COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Background document for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive on the determination of good environmental status and its links to assessments and the setting of environmental targets Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, application of EU law, biodiversity, environmental cooperation, marine ecosystem, marine environment, prevention of pollution, water pollution, water protection, water treatment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.6.2020  SWD(2020) 62 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Background document for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive on the determination of good environmental status and its links to assessments and the setting of environmental targets Accompanying the  Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) {COM(2020) 259 final} - {SWD(2020) 60 final} - {SWD(2020) 61 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

2.  GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE MSFD ........................................................ 4 

2.1.  Main implementation stages in a six-year cycle................................................ 4 

2.2.  Geographic scope .............................................................................................. 5 

2.2.1.  Member State marine waters (Article 3(1)) ......................................... 5 

2.2.2.  MSFD marine regions and subregions (Article 4) .............................. 6 

2.3.  Regional and subregional implementation (Article 5 and 6)............................. 8 

2.4. 

Integration with other EU legislation ................................................................ 9 

3.  DETERMINATION  OF  GOOD 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

STATUS 

(ARTICLES 3(5) AND 9, ANNEXES I AND III) ................................................... 11 

3.1.  Overall objectives of the Directive .................................................................. 11 

3.2.  The determination of GES is central to MSFD implementation ..................... 12 

3.3.  Provisions of the Directive in relation to GES ................................................ 13 

3.3.1.  The  definitions  of  environmental 

status  and  good 

environmental status (Article 3) ........................................................ 14 

3.3.2.  GES Descriptors (MSFD Annex I) .................................................... 15 

3.3.3.  GES  elements  (ecosystem  elements  and  pressures  of  MSFD 

Annex III) .......................................................................................... 16 

3.3.4.  GES criteria and methodological standards (Article 9(3); GES 

Decision) ............................................................................................ 17 

3.4.  Relationship between the Directive and the GES Decision ............................ 18 

3.5.  Relationship between GES (Article 9) and assessments (Article 8) ............... 21 

3.6.  Relationship  between  GES  (Article  9)  and  environmental  targets 

(Article 10) ...................................................................................................... 21 

3.7.  Consistency  between  Member  States  in  the  determination  of  GES 

(Article 3(5) and 5(2)) ..................................................................................... 22 

3.8.  Updating the determination of GES (Article 17(2)) ........................................ 22 

4.  AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR MSFD IMPLEMENTATION .............. 23 

4.1.  An ecosystem-based approach and use of the DPSIR framework .................. 23 

4.2.  General principles - activities, pressures, impacts and state ........................... 24 

4.3.  The nature of a GES determination – state, impact and pressure .................... 27 

4.4.  Priorities for MSFD implementation and use of risk-based approaches ......... 29 

4.5.  Steps in a prioritised implementation process ................................................. 30 

5.  AN INTEGRATED PROCESS TO DETERMINATION OF GES AND ITS 

ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 31 

1 

 
5.1.  GES Decision supports an integrated process ................................................. 32 

5.2.  Main steps in the assessment and determination process ................................ 35 

5.3.  Elements for assessment of progress towards GES ......................................... 36 

5.3.1.  Elements  for  Article  8(1)(b)  assessments:  pressures  and 

impacts ............................................................................................... 37 

5.3.2.  Elements 

for  Article  8(1)(a)  assessments:  ecosystem 

structure, functions and processes ..................................................... 39 

5.4.  Scales of assessment and assessment/reporting areas ..................................... 41 

5.5. 

Identifying the GES criteria to be used and how they are assessed ................ 45 

5.6.  Determining  GES:  criteria  on  quality,  proportion,  distribution  and 

duration ............................................................................................................ 46 

5.7.  Setting of threshold values .............................................................................. 48 

5.7.1.  Use of reference condition in setting threshold values ...................... 50 

5.7.2.  On setting threshold values at an appropriate scale ........................... 52 

5.8.  GES  in  relation  to  ecosystem  characteristics,  dynamics  and  climate 

change .............................................................................................................. 53 

5.9.  Links to quality standards of other policies ..................................................... 54 

5.10.  Expressing the extent to which GES is being achieved .................................. 56 

5.11.  Reporting on the determination of GES and the extent to which it has 

been achieved .................................................................................................. 57 

5.12.  Time period for assessments ........................................................................... 58 

6.  ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ARTICLE 10) .................................................... 59 

6.1.  Follow-up  actions 

to  Article  8  assessments  depend  on 

the 

environmental status ........................................................................................ 59 

6.2.  The nature of environmental targets ................................................................ 60 

6.3. 

Indicators ......................................................................................................... 62 

6.4.  Reference points .............................................................................................. 62 

6.5.  Links to monitoring (Article 11) ..................................................................... 62 

6.6.  Links to measures (Article 13) ........................................................................ 63 

7.  USE OF RISK-BASED APPROACHES IN MSFD IMPLEMENTATION ............ 63 

8.  RESEARCH NEEDS ................................................................................................ 65 

ANNEX 1. 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS.................................................................. 67 

ANNEX  2:  QUALITY  AND  PROPORTION  ASPECTS  OF  GES  –  WORKED 

EXAMPLES .............................................................................................................. 80 

ANNEX  3:  CRITERIA  FOR  BIODIVERSITY  AND  LINKS  TO  OTHER 

POLICIES ................................................................................................................. 86 

2 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

in  MSFD 

implementation  was  supported  by 

In  2012  Member  States  prepared  the  first  elements  of  their  marine  strategies  for  the 
Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD,  Directive  2008/56/EC).  This  comprised 
an initial assessment (Article 8)1, the determination of good environmental status (GES) 
(Article 9) and the establishment of a set of environmental targets (Article 10). This first 
stage 
the  Commission  Decision 
2010/477/EU on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of 
marine waters, which provided a framework for Member States to determine their GES 
and  to  assess  the  current  environmental  status  of  their  marine  waters.  To  aid  the 
preparation  of  the  2012  reports,  the  Commission  released  a  Staff  Working  Document 
which aimed to clarify the relationship between the initial assessment and the criteria for 
good environmental status (SEC(2011) 1255). In addition, the Common understanding of 
Articles  8,  9  and  10  (2011),  prepared  within  the  MSFD  Common  Implementation 
Strategy (CIS)2, provided support to the first implementation of these articles in 2012. 

The  Commission’s  assessment  of  this  first  implementation  stage  (Article  12  report, 
COM(2014)97) found a considerable divergence in approaches amongst Member States, 
particularly  regarding  the  determination  of  GES,  the  use  of  Decision  2010/477/EU  and 
the  relationship  between  the  determination  of  GES  under  Article  9  and  the  setting  of 
environmental targets under Article 10. The Commission's assessment recommended that 
Decision 2010/477/EU, together with MSFD Annex III which provided indicative lists of 
ecosystem characteristics, pressures and impacts, be reviewed and if necessary revised as 
one key mechanism to help overcome this lack of coherence. This review led to both the 
2010  Decision  and  MSFD  Annex  III  being  revised  in  2017  as  Commission  Decision 
(EU) 2017/848 and Commission Directive (EU) 2017/845, respectively3. 

The  technical  work  of  the  review  raised  various  generic  or  cross-cutting  issues, 
particularly concerning the use of the GES Decision in Member State's determinations of 
GES  under  Article  9  and  for  assessments  under  Article  8.  Further,  Annex  IV  of  Staff 
Working Document SWD/2014/049, which accompanied the Commission's 2014 Article 
12  report,  set  out  some  principles  which  are  considered  essential  in  the  further 
implementation  of  the  Directive.  The  present  document  aims  to  further  develop  and 
substantiate these principles, taking into account expert discussions within the CIS since 
SWD/2014/049 was published, to provide guidance on the future updates of Articles 8, 9 
and 10 and implementation of the MSFD more generally. 

The  concepts  and  approaches  described  here  are  intended  to  be  generally  applicable 
across  all  Member  States.  However,  as  Member  States  implement  the  Directive  in  the 
context  of  differing  characteristics  of  each  marine  region  and  subregion  and  practical 

1  Hereafter,  all  references  in  this  document  to  'Directive'  and  to  particular  articles  (Article)  refer  to  the 
MSFD (Directive 2008/56/EC), unless specifically indicated otherwise. To improve readability the article 
relevant to the initial assessment (Article 8), the determination of GES (Article 9), environmental targets 
(Article 10), monitoring programmes (Article 11) and programmes of measures (Article 13) is only stated 
when needed for the sake of clarity. 
2 The Common Implementation Strategy is a governance mechanism between the European Commission, 
the Member States and other interested parties, established to support a coherent and harmonious 
implementation of the Directive across the Union. 

3 Hereafter, all references in this document to 'GES Decision' and ‘Annex III’ refer to the 2017 versions of 
the  GES  Decision  (Commission  Decision  (EU)  2017/848)  and  MSFD  Annex  III  (Commission  Directive 
(EU) 2017/845), unless specifically indicated otherwise. 

3 

 
                                                 
challenges  which  may  vary  between  Member  States,  they  may  seek  solutions  that  are 
adapted from these general approaches. 

Furthermore, this document presents the state-of-the-art in approaches to implementation 
of the Directive and the GES Decision. Further experiences in practical implementation, 
together  with  improvements  in  knowledge  and  understanding,  may  lead  to  a  need  to 
update  some  aspects.  Section 8  highlights  certain  knowledge  gaps  where  such 
improvements in understanding are known to be needed. 

To assist in understanding the present document, key messages have been highlighted as 
boxed  text.  Definitions of  terms  are  provided  in  Annex  1  and  shown  in  italic  bold  red 
text at their first mention. 

2.  GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE MSFD 

2.1.  Main implementation stages in a six-year cycle 

Member States implement the MSFD via the development of a 'marine strategy' for each 
of  their  marine  regions  and  subregions  (section  2.2.2).  These  strategies  are  prepared  in 
stages and reported at specified times, starting in 2012 (Article 5(2)). 

Updates of these individual stages are undertaken on a six-year cycle, enabling adaptive 
management  and  new  understanding 
the  MSFD 
implementation  process.  The  linkages  between  the  main  elements  of  the  strategies  and 
the overall cyclical process of the MSFD are illustrated in Figure 1. 

to  be  accommodated 

into 

Figure  1:  The  MSFD  implementation  process  encompassing  the  main  stages  in  the  six-year 
implementation cycle, and showing the reporting dates of the second cycle, starting in 2018. 

4 

 
This  document  focuses  on  the  determination  of  GES  and  associated  assessments  of 
(current)  environmental  status,  but  also  addresses  relationships  to  the  setting  of 
environmental targets and to the monitoring programmes which collect the data needed 
to monitor progress towards achieving GES and the environmental targets as well as the 
effectiveness of measures. The outcomes of the assessments inform whether there is need 
for environmental targets and consequently lead to the measures which are established to 
achieve (or maintain) GES. 

2.2.  Geographic scope 

2.2.1. Member State marine waters (Article 3(1)) 

The  Directive  applies  to  the  ‘marine  waters’  of  Member  States,  which  are  defined  in 
Article 3(1) as: 

(a) ‘waters, the seabed and subsoil on the seaward side of the baseline from which the 
extent of territorial waters is measured extending to the outmost reach of the area 
where  a  Member  State  has  and/or  exercises  jurisdictional  rights4,  in  accordance 
with  the  Unclos5’.  This  is  understood  to  include  territorial  waters  (0-12nm6), 
contiguous zones  (12-24nm), exclusive economic zones (out to  200nm or median 
lines  with  neighbouring  states)  and  other  types  of  jurisdictional  designation; 
additionally where a Member State has informed the Commission that it possesses 
and/or  exercises  jurisdictional  rights  on  a  Continental  Shelf  area  which  extends 
beyond  these  zones,  the  Directive  applies  also  to  the  seabed  and  subsoil  of  these 
areas. 

(b) ‘coastal waters as defined by Directive 2000/60/EC7, their seabed and their subsoil 
in  so  far  as  particular  aspects  of  the  environmental  status  of  the  marine 
environment are not already addressed through that Directive or other Community 
legislation’. This indicates that waters inside the baseline and extending up to the 
landward boundary of coastal waters8 are within the scope of the MSFD as far as 
MSFD-relevant aspects are concerned which are not already covered by the Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD)  or  other  Union  legislation.  Waters  designated  as 
Transitional Waters under the WFD are excluded from the geographic scope of the 
MSFD9. 

4  As  jurisdictional  issues  are  a  matter  of  national  competence,  it  is  for  Member  States  to  define  the 
jurisdictional  area  over  which  the  MSFD  applies,  in  accordance  with  this  definition  of  marine  waters  in 
Article  3(1).  There  may  be  cases  where  these  jurisdictional  areas  overlap  with  those  claimed  by 
neighbouring  states,  such  that  no  agreement  on  marine  borders  has  yet  been  agreed  between  the  states 
concerned. 

5 ‘with the exception of waters adjacent to the countries and territories mentioned in Annex II to the Treaty 
and the French Overseas Departments and Collectivities.’ 
6 In some states the territorial waters extend only to 3 or 6, rather than 12 nautical miles. 
7 ‘Coastal water means surface water on the landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance 
of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of 
territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the  outer limit of transitional waters’ 
(Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC, Article 2(7)) (emphasis added). 
8 Highest Astronomical Tide is the landward boundary for WFD coastal waters (WFD Guidance Document 
no. 5). 
9  Whilst  WFD  Transitional  Waters  formally  lie  outside  the  scope  of  the  Directive,  Member  States  may 
decide  to  apply  elements  of  the  GES  Decision  to  its  Transitional  Waters  (Recital  18);  this  may,  for 

5 

 
                                                 
Beyond these areas of national jurisdiction there is a need to cooperate with neighbouring 
states in the same marine region or subregion (sections 2.2.2 and 2.3). 

2.2.2. MSFD marine regions and subregions (Article 4) 

Key message 

The  MSFD  regions,  subregions  and  subdivisions  provide  an  important  tool  for 
an ecosystem-based approach to delivery of the Directive. 

In  support  of  an  ecosystem-based  approach  to  delivery  of  the  Directive,  Article  4 
indicates  that  Member  State  waters  form  an  integral  part  of  four  marine  regions  of 
Europe, two of which (North-East Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea) are each divided 
into four subregions. These MSFD regions and subregions are illustrated in Figure 2. 

The regions and subregions provide the basis for implementation of the marine strategies 
following an ecosystem-based approach and for defining scales and areas for reporting. 
Article 4 further provides for subdivision of each region or subregion, thus providing an 
important tool for delivery of an ecosystem-based approach below the scale of region and 
subregion.  The  scales  used  may  differ  between  the  GES  determination  (Article  9)  and 
assessments of the extent to which GES has been achieved (Article 8). The scales used 
may differ between the GES Descriptors (section 3.3.2) and in relation to environmental 
targets (Article 10). See section 5.4 for further details. 

example, be appropriate in cases where the distribution of certain marine species and habitats extends into 
those waters and it is thus ecologically more appropriate to include such areas. 

6 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
Figure 2: Representation of the marine regions and subregions of MSFD Article 4. Note: Within 
the  North-East  Atlantic  Ocean  region,  the  four  subregions  listed  in  MSFD  Article  4(2)  are 
shown,  without  addressing  the  remaining  parts  of  the  region  (e.g.  waters  in  the  Iceland  Sea, 
Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea) (EEA10). 

10  Jenson,  H.M.,  Panagiotidis,  P.,  &  Reker,  J.  (2017)  Delineation  of  the  MSFD  Article  4  marine  regions 
and subregions. Version 1.0. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
Note  1:  The  area  shaded  in  purple  and  white  indicates  an  area  to  which  both  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark 
together with the Government of the Faroes have transmitted overlapping submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) 
in fulfilment of their respective rights and obligations under Article 76 and Annex II to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in order to 
determine entitlement of outer continental  shelf areas. This  map should  not be  used  in any way to prejudice the determination  of that question by  the 
CLCS in due course. 

Note  2:  The  area  shaded  in  black  and  white  shows  the  delineation  of  the  outer  limits  of  the  continental  shelf  beyond  200  M  from  the  territorial  sea 
baselines  of  France,  Ireland,  Spain  and  the  United  Kingdom  in  respect  of  the  area  of  the  Celtic  Sea  and  the  Bay  of  Biscay,  as  provided  by  the  four 
countries to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) and included in its recommendations issued on 24 March 2009. The map of 
the continental shelf’s extent shall be used without prejudice to the agreements that will be  concluded in due course between these Member States on 
their marine borders in this area. 

Note 3: The seas of Azov and Marmara are shown as shaded as they do not fall within the geographic scope of application of the Bucharest Convention. 

Key message 

Member  States  cooperate  within  each  region  or  subregion  to  ensure  their 
marine  strategies  are  coherent  and  coordinated,  and  endeavour  to  follow 
common approaches to their delivery. 

2.3.  Regional and subregional implementation (Article 5 and 6) 

Article 5(1) sets out the need for Member States to implement the Directive in respect of 
each  region  or  subregion  in  which  it  has  marine  waters.  This  regional  or  subregional 
approach can be considered to have two aspects: a) those related to cooperation between 
Member States and b) those related to cooperation with  non-EU states in  the region  or 
subregion. 

This regional or subregional approach of the Directive provides an essential framework 
for  the  successful  implementation  of  the  Directive.  It  is  particularly  important  because 
the characteristics of marine waters and their biodiversity are shared across each region 
or subregion and because many of the issues (pressures) which need to be addressed to 
achieve GES can only be effectively addressed through joint or common actions within 
the  region  or  subregion.  In  addition,  the  implementation  could  differ  in  each  region  or 
subregion, for example, to reflect the differing characteristics of each region or subregion 
and the differing (degrees of) anthropogenic pressure it faces. 

Within  each  region  or  subregion,  Member  States  are  required  to  cooperate  amongst 
themselves  to  ensure  their  marine  strategies  are  coherent  and  coordinated,  and  to 
endeavour  to  follow  a  common  approach  to  their  implementation  (Article  5(2)).  This 
applies to each element of Member States' marine strategies (also referred to as 'plan of 
action' 
in  Article  5(2)):  assessment,  determination  of  GES,  establishment  of 
environmental  targets,  establishment  and  implementation  of  monitoring  programmes, 
development and entry into operation of programmes of measures. 

The  practical  delivery  of  Article  5(2)  requirements  can  be  at  regional  or  subregional 
level,  or  a  mixture  of  the  two.  Because  Member  States  are  obliged  to  implement  the 
Directive  in  their  marine  waters  and  these  may  form  only  part  of  the  whole  region  or 
subregion,  some  aspects  can  be  achieved  through  direct  cooperation  between  several 
Member States in the region or subregion, rather than always involving all states in the 
region or subregion. 

The  link  to  non-EU  states  within  a  region  or  subregion  is  important  because  achieving 
GES may be dependent upon actions by other states within the region or subregion, due 
to  the  inter-connectedness  of  their  waters.  This  is  particularly  relevant  where 

8 

 
anthropogenic  pressures  arise  outside  Member  States’  waters  but  have  transboundary 
effects which prevent the achievement of GES within their waters11. In such situations, 
cooperation with non-EU states is necessary to address the issues. There may, however, 
also  be situations  where  it is  appropriate to  collect  data and undertake assessments,  for 
example  for  commercial  fish  and  other  species  whose  ranges  extend  beyond  Member 
States’ national borders, and for which joint management of them is important to secure 
their good status. 

including 

institutional  structures, 

Article  6  indicates  that  ‘Member  States  shall,  wherever  practical  and  appropriate,  use 
those  under  Regional  Sea 
existing  regional 
Conventions’  (RSC).  The  four  RSCs  dealing  with  seas  around  Europe  (Helsinki 
Convention,  OSPAR  Convention,  Barcelona  Convention  and  Bucharest  Convention) 
correspond  to  the  four  MSFD marine regions.  They  provide a key mechanism for such 
cooperation,  bringing  together  the  States  which  share  the  region  and  having  broadly 
similar  objectives  to  protect  the  marine  environment  as  the  MSFD.  For  regional 
cooperation  issues  related  to  commercial  fishing,  the  Regional  Fisheries  Management 
the 
Organisations  (RFMOs), 
Mediterranean (GFCM), the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the 
International  Commission  for  the  Conservation  of  Atlantic  Tunas  (ICCAT),  have  an 
important role. 

the  General  Fisheries  Commission  for 

including 

Because  the  need  for  cooperation  does  not  just  extend  across  the  marine  waters  of  a 
region  or  subregion,  but  also  to  the  freshwater  catchment  areas,  particularly  for  land-
based  sources  of  pollution,  the  Directive  also  indicates  a  need  for  coordination  and 
cooperation  with  land-locked  Member  States.  Here  it  makes  the  links  with  the  WFD, 
where  the  River  Basin  Management  Plans  provide  an  important  mechanism  for 
addressing  land-based  sources  of  pollution.  Exchange  of  information  and  cooperation 
between the River Basin District Authorities and International River Commissions on the 
one side and the Regional Sea Conventions on the other side is needed. 

Overall,  these  cooperation  processes  indicate  that  there  is  not  a  single  way  in  which 
regional  and  subregional  aspects  of  the  Directive  can  be  implemented,  but  a  variety  of 
approaches depending on the particular needs. Hereafter the term  (sub)regional is used 
to reflect the multiple approaches that may be appropriate. 

2.4.  Integration with other EU legislation 

Key message 

Integration  between  other  relevant  EU  policies  and  the  MSFD  marine  strategies 
helps ensure coherence across policies and reduce administrative burden. 

Article  1(4)  states  ‘This  Directive  shall  contribute  to  coherence  between,  and  aim  to 
ensure the integration of environmental concerns into, the different policies, agreements 
and  legislative  measures  which  have  an  impact  on  the  marine  environment.’  The 
Directive explicitly mentions the following Union legislation: 

a.  Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC 

11 Article 15 has provisions relating to this issue. 

9 

 
                                                 
b.  Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC 

c.  Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC 

d.  Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC 

e.  Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC 

f.  INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC 

g.  Birds Directive 2009/147/EC 

The Directive refers also to the need to encompass international and regional agreements 
(e.g. regarding protected species and habitats, and marine protected areas) and, due to the 
topics  addressed  by  the  Directive,  needs  to  engage  in  further  policies,  such  as  the 
Common  Fisheries  Policy  (CFP),  the  Common  Agriculture  Policy  and  the  Maritime 
Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD, 2014/89/EU), in order to achieve its goals effectively. 

This linkage with other policies is illustrated in Figure 3. 

Figure 3: Illustration of the MSFD and WFD’s framework nature for environmental protection 
through association with various other policies and international conventions (only a selection of 
relevant  policies  are  shown:  IAS  -  Regulation  (EU)  No  1143/2014  on  invasive  alien  species; 
Habitats  -  Habitats  Directive;  Birds  -  Birds  Directive;  CFP  -  Common  Fisheries  Policy;  Food 
standards  -  Regulation  (EC)  No  1881/2006  on  contaminants  in  foodstuffs;  Nitrates  -  Nitrates 
Directive; UWWTD - Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive). The Maritime Spatial Planning 
Directive (MSPD) has a similar spatial scope to MSFD. 

10 

 
 
Integration  of  the  MSFD  with  these  other  policies  can  be  considered  in  relation  to  the 
environmental  objectives  to  be  achieved,  assessments  against  these  objectives,  spatial 
overlaps,  monitoring  requirements  and  the  measures  implemented  to  achieve  the 
objectives. This document focuses on the first three of these issues (in relation to Articles 
9 and 8). 

In  accordance  with  Article  1(4)  of  the  Directive,  the  GES  Decision  has  set  out 
specifically how the determination and  assessment  of GES is  linked with  the  standards 
and assessments under other Union policies (such as WFD, Habitats Directive and Birds 
Directive).  Legislation  adopted  after  the  MSFD,  such  as  CFP  and  MSPD,  refer  to  the 
MSFD itself, thereby indirectly adding to the list in Article 1(4). This helps achieve both 
coherence  between  policies  (through  not  having  different  assessment  outcomes  for  the 
same  topic12)  and  reduce  administrative  burden  (by  assessing  once,  using  for  several 
policy  needs).  The  differing  requirements  of  the  policies,  and  the  processes  in  place  to 
establish methods and standards to be used, can mean that harmonisation across policies 
is a complex task that may only be partially achievable. 

Further details are given in section 5.9. 

3.  DETERMINATION  OF  GOOD  ENVIRONMENTAL  STATUS  (ARTICLES  3(5)  AND  9, 

ANNEXES I AND III) 

This section focuses on the provisions of the Directive that relate to the determination of 
GES.  The  assessments  of  environmental  status  (Article 8) 
this 
determination  are  considered  in  section  5.  Section  6  addresses  the  establishment  of 
environmental  targets  (Article  10)  which  are  needed  when  GES  has  not  yet  been 
achieved. 

in  relation 

to 

3.1.  Overall objectives of the Directive 

Article 1 sets the wider context within which GES is to be determined. This includes that: 

‘1.  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 1(1)); 

‘2. […] marine strategies shall be developed and implemented in order to: 

(a) protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, 
where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been 
adversely affected; 

(b)  prevent  and  reduce  inputs  in  the  marine  environment,  with  a  view  to 
phasing out pollution […], so as to ensure there are no significant impacts on 
or  risks  to  marine  biodiversity,  marine  ecosystems,  human  health  or 
legitimate uses of the sea.’ (Article 1(2)); 

‘3. Marine strategies shall apply an ecosystem-based approach to the management of 
human activities, 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 

12 Provided that the criteria, methodological standards and assessment scales are the same for each policy. 

11 

 
                                                 
compromised,  while  enabling  the  sustainable  use  of  marine  goods  and  services  by 
present and future generations.’ (Article 1(3)). 

3.2.  The determination of GES is central to MSFD implementation 

Key message 

Good environmental status (GES) is the core concept to be achieved by Member 
States in implementing the MSFD. 

All  operational  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  in  one  way  or  another  linked  to 
GES. 

implementation  depends  on  having  sufficient  clarity 

Successful 
in  the 
determination of GES to enable adequate decision-making in implementation of 
the Directive. 

Good environmental status (GES) is the core concept that has to be achieved by Member 
States  in  implementing  the  MSFD13.  All  operational  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  in 
one  way  or  another  linked  to  GES,  which  is  the  central  objective  allowing  the 
measurement of progress and success in its implementation: 

a.  It  is  needed  as  the  benchmark14  against  which  to  assess  current  environmental 

status (Article 8, particularly Article 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b)); 

b.  The assessment under Article 8 determines whether and what environmental targets 

are needed under Article 10 in order to achieve GES; 

c.  These  targets,  in  turn,  determine  what  measures  are  needed  under  Article  13  to 

achieve and/or maintain GES; 

d.  It  guides  the  monitoring  needed  under  Article  11,  which  provides  the  data  and 
information  needed  to  assess  whether  GES  has  been  achieved  or  is  being 
maintained, and to assess progress in delivery of the environmental targets and for 
assessing the effectiveness of measures; 

e.  It provides the benchmark for assessing if an exception is warranted under Article 
14(1)  and,  read  in  conjunction  with  the  precautionary  principle,  for  assessing  if 
there  is  significant  risk  to  the  marine  environment  which  could  warrant  the 
application of Article 14(4). 

It  is  therefore  paramount  that  Member  States  determine  GES,  and  monitor  and  assess 
whether it has been achieved15. The associated implementation of related articles depends 
on having sufficient clarity in this determination (ideally in a quantitative way) to enable 

13 SWD/2014/049 
14 Cf 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, …’ (emphasis added). 
15 SWD/2014/049 

12 

 
                                                 
adequate decision-making in implementation of the Directive. Further details are given in 
section 5. 

Key message 

The determination of GES is progressively refined from its overall definition in 
MSFD  Article  3(5),  through  the  descriptors  of  MSFD  Annex  I,  elements  in 
MSFD Annex III and criteria of the GES Decision to the region- and subregion-
specific determinations of Article 9(1). 

3.3.  Provisions of the Directive in relation to GES 

GES is defined in Article 3(5) and further elaborated by the descriptors in MSFD Annex 
I. GES is further determined through the provisions of Article 9. This is based firstly on 
EU-level criteria and methodological standards which are set out in the GES Decision, 
adopted  under  Article  9(3),  and  secondly  by  Member  States  when  determining  the 
characteristics of GES in accordance with Article 9(1). The determination of GES under 
Article 9  is  additionally  guided  by  the  indicative  list  of  elements  provided  in  MSFD 
Annex III. 

Figure  4:  Relationship  of  MSFD  provisions  for  determining  GES.  The  specificity  of  what 
constitutes GES increases from Article 3(5) through to Article 9(1). The generic role outlined in 
the  central  column  is  applied  and  worked  through  with  an  example  for  Descriptor  1  and  the 
ecosystem component ‘Mammals’ in the right-hand column. Note that MSFD Annex III must also 
be taken into account. 

GES  is  thus  progressively  refined  from  its  high-level  definition  in  Article  3(5)  via  the 
Descriptors  of  MSFD  Annex I,  the  elements  of  MSFD  Annex  III  and  the  criteria  and 

13 

 
methodological standards of Article 9(3) through to the more specific determinations of 
Article 9(1). This is illustrated, with a worked example, in Figure 4. In this context, the 
term 'determination' is taken to mean a more precise definition of GES than is provided 
in the Directive or the GES Decision, that allows for an assessment of whether GES has 
been achieved or not. 

Figure 4 presents an architecture for how the GES Decision under Article 9(3) relates to 
determination  of  GES.  This  architecture  has  been  developed  to  ensure  the  role  and 
contents of each provision are fully compatible and avoid overlap. This overall structure 
has  arisen  from  the  ongoing  experiences  in  implementation  of  the  Directive  at  Union, 
regional and national levels and is aimed at promoting greater coherence and consistency 
in the determination and assessment of GES in the next implementation cycles, including 
through the common use of particular terminology. 

3.3.1. The definitions of environmental status and good environmental status (Article 3) 

The definition of  environmental  status in  Article 3(4) provides  a high-level  perspective 
on what needs to be taken into account when assessing the ‘state’ of the environment: 

‘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’. 

The definition of good environmental status (GES) in Article 3(5) further elaborates on 
this by defining the high-level goal of the Directive: 

‘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 uses and 
activities by current and future generations, i.e.: 

a.  the  structure,  functions  and  processes  of  the  constituent  marine  ecosystems, 
together  with  the  associated  physiographic,  geographic,  geological  and  climatic 
factors, allow those ecosystems to function fully and to maintain their resilience to 
human-induced environmental change. Marine species and habitats are protected, 
human-induced  decline  in  biodiversity  is  prevented  and  diverse  biological 
components function in balance; 

b.  hydro-morphological,  physical  and  chemical  properties  of  the  ecosystems, 
including  those  properties  which  result  from  human  activities  in  the  area 
concerned,  support  the  ecosystems  as  described  above.  Anthropogenic  inputs  of 
substances and energy, including noise, into the marine environment do not cause 
pollution effects.’ 

Good environmental status is further referenced in Articles 5(2), 5(3), 9(1), 9(3), 10(1), 
13(1), 14(1), 14(2), 14(4), 15(1), 17(2), 19(2), MSFD Annex I, MSFD Annex IV.2, IV.3, 
IV.10, IV.12, MSFD Annex V.1, V.4 and MSFD Annex VI.6. 

The Directive also indicates the need to prevent deterioration (Articles 1(2)(a) and 14(4)). 
Article 1(2)(a) also refers to restoration of marine ecosystems, where practicable, in areas 
where they have been adversely affected. 

14 

 
3.3.2. GES Descriptors (MSFD Annex I) 

Key message 

The qualitative Descriptors of MSFD Annex I provide the basis for determining 
GES, either in relation to particular pressures and their impacts or directly for 
particular aspects of the state of the marine environment. 

MSFD  Annex  I  provides  a  set  of  eleven  qualitative  Descriptors  for  use  in  the 
determination of GES under Article 9 (Table 1). These provide more specific objectives 
for GES than is provided in the Article 3(5) definition. 

Table 1: Qualitative descriptors for determining GES (from MSFD Annex I). 

No. 

Short name 

MSFD Annex I text 

D1 

Biodiversity 

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. 

D2 

D3 

Non-indigenous 
species (NIS) 

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

Commercial fish and 
shellfish 

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. 

D4 

Food webs 

D5 

Eutrophication 

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. 

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

D6 

Sea-floor integrity 

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. 

D7 

D8 

D9 

Hydrographical 
conditions 

Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect 
marine ecosystems. 

Contaminants 

Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects. 

Contaminants in 
seafood 

Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed 
levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards. 

D10 

Litter 

Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and 
marine environment. 

D11 

Energy, including 
underwater noise 

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

The qualitative descriptors can be broadly characterised as relating to: 

a.  Particular aspects  of marine ecosystem  state (which are potentially subject  to  any 
or  multiple  pressures):  D1  (biodiversity),  D3  (commercial  fish  and  shellfish),  D4 
(food webs) and D6 (sea-floor integrity); 

b.  Particular  anthropogenic  pressures  (which  can  potentially  affect  any  aspect  of 
marine  ecosystem  state):  D2  (non-indigenous  species),  D5  (eutrophication);  D7 
(hydrographical  conditions);  D8  (contaminants),  D9  (contaminants  in  seafood), 
D10 (litter) and D11 (energy, including underwater noise). 

15 

 
It  should  be  noted  that  this  state  and  pressure  categorisation  at  Descriptor  level  is  not 
maintained  at  the  criteria  level  in  the  GES  Decision,  where  a  more  mixed 
pressure/impact/state approach per descriptor is followed, and where impact is, in effect, 
a particular reflection of state (see section 4.3). 

3.3.3. GES elements (ecosystem elements and pressures of MSFD Annex III) 

Key message 

MSFD Annex III provides an indicative list of elements (state and pressure) to 
be  used  in  determining  GES  and  for  assessing  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been 
achieved. 

It also provides an indicative list of uses and human activities in or affecting the 
marine environment, for use in relation to Article 8(1)(b) and 8(1)(c). 

Whilst  the  descriptors  of  MSFD  Annex  I  provide  the  basis  for  determining  the 
environmental  quality  (GES)  which  is  to  be  achieved,  MSFD  Annex  III  can  be 
considered  as  providing  the  elements  to  be  used  when  determining  that  quality  (GES) 
under Article 9(1) and consequently for assessments of whether GES has been achieved 
under Article 8. These lists comprise: 

a.  Species groups (of marine birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods); broad 
habitat types of the water column (pelagic) and seabed (benthic) and other habitat 
types;  ecosystem  structure,  functions  and  processes  (physical  and  hydrological, 
chemical and biological characteristics, functions and processes) (MSFD Annex III 
Table 1), and 

b.  Anthropogenic pressures (biological, physical, substances, litter and energy) which 
can adversely affect the state of the marine ecosystems and their elements (MSFD 
Annex III Table 2a). 

The  elements  given  in  MSFD  Annex  III  are  indicative  (i.e.  should  only  be  used  where 
relevant to a particular (sub)region) and are broadly-defined. They are further specified at 
Union  level  in  the  GES  Decision  and  at  (sub)region  level  by  Member  States  under 
Article  9(1)  in  order  to  provide  clarity  and  consistency  in  how  GES  is  determined  and 
assessed (Figure 4). 

The relationship between MSFD Annex I and the original (2008) MSFD Annex III was 
not  explicit. The review  of the Decision 2010/477/EU was therefore accompanied by a 
review of the original MSFD Annex III16, leading to both being updated in 2017. These 
revisions provide clarity on the relationships between MSFD Annex I, MSFD Annex III 
and the GES Decision, following the approach outlined in Figure 4. The role of MSFD 
Annex III is as follows: 

a.  To  provide  an  indicative  list  of  elements  and  parameters  for  monitoring  and 
assessment  of  state,  pressure  and  impacts  under  Article  8(1)(a)  and  (1)(b)  and 
Article  11,  linked  explicitly  to  the  descriptors  of  MSFD  Annex  I.  Each  of  the 
eleven  descriptors  has  been  specifically  linked  to  particular  elements  in  MSFD 

16 GES_14-2015-05, GES_14-2015-06 

16 

 
                                                 
Annex III. However MSFD Annex III includes additional pressures, which are not 
explicitly referred to in a descriptor but which should be considered where relevant 
under Article 8(1) assessments; 

b.  To provide an additional indicative list of elements and parameters for monitoring 
which  may  be  needed  to  support  environmental  assessments  (e.g.  physical  and 
hydrological parameters useful for indicating wider climatic variation); 

c.  To  provide  a  new  indicative  list  of  uses  and  activities  to  be  considered  under 
MSFD  Article 8(1)(b)  and  (1)(c).  The  list  distinguishes  those  uses  and  activities 
which  are  ‘sea-based’,  and  thus  relevant  for  Article  8(1)(b)  and  (c),  from  those 
which are ‘land-based’ and thus relevant only for Article 8(1)(b) in the context of 
the pressures they may generate on the marine environment. 

In updating the lists for  the revised MSFD Annex III, a  review was made of other key 
policies and those used by the RSCs to ensure the lists were comprehensive. 

GES elements are further specified in the GES Decision (section 5.3). 

3.3.4. GES criteria and methodological standards (Article 9(3); GES Decision) 

Key message 

The criteria and methodological standards under Article 9(3) and specifications 
and  standardised  methods  under  Article  11(4)  provide  EU-wide  minimum 
requirements for the determination and assessment of GES. 

The  Commission  has  delegated  powers  under  Article  9(3),  and  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions of Article 25, to lay down criteria and methodological standards to be used by 
Member  States  ‘to  ensure  consistency  and  to  allow  for  comparison  between  marine 
regions or subregions of the extent to which GES is being achieved’. 

Article 3(6) defines ‘criteria’ as ‘distinctive technical features that are closely linked to 
qualitative descriptors’. To fulfil their role these criteria need to include quality elements 
(e.g.  species,  habitats,  pressure  types),  parameters  (e.g.  concentration  of  a  substance, 
extent  of  a  pressure  or  habitat)  and  quality  standards  (criteria  threshold  values).  The 
criteria enable assessment of the status of the elements in MSFD Annex III. Monitoring 
and  assessment  in  relation  to  these  criteria  should  follow  the  specifications  and 
standardized methods set in accordance with Article 11(4). 

The first use of Article 9(3) led to Decision 2010/477/EU which guided, in particular, the 
2012 stage of implementation and the 2014 monitoring programmes. The application of 
Decision 2010/477/EU revealed that it provided insufficient detail and clarity to support 
the determination of GES17, leading to its revision in 2017. The following specifications 
are included in the revised GES Decision: 

a.  Elements for assessment (of whether GES has been achieved) (section 5.3); 

17 Commission’s Article 12 report: Commission Report on the first phase of implementation of the MSFD 
(COM/2014/097 final) and Commission Staff Working Document on the first steps in the implementation 
of the MSFD - Assessment in accordance with Article 12 (SWD/2014/049 final). 

17 

 
                                                 
b.  Criteria  for  assessment  of  the  elements,  including  parameters  to  be  used  (section 

5.5); 

c.  Threshold values for assessing quality and trends (including distinguishing 'In GES' 

from 'Not in GES') (sections 5.6-5.7); 

d.  Assessment scales (section 5.4); 

e.  Use of the criteria (e.g. to express the extent to which GES is achieved, or for other 

descriptor assessments) (section 5.10); 

f.  Approaches  to  and  methods  for  monitoring  to  collect  the  data  needed  for 

assessment; 

g.  Aggregation methods for the data (spatial, temporal); 

h.  Units of measurement for the criteria. 

Where available, the elements, threshold values and methods for use of criteria are drawn 
from existing EU policies (section 2.4 and section 5.9) and where not the GES Decision 
makes provision for these to be set at EU, regional or subregional level. The information 
provided for points (f) and (g) is not complete. 

The  criteria  and  methodological  standards  under  Article  9(3)  and  specifications  and 
standardised  methods  under  Article  11(4)  provide  EU-wide  minimum  requirements  for 
the determination and assessment of GES. 

To avoid confusion between the use of the term ‘criteria’ in this specific context and its 
use  in  other  respects  (such  as  criteria  used  to  guide  indicator  selection  or  selection  of 
species  for  assessments),  it  is  recommended  that  the  criteria  of  the  GES  Decision  be 
referred to as ‘GES criteria’ in situations where there could be confusion18. 

3.4.  Relationship between the Directive and the GES Decision 

Key message 

The  GES  Decision  provides  a  common  EU-level  framework  for  determining 
GES. 

The  determination  of  a  set  of  characteristics  of  GES  under  Article  9(1)  by 
Member  States  provides  specificity  to  these  criteria  and  methodological 
standards for each region or subregion. 

The interrelationships between Articles 8 and 9, MSFD Annexes I and III and the GES 
Decision are illustrated in Figure 5. The integrated implementation of these provisions is 
described in section 5. 

Article 9(3) provides for criteria and methodological standards to be laid down ‘in such a 
way  as  to  ensure  consistency  and  to  allow  for  comparison  between  marine  regions  or 

18  In  this  document,  all  references  to  ‘criteria’  refer  to  the  GES  criteria  of  Commission  Decision  (EU) 

2017/848, unless specifically indicated otherwise. 

18 

 
                                                 
subregions  of  the  extent  to  which  good  environmental  status  (GES)  is  being  achieved’, 
whilst  Article  9(1)  provides  for  Member  States  to  determine  a  set  of  characteristics  of 
GES, but without specific reference to the criteria set under Article 9(3). 

Figure 5: Relationship between the GES Decision and MSFD Articles 9(1) and 8(1) and MSFD 
Annexes I and III. 

The inter-relationship between these two provisions can be considered as follows: 

a.  The  GES  Decision  provides  a  common  Union-level  framework  for  determining 
GES,  thereby  helping  to  ensure  consistency  across  the  marine  regions  in  the 
determinations  of  GES;  it  does  this  through  specifying  (in  generic  terms  or 
providing  for  these  to  be  specified  at  Union  or  (sub)regional  level)  the  elements, 
parameters  and  geographic  scales  of  assessment,  the  threshold  values  for  each 
criterion and methods for use of the criteria; 

b.  The determination of a set of characteristics of GES under Article 9(1) by Member 
States provides specificity to these criteria and methodological standards  for each 
region or subregion, thereby reflecting the particular ecological characteristics and 
differing nature of pressures in each region or subregion. Additional characteristics, 
not included in the GES Decision, can be included in this determination. 

The  GES  Decision  therefore  provides  a  basis  and  structure  for  determining  GES, 
providing a further level of detail to that of MSFD Annexes I and III. However, it does 
not in itself provide a determination of GES, as this requires the additional specificity to 
be set by Member States for each region or subregion. 

19 

 
 
The  GES  Decision  has  been  structured  to  make  explicit  its  relationship  to  MSFD 
Annexes  I  and  III,  and  to  the  assessments  required  under  Article 8(1)(a)  and  (1)(b), 
which  relate  to  the  assessment  of  current  environmental  status  and  of  predominant 
pressures  and  impacts  respectively.  It  also  supports  a  more  integrated  approach  to  the 
determination and assessment of GES (section 5.1, Figure 8),  as  does the structure and 
content of MSFD Annex III. This has been achieved by: 

a.  Structuring the GES Decision in two parts, each referring explicitly to the relevant 
Descriptors of MSFD Annex I, to the indicative elements of MSFD Annex III and 
to the relevant paragraphs of Article 8(1); 

b.  The  pressure-related  descriptors  are  presented  first  (Part  I),  as  logically  these 
should  be  considered  first  under  the  Article  8  assessments  in  order  to  provide 
information  on  the  level  of  impacts  from  each  of  the  pressures  assessed.  These 
assessments  of  impacts  should  then  inform  the  assessments  of  the  different 
ecosystem  elements  (Part  II),  whose  overall  status  effectively  reflects  the 
cumulative effects of the impacts from all the pressures to which they are subject. 

c.  Part I of the GES Decision supports the assessments required under Article 8(1)(b) 
concerning  an  analysis  of  the  predominant  pressures  on  the  marine  environment 
and  their  impacts;  it  includes  the  criteria  and  methodological  standards  for  the 
pressure-related  descriptors  which  are  directly  linked  to  the  indicative  list  of 
pressures in MSFD Annex III Table 2a; there are additional pressures in this table 
which are not linked to a pressure-based descriptor and thus have no GES criteria 
defined.  They,  nevertheless,  may  be  of  importance  in  some  areas  and  for  some 
ecosystem elements and therefore warrant assessment; 

d.  Part II of the GES Decision supports the assessments required under Article 8(1)(a) 
concerning  an  analysis  of  the  essential  features  and  characteristics  and  current 
environmental status; it includes the criteria and methodological standards for the 
state-related descriptors which are directly linked to the indicative list of ecosystem 
elements in MSFD Annex III Table 1; 

e.  To ensure the predominant pressures of MSFD Annex III Table 2a are adequately 
addressed  under  Part  I,  the  criteria  relating  to  fishing  pressure  (extraction  of 
species)  and  to  physical  loss  and  disturbance  have  been  placed  in  this  part,  even 
though  labelled  in  relation  to  the  state-based  Descriptors  D3  and  D6.  Criterion 
D3C1  addresses  the  impacts  of  fishing  on  commercial  species  (the  level  of 
mortality), whilst criteria D3C2 and D3C3 address the state of commercial fish and 
shellfish to be considered also under Part II. Criteria D6C1, D6C2 and D6C3 have 
their origins in the D6 criteria of Decision 2010/477/EU, and are focused only on 
the  assessment  of  the  pressures  ‘physical  loss’  and  ‘physical  disturbance’;  they 
provide an important contribution to the broader assessment needed for Descriptor 
6, which is  addressed fully in  Part  II (in combination with  assessments  of seabed 
habitats of Descriptor 1). 

20 

 
3.5.  Relationship between GES (Article 9) and assessments (Article 8) 

Key message 

The determination of GES forms the benchmark against which to assess current 
environmental status. 

In  subsequent  MSFD  implementation  cycles,  the  assessment  of  current 
environmental status under Article 8(1)(a) and (b) is reported against the latest 
determination of GES, including any updates for that reporting cycle. 

The  Directive  does  not  make  clear  the  relationship  between  the  determination  of  GES 
under Article 9 and the assessments (of current environmental status and of the pressures 
and their impacts) under Article 8. However, from the overall purpose of the Directive, it 
is  logical  that  the  determination  of  GES  should  form  the  benchmark  against  which  to 
assess current status and hence progress towards GES. 

In  the  2012  stage  of  the  first  MSFD  implementation  cycle,  the  determination  of  GES 
needed  to  take  account  of  the  initial  assessment,  as  well  as  the  criteria  in  Decision 
2010/477/EU. The initial assessment was particularly relevant for identifying the specific 
ecological  characteristics  and  pressures  and  impacts  for  each  region  or  subregion,  thus 
providing a basis upon which to determine GES. In this sense the determination of GES 
in 2012 could be considered as dependent upon firstly undertaking the initial assessment 
and therefore considered as a subsequent step in the implementation process. In practice, 
most Member States followed this approach and thus did not specifically use their 2012 
determination  of  GES  as  the  benchmark  against  which  current  environmental  status  in 
2012 was assessed. 

In  the  second  and  subsequent  implementation  cycles,  the  updating  of  the  GES 
determination should be done in close association with updating of the initial assessment, 
as the two elements are intricately linked, such that at each reporting cycle the updated 
assessment  of  current  environmental  status  is  based  upon  the  updated  determination  of 
GES reported at the same time. See Section 5.11 regarding the reasons for updating the 
determination of GES. 

3.6.  Relationship between GES (Article 9) and environmental targets (Article 10) 

Key message 

Articles 9 and 10 have distinct roles in the MSFD implementation process, each 
with different legal obligations which are not interchangeable. 

Articles  9  and  10  have  distinct  roles  in  the  MSFD  implementation  process,  each  with 
different legal obligations which are not interchangeable. The main purpose of Article 9 
is to determine the specific environmental objectives of the Directive (i.e. what is GES) 
in  sufficient  (and  where  possible  quantifiable)  detail  to  be  able  to  know  whether  they 
have been achieved or not for the different descriptors and in accordance with the overall 
definition  in  Article  3(5).  The  main  purpose  of  Article  10  is  to  establish  a  set  of 
environmental targets to guide progress towards achieving these objectives (GES). This 
indicates that Article 10 provides a declaration of intent to take action, compared with the 
objective-led  role  of  Article  9.  For  example,  setting  an  environmental  target  for  the 

21 

 
maximum allowable input of nutrients to the sea in order to lead to nutrient levels in the 
sea which do not give eutrophication effects (Descriptor 5). 

This 'declaration' is then delivered through the Programmes of Measures (Article 13) as 
the ‘measures shall be devised on the basis of the initial assessment … and by reference 
to  the  environmental  targets’  (Article 13(1)).  To  continue  the  example  above,  nutrient 
input  reduction  targets  could  be  achieved  through  various  possible  measures,  such  as 
controls on the use of fertilisers in agriculture or the use of phosphates in detergents, and 
by improving urban waste water treatment. 

Targets  thus  provide  an  operational  tool,  used  in  conjunction  with  the  programme  of 
measures,  for  the  management  of  human  activities  and  their  pressures  and  for  actions 
which  should  lead  to  improvements  in  the  environmental  status  of  marine  waters  and 
ultimately  to  GES.  Targets  are  not  meant  to  be  used  to  provide  a  more  refined 
determination  of  GES,  as  was  often  the  case  in  the  first  reporting  of  environmental 
targets in 2012. 

3.7.  Consistency between Member States in the determination of GES (Article 3(5) 

and 5(2)) 

Key message 

GES is determined at the level of the region or subregion (Article 3(5)). 

The  provisions  of  the  Directive  and  the  GES  Decision  provide  for  levels  of 
consistency  in  the  determination  of  GES,  partly  at  EU  level  and  partly  at 
(sub)regional level. 

This  EU  and  (sub)regional  consistency  ensures  a  ‘level  playing  field’  across 
Member States in the different stages of the MSFD implementation process. 

From  the  overview  given  in  Figure  4  it  can  be  seen  that  some  aspects  of  GES 
determinations are laid down in the Directive and in the GES Decision, whereas further 
specifications are determined, where needed, at regional and subregional level via Article 
9(1). This task under Article 9(1) is the responsibility of Member States, undertaken in 
collaboration with other Member States, as required under Article 5(2), in order to ensure 
GES  is  determined  at  the  level  of  the  marine  region  or  subregion  in  accordance  with 
Article  3(5),  using,  ‘where  practical  and  appropriate,  existing  regional  institutional 
cooperation  structures,  including  those  under  the  RSCs’  (Article  6).  The  provisions  of 
the Directive thus provide for levels of consistency in the determination of GES, partly at 
Union level and partly at (sub)regional level. This Union and (sub)regional consistency is 
important to ensure a ‘level playing field’ across Member States in the different stages of 
the MSFD implementation process. 

3.8.  Updating the determination of GES (Article 17(2)) 

The Directive provides in Article 17 for a six-year review and updating of each element 
of the marine strategies. For GES, this is a key mechanism to refine the determinations to 
take account of developments since the previous determination19. 

19  Some  Member  States  prepared  updates  of  their  GES  determinations  (and  environmental  targets) 
following the specific recommendations of the Commission’s 2014 assessment of the 2012 reporting 
(COM(2014)97). 

22 

 
                                                 
See section 5.11 for further details. 

4.  AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR MSFD IMPLEMENTATION 

4.1.  An ecosystem-based approach and use of the DPSIR framework 

The  Directive  calls  for  ‘an  ecosystem-based  approach  to  the  management  of  human 
activities,  which  should  ensure  that  the  collective  pressure  of  such  activities  is  kept 
within  levels  compatible  with  the  achievement  of  GES  and  that  the  capacity  of  marine 
ecosystems  to  respond  to  human-induced  changes  is  not  compromised,  whilst  enabling 
the  sustainable  use  of  marine  goods  and  services  by  present  and  future  generations’ 
(Article 1(3)). 

Whilst the ecosystem-based approach has a number of facets, its relevance in relation to 
the determination, assessment and achievement of GES is focused upon here. 

Figure  6:  Modified  DPSIR  framework  (DAPSES-MMM),  showing  links  to  relevant  MSFD 
articles.  MSFD  CIS=MSFD  Common 
Implementation  Strategy,  RSCs=Regional  Sea 
Conventions,  RFMOs=Regional  Fisheries Management  Organisations; MS-CAs=Member  State 
Competent Authorities (modified from MSCG_11-2013-16). 

The relationship between human activities, their pressures and the consequent state of the 
environment is encompassed within the well-established DPSIR (Drivers-Pressure-State-
Impact-Response) framework20 for environmental management. For MSFD purposes, the 
framework  has  been  modified21  to  address  ambiguities  in  use  of  the  terms  ‘driver’  and 

20 See for example http://www.integrated-assessment.eu/guidebook/dpsir_framework. 
21  Further  explanation  for  this  modified  DPSIR  framework  is  provided  in  MSCG_11-2013-16,  whilst  a 
more detailed reflection is provided in the State of Europe's seas (EEA, 2015, Figure I.1). 

23 

 
 
                                                 
‘impact’  and  to  accommodate  the  concept  of  ecosystem  services22  more  explicitly. 
Human activities are distinguished from drivers, as these are the consequence of drivers 
and  are  a  specific  focus  of  the  Directive  (e.g.  under  Article  8(1)(c));  impacts  are 
distinguished into those on the environment (resulting from pressures and affecting state) 
and  those  affecting  ecosystem  services  (e.g.  as  'costs  of  degradation'  under  Article 
8(1)(c)). This modified framework is referred to here as the DAPSES-MMM framework 
(Drivers-Activities-Pressures-State-Ecosystem  Services:  Management,  Measures  and 
Monitoring); it is illustrated in Figure 6 which shows its links to relevant MSFD articles. 

This  model  can  be  closely  associated  with  the  different  main  stages  of  MSFD 
implementation  and  thus  follow  much  of  the  established  understanding  of  how  to 
improve environmental  quality. The Directive requires an economic and social analysis 
of  uses  of  the  marine  waters  and  of  the  cost  of  degradation  (Article  8(1)(c),  ~Drivers, 
Impacts  on  ecosystem  services),  pressures  and  impacts  (Article 8(1)(b),  ~Pressures, 
Impacts  on  environmental  state),  and  current  environmental  status  (Article 8(1)(a), 
~State). In Article 10 a set of environmental targets are to be established and in Article 
13  the  Directive  calls  for  a  programme  of  measures  to  achieve  these  targets  and 
consequently achieve or maintain GES (~Response). 

4.2.  General principles - activities, pressures, impacts and state 

Key message 

The  terms  pressure,  impact  (adverse  effect)  and  state  (status)  are  used  with 
specific meanings in the MSFD context. 

Pressures can be considered ‘at source’ (close to the activity), with relevance for 
environmental  targets  and  measures,  and  ‘at  sea’  (level  in  the  marine 
environment), with relevance for GES determinations and status assessments. 

Section 4.1 introduced the DAPSES-MMM (DPSIR) framework as an underlying basis 
for  implementation  of  the  Directive.  In  section  3.5,  the  inter-relationships  between  the 
determination of GES and its assessment were outlined. In this section, these two aspects 
are further elaborated. 

The  activity-pressure-(impact)-state  part  of  the  DAPSES  framework  can  be  directly 
related  to  the  needs  of  the  Article 8  assessments,  where  an  integrated  approach  to  the 
assessments, across all GES descriptors and between pressures and state, is needed. This 
is because an assessment of current environmental status (Article 8(1)(a)) is, in effect, an 
assessment  of  the  state  of  the  environment  that  reflects  the  range  of  environmental 
impacts (adverse effects), including cumulative impacts/effects, acting upon it. As these 
impacts  are  in  turn  caused  by  the  pressures  exerted  on  the  environment  by  human 
activities (Article 8(1)(b)), these elements of the initial assessment are intricately linked. 

Pressures can be considered in two ways: 

a.  At  source  –  i.e.  close  to  the  activity  generating  the  pressure.  This  aspect  is 
particularly  relevant  for  setting  environmental  targets  and  for  measures  as  these 

22 Since the MSFD  was adopted in 2008, the ecosystem services concept has received more prominence, 
for example, through the EU Biodiversity Strategy (COM/2011/0244/final) 

24 

 
                                                 
need to focus on reducing the pressures, when needed to achieve or maintain GES. 
Some  pressures,  such  as  nutrients,  contaminants  and  litter,  originate  on  land  and 
enter the marine environment as diffuse sources (including via the atmosphere) or 
from point sources. Pressures generated by sea-based activities may remain closely 
associated  to  those  activities  (e.g.  extraction  of  species  by  fishing  and  physical 
disturbance by dredging or bottom trawling), while others may dissipate away from 
the activity (e.g. contamination from oil extraction activities, noise from shipping); 

b.  At  sea  –  i.e.  the  level  of  the  pressure  in  the  marine  environment  (to  which  the 
different  elements  of  the  ecosystem  are  subjected).  This  aspect  is  particularly 
relevant  for  determining  GES  (for  the  pressure-based  descriptors)  and  for 
assessment of environmental status in relation to GES. 

Figure 7: Conceptual relationship between human activities, the pressures they exert on the 
environment  and  the  consequent  state  of  the  environment,  taking  account  of  the  impacts 
(adverse effects) from the pressures. Each is indicated with illustrative examples of activities, 
pressures  and  state  ecosystem  components.  The  links  to  the  three  parts  of  Article  8(1) 
assessments and the associated Tables in MSFD Annex III are shown, together with the main 
scope for Article 9 (determination of GES), Article 10 (targets) and Article 13 (programme of 
measures). (Modified from European Commission, 201223). 

These relationships, for multiple activities, pressures and state elements, are illustrated in 
Figure 7, which additionally shows the main scope of Articles 9, 10 and 13 in relation to 
activities, pressures, impacts and state: 

23 European Commission. 2012. Approach to reporting for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. DG 
Environment, Brussels. pp26. MSFD Guidance Document 03a. 

25 

 
 
                                                 
 
a.  Article 9 GES should be determined by reference to both state elements covered by 
Article 8(1)(a) and pressure and impact elements covered by Article 8(1)(b), noting 
that this refers to the levels of pressure in the marine environment (at sea); 

b.  Article  10  environmental  targets  should  focus  on  addressing  the  pressures  which 
are preventing GES from being achieved, or which put at risk the maintenance of 
GES.  In  this  case,  the  targets  should  focus  on  the  pressures  at  source,  although 
pressure reduction at sea may also be desirable (e.g. for litter); 

c.  Article  13  programmes  of  measures  are  likely  to  be  most  effective  when  directly 
addressing  those  activities  contributing  to  the  generation  of  the  pressures  (which 
are preventing GES from being achieved). 

These  links  to  the  DAPSES  (DPSIR)  model  are  important  regarding  the  application  of 
the terms pressure, impact and state (status) as used in the Directive. Because the prime 
focus  of  the  Directive  is  the  achievement  of  GES,  requiring  assessments  of 
environmental status and progress towards achievement of GES, these terms need to be 
used  in  this  context24.  Table 2  provides  illustrated  examples  of  each  term  to  help 
demonstrate their application, differences and relationships. 

Table  2:  Selected  examples  of  the  terms  activity,  pressure,  impact  and  state,  as  relevant  to 
different MSFD descriptors. 

Descriptor 

Activity 

Pressure at 
source 

Pressure at 
sea 

D2 

Ship/boat 
transport 

Introductions 
of non-
indigenous 
species via ship 
hulls and 
ballast water 

Populations of 
NIS 
established in 
marine waters 

Environmental 
impact (adverse 
effect) 

Changed 
composition of 
native marine 
communities, 
displacement of 
native species 

D3 

Fishing 

Removal of commercial fish and 
other (non-commercial) species 

Mortality of fish 
and other species 

D5 

Agriculture 

Introduction of 
nutrients 
through rivers 
or directly 
from land 

Raised 
nutrient levels 
(enrichment) 
in sea 

D6 

Fishing 
(demersal/ 
benthic) 

Physical disturbance of seabed 

D6/D7 

Infrastructure 
developments 

Change in seabed substrate (e.g. 
to concrete, metal) 

Increased algal 
productivity, 
oxygen depletion, 
benthic mortality, 
fish mortality 

Changes in 
sediment structure, 
injury and mortality 
of species 

Loss of natural 
habitat, altered 
hydrological 
conditions (D7) 

D8/D9 

Industry 
(emissions) 

Contaminants 
in atmosphere 

Contaminants 
in water, 
sediment and 
biota 

Effects of 
contaminants on 
life history aspects 
of species; 

State (status) 

Altered condition of 
pelagic and benthic 
communities, and 
bird, mammal and 
fish communities. 

Reduced population 
size, altered age/size 
structure of 
population 

Altered condition of 
plankton and benthic 
communities, 
hypoxia/anoxia 

Altered benthic 
community and 
habitat condition 

Habitat loss, altered 
habitat condition 
(hydrological 
conditions and 
community) 

Altered condition of 
species (e.g. 
reproductive ability) 

24 In other situations, the terms are used in different ways, such as referring to the levels of contaminants in 
water as a 'state' measurement. 

26 

 
                                                 
Descriptor 

Activity 

Pressure at 
source 

Pressure at 
sea 

D10 

Tourism 

Input of litter – 
discarded on 
beach 

Litter on 
seabed 

Environmental 
impact (adverse 
effect) 

accumulation of 
contaminants in 
seafood and human 
health effects 

Smothering of 
benthic habitats, 
injury to marine 
animals 

State (status) 

Altered habitat 
condition, affected 
condition or 
population size of 
species 

D11 

Pier-piling 
for wind 
farms 

Noise from 
piling 

Noise level in 
sea 

Disturbs cetaceans, 
moving away from 
noise 

Altered species 
distribution 

Because the use of these terms (pressure, impact and state) across policies and countries 
is  quite  variable,  it  is  important  for  MSFD  purposes  to  apply  them  in  a  consistent 
manner. Based on the application of the term ‘pressure’ in the MSFD context and upon a 
review  of  the  types  of  pressures  in  use  under  other  Directives  and  by  the  RSCs25,  the 
term pressure in this document is as defined in Annex I to this document. 

4.3.  The nature of a GES determination – state, impact and pressure 

Key message 

The  determination  of  GES  addresses,  through  the  eleven  descriptors,  aspects 
relating to the state of the marine environment, and to the levels of pressures in 
the marine environment and their associated impacts. 

Assessments  of  progress  towards  achieving  GES  are  therefore  encompassed 
within both Article 8(1)(a) and (1)(b). 

The  determination  of  GES  concerns  the  desired  state  of  the  marine  environment, 
including  the  structure,  functions  and  processes  of  its  constituent  marine  ecosystems. 
This  is  reflected in  the state-based definition of  GES  in  Article 3(5)  and in  the  general 
theme of the descriptors in MSFD Annex I, which either express a particular state which 
is to be achieved or a particular state to be achieved in relation to a specific pressure. 

Because the environment can be adversely affected (impacted) by pressures from human 
activities, GES can also be expressed in relation to specific environmental impacts (i.e. a 
more  specific  way  to  express  the  desired  state  which  relates  directly  to  the  particular 
anthropogenic  pressures).  For  example,  nutrient  enrichment  can  lead  to  changes  in 
plankton  biomass  (chlorophyll-a  concentrations)  and  to  oxygen  depletion,  and  thus 
provide a focus for how to determine GES for Descriptor 5 on eutrophication. 

Determining GES also includes defining the acceptable levels of pressures in the marine 
environment (at sea). This is because: 

25 GES_13-2015-02 

27 

 
                                                 
a.  the  ‘pressures’  may  be  deviations  from  natural  conditions  (e.g.  nutrients,  certain 
contaminants, underwater noise) and thus can also be considered state elements26; 

b.  there can be a known causal relationship between the level of the pressure and its 
adverse  effects  (impacts)  on  marine  ecosystem  elements,  enabling  a  level  of 
pressure to be determined, when there is sufficient evidence, which should ensure 
acceptable  levels  of  impact  on  ecosystem  elements.  For  example,  the  levels  of 
nutrient enrichment and hazardous substances in the sea (for Descriptors 5 and 8) 
which are considered to ‘equate’ to GES, can be determined based on established 
effects (impacts) on particular ecosystem elements27; 

c.  an  ‘acceptable  pressure  level’  in  the  marine  environment  is  needed  for  situations 
where  the  pressure-impact  relationship  is  not  yet  fully  understood.  This  should 
follow  the  precautionary  principle,  by  using  precautionary  levels  of  the  pressure 
until  the  knowledge  gaps  for  determining  the  pressure-impact  relationship  are 
closed. There can be refinement over time of this ‘acceptable pressure level’, based 
on  improved  understanding  of  this  pressure-impact  relationship.  For  litter  (D10) 
and  underwater  noise  (D11),  scientific  understanding  of 
the 
environment is currently more limited and so setting precautionary pressure levels 
may be the only feasible option at present. 

impacts  on 

This approach is relevant for each of the pressure-based descriptors: the desired levels in 
the marine environment of non-indigenous species (D2), fishing mortality (D3), enriched 
nutrients  and  organic  matter  (D5),  physical  disturbance  (D6),  physical  loss  and 
associated alteration of hydrographical conditions (D6, D7), contaminants (D8, D9), litter 
(D10)  and  inputs  of  energy,  including  underwater  noise  (D11)  are  determined  under 
Article 9. Further pressures, such as those listed in MSFD Annex III Table 2a but which 
are  not  specified  in  one  of  the  descriptors,  could  also  be  included  in  a  GES 
determination. 

This consequently means that levels of non-indigenous species, nutrients, contaminants, 
litter  and  noise  in  the  sea  are  referred  to  as  the  level  of  the  pressure  in  the  marine 
environment and are needed to assess their impacts28 on state elements (species, habitats, 
food webs or wider ecosystem) of the marine environment29. 

It is common practice to determine both the acceptable pressure level and the associated 
state characteristics which are considered to  be good status  (e.g. for D5 eutrophication, 
for  D3  commercial  fish  and  shellfish).  Both  aspects  are  needed  in  the  MSFD 
implementation process,  to enable responses to measures to be assessed (via reductions 
in the level of pressure at sea) and consequent improvements in environmental status to 
be seen (via reductions in impacts and recovery of the ecosystem). 

From  the  above,  and  due  to  the  nature  of  those  Annex  I  Descriptors  which  focus  on 
pressures  and  their  impacts,  assessments  of  environmental  status  (in  relation  to  the 

26 This is in line  with  SWD(2014) 49 Annex IV, as determining and assessing levels of  pressures in the 
marine environment can also be expressed as 'state' measurements. 
27  For  contaminants,  the  levels  set  for  application  under  WFD  (Environmental  Quality  Standard  values) 
relate to an effect level shown in laboratory testing of certain animal species rather than effects detected in 
the marine environment itself. 
28 For 'analysis of predominant pressures and impacts' for Article 8(1)(b) assessments. 

29 The rationale behind this pressure/impact/state terminology is further explored in GES_13-2015-02 Annex 2. 

28 

 
                                                 
determination of GES) are not confined to Article 8(1)(a), but should also include those 
under Article 8(1)(b)30. 

4.4.  Priorities for MSFD implementation and use of risk-based approaches 

Key message 

Implementation of the Directive, including use of risk-based approaches, is most 
effective  when  focused  on  the  anthropogenic  pressures  that  are  preventing,  or 
likely to prevent, the achievement or maintenance of GES. 

The determination of GES provides the benchmark against which to assess the 
degree of risk. 

Management  actions  which  help  reduce  these  pressures  allow  the  marine 
environment to recover towards GES. 

The broad subject matter and wide geographic scope of the Directive present significant 
challenges  to  its  implementation,  to  ensure  it  can  deliver  satisfactorily  according  to  its 
objectives in an effective and efficient manner. The complex and very broad scope of its 
biodiversity  objectives  and  the  offshore  areas  of  the  Union's  marine  waters,  sometimes 
extending  up  to  350  nautical  miles  out  from  the  coast  and  to  depths  of  over  5000m, 
present  particularly  challenging  aspects.  There  remain  many  scientific  uncertainties, 
especially  to  fully  understand  the  relationships  between  anthropogenic  pressures  and 
their  impacts  on  the  marine  environment,  and  on  how  the  ecosystems  will  respond  to 
particular  management  actions.  In  addition,  there  are  many  aspects  where  data  and 
monitoring  systems  are  not  sufficiently  developed  or  lack  sufficient  time  series,  giving 
uncertainties in how best to implement the Directive. 

The overall goal of the Directive, good environmental status, is expressed in high-level 
terms in the Article 3(5) definition and through the eleven descriptors of MSFD Annex I. 
These  provide  for  a  potentially  very  wide  need  for  monitoring  and  assessment, 
particularly concerning biodiversity, food webs and sea-floor integrity (Descriptors 1, 4 
and  6)  and  especially  for  those  Member  States  where  the  marine  waters  are  very 
extensive. 

The assessment of the current state of marine waters is important for assessing the degree 
of risk to achieving GES (how far the marine waters are from GES) and the risk of status 
deteriorating from GES to a sub GES level; the determination of GES thus provides the 
benchmark against which to assess the degree of risk. 

With this reasoning, the implementation of the Directive can be most effective when it is 
clearly focused on reducing the anthropogenic pressures which are considered to be, or 
likely to be, adversely affecting environmental status in each region or subregion, and on 
assessing the nature and scale of associated environmental impacts. With this approach, 
attention  is  drawn  towards  assessing  the  scale  of  the  pressures  and  their  impacts  on 
particular  aspects  of  the  marine  environment,  rather  than  attempting  to  monitor  and 
assess  every  possible  aspect  of  the  environment  in  all  areas  of  marine  waters.  Such  an 
approach can  allow the  majority of  resources in  Member States to  be  focused on those 

30  Note,  Article  8(1)(b)  may  also  include  assessments  in  relation  to  environmental  targets,  e.g.  targets  to 

reduce the input of pressures to the marine environment. 

29 

 
                                                 
issues  which  can  make  the  biggest  contribution  towards  achieving  GES,  with  fewer 
resources  focused  on  lesser  issues  (pressures)  and  wider  surveillance  of  the  marine 
environment.  The  latter  is  however  important  in  the  role  of  monitoring  ‘unimpacted’ 
areas and wider ecosystem changes, which help in understanding monitoring results that 
are focused on specific pressures and impacted ecosystem elements and areas. 

At the same time, the mechanisms for Member States to achieve GES lie primarily in the 
control of the anthropogenic pressures which are causing  adverse effects on the marine 
environment  and  hence  preventing  the  achievement  of  GES.  Most  management 
approaches (measures) anticipate passive recovery of the marine ecosystem following a 
reduction  in  pressure  levels.  Measures  tend  to  mostly  focus  on  reducing  or  eliminating 
the  new  input  of  the  pressure  to  the  marine  environment,  whilst  some  actively  aim  to 
reduce/remove  the  existing  pressure  once  in  the  marine  environment  (e.g.  removal  of 
litter). The alternative management mechanism, that of direct intervention to improve the 
status  of  the  marine  environment  (such  as  active  restoration  of  species,  habitats  and 
areas), is  unlikely to  be  possible or cost-efficient in  other than a minority of situations. 
Both of these approaches are delivered via the programmes of measures. 

The use of risk-based approaches  can thus play an important part in the delivery of the 
Directive,  allowing  a  focus  on  those  aspects  (pressures,  impacts,  areas  and  activities) 
which provide most risk to Member State’s achievement or maintenance of GES. 

Refer to section 7 for more specific information on application of risk-based approaches. 

4.5.  Steps in a prioritised implementation process 

Key message 

The following steps support a prioritised implementation process: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

Map the distribution and intensity of human uses and activities; 

Assess the spatial distribution and intensity (and temporal aspects, where 
necessary) of each (predominant) pressure; 

Assess  the  extent  of  environmental  impacts  from  these  pressures  in 
relation to the elements to be used for the state-based assessments; 

Assess  the  state,  bringing  together  the  relevant  assessments  of  impacts 
from (c) to lead to an overall assessment of status per ecosystem element. 

The following provides a generalised step-wise approach to a prioritised implementation 
of the Directive: 

a.  Map  the  distribution  and  intensity  of  uses  and  human  activities  (identifies  main 
areas  of  activity,  potential  for  use  as  proxy  pressure  assessment,  supports  later 
identification  of  measures31).  This  approach  is  most  relevant  for  sea-based 

31 The mapping of activities can also be a contribution to the assessments under Article 8(1)(c) and support 
the ecosystem-based approach to management of activities in order to achieve GES. This should, wherever 
possible, be linked to work in support of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (2014/89/EU). 

30 

 
                                                 
activities, especially those on or affecting the seabed, but is also relevant for fishing 
and shipping activities (with regard to fishing and underwater noise pressures); 

b.  Assess  the  pressures  –  spatial  distribution  and  intensity  (and  temporal  aspects, 
where necessary) of each pressure, identifying those which are of greatest concern; 
this  may  be  somewhat  less  relevant  for  assessments  of  mobile  species  such  as 
birds, seals and cetaceans, as these can be wide-ranging and thus more difficult to 
know where and when they are exposed to particular pressures; 

c.  Identify  those  aspects  of  the  marine  environment  (species,  habitats,  ecosystem 
functions and processes) and areas most (likely to be) affected by these pressures; 

d.  Assess the environmental impacts – extent of impacts in relation to the elements to 
be  used  for  the  state-based  and  the  pressure  assessments;  focus  monitoring  and 
assessment  on  these  aspects  (e.g.  species,  habitats,  ecosystem  functions  and 
processes)  and  areas  which  are  considered  to  be  most  at  risk  of  adverse  effects 
(environmental impact). Monitoring focused on the boundary zone between ‘good 
status’  and  ‘not  good  status’,  may  help  reduced  efforts  in  areas  where  status  is 
known to be good or known to be poor. This more limited monitoring in areas of 
good status however provides important reference data with which to compare the 
impacted  areas  and  any  change  in  status  over  time  (including  both  continued 
improvements in status or signs of deterioration in status which could risk leading 
to a sub GES status); 

e.  Assess the state – bringing together the relevant assessments of impacts from point 

(d) to lead to an overall assessment of current status; 

f.  Direct management responses (measures) towards those pressures and areas which 
are  considered  to  be  causing  the  greatest  adverse  effects  (in  terms  of  intensity 
and/or extent) and contributing most to any failure to achieve GES. 

5.  AN INTEGRATED PROCESS TO DETERMINATION OF GES AND ITS ASSESSMENT 

Key message 

The determination of GES (Article 9) and assessments (Article 8) are intricately 
linked, indicating a need to structure both assessments and determination in a 
mutually compatible way. 

Assessments  are  on  specified  topics  (features,  elements)  in  defined  parts  of 
marine  (sub)regions/marine  waters  (Marine  Reporting  Units,  MRU).  Each 
assessment  expresses  the  extent  to  which  GES  has  been  achieved  in  each 
assessment area (MRU). 

The intricate link between Articles 8 and 9 and with the GES Decision (section 3.4 and 
3.5,  Figure  5)  indicates  a  need  to  structure  both  assessment  and  determination  in  a 
mutually  compatible  way.  Assessments  are  on  specified  topics  (elements)  in  defined 
parts of marine (sub)regions/marine waters (Marine Reporting Units – see section 5.4) 
and should give a clear expression of the extent to which GES has been achieved in each 
area.  This  structuring  is  shaped  by  MSFD  Annex  I  (i.e.  the  descriptors)  and  the 
requirements  of  Article 8(1)  (particularly  Article  8(1)(a)  and  (1)(b)),  and  supported  by 

31 

 
MSFD Annex III and the GES Decision, the latter indicating how to express the extent to 
which GES has been achieved. 

5.1.  GES Decision supports an integrated process 

Key message 

The pressure-based descriptors can be assessed as predominant pressures and their 
impacts  to  contribute  to  the  needs  of  Article  8(1)(b)  and  should,  where  possible, 
provide  an  assessment  of  impacts  which  is  directly  relevant  to  assessments  of 
ecosystem elements under Article 8(1)(a). 

The  state-based  descriptors  can  be  assessed  as  specified  elements  of  marine 
ecosystems  (e.g.  birds,  mammals,  seabed  habitats)  to  fulfil  the  needs  of  Article 
8(1)(a),  reflecting  the  impacts  upon  each  state  element  from  all  the  (predominant) 
pressures  to  which  each  is  subject  (from  the  pressures  assessed  under  Article 
8(1)(b)). 

This structured approach provides clarity on how to assess the extent to which GES 
is achieved, and is supported by the structure of the GES Decision. 

To  support  this  connection,  the  scales  of  assessment  and  the  ecosystem  elements 
used under Article 8(1)(a) and (1)(b) should be compatible. 

The eleven GES descriptors and their separate treatment in Decision 2010/477/EU (now 
repealed) fostered processes for MSFD implementation in the first cycle which typically 
maintained the descriptors in ‘silos’ without a strong integration that reflects their inter-
connectedness and the ecosystem-based approach which is sought in Article 1(3). 

The  revised  GES  Decision  has  been  structured  and  specified  to  facilitate  a  more 
integrated approach to the determination and assessment of GES, as described in section 
3.3.4.  The  assessment  (Article 8(1))32  and  the  descriptors  (section  3.3.2)  fall  into  two 
broad themes: 

‘extraction  of  wild  species’ 

a.  Assessments of pressures and their impacts - Article 8(1)(b), Descriptors 2, 5, 8, 9, 
10 and 11, together with the additional main pressures of MSFD Annex III Table 
2a: 
‘physical  disturbance’ 
(Descriptor 6), ‘physical loss’ and associated ‘hydrological changes’ (Descriptors 6 
and  7)33.  The  other  pressures  listed  in  MSFD  Annex  III  Table  2a  should  be 
assessed where relevant; 

(Descriptor  3), 

b.  Assessments  of  ecosystem  state  –  Article  8(1)(a);  the  main  elements  of  marine 
ecosystems  from  MSFD  Annex  III  Table  1  (birds,  mammals,  reptiles,  fish  and 
cephalopods,  and  pelagic  and  benthic  habitats 
their  biological 
communities)  structure  the  state-based  assessments,  integrating  the  state-based 

including 

32  There  is  additionally  an  economic  and  social  analysis  of  the  use  of  marine  waters  and  of  the  cost  of 
degradation  of  the  marine  environment  (Article  8(1)(c)).  These  uses  are  relevant  as  they  can  generate 
pressures,  whilst  the  costs  of  degradation  can  relate  to  costs  for  recovery  from  impacts  and  of  reducing 
pressures, where needed, or for loss or changes in ecosystem services. 
33  In  the  GES  Decision,  Descriptors  3  and  6  include  pressure  and  impact  criteria  and  are  therefore 
addressed  firstly  under  Article  8(1)(b),  due  to  the  significance  of  these  pressures/impacts,  before 
considering them under Article 8(1)(a) as state-based descriptors. 

32 

 
                                                 
Descriptors 1, 3, 4 and 6. These elements are complemented by a whole ecosystem 
perspective, reflected by structure and functional aspects of Descriptors 1 and 4. 

Figure  8  illustrates  how  these  two  broad  themes  can  be  organised.  Article  8(1)(b)  is 
undertaken  as  a  set  of  pressure-impact  assessments  ('satellites'),  with  the  outcomes 
concerning impacts being used to feed into assessments of a specified set of ecosystem 
elements for Article 8(1)(a) (‘pizza slices’). 

Figure  8:  An  ecosystem-based  approach  to  determination  and  assessment  of  GES  follows  the 
main  elements  of  the  ecosystem  (state-based  descriptors,  centre)  and  is  closely  linked  to  the 
adverse  effects  of  pressures  from  human  activities  via  their  environmental  impacts  (pressure-
based descriptors, satellite circles, in which pink depicts pressure and orange the impact). Note 
that Descriptors D2, D3, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D10 include both pressure and impact criteria in 
the  GES  Decision.  For  D11,  impact  criteria  are  not yet  available.  For  D9 the 'impact'  is  built 
into  the  'pressure'  via  the  setting  of  the  environmental  quality  standard  (EQS)  levels  for  the 
contaminants34 and is not assessed separately. 

This approach has the following benefits: 

a.  Achievement  of  the  goals  of  the  Directive  is  not  encompassed  within  a  single 
overall assessment, but spread over a number of defined components, allowing the 
achievement  of  GES  to  be  measured  as  a  set  of  smaller  goals,  which  together 
contribute to the overall goal laid down in Article 1(1), thereby allowing progress 
towards GES to be expressed in a more tangible manner; 

b.  Focusing  on  a  specific  set  of  assessments  provides  a  way  of  dividing  the 
complexity  of  marine  ecosystems  in  each  (sub)region  into  a  set  of  more 
manageable units for monitoring, assessment, target setting and measures; 

34  This  is  also  the  case  for  D8  contaminants;  however  the  GES  Decision  includes  an  impact  criterion 

(effects on biota) for D8 but not for D9. 

33 

 
 
                                                 
c.  It brings structure and functional aspects of ecosystems together at an appropriate 
resolution (i.e. within each main ecosystem element rather than only at the whole 
ecosystem  level);  this  overcomes  some  of  the  inherent  overlaps  between  the 
descriptors  (e.g.  benthic  habitats  under  D1  and  sea-floor  integrity  under  D6; 
ecosystems under D1 and food-webs under D4); 

d.  It  relates  more  readily  to  practical  monitoring  and  assessment  processes  (e.g. 
monitoring  of  birds,  mammals  and  fish  is  typically  undertaken  separately  using 
different techniques); 

e.  It  links  more  effectively  to  management  needs,  relating  more  specifically  to 
pressures and human activities which can be managed in specified areas in order to 
achieve GES; 

f.  It  provides  an  indication  of  whether  there  is  need  for  particular  (additional) 
environmental targets under Article 10 and (additional) measures under Article 13 
in order to reach GES (bearing in mind that in some cases all necessary targets and 
measures may have been put in place but the ecosystem may not yet have reached 
GES due to slow response times); 

g.  It  provides  an  important  means  to  express  to  stakeholders  and  the  public  the 
progress  being  made  in  implementation  of  the  Directive  and  achievement  of  its 
overall goals. 

Whilst this structure (Figure 8) has these practical advantages, this compartmentalisation 
may mask some elements of an ecosystem-based approach; these could be addressed by 
more holistic assessments of ecosystem structure and functions (including food webs). 

Based  on  the  structure  of  the  GES  Decision  and  the  criteria,  the  interrelationships 
between  the  relevant  parts  of  Article  8,  the  MSFD  Annex  I  Descriptors,  the  ecosystem 
elements  and  pressures  of  MSFD  Annex  III,  and  the  criteria  in  the  GES  Decision  are 
illustrated in the framework for assessment shown in Figure 9. 

This framework leads to two sets of assessments, as shown in Figure 8: 

a.  A set of pressure-impact assessments under Article 8(1)(b) and the pressure-based 
descriptors  (columns  in  Figure  9).  These  assess  impacts  in  a  way  which  relates 
directly to the ecosystem state elements being assessed under Article 8(1)(a), and to 
provide  outcomes  which  are  directly  useful  for  the  state-based  assessments.  For 
example, for the assessment  of impact  on non-commercial species, incidental by-
catch  needs  to  be  separated  into  at  least  the  specified  species  groups  of  birds, 
mammals,  reptiles  and  fish  and  preferably  at  species  level,  in  order  to  feed  into 
species-level assessments under D1. 

b.  A set of ecosystem element assessments under Article 8(1)(a) and the state-based 
descriptors  (rows  in  Figure  9).  These  state-based  assessments  reflect  the  impacts 
upon  each  state  element  from  all  the  (predominant)  pressures  to  which  each  is 
subject.  For  example,  assessment  of  a  benthic  habitat  should  encompass,  where 
appropriate,  the  impact  assessments  from  the  pressures:  physical  loss,  physical 
disturbance, non-indigenous  species, nutrient  enrichment,  removal of species and, 
if appropriate, other pressures. This framework facilitates assessment of cumulative 
effects  of  multiple  pressures  on  the  ecosystem  elements,  whereby  the  impacts 

34 

 
assessed under individual pressures (Article 8(1)(b)) can be considered collectively 
for the assessments of each element under Article 8(1)(a). 

Figure 9: Outline framework for the GES Decision, showing the primary (in bold) and secondary 
criteria  (D*C*  codes35)  in  relation  to  the  predominant  pressures  for  use  under  Article  8(1)(b) 
and  the  ecosystem  elements  for  use  under  Article  8(1)(a),  each  associated  to  particular 
Descriptors (D* codes). Criteria in the pink cells concern pressures (P), criteria in orange cells 
concern impacts (I) and criteria in green cells concern state (S) assessments. In several cases, 
the impact criteria are repeated (e.g. D2 and D8 criteria) because they are applicable to several 
ecosystem elements (species groups, pelagic and benthic habitats). Cells marked ‘?’ indicate an 
impact from the pressure is possible in some situations but the GES Decision does not provide a 
criterion. 

5.2.  Main steps in the assessment and determination process 

Within the overall approach for implementation  outlined in  section 4, it is necessary to 
define  the  particular  ways  in  which  the  pressures,  impacts  and  state  elements  are  to  be 
assessed  in  each  (sub)region  under  Article  8(1)(a)  and  8(1)(b),  and  to  determine  the 
extent to which these assessments indicate whether GES as determined under Article 9(1) 
has been achieved. This requires an iterative process, as illustrated in Figure 5, between 
the  assessments  and  the  determination  of  GES.  This  can  be  considered  in  a  number  of 
stages  which  should  lead  to  an  operational  framework  to  meet  the  requirements  of 
Articles 8 and 9 at the level required for reporting, as specified in the GES Decision and 
associated CIS reporting guidance36: 

35 See GES Decision for further details on each criterion. 
36 For 2018 Article 17 updates of Articles 8, 9 and 10: MSFD 2018 Reporting Guidance for Article 8-9-10 

(MSFD Guidance Document 14) 

35 

 
 
                                                 
a.  Define  the  elements  for  assessment,  based  on  the  requirements  of  the  GES 
Decision and MSFD Annex III and adjusted to the main pressures and ecosystem 
elements  present  in  the  (sub)region.  This  should  consider  the  need  to  use  the 
outcomes of the pressure-impact assessments to contribute to the state assessments. 
The  elements  should  reflect  both  the  range  of  ecosystem  characteristics  in  each 
(sub)region  and  the  main  pressures  affecting  or  potentially  affecting  their 
environmental status, and can be selected on a risk-based approach (section 5.3); 

b.  Define the scales for each assessment, as the reporting areas (MRUs), as these can 

strongly influence the outcomes of the assessments (section 5.4); 

c.  Identify  the  GES  criteria  to  be  used  for  each  of  the  elements,  including  possible 
deselection  of  primary  criteria  and  selection  of  secondary  criteria;  in  some  cases, 
this step is undertaken prior to step (a), e.g. for D2, D5, D10 (section 5.5); 

d.  Define  how  each  criterion  will  be  assessed,  based  on  the  data  to  be  used  (from 
Article 11 monitoring programmes or other sources) and how it will be processed, 
including  its  spatial  and  temporal  aggregation  within  the  MRU.  This  process  is 
often described as a scientific indicator which provides a suitable dataset (often as a 
time-series or as a spatial distribution map) for the criterion (section 5.5); 

e.  Where  required  by  the  GES  Decision,  determine  a  threshold  value  for  the 
criterion/element,  based  on  an  associated  reference  condition;  if  such  values  are 
not  yet  available,  it  may  be  possible  to  indicate  any  change  in  status  (trend) 
compared with previous reporting (section 5.7); 

f.  Use the outcomes of the criterion assessment as specified by the GES Decision: to 
either  express  the  extent  to  which  GES  has  been  achieved  or  to  contribute  the 
outcome to a state-based assessment. In some cases, this requires an integration of 
the  criteria  per  element  (species  D1,  D3,  habitats  D6),  species  group  (D1)  or 
descriptor (e.g. D5, D10, D11) (section 5.10); 

g.  Report on the assessment outcomes (extent to which GES has been achieved) and 
associated  specific  characteristics  of  GES  (elements,  threshold  values,  proportion 
values) using the Article 8 reporting schema (section 5.11); 

h.  Update,  if  necessary,  the  more  general  (descriptive)  determination  of  GES,  at 
descriptor  and/or  criterion  level,  to  reflect  the  specific  determination  of  GES 
resulting from steps a-g, using the Article 9 reporting schema (section 5.11). 

Within this overall framework (Figures 8 and 9), the GES Decision sets out more specific 
requirements  for expressing the extent to  which GES has been achieved  (section 5.10), 
for  example  as  a  set  of  species  group  and  broad  habitat  type  assessments  (section  5.3) 
and  where  criteria  for  particular  descriptors  should  be  integrated  at  descriptor  level  or 
used to contribute to the assessment of another descriptor. 

5.3.  Elements for assessment of progress towards GES 

Section 3.3 and Figure 4 outline that elements for assessment of progress towards GES 
are  progressively  defined  from  the  broad  topics  provided  in  MSFD  Annex  III  to  finer 
topics  in  Article  9(1),  via  the  elements  which  are  specified  in  the  GES  Decision.  This 
hierarchical approach provides both consistency and flexibility, accommodating the need 

36 

 
for  coherent  approaches  at  Union  and  regional  levels  whilst  also  reflecting  the 
differences in characteristics at (sub)regional and national levels. 

For each Descriptor, the GES Decision makes clear the elements to be assessed and the 
scale of assessment, such that use of the criteria should lead to assessments per element 
per  assessment  area  (MRU);  in  a  number  of  cases  these  elements  need  to  be  further 
specified at (sub)regional level. 

5.3.1. Elements for Article 8(1)(b) assessments: pressures and impacts 

A set of pressures on the marine environment is provided in MSFD Annex III Table 2a. 
Criteria in the GES Decision address a number of these for the pressure-based descriptors 
and  other  key  pressures  (extraction  of  species,  physical  disturbance,  physical  loss), 
together  with  associated  impact  criteria  (Table  3).  Other  pressures  (listed  in  MSFD 
Annex III Table 2a) should also be assessed where they cause risk to the species, habitats 
and ecosystems of a (sub)region. The selection of pressure elements (and criteria) to be 
assessed in each (sub)region may follow a risk-based approach (section 7). 

Table  3:  Indicative  list  of  pressures  to  be  considered  for  Article  8(1)(b)  assessments.  Certain 
pressures are directly relevant for particular descriptors and have associated criteria in the GES 
Decision  (primary  criteria  are  in  bold),  whilst  other  pressures  may  need  to  be  considered  in 
relation to Article 8(1)(a) assessments. 

MSFD Annex III Table 2a 

GES Decision 

Theme 

Pressure 

Input or spread of non-
indigenous species 

Input of microbial 
pathogens 
Input of genetically 
modified species and 
translocation of native 
species 
Loss of, or change to, 
natural biological 
communities due to 
cultivation of animal or 
plant species 
Disturbance of species 
(e.g. where they breed, 
rest and feed) due to 
human presence 

Extraction of, or 
mortality/injury to, wild 
species (by commercial 
and recreational fishing 
and other activities) 

Physical disturbance to 
seabed (temporary or 
reversible) 
Physical loss (due to 
permanent change of 

Biological 

Physical 

Criteria elements 
(pressures) 
D2C1 - Newly-
introduced NIS 
D2C2 - Established 
NIS 

Criteria elements 
(impacts) 

D2C3 - Species 
groups and broad 
habitat types at risk 

D3C1 - 
commercially-
exploited fish and 
shellfish 
D1C1 – incidentally 
by-caught species at 
risk 
D6C3 – Benthic 
broad habitat types 
used for D1/D6 

D3 – commercially-
exploited fish and 
shellfish 

D6C2 – Physical 
disturbance to seabed 

D6C1 – Physical loss 
of seabed 

37 

Article 9(1) 
Determination 
of GES 

Elements 

Primary 
criteria: 
criteria 
elements 
relevant to 
(sub)region 

Secondary 
criteria: 
criteria 
elements at 
risk in 
(sub)region 

Pressures 
without GES 
Decision 
criteria: where 
relevant 
(causing risk) 
for 
(sub)regional 
species, 
habitats and 
ecosystems 

Criteria 
elements for 
impact 
assessments 
should, where 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 9(1) 
Determination 
of GES 

Elements 

possible, be 
relevant to the 
elements used 
for D1, D3, 
D4 and D6. 

MSFD Annex III Table 2a 

GES Decision 

Theme 

Pressure 

Criteria elements 
(pressures) 

Criteria elements 
(impacts) 

D7C2 – Benthic 
broad habitat types 
used for D1/D6 

D5C2-D5C3-D5C4-
D5C5-D5C6-D5C7-
D5C8 – Chlorophyll-
a, harmful algal 
blooms, photic limit, 
dissolved oxygen, 
opportunistic 
macroalgae, 
macrophyte and 
macrofaunal 
communities 

D5C8 - macrofaunal 
communities 

D8C2 – species and 
habitats at risk 
D8C4 – species of 
species groups and 
benthic broad habitats 

D10C4 - species at 
risk 

seabed substrate or 
morphology and to 
extraction of seabed 
substrate) 

Changes to hydrological 
conditions 

D7C1 – Alteration of 
hydrographical 
conditions of the 
seabed and water 
column 

Input of nutrients – 
diffuse sources, point 
sources, atmospheric 
deposition 

D5C1 – Nutrients 
(DIN, TN, DIP, TP) 

Input of organic matter – 
diffuse sources and point 
sources 

Input of other substances 
(e.g. synthetic 
substances, non-synthetic 
substances, 
radionuclides) – diffuse 
sources, point sources, 
atmospheric deposition, 
acute events 

Input of litter (solid 
waste matter, including 
micro-sized litter) 

Input of anthropogenic 
sound (impulsive, 
continuous) 

Input of other forms of 
energy (including 
electromagnetic fields, 
light and heat) 
Input of water – point 
sources (e.g. brine) 

D8C1 – contaminants 
from WFD and other 
contaminants which 
may give rise to 
pollution effects 
D8C3 – acute 
pollution events 
D9C1 – contaminants 
in food regulation; 
additional 
contaminants 
D10C1 - litter (10 
categories) 
D10C2-D10C3 – 
micro-litter (2 
categories) 
D11C1 – 
anthropogenic 
impulsive sound 
D11C2 – 
anthropogenic 
continuous low-
frequency sound 

38 

Substances
, litter and 
energy 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.2. Elements  for  Article  8(1)(a)  assessments:  ecosystem  structure,  functions  and 

processes 

The set of ecosystem elements shown in Figure 8 is based on the structural elements of 
marine ecosystems  provided in  MSFD Annex III Table 1 and the set  of species  groups 
and  pelagic  and  benthic  broad  habitat  types,  including  their  biological  communities, 
provided in the GES Decision (Tables 4 and 5). 

Table  4:  Species  groups  (for  species  which  are  not  associated  to  specific  habitat  types,  which 
should be encompassed with the broad habitat types of Table 5) to be used for determination and 
assessment of GES. 

MSFD Annex III Table 1 

GES Decision Table 1 

Article 9(1) Determination of 
GES 

Theme 

Ecosystem elements 

Species groups 

Elements 

Birds 

Mammals 

Reptiles 

Fish 

Species 

Grazing birds 

Wading birds 

Surface-feeding birds 

Pelagic-feeding birds 

Benthic-feeding birds 

Small toothed cetaceans 

Deep-diving toothed cetaceans 

Baleen whales 

Seals 

Turtles 

Coastal fish 

Pelagic shelf fish 

Demersal shelf fish 

Deep-sea fish 

Cephalopods 

Coastal/shelf cephalopods 

Deep-sea cephalopods 

Species groups relevant for the 
(sub)region 

Specific  species  per  species 
group  (selected  according  to 
the  scientific  and  practical 
criteria in the GES Decision) 

Table 5: Broad habitat types to be used for determination and assessment of GES. 

MSFD Annex III Table 1 

GES Decision Table 2 

Article 9(1) Determination of 
GES 

Theme 

Ecosystem 
elements 

Broad habitat types 

Elements 

Variable salinity37 

Habitats 

Pelagic broad 
habitats 

Coastal 

Shelf 

Oceanic/beyond shelf 

Broad habitat types relevant for 
the (sub)region 

Benthic broad 

Littoral rock and biogenic reef 

Other  habitat  types  (e.g.  from 

37 Retained for situations  where estuarine plumes extend beyond  waters designated as WFD Transitional 
Waters 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
MSFD Annex III Table 1 

GES Decision Table 2 

Article 9(1) Determination of 
GES 

Theme 

Ecosystem 
elements 

habitats38 

Broad habitat types 

Elements 

Habitats  Directive,  RSCs, 
EUNIS  levels  4-6),  selected 
according  to  the  scientific  and 
practical  criteria  in  the  GES 
Decision,  which  are  used  for 
assessment of the broad habitat 
type  (criterion  D6C5)  and/or 
for  assessment  in  their  own 
right 

Littoral sediment 

Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef 

Infralittoral coarse sediment 

Infralittoral mixed sediment 

Infralittoral sand 

Infralittoral mud 

Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 

Circalittoral coarse sediment 

Circalittoral mixed sediment 

Circalittoral sand 

Circalittoral mud 

Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef 

Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment 

Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment 

Offshore circalittoral sand 

Offshore circalittoral mud 

Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef 

Upper bathyal sediment 

Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef 

Lower bathyal sediment 

Abyssal 

Other habitat types 

- 

For Article 9(1), the set of species groups and broad habitat types needs to be adjusted 
(reduced)  to  those  types  which  are  present  in  each  (sub)region.  The  GES  Decision 
indicates that each species group should be represented by a set of species and provides 
selection  criteria  for  this  purpose.  Similarly,  the  assessment  of  each  broad  habitat  type 
can  be  supported  by  assessments  of  specified  sub-types,  according  to  these  selection 
criteria,  although  the  broad  habitat  types  can  also  be  assessed  directly.  The  selection 
criteria aim to ensure both representivity of the ecosystem component and risk from the 
main pressures. 

At  the  ecosystem  level,  and  as  indicated  in  the  GES  Decision,  a  set  of  at  least  three 
trophic  guilds  should  be  selected,  based  on  the  selection  criteria  provided  in  the  GES 
Decision.  Ecosystems  in  this  context  should  be  considered  as  broad-scale  parts  of  a 
region or subregion, each encompassing a set of species groups and broad habitat types. 
It  might  be  appropriate  to  consider  coastal,  shelf  and  open  ocean/deep  sea  zones 
separately. The definition of GES refers to ecosystem functions and processes; these are 
only  partly  addressed  via  the  trophic  guilds  to  be  included  under  D4  (food  webs)  and 
may therefore need further specification. 

38 In the GES Decision Table 2, each benthic broad habitat type is equated to one or several EUNIS level 2 
classes,  thus  ensuring  a  direct  link  between  the  European  habitat  classification  system  (EUNIS)  and  the 
MSFD habitat assessment categories. 

40 

 
                                                 
5.4.  Scales of assessment and assessment/reporting areas 

This  section  deals  specifically  with  scales  for  assessment  and  reporting  of  current 
environmental status under Article 8. Scales for other aspects of MSFD implementation 
may differ: for example, the setting of environmental targets could be at  national level, 
linked  to  national  implementation  of  measures.  And  the  implementation  of  monitoring 
programmes  can  be  organised  at  various  scales,  depending  on  the  monitoring  methods 
and  organisational  needs.  For  both  monitoring  and  assessment,  the  Directive  seeks 
consistency across each (sub)region in the methods used (Article 11(2) and 11(4)); thus 
the  methods  could  be  agreed  at  (sub)regional  level,  but  delivered  at  national  or  even 
subnational  scales.  In  other  cases,  international  monitoring  programmes,  such  as  for 
mammals and fisheries, are undertaken. 

It  is  clear  from  the  Directive  that  GES  must  be  determined  at  a  (sub)regional  scale 
(Article 3(5)). However, assessments of whether GES has been achieved can be at a finer 
scale, as provided in the GES Decision. 

The broad range of topics to be assessed across the eleven descriptors calls for a variety 
of scales to be used as part of an ecosystem-based delivery of the Directive. For example, 
wide-ranging  species  such  as  baleen  whales  are  more  appropriately  assessed  at  the 
regional scale, whilst nutrient enrichment and litter may be more appropriately assessed 
at finer scales linked to their land-based sources and management needs. Also, there may 
be  several  populations  of  particular  species  (e.g.  commercial  fish)  in  a  region  and 
subregion; each should typically be assessed separately. 

A variety of assessment scales are therefore necessary to reflect: 

a.  Ecologically-relevant scales for the various ecosystem elements (species, habitats, 

ecosystems); 

b.  Management and administratively-relevant scales for pressure elements, bearing in 
mind  the  need  to  link  impacts  from  such  pressures  to  the  scales  used  for  those 
impacted elements. 

Additionally,  the  outcome  of  the  assessment,  i.e.  whether  GES  has  been  achieved,  is 
intrinsically linked to the scale of assessment. For example, assessing pressures and their 
impacts  at  too  broad  a  scale  can  mask  significant  areas  of  impact  in  certain  parts  of  a 
region or subregion and render the Directive ineffective. On the other hand, the Directive 
must be applied across the entire area of marine waters and adoption of too fine a scale 
for assessments could lead to burdensome assessment processes. 

The  GES  Decision  sets  out  a  generic  set  of  scales  to  be  used  for  assessment  of  each 
descriptor, criterion or element, applicable across all marine regions. 

Table 6 summarises the scales for assessment in the GES Decision, in which scales for 
particular pressures are linked to the state elements for which they are most relevant (e.g. 
extraction of fish and fish stock assessments, physical disturbance and benthic habitats, 
underwater noise and cetaceans). 

Table 6: Scales of assessment for elements and criteria as specified in the GES Decision. 

Elements for 
assessment 

Region 

Subregion 

Subdivision 
(of region or 
subregion) 

National 
part of 
subdivision 

Coastal 
waters 
(WFD) 

41 

 
Elements for 
assessment 

Pressure elements 
Non-indigenous 
species (D2) 
Nutrient enrichment 
(D5) 
Physical loss and 
disturbance (D6) 
Hydrographical 
conditions (D7) 

Contaminants (D8) 

Contaminants in 
seafood (D9) 
Litter (D10) 
Underwater noise 
(D11) 
Impact elements 
D1 (incidental by-
catch) 
D2 
D3 
Nutrient enrichment 
(D5) 
Physical loss and 
disturbance (D6) 
Hydrographical 
conditions (D7) 

Contaminants (D8) 

D10 (Litter) 
State elements 

Species groups (D1): 
Birds 

Species groups (D1): 
Mammals 

Species groups (D1): 
Reptiles 

Species groups (D1): 
Fish (excepting 
commercial species - 
see D3) 

Species groups (D1): 
Cephalopods 
(excepting 
commercial species - 
see D3) 
Commercial fish and 
shellfish (D3) 
Pelagic and benthic 

Region 

Subregion 

Subdivision 
(of region or 
subregion) 

National 
part of 
subdivision 

Coastal 
waters 
(WFD) 

Pressure criteria 

C1, C2 

C1 (beyond WFD coastal waters)  C1: as WFD 

C1, C2: as used for broad habitat types under D1 and D6 

C1: as used for broad habitat types under D1 and D6 

C3 (divided by national borders, where 
needed) 

C1 (beyond WFD territorial 
waters) 

C1: as WFD 
(to 12nm) 

C1: catch or production areas of Reg. No 1379/2013 

C1, C2, C3 

C1, C2 

C1: as used for species groups under D1C2-D1C5 

Impact (adverse effect) criteria 

C3: as used for corresponding species groups and broad habitat types under D1 and D6 
C1: ecologically-relevant scales for each population, based on ICES, GFCM and FAO areas 
C2-C8: As 
WFD 

C2-C8 (beyond WFD coastal 
waters) 

C3: as used for broad habitat types under D1 and D6 

C2: as used for broad habitat types under D1 and D6 

C4: as used for species groups and broad habitat types under D1 and D6 
C4: as used for species groups under D1 

C2 (beyond WFD territorial 
waters) 

C2: as WFD 
(to 12nm) 

Baltic & Black Sea 
regions or 
subdivisions: all 
groups 
Deep-diving 
toothed cetaceans, 
baleen whales. 
Baltic & Black Sea 
regions or 
subdivisions: small 
toothed cetaceans, 
seals (latter not 
present in Black 
Sea) 

Deep-sea fish 
Baltic & Black Sea 
regions or 
subdivisions: 
pelagic & 
demersal fish 

Baltic & Black Sea 
regions or 
subdivisions: all 
groups39 

NE Atlantic & 
Mediterranean: all 
groups 

NE Atlantic & 
Mediterranean: 
small toothed 
cetaceans, seals 

Turtles 

NE Atlantic & 
Mediterranean: 
pelagic & 
demersal fish 

NE Atlantic & 
Mediterranean: all 
groups 

Coastal fish 

C2, C3: ecologically-relevant scales, based on ICES, GFCM and FAO areas (same as C1) 

Biogeographical

39 Cephalopods do not occur in the Black Sea region. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Elements for 
assessment 

habitats (D1, 6) 

Ecosystems/food 
webs (D1/D4) 

Region 

Subregion 

Baltic & Black Sea 

NE Atlantic & 
Mediterranean 

Subdivision 
(of region or 
subregion) 

National 
part of 
subdivision 

Coastal 
waters 
(WFD) 

ly-relevant 
scales 

Figure  10  illustrates  these  scales  in  a  nested  way,  such  that  all  finer  scales  sit  within  a 
broader scale, thereby allowing aggregation up to subregional and regional  scales. This 
generic scheme needs adaptation to meet the operational requirements of each region and 
subregion. 

Figure 10: Schematic representation of a nested set of assessment scales to be used to cover all 
assessment  needs  for  MSFD.  Region,  subregion  and  subdivision  are  provisions  of  Article  440. 
'National  part  of  a  subdivision'  should  be  delineated  using  national  borders  of  marine  waters. 
'Coastal part' refers to the coastal waters defined under WFD (MSFD Article 3(1b)) extending to 
1nm for ecological status and 12nm for chemical status. 

From this definition of the scale of assessment to be used comes the need to define the 
specific  areas  of  each  region  or  subregion  to  which  each  assessment  applies  and  for 
which the extent to which GES has been achieved is reported. These have been termed 
the Marine Reporting Units (MRU), each being the area over which a judgement is made 
on whether GES has been achieved for a specified element or Descriptor. Within a single 
MRU, there may be multiple observations, of relevant parameters (e.g. in point, transect 
or grid type monitoring) over specified timeframes, which are aggregated to conclude on 
the extent to which GES has been achieved. 

Given the number of different assessments to be undertaken, there is potential to develop 
a  complex  unconnected  set  of  MRUs  which  may  lead  to  confusion  in  their  use  (e.g. 
presentation of assessments, communication to stakeholders). The following approach is 
therefore considered most logical: 

a.  use  a  nested  system  of  MRUs,  based  on  the  same  set  of  smallest  areas  and 

aggregating these where needed; 

40 Stock assessments  under CFP use specified areas based on ICES/GFCM/FAO assessment areas  which 

can be broadly related to the above scales. 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
b.  minimise  the  number  of  areas  defined,  e.g.  by  using  the  same  areas  for  several 
species  groups,  pelagic  and  benthic  habitats.  This  can  still  respect  the  need  for 
ecologically-relevant scales as the characteristics of water masses influence species 
composition in the pelagic and benthic habitats and associated mobile species; 

c.  ensure  as  far  as  possible  that  the  state  and  pressure-based  assessments  are 
compatible,  in  terms  of  scales  of  assessment  and  resolution  of  the  ecosystem 
elements  which  are  assessed  under  state  (Article  8(1)(a))  and  as  impacts  (Article 
8(1)(b)) (section 5.3 and 5.4); 

d.  associate  the  areas  used  for  pressure-based  and  ecosystem-based  assessments  to 
each other (e.g. areas for assessment of physical disturbance are the same as used 
for the assessment of seabed habitats or nested within the area). 

The following boundaries for a nested system of MRUs are already defined: 

a.  marine regions (Figure 2) 

b.  marine subregions (Figure 2) 

c.  national borders41 

d.  WFD coastal and territorial waters (for D5 and D8 assessments) 

This  leaves  the  main  consideration  as  to  whether  there  is  need  to  subdivide  each 
(sub)region  into  a  suitable  (and  preferably  low)  number  of  subdivisions.  Article  3(2) 
provides  criteria  which  are  relevant  for  defining  subdivisions  (namely,  hydrological, 
oceanographic  and  biogeographic  features).  Additionally,  some  Member  States  have 
used the provisions of Article 4(2) to define national subdivisions. 

Whilst an outline approach to defining and using such a nested system is presented here, 
it is necessary for Member States, working together in each region, to develop this into 
an operational mechanism. This has already been achieved for the Baltic Sea region by 
HELCOM (Figure 11); similar systems are under development by other RSCs. 

41 Although reaching formal agreements between states on marine borders may lead to their modification 
over time. 

44 

 
                                                 
Figure 11: HELCOM system of nested assessment areas42. Blue lines show the subdivisions of 
the region. The 'national part of a subdivision' is delineated using national borders of marine 
waters (red lines)43. WFD Coastal Waters extending to 1nm from baselines are shown (yellow 
areas). 

5.5.  Identifying the GES criteria to be used and how they are assessed 

The GES Decision provides a set of criteria to be used for each descriptor, distinguishing 
those which must be used (primary) from those which Member States may choose to use, 
based  mainly  on  risk  (secondary).  The  GES  Decision  has  provision  for  the  primary 
criteria to not be used in certain situations. 

The selection of criteria is often considered in conjunction with selecting the elements to 
be assessed, particularly for some descriptors: D2, D4, D5, D7 (for C1), D8 (for C2) and 
D10.  However,  the  GES  determination  and  assessments  are  focused  on  the  elements 
(being components of the marine ecosystem or pressures upon it) and the criteria (used 
singly or in combination) are there to provide a means to assess the quality of the element 
rather than being the end point of the assessment itself. 

42 HELCOM Monitoring and assessment strategy 
43 This national part of a subdivision is not formally part of HELCOM’s system. 

45 

 
                                                 
The  majority  of  criteria  assessments  depend  on  data  collected  from  the  Article  11 
monitoring  programmes  for  MSFD  purposes  or  available  from  other  sources  (e.g. 
satellite data from Copernicus, or pressure data derived from human activity data, such as 
Vessel  Monitoring  System  data  for  fishing  vessels  or  Automatic  Identification  System 
data  for  ships).  In  a  minority  of  cases  a  more  qualitative  approach  may  be  appropriate 
(e.g. assessment of habitat quality for species D1C5). 

The use of data, whether from direct observations or modelled, enables robust assessment 
of  the  criterion,  allowing  a  clear  means  to  assess  current  status  and  to  follow  changes 
both  spatially  and  over  time.  The  robustness  of  such  assessments  is  further  enhanced 
when  the  data  are  processed  according  to  methods  agreed  across  the  countries  of  each 
(sub)region,  as  required  by  Article  11(2)  and  11(4).  The  ongoing  processes  of 
(sub)regional cooperation in the RCSs or between Member States (e.g. in the Black Sea 
region and Macaronesia subregion) are leading to data-driven indicators which serve this 
purpose. 

5.6.  Determining GES: criteria on quality, proportion, distribution and duration 

Key message 

Determinations  of  GES  set,  whenever  possible,  both  the  quality  of  the  pressure, 
impact and state elements that is to be achieved and the proportion of the element 
that should achieve such quality levels. This ensures that the assessment concludes 
on whether GES has been achieved or not in a particular assessment area. 

The GES Decision sets out the criteria to be used and how to express the extent to which 
GES has been achieved for each descriptor. These can be categorised into four principle 
types: 

a.  Quality: the quality to be achieved for each element assessed, which is expressed as 
a  threshold  value,  whether  it  is  a  state  element,  a  pressure  or  its  impacts  (e.g. 
contaminant  concentration,  condition  of  a  habitat  in  relation  to  a  particular 
pressure, age and size structure of a population). This quality level can be assessed 
at any given location within an MRU and can vary across the MRU. 

b.  Proportion: the proportion of certain criteria elements (e.g. populations of species, 
habitats) that should achieve those quality threshold  values. This  includes  criteria 
related to population size and mortality rates (e.g. spawning stock biomass (SSB) 
and  fishing  mortality  (F)  for  commercial  fish)  and  benthic  habitat  criteria  that 
include  thresholds  for  the  proportion  of  allowable  habitat  loss  and  proportion  of 
habitat to achieve an acceptable condition. 

c.  Distribution:  the  distribution  of  certain  pressures,  for  instance  to  avoid  certain 

sensitive areas for species, or impacts; 

d.  Duration: the duration of certain pressures, such as to avoid particular pressures at 

sensitive periods for species, or impacts. 

The GES Decision criteria are allocated to one or several of these four types in Table 7, 
which  also  indicates  where  threshold  values  for  the  GES  criteria  need  to  be  set  (see 
section 5.7). 

46 

 
Table  7:  Categorisation  of  the  GES  Decision  criteria  requiring  threshold  values  (‘p’  indicates 
part of the criterion applies to the category). 

Type 

Pressure criteria 

Impact criteria 

State criteria 

Quality 

Proportion 

Distribution 

Duration 

No threshold value 
requested (criterion 
contributes to other 
assessments) 

D2C144 

D5C1 

D8C1 

D9C1 

D10C1p, C2p, C3 

D11C1p, C2p 

D10C1p, C2p 

D11C1p, C2p 

D11C1p, C2p 

D2C2 

D6C1, C2 

D7C1 

D8C3 

D2C3 

D5C2, C3p, C4, C5, C6, 
C7p, C8 

D6C3 

D7C2 

D8C2 

D10C4 

D1C1 

D3C1 

D5C3p 

D5C7p 

D5C3p 

D7C2 

D8C4 

D1C3, C6 

D3C3 

D6C5p 

D4C1, C2, C3, C4 

D1C2 

D3C2 

D6C4, C5p 

D1C4 

D1C5 

Most  criteria  do  not  express  the  proportion  of  the  assessment  area,  or  of  a  species 
population  or  habitat  type  in  the  assessment  area,  over  which  the  defined  quality 
threshold  value  should  be  achieved.  Where  it  is  not  explicit  in  the  criterion,  such 
proportion values should be expressed as part of the determination of GES under Article 
9(1) (GES Decision Recital 16). For certain descriptors, the aspect of distribution (e.g. of 
species) or duration (e.g. of underwater noise) is also relevant for the GES determination. 

Figure  12  provides  a  generic  depiction  of  the  relationship  between  quality  and 
proportion. Some worked examples are provided in Annex 2. 

The quality of a particular element can vary across an MRU, leading to areas where the 
quality is above the threshold value and areas where it is below the threshold value. For a 
population of a species, there can be parts of the population in good health, whilst other 
parts are not. From Figure 12 and the examples in Annex 2, it can be seen that defining 
the proportion of the MRU (including of a population for species assessments) that needs 
to achieve the quality threshold value is  an important aspect of the GES determination. 
There may be cases where some parts of the MRU are below the quality threshold value, 
but  the  extent  of  this  is  considered  acceptable  (i.e.  as  defined  through  the  Article  9(1) 
GES  determination)  in  relation  to  the  objectives  for  GES  (for  example  the  long-term 
viability of a species population). 

44 Allocated to 'quality' in the sense that the criterion assesses a reduction in quality (species composition) 
of the assessment area in relation to the native and existing non-indigenous species. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 12: Generic quality and proportion framework for determining GES. The threshold and 
proportion  values  shown  are  for  illustrative  purposes  only.  These  values  are  set  per  criterion 
and/or element in accordance with the GES Decision. See text for explanation. 

The quality threshold value is typically set on scientific grounds in relation to the degree 
of  change  in  quality  (deviation  from  reference  condition;  see  section  5.7)  that  can  be 
tolerated  before  the  element  is  considered  to  be  adversely  affected  (impacted).  For 
pressures,  this  represents  the  level  of  pressure  that  would  give  rise  to  such  adverse 
effects. The proportion value set for population levels and mortality rates for species is 
typically set on a scientific basis in relation to their long-term viability. 

Determinations of GES must be clear about both aspects (quality and extent/proportion) 
so that after assessment it is clear whether GES has been achieved or not. This can also 
be important in giving clear boundaries within which industry can operate, allowing for 
sustainable  uses  of  the  sea,  especially  where  the  industry  exerts  certain  pressures  and 
impacts on the environment. 

5.7.  Setting of threshold values 

A  number  of  stages  in  the  Directive’s  implementation  process  require  knowledge  of 
whether  GES  has  been  achieved  or  not  (section  3.2).  In  the  absence  of  a  clear 
determination of GES, it is not always possible to determine by how much the pressures 
which  are  causing  impacts  on  or  risks  to  the  marine  environment,  human  health  and 
legitimate  uses  of  the  sea,  should  be  reduced.  This  gives  uncertainty  to  both  policy 
makers and users of the sea. 

The  Commission’s  Article  12  assessment  (COM/2014/097)  revealed  that  there  was 
considerable  variation  in  the  approaches  used  by  Member  States  to  defining  reference 
condition  (as  a  basis  to  define  the  threshold  values  to  be  achieved  for  GES)  and  the 
baseline  (e.g.  current  status)  from  which  to  measure  progress  towards  achieving  GES. 
Variation  in  how  reference  condition  is  defined  can  significantly  affect  the  basis  for 

48 

 
 
determining GES and hence can substantially alter the GES quality level to be achieved 
for  each  Descriptor  in  each  (sub)region.  This  consequently  leads  to  the  lack  of  a  'level 
playing field', and associated socio-economic consequences, within and across regions. 

The GES Decision (Article 4.) provides requirements for the setting of threshold values 
(through Union, regional or subregional cooperation). The points set out in this article are 
further reflected in this document, as ‘those values shall: 

a.  be part of the set of characteristics used by Member States in their determination of 

good environmental status (section 5.6); 

b.  be consistent with other Union legislation (section 5.9); 

c.  where appropriate, distinguish the quality level that reflects the significance of an 
adverse effect for a criterion and be set in relation to a reference condition (section 
5.7); 

d.  be set at appropriate geographic scales of assessment to reflect the different biotic 
and abiotic characteristics of regions, subregions and subdivisions (section 5.4); 

e.  be set on the basis of the precautionary principle, reflecting the potential risks to 

the marine environment (sections 3.2, 4.3, 6.1); 

f.  be  consistent  across  different  criteria  when  they  relate  to  the  same  ecosystem 

element (section 5.7); 

g.  make use of best available science (section 5.6); 

h.  be  based  on  long  time-series  data,  where  available,  to  help  determine  the  most 

appropriate value (section 5.7); 

i.  reflect  natural  ecosystem  dynamics,  including  predator-prey  relationships  and 
hydrological  and  climatic  variation,  also  acknowledging  that  the  ecosystem  or 
parts  thereof  may  recover,  if  deteriorated,  to  a  state  that  reflects  prevailing 
physiographic,  geographic,  climatic  and  biological  conditions,  rather  than  to  a 
specific state of the past (section 5.8); 

j.  be  consistent,  where  practical  and  appropriate,  with  relevant  values  set  under 
regional  institutional  cooperation  structures,  including  those  agreed  in  the 
Regional Sea Conventions).’ 

For point (f), assessment of the pressure-based descriptors includes an assessment of the 
level of the pressure and of the impacts on ecosystem state45; the threshold values set for 
these two aspects should correlate (GES Decision Article 4(1)(f)), such that both criteria 
fail or pass GES at the same time; in situations where one passes and the other fails, it 
suggests the two aspects may not be sufficiently correlated and may need adjustment of 
the threshold values set  (unless  the state is  still  recovering following a reduction in the 
pressure, e.g. fishing mortality rates for D3 or nutrient levels for D5). 

45  Excepting  D8  and  D9  where  EQS  values  for  the  pressure  (contaminant)  are  set  under  laboratory 

conditions and do not necessarily relate to impacts apparent in the environment. 

49 

 
                                                 
For  some  aspects  of  GES,  particularly  assessments  at  ecosystem  level  including  food-
webs  (D1,  D4),  it  may  not  currently  be  possible  to  make  quantitative  judgements  on 
GES.  Scientific  understanding  is  such  that  anthropogenic  pressure  is  often  difficult  to 
distinguish from the environmentally-influenced variability. It may either not be possible 
(through  lack  of  evidence)  to  define  threshold  values  based  on  knowledge  of  the 
ecosystem  or  where  the  link  to  anthropogenic  pressures  is  weak  or  unclear,  so  direct 
management actions cannot be prescribed. In the absence of strong indicators reflecting 
pressure–state relationships, the scientific indicators may best be used to  trigger further 
research or investigation to better understand any changes observed. 

In  some  cases,  the  data  for  a  particular  criterion/element  (e.g.  population  size  of  a 
mammal) may indicate improvements in status over time since the start of a time series, 
without indicating a stable state that could be used to set a threshold value. In such cases, 
the  criterion/element  can  be  reported  as  improving  towards  GES  (trend),  but  a  suitable 
threshold  value  cannot  yet  be  established.  In  other  cases,  such  time  series  data  may  be 
lacking,  as  well  as  suitable  information  on  reference  condition  (e.g.  for  some  benthic 
habitats),  giving  uncertainties  as  to  what  could  be  a  suitable  threshold  value,  and 
necessitating use of a precautionary value in the meantime. Where the element is clearly 
subject  to  pressures  causing  adverse  effects,  removal  of  the  pressure  and  monitoring 
recovery towards a stable state may be a suitable option for setting threshold values. 

5.7.1. Use of reference condition in setting threshold values 

Key message 

Threshold  values  are  set  in  relation  to  a  reference  condition,  and  may  include 
an  ‘acceptable  deviation’  from  this  reference  condition.  This  allows  for 
sustainable  uses  of  the  marine  environment  whereby  some  level  of  pressures 
and  their  impacts  can  be  accommodated,  provided  the  overall  quality  of  the 
environment is maintained. 

The GES Decision (Article 4(1)(c)) indicates that  threshold values ‘shall […] be set  in 
relation to a reference condition’. This is illustrated in Figure 12. 

The  Commission  provided  the  following  guidance  as  part  of  its  Article 12  assessment 
(SWD/2014/049) : 

It  is  common  practice  in  EU  Directives  and  in  regional  assessment  methodologies  to 
define environmental objectives (i.e. the threshold value to be achieved) in relation to a 
reference condition.  For  example, threshold values for contaminants and eutrophication 
are typically set in relation to ‘background’ or ‘natural’ levels in the environment, with 
threshold  values  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 threshold 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. The possibility to allow for a ‘deviation’ is important, particularly to 
allow  for  sustainable  uses  of  the  marine  environment  whereby  some  level  of  pressures 
and their impacts can be accommodated, provided the overall quality of the environment 

50 

 
is  maintained,  or  for  other  reasons  (e.g.  because  achieving  a  reference  condition  is  not 
technically feasible). 

In the reports provided in 2012 by Member States for Articles 8, 9 and 10, the approach 
to using reference condition and setting of threshold 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  baseline  (from  which  a 
particular  quality  is  to  be  maintained),  without  fully  assessing  whether  that  state  was 
adequate  to  begin  with.  In  many  cases,  the  reference  levels  to  be  used  for  the 
determinations of GES and environmental targets were not documented. 

This degree of variation and lack of clarity can 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  a  lack  of  common  understanding  of 
what  constitutes  GES.  Instead,  a  common  approach,  based  on  the  reference  condition 
plus an acceptable deviation, should be used across descriptors to achieve a suitable level 
of consistency in future implementation phases. 

Guidance  on  determining  baselines  is  given  in  the  2012  MSFD  reporting  guidance 
section 6.2.3.6: 

GES  threshold  values  must  be  set  in  relation  to  the  reference  condition  (sometimes 
referred to as reference state or background levels) (Figure 13). The reference condition 
can be determined using the following approach: 

A  state  of  the  environment  considered  largely  free  from  the  adverse  effects  of 
anthropogenic activities (i.e. negligible impacts from pressures). This can be defined 
in  relation  to  aspects  of  environment  state  (physical,  chemical  and/or  biological 
characteristics), or to levels of pressure or impact (e.g. an absence of contaminants or 
certain  impacts).  This  type  of  baseline  is  typically  used  to  allow  an  acceptable 
deviation  in  state  to  be  determined  which  acts  as  the  quality  threshold  value  to  be 
achieved.  Reference  condition  can  be  determined  using  a  variety  of  methods, 
including: 

a.  Historic  conditions,  based  on  various  evidence  about  conditions  before  there  was 

significant anthropogenic activity; 

b.  Past date/period, based on time-series datasets in which a time that is considered to 

best equate to ‘reference condition', is selected; 

c.  Current  conditions,  in  areas  considered  substantively  free  from  anthropogenic 

pressures; 

d.  Modelling, to predict current state in the absence of pressures. 

In all these approaches, there is often a need to use expert judgement, but this should be 
used in a well-documented and transparent manner, consistently across the (sub)region. 

51 

 
Figure  13:  Relationship  between  reference  condition  and  threshold  values  in  relation  to  the 
quality to be achieved for an element to be in GES (one or several criteria with threshold values 
may  be  needed).  A  current  status  which  is  below  GES  is  also  shown,  indicating  the  gap  to  be 
reduced, through one or more environmental targets and associated measures, in order to reach 
GES. 

The  use  of  a  specified/known  state  (of  the  environment,  or  the  pressures  and  impacts 
acting upon it), such as the state at the time of the 2012 initial assessment, is appropriate 
in  setting  environmental  targets  (section 6),  where  it  can  be  used  as  the  baseline  state 
from  which  to  assess  progress.  However,  use  of  such  baselines  is  generally  not 
appropriate for setting threshold values for a determination of GES as it usually implies 
that it is not a reference condition. 

5.7.2. On setting threshold values at an appropriate scale 

On a number of occasions the GES Decision requires that Member States set threshold 
values through Union, regional or subregional cooperation. This specifically refers to the 
process by which these thresholds need to be set and not to the scale. 

GES  Decision  Article  4(1)(d)  clearly  indicates  that  the  thresholds  need  to  be  set  at 
appropriate geographical scales, to reflect the different biotic and abiotic characteristics 
of regions, subregions and subdivisions. This, for example means, when setting threshold 
values for D11 at Union level, that these values may differ from one region/subregion to 
another,  or  from  one  subdivision  to  another,  to  take  into  account  the  specific 
characteristics of the area in question, but they are nevertheless set through a Union-level 
process  (i.e.  through  the  work  of  Technical  Group  on  Noise  in  the  MSFD  Common 
Implementation  Strategy).  Similarly, 
through  a 
regional/subregional process – for example through work carried out by the RSCs – may 
vary from  one subregion/subdivision  to  another to take into account  the specificities  of 
the area. 

thresholds  being 

those 

set 

Threshold  values  should  generally  be  consistent  with  the  scales  of  assessment  (MRUs) 
used (section 5.4). 

52 

 
 
5.8.  GES in relation to ecosystem characteristics, dynamics and climate change 

Key message 

Threshold values are set to ‘reflect natural ecosystem dynamics, including predator-
prey  relationships  and  hydrological  and  climatic  variation,  also  acknowledging  that 
the  ecosystem  or  parts  thereof  may  recover,  if  deteriorated,  to  a  state  that  reflects 
prevailing  physiographic,  geographic,  climatic  and  biological  conditions,  rather  than 
to a specific state of the past’ (GES Decision Article 4(1)(i)). 

Differences  in  the  characteristics  of  ecosystems  between  regions  and  subregions  will 
likely  lead  to  different  GES  determinations  especially  to  state-based  descriptors  being 
different  in  order  to  reflect,  for  example,  the  differing  ranges  of  species  present  and 
different environmental conditions, such as water clarity and sea temperature. There may 
also  be  instances  where  such  ecosystem  differences  warrant  adjustments  to  the 
determination  of  GES  at  national  level,  such  as  via  selection  of  specific  species  and 
habitats to be assessed, but such cases should be within the overall level of consistency 
determined  at  (sub)regional  level.  In  contrast,  the  same  does  not  apply  for  determining 
acceptable  levels  of  pressures  upon  the  environment  in  different  ways  according  to  the 
(sub)region,  as  the  levels  to  be  reached  in  order  to  achieve  GES  should  be  consistent 
across all Member States. 

Climate change is influencing the characteristics of the marine environment and can be 
expected  to  affect  hydrological  conditions  (e.g.  sea  level,  wave  action  from  increased 
storminess, water temperature, water circulation patterns, salinity and freshwater run-off 
from  land),  water  chemistry  (increased  acidification)  and  biodiversity  (e.g.  species 
distribution changes due to sea temperature changes). 

Assessing  the  effects  of  climate  change  is  not  a  specific  objective  of  the  MSFD. 
However,  it  is  important  to  be  able  to  distinguish  wider  climate-change  effects  (e.g. 
temperature,  acidification,  biodiversity)  from  more  local  effects  caused  by  other 
anthropogenic  pressures,  as  these  latter  cases  can  and  should  be  addressed  within  the 
context of the MSFD. It is therefore important to monitor wider changes in the ecosystem 
and  use  this  to  help  interpret  monitoring  data  which  is  focused  on  assessment  of  GES. 
For efficiency, this wider monitoring can be coupled with monitoring of reference sites 
used for descriptor-specific monitoring. 

The  setting  of  threshold  values  needs  to  reflect  the  dynamic  nature  of  ecosystems  and 
their elements, which can change in space and time through climatic variation, predator-
prey interactions and other factors. For example, determining good status for a benthic or 
pelagic  community  could  focus  on  the  functional  components  and  trophic  guilds  (e.g. 
filter feeders, deposit feeders, primary producers, decomposers) which are typical of the 
community  in  (near)  unimpacted  state,  rather  than  specifying  the  precise  species 
composition  which is  more prone to  fluctuation.  The presence of sensitive/fragile/long-
lived  species  can  be  good  indicators  of  (near)  unimpacted  state,  but  if  lost  from  a 
community due to anthropogenic pressures, the community may not recover to the same 
species composition but could still be judged to have recovered to GES if the community 
has  all  the  functional  components,  similar  diversity  and  alternative  sensitive,  fragile  or 
long-lived species of a (near) unimpacted state. 

53 

 
GES  should  be  determined  in  a  way  that  takes  account  of  ongoing  changes  in  species 
composition,  abundance  and  distribution  due  to  the  dynamics  of  marine  ecosystems, 
some of which may be affected by climate-induced effects. 

5.9.  Links to quality standards of other policies 

The GES Decision sets out how standards and assessments under other Union legislation 
are to be used for MSFD purposes. This is summarised in Table 8. 

Table 8: Overview of how other existing legislation is to be used when determining and assessing 
GES, as provided in the GES Decision. 

Descriptor 

Criteria elements 

Criteria threshold values 

Scales of 
assessment 

Use of criteria 

D1 – 
Biodiversity 
(species) 

D1 – 
Biodiversity 
(pelagic 
habitats) 

D1 – 
Biodiversity 
(benthic 
habitats) and 
D6 – seafloor 
integrity 

D2 – Non-
indigenous 
species 

D3 – 
Commercial 
fish & shellfish 

Incidental bycatch species 
via CFP Data Collection 
Framework Regulation 
(EU) No 1380/2013 and 
Commission 
Implementing Decision 
(EU) 2016/1251. 

Species to include Annex 
II species of Habitats 
Directive 92/43/EEC, and 
may use species from 
other Habitats Directive 
Annexes, Birds Directive 
2009/147/EC, and CFP 
Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013. 

Criteria aligned with 
Habitats Directive, Birds 
Directive and D3 (CFP) 
assessments. 

Threshold values 
consistent with Favourable 
Reference Population and 
Favourable Reference 
Range values for species 
of Habitats Directive 
92/43/EEC. 

For commercially-
exploited species, 
threshold values as used 
under D3 (CFP) 

For 
commercially-
exploited 
species, areas as 
used under D3 
(CFP) 

For species from 
Habitats Directive 
92/43/EEC, overall 
status as per 
Habitats Directive. 

For commercially-
exploited species, 
overall status as 
per D3 

May include habitats 
under Habitats Directive 
92/43/EEC 

Criteria aligned with 
Habitats Directive 
92/43/EEC 

Reuse of 
assessments under 
Habitats Directive 
92/43/EEC and 
WFD 2000/60/EC 
wherever possible 

Invasive alien species in 
Regulation (EU) No 
1143/2014 

Species under Common 
Fisheries Policy 
Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013 and associated 
instruments: 

Data collection framework 
Council Regulation (EC) 
No 199/2008; 

Species with TACs and 
quotas under Article 43(3) 
of TFEU; 

Species with minimum 
conservation reference 
sizes and species under 
national plans in 
Regulation (EC) No 

F and SSB values under 
CFP Regulation (EU) No 
1380/2013 

As used under 
CFP Regulation 
(EU) No 
1380/2013 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Descriptor 

Criteria elements 

Criteria threshold values 

Scales of 
assessment 

Use of criteria 

1967/2006 

D4 – Food webs 

D5 - 
Eutrophication 

Elements equivalent to 
Water Framework 
Directive 2000/60/EC 
quality elements 

Threshold values of WFD 
Directive 2000/60/EC for 
coastal waters 

As used under 
WFD Directive 
2000/60/EC for 
coastal waters 

As used under 
WFD Directive 
2000/60/EC for 
coastal waters 

D6 – Seafloor 
integrity 

Criteria for physical loss and disturbance: Data and assessments from Water Framework Directive 
2000/60/EC for coastal waters 

Data and assessments from Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC for coastal waters 

Contaminants from Water 
Framework Directive 
2000/60/EC, including 
EQS Directive 
2008/105/EC 

Acute pollution events 
involving substances 
under Directive 
2005/35/EC 

Threshold values of WFD 
Directive 2000/60/EC for 
coastal and territorial 
waters 

As used under 
WFD Directive 
2000/60/EC for 
coastal and 
territorial waters 

uPBTs 
distinguished as 
under EQS 
Directive 
2008/105/EC 

Contaminants listed in 
Contaminants in 
foodstuffs Regulation 
(EC) No 1881/2006 

Threshold values of 
Contaminants in foodstuffs 
Regulation (EC) No 
1881/2006 

Catch or 
production areas 
of Regulation 
(EU) No 
1379/2013 

D7 – 
Hydrographical 
conditions 

D8 - 
Contaminants 

D9 – 
Contaminants 
in seafood 

D10 - Litter 

D11 – Energy, 
including 
underwater 
noise 

Where Union legislation standards are not available, the GES Decision provides for their 
development  through  Union,  regional  or  subregional  cooperation,  depending  on  the 
descriptor.  These  processes  must  be  consistent,  where  practical  and  appropriate,  with 
relevant  values  and  standards  set  or  under  development  in  regional  institutional 
cooperation structures, including the Regional Sea Conventions and in other international 
agreements. 

In cases where the standards in these other Union policies are set only at national level, 
the  GES  Decision  requires  the  development  of  (sub)regional  standards  which  are 
consistent with those national standards. This is to ensure compliance with Article 5(2). 
Such (sub)regional standards have usually been or are being developed by the RSCs and 
other international agreements, or can be developed by Member States through regional 
or  subregional  cooperation.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  use  of  different  methodologies 
(e.g.  criteria,  assessment  scales)  and  quality  standards  (i.e.  threshold  values  to  be 
achieved) between policies can lead to different assessment outcomes (i.e. classification 
of environmental status) for the same quality element, and thereby hamper harmonisation 
of assessments. 

Assessments  of  species  and  habitats  under  different  policies  and  conventions  are 
undertaken according to a variety of criteria and methodologies. Annex 3 summarises the 
relationships between the criteria used under key instruments of relevance. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.10. Expressing the extent to which GES is being achieved 

Key message 

The  GES  Decision  informs  the  assessment  of  the  extent  to  which  GES  is  being 
achieved. 

The  ways  in  which  the  underlying  data,  indicators  and  criteria  are  processed  and 
aggregated,  and  the  threshold  values  and  rules  for  use  of  criteria  adopted,  have 
important implications for the ultimate outcomes of the assessments. 

Where  such  methodological  standards  and  specified  methods  are  not  defined  at 
Union  level,  they  should  be  agreed  at  regional  or  subregional  level  in  order  to 
ensure consistency in the outcomes. 

Due  to  the  often  slow  change  in  the  state  of  the  marine  environment  and  the 
pressures  upon  it,  reporting  on  trends  in  status  is  important  to  demonstrate 
progress towards achieving GES. 

The GES Decision sets out how to express the ‘extent to which GES is being achieved’. 

Each  assessment  entails  the  use  of  a  number  of  elements  (e.g.  contaminants,  nutrients, 
species  and  habitats),  criteria,  scientific  indicators  and  monitoring  data.  These  are  then 
aggregated to reach conclusions on the extent to which GES has been achieved for each 
assessment. The Article 8 guidance46 provides further details on how this can be achieved 
as  part  of  a  structured  assessment  process.  The  ways  in  which  data  are  processed  and 
aggregated, and the threshold values and rules adopted for use of criteria, have important 
implications  for  the  ultimate  outcomes  of  the  assessments.  For  transparency  and 
repeatability,  these  processes  need  to  be  documented  in  Article  8  reporting,  when  not 
already defined in  other Union policies or provided in  the GES Decision. The methods 
also  need  to  be  consistent  across  Member  States  to  ensure  the  outcomes  of  the 
assessments are comparable (Article 5(2) and Article 11). 

In some cases, the elements or criteria are aggregated to draw conclusions per Descriptor 
(or per species group for D1) but higher aggregation of assessments across descriptors is 
not  needed.  Section 5.3  sets  out  the  elements  to  be  used  in  relation  to  the  different 
descriptors and criteria. 

Bearing in mind the range of topics to be considered and the large areas of marine waters 
to be assessed, there are the following considerations: 

a.  The  degree  of  precision  may  vary;  some  assessments  may  provide  only  a  coarse 
evaluation  (e.g.  an  estimate  to  nearest  10  or  20%),  but  this  may  be  adequate, 
especially if the area is clearly achieving GES or conversely clearly not achieving 
GES.  Greater  precision  is  likely  to  be  needed  if  the  area/element  is  close  to  the 
border between ‘being in GES’ and ‘not being in GES’. 

b.  Due to the often slow rate of change in the state of the marine environment and the 
pressures upon it, such as following the introduction of measures, the assessments 
of  status  may  often  not  change  from  one  reporting  period  to  the  next,  despite 
underlying  improvements  in  the  status.  This  is  particularly  exaggerated  under 

46 Guidance on MSFD Article 8 assessments (GES_17-2017-02) and subsequent updates. 

56 

 
                                                 
MSFD  with  its  two  status  classes  (in  GES,  not  in  GES)  compared  with,  for 
example, the Water Framework Directive, which has five status classes. In order to 
provide  additional  evidence  of  progress  towards  GES  it  is  therefore  important  to 
indicate  the  trend  in  status  (i.e.  whether  the  status  has  improved,  is  stable  or  has 
deteriorated) compared with the previous reporting period. 

5.11. Reporting  on  the  determination  of  GES  and  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been 

achieved 

Key message 

Updates of the determination of GES should take account of: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

The adoption of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848; 

Advances in scientific and technical understanding; 

Changes in ecosystem dynamics since the last determination; 

Progress made in each (sub)region to determine GES in accordance with 

d. 
Articles 3(5) and 5(2) of the MSFD. 

The Directive provides in Article 17 for a six-year review and updating of each element 
of the marine strategies. For GES, this is a key mechanism to refine the determinations to 
take account of developments since the previous determination47 including: 

a.  The 2017 GES Decision; the 2018 and subsequent updates must use the 2017 GES 
Decision, leading to a more explicit, and where possible quantitative, determination 
of GES than was reported in 2012; 

b.  Advances  in  scientific  and  technical  understanding  since  the  last  reporting  under 

Article 9; 

c.  Changes  in  ecosystem  dynamics,  which  justify  a  modification  to  the  previous 

determination of GES (section 5.8); 

d.  Progress  made  in  improving  the  consistency  of  GES  determinations  in  each 
(sub)region in accordance with Articles 3(5) and 5(2), such as through the RSCs. 

These 6-yearly updates are a refinement of the determination (e.g. making it more clear 
and precise) and to improve the coherence within the (sub)region, rather than a change in 
the overall quality level that is to be achieved. However, the first update in 2018 is likely 
to be more substantive, given the wide range in approaches and levels of detail reported 
in the first cycle (2012). 

The updates can be considered at two levels of detail: 

47  Some  Member  States  prepared  updates  of  their  GES  determinations  (and  environmental  targets) 
following the specific recommendations of the Commission’s 2014 assessment of the 2012 reporting 
(COM(2014)97). 

57 

 
                                                 
Generic  level:  this  sets  out  the  objectives  to  be  achieved  by  the  Member  State  within 
each  (sub)region.  This  is  likely  to  be  a  qualitative  description  of  GES,  expressed  at 
descriptor and/or criterion level,  based respectively on the Annex  I Descriptors and the 
GES Decision criteria. This  qualitative description expresses GES in  a way  adjusted to 
the characteristics of the (sub)region and consistent with that of other Member States in 
that (sub)region. Updates are reported using the Article 9 GES reporting schema48, and 
should be consistent with the characteristics reported at the specific level (see below). 

Specific level: this sets out the particular characteristics of GES, including the threshold 
values  for  each  relevant  criterion,  in  each  (sub)region.  It  also  expresses,  where 
appropriate,  the  proportion  of  each  assessment  area  (or  criteria  element,  where 
appropriate) that should achieve these threshold values (GES Decision, Recital 16) (see 
section 5.6). This level of specificity is closely linked to the assessments under Article 8 
and should enable an assessment of the extent to which GES has been achieved (section 
5.10). 

The updated set of characteristics for GES includes: 

a.  Identification  of  the  specific  characteristics  for  each  region  or  subregion,  such  as 

the specific criteria elements relevant or not relevant to the (sub)region; 

b.  Determination  of  threshold  values  where  these  are  not  yet  provided  in  the  GES 

Decision; 

c.  Determination  of  the  proportion  of  the  assessment  area  or  proportion  of  criteria 
elements per assessment area over which the threshold values are to be achieved to 
constitute GES. 

It  should  also  be  clear,  via  reporting  of  methodological  standards  under  Article  8,  how 
the criteria have been integrated to conclude on the overall status of particular descriptors 
(e.g.  D5)  or  particular  criteria  elements  (e.g.  D3  species  and  D1  species  and  species 
groups). If these methodological standards are not  yet  agreed at Union or (sub)regional 
level,  in  accordance  with  the  GES  Decision,  the  national  approaches  used  should  be 
specified. 

Reporting  on  the  assessment  outcomes  (extent  to  which  GES  has  been  achieved)  and 
associated specific characteristics of GES (elements, threshold values, proportion values) 
is done through the Article 8 reporting schema, due to the inherent relationship between 
the  specific  (indicator-based)  assessments  and  the  threshold  values  set,  as  part  of  the 
determination of GES, for particular criteria and elements. 

5.12. Time period for assessments 

The Directive has a six-year cycle, with reporting for each part of the marine strategy set 
at intervals within each six-year period (Figure 1). The determination and assessment of 
GES  under  Articles  9  and  8  respectively  (together  with  the  setting  of  environmental 
targets under Article 10) effectively marks the start of each cycle (2012, 2018, 2024, etc). 
It is necessary to update the assessments of environmental status at least once every six 
years, in order to assess and report on the current status in relation to the determination of 
GES  and  to  show  progress  achieved  since  the  previous  report  six  years  before  (also 
against  targets  set  and  measures  established).  This  does  not  preclude  the  updating  of 

48 Reporting schemas are defined in MSFD Guidance Documents on reporting. 

58 

 
                                                 
assessments  at  more  frequent  intervals,  where  this  is  feasible  and  desirable.  The  latter 
situation could arise, for example, where monitoring is undertaken on an annual or more 
frequent  timescale  and  processing  of  the  data  has  become  routine  or  because  of  other 
obligations. Annual assessments are, for example, undertaken for commercial fish stocks 
under CFP. 

When undertaking assessments there is a need to: 

a.  Consider  data  over  as  long  a  time  period  as  possible,  so  as  to  help  understand 
changes  in  the  data,  including  natural  variability  as  well  as  anthropogenic 
influences.  This  can  be  particularly  relevant  for  setting  threshold  and  referemce 
condition values; 

b.  Use  the  latest  available  data  from  monitoring  programmes  in  the  assessment  to 

ensure the assessments reflect the most recent situation; 

c.  Update the data to be used at least once in the six-year period, so that the status and 

trend assessments are based on the latest available data; 

d.  Use,  as  far  as  possible,  data  from  the  same  time  period  when  considering 
(e.g.  pressure  and  state/impact  data,  background 

combinations  of  data 
oceanographic data); 

e.  Compare  the  most  recent  six-year  assessment  period  with  the  previous  six-year 
assessment  period  in  order  to  report  progress  in  achieving  GES  (trends)  and 
environmental targets. 

6.  ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (ARTICLE 10) 

6.1.  Follow-up actions to Article 8 assessments depend on the environmental status 

The Article 8 assessments inform whether there is need for environmental targets (Article 
10) and consequently for measures (Article 13). 

There are four possible classifications of environmental status: 

a.  'In GES' – for which monitoring is needed to check pressures do not increase to a 
point  where  impacts  could  become  unacceptable  and  status  begins  to  deteriorate; 
this is coupled with measures to maintain GES.  

b.  'Not in GES' – If GES has not been achieved, it is necessary to identify the pressure 
or pressures causing the failure in environmental quality; where this is not possible, 
further  investigative  action  is  necessary  to  better  understand  the  reasons  for  not 
achieving  GES.  The  follow-up  action  focuses  on  managing  and  reducing  the 
anthropogenic pressures causing this failure. In the marine environment, the option 
to take direct management action on the environment itself (e.g. to actively restore 
a species or habitat) is typically less appropriate and usually more costly. Article 10 
(environmental  targets)  and  Article  13  (measures)  are  the  key  mechanisms  in  the 
Directive  to  be  used  to  achieve  and  maintain  GES.  In  situations  where  GES  is 
clearly  not  yet  achieved,  and  threshold  values  are  not  yet  available,  actions  to 
reduce pressures should be taken in accordance with the precautionary principle49. 

49 EU Commission Communication COM(2000)1final 

59 

 
                                                 
c.  Unknown status (potentially 'Not in GES')  - it may not be possible in all cases to 
identify a status which is clearly In GES or clearly Not in GES. Follow-up actions 
depend  on  the  shortcomings  in  the  individual  case  e.g.  development  of  improved 
assessment  methods,  more  monitoring  or  complementary  research.  These  actions 
should be undertaken as soon as possible so that a clear classification of status can 
be  determined.  In  addition,  in  accordance  with  the  precautionary  principle,  this 
uncertainty  of  classification  must  not  be  used  for  postponing  action  or  taking 
proportionate  measures  to  reduce  pressures  causing  impacts  on  or  risks  to  the 
marine  environment,  human  health  and  legitimate  uses  of  the  sea,  and  to  prevent 
further deterioration (Article 1(2)(a, b) and Article 14(4)). 

d.  'In  GES',  but  with  a  clear  trend  or  risk  towards  'Not  in  GES'  -  in  such  cases, 
increased monitoring may  be necessary and the setting of environmental target(s) 
may be required. 

6.2.  The nature of environmental targets 

Key message 

The purpose of environmental targets and their relationship to measures under 
Article  13  suggests  that  they  should  primarily  focus  on  the  pressures  from 
human  activities  causing  the  failure  to  achieve  GES,  or  the  associated 
environmental impacts. 

They  can  do  this  by  defining  the  necessary  level  of  reduction  in  each 
anthropogenic pressure needed to achieve GES. 

Environmental targets are not an alternative to determining GES under Article 
9, but a support tool for the achievement of GES. 

Environmental targets need to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and 
time-bound (SMART). 

Article 3(7) defines ‘environmental target’ as ‘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) states that Member States shall 
establish  ‘a  comprehensive  set  (…)  so  as  to  guide  progress  towards  achieving  good 
environmental status in the marine environment, taking into account the indicative list of 
pressures and impacts  set  out  in  Table 2 of  Annex III, and of  characteristics set  out  in 
Annex IV’. 

The  MSFD  leaves  considerable  flexibility  for  Member  States  in  setting  environmental 
targets;  however,  in  order  to  make  them  fully  operational  in  relation  to  their  specified 
role  in  the  Directive,  targets  need  to  be  specific,  measurable,  achievable,  realistic  and 
time-bound (SMART) (SWD(2014) 49). 

The Directive provides for setting a wide range of targets. To be more effective, targets 
should  primarily  focus  on  the  pressures  from  human  activities  causing  the  failure  to 
achieve GES. Most pressures arise from specific human activities and can be controlled, 
reduced or eliminated through management of the associated activities. Such actions are 

60 

 
the primary management tool to achieve improvements in environmental quality. Setting 
adequate targets in relation to all relevant pressures means that, by reaching all targets, 
GES would be achieved. 

Environmental  targets  should  define  the  necessary  level  of  reduction  in  each 
anthropogenic pressure needed to achieve GES, with a particular focus on targets for the 
reduction in the spatial extent, intensity or frequency of anthropogenic pressures at their 
source or entering the marine environment (Figure 13). For example, targets can include 
setting levels  for the inputs  of nutrients  and pollutants into the marine environment  via 
riverine  or  atmospheric  sources.  Generalised  targets  per  pressure  (e.g.  nutrient  input 
levels to the sea) can then lead to specific actions as Article 13 measures towards one or 
more  human  activities/sectors  (e.g.  waste  water  treatment,  fertilizer  use,  detergent 
compounds). A regional example of an environmental target is the MAI/CART50 target 
of HELCOM to address nutrient enrichment. Another example is the setting of fish catch 
levels  (under  CFP)  in  relation  to  Descriptor  3  in  order  to  manage  the  quantity  of  fish 
removed. 

According to  Article 3(7), targets  can also  be an expression of the desired condition  of 
the  different  components  of  marine  waters,  indicating  a  more  state-based  focus.  Such 
types  of  targets  can  be  expressed  as  the  reduction  in  environmental  impact  which  is 
needed for particular ecosystem components to achieve GES (e.g. an X% reduction in the 
extent of an impacted component) and where possible associated to a specific pressure or 
pressures. 

State-based targets may be appropriate as interim targets, for example, where they are a 
stepping stone to the overall objective to be achieved as defined under Article 9(1). This 
could include, for example, setting an interim proportion of an MRU that should achieve 
a  particular  quality  threshold  value  (for  a  pressure,  impact  or  state  element),  when  the 
overall proportion value set as GES is greater. However, targets are not an alternative to 
determining  GES  under  Article  9,  such  as  targets  which  determine  a  desired  species 
composition and/or abundance that cannot be directly achieved by management actions, 
but are a support for the achievement of GES. 

Environmental targets can be defined even in situations where Member States have not 
determined GES. For example, it is possible to set targets for reductions in pressures (e.g. 
for litter) in the absence of a clear determination of GES. In such cases, the current state 
(or  a  specified/known  state  in  the  past)  can  be  used  as  the  baseline  from  which  to 
measure progress with the environmental target. 

Article 10 does not make specific provision for assessment of progress in achieving the 
environmental  targets;  rather  this  should  be  taken  up  within  the  context  of  Article  8 
assessments as follows: 

a.  Directly,  as  part  of  the  assessment  of  anthropogenic  pressures  under  Article 
8(1)(b), focusing on whether the input levels of a pressure (pressure at source) (e.g. 
nutrient input levels from land-based or atmospheric sources) have been reduced in 
accordance with the target set; 

b.  Indirectly,  by  assessing  whether  the  levels  of  pressure  in  the  marine  environment 
(at sea), their impacts or the state of ecosystem elements is moving towards GES. 

50  Maximum  Allowable  Inputs/Country  Allocated  Reduction  Targets  –  http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-

plan/nutrient-reduction-scheme/targets 

61 

 
                                                 
Reporting  on  progress  with  environmental  targets,  as  required  under  Article  17,  is 
incorporated into the Article 10 reporting schema. 

6.3.  Indicators 

The term indicator is an established term, which is used in different ways in the scientific 
community (see glossary in Annex 1). 

For MSFD legal purposes, the term ‘indicator‘ refers only to their use in association with 
environmental  targets  (Article  10),  where  they  are  used  to  monitor/assess  progress  and 
guide  management  decisions  with  a  view  to  achieving  these  targets  (MSFD  Annex 
IV(7)). 

The  quantitative  (SMART)  aspect  of  a  target  should  be  reflected  in  the  indicator(s) 
chosen to track progress with the target. 

6.4.  Reference points 

In the indicative list of characteristics to be taken into account for setting environmental 
targets,  MSFD  Annex  IV(8)  refers  to,  where  appropriate,  specification  of  reference 
points (target and limit reference points). These are the values which are to be achieved 
or  not  exceeded  respectively  in  order  to  achieve  the  environmental  target.  The  term 
reference point should not be confused with threshold values for GES Decision criteria, 
set in relation to reference conditions. 

The  setting  of  reference  points  could  be  in  relation  to  a  baseline,  which  is  a 
specified/known state (of the environment, or the pressures and impacts acting upon it), 
such as the state at the time of the 2012 initial assessment (Figure 13). This baseline can 
be  used  to  assess  progress  towards  achieving  the  target.  A  baseline  state  can  be 
determined using a variety of methods, including: 

a.  Past state, at a specified time (e.g. when a policy or programme was adopted); 

b.  Past state, based on time-series data, but where the data are known to reflect certain 

levels of impact; 

c.  Current state. 

6.5.  Links to monitoring (Article 11) 
Measurement  of  progress  with  the  environmental  targets  is  typically  done  through  the 
Article  11  monitoring  programmes,  when  the  targets  are  related  to  pressures  on  the 
marine  environment  and  or  their  environmental  impacts.  Given  that  targets  are  best 
focused  on  the  gap  between  current  status  and  GES  (i.e.  they  define  the  amount  of  a 
pressure that needs to be reduced), it follows that monitoring of progress with the target 
would  focus  on  measuring  the  extent,  distribution  or  intensity  of  the  pressures, 
particularly  at  their  source  (if  sea-based)  or  entry  point  to  the  marine  environment  (if 
land-based). For example, monitoring of  riverine inputs (of nutrients, contaminants and 
litter)  and  monitoring  of  atmospheric  deposition  rates  (for  nutrients  and  contaminants) 
would be linked to environmental targets rather than directly to GES assessments. 

62 

 
6.6.  Links to measures (Article 13) 

The delivery of the environmental targets set under Article 10 is via the Programme of 
Measures defined under Article 13. Targets could be focused on the main pressures and 
be expressed rather generically (e.g. reduce litter or physical disturbance by X% or by Y 
amount).  The  associated  measures  would  then  address  the  specific  uses  and  activities 
generating  the  pressure  (e.g.  tourism  and  urban  waste  management  for  litter;  aggregate 
dredging  and  bottom  trawling  for  physical  disturbance)  and  be  more  specific  than  the 
associated environmental target. 

7.  USE OF RISK-BASED APPROACHES IN MSFD IMPLEMENTATION 

This section sets outs how a risk-based approach can be used in the context of the GES 
Decision and implementation of Articles 9, 8, 10, 11 and 13, including examples. 

Article 9(3) – criteria and methodological standards for GES (GES Decision) 

The  GES  Decision  makes  explicit  reference  to  the  risk-based  approach  and  sets  out 
criteria for good environmental status in relation to the predominant pressures and their 
impacts and on state elements which can best reflect these pressures and impacts. 

a.  Selection  of  criteria:  for  several  descriptors,  use  of  particular  criteria  should  take 
risk  (and  hence  relevance  to  the  region  or  subregion)  into  consideration.  For 
example, use of criteria D5C3 and D5C4 where the effects of nutrient enrichment 
are  not  adequately  assessed  via  use  of  criterion  D5C2  and  use  of  criteria  D7C2, 
D1C4  and  D1C5  only  in  cases  where  there  may  be  particular  risk  from  certain 
pressures. 

b.  Selection of criteria elements: these are selected or, in cases where these still need 
to be defined, should be selected with a clear focus on risk, firstly through focusing 
on  predominant  pressures  in  each  region  or  subregion  and,  secondly,  through 
focusing on those ecosystem elements (species, habitats) which are most indicative 
of impacts from these pressures. For example, selection of additional contaminants 
for criteria D8C1 and D9C1 should be on the basis of risk; similarly, selection of 
species,  species  groups  and  habitat  types  for  criteria  D10C4,  D2C2  and  D2C3, 
D7C2 and species for Descriptor 1 species groups. 

c.  ‘De-selection’ of criteria elements: Criterion D8C1, via established processes under 
the WFD, and criterion D9C1 anticipate the de-selection of contaminants in cases 
where there is low risk. 

d.  Parameters  for  assessment  of  the  criteria:  the  parameters  to  be  used  for  each 
criterion  are  those  identified  from  the  scientific  and  technical  review  of  Decision 
2010/477/EU, as best reflecting the needs for assessment of environmental status, 
considering the most relevant aspects of the pressures and their impacts, and those 
aspects of ecosystem state for species and habitats considered most relevant. In this 
sense,  the  criteria  generally  reflect  a  risk-based  approach.  In  cases  where  the 
criteria  are  less-well  specified,  for  example  for  assessing  the  effects  of 
contaminants on biota (D8C2) and assessing the health of species (D1C3), Member 
States  should  focus  their  efforts  on  particular  species  and  parameters  of  most 
relevance to the criterion. 

63 

 
e. 

In addition, the GES Decision also provides for the possibility not to use certain criteria in 
justified circumstances (Article 3 of the GES Decision): whilst the primary criteria are to be 
used  by  all  Member  States,  there  is  provision to  not  use  one  or more  of  these  criteria. 
This could, for example,  be  relevant in cases where the activities  (and hence pressures) 
are not present in the waters of a Member State. 

Article 9(1) – determination of GES 

in  relation 

to  aspects  which  are  (potentially) 

a.  The  determination  of  GES  should  focus  on  expressing  the  desired  state  of  the 
impacted  by 
environment 
anthropogenic pressures. This can be done by identifying the elements (e.g. species 
and  habitats)  and  parameters  (e.g.  population  size,  species  composition,  biomass) 
which  will  most  effectively  indicate  environmental  status  in  relation  to  specific 
pressures  (e.g.  chlorophyll-a  and  oxygenation  levels  in  relation  to  nutrient 
enrichment; mortality rates in relation to fishing). 

b.  In  cases  where  the  GES  Decision  anticipates  the  identification  at  regional  or 
subregional level  of  criteria elements  and threshold  values, these should  focus on 
those aspects which are most relevant to each area in question. In some cases, for 
example  criteria  D10C4,  D7C2,  D2C2  and  D2C3,  the  number  of  species/species 
groups/habitat types selected could be rather limited and focused on key elements 
of relevance rather than aiming to be more exhaustive. 

Article 8 - assessments 

a.  Given  that  GES  will  most  effectively  be  achieved  through  the  management  of 
human  activities  and  reductions  in  anthropogenic  pressures  where  needed,  the 
assessments under Article 8 should aim, as a priority, to assess the distribution and 
intensity of the predominant  pressures in  each region  and subregion  (using first  a 
mapping of human activities, if appropriate), together with their associated impacts. 

b.  From  this,  it  follows  that  assessments  can  focus  on  areas  which  are  subject  to 
anthropogenic  pressure  and,  on  the  basis  of  low  risk,  provide  less  focus  on  areas 
which are not subject to the pressure (excepting where these act as reference sites). 
Where the source of a pressure is land-based (e.g. nutrients) and the coastal zone is 
assessed  to  be  in  good  status  (e.g.  from  WFD  assessments)  it  may  indicate  the 
offshore zone can also be expected to be in good status (unless there is reason to 
consider  atmospheric  or  sea-based  sources  of  nutrients,  internal  loads  from  ‘old 
inputs’  of  nutrients,  other  substances  and  litter  as  a  potential  risk).  This  type  of 
screening process is used in the OSPAR Common Procedure for eutrophication and 
offers a measured way to focus assessment efforts towards areas of higher risk and 
reducing  the  need  for  assessments  in  areas  of  low  risk  (provided  there  is  some 
continued surveillance of the issue which would identify possible change in risk in 
the future). 

Article 10 – environmental targets 

a.  Environmental targets should focus on the predominant pressures, in terms of their 
intensity,  frequency  or  extent,  as  identified  on  the  basis  of  the  initial  assessment 
made  under  Article  8,  identifying  the  reductions  in  their  intensity,  frequency  or 
extent that are needed to achieve GES. 

Article 11 - monitoring 

64 

 
a.  It  follows  from  the  above  approaches  to  risk  that  monitoring  should  focus  on 
priority  areas  affected  by  the  predominant  pressures,  with  monitoring  in  areas 
considered  to  be  at  low  risk  from  a  pressure  used  as  reference  sites  generally 
undertaken  at  lower  intensity  (cf  for  instance  D10  where  there  is  a  possibility  to 
choose the monitoring matrix on the basis of risk). 

b.  Further,  particular  attention  is  needed  on  the  boundary  zone  between  good  status 
and  poor  status  (particular  areas  and  ecosystem  elements  selected  to  assess  this 
status  boundary);  if  an  area  is  clearly  in  a  poor  status,  there  is  limited  benefit  in 
continued  monitoring  unless  to  follow  its  recovery  following  introduction  of 
measures. 

c.  This  is  likely  to  also  focus  on  gathering  data  regarding  pressure-impact 
relationships to improve confidence in assessments. Monitoring in areas considered 
to  be  unimpacted  by  the  pressure  is  needed  as  reference  sites,  but  could  be 
undertaken at lower intensity. 

Article 13 - measures 

a.  Measures should focus on actions which will reduce or mitigate the pressures and 

their impacts identified as contributing most to poor status. 

From  the  above  considerations,  risk-based  approaches  focus  implementation  efforts 
towards those aspects (areas, pressures, impacts, ecosystem elements) which are of most 
importance  in  understanding  the  current  state  of  marine  waters  and  hence  to  efforts  to 
improve  its  state,  where  needed.  Use  of  a  risk-based  approach  can  reduce  efforts 
particularly  for  monitoring  and  assessment,  provided  it  is  done  in  accordance  with  the 
GES Decision. 

8.  RESEARCH NEEDS 

The  implementation  of  the  Directive  raises  questions  requiring  increased  scientific 
knowledge and understanding and/or further survey and monitoring data, such as: 

levels 

a.  Determining  pressure 

that  clearly  equate 

levels  of 
environmental  impact  on  state  elements  is  needed  for  a  number  of  marine 
pressures. A key priority for future research should be to further our understanding 
of these pressure-state (impact) relationships in the marine environment, as well as 
the integrated assessment of cumulative effects; 

to  acceptable 

b.  develop  more  quantifiable  determinations  of  GES,  based  on  specific  scientific 
indicators,  and  more  quantitative  reference  conditions,  particularly  for  benthic 
habitats; 

c.  identify long-term  ecosystem changes not or only indirectly influenced by human 

activities that may make it necessary to adjust GES thresholds accordingly; 

d.  distinguish  wider  climate-change  effects 

temperature,  acidification, 
biodiversity)  from  more  local  effects  caused by  other anthropogenic pressures, as 
these latter cases are the most practical to address within the context of the MSFD. 

(e.g. 

Whilst  continued  research  and  survey  is  needed  and  should  lead  to  improved 
understanding of how best to implement the Directive, a considerable wealth of scientific 

65 

 
knowledge already exists and can already be used to effectively support implementation 
and  decision-making  processes  for  the  Directive.  The  lack  of  scientific  understanding 
should  not  be  used  as  an  excuse  for  inaction  where  there  are  (suspected)  risks  to  the 
marine environment or evidence of deterioration in environmental quality. 

66 

 
 
 
Annex 1.  Glossary of terms 

The  definitions  provided  in  the  Directive  and  in  Decision  (EU)  2017/848  are  not 
repeated here, but are of relevance to this document. 

Adverse effect 

'Adverse effect' is the term used in the MSFD GES Descriptors, and hence in the GES 
Decision, to refer to environmental impacts (that need to be avoided or reduced in order 
to  achieve  or  maintain  GES).  The  term  (or  similar  wording)  is  referred  to  in  Article 
1(2)(a)  and  in  MSFD  Annex  I  (Descriptors  2,  5,  6,  7  and  11).  See  definition  under 
'impacts'. 

Assessment 

For  the  purposes  of  the  MSFD,  an  assessment  is  both  a  process  and  a  product.  As  a 
process,  an  assessment  is  a  procedure  by  which  information  is  collected  and  evaluated 
following  agreed  methods,  rules  and  guidance.  It  is  carried  out  from  time  to  time  to 
determine the level of available knowledge and to evaluate the environmental status. As a 
product,  an  assessment  is  a  report  that  synthesizes  and  documents  this  information, 
presenting  the  findings  of  the  assessment  process,  typically  according  to  a  defined 
methodology,  and  leading  to  a  classification  of  environmental  status  in  relation  to  the 
determination  of  GES.  Article 8  sets  out  what  needs  to  be  analysed  in  MSFD 
assessments, whilst the GES Decision provides the criteria and methodological standards 
for assessment. 

Baseline 

From  an  assessment  perspective,  a  baseline  is  a  specified  environmental  state  against 
which  subsequent/other  values  of  state,  impact  or  pressure  can  be  compared.  The  most 
appropriate type of baseline to use depends on the purpose. 

Baselines can be: 

a.  a  non-impacted  environmental  state  (often  termed  the  reference  condition  –  see 
definition). The setting of GES threshold values should be done in relation to (e.g. 
as  an  acceptable  deviation  from)  reference  condition  (GES  Decision  Article 
4(1)(c)). 

b.  a known state in the past, such as the beginning of a data time series. This can be 

used to show trends in status and, if suitable, to define a reference condition. 

c.  the  current  state.  This  can  be  used  for  setting  an  environmental  target  (e.g.  a 
reduction in the intensity, frequency or extent of a pressure) or for assessing change 
in environmental status (improvement, deterioration). 

d.  a  potential  (future)  state  (e.g.  a  predicted/modelled  state  in  the  absence  of 

pressures). This can be used as a predicted reference condition. 

The  term  baseline  is  also  used  in  the  context  of  jurisdictional  boundaries  of  marine 
waters (see section 2.2.1). 

67 

 
Characteristics 

The  term  ‘characteristics’  is  used  is  a  number  of  places  in  the  Directive,  relating  to 
different topics: 

a.  ‘Characteristics'  in  Article  8(1)  is  distinguished  from  'features'  and  can  be 

understood to refer to particular/specific attributes of the marine waters; 

b.  'Characteristics'  in  Article  9(1)  and  MSFD  Annex  I  refers  to  something  that  is 
particular/specific about the determination of GES (including specifically about the 
MSFD  Annex  I  descriptors)  in  the  marine  waters  [of  a  Member  State]  of  a 
(sub)region. 

c.  'Characteristics'  in  Article  10(1)  and  MSFD  Annex  IV  refers  to  the  range  of 

possible attributes of an environmental target. 

d.  'Characteristics'  in  Article  14(1)  refers  to  particular/specific  attributes  of  the 

physical features of marine waters; 

e.  MSFD Annex III Table 1 provides a list of possible parameters and 'characteristics' 

of the listed ecosystem elements to be used for monitoring and assessments. 

The  term  'characteristics'  is  thus  used  in  different  contexts  in  the  MSFD,  but  overall 
refers  to  determining  further  specific  or  typical  details/attributes  for  features/elements 
(Article  8),  for  GES/descriptors  (Article 9),  and  for  targets  (Article  10),  particularly  in 
the context of (sub)regional or Member State/area-specific differences. 

For Article 9(1), the characteristics are further determining GES in relation to the specific 
Member State/(sub)region, based on what is provided in the GES Decision (Article 9(3)). 

Component and feature 

The terms components and features are used in the Directive as follows: 

a.  'Components'  is  used  in  Articles  3(5)  and  3(7),  MSFD  Annex  VI.2  and  MSFD 
Annex  VI.7  to  refer  to  the  constituent  elements  of  an  ecosystem,  particularly  its 
biological elements (species, habitats and their communities), or of marine waters. 

b.  'Features' 

chemical, 

(physical, 

hydrological, 

oceanographic, 

biological, 
biogeographic,  habitat  types,  other,  transboundary)  refers  to  abiotic  and  biotic 
elements  of  the  marine  regions  or  marine  waters  (i.e.  species,  habitats,  physical 
structures,  physical  and  chemical  elements)  and  are  used  in  Articles  3(2),  8(1), 
8(3),  9(1),  10(1)  and  11(2).  The  reference  to  'transboundary'  implies  that  features 
(referred  to  elsewhere)  can  occur  across  national  borders  and  thus  are  a  physical 
entity (can include species). The term was also used in MSFD Annex III Table 1 
(2008  version),  where  is  also  referred  more  specifically  to  physical  and  chemical 
features of habitat types. 

In MSFD, components are the constituent parts of a marine ecosystem, region or MS’s 
marine  waters  (i.e.  its  species/species  groups,  habitats/communities  and  physical, 
hydrological  and  chemical  elements).  ‘Components’  can  be  considered  more  or  less 
synonymous with the MSFD term ‘Features’ or ‘elements’. 

68 

 
Each of these can be further characterised by their 'properties' (e.g. the population size of 
a  species,  the  concentration  or  distribution  of  a  nutrient)  which  are  often  termed 
parameters in a monitoring context. 

See also Feature (of criteria). 

Cost of degradation 

The  cost  of  degradation  (as  per  Article  8(1)(c))  can  be  reflected  in  two  ways:  i)  the 
reduction in the value of the ecosystem services provided compared to another state; and 
ii)  the  efforts/costs  needed  to  restore  the  quality  of  the  marine  environment  to  a  level 
which achieves GES. 

Degradation 

Degradation is the reduction in the quality status of the marine environment, or any part 
(element)  of  it,  or  in  the  provision  of  ecosystem  services  compared  to  a  more  healthy 
environmental status. 

Determination (of GES) 

A more precise definition of GES than is provided in the Directive or the GES Decision, 
that allows for an assessment of whether GES has been achieved or not. 

Driver 

Drivers,  as  per  the  Driver-Pressure-Impact-State-Response  (DPSIR)  framework,  are 
aspects of human society that lead to uses of and activities in the (marine) environment, 
some  of  which  may  consequently  give  rise  to  pressures  upon  the  natural  environment. 
Drivers  include  social  and  economic  goals  of  society  (e.g.  for  human  health  and  well-
being,  for  wealth  and  for  food  provision)  as  well  as  policies  and  governance  systems 
(such as subsidies and regulations). 

The  DPSIR  framework  does  not  clearly  distinguish  the  societal  issues,  as  expressed 
above,  from  the  uses  and  activities  which  result  from  them;  however  the  MSFD 
specifically  requires  an  analysis  of  the  uses  and  activities  under  Article  8(1)(c);  it  is 
therefore  helpful  to  distinguish  drivers  from  uses  and  activities,  not  least  because  uses 
and activities are more readily quantified and closer to the pressures, which also need to 
be assessed and managed under the MSFD (see MSCG-11_2013_16 for further details). 

Ecosystem 

For  the  purposes  of  assessments  of  environmental  status  under  MSFD,  the  term 
‘ecosystem’ is considered to mean all the constituent species groups, pelagic and benthic 
habitats  within  a  suitably-defined  and  ecologically-relevant  area;  such  ‘ecosystems’ 
could be at the scale of a (sub)region or suitable subdivision; For assessments it may be 
appropriate  to  distinguish  coastal,  shelf  and  open  ocean/deep  sea  ecosystems  as  these 
comprise quite different suites of species and habitats and are subject to different ranges 
of pressures. 

The use of the term ecosystem in scientific research is often much wider, being applied at 
a wider range of ecological and spatial scales. 

69 

 
Ecosystem-based approach (to management)51 

An  'ecosystem-based  approach'  or  'ecosystem-based  management'  is  an  integrated 
approach  to  management  of  human  activities  that  considers  the  entire  ecosystem 
including humans. The goal is to maintain ecosystems in a healthy, clean, productive and 
resilient  condition,  so  that  they  can  provide  humans  with  the  services  and  goods  upon 
which  we  depend.  It  is  a  spatial  approach  that  builds  around  a)  acknowledging 
connections, b) cumulative impacts and c) multiple objectives. In this way, it differs from 
traditional approaches that address single concerns e.g. species, sectors or activities. 

A  comprehensive  integrated  management  of  human  activities,  based  on  best  available 
scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, can lead to the identification 
and action on influences which  are critical  to  the health of marine  ecosystems, thereby 
achieving  sustainable  use  of  ecosystem  goods  and  services  and  maintenance  of 
ecosystem integrity. 

Ecosystem service52 

Ecosystem  services  are  the  final  outputs  or  products  from  ecosystems  that  are  directly 
consumed, used (actively or passively) or enjoyed by people. 

The  Common  International  Classification  of  Ecosystem  Services  (CICES)  is  the  'EU 
reference'  typology  for  all  ecosystem  services.  CICES  considers  that  the  generation  of 
ecosystem  services  must  involve  living  organisms;  therefore,  abiotic  environmental 
outputs (e.g. sea salt) are not services under this typology. 

CICES  separates  ecosystem  services  (e.g.  fish  biomass)  from  the  benefits  they  can 
provide  to  people  (e.g.  the  nutritional  value  of  the  fish  biomass).  Marine  ecosystem 
services  include  provisioning  services  (such  as  food  from  fish);  regulation  and 
maintenance  services  (such  as  the  sea's  ability  to  absorb  greenhouse  gases,  thus 
regulating  the  climate);  and  cultural  services  (such  as  the  availability  of  charismatic 
marine species to observe or to research). We get many benefits from these services such 
as  nutrition,  reductions  in  anthropogenic  CO2,  and  recreation.  CICES  does  not  include 
supporting or intermediate services. 

Element 

The term ‘elements’ is used in the Directive in the following ways: 

a.  'Elements  of  the  marine  strategies'  are  listed  in  Article  5(2)  as  the  initial 
assessment, determination of GES, setting of environmental targets, establishment 
of monitoring programmes and programmes of measures, and referred to again in 
Articles 12, 14(4), 17(2) and 19(2). 

b.  ‘Elements regarding coastal, transitional and territorial waters covered by relevant 
provisions  of  existing  Community  legislation'  in  Article  8(2)  refer  to  aspects  of 
other assessments, for example the Water Framework Directive. 

51 European Environment Agency. (2014). Marine messages – our seas, our future – moving towards a new 
understanding. Copenhagen and http://ia2dec.pbe.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182 
52 EEA (2015) State of Europe's Seas. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-europes-seas 

70 

 
                                                 
c.  An 'indicative list of elements', referred to in Articles 8(1), 9(1) and 11(1), MSFD 
Annex IV.1, MSFD Annex IV.3 and MSFD Annex V.12, is the list of ecosystem 
elements and anthropogenic pressures in MSFD Annex III Tables 1 and 2a. 

d.  'Elements of the marine food webs' from Descriptor 4 in MSFD Annex I refers to 
the different components of food webs (e.g. producers, consumers, decomposers). 

e.  'Non-essential  elements  of  the  Directive’  is  used  in  Articles  9(3)  and  11(4)  and 

refers to Treaty language for adoption of delegated acts (comitology). 

From the above, it can be concluded that the term ‘element’ is used simply to refer to the 
different  parts  or  topics  of  the  marine  strategies,  of  MSFD  Annex  III  (to  be  used  for 
assessments), of the Directive or other assessments, and of food webs. 

Element (criteria) 

‘  “Criteria  elements”  means  constituent  elements  of  an  ecosystem,  particularly  its 
biological elements (species, habitats and their communities), or aspects of pressures on 
the  marine  environment  (biological,  physical,  substances,  litter  and  energy),  which  are 
assessed under each criterion’ (Article 2(4) of GES Decision). They are to be used in the 
determination  of  GES  under  Article  9  and  hence  for  assessments  under  Article  8. 
Broadly-defined  indicative  lists  of  criteria  elements  are  provided  in  MSFD  Annex  III; 
these are more precisely defined in the GES Decision or via Article 9(1). For reporting 
purposes53,  criteria  elements  are  associated  with  particular  features  in  a  hierarchical 
structure, such that the environmental status of features and their constituent elements is 
assessed leading to reports on the extent to which GES is being achieved. 

More generally, the MSFD uses the term ‘element’ to refer to the different parts or topics 
of the marine strategies, of MSFD Annex III, of the Directive or other assessments, and 
of food webs. 

Environmental status (current) 

Current  environmental status  is  mentioned in  Articles 5(2), 8(1), 8(2), 11(1), 19(3) and 
20(3). 

Assessment of the 'current' environmental status (Article 8(1)(a), undertaken by Member 
States, comprises a number of elements (indicative list in MSFD Annex III Table 1) and 
is based on current/latest data from monitoring programmes (Article 11) and from other 
assessments (e.g. Water Framework Directive, by Regional Sea Conventions). 

The  assessment  of  current  status  is  accompanied  by  an  assessment  of  the  effects  of 
pressures and impacts from human activities on the status (Articles 5(2)(i) and 8(1)(b)), 
implying that these are somewhat distinct from the assessment of environmental status. 
However, both are encompassed within the GES Decision and determination of GES and 
hence  should  fall  within  the  overall  scope  of  'assessments  of  current  environmental 
status' under Article 8. 

53 Guidance Document 14, Annex IV (b) Feature_enum. 

71 

 
                                                 
Factor 

‘Factors’  is  used  in  Articles  3(4)  and  3(5)  as  a  technical  term  concerning  the 
physiographic,  geographic,  biological,  geological  and  climatic  properties/characteristics 
of marine ecosystems. 

'Properties'  (Article  3(5)),  MSFD  Annex  I.10,  MSFD  Annex  IV.3)  refers  to  specific 
aspects of physical, hydrological, chemical or biological features or of litter  - these can 
typically be measured and hence monitored to show how these features change. 

'Factors' and 'properties' are similar in essence, relating to technical/scientific attributes of 
marine  ecosystems  or 
can  generally  be 
measured/monitored to characterise them or to assess change in space and time (e.g. the 
speed of water flows, the clarity of water, the concentration of nutrients) as a means to 
assess environmental status. 

their  components/features  which 

Feature (of criteria) 

The term 'feature', as used in the Article 3(6) definition of criteria, seems to be used in a 
different sense to all other places in the Directive (see Components and features). These 
'features'  provide  further  'distinctive  technical'  definition  to  the  GES  Descriptors  that 
enable the assessment of whether GES has been achieved or not.  In this sense the term 
feature can be broadly equated to the criteria of the GES Decision. 

See also Components and features. 

Habitat (types of) 

The term habitat has two distinct uses: 

a.  firstly, to  refer to the environment used and occupied by a single species (termed 
'habitat of a species' under Directive 92/43/EEC); in this case, the nature and scale 
of  the  habitat  can  vary  markedly  according  to  the  particular  needs  of  the  species 
across all stages of its life history (e.g. a seal or bird may need breeding, resting, 
feeding and migratory areas which are very different in nature and location; some 
invertebrate species have a pelagic juvenile phase and a benthic adult phase); 

'natural  habitats'  under  Directive  92/43/EEC);)  which  make 

b.  secondly, to refer to particular areas that are characterized by specific communities 
of species (i.e. a multi-species concept of habitat); in this case the habitat comprises 
particular  biotic  and  abiotic  characteristics  (often  referred  to  as  a  biotope  and 
termed 
it 
distinguishable from surrounding habitat types. In contrast to the habitat of a single 
species, this use of the term habitat refers to something that is more uniform in its 
character, leading to the definition and classification of habitat types and the ability 
to produce maps of habitats. The European Environment Agency's EUNIS habitat 
classification  provides  a  Europe-wide  classification  of  marine  (and  terrestrial) 
habitats  in  a  6-level  hierarchical  system.  The  Habitats  Directive  and  several 
international conventions (e.g. HELCOM, OSPAR) have developed lists of habitat 
types which require protection. 

MSFD Annex III and the GES Decision refer to 'broad' and 'other' habitat types, in the 
sense of the second meaning of habitat above: 

72 

 
a.  Broad  habitat  types  (formerly  referred  to  as  'predominant  habitats'  in  the  2008 
MSFD Annex  III and SEC(2011) 1255:  these are a set  of broadly-defined habitat 
types  which  together  cover  all  benthic  and  pelagic  habitat  types  of  Union  marine 
waters.  A  list  of  benthic  broad  habitat  types  is  provided  in  Table  2  of  the  GES 
Decision,  including  their  equivalence  to  classes  in  the  revised  EUNIS  marine 
habitat  classification54;  for  pelagic  broad  habitat  types,  the  GES  Decision  refers 
simply to four classes (variable salinity, coastal, shelf, oceanic/beyond shelf) as the 
EUNIS classification is not currently useful for MSFD purposes; 

b.  Other  habitat  types:  this  refers  to  habitat  types  which  are  more  finely-defined 
EUNIS  types,  defined  in  other  classification  systems  or  which  are  listed  for 
protection  under  the  Habitats  Directive  and  international  conventions  (formerly 
referred to as 'special habitats' in the 2008 MSFD Annex III). Their typologies are 
often not easily related to those in EUNIS. Special habitats are encompassed within 
the  broad  habitat  types,  although  due  to  their  definitions  they  may  not  always  sit 
within a single broad habitat type. 

Hydrographical conditions 

Hydrographical  conditions  refers  to  the  measurement  or  description  of  the  physical 
characteristics of marine waters, including the bathymetry, topography and morphology 
of the seabed and coastline. 

Hydrological processes (conditions, characteristics) 

Hydrological processes refer to the movement, distribution and properties of water. They 
include the temperature, salinity, tidal, current and wave regimes, upwelling, mixing and 
residence time, sediment and freshwater transport, and the turbidity and transparency of 
the  water.  Changes  in  hydrological  conditions  can  lead  to  permanent  alteration  of 
hydrographical conditions. 

Impact 

There  are  many  references  to  impact  in  the  Directive,  with  most  referring  to 
environmental  impact  (Articles  1(2),  1(4),  3(7),  5(2),  8(1b),  8(3),  9(1),  10(1),  11(2), 
13(5),  13(8),  14(1)  and  15(1),  MSFD  Annex  III  Table  2a).  'Impact'  here  is  referring  to 
adverse effects on the environment. These are caused by pressures from human activities 
(i.e.  resulting  from  these  pressures)  and  by  implication  can  be  measured  as  changes  in 
environmental state. 

Environmental  impact  is  an  alteration  from  natural  conditions,  whether  permanent  or 
temporary,  in  a  physical,  chemical  or  biological  aspect  of  environment  state  that  is 
considered  undesirable  (an  adverse  effect).  In  applying  the  GES  Decision,  this 
undesirable  state  (for  a  GES  criterion)  is  distinguished  from  the  desirable  state  by  a 
threshold value. 

Impact  is  used  in  Article  13(3)  to  refer  to  the  social  and  economic  effects  (positive  or 
negative)  of  measures  taken.  These  socio-economic  impacts  could  include  the 
degradation  of  ecosystem  goods  and  services,  resulting  from  a  degraded  (impacted) 

54 Evans, D. 2016. Revising the marine section of the EUNIS habitat classification – report of a workshop 
held at the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, 12 & 13 May 2016. ETC/BD Working Paper 
No. A/2016. 

73 

 
                                                 
environment,  with  its  consequences  for  human  welfare  and  for  use  of  the  marine 
environment. Also in Article 13(3), as well as in MSFD Annex V.3, the use of ‘impact’ 
seems to refer to both environmental and socio-economic impacts. 

The term impacts is thus used in two different ways in the Directive; firstly in relation to 
the  adverse  effects  of  anthropogenic  pressures  on  environmental  state  (and  which  thus 
might affect reaching or maintaining GES), and secondly in relation to effects (positive 
or negative) on socio-economic issues. 

When  referring  to  impacts  it  is  thus  important  to  be  clear  whether  the  reference  is  to 
environmental  impacts  or  to  socio-economic  impacts;  it  is  also  important  to  be  clear 
whether the impacts are negative or positive effects or both. 

In the DPSIR framework, the term impact is used in this dual way (environmental, socio-
economic), leading to considerable confusion in its use. This document has focused on its 
use as environmental impact, whilst socio-economic impact can alternatively be referred 
to  as  loss  or  degradation  in  ecosystem  services  (see  Section  4.1,  Figure  6  and  MSCG-
11_2013_16 for further details). 

Indicator 

‘Indicator‘ is an established term which is used in different ways. In general, an indicator 
consists of one or several parameters chosen to represent (‘indicate’) a certain situation or 
aspect and to simplify a complex reality. 

The term ‘indicator’ is used in different contexts: 

a.  For  the  legal  purposes  of  the  MSFD,  the  term  ‘indicator‘  refers  only  to 
environmental  targets  (Article  10),  where  they  are  used  to  monitor  progress  and 
guide management decisions with a view to achieving these targets (MSFD Annex 
IV (7)). 

b.  For the purposes of assessing environmental status, the Decision 2010/477/EU on 
criteria and methodological standards referred to ‘indicators’ to specify the criteria 
and  support  their  assessment.  This  use  of  the  term  ‘indicator’  caused  confusion 
with its use under Article 10 and so only the term 'criteria' is used in Decision (EU) 
2017/848. 

c.  Under  Article  9(1),  the  determination  of  GES  can  be  expressed  by  reference  to 
scientifically-based  indicators  which  provide  an  operational  expression  of  a  GES 
Decision criterion and hence the means to assess the extent to which GES has been 
achieved. The 'common' or 'core' indicators developed by the RSCs fulfil this role. 
Such  indicators  typically  refer  to  quality  elements  and  parameters  which  are 
specific to a (sub)region. There is often a 1:1 relationship between a (sub)regional 
indicator  and  the  GES  Decision  criterion;  however,  in  some  cases  several 
indicators may be used to assess a single Decision criterion. 

d.  Within  the  DPSIR  framework,  there  is  a  need  for  ‘pressure  indicators‘  in  the 
meaning of Article 10, for scientific ‘state indicators‘ in the meaning of criteria and 
methodological  standards  according  to  Article 9(3)  (EU-wide)  or  as  determined 
under  Article  9(1)  ((sub)regionally  or  nationally  specific)  and  for  ‘response 
indicators’  used  specifically  for  monitoring  and  assessing  progress  on  and 

74 

 
effectiveness of measures under Article 1355. The MSFD system for 2018 reporting 
has been developed to accommodate such multiple use of indicators for Articles 8, 
10 and 13, via a common indicator structure. 

Marine Reporting Unit 

Marine Reporting Units (MRUs) (formerly termed Marine Units or assessment areas in 
2012  reporting)  are  defined  areas  of  the  marine  regions  to  which  MSFD  reporting 
information  is  associated  and  applicable.  To  accommodate  the  different  articles  to  be 
reported,  these  areas  can  be  of  differing  scales,  such  as  the  entire  marine  region  or 
subregion, the area of a Member State's marine waters or subdivisions of these areas. 

In relation to Article 8 assessments, an MRU is a specified area of a marine region for 
which  a  judgement  is  made  on  whether  GES  has  been  achieved  for  a  specified 
feature/element  or  Descriptor.  Within  a  single  MRU,  there  may  be  multiple 
observations,  of  relevant  parameters  (e.g.  in  point,  transect  or  grid  type  monitoring) 
over  specified  timeframes,  which  are  aggregated  to  conclude  on  the  extent  to  which 
GES has been achieved. 

Methodological standard 

Methodological standard means a scientific or technical method, developed at Union or 
international level, including regional or subregional level, for assessing and classifying 
environmental status and the predominant pressures and impacts thereon. 

Article  9(3)  provides  for  a  regulatory  process  to  lay  down  criteria  and  methodological 
standards as EU-wide minimum requirements for assessing GES. 

Methodological  standards  can  include,  for  example,  assessment  tools  or  methods  for 
aggregation / integration across assessment parameters, assessment elements (e.g. across 
contaminants,  species,  habitats),  or  criteria,  and  methods  or  approaches  to  defining 
assessment scales. Examples of such assessment methods are the HEAT (HELCOM) and 
COMP (OSPAR) tools/assessment methods for eutrophication, and the methodology for 
integrating Favourable Conservation Status criteria under the Habitats Directive. 

Parameter 

Parameters  are  the  specific  properties  or  attributes  of  an  element  (e.g.  population  size, 
biomass, concentration). An indicative list of parameters for monitoring and assessment 
of ecosystems  and pressures is  given in  MSFD  Annex  III. The GES  Decision specifies 
the particular parameters to be used for each GES criterion. 

Pressure 

Pressure, in the sense of the Driver-Pressure-Impact-State-Response (DPSIR) framework 
and  MSFD,  is  an  input,  alteration  or  extraction,  in  relation  to  natural  conditions,  of 
physical,  chemical  or  biological  elements  or  properties  which  results  directly  from 
human  activities.  The  pressure  can  be  measured  at  its  source  (i.e.  close  to  the  activity 
generating it) or away from its source in the different parts of the environment (land, air, 
water, sea). When the pressure is sufficiently intense, widespread or frequent it can lead 
to environmental impacts (adverse effects) on particular aspects of natural ecosystems. 

55 GD10 - MSFD recommendations on measures and exceptions - final.pdf 

75 

 
                                                 
From  references  in  the  Directive  (Articles  1(3),  3(7),  8(1b),  9(1)  and  10(1),  MSFD 
Annex III) it is clear that 'pressures' arise from human activities and can have an adverse 
effect  on  the  marine  environment.  One  can  deduce  that  'impacts'  (‘adverse  effects’)  on 
the  environment  arise  from  these  pressures  and  consequently  can  be  measured  through 
changes in state. 

The Directive does not define what a pressure is. However, one can deduce from MSFD 
Annex III Table 2a that they are concerning the topics in the table (e.g. physical damage, 
nutrient  inputs,  biological  disturbance).  The  term  pressure  is  thus  used  in  the  sense  of 
direct physical, chemical and biological consequences of human activities which can lead 
to adverse environmental impacts. 

A pressure acts directly or via pathways on physical, chemical or biological elements of 
the  marine  ecosystem,  or  on  its  natural  functions  and  processes,  e.g.  inputs  to  the  sea 
(such  as  substances,  litter,  energy,  non-indigenous  species),  extractions  from  the  sea 
(catch of target and non-target species, extraction of sand and gravel) and interferences or 
changes  to  the  elements  of  the  ecosystem  (e.g.  mechanical  disturbances  from  trawling, 
alterations of water flows). 

A  pressure,  at  particular  levels  of  intensity,  has  the  potential  to  have  direct  or  indirect 
impacts  on  parts  of  the  ecosystem.  For  example,  the  introduction  of  non-indigenous 
species (NIS) as a consequence of human activities (such as via shipping or aquaculture) 
may  provide  a  pressure  on  the  native  biodiversity  through  the  displacement  of  and 
competition  with  the  native  species.  When  such  NIS  species  become  abundant  within 
habitats,  they  can  alter  the  structure  and  functioning  of  the  habitat  and  its  native 
biodiversity and thus be considered to be causing an impact (adverse effect). 

the  environment  (e.g.  nutrient 
A  pressure  can  be  a  natural  characteristic  of 
concentrations)  which  is  altered  by  anthropogenic  activity  or  refer  to  the  input  of 
anthropogenically-generated substances, matter (e.g. litter) and energy (e.g. sound) which 
are not natural. 

Properties – see Factors 

Reference condition (or reference state) 

Reference  condition  describes  the  state  of  the  environment  (or  a  component)  in  which 
there  is  considered  to  be  no,  or  very  minor,  disturbance  from  the  pressures  of  human 
activities. This is sometimes referred to as an unimpacted or natural state, although it is 
widely acknowledged that no part of the marine environment is likely to be completely 
free of such influences. 

For assessment purposes, it is often necessary to define a baseline against which current 
and  future  state  is  compared.  Reference  condition  is  one  type  of  baseline.  It  plays  a 
central  role  in  the  concept  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  and  other 
environmental assessment tools (e.g. HELCOM's HEAT system). It is  common in such 
assessment  systems  to  then  determine  an  'acceptable  deviation'  from  this  reference 
condition to allow for a specified level of disturbance from the pressure(s) and hence to 
determine  the  threshold  value(s)  which  distinguish  between  an  acceptable  state  (GES) 
and an unacceptable state for a given criterion (or associated scientific indicator).  

For the purposes of MSFD, the terms reference condition and GES threshold values are 
used. Other equivalent terms are adopted in other policies (e.g. favourable reference area 

76 

 
and  range  in  Habitats  Directive,  reference  levels  in  ICES  advice  for  CFP,  background 
levels for hazardous substances in OSPAR), noting that there is considerable variance in 
their use and definition. The term reference point is avoided in the context of Article 9, as 
it is used under Article 10. 

Reference point 

In the indicative list  of characteristics at  MSFD  Annex  IV to  be taken into  account  for 
setting environmental targets, point (8) refers to specification of reference points (target 
and limit reference points).  This  relates to  values which must either be achieved or not 
exceeded in order to bring a pressure or impact to a level that achieves the environmental 
target and consequently allows the marine waters concerned to recover towards GES. 

Resilience 

From  an  ecological  perspective,  resilience  means  the  ability  of  an  ecosystem  or 
component,  such  as  a  habitat,  to  return  to  its  original  state  after  being  disturbed.  The 
recovery  period  (often  measured  in  months  and  years)  is  used  to  assess  sensitivity  (to 
pressures or activities) for management purposes. 

Response 

Response,  as  per  the  Driver-Pressure-Impact-State-Response  (DPSIR)  framework, 
refers  to  the  management  response,  such  as  actions  and  measures,  taken  in 
environmental management systems, in order to reduce the adverse effects (impacts) of 
pressures and restore the state of ecosystems. 

Scale (of assessment) 

The  spatial  resolution  at  which  environmental  status  is  assessed  for  the  different 
ecosystem  and  pressure  elements.  The  GES  Decision  allows  for  different  scales  to  be 
used depending on the Descriptor and elements being assessed. These scales can differ to 
the  scale  for  determination  of  GES,  which  is  required  to  be  at  regional  or  subregional 
level (Article 3(5)). From identification of the appropriate scale for assessment, there is a 
need to define the specific areas of each region or subregion for subsequent assessment 
(termed Marine Reporting Units). 

Species group (formerly functional group of species) 

As a way of simplifying and categorizing biodiversity, species can be assigned to groups. 
Such  groups  comprise  species  with  similar  structural,  functional  or  taxonomic 
characteristics, such as their mode of feeding or their habitat. Each group represents an 
ecological role (e.g. surface-feeding birds, demersal fish) within the marine ecosystem. 

For  MSFD  purposes,  the  term  'functional  group'  was  specifically  applied  to  groups  of 
bird,  mammal,  reptile,  fish  and  cephalopod  species  to  provide  a  set  of  groups  for  the 
assessment of status of these often highly mobile or widely-dispersed species groups. A 
working  list  of  functional  groups  was  provided  in  SEC(2011)  1255  in  order  to  provide 
consistency in the assessments of birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and pelagic cephalopods 
in the first implementation cycle. Because the term is also used in a more specific manner 
(e.g.  within  habitats  –  see  definition),  it  has  been  replaced  by  the  more  neutral  term 
'species group'. The list of species groups to be assessed was revised in the GES Decision 
(Table 1). 

77 

 
Within a habitat (benthic or pelagic), the term functional group is used in the context of 
assessing  community  condition,  through  assessment  of  the  range  of  functional  groups 
present (e.g. filter feeders, deposit feeders, grazers). 

Specifications and standardised methods 

Article 11(4) provides for a regulatory process  to adopt  specifications and standardised 
methods  as  EU-wide  minimum  requirements  for  monitoring  and  assessment  performed 
under the MSFD. 

‘Specification‘ means an element for the design of monitoring and assessment performed 
under Directive 2008/56/EC. 

'Standardised  method'  means  a  method  for  the  monitoring  and  assessment  performed 
under Directive 2008/56/EC: 

'standardised  method  for  monitoring'  refers  to  a  method  for  field  sampling,  and  other 
types  of  data  collection,  and  for  laboratory  analysis,  including  quality  assurance  and 
quality  control  mechanisms  (e.g.  standards  from  the  European  Committee  for 
Standardization (CEN) and the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO)); 

'standardised  method  for  assessment'  refers  to  a  method  for  the  spatial  and  temporal 
aggregation  of  data  and  their  use,  agreed  at  Union  or  international  level,  including 
regional or subregional level. 

State/status 

The  term  ‘state’,  in  the  context  of  the  DPSIR  framework  and  MSFD,  refers  to  the 
quality/condition of species/habitat/ecosystem elements. This can be determined through 
measurements  in  the  environment  of  relevant  parameters  for  such  elements;  such 
measurements,  by  definition,  will  reflect  any  impacts  (individual  and  cumulative)  to 
which the element has been subjected. 

The Directive makes only one reference to the term state (of the environment) (in Article 
3(4))  where  the  term  is  used  to  qualify  the  term  'environmental  status',  by  indicating  it 
comprises a number of elements, processes and properties of marine ecosystems. 

The word ‘status’, as used in  the context  of Environmental Status (Article 3(4)), draws 
together  assessments  of  the  ‘state’  of  individual  ecosystem  elements,  through  use  of 
particular  criteria  and  methodological  standards,  to  assess  the  overall  'status'  of  the 
marine environment. This status can be classified as 'good' (in GES) or 'not good' (not in 
GES)  according  to  the  determination  of  GES  under  Article  9(1).  For  WFD  five  status 
classes are used, for Habitats Directive three status classes are used. ‘Status’ can either be 
applied  to  the  overall  quality/condition  of  the  marine  environment,  at  the  level  of  the 
individual  descriptors  of  GES  (for  pressure-based  descriptors)  or  at  the  level  of 
individual species groups, habitat types, species or populations. 

(Sub)region 

Article  4  defines  four  regions  for  MSFD  implementation,  two  of  which  (North-East 
Atlantic  Ocean  and  Mediterranean  Sea)  are  further  divided  into  four  subregions  each. 
The  expression  ‘(sub)region’  is  used  to  indicate  application  of  the  Directive  at  either 
regional or subregional scale. 

78 

 
79 

 
 
 
Annex  2:  Quality  and  proportion  aspects  of  GES  –  worked 
examples 

See section 5.6 for an introduction to this annex. 

Note  that  all  quality  and  extent  values  shown  here  are  purely  for  illustrative  purposes. 
These  values  are  to  be  set  by  Member  States  through  Union,  regional  or  subregional 
cooperation, as set out in the GES Decision. 

D6 – benthic habitats 

Figure A2.1: Illustrative example of GES quality/proportion for a D6 benthic habitat. 

Figure A2.1 shows a hypothetical example for a single habitat type in an assessment area 
(MRU). 

Habitat loss (D6C4) 

1.  Loss of the habitat is essentially non-reversible and represents the most severe form 
of habitat degradation (the habitat has '0%' of its original quality). In the example 
shown,  the  extent  of  loss  is  within  the  extent  threshold  value  set  for  D6C4  (red 
vertical dashed line) (i.e. the criterion has achieved the value set for the habitat in 
this  assessment  area).  However,  as  specified  in  the  GES  Decision,  this  extent  of 
loss should also be taken into account as part of the total extent of adverse effect 
under criterion D6C5.  

Habitat condition (D6C5) 

1.  Other pressures acting upon habitats can alter/degrade the condition of the habitat – 
possible  examples  are  shown  (contamination  D8C2,  physical  disturbance  D6C3, 

80 

 
 
eutrophication  D5C5-C6-C7-C8  and  alteration  of  hydrographical  conditions 
D7C2). 

2.  The  'depth'  of  each  orange  bar  indicates  the  severity  of  the  change  in  habitat 
quality. In the figure the alteration of hydrographical conditions (D7C2) is shown 
within  quality  threshold  values,  whilst  eutrophication  such  as  from  oxygen 
depletion  (D5  criteria),  contamination  such  as  from  chronic  pollution  from  oil 
platforms  (D8C2)  and  physical  disturbance  such  as  from  benthic  trawling  or 
aggregate extraction (D6C3) have exceeded the quality threshold value (horizontal 
green  dashed  line).  Eutrophication  is  shown  in  the  figure  as  more  severe  in  its 
effects on the condition of the habitat than physical disturbance and contamination. 

3.  The 'width' of the orange bars represents the extent (footprint) of adverse effect on 
the  habitat  from  each  pressure.  In  the  example,  physical  disturbance  has  a  larger 
footprint than the other pressures. 

4.  The  total  extent  of  habitat  adversely  affected  (i.e.  below  the  quality  threshold 

value) comprises: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

Extent affected by eutrophication (D5C5, C6, C7 and C8); 

Extent affected by physical disturbance (D6C3); 

Extent of loss (D6C4); 

Extent affected by contaminants (D8C2). 

5.  In this illustration, the extent of alteration of hydrographical conditions (D7C2) is 
excluded  as  it  does  not  cause  sufficient  change  to  exceed  the  quality  threshold 
value. 

6.  In  this  illustration,  the  total  extent  of  adversely  affected  habitat  (i.e.  a+b+c+d) 
exceeds  the  'extent  value'  set  for  D6C5  (habitat  condition)  (green  vertical  dashed 
line)  -  this  can  be  seen  as  the  proportion  of  adversely  affected  habitat  (including 
habitat loss) which lies within the vertical and horizontal green dashed lines. 

Assessment  of  current  status  (against  the  determination  of  GES)  and  follow-up 
actions 

1.  In this illustration, the habitat in the assessment area has failed to achieve GES. 

2.  Given  that  this  failure  results  from  several  sources  (pressures),  there  could  be 
different  management  responses  to  reduce  the  impacts  and  thereby  achieve  GES 
(e.g.  some  reduction  in  eutrophication,  some  on  physical  disturbance,  some  on 
contamination), depending on, for example, the feasibility of addressing the issues 
and cost-benefit analyses. 

81 

 
Figure A2.2: Determination of GES and links to targets for pressures and associated impacts 

Figure A2.2 shows a similar scenario for a benthic habitat as shown in Figure A2.1, 
excepting there is no habitat loss (D6C4). 

Environmental targets (Article 10) are intended to be used to 'guide progress towards 
achieving GES'. A key way to do this is for targets to focus on the reduction in pressures 
needed to achieve GES. In this example, two targets are needed to reduce the impacts by 
a sufficient amount to allow the habitat to recover to the threshold values set: target 1 on 
nutrient enrichment and target 2 on physical disturbance. 

82 

 
 
 
 
D1 – species 

Figure A2.3: Illustrative example of GES quality/proportion for the population of a D1 species 
(e.g. the leatherback turtle). 

In this example: 

a.  Anthropogenic mortality from fishing incidental catch (D1C1), litter (D10C3) and 
acute pollution events (D8C4) is preventing the population (D1C2) from achieving 
its population size threshold; 

b.  Population demographic assessments under D1C3 are OK; 

c.  Part  of  the  population  is  suffering  from  chronic  contamination  effects  (D8C2) 

(possible link to D1C3 assessments); 

d.  Conclusion  –  the  species  has  not  achieved  its  threshold  value  for  population  size 
and  needs  actions  to  reduce  anthropogenic  mortality  (via  reductions  in  mortality 
due to pollution events, litter and/or fishing). 

83 

 
 
 
D5 – eutrophication and benthic habitats 

Figure A2.4: Illustrative example of GES quality/proportion for D5 criteria and benthic habitats. 

In this example: 

a.  The  pressure  (nutrient  enrichment)  D5C1  is  shown  as  spread  throughout  the 

assessment area and failing to meet the threshold value; 

b.  Criteria for the impacts on the seabed are also failing: 

c.  In the coastal waters, opportunistic macroalgae (D5C6) fail to achieve the threshold 
value  in  part  of  the  area  and  perennial  seaweeds  or  seagrasses  (D5C7)  fail  in 
another part. The latter correlates with poor water transparency (D5C4); 

d.  In offshore waters, oxygen levels (D5C5) are below threshold levels, supported by 
the  secondary  criterion  macrofaunal  composition  (D5C8)  which  also  fails  in  the 
same area and to a similar degree; 

e.  The degree of failure of the criteria (how far beyond threshold values) is shown as 
similar  because  the  threshold  values  for  the  pressure  D5C1  should  auto-correlate 
with the impacts D5C4, D5C6 and D5C7 (coastal) and D5C5 and D5C8 (offshore). 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
D5 – eutrophication and pelagic habitats 

Figure A2.5: Illustrative example of GES quality/proportion for D5 criteria and pelagic habitats. 

In this example: 

a.  The  pressure  (nutrient  enrichment)  D5C1  is  shown  as  spread  throughout  the 

assessment area and failing to meet the threshold value; 

b.  Criteria  for  the  impacts  on  the  water  column  are  also  failing  to  achieve  their 
threshold  values:  Chlorophyll-a  (D5C2)  in  part  of  the  area  and  harmful  algal 
blooms (D5C3) in another part; 

c.  The degree of failure of the criteria (how far beyond threshold values) is shown as 
similar  because  the  threshold  values  for  the  pressure  D5C1  should  auto-correlate 
with the impacts D5C2 and D5C3; 

d.  Water  transparency  (D5C4)  also  shows  a  failure  but  to  a  deeper  extent  and  over 
less area, perhaps indicating the thresholds are not well correlated (or the criterion 
is more relevant to seabed affects). 

85 

 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Criteria for biodiversity and links to other policies 

Assessment of the status of biodiversity (species and habitats) is undertaken in a number 
of  fora,  via  both  formal  and  informal  mechanisms.  Tables  A3.1  (species)  and  A3.2 
(habitats) set out a correlation of criteria used for assessment under related policies. 

Table  A3.1:  Correlation  of  criteria  used  for  assessment  of  species  in  the  2010  GES  Decision 
(first  column)  and  under  other  relevant  policies  with  those  in  the  2017  GES  Decision  (last 
column). 

MSFD GES 
Decision 
2010/477/EU 
(repealed) 

(D1, 3) 

Fishing 
mortality 
(3.1.1) 

Population 
size (1.2); 
reproductive 
capacity (3.2) 

Population 
condition 
(1.3); age & 
size 
distribution 
(3.3) 

Habitats 
Directive
56 

Birds 
Directive57 

HELCOM58 
(IUCN 2008 
criteria) 

OSPAR 
Texel-Faial 
criteria59 

UNEP/MAP 
EcAp60 

IUCN Red 
List61 

Population 
size 

Declining 
population, 
small or very 
small 
population 
size 

Decline 
(numbers) 

Population 
abundance 

Population 
size 

Small 
population 

Population 

Decline 
(quality) 

Population 
demographic 
characteristics 

Mature 
individuals 
included 
above 

MSFD GES 
Decision 
(EU) 
2017/848 

By-catch 
mortality rate 
(D1C1); 
fishing 
mortality rate 
(D3C1) 

Population 
abundance 
(D1C2); 
spawning 
stock 
biomass 
(D3C2) 

Population 
demographic
s (D1C3); 
age and size 
distribution 
(D3C3) 

Distribution 
(1.1) 

Range 

Breeding 
distribution 
map and 
range 

Geographic 
range size 
and 
fragmentation 

Decline 
(occurrence 
in area/ 
extent) 

Species 
distributional 
range 

Habitat for 
the species 

Range 
(Extent Of 
Occurrence, 
Area Of 
Occurrence) 

Distributional 
range and 
pattern 
(D1C4) 

Habitat 
quality 
included in 

Habitat for 
the species 
(D1C5) 

56 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0de47902-0a08-41dd-943c-520066a3c529 
57 Criteria given are for reporting purposes, as a formal status assessment is not required at national level. 
58 HELCOM, 2013 HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Balt. Sea 
Environ. Proc. No. 140. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP140.pdf 
59 OSPAR. 2003. Criteria for the Identification of Species and Habitats in need of Protection and their 
Method of Application (The Texel-Faial Criteria). Reference no. 2003-13. 
60 UNEP/MAP (2016) Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Mediterranean Sea and 
Coast and Related Assessment Criteria. Barcelona Convention, Athens (Decision IG. 22/7). 
61  IUCN  (2012)  IUCN  Red  List  categories  and  criteria.  Version  3.1,  2nd  edition.  IUCN,  Gland.  32pp. 
(https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/10315). 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
                                                 
MSFD GES 
Decision 
2010/477/EU 
(repealed) 

(D1, 3) 

Habitats 
Directive
56 

Birds 
Directive57 

HELCOM58 
(IUCN 2008 
criteria) 

OSPAR 
Texel-Faial 
criteria59 

UNEP/MAP 
EcAp60 

IUCN Red 
List61 

Future 
prospects 

Included 
above 

Included 
above 

Range 

Included 
above 

MSFD GES 
Decision 
(EU) 
2017/848 

Not used as 
Article 8 
requires 
current 
status62 

Quantitative 
analysis of 
extinction 
risk (e.g. 
population 
viability 
analysis) 

 Global 

proportion 

 Regional 

importance 

 Rarity 
 Sensitivity 
 Keystone 
species 

Table  A3.2:  Correlation  of  criteria  used  for  assessment  of  habitats  in  the  2010  GES  Decision 
(first  column)  and  under  other  relevant  policies,  with  those  in  the  2017  GES  Decision  (last 
column). 

MSFD 
Decision 
EU/2010/477 

(D1, 6) 

Habitats 
Directive63 

HELCOM64 
(IUCN 
criteria) 

OSPAR 
Texel-Faial 
criteria65 

UNEP/MAP 
EcAp66 

EU Red List67 
(IUCN 
approach) 

MSFD 
Decision (EU) 
2017/848 

Distribution 
(1.4) 

Range 

Declining 
distribution 
(quantity) 

Extent (1.5) 

Area covered 

Restricted 
distribution 

Decline (extent) 

Habitat 
distributional 
range 
[extent] 

Quantity, 
restricted 
distribution 
(Extent Of 
Occurrence) 

Quantity, 
restricted 
distribution 
(Area Of 
Occurrence) 

- 

Extent of loss of 
habitat (D6C4) 

62 To be taken into account in implementation process, e.g. risk-based approach and measures. 
63 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/0de47902-0a08-41dd-943c-520066a3c529 
64 HELCOM 2013. Red List of Baltic Sea underwater biotopes, habitats and biotope complexes. Baltic Sea 
Environmental Proceedings No. 138. http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP138.pdf. 
65  OSPAR.  2003.  Criteria  for  the  Identification  of  Species  and  Habitats  in  need  of  Protection  and  their 
Method of Application (The Texel-Faial Criteria). Reference no. 2003-13. 
66 UNEP/MAP (2016) Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Mediterranean Sea and 
Coast and Related Assessment Criteria. Barcelona Convention, Athens (Decision IG. 22/7). 
67 S. Gubbay, N. Sanders, T. Haynes, J.A.M. Janssen, J.R. Rodwell, A. Nieto, M. García Criado, S. Beal, J. 
Borg, M. Kennedy, D. Micu, M. Otero, G. Saunders and M. Calix. 2016. European Red List of habitats. 
Part. 1. Marine habitats. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 52pp. 

87 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                 
MSFD 
Decision 
EU/2010/477 

(D1, 6) 

Habitats 
Directive63 

HELCOM64 
(IUCN 
criteria) 

OSPAR 
Texel-Faial 
criteria65 

UNEP/MAP 
EcAp66 

EU Red List67 
(IUCN 
approach) 

MSFD 
Decision (EU) 
2017/848 

Condition (1.6, 
6.2) 

Structures & 
functions 

Qualitative 
degradation 

Decline (quality) 

Future 
prospects 

Included above 

  Global 

proportion 

  Regional 

importance 

  Rarity 
  Sensitivity 
  Ecological 

significance 

Condition of 
habitat's 
typical 
species and 
communities 

Quality 
(abiotic, biotic) 

Extent of adverse 
effects on habitat 
condition (D6C5) 

Historic & 
future trends 
included above 

Not used as 
Article 8 requires 
current status68 

Probability of 
collapse 

- 

Whilst the criteria used for these assessments are often similar, the precise methodology 
adopted (e.g. threshold values, assessment scales, rules for use of criteria, timing) often 
differs,  leading  to  inconsistencies  in  the  outcomes  of  the  assessments.  This  is  further 
exacerbated when the same species and habitat types are listed for protection (and hence 
needing  assessment)  in  several  policies,  leading  to  multiple  assessments  of  the  same 
species or habitat, sometimes with differing outcomes. 

To ensure equivalent outcomes from assessments (i.e. whether the species and habitat is 
in good status or not) and to reduce administrative burden (through undertaking multiple 
assessments  of  the  same  species  or  habitat),  further  harmonisation  of  different 
approaches within and across each region is needed, as each policy, overall, is aiming to 
ensure the species and habitats are protected and the species and habitats achieve a good 
status. Further detailed discussion is therefore needed across the policies to work towards 
a closer harmonisation of assessment methods. 

68 To be taken into account in implementation process, e.g. risk-based approach and measures. 

88