in part of the OSPAR region.
Only a limited number of MS made an
explicit statement that the status of the marine environment with regard to
marine litter was not good. As seen from the GES definition and the targets,
almost all MS aimed at a reduction of marine litter, either by location (on the
beach, in the water column, or on the sea floor) or by type (microplastics or
ingested). Implicitly this means that MS recognised that the present situation
was not in good status.
In summary, the reporting on the initial
assessment of marine litter was assessed as adequate for nine Member States
(BE, DE, EL, ES, FR, IE, LT, SI, UK). It was assessed as partially adequate for
four Member States (DK, IT, NL, SE) and inadequate also for four Member States (CY,
EE, FI, LT). Two Member States (LV, RO) did not report on this descriptor.
The level of coherence of the initial
assessment in the Ionian and Central Mediterranean Sea subregion was low and in
the Western Mediterranean Sea subregion was high. Overall, the level of
coherence in the initial assessment for Descriptor 10 for the Mediterranean
region was moderate.
The coherence of the initial assessment on
marine litter for the North East Atlantic region and for the subregions Greater
North Sea, Celtic Seas and Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast was high.
The overall level of coherence in the
assessment of marine litter by the Baltic Sea Member States was moderate.
6.10.3.   Environmental targets
(Article 10)
The defined targets for marine litter are a
good starting point for all Member States, but require further specification. Reduction
targets for Descriptor 10 were defined by all Member States, with the exception
of 5 (BG, CY, LT, LV, RO) whereby the number of reduction targets varies from
one to six. For three quarters of the MS, these targets were measurable. Member
States have set a target to reduce visible litter from beaches, including by
removing existing waste and to reduce the entry into the marine environment of
new waste from either land- or sea-based sources. The third most-frequently defined
target was that of a reduction of the impact on marine life. Two Member States
(BE, NL) cited the OSPAR Quality Objective (EcoQO) target on Northern Fulmars,
while four Member States (DE, FR, IE, PT) indicated its potential use as
indicator. In the Mediterranean, other species were considered as an
alternative to the Northern Fulmar. In addition, one Member State (DE) has set
targets to reduce the entanglement of birds in marine litter.
Quantitative threshold values have not been
set, except when the EcoQO target on the ingestion of plastic by Fulmars was
cited (by two Member States only – BE and NL).
Occasionally, targets have been set by
individual Member States on micro-plastics, on recreational litter at beaches
and on collected litter from Fishing for Litter. One Member State (PT) confirmed
its commitment to the MARPOL Convention and the collection of shipping waste in
the Directive on Port Reception Facilities.
Many Member States expressed the need to increase
the knowledge base by addressing the identified knowledge gaps in order to
define GES and targets better and assess the impact on the marine environment.
In summary, no Member State was assessed
as having defined adequate targets for Descriptor 10. The targets of nine Member States were assessed as partially
adequate (BE, DE, ES, FR, IT, NL, SI, SE, UK) and the targets of six Member
States were assessed as inadequate (DK, EE, EL, FI, IE, PT). BG, CY, LT, LV, RO
did not define targets for Descriptor 10.
The overall level of coherence in the
setting of targets for marine litter across the North East Atlantic, the
Mediterranean regions and the Baltic sea regions was moderate. .
6.10.4.   Consistency between GES, initial
assessment and targets
The consistency between the three relevant
articles of the Directive for marine litter was very limited. In the ideal
situation, the GES definition followed the criteria of the Decision 2010/477/EU,
i.e. addressing the amount of litter in the environment along with its sources
and impacts. In the initial assessment, those elements should have been looked
at and the environmental targets set for these elements in order to be able to
monitor progress towards GES. However, in general, MS did not apply this
approach systematically, partly because the data on certain aspects (mainly
impacts, but also sources) were not available. This descriptor also covered
different zones: coast, water (column and floating), sea-floor and even
ingested litter which made target-setting for all these aspects difficult. Sometimes
the definition of GES was more comprehensive and contained more elements than the
initial assessment or the targets set, e.g. mentioning a reduction of litter
input in the GES definition without defining a specific target for this or making
an assessment of sources and levels of the present input.
Some Member States formulated a set of
targets which can be considered as essential boundary conditions, mainly the
targets related to the management of marine litter and involvement of
stakeholders.
Primarily in the NE Atlantic, consistent
use and reference was made to OSPAR methodologies and data, in the GES
definition, the initial assessment and the targets. The IA and targets
consistently focused on beach litter, litter collected at sea and plastics
ingested by fulmars. However, other aspects of the marine and coastal
environment were not covered.
6.10.5.   Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 10 of the 19 Member States which were assessed is given in Figure
20.
Figure 20: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
10 on marine litter. The bars indicate the number of Member States which were
assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for
Descriptor 10 per marine region is given in Figure 21.
Figure 21: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 10 on marine litter. The bars indicate whether the
reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high level of coherence
within each region.
It is clear that Member States had
difficulty in formulating an adequate definition of Good Environmental Status
for marine litter. This was not adequately performed for the largest group of
countries. An initial assessment, based on existing information and data was
possible in most Member States although it did not cover all aspects due to a lack
of information, a fact frequently cited by MS. However, specific plans to
address these information gaps were often missing. Almost all Member States defined
environmental targets which aim to reduce marine litter but did not address all
relevant aspects such as sources or impact. The targets also often failed to
set quantities which would guide progress towards achieving GES and facilitate
monitoring. The aim to reduce marine litter without a comprehensive assessment
of the impacts can be considered as a good example of the precautionary
principle, whereby it is commonly agreed that litter (especially plastic) does
not belong in the marine environment.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations in this report apply. The quantification of litter
reduction targets is a necessity to guide measures and to monitor progress. The
Commission is developing quantitative headline reduction targets for marine
litter which will aid the development of regional and national reduction
targets.
In the monitoring programmes the lack of
information on marine litter should be addressed so that identification of
possible sources can be seen as a necessary step towards efficient and
appropriate measures to reduce the amount of litter entering the marine
environment. Use should be made of the guidance developed under the Common
Implementation Strategy by the Technical Group on Marine Litter. The
development of regional action plans on marine litter in the context of the
Regional Sea Conventions is one good example of coordinated action. Finally, the revision of Decision 2010/477/EU should be used to
introduce specific minimum requirements based on the approaches developed
within the EU and the Regional Sea Conventions.
6.11.      Energy including underwater
noise (Descriptor 11)
The development of targets and indicators for
underwater noise has been the main focus in the MSFD implementation to date;
criteria and indicators related to other forms of energy might be developed later. Noise input to
the marine environment occurs at many scales of both space and time.
Anthropogenic sounds may be of short duration (e.g. impulsive sounds, such as
from seismic surveys and piling for wind farms and platforms, as well as
explosions) or be long-lasting (e.g. continuous sounds, such as dredging,
shipping and energy installations). Lower frequency sounds may travel very far
through the water. Natural phenomena (e.g. lightning, rain and waves) generate
sound at various frequencies.
Different species are sensitive to
different frequency levels. Species that are exposed to noise may be adversely
affected over a short time-scale (acute effect) or a long time-scale (permanent
or chronic effects). Adverse effects may range from subtle (e.g. temporary harm
to hearing, behavioural effects) to obvious (e.g. in the worst case, death).
According to Annex I of the Directive, Descriptor
11 is at GES when "introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels
that do not adversely affect the marine environment”.
6.11.1.   GES definition (Article 9)
Five Member States have not defined GES for
underwater noise (BG, EE, LT, LV, RO). All other Member States have defined GES
for Descriptor 11 but they have used different approaches. Two Member States
(NL, PT) provided a definition of GES that was a copy of (or very similar to)
the Descriptor 11 criteria of the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. Other Member
States (FR, UK and to a certain extent SE) provided definitions which were in
line with the definitions of the 2010 Commission Decision but which were
further developed. Three Member States (ES, FR, SI) have extended the scope of
the GES definition in the Decision substantially and added high frequency
impulsive sounds (e.g. originating from the sonar of pleasure boats) to their
GES definition. Another group of Member States (BE, DE, IE), for various
reasons, were not (or only roughly) in line with the definitions of the 2010
Commission Decision.
Although most of the Member States defined
GES at descriptor and criteria levels, a few of these (BE, DK) did not
(clearly) make use of both criteria of the 2010 Commission Decision. Only one
Member State (DE) has covered other sources of energy in its definition of GES,
namely, light, emission of electromagnetic fields and heat. Only three Member
States (DE, FR, UK) have provided threshold values for GES.
In summary, two MS have an adequate GES
definition (FR, UK), six Member States were partially adequate (BE, DE, EL, IE,
SE, SI) and seven Member States were inadequate (CY, DK, ES, FI, IT, NL, PT).
The level of coherence of the
definitions of GES across the North East Atlantic region was considered to be
low; in the Celtic Seas subregion it was high. The coherence in the Baltic Sea
region was low. The level of coherence in the Mediterranean Sea region was
moderate.
6.11.2.   Initial assessment (Article
8)
Over one-third of the Member States (BE, CY,
DK, EE, LT, NL, PT) have undertaken very limited assessments of underwater
noise. Six MS (DE, ES, FR, IE, SI, UK) provided a more detailed assessment. Six
Member States (EL IT, LV, PT, RO, SE) have not carried out any initial
assessment.
In most
cases, the initial assessment was very limited and general and did not go much
beyond the identification of the main causes of pressure (being shipping,
offshore exploration and production, port operations and defense) and the
acknowledgment of information gaps. When information was provided in a more
consistent manner, it was nonetheless in most cases descriptive and more
focused on pressures than impacts. Only a few Member States (e.g. DE) tried to
quantify some parameters. In the reporting sheets, only two Member States made
a quantification of the proportion of their assessment area affected by the
noise pressure but they were not based on the same criterion. One of them (FR) assessed
continuous sounds and concluded that 75-100% of its area was affected while the
other one (IE) assessed impulsive sounds and concluded that less than 1% is
affected. No Member State has provided a clear conclusive judgment on whether the
current level of the pressure or its impacts was acceptable.
Two Member States (ES, FR) have developed
an inventory of the level of underwater sound, based on the sources that can
produce underwater sound, and visualised the results on a map. One of these (ES) reported the cumulative
sound pressures, while the other (FR) has developed a separate map for ambient
and impulsive sound. One Member State (SI) has done substantial, recent
monitoring of underwater noise.
In summary, the initial assessments of
six Member States were assessed as adequate (DE, ES, FR, IE, SI, UK), three MS were
assessed as partially adequate (EE, FI, LT) and four were assessed as inadequate
(BE, CY, DK, NL).
The level of coherence for the
Mediterranean Sea regions was low. The level of coherence across the Baltic Sea
region was considered moderate. The North East Atlantic region was considered
to be relatively high, as the vast majority of the Member States (albeit with
different levels of detail) focused on the identification of the sources of
underwater noise, the acknowledgment of gaps and the need for future
monitoring.
6.11.3.   Environmental targets (Article
10)
Many Member States (except BG, CY, IE, IT,
LT, LV, RO, SE) have defined environmental targets and associated indicators
for Descriptor 11. The response to this descriptor was very diverse in terms of
setting targets. Five Member States (ES, FR, NL, PT, SI) have included
high-level qualitative objectives rather than measurable targets. Two Member
States (ES, PT) have also defined monitoring targets. Two other Member States
(BE, DE) have opted to define very concrete noise exposure criteria that are
also applied in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation for wind
farms, instead of defining pressure-based targets/indicators. One Member State
(DK) reported only a target for impulsive sounds. Finally, one Member State
(UK) opted for very concrete targets that further develop the conceptual
approach behind the indicators which were essentially pressure-based.
For one MS (FR), the (sub)targets for the
Mediterranean appeared more specific and measurable than those defined for the
Atlantic subregions. It made a specific reference to
limit the acoustic disturbances to mammals and bird nesting sites.
In summary, one Member State was
assessed as having defined adequate targets (UK). Five Member States were assessed
as partially adequate (BE, DE, DK, FI, FR) and six were assessed as inadequate
(EE, EL, ES, NL, PT, SI).
The level of coherence in the setting of
environmental targets for Descriptor 11 across the Baltic Sea and North East
Atlantic regions was considered to be low. The level of coherence in the
Mediterranean Sea region was moderate.
6.11.4.   Consistency between GES, initial
assessment and targets
A large group of countries have not set
targets because of a lack of data and also a lack of formulating an adequate
definition of GES. The targets were consistent with the level of knowledge
reflected by the initial assessment. Although the GES
definition was consistent with the set of targets, and in correspondence with
the Decision, it was not specific enough. The main pressures were reported in
the initial assessment but were described in limited detail. The targets and
the GES definition did not address the pressures of underwater noise. 
6.11.5.   Conclusions
The overall level of adequacy for
Descriptor 11 of the 19 Member States which were assessed is given in Figure
22.
Figure 22: Summary of the assessments of
adequacy of Member State's reports for MSFD Articles 8, 9 and 10 for Descriptor
11 on energy including inderwater noise. The bars indicate the number of Member
States which were assessed as adequate, partially adequate and inadequate.
The overall level of coherence for Descriptor
11 per marine region is given in Figure 23. 
Figure 23: Summary of the assessments of
coherence of Member State's reports within each region for MSFD Articles 8, 9
and 10 for Descriptor 11 on energy including underwater noise. The bars
indicate whether the reports were assessed as having a low, moderate or high
level of coherence within each region.
It can be concluded that GES for underwater
noise, for both impulsive and ambient noise, is difficult to define at present
since the impacts on the ecosystem are not fully known at this stage. Some MS
stuck closely to the GES description of the Decision, others extended the scope
or changed the emphasis. The Initial Assessment is qualitative, identifying
possible sources of underwater noise but does not address its impacts. Lack of
data and knowledge are given as the main reasons for this. This knowledge gap
on the pressure and what is good (or not good) status is reflected in the fact
that the targets are often missing.
To improve adequacy and coherence, the
general recommendations in this report apply. In addition, specifically for Descriptor
11, Member States should fill, as a priority, the data
and knowledge gaps in the next steps of the MSFD implementation. Guidance on
the monitoring of both ambient and impulsive noise is given by the CIS process
by the Technical Group on Noise. In addition to the collection of relevant data
on the degree of the pressure, further research on impacts is needed, both for
ambient and for impulsive noise. 
The establishment of a noise registry is a
first step to collect the data required to manage underwater noise in such a
way that it did not adversely affect the marine ecosystem.
Based on the knowledge of the (potential)
impacts, it will be a challenge to turn the register of loud impulsive noise
into a management instrument at the subregional level to prevent adverse
effects on the ecosystem. Such an instrument should be applicable to Member
States which are part of that same subregion.
The development of sound maps for ambient
noise, with the help of numerical modelling, is an important step towards the
identification of possible problem areas for which targeted measures need to be
identified.
Finally, the revision of Decision
2010/477/EU should be used to introduce specific minimum requirements based on
the EU the approaches developed within the EU and the Regional Sea Conventions.
7.           Socio-economic analysis
An economic and social analysis (ESA) of
the uses of marine waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine
environment is required in Article 8(1c) of the Directive. This will
become increasingly important, in particular when discussing the socio-economic
assessment of measures to be adopted by Member States in 2015. A preliminary
assessment has focused at a high-level on the approaches used by the Member
States for the ESA. The lack of available information and the existence of data
gaps were acknowledged by the majority of Member States.
For the ESA, most Member States have used
the Water Accounts approach[28].
Two Member States (LV, UK) applied the Ecosystem Services approach[29] and another two (LT,
SE) have used a mixture of the Water Accounts and Ecosystem Services
approaches.
The marine uses most commonly described (by
at least half of the Member States) included fisheries, shipping, tourism, port
operations, aquaculture, defence, marine research activities and renewable
energy production (Figure 24).
Figure
24: Summary of which uses and activities were most often included in the
economic and social analysis of Member State's Initial Assessments (figures
refer to the number of MS which included each use/activity).
For the analysis of the cost of
degradation, the approaches used were more diverse but, even so, half of the
Member States used a cost-based approach[30].
Five Member States (IE, LV, SE, SI, UK) used the Ecosystem Services approach[31], two Member States
(BE, EE) used the Thematic approach[32],
and two more (DE, LT) used a mixed approach, using different methods to
calculate the cost of degradation. For one Member State (BG), the approach used
was not clear. The approaches used are summarised in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Summary of which methods were
most often used in the analysis of the cost of degradation in Member State's
Initial Assessments (figures refer to the number of MS which used each approach).
Practically all Member States (except DK,
LT) have referred to the MSFD CIS guidance document on the economic and social
analysis[33]
although with differing levels of detail.
8.           Regional cooperation
Regional cooperation amongst Member States
and other relevant countries via the Regional Sea Conventions is well developed
in all four regions. However, the role and the use of the results of this
regional cooperation in the MSFD reporting varied considerably. All Regional
Sea Conventions played an important role in the coordination of Member States’
MSFD work, as required under Article 6 of the Directive. Significant efforts
were made in their work to support Member States in their implementation and to
develop regionally-coordinated approaches, although the timetables and levels
of ambition did not always match the provisions of the MSFD in the past. Even
more surprisingly was the low level to which Member States have made use of the
agreed results of this regional coordination in their national implementation
reports. This was the case in the Baltic Sea region, but even more so
for Member States in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, where
hardly any reference was made in national reports to the results of these two
Conventions. At the same time, no adequate alternative coordination mechanisms
between Member States in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea were
in place. This explains, to a certain extent, the low level of coherence
achieved in the Member States’ reports in these regions.
Further work since 2012 has been undertaken
within all conventions which addresses some of the shortcomings that were
recognised within the conventions (see, for example, regional contributions
(Annex 4) to the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy 2014 and beyond[34]).
9.           Cross cutting issues
9.1.        Public consultation and
status of the reports
Article 19 of the Marine Directive requires
that each Member State organise a public consultation procedure on the
implementation of this Directive. Member States have to ensure that all
interested parties are given early and effective opportunities to participate,
involving, where possible, existing management bodies or structures.
The Commission received information from 17
Member States with regard to their public consultation process on their reports
for the three articles (Art. 8, 9 and 10). From 15 of these Member States
(except BG, IT) a link to their public consultation web-page was received[35]. In almost all MS this
consultation took place in the first half of 2012. Three Member States (EL, IE,
LV) had not undertaken such a consultation by the time they submitted their
reports to the Commission, but indicated that they were doing so in the
meantime. Some Member States may also have substantially modified their
reports, and not submitted them again to public consultation.
As a consequence, the status of some
reports submitted to the Commission was in a few cases unclear (EL, IE, IT,
LV). Furthermore, one Member State (EE) stated that its report was a proposal.
The Commission intends to follow up bilaterally with these countries using the
most appropriate procedures.
9.2.        Statutory nature of GES and
targets
The Directive requires Member States to
establish GES and environmental targets but it does not specify in what legal
form they must be established. According to the Commission's conformity
assessment, Member States should consider laying down their GES determinations
and targets in a statutory manner in order to improve their enforceability.
Only a few Member States (e.g. SE, FR)
provided reassurances that their GES and targets are statutory. 
9.3.        Delimitation of 'marine waters'
The geographical areas in which Member
States must implement the Directive are defined as 'marine waters' (MSFD
Article 3(1)).
The definition is based on the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)[36] which is the
international agreement that defines the rights and responsibilities of states
in their use of the oceans. UNCLOS defines different areas measured from a
'baseline' with different rights and responsibilities.
As part of the 2012 reporting on Articles
8, 9 and 10, Member States were requested to provide GIS (Geographical
Information System) data showing the boundaries of their marine waters and to
outline the jurisdictional basis for their marine waters, including:

 MS marine waters relating to both the
     water column and seabed/subsoil of coastal waters, territorial waters and
     the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)[37];
 MS marine waters relating only to the
     seabed/subsoil beyond the EEZ.

The analysis of the information provided by
Member States was undertaken with the assistance of the European Environment
Agency (EEA). It was complex and is still ongoing because of a large number of
open questions, some of them of very detailed technical nature.
Preliminary results of these ongoing
analysis are, in particular:

 The total extent of marine waters of
     the EU Member States is approximately 5,720,000 km2,
     representing an area which is about 50% larger than the EU land area.
 Use of WFD Coastal Waters – A number of countries make no reference to using WFD Coastal
     Waters in their definition of MSFD Marine Waters, as required according to
     Article 3(1) (b). This results in uncertainties in relation to the landward
     boundary or exclusions of certain areas (e.g. microtidal seas or excluded
     coastal areas).
 Use of EEZs or similar designations (for waters beyond Territorial Waters and where the MSFD
     applies to both the water column and the seabed and subsoil). All MS have
     EEZs which extend to 200nm from baselines, or to median lines where their
     waters adjoin neighbouring states, except for some Member States where
     clarifications are needed (EL, ES, FR, IT, SI, UK).
 Use of Continental Shelf areas (beyond EEZs, where MSFD applies only to the seabed and
     subsoil). Because the majority of MS are located around enclosed seas
     (Baltic, North, Mediterranean, Black), they do not have the opportunity to
     exercise jurisdictional rights beyond their EEZs. Of those MS who do have this
     possibility, several indicated that they were implementing the Directive
     in some parts of their Continental Shelf area but some clarifications are
     still needed in this respect. In some cases, Member States were awaiting
     the outcomes of joint claims via the Commission on the Limits of the
     Continental Shelf (CLCS) before extending MSFD implementation to these
     areas.
 Gaps and overlaps in marine waters
     between Member States. Based on the
     information and GIS data reported, there are a significant number of gaps
     and overlaps in the boundaries provided. These are likely to represent
     either (a) areas where the jurisdiction over the area is not yet clear and
     (b) technical issues where the boundary data need improvement to eliminate
     any gaps and overlaps.

The information reported by MS, including
the GIS data provided, are a good basis for understanding where the MSFD will
be implemented in Europe's seas.
The Commission and the European Environment
Agency will continue to work on these reports and clarify open issues in order
to produce reference data sets for ongoing implementation, including visual
representation of other information reported, e.g. the status of marine waters,
in WISE (Water Information System for Europe).
In addition, the Commission will address
the shortcomings in the information and seek clarifications or corrections in
order to support implementation going forward. In particular, the proper
application of the use of WFD coastal waters in their definition of MSFD marine
waters will be addressed. Furthermore, clarification will be sought from
relevant MS on how the MSFD will be implemented in those marine waters where
there are gaps or overlaps between Member States. Finally, where reports lack
the necessary information or GIS data were not yet reported, the necessary
information should be provided by the relevant MS as soon as possible.
9.4.        Scales for assessment
Article 3(5) of the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) requires that good environmental status
is determined at the level of the marine region or subregion as referred to in
Article 4, on the basis of the qualitative Descriptors in Annex I to the
Directive. In addition, Member States may identify further sub-divisions
(Article 4(2)). However, the geographical scale to be used for assessments is
not well defined in the Directive. Consequently, in this first cycle of
implementation the geographic scales applied by MS for the assessment of GES could
vary between descriptors, and could differ among Member States.
This was confirmed by the analysis of MS
approaches where substantial differences were apparent. Eight Member States used
one assessment area for the analysis of the environmental status of their entire
marine waters. Eleven Member States used more than one assessment area and for
three MS information was not available. The sizes of the assessment areas ranged
from smaller than 100 km2 to larger than 100,000 km2.
There seemed to be no relationship between environmental conditions and the
scale of the assessment areas, as there were large differences between MS
within a sub-regional sea.
While some MS have used WFD coastal water
bodies and marine waters further offshore as assessment areas, others have
defined other, and sometimes larger, assessment scales. With a few exceptions,
MS did not explicitly mention the use of biogeographic, oceanographic or hydrological
criteria, as mentioned in Article 3(2), or a risk-based analysis when defining
assessment areas; they sometimes used more assessment areas for certain descriptors,
in particular for Descriptors 1, 5 and 6.
The information used in the analysis does
not indicate that MS have attempted to scale up from smaller assessments areas
to an assessment for their entire marine waters within a subregion (where
applicable), nor that a scaling up to a sub-regional assessment of GES has been
done, where possible.
Due to the many open questions in this
respect, the Commission commissioned a study asking for an analysis of national
approaches that Member States had taken in their reporting under Articles 8, 9
and 10 of the MSFD, with respect to geographic scaling and rules for aggregating
between indicators and/or criteria, and for the development of broad EU
guidance on coherent geographic scales in assessment and monitoring of GES and
for sets of aggregation rules.
Also some regional organisations have
already developed approaches to define assessment areas for specific purposes
(e.g. some biodiversity aspects, fisheries, eutrophication, contaminants). For
example, ICES and the GFCM have defined assessment areas for fish stocks,
whilst in the Baltic Sea HELCOM has developed the most elaborate system with a
nested design of assessment areas at different hierarchical levels[38].
9.5.        Use of reference levels for
GES and targets
It is common practice in EU Directives and
in regional assessment methodologies to define environmental objectives (i.e.
the target quality, such as GES, to be achieved) in relation to a reference
level. For example, target quality levels for contaminants and eutrophication
are typically set in relation to 'background' or 'natural' levels in the
environment, with target levels set as a specified deviation from these
conditions. This philosophy is typical for setting objectives for other
pressures, such as litter and noise. For assessing the environmental status of
biodiversity components, a similar approach is also used in the WFD and
Habitats and Birds Directives, whereby target values are set in relation to
natural characteristics, such as the distributional range of a species, the
extent of a habitat or the condition of its biological community. This overall
philosophy for setting environmental objectives is often termed the 'reference
condition and acceptable deviation' approach. This 'deviation' is important, particularly
to allow for sustainable uses of the marine environment whereby some levels of
pressures and their impacts can be accommodated, provided the overall quality
of the environment is maintained.
In the reports provided by Member States
for Articles 8, 9 and 10, the approach to using reference points and setting
target GES values was very varied, both across the different descriptors and
across Member States for the same descriptor. In some cases, the current state
in the 2012 assessment was used as the reference point (from which to a
particular quality is to be maintained), without fully assessing whether that
state was adequate to begin with. In many cases, the reference points to be
used for the determinations of GES and environmental targets were not
documented.
This degree of variation and lack of
clarity can be expected to lead to substantial problems in subsequent
implementation phases, as differences in approach lead to conflicts between
descriptors (e.g. between state and pressure assessments) and the lack of a
common understanding of what constitutes GES. It is there recommended that a
common approach, based on the reference condition plus acceptable deviation
philosophy, be used across descriptors to achieve a suitable level of
consistency in future implementation phases.
10.         Conclusions and way forward
The implementation of the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive has reached its first milestone. The initial assessment and
the setting of good environment status and related environmental targets form
the foundation for this EU marine legislation upon which all subsequent steps.
At the same time, this step was always likely to be a “test run” which means
that many new elements and ambitions introduced in the Directive were applied
for the first time and there is still time built in to rectify them and learn
from this initial phase.
The Commission was mandated (under Article
12 of the Directive) to review the progress and provide to the Member States “guidance
on any modifications it considers necessary”. This illustrates that an
iterative and interactive collaboration between the Commission and the Member
States was designed to be part of the process to implement this Directive
successfully. Also many Member States have already recognised that their
implementation “snapshot” was not perfect. Several gaps were identified and
recognised from the outset, most of the results were built on work (and data)
which pre-dated the MSFD (i.e. 2010 or earlier, before they had to transpose
the MSFD into national law and before the GES Decision 2010/477/EU was adopted)
and few new data or assessments were used. Most of the regional assessment
work, on which MS must rely upon, was only partially updated or not at all
since the MSFD entered into effect, because the timelines for these assessments
had not (yet) been aligned with the MSFD deadlines.
There was also a lot of work in progress
(and not finalised in time) to address shortcomings already identified.
Furthermore, some identified deficiencies led to subsequent actions, e.g. at
regional level, because some joint assessments of Member States already
indicated that more work would be necessary. Finally, the process was not
helped by delays in finalising the reporting templates, guidance and technical
infrastructure, which themselves depended upon adoption of the GES Decision in
2010 and development of common understandings on GES under the MSFD CIS
process.
The Commission recognises that all these
aspects contributed to some of the lack of clarity and possible inconsistency
in the Member States' reports.
10.1.      Overall assessment of the Member States and the marine
regions
The Commission assessed the completeness
and adequacy of the reports for each Article, their coherence within and
between the regions and the consistency between the reports for these articles.
Overall, the level of adequacy was assessed
as being moderate to low. Even those Member States with a higher level of
adequacy had a number of shortcomings. Using a simple scoring system, the two
highest Member States scored 60-70% of the maximum adequacy score. All other
Member States were below 55% with the lowest only scoring 9% of the maximum
(Figure 26).
Figure 26: Summary of the overall
adequacy scores per Member State across MSFD articles 8, 9 and 10 (expressed as
a percentage of the total possible score), with MS grouped per marine region
(hence SE, DK, DE, FR and ES appear twice).
The level of coherence within each region
was also assessed as moderate to low (Figure 27). The Member States in the North
East Atlantic region showed the highest level of coherence, but still
leaving significant room for improvement. Coherence between Member States in
the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions was considered low. The comparability between
the regions is very low and does not lead to adequate coherence within the EU.
Figure 27: Summary of the level of
coherence achieved within each marine region (expressed as a percentage of the
total possible score).
The consistency between the application of
the different elements of the Directive is not adequate either. The MSFD was
designed with a certain logical relationship between its provisions and the
timelines for implementation (Figure 1). For the first implementation of the
Articles 8, 9 and 10 it was important to define GES clearly and to relate the
initial assessment and the environmental targets clearly to this GES
definition. This conceptual consistency has not been applied by many Member
States or sometimes only for some descriptors.
The specific conclusions and
recommendations per implementing provision are given below.
10.2.      Good Environmental Status (Article 9)
GES is the centrepiece of the MSFD upon
which all other provisions depend. Determining it adequately is crucial.
Following the adoption of the MSFD in 2008,
significant progress in setting environmental objectives has been made. Apart
from the well-explored impacts from eutrophication and chemical pollution,
additional focus on biodiversity, non-indigenous species, marine litter and
underwater noise have been addressed more and more systematically. This will
increasingly allow for a much more holistic assessment of the health of the
marine ecosystem.
Most Member States have managed to
introduce GES characteristics for most or all descriptors. Some Member States
have also made use of this instrument to set out ambitious benchmarks to be achieved,
even laying them down into their national law, which will improve the
enforceability of GES. Furthermore, implementation of the MSFD has triggered
new developments within the Regional Sea Conventions which has led to new
regionally-agreed indicators and methods for assessing environmental status,
inspired by the ecosystem approach. Further, the process has fostered
considerable efforts by Member States to integrate the work under a range of
other Directives to form a more complementary and integrated implementation
'package'.
Despite these achievements, the definitions
of GES established by most Member States do not appear to be adequate to
deliver the overall aims laid out in the Directive to ensure its sustainable
use. These GES determinations have also not been done in a coherent enough way
within and between the different regions to ensure that there is an equal level
of ambition on marine environmental quality and a 'level playing field' for
marine industries and developers. There are also significant differences
between the different regions (with the MS in the North-East Atlantic having
the most coherent and in the Black Sea the least coherent approach).
Some MS formulated GES definitions with a seemingly high qualitative ambition
which is more aspirational than tangible.
In summary, the level of ambition often does
not go beyond existing commitments and obligations for many aspects of GES,
which would mean there would be little improvement in the quality of our oceans
through implementation of the MSFD. In particular:

 many GES characteristics have not been
     set in a measurable and enforceable way, sometimes not going beyond what
     Annex I and the GES Decision already described; in some cases there seems
     to be a confusion between definition of GES and the setting of targets;
 there is a large diversity in
     understanding and approaches between Member States; the interpretation and
     application of the provisions of Article 9 are very different;
 Member States are not building adequately
     upon other EU legislation and have adopted a “pick-and-choose” approach
     from the work undertaken (and agreed) in the Regional Sea Conventions to
     which they are Parties.

Some of these deficiencies can be explained
by the limited time available for the conceptual development and practical
application of GES determinations. In the meantime, for example some additional
common indicators have been developed within the RSCs in recognition of the
above deficiencies. Furthermore, there are a number of actions (see
Recommendations below) that can be taken to rectify these shortcomings without
compromising the MSFD objectives to be achieved by 2020.
In addition to these mid- and long-term
actions, Member States should already use the feedback from the Commission and
the most recent developments in the Regional Sea Conventions, to which they are
Parties, by basing their monitoring programmes and the programme of measures on
an improved set of GES definitions in order not to lose six years (i.e. await
reporting in 2018) and to make progress towards the goal of having GES in 2020.
In such cases, Member States should inform the Commission.
 Proposed actions: The Commission report sets out a number of recommendations to improve adequacy and coherence of GES. These recommendations can be implemented through the following actions at EU, regional and national level. At the EU level, the Commission services and Member States should collaborate to: revise and strengthen the GES Decision 2010/477/EU by 2015, aiming at a clear, simple, concise, coherent and comparable set of GES criteria and methodological standards, as well as ensure that existing criteria set out in relevant EU legislation are clarified and, where appropriate, incorporating rules or guidance for monitoring and assessment; further develop a common understanding on the obligations of Article 9 and on the assessment approaches, including assessment methods and scales, and aggregation rules; ensure an adequate and coherent approach on GES setting to allow for a pan-European assessment of whether the marine ecosystems are in good status or not (and clearly differentiating these GES determinations from the setting of environmental targets). At the regional level, the Commission services and the Member States in that region should also collaborate, as appropriate, with other Contracting Parties in the context of the Regional Sea Conventions, to: further develop region- and ecosystem-specific criteria for GES (or related targets and indicators) which are compatible with the MSFD, in particular for those descriptors or parameters where no EU legislation exists; stimulate further coordination at regional or sub-regional level between EU MS in the region; ensure that the results of the regional work benefit from the progress made at EU level and are systematically used in national implementation process; systematically identify the gaps in knowledge that prevent a more ambitious, risk-based setting of GES and collaborate to close these gaps, whilst applying the precautionary principle in the meantime. At the national level, Member States should: consider the Member State-specific recommendations of this report and address them when preparing the next steps in the implementation (namely the programmes on monitoring and on measures); systematically use existing EU standards as minimum requirements and, where they do not exist, region-specific common indicators developed by the Regional Sea Conventions to which they are a Party. 
10.3.      Initial Assessment (Article 8)
Once good environmental status (GES) has
been defined, the initial assessment is an important starting point for the
MSFD. Amongst other aspects, it assesses how far the current state of the
environment is from GES. Any further decision and action, whether it is the
setting of environmental targets (Article 10), the establishment of a
monitoring programme (Article 11) or the design of necessary measures (Article
13), must be based on the evidence gathered and presented in the initial
assessment. In addition, exemptions (Article 14) can only be applied correctly
if the necessary justifications are underpinned by the results of the initial
assessment. At the same time, the initial assessment is also one of the most
challenging and advanced parts of the MSFD, because it is comprehensive,
holistic and integrates environmental and economic aspects including, for the
first time, pressures and impacts (such as those related to marine litter and
underwater noise) where little knowledge and data were available in advance of
their inclusion in the MSFD. It was therefore recognised from the outset that
significant data gaps would be observed and that it would be important to
identify, in such cases, a clear strategy and timetable on how to close such
gaps.
In summary, the initial assessment compiled
a wealth of available evidence relevant for marine protection. Efforts by
Member States have been significant and show the potential that such
assessments have for ensuring sound management of marine resources. Having said
that, in most Member States the initial assessment consisted of an incomplete
patchwork of information which relied heavily upon previously existing assessments.
Compared to the ambitious intentions in Article 8 of the MSFD, the results were
disappointing, in particular because:

 almost no Member State established a
     “baseline” and “distance to target”; in other words, the current levels of
     environmental status were not adequately quantified against fully-defined levels
     of GES; very limited new data and assessments were made and the existing
     ones, including from the Regional Sea Conventions, were not always used
     systematically and were often not (yet) fully aligned to serve the
     purposes of the MSFD adequately;
 the methodologies applied for the
     assessments were not coherent nor comparable;
 the socio-economic analysis showed many
     gaps in the availability of information.

Within the available time for this
assessment, however, the Commission focused on more formal aspects related to
the initial assessment undertaken by the Member States. In parallel, the
European Environment Agency has started to prepare an EU baseline report on the
state of the marine environment at the start of the MSFD implementation, using
the assessments reported by the Member States. In addition, the Joint Research
Centre of the Commission is analysing the approaches and methodologies used by
the Member States in more detail, comparing them to the latest scientific
evidence. The results of their in-depth work will be published in 2014.
 Proposed actions: The Commission report sets out a number of recommendations to improve adequacy and coherence of the initial assessment. These recommendations can be implemented through the following actions at EU, regional and national level. At the EU level, the Commission services and Member States should collaborate to: review and, if necessary, amend Annex III of the MSFD to clearly define the elements of future assessments and prepare specific guidance to ensure a more coherent and consistent approach for future initial assessments; develop a modern and effective data and information sharing system (implementing Article 19(3) as a minimum) between the EU, regional and national levels (“WISE-Marine”); make effective use of assessments done for other legislation; develop harmonised methods for assessing the distance from the present state to GES; use the opportunity of designing the Programme of Measures to improve socio-economic assessments and data availability, especially by exchanging best practices. At the regional level, the Commission services and the Member States in that region should also collaborate, as appropriate, with other Contracting Parties in the context of the Regional Sea Conventions, to: align the timetables and assessment methodologies of the regional assessments to, in addition to their other purposes, become even more useful for Member States as an input to their assessment under the MSFD (e.g. as a summary or “roof" report); jointly identify the gaps in knowledge and data and agree joint initiatives (e.g. through projects, research initiatives or data collection exercises) to close these gaps in time. At the national level, Member States should: use the monitoring programmes to address the shortcomings and gaps identified in the initial assessment; make better and more extensive use of the work undertaken, in particular, by the Regional Sea Conventions but also by other international organisations (e.g. ICES) in their national MSFD reports. 
10.4.      Environmental targets (Article 10)
Environmental targets should be set so as
to guide the progress towards GES (Article 9) and based on the results of the
initial assessment (Article 8). There is a significant degree of flexibility
for the Member States in how they set their targets, as set out in the
characteristics of MSFD Annex IV. Having said this, the targets have to be
consistent with the above-mentioned elements and sufficient to allow the achievement
of GES.
Member States have been creative in setting
a wide variety of targets, different in type and nature. There have also been
large differences in understanding the role of targets in relation to GES; some
Member States have implemented the targets as if they were interchangeable with
a determination of GES, with many expressed as the desired state of the
environment rather than what will be done to achieve such a state.
There are significant differences between
the approaches used to set environmental targets for the different descriptors.
However, in most cases the Member States' reports were not convincing in
demonstrating that the targets will be sufficient to achieve GES. In
particular, the targets generally do not focus sufficiently on the main
pressures and their impacts that will need to be reduced in order to reach GES,
or they do not specify precisely enough what will be done so that progress can
be measured.
 Proposed actions: The Commission report sets out a number of recommendations to improve adequacy and coherence of the environmental targets. These recommendations can be implemented through the following actions at EU, regional and national level. At the EU level, the Commission services and Member States should collaborate to: clarify the understanding of the role of environmental targets in the MSFD implementation, particularly in relation to the determination of GES (initial clarification is provided in Annex 4); exchange experiences and best practices between Member States in particular for those descriptors for which less knowledge is available. At the regional level, the Commission services and the Member States in that region should collaborate, as appropriate, also with other Contracting Parties in the context of the Regional Sea Conventions, to: set regional environmental targets, where possible and appropriate; to exchange experiences and align approaches for setting targets within the region. At the national level, Member States should: review their targets in the light of preparation of the monitoring and measures programmes to allow for a consistent approach between the different provisions. 
10.5.      Cross-cutting issues
The regional cooperation is well
developed in all four regions, although to a different degree, and supporting
the MSFD implementation to a different extent. It will, nevertheless, be
important to improve the regional cooperation in all four regions, albeit in a
differentiated and tailor-made way. This cooperation and the subsequent use of
the results of this work will be an essential factor in leading to a successful
implementation process. Therefore, the Commission services will work together
with the Member States to strengthen the regional role in the MSFD
implementation. As a first step, the new work programme for the Common
Implementation Strategy, for 2014 and beyond, already foresees a stronger
regional component.
This first implementation step also included
important elements to clarify the geographic scope and areas for
assessment and reporting within the marine waters. Member States were invited
to define their marine waters (as defined by Article 3(1)) and to identify
sub-divisions in case they decided to make use of this instrument.
As regards defining marine waters, most of
the issues have been reported and clarified. However, there are a number of
outstanding questions which, in some cases, are also linked to questions which
are still not fully settled in the context of the UN Convention on the Laws of
the Seas (UNCLOS). There are still some questions as regards the boundaries of
marine waters between EU Member States and in some cases with countries outside
the EU. Furthermore, the extent of implementation on the continental shelf
beyond EEZs requires further clarification for those concerned Member States.
The use of sub-divisions has only
been reported by a few Member States, although many have sub-divided their
marine waters for the purposes of assessment and reporting. A coherent
framework for reporting across European marine waters needs to be established,
developing a system which is of practical application for management needs
(activities, pressures) and administrations as well as respecting the
ecological characteristics of the marine ecosystems and its components for an
ecosystem-based approach. Where possible a nested set of assessment units
should be developed, enabling aggregation from sub-national through to regional
scales and the linking of assessments of pressures and impacts to the
assessments of ecosystem components. These areas should become the spatial
framework for linking all subsequent reporting within WISE.
Another important aspect is the link to
other policies. The MSFD is built on and relies upon the proper
implementation of many other pieces of EU legislation, most importantly the
Water Framework Directive, the Habitats and the Birds Directives and the
legislation in the context of the Common Fisheries Policy. Most Member States have
already recognised the role of these pieces of legislation but have made use
and relied on them to a very different extent. In many cases, it is also not
clear how these legislative provisions inter-relate, e.g. the role of the Water
Framework provisions in coastal waters. These relationships will need to be
further clarified and the minimum requirements introduced by these other pieces
of legislation further specified and implemented accordingly. If possible, some
of these aspects can be addressed as part of the revision of the Commission
Decision. In addition, further efforts are needed to streamline and integrate
implementation across the relevant policies, including in relation to policy
objectives, assessment methods, monitoring, measures, governance and
information systems. This integration should lead towards more effective policy
implementation with less effort.
A consistent approach to the setting of GES
boundaries, especially in relation to background or reference levels, is
needed to ensure a common understanding of GES between Member States and
avoidance of conflicts between the different descriptors. Practices already in
place in the WFD, Habitats Directive and RSCs can provide a basis for this.
10.6.      Preparation of monitoring programmes (Article 11) and
programme of measures (Article 13)
Following this first step, the MSFD
requires MS to establish and implement monitoring programmes by 15 July 2014
and to develop a programme of measures designed to achieve or maintain good
environmental status by 2015 at the latest. Both steps should build upon the
adequate and coherent implementation of Articles 8, 9 and 10. Given the short
deadlines, MS have already started preparing for the implementation of Articles
11 and 13, presumably on the basis of their national determinations of GES,
initial assessment and targets as reported to the Commission. On the basis of
the Commission's assessment here, it can already be anticipated that there is a
risk that shortcomings in the current implementation will be carried forward
into the next steps because they will be implemented on the basis of an
inadequate foundation. However, there is also no possibility for Member States
to delay implementation and extend the deadlines.
Therefore, a pragmatic approach will have
to be applied to make the necessary improvements step-by-step, recognising that
not all necessary adaptations will be possible within the first cycle.
The Commission services are ready to work
with the Member States, mainly through the Common Implementation Strategy and
the regional cooperation mechanisms, but also through other compliance
promotion tools, to gradually overcome the deficiencies and ensure the proper
application of the MSFD in 2018 at the latest. At the heart of this approach
should be an EU, regional and national compliance improvement plan from
2014-2018 which is made publically available with interim milestones and which
is updated regularly. This approach is inspired by the development of
"Structured Information and Implementation Frameworks" which are new
tools for compliance promotion introduced by the 7th Environment
Action Programme[39]
and the Implementation Communication (COM(2012) 95). The current development of
regionally coordinated fact sheets for monitoring programmes by some Member
States is another element for such an approach.
 Proposed actions: The Commission report sets out a number of recommendations to factor in the results of this assessment into the next stages of implementation and improve the situation step-by-step with the aim to ensure a proper set up of all the elements of the MSFD by 2018. These recommendations can be implemented through the following actions at EU, regional and national level. At the EU level, the Commission services and Member States should collaborate to: a.       ensure a step-by-step improvement of the implementation through the Common Implementation Strategy and the work programme agreed therein; find ways to use updated GES (Article 9) and environmental targets (Article 10), using the latest set of criteria developed through regional cooperation, where available, in the preparation of the monitoring programmes and the programme of measures; facilitate regional cooperation between EU Member States to improve the situation in the short term and provide an input to the respective Regional Sea Conventions' work which is compliant with the MSFD, in particular for the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. At the regional level, the Commission services and the Member States in that region should also collaborate, as appropriate, with other Contracting Parties in the context of the Regional Sea Conventions, to: review the work on the regional monitoring programmes; review the regional cooperation on measures in the light of this report. At the national level, Member States should: update their national GES definitions, in a statutory manner, where possible, in the short term, as an updated reference point for the preparation of the monitoring programmes the programme of measures; identify gaps and provide justifications, where an update of GES and targets was not possible, together with an action plan, preferably coordinated at regional level, to rectify the shortcomings by 2018 at the latest. 
10.7.      Final remarks
The above-mentioned general conclusions and
proposed actions complement the MS specific “guidance on modifications” (i.e.
recommendations) that the Commission has provided in Appendix 2. The aim is to
identify shortcomings and set out actions for EU level, regional level and
national level follow-up which can still put the MSFD implementation on a
successful path if implemented seriously, swiftly and in close cooperation.
There is a responsibility for the Member States individually and in
collaboration with each other in the region, ideally through the existing
Regional Sea Conventions, to address these recommendations. Furthermore, the
Commission services are aware of its responsibilities and roles, at EU and
regional level, in making sure that these recommendations lead to the envisaged
improvements.
Finally, there is a strong case to review
the way of working together at EU, regional and national level in the light of
the limited administrative capacities, budget constraints and reductions in
resources at all levels. There are significant efficiency gains possible, e.g.
by clarifying the different roles and responsibilities and better coordinating
“who does what”. This requires reforms in the way of working at regional level
as well as at EU level in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy.
Furthermore, results of such work would need to be used more systematically by
Member States because all too often, they have been disregarded.
However, practical considerations are not
the only, or perhaps not even the most important reasons to promote closer
working relationships at all levels; the underlying motivation is that marine
pollution knows no borders and that several important threats to the
environment can only be faced collectively.
To this end, some of the conclusions drawn
for this exercise have already been translated into initiatives from the
Commission, in particular:

 to develop, together with the Member
     States, a new work programme for the MSFD Common Implementation Strategy[40] for
     the years 2014-2018;
 to strengthen the role of the Regional
     Sea Conventions, e.g. to coordinate the work programmes and timetables and
     identify a differentiated and tailor-made approach for collaboration
     between the EU and regional level implementation efforts (which will be
     included in the above work programme);
 to improve efficiency of implementation
     support through ongoing or future projects by establishing a Project Coordination
     Group which also identifies the regional needs to deliver on the
     implementation;
 to make use of CIS Technical Groups for
     specific topics at EU level (such as for litter and noise) and develop an
     EU-wide technical and scientific support structure for Member States for
     the MSFD implementation through, for example, the future GES Competence
     Centre at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the development of
     WISE-Marine by the EEA. Both initiatives will be done in close
     collaboration with ICES, other EU bodies and international organisations
     which offer to participate in these efforts.

In addition, the Commission services will
consult the results of its report with the Member States, Regional Sea
Conventions, other international organisations, stakeholders, NGOs and the
interested public to draw on their views when further developing its
implementation and compliance promotion efforts.
In doing so, the Commission services will
organise review meetings on the assessment with Member States per marine region
or, individual Member States, in particular cases. Following these meetings,
which will be scheduled during 2014, the Commission will decide whether
additional compliance promotion actions will be needed.
              Appendix 1: Overview of criteria used for assessing
adequacy per descriptor
 Descriptor || Definition of Good Environmental Status (art. 9) || Initial Assessment (art. 8) || Environmental targets (art. 10) 
 1. Biological diversity || GES is more than a reformulation of the MSFD (i.e. criteria/indicators are defined) GES covers the seven criteria of the Commission Decision (or if GES is defined at indicator level, they provide a more refined definition for each of the criteria) GES addresses at least species, habitats and the ecosystem as a whole Species (highly mobile groups) GES addresses at least birds, mammals, reptiles , fish, and cephalopods (where relevant) GES uses the concept of functional groups or an equivalent classification GES covers all (relevant) species even if some species are singled out (e.g. as indicators) GES addresses special/listed species (of Habitats and Birds Directives and relevant international agreements – e.g. RSC lists) Habitats GES addresses at least water column habitats and the main (relevant) zones for seabed habitats (intertidal, shallow, shelf, bathyal/abyssal) GES uses the concept of predominant habitats or an equivalent classification GES covers all (relevant) habitats even if some habitats are singled out (e.g. as indicators) GES addresses special/listed habitats (of Habitats and Birds Directives and relevant international agreements – e.g. RSC lists) Ecosystem GES definition covers the whole ecosystem structure. Baselines The baselines used are in the sense of ‘reference condition’, i.e. in relation to ‘prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic (natural) conditions’ that are largely free from anthropogenic influences. The choice of the baseline is appropriate considering the knowledge available. A current or past degraded state can be used as a baseline only if the ambition is to improve quality towards a reference state (reference conditions). GES is based on the use of the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’ principle for each of the criteria (sensu WFD). GES reflects, where appropriate, the definitions for Favourable Conservation Status under the Habitats Directive and for Good Ecological Status under the Water Framework Directive. GES refers to the relevant regional and international agreements (e.g. OSPAR, HELCOM, UNEP/MAP, BSC, ASCOBANS, ACCOBAMS) (Quantitative) threshold values are given for GES GES is sufficiently specific to judge when it has been achieved || Pressures (physical loss and damage) The analysis covers all relevant types of physical loss/physical damage in the area The analysis covers all main causes (i.e. human activities) of physical loss/physical damage in the area The analysis covers the impacts of physical loss/damage on the relevant aspects of the marine environment (seabed habitats) The judgement on the level of the pressure (i.e. on the current environmental status) is adequate in the light of the information provided Data/knowledge gaps identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) Biological features The assessment has identified the relevant predominant habitats/functional groups/species for the MS/marine region The assessment covers at least the major zones for seabed and water column (if relevant) The assessment covers at least the five major species groups (if relevant) The assessment covers at least those species and habitats which are covered under the relevant RSCs If the MS has used different predominant habitat and functional group types to those pre-defined, the categorisation used is equivalent/appropriate and covers the full range of biodiversity in the MS waters of the (sub-)region The assessment of habitat types address both the abiotic (physical, hydrological, chemical) and biotic (community) aspects of each habitat The judgement on the features’ status is adequate in light of information provided i.e. it is defined at least in a qualitative manner, using specified criteria and indicators. The main pressures and impacts on the features are identified Where individual species or fine-scale habitats/biotopes are reported as surrogates for the functional groups and predominant habitat types: • The species/biotopes collectively provide an overall assessment of status of each ‘minimum’ category species group/habitat type • The main pressures and impacts for the species group/habitat type are identified through the individual assessments Where individual species are reported as ‘listed’ features: • There is an assessment of their status • The main pressures and impacts are identified Data/knowledge gaps identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The set of environmental targets/indicators addresses all the elements (e.g. criteria/indicators) of the GES definition or at least allows achieving GES for all criteria/indicators. Suitably specific indicators are provided for each target (unless the target is sufficiently specific that it does not need indicators) The set of targets/associated indictors is SMART (Specific; Measurable (with a threshold value or a baseline for trend-based indicators); Achievable; Realistic; Time-bound) Targets and associated indicators are consistent as a set  Target sufficiently ambitious to reduce the pressure or impact (or improve status) to levels that will achieve GES Targets do not express what is GES 
 2. Non-indigenous species || The definition of GES is more than a reformulation of the MSFD Annex I GES is defined at descriptor/criteria levels GES covers (directly/indirectly) criterion 2.1 / criterion 2.2 The definition of GES meets the minimum requirements ( no new introductions of NIS, and where possible, no further spreading of them) If further development is needed, there is a clear indication of plans (what, by when) The GES definition is sufficiently precise || The national list of NIS is consistent with the RSC and IAS list of NIS The analysis and assessment of the pressure from NIS is adequate in the light of available knowledge/ level of information/ established methods to assess this topic This includes: • coverage of relevant NIS, • identifying knowledge gaps together with plans to address them,  • identification of main vectors/ pathways, preferably with a ranking, • relevant impacts on (seabed/water column) habitats are described (at least qualitative assessment of impacts), • level of pressure is assessed. Judgement on the level of pressure in relation to GES is provided and adequate in light of the information provided Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The environmental target is SMART Suitably specific indicators are provided for each target The target is sufficiently ambitious to reduce the pressure or impact to levels that will achieve GES (if possible by 2020) The target(s) and indicators regarding the spread of NIS cover all the main sources of new introductions (e.g. ballast water, ship hulls, aquaculture & Suez Canal) The targets and associated indicators are consistent as a set (i.e. absence of conflict) Targets do not express what is GES 
 3. Commercial fish and shellfish || All stocks for which analytical assessments are available will be exploited at or below Fmsy Secondary indicator does not have to be used but is adequate when it will be set using a proxy for MSY or is stable and or decreasing All stocks have a SSB which is equal to or above SSBpa, BMSY-trigger or SSBmsy Secondary indicator does not have to be used but is adequate when it will be set using a proxy of a Pa, MSY or the indicator is stable and/or increasing Criterion 3.3 has been used in the GES definition (with or without the indicators of the Commission Decision). || Stocks are assessed in relation to MSY and/or PA reference points for all relevant (sub)regions Information has been provided on the fishing fleet Both fish and shellfish stocks in all relevant (sub)regions are assessed Judgement on the level of pressure and/or on status of commercial fish and shellfish stocks in relation to GES is provided and adequate in light of the information provided Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || Targets clearly require all stocks (with analytical assessments) to be exploited at or below Fmsy Targets clearly require all stocks (with analytical assessments) to have a SSB that is at or above SSBpa, BMSY-trigger or Bmsy Relevant targets at least for the previously mentioned criteria are SMART. 
 4. Food webs || GES is more than a reformulation of the MSFD Annex I GES meets the minimum requirements: • uses all the criteria set in the COM Decision or if GES is defined at indicator level, they provide a more refined definition for each of the criteria. • The definition of GES covers all main food web components for the marine (sub-) region/Member State (i.e. components from plankton and benthos through to higher trophic levels) • The species that are selected as indicators of changes in the food web are considered appropriate The choice of the baseline is appropriate considering the knowledge available. A current or past degraded state can be used as a baseline only if the ambition is to improve quality towards a reference state (reference conditions). The baselines used are in the sense of ‘reference condition’, i.e. in relation to ‘prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic (natural) conditions’ that are largely free from anthropogenic influences. The determination of GES is based on the use of the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’ principle for each of the criteria (sensu WFD). Where a current or past state is used as a baseline and represents a degraded state, there is ambition to improve quality towards a reference state above a GES threshold value. || As above (descriptor 1) || As above (descriptor 1) 
 5. Eutrophication || GES is not a copy or simple reformulation of the MSFD Annex I. GES meets the minimum requirements: • Criterion 5.1 - nutrient levels • Criterion 5.2 - direct effects • Criterion 5.3 - indirect effects GES uses most of the indicators of COM Decision 2010/477 GES is the same or comparable to the appropriate WFD normative definitions of ecological status classifications for coastal waters. Reference is made to the relevant Regional Sea Convention GES provides details about specific concentrations/ threshold values/ baselines. GES is sufficiently specific to determine when GES has been achieved Aggregation rules are mentioned || The assessment covers all relevant nutrients (even if descriptive): Nitrogen and Phosphorus. The assessment covers organic matter (even if descriptive) The assessment covers input loads (nutrients and/or organic matter) The assessment covers concentrations in the environment (nutrients and/or organic matter) The assessment covers the main causes of the pressure The assessment covers most relevant impacts The judgement/trends on the level of the pressure (e.g. in good status) is adequate in light of information provided The judgement/trends on the level of the impact of the pressure (e.g. in good status) is adequate in light of information provided Reference is made to WFD (monitoring results, reports, etc.) Reference is made to the relevant Regional Sea Convention Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The set of targets address state/impacts rather than pressures The set of targets/ associated indictors is SMART The targets are linked to the appropriate WFD normative definitions of ecological status classifications for coastal waters Reference is made to the relevant Regional Sea Convention The set of targets is considered consistent Targets do not express GES 
 6. Sea-floor integrity || GES is more than a reformulation of the MSFD Annex I text. GES meets the minimum requirements: • GES uses all the criteria set out in the COM Decision or if GES is defined at indicator level, they provide a more refined definition for each of the criteria. • GES covers all relevant biogenic substrates for this marine region/member state • GES covers all relevant substrate types, following the typology of predominant habitat types as used for habitats for Descriptor 1. The choice of the baseline is appropriate considering the knowledge available. A current or past degraded state can be used as a baseline only if the ambition is to improve quality towards a reference state (reference conditions). The baselines used are in the sense of ‘reference condition’, i.e. in relation to ‘prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic (natural) conditions’ that are largely free from anthropogenic influences. The determination of GES is based on the use of the ‘reference condition plus acceptable deviation’ principle for each of the criteria (sensu WFD). Where a current or past state is used as a baseline and represents a degraded state, there is ambition to improve quality towards a reference state above a GES threshold value || As above (descriptor 1) || As above (descriptor 1) 
 7. Hydrographical changes || GES is more than a reformulation of the MSFD Annex I. GES meets the minimum requirements: • Criterion 7.1 – spatial characterization • Criterion 7.2 - Impact GES uses the indicators of COM Decision 2010/477: • Indicator 7.1.1 – Extent of area affected • Indicator 7.2.1 – Spatial extent of habitats • Indicator 7.2.2 – Changes in habitats and functions GES is the same or comparable to the appropriate WFD normative definitions of ecological status classifications for coastal waters. There is reference to the relevant Regional Sea Convention Reference is made to other regulatory tools (e.g. EIA, SEA, Habitats Directive) GES provides details about specific threshold values/ baselines. GES is sufficiently specific to determine when GES has been achieved || The assessment covers most pressures and most relevant impacts The assessment covers the main causes of the pressures The judgement/trends on the level of the pressure (e.g. in good status) is adequate in light of information provided The judgement/trends on the impact of the pressure (e.g. in good status) is adequate in light of information provided Reference is made to WFD reports Reference is made to the relevant Regional Sea Convention The assessment covers marine acidification Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The set of targets addresses pressures The set of targets addresses impacts (in relation to D1, D4 and D6) The set of targets/ associated indicators is SMART The targets are linked to the appropriate WFD normative definitions of ecological status classifications for coastal waters Reference is made to other regulatory tools (e.g. EIA, SEA, Habitats Directive) Reference is made to the relevant Regional Sea Convention The set of targets is considered consistent Targets do not express GES and are focused on reducing pressures and impacts in order to help achieve GES 
 8. Contaminants || GES is more than a reformulation of the MSFD Annex I GES covers the two criteria: concentration and effects of contaminants The criterion on concentration of contaminant refers to the three relevant matrices (water, biota and sediment) The criterion on concentration of contaminants refers to the EQS Directive, i.e. the standards used are at least those of the EQS Directive in water and for the three substances for which an EQS exist in biota (Hg, HCB and HCBD) OR Reference is made to make use of Article 3 of the proposal 2011/0429 (COD) for a Directive amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC 'establish a method that offers at least the same level of protection as the EQS provided for in that annex' If EQS are not used, the justification for using other relevant standards (e.g. the OSPAR EACs) is provided and sufficient The substances covered by the GES definition are specified OR a specific reference to a defined standard makes it understandable which substances are covered. Aggregation rules are provided or the “all in, all out” rule applies. The criterion on effects of contaminants refers to specific biological effects on ecosystem components (e.g. imposex) or at least to internationally-recognized guidelines for the monitoring of such biological effects (e.g. OSPAR JAMP/ICES) If reference is not made to an internationally-recognized standard, parameters and baselines should be specified for GES to be measurable The criterion on effects of contaminants addresses acute pollution events from both an effect perspective (e.g. effect of oil and oil products on birds) and from a pressure perspective (frequency/origins of acute pollution events) For the frequency/ occurrence of events, the GES is at least trend-based (i.e. number of events should be reducing) and a baseline is defined || The assessment covers all relevant sources of contaminants (i.e. land-, sea- and air-based) The assessment covers all relevant substances (man-made substances, with specification of which substances are assessed, heavy metals (at least Hg, Cd, Pb), radioactive substances (at least C-137), oil and oil products) The assessment includes at least quantitative trends (i.e. concentrations of contaminants are decreasing/increasing) and/or input loads of contaminants into the environment Frequency and origin of acute pollution events are quantitatively described (i.e. at least number of accidents/incidents over a certain period of time or quantity of oil/oil-products input to the water) The assessment covers all relevant impacts of contaminants (at least on seabed habitats and on functional groups – on functional groups, referring to at least one specific biological effect – e.g. imposex) A judgement is made using relevant standards (e.g. EQS) at a relatively aggregated level (i.e. for levels of concentrations in the environment (not by substances) and for impacts on seabed habitats/functional groups. Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The set of environmental targets/indicators addresses all the elements (e.g. criteria/indicators) of the GES definition or at least allows achieving GES for all criteria/indicators – for contaminants that means covering at least 8.1 and 8.2 if this is covered in GES definition Suitably specific indicators are provided for each target (unless the target is already sufficiently specific) The set of targets/associated indicators is SMART Target are sufficiently targeted towards reducing levels of a specified pressure or impact, or controlling human activities, which are preventing GES from being achieved Targets are sufficiently ambitious to reduce the pressure or impact to levels that will achieve GES (if possible by 2020) Targets and associated indicators defined for Descriptor 8 are consistent as a set Targets do not express what is GES 
 9. Contaminants in seafood || GES is at least the MSFD Annex I definition including compliance with Regulation 1881/2006 The definition of GES covers entirely the criterion of the Commission Decision on levels, number and frequency of contaminants The GES definition provides information about the species and substances used to measure achievement of GES. The GES definition should cover at least all the substances included in Regulation 1881/2006 for which concentrations have been set in fish/shellfish No particular minimum requirement with regard to indicator 9.1.2 on frequency of regulatory levels The GES definition does not cover aquaculture products The definition of GES and/or accompanying text make it clear that the GES applies to seafood coming from the relevant (sub)regions || The assessment covers all relevant sources of contaminants (i.e. land-, sea- and air-based) (possible through D8) The assessment covers all relevant substances (man-made substances, with specification of which substances are assessed, heavy metals (at least Hg, Cd, Pb) The assessment gives details of the fish and shellfish species considered in the assessment The assessment makes it clear where the fish and seafood samples used come from The assessment includes at least quantitative trends (i.e. concentrations of contaminants in fish and seafood are decreasing/increasing) and/or actual concentrations are provided A judgement is made using relevant standards (i.e. EU foodstuff limits / possible alternative: OSPAR EAC in fish and mussels) at a relatively aggregated level Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The set of environmental targets/associated indicators is sufficiently specific to enable its measurement, and assessment of progress towards achieving the target. The set should be assessed together and is SMART. The set of environmental targets/indicators addresses all the elements (e.g. criteria/indicators) of the GES definition or at least allows to achieve GES for all criteria/indicators Suitably specific indicators provided for each target (unless the target is sufficiently specific that it does not need indicators) Targets are sufficiently targeted towards reducing levels of a specified pressure or impact, or controlling human activities, which are preventing GES from being achieved Targets are sufficiently ambitious to reduce the pressure or impact to levels that will achieve GES (if possible by 2020) – this may be directly (i.e. through pressure targets) or indirectly (i.e. through impacts/state targets which imply that pressures should be reduced in order to be achieved) Targets and associated indicators defined for Descriptor 9 consistent as a set 
 10. Marine litter || The definition of GES is not a copy or simple reformulation of the MSFD Annex I The GES definition uses the same criteria/indicators as those set in COM Decision 2010/477. If the GES definition uses other criteria/indicators, they are equivalent to those of the COM Decision or cover additional relevant elements The definition of GES and/or the accompanying text provides details about specific types of litter/ threshold values/ baselines This additional information is relevant considering availability of knowledge/established methods. The definition of GES is sufficiently detailed/specific to enable its assessment in the different matrices (shore, water column/surface, seabed) || The assessment covers all relevant types The assessment covers all relevant forms of litter The assessment covers the sources of marine litter The assessment covers all the relevant habitats (at least seabed and water column) The assessment covers the impacts of marine litter on marine life The assessment covers all relevant geographical areas When provided, the judgement on the level of, and impact from, the pressure (e.g. in good status) is adequate in light of information provided Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The set of environmental targets/associated indicators is sufficiently specific to enable its measurement, and assessment of progress towards achieving the target. The set of targets and associated indicators should be assessed together and is SMART The set of environmental targets/indicators addresses all the elements (e.g. criteria/indicators) of the GES definition or at least allows to achieve GES for all criteria/indicators Specific indicators provided for each target (unless the target is sufficiently specific that it does not need indicators) Targets are sufficiently targeted towards reducing levels of a specified pressure or impact, or controlling human activities, which are preventing GES from being achieved Targets are sufficiently ambitious to reduce the pressure or impact to levels that will achieve GES (if possible by 2020) – this may be directly (i.e. through pressure targets) or indirectly (i.e. through impacts/state targets which imply that pressures should be reduced in order to be achieved) Targets and associated indicators defined for Descriptor 10 form a consistent set 
 11. Energy, including underwater noise || The determination of GES is not a copy or simple reformulation of the MSFD Annex I The determination of GES addresses both Decision criteria The GES determination uses the indicators of COM Decision 2010/477. The GES determination is sufficiently specific to determine when GES has been achieved || The assessment covers both types of sound (criterion 11.1 and 11.2) The assessment covers the main causes of pressure The assessment covers most relevant impacts The judgement/trends on the level of the pressure (e.g. in good status) is adequate in light of information provided The judgement/trends on the impact of the pressure (e.g. in good status) is adequate in light of information provided Data/knowledge gaps are identified and plans to address them are described (what, by when) || The targets cover pressures or impacts or address monitoring The set of targets/associated indicators is SMART The set of targets is considered consistent Targets do not express what is GES 
              Appendix 2: Summary findings and recommendations for
Member States
This Appendix gives a summary per Member
State of the findings in the country specific reports, made by the contractor
on basis of the questionnaire per descriptor and the general questionnaire. It
describes some general features, highlights per article strong and weak points,
it addresses identified gaps in knowledge and information and plans to address
them and concludes with recommendations. 
Belgium
General issues
Marine waters
Belgium is part of the North East Atlantic;
the outer limit of the coverage is defined by the international boundaries of
the Belgian Continental Shelf. The area covers 0,5% of the North Sea and
borders the waters of three neighbouring countries.
Areas assessed
The assessment area is the Belgian marine
waters as a whole. No specific further sub-division of assessment areas has
been defined. There is no indication on aggregation rules.
Regional
Cooperation
Belgium is a party to OSPAR; efforts for
regional and bilateral coordination are extensively described. Belgium has used
the OSPAR 2010 Quality Status Report as a reference in its assessment report.
Belgium underlines that the timelines and ambitious requirements of the MSFD
prevented the coordination on GES and setting of targets.
Other features
Belgium has used the water account approach
for its economic and social analysis. The cost of degradation is based on an
analysis of current expenditure for environmental protection measures,
abatement and transaction costs as well as opportunity costs. The
socio-economic analysis did not result in a clear outcome for the assessment of
degradation and restoration costs.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
All the descriptors under the MSFD are
covered.
Relevant international or EU legislation
and OSPAR decisions have been acknowledged. GES is not a mere reproduction of
the directive’s definition and often refers to EU and regional standards and
requirements.
Weak points
GES is for most of the descriptors defined
at descriptor and (partly) criterion level, but not at indicator level. Only
for descriptor 3 are definitions at indicator level included. However, for its
definition at criteria level, Belgium has chosen to combine or group different
elements which relate to several criteria and/or indicators which makes it
difficult to assess if all elements are addressed.
For descriptor 5 GES is only defined at
descriptor level and for descriptor 2 at descriptor level, close to the
definition of MSFD Annex 1 and one criterion. Also GES definitions on criteria
lack specification which make it difficult to assess achievement of GES.
Overall score
GES definitions for descriptor 10 is
considered inadequate because definitions relate mainly to the descriptor level
and do not allow an assessment for GES.
GES definitions for the other descriptors
are considered to be partially adequate. Given definitions are mostly clear but
lack specific detail in relation to baseline references that would allow proper
GES assessments or lack alignment with the GES Commission Decision or OSPAR common
procedure.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The assessment for most of the descriptors is
based on an appropriate range of parameters and covers relevant geographical
areas.
Weak points
For some descriptors not all relevant
pressures and related impacts are described and assessed in a similar manner.
Impacts are only partially assessed and for one descriptor (Descriptor 9) no clear
assessment has been undertaken at all. The information provided lacks in many
cases adequate quantitative detail and information on pressures is not always
reflected in the assessment of biological features itself. No or little
indication is given on how identified knowledge gaps for appropriate assessment
will be filled.
Overall score
The assessment is considered adequate for
marine litter (Descriptor 10). The initial assessment is considered inadequate
for descriptor 9 (very limited assessment and inconsistent/ contradictory
between reporting sheet and paper report) and descriptor 11 (for which only
possible sources are listed). For the other descriptors the assessment is
considered partially adequate as an assessment of the impacts is partly missing
or missing.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Several targets, particularly the ones
relating to biodiversity, descriptors 7 and 8 are SMART and well-focused on
relevant pressures.
Weak points
The biodiversity targets do not cover all
criteria. The target for descriptor 2 (no new NIS) is not considered SMART and
does not cover main pathways. Targets for descriptor 3 are not consistent. Targets
for descriptor 5 do not address all criteria. For descriptor 9, not all
relevant aspects of the Commission Decision are considered. For Descriptor 10,
targets seem more to relate to impacts than pressures despite the statement on the reduction of the amount of litter in
the GES definition.
Overall score
Targets are considered adequate for the
biodiversity descriptors (Descriptor 1, 6) and for descriptors 7 and 8.
They are considered partially adequate for
descriptors 4, 5 ( not all criteria used), 9 (a copy of GES), 10 (no threshold
defined) and 11 (unclear how this would be applied in a wider area).
Targets are considered inadequate for
descriptors 2 and 3 since they are not SMART or consistent.
Consistency
The approach used by Belgium for defining
GES and setting targets for all descriptors is overall consistent. Not all
impacts are addressed in the initial assessment and in addition, for the
biological descriptors, the use of combined criteria makes a direct link
between GES and targets with the initial assessment difficult.
Identified gaps
and plans to address them
In its initial assessment, Belgium provides
very little detail about knowledge gaps (in both the reporting sheets and the
paper report) or about future plans to address any gaps.
In the introduction to its report
on GES and targets, Belgium acknowledges that the determination of GES and the
setting of targets for this first reporting cycle have relied mainly on
existing assessments and methodologies and that gaps identified during this
first reporting cycle will be addressed in the next reporting cycles. No
specifications are given on how exactly these gaps will be addressed.
Recommendations
Belgium should:

 Strengthen and coordinate methodology for
     the socio-economic analysis allowing assessment of the
     degradation/restoration costs and MSFD implementation costs/benefit
     analysis;
 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
     much as possible, focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the
     aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors
     assessed as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Identify knowledge and information gaps
     and address these, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results in 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious to achieve the
     requirements and timelines of the MSFD.

Bulgaria
General issues
Bulgaria reported very late which allowed
the Commission services only to assess the Bulgarian implementation of Article
9 and 10. The evaluation of Bulgaria's implementation of Article 8 will be
completed at a later stage. 
Marine waters
The scope of the Bulgarian marine waters
covers the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Bulgaria, the
territorial sea and the shallow coastal waters, up to the outer limit of
transitional waters.
Areas assessed
Bulgaria has defined the following formal
assessment areas for the pelagic zone: coastal (0-30 m below sea level,
BSL), shelf (30-200 m BSL) and open sea (>200 m BSL), based on
satellite-derived chlorophyll-a concentrations and review of the existing
data/literature, showing correspondence with the previous zonation based on
anthropogenic pressure, sea currents, productivity and bathymetry.
The benthic zone is divided into 10 assessment
areas based on the substrate characteristics and associated communities.
Regional cooperation
Bulgaria reports that bilateral cooperation
has taken place with Romania, Turkey and other Black Sea countries through
bilateral agreements and policy initiatives, using the mechanisms of the
Bucharest Convention. It also mentions the inconsistencies between Bulgaria and
Romania in the methodological approaches for assessing the ecological status of
the Black Sea waters and insufficient cooperation with Turkey.
Bulgaria underlines the regional dimension
of the marine/coastal environment challenges and often refers to Bucharest
Convention documents when defining GES and targets.
Other features
Bulgaria reported very late which is why
its initial assessment including the socio- economic analysis could not be
taken into account.
It invokes MSFD Article 14(1)(b)
(exceptions for natural causes) to exclude the deep sea slope and abyssal plain
from GES determination because of anaerobic conditions and presence of toxic
hydrogen sulphide gas at a depth of 150-200m.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
The division of Bulgaria’s marine waters
into three groups should enable greater precision in defining environmental status.
However, it will need to be aligned with the definition of the WFD coastal
waters to ensure consistency. 
There is a partially good GES definition
for Descriptors 1, 3, 5 and 7.
Weak points
Bulgaria has not defined GES for Descriptors
4, 9, 10 and 11.
There is a lack of
clarity in the distinction between GES and targets (e.g. for Descriptor 2, 9).
There is a low level of precision and
ambition for Descriptor 8; it is doubtful whether all available data (referred
to in the assessment) has been used.
Overall score
Partially adequate are Descriptors 1, 2, 3,
5 and 7 but inadequate or absent GES definitions for the other descriptors.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
The initial assessment by Bulgaria has not
been assessed due to late reporting.
A fairly detailed socio-economic analysis
of the marine water uses is provided, but it suffers from an information
deficit on key economic indicators and environmental impact.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Bulgaria defines assessment areas and
attribution of specific threshold values for each assessment area for certain
descriptors (e.g. Descriptor 5).
It has made effort to define specific and
quantified targets for Descriptors 1, 3, 5 and 6.
It has more than 70 targets and three to
four times more indicators to cover Descriptors 1 and 6. The targets and
indicators are very specific and defined with quantitative threshold values.
Weak points
Targets are not defined for Descriptors 4,
10 and 11.
There is a surprisingly low level of
precision and ambition for Descriptor 8.
Overall score
Descriptors 1 and 5 are adequate and
descriptors Descriptors 3 and 6 are partially adequate. Targets for the other
descriptors are inadequate or missing.
Consistency
It is sometimes difficult
to judge consistency due to differences between the reporting sheets and the
paper report, resulting in uncertainty as to what exactly should be considered
as GES or what is set as environmental target; consistency cannot be evaluated
for the several descriptors for which GES or targets are missing.
Identified gaps
and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps are highlighted
throughout the report on Articles 9 and 10 for each descriptor. For certain
descriptors for which data and knowledge gaps are very important (e.g. Descriptor 11), Bulgaria provides a number
of high-level recommendations and plans to address these gaps. However it does
not provide a timeline and specific steps to implement these recommendations.
Recommendations
Bulgaria should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
     much as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the
     aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors
     assessed as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets.

Additional recommendations may be resulting
from the assessment of Bulgaria's article 8 implementation, once completed. 
Cyprus
General issues
Marine waters
Cyprus’ marine waters are part of the
Aegean-Levantine Sea marine subregion. No formal subdivisions have been made.
The spatial delineation of Cyprus’ marine
waters is clearly identified, with maps showing the different marine areas and
habitats of the general marine area, and further by a map showing the
bathymetry and limits of the EEZ of Cyprus.
Areas assessed
Cyprus’ initial assessment, characteristics
of GES and associated targets and indicators have been developed for marine
waters of Cyprus as a whole.
Regional cooperation
Cyprus is contracting party to the
Barcelona Convention. In addition, Cyprus mentioned the Memorandum of
Understanding on Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development signed on
29 September 2010 with the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change
of Greece. The Memorandum includes a provision on the implementation of the
MSFD. No coordination efforts have been reported.
Other features
The economic and social analysis of marine
uses for Cyprus has been carried out using the water account approach, whereas a cost-based approach has been followed to evaluate the cost of
degradation.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
Cyprus set GES for nearly all descriptors.
Weak points
GES is defined only at the descriptor level
and generally merely reproduces the definitions set in Annex I of the
Directive. No GES definition was provided for Descriptor 4.
There is no systematic
use of the 2010 Commission Decision criteria and indicators when setting GES
and there is a lack of clarity in what constitutes GES and what are the
environmental targets and associated indicators.
In the reporting sheets and the paper
report there is confusion between GES definition, initial assessment and
environmental targets and indicators.
Overall score
Three GES definitions are considered as
partially adequate (Descriptors 3, 7 and 9) since they were not completely
clear.
The remaining descriptors (Descriptors 1,
2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11) are assessed as inadequate since the determination of
GES is a reproduction of MSFD Annex I and does not meet the minimum
requirements.
No GES definition was provided for
Descriptor 4.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Cyprus attempts to quantify many elements
of the initial assessment and uses expert judgement to draw conclusions to
complement existing data. Cyprus
has made a judgement on the status of the marine environment in relation to GES
for Descriptors 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9. In order to make this judgement, Cyprus has
defined specific ‘weighted indicators’ on the basis of the criteria and
indicators of the Commission Decision, but the methodology used to calculate
the status based on these indicators is not clear.
For the initial assessment, data and
reports from UNEP-MAP[41]
were used in relation to biodiversity.
Weak points
The initial assessment is mainly
descriptive and impacts from pressures are rarely
reported on.
Overall score
Two initial assessments for some pressures/impacts
are considered as adequate (Descriptors 5 and 6) thanks to a qualitative and
quantitative judgment made in relation to GES on trends and the provision of
information on knowledge gaps and plans to address them.
Five initial assessments for other pressures/impacts
are considered as partially adequate (Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8) mainly due to
incompleteness, no clear judgments (on pressures and impacts) and lack of
information on knowledge gaps and plans to address them. Also the assessment of
microbial pathogen contamination is partially adequate.
The remaining four initial assessments (for
Descriptors 7, 9, 10 and 11) are considered as inadequate mainly due to provision
of limited information and their incompleteness.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Cyprus sets what it calls ‘quantitative
targets’ (for Descriptors 1, 5, 6, 8 and 9) which are calculated on the basis
of a set of so-called ‘indicators’, which are linked to some of the criteria
and indicators of the Commission Decision.
Weak points
Cyprus has set environmental targets (state-based
targets) only for a limited number of descriptors, namely Descriptors 1, 3, 5,
6, 8 and 9.
Environmental targets are defined in a
vague and general way, often phrased as a GES definition. The associated
‘indicators’ are the same as those used for making a judgement on the current
status in relation to GES.
The methodologies to assess current status
and set quantitative targets are not clearly explained in the reported
documents e.g. there is a lack of specification of what reference conditions
are.
Overall score
Cyprus has not set targets for Descriptors
2, 4, 7, 10 and 11 due to lack of sufficient data.
Targets related to Descriptor 5 are
partially adequate since they are specific and measurable, but it is not clear
if they are achievable and realistic.
The targets of all the remaining descriptors
(Descriptors 1, 3, 6, 8 and 9) are considered inadequate, mainly due to the
fact that they are a reproduction of the GES definition.
Consistency
There is a lack of consistency in the
approach undertaken to set GES and environmental targets across the different
descriptors. In addition, these differences in approaches and formats make it
very difficult to identify the exact definition of GES.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps are generally
identified and described; for five descriptors environmental targets have not
been set due to the lack of data.
Cyprus often describes necessary research
and/or monitoring activities in broad terms without further specifications as
to when, how and by whom they will be addressed.
Recommendations
Cyprus should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as much
     as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim
     to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed
     as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets.

Denmark
General issues
Marine waters
The Danish marine waters cover two marine
regions, the North East Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. Denmark clearly defines
the extent of its marine waters and often informally differentiates three
areas: the North Sea and Skagerrak, the Kattegat and the Baltic Sea.
Areas assessed
Denmark's assessment under Articles 8, 9
and 10 has been developed for the Danish waters as a whole, though in the
initial assessment, information is provided for each of the individual
subregions, as Denmark often informally differentiates three areas: the North
Sea and Skagerrak, the Kattegat and the Baltic Sea.
Regional
cooperation
Denmark is part of both OSPAR, in the North
East Atlantic region, and HELCOM, in the Baltic Sea. Denmark notes it has not
had the opportunity to make full use of regional cooperation in this reporting
cycle due to timing differences between the implementation of the different
Contracting Parties, though progress is expected to continue until 2018.
Other features
Denmark has undertaken an extensive
economic and social analysis using the water accounts approach, and the DPSIR[42] approach in a
comprehensive manner, presenting results of impacts on the economy, employment
and environment.
Some inconsistencies have been spotted
between the reporting sheet and the paper report submitted by Denmark, when
this was the case, this analysis has been made on the basis of the paper
report, as stipulated by Denmark.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
The approach by Denmark is overall
consistent in setting Good Environmental Status (GES) also across the two
regions covered by Denmark's marine waters.
Weak points
GES is generally defined in a qualitative
manner, avoiding reference to specific baselines, reference states or
thresholds, which will make it impossible to assess if GES has been met or not.
Apart from descriptors on biodiversity, underwater noise and eutrophication,
GES is set at descriptor level only.
In addition, insufficient reference is made
to standards in existing EU legislation or in the relevant Regional Sea
Conventions (with the exception of descriptor 5 on eutrophication, which
usefully refers to the Water Framework Directive, WFD).
The GES definition of Descriptor 1, for
example, appears very restrictive in its scope, gives no precise definition of
qualitative terms used and makes little reference to existing baselines, within
the WFD, the Habitats Directive or the Birds Directive.
Overall score
Overall, the approach used by Denmark to
define GES is inadequate, especially due to the qualitative and imprecise
description of GES, which will make it impossible to assess whether or not GES
has been met. Descriptors 1 and 4 are partially adequate since the definition
of GES addresses most of the indicators of the Commission Decision, but stays
rather general with no specification of terms used, such as “maintained” and
“safeguard''. Descriptor 10 is also partially adequate. It does not address the
criteria of the Decision but it adds additional elements (socio-economic impact
and invasive species).
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The analysis of ongoing pressures on the
environment is often clear and detailed (such as for the biodiversity
descriptors), and the initial assessment on contaminants makes reference to
existing standards both in EU (WFD Environmental Quality Standards for
instance) and in Regional Sea Conventions (RSC).
Weak points
Similarly to the approach used to define GES,
the initial assessment for Denmark is often too limited in its scope, and provided
in a low level of detail, with the exception of the descriptor 5 on
eutrophication, which includes both qualitative and quantitative information,
covering all relevant sources of nutrients, and using WFD threshold values.
In particular, Descriptor 7 on
hydrographical conditions is covered by very little information and makes no
reference to the existing knowledge, such as for instance under OSPAR and
HELCOM. This is also the case for Descriptor 10 on marine litter.
Overall score
The initial assessment is adequate for
Descriptors 5, 6 and 8. It is inadequate for Descriptors 7 and 11 because the
description is very sparse and there is no specific data. The other descriptors
are partially adequate because of their low level of detail.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
The targets set for biodiversity-related
indicators are overall SMART, with clear associated indicators.
Weak points
The targets set by Denmark, on the basis of
their initial assessment and in order to reach GES often lack a timeframe and
information on threshold values and baselines. As a result, they are often not
operational, making it impossible to assess whether GES will be achievable
through these targets. In addition, the set of targets does not always cover
all relevant aspects of the marine features of the Danish waters (on
biodiversity for example), or their scope is too limited (for instance, the
targets on foodwebs do not reflect the health of the foodweb as a whole). For
descriptor 5 on eutrophication the targets are precise and quantified but not
time bound, leaving it open when GES will be achieved. No environmental targets
have been set to address hydrological changes, without justification provided.
In terms of consistency, the GES, the
initial assessment and the targets are not always complementary, and the choice
for the allocation of targets to specific descriptors is not always clear. For
marine litter for example, the GES definition makes a reference to the
propagation of non-indigenous species (NIS), but no target is associated to
this aspect of the GES.
Overall score
Overall, the targets set are partially
adequate (for Descriptors 1, 4, 6, 5, 8, 9, 11) because they miss threshold
values (Descriptor 1) or timing (Descriptor 5) or proper reference to EU
legislation (Descriptor 8, 9) or certain aspects of the descriptor (Descriptors
4, 5, 11). The targets for Descriptors 2, 3 and 10 are inadequate as they are
vague and not SMART.
Consistency
The approach followed by Denmark is overall
consistent in terms of the approach used for the setting of GES across the two
regions. For Descriptor 4 there is inconsistency between the dominant targets
for top predators and the definition of GES. For Descriptor 9 the initial
assessment is limited compared to the defined targets. For Descriptor 10, GES
also refers to socio-economic aspects and NIS which are not reflected in the
targets. Finally, GES for Descriptor 11 is generic and is not linked to all targets.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Denmark often does not mention knowledge
gaps, and when it does, does not set out detailed plans to address them, for
instance referring to further work in RSCs but without further specifications
as to when, how and whom.
Recommendations
Denmark should
a.      
Improve GES definitions including through
regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as much as
possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make
GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as inadequate
or partially adequate;
b.     
Address knowledge gaps identified in the initial
assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD and research
programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as inadequate or partially
adequate;
c.      
Improve the consistency between the criteria
used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed targets.
Estonia
General issues
Marine waters
Estonia's marine waters are located in the
north-east of the Baltic Sea and are divided into three areas: the internal sea
(between the shoreline and baseline of the territorial sea), the territorial
sea (adjacent to the internal sea and extending from the baseline out to 12
nautical miles) and the Exclusive Economic Zone which accounts for almost 1/3
of the whole of Estonia’s marine area.
Areas assessed
The assessment area is Estonian marine
waters as a whole, with no specific assessment areas defined for MSFD in the
way they are mentioned as having been done for Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Regional cooperation
Estonia is part of HELCOM but regional
co-operation per se is not described in the paper report and the
reporting sheet only mentions that written and oral communication in the form
of meetings and telephone calls have taken place at the regional level. 
Other features
Estonia has reported on its socio-economic
analysis which assesses the multiple uses made of
marine waters and includes an analysis of the costs of degradation, focusing on
eutrophication, hazardous substances and invasive species. Estonia refers to
the DPSIR[43]
method and to the approach outlined in the guidance document developed by the
EU Common Implementation Strategy.
The status of the paper report on “The
indicators of good environmental status and the environmental targets of
Estonian Marine waters” is uncertain as it has been developed by the Estonian
Marine Institute as a proposal for the implementation of MSFD Articles 9 and 10
and does not appear to be a final version endorsed by the authorities.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
All the MSFD descriptors are covered.
Regular reference is made to EU legislation, especially the Habitats Directive,
to HELCOM for the development of its indicators and to ICES. The indicators for
the condition of benthic communities in Descriptor 6 have clear thresholds and
are, therefore, measurable.
Weak points
For Descriptor 1, GES definitions are
provided for all criteria and most are quantified through threshold values but
they are focused on only a few key species and habitats. The indicators
provided for Descriptor 4 do not match directly with those of the Commission
Decision and the baselines are only mainly described in a general manner.
The Descriptor 3 GES indicator does not
require stocks of commercial fish and shellfish to be within safe biological
limits. The scope of Descriptor 7 is very limited (only on changes in
temperature and salinity). GES for Descriptors 10 and 11 is not defined.
Overall score
The GES definitions are partially
adequate for Descriptors 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9, but there are caveats
relating to the coverage of habitats and species, the relationship with the
Commission Decision and queries over the meaning of terms such as
"significantly higher" where no context is provided. GES for several descriptors
(Descriptors 3, 4) is considered to be inadequate. Descriptors 10 and 11
have not been defined.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Reference is made to HELCOM reports and WFD
in relation to eutrophication (Descriptor 5), with trends identified and
judgements made: the assessment covers all relevant nutrients and organic
matter, although in generalised terms. Descriptor 2 has targeted information
for each of the indicators, along with a documented judgement on the current
status in relation to GES and the methodology to determine that status. The assessment
for Descriptors 8 and 9 is concise and semi-quantitative.
Weak points
Much more information is needed on
pressures concerning eutrophication, physical loss and physical damage and some
key impacts including from nutrient enrichment, marine litter and in relation
to stocks of commercial fish and shellfish. Data is acknowledged as being
limited. Where information is available, the assessment is on a generic, high
level and has generally not been combined to determine the actual status of
features. Much of the information on Descriptor 11 refers to the whole Baltic
Sea area rather than specifically to Estonian waters.
Overall score
The Initial Assessment for Descriptor 9 is considered
adequate because it uses the HELCOM framework to make an extensive assessment
of contamination by hazardous substances in fish for human consumption against
regulatory levels.
All other descriptors are partially
adequate (Descriptors 1, 2, 4, 8, 11) or inadequate (Descriptors 3, 6, 7, 10)
due to very limited information describing situations, rather than analysing
them, and no assessment of impacts in some cases.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Estonia has set targets for all
descriptors. 
Weak points
Targets across the descriptors read as
expressions of GES rather than specific targets to be met. They have not
generally been used as a tool to help deliver GES and even where they have
there is doubt that the targets and indicators will be sufficient to achieve or
maintain GES by 2020.
Overall score
All assessments of environmental targets,
with the exception of those for Descriptor 4 and 5, are viewed as inadequate
because they are expressions of GES rather than specific targets.
Consistency
For each descriptor, Estonia has provided a
methodology to determine the indicators of Good Environmental Status and the
assessment methods to determine whether GES is achieved or not. However, the
submissions consistently identify targets that read as if they are GES
definitions rather than the indications of what needs to be done to reach GES.
The indicators associated with the targets also correspond to Commission
Decision criteria instead of relating to the targets themselves. Whilst this is
another way to achieve a consistent approach, it will not deliver GES across
the range of subjects.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps are mentioned in an
ad-hoc manner in the paper report on the initial assessment. Information gaps
are not discussed in a synthetic manner.
There are no plans presented about how such
data gaps will be addressed.
Recommendations
Estonia should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES measurable,
     focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as inadequate or
     partially adequate;
 Identify knowledge and information gaps
     and address these, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;

Finland
General issues
Marine waters
Finland's marine waters fall within the
Baltic Sea region. Their marine waters include coastal waters, as defined under
the Water Framework Directive, territorial waters and an EEZ out to the median
line with neighbouring states.
Areas assessed
For the purposes of reporting on MSFD
Articles 9 and 10, Finland has defined GES and targets for its marine waters as
a whole. For MSFD Article 8, Finland has used eight assessment areas which
appear to equate to those used for the HELCOM regional assessments.
Regional
cooperation
Finland is party to the Helsinki Convention
(HELCOM). Efforts on regional cooperation within the Convention are not well
described. However Finland refers to the HELCOM roof report and indicates that
time constraints were a problem in achieving regional coordination.
Other features
Finland has used the Water Accounts
approach for its economic and social assessment and the cost-based approach to
estimate the costs of degradation.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
Finland addresses GES for all descriptors
and most criteria. It has generally used existing EU
requirements and standards and places a strong emphasis on standards and
assessments developed in the region (HELCOM).
For Descriptor 1, GES is defined in
relation to achieving natural conditions for a number of species and habitat
attributes (e.g. distribution, reproductive capacity). GES for Descriptors 2, 6
and 8 seek to have no harmful impacts on ecosystems and their component species
and habitats.
For Descriptor 10, issues concerning
socio-economic impact, entry of new litter and associated chemical contamination
are included. For Descriptor 11, other forms of energy (in addition to noise)
are included.
Weak points
The GES definition is generally qualitative
and therefore not yet defined in a way which is measurable. Further, these
normative definitions use terms which lack clarity of meaning, potentially
adding to the difficulties of assessing whether GES is being achieved.
Overall score
The GES definition for Descriptor 3 is
assessed as adequate.
The GES definitions for Descriptors 1, 4,
5, 6, 9 and 10 are assessed as partially adequate, as they either do not fully
address the Decision criteria or they lack key elements or specificity.
The GES definitions for Descriptor 2, 7, 8
and 11 are assessed as inadequate, as they do not cover all criteria or define
its terms or baseline or refer to relevant EU standards or are not specific
enough to be measurable.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The initial assessment generally identifies
well the main pressures on the marine environment and their sources (e.g. for
physical damage). There is use of relevant Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive
(WFD) and HELCOM assessments, including provision of current status for some
elements (e.g. certain habitats and species under the Habitats Directive). The
assessment of hazardous substances is comprehensive.
Weak points
There is insufficient quantification of the
pressures and their impacts and only limited assessments of commercial fish,
hydrographical changes, physical loss and acute pollution events. There is no
report on mammals.
There are few conclusive judgments on
current status for a number of descriptors, pressures and ecosystem components.
There is insufficient detail on how gaps in
knowledge are going to be addressed.
Overall score
The Initial Assessment is assessed as being
adequate for Descriptor 8.
For Descriptors 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 11 the
Initial Assessment is considered partially adequate, with several key elements
missing or poorly assessed (e.g. mammals) and limited assessments of impacts.
For Descriptors 3, 7 and 10 the Initial
Assessment is considered to be inadequate.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
There is substantial detail including a
good range of indicators for Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11. Use is
made of the WFD, HELCOM and other relevant standards (e.g. Descriptors 5, 9).
Descriptor 11 addresses discharged waste heat as well as underwater noise.
Weak points
The targets for Descriptors 1, 2, 4 and 6
are generally expressions of GES and would better sit under Art. 9. Many
provide normative definitions of GES and require more specific quantitative
thresholds to be fully measurable. Descriptor 7 addresses only broad aspects of
hydrological conditions and lacks reference to hydrographical changes due to
infrastructure developments.
Environmental targets are often not
sufficiently clear or SMART to be measurable.
Overall score
The targets for Descriptor 5 have been
assessed as adequate. Descriptor 4 is close to adequate, but not fully
measurable.
The targets for Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 6, 8,
9 and 11 have been assessed as partially adequate since they lack some
specificity (thresholds, baselines) or coverage (e.g. some commercial species).
The targets for Descriptor 7 and 10 are
considered inadequate as they lack reference to hydrographical changes or
specification and are therefore not measurable.
Consistency
There is a good level of consistency
between GES, the initial assessment and the environmental targets for most
descriptors, although it is not always clear that the targets are sufficient to
achieve GES (e.g. Descriptors 7, 9, 11).
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Justification and explanation on gaps in
data/knowledge and assessment methodology are not well described. Plans to
address them are scarce and not detailed.
Recommendations
Finland should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Identify knowledge and information gaps
     and address these, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD.

France
General issues
Marine waters
France is part of two marine regions, the
North East Atlantic and the Mediterranean. It marine waters occur in four
marine sub-regions: the Celtic Seas, the Greater North Sea, the Bay of Biscay,
and the Western Mediterranean Sea.
Areas assessed
The assessment area is the sub-region as a
whole. At this stage, no more specific assessment areas have been defined. Data
on more limited areas or assessment of more limited areas are used for
evaluation at the scale of the marine sub-region. France indicates that
aggregation rules at the level of the descriptor will be specified, if
necessary, following complementary studies, in the framework of the updating of
the definition of GES for the next cycle, that is by 2018.
Regional
cooperation
France is party to the Barcelona Convention
and OSPAR. Efforts for regional coordination within the MSFD Common Implementation
Strategy, regional sea conventions and informally through bilateral contacts
are extensively described.
Other features
The socio-economic analysis was undertaken
through a "water account" approach, together with a cost-based
approach for the cost of degradation. The methodology used is described
comprehensively. The different costs cannot be aggregated as they are of
different nature (annual accounting expenses, loss of benefits both commercial
and non-commercial). Therefore, it still lacks a cost analysis which will be
done when developing operational targets.
France establishes four transversal targets
for the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Seas subregions. These are meant to ensure
the link land-sea to guarantee the natural balance of the marine environment;
to raise awareness, train and inform players, users and the public; to allow by
maintaining or reaching GES the sustainable development of the human activities
which depend upon the marine environment; and finally to restore deteriorated
ecosystems. However, no transversal targets have been identified for the Greater
North Sea or Western Mediterranean Sea subregions.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
France covers, in general terms, most of
the GES in line with the Directive. The report covers most of the indicators
and for some descriptors even more.
It is based on a robust legal status of GES
and methods and criteria for undertaking the initial assessment and setting
environmental targets and associated indicators. EU requirements and standards
have been systematically used.
Weak points
Overall, GES is defined qualitatively, and
not quantitatively. This choice, combined with a lack of baseline and reference
conditions, leads to a general lack of clarity about what GES is and when it
can be understood as reached or not. This lack of specificity means that all
pressures and impacts on the marine environment are often not clearly and
efficiently covered, which in turn can pose problems in terms of environmental
targets definition, monitoring, and to develop a programme of measures.
Overall score
Five GES definitions are considered as
adequate (Descriptors 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11) thanks to an adequate coverage of
Decision criteria and relevant use of regional approaches.
Three GES definitions are considered as
partially adequate (Descriptors 1, 5 and 6) mainly due to a lack/uncertainty
concerning baseline/thresholds.
Two GES definitions are considered as
inadequate (Descriptors 2 and 3) mainly due to a very limited coverage of Decision
criteria together with a lack of baseline/thresholds.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The main problems (pressures and impacts)
have been identified for all descriptors mainly thanks to an extensive use of
existing information/data.
With regards to the assessment of
biological features for biodiversity and associated descriptors, France provides
an assessment of status for specific species recognized as endangered or
threatened according to EU, regional and international agreements.
The French assessment of the level of
fisheries pressure has been reported in detail (including quantitative information)
for all subregions.
Weak points
For habitats, France has not reported on
all relevant habitat types. For
species/functional groups, France did not report on all expected/relevant
groups. Judgments on the state of the environment are often missing.
Overall score
Five initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as adequate (Descriptors 2, 3, 7, 10 and 11)
thanks to a good qualitative judgment made in relation to GES.
Six initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as partially adequate (Descriptors 1, 4, 5, 6, 8
and 9) mainly due to a limited
assessment on impacts and lack of judgement in relation to GES.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
General targets have been set which, according
to France, can be further developed into specific targets, and complemented by
operational targets in 2015 aiming at directing actions and the definition of
measures to reach them.
In the Mediterranean region, targets are
often well detailed with associated indicators but do not cover all
descriptors.
Many transversal targets have been set up,
ranging from research activities to the reinforcement of legal and
international cooperation tools and information and training related targets.
Weak points
There is a lack of quantification of
targets combined with a lack of baseline and reference conditions. This lack of
specificity means that all pressures and impacts are often not clearly and
efficiently covered.
France does not go beyond existing
standards at EU or regional level and without making the case that their full
implementation would be sufficient for reaching GES.
Overall score
For the Atlantic coast, all targets are
assessed as being inadequate except partially adequate for Descriptors 9, 10
and 11.
For the Mediterranean, six descriptors have
partially adequate targets (Descriptors 1, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11) mainly due to a
lack of threshold values and baselines.
The targets of two other descriptors (Descriptors
2, 3) are considered as inadequate, mainly due to the fact that they are not
relevant for that descriptor (and the defined GES). For Descriptors 5, 7 and 9
targets are missing.
Consistency
The approach followed by France is overall
consistent in terms of the approach used for the setting of targets, GES and
descriptors. There is a difference in the approach to the setting of targets on
one hand, for the North East Atlantic sub-regions and, on the other hand, for the
Mediterranean. In general the targets defined for the Mediterranean subregion
are much more pressure-specific and measurable than for the other subregions.
All descriptors under the MSFD are covered. It is based on a robust legal
status of GES and methods and criteria for carrying out the initial assessment
and setting environmental targets and associated indicators. EU requirements
and standards have been systematically used.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps appear to be a
recurrent issue. For most of them, France states that due consideration will be
given to these knowledge gaps in the framework of the revisions of the
different elements for the next cycle in 2018, as provided for by Article 4 of
the French Ministerial Order on GES. There are no further indications in terms
of concrete actions and responsibilities.
Recommendations
France should:

 Strengthen methodology for the
     socio-economic analysis allowing assessment of the degradation/restoration
     costs and MSFD implementation costs/benefit analysis;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Enhance the cohesion between approaches
     in the two relevant regions.

Germany
General issues
Marine waters
The German marine waters are part of two
marine regions, the North-East Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea.
Areas assessed
Germany’s initial assessment,
characteristics of GES and targets and associated indicators have been
developed for each marine (sub-)region. For a number of descriptors, specific
details are provided with regard to the Wadden Sea (e.g. for the definition of
standards or thresholds to be complied with).
Regional
cooperation
The German part of the North Sea is part of
the OSPAR Region II "Greater North Sea". For the Baltic Sea, the
German marine waters cover the following HELCOM-defined sub-areas: “Southern
Baltic Sea” (with the “Arkona” and the “Bornholm Basin”), “Bay of Mecklenburg”,
“Kiel Bay” and “Little Belt”. Efforts for regional
coordination within both regional conventions are extensively described in
several places (reporting sheet, specific report on regional coordination).
Other features
The economic and social analysis of marine
uses by Germany used the water accounts approach. The description of each
sector of activity is relatively limited and only semi-quantitative because of
the lack of data. Germany mentions that the North Sea and the Baltic Sea are
not separately assessed in official statistics, so the data handling is
difficult.
Germany uses a combination of the water
accounts and thematic approaches for the evaluation of the costs of
degradation. This method allows Germany to derive the costs of the difference
between the good status of the marine environment (i.e. reference state) and
the current state. However, in order to do this, the good environmental status
(GES) needs to be clearly defined, which is not the case today for all
descriptors. Germany mentions that the costs can be expressed in Euros only if
a quantification of impacts has been made, which is not the case to date. It
does not provide an indication of timeline to do this work.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
The definitions of GES for several
descriptors are described at descriptor and criteria level (Descriptors 3, 5,
7, 8).
Germany formulated an ambitious definition
of GES for Descriptor 2 aiming at zero introductions of new non-indigenous species
and provided a detailed definition of Descriptor 3 on commercial fish and
shellfish. The GES definition for Descriptor 11 on energy inputs is extended
with aims related to electromagnetic fields, light and temperature increase.
Weak points
What Germany has reported as a GES
definition for biodiversity is a collection of existing agreements and
therefore covers only specific protected habitats and species. Germany has not
provided an assessment/justification as to why this is considered to be
sufficient for achieving GES.
Other descriptors are only described at
descriptor level and are vague.
Overall score
Descriptor 3 is assessed as adequate.
Descriptors 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are assessed as being partially adequate as
they are only defined at descriptor level or lack thresholds.
Descriptors 1, 4 and 6 are assessed as inadequate
as they do not go beyond existing legislation of mainly protected species,
without assessing if this would be sufficient for achieving GES and missing
some key aspects of biodiversity. Descriptor 10 is also assessed as inadequate.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Overall, the Initial Assessment is
performed in a detailed manner, especially for contaminants, litter and underwater
noise.
The main pressures have been identified and
described, including microbial pathogens.
Weak points
Not all relevant habitats and functional
groups are covered.
The assessment of the pressures and impacts
is general and not detailed.
The initial assessment is primarily a
collection of existing information but almost no judgment on current status and
trends in status is made.
Overall score
The assessment of Descriptors 2, 8, 10 and
11 is considered adequate. For all other descriptors the assessment is
partially adequate as the initial assessment is general and qualitative.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Germany has developed an extensive list of
targets and associated indicators.
Weak points
A number of targets are rather expressions
of GES than actual targets defined to help achieve GES (e.g. some indicators
for Descriptors 2, 8 and 9).
Most targets are not specific enough (even
when they addressing specific issues) and are not systematically quantified.
Many targets and the associated indicators
are only qualitative and these targets still need further development.
Overall score
None of the targets are assessed as being
adequate. The targets for Descriptors 2, 3 and 7 are considered inadequate
because they lack attributes which make them SMART.
The targets for Descriptors 1, 4, 6, 5, 8,
9 10 and 11 are considered partially adequate since they do not fully address
the three biodiversity descriptors (Descriptors 1, 4, 6), miss quantification (Descriptor
5), express GES (Descriptors 8, 9) or miss threshold values (Descriptors 10,
11).
Consistency
The approach followed by Germany is not
overall consistent in terms of the approach used for the setting of GES and
targets for all descriptors and across the two (sub-)regions. In a number of
cases there is a difference between the information reported in the paper
report and in the reporting sheets. This is mainly the case for the GES
definitions of Descriptors 3, 5, 8 and 11, which are further developed at the
indicator level in the reporting sheets. Some targets have been defined more as
a description of GES (Descriptors 2, 8 and 9). In other cases (Descriptor 5)
they do not address the identified pressures.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
While data and knowledge gaps are generally
acknowledged and broadly identified, Germany often relies on future work in the
framework of the MSFD and of the Regional Sea Conventions without further
specifications as to when, how and by whom they will be addressed.
Recommendations
Germany should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors to go beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible
     focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets;
 Enhance the cohesion between approaches
     in the two relevant regions.

Greece
General issues
Marine waters
Greece’s marine waters fall within one
marine region, the Mediterranean Sea, and three marine subregions, the Adriatic
Sea; the Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea; and the Aegean-Levantine
Sea. No formal subdivisions have been identified.
Areas assessed
The GES definitions and targets are defined
for the whole of the Greece’s marine waters together, with no distinction of
specific assessment areas.
The initial assessment in the paper report
considers at most five different assessment areas: three areas in the Aegean
subregion (North, South and Central), the Adriatic and Ionian Seas together and
the Levantine assessment area separately.
In terms of aggregation rules, Greece has
made a number of aggregated judgements in relation to GES but it has not
clearly defined aggregation rules and it is not always clear how it has come to
these conclusions.
Regional cooperation
In terms of regional cooperation, Greece
refers to the efforts made to assess data coming from neighbouring countries in
order to ensure some consistency in the definition of GES and the establishment
of targets and indicators.
Other features
Greece has carried out an economic and
social analysis using the DPSIR approach. The socio-economic analysis of marine
uses is based on a combination of the ecosystem services approach and the water
accounts approach. The marine water accounts approach seems to be the approach
also used for the analysis of the costs of degradation.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
All the descriptors under the MSFD are
covered and for all descriptors, with the exception of Descriptor 3, a general
definition of GES is provided. In a few cases, a number of more specific
conditions are added.
EU requirements and standards are used (e.g.
for D 8, 9).
For Descriptor 8, the definition of GES
also partly covers radionuclides, which is considered a good practice.
Weak points
There is lack of clarity in what
constitutes GES (in particular for Descriptor 3) and a lack of consistency
between the paper report and the reporting sheets.
There is no systematic use of the 2010
Commission Decision criteria and indicators and in most cases no threshold
values and baselines are provided. Thus, the GES definition is not considered
to be measurable.
Overall score
Descriptor 5 is assessed as adequate, as it
covers all the criteria and most indicators and provides sufficient thresholds
for GES to be measured.
Five GES definitions are considered as
partially adequate (Descriptor 1, 4, 8, 9 and 11) mainly due to a lack of or
uncertainty concerning baseline/thresholds and absence of coverage of all the Decision
criteria.
For the remaining descriptors (Descriptor 2,
3, 6, 7 and 10) the determination of GES does not meet the minimum requirements
and is assessed as inadequate. No information is provided about baselines or
reference points to assess progress towards GES.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The structure of the initial assessment is
relatively clear and, for a number of pressures, an attempt is made to judge
the level of, and impacts from, the pressure in relation to GES.
An extensive list of non-indigenous species
has been reported and their current status and pathways of introduction have
been identified. For commercial fish and shellfish, Greece performed an
assessment at a relatively high level of detail. It has also made a relatively
detailed assessment of contamination by radionuclides in the five assessment
areas.
Weak points
For a number of pressures, the initial
assessment is limited to a collection of information from existing literature
without a clear objective to assess current status.
Impacts from pressure are rarely reported
on (e.g. Descriptor 5) or are reported only in a general way (e.g. Descriptor 2,
3). No assessment has been made of the pressure from underwater noise (Descriptor
11).
The initial assessment considers at most
five different assessment areas; however this is not consistent throughout the
report and for a number of pressures the assessment is made for the whole of
the country’s marine waters.
Overall score
Three initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as adequate (Descriptor 3, 5 and 10) thanks to a
good qualitative judgment made in relation to GES on trends, the provision of
thresholds and baselines and of substantial information on knowledge gaps and
plans to address them.
Five initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as partially adequate (Descriptor 2, 6, 7, 8 and
9) mainly due to a lack of judgement in relation to GES and a limited
assessment of impacts.
Only the initial assessments for Descriptors
1 and 4 are considered as inadequate, mainly due to the limited provision of information
and the lack of judgement of status in relation to GES.
No initial assessment was undertaken on the
level of pressure from underwater noise (Descriptor 11), but sufficient
justification is provided for this issue.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Environmental targets and indicators have
been adopted by Ministerial Decision No. OIK 1175/2012, conferring a strong
legal status upon Greece’s environmental targets and indicators.
The setting of environmental targets and
indicators is consistent for all descriptors (although there are some
differences between targets in the paper report and the reporting sheets).
Weak points
Many environmental targets are monitoring
targets (e.g. Descriptor 4, 8 and 10) and are not sufficient to achieve GES. In
most cases, no threshold values or baselines are provided and the targets do
not cover the different pressures and impacts identified in the initial
assessment.
The role of the associated indicators (i.e.
for assessing the achievement of the environmental targets) is not always
clear.
Overall score
Targets related to Descriptors 5 and 9 are
partially adequate since, although qualitative and lacking in detail, are
considered realistic.
The targets of all the remaining
descriptors (Descriptor 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11) are considered
inadequate, mainly due to the fact that they are not SMART, they lack threshold
values and baselines and it is unclear how they will achieve GES.
Consistency
The approach followed by Greece in the
assessment of pressures and impacts and the definition of GES and the setting
of environmental targets is in general terms consistent. Low consistency has
been reported for Descriptor 2, while for Descriptor 11, it was not possible to
assess the consistency since there was no proper assessment of pressures and
impacts.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps are usually
identified and described for each article (GES, initial assessment and
targets).
However, plans to address knowledge and
data gaps are usually quite vague, limited to the mention of on-going or
planned research projects (without specific details about the projects) and
without details of timescales or responsibilities.
Recommendations
Greece should:

 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD.

Ireland
General issues
Marine waters
Ireland's marine waters fall within the
North-East Atlantic Ocean marine region and within the marine sub-region known
as the Celtic Seas. Their marine waters include coastal waters, as defined
under the Water Framework Directive, and an EEZ. An area of Continental Shelf
beyond the EEZ is also included, whilst other such areas await the outcomes of
UNCLOS processes. There are areas of overlap and gaps with UK waters at both
the coastal boundaries with Northern Ireland and the median line boundary in
the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea.
Areas assessed
For the purposes of reporting on MSFD
Articles 8, 9 and 10 Ireland has defined a single assessment area, covering
their entire marine waters. The use of such a large assessment scale can mask
more localised but nevertheless significant problems for particular areas or
biodiversity components.
Regional
cooperation
Ireland is party to the OSPAR Convention.
Efforts for regional coordination within the regional convention, as well as
through ICES and bilaterally with UK and FR, are extensively described.
Other features
Ireland has followed a water account
approach for their economic and social assessment and an ecosystem-service
approach to estimate the costs of degradation. There are insufficient details
(in the reporting sheet) to adequately assess this analysis.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
Ireland addresses GES for all descriptors,
and includes some criterion-level details.
They have systematically used existing EU
requirements and standards and place a strong emphasis on work and standards
under the RSC (OSPAR).
Weak points
GES is defined mainly at the descriptor
level, but including some elements of the criteria; it is generally only
qualitative and therefore not measurable.
When using OSPAR and EU requirements and
standards e.g. for Descriptor 8, Ireland does not address potential issues of
hierarchy between those requirements.
Overall score
No Descriptors are assessed as adequate.
Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11
are assessed as partially adequate, as they either do not fully address the
Decision criteria or they lack key elements or specificity.
Descriptors 6 and 9 are assessed inadequate
as they are below the minimum requirement.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
On the whole, the main pressures and their
sources have been identified and reported on.
New assessments have been made in relation
to emerging issues e.g. marine litter.
Weak points
There is generally limited assessment of
impacts from pressures, particularly in a quantitative manner, and few
conclusive judgments on current status.
For many descriptors and assessment topics,
no new assessment has been made specifically for the implementation of the
MSFD.
Overall score
The Initial assessment is assessed as being
adequate for Descriptors 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11, with generally good coverage of
the main pressures and their sources; assessments of impacts and overall status
are however more limited.
For Descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 7, the initial
assessment is considered partially adequate, with several key elements missing
(e.g. birds, mammals) and limited assessments of impacts.
For Descriptor 9, the initial assessment is
considered inadequate, with very limited assessments of contaminants in
shellfish.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Targets for Descriptor 5 are considered
SMART, ambitious and well-focused towards a reduction in impacts.
Targets for Descriptors 3, 7, 8 and 9 are
also well specified, although overall lacking in certain elements.
Weak points
There are no targets for Descriptors 1, 4,
6 and 11.
Environmental targets are often not
sufficiently clear or SMART to be measurable.
A number of targets and the associated
indicators to these targets still need further development and are expected to
be operational only in 2014 or 2018.
Overall score
The targets for Descriptor 5 have been
assessed as adequate.
The targets for Descriptors 2, 3, 7, 8, and
9 have been assessed partially adequate since they lack some specificity or
coverage and are thus not fully quantifiable.
The targets for Descriptors 1, 4, 6 and 11
are absent and therefore inadequate.
Consistency
There is a good level of consistency
between GES, the initial assessment and the environmental targets for most
descriptors.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
As a rule, extensive
justification/explanation is provided on gaps in data/knowledge and assessment
methodology. However, Ireland does not always specify how these gaps will be
addressed and sometimes relies on developments at EU or regional level, without
always clear deadlines.
Recommendations
Ireland should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors in a way which goes beyond what is in existing
     legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD.

Italy
General issues
Marine waters
Italy’s marine waters are part of the
marine region of the Mediterranean Sea and cover the sub-regions of the
Adriatic Sea, the Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean Sea and the Western
Mediterranean Sea. No formal subdivisions have been identified.
Areas assessed
The GES definitions and targets are, in
most cases, defined for the whole of Italy’s marine waters together, with no
distinction of specific assessment areas. Assessment areas were defined for the
initial assessment, differing according to the topic in question. Italy
indicates that these areas may coincide with or may be representative of the
sub-regions.
Regional
cooperation
Italy is party to the Barcelona Convention.
Efforts of regional coordination have been described, in which the necessity of
obtain a successful coordination amongst countries, mainly through existing
international cooperation instruments, has been stressed. Italy participated in
a first meeting of trilateral coordination with France and Spain to compare
country approaches and the general frame and implementation of the initial
assessment, determination of GES and environmental targets for the Western
Mediterranean Sea sub-region.
Other features
The economic and social analysis of marine
uses has been undertaken using the water accounts approach. Data and
methodologies have been briefly described for each subregion or for the entire
Mediterranean region, depending upon the activity considered (professional,
commercial, recreational fisheries, tourism, ports, oil and gas). Results, when
available, are traceable, even though they are often not provided due to lack
of information and data gaps.
Italy has followed a cost-based approach to
evaluate the costs of degradation. The sources of information have been
described but the methodology is barely mentioned and the description is not
exhaustive. Costs of degradation has been considered as a whole in the paper
report and information gaps are clearly highlighted, whereas neither specific
plans or actions nor a time schedule to address these gaps have been reported.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
The approach used to define GES varies. For
some descriptors GES is defined at descriptor level (Descriptor 11), in other
cases is defined only at criterion level (Descriptors 2, 8 and 9), in other
cases at descriptor, criteria and indicator level (Descriptors 5, 10), and for
the remaining descriptors, at criterion and indicator levels (Descriptor 3, 7).
Strong points
All descriptors are covered.
Italy has provided a threshold when setting
GES for Descriptor 3 indicators 3.3.1 and 3.3.3. These
have been applied with a threshold requiring that the indicator should remain
stable or show significant positive trends for commercial fish all stocks; this
is considered a best practice.
Weak points
Some GES definitions are still to be
developed. In general there is a lack of ambition in the GES definitions.
Overall score
Descriptors 1, 3, 5, 6, 2, 7, 8 and 9 are
assessed as partially adequate, mainly due to a lack/uncertainty concerning
baseline/thresholds.
Descriptors 4, 10 and 11 are assessed as
inadequate as they are below the minimum requirement or lack
specification/ambition.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Overall, the initial assessment is mainly
descriptive.
Strong points
Information gaps are clearly identified; these
gaps affect the identification of pressures and impacts for the descriptors.
The initial assessment is well-focused on
the needs of the marine strategy; Italy has made a fair attempt to provide judgments
on status and trends, with the exception of Descriptors 8 and 9.
Various assessment areas have been used for
the initial assessment, depending on the descriptor.
Weak points
Pressures are sparsely reported for some
descriptors in accordance to availability of information and analysis, whereas
impacts are often not provided. Judgments on the current status in relation to
GES are not consistently made.
Overall score
The initial assessment for Descriptor 7 is assessed as being adequate. Italy reports on the percentage of areas affected and a judgement on current status
is provided. In addition, the knowledge gaps are clearly identified and the
plans to address them well described.
Seven initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as partially adequate (Descriptor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6 & 10 (for West Mediterranean and Adriatic)) mainly due to a lack of
judgment in relation to GES.
The initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as inadequate for Descriptor 8 and missing for Descriptors
9 and 11.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
In general, the environmental targets were
more clearly presented and more complete (e.g. with indications of the
associated indicator) in the paper report than in the reporting sheets.
Therefore, the assessment has focused on the version from the paper report.
Strong points
In relation to Descriptor 3, Italy has
included an environmental target addressing recreational fisheries.
Italy has set a target, and developed an
assessment methodology, to reduce marine litter ingested by the sea turtle Caretta
caretta, a promising alternative for the Fulmars’ target in the North-East
Atlantic Ocean.
Weak points
The vast majority of environmental targets
are defined as ‘interim’ targets with the exception of those set for Descriptor
8. Italy has not set environmental targets for Descriptors 7, 9 and 11.
Moreover, there is a general lack of ambition, in
relation to both GES definitions and targets.
Overall score
One descriptor has partially adequate
targets (Descriptor 10) mainly due to a lack of threshold values and baselines.
The targets of Descriptor 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 5
& 8 are considered as inadequate, mainly due to the fact that the
identified targets are generic or not all relevant for that descriptor (and the
defined GES).
No targets have been defined for D 7, 9 and
11.
Consistency
In general it can be said that the GES
definitions and the initial assessment are very specific in regard to species
and habitats of which most are not explicitly referred to in the targets. There
is, for instance, also no specific target for birds while they are part of the
GES definition for Descriptor 1. There is more consistency between the determination
of GES, its assessment and targets for Descriptor 3. Consistency could not be
checked for the missing elements (Descriptor 7, 9, 11).
There are sometimes discrepancies between
the paper report and the reporting sheets; when the differences were more
substantial; as a rule, the assessment was based on the most complete/clearer
version.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps are generally
identified and well described for each Article (GES, initial assessment and
targets).
The need to establish monitoring campaigns
and standardized sampling is highlighted and frequently mentioned but specific
plans are not always provided.
Recommendations
Italy should:

 Strengthen methodology for the
     socio-economic analysis allowing assessment of the degradation/restoration
     costs and MSFD implementation costs/benefit analysis;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are measurable, SMART and sufficiently ambitious in
     order to achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets.

Latvia
General issues
Marine waters
Latvia's marine waters extend from the
seaward side of the border from which their territorial waters are measured and
cover their territorial sea and EEZ, which extend to the border with Estonia
and Sweden. Latvia has agreements setting international maritime boundaries
with Sweden and Estonia but not Lithuania.
Areas assessed
Latvia has defined a number of assessment
areas depending on the topic under consideration. They include: open rocky and
open sandy coasts of the south-east Baltic Sea, moderately open rocky and
moderately open sandy coasts of the Gulf of Riga, the transitional waters of
the Gulf of Riga, the open part of the Baltic Sea (i.e. territorial sea and
EEZ) and the central part of the Gulf of Riga.
Regional cooperation
Latvia refers extensively to regional
cooperation via HELCOM and uses HELCOM assessments, indicators and assessment units
for their Initial Assessment but reports that corresponding criteria were not
developed for all of the MSFD descriptors. Latvia has also not managed to fully
participate in the HELCOM work to attempt to harmonise the determination of GES
across Member States.
Other features
Latvia has used the ecosystem approach for
the economic and social analysis of marine uses and the cost of degradation,
using the guidelines provided by WG-ESA to inform their national ESA approach.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
GES is quantified for Descriptors 3, 5 and
9. Descriptor 3 applies the primary indicators provided in the Commission
Decision for criteria 3.1 and 3.2 and, in line with Commission guidance, sets
the thresholds at FMSY and SSBpa or SSBMSY
although only for cod, salmon, sprat herring and flounder.
Weak points
Not all the MSFD descriptors are covered in
the determination of GES; descriptors 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are not defined. The
descriptors for biodiversity (Descriptor 1 and 6) are more in line with what would be expected for
Descriptor 5 (eutrophication). Descriptor 2 does not consider their spread
through current pressures. The definition for Descriptor 9 only extends to the
concentration of contaminants and does not address the frequency of regulatory
levels being exceeded.
Overall score
Of the descriptors for which definitions
were given, four were considered to be partially adequate (Descriptor 2, 3, 5
and 9), two are inadequate (Descriptor 1, 6) and the others are not defined.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Assessment of stocks of commercial fish and
shellfish are well described and quantified.
Descriptor 8 uses available data from
HELCOM to provide a quantitative assessment of contamination by hazardous
substances, although this relates to the Baltic Sea as a whole, rather than
just Latvian waters. Results from an EU LIFE project on MPAs within the Gulf of
Riga provide useful information on the contamination of fish and shellfish by
heavy metals. In Descriptor 9, a good effort has been made to assess the
current status, by assessment area and by substance, against GES thresholds.
For descriptor 5, a quantified assessment of pressures is presented covering
all the relevant nutrients and organic matter.
Weak points
The Initial assessment on physical loss and
damage is limited in scope, there is no reference to HELCOM or WFD reports and
no justification for how they reach the conclusion that the current level of
impacts is 'good'.
For most descriptors, the assessment of the
impacts is very limited. The assessment for Descriptor 2 seems to have been undertaken
in the absence of solid data on non-indigenous species and their distribution,
abundance and impacts.
Overall score
In the aspects where Initial Assessments
were undertaken, six were considered to be partially adequate and two were
inadequate (Descriptor 2, 6) because impact, level of and trend in pressure were
not assessed. Impact Assessments for Descriptors 7, 10 and 11 were not undertaken
because of a lack of data.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Targets for Descriptor 3 are measureable
and use the proper reference points of FMSY and SSBpa
although these would need to cover all relevant commercial fish stocks to
achieve GES by 2020. The set of targets and indicators presented for Descriptor
9 have the same values as the GES threshold values; achievement of the target
should ensure achievement of GES.
Weak points
Biodiversity targets only address the
quality of the benthic environment and ignore other aspects of biodiversity. The
text of the target as set out in the reporting sheet is considered to be more
appropriate as a definition of GES for habitats and species than for wider
biodiversity.
The target for Descriptor 2 is a ''close
approximation" of the MSFD Annex I text. Neither environmental targets nor
associated indicators have been defined in the paper report. Many descriptors
have no targets set.
Overall score
Only three descriptors have targets set (Descriptor
3, 5 and 9). These are all considered as partially adequate. Descriptors 1 and
6 are inadequate since they have only limited targets and Descriptor 2 is also
inadequate because it repeats the generic definition of GES. Descriptors 4, 7,
8, 10 and 11 have no targets set.
Consistency
Consistency between the definition of GES,
the initial assessment and the environmental targets varies across the
descriptors. Where no information has been given (Descriptor 7, 10 and 11), it
is impossible to assess. For Descriptors 1, 4 and 6, there is a lack of
consistency between the initial assessment and GES or target definitions for
all aspects, with the exception of benthic habitats, which is the only
component for which a target has been defined.
There are differences between the paper
report and the reporting sheets, for instance for Descriptor 3. Despite this,
consistency is high since FMSY and SSBpa reference points
were used for defining GES, setting targets and doing assessments.
There was a high level of consistency for
Descriptor 9, as the same threshold values, corresponding to EU regulatory
levels, were used for all three aspects.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Latvia reports comprehensively on the gaps
in the availability of statistical data in relation to its economic and social
analysis. It explains that there is a lack of scientific information on
pressures on the marine environment. Spatial and temporal resolution of the
available information is recognised as being too low for adequate assessments
to be made and there is no method of distinguishing between local and
transboundary impacts.
There are no plans presented about how such
data gaps will be addressed.
Recommendations
Latvia should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address identified knowledge gaps
     identified in the initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring
     programme under the MSFD and research programmes, focusing on those
     descriptors considered as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets.

Lithuania
General issues
Marine waters
Lithuania’s marine waters include 'internal
waters', the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic Zone. The territorial
sea covers 1,849km2 and the EEZ covers 6,426.6km2.
'Internal waters' are not defined but may encompass WFD coastal and
transitional waters.
The southern part of the EEZ borders the
Russian Federation (Kaliningrad) while the western area shares a maritime
border with Sweden. The northern part borders Latvian waters. Latvia notes that
there is no agreement setting international maritime borders with Lithuania,
although Lithuania does not refer to this situation.
Areas assessed
Lithuania has defined four subdivisions of
its marine waters: transitional, coastal, territorial and EEZ.
Regional cooperation
There is limited information on regional
cooperation, but participation in HELCOM-organised working groups and seminars
is mentioned. However, Lithuania notes that not all Baltic Sea countries
attended the relevant meetings for individual descriptors so cooperation at
descriptor level across the region was intermittent.
Other features
For economic and social analysis of marine
uses, Lithuania used a non-typical approach.  It follows a logical scheme,
which reflects all possible uses of the marine environment, using social and
economic analysis methods. 
For analysis of the cost of degradation,
the Ecosystem Services Approach, the Thematic Approach or the Cost-based
Approach has been applied, depending on the availability of data. Data
availability appears to be patchy but there is no overall assessment of gaps or
of how gaps should be addressed.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
It is noted that the attention given to
seabird abundance is encouraging, with specific species indicators provided and
concrete GES boundaries and baselines for calculations.
Weak points
GES is not defined for Descriptors 7, 10
and 11. Species are addressed only through seabirds and fish. Even where
indicators exist, they are not species-specific. There is no reference to
habitats, functional groups or ecosystem components. GES definitions for the
biodiversity descriptors seem to be different for coastal, marine and transitional
waters with different thresholds.
Overall score
Determination of GES for Descriptors 2, 8
and 9 is considered to be partially adequate.
Determination of GES for Descriptors 1, 3,
4, 5 and 6 is considered to be inadequate due to a number of factors, including
an inequality of attention given to all the relevant criteria of the Commission
Decision and failure to require fish stocks to be within safe biological
limits.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The assessment for Descriptor 2 provides a
list of non-indigenous species and identification of the main transmission
vectors. The assessment also covers impact, level of and trend in pressure both
in general and in different habitats.
For Descriptor 9 a quantitative assessment
is made of current levels of contamination for all relevant substances included
in the GES definition and a conclusive judgement is given. The process also
includes an assessment of levels of radionuclides, which is considered to be
best practice.
Weak points
No reference is made to the WFD or HELCOM
reports on physical loss and damage (Descriptor 6).
There is inconsistency between level of
detail provided in the paper report and the reporting sheet, especially in
Descriptors 8 and 11.
For Descriptor 7, some pressures have been
described but the impacts cited have not been sufficiently assessed. It is
considered that with the amount of information available in HOLAS, a more
robust assessment would have been possible.
Overall score
The Initial Assessments for Descriptors 2
and 9 were considered adequate, while those covering Descriptors 1, 4, 5, 6, 8
and 11 were judged to be partially adequate.
Those for Descriptors 3, 7 and 10 were
considered to be inadequate due to stocks not being assessed in relation to
MSY, insufficient assessment according to the reference material available and
the age of data used respectively.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
The environmental targets and associated
indicators for Descriptor 3 consider the exploitation at FMSY of
three stocks (cod, sprat and Baltic herring) in a SMART context and with a
clear deadline of achievement by 2020.
Weak points
No environmental targets are established for
Descriptors 7, 10 or 11.
For Descriptor 1, the overall target is an
expression of GES rather than an operational tool that will help achieve GES.
The targets for Descriptor 5 are also considered to fall into this category.
For contaminants in Descriptor 8, it is
considered that there is no overall target that sets the goal towards which all
other indicators should aim. None of the Descriptor 8 targets are
pressure-based; instead all are state-based.
Overall score
The environmental targets for Descriptor 3 are
considered adequate but those for Descriptors 1, 2, 5, 8 and 9 are noted as
being inadequate. Several were merely an expression of GES, instead of specific
objectives that related to particular pressures, and were unlikely to help
achieve GES by the target date of 2020.  No environmental targets were
established for Descriptors 7, 10 and 11.
Consistency
Consistency between definitions of GES,
initial assessments and environmental targets varies across the descriptors.
Some (Descriptor 3, 5, 8) have a high level of consistency between their
definitions and target indicators, but that is often because they are the same
thing rather than one being a practical mechanism to achieve the other. For
Descriptor 1, 4 and 6, the picture is mixed; the initial assessment is only
partially consistent with the GES definition and misses out mammals and
protected species but does report on a number of seabed and water column
habitats that are not addressed by the definitions of GES for Descriptors 1 or
6.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
It is evident that data gaps clearly exist.
Data and knowledge gaps are mentioned in an ad hoc manner throughout the paper
report on the initial assessment.
There are no detailed plans presented of
how these gaps will be addressed.
Recommendations
Lithuania should:
a.      
Strengthen methodology for the socio-economic
analysis allowing assessment of the degradation/restoration costs and MSFD
implementation costs/benefit analysis;
b.     
Strengthen the GES definition of the
biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
c.      
Improve GES definitions including
through regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
much as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and
baselines, with the aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those
descriptors assessed as inadequate or partially adequate;
d.     
Identify knowledge and information gaps and
address these , i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD and
research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as inadequate or
partially adequate;
e.      
Further develop its approaches to assessing
(quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to improved and more
conclusive assessment results for 2018;
f.      
Ensure that the targets cover all relevant
pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to achieve the
requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
g.     
Improve the consistency between the criteria
used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed targets.
The Netherlands
General issues
Marine waters
The Netherlands is part of the North East
Atlantic region and Greater North Sea subregion. The Wadden Sea and the
estuaries Oosterschelde and Westerschelde have been specifically excluded.
Areas assessed
The assessment area is the Dutch marine
waters as a whole. No more specific assessment areas have been defined. There
is no indication on aggregation scales.
Regional
cooperation
The Netherlands, as a contracting party of
OSPAR, describe extensively its regional coordination efforts. There has been a
high level of information sharing and coordination for the initial assessment
and GES determination but The Netherlands underline that the timelines and
ambitious requirements of the MSFD prevented the coordination on GES and
setting of targets.
Other features
The Netherlands have used the water account
approach for its economic and social analysis of the marine uses and a
cost-based approach for assessing the cost of degradation. Fourteen marine
uses/activities have not been reported upon and the Netherlands provides
explanations in response to the completeness assessment in order to justify
these gaps. The Netherlands consider that there is no information gap, but that
the information would be updated for the Programme of Measures.
The Netherlands have assessed that the
additional government expenditure on the implementation of the marine strategy
between 2012 and 2020 will be approximately 26 million euros, mainly for
seabed protection, intensifying the policy on marine litter, addressing gaps in
knowledge and monitoring.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
All the descriptors under the MSFD are
covered. Relevant international or EU legislation and OSPAR decisions have been
acknowledged.
Weak points
GES is defined only at the descriptor level
and generally merely reproduces the definitions set in Annex I of the Directive
without further specification or quantification. The criteria from the Decision
have not been applied for the determination of GES.
For Descriptor 7, reference is made to the
possibility to compensate in accordance with the Birds and Habitats Directives.
However, this consideration should not be part of determination of GES.
Overall score
Descriptor 9 is assessed as partially
adequate as it makes reference to Community legislation.
For all other descriptors the determination
of GES does not meet the minimum requirements and is assessed as inadequate. No
information is provided about baseline or reference points to assess progress
towards GES. No reference is made for GES to the Birds/Habitats Directives,
Water Framework Directive definitions or OSPAR EcoQOs for the biodiversity
descriptors.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Extensive justification is given on gaps in
knowledge and information. The assessment of features has identified the
relevant predominant habitats, species groups and ecosystems. The reporting of
habitats is done sufficiently.
The pathways for introduction of invasive non-indigenous
species have been identified.
The Netherlands included data on
recreational fisheries and assessed the impacts of fisheries in a qualitative
and quantitative manner.
It reports on the level of pressure by
contaminants and past trends.
The Netherland made a judgment on the state
of the ecosystem of the North Sea (as being not good although this is not
related to their definition of GES).
Weak points
Impacts of pressures are not systematical
addressed.
There is no judgment made as to the
pressure and impact neither of physical damage nor for invasive species.
The Netherlands explained that the Initial
Assessment was made prior to defining GES and therefore no judgement is made on
the status of the marine waters in relation to GES. However, despite this it
states that GES will not be achieved in 2020 for certain descriptors.
Overall score
The Initial assessment is assessed as being
adequate for Descriptors 1, 3, 7 and 9 thanks to reference to reports on
features, pressures and trends.
Descriptor 11 is assessed as inadequate
because only qualitative information is provided, even not specific for the
Netherlands. All other descriptors are partially adequate since no judgement on
the state was made and there was only a limited assessment of impacts.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
The targets set for the biodiversity-related
descriptors are combined and are consistent as a set. The targets set for Descriptor
3 are ambitious and measureable.
Weak points
The Netherlands used the criteria of the
Decision to define targets and not GES. They mention that for Descriptors 1, 3,
4, 6 and 10 GES in 2020 is not attainable and for Descriptors 5 and 8 only
partially attainable. The targets for 2020 are therefore interim targets
setting the course towards GES. The aim is, when GES cannot be reached in 2020,
to reach it in 2027.
Not all targets are SMART. Many indicators
are still under development. The collective set of targets is unlikely to lead
to a reduction of pressures and impacts as they are mainly state-based targets.
Overall score
Targets related to Descriptors 3 and 7 are
adequate thanks to being in line with the Commission objectives and even beyond
when aiming at eliminating discards.
The setting of the targets is assessed as inadequate
for Descriptors 2 and 11 since they are not measurable or no pressure targets
have been defined.
Targets related to Descriptors 1, 4, 6, 8,
9 and 10 are partially adequate, as the targets are not SMART, lack detail,
ambition or relate to state.
Consistency
The overall approach followed by the
Netherlands is inconsistent as it defines GES in a generic manner (qualitative)
and the environmental targets are used at the criteria level.
The set of targets and indicators is
consistent with the impacts (Descriptor 5) or pressures reported in the initial
assessment. For Descriptor 10 the linkage between GES and the initial
assessment and targets is not made (no targets /assessment on micro-litter).
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
An extensive justification is provided on
identified gaps. Knowledge gaps are identified, notably for the assessment of biodiversity
features and in relation to pressures for noise, litter and ocean acidification.
Priority topics have been identified such as to develop indicators for marine
ecosystems, related to effects of disturbances; the risk of micro-plastics; the
establishment of noise levels and the accumulation of effects on the marine
ecosystem. Related to measures, priority is given to cost-effective measures
under the Common Fisheries Policy, seabed protection and combatting marine
litter.
It is not entirely clear how the data and
knowledge gaps will be addressed. Mention is made of ongoing OSPAR work and the
preparedness by the Netherlands to conduct research in collaboration with
national and international institutes and EU and international research
programmes.
Recommendations
The Netherlands should:

 Strengthen methodology for the
     socio-economic analysis allowing assessment of the degradation/restoration
     costs and MSFD implementation costs/benefit analysis;
 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
     much as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the
     aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors
     assessed as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets;
 Address the scope of marine waters, as
     defined in the Directive, through full inclusion of WFD Coastal Waters.

Portugal
General issues
Marine waters
Portugal reports only for its
continental sub-division (i.e. mainland waters) and partially for its extended
continental shelf area beyond 200nm. There are no reports from the
Azores and Madeira islands (Macaronesia).
Areas assessed
Regarding the
continental sub-division, Portugal has used various assessment areas depending
on the descriptor, based on the geographical boundaries and the specificities
of the descriptor. For the extended continental shelf, Portugal chose five
areas corresponding to the OSPAR marine protected areas. However, it does not
focus specifically on the subsoil and seabed, which is precisely where its
competencies lie.
Regional
cooperation
Portugal shows efforts
to ensure regional coordination, within regional conventions and through
bilateral contacts with Spain and France. These are extensively described.
Portugal also refers often to OSPAR and ICES background documents, mainly in
the initial assessment.
Other features
Portugal has followed a water account
approach for its economic and social analysis. The methodology has been
comprehensively described for each of the marine sub-divisions. The average
level of confidence in the results is high as they as they are based on
statistical and other sources of credible entities. The cost of degradation has
been estimated following a cost-based approach. Portugal intends to develop further
the analysis of the cost of degradation by the end of 2013 so that the results
are available on time for the preparation of the programme of measures.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
Portugal has reported on GES for all
descriptors.
Weak points
In general terms the report is unclear with
regards to the definition of GES. Moreover, there are insufficient details
provided so as to evaluate if and when GES level is achieved.
Overall score
Descriptor 9 is partially adequate since it
refers to official levels and is measurable. All the other descriptors are
inadequate as they are defined at descriptor level only and lack specificity
and baselines.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Portugal has made a comprehensive assessment
of the relevant types and causes of pressures, physical loss and damage in its
marine waters, including microbial pathogens. It provides a detailed
description of the assessment of contamination in fish and seafood. Portugal
acknowledges that information on the full spatial distribution and intensity of
physical loss and damage is not homogeneous and therefore the assessment areas
vary depending on the specific indicators and the information available.
Weak points
The main pressures on each seabed habitat
type have not been identified.
Portugal considers that GES is currently
achieved for several descriptors in spite of acknowledging that due to
insufficient information it is not possible to draw conclusive judgment on the
physical losses and damages.
Overall score
An assessment of underwater noise was not
made. Five descriptors have been assessed partially adequate (Descriptors 3, 5,
7, 8 and 9) because of lack of information on impacts. The remaining
descriptors are assessed as adequate.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Weak points
Portugal has in many cases defined targets
as plans to address information and data gaps or to increase the knowledge
rather than as targets defined to reach GES. Portugal has set a limited number
of specific targets and, most importantly, has not defined specific
environmental targets for the biodiversity descriptors.
Overall score
The descriptors for which Portugal has
defined targets are assessed as being inadequate (Descriptor 8, 9, 10, 11) as
environmental targets to monitor progress towards GES have not been defined.
Descriptor 3 is partially adequate.
Consistency
The approach used by Portugal for defining
GES and setting targets is inconsistent. GES is defined in general terms and at
high level and targets are missing.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Portugal discusses data and knowledge gaps
in a very comprehensive manner. Logically, the extended continental shelf is
the area where information is most scarce. Many targets aim at addressing data
and knowledge gaps through research and monitoring. However, they are very
general and are not time-bound. Several gaps in knowledge have no specific
plans to address the problems.
Recommendations
Portugal should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
     much as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the
     aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors
     assessed as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets.

Romania
General issues
Marine waters
Romania’s marine waters were delineated
according to OU 71/2010, which transposes into national law the provisions of
the MSFD. Therefore it is understood that the marine waters extend from the 1
NM line to the outer limit of the EEZ. Coastal waters and transitional waters
were delineated according to the WFD. For both of them, the landward boundary
is represented by the shoreline and the offshore limit is represented by the 1
NM line. Romania has included transitional waters in the scope of its MSFD
reporting while transitional waters are not included in the scope of Article
3(1) of the MSFD.
Areas assessed
Romania has defined three assessment areas
for the purposes of MSFD reporting, which it uses quite systematically for the
initial assessment and in certain cases for the definition of GES and for the
environmental targets as well. The three areas are: “Coast”, “Transitional” and
“Marine”.
GES definitions and targets are defined for
the whole of Romania’s marine waters together, with no distinction for specific
assessment areas. Romania has made no aggregated judgements in relation to GES
nor has it defined aggregation rules.
Regional cooperation
Romania mentions an agreement between the Ministries of Environment and Water of
Bulgaria and Romania in order to discuss their obligations under the MSFD but
no details on actual BG/RO cooperation are given.
There are very few references to cooperation
at regional (Black Sea) level or to Bucharest Convention documents, with the
notable exception of Descriptor 3, where most of the proposed targets are at
regional level.
Romania reports poor communications as one
of the coordination problems but it is not clear whether it means at regional
level or at bilateral level with Bulgaria.
Other features
The method used for the economic and social
analysis of marine uses is the water accounts approach. Romania refers to the
recommendations of WG ESA in the introduction to the ESA chapter in the initial
assessment paper report. The activities described include industry, ports,
tourism, aquaculture and fisheries, offshore structures, oil and gas
exploitation, shipping, waste disposal.
The analysis of the cost of degradation is
undertaken using the cost-based approach. As explained by Romania in the
reporting sheet, the degradation costs were assessed based on the costs of the
measures adopted to protect the marine environment.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
For the descriptors where this was done,
GES description is consistent with relevant EU legislation such as the Habitats
Directive and the Water Framework Directive. In the cases where some data were
available (Descriptor 1, 5), there was a good effort to define GES.
Weak points
GES was not defined for Descriptors 4, 6,
7, 9, 10 and 11.
There is no systematic use of the 2010
Commission Decision criteria and indicators and in most of the cases no
threshold values and baselines are provided. Thus, the GES definitions are not
measurable and in some cases non-committal (“GES could
be defined as”).
Overall score
Even in the cases where GES was defined (Descriptor
1, 2, 3, 5, 8), they were considered inadequate due mainly to a lack/uncertainty
concerning the baseline/thresholds and not covering all the Decision criteria.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Considerable effort to consolidate and
present an assessment related to biodiversity, non-indigenous species,
fisheries, contaminants and eutrophication.
Weak points
Absence of initial assessment for several
descriptors (Descriptor 9, 10, 11) and very limited assessment for Descriptor
7.
Overall score
Out of the provided assessments the ones
for contaminants, eutrophication, fish and non-indigenous species are
considered partially adequate (Descriptor 2, 3, 5, 8) and the others
inadequate. Data and knowledge
gaps are mentioned only sporadically in the initial assessment report.
Information gaps are not discussed in a synthetic manner and there are no plans
presented of how these gaps will be addressed. Few judgments are made on the
current status in relation to GES.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Considerable effort to set quantitative
targets, where data was available (Descriptor 1, 3, 5, 8).
Weak points
No targets defined for Descriptors 2, 4, 6,
7, 9, 10, 11.
In most of the cases, no threshold values
and baselines are provided and the targets do not cover the different pressures
and impacts identified in the initial assessment.
The role of the associated indicators (i.e.
for assessing the achievement of the environmental targets) is not always
clear.
For Descriptors 5 and 8 there are different
targets in the reporting sheets and in the paper report (much less and more
general in the paper report, for Descriptor 5 exclusively on pressures).
Overall score
Targets related to Descriptors 1 and 8 are
partially adequate; although they are not always quantitative, detailed and
time-related, they are realistic and concrete.
Targets on Descriptor 3 are considered
inadequate because it is not clear how they relate to MSY reference points and
there is no clear timeline for achieving them.
Consistency
Only for Descriptors 1, 3, 5 and 8 is the
information provided about GES, targets and initial assessment sufficient to
formulate comments about consistency.
The approach followed in the assessment of
pressures and impacts and the definition of GES and the setting of
environmental targets is in general terms consistent, with the notable
exception of Descriptor 3, where stock status seems to be assessed as being at
GES while considerable reduction of fishing effort is reflected in the targets:
it is not clear on which advice/arguments the targets
are based.
There are many inconsistencies between the
reporting sheets and the paper report (in the level of details and the
information reported).
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps are mentioned only
sporadically in the initial assessment report. Information gaps are not
discussed in a synthetic manner and there are no plans presented of how these
gaps will be addressed.
Recommendations
Romania should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
     much as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the
     aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed
     as inadequate or partially adequate,;
 Identify knowledge and information gaps
     and address these, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets;
 Address the scope of marine waters, as
     defined in the Directive, through exclusion of WFD Transitional Waters.

Slovenia
General issues
Marine waters
Slovenia’s marine waters are part of the
marine sub-region of the Adriatic Sea. No formal subdivisions have been made.
Areas assessed
Slovenia’s initial assessment,
characteristics of GES and associated targets and indicators have been
developed for Slovenia’s marine waters as a whole.
Regional cooperation
Slovenia is party to the Barcelona
Convention. Slovenia reports participation in five meetings at regional level
for coordination of approaches for the initial assessment and definition of
GES, with Italy and Croatia, and on the establishment of environmental targets,
with Italy.
Other features
The economic and social analysis of marine
uses for Slovenia has been undertaken using the water accounts approach
and Slovenia has followed an
ecosystem services approach to evaluating the cost of degradation. For both
assessments, a number of economic sectors related to the use of marine waters
are listed and a qualitative and quantitative description of each activity is
provided.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
All the descriptors under the MSFD are
covered.
Slovenia has set a threshold for indicator
3.3.3 (for all commercial species the 95 percentile of the fish length
distribution is stable or rising) which is considered a best practice.
Weak points
The definition of GES is generally vague or
not specific, with the exception of Descriptor 5.
The approach used to define GES varies. For
some descriptors, GES is defined at descriptor level (Descriptor 7, 9, 10), in
other cases at both descriptor and criteria level (Descriptor 1, 4, 5, 8) and
in the remaining cases at criterion level only (Descriptor 2, 6, 11).
Descriptor 3 is defined only at indicator level.
The list of species selected by Slovenia as
covered by their GES definition includes only protected/listed habitats; it
does not cover fish or cephalopods and does not address all marine species
equally.
Overall score
Seven GES definitions are considered as
partially adequate (Descriptor 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11) since it is consistent
with the Commission Decision but either are qualitative or partially defined or
lack thresholds or reference values.
For the remaining descriptors (Descriptor 2,
4, 6, 7), the determination of GES is assessed as inadequate, since it does not
meet the minimum requirements and is lacking a measurable baseline or reference
points to assess progress towards GES.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The initial assessment is mainly descriptive
but there is a fair attempt to quantify many elements (with the exception of Descriptor
8) and to make a judgement on the status of the marine environment in relation
to GES (i.e. Descriptor 1, 2, 4, 5, 9).
Slovenia has performed additional studies for
the initial assessment on non-indigenous species (Descriptor 2). It has also
reported on microbial pathogens (Descriptor 9) and the assessment is considered
adequate.
Weak points
Judgements on the current status in
relation to GES are not consistently made.
Overall score
Three initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as adequate (Descriptor 5, 10, 11) thanks to a
good qualitative judgment made in relation to GES on trends, the provision of
thresholds and baselines, identification of main causes of pressure and
addressing the impacts and provision of substantial information on knowledge
and data gaps and plans to address them. For Descriptors 10 and 11, the current
state of knowledge is taken into consideration for the overall score.
Six initial assessments for the
pressure/impact are considered as partially adequate (Descriptor 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,
9) since the information provided is limited and mainly qualitative and there
is a lack of judgement in relation to GES as well as a limited assessment of
impacts.
Only the initial assessments for
Descriptors 7 and 8 are considered as inadequate, mainly due to limited and no
quantifiable information and the lack of judgement of status in relation to
GES.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Slovenia has set environmental targets for
all descriptors. For some descriptors, the targets are divided into
“environmental objectives” (focused on the reduction of pressures or impacts)
and “operational objectives” (e.g. focused on the development of indicators or
the gathering of information).
Slovenia has included an environmental
target addressing recreational fisheries.
Weak points
Many of the environmental targets are
interim ones, with various elements still to be developed e.g. method for
assessment, baseline and proportion of areas affected.
For Descriptors 3, 6, 7 and 9, some targets
(in terms of proportion or year) are not defined but rather Slovenia has
introduced values ‘x’ to be completed later.
There is also a lack of
thresholds/reference conditions for environmental targets and a significant
number of them are only interim targets.
Some environmental targets (Descriptor 2,
3, 7, 11) are defined in a vague and general way, sometimes phrased as a GES
definition.
Impacts from pressure are not sufficiently
reported on.
Overall score
Only the target related to Descriptor 5 is
considered adequate, as it is specific, measurable, achievable and realistic,
impact-related, ambitious and consistent.
Targets related to Descriptors 1, 2, 8, 9
and 10 are partially adequate as they are insufficiently specific to be SMART,
baselines are vaguely defined or there are no thresholds.
The targets of all the remaining
descriptors (Descriptor 3, 4, 6, 7, 11) are considered as inadequate, mainly because
they are not operational, not measurable, non-committal and lack threshold
values and baselines.
Consistency
The approach followed by Slovenia in the
assessment of pressures and impacts and the definition of GES and the setting
of environmental targets is in most cases not fully consistent.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
There is a systematic identification of
knowledge and data gaps combined with several surveillance environmental
targets to address these (i.e. Descriptor 5, 8).
The plans to address these gaps are usually
quite vague and without details of timescales or responsibilities.
Recommendations
Slovenia should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible
     focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Address knowledge gaps identified in the
     initial assessment, i.a. through the monitoring programme under the MSFD
     and research programmes, focusing on those descriptors considered as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD;
 Improve the consistency between the
     criteria used in GES, the assessment of the impact and the proposed
     targets.

Spain
General issues
Marine waters
Spain’s marine waters are part of two
regions: the Mediterranean and the North-East Atlantic, covering two
sub-regions: the Bay of Biscay and the Iberian coast and Macaronesia in which the
Canaries are located.
Areas assessed
Within these regions and sub-regions, Spain
has determined the following five sub-divisions for the purposes of the
implementation of the MSFD:

 The North Atlantic subdivision
 The South Atlantic subdivision
 Estrecho and Alborán subdivision
     (Mediterranean South part)
 The Levantino-Balear subdivision
     (Mediterranean North part)
 The Macaronesia (Canary) subdivision

For several descriptors, Spain has defined
specific aggregation rules that are described in the relevant sections.
Some differences within GES definitions
have been identified across sub-divisions, however, the reasons for these
differences are not always clear.
Regional
cooperation
Spain is party to OSPAR and the Barcelona
Convention. Activities, structures and efforts for regional coordination,
within both regional conventions are extensively described. The general
document for the marine strategy also presents general and particular targets
set by the relevant conventions. It also refers to ACCOBAMS and the London
Convention.
Other features
In addition to targets for each of the
descriptors, Spain has set generic targets which apply to all descriptors at a
time in each of the sub-divisions. These relate to monitoring systems, public
participation and access to information as well as the need to coordinate
across competent authorities and stakeholders. Although very general, they set
some basic principles which complement the more specific targets established by
descriptor.
Spain has followed a water account approach
for its economic and social assessment. The methodology has been
comprehensively described and the analysis done for each of the marine sub-divisions.
The cost of degradation has been estimated following a cost-based approach.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
Spain addresses GES for all descriptors at
the criteria level and sometimes at indicator level. GES has been further specified
for the subdivisions. The definition of GES is often very detailed, expressed
in a quantifiable manner and thoroughly described in accompanying text.
Spain applied methods for the North East
Atlantic in the Mediterranean when these methods not available there.
Aggregation rules are defined for a number
of GES descriptors (Descriptor 5, 8, 9).
Weak points
The manner of how to aggregate GES for the
many different species, habitats and ecosystems is not defined.
The level of fishing mortality which is set
as GES for Descriptor 3 is set below the required FMSY. Descriptor 4
misses thresholds and baselines and a specification of the main trophic groups
to be considered.
The description of GES for Descriptors 10
and 11 is very generic and qualitative and lacks specification.
Overall score
Descriptors 1 and 9 are assessed as
adequate (for both Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea).
Descriptors 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are assessed
as partially adequate as no limit to new introduction  concentrations (Descriptor
2), threshold values and baselines are not provided (Descriptor 5), the
condition of the sea-floor habitats misses specification on ecosystem elements
(Descriptor 6), as the scale of change is not defined (Descriptor 7) and the
applied methodology has not yet agreed reference values (Descriptor 8).
Descriptors 3, 4, 10 and 11 are assessed as
inadequate as they are below the minimum requirement (Descriptor 3) or lack
specification (Descriptor 4, 10, 11).
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
Extensive information is provided, which is
often also quantitative and specific on the status of the marine environment.
Justification is given on gaps in knowledge and information and how to address
these gaps.
All relevant pressures have been identified
and reported on, including microbial pathogens.
For several descriptors (e.g. Descriptor 3,
5, 8, 9), Spain has made an assessment of the current status of their marine
waters using the characteristics defined for their GES which shows that GES for
Descriptor 3 and in coastal areas for Descriptors 5 and 8 is not met
everywhere.
The assessment of features is comprehensive
and covers all major habitat zones (although water column habitats receive only
limited attention).
Weak points
Spain reported by means of many extensive
reports which misses a comprehensive structure and lacks summaries and clarity
on conclusions.
Impacts of pressures are not systematical
reported on.
Overall score
The initial assessment is assessed as being
adequate for all descriptors, except for Descriptor 2 which is assessed
partially adequate due to missing information on impacts and trends, Descriptor
7 because the description of habitats potentially affected by changes is not
complete and no trend is provided, and Descriptor 5 (in the Mediterranean Sea)
due to limited information in terms of nutrient and organic loads to the sea
and not all impacts are adequately covered.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Spain provides a wide range of targets,
addressing the pressures, the state or the impacts. It has defined a large set
of biodiversity targets which can be applied to several descriptors. They are
detailed and specific.
The targets for Descriptor 7 are extensive:
there are six environmental targets with associated indicators.
The environmental targets and associated
indicators have a robust legal status.
Weak points
In contrast to their comprehensiveness, most environmental
targets are not quantified, miss thresholds or are not measurable.
Overall score
Descriptor 7 is assessed as adequate.
Descriptor 11 as inadequate as it is more an expression of GES and not specific
enough. All other descriptors have been assessed partially adequate with regard
to the environmental targets since they are described (extensively) qualitative
and not quantified or miss thresholds.
Consistency
Overall, the approach to set GES and
targets and to undertaking the initial assessment is consistent across
descriptors and sub-divisions. For Descriptors 3, 5, 8 and 9 Spain has made an
assessment of the current status of their marine waters using the
characteristics defined for their GES although for Descriptor 5 not all sources
or pressures are covered.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Spain discusses data and knowledge gaps in
a very comprehensive manner, for each descriptor. Many environmental targets
include targets aimed at addressing data and knowledge gaps through research
and monitoring.
Recommendations
Spain should:

 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
     much as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the
     aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors
     assessed as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Ensure that the targets cover all
     relevant pressures, are SMART and sufficiently ambitious in order to
     achieve the requirements and timelines of the MSFD.

Sweden
General issues
Marine waters
Sweden’s marine waters are part of the
North East Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea regions. Sweden has made no formal
subdivision of the marine areas.
Areas assessed
It has defined some assessment areas in its
legislation, two in the North Sea and nine in the Baltic. One additional
assessment area (Oresund) seems to be part of the two regions.
Regional cooperation
Sweden is part of both HELCOM and OSPAR Regional
Sea Conventions and also held bilateral meetings with Denmark, Norway, Finland
and Estonia in order to develop its MSFD reporting under articles 8, 9 and 10.
Other features
Sweden has given a robust legal status to its
GES definitions, environmental targets and indicators by incorporating them in
legislation. This can be singled out as a good practice.
The economic and social analysis of marine
uses carried out by Sweden uses a combination of the ecosystem services
approach and the water accounts approach.
After an analysis of the link between
driving forces and ecosystem services, three ecosystem services have been
selected for an in-depth analysis: biodiversity, reduced eutrophication and
aesthetic values. The analysis is mainly qualitative but socio-economic
indicators identified in the North Sea and Baltic Sea regions (employment,
sales, completed treatment value, wages, and in some cases social indicators)
have also been analysed as a complement
to the ecosystem approach. Economic data from 2009 has been provided for all
reported activities (2010 for tourism and recreation). The marine part of the
tourism sector was determined using GIS analysis.
For the analysis of the cost of degradation,
the ecosystem services approach is also used. In addition, Sweden has analysed two future scenarios (2020 and
2050) and compared the impacted results with reference conditions.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
Overall, Sweden’s GES definitions are set
in comprehensive manner, covering all descriptors, and also at the level of
criteria. They take into account existing EU law and other standards from the
relevant Regional Sea Conventions.
For Descriptor 2, Genetically Modified
Organisms are included in the non-indigenous species GES definition.
Weak points
However, all too often, the GES set remains
difficult to measure, as indicators are not yet operational, or definitions
remain too vague. For the biodiversity-related descriptors, for instance, the
GES definition is too unspecific, not referring to baselines or thresholds. In
addition, Sweden rarely goes beyond existing standards.
Overall score
The GES definition for Descriptor 4 is
considered adequate.
The GES definitions for Descriptors 1, 2, 3,
5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are partially adequate, as they are sometimes incomplete or
too imprecisely quantified.
The GES definition for Descriptor 7 is
inadequate as no measurable indicators can be derived from this definition and
no baseline or thresholds are provided.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
On the whole, the initial assessment gives
a good impression of the main pressures affecting Sweden’s marine waters. They
have been identified and reported on the information available in OSPAR and
HELCOM, making extensive use of this information.
Weak points
Some descriptors however are more poorly
covered; this in particular the case for Descriptor 7 (hydrographical
changes) where the initial assessment does not reflect sufficiently the
information available in OSPAR and HELCOM on the topic. Overall, quantitative
assessments are often missing, as well as judgments on status and trends.
Overall score
The initial assessment is considered adequate
for Descriptor 3 in the North East Atlantic and Descriptor 5 in the Baltic Sea.
Descriptor 7 is deemed inadequate because it does not reflect the existing
level of knowledge. Descriptor 11 is not addressed. The other descriptors are
partially adequate since the assessment is mainly qualitative and the
assessment of impacts is limited.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
A strong point of Sweden’s targets is that
they are defined as Environmental Quality Standards and incorporated into their
legislation. There is a strong connection with existing EU laws and regional
standards, whether from OSPAR, HELCOM or both.
Weak points
The lack of applicable threshold values
remains, however, an issue for many descriptors, hampering measurability, with
many indicators and targets still in need of further development, by 2014 or
sometimes even only by 2018. The targets not all address the pressures
Overall score
The targets for Descriptors 1 and 4 are
considered inadequate (they focus on fish and do not address mammals and birds
or specific habitats). Descriptor 7 is also inadequate as it does not address
all relevant aspects, such as sediment transport. For Descriptor 9 Sweden
explains that the targets covering Descriptor 8 are also relevant for
Descriptor 9 which is inadequate because of the different substances concerned.
Targets for Descriptor 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10
are assessed as partially adequate, mainly based on their lack of
measurability. There are no targets for Descriptor 11.
Consistency
A good practice from Sweden is that it
makes links for targets between various descriptors, thereby addressing their
inter-linkages. Otherwise, GES definitions are overall consistent with targets,
though in some instances, they are less consistent with the initial assessment.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
Data and knowledge gaps are identified in a
systematic way and described in detail. Specific information gaps have been
identified, in particular, in the field of biodiversity, non-indigenous
species, commercial fish, sea-floor integrity, hydrographical changes, marine
litter and underwater noise.
Sweden has included an analysis of the
development needs of a number of indicators for GES (and targets), and plans to
address these gaps are referred to, focusing on work in the Regional Sea Conventions
and at EU level, as well as on additional monitoring needs.
Recommendations
Sweden should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through regional cooperation using the work of the
     Regional Seas Convention as much as possible focusing
     on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the aim to make GES
     measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors assessed as
     inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018.

United Kingdom
General issues
Marine waters
The UK's marine waters fall within the
North-East Atlantic Ocean region and within the sub-regions known as the Celtic
Seas and the Greater North Sea, and in the Mediterranean Sea region within the
Western Mediterranean Sea subregion.
Their marine waters in the NE Atlantic
region include coastal waters, as defined under the Water Framework Directive,
and a Renewal Energy Zone (REZ). An area of Continental Shelf beyond the REZ
(Hatton Rockall area) is also included, whilst other such areas await the
outcomes of UNCLOS processes. In the Mediterranean they have defined marine
waters out to 3nm of Territorial Seas around Gibraltar.
There are areas of overlap and gaps with
Ireland's marine waters at both the coastal boundaries with Ireland and the
median line boundary in the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea. The marine waters around
Gibraltar are also require further clarification. 
Areas assessed
For the purposes of reporting on MSFD
Articles 9 and 10 the UK has defined GES and targets for the UK marine waters
as a whole[44],
but reflecting significant biogeographical differences if present. For MSFD
Article 8, the UK has used eight biogeographically-defined assessment areas for
the North Sea/Celtic Seas subregions.
The UK indicates that the boundaries
between the Celtic Seas and Greater North Sea subregions are still under consideration.
Regional
cooperation
The UK is party to the OSPAR Convention.
Efforts for regional coordination within the regional convention, as well as
bilaterally with neighbouring countries, are extensively described.
Other features
The UK has used the ecosystem services
approach for their economic and social assessment and to estimate the costs of
degradation, with its assessment undertaken at the UK level. It notes that it
will develop its data at a scale more suited to MSFD implementation in time for
the next (2018) assessment.
Determination
of Good Environmental Status (Art. 9)
Strong points
The UK addresses GES for all descriptors,
and often includes some criterion-level details.
They have systematically used existing EU
requirements and standards and place a strong emphasis on work and standards from
the RSC (OSPAR).
They have incorporated the dynamic nature
of the ecosystem into their determination of GES for Descriptor 1,
acknowledging that natural and climatic changes over time may necessitate modifications
of GES definitions.
For Descriptors 8 and 9, concentrations of
contaminants should not increase, even if currently below regulatory maximum
levels.
Weak points
GES is defined mainly at the descriptor
level, but with some elements of the Decision criteria; it is generally only
qualitative and therefore not measurable. However, the UK provides further
specifications for GES for Descriptors 1 and 4 by specifically linking its GES
definitions to the environmental targets defined under Art. 10.
Overall score
Descriptors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and
11 are assessed as partially adequate, as they either do not fully address the
Decision criteria or they lack key elements or specificity.
Descriptor 6 is assessed as inadequate, as
it does not cover all criteria or define its terms or baseline and is not
specific enough to be measurable.
Initial
Assessment (Art. 8)
Strong points
The initial assessment is based largely on
a recent (2010) comprehensive assessment of UK waters, which has thoroughly
assessed most aspects required by MSFD and derived judgements on environmental status
(albeit not in relation to the UK’s definition of GES).
On the whole, the main pressures and their
sources have been identified and reported on.
Weak points
There is a lack of quantification of
physical disturbance pressures despite availability of suitable data.
There is limited assessment of impacts from
certain pressures (e.g. nutrient enrichment), particularly in a quantitative
manner, and few conclusive judgments on current status.
Overall score
The initial assessment is assessed as being
adequate for Descriptors 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 11, with generally good coverage of
the main pressures and their sources; assessments of impacts and overall status
are however more limited.
For Descriptors 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9, the initial
assessment is considered partially adequate, with several key elements missing
or poorly assessed (e.g. sea-floor damage, organic matter enrichment, seafood
contamination) and limited assessments of impacts.
Environmental
targets (Art. 10)
Strong points
Substantial detail or clear specification
is provided for Descriptors 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11.
Weak points
The targets for Descriptors 1, 3
(partially), 4 and 6 are effectively expressions of GES and would better sit
under Art. 9. Many provide normative definitions of GES and require more
specific quantitative thresholds to be fully measurable.
Environmental targets are often not
sufficiently clear or SMART to be measurable.
Overall score
The targets for Descriptor 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
and 11 have been assessed as adequate although  targets for Descriptors 1, 3,
4, 6 are, however, mostly state-oriented with limited reference to reductions
in specific pressures and impacts.
The targets for Descriptors 8, 9 and 10
have been assessed as partially adequate since they lack some specificity or
coverage (e.g. contaminants in water) or are not sufficiently focused on
reductions in pressures and impacts (e.g. surveillance targets for litter).
The targets for Descriptors 2 are
considered inadequate as they lack specification and are therefore not
measurable.
Consistency
There is a good level of consistency
between GES, the initial assessment and the environmental targets for most
descriptors.
Identified
gaps and plans to address them
As a rule, extensive
justification/explanation is provided on gaps in data/knowledge and assessment
methodology, accompanied most of the time by plans to close these gaps, albeit
generally rather vague.
Recommendations
The UK should:

 Strengthen the GES definition of the
     biodiversity descriptors which goes beyond what is in existing
     legislation;
 Improve GES definitions including through
     regional cooperation using the work of the Regional Seas Convention as
     much as possible focusing on quantitative aspects and baselines, with the
     aim to make GES measurable, focusing especially on those descriptors
     assessed as inadequate or partially adequate;
 Further develop its approaches to
     assessing (quantifying) impacts from the main pressures to lead to
     improved and more conclusive assessment results for 2018.

              Appendix 3: Summary findings for each marine region
The tables presented for each marine region
provide a summary of the assessment of coherence, using the following keys:
 Keys || Meaning 
 ++ || High level of coherence 
 + || Moderate level of coherence 
 - || Low level of coherence 
Baltic Sea region
The evaluation for the Baltic region
includes the national implementation reports of DE, DK, EE, FI, LT, LV and SE.
The implementation report from PL was not available at the time of drafting of
this report.
Summary of the
coherence assessment
   || GES || Initial Assessment || Environmental targets 
   || - || Pressures: + || + 
 Features: - 
 D2 || - || ++ || + 
 D3 || + || + || + 
 D4 || - || See D1 || See D1 
 D5 || ++ || ++ || + 
 D6 || - || See D1 || See D1 
 D7 || - || - || + 
 D8 || + || ++ || + 
 D9 || + || ++ || ++ 
 D10 || - || + || + 
 D11 || - || + || - 
Overall, the level of coherence is mixed
with the initial assessment having the highest level of coherence. The setting
of GES is only showing a high level of coherence for eutrophication (Descriptor
5). One explanation for this result is that the work on development of common
indicators in HELCOM was not fully completed on time. Nevertheless, given the
high level of investment in regional coordination through HELCOM and the
significant results that HELCOM had produced by 2010-2012, the overall findings
are surprisingly low. 
Coverage of
Articles 8, 9 and 10 for each of the 11 descriptors
Coverage of the eleven descriptors is not
uniform with some Member States not having defined GES for some descriptors. 
A majority of Member States have made an
initial assessment of all the relevant pressures, except two Member States. 
Four Member States out of seven did not
define environmental targets for a number of descriptors. 
Descriptors 7, 10 and 11 are the
descriptors for which there are most gaps.
Judgement on
current status in relation to GES
Only two Member States have made systematic
judgements on the current status of the marine environment (in relation to all
relevant pressures/features), using indicators and criteria which are used both
for Article 8 and for Article 9 (GES). 
Use of EU
requirements and standards
All Member States but one have used EU
requirements and standards in their definition of GES for the relevant
descriptors (Descriptor 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9) but sometimes in different ways. 
Use of the
Commission Decision criteria and indicators
The approach adopted for the definition of
GES varies substantially across the Member States of the Baltic Sea region.
Three Member States (EE, LT, LV) have defined GES only at indicator level, as a
rule, but not systematically covering all indicators of the Commission
Decision. One Member State (SE) has defined GES at criteria and indicator
level, closely following the structure of the Commission Decision. One Member
State (FI) has defined GES at criteria level, as a rule. One Member State (DK)
has defined GES only at descriptor level (with some exceptions for the
biodiversity descriptors defined at criteria level). Finally, the remaining
Member State (DE) has used a mixed approach, whereby it has defined GES at
descriptor level for approximately half of the descriptors and at
criteria/indicator level for the other half.
Certain criteria or indicators are almost
never fully covered, namely indicator 5.1.2 on nutrient ratios, indicators
5.2.3 on the abundance of opportunistic macroalgae and 5.2.4 on species shift
in floristic composition as well as criterion 9.1 on levels, number and
frequency of contaminants is and indicator 9.1.2 on the frequency of regulatory
levels being exceeded.
Reference to
the work of the Regional Sea Conventions
The work of HELCOM is referred to by the
Member States of the Baltic Sea region for almost all of the descriptors.
However, the use and integration of HELCOM results in the national
implementation varies considerably.
A number of HELCOM documents are referred
to in different places, including the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, the HELCOM
HOLAS report and the HELCOM CORESET/TARGREV reports[45]. In addition, specific
tools/reports are used by the Member States for the individual descriptors:

 Biodiversity: HELCOM list of species and
     habitats;
 NIS: HELCOM bio-pollution index;
 Commercial fisheries: HELCOM assessment
     of the status of the coastal fish community;
 Eutrophication: HELCOM HEAT and HELCOM
     assessments on eutrophication;
 Contaminants: HELCOM GES boundaries for
     priority hazardous substances and HELCOM assessments on hazardous
     substances;
 Marine litter: HELCOM assessment of the
     marine litter problem.

Other regional sources of information have
been used by some Member States, such as the Baltic Sea Alien Species Database
for Descriptor 2. 
Level of
information on data/knowledge gaps and ways to address them
Several Member States (DE, DK, LV, SE) have
systematically identified data and knowledge gaps, to varying levels of detail.
Three of these Member States (DE, DK, SE) have also provided plans to close
these gaps, mostly within the context of EU or Regional Sea Convention work.
Two Member States (FI, SE) have provided timelines regarding the development of
GES and targets and indicators for a number of descriptors where development is
needed (in particular the biodiversity descriptor (Descriptor 1) but also NIS
(Descriptor 2), commercial fish (Descriptor 3), sea-floor integrity (Descriptor
6), hydrographical change (Descriptor 7), marine litter (Descriptor 10) and
noise (Descriptor 11)).
North East Atlantic Ocean region
The evaluation for the North East Atlantic
Ocean region includes the national implementation reports of BE, DE, DK, ES, FR,
IE, NL, PT (except for the Azores), SE and UK (except for Gibraltar).
Summary of the
coherence assessment
The following table presents a summary of
the assessment of coherence at regional and subregional levels:
   || GES || Initial Assessment || Environmental targets 
 D1 || - || Pressures: ++ || - 
 Features: - 
 D2 || - || ++ || - 
 D3 || + || + || - 
 D4 || - || See D1 || - 
 D5 || ++ || ++ || + 
 D6 || - || See D1 || - 
 D7 || ++ || + || ++ 
 D8 || ++ || ++ || ++ 
 D9 || ++ || ++ || ++ 
 D10 || ++ || ++ || + 
 D11 || - || ++ || - 
At subregional level:
   || GES || Initial Assessment || Environmental targets 
 SR || NS || CS || BB || NS || CS || BB || NS || CS || BB 
 D1 || - || + || - || P: ++ || P: ++ || P: ++ || - || - || - 
 F: - || F: + || F: + 
 D2 || - || + || - || ++ || ++ || ++ || - || + || - 
 D3 || + || - || - || + || +/++ || +/++ || -/+ || - || - 
 D4 || - || - || - || See D1 || See D1 || See D1 || - || - || - 
 D5 || ++ || ++ || + || ++ || ++ || ++ || - || ++ || - 
 D6 || - || - || - || See D1 || See D1 || See D1 || - || - || - 
 D7 || ++ || ++ || - || + || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || + 
 D8 || ++ || ++ || - || ++ || ++ || + || ++ || ++ || - 
 D9 || ++ || ++ || - || ++ || ++ || + || ++ || ++ || + 
 D10 || ++ || + || + || ++ || ++ || ++ || - || + || ++ 
 D11 || - || ++ || - || ++ || ++ || + || - || - || + 
 NS || Greater North Sea || 
 CS || Celtic Seas || 
 BB || Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast || 
Overall, the level of coherence is highest
out of all the four marine regions but still with considerable scope for
improvement. The setting of GES is showing a high level of coherence for
eutrophication (Descriptor 5), hydrographical changes (Descriptor 7),
contaminants (Descriptors 8 and 9) and litter (Descriptor 10). In particular
the initial assessment is showing that the OSPAR work, in particular the
Quality Status Report, has been extensively used and has provided a valuable
input to the MSFD implementation at national level. A possible reason for not
having a higher level of coherence may be that the work on the development of
common indicators in OSPAR was not fully completed on time. Further
improvements are, however, possible, in particular as regards the common
understanding of applying GES and targets which varies considerably between
Member States. 
Coverage of
Articles 8, 9 and 10 for each of the 11 descriptors
All Member States have defined GES for all
descriptors.
A majority of Member States have made an
initial assessment of all the relevant pressures, except two Member States (PT,
SE), which did not make an assessment of the pressure from underwater noise and
other forms of energy.
Four Member States out of ten did not
define environmental targets for a number of descriptors. 
Judgement on
current status in relation to GES
Only a limited number of Member States in
the region have made a judgement on the current status of the marine
environment (in relation to certain pressures/features) using the same
indicators and criteria for both Articles 8 and 9 (DK, ES, PT). The other
Member States have either not made a conclusive judgement on the current status
or have done so not in relation to GES but in relation to other standards.
Use of EU
requirements and standards
Eight out of ten Member States have
systematically used EU requirements and standards in their definition of GES
for the relevant descriptors. The remaining two Member States have referred to
EU requirements and standards only in a very limited manner.
Use of the
Commission Decision criteria and indicators
Five Member States out of ten (BE, ES, FR,
SE, UK) have defined their GES at least at criterion level as a rule (sometimes
defining GES for one or two descriptors only at descriptor level). Two Member
States (DE, IE) have used a mixed approach, whereby they have defined GES at
descriptor level for approximately half of the descriptors and at
criteria/indicator level for the other half. A final category of three Member
States (DK, NL, PT) have defined GES only at descriptor level as a rule (with a
few exceptions for one Member State (DK)).
Those Member States, which have defined GES
at criteria level, have also used some of the Decision’s indicators. Only two
Member States (FR, SE) have followed the structure of the Commission Decision
quite consistently for all descriptors (but even these Member States have not
defined GES for all individual indicators). Descriptor 10 is covered only at
descriptor level by six Member States (DE, DK, ES, IE, NL, PT).
Certain criteria are almost never fully
covered namely criterion 2.2 on environmental impact of
invasive NIS fully, indicator 5.1.2 on nutrient ratios and indicator 5.2.3 on
the abundance of opportunistic macroalgae, criterion 8.2 on effects of
contaminants, acute pollution events criterion 9.1 on levels, number and
frequency of contaminants and indicator 9.1.2 on the frequency of regulatory
levels being exceeded.
Reference to
the work of the Regional Sea Conventions
All Member States but one have regularly
referred to, and often used, the work of OSPAR in their GES definition, their
initial assessment and the setting of their environmental targets. However,
there are sometimes differences in the way the regional results have been
integrated into the national implementation. 
A number of OSPAR documents are referred to
in different places, including the 2010 OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR)[46] which has been
referred to by all Member States albeit by some more consistently than by
others. In addition, specific tools/reports are used by the Member States for
the individual descriptors although their application varies:

 The OSPAR COMP procedure;
 OSPAR advice for the biodiversity
     descriptors and for Descriptor 7;
 OSPAR’s Environmental Assessment Criteria
     (EAC)
 OSPAR's Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO),
     including, in particular the one on northern fulmars.

Level of
information on data/knowledge gaps and ways to address them
All Member States but one (BE) have
systematically identified data and knowledge gaps, to varying levels of detail.
Out of these, five Member States have also, in general, provided plans to address
these gaps (ES, FR, NL, SE, UK). Two Member States (DE, DK) rely mostly on
on-going work at regional or EU level to address data and knowledge gaps.
Mediterranean Sea region
The evaluation for the Mediterranean Sea
region includes the national implementation reports of CY, EL, ES, FR, IT, MT
and SI. The implementation report of HR arrived to late to be included in this
assessment.
Summary of the coherence assessment
The following tables present a summary of
the assessment of coherence at regional and subregional levels:
At regional level:
   || GES || Initial Assessment || Environmental targets 
 D1 || - || Pressures: ++ || - 
 Features: - 
 D2 || - || ++ || - 
 D3 || - || - || - 
 D4 || - || See D1. || - 
 D5 || + || + || + 
 D6 || - || See D1. || - 
 D7 || + || + || - 
 D8 || + || - || - 
 D9 || ++ || + || ++ 
 D10 || + || + || + 
 D11 || + || - || + 
At subregional level, the level of
coherence was not assessed when, in a subregion with two Member States, one of
the Member States did not report on an element (e.g. Cyprus has not defined
targets for Descriptor 2 so coherence has not been assessed for the Aegean-Levantine
Sea subregion).
At subregional level:
   || GES || Initial Assessment || Environmental targets 
 SR || MWE || MAD || MIC || MAL || MWE || MAD || MIC || MAL || MWE || MAD || MIC || MAL 
 D1 || - || - || - || - || P: ++ || P: ++ || P: ++ || P: ++ || - || - || - || - 
 F: + || F: - || F: - || F: - 
 D2 || + || - || - || - || ++ || ++ || ++ || ++ || - || - || ++ || N/A 
 D3 || - || - || - || - || - || + || + || - || - || -/+ || -/+ || - 
 D4 || - || - || - || - || See D1 || See D1 || See D1 || See D1 || - || - || - || - 
 D5 || ++ || + || ++ || - || + || + || + || + || + || - || ++ || - 
 D6 || - || - || - || - || See D1 || See D1 || See D1 || See D1 || - || - || - || - 
 D7 || + || - || - || - || ++ || + || ++ || + || - || - || N/A || N/A 
 D8 || - || + || + || - || - || - || - || ++ || - || + || - || - 
 D9 || + || ++ || ++ || ++ || - || - || - || + || N/A || ++ || N/A || ++ 
 D10 || + || + || + || + || ++ || + || - || + || ++ || + || - || N/A 
 D11 || + || + || ++ || ++ || - || - || N/A || N/A || - || - || - || N/A 
 MWE || Western Mediterranean Sea || 
 MAD || Adriatic Sea || 
 MIC || Ionian Sea & Central Mediterranean Sea || 
 MAL || Aegean-Levantine Sea || 
Overall, the level of coherence is moderate
to low and also very different between the different sub-regions. The setting
of GES is showing a high level of coherence for contaminants in seafood
(Descriptor 9). For other descriptors, the GES setting, the initial assessment
and the target definition is relatively coherent, in particular in some
sub-region. However, there is considerable scope for improvement at all levels
and on most issues.
Coverage of
Articles 8, 9 and 10 for each of the 11 descriptors
All Member States have defined GES for all
descriptors, except one Member State which has not defined GES for Descriptor
4.
A majority of Member States have made an
initial assessment of all the relevant pressures, except two Member States
which did not make an assessment of the some specific pressure.
Four Member States out of six did not
define environmental targets for a number of descriptors. :
Judgement on
current status in relation to GES
Many Member States in the region have
attempted to make a judgement on the current status of their marine environment
– in relation to certain pressures/features – using indicators and criteria
which are used both for Article 8 and for Article 9 (GES). However, most of the
time the indicators and criteria are not quantitative and/or are based on
expert judgement 
Use of EU
requirements and standards
Four out of six Member States have
systematically used EU requirements and standards in their definition of GES
for the relevant descriptors although sometimes in a different way. The
remaining two Member States have referred to the EU requirements and standards
only in a very limited manner.
Use of the
Commission Decision criteria and indicators
As a rule, all Member States in the marine
region but one have defined GES at least at criterion level, using some or all
of the criteria of the Commission Decision for each Descriptor. One Member
State has defined GES as a rule at descriptor level. Most Member States have
also used some of the Decision’s indicators. 
Descriptors 7, 10 and 11 are often covered
only at descriptor level.
Certain criteria are almost never fully
covered namely criterion 2.2 on environmental impact of
invasive NIS, indicator 5.1.2 on nutrient ratios, criterion 8.2 on effects of
contaminants, indicator 8.2.2 on acute pollution events and criterion 9.1 on
levels, number and frequency of contaminants as well as indicator 9.1.2 on the
frequency of regulatory levels being exceeded.
Reference to
the work of the Regional Sea Conventions
Only half of the Member States have
regularly referred to the work of the Barcelona Convention in their initial
assessment. However, there is rarely a specific reference to the Barcelona
Convention Ecosystem Approach. The Barcelona list of protected species is
mentioned by four Member States.
Most Member States have also made
references to, and/or used, OSPAR standards. In particular, OSPAR’s
Environmental Assessment Criteria have been used by four Member States in their
definition of GES for Descriptor 8.
Level of
information on data/knowledge gaps and ways to address them
Several Member States have systematically
identified data and knowledge gaps, to varying levels of detail. All of these
Member States but one have also provided plans to close these gaps, e.g. in the
form of high-level objectives/targets focused on further research and improved
monitoring.
Black Sea region
The evaluation for the Black Sea region
includes the national implementation reports of BG and RO, although for BG,
only their implementation of Article 9 and 10 was assessed within the available
time which does not allow for a coherence assessment of Article 8. 
Summary of the
coherence assessment
The following table presents a summary of
the assessment of coherence. The level of coherence was not assessed when the
two Member States (or one of the two) did not report on an element (e.g. no GES
or targets defined for Descriptor 11). The assessment of coherence is based on
the comparability of the elements reported by the two Member States. Coherence
of the Initial Assessment was not assessed, due to the late reporting by
Bulgaria.
   || GES || Environmental targets 
 D1 || - || - / + 
 D2 || - || N/A 
 D3 || - || - / + 
 D4 || N/A || N/A 
 D5 || + || + 
 D6 || N/A || N/A 
 D7 || N/A || N/A 
 D8 || - || - 
 D9 || N/A || N/A 
 D10 || N/A || N/A 
 D11 || N/A || N/A 
Overall, the level of coherence is very low
which is partially to do with the fact that one of the two Member States has
often not defined GES or set targets for a particular descriptor. Where both
Member States have provided input, only for eutrophication (Descriptor 5) a moderate
level of coherence is observed. 
Coverage of
Articles 9 and 10 for each of the 11 descriptors
Neither Member State has defined GES for Descriptors
7, 9, 10 and 11. Consequently, the two countries have not set environmental
targets for these descriptors (except Descriptor 9 for which one Member State
has set targets without having defined a GES).
Use of EU
requirements and standards
Both Member States have used EU
requirements and standards where relevant  but only to a certain extent and not
necessarily systematically.
Use of the
Commission Decision criteria and indicators
One Member State has defined GES at
indicator level but not always following the structure of the Commission
Decision or using the same indicators. The other Member State has used a mixed
approach, defining GES at descriptor, criteria or indicator level, depending on
the descriptor.
The Commission Decision indicators have
been used by both countries to specify some of their targets, either using them
literally or specifying them further.
Reference to
the work of the Regional Sea Conventions
The two Member States have made very
limited references to the work of the Bucharest Convention when defining their
GES or setting their targets. The only references to the Bucharest Convention
relate to its list of protected species and its list of priority hazardous
substances.
Level of
information on data/knowledge gaps and ways to address them
One Member State has identified data and
knowledge gaps much more consistently and systematically than the other. This
Member State has also provided a number of high-level recommendations / plans
to address these gaps for descriptors for which knowledge gaps are very
important. But timelines and concrete steps to be taken to address the gaps are
not provided.
              Appendix 4: Understanding of MSFD Articles 9 and 10
and their relationship used in the methodology to assess Member States' report
The aim of this appendix is to provide
clarification on the Commission services’ understanding of Art 9 and 10 of the
MSFD used in their assessment of Member States' reports and leading to the
assessment criteria in Appendix 1 and the summary findings and recommendations
per Member State set out in Appendix 2[47]. This understanding is the basis for discussion with Member States
on the follow up to this report. It should be used to apply the recommendations
set out in the Commission report (including its annex) and should be the
starting point for discussion to develop a better common understanding on these
questions together with Member States.
Introduction
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
sets out a legislative frame in broad terms which allows a large degree of
flexibility and discretion for Member States in its implementation
The European Commission is provided by the
MSFD with a number of mandates, which aim at ensuring a minimum level of
coherence, comparability and in some cases harmonization of the interpretation
and implementation of the Directive. These mandates are established, in
particular, by the Articles. 9(3), 11(4) and 24. Before using these mandates as
set out in the recommendations to this report, a common understanding is needed
on the roles of Article 9 and 10. 
Good
environmental status
Article
1(1): This Directive establishes a framework
within which Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or
maintain good environmental status in the marine environment by the year 2020
at the latest.
Article
3(4): ‘environmental status’ means the overall
state of the environment in marine waters, taking into account the structure,
function and processes of the constituent marine ecosystems together with
natural physiographic, geographic, biological, geological and climatic factors,
as well as physical, acoustic and chemical conditions, including those
resulting from human activities inside or outside the area concerned;
Article
3(5): ‘good environmental status’ means the
environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse
and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within
their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level
that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by
current and future generations, i.e. […]
Article
3(6): [GES] ‘criteria’ means distinctive
technical features that are closely linked to qualitative descriptors;
Article
9 Determination of good environmental status
Article
9(1): By reference to the initial assessment
made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall, in respect of each marine
region or subregion concerned, determine, for the marine waters, a set of
characteristics for good environmental status, on the basis of the qualitative
descriptors listed in Annex I.
Member
States shall take into account the indicative lists of elements set out in
Table 1 of Annex III and, in particular, physical and chemical features,
habitat types, biological features and hydro-morphology.
Member
States shall also take into account the pressures or impacts of human
activities in each marine region or subregion, having regard to the indicative
lists set out in Table 2 of Annex III.
Article
9(3): Criteria and methodological standards to
be used by the Member States, which are designed to amend non-essential
elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be laid down, on the
basis of Annexes I and III, in accordance with the regulatory procedure with
scrutiny referred to in Article 25(3) by 15 July 2010 in such a way as to
ensure consistency and to allow for comparison between marine regions or
subregions of the extent to which good environmental status is being achieved.
Before proposing such criteria and standards the Commission shall consult all
interested parties, including Regional Sea Conventions.
Good environmental status (GES) is the core
concept of what has to be achieved by the MSFD. All operational provisions are
in one way or another linked to GES, which is the central feature allowing the
measurement of progress and success. It is also associated with a precise
deadline ("by the year 2020 at the latest", see Art. 1(1)) and
the main element from which exemptions can be applied (Art. 14). It is
therefore paramount that Member States can determine GES, and monitor and
assess whether it has been achieved (ideally in a quantitative way). In other
words, Member States must be able to determine whether marine waters (or parts
thereof) are in good status or not. If they are not, it must be clear how the
marine waters can be brought (back) into good status.
Assessment
element 1: GES must be determined and monitored
on the basis of environmental state.
Within the concept of DPSIR (drivers,
pressure, state, impact and response), status or state is set within a wider
role of environmental assessment and management. The definition of
environmental status contained in Art. 3(4) confirms this understanding.
However, by introducing “good" as a qualification of desired status, it
brings in an element of impact into the concept. This is further confirmed by
the nature of the qualitative descriptors (Annex I), which all introduce
some form of impact description (e.g. “do not adversely alter the ecosystems”).
It is clear from the DPSIR model that both state and impact are linked to
pressures; some of the qualitative descriptors make that link explicitly (e.g.
“properties and quantities of marine litter”). Nevertheless, this does not mean
that GES can be determined and monitored through quantifiable pressure
indicators (these can be introduced through the targets, see below).
Environmental Status (ES) refers to any specific, overall state of the
environment, whereas Good Environmental Status (GES) is the particular state of
the environment in which the oceans and seas are healthy, the ecosystem is
functioning and there is an acceptable (or better “sustainable”) level of
human-induced impact on the environment. Hence, “good” defines a boundary
between acceptable and non-acceptable or sustainable and unsustainable.
Assessment
element 2: Good in GES has to be defined
through a quantifiable boundary between a state that is acceptable in terms of
the MSFD and a state that is not acceptable. In principle, GES also equates to
“sustainability use” of the marine environment.
In order to be acceptable, GES must conform
to the definition contained in Art. 3(5) and therefore ensure the fulfilment of
Arts. 1(2) and 1(3) (in particular “by ensuring that the collective pressure
of such activities is kept within levels compatible with the achievement of
good environmental status and that the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond
to human-induced changes is not compromised, while enabling the sustainable use
of marine goods and services by present and future generations”). This
means that “good” is not necessarily set at the level of a pristine state or
“reference conditions” (e.g. as defined in the Water Framework Directive).
Instead, it allows human activities and a certain inevitable negative impact
they may have on the marine environment, but it defines the limits of this
impact to ensure that these activities remain sustainable.
Furthermore, the GES criteria, which
constitute technical features to enable status to be determined, must be “distinctive”
(Art. 3(6)). The criteria provide the parameters upon which the assessment of
status must be made. To allow the assessment of GES, i.e. to describe a
boundary between good and not good status as distinctively as possible,
thresholds values (or qualitative descriptions) must be determined for these
criteria. This boundary would describe the limit between an acceptable and an
unacceptable level. Thus, it would be ideal to determine quantifiable
GES “boundaries” (=threshold) on the basis of an “assessment” (which looks at the
level/intensity of human activities which can endanger the “ecologically
diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive”).
Such an approach is implicit in the Directive since Art. 14(4) exempts
Member States from taking “specific steps where there is no significant risk
to the marine environment.” Where it is (scientifically) not possible to
determine quantifiable GES “boundaries” (based on specific criteria) on the
basis of risk at the moment, an interim step could be to determine GES
“proxies” or normative definitions (as, for example given in Annex V of the WFD
for biological quality elements). Such “proxies” must take into account the
precautionary principle. They can also be set in the form of a target and
related indicator as set out in Annex IV, point (3).
Assessment
element 3: GES must be determined for an entire
marine region or sub-region. There is limited flexibility for Member States.
Rules for temporal and spatial aggregation are essential for the application of
GES.
The compliance area for the determination
of GES, as defined in Art. 9(1), is the marine region or subregion. This is
also explicitly mentioned in Art. 3(5): "Good environmental status shall
be determined at the level of the marine region or subregion …". At
the same time, it is for Member States to "determine, for the marine
waters, a set of characteristics for good environmental status". However,
this provision is conditioned by a number of other provisions in the Directive,
including the references to Annexes I and III and the link to Article 8, as
well as Article 9(3) where criteria and methodological standards of Decision
2010/477/EU must be used. Furthermore, the several requirements on regional
coordination, coherence and comparability limit the discretion that Member
States have, at least as regards some form of common minimum requirements.
In practice, this can be implemented as
follows: 
Every Member State determines a set of
characteristics for GES for the marine waters in each marine region or
subregion concerned. Therefore at a national level the compliance area is
limited to the marine waters over which the Member State exercises
jurisdictional rights. The second step consists of harmonising or, at least,
coordinating the determination of GES with other Member States within the
respective region or subregion. The need to coordinate the determination of GES
results from Art. 5(2)(a)(ii), which imposes on the Member States the obligation
to ensure, that the elements of the strategy required to achieve the objectives
of the Directive are coherent and coordinated across marine regions and
subregions.
It is possible to reverse the order, namely
by elaborating common assessment and GES criteria (and where necessary also
targets and related indicators) for an entire marine (sub-)region first, e.g.
through the Regional Sea Conventions. However, Member States should then
translate the agreed common criteria etc. into the national implementation
process and communicate them to the Commission as part of their national
report.
Article 4(2) of the Directive also offers
the possibility to implement the Directive by reference to subdivisions. These
additional subdivisions can assist in the implementation but should not be
confused with the compliance area.
Based on these elements, it is therefore
essential that Member States specify their methods for spatial and temporal
aggregation of assessments, in order to relate the assessments against GES,
which could be undertaken at smaller geographical scales, to the determination
of GES at (sub-)regional level. Such methods should be, to a certain extent,
specified or standardized across the EU to “ensure comparability between
monitoring and assessment” (cf. Art. 11(4)) beyond those already laid down
in Decision 2010/477/EU.
Assessment
element 4: Member States must determine a set of
characteristics for GES on the basis of Annex I and Decision 2010/477/EU and
taking account of Annex III but not limiting themselves to these descriptors
and the criteria proposed by the Commission.
In order to ensure a coherent approach
towards setting the characteristics for GES, MSFD Annex I contains a list of
qualitative descriptors, for which the Decision 2010/477/EU sets out a set of
criteria for their assessment. However, it is clearly indicated that "The
criteria for the achievement of good environmental status are the starting
point [emphasis added] for the development of coherent approaches in the
preparatory stages of marine strategies, including the determination of
characteristics of good environmental status …"[48]. In other words the
descriptors and criteria provide "the basis"[49] for setting the
characteristics of GES, but should not be treated as an exhaustive catalogue.
The goal is to create a high quality description of GES based on minimum
requirements..
Assessment
element 5: The European Commission can harmonise
GES criteria and GES methodological standards, as well as specifications and
standardised methods for monitoring and assessment, but not targets and
indicators.
Such harmonisation shall "ensure
consistency" and "allow for comparison between marine regions or
subregions”[50]
and thereby improve coherence. Such harmonization can only be achieved in the
form of “minimum requirements”. On the one hand, the MSFD introduces
flexibilities to be applied by the Member States and allows taking into account
the differences in both environmental characteristics and human activities and
their pressures between the marine (sub-)regions. On the other hand, the Treaty
allows Member States to set more ambitious objectives for the environment at
any time (Art. 194 TFEU). The Commission already partly exercised these rights
with the Decision 2010/477/EU. 
Environmental
targets
Article
3(7): ‘environmental target’ means a qualitative
or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the different components
of, and pressures and impacts on, marine waters in respect of each marine
region or subregion. Environmental targets are established in accordance with
Article 10;
Article
10(1): On the basis of the initial assessment
made pursuant to Article 8(1), Member States shall, in respect of each marine
region or subregion, establish a comprehensive set of environmental targets and
associated indicators for their marine waters so as to guide progress towards
achieving good environmental status in the marine environment, taking into
account the indicative lists of pressures and impacts set out in Table 2 of
Annex III, and of characteristics set out in Annex IV.
When
devising those targets and indicators, Member States shall take into account
the continuing application of relevant existing environmental targets laid down
at national, Community or international level in respect of the same waters,
ensuring that these targets are mutually compatible and that relevant
transboundary impacts and transboundary features are also taken into account,
to the extent possible.
Assessment
element 1: Environmental targets are management
tools, not objectives. They support the achievement of GES but cannot replace a
(quantifiable) GES determination. 
Member States are required to “establish
a comprehensive set of environmental targets and associated indicators for
their marine waters so as to guide progress towards achieving good
environmental status in the marine environment” (Art. 10(1)). This means
that targets and related indicators constitute an operational tool in case when
the marine waters are not in good status. If good status is already
achieved, it can be maintained (and monitored) without setting targets.
Furthermore, GES and targets are (in most cases) not exchangeable and both the
differentiation between them as well as the way they relate should be clearly
identified.
Finally, Annex IV sets out an “indicative
list of characteristics to be taken into account for setting environmental
targets”, which underlines the difference between GES assessment criteria and
operational targets and indicators. It must be underlined that apart from the
possibility to amend Annex IV (Art. 24(1)) or to set methodological standards
(Art. 24(2)), the Commission has no particular mandate to harmonise targets or
associated indicators. This means that there is a large degree of flexibility
for Member States in the establishment of targets.
Assessment
element 2: Targets and related indicators can be
very different in nature, have various purposes and can be based on
characteristics, pressures, status or impacts thereby complementing the GES
assessment.
Annex IV, point (2) describes three types
of targets, namely:
a.     
targets establishing desired conditions
based on the definition of good environmental status;
b.     
measurable targets and associated
indicators that allow for monitoring and assessment; and
c.      
operational targets relating to concrete
implementation measures to support their achievement.
In the same annex, point (3) states that
targets can be “specification of environmental status to be achieved or
maintained and formulation of that status in terms of measurable properties of
the elements characterising the marine waters of a Member State within a marine
region or subregion”. Such targets, which reflect the type (a) above, could
be similar or identical to GES. In case they are identical, however, there is
limited added value for such a target within the conceptual framework of the
MSFD. But a state target which is set at a less ambitious level than GES may be
useful or necessary in some specific cases, for instance as an intermediate
step. 
Assessment
element 3: Member States should consider social
and economic concerns in the setting of targets but not in determining GES.
Annex IV, point (9) indicates that the
setting of environmental targets should be given “due consideration of
social and economic concerns.” Meanwhile, the determination of GES must not
take these considerations into account because the assessment of GES is the
result of a scientific, risk-based assessment which, where necessary, takes the
precautionary principle into account. Social and economic arguments which may
make it difficult to achieve GES can and must be taken into account through the
exemptions (mainly Art. 14(4)).
              Appendix 5. Overview of coordinating Competent
Authorities for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
 Member State || Name and Address of Coordinating Competent Authority 
 Austria || Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management (Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft – BMLFUW) Stubenring 1, 1012 Vienna Website: http://www.lebensministerium.at/ 
 Belgium || The Marine Environment Service of the Health, Food Safety and Environment Federal Public Service, DG Environment (FOD Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu – Dienst Marien Milieu) Place Victor Hortaplein 40/010, Brussels 1060 Website: http://www.beldonor.be/eportal/Environment/index.htm 
 Bulgaria || Minister of Environment and Water (MoEW) 22 Maria Louiza Blvd, Sofia, 1000 Website: http://www2.moew.government.bg/index_e.html 
 Cyprus || Minister of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment Loukis Akritas Avenue, Nicosia 1411 Website: http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/agriculture.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument  
 Croatia || Not reported 
 Czech Republic || Not reported 
 Denmark || Danish Nature Agency (Naturstyrelsen – NST) under the Ministry of the Environment Haraldsgade 53, Copenhagen 2100 Website: http://www.nst.dk 
 Estonia || Ministry of Environment (Keskkonnaministeerium) Narva Maantee 7a, Tallinn 15172 Website: http://www.envir.ee/ 
 Finland || Ministry of Environment (Ympäristöministeriö/Miljöministeriet) Kasarmikatu 25, Po-Box 35, FI-00023 Valtioneuvosto Website: http://www.ymparisto.fi 
 France || Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing (now entitled Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy – Ministère de l’écologie, du développement durable et de l’énergie) La Grande Arche, 92055 La Défense, Paris Website: http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/ 
 Germany || Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit – BMU)   Robert-Schuman-Platz 3, Bonn 53175 Website: http://www.bmu.de/   
 Greece || Special Secretariat for Waters of the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change (Ειδική Γραμματεία Υδάτων – SSW) Iatridou 2 & Kifissias 124 str., Athens 11526 Website: http://www.ypeka.gr   
 Hungary || Ministry of Rural Development (Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium) Kossuth Lajos tér 11, 1055 Budapest Website: www.vm.gov.hu 
 Ireland || Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) Newtown Road, Wexford Website: http://www.environ.ie   
 Italy || Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea (Ministero dell'ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare – MATTM) Via Cristoforo Colombo, n. 44, 00147 Rome Website: http://www.minambiente.it   
 Latvia || Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development (Vides aizsardzības un regionālās attīstības ministrija – VARAM) Peldu 25, Riga LV-1494 Website: http://www.vidm.gov.lv 
 Lithuania || Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania (Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerija – AM) Jakšto 4/9, Vilnius LT-01105 Website: http://www.am.lt 
 Luxembourg || Ministry for Home Affairs and the Greater Region (Ministère de l'Intérieur et à la Grande Région) 19, rue Beaumont, Luxembourg L-1219 Website: www.waasser.lu 
 Malta || Office of The Prime Minister (Uffiċċju tal-Prim Ministru – OPM) Merchants Street, Valletta VLT 1170 Website: https://opm.gov.mt/home 
 Netherlands || Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu – IenM) Postbus 20901, The Hague 2500 EX Website: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ienm 
 Poland || Chief Inspectorate of Environmental Protection (Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska) 52/54 Wawelska Street, 00-922 Warsaw http://www.gios.gov.pl 
 Portugal || National Institute for Water (Instituto da Agua, I.P. – INAG) Av. Almirante Gago Coutinho n°30, 1049-066 Lisbon Website: http://www.inag.pt/ 
 Romania || Ministry of Environment and Forests (Ministerul Mediului si Padurilor – MMP) Libertatii 12, Bucharest 040129 Website: http://www.mmediu.ro 
 Slovak Republic || Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic (Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky – MŽP SR) Nám. Ľ.Štúra 1, 812 35 Bratislava Website: http://www.minzp.sk/en/ 
 Slovenia || Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning (Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor – MOP) Dunajska 48, Ljubljana SI-1000 Website: www.mop.gov.si 
 Spain || Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino – MARM) Pza. San Juan de la Cruz s/n, Madrid 28071 Website: www.marm.es 
 Sweden || The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (Havs- och vattenmyndigheten – SwaM) Box 11 930, Gothenburg 404 39 Website: www.havochvatten.se 
 United Kingdom || UK (except Gibraltar): Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Nobel House 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR Website: http://www.defra.gov.uk   Gibraltar: Department of Environment, Duke of Kent House, Line Wall Road Website: http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/environment/environment 
[1] All reports notified by Member States relating to MSFD Articles 8,
9 and 10 are available from http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/recent_etc?RA_ID=608
[2] The full questionnaire templates per descriptor are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/reports_en.htm
[3]   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/reports_en.htm 

[4] OJ L 232, 02/09/2010, p. 14
[5] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/index_en.htm

[6] MSFD CIS work programme 2014-beyond (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/index_en.htm)
[7] Hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated biphenyls and
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
[8] Reporting sheets are the standard reporting format developed
with Member States to set out the content and format of reports for a
particular (part of a) directive.
[9] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/publications/index_en.htm
(Reporting package for 2012 reporting for the MSFD) and http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200856ec/resources
[10] http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/recent_etc?RA_ID=608
[11] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/scoreboard_en.htm

[12] See document MSCG/8/2012/3 of 25th October 2012: Updated
Concept paper on the technical assessment of Member States submissions required
under Article 12 of the Marine Directive
[13] Adequacy does not necessarily mean, for instance, that if the
defined GES is assessed as adequate it automatically means that this is the
required quality level of the marine waters.
[14] See for the nine specific and one general questionnaires on website
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/reports_en.htm

[15] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/reports_en.htm 

 
[16] MSFD Art. 12 requires that "Within six months of receiving
all those notifications, the Commission informs Member States concerned
whether, in its opinion, the elements notified are consistent with this
Directive and provides guidance on any modifications it considers
necessary."
[17] The total number of MS is 21 because France is counted twice, for
its Mediterranean and its Atlantic regions
[18] COM(2013) 620 final
[19] COM(2013) 620 final
[20] OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p22. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013
[21] This reproductive Biomass was set at or above rates of BMSY-trigger
or SSB/SSBMSY with a probability of 50%.
[22] International Council for the Exploration of the Seas
[23] OJ L 354, 28.12.13, p.22.
[24] When considered together with the environmental targets which are
specifically referred to in its Art. 9 definition.
[25] dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and hexachlorocyclohexane
[26] Polychlorinated biphenyls, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, tributyltin,
hexachlorobenzene and polybrominated diphenylethers
[27] ‘Fishing for litter’ is the methodology to collect litter at sea by
fishermen and is covered by OSPAR Recommendation 2010/19.
[28] The starting point of the “Marine Waters Account” approach is the
economy - e.g. the economic sectors - depending on and using the marine waters.
This approach focuses on what can be obtained from the national
accounts/statistics, and has low to medium data requirements. (see WG
ESA guidance document)
[29] The
starting points of the Ecosystem Services Approach are the ecosystem services
(ES) obtained from the marine waters. In a first step, these ES are identified
and linked to marine uses. A second step consists in identifying and, if
possible, quantifying the (economic) benefits derived from these ecosystem
services. The Ecosystem Services Approach has high data requirements. 
[30] The cost-based approach is based on existing quantitative data on
costs of measures currently implemented to prevent degradation of the marine
environment (i.e. basically setting the costs of degradation equal to the costs
of protecting the marine environment). This approach is based on the assumption
that current costs for measures to prevent environmental degradation would only
have been made if the value of what is obtained (preventing degradation) is
higher than the cost of the measures. In this way, current costs can be seen as
a lower bound estimate for costs of degradation (WG ESA Guidance).
[31] See above; the difference in assessing the costs of degradation
(instead of the marine uses) via the Ecosystem Services Approach is that the
potential value of ES under GES is calculated, and the difference between this
value and the expected value (under BAU) represent the costs of degradation.
[32] The thematic approach is a simplified version of the Ecosystem
Services Approach, which includes an analysis of the present costs, expenses and
loss of benefits related to the anthropogenic degradation of the marine
environment, but excludes the future element.
[33] https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1f5a5ca0-b797-4d3f-b4bb-8adc9bf48177
[34] MSFD
CIS work programmes (https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1ce3bda3-d469-4d2d-828d-a840e4f98370)
[35] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/public-consultation/index_en.htm

[36] http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
[37] Some Member States
have alternative designations to EEZs (e.g. the UK's Renewable Energy Zone),
whilst in the Mediterranean Sea Greece's territorial seas extend to 6nm from
the baseline (instead of 12nm). 
[38] see Analytical Report, Nov 2013 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/publications/index_en.htm

[39] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:354:0171:0200:EN:PDF

[40] See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/implementation/index_en.htm
[41]             The United Nation Environment Programme, Mediterranean
Action Programme hosts the secretariat for the Barcelona Convention. 
[42] Driving forces, pressures, state, impacts and response. 
[43] Driving forces, pressures, state, impacts and response.
[44] Reporting on Gibraltar was received too late (September 2013) to be
considered. The rest of this report therefore refers only to the Greater North
Sea and Celtic Seas parts of the UK report.
[45] See BSEP 122 and 136 at http://helcom.fi/helcom-at-work/publications

[46] http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/index.html 

[47]             The Commission services recall that the interpretation
of EU legislation is the prerogative of the European Court of Justice.
[48] Commission
Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good
environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU), rec. (1).
[49] Directive
2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008
establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine
environmental policy, Art. 9(1).
[50] Ibidem,
rec. (25).